Nighthawking Survey
Nighthawking refers to the unauthorised removal of artefacts from private land and all too often to the further theft and sale of such illegally acquired objects. On the 16th of February this year English Heritage made public the results of a nationwide survey of the phenomenon of nighthawking. This survey has been conducted on behalf of English Heritage by a private contractor, Oxford Archaeology. The report draws on a wide variety of sources to try and provide a national picture of what has previously been a murky and under-reported activity. It is hoped the report will offer lessons for the future direction of efforts to conserve archaeological sites in the face of a pernicious threat to our shared heritage.
The report’s findings offer a picture of where nighthawking occurs and notes 240 reported cases between 1995 and 2008. Central and Eastern England are the source of most reported cases, which is not surprising given the location of many important archaeological sites. One problem is that reporting mechanisms and legislation differ widely around the British Isles. Arrests and prosecutions are rare and in many areas the official response is uncoordinated. In the event of convictions punishments are rarely a deterrent and the metal detectors used by nighthawks are virtually never confiscated. The true figures for affected sites could indeed be much higher according to the report’s authors.
Despite this seemingly gloomy picture there is news to be cheerful about. Nighthawks are as much a threat to the recreation of legitimate metal detecting enthusiasts as to the knowledge and study of the history of the British Isles. In this regard there is common cause to be made between all concerned. In the case of Kent, the report notes the excellent work carried out by local law enforcement and heritage bodies working in partnership with local metal detecting enthusiasts to combat nighthawking. At the launch of the report the District Commander for Canterbury singled out for fulsome praise Sergeant Andy Small, Environmental Crime Co-ordinator for Kent Police, and Andrew Richardson, the former Finds Liaison Officer for the Portable Antiquities Scheme in Kent.
The report makes several recommendations for future improvements to the reporting process. Yet a central problem touched on by the report is perhaps worthy of future consideration. Current legislation categorises nighthawking as theft and trespass. Yet this doesn’t get to the nub of the problem. Sir Barry Cunliffe, Chair of English Heritage, styled nighthawking as heritage theft. Heritage theft implies some form of collective loss that is not easily reconciled with current legislation that makes the landowner the sole victim in law. The question of whose heritage is at risk is vital to checking the activities of nighthawks. The report’s authors note that some nighthawks style themselves as romantic figures engaged in class warfare against the propertied and educated establishment. This suggests that checking the problem has less to do with harsher punishment and more to do with public engagement, awareness and ownership of our shared heritage. The report amply illustrates that secrecy and surveillance have had a limited impact on the activities of nighthawks. The report’s authors do not appear to have included metal detecting bodies from the outset in their research, still less given qualitative considerations to the role of individuals. It is all too understandable that this report could be misinterpreted as a surveillance exercise aimed at strengthening a current regime of practice. Past experiences have left many law abiding and responsible metal detecting enthusiasts with just this impression. The answer to the question of whose heritage is under threat and for whom it is being conserved must in future be framed in a genuinely inclusive manner, indeed it is central to the debate.
ABOVE: An early metal detector devised by George MHopkins and illustrated in 'Experimental Science', published by Munn & Co., New York, 1898. The editor's thanks go to Peter Draper, who came across this wonderful image!
The problem of nighthawking impacts upon the interests of metal detectorists, archaeologists, landowners and the public at large. The report notes the successes achieved in Kent by strengthening co-operation between all concerned. The inclusion of metal detectorists in the archaeological process is now standard practice in the development control briefs drawn up by the Heritage Team at Kent County Council. This local example of success is complemented more generally by the role of the Portable Antiquities Scheme. Were it not for the information that concerned metal detectorists relayed to their local Finds Liaison Officers the true extent of nighthawking would be murkier still. Such relationships of trust unite common goals of safeguarding everyone’s knowledge and enjoyment of our fascinating island heritage for future generations.