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.

A significant proportion of Britain's heritage is being shipped abroad without the least record being provided of what it is or where it came from. We object.

Our erosion counter continues to tick away. With each day that passes more and more archaeological artefacts taken from Britain's archaeological record enter private collections, most of them unrecorded. Not all of these consumers of our national heritage live in Britain. In the United States for example are said to be about 200 dealers and about 50 000 collectors of ancient coins

The appetite of this market for material is enormous. One well-documented US collection of ancient coins, of Edward T. Newell is reported to comprise 87 000 items, but (like the majority of portable antiquities on the US market) most of these are of unknown provenance. Of course, the soil of the American continent produces no such coins and in order to continue to expand the market while keeping the prices down, it has to be topped up with ever increasing quantities of freshly excavated material coming from the finite archaeological resources of foreign countries. This presents a problem to those involved since in most 'countries of origin' for this material (in a broad arc from Afghanistan through the Middle East and Mediterranean area to Spain and France) there are policies preventing exploitation of the archaeological record as a source of collectables and restrictions on the export of archaeological artefacts.

US dealers are dismissive of "restrictive and unwise" policies of such countries and refuse to respect them, arguing that they are "repressive" and "unfair" and inherently damaging. They argue that it is US collectors that are best suited to give these portable antiquities a "good home" which would otherwise be denied them, and they have rights guaranteed by their Constitution to buy looted and illegally exploited material, because, "no American law has been broken".

We object to this attitude that history is better in the hands of American collectors than in its country of origin and we particularly object that the principle should be applied to Britain. Yet it is Britain's antiquities that are particularly targeted by this trade since Britain has exceptionally weak legislation protecting its archaeological heritage from exploitation in this manner. In Britain, artefact hunting is not illegal, and objects can be exported in large quantities virtually free of controls. Consequently, our country is a veritable haven for the portable antiquity dealer, both here and abroad.

Not content with this, American dealers claim that Britain should be a pattern to which all other "source countries" should aspire! One collecting advocate who is also a dealer in ancient coins wrote recently
"the UK has the most enlightened antiquities laws in the world and that if other nations were even half as civilized and as wise, there would be no significant looting problems [...] thus, I do not feel any obligation to help enforce what I perceive as unwise and unenforceable restrictive antiquities export laws of source states, always providing that importation of artifacts into the USA is licit under US law [...]."

A recent rally adjacent to an Oxfordshire hill fort attended by 2,000 detectorists. Most British detectorists have never reported any of their finds to the Portable Antiquities Scheme yet American collectors claim that purchasing British finds is fine because we have" the most enlightened antiquities laws in the world" On the contrary, the above mass erosion event could take place in no other country. Britain is the Wild West of conservation and American collectors fuel a significant proportion of the process. It should be stressed that mass erosion is not restricted to the sites of rallies. Ebay is replete with artefacts from all parts of the country offered by individual detectorists (two recently featured on television having removed 7,000 artefacts from a single site) and there are even American and British firms offering all-inclusive "detecting holidays in Britain" catering solely for North American detectorists.

Given that US legislation has no law equivalent to Britain's Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003 the above dealer is pretty safe in making such a declaration. Anything goes. He also asserts he'd not support smuggling. Another dealer is not so wary. He says that the laws regulating the movement of cultural property between countries are "repressive" and he sees no reason not to support what he calls the "fundamental rights" of those who deliberately ignore them and "refuse to be obligated to enforce the laws of [other] governments [...] when they do not do so in their own countries and/or when those laws go against the principles that are viewed as sacrosanct in the US".

But even in the case of measures to preserve the cultural heritage of Britain, it turns out that even our liberal laws are too much bother to abide by in the scrabble to make a quick buck out of selling off somebody else's archaeological heritage. Not long ago one of the same dealers expressed his belief that once British subjects or concerns get title to an ancient coin, they are "then free to sell it to me without having to get an export license". Reference to MLA guidelines readily reveals that he is misinformed.

He goes on to admit "I have never received an export license with any of the items shipped to me from the UK."

In the light of this apparent confession, we wonder how many of the coins that have passed through his stockrooms have in fact been exported from Britain without any attempt to observe the formalities?

What has been taken by this dealer and fellow US dealers out of Britain without the documentation required by law and now sits unknown in coin geeks' cabinets scattered all over the USA? Shouldn't Britain be reacting more actively to situations like this and instituting the procedures to investigate and bring collaborating offenders to justice?

Five new houses to be built at Avebury

We confess to being completely bemused by the recent decision by Kennet District Council to allow the redevelopment of Bonds Garage which is situated in the Avebury World Heritage Site a short distance to the North of the henge, as reported here

As can be seen, objections to the application were made by a number of prominent bodies including English Heritage, the National Trust, the Avebury Society, the County Council's World Heritage Site and Conservation Officers and ICOMOS-UK (which advises UNESCO on the World Heritage Site).

English Heritage had the power to ask for the Minister to call the application in for further consideration but did not do so. See their statement according to the press here in which they say -

"We are disappointed by Kennet District Council's decision yesterday to approve this low-rise scheme for five homes on a brownfield site 200 metres to the north of Avebury Henge in Wiltshire.

"English Heritage, along with a number of other prominent bodies, objected to these proposals because of the adverse impact they will have on the Avebury world heritage site and Avebury Henge.

"In coming to a decision not to ask the Secretary of State to call the scheme in for a Public Inquiry we took into account both the distance of the proposed development from the Henge and the fact that there are already buildings on the site."

The last statement conflicts with the other two. We do not understand how English Heritage can object to the development yet say there are logical reasons for them to decide not to ask for the Minister to examine the matter.

We think they owe the public an urgent explanation.

If you agree, please contact them - customers@english-heritage.org.uk

Alan S, Site Inspector for Heritage Action, visited the Rollrights on 29th December 2007.

He says:
"I'm sad to report that following the recent fire damage there, some follow-up damage and a further attack have occurred.

1. The King Stone notice, where previously cracked, has now been broken off completely.
2. The King's Men stone which was previously burnt by the tire attack has been significantly chipped on the top.
3. The warden's hut has again been attacked. Cavity Wall foam was sprayed into the collection box, and also into the locks. This subsequently solidified, breaking the locks and rendering the collection box unusable. An oil fire used by the wardens was lit and placed next to a wooden cabinet and a gas cylinder within the hut, with the obvious intention of causing an explosion. In dousing the fire, the fire service had to substantuially damage the floor of the hut, which is currently unusable by the wardens for overnight stays (and which stank of smoke). These attacks apparently occured on the 9th December according to the warden on duty.

More damage at the Rollrights - Photo Credit: Alan S

The police are now willing up increase the charge from one of Arson, to Arson with Intent. However, they have no real leads. The only solution may be to install CCTV cameras at the site, which no one really wants to do.

This damage continues a sad tale of vandalism at the stones over the last few years:

• In 2005, yellow paint was spread over every stone in the circle.
• In 2006, the warden's hut was burnt to the ground in an arson attack. This was subsequently replaced by a Portacabin.
• In 2007, A tire was placed on a stone and burnt, the sign at the King Stone was attacked and the Portacabin was broken in to.
• Now stones have been chipped, the signage damaged further, and the portacabin damaged once again in another arson attack.

What will 2008 bring to this 4000-6000 year old site?"