Wales PAS in Danger? Re: Gov Cutbacks

[Titus Pullo]

Hi,
Has anyone heard a rumour that The PAS scheme in Wales (ie) Mark's FLO post (National Museum of Wales, Cardiff/Wales) is in danger of being "done away with", due to proposed government cutbacks etc.
If so, and if this is true - What can we Detectorists, Detecting clubs, and DetectingWales.com do to offer our support AGAINST such cuts. If our FLO for Wales was to be made redundant due to cutbacks, what an utter disaster this would be for Welsh detectorists who record their finds on a regular basis via cardiff. I only hope it is just a rumour.
Regards,
Titus Pullo

[Tafflaff (Rob)]

It is true, well as far as the rumours. I will ask Mark Tomorrow if its definate. It would be good if we could all pull together and bombard the National Assembly expressing our outrage.

[Napoleon]

scary if that happen , but you know this day nothing suprise me , with the economy we not doing to well so we all in danger.Interesting thread cheers .Nap

[The Doc]

It is true unfortunately. The funding of PAS in Wales has been devolved to WAG and Mark's job is only at present funded until March 31st. He has been told "not to worry and everything will be alright", but unless he has had anything in writing since last month, there appears to be a real possibility the scheme will be scrapped in Wales.

A campaign has already been started amongst the Welsh clubs to emphasise the need for the scheme to continue, but who knows whether anyone in power will take notice?

[Chef Geoff]

It's a very difficult one to deal with, "bombard the National Assembly expressing our outrage" how many detectorists are there in Wales? umm it's hardly a bombardment. A government petition is usually only acted upon (questions asked) with 10,000 names well that's about the number of regular detectorists in the whole of the UK.
And I have to ask one question; How many people on DW can honestly put their hand up, that they have recorded their last recordable (post 300 years old) find regardless of it's worth I suspect not many.
Now how many have taken the step to self-record? no I thought not.
An influx of recorded finds would do more for the scheme in Wales than any "Bombardment".

[Napoleon]

Well Chef got the point , lol please hands up who dont forgot to record their finds because  me i am terrible only because my work doesnt let me to get the time to do it but to be honest i have recorded my best finds (bloody shame lol) joking .counting only 10000 detectorists in the whole uk humm that leave around max just over 2000 in the whole Wales , i think we need more than power in this situation .Saying that i probably talk rubbish but hope its only  rumours.

[davtec (dave)]

send your letters  in boys and girls we at glamorgan m.d.c support  the pas in wales

[handyman [Alan}]

interesting thread, as the english system underwent a similar change last financial year. the key points are that the culture secretary endorsed wholeheartedly the work of the BM and PAS and made sure that such money was ringfenced in order that the work could continue.

the welsh assembly will have a similar person in post .. a culture secretary for wales, and it is to him/her   that one should be corresponding with via your elected assembly member.
[Huw Lewis - http://wales.gov.uk/about/cabinet/cabinetm/huwlewis;jsessionid=nfDvTTyQfkDgyQzbq0G0LlrrHGSS3G3mMDCnLBr9pksSZnfKkHhL!1374374152?lang=en] 

the more you get your AMs on board, the better ...  you can write as individuals asking your AM to raise the matter with Mr Lewis, you can write as a club to your AM along the same lines and of course, detecting wales can write direct to the minister as being truly representative of welsh detectorists opinion.

a good starting point for any points you wish to raise is the 'remit' under which they operate.
http://wales.gov.uk/topics/cultureandsport/aboutthistopic/;jsessionid=nfDvTTyQfkDgyQzbq0G0LlrrHGSS3G3mMDCnLBr9pksSZnfKkHhL!1374374152?lang=en

cheers

[rjm]

Yes, Mark is worried that he will be losing his job and his work seems to be suffering as a result. He did say to me
that he was not going to take any more stuff on for recording after August to be able to deal with his backlog
but he has taken stuff.

He's a bit slow handing it back and I've had to chase him on a couple of occasions. He's also given stuff to the
wrong person..............signs of stress!!!

Chef is correct in what he says. I'm going to look into self recording.

[Jeb]

No PAS !!!   So what !

 There`s always the more compudent and easier to work UKDFD  in its place .
 Lets be honest and say what PAS REALLY is there for .
 Of course its there to record your finds, but would it be true to say its also there as a sitting SPY  to see how many detectorists are actualy recording their finds aswell ? Who is finding what where ,and is there enough of a GR to pinpoint to nosey Arkies whats being found of any great importance so that they "could" if they wanted to, approach that farmer and ask, suggest, impose ,or persaude that farmer ,to put any further metal detecting searching on a hold or a complete stop maybe ?  
 Are you really worried about the Crow sitting on your shoulder watching every move you make going into a belly flop ?

 

[Chef Geoff]

I think that's what's called paranoia Jeb and then some. Yes that is all very possible but surely that's also the case with UKDFD or at least it would be if it managed to gain the recognition it craves, without the access by archaeologists or historians then the whole purpose of it's existence as a research aid ceases to be. And the way UKDFD's founder has been threatening to pull the plug on his websites of late then I feel that one's future is equally uncertain.
If you just want UKDFD or PAS as an identification tool.....go buy a book.

[Jeb]

Chef Geoff wrote,.... " I think that's what's called paranoia Jeb ".

 Well , call it whatever you like ,its mint imperial to me. I have my view on PAS others have theirs.  Why is my view any less valid than any one all for PAS ?
We all have our  " for`s "  and  " against`s " .
 Do you think PAS was put there for the sole benefit of the Metal detectorist ??  
 I think not.
 
Mike Heyworth has far more reason to want Metal detectorists outlawed than he does given his blessing . Because Mike Heyworth talks with forked tongue.
On the one hand he refuses to say he wants Metal detecting banned ,. yet on another instance he blatantly attacks Metal detecting in the Nov Britarch  ....................

" The meeting of the standing conference will also be an appropriate place for archaeologists to discuss with the minister the continuing damage to archaeological sites and findspots across the country caused by irresponsible metal detecting and, in particular, by metal detecting rallies. The much-lauded Portable Antiquities Scheme continues to work closely with responsible detectorists across England and Wales, who report their finds to the scheme’s Finds Liaison Officers (FLOs) and allow these finds (and, crucially, their provenance) to be recorded. But many do not get reported. This can be either due to a lack of awareness of the benefits of reporting, or in some cases to the motivations of individuals who are “treasure hunting” for personal profit. Access to information provided by some “treasure hunters” on the web (for example via videos on YouTube) show the degree of wilful damage to the archaeological heritage going on across the country, with rarely any thought given to the context of the finds.

Hard-pressed FLOs working across England and Wales are already fully stretched recording finds which are voluntarily reported. Funding cutbacks mean there is no capacity to expand staffing, and in Wales even the current reporting facility is under threat due to budget cuts. Yet at this time of year there are a number of metal detecting rallies taking place, often targeting areas of known archaeological potential, stretching the FLOs network to breaking point and beyond. Many rallies occur on land which is held under environmental stewardship, through which the owners receive financial compensation for environmentally beneficial land management practices. Yet Natural England appears to be powerless to prevent damage to the archaeological heritage through rallies on this land.

A key argument often used by rally organisers is that they donate a share of the proceeds to charity, and should therefore be allowed to go ahead without hindrance from “bureaucracy”. Yet the “cost” of ensuing archaeological damage and associated knowledge lost forever as a direct consequence is not taken into account. The CBA will be calling for the government and its agencies to ensure that the rules for stewardship land are followed more closely in the future. We will also be asking for more research to be carried out on the damage to archaeological sites and lost knowledge due to rallies, to provide a counter-weight to arguments put forward by the vested interests of rally organisers.

If CBA members and readers of British Archaeology hear of any examples of “treasure hunting” or detecting rallies causing damage to archaeological sites, then please contact the CBA director in York. It is helpful to build up a portfolio of examples across the country to present to the government when future opportunities allow. "

And do you really believe this man wants Metal detecting to have any sort of existance ?
Mike Heyworth & his Arkies want the Hobby under a strict reign if they can get their way .They always have done and always will do.  
 And there are the "misguided" detectorists that will no doubt go a long way into helping him achieve this.  Then one day when they are so hog tied and unable to go detecting as we do today they will be complaining and wondering why they havn`t the free run they used to have .
  

[rjm]

I have to agree with Jeb.

Mark Lodwick himself went behind the backs of myself and detecting partner to get land surveyed because of
the finds that were coming up from it that were taken in for recording.

The farmer was reluctant but 'they' were forceful. After scanning they then wanted to dig........until the farmer
told them "No!". It caused tension between the farmer and us.

My partner was phoned up the night before the scan asking him did he want to be present!?

We were then told that it wasn't as a result of the finds had been recorded that 'they' had been there???

As jeb says, they are looking at finds with a view to scheduling land so that detectorists are no longer allowed.

Howvever, the main reason the PAS and Treasure Act is failing is that the valuations are not 'market value'
as should be, but the lowest possible price they can offer. A recent hoard of iron age GOLD coins had each coin
valued at £300.............you show me a dealer selling a stater for that price and I'll buy some!

The Staffs hoard was valued about £3 million. Some of the artifacts alone would be worth near a million on
their own.........

And then there's the time it's taking to go through the system...........several years in some cases.

The authorities want a scheme run on the cheap that will pay the cheapest possible prices for any finds
they want to buy. The finder doesn't even get an opportunity to buy it instead of it going to a museum!

The Act says 'market value' but they don't seem to play by their own rules.

I think if PAS and TVA were run properly/expediently then everyone would be happy..........but it won't be
because of the lack of funding...........as the government have other more pressing priorities.

[Jeb]

Bob wrote,..... " And then there's the time it's taking to go through the system...........several years in some cases.".

 Again more reason why laxidasical incompudance takes priotity over efficient ,well run establishment causing apathy and tensions which in effect knock on to the present nigh on capitulation of PAS .
isn`t it strange how UKDN which is run by non paid volunteers and run privately by one man can run so smoothly  Yet PAS creaks n grinds almost to a halt because Government money dries up, and takes paid employees to run it. Its very inefficient, its not the easiest of things to navigate, and it takes ages to get catalogued and on display .
UKDFD is  virtually the exact opposite yet funded by no one exept the Man who owns it ?
 Now call me olde fashioned but isn`t there something wrong when PAS NEED  government money to run it and keep it running smoothly and UKDFD doesn`t ?    

[Chef Geoff]

Oh I agree that if you scratch the surface of many an archaeologist you will find an anti detectorist underneath, but I don't believe for one moment that PAS was set up with the express intention of trapping us into a no win situation.
I personally can't see what is wrong or inflammatory about Mike Heyworth's article other than some ignorance but he is stating the truth. Yes the valuation system does seem unfair and I'm sure on the open market many items would fetch far more....but that's not PAS.
As for them going behind detectorists backs, well it's the farmers land not ours and if they believe there is archaeology there that is of importance and can't be found with a metal detector (most can't) then what is wrong with that?
As far as I am aware Jeb you have been detecting as long as me if not longer and you must surely remember the STOP campaign of the late 70's and without PAS I can only see us heading back to that murky time. PAS has been our go between and as such is our voice in the establishment.
I said "many" archaeologists not ALL, there are now more enlightened people within the academic world that powers archaeology.
This is an article by Dr Gabriel Moshenska who is course co-ordinator at UCL.



Portable Antiquities, Pragmatism and the ‘Precious Things’

The metal detecting debate splutters on, its latest iteration framed rather unhelpfully in the context of a discussion of looting. Without wishing to belittle the importance of either of these issues, I would argue that a more constructive discussion should be grounded in less confrontational terms. In my opinion our task is not, as Gill suggests, ‘to bridge the gap between the archaeological community and those involved in metal detecting,’ but to mend the divide within the archaeological community between the minority of archaeologists who use metal detectors as a principal tool of fieldwork, and the majority who do not. It is a measure of this community’s widespread elitism and class snobbery that the most feckless professor of prehistory with a string of unpublished excavations is likely to be afforded a thousand times more respect than the most diligent member of a metal detecting club.

I am delighted to see that David Gill has turned his attention to the thorny issues of treasure policy and portable antiquities in England and Wales. Few people can be as well informed of the broader international context and significance of these issues than this terror of the auction houses and scourge of weasel-like art curators. As I would hope and expect, his analysis of these issues is subtle and well informed, drawing on an impressive range of quantitative data. Nonetheless, there are a number of points in his discussion of metal detecting in Britain, and the Portable Antiquities Scheme in particular, that I disagree with or would like to examine in more depth.

In Defence of PAS
To begin with Gill’s analysis of the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS), it appears that in places he loses sight of its fundamental nature as a voluntary recording scheme. This leads him to misrepresent some of the results: the fact that ‘approximately two thirds of [metal detecting] club members … report some of their finds to PAS’ is a figure that any initiative based on voluntary participation would be justly proud of, and which PAS rightly highlights as a success. Similarly, for anyone versed in the history of the ‘STOP’ campaign and the long-standing animosity between metal detectorists and the archaeological establishment (e.g. Addyman 2009), the fact that ‘some people report [finds] regularly while others rarely, if at all’ would still be seen as a considerable step on the road to reconciliation and respectful cooperation.

Elsewhere in his analysis I believe Gill’s understanding of the mechanics of metal detecting lets him down somewhat. The tendency towards greater numbers of finds being recorded in areas of arable agriculture is due to metal detectorists’ preference for working on ploughed fields where buried artefacts are annually shuffled through the upper half metre of topsoil, bringing them within the limited range of most modern metal detectors. In light of this I disagree with the implications of Gill’s assessment of this, ‘that some undisturbed archaeological material is being removed from its archaeological context.’ No doubt ‘some’ is, but the majority of metal detector finds have been ripped from their context – and that context annihilated – by ploughing.

Despite these minor disagreements, most of Gill’s analysis is a clear-sighted examination of the weaknesses and lacunae of the Treasure Act. The discussion of the Icklingham Bronzes demonstrates that the theft of ancient ‘art’ most commonly associated with Mediterranean countries can on rare occasions occur in Britain. Together with the recent case of the Crosby Garrett helmet this demonstrates the weakness of the Treasure Act in protecting bronze objects. However it is unfair to suggest, as Gill does, that these cases somehow reflect on PAS as well, declaring that ‘in spite of the Treasure Act and PAS, a scheduled site … can continue to be raided.’ This explicit injustice towards PAS continues into Gill’s more general study of looting, to the point that I think it worth reiterating that looting is a crime, whereas PAS focuses on encouraging and enabling voluntary recording within the legal archaeological and recreational activity of metal detecting. It is amusing that Gill finds it necessary to highlight ‘concern that there are some detectorists whose main aim is to make money from this activity.’ Making money from selling finds is not inherently illegal in Britain, nor does it preclude the prior recording of these objects with the PAS. The amateur’s disdain for the professional has no place in twenty-first century archaeology.

Pragmatism in Heritage Protection
While I have read Gill’s paper as an (occasionally unjust) critique of PAS it is by no means an intemperate attack. Nevertheless these attacks are common, and in light of this I think it is worth examining the philosophical underpinnings of the Portable Antiquities Scheme as I perceive them. For the record I am not now, nor have I ever been involved with the Portable Antiquities Scheme: this is an outsider’s view. The archaeological record is a finite resource subject to innumerable threats and sustained destruction and archaeologists have a responsibility to manage this resource, in part through the identification and management of threats. Metal detecting constitutes a potential threat to the archaeological record, and we are duty-bound to manage this. Exactly how much of a threat it is, and how we should go about managing it is the subject of vigorous debate.

Some opponents of metal detecting would like to see it made illegal, or at least severely restricted. This is similar to the widespread view that criminalizing recreational drugs will eliminate their harm to society. This naïve belief is usually founded on a socially conservative ideology and a willful ignorance of the overwhelming evidence that demonstrates the manifold failures as well as the catastrophic social, individual and financial costs of drug prohibition. Pragmatists who do not have their heads buried in the sand (or elsewhere) tend to advocate a ‘harm reduction’ approach. In drugs policy this takes a range of forms including needle exchanges, which recognize the reality of drug use and try to ameliorate its negative impacts. PAS can be regarded as a similarly pragmatic approach to the ‘harm’ caused to the archaeological record by metal detecting, as PAS coordinator Roger Bland stated:

… the philosophy of the Scheme is that it is not about encouraging metal detecting, but it recognises that it exists and is legal ... We believe it better to engage with detector users, encourage them to behave responsibly and report their finds than to ignore them, as was often the attitude in the past. They will go on detecting regardless and we will all be the losers if we fail to record their finds. (Bland 2005: 446)
Given the growing body of research based on PAS databases (e.g. Anderson 2010) it is clear that engaging with metal detecting can go beyond harm reduction to form a positive and productive strand within general archaeology.

Curiously enough there are other similarities between the drugs prohibition campaign and the anti-metal detecting movement in archaeology. One is the degree of hysteria surrounding both debates: in the case of drug policy this explains the predominance of punitive authoritarian approaches and the widespread unwillingness to engage with evidence-based policy. Within archaeology the small faction of anti-metal detector zealots often resemble the grotesque Tubbs in The League of Gentlemen clutching her snow-globes and shrieking ‘Don’t touch the Precious Things!’ (BBC 1999-2002).

A second, related similarity between the campaigns against drugs and against metal detectors is the unwillingness to consider the wider context. Drugs expert Professor David Nutt and colleagues recently caused controversy with a study published in the Lancet that calculated the social and individual harms associated with different legal and illegal drugs. This paper controversially demonstrated that alcohol is considerably more harmful than heroin or crack cocaine, and tobacco more harmful than cannabis, ecstasy or LSD (Nutt et al. 2010: 1561-3). In a policy environment immune to blinkered prohibitionist hysteria such a study might herald changes in healthcare and legislation to protect the population from real dangers rather than imagined ones. It would be instructive to create a similar chart ranking the various threats to archaeological heritage in Britain; from coastal erosion and ploughing to worms and moles. Despite serving as a lightning-rod for knee-jerk heritage protectionism I seriously doubt that metal detecting would make a prominent appearance on any such ranking. Thus not only is the metal detecting debate needlessly divisive and intemperate, it is also staggeringly unimportant.

Discussion
Gill’s paper concludes with a series of questions about the future of portable antiquities policy and the protection of heritage. Amongst these questions are several that should form the basis for interesting and timely debate: the strengthening of the Treasure Act; greater scrutiny of the sale of artefacts; the international trade in archaeological material; and the future of heritage funding are all areas of concern. However it seems incongruous that amongst these key issues Gill asks whether more powerful metal detectors are capable of penetrating to greater depths. If we are truly concerned with the protection of archaeological heritage then this is of roughly equivalent unimportance to the question of whether rabbits are digging deeper burrows in response to global warming.

There are parts of the world where looting poses a serious threat to archaeological heritage and our ability to interpret the past. Britain is not one of these places. Nonetheless there are serious threats to archaeological heritage in Britain. Metal detecting is not one of these. However, metal detecting without reporting finds is nearly as reprehensible and harmful to heritage as excavating without publishing. Fortunately the Portable Antiquities Scheme and its hard-earned relationship with the metal detecting community offers a practical, pragmatic and proven solution to this problem. Doom-mongers wringing their hands at what they no doubt regard as metal detectorists’ proletarian insurgency into the archaeological domain should turn their attention to the real, tangible threats to archaeological heritage. Perhaps they might care to stand beneath a crumbling cliff on the Norfolk coast and command the tides to turn back. Meanwhile metal detectorists, medievalists and anyone else who cares about the preservation and study of metal artefacts could more constructively campaign for a revision to the Treasure Act, in response to the frustrating losses and damage to heritage that David Gill and others have brought to our attention.