Towards a Cooperative Approach to Hobby Metal Detecting ... · Towards a Cooperative Approach to Hobby Metal Detecting: The European Public Finds Recording Network (EPFRN) Vision

Towards a Cooperative Approach toHobby Metal Detecting: The EuropeanPublic Finds Recording Network(EPFRN) Vision Statement

ANDRES S. DOBAT1 , PIETERJAN DECKERS

1 , STIJN HEEREN2 ,

MICHAEL LEWIS3, SUZIE THOMAS

4AND ANNA WESSMAN

4

1School of Culture and Society, University of Aarhus, Denmark2Faculty of Humanities, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands3Portable Antiquities Scheme, The British Museum, London, UK4Department of Cultures, University of Helsinki, Finland

Hobby metal detecting is a controversial subject. Legal and policy approaches differ widely across nationaland regional contexts, and the attitudes of archaeologists and heritage professionals towards detectoristsare often polarized and based on ethical or emotive arguments. We, the European Public FindsRecording Network (EPFRN), have implemented collaborative approaches towards detectorist communi-ties in our respective contexts (Denmark, England and Wales, Finland, Flanders, and the Netherlands).Although our motivations are affected by our national circumstances, we base our work on an agreed setof goals, practices, and visions. This article presents the EPFRN’s vision statement and provides insightinto its underlying thoughts. We hope to create a debate on how to develop best practice approaches thatacknowledge the inherent challenges of hobby metal detecting while realizing its potential.

Keywords: heritage protection, metal detecting, finds, digital archaeology, historic environment,crowdsourcing, citizen science

INTRODUCTION

Hobby metal detecting for archaeologicalobjects is a contentious issue, not least inEurope. Especially since the 1990s, theactivity has increased in popularity, andthere is little prospect of this reversing.On the contrary, it is more likely that itsincreasing profile, through the press andsocial media, will increase the current‘metal detector boom’ experienced in manycountries in future.The opinions and attitudes of archaeol-

ogists towards (and against) hobby metaldetecting are often polarized, while legal

and policy approaches differ greatly acrossjurisdictions, ranging from highly restrict-ive to liberal or even supportive, and manynuances in between (Figure 1). Like metaldetecting itself, they are highly internal tothe different European countries orregions and legislations (Bland, 2005;Scheschkewitz, 2013; Makowska et al.,2016; Deckers, 2019).Controlling hobby metal detecting may

be a justified policy choice in some con-texts. Far too numerous are the examplesof heritage sites from all periods acrossEurope which have been plundered byillegal or irresponsible detectorists in

European Journal of Archaeology 23 (2) 2020, 272–292

© European Association of Archaeologists 2020 doi:10.1017/eaa.2020.1Manuscript received 12 April 2019,accepted 06 January 2020, revised 6 September 2019

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2020.1Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 10 Jul 2020 at 05:20:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

search of artefacts for their own personalcollections or for sale (Lecroere, 2016;Ganciu, 2018), or even in ignorance. Toprotect sites from illegal detecting, theValletta Convention on the Protection ofthe Archaeological Heritage (Valletta,1992: article 3,iii) recommends thatmember states control the use of metaldetectors by non-professionals by makingit subject to prior authorization (by theofficial heritage sector). Intriguingly, thenational responses to that injunction havebeen diverse.Over the past years, the heritage sectors

in many European countries have pouredsignificant resources into the enforcementof legal restrictions against hobby detect-ing, and into raising awareness of the pro-blems relating to illegal metal detecting,not least among representatives of the lawenforcement authorities. Despite theseefforts, the effectiveness of a ban on orsevere restriction of hobby metal detectingto safeguard cultural heritage can be ques-tioned. The enforcement of heritage legis-lation remains a matter of low priority,especially under the current politicalclimate of cutbacks to enforcement agen-cies. Furthermore, while the media in

countries with restrictive policies highlightthe few convictions of ‘treasure hunters’caught in the act, many other detectoristscontinue practising metal detecting with-out being prosecuted (e.g. Ulst, 2010;Huth, 2013: 134; Karl & Möller, 2016;Gundersen et al., 2016). Here we arguethat illegal and irresponsible metaldetecting cannot be policed effectivelyby legislation alone. Indeed, restrictivelegislation might just offer a comfortingillusion that cultural heritage is being pro-tected, while thousands of finds areretrieved by detectorists (and probablyothers) without the prospect of ever beingrecorded.This dilemma has led to a tacit accept-

ance of illegal hobby metal detecting inmany contexts. In others, it has promptedpragmatic approaches, trying to make thebest of this situation. In dealing with thephenomenon of hobby metal detecting inour respective legal and cultural contexts,we, the authors and members of theEuropean Public Finds Recording Network(EPFRN hereafter), have taken a stepbeyond pragmatism through adopting acooperative approach towards the detector-ist communities. It emphasizes cooperation

Figure 1. Metal detector users in a permissive context (Denmark 2015), operating in open andintensely cultivated landscapes. Photograph: Allan Faurskov.

Dobat et al. – Towards a Cooperative Approach to Hobby Metal Detecting 273

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2020.1Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 10 Jul 2020 at 05:20:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

and participation and aims to realize thepotential of hobby metal detecting for thebenefit of archaeological research.We have found common ground in a

set of guiding objectives and visions, underthe heading of the EPFRN’s vision state-ment (see below). With this article, weintroduce our views and provide insightsinto its founding thoughts and principles.This leads to an argument in favour of aliberal policy choice and a cooperativeapproach, which we have found to be themost productive response to the metaldetecting phenomenon, at least in ourrespective national and regional contexts.We hope to stimulate what we consider anecessary debate about how Europeanarchaeology can develop more constructiveapproaches towards hobby metal detecting.

IMPLEMENTING A COOPERATIVE

APPROACH: THE EPFRN RECORDING

SCHEMES

Cooperation between the heritage sectorand hobby detectorists is not new, noris it exclusive to the contexts presentedin this article. Similar approaches, devisedto include responsible detectorists inresearch projects or other controlled activ-ities, are increasingly being endorsed else-where, even in countries where hobbydetecting is otherwise controlled or evenprohibited (Majchczack, 2016; Rácz, 2017;Komoróczy et al., 2017; Ganciu, 2018;Günther, 2019).We who endorse the EPFRN’s vision

statement all work under regimes ofheritage protection that permit metal-detecting in most circumstances, thusnecessitating engagement with that com-munity. Although we are based in differ-ent national contexts, we all are rooted inWestern/Northern European culturalheritage management traditions and atti-tudes towards public inclusion and

cooperation. However, values and atti-tudes towards heritage among the publicand detectorists as well as the wider socialand cultural preconditions for engagingmetal detector communities may differsignificantly across Europe.A unique aspect of our approach has

been the development and provision of onlinedigital schemes facilitating the recording ofmetal-detected and other non-profession-ally-discovered finds; it involves both non-professionals and professionals and makesthese finds accessible to all. All the schemeslisted in Table 1 have either been initiatedor are currently directed by members of theEPFRN (for more information, see https://www.helsinki.fi/en/networks/european-public-finds-recording-network).There are marked differences in legisla-

tion and attitudes towards metal detectingin England, Wales, Flanders, theNetherlands, Denmark, and Finland. Thenational schemes function differently andare characterized by varying degrees of userinclusion in the recording process. Theyalso have very different histories. ThePortable Antiquities Scheme (PAS), forexample, was established as early as 1997.Others are comparably young or still indevelopment. Similarly, while, for example,the Portable Antiquities of the Netherlands(PAN) scheme functions within a legalsystem that grants ownership rights overcultural property to individuals, manyhistorically significant finds recorded inthe Danish Digitale Metaldetektorfund(DIME) scheme are considered property ofthe state. A discussion of these recordingschemes’ background and impact, however,cannot be undertaken here and we refer toTable 1 where a detailed introduction tothe individual schemes via links and refer-ences is given.What the schemes have in common is

their operational aim: to provide a portalfor digital recording and, hence, digitalpreservation of metal detector (and other

274 European Journal of Archaeology 23 (2) 2020

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2020.1Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 10 Jul 2020 at 05:20:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

public) finds (Figure 2). More specifically,all the schemes share the following elements:

. making finds and contextual data access-ible to the general public and for research;

. applying the principle of ‘user engage-ment’ and crowdsourcing, in order toimplement the ambitions of the FaroConvention (Faro, 2005);

. promoting the idea that human valuesshould be at the centre of cultural heri-tage and that all people should be ableto participate in all aspects of culturalheritage management.

The schemes are technological solutionsusing a digital recording process, which has

become increasingly relevant in the wakeof the digital revolution and the rise of‘big data’. This has led to an increasedemphasis on finds data instead of physicalobjects. In England and Denmark, forexample, metal detector finds cannot nowbe ignored by those engaged in seriousarchaeological research (Figure 3). Theschemes also fulfil an important socialfunction by facilitating public inclusionand participation in the archaeologicalprocess. Beyond this, they act as com-munication platforms, informing andeducating users on various aspects of arch-aeological practice and the treatment ofobjects (Portable Antiquities Advisory

Table 1. Overview of the finds recording schemes constituting the EPFRN and their context andbackground. For more detailed introduction to the individual schemes follow the links or view references.

Name RegionInstitutionalanchorage Link

Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) England andWales

British Museum andNational MuseumWales

https://finds.org.uk/https://museum.wales/portable-antiquities-scheme-in-wales/see Lewis, 2016

MEDEA Flanders Free UniversityBrussels/Historiesvzw

https://vondsten.be/see Deckers et al.,2016

Portable Antiquities of the Netherlands(PAN)

TheNetherlands

Vrije UniversiteitAmsterdam

https://www.portable-antiquities.nl/see Kars & Heeren,2018

DIME: Digitale Metaldetektorfund Denmark Aarhus University https://dime.au.dk/see Dobat et al.,2019a

SuALT: The Finnish Archaeological FindsRecording Linked Open Database(Löytösampo/ FindSampo)

Finland University ofHelsinki, AaltoUniversity, andFinnish HeritageAgency

Under development,see: https://blogs.hel-sinki.fi/sualt-project/see Wessman et al.,2019

Dobat et al. – Towards a Cooperative Approach to Hobby Metal Detecting 275

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2020.1Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 10 Jul 2020 at 05:20:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Group, 2017; Portable Antiquities of theNetherlands, 2019).More recently, the EPFRN and indi-

vidual members of the network havejoined the EU Framework ProgrammeHORIZON 2020-funded ARIADNEpluspartnership (Ariadne, 2019), which aims tointegrate the contents of our respectiveschemes into the ARIADNEplus researchinfrastructure to facilitate research and otherpossible uses of the data across modernnational boundaries.

METAL DETECTOR COMPLEXITIES

For us, hobby metal detecting coversmetal detecting outside a controlled arch-aeological excavation, primarily in pursuitof leisure (see Ferguson, 2013 whodescribes the hobby as ‘serious leisure’ inreference to Stebbins, 1992). Assessing the

scale and nature of hobby detecting onnational or regional levels, and document-ing developments over time, have proved tobe complex matters. Netnographic studies,focusing on social media, have been shownto result in heavily biased and unreliableabsolute numbers (Hardy, 2017), beyondindicating that legal regimes seem to havelittle impact on the number of activedetector users in a given context (Karl &Möller, 2016). Estimates for specificcountries can be drawn from a variety ofsources (e.g. Thomas, 2012; Hardy, 2017;Immonen & Kinnunen, 2017; Dobatet al., 2019a). What is beyond doubt isthat hobby detecting will remain animportant issue in all European countries,in both liberal and restrictive contexts.Perhaps more worrying is the lack of reli-able data on the scale and the impact ofdetecting that, in many countries, has ser-iously hampered the formulation of

Figure 2. The recording of finds through the PAS for England and Wales is based on a regionalnetwork of finds liaison officers (FLOs) establishing trustful relationships with finders. Here LauraBurnett (Somerset FLO) is examining a detector user’s finds. Photograph: courtesy of the PAS.

276 European Journal of Archaeology 23 (2) 2020

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2020.1Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 10 Jul 2020 at 05:20:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

appropriate responses. Metal detectoristsare only one of many groups with a legit-imate interest in archaeology, but thegrowing community of detectorists has aprofound and direct impact on archaeo-logical heritage, as it is they who are

making most archaeological discoveriesoutside a controlled environment.Detectorist motivation constitutes a

second factor, after scale. An importantelement of the polarized debates on detect-ing among heritage professionals is the

Figure 3. Cultural connections across the North Sea and modern national boundaries as reflected in thedistribution of Viking Age composite disc brooches with Jelling style ornamentation (Jeppesen, 2011).Maps like these would be impossible to create without the permissive approaches towards hobby metaldetecting and finds recording practices in England and Denmark. Image: Louise Hilmar.

Dobat et al. – Towards a Cooperative Approach to Hobby Metal Detecting 277

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2020.1Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 10 Jul 2020 at 05:20:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

simplistic dichotomy between ‘good’ and‘bad’ detectorists. The ‘good’ practitionersare assumed to be driven by a desire tocontribute to the scientific process ofwriting local or national history and striv-ing towards professional recognition oftheir findings, whereas the ‘bad’ ones arescorned as mere ‘treasure hunters’ or,worse, looters. Both types exist, but detec-torists are a very heterogeneous group,with many somewhere in between theseextremes (see e.g. Thomas, 2016).Indubitably, some detectorists, including

in the contexts in which we find ourselvesworking, are primarily driven by financialmotivations or the desire to build privatecollections. Possibly, some of these detec-torists have no or little interest in cooperat-ing with the professional heritage sector orin following the various codes of practicefor responsible metal detecting (see e.g.Meller, 2004; Gill, 2010; RodríguezTemiño & Roma Valdés, 2015). Forothers, however, the primary motivationappears to be the desire simply to hold apiece of tangible history and engage withthe past in a first-hand, active fashion. Forsome, detecting is just another physicalactivity in the great outdoors, and othersare attracted by the social contacts thehobby affords. Finally, there are those forwhom detecting is more of a personalproject, fulfilling a need to ‘get out of thehouse’ and find some mental relaxation(e.g. Thomas et al., 2015; Winkley, 2016;Immonen & Kinnunen, 2017; Dobat et al.,2019b; Wessman, forthcoming).In whatever way one hopes to engage

with metal detecting, it is crucial to under-stand the nuances of these motivations.Detectorists across Europe are influencedby their respective national, cultural, andsocial contexts; their activities are shapedby the nature of the landscape, the archaeo-logical record and heritage policy, as well asby their socio-economic backgrounds andcommunity identities. Recognizing this

multitude of contributing factors is animportant prerequisite for engaging withdetectorists and a necessary step in thedevelopment of appropriate policies.Impact constitutes our third partial

unknown. Here too the debate is muddledby binary oppositions that obscure allnuance: liberal/restrictive, licit/illicit, respon-sible/irresponsible. We argue that thesehamper discussions about the potential con-tribution or threat of hobby detecting. Arestrictive legislation precludes the possibil-ity of detecting in (what the EPFRN mightconsider) a responsible manner, and mayresult in more, rather than less, illicit activ-ity, particularly if it remains unenforced.Conversely, even the most liberal policies inEurope do not allow detecting in all loca-tions and under all circumstances. Moreuseful from our perspective, especially whenit comes to developing a best practice policyand recommendations, is an identificationof destructive and constructive practices andbehaviours among detecting communities.Exchanging information about these prac-tices is of equal importance: detecting com-munities are not necessarily aware of thebasic rules of best archaeological practice, soproper communication of preferred practicesis key in any future approach to the phe-nomenon. This is only possible whenarchaeologists reach out to detectorists andthe public at large.

