.
This is a favourite histogram for supporters of the PAS to parade. They say it shows the "PAS success in getting artefact hunters to report Treasure finds". We are supposed to be delighted in the sharp rise of the curve for PAS-land (England and, at the moment, Wales) and the lack of such a rise in the part of Great Britain that has no PAS (Scotland - and where's Northern Ireland?). Let's have a look.
Several things here. First of all a new law on Treasure came in already in 1996. From that date every artefact hunter who found artefacts falling under the Act were obliged by law to report them. Now it is one of the mantras that the PAS propagates on behalf of its partners, "most metal detectorists in England and Wales are responsible and law abiding". Where is the evidence of that on this histogram? If the rate of finding hoards and the number of metal detectorists has been constant, between 1996 and 2003 the metal detectorists in the area concerned had been reporting LESS THAN HALF of the material they were legally obliged to report. In fact by that criterion between 1997 and 2008 some 4940 Treasure finds could well have been dug up by Treasure hunters and disappeared without a trace. What evidence is there here in support of the "responsible and law-abiding" mantra? Five thousand treasure items gone. And what about those lost to treasure hunters before 1997?
The second thing we note here is the lack of an abrupt drop at the time of the February 2001-February 2002 Foot and Mouth outbreak when PAS reporting figure drop sharply. This suggests that artefact hunters were not prevented for going out in the fields enough to curb their treasure hunting activities, and the falloff in reported finds niumbers in the PAS database has to be explained by other means.
What I think is lacking in the PAS presentation of these figures is the degree to which they represent the abandonment of illegal practices, and the degree to which they represent an increasing intensity of searching. The figures for Scotland seem to depict a relatively steady number of reported finds made each year, the area has no Portable Antiquities Scheme "partnering" artefact hunters. In England and Wales, there is an intensity of reporting of Treasure finds, to what extent is this reflecting a huge growth in the number of people taking up artefact hunting under PAS patronage? Why do the PAS present it only in terms of one model, without even addressing the issue of whether the figures might not instead be a reflection of the other? Rather than a conservation success, this histogram could be a dramatic representation of the increasing scale of the damage - for many of these hoards are clearly coming from undisturbed deposits below plough level.
This is a favourite histogram for supporters of the PAS to parade. They say it shows the "PAS success in getting artefact hunters to report Treasure finds". We are supposed to be delighted in the sharp rise of the curve for PAS-land (England and, at the moment, Wales) and the lack of such a rise in the part of Great Britain that has no PAS (Scotland - and where's Northern Ireland?). Let's have a look.
Several things here. First of all a new law on Treasure came in already in 1996. From that date every artefact hunter who found artefacts falling under the Act were obliged by law to report them. Now it is one of the mantras that the PAS propagates on behalf of its partners, "most metal detectorists in England and Wales are responsible and law abiding". Where is the evidence of that on this histogram? If the rate of finding hoards and the number of metal detectorists has been constant, between 1996 and 2003 the metal detectorists in the area concerned had been reporting LESS THAN HALF of the material they were legally obliged to report. In fact by that criterion between 1997 and 2008 some 4940 Treasure finds could well have been dug up by Treasure hunters and disappeared without a trace. What evidence is there here in support of the "responsible and law-abiding" mantra? Five thousand treasure items gone. And what about those lost to treasure hunters before 1997?
The second thing we note here is the lack of an abrupt drop at the time of the February 2001-February 2002 Foot and Mouth outbreak when PAS reporting figure drop sharply. This suggests that artefact hunters were not prevented for going out in the fields enough to curb their treasure hunting activities, and the falloff in reported finds niumbers in the PAS database has to be explained by other means.
What I think is lacking in the PAS presentation of these figures is the degree to which they represent the abandonment of illegal practices, and the degree to which they represent an increasing intensity of searching. The figures for Scotland seem to depict a relatively steady number of reported finds made each year, the area has no Portable Antiquities Scheme "partnering" artefact hunters. In England and Wales, there is an intensity of reporting of Treasure finds, to what extent is this reflecting a huge growth in the number of people taking up artefact hunting under PAS patronage? Why do the PAS present it only in terms of one model, without even addressing the issue of whether the figures might not instead be a reflection of the other? Rather than a conservation success, this histogram could be a dramatic representation of the increasing scale of the damage - for many of these hoards are clearly coming from undisturbed deposits below plough level.
No comments:
Post a Comment