You are currently browsing the monthly archive for September 2019.

It’s no secret that builders prefer to build on open land because it’s quicker, cheaper and easier than previously-used brownfield sites and the houses will be in far greater demand and hence will command higher prices.

That’s why it was such a bad idea for the Government to have been advised on planning matters by the big builders. Every town and village has been expanded, ostensibly to solve the housing crisis, but invariably the houses built have been mainly executive units and far beyond the pockets of local first-time buyers. You’d think that was enough distortion of reality for private profit. But no, at Coventry it seems that

“swathes of green belt in the heart of England have been earmarked for new homes for people who may never exist…..based on population growth predictions that demographers warn are likely to be over-inflated.” Analysis presented at the British Society of Population Studies suggested homes earmarked for open fields were being planned for “ghosts”, because there is no wider evidence of the sharp predicted population growth.”

The question arises, if true does the scandal extend to other places, and in particular to Shropshire, where Oswestry Hill Fort’s setting is being imperilled on the grounds that Shropshire’s other 1,345 square miles are insufficient to accommodate projected population growth?.

The last bit of building land left in Shropshire?

Lest anyone fears the desecration of our national icon is proceeding like clockwork, a couple of encouraging stories have recently emerged..

First, George Freeman, Minister of State at the Department of Transport has told Parliament “The estimated cost is £1.7 billion (or £1.92 billion including VAT)”. But who believes that figure is up-to–date and that it won’t escalate far beyond that, like HS2? Will we suddenly hear “Whoops, it’s twice or three times more than we thought so we’re going to have to review the project in terms of whether it’s value for money”?

Second: According to The Yorkshire Post Grant Shapps, who has taken over from Chris Grayling as Transport Secretary, has imposed a two page limit on information sent to him about the management of Britain’s railways and has told officials that submissions to him

“should be no longer than 2 pages with no exceptions and no annexes. The submissions should set out the issue and the recommendation. The Secretary of State will come back for more information as needed. He will pay attention to the font sizes and margins of the document.”

It would appear that “Failing Grayling” has been replaced by “Quick Snaps Shapps”! Hopefully it will only be a matter of time before one of the two page submissions he receives will admit that the scheme is ill-conceived and the cost is out of control!




ICOMOS-UK has just tweeted: “where should the line be drawn when it comes to building, for example, a wind farm next to a heritage site? Comprise seems to be the key. Food for thought from @SeaChangeConf and @HistoricEngland.

This intrigued us as we’ve often discussed the question, mostly arguing that wind farms should be built well away from heritage sites. We’ve not been alone. In 2015 Kate Mavor, when soon to be English Heritage Chief Executive, expressed similat concerns that too many wind farms were desecrating historic landscapes.
Still, as the planet warms we find the idea of compromise on wind farms persuasive. After all, they may do damage but mostly it’s not physical damage, it’s damage to the sense of place alone, and crucially it’s not permanent.
Compare the Stonehenge “short tunnel”, currently being promoted by English Heritage. There, the damage IS physical and IS permanent, yet just as the 4th Century Egyptian monks who sacked the temples proclaimed There is no such thing as robbery for those who truly possess Christ“, English Heritage is claiming “the damage is justified because we know it is.”

4th Century certainty on display in Wiltshire?

A story is going round that it’s only we who are concerned that not all of the Staffordshire hoard was recovered. It’s not and never has been. See the remarks of the proprietor of the local Brownhills Blog in 2012:

“Hmm. You’ve just bagged one of the greatest historical finds in decades – possibly ever – and you just wait until the farmer ploughs it again? For the cost of ploughing, you’d plough it repeatedly, surely? Comments below suggest plenty of willing detectorists to help out? Peculiar. Nighthawking is a real problem, BTW. I’d be quite concerned were our heritage to be purloined into private ownership and never see the light of day due to a lack of thorough searching. Cheers Bob”

And a response to him by “Warren” (probably a detectorist): “I popped over to have a chat with the detectorists, and they were not very talkative. All the one guy said to me was that they were doing a survey for English Heritage. i Noticed their detectors were of many different makes and abilities. There is no way that land is sterile yet, the latest detectors will give more depth and better results. i noticed a couple of the guys had XLT, which is a good machine but not up to the depth and recovery rates of the new machines.”

So we remain convinced that a 2009 excavation measuring 10 x 14 yards, a 2010 follow up excavation comprising 110 yards of trenches and pits and a 2012 survey using patently inadequate metal detectors will NOT have revealed all that is there. It’s not good enough, as better equipped nighthawks have known very well ever since. We shall resist suggestions we’re hysterical or ill-informed. In 2013 we wrote this, which shows who is well-informed and who isn’t:

“It has now been suggested that in 2009 archaeologists “used top-quality equipment to go over the area, which they use to find underground stuff in Afghanistan”. However, what both US and British forces were using at the time (and subsequently) were Ebex 420H machines which have little depth capability (mines are mostly at shallow depth) and are not recommended by the manufactures for use in iron contaminated soil or for finding very small targets (mines not being small targets).

So we remain of the very firm opinion that the subsequent launch of two machines with vastly superior depth capabilities and another with a much greater capacity to operate in iron contaminated soils signals a sky high probability that elements of the Staffordshire Hoard(s) have been stolen by nighthawks using equipment that is entirely superior to that which was employed in the original archaeological search.” [And “Warren” confirms the detectors used in 2012 were also inadequate.]


More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting

If you’ve ever read a detecting forum, you’ll know a huge number of detectorists say “my farmer’s not interested in seeing my finds”. It’s strange. Farming is now very demanding, surely very few hillbilly farmers are left? However, one of the Chew Valley Hoard finders may have revealed a possible explanation:



Not bothered by “a pile of old muddy coins“? Maybe. But what if he’d been told they were worth millions? We think it would be a different story and who knows, he may well have insisted they stop digging until the archaeologists arrived. In our experience, and maybe yours, dear reader, the average farmer is a lot smarter and far more cultured than the average treasure hunter else they’d be out of business, so why not?


Are there really a huge number of uncultured, irresponsible farmers? Has PAS outreach not reached them?


More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting




Some of the inhabitants of the nearby villages, plagued by rat running, are clearly Highways England’s favourite people. Sir Humphrey can paint the short tunnel not as unjustified heritage vandalism but as a kindness to them.

To be fair, many locals see that. They understand that the rational thing to be lobbying for is a solution that helps them but DOESN’T cause massive damage to the World Heritage Site. But unfortunately the loudest local voices are not from them but from STAG, the Stonehenge Traffic Action Group, which is perfectly willing either to countenance the heritage damage or to say, Drake-like, “I see no damage!”. Their latest pronouncement says it all:

Of course! …. nothing needs to be done about the A303 past Stonehenge. At least that’s what Stonehenge Alliance and their associated groups, sycophants, and whom so ever would have us believe, in the same way that Hitler; by repeating the same lie ad infanitum, believed that people would inevitably accept it as truth.  And by the way…..the majority of their followers don’t live where we live.

To claim opponents of the short tunnel say nothing needs to be done is clearly ridiculous. But one thing they do have right is the fact that most critics of the scheme don’t live near Stonehenge. The clue’s in the name: it’s not “The Wiltshire Heritage Site” it’s “The World Heritage Site”! People everywhere have the right to call for the British Government to spend more money in order to provide a solution that doesn’t damage the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage landscape. Implying they don’t, and that it’s a matter for locals, merely aids those who would deliver unforgivable damage.

A foolish stance!

Having been approached by local veterans Robert Hardie and Ian Lawes that had formed a band, ‘Duck n Cuvver’, one might think English Heritage would have a sympathetic ear to a request to shoot a music video within the stone circle at Stonehenge.

Having performed at the National Armed Forces Day the band released the track ‘Henge of Stone’ and hoped to complete a video within the monument. The request has been approved, but only if the band cough up £4,500!

We understand you can’t let anyone and everyone have Stonehenge to play with English Heritage, but this is a huge sum for these guys to find. Let them film English Heritage – and don’t be so mean to veterans.

From a local paper, great news for both history lovers and thieves…

They’ve made “significant and exciting finds”. Of course, we know local thieves will have seen this and that the travelling ones elsewhere will have picked it up on Google News – and indeed that the precise location will have been plastered all over many of the detecting forums (which say they’re against nighthawking).

However, we’ve blocked out a few details to illustrate the difficulty of publicising any archaeological dig in a country that smiles so kindly on unregulated metal detecting yet apprehends and punishes so few wrongdoers in that community.

Consider this: detectorists never tell each other where they’ve found stuff, and PAS leans over backwards not to publicise detectorists’ find spots because detectorists know what will happen if they do. Yet many of the digs of archaeologists are publicised in the press for the information of every nighttime scruff. Unjust and crazy? You decide!

More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting


September 2019

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 10,386 other followers

Twitter Feed

%d bloggers like this: