Lost in Translation: Discussing the Positive Contribution of Hobbyist Metal Detecting

Abstract

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.

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

“…Many simply do not understand the principle of ‘preservation in situ ’ and do not appreciate archaeologists’ sensitivity about people excavating and finding ancient remains since they believe the task of the archaeologists is to ‘dig and find stuff’ and transfer their discoveries to museums, where such things ‘belong’ (e.g. Ferguson, 2016). For the detecting community (and perhaps others too), ‘preservation in situ ’ can be interpreted as a means of monopolizing archaeology and preventing non-professionals from gaining direct access.…”

“…There are even cases where detectorists realized that a find was in a stratified context and still removed it without archaeological support, perhaps in the excitement of discovery or fearing that, if left, others might claim it (e.g. Ferguson, 2016: 123–24). In reality, however, most detector finds from north-western European countries are likely to originate from the ploughsoils.…”

How (Not) to “Study Up”: Points and Pitfalls When Studying International Heritage Regimes

“…Byrne 1991;Smith 2004Smith , 2006, researchers have demonstrated how "nonexpert communities"be they indigenous, working class, or metal detecting groupsoften have different ideas about what is worth preserving than the "experts" who have traditionally defined what counts as heritage (e.g. Smith and Waterton 2010;Smith et al 2011;Ferguson 2016;Jones 2017;Hamilakis 2018b). In tandem with new collaborative and "open" approaches to archaeology (Milek 2018), these studies have successfully nuanced and complicated simplistic images of "the public", revealing a myriad of ways in which individuals and local groups may resist expert rule (e.g.…”

“I now look forward to the future, by finding things from our past…”Exploring the potential of metal detector archaeology as a source of well-being and happiness for British Armed Forces veterans with mental health impairments

“…Recreational metal detecting, i.e. the use of metal detectors to find archaeological items from all historical periods by nonprofessionals, has grown significantly in popularity since the 1990s (Ferguson 2016;Lewis 2016). Metal detecting is a broad field, ranging from both the search for antiquities in a local setting over detecting tourism to an occasional beach hunt for lost coins and wedding rings during the bathing season.…”