A message from the Editor
As the autumn season approaches, and the nights are getting longer, there is a feeling in the air of contemplation. Entering the final phase of the year forces us to look back, and it feels like a good time to reflect on an extremely busy and rewarding summer at the Society.
Things remain incredibly busy; we have been active at several outreach events across the county including well-attended events such as the Festival of Archaeology and the East Kent Ploughing Match. We have been out to meet with many heritage-based organisations to discuss ways of forming and advancing partnerships, possible techniques and solutions for the preservation of Kent heritage, and we have explored a range of potential opportunities to educate and enrich local communities through historical and archaeological research.
[fg]jpg|Cur8 Group training in archaeological investigation at Shorne Woods|Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg|The team exploring Kent’s hidden wonders.|Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg|Heritage discussions at Ashford Museum.|Image[/fg]
We have also been involved in treasure inquests, heritage consultations, lectures and discussions, given advice and supervision on archaeological issues, been involved in historic building recording and several excavations, provided educational programs, trained volunteers, awarded grants, produced digital content, and continue to care for, promote and record our own incredible collections. It is important for us to stay up to date on the archaeological and historical debates around the county, and we are extremely grateful to our members and colleagues for ensuring such an informed network is constantly maintained.
One of the big talking points of late has been the increased interest in metal detecting in the county. Metal detecting has been a regular leisure activity in Kent for decades, but recently the increased visibility through social media and organised rallies, alongside encouraging TV and media such as the wildly successful BBC series Detectorists, has caused a boom in the hobby and consequently, an increased level of finds are being recovered across Kent.
Several stunning and important discoveries are being unearthed—some by chance, many at permissioned digs and at organised rallies. The more spectacular of these finds are given plenty of attention, but what of the thousands of more common items discovered, which still have fascinating stories to tell?
Whilst this boom in discoveries can help to illuminate Kent’s absorbing past, there are also dangers with such activity. There have been many calls for a halt on unnecessary archaeological excavation in the UK, particularly in light of blanket embargoes on museum deposition due to space constraints. The stores are full, bursting at the seams. There is nowhere for these artefacts to be safely stored. Should a similar hiatus extend to the tens of thousands of objects unearthed by detectorists across the nation?
Some of the issues encountered include the monitoring of which items are being recorded. Unfortunately, despite a majority of responsible and interested detectorists, a minority of individuals still engage in illegal trespass, nighthawking, unauthorised excavation of important artefacts without due care or recording, and engagement in illicit trade of antiquities. This is difficult to police. Another challenge is the system of recording.
Currently, as someone who has had positive engagements with both the finders and those responsible for recording and acquiring artefacts, it seems clear that some opposition in opinion on the best practice for recording remains. Due to constraints of time and capacity, and the incredible pressure put on individuals to deal with a county’s worth of never-ceasing discoveries, only certain finds can be recorded by the Finds Liaison Officer, which in effect only provides a selective picture of the past use of a landscape.
This will be improved infinitely with the introduction of the Portable Antiquities Scheme app, but currently many items go under the radar and may be lost to the record forever. Unfortunately, this issue cannot be fully amended without better funding of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, and more staff to record artefacts and deal with the considerable backlog. This begs the question: who should fund this?
All the potential funding streams have arguments for and against. Arguments range from local government (but we all know the current state of financial difficulties faced by local councils) to the museum and heritage sector. The regional museums relevant to the discoveries often have limited funds and require funding campaigns to purchase individual items or collections highlighted by the PAS, so for these institutions, additionally funding the PAS is probably unattainable. The British Museum, with an impressive annual turnover, wealthy patrons and sponsors, and direct benefit from the scheme, would, on paper, seem better placed to invest further—though like all heritage institutions in the current climate, they face challenges of their own and almost certainly have greater overheads than many. Should we hang all our expectations on this single establishment?
[fg]jpg|Maintenance work on Tonbridge Castle Moat.|Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg|Site visit to the Archaeological Resource Centre, Northamptonshire, to discuss county storage solutions.|Image[/fg]
Another argument has been made for the finders of the artefacts recorded on the PAS to contribute towards the scheme. This has been proposed in a variety of formats—as a licence fee for detectorists, or an annual subscription to fund the recording of artefacts and therefore keep the hobby from being outlawed altogether, as it is in many neighbouring nations. It is thought a licence may encourage responsible detecting more widely, and offer potential training opportunities in artefact recording, preservation skills and finds identification.
But should it be down to individual finders to pay for the scheme if they are not the immediate beneficiaries? Who, outside of academic research communities, benefits from such forensic-level recording? Would any such actions to control the pursuit of metal detecting have an adverse effect? Perhaps it would cause an increase in the illegal elements of the activity, or simply an avoidance of reporting or recording at all?
Most of the detectorists I speak to are drawn to the activity for the opportunity to feel history up close—to discover, and hold an artefact, something crafted hundreds, sometimes thousands of years ago. This inspires a thirst for further knowledge, far more than the relatively sterile experience of staring at an item from behind bomb-proof glass whilst a conveyor belt of human traffic sweeps you onwards.
[fg]jpg|The Kent Archaeological Society Library at Maidstone Museum.|Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg|Recording Society collections: Gallo-Belgic C Iron Age Stater; part of a probable scattered hoard found in Ryarsh in the 19th century. Recorded on the Celtic Coin Index under CCI 93.0515. Part of the KAS Collection held at Maidstone Museum|Image[/fg]
Forcing a licence upon these individuals may feel like another form of heritage ring-fencing, with only an elite group allowed intimate access to the island’s history.
I do personally believe that museums are incredibly important; we need these wonderful spaces to preserve our heritage and ensure it is visible for the widest audience, and there is a constant attempt by most museums to connect with communities and present their collections in meaningful ways, but the conflict between these situations brings us to the big question:
Who does heritage belong to?
Museums? Finders? Local Communities? Everyone? Anyone?
Nobody on the above list created the artefacts discovered, nor did we place them in the ground where they have lain so long. We did not attend the process of deposition, be it a funeral, an after-dinner tidy up, a religious ceremony, a migration event, an industrial process, or an accident… Whatever that original moment involved, we are uninvited guests from a temporal and often spatial remoteness. So who has the right to own, trade, display, move, or interpret history?
It is of course a question that many have asked, and there has (so far as I know) been no satisfactory answer. Relationships have improved dramatically between metal detectorists, archaeologists, heritage professionals, keen amateurs and landowners, but there remains some debate in certain discussions, and there is still a need for greater communication between all parties.
It is with this in mind that the upcoming conference, Metal Detecting in Kent: Moving Forward Together, aims to address the multiplicity of issues and to discuss the successes and challenges we face when approaching the future of heritage and discovery in Kent. Do come along and be a part of these important discussions.
www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/events/metal-detecting-in-kent
[fg]jpg|Recording a V-1 ‘Flying-Bomb’ and crater.|Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg||Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg|Attending the East Kent Ploughing Match.|Image[/fg]
The benefit of the Kent Archaeological Society Magazine is that, alongside the excellent historical and archaeological reports we are able to publish, we also have the opportunity to explore alternative theoretical angles, interesting discussions and local curiosities, somewhat untethered from the guidelines of the journal. This is not to say that anything goes, but within reason we welcome a range of theoretical investigations of Kent heritage from our membership.
As our guidelines state, articles should be written with our diverse readership in mind. This includes all levels—from professional archaeologists and historians to students, amateurs and local interest enthusiasts. We are keen to promote all discussion of Kent’s material past. Articles of an unorthodox or controversial nature will be considered so long as they are based upon evidence, have sound bibliographical sources, and do not offend readers. I must add that the views expressed in the articles do not necessarily represent those of the Society, but we hope that all the well-written and fascinating articles within these pages offer the opportunity for further discussion, debate and curiosity.
I welcome any counterarguments or alternate theories. If you are interested in adding to the discussion, then please do contact me with your thoughts in a considered and respectful form. I hope it goes without saying, but any abusive responses will not be tolerated. Please remain courteous and polite to each other. The wonderful thing about historical and archaeological debate is just that—the debate. We learn by theorising, testing and producing our results. The debates will continue long beyond any of us, and we should be thankful for them, because without them, we would have very little to keep us interested!
I always love this time of year, when we retreat indoors to stay warm, and the otherworldly festivities of Halloween, Bonfire Night and even Christmas loom before us. The golden browns, reds and oranges of the shimmering trees appear everywhere, the chilly bite in the air forces us to dig out the scarves and gloves we had almost forgotten about during the balmy summer heat.
The season is filled with archaic festivities. Ancient theorisers envisioned a liminal period, where the stark contrasts of dark and light, warm and cold, day and night, good and evil were all intensely amplified. Such festivities remind us that we must look beyond simple domestic and economic interpretations if we hope to understand past societies. Humans are infinitely creative and imaginative beings, and as a species, we approach life with an abundance of ideas and initiatives. It is often the curious, inventive or unusual ideas which are remembered best.
So, I shall put the heating up and get cosy, start thinking about my Halloween costume and toffee apples beside the bonfire, of liminal spirits and ancient rites, stratigraphic sequences and archive catalogues, wayward ghouls and gunpowder plots, and look forward to another busy season at the Society. I hope you enjoy the newsletter, and I look forward to catching up with many of you very soon.
With the very best of wishes,
Craig Campbell
craig.campbell@kentarchaeology.org.uk
[fg]jpg||Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg|Autumnal landscape in Tonbridge, Kent.|Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg|Spooky vibes at Hop Farm, Kent.|Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg|Autumn vibes at Oldbury Hillfort, Kent.|Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg|The morning chill near Penshurst, Kent.|Image[/fg]