By Nigel Swift
PAS says in a paper on The effects of internet ‘trolls’ on the participatory experience their forum was closed due to “aggressive archaeological postings” by several people. On which planet does that sound likely?! In fact, other than 2 or 3 PAS staff, the only two regular “archaeological posters” were Paul Barford and a taxpayer – me. So they must mean us! Blimey, I’ve shut down a 600-strong state-funded forum!
Truth is, we raised legitimate issues in a civil way, as opening the forum would show. Incidentally, here are 110 articles I’ve penned on detecting. Not a word in breach of any conceivable code of behaviour yet I’m said to have acted improperly on a forum PAS is keeping invisible! But the simplest proof is this: if we had acted inappropriately can you imagine anything more unlikely than that they’d close the whole forum instead of simply banning the two culprits?!
In fact, the forum was rendered unusable by a series of aggressive and abusive postings including pornographic images from a large group of detectorists. PAS banned a succession of them for doing it and PAS finally closed the forum because of it. Later, we opened a Heritage Action forum but quickly had to close it for the same reason. It’s an outrage a paper on internet ‘trolls’ falsely suggests archaeological posters were exactly that. Far worse and telling is such a presentation not mentioning a group of detectorists forced two websites to close.
Paul Barford may have spotted something quite extraordinary about the presentation (please take a look, it’s so awful maybe I’ve imagined it). He has also challenged PAS to make the forum visible. “Let us see again the crude comments and pornographic pictures posted by the Scheme’s “partners”. Let the wider public have the opportunity again to see what issues were raised by whom”. Unfortunately though, the public who paid for it aren’t being allowed to see it. I share his view that the reason for that is probably that it displays realities that don’t chime with some of the things PAS has been saying for many years. Such a lack of transparency leaves the public open to misinformation – and this casual and effortless transmuting of metal detectorist trolls into archaeological ones is merely the latest instance of that. Political correctness is one thing but I have to wonder, as I have been wondering for many years, what on earth is a taxpayer-funded quango doing constantly misinforming the public?
.
_____________________________________________________________
More Heritage Action views on metal detecting and artefact collecting
_____________________________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
31 comments
Comments feed for this article
01/06/2012 at 10:42
Dan Weston
Any internet forum that draws two opposing and intransigent mindsets together is always going to end in tears.
01/06/2012 at 10:51
heritageaction
Let us not characterise the intransigence of the two sides as having some sort of equivalence. Intransigent conservation is not the same sort of intransigence as is involved in intransigent personal taking.
01/06/2012 at 15:27
Debs
By its very being, your comment above is indeed a fine example of intransigence itself.
01/06/2012 at 15:52
heritageaction
Indeed it is. Intransigence on the subject of conservation, that is. Good for us.
01/06/2012 at 15:59
Debs
And always met by the intransigence of the pro collecting lobby. Two polarised viewpoints that shall never wax nor wain on either part. Meanwhile the general population goes about their daily business with not a moments thought or care given to either viewpoint as we blindly tread our path towards a poorer world to live in. A shame, a real shame……
01/06/2012 at 16:11
heritageaction
Indeed.
Still, the public came to see that birds eggs, orchids and ivory shouldn’t be exploited for personal gain or amusement, so maybe one day….
01/06/2012 at 16:21
Debs
The big difference is that the general population has a hunger for shiny ‘old’ stuff, be it for purchase, for entertainment on TV or in the increasingly history theme park orientated museums, further fueling their desire to get their hands on the history so to speak. Not many people take an interest in birds eggs. ivory or orchids so they are easily swayed to be opposed to their trade as they have nothing to lose as they are non stakeholders in the topic.
Maybe attitudes with change in time,but in which direction though? lord only knows.
01/06/2012 at 16:33
heritageaction
Well, Britain’s attitudes and legislation are both at odds with the rest of the world so perhaps there are grounds for hoping there will be a move in the right direction eventually, by osmosis.
01/06/2012 at 16:43
Debs
And by that time, the UK will be mostly concreted over and all the archaeology lost forever. The rate of archaeological attrition due to development is truly staggering. When it comes to property and development, the £ sign weights heavier in the mind than the need to preserve the archaeological record. The two camps (conservation & collecting) are the only ones with any real interest in the matter but come at the subject from totally opposite directions before colliding together in places like internet forums where each postulates and posits their viewpoints, rightly or wrongly.
