The Future Shape of the PAS (2) The Answers to 20 Questions

I have given the PAS answer to the first of my twenty questions in the post above. Here are the other nineteen questions and answers. I will comment on them in the post below.

2) If the national scheme has now been subsumed by the education and outreach department of a museum, what changes does this impose on its scope, affordances and duties?

There are no changes to these areas.

3) What will happen when (as seems very likely now) some local partners decline to invest scarce local authority funds in participation in a BM LVA-run scheme in place of the prestigious national one of which they have hitherto been a part?

The British Museum has active relationships with museums and other partners all across the UK. The details of this work can be found on the British Museum website at http://www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/tours_and_loans/uk_loans_and_tours.aspx The PAS retains its national reach across England and Wales, and the local partners remain core to its delivery.
4) Since the changes affect their own status, were the local partners consulted on the proposals to downgrade the PAS and in what form? What other bodies were consulted and which were not?

There is no downgrade to PAS and the status of the British Museum’s relationship with our partners in the PAS has not changed. As PAS looks to the future, we continue to consult with local and national partners on future strategy.

The Treasure Act and Heritage Policy

5) Does the change in management of the PAS affect in any way the so-called Treasure Process? Will this affect the process whereby external museums are notified of objects going through the process? What about relationships between FLOs and Coroners? And the relationship between the TVC and the LVA? 

There are no changes to these areas.

6) Will the LVA-PAS be joining other organizations lobbying the government with the aim of broadening the scope of Treasure in response to cases like the Crosby Garrett helmet? 

The British Museum continues to work closely with the DCMS and others on the proposed review of the Treasure Act Code of Practice. As part of this process there will be a public consultation on any changes to the definition of Treasure and other aspects regarding the administration of Treasure.

7) What input does the LVA envisage making in national heritage policy concerning, for example artefact hunting, and how?

The British Museum continues to be advised by the Portable Antiquities Advisory Group (PAAG), which includes the main archaeological bodies, landowner and metal-detecting organisations. This group discusses portable antiquities issues, and helps inform national heritage policy. .

Mitigation of Information Loss (Valetta Art 2 and 3)

8) It is clear that many thousands of artefacts are found annually by members of the public which do not for various reasons get recorded by the PAS. In the case of artefact hunting – if UK policy is not to change - it is especially important that the deliberate and unsystematic taking of elements of the archaeological record for entertainment and profit is mitigated by as full a record as possible. What measures will the LVA be taking to ensure this aim is met to the degree required to mitigate a major portion of the knowledge lost through artefact hunting? 

The PAS aims to record as many archaeological items found by the public as possible. Recording finds with the PAS is voluntary so we are dependent upon the goodwill of finders and the support of the metal-detecting organisations to that aim. Obviously some people do not wish to record their finds, which is frustrating, and a loss to the archaeological record. Through PASt Explorers we are hoping finders themselves, and other volunteers, will contribute to the recording effort.
9) The whole purpose of the PAS was to create a framework for direct liaison between professional archaeologists and finders, during which an opportunity was created for education/outreach on all aspects of best practice, for example in artefact hunting. How will this now be achieved in a scheme staffed by volunteers without the background and experience of the former FLOs?

The PAS is not staffed by volunteers. Its front-line remains (and will remain) the Finds Liaison Officers.

Database

10) Will higher level access to the database for research purposes from now on be assigned by the staff of the LVA or D and P?

There will be no changes in this area. PAS staff will continue to do this.

11) Will database entry be controlled by the staff or the LVA of D and P? What about data entry quality, who is now responsible for the progress of verification of the records which has been lagging behind in recent months?

There will be no changes in this area. The Finds Advisers remain responsible for the quality of data, supported by PASt Explorers project officers for volunteer records.

12) While volunteers can no doubt be ‘trained’ to deal with simple artefact types (coins, brooches and strapends for example) by comparing the object in the hand with pictures in a book or catalogue, matters are not so simple with artefacts (such as pottery fabrics or lithics) which require specialist knowledge and experience to process and adequately ‘preserve by record’. How is it proposed to deal with this issue if a proportion of the recording of many finds brought to the PAS is to be done by outside volunteers? Or will such artefacts brought to the LVA’s volunteer scheme be left unrecorded for want of suitable staff to deal with them? 

All people entering data on the PAS database will be trained and supported by the Finds Advisers to ensure high data standards. PASt Explorers provides training for volunteers, and their progress will be monitored and supported by PAS staff, including FLOs and Finds Advisers. 

13) When material is assigned to ‘Community recorders’ by LVA, are the same criteria of selection adopted as when it is being recorded by the FLOs or are there differences in the datasets being created by these groups, and how will that affect the use of the archive as a resource for research? 

Volunteers’ work is co-ordinated by FLOs, and volunteers are assigned tasks agreed with staff. They do not work unsupported.

14) When the information by the ‘Community recorders’ is incorporated into the database, will it be distinguishable in any way? 

Everyone working for PAS has a unique user account.

15) Given the possibilities for ‘laundering’ of provenance offered by the PAS database, and several known cases of objects being reported to FLOs with false provenances (which hints there may be undiscovered cases lurking in the ‘data’) in what way does the LVA envisage closer vetting of findspot information offered by finders? 

Findspots are recorded on the basis of trust. If there is a breach of that trust then the British Museum will take appropriate action.

16) Will turnaround time be shortened?

The length of time taken to record finds depends on the find/s and the workload of the FLO, but how long an object will take to record is communicated with the finder. With volunteer support it is intended that more finds can be recorded and turnaround time shortened.

Social Media and Audiences

17) Are there any plans in the LVA for the creation of a public forum to allow active interaction between the many audiences of the PAS about the current developments? This would be a logical move, but instead you seem to have adopted a ‘top-down’ blog format. 

The British Museum is advised by the PAAG as the forum for discussing UK portable antiquities issues; members of that group represent people who are very aware of the issues discussed elsewhere, not just online.

18) Does the LVA have a policy of openness regarding use of social media such as Twitter and facebook by its staff to keep the audiences in touch with the day to day operation of the Scheme and flag up issues?

The British Museum encourages FLOs to highlight their work via social media.

Public Outreach

19) From previous BM press releases about portable antiquities, the public has received a picture of archaeology which is predominantly merely about „digging up things about which stories can be told”. This object-centric view of the past common to collectors and dealers is damaging to the public perception of archaeology, its aims and methods. Can we hope that it is the aim of the LVA to break out of this and to present a more nuanced manner of outreach presenting a more holistic picture of archaeology, and if so, how? 

The British Museum, through PAS and in many other ways, makes a significant contribution to archaeological knowledge, helping to inform academic research, archaeological fieldwork and also heritage protection.  The public fascination with important new finds is one way to engage people with broader issues and bring them to a more nuanced understanding.

20) There is a paradox in that, though most countries in the rest of the world have legislation to prevent the digging up and collection of objects taken from the archaeological record for personal profit and entertainment, Britain has set up a Scheme which encourages such an activity. This is damaging to the efforts of foreign colleagues trying to fight the antiquities trade which is doing so much damage to the archaeological record in, for example, the Middle East. The British Museum has in recent months taken a more active role in condemning the destruction abroad (in Egypt and Syria for example), but what will the LVA do to explain to the British public the nature and reasons (and justification) for the existence of the paradox that what we condemn when done in Isin (Iraq) is praised when done in Islip (UK)? If archaeological bodies in Britain were to start another Stop Taking Our Past campaign against irresponsible artefact collecting, would the LVA support it?

The British Museum believes that responsible metal-detecting provides a useful archaeological tool, helping to bring to light new sites and open up new avenues of research and knowledge. The PAS, with its partners, aims to ensure these finds add to the archaeological record for the benefit of all. With the same purpose, the British Museum’s work in Egypt and Iraq is to support experts and colleagues in those regions to safeguard and record sites and collections at risk for future research and enjoyment.

I would like to thank the LVA staff for the answers to these questions which allow an insight into what is going on.

The Future Shape of the PAS (3) Comments

Below are my comments on the replies received to the questions I submitted to the LVA about their running of the new PAS

The first section of my questions referred to 'The Fate of the National Scheme'. In reply to my first question, the PAS seems to be denying that no official statement was issued. In answering my second, they are suggesting that the new organization of the Scheme does not affect in any way its scope, affordances and duties. We will see.

The answer to the third question is wholly evasive. Documents I have seen suggest that before these changes, one third of the 'local partners' were already considering having to withdraw part or all of their contribution to the FLOs as part of the cuts affecting all public spending, and culture is a soft target. While these changes may be staved off one year, two, three or maybe more, the issue is not one that can be ignored and a situation that cannot be sustained indefinitely. Yet the BM answer avoids the question, referring back to their past "active partnerships" (loans and tours)  and refusing to acknowledge the changed context. Yes, "the local partners remain core to the [PAS'] delivery", and while perhaps in the middle of 2015 the Scheme still "retains its national reach across England and Wales", this is not going to continue much longer, the Welsh "reach" is already very tenuous. The question was not answered.

Likewise the BM does not regard making outside partners subservient to the programmes of the LVA department of a distant London Museum is in any way a downgrading of the Scheme which they had joined. Let us see whether local authorities see it that way. I asked whether those partners were consulted on the proposed changes to the programme in which they are partners and in what form. I suspect they were not, because the BM merely answers evasively: "we continue to consult with local and national partners on future strategy".

Neither is it true that "the status of the British Museum’s relationship with our partners in the PAS has not changed". Documents which had a restricted circulation outside the BM a few months ago suggest pretty unequivocally that the whole purpose of this reorganization was to facilitate development of those relationships in a certain direction in the interests of the British Museum itself, which could be said to be at the expense of the local partners. These documents should be made fully public.

My second batch of questions touched upon The Treasure Act and Heritage Policy The answer to question 5 suggests there are no changes at all in the Treasure Process. I asked whether the LVA PAS would be active in promoting changes in the " scope of Treasure in response to cases like the Crosby Garrett helmet" The answer was evasive.

As for the input the LVA envisages "making in national heritage policy concerning, for example artefact hunting, and how", I do not think they understood the question.

The next batch of questions concerned the core role of the PAS database in 'Mitigation of Information Loss (Valetta Art 2 and 3)' a key function of the PAS when it was originally set up. I asked what measures the LVA will be taking to ensure this aim is met to the degree required to mitigate a major portion of the knowledge lost through artefact hunting. The answer seems to be "none" but "through PASt Explorers we are hoping finders themselves, and other volunteers, will contribute to the recording effort". So we are going from a scheme where artefacts are reported and vetted and then recorded by professional archaeologists to one where the artefact hunters and other members of the public record their own finds? Like the UKDFD then? Yet in the answer to my ninth question, we are told "the PAS is not staffed by volunteers". This blog has for a number of months been trying to get to the bottom of just who those volunteers are and what their relationship is to the Scheme as a whole and the mechanics of their use to create database records. The results of those efforts (which basically consists of BM evasion at every step) are documented in the pages of this blog. Anyway it is good to know that the karaoke recorders are kept in the background, and that the 'front line' [sic] remains (and will remain) the Finds Liaison Officers.

The next batch of questions concerned that all-important Database. We are told that PAS staff will somehow continue to assign higher level access to the database for research purposes though the actual mechanics involve people in a different BM department (again, I do not think the new managers understood the question). Likewise we are promised that the Finds Advisors will take responsibility for the quality of the records, but PASt Explorers project officers are (solely? mechanisms?) responsible .for volunteer records. But have not, in the BM reorganizations, some of the Finds Advisors been moved out of PAS to other departments?

My twelfth question was another one that was not really answered. Again this is a question of mechanics. We note that the question of the mechanics and logistics of the new system is a topic which the BM has been studiously avoiding discussing, and this has been going on now for some time. Did they understand the question? Likewise question thirteen - a pretty important one in preservation by record - is totally dodged. A three year Leverhulme grant has just been gobbled up by a BM project on the value of the PAS database as a research tool, it's a waste of money if it referred to a database which is no longer being created on the same principles. What are the underlying selection criteria in the LVA's database?

In question 14, I asked when the information by the ‘Community recorders’ is incorporated into the database, whether it will be distinguishable in any way. In other words can the user of the record determine that it was created by an archaeologist, or one of the trained volunteers. This is fundamental in its use for research purposes. I would have thought that meaning was pretty obvious. Sadly not: "Everyone working for PAS has a unique user account", which is "obfuscated" so that effectively prevents its use as a source of information (look at the confusion obfuscated codes created in the case of Ben Paites).

Eighteen years into the Scheme, experience should have taught the PAS that the former laissesz faire attitudes to verifying findspots are not providing adequate data quality control. LVA says it does not intend introducing changes. ("If there is a breach of that trust then the British Museum will take appropriate action" can they give any examples of this in the past? Many?). Recording turnaround time (question 16) may be shortened by the use of volunteer labour.

 Obviously as a blogger I am interested in the use made of social media in interacting with audiences . It probably does not take many IQ points to work out what is meant (under the heading 'Social Media and Audiences') what is meant by this question.

17) Are there any plans in the LVA for the creation of a public forum to allow active interaction between the many audiences of the PAS about the current developments? This would be a logical move, but instead you seem to have adopted a ‘top-down’ blog format.

You know, the doleful "we once had a forum".Remember that? The PAS used to have a public forum, and does not now, my question (I would have thought quite obviously) concerned whether "Learning, Volunteers and audiences" means members of the public can use the the Scheme's social media to discuss issues connected with portable antiquities and the Scheme. The answer ("The British Museum is advised by the PAAG as the forum for discussing...") is not at all what was asked, and I fully suspect that the department of "Learning, Volunteers and Audiences" knows what a "forum" is in the social media. Shame on you for dodging the question. Why is the department of "Learning, Volunteers and audiences" so scared of contact with those audiences (because there is more than one)? My next question referred to "openness regarding use of social media", the LVA PAS claims it "encourages FLOs to highlight their work via social media", but fails to admit that while exposing FLOs to this, its own staff BLOCK access to their social media ('Lava-PAS: Outreach from Under a Bushel' Wednesday, 24 June 2015).

The final section was on 'Public Outreach'. Question 19 was an archaeological one. It went right over their heads.

From previous BM press releases about portable antiquities, the public has received a picture of archaeology which is predominantly merely about „digging up things about which stories can be told”. This object-centric view of the past common to collectors and dealers is damaging to the public perception of archaeology, its aims and methods. Can we hope that it is the aim of the LVA to break out of this and to present a more nuanced manner of outreach presenting a more holistic picture of archaeology, and if so, how?

The British Museum, through PAS and in many other ways, makes a significant contribution to archaeological knowledge, helping to inform academic research, archaeological fieldwork and also heritage protection. The public fascination with important new finds is one way to engage people with broader issues and bring them to a more nuanced understanding.

I am wondering how much "learning" one can do from a department which is unable to understand a simple question. The first part of the answer shows a total lack of awareness what "public perception" means. The second is nonsense. Talking about Treasure, Treasure, Britain's Secret Treasures is 100% NOT helping in any way to inform people about those broader issues (see question and answer 20) and a nuanced understanding only comes from nuanced presentation which most certainly is not what the PAS has been doing up to now. Hence the question to the LVA. The answer dodges it totally, in a way which suggests the 'Department of Learning... and Audiences' has not the foggiest idea of what it was being asked about. In a non-bonkers world it would be them explaining the issue to us, and not us having to put the question into Simple English so they'd cotton on to what the issue being addressed consists of. Duh.

The answer to question 20 was a total fiasco. The BM's LVA department obviously has difficulty in looking further down the corridor than the xerox machine. Read the question and their fob-off foggy answer and note they totally ignored the last bit of the question. If the context of artefact hunting in Britain led to archaeological bodies in Britain beginning another Stop Taking Our Past campaign against irresponsible artefact collecting, would the LVA support it?

The reader of these answers gets the feeling that there is a lack of meat. The LVA did not particularly exert itself in getting to grips with the questions themselves. Once again, we see the typical Bloomsbury fob-offs. Everything is OK, there's been no changes, we are on the ball with everything. Yet when there is a need to actually state a policy in more than just vague patronising terms, there is a huge vacuum. So while we are all, I am sure, grateful to Ms Raikes and Mr Lewis for putting pen to paper, we really are still very much in the dark about where the PAs is going. Let us hope that this is not because the people that run it are too.

Why Coins Matter

Bearing in mind the efforts of German, US and UK dealers to try and get antiquities collectors to sign up in large numbers to a petition saying effectively "we do not mind buying dodgy stuff, no due diligence for us please", it is worth returning to the article published on SAFE a while ago, in which our colleague explains how he stopped collecting coins because he recognized the damage the market does: Nathan Elkins, 'Why coins matter: Trafficking in undocumented and illegally exported ancient coins in the North American marketplace', SAFE Corner 8th August 2008. He's since been personally attacked for this, but in seven years no dealer or collector has offered a word of refutation of the basic truths this text contains.

Vignette: Collectables or historical source? 

'Farmer Brown has Suggestion About Increasind Artefact Hunter responsibility for New Manager of PAS

Heritage Action, 'Farmer Brown writes to the new leader of PAS!', 25th July 2015.

my suggestion for “reduced PAS” is rather simple. Ask every Finds Liaison Officer to spend the next three months outreaching to landowners. We farmers have known since the dawn of time that fertile fields are more productive than stony ground and it’s surely time for PAS to acknowledge that they know it too.

Portant Issues Trailer

An oldie but I think it makes a point. Note the tone of the two comments underneath (I do not think they are by fellow archaeologists):

.

.

ADCAEA Hypocrisy Exposed

Showroom of ADCAEA member dealer "Sands of Time" - due diligence  "impossible"

"This law will effect [sic] everybody specializing in traditional collecting fields such as books, stamps, furniture, ceramics, coins, classic cars and paintings. Retroactively, this new law will impose due diligence guidelines that are impossible to follow even for the most meticulous collector".

Say the Association of Dealers and Collectors of Ancient and Ethnographic Art. Whoah. Is this the same ADCAEA which lists as one of the characteristics of its own dealer members that they allegedly do proper due diligence on their purchases? The same ADCAEA which produced the pseudo-guidelines for pseudo-due-diligence?

Note the disingenuous "this will affect you" suggestion. It will not if you are a stamp collector in  Port Stanley or a paintings collector in Peterborough. Those who have long thought that Susan McGovern-Huffman's ADCAEA was nothing but a hypocritical smokescreen organization seem to have the proof to back up that suggestion.

Can we have an official ADCAEA statement (in Ms McGovern-Huffman's own words, not cut-and-pasted Ursula Kampmann's) just what the organization considers due diligence to be, what constitutes an illicit artefact in the view of ADCAEA and its members and how its members propose carrying out trade avoiding them if they are not going to support the conducting of a proper due diligence procedure? The credibility of the ADCAEA is in question here. Just what kind of an organization is being supported by all those member-dealers subscriptions? 

Muddling Public Opinion in Charnwood

"Learn about detecting @ charnwood museum today!" says the twitter-gumph. The sad truth is that the public  will not actually learn very much from this hobby-orientated display about why artefact hunting and private collecting of this kind is so totally opposed in other quarters. Note the defensive charity banner bottom left (smokescreen-money raised by trashing the heritage and small-minded folk walking off with it). Note the little portable private museums of decontextualised artefacts arranged in rows, ready for a show-and-tell, the row of PAS object reports in the middle to make it "look all right". Where is the PAS followup display explaining the wider cultural resource management issues of artefact hunting and collecting?  Is that not what the PAS was set up for? No, just round the corner is more decontextualised stuff, this time its a FLO doing the show-and-tell and calling it "outreach" about artefact collecting. Is that in aid of "Rainbows" too?  The only thing apparently missing are the bikini-clad models demonstrating how a metal detector works.