Archaeologists are forbidden by law from selling our history for profit. These are not archaeologists. Nor are they nighthawks.
The detectorists’ breakaway unofficial recording organisation, UKDFD, has issued a Statement criticising the recent Nighthawking Report, alleging inaccuracies about what it said about them – and suggesting these “raise doubts about the validity of the report’s findings” about nighthawking. (That they were exaggerated, presumably, though why the members of UKDFD should be worried about that completely escapes us!).
We are sure the authors of the Nighthawking Report will respond to the allegations so there is no point anyone else passing comment until they do. What is worthy of comment though is that this UKDFD statement contains one self-evidently false assertion: that the PAS and others “introduced a Code of Practice, which, by implication, brands those detectorists who record with the UKDFD as irresponsible”. That is simply not true. No-one has ever said recording with UKDFD is irresponsible. All that has happened is that The Code of Responsible Detecting (co-written by the two detectorists’ organisations) simply said responsible detecting means reporting all finds to PAS. Providing that is done then recording with UKDFD as well is perfectly responsible (as is recording on a wall or anywhere else!)
We suspect (in fact we know, since they have said so and lobbied for it) that UKDFD wishes for the definition to be changed so that it says recording with them instead of PAS is deemed to be responsible.
We suspect they will have a long wait. In fact not until the Devil goes metal detecting on skates. And quite right too. A whole bunch of heritage organisations and indeed Society as a whole is entitled to declare what they regard as responsible behaviour and it would be a sad and chaotic day if those who don’t want to conform are given leave to re-define the term to suit their own, different behaviour!
There really is nothing more to be said.
The Heritage Journal 
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
25/02/2009 at 19:54
garybrun
You may recently have received or read the report resulting from the so-called ‘Nighthawking Survey’, originally proposed by the PAS, and carried out by Oxford Archaeology for English Heritage. The report contains statements relating to the UK Detector Finds Database (UKDFD) that are factually incorrect, or misleading by virtue of the omission of pertinent information. No member of the UKDFD recording scheme was consulted at any time regarding the statements, and relevant information, readily available on the UKDFD website, would appear to have been completely disregarded. Such elementary failures to make adequate enquiries before drawing conclusions inevitably raise doubts about the validity of the report’s findings in respect of its specific investigation remit.
The statements concerned are contained within clause 3.2.20 of the report, and each is addressed below.
1. The report states that the UKDFD “.only records the location of finds to parish level.”
The statement is incorrect. The UKDFD provides for the recording of finds to the highest level of accuracy that a recorder is willing or able to provide.
Recording to parish level is merely the minimum level of accuracy required for material to be eligible.
2. The report states that the UKDFD “.does not pass information onto HERs and is therefore of limited value to archaeological research and management.”
The statement is entirely lacking in balance, and appears contrived to portray the UKDFD in a negative manner. In particular, it fails to mention the fact that, prior to its launch, the UKDFD offered a facility to transfer records directly to the PAS database. In fact, during the UKDFD development phase, a considerable amount of time was spent making such a transfer of records technically viable. Had the PAS not chosen to decline this offer, UKDFD records would automatically have been passed to the HERs.
Furthermore, having declined the invitation – a move that some might reasonably regard as irresponsible – the PAS (along with bodies that seek to restrict the metal-detecting hobby) introduced a Code of Practice, which, by implication, brands those detectorists who record with the UKDFD as irresponsible.
3. The report states that “Some believe that the PAS database and the information that is passed to the HERs is used to further restrict the land available for detecting, others believe (erroneously) that the PAS does not record post-medieval finds. The UK Detector Finds Database (UKDFD) was therefore set up by detectorists as an alternative to the PAS.”
The mission statement of the UKDFD clearly sets out its aims, which are considerably more wide-ranging than the final sentence of this statement concludes. The concerns that detectorists have regarding restrictions being placed on their hobby are also far wider than the statement implies.
See also http://www.ukdfd.co.uk/pages/our-hobbys-detractors.html
Gary Brun
UKDFD Administrator
26/02/2009 at 06:38
Heritage Action
We have already provided a link to your statement and commented upon it.