The 6 academics organised by PAS to discredit Dr Sam Hardy’s paper have said: “unreported finds are not damage, but at worst a zero-gain“! Really?! If something should be reported but isn’t, is that no loss to science?
It makes a mockery of 20 years of pleading: “All archaeological discoveries have the potential to add to our knowledge” (Council for British Archaeology) and “If recorded, these finds have the potential to tell us much about the past” (PAS) and hands detectorists a cast iron excuse not to report what they find.
..
.
We trust PAS will speedily withdraw this untruthful, foolish and damaging statement which it wasn’t founded to say and isn’t funded to promote.
.
__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
18/08/2018 at 10:38
Paul Barford (@PortantIssues)
Those grabby artefact hunters who cannot be bothered to let the rest of us know what they’ve taken and who feel exonerated that the Scheme’s Head co-authored the text referred to above probably take comfort too by the assertion of another ‘partnership-promoting’ archaeologist Prof Raimund Karl (School of History, Philosophy and Social Sciences at Bangor University – apparently, quoting inside information from a FLO).
From the ivory tower of Bangor, Karl issues the pronouncement that even if ‘good/ responsible’ metal detectorists took objects to the PAS, in actual fact up to nine out of ten would end up being REJECTED for recording so there’s no point (Karl R. 2017, Metal detecting and the lack of efficacy of any kind of regulation. A response to a paper by Samuel A. Hardy p. 19: https://www.academia.edu/33077783/Metal_detecting_and_the_lack_of_efficacy_of_any_kind_of_regulation._A_response_to_a_paper_by_Samuel_A._Hardy_forthc._ ).
That, from what I know of the operation of the PAS (and I have been looking at it very carefully for most of the period of its existence), rather looks like shabby detectorist-friendly misinformation rather than any actual additional proof that the PAS now says it doesn’t matter if you don’t report your metal detecting finds – because they’ll reject them anyway.
So far, the PAS has refused to respond to this. I do think they owe the public (who pay their salaries) a better picture of the whole series of issues surrounding the interactions between on the one hand archaeology, sustainable resource use and on the other artefact hunting and collecting than the current knee-jerk academic smear campaign of misinformation and misdirection aimed at those who, like Hardy, raise important issues that the PAS and its supporters want ignored.
22/08/2018 at 13:54
thomas mccormick
as a long term metal detectorist (1988) i too think finds should be reported but today in liverpool there is no flo you are required to self id finds yourself to the pas..when i first started the first flo’s didnt accept musket balls, spindle whorls ,pottery .nor iron goods it took years to get someone interested in these objects…
22/08/2018 at 14:58
heritageaction
Well as you know the PAS advice is to deliver finds to any FLO if you can.
05/09/2018 at 15:05
Paul Barford
So, Mr Mccormick, how many unrecorded historical metal items do you have in your collection today if you’ve been doing it since 1988? Can you tell us please? Thanks