Sleeping with the “Enemy” Metal Detecting Hobbyists and Archaeologists (original) (raw)
Related papers
This paper will consider the positive contribution from hobbyist metal detecting from both the perspective of the archaeological and metal detecting community. Are we currently opting for a path of least resistance with a 'better than nothing' approach to encourage reporting and to maintain good working relationships, even if it risks the loss of valuable archaeological information? Using selected case studies, as well as the results of a recent research project, this paper will draw on the perspective of both archaeologists and hobbyist metal detectorists to further understand what it is to have a responsible and constructive nonprofessional interaction with the archaeological record.
Lost in Translation: Discussing the Positive Contribution of Hobbyist Metal Detecting
Open Archaeology, 2016
This paper will consider the positive contribution from hobbyist metal detecting from both the perspective of the archaeological and metal detecting community. Are we currently opting for a path of least resistance with a ‘better than nothing’ approach to encourage reporting and to maintain good working relationships, even if it risks the loss of valuable archaeological information? Using selected case studies, as well as the results of a recent research project, this paper will draw on the perspective of both archaeologists and hobbyist metal detectorists to further understand what it is to have a responsible and constructive nonprofessional interaction with the archaeological record.
Metal-detector users affiliated to museums: building a model of community archaeology in Pest County
The current legal framework governing the use of metal detectors is characterised by its strictness. Even the employees of heritage protection institutions may only perform instrumental surveys of archaeological sites under comprehensive official control. Such rigour is understandable given that the use of metal detectors results in a very significant proportion of the archaeological material hidden underground, which forms a part of the nation's assets, being either destroyed or transferred to private collections, often abroad, meaning that their value is lost as items of material and cultural history. The most important condition that private individuals contemplating the use of a metal detector must meet is the conclusion of a cooperation agreement with the museum responsible for the area in question. With that provision, the law has delegated the responsibility for overseeing activities with metal detectors to museums. The recent legislation has presented a new challenge to the decision-makers of the institutions concerned, and the experiences of the last few years indicate that no national consensus has been reached on the issues. Museums with local collection areas apply various rules and practices in their respective catchment areas, and that introduces additional confusion into an already opaque situation. Within the framework laid out in the legislation, our institution is attempting to develop a model that is capable of turning activities conducted at the fringe of the archaeological profession, partly illegally, into an asset that serves heritage protection. We are quite aware that only a programme built on solid scientific foundations and long-term cooperation can really furnish an alternative to the pillaging of archaeological sites. We can increase social awareness of the value of heritage protection by setting an example, and not through rigid rejection.
Metal Detection, An Essential Remote Sensing Approach for Historical Archaeologists
Reviews in Colorado Archaeology
Over the last thirty years, metal detection has become an essential tool in historical archaeology, yet the majority of archaeologists still know relatively little about metal detectors. In this review we trace the increasing use of metal detectors in archaeological survey and research following several notable successes in archaeological surveys that proved their worth. To understand the differences between the two basic types of metal detectors used by archaeologists we briefly explain how they function and what their relative strengths and weaknesses are for archaeological research. Metal detectors are most commonly used in archaeological survey and after offering examples of how they have proved useful in recent Colorado research we lay out a methodology for a successful metal detection survey. In many ways the survey techniques, sampling designs, and intensive data recovery principles for metal detection work are akin to those principles and techniques used in standard archaeol...
Testing Metal Detector Methodology in Archaeology
2020
This thesis focuses on testing metal detector methodology at the eighteenth-century colonial site of Hobcaw North on the coast of South Carolina. In recent decades metal detectors have become an accepted part of the archaeological toolkit, yet their use is generally limited to the role of site discovery and delineation. With the goal of broadening the role of metal detector use, several research questions were designed to test what other methodological approaches can be utilized. These questions build upon the foundation of an intensive, full-coverage metal detector survey previously conducted at Hobcaw North. The first question looks at the utility of screening soil to recover non-metallic artifacts when excavating the targeted metallic object. The next question compares the full-coverage metal detector survey to two versions of a less intensive metal detector survey and a shovel test survey in order to see what differences there are in any revealed artifact patterning between these methods. The final question looks at whether a metal detector survey can reveal information about artifact patterning, how the inclusion of non-metallic artifacts alters interpretations, and if the results can be used to effectively guide test unit placement. The results of this study show that there is room for innovation in metal detecting methodology.
The Archaeological Impacts of Metal Detecting
Open Archaeology, 2019
In a comment on two recent articles on the archaeological impacts of metal detecting, this paper advocates clearer and more valid measures of those impacts and more nuanced classification of the legal and cultural environments in which metal detecting takes place. The need to rely on open-source, online data for transnational analysis makes the former challenging but not impossible. Using the example of Canada, the paper shows that jurisdictional and other complexities make simple "permissive" and "restrictive/prohibitive" dichotomies unhelpful, and suggests using multivariate analysis that accounts for such factors as presumption of ownership, locations of metal detecting, availability of finds reporting, and whether heritage legislation concerns artifacts or only sites. This is essential for development of sound, evidence-based policy on the metal-detecting hobby.
The Phenomenology of Metal Detecting: Insights from a Unique Type of Landscape Experience
Metal detecting is a unique way of experiencing the historic landscape, allowing many amateurs to access heritage hands-on in a way that would otherwise be impossible, locating and unearthing their own fragment of the archaeological record. With a conservative estimate of 15,000 people currently detecting in the UK, and 1,122,998 objects recorded to date (October 2015) on the Portable Antiquities Scheme database since its inception in 1997, England’s historic places are being walked, searched and mapped by a significantly-sized population whose enthusiasm would be better off integrated into heritage programming, than rebuffed by it and misdirected elsewhere. Achieving this would not only have potential financial benefits for the sector, where cuts are prevalent, but also see the kind of community engagement that is regularly discussed but not often arrived at. Research by the author has shown that the majority of metal detectorists operating in the UK are members of clubs or societies with a local focus; 86% of detectorists (club members, or independent) report that they detect close to home. With a strong attachment to their home area and a good understanding of local history, the conscientious amongst them have been searching the same area for decades, building up a unique resource of artefactual and spatial data that informs a complex milieu of perception. These detectorists generate a unique attachment to the landscape on which they search – producing links between their own experienced version of the landscape and their perceived version of how it was experienced in the past, thus creating a very particular type of place-making. This paper begins by setting out the phenomenological method and the implications of this for studying the perception of landscape, before using qualitative and quantitative data from the author’s research into the attitudes of metal detectorists to consider what this means for metal detecting within a perceived landscape and, by association, how heritage professionals might best approach the issue.
Biting the bullet: the role of hobbyist metal detecting within battlefield archaeology
Internet Archaeology, 2013
In the UK battlefields are becoming more frequently associated with the label 'heritage at risk'. As the concept of battlefield and conflict archaeology has evolved, so too has the recognition that battlefields are dynamic, yet fragile, archaeological landscapes in need of protection. The tangible evidence of battle is primarily identified by distributions of artefacts held within the topsoil, such as lead projectiles, weapon fragments or buttons torn from clothing; debris strewn in the heat of battle. Much of the battlefield therefore remains as a faint footprint, and where it survives, may provide valuable information, if recorded accurately. The unrecorded removal of artefacts from battlefields and other sites of conflict is a key issue in the management and conservation of this unique archaeological heritage. With a particular focus on current doctoral research, this paper aims to address the role of metal detecting in the UK as an important factor in this equation, having both a positive and negative impact to battlefield archaeology. Furthermore it will also consider the nature of metal detecting on UK battlefields; the perceived value of battle related artefacts; the quality of information available for the recording of material from such sites, and what may cooperatively be achieved.