Detecting Under the Microscope: "Don't Bother About the Policies", PAS Official

.
In his presentation to the March 2010 Newcastle Conference we find Dr Michael Lewis of the PAS extolling the head in the sand approach:

Upon hearing the views sometimes expressed by certain archaeologists or representatives of the metal-detecting community it is too easy to believe that relations between the two sides hasn’t improved much since the bad old days! However, reality is quite different. Whilst a minority embroil themselves in the politics of ‘liaison’, those on the ground - the man in the field, as it were - would rather get on with it, accepting that cooperation is mutually beneficial and the right thing to do.

Yes, the metal detectorist in the field has a lot to benefit from asserting that "most metal detectorists are responsible, get off our case", while not bothering too much whether or not it is true. The PAS legitimises artefact hunting in the UK, the Scheme calls collectors or archaeological artefacts its "partners", and it defends their activities with precisely the type of statement as we see above. It should however recognize that not everybody whose concern is the conservation of archaeological sites and the archaeological record believes that cooperation in the mining of both for the sake of accumulating a personal collection of archaeological artefacts for pleasure and profit is indeed "the right thing to do". It would get many an archaeologist in another country a jail sentence.

The evidence that there are a huge number of "Grey" archaeological finds which never get reported is pretty strong, but ignored here. Lewis talks glibly of "the Scheme’s inability to record every item found" and "FLOs are unable to record every object found". Yet he insists that the "66000" objects the PAS currently can record a year more than compensates for the loss of the other information caused by letting artefact hunters hoover sites for collectables more or less where they want. The alternative, he says would be "most archaeological objects would perpetually remain in the soil - ‘preserved in situ’, never to be excavated". He suggests that if this were the case "many" (how many, 66000 a year?) would be lost to archaeological research because they would be "subject to agricultural damage, or looted". Again, this is object-centred, 'damaged' objects are the collector's worry, only if the object was substantially destroyed by agricultural damage would they be unusable for any archaeological purpose. But eBay suggests that year in, year out, there is no shortage of relatively undamaged archaeological artefacts coming out of the ground, probably largely as a result of artefact hunting by PAS' "partners".

Dr Lewis reckons, without citing any sources for his conclusions, that education, co-operation and self-regulation offer the best ways ahead:

Sometimes it is easy to see legislation as the answer, but banning or restricting metal detecting is unlikely to be enforced, even if it were ever enacted! Instead, we must seek to educate the ignorant and ostracise the unwilling.

Why does he say that? If a certain activity with metal detectors is illegal, he assures his audience, that nobody really is going to enforce it. So Britain is not really going to go after so-called "nighthawks" then? How much progress has the PAS made in enforcing "best practice" by "ostracising the unwilling"?  (This sounds like one of those schoolyard cliques, "we're not speaking to you, you've got the cooties!"). So, if Bazza Thugwit is ostracised by the PAS and local detecting club members, what effect does that have? Does Bazza Thugwit WANT to be accepted by the PAS and the local detecting society, or does Bazza Thugwit think, like John Howland for example that both are scoundrels and CBA-submissive nancy boys that he wants nothing to do with. Is Mr Howland "ostracised", and what good does that do anyone or the archaeological heritage?

Finally Dr Lewis warns:

The challenge for us all is how we deal with those at both ends of the spectrum who look back with suspicion and resentment: the archaeologist, who has no realistic or practical alternative to PAS, who would rather put his head in the sand and pretend metal-detecting, legal or otherwise, did not exist [...].

And just how does the PAS intend to deal with the archaeologists who criticise current policies? How does he know whether they have an "alternative to the PAS" and whether or not it is more or less "realistic or practical" than calling artefact hunters "partners" and standing right behind them as they continue to erode the archaeological record? Have they actually tried discussing the issues they raise, or have they consistently avoided doing so? I do not think anybody "pretends artefact hunting does not exist" what is being questioned is whether the response Britain has chosen is the appropriate one, and from what point of view.

 

Minister Vaisey here hits the nail on the head, with the expenditure of a bit of everybody's cash on the PAS British politicians can pretend to the general public that they are doing something to protect the heritage, and by putting the archaeological outreach to that same general public in the hands of the people they are giving that money to, they ensure that the message the stakeholders (those whose heritage it is and those that are having to pay the bill) are getting is fully consistent with the Party Line. Anyone who says it ain't so is a "Troll". It is easier for all concerned to pretend there is no real problem than actually face it - and who then has their heads in the sand?