The evolution of the PAS since 1997 was seen to have a major effect on the resulting distribution maps of portable antiquities records (Figs 3, 4 and 6). The regions where the highest kernel density was calculated (Fig. 6) all correspond to the PAS recording zones started in 1997 or 1999, adjacent areas (e.g. Warwickshire), or regions where there has been long-term good relations between metal-detector users and heritage professionals (e.g. Lincolnshire). This does not mean that the dataset is entirely biased towards these areas and bears no relation to aspects of ancient settlement and economy. Early recording zones in the West Midlands, north-west and Wales (Fig. 6) have failed to produce high numbers of finds, which mirrors the pattern of known settlements through time.
Nonetheless, the problems associated with the evolution of the PAS are, in themselves, a biasing factor in the interpretation of the distribution of portable antiquities in England and Wales. Assuming continued funding of the PAS, the variations in artefact densities between different recording zones will level out over time, lessening the effect of these initial regions. Within this article, the dataset used within Section 2 is correct as of July 2006, and any future comparisons with the maps made must reflect this. Measuring the effect of the evolution of the PAS is, however, difficult. One method for assessing this is to compare the PAS dataset against other datasets, which are built using a broader range of data, such as the Early Medieval Corpus (EMC). The EMC provides a dataset of all single finds of post-Roman coinage until c. 1180 AD, including those from excavations, and provides a further control on the PAS data. It is used below in Section 3. Although using this dataset is also not without its problems, it can shed light on how an evolving PAS database may look in future.
© Internet Archaeology/Author(s)
URL: http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue25/2/2.6.1.html
Last updated: Tues Apr 21 2009