Wednesday, 9 March 2022
Time-Travelling Metal Detectorists Visit the PAS: How Reliable is the PAS Database?
An undergrad doing research asked me a question just now and I said "You know you can sort PAS records by the year the objects were found in, right?", and thought I'd provide a link to help them look at that and before I set it up, find that the statistics for 2022 reveal that of the 9903 objcts recorded (in 8426 records) since Jan 1st to today... 3705 were found in no known year (ie not now) and 72 before the Scheme was set up. One was reportedly found by a returning time-travelling metal detectorist in 2024 and a second was found in 2028. So at least a third of these records do not constitute mitigation of damage going on day after day right now with 27000 artefact hunters out there, but some of the records are simply FALSE and nobody's checking them. If you can get a date wrongh and not have it spotted, how many grid references can you get equally wrong?
Just to put that in context. I have an artefact erosion counter that is an extension of the Heritage Action one. You can look up what theirs says about the situation if it makes you feel better, but mine says that since 1st January 2022 by mid afternoon on March 8th (67 days), 27000 artefact hunters all over the country have most likely pocketed 194777 recordable artefacts (roughly 2900 a day ). And the PAS managed to record 9903-3777= 6126 (ie the equivalent of TWO DAYS' HAUL). That is more than pathetic.
PS. The Heritage Action one shows 53,561 recordable artefacts pocketed by its "8,000 active detectorists in England and Wales". IS that actually any better?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Well my learned friend, here is an observation you may wish to slide through your Gobbellsian comment modifier and regurgitate at the end of it your, not my conclusion. My local museum, which I visit often has a vast and varied collection of discoveries on display including both archaeological and non, by which I mean accidental, deliberate, or intentional, let me explain, archaeological is usually the result of a chance find by a member of the public, be it pottery, a stone wall which he or she has uncovered digging for potatoes, etc. So we fill the museum with pictures of stone walls, pottery shards, and photos of bearded gents in funny-looking hats wearing dirty worn pullovers and wonder why the general public flock to the cases filled with ancient coins, artifacts, relics of the past all uncovered by normal members of the public such as myself? I realise that archaeology plays a very very important role in uncovering our past, but do not assume that it gives you carte-blanch to oversee every aspect of it.
As a post-comment on my pre-comment, I am holding my breath...
Well, actually Nonny, not only do you seem as incapable of writing your own name under your own post as you are composing a sentence in grammatical English, you seem to have problems understanding the DIFFERENCE between the Portable Antiquities Scheme database for finds made in 2022 and a museum. It's probably because your FLO is not very good at explaining.
Two spelling errors in Goebbelsian, so maybe not such an "ordinary member of the public"!
Post a Comment