EXPLAINING THE VISION

Knowledge gain

In countries with a long tradition of liberalpolicies (such as Denmark or England),accumulated data on detector finds havelong demonstrated their potential assources of information on various aspects ofpast societies. For some fields of research,the evidence of hobby metal detector findsmade available for research has radically

278 European Journal of Archaeology 23 (2) 2020

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2020.1Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 10 Jul 2020 at 05:20:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

altered traditional views and led to entirelynew pictures of the past; examples includesupra-regional networks of production andexchange, settlement landscapes, or moreabstract concepts, such as identity, gender,and religion (see e.g. Worrell et al., 2010;Deckers, 2012; Dobat, 2013; Oksanen &Lewis, 2015) (e.g. Figure 3).Metal detector finds were once (and in

some contexts still are) argued to be oflimited scientific value, compared to‘proper’ archaeological finds, due to a lackof contextual information. The lack of anarrowly defined context does imposecertain limits and requires a special analyt-ical approach compared to excavated mater-ial. Work on the PAS dataset in particularhas led to a thorough understanding of thevarious biases affecting the distribution ofdetector finds (Robbins, 2013; Oksanen &Lewis, 2015). In addition, a growing bodyof scholarly work demonstrates thatdetector find assemblages (like surface findsrecovered during fieldwalking) also consti-tute meaningful archaeological signatures(e.g. Heeren & Van der Feijst, 2017;Hadley & Richards, 2018; Christiansen,2019). Even though detector finds fromplough horizons cannot normally be relatedto specific features, their spatial distributionadds information about the character of asite as well as excavated features and struc-tures (e.g. Petersen, 1994; Jørgensen,2000). Archaeological finds come from dif-ferent types of contexts and contribute dif-ferently to our understanding of the past.Metal detector finds must be treated ontheir own terms in order to get the mostout of the data available (for a critical per-spective on the use of detector finds asresearch data, see Robbins, 2013; Cooper& Green, 2017).If detector finds are to be analysed as

scientific data, they need to be reported,recorded, and made accessible. At an earlypoint in the popularity of metal detecting,in the 1980s and 1990s, the heritage

sectors in Denmark, England, and Walesunderstood that it was important tocooperate with finders to secure informa-tion about these finds, if they are to beexploited in research. In these countries,the data compiled over the past fewdecades—through the collection policy ofDanish museums and the Danefæ (treas-ure trove) administration underlying it,and the Portable Antiquities Scheme inEngland and Wales—have provided abasis for countless research projects. ThePAS alone has contributed substantially tomore than 130 PhD projects and 170Masters dissertations (https://finds.org.uk/research).We contend that the systematic record-

ing and study of metal-detected objectsunder a cooperative scheme yields agreater gain in knowledge about the pastthan is possible under a restrictive scheme.By contrast, in most restrictive contexts,detector finds are largely unreported andinformation about them is, therefore, diffi-cult to access and interpret (see forexample Hardy, 2017; Deckers et al.,2018). The mistrust between professionalarchaeologists and hobby detectorists,often a consequence of restrictive legisla-tion and disapproving attitudes, furtherobscures the availability of reliable metal-detected finds data. Moreover, the deonto-logical limits set by the professional sectoron using metal-detecting data contributeto this trust gap as well as limit progresseven further.It could be argued that we cannot evalu-

ate the advantages of a liberal system interms of knowledge gain as long as we areunable to estimate the loss of potentialresearch data in the form of unreportedfinds. However, as mentioned, metaldetecting is taking place on a vast scaleunder restrictive legal regimes (Karl &Möller, 2016; Hardy, 2017). Spectaculardiscoveries made by people caught illegallysearching merely gives us a glimpse of the

Dobat et al. – Towards a Cooperative Approach to Hobby Metal Detecting 279

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2020.1Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 10 Jul 2020 at 05:20:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

enormous research potential that is beinglost (e.g. Meller, 2004; Lecroere, 2016).The vast majority of illegal detectorists inthese contexts remain unnoticed and theirfinds remain unreported, and hence neverenter the archaeological record. Consideringthe difficulty of curtailing hobby metaldetecting through restrictive legislation, it issurely better to have reports on a representa-tive fraction of metal-detected finds than tohave none at all.

Preservation issues

Since the Valletta Convention (1992), theprinciple of ‘preservation in situ’ wheneverpossible, is a central tenet of Europeanheritage protection legislation. While ahallmark of the heritage preservation dis-course (Patiwael et al., 2019: 336), itstands in sharp contrast to the stereotyp-ical public perception of archaeology as the‘search for things’. As heritage profes-sionals, we know this popular image to bea distorted simplification, yet for many,particularly detectorists, the thrill and fas-cination of discovering a tangible piece ofthe past is what makes the very essence ofarchaeology (e.g. Holtorf, 2005; Perry,2019). Many simply do not understandthe principle of ‘preservation in situ’ anddo not appreciate archaeologists’ sensitivityabout people excavating and findingancient remains since they believe the taskof the archaeologists is to ‘dig and findstuff’ and transfer their discoveries tomuseums, where such things ‘belong’ (e.g.Ferguson, 2016). For the detecting com-munity (and perhaps others too), ‘preser-vation in situ’ can be interpreted as ameans of monopolizing archaeology andpreventing non-professionals from gainingdirect access. It is therefore important forarchaeologists to be aware that differentvalues, interpretations, and meanings aregiven to the archaeological heritage

beyond the analytical lenses throughwhich archaeologists attempt to makesense of the material past. If we want thewider public to be interested and involvedin learning about and understanding thepast (which surely we must, especially asmany of us work in public museums, uni-versities, or the heritage sector more gen-erally, which are principally fundedthrough public taxation) (Figure 4), wemust find ways of reaching out beyondthose already involved and better explainour methods for preserving that past.The EPFRN supports the ideal of

‘preservation in situ’ of the archaeologicalrecord whenever possible. Known monu-ments and sites with finds in intact con-texts should only be excavated with a clearresearch agenda; in these cases, searchingrecognized, protected archaeological sitessimply to find artefacts is completelyunacceptable. In other circumstances,however, especially with respect to metaldetector finds, in situ preservation is notalways the best possible choice. Long-termstudies on copper alloy objects in plough-soil have demonstrated the damagingeffect of the increasing use of chemical fer-tilizers and soil acidification caused byacidic emissions (Tronner et al., 1995;Nord & Lagerlöf, 2002). As copper alloyis the most frequent material categoryamong metal detector finds from north-western Europe, the damage thus causedto the archaeological heritage is immense,and the long-term consequences are diffi-cult to assess. Agricultural soil treatment(ploughing, etc.) with increasingly effectivedevices has shown to result in the mech-anical destruction of finds buried in theploughsoil (Haldenby & Richards, 2010;Svensson, 2014).The damaging effect of archaeological

objects being extracted from their originalcontexts constitutes a valid argumentagainst liberal policies towards metaldetecting. This is undoubtedly true in

280 European Journal of Archaeology 23 (2) 2020

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2020.1Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 10 Jul 2020 at 05:20:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

many cases, when detectorists deliberatelyor inadvertently target known historicalsites and/or irrevocably destroy structuresand other archaeological features to recoverfinds, whether these sites are known ornot. There are even cases where detector-ists realized that a find was in a stratifiedcontext and still removed it without arch-aeological support, perhaps in the excite-ment of discovery or fearing that, if left,others might claim it (e.g. Ferguson, 2016:123–24). In reality, however, most detectorfinds from north-western European coun-tries are likely to originate from theploughsoils. In Denmark, for example,only a small minority of 485 finds (1.6 percent) of the total amount of 30,224 findsrecorded in the DIME scheme up to July2019 were found in the context of possiblyundisturbed landscapes. Likewise, of the79,353 finds logged with the PAS in 2017,93 per cent came from cultivated land; just

over 2 per cent from grassland, and 2 percent from the foreshore (Lewis, 2018).Normally, any contextual associations of anobject in the soil have been compromisedby the mixing effect of ploughing andother agricultural processes. Under suchcircumstances, the recovery of the object initself has no damaging effect, as long as itsposition is logged with the finds record.In the open and intensely cultivated

landscapes of Europe, not only are themetal finds in the ploughsoil in danger ofgetting lost, but the remaining featuresbelow the plough’s reach are also at risk.These can only be monitored and rescuedif known. In this light, the contribution ofmetal detecting goes beyond the artefactsthemselves. In some regions of Denmarkand England, the bulk of detector findspots represent newly discovered historicalenvironments, i.e. sites which the officialheritage agencies would not be able to

Figure 4. Members of the Leicestershire Young Archaeologists’ Club visiting the special exhibit of theRoman-period Hallaton Treasure at Harborough Museum, with Wendy Scott (Leicestershire &Rutland FLO). Photograph: courtesy of the PAS.

Dobat et al. – Towards a Cooperative Approach to Hobby Metal Detecting 281

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2020.1Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 10 Jul 2020 at 05:20:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

include in their regional heritage monitor-ing and protection plans, were it not fortheir discovery by detectorists (Daubney,2016; Feveile, 2016).Following these arguments, we might

consider hobby metal detecting an effect-ive tool for cultural heritage managementand protection, in full accordance with theoverarching goals of heritage protection,that is to safeguard and preserve in situwhenever possible. Whether archaeologists(and others) make the best use of the datato protect the past, and whether (or not)most hobbyist detectorists would be happyto relinquish the right to detect an import-ant landscape, if it was taken out of culti-vation for example, are questions fordebate. In any case, for detector finds thatare currently threatened by increasingdeterioration in open and cultivated land-scapes, their extraction from the ploughsoilmight be the best option for the find to berecorded, preserved, and made accessible.

Social and ethical aspects

European societies have seen radicalchanges over the past decades, not leastbecause of a growing focus on the ideals ofsocial multivocality, inclusion, and participa-tion. Though still an important cornerstoneof archaeological outreach, the sole presen-tation of archaeological expert knowledgeon site, in the context of museums, orthrough the media is (or will be) at variancewith the expectations of contemporarysociety. Today’s audiences have becomeacquainted with the idea of having the rightto be included and to participate actively inthe archaeological process (Perry & Beale,2015; Kajda et al., 2018).Heritage professionals and even policy

makers increasingly recognize this new realityof archaeological outreach, most promin-ently with the Faro Convention, whichpromotes the idea that parties should

‘encourage everyone to participate in theprocess of identification, study, interpret-ation, protection, conservation and presen-tation of the cultural heritage’ (Faro, 2005:Article 12: Access to cultural heritage anddemocratic participation). Constituting oneof the inspirational sources of the Faro con-vention, participatory rights within thedomains of culture and science are evenenshrined as a universal human right inArticle 27 (1) of the United NationsUniversal Declaration of Human Rights(UN, 2019).Against this expectation of inclusiveness,

archaeology in many countries has seen adistinct process of professionalization sincethe Valletta Treaty of 1992. Although thishad many positive effects, it has alsoresulted in creating a gap between profes-sionals and non-professionals, with thelatter increasingly excluded from doingarchaeology, and the former finding itharder to include the public (see, e.g.,Fahlander, 2017; Perring & Orange, 2017).The growing popularity of hobby metal

detecting is also a consequence of thecurrent Zeitgeist. Much of its appeal lies inthe fact that metal detecting allows practi-tioners to act creatively as producers oftheir own local and personal histories, incontrast to being passive consumers ofexpert archaeologists’ narratives. Studies ofthe motivations of detectorists (Thomas,2012; Winkley, 2016; Dobat et al., 2019b;Wessman, forthcoming) show that manyare driven by a desire to enter into a per-sonal and hands-on dialogue with the pastand hold or even own a piece of history(Figure 5). Their finds give them a directconnection to the past and allow them toconnect intimately with ‘their’ heritage andhistory. Importantly, they can make thisconnection independently, without expertfacilitation, or educational, cultural, orsocial preconditions. This may of coursenot be the motivation for all hobby detec-torists but, based on our personal

282 European Journal of Archaeology 23 (2) 2020

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2020.1Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 10 Jul 2020 at 05:20:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

experiences of meeting and working withdetectorists, it is clear that many have aparticular interest in the past landscapesthat they search.Within academia the social trends

noted above have been assimilated underthe banner of crowdsourcing and citizenscience, and the participation of largecommunities of non-professionals in sci-entific processes. Public Participation inScientific Research (PPSR) has becomeincreasingly relevant over the past decadesin varying academic disciplines, not onlyas a means of acquiring big data but alsoas an avenue towards a more democraticresearch based on evidence and informeddecision-making (Bonney et al., 2009;Sanz et al., 2014).The potential of including similar

approaches in archaeology and heritage

management goes far beyond data collec-tion. At the base of sustainable culturalheritage management lies an understand-ing of cultural heritage as a valuableresource and a collective property (seeGuttormsen & Swensen, 2016). By enab-ling members of the public to interact dir-ectly with the past and by distributingstewardship of portable antiquities, westimulate and enhance such attitudes. Thisshould not be misunderstood as an argu-ment in favour of private possession ofarchaeological finds. In our work in ourrespective regions, we have to acknowledgethat in some countries the legal frame-works grant ownership rights over culturalproperty to individuals; we must thereforetry to make the best of this situationthrough digital recording of finds data.Even with finds that must be reported and

Figure 5. Typical situation at a detector survey event on discovery of a notable find, illustrating thepotential of metal detecting to engage in a personal and hands-on dialogue with the past. BIFROSTrally 2010 organized by the Danish detector associations Harja and Tellus in cooperation with OdenseBys Museer at Voldtofte, south-west Funen. Photograph: Allan Faurskov.

Dobat et al. – Towards a Cooperative Approach to Hobby Metal Detecting 283

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2020.1Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 10 Jul 2020 at 05:20:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

with museums having the opportunity toacquire them, the acquisition of finds isnecessarily selective: in England, Wales,and Northern Ireland, for example, about40 per cent of all Treasure finds—typicallyprecious metal finds as well as hoards thatcome under the jurisdiction of theTreasure Act 1996—are acquired bymuseums, though the reasons for non-acquisition vary considerably (see https://finds.org.uk/publications/).We hold that hobbyist metal detecting

and its (often) very passionate communityof practitioners offer a unique opportunityto use archaeology in the active promotionof the idea of shared ownership andcustody over heritage resources, even incontexts where such responsible attitudesand practices do not prevail. Though thismight be overly idealistic, given the manycases of illicit detecting, we see greatpotential in cooperation with responsibledetectorists as a pathway towards a demo-cratic, participatory heritage management,and as a way of releasing archaeology’scapacity to contribute to building inclusiveand democratic societies.

PROBLEMATIC ASPECTS OF A

COOPERATIVE APPROACH

It would be naive to claim that a liberaland cooperative approach to non-profes-sional metal detecting is without chal-lenges. As emphasized earlier, such anapproach does not necessarily preventindividuals from practising illicit and/orirresponsible detecting. Neither can weclaim that a recording scheme is the solu-tion to all problems relating to hobbymetal detecting (see Gill, 2010;Rasmussen, 2014). Liberal and cooperativeapproaches have even been said to create ademand and extra motivation for detector-ists, in particular because professional val-idation may increase an object’s value on

the antiquities market (Lecroere, 2016).Some finds will always remain unreportedin a context where professionals reach outto hobby detectorists, and it is open todebate whether this loss is a price worthpaying for the representative fraction offinds that does get reported in areas withfinds recording schemes.The diverse and often oppositional atti-

tudes and principles prevailing in the pro-fessional sector and the detectingcommunities constitute a further chal-lenge, in part because the different valuesand meanings placed on the archaeologicalheritage often stand in the way of cooper-ation. Yet building bridges across such dif-ferences and forging trustful relationshipsis a basic condition for a cooperative andpermissive approach. Although scepticalattitudes on the side of the professionalsector may be well-founded in cases ofillegal or irresponsible detecting, themutual mistrust that has built up betweenprofessional archaeologists and hobbydetectorists also hampers cooperation withpractitioners who are willing to collaborateor at least open to the idea.The economic sustainability of coopera-

tive approaches poses another challenge.Their long-term implementation can put aheavy administrative and financial burdenon the official heritage sector and its insti-tutions. Making newcomers to hobbydetecting aware of legal frameworks andencouraging them to adhere to good arch-aeological practice requires time andresources which are already limited withina notoriously underfunded sector.Moreover, basic finds recording is a costlyaffair, even if finders are self-recording.The cost of a permissive and cooperativemodel may be greater than the cost ofrestrictive models, at least as long asrestrictions are not enforced. Again, it isopen to debate whether the financialbalance would still be the same if one con-sidered the investment necessary to enforce

284 European Journal of Archaeology 23 (2) 2020

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2020.1Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 10 Jul 2020 at 05:20:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

a restrictive regime properly and activelyprevent illegal detecting.

THE EUROPEAN PUBLIC FINDS

RECORDING NETWORK’S VISION

STATEMENT

There is no single solution to hobby metaldetecting and we do not consider ourapproaches to be without challenges. Allsolutions need to be adapted to specificnational or regional circumstances that, inmany cases, may differ significantly fromthe contexts within which we work. In thefinds-rich and less intensely cultivatedregions of southern Europe, for example,with very different socio-economic condi-tions and attitudes towards cultural heri-tage, the professional sector confronts avery different reality (e.g. Marín-Aguilera,2012, for a discussion of looting in Italy).Nonetheless, considering all the factorsdiscussed above, we still think that archae-ology and society at large are best servedby cooperating with hobby metal detect-ing. It is on this ground that we have for-mulated a shared set of principles, goals,and visions that include:

. Broad public engagement and access tothe archaeological heritage at local,regional, national, and European level.

. A democratized approach to heritagemanagement in Europe, stimulatedthrough the incorporation of principlesof citizen science and crowdsourcing.

. A recognition of recorded public findsas an important body of archaeologicalevidence for human behaviour andinteraction.

It is our objective to work closely together,and with other areas, to:

. Advance archaeological knowledgethrough the recording and research ofpublicly discovered finds.

. Encourage best archaeological practicein the field when searching for andrecording publicly discovered finds.

. Support ways for public finds to be pre-served and made accessible for thebenefit of the whole of society, nation-ally and internationally.

. Enable members of the public toactively contribute to the recording andhandling of the archaeological heritagein the pursuit of knowledge.

. Promote international cooperation in thefield of archaeological finds recording.

. Advance knowledge of public attitudestowards the cultural heritage and improveunderstanding of their impact.

. Develop democratic approaches to heri-tage management in Europe.

We will achieve these goals by:

. Making information on archaeologicalfinds discovered by the public accessibleto all, including international research-ers as well as the wider public.

. Facilitating the incorporation and use ofpublic finds in cross-national research.

. Distributing knowledge on regulationand responsible behaviour for the publicwhen searching for (and recovering), ordiscovering by chance, archaeologicalobjects.

. Acting as an intermediary betweenfinders of scientifically important findsand museum and heritage professionalsin a responsible way.

. Exchanging information on regulations,experience, and expertise with inter-national colleagues.

. Improving standards of archaeologicalwork undertaken by members of thepublic to promote a sense of sharedstewardship of the past.

. Supporting research through our findsrecording databases and other means,by acting as intermediaries for findsexperts, and by identifying gaps in arch-aeological small finds knowledge.

Dobat et al. – Towards a Cooperative Approach to Hobby Metal Detecting 285

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2020.1Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 10 Jul 2020 at 05:20:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

. Incorporating and further developingprinciples of citizen science and crowd-sourcing in public finds recording.

This vision statement has emerged out ofthe practical experience of developing andprovisioning digital schemes that facilitatethe recording of metal detector finds aswell as an academic endeavour to betterunderstand metal detector communitiesand their impact on European culturalheritage. While the first is a very practicalexpression of what we consider to be thecooperative approach in our vision, otherelements have broader implications andare applicable in both permissive contextsand in contexts that ban or otherwiserestrict metal detecting. In our view, thiscombination of experience and factualknowledge is a key prerequisite for thedevelopment of an appropriate responsetowards the metal detector phenomenon.

CONCLUSION

Even within the approach we advocatehere, obvious differences exist in the waysour principles and aims are applied. Aconsistently enforced restrictive approachto metal detecting may be the best optionin certain contexts where detecting has adestructive impact on cultural heritage. Inother circumstances, nuanced restrictionsare not necessarily a hindrance to cooper-ating with practitioners who are willing todetect in a responsible manner.We see the enormous benefits respon-

sible metal detecting has to offer to arch-aeological research, to the protection offinds buried in the ploughsoil in open andcultivated landscapes, and with respect tothe social role of archaeology in a chan-ging society. A cooperative approach, inour perspective, stands as a more reward-ing, less damaging, and more sustainablealternative to restrictive models.

We, therefore, consider it necessaryand timely to re-evaluate prohibitionmodels and to discuss openly the variousoptions for a more constructive responseto the metal detecting hobby. We hopethat our expertise and experiences inestablishing and promoting public findsrecording schemes in England, Wales,Denmark, Finland, Flanders, and theNetherlands will inspire others exploringmore cooperative approaches towardshobby metal detecting.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank theanonymous peer reviewers and editorialteam of the European Journal ofArchaeology for their valuable feedback onearlier drafts of this article. Suzie Thomasand Anna Wessman would like toacknowledge the Academy of Finland,Decision Number 310854.

REFERENCES

Ariadne, 2019. ARIADNEplus: AdvancedResearch Infrastructure for ArchaeologicalDataset Networking in Europe [online][accessed 1 November 2019]. Availableat: https://ariadne-infrastructure.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ARIADNEPlus_synopsis-short.pdf

Bland, R. 2005. A Pragmatic Approach to theProblem of Portable Antiquities: TheExperience of England and Wales.Antiquity, 79: 440–47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00114218

Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie,E., Phillips, T., Shirk, J. & Wilderman,C.C. 2009. Public Participation inScientific Research: Defining the Fieldand Assessing its Potential for InformalScience Education. A CAISE InquiryGroup Report. Washington, DC: Centerfor Advancement of Informal ScienceEducation (CAISE) [online] [accessed 1November 2019]. Available at: http://www.

286 European Journal of Archaeology 23 (2) 2020

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2020.1Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 10 Jul 2020 at 05:20:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

birds.cornell.edu/citscitoolkit/publications/CAISE-PPSR-report-2009.pdf

Christiansen, T.T. 2019. Metal-detected LateIron Age and Early Medieval Broochesfrom the Limfjord Region, NorthernJutland: Production, Use, and Loss. Journalof Archaeology and Ancient History, 2: 3–41.http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1297079&dswid=4103

Cooper, A. & Green, C. 2017. Big Questionsfor Large, Complex Datasets: ApproachingTime and Space Using Composite ObjectAssemblages. Internet Archaeology, 45.https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.45.1

Daubney, A.J. 2016. Portable Antiquities,Palimpsests, and Persistent Places: A Multi-Period Approach to Portable Antiquities SchemeData in Lincolnshire. Leiden: Sidestone.

Deckers, P. 2012. ‘Productive Sites’ in thePolders? ‘Griffin Brooches’ and OtherEarly Medieval Metal Artefacts from theBelgian Coastal Plain. Medieval andModern Matters, 3: 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.MMM.5.102018

Deckers, P. 2019. Archaeological MetalDetecting by Amateurs in Flanders:Legislation, Policy, and Practice of aHobby. In: S. Campbell, L. White & S.Thomas, eds. Competing Values inArchaeological Heritage. Cham: SpringerInternational, pp. 103–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94102-8_8

Deckers, P., Bleumers, L., Ruelens, S.,Lemmens, B., Vanderperren, N., Marchal,C., et al. 2016. MEDEA: Crowd-Sourcing the Recording of Metal-Detected Artefacts in Flanders (Belgium).Open Archaeology, 2: 264–77. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0019

Deckers, P., Dobat, A., Ferguson, N., Heeren,S., Lewis, M. & Thomas, S. 2018.The Complexities of Metal DetectingPolicy and Practice: A Response toSamuel Hardy, ‘Quantitative Analysis ofOpen-Source Data on Metal Detectingfor Cultural Property’ (Cogent SocialSciences 3, 2017). Open Archaeology, 4:322–33. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2018-0019

Dobat, A.S. 2013. Between Rescue andResearch: An Evaluation after 30 Years ofLiberal Metal Detecting in ArchaeologicalResearch and Heritage Practice inDenmark. European Journal of Archaeology,16: 704–25. https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957113Y.0000000041

Dobat, A.S., Trier Christiansen, T., Jensen,P., Henriksen, M.B., Holst, M.K., Ruhe,R., et al. 2019a. The DIME Project:Background, Status, and FuturePerspectives of the User Driven RecordingScheme for Metal Detector Finds. DanishJournal of Archaeology, 8: 1–15. https://tids-skrift.dk/dja/article/view/111422/164712

Dobat, A.S., Wood, S.O., Jensen, B.S.,Schmidt, S. & Dobat, A.S. 2019b. ‘I NowLook Forward to the Future, by FindingThings from our Past…’: Exploring thePotential of Metal Detector Archaeologyas a Source of Well-being and Happiness.International Journal of Heritage Studies,25: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2019.1639069

Fahlander, F. 2017. The Changing Roles ofArchaeology in Swedish Museums.Current Swedish Archaeology, 25: 13–19.

Faro, 2005. Council of Europe FrameworkConvention on the Value of CulturalHeritage for Society, Faro, 27.X.2005(Council of Europe Treaty No. 199).[online] [accessed 1 November 2019].Available at: https://www.coe.int/fr/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/0900001680083746

Ferguson, N. 2013. Biting the Bullet: The Roleof Hobbyist Metal Detecting withinBattlefield Archaeology. Internet Archaeology,33. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.33.3

Ferguson, N. 2016. Lost in Translation:Discussing the Positive Contribution ofHobbyist Metal Detecting. OpenArchaeology, 2: 115–26. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0008

Feveile, C. 2016. Understanding theHinterland of the Ladby Ship Grave. In:V.E. Turner, O. Owen, D, Waugh & F.Bradford, eds. Shetland and the VikingWorld: Papers from the Proceedings of theSeventeenth Viking Congress Lerwick.Lerwick: Shetland Heritage Publications,pp. 229–35.

Ganciu, I. 2018. Heritage for Sale! The Roleof Museums in Promoting MetalDetecting and Looting in Romania.Heritage, 1: 437–52. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage1020029

Gill, D.W.J. 2010. The Portable AntiquitiesScheme and the Treasure Act: Protecting theArchaeology of England and Wales? Papersfrom the Institute of Archaeology, 20: 1–11.

Gundersen, J., Rasmussen, J. & Ragnar, L. 2016.Private Metal Detecting and Archaeology in

Dobat et al. – Towards a Cooperative Approach to Hobby Metal Detecting 287

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2020.1Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 10 Jul 2020 at 05:20:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Norway. Open Archaeology, 2: 160–70.https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0012

Günther, G. 2019. Sieht nach Volltreffer aus.Chrismon, January 2019 (1): 34–40[online] [accessed 4 October 2019].Available at: https://chrismon.evangelisch.de/artikel/2018/42247/kriegsgraeber-gefal-lene-weltkriegssoldaten-estland

Guttormsen, T.S. & Swensen, G. eds. 2016.Heritage, Democracy, and the Public: NordicApproaches. Farnham: Ashgate.

Hadley, D.M. & Richards, J.D. 2018. InSearch of the Viking Great Army: Beyondthe Winter Camps. Medieval SettlementResearch, 33: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.5284/1017430

Haldenby, D. & Richards, J.D. 2010.Charting the Effects of Plough DamageUsing Metal-Detected Assemblages.Antiquity, 84: 1151–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00067144

Hardy, S.A. 2017. Quantitative Analysis ofOpen-Source Data on Metal Detecting forCultural Property: Estimation of the Scaleand Intensity of Metal Detecting and theQuantity of Metal-Detected CulturalGoods. Cogent Social Sciences, 3: 1298397.https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1298397

Heeren, S. & van der Feijst, L. 2017.Prehistorische, Romeinse en middeleeuwsefibulae uit de Lage Landen. Beschrijving,analyse en interpretatie van een archeologischevondstcategorie. Amersfoort: Eigen Beheer.

Holtorf, C. 2005. From Stonehenge to LasVegas: Archaeology as Popular Culture.Walnut Creek (CA): AltaMira.

Huth, C. 2013. Vom rechten Umgang mitSondengängern: Das ‘Portable AntiquitiesScheme’ in England und Wales und seineFolgen. Archäologische Informationen, 36: 129–37. https://doi.org/10.11588/ai.2013.0.15327

Immonen, V. & Kinnunen, J. 2017.‘Quidditching’ and the Emergence of NewHeritage Identities: Amateur MetalDetecting in Finland. Public Archaeology,15: 163–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/14655187.2017.1352188

Jeppesen, J. 2011. Randlev. In: J. Varberg &H. Skov, eds. Aros og vikingernes verden:syv vikingers fortællinger og rejseberetningerfra Aros. Højbjerg: Moesgård Museum,pp. 34–38.

Jørgensen, L. 2000. Storgården ved Tissø.Tolkning af aktivitetsområder og anlæg pågrundlag af detektorfundene fra pløjelaget.

In: M.B. Henriksen, ed. Detektorfund:hvad skal vi med dem? Dokumentation ogregistrering af bopladser med detektorfund frajernalder og middelalder (Skrifter fraOdense Bys Museer 5). Odense: OdenseBys Museer, pp. 27–43.

Kajda K., Marx A., Wright H., Richards J.,Marciniak A., Rossenbach K.S., et al.2018. Archaeology, Heritage, and SocialValue: Public Perspectives on EuropeanArchaeology. European Journal ofArchaeology, 21: 96–117. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.19

Karl, R. & Möller, K. 2016. EmpirischeUntersuchung des Verhältnisses derAnzahl von Metallsucher/Innen imDeutsch-Britischen Vergleich. Oder: Wiewenig Einfluss die Gesetzeslage hat.Archäologische Informationen, 39: 215–26.https://doi.org/10.11588/ai.2016.1.33553

Kars, M. & Heeren, S. 2018. ArchaeologicalSmall Finds Recording in theNetherlands: The Framework and SomePreliminary Results of the Project PortableAntiquities of the Netherlands (PAN).Medieval Settlement Research, 33: 21–30.https://doi.org/10.5284/1017430

Komoróczy, B., Vlach, M. & Zelíková M.2017. Dokumentace, publikace a interpre-tace detektorových nálezů na príkladu spontypu Jobst 4F 31. In: E. Droberjar & B.Komoróczy, eds. Rímské a germánské sponyve strední Evrope. Brno: Archeologickýústav AV CR, pp. 31–64.

Lecroere, T. 2016. ‘There Is None So Blind asThose Who Won’t See’: Metal Detectingand Archaeology in France. OpenArchaeology, 2: 182–93. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0014

Lewis, M. 2016. A Detectorist’s Utopia?Archaeology and Metal-Detecting inEngland and Wales. Open Archaeology, 2:127–39. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0009

Lewis, M. ed. 2018. The Portable AntiquitiesScheme Annual Report 2017. London: TheBritish Museum [online] [accessed 16December 2019]. Available at: https://finds.org.uk/documents/annualreports/2017.pdf

Majchczack, B.S.M. 2016. The CurrentModel of Archaeological Metal Detectingand its Success in Schleswig-Holstein. In:J. Martens & M. Ravn, eds. Pløyejord somkontekst. Nye utfordringer for forskning, for-valtning og formidling. Kristiansand:

288 European Journal of Archaeology 23 (2) 2020

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2020.1Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 10 Jul 2020 at 05:20:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Kulturhistorisk museum & Universitetet iOslo, pp. 89–100.

Makowska, A., Oniszczuk, A. & Sabacinski,M. 2016. Some Remarks on the StormyRelationship Between the Detectorists andArchaeological Heritage in Poland. OpenArchaeology, 2: 171–81. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0013

Marín-Aguilera, B. 2012. Italy: A HugeOpen-air Museum: ‘Tombaroli’ atCerveteri and Tarquinia. In: A. Castillo,ed. Proceedings of the First InternationalConference on Best Practices in WorldHeritage: Archaeology. Madrid: UniversidadComplutense de Madrid, pp. 563–79.

Meller, H. ed. 2004. Der geschmiedete Himmel.Die weite Welt im Herzen Europas vor3600 Jahren. Stuttgart: Theiss.

Nord, A.G. & Lagerlöf, A. 2002. Påverkan påarkeologiskt material i jord: Redovisning avtvå forskningsprojekt. Stockholm:Riksantikvarieämbetet. http://samla.raa.se/xmlui/bitstream/handle/raa/69/9172092823.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Oksanen, E. & Lewis, M. 2015. MedievalMarkets and Portable Antiquities Scheme.Medieval Settlement Research, 30: 54–59.

Patiwael, P.R., Groote, P. & Vanclay, F.2019. Improving Heritage ImpactAssessment: An Analytical Critique of theICOMOS Guidelines. International Journalof Heritage Studies, 25: 333–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1477057

Perring, D. & Orange, H. 2017. CommercialArchaeology in the UK: Public Interest,Benefit and Engagement. In: G.Moshenska, ed. Key Concepts in PublicArchaeology. London: UCL Press, pp.138–50.

Perry, S. 2019. The Enchantment of theArchaeological Record. European Journalof Archaeology, 22(3): 354–71. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.24

Perry, S. & Beale, N. 2015. The Social Weband Archaeology’s Restructuring: Impact,Exploitation, Disciplinary Change. OpenArchaeology, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2015-0009

Petersen, P.V. 1994. Excavations at Sites ofTreasure Trove at Gudme. In: P.O.Nielsen, K. Randsborg & H. Thrane, eds.Archaeology of Gudme and Lundeborg(Arkaeologiske studier 10). Copenhagen:Akademisk forlag, pp. 30–40.

Portable Antiquities Advisory Group 2017.Code of Practice for Responsible Metal

Detecting in England & Wales (2017Revision). London: PAAG [online] [accessed16 December 2019]. Available at: https://finds.org.uk/documents/file/Code-2017.pdf

Portable Antiquities of the Netherlands 2019.Gedragscode en regels voor verantwoordgebruik van de metaaldetector in Nederland.Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam& Amersfoort: Rijksdienst voor hetCultureel Erfgoed. [online] [accessed 16December 2019]. Available at: https://portable-antiquities.nl/pan/resources/downloads/NL-2-Brochure regelgeving Metaaldetectie mei 2019 LR.pdf

Rácz, T.A. 2017. Metal-detector UsersAffiliated to Museums: Building a Modelof Community Archaeology in PestCounty. Hungarian Archaeology, Autumn2017. http://www.hungarianarchaeology.hu/?page_id=3661#post-7346

Rasmussen, J.M. 2014. Securing CulturalHeritage Objects and Fencing StolenGoods? A Case Study on Museums andMetal Detecting in Norway. NorwegianArchaeological Review, 47: 83–07. https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2014.899616

Robbins, K.J. 2013. Balancing the Scales:Exploring the Variable Effects ofCollection Bias on Data Collected by thePortable Antiquities Scheme. Landscapes,14: 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1179/1466203513Z.0000000006

Rodríguez Temiño, I. & Roma Valdés, A.2015. Fighting Against the ArchaeologicalLooting and the Illicit Trade ofAntiquities in Spain. International Journalof Cultural Property, 22: 111–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S094073911500003X

Serrano Sanz, F., Holocher-Ertl, T., Kieslinger,B., Sanz Garcia, F. & Silva, C.G. 2014.White Paper on Citizen Science in Europe.Socientize Consortium/European Commission[online] [accessed 1 November 2019].Available at: http://www.zsi.at/object/project/2340/attach/White_Paper-Final-Print.pdf

Scheschkewitz, J. 2013. Merely Searching forTreasures or Valid Interest in CulturalHistory? Various Motivations in Germany.In: A. Lagerlöf, ed.Who Cares? Perspectives onPublic Awareness, Participation, and Protectionin Archaeological Heritage Management (EACOccasional Paper, 8). Namur: Jambes, pp.53–59.

Stebbins, R.A. 1992. Amateurs, Professionals,and Serious Leisure. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Dobat et al. – Towards a Cooperative Approach to Hobby Metal Detecting 289

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2020.1Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 10 Jul 2020 at 05:20:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Svensson, H. 2014. Uppdragsarkeologin ochkulturmiljölagen hotar fornsakerna – svartill Raä. Fornvännen, 109: 139–44. http://kulturarvsdata.se/raa/fornvannen/html/2014_139

Thomas, S. 2012. Searching for Answers: ASurvey of Metal-Detector Users in theUK. International Journal of HeritageStudies, 18: 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2011.590817

Thomas, S. 2016. The Future of StudyingHobbyist Metal Detecting in Europe: ACall for a Transnational Approach. OpenArchaeology, 2: 140–49. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0010

Thomas, S., Wessman, A., Siltainsuu, J. &Perttola, W. 2015. Understanding MetalDetecting and Archaeology in Finland.Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arquelogia de laUniversidad de Granada, 25: 185–97.

Tronner, K., Nord, A.G. & Borg, G.C. 1995.Corrosion of Archaeological BronzeArtefacts in Acidic Soil. Water, Air, andSoil Pollution, 85: 2725–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01186246

Ulst, I. 2010. The Problems of ‘BlackArchaeology’ in Estonia. Estonian Journalof Archaeology, 14: 153–69. https://doi.org/10.3176/arch.2010.2.04

UN 2019. The Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights [online] [accessed 1November 2019]. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf

Valletta 1992. European Convention on theProtection of the Archaeological Heritage,Valletta, 16.I.1992 (Council of EuropeTreaty No. 143) [online] [accessed 1November 2019]. Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168007bd25

Wessman, A. forthcoming. Searching for thePast: Metal Detecting and its Impact onCultural Heritage in Finland. In: M.Bintley, J. Hines, A. Richardson, A.Seaman & E. Swift, eds. Lands and Seas:Post-Roman Transitions and Relationsacross the Channel, North Sea, and BalticWorlds (Neue Studien ZurSachsenforschung, 10). Stuttgart: Theiss.

Wessman, A., Thomas, S., Rohiola, V., Koho,M., Ikkala, E., Tuominen, J., et al. 2019.Citizen Science in Archaeology:Developing a Collaborative Web Servicefor Archaeological Finds in Finland. In: J.H. Jameson & S. Musteața, eds.Transforming Heritage Practice in the 21st

Century: Contributions from CommunityArchaeology (One World Archaeology).Cham: Springer, pp. 337–52.

