Ad by google

Wednesday, 12 February 2014

Heritage Actions phoney artefact erosion counter.

I feel its about time I wrote about the above subject. Heritage action have an artefact erosion counter shown Here.

It is obvious that some corrupt metal detectorists will dig up artefacts and either not report them or record them. However this counter is a load of tosh. First of all how was it decided how quickly the counter would tick when they themselves admit that what happens on a field is a secret.

Secondly can you prove its accurate by naming any single one item and the date and time it was dug out the ground? You know, one of the items you have counted?

Third reason, I just checked the erosion counter. Its still there ticking away, infact its counted 402 artefacts that have been dug up today already ( mostly unreported to the pas apparently). 402 artefacts today, that's right four hundred and two ! Strange that really when I just stepped out side I was nearly blown over by 80mph winds and driving rain. Which means there must be some real hardy detectorists out there digging the artefacts that the counter has counted.

Pull the other one guys. Some of us are trying to make metal detecting more ethical but we dont need you guys ramming this fictional and majorly non reliable counter in the publics face.

Wow its at 414 now.

10 comments:

  1. First, I'll repeat what I said below:

    Have you read what the Erosion Counter is? http://www.heritageaction.org.uk/erosioncounter/ It's the best available estimate, based on actual survey data of the subject by CBA/EH, pro-detectorist archaeologist David Connolly and detectorist Kevmar. It doesn't claim to be "accurate" but it very strongly indicate on that evidence that most detectorists don't report most of their finds - i.e. they misbehave and thumb their noses at the notion that they have a social responsibility to everyone else.

    If you want to make a difference you would be much better employed accepting that reality rather than implying it isn't true and that the 3 surveys and the Erosion Counter don't strongly suggest that it is. Why, as a reformer, would you defend the irresponsible majority? It makes no sense. Hobby solidarity? But they're on a different and far lower and less moral plane and cause massive cultural loss. You should stand up for what's right, IMO not for people that are misbehaving.

    Second, your 3 questions suggest you can't possibly have read the text accompanying the Counter else you would have had absolutely no need to ask them. If, after you've done so, you still need answers I'll provide them, but I'm betting you won't. Incidentally, to call it phoney when you haven't read it (and when the CBA and Prof David Gill both think it's a reasonable) is just a tad daft IMO.

    ReplyDelete

  2. Thanks for taking the time to respond. To answer your question why am not targeting the irresponsible detectorists, I am targeting them. I am also targeting the anti metal detecting fraternity who make the garbage up like the erosion counter. As this only taints the publics view on the situation which is unfair due to the counter being highly inaccurate. In your opening sentence on the counter page you said and I quote

    "Since what happens in the fields is a secret known only to each individual, no-one can claim any particular total of the number of artefacts removed by artefact hunters"

    Yet you are claiming its an obsurd 11 million or whatever ever numer its at now.

    Who were the subjects you carried the survey out on. Where was it carried out? What questions were asked?

    Its fictitious, it represents no reality at all. The only solid proof that artefacts are being dug up is the pas system which they are recorded on not a script counter.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Who were the subjects you carried the survey out on. Where was it carried out? What questions were asked? "

    So you STILL haven't read it!

    And you STILL don't get it that all the questions were posed by CBA/EH, David Connolly and Kevmar - and you haven't read those either!

    Enough. Plus ca change.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have read it but my readers may not have and may just want the answers out of your mouth.

    You use this counter as quite damming evidence in your fight to say the vast majority of detctorists are untrustworthy and thieves basically, so given that fact im sure you can enlighten my readers on the percentage of the accuracy or your damming evidence counter. I wont be pedantic so give or take 5% is fine.

    ReplyDelete

  5. It seems heritage action have spat their dummy out when questioned about an accuracy percentage of their counter. Here is what he said on his blog when I asked him to come back and answer it.

    I think not. I shouldn’t have risen to the bait of “phoney artefact erosion counter”. It won’t happen again. In any case the Counter is ABOUT artefact hunters not to discuss WITH them, a situation I’m perfectly content with thanks.

    (BTW, for future reference – conservation website, so no place for anyone that doesn’t support and actively lobby for legal regulation to ensure best practice and maximise public benefit – which I’m guessing from your attitudes you don’t. Up to you though).

    ReplyDelete
  6. More "scientific method" from those who claim that only archaeologists should be able to excavate artifacts because they are the only who take a "scientific approach?" Of course, that's not true. Rather, just more rank speculation in order to try to make a point. See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2014/02/is-this-science.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Peter and thanks for dropping in on the debate. Just read the link you provided and its exactly how im seeing this. The AEC is literally a semi educated guess, the semi educated bit being that obviously a few items dont get recorded due to a very small minority of detctorists that do not do things by the book. Heritage action have just though of a number and timsed it by a thousand to make it look relevant

    ReplyDelete
  8. First of all how was it decided how quickly the counter would tick[?]

    This is explained in the accompanying text (http://www.heritageaction.org.uk/erosioncounter/ second section, second paragraph). You must have missed it.

    Secondly can you prove its accurate by naming any single one item and the date and time it was dug out the ground?

    I do not see your point. The nature of the counter and the way it works is also explained in the second paragraph of the second section, you must not have understood it.

    Third reason, I just checked the erosion counter. Its still there ticking […] when I just stepped out side I was nearly blown over by 80mph winds and driving rain.

    [Yet if you look on the metal detecting forums there are quite a few blokes who yesterday were reporting “what I found today”, so obviously some are hardier than you]. Of course if you’d understood the way the counter works (see above) you would not have a problem understanding this.

    Pull the other one guys.
    This is no joke, it’s no laughing matter.

    Some of us are trying to make metal detecting more ethical but we don’t need you guys ramming this fictional and majorly non reliable counter in the public’s face.

    The British public has already spent sixteen million quid over sixteen years ON THE ASSUMPTION that detecting WAS being done ethically, only now you start?

    I think it is a perfectly valid question whether that 16million has been spent effectively. Has it achieved 90% recording? 80%, 70%, 60%, 44%?

    Is that not one of the basic questions of ethical detecting? Only when you know that answer can you work out why it is not higher and begin to think of ways to increase responsible recording in the hobby. Instead of trashing (as “tosh”) the efforts of others to draw attention to problems, surely the ETHICAL approach would be work with them in the same direction.

    Now tell me Andy, WHY do we have to have Heritage Action trying to do their best to get an honest answer to that perfectly simple question? Why are we not getting a reliable official figure from the PAS itself? Why is this NOT one of the figures in their annual reports, why do they NOT have the basic information how many recordable objects the average active detectorist finds a year? Why, Andy why? Maybe in your effort to put over a decent image of the detectorists (and provided you are 100% sure the HAAEC is totally wrong), you should start with your mates pressurizing the PAS into producing such a counter of their own, an official one backed up by sixteen years of their liaison and research. Let them produce the figures for scrutiny and analysis. The public deserves to know, one way or the other.

    Are you going to take that risk Andy, and stick your neck out and clamour for the PAS to produce an official counter? Or are you content just to trash somebody else’s efforts without any real attempt to understand them like the rest of your mates? What is the ETHICAL detectorist's approach to this problem Andy?



    ReplyDelete
  9. HA is not trying its hardest to find answers to simple questions it is trying its hardest with its smear campaign against metal detecting. Its plain and easy to see in every piece they write about the subject. If this was not the case they would be working alongside detectorists to get the answers to the questions you mention, to be honest Paul so would you. However thats not the case, you guys are quite content in trying to wind up anyone who uses a metal detector in the hope they lose it and make an ass of themselves on a public blog so that you can dissect what they say to make more smear posts. It is fact that if you really wanted answers you would work with us to get them. After all your an archaeologist aren't you Paul? You must have contacts that could be used to get answers ?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Andy, all I can say is "welcome to the club".... you are spitting into the wind (changed my usual wording here) when you try and deal with these two individuals.

    ReplyDelete

Comment will show when approved :)