Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Metal Detecting Debate. Keep all your MD questions and querys here!

1246

Comments

  • #152
    HappyHammered
    Registered Users Posts: 9 ✭HappyHammered


    RollYerOwn wrote: »

    If you have recovered artefacts, then there is an archaeological site there. It is not stipulated in the law that the site has to be previously recorded. If you use a metal detector without a licence to look for archaeological objects ANYWHERE, you are breaking the law.

    As I said before I have no intention of giving up detecting, if that means that once a month I enter the Dark Side so be it. I enjoy the detecting and the follow up research on the found items..........it's my connection with my past that I can get at on a Sunday afternoon :):)


  • #153
    RollYerOwn
    Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭RollYerOwn


    Entirely your choice - to break the law because you don't agree with it.

    It might be an idea not to broadcast it though ;)

    As for is the law justified, I say it is, you don't agree.

    Now, let's see if there's any church windows around my neighbourhood ... I fancy a pretty bit of coloured glass..


  • #154
    RollYerOwn
    Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭RollYerOwn


    Any idea what those canon balls and shot were doing there in the middle of a field by the way?


  • #155
    HappyHammered
    Registered Users Posts: 9 ✭HappyHammered


    RollYerOwn wrote: »
    Any idea what those canon balls and shot were doing there in the middle of a field by the way?

    Lying in a spoil heat of soil waiting to be graded for topsoil. I only managed to detect a fraction of the 1000's of tonnes of soil that was to be sold to the four corners of the country.

    As I said already it's a pity there's such a negative view of detectoring :(:(


  • #156
    HappyHammered
    Registered Users Posts: 9 ✭HappyHammered


    RollYerOwn wrote: »

    It might be an idea not to broadcast it though ;)

    Point taken!!! Good talking with you, time to log out and head to my hide away in the hills :)


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    RollYerOwn
    Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭RollYerOwn


    HappyHammered wrote: »
    Lying in a spoil heat of soil waiting to be graded for topsoil. I only managed to detect a fraction of the 1000's of tonnes of soil that was to be sold to the four corners of the country.

    As I said already it's a pity there's such a negative view of detectoring :(:(

    :eek:

    Couldn't find fault with that, as the artefacts were already removed from the site that had evidently been destroyed before you metal detected there, but let's face it, it's not what most detectorists limit themselves to. Mostly it's removing finds from a known or previously unknown site that lies under the sod waiting to be understood.

    Shame the development wasn't flagged as part of the planning application. Canon balls and musket shot don't generally sit around in a field for no reason and I'm sure there's a lot more that could have been learned. Presumably you've told the Museum and the discovery is now filed, so that now when a planning application is applied for in that area any remaining parts of the site or associated remains will have reason to be flagged in the future by Clare Co Co (otherwise only a few people you tell are any the wiser that a possibly important site was located there).


  • #158
    HappyHammered
    Registered Users Posts: 9 ✭HappyHammered


    RollYerOwn wrote: »
    Presumably you've told the Museum and the discovery is now filed, so that now when a planning application is applied for in that area any remaining parts of the site or associated remains will have reason to be flagged in the future by Clare Co Co (otherwise only a few people you tell are any the wiser that a possibly important site was located there).

    The site was the old GAA pitch, relocated in the 70's and turned back to grazing land prior to redevelopement. The site itself is across the river from an ex british barracks and tower house dating back to the 12 century.

    The site was extensively surveyed prior to developement but as you know yourself it was probably only hit in spots. I managed to make my finds in a couple of hours. Can you imagine what could have been found if an extensive survey was done with a group of detectorists in conjunction with the Archaeologists before the bulldozers moved in.

    I think it's sad how much history we've lost to the developers bulldozers and the short sightedness of her learned community to the advantages of controlled detecting.

    Bar the coin shooters and treasure hunters you'll find that most metal detectorists are history buffs albeit without a degree.

    To answer your question my finds were handed in to my local museum but because of where they were found (spoil heap without context) i could donate or bring home..........I brought them home :):)


  • #159
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    HappyHammered wrote: »


    To answer your question my finds were handed in to my local museum but because of where they were found (spoil heap without context) i could donate or bring home..........I brought them home :):)
    And therein lies the crux of the matter - the motivation for most unlicensed metal detectorists is simply to find 'stuff' to bring home.


  • #160
    HappyHammered
    Registered Users Posts: 9 ✭HappyHammered


    slowburner wrote: »
    And therein lies the crux of the matter - the motivation for most unlicensed metal detectorists is simply to find 'stuff' to bring home.

    Which was the Modus operandi of the majority of archaeologists up to recent history, not only did they bring 'stuff' home from there locality but also pilaged foreign sites, eg the Elgin Marbles.

    Can you explain the difference?


  • #161
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    HappyHammered wrote: »
    Which was the Modus operandi of the majority of archaeologists up to recent history, not only did they bring 'stuff' home from there locality but also pilaged foreign sites, eg the Elgin Marbles.

    Can you explain the difference?
    I think I probably can.
    Elgin 'collected' those marbles between 1801 and 1806 (two hundred and six years ago) when treasure hunting was a fashion of the affluent and adventurous.
    It most certainly was not archaeology.
    Archaeology is a science which results in knowledge to everyone's benefit.
    Treasure hunting benefits no one.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Maudi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,516 ✭✭✭Maudi


    RollYerOwn wrote: »
    Don't get me wrong I used to metal detect myself when I was a kid, legally, in the UK. I know that people have an interest but as I have said numerous times, there is a better way that doesn't result in a loss of information. Join a local archaeological society or start one up - I know there are plenty of archaeologists living in Clare - and see how licensed metal detection might be of use on a research dig.

    There are a few things I would like to do but laws that I don't agree with stop me because I don't want to break the law.

    As far as the National Monuments Act is concerned, landowner permission is irrelevant - the landowner doesn't own the artefacts and sites that lie on their land. Nor do you even if you find them.

    If you have recovered artefacts, then there is an archaeological site there. It is not stipulated in the law that the site has to be previously recorded. If you use a metal detector without a licence to look for archaeological objects ANYWHERE, you are breaking the law.

    I'll post the link again so you can read it for yourself. Section 2 subsection (b)

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1987/en/act/pub/0017/sec0002.html#sec2

    Sorry, but if you're going to post such claims you should check your legal position before you get yourself into bother. Fortunately it seems that the National Museum don't bother their backsides checking such new-fangled things as the internet. :rolleyes:
    what do you do you mean you metal detected legally in the uk?so its just the law that differs. from country to country..the act of mding isint illegal just where one does it..confused?


  • #163
    phcoh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2 ✭phcoh


    Maudi wrote: »
    what do you do you mean you metal detected legally in the uk?so its just the law that differs. from country to country..the act of mding isint illegal just where one does it..confused?

    I have no interest in MD, I have even less interest in ancient (long dead no bearing on modern life whatsoever) ways of life, I do however have an interest in the madness of the law. The NMOI act (acts) never mentions the actual words "Metal Detector" it tries to use ambiguous terms like "Detection device" (which can be very defeatist) this wording always points you back to this sub section:-
    (8) In this section “detection device” means a device designed or adapted for detecting or locating any metal or mineral on or in the ground, on, in or under the sea bed or on or in land covered by water, but does not include a camera.
    I would like to bring you attention to "Mineral" for this post lets forget about metal.
    All rocks sedimentary or volcanic are 'mineral' !. Which also makes the use of any of the below illegal without a license (read on for the madness part>)

    Geophysical survey can be the most effective way to see beneath the ground. Magnetometers detect minute deviations in the Earth's magnetic field caused by iron artifacts, kilns, some types of stone structures, and even ditches and middens. Devices that measure the electrical resistivity of the soil are also widely used. Archaeological features whose electrical resistivity contrasts with that of surrounding soils can be detected and mapped. Some archaeological features (such as those composed of stone or brick) have higher resistivity than typical soils, while others (such as organic deposits or unfired clay) tend to have lower resistivity.

    Any of the above IS a DETECTION device, so is ground penetrating radar, so is side-scan radar in the sea.
    It seems to me that all the above require a license now.
    Looks like the archy's paperwork just got 4 miles longer.


  • #164
    phcoh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2 ✭phcoh


    BTW did you know in UK it is illegal for anyone under the age of 14 to pilot a Boeing 747 (see mad laws, 14 no way, 15 sure go right ahead lol)


  • #165
    DeepSleeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 272 ✭✭DeepSleeper


    phcoh wrote: »
    Geophysical survey can be the most effective way to see beneath the ground. Magnetometers detect minute deviations in the Earth's magnetic field caused by iron artifacts, kilns, some types of stone structures, and even ditches and middens. Devices that measure the electrical resistivity of the soil are also widely used. Archaeological features whose electrical resistivity contrasts with that of surrounding soils can be detected and mapped. Some archaeological features (such as those composed of stone or brick) have higher resistivity than typical soils, while others (such as organic deposits or unfired clay) tend to have lower resistivity.

