Response from the bottle forum

[Gary Vines]

There has been some heated discussion of the OzArch thread on the Antique Bottle collecting forum, which I post edited extracts here. - its rather long so apologies.

If you want to read the full thread you will have to subscribe to the site. http://www.ozbottleforum.com/

A sensible approach from both sides would be great, but with old school Bottle Collector "Bashers" refusing to see that collectors/ diggers could actually help them, I don`t see much change in the future..

 

"Having been a subscriber to some of the collector groups for some time, I even have to use deceit to find the most innocuous information. Note for example the Antique Bottle Forum's Digging Stories, Pictures & Videos has restricted access to supporters or minimum 10 posts."

Post digging picks & stories at your peril!

Maybe time to weed these parasites out?

 

I had a read of what those arse clowns were saying about us in ref to destroying history. We all preserve history. I have never sold any of the items I have recovered & I never will. I am not into this hobby for the profit & never will.

I have filmed many of my finds & if I was asked to be taken to the location where I had recovered that item I could. The majority of my finds have been recovered from land that has been ploughed up many times over the years. I have also done a lot of detecting at sites where I have been told that approximately 30 cm had been scrapped off the top.

I can't put the words together to describe these seemingly educated morons. If they have time to waffle on about us digging sites they have time to go to meetings at clubs & have talks with club member

  

This thread is not anti Archaeologist or Anti OzArch Forum. It`s about the comments of a few. A feeling of despair, of the lack of ,right of reply, of being called a looter, ( A thief ) of all being tarred with the same brush. In some way it`s our own fault, we have no Governess / State or National that can represent us, defend us or facilitate official dialogue with Government.

 

Collectors have formed and accumulated a wealth of information. They have and still are researching and writing books. Many specialist collectors have created Web sites, ceramics, ginger beers, pot lids, military, kitchenware, and buttons just to name a few.

The Heritage Laws in Victoria need change so that they include all groups that have an interest in Our History. This outspoken minority group needs to accept that some will fight them on this issue, vigorously.

 

At the end of the day, if we're forced into seclusion and secrecy, the preservation and integrity of local history will be the loser, isn't that what archaeology is about? trying to establish the real truth about our past?.

 

Meh, Im just going to continue doing what I enjoy doing, as if a law would stop me anyway, they can choose to benifit from my work or they can choose to snub it to their own detriment, and sadly that of "history" in general.

 

My post has nothing to do with talking to Archaeologists and trying to work towards a better understanding and a closer working relationship. The majority of Archaeologists are professional and of high integrity. A hand full of Archaeologists that participate in discussions on a Google Blog that has a small membership, made comments that, to me were misinformed, outdated, and totally unprofessional and no amount of communication between us and them will change their small minded opinions into a professional relationship with amateurs. 

I can post photos of Hut sites on my local Goldfields that have been destroyed by the making of public roads. Fireplaces and chimneys scattered down both sides of the road after a bulldozer has been driven through the middle of the the Hut or camp site.

Would these same archaeologists jump up on their soap boxes and accuse Parks Victoria of Archaeological Vandalism, of deliberately destroying a Heritage site.?? and should be accountable for their actions. The answer is No, they would not dare, as they rely on these Government agencies for their lively hoods or to fund there private consulting business.

We are just easy targets for them,  talking to them is just pye in the sky stuff. It will not change the behavior of this minority group or the  Law.

 

The problem Barry and his mates have is that they are in direct competition for a job with  bottle collectors because Australia has a very limited white history. No sites means no work. That's what I believe Barry's motivation is.

 

I for one would like to see this 'Gary Vines' reply to the excellent well worded positive posts in this thread, or is he like so many of the intellectual snobs in the archaeological community in NZ and Aus a total bigot?

Go on you archaeologists, answer John & others posts, prove you care about history and not just your next highly paid$$$  contract.

 

We should welcome all who join the Forum in good faith. I started this thread because of comments made by a few.  Archaeologists are the Professionals when it comes to excavating an Historical site. We all know this , and most of us would never interfere with such an Archaeological excavation, but sadly there have been some wrong doers in the past. All hobbies have some bad apples, so to speak. So you must try to look at things from their perspective as well as your own . Both sides are right and both sides are wrong. 

 

I can understand that digging2deep.  Archaeologists are not so interested in communal rubbish tips or say, bottles in rivers, lakes, the sea (unless they pertain to shipwrecks or some other significant identifier) because they don't relate to specific people and they don't have the layers from which they glean their useful information.   I know this from when Heritage Victoria was "talking to us" some years ago & that was a fruitful dialogue that was unfortunately terminated their end.  As Mick said, heritage nominated sites should not and must not be interfered with by collectors.  No argument about that in my book.

I agree that heritage laws are essential to protect genuine sites with true historical significance from wanton destruction. Archaeologists just can’t seem to realise that not all sites are worthy of this status; and also the fact that you can’t save everything – so you need to choose important sites to protect.

99.9% of bottle collectors would respect any listed or protected site subject to preservation or an archaeological dig. Reporting of the few rat-bags that do loot genuine sites to suit their (Archaeologists) own ideals is not a balanced or realistic position.

What makes a mockery (dilutes the credibility) of the heritage laws, and some misguided individuals’ use of them, is the posting of Heritage Act notices on old dump sites not worthy of protection. Many communal or municipal tip sites have no real archaeological significance or story in the social sense as they were continually disturbed during their usage period or pushed around at the end of their life to make them into useable spaces, such that the stratigraphy and context of the artefacts is near worthless. In such sites the artefacts themselves are the only items worthy of preserving and researching.

Rebuking bottle collectors for digging small private home or farm sites on private property is also just rubbish (pun). Archaeologists will never get around to excavating 99.9% of these sites in 500 years! Learning something from them now while the knowledge is still researchable, attributable or, in some cases, still within living memory is much more valuable and contributes to our social understanding than some-one’s guesses or speculation if left for a long time in the future. Certainly many of these sites will be lost forever as signs of their existence quickly erodes and fades.

 

I do seriously believe that Archaeologists view what we collect as worthless junk because the item is not recorded in the context of the area and its relationship with other items from the excavated site.

If people read the Acheo's blog they make the assumption that we all surreptitiously obtain our collections, with little or no respect of the source.  Nothing can be further from the truth. In the 8 years we have been here there has only been one instance that I have thought there "may" have been some lack of consideration for the area dug. We are historians, we are custodians, we are preservers of history and have a passion.

 

And my post… in response

I have clearly caused offence in my comments on bottle diggers on OzArch, so I apologise to those slighted.

I am aware of the positive attempts to reconcile the bottle collectors' interests and activities with the legal protection given to archaeological sites. Heritage Victoria has made approaches to various groups in the past. I also acknowledge the positive and worthwhile contribution of amateur collectors to our understanding of the past. It is unfortunate that the small group of unscrupulous bottle diggers are giving you all a bad name from the archaeologists' perspective. We (archaeologists)  nearly all have experience of a site we are excavating being dug over during the night, or excavating a site only to find it has already been dug over by bottle collectors and metal detectorists.

What is important to us, is the information from the stratigraphic layers of occupation debris - from the layers of compacted floors, discarded and lost artefacts, broken pottery and glass, and the whole gamut of the 'assemblage' of archaeological artefacts. The fundamental principles that archaeologist rely on, are the sequence of deposition of artefacts (yes artefacts are often the rubbish dumps), and the way that discarded objects can represent what happened on a site. A simple example is in the Harvest Home Hotel in Wollert, where the 1860-1911 layers had many fragments of schnapps bottle and other German imports, while the later layers had little alcohol but more aerated water bottles, reflecting both the prominence of the hotel in the local German ethnic community, and its closure and occupation by a teetotal farmer. We only needed the fragmentary remains, not the whole bottle to tell this. However, as a result of bottle digging, such information is being destroyed to get at the few intact bottles, as the chronological layers of the deposit are mixed up.

In Victoria it is an offence to disturb any archaeological site or relic (which is defined as any artefact, remains or material evidence which relates to the non-Aboriginal settlement of Victoria and is 50 years or older), whether recorded on the Victorian Heritage Inventory or not. (Heritage Act 1995 Sec 127). The penalty is about $96,000 or imprisonment for 12 months or both. So it can be seen that the lawmakers consider this a serious matter.

Bottle diggers have been arrested and charged in relation to trespass and stealing from archaeological sites in Liverpool Street in the city and Nelson Place in Williamstown. It would be technically possible for bottle diggers to obtain a Consent to excavate from heritage Victoria to undertake a dig legally, although there are of course many conditions that need to be met. If you are interested, details can be obtained from Heritage Victoria's website. Http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/heritage.

I agree that not all rubbish dumps are significant historical archaeology. The Heritage Act is intended to protect the significant places, but also to set up the process to determine what is significant, which depends on when the site was occupied, what has survived, how it was deposited, how intact it still is, and whether information can be obtained from archaeological investigation. Archaeological significance is quite separate from historic significance, and a site might be on a heritage register or overlay and not have archaeological values, and vice versa.

I haven't read the entire thread here, but some comments might be helpful.

Given the bottle collecting interest is here to stay, and that the source of any bottles not already in collections is from buried deposits, collectors can only add to their collections, or new collectors obtain them legally, by either purchasing provenance items from other collectors or digging them up with appropriate approvals (i.e. consent to excavate) or where a site with buried bottles has been determined not to be a significant archaeological site. Therefore the onus is on the bottle collector to ensure they obtain their bottles legally.

There are some comments on this forum about legal obligations. Perhaps these can be more widely distributed and promoted. Perhaps the administers could include a page on legal requirements - not just in relation to heritage, but also trespass, occupational health and safety (how many of you are digging through toxic material and endangering your health), property rights, etc.

The former Heritage council archaeological advisory committee considered the options for both engaging and facilitating bottle collectors, but in the end felt that the benefits were too much on the other side - i.e. bottle collectors get to dig non-significant archaeology, but there is no greater protection for the significant sites. I think there needs to be a stronger commitment from bottle collectors to abide by the legal obligations before Heritage Victoria will move on this again.

If you want to start this dialogue yourselves - contact Jeremy Smith (archaeologist)  or Tim Smith (Director) at Heritage Victoria, 1 Spring Street Melbourne 3000.

good luck and wishing you well

Gary Vines

[john...@ozemail.com.au]

 

Hi,

Thanks Gary.

Re "heritage nominated sites should not and must not be interfered with by collectors" --- Clubs and societies often promulgate statements of ethics they expect members to abide by.    Fossil collecting societies often have elaborate guidelines specified.

Not interfering with heritage sites certainly should go in such.

And of course there needs to be MUCH greater nomination of heritage sites.

Ask yourself ... how many people do you know who nominate heritage sites?

Or when did you last nominate one?

For nomination must surely do something to slow down losses?

 

Best Regards,

 

 

John

 

~~~~

----- Original Message -----

From:

oza...@googlegroups.com

To:

<oza...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Sun, 27 Apr 2014 21:26:04 -0700 (PDT)

Subject:

{OzArch} Response from the bottle forum

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OzArch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozarch+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to oza...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ozarch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Iain Stuart]

John certainly points to one issue regarding nomination of sites.

 

In NSW archaeological sites tended not to be nominated for State or Local listing because it was assumed that they would be protected by the “relics” provisions of the Heritage Act. This appears now not to be the case if the archaeological sites are in fact works and in any case it would seem to me to be bad policy to have heritage protection is split into separate streams for archaeology and other heritage sites. It tends to marginalise archaeology from the main stream of heritage management.

 

The way is now open for nominations that are for purely archaeological sites or sites with a mixture of archaeological and built components. The National Trust of NSW through its industrial heritage committee has been trying to list one site per month from the committee. Trust listing has no statutory power but is still taken note of and Trust listings do tend to be used as the basis for State and Local listing.  

 

(As an aside we are looking for volunteers to help with listing; it is good training to learn how to assess the significance of a site)

 

It does however take time to do a good listing with a comprehensive but succinct statement of heritage significance and a well thought out curtilage. It has to be well done and there are lots of examples of heritage listings  of sites that are wrong – the wrong site is listed, the building is described wrongly or the reasons for listing are totally inadequate (typically statements such as “this site is significant to the history of NSW”).

 

It is also a longish process from nomination to listing which is not surprising since nominations need to be checked and go through a statutory process.

 

I am not sure whether listing would protect the sites from bottle hunters/metal detectorists since relics are protected anyway and they seem to ignore that aspect. Mind you if a development is “State Significant” you seem to have a licence to remove heritage obstacles (after archival recording of course)in the way of development.

 

The benefits of listing apart from protection are the opportunities for interpretation and explanation of our past so I am an advocate of getting things listed.

 

yours

 

Dr Iain Stuart

 

JCIS Consultants

P.O. Box 2397

Burwood North

NSW 2134

Australia

 

(02) 97010191

Ia...@jcis.net.au

 

 

[john...@ozemail.com.au]

 

Hello,

 

Re "In NSW archaeological sites tended not to be nominated for State or Local listing because it was assumed that they would be protected by the “relics” provisions of the Heritage Act" ................................  Mmmm, bad assumption I am sorry to have to say.

Who "assumed" that .. have you any idea?   I would be keen to find any documentation at all on that sort of thing.

I like LISTING things --- a bad case of taxonomitis perhaps?

I have not yet gotten around to listing either geologists of interest, nor archaeologists, but have made a bit of a start in listing mycologists and that is in my introductory FUNGI file at:  http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5737284/plants-fungi.htm

See therein the work of Ray and Elma Kearney of St Ives.

They have achieved, near where they live, the first FUNGAL SITE heritage listing in NSW (perhaps in whole of Aus-land?).

For, yes folks, NATURAL heritage can be listed too ... not just old houses ( besides the dino prints south of Broome, I have been trying to get Jenolan Caves declard *National* heritage - it ain't so far and PLEASE don't be influenced by it being in the NATIONAL ESTATE already for I can explain more about that).

 Ray and Elma Kearney can be proud of their heritage listing achievement.

Here is a little extract about it:

"""""""""""

 

 

""""""""""""""""

Fungi enthusiasts Ray and Elma Kearney prove they are no amateurs

• by: Charis Chang
• From: North Shore Times
• February 28, 2014 12:01AM

A couple of amateur fungi enthusiasts are celebrating the protection of a rare community of endangered mushrooms they discovered in Lane Cove.

Ray and Elma Kearney call themselves “citizen scientists” and have discovered numerous new species over the years during their weekly bushwalks.

This includes nine new species of mushrooms as well as two new species of wasp.

“Unfortunately lots of bushwalkers go from point A to point B and don’t stop to look,” Dr Kearney said.

“If you are a keen observer and apply some thinking, you will make discoveries'.

Dr Kearney is a retired Sydney University professor in immunology and infectious diseases but developed an interest in fungi about 25 years ago while taking his children bushwalking.

In order to encourage them to “stop, look, learn and listen” Dr Kearney and his wife took photos of any interesting plants and animals the children found.

The couple eventually joined the Sydney Fungal Studies Group in order to learn how to classify the large number fungi photos the family had taken.

Over the years the couple increased their participation in the group and about 15 years ago they came across a species that no-one could classify while doing field studies in Lane Cove Bushland Park.

They showed photos of the mushrooms to taxonomic mycologist Dr Tony Young, who was doing research on the hygrophoraceae community.

“We sent him some specimens and he was amazed,” Dr Kearney said.

Dr Young, with help from the Lane Cove couple was later successful in identifying nine new species of mushroom.

In 2000 the NSW Scientific Committee listed the hygrocybeae community of Lane Cove as an endangered ecological community.

Although the mushrooms do grow in other areas, the number found within the Lane Cove community makes the site of international significance. Four of the species are not found anywhere else, including one named after Lane Cove called hygrocybe lanecovensis.

This year the ecological community’s status was upgraded to critically endangered after the Kearneys noticed the mushrooms had developed “rosecomb”, or abnormal looking gills.

These abnormal growths are linked to industrial pollutants such as diesel leaking into waterways.

Dr Kearney said governments needed to take action on pollution, especially in light of the World Health Organisation reclassifying diesel engine exhaust fumes in 2012 as a substance that causes cancer.

( http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/north-shore/fungi-enthusiasts-ray-and-elma-kearney-prove-they-are-no-amateurs/story-fngr8h9d-1226838308629 )

~~~~

LANE COVE BUSHLAND PARK - The first Australian Fungal Heritage site 

In November, 2000, the first fungal heritage site for Australia, located at Lane Cove Bushland Park (LCBP), was listed on the Register of the National Estate, under the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975.

Ray and Elma Kearney, members of and on behalf of the Sydney Fungal Studies Group Inc. (SFSGI) prepared the application submitted for the listing for Lane Cove Council (the owner and manager of LCBP).  The submission was based primarily upon the total number of species of Hygrocybe species found there, known to exceed 25.   Previously, in January 1999, two applications under the New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995 were submitted by Ray and Elma Kearney, on behalf of the SFSGI to the Scientific Committee established under the Act.  This resulted in the Hygrocybeae Community at LCBP being legislated as an Endangered Ecological Community.  A Final Determination is currently being considered on the second application that seeks to list at least six holotypes of Hygrocybeae as Rare Native Species.

The species in the community were formally identified and classified by Dr A. M. Young (1999).

"""""""""""

There are various other more detailed articles written about how all this was progressed -- getting the heritage listing.

The tone of some of those is about how the place (and its fungi) is now protected.

But I am not yet sure if they now realise what has happened since to the National Estate.

Or if the National Estate listing now protects any of the numerous entries in it.

One must be vigilent, and if the pollies de-activate or de-legislate one listing then the entries have to be written across to whatever active listing/s may still remain in force.

That is why I started the "Friends of the National Estate" to promote the writing across of National Estate items into the currently active list of national heritage, and/or more local listings.

So far the meetings of the FONE are pretty lonely though, as I remain the only or sole member.

I might add that membership of FONE is FREE (but don't know if that will held?).

Re "The National Trust of NSW through its industrial heritage committee has been trying to list one site per month from the committee" - I have nominated the Kulnura Bore (historically significant early oil bore, north of Kulnura) and the Trust might like to add that to its current efforts?

I nominated it as local significance heritage to Council.

In this case the Council is Gosford.

Cheers,

 

John

(The John in Strathfield, JB)

 

----- Original Message -----

From:

oza...@googlegroups.com

To:

<oza...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:59:26 +1000

Subject:

RE: {OzArch} Response from the bottle forum

--

[Joe Dortch]

If you do want to subscribe, and read that discussion on that site, you will need to answer a challenge question based on basic bottle knowledge. Google will help if, like me, you have no knowledge of bottles. I'm interested in the discussion, because I'm aware of cases where bottle collectors have excavated sites seemingly without regard for Aboriginal heritage.  Anyway I would just like to agree with the point that some have made, that heritage laws protect the interests of the whole community, not just a few academics, so presumably some bottlers (other than those posting here who avoid heritage sites) need to be made aware of this. But although it's hard for me to judge as they work outside my speciality, many detectorists and collectors also seem to be very knowledgeable and  dialogue would benefit both sides.

[John Foumakis]

Gary you may have cherry picked some of the discussion to suit your own purpose here but as many of the members have indicated there is a quite a number who would like a harmonious and civil interaction with Archeologists. Your post here is somewhat disappointing because you only serve by fuelling a heated interaction by both groups.
I will not that all the posts you have quoted were subject to this blog's very obvious criticism of collectors. For goodness sake how about allowing some possibility that there could be some reconciliation rather than firing up your group here.

[Gary Vines]

Hi John,

I thought I had made a fairly representative cross section of opinion - there are some positives in there too. The OzArch discussion also has positives and negative responses. see for example Camron Hartnells comment ''Most collectors aren't 'looters' out to selfishly pillage the (our?) landscape. In my experience, most love the subject and like to advance knowledge of it, albeit in a looser, less rigid academic framework. Any many work on sites we will never excavate.''

It is also worth noting that most of the criticism is about bottle diggers/hunters, not necessarily collectors. I think the archaeology forum is only concerned about a small fringe among the bottle people - those who willingly and knowingly disregard the law to follow their hobby, so I se no harm in pointing out the voices that seem to convey this view from within your own ranks.

Gary Vines

[John Foumakis]

How can it be representative unless you also balance it with the positive remarks made as i also noted on the Oz bottle forum. Additionally, all this discussion was after reading criticisms on your looting thread here and prior to your involvement and other fellow Archaeologists in the oz bottle forum's thread. Surely one would naturally expect such a reaction given this.
All I am asking you and every one is to all please understand that if we argue, then there will never be any reconciliation. This hatred is just an emotional poison and we need to move on. Cameron has met me and I have worked with other fellow local Archaeologists hence there is some mutual respect.
Quite honestly, you can throw the smallest fragment at me whether it is glass, pottery, ceramic, wood or metal and I would be on the money. I have an extensive knowledge in all areas of Antiques and Art...even Aboriginal artefacts. I make this statement to you not to place myself on any pedestal or above any of you but to illustrate that we can work together and I am willing to share. There has to be give and take in any working relationship.

