English Heritage Chief Simon Thurley has just said there is evidence that many of those who dig up archaeologically rich sites looking for valuable artefacts are … “habitual offenders” who “trawl English Heritage’s own databases of protected sites looking for places likely to contain rich pickings” and that “there’s no disincentive – if you get a slap on the wrist, you just go and do it again.”
How awful, Dr Thurley. Drat those criminals. And yet…. digging up archaeologically rich sites looking for valuable artefacts is the very essence of all metal detecting, as is habitual trawling through all archaeological databases to find unprotected but important sites likely to contain “rich pickings”!
In addition, since 70% of what’s legally found isn’t reported it’s beyond denial that the loss of cultural knowledge caused in that way utterly dwarfs the losses caused by the few hundred criminal nighthawks that you complain about so bitterly. So where’s your slap on the wrist for that? Or even your mild rebuke? Or even your admission that the present free-for-all is having an unacceptable impact on England’s heritage?
It’s the legal damage that warrants your urgent attention, see?
.
_____________________________________________________________
More Heritage Action views on metal detecting and artefact collecting
_____________________________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
31 comments
05/01/2014 at 17:18
ArchyFantasies
I’m sorry, I don’t understand the point of the post. I’m sure it’s a cultural thing on my end, but can you explain the connection between Chief Simon Thurley’s comments, metal detecting, and percentage of found artifacts?
05/01/2014 at 18:41
heritageaction
Dr Thurley’s comments were about criminal nighthawks. Our point is that the information loss due to the criminals is very small compared to the information loss due to the legal detectorists and the latter is what he should be highlighting.
05/01/2014 at 18:54
ArchyFantasies
Ah, ok. I was hoping that was you point, but it almost sounded like you were for the detectorists. Thank you for clearing that up.
05/01/2014 at 20:02
Viv
Just for clarity, Simon Thurley said this over a year ago and not ‘Just said’. It would help to provide a link to the full statement of Mr Thurley so journal readers can understand his statement in full.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9755634/English-Heritage-chief-calls-for-tougher-sentences-for-heritage-crime.html
05/01/2014 at 20:19
Steve Broom
Very true…more needs to be done to ensure that any archeological finds are reported…not just metal detectorists….!!!
06/01/2014 at 01:26
heritageaction
But it’s only metal detectorists who are doing it on an almost industrial scale and not reporting the items so it’s perfectly reasonable to focus on them in particular. They aren’t part of a problem they are THE problem.
06/01/2014 at 20:49
Craig Revelle
I would have thought that the relevant importance of objects removed from known, culturally important and therefore legally protected sites is somewhat different from the far lesser form of the removal of objects found randomly on what are fields with no known archaeological importance and therefore need no and receive no legal protection.
Reading Simons statement, the elephant in the room of this whole thread is most certainly the wanton destruction of the fabric of historic buildings and their contents.
07/01/2014 at 05:23
Nigel S
I profoundly disagree. The essence of legal metal detecting is a wish to maximise the finds rate (how could it be otherwise?) and that nearly always involves “research” to seek out “productive sites” (take a look at the detecting forums or the vast detectorists’ literature on how to do it, it’s no secret). Those are archaeological sites and there are many hundreds of thousands of them compared with the mere 35K scheduled sites. Removing items from those without reporting them is unacceptable – as all archaeologists would confirm.
The idea of non-criminal metal detecting being a process of “removal of objects found randomly on what are fields with no known archaeological importance and therefore not in need of legal protection” is a dire falsehood expressed by many detectorists and IMO archaeologists should be making that crystal clear to the public – together with the fact most of the items so found aren’t reported – so that criminal detecting is actually a very minor element of heritage knowledge-theft.
07/01/2014 at 09:04
Steven Broom
Sorry, but that simply isnt true… The majority of metal detecting takes place on fields with no “known” or “protected” archeological status. As to detect on a site with this form of designation would be wrong and un-ethical. Of course a metal detectorist will research and seek out information on the land and its history…Isnt this a good thing though to encourage an interest in history and heritage. I myself am a metal detectorist, but it is only through this activity that i have now gained knowledge in pottery and flint tools that we also sometimes come across when we are lucky enough to find them. (All of which i record with the PAS). Metal detectorists are not claiming to be archeologists and just because we use an electronic device instead of a spade and a trowel to uncover and record our items doesnt mean that the activity should be “criminalised”. As i said in my previous post…More definatley needs to be done to educate all people (i.e. farmers, detectorists and members of the public) that if something of historical interest is discovered, then it should be properly cared for and reported.
07/01/2014 at 09:46
Nigel S
So metal detectorists “research and seek out information” in order to find fields with no known archaeological status? Come off it. As for it being unethical to detect on a protected site, how then is it ethical to detect on unprotected sites, the very places all detectorists seek out? I think you’ve just blown the gaff.
Anyway, as you know, this is a conservation site not a detecting soap box. If you aren’t advocating statutory control there’s no scope for discussion thanks.
07/01/2014 at 11:31
Steven Broom
Anyone with an interest in history and archeology uses research and information on the sites that they have access to. So as for “blowing the gaff”…i dont really see your point…??? Normally we simply try to find a piece of available land with no designations on which we can gain permission and then the research comes later on. People who illegally access and damage known protected sites need to be stopped…(no arguments there i hope)… but if the land has no designation, then a responsible approach to any form activity is surely permissable…and not against the law…!
I myself know of a beach near to where i live where stone age implements and tools have been found so i used this information over the Christmas break to take a walk along the shore line and was lucky enough to find a Paleolithic Hand Axe. The find spot as always is noted and this will be recorded in due course. I am assuming that this is OK, but assume that had it have been a coin found with a metal detector, then it would not be. The ethical approach that is so often suggested is flawed and will never be agreed upon as it represents a backwards step to people who are proactive in recording their finds. Far better to stick to the subject of whether something is lawful or not.
07/01/2014 at 12:50
Nigel S
This blows the gaff a second time:
“The ethical approach that is so often suggested is flawed and will never be agreed upon as it represents a backwards step to people who are proactive in recording their finds. Far better to stick to the subject of whether something is lawful or not.”
Flawed my eye. What you are saying is that most detectorists will never act ethically unless compelled by law. I agree.
07/01/2014 at 14:03
Steven Broom
That is not what was said Nigel, but lets go for the hatrick anyway… The ethical code has too many holes in it to work and (if you think about the practicalities) it doesnt actively encourage the declaration and recording of finds… Responsible detectorists already report their finds so another law for the illegal detectorists to flout will have very little effect. Leaving out the wordplay….that was the distinction i was trying to make.
07/01/2014 at 14:49
Nigel S
“The ethical code has too many holes in it to work”
!!!
You know and I know that you have to say that to cover the fact that most of your colleagues refuse to conform to it. It’s perfectly workable with no holes, as proved beyond argument by the fact that tens of thousands of members of amateur archaeology societies act in a perfectly ethical fashion without a hint of complaint or difficulty!!
07/01/2014 at 19:58
Stroud223
Ethical behaviour is impractical!
Says it all.
08/01/2014 at 07:22
Nigel S
It does indeed, and it’s a vivid illustration that John Carmen was right https://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/an-end-of-year-light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel/ – “in the end all we can do is talk to those who already speak in our language and share our values.”
Most artefact hunters are never going to act in a way that serves the public interest if it undermines their ability to take, take, take for themselves. Mr Broom says the ethical code is wrong because detectorists, not landowners should take charge of the farmer’s artefacts as they’re more likely to get them recorded!! I wonder why he and his public spirited mates are so irrationally adamant and insistent on that particular point? No prizes for guessing.
08/01/2014 at 09:13
Steven Broom
Yes… I am adamant on that point….because it does work and ensures that the finds get recorded rather than leaving it to the landowner who might not have such an interest in history and getting the items properly recorded. That is the main issue with the “ethical” code… not the matter or ownership. If landowners fail to report items that are handed to then, then once again, you will have lost the learning that can be gained from that item and sooner or later your forum will be complaining about it.
If the PAS and local museums want to take in and keep every musket ball and buckle fragment that is found then so be it… But you must agree that this also, would not be practicable… So where does that leave the more practical arrangements that the “ethical” code suggests…Its a great aspiration, but in practice… it is flawed. It would be good to think that a compromise could be explored which could work though… but i understand that this is not an option…Some detectorists want to change and assist, but flexibility is needed on both sides of the argument…. The “my way or the highway” attitude is just not constructive to change
08/01/2014 at 09:30
Nigel S
The artefacts belong to the landowner! For anyone to say (on any grounds whatsoever) they shouldn’t be IMMEDIATELY delivered into his hands is outrageous. Who the hell do detectorists think they are?
And the cited grounds are outrageous too. Only 30% of finds get reported by detectorists – yet you reckon farmers will report LESS than that? I don’t think so. The average farmer of my acquaintance is a lot more educated than the average detectorist. In fact it’s chalk and cheese.
But that’s neither here nor there. The finds belong to the farmer and anyone who says it’s best if they take them straight home with them has to be uber-dodgy. Ask Tesco’s.
08/01/2014 at 11:07
Steven Broom
I think some of the facts that are being quoted here are based on chalk and cheese…! I agree, the finds are not the sole property of the person that found them… however, lets make sure the finds get properly recorded first so that the learning can be captured. The question of ownership can then be determined as a partnership between the landowner and the detectorist….what is the problem with that approach…???
08/01/2014 at 12:17
heritageaction
“I agree, the finds are not the sole property of the person that found them”
No, they are not their property AT ALL.
Goodness me. There’s nothing more to be said.
08/01/2014 at 17:42
Jenga
At the end of the day it does not matter. The public love treasure, the media love treasure, the democratically elected government therefore love treasure and TV is now awash with treasure programme to further reinforce that treasure is a good thing. Nothing will change because there is no force for change beyond the rambling and incoherent arguments that are put forward by a vocal minority.
08/01/2014 at 18:24
heritageaction
…. and so Britain will remain the only country where large-scale cultural information theft remains officially sanctioned and sustained?
Maybe not forever though. Oikish attitides don’t necessarily prevail indefinitely, look at all the behaviour that has come to be seen as unacceptable in the past decade or two. Hunting, birds egg collecting etc.
Don’t forget, elsewhere Mr Broom and his mates would simply be locked up for what they do – which puts all his gyrations to avoid even being ethical into perspective! My bet is that things will change eventually and he’ll HAVE to behave, not pretend to, and the country will be much better off for it.
08/01/2014 at 22:10
astral
It is a shame about the current situation but who will actually be pro active in creating the change?
09/01/2014 at 07:50
Steven Broom
We are trying to be proactive and change the way that we do things, but cant seem to agree on a way forwards…
09/01/2014 at 09:26
Jenga
I was disappointment to see how Steve Brooms honest and courteous comments were met with such petty rudeness on here. As long as that attitude exists, nothing will change other than the creation of yet more resentment between the two sides and resentment does not create pragmatic solutions. Let us at least have the courtesy to discuss the subject professionally.
09/01/2014 at 09:42
heritageaction
Ah, so taking someone’s property home with you on the pretext that YOU will record them and the owner might not is polite, ethical, honest and professional is it? Great.
09/01/2014 at 10:29
Stroud223
Just incredible.
09/01/2014 at 11:18
Nigel S
You’d better believe it. MOST detectorists take everything home rather than handing it to the owner. This one differs only in that he says he’s doing it in the national interest!! If that was true he could still leave it with the farmer for a while couldn’t he? It’s outrageous behaviour presented as virtuous. Awful and obvious.
09/01/2014 at 20:05
Steve Broom
Take it home….leave it with the landowner for a while….what’s the difference. Surely the most important issue is getting the item recorded. If a landowner really wanted to do this I would gladly let them. This is what I mean by the practicalities of your suggested code…. Each situation is different…. and it, like your attitude appears to be inflexible. Thanks for the words of support Jenga…!
09/01/2014 at 21:30
heritageaction
“Take it home….leave it with the landowner for a while….what’s the difference…. If a landowner really wanted to do this I would gladly let them.”
And yet that’s what the Ethical Code says you should do – and you have repeatedly said that’s the one thing you won’t do it as it’s not practical !!!
10/01/2014 at 08:09
Stroud223
Ha!
Hoisted, petard!