In 2009 a report was commissioned from Oxford Archaeology on Collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record carried out illegally (so-called 'nighthawking'). The report claimed that the existence of teh PAS was somehow (not explained) having the effect of reducing this type of activity. I said in a number of posts at the time why I thought this was nonsense, and used material not used by the Survey team to show that the story is far more alarming than their head-patting fluff talk. Now we learn nine years on (when most of the recommendations of the report were not put into action anyway) that all is not as rosy in the garden as it should be if they had identified a real trend, atweet published yesterday reveals
This is rather an odd piece of information, given that there already was a site guard in 2007/8 survey period for the 2009 Oxford Archaeolgy Nighthawking report - and this was said to be the reason collection-driven exploitation of the site had dropped (p 87, section 9.1.2) When and why was it removed if it was the only way to stop looting by clandestine 'metal detecting'?Thanks to @EnglishHeritage for putting in an overnight security guard at Roman Corbridge – really positive action to combat illegal metal detecting (nighthawks) at this scheduled monument @HeritageCrime
Google Earth
No comments:
Post a Comment