    Any of the above IS a DETECTION device, so is ground penetrating radar, so is side-scan radar in the sea.
    It seems to me that all the above require a license now.
    Looks like the archy's paperwork just got 4 miles longer.

    Archaeologists have applied for detection device licenses to undertake geophysical surveys for years - it isn't a major burden and certainly doesn't lead to '4 miles' of paperwork. It is just a regular part of a day's work for a professional archaeologist - one they happily submit to if the same system keeps illegal metal detecting under control.


  • #166
    texidub
    Registered Users Posts: 280 ✭✭texidub


    RollYerOwn wrote: »
    Volunteering on an excavation might demonstrate to you how much archaeology (of the monetarily worthless kind) there is on an archaeological site in comparison to a metal object. Digging holes in this destroys it.

    The usual way it is found is controlled archaeological excavation. Usually this precedes development which is going to destroy features and finds and is built into the planning legislation - but then most people don't like paying for this when they just want to make their bit of money off the land do they?

    Been reading this thread with interest and can see both sides of the debate.

    I think the bit in bold gets to the heart of the matter.. but probably not in the way the poster intended)... The kind of dig you describe is not monetarily worthless to the professional archaeologist though is it? I mean they get paid.

    And from this thread at least, that's what the debate is about --people who have invested time and money in a field of study wanting to exclude those who haven't.

    And hidden beneath much of the talk of heritage (I suspect) is the fact that archaeologists want exclusive rights to make money (their wages) from our national heritage. (Not that they make much, but it's the principle of the thing.)

    That said, people who dig up stuff and sell it on ebay or elsewhere (whether they are 'professional' archaeologists or not) are a disgrace.

    Finally, archaeology is quite a new science. It was the preserve of amateurs until relatively recently. It lacks respectability to be perfectly honest... I know from experience (in a past life I did a doctorate in another 'science' lacking in repsectability (psychoanalytic studies).. and there too, you find that those in the 'profession' are desperate to distinguish themselves from 'amateurs' and hobbyists. They protesteth too much..

    Whatever the law of the land says, archaeologists no more own your heritage than psychoanalysts own your mind.

    Just a few thoughts from an outsider.

    I love archaeology (and have participated as a volunteer on digs of Indian burial sitres in the southern US).. just in case I seem indifferent to archaeologists' concerns.


  • #167
    texidub
    Registered Users Posts: 280 ✭✭texidub


    Gee Bag wrote: »
    In Ireland, archaeological artefacts are the property of the state i.e. they are the property of the Irish people, not individuals.

    Only competent archaeologists are allowed run excavations and apply for licences to use MDs.

    Translation: Only archaeologists are allowed to make money (in the form of their wages) from Ireland's heritage, so eff off! :D

    EDIT: I wholeheartedly agree that metal detecting --in itself-- offers only partial insight into a site. And also, that --in itself-- it is not equivalent to a 'proper' dig, which will reveal data about many aspects of a site --not just the amount of metal therein. Sites aren't all about the metal and to treat them this way is to approach digging in entirely the wrong way. MDing might identify a site of interest.. but at that point a proper dig needs to commence (not that I think only archaeologists are capable of digging... interpretation yes, but data gathering not so much)..


  • #168
    Maudi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,516 ✭✭✭Maudi


    texidub wrote: »
    Gee Bag wrote: »
    In Ireland, archaeological artefacts are the property of the state i.e. they are the property of the Irish people, not individuals.

    Only competent archaeologists are allowed run excavations and apply for licences to use MDs.

    Translation: Only archaeologists are allowed to make money (in the form of their wages) from Ireland's heritage, so eff off! :D

    EDIT: I wholeheartedly agree that metal detecting --in itself-- offers only partial insight into a site. And also, that --in itself-- it is not equivalent to a 'proper' dig, which will reveal data about many aspects of a site --not just the amount of metal therein. Sites aren't all about the metal and to treat them this way is to approach digging in entirely the wrong way. MDing might identify a site of interest.. but at that point a proper dig needs to commence (not that I think only archaeologists are capable of digging... interpretation yes, but data gathering not so much)..
    very well said dear chap...you'll be slated by the 'know alls' here but well said....


  • #169
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    texidub wrote: »
    Been reading this thread with interest and can see both sides of the debate.

    I think the bit in bold gets to the heart of the matter.. but probably not in the way the poster intended)... The kind of dig you describe is not monetarily worthless to the professional archaeologist though is it? I mean they get paid.
    Of course archaeologists get paid, so do doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, policemen, wildlife officers, fisheries officers, county council workers and firemen. If they weren't paid we wouldn't have these services.
    And from this thread at least, that's what the debate is about --people who have invested time and money in a field of study wanting to exclude those who haven't.
    That is a confused interpretation of the debate - it is not about excluding people for the sake of it.
    Legitimate archaeologists and those with a genuine concern for our heritage, want to see our heritage conserved and interpreted in the most intelligent and reliable way possible.
    A crucial difference is that archaeologists publish the results of their work, metal detectorists carry out their activities in secrecy.
    The work carried out by legitimate archaeologists creates a store of knowledge which is available to all - this knowledge itself, becomes part of our heritage.

    Metal detectorists or treasure hunters are motivated entirely by what they can find for themselves - either to add to their collections of meaningless, isolated trinkets or for monetary reward.
    They contribute nothing to the store of knowledge about our past. Quite the opposite - they destroy it.
    And hidden beneath much of the talk of heritage (I suspect) is the fact that archaeologists want exclusive rights to make money (their wages) from our national heritage. (Not that they make much, but it's the principle of the thing.)
    No, it is the metal detecting brigade who want to make money from our heritage.
    Trained archaeologists are the professionals, they know what they are doing.
    If you were ill, would you not go to a doctor?
    How would you feel if the doctor then told you that they had never received any training and that the motivation for looking at you was to see if there was anything they could take from you for their collection, or to sell on Ebay?
    It is no different with metal detecting and heritage.
    That said, people who dig up stuff and sell it on ebay or elsewhere (whether they are 'professional' archaeologists or not) are a disgrace.
    Professional archaeologists, most certainly do not sell anything found in the course of their work.
    Finally, archaeology is quite a new science.
    It is true that archaeology is a relatively new science but it differs from psychoanalysis in the degree to which it is a science. Archaeology deals with the physical, observable world, and as such, is subject to all the tenets of scientific principles.
    It was the preserve of amateurs until relatively recently. It lacks respectability to be perfectly honest... I know from experience (in a past life I did a doctorate in another 'science' lacking in repsectability (psychoanalytic studies).. and there too, you find that those in the 'profession' are desperate to distinguish themselves from 'amateurs' and hobbyists. They protesteth too much..
    I think you are confusing treasure hunting with legitimate archaeology
    Whatever the law of the land says, archaeologists no more own your heritage than psychoanalysts own your mind.
    No sane archaeologist would even contemplate such a claim.
    Archaeologists contribute to heritage.
    Metal detectorists don't.

    Just a few thoughts from an outsider.

    I love archaeology (and have participated as a volunteer on digs of Indian burial sitres in the southern US).. just in case I seem indifferent to archaeologists' concerns.
    Just a few thoughts from another outsider.


  • #170
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    slowburner wrote: »
    Metal detectorists or treasure hunters are motivated entirely by what they can find for themselves - either to add to their collections of meaningless, isolated trinkets or for monetary reward.
    They contribute nothing to the store of knowledge about our past. Quite the opposite - they destroy it.

    No, it is the metal detecting brigade who want to make money from our heritage.
    Archaeologists contribute to heritage.
    Metal detectorists don't.

    Wow, you assume a lot. Haven't read the whole thread, only lurk in this part once in a while because am interested in archeology, so another outsider. I have a MD and have never used it, however I can guarantee you that if I ever did, it would have absolutely nothing to do with collecting trinkets for myself or making money on Ebay, and would have everything to do with saving some piece of national heritage from a farmer's plough, and handing it over. Of course like some have said on here, if in danger of being incriminated for it, I would have to think of how to deliver said piece without hassle.
    Slowburner, there is a danger that the stance archeologists take to people's handling of "found" heritage may do more damage than the people themselves finding things in an unregulated manner. Some farmers around my area know things that would be of interest, but as they may see the archeologists as uncooperative and unsympathetic to a farmer's concerns, they might not share their knowledge, placing more sites/artefacts at risk (not the digging with a shovel/trowel risk kind, more the JCB kind).