From time to time I read these forums and there are good arguments put forth by both sides and equally some very flawed ideological arguments by both sides that leave the casual reader wondering what happened to the truth in all the fluster. Always entertaining to read however, so long as you understand the difference between proper educated journalism and propaganda.
01/06/2012 at 18:16
heritageaction
“some very flawed ideological arguments by both sides”
Actually, I think there are no ideological arguments on one side and an unflawed ideological argument on the other.
There are zero ideological arguments supporting artefact hunting without reporting. Zero. I know because I’ve searched for them and invited people to provide them, without success.
As for flawed ideological arguments by conservationists, I’m not sure what those are but arguing that “failing to report finds is stealing history” is an ideological argument that is entirely devoid of flaws IMO.
01/06/2012 at 19:06
Paul Barford
“arguing that “failing to report finds is stealing history” is an ideological argument that is entirely devoid of flaws IMO.”
yet if one argued that or similar idea on the Portable Antiquities Scheme Forum it would be considered by the British Museum time-wasting “trolling”.
01/06/2012 at 20:14
Cliff
The flaw in the argument that “failing to report finds is stealing history” is an ideological argument that is entirely devoid of flaws IMO.”
is the lack of definition of what is classed as recordable. We can’t record everything as it is simply not practicle nor would the tremendous catalogue of records be of any real use. There should be a clearer definition of what SHOULD be recordable and let the hammer blow fall on those that flout this.
01/06/2012 at 21:01
heritageaction
“We don’t know what to report” is a frequent and unconvincing claim. PAS states what they are likely to record and what they want detectorists to bring to them. Despite that, most don’t comply so the blame is not the definition it is theirs – and they ARE stealing history, no question.
02/06/2012 at 12:10
Jubilee
Perhaps we would be better off laying out stringent details of what is REQUIRED to be recorded and rather than trying to paint with a broad brush, aim for the detail by way of a more focused recording strategy. Currently, there is the lack of will by both the PAS and Detectorists to try and record everything and instead, some more important artefacts are left unrecorded due to apathy and confusion. It would be far easier to understand and administrate a narrower more focused spectrum of artefacts and also easier to legislate? The PAS is a finite resource and therefore it makes sense that when resources are limited, those resources are used in the most productive way and that the less urgent peripheral activities are curtailed to focus on the core business at hand.
Just a thought
02/06/2012 at 12:55
heritageaction
I agree that painting with a broad brush is to be avoided, all you get is an unclear picture. PAS’s database is the product of random farmers giving permission, random searching on farms, selective recovery of only a tiny percentage of artefact types and less than frank and sometimes false admissions (to an unmeasurable degree) regarding locations. In other words, the absolute antithesis of a proper archaeological survey. Not sure how restricting the type of artefacts reported still further will make it any closer to a proper archaeological exercise – in fact it will definitely make it less so.
So no, you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Metal detecting is random and unstructured and so are its results and it will always be so until metal detectorists are willing to do things in a proper way and there’s no sign of that.
Incidentally: “some more important artefacts are left unrecorded due to apathy and confusion”. I don’t think there’s any confusion, detectorists usually know perfectly well certain artefacts are important. So it’s apathy. Or deliberate “knowledge stealing” as someone else said. There seems to be a constant need to rationalise non-reporting as not due to deliberate anti-social behaviour but to be honest PAS has been “educating” these people for fifteen years. They ran out of excuses in year one! Would proper amateur archaeologists need telling more than once or for more than two minutes? Of course not.
02/06/2012 at 14:12
Paul Barford
Jubilee et al. There IS such a guide, produced by the PAS: http://finds.org.uk/documents/guide.pdf [page 3]
but yes, I agree, there should be discussion of this and a whole lot of other things about the way PAS works. Since it is doing this not for its own benefit, nor even for artefact hunters alone, but the general public, there surely should be public discussion. Like on a public Forum. And such a discussion should include rather than EXCLUDE archaeological input, which is what the post above is about.
The question raised is this: is the PAS there ONLY as a public-funded service to metal detectorists (and if so, what service is it doing them)? Or is it – as it was originally set up to be – British archaeology’s answer to the metal detecting threat, as archaeological outreach to them?
