| ISSN 1357-4442 | Editor: Simon Denison |
|---|
| COMMENT |
Why knowing the landscape matters
by Frances Griffith
For almost all of human history, the landscape is the only document we have. The British landscape is not `natural', but largely a human artefact; and in the field patterns of the lowlands and the peatbogs of the moors, the raw material of archaeological research is stored.
These landscapes are also precious in a much wider sense, and their preservation for future generations depends on the delicate balance between the viability of the rural economy and effective conservation.
Many elements of the landscape are vulnerable. Earthworks, for instance, are a diminishing asset, with many worn down by ploughing even when protected by law as scheduled ancient monuments. Other elements of the countryside, such as hedgerows and walls, meadows and traditional farm buildings, are less rare but equally vulnerable. Individually they may not be `important', but in total they give the countryside all its character.
The survival of this historic fabric is bound up with both planning and agriculture policy. So the Government's initiative in making its forthcoming rural white paper for England a joint DoE/MAFF exercise bears promise.
Theoretically, the conservationist's task should be becoming easier. At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, the Government accepted the important principles of sustainability (`to provide for the present without compromising the future') and critical environmental capital (that is, the non-renewable aspects of the environment, such as the archaeology). So a receptive response to the concerns of archaeologists can perhaps be expected.
But the future of the countryside depends on more than government action. It also depends on the wholehearted appreciation of its historic resources by the population at large. This will arise from better understanding - of the value of field boundaries, for instance, as much as of castles. Forty years ago, the local historian William Hoskins raised the awareness of millions to this subject. Every reader of British Archaeology can still continue this work.
Frances Griffith is Honorary Secretary to the CBA's Countryside Committee
Mick Cuddeford offers a metal detectorist's view of metal detecting and archaeology
There seems little doubt that recording finds is the exception rather than the rule amongst metal detector users, as British Archaeology reported last month, but the reasons are fairly easy to trace.
The vitriolic hostility of archaeology towards metal detecting in the past resulted in hobbyists avoiding museums - as this sometimes led to being insulted, and occasionally even to antagonistic approaches by museum staff to landowners. In consequence an `anti-academia' ethos developed, the legacy of which remains.
Although liaison schemes do now flourish, many fail, often because of the lack of any adequate infrastructure. Some detectorists have stopped reporting finds because of the time they are kept waiting for their return. Others feel aggrieved when they receive no follow-up or acknowledgement after having reported significant objects. Some sites-and-monuments-record and museum staff make no secret of the fact that they resent the time they have to spend dealing with detector finds.
Moreover, although it may indeed be the case that 400,000 archaeological objects are found each year by detectorists, it is not necessarily the case that to report every one would be archaeologically useful. Archaeologists need to establish which finds constitute an integral part of a historical matrix capable of scientific recovery, and which do not, before insisting that every single one is reported.
Illegal detecting is another issue entirely. Crime thrives when the chances of detection and prosecution are slight; and it would be pointless introducing new laws if policing remained at existing levels. The 1968 Theft Act should be adequate, but at present few police officers seem inclined to spend their time chasing round muddy fields at night when more certain convictions can be found elsewhere.
A long-term strategy might be to change public attitudes through education, but in the short term it requires a more pragmatic policy. Few metal detector users have the inclination to become archaeologists, but with the right approach many have proved willing and able to contribute a wealth of information that would otherwise have been lost. It falls to archaeology to offer guidance and encouragement.
Mick Cuddeford writes leaders for `The Searcher'
Return to the British Archaeology homepage
© Council for British Archaeology, 1995