Spin, Spin, Spin Awa', We Care Not

.

.

Scottish archaeologist David Connolly ("BAJR") was asked by a metal detectorist unable poor soul to make his own mind up about a recent post of mine in which I point out the PAS claims as its own success in outreach the work of others

So is this accurate BAJR or misinformation[?]

He replied:

As to Barfords statistics. Well surprise surprise.. he was hardly going to spin statistics to make PAS look good. though he will spin them to make the erosion counter look bad. If you ask me whether the pas STATISTICS are 100% unspun... I would cough politely. and go... really... they are trying to look good.
Some people have too much time on their hands, and would love to make detectorists and PAS to fall out. He never fails to be offensive as well. [...] If he was able to remain civil, then there is much I agree with, however fundamentally we disagree. I believe that properly recorded and accessible finds are a benefit to all - to Paul, he feels it is only looting and destruction of known sites. Go figure?

Notice that it is accepted as entirely natural that one side or the other would be spinning statistics. The PAS is funded by the public purse to do a specific job. It should be giving an accurate and objective account of what it has been doing with that money and how well it is doing that job, not "spinning" statistics. Mr Connolly seems unconcerned that the public is being presented with a misleading picture about the degree to which erosion of the archaeological record is being mitigated by voluntary recording ("If you ask me whether the pas STATISTICS are 100% unspun... I would cough politely. and go... really... they are trying to look good"). It's not too clear what he means writing "though he will spin them to make the erosion counter look bad". I think what he means is when you juxtapose the data from PAS with the Heritage Action Artefact Erosion Counter, the results indeed look bad. Again, though, this seems not to concern him. He dismisses it as "spin", and says we should all be civil when talking about plunderers of the past.

Connolly invites his readers to "go figure" the difference between the two standpoints:
"properly recorded and accessible finds are a benefit to all"
and
"known archaeological sites" should not suffer "looting and destruction" at the hands of artefact hunters for entertainment and profit.

It seems to me the difference is obvious. One is artefact-centred ("gimme, gimme all the goodies") and is short-sighted. Also "making the finds accessible" in the here-and-now is done at the expense of the integrity of the archaeological record. The other viewpoint talks of the longer term preservation of the archaeological record. Which one is archaeology, and which one is naked antiquitism?