home / the heritage journal

Welcome to the
Heritage Journal

news and views from Heritage Action

If you would like to contribute something, please email us.

Rotherwas Ribbon must be protected and road building stop

References:

(1) Dr Keith Ray was quoted on the Today Programme as saying, in reply to the question "Who built it?" he said "...we think around 2,000BC, around the time of Stonehenge... they are building fairly major timber monuments... we've got a settlement behind here with timber framed houses basically but circular in form."
(2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/6272716.stm
(3) Local campaigners Dinedor Hill Action Association are taking Herefordshire Council to the High Court seeking to overturn a decision to use developer funding (for housing development rejected by the Planning Inspector as being a wholly inappropriate incursion into the countryside) to fund the Rotherwas Access Road, on the grounds that the road is of no benefit to the housing development.
(4) The road itself - supposedly to allow the expansion of the Rotherwas Industrial estate - has been condemned by central government and the local plan inspector as being unnecessary when sites elsewhere in Hereford remain vacant.
(5) Telephone conversation with English Heritage
(6) Nigel Swift, Chair of UK group Heritage Action, can be contacted on nigelswift@aol.com
(7) HC Sustainable Future for the County – HC Sustainability Strategy 2006-9, p.5
( 8 ) All Herefordshire Councillors, our local MP and prospective candidates, English Heritage, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are being contacted and responses will be publicised 

Note:

Our friends at Timewatch have appealed to the UK Government to ensure the protection of the internationally important Thornborough henge complex. Quarry company Tarmac Northern, part of global aggregates concern Anglo American, has appealed to the UK government after their latest application to quarry the landscape near the Thornborouh henges was rightfully rejected by North Yorkshire County Council.

As a result of Tarmac Northern's appeal to the Secretary of State, the Planning Inspectorate is holding an enquiry into the matter.

Your comments can make a big difference to help save the henges' setting and you can submit them up to the 6th September 2006 on their website (Instructions on how to comment on the appeal are here )

As Timewatch campaign leader George Chaplin says, "The evidence provided by the Council Officers failed to adequately consider the true extent of the setting of the monuments on Ladybridge and also the wider setting of the 'super' monuments on Thornborough Moor. Now is the time to impress on the planning system the importance of recognising this aspect for such a large and important site; one that comprises a great variety of monuments scattered over several square miles."

Tarmac Northern seems intent on ignoring the heritage of this country in pursuit of a quick buck and we should do all we can to stop them.

Its good to see the Achievable Stonehenge initiative starting to get some recognition amongst the more illustrious institutes. Most recent amongst our supporters was the Adam Smith Institute blog of Dr.Eamonn Butler who gives the idea of grassing over the A344 a big thumbs up.

Come on English Heritage, pull your fingers out and support that which IS ACHIEVABLE for Stonehenge!

The latest ploy is to ask for a smaller bit of the cake, 31% less, and claim that this - in the words of their quarry manager, Bob Nicholson - "serves to demonstrate that we understand the concerns of the community, the county council and English Heritage.''

Well, not quite Del Bo..., sorry, Bob. You demonstrated scant understanding of English Heritage's concerns a few short weeks ago didn't you, when you publicly described what had been found at the target site as an "incredibly small amount of badly damaged archaeology" and "not nationally important"! Or when you badmouthed the whole Thornborough Complex, saying "the truth is, Thornborough is not as famous a Stonehenge and the majority of visitors' reactions are that of serious disappointment"? Or when you scoffed at the idea of it being World Heritage class?

You did know that English Heritage had just said that what was found WAS nationally important? Didn't you? Of course you did Bob. Just as you knew that they have long regarded Thornborough as the most important site between Stonehenge and the Orkneys? And that three of their committee members had just gone up there and "all agreed that the site and wider landscape were of World Heritage class, in the top league of prehistoric landscapes"? So when you claim to be "understanding English Heritage's concerns", I think most people would forgive us if we regarded you as wantonly blind and a philistine to boot?

What about when you said English Heritage "don't have a particularly good record on the Thornborough Henges" and went into great detail about how much of the landscape has been destroyed, bit by bit. How did that happen Bob? Was it English Heritage that quarried it away? We do believe it wasn't. What do you believe Bob? Really believe? And what do you think they meant by this, formally written into their minutes -
"Members were extremely concerned about the piecemeal approach to what they considered an exceptional landscape and which had resulted in its gradual eating away."
Do you believe they were castigating themselves... or someone else? Was it a coded message to you saying "Come on Bob, have another go"? Seriously Bob, do you believe that? Really believe that? And in having another go, do you really believe you're "demonstrating an understanding" of their concerns? Really? No, we mean really?

Finally, what about your recent public musings in which you all but said English Heritage were crooked for using "their professional judgement" rather than your preferred scoring method because "Perhaps EH knew that, if they did score the archaeology, inevitably they too would find that it wasn't nationally important?" That was pretty amazing wasn't it? Suggesting English Heritage are dodgy hypocrites with a set agenda. We doubt that. Thornborough couldn't be THAT unlucky, could it?

Tell you what Del-Bob. If you want to lean over backwards to preserve Thornborough from unnecessary damage, why not lean over backwards, pick up your suitcase and scuttle off somewhere else. And take Wodney with you.

permalink

It was "historic" said the press release. For once, the word was accurate. The Code of Practice on Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales published last month was not the first but it was the one that matters. It signals an end to the decades-long wrangle over the legitimacy of the hobby. It turned out to be a remarkable document. A critical mass of key bodies has said "THIS is what Responsible Detecting means!" It is significant as much for who said it is as what they said. The document suggests nothing new, just plain common sense resource protection practices that responsible detectorists already do without the least complaint!  It's hard not to support it and nearly everyone will.

The other detectorists have been hoist by their own petard. Having always claimed a right to act how they like, the Code offers them exactly that!  It isn't mandatory; it's just an opinion, so those who wish to are free to disagree and to continue to "self-determine the common resource". The only change is that they'll now find it very hard to credibly claim what they do is right - they are just one seventy thousandth of the population and have just been out-gunned and out voted by representatives of all the rest.

Nevertheless, resistance is evident. Some have attempted to "interpret" the code beyond its plain meaning. Others describe it as "undemocratic" because "not every member of the main detectorists body was consulted" (as if that changes the validity of what it says! ). In truth, its meaning is clear and even if no detectorist had signed, it would still be authoritative and widely supported. One group has quickly written their own opposition code (no prizes for guessing what sort of responsibility that lays out, or which of the two codes will carry weight and which won't! ). Whose opinion on resource conservation would you trust, dear reader? One openly billed as "suited to detectorists" (and which can't even bring itself to say all finds should be reported to PAS), or one signed by the likes of The British Museum, English Heritage, the Council for British Archaeology, the Society of Museum Archaeologists, the Portable Antiquities Scheme... (the list goes on! ).

To hastily write your own code (having never bothered before) is hardly convincing. Especially if it's billed as "suited to detectorists" and adopted by the vote of a few hundred random members of a detectorists internet forum. Most telling of all is the fact that a simple "no" would have sufficed. People worked through the night to produce it (we are told). It looks very much like a hasty means to enable those who like to say "no" to wear a badge that pretends to say "yes". Farmers and landowners beware!

The official Code has been agreed by representatives of all the main stakeholders and widely welcomed, so it appears to be here to stay and is unlikely to be usurped, unwritten, discredited or watered down. Indeed, why should conservation be compromised? The onus is not upon society to modify its opinion, it is upon irresponsible detectorists to act in the way their responsible colleagues find easy.

So the effect of the official Code has been to highlight the divide within the hobby. Responsible hobbyists will conform to it since it merely reflects what they already do, and they may welcome the recognition and unclouded clarity it lends to their position. The others, who reject it, must expect to be seen clearly as takers not givers. We suspect that it can be taken as a signal that responsible detecting is now fully accepted and here to stay whereas perhaps an opposite message is being sent to the rest. In any case, it is a significant step since it dispels the fog that bedevilled the decades-long "metal detecting debate". There is now a means to distinguish halos from half halos and false halos. What is truly responsible is now beyond debate.  Who is truly responsible is about to become very clear.

Ideally, every detectorist will now rapidly embrace the official Code and play fair with society.. See how the public can help this process. In the words of a contributor to our common inheritance (to whose manuscripts, fortunately, no-one secretly helped themselves... )
'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.'


permalink

The Nine Stones of Winterbourne Abbas have yet again been damaged with graffiti. A visit on 28/5/6 by Heritage Action site inspector Jamie Stone found a 3 foot high swastika on the large stone closest to the road. This was clearly visible despite what appears to be someone elses valiant attempt to remove it.

Photo: Jamie Stone

Fortunately, as of 3rd June, the swastika has now gone, presumably removed by another visitor to the site. We are trying to establish the frequency of abuse at this site as there have been a number of attacks dating back at least 2 years.

If you have visited and seen graffiti at the site, or if you have any other infomation relating to this please email Jamie at:
jamie.stone@heritageaction.org.

We've received word that Orange have applied to erect an 8m tall double mobile phone mast about 100m from the White Horse stone in Medway, Kent. This latest application comes less than two years after a failed attempt to gain permission for a 15m high mast to be situated 'yards from the stone'. Orange have changed both the size, look and location of the mast to try and make it more in keeping with the surroundings.

However the new site will be just off the route to the stone and within yards of an an area designated AONB and SSSI. Despite the 'innovative' new design, the specs seem to show that this mast will be clearly visible to all who walk past and will impinge on their enjoyment of the countryside.
Photo: Jane Tomlinson

The reason behind the new application is to provide better coverage to passengers on the new Euro tunnel line that has scarred this already overdeveloped piece of rural England. The question we should be asking is "Do an extra 10 seconds coverage really justify the extra damage to this fragile environment?", we say no.

The application can be read online at the Maidstone county council pages here (ref 06/0792).

More details of the fight to prevent it by are available here If you wish to object to this application you need to do so by 6th June 2006 and can do so by writing to:

Katie Lazam.
Planning Dept
13 Tonbridge Road
Maidstone Kent, ME16 8HG
England

Objections can also be emailed to Katie Lazam at Maidstone Council. You will need to include Planning Application Reference: MA/06/0792/N in any correspondence.

Thankfully, weathering appears to be removing the paint quite naturally, although more recently some disrespectful idiot has scrawled the word 'red' onto the surface of this ancient carved boulder.

permalink

Rock carvings at Cairnheads share their field with a flock of sheep. Photo: Ian Hobson

On a recent visit to Northumberland, one of HA's members visited a panel of once-lost rock art at Cairnheads, near the town of Wooler. The panel in question was first uncovered in 1859, but was covered over with turf to protect it from the ravages of time. It was briefly uncovered in 1933, and then buried again until 2004, since which time it has been in the open air.

A comparison of the drawings made in the 19th century with the stone in it's present state seems to indicate that many of the carvings have eroded. The complex and (in at least one case) unique designs recorded by Mr Bruce, Ms Proctor and Mr Tate in those days are now very difficult, if not impossible, to trace.

Then their quarry manager Mr Bob Nicholson weighed in with some equally creative use of our wonderful language: "Our proposal actually moves quarrying further away from the henges than our current operation". Well, sort of Bob, except that 90 per cent of the new area will be just as close as the existing quarry! So it's a case of "pants nearly all on fire" really, isn't it?

Heritage Action is calling for metal detecting to be carried out only on terms fully approved by the public. A new code of conduct for metal detectorists is soon to be announced National Council for Metal Detecting, The Council for British Archaeology, The Country Landowners Association, English Heritage and the Portable Antiquities Scheme.

We are sorry to report that, following the recent 'Near Avebury Metal Detecting Rally' (about which great concern was expressed - including by many detectorists) the same organisers have announced an equally concerning event not far away. The Rotary Charity Rally is to be held about a mile North of Pewsey on 19 March 2006. The location is of enormous archaeological sensitivity and our views about it are the same as for the previous event, namely:

We feel it should be recognised that the absence of scheduled sites from a rally location - the only yardstick presently used - does not mean that damage won't be caused.

