Two New Blogs and a website

There are two new blogs which seem worth a visit, both of them by collectors of portable antiquities, but these are not the usual "private property/constitutional rights/hang the rest" tub thumping collecting-mantra megaphones that seem to be springing up all over the place and all saying much the same thing (usually about coins). These two are different.

The first is by David Knell, British collector of ancient lamps whom I have had occasion to mention here earlier (Collection with Attitude). His blog is simply called "Ancient Heritage" and begins with a post called
Minor antiquities: the importance of keeping records which makes some interesting points with which I am broadly in agreement. He ends it saying: "Collectors can, and must, show that instead of working against conservation, they are working with it". ( A point seemingly lost on one apparently transatlantic "Lingocreative" who commented on it at length - but adressing his remarks to me rather than David... ).

The second blog is by an American lady called Robyn who collects Egyptian antiquities, but ethically. Her blog "Pieces of the Past: Ethical Antiquities Collecting" is also getting underway, at the moment with three interesting posts, the first on "why we collect, and the problems it can bring", then a discussion of some of the arguments we have all seen offered against responsible collecting and then a mention of the recent Greek vet case. Worth keeping an eye on.

While on the subject, I suspect I have not mentioned another long-established website of interest with similar aims. British "metal detectorist" Corinne Mills has a website "Metal Detecting... What's it all about?" which is dedicated to responsible metal detecting and is worth a look. A lady with the courage of her convictions.

Prominent metal detectorist says: “Illegal metal detecting is now virtually non-existent.”

A prominent "metal detectorist" has reacted furiously to claims in a report written for English Heritage that illegal “nighthawks” are pillaging the region’s hidden history, it says in the Northern Echo today. Norman Smith, from Newton Aycliffe, County Durham, is the organizer of frequent and sometimes huge commercial artefact hunting rallies, mostly in the north of England but also at other places around the country. Smith yesterday accused English Heritage of being misleading and said: “Illegal metal detecting is now virtually non-existent.” Smith said he helped with the Nighthawking survey, carried out for English Heritage by Oxford Archaeology, and that it found the problem to be minimal. “English Heritage are notorious for anti-detecting feelings and have unsuccessfully campaigned for years to have metal detecting banned", he said.

That's funny. We all remember the Water Newton rally which Mr Smith organized, and some of us heard the stories (on the Rally UK forum I think it was) in which participants recount sitting in their tents the first night and watching the torches of the nighthawks in the adjacent fields moving about. We recall in particular Mr Smith's remarks after the Stixwould rally reported here. In Mr Smith's parting comment ("which I make in full knowledge that archaeologists visit this site"), he mentions that during the Oxford Archaeology project on nighthawking, he visited London twice at his own expense "to defend this wonderful hobby of ours" and that he did the same thing during the discussions of the Code of Practice for Rallies:

"but when I shouted from the rooftops that dishonest metal detecting was almost non-existent I showed the greatest of naiivity, and it is obvious that, although such illegal activities have diminished on scheduled sites the problem of nighthawking is still a major challenge, and the hard work of thousands of honest, genuine blokes who detect regularly is being undermined by dishonest, immoral thieving b******s, who live off the backs of the majority who are the “good guys”. The problem is we all know who they are and do nowt about it.

So the Nighthawking survey "found the problem was minimal" or was told that the problem was minimal? There is a difference Mr Smith. This well illustrates the sort of thing that the Survey was up against. Mr Smith admits freely to his fellows that there is a serious problem, but when an official attempt is made to gather facts, suddenly the "problem is minimal". We note he said he went to meet the Nighthawking survey people "to defend this wonderful hobby of ours" by trying to persuade the investigators that "dishonest metal detecting was almost non-existent". It is notable that after over a decade of liaison and strengthening the links between "detectorists" and archaeologists, that people like Mr Smith and his fellows refuse to share any information they have (and I am sure they have a lot) on illegal activity with a group of people trying to find out how we can best preserve the archaeological resource from further destruction due to the activities of these people.

Damage to Archaeological Sites in the UK caused by Illegal Searching and Removal of Antiquities

A national survey has been carried out into illegal artefact hunting in the UK and Crown Dependencies taking place between 1995 (the date of the last attempt to quantify the problem) and 2008. The survey (the so-called “Nighthawking Survey”: Anon [!] 2009 Nighthawks and Nighthawking: Damage to Archaeological Sites in the UK and Crown Dependencies caused by Illegal Searching and Removal of Antiquities, Strategic Study Final Report, Oxford Archaeology for English Heritage) was undertaken by Oxford Archaeology. The study was commissioned by English Heritage back in May 2006 and it was supported by Cadw, Historic Scotland, Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Archaeology Guernsey, Jersey Heritage Trust, Manx National Heritage, The National Museums Scotland, National Museum of Wales, and the Portable Antiquities Scheme. As reported here earlier, the report was launched on Monday Feb. 16th.

The survey has revealed that despite the UK having some of the most liberal laws on artefact hunting in the world, the threat to the UK’s archaeological heritage posed by illegal artefact hunting is high. It affects both sites protected by law as well as illegal hunting and removal of artefactual material for collection and sale from other groups of archaeological sites.

The main culprits are artefact hunters who use metal detectors, since – unlike pot diggers or those searching for stone tools – they can work in the dark, and avoid being seen on protected areas. For this reason the offence has become colloquially known as “nighthawking”. The Oxford Archaeology survey concludes that the crime is most prevalent in the central and eastern counties (Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Kent, Oxfordshire, and the Yorkshire region) but rare in the west and south-west and Scotland but is almost unheard of in Northern Ireland, and the Crown Dependencies. According to the report, so-called 'Honey pot' sites such as Roman settlements are often targeted repeatedly (with regard another discussion, it is notable how many of the case studies mention the involvement of ancient coins which recall a certain US interest group insists "are not taken from archaeological sites" by looters). The period after ploughing is the most common time for the activity, with considerable damage caused not only to the buried archaeological remains but also to crops and fields.

The report finds that for various reasons violators of the laws intended to protect Britain’s buried archaeological heritage are rarely punished. This is a low priority crime for British police, who often do not know how to deal with infringements. Cases of arrest or prosecution are at an all time low, convictions even more so and penalties are woefully insufficient to act as any kind of deterrent. Since 1995, only 26 cases have resulted in formal legal action, with the punishment usually being a small fine from as little as £38 (Illegally parking a car in Britain carries a £120 fine). The secrecy surrounding the crime means that it is significantly under-reported, the lack of successful prosecution over the past few decades has led to the lack of confidence of the victims in the legal process. The survey found out that only 14% of landowners, when discovering that their property has been afflicted by nighthawking, have reported it to the police, thus 86% of cases remain unreported. Most landowners who recognise the problem responded by tackling the culprits themselves or imposing a complete ban on metal detecting or the responsible reporting of finds made on their land (which they argue would increase the likelihood of clandestine looting).

Yet it turns out that a regional survey (East Midlands) suggests that 17% of farmers in the region were affected. In the UK however there are approximately 300,000 active farms, so it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that this is a problem affecting archaeological sites on up to 50 000 farms in the UK, the report itself concludes that incidences of looting are "down" (I will examine this important problem, already discussed here a few weeks ago, in a separate post, maybe tomorrow when I have read the 212 pages of the report more thoroughly).

Although most of the 10 000 artefact hunters in Britain “know who these people are”, it is telling that in the survey only 20 of them contacted Oxford with any information. The National Council for Metal Detecting (their main representative body) was initially also less than co-operative – which matches their lack of co-operation in the 1995 survey. Relatively few of the affected landowners contacted the survey and volunteered information. This severely hampered the information gathering at the basis of the report, but its authors are clear that the lack of reported incidents creates a false picture of the seriousness of the problem.

Key recommendations of The Nighthawking Survey (slightly edited):
1. Raise awareness of the negative effects of illegal artefact hunting in the UK. Provide clear guidance to the police, Crown Prosecution Service and Magistrates on the impact of nighthawking on archaeological records and understanding, how to identify that it has taken place, how to collect evidence for prosecution and appropriate penalties;

2. Provide guidance to landowners on identifying nighthawking and what to do when they encounter its traces;

3. Establish a central database of reported nighthawking incidents and
promote its use to enable data gathering;

4. publicise positive aspects of responsible artefact hunting and the negative effects of breaking the law then the criminal element will stop thieving (that's what it suggests folks)

5. Keep funding the PAS to further strengthen links between archaeologists and some artefact hunters and collectors then the criminal element stop thieving (seriously).

6. Get some artefact hunters involved in archaeological activities then the others will stop thieving (I'm not making this up)

7. Implement recent European initiatives on the selling of antiquities,
which increase the obligation on sellers of antiquities to provide provenances and establish legal title; urge e bay to introduce more stringent monitoring of antiquities with a UK origin offered for sale on their website, as they have done in Germany, Switzerland and Austria;

Recommendations 4-6 are the usual fluffy bunny politically-correct nonsense fashionable in British archaeological circles these days about “rais[ing] awareness of the positive effects of responsible metal detecting” (no mention here about discussing the desirability of encouraging artefact hunting and collecting), plus of course “reaffirm[ing] the contribution of the Portable Antiquities Scheme” (to what precisely?) and “encourag[ing] the integration of metal detecting into archaeological work”. The latter is really totally ambiguous if you think about what is usually meant by the inadequate label “metal detecting”. These three propositions are really quite puzzling, given the report's general premise, upheld throughout that it is not the responsible metal detectorists who can be held responsible in any way for the "nighthawking" but a totally different group of people with criminal and anti-social tendencies that we should not confuse with the ones that are "partners" of archaeology.

The report as a whole is rather incoherently written, it seems to have gone for length rather than clarity of delivery, and the (unnamed) authors lose sight of its aims in several places, and includes much which is irrelevant and padding. It also has a clearly pro-collecting agenda. I really am at a loss what the whole of Appendix 13 [pp 65-71] which is unattributed (who and what is "SRC"?) and misleading and has no relevance to any significant part of a report on illegal artefact hunting. The report itself is anonymous ""it is not policy for this document to name individuals"...

.

Vignette: Looking at Nighthawks (famous art by Dee)

What is illegal artefact hunting in the UK?

The publication after a long delay of the so-called nighthawking survey raises a number of questions. Not least what on earth it was investigating. We can understand that it was not intended that the authors look at the illegal handling of portable antiquities as a whole (of which the United Kingdom has a totally deserved reputation as a hotbed) but only the search for collectables and saleable commodities in the UK’s archaeological record in violation of Britain’s all-too-lax laws. Fair enough. But the definition we are offered is incomplete. We are told “Illegal metal detecting is the search and removal of antiquities from the ground using metal detectors without the permission of the landowners or on prohibited land such as Scheduled Monuments. It is a form of theft and can be prosecuted under the Theft Act”.

Firstly, not all artefact hunting goes on with metal detectors. Those who illegally dig holes in stratified archaeological deposits on the foreshore for example use spades and sieves. Flint collectors denuding sites in national parks and other protected areas use only their eyes. A whole area of illegal activity is largely ignored in this report because it does not involve “metal detectors”. The debate on artefact hunting and collecting in Britain has become highjacked by the protagonists of the “metal detecting debate” which has clouded the central issues.

There is little attention paid however to another aspect of the problem (odd because it does involve to a large part the use of metal detectors in the UK), and that is violations of the law in Scotland. In Scotland artefact hunting is subject to more or less the same constraints in the field as south of the border. Scottish law imposes on the artefact hunter another condition to comply with the law. They are obliged to report their finds and hand them over to the Treasure Trove Unit for assessment and eventual acquisition for state collections. Taking objects from the archaeological record merely to collect them oneself or sell them is an illegal act which is depleting Scotland’s archaeological resource as much as any trespassing on a landowner’s property south of the border. The Oxford archaeology report hardly considers this issue, a whole area of loss to Britain's archaeological record is ignored in its statistics.

The label "nighthawks" is singularly unhelpful. As the report says not all illegal artefact hunting takes place at night and not all responsible legal artefact hunting takes place in the day. In fact three totally different phenomena are being lumped under this one totally inadequate term, and each has its own dynamics and remedies

1) Artefact hunting on sites protected by law (for example scheduled archaeological sites/historic monuments). The reason for the extra scale of protection is that they contain archaeological evidence known to be of national importance. Most of the people doing this know full well that the site is important, and at best they do not care whether it is protected by law or not. Are there people in the artefact hunting community who are unaware that in general there is such a thing as a site protected by law? I would think that very unlikely. There is the problem that one flat bit of a field looks the same as another and the boundaries of a scheduled area might be difficult to determine. That at least is the excuse of some that have been caught on a site with a metal detector.

