Mr Mike Pitts has previously taken potshots at opponents of the A303 Stonehenge tunnel scheme, sniping at Dan Snow and Tom Holland in addition to accusing The Stonehenge Alliance of acting like the archaeological wing of Donald Trump’s social media campaign.
Now it’s the turn of the Druids, who have been opposing the tunnel at the recent hearings. He’s free to do so, but perhaps not by using his position as editor of British Archaeology, the magazine of the CBA, in order to publish this cartoon:



Obviously the crass distortion of several historical facts and timelines is undesirable in itself, but we wonder how a crude and offensive joke about a senior Druid being beheaded at Stonehenge as a solution to opposition to the tunnel came to be published in the CBA’s magazine? Perhaps CBA Director Mike Heyworth will step in.

A clear thinking farmer has decided Wayne from Wolverhampton who he’s never met but who wants the run of his fields, would benefit from a spot of mistrust (because, he says, “its all too easy to slip a small silver into your back pocket and forget its there”), so has laid out some rules:

  • He has to be there
  • Anything silver or above stays on the farm
  • Anything he deems as interesting stays on the farm.

Detectorists, to a man, are appalled: “I wouldn’t bother”, “Try somewhere else”, “I would not entertain it”, “I prefer permissions where everything is done on a trust basis”, “steer clear of this bloke”, “I`d have laughed and kicked the nearest chicken showing my contempt”, “he obviously has some trust issues”.

It’s all very strange from people who are there purely for love of History. Of the many tens of thousands of amateur archaeologists in Britain, not a single one would mind being supervised! Why the difference?


More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting

Highways England has responded to a body blow from the National Audit Office 26 days ago (the Stonehenge scheme has a significantly lower benefit-cost ratio than is usual in road schemes” and “could move to an even lower or negative value”) by saying that although the NAO said it could cost up to £2.4bn, they intend to build it for £1.7bn and that Since we worked on this report, we are now even more confident of the costs. Some of the risks that are included in that £2.3bn/£2.4bn number we now know will not materialize, or they have become even more unlikely to materialise.”

This is most peculiar! Either the risks have miraculously (and conveniently) dematerialised in the 26 days since the NAO published its report, or the reduced risks were known about longer than that but weren’t communicated to the NAO! People could be forgiven for thinking some defensive porkyfying is going on.

The suspicion is reinforced by the fact that when asked if he was confident they won’t find any surprises that will considerably increase the cost, their spokesman, Mr O’Sullivan, replied directly: ‘Yes.’ What sort of superman can say that, in advance of tearing up 150,000 square feet of World Heritage Landscape?



Sometimes the pro-tunnel rhetoric is personal:
Neither Dan Snow [just awarded an MBE for services to History] nor Tom Holland [author, classicist, historian and broadcaster] are “experts on Stonehenge archaeology or the Stonehenge tunnel” and “The Stonehenge Alliance [founded by Lord Kennet and now chaired by George MDonic MBE, BL, DIPLTP, FRTPI, DPA, FFB] acts like the archaeological wing of Donald Trump’s social media campaign

And sometimes it’s simply farcical:
At the recent hearing the Examining Authority asked “What about the Romans? Did they not build roads?” Seriously? Is that simplistic, populist question appropriate from a supposedly impartial body? Yes, the Romans built roads. They also had crucifixions. What is your point?

Fortunately, The Stonehenge Alliance’s President dispatched the question so neatly it will surely never be posed again:

“Indeed they did, and for a number of reasons. To serve the needs of speedy transport, of course; but there was much more to the driving of these great gashes of stone across conquered landscapes than that. They were designed as statements of possession: expressions of the power of the Roman state to do what it wished to conquered territory, to erase primordial identities, to rub the noses of the conquered in the brute fact of their submission. What I should have said at the time (and so will say now instead) is that to compare the Stonehenge Tunnel to a Roman road is indeed the measure of just how terrible a thing it threatens to be.”

The Trust is supporting the removal of Turner’s iconic view of the stones from countless millions of travellers forever. They’ve never defended that loss, and can’t – for their central mantra is caring for special places forever, for everyone.


And their role hasn’t been just “supporting”: the Government says it has been “pivotal”. Yet now they’ve paid lot of money to own and protect another iconic Turner view, the subject of his famous painting, “Crummock Water Looking Towards Buttermere”.

According to their spokeswoman it’s the first time in recent memory the Trust “has bought a site specifically for its vista”. So £202,000 to save one iconic view while spending huge sums of money campaigning to hide an even greater one! By what measure is that a rational or principled stance?

Not all of them call us ignorant and not all are purveyors of PAS’s 20 year old “we’ve converted most detectorists” mantra. Adam Daubney has published an overview of his remarks at last year’s PAS conference and there’s much with which we agree, especially his coy “There are many who would like to see greater regulation of metal detecting”.

He asks “If the law is unlikely to change, how do we ensure that we share knowledge in way that changes the culture to one in which non-reporting is seen as unethical?” But it seems reform of the Treasure Act IS imminent and since Rescue has made its position clear (PAS has been unable to sufficiently advocate for archaeological methodologies and rigorous survey practices…” ) it looks like culture change is finally likely. Certainly the 20 year “we’ve converted most  detectorists” mantra is no longer going to be Britain’s conservation stance.

Perhaps PAS’s best contribution to reform would be to acknowledge that most detectorists have not been converted and that therefore knowledge theft is still the norm – in public instead of in private? “Lasting cultural change will come when the general public understands the importance and ethics of a pro-recording culture” says Adam. Indeed it will, and it will come all the quicker if PAS says so loudly and clearly to farmers, taxpayers and the Government. It is PAS which must change, not just the law and detectorists.


More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting

An academic writes: Empirical studies increasingly testify to the capacity for archaeological and cultural heritage sites to engender wonder, transformation, attachment, and community bonding among diverse individuals…… Following political theorist Jane Bennett, these sites have the power to ‘enchant’ and, in so doing, they are seedbeds of human generosity, ethical mindfulness, and care for the world at large.”

….. which prompts the question, have they read many detecting forums or been to a rally or looked on EBay?! Of course archaeological and heritage sites have the power to bring out the best in whoever engages with them. For instance, here’s Sir Mortimer Wheeler outreaching to the public 85 years ago:

But now, although many archaeologists still outreach to the general public the English Heritage Outreach Department is long gone and the main outreach body is the Portable Antiquities “not offending the perpetrators” Scheme which begs for sharing but bolsters taking. As such it presides over things that are largely the antithesis of “seedbeds of human generosity, ethical mindfulness, and care for the world at large.”


More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting

Just submitted by a correspondent…..

“Highways England have been attempting a new take on an old conjuring trick at the Planning Inspectorate’s hearings this week into the proposal for a tunnel on the A303 at Stonehenge.

We are all familiar with the ‘Shell Game’, where the conjurer moves the cups or shells around whilst the gambler focuses on the cup they think hides the pea – in this instance Highways England are attempting to project the illusion that removing tarmac from the National Trust’s land surrounding Stonehenge improves the whole World Heritage Site. Focusing on the other two cups instead of the cup with the stones underneath everyone can spot what they are up to.

Highways England  – you may fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time!”


Today UNESCO’s absolute opposition to the short tunnel has been fully expressed, no ifs or buts. Yet sadly it can be confidently predicted that the Government and it’s agencies will react by reiterating their simple mantra that whatever the downside, the tunnel is “worth it”.
But that has now become doubly difficult, given UNECO’s clarity and the National Audit Office’s recent criticism of the Government’s figures and methodology (people were asked how much they’d be willing to pay to enjoy the advantages of the scheme but weren’t properly informed of the heritage downside – the tactics, frankly, of a dodgy saleman).
Paul Gossage (whose submission to the Examining Authority we featured recently) illustrated how incompetent and dishonest that approach is rather neatly: “If a survey was done on a group of children then most would say “Yes” to an offer of an ice cream, but “No” if they were told they would be smacked whilst eating it.”


Three Government controlled conservation bodies and a Government road agency are telling the public the tunnel will “enhance and protect” the site. UNESCO and proper analysis suggest that’s far less than half true.


Back in 2014 NASA announced that the archaeological remains at the Apollo lunar landing site are important to mankind and a priceless human treasure and must be protected – and said they wanted to establish a Lunar Heritage Protection Zone of at least 1.2 miles round them. Bravo!

Apollo 17 Lunar Heritage Site: protection limit 1.2 miles

The voluntary guidelines they devised for that and other lunar sites include no-go buffer zones, heritage “precincts” and recommendations about how to fly around sites to avoid stirring up destructive dust.

No-go buffer zones“! …. “Important to mankind and a priceless human treasure and must be protected“! Compare and contrast English Heritage, Historic England and The National Trust who are supporting and advocating the building of massive dual carriageways within the Stonehenge landscape within a kilometre of the Stones and almost on top of Blick Mead!


June 2019
« May    

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 10,108 other followers

Twitter Feed

%d bloggers like this: