No Beacon Award for English Heritage: Fragmentary Conservation Consciousness and Fragmentary Policies

.
British archaeological conservation policy is a shambles, everybody knows that. Further evidence emerged a while ago and everybody decided not to talk about it. Somebody forgot to tell Heritage Action about maintaining the conspiracy of silence - so they published a text on their website which everybody is pretending now they've not seen. Why not have a look at what the authorities over there do not want you discussing? The text is a real sharp reminder of how PAS is the anomalous element in conservation "policy". The text is called "Don’t build Jubilee Beacons on heritage sites!" which seems pretty obvious until you ask the question, well what is a "heritage site"?

English Heritage has just issued Guidance for organisers of Jubilee beacons to ensure archaeological sites aren’t damaged. A good idea, but one bit surprised us: “Staff at your local authority Historic Environment Record will also be able to advise if the location of a beacon could cause harm to an important undesignated heritage asset and suggest alternatives”

Undesignated sites are unscheduled ones. There are hundreds of thousands and they have no protection so it’s good to see English Heritage explaining the importance of checking no damage is likely to result from beacons. However, they don’t issue equivalent advice about a far larger and ongoing potential for harm on the self-same sites – the army of metal detectorists, sometimes in many hundreds at rallies, who legally target those sites in particular (the very essence of metal detecting is to find unprotected archaeological sites so as to legally maximise the finds rate). Where is the advice from English Heritage asking detectorists, including rally organisers, like beacon organisers, to check if it will cause damage and go elsewhere if so? Nowhere.

Heritage Action point out the two main reasons why English heritage "can feel free to flag up a minor temporary threat but not a massive ongoing one". The first is that beacon builders, being normal folk, will be willing to comply with any request to avoid certain sites if asked, especially if the argument of conservation is raised. English Heritage would probably expect no resistance from the highly receptive and co-operative middle classes. Whereas:

asking metal detectorists to desist from detecting on an important but legally unprotected site that they have researched, identified and targeted for that very reason is just a joke. It’s legal innit? LEGAL. Don’t try to restrict our hobby or else we can promise widespread nighthawking from some of us. Second, there’s no such thing as a Portable Beacon Scheme so there’s no-one asking English Heritage not to antagonise beacon builders.

When are we going to see some 'joined up thinking' in the United Kingdom about how to protect the archaeological heritage from damage in a more holistic programme, and not a series of mutually conflicting ad hoc fragments masquerading as policy?