2018 Review of the Portable Antiquities Scheme

Bloomsbury HQ

In November 2017, just after the PAS passed its twentieth anniversaty, the British Museum commissioned a group called DCResearch to reviw the PAS again (the last one was the 2008 review for the MLA). This 'Review of the Portable Antiquities Scheme Partnership Model' is undated, but was published online about 28th March 2018 without much of a fanfare. The authors are so embarrassed (or scared) by the results that they remain anonymous (though the website reveals that they might have included Jonathan Durnin, Dr Stephen Connolly and Lynn Connolly plus maybe others). The intent of the Review was to

review the Portable Antiquities Scheme's Partnership Model [...] the overall sustainability of PAS, both in its current funding context and also in terms of future opportunities[...]. The review also captured the benefits that PAS generates for its 33 partners, through understanding the range of different approaches to how the service is delivered, and the role and contribution of partners, including goodwill, in-cash and in-kind support provided.

The text falls rather short of what one might have expected, its a pretty poor and superficial account, skipping over a whole number of issues that should be present in a full review of the 'partnership' relations of the PAS. Once again, the issue of the degree of mitigation of information loss through Collection-Driven Exploitation of the archaeological record continuing under this 'partnership' is totally sidestepped. The report admits (p. 5) that some of those collaborating it its running see the Scheme as one "that records and catalogues metal detector finds" and (p. 8) "supports collecting and collections activities" (70% of respondents) and (p. 9) is "engaging with people who would not normally interact with museums or archaeological services".

Instead of the research and observations of the unnamed researchers, it seems (p. 4) that the main form of information gathering was from questionaires filled in by 26 FLOs and some of their regional partners (just 76 in total). There was also consultation with with key British Museum staff and PAS Advisory Group Members; and a small sample of partners (listed on p. 24). A substantial part of the first page of the report ('Introducing the PAS')is largely cut and pasted from the PAS website itself.

In section three of the report, we are given the current parlous state of the 'partnership'. What comes out clearly here is that the PAS is no longer the national scheme it became in 2003, but a group of scattered staff often working in isolation across the regions with a lack of clarity about who does what (the PAS Advisory Group for example).

[It emerged that] some FLOs can feel very frustrated, isolated, and feel poorly supported by either their host or the British Museum. This issue is often connected to remuneration, how their terms and conditions compare to others in the scheme; pressures in terms of travel; the ability to source materials; and expectations from finders [...] Many Scheme staff are clearly feeling undervalued. [...] Most highlighted the Scheme;'s future funding sustainability as a source of significant concern (pp 11 and 13)

Respondents identified a fundamental problem with collaborative working in that the management of both sides (British Museum and local partners) see their contribution as a generous gift which benefits the other side” (p. 19):

Partners feel that whilst communication has improved over the last few years, the British Museum still manages the scheme from the ‘top down’. PAS staff can often feel conflicted in trying to be accountable to two different organisations, one of which provides core funding and sets priorities, the other that supplements funding, provides in-kind support, and shoulders risk and liability. [...] The PAS Team at the British Museum needs to be empowered, and needs to be seen by partners to be empowered, to lead the Scheme as part of the British Museum’s core partnership activity. Currently partners perceive PAS in a British Museum context as being peripheral and reactive (“it gets the work done, but fails to address the problems it faces as a major issue……lost its passion for doing what it does best”), and without such empowerment, and the ability to consult and involve, partners are likely to disengage.

The review stresses the current ad hoc nature of PAS management of people and programmes, and see much room for improvement (p. 20):

Many suggestions for improving PAS highlighted a desire for a clearer and more centralised structure, with some suggesting a core role for the British Museum in terms of profile/identity, decision making. Some went further, suggesting that all FLOs could be employed by a single employer. Clarity on the purpose of PAS was also felt to be needed (“Is it there to record finds, engage with communities or work with museums? There must be a core purpose to focus on”). [...] A number of respondents felt that employment arrangements could be harmonised (“a clear job description for partners to follow, with what is expected from them”), although others suggested that expectations around the FLO role should be more flexible to take account of locality and partner circumstances. 

Pages 13-16 of the report deal with the all-important issue of concerns about funding and sustainability. Many respondents and most consultees see the survival of PAS as a national scheme as testament to 'the overall effectiveness of the model', but stress that 'the original funding arrangements were not designed to serve the Scheme for as long as they have'.

To be sustainable beyond the immediate short term (i.e. beyond the current funding arrangements to March 2019), PAS now needs to directly address a number of challenges that [it] has previously been able to navigate around. 

A core issue is the question of funding agreements. Many respondents felt (p. 20) that centralised core funding was fundamental to the future of the scheme:

The issue of annual funding agreements, and their timing, is undermining both the viability and partnership credibility of PAS, and needs to be quickly addressed by the British Museum. The Scheme cannot expect host partners to continue delivery of the core elements of the scheme under such arrangements, and it is difficult to see how any fundraising or project/programme opportunities can be developed by the scheme when core funding is so uncertain. Few, if any, partners would commit to a new partnership initiative on the same basis. The British Museum needs to demonstrate its commitment to the PAS partnership by offering longer term funding arrangements, at least for the term of its own funding agreements, and ideally for three years.    [...] However, given the core and partnership funding constraints faced by the Scheme, most consultees feel that PAS is now at the point where greater operational flexibility is necessary to maintain the principle of national coverage.

Table 4.1 (p. 21) presents some of the opportunities to raise funding 'over the next five years' (p 20). Respondents highlightd the need for additional resources - it was suggested that the BM could use its expertise and influence to generate income by allowing the PAS to become a separate trust' (p. 20). The first suggestion on financing the Scheme is going to be a controversial one: 'introduce a 'Treasure tax' or levy to fund PAS, a % of all Treasure finds used to fund PAS' (!!) and 'make metal detectoring (sic) licensed through payment of a yearly fee' with this given as a funding solution - 'mandatory licensing of detectorists (potentially administered through PAS)' - they see this as an adaptation of 'mudlark permits'. Another way they see of raising funds is 'consider how skills of FLOs could be developed to generate income' and 'char[g]ing for developing high resolution imaging of finds [brought to the Scheme by finders]' and the PAS 'producing specialist finds reports for commercial units, developers etc, provision of training courses' and 'schools and HE workshops' and... 'charging [finders?] for expert work, attendance at rallies etc.'.

I look forward to seeing the reaction of UK 'metal detectorists' on their forums and the NCMD in the next few weeks as the meaning of those words, and the attitudes towards artefact huntng and collecting behind them they reveal, sink in.