Rescue - The British Archaeological Trust » News Archive

Stop Ploughing at Verulamium

admin — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:38:47 +0000

Tony Robinson joins Rescue in the campaign to stop ploughing at Verulamium

On Tuesday 16th July Tony Robinson of Channel 4′s Time Team visited Verulamium at the invitation of Harvey Sheldon, chair of Rescue. An article appeared in the Times that morning about the history of the Roman town, the destruction effects of the ploughing and the strong probability that this destruction will begin again shortly unless the Government takes decisive action. The press were invited to join Harvey and Tony at the site. Journalist Maev Kennedy from the Guardian turned up and so did photographers from the Independent, the Guardian and the Hertfordshire Advertiser. Everyone went into the Theatre, from which there is an excellent view of the surrounding fields that are due to be cultivated. Tony Robinson described the possibility of continued destruction by ploughing as “ludicrous” and “a considered act of historical vandalism”.

Coverage of the Verulamium story in the national press on 16th and 17th July

Tony Robinson being photographed by the press in the long grass at the edge of the Roman theatre

Harvey Sheldon being interviewed by Maev Kennedy of the Guardian; the fields in the background are part of the area threatened by renewed ploughing.

A very long tea break - part of the Sheppard Frere excavation area next to the theatre.

Tony Robinson standing in the Roman theatre; the field immediately behind the hedge is due to be ploughed again within months.

VERULAMIUM
RESCUE has been closely monitoring developments at the Roman Town of Verulamium, where negotiations between Government and the Estate have been ongoing in order to settle a stalemate over the ploughing of part of the estate granted Scheduled Monument Consent.

For more information about the Roman town visit:
http://www.stalbansmuseums.org.uk/verulamium_museum.htm

Iraq’s Threatened Archaeology

admin — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:45:14 +0000

RESCUE is concerned by the looting and destruction of some of Iraq’s artifacts and monuments as a consequence of the unrule following the current war.

The Chair of RESCUE has written to both the United States President and the British Prime Minister expressing our concern. A sample letter is reproduced below.

Customs and auction houses ar on the alert to try and spot likely looted material from Iraq, though much is likely to be sold privately.

Some of the missing item include:

80,000 cuneiform tablets with world’s earliest writing

Bronze figure of Akkadian king – 4,500 years old

Silver harp from ancient city of Ur – 4,000 years old

Three-foot carved Sumerian vase – 5,200 years old

Headless statue of Sumerian king Entemena – 4,600 years old

Carved sacred cup – 4,600 years old

BBC News stories concerning the looting:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/2955421.stm

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/2958009.stm

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/photo_gallery/2947511.stm

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/2958533.stm

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/2966345.stm

Mr. G. W. Bush, President,

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,

N.W. Washington,

D.C. 205000

U.S.A.

17th April 2003

Dear Mr. President,

I write with regard to the looting and in some cases destruction of Iraq’s monuments, artifacts and archives, as a consequence of the current breakdown of control in its major cities.

As an Iraqi archaeologist has written: “A country’s identity, its value and civilization resides in its history. If a country’s civilization is looted, as ours has been here, its history ends.”

It is also a wider tragedy: all concerned with the history of world civilization and the material legacy left to us by earlier inhabitants of the “Fertile Crescent” will be devastated by the fate of Iraq’s archaeological heritage.

We ask for your assurance that the United States Government will, as a matter of urgency, do its utmost to restrain looting, recover and restore antiquities and prevent their dispersal to individual and institutional collectors outside Iraq.

Respectfully Yours,

Chair of RESCUE.

IRAQ’s heritage on British television

Back in February(?) 2003 the BBC broadcast a television documentary concerning the threat to Iraq’s monuments under the shadow of the (then) coming war. It was presented by Dan Cruickshank. He travelled from north to south, visiting many of the major monuments, observing the damage done during the previous wars and assessing the threat they are under now. He also visited some of the museums, including the archaeological museum on Mosul and his report (recorded last year) accurately predicted what has now come to pass:

“The museum at Mosul – like the Iraq Museum in Baghdad – is packed with artefacts of international importance, including world-famous objects dating back 7,000 years or more.

Particularly striking are the large-eyed Sumerian gods, with their patient and benign smiles. But all the most precious and vulnerable items have now been packed away and put in store to protect them from attack. The ghastly question is, will they ever be seen again? If there is an invasion, it is likely that Iraq will be plunged into lawless chaos, and those museum items not destroyed will be looted and lost forever in the international art market – a market that has recently swallowed much of the culture of other countries, such as Afghanistan, recently torn by war. The prospects are grim indeed.”

Dan has returned to Iraq (as at 24th April) to prepare an updated report on the fate of Iraq’s (and the world’s) heritage. This will be broadcast on the 7th & 8th June 2003.

An on-line article by Dan based on the original programme can be viewed at:

www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/iraq_lost_cities_01.shtml

Report of a Joint Meeting Convened by the Standing Conference on Portable Antiquities, ICOMOS UK, Historic Environment Forum and English Heritage, held at the British Academy 27 June 2003. READ REPORT

Other links:

cctr.umkc.edu/user/fdeblauwe/iraq.html#relevant_web_sites

www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page6235.asp, but now appears to have been removed, was controversial because of its explicit ‘treasure hunting’ character and the fact that the project will be funded by the sale or material and artefacts recovered from the wreck. The agreement with the salvage company acknowledges the U.K. as the owner of the wreck but entitles the salvage company to take between 40% and 60% (depending on the market value) of the proceeds of the sale of artefacts recovered during the salvage operation. The Government has committed itself to a scheme whereby the artefacts will be sold under a joint marketing arrangement and rights to merchandise traded under the name HMS Sussex will be turned over to the salvors in exchange for a royalty. Government expenses are to be paid out of the proceeds from the sales of artefacts or from commission on merchandise, insured by a deposit of �250,000 made by the salvage company.

Concern amongst archaeologists was based upon the fact that the project appeared to be centred around the recovery of bullion, rather than the investigation of the wreck for archaeological reasons. Strong objections were registered by a number of organisations, including the Council for British Archaeology and RESCUE. The details of the C.B.A. case can be found at www.britarch.ac.uk/conserve/sussex.html with further discussion of the issue at www.hero.ac.uk/business/battle_of_the_bullion2910.cfm.

Members of Parliament, led by Mr Edward O’Hara MP, put down an Early Day Motion noting the several positive steps recently taken by the Government in respect of archaeology and deploring the approach taken towards the wreck of the Sussex. To date sixty-three MPs have signed the Motion, the full text of which can be found at edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/printable.html/ref=250.

In a recent development, Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. have announced that the archaeological consultants Gifford and Partners have been appointed to act as archaeological consultants to the expedition. A statement issued by Odyssey includes the following statement from Greg Stemm, a co-founder of Odyssey

“Gifford is a Registered Organisation with the Institute of Field Archaeologists and has a great breadth of experience. They seemed like the clear choice to join us as partners to look after the archaeological aspects of this project. Combining Gifford�s skills with our deep-ocean search and recovery capabilities will establish new standards for archaeology in the deep ocean.” (shipwreck.net/gppr01.html).

Although archaeological issues are given a high profile in the statement, it is clear that the recovery of the bullion is still a high priority as the value, derived from the sale of the assets recovered will still be shared between the government and the company.

RESCUE remains concerned that the appointment of Gifford and Partners is no more than a form of ‘window dressing’ designed to placate those who are concerned at the rationale behind the expedition and to allay fears as to the treatment of the wreck which is, first and foremost, an archaeological site. RESCUE have approached Gifford and Partners for a comment but to date no response has been received. We remain eager to hear the archaeological side of the argument for the expedition and the measures that will be taken, at depths below which divers can operate in safety, to ensure that the conduct of the operation will ‘ensure that all work is conducted in accordance with the highest archaeological best practice’, as claimed by Gifford’s Principal Archaeologist, Mr Anthony Martin (shipwreck.net/gppr01.html). We look forward to being able to publish the details in a later update on this matter.

Windsor Fire Station closure threatens historic buildings

admin — Sat, 16 May 2009 14:19:42 +0000

A High Court judicial review decision has brought disappointment to the many Windsor people who have over the past 18 months backed their local council’s staunch campaign to save 24/7 local fire-service cover for the town in the face of the County of Berkshire fire authority’s proposed closure of Windsor Fire Station, from 8.00pm to 8.00am each night.

The Royal Borough [of Windsor] had sought a judicial review on the grounds that the consultation with the local community was flawed, was based on historical figures and did not properly assess future risks and demands as a result of continuing population increases in both Windsor and Slough. The council also contended that the consultation process was defective and unlawful because it did not contain enough information to allow people to give ‘intelligent consideration’ or ‘intelligent response’ to the proposal to withdraw night-time cover, and has called on the county’s fire authority to reassess its responsiveness to local people’s views and safety

The presiding judge Mr Justice McCoombe did not uphold the council’s contention that the fire authority’s original consultation was flawed. Cllr David Burbage, council leader, said that while points of law may have favoured the fire authority, the sheer weight of community backing for 24-hour fire cover should force the authority to change its decision; especially since council taxpayers’ money helped to fund the fire service and they deserved to be listened to.

The proposed closure of the Windsor Fire Station, each night is a potentially serious threat to the safety of Windsor Castle, the oldest inhabited castle and probably the most famous castle in the world.

Fires in historic buildings can start and take hold extremely quickly as shown by the serious fire of 1992. The ability of the Windsor Fire Brigade to attend the Windsor Castle fire so promptly, within 1.5 to 2 minutes, was crucial to tackling the fire and restricting the serious damage that occurred. The next nearest fire station is Slough from which it would take a fire engine 15 minutes to reach Windsor Castle losing crucial response time. Such fires typically begin at night, and because they remain undetected for longer become more serious if fire service response is delayed.

It takes 2 years for a fireman to gain a full working knowledge of the layout of Windsor Castle. Will a dedicated team of firemen at Slough be trained and retained for overnight duty? Is there an agenda to close Windsor fire station altogether?

This overnight closure also threatens the many other properties in the heart of Windsor, including historic buildings important for both their architectural merit and association with historical figures: eg The Guildhall, designed by Sir Christopher Wren and Nell Gwynne’s house. Any loss by fire within this beautiful and historic town, which attracts millions of visitors a year, would be a disaster. Windsor deserves better than to be compromised by this scaling down of its fire service.

RESCUE believes that Windsor Fires Station deserves to be treated as a special case, warranting special protection and wishes to add its voice to the many organisations and individuals who are protesting against the proposed partial closure of it.

www.windsorfirestation.co.uk/index.php

A Barrage Too Far? Green energy will cost too much

admin — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 06:43:56 +0000

On 27th January 2009, the Government announced a shortlist of 5 schemes, from an original list of 10 options, to construct a tidal barrage across the river Severn between south Wales and England. The most ambitious is a 10 mile concrete and rock wall extending from Brean Down in Somerset to Cardiff. This would cost around £15 billion, is estimated produce around 8 gigawatts of electricity – around 5% of the current national consumption. The other alternatives include 2 much smaller barrages close to the line of the Severn Bridges, and two tidal lagoons on the Welsh and English sides. Clearly this is very green energy, but we as archaeologists should be concerned because these schemes will do irreparable to the historic environment.

The Severn Estuary is one of the richest, still largely unstudied archaeological resources in the United Kingdom. The extraordinary tidal range of nearly 50 feet, is the second highest in the world, and means that there is an extensive and ever-changing inter-tidal zone. The massive currents create scouring and erosion, continuously revealing new and unknown archaeological sites and features. The Severn Estuary and Levels Research Committee have studied several over the years, and the discoveries of Martin Bell and John Allen of Reading University are particularly well known. Over the last 20 years the estuary has revealed evidence for Mesolithic footprints, prehistoric settlements, prehistoric, Roman and medieval ships, Roman ironworking sites and settlements, as well as more recent activities such as quays, fish traps and hulks. Sites such as Wentloodge levels and Magor are well known for providing a completely new insight into the prehistoric coastal economies of southwest Britain.

The English side of the estuary is much less well studied than the Welsh, but an indication of the scale of the threat is shown by a recent, survey of the Gloucestershire and Somerset side of the estuary funded by English Heritage based largely on air photography, identified over 348 prehistoric, 186 Roman, 631 medieval and 1798 post medieval sites (see www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=12558). The survey identified 9 areas where the deposits were of national or greater significance; of these 8 will be directly affected by one or other of the barrage schemes. In reality the archaeological resource is many times larger than these figures suggest – we need to think of the Estuary as some 150 miles of continuous archaeological landscape. The proposed barrages will have a catastrophic impact on this archaeology.

The 10-mile scheme threatens the English site at Brean Down: one of the classic archaeological sites of Britain currently managed by the National Trust. The site comprises sensitive archaeological remains from the Bronze Age to the Napoleonic era. Construction work at Brean Down is likely to have a huge impact on these remains, while its scenic quality jutting out into the Estuary will be lost forever.

Equally worrying but much more difficult to assess is the impact of the change of sea level within the barrage. While there will still be a ‘tide’, its range will be very much smaller, like a neap tide, rather than the huge range of spring tides. In consequence the land now covered by spring tides will dry out and turn from salt marsh to pasture. This ‘drying out’ will mean a huge swathe of organically preserved material and deposits will be lost; probably the largest acreage of loss of an archaeological resource ever to have taken place in this country.

The story at low tide is equally grim. Because the tide will not achieve the current low levels, where most of the archaeological material is currently exposed, it will never again be available for archaeological study. A small consolation is that it will probably survive, until the barrage is abandoned in 100′s of year’s time!

There is however a much bigger story as to why we need to oppose the barrage proposals. The Severn Estuary is an extraordinary natural phenomena; it has an amazing tidal range with an ever-changing landscape, as the tide comes in and goes out, sometimes with currents of over 15 miles an hour. The light shimmering on the sand-flats, and the extraordinary sunsets across this huge expanse of water will be changed forever. The huge and rich wildlife that uses the salt marshes will be radically affected and of course the Severn bore will disappear.

There are alternatives. A range of new technologies are being developed, to harness the tide using underwater reefs, turbines and tide generators. These could be used, but the government is much less keen to explore these alternatives and none of them made it to their final shortlist. Clearly the big barrage is a highly attractive project to help to solve our renewable energy target by 2020, but the cost to the wider environment, both natural and historic, will be devastating.

Mark Horton, Dept of Archaeology and Anthropology
University of Bristol