There is no secret about the number of finds recorded by PAS and we are happy to give these data to anyone who enquires. In 2007 66,311 objects were recorded on the PAS database (in addition 11,295 coins from Norfolk, recorded before 2007, were added to the database in that year) and in 2008 the figure wasThat as may be, but this is close to that of the 2005/6 total (57341) and up on the 2006 one (55244) when there were no "cuts". Here however we see the amalgamation of two sets of figures, accidental finds by non-collecting members of the public, and finds made by those deliberately going out seeking artefacts for collection and sale. In 2005/6 the latter accounted for 68% of the items in the database, in 2006 it was 76.8%. So what was the contribution of "metal detectorists" in 2007 and 2008 (numbers and percent)? I'd be grateful if the PAS would treat that as an enquiry. Thanks.
56,065, a result of the cuts in funding to PAS that year. *
*Is that record numbers or numbers of artefacts?
.
.jpg)
2 comments:
Mr Bland, regarding your comments on our Counter:
“About the only tangible impact of the Counter of which I am aware is that it has made a contribution towards making it harder to build bridges with detector users.”
This is often claimed by detectorists, and by you, but we fail to see how it should be true since we aren’t archaeologists and aren’t working for PAS. The implication is that bitter criticism of non-reporting by anyone will reduce the propensity to report (what an indictment of detectorists, if true!). We think calling a spade a spade is always best and that the public are entitled to be told about the downside rather than to invite detectorists onto their land on the basis of a constant diet of good news stories about the hobby. If you can show good reason why we should not express extreme dismay at non-reporting and why we should not express it to the public we will desist but we don’t believe that is possible. Until it is, perhaps you would desist from repeating the detectorists’ outrageous mantra that our criticising them will result in their behaviour becoming worse.
“Those of us who work in PAS have never attempted to make an estimate of the total number of archaeological objects being found by the public: this would be a large research project which none of us would have time to undertake.”
I find it hard to understand why a multi-million pound operation has not attempted to quantify the extent of the problem it is charged with addressing. Was not PAS set up on the back of just such a study? Why no review of progress against target? Why no target at all? Annual figures of artefacts reported are meaningless unless set against an estimate of artefacts not reported yet that is what is being presented to the public as “success”. How can the taxpayer judge performance unless the size of the task is indicated?
“I have gone on record as stating that I believe that PAS records between 40 and 70 per cent of all archaeological objects found.”
We shall have to disagree about that. It implies a range of possibilities, including that more than 40-70% of metal detectorists report all their finds to PAS and that the rest, somewhat less than 30-60% find nothing. That is not a message that the taxpayer should be given in our opinion since it is far beyond the bounds of reason.
Hear hear.
Until it is, perhaps you would desist from repeating the detectorists’ outrageous mantra that our criticising them [non-reporting artefact hunters - PMB] will result in their behaviour becoming worse.
Well that's what we get when an official scheme set up at public expense to help resolve a problem is declared the "partners" of those that cause the problem ! That is what is "outrageous".
I find it hard to understand why a multi-million pound operation has not attempted to quantify the extent of the problem it is charged with addressing. Was not PAS set up on the back of just such a study? Why no review of progress against target? Why no target at all? Annual figures of artefacts reported are meaningless unless set against an estimate of artefacts not reported yet that is what is being presented to the public as “success”. How can the taxpayer judge performance unless the size of the task is indicated? ,
Actually how can ANYONE. This is what I (naively it turnms out) assumed would be in the Independent Review of ten years of the PAS operation agfter the Scheme had announced that theuy had fulfilled their "Fifth Aim" (to remind ourselves it was to " To 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"). Instead, all of these issues were completely ignored (see discussions on this blog).
Post a Comment