Welsh PAS "fix" a Deal Done Behind the Scenes?

.
The Freedom of Information request to the Welsh government submitted by David Gill to the Welsh Government (see: 'Portable Antiquities Scheme in Wales: details published') has raised more questions than it has answers. What is REALLY interesting here is that the FOI request asked for all relevant emails and memoranda to be included, but it turns out from this that in the whole government system in the whole past year that this has been discussed, there have been just TWO documents generated. Two documents which decide not only a major area of heritage policy but also how several hundred thousand pounds of public money are being shifted from the original destination, to another one. Isn't that a bit odd? It looks like there is something more to this than meets the eye. Assuming that Welsh Government has released everything (both documents!), as obliged to do under the FOI act, then it becomes clear that the discussion about this has been outside normal channels, ones that leave no paper trail.

Knee-Jerk "Policy" Making

.
A few weeks ago David Gill submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Welsh government in an effort to understand what was going on with the Portable Antiquities Scheme. The result ('Portable Antiquities Scheme in Wales: details published') was quite an eye-opener. The response revealed little real information about the behind-the-scenes doings, but enough to show the usual ad-hoc-approach was being applied to portable antiquity issues.
It turns out that, after the announcement by the British Museum that the funding for the Welsh PAS would be cut, on 26 November 2010, the National Museum of Wales alerted CyMAL to the problem that Wales would need to meet the funding gap of £64K (as David notes, it is worth comparing these figures to the ones that appeared in the PAS press release in November 2010).

It seems from the released documents that almost nothing was done to deal with the problem for a year. The second memorandum from CyMAL on the matter dates from 28 October 2011 and dates from after the agitation of metal detectorists suddenly alerted (among other things by this blog, started at the beginning of October) to the impending demise of the Scheme if nothing was done. It was prompted among other things from the letters being sent to the Minister for Housing, Regeneration and Heritage and CyMAL: Museums Archives and Libraries by Assembly Members (no doubt prompted by "metal detectorists"). These had a fixed "time for response" term, which is why a 'final' decision had to be taken so quickly. As David Gill notes:

Interestingly the memorandum required a decision by 1 November 2011. In other words the memorandum was sent on a Friday and a decision was required by the following Tuesday. The prompt seems to have come from "metal detecting clubs in Wales".

In fact what the Welsh government say is that "there has been some publicity around the possible threat to the continued operation of the PAS in Wales, particularly from metal detectorists and historians concerned at the possible cessation of the scheme in Wales". The memorandum discusses the arrangements for an announcement: "Rather than a press release ..." it is decided (perhaps to avoid awkward journalistic questions) to keep the announcement low-key as a mere statement on the Welsh Government website, and proposes a draft text for that announcement (see the post below this). Note that the details of the funding are absent from this statement. It also turns out that the text on the PAS website of which Roger Bland claims to be 'author', was in fact penned in a government office in Wales, a long way from Bloomsbury.

These emerge from the 28th October memorandum and they are a total reverse of the original BM money-saving proposal. The expenditure reduction proposed for immediate application in 2012 will not - on this projection - occur until 2014-5. So where is the BM going to get an additional £33550 from? At what cost to other parts of the PAS system will the Welsh PAS be kept on? Where will the Welsh government find the additional £88000 for the next four years ?

The total cost of having a PAS in Wales over the next four years is projected to be £277,080. To what extent is it needed, to service the collecting activities of the handful of Welsh artefact hunters who show some of their finds to it. Let us note that one of the more prolific Welsh 'contributors' to the PAS database enters the information himself, without any recourse to the FLO system. Why does Wales need a separate PAS system ?

Spot the Difference

.
The draft text ("doc. 1 - Statement of Information" ) of the proposed announcement by the Welsh government recently released under a Freedom of Information request is not identical to that subsequently published ('The future of the Portable Antiquities Scheme in Wales '), and the differences are of interest. Doc 1 refers to a "revised funding package from Wales to support the continued operation of the popular and successful Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) in Wales for 2012-13 onwards". In the published version the word "onwards" has been removed. Likewise in the final paragraph the section that "the funding package being considered" would allow for "the continuation of the role undertaken by the Welsh Archaeological Trusts", the word "continuation" has been deleted (leaving an ungrammatical sentence). Stylistic changes, or revealing that the proposed changes cannot be envisaged as a permanent solution?

Conflicting Accounts of Welsh Portable Antiquities Scheme "Rescue"

After several months' silence, the British Museum has weighed in on the discussion of the "future of the Portable Antiquities Scheme in Wales" but only because it has only just now noticed "there have been recent concerns expressed as to the future operation of the Portable Antiquities Scheme in Wales". Roger Bland himself penned a somewhat bland announcement, which I will quote in full:

Discussions between the Welsh Government, Amgueddfa Cymru - National Museum Wales, the British Museum, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) have now successfully addressed this issue in such a way that will ensure the continuation of the scheme, including the important post of Finds Liaison Officer, in Wales. More information is available here: - http://wales.gov.uk/publications/accessinfo/decisionreports/culturesport/2011/hl6476/?lang=en.

That's it. No details about just what will be continued and in what form. The "more information" however, dated 31 October 2011 contradicts the letter previously sent out by Linda Tomos:

The Minister for Housing, Regeneration and Heritage has agreed a recommendation to provide additional funding from Welsh Government and Amgueddfa Cymru-National Museum Wales budgets in 2012-13 to support the continued operation of the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) in Wales, and identifies a funding framework for future years. This follows a decision by the British Museum to reduce its contribution to the costs of operating the scheme in Wales. [...] The Minister for Heritage is being asked to consider a revised funding package from Wales to support the continued operation of the popular and successful Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) in Wales in 2012-13 and identifies a framework for future years. [...] The funding package being considered would allow for the continuation of the Scheme in Wales including the continued employment of the Wales Finds Liaison Officer by Amgueddfa Cymru – National Museum Wales and the continuation of the role undertaken by the Welsh Archaeological Trusts.

Does Dr Bland's announcement indicate that the "consideration" has come to an end and the funds have been assigned? If so, why does he refer to the earlier announcement as supplying "more information" when it provides less?

Why Are Welsh Detectorists Not Reporting FindS?

.
Over on the Detecting Wales forum is a telling statistic. Contributor "Alan" notes:

in the local PAS report for our county, it reported that only 32 detectorists recorded finds with the scheme, yet we know of well over 700 detectorists attended clubs throughout the year! [make of that statistic what you will!!]

I make of that, that reporting is appallingly bad in Wales. Let's stop funding their under-used Portable Antiquities Scheme. It's a waste of money.

PAS in Wales "Saved" for Now?

.
Time was running out for the PAS in Wales, the contracts ran through until the end of March, the British Museum had said that in order to maintain the same number of posts in England as last year, they would no longer be funding the PAS in Wales, leaving this up to the Welsh Assembly government and Museums Archives and Libraries Wales CyMAL. Meanwhile there was this guy who does not consider that the Portable Antiquities Scheme is a solution to England's artefact hunting problem who'd started a blog (you are reading it) which made a case for the removal of PAS cover from Wales being the beginning of an end to current policies of passive tolerance. There was a little stir in the metal detecting community of Wales, three or four of them glanced at the blog, shuddered at the thought of reading all those words, and moved on.

Just recently however one of their number wrote to Wales' First Minister on 14th October with a question "wottabout the future of the PAS then?". The First Minister did not know, the buck was passed, down it went until the tekkie's letter ended on the desk of Linda Tomos, director of CyMAL who sent an answer out on 2nd November.

Dear Mr Langley, Thank you for your email to the First Minister ....

The letter is published in full on the "Detecting Wales" forum. In it Ms Tomos gives a totally superfluous (in the circumstances) summary account of the history of PAS funding from 1998 to the present day and ends thus:

Following a reduction in the ring-fenced funding for the scheme from the DCMS, the British Museum advised that it would no longer be able to operate the scheme in Wales. Given its success and popularity[,] officials in CyMAL: Museums Archives and Libraries Wales have explored alternative options. We have therefore been in extensive contact with the British Museum, which has agreed to continue providing some financial support. The Minister has also recently agreed additional funding from the Welsh Government. These steps will ensure the continuation of the scheme, including the important post of Finds Liaison Officer, in Wales.

It would seem that the PAS is not seen over in Wales as a means of heritage preservation (mitigation of damage caused by artefact hunting by preservation by record) but something which is "popular" and "successful". How this popularity and success are measured is not explained, the Scheme certainly had very little success getting anything like a decent number of finds recorded compared to what was lost. In fact one wonders whether that was the motivation of the BM's backtracking on the decision to cut funding. One can imagine that, instead of desultory few showing a dribble of their finds as seems to have been the case up till now, a few dozen artefact hunters from Glamorgan taking most of the recordable stuff they find along to the museum in Cardiff for recording could easily have produced the same figures as a whole year's worth of PAS "outreach". This really would have called into question the value of spending all those millions on a PAS - and those questions might have been asked this time by more than a few bloggers.

To be honest, being "in extensive contact with the British Museum" who had earlier said in effect, "you are on your own" really does not sound to me very much like "exploring alternative options". It rather says that at present there ARE no other options than a BM cash handout from its own budget. This is particularly important since for a decade or so the PAS had a fifth aim: "To define the nature and scope of a scheme for recording portable antiquities in the longer term, to access the likely costs and to identify resources to enable it to be put into practice", which they announced in their annual reports a few years ago they had "fulfilled" - but without revealing what their conclusions had been. Obviously they were not communicated to CyMAL either.

Ms Tomos does not reveal any of the nuts and bolts details, the promise of how much cash their pleading squeezed out of the BM, or the amount of financial backing the Welsh Government will be supplying. Neither is it explained why, is this just because the Scheme is "popular"? At what level of operation will the Welsh Government be happy that its investment has been well repaid? What obviously is needed is not just the "continuation" of the PAS but its expansion, strengthening, incorporation into the legislative and administrative measures concerning the preservation of the archaeological and historical heritage of Wales.

So, the PAS coverage (I use the term loosely) of Wales has reportedly been "saved" for now. How long it can limp on remains to be seen.

Why Are Welsh Detectorists Not reporting Finds?

.
In the thread that developed about the PAS having been "saved", comments are being made that Welsh detectorists need to make more of an effort to show it is needed, use it or lose it. A Llanelli club member says that when the PAS visits the club, he takes away "a dozen" of the finds which members brought to the meeting because they thought they were "worth recording". Is that really the sum total of the recordable finds made by all 78 club members since the last visit of the FLO? As commented one other forum member, they'd "better put batteries in their detectors or take up fishing instead".

In the course of that discussion that member admitted that in the past ten months (this year) he had detected in as many as 21 fields on the Polden Hills near Bridgewater, and that as a result there were 193 finds recorded in the PAS database. One detectorist in ten months. So what is happening to the rest of the finds being made by Welsh detectorists even if they are finding things at one tenth of that rate?

Na i PAS ar gyfer Cymru: The Reasons For this Blog

.
Three weeks ago I took my Portable Antiquities Collecting and Heritage Issues temporarily offline as a result of threats to my family by a "metal detectorist" and a subsequent incident which the police are now investigating which coincided with a planned mass action by UK "metal detectorists" to try and get Google to close the blogger's account. The person responsible for these threats is a member of the forum "Detecting Wales" where three weeks ago he announced gleefully (http://www.detectingwales.com/index.php?topic=12007.0):

I would just like to announce tonight I have put an end to Paul Barford and his anti detecting blogs. [...] I think I'll change my name to 'Steve The Barford Slayer'

This, and thus by extension the methods used to achieve this "feat" achieved full approval of the Welsh "metal detectorists" (artefact hunters and collectors) gathered on that forum, such as expressed in remarks like the following:

Good for you Steve - people like that get what they deserve in the end eh

aurevoir Pauly boy

well done, Steve. [...] Barking Barford Beaten!

I've always thought that if you're prepared to wait you will have the last laugh, so to speak. Last one I thought that about had a heart attack and dropped down dead age 39.

weldone steve,

Steve, You know how I feel about the person in question - so well done [...] I am going to lock the thread now mate just to ensure there are no repercussions.

That last one is from the list's moderator. The "repercussions" to which he refers presumably include any attempt to consider just what it is the Welsh "metal detectorists" have to hide from a blog that considers the wider context of artefact hunting and collecting activities in the context of "Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues". More to the point just what it is that gives them such a feeling of entitlement that for them the only right and proper reaction to an attempt at public debate is to try and force the polemicist offline by aggression and outright threats to him and his family of dire consequences if he does not stop.

In most countries of the world, people who use tools such as metal detectors to remove collectable and saleable artefacts from archaeological sites are condemned and prosecuted if caught. Most countries of the world recognise that the archaeological record is a finite, fragile and precious resource, not to be lightly squandered for personal gain and this is reflected in the legislation. Not so the United Kingdom, whose antiquities "preservation" laws have not advanced much beyond their pioneering Victorian form from 1882.

When "metal detecting" (artefact hunting) became popular in the 1970s it was rightly met in Britain with opprobrium. This changed with the setting up of the Portable Antiquities Scheme in 1997, and since then artefact hunting has been getting nothing but positive press from the English archaeological community. The Scheme has done much to shield a whole range of issues connected with portable antiquity collecting in the British Isles (and England and Wales in particular) from deeper discussion and scrutiny. It is the public attitudes engendered by the Portable Antiquities Scheme and those that support it that are responsible for the confidence with which artefact hunters like the "Detecting Wales" members mentioned above that they are in no way accountable to the British public for what they do.

The Portable Antiquities Scheme empowers artefact hunters (as pointed out by David Barwell) and encourages them to warn anyone concerned about the effects of what they are doing on the archaeological record to "get off our case" (Austin 2010, also here too).

Interestingly recent changes in the organization of the PAS as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review have led to PAS is facing a 15% reduction by 2014-15. One of the most significant features is the impact of devolution. It has been proposed to reduce the current contribution made by the Scheme to PAS in Wales, on the basis that these costs should be borne by the Welsh Assembly Government, through Museums Archives and Libraries Wales CyMAL or the National Museum Wales. In the texts below I would like to argue the case for abandoning the flawed PAS concept altogether in favour of other approaches to dealing with archaeological finds made by members of the public and the metal detecting problem in particular. If the PAS prop was removed from the hobby, it would have to do much more to justify its continued existence or face the consequences if it cannot. It would mean the hobby (and people who support the PAS) actually addressing the questions and issues now being raised by individuals such as myself or professor David Gill, until recently based in Swansea University. It is notable that when the latter was invited to conduct a forum discussion on the role of the PAS in the preservation of the archaeological record at the end of last year, the PAS itself refused to take part.

The State and Responsible Use of the Archaeological Record

The European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised)(Valetta, 16.I.1992) talks (Article 1) of the need to protect the archaeological heritage as a source of the European collective memory and as an instrument for historical and scientific study. States parties are enjoined (Article 2) to create a legal system for the protection of the archaeological heritage, not only making provision for the designation of protected monuments and areas, but also "the creation of archaeological reserves, even where there are no visible remains on the ground or under water, for the preservation of material evidence to be studied by later generations".

In particular the Convention (Art 2, iii) requires the institution of:

mandatory reporting to the competent authorities by a finder of the chance discovery of elements of the archaeological heritage and making them available for examination.

Britain has ratified this Convention, but does not have such a clause in its legislation. "Metal detectorists" are free to go out and di up whatever they want with no legal requirement for them to report anything that is not a hoard or gold or silver artefacts.

Article 3

To preserve the archaeological heritage and guarantee the scientific significance of archaeological research work, each Party undertakes:

i. to apply procedures for the authorisation and supervision of excavation and other archaeological activities in such a way as:

a. to prevent any illicit excavation or removal of elements of the archaeological heritage;

b. to ensure that archaeological excavations and prospecting are undertaken in a scientific manner and provided that:

– non-destructive methods of investigation are applied wherever possible;

– the elements of the archaeological heritage are not uncovered or left exposed during or after excavation without provision being made for their proper preservation, conservation and management;

ii. to ensure that excavations and other potentially destructive techniques are carried out only by qualified, specially authorised persons;

iii. to subject to specific prior authorisation, whenever foreseen by the domestic law of the State, the use of metal detectors and any other detection equipment or process for archaeological investigation.

Again, Britain falls short of these requirements. A "metal detectorist" requires no prior archaeological or heritage management authorisation to go onto almost any archaeological site he fancies which is not protected by law, and dig up and take away whatever he wants. Britain's archaeological heritage is not being "managed" just exposed to an artefact hunting free-for-all.

Article 10

Each Party undertakes [...]

vi. to restrict, as far as possible, by education, information, vigilance and co-operation, the transfer of elements of the archaeological heritage obtained from uncontrolled finds or illicit excavations or unlawfully from official excavations.

Again, Britain is ignoring this - with metal detected finds changing hands on eBay at an enormous speed and on a disturbing scale.

It should be obvious that the whole aim of the measures set out in the Convention is to protect archaeological sites and monuments from destruction, including by artefact hunters. its primary aim is not the preservation of individual artefacts or ensure the "recording" of information about individual artefacts. England totally ignored that by rejecting the mandatory reporting clause in favour of voluntary recording and not instituting any other measures to curb the destruction of archaeological evidence by artefact hunting. The Portable Antiquities Scheme does not preserve sites in any way from looting and treasure-hunting, even if that is not what the British public have been taught to call artefact hunting with metal detectors. The Portable Antiquities Scheme is a failure when measured in terms of its ability to stop damage to sites by artefact hunters.

Most other countries in the world have long had legislation making the random exploitive digging up of archaeological finds from archaeological sites punishable by the same types of laws that protect the nests of rare wild birds from being looted by collectors, or the destruction of other elements of the endangered natural heritage. Basically Britain and Antarctica are among the few countries that do not yet have such legislation.

The Secrecy that Surrounds Portable Antiquities

There is a total lack of transparency about just about every aspect of the collecting and - especially - trade in antiquities. For some reason the world has got used to accepting that this "has to be" some kind of a norm, without really asking why and whether it is beneficial to treat a common heritage like the archaeological resource without full transparency. Obviously it is not, it hides a whole load of egregious examples of extremely bad practice from any kind of public scrutiny.

"Metal detecting" is notorious in this regard. Artefact hunters shield all sorts of information from public scrutiny on the spurious grounds that the "only reason is" that if they do not, unscrupulous individuals in the metal detector owning community might use this information to "poach" the artefacts from "their" most "productive" sites. Of course it is precisely such sites that heritage professionals need to know about at the earliest opportunity to protect them from being exploited erosively by artefact hunting. It does not take much of an imagination to realise that this too is a reason why artefact hunters (interested in getting stuff out of these sites for their own private use) are not too keen on providing this information.

Metal detectorists like to persuade the public that the "majority of them are responsible" and it is only a "small minority of black sheep" that are the cause of the problems with artefact hunting. That is belied by what goes on in some clubs and the contents of many of the internet discussion groups in which they gather and discuss candidly what they do or want to do - most often received wholly unjudgementally by the rest of the "responsible" membership. It is for this reason that public scrutiny of these metal detecting forums would soon betray the extent of the "portable antiquity scam". It is for this reason that the majority of artefact hunters' forums are not open access, but access to the posts is restricted to approved members only. The forums take great care to make sure that critical eyes do not get to see what goes on in the closed sections of these forums.

Even among themselves, "metal detectorists" seldom write on their forums under their own name, but under an assumed "screen name" to hide their real identity. PAS does not report finders' names, so no member of the public without special access to its database can check precisely how many items a self-proclaimed "responsible metal detectorist" has actually reported. The exact place artefacts have been taken from is never reported, so again it is impossible to say whether a reported find has come actually from a known site or merely an adjacent area.

All these things conspire to hide the actual patterns nature and scale of artefact collecting activity going on under the umbrella of the Portable Antiquities Scheme.

The Black Side of "Metal Detecting"

.
The "Nighthawks" are commonly portrayed as "the only problem" which metal detector use on archaeological sites produces. Nobody really knows how many individuals go out and search for artefacts illegally. Neither is it known to what degree individuals go out artefact hunting most of the time in accordance with the law, and once or twice for one reason or another illegally, or vice-versa. Most of the time those doing illegal activities do not tend to boast about it in polite company. A few years back English Heritage produced a report on so-called "nighthawking" (which is a misnomer, many unscrupulous detector users probably search sites illegally in broad daylight if the hedges are high enough and the site cannot be seen from the road or farmhouse). It concluded that the scale of the activity was down compared to previous years, though these conclusions remain tentative and uncheckable by the means applied at the time the report was compiled. It was suggested in some way the Portable Antiquities Scheme had played a part turning black devils into white angels. Personally I very much doubt it, and refer the reader to a series of posts on my main blog for the reasons why.

The White Side of "Metal Detecting"

.
The model that is propagated by the supporters of the PAS is that the awfully nice gentlemen with metal detectors are somehow doing archaeology a great benefit by taking artefacts out of the archaeological record with minimal attention to precise context so that they can be "recorded" by the Portable Antiquities Scheme "database" so everybody can look at pictures of them and read about them on their computers without getting off their backsides and going to a proper museum or reading any proper book about archaeology. The PAS is presented as a Scheme for recording artefacts, not protecting sites from being despoiled of collectable items.

Obviously it is in the interest of the PAS to persuade everyone - not least the public purse-string holders - that its doing a great job reaching all those "metal detectorists" willingly helping archaeology out by emptying archaeological sites all over the country of the more collectable items. They produce annual reports full of big numbers. The number of people that have visited their website, the number of children that have played the virtual metal-detecting game there. The number of "finders" that have brought finds for recording, the huge number of objects they have in their "database" as a result. What they do not say is what those people were doing on the website (looking for information to identify freshly dug up and unreported finds of their own which they want to sell on eBay maybe?). What they do not say is how many metal detectorists in the clubs, or at the commercial artefact hunting rallies they visited did not show their finds. What they have never studied is how large the collections of these people are and therefore what percentage of the finds they have removed in their years of artefact hunting are on record.

In the case of Wales, they have even incorporated into their database a separately-compiled database (of Iron Age and Roman Coins from Wales) ostensibly to make the "coverage fuller", but with the effect of making it look to those unaware of the source of these data as if many more "White detectorists" have been coming to the Scheme with their finds.

When supporters of the PAS bang on about the "benefits" of the "partnership" with artefact hunters, they have in mind these "white detectorists" and are assuming that what they can see emerging in and from the PAS database is by now the major part of what artefact hunters are removing from archaeological sites all over the country. Nothing, I would say after a number of years looking carefully at the evidence for this, could in fact be further from the truth.

How Many Recordable Artefacts are "Metal Detectorists" in Wales Keeping?

.
There is quite a discrepancy between the average numbers of finds shown to the regional officers of the Portable Antiquities Scheme in Wales and the number of finds predicted by the Heritage Action Artefact Erosion Counter. Which is closer to the actuual number of finds made by an average active metal detectorist in the course of a year's going out and searcching for things to add to the collection? Some members of the "Detecting Wales" forum helpfully tell us what they find. "Chef Geoff" for example, on July 4th had already added to his own personal private collection, at least:

86 Roman coins ('nummi' 73, 5 folii, 4 'sesterci', 3 denarii, and a 'dupondius'), 24 hammered coins (including a Celtic stater), seventeen Roman fibulae, 2 Roman rings and 4 silver rings (post medieval)

One hundred and thirty two finds. The "Metal detectorist" called "Dances with badgers" by the fifth of July reports:

finds of 9ct gold "57.5grams", finds of 18ct gold, "7 grams", 22ct gold "12 grams", plus a 1921 sovereign. Hammered coins, an Elizabeth I sixpence, Edward I groat, Mary groat, Charles I sixpence and "LOADS OF SILVER !"

This shows that the common mantra "we're not in it for the money, we are not treasure hunters" does not apply to all Welsh "detectorists". Then we have the forum member calling himself Casa-Dos (kev)who reports on August 23, 2011, his "2011 FINDS so far.." as consisting of:

four hammered coins, nine milled silver, a silver ring, a silver cuff-link. Three spindle whorls, part of bronze age axe, a Roman fibula, a Roman mount, pottery & clay pipe.

Then we have nfl on September 19, 2011 who reports that his finds for 2011 so far include:

33 hammered coins, five Roman denarii, a George III half guinea, 3 Victorian and four pre-Victorian silver coins, one "Tudor Treasure item", a gold gentleman's ring, two parts of a medieval gold ring

Again the emphasis on the finds of bullion value is notable. The same applies to "Deadlock" who reports so far:

Two silver rings, a silver annular brooch, a silver coin of Gallenius, half a spindle whorl. Hammered coins of James I, Charles I, Henry III 3rd cut quarter, Edward III, William III sixpence.

And so on. Quite obviously these people are reporting the 'highlights', one cannot imagine metal detecting a Roman site and finding just silver coins and no copper alloy ones accompanying them, or a medieval site which produced just silver hammered coins but no copper alloy personal ornaments. It seems that this Welsh milieu seems mainly interested in swapping boasts about their silver and gold finds.

The "Detecting Wales" forum sections: DetectingWales.com Rally Reports and 2010 Predictions - How many finds? are also both quite revealing.

Quite obviously from the evidence provided by their own discussion forum, given the number of items we have seen are being added to the PAS database by "partnership" with Welsh "metal detectorists" compared to the sort of accounts we see above of what some of them are finding, Welsh "metal detectorists" are not showing even a small fraction of what they find to the Portable Antiquities Scheme.

The PAS is not making much of a dent on the non-reported removal of archaeological finds from archaeological sites and assemblages from one end of Wales to the other. These finds are coming out of the ground at a huge rate and being lost - despite the existence for almost a decade of a Scheme to encourage their reporting and recording.

Vignette: Treasure Chest full of freshly dug up but unrecorded ancient artefacts.

Welsh Detectorists' "Co-operation" Mapped

.

The map of all recorded findspots from Wales and adjacent areas of Englend makes the point in a far more visual manner. There is a clear shift in density of reported finds at the boundary between England and Wales, even though there are no geographical or demographic factors which would mean that there is a markedly different density of metal detector users across the same line.


The contrast between the degree to which English artefact hunters ("metal detectorists") are co-operating with the PAS with the takeup by Welsh "detectorists" is clear here (data from 2010). Indeed, the way in which some of the scatters of finds spread out along and across the border between England and Wales, one wonders to what extent some of these clusters are the result of reporting by English "detectorists" to an English office of the PAS of finds they have made to the west of the political boundary.

The first Detecting Wales Rally . . . "gold and silver!"

.
There is a revealing account over on "Find's Treasure Forums" (note the name) with the equally revealing title: "The first Detecting Wales Rally ... gold and silver!" posted at the end of February 2009 by one "Welsh Neil". The commercial artefact hunting rally run by the "Detecting Wales" forum was a great "success". About 35 people searched ploughed land and grassland (not approved by the Code of Practice) and the finds from the pasture were described as "outstanding". The rally removed from the archaeological record at this point four Roman coins ("grots"), two Roman fibulae, a silver man's finger-ring, six hammered silver coins, five milled silver coins, a gold noble coin weight and a "gold quarter stater". As Welsh Neil said:

As far as I am aware there have only been 7 gold staters ever found in Wales. Its a historical find and needs to be reported!

Once again we see the emphasis being placed on how much "gold and silver" is being found by these treasure hunters. Needless to say a search of the PAS does not produce any record of a gold quarter stater found in February 2009 - or indeed of any of reports of these rally finds coming in at all.

The "Detecting Wales" forum has run at least forty other commercial artefact hunting rallies since then. It seems that none yet figure on the PAS list of rallies contributing in any significant way to their database. Obviously then the majority of these finds are just being taken out of the archaeological record and disappearing into scattered ephemeral collections or onto eBay.

Wales as compared with the rest

.
If we look at the 2007 annual report of the Portable Antiquities Scheme (published at the end of 2009) we find a number of disturbing statistics. Eighty eight percent (in terms of object numbers) of the items the Scheme is recording (Table 7, p. 277) comes from the servicing of artefact hunting, only 12% of the Scheme's activities concerns non-collecting members of the public - who foot the bill. The monthly average of finds reported had dropped from the 2006 values by nearly a third (Table 2c), findspot accuracy was appalling (Table 5a) with 80% of the finds with no National Grid Reference at all, an additional 7% had only four figure NGRs (next to useless for many archaeological purposes).

The 391 records of finds (Table 2a) had resulted from reports made by 358 finders, 256 were "metal detectorists", while 102 were "others". That means (assuming each accidental finder reported one find) that each Welsh "metal detectorist" was responsible for 1.1 records.

Table 6b however notes that metal detecting clubs in Wales have "555+" members. So less than half of these were coming forward with anything, and the vast majority of those that did, came forward with a single item.

How Much is this Portable Antiquities Scheme Costing?

.
It has been pointed out in the blog how far Wales has been lagging behind the rest of the country when it comes to the recording of finds taken from the archaeological record by artefact hunters. The Museums Journal about a year ago reported (Sharon Heal, 'Funding cut for Portable Antiquities Scheme in Wales', Museums Journal 26.11.2010) that in November 2010 the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in England wrote to Alun Jones, the minister for heritage in Wales, to say that funding for the Portable Antiquities Scheme would be withdrawn from April 2012 with the hope that the costs would be picked up by the Welsh taxpayer through the Welsh Assembly Government and NMW.

DCMS currently puts approximately £60,000 into the scheme in Wales, with £10,000 coming from Amgueddfa Cymru - National Museum Wales (NMW) and £5,000 from Museums, Archives and Libraries Wales (CyMAL). The money funds a post based at the national museum in Cardiff and a grants scheme.

Faced with a budget cut of 15% a joint decision was taken by the DCMS and the British Museum (who will be running the Scheme from April 2012) to withdraw from 2012 their £60,000 funding of the PAS in Wales.

PAS director Roger Bland said: "This was a very difficult decision that the British Museum took in conjunction with DCMS. 92% of the costs of running the PAS go on staff, and the current network of finds liaison officers and finds advisers are all fully stretched, so there was no easy way to implement cuts of 15%. In the case of Wales there was an anomaly that funding was going to the devolved administration. We will do all we can to work with the national museum to ensure that PAS continues in Wales." But David Anderson, director general of NMW, said the future of the scheme in Wales was now uncertain and its loss would be a massive blow to the country’s heritage and archaeology.

Only if the erosion of the archaeological record through artefact hunting is allowed to continue at the present rate. At present it is costing everyone at least £75000 a year to run a Scheme in Wales that mainly services some 500 "metal detectorists" to a somewhat minimal degree (for many of the finds they remove from archaeological assemblages appear not to be being recorded). Not only that, it does so at the cost of shielding their erosive hobby from criticism when it is the public's right to know what damage is being done to the archaeological record of their country as a result of current policies. Scrapping the Scheme altogether in favour of other arrangements for mitigating the erosion in Wales and investing some of the money saved into expanding the services offered the public by existing museums would be beneficial. It will soon emerge whether Welsh artefact hunters are as "responsible" as their supporters claim and the removal of an umbrella "partner" scheme will allow a wider and more penetrating public debate into the effects of uncontrolled artefact hunting on the archaeological record of Wales. "Metal detectorists" will have to work harder than they currently do at gaining public acceptance by their own deeds (and not through a publicly funded external scheme). This too will put an end to the feelings of entitlement that currently shines through everything these individuals do and write. Let them realise that artefact hunting and collecting at the expense of the integrity of the common archaeological heritage is a privilege to be earned and not a "right" that is exercised at the expense of money taken from other people's pockets to offset the costs of trying to mitigate the damage.

It should be noted that although this news has been on the cards for a year or so, there has been very little forward-looking discussion on the "Detecting Wales" forum of the impending spending cuts to PAS in Wales and the significance this may have for the immediate and long-term future of the hobby in Wales.

Vignette: Mitigating metal detecting - a bottomless money pit.

Rewriting History

.
The Portable Antiquities Scheme represents "metal detecting" as people going out and "finding their own history". The historical disciplines however involve a little bit more than just going out and "finding something", there is a whole methodology (or series of methodologies) to be followed in the gathering of evidence, its criticism/ assessment and use to interpret the past in a scholarly manner. If they are not followed the results can verge on comical pseudohistory. A good example is the work of "metal detectorist" Alan Hassall in Wales who claims to have discovered the Ark of the Covenant in Wales, and much else besides and feels rejected because the academic community will not give his pronouncements any credence. Like many "metal detectorists", Hassall has a deep mistrust of the "Establishment" and its motives. Here he is talking about it:

The English Establishment have done what no other country on this planet we call Earth [have done] and have changed and reinvented The original British Histories as if for centuries nothing happened. All clocks stopped, nobody lived, nobody died, nothing happened. Then all of a sudden at a precise moment in time everything started again as if nothing had happened and everything was back to normal.For Centuries The Establishment has been able to keep everyone in the dark and treat them like mushrooms and feed them on political horse manure. With the Discovery of the Great White Palace of the British Kings we finally have something tangible to reveal to the World that Once upon a time there was a Camelot.

The Portable Antiquities Scheme is an institution representing the English Establishment, why impose its rigours on the creative freedoms of the imaginations of the seekers of a Lost Past? Metal detectorists like these who think they "know better than the experts" are not going to listen to a Scheme which is created to engender "best practice" in their activities. Why waste public money on a Scheme these "finders" do not appreciate looking over their shoulder?

Vignette: Romantic pseudohistory

Treasure and Portable Antiquities

.
Care should be taken to differentiate between two entirely separate legal categories of discovered artefact, that which is classed as "Treasure" according to the 1996 Treasure Act, and that which is merely a so-called "Portable Antiquity". Anybody, whether an artefact hunter who has gone out equipped to find such items, or somebody who finds something accidentally, walking the dog or gardening, is obliged by law to report the discovery of a potential Treasure item to the relevant authority within 14 days. It's the same with human remains in the woods, you are obliged to report it to the Coroner. A finder of a non-Treasure item is not obliged to report the items (so, like the equivalent of finding a dead dog in the woods if no crime seems to have been committed).

The 1996 Treasure act is clear, the find of a Treasure item should (in England and Wales) be reported to the Coroner, not the PAS. It is in the hands of the Coroner that the initiation of the whole "Treasure process" is vested by law. Most metal detectorists will say that they and their pals are all law-abiding, and on any hobbyist is incumbent the obligation of knowing the laws that govern that activity. It therefore seems that removing the PAS from the scene in Wales would not reduce the number of Treasure finds being reported by law-abiding "metal detectorists".

This is an important distinction, because over in England, the steady increase in the number of reported hoards and other group finds classed as Treasure by English law being processed by the system is treated as an index of the "success" of the Portable Antiquities Scheme (which is actually a totally separate organization set up to deal with something else). An example is Bland 2010, fig 6.3. At the same time the apologists of artefact hunting (in which we may class the PAS itself) stresses that the "vast majority" of English artefact hunters are law abiding searchers of history, "not in it for the money". Nobody explains however how, in that case, the rising number of Treasure finds reported each year is not an index of the rate of erosion of the archaeological record by the selective removal of assemblages of associated objects from the archaeological deposits and their original context which extremely commonly can never e reconstructed even if the site is subsequently the focus of a small-scale archaeological excavation.

In actual fact the process for fulfilling the legal obligation of reporting Treasure in Wales does not need an expensive Portable Antiquities Scheme - it s enough for finders to be made aware of the addresses of the local Coroner's office.

Not All Welsh Detectorists Want A PAS Anyway

.
In a rather belated discussion about the threatened demise of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, a member of the "Detecting Wales" forum, one "Jeb" from the mountainous areas of North Wales is unworried by the prospect of the PAS disappearing. "So what???" he asks.

He considers that the UKDFD, created by detectorists for detectorists, is more "compudent" and easier to work with and can replace the PAS. Jeb considers that what the PAS is "really there for" apart from "record your finds" is that it could be there as a "spy, to see how many detectorists are actualy recording their finds as well". He suggests that the function of the PAS is to determine 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?"

So in other words, attempt to protect significant sites from being trashed by artefact hunters hoiking out random objects merely for entertainment and profit? Sadly that is precisely what in all of its decade and a half of public-funded existence PAS has NOT been doing, but it is interesting to note that here is a voice indicating that if the PAS had been having greater success in preserving sites, it would not have the backing of at least part of the "metal detecting" community.

Of course the UKDFD cannot replace the PAS as from the beginning its database has not been constructed in a manner to be compatible with the software of the Historic Environment records that the PAS is intended to feed data into in order that the information can be used for resource management and research purposes.

Jeb says "No to a Portable Antiquities Scheme in Wales".

Vignette: in the mountains, looking down into the abyss.