Seeing as 2010 marks the 1600th anniversary of the end of Roman Britain, why not come and listen to pre-eminent speakers on the context for social change in Late Roman Britain, with particular reference to Lincolnshire?

The full programme will be released in due course, but please find a provisional programme below. Booking details and further information will be available shortly at http://www.lincolnshirepast.org.uk

Booking form – End of Roman Britain Conference

The Rescue AGM will be held during lunchtime. Make sure you are there, and help us save the past for the future.

Rescue AGM (as part of The End of Roman Britain Conference)

The DF has grown increasingly concerned over the fact that

archaeological jobs have been advertised on the IfA JIS that do not appear to meet even the IfA minima

This follows concerns raised by the DF over the IfA Statement issued in November 2009 that there should be no increase in salary minima in 2010-2011 in light of the current economic climate.

Please find the DF statement and the IfA response included, in full, below.

Diggers Forum raises issues over IfA JiS
Download .doc

Diggers Forum raises issues over IfA JiS: IfA response

Download.doc

The consultation received nearly 500 responses from a wide range of organisations. Recently, the chairmen of the Select Committees of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, and the Department of Communities and Local Government, wrote to the Rt. Hon. John Healey MP, the Minister for Planning, suggesting that given the weight of responses and the range of concerns that had been raised, it was their opinion that a second round of stakeholder consultation would be required when a revised text was produced, in order to reassure both stakeholders and the two Committees that the Government was taking their concerns seriously.  The alternative position was for the two Committees to scrutinise the revised text through oral evidence.

It has been suggested to RESCUE that there are in reality, only plans for limited consultation with stakeholder organisations, and that due to the lack of time before this Parliament ends, the two Committees have decided that such a response will suffice. RESCUE contends that such an approach is WHOLLY INADEQUATE. The Government should be aware that following the publication of a revised text of PPS15, we expect that the opportunity to be given for all interested parties, both organisations and individuals, to express their views in the same way as was given earlier in the process.

This document will almost certainly influence the direction and implementation of heritage protection for a considerable period of time. We believe that it is unacceptable for a potentially ill-considered or deficient version of the document should be rushed through into practice, without the necessary scrutiny by the relevant non-Governmental experts or the appropriate consultation with the wider Heritage sector, as was undertaken previously. We also believe that it is unacceptable for the appropriate Select Committee scrutiny to be waived, in order to accommodate the Government’s admission of an inadequate timetable for the process of implementing this policy properly.

We call upon the Government to provide assurances that full consultative procedures will be implemented following the publication of the second draft of this document, to ensure that this important policy revision does not result in the implementation of a document that will ultimately cause damage to our important Heritage legacy.

www.salisbury.gov.uk/planning/development-control/planning-applications/2009/1527/application-documentation.htm

In summary, the scheme proposals are for closure of the A344/A303 junction at Stonehenge Bottom and greening of the A344 up to the Henge; removal of parking and other facilities from the present location to Airman’s Corner, at the junction of the A344 with the A360 on the western edge of the WHS; retention of a small, partly underground facility for security etc. on the present site; and use of the A344 as a visitor-transit route between the Henge and new visitor-facilities at Airman’s Corner.

The Stonehenge Alliance, of which RESCUE is a member organisation, objected to the planning application (see Alliance letter on the website link, above, at ‘Consultee Response’: 1 December 2009). Although we welcomed proposals to close the A344 to general traffic and removal of the visitor-facilities from the vicinity of the Henge, we objected to the extensive new car and coach parks to be set in the open countryside of the World Heritage Site, and the departure from planning policies for the WHS; and we raised a considerable number of questions about matters on which insufficient information had been provided and on which we felt further consultation was needed before a planning decision could be made.

We also raised matters concerning the Appropriate Assessment of possible impacts of the development on nearby European Special Areas of Conservation. An Appropriate Assessment is required under European law and must be undertaken by the determining authority in advance of determination of the application.

The Alliance, being of the opinion that the application would be best considered at a Public Inquiry, wrote to the Government Office for the South West (GOSW), asking for a call-in to be recommended to the Secretary of State.

We learned that Natural England had apparently withdrawn its advice for additional work to be undertaken to inform the Appropriate Assessment shortly before the Officer’s Report to the Strategic Planning Committee was made available to the public a week before its meeting on 20 January. The Alliance still had concerns about the Appropriate Assessment that had then been undertaken and asked its solicitor to write to the Council (see application web link, ‘Representation Letters’: Letter from Earth Rights, 25 January 2009). It also had concerns about the Officer’s Report to Committee (see cms.wiltshire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=145&MId=618&Ver=4) and wrote again to the GOSW, detailing those concerns at some length (see below), and again asked for a call-in to be recommended. We learned shortly before the planning meeting that the Secretary of State was considering whether or not to call in the application.

Stonehenge Alliance – Letter to GOSW

Download

On 20 January, the Strategic Planning Committee’s principal concerns about the application appeared to relate to traffic congestion and rat-running through local villages to avoid traffic jams on the A303; the need to take the funding on offer for the development now, before it might suddenly be withdrawn; and, not surprisingly, a strong feeling that it was about time that a decision was made to put a new Stonehenge visitor centre somewhere and that you would never find everyone agreeing on where that should be. The adverse impacts of the proposed scheme on the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site and the impact of the facilities on the landscape were hardly mentioned and no S.106 condition was sought to minimise those impacts by amendments to the building, and screening of it and the 500-space car park by vegetation, such as had been advised by ICOMOS-UK, Natural England, CABE, and Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society, (see planning application web link: ‘Consultee Response’: ‘preview unavailable, 1 December 2009’ (ICOMOS-UK and NE); ‘CABE, 22 December 2009’; and ‘26 November 2009’ (WANHS)), amongst others.

Committee Members appeared to approve the application as suggested in the Officer’s Report with two amendments to the proposed S.106 Conditions. The Alliance was afterwards informed verbally by a Council Officer that a decision on the application had been deferred and delegated to Officers pending consideration of legal issues raised by the legal representative of the Stonehenge Alliance and taking any associated procedural action arising; a decision was also subject to delegation of completion of the S.106 Agreement. We were not able to obtain the actual wording of the Committee’s decision and still await it (27 January). English Heritage has issued a press release indicating that planning approval for the development is in place and approval of the plans has been reported in the local press (see www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/salisbury/salisburynews/4866248.Stonehenge_visitor_centre_approved/). There remains confusion about what the Strategic Planning Committee actually resolved.

Meanwhile, we have not yet heard from the Government Office concerning a decision by the Secretary of State. It would not be too late for anyone who may be concerned to write to the GOSW, asking for the application to be called-in for a Public Inquiry by the Secretary of State. The person to write to is Ms Tracey Williams at Tracey.WILLIAMS@gosw.gsi.gov.uk.

 The symposium will bring together speakers from across Europe and North America to consider the impact of heritage sites on society and the economy.  This is crucial because heritage sites are facing an unprecedented threat.  The current economic environment is hastening the long-term erosion of funding sources; this in turn is putting all of us in the heritage sector under increased pressure from funders to measure the benefit of heritage to society, to add value to the visitor experience and to increase self-sustainability.  The evidence for the impact of heritage on society has rarely been studied in a holistic manner and thus one of the key aims of Heritage Impact 2010 is to bring all this information together coherently.

 The key focus of the symposium will be to explore the processes that influence impact at heritage sites. Making informed and accurate assessments of the many values of cultural heritage and determining its impact on society and the economy is crucial for the future of the heritage sector. As the heritage community begins to understand the processes that influence impact, the sector will be in a better position to influence positive future outcomes in turn. Furthermore, if the heritage community can provide evidence of why certain strategies are successful, this information can be put to direct use by heritage sites to exploit their assets most effectively and influence decisions at a policy level.

 Specifically, the conference will look at methods for measuring and evaluating impact; how impact can be influenced or changed through strategy, marketing and policy; how heritage can be used as a regeneration tool, and issues of sustainability. Furthermore, time will be devoted to consideration of the impact of Information and Communication Technologies at heritage sites.  Alongside the presentations, an impact workshop will be run specifically for practitioners who wish to understand more about the methods of measuring the impact of their sites.

 Heritage Impact 2010 will provide an opportunity for key stakeholders – practitioners, academics, policy makers, archaeologists, heritage strategists, heritage technologists and marketing professionals to share and shape the latest thinking, not only on the direction of research, but also on strategies for improving and evaluating impact in the cultural heritage sector. The measurement of impact is seen therefore not merely as an academic or political exercise, but as the cornerstone of future heritage strategy.  The archaeological community needs to express its voice in this crucial debate.

 Heritage Impact 2010 will be held at the University of Brighton, Grand Parade, Brighton, on 22 and 23 April 2010 , For queries contact the Administrator on +44 (0)1273 642135 or e-mail c.r.matthews@brighton.ac.uk.  (to register see www.heritageimpact.org to download a booking form. Completed forms can be faxed to +44 (0)1273 643597 or returned by post  by Friday 16th of April to: Chris Matthews, Heritage Impact 2010 Administrator, University of Brighton Business School, Mithras House (Room 140),Lewes Road, Brighton, BN2 4AT.

This is an extremely logical suggestion. It is unclear if any account is taken of the additional cost of cleaning stabilizing researching and publishing the information recovered from these objects in establishing an appropriate level of finders reward. Establishing a market value may seem fair but there are costs of ownership which ought to be taken into account. The public benefit of the investment made by the payment of a large finders reward is severely reduced if the consequential funding constraints mean that conservation and publication of the objects cannot take place. We see huge sums of money from public or charitable sources currently being poured into archaeological mitigation consequential on the activities of individuals undertaking what is essentially a private and destructive hobby, which it is hard to justify.

Pamela V Irving

The full article is available in Rescue News 109.

The day was chaired by Professor Barry Cunliffe who stressed that the focus was on illegal and destructive metal detecting, one type of heritage crime, and not about legal detecting and the Portable Antiquities Scheme. He did however comment that his views about the latter had changed from initial scepticism to recognition that the PAS was ‘a spectacular success… and the envy of most of Europe’. For English Heritage Mike Harlow, legal director, described discussions with the police, especially Association of Chief Police Officers about heritage crime. EH are recruiting a police officer for 12 months in 2010–11 with a remit to develop liaison between the various interested parties, draw up a memorandum of understanding between the prosecuting powers as to who does what about different types of heritage crime, create standard impact statements explaining the loss to society resulting from heritage crimes and draw up a strategy for practical approaches in the longer term. Dr Pete Wilson of EH who acts as lead on portable antiquities talked more generally about what they can and are doing about the various recommendations in the Nighthawking report, including plans to look more closely at the real scale of the problem in a hotspot area and a contrasting low risk area (such as the West Midlands where illegal activity may have changed since the publicity surrounding the Staffordshire hoard). Involvement at a local level will include the field monument wardens (now known as Historic Environment Field Advisors or HEFAs) in recording visible or reported nighthawking damage to scheduled monuments, and it is hoped that the local authority Historic Environment Records can do the same for non-scheduled sites.

Jude Plouviez
Rescue Council

The full article is available in Rescue News 109.

I remain certain agriculture is doing far more damage to archaeological sites than metal detecting. There is plenty of evidence for the devastation caused by constant ploughing, especially in the large fields with heavy machinery that have characterised successful arable farming in lowland England for the last 60–100 years. Sites first discovered as ‘black patches’ showing in newly ploughed fields in the 1950’s show now at best as occasional deep features cut into the natural (or nothing at all in the case of many prehistoric settlements). Some good evidence for this destruction derives from metal detecting; if the grave goods typical of an Anglo-Saxon cemetery are found in the plough-soil then the depth of current damage is at least the original depth of the grave.

Jude Plouviez, Archaeological Officer, Suffolk County Council

The full article is available in Rescue News 109.

I use the term treasure hunting as I believe it is the concept of treasure rather than the historical significance of the Prehistoric gold from Stirling or the Anglo Saxon artefacts recovered in Staffordshire which motivates hobby metal detectorists. This is reinforced by the fact that a mainstream metal detecting magazines is called Treasure Hunting.

The Treasure Act (1996) does not apply in Scotland, under Scottish Treasure Trove law the Crown can claim, on behalf of the nation, any object or coin found in Scotland under the laws of bona vacantia.  These laws apply to all newly discovered finds and to all old finds which have not been reported, whether they have been found by metal detecting, by chance, by field-walking or by archaeological excavation. Finders have no ownership rights to any find they make in Scotland and all finds, with the exception of Victorian and 20th century coins, must be reported to the Treasure Trove Unit at the National Museums of Scotland for assessment.

Ed Archer,  RESCUE Scottish Correspondent

The full article is available in Rescue News 109.