Winkley, F. 2016. The Phenomenology ofMetal Detecting: Insights from a UniqueType of Landscape Experience. Papersfrom the Institute of Archaeology, 25: Art.13. https://doi.org/10.5334/pia.496

Worrell, S., Egan, G., Naylor, J., Leahy, K. &Lewis, M. eds. 2010. A Decade ofDiscovery: Proceedings of the PortableAntiquities Scheme Conference 2007 (BritishArchaeological Reports British Series520). Oxford: Archaeopress.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Andres Dobat is lecturer in archaeologyand heritage studies at Aarhus Universityand honorary curator at MoesgårdMuseum (MOMU), Denmark. Hisprimary research interests include theexploration of the social value of archae-ology and heritage and the role and contri-bution of non-professionals in archaeologyand heritage—not least metal detectorists.He is also the initiator of the DIME portal(https://www.metaldetektorfund.dk/).

Address: Andres S. Dobat, School ofCulture and Society, Department ofArchaeology and Heritage Studies,University of Aarhus, Moesgård Allé 20,8270 Højbjerg, Denmark. [email:[email protected]]. ORCID: 0000-0002-4452-6907.

Pieterjan Deckers is postdoctoralresearcher at the Centre for UrbanNetwork Evolutions (UrbNet) at AarhusUniversity, where he is involved in theNorthern Emporium project on theViking Age trading site of Ribe. From2014 to 2017 he coordinated the start-upof MEDEA, a detector finds recordingscheme for Flanders, and remains closelyinvolved with the project’s continued

290 European Journal of Archaeology 23 (2) 2020

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2020.1Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 10 Jul 2020 at 05:20:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

development. He has a particular interestin early medieval artefact research, includ-ing non-ferrous metalwork, as well as inpublic engagement in archaeology.

Address: Pieterjan Deckers, School ofCulture and Society, Centre for UrbanNetwork Evolutions (UrbNet), University ofAarhus, Moesgård Allé 20, 8270 Højbjerg,Denmark. [email: [email protected]].ORCID: 0000-0002-7033-516X.

Stijn Heeren is assistant professor at theFaculty of Humanities of the VrijeUniversiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.He initiated the Portable Antiquities ofthe Netherlands (PAN) project in whichprivate archaeological finds are documen-ted and published online, and he is man-aging the team. His primary researchinterests are rural communities, their set-tlements, cemeteries, and material culture,from the Late Iron Age to the EarlyMiddle Ages and especially the LateRoman period (third to fifth centuries).

Address: Stijn Heeren, Department of Artand Culture History and Antiquity,Faculty of Humanities, Vrije UniversiteitAmsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands. [email:[email protected]]. PURE: https://research.vu.nl/admin/workspace/personal/overview/.ORCID: 0000-0001-9265-3882.

Michael Lewis is head of the PortableAntiquities Scheme (PAS) and visitingprofessor in archaeology at the Universityof Reading. He has worked with metal-detector users for twenty years, firstrecording detector finds, and now as anadvocate for the PAS and its aims. He hasresearched and published on small metalmedieval finds, particularly those asso-ciated with everyday life and religious

practice. For five years, Michael worked asa ‘special constable’ (volunteer policeofficer) for the Metropolitan Police’s Art& Antiques Unit. He is a member of theNational Police Chiefs Council’s Heritage& Cultural Property Crime WorkingGroup. His is also an adviser to the AllParty Parliamentary Archaeology Group.

Address: Michael Lewis, The PortableAntiquities Scheme, The British Museum,Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3DG,UK. [email: [email protected]].

Suzie Thomas is associate professor of cul-tural heritage studies at the University ofHelsinki, Finland. She is also principleinvestigator of the SuALT project(Löytösampo/FindSampo). For many years,she has researched the relationshipsbetween archaeologists and metal detector-ists. She is a founding editor of the Journalof Community Archaeology and Heritage.

Address: Suzie Thomas, Department ofPhilosophy, History, Culture and ArtStudies, University of Helsinki, PO Box59, Unioninkatu 38D, Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland. [email: [email protected]]. ORCID: 0000-0002-3365-0136.

Anna Wessman is a senior researcher atthe University of Helsinki and adjunctprofessor at the University of Turku,Finland. She has been collaborating withmetal detectorists since 2012 and alsostudied their motivations and behaviours.Currently, Anna is researching user experi-ence research and public cultural heritageinteractions within the SuALT project(Löytösampo/FindSampo).

Address: Anna Wessman, Department ofCultures, University of Helsinki, PO Box

Dobat et al. – Towards a Cooperative Approach to Hobby Metal Detecting 291

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2020.1Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 10 Jul 2020 at 05:20:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

59, Unioninkatu 38C, Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland. [email: anna.wessman@

helsinki.fi]. ORCID: 0000-0001-6886-5455.

Vers une démarche plus coopérative envers la détection de métaux de loisir. Enoncéde vision du Réseau européen d’enregistrement d’objets découverts par le public(European Public Finds Recording Network, EPFRN)

La détection de métaux est un loisir sujet à controverses. La réglementation et les lois diffèrent selon lesrégions et les pays et les attitudes des archéologues et professionnels du patrimoine envers les utilisateursde détecteurs de métaux sont souvent polarisées et fondées sur des arguments d’ordre éthique voireémotionnel. Le Réseau européen d’enregistrement d’objets découverts par le public (EPFRN) a élaborédes démarches collaboratives envers les utilisateurs de détecteurs de métaux dans les pays où il opère.(Danemark, Angleterre, Pays de Galles, Finlandes Flandres, Pays-Bas). Bien que les motivations desauteurs soient influencées par les conditions prévalant dans chaque pays, leur travail repose sur unensemble d’objectifs, de pratiques et de visions communs. Ils présentent ici la vision de l’EPFRN etdonnent un aperçu des idées sur lesquelles elle se base, dans l’espoir d’encourager un débat sur la meilleurefaçon de formuler de bonnes pratiques qui tiennent compte des défis inhérents à la détection de métauxde loisir tout en lui permettant de réaliser son potentiel. Translation by Madeleine Hummler

Mots-clés: protection du patrimoine, détection de métaux, objets#archéologie numérique, environ-nement historique, crowdsourcing, sciences participatives

Ein kooperativer Ansatz im Umgang mit Sondengängern. Die Vision deseuropäischen Netzwerks für die Aufnahme von Privatfunden (European PublicFinds Recording Network, EPFRN)

Das Hobby der Sondengängerei ist ein umstrittenes Thema. Die rechtlichen Vorschriften und prak-tischen Ansätze sind je nach regionalen oder nationalen Voraussetzungen sehr unterschiedlich. DieEinstellungen von Archäologen und Denkmalpflegern gegenüber Sondengängern sind oft polarisiert undstützen sich auf ethische oder sogar emotionale Argumente. Als Europäisches Netzwerk für dieAufnahme von Privatfunden (EPFRN) verfolgen wir den Ansatz einer Zusammenarbeit mitSondengängern in Dänemark, England, Wales, Finnland, Flandern und den Niederlanden. Obgleichvor dem Hintergrund verschiedener nationaler Voraussetzungen unterschiedlich motiviert, beruht unsereArbeit auf einer Reihe von gemeinsamen Zielen, Vorgehensweisen und Zukunftsvisionen. Dieser Artikelstellt die Vision des europäischen Netzwerks für die Aufnahme von Privatfunden vor und bietet einenEinblick in die zugrunde liegenden Überlegungen. Damit verbunden ist die Hoffnung, eine Diskussionüber die Entwicklung von vorbildlichen Verfahrensweisen anzuregen, mit denen sich sowohl dieHerausforderungen der Sondengängerei als auch ihr Potenzial verwirklichen lassen.Translation by Madeleine Hummler and Andres Dobat

Stichworte: Denkmalschutz, Sondengänger, digitale Archäologie, Kulturlandschaft, crowdsour-cing, Bürgerwissenschaft (citizen science)

292 European Journal of Archaeology 23 (2) 2020

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2020.1Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 10 Jul 2020 at 05:20:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at