You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February 2023.
National Council for Metal Detecting on current proposals to extend the definition of Treasure:
“However, if this new ‘significance’ classification starts to go beyond the stated intention of protecting only really important national and regional finds then we are fully prepared to step in and fund the cost of legal challenges. Saying that we trust and hope this will not be necessary.“
What sort of uncouth, self-seeking oik would presume to dispute what was of significance to a country’s heritage?
.
.
__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________
The Barberry Carpet moth is one of the UK’s most endangered species. However, there’s been a resurgence in numbers thanks to the replanting of native barberry in Blandford Forest by volunteers under The Forestry England and Butterfly Conservation project. At one stage larvae were down to a single bush but now at one site larvae were found on nearly every bush.
.
.
So what, you may wonder. Well, just imagine if those volunteers had been responsible! That is to say, responsible in the eccentric meaning of the term that Britain implies applies to most metal detectorists even though the majority are non-reporting, uncooperative and self-seeking. Let’s not beat about the bush, if nature lovers were that sort of responsible there’d be no Barberry Carpet moths left, not one, nor a whole bunch of other butterflies and moths and animals and fish.
.
__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________
A prominent metal detectorist has just written:
“Looking at their most recent posts regarding the reclassification of potential treasure, it seems to me that the NCMD – National Council for Metal Detecting are more interested in supporting archaeologists than representing the best interests of metal detectorists.”
Not that many detectorists seem to understand or accept it but that would be entirely right. If they’re scrabbling about in the country’s archaeological resource for their own benefit or for money and not telling anyone they still have no business doing so. It may not be unlawful in bonkers Britain but it’s still a majority of 40,000 and knowledge theft and immoral.
Wouldn’t it be appropriate for the archaeological Establishment to finally dare to say so?
.
.
__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________
We’ve been campaigning against the progressive mining of the Thornborough Henges surrounding landscape for many years. See here. You may well ask what English Heritage had done, considering the mining has progressed right up to the very edge of the middle henge despite English Heritage repeatedly dubbing the henges “the Stonehenge of the North”.
Anyway, Tarmac has just donated two of the henges to the care of English Heritage. That has been met with much jubilation. But we find it hard to join in considering all that has happened. Here’s what we wrote the first time they proposed it in 2016:
*******************************
Surprise, surprise! A planning application has just been submitted to North Yorkshire County Council by Tarmac applying to extend its Nosterfield Quarry. As part of it, it is proposing to ‘gift’ to an appropriate body in perpetuity control of the Central and Southern henges. Sounds kind. Until you recall that Tarmac has wrecked most of the landscape of the henges already. And that giving gifts has long been part of its strategy….
.
.
In July 2005 the Journal reported that “In an attempt to appease local opposition a strip of land between Thornborough Moor and Nosterfield has been offered to the village for recreational purposes” and the next month it was reported they’d offered to donate 60 acres of land around the Northern Henge to the nation. However, six months later we were reporting the other side of the story: “Quarrying in the vicinity of the Thornborough Henges has caused widespread concern for many years. About half of the original complex has been destroyed, a landfill site is being operated immediately adjacent to the central monuments and quarrying is still ongoing close by at Nosterfield, also within the monument complex”.
.
So Tarmac’s latest gesture isn’t something to celebrate greatly. Gifting control of the Central and Southern Henges is no big deal since they are scheduled and can’t be quarried – and indeed are probably a burden to be responsible for. So it’s probably best to think of Tarmac more as a crocodile, to be treated with caution not gratitude. Just over ten years ago we quoted our colleague, Thornborough campaigner George Chaplin. His words turned out to be prophetic: “Tarmac have not given up in their ambition to extend the existing quarry. They intend to appeal against the refusal and the danger remains very real for the whole of the remaining surroundings”.
The Treasure Act is being extended to include artefacts which provide a special insight into a particular person or event, or can shed new light on important regional histories. Sounds good! Or at least, it would be good if it was aimed at true amateur archaeologists, people who were solely interested in adding to knowledge and were capable of making such judgements or who were more than willing to ask the Portable Antiquities specialists to do so. But metal detectorists?
No-one can deny many of them have two extra motivations: a wish to keep or a wish to cash in, and those make all the difference. As a result, Andy Brockman has it right: “The risk is material will either not be reported at all for fear it could be declared Treasure, or that it may be laundered by auction as being from the collection of an anonymous antiquarian, or a detectorist now sadly deceased?” To which we would add: “or by find-spot laundering”.
In other words, if an article found at a detecting rally near Windermere is said to have been found at a detecting rally near Wolverhampton then its “local significance” would be stolen and Diggy Darren couldn’t be held liable for not declaring it. “How would I know mate?” All that remains to be determined is…
how many Diggy Darrens are there?
.
__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________
.
.
Metal detectorists scrabbling up a Roman hoard in Norfolk two months ago, breaking every single rule and guideline despite 23 years of outreach, persuasion, cajoling, flattering and financing. Educationally sub-normal, lacking morals or just plain greedy? Isn’t it time the truth was admitted to the public and the All-Party Parliamentary Archaeology Group?
For more, see here
.
__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________
They’ve just highlighted this, a watercolour by James Bridges c.1830, one of many depictions of Stonehenge at Wiltshire Museum.
We wondered why this one, in particular, appealed to them, and then it struck us: look at the human figures, shrunk to a ludicrously small size relative to the stones, smaller than any painting we’ve ever seen, all to give an optical illusion of how massive the monument is.
Creating optical illusions to misrepresent Stonehenge is something at which English Heritage is highly adept. Here’s just one of many examples …
Stonehenge: up a bit, right a bit, zoom a bit: how they already moved the road!
01/07/2021 in Uncategorized (Edit)
(And note how the “Add traffic jam” filter is switched on for the second shot!)
It’s a simple truth that the effect of the road varies according to exactly where the visitors stand, and when. Is that a reason to never select the best viewpoint at the best time but always the worst viewpoint at the worst time? Is that being truthful?
There’s little doubt that if you deliberately run someone down in your car you’ll go to prison.
Just saying.
The Heritage Journal 
You must be logged in to post a comment.