Archaeologists View of PAS

[Steve-B]

Having been reading over the weekend how some on Britarch view the PAS and how they see the PAS should work... or rather what it souldnt be doing, as I thought that some of the views expresswed are perhaps a bit single minded and lacked flexibility of thought, I thought it would be interesting to seek a wider archaeological view on PAS.

Can you guys give me an idea of what you think the PAS is for (your interpretation of its stated aims) what you think it should be doing and perhaps shouldnt be doing.

Thanks in advance.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

[kevin wooldridge]

I don't want to get into an archie v met-head arguement, but will offer the following personal view on PAS.

PAS would not be necessary [u]if</u> there was a statutory obligation on local authorities to provide and maintain an integrated Historic Environment Record system.

My name is Kevin Wooldridge. I am an archaeologist......

[gumbo]

Yeh but...surely if it was statutory then equivalent posts would be necessary; especially in the light of the excellent data that has been recorded in the last five or ten years.

I haven't read the Britarch stuff but my comments on the scheme would be this: The FLO's do great work although I agree it should be statutory. Because of the present system a number of the recent appointments are over qualified. Yes the FLO's need skills in dealing with public and ID'ing finds, but a number also have interpretive skills that are wasted. What little interpretation is done at the moment is 'off ones own back'. This is the main problem with the PAS: it is reduced to data collection with some imagaginary mass collation and interpretation ??around the corner? Is this what you were getting at Kevin? i.e. if it was an integrated HER we could match finds/events to HLC, HER sites (the old SMR entries) and actually start to interpret a bit? Or am I just waffling innanely (4 pint of Wherry m'boy).

G x x

Ps Still in Norway? Did you have a good time?

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by gumbo

Yeh but...surely if it was statutory then equivalent posts would be necessary; especially in the light of the excellent data that has been recorded in the last five or ten years. I haven't read the Britarch stuff but my comments on the scheme would be this: The FLO's do great work although I agree it should be statutory. Because of the present system a number of the recent appointments are over qualified. Yes the FLO's need skills in dealing with public and ID'ing finds, but a number also have interpretive skills that are wasted. What little interpretation is done at the moment is 'off ones own back'. This is the main problem with the PAS: it is reduced to data collection with some imagaginary mass collation and interpretation ??around the corner? Is this what you were getting at Kevin? i.e. if it was an integrated HER we could match finds/events to HLC, HER sites (the old SMR entries) and actually start to interpret a bit? Or am I just waffling innanely (4 pint of Wherry m'boy).G x x

Hi G,

I have this instinctive feeling that PAS is 'sticking plaster' adhering to a gaping wound. Whilst it may keep some of the flies off, it doesn't address the depth and extent of the injury. I have nothing against the application of resources or the individuals working for the scheme, but feel that a sudden shift in political opinion could easily abandon the project leaving nothing tangible behind. PAS suffers in the eyes of many archaeologists because it is seen as throwing resources at metal detectoring whilst other areas of archaeological research go unfunded. Integrating the intentions of PAS into a wider HER sceheme would go someway to disspiate this disquiet.


If we really got down to looking at the value of the Historic Environment Record (with appropriate staffing, funding, resources and a long term agenda for creation and maintenance) we may end up with an eighth wonder on our hands. By integration, I mean that all areas of the HER, archaeology, archaeological archive, built heritage, documentary records, maps, GIS applications and metal detected finds should be valued as part of our cultural id (and I mean id, not ID) and should be available as a community asset as well as a research tool.


K

PS Still in the far north, but maybe back soon. Will get in touch.

[gumbo]

Exactly! That is what I meant really although the analytical had left me rather last night...

I too worry about a change of policy slapping the PAS in the face which is why the whole 'finger in the dike (Or is that dyke)' methodolgy around at the moment is so dangerous.

See you soon,
G

[kevin wooldridge]

Hey G,

there's you and I having this quiet erudite conversation down here in 'Understanding Metal Detecting' whilst all kinds of mud is really flying up on 'BAJR Baiting'. 29 degrees here today in Central Norway and I've just cracked the first beer of the day, a fruity Swedish number called 'Nils Oscar Kalasøl'. How's Sedgeford?

K

[Steve-B]

quote:there's you and I having this quiet erudite conversation down here in 'Understanding Metal Detecting' whilst all kinds of mud is really flying up on 'BAJR Baiting'.


:D

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

[gumbo]

!

All is well in the fine Ford. Im quite enjoying hiding in this section.

Had a very fine pint of Adnams at the White Horse in Holm yesterday and even had a swim in the sea...how outrageous...

G

[Penfold]

Having completed my undergraduate dissertation titled "The PAS and its usefulness as a tool for archaeological research" I found it to be a good resource. I was critical about several aspects of the scheme but using data from the PAS and interrogating it with a GIS software package I had some excellent and very interesting results. I will be using this data source again as a basis for my Masters degree this year. While it can not hope to be all things to all people I feel that in the main it does what it says on the tin.
Lets face it at the moment its the best we have, unless others know otherwise?

Penfold

[Paul Barford]

Where did you do this and who was your supervisor? That's very interesting, is it possible to get hold of a copy through the university library or other means? I presume you saw the Call For Papers for the upcoming PAS conference, I am sure they'd welcome a paper from you, if they've not approached you already.

Paul Barford

[Penfold]

Paul
I submitted copies of my completed dissertation in 2004 to both Roger Bland, as head of the PAS and Kevin Leahy as Finds advisor, my research was based around data recorded from Lincolnshire where Kevin is based. I am sure that though I gained a good degree using this source I would have nothing to say which has not already been said. Saying that they recently advertised a Phd funding to carry out almost exactly the same research as I submitted, though of course on a much larger scale. Thank you for showing an interest in reading my work, and while I would be happy to send a copy to you, Im afraid that because it contains complete grid references for finds etc then I am not at liberty to do so. It was a condition of my being given full access to the data in the first instance.

Penfold

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Penfold

I am sure that though I gained a good degree using this source I would have nothing to say which has not already been said Possibly not, but as you will know from your literature search there is not yet much of this sort of synthesis available anywhere. Most of it is word of mouth and internal documents. So your study would have been useful.


quote:Saying that they recently advertised a Phd funding to carry out almost exactly the same research as I submitted, though of course on a much larger scale Hmmm. Presumably that's the John Pearce one on "Roman settlement"? Very dubious indeed (we discussed it on Britarch in April). I sincerely hope your study was not in the same mould.


quote: Thank you for showing an interest in reading my work, and while I would be happy to send a copy to you, Im afraid that because it contains complete grid references for finds etc then I am not at liberty to do so. It was a condition of my being given full access to the data in the first instance. Perhaps you should have put them in a catalogue whch can be removed, or simply not work with the PAS which means you are not able yourself to make use of your own research as you like. As if anyone was interested in the grid references anyway, when what is important is what you did and what conclusions you came to about the use of the PAS data.

So can you at least give me the full reference, and I will quote it as work which has been done, but I have not been able to see, maybe somebody else will have better luck getting hold of the results of your research? Send the reference off-list if you like. Thanks.

Roger Bland's copy was a hard copy or a computer file?

Paul Barford

[Penfold]

I sent both copies as electronic files on CD, I believe that Kevin went to the trouble to make a hard copy? though I cant be sure on that.
The Phd you mention is not the one I spoke of, the one I am aware of is to look more deeply at the scheme and its role in research and education, the full details may still be on their website. If I had completed my Masters last year as originally planned I would have applied myself, but unfortunately I didnt earn enough to fund myself last year, nature of the job and all that:D

Penfold

[BAJR Host]

Very nice to see a research paper such as this, and also very nice to see Grid Refs being used as they were intended.. to be available to only those who could assure confidentiality and not pass them on to others. Top Penfold!

You will of course be aware that Paul will quote and use your document for a specific agenda. It will not be one that supports the PAS - though perhaps I am wrong... I often am?




Another day another WSI?

[Penfold]

[/quote] Hmmm. Presumably that's the John Pearce one on "Roman settlement"? Very dubious indeed (we discussed it on Britarch in April). I sincerely hope your study was not in the same mould. [quote]quote:
It depends on what type of mould you speak of Paul? If you mean serious academic research into the spatial distribution of finds and the possible reasons for said distribution, then yes it was.

And I fail to see how you can express surprise that I wished to keep the GR confidential? You and I both know why. As for removing them from my work, bit pointless really dont you think as the maps produced from my analysis would also need to be removed, as would place names etc etc, I would end up with a title page and bibliography
which is really not the point. At the end of the day my work was never meant to enter into the Public domain and when I feel that I have produced work worthy of publication hopefully you'll go out and buy a copy, I'll even sign it;)

Vive La Revolution

Penfold

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Paul Barford

[quote]quote:Originally posted by Penfold

It depends on what type of mould you speak of Paul? If you mean serious academic research into the spatial distribution of finds and the possible reasons for said distribution, then yes it was. I was referring to the way it seemed the project I referred to was pre-constructed and obviously geared to produce a pre-determined result, rather than being an objective test of the usability of PAS data for a particular problem. See the discussion on Britarch if you are puzzled why I say this.

I did not "express surprise" that you felt the need (was asked to) keep the NGRs of findspots "secret". Since I have not seen your text or seen what part they play in its structure, I cannot judge whether or not it would be a "bit pointless" removing them. I assumed the work was an analytical synthesis, I would have thought that a discussion of the spatial distribution of find(spots) and the reasons for that pattern actually does not need any grid references at all in the synthetic part of the text, which is all I was interested in. Indeed, I dont know really why you need catalogue the findspots, because all you are doing is extracting information from a pre-existing (and somebody else's) database. But as I say, I have not seen the work....


the maps produced from my analysis would also need to be removed, as would place names etc etc, No, place names are retrievable from the public part of the PAS database, I dont think you need to get quite that paranoid about it... I really dont think too many nighthawks would be so keen either on turning dot distribution maps into 8 figure NGRs, neither (I suspect) is it possible. But anyway, they would not be getting their grubby hands on your maps through me.

As for Hosty's somewhat - I felt - uncalled for accusation, "You will of course be aware that Paul will quote and use your document for a specific agenda. It will not be one that supports the PAS", well it really would have depended on what you wrote. I can hardly say you came to conclusions other than the ones you came to, can I? My "agenda" is and has always been the need to gather facts and figures to examine more carefully the claims of the pro-artefact hunting lobby's 'propaganda of success' which is in itself a huge agenda. But its all academic as I won't see your text.

But if really is as you say so full of grid references of findspots from the database that if you took them away there'd really only be little more than the title page and bibliography, I'm not so sure I want to now. I'll get my own "findspots" off the PAS database and do my own analysis. Thanks.

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

Hey.... uncalled for accusations !! You managed plenty of them on Heritage Action website! Who mentioned Nighthawks?

Glad you are finding a use for PAS.. I am sure they will be glad that you find it a service you wish to use. Top!

Another day another WSI?

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Hey.... uncalled for accusations !! You managed plenty of them on Heritage Action website! Who mentioned Nighthawks? But this is not Heritage Action website, and anyway I do not recall any accusations there about what anyone WOULD do if they had access to somebody's text. I do not recall ever having been accused of misuse of quoted sources in my academic writing before and wonder why you start now.

I assume you meant "nighthawks" here and not there? Penfold said he/she assumed I knew why PAS holds NGRs secret. As far as I know, the official explanation (correct me if I am wrong) is that its to prevent other people using the PAS database to pinpoint sites where things have been found to go and search there themselves. From discussions amongst detectorists it is clear they are most worried about "nighthawks" who will go onto "their patch", and possibly (by entering land and digging without permission) sully their own relationship with the landowners who had allowed them on the land and to report finds from it. Is that not right then? Its the same reason, surely, as why full NGRs are not given when HERs are put on line.


quote:"Glad you are finding a use for PAS.. I am sure they will be glad that you find it a service you wish to use. Top!" I have never said that PAS does not have its uses. It has five very laudable aims. The problem lies in how these aims are actually realised, compared with the way the pro-artefact hunting lobby wishes to portray them as working. This has always been at the basis of my comments on PAS. And it is why I was interested in hearing of a study which had looked at one aspect of its Second Aim and produced facts and figures (it seems) in place of the glib statements and assumptions about the use of the record for archaeological research purposes which have been offered up till now. I was interested to see what somebody else had made of it, as to my mind from what I have seen of it there are serious problems in its use for research purposes.

At least I tried to get at another source of information and another opinion to test my own deductions from what I see. Its not an "agenda", its reasonable deduction from the information available. And while a lot of the information is being kept close to the chest by various groups and individuals, we will never know how much of what is said and written by both sides of the debate about artefact hnting and collecting is "half truths". We need more concrete information, facts and figures, about the effects of artefact hunting on the archaeologcal resource. Dont you agree?

And I think the PAS is one of the organizations which should be producing them to a much greater degree than it is at he moment. At the moment, for entirely understandabble reasons, it is mainly engaged in the production, for public and professional consumption, of fluff statistics to boost its own image, like the 2006 "user survey".

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

Maybe I should lock the topic like every time it got a bit hot on Heritage Action?

Perhaps you could accept the word of Penfold. And whether you wish to call it an agenda or a reasonable deduction from the information available - lets not go the semantics debate.

I will try not to fill my posts with Personal Insults, not will I try to accuse you of not being qualified as a proper archaeologist, nor will I react to comments about my "legendary neutrality" being questioned, If people really want to get bored / have an insight.. they can see the full horror here : gasp at an angry badger.. stare at a bored Nigel, look with awe on a Paul in full flow. http://www.heritageaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=331&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0






Another day another WSI?

[tom wilson]

Hidden amongst all the sensitivity and mistrust on this thread is a very interesting question about methods in landscape archaeology and the use of existing databases. A great many of us on BAJR use this kind of data in everything from DBAs forwards. It would be very interesting to hear a few views on analytical methodology, for example factoring out the 'noise' inherent in retrieval patterns, or relating to topography/geology/hydrology. Paul B? Penfold?

Steve B asked for a view on what the PAS is for. My main interest is in the spatial patterning of find spots (for locating other sites as well as interpreting past landscapes). Others would focus on the insights that single exceptional artefacts can bring, but I'm a dirt boy through and through.


PS I appreciate that I am conflating the PAS with SMRs. Ultimately they are all one to me.


'Have a good plan, execute it violently, do it today'.
General MacArthur

[Penfold]

Mr Hosty
I do apologise if my input into this thread has caused ill feeling. I originally posted on this because I have experience of using the schemes data for academic research, and I fully intend to use it again in the near future. I had hoped to give an insight into one of the ways this resource can be used to good effect. For someone to think that I am paranoid just because I dont wish to break a trust really is more than a little childish.


Vive La Revolution

Penfold

[BAJR Host]

You are not to blame Penfold - you know as well as I do the inherent problems ;) I appreciate your input, and it was useful and fine for me to take your words at face value.. after all you have done exactly what the PAS requests, and show that for suitable studies, the information is available, and can be used... I thank you!

Another day another WSI?

[Paul Barford]

David, I think you will find the HA Forum threads got locked because the sudden influx of artefact hunters and their supporters to that Forum was drawing the topics off course. They seem to be quite unaware of their surroundings there. But on to the matter in hand:

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Perhaps you could accept the word of Penfold. And whether you wish to call it an agenda or a reasonable deduction from the information available - lets not go the semantics debate. Hardly a semantics debate, they are two different things with totally different implications. As for just accepting hearsay, I was rather hoping that I could examine at first hand the basis of the bald assertations you (now) expect me to take on trust, even though you earlier castigated me for NOT (axccording to you) gathering certain other information at first hand (by attending metal detecting rallies).

I was not calling into question Penfold's belief of what his/her work had shown. I was interested in what however he/she had found out about "The PAS and its usefulness as a tool for archaeological research", as this is an issue I too have been pondering.

I have no doubt that as far as Penfold is concerned the PAS is "a good resource" (many other people insist it is too - while others who have tried to work with it have their doubts). It would really depend on from what point of view he/she was looking at it. He/she also says " I was critical about several aspects of the scheme" but without letting on where, what aspects.

We hear "using data from the PAS and interrogating it with a GIS software package" he/she "had some excellent and very interesting results", but no clue as to what (except we learn later the thesis seems filled with lists of NGRs and maps and if you take them away there's not much more than "a title page and bibliography"). If that is the case, I cannot really see that Penfold's idea of "excellent and useful results for archaeological research" are going to be the same as mine. Its pretty self evident that one can make dot distribution maps from the PAS database of where "things have been found and reported" - so what?

Certainly looking at the PAS' own suggestions of research opportunities its database offers (it's on the website can't be bothered to link to it) and the projects their data are being used in (like the PhD project we discussed yesterday), they all fall into the same pattern. They are firmly based in a nineteenth century culture-historical mould, not to mention together with ethnic qualifications applied to material culture. Hardly the cutting edge of modern archaeology one thinks....

So we are totally in the dark as to what Penfold sees as so "excellent" - except perhaps as a quarry for NGRs... or whether the PAS database is better/worse as a tool for archaeological research than any other (such as the Lincolnshire HER where the PAS data would be seen in a wider context of other accidental finds made by the public not recorded through the PAS for example).


As for Penfold's "I feel that in the main it does what it says on the tin", I wonder what he/she thinks it "says on the tin", as PAS has a lot promised "on the tin" and Penfold only looked at the second part of Aim Two. I guess we will never know on what basis these judgements were reached.

As I say, it does not matter, if as its author admits the thesis consists mainly of lists of NGRs and maps and lists of placenames generated from it, then I am unlikely to be impressed by the conclusions anyway.


quote:Originally posted by Penfold
I had hoped to give an insight into one of the ways this resource can be used to good effect. For someone to think that I am paranoid just because I dont wish to break a trust really is more than a little childish. With respect, you have given no "insight into one of the ways the resource can be used" since its pretty obvious that the fndspots can be plotted on maps. That is basic nineteenth century archaeology just done through a modern tool. Archaeological research these days tends to have moved on just a little bit from that ... dont you think? And you gave no "insight" into how your maps differ from any others made of finds distributions from Kossinna onwards.

I did not accuse you of paranoia because you "don't wish to break a trust". I said it was paranoia to think that the user agreement you had with PAS obliges you to remove all maps and "place names" from your text. They cannot be used to nefarious purposes by the most persistent treasure hunter, for such information is available in online resources, including from the non-secret parts of the PAS database. Read your user agreement again. Do they still contain spelling mistakes?

Paul Barford

[gumbo]

Dear All,

I have been lurking this thread with interest. Indeed, as one of the initial culprits on this thread, I have been quite interested in a lot of what people have had to say (although I dont necessarily agree). Paul: could you perhaps clarify what your position in society is, and also what your actual stance towards the PAS, detecting in general and research thereafter is. This would help greatly in understanding what your specific angle is.

Gumbo

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by gumbo

Paul: could you perhaps clarify what your position in society is, No. And neither am I interested in prying into yours or anyone else's background.

As for the rest, there is plenty on several forums (try Britarch) about my position on all these things, just a mouse click away.

Paul Barford

[Penfold]

Paul
To save your typing more than neccesary I believe myself to be of the male persuasion.
Gumbo
I think you have a good point there, it would be helpful if Paul were to lay his cards on the table with regard to his obvious interest in this.

Tom
You are absolutely correct in what you say. The highlight of my research was when I seemed to have pinpointed a previously unknown RB settlement, my joy was somewhat shortlived when I phoned the the local FLO/SMR (they being based in the same building) only to discover that they had also noticed the same distribution trends. They were then in a position to evaluate further and sure enough, a new site. Though it would have been nice to lay claim to this discovery for myself;) it did go to prove that the data has positive uses. I believe that as a source of data to incorporate into say predictive modelling, that it is a powerful resource. The more data that is entered, the more use that it becomes. My main negative point in my conclusions was the accuracy of find spots, that is to say inconsistencies in which NGR's were recorded, trying to work with a mixture of 4 and six figure references, and a smattering of 8's was a bit of a pain so I simply filtered out those that didnt meet my accuracy criteria.
You also make a good point when you say that SMR, PAS are all much the same to you. If my memory serves this was indeed an early plan, where once a find was recorded it would electronically update the relevant SMR. I believe the incompatibility of software platforms was the main hurdle to this, that is to say not all SMRs use the same software. I may have missed the mark here? If so I apologise.
If I get the go ahead I will definitely be looking at this more deeply in the next few months in conjunction with AP's, geophysics plots, SMR data. Im a field archaeologist at heart also mate, but as Im not getting any younger its time I sharpened my desk based skills;)

Vive La Revolution

Penfold

[BAJR Host]

Perhaps I should lock this thread as there are some on here who seem to be quite unaware of their surroundings ;))

Paul is a published author on Slavic archaeology in Poland - I am not sure what Paul does just now, but respect his request not to pry - Don't be modest though! Has an almost inexhaustible interest in the PAS and detecting in the UK

Another day another WSI?

[Penfold]

Perhaps he just need people to talk to? If one believes the tabloid press most of Poland seems to have moved to the sunny UK;)

Vive La Revolution

Penfold

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

I am not sure what Paul does just now, but respect his request not to pry - Don't be modest though! Has an almost inexhaustible interest in the PAS and detecting in the UK I really do not see what my "position in society" has to do with the stated aim of this section of the Forum.

And I am really disinclined to spend time composing succinctly and typing out what anyone can find out with minimal effort from numerous texts already available. I [u]really</u> have not been lax in "laying my cards on the table".

Actually David, just a "little" more than just on the Slavs.... Major text on artefact hunting in the UK in its international context in preparation, that is what I am "doing now" (apart from trying to make a deadline with a huge text on Early Medieval Poland that I am editing). There will be a "few words" on the PAS there, but I've not written that bit yet. In the meanwhile, another article on artefact hunting coming out in Rescue News, and working up my TAG text on the PAS for publication later.

Paul Barford

[gumbo]

PAUL- Sorry Paul I didnt mean to offend. I just thought it would be easier to understand your arguments if I knew what your vested interest was. Is there any chance you could just outline your stance towards the PAS, detecting in general and research thereafter as I was getting confused by your posts. In some I thought you were very anti detecting, in others pro-detecting but anti-PAS, in others pro the usefulness of research on this data and in others anti this. Also, I dont really go on any other forums so a quick summary here would be much appreciated.

PENFOLD/TOM-I agree with a lot of what you have said about research potentials here. I think the whole integrated HER approach is the way forward and is a lot closer in some counties than others(see mine and Kevins posts at the start of this thread) and worry about the insecurity of the PAS at the moment.

STEVE- The way I see it the PAS is at the forefront of genuine rescue archaeology in the same way that 'site' based work was 30 years ago. By this I mean that even though not all is perfect (or even well) in Commercial Archaeology there is a much fuller network of Guidelines and Policies that makes sure sites that are gonna be destroyed get researched (e.g. excavation then assessment then publication). At the moment I see the PAS as just at the data collection stage with no framework for integrated research. I hope that will come, but at the moment it is ad hoc, and if people continue to just argue about 'nighthawking' then the plug will get pulled without anything moving forward.

Mr Hosty-sorry if I have been out of order here but it wasnt my intention at all.

Gumbo

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Penfold

The highlight of my research was when I seemed to have pinpointed a previously unknown RB settlement[...] it did go to prove that the data has positive uses. Hmmm. If that's then "highlight" which is typical of what lies behid your conclusions..... Since that was the whole rationale for setting up the PAS its not really surprising that you can get this result out of the database of findspots created in the manner that this one is.
I would be doubtful that you can use these data for any meaningful "predictive modelling" in the way you almost describe. How do you allow for the double bias imposed by the incorportation of two different kinds of non-random information in the same database (unless you filtered it accordingly, you dont say)? I cannot see either how "filtering" by accuracy with which the finder recorded the findspot (another non-random effect) a particularly useful way to handle spatial data.
quote: I may have missed the mark here? yes. I am afraid you did. The main problem with data transfer lay elsewhere and was widely discussed and only resoled relatively recently. This surely is a factor which also affects "The PAS and its usefulness as a tool for archaeological research", so worth looking into in your study.

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

Please try not to be smart - it often does not come across very well on the internet... the last comment could be taken to be a direct critisism of Penfolds work... which I am sure it was not meant to be.

Another day another WSI?

[Paul Barford]

quote:the last comment could be taken to be a direct critisism of Penfolds work... which I am sure it was not meant to be Could hardly be as I've not seen it.

I think ALL of us should try and make ourselves aware of what is going on in and around what is after all "archaeology's largest outreach" (thats what it says on the tin). The data transfer problem affected us all, as (for many regions) it locked up potentially useful data in the PAS with all the problems that entails for a good number of years. Only now as they are incorporated in the HERs is the PAS at last fulfilling the real function for which it was set up.

Sorry Gumbo, no time now, you'll have to do the footwork. Read the four Rescue News articles (RN 98-100 forthcoming). Not just I, we all have a "vested interest" in what happens to the archaeological resource.

Paul Barford

[PS Earlier post now edited].

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

Just one question I have which may be stupid. Why is it you are so intersted in the workings of the PAS in the UK, when it does not directly affect you - what with you living in Poland for quite a few years. It is like me expending vast ammounts of energy railing aginst the Polish excavation system. Did you ever get KESA up and running? I hope the Polish computerisation program worked and is online. http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/archweb/archweb_eng/barf.htm as it seems to be a number of years since your article.

The Polish site http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/archweb/archweb_eng/archweb_e.htm has much of interest - but I still have difficulty in finding any detailed information on site types and locations - I hope you can help me



Another day another WSI?

[tom wilson]

quote:Originally posted by Paul Barford

I would be doubtful that you can use these data for any meaningful "predictive modelling" in the way you almost describe. How do you allow for the double bias imposed by the incorportation of two different kinds of non-random information in the same database (unless you filtered it accordingly, you dont say)?


SMR data already derives from a plethora of different sources. There are inevitable problems with it. But why should PAS data be derided for having the same problems?

For example, I have just been looking at an area where the concentration of known Roman archaeology centres on the same spot as the medieval archaeology, which happens to be a deserted medieval village. Disregarding how that false distribution might have happened, should I discount the available information Paul, or do I simply accept that the Roman archaeology is not suitable for quantative forms of spatial analysis? Is it ever? What would you do if you were a Countie Mountie with a development half a mile up the road? I'm guessing you wouldn't say 'we'll ignore that, it's bad data'. Most people would hedge their bets in a decidedly 'fluffy', unscientific fashion. That's the real world for you.

Of course, excavations also skew datasets wildly: all that information from one little site?
Here's another example discussed at TAG last year: coin distribution in Roman South Wales. Is there really a cultural reason for its clustering (as was asserted), or does that partly relate to greater recent development of South Wales than the north? To find out, one could compare the overall distribution with that of subsets based on the manner of their discovery (detectorists, excavations, antiquarians etc.). Just because the data is derived from many sources, that doesn't make it useless. I'm sure that isn't what you mean't to imply.
(Incidentally, I forget the man's name, but it was a very interesting talk. I think he was right, but needed to re-present the data to silence critics like me. I believe you had to cancel your lecture, which was a shame as I was looking forward to meeting you.)


Oh, and Penfold, you're getting damned anyway: why not see if there's anything you can publish?

'Have a good plan, execute it violently, do it today'.
General MacArthur

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by tom wilson
SMR data already derives from a plethora of different sources. There are inevitable problems with it. But why should PAS data be derided for having the same problems? I was not deriding it, Penfold had done a study specifically of the PAS database and I am puzzled how the two types of data were filtered for its use for "predictive modelling" and spatial analysis. Yes, it would make much more sense to look at PAS in the context of existing HERs and I hope this will soon be taking place as more HERs get the relevant PAS data. In fact that seems to be how PAS was intended to function. It was apparently envisaged as a stand alone resource for artefactological purposes and fulflling PAS educational functions, but its use alone as a resource for site location etc was not, I think, part of the original plan. It was intended as a holding place for data which were to be copied to the HERs. The use of the PAS database as a stand alone resource (and hence all these projects) only began to be mooted it seems to me when the problems over data transfer increased.

My TAG paper was delivered for me by Paul Blinkhorn. Otherwise engaged, I'm sorry I missed it too, apparently there were others "waiting outside to meet me" too... . Its going to be published in a modified form.

David, is there any real reason why people cannot take an active interest in the organization of archaeology and AHM of countries other than the one they live in? Especially contrasting it with that of the country they live in? And yes, please do tell those ignorant Polish excavators who think they are digging potatoes what you see wrong in the way they excavate, I'm sick of it.

KESA is the name of one element (the recording form) of a system (AZP) which has been up and running since the 1980s. The records are fully computerised, but they are not online, as the 'powers that be' decided it would be too much of a temptation to the artefact hunters to have a list of where every archaeological site in Poland is. There was a long debate, I took the position that they should be widely availeble, but there you are.

I dont know why you are looking for "site types and locations" on Poznan Archaeology Museum's website... If you want access to the AZP data you will need the same sort of permission as to access the PAS secret data, but its all in Polish anyway. You want to speak to the Osrodek Ochrony Dziedzictwa Archeologicznego (Centre for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage) Here's the gumph: http://www.ooda.pl/informacje_azp.htm Sorry can't help you, I avoid contact with these guys.


Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

Thanks for that - sorry to hear you are having trouble with Polish Archaeology. We would of course support access to information, where sensible.

Hope you are keeping pushing for this in Poland.

Another day another WSI?

[Paul Barford]

I rather think they are having more trouble with me.
As for access to information, it depends who actually needs it and what for.

[BAJR Host]

You are naughty Paul ;)) - Its why I think we love crossing swords !

Seriously though. It is all about information and use of it. The PAS information is for people to use in study of say... Trumpet Brooch distribution.. rahter than what I suspect you would like to use the information for which would be to show the PAS is not working. ??

It reminds me (in a much lesser way) of a fundamentalist group who enter a democratic election so that when they win they can ban democratic elections... damned if you do... damned if you don't. Do you want the PAS info for serious study of artefact distribution or to use in a paper that would try to prove the PAS is not worth the cash. Remember that I have actually sat with FLOs in the field recording finds.. and seen.. first hand what they do, how they do it, and the interaction... So would you perhaps consider first hand experience rather than just using data?


Another day another WSI?

[Penfold]

Good point David
I for one would rather interact with people than data any day of the week.
Penfold

Vive La Revolution

Penfold

[Paul Barford]

David you misunderstand. You were talking (I thought) about pressing to make information about the location of archaeological sites openly available in Poland. I answered that it depends what the information is to be used for and by whom (in Poland). Its a moot question if there is the same need (in Poland) for public access to this kind of information anyway. Surely you realise after all your travels that you cannot just import a whole system of attitudes towards the past from one society to the next and assume they are both the same in their needs and aopproaches.

Your assunmption about what I would "use PAS data for" are once again totally wide of the mark. I really do wish you'd stop trying to put words in my mouth.

[BAJR Host]

In that unfortunate case that I am putting words in your mouth... please help me ant others by explaining what you do wish to use the PAS data for...... I have made the obviously erronneous assumption that you wish to use the data - not for the study of find distribution of a particular type or period - but to test whether the PAS system is up to a standard that you feel is valid. ie, rahter than using the data you hope to test the data - Apologies if I am wrong.

Another day another WSI?

[Paul Barford]

My comment "As for access to information, it depends who actually needs it and what for" referred to what you had said in the message above about free public access to SMR-type information in Poland, since you had been asking - for some reason unclear to me - about the Polish system you had difficulty in accessing.

I dont think I said I wanted to use "PAS data" at all. I was interested in a study announced here which seemed to present an alternative view on the usability of the PAS database, and I was interested (as always) to learn more from it.

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

quote:Major text on artefact hunting in the UK in its international context in preparation, that is what I am "doing now" (apart from trying to make a deadline with a huge text on Early Medieval Poland that I am editing). There will be a "few words" on the PAS there, but I've not written that bit yet. In the meanwhile, another article on artefact hunting coming out in Rescue News, and working up my TAG text on the PAS for publication later.

I guess I got the idea you were writing about the PAS from this quote.. A major text on 'artefact hunting' a "few words" on the PAS (which as it is unwritten seems to suggest you are in the process of gathering your information) another article in RESCUE (after that 2 page one ... which prompted a reply / defence from PAS. and lets not forget a TAG text on.... guess who.... PAS .... Now call me suspicious, but your statement that you are just interested in how people use PAS belies a fact that your views on the PAS are ... shall we say... not altogether complimentary. You have no intention of using the PAS data for reference or study - or for development control as part of the SMRs/HERs - you 'only' wish to see how people use the data... well Penfold has told you... hey I told you... but when you don't like stats that fit your view they are described as "fluff" - while other statistics become hard facts.