We ask that those detectorists and others who shared our concern about the previous rally should make their views known about this one. Heritage Action will be making its own concerns known to the organisers of the rally and the Portable Antiquities Scheme, as well as to detectorists in general. It as in no-one's interest, least of all the hobby's, that rallies should be held 'anywhere that isn't legally protected' since this implies there are no other sensitive areas of archaeology that are in equal need of protection. As everyone knows, that simply isn't the case.

permalink

---

Thornborough hypocrisy exposed
February 25, 2006, 1:27 pm

As editor of the Heritage Journal, people sometimes email me with their opinions. I received something this morning which is worth reproducing in full, because it neatly sums up the situation at Thornborough and exposes the bad smell of hypocracy we at Heritage Action have had stuck in our nostrils for some time.

---

Dear Heritage Action, I've just been reading about what's happening up at the Thornborough Henges.

The law says you can't quarry away stuff that's of 'National Importance'. That's it in black and white. There is no grey and therefore there can be no argument.

English Heritage says the stuff Tarmac wants to quarry is of 'National Importance'. Black and white. No grey. No argument.

I'm thinking that English Heritage, as the top government body in these matters, might know what it's talking about and should be deferred to. But no! Tarmac's consultant has said: 'National interest, national significance certainly, but national importance no.'

Is it just me, or does that sound like wriggling and a bit of a cheek? He's conceding its of national interest and of national significance but he won't have it that that adds up to being nationally important. Well, call me old-fashioned, but I can't think of anything that's of national interest and significance that isn't nationally important. And I can't think of anything that's nationally important that isn't also nationally interesting and significant. So what's he on about?

I suppose there's some fancy archaeological definition of 'Nationally Important' that he's trying to interpret his way. But he's ruined whatever faint hope he had of doing that by admitting it's of national significance. He might get a hearing on Planet La-la but in the real common sense world. he now has no case at all.

He's blown it, with a few simple words. Keep on his case, you lovely protestors. Keep telling the world what he said.

---

Oh, we intend to, Dear Writer! And thank you for summing it up so nicely for us!

permalink

---

'Visionary future' needed for the Thornborough complex
February 23, 2006, 5:29 pm

Campaign group TimeWatch has called for the recently proposed Thornborough Henges conservation plan to be radically redrafted to reflect the importance of the area.

George Chaplin of Timewatch said: "The threat of quarrying has not been removed by the recent planning refusal but it has given time to take stock and for everyone to agree upon the best future for the whole area."

The Timewatch proposals are:
1) that a much wider 'no quarry zone' is incorporated into the Conservation Plan, extending at least a mile radius from the central monuments.
2) that preservation of all archaeology within the zone is made the top priority.

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.

"Tarmac have not given up in their ambition to extend the existing quarry," said George. "They intend to appeal against the refusal and the danger remains very real for the whole of the remaining surroundings - which they also own and have refused to rule out quarrying. Tarmac's reaction to yesterday's defeat and its insistence that English Heritage is wrong, should be seen as a warning to us all."

"This threat can only be defended against by a unified, visionary conservation plan for the whole area, not a timid and partial one", he added. "Only the best will do for the Thornborough complex if 'half destroyed' isn't to become 'more than half destroyed'."

permalink

---

Souvenir-hunters: don't do it!
February 21, 2006, 6:45 pm

We spotted some idiot selling a piece of Callanish stone on eBay so that a buyer can 'experience its magic'.

The seller says: The ancient Callanish Stones in the Outer Hebrides are ... the second largest stone circle in Great Britain ... These Megaliths are associated with mystical power and healing. This belief is also rooted from personal experience, that one can experience a profound mystical presence from this Site ...This handy sized stone has been gathered from the heather-strewn site to enable you to experience the mystical properties unique to Callanish and will be delivered to you from the Outer Hebrides, Scotland.

While it sounds like the vendor hasn't actually chipped a bit off one of the megaliths, buying such tokens is not recommended. Taking anything (except photographs) from an scheduled ancient monument is not legal, for a start! If everyone took a bit from a place you'd end up with nothing for anyone to enjoy or wonder at.

This photo, taken by Heritage Action's Moth Clark, illustrates what token-hunting can do. This strange lump of rock is all that is left of what was once a 50' tall pillar on which monk St Simeon Stylites spent his strange monastic life in the fourth century AD. The rest has been chipped off and removed by souvenir-hunting pilgrims during the past 1,600 years. It would be a tragedy to speed up the erosion of our ancient sites any more than happens naturally.

permalink

---

Page :  1 2 3 4