by Nigel Swift
We’re big fans of student-run archaeology journal “The Post Hole” but I’d like to take strong issue with one statement in their guest article (by an ex-FLO) about the Portable Antiquities Scheme:
“The twofold approach taken in England and Wales, then, is beneficial, as the vast majority of finds are recorded with the PAS on a voluntary basis”.
The vast majority of finds? I beg to differ. Our Artefact Erosion Counter, expressed visually here for the very first time, suggests the opposite.
The Counter is a harmless little concept that brings us loads of grief. If only PAS would show it is wrong! But no, it’s only rubbished. It “lacks credibility” [Head of PAS], it’s “based on nothing but presumptions and inaccuracies” [Detector retailer on Britarch] it “should be viewed with contempt” [Head of NCMD]. (I wholeheartedly concur with that last one, but not in the way he means!).
So it’s up to you, Posthole readers. We say the orange column is far larger (and growing faster) than the grey one, PAS and detectorists say the reverse and the Government says it believes them. David Lammy said detectorists were heroes – was he shown the red column? Ed Vaizey has just said “the vast majority of metal detectorists make sure their finds are recorded“. Really Ed? Were you shown actual written estimates supporting that? I think not – in fact I know you weren’t because the figures underlying and supporting our Erosion Counter are the best in the business – i.e. CBA/EH’s survey of what is found and PAS’s stats on what is brought to them!
There’s no question there should be proper controls to stem these grievous losses and PAS no doubt agrees. But they don’t say so in public. Indeed, as another statement from the article shows, they tend to adopt a detectorists’ mantra that says control is not possible: “In other countries, where more restrictive legislation is in place, detecting has remained difficult to control.” That is simply not the case, as will be confirmed by talking to police and archaeologists in Eire (where detecting is banned) or Ulster (where it’s licensed).
But it’s neither the place nor the wish of quangos to advocate changes to the status quo of which they are a central part. There’s also a concern that any plain speaking will precipitate what would be the seventeenth threat of a “reporting strike” by detectorists. But here’s the sad, awful thing: it’s not the “best practice” detectorists that make such threats. It’s not they who oppose regulation; they don’t fear rules requiring them to do what they already do. No, it’s the others, the ones who don’t report what they find, who have threatened sixteen times that they won’t report what they find. Those are the ones causing PAS to say the grey column is vastly taller than the orange one and what is going on is “beneficial”. How mad is that?
__________________________________________________________
More Heritage Action views on metal detecting and artefact collecting
__________________________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
10/03/2013 at 08:56
pebblesfromheaven
Reblogged this on I'm pinkpebbleperson … and commented:
Shocking …
10/03/2013 at 13:50
calmgrove
Shocking indeed.
10/03/2013 at 14:51
Paul Barford
What I think is shocking is that although the Heritage Action Artefact Erosion Counter has been ticking away quietly and revealing its disquieting warning in the public domain since it was created in April 2005, the supporters of the “partnership” approach to artefact hunting and collecting (so basically Bloomsbury’s Portable Antiquities Scheme and its camp-followers), remain silent. They assume that they have done their duty towards the public who pay their salaries solely by dismissing such attempts to assess the scale of the problem as mere “trolling” (sic).
In fifteen years there has in fact never been any official attempt made to actually assess the number of items being dug out of the archaeological record to serve the curiosity and greed of the PAS’ metal detecting “partners”. Why not? A while ago the Scheme claimed it had at its (fifth) aim
T”o define the nature and scope of a Scheme for recording Portable Antiquities in the longer term, to assess the likely costs and to identify resources to enable it to be put into practice”.
Then a few years ago it mysteriously claimed it had “achieved” this aim. How it did this without ever accurately defining how many objects are involved yearly as a basis for these costings was never explained. Like many others, the PAS simply arrogantly ignored such questions.
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2013/02/what-does-heritage-action-artefact.html