  • #171
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    Wow, you assume a lot.
    Such as?
    Haven't read the whole thread, only lurk in this part once in a while because am interested in archeology, so another outsider. I have a MD and have never used it, however I can guarantee you that if I ever did, it would have absolutely nothing to do with collecting trinkets for myself or making money on Ebay, and would have everything to do with saving some piece of national heritage from a farmer's plough, and handing it over. Of course like some have said on here, if in danger of being incriminated for it, I would have to think of how to deliver said piece without hassle.
    Your motivation then would be rare amongst those who use metal detectors.
    If you find something which may be of interest from a historical or archaeological perspective, there is nothing to stop you from sending it to the National Museum.
    If you are confident that you have not done so illegally, you could include your name and details of the circumstances in which the object/s were found.
    Slowburner, there is a danger that the stance archeologists take to people's handling of "found" heritage may do more damage than the people themselves finding things in an unregulated manner. Some farmers around my area know things that would be of interest, but as they may see the archeologists as uncooperative and unsympathetic to a farmer's concerns, they might not share their knowledge, placing more sites/artefacts at risk (not the digging with a shovel/trowel risk kind, more the JCB kind).
    It is not a question of archaeologists 'taking a stance' - it is the law.
    Can you give examples of farmers seeing archaeologists as uncooperative and unsympathetic?
    I have visited many farms in the company of archaeologists and never experienced anything other than interest and curiosity.
    That said, many sites have succumbed to the JCB, that is undeniable, but I suspect that this is the result of ignorance more than anything else.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Slowburner I meant you are assuming that MDors are after either monetary gain, or personal (and only personal) gratification. You are assuming their motives, and simply guessing that that is what they are after. It is just as likely that most of them would be like myself, with a percentage being as you describe.

    I think the farmers who would have no problem with archeologists are younger farmers, I know farmers in my area of a certain age who wouldn't mind archeologists, but wouldn't reveal anything to them, if you see what I mean. I know of discoveries made in my area that have not been disclosed because of such a mistrust of archeologists. I am talking about things that were discovered or known of a long time ago (pre-1950/60s), and kept quiet or even buried again in one instance. It's an awful shame as now the people who remember it are older and their memory is patchier, as such things would have happened when they were young kids.
    edit : of course a lot have died too.


  • #173
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    If I am guilty of making the assumption that most metal detectorists are selfishly motivated, then you are just as guilty of making the assumption that most metal detectorists are not selfishly motivated.
    It's a circular argument.
    I have yet to see anything from metal detectorists to convince me that their motivation is for anything other than selfish reasons.
    You might see this as cynical.
    I see it as realistic.

    I am not an archaeologist and I don't own a metal detector but neither prevents me from making a useful contribution.
    Every day that I can, I investigate as many nooks and crannies for evidence of historical/archaeological interest.
    I haven't achieved very much apart from the discovery of two 'lost' 18/19th C mines and the possible discovery of two Bronze Age mine sites, and a few other bits and pieces.
    I have taken nothing, and I have damaged nothing - if I find something of interest, I call in the experts.
    If I can be utterly satisfied with my amateur, non-invasive exploration - why can't others?
    Why do they need a metal detector?
    Have a look here to see where much UK archaeological material, found by metal detecting, has ended up.
    By the way, there were MD finds from Ireland on this site- the matter is now in the hands of the National Museum.
    If people like you, who have a genuine interest in archaeology, want to get involved, then put away the invasive, illegal and destructive technology and start doing something constructive.
    You're a fine photographer. Why not get out with the camera and post in this thread? You would be more than welcome, I am sure. Photographic records of existing sites are invaluable.
    You don't need a degree in archaeology to contribute.


    I hear you when you talk about an apparent mistrust of archaeologists amongst farmers.
    It is not a case of farmers mistrusting archaeologists.
    It is that the farmers would prefer not to be told that there is something on their land which must be preserved.
    They prefer not to be told what they can and cannot do with their own land.
    You create the impression that archaeologists belong to some sort of a devious secret society which sets out to terrorise the humble farmer - few things could be further from the truth.


  • #174
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    You're right about the circular argument, and I can totally picture a lot of people taking advantage of the situation if the law was changed, I know a lot of people who are obsessed with money, and would probably see it as a chance to make a few bobs out of nothing. :(
    So... I know what you're saying, but I also know a lot of people who like myself are just interested in heritage, and would try to do as little damage as possible, and call in the experts too.

    I understand the point of view of archeologists, on one hand, but on the other hand it's breaking my heart : it's like saying "leave it buried, it's safer there" and "it" may be found and properly excavated at some stage, when I know and you know that a lot of "it" is not safe at all.
    I live near the site of an old ring fort (approx 1 mile), with some standing stones nearby, and also less than a mile away according to my county's Archeological Survey book, an upside down urn was found with remains of a little child... and yet all around me I see farmers digging and moving soil. In their books they're not doing anything wrong I'm sure, they keep away from the official archeological sites, they don't remove a standing stone (anymore...). They have to do all these jobs on their land, moving their soil from A to B, and they're entitled to do this. But every time I pass by a dug out corner of a field I wonder if there might have been something there of interest. It's not really possible to call in archeologists for every little soil movement a farmer intends to do, however if hobbyists with MD were allowed and on hand in the community, they may sometimes help save an artefact/site or two from the JCB, especially with younger farmers who are more aware and willing to cooperate.
    It is not a case of farmers mistrusting archaeologists.
    It is that the farmers would prefer not to be told that there is something on their land which must be preserved.
    They prefer not to be told what they can and cannot do with their own land.
    You create the impression that archaeologists belong to some sort of a devious secret society which sets out to terrorise the humble farmer - few things could be further from the truth.
    You're right, they are not devious beings from a secret society, but like you said, to our older rural farmers, they may be perceived as "town people", who may stop them from carrying out their business on their own land.

    edit : oh, and the photo thread is great, I'll make it my business to take pics of the standing stones in my area, have been meaning to do it in ages anyway, and will post them here. For anyone interested there are some ogham stones in Knockboy Church, Co Waterford, in my Flickr stream, here.


  • #175
    Maudi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,516 ✭✭✭Maudi


    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    You're right about the circular argument, and I can totally picture a lot of people taking advantage of the situation if the law was changed, I know a lot of people who are obsessed with money, and would probably see it as a chance to make a few bobs out of nothing. :(
    So... I know what you're saying, but I also know a lot of people who like myself are just interested in heritage, and would try to do as little damage as possible, and call in the experts too.

    I understand the point of view of archeologists, on one hand, but on the other hand it's breaking my heart : it's like saying "leave it buried, it's safer there" and "it" may be found and properly excavated at some stage, when I know and you know that a lot of "it" is not safe at all.
    I live near the site of an old ring fort (approx 1 mile), with some standing stones nearby, and also less than a mile away according to my county's Archeological Survey book, an upside down urn was found with remains of a little child... and yet all around me I see farmers digging and moving soil. In their books they're not doing anything wrong I'm sure, they keep away from the official archeological sites, they don't remove a standing stone (anymore...). They have to do all these jobs on their land, moving their soil from A to B, and they're entitled to do this. But every time I pass by a dug out corner of a field I wonder if there might have been something there of interest. It's not really possible to call in archeologists for every little soil movement a farmer intends to do, however if hobbyists with MD were allowed and on hand in the community, they may sometimes help save an artefact/site or two from the JCB, especially with younger farmers who are more aware and willing to cooperate.
    It is not a case of farmers mistrusting archaeologists.
    It is that the farmers would prefer not to be told that there is something on their land which must be preserved.
    They prefer not to be told what they can and cannot do with their own land.
    You create the impression that archaeologists belong to some sort of a devious secret society which sets out to terrorise the humble farmer - few things could be further from the truth.
    You're right, they are not devious beings from a secret society, but like you said, to our older rural farmers, they may be perceived as "town people", who may stop them from carrying out their business on their own land.

    edit : oh, and the photo thread is great, I'll make it my business to take pics of the standing stones in my area, have been meaning to do it in ages anyway, and will post them here. For anyone interested there are some ogham stones in Knockboy Church, Co Waterford, in my Flickr stream, here.
    a little bit of searching on the net will show the true facts..irish and english museums are full of beautiful objects and hoards that are on view to the public because of metal detectorists ...put all back in to the ground and what have we got?not a lot...mding deserves its recognition...(i dont own a md)but can see the position of both sides .


  • #176
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    texidub wrote: »
    And from this thread at least, that's what the debate is about --people who have invested time and money in a field of study wanting to exclude those who haven't.


    This debate has nothing to do with money, nor is it about excluding people from archaeology.

    Its about stopping well intentioned people who think that metal detecting is harmless. People with metal detectors rip sites apart. They don't mean to, they don't know they are doing it, yet they do it all the same.

    Simple as that.


  • #177
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    phcoh wrote: »
    The NMOI act (acts) never mentions the actual words "Metal Detector" it tries to use ambiguous terms like "Detection device"

    The reason ambiguous language is used is to future proof the legislation. By using a generic term, potential future non-invasive technology is covered by the act.


  • #178
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Gee Bag wrote: »
    This debate has nothing to do with money, nor is it about excluding people from archaeology.

    Its about stopping well intentioned people who think that metal detecting is harmless. People with metal detectors rip sites apart. They don't mean to, they don't know they are doing it, yet they do it all the same.

    Simple as that.

    Gee Bag, I stopped by the site today of this old ring fort that I live near to, and stopped for a look. There is nothing but a lone standing stone left of the fort, although I guess better trained eyes might see some relief remaining, in fact according to online 6 inch map the fort should not really be on the standing stone spot but closer to the field I am going to talk about.
    In the field right next to it, the farmer has dug out lots of holes, there are at least 4 or 5 mounds of freshly dug soil there, no idea why he's doing that but I often see that done (it's mostly sheep and cattle where I am). That's a short field away from the fort, maybe some 70 metres or so.

    I have never done metal detecting, but somehow I don't think I would do as much damage looking for one artefact in one pinpointed spot than what has been done by the farmer tending his land.
    Do you have examples of sites ripped apart by metal detectors ? I'm not being antagonistic or such, I do see your point, like I was saying above I do understand some MD users might be destroyers and bounty hunters, but I would like to see the damage for myself, or read about it.


  • #179
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    It sounds as if the farmer might be digging drainage test holes for a septic tank or possibly prior to building something.
    You should check here to see if the site is listed.
    http://webgis.archaeology.ie/NationalMonuments/FlexViewer/

    You can read about the damage done by metal detecting, and the reason for the introduction of the legislation here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3284/is_n255_v67/ai_n28628075/?tag=content;col1
    The article will tell you about the Emly Shrine, the Lough Kinale Bookshrine, Tully Lough processional Cross, and the activities of Anthony Molloy and his son, Kevin.
    By Cormac O’Keeffe

    DO NOT buy or accept metal detectors as presents this Christmas or you could end up spending the new year in jail, an expert warned yesterday. And shops and manufacturers were told not to advertise metal detectors as they were making potential criminals of buyers. Antiquities expert Dr Ned Kelly made the comments yesterday as selected items from a hoard of 800 artifacts, which were recovered from thieves, were put on display at the National Museum. “We would advise people coming up to Christmas, not to give or receive metal detectors. “They run the risk of finding themselves before the courts, and even run the risk of imprisonment,” Dr Kelly said. It is illegal to dig for archeological objects and to use metal detectors for such a purpose without a special licence. Dr Kelly said advertisements were running in national papers promoting metal detectors, including junior versions for €12.50. The National Museum’s antiquities curator said one supermarket was also promoting them, unaware they were making potential criminals of buyers. Dr Kelly unveiled a number of items recovered from a massive artifact theft involving more than 800 items. These included a rare gold covered Christian mount from Lorrha, Co Tipperary, featuring a crucifix in a circular frame. The mount is thought to have an insurance value to up to €50,000. Other items on display were two Bronze Age daggers, an Iron Age pin, musket balls and hundreds of perfectly preserved coins with the month and the year of minting still visible. “We are giving people an opportunity to see this significant and important material.
    Not to have documented it and the material collected would have been a significant loss,” said Dr Kelly. Anthony Molloy, a 68-year-old former Duchas employee, and his 44-year-old son Kevin, were last week found guilty at Birr District Court of being in the possession of archeological objects. Judge Michael Reilly gave them the probation act partly because they had co-operated fully with the National Museum. The court had heard that Anthony Molloy had been given a metal detector as a retirement present. The father and son went on to raid monastic sites and castles near their north Tipperary home. Dr Kelly advised people who have information on the use of metal detectors to contact the gardaí or the National Museum on 01-6777444.
    http://www.examiner.ie/
    http://www.museum-security.org/02/152.html


  • #180
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    slowburner wrote: »
    It sounds as if the farmer might be digging drainage test holes for a septic tank or possibly prior to building something.

    Thanks Slowburner just to say you're absolutely right, doh, I pass the spot everyday and hadn't noticed the planning permission notice on the very spot.
    The old fort is not visible above ground and has not been for years, so even from the OS of 1840s, it's been classed as earthworks. Don't really want to publish my address ;):cool: but our townland bears a very evocative name, so it was indeed an old fort.
    The farmer's work is very very close ! But I presume a very old unapparent structure probably doesn't warrant a perimeter being determined for building permission. Having said that, I'd love to Metal Detect them mounds of soil :D. The damage's been done in that case, and I'd share all my discoveries if any....:p
    I don't know that farmer though, and only glimpsed at the planning permission note so he could have sold the land for all I know anyway.
    Funny how that 1840s survey is not that hugely accurate though, there is a standing stone in a field at the back of my house, which has been incorrectly located iirc (haven't checked on it in ages, but will go take pics for the megaliths thread).


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    RollYerOwn
    Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭RollYerOwn


    Haven't been getting any more notices of replies to this thread for some reason. To attempt to answer some points raised...

    I find it interesting that most of the arguments I have raised remain unanswered and instead people resort to accusations. I understand that you might want to explore that avenue. So to provide a some kind of defence;
    texidub wrote: »
    I think the bit in bold gets to the heart of the matter.. but probably not in the way the poster intended)... The kind of dig you describe is not monetarily worthless to the professional archaeologist though is it? I mean they get paid.

    Archaeologists are called in at the request of a developer because a planning authority requires it when a development takes place in certain circumstances. If a site has been metal detected it makes not a jot of difference to whether archaeologists gets paid or not.

    texidub wrote: »
    And from this thread at least, that's what the debate is about --people who have invested time and money in a field of study wanting to exclude those who haven't.

    Like all trained professionals insist on some form of training you mean? No-one has ever been excluded from training to become an archaeologist and throughout the boom many people learned on-the-job. How is that exclusive? Why didn't other people do it? I imagine for many it looked like it was too much bloody work and others knew they could make more money doing something else.

    Neither do archaeologists want to exclude other people. Several times I have raised the point that if metal detectorists maintain they are "doing it for the love of heritage and history" that they form or join a local archaeological society and learn through volunteer excavations - perhaps making use of their local archaeologists (before those skills are all lost in a dying profession). Many such groups have existed elsewhere so why not Ireland? The only thing that should separate "amateur" archaeologists from "professional" archaeologists is that "amateur" archaeologists are likely to be better paid (in whatever way they make a living). I also agree with several posters' points that metal detectorists could have much to contribute in a well-managed archaeological project - whether amateur or professional.

    texidub wrote: »
    And hidden beneath much of the talk of heritage (I suspect) is the fact that archaeologists want exclusive rights to make money (their wages) from our national heritage. (Not that they make much, but it's the principle of the thing.)

    Archaeologists don't have and don't want exclusive rights to "make money from our heritage". In fact they make very little and have a very small share of the heritage industry. Everyone in the State benefits from the large revenue generated by the heritage driven parts of the tourist industry.
    texidub wrote: »
    Finally, archaeology is quite a new science. It was the preserve of amateurs until relatively recently. It lacks respectability to be perfectly honest...

    Archaeology as a "science" has been developing over a couple of hundred years and many of the "amateur" excavations of the early part of the last century would put the majority of modern "professional" excavations to shame (though modern techniques can be quite striking in their results too). Why? Because we are not just interested in "preserving by record" the nice upstanding and dramatic sites, but also the very average and less interesting sites that still tell an awful lot about how people lived in the past. There is less funding per site than their ever was and we strive to make it affordable for excavations to take place and not let the vast amount of heritage that is there get in the way of all development.

    There have been tens of thousands of archaeological excavations in the last decade or more in Ireland. Many have been published but mostly they are stored away as reports and await some form of synthesis. This might be a crying shame, but at least they have been recorded and knowledge of them saved. The vast majority of these would not have been found by metal detectorists or locals - I can't count the amount of times locals thought I was in the wrong place (as if I'd chosen it) and that there was nothing of interest for miles - neither would they have been spotted by bulldozers or the casual observer. Does that sound arrogant? I hope not, but don't forget that we know our business pretty well (we should do we get paid to).

    That said, yes it does lack respectability, I'll be the first to admit it. What do you expect when the predominant attitude that I have come across from most people who try and understand what we do is "what's the point there's no money to be made from this stuff". How can what we do be considered worth doing when the country can't afford to pay its teachers, gardai and nurses? Heritage just isn't important enough in most people's minds and I completely understand that. Archaeologists are classed as everything between jet-setters and tree-huggers - for the most part, though, in the industries that they engage with archaeologists are considered as a costly irritation forced on them by other jet-setters and tree-huggers. So who could ever consider it a respectable profession?
    texidub wrote: »
    ... you find that those in the 'profession' are desperate to distinguish themselves from 'amateurs' and hobbyists. They protesteth too much..

    Far from it my friend, archaeologists stay too silent about a great deal.

    At the end of the day, archaeological excavations may in the future be consigned to the dustbin as an unaffordable luxury. We could also sell off the contents of the National Museum to wealthy businessmen and collectors. We could dig up and cut down all the resources and desecrate everything we have here for the purposes of "making a bit of money".


