Landowners might well consult Wikipedia to learn about nighthawks but it’s clear that whoever wrote the entry deliberately distorted the truth. For instance:
1.) “Nighthawkers, being criminals, are distinct from law-abiding metal detectorists.”
Obviously. But that diverts from the important truth, useful to landowners, that nighthawks are NOT distinct from detectorists in general. The two groups occuply the same space, the same clubs, the same forums and the same Finds Liaison Officers. How else could nighthawks gain intellgence and professional identifications and Treasure rewards? Why doesn’t Wikipedia make THAT clear for the benefit of landowners?
2.) “The National Council for Metal Detecting or the Federation of Independent Detectorists are not to be confused with such criminal activity”.
But as explained above, that can’t be true! Of course nighthawks are likely to be members of those bodies since nighthawks aren’t a distinct species they are simply metal detectorists. Why doesn’t Wikipedia make THAT clear for the benefit of landowners?
3.) “Furthermore, it has been claimed, but not proven, that nighthawkers use such groups as a method of obtaining information about archaeological sites.”
But why wouldn’t they, being metal detectorists, every one of whom do exactly that? Why doesn’t Wikipedia make THAT clear for the benefit of landowners?
4.) “It has also been claimed that criminal gangs have been directed to archaeological sites by rogue archaeologists seeking a share of ill-gotten spoils.”
Claimed by whom? Evidenced when? Why would a rogue archaeologist intent on ill-gotten spoils have a need to enlist the help of a scruff with a spade? The statement serves simply to make it crystal clear who wrote the page. It is to be hoped that landowners will take heed.
PS … and this one’s a doozy!
5. Regarding Treasure, “Nighthawkers rarely declare their finds due to the method of acquisition”.
What utter, utter rot! If you’d nighthawked something valuable and had no conscience you’d simply tell PAS and the Treasure Registrar you found it elsewhere, at a rally, surely?!
.
__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
27/12/2020 at 08:11
Paul Barford (@PortantIssues)
The claim about “rogue archaeologists” was made at 13:12, 28 September 2012 and almost immediately flagged as needing some kind of substantiation. Note that user “31.54.214.160:”, responsible for making this comment worked only on one Wikipedia entry – “nighthawking”. It is notable that the heading of the section is which this appears is “Impact on metal detecting in the United Kingdom” and not “Impact on the archaeological record in the United Kingdom”, which is obviously more important. One wonders what would happen if the entry was called “illegal artefact hunting in Europe” rather than concentrating on one small island off the edge of Europe. (not all of this activity takes place “at night” as the text says, and the Oxford survey was NOT a ten year study). This is why Wikipedia can nver be treated as a source of information, if you or I were to try and edit that to get it to more broadly represent the issues involved, the metal detectorists would only change it back into the apology for British Metal detecting that it so obviously is. What about Scotland?
27/12/2020 at 10:15
heritageaction
“if you or I were to try and edit that to get it to more broadly represent the issues involved, the metal detectorists would only change it back into the apology for British Metal detecting that it so obviously is. “. Been there. Done that. Such vigilance signals profound anxiety about allowing the truth to be expressed where landowners might see it.