by Nigel Swift
In the daytime this could be a Chartered Surveyor, a City Banker, a plumber, a priest, an archaeologist or a detectorist. Why should only the latter be denied?
BBC Inside Out East is screening another nighthawking exposé on Monday (Feb 18th). It’s a certainty they’ll trumpet that nighthawks aren’t detectorists. Yet logic strongly suggests they are a very obvious subset of the detecting community, not a strange, exotic species. There’s no shame in the fact as there are bad apples in all groups but what is shameful is that detectorists try to conceal it by constantly claiming that if you’re a thief you can’t also be a detectorist. The latest instance is a Comment on the Journal saying the recent intrusions on the Staffordshire Hoard field are “nothing to do with detectorists“! How the blazes could he know?! There’s zero evidence there’s anyone other than detectorists in the business. Equally wrong is archaeologists, magistrates, journalists and police perpetuating the fiction as it means the problem is not being addressed at it’s real source.
For me it’s clear most nighthawks are fully integrated into the detecting community for it would surely be almost impossible for them to operate without being members of detecting clubs and forums, attending rallies, talking to FLOs and being mainstream, jolly artefact hunters basking in official adulation most of the time. How else could they obtain knowledge, get identifications, apply for Treasure rewards and appear ordinary? I can’t prove it but I don’t need to. Off guard on their forums detectorists constantly admit it and have been doing so for 10 years to my certain knowledge. “We all know who most of them are”…. “up to a third of my club members turn their hand to it” and so on, regularly. (Take a look if you don’t believe me.) Yet for public consumption there’s a different mantra – “nighthawks are not detectorists, they’re thieves”. Worse, The Establishment endlessly repeats the refrain – “nighthawks aren’t detectorists, they are people who use detectors to steal”. Nonsense. They are detectorists who who use detectors to steal.
So I suggest this: let detectorists admit the criminals are in their ranks not in some sort of secret nighthawking club and let them start helping the police get more convictions. (Someone has put the situation in a nutshell in our Comments section: it’s “like a gardener not cooperating with a police investigation because the thief had used secateurs”!). The reputation of honest detectorists could only rise. And let The Establishment drop the pretence that they think the place to look for thieves with detectors isn’t in the middle of the detecting community. The conviction rate could only rise. I could count on one hand the number of detectorists thoughtful enough to know that would be in the interest of detectorists. On the other hand most of The Establishment know very well I’m right but won’t say so. Thus we have mass, sullen stupidity on one side and mass knowing silence on the other and the term “nighthawking” will continue to be used, thereby reducing progress towards combating that which it describes. Yet another unavoidable consequence of Britain plotting the wrong course in the first place.
If ever either detectorists or the authorities bring themselves to publicly acknowledge what I’ve been photographing on the Staffordshire Hoard field for the past two weeks (will they?) you should take note of their terminology. It’s a cert they’ll say it was nighthawks not criminal metal detectorists. Mass, sullen stupidity on one side and mass knowing silence on the other, see. Sad isn’t it?
……………………………….. UPDATE ……………………………………….
The Inside Out programme has just aired. The item lasted about 10 minutes. Thieves were mentioned three times, illegal detectorists once and the term “nighthawks” was used just once, and qualified by the words “so called”. A big change compared with the programmes the same company made a decade ago and subsequently.
Of course, there was the obligatory reference to most detectorists being legal (true) but also the usual sleight of hand (or maybe failure of understanding) whereby it wasn’t mentioned that most of them don’t report most of their finds and thus destroy far, far more heritage knowledge than the criminals the programme was complaining about. So 2 out of 10 for properly informing the viewers and could do a lot better, and still far behind the rest of the world.
__________________________________________________________
More Heritage Action views on metal detecting and artefact collecting
__________________________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
34 comments
Comments feed for this article
16/02/2013 at 10:19
Mark
It’s simple or are you being idiotic on purpose!! As soon as you start detecting at night an a site where you have no permission, you become a nighthawker and stop being a detectorist. It’s that simple!! Detecting is a legal activity, nighthawking isn’t.
What about joyriders? Are they motorists? Should we ban all cars because if joyrides? Your see-through agenda of using this site to get detectorists banned is laughable and so will be your usual crass trite replies.
Responsible detectorist get permission, report finds and don’t deviate from this. All LEGAL.
Your attempt to put nighthawkers(thieves) in the same bracket as detectorists is pathetic. All the good work you do on this site is undermined by your detectorist rantings.
Pathetic and insulting.
16/02/2013 at 10:30
Nigel
“As soon as you start detecting at night an a site where you have no permission, you become a nighthawker and stop being a detectorist.”
Well you’ve certainly illustrated my point with admirable clarity.
16/02/2013 at 11:12
samarkeolog
Joyriders are motorists (as well), yes. I think they should/could continue to use them term “nighthawks”, but they must make it clear to the public who/what nighthawks are, e.g. ‘”nighthawks” – criminal metal detectorists/metal detectorists who conduct the activity illegally – have plundered this site”.
16/02/2013 at 13:16
Gareth
Where did this term ‘nighthawk’ originate I wonder? If you Google search for the term it proves interesting. As a noun the term nighthawk has no connection with metal detecting but the verb ‘ nighthawking’ does. So, a Metal detectorist can carry out the act of nighhawking but that does not make the person a nighthawk, they are still a metal detectorist,albeit one that is carrying out illegal activities.
Nighthawking is a term that clouds the real issue which is the simple fact that i9t is someone trespassing with intent to carry out an illegal act, that of theft and the too, of the trade so to speak, is the metal detector. The person that creeps into a farm at night to steal eqpt isn’t a nighthawk, they are a thief, a robber, a burglar so why do we differentiate the two? To the public, I dare say the term ‘nighthawker’ has a slightly lighter ‘roguish’ notion like that of the poacher.
It is about time that the term ‘nighthawk/ing/er was banished from our language and in it’s place we start using the correct terms of thief and thieving as both carry a much higher public perception of someone up to no good.
16/02/2013 at 14:27
Paul Barford
The difference (“Mark”) between me and a joyrider is I have in my pocket a document which shows that the vehicle in which I sit is mine, has the stamps which show that its technical condition has been checked recently by the authorities authorised to declare that. My possession of each vehicle I drive on the public highway is thus legitimated by a periodically updated document issued to me for that purpose.
So what about a metal detectorist who walks off with finds? Has he got each one of them signed off by the landowner (the Glasgow Fourth)? Without that, what is the guarantee that each of them was removed with the landowner’s knowledge and permission? Perhaps only some were. What’s the difference between the tekkie who has removed stuff from a farmer’s land only declaring them selectively, and a “nighthawk”? Don’t try to tell us it never happens. People write iopenly on detecting forums about doing it.
If there are grades of “doing it by the book”, at what stage does one become the other? I think these categories are very difficult to define and differentiate and think there is therefore a need to discuss them openly. You seem to disagree.
I think a point worth making is what is merely “legal” is not always the only thing that matters, in this as other things. There are other issues involved in “best practice” detecting in a “partnership” with archaeological outreach organization PAS and I think it is a good thing that Heritage Action is raising them in a public forum. Why should they not?
.
16/02/2013 at 18:22
Nigel
Gareth, I agree “thief” is less lovable-roguish than nighthawk so is preferable. But that’s the term detectorists want used and I don’t think it should be. Detectorists have criminal colleagues right slap bang in the middle of their social groups and hobby structures yet rarely shop them and consistently deny they exist (in public, that is). That situation should be exposed by description so as to encourage them to rectify it. I think the term criminal metal detectorist is both accurate and just – and it brings no discredit whatsoever on other detectorists. Let them purge themselves of their criminal element.
I am accused of suggesting this as part of a plan to get detecting banned. It isn’t, I haven’t, and it is purely to reduce the level of heritage theft – but I’m heartily sick of responding to such tiresome claims which invariably come with zero evidence and many insults – so I’m not going to.
17/02/2013 at 07:11
Nigel
Samarkeolog I agree with you that “nighthawks” followed by the definition “– criminal metal detectorists/metal detectorists who conduct the activity illegally” would be appropriate but I don’t trust journalists to stick to it, They’d revert to “nighthawks”. So I personally feel “criminal metal detectorists” would be the most effective and fair term. The fact that detectorists object to it so much is very much in it’s favour – it constantly confronts them with the fact it is they who need to put their own house in order – which currently no-one is requiring them to do.
17/02/2013 at 07:45
samarkeolog
I agree. Thankfully, in the Mediterranean, thieves are thieves (so I don’t have to deal with this bizarre lobby). As you and Paul Barford highlight, there is simply pervasive criminal activity, unashamedly – boastfully – documented in the metal detectorists’ forums. It’s such a bizarre situation – like a gardener not cooperating with a police investigation because the thief had used secateurs – that it’s difficult not to assume the most obvious motive for detectorists’ non-cooperation…
17/02/2013 at 08:16
Nigel
The Mediterranean air must aid clarity of vision. Here in Britain there’s an institutional fog. Remarks like yours are bad for the career as they go against current policy – so they rarely get said. Thank you!
17/02/2013 at 17:15
Gareth
I like the secateurs analogy but there is a difference with Police co-operation and co-operation within the detecting community.
‘In the daytime this could be a Chartered Surveyor, a City Banker, a plumber, a priest, an archaeologist or a detectorist. Why should only the latter be denied?’
I suppose the difference is, the former are all professions, whilst the latter is a hobby. Equally, the Chartered Surveyor could also be a detectorist so if he transgressed and decided to trespass and steal with his machine, he would firstly be a criminal metal detectorist.
We MUST stop using this term ‘Nighthawk’ and regain our language. We need to start using the terms ‘illegal metal detecting’ performed by ‘Criminal metal detectorists’ and I would think that even the detecting fraternity would welcome this change as it is both truly reflective of the act and the person committing the act whilst not denigrating those that don not carry out illegal metal detecting. It’s a cultural change that is needed and it needs to start with the language we use.
I’m trying to be truly objective in this and wonder why the detecting community seems at time mute to the ‘devil within’ their hobby. I suppose unless someone has hard and fast evidence (rarely the case) then to allege someone is committing a crime is a serious matter and they probably shy away from taking the matter further.
Why not have a confidential ‘Report illegal metal detecting’ helpline on here for people from all sections of society (including detectorists) to report suspicions that we can then investigate and report to the relevant authorities?
I just Googled to see if there was such a thing as a helpline and came across this interesting BBC blog on the matter
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/joecrowley/2009/11/lets_call_a_spade_a_spade_nigh.html
17/02/2013 at 18:00
Nigel
Hi Gareth, not sure that a hobby is different from a profession when it comes to criminality – if we can talk of crooked Chartered Surveyors we ought to be able to talk of crooked detectorists.
However, I agree we ought to “stop using this term ‘Nighthawk’ and regain our language” not for linguistic reasons but for conservation ones. I think the enthusiasm for the term arises from a misplaced belief that criminal detectorists reflect upon all detectorists so must be otherwise described. That erroneous belief needs addressing as must the frankly silly idea that the hobby must stick together as unity is strength. The reverse is surely true when you’re shoulder-to-shoulder with crooks – and indeed with non-recorders. You tell ’em though, I’m sick of doing so!
I like the idea of a confidential snitch line – but I guess they can all use the phone now yet how often do the criminals get exposed? Not very.
17/02/2013 at 19:02
Gareth
Nigel, the problem is who do you phone to report criminal metal detecting? (I avoided the term ‘nighthawking’ hurrah). You could phone the Police but considering thier general lack of response, or I should say lethargic response at the best of times, I think that the Police would put it waaaay down the list of priorities. To catch criminal metal detectorists, operating a night you need to carry out a per-determined sting operation to catch them in the act. If we had a ‘Report Heritage Crime’ helpline manned by HA volunteers, they could collate the information and then put pressure on the authorities to act by providing all the detail required and shame they if they didn’t. Perhaps then, we could see honest detectorists close ranks and flush out the vermin that is within their rank and file. Why not publicly praise that that do ‘snitch’ on the criminals within so they garner the respect of others and become the model peer group within the hobby?
Ha this just occurred to me. Why don’t we set up the PACS – Portable Antiquities Crime Scheme whereby we have TLO’s (Theft Liason Officers) dotted around the country recording Portable Antiquities Crime on a database that can then be accessed for forensic study by the authorities?. We could publish an annual report and conduct proper outreach on the effects of Heritage crime to those that need to be told. TLO’s could attend detecting club meetings to record thefts by criminal detectorists. This may sound like a jone but it has got possibilities. So, can HA set up the PACS scheme here in the UK?
17/02/2013 at 19:23
heritageaction
Sounds good. I reckon £1.5 million a year would cover HA’s admin costs!
Or, detectorists could put their own house in order themselves, for free. After all, without the taxpayers’ £1.5 million per annum to sustain PAS the hobby would have been criminalised many years ago so they owe us all. Far less than half of them recording and a criminal group not being shopped is hardly fair payback for what they’ve been given. It’s worth bearing in mind these are the most privileged artefact hunters in the whole world, bar none, yet they act like petulant prima donnas (the “we’ll go on recording strike if so-and-so happens” count is currently at 16).
17/02/2013 at 19:38
Gareth
How can you expect detectorists to put their own house in order? They won’t and it has been shown they won’t for long enough!
If anything is to change then it is those outside the activity that have to change it. Fox hunters didn’t call for a fox hunting ban, nor did smokers petition to have smoking banned .People NOT engaged in either activity where the catalyst that put pressure to make a change and here we are, people with a passionate for caring for the common Heritage yet we are just trudging the same old path of apathy and saying “let them sort themselves out” when we know they won’t. As for costs of a scheme such as the PACS, the anti hunt brigade were all volunteers and the funds they needed they managed to raise so why can’t we? Our greatest asset may not be cash but it is something far more precious – drive and commitment and these two attributes take some beating!!
17/02/2013 at 20:07
Nigel
“How can you expect detectorists to put their own house in order?”
I can’t, I was merely pointing out common justice would suggest they ought to, rather than leaving it to loads of outside volunteers.
No, logic points to the fact they’ve been offered a voluntary agreement comprising no regulation in exchange for good behaviour and have mostly failed to keep to their side of it so the obvious next step is compulsory regulation of their activities. And here is the extraordinary fact about that: responsible detectorists don’t mind that at all as it wouldn’t affect what they do, the only ones that oppose it are the criminals and the non-recording yobbery.
17/02/2013 at 20:34
Gareth
Nigel, you have digressed and the discussion points you make above, relate to recording when the topic is about criminal activity. Regulation of detecting will have no affect at all on the criminal activity element since the criminals are already regulated by the laws of the land but choose to ignore them and instead choose to carry on their nefarious activity and can do so because the law is rarely enforced. Why don’t we take the intitiative and collate the information of where the illegal activity is taking place and push to ensure the law IS enforced. There are enough of us around the country an even Alan has the tile of HA Inspector. What are we to do otherwise, sit on the sideline knowing it goes on and then do nothing?
Look at the ‘about HA’ statement – We believe this generation holds its heritage in trust for future generations and we think it is right to promote an appreciation of the value of these places, highlight threats to them, and encourage the public to become involved in responsible but vigorous action to preserve them.
Encourage the public? vigorous action? .We ARE the public so lets have some vigorous action and actually do something positive to ensure the criminals get their just desserts. If we don’t act when our whole raison d’etre is the opposite, then we are guilty of appeasement through apathy i’m sad to say.
18/02/2013 at 00:39
heritageaction
I disagree that non-recording is a digression as it causes vastly more damage than criminality. It would be irrational to tackle the lesser issue and not the greater one.
I also disagree that regulation of detecting would have no effect on criminality. The reason the criminals are able to operate despite the law is the fact that both they and their financial dealings can be disguised as part of the unregulated whole.
I’m really not up for a network of amateurs overseeing what detectorists get up to. If most won’t behave, which they have demonstrated, then they should be compelled to do so by the law like everyone else.
18/02/2013 at 08:05
Gareth
Nigel, the reason I use the term ‘digression’ is that the blog post was concerning the term ‘nighthawk’ (criminal activity) and this was or is the focus of our minds in terms of commenting.
“I’m really not up for a network of amateurs overseeing what detectorists get up to. If most won’t behave, which they have demonstrated, then they should be compelled to do so by the law like everyone else”
And so it goes on and on and nothing changes and we will still be here in ten years time bemoaning the fact that nothing changed when we could have made a start to the change process. If another group set up a network of amateurs overseeing what detectorists get up to then i’m sure you be supporting it and reporting on it regularly on here.
Oh well, it’s a real shame that no one seems to be bothered from any quarter.
18/02/2013 at 08:47
Nigel
“Oh well, it’s a real shame that no one seems to be bothered from any quarter.”
You mistake not being bothered to apply your “grass roots” regulation idea with not being bothered to find a solution.
The fact that a solution devoid of legal sanction absolutely doesn’t work has been amply demonstrated for fifteen years for most detectorists have run rings round the voluntary system all that time. Presenting them with a Mark 11 version still devoid of legal sanction doesn’t appeal at all.
No, the law needs changing so as to ensure all detectorists are fully answerable to it with regard to what they do. Bottom line is it’s not their knowledge so the law is entitled to insist they hand it over, not just beg or flatter them to. Since every responsible detectorist would be happy with that and every irresponsible one wouldn’t be, that would seem to be the obvious course. Any interim scheme that delays that day would play into the hands of the latter so I’m very much opposed to it. It’s not complicated – let’s just get in line with other countries.
18/02/2013 at 09:06
Gareth
Will all respect Nigel, you seem to forget that this is about criminal detecting, aka ‘night hawking’ which is the original gist of the post you made. My suggestion is not about an idea for regulation, it is an idea for us to actually act as a conduit and focal point for information that can be used to prosecute those that detect illegally. The solution is not devoid of legal sanction as you suggest since there are many laws that are already in place but are rarely used, hence the low prosecution rate.
I think you have gone off on a tangent re the PAS and recording whereas you made this post topic “How to reduce nighthawking? Stop using the word!”
18/02/2013 at 09:13
Alan S.
Gareth, whilst your idea of grass roots activism has some merit, the facts are that the vast majority of the public don’t see the activity – by it’s very nature it mostly occurs in rural locations, away from the public eye. in fact, we did raise the possibility of getting people involved last year, see https://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/heritage-crime-theres-not-an-app-for-that-yet/ – but we don’t have the resource/knowledge in house to create such a thing ourselves, and no-one has come forward to discuss our ideas further, which would need the cooperation of the authorities if such a scheme is to have any effect.
18/02/2013 at 09:18
Nigel
Gareth, with respect, nighthawks flourish despite the law because they can operate, full-time, part-time or occasionally, from their perfect hiding place in the entirely unregulated whole. An holistic solution that applies legal regulation to the whole activity is the only certain way they can be dealt with, as I’m sure you would acknowledge.
Since legal regulation would also address the far greater damage caused by non-reporting then legal regulation of both, simultaneously, makes perfect sense. There’s nothing tangential about that.
18/02/2013 at 17:11
Gareth
And so we pass the problem back to the authorities and hope that they can deal with the problem when we knowingly berate them for their own lack of activity. Deploring the problem over and over again whilst not even trying to do something will not change a thing and that’s a real shame.
Procrastination is the thief of Heritage.
18/02/2013 at 17:46
Nigel
On the contrary. Non reporting detectorists are the thieves of heritage, it would be nice for that to be kept in mind.
We reckon 4,698,321 artefacts have been removed since the inception of PAS (far more if the EH/CBA survey is to be believed) mostly without being reported. You are suggesting a further X years of non-mandatory policy which will inevitably delay compulsory action and will thus enable those non-reporters to not report millions more pieces of historical knowledge. Surely Britain has made enough of a fool of itself and lost enough in net terms not to contemplate putting off doing the right thing for still longer?
Bear in mind all those thousands of non-reporters would be absolutely delighted by any proposal that delays compulsion. That in itself should tell you something. Delay is the ally of the thieves of heritage.
18/02/2013 at 18:20
Gareth
Nigel, i’m not sure you are understanding the gist of my comments which is that if the authorities are ineffective in curtailing and controlling (of which I am sure we both agree) then it is up to US to tackle the problem head on by getting involved directly and actively rather than bemoaning the lack of institutional action time and time again. It is very similar to watching someone getting mugged for their wallet ( the victim being our common Heritage, the wallet an artefact) and standing by and doing nothing and hoping someone else will step in instead. Let’s tackle them head on and call them to account publicly. Why not organise a march on parliament?, hold a demo with placards outside the BM, get some media coverage on the BBC with a spokes person. Why not turn up at a rally and sabotage it with lots of bits of tin foil, just like hunt saboteurs do? Look what they achieved!
As I suggested earlier, let’s start by organising a national ‘Report illegal Detecting’ helpline and publicise the FACTS of what actually goes on in our field daily and try and secure a few high profile convictions to really wake up the public and in turn, the authorities and policy makers.
How can you be against such a plan or is it just a case of too much work so let someone else do the job (which won’t happen)?
18/02/2013 at 18:55
Nigel
“or is it just a case of too much work so let someone else do the job”
I think you’ve chosen exactly the wrong person to accuse of that.
I have explained exactly why I think your proposals aren’t the right way forward so I won’t repeat myself. You are of course welcome to pursue whatever actions you feel right but you’ll have to accept I think differently so won’t be joining you. Alan has explained why we think a “report illegal detecting helpline” is completely impractical and I have pointed out how illegal detecting is not the main problem and addressing the activity other than holistically will provide the opportunity for still more heritage theft by non-reporters. So all-in-all please understand we simply don’t agree with your proposals for many reasons that we as a group have debated and thought about for years.
18/02/2013 at 20:07
Gareth
That’s fine. It was an idea I wanted to explore and see if we could gather some momentum but if it’s not going to happen then I understand.
Are we agreed that we won’t called illegal Metal Detecting ‘Nighthawking’ from now on?
18/02/2013 at 20:52
heritageaction
Sure. And I’m glad to say the programme seemed to be moving a little in that direction too. Let’s see who else does (and doesn’t) and why!
18/02/2013 at 21:10
Gareth
Criminal metal detectorists carrying out illegal metal detecting with criminal intent by using off the shelf metal detectors.
The above sums up what USED to be called night hawking.
19/02/2013 at 18:31
Gareth
I never got to see the BBC programme in question. did anyone see it and if so, what was it like and what perspective did they put forward?
19/02/2013 at 19:21
Nigel
Gareth, see the update to the article.
20/02/2013 at 11:58
Alan S.
The BBC program can now be found on iPlayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01qtcnq/Inside_Out_East_18_02_2013/ The story starts around 18 minutes in I believe.
18/11/2013 at 23:53
Hammy Sammy
I have been reading all these comments and use are talking about something that is never going to change (illegal metal detecting as use say), I am very much against this and trust me if I caught someone detecting at night without permission I would string them up by there privates but it’s Impossible for me too as I’m scared of the dark so I would never catch them lol..the thing is they do give us a bad name and it is ruining the hobby..its such a shame 😦
19/11/2013 at 03:31
heritageaction
“they do give us a bad name and it is ruining the hobby..”
Our point is that it is not them but the legal detectorists who don’t record their finds who are the main problem.