 |
| Looters with metal detectors: |
Suffolk is targeted [...] due to its rich Anglo-Saxon heritage and large areas of arable land, and now the county's rural crime team have raised concerns about the serious damage they could be causing. As objects discovered are stolen property, nighthawkers (sic) are unlikely to report finds - which leads to valuable historic data being lost for good.In fact - though this article does not recognise that - even those that use their metal detectors to exploit the archaeological record 'legally' are destroying that record, especially if they do not keep proper documentation and report their finds. So the problem is not just the unlawful ones 'ruining the reputation' of the law-abiding ones, but the problem is much wider than that. So why does this journalist not see that? Answers on a postcard please.
The police want readers to 'report illegal artefact hunting', but the article does not really explain how to recognise it.
Sergeant Brian Calver, of Suffolk police's rural crime team, said the practice often goes under-reported. "It's really difficult to quantify, it's one of those issues that people mention and say 'Oh yeah, I've seen it', but very few people report it," he said. "Some of it takes place near ancient and scheduled monuments where there's no way they're going to get permission. [...] Anyone who knows of any illegal metal detecting can call the police on 101.Silly. How 'near' is 'near'?
This man in a field, is he doing something illegal? He looks like any one of 27000 detectorists in the UK, so what to do if you are on the way to buy some free-range eggs from the local farmer and see this guy? Phone the police? Go over first and demand to see his search-and-take agreement from the landowner? If you do, be careful, if he's a nighthawk, he might get really nasty- and he's at the least got a spade, police advice in the past has been not to approach a suspected nighthawk for this reason. Is that a protected site? How to know? In fact if this guy were here, he'd be doing something illegal, first of all this is a protected site (see the noticeboard?) and secondly metal detector use for finding archaeological finds at all is illegal. This is Chodlik in Poland. But for a member of the public in the UK - because of the way the laws are constructed, telling illegal from legal is not at all so easy
UPDATE 9th Jan 2020
The article has had its headline changed. "Illegal metal detecting" did not sound far enough distant from the guys they are afraid of criticising, so they use the jargon term "nighthawkers" (the guys that do "nighthawkering"?) just to be additionally 'politically correct' (Nighthawkers continue to threaten Suffolk's heritage) But it is NOT nighthawking' that is the problem.
Yes, well "illegal treasure hunting" was bound to be redacted as the opposite is "legal treasure hunting" which PAS is anxious shouldn't be applied to those they call their "partners" or "amateur archaeologists".
ReplyDeleteThere has been a long history of inventing names for self-seeking exploiters. A few years ago PAS came up with "metal detecting enthusiast". Google gives you 24,900 hits on that. It's a cool phrase because it implies "electronics geeks" will be on the fields, not "people who are actually looking for stuff to keep for themselves".
Incidentally, you ask "So why does this journalist not see that? Answers on a postcard please".
ReplyDeleteIt's not hard to know, is it? The goto source of information for journalists, police, politicians and the public is PAS and while PAS knows knowledge-loss through nighthawking is dwarfed by knowledge-loss through non-reporting it never, ever admits it.
Yes, I think you are 100% right there.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, you are the ONLY person of the 447 readers of that post in the last few days who seems to have considered that a question worth answering.
Given that it is a question that certainly needs answering, is that because those who should be answering it really cannot be bothered to even think about it, or is it because the answer (so blooming obvious), is uncomfortable, so they dare not?