The answer to the secret question on the forum to join is, codd bottle This was created because of spammers. You are all welcome to join. As I mentioned in the thread, that if your participation is regular and is popular, I am willing to dedicate an area to accommodate your involvement.

PS can images be hosted here and if so how?

On Monday, 28 April 2014 13:56:04 UTC+9:30, Gary Vines wrote:

[Rick]

Gary I applaud you getting on to the bottle forum to respond to comments made there. But I must agree with John, you have not represented a true cross section of the bottle collecting community in your copied and pasted remarks.. It does appear you have sifted through all posted and dragged out the worst to show your peers.. Granted you have added one or two positives from the overwhelming amount of positive comments displayed on the Bottle forum. At least its not a total shut-out, I am bouyed by some comments made by some of your fellows who have now joined the Bottle forum.. Positive, progressive steps to a better understanding of each others methods, goals and  interests in the history of our great country..   John, there is an Add Image tab/link on the text toolbar displayed when typing your post.. Added a shot of a lovely example of a  VR Admiralty Anchor (Victoria Regina) black glass lime juice bottle, circa 1880`s,  recently bought from a contractor who dug it whilst doing work near Fremantle WA., just to test the photo link..

[John Foumakis]

Great looking bottle Rick. Just for those who are curious about what a "codd" bottle is. Here is my favourite. It is called a bulb neck or eclipse patent codd. The variation lies with the shape of the close above the shoulder. The internal pressure of the drink would keep the marble or glob against the rubber washer in the top. The bulb would hold the marble back to allow the pour effective. This company "Bastard Brothers" were in Hindmarsh here in South Australia. The family later changed their name to Bestead. Not sure that was such a good move.
Hiram Codd patented the closure back in the early 1870's.

On Monday, 28 April 2014 13:56:04 UTC+9:30, Gary Vines wrote:

[Barry Green]

Guys I'm not too sure a "he said- she said" argument has any value. There is no hatred towards any party or individual from the archaeology side, just a disagreement in principle for activities which in some cases are illegal and harmful to a resource that is the cultural property of all Australians, now and yet to be. Bottlers take heart in that there are 900 odd people on Ozarch and only about half a dozen posted comments questioning the legitimacy and value of private collectors digging into registered and unregistered sites on public and private land to harvest objects for collections or for sale. There is no pan-archaeologist front against bottle digging. In fact there is no pan-archaeologist front for or against anything. If you read through Ozarch, you'll rarely find too much agreement on anything, archaeologists by their nature question everything.

I think you guys may have gathered that archaeology is a broad yet very small church in Australia. I don't know the exact figures but there are probably less than 1,000 students and academics at all levels in all fields of study across the country at the moment, plus about 400 in private consulting and less than 50 working for government. From what I gather the numbers of bottlers dwarf the archaeological community. I wouldn't get too paranoid about "them versus us" just yet. I'm glad there is a conversation now, but I also hope that there is a bit more debate in your community about not breaking the law and understanding that archaeologists are professionals, not ignorant arse-clowns.

I think we all acknowledge there is common ground, common passion, and common expertise. Realism dictates that bridges will have to be built and compromise made, but if we take as a starting principle adherence to the laws of the land, then this conversation may in fact lead to some positive outcomes for both sides.

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Rick <undert...@westnet.com.au> wrote:

Gary I applaud you getting on to the bottle forum to respond to comments made there. But I must agree with John, you have not represented a true cross section of the bottle collecting community in your copied and pasted remarks.. It does appear you have sifted through all posted and dragged out the worst to show your peers.. Granted you have added one or two positives from the overwhelming amount of positive comments displayed on the Bottle forum. At least its not a total shut-out, I am bouyed by some comments made by some of your fellows who have now joined the Bottle forum.. Positive, progressive steps to a better understanding of each others methods, goals and  interests in the history of our great country..   John, there is an Add Image tab/link on the text toolbar displayed when typing your post.. Added a shot of a lovely example of a  VR Admiralty Anchor (Victoria Regina) black glass lime juice bottle, circa 1880`s,  recently bought from a contractor who dug it whilst doing work near Fremantle WA., just to test the photo link..

[Robert]

From an epistemological perspective there is something circular or futile about this discussion. It reminds me of the view of social scientists (e.g. Quine, Hollis, Davidson, and especially Polanyi) that we can only understand or interpret others if they largely agree with us about what is true, reasonable, justified or the like. In the absence of such agreement no effective communication is possible.

Consider the absurd concept of an "archaeological site": there isn't an hectare of land in non-arid Australia that doesn't harbour "archaeological sites", in fact my backyard is one. For practical purposes we may say that most land is so. Some years ago we were assured by the extreme right that Aborigines are out to repossess our backyards; now it seems that archaeologists have that ultimate goal. Guys, some perspective, please!

There are people who collect mummies from Egypt and cylinder seals from Mesopotamia. There are tens of thousands who collect stone tools, in Australia alone, and probably millions worldwide. There are great numbers of bottle and other rubbish collectors, and connoisseurs of pre-1900 Aboriginal paraphernalia. The question is not how to outlaw their activities, but what motivates them in the first place. Is it not conceivable that very few, if any of them, would have adopted these habits if archaeology did not exist, did not roll out its TV programs and print publications? Why would any sane person pay thousands for some useless little ceramic object from Iraq if these values had not been created? So who created this appetite, this market, and the derivative massive worldwide trade in archaeo-fakes? Is it not a little hypocritical to blame these collectors? They exist because archaeology failed in its public education programs.

There are different ways for the two sides in this relationship to coexist: on a war footing, or as collaborators (as in some countries), and of course various shades of grey in-between. Thanks for considering these points, and the responsibilities of public archaeology: if 150 million Americans are utterly convinced that archaeology (and palaeontology too) is a swindle, it would seem to me that public archaeology is an abject failure. Collectors are simply a symptom and it is the aetiology that needs to be addressed.

Kind regards,
Robert G. B.


Published in 2013: Creating the human past: an epistemology of Pleistocene archaeology. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Published in 2012: An aetiology of hominin behaviour. HOMO - Journal of Comparative Human Biology 63: 319-335.
Published in 2012: The origins of human modernity. Humanities 1(1): 1-53, http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/1/1/1/
Published in 2011: The human condition, Springer, New York, http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/evolutionary+%26+developmental+biology/book/978-1-4419-9352-6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF ROCK ART ORGANISATIONS (IFRAO) is a federation of 51 national and regional organisations promoting the study and protection of rock art throughout the world. IFRAO facilitates international co-operation, and initiates and pursues common policies and projects in the discipline.

---

Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 00:12:18 -0700
From: jfma...@gmail.com
To: oza...@googlegroups.com
Subject: {OzArch} Re: Response from the bottle forum

[Gary Vines]

thanks Robert

I completely agree with you on most of these points, and if you want to look at the bottle forum, you can see that along with my warnings that they are breaking the law, I have offered suggestions to bottle diggers on how to carry out their hobby in a legal manner, and in collaboration with archeologists, even offering to include them in a suitable project where the research design can accommodate their needs, although the law in Victoria makes this very difficult. Yes there is archaeology everywhere, same as heritage. the distinction is about significance - we apply thresholds and criteria to determine which archaeology or heritage warrants protection, investigation, conservation, research, public moneys expended, regulation, etc. In some states a few waste stone flakes are not even considered a site. In Victoria, every flake has the same level of regulatory protection as a burial, vast shell midden or ceremonial site. 

My posts to the bottle diggers have also tried to convey perspective - most of what they dig up is of no interest to archaeologists. But some is. the issue is about how to achieve some effective protection for the important places. I disagree that archaeology is the cause of their interest - collecting came first. The development of more effective and meaningful techniques of investigation and analysis has come about because of the limitations of collecting. Antiquarians such as Stukeley and W.J. Knowles were driven by curiosity, but it was the archaeologist who came after them that established techniques and research designs that ensured more information could be gleaned from less destruction f he resource. Bottle diggers have not moved froward in this respect.

For me a starting point is to act when I see the destruction of archaeology and heritage - including notifying authorities of breaches of the Heritage Act. this too is part ofthe public education process

Gary Vines

[john...@ozemail.com.au]

 

 

Hello,

Regarding " 'archaeological sites', in fact my backyard is one" - this GREATLY interests me, because mine is too.   And I am attempting (very very slowly, bit by bit) to try and document it all.    I have of course the mandatory "old bricks" and stuff (not hundreds but a dozen or so), and piles of cobbles of DIFFERENT SORTS (there are so many different sorts) from the Nepean River (which of course come in turn from numerous places way way upstream of Penrith);  a nice big granite xenolith from the Minchinbury Quarry diatreme; some silcrete from the Newtown telephone exchange (am down to having but little of that anymore); nice shiny schists from Broken Hill, numerous fossils (besides me) .... and etc.

Where else now is there any of the Newtown silcrete?   I have one lump of rough stuff plus one house brick-sized bit which is smoother (fracture surface) and has distinct weathering rind there-over and was broken either by natural fire (I doubt it) or by the early human beings there long before Newtown was dense housing (my preferred thought).

Cheers,

 

John

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  

 

.

 

----- Original Message -----

From:

oza...@googlegroups.com

To:

"oza...@googlegroups.com" <oza...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Fri, 2 May 2014 23:12:36 +0000

Subject:

RE: {OzArch} Re: Response from the bottle forum

[Eleanor Crosby]

I seem to remember that such statements as "Australia is just one archaeological site" caused the initiation of the Big Man award at AAA in Valla.  The first recipient was Liz  Wiliams, who, I understand is now a Big Woman, having 'won' the award 3 times.

So beware, such generosity of scale may have unintended consequences (and the idea is somewhat akin that nonsense notion 'wilderness'?)

Eleanor

[john...@ozemail.com.au]

 

Hello Eleanor,

We actually have 3-5 backyards "in the family", and the one I was attempting to suggest as an archaeological site is also a very-dedicated wilderness area (so far as the active plant growth there is concerned - against which I feel I am sometimes 'losing the battle').

There are big cats in there sometimes as I have encountered, one of which had "nested" there and had kittens, and some animal which at night can make really blood-curdling noises (really made the hair on the back of my neck stand on end).

Cheers,

 

John

~~~~

----- Original Message -----

From:

oza...@googlegroups.com

To:

<oza...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Mon, 05 May 2014 11:00:38 +1000

Subject:

Re: {OzArch} Re: Response from the bottle forum (+ Newtown silcrete)

[Jeannette Hope]

Just to put on the future record of ‘archaeological (or geological) sites’ in backyards, there is a patio in Canberra where the paving base is limestone rubble from Seton Rock shelter (sans artefacts and animal bones, unless we missed some).  

 

Of course there are archaeological sites in backyards, both Aboriginal and historic. Sometimes they are important – as  when garden or building excavation encountered an Aboriginal burial in a Sydney backyard, or the investigation of an old well (in Rozelle).   Sometimes they are not – eg the scatter of tiny shell fragments from long eroded shell midden in my current backyard.    

 

It is silly to talk about an archaeological takeover of backyards. It depends on circumstance. The Sydney burial was properly investigated, the well was excavated and researched, but the omnipresent shell fragments are not an issue.  Contract archaeology works this way … in fact I’ve just done a small survey for a gravel pit where some midden fragments were found.  Consensus all round, not worth preserving – paperwork done, development goes ahead.  But the process is there in case something really important is present  (unless government overrides this in the interest of big business).

 

Jeannette

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2247 / Virus Database: 3722/6937 - Release Date: 05/03/14

[john...@ozemail.com.au]

 

Thanks Jeanette,

I have also been told, by the garden maker herself, that probably the best/biggest or any Cumberland Plain silcrete collection in the nation could be a garden in the ACT.

Also of course in the ACT is the well known  NATIONAL collection of big garden-sized rocks ... situated between the international reputation Arboretum and the shores of Lake Burley Griffin.    And outside the National Museum (which sits on the site of the former Hospital they blew up -literally) there is a large [unlabelled of course] lump of PC limestone which the uninitiated could perhaps easily mistake for Acton Limestone.

Keeping track of all this "moveable" stuff is something that I have long been on about.    A former NPWS persons (Angel John) who now lives down in the Australian alps told me he has outside his place there a bit of the "Newtown silcrete".   That was quite a surprise to me .. but rocks have legs it seems?

When the NSW government "rationialised" (which means they downsized wholly) the Mining Museum at The Rocks .. various of the beloved (to some of us) big rocks went missing.   One of them, a large slab of Upper Devonian quartzite covered with fossil fish, was discovered by Gary Dargan in the rubbish skip outside the building and he very promptly recovered it.   Other items I have been still looking for over the years.   One turned up in an old gaol cell down the South Coast.    Another I was expecting to find (and did find) in a disused mine building at Lithgow.   That latter was a magnificent full-seem section taken from the oild shale (torbanite) seam at Hartley Vale where kerosene was first produced from (this specimen = http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5737284/torbanite-seam-hv.jpg ).

Another "specimen" (or many specimens as it was in fragments) that got totally lost track of for years before it "turned up" again (at Newcastle) was what we at the museum had called at the time of its discovery in the field "the biggest fossil tree ever found".

That big tree looks like this (an actual photo of it) --- http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5737284/big-tree-newcastle-mus.jpg

It might perhaps amaze some people that such large objects as this could be lost track of or go missing entirely.

But all this is true -- and strange things happen.

The lesson is that we need to catalogue moveable heritage/history too.

The Commonwealth Government every year I think does offer a little funding for documenting collections (or collections at risk .. e.g. at the tiny museums or even like in some peoples' backyards perhaps?).

 

Cheers,

 

John

 

~~~~~

----- Original Message -----

From:

oza...@googlegroups.com

To:

<oza...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Mon, 5 May 2014 11:43:32 +1000

Subject:

RE: {OzArch} Re: Response from the bottle forum (+ Newtown silcrete)

[John Foumakis]

Often laws are created in ignorance, without due consideration of their consequences or their outcome but create a rather convenient band aid effect to what will inevitably become a greater problem and later cause more confronting issues.

The laws only serve to limit supply, which in this case will drive the value of bottles higher. You must consider that when Australian bottles sell for many thousands, it creates a greater risk incentive for those who are willing to break the law for the opportunity to find such rewards. Additionally creating a market of fakes and reproductions which is already happening here and has been happening in America for years. My argument will have some tones of obvious bias but since 1979 I have been trading in Antiques and have seen the reproductions, replicas and fakes that are made to deceive. Even scarabs and tomb tokens that were salvaged by returning soldiers in Egypt during the first war, are all too often fakes. All governed by the demand creating the unscrupulous supply and the lack of education deceives the buying public and often the specialist collector. One only has to read about the Getty museum's Kouros purchase to see how even qualified experts are often mistaken.
So, what are the public programs that Archaeology has created in Australia? The assemblages are recorded and packed away without any due consideration for the community or providing any educational opportunities too. What knowledge has or ever will been imparted to the community as a result? Sure there have been some newspaper coverages with someone who is holding an article recovered but seriously ....so what?

One may question what the outcome for Archaeology is, if there is a lot of public education too. Will it create a more responsible citizen or create further interest in the bottle collecting fraternity? On this basis alone, it would seem that a union between both parties would benefit and secure a better future.

There are tens of thousands of sites that can be deemed archaeological sites subject to laws in Victoria. The greater majority echo one another superficially if they are from the later Victorian period and I would challenge the knowledge gained from conducting excavations from such sites, unless of course they relate to the structure or personage. I have walked over and seen thousands over the past 43 years.

There should be a scale of importance recognizing different time periods and their importance relative to our present time line. I would personally question whether even Aboriginal sites are worthy of exposure by excavations but of the utmost importance to record their location.

Robert is correct saying that this circle talk is futile but one thing I do know, is that prosecuting people for digging is also futile, unless of course the site is deemed heritage or an obvious act of deliberate sabotage. You will only serve to drive hatred between the collector and the Archaeologist and what will that achieve? So you ruin a few collectors lives to justify the law and create further revenue for the third party Govt but how much will go back into the development of relations between the two or the public and are we are all better for it?

I would encourage a joint collaboration and even employ some specialist collectors to oversee your work. All too often you hear how people who have the practical experience are never acknowledged or at worst have their ideas and work plagiarised or stolen by academics. Lets hope this doesn't happen in the field of Archaeology. We all search for significance even if it is small, so how about giving them some consideration and share the experience with them.

This site is well worth perusing such an aim Gary and you can be implementing it here with everyone. I think it would be fantastic and as I said before, I am more than happy to help by devoting an area on the Bottle forum if it is a regular contribution and has the interest but see no reason why something very meaningful couldn't be created here.

Cheers everyone and thank you for reading my post

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "OzArch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/ozarch/P_NtNQ-rGFI/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to ozarch+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Robert]

"For me a starting point is to act when I see the destruction of archaeology and heritage".
Glad to see we agree on this point, Gary. Next I take the liberty of regarding the bottles in my backyard as rather less important than, let's say for the sake of the argument, the largest cultural heritage monument in the country. Perhaps I can win your support for that proposition too. We might then take the next step, which is to agree that archaeologists have the right to refuse collaborating with the destruction of such a monument, and that those who do take the money deserve to be pilloried.

Can you think of another way to deter pathological archaeologists from destroying the nation's finest heritage?

Robert G. B.

Published in 2013: Creating the human past: an epistemology of Pleistocene archaeology. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Published in 2012: An aetiology of hominin behaviour. HOMO - Journal of Comparative Human Biology 63: 319-335.
Published in 2012: The origins of human modernity. Humanities 1(1): 1-53, http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/1/1/1/
Published in 2011: The human condition, Springer, New York, http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/evolutionary+%26+developmental+biology/book/978-1-4419-9352-6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF ROCK ART ORGANISATIONS (IFRAO) is a federation of 51 national and regional organisations promoting the study and protection of rock art throughout the world. IFRAO facilitates international co-operation, and initiates and pursues common policies and projects in the discipline.

---

Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 04:45:03 -0700
From: garyvi...@gmail.com

To: oza...@googlegroups.com
Subject: {OzArch} Re: Response from the bottle forum

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OzArch" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozarch+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Gary Vines]

Maybe some archaeologists are not so concerned about preserving heritage. I see people all the time who have no comprehension of the importance of say, the earliest house in Williamstown, one of the last goldrush period hotels north of Melbourne, the first multi-story motor garage in Melbourne, the largest and earliest explosives manufacturer in Australia, the biggest agricultural implement works in the southern hemisphere that let directly to the creation of the living wage and the arbitration board (all of which I have seen demolished). And then the ones that think a 50 story building built above the Windsor hotel in Melbourne is a positive outcome for heritage. Heritage significance is not a given, and no one person can make claim to an immutable claims for what should never be harmed. People continue to loot middle eastern archaeological sites - sometimes with the tacit approval or authorities. Do we say the people making a living from Afghan antiquities are pathological.

Rather than blame the archaeologists who might be called to work on such sites, the means to conservation must be through wider education and awareness and very specific lobbying of those that can influence the decision makers.

g

[Michael Lever]

John, The example you cite of Egyptian antiquities is a very appropriate one, and I think the analogy of current practices there is very applicable to the collector / archaeologist debate in Australia.

In Egypt, tomb looting  and archaeology went hand in hand for many years and were often indistinguishable from each other. Certainly the added attention that archaeology has brought to the antiquities of Ancient Egypt has likely contributed to the popular demand for them.

Many people engaged in the location and sale of these antiquities and of fakes, state that they rely on this industry for their livelihood and that the tombs they take items from are either in their own private property, in public property, or would otherwise have been destroyed by the rapid expansion of Egyptian urban centers. And, that all they are doing is satisfying an existing demand.

What would you see as the appropriate attitude towards and legislation around this issue in Egypt?

Cheers,

Michael Lever

[John Foumakis]

Hello Michael and thank you for your response.
Antiquities in Egypt can hardly be used as a comparative or draw some insight how we should treat our local historic items because there are many nuances in their behaviour and treatment of artefacts that are not even a considerations for us. There would be an infinite number of items that have been, lets say commandeered from other countries and I guess it is up to those governments in power to act with in the boundaries of their laws, to ensure some balance to achieve the most fruitful result. Perhaps with our local Aboriginal heritage we may be able to model some way of preservation and recording of artefacts based on the current trade and collecting practices but would suggest one would have to be in collaboration with collectors and respectful of indigenous customs. Personally would not advocate any disturbance of any burial sites or sites which may be of archaeological interest, unless the sites have been or will be disturbed, by say development.
Public awareness and education in my view is the best starting point.
If I may digress slightly and mention that I summoned people in the Barossa Valley to a meeting last year and explain an important aspect of South Australian history from a small extract of an article I am currently writing below to express my concern for the loss of heritage. Respectfully I understand this blog relates to Archaeology but find such openly available Antiquities in greater danger and the dilution of knowledge is an inevitability subject to every subsequent generation. This to me is much more important to create a better understanding of social economic and environmental map of any community. 

The Barossa Valley is presently synonymous with Wine making but the original settlers and influx of the German speaking population to South Australia, courtesy of philanthropist George Fife Angas, inspired many of the former artisans who fled and settled in South Australia, to also practice their various arts in their new homeland.

Necessity was the order of creativity and although many of the styles mimicked their former homeland practices, much of the applied arts often evolved into a very unique colonial style, incorporating some of the native flora and fauna in their design.

This art or style, which is today treasured by many collectors around the world, was originally developed in Central Europe. It was basically an accommodating reaction to the rising middle class with the Austrian capital of Vienna being in the forefront of design. There were several artists who patterned many of the prevailing styles during this period, such as Josef Danhauser and today this art is commonly recognised and known as Biedermeier. A word that was adapted from two German words, Bieder meaning upright and honest and the word Meier being a common German surname, which essentially is reflective of the art as being transparent and available to all.

This very distinctive style embraces early Classicism and can therefore be referred to as a Neo-Classical style which evolved during the period 1815 to 1848 and can be traced from the end of the Napoleonic wars to the Congress of Vienna. 

The continual but steady migration of German speaking settlers in our state ensured that this German style developed and evolved up to the late Victorian period in South Australia, with many later period furniture pieces adopting French elements commonly known as a Louis Philippe style and later again even incorporating the Gothic style to acknowledge British settlement. This further heralded the assimilation of cultures and created a time period, important in dating items because of this very dilution of what was initially, a distinctly Germanic design in South Australia.

Importantly the initial settlement to areas of Klemzig and later Hahndorf, Lobethal and Barossa Valley, were early enough to be placed during the flourishing Biedermeier period, with many of the settlers either having worked during this period in their former homeland, or being exposed to the art from this period. Fortunately South Australia and in particular the Barossa Valley, had a number of artists who created various works of art that can be categorised as first settlement period. These items number few but are of particular historical interest and of the utmost importance to this state’s heritage. They are a unique insight into South Australia’s cultural and social evolution and with the indigenous raw materials at the artists’ disposal, much of what was created developed an individuality that was uniquely South Australian.

This art was duly recognised in modern times and many collections were created by those who had some understanding. The dispersal was very widespread and with Antique commercialism at its height in the mid 1980’s and into the late 1990’s many historically significant pieces were sold. Especially furniture, which was the most widespread of the applied arts, was often deliberately marketed as “Barossa Valley German” and particularly prevalent in other states where such a title, which incidentally was quite often erroneous, would attract premium prices. 

Consequently, there was a huge influx of Antique traders from eastern states frequenting the sales in South Australia and pushing prices to heights never experienced before and a driving catalyst for many pieces to be sold from private homes, often never seen again.

Sadly this dispersal was very prolific and the recording was never envisaged as having any degree of importance until it became quite apparent in recent times, there was an inherent cultural need to educate, display and preserve this art for future posterity before it is too late. Both from a historical prospective and because there are only very few people left who have the knowledge required to identify regional differences.

It may be therefore important for an open discussion and meeting to address possible concerns, because the Barossa Valley is presently undergoing major social changes subject to the commercialisation of its various industries. This may create employment and wealth for the district but it may quite possibly be at expense of eroding many other important elements of its inner social core and its history is amongst the most important social foundations, which will very likely suffer because of this.

The bottom line is I advertised for two weeks to get people from the district to come to the meeting. My concern is this will become a lost art and the importance of many pieces and their regional attributions will be destroyed permanently. I paid out of my pocket to get people to come and the meeting had less than 15 people. Two were developers.

So concluding there is no easy answer because economics dictates outcomes and as mentioned in the article above it perpetuates the growth and with growth there is nearly always some compromising factor.
Realistically you can not stop the trade, the collecting and the growth. Archaeologists have been subjected to an education and deserve reverence in their profession but understand that they may only be better qualified in their approach but it doesn't make collecting, appreciation or preserving incorrect. I applaud anyone, irrespective of title who has gained and shared knowledge in any field of history.

[Robert]

I have heard before about the watering holes of our alcoholics being lauded as heritage places (probably for their spiritual values), but this is the first time I see multi-storey garages and explosives factories mentioned in this context. I suppose your message is that heritage is what we choose to consider as such, and that there is no objective definition.

That seems to be a rather curious position to adopt for someone whose livelihood derives from heritage protection legislation. Let me get this right: heritage is anything we care to include, such as my backyard or the Big Pineapple or Bananas in Pyjamas, and your role is to protect it, but when your colleagues are paid to destroy it, that's also OK. However, when bottle collectors destroy what you say is heritage, that's a crime.

You say that no one person can say what is heritage, so how do you decide this, as a consultant? Moreover, since all of Oz is either one single archaeological site, or a vast series of such sites and potential sites, the obvious question arises: how does one pronounce a site "archaeological"? Apparently, any place where some human activity left behind forensically detectable traces is potentially such a site nowadays. So how does it become an archaeological site? After sifting through a lot of argument one is left with the finding that it is the attention of an archaeologist that turns a perfectly non-archaeological place into an archaeological site. In other words: the term is entirely self-referential, referring to the opinion of self-appointed "experts" with fascinating research designs like "why are there more beer bottles than rum bottles in Robert's backyard"? Presumably science is to be enriched by such findings.

So the logic runs like this: people who share a hobby of researching explosives factories or my backyard decide what is an archaeological site which they are then chosen to protect (except when it suits them not to). Other than the fact that archaeologists got their foot in the door first, what is there to stop the thousands of stone artefact collectors (or bottle collectors) to legitimise their hobby, form a strong lobby group and fight archaeologists for control of sites? The counterargument seems to be that the collectors dig sloppily. I suppose that's true, but since excavation technique is something any person of average intelligence can learn in a single day, surely bottle collectors could conduct controlled digs. They might even produce publications about them and establish public collections to house their finds, which most publicly funded consultants apparently don't.

What you are managing to demonstrate, Gary, is that the term "archaeological site" is a meaningless slogan, the term cultural heritage is whatever one chooses it to mean, but your role is to protect both. How can you protect something when you cannot define it clearly, because one person's heritage is another's trash? And vice versa.

Kind regards,
Robert

Published in 2013: Creating the human past: an epistemology of Pleistocene archaeology. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Published in 2012: An aetiology of hominin behaviour. HOMO - Journal of Comparative Human Biology 63: 319-335.
Published in 2012: The origins of human modernity. Humanities 1(1): 1-53, http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/1/1/1/
Published in 2011: The human condition, Springer, New York, http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/evolutionary+%26+developmental+biology/book/978-1-4419-9352-6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF ROCK ART ORGANISATIONS (IFRAO) is a federation of 51 national and regional organisations promoting the study and protection of rock art throughout the world. IFRAO facilitates international co-operation, and initiates and pursues common policies and projects in the discipline.

---

Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 00:13:48 -0700

From: garyvi...@gmail.com
To: oza...@googlegroups.com
Subject: {OzArch} Re: Response from the bottle forum

[Robert]

Thanks, John, for a very well argued posting. Just to clarify, I don't know any bottle collectors personally but I know several stone tool collectors. While I don't approve of their hobby I should say that some of them are better stone tool specialists than professional archaeologists in this country. Some of them are knappers too. Therefore the animosity between the two groups seems very counterproductive and wasteful to me. I wouldn't be surprised if the same applied to bottle collectors.

But what caught my eye is your reference to fakes. You are of course right. There may well be more fakes in the world than authentic objects, millions upon millions, ranging from Azilian painted stones to coins from certain Latin American countries. There are huge industries around the world, factories churning out anything from cylinder seals to Jomon ceramics. Many archaeologists have a poor ability to recognise good fakes, for instance some time back a fake object was introduced on this List and the only one to recognise it as such was a geologist, although it was obvious from the photo. Archaeologist merely discussed the legality of selling it or exporting it as I recall.

Kind regards,
Robert G. Bednarik

Published in 2013: Creating the human past: an epistemology of Pleistocene archaeology. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Published in 2012: An aetiology of hominin behaviour. HOMO - Journal of Comparative Human Biology 63: 319-335.
Published in 2012: The origins of human modernity. Humanities 1(1): 1-53, http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/1/1/1/
Published in 2011: The human condition, Springer, New York, http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/evolutionary+%26+developmental+biology/book/978-1-4419-9352-6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF ROCK ART ORGANISATIONS (IFRAO) is a federation of 51 national and regional organisations promoting the study and protection of rock art throughout the world. IFRAO facilitates international co-operation, and initiates and pursues common policies and projects in the discipline.

---

Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 09:47:15 +0930
Subject: Re: {OzArch} Re: Response from the bottle forum
From: jfma...@gmail.com
To: oza...@googlegroups.com

[Jeannette Hope]

Robert,

 

You might read the Burra Charter before posting further on this subject.

 

Jeannette

No virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2012.0.2247 / Virus Database: 3722/6959 - Release Date: 05/08/14

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OzArch" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozarch+un...@googlegroups.com.

[john...@ozemail.com.au]

 

Hello Robert,

How is it that you have the uncanny knack of always seeming to know what I am doing?

For re "hobby of researching explosives factories" I have just started on EXACTLY that.

I have begun researching the Leightonfield (sometimes called Villawood) Commonwealth Explosives Factory.

And I already was, and still remain, quite keen on backyard archaeology too.

I have a geologist friend with similar backyard inclinations (he is Peter Buckley -- the main proponent of the "Big Bird" theory for hundreds of mounds in Western NSW that others have thought Aborigines likely made) who discovered near his back door one day that there seemed to be a pathway under his back lawn.

He began digging it out.

Every time I went there he was still found to be digging out more of it.

He used to refer to it as "the Roman road".

I haven't been in touch with him for some time so don't know if he's ever found where it was going to.

But seriously if anyone has anything on the past of "Leightonfield Munitions Factory" I'd love a copy.

How I got onto this might seem odd.

I am researching PLUMPTON RIDGE ... a place that every NSW archaeologist would have, or eventually will have, heard about.

I am covering the whole history of it, from modern (urban homes subdivision) back to late Aboriginal (first grant of land in Australia to black natives - known as Colebee grant and the origin of the failed "Blacks Town" attempt to 'help' the Aborigines become settlers, and earlier Aboriginal times (whoever broke up the thousands of bits of broken-up silcrete there) to pre-Aboriginal times (Tertiary).

No the only/single person I have so far found who says they know/remember anything of there is Colin Gale (I hope I might find more but so far he has been the sole informant).

He says that during and/or after WWII time there was a dump of military discards there - right atop of the crest of Plumpton Ridge, near the northern end and not far south of Townson Road.  

Others doubt this at a Council meeting .. it never existed others thought.

So after the meeting he re-visited the place, and was most surprised to find a strange looking plant operating there.   See story and a photo of Colin here:

http://www.stmarysstar.com.au/story/1774455/stonecutters-ridge-contamination-fears

See what Colin saw - and photographed (this is his photograph) here:

http://www.stmarysstar.com.au/story/1774455/stonecutters-ridge-contamination-fears/#slide=2

That particular photo has been sent, asking "What is this", "What does it do" .. apparently to over 200 persons by now including chemical engineers and all the local Councillors and nobody had a clue ... except one 'contamination expert' said "Could it is coal seam gas equipment?".

Well it is not that (anything to do with coal seam gas).

When it reached me I full well knew what it is.

It's a DTD plant -- same as two that operated long time at Rhodes (Homebush Bay) before they built all the tall residential high rise that is now on the land.

What it does is cook the bejeebers out of all the nasties in the soil (like dioxins at HB but more often polychlorinated biphenols - the well known "PCBs").

Now Plumpton Ridge has been home of (in the past):

* Aborigines

* Dairy farms

* Chicken farms

* And, as best I can yet tell, at least one pig farm.

None of those in my opinion would give much, if any, PCBs contamination into soil.

So why that need for a DTD plant up on Plumpton Ridge.

Well there is Schofields airbase just to the east and that is where the dumping which Colin says happened might have come from.

So to find out what really happened at Schofields airbase I took myself off to National Archives.

And when I got there what did I find but ANOTHER big DTD plant looming its three towers skywards there too.

Why?

Well this area, from Liverpool Road north to Gurney Road in WWII was taken over by the Commonwealth - which named it "Leightonfield Munitions Factory".

The began making there TNT, trinitryl , chordite, and so on.

It was also intended also to become a packing factory, but maybe that never happened as St Marys became the main shells packing factories site.

But they definitely did make the explosives there, immediately north of Leightonfield railway station.

After the war this northern end of the Commonwealth site was given over to becoming a Migrant Hostel.

Called Villawood Migrant Hostel, currently Villawood Detention Centre.

That is built on the old Leightonfield Munitions Factory.

And the National Archives has been built in the SE corner of the Migrant Hostel site too.

So one thing leads to another.

Ain't it always so?

Cheers,

 

 

John

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~  

 

\ee

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From:

oza...@googlegroups.com

To:

"oza...@googlegroups.com" <oza...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Thu, 8 May 2014 09:22:55 +0000

Subject:

RE: {OzArch} Re: Response from the bottle forum