Talking about proportion of artefacts reported for recording by artefact hunters in Britain, I say it's a huge proportion of unreported artefacts (four in five at least, possibly as much as six out of seven) and the metal detectorists are in denial - but provide no reasoning behind proposing boldly things like "99% of detectorists record their finds". From Venice we hear: Riccardo Giovanelli@Riccardo_G W odpowiedzi do @martyngleaden @PortantIssues i jeszcze 5 osóbFor the uniniated, @PortantIssues is my Twitter handle. Anyway a metal detectorist expressed disdain for the conclusions I draw from many years researching artefact hunting in the UK, and justified then low numbers of eBay artefacts that have been recorded by PAS:
I’ll start to believe that is not as @PortantIssues is saying, when I’ll see every item I see on sell on the web accompanied by a PAS number and a link. For now, I see that this happens in a remote 1%
9:15 PM · 30 wrz 2019 z: Venezia, Veneto·Twitter for iPhone
Martyn Gleaden@martyngleaden·1 godz. W odpowiedzi do @Riccardo_G @PortantIssues i jeszcze 5 osóbThis is the same guy that, despite the bluff, the FLO exposes as not having recorded a single item in the PAS database.
A ridiculous statement. There is no requirement for any items displayed by detectorists to be accompanied by PAS numbers, and given the huge delay in getting finds recorded - nearly 3 years for one of my items submitted to an FLO - it's unlikely to happen any time soon.
This is a bit rich, the metal detectorist is clearly saying that the reason so many unrecorded British artefacts are being sold by UK-based dealers is because the FLOs are "slowing down" the process of getting the object out of the ground and onto eBay. It is taking too much time between the artefact coming out of the ground and getting it on sale, and the bulk of detectorists are in too much of a hurry to get the cash so don't bother? Eh? We've always been told that detectorists are allegedly "NOT in it for the money". Here's one of them apparently telling it like it is.
.jpg)
5 comments:
"This is the same guy that, despite the bluff, the FLO exposes as not having recorded a single item in the PAS database."
Interesting comment, especially as the FLO and her temporary assistant entered several of my items into the PAS database without necessarily mentioning me as finder. Also one of the Teaching Tools she uses is a polished Neolithic Stone Axehead I found locally and donated to her as the landowner didn't want it (and which took her nearly three years to record on the PAS) and she still holds a number of items of mine which she's held since before the Covid Pandemic spread. I can't lay any blame on her as she has been quite ill, only works part-time, and since Covid she has had to work from home.
I'm now, on her recommendation, training with the British Museum and PAS as a self-recorder, doing regular "Zoom" training courses to teach me how to enter finds onto the PAS. This will ensure that all my finds are speedily recorded into the PAS database.
I hope that this information will be received by you with something other than your general sneering disapprobation.
Dr. Martyn Gleaden PhD, MA, BSc, BEd
"I'm now, on her recommendation, training with the British Museum and PAS as a self-recorder, doing regular "Zoom" training courses to teach me how to enter finds onto the PAS. This will ensure that all my finds are speedily recorded into the PAS database."
And this is precisely why I question the value for archaeological research of the "data" on the PAS dtabase, a bloke has learnt from zoom "how to put anything he fancies onto the PAS database". The FLO does not have the object in their hand, cannot verify the identification beyond what an amateur photo shows, cannot ask more detailed questions about the findspot, cannot examine any documentation assigning title to the finder by the landowner and so on. By these means the "liaison" officer no longer does any archaeological liaison, and the PAS database simply becomes another website where random metal detectorists record random objects, like the UKDFD. So what are the arguments now for not simply defunding most of the FLO posts? I can't see any.
The FLO told me you'd not reported something, you say there are records there, but not under your name (how do you know if the names of finders is hidden to prevent other metal detectorists seeing them?). I'd take that up with them if I were you. The FLO and his assistant.
This is the axe is it? https://martyngleaden.co.uk/blog/2019/08/04/polished-stone-axe/
but isn't that from Dorset? So why give it to the Wilts FLO who'd "blotted his copybook"? Odd.
This is the axe, given to and recorded by the Dorset FLO so why do you say I'd given it to the Wilts FLO?
Yet another fanciful statement by you purported as fact but having no basis in reality [except the one you seem to inhabit where you have god-like powers of infallibility and everyone else is wrong].
Why do you feel the need to constantly belittle people? Is it that you need to put people down to boost your confidence since you feel inferior? It is one of the more common causes.
https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/772547
You are losing the thread, you are replying to the comment (follow it back) about the FLO that had said you'd not recorded anything with them. In Wiltshire. If you are talking now about another FLO, you should have made that clear instead of using it as a launchpad for your feeble ad hominems.
Post a Comment