It looks very much from what the British Museum said in the talk to which this post refers as if the PAS has given up any sort of pretence that the Scheme is in any way “archaeological outreach”. It is the archaeologists who are no longer welcome to attempt to interact with the scheme, and artefact hunting “partners” should be shielded from any contact with outside (ie non-FLO) archaeologists… That’s what this is about.
03/06/2012 at 13:41
Rodger Flanberry
The PAS is in my opinion the spawn of the devil. How can a goverment spend money on the destruction of the archaeological record and then watch as the whole thing crumbles apart as it actually promotes further destruction. British archaeology has a lot to answer for and the new archaeologists coming through the system are produced in a mould much different to the one that I was taught and that is for me, a major concern.The govement would be better off spending the £10m pa on buying metal detectors for Archaeologists (Would buy 2500 metal detectors by my reckoning) and beating the thieves to the loot and doing the job properly!!.
Makes my blood boil to know that the uk’s ‘plunderfest’ is state funded!!!
03/06/2012 at 14:24
Nigel
Interestingly, the way Paul and I expressed ourselves on the PAS forum wasn’t remotely as forthright as that yet PAS has called us trolls! Goodness knows what they’d say you were!
I think your calculations are wrong, you could buy 50-100,000 detectors for what’s been spent on PAS. I made a similar suggestion myself a while back, but I said give the machines to local archaeology societies thereby obviating endless outreach to the deaf and ending the disgrace of failing to report, targeting inappropriate sites, unacceptable methodology, false or inadequate details, artefactual cherry picking, pocketing and flogging on EBay. In other words, the resource would be treated as it should be. A marvellous use of taxpayers’ money.
03/06/2012 at 14:43
Roger
At 100,000 Metal detectors that is only £100 per piece so I don’t think we would be getting the latest cutting edge machines for the PAS budget. This does raise an interesting point though regarding giving them to local archaeology societies. Why are the machines so little used by these societies and archaeology in general?. I would put forward the proposal that to a greater extent, the sheer fact that metal detecting is so revered and despised by the anti detecting movement that these groups simply don’t want to be associated with them when in fact, they could, in the right hands and with the right methodology, be very useful tools indeed.
Perhaps there is a need for a total rethink on the subject in order to get a gradual realignement of the machines position as a tool of use as opposed to a tool of misuse.
Come on PAS, use your state funds more appropriately please!
03/06/2012 at 15:04
Nigel
I think the discrepancy between us lies in the total that has been spent on PAS, but it’s of little significance, many many thousands of detectors could be put in responsible hands if that’s what’s wanted or needed in this country. Of course, if we prefer many thousands of detectors in other, random hands, that’s easily done as well, you just fly in the face of world opinion and allow a free-for-all.
03/06/2012 at 15:20
Paul Barford
Roger Flanberry asks
“This does raise an interesting point though regarding giving them to local archaeology societies. Why are the machines so little used by these societies and archaeology in general?”
I would guess that, as anyone who has studied archaeology would know, the answer to that is (despite what the PAS is telling everybody) that there is a lot more to archaeology than “just finding (old) things”.
03/06/2012 at 19:30
Roger
Paul. Archeology is all about ‘finding things’, be they physical or factual or in some cases inferred. The difference is in the way that what is found is interpretated and then recorded. Geophysics is all about ‘finding things’ and the information is then used to allow ongoing and detailed examination of what was found.
If the archaeological record is being plundered to the extent with which we believe and the goverment is not concerned with the rate of attrition then it is logical to beat the plunderers at their own game. Whilst this may go against the grain of out inner morality and ethics, it simply makes sense that we make the best of a bad situation rather than make a bad situation good (goverments job). If the PAS won’t do what they should do then let the people do the job for them!
04/06/2012 at 05:44
Paul Barford
If the “government is not concerned” about the problem, then it’s going to be hard to get them to fund (your original point) your proposed pre-emptive asset-stripping scheme, isn’t it?
Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree about what archaeology “is” and whether the recording has priority over interpretation. I’d say your approach to conservation is akin to saying we should cut down the rainforests ourselves before the logging companies do it.
I really do not think that taking them apart is the way to conserve sites and monuments.
But, to come to the original point, is it “trolling” to discuss it and why?
04/06/2012 at 14:40
Roger
If the logging companies are going to chop down the trees for profit regardless, then it makes sense to chop down the tress before them and use the ‘profit’ as a charitable entity to fund further conservation along the line. it’s not a perfect solution but many things never are. I do see your point re the government not funding the effort though.
