has just tweeted:
We welcome the withdrawal of & advertising campaign that threatens the safety of our precious heritage that is protected by law. For information on the regulation of metal detecting in Ireland please see

.

.

So both the British Museum and the National Museum of Ireland have welcomed the fact Cadburys has relented.

But there’s a big difference, as Irish archaeologists know well: only Ireland can boast a law which prevents metal detecting threats to “the safety of our precious heritage”. By contrast, how many people will there be, quite legally “doing a Cadburys” in Britain’s fields this weekend?

.


UPDATE:
Talking of archaeo-humiliation, today there’s an “Archaeology in Wiltshire” conference in Devizes. Hurrah. But will it be discussing the fact that last year at Wootton Bassett, just 15 miles away, there was a Rotary sponsored Metal Detecting rally, on ridge and furrow pasture (i.e. undisturbed pasture, so in total defiance of archaeological advice)? Probably not. But isn’t the fact that was the twenty second rally in the Wootton Bassett area – yes the twenty second – worth a discussion session?

Perhaps it could be titled: “How the hell have we let Britain’s past be hijacked?”


 

 .

__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________

Cadburys was a much-loved company based on Quaker ideals but the Schweppes merger and Kraft takeover ended all that. A force for social good had embraced hard line corporate capitalism. Yet to blame its recent faux pas on uncaring capitalism is wrong. Big companies don’t knowingly damage their own images, it’s bad business.

So  a FLO’s claim: “Cadburys have willfully chosen not to engage with ANY heritage body” is unconvincing, it was surely the result of ignorance. (The Head of PAS seemed to confirm that: “Just to reassure you, Cadburys never spoke to about this idea!) So the question arises: why? Why, after 20 years of well-funded PAS outreaching, is anyone unaware that metal detecting without permission and without reporting is wrong and unlawful? Shouldn’t the debate be about that?

Furthermore, some have said: “as archaeologists it was our duty to take on Cadbury“. Indeed that’s true but doing so is only fire fighting, the root cause needs addressing. Why did Cadburys not know? Why doesn’t everyone know? Shouldn’t archaeologists ask the question: if Cadburys “don’t know” how many thousands of landowners don’t know?

.

__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________

.

1.) They’ve invited UNESCO and ICOMOS experts to view the latest plans for a 1.9-mile tunnel but not to see plans for an above ground bypass or a longer tunnel, the two things UNESCO didn’t want ruled out! So why invite them to visit at all? Why not just send a message saying “we’re ignoring your wishes”?

2.) Plus, they’re billing their tunnel as a way “to remove the sight and sound of traffic from the iconic monument” – as if the public and the UNESCO experts are unable to understand the reverse applies: if you remove the sight of traffic from the monument you also remove the sight of the monument from the traffic!

Maybe one should expect no more from a road quango. But what of the conservation bodies who are supporting this greatest-ever betrayal of both the fabric and the view of a heritage asset? Sir Simon Jenkins (once of both English Heritage and The National Trust) may have explained it best: “Stonehenge may not be supernatural, but those who spend their lives peering at it can go mad.”

.

“It’s going to be great Mr President: we’re going to hide the road by hiding the stones!”

 

National Trust Archaeology @NatTrustArch

Have been in touch with our head of archaeology and National comms team this morning to make them aware of this. Utterly appalling.

.

Quite right. And yet the Trust is supporting the short tunnel project at Stonehenge which, arguably, will result in far more heritage damage than anything Cadburys could ever have caused. Which is even more “Utterly appalling.

(And at least Cadburys have now withdrawn their plans and apologised).

After 20 years of expensive taxpayer-funded “outreach” by many hundreds of PAS employees, American-owned Cadburys and their new English PR firm have shown they are utterly clueless and uninformed about the law, looting and legal knowledge theft. The only question that matters is WHY?.  

..

“There’s plenty of real treasure out there still to be discovered. So, what are you waiting for?”

Unearth the fortunes of Rome in Somerset Over 52,000 gold and silver coins were discovered by a metal detectorist in Frome, Somerset. So, grab your metal detector and go hunting for Roman riches!

Hunt for precious rings in Fermanagh* Recently discovered deep in a bog in County Fermanagh a priceless jewel laid dormant for 3,000 years. Are you willing to get your hands dirty to discover more? [*Metal detecting is illegal in Ireland!]

Get your hands on gold in Mooghaun FortGold ingots were unearthed 3-feet underground in Rockcorry, Mooghaun. The treasures have been valued to be worth €150 million… Probably, worth a quick check.

Mine for Saxon gold in Chelmsford, Essex Over 1,500 years ago, an Anglo-Saxon King buried his gold in a field in Chelmsford. Now, 1,500 years later, the treasure’s fair game.


.

Cadburys are getting massive criticism, and, as always, PAS is crying mia non culpa and diverting attention: this is “an opportunity to engage and educate” don’tcha know? No, it’s a scandal: after 20 years of public finance no-one in Britain, not even American chocolate manufacturers, should have been left in a state of damaging ignorance about the law, looting and legal knowledge theft. It is that failure which should be absolutely central to the forthcoming discussions on reform of the Treasure Act and hobby metal detecting.

.


Update 18 March 2019:
Numerous archaeologists and others have contacted Cadburys over the weekend to explain (in the words of the CBA for instance) “why this is so inappropriate and misguided”. When Cadburys formally respond they are bound to say “we didn’t know” – (what other possible excuse could there be?) If all those archaeologists and others don’t want such a thing to ever happen again perhaps they should then ask themselves

“WHY? How is it possible there is anyone in Britain in 2019 in a state of ignorance about the way to treat buried archaeology?


.

..

__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________

 

Remember this from 2017? Advice from a well-known detectorist on how to send coins abroad…. “It helps to mark the envelope ‘Numismatic Specimen’ rather than ‘roman coin’ thus helping to deflect the attention of prying eyes.” It’s not hard to guess why “prying eyes” would be unwelcome. We had hoped PAS and The Treasure Registrar would have reacted.

But no, and now, 2 years later, he has repeated it: Whenever sending cultural goods aboard, particularly coins, ALWAYS mark the envelope, correctly and truthfully, as Numismatic Specimens. This helps deflect the unwanted attentions of prying eyes and those with criminal intent.”

.

.

Let’s hope that this time, belatedly, PAS and The Treasure Registrar will take note and warn landowners and HM Revenue & Customs about this “advice” and the behaviour of some detectorists.

__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________

 

First, the good news: If you damage a scheduled monument with a bulldozer English Heritage will ensure you’re punished (ask Mr Penny – he was fined and very nearly jailed for damaging the Priddy Circles), but if you get a contract to damage the Stonehenge World Heritage landscape with lots of bulldozers, they’ll say you’re doing improvement work and you’ll be fine.

However, there are 3 big risks for would-be contractors:
1.) Mr Parody of Highways England has said: “potential contractors are nervous about the risk of tunnelling at a World Heritage Site. The things still being addressed that are perhaps making people slightly restless is say, the risk allocation. For example the archelogy [sic] where does the archology [sic] risk sit?” And (amazingly): “I didn’t list archaeology as a challenge as the archaeology of the WHS is really well understood. We know what’s there ….” (Er, no, no-one knows everything that’s there and, as a potential contractor, you would be wise to be very worried about that!)

2.) and 3.) There are also dire financial and reputational risks, as recently explained by Adam Woods on the FB page of the Stonehenge Alliance: If I was a construction company, thinking of bidding on driving a tunnel and associated works through a World Heritage Site, working to what was publicly acknowledged as an impossible budget. I would be very nervous, I would be looking for other projects to bid on” and:It could adversely affect my share price, give me very bad PR “the company that ruined Stonehenge” .

The company that ruined Stonehenge? ….. Not a good label to be stuck with forever more in Wiltshire, The Stock Exchange and across the world. So if you’re still determined to tender you’d be wise to pitch very, very high as it may cost you very dear in the end. Digging deep and wide across nearly a mile of Europe’s most precious pre-historic landscape involves multiple huge unknown archaeological risks and is unlikely to end well for anyone controlling a fleet of bulldozers displaying their name and logo. The spreading of asbestos close to the stones and the Blick Mead debacle were indicative of the many things that could go wrong and are only the start.

While our conservation bodies are pretending that massive new damage is a net gain and that UNESCO’s opposition can be ignored, it’s possible that lack of government finance will thwart them again:

1.) As early as July 2017 the Infrastructure and Projects Authority gave the project a red rating (meaning without urgent action it may be undeliverable). Then, after changes the rating was altered to reflect “increased confidence” the project would happen – but not to green, just to “amber/red”!

2.) Last April Highways England said the project was already straining against the £1.6 bn affordability limit set by government! It seems certain that the project is about to go massively over budget.

3.) Whatever form Brexit takes, or doesn’t, the UK is going to be a lot poorer than when the scheme was first proposed!

So it’s perfectly possible the thing could be cancelled. At which point it will be fascinating to see whether Historic England, English Heritage and the National Trust have the almighty neck to claim they’re pleased!

Hurrah! Thanks to us the World Heritage Site has been saved from massive damage!

We’ve had a message from Farmer Brown’s mum…..

Dear Heritage Journal,
I hear there’s talk of reforming metal detecting. Maybe a word from the victims – the public – ought to be borne in mind during the high fallutin, discussions, so here’s what I wrote some years ago:


.

“The trouble with my lad Silas is he’s too trusting. Last night some metal detectorists came, asking to hold a “charity rally” on our top field. Why? says Silas. We’re history lovers they says. And saints? says Silas. Well, yes, that too they says, Well I wondered about that as when you see pictures of saints they never have pockets but this lot had loads. So I looked on Silas’s computer to see if there was a problem with them and now I know, the fawning, rough-hewn poverty-toothed grabmoles.

There’s a “charity rally” due at Cranfield, Bedfordshire. “In aid of Farmers Contribution To Homeless Children” it says. But it doesn’t say how much. Or if the event will comply with the official guidelines. Or if PAS will be there to record stuff. But it DOES say “dealers” will attend. That’s so people can convert finds into wonga in moments – and not for the benefit of the farmer or homeless children. Does that sound like history loving? Or charity? Or more like dissembling, brazen-faced, hedge-born scuts? I know what I think and what The Archaeological Establishment thinks. It’s pretty obvious to anyone that thinks about it, even Silas: IF: 1.) the finances aren’t clear, 2.) it’s not guideline-compliant, 3.) PAS aren’t there or 4.) dealers are there, it’s not a history event or a charity one, it’s a grabfest.

Oh, and if the detectorists at your door are in any detecting club that isn’t the one in Crawley, West Sussex tell them to go to hell. Only that club makes reporting finds compulsory – “Any person found not declaring finds to the Finds Liaison Officer will be expelled immediately“. They only have 30 members which means only 3 in every thousand detectorists are in clubs that insist on decent, history-loving behaviour. (Ask the other 9970 WHY and don’t let them wriggle! And if any club wants to claim THEY are “responsible” tell them it’s not hard, they can adopt the Crawley rule in moments and then you’ll believe them).

Anyway, if you don’t want to take the word of a Salopian centenarian about all this, show this letter to any archaeologist and ask if they agree with every word. They will. But don’t let them mumble. And remember: do NOT let any club onto your land that doesn’t have the established, written club rule: “Any person found not declaring finds to the Finds Liaison Officer will be expelled immediately” All archaeologists think that’s sound advice so please follow it.

Your friend,

Tryphena Brown


.

__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________

Archives

March 2019
S M T W T F S
« Feb    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Follow Us

Follow us on Twitter

Follow us on Facebook

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 10,089 other followers

Twitter Feed

%d bloggers like this: