Monday, January 6, 2014

Archaeologists Need Not Report Finds to the Authorities?

Archaeoblogger Paul Barford apparently does not think that English and Welsh archaeologists have an obligation to report finds under the Treasure Act.  But the guidance to archaeologists seems clear on that point.  Presumably,  they should also voluntarily report finds that don't meet the definition of treasure-- only if they do so will the PAS database created with the help of the public be complete as possible.  Perhaps, there needs to be a study whether English and Welsh archaeologists report under the Treasure Act and the PAS and if not, why not?

8 comments:

stoutstandards said...

Ah, but this is Paul Barford...he is not subject to rules, regulations, facts or figures.

Just the way it is in his small and very dark room.

Paul Barford said...

For goodness' sake... I really do not see why you have so much difficulty understanding this. It's not difficult, and one can only suspect you are deliberately twisting this for effect.

To clarify, my text, to which you link, concerns statistics of excavated assemblages as a whole, not the narrow group of artefacts classified in English law as Treasure.

Cultural Property Observer said...

Thank you, but this blog was responding to comments you have now deleted from your own blog. I'm glad it does no longer seem like you are suggesting British and Welsh archaeologists are not bound by the Treasure Act . I also hope you think they should post finds on the PAS database also. I was concerned by your now deleted comments that they might not be complying or posting and that you thought it was just fine Still, it might be interesting if someone studied this. Perhaps you could ask those who respond to your inquiry whether they comply with the Treasure Act and also report under PAS. That would make for an interesting blog post.

John H said...

"...and one can only suspect you are deliberately twisting this for effect." Now, that's a turn-up for the book!

Narrow groups of artefacts, Mr Barford? You mean the same ones in your make-believe artefact erosion counter? The ones your AEC database cannot describe to the same measure of accuracy as the Portable Antiquities Scheme demands?

Perhaps you need a long, long, holiday?


John H said...

""...and one can only suspect you are deliberately twisting this for effect." Now, that's a turn-up for the book!

Narrow groups of artefacts, Mr Barford? You mean the same ones in your make-believe artefact erosion counter? The ones your AEC database cannot describe to the same measure of accuracy as the Portable Antiquities Scheme demands?

Perhaps you need a long, long, holiday?


stoutstandards said...

The fact that Mr. Barford had to delete his earlier comments speaks volumes..

Paul Barford said...

I deleted my reply to your comment because it was ill-tempered, for which I apologise.

Nowhere of course did it say that British archaeologists should not or do not comply with British law, I really think we are talking at cross purposes and suggest looking more carefully at what it is the PAS does and is for.

Cultural Property Observer said...

Thank you for the clarification and apology. I took your comment that the Treasure Act and PAS are "for" members of the public as a suggestion they were not meant to bind archaeologists as well. Glad we are on the same page.