PAS Discover a Mistake - Look How They Deal With It

Doh

A while ago, David Knell - a collector specialising in ancient lamps - noted a mistake in the PAS database ('How reliable is the PAS database? (Part 2)' Ancient Heritage Friday, 16 November 2018). In record NMS-7EF821, an object found as an "Other chance find" (whatever that means) on "Cultivated land" (it does not much look plough-battered) on Wednesday 1st January 1986 was identified wrongly as a 

"Romano-British Moulded ceramic lamp [...o]f Wheeler's (1930) Type IIIB, known as a 'factory lamp' or firmalampe [...] Probably made in Gaul or Germany. 2nd or 3rd century".

Someone told them that it was being written about (see also: PMB, 'Syrian Artefact Laundered by PAS Database?', PACHI Friday, 16 November 2018) and on 21st November the record was preceded by "This lamp was originally described on this database as:" and then the following text was placed under the original:

"Recent online comments have made it quite clear that this identification is incorrect and that the object was made not earlier than the 5th to 6th century AD in northern Syria, and is of a very well-known type (Kennedy 1963, Type 20). It is extremely unlikely to have been lost or discarded in Norfolk in antiquity and is probably a fairly recent import".

Now the chronology of the object has also been amended:

"Broad period: EARLY MEDIEVAL Period from: EARLY MEDIEVAL Period to: EARLY MEDIEVAL Date from: AD 409 Date to: AD 800"

I am no expert on Syrian lamps, but it seems to me that the use of the type probably would have ended in this region well before the beginning of the ninth century AD. This is just introducing false information into the literature, it does not mean that the British Museum has firm evidence that the use of Kennedy Type 20 lamps extended into early Abbasid times, but that this is a conventional date for the end of the general 'early Medieval' period in England. Bonkers - and potentially confusing.

Interestingly, the 'References cited' section of that entry still reads (only) "Wheeler, R.E.M., 1930 London In Roman Times London: London Museum Catalogues: No. 3", and instead of citing a page reference we just get "Type IIIB" (!). Since however in the amended desccription we find a reference to another author, we might expect that too to appear here, but it does not. Apparently it was too much of an effort for someone to get off the chair and go to the bookshelf and find a copy of

Kennedy, Ch. A. 1963, 'Development of the lamp in Palestine', Berytus 14, 1961-63,2, p. 67-115.

Equally, it was apparently beyond the dignity of the 'Anonymous Amender' (surely entries to the database should be attributed) to actually mention David Knell and his 'Ancient Heritage' blog as the source of the new information, perhaps unwilling to dmit that a collector was better informed about the typology of thios particular form of object than their own 'archaeologist experts'. The effect of the silence about this however adds an 'Anonymous Informant' to the 'Anonymous Amender' of yet another hotchpotch description in the PAS 'database'. How can we tell how reliable the PAS database is as a basic record (the question Knell was asking) if anonymous editing and additions are sneaked in as the fancy takes one or more of its compilers?

Once again, another pathetic showing and unprofessional approach to data collection and presentation from the PAS.