The Myth of the PAS Ceiling

.
The discussion on a British metal detectorists' forum about my recent analysis of the PAS' statistics continues with one participant, Essex man Deetektor, remarking about me:

Even the archaeological press recognise him as been rather weird.
[Rolling Eyes Smiley icon]

("Archaeological press"? Have I made the pages of "Current Archaeology"? Odd, first I've heard of it). Remic, the Representative of the National Council for Metal Detecting adds:

You are being generous. He has, some say a personality disorder as part of a mental illness .

I suppose that is the final resort of those who run out of arguments, to accuse the people who argue other views of being mentally incapacitated in some way and call them names. "Remic" who represents the NCMD on that forum continues:

As for the stats then we all know that they can be twisted to suit most perspectives and agendas. However what Barfart conveniently forgets is that the PAS is self limiting in what it can record because of resource issues so his recent bleats that only 10% of finds are detector finds are recorded do make the Scheme look bad to those who are unaware of the facts. At its current and projected levels of funding it will never be able to satisfy the demands upon its services from detectorists. That is not the fault of detectorists, but the system inherited from the bad old days of HLF and the MLA. Perhaps Ed Vaizey will come to realise more and more just what an asset the PAS is to the archaeology of the nation - well all except Scotland that is.

Well, we've seen this argument before, from Trevor Austin of the NCMD who claimed in print that the PAS has fixed targets and that when it is reached they turn detectorists away (read my earlier post for a fuller discussion of this). Now, this is the only "source" for this information, not a single annual report of the Scheme mentions such a ceiling. So who is misleading the public about this, the PAS or Trevor Austin?

So basically the NCMD is arguing that it is the government's fault that the Scheme is failing to provide mitigation of the erosion of the archaeological record. If they invested more money in order to meet the "demand" for a "service" for metal detectorists (so ten times as much as the 13 million it has cost - 130 million pounds a decade would do the trick), there would be no problem. Right? So instead of taking measures to affect the way the archaeological record is being depleted year after year by a social minority of rapacious artefact hunters, the British public should pay through the nose to cope with the damage done.

But "Remic" mentions Scotland. Now Scotland has different laws from the rest of the UK, no PAS. Oddly enough we see the same under-reporting, it is difficult to believe that there are just the few hundred reported finds being made there annually, when there must be a density of metal detectorists in the general population not very much less than the rest of the British Isles. So with no PAS "ceiling" there, why are finds not being reported Mr "Remic"? The same goes for the UKDFD, run by volunteers, no running costs, so no ceiling. It has been going now for a while (set up six years ago almost to the day) and yet it has only 2,156 users, who have contributed 28,283 posted 'Records' (though the vast majority have posted only between one and three objects in that time). That's just 4020 objects a year, when we know the metal detecting community is 10 000 people.

No, the main reason why the majority of artefact hunters' finds are not being reported is not that there is a ceiling value and people who want to record are being turned away. The main reason is that in the majority of cases the artefact hunters do not want to come forward with their finds and see absolutely no reason to do so.

It is not, I hope, a symptom of any "mental illness" to observe the facts and come to such a conclusion, neither would I say that it is a symptom of mental illness to be concerned about the degree of unmitigated erosion of a finite and important resource that it is going on. Though I will admit it does seem - alongside the reactions or rather lack of reactions of the vast bulk of the British archaeological community - to be "weirdness" to actually express such concern these days.

UPDATE 19th June 2011:
Later on in the thread this "Remic" person (who claims not to be a "Mr") says:

although i am listed as NCMD rep the majority of my comments are personal observations on issues and not neccessarily official NCMD statements of policy or opinion. If they are i will say so. I do not have the luxury of one user name for personal opinions and one for official comment. Now i am sure Mr Barfart will chose to ignore that fact as it is not what he wants to hear.

No, I will say if it says that a forum account is of the representative of an organization, then he has to be careful using that account that the opinions he expresses do not oppose those of the organization he represents there. He is in fact repeating what NCMD officer Trevor Austin has written elsewhere in that capacity.

In reply to "Remic's" other comment, the views of metal detectorists disagreeing with me are not censored from this blog if they are on topic and civil in tone - this is a comfortable myth the tekkies like to propagate among themselves to excuse the fact that they really have no other answer to the issues raised here than to ignore them, or call people who have a different views "mentally ill" and call them names ("Barfart"). As Connolly points out, this is about "issues" and detectorists appear not to be very good with discussing issues. For a good example, compare what I wrote above with the only answer the NCMD Representative "Remic"has offered (Today at 10:29 am GB time). I bet "Remic" (or any other UK metal detectorist if he is afraid to speak up in support of his views) cannot offer any documentation to support what he said.