=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
local tv: metal detectorists vs archaeologists
This topic is locked
207 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Paul Barford
40 posts

Re: local tv: metal detectorists vs archaeologists
May 31, 2007, 06:37
Paul Barford wrote:
Well, actually Kevmar, the actual number of new and complete records which were completed and entered on the PAS database in the period 1st April 2006 to 1st may 2007 has FALLEN. It was 28 400 (figures still to be confirmed by PAS there seems to be some disagreement how to count incomplete records). This is WELL down from last year's trumpeted 57 000 which prompoted Minister Lammy's ill-judged "heritage heroes" comment.


I see that I am accused on the PAS blog of bending the figures here http://www.finds.org.uk/wordpress/index.php/290#comments . Quote: “the 38K figure is given from 1st Jan to 1st May. I wonder if you’ll bend that on the Antiquarian site where you’re still able to bend facts and figures to your heart’s content”. I would be perfectly happy to discuss it properly on a PAS forum, but this thread is locked (the PAS does not like too many difficult questions asked it seems).

The figures I quoted here are not “bent”. They were taken from the PAS’ own database at the beginning of May, when the figures then presented to the public showed there were indeed just 28 400 more objects on the database than at the end of the previous year (determined according to figures published in the last annual report which purports to present the state as of 31st March 2006).

I tried to ascertain the reason for the PAS giving totally different figures in a recent “look how well we are doing” presentation (apparently to try to offset criticisms of costs incurred coming from Nigel Swift). If you look at the link I give, it can be seen that the discrepancies were first explained away by two factors, but the first (privacy issues) was of course a red herring, and the second, the inclusion of unfinished records in the total was the one left.

The number of entries made on the database between 1st Jan 2007 and 30th May 2007 have of course NO bearing on a comparison of the figures of two successive financial years which is how the PAS figures have been presented up to now. Its another red herring.

The figure “192,317” is clearly labeled in the PAS table referred to as for “financial year 2006 2007” – but now it seems that now we are being told that the number of objects in the favourable “unit costs” calculations includes items entered as late as the end of May, in THIS financial year.

The argument that in last year's total the PAS can include records which are "made but not complete" is like a teddy bear factory claiming that in a certain financial year they made so many teddy bears, when in fact all they'd got around to doing was make the boxes with their date-stamps, but the bears to go in them were actually made in the following accounting period when they'd got the little plastic noses ready. Question: are the PAS Annual Report figures to represent PAS productivity, or that of "metal detectorists"?

There is no “bending’ in what was reported here. One can only wonder why giving the answer to a perfectly legitimate question addressed to a public scheme involves so much agro and the introduction of so many red herrings. It’s a great shame that we cannot get to the bottom of this by normal rational and open discussion.

Paul Barford
In reply to:
Re: local tv: metal detectorists vs archaeologists (Paul Barford)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index