When I mention to friends my interest in the ethics of metal detecting , I’m usualy faced with a slightly amused, quizzical look. It’s seen as an eccentric, marginal hobby. Hardly something to get worked up about. Not like the ransacking of the Baghdad Museum, or Elgin’s removal of the marbles.
‘Nighthawking’ is an even less familiar term than ‘metal detecting’. Though with release of the English Heritage-commissioned report it will probably gain more coverage. But what does it mean? I’m not interested in what’s legal and what’s not. That’s fairly clear. What I want to know is how do we decide what is responsible? Or rather, how does the report?
I’ll get back about that one…
Tags: metal detecting, Nighthawking report, responsible metal detecting
February 17, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Hello,
“What I want to know is how do we decide what is responsible? Or rather, how does the report?”
You raise an important point. The report, much official output, purchasers, press reports and detectorists themselves tend to imply a very simple division – nighthawk (i.e. illegal) detecting v the rest (legal ergo responsible detecting).
This picture is inaccurate and misleading since most of “the rest” cannot be classified as responsible whatever measure is applied. Indeed, irresponsible detectorists outnumber all the rest and the information lost as a result of their failure to report what they find is likely to be far greater than that lost through nighthawking.
In net terms the activity is overwhelmingly damaging and focussing on either illegal or responsible elements merely serves to divert attention from this fact.
February 22, 2009 at 6:30 am
What tosh, I am a detectorist and a member of a club which is 27 years old , here in Sussex.
You need to read the DCMS treasure annual reports, 95% of reported finds are from metal detectorists.
Most items in the report would never have been found , where as now, they are on display in museums for every one to see.many times finds by detectorists have led archaeologists to undiscoverd sites.
In net terms the activity is overwhelmingly benificial , read the annual treasure reports.
February 23, 2009 at 3:27 am
“In net terms the activity is overwhelmingly benificial , read the annual treasure reports.”
Since Treasure items are a very tiny proportion of the total of items dug up by detectorists, and since detectorists are handsomely rewarded for reporting them I am at a loss to understand how reading the annual treasure reports throws any light whatsoever on the question.
Most detectorists don’t report what they find to PAS and it is this fact, evident in all of the PAS Annual Reports and acknowledged by Dr Bland, which indicates that the activity is damaging in net terms. Wishing it otherwise does not make it otherwise and calling it tosh does not make it less true. We all wish it was otherwise.
March 3, 2009 at 10:55 pm
First blog I read after wakeup from sleep today!
—————————-
March 10, 2009 at 3:36 am
Hi all very interesting comments..However whilst PAS is a marvellous mechanism for enriching education and a whole host of statistical distribution analyses. I would remind everyone that it is not the only source of recording your finds. UKDFD, and many Forums all host “finds sections” and many detectorists publish their finds in a wide variety of literary sources such as magazines and academic papers. PAS is not the only option, although many seem to belive it is, although critics of metal detecting in general always seem to state it is irresponsible not to report to PAS” is if that is the only reporting body available. I agree with Peter above , although my focus is both on Treasure Items and general finds too…..here I would say look at PAS pages on website crammed full of finds. Regarding the night hawking report, rather a senseless waste of money just elaborates, embelishes and non-factually collates much of what is known anyway.However there are two facets to criminality the nighthawks who take away artefacts…..and the loss of our finite resource through lethargy and stupidity via academics who wont embrace detecting and use it to recover coins and artefacts from scheduled sites that otherwise corrode way….nd would deter nighthwks from visiting such “worked out” sites. All this “finite resource” quoting..well too right its such if you make little or no effort to recover it….seems many would prefer items to rot away than be recovered by a metal detectorist…and there was me thinking we had come far and away from the ignorance of the 1970`s!!!…..whilst nighthawking is theft its hard to figure out how they are robbing us all of heritage as most of what they find would surely never be recovered by an archaeologist and recorded for our educational advantage anyway…this is not making an excuse…but if one is going to add critique to an already illegal action surely its better to to at least be logical, and as accurate as possible…if archeologists are not going to recover the object in most cases, or the night hawk steals it…then surely academically the public lose either way……. an object stolen when nobody knows it exists… is as useless as an object left unfound. Too much gloss paper, pie charts and incredible depth of study in a rather obvious topic, I shall propose their next publication for public enlightenment could be “Why is it an aeroplane needs wings!!!” However I am now looking forward to EH`s next Literary work…surely having published the negative side of metal detecting…what about the positives although admittedly the volume(s) would be massive and probably cost inhibitive from this point alone….and of course yes I nearly forgot….”not quite so sensationalistic eh?” This publication does nothing to assist anyone involved with responsible metal detecting and so very sadly is the fact that it could have the potential to set back the now marvellous working relationship between detectorists and most of the establishment….anything that has any potential to do this is totally irresponsible…. simply demonstrating that those in official capacities leading to such publications can indeed like night hawkers be complete ****holes
March 13, 2009 at 12:24 am
“simply demonstrating that those in official capacities leading to such publications can indeed like night hawkers be complete ****holes”
!!!!!
Goodness me.
When in doubt, it is always safest to believe what the conservation organisations regard as responsible behaviour rather than what those that are engaged in removing the items for their own benefit might say, however long-winded or aggressive.
The former have all signed to confirm their view that to be responsible metal detectorists MUST report their finds to PAS.
That’s all the public needs to know.
March 14, 2009 at 12:57 am
Nigel I dont remove items for my own benefit …….insinuating without any evidence again eh?)as all my papers, research, Media involvement and published books and archaeological projects would normally indicate to anyone of some intellect…Neither do I sell my finds…..so as one can see its fine for you sitting back and criticising a fascinating enjoyable past time…..if that floats your boat fine…I prefer to be a positive contributor to society not focussing on bad issues but always searching out the positive benefits in relation to metal detecting…and not sticking my “floating Boats” oar into areas where I neither have experience or anything factual to contribute. Nice of you to set a knowledge limit on “what the public needs to know” though…self elected opinion featuring once more I guess….sounds like Von Choltitz yet again.
March 14, 2009 at 2:44 am
I wasn’t speaking of you but of course you remove items for your own benefit as part of your “fascinating enjoyable past time” as you put it. I don’t recall society asking you to enjoy yourself in such a manner. And of course thousands of detectorists sell what they find for personal financial benefit on EBay. What benefit does that deliver to the rest of us?
“I prefer to be a positive contributor to society”. Me to, but as a founder member and chairman of a conservation organisation. Our “positive contribution” is to minimise depletion not contribute to it as a hobby. And none of our members has ever made a penny out of what they do. If you wish to compare beneficial results between Heritage Action members and metal detectorists I’m more than happy to do so, in great detail.Being slagged off comes with our territory, although strangely, it only comes from members of your hobby.
I do not set a knowledge limit on “what the public needs to know” I merely observe that all the heritage, archaeological and conservation organisations consider reporting to PAS is essential to being responsible. That is the one thing the public SHOULD know and no-one should try to suggest otherwise to them. Not rocket science is it, reporting finds to the PAS. Why do so many metal detectorists not get it after ten years of taxpayers’ expense, education, liaison and persuasion?
March 14, 2009 at 4:48 am
Well yes Nigel in order to provide education research continuation, publications and knowledge it is actually a pre-requisite that on occasion my team do actually have to unearth objects. I actually dont want to live in a grey Britain…since when does any individual who has a fascinating pastime actually wait to be asked by society to perform…crikey wouldnt we all be so effective if we all sat back and waited for the government etc green light before we made any individual choices…but sitting back and misering the “finite resource” is whats its all about eh? I assume you would love to see a green field and are simply quite satisfied to suspect that its full of coins and artefacts knowing that they will never be excavated? That when we have the technology to recover many of them is the non-conservation of heritage…and is little more than irresponsible…nope I go further thats a social crime… Is this another self elected custodian type facet of your beliefs…I cant believe Nigel you actually stated that…. what a boring country you have designs to create, stifling individuality unless of course that individuality is licensed by the State or queues of people awaiting the go-ahead of a self elected minority…You may well be aiming to minimise this so called depletion but what if anything are or would you do about recovery and conservation?….who wants a decaying resource just to satisfy those who are entrenched in the old fashioned ways…not everything in ones life has to be so regulated and controlled you know. You say we could compare beneficial results between Heritage Action (whose title sounds a tad militaristic, but suppose its better than Heritage Resource Protection Front) and detectorists, well Nigel that without doubt would be a loser for you…how many books have you written, coins and artefacts placed into a museum,papers written and excavations attended for someone who likes stats and figure quoting I know (fact) that we detectorists would outweigh your results a hundredfold. Being slagged of you know is not a pre-requisite to an opinion providing that opinion is balanced, factual and not fanatically driven…if so you may even find people actually listen to you, you seem to accept the fact but refuse to answer logical facts because they are at odds with your opinion…well facts are facts…why do you think detectorists give you a hard time?…well try and look sometimes at the benefits they achieve…it really isnt so one -sided…its easy to lump complex issues into a unit and to say “oh you dont report to PAS you are irresponsible”….says who?…YOU!!! ARE YOU ACTUALLY AWARE OF OTHER REPORTING OPTIONS OR IS IT THAT YOU BELIEVE PAS IS THE BE ALL AND END ALL MEASURE OF ONES BEING RESPONSIBLE OR NOT?……Why do you not get it after 40 years of metal detecting…I believe in a Britain where everyone should be responsible but also able to pursue legal personal interests, this is called democracy Nigel and like as always where this is the case it allows the freedom for fuddy duddy outdated opinions like yours to be versed against such activities as metal detecting….fine…..abit like the King Canute factor….if ever your type got detecting banned whatever would you do next eh? Beware stamp collectors, basket weavers, birdwatchers…. Nigel and his lot will find some “finite resoursce” you guys are consuming no doubt
March 14, 2009 at 5:00 pm
““oh you dont report to PAS you are irresponsible”….says who?…YOU!!!”
Says all Britain’s heritage, archaeology and conservation bodies plus BOTH the national detectorists’ organisations!
I wonder who the public should believe?
March 14, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Now Nigel thats not all quite true is it?…please research facts before making statements…clearly this is indicative that you re so blinded by passion for your cause that you quote facts that are innaccurate….Please refrain from this as it makes your cause look ridiculous and the logic of balanced argument disappears when one side starts quoting non-researched detail. For example (and this is an accurate quote OK FROM THE NCMD!!!) ” some PAS FLO`s and other archaeological organisations unintentionally mislead finders / recorders by failing to point out that following the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting and recording with PAS …are VOLUNTARY!!!!”….. no where is it indicated that if you do not do either you are as you say irresponsible…..Furthermore metal detectorists cannot declare non-treasure coins or artefacts without the permission of the third party in question…THE LANDOWNER….no where in your argument do you acknoledge this fact..prefering instead to simply state that the majority of detectorists dont declare finds..without even the hint of a consideration that there are plenty of landowners who actually do not wish for non-treasure finds to be recorded….neither FID or the NCMD state any detectorist who does not record with PAS or follow the Code is irresponsible….albeit both may prefer all detectorists to do both where possible….In simple terms Nigel the word VOLUNTARY by its pure meaning cannot have an irresponsible element for those who choose not to follow…so stop misquoting and misinterpreting factors (spinning)all this boils down is that you simply dislike metal detecting and want it banned and are prepared to go to any lengths to achieve this….metal detecting is the top source for providing an educational resource for our metallic HERITAGE, its now safely COMBINED WITH ARCHAEOLOGY AS A NECESSARY ACTION FOR METALLIC ARTEFACT RECOVERY ON SITES….and finally it provides thousands of items for CONSERVATION..so perhaps in a recession I dont think any of these faculties would be so foolish to be wringing the neck of the goose that lays a substantial part of the golden egg of employment…do you? well looking at your logic so far I guess you probably do!!! ever thought of a career in politics with the present Government Nigel? Ministerial vacancies are always available for those who can spin, have no experience in areas that they have strong opinions on, fertile ground for self-elected aspirations, and provide the scope for rarely coming up with factual details or the ability to simply not answer questions when they get a little too “hot”………Jules
March 15, 2009 at 12:18 am
I am perfectly well aware that NCMD and FID, having signed the Code, are talking a very different talk on their websites. They even display their old codes, which don’t oblige their members to report to PAS at all! It is not rocket science to know why. It is because a lot of their members won’t have it otherwise.
Nevertheless, the awful illogical mess those two organisations have got themselves into (two codes each, indeed!!) doesn’t change the truth of what I said:
All of Britain’s heritage, archaeology and conservation bodies plus BOTH the national detectorists’ organisations have signed to say not reporting to PAS is irresponsible.
The relevant wording, in case anyone here thinks your repeated wriggling might indicate it is not true, is:
“This code of practice is voluntary, but the following organisations have endorsed it:
(NCMD, FID and many others)
Being responsible means:
Reporting any finds to the relevant landowner/occupier; and (with the agreement of the landowner/occupier) to the Portable Antiquities Scheme”
Yes, items can’t be reported if the landowner says no. But, as the code goes out of it’s way to say, “Both the Country Land and Business Association and the National Farmers Union support the
reporting of finds” and they are of course signatories to the code. More to the point, PAS has several times made it crystal clear that DETECTING WITHOUT ASCERTAINING YOU CAN REPORT THE FINDS TO PAS IS IRRESPONSIBLE. So you saying lots of detectorists aren’t allowed to report finds is actually you saying those are irresponsible detectorists. What amazing news that is!
That’s all I have to say, there is no point prolonging this. I have pointed out what the document says. It is overwhelmingly authoritative and is perfectly clear to those that don’t want to think otherwise. Not reporting to PAS is considered irresponsible by the vast majority of people outside the hobby and some in it and the Code is documentary proof. That’s the reality. You are welcome to continue to deny it or spin it or rant at those who signed it or those that point out it exists but it will have to be as a monologue from now on.