Three years on from 'The Nighthawking Survey': innovations in heritage protection

Wilson, Pete; Harrison, Mark

doi:10.11141/ia.33.7

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Deckers, 2019;Deckers et al, 2016;Lees et al, 2015;Levada, 2013;Petkova, 2004;Rodr ıguez Temiño et al, 2019;Sayej, 2019;Trivedi, 2018). Thirdly, and most recently, archaeologists have analysed the hobby as a heritage phenomenon (Balco et al, 2018;Brodie, 2006;Dobat, 2013;Enqvist, 2014;Hart and Chilton, 2015;Thomas, 2012Thomas, , 2019Wessman et al, 2016;Wilson and Harrison, 2013). A concern for scholars contributing to the third category is to distance their work in some manner from the overtly normative framework and to provide more open-minded scholarship, which might ultimately serve heritage management interests in a better way.…”

Section: Metal Detecting As An Archaeological Concernmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metal detecting as a social formation: A longitudinal survey study from Finland

Immonen

Kinnunen

2020

Journal of Social Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hobby of metal detecting has mostly been examined from the perspectives of archaeology and heritage administration. Although fulfilling archaeological needs, such an approach neglects the social analysis of this pastime. In 2019, we conducted a survey of metal detector enthusiasts and heritage professionals in Finland, the results of which are compared with those of a corresponding survey carried out in 2014. Within five years, metal detecting has become an established practice, and following the Finnish custom, registered associations for amateurs have emerged to organize the field. This longitudinal survey highlights its importance to civil society, with regard to the ways in which metal detecting develops as a hobby and as a means for amateurs to engage with heritage management.

show abstract

Section: Metal Detecting As An Archaeological Concernmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metal detecting as a social formation: A longitudinal survey study from Finland

Immonen

Kinnunen

2020

Journal of Social Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some laws, such as the 1997 Treasure Act in England and Wales, even require the object's value to be identified as its market price. The Portable Antiquities Scheme uses this same reference for the valuation of metal objects found by detectorists that are acquired by museums or individuals [31,32]. Under Spanish law, it is highly unlikely that a find made with a metal detector will be considered a chance find.…”

Section: Decontextualized Movable Objectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, due to the impossibility of charging them with criminal damage, since the site was not especially protected, they were acquitted [49]. In other cases in the UK, although they have not been explained in detail, the sole criterion for assessing damage seems to have been the market value [32]. Something similar seems to be standard practice in Estonia [50].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Damage to Archaeological Heritage in Criminal and Administrative Proceedings

Temiño

2019

Heritage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The economic assessment of damage to movable and immovable objects considered part of archaeological heritage is a matter of increasing interest, both at the legal level and in terms of government management. The primary reason for this interest is the urgent need to agree on a sound and reliable approach to economically quantifying not so much the cultural value of the damage caused as the civil liability for having caused it in those cases in which it was produced by a harmful human act. Assessment methods require a broad consensus to be considered reliable. The lack of consideration given to this matter has only made the absence of such a consensus more acute. This paper offers a mainly Spanish case-based analysis of the most common valuation methods for both movable and immovable archaeological objects. With regard to movable objects, it examines the problems involved in both the exclusive use of an object’s market price as its cultural value and the lack of justification for the chosen valuation system, concluding that current methods are insufficient. This insufficiency, also perceived by the authors of the expert reports used in the analyzed proceedings, has been dealt with arbitrarily. With regard to immovable object, it concludes that the systems currently used to assess the damage to sites are likewise insufficient, despite having been legally acknowledged in some cases. This paper will thus examine the methods used in environmental assessments—whose parallels with archaeological heritage are clear—and proposes that they be adapted for this purpose.

show abstract

“…Heritage crime ranges from the theft of lead from listed buildings (English Heritage, 2011); to ‘nighthawking’ (the illegal metal detecting upon, and the removal of artefacts from, archaeological sites); to vandalism committed upon heritage sites (Wilson and Harrison, 2013). Even ‘harmless’ acts of so called ‘play vandalism’ such as graffiti (Cohen, 1973) become more serious when committed against heritage assets, as graffiti removal destroys the historical fabric of the asset in question (Shelbourn, 2014).…”

Section: What Is Heritage Crime?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Police practitioners and place managers’ understandings and perceptions of heritage crime in Nottinghamshire

Poyser

2017

International Journal of Police Science & Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

‘So you know, as daft as it sounds, if you’ve got a building, that really isn’t a priority, is it?’ Despite the wealth of heritage sites in the UK, the topic is a marginalised area of criminological study here. It has been argued that there is discordance between the concepts of ‘heritage’ and ‘crime’. One is holistic; the other set in the law. Through a programme of semi-structured interviews with ‘heritage place managers’ and questionnaires delivered to neighbourhood policing teams in Nottinghamshire Police, this research aimed to examine this clash. In particular, it aimed to compare and contrast heritage place managers’ understandings and experiences of heritage crime with those of police practitioners. It was found that the two groups differed markedly in this respect, creating feelings of frustration and stagnation for both. Such findings are of particular concern in the light of statistics which demonstrate that heritage crime is occurring frequently across the UK, and evidence that offenders are targeting new heritage assets and sites in response to changing legislation. Budget cuts, which continue to impact upon policing priorities in Nottinghamshire, further compound the problem. The conclusion of this article details the potential impacts of these findings and suggests changes relating to both the heritage and policing sectors.

show abstract

Three years on from 'The Nighthawking Survey': innovations in heritage protection

Cited by 8 publications

References 1 publication

Metal detecting as a social formation: A longitudinal survey study from Finland

Metal detecting as a social formation: A longitudinal survey study from Finland

Assessing Damage to Archaeological Heritage in Criminal and Administrative Proceedings

Police practitioners and place managers’ understandings and perceptions of heritage crime in Nottinghamshire

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About