Comments on Adam Daubney's Remarks on 'Storytelling' at PAS15

Dr Adam Daubney @ajdaubney has published in the form of a Twitter thread the gist of his talk at PAS15 (see here too). Here it is:

On the 12th October we had our annual PAS conference ("Recording Britain's Past)". My talk was on 'Sharing Knowledge', which is one of PAS's Strategic Objectives. For those interested in my paper but who weren't able to make it to the conference, here is an overview: I began by reading the opening paragraphs from Stevensons' #treasureisland. The story is hailed as one of the greatest adventure stories written, and is one which of course revolved around buried treasure. Artefacts, it seems, hold a special place in storytelling, regardless of whether the story is one being told to the general public, or one being told in academic journals. I would argue that all of the many ways in which we share knowledge with others is a form of storytelling. When we share knowledge, two things happen: first, we help people to learn about the past. Second, tell people what our values are; that finds are important, and that people have a right to knowledge, even if the law favours private ownership of finds. But, it is important to reflect on what exactly it is that we are trying to say, and also how our messages are being heard. Long John Silver's treasure is a lot of fun, but we still struggle to dislodge those sorts of connotations from the public's mind. England and Wales differs from most other European countries when it comes to heritage legislation; we have one of the most permissive systems in the world regarding the private ownership of antiquities. Many finds don't get reported, but at the same time we have one of the largest databases of public finds in the world. It is within this tension that I think the Scheme has its voice when it shares knowledge. There are many who would like to see greater regulation of metal detecting, including some metal detectorists themselves. If the law is unlikely to change, how do we ensure that we share knowledge in way that changes the culture to one in which non-reporting is seen as unethical? We tell stories. Naturally, some of our stories will confront bad practice, and will bring our ethics into conflict with those held by some individuals or organisations. The PAS is, of course, a pragmatic scheme, but being pragmatic doesn't mean we must compromise on our values We must ensure our stories are underpinned by our value. In ethics, 'value' denotes the "degree of importance of some thing or action, with the aim of determining what actions are best to do or what way is best to live. In essence, our values reflect what we think "ought to be"." We must take time to reflect on our values. Lasting cultural change will come when the general public understands the importance and ethics of a pro-recording culture. The stories we tell to the public should highlight our successes, but they must also call out the issues. And we do this for one simple reason – as is stated in our strategy – 'so that people might learn about the past, and the archaeology and history of their local area'. End.

That is a useful summary, and it would be great if  other papers presented at PAS15 were published, even if in summary form. I have a few comments, which are not so much a criticism of Adam Daubney (in my opinion one of the more reflective and responsive of all the FLOs when I have had a query) but an expansion, and attempt at discussion.

The Significance of Artefacts
As an archaeologist (and one who was for a while employed as a finds specialist), I am not so sure about the sentiment that artefacts hold such a special place in archaeological storytelling as a whole. In most project (excavation, survey) reports, they tend to appear in appendices, where they are used to substantiate the story told, which is based on the site and its stratigraphy/spatial characteristics. For me, that - establishing sequences of events in spatial terms and then going from that to social/cultural mechanisms behind them - is the 'story' that archaeology reveals. No? Even in syntheses of the story of a period or region, artefacts tend to appear as decoration, some bits of everyday life or 'art' to liven up the text and make the book marketable.

The Historical Narrative
I think we can all agree that the many ways in which we share knowledge with others is a form of storytelling, as historiography defines what is, and is created from, historical evidence. The problem is that the story must be founded in a full appreciation of the evidence, and when we have decontextualised evidence (like loose finds), that story must be compromised - even if we are dealing with 'addressed sources'. Here I think Elizabeth Marlowe's concept of 'grounding' needs to become more of a focus of attention among those who feel mere talking (storytelling/ narrativisation) about the artefacts is in itself a form of archaeology. I have reservations about treating it as such.

In any case, the stories the FLOs produce in their social media use tend to be of the lazy "on this day..." type soundbites illustrated by a coin (or in the Christmas season a calling bird and 'five gold rings'). Mrs Deidre Harris at 44 Myrtle Close can find the same information on Wikipedia. The BM Press Department is little better, tossing out easily digested dumbdown factoids to 'make archaeology relevant'.

Including Archaeological Values in the Story
What I think is important that Adam Daubney brought up in this context the issue of values. "when we share knowledge [...], we tell people what our values are" and "it is important to reflect on what exactly it is that we are trying to say". I would add "and how". I would, however, argue that this is an issue that - from the way we see it reflected in the attitudes and candid responses in many sectors of the PAS's audience - is simply not getting through to any useful degree. I am sure may of Dr Daubney's listers have the same reflection. It is not reaching the media (and the PAS do not help with this by dumbdown like 'Britains's Secret Treasures' and all that populist crap), it is not reaching finders (including/especially artefact hunters), artefact collectors (of any kind) and the general public. Adam Daubney says as much. After twenty years of PAS activity, still: "it is important to reflect [on] how our messages are being heard. Long John Silver's treasure is a lot of fun, but we still struggle to dislodge those sorts of connotations from the public's mind". Too true, and what, precisely, have the PAS actually done to dispell that? The focus on 'things', on little and big 'treasures' found can so easily simply reinforce the impression that archaeology is just about 'digging things up'. It obviously requires a lot of skill to use the sort of material PAS has to hand to present another picture - and the question is whether PAS has (or acquired) those skills.

Using the Narrative to Encourage the Protection of the Archaeological Record 
I like this bit, it sounds good doesn't it?

how do we ensure that we share knowledge in way that changes the culture to one in which non-reporting is seen as unethical? We tell stories. Naturally, some of our stories will confront bad practice, and will bring our ethics into conflict with those held by some individuals or organisations. [...] The PAS is, of course, a pragmatic scheme, but being pragmatic doesn't mean we must compromise on our values We must ensure our stories are underpinned by our value. [...] The stories we tell to the public should highlight our successes, but they must also call out the issues. 

I have many times argued that the way 'we' confront any of the issues should not consist largely of head-patting and saying cooing words of encouragement, for example (to pick out some of the most memorable in recent years) - the Kent FLO's reported "you done right" at Hollingbourne, the FLO being photographed getting her head down a narrow hole and herself scooping the loot into a carrier bag at Lenborough, the mouthy Durham FLO reporting on twitter how he'd just come back from backslapping the Bellingham hoard trashers. These may be represented by supporters as 'isolated mistakes - stuff happens', but as a long-term, avid and attentive PAS-watcher I sincerely doubt there is very much 'calling out of issues' by FLOs either privately, and certainly not in the social media. For this reason, we see time and time again (for example on MD forums), that PAS-partners (artefact hunters or not) have not the foggiest what the issues actually are. Some of them do not even seem aware there are issues beyond a puerile 'those (nasty) archaeologists dont like us and so we dont like them either'.

The Multi-Audience
The latter type of comment, frequently met, brings us to the issue of the lack of intellectual maturity and articulacy in much of the artefact hunting/collecting milieu (under a labour government it was OK to point out that a lot of them were from C2 and D and 'challenged by formal education'). This, because it is regarded as un-pc to draw attention to this factor, is underestimated by many supporters of the PAS-approach. It is, however, a huge hindrance to getting any more complex message across to certain segments of the public. In those cases, the stories cannot be too complicated, with 'too many words', or they'll not sink in in certain milieus. So how much can be achieved anyway through simply telling stories and hoping that the moral will be drawn? Mrs Harris, the history book club subscribing accountant from 44 Myrtle Close may get it, Gazza the metal detecting car mechanic from the Bellingham Road housing estate actually will not.

This shows the complication of the PAs situation, it deals with portable antiquities issues in the face of at least three completely separate (and even opposing) audiences. The first, and most numerous, are the general public (like Mrs Deidre Harris of Myrtle Close)  who actually pay for it. The stories they need are quite separate ones from Gazza with his girlie wall-calendars, metal detector and collection of hammies and denarii, who represents a minority of British society. And another (smaller?) minority are the archaeologists (including [real] amateur ones), academics, heritage professionals. Obviously the stories cannot at the moment be phrased in the same way for all three groups - but it is worth reflecting on why that is, and whether it should be like that. Surely if there (really) are 'responsible detectorists' (truly responsible), then the story they are told should in no way have to differ from those told to the other two groups. No? So the fact that most FLOs are afraid to say 'boo' to the ("responsible" metal detectorists should be telling us something, and I think that is a tellingly important something about the whole policy of appeasement. I doubt we'll see the PAS actually discussing this point.

I think in fact there is a fourth, even smaller group. I think we mighht do well to give some attention to the stories (miostly hidden away) that the PAs staff tell themselves and each other. I had a glance at this when i did a FOI request to see parts of their internal forum, I discussed what I found here a while ago, the superficial nature of what I saw was, in the circumstances, pretty shocking.

One of the Audiences, One of the Issues
Yes, whatever the law says, archaeological ethics are totally against trashing archaeological sites just to get a few collectable thingies out to pocket. How is that reflected in the stories FLOs tell the general public (most of whom are not collectors)?  Dr Daubney asks 'how do we ensure that we share knowledge in way that changes the culture to one in which non-reporting is seen as unethical? [...] Lasting cultural change will come when the general public understands the importance and ethics of a pro-recording culture'. I would ask why there is not a step further towards actually questioning the morals and ethics of pocketing of archaeological evidence by private collectors for their personal entertainment and profit in the first place and affecting public opinion as a way of curbing it (like wearing furs, drink driving and wild bird egg collecting)? Altering public perceptions and opinions are a step towards changing the law. The law will not change if nobody shows that it is important to do so. This, surely is the way to deal with the plague of collection-driven exploitation of sites all round the world. Why take just the insular view, why not put it in a wider context? Rescue has taken a good step forward, who will follow them?

As I said, fluff talk costs nothing, at the PAS15 conference nice words were said, maybe even discussed and reflected on, the question is how close do these desiderata, these fine words, match actual practice on the ground, both past and present - and what of the future? In this tension' does in fact the PAS 'find a voice'? Or are they aftraid that, if they said what they really should, a lot of artefact hunters would walk away and not bring them their pocketed stuff to record to boost their database? Is that what we call 'responsible artefact hunting'? Responsible in what way? Responsive to what?

The Need for a More Balanced and Honest Story
That is a story I have not ever heard the PAS telling us - for we too deserve to hear the PAS-story about those values and ethics. All the time we, and lawmakers, are told a simple quasi-archaeological fairy story, 'we done good this year', 'wotta lotta good stuff we got', now 'one million three hundred'... 'everything is super, we've got this more or less under control, just keep giving us the cash' (and 'if you wait, we can do even better if you give us more cash'). That's the fairy story we've been hearing now twenty years. Some of us have been questioning whether that version is the whole story, whether there is not a darker tale of spin and despair beneath the bright happy-happy facade. Of course, we are the spoil-sports, out to ruin a good story with out "fake news" (sic). Yet, surely the true story, warts and all, is what we need to decide if this is what we want. Because surely THIS is the space (the 'tension') where an archaeological scheme like the PAS should be finding its voice. Adam Daubney has made a good start. Who is going to pick up the discussion he has started? What stories, about what and for whom by 2020?