.
A reader urged me to take a closer look at the good news figures being produced for public digestion by the PAS ("News from the Scheme"). Well, the first thing one notes is there is no bad news there, no "yes, but", or "X,Y.Z is a matter for concern", is there? Are there NO concerns about artefact hunting as far as the PAS is concerned, nothing they would like the public purse to pump more money into it to deal with? Or are they quite happy with it ticking safely on more or less as it has been these past thirteen years?
Let us take a look at the "Treasure good news": In 2009, 778 finds of Treasure were reported.
Divided by 8K "detectorists" that equals annually about 0.1 finds (and rewards) each. In other words, statistically, if you buy a metal detector and learn how to use it by the time you've been doing it keenly for ten years, you'll have found a Treasure and may be be eligible for a hefty six-figure reward (and if you've not, you are doing something 'wrong'). They don't like being called "Treasure hunters", but with odds like that it would seem that there is some justification for thinking that this is precisely what they are all hoping to find.
In 2009 113 parties waived their right to a reward in 71 Treasure cases, allowing those treasure finds to be acquired by museums at no (or reduced) public cost. So? The public should not have to be bearing the cost of buying back from Treasure Hunters the national heritage anyway. If the inquest rules it is national heritage and not the property of the landowner nor finder, then why is the nation buying it back? The news item is spare on details about which "parties" waived rights, how much was involved, how many were landowners, how many "finders"? Among the latter, what was the percentage split between artefact hunters and accidental finders (and the landowners participating in the two categories of cases)? Can we please know both the number and status (detectorist, landowner, householder, walker etc) of the waivees? (PAS isn’t shy of making such distinctions normally). Is any group less generous than the others? Why is this headlined (just to make the "partner" metal detectorists look good)?
If there were (say) only 70 detectorists that waived their reward and (say) 700 of the Treasure Finds were made by detectorists that would indicate a 10% reward waiving rate amongst the "heritage hero metal detectorists". Is this considered satisfactory? Does it indicate, by extension, 90% of PAS's "partners" are greedy ruffians only in it for the money they can get off a grateful state? Does not direct observation suggest that figure is low?
And are there not another two statistics at least which are significant by their absence? How many rewards were reduced because of a breach of the Code of Practice (for example not calling in the archaeologists until the best part of the find had been dug out even though it was clear that a treasure was involved?). Also, maybe the PAS can tell us how many times the initial valuation of the find was challenged (upwards) by the finder? We hear many "detectorists" are scathing of the valuations of the Treasure valuation Committee and there is an appeals process - so how many times has it been used in relation to how many finds? And what happens, how many times does the public end up paying even more to get their national treasures in public hands?
Another headline: "In 2009 67,089 finds were recorded with the Portable Antiquities database". That is just 8.38 finds added to this database per annum per metal detector (0.16 per week each) if we assume there are 8000 of them active out there in England and Wales. But they are not all being added by "metal detectorists" are they? In any case what is important from the point of archaeological preservation is the number of records (not how many finds were in a bad constituting the basis for one record) that is 39870 records, and of those 37828 were found by "metal detectorists". Divided by 8000, that is 4.7 objects a year each.
In 2010, if we ignore the intrusion of the external CCI and RIACW data in the PAS records, that is still 0.21 finds a week each which is clearly less than a sane person would get out of bed for: "Five weeks before a decent beep M8...".
Just 1240 "metal detectorists" finding c. 30 recordable artefacts and coins a year could contribute the 2009 data 'haul' to the PAS database. I suspect that many find many more, but let's stick with those figures. That would mean that (using the 8000 estimate) we are observing the same effect as we would see if 6700 of them showed nothing at all. We are therefore talking about 85% irresponsibility. Despite 13 years pumping 13 million quid, a lot of goodwill, perseverance, tolerance and persuasion into a Scheme, all that has been achieved among the "metal detectorists" of Britain and Wales is a token compliance which is the equivalent of a 15% success rate. "It is better than nothing" I am sure we'll hear from the Scheme and its supporters. Is it? I do not think so, because if we accept that 15% is unacceptable returns for all the resources expended, "nothing" implies Britain has to take another approach to so-called "metal detecting". And Britain should have done it thirteen years ago.
A reader urged me to take a closer look at the good news figures being produced for public digestion by the PAS ("News from the Scheme"). Well, the first thing one notes is there is no bad news there, no "yes, but", or "X,Y.Z is a matter for concern", is there? Are there NO concerns about artefact hunting as far as the PAS is concerned, nothing they would like the public purse to pump more money into it to deal with? Or are they quite happy with it ticking safely on more or less as it has been these past thirteen years?
Let us take a look at the "Treasure good news": In 2009, 778 finds of Treasure were reported.
Divided by 8K "detectorists" that equals annually about 0.1 finds (and rewards) each. In other words, statistically, if you buy a metal detector and learn how to use it by the time you've been doing it keenly for ten years, you'll have found a Treasure and may be be eligible for a hefty six-figure reward (and if you've not, you are doing something 'wrong'). They don't like being called "Treasure hunters", but with odds like that it would seem that there is some justification for thinking that this is precisely what they are all hoping to find.
In 2009 113 parties waived their right to a reward in 71 Treasure cases, allowing those treasure finds to be acquired by museums at no (or reduced) public cost. So? The public should not have to be bearing the cost of buying back from Treasure Hunters the national heritage anyway. If the inquest rules it is national heritage and not the property of the landowner nor finder, then why is the nation buying it back? The news item is spare on details about which "parties" waived rights, how much was involved, how many were landowners, how many "finders"? Among the latter, what was the percentage split between artefact hunters and accidental finders (and the landowners participating in the two categories of cases)? Can we please know both the number and status (detectorist, landowner, householder, walker etc) of the waivees? (PAS isn’t shy of making such distinctions normally). Is any group less generous than the others? Why is this headlined (just to make the "partner" metal detectorists look good)?
If there were (say) only 70 detectorists that waived their reward and (say) 700 of the Treasure Finds were made by detectorists that would indicate a 10% reward waiving rate amongst the "heritage hero metal detectorists". Is this considered satisfactory? Does it indicate, by extension, 90% of PAS's "partners" are greedy ruffians only in it for the money they can get off a grateful state? Does not direct observation suggest that figure is low?
And are there not another two statistics at least which are significant by their absence? How many rewards were reduced because of a breach of the Code of Practice (for example not calling in the archaeologists until the best part of the find had been dug out even though it was clear that a treasure was involved?). Also, maybe the PAS can tell us how many times the initial valuation of the find was challenged (upwards) by the finder? We hear many "detectorists" are scathing of the valuations of the Treasure valuation Committee and there is an appeals process - so how many times has it been used in relation to how many finds? And what happens, how many times does the public end up paying even more to get their national treasures in public hands?
Another headline: "In 2009 67,089 finds were recorded with the Portable Antiquities database". That is just 8.38 finds added to this database per annum per metal detector (0.16 per week each) if we assume there are 8000 of them active out there in England and Wales. But they are not all being added by "metal detectorists" are they? In any case what is important from the point of archaeological preservation is the number of records (not how many finds were in a bad constituting the basis for one record) that is 39870 records, and of those 37828 were found by "metal detectorists". Divided by 8000, that is 4.7 objects a year each.
In 2010, if we ignore the intrusion of the external CCI and RIACW data in the PAS records, that is still 0.21 finds a week each which is clearly less than a sane person would get out of bed for: "Five weeks before a decent beep M8...".
Just 1240 "metal detectorists" finding c. 30 recordable artefacts and coins a year could contribute the 2009 data 'haul' to the PAS database. I suspect that many find many more, but let's stick with those figures. That would mean that (using the 8000 estimate) we are observing the same effect as we would see if 6700 of them showed nothing at all. We are therefore talking about 85% irresponsibility. Despite 13 years pumping 13 million quid, a lot of goodwill, perseverance, tolerance and persuasion into a Scheme, all that has been achieved among the "metal detectorists" of Britain and Wales is a token compliance which is the equivalent of a 15% success rate. "It is better than nothing" I am sure we'll hear from the Scheme and its supporters. Is it? I do not think so, because if we accept that 15% is unacceptable returns for all the resources expended, "nothing" implies Britain has to take another approach to so-called "metal detecting". And Britain should have done it thirteen years ago.
I see you are still hot linking to my video's, the courts will just view you as a trouble maker, as your history goes back a long way. How many people have now threatened to sue you over the years. The reason you have not recieved anything yet from me, is I'm just too busy to deal with crap like you. But come November I take 3 months off. I can then spend 24/7 on you.
ReplyDeleteHave a nice day
I think we may assume (from the reference to "my" video) that ZeroZero is the "metal detectorist" known as "The Poulton Horde", "Steve the Barford Slayer" and a whole host of other online pseudonymous cryptoidentities. Steve Taylor in other words.
ReplyDeleteA link is an address where people can go to see I am not making it up when I say some artefact hunters contest the valuations given by the TVC. I think if they follow the link they will find an artefact hunter there complaining he was not given enough public money for handing over a bit of the common archaeological heritage he was obliged by law to hand over.
If Mr Taylor does not want people using him as an example of an ungrateful treasure hunter who complains about archaeologists, he should not put up complaining You Tube videos where he comes over precisely that way.
Maybe he could put up a video thanking British archaeologists and the public for letting him do (all day if he wants) something that would get him locked up in many other parts of Europe. And STILL "metal detectorists" like him want more. Scandal.
Mr Taylor and my readers might consider come "November" who is engaged here in getting British artefact hunting a bad name, me for writing about some of the issues involved in current British policies towards artefact hunters, or "metal detectorists" engaging in threatening behaviour and writing what they will do TO ME because of it.
Why can they not produce something articulate that shows I am wrong, rather than doing their level best to prove all the negative stereotypes about "metal detectorists" have some foundation? Rhetorical question. We can, I think, all infer why.