Search results

1

Raz jeszcze o poszukiwaniu zabytków w Polsce. Między teorią i praktyką

100%

Trzciński M.

Wiadomości Archeologiczne

|

2017

|

vol. LXVIII

|

issue 68

33-43

EN

The problem of illegal detecting for artefacts was first diagnosed in Poland in the 1990s. Today, destruction and depredation of archaeological sites continues to be one of the most serious threats to the archaeological heritage. Sadly, actions taken over the last two decades aimed on combatting this harmful practice have not been successful. Searching for archaeological and historical objects using metal detectors has been a highly controversial subject, made worse at present now that additionally to criminal activities recognized in the past new forms have appeared, e.g., metal detecting on battlefields, death camps and POW camps. The large and polarized detectorist community has been complaining about the repressive law, accusing archaeologists of negligence in running archaeological investigations and disregard for issues which are of a major interest to amateur detectorists. Non-compliance with legal regulations is widespread owing to the negligible success rate in persecuting illegal treasure hunting. This is compounded by the low level of awareness of the need for heritage protection among the general public, the archaeological record in particular. This situation should be blamed to some extent on the State, its failure to implement long-term and comprehensive education projects designed to raise public awareness about the specific nature of the archaeological heritage. As a result, illegal metal detecting has been perceived as a harmless hobby. All attempts made to regulate this phenomenon are increasingly being met with a public resistance. Responding to proposals of improving the relations between detectorists and the archaeologist-conservator community the article presents a number of strategies which could solve some of the diagnosed problems. One solution might inviting a group of detectorists selected from among their large and mostly anonymous mass to pursue their hobby openly, only along new rules, in close, and more importantly, regular cooperation with professional archaeologists, involving them in making discoveries relevant for the progress of history and archaeology research. Other possibly useful measures: 1) modifying the currently enacted legal definition of archaeological artefact; 2) changing the terms of issue of permits to detect for buried or lost artefacts; 3) we permit a group of specified amateurs to make searches with metal detectors.

2

Sypiając z wrogiem? Potencjał badawczy amatorskiej „archeologii detektorystycznej” na przykładzie zabytków z okresu wpływów rzymskich i okresu wędrówek ludów z lat 2006–2014, odkrytych w kraju związkowym Szlezwik-Holsztyn

100%

Schuster J.

Wiadomości Archeologiczne

|

2017

|

vol. LXVIII

|

issue 68

19-31

EN

Whether we like it or not the activity of amateur metal detectorists who search the land for ancient and modern artefacts has now become widespread in many countries, here to stay, not to be avoided. Most professional researchers used to view this activity with suspicion. Their attitude, rule sceptical or hostile as a rule was dictated largely by the understanding that metal detecting impinges on the authority of archaeological institutions. The discussion – almost invariably quite emotionally charged – has continued over several decades, as evidenced by a long list of relevant publications. There is no need to emphasize in any special way that metal detectoring is destructive when driven by material gain, obviously nothing but commercial robbery, unstoppable for all the restrictive regulations in force. However, at the other end of the spectrum are amateur detectorists who, driven by a genuine fascination by their region’s past, would be ready to cooperate with the relevant institutions. We can describe their attitude as ‘a public-minded involvement in researching history and archaeology’. The potential benefits from a focused activity of amateur metal detectorists who have been trained and work in consultation with professional archaeologists have been demonstrated by the archaeological record obtained in the federal state of Schleswig-Holstein through a project aimed on making amateur detectorists a part of the system of institutionalized archaeology. An eight-year cooperation with amateur detectorists designed to test the value of their activities was followed by a research project wherein Roman Period and Migration Period amateur metal detector finds from everywhere in Schleswig-Holstein were submitted to a scientific analysis. The finds from this research project were published in monograph form (J. Schuster 2016). The analyzed assemblage (828 artefacts) proved to be an important source for the study of Late Antiquity in northern Germany and southern Scandinavia. The tremendous potential of metal detector archaeology, both for conservation and research, is demonstrated by the sheer number of archaeological sites unknown previously and identified only thanks to the metal detecting activities: 45, i.e., 62.5% of all sites investigated using metal detectors. Moreover, new and crucial data were obtained for sites already excavated in the past, both as regards the number and quality of the finds and the chronology of their use, of relevance in reconstructing the history of settlement in the region. The Roman Period and Migration Period finds show that long-term amateur metal detecting projects with institutional supervision can definitely bring in valuable results. This should be reason enough to incorporate this new branch of archaeology into the system of regular institutionalized research and add it to the agenda of monuments conservation offices. As to the question posed in the title, we can say that with a proper attitude towards amateur detectorists, by bringing their activity under the umbrella of monuments conservation offices, by assisting their interest in prehistory – obviously always within the law – from enemies they could become collaborators, and even friends of the archaeologist.

3

Archeologia landu Szlezwik-Holsztyn a archeologia detektorystyczna

84%

von Carnap-Bornheim C., Ickerodt U., Siegloff E.

Wiadomości Archeologiczne

|

2017

|

vol. LXVIII

|

issue 68

13-18

EN

Volunteer involvement in archaeology has a long and fruitful tradition in Schleswig-Holstein. In the past, this mainly consisted of the collection and recording of stone or pottery artefacts. Recently, however, it became necessary to further develop the integration of volunteers as the easy availability of metal detectors has created a whole new group of interested amateurs who then often tried in vain to contact the appropriate authorities. Since 2004, the so-called ‘Schleswig Model’ has been implemented as a new approach to the problem in Schleswig-Holstein. This aims at integrating volunteer metal detectorists in heritage protection activities and academic research. The volunteers are therefore given theoretical and practical training and are, of course, informed about the relevant legal framework. After completing the curriculum, they are certified by the State Archaeological Office, which is the responsible state authority. One of the basic legal provisos for the success of this model is the fact that the illegal use of metal detectors is punishable by law, and that so-called ‘Treasure Trove’ means that all archaeological finds of historical significance are declared the property of the Federal State of Schleswig-Holstein. Subsequent experience has shown that the model has produced mainly positive results. Regular contact and communication with the volunteer detectorists have meanwhile become an indispensable tool in regional archaeological research. Moreover, ‘enemy’ stereotypes on both sides have dissipated and been replaced by mutual respect and recognition. However, the subsequent work required, especially for the processing of the large quantity of finds (registration, restoration), had been greatly underestimated. Important new prospects have opened up with the development of scientific projects that include systematic surveying with metal detectors, while the publication of the first groups of finds has, in some cases, fundamentally changed our view of the Metal Ages in Schleswig-Holstein. All in all, the author is fully convinced that, given the overwhelmingly positive results of the ‘Schleswig Model’, which is based on cooperation, the solution of the problem of the recognition of metaldetector archaeology as a heritage-conservation and scientific tool at the interface between amateurs and professionals must lie in clear legal and ethical structures – and this before it is too late and the system has got completely out of control.

4

Głos w dyskusji o Projekcie Lednica i używaniu wykrywaczy metali w badaniach archeologicznych

67%

Sabaciński M.

Studia Lednickie

|

2020

|

vol. 19

119-127

EN

The article is a record and expanded version of the author’s participation in the discussion during the conference on 28 September 2018, entitled: “Współczesne techniki i metody ochrony dziedzictwa kulturowego w kontekście współpracy archeologów i detektorystów” (Contemporary techniques and methods of protection of cultural heritage in the context of cooperation between archaeologists and detectorists). The presented point of view is the opinion of an employee from an institution which deals with the protection of heritage and first and foremost gives priority to arguments from the restorers. The aim of the text is to present fieldworks as one of the elements of research, which consists of the following stages: planning, exploration, processing and interpretation, preservation and safekeeping of the monuments, as well as publications and wide sharing of the results.

Refine search results

3 Wiadomości Archeologiczne

1 Studia Lednickie

1 Ickerodt U.

1 Sabaciński M.

1 Schuster J.

1 Siegloff E.

1 Trzciński M.

1 von Carnap-Bornheim C.

1 2020

3 2017

Raz jeszcze o poszukiwaniu zabytków w Polsce. Między teorią i praktyką

Sypiając z wrogiem? Potencjał badawczy amatorskiej „archeologii detektorystycznej” na przykładzie zabytków z okresu wpływów rzymskich i okresu wędrówek ludów z lat 2006–2014, odkrytych w kraju związkowym Szlezwik-Holsztyn

Archeologia landu Szlezwik-Holsztyn a archeologia detektorystyczna

Głos w dyskusji o Projekcie Lednica i używaniu wykrywaczy metali w badaniach archeologicznych