So says David Connolly of BAJR ! He says our recent article about Ed Vaizey contained a good bit of “taking out of context”. Which is strange, as we quoted Mr Vaizey’s words verbatim and provided a direct link to the account of the PAS Treasure Report launch at which he said them. We also took the trouble to put them in accurate context:
“Ed’s remark echoes the one by his predecessor David Lammy, which caused massive offence (but it’s so much worse now against the background of redundancies and vicious funding cuts)….. And no, defining some of the artefact hunters as “responsible” does not make them praiseworthy! Archaeologists are responsible. People who run conservation websites are responsible. Bus drivers are responsible. So what’s special about these detectorists? They report their Treasure Finds – fantastic! But that’s just complying with the law like the rest of us do constantly without being hailed as heroes. And don’t forget, unlike almost anyone else in Britain they get massive rewards for doing so! “
Mr Connolly also said “frickin’ Heritage Action” had “started this nonsense with a classic misleading headline”. So he’s alleging that it was not Mr Vaizey’s words but our headline that set archaeologists off – which is a tad preposterous (and very insulting to archaeologists!). What about the forthright reaction to Ed’s words by Rescue, The British Archaeological Trust, made before our article (and which directly inspired our headline!) – which absolutely radiated a belief the Minister had insulted all archaeologists and heritage professionals:
“Absolute rubbish. Heritage heroes are the people who look after our heritage – not those that seek sordid profit from it. True “heritage heroes” are museum staff, local authority HER Advisors, the thousands of volunteers at local societies & academic researchers … As well as archaeologists, conservation officers, curators and conservators.”
Frickin’ Rescue – standing up for archaeologists instead of detectorists, eh Mr Connolly?! When you wrote to the Minister slagging us off did you slag them off too? Anyway, very sorry that we as mere members of the public stood up for the Heritage Sector at a time when it is suffering such financial cuts.
_______________________________________________________________
More Heritage Action views on metal detecting and artefact collecting
_______________________________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
15 comments
Comments feed for this article
16/11/2013 at 13:09
On the fence
Without supporting nor condoning the topic, I will take issue with a point of fact and that is your comment – “we quoted Mr Vaizey’s words verbatim”
No, verbatim is just that, Verbatim but in the case in point you did not quote Mr Vaizey ‘Verbatim’ You omitted one small by important word. You alleged Mr Vaizey said
““I salute all the responsible metal detectorists – true heritage heroes – whose patience and unceasing curiosity do so much to bring this treasure to light”.
The Verbatim quotation is;
““I also salute all the responsible metal detectorists – true heritage heroes – whose patience and unceasing curiosity do so much to bring this treasure to light”.
The word ‘also’ indicates that his comment was preceded by commentary that puts his final comments into a context and are part of a bigger dialogue.
It is an important point as the often quoted comment “there is no such thing as society” by Margaret Thatcher was a snapshot of part of a bigger dialogue that the press chose to carve up and by doing so, paint a different and very negative picture to what was actually said.
As we all know, context is everything if we are to fully understand the subject matter, be it in archaeology or discussion. Thank you.
16/11/2013 at 14:39
heritageaction
Well here’s what we quoted (in bold) and what we didn’t quote (in italics).
“There’s something essentially mysterious and exciting about buried treasure, and I’m delighted that each year reveals still more finds. These items help us get a fuller picture of how life was lived centuries ago, and add enormously to our rich and varied cultural heritage. I also salute all the responsible metal detectorists – true heritage heroes – whose patience and unceasing curiosity do so much to bring this treasure to light.”
If you wish to work so hard to establish that the simple omission of “also” (for the very obvious reason that the preceding sentence wasn’t quoted) renders what we did quote “not verbatim” and hence a decontextualised distortion – then feel free. We’re content that a lot of archaeologists are less inclined to lean over backwards to put the blame on us rather than elsewhere. The hole is already below the plough soil. What now?
16/11/2013 at 16:33
On the fence
Thank you for accepting and giving consideration to my comment, and making the relevant corrections.
The fully text, verbatim, does now show that the final sentence of Mr Vaizey was made as his personal summary of his somewhat glib viewpoint of treasure items and not as a stand alone comment that when presented as such, caused so much consternation.
16/11/2013 at 16:34
Paul Barford
Tell us “on the fence” to what do you think that “one small by important word” (I quoted that verbatim) refer and why is it so “important“. Who else, in your opinion, does he salute in that quote?
16/11/2013 at 17:13
heritageaction
No, On the Fence. It was not our headline but Mr Vaizey’s words that upset archaeologists – as proof, see Rescue’s anger that preceded our posting and the anger of a succession of archaeologists elsewhere that was invariably directed towards him, and quite right too.
So why this need to divert blame onto us? Mr Connolly chooses to say “the cheery chappies at Heritage action are known for their Daily Mail style headlines” – you should tell him that neither we nor the Daily Mail have ever used the term “Frickin” and until we do he shouldn’t cast stylistic criticism at them or us from within his glass house.
16/11/2013 at 17:30
On the fence
Gentlemen, I am interested in accuracy and facts, therefore to use the word ‘Verbatim’ when it was not the case, is abuse of the term verbatim and a manipulation of the facts for effect.
I will not be drawn into your current berating of Mr Connolly nor Mr Ed Vaizey as I am simply an observer of the current discourse and I am capable of forming my own opinions and thoughts on the matter as I see them. I will however, strive to ensure that my judgements are based on a full understanding of the facts.
Thank you.
17/11/2013 at 03:27
Paul Barford
“on the fence” I asked why that “one small by important word” (I quoted that verbatim) is so “important“. Who else, in your opinion, does Ed Vaisey “salute” in that quote? Help us to reach “a full understanding of the facts” as you see them.
17/11/2013 at 12:06
On the fence
I am surprised that you struggle to understand that he was referring to Metal Detectorists. That is patently obvious. One small word is important since without it, it is NOT verbatim – ‘Word for Word’ as claimed.
17/11/2013 at 13:52
Paul Barford
The reference to metal detectorists comes, as we can all see quite plainly, AFTER the word “also”, so what I am asking you is what was he referring to “saluting” which comes BEFORE that and to which you insistently attach such “importance” (apparently accusing somebody of leaving out a mention of the object of that salutation). It seems quite a simple question.
The salutation of “metal detectorists” follows the word “also” – so in your opinion, the salutation of what precedes it? It really does not make sense as written does it? Why is highlighting Ed Vaisey’s reported poor grammar so “important” to you?
Are you a metal detectorist?
17/11/2013 at 14:04
Paul Barford
Verbal nit-picking about aberrant adverbs aside, surely this illustrates that anybody who wants to write about “what Ed Vaisey said” would be well advised to go back to what a official version of what Ed Vaisey said and in what context and not use some second or third-hand reports as the basis. And the text above makes that point, stressing that the link was given to follow up the source and precise content of the quote, which makes Mr Connolly’s comments about HA rather unfair. .
17/11/2013 at 14:45
heritageaction
“And the text above makes that point, stressing that the link was given to follow up the source and precise content of the quote”
…. and that link was given just TEN WORDS into the article, making any suggestion anyone could possibly have been misled or that anyone tried to mislead them frankly ludicrous. Mr Connolly would know that, though it’s less clear On the Fence is capable of understanding since he is persisting with his assertions long after they’ve been shown to be nonsense (so yes, an artefact hunter I’d say!)
17/11/2013 at 16:32
On the fence
Oh good lord, you now think it is referring to Mr Vaiseys Grammar and you also now seem to think that my comments infer that you were trying to opine and mislead? . At this juncture, I will leave you as it is plain to see that your heightened paranoia is affecting your ability to cognitively function.
Thank you
17/11/2013 at 16:41
heritageaction
Misuse of “opine” but as for the rest, yes.
Thanks for the visit! It’s a shame you have gone as you could have told us whether you share our and Mr Connolly’s view that detecting should be licensed.
18/11/2013 at 20:56
Finlandski
I get his point even if it is a minor one
24/11/2013 at 14:30
Paul Barford
but that is exactly how metal detectorists in the UK highjack any discussion, by blowing up some fuss about a minor side issue to distract from discussion of the main point made. Time after time they engage in precisely this type of behaviour hoping the opposition will crumble and stop asking the questions and raising the issues to which they have no answer.
The subject of this post is one professional archaeologist’s attitude to a heritage group (“Fricking Heritage Action”) that raised a good point:
“Anyway, very sorry that we as mere members of the public stood up for the Heritage Sector at a time when it is suffering such financial cuts”.
Perhaps we could discuss that instead of he-said-she-said arguing round in circles over OnTheFence’s minor issue distraction?