A few clicks later I saw the PAS are recruiting for a Finds Liaison Assistant for Cheshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside funded by the Headley Trust. I'd never heard of a Finds Liaison Assistant or the Headley Trust and it was interesting to read that the Headley Trust is one of the Sainsbury Family Charitable Trusts. As their website states it recognises the problems that Museums can have in purchasing Treasure finds.
As I stated in a previous post one of the main reasons I first started detecting was the dream of finding Treasure, preferably mega valuable treasure at that. The fact that Museums may well need charitable help to purchase such Treasure had never really crossed my mind.
I can't say, sitting here now on my sofa, that if I found Treasure that I would waive the reward but it's something to ponder as if the Trust don't have to spend their money helping Museum's buy Treasure finds then maybe more of it would be available to fund such posts.
It was also interesting to see that the PAS also need such charitable donations to help them reduce their backlog of finds.
Maybe all detectorists should have to be 'members' of the PAS and pay £10 or something a year which would help fund more FLO's. Ok just a random thought really.
Pledging in advance to renounce at least a proportion of a Treasure reward would be a good way of advertising one was responsible. I can tell you though, that suggestion or the ten pounds a year one will go down like a lead balloon. I know, I've suggested similar. A hobby that frets about the membership of the TVC and that their Treasure rewards might be too low is not up for helping the taxpayer or moral gestures. [Ad nauseam: get your own hobby group, you're in a rough one! ]
ReplyDeleteIt's worth bearing in mind that the Treasure Act and PAS, which are what keep the hobby not banned despite widespread non-reporting, cost nearer 10 pounds a WEEK per detectorist. You could try asking them all if they'd care to pay that. Bon chance!
Back to the selective comment that detectorists do not report their finds. Perhaps it should be considered that there are limits to what the PAS can record hence the various add ons to come such as the PAS Volunteer HLF bid. As a resource limited body the PAS can only do so much and in the absence of any other reliable reporting/recording body or mechanism, it is not the fault of detectorists that they cannot report their finds.There has always been a mismatch between resources and what can be reported/recorded. The PAS actively discourage reporting of finds less than 300 years old and have recently become more and more selective in what they will record to reduce the burden on their FLO's. The failures of the system cannot be blamed on detectorists so i disagree with your thoughts on this aspect.
ReplyDeleteThanks Steve and HA
ReplyDeleteI guess i've been guilty of thinking non recording by detectorists is poor practice. Perhaps there is a difference between those detectorists who at least try to get things recorded but are turned away and those who don't bother.
Quite!
ReplyDeletePAS's clear advice is: "We would like to know about everything that you have found" and until they say otherwise the thousands who don't comply with that shouldn't be given the silly excuse that "it is not the fault of detectorists that they cannot report their finds" - although they'll jump on it eagerly no doubt. Non recording by detectorists should never be said to be not poor practice. It is. In fact, what it is is anti-society, just as much as vandalising a bus stop. The best thing responsible detectorists can do is portray it as that as loudly and as often as they can.
And set up their own organisation away from the bus stop vandals! ;)
I am sure the PAS would like to have all finds reported ,but as it stands they can deal with very few. This sends a clear message that they only can do so much and for the rest there is no mechanism in place to deal with these so sorry we cant record your finds. So what is a detectorist to do ? Its not their fault that there is no satisfactory reporting vehicle in place to deal with the volume of finds that could be made available if there was. It is nothing about compliance it is more about the reality of the system and strictures detectorists and the PAS have to work in. There is no easy answer, yet despite the difficulties the PAS are getting nearer to the 1 millionth find when some lucky detectorist will be dragged in front of the media and given a gold star by Dr. Roger Bland for reporting it. Happy days !!!
ReplyDeleteBack to earth and the current situation. Because the FLO's are so stretched this also brings delays into the system with a very visible cherry picking of finds by the FLO and so finders or should i say the PAS customers, get their cherries back as and when whilst the follow up validation work can take years. Not an ideal situation from anyones perspective yet the PAS, warts and all, is all we have. Thankfully we have moved on from the pre PAS says where archaeology was not interested in detector finds and virtually ignored that resource for two decades. Happily there were some such as the late Tony Gregory that saw the potential and made every effort to work with detectorists in their patch and benefitted from the free flow of data that ensued.
Thanks Steve and Nigel, a lot to ponder. I know that detectorists have developed the uk finds database http://www.ukdfd.co.uk I just haven't had the chance to look at it properly yet
ReplyDeleteSorry last comment was a bit confusing. I have just been meaning to look at the ukfd as it seems like a good way detectorists can record their own finds albeit not in the same detail as the pas
ReplyDeleteSo, Mr "Steve", if the reason is that there's not much recording going on is because the PAS cannot cope, and there is an overflow of finders wanting to report, but no capability in the PAS, how does one account for:
ReplyDelete(a) without citing names, if one goes to the stats page of the PAS we see some FLOs who can manage to record several hundred finds in a period when others manage only several dozen? Is that a matter of FLO inefficiency per salary-day (in which case replacements would be in order) or the lack of finders coming forward in certain regions? And if so, what is the latter connected with? and
(b) why is the UKDFD not overflowing at the seams with all that unrecorded material? The PAS allows self-recording now, but again if you look at the stats, most of the self-recorders manage to enter one to three items before getting bored and stopping (and have the PAS accepted as self-recorders people only capable ever of finding three items in their entire hunting career?).
The fact is this simplistic explanation cannot be the whole truth.
Yes there are many irregularities in the PAS recording stats, but as i am not a member of that fraternity i am not party to the internal workings of the PAS or the FLO's. There will be Regional variations in material submitted for recording for a number of factors such as numbers of detectorists operating in that region or area and the ability of the FLO to access this material when they have to cover in some instances large geographical areas such as one FLO for Wales. I dont think any FLO has spare recording time as they are also having to serve a numbers of masters each wanting a piece of their time. As you will know FLO's are part paid, usually in admin faciltites, by their local managers where they are based and so will demand a proportion of their time to focus on projects that they feel are relevant to the local area. Often as not this does not include recording of finds and may well account for some at least of the discrepancies in individual recording volume and targets.
ReplyDeleteThe UKDFD is self funded and run by volunteers and so can never hope to match the PAS and must instead match its own recording activities to its resources hence the volumes of finds recorded will be limited by resource issues. When too much material is awaiting recording the UKDFD put a stop on new material until backlogs have been dealt with which suggests that they are offered to record, more than they can deal with.
As for self recorders it is reliant on volunteers and the time they have to dedicate to doing this. Having looked at a self recorders handbook there are so many hoops to jump through i am surprised that any have the time be one.
The fact is that there is a total mismatch between what is offered for recording and what can be recorded. There are limits and the PAS has been at that level for most of its existance. What cant be recorded inevitably goes unrecorded which is the facts of the situation. There are no addtional opportunities for finders to report/record so finders have no choice in ther matter.