  • #182
    mdebets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,747 ✭✭✭mdebets


    Maudi wrote: »
    a little bit of searching on the net will show the true facts..irish and english museums are full of beautiful objects and hoards that are on view to the public because of metal detectorists ...put all back in to the ground and what have we got?not a lot...mding deserves its recognition...(i dont own a md)but can see the position of both sides .

    All these beautiful objects and hoards are next to worthless in regards to knowledge if they are not properly excavated. You can't tell why they were put where they where found and when, unless you perform a proper excavation, recording all the context and related finds in the area. This is the real importance of an object, not that it looks good in a museum. All this gets destroyed if someone with a metaldetector just digs a hole, because the md indicated that there might be a treasure.


  • #183
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    What if a Metal Detectorist found a brooch, in the middle of a field where no one would have thought of looking, brought the brooch to a museum, along with notification and exact location of the find ?
    A 50 cm hole may have been dug in a much wider area that is now known to archeologists to further investigate.
    So, a possible spoiling of a ... say, square meter area, for the investigation of a potentially important site.

    Either that or ... farmer ploughs and transfers soil from A to B, and no one will ever ever know about the brooch, and potential site.

    ... or ... someone buys said site, digs test holes (see my previous posts), upturns the entire area to engineer drainage, and septic tank, and build a bungalow on it. Brooch and potentially interesting site gone. (We did just that in our site, in the middle of nowhere, wish I'd have had the Metal Detector then_ and known how to use it). What do you know ? There could have been something on our site, and now it's gone for everyone.

    ... or ... this area of field is unscathed, for no one to discover, since there are no meaningful signs of its existence above ground. No one's the wiser. No damage done, no brooch to show our descendants either.

    I'm sorry but to me it's like the phrase "un mal pour un bien" in French. No one can deny there will be unscrupulous metal detectorists, and that some damage may be done. However it all boils down to percentage of what may be gained, to percentage of what may be lost. And to my absolutely untrained mind, there is more to be gained.

    Should the law not concentrate more on punishing those who deal with or hold on to the treasures afterwards ? Someone selling an old coin on Ebay should be able to trace it back to where it came from. Causing hassle for treasure dealers might discourage some.


  • #184
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    What if a Metal Detectorist found a brooch, in the middle of a field where no one would have thought of looking, brought the brooch to a museum, along with notification and exact location of the find ?
    A 50 cm hole may have been dug in a much wider area that is now known to archeologists to further investigate.
    So, a possible spoiling of a ... say, square meter area, for the investigation of a potentially important site.

    Either that or ... farmer ploughs and transfers soil from A to B, and no one will ever ever know about the brooch, and potential site.

    ... or ... someone buys said site, digs test holes (see my previous posts), upturns the entire area to engineer drainage, and septic tank, and build a bungalow on it. Brooch and potentially interesting site gone. (We did just that in our site, in the middle of nowhere, wish I'd have had the Metal Detector then_ and known how to use it). What do you know ? There could have been something on our site, and now it's gone for everyone.

    ... or ... this area of field is unscathed, for no one to discover, since there are no meaningful signs of its existence above ground. No one's the wiser. No damage done, no brooch to show our descendants either.

    I'm sorry but to me it's like the phrase "un mal pour un bien" in French. No one can deny there will be unscrupulous metal detectorists, and that some damage may be done. However it all boils down to percentage of what may be gained, to percentage of what may be lost. And to my absolutely untrained mind, there is more to be gained.

    Should the law not concentrate more on punishing those who deal with or hold on to the treasures afterwards ? Someone selling an old coin on Ebay should be able to trace it back to where it came from. Causing hassle for treasure dealers might discourage some.
    You have to make a distinction between the accidental uncovering of an artefact through activities like pilot holes or development works and deliberately going out with a metal detector to find buried treasure.
    The intent is different.
    There might well be some folks who would go out with an md (you might be one of them) and who would scrupulously record every necessary detail, and pass this information and the find, on to the right place.
    But how do you prevent the unscrupulous ones?
    If you legislate against the dealers, it is too late, the damage has already been done.

    These are very tough times for archaeology and this country's heritage. There might have been a time when funding was available to investigate random finds - that funding is gone, so is the possibility of investigating potentially new and interesting sites.
    The chances of a site being excavated on the strength of a random md find are slim.
    So should we encourage lots of 50cm square, well recorded, random holes all over the country - which are not going to be investigated? We should think about these artefacts, not as 'lost', but as 'safe' - underground.

    And then we come to the grey area.
    What to do with spoil heaps where the context has been destroyed by excavation for building etc.
    My personal opinion is that interested and informed folk would be doing us all a favour by investigating these heaps and holes, recording their exact location, and giving any finds to the National Museum - who will be delighted to receive them, by the way, and will offer advice.
    But forget about the metal detector; they don't identify pottery sherds, bone, stone, glass or charcoal, and if your eye is trained, you will spot the metal anyway.
    These are the real finds. They are of no value to the treasure hunter and get damaged or discarded in the frantic search for valuable metal. These non-metal finds are the really informative objects which tell us so much about the people who lived there.

    How often are ancient pieces of charcoal, or bone, or fragments of glass, or pottery sherds offered for sale on Ebay?


  • #185
    RollYerOwn
    Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭RollYerOwn


    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    What if a Metal Detectorist found a brooch, in the middle of a field where no one would have thought of looking, brought the brooch to a museum, along with notification and exact location of the find ?
    A 50 cm hole may have been dug in a much wider area that is now known to archeologists to further investigate.
    So, a possible spoiling of a ... say, square meter area, for the investigation of a potentially important site.

    A perfectly reasonable question and I shall do my best to answer. Let's for argument's sake assume the law was changed and it was no longer illegal to metal detect in Ireland.

    Archaeologists don't usually "think of looking" however. There is a misconception that archaeologists are on the hunt for new stuff to find when the reality is quite the opposite. There have been so many excavations that took place prior to development destroying the sites that there is no need to go out looking for sites that are not under threat. Assume at this stage that they are protected - they have been there for hundreds or thousands of years to this point.

    This is a completely made up but cvompletely feasible example of what can happen. A metal detectorist goes into a field nearby - he's interested in the local history and hopes to find something interesting. He has the best of intentions. He takes something from the site (identifying a new site as opposed to metal detecting a known one) and is scrupulous enough to hand the piece over to the museum.

    Is he a trained surveyor with a GPS with accuracy to less than that half a metre hole he dug through the site to record the find spot? Let's assume he is (otherwise that 50cm hole could be anywhere within a few metres or more). Now we have the exact find spot of a piece that is now in the possession of the museum. Lovely. What happens now?

    Is he going to pay for an excavation to take place? I doubt it. Is the landowner? No. So the site remains as it was - except for the missing find (now conserved by - and at cost to - the museum) and the now presumably backfilled hole where once there was an undisturbed archaeological feature.

    Is that the end of the story? No. He will return to look for more. Maybe he'll find more. Other metal detectorists will learn of the find spot and come to do the same. Now the museum gets worried because a number of other finds are being reported by the same man and his friends - so they go in to "rescue" excavate a site that was previously not threatened. It turns out to be an Iron Age burial ground that was unusually rich with a couple of Iron Age fibulae and some spear heads have been grave robbed. The exact context of those grave-goods are hopelessly lost. A whole host of questions that might have been answered and knowledge that might have been gained about Iron Age burial practice would have to wait until a site came up that WASN'T due to being pillaged by a metal detectorist.

    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    Either that or ... farmer ploughs and transfers soil from A to B, and no one will ever ever know about the brooch, and potential site.

    The vast majority of Ireland's farmland is in pasture which poses no threat to the underlying archaeological finds and features. If it's been ploughed it's likely that it's been ploughed for centuries. If farmers spot things they often report them to the museum - they have nothing to hide, they are doing nothing illegal. Admittedly the context of finds from ploughed lands are much diminished, but there remains the threat of further digging, further exploration by metal detectorists that will do more damage to features that haven't yet been destroyed. But again - let's say that a new site is found... what of it?


    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    ... or ... someone buys said site, digs test holes (see my previous posts), upturns the entire area to engineer drainage, and septic tank, and build a bungalow on it. Brooch and potentially interesting site gone. (We did just that in our site, in the middle of nowhere, wish I'd have had the Metal Detector then_ and known how to use it). What do you know ? There could have been something on our site, and now it's gone for everyone.

    Unfortunately planners are frequently very poor at determining archaeological potential and obviously we have no knowledge of the majority of archaeological sites that exist undisturbed to date. Which is why it is so important that council's employ archaeologists within their own departments - but heritage is not seen as being important enough. Even so, many developments, even one-off housing in the middle of nowhere have archaeological conditions attached - and many archaeological testing and monitoring jobs demonstrate that there is nothing to be found on many sites.

    However, yes, it is of course possible that developments take place with no archaeological conditions attached and a site is destroyed. I'm sure it has happened in thousands of cases - no-one can know though.

    Yes it is also possible that if a metal detectorist was to go on a site and there happened to be something metal there (most archaeological sites have no metal associated with them whatsoever), they could find the metal artefacts. Then what? If you had done this would you have forestalled your own house-building and paid for the excavation of the site? No? In fact with teh discovery of a new archaeological site it is likely to cause problems for your development and you would proabably keep shtum. So the site would still have been lost. But yes, a coin, or a brooch might have been retrieved.

    So metal objects will be retrieved very very occasionally and archaeological sites will still get destroyed and no-one will know anything about them.

    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    ... or ... this area of field is unscathed, for no one to discover, since there are no meaningful signs of its existence above ground. No one's the wiser. No damage done, no brooch to show our descendants either.

    The vast majority of archaeological sites that have been excavated over the past decade have been done without anyone knowing of their existence before hand, with no features above ground to give them away. We have other ways of detecting archaeological sites that are implemented prior to their destruction if there is a threat to them. If you think we lack in things to show our descendants, get to the National Museum! Believe me they have a damn-site more than is on display - but the best bits that are on display are 'kin amazing.
    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    I'm sorry but to me it's like the phrase "un mal pour un bien" in French. ... it all boils down to percentage of what may be gained, to percentage of what may be lost. And to my absolutely untrained mind, there is more to be gained.

    I hope to have argued the opposite.. that there is more to be lost and little to be gained from the use of metal detectors.
    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    Should the law not concentrate more on punishing those who deal with or hold on to the treasures afterwards ? Someone selling an old coin on Ebay should be able to trace it back to where it came from. Causing hassle for treasure dealers might discourage some.

    I honestly don't know what measures the museum takes to prevent trade in stolen heritage, but I believe it is taken very seriously indeed, has been made illegal here and under the Valletta agreement member states in the EU also have to take measure to prevent illicit trade in heritage.


  • #186
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    RollYerOwn wrote: »






    I honestly don't know what measures the museum takes to prevent trade in stolen heritage, but I believe it is taken very seriously indeed,
    The museum has an active, though currently under-resourced, section dedicated to the monitoring of stolen heritage.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    dr gonzo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭dr gonzo


    I havent read this full thread so apologies if this point has been made numerous times. Essentially what this all boils down to is a clear dichotomy in mindsets. As much as metal detectorists would like to think that their hobby is ultimately to the benefit of archaeology and national heritage, the simple fact is that it is not. At this point I should point out that Im speaking purely about amateur detectorists and preserved contexts.

    Firstly, as others have mentioned, metal is only one of a number of highly important, informative archaeological materials. Archaeologists see no more intrinsic value in it then a piece of wood or bone.

    Secondly any object removed from its original context by a person who hasnt been trained in practical excavation techniques is a lost object. From an archaeological point of view its next to useless.

    Thirdly the argument that metal detectorists identify sites is a weak one. They may in fact identify post neolithic sites alright but that doesnt mean that its to the benefit of the site. Perfect example is the relatively recent anglo-saxon hoard find in England. It was discovered entirely by a metal detectorist, he gets full credit for that site. However he also pulled at least 4 box fulls of early medieval, enamelled metalwork out of the ground before calling the Portable Antiquities Scheme. After the find archaeologists had less of a substantial site on their hands and more a salvage operation.
    What he did was entirely legal and he was even paid for his troubles but nearly all archaeologists (Ireland and Britain) would agree that as impressive as the find was, its far safer in the ground then being pulled out by an excited detectorist with no concern context or stratigraphic relationship.

    Unless MD people are examining spoil heaps, beaches or other scenarios when materials would already be out of context then they are more a hindrance then a help. Just my two cents.


  • #188
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    RollYerOwn wrote: »
    Is he a trained surveyor with a GPS with accuracy to less than that half a metre hole he dug through the site to record the find spot?
    Ahem... marking a spot is not that hard now in fairness.

    Is he going to pay for an excavation to take place? I doubt it. Is the landowner? No. So the site remains as it was - except for the missing find (now conserved by - and at cost to - the museum) and the now presumably backfilled hole where once there was an undisturbed archaeological feature.

    Ok so now let's simply swap the brooch for a skeleton complete with warrior gear or something, or heck it's very boggy and we'll say, a mummified man. Would the farmer or myself still have to pay for the excavation ? Would the site still be left unchecked, for others like me to pillage ?
    A lot of what you are saying is very depressing, like nothing will be done anyway, we have enough, shop closed, we don't want to know.
    But if the outlook is that hundreds of "small finds" are going to be left in the ground to remain undiscovered, for lack of funding or interest, well then, who can blame a treasure hunter for wishing them on their mantlepiece, or in their glass cabinet ? It's pretty likely that a person collecting "treasures" would actually show their discovery too, online, in person ... So is the brooch better in the ground, for ever and a day, or in a man's cabinet, to be shown to his friend, family, like minded people online ?

    If really things are as depressing as you say, well then it tilts me more in favour of treasure hunters, who at least salvage some admittedly isolated, and possibly spoiled artefacts.

    If there are not going to be excavations, if sites are going to be destroyed by anyone wishing to build a bungalow, well then, it's probably a good thing to let metal detectors loose on the case. They won't do a good job, but they will do "a" job, as opposed to all this remaining snuggly underground.

    Is that the end of the story? No. He will return to look for more.
    I don't think I would return for more if I was told the site was indeed interesting and important. I don't think I would divulge the location either. Again that is assuming most MDetectorists to be "bad". You know, I'm sure hunters would tell you too, that poachers are giving them a bad name, when in fact most hunters are law abiding. Should their hobby be made illegal then ?

    So metal objects will be retrieved very very occasionally and archaeological sites will still get destroyed and no-one will know anything about them.
    So what's better, nobody ever knows anything, or somebody's nephew is wowed by the brooch uncle Tom found with his metal detector, and develops a lifelong interest in archeology ?

    If you think we lack in things to show our descendants, get to the National Museum! Believe me they have a damn-site more than is on display
    So what, is it a wrap ? We have enough ? All done and dusted ? No need for more ?

    edit : I forgot : if something had been found on my site, I would probably have had lengthy discussions with archeologists to determine what would be the speediest, and most convenient way, to save said site, while not stalling construction for too long. Archeology is not something that I would expect to pay for, since like hundreds more, I pay taxes, a portion of which should be spent on preserving and protecting our heritage.


  • #189
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    ... and I want to say, I argue, but I do understand what you are saying, deep down... I suppose for anyone not involved in archeology (like me), it is hard to take the reality/mundanity of it, that's all. There are some things like funds/budgets that as outsiders appear like something you should be idealistic about, and push aside. :rolleyes: at myself.
    But at the same time, I still see my point about the MDs. ;):p Better in Uncle Tom's glass case, than in old Paddy's field for no-one to see.


  • #190
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    Imagine for a minute that this technology could only detect broken pottery, not metal. I am pretty sure there would be next to no broken pottery detectorists around. This is because broken pottery is of no monetary value.
    But it's one of the most valuable piece of evidence an archaeologist can find. Few other finds date the stratum so clearly.
    Allow the treasure hunters a machine which is capable of detecting something underground of potential value (monetary or otherwise) and the temptation is just too much.

    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    ... So is the brooch better in the ground, for ever and a day, or in a man's cabinet, to be shown to his friend, family, like minded people online ?
    It's much better off in the ground, with all the information that surrounds it.

    This is where archaeology differs from metal detecting/treasure hunting. The primary function of legitimate archaeology is to provide knowledge about the past through physical evidence. The secondary function is to conserve this evidence for the benefit of mankind.
    Metal detecting/treasure hunting destroys information about the past.
    Metal detecting/treasure hunting is an act of complete self satisfaction.
    You know, I'm sure hunters would tell you too, that poachers are giving them a bad name, when in fact most hunters are law abiding. Should their hobby be made illegal then ?
    This argument is irrational.
    If hunting were to be made illegal because of poaching, then it follows that archaeology would be made illegal because of metal detecting.
    So what's better, nobody ever knows anything, or somebody's nephew is wowed by the brooch uncle Tom found with his metal detector, and develops a lifelong interest in archeology ?
    A lifelong interest in metal detecting/treasure hunting, is more likely.
    Archeology is not something that I would expect to pay for, since like hundreds more, I pay taxes, a portion of which should be spent on preserving and protecting our heritage.
    I happen agree with you on this.
    In an ideal world, the state would have enough archaeologists to form a kind of rapid response unit in the event of the discovery of something significant which is under threat from the JCB, or whatever.
    The reality is that archaeology costs money, and someone has to pay it.
    That's the grim reality, folks dig a hole, see archaeology and realise that they will have to pay out and face delays.
    The hole gets filled in pretty quick and not a word is spoken about it.


    The more I read this thread, the more I realise how crucial the laws on metal detecting are.
    The laws are there because there is a history of destruction and theft of antiquities on this island.
    All I see from those in favour of metal detecting is a blunt, stubborn failure to understand that their activities benefit only themselves, and that their activities destroy archaeology. They have a blunt, stubborn failure to understand that if an artefact is left undisturbed, underground and within its context - it is not 'lost', it is safe.
    When an artefact is hauled out of the ground, not only is the real story lost, the artefact itself is lost. It becomes merely a trinket, a bauble, not a piece of evidence.
    Metal detectorists are like children on Christmas eve. They see all those lovely presents sitting wrapped under the Christmas tree - the temptation is just too much to bear. They can't resist. They tear them open when their parents are asleep, and then wonder why Christmas day is so miserable.

    I'll ask you a question.
    I have 'found' an unrecorded site which has between three and five well preserved ring barrows. These barrows are most unusual because they almost overlap each other and are of an identical size.
    They are in a field which has never been ploughed and is unlikely to be.
    So what should I do?
    Get a metal detector and see if I can find anything?
    Or should I do my best to have them looked at by a state archaeologist who would determine if they need to be listed and protected?


  • #191
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    slowburner wrote: »
    Imagine for a minute that this technology could only detect broken pottery, not metal. I am pretty sure there would be next to no broken pottery detectorists around. This is because broken pottery is of no monetary value.
    Again Slowburner you are assuming the motives and intentions of MDorists. I know plenty of people who would indeed have interest in bones, pottery, charcoal, wood, flint... As has been said, because they probably are harder to spot to the untrained eye, they remain unfound, that is all. You cannot just blame an entire group of people for the motives of a minority. And you cannot assume they are after monetary gain, when in fact they may not be.

    I'm French but have been living here a long time, and I always find it very touching, how the people in my area collect all the white stones they come across in their (stone) walls, or fields, and exhibit them for all to admire on top of piers, or in their garden. Did you ever notice that ? There is no monetary value in this, people do it because they like these stones, and they like to share what they think is interesting or beautiful. People are not necessarily as venal as you think. Self gratification yes, but not always exclusively, the desire to share is well and truly there too.

    My analogy to hunters and poachers was not expressed properly. I was not placing the archeologists in that equation, archeologists are the professionals, therefore in my analogy they would be the local rangers, the people who are paid to know most about the subject. The hunters would be the good metal detectorists, who wish to abide by the rules, and not cause any damage to the ecosystem/site, and thus follow the rangers/archeologists recommendations. The poachers are those who, although they also aim to kill animals, do it without care for rules and regulations, and without respect for said ecosystem/site. These are the "bad" metal detectorists, with monetary or self gratification intent.
    I hope this is clearer.

    I'm sure lots of examples of good and bad metal detectorists can be found abroad. Societies of MDs who work in a manner that will least destroy, and most help, in identifying sites, and who then do not hesitate to let professionals take over.
    And the bad ones examples like you said, are all over Ebay, and in the articles linked above in this discussion.
    It's much better off in the ground, with all the information that surrounds it.

    This is where archaeology differs from metal detecting/treasure hunting. The primary function of legitimate archaeology is to provide knowledge about the past through physical evidence. The secondary function is to conserve this evidence for the benefit of mankind.
    But when the artefact remains in the ground, there is no knowledge gained about the past through physical evidence. The evidence is not conserved for the benefit of mankind, since it is still in the ground, in an unidentified, unknown of location. No one is the wiser, end of.
    And I have seen mentioned that a lot of land being for pasture, most sites are safer underground. I live in amongst pasture land, and the fields are either ploughed, or cleared, on a regular basis. Drainage work takes place, banks are desconstructed and reconstructed, holes are dug, soil is moved from A to B, all year round.

    In an ideal world, the state would have enough archaeologists to form a kind of rapid response unit in the event of the discovery of something significant which is under threat from the JCB, or whatever.
    Agreed. Possibly the best placed people to ring alarm bells are archeologists. It has been done and whenever I hear an archeologist outlining such problems in the media, I fully support them.
    All I see from those in favour of metal detecting is a blunt, stubborn failure to understand that their activities benefit only themselves, and that their activities destroy archaeology. They have a blunt, stubborn failure to understand that if an artefact is left undisturbed, underground and within its context - it is not 'lost', it is safe.
    Again assuming people's motives etc... Ad nauseum ;)
    Artefacts are not safe underground, unless they are in a national park or something. As I said, I am well placed to witness ground being tended by farmers, absolutely legally, on a daily basis, and ground being prepped for construction, absolutely legally, on a daily basis.
    That's not safe.
    Pretending things are safe in such situations is just a way to bury your head in the sand.

    And yes, 100% agree, call the archeologist. But first, all these funding issues better be resolved. But if someone doesn't call quick, your newly discovered site is in real danger of being partially or entirely rearranged, pasture or not. Or sold, to build a house, complete with drainage and septic tank.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    We seem to have got into a pantomime - 'Oh yes it is. Oh no it isn't.'

    The thing is: if the activities of metal detectorists were respectable and beneficial we wouldn't need these laws. We could have a similar situation to the UK.
    We cannot have laws similar to the UK because of the history of metal detecting in Ireland
    The laws are there because of the history of metal detecting in Ireland.

    I don't think I'm making assumptions - the history is good enough evidence.


  • #193
    RollYerOwn
    Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭RollYerOwn


    Mountainsandh wrote: »

    Ahem... marking a spot is not that hard now in fairness.

    (Trust me from experience, actually it is - lands get ploughed and sewn, cattle not only tread things into the ground but actually eat little flags and things out of interest - and sometimes I think sheer bloody mindedness :o)

    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    I forgot : if something had been found on my site, I would probably have had lengthy discussions with archeologists to determine what would be the speediest, and most convenient way, to save said site, while not stalling construction for too long. Archeology is not something that I would expect to pay for, since like hundreds more, I pay taxes, a portion of which should be spent on preserving and protecting our heritage.

    The problem here is another misconception. The national policy both here and abroad is that it is the "polluter" that pays for whatever mitigation measures are necessary to protect/recover the national heritage.

    Hundreds of thousands of homes have been built and endless kilometres of motorways, pipelines and other infrastructural development. Much of this has resulted in the thousands or tens of thousands of archaeological sites that have been found that were previously unknown prior to the last few years. Where these have been initiated by the State they have of course been paid for by the State, but do you really think the tax payer wants to fund yet another archaeological excavation because Joe Bloggs wants to build an extension to his large country house, or because Fred Bigs wants to construct a massive piggery to increase his business? What about Developer-Bob and his cohort of investors, who wants to build yet another block of 25 apartments on virgin land in suburbia?

    Its an impossible task to expect the State to pay for all of that and I think the people of this country should not be turned against their own heritage and history because the developer thinks someone else should pay for it.

    There is a large amount of heritage under the sod. Most of it not worth a penny, but still of cultural value (and how you put an actual value on that is beyond me).


  • #194
    Maudi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,516 ✭✭✭Maudi


    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    slowburner wrote: »
    Imagine for a minute that this technology could only detect broken pottery, not metal. I am pretty sure there would be next to no broken pottery detectorists around. This is because broken pottery is of
    Again Slowburner you are assuming the motives and intentions of MDorists. I know plenty of people who would indeed have interest in bones, pottery, charcoal, wood, flint... As has been said, because they probably are harder to spot to the untrained eye, they remain unfound, that is all. You cannot just blame an entire group of people for the motives of a minority. And you cannot assume they are after monetary gain, when in fact they may not be.

    I'm French but have been living here a long time, and I always find it very touching, how the people in my area collect all the white stones they come across in their (stone) walls, or fields, and exhibit them for all to admire on top of piers, or in their garden. Did you ever notice that ? There is no monetary value in this, people do it because they like these stones, and they like to share what they think is interesting or beautiful. People are not necessarily as venal as you think. Self gratification yes, but not always exclusively, the desire to share is well and truly there too.

    My analogy to hunters and poachers was not expressed properly. I was not placing the archeologists in that equation, archeologists are the professionals, therefore in my analogy they would be the local rangers, the people who are paid to know most about the subject. The hunters would be the good metal detectorists, who wish to abide by the rules, and not cause any damage to the ecosystem/site, and thus follow the rangers/archeologists recommendations. The poachers are those who, although they also aim to kill animals, do it without care for rules and regulations, and without respect for said ecosystem/site. These are the "bad" metal detectorists, with monetary or self gratification intent.
    I hope this is clearer.

    I'm sure lots of examples of good and bad metal detectorists can be found abroad. Societies of MDs who work in a manner that will least destroy, and most help, in identifying sites, and who then do not hesitate to let professionals take over.
    And the bad ones examples like you said, are all over Ebay, and in the articles linked above in this discussion.
    It's much better off in the ground, with all the information that surrounds it.

