A Case for Recognising the Value of Metal Detecting and Archaeology
Metal detectorists often make headlines with discoveries of Viking silver hoards or Saxon gold. However, their finds are far more variegated in reality. Take Michelle Vall’s discovery in 2019 of a 17th-century gold ring in Loch Lomond, for example, which is believed to have once belonged to a courtier of Charles II and is worth a small fortune.[1]
Significant archaeological discoveries which can be attributed to metal detectorists include the Iron Age, Winchester Hoard—two sets of gold jewellery discovered by Kevan Halls in 2000[2]—and the Bronze Age, Ringlemere cup—located by Cliff Bradshaw in 2001, at a site later determined by the Canterbury Archaeological Trust to be a round barrow.[3] More commonly, however, the soil may relinquish something more mundane, like a corroded nail or a modern tent peg—or, if the average detectorist happens upon the right place, small but more exciting finds may be unearthed, such as a halfpenny, a fragment of a Roman brooch, or a civil war era musket ball.
The British Isles, with our rich heritage, could be described as a detectorist’s utopia. Large amounts of knowledge have been gained from metal detecting efforts and the encouragement to report any finds through the Portable Antiquities Scheme has made a significant and positive impact on Britain’s heritage knowledge.[4]
A brief history of metal detecting
The first metal detector was created by Gustave Trouvé in 1874, to find and remove bullets or other metal shrapnel from the human body. Some decades later, in 1941, the first portable metal detector was made by Polish Army engineer, Lieutenant Józef Kosacki, and hundreds of thousands of land mine detectors based on his design were used by the allies during World War II.[5]
Metal detecting then emerged as a pastime in the late 1950s when the relatively cheap models that were developed for the army became available to the general public. In the 1960s and 1970s, there was rapid increase in popularity when more effective models brought the pastime into the mainstream.[6]
However, conflicts soon arose with the British archaeological community, following reports of metal detectorists entering heritage sites, leaving damage, and removing artefacts. Large quantities of artefacts disappeared unseen into private collections or overseas, and nighthawking—clandestine illegal detecting—at scheduled monuments increased, leading to high profile episodes, such as the extensive looting of the Romano-British temple at Wanborough in Surrey during the early 1980s.[7]
Metal detecting soon became viewed by many archaeologists as a threat to the historic environment, which saw the launch of STOP! (Stop Taking Our Past: The Campaign Against Treasure Hunting) in 1979. STOP! was an attempt to persuade the UK government to ban metal-detecting and to raise awareness about the damage that unregulated detecting was doing to the archaeological record.[8]
DIG (Detector Information Group) was launched in response by metal detecting communities and lobbied to prevent the introduction of any restrictions on detectorists, resulting in the UK having the lightest regulation of metal detecting out of any European country. As a consequence, only permission from the landowner is required in most cases.[9]
Recognising the value of both metal detecting and archaeology
The conflict between the respective archaeologist and metal detectorist positions seems to lie in their contrasting aims. Archaeologists value objects within their context—their relationship to structures, deposits, and other finds—in order to contribute to the wider understanding of a site or landscape. Whereas for metal detectorists, the primary focus is on the objects themselves.
Metal detecting is, by its very nature, acquisitive and potentially profitable, which can encourage a monetised view of material heritage. However, by removing an object from its original context, the detectorist removes it from everything that makes it valuable to the archaeology and heritage communities. To combat this, a compromise was made through the Portable Antiquities Scheme—which records metal detector finds across the country and makes the data available to researchers—and the 1996 Treasure Act was passed, which obliges the finder of an artefact, which the finder believes or has reasonable grounds to believe is treasure, to notify the relevant coroner within 14 days.[10] These measures have arguably enabled archaeologists and detectorists to work together.
Nonetheless, we sometimes observe a temptation in certain individuals to bend or break the rules. For example, the policeman David Cockle was jailed in 2017 for illegally selling a hoard of gold Saxon coins discovered in Norfolk. Despite having worked as a responsible metal detectorist for 30 years, he had tried to conceal his crime by misreporting the nature and locations of his finds, thereby feeding false data into the county records.[11]
It is the author’s opinion that archaeologists must engage with metal detectorists and encourage individuals and well-run societies, by educating them on the importance of understanding and preserving heritage and advising them on how best to record their finds. This in turn provides a level of legitimacy.
And while a few individuals may occasionally hit the headlines for breaking the rules, they are not representative of the whole metal detecting community. A wide range of individuals take to the pastime, from responsible members with a genuine interest in the past and love of what they do, to the nighthawks, and all those who occupy the vast grey area in between. The majority are like those depicted in the Detectorists TV series, who champion metal detecting, democratising knowledge, and also encourage a love of heritage.
Furthermore, the animosity between detectorists and archaeologists of the past should be kept in the past. It seems nonsensical to pigeonhole people based on the tools they use (metal detector or trowel). And most importantly, it is how that tool is used and whether the individual using it wishes to learn and add to knowledge about the past that should be what concerns us in our quest to discover heritage.
It is the author’s opinion that the animosity between metal detectorists and archaeologists of the past should be kept in the past. It seems nonsensical to pigeonhole people based on the tools they use (metal detector or trowel). And most importantly, it is how that tool is used and whether the individual using it wishes to learn and add to knowledge about the past that should be what concerns us in our quest to discover heritage. Image source: Alamy
The conflict between the respective archaeologist and metal detectorist positions seems to lie in their contrasting aims. Archaeologists value objects within their context—their relationship to structures, deposits, and other finds—in order to contribute to the wider understanding of a site or landscape. Whereas for metal detectorists, the primary focus is on the objects themselves. Image source: CoinWeek
Metal detecting is, by its very nature, acquisitive and potentially profitable, which can encourage a monetised view of material heritage. However, by removing an object from its original context, the detectorist removes it from everything that makes it valuable to the archaeology and heritage communities. Image source: Archaeology
It is the author’s opinion that archaeologists must engage with metal detectorists and encourage individuals and well-run societies, by educating them on the importance of understanding and preserving heritage and advising them on how best to record their finds. Image source: National Heritage Memorial Fund
Search by Tag
-
While it may be unbeknownst to some, references to Greta Thunberg's U.N. Climate Action Summit address as a "meltdo… https://t.co/5kEEFQELep
Related articles
Sources Cited
[1] Sarah Young, ‘Gold Ring Unearthed at Loch Lomond by Metal Detectorist Could Fetch £10,000 at Auction’ (Independent, 3 September 2019) <https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gold-ring-loch-lomond-auction-king-charles-michelle-vall-a9090051.html> accessed 10 January 2020.
[2] Neil Patrick, ‘Winchester hoard: Iron Age gold discovered by retired florist is “the most important discovery of Iron Age gold objects” by fifty years’ (The Vintage News, 2 July 2016) <https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/07/02/winchester-hoard-iron-age-gold-discovered-retired-florist-important-discovery-iron-age-gold-objects-fifty-years/> accessed 9 January 2020.
[3] Marija Georgievska, ‘The Ringlemere Cup: One of the oldest treasures ever found in Britain’ (The Vintage News, 20 November 2016) <https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/11/20/the-ringlemere-cup-one-of-the-oldest-treasures-ever-found-in-britain/> accessed 10 January 2020.
[4] ‘Treasure and the Portable Antiquities Scheme’ (The British Museum) <https://www.britishmuseum.org/our-work/national/treasure-and-portable-antiquities-scheme> accessed 10 January 2020.
[5] ‘Metal Detector - History of Metal Detector’ (SoftSchools.com) <https://softschools.com/inventions/history/metal_detector_history/376/> accessed 9 January 2020.
[6] Alex Hunt, ‘Archaeology and Metal Detecting’ (BBC, 17 February 2011) <http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/archaeology/metal_detect_01.shtml> accessed 9 January 2020.
[7] Michael Lewis, ‘A Detectorist’s Utopia? Archaeology and Metal-Detecting in England and Wales’ (2016) 2 Open Archaeology 127, 130.
[8] Mary Shepperson, ‘The tense truce between detectorists and archaeologists’ (The Guardian, 18 December 2017) <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/18/the-tense-truce-between-detectorists-and-archaeologists> accessed 9 January 2020.
[9] ibid.
[10] Treasure Act 1996, ss 8(1) and (2).
[11] Sam Russell and Pete Bainbridge, ‘Policeman who stole ancient gold coins he found with metal detector is jailed’ (Manchester Evening News, 8 March 2017) <https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/policeman-who-stole-ancient-gold-12713493> accessed 10 January 2020.