2) Artefact hunting on a site where the seeker has not permission to be. In English law (whether or not its a good idea or not is debatable) it is the landowner who has stewardship of the natural and historical resources of his land and who is encouraged by various means to conserve them. It is their decision whether or not to allow a collector onto their land with the purpose of seeking archaeological collectables for entertainment and profit. Sometimes the landowner is only too eager to get a bit of the "profit" themselves (for example commercial artefact hunting "rallies"). It may be argued that some trespassers are hard core criminals out to steal, while others might be slightly dense individuals genuinely unaware that they are on private property - or who precisely they have to ask (and cannot be bothered to find out). They may feel "no harm is done" by them taking away a few bits of corroded metal when the farmer is not looking.

3) The artefact hunter will be committing an illegal act if they find something and not declare it as the law requires. In some cases it might be greed, a "finders-keepers" type situation, they do not want to surrender "their" find, because the state may take it away (actually to place in a public collection). Or it may be that they genuinely do not know they are obliged to report the find.

These are six separate situations in which artefact hunting is in conflict with Britain's liberal antiquity laws. It will be seen that three of them are due to lack of awareness while three rflect lack of concern. In the latter the people concerned regard themselves as above the law.

It is obvious that the solution to each of these six is going to be different, in some cases outreach and information campaigns may go a long way to solving the problem, in others its probably a waste of time, the hard core law breakers not only laugh at their responsible fellows for following the PAS line, but the latter often feel physically threatened by them (the Oxford team found there was a great resistance in the "detecting" community - including the NCMD - to run the risk of being seen to be informing on the law breakers) . There is no way that more "fluffy bunny" patting on the head will actually have any effect on the criminal element in the artefact hunting community.

The label "nighthawks" embodied in the brief of this report is more of a hindrance than a help to defining concepts, problems and remedies.

The tide turns for the British Antiquities market

The publication today of the Final report of the Strategic Study on Illegal artefact hunting seems to mark an important watershed in the long and sordid story of the British market in portable antiquities.

The report received surprisingly negative coverage in the British press, it has all the makings of a good story of course, loot, buried treasure, secretive night time activities, careful detective work by the investigating authorities. Probably for the first time in many years the British media came out with a barrage of unfavourable publicity for the artefact hunter and collector, usually the subject of fluffy bunny "unsung heroes" type praise. The metal detectorists were furious on the forums, over in the US officers of the ACCG were quick to come to their defence (here and here for example).

The Oxford Archaeology report has serious shortcomings, but depicts the scale of the problem as serious. It stands by the typically British policy of reasoning with the culprits, maybe if we are nice to them they will stop. I am not sure how effective this will be against the hard core of criminals who undoubtedly exist in the artefact hunting milieu who are intent on profiting from sales of stolen finds, often obtained at night during well planned and organised raids where anyone who stand in their way is threatened by physical violence.

We should recognize that there are limits to the degree public education will have an impact on this group of individuals. The report recognises this and concludes that the motor for this activity (there is a substantial analysis of eBay sales on which this is based ) is the no-questions-asked market in portable antiquities. The conclusion is that the most effective means of dealing with the problem of illegal artefact hunting in the UK is to close the loopholes that allow them to find a market for the commodities they produce to make the venture worthwhile. Removing the ability to profit financially would clearly reduce the motive for these criminals to operate.

Monitoring of eBay UK by the Department of Portable Antiquities & Treasure, British Museum since October 2006 [main report pp 82-88] has shown that an element of the illegal movement of unreported Treasure items has been the lack of due diligence by British dealers in establishing provenance and title to sell while handling such material (hence current moves to have the Treasure Act amended to make it a requirement for all who come into possession of Treasure to have an obligation to report it). This monitoring of sales of antiquities listings on eBay shows a steady rise in the number of unprovenanced British antiquities on sale each month. Some of these at least seem likely to be the products of “nighthawking”, but which ones?

It is heartening to see that as a result of this report, British archaeologists are at last looking at the possibilities of regulating the local antiquities market. They are taking a vivid interested in the regulations reported here which were introduced last year on eBay in Germany, Austria and Switzerland which have shown that the auction house is prepared to take stricter action than has been the case so far in the UK. The Council for British Archaeology and PAS are now suggesting that Britain should be pressing eBay to follow suit in the UK to close down online auctions of illicitly acquired material.

The Director of the CBA suggested today at the launch of the Illegal artefact hunting report that there is a need for the introduction of a new criminal offence for a person to deal in such objects without being able to produce a clear modern provenance. Such a reform in attitudes and legislation would introduce the necessary transparency into dealings in cultural objects and ensure prospectively that persons dealt only in such objects with a recorded and substantiated background. Apparenly such a proposal is currently being discussed by a working group of the APPAG with the aim of identifying way add this to the legislation of England and Wales. There will be a review of the 1996 Treasure Act later in the year which will provide an opportunity to discuss this proposal with policy makers.

This all is bad news for the advocates of the current no-questions-asked market for portable antiquities which acts as a cover for the quantities of looted and smuggled material entering certain markets. They have until now had the "shining example" of Britain with its "wise" heritage laws which allow a question-free environment for the circulation of all manner of "pieces of the past". Now it turns out that the British are questioning the wisdom of this oversight, we may expect foreign lobby groups to start poking their noses into how this "source country" should treat the archaeological heritage found within its territorial borders as they do with those in SE Europe and the Middle East.

What Kind of Nighthawking (sic) Has Declined?

I have previously discussed the ideas of Derek Fincham on the Portable Antiquities Scheme of England and Wales here before. In his recent text (A Coordinated Legal and Policy Approach to Undiscovered Antiquities: Adapting the Cultural Heritage Policy of England and Wales to Other Nations of Origin
International Journal of Cultural Property, Vol. 15) discussed here earlier, he seems to want to see its approach as some kind of panacea which if adopted elsewhere would solve a lot of problems, like reduce looting. Earlier here, I questioned his asserting that looting had been reduced in England and Wales because of the activities of the Scheme. The discussion now starts up again after the publication of the Nighthawking Survey Final Report. On this basis Fincham writes “It appears that illegal metal detecting in England has declined since 1995, the point at which the Portable Antiquities Scheme first began its efforts” (let’s leave aside the question that the PAS actually began in 1997) and

“The most interesting revelation of the report is the suggestion that metal detecting has substantially decreased since the PAS began. In 1995, 188 scheduled monuments were reported damaged; in 2008, that number was 70. In 1995, 74% of archaeological units reported their sites had been molested; in 2008 that number is 28%. I take that as pretty strong support for the proposition I argued for in my recent piece on the Portable Antiquities Scheme, A Coordinated Legal and Policy Approach to Undiscovered Antiquities: Adapting the Cultural Heritage Policy of England and Wales to Other Nations of Origin, IJCP (2008)".

It is interesting to compare that with what the PAS itself is claiming, there is a subtle difference which Fincham seems not to recognise:

The Report shows that Nighthawking seems to have declined on two counts compared with an earlier survey in 1995, although there is still a significant problem with Nighthawking down the eastern side of England from Yorkshire through Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex.

Part of the problem here is that the label "nighthawking" is not terribly useful to define anything much since it refers to about six different things (see my post on the definition of this label above). The PAS points out that in "two counts" there has been a change in the situation since 1995. In fact these two counts are examples of the same kind of offence, people deliberately using metal detectors where they should not (SAMs and raiding archaeological excavations in progress). Quite frankly, when we are dealing with the sort of individuals that are deliberately targeting archaeological excavations or scheduled monuments, it is terribly naïve to imagine that the PAS is actually making any difference to "attitudes". I suggest Mr Fincham should join a metal detecting forum and ask there about the possibilities of responsible artefact hunters or anyone else "changing the attitudes" of the hard core element before accepting that it is possible or even likely that any of them would try (the phrases "tyre slashing" and "GBH" are ones that I primarily relate to cases I know of).

Certainly the PAS could be having effect on the dozier metal detectorists who "did not know" that Britain has a law of trespass, or that you cannot just walk over the nearest English Heritage guardianship site with a metal detector (cases have been known!). This however is only part of the problem - and arguably the easier part to resolve.

So what is the situation? What is actually happening? The actual results of the survey were diasppointing, very few people came forward and volunteered information (this in fact was to be expected, I have no idea who planned the project in the form it was). The discussion of the results and their interpretation is scattered throughout the recent report (which generally is a pretty unsatisfactory piece of writing). Nevertheless the situation is in fact relatively clear-cut.

In comparing the present results with those of the CBA/EH survey published in 1995 we should bear in mind that the latter was looking at a specific range of problems in a specific region. It therefore looked only at raids (in England alone) by nighthawks on scheduled sites and archaeological excavations in progress, two areas of primary concern in the archaeological community in the 1990s. These problems had however begun already in the 1970s. What was not looked at in 1993 (1995) was the scale of artefact hunting on unscheduled archaeological sites.

With regard the decline in looting on scheduled sites (not all of which fall into the category of those perceived as 'productive' by the nighthawks), it is important to note what the authors of the 2009 report themselves point out. On page 91 of the report we find the following explanation “reasons for a move away from Nighthawking on SMs include the suggestion that many of these SMs are ‘played out’, either through detecting or the effects of agriculture […]. After many years of Nighthawking the number of finds on many sites is thought to be too low for Nighthawks to bother with and Nighthawks are now moving to unscheduled sites where more can be found.” This is entirely explicable, the archaeological resource is finite. One cannot go on year after year since the 1970s extracting material from a finite body without it one day finishing on many of these sites. If this explanation of the observed effect is correct, it means that the archaeological resources on many of Britain's scheduled sites is now so severely depleted that they are not commercially exploitable. This means of course that their archaeological 'signature' [Report p. 2] has also been permanently deleted as a result of current inability to act against these people.

As for the raids on excavations, this is also discussed in the report, on page 91-2, where it is pointed out that since the mid 1990s there has been a change in the organization of excavations in the UK which has meant that now they are more frequently integrated into development projects where there is a greater concern with security “with plant to protect as well as Health and Safety issues. The installation of physical barriers and surveillance on sites […] make it more difficult [for looters] to target these archaeological excavations”.

But what about clandestine looting of unscheduled, often rural, sites? Has this too "decreased"? On page 91 of the report the authors suggest that the depletion of the material to be gained from scheduled sites is probably matched by an increase in the clandestine exploitation of the more productive (so mostly coin-rich [point 9.1.9 on p. 90] Roman sites and Early Medieval cemeteries report p. 90) unscheduled sites which are now in increasing danger.

Despite the obvious difficulties Oxford Archaeology had getting information, there are several pieces of evidence to suggest that there are less grounds for optimism here. We have discussed Mr Browning and his problems at Icklingham, but moreover heard what a local Suffolk metal detectorist had to say about the situation on farms around his. We heard of the situation at Stixwourth. Sadly the Nighthawking Survey Report does not actually publish details of the incidents reported to it, so we do not know whether they were included in the data they discussed.

On pages 31-2 of the report however is a brief presentation of the results of a regional survey (COSMIC) in the East Midlands which suggests that across this region as a whole of the 40 farmers who responded, 17.5% are suffering from Nighthawking of both scheduled and unscheduled sites on their property. Only one of the sites reported as having been looted in this survey had independently been reported, which implies that the Nighthawk Survey was not being informed by any means of all sites being looted, and that landowners are a key source for this missing information.

The COSMIC survey area is in a significant location, astride the eastern zone where the Nighthawking Survey suggests looting is much more prevalent, but extending into the Midlands where current evidence suggests the phenomenon occurs to a lesser extent. If therefore it can be treated (for lack of better evidence after a 100 000 pound government sponsored survey) as representative of much of Britain, and bearing in mind that in the UK there are approximately 300,000 active farms, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that this is a problem affecting archaeological sites on up to 50 000 farms in the UK. Even if we assume (since not all of Britain is lowland like the COSMIC survey area) that this figure is too high (for example three or even five times too high), it still gives pause for thought, bearing in mind that the total number of active metal detectorists in the country is something of the order of 10 000. There clearly is a need for further discussion (and sadly further investigation).

Far from the PAS being able to cope with the problem, it would seem that the postulated final denudation of the metal finds from the scheduled sites no longer being raided took place while the PAS was in operation. It is equally clear that the areas identified by the Nighthawking Survey Report as the most heavily affected are those in which there has been extensive PAS outreach (Norfolk and Suffolk, Lincolnshire and Kent for example). It seems to me dangerous to present the PAS as the panacea for the looting problem, the situation is far more complext than generally appreciated.

Despite the overall optimistic tone of parts of the Nighthawking Survey Report about the scale of illegal artefact hunting (written on commission for British Heritage, responsible - after all - for current policies), other parts of it give grounds for deep concern. This fact was picked up by most of the major British newspapers who wrote of the problem of looting in somewhat alarmist terms. It's nice to know they care.

The Nighthawking Survey Summary document

Today two documents were released, above I have discussed the main one (212 pages), the full report of the Nighthawking Survey (above). This is apparently only available as a download. The second one is only twenty pages long, printed on paper but is available as a download too. It is presumably intended as a summary for the general public of the main conclusions and recommendations of the full report. The trouble is it is not. Not really.

This text gives the impression of being by a totally different author from the main report, and quite frankly is an atrocious piece of work. Although the main report bears traces of the apparent pro-detecting sentiments of the authors, this summary document oozes it. Let us take Page 3 in a document about illegal artefact hunting: "in the absence of real evidence, feelings have often run high and the reputations of responsible metal detectorists have suffered". One might ask, what "real evidence" has the Oxford Archaeology team come up with that could save the reputations of responsible "metal detectorists", and from what? What have the latter got to do with criminal activity? It turns out that the key to resolving the problem is not only to let people know what-a-jolly-good-thing-responsible-metal- detecting is [p. 12] but also "provide opportunities for legal detecting" [p. 8], by "supporting properly organized metal detecting rallies" like the text infers the PAS does [p.12], heaven forbid that a farmer should "impose a total ban on metal detecting" [p. 8] on his own land as a response to being raided... One way, we are told, "proven to be effective in preventing Nighthawking is to allow responsible metal detectorists to detect (sic) a site" [p.9] in other words take it all away to their ephemeral personal artefact collections? Yes, that would stop the nighthawking of that piece of land, but also it rather defeats the object - which is site preservation. There's some not-very-joined-up-thinking going on here. Recommendation four to stop "nighthawking" is a real side-splitter. "Publicise the positive effects of responsible metal detecting..." [p.12] "Part of the problem is that the subject is clouded by ignorance and prejudice on both sides of the debate with self-appointed champions of both extremes broadcasting antagonistic propaganda via the various available media, serving only to perpetuate a pointless conflict" [p. 12]. Apparently "organizations like the PAS and NCMD are building bridges [...] and making constructive contributions to the debates on the various web forums". That's a laugh, especially with regard to the PAS who make a concerted effort to keep OUT of debates on any forums (including their own - now defunct).* I'd like to ask the Oxford Archaeology when it concerns the commercial or otherwise exploitation of the of archaeological record as a source of collectables, IS it actually a "pointless conflict"? What is "pointless" about questioning policies which go against everything modern archaeology stands for? In referring to "both extremes" I assume the text's author is referring on the one hand to the archaeological resource protection lobby echoing the ACCG labelling of them as "radical archaeologists". Who would Oxford Archaeology see as the other "extreme" - advocates of illegal artefact hunting. Where please can we see the "propaganda" of the self-appointed champions of illegal artefact hunting in the UK media? I think we have a right to know where Oxford Archaeology is finding this stuff, otherwise these are just so many empty words which have nothing to do with the activities of criminal artefact hunters. Personally I do not think the key to tackling heritage crime is even more of the fluffy bunny pro detecting propaganda ("examples of the constructive use of metal detectors should be publicised more widely... " p. 13) which simply confuses public perception of the nature of the problems facing archaeology. We have enough of that. We do need more informed debate on portable antiquity collecting as a whole which forms a basis for the whole problem. *As for the PAS engaging in debate on the forums... it is instructive to take a look at the PAS blog run by Dan Pett. There we read "If you are interested in discussing the Scheme’s role in the production of this report, please contact Michael Lewis or Roger Bland in our Central Unit on 0207 323 8611." Who is that aimed at? Who would be perhaps concerned at the "role" of PAS in the production of a report on illegal artefact hunting, and why? Why can PAS not simply take part in a debate on the issues it raises and not invite their partners to discuss it with the head and deputy head of the scheme quietly and privately over the phone? All very odd.

Vignette: Cover of the summary text (Oxford Archaeology)