Heritage and Cultural Property Crime

The Heritage and Cultural Property Crime: National Strategic Assessment 2017 is now available online. 

The key threats to heritage in England and Wales are perceived as:

• Architectural theft – in particular metal and stone 
• Criminal damage – in particular damage caused by fire (‘arson’) 
• Unlawful metal detecting (‘nighthawking’) 
• Unlawful disturbance and salvage of maritime sites 
• Anti-social behaviour – in particular fly-tipping and off-road driving
• Unauthorised works to heritage assets
• Illicit trade in cultural objects

Some of these issues (e.g. lead theft from churches, so-called nighthawking, metal-detecting and the code of practice, off-road driving, and the illicit trade in cultural objects) have been covered by LM (and its sister blog, Heritage Futures) over a long period of time.

Public Archaeology and Looting Antiquities

2017

A new volume, Key Concepts in Public Archaeology, edited by Gabriel Moschenska of UCL has been published (UCL Press) [open access pdf].

Readers of LM will find some of the chapters of interest.

Paul Burtenshaw ("Economics in public archaeology", pp. 31–42) touches on how to reduce looting and preserve sites by showing the economic benefits of heritage through tourism.

Don Henson ("Archaeology and education", pp. 43–59) shows how education can be used to reduce the risk of looting.

Roger Bland, Michael Lewis, Daniel Pett, Ian Richardson, Katherine Robbins, and Rob Webley write on "The Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme in England and Wales" (pp. 107–121). They have a section on the Staffordshire Hoard with the subtitle, "archaeology captures the public imagination". The authors respond to criticisms (without citing any studies; see the Forum discussion in Papers from the Institute of Archaeology apparently unknown to the authors) that the scheme has not stopped illegal metal-detecting, described by the term "nighthawking". It would have been helpful for the authors to have discussed the case of the so-called Crosby Garrett helmet (but discussed by me in a later chapter) or the Lenborough Hoard.

I have a chapter on "The market for ancient art" (pp. 187–200). This includes sections on the scale of the market, suggesting that there have been over-estimates used. I also discuss metal-detecting, the impact of the Medici Conspiracy, and the fabrication of object histories.

Is PAS transforming our knowledge of the past in England and Wales?

There is a new online book, Key Concepts in Public Archaeology, edited by Gabriel Moshenska (UCL Press, 2017) [Introduction]. Among the essays (and not all have been published on the site: I am told that there will be second batch) is one by Roger Bland, Michael Lewis, Daniel Pett, Ian Richardson, Katherine Robbins and Rob Webley on "The Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme in England and Wales". It includes a section on the Staffordshire Hoard (though the so-called Crosby Garrett helmet and the Lenborough Hoard do not feature). The authors note that the hoard "appeals to a wide and diverse audience".

There is a discussion of the recording of finds, though no indication of the percentage of finds that are left unrecorded. The report touches on heritage crime:

It has sometimes been said as a criticism of PAS that it has not stopped illegal metal detecting in England and Wales, but this is for the simple fact that it was not intended to. This is an enduring problem and PAS staff are working closely with English Heritage’s Heritage Crime Initiative, which is run by a police inspector on secondment.

This is presumably an unsourced reference to the Forum piece for the Papers of the Institute of Archaeology entitled: "The Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Treasure Act: Protecting the Archaeology of England and Wales?" (available online). (I am informed that senior members of PAS were invited to respond but declined.) Or the allusion could be to other discussions and debates. Who knows? It is telling that the authors continue:

This has had considerable success in targeting illegal detector users, known as ‘nighthawks’. However, it is important to put nighthawking in perspective: a survey commissioned by English Heritage in 2008 found that on two measures (the numbers of scheduled sites attacked by illegal detector users and the number of archaeological units that reported nighthawking incidences on their excavations), the number of cases has declined since 1995, when a previous survey was carried out (Dobinson and Denison 1995; Oxford Archaeology 2009).

Note that the most recent reference is for 2009 to the "Nighthawking" report (and see comments here). A review article I prepared for Antiquity (2015) raised this very issue and highlighted contemporary examples of unauthorised digging on scheduled sites (online). Are the authors of the article unwilling to draw attention to such activities?

The ineffectiveness of the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act is noted.

The article makes mention of the 8,000-10,000 metal-detectorists who contribute to the reporting of finds ("contributor base"). This figures relates to a number Roger Bland produced in 2010. Does it need to be updated?

The article ends with a plea: "the PAS could benefit from more funding". But there needs to be a desire for the PAS to be seen to be protecting and preserving the rich archaeological heritage of England and Wales. And is this a realistic plea in an age of austerity?

Heritage Crime in England

#heritagecrimeconf closes-protecting heritage@britishlibrary @PoliceChiefs @HistoricEngland https://t.co/8j3ANx6VFZ pic.twitter.com/JYvjNQp1N3

— Herts Police (@HertsPolice) 11 April 2016

It will be interesting to read the text and presentations of some of the talks at the Heritage Crime conference held at the British Library. It is clear that there are concerns about the following areas:

a. Thefts from museum collections

b. Church lead theft

c. Damage to and removal of objects from scheduled and previously unrecorded archaeological sites

The topic of nighthawking / metal-detecting on scheduled sites came up at the All Party Committee on Cultural Property at Westminster last month. It is worth noting that the two representatives from a certain national museum were remarkably silent on the subject, while some of us were drawing attention to examples of damage in various counties across East Anglia. 

Operation Chronos in Essex

The police in Essex have announced the launch of Operation Chronos to combat what is described as nighthawking in the county (Will Lodge, "Essex Police leads national campaign targeting illegal treasure hunters", EADT July 20, 2015).

Assistant Chief Constable Julia Wortley, Essex Police lead on territorial policing, said: “So-called nighthawkers might think they’re no different to people who go metal-detecting for a hobby, but their actions damage the countryside, threaten our heritage and lead to the loss of important and invaluable national artefacts simply to satisfy the greed of a small group of criminals.” 

Pc Andy Long, wildlife, heritage and environmental crime officer at the force, added: “Most people who metal detect as a hobby abide to the law and codes of practice and have a love of the outdoors and history, respecting farmland and other surroundings. 

“Nighthawkers seriously damage that good reputation.”

The article reviews the events surrounding the Twinstead find of gold coins.

| |

Nighthawking and Hertfordshire

I note that Hertfordshire Constabulary have issued some guidance over 'nighthawking'. Over the county boundary in Essex a 'Heritage Watch' scheme has been launched.

Nighthawking and the BBC

The BBC has written an overview of so-called 'nighthawking' (Lauren Potts, "Digging for treasure: Is 'nighthawking' stealing our past?", 21 March 2015). There is discussion of recent digging adjacent to Hadrian's Wall.

Mark Harrison has described their activities:

"Some of these people are very happy to travel long distances, sometimes in groups. They use camouflage kit and sophisticated equipment with night vision and very powerful torches. 

"They're very well organised. This idea people have that they're just having a bit of fun and that they don't know what they're doing is something we need to dispel."

Interestingly I have just been writing on the topic of 'heritage crime' and the BBC report contrasts with some of the current 'academic' discourse.

An issue left undiscussed by Potts is the one explored in the forum article for the Papers of the Institute of Archaeology.

Searching heritage sites in Devon by night

Plympton police warning 'treasure hunters' not to break the law #HeritageCrime #Nighthawking http://t.co/ZezXcqMbIr @DC_PCC @DC_Police
— EH Heritage Crime (@EHHeritageCrime) February 16, 2015

It appears that a police officer apprehended an individual searching the Castle Green by torchlight at Plympton St Maurice in Devon. The site is recorded by English Heritage as follows "This garden or other land is registered under the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 within the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens by English Heritage for its special historic interest."

Is there a need to renew the debate about the need to protect heritage sites in England?

I am grateful to Paul Barford for drawing my attention to the incident.

| |

Heritage Crime and the need to protect Hadrian's Wall

Hadrian's Wall at Cawfields Crags © David Gill

It appears that illegal metal detecting has been taking place along the line of Hadrian's Wall in Northumberland (Tony Henderson, "Heritage crime concern on Hadrian's Wall because of illegal digging", Chronicle 10 February 2015). The hunting has taken place in the central section of the wall to the west of the well-preserved fort at Housesteads.

This is discussed in the wider context of 'Heritage Crime'.

Mark Harrison, English Heritage national crime advisor said: “The practice of nighthawking, particularly from such important sites as Hadrian’s Wall, is an issue that we take very seriously. 

“We recognise that the majority of the metal detecting community comply with the laws and regulations relating to the discovery and recovery of objects from the land, but just as it is against the law to break into someone’s house and steal their possessions, so it is illegal to damage land and steal valuable historical artefacts. 

“The objects they are stealing belong to the landowner, in this case the National Trust, and the history they are stealing belongs to all of us.”

Quarrying along the line of the wall in the 1920s and 1930s brought about a major shift in the attitude towards heritage monuments in their wider setting (see here). This deliberate damage to a world heritage monument should renew the discussion of how the finite archaeological record is being damaged in a quite deliberate way.

Elsewhere Harrison has called for 'research, debate and ultimately influence [to drive] the changes necessary to protect and preserve the world's cultural and historic environment'. How will Harrison and English Heritage seek to influence the necessary changes to protect our universal heritage?

Some of the issues were raised in the forum piece for the Papers of the Institute of Archaeology.

Rendlesham exhibition

Rendlesham opening at Sutton Hoo © David Gill

I attended the opening of the exhibition of finds from the Anglo-Saxon site at Rendlehsam last night. This took place at the National Trust's Sutton Hoo visitor centre. It was a glorious evening with talks on the discovery of the site and its interpretation.

It was stressed that Rendlesham was the elite site — perhaps the location of King Raewald —whereas Sutton Hoo related to "death and memory". It looks as if we now have two major Anglo-Saxon sites in close proximity.

What became clear during the evening was the damage that had been sustained to the site by "nighthawkers". (Before anybody comments, three local metal-detectorists were present at the event as they helped to map small finds in the vicinity of the site.)

There is more on the Rendlesham site from BBC News. The Ipswich Star has been commenting on the damage sustained to the site [press].

We need to recognise that this internationally significant site has been damaged by illicit activity. Information has been lost. It is another reminder of the intellectual consequences of unscientific "exploration" of archaeological sites.

Excavations matter in Norfolk

Caistor-St-Edmund © David Gill, 2012

It was good to visit the excavation outside the walls of the Roman town of Caistor-St-Edmund just outside Norwich. The stratified (and undisturbed) finds will help to reveal the history of the site.

I am reminded that the site was receiving weekly "nighthawking" raids as reported in the 2009 survey (see earlier comments).

Advocates of a so-called "licit market" in antiquities have yet to grasp the importance of objects excavated in a scientific manner.