We are not all so naive (neither are the FLOs) to believe the PAS is the best it could be... (but then... that’s the restriction of government for you) - but it is not the massive waste of money and time that you seem to want to prove. If we look at anything long enough (even ourselves) we can find mistakes, things we could have done or phrased better - I am at a loss why you crusade so much on an organisation in another country that is at least being part of a greater solution. Do you rail against American groups? Investigate and write screeds on French archaeological practice? I am not saying you should be excluded from discussing the workings of British Heritage systems of outreach...far from it... though I must question why you are obsessed with UK metal detecting? it fills page after page.. I am sure that if you add it all up you would find you have written more on detecting in the UK than any other subject - and you don't even live in the UK.

If I could understand why this subject in this country meant so much to you... why it fills your thoughts.. from early in the morning to last thing at night, why you appear on forum after forum, saying the same things over and over. Perhaps then I could grasp your need to come to a conclusion. Until then I am truly baffled. You are not just interested in PAS data, you wish to use it to fit conclusions and beliefs that are (in my opinion) unchanging, unbending and will never be altered. I cannot bring myself to believe that you will have a road to Damascus moment, when on seeing the inner workings of the PAS you will go... ah.... well that’s not too bad then. Your mind on this subject seems to be made up.

If half your energy went to opening up Polish archaeological records to polish people, I am sure you would have great success.


Another day another WSI?

[Paul Barford]

I am totally at a loss to understand what you mean by the phrase "use PAS data". In one post it seems to me you use it to mean one thing, in the next another. In another you refer to Poland, then make out I answered about PAS and then keep going on about it. Surreal.

quote: If half your energy went to opening up Polish archaeological records to polish people, I am sure you would have great success. Well, obviously with your knowledge of Polish archaeology and the needs of the "Polish people" you would be a better judge of that than me wouldnt you. "Success" in what? Surreal.

Tell you what, write to the merry gentlemen in the OODA
Szeroki Dunaj 5, 00-255 Warsaw phone/fax: +48 22 831 16 13 e-mail: ooda@ooda.pl and give them your advice on how to obtain "success" and why you are "sure" it would be a good thing for "the Polish people". The Director's name is Tomasz Nowakiewicz, a former student of mine.

[BAJR Host]

I will keep it simple...

You in Poland
PAS in England/Wales
You spent much time and effort writting about PAS
Me think you better spend time on Polish issues
Me no say it bad to be interested in UK issues

I am simply trying to get over the point that although I may get involved in Polish Archaeological issues, as I am not in the country and do not work in the system or act within the system I would have to gain all my knowledge from external sources - and although my arguments may be valid to some degree, it would be hard for an archaeologist in Poland to understand my interest in their systems.

I am trying to understand the underlying reason for your texts and reports on the PAS... a govt system in a country far from where you live - a system that does not impact on your life, your adopted countries life etc. Perhaps if I could understand your focus on this one area of heritage in a particular country I could better understand where you are coming from.

I do apologise for the sarcasm as it is the lowest form - but then you seem to be deliberately refusing to deal with the fundamental question of why you .. Personally, spend so much time debating about a subject when you could be dealing with issues and problems in the actual country you live. [?]

[BAJR Host]

Thanks for adding that extra bit to your previous post... a useful contact address.

Thing is that as I don't live in Poland and would have to reply on publications and reports to base my views I would fing it difficult to get too deeply involved. I may however suggest sharing information (now we are both in the EU) and seeing how we could learn from each others experieinces. though once again I would not presume to understand a system I was not involved in. I believe you were once a goverment archaeologist in Poland (correct me if I am wrong).

It may be better for you (with your deeper knowledge of the Polish Archaeological system) to suggest changes or highlight issues. I have worked with Poles before - in Turkey and Iraq - and found them personalble though slightly obsessed with ranks and coins... just my observation.

"Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth."
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

[Penfold]

Polish Archaeological System (PAS)? Apologies for the mix up, I thought I was initially adding to a thread regarding the PAS (Portable Antiquities Scheme);)



Vive La Revolution

Penfold

[BAJR Host]

Ouch..... stop it !!!! yer killin me...



"Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth."
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Thing is that as I don't live in Poland and would have to reply on publications and reports to base my views well, the phrase you used earlier was "I am sure". So either you are or you are not.

I doubt you'd be able to use the many publications which would supply the information you need, as they are mostly in Polish. Can you read Polish?

Information is of course already being shared with EU partners (!), and has been for well over a decade (We are also involved in exchanges of expertise with non EU countries). Britain for example could learn a lot from the AZP, including humility comparing its vision with the ad hoc systems in place in the UK.

As for understanding the AZP system, there is no problem with that as its fairly transparent but you clearly do not understand the local conditions within which archaeology functions. Its not the same as the UK so its futile to suggest importing en masse your ideas of what is "good and proper" and imposing them on a different society. Putting the AZP record online was widely discussed and instead the records are fully accessible at a number of regional centres to anyone providing a reasonable justification for using them.

Is your HER online? Where can we see it?

Paul Barford

PS
I've just seen this tucked on the previous page:

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

I will keep it simple...
You in Poland
PAS in England/Wales
You spent much time and effort writting about PAS
Me think you better spend time on Polish issues
Me no say it bad to be interested in UK issues


Hmmm
"You in Scotland
PAS in England/Wales
You spent much time and effort writing about PAS
Me think you better spend time on Scottish issues"
What's that? You do? Well, then, what on earth makes you think I dont get any work done in and about Polish archaeolgy? For goodnes sake man, stop fussing about what I do.

You want to get involved in Polish archaeology, fine - find out about what's going on and write to the merry men at OODA with your suggestions about what they should be doing. I'm not going to waste my breath on them.....


PS

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Penfold

Polish Archaeological System (PAS)? Apologies for the mix up, I thought I was initially adding to a thread regarding the PAS (Portable Antiquities Scheme);) Yes, well one is a national programme aiming at producing an "archaeological picture of Poland" through the intensive and systematic fieldwalking by professional archaeologists of the whole country from the sea to the mountains and collating archival records, the other just deals with bits and bobs picked up by members of the public at random all over the place. Tell me which one you would rather do spatial analyses and predictive modelling with.

[gumbo]

Paul: you seem to have ignored Tom Wilson's post where I thought he argued quite eloquently that just because some datasets are better (i.e yours) than others, it does not mean that you cannot use them to great affect. The rather grand sounding 'Spatial analysis and predictive modelling' can be acheived quite well with PAS data (i.e. 'there are finds here but not there' (spatial analysis) or 'because there are finds here there might be more' (predictive analysis).

Just because you're data is better, you seem to want to lay the smackdown on the PAS. A question: given that the system of government in the UK dictates finances and longevity of a scheme like the PAS (via HLF or whatever council), what should professional archaeologists do in the UK? Collect no data until some sort of utopia presents itself? We're not all stupid and people do campaign for change in the UK.

Incidentaly, does the Polish system also carry out systematic metal detecting?

Gumbo

[Penfold]

I see you left your sense of humour behind when you left the UK;)

Vive La Revolution

Penfold

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by gumbo

The rather grand sounding 'Spatial analysis and predictive modelling' can be acheived quite well with PAS data (i.e. 'there are finds here but not there' (spatial analysis) or 'because there are finds here there might be more' (predictive analysis).
No I did not ignore it, I answered it along with another (Penfold's I think). I really don't see what your "there are finds here and not there" gives you in the circumstances. What it will show is where there are members of the public who have found things and shown them to an FLO. It will give you a dot distribution of the results of the activities of members of the public, but of two quite different groups, accidental finders and artefact hunters. While of some interest in its own right perhaps, I am not sure what archaeological inferences you could safely draw from it. Also there are regional biases connected with the collecting policies of individual FLOs, the amount of time the Scheme has operated in a region and so on.


quote: Just because you're data is better, you seem to want to lay the smackdown on the PAS. No, you are allowing David's "Polish" smokescreen to mislead you. That is a vast oversimplification. My thoughts on the PAS concern its context in the system of AHM in Britain, my thoughts on artefact hunting however in part relate to its wider international context.


quote: Incidentaly, does the Polish system also carry out systematic metal detecting? In a sense yes. In Poland metal detecting on archaeological sites (as defined by the new law of 2003) should take place only on the basis of a permit issued by the regional monuments curator, who lays down what then happens with regard reporting the finds (part of the conditions of getting a permit). In this way the use of metal detectors is steered to actually have some use in regional reasearch and conservation programmes. You dont need a permit for areas which are not archaeological sites though many (most?) detectorists finding archaeological stuff here do report it to the curators. In general, no permit would be issued to detect on a scheduled site (I cannot recall any cases). There are of course the individuals who go out without permits and who do a lot of damage. I have seen a number of sad cases of this. mosyt of the finds go to private collections or are smuggled out to German dealers. If caught, they do get locked up as Poland lost so much cultural property in the War and communist period that they are very keen on protecting whatis left.

Hope that answers your question.

[Paul Barford]

David, why dont you ask Colin Renfrew onto your Forum to explain to all your readers why he is so interested in artefact hunting and the trade in antiquities (with especial emphasis on Greek ones -and he does not live in Greece!!), or Neil Brodie, or some of the Americans who write about this... they dont even live in Europe !!! What is this? Your playing the "foreigner" card is a tactic worthy only of the least talented artefact hunter apologist. You dont seem to mind however accepting Rock Art protection advice from an HA member now resident in New Zealand...

It seems to me that your message of the past few days here and on the HA forum is that one has no real competence or rightful interest in the issues surrounding artefact hunting in the UK if one is abroad, amateur, not an archaeologist, not a respected archaeologist who has been one rally at Thornborough, or one who has been excluded by the detectorists from their UKDN forum and UKDFD and "played a part in the closure of PASF" (as to the latter, so did you, yours was the last post before Dan lost patience).

My personal motivation really is of no business of members of this Forum and I do not see why I should have to explain myself to them. Or for that matter what I do, or do not do, in Polish archaeology.

Paul Barford

[beamo]

Is it just me or does anyone else on the forum feel that Paul is getting a lot of undue personal flak on this site.

As far I can see on BAJR and on Britarch he is often the person who is asking the questions that no-one else is willing to do, and more often than not he gets a load of offensive stick and no straight answers to his questions.

I realise that there are entrenched positions on both sides of the detectorist debate, and yes, I am aware that some people such as Mr Hosty are doing their best to find some common ground and build a few bridges. Mr Hosty has already found standing in the middle can lead to an assault from all sides.

However I feel that every time Paul expresses a view or asks for an answer this is being met with a hostile response from the archies on this site as well as from the detectorists.

If we want to build a few bridges on this issue, perhaps we should concentrate on discussing the issues (such as the one Steve-B raised initially on this topic) rather than trying to undermine Paul's right participate in the debate merely because of his location. This forum is here to discuss issues in or associated with British archaeology - all are welcome regardless of where they are based. I don't reqally want to spend my time reading through a sea of postings base dmainly on sarcasm or outright rudeness - perhaps the moderators need to be a bit more pro-active here.

Paul - carry on asking the questions mate - yoy have every right to expect a civil and helpful response.


Beamo

[Paul Barford]

Thanks Beamo.

[BAJR Host]

Beamo is right...

I have yet to see one answer to direct questions concerning Pauls motivation, valid questions given the known history of what Paul feels on this subject.

However.. Beamo is right. and hostile should be replaced by helpful. My Chiropractor told me the other week that holstility towards me should not be seen as the fault of others.. I should ask.. what have I done to bring it on me... I should ask everyone to consider that.

Beamo notices that I take the middle ground, and so end up shelled by both sides... though I can see the no-mans-land turning into a middle ground that contains more and more people... one day the opposing sides will be mute... as only through full discussion, listening AND hearing what people say will the needed changes come about.

Thanks Beomo.. I consider my wrist slapped and rightly so... Moderator Moderated!

"Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth."
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

I have yet to see one answer to direct questions concerning Pauls motivation, valid questions given the known history of what Paul feels on this subject.
"Paul's motivation" has nothing to do with it. I ask direct questions about a direct effect on the archaeological resource, and all we get back from the pro-artefact hunting lobby are the evasive non-answers and constant return to ad personam arguments with which they try to cover up the fact that they have no answers.

My home address, skin colour, "social position", employment history, sexual proclivities, physical disabilities or whatever have NO BEARING on what I am asking and opionins I am expressing about the current status of artefact hunting in the UK.

Middle ground David? I think not. It seems to me that your position on the artefact issue is clearly defined. Your consistent approach to the opinions of people who ask awkward and difficult questions and have divergent opinions about artefact hunting demonstrate unequivocally what it is.

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

Sorry you feel that way. I am known as one who does not shirk from taking on (what I feel to be) views from either detectorists and archaeologists that are misplaced. There are numerous incidents when I have spoken out on detecting issues... I also have no fear in doing the same on archaeological issues.

My position on Detecting (I feel that artefact hunting is too broad a term as surely archaeologists also like a good artefact!) is clear... I want to see a point where detecting is given the respect and recognition it is due, and in return the detecting community also respects the archaeologist, the trend is to understand the need for more recording at 6-10 NGR level, to understand the concept of subsurface archaeology and to understand the need for conservation and record keeping (I am in the process of working with detectorists to provide Conservators once a month to answer questions online) This is a situation of give and take, of realities and realisations that it is not a perfect world.... where Nighthawks exist, but also 'archaeologists' with little or no ability also exist, where vandals ruin stone circles and councils allow development over heritage..... I will always assume a middle ground if possible (sometimes I may be wrong) - If I am wrong though I am prepared to listen (and ear what is said) and change my views.. I can publicly accept what I am. We should look at ourselves first, and question our motives.


"Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth."
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

[BAJR Host]

ps..... nobody has asked about your "social position", employment history, sexual proclivities, physical disabilities "

"Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth."
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

[gumbo]

Before Paul replies about the 'social position' outrage, I think that was me and I have already apologised.

Paul said: 'I really don't see what your "there are finds here and not there" gives you in the circumstances. What it will show is where there are members of the public who have found things and shown them to an FLO. It will give you a dot distribution of the results of the activities of members of the public, but of two quite different groups, accidental finders and artefact hunters. While of some interest in its own right perhaps, I am not sure what archaeological inferences you could safely draw from it.'

Paul you're obviously an intelligent person but this is rubbish. No archaeological pattern is perfect, the whole skill is in interpreting what you have got. In conjunction with other HER datasets, there is already an incredible amount that can be done (and is being done) with these surface finds distributions. THEY ARE FUZZY BUT REAL and there are plenty of places now where people look and dont find things and tell FLO's. The patterns really do say things if you take the time to look and clean the data. Just one example: our entire knowledge of Middle Saxon market and fair sites in East Anglia is down to responsible detecting that has been encouraged and recorded by the PAS and its precursors. There is no way that I am going to ignore this evidence in a study of Saxon period settlement or trade and exchange just because the survey was not systematic,fieldwalking was not carried out, or I dont know where the off site is etc.etc. These are limitations that you take into account or rectify before moving on.

Beamo: Sorry if I have been one of the ones giving Paul flak. That wasnt my intention and I dont even know the chap. Its just that I really feel that the data generated from the PAS is worthwhile and I disagree with him.

Let me make my standpoint clear. There are many things wrong with how the PAS scheme works in my opinion (see mine and Kevin's first posts) but the data generated is not worthless and neither are the immense efforts of the people involved in the scheme.Also its no good crying over spilt milk and arguing that 'if only the system worked like X or Y from the start'; it doesnt and Im not going to ignore the data just because it is imperfect. In actual fact I think the data is often very good if handled correctly (for example method of recovery, intensity and extent of search, and whether fieldwalking was carried out is often recorded under the HER entry for each 'site' enabling like for like comparisons to be made).

Another issue, apart from research value, is that the PAS is worthwhile because anyone in this country can go and detect on field. The FLO's, if they are good, build a great many bridges with various people who would not otherwise report their finds. As far as I see it there are three choices that people can campaign for Change the law (to stop detecting), change the mode of society we live (so that programmes like the PAS have enough funding to be properly designed rather than just reactive) or support the PAS, try and make it better all the time, and see that good research can eventually come from it.

Sorry if I have offended anyone and this is my last post on the subject.

G

[Penfold]

Gumbo
You raise some good points there. As I said in an earlier post whilst the data is not perfect it can be used in a useful way. During the conclusions of my diss I commented that the entries made by different FLO's varied in quality, whether it be accuracy of NGR, description and ID of found objects etc. Now of course this could be the result of a number of factors i.e the diligence of the FLO, their experience, their workload etc. I also commented that this was something that the Finds Advisors could help to remedy by carrying out more stringent QC of the submitted records whilst they are still in the work chain, and before they go "live" onto the public access database. It is also up to the FLO to educate the hobbyists with regard to accuracy of findspots. Without wishing to cause yet another argument between archaeologists and metal detectorists the FLO only have the finders word for it and I am pretty certain that cases exist that even where a 6 fig NGR is given, it may not be the correct one. I know from experience that some detectorists jealously guard what they regard as "their sites". These are just some of the reasons why the data will never be regarded as anything but Fuzzy by some, but by continuing to build bridges with the MD community, more diligent inhouse QC of the recorded data, the continuation of the schemes training seminars for FLOs etc then this fuzziness may be kept to a minimum. I fully intend to use this data again in the coming year for my Masters dissertation, as I feel that if it is not used as a tool for research by the archaeological community it is a missed opportunity. The more feedback they get from us the users, then the more chance they have of improving the system.



Vive La Revolution

Penfold

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

My position on Detecting (I feel that artefact hunting is too broad a term as surely archaeologists also like a good artefact!) is clear... I want to see a point where detecting is given the respect and recognition it is due Well, "detecting" is too imprecise a term for an activity which has a context, it is the hunt for artefacts for personal collection and/or sale. This is what detectorists do with those detectors (or rather its the type of use which concerns us here - because "detecting" is also what those people who look for loose change on holiday beaches do). Why in fact do you (claiming to be in the middle ground) have this aversion to referring to artefact hunting as artefact hunting?

If you really do think that this activity is broadly comparable to archaeology, then it would explain a lot about your point of view about metal detecting. Perhaps we have different definitions here about what "archaeology" is. I personally think its much more than just hunting for artefacts, that's what Indiana Jones does.

And why do you want to see artefact hunting given "respect and recognition"? As what? ll artefact hunting worldwide? (And what makes our artefact hunters different from all the rest? You'venever answwered that question). This section of the Forum is called "Understanding metal detecting" - so what understanding have we reached of the place of metal detecting within the broader activity of the phenomenon of artefact hunting and their relationshoip with the archaeological resource?

I think only when we sort out what precisely it is we are talking about can we miove foraward to any kind of "understanding", but it is precisely here that all the time we keep getting bogged down in evasive answers from the pro-artefact hunting lobby. You people want to hurry on and "build a bridge" but dont want to bother about looking at what it is they are building on, and what kind of gap a well-built "bridge" will have to span. What kind of a construction is that? Is it so unreasonable to try and define where we are starting from before setting out? why is this discussion doomed to superficiality and glibness all the time?

[u]Gumbo</u>, I know your comment comment was dealt with, I just used it as an example. No offence taken, it was though strange phrasing. It sounds like what I had to put on my Polish passport form.

If you think what I said about dot distributions of PAS recorded finds is "rubbish" so be it. I will not waste time discussing it with you as you said you are leaving the discussion. Its not rubbish.

This however seems to be a misapprehension:

quote:Originally posted by gumbo

there are plenty of places now where people look and dont find things and tell FLO's and just how is that recorded on the PAS database? Oh, he's gone. I really dont know either how he can say that the PAS database incorporates data on the "intensity and extent of search". In which datafield of the record (hidden or otherwise) is that recorded? The record is by its nature comprised of individual so-called "portable antiquities" and not search episodes. I agree it would be much better if this information was recorded, but it is not unless of course the artefact hunter writes a report and includes a map which is deposited in the PAS archive, but again, there is as I recall no link built into the individual finds records which would allow this to be referenced.

Actually nobody was saying anyone should "ignore" the data, the question we posed and were discussing was (I thought) of an entirely different nature. Neither is the PAS being criticised because it does not work like another system. One of the points repeatingly raised though (and not just by me) is how well it actually fulfills its own five aims, and whether it is concentrating on some to the almost exclusion of the others. That is what the discussion is about.


quote: support the PAS, try and make it better all the time, and see that good research can eventually come from it. so part of that I presume would be all of us actually looking closely at the PAS and discussing amongst ourselves and with the PAS what it does, and saying what we feel (as stakeholders too) it could be doing differently, better, spending more time over, not bothering with. Can British (English) archaeologisty people living in Poland do that too?

Paul Barford

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Penfold

the Finds Advisors could help to remedy by carrying out more stringent QC of the submitted records whilst they are still in the work chain, and before they go "live" onto the public access database This is how it used to work, but they built up a huge backlog of stuff to be edited and decided to dump it on the public record unchecked to boost "numbers of objects recorded" figures for the Annual reports. There are thus some interesting howlers to find [there was a Roman "bone counter", (material: "jet") and so on...].


quote: the FLO only have the finders word for it and I am pretty certain that cases exist that even where a 6 fig NGR is given, it may not be the correct one. Too right, like the Roman gold ring which went through a treasure inquest recently which turned out had been bought on eBay from a dealer in Austria for 42 quid, perhaps the guy counted on getting more for it in reward for "finding" it (though he claims a detectorist friend planted it for him to find as a "joke"). This was in the newspapers, but other cases are known, including (I have heard) detectorists bringing in fakes to museums which they hope to get authenticated so they can then sell them.


quote: The more feedback they get from us the users, then the more chance they have of improving the system my thoughts excactly, though they are noticably coy about liaising with archaeologists to the same degree as with artefact hunters.

Paul Barford

[Penfold]

Hey Paul
Glad that some of my thoughts are agreed upon by yourself:D Youve obviously been doing this for longer than I so it's heartening that my ideas arent complete tosh. I was unaware that the FA's no longer routinely checked the data before it went on stream? I had however spotted examples of finds that just didnt look right in respect to context, and yes, some real howlers in the description field. But as I said hopefully things will only improve if they get more feedback from those of us who choose to use the data for research purposes.



Vive La Revolution

Penfold

[Paul Barford]

"But as I said hopefully things will only improve if they get more feedback from those of us who choose to use the data for research purposes" I think in future for spatial analysis and that kind of work, most serious researchers will opt to use the data in HERs, which will include duplicates of that in PAS alongside that from other sources. This would level out the "fuzziness" and bias mentioned above to some extent (certainly more so than using the PAS database alone). Obviously in such cases mistakes found in the record (like a record from one place being associated with a totally different place with similar name - as in the case of my own parish in Essex) will tend to be reported to the HER officer who then (should) correct it in their record. The question of how when and whether these corrections will get back to the PAS somebody else will have to answer, I've not heard of any measures put in place to keep the two versions of the same record congruent.
I suspect the PAS archive will then be used mainly for artefactological (typological) research, like David's "trumpet brooches" idea. Again, additions made to the record (like corrections of the description field as specialists look at particular types) should ideally go to the HER version, but whether or not they will, we shall see. Of course the ideal situation is where PAS is entered straight into the HER as in East Anglia.

Paul Barford

[Penfold]

As I said my MSc diss will use PAS data but it will be used alongside data relating to the same area obtained from the SMR, fieldwalked finds, AP's etc. Nothings been finalised yet but Im certainly looking forward to the challenge and I hope to be able to add some useful new info, even if just in a small way. This interaction has certainly been most enlightening.



Vive La Revolution

Penfold

[Paul Barford]

Best of luck with it Penfold. Its worth thinking about how you wll publish the results afterwards (sort it out with PAS before you sart putting it on paper). We need more studies like this in the public domain, it will no doubt be a useful contribution to an important dscussion.

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

The HER (which I can only dream of just now... my county is 3 years away from even a cleansed SMR) is the final resting place of all the data, which should (though often dows not) be congruent with poth the primary data source and the NMR. The advent of XML and RSS data transfer could and should make this easier, as long as strict guidelines of data correction and transfer are adhered to. I wil confess that I am in a small way involved in such a project that will stream SMR/HER data out to the public to use as they wish.. ie only Roman Forts and Iron Age Sites or just Trumpet Brooches and Palisaded enclosures. Which will hopefuly become a useful public tool... For my part... the more in the better. Yes there are howlers... but then the 'old' days of National Monument Records left the southwest corner of Grid Squares as a dumping ground for 'loose sites and finds' and also I have a shipwreck in the middle of a field and a row of terraced houses 4 miles out to sea (Hancock eat yer heart out) These must be located and soted, as often it is just a typo or a tired pick from a drop down box.



"Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth."
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

[Steve-B]

quote:Well, "detecting" is too imprecise a term for an activity which has a context, it is the hunt for artefacts for personal collection and/or sale.

Paul I really do fail to see how persoanl collecting and ownership can be wrong by any stretch of the imagination.

How many of the good people on BAJR own cars, houses, antiques, art, clothing, jewelry, coinage etc etc....

Who has the right to decide when private owneship should become public ownership... and what date this should be set.

For purely selfish reasons because it is your sphere of interest, you decide it should be antiquities... why, why stop there? Others have an interest in 1960's design.. why not make that a good date at which to declare all artefacts from that period should be nationalised? or the 50's or the 70's........

The finds that are made by detectorists in the main are casual loses, lost by ordinary folk going about their ordinary day.... they also privately owned the items that were lost, they were never national possessions then and are not now!

The original owners of the finds we make rarely then if ever thought of their possesions as you now look at them, why should they, they were either functional or personal and when lost were quickly forgotten and not bequeathed to the future of the nation.

Now the day ALL private owneship is outlawed is the day I will stop detecting and colecting.

It is not the item that is owned by the nation,rather the information it can provide, no matter how sketchy or limited.


quote:If you really do think that this activity is broadly comparable to archaeology, then it would explain a lot about your point of view about metal detecting. Perhaps we have different definitions here about what "archaeology" is. I personally think its much more than just hunting for artefacts, that's what Indiana Jones does.

Wel, Paul instead of gobbing off at just how badly we do things... why dont you educate us and explain as an archaeologist much better you would go about the task.... persoanlly I have yet to see an archaeologist outside a planned dig, let alone see one spend hundreds of hours scouring mostly barren farmland for signs of possible historical interest...

Recording by detectorists is being done to the satndards set by the PAS...no doubt you can improve on this.

As has been said, the information may be fuzzy, but it is real..it is a real as an archaeologist could produce from the same context.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

[Paul Barford]

Steve Burch philosophises about personal collection of archaeological artefacts and comes to a conclusion:
"Paul I really do fail to see how persoanl collecting and ownership can be wrong by any stretch of the imagination [...] Now the day ALL private owneship is outlawed is the day I will stop detecting and colecting" Hmm. You really dont understand do you. In any circumstances is that? All personal collecting of archaeological artefacts is therefore OK for the reasons you give?
quote:Wel, Paul instead of gobbing off... So, have a talk with the PAS or David, let them tell you how [u]well</u> you are all doing. Fine.

Well, now we've got that little hurdle out of the way to "understanding metal detecting", what's this actually got to do with "archaeologists' perceptions of the PAS"? (a thread you started)

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

Let everyone watch their 'ironic' / sweeping / libel to provoke statements From Me to everyone and all stops in between

"Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth."
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

[BAJR Host]

We should also remember that although high profile, the isolated incidents of some detectorists trying to get rich quick are in proportion to the number of archaeologists doing 'interesting archaeology' - selling finds etc... and I expect, bankers, slipping a few quid their way, of govt officials being corrupt etc etc... ie... yes we are going to be able to find dodgy peolpe in all aspects of life. I have however learned and been chastened about sweeping generalisations. In the main, and covering the vast majority - people - both detectorists and archaeologists, FLOs and FA are all dooing the best they can, being honest and decent.. to me... a majority outcome is a winner as I would never expect to get 100% in anything. I will (as will detectorists) be annoyed and dissapointed at some detectorists who try and bend or break rules for finincial gain... though I will know this is the exception and not the rule.. I won't agree with it, but I won't see it as a reason to throw in the towel.

Living in an imperfect world!

"Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth."
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

[Steve-B]

That 'little hurdle' as you dismissively call it is far from out of the way Paul.

As usual you arbitrarily dimiss anything that does not gel with your sinister perception of the hobby.


You have absolutely no idea what drives and motivates a detectorist, you merely choose the worst case scenario because it suits you agenda.


What does this have to do with the original theme of this thread?

You tell me Paul.. as usual you are the one who could not resist the snidey denegrating remarksaimed at the hobby:


quote:Well, "detecting" is too imprecise a term for an activity which has a context, it is the hunt for artefacts for personal collection and/or sale.

Again, who are you or with respect David to decide that personal ownership is fine for everything else in life except for the one group of artefacts that interest you?

Why can I own a car of today, but not a brooch of 2000 years ago?

Tell me I am interested.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

[BAJR Host]

Perhaps a poll would help...

as I feel the perceptions of the PAS are as varied as the peception of the detectorsit the perception of the archaeologist and the perception that debate ends in understanding

I notice that I never actually answered about my perception of the PAS... I shoudl perhaps get on with it!


"Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth."
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

[Paul Barford]

I reckon this is worth starting a new thread with - see "MD and personal artefact collections" and leave this one for Archaeologists' opinions of PAS...

Paul Barford

[Steve-B]

Shame you didnt do that in the first place...

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

[Paul Barford]

Do what Steve? You seem in that other thread to be criticising me for taking that part of the discussion over there. I really dont follow your line of argument.

[Steve-B]

Let me remind you yet again that YOU, (you as in Paul Barford) saw fit to slip in the snidey remark about personal collecting/selling in a wholey inappropriate thread... so yes perhaps next time you will take your own advice Paul and leave a thread to continue on its original theme.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

Let me remind you yet again that YOU, (you as in Paul Barford) saw fit to slip in the snidey remark about personal collecting/selling in a wholey inappropriate thread... so yes perhaps next time you will take your own advice Paul and leave a thread to continue on its original theme. There is nothing "snidey" about calling a spade a spade. Why are you so adverse to doing so of doing so and insist on referring to something called "metal detecting" when that really IS a broad term for a whole series of uses of this tool (airports, beach small change, cables under plaster, etc). It was in any case David who started questioning the terms used earlier in the thread ("My position on Detecting (I feel that artefact hunting is too broad a term as surely archaeologists also like a good artefact!) )". Perhaps somebody could open a new thread called "defining metal detecting" then as perhaps we should work out what precisely it is we are supposed to be "understanding" on this archaeology forum.
Presumably not cables under plaster.

Paul Barford

[Steve-B]

Metal detecting is a broad spectrum hobby that emcompasses all you have listed and more..

No need to start a new thread to define metal detecting... many of us not only hunt for artefacts, but also on the beach (havent done an airport yet.. health and safety might have something to say about that) I have also helped a Vet find a ring he lost while extracting a horses tooth, I have searched for a lost engaement ring after a two lovers had a tiff and I have looked for a surgical horseshoe amongst other things. I have looked for wall ties for a building restorer and tools for farmers, not cables under paster, as I havent been asked yet, but I would.

As I said, you snidey label is intended as an insult and atken as such.

Metal Detecting and being a metal Detectorist is a whole lot more than just being an Artefact Hunter.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

[BAJR Host]

I think we are all capable of knowing what metal detecting encompasses. Artefact Hunting is a part of it... jsut as archaeologists in part are artefact hunters .. however it does give a particular impression. Lets move away from it... as in real terms it is not actually that important.. Each will utilise terms to either downgrade or upgrade a position... - I don't see any need to continue this line. The accepted term on this forum is detectorist -

"Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth."
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

Metal Detecting and being a metal Detectorist is a whole lot more than just being an Metal Detectorist. Well that does not make too much sense to me as written. Maybe you'd like to rephrase that?

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

I think we are all capable of knowing what metal detecting encompasses. Metal Detecting is a part of it... Eh?

What actually is of concern to archaeologists though David is the Metal Detecting component of metal detecing. I think that the finding of metals on beaches or in cow's stomachs is not what we are discussing, neither is it the type of use which the PAS is set up to liaise with. I think to avoid superficiality, it is actually vitally important to define precisely what we are discussing. I note you do not agree, but you have not explained in any detail why. Could you do so please?

[BAJR Host]

Thats becasue I got bored with the terms being used.. and have implemented a filter that changes it to the term Metal Detectorist.

Keep up chaps!

"Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth."
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade