Letters: British Archaeology 116, January / February 2011

Urgent need for clarity on finds ownership

Star Letter

Further to Haggai Mor's article on the ownership of archaeological finds from excavations (Sep/Oct 2010), I would like to see some action from the national bodies to clear up the "legal ambiguity" here. I have my own experience of the problem, associated with the Lancaster Roman memorial stone that was used to illustrate the article (it is not actually a tombstone, as no associated burial was found – see the book!).

This discovery took place as part of a scheme of works required by the then standard PPG16 planning condition, for which I (as county archaeologist) had written a brief for both the initial evaluation and the subsequent excavation work. These briefs included a requirement for the contractor to arrange that archive and finds were to be deposited with Lancaster City Museum, and were both answered by project designs by a contractor in which this was explicitly spelt out. These project designs were accepted by both the developer as the basis of the contract, and by the local planning authority as the scheme of archaeological works required by the planning condition.

When the memorial stone was discovered, at a very early stage in the excavation, I made arrangements to quickly lift it from site and take it to secure storage at the Museum of Lancashire (no suitable space was available in Lancaster), with the agreement of the developer. It was after that stage that "noises off" relating to the sale of the stone began, and its possible export (see News, Mar/Apr 2006). Whilst we quickly obtained support from the British Museum and others to oppose any application for an export licence, my investigations into the legal status of the stone were not so successful.

I had originally assumed that unless a find was "treasure", it would be deposited in the museum as specified in the approved project design. The developer never approached me directly about a possible sale, but there were a number of pieces in the local paper, and he was clearly discussing the matter elsewhere. In order to check my assumptions, I went to the county's legal section for an opinion. They stated that:

The legal contract – the project design – was between the developer and the archaeological contractor, and this could not be enforced by us as a third party
That the wording used in the project design – that the finds would be deposited in the specified museum – did not specify a change of ownership or permanent deposition, and would therefore not stop the private sale of the item nor its later removal and export
That the basis of the requirement to "hand over" the finds was required by a planning condition, and that this would, in the case of a find worth many thousands of pounds, probably be considered "unreasonable" and thus an invalid condition. This latter was reinforced by conversations between myself and the county development control manager.

Despite discussions with others, including the museum authorities, no way was found out of this impasse, and eventually the money was raised to buy the stone and place it in the City Museum. This has been described by some as a waste of cash, because "the stone was already ours".

We are now told in PPS5 (which replaced PPG15 and PPG16 as the national policy guidance for the historic environment in March 2010), that we should be following the process I had used on this site, yet no answer to any of the points above has been offered. Indeed, at one of the national PPS5 training days run by English Heritage I raised the same issue, and was not given any satisfactory response.

This is unlikely to be the only site where this has happened, nor to be the last one. We urgently need this to be reviewed at the highest level.

Peter Iles

Peter Iles, Lancashire

• Editor's note: The memorial stone is described, with the Roman fort at Lancaster and other material, in Lancaster's Roman Cemeteries, ed PD Iles and DC Shotter (Centre for North West Regional Studies 2009).

Sacred unity

Recent rulings of the Ministry of Justice that require archaeologists to rebury human remains within two years, are said to have led to a crisis (Nov/Dec 2010). The tone of the article implies that science and archaeology are under threat, and failure to tell the story of ancient people through the forensic tools of archaeology is "disrespectful". Once again, we have to challenge this one-sided view.

Modem science can often shed interesting light on aspects of the lives of our ancestors, but the truly destructive side of the pursuit of knowledge (grave excavation, intrusive analytical techniques and the separation of grave goods from their owners' remains) needs to be questioned on every occasion. With ancient remains consent can never be granted – or assumed. The original burial creates a sacred burial place: its intention is the comprehensive integration of the individual and the land. The disinterment of this person rips apart this sacred unity.

Fenced

As an armchair archaeologist, it was exciting to learn of the discovery of "a second henge at Stonehenge", and learn that it was "The most exciting find there in 50 years". And so close to Stonehenge too. How could it have remained undiscovered for so long? Anyway, congratulations to Professor Vince Gaffney and his colleagues. I also note in the BBC announcement that this was "A multi-million pound study". Money well spent.

The BBC article kindly provided a map of the exact location of the find. So from the comfort of my home, I set out to contextualise the discovery myself via Google maps' satellite image. Little did I know that a surprise was in store for me. You may want to do this for yourself...

First locate the new henge in the map in the BBC article. In another window, open Google maps and just type "Stonehenge" into the search field. Click on the "Satellite" box, zoom in a bit and orient yourself to Stonehenge. Work your way north-westward until you locate the new henge site on the satellite image. It's to the east of the wood, south-east of the flock of sheep and north-west of a large white rock and a bunch of small ones nearby. See anything yet? Circular perhaps?

There are other circles around the region too. Maybe some in need of a few million pounds of equipment to investigate...

• Editor's note: The "white rocks" are probably where turf erosion has exposed light-coloured soil, but the writer is correct to say that something "circular" can be seen in the Google air photo. It is debateable as to whether the BBC map shows the proposed "henge" at exactly that spot, but British Archaeology can reveal that some archaeologists are wondering if the distinctive "henge" feature – a ring of pits – is in fact the site of a 19th or 20th century fence that once enclosed a round barrow. What Melvyn Heyes can see on Google is a nearly levelled burial mound: there are of course many of these in the area.

What concerns the archaeologists is the way the postholes (dark marks in the geophysics survey) are not arranged on a circle, but on a hexagon, heptagon or possibly an octagon (see Birmingham University's original report, with an image of the plot). While posthole circles are common in the British neolithic, such straight-sided rings are unknown. The large-scale 1970s Ordnance Survey map of the field shows a barrow close to the location of the geophysics site, ringed by an eight-sided fence. Is the new site "the first major ceremonial monument that has been found [at Stonehenge] in the past 50 years or so"? Or an over-hasty PR embarrassment (at an early stage in what is undoubtedly an important archaeological project)? Full publication and small-scale excavation would clinch the matter.

Framed

Bob Davey saw the report on the Boxford Anglo-Saxon window (News, Nov/Dec 2010). We think we have one very much like it which would be as old or, even perhaps, older! Bob restored St Mary's church, Houghton-on-the-Hill, Norfolk, from a roofless ruin after his wife Gloria came across it in 1992. There has been a church on the site since 630, and a stone one from 750/800. Features include medieval murals, an Anglo-Saxon keyhole arch in front of the altar, and Saxon windows in the north and south nave walls. Long and short stonework was used at the nave corners, and Roman bricks in the walls.

Cooked

The recent Star Carr discoveries are undeniably exciting (feature, Nov/Dec 2010). However the brief mention of "excavations directed by Tim Schadla-Hall (1985)" does not reflect the importance of over 20 years of work undertaken at Seamer Carr, under the auspices of the Vale of Pickering Trust, along the same "lakeside shoreline". Although no "structures" were found, vast quantities of flint, plus wood, animal bone and environmental evidence were recorded. It would be good to know that these long term excavations are not forgotten.

Screwed

A lifetime ago when I was working in an international publishing house – Stuart Piggott referred to it as Thumbs and Handscrews – an old hand in the editorial department warned me against designers and the marketing department getting in the way of a good text. While it is good to see Paul Jacobsthal in these pages (Nov/Dec 2010) it escapes me why the only iron age objects illustrated have been selected wholly from Britain, when Jacobsthal's Early Celtic Art (whose reproduced jacket is that of the 1969 reprint and not the 1944 original) was wholly concerned with the iron age of the continent?

I love watching the Discovery Channel, I'm fascinated by archaeology. People think when you're famous you're going to be cool. I'm not. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), talks to OK! Magazine, Nov 2010.

Issue 116

Jan / Feb 2011

Contents

news

features

Crosby Garrett Roman Helmet

THE BIG DIG: Flixbrough

Fieldwalking in Bingham

Silbury Hill

The Varmints Show

on the web

CBA Correspondent

letters

letters

Urgent need for clarity on finds ownership

Star Letter

Sacred unity

Fenced

Framed

Cooked

Screwed

CBA web:

British Archaeology

CBA Briefing

CBA homepage