To be honest, I do not think one could have a simpler question than the one Heritage Action posed for the UK archaeological community (supposing there is such a thing ion the UK) to answer:
"Is wanton failure to report recordable metal detecting finds immoral? Or not?"It's a yes-no question. Yet nobody seems willing to answer it. Nobody, except metal detectorist Ian Cole that is (05/06/2014 at 21:50)
The main problem os (sic)with the FLO’s (sic) them selves(sic). When recorded items are not returneed (sic), do not appear on the PAS site for years. Treasure cases sit unsubmitted in FLO’s (sic) offices. FLO does not return phone calls, emails , even after numerous requests. Why should detectorists waste time tring (sic) to record finds if they are treated as some kind sub human species by the very people employed to record finds. A viscous (sic) circle is now enveloping (sic) the whole scheme – I dont record because the FLO doesnt record! I suggest you look closer to home for reasons that detectorists dont or cant be bothered to record [...] the whole scheme fails apart when Finds Liason Officers do not do their job as first contact recorders . I have a treasure case that was submitted last July and the BM have no details of it . Who is failing in their responsabilities in this case then ?Treasure cases should (by Law) be reported by the finder to the Coroner. The FLO should not have them in their offices.To blame non-recording on the very institution set up to engage in it is ludicrous. If the PAS is under-resourced and unable to keep up with the demands caused by thousands of responsible detectorists handing stuff it, let the responsible detectorists lead a push for the PAS to get more resources and find an established place in the heritage management system of England and (for the moment) Wales.
No comments:
Post a Comment