. Here are the other nineteen questions and answers. I
in the post below.
There are
no changes to these areas.
3)
What will happen when (as seems very likely now) some local partners decline to
invest scarce local authority funds in participation in a BM LVA-run scheme in
place of the prestigious national one of which they have hitherto been a
part?
The
British Museum has active relationships with museums and other partners all
across the UK. The details of this work can be found on the British Museum
website at http://www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/tours_and_loans/uk_loans_and_tours.aspx
The PAS retains its national reach across England and Wales, and the local
partners remain core to its delivery.
4)
Since the changes affect their own status, were the local partners consulted on
the proposals to downgrade the PAS and in what form? What other bodies were
consulted and which were not?
There is
no downgrade to PAS and the status of the British Museum’s relationship with our
partners in the PAS has not changed. As PAS looks to the future, we continue to
consult with local and national partners on future strategy.
The
Treasure Act and Heritage Policy
5)
Does the change in management of the PAS affect in any way the so-called
Treasure Process? Will this affect the process whereby external museums are
notified of objects going through the process? What about relationships between
FLOs and Coroners? And the relationship between the TVC and the LVA?
There are
no changes to these areas.
6)
Will the LVA-PAS be joining other organizations lobbying the government with the
aim of broadening the scope of Treasure in response to cases like the Crosby
Garrett helmet?
The
British Museum continues to work closely with the DCMS and others on the
proposed review of the Treasure Act Code of Practice. As part of this process
there will be a public consultation on any changes to the definition of Treasure
and other aspects regarding the administration of Treasure.
7)
What input does the LVA envisage making in national heritage policy concerning,
for example artefact hunting, and how?
The
British Museum continues to be advised by the Portable Antiquities Advisory
Group (PAAG), which includes the main archaeological bodies, landowner and
metal-detecting organisations. This group discusses portable antiquities issues,
and helps inform national heritage policy. .
Mitigation
of Information Loss (Valetta Art 2 and 3)
8) It
is clear that many thousands of artefacts are found annually by members of the
public which do not for various reasons get recorded by the PAS. In the case of
artefact hunting – if UK policy is not to change - it is especially important
that the deliberate and unsystematic taking of elements of the archaeological
record for entertainment and profit is mitigated by as full a record as
possible. What measures will the LVA be taking to ensure this aim is met to the
degree required to mitigate a major portion of the knowledge lost through
artefact hunting?
The PAS
aims to record as many archaeological items found by the public as possible.
Recording finds with the PAS is voluntary so we are dependent upon the goodwill
of finders and the support of the metal-detecting organisations to that aim.
Obviously some people do not wish to record their finds, which is frustrating,
and a loss to the archaeological record. Through PASt Explorers we are hoping
finders themselves, and other volunteers, will contribute to the recording
effort.
9)
The whole purpose of the PAS was to create a framework for direct liaison
between professional archaeologists and finders, during which an opportunity was
created for education/outreach on all aspects of best practice, for example in
artefact hunting. How will this now be achieved in a scheme staffed by
volunteers without the background and experience of the former
FLOs?
The PAS is
not staffed by volunteers. Its front-line remains (and will remain) the Finds
Liaison Officers.
Database
10)
Will higher level access to the database for research purposes from now on be
assigned by the staff of the LVA or D and P?
There will
be no changes in this area. PAS staff will continue to do
this.
11)
Will database entry be controlled by the staff or the LVA of D and P? What about
data entry quality, who is now responsible for the progress of verification of
the records which has been lagging behind in recent
months?
There will
be no changes in this area. The Finds Advisers remain responsible for the
quality of data, supported by PASt Explorers project officers for volunteer
records.
12)
While volunteers can no doubt be ‘trained’ to deal with simple artefact types
(coins, brooches and strapends for example) by comparing the object in the hand
with pictures in a book or catalogue, matters are not so simple with artefacts
(such as pottery fabrics or lithics) which require specialist knowledge and
experience to process and adequately ‘preserve by record’. How is it proposed to
deal with this issue if a proportion of the recording of many finds brought to
the PAS is to be done by outside volunteers? Or will such artefacts brought to
the LVA’s volunteer scheme be left unrecorded for want of suitable staff to deal
with them?
All people
entering data on the PAS database will be trained and supported by the Finds
Advisers to ensure high data standards. PASt Explorers provides training for
volunteers, and their progress will be monitored and supported by PAS staff,
including FLOs and Finds Advisers.
13)
When material is assigned to ‘Community recorders’ by LVA, are the same criteria
of selection adopted as when it is being recorded by the FLOs or are there
differences in the datasets being created by these groups, and how will that
affect the use of the archive as a resource for research?
Volunteers’ work is
co-ordinated by FLOs, and volunteers are assigned tasks agreed with staff. They
do not work unsupported.
14)
When the information by the ‘Community recorders’ is incorporated into the
database, will it be distinguishable in any way?
Everyone
working for PAS has a unique user account.
15)
Given the possibilities for ‘laundering’ of provenance offered by the PAS
database, and several known cases of objects being reported to FLOs with false
provenances (which hints there may be undiscovered cases lurking in the ‘data’)
in what way does the LVA envisage closer vetting of findspot information offered
by finders?
Findspots
are recorded on the basis of trust. If there is a breach of that trust then the
British Museum will take appropriate action.
16)
Will turnaround time be shortened?
The length
of time taken to record finds depends on the find/s and the workload of the FLO,
but how long an object will take to record is communicated with the finder. With
volunteer support it is intended that more finds can be recorded and turnaround
time shortened.
Social
Media and Audiences
17)
Are there any plans in the LVA for the creation of a public forum to allow
active interaction between the many audiences of the PAS about the current
developments? This would be a logical move, but instead you seem to have adopted
a ‘top-down’ blog format.
The
British Museum is advised by the PAAG as the forum for discussing UK portable
antiquities issues; members of that group represent people who are very aware of
the issues discussed elsewhere, not just online.
18)
Does the LVA have a policy of openness regarding use of social media such as
Twitter and facebook by its staff to keep the audiences in touch with the day to
day operation of the Scheme and flag up issues?
The
British Museum encourages FLOs to highlight their work via social
media.
Public
Outreach
19)
From previous BM press releases about portable antiquities, the public has
received a picture of archaeology which is predominantly merely about „digging
up things about which stories can be told”. This object-centric view of the past
common to collectors and dealers is damaging to the public perception of
archaeology, its aims and methods. Can we hope that it is the aim of the LVA to
break out of this and to present a more nuanced manner of outreach presenting a
more holistic picture of archaeology, and if so, how?
The
British Museum, through PAS and in many other ways, makes a significant
contribution to archaeological knowledge, helping to inform academic research,
archaeological fieldwork and also heritage protection. The public fascination
with important new finds is one way to engage people with broader issues and
bring them to a more nuanced understanding.
20)
There is a paradox in that, though most countries in the rest of the world have
legislation to prevent the digging up and collection of objects taken from the
archaeological record for personal profit and entertainment, Britain has set up
a Scheme which encourages such an activity. This is damaging to the efforts of
foreign colleagues trying to fight the antiquities trade which is doing so much
damage to the archaeological record in, for example, the Middle East. The
British Museum has in recent months taken a more active role in condemning the
destruction abroad (in Egypt and Syria for example), but what will the LVA do to
explain to the British public the nature and reasons (and justification) for the
existence of the paradox that what we condemn when done in Isin (Iraq) is
praised when done in Islip (UK)? If archaeological bodies in Britain were to
start another Stop Taking Our Past campaign against irresponsible artefact
collecting, would the LVA support it?
I would like to thank the LVA staff for the answers to these questions which allow an insight into what is going on.