You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Spotlights’ category.

The Red Lion (centre with white car parked in front of it) at Avebury in 1947
Aerofilms Ltd © Historic England Archive

Historic England reports –
Situated in the heart of one of the world’s greatest Neolithic monuments, Avebury’s Red Lion is supposedly home to at least five different ghosts. Built as a farmhouse in the late 16th or early 17 century, it became a coaching inn in the early 19th century. One of its more spectacular ghostly apparitions is a phantom carriage that clatters through its yard. Inside, the ghost of Florrie haunts the pub. Florrie took a lover while her husband was away fighting during the Civil War. He returned to find the couple, shot his wife’s lover and stabbed Florrie, throwing her body down the well. The glass-topped well now serves as a table in the bar.
More here.

Marking World Heritage Day today we are focusing on the ancient Japanese art of picture conservation and mounting known as Hyōgu.

1923 woodblock print after the earliest known image of a hyōgushi priest and his assistant Original by the 14th century Japanese painter Fujiwara Takakane
Private collection Great Britain

Hyōgu and the hyōgushi

The art of restoring and mounting works of art on paper and silk has been practiced in the Far East for nearly two millennia. Originating first in China at the beginning of the Christian era, conservation techniques and materials then spread to Japan where they developed into the refined art that we now know as Hyōgu.

The word Hyōgu means a picture or piece of calligraphy lined with paper and mounted as a hanging scroll. The words hyōgushi, hyōguya and kyōji refer to the mounter/conservators of Japan who not only repair and mount hanging scrolls but also conserve other forms of pictorial art such as the handscroll, screens, sliding doors, murals etc.

The hyōgushi of today is required to undergo a long and strict period of training. During this time he or she learns not only the skills which will enable him to conserve scrolls, screens etc, but also the knowledge and sensitivity required to present them in their correct context. He must know the appropriate style of mount used for any subject and be aware, for example, of the meanings associated with the patterned silks used with such mounts. He or she must also know how and where an object will be used as this will often dictate the materials and techniques employed in its conservation.

Like the Western bookbinder, the hyōgushi is responsible for objects which must be both functional and aesthetically pleasing. The objects he is conserving are made to be opened and closed, rolled and unrolled and, apart from the demands of conservation and aesthetics, the hyōgushi must always bear in mind that they are to be constantly handled and not merely viewed.

Trevethy Quoit, Cornwall, early 20th century

Today marks our fifth anniversary. So, a very big thank you to all who have contributed articles and photos to The Heritage Trust, commented on them, or just read them and hit the ‘like’ button. It’s all very much appreciated. Thank you.


In the second feature in our mini-series on Stonehenge, Roy Goutté asks… Is the blatant over-publicising of anything remotely connected to Stonehenge justified, or making archaeologists look foolish?

!cid_8F8F501384974D28933F8B222D56F468@HP (2)

Stonehenge as it appears today

Throughout the UK, to many people, there are dozens of equally important sites if you happen to live in their areas, but they are, on the whole, totally overlooked compared to Stonehenge. Funding for research and excavation is always a problem with them it would seem, while, on the surface, the impression is that anything within five miles of Stonehenge has archaeologists crawling all over them. Sure it pays for itself and is the UK’s premier cash cow, but is the sheer hype and constant publicity it draws to the detriment of serious archaeology. Year in and year out, last year’s claims of what it was and what it was used for are swept aside as yet another fantastic claim is made and ‘proof’ provided for it. And year in and year out we have to ask ourselves what happened to the previous year’s ideas and proof that countless media articles covered and often sensationalised?
It’s been a Temple to worship the Gods; an Astronomical Observatory; a Prehistoric Calendar; a Centre for Healing; a Site for Ritual Feasting; a Circular Graveyard for the Elite and recently a Monument of Unification, bringing together people from across the many parts of Britain and just about anything else that had the slightest whiff of possibility about it.
It has been roofed by some; totally rejected of ever being so by others… and yes, you guessed it… they were all experts! Oh and I mustn’t forget, it was also claimed to have been a Mecca on Stilts!
It was considered a place of healing in certain quarters because the bluestones were seen as having therapeutic qualities. The buried remains of the so-called Amesbury Archer discovered in 2002 was lauded about to bolster up that belief by the media because the poor chap had a kneecap missing and had such an apparent serious bone infection that it became his reason for being there. It was speculated he was a pilgrim making his way to Stonehenge to be healed. Well if he ever did make it to the henge then his journey was in vain it would seem as no healing was evident!
The whole landscape around Stonehenge was then dragged into this media frenzy that it really was a place of healing because many of the other poor devils buried around and about also showed signs of life-threatening ailments, wounds or injuries. But you see that just about everywhere in Bronze-Age burials and not just near Stonehenge! It was, as is often the case when it comes to Stonehenge, pure over-reaction and speculation but a great story nevertheless!
We have got to accept these days that next year another theory provided by yet another expert will come to light and in all probability the following year yet another, so, is Stonehenge in danger of burning itself out, or to finally become a Centre of Ridicule?
That will hardly be surprising after the claim was made that Mesolithic Wiltshire men and woman dined out on ‘frogs’ legs after the charred remains of a single 8,000 year-old toad were discovered at Blick Mead near Amesbury just a mile from Stonehenge. Yes that’s right, a single toad, not a vast pile of their bones discovered in a midden heap or buried in a ditch. Even Sherlock Holmes would have required more proof than that before reaching that conclusion surely!
Recently reported would you believe, is a suggestion that ‘Stonehenge’ was once built in Wales but moved to Wiltshire 500 years later making the Stonehenge we all know and love, second-hand! No actual solid proof mind you just speculation again, but before long and until shown to be otherwise, will become yet another ‘fact’.
We’ve already had the ‘roofed’ idea but now here’s another which I rather like, having a background in the construction industry. Architect Sarah Ewbank believes that the stones could have possibly once been the supports for a two-storey timber built roundhouse, a venue for feasting, speakers and musicians, and gives a good account of herself with some well thought out ideas and excellent scaled plans and drawings which the following two links amply demonstrate here and here.  
All of this just goes to prove that even after all these years we are still fishing in the dark and to be honest, often making fools of ourselves along the way. The words ‘enough is enough’ spring to mind as the cost of all these studies, investigations and excavations over the years must have mounted up into multi-millions of pounds, yet the dozens of other sites of equal interest to others in various parts of the UK are simply waved aside when it comes to funding for research and excavations. While we are supposedly finding out everything there is to know within a five mile radius of Stonehenge, those other parts of the country, with a few notable exceptions, remain a complete mystery in comparison. This can’t be right surely.
‘Firsts’ are claimed every other month, thus making the area appear to be even more special than it already is, but we have no idea if that is true or not because those other areas are not being investigated with such fervour. A false picture could quite easily be building up!
When visitors from all over ask what Stonehenge was built for, they are, on the whole, asking what was the monument we see stood before us today built for, not the first of the three accepted stages of build in total starting around 3000bce. As there was then a 500 year gap before the second stage was started, shouldn’t the first build be seen as the most important and the one we should be concentrating our thoughts on and not what followed which is an entirely different thing altogether in my opinion?
To be considered a ‘stage’ it suggests there was a blueprint in use taking it through to what we see today. If the second stage had followed the first almost immediately, then I can well see the builders working to a blueprint, but not after a 500 year gap I can’t.
According to English Heritage, the first ‘structure’ consisted simply of a circular ditch and bank …the earliest known major event was the construction of a circular ditch with an inner and outer bank, built about 3000 BC. This enclosed an area about 100 metres in diameter, and had two entrances. It was an early form of henge monument.
Within the bank and ditch were possibly some timber structures and set just inside the bank were 56 pits, known as the Aubrey Holes. There has been much debate about what stood in these holes: the consensus for many years has been that they held upright timber posts, but recently the idea has re-emerged that some of them may have held stones. Within and around the Aubrey Holes, and also in the ditch, people buried cremations. About 64 cremations have been found, and perhaps as many as 150 individuals were originally buried at Stonehenge, making it the largest Late Neolithic cemetery in the British Isles.
I personally doubt the theory that some stones may have once stood in the Aubrey holes as packing stones would most certainly have been found in them but the words ‘Late Neolithic’ give you a clue as to why the ‘second stage’ and the introduction of a proven stone structure then appeared …and it had nothing to do with a continuance of the first stage or its use which would appear to have been purely for funeral practices being a graveyard.
!cid_6F386F4365014C49BF2868CCD6139E8B@HP (2)
Stage 1
This was the ‘crossover’ period leading into the Bronze-Age and life and beliefs began to change in the southern part of Great Britain from a more nomadic way of life to a more settled and peaceful time with the arrival of the Beaker people from the Near East. We were on the cusp of leaving the Late Neolithic and entering the Bronze-Age and all that came with it. With their arrival the newcomers not only brought their way of life with them but also their beliefs. The meaning and use of the original ‘Stonehenge’ which, without a shadow of a doubt must have been a very, very special place and highly venerated was brushed aside just as the church was to later build over Pagan sites to Christianise them, so Stage 1 suffered the same fate!
Something similar was happening at Avebury just 20 miles away to the north. The West Kennet Long Barrow was closed down and the enigmatic Silbury Hill was rising up to challenge its influence from the valley below. One belief was being swept aside to make way for another.
The times they were a changing…and fast. Different time, different people, different purpose. Stonehenge as we see it today was on its way with just one main question remaining for that time …why was Stage 1 sited where it was?
Seek and you will find.

The first day in the life of a rookie Metal Detectorists. By Roy Goutté.

Well, Christmas had arrived and with it a metal detector in my stocking. Wow! I knew it was coming of course as I made mention of it in Part 1 of this article, but now it had. In waiting I found myself reading all sorts of articles and watching YouTube clips on detecting and detectors themselves and I couldn’t wait to get started! Everyone seemed to be finding coins, modern-ish and otherwise, with all the other stuff such as ring-pulls, fencing staples and bits of wire conveniently overlooked. That was encouraging and I couldn’t wait to get out there!
However, I needed first to become ‘accustomed’ (as the supplied video advised) to the detector and its settings. Blimey, looking at them it reminded me of the inside of the cockpit of a stealth bomber! There were settings for All Metals, Jewellery, Relics, Coins and what they termed a ‘Custom’ one. A table showing the depth the object was at from 2” down to 8”+. Buttons were various… Power, Mode, Sensitivity, Discrimination, Pinpointing and Eliminator. That last one sounded rather ominous I thought! But wait, there was more to come, as it could also distinguish by way of bleeps and their tone, the type of metal it was. Magic!
Well that was Christmas, but due to the appalling weather we have been having I wasn’t able to get out and give it a test drive until very recently, and only if I wore waders and a trench coat! Jeepers haven’t we had some rain! Anyway, after playing around with a few modern coins buried in various places around our lawn I set off into the big wide world with my detector slung over my shoulder for my first trip out on a windy dull day with showers.
As I mentioned in Part 1, I am very fortunate inasmuch that I have loads of land at my disposal owned by various friends, but for starters I chose a 50 acre field very close to home because if the weather really broke I wasn’t far away from the dry and warm!
I had chosen to ‘sweep’ an old track used many, many years ago by church goers who had a one and a half mile walk from a hamlet of about a dozen cottages to a chapel in the closest village. Naturally I had gained permission to do so as it is the number one rule. In the summer it would be an idyllic walk, but not on the day I was there it wasn’t! Slopping about in mud on a gravelly base, I was frequently finding an odd selection of rusty pieces of metal. One find was expected… the old fencing staple from the sheep netting fence that had been erected along the length of the path and was now a sorry sight, rusting away as it was so old and not galvanised. The other objects I was not sure of but I suspect were broken bits off a plough hitting the gravel under the topsoil and no doubts some more fencing bits. Doesn’t seem much does it but keeps you totally focused on what you are doing.
I never found a thing of any real interest (I mustn’t say value because in some quarters I’d be seen as a heritage thief) but actually had a very successful day in respect that my detector was a joy to use and for the first time realised why the hobby is so popular… the complete concentration that takes you over and clears your mind of all your worries and problems. It is extremely therapeutic and calming while at the same time very exhilarating which is a wonderful experience.
My first finds
Getting home earlier than planned because of the weather and having time to spare, I once again began doing a bit of trawling on the net with detecting in mind as I had decided to buy what is known as a ‘pinpointer’. It is a hand-sized small version of a metal detector with a projecting point on it to seek out the actual position of the ‘find’ amongst the removed earth which may have to be broken up a little. Now ordered off the ‘Bay’, I await its arrival from China (where else eh to keep the price down!).
While I was doing this I received a call from a pal. He said I would be disappointed to hear that once again detectorists were getting another panning from a familiar ‘heritage’ website. I thought, ‘Here we go again’. Sure enough, on checking it out someone was hell-bent on stirring up trouble for them once again. It is a sad state of affairs when detectorists can’t go out for a weekend’s legitimate detecting without someone spoiling their fun isn’t it. To certain sad and misguided people everyone brandishing a metal detector is more than capable of being a heritage thief, raping our land of artefacts and not officially reporting them (70% of them apparently). Capable certainly, but no guarantee that they will, but let’s heavily suggest they might would seem to be the name of the game!
The situation this time was that a rally that had taken place in 2014 on land that had an interesting historical background was going to be repeated again this year, in March, the writer believed. Prior to the said 2014 rally taking place they had implied on their website that detectorists would be ‘pocketing or destroying’ artefacts that would then be beyond the reach of science. Quiet a claim that isn’t it, giving the reader the impression that the event was going to be packed out with unscrupulous villains without a decent and honourable one in sight! At first I thought it sounded like an illegal activity was going to take place but the truth was that it was a perfectly legitimate and organised event and each detectorist would be paying £35 for the weekend, or, as it was so cynically put by the usual suspect… ‘for just £35 you can help yourself for the whole weekend’! Sounds like heaven to a hobby detectorists but a nightmare for an over-reactive anti-detectorist don’t you think.
The land in question had no Scheduling on it and was not a SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) as far as I am aware and they had full permission to ‘sweep’ it which more or less confirms that, yet again the reader was being seduced into believing they were likely to be a bunch of villains plundering a site for their own benefit!
Nobody seems to have shown an interest in carrying out investigations or excavations there previously, so my first thoughts were that it would be a great opportunity for the detectorists to find out more if they were fortunate enough to discover things of interest which would then filter its way back to us via their clubs or finds officer. They gave no idea how many clubs or individuals were taking part in the rally and I don’t suppose for a single moment they even troubled to find out either, but you can be sure that because of their Codes of Conduct nothing was going to be ‘pocketed’ that shouldn’t be while they were on site and observed, but of course the anti-detectorist obsessives always think differently because they seem to be predisposed to think that way. Protecting our heritage is one thing, and to be applauded, but to give false impressions another thing altogether and shameful.
And forget commenting on one of the myriad of MD articles on said ‘heritage’ website. If you don’t agree with them you will be treated as I was; your comments are likely to be binned and you will be asked not to post there again. You won’t even be met half-way. There didn’t appear to be a balance struck at all, you either agreed with the article or were asked to leave as I was. My comments were only used when it suited them and some not published at all unless sections within it were selected, but only in an attempt to put me down to the other readers who were then denied my completely unpublished posts because, to do so, would reveal a few truths. I thought it a very cowardly and discourteous way of doing things and in doing so confirmed to myself what I always suspected about the way an individual can operate, so tossed in a few remarks of my own to balance things up a little.
For example, I asked a perfectly reasonable question on this ‘heritage’ website which was, ‘Where did the solid proof come from claiming that 70% of finds were not reported’? What I got back was a claim that four separate entities had said the same. That wasn’t ‘proof’ to me unless I and other readers could see the written documentation to back that up so asked for it. Common sense told me, as it will to others, that there is absolutely no way that every single ‘find’ found can be witnessed to substantiate such a claim so to claim that the 70% was a proven fact was complete nonsense. Where for instance was the person watching me on my first venture out in the field in case I found a significant artefact and did a runner with it… hiding up a tree? Of course the readership was denied that post and instead was told that they would not be hearing from me again! Neat eh!
It’s a great shame really as some good stuff has come out of that website, particularly when written by a certain person that I have met and who always gives a good account of himself in print with his well-balanced views and interesting well researched articles. That’s how it should be done.
Moving on, it is quite obvious that by far the greatest number of important metal artefacts found underground in the UK are discovered by amateur metal detectorists and not by professional archaeologists who, on the whole, are not looking for treasure of that kind and certainly not where the majority are found. Without detectorists there must be a very high percentage of those fabulous artefacts that would never have seen the light of day again without their help. Of course there will always be detectorists that don’t play by the rules and that will never stop no matter what legislations are put into place, as I’m sure I’ve mentioned before. I’m also sure that most level-headed people understand that obvious statistic and accept it, but some are so obsessed with only seeing the bad side of things that they treat people like idiots for thinking otherwise. I know someone like that. Good intentions without a doubt, but unrealistic.
Finally, check out this small sample of fabulous finds which without the help of metal detectorists may never have been found and I’ll catch up with you all again shortly.
The Silverdale Hoard 2007

The Hoxne Hoard 1992


A very small part of the 3,500 piece Staffordshire Hoard 2009

And finally the Jersey Hoard 2012

The stats helper monkeys prepared a 2015 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 29,000 times in 2015. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 11 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.


A metal detector in my Christmas stocking. By Roy Goutté.

I have to say that I have longed to own a decent metal detector for some years now. Yes you can buy cheap versions in stores that you would be lucky to find a metal dustbin with just 1” under the soil, but at my age and with time on my hands I am about to have my wish come true, as I am being bought that decent one for Christmas!

It wasn’t what was planned though as the family had asked if I would like to have a quadcopter (drone) as a Christmas gift so that I could take aerial videos of stone circles and the like, being my main hobby these days. Having the whole of Bodmin Moor to ‘fly’ over subject to permission if required, it was very appealing. However, on checking out the prices for the type of one I would prefer, it soon became apparent to me that it would be a very costly purchase for them, so I declined their generous offer but suggested an alternative. ‘Could I have a decent middle-range metal detector instead please?’.

So that’s where I am today and really looking forward to owning one, especially as we have our own field to ‘test drive’ it in. So now, instead of flying above ground, I’ll be digging beneath it for the time being!

My interest in archaeology and the metal detector are not far apart these days and I’m rather hoping the two will go well together when the approved occasion arises. MD’s are widely used by archaeologists today, but by a strict code of practise as I was to discover when I went out of my way to get the low-down on where exactly you could use them.

The truth of the matter is that you can’t use them ANYWHERE without permission,  unless you happen to own your own land and it’s not already protected that is. That was a surprise for a start as I assumed you could still pretty much wonder down to any public beach, park and scrub land and detect away. Not so these days it would seem and for good reason for there would appear to be much going on that is spoiling things for the everyday detectorist out for a quiet and relaxing day in the countryside or beach hoping to discover a few old coins or lost rings instead of the regular flow of ring-pulls, bits of wire and rusty nails associated with metal detecting.

Over more recent years and probably since the introduction of more powerful depth seeking metal detectors, fantastic hoards of gold, jewellery and coins have been discovered along with literally 1,000’s of individual items of antiquity and very often in areas where nothing was ever expected and certainly where archaeologists had no reason to take an interest in!

This has led to a number of those everyday ‘weekender’ detectorists turning to the dark side and purposely targeting these items of great value and not declaring them… an illegal and prisonable offence! Commonly known as ‘Nighthawks’ these thieves are selling off our heritage for personal gain and giving the honest and respectable detectorist who are members of local clubs a bad press. In other words, they are stealing from the nation and whilst doing so bringing honest metal detectorists into disrepute. It has to be stopped.

So how exactly is the law, archaeologists and detectorists working together these days to resolve this situation?

In an article written by Alex Hunt of the Council for British Archaeology (CBA) and updated in 2011 he explained much of that early history:-

‘A 1995 survey on metal detecting in England, by the Council for British Archaeology, pinpointed some gloomy facts about the impact of the hobby. It concluded that of the hundreds of thousands of artefacts recovered by detectorists every year, only a fraction was being reported to museums.

Even worse, three-quarters of archaeological field units had experienced raids of their excavations by detectorists, and between 1988 and 1995 illicit metal detector users damaged at least 188 scheduled ancient monuments (archaeological sites of national importance, protected under law, where special permission is required to dig or to use metal detectors).

Two particularly high-profile cases of looting were the illegal removal of a hoard of fine Romano-British bronzes from Icklingham in Suffolk in the 1980s, and the plunder of the site of a Roman Temple at Wanborough in Surrey in the 1990s.

This kind of looting appals archaeologists and responsible detectorists alike, because the combined effect of both looting and non-reporting of finds is that crucial information about archaeological sites is being lost’.

He continued :-

‘Archaeology lives and breathes on context. Knowing exactly what comes from where, the soils in which it lies, and the relationships or associations between artefacts, features and other forms of evidence, is critical for interpreting archaeological remains.

An object on its own may tell us quite a lot. For instance, using some of the many scientific techniques available, we might find evidence about the technologies and resources used in its manufacture. Or the form and design of the object, and the way it shows evidence of patterns of wear or repair, might tell us about its function and use. Techniques such as radiocarbon dating also allow us to work out the age of some artefacts. Yet there may be little point in doing this work, if we know nothing of where the object was found.

By contrast, understanding an object in relation to other objects, and to the deposits in which they are found, can allow a much more powerful level of interpretation. An artefact of one type, for instance, which can be dated, can – if looked at in its proper archaeological context – also help date whole layers and features and other kinds of artefacts, which cannot be dated in any other way.

In the light of this, some archaeologists have advocated a much stronger regulation of metal detecting, but others suggest that the best approach is to foster a responsible approach among the detecting community, through better liaison and education’.

Finding common ground:

‘In Norfolk for instance, the late Tony Gregory recognised early on that not all detectorists behave irresponsibly. He set about forming fruitful links with those whose primary interest was in the sense of discovery and a real interest in what they found.