As for the PAS forum being closed, there is a huge difference between lively debate and the modern internet phenomenon of ‘Trolling’ which is just childish disruption to get a response in whatever form. Let’s be honest, for the PAS to have a forum when the PAS sits between two divided camps, well that was always going to end it tears wasn’t it so best it died a death of its own making in my opinion.
05/06/2012 at 13:43
Nigel
“‘Trolling’ which is just childish disruption to get a response in whatever form.”
That wasn’t the form the trolling took. It was very clearly aimed at closing the forum so that the public would hear nothing but positive accounts of artefact hunting. How that could possible be “best” is hard to see.
(Lest anyone doubts that silencing criticism was the aim, I can cite 15 issues over which detectorists have threatened to go on “reporting strike” if the resource was properly treated or the public was given proper information.)
05/06/2012 at 13:51
Paul Barford
The point is of course is that the existence of the PAS depends on the pretence that there are no “divided camps”, that artefact hunters are archaeologists and all archaeologists are nothing but artefact hunters, deep down. What kind of “outreach” is that?
05/06/2012 at 17:55
Shining Diamond
The only way to make opposing parties co-operate is to appoint champions on both sides who can work together and give and take. Keep the two sides below the champions apart and let the champions trickle down information and consensus to the lower ranks. it takes time ,but from experience in the commercial field, it can and does work but there is no short cut. It really is a game of winning hearts and minds, not scoring Brownie points.
05/06/2012 at 19:31
Nigel
“The only way to make opposing parties co-operate is to appoint champions on both sides who can work together and give and take.”
The idea of “give and take” to achieve a settlement is constantly mentioned. But it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. What ground should archaeologists “give” when doing so must mean turning their backs on the principles of resource conservation and allowing amateurs license to destroy knowledge? I’ve posed that question to both sides, without reply, since the answer is “none”. There is no archaeological code of ethics that authorises archaeologists to do that. Nor should there be. The only acceptable “compromise” is for all metal detectorists to operate under strict archaeological rules and structures.
PAS was set up when that was all very well understood, hence it was intended to merely COPE with metal detecting and gain some data from it. The concepts of acceptance, common ground and partnership are recent add-ons concocted by PAS that have no logical or philosophical basis or statutory authority whatsoever, in fact they are risible when voiced by those who claim a belief in conservation. Do we let people do what they like on a voluntary basis or do we protect the resource in a way that archaeological principles require? We can have one or the other, not both. Ask archaeologists abroad.
05/06/2012 at 19:51
Shining Diamond
I note that you honed in on the word ‘Give’ as opposed to ‘Take’ hmmmm.
But then you missed the point about ‘take’ even though you mention the concept yourself, if albeit, unwittingly……….
“The only acceptable “compromise” is for all metal detectorists to operate under strict archaeological rules and structures”
The above is an example of the ‘Take’.
That is exactly the point about dispute resolution when both parties believe they are in the right but rarely is that the case when viewed impartially by a third party. The crazy situation in the UK of Tekkies squandering historical knowledge without any redress and Archaeologists bemoaning the fact but doing little to stop it is just a vicious destruction of both the archaeological record and each others arguments, however valid or invalid they are. I for one am a keen advocate of conservation of the historical record but some of the arguments put forward by BOTH sides beggar belief but do make for a good and often amusing read, hence my interest in the matter.
“the first casualty of war is truth”
Appoint champions on both sides to disseminate the truth and let it trickle down and perhaps we can make some more positive progress than is currently the case.
06/06/2012 at 09:17
Nigel
“I for one am a keen advocate of conservation of the historical record”
I can only repeat, that is inconsistent with “compromise” regarding what metal detectorists do.
To be a keen advocate of conservation of the historical record is to be a keen advocate of any and all metal detecting to be carried out in accordance with archaeological standards and structures. English Heritage has laid out exactly how. It’s not rocket science.
06/06/2012 at 10:29
Paul Barford
“Shining Diamond”, are you a metal detectorist? Who do you appoint as your “Champion”? On what grounds would they be selected and who would do the selection and appoint them to speak for the rest and then “trickle down” the results of discussions to be acted on by the WHOLE community?
Surely this top-down authoritarian “champions” model of yours is in direct contradiction to current UK policy on conservation which is about interaction and engagement between all the stakeholders.