---

Issue no 2, March 1995

LETTERS

Metal detecting

Sir: Your feature Finders, keepers and losers (February) raised a number of significant issues. The difficulty, in encouraging detectorists to report their finds, is that many detectorists are only interested in the find as an object in itself. They perceive our interest in knowing where the find came from only as an attempt to stop them doing further work there. One approach may be to encourage detectorists to use their equipment as part of recognised archaeological projects, working alongside members of archaeological groups.

More surprising is the apparently widespread problem, in our own profession, of ensuring that finds that are reported find their way onto the sites and monuments record (SMR). The front line in protecting archaeological sites is their presence on the SMR; and if, as your report suggests, one quarter of museums have no regular communication with their local SMR, this seems to be a major problem that we need to address as a matter of urgency.

Yours faithfully,
MALCOLM ATKIN
County Archaeologist
Hereford and Worcester County Council
8 February

From Mr Andrew Rogerson

Sir: Your article should have placed more emphasis on the inadequacy of most SMRs. Years of non-recording of metal-detected finds has meant that in many areas a large quantity of data is not in the public domain. This lack of knowledge is tragic in terms of lost archaeological research potential, but disastrous when the role of the SMR as a development control tool is taken into account.

SMRs have taken on a semi-legal significance since the implementation of PPG16, yet planning decisions on archaeological matters are taken on the basis of information contained in a source which your report shows to be seriously flawed.

Yours faithfully,
ANDREW ROGERSON
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology
Dereham
8 February

From Mr David Graham

Sir: The authors of Metal Detecting and Archaeology in England seem to sit almost painfully on the fence in their attempts to achieve a balanced view. While no-one would dispute the benefits of metal detectors when used properly, no-one can dispute the damage caused by their improper use. Information about finds is either recorded accurately and reported promptly or it is not. There is no half-way measure.

The survey catalogues widespread damage to scheduled monuments (a fraction of all archaeological sites) but fails to suggest any remedies. Surely we need some enforceable ground rules and better provision of resources for museums to enable them to cope with the material. The onus must be on those who search for antiquities to behave responsibly, and for the Government to provide a framework within which they may do so.

Yours sincerely,
DAVID GRAHAM
Surrey Archaeological Society
Guildford
7 February

Museum storage

From Mr Chris Newbery

Sir: I was very interested to read Michael Farley's letter (February) about the problems of museum storage. The Museums and Galleries Commission (MGC) has been discussing this issue with the Society of Museum Archaeologists in recent months. We are considering the idea of a comprehensive network of major museum stores for bulk archaeological material. It is envisaged this network would be developed from local discussions between museums about joint acquisition and collection management strategies.

While the MGC will no longer be running a capital grants scheme (from 1996/97), the advent of the Heritage Lottery Fund presents an opportunity for financing major storage projects. The Heritage Lottery Fund will be operated by the National Heritage Memorial Fund (NHMF), but the Area Museum Councils and the MGC will be advising the NHMF on lottery applications from museums.

Yours faithfully,
CHRIS NEWBERY
Deputy Director
Museums and Galleries Commission
London SW1
8 February

Roman London

From Mr Nicholas Fuentes

Sir: I would like to take up the so-called `lack of excavated evidence' that Southwark could have preceded the City of London (Hunting the origins of Roman London, February).

Comparisons of Southwark coins with those from other sites induced Michael Hammerson to place the southbank settlement among the `Claudian period military supply bases' and to compare it with Camulodunum. Michael Rhodes has noted the `high loss in Southwark of Claudian coins, which suggest that during the first decade of London's existence the focus of activity was in Southwark, [not] the City'. Richard Reece has argued from the coin evidence from both banks that Southwark took off some 20 years before the City. If that isn't `excavated evidence', I wonder what is?

Yours sincerely,
NICHOLAS FUENTES
London SW15
9 February

Cultural viruses

From Ms Shannon Fraser

Sir: In his article `When megaliths behave like a bad cold' (British Archaeological News, December 1994), Ben Cullen wrongly situates impetus for change within the fabric of monuments. The causes of cultural and technological change must be considered at the level of routine encounters among people, acknowledging competent, inventive use of material culture.

Competitive building may well put a strain on resources, or elaboration result in an architecture so `baroque' it no longer fulfils requirements. But this is a consequence of active, innovative use of material culture, not of the latter preying upon agency in parasitic fashion.

Viewing these human groups as abstract and unconscious entities, Cullen abuses the privileges of hindsight which allows him to identify long-term processes, finding `parasitic' henges `largely without benefit for the armies of people whose energies they consumed'. Apart from claiming to reveal a final truth which the people concerned could not see, Cullen consigns human agents to the role of helpless victims of their own technology, denying their creativity and competence.

Sincerely,
SHANNON FRASER
Department of Archaeology
University of Glasgow
6 February

Return to the British Archaeology homepage

Return to the CBA homepage

© Council for British Archaeology, 1995