Metal detecting artefact hunter "Boothy" (not his real name) attacks what Heritage Action are saying about the desirability of more UK artefact hunters more conscientiously reporting their finds. Addressing in personal terms Nigel Swift, Heritage Action chairman, he asserts his belief that (despite the fifteen-million quid Portable Antiquities Scheme to actually do this), it is unlikely that archaeologists in the UK actually want fuller recording of artefacts taken by artefact hunters from the archaeological record to add to their ephemeral personal artefact collections. In fact he even asserts "that’s not really the case is it Nigel?":
In a perfect world, a world that will never happen, then we would record, examine and log every little button, broken buckle or common as muck Elizabethan sixpence... for what???. No, we live in a real world and reality is far from perfect but we get by and we manage the imperfection by focusing on what REALLY matters. You see Nigel, your take on matters is at times quiet (sic) bizarre ....That the reality behind what metal detectorists do to the buried heritage of the British Isles is far from perfect, we all know. Aside from the legalities, the current legitimacy of the hobby is founded on one thing only, the notion that by throwing considerable resources at the archaeological damage and erosion caused by this minority among the English (and for the moment, Welsh) public, we have the problem under control. That requires us to believe that the recording that is going on is reasonably complete. The problem artefact hunters have with Heritage Action is the stress they place upon that point, and the fact that they demonstrate that it is very unlikely that the PAS is achieving anything like reasonably complete coverage. In fact their figures indicate the PAS is a dismal failure in that regard, and arguments based on breathless "wottalottastuffwegot" blandishing blarney fall short of providing justification for continiuing current policies.
So it is that "Boothy" tries to convince us that a partial "something is better than nothing" and recording does not really matter (and furthermore is not what "archaeologists" want anyway). He also asserts what Heritage Action and myself have been saying all along, that no matter how much blandish and cajoling the PAS apply, they will not make "partners" of the metal detecting fraternity as a whole. This is an idealised view of the world envisaging a conversion "that will never happen". "Boothy" fails to explain what he understands by the notion of "what REALLY matters" when considering the preservation of the archaeological resource from damage and erosion by artefact hunting and collecting.
"Boothy" seems not to have been reached by any of the UK's fifteen-million quid "outreach" explaining to him, and anyone else, "for what?" this recording is done. He does not know. Instead though of turning to the PAS with that question, he addresses it to Nigel Swift (!). This is another indication of how far the PAS is failing in its mission - quite apart from the fact that they have not provided the opportunity for Mr Swift to answer the question by pointing the enquirer to a full and detailed discussion of the issue posted up on the PAS website. the website is wholly naked of such discussion and explanation of anything remotely connected with the actual archaeology behind the Scheme. A telling ommission I would say.
So it is Heritage Action that are at fault suggesting that if metal detectorists are taking such things there should be examination and recording of "every little button, broken buckle or common as muck Elizabethan sixpence"? well, first of all the PAS does explicitly state (whether or not sincerely is another matter) that they want to see everything ("it is often best to let the Finds Liaison Officer see all your finds, especially if you are unsure what they are..."). As anyone can repeatedly see on a detecting forum, while some tekkies can identify many of their finds, others have not a clue. The whole idea of having the PS is so a group of trained observers (archaeologists) gives all the finds taken from each individual spot a looking-over. This way archaeological artefacts not identified as such by the collector will not be discarded. that's the idea. the fact that most artefact hunters already conduct a selection before they take anything to the FLO means that potential archaeological evidence (of little interest to a collector) is being missed and discarded.
We see such a dismissive attitude in what "Boothy" writes about "every little button, broken buckle or common as muck Elizabethan sixpence". Yet even (or perhaps especially) it is the common-as-muck (sic) finds, or more accurately their ubiquity that is a prime source of information. What would happen in FLOs in one part of the country start recording coins of Elizabeth I and FLOs in another region of the county reject them for recording? What happens if FLOs in other regions only record them if they are fully legible and not worn, while others are recording in their county examples regardless of how worn away the design is? What happens when one FLO is replaced by another who adopts a different approach? Obviously any future attempt to use the PAS database with all those subjective choices involved in its creation is going to lead to false conclusions (or the inability to make inferences on its basis). In both cases the question is raised, just what is the point of making at vast cost a database that cannot be used for anuyything "except ogling the goodies" because it is created from inconsistently-collected "data"? We really need to know about the patterns of selection and rejection the PAS database embodies, but oddly enouygh after fifteen years we have no widely-disseminated information of this kind whatsoever from the PAS itself.
Obviously the database has no meaning if it records some, but not all, "little buttons", some, but not all, "broken buckles" and some, but not all, hammered post-medieval coin losses. In such a case it is just a loose random selection of narratives about some collectable geegaws. Either the job of mitigating the damage to the archaeological record by artefact hunting and collecting should be done properly (and that means to consistent standards and striving for completeness) or the PAS should pack up and stop wasting everybody's time and money on a Scheme that will not, and never can, work.
No comments:
Post a Comment