    This is where archaeology differs from metal detecting/treasure hunting. The primary function of legitimate archaeology is to provide knowledge about the past through physical evidence. The secondary function is to conserve this evidence for the benefit of mankind.
    But when the artefact remains in the ground, there is no knowledge gained about the past through physical evidence. The evidence is not conserved for the benefit of mankind, since it is still in the ground, in an unidentified, unknown of location. No one is the wiser, end of.
    And I have seen mentioned that a lot of land being for pasture, most sites are safer underground. I live in amongst pasture land, and the fields are either ploughed, or cleared, on a regular basis. Drainage work takes place, banks are desconstructed and reconstructed, holes are dug, soil is moved from A to B, all year round.

    In an ideal world, the state would have enough archaeologists to form a kind of rapid response unit in the event of the discovery of something significant which is under threat from the JCB, or whatever.
    Agreed. Possibly the best placed people to ring alarm bells are archeologists. It has been done and whenever I hear an archeologist outlining such problems in the media, I fully support them.
    All I see from those in favour of metal detecting is a blunt, stubborn failure to understand that their activities benefit only themselves, and that their activities destroy archaeology. They have a blunt, stubborn failure to understand that if an artefact is left undisturbed, underground and within its context - it is not 'lost', it is safe.
    Again assuming people's motives etc... Ad nauseum ;)
    Artefacts are not safe underground, unless they are in a national park or something. As I said, I am well placed to witness ground being tended by farmers, absolutely legally, on a daily basis, and ground being prepped for construction, absolutely legally, on a daily basis.
    That's not safe.
    Pretending things are safe in such situations is just a way to bury your head in the sand.

    And yes, 100% agree, call the archeologist. But first, all these funding issues better be resolved. But if someone doesn't call quick, your newly discovered site is in real danger of being partially or entirely rearranged, pasture or not. Or sold, to build a house, complete with drainage and septic tank.

    i wouldnt put the lack of other postings down to lack of interest...like myself probly more like the fact i feel bullied everytime i post..by the one or two self appointed archaeology police....fek sske ye have me afraid to look down at the soil when im walking...i did think this was a discussion forum??any hoo im going out in my big yellow metal detector (jcb)and im gona dig holes all over my land and nobody can do squat about it


  • #195
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    Maudi wrote: »
    i wouldnt put the lack of other postings down to lack of interest...like myself probly more like the fact i feel bullied everytime i post..by the one or two self appointed archaeology police....fek sske ye have me afraid to look down at the soil when im walking...i did think this was a discussion forum??any hoo im going out in my big yellow metal detector (jcb)and im gona dig holes all over my land and nobody can do squat about it

    Maudi,

    There are no self appointed archaeology police. All that myself and a few others have been doing in this thread is put forth the case why metal detecting is bad for archaeology, and hence, why it is illegal in Ireland (as it is in many other countries).

    Good luck with finding stuff with a JCB! I've spent months monitoring machines stripping topsoil while finding absolutley nothing!

    P.S. I see that you live in Charlesland. If it's Charlesland in Greystones you might be interested in the following excavation reports.

    Linkylink

    These pan pipes were found during excavation at Charlesland
    http://www.gaitadefoles.net/artigos/4000pipesenglish.htm


  • #196
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    Maudi wrote: »
    i wouldnt put the lack of other postings down to lack of interest...like myself probly more like the fact i feel bullied everytime i post..by the one or two self appointed archaeology police....fek sske ye have me afraid to look down at the soil when im walking...i did think this was a discussion forum??any hoo im going out in my big yellow metal detector (jcb)and im gona dig holes all over my land and nobody can do squat about it
    Hopefully, you are being ironic when you say the above.


  • #197
    Maudi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,516 ✭✭✭Maudi


    Gee Bag wrote: »
    Maudi wrote: »
    i wouldnt put the lack of other postings down to lack of interest...like myself probly more like the fact i feel bullied everytime i post..by the one or two self appointed archaeology police....fek sske ye have me afraid to look down at the soil when im walking...i did think this was a discussion forum??any hoo im going out in my big yellow metal detector (jcb)and im gona dig holes all over my land and nobody can do squat about it

    Maudi,

    There are no self appointed archaeology police. All that myself and a few others have been doing in this thread is put forth the case why metal detecting is bad for archaeology, and hence, why it is illegal in Ireland (as it is in many other countries).

    Good luck with finding stuff with a JCB! I've spent months monitoring machines stripping topsoil while finding absolutley nothing!

    P.S. I see that you live in Charlesland. If it's Charlesland in Greystones you might be interested in the following excavation reports.

    Linkylink

    These pan pipes were found during excavation at Charlesland
    http://www.gaitadefoles.net/artigos/4000pipesenglish.htm
    wudnt ssy i uncovered pipes but i saw them being taken out of the ground in chsrlesland


  • #198
    RollYerOwn
    Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭RollYerOwn


    slowburner wrote: »
    The more I read this thread, the more I realise how crucial the laws on metal detecting are.
    ...
    All I see from those in favour of metal detecting is a blunt, stubborn failure to understand that their activities benefit only themselves, and that their activities destroy archaeology. They have a blunt, stubborn failure to understand that if an artefact is left undisturbed, underground and within its context - it is not 'lost', it is safe.

    Yeah I mostly agree BUT the real problem is that there is a failure to communicate what archaeologists do, how and why etc. As a previous poster has intimated, there IS a gulf between professional archaeologists and amateur enthusiasts and I think that needs to be addressed.

    I consider the majority of metal detectorists as amateur enthusiasts that are unaware of the issues involved. I hoped this thread might address that - I'm a bit depressed that I'm probably one of the posters considered by Maudl to be "self-appointed police" simply because my opinions and arguments are different to their's and because I have some knowledge of the legislation regarding MDs and the the effects upon the heritage resource. :(

    It is clear from many of the posters that they are well-intentioned and not interested in financial gain (a sensible approach as it's hardly going to be more lucrative than playing the lottery). Their interest is in discovery of something old that was previously unknown. I think that interest could be tapped and that metal detectorists could become ex-metal detectorists by joining a local archaeological society and learning about the heritage "industry" and the missing part that I think should be played by the volunteer sector.

    God knows that there are lots of projects that could be undertaken by people who have time to offer from looking after the sites that are in their local community to various types of surveys and even committing themselves to a local excavation projects. These don't need to be sites that are upstanding or sites that are known to be protected - initial surveys of most local areas are likely to identify sites that are at risk through ploughing, erosion by cattle etc that are not protected by planning legislation.

    What is clear is that there needs to be better communication between locals and their heritage and I know that in some areas individual archaeologists have done their bit to address this. A major requirement is to have county archaeologists in local government - and these that do exist are not guaranteed that they have jobs for long either as far as I'm aware. A heritage officer and at least one assistant heritage officer in each county should be mandatory and a local engagement programme a priority.


  • #199
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    I think you are absolutely right.
    If I have been guilty of making assumptions about the motives of metal detectorists and making statements to that effect, it is because the risks needed to be emphasised - I make no apology for doing so.
    Sure, some folks who metal detect might indulge their hobby in a sensitive way, and might even do the right thing with their well recorded, if ill gotten finds.
    However, I posted a straw poll some time ago in After Hours, to assess how people might react to finding valuables.
    It's not a valid poll from a valid sample population by any means, but it does hint at something.
    Almost 70% said they would keep/sell the finds.

    It would be useless to get into an argument about the motivation of metal detectorists - it would amount to nothing but speculation and personal opinion, we've seen this already.
    Are the posters here in favour of metal detecting a representative sample?
    I think not, I think most of the posters here have demonstrated a genuine concern for our heritage and are probably motivated by interest rather than greed - but again this is speculation, or making an assumption as Mountainsandh puts it.
    If the interest is there, why not channel it into helpful, non invasive investigations?
    This is a brilliant time of year, probably the best, for spotting and recording earthworks and features.
    Why not make a contribution by trying to find unrecorded sites, and making the locals and the landowners aware of them?
    Walk recently ploughed fields, with the landowner's permission, of course, and identify clusters of pottery sherds or building materials.
    Note the co-ordinates of any such clusters and anything else of significance.
    Photograph and write something about the results of your exploration
    There are plenty of contributions to be made without being invasive.
    That would be real treasure, that would be the best contribution any enthusiast could make.


  • #200
    Jakub25
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 102 ✭✭Jakub25


    What about it? :)

    "ALL DETECTORS INCLUDE Membership & photo ID card for the Amateur metal detectors association of ireland, Don't have your equipment confiscated , make sure you have your id card with you at all times AND understand the laws governing the use of detectors in Ireland!"


    http://www.donedeal.ie/for-sale/others/3070443

    http://amdai.weebly.com/


  • #201
    RollYerOwn
    Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭RollYerOwn


    Jakub25 wrote: »
    What about it? :)

    As in..?

    What do you think? ;)


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement