Plundering our national treasure: Inside Out on trail of the South's illegal treasure hunters

[garybrun]

Hi David, I think your going too far here chap!

Why do you think he is going to far Steven?
Thats was a quick one liner... then runaway.

Do you not agree this is a problem and needs to be looked into?
There is a lot I want to say... but I couldnt putit down to constuctive debate. }
So I'll wait for your reasons first.

[BAJR Host]

The interesting conundrum is this.

FACT SAMs protect a site with legal status
FACT Nighthwks by definition are criminals so therefore this legal status does not put them off (see several high profile cases where even when caught, they get off with it)
FACT The items they take will never be recovered - so are lost forever
FACT Plough damage and chemical fertilisers are destroying and will continue to destroy both the site and the artefacts

So... What is being protected...? The do nothing scenario results in teh slow inexorable depletion of the very thing that is protected - Where the do something scenario leads to increased responsibility to items that would otherwise be lost anyway. So do we say... sod it... it is better to lose these items... OR sod it, lets recover these while we can, add to the assemblages, and remove the threat of nighthawks digging deep and damaging untouched archaeology. Remove the temptation ? Add to the data. But who pays?

It's circular at the moment, however, as you know Steven (you cheeky monkey) - going too far is what I love to do. Push the boundaries and see what happens. 8D

[Steven]

Hi
OK, If the problem trying to be solved is theft then deal with it through the normal method, the criminal justice system. We don't go around removing everybody's valuables from their homes because otherwise they are a temptation to burglars.

If the problem is destruction of archaeological remains through ploughing then put more pressure on government to change class consent.

Even if the idea of "sterilising" SMs is accepted why are you focusing on metal detecting as the solution. If you were serious about this then all artefactual (and possibly ecofactual) material within plough soil should be recorded. Therefore, shouldn't you all be advocating the sieving of all disturbed soil in a programmed way rather than the couple of amateurs and an FLO method.

Then there is the whole issue of why should public money be spent on this in the first place if less money can be spent more effectively. Again a much simpler solution would be the polluter pays principle. Get farmers (by law) to enter into management of monuments and subsidise them through existing farm payments. If the wished to carry on ploughing simply get them to pay for the archaeology in the same way developers are required under the planning process.

There are many other types of monuments that are under threat, such as waterlogged sites, drying out because of urban expansion and water requirements, sites on beaches because of costal erosion and of course unscheduled sites under plough. In fact the 6% of sites that are scheduled show a lower than average rate of destruction, so targeting SMs is not dealing with the main issue at all.

Even if your idea that sites threatened by nighthawkers should be sterilised was in any way acceptable then that means every single site of Bronze Age or later that is within the public realm should also be metal detected.

Oh and no HERs on-line because that only encourages night hawkers. In fact we should keep them all secret so that the temptation of knowing where they are doesn't motivate criminals.

Its a bad idea and doesn't address the issues it just sidesteps them.

[belzoni]

What we have is people complaining about nighthawking, that's what this thread is about, not specifically about the whole big subject of damage to archaeological sites. From my point of view it seems totally stupid to complain about a situation when the current system puts artefacts "on a plate" for nighthawks to find, before the artefacts eventually disintegrate themselves. (yeah I know, that old chestnut). As an experienced and quite successful detectorist, I fully understand the best places to go and more importantly when, to make the best finds in the shortest amount of time. This is on cultivated scheduled sites, or plain cultivated archaeological sites. Being cultivated also means you can return every year for yet another successful day (or night). My interference here is that I do not think this is fully understood and I guess I was wanting to educate the people that moan moan moan! but do nothing. At least if people understood the main targets and why they would perhaps direct their attention toward that which they could possibly do something about. But I do realise there is this "know it all" brick wall in the way, so there is a point at which I'll back off to avoid banging my head against it.

[BAJR Host]

I can but respect your comments Steven as many of them make sense. (damn you)

Indeed your point about collection of other artefactual evidence is a good one. (why not)

They way I see it... it's all gonna go anyway... so nothing to lose from having a professional archaeologist a professional FLO, and 8 professional quality detectorists helped by keen amateur archaeology society. Again it comes down to money and time. However, the concept that

Get farmers (by law) to enter into management of monuments and subsidise them through existing farm payments. If the wished to carry on ploughing simply get them to pay for the archaeology in the same way developers are required under the planning process.

I like that idea... but that would better be coming from EH, though I suspect short shrift

The idea of sterilisation is only topsoil... again.. seeing as it is getting talken anyway... would it not be better for us to find it.

However, I do agree...

deal with it through the normal method, the criminal justice system.

When I see that work, then I will agree even more.

Belzoni is right to say

At least if people understood the main targets and why they would perhaps direct their attention toward that which they could possibly do something about.

As only by discussing mad ideas, can we come up with ones that work. Maybe it is crazy... but then so is the concept of leaving sites until they disappear.

[oldgirl]

Belzoni, I think it's the other way round with the brick wall......

People within this thread are discussing the destruction of archaeological sites by other methods in order to address the question of whether 'legal' metal detecting is more acceptable than 'nighthawking' - in particular on Scheduled Monuments (but with people also making the point that not all Nationally important monuments are Scheduled). This is because most archaeologists take preservation 'in situ' very seriously. In order to be convinced that being involved with sensitive, inclusive metal detecting on such sites is something that is appropriate, we need to have this discussion.

You have come up with a practical suggestion about how the specific problem of nighthawking could be tackled. But sensible doesn't also mean right. A practical solution addressing specifically this issue might also be to ban the use of all metal detectors anywhere and make it illegal to be found with one in your possesion. Doesn't make it right though, does it (and I want to make it clear right now that I'm not advocating that approach either!!). There are ethics involved on both sides here and the discussion above is attempting to address those and explain why your practical solution has not been immediately accepted.

[BAJR Host]

Read all about it Clare King calls for BAN ON DETECTING

}

Seriously though, and returning to sensible. What Clare says is actually a very good line... one I might steal... Sensible does not mean Practical. And issues must be aired, confronted and dealt with. As this way problems can be highlighted early on.

It is worth a go though... and criticism is useful... very useful. Stevens comments were for example worth looking at and respecting as issues to be understood and either solved or accepted as potential failings. Useful when it comes to a final draft project.

[belzoni]

Well a ban on metal detecting is what all nighthawkers can only dream of. It leaves everything for them.

"This is because most archaeologists take preservation 'in situ' very seriously."

This is the whole point of the exercise, to show that 99.999% of the the artefacts looked for by nighthawks are not in situ, they are rolling around on death row, to all enemies.

I wouldn't discount the odd raid on permanant pasture or barrow etc, but it don't come anywhere close to what goes on on cultivated land. I am unable to type any extra knowledge of this on the internet, I'm afraid. But I am prepared to do something more than just talk.

[oldgirl]

"Well a ban on metal detecting is what all nighthawkers can only dream of. It leaves everything for them."

Which is another reason why I didn't say it was right or reasonable. I was just exaplaining my take on why the discussion above was not ignoring your earlier points, but adding to them.

David - not exactly critisism from me - more like discussion. Albeit sometimes robust but hopefully always respectful of others point of view. After all, I would like others to listen to my point of view and consider it, so the least I can do is return the favour.

[BAJR Host]

I should have added the word constructive ... as I am learning (at last) that is is often good to have points robustly challenged. and your points are indeed worth listening to.

apologies for being naughty about the quote.. I agree about respectful.