If not for us the archaeology would be lost anyway...

Witchburner

slowburner wrote: »

I asked if you owned a metal detector and you replied that you don't - I am prepared to accept your word on that.
The trend of your posting here has been quite obviously running towards questioning the law on metal detecting.

I am quite happy to let you continue here if you openly denounce metal detecting and state your problems with the relevant laws in a cogent manner.

I will not however, tolerate backseat moderation or arguing with a mod in line with Boards.ie and forum rules. I've warned you twice about this already.

:eek:

WHAT?

slowburner

If you are not happy to denounce metal detecting, at least explain your problems with the relevant laws.

Maudi

Witchburner wrote: »

:eek:

WHAT?

C'mon for gosh sake thats just too evangelical ..asking people to denounce stuff before they can continue to post on your site.a tad extreme..like it or not metal detectorists have contributed a great deal to irish archaeology..a great deal...it cannot be denied..driving it underground with dinasaur mentality is doing hugh damage to modern archaeology..its akin to sticking ones head into the sand or fingers into ones ears..THE TECHNOLOGY IS HERE AND AVAILABLE TO THE COMMON PEOPLE WORK WITH .EDUCATE AND involve people..in archaeology..if not you may be left behind..remember the dodo.dont ban people from the woods so to speak..become a guide..share your paths

slowburner

Maudi wrote: »

C'mon for gosh sake thats just too evangelical ..asking people to denounce stuff before they can continue to post on your site.a tad extreme..like it or not metal detectorists have contributed a great deal to irish archaeology..a great deal...it cannot be denied..driving it underground with dinasaur mentality is doing hugh damage to modern archaeology..its akin to sticking ones head into the sand or fingers into ones ears..THE TECHNOLOGY IS HERE AND AVAILABLE TO THE COMMON PEOPLE WORK WITH .EDUCATE AND involve people..in archaeology..if not you may be left behind..remember the dodo.dont ban people from the woods so to speak..become a guide..share your paths

1. This is not my site.
2. Metal detectorists have NOT contributed anything to Irish archaeology - they have stolen from it, damaged it and continue to do so.
3. Read this.

Witchburner

SB - you've obviously drawn your own conclusions here - hence the moving of my posts and your related answers.

I checked in yesterday and saw your request and figured I needed a bit of time to answer it - which I didn't have until now. Then I saw your re-arranging of the board.

So, ok.

No, I wont denounce metal detecting or anything else for that matter.

I'm well educated and therefore do not feel the need to oppress others just because my views may vary to theirs - and threaten them if they don't comply with my wishes.

The moving of my posts into this thread clearly demonstrate your opinion - despite making statements otherwise.

For the record - and again - No, I do not own a metal detector - as far as I am concerned it is not legal to roam about searching for archaeological objects with one.

I do, however, have an issue with the current laws.

Your view is that if I have an issue with the laws I must be a metal detector.

That's a twisted logic SB and I refuse to skirt around an issue with you waiting in the long grass.

Can you show me where I made any statements that were factually incorrect - or where I alluded to metal detecting?

Whilst I may have been a bit facetious I was openly seeking debate on the law.

robp

Maudi wrote: »

C'mon for gosh sake thats just too evangelical ..asking people to denounce stuff before they can continue to post on your site.a tad extreme..like it or not metal detectorists have contributed a great deal to irish archaeology..a great deal...it cannot be denied..driving it underground with dinasaur mentality is doing hugh damage to modern archaeology..its akin to sticking ones head into the sand or fingers into ones ears..THE TECHNOLOGY IS HERE AND AVAILABLE TO THE COMMON PEOPLE WORK WITH .EDUCATE AND involve people..in archaeology..if not you may be left behind..remember the dodo.dont ban people from the woods so to speak..become a guide..share your paths

The difficulty is the technology is there is only a small number of situations where it is of use by professionals. There is a false idea that just because it is allowed in all sorts of places in certain parts of the UK that it is ok. Its not. There are many settings where it is allowed in the UK/Germany but it is not justifiable. More could be achieved by sticking to fieldwalking and riverbanks etc.

slowburner

Witchburner wrote: »

SB - you've obviously drawn your own conclusions here - hence the moving of my posts and your related answers.

I checked in yesterday and saw your request and figured I needed a bit of time to answer it - which I didn't have until now. Then I saw your re-arranging of the board.

So, ok.

No, I wont denounce metal detecting or anything else for that matter.

I'm well educated and therefore do not feel the need to oppress others just because my views may vary to theirs - and threaten them if they don't comply with my wishes.

The moving of my posts into this thread clearly demonstrate your opinion - despite making statements otherwise.

For the record - and again - No, I do not own a metal detector - as far as I am concerned it is not legal to roam about searching for archaeological objects with one.

I do, however, have an issue with the current laws.

Your view is that if I have an issue with the laws I must be a metal detector.

That's a twisted logic SB and I refuse to skirt around an issue with you waiting in the long grass.

Can you show me where I made any statements that were factually incorrect - or where I alluded to metal detecting?

Whilst I may have been a bit facetious I was openly seeking debate on the law.

Mod Instruction: Do not discuss moderation of this forum again on thread.

Posts were moved because a poster rightfully pointed out that the 'Seen & Found' thread was being derailed.
I have been exceptionally lenient in this matter thus far, but my patience is wearing thin.

If you wish to debate the laws - go ahead, but do it in a cogent and rational manner.


Again, you are reminded to read and follow Boards.ie rules 6,7 & 8.

Don't back seat moderate

Imagine a game of soccer where one player kept running up to the ref and saying "you should have warned that guy" "that was offside" "time is up on this game". Annoying, yes? Sitting back as a user and consistently directing the moderator like a minion is going to get you kicked off the pitch. The correct way to bring something to our attention is to report the post.
But do not abuse this feature. Report posts which clearly break the rules not just posts you don’t agree with or from people you don’t like. That’s just being a dick.

Not reading the rules is against the rules

Claiming that you didn’t read the rules and therefore they don’t apply to you isn't going to work here. Funnily enough, it doesn’t work in a real court of law either. Saying “I didn’t see the 1 Hour Parking sign” won’t stop you getting clamped.

Discretion of the Moderator

If you think these rules bind the moderators hands, think again. The moderators have discretion to react and moderate as they see fit, in the best interests of the forum they take care of. You can challenge a decision using the Dispute Resolution Process, but don’t think for a moment you can use the guidelines above to find some semantic loophole to excuse your behaviour (people who do this are known as “rules lawyers” and are seen as a small step above trolls). It’s not going to work. The spirit of the law is more important than the wording of the law on boards.ie and our guidelines can and will change if and when there’s need.

dr gonzo

Maudi wrote: »

C'mon for gosh sake thats just too evangelical ..asking people to denounce stuff before they can continue to post on your site.a tad extreme..like it or not metal detectorists have contributed a great deal to irish archaeology..a great deal...it cannot be denied..driving it underground with dinasaur mentality is doing hugh damage to modern archaeology..its akin to sticking ones head into the sand or fingers into ones ears..THE TECHNOLOGY IS HERE AND AVAILABLE TO THE COMMON PEOPLE WORK WITH .EDUCATE AND involve people..in archaeology..if not you may be left behind..remember the dodo.dont ban people from the woods so to speak..become a guide..share your paths

Ive lost count of the amount of times that I, and others, have made perfectly clear the reasons that metal detecting has no place in archaeology, it has no archaeological benefit WHATSOEVER, and yet metal detector enthusiasts on here insist on parroting the same questions and comments over and over. I'm waiting for one of ye to actually lay out for us, in a clear and cogent fashion, why you think metal detecting should be legal, and why you think it could be of benefit to archaeology in Ireland.

Metal detecting is of no use to archaeology. As Slowburner says, the only thing it has contributed a "great deal" of is destruction through greed and ignorance. So yes Maudi, in the strongest possible terms, I can and will deny it. This technology is contingent on the destruction of archaeological contexts, thats how it works, thats the only way it can work. So as I have said on numerous occasions, education is a useless option because the person would need to be trained to a professional archaeological standard to remove an artefact from the ground adequately. Even then it would still only be the tiniest snapshop of a wider site, a wider period. What about the rest of Irish prehistory prior to the advent of metal? Thats archaeology too. What about the rest of the archaeological record that isnt metal? Why are they eschewed, through the destruction of their contexts, in favour of metals?

Metal detectorists have absolutely no right to invoke the term archaeology in support of what they do because what they do can never be archaeological. The pursuit of archaeology is one of recording, not simply finding things for museum cabinets. The object itself is of substantially less importance to the information that can be derived from it, and as such, derivable data is amplified considerably by the level of recording undertaken in the excavation of that find. You guys think you can casually pull a torc out of the ground and the archaeological community will celebrate?

Metal detecting is a hobby built on the wanton destruction of national heritage. Thats the reality whether you realise it or not. And I have yet to see a single enthusiast for it make a case where I believed they had interests in it beyond treasure hunting. The laws needs to be protected so that our heritage can also be.

Meathlass

dr gonzo wrote: »

Ive lost count of the amount of times that I, and others, have made perfectly clear the reasons that metal detecting has no place in archaeology, it has no archaeological benefit WHATSOEVER, and yet metal detector enthusiasts on here insist on parroting the same questions and comments over and over. I'm waiting for one of ye to actually lay out for us, in a clear and cogent fashion, why you think metal detecting should be legal, and why you think it could be of benefit to archaeology in Ireland.

Metal detecting is of no use to archaeology. As Slowburner says, the only thing it has contributed a "great deal" of is destruction through greed and ignorance. So yes Maudi, in the strongest possible terms, I can and will deny it. This technology is contingent on the destruction of archaeological contexts, thats how it works, thats the only way it can work. So as I have said on numerous occasions, education is a useless option because the person would need to be trained to a professional archaeological standard to remove an artefact from the ground adequately. Even then it would still only be the tiniest snapshop of a wider site, a wider period. What about the rest of Irish prehistory prior to the advent of metal? Thats archaeology too. What about the rest of the archaeological record that isnt metal? Why are they eschewed, through the destruction of their contexts, in favour of metals?

Metal detectorists have absolutely no right to invoke the term archaeology in support of what they do because what they do can never be archaeological. The pursuit of archaeology is one of recording, not simply finding things for museum cabinets. The object itself is of substantially less importance to the information that can be derived from it, and as such, derivable data is amplified considerably by the level of recording undertaken in the excavation of that find. You guys think you can casually pull a torc out of the ground and the archaeological community will celebrate?

Metal detecting is a hobby built on the wanton destruction of national heritage. Thats the reality whether you realise it or not. And I have yet to see a single enthusiast for it make a case where I believed they had interests in it beyond treasure hunting. The laws needs to be protected so that our heritage can also be.

Great Post.

Maudi

dr gonzo wrote: »

Ive lost count of the amount of times that I, and others, have made perfectly clear the reasons that metal detecting has no place in archaeology, it has no archaeological benefit WHATSOEVER, and yet metal detector enthusiasts on here insist on parroting the same questions and comments over and over. I'm waiting for one of ye to actually lay out for us, in a clear and cogent fashion, why you think metal detecting should be legal, and why you think it could be of benefit to archaeology in Ireland.

Metal detecting is of no use to archaeology. As Slowburner says, the only thing it has contributed a "great deal" of is destruction through greed and ignorance. So yes Maudi, in the strongest possible terms, I can and will deny it. This technology is contingent on the destruction of archaeological contexts, thats how it works, thats the only way it can work. So as I have said on numerous occasions, education is a useless option because the person would need to be trained to a professional archaeological standard to remove an artefact from the ground adequately. Even then it would still only be the tiniest snapshop of a wider site, a wider period. What about the rest of Irish prehistory prior to the advent of metal? Thats archaeology too. What about the rest of the archaeological record that isnt metal? Why are they eschewed, through the destruction of their contexts, in favour of metals?

Metal detectorists have absolutely no right to invoke the term archaeology in support of what they do because what they do can never be archaeological. The pursuit of archaeology is one of recording, not simply finding things for museum cabinets. The object itself is of substantially less importance to the information that can be derived from it, and as such, derivable data is amplified considerably by the level of recording undertaken in the excavation of that find. You guys think you can casually pull a torc out of the ground and the archaeological community will celebrate?

Metal detecting is a hobby built on the wanton destruction of national heritage. Thats the reality whether you realise it or not. And I have yet to see a single enthusiast for it make a case where I believed they had interests in it beyond treasure hunting. The laws needs to be protected so that our heritage can also be.

Im just as protective of our heritage as you are..ive reported incidents to the authorities several times about sites i had been concerned about.(.mind you from lack of response from some id question who has our heritage more at heart)anyhoo i digress, did you ever visit a fish farm..throw your line in..guaranteed to catch a fish.great fun for all the family.what do you do with the kids on holidays? fish farm for a few hours..its controlled and on a certain stretch of the river..everybodys happy..kids get a fish ..fish farmer gets an income..would it ever be possible to get some land cleared a farm perhaps.lets say for example the 40/50 acres on the south side of brayhead here in wicklow..land surveyed by archaeologists released or whatever way you want to put it..farmer gets paid hobby detectorists get an area to detect in..the area could be seeded even to add interest..archaeologists could be on hand to help /advise hold demonstrations et cetera..farmes land owners all over the country are looking at ways to diversify after all..some get into the allotment business some do fruit farms why not this idea..everybody wins..now i know ive simplified things and it needs alot of fleshing out but could any one see even a glimmer of hope in an idea like this..

slowburner

Maudi wrote: »

Im just as protective of our heritage as you are..ive reported incidents to the authorities several times about sites i had been concerned about.(.mind you from lack of response from some id question who has our heritage more at heart)anyhoo i digress, did you ever visit a fish farm..throw your line in..guaranteed to catch a fish.great fun for all the family.what do you do with the kids on holidays? fish farm for a few hours..its controlled and on a certain stretch of the river..everybodys happy..kids get a fish ..fish farmer gets an income..would it ever be possible to get some land cleared a farm perhaps.lets say for example the 40/50 acres on the south side of brayhead here in wicklow..land surveyed by archaeologists released or whatever way you want to put it..farmer gets paid hobby detectorists get an area to detect in..the area could be seeded even to add interest..archaeologists could be on hand to help /advise hold demonstrations et cetera..farmes land owners all over the country are looking at ways to diversify after all..some get into the allotment business some do fruit farms why not this idea..everybody wins..now i know ive simplified things and it needs alot of fleshing out but could any one see even a glimmer of hope in an idea like this..

I appreciate your attempt to find a resolution Maudi.
However, it's not a solution.
Just as most serious anglers would scoff at the idea of fishing a 'stew pond' so too would the diehard metal detectorists scoff at being confined to a 'planted' field.
Furthermore, such an activity would be training people to metal detect. Where would they go when they became bored with the confines of the field?

If you had seen the enthusiasm of children digging under instruction at the Archaeofest, you would have seen how a genuine and legitimate interest in archaeology can be encouraged.

Gee Bag

Maudi wrote: »

anyhoo i digress, did you ever visit a fish farm..throw your line in..guaranteed to catch a fish.great fun for all the family..

Fun for everyone except the poor wee fishies!

Maudi

slowburner wrote: »

I appreciate your attempt to find a resolution Maudi.
However, it's not a solution.
Just as most serious anglers would scoff at the idea of fishing a 'stew pond' so too would the diehard metal detectorists scoff at being confined to a 'planted' field.
Furthermore, such an activity would be training people to metal detect. Where would they go when they became bored with the confines of the field?

If you had seen the enthusiasm of children digging under instruction at the Archaeofest, you would have seen how a genuine and legitimate interest in archaeology can be encouraged.

Archaeofest??never heard owt about it
.sounds fun tho.

slowburner

Maudi wrote: »

Archaeofest??never heard owt about it
.sounds fun tho.

It was mentioned in this thread.

Mountainsandh

They have archeology summer camps in France, these seem so cool, I always meant to go to one of them, but ended up in linguistic stays instead, I wish I had done it one year.
http://www.archeopourtous.org/spip.php?rubrique8
http://animarcheo.e-monsite.com/pages/animations-archeologie/stage-d-archeologie-adolescents.html
http://formations-archeologie.blogspot.ie/2010/01/stages-archeologiques-pour.html

JCabot

We use MD's within the DOD and are not archaeologists, based on information on boards.ie we are acting illegally.

Well Alan Shatter needs to inform Lt. Gen Sean McCann of this fact.

slowburner

JCabot wrote: »

We use MD's within the DOD and are not archaeologists, based on information on boards.ie we are acting illegally.

Well Alan Shatter needs to inform Lt. Gen Sean McCann of this fact.

This use of metal detectors has an entirely different purpose to the use being discussed here.
And you know it.

JCabot

I suppose you are correct about the discussion of MDs within this forum on archaeology because the use of such a device is illegal for searching for these items. Also the use of these devices it illegal anywhere near a national monument. I believe anyone who desecrates any archaeology site should be prosecuted without question.

My points were "not everyone who uses MDs away from national monuments are searching for archaeology items" and it cannot be presumed they are. The other point is if DOD or Justice accidentally uncover an archaeology item whilst searching for ordnance or munitions according to the monuments act have acted illegally and this may discourage reporting.

The national monuments act is clear on this issue regarding archaeology items and sites. However the wording on the act is not clear and whoever advised on it possibly did so to create confusion. Anyway thats a legal issue and not for a archeology forum.

slowburner

JCabot wrote: »

The other point is if DOD or Justice accidentally uncover an archaeology item whilst searching for ordnance or munitions according to the monuments act have acted illegally and this may discourage reporting.

If they are licensed to use a metal detector, they are not breaking the law.

cfuserkildare

If I have read the law correctly then:-

"My points were "not everyone who uses MDs away from national monuments are searching for archaeology items" and it cannot be presumed they are. The other point is if DOD or Justice accidentally uncover an archaeology item whilst searching for ordnance or munitions according to the monuments act have acted illegally and this may discourage reporting"

May be true.

If a metal detectorist is not setting out to use the metal detector to find archaeology then there is no breach of the law unless anything is found an not reported.

However this may not be 100% correct,
Can somebody verify this for me please?

Cheers.

Mountainsandh

Take the "likely" case of a farmer who lost a metal part off the tractor while ploughing (or his set of keys), and happens on an archeological object while metal detecting his field for the lost item. Would he considered to have acted illegally ? If so, would the law not discourage him from sharing his find ?

robp

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Take the "likely" case of a farmer who lost a metal part off the tractor while ploughing (or his set of keys), and happens on an archeological object while metal detecting his field for the lost item. Would he considered to have acted illegally ? If so, would the law not discourage him from sharing his find ?

I don't think there is any thing in the law at all that discourages him from reporting. If he was not looking for an archaeological object there is not a problem. in contrast many metal detectorist are specialising in finding archaeological objects even though they deny this. Their concept of an archaeological object is dependent on the individual and very different to an archaeologist.

Mountainsandh

Totally agree.
But on principle it really annoys me when people make statements such as this :

The point is you cant metal detect in the vicinity of known archaeological monuments, and beaches are often included in that definition. It is essentially a given due to the comprehensive nature of national monuments legislation that metal dectecting is effectively 100% illegal.

It is not 100% illegal to my understanding of the law.
If your intent is to look for a set of keys or a tractor part, or your wedding ring, you are entitled to use a metal detector.

I absolutely do not condone MDing near archeological places of interest, but I just hate scaremongering.

The ploughing thing came into my mind because I just saw a ploughed field with the tractor still there (they've been at it repeatedly the last few days, it a tough one to plough I guess), and I believe iirc that there is a ringfort in the field next to it.

Jakub25

There was same situation in Britan before Treasure act 1996.
Below leaflet.




Invite to read this subject about reasons and impact of changing law in UK.

http://www.archaeologyuk.org/sites/www.britarch.ac.uk/files/node-files/LewisText.pdf


BTW while searching keys or any different object, you can
dig a treasure.

http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2013/07/29/missing-keys-hunt-unearths-treasure-trove-find/

robp

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Totally agree.
But on principle it really annoys me when people make statements such as this :


It is not 100% illegal to my understanding of the law.
If your intent is to look for a set of keys or a tractor part, or your wedding ring, you are entitled to use a metal detector.

I absolutely do not condone MDing near archeological places of interest, but I just hate scaremongering.

The ploughing thing came into my mind because I just saw a ploughed field with the tractor still there (they've been at it repeatedly the last few days, it a tough one to plough I guess), and I believe iirc that there is a ringfort in the field next to it.

I am afraid you are incorrect. There is no hard hard fast cut off as too what is an archaeological object. Doing so would be extremely problematic. A farmer searching for his keys is not going to get arrested as there is no interest in prosecuting such innocent behaviour but technically it is illegal (at least in my interpretation). it might seem a strange situation but its universal. You can't really get a perfect legal definition of an archaeological object. Using metal detector is legal but using it to search for pretty much anything is illegal because what is of archaeological interest is extremely fluid. they shouldn't be sold in my opinion.

Mountainsandh

robp wrote: »

I am afraid you are incorrect. There is no hard hard fast cut off as too what is an archaeological object. Doing so would be extremely problematic. A farmer searching for his keys is not going to get arrested as there is no interest in prosecuting such innocent behaviour but technically it is illegal (at least in my interpretation). it might seem a strange situation but its universal. You can't really get a perfect legal definition of an archaeological object. Using metal detector is legal but using it to search for pretty much anything is illegal because what is of archaeological interest is extremely fluid. they shouldn't be sold in my opinion.

I disagree.
An archeological object is certainly not a set of keys that you are currently using, or a part of a currently used tractor.
This is not even a question of semantics.
An object that is currently in use or owned by someone does not belong to archeology, and there is no way that could be included in the official definition of an archeological object.

To declare that objects currently being used by humans and in their ownership have archeological value would imply that archeologists could pick up a phone that somebody dropped on the ground and claim it as an archeological item. I'm not a law professional but I think the above exclusion is pretty obvious : if it's owned at the moment it is found, and in use, it is simply not an archeological item.

Therefore, it is possible to search for objects that are definitely not archeological, and it makes a certain type of MDing legal.

It is disingenuous and dramatic to claim otherwise. The law and the wording of law items may be fallible, but in that case you cannot declare that one side wins over the other. There is no reason why the law should lean towards the archeologists' interpretation, it is law to serve all citizens as far as I understand.

slowburner

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I disagree.
An archeological object is certainly not a set of keys that you are currently using, or a part of a currently used tractor.
This is not even a question of semantics.
An object that is currently in use or owned by someone does not belong to archeology, and there is no way that could be included in the official definition of an archeological object.


To declare that objects currently being used by humans and in their ownership have archeological value would imply that archeologists could pick up a phone that somebody dropped on the ground and claim it as an archeological item. I'm not a law professional but I think the above exclusion is pretty obvious : if it's owned at the moment it is found, and in use, it is simply not an archeological item.

Of course not. Nobody is arguing this.

Therefore, it is possible to search for objects that are definitely not archeological, and it makes a certain type of MDing legal.

This is true but the onus is on the person in possession of the metal detector to prove that they were not searching for an archaeological object.
It would be the function of the court process to determine whether or not an offence has been committed.

It is disingenuous and dramatic to claim otherwise. The law and the wording of law items may be fallible, but in that case you cannot declare that one side wins over the other. There is no reason why the law should lean towards the archeologists' interpretation, it is law to serve all citizens as far as I understand.

The laws most certainly are not there to serve all citizens.
No law is enacted to accommodate the offender. The law is enacted to punish the offender.
We live in a democratic state and therefore, laws are enacted to serve the majority.
The majority in this particular case, finds metal detecting to be a reprehensible practice that poses a significant threat to the heritage of this island so it has passed laws to protect that heritage.

It is most important to understand that these laws were passed to deal with a very real threat. Damage caused by metal detecting has increased again recently and this is why the Minister has had to issue fresh guidelines.

There is no 'half way house'. The state either protects the archaeology of this island or it does not.

ezra_pound

cfuserkildare wrote: »

If I have read the law correctly then:-

"My points were "not everyone who uses MDs away from national monuments are searching for archaeology items" and it cannot be presumed they are. The other point is if DOD or Justice accidentally uncover an archaeology item whilst searching for ordnance or munitions according to the monuments act have acted illegally and this may discourage reporting"

May be true.

If a metal detectorist is not setting out to use the metal detector to find archaeology then there is no breach of the law unless anything is found an not reported.

However this may not be 100% correct,
Can somebody verify this for me please?

Cheers.

It is usual in criminal law that intent must be proven as well as the act. However because of the wording of the legislation not reporting finds is an offence regardless of the intent behind finding it. Im pretty sure.

ezra_pound

slowburner wrote: »

Of course not. Nobody is arguing this.
This is true but the onus is on the person in possession of the metal detector to prove that they were not searching for an archaeological object.
It would be the function of the court process to determine whether or not an offence has been committed.
The laws most certainly are not there to serve all citizens.
No law is enacted to accommodate the offender. The law is enacted to punish the offender.
We live in a democratic state and therefore, laws are enacted to serve the majority.
The majority in this particular case, finds metal detecting to be a reprehensible practice that poses a significant threat to the heritage of this island so it has passed laws to protect that heritage.

It is most important to understand that these laws were passed to deal with a very real threat. Damage caused by metal detecting has increased again recently and this is why the Minister has had to issue fresh guidelines.

There is no 'half way house'. The state either protects the archaeology of this island or it does not.

Exactly. It is not the interpretation by archaeologists that determine the meaning of the law but the interpretation of the judiciary. In so doing they will consider the reason that the legislation was introduced- the damnum-in this case louts, philistines and thieves destroying our precious heritage.

robp

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I disagree.
An archeological object is certainly not a set of keys that you are currently using, or a part of a currently used tractor.
This is not even a question of semantics.
An object that is currently in use or owned by someone does not belong to archeology, and there is no way that could be included in the official definition of an archeological object.

To declare that objects currently being used by humans and in their ownership have archeological value would imply that archeologists could pick up a phone that somebody dropped on the ground and claim it as an archeological item. I'm not a law professional but I think the above exclusion is pretty obvious : if it's owned at the moment it is found, and in use, it is simply not an archeological item.

Therefore, it is possible to search for objects that are definitely not archeological, and it makes a certain type of MDing legal.

It is disingenuous and dramatic to claim otherwise. The law and the wording of law items may be fallible, but in that case you cannot declare that one side wins over the other. There is no reason why the law should lean towards the archeologists' interpretation, it is law to serve all citizens as far as I understand.

If a farmer loses his keys in a field everyone agrees at some point the keys becomes archaeology. People disagree on when it becomes of archaeological interest ie 1000 years, 100 years or 10 years . There is no risk someone would be prosecuted for looking for their keys because there is little interest in researching modern keys but that might not always be the case. Its worth reflecting on the definition provided in 1930 in the Act even though its no longer in operation.

the expression “archaeological object” means any chattel whether in a manufactured or partly manufactured or an unmanufactured state which by reason of the archaeological interest attaching thereto or of its association with any Irish historical event or person has a value substantially greater than its intrinsic (including artistic) value, and the said expression includes ancient human and animal remains and does not include treasure trove in which the rights of the State have not been waived.

Generally speaking about 200 years would be a popular cut off but it can be much later. There is probably an uneasy truce regarding detecting on beaches but many Irish detectorists openly pillage others lands including unploughed lands like woods.