If you’re here you probably like prehistoric sites (and early historic period ones which we now sometimes highlight) and want to see them fully appreciated and preserved. The Journal is a community resource for everyone that feels that way so why not join in?
We’re always looking for contributions – news, views, pictures, brief “heritage shorts” – you name it – anything that helps raise the public profile of these places. Please contact us about anything you feel is worth sharing and we’ll get back to you to discuss it.
Email: info@heritageaction.org.uk
Twitter: The Heritage Journal https://twitter.com/HeritageAction
Facebook: Our Group page
Telephone: 07542 2258107
The Heritage Journal 
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
31/01/2014 at 15:39
Richard Avery
Your picture of Cecil Chubb is not out of copyright even though it was loaded to Wikipedia. It is about to be deleted from the Wikipedia Commons for that reason. I thought you ought to be aware.
31/01/2014 at 16:10
heritageaction
Thanks. Noted and removed.
02/02/2014 at 17:14
J Thornell
Glenn Miller did not play at Teddington one day before his plane disappeared! This would have been Dec.14 1944, when he was in Bedford.
12/09/2015 at 21:18
Alice Bray
Not seen your website before Mike Nevell’s Twitter but as an archaeologist I share some of the concerns you have raised so will be following you.
23/10/2018 at 19:03
t clark
Firstly, let me say I have a BA Honours degree in History and an Mdip in Archaeological theory. which doesn’t make me an ‘expert’ but certainly gives me a different take on metal detecting as I am also a detectorist.
In order to make my point it’s important to remember how Archaeology was first born as a discipline, mainly by clerics eager to prove the existence of the Almighty, and grew in the public interest until Archaeology was ( in a sense) hi jacked by Cambridge University who began to feel that it needed to be brought into line with other disciplines. Following that, Cambridge University claimed to be the originators of the discipline. What they were saying in effect, was that they owned it (and still do.)
In order to reinforce their claim ‘experts’ were hired who’s style of its practice produced what may only be described as archaeology exclusive to themselves and took no account of any archaeologist practicing or otherwise, who did not adhere to their creed.
Other, more creative universities who question Cambridge’s dry, dusty and virtually lifeless site reports from excavations which exclude the public and are the preserve of ‘experts’ are severely admonished with adolescent e-mails saying things such as ‘Why do you bother’ – I know this to be true as I attended a University where this was the case.
The ‘damage’ you say caused by detectorists is wildly exaggerateda tiny percentage of the whole and I have yet to meet an unscrupulous one myself, the club is well organised and pays particular attention to any find retrieved from the mud.
I don’t think archaeology should be the preserve of so – called ‘experts’, archaeology should be an inclusive activity – not exclusive, and is the heritage of everybody and the should be allowed to participate in that practice, not just faceless people in white coats, and no doubt, yourselves.
23/10/2018 at 19:35
heritageaction
Down with greedy, snobbish experts, eh?
When you can show the vast majority of detectorists, including at those shameful, peculiarly British festivals of crass acquisitiveness, commercial metal detecting rallies, report all their recordable finds you’re welcome to come back and accuse us of being wrong. But not until.