For instance he sought the permission required for a group of detectorists to systematically survey the Roman temple site at Caistor St Edmund. This was to assess the damage being done by groups of treasure-hunting thieves who were regularly working over the monument by cover of dark, and to pre-empt any further damage. Bit by bit Tony and successive archaeologists built a lasting relationship with responsible detectorists across the county, who helped foil this vandalism.

In areas where archaeologists have been constructive in this way, detectorists are much more confident in reporting their finds. And they have been recovering a lot of useful material – metal detected finds have, for instance, significantly contributed to understanding Iron Age coinage, and also the deposition of Bronze Age metal hoards in south-east England. Finds can be reported to Finds Liaison Officers of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, and metal detector users continue to contribute to the archaeological process and historical studies’.

Read more here:

The Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) mentioned above, has an interesting history. It is a Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) funded project to encourage the voluntary recording of archaeological objects found by members of the public in England and Wales. Every year many thousands of objects are discovered, not just by metal detectorists, but also by people out walking and even just working in their gardens.

In July 1996, the Treasure Act was passed. The Treasure Act replaced the medieval law of Treasure Trove in England and Wales. This Act gave some protection to certain archaeological finds, acting to encourage their reporting. However, a great many objects were being found by members of the public which were not ‘treasure’, but which were nonetheless important in building up knowledge of the archaeology and history of England and Wales.

In the past, finds such as these were, in some cases, taken to local museums to record. However, many more finds were unrecorded as there were not always systems in place to do so, often due to lack of resources.

A further problem was presented as the removal of an archaeological object from the ground without properly recording the circumstances of the find can lead to loss of knowledge of an object’s context, or provenance. Context is vital in archaeology in order to be able understand past human activity. Archaeology is not simply about studying isolated objects. How these came to be where they were found, their relationship to other objects and stratigraphy (position in the ground), among other factors help build up a picture of the past as a whole. These unrecorded or un-provenanced finds meant a loss to knowledge of the archaeology and history of England and Wales.

The Act has been subject to ‘improvement and change’ since its introduction and it can be read here in full.

So, it is no longer just a matter of driving down to the local park or beach and getting on with it, although by all accounts, some still do. Permissions have to be sought and other rules complied with. And it’s not just about finding the odd 50p or a bit of modern jewellery and having a relaxing day out in the fresh air anymore for some it would seem, but the possible theft of our heritage by those who flout the rules and are in it just for the money gained by not reporting important finds of antiquity and selling them to private collectors or indeed keeping them for their own collections.

Looking at the rules of a local MD club in my area below, their rules are quite clear and I wonder if in the main the protagonists are loners with no connections with clubs whatsoever. It is supposed to be a hobby and certainly for the much greater majority and honest ones it still is, but how do you deal with those who are in it for profit and blatantly disregarding the law without an apparent care in the world?

Typical Metal Detector club rules:

  1. All members will hold a current membership of the NCMD. These will be shown to the club secretary upon joining.
  2. Do not trespass. Obtain permission before venturing on to any land.
  3. Respect the Country Code, leave gates and property as you find them and do not damage crops, frighten animals or disturb nesting birds.
  4. Wherever the site, do not leave a mess or an unsafe surface for those who may follow. Always re-fill your holes, do not leave unwanted finds in your hole remove them from the field.
  5. Membership of the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX will be open to all members of the public interested in metal detecting as a hobby and who are willing to both, support the interests of the club by keeping to its rules and make the payment of the current membership fee(non refundable).
  6. Before being accepted as a member of this club, applicants will be required to declare that they are not already members of any other club. If in the past applicants have held membership of any other club or clubs, they must have given formal notice of resignation to their previous club or clubs before their application will be considered.
  7. Members of this club may not join any other metal detecting club without immediately forfeiting both membership and member’s rights to this club.
  8. If you discover any live ammunition or any lethal object such as an unexploded bomb or mine, do not disturb it. Mark the site carefully and report the find to the local police and landowner.
  9. Help keep Britain tidy. Safely dispose of refuse you come across.
  10. Report any dead or injured livestock to your land owner.
  11. Remember it is illegal for anyone to use a metal detector on a designated area (e.g. scheduled archaeological site, SSSI, or Ministry of Defense property) without permission from the appropriate authority.
  12. Acquaint yourself with the Treasure Act 1996
  13. Remember that when you are out with your metal detector you are an ambassador for our hobby and club. Do nothing that might give us a bad name.
  14. Report all finds assumed older than 300 years to the local F.L.O.
  15. Never miss an opportunity to explain your hobby to anyone who asks about it, you never know, it may lead to new permissions.
  16. All club obtained land will only be detected on via an organized club search and at no other times.
  17. Annual memberships will run from the 1st April to 31st March with an annual fee of £XX
  18. Officers of the club, Chairman, secretary and treasurer shall be elected at the AGM.19. Club search fees shall be £X per member unless stated otherwise and payable on the day

Returning now to my own plans and how I am going about things so that I can enjoy this hobby without falling foul of the law.

My first move is going to be to contact a local MD club and become a member if they have vacancies and will accept me. By doing this I am hoping that I will be able to become really conversant with the accepted and approved rules and legislation in place, and of course to have detecting days out with them learning the ropes. I will only join a club that is registered with a recognised National authority as that has to be the only way forward for a newbie surely. See here for more information.

I have already found out how I go about obtaining permission and a permit to use a MD on the foreshore and by all accounts it is a very simple matter and free… but you must have one!

I am also very fortunate in having many farming friends with hundreds of acres of land that I hope I will be given access to and in time maybe also the club I decide to join. I’m in this for the enjoyment and relaxation and of course that glimmer of hope that one day a magic moment will arrive when something special makes its presence known to me and I can add just that little bit more to our understanding of our past. I see it, as in all aspects of my archaeology research and work, as my chance to put just a little something back in appreciation of our great ancestors gifts from the past, whether it be stone circles, dolmans, long barrows or Saxon gold and jewellery lying tantalisingly close just out of sight beneath our feet.


I don’t feel I can finish an article on metal detecting and its connection with archaeology without mentioning the wonderful BAFTA winning BBC4 television mini-series called Detectorists that is currently on our screens. Wonderful entertainment with superb acting from a brilliant cast all put together and including Mackenzie Crook (Andy).

It centres around detectorist pals Andy and Lance (the brilliant Toby Jones), their local club the Danebury Metal Detecting Club and its members and their love lives (or lack of it in Lance’s case). Adding further to the cast are two members of a rival club affectionately known as Simon and Garfunkel.

They typify the classic hobby detectorists in my book. Out all day in a world of their own finding ring-pulls, rusty wire, bits broken of ploughs and the occasional coin to keep the interest and enthusiasm alive… and all the time in the back of their minds is the possibility of them hitting the jackpot and discovering a Saxon hoard… something that unbeknown to them they have already walked away from being right under their feet at the end of yet another fruitless day!

Andy (right) and Lance (left) in Detectorists

According to Mackenzie, there is some skill involved in the whole exercise, and he’s now one of an astounding 30,000 enthusiasts who practise this hobby in the UK alone. “They’re not anoraks,” Mackenzie insists. “They’re amateur archaeologists.”

If like me, you are, or were contemplating taking up the hobby, do check out this very excellent and informative ‘Beginners guide to metal detecting’.

And finally, this clip from Series One of Detectorists. I loved it when Becky, Andy’s partner, suggests he may have missed a lot whilst he’s been detecting. What follows just about sums up their luck. Superb.

Coetan Arthur sub-megalithic tomb. St Davids Head, Pembrokeshire, south-west Wales
The Heritage Trust

Today marks our fourth anniversary. During that time we’ve posted 851 features, attracted 106,656 views and now have 329 followers. So a very big thank you to all who have contributed articles and photos to The Heritage Trust, commented on them, or just read them and hit the ‘like’ button. It’s all very much appreciated.

That’s on the positive side. Sadly, on the negative side, we’ve had to report on the appalling destruction by Daesh vandals of ancient sites and artefacts in the Syrian city of Palmyra, and the senseless beheading of the 82 year-old archaeologist Khaled al-Asaad in the same city. Though nowhere near that level of violence we, and some of our founder members, have been attacked and lampooned on the internet for voicing what we hope is a more balanced view on the subject of metal detecting. Needless to say those attacks will not deter us from discussing the subject of metal detecting in a moderate and informed manner, nor from reporting on heritage vandalism wherever and however it takes place.

The main event for us this year was our relocation from the south to the north of England. And as a result we unfortunately found ourselves unable to host our 2015 Outreach Event in Cornwall. That won’t happen next year, however, when we’re planning to hold something very special. We hope to see some of you then but meanwhile, and once again, a very big thank you for your continued support and encouragement.

The Heritage Trust Team.

Image credit The Times

We don’t often get involved with British political issues but when they sink to this level of gimmickry it really has hit rock bottom (pun intended) and something needs to be said. We refer to the Labour Party’s latest publicity stunt to win votes (election day in Britain is today) in the shape of an eight foot tall ‘megalith’ with six ‘promises’ from their party’s manifesto ‘engraved’ on its surface. Is the text actually engraved or has it been painted on? Or is it a transfer of some kind? If Labour wins the election however its leader Ed Miliband plans to erect the megalith in the garden of 10 Downing Street (assuming he’s able to get planning permission from Westminster City Council that is!).

The Urban Prehistorian sums up our own feelings on the Ed’stone gimmick perfectly when it writes –

Are we fooled by these megalithic metaphors of power and permanence? Do we accept that when a pledge is carved into rock by machine or chisel that it has more resonance and reliability than a promise spoken, a paper manifesto, a ministerial tweet? Would this infamous pre-referendum promise, printed in newspaper form just before the independence referendum in Scotland in September 2014, have really been any more trustworthy or powerful had it been carved on a tablet of stone?

No we are not fooled. Miliband’s promises are all very well and good but where is HERITAGE in all of this? In fact where is Heritage in any of the five or six main political party’s pledges? As a country we have not even ratified the Hague Convention to protect cultural property in time of war. Shame on our politicians for not doing so, and shame on the megalithic gimmickry this election campaign has sunk to.


Neil MacGregor, Director of the British Museum
Neil MacGregor, Director of the British Museum, has announced his intention to resign. Neil MacGregor is perhaps best known to the public through his outstanding and highly entertaining Radio 4 A History of the World in 100 objects series (and its accompanying book). The series consisted of a hundred 15-minute episodes based on objects from the British Museum’s collection. This morning, however, Neil MacGregor, announced to his colleagues at the British Museum that he has decided to step down as Director at the end of December 2015. Part of the British Museum press release reads –
Neil MacGregor said, “It’s a very difficult thing to leave the British Museum. Working with this collection and above all with the colleagues here has been the greatest privilege of my professional life. But I’ve decided that now is the time to retire from full-time employment and the end of this year seems a good time to go. The new building has been completed, so we at last have proper exhibition space, new conservation and scientific facilities, and first class accommodation for our growing research activities. We have built strong partnerships with fellow museums across the UK, and are rapidly expanding our programme of loans and training around the world.
The Heritage Trust would like to thank Neil MacGregor for his outstanding work as Director of the British Museum and to wish him the very best in his new life.
Full British Museum press release here.
A guest feature by Littlestone.
The Dali Museum, Florida, United States
Image credit Matthew Paulson. Source Wikimedia Commons
Not all is doom and gloom… at least not when it comes to the number of museums in the United States. According to Christopher Ingraham, writing for The Washington Post, there are roughly 11,000 Starbucks and about 14,000 McDonald’s in the country – a total of some 25,000 outlets. That’s a lot, but not as many as there are museums, which weigh in at a whopping 35,000!
According to Mr Ingraham –
…the latest data release from the Institute of Museum and Library Services, an independent government agency that tallies the number and type of museums in this country. By their count the 35,000 active museums represent a doubling from the number estimated in the 1990s.
While most of us think of massive institutions like the Smithsonian and the Guggenheim when we think of museums, one lesson of the new data is that the majority of U.S. museums are small, nearly mom-and-pop affairs. Of the roughly 25,000 museums with income data in the file, 15,000 of them  reported an annual income of less than $10,000 on their latest IRS returns.
Well done the United States! (full Washington Post article here). Meanwhile, if you feel you can help support museums in Britain, please consider offering some of your time to them, making a donation or buying books etc directly from a museum shop rather than going through one of the big retailers. The Beck Isle Museum in Pickering, North Yorkshire is a good example of how we can support the smaller museum, and the British Museum shop an example of how direct purchasing will help support larger museums and their varied activities.


The Standing Stones of Stenness by Godfrey Higgins. Circa 1829

Orkneyjar is a privately-run, non-profit website, created and maintained by Sigurd Towrie. It is not affiliated in any way to official Orkney bodies, such as the Orkney Tourist Board or Orkney Islands Council. The Orkneyjar website began in 1997, initially as an experiment in HTML and to provide a platform to “publish” the numerous articles on Orcadian history and heritage I had written over the years. From its humble beginnings, the site has grown steadily and now attracts thousands of visitors each month. Hopefully Orkneyjar will continue to grow over the years, as I find the time to re-evaluate existing material and add more content. The website is generally updated at least one a month, but again this is dependent on time.

Sigurd Towrie



June 2022
Follow The Heritage Trust on
%d bloggers like this: