On 21/7/2007 the Portable Antiquities Scheme published the following statement on ‘finds databases’: The Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) strongly encourages finders to keep records of where they made their finds, and this is consistent with individuals, groups or organisations maintaining their own database/s of finds. However, following the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales, all such data (including precise findspot information) should be reported to the PAS, so that this information can be made available to the appropriate Historic Environment Record (HER) to advance archaeological knowledge. Only finds recorded on databases which are made available to HERs can be regarded as being responsibly recorded.
The UK Detector Finds Database (UKDFD) was established by finders who did not wish to record their finds with PAS. Whilst the PAS welcomes the fact that the UKDFD is now offering its data to HERs we have not felt able to accept this data direct for the following reasons (for similar reasons British Archaeology declined to publish an article about UKDFD):
1. During conversations with the UKDFD regarding the transfer of its data to the PAS the administrators of UKDFD made it clear they thought that very few finders would actually opt to transfer data. The PAS therefore did not wish to promote the UKDFD as mechanism for responsible recording when in fact few finders would actually be ‘recording’ finds consistent with any archaeological definition; there are concerns some finders’ record with UKDFD to say they record, when in fact that data is not made available to advance archaeological knowledge. In contrast the PAS makes all its data fully available to HERs (see http://www.finds.org.uk/finds/her.php) and researchers.
2. UKDFD have never said how many finds are recorded to at least a 6-figure NGR. PAS has repeatedly asked them this question (and so has the CBA) but they have never replied. The PAS believes that for maximum archaeological benefit, finds should be recorded to the highest level of precision, and therefore we actively encourage finders to use handheld Global Positioning Systems (GPS) devices whilst in the field. In 2007, 90% finds were recorded to at least 6-figures.
3. The PAS believes that many finders who record with the UKDFD are also recording with the PAS anyway. In fact many finds recorded on the UKDFD are based on descriptions created by our Finds Liaison Officers (FLOs), sometimes with little acknowledgement. We have asked the UKDFD whether they can tell us how many finds are also recorded with the PAS, but they have been unable to provide this information.
4. The FLOs who use the PAS database are all trained to record in a consistent manner and adopt the highest recording standards. They are supported by a team of Finds Advisers (period specialists) who train them in finds identification and recording, and provide additional expertise.
5. The PAS database conforms with a variety of data standards: MIDAS XML which has been formulated by the Forum for Information Standards in Heritage; English Heritage/MDA object thesaurus; an internally formulated materials thesaurus; English Heritage period list; English Heritage building material thesaurus. The PAS database is currently being redeveloped and will provide access to webservices for easy integration with third parties.
Portable Antiquities Scheme 12/3/09
We have asked the UKDFD whether they can tell us how many finds are also recorded with the PAS, but they have been unable to provide this information.
it makes one wonder just what kind of a “database” it is when they cannot answer even a simple question like that (or the one about the number of six fig or higher NGRs).
Comment by Paul Barford — March 12, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
would I be right in thinking that when PAS started, they too accepted Parish level (and still do) as well as 2 and 4 NGRs ..
he PAS believes that many finders who record with the UKDFD are also recording with the PAS anyway… but now stats have shown over 14000 recoders are not recorded with PAS.
>> data is not made available to advance archaeological knowledge.
I know of universities who have used (and thank) UKDFD for access to research info
A database that conforms to archaeological data standards is excellent, one that is still useable even if it does not use the MDA object thesaurus is just as useful.
Rather than batltling them, surely the time has come to accept they exist.. accept they are asking to transfer data, and be glad that people are coming forward to help them.
Room for two… surely there is. If the end result is more recording and more NGRs..
I too agree that NGRs are essential, and will be helping in getting an easier implementation of that.
I responded to Michael Lewis about some comments he made, but still await a reply.
I look forward to it to.
I think perhaps the time has come for past hatchets to be buried (and that goes for UKDFD too)
PAS and FLOs do an excellent job.. I am also impressed and teh knowledge and skill of dedicated detectorists who are willing to contribute to a UK Heritage.
Comment by David Connolly — March 16, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
I would say that now that UKDFD are offering data to HERs, the concept of responsible is no longer up for discussion.. HERs now have a choice to accept it or not as they choose. (sadly, financial constraints and staff time may preclude it – but in essence the argument is that the data was not available to HERs, now it is.
Perhaps it would best be served from teh originating website anyway
Comment by David Connolly — March 16, 2009 @ 11:23 pm
“I would say that now that UKDFD are offering data to HERs, the concept of responsible is no longer up for discussion.. ”
Au contraire!
Since UKDFD has announced on your BAJR website that it has offered to host a database of illicit finds for French metal detectorists who admit on your website they risk imprisonment if they declare them over there the concept of “responsible” remains very much up for discussion!
UKDFD has offered a clone of its database to the French guys and also host it for them.
Comment by Nigel Swift — May 3, 2009 @ 8:17 am
UKDFD response to Portable Antiquities Scheme statement of 12 March 2009
Introductory Paragraph
The introductory paragraph makes no reference to the very important fact that the recording of non-treasure finds is entirely voluntary. Perhaps, like the hobby’s detractors, the PAS has chosen to forget that the word implies freedom of choice. Freedom of choice and being branded ‘irresponsible’ for exercising that choice are simply not compatible. It follows, therefore, that the UKDFD strongly refutes the implication that only detectorists who record their finds with the publicly funded PAS are to be regarded as ‘responsible’. For the same reason, the UKDFD does not accept the so-called ‘Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales’, which, as the PAS statement itself makes clear, was initiated and published by the PAS after the UKDFD was established in 2006. It would not be unreasonable to infer that, having rejected the UKDFD’s offer to share data, the COP was a deliberate attempt to marginalise the UKDFD. The PAS has no statutory authority to dictate the manner in which voluntary recording is carried out, and no moral right to brand as irresponsible those who choose alternative recording methods.
Point 1
The UKDFD doesn’t know how many of its recorders would be willing to make their information available to the HERs, whether directly, as is now being proposed, or via the PAS, as originally offered when the UKDFD was launched. To counter any unrealistic expectations, it was therefore considered appropriate, in both cases, to include a note of caution in the documented proposals. The presence of such a note is hardly a sensible basis for turning down a freely offered facility that would certainly result in additional material becoming available to the HERs. The attitude of the PAS was basically one of ‘everything or nothing’, which is inherently incompatible with a voluntary recording scheme.
There is no evidential basis for the assumptions made by the PAS about the motives of those who choose to record with the UKDFD. The objectives of the UKDFD are fully set out in its mission statement, and recorders are made aware of them. The feedback that the UKDFD receives from recorders and researchers using the database is very positive. There is not a single instance in which information requested from the database has not been made available to researchers. In respect of the HER issue, this is dealt with fully in the document, ‘UKDFD Records and the HER – Proposal For Discussion’, dated 10 March 2009.
Point 2
The UKDFD urges recorders to record as much information as they are able and willing to provide, whether it relates to findspots, weights, sizes, related material, or anything else that is relevant. Many UKDFD recorders have recorded finds made over decades of detecting. They often only know the parish name, so to expect a grid reference would be unrealistic. The UKDFD takes the view that recording these finds is very worthwhile, and this view is supported by feedback from users of the database, the vast majority of whom have no interest in the precise findspot. The UKDFD does not provide statistical information regarding the findspot accuracy of records, as it is tantamount to discrimination of its recorders. Branding detectorists ‘responsible’ or ‘irresponsible’ on the basis of what they voluntarily choose to record is totally unacceptable to the UKDFD.
Point 3
At the time of writing, 14219 of the 16233 records on the UKDFD database have not been recorded elsewhere.
The accusation that the UKDFD is guilty of plagiarism is both absurd and offensive. The descriptions on UKDFD records are invariably written by members of the identification team, and sources are always acknowledged. In a few cases, descriptions provided by recorders are used without alteration, but the UKDFD makes strenuous efforts to ensure that recorders are aware of their obligations under copyright law.
Point 4
The inconsistency of descriptions on the PAS database is one of its most glaring deficiencies, so clearly the training is ineffective. By way of example, the same class of artefact is variously entitled ‘hooked tag’, ‘dress hook’, ‘dress fastener’, ‘clothes hook’, ‘clothes fitting’, ‘clothes fastener’ and ‘clothing fastener’. By contrast, the UKDFD uses only ‘clothes fastener’ (for the post-medieval type) and ‘hooked tag’ (for the early medieval type).
Point 5
The PAS database is so poorly designed and difficult to use that it currently carries the following statement:
“We are aware of the limitations of our database. A new server is shortly to be installed which should alleviate the problems and speed up this facility. The search engine and user interface will be completely replaced when the database is replaced, until then please accept our apologies for the inconvenience caused.”
The measure of success of a database is not its conformance to data standards, but the ease and speed with which information can be retrieved. The UKDFD fulfils these requirements far more effectively and efficiently than the current PAS database. The UKDFD does not envisage any technical problems in sharing its data with third parties.
UKDFD
Published 13 March 2009
Comment by Gary Brun — June 18, 2009 @ 8:56 pm