Metal-detector users affiliated to museums: building a model of community archaeology in Pest County (original) (raw)
Related papers
Archaeological Heritage and Metal Detectors: Should We Be Managing Supply or Demand?
Andalusian legislation prohibits unauthorised intervention on archaeological sites, whether by professional archaeologists conducting excavations or amateurs searching for archaeological objects with metal detectors. The use of these devices is only permitted for research teams or in places where there is no reason to expect archaeological remains to be found. Violations of these provisions are punishable with fines and the confiscation of devices. Contrary to the popular belief of many northern European archaeologists who write about this issue, the underlying reasoning for these restrictions is not the regular use of such devices to obtain major archaeological spoils, much less a mistrust between professional archaeologists and amateurs, but rather reasons of an axiological nature. (1) The law establishes the public ownership of archaeological heritage as a social good, the value of which supersedes private interests and the right to private property. (2) The law also provides that archaeological heritage is a finite and non-renewable resource and establishes the obligation to transmit this heritage to future generations. (3) The law promotes archaeological activities guided by an interest in historical knowledge rather than the mere pleasure of locating ‘treasure’. The regular enforcement of this policy has led to both a decline in the number of detector users freely seeking archaeological remains at archaeological sites and a proliferation of detector users on beaches. It has also encouraged the integration of detectorists in archaeological research teams. This model emphasises demand management, based on the understanding that archaeological heritage is a finite, non-renewable resource. It thus stands in contrast to other models that aim to manage supply.
Heritage for Sale! The Role of Museums in Promoting Metal Detecting and Looting in Romania
Heritage 2018, 1(2), 2018
The phenomenon of metal detecting in Romania is growing rapidly, with more and more cases being registered every year. In a context where there is less money for archaeological research, museums are relying more and more on discoveries made by metal detectorists in order to enrich their collections. This situation encourages the practice, and in time could have damaging effects on the archaeological heritage of Romania. Metal detecting represents an activity that has raised lots of debate, but the authorities have not yet taken action. Thus, this study is necessary: in order to find a middle ground between metal detectorists, archaeology, and the institutions responsible for the protection of heritage. Such a middle ground could be a bridge that leads to the better preservation of archaeological heritage in Romania. This study focuses on creating a policy to protect the archaeological sites of Romania, creating awareness among local communities as well as a policy that could be applicable elsewhere in other places that are also involved in this sort of activity.
Rational Grounds for Dialogue Between Archaeologists and Metal Detectorists in Spain
The sudden emergence of metal-detector users and subsequent swelling of their numbers rocked the field of professional archaeology due to the impact that the use of metal detectors has on the conservation of archaeological heritage. The situation has led to confrontation, polarisation and mistrust on both sides. These problems are particularly severe in countries such as Spain, where the law does not allow the unauthorised use of these devices. However, merely enforcing the law is not enough to resolve such conflicts, just as encouraging ‘treasure hunting’ is no solution either. This paper uses sociological models to explain the lack of communication and distance between the two groups with a view to finding principles that can be used to establish rational grounds for communication. Here ‘rational grounds’ is understood to mean foundations that will enable the convergence of the different interests whilst at the same time respecting the social function of archaeological heritage. To this end, a model is suggested based on a new wave of scientific communication aimed at including detectorists in archaeological research projects.
AP: online Journal in Public Archaeology, 2013
The use of metal detectors is an important issue in the management and protection of archaeological heritage. However, metal detectors have been generally tagged as a tool for looting more than a tool for research or protection. Their use has evolved in a way that is now considered a problem in many countries, and each country takes a different path to tackle it. From prohibition to indulgence, there is no clear idea of what is the best way to deal with this problem. The forum at hand is a starting point for a debate on the topic of looting; it presents several perspectives on the use and misuse of metal detectors and the consequences for archaeological heritage, together with a broader perspective on looting in those countries where metal detectors are not a fundamental tool for finding archaeological remains. We deliberately avoided to include the well-known system that is being used in England through the PAS (see latest, Campbell 2013), as we preferred to present other, lesser-known examples from Europe and America; cases from Spain, Moldova, Flanders (Belgium), Estonia, Mexico, Bolivia, and Peru provide different viewpoints and examples, as well as the latest developments. This is only an outline of the forum, and we welcome new papers from different countries as well as answers to those included in this volume.
2016
Despite several international charters/conventions and agreements that were adopted in order to fight the illicit import or export of antiquities, this problem has never ceased to exist. Conventions as the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property or the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, as well as ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums 1986 and bilateral agreements in order to stop the export and import of cultural property, as well as to facilitate the return of stolen antiquities as for example the bilateral agreement between United States and Italy signed on January 19 2001 (Park 2002, 948) are meant to decrease the illicit trade. As we can observe, the conventions and other treaties deal only with the import or export of antiquities, but how can looting be stopped if the trade of antiquities happens only inside of the country? This kind of practice is popular all around the world, and Romania does not represent an exception. But Romania represents a particular case, where looting has turned into a hobby that is seen as having the potential to create income for amateur archaeologists. Since 2012 this metal detecting has become more and more popular to the point where in the country, besides the individual “performers” of this hobby, there are also well organized NGOs of amateur archaeologists, with their own databases.
Open Archaeology, 2016
The paper discusses the issue of the use of metal detectors in Poland in its legal and practical aspects. The possession and the use of metal detectors in Poland is legal, but to search for portable monuments a permit is required. All historical and archaeological finds belong to the State. Detectorists, whose number is estimated to over 50,000, commonly break the law by conducting illegal searches and by appropriation of the discovered objects. This paper describes legal and illegal activities of the detectorist community, giving numerous examples. The authors address the issue of prospects of cooperation between archaeologists and detectorists and comment on the attempts of the latter to depreciate archaeology and the principles of modern heritage management, as well as their rivalry with professional researchers. The authors believe that archaeologists should, therefore, speak and act for archaeology and heritage, instead of accepting the views of the detectorists. The paper also...