Remember our article “What is it about Carbuncles and Castles” about the jarring modernity os some bridges imposed on ancient places?

Well here’s the Golden Bridge, Viet Nam …….

.

The 6 academics including from PAS who recently sought to downplay Dr Sam Hardy’s conclusions have “clarified” their astounding claim that non-reporting isn’t damaging: “We feel that our paper too has been misrepresented in reactions elsewhere on the internet.” “It should be obvious that it was not intended to propagate a liberal, ‘pro-detecting’ viewpoint”

No, it’s not obvious! On the contrary, saying non-reporting isn’t damaging is supporting the very worst of detectorists! It can’t even be dismissed as an isolated mistake for a Finds Liaison Officer has just repeated it: archaeological evidence unreported by detectorists is “not necessarily being destroyed, rather extant but unknown“..

What the hell is going on? Is this a final shift in position? For 20 years, instead of condemning non-recording (and stressing to the Government that it’s rife) PAS has embraced, liaised, engaged, backslapped, bootlicked and flattered those who do it in the hope they’ll desist. Having finally seen they have failed (as Dr Sam Hardy has shown) are they excusing it? If PAS is soon to be wound up by the Government is this the message that will be broadcast – it doesn’t matter because the great majority we haven’t persuaded don’t do any harm?

 

.

__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________

 

 

.

.

__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________

Another video from our tour of Cornish antiquities shows the Ballowall Barrow, also known as Carn Gluze (or Gloose), near St. Just in Penwith. This funerary cairn was used in several phases from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age.

The site was excavated by Borlase in the 1800’s at which time the site was remodeled to ‘improve’ access to the inner chambers. Prior to this, the site had been largely hidden beneath mining rubble, which aided in its preservation.

Watch this space for more videos to come. Previous videos in the series can be found here.

Where’s this ….. ?

.

How come we reward detectorists for reporting their treasure finds when the law says they must? It’s because if we didn’t many of them wouldn’t. For proof, see how the number of reported finds rocketed when rewards were introduced. So clearly “rewards” is a misdescription. They’re ransom payments, but marketed Whitehall style, in line with Sir Humphrey’s book of tricky words!

“Best call the ransom payments “rewards”, Bernard. Don’t want the public getting upset about paying for what’s already theirs.”

.

OK, so paying ransoms is clearly the only way we can get all of what’s ours from detectorists (though not, NB, from amateur or professional archaeologists or the kids in my village). But surely PAS and the Treasure Registrar go far beyond what’s necessary when they invariably praise the minority of detectorists who turn down a reward and never stress that most detectorists do no such thing and many fight hard to get higher payments!

And how come the number of cases where the reward is reduced for “bad behaviour” is so tiny? 20 cases in 13 years? Pull the other one! So it all looks like a case of image adjustment, something far beyond Sir Humphrey’s intentions. He just wanted to dress up ransoms as rewards but his quangos have taken to actively obscuring the fact that the people who endlessly proclaim they’re “not in it for the money” endless demonstrate they mostly are. Why?

.

__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________

 

Here’s what we said exactly 9 years ago about paying rewards for obeying the law instead of increasing the penalties for disobeying it. We still stand by it:

.


Let us pay detectorists the complement of treating them like the rest of society, not as a group that includes an invisible but existing proportion of feral crooks that need vast payments to ensure they don’t break the law and murder our cultural heritage. What other sector of British government policy copes with public damage caused by moral imbecilism by PAYING people to act properly? And what country in all the world but Britain, dresses such a policy up as sensible? No, we suggest Britain saves those millions of pounds and spends them on childrens’ hospices.


.

Man goes into museum, with permission. Pockets £5,000 jewel which he knows does not and never can belong to him. Treasure Registrar announces “Do bring it back, we’ll give you a £5,000 reward and a Certificate of Appreciation”.

.

__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________

.

(You might expect as much from some quangos which are arms of Government but what the hell is the National Trust playing at?)

Appropriately, with the coming of All Hallows Eve tomorrow, we have now concluded our ‘Tarot Tuesday’ series, which attempted to link archaeological monuments to the cards of the Major Arcana.

For ease of reference, the cards (and the sites we selected for them) are listed below, linking back to the original articles.

The card meanings which we based our site selections on were taken from the Trusted Tarot website. The card images were taken from the Original Rider Waite Tarot Deck, conceived by A E Waite and designed by Pamela Colman Smith.

We hope you enjoyed the series as much as we did preparing it, but if you think our subjective choice of sites is incorrect for any card, please feel free to comment either here or against the original posts linked above.

Britain’s policy on detecting is elegantly simple: it’s fine if “responsible” (as defined in the Code of Responsible Detecting). The trouble is the code doesnt say “do no damage” or say how much damage is tolerable so landowners aren’t told that detecting may damage the resource and will certainly deplete it. That omission has another regrettable effect: it means there’s scant chance of long term reform other than to spend another 20 years trying to persuade more detectorists to convert from acting very badly to merely acting badly.

Of course, Archaeology is damaging too but a rather more sustainable approach has been developed for that: mandatory standards effectively defining the acceptable limits of damage by requiring work to be sparing, thorough, skillful and with specific aims and criteria. So archaeologists aren’t free to act like “responsible detectorists”, which is why you never see one detecting at a rally!

In 2016 the PAS conference discussed “Can Detectorists be Archaeologists“. Someone should have stood up and said ” “Yes of course they can – but only if they act like archaeologists, not like responsible detectorists.” But no-one did, which is a mark of the stranglehold of Britain’s metal detecting policy.  Still, I intend to present all the above analysis, uninvited, at next year’s PAS Conference in the form of a truth haiku. Book now to avoid disappointment.

.

.                                Responsible? Yes
 .                               But never sustainable.
 .                               So laudable? No.

.

.

.

__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________

Archives

November 2018
S M T W T F S
« Oct    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

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 10,018 other followers

Twitter Feed

%d bloggers like this: