EAA Barcelona Call for Papers

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.

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.

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.

Since metal detecting started in Austria in 1970, the National Heritage Agency (BDA) has focussed too much on prohibiting metal detecting. The strategy chosen, increasingly restrictive legislation, has turned out to be a failure. Rather than improving the protection of archaeological heritage from ‚unauthorised‘ metal detecting, the ‚hobby‘ has grown steadily. Yet, the changes to the law have made protecting archaeology more difficult and are restricting civil liberties, quite possibly making the law itself illegal. Five decades on, Austrian archaeology isn‘t better off, but considerably worse, and it is mainly our attempts to prevent metal detecting that are to blame.

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.

Archaeologists in England and Wales have a long tradition of liaising with metal-detectorists, particularly following the reform of Treasure law and advent of the Portable Antiquities Scheme-a project to record archaeological finds discovered by the public. Although this process of dialogue has been seen by most as productive and mutually beneficial, there still remain issues that divide archaeologists and detectorists. This paper will highlight some of these with a view to possible solutions.

Open archaeology, 2016

Présenté comme un loisir inoffensif uniquement motivé par un intérêt pour le passé et l'Histoire, la détection de métaux représente un danger invisible pour le patrimoine. Depuis le vote de la loi de 1989, il est interdit en France d'utiliser un détecteur sans autorisation administrative. Cependant, la réglementation possède des failles et la loi est régulièrement flouée, même si les dernières années ont été le témoin de procès assortis de condamnations. Les détectoristes déclarent qu'ils ne sont pas des pilleurs et qu'ils veulent participer à la recherche archéologique, mais la frontière entre le "bon détectoriste" et le pilleur est floue. Malgré une législation restrictive, il semble que la détection sera toujours pratiquée et que nous devons faire avec. Ainsi, certains archéologues français sont d'accord pour enregistrer les découvertes des détectoristes, afin de limiter la perte de données. Cependant, en faisant cela, ils participent involontairement au cercle vicieux du pillage et de la dilapidation du passé commun. Ils fournissent aux détectoristes une justification pour creuser toujours plus profond afin de mettre au jour des artefacts, et donnent une valeur ajoutée aux trouvailles de détection qui se retrouvent sur le marché noir. La protection de notre patrimoine ne sera efficace que lorsque ces archéologues arrêteront d'outrepasser les règles en pratiquant une "archéologie de l'objet" à la manière des savants du XIXe siècle.

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.

Historical Archaeology, 1998

2017

European University organised a round-table discussion. Many people are interested in searching for archaeological treasures, and the metal detector is one of the modern tools that can be used for this purpose. Yet not everyone is permitted to work with metal-detecting instruments. For private individuals, seeking finds at archaeological sites is actually illegal because, as they collect the items they seek, they destroy the sites. Only archaeologists are permitted to move objects at archaeological sites, and even they may only do so with a permit and with appropriate documentation. At the same time, the profession of archaeology has recognised the possible role that metal detectors and their highly-skilled amateur operators can play in modern research. The conversation concerned the new situation created by an amendment to the legislation regulating heritage protection, which has created an opportunity for amateur metal-detector operators to participate in archaeological research, and there are already several good examples of that form of cooperation. We invited to join the discussion archaeologists, museum managers and metal detector operators with experience and results in this field, whose collaboration may serve as an example for similar future initiatives.