Articles on this Page
- 12/07/18--06:08: _Is This Really An A...
- 12/07/18--06:12: _Friday Varia and Qu...
- 12/07/18--06:52: _Onroerenderfgoedpri...
- 12/07/18--07:01: _Call for Papers
- 12/07/18--07:45: _Open Access newspap...
- 12/07/18--07:55: _Open Access Journal...
- 12/07/18--07:57: _Seven Million Years...
- 12/07/18--08:00: _Burial shaft dating...
- 12/07/18--08:22: _Open Access Journal...
- 12/07/18--08:34: _The Electronic Mani...
- 12/07/18--09:01: _Procedures bij de v...
- 12/07/18--18:51: _Looted Middle Kingd...
- 12/07/18--13:02: _Open Access Journal...
- 12/07/18--13:07: _Texts from Royal In...
- 12/07/18--13:40: _Rethinking the Thir...
- 12/07/18--20:30: _Excavation of Scotl...
- 12/07/18--20:52: _Foundations of Medi...
- 12/07/18--07:01: _Call for Papers
- 12/07/18--23:18: _E. Odelman (éd.), N...
- 12/08/18--01:10: _Losing the 'Idea of...
- 12/07/18--06:12: Friday Varia and Quick Hits
- Pontius Pilate ring.
- The Museum Will Not be Decolonised.
- Ashurbanipal at the British Museum.
- The Poor Man of Nippur (in Babylonian).
- Looted Landscapes of Upper Egypt.
- Modernizing the American School library.
- Omega Chronostop.
- Audio Cassettes are Real.
- Gold in the Desert.
- What I’m reading: Oliver J.T. Harris and Craig N. Cipolla, Archaeological theory in the new millennium : introducing current perspectives. Routledge 2017.
- What I’m listening to: Neil Young, Songs for Judy.
- 12/07/18--06:52: Onroerenderfgoedprijs 2019 gaat op zoek naar ‘verborgen parels’
- 12/07/18--07:01: Call for Papers
- 12/07/18--07:45: Open Access newspapers: Ankara University
- Les Actes de la Sfécag (base de données : sommaire d'après les couvertures des Actes de 1985 à 2017)
- Base de données (recherche simple et recherche combinée)
Actes épuisés (télécharger les PDF) :
- ACTES DU CONGRÈS DE REIMS, 1985
- ACTES DU CONGRÈS DE TOULOUSE, 1986
- ACTES DU CONGRÈS DE CAEN, 1987
- ACTES DU CONGRÈS D'ORANGE, 1988
- ACTES DU CONGRÈS DE LEZOUX, 1989
- ACTES DU CONGRÈS DE MANDEURE-MATHAY, 1990
- ACTES DU CONGRÈS DE COGNAC, 1991
- ACTES DU CONGRÈS DE TOURNAI, 1992
- ACTES DU CONGRÈS DE VERSAILLES, 1993
- ACTES DU CONGRÈS DE MILLAU, 1994
- ACTES DU CONGRÈS DE ROUEN, 1995
- ACTES DU CONGRÈS DE DIJON, 1996
- ACTES DU CONGRÈS DU MANS, 1997
- ACTES DU CONGRÈS D'ISTRES, 1998
- ACTES DU CONGRÈS DE FRIBOURG, 1999
- 12/07/18--07:57: Seven Million Years of Human Evolution
- 12/07/18--08:00: Burial shaft dating back to Middle Kingdom uncovered in Fayoum
- 12/07/18--08:22: Open Access Journal: A/Z : ITU journal of Faculty of Architecture
- 12/07/18--08:34: The Electronic Manipulus florum Project
- 12/07/18--09:01: Procedures bij de vondst van menselijk skeletmateriaal
- 12/07/18--18:51: Looted Middle Kingdom Burials Unearthed in Egypt
- 12/07/18--13:07: Texts from Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 5/1 online
- 12/07/18--20:30: Excavation of Scotland’s Mote of Urr Revisited
- 12/07/18--20:52: Foundations of Medieval Friary Found
- 12/07/18--07:01: Call for Papers
- 12/07/18--23:18: E. Odelman (éd.), Nicolai de Aquaevilla Sermones moralissimi
- 12/08/18--01:10: Losing the 'Idea of Archaeology' II: The Foucault of Baz Thugwit?
The recent interest in an odd gold object is puzzling archaeologists.
It’s the end of the semester here in North Dakotaland and nothing more than a pile of grading, a bunch of projects, and some cricket to get through before the end of the year.
If you’re thinking about holidays gifts, I’d nudge you to check out a subscription to North Dakota Quarterly or any of the great books from this blogs “sister project” The Digital Press at the University of North Dakota.
It’s also a good time for some quick hits and varia!
Het agentschap Onroerend Erfgoed organiseert in 2019 voor de vierde keer de Onroerenderfgoedprijs. Met de prijs wil men initiatiefnemers en opdrachtgevers belonen die erfgoed voorbeeldig beheren. In 2019 staat de prijs in het teken van ‘verborgen parels’: erfgoed dat niet publiek toegankelijk is. Het kan gaan om bouwkundig, landschappelijk en archeologisch erfgoed, en zowel particulieren, openbare besturen als andere initiatiefnemers kunnen tot en met 1 maart 2019 een project indienen. De winnaar van de prijs krijgt 15.000 euro, en twee laureaten ontvangen 2500 euro. Ook het grote publiek kan stemmen op zijn favoriete laureaat. Je vindt alle informatie op www.onroerenderfgoedprijs.be.
“Inscriptions and the Epigraphic Habit”
The 3rd North American Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy
2. Cumhuriyet ( SBF Koleksiyonundan )
3. Gaye-i Milliye
4. Hakimiyet-i Milliye(Milli Kütüphane Koleksiyonundan)
5. İkdam Gazetesi (SBF Koleksiyonundan)
6. Peyam Gazetesi (SBF Koleksiyonundan)
7. Servet Gazetesi (SBF Koleksiyonundan)
8. Servet-i Fünun(Milli Kütüphane Koleksiyonundan)
9. Takvim-i Vekayi(Milli Kütüphane Koleksiyonundan)
10. Tanin Gazetesi (SBF Koleksiyonundan)
11. Tarik Gazetesi (SBF Koleksiyonundan)
12. Tercüman-ı Hakikat(Milli Kütüphane Koleksiyonundan)
13. Ulus Gazetesi ( SBF Koleksiyonundan )
14. Vatan Gazetesi ( SBF Koleksiyonundan )
15. Yeni İstanbul ( SBF Koleksiyonundan )
16. Yeni Sabah
NB. Much of the collection is incomplete.
Chaque année, la Sfécag organise un congrès sur la céramique antique dans une région de France ou dans un pays limitrophe : cette réunion rassemble des chercheurs d'une dizaine de pays et permet d'élargir les contacts de chacun. Le prochain congrès se tiendra à REIMS (Marne) du 10 au 13 mai 2018. Vous trouverez dans ces pages le programme de la manifestation ainsi que les informations nécessaires concernant l'organisation pratique.
This fascinating visual presentation from the American Museum of Natural History outlines what we know about human evolution by combining a timeline, a map, animation, photographs, and artistic representations of various hominins.
The archaeological mission working in the archaeological site of al-Khalwa area, Fayoum, has uncovered a burial shaft, located to the east of the Prince Waji’s tomb dating back to the Middle Kingdom, Ministry of Antiquities announced on Thursday.
Credit: Egypt. Ministry of AntiquitiesSecretary-General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities Mostafa Waziri said that al-Khalwa, located at southern Fayoum, contains a cemetery dating back...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
A/Z : ITU journal of Faculty of Architecture.
Published Istanbul : ITU Faculty of Architecture, -
Alphabetical List of Open Access Journals in Middle Eastern Studies
[First posted in AWOL 25 June 2016, updatcd 7 December 2018]
The Electronic Manipulus florum Project
Thomas of Ireland's Manipulus florum ("Handful of flowers") belongs to the genre of medieval texts known as florilegia, collections of authoritative quotations that are the forerunners of modern reference works such as Bartlett's Familiar Quotations and The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. This particular florilegium contains approximately 6000 Latin proverbs and textual excerpts (provided in 5821 entries*) that are attributed to various classical, patristic and medieval authors. Compiled in Paris at the beginning of the 14th century (1306), it survives in over 200 manuscripts and was published in at least 50 editions between 1483 and 1887, making it by far the most widely-disseminated and, presumably, the most influential anthology of Latin quotations produced during the Middle Ages.
Building upon the seminal scholarship of Mary Rouse and Richard Rouse, who published an extensive study of the Manipulus florum in 1979 that includes editions of Thomas' Preface and his list of authors and works (Preachers, pp.251-310), The Electronic Manipulus florum Project provides an Open Access critical edition of this florilegium, as well as a number of related Open Access research materials and various auxiliary resources (see Project Description). In an article on concordances, alphabetized indices and other reference tools developed during the 12th and 13th centuries, the Rouses emphasized that their purpose was to enable users "to find immediately" (statim invenire) the desired passage; the same utilitarian impulse informed the compilation and organization of florilegia. Thus, this project simply seeks to extend Thomas of Ireland's original intention into the digital age.
The Electronic Manipulus florum Edition
> Browse the Manipulus florum
> Search the Manipulus florum
> Word cloud of Manipulus florum lemmata
> What is the Manipulus florum?
> Project Rationale
> Project Description
> The 1483 Piacenza Edition
> The 1550 Venice Edition
> Editorial Agency in the 1550 Edition
> The 1567 Lyon Edition
> Annotated Bibliography
> Auxiliary Resources
> English Translations
> Preface to the Manipulus florum
> More Manuscript Illuminations
> Manipulus florum Colloquium (May 2014)
Wie moet je contacteren wanneer je menselijk skeletmateriaal vindt, toevallig of tijdens een archeologisch onderzoek? Wat is de rol van de politie? Wanneer komen de militaire overheden in het vizier? Wanneer is er sprake van een verdacht overlijden? Hoe ver ga je als archeoloog met de registratie van de menselijke resten? Deze en nog vele andere vragen komen aan bod in een nieuwe richtlijn die het agentschap Onroerend Erfgoed opstelde. Er is bovendien bijzondere aandacht voor oorlogsslachtoffers uit de Eerste en Tweede Wereldoorlog. Deze richtlijn kwam tot stand na intensief overleg tussen het agentschap, de politie, militaire overheden, het parket en de gouverneur van West-Vlaanderen.
CAIRO, EGYPT—According to an Egypt Today report, a team of researchers has investigated three burial chambers in a tomb in a Middle Kingdom (1842-1799 B.C.) cemetery in the southern Fayoum. Ayman Ashmawy, head of the archaeological mission, said the chambers were probably looted in antiquity and later reused. The site is then thought to have been damaged by an earthquake. The upper part of a sandstone statue of a human figure holding his hand on his chest was found in one of the chambers. The middle part of a basalt statue measuring about 12 inches tall, pottery, and the tops of three canopic jars were also recovered from the chambers. To read in-depth about a decorated Middle Kingdom burial chamber, go to "Emblems for the Afterlife."
[First posted in AWOL 18 February 2011. Updated 7 December 2018 (New host)]
ISIMU: Revista sobre Oriente Próximo y Egipto en la antigüedad
Isimu es una revista de periodicidad anual. Sus secciones separadas -dedicadas a los ámbitos originalmente definidos como Asiriología y Egiptología- están abiertas a estudios y resultados de la investigación hoy repartida entre historia, arqueología y filología, pero también y por su propia y declarada voluntad interdisciplinar, a los de las ciencias exactas, físicas y naturales alcanzados en las mismas áreas de Oriente Próximo y Egipto.
The texts from Jamie Novotny and Joshua Jeffers in The Royal Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal (668–631 BC), Aššur-etel-ilāni (630–627 BC) and Sîn-šarra-iškun (626–612 BC), Kings of Assyria, Part 1 (Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 5/1) are now online:
The pages under the "RINAP 5/2" currently house some information on the inscriptions to be included The Royal Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal (668–631 BC), Aššur-etel-ilāni (630–627 BC) and Sîn-šarra-iškun (626–612 BC), Kings of Assyria, Part 2. Click on the links to left to view the current content. Because work on Part 2 (Ashurbanipal texts 72-2018, Aššur-etel-ilāni texts 1-6, and Sîn-šarra-iškun 1-21) is still very much a work in progress, we kindly ask you to be patient with us and to bear in mind that the information included under this tab is far from complete and is subject to change. This is especially true of the text designations. This will be the case until the camera-ready manuscript of RINAP 5/2 is sent to the publisher. Therefore, we urge caution should you cite the content of The Royal Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal (668–631 BC), Aššur-etel-ilāni (630–627 BC) and Sîn-šarra-iškun (626–612 BC), Kings of Assyria, Part 2.
AbstractThis thesis challenges one of the fundamental assumptions about Rome’s political upheaval in the third century CE. This period is conventionally defined by the growing political influence of the army at the expense of the Senate, after the Severan emperors made it clear that their hold on power rested on military support. The soldiers would grow bolder in asserting their position, eventually coming to overthrow emperors at will. I present a broad reassessment of the evidence for a historical model which derives from the narratives of two contemporary witnesses, Cassius Dio and Herodian. Dio is the subject of my first discussion. I address two problems. Firstly, Dio’s contemporary history survives only through Byzantine epitomes and excerpts. Its irreparable alteration means that Dio’s later books cannot be treated in their own terms, but have to be contextualised against the wider thematic framework of his thousand-year account. Secondly, I turn to Dio himself. Within that framework, Dio presents himself as the ideal senatorial historian. In doing so, he is able to define a uniform senatorial experience, which excludes everything else as deriving from military corruption. An analysis of Herodian follows, also in two parts. The first analyses Herodian’s construction of Roman society into three constituent parts, Senate, army and people. I show how these simplistically homogenous social units allow Herodian to explore imperial character, even as they cause inconsistencies in his political narrative. I then address Herodian’s account of Maximinus Thrax. This narrative has been presented as the historical culmination of the army taking over politically. I argue instead that it represents the climax of Herodian’s rhetorical scheme. Overall, the model of political conflict is built on two contemporary accounts which have specific reasons to simplify matters in their presentation of political activity. In order to understand the nature of political change in this period, I argue that it is necessary to move beyond them.
KeywordsCassius Dio, Herodian, Roman history, third century crisis, third century, roman historiography, ancient historiography
SponsorshipPhD funded by the AHRC.
IdentifiersThis record's DOI:https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.33668
RightsAll rights reserved
DALBEATTIE, SCOTLAND—The Scotsman reports that the 1950s excavation of the Mote of Urr, a motte-and-bailey castle in Scotland’s Southern Uplands, has been published by a team of researchers from Guard Archaeology. The structure was first built in the late twelfth century and is thought to have been destroyed by fire. When it was rebuilt, a large, central stone-line pit was dug for use as an oven, furnace, or kiln, and the hill, or motte, on which the structure stood was made taller and a double palisade was built to enclose its summit. The excavation team, led by artist and archaeologist Brian Hope-Taylor, also found traces of a trench and a timber bridge across the moat that surrounded the motte. In all, the castle was occupied for more than 200 years. “Urr was probably partly destroyed during the Wars of Independence in the early fourteenth century,” said Richard Oram of Stirling University, who researched the history of the site. “There is a large gap in the documentary record for the latter part of the fourteenth and first half of the fifteenth centuries, by which time the estate was being rented out to tenant farmers,” he said. To read in-depth about medieval British fortifications, go to "Inside the Anarchy."
KINGUSSIE, SCOTLAND—BBC News reports that human bones dating to the Middle Ages have been found in the Scottish Highlands, near the foundations of what may have been a Christian chapel built by Carmelite friars, who arrived in Britain in the thirteenth century. Archaeologist Steven Birch of West Coast Archaeology Services said the bones, which are jumbled together, may have been exhumed when a chapel was built for a Carmelite friary at the site sometime before the beginning of the sixteenth century, and then reinterred within structure. After they have been examined, the bones will be reburied in a nearby historic cemetery. To read about the remains of Scottish soldiers who died in the 1650 Battle of Dunbar, go to "After the Battle."
“Inscriptions and the Epigraphic Habit”
The 3rd North American Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy
Eva Odelman (éd.), Nicolai de Aquaevilla Sermones moralissimi, Turnhout, 2018.
Éditeur : Brepols
Collection : Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis 283
LIX + 702 pages
ISBN : 978-2-503-57567-4
€ 395 (excl. TVA + shipping)
This volume presents a semi-critical edition of the collection of model sermons entitled Sermones moralissimi de tempore by the French Franciscan Nicolaus de Aquaevilla, who lived in the late thirteenth century. It contains sixty sermons for ordinary Sundays and for the great Christological feasts. Collections of model sermons entail specific editorial problems due to their large size and fluid character as well as the high number of textual witnesses. Adopting a pragmatic method, this edition publishes one influential version on the basis of an incunable (printed shortly before 1480), while variants from three manuscripts are recorded in the critical apparatus.
|George I shilling 1723 |
with a story (Chards)
I likened this approach (relating trophy items from the past to a 'kings and battles' scenario) to the concept - coined years ago by R.G. Collingwood - of 'scissors and paste history', which is what this is. This is what the FLO was doing with that artefact (and habitually does with others in his recent social media outreach, such as here last night). As such, I think this is part of the phenomenon of how we as archaeologists currently go about projecting archaeological values to the public, and that is a topic I think needs constant review and should be the topic of wider and more intense discussion.
The FLO in question merely saw this as the opportiunity to continue the irrational vendetta he has against this blog and, it seems, this blogger. So instead of talking bout public archaeological outreach he first tries an ad hominem, saying that my post is the product of:
(see the update to my earlier post for my brief discussion of that attempt to brush aside the question). He seems to think that a habit identified by a historian seventy years ago will have ceased to be relevant today (sadly people are still writing in the way Collingwood noted). What is more interesting, however, is the long twitter development of that attempt to insultingly label me as some kind of conceptul dinosaur, where the Durham FLO apparently tries to establish his own credentials as a 'post-processualist' by quoting 1960s Foucault (!) and then adding his own FLO mumbo-jumbo. This is quite interesting as a specimen of text where a PAS attempts to rationalise what they do in collaboration with artefact hunters. Such texts are in fact rare in the literature, so it is worth attention.7 godzin temuWięcejDurham FLO Ben Westwood podał/a dalej Paul Barford...or 'archaeologist' with a processual 1970 mindset uses Culture History to accuse PAS/FLO of Antiquarianism....
This is what he wrote, together with a chunk screenprinted from Chapter 3 of an English translation of Foucault's 'Archaeology (sic) of knowledge' (p. 49 here talking of the formation of objects of knowledge).This is compiled verbatim from four Friday evening tweets on (here, here , here and here) - punctuation as in the original, I have only added an inline link to Deckers et al:
love this bit of the 'archaeology of knowledge' particularly: [The object] "... does not pre-exist itself..." etc., Strikes me that this can be contextualised within the 'zero-gain'/cultural damage arguments of Deckers, Lewis et al in that it is only by applying to these liminal objects, and understanding them through the prism of, the complex of relationships that comprise the 'discursive formation' of Archaeology (of which PAS is in this sense a facilitatory element): 'zero-gain' is thus a potentiality of persistant liminality; cultural damage occurring only through cognisant dispossession of objects of their physical context, and thus consequent failure to become a discursive component or archaeological 'find' Speaking very personally, I'm not sure i completely concur, as while failure to report to the PAS, to enable that discursive transition, may not always be an abrogation it is arguably at least, a derogation of that liminal potentialityNow I sincerly doubt (a) that the FLO would get anywhere at all speaking to the average member of the British public about archaeology (and non-recording) in such an utterly uncommunicative way, and (b) that the FLO actually believes what he himself wrote here. I (c) would also question whether he has actually understood Foucault at all (which to save space here, I'll not go into in any detail as it is marginal to the question the FLO raised about Deckers et al.).
It should however be noted that the Durham FLO, Benjamin Westwood, confusingly conflates above the philosophical concept of 'object of knowledge' (used throughout Foucault's work of this period using clinical psychology as an example) with the physical things the FLO himself works with ('objects'). So it is either a play with words or just complete confusion that leads him to use the quote from chapter three as an excuse for not seeing collection-driven exploitation of the archeological record as a destructive activity.
Westwood's approach (like that of many of the FLOs as well as supporters of the private collection of archaeological artefacts like postage stamps) is 'object centred' [which I term 'antiquitism']. But the whole point is the 'object of knowledge' for archaeology - as in clinical psychology - is not merely the description of the symptoms, but the attempt to describe the underlying causes. The coin is a symptom, and not a past process in itself.
And it is indeed true in archaeology (as in clinical psychology) that the object of knowledge "does not pre-exist itself..." and is constructed - but the artefacts which are part of the basis of the evidence used to create a picture of that object do, of course. In the case of the loose collectables that have been hoiked by a collector from the archaeological record, by the time they reach their personal artefact stash, they have lost their ability to be part of the evidence on the basis of which that object [of knowledge] can be attained. That is the problem of artefact hunting that is discussed, among other places, in this blog.
To label a loose random artefact hoiked from the patterning of its physical asocitions in the archaeological record a 'liminal object of knowledge' seems to me to be a perverse twisting by the FLO, attempting to rationalise his (own and institutional) partnership with exploitive and destructive collectors, of the nature of the object of knowledge that archaeological methodology strives for. Getting artefacts themselves out of the ground may be the rationale in the 'let's see wot I kin find today' ideology of the artefact hunt, but the goal of archaeoological use of the record is - always, surely - somethng else.
Deckers, Lewis et al') argued that artefact hunting that does not report what has been taken is not 'cultural damage' as the rest of us think (and indeed was the rationale for setting up a PAS in the first place) but that it is merely 'zero-gain' (sic). They do not see it as a depletion of the archaeological record. I find that in itself pretty inexplicable. To take a simple pattern (like this closed deposit - right) , I do not think (would hope) there is not anyone reading this blog that is unaware of the information value at many levels of the proper documentation of the context of deposition of the individual artefacts in that deposit and in relation to other phenomena in that deposit. That is archaeological evidence and its methodological dissection, observation and recording is what differentiates archaeology from mere relic-hunting. On the left of the figure is the deposit, on the right the two boxes show what happens to it in Collection-Driven Exploitation. First the actual deposit is damaged by detectorist Baz Thugwit's removal and pocketing of those artefacts to which he took a fancy for his collection. The deposit is riddled by holes (which may or may not be entirely visible upon any excavatione artefacts) and what is left behind is not only depleted of random pieces of associated evidence, but also the deposit itself is damaged by this clumsy disturbance. This makes it impossible to read - the object of knowledge cannot be attained. But over in Baz's home is an (unlabelled) box of 'stuff'. That's the box on the far left. There's a bit of skull (he calls it "skully the skelly" when he pulls it out of its box with a flourish to impress his mates and scare the little kids he invites upstairs to see it. There are some copper alloy finds (top row). But most detectorists have their machines set to filter out iron signals, and many when they find the brownish lumps of corroded crud throw them into the hedge and do not take them home even, so some of the metal objects that were in that context (bottom row) may not be in Baz's box. Metal detectors detect metal, and not bone, stone or glass (two middle rows). If Baz had grubbed around a bit he might have hoiked out some, or more of the glass beads, the 'cool' bone/antler comb or whatever.
I think however that you get the picture, Baz's box tells us very little about the context of deposition (obliterated by the nature of the context of discovery) of that archaeological assemblage, and the actual remains of that archaeological assemblage are rendered illegible. (I've used a grave here as a readily understandable example to make the point, but the same goes for removing randonm finds from a patterned surface scatter.) I do not see that as in any way 'zero gain', I see that as wanton destruction, just the same as if someone had cut up a thousand-year old illuminated manuscript ('boring prayers') for the sake of the coloured pictures in some of the initials to display on the wall. Destruction, and nothing else. To be frank, I really cannot see how one could convince oneself that from the point of view of the object of knowledge implicit in 'doing archaeology' that it can honestly be seen as anything else.
That is why I would characterise the FLO's attempt to dismiss these concerns as largely mumbo-jumbo that misses the point (apart from the fact that as I noted above, he misconstrues what was meant in the source text he uses by the word 'object'). Here he attempts to 'foucaultise' the position of Deckers et al. on 'zero-gain':
"it is only by applying to these liminal objects , and understanding them through the prism of, the complex of relationships that comprise the 'discursive formation' of Archaeology (of which PAS is in this sense a facilitatory element): 'zero-gain' is thus a potentiality of persistant liminality; cultural damage occurring only through cognisant dispossession of objects of their physical context, and thus consequent failure to become a discursive component or archaeological 'find'[.]"I would question whether the object-focussed approach of the PAS as it exists today actually is anywhere near a 'facilitatory element' that brings its audience (the public) to an understanding of even the basic elements of archaeological discourse (especially if it is going to express itself in such wording as Westwood uses above). The cultural damage caused by artefact hunting (Collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record) is not (pace Deckers et al and now FLO Westwood) merely the 'potentiality of persistant liminality' (ie, in normal language, non-recording), but precisely in the very cognisance of not only the 'dispossession of objects of their physical context' and their 'consequent failure to become a discursive component or archaeological 'find'. Above all, the problem with what the rest of the world (both archaeologists and the public) has no qualms calling looting (and its cognate terms such as 'Raubgrabung') is that it is the deliberate (cognisant if you like) 'dispossession of the physical context of its integrity, and some of its elements' - and whether or not the physical objects (finds) resulting from that destruction are in some sketchy database divorced from unobserved information about their original physical context, they consequently have been deliberately prevented from being any kind of 'a discursive component' in any but the most simplistic archaeological analysis of the deposit and site they came from.
Mr Westwood then goes on to disagree with the position of Deckers et al.
while failure to report to the PAS, to enable that discursive transition, may not always be an abrogation it is arguably at least, a derogation of that liminal potentialityPocketing of random collectable artefacts by artefact hunters is a derogation of 'their' 'liminal potentiality'? To do what? At a detecting club meeting ner Durham, Baz Thugwit shows his mates and the visiting FLO a tenth century strapend he found when detecting one weekend with his mate 'Scotty' near the latter's distant island home a few weeks earlier. It was once in the place marked '10' on the figure ('X marks the spot'). I'd like to know the FLO's view on what archaeological 'potentiality' that loose find has. Maybe Mr Westwood will take up the archaeological discourse he's started and now finish taking us through how that 'liminal potentiality' of the little piece of corroded metal proffered in Baz's outstretched hand can now be in real archaeological terms. Can he?