Text of talk

1. Why do we record objects?
I expect that all of you who are sitting in this hall are here because you think
that recording objects is important, or at any rate interesting. So to some
extent I am preaching to the converted. Nevertheless, I think it is worth
thinking a little about why and how we record objects, because there are
many choices that we make in recording, and it’s good to be clear about
what to prioritise.
[SLIDE 1]
This slide shows a typical record from the Scheme – it’s an early Anglo-
Saxon button brooch recorded by Andrew Richardson and Laura McLean.
The basic reason that we record archaeological objects is so that we can find
and use the information again. Even if all archaeological objects were to end
up in a museum, we would still need a database to hold the information. But
our objects don’t end up in museums, for many reasons, and the information
about them is so important, and so needed, that we can’t rely on going back
to the finder.
So the information is there for posterity. The information recorded by the
PAS is similar to the record that’s made by digging archaeologists when they
dig through a layer, or empty a post-hole. The soil goes on the spoil heap,
and the archaeological deposit is destroyed as it is dug. It is supposed to be
replaced by as complete a record as possible, so that if somebody wants to
go back to the original evidence and think again about what the site meant,
or ask other questions, then they can. The aim is supposed to be that you
could mentally re-excavate the site.
Similarly, the point to aim at with a PAS record is that it could replace the
object itself. Now if you are recording your own object, this isn’t really
necessary. If you forget to describe the reverse, or don’t add how thick it is,
it doesn’t matter – you can always go back and have another look when you
think of something else you want to know. But someone else who is reading
the record, maybe in Australia, or maybe in twenty years’ time, can’t do this.
They need to have all the information on the record because that’s all they
have got. The ideal, as for excavation, is that anyone can mentally re-
identify the object from the record we have made.
1

2. [SLIDE 2]
There are many aspects to the record – this great long piece of what looks
like wallpaper is divided into several sections which one could summarise as
image, description, date, dimensions, material, findspot, details of how
found, and the identifier. All of them are important but for slightly different
reasons.
Findspots. We all know how important findspots are. To take an early
Anglo-Saxon example, if you find a wrist-clasp in Kent [SLIDE 3] then this
is an intriguing find because it is outside the main distribution. If several
early Anglo-Saxon objects are in the same collection [SLIDE 4] then,
without findspots, all you know is that the person who they belonged to liked
collecting early Anglo-Saxon objects.
[SLIDE 5] Once you know where they come from, they begin to tell a story.
In this case, the objects were all from one field and had been dug up and
neatly placed on the surface of a field by a de-stoning machine. They were
the first indication that there had been an early Anglo-Saxon cemetery in that
field.
[SLIDE 6]
The Details of how it’s been found are similar. If something is found by
metal-detecting in a ploughed field, we will expect other objects to have
been found nearby and we might draw conclusions from nearby finds. If it
was found while digging foundations for a garage in a heavily built-up area
in Swindon, we won’t expect any nearby finds.
Another field which may affect our interpretation of the object is the
Identifier. It’s extremely important to credit the identifier, not just for
personal pride or politeness, but because the expertise of the identifier will
be significant in re-assessing the identification. How many others have they
seen before? How expert are they? And the same with the date it was
recorded – was this their first record, or their 10,000th?
Now let’s home in on some other aspects of the record.
2

3. Dimensions. [SLIDE 7] The dimensions are important for several reasons.
One is to give an idea of size – a brooch say 3 cm long will be quite different
in function from one 15 cm long. These two brooches are at about the same
scale.
Another reason to record precise dimensions, especially the weight, is so that
we can work out if an object brought in looking extremely similar to another
is in fact a different but similar item, or actually the same object brought in
for a second opinion. Ideally of course the person bringing it in will be
aware that it’s been recorded before, but we can all mix things up and get
confused, and recording weights and dimensions helps to keep things
straight.
The Material and Date fields are the two most common things used for
refining searches [SLIDE 8]. If you are trying to find a parallel to a tricky
find, for example, you’ll probably search on the material, the surface
treatment, the broad period, and so on.
[SLIDE 9] The Image is of course essential – not only for getting a quick
idea of what something looks like but for working with the other information
to provide the fullest set of information that you can. Some people think that
because we have excellent images, the rest of the information – such as a full
description – is not quite so necessary.
This is absolutely not true, I’m afraid, partly because of human error. This is
especially the case for some older records on the PAS database. A great big
chunk of images for Suffolk finds got lost during a transfer of information
from one database to another. The images are still held safely on Suffolk’s
computers, but to re-upload them to the PAS would be a massive task. There
are also a series of North Lincs images that were attached to the wrong
records [SLIDE 10]. Because the drawings and photos didn’t have the
record numbers physically attached to them, without a description it would
be impossible to work out which image belonged to which record.
I’ve left talking about the description field till last, as I would like to spend
the rest of my time on this. The description field is the most important of all
the fields, particularly for non-numismatic finds. Coins (and to a lesser
extent tokens) are mass-produced and designed to fall into types. So if we
cite the types and have an image, then our job is largely done. Other objects
3

4. are largely designed to be different, so our description always has to be
different – and to be thorough.
And we are making records for everyone to use. Some people just want to
know roughly what was found where– that there was an Anglo-Saxon
cemetery with seven brooches, two buckles and a pendant in the corner of
that field. This kind of thing. [SLIDE 11] Others are deeply and minutely
interested in the details of those buckles because they are writing a PhD on
what early Anglo-Saxon buckles mean [SLIDE 12]. And there are many
grades in between.
There is sometimes a tension between producing lots of records, and
producing good records. I come down firmly on being slower but better, as
the not-very-good records generally turn out to be time-wasters in their own
right. They slow down searches, and they take up time when you are trying
to understand them or when they need to be re-identified. So make the best
records you can.
Doing the description also helps with identifying an object, because you
have to look really closely and systematically at it. While you are doing this,
you notice things that you might otherwise have missed.
What do you need to put into a description? A good way of finding out is to
read other descriptions on the database. But watch out, as there are
inevitably some variations in quality. I sat down some years ago and thought
about what it was absolutely necessary to include, and came up with the
colour-coded model description that I’ve printed out as a handout. I made it
up, so unfortunately I have no actual object to go with it, but it is something
like this buckle here [SLIDE 13]. You can see that it is very detailed and
comprehensive, and not every aspect will be relevant for every object, but it
is a start. There is also a simpler model description in the Volunteer
Recording Guide on p. 37, so you have two to get you going.
There are also a few basic principles [SLIDE 14] that you have to bear in
mind when writing your descriptions. The first is that you have to argue for
your identification, backing it up with evidence. You can’t just expect that if
you write ‘harness pendant’ then the reader will be convinced that you are
right, and will trust you. You must explain that it has an integral suspension
loop turned at right angles, and so on, even if they all have them. Otherwise
we will end up with records that we can’t necessarily rely on.
4

5. Secondly, always keep the needs of the searcher in mind. Will all the people
interested in this object be able to find it again? Will they know, or be able
to guess, what to search for? We have a particular problem here with certain
terms like strap-end, but luckily the object term is a controlled keyworded
field and only ‘strap end’ is available to use in this field, so we should be
able to retrieve the right records. A difficult one is when there are two
available terms which are just as good to use as each other, and here I’d
advise trying to shoe-horn both of them in. If you don’t know if someone
will search on globular or spherical for a pin head, put down that it has a
spherical or globular head, and then your record will come up on both
searches. Always keep thinking of how someone will search as you make
your record.
And at the end, don’t forget to read it through for typos. [SLIDE 15] For
example, if you type the word Scandinavian wrongly – and it is easy to do –
then the record will become invisible to anyone looking for Scandinavian-
style objects. I spend a lot of my time hunting for spelling mistakes. Of
course anyone looking for ‘Viking’ objects will have to do a separate search
on this term too, so try to get both words in if they both seem relevant.
The reason that we are having to think hard about this is that standardised
object descriptions are a very new thing. Until the Portable Antiquities
Scheme began, every specialist had their own way of doing things. Such
conventions as there were usually began and ended at period boundaries, so
that [SLIDE 16] Romanists called the thing on the end of a strap a strap-end,
but medievalists called it a belt-chape. Anglo-Saxonists called the parts of a
buckle the loop and the tongue and medievalists went for the frame and the
pin [SLIDE 17]. It didn’t matter too much in years gone by, because the
original find was always there in a museum available for consultation.
Things are very different now, and we have got to try to use the same words
for the same things in the description field, otherwise the records won’t be
retrievable. One way of finding out what the best words are is to have a
look at the Finds Recording Guide [SLIDE 18] – this is my very tattered old
copy. It is very old and in some places out-of-date now.
Another way is to read lots of good descriptions of similar objects from
people you trust. It’s always a good idea now and then to read other
people’s descriptions for new ideas on how to improve what you do.
5

6. Many people copy existing descriptions for similar artefacts, and this is a
good idea if you critically read the previous description and check every
single statement against your object. If you aren’t absolutely sure it’s
correct, either change it or leave it out. We can often tell what’s been copied
as spelling mistakes spread like a virus.
[SLIDE 19] This is an example. One of our FLOs arrived eight years ago
unable to spell ‘border’. She spelled it with an a in the middle like a boarder
at a boarding school. There are now 182 of her records which still haven’t
been changed to read correctly – and another 108 of other people’s who have
caught the disease. I just hope no-one needs to search on this term before
I’ve managed to slog my way through changing them all.
Another great benefit of looking at other people’s descriptions is to avoid
ambiguity. You may find that someone else has used a word in a completely
different way from the way that you want to use it. There is a huge danger
of ambiguity in describing objects.
For example, you might want to describe a middle Anglo-Saxon pin head.
Perhaps you think that it is round. [SLIDE 20] These two are both ‘round’,
but perhaps saying one is spherical and the other is flat and circular would be
better. There is always the risk of mixing up the flat and circular one with
something shaped more like a drawing pin, so it’s best to explain that a stub
of the shaft can be seen projecting from the edge. The word ‘round’ is a
tricky one.
Similarly, if you say that something has ring-and-dot motifs down the sides,
what exactly do you mean by this? [SLIDE 21] Sides and edges, panels and
faces; keep a lot of words in your arsenal and use them precisely.
[SLIDE 22] So another principle is to try to avoid ambiguity.
It also helps to work through a description of the object in a logical and
systematic order. This stops you leaving things out, and also makes it easier
to read. For example, depending on the object concerned, work from top to
bottom, or outside to inside. When you get to the end, have another look at
the entire object and check that you’ve described every part of it.
I have found over the years that it helps to put the identification of the object
first – so state what the object is at the beginning of a description. This is
what I’ve done on the handout – put, for example, cast spherical bell, or
6

7. bracelet, or fragment of purse frame first, and the material too. In my mind’s
eye someone is drawing the object from my description, so I then go on to
describe the rough outline shape of it and then fill in the details. You need
to make it clear how you are holding the object when using relative terms
such as left, right, bottom and top, and this is important when you are
assembling the image as well. A side view should go on the same side of the
image as it is of the front view [SLIDE 23] otherwise we can get very
confused trying to work out which bit goes where.
A good rule of thumb is to imagine an illustrator who can’t see the object
(say they are at the other end of a phone line). Give enough information for
them to complete the drawing. But there are no hard or fast rules, and every
description has to be adapted to fit the needs of the object.
The description should also work on its own. Never mind that there are
fields for the date, material and measurements; put all these into the free text
description as well. Get into the habit of doing this because there are some
times when it is really worth it [SLIDE 24]. This is your chance to add all
the supporting information that you can’t get into the dedicated fields, and
all the evidence that will convince your reader.
Quoting parallels
Parallels from published sources are a really good way to back up your
arguments. [SLIDE 25] Excavated parallels from dated archaeological
contexts are the best, as they give you some solid evidence for date.
Unstratified finds or the PA database are the next best, as they do not have
dates, but do have good findspots and often good evidence for other parallels
which eventually lead you back to a date. The worst things to cite are the
kind of books which have lots of pictures, and identifications, and dates, but
don’t give you any evidence for how the author came to this conclusion. It’s
a bit unfair of me to have put Ross Whitehead’s book here as it is actually a
rather useful book for post-med buckles and is by no means the worst
offender, but it was the one that came most quickly to hand. So apologies
there to Ross.
OK, that was a whistle-stop tour of what is best practice and why.
I’d just like to say, before I finish, a couple of things that should today have
been said by Geoff Egan [SLIDE 26]. I expect most of you will have met
Geoff and all of you will have used his books and benefited from his
incredibly wide-ranging knowledge. His death just before Christmas was a
7

8. massive shock to us all and will have a big impact on the Scheme. His
expertise will be simply irreplaceable, but what will be equally missed will
be his kindness and generosity.
[SLIDE 27] Geoff was going to speak today on what he had called ‘the 1700
divide’, or how we decide what to record out of the very many later post-
medieval finds. Of course this doesn’t include Treasure; under the Treasure
Act the dividing line moves later each year and so is now 1711.
There is no hard and fast rule on what to include and what to leave out. The
basic principle will be familiar from what’s gone before; keep the needs of
the searcher in mind. Will this object be interesting to others? Will the
record be useful?
[SLIDE 28] In many cases the decision will be relatively easy. It is hard to
imagine who might have a research interest in unmodified Victorian coins or
18th-century shoe buckles which could be helped by PAS records. On the
other hand, [SLIDE 29] several classes of object have had research projects
devised for them – such as Russian flax seals of the 19th and 20th centuries
– and so we have been asked to keep an eye out for them and record them in
detail.
Kosher seals are another obvious source of information of the kind that
doesn’t always find its way into conventional historical records – in this
case, the kind of history of the Jewish community in Britain. Into this
category could also come really odd things like dentures – we might know
quite a bit about the history of these things, but only archaeology can tell us
how common they were. These objects tell a story which is interesting and
worth telling.
[SLIDE 30] There is another category of objects that are worth recording.
These are objects which help to explain difficult or incomplete items. An
example is this bird thing which confused us all for a long time – there are
loads of these on the database. Eventually we got these more complete ones
[SLIDE 31] and perhaps soon we will get a definitive identification and we
won’t need to add any more.
Similarly, there was a problem with a particular type of rather featureless
middle Anglo-Saxon pin head which had always broken at the top of the
shaft and often had a distinct bend in the shaft. These turned out to be post-
med hooks. I could only find one on the database [SLIDE 32], which doesn’t
8

9. have exactly the same terminal, and really we need more. It’ll be very
familiar to our last speaker today, I think this is one of his records; you can
see how these very modern records really do help.
To sum up, there will always be grey areas with post-1700 finds, but the rule
has to be: if in doubt, make a record. People can always ignore a dull
record, but they can’t use a record that isn’t there. Thank you.
9