Another site damaged by metal detector

Jakub25

Here is another site in UK damaged by metal detector enthusiast.

During searching at church land he found,
Huge Viking treasure hoard linked to Ireland.

Again stratigraphy, context and integrity of a site destroyed.

Half a find because without context it's nothing,
provides a lot of useful information.



http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/huge-viking-treasure-hoard-linked-to-ireland-30661967.html

http://www.archaeology.org/news/2620-141014-scotland-viking-silver-cross


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2790197/metal-detectorist-finds-britain-s-biggest-haul-viking-treasure-hundreds-artefacts-including-ancient-silver-cross.html

yellowlabrador

it states in the article that it was excavated by the state archaeologist.

davycc

Yeah op states he found it on an undisclosed church owned land. The Church own thousands of acres of green field sites .if he found it on a protected site or was trespassing you can be sure he would have been charged by the police there.. From everything I've read the finder has done nothing wrong morally, ethically or legally

davycc

yellowlabrador wrote: »

it states in the article that it was excavated by the state archaeologist.

It suits certain folks agenda on here to portray it as though the detectorist excavated it himself using dynamite!

slowburner

davycc wrote: »

From everything I've read the finder has done nothing wrong morally, ethically or legally

The morality and ethics of searching for archaeological objects using an unlicensed metal detector, is a matter of debate. Only a small misguided minority believe that they have some sort of 'right' to use metal detectors to search for archaeological objects.
It also needs to be pointed out that this would have been a criminal offence under Irish law.

cfuserkildare

slowburner wrote: »

The morality and ethics of searching for archaeological objects using an unlicensed metal detector, is a matter of debate. Only a small misguided minority believe that they have some sort of 'right' to use metal detectors to search for archaeological objects.
It also needs to be pointed out that this would have been a criminal offence under Irish law.

Isn't it great how people here like to dictate what the laws of another country are/should be?

This item was found in Scotland, so Irish metal detectoring laws do not apply.

And again, if this had been left unfound, then it would most likely have been damaged / destroyed beyond repair / recognition.

slowburner

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Isn't it great how people here like to dictate what the laws of another country are/should be?

This item was found in Scotland, so Irish metal detectoring laws do not apply.

And again, if this had been left unfound, then it would most likely have been damaged / destroyed beyond repair / recognition.

Not cool. Not cool at all.

robp

cfuserkildare wrote: »

And again, if this had been left unfound, then it would most likely have been damaged / destroyed beyond repair / recognition.

You can't state that the objects were in danger when the place where they were found is not public knowledge. They may have been in a relatively safe setting.

davycc

slowburner wrote: »

The morality and ethics of searching for archaeological objects using an unlicensed metal detector, is a matter of debate. Only a small misguided minority believe that they have some sort of 'right' to use metal detectors to search for archaeological objects.
It also needs to be pointed out that this would have been a criminal offence under Irish law.

I have some news for you all so, we aren't a small minority in Ireland must be thousands of us north and south.
My moral compass is intact and I sleep soundly at night.

The vast majority of us don't be searching for for archaeological objects and genuinely have the respect and common sense to stay far away from national monuments and other protected areas.

It's heartbreaking to read some reports of damage here and I agree that the book should thrown at the small minority of idiots who deliberately target protected sites, wether they are detectorists, divers or lads with shovels and buckets alike.
Blame the man and not the tools.

Maudi

slowburner wrote: »

The morality and ethics of searching for archaeological objects using an unlicensed metal detector, is a matter of . Only a small misguided minority believe that they have some sort of 'right' to use metal detectors to search for archaeological objects.
It also needs to be pointed out that this would have been a criminal offence under Irish law.

Gosh slowburner ..are you growing soft with age....im gobsmacked ..metal detectoring is "matter for debate"...where is the real slowburner?

robp

Maudi wrote: »

Gosh slowburner ..are you growing soft with age....im gobsmacked ..metal detectoring is "matter for debate"...where is the real slowburner?

I would hazard a guess the profession globally does not see it as a matter for debate.

Personally every time I try to engage with metal detectorists I see nothing but contempt for archaeologists which is a great shame really.

davycc

robp wrote: »

I would hazard a guess the profession globally does not see it as a matter for debate.

Personally every time I try to engage with metal detectorists I see nothing but contempt for archaeologists which is a great shame really.

Hi Rob thanks for taking the time time to engage with detectorists I hope you keep it up and we can reach some middle ground.i try to be polite and calm about it but its a very touchy subject online and in real life too. Be great to talk about it in person some day over a cup of tea etc. There has been a constant message sadly from Ned Kellys time that it's a closed mind throughout the state. Was like trying to deal with a young Ian paisley in his Ulster says no! Prime. Hope his successor will be more forward thinking and not stuck in the dark days of the 70s80s organized gangs of looters divers and detectorists destroying our heritage like Kelly seemed to be.

PS another issue we have with certain archaeologists like Stuart Rathbone and his condesending and occasionally sheet stirring blog posts.they do more harm to the archy-detectorsist relationship than good in my honest opinion..

baaba maal

I'm neither an archaeologist nor a metal detectorist- just somebody who loves learning about our human story.

From this viewpoint I can only say that metal detecting is quite simply vandalism by default. I don't say this lightly, nor to be incendiary. The standpoint of the self-declared legally/morally 'compliant' detectorist is that:
1. This site is not an "official" archaeological site
2. I want the object on this site that my metal detector is detecting. I may know a slight bit of detail about the object in advance (ferrous or non), but I know absolutely nothing of the context that this object is in.
3. In spite of this, I will dig down to the object potentially destroying crucial physical or contextual information.
4. I do this because I want to know what the object is and all other considerations are less than my want.

And that's it.

Any defence of rescuing objects that would otherwise be destroyed, and increasing our knowledge is, in the main, purely speculative. The exception is actual rescue archaeology, about which I also have misgivings (particularly some of the Celtic Tiger rescue digs) - so I'm not biased against detectorists, I don't always trust archaeologists either!

Archaeology gets destroyed every single day- sometimes accidentally, sometimes not. I look at the last few rammed earth cottages in my area crumbling back into the ground and I inexplicably am saddened by it. I understand the desire to 'save' objects and the history they represent from time and the elements. But I cannot understand how a person who feels that way is willing to destroy the context of the object to do so.

As a kid, I used to zoom in on the bronze age gold stuff in the National Museum. As a forty-something I find myself drawn to the organic artifacts there now- the clothing, the basketry, the fish traps, the cut marks on those mysterious wooden cult-figures from the iron age. Real archaeology has to look at the object and the environment. Metal detecting precludes this.

slowburner

In the spirit of dialogue, I invite metal detector users to state what you want. What changes would you like to see in Irish law with regard to the use of metal detecting devices and archaeology?

Do you want a change in Irish law to effect schemes similar to the PAS in Britain?
Do you want to be able to sell found objects?
Do you want to be able to detect and dig around National Monuments?

yellowlabrador

I would like to see a growth in community archaeology and a pas scheme. I know there are rogues out there who are only interested in making money but no law will ever stop them.
I would love to own a metal detector. I'm the kind of person who loves beach combing and walking in farmland. If I ever found something I would rather see it recorded and displayed in a local museum.
National monuments or graveyards etc would be out of bounds.
The best way to police such things is to have more public interest.
Don't forget that a lot of landowners would rather not notify the archaeologists because they fear interference on how they can use their land.
I would love to see more awareness and love for our historical environment and I know quite a few jobless archaeologists. Maybe the 2 can meet?
I would never want to trade or buy finds but I would like to know more about them:)

pueblo

yellowlabrador wrote: »

I would like to see a growth in community archaeology and a pas scheme. I know there are rogues out there who are only interested in making money but no law will ever stop them.
I would love to own a metal detector. I'm the kind of person who loves beach combing and walking in farmland. If I ever found something I would rather see it recorded and displayed in a local museum.
National monuments or graveyards etc would be out of bounds.
The best way to police such things is to have more public interest.
Don't forget that a lot of landowners would rather not notify the archaeologists because they fear interference on how they can use their land.
I would love to see more awareness and love for our historical environment and I know quite a few jobless archaeologists. Maybe the 2 can meet?
I would never want to trade or buy finds but I would like to know more about them:)

What about a scheme where people could register to go on group detecting days in a certain area which would be managed/supervised by one or more of these unemployed archaeologists?

This would mean that any finds could be assessed before complete excavation and all relevant data/finds recorded and submitted to the authorities.

Ideally you would pay the archaeologist for his/her time but I think in the present economic climate that might be asking for too much!

Meathlass

How would that work though?

You hear a beep and select an area maybe 30cm in diameter around the centre of the beep. The archaeologist takes off the topsoil and then excavates down by hand to uncover any feature there is and the metal artefact within it.

This brings it into the realm of excavation which requires a licence. Plus it sounds like it could be very time-consuming and boring.

Who is going to pay for the conservation, recording and archive of what is discovered?

I'm involved with a group who do fieldwalking and geophysics of national monuments (full permission from NMI). It's very interesting and so much can be determined about the monument from the various surveying techniques. Not everything has to be dug up.

robp

pueblo wrote: »

Ideally you would pay the archaeologist for his/her time but I think in the present economic climate that might be asking for too much!

I am drifting a bit here but anyway archaeology is a profession which requires degrees and professional memberships for entry. We don't expect accountants to work for free for the sake of the country so nether should we expect archaeologist to work for free.

Maudi

slowburner wrote: »

In the spirit of dialogue, I invite metal detector users to state what you want. What changes would you like to see in Irish law with regard to the use of metal detecting devices and archaeology?

Do you want a change in Irish law to effect schemes similar to the PAS in Britain?
Do you want to be able to sell found objects?
Do you want to be able to detect and dig around National Monuments?

Excuse my ignorance but explain pas?
I dont metal detect but have found a couple of flint arrowheads field walking.i rather they and anything else recovered stays in the country praps like england a finders fee system would work.so I guess long story short no objects shouldnt be sold.
And as someone who loves our heritage.the idea of metal d or digging around them is abhorrent. .id go as far as including trained professionals in that aswell..when you see the likes of newgrange..stone henge..and numerous other sites..

davycc

slowburner wrote: »

In the spirit of dialogue, I invite metal detector users to state what you want. What changes would you like to see in Irish law with regard to the use of metal detecting devices and archaeology?

Do you want a change in Irish law to effect schemes similar to the PAS in Britain?
Do you want to be able to sell found objects?
Do you want to be able to detect and dig around National Monuments?

I welcome this spirit of dialogue and I'll answer those 3 questions below thanks kindly.

I feel a pas style scheme adjusted to suit Irish needs would be ideal I would want the archaeologists involved with it's administration to be paid a professional salary by public funds ideally the dept of heritage for this scenario.

Question 2 I'm not looking for permission to sell my finds at all.I'm not looking for an income from the hobby in any way.

Question 3. I'm not looking for permission to dig on or around national monuments and I never will be.
I feel that the laws are already in place to protect the monuments - the problem I see and hear is lack of protection on the ground due to chronic understaffing at the NMS.

Thanks again for hearing both sides of the debate. I welcome this wholeheartedly.

davycc

Maudi wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance but explain pas?
I dont metal detect but have found a couple of flint arrowheads field walking.i rather they and anything else recovered stays in the country praps like england a finders fee system would work.so I guess long story short no objects shouldnt be sold.
And as someone who loves our heritage.the idea of metal d or digging around them is abhorrent. .id go as far as including trained professionals in that aswell..when you see the likes of newgrange..stone henge..and numerous other sites..

Hey if you click on the pas words in sb initial question it has a link embedded in it..I'm on my phone so can't copy links sorry.

It's basically a scheme to help more metal detectors ists to be more honest and upfront about exactly what they find and where precisely to get as much information from The finds as possible before they go into an individuals collection or a museums..


It's run by local archaeologists who have an area they cover personally usually on a county by county basis. This familiarity helps forge new relationship and trust and even friendship between the two sides.

I agree 100 % with your answer's BTW..

pueblo

I fully accept comments above (meathlass robp) drifting or not.

I have 2 opinions on the matter..

Firstly, I think it's a great shame that people with a genuine care and interest in the archaeology of this island are unable to participate in the exploration and discovery of that shared material heritage. As always it is the small minority (artefact hunters/dealers/buyers) who spoil the fun for everyone else.

Secondly, I also think that archaeological excavation, licensed or not, is invasive and destructive and if it has to be undertaken then it is best done by professional archaeologists, not by Joe Bloggs MD, no matter what his motive.

Can the two opinions be reconciled? I have to say it seems like a big ask.

Meathlass

Perhaps people with an interest could get involved in the many voluntary field schools, excavations and local heritage groups who are undertaking surveys around the country.

davycc

Meathlass wrote: »

Perhaps people with an interest could get involved in the many voluntary field schools, excavations and local heritage groups who are undertaking surveys around the country.

Good idea that actually..I've followed quite a few on facebook from afar but always wimped out of going getting my hands dirty for fear of people on the ground questioning my motivation as in the interest of being fully transparent I'd obviously need to mention that I metal decent as a hobby.

Meathlass

davycc wrote: »

Good idea that actually..I've followed quite a few on facebook from afar but always wimped out of going getting my hands dirty for fear of people on the ground questioning my motivation as in the interest of being fully transparent I'd obviously need to mention that I metal decent as a hobby.

Why would you tell someone though?

I don't mean to offend you and I'm being honest here but if someone wanted to volunteer with our surveying group and said they also spend time metal detecting then I don't think we could accommodate them.

I'd be concerned that if they don't mind breaking the laws about metal detecting then I couldn't trust their assurances that they (or friends they innocently chat to) wouldn't come back to the National Monument we surveyed that day and detect on it.

Again sorry if I'm offending you but it would be my gut reaction.

Reoil

Would you rather it was left unfound and lost forever, or would you rather it was found and something gained from finding it?

Meathlass

But you're only concentrating on ferrous material and particularly with this material the conservation methods improve yearly.

Also 'finding' something by metal detecting means nothing can be gained from it as its context has been destroyed.

davycc

Meathlass wrote: »

Why would you tell someone though?

I don't mean to offend you and I'm being honest here but if someone wanted to volunteer with our surveying group and said they also spend time metal detecting then I don't think we could accommodate them.

I'd be concerned that if they don't mind breaking the laws about metal detecting then I couldn't trust their assurances that they (or friends they innocently chat to) wouldn't come back to the National Monument we surveyed that day and detect on it.

Again sorry if I'm offending you but it would be my gut reaction.

No offence taken at all i appreciate the reply.
neither I nor my friends would go within a country mile of a monument while detecting.
I'd like to be upfront from the start in that I know what should be kept secret from my time and other hobbies like fishing and politics.
I have a lifetimes worth of secrets buried away and I appreciate the magnitude of protecting our monument is immense.

As for breaking the law I mainly detect ploughed fields where the context has already been lost. Most finds are in the first first few inches literally.and I'm not searching for archaeological objects either.

I'd like the people running the fieldwalks to know I'm a detectorsist from the start as it's a fact and I'd rather be honest about it. I'd imagine if I mentioned it after Id after taking part it be even worse blow to an already tense relationship.

Thanks David

Reoil

Meathlass wrote: »

Also 'finding' something by metal detecting means nothing can be gained from it as its context has been destroyed.

I disagree. Plenty can be gained from the context - location, topology, earthworks, surroundings, etc. Archaeologists can then move in and inspect the area in which the "find" was found. There may be other things around that area, esp non-metal ones, and things that can't been seen from the air, like crop marks.
Metal detecting is essentially a method of finding a location.

slowburner

Reoil wrote: »

I disagree. Plenty can be gained from the context - location, topology, earthworks, surroundings, etc. Archaeologists can then move in and inspect the area in which the "find" was found. There may be other things around that area, esp non-metal ones, and things that can't been seen from the air, like crop marks.
Metal detecting is essentially a method of finding a location.

All of these features can be readily identified by experienced archaeologists without excavation.
New sites are found with surprising frequency by people who have learnt to read the landscape without poking holes in the ground.
Many new national monuments have been found by frequent posters in this forum, none of whom used a metal detector.
It might come as a surprise but one of the most important principles in archaeology is that 'excavation is destruction'.
This is one of the fundamental differences between the two camps. When a site is intact, there is a vast and fragile quantity of information stored about the lives of past people. So much can be inferred from the type and frequency of beetles present on site, for example. Or seeds - the staple food of life in the past. Or oxidised soil - a sure sign of activity as much as fire reddened stones.
These are the things that really inform us about the past. Not trinkets shoplifted from a hole in the ground. Those trinkets tell us nothing except that there was a site here once and now it can't tell us a fraction of the story.
So we see an 'earthed' site as safe and preserved until technique, technology and good reason allow excavation. A site is not lost because it is underground.

Meathlass

Have to agree with slowburner above.

Our local heritage group have been looking at the Lidar images for our area. We've discovered 4 previously unknown sites and discovered that one of our national monument sites is much more complex and important than previously thought.

cfuserkildare

slowburner wrote: »

All of these features can be readily identified by experienced archaeologists without excavation.
New sites are found with surprising frequency by people who have learnt to read the landscape without poking holes in the ground.
Many new national monuments have been found by frequent posters in this forum, none of whom used a metal detector.
It might come as a surprise but one of the most important principles in archaeology is that 'excavation is destruction'.
This is one of the fundamental differences between the two camps. When a site is intact, there is a vast and fragile quantity of information stored about the lives of past people. So much can be inferred from the type and frequency of beetles present on site, for example. Or seeds - the staple food of life in the past. Or oxidised soil - a sure sign of activity as much as fire reddened stones.
These are the things that really inform us about the past. Not trinkets shoplifted from a hole in the ground. Those trinkets tell us nothing except that there was a site here once and now it can't tell us a fraction of the story.
So we see an 'earthed' site as safe and preserved until technique, technology and good reason allow excavation. A site is not lost because it is underground.

The biggest problem that we face now, even more relevant than the damage being done by metal detectorists, is that currently very little of anything is being done in regard to excavations. I am still waiting to hear back from the NMS about a report I made 2 years ago, they know about it, but have still not sent anyone to look at it. even after 2 reports to the Gardai and numerous calls and emails to NMS themselves.

baaba maal

cfuserkildare wrote: »

The biggest problem that we face now, even more relevant than the damage being done by metal detectorists, is that currently very little of anything is being done in regard to excavations. I am still waiting to hear back from the NMS about a report I made 2 years ago, they know about it, but have still not sent anyone to look at it. even after 2 reports to the Gardai and numerous calls and emails to NMS themselves.

I agree with the point about excavations (I involved myself in trying to find out what had happened at Rathmore), but in my opinion both the metal detecting AND the resources available to the relevant authorities are problems. I don't think it's possible to rate them against each other. I would strongly suspect that if metal detecting were to be tolerated in this country (in the way that it is in the UK) there would undoubtedly be an increase in irresponsible detecting leading to further damage.

As an aside, with regards to the Viking objects in the OPs original post, my reading of it was that an archaeologist was summoned after the first few objects were lifted. Therefore there was contextual information potentially lost and the archaeological dig was carried out to "clear out" the rest of the finds. We aren't talking about some sort of planned excavation by a partnership of archaeologists and detectorists with a good methodology established at the outset- just a forced removal of objects to prevent them being robbed or damaged by the original disturbance.

Maudi

baaba maal wrote: »

I agree with the point about excavations (I involved myself in trying to find out what had happened at Rathmore), but in my opinion both the metal detecting AND the resources available to the relevant authorities are problems. don't think it's possible to rate them against each other. I would strongly suspect that if metal detecting were to be tolerated in this country (in the way that it is in the UK) there would undoubtedly be an increase in irresponsible detecting leading to further damage.

As an aside, with regards to the Viking objects in the OPs original post, my reading of it was that an archaeologist was summoned after the first few objects were lifted. Therefore there was contextual information potentially lost and the archaeological dig was carried out to "clear out" the rest of the finds. We aren't talking about some sort of planned excavation by a partnership of archaeologists and detectorists with a good methodology established at the outset- just a forced removal of objects to prevent them being robbed or damaged by the original disturbance.

You are almost describing the way the NRA carry out digs here as soon as they announce a new route..."just the forced removal of objects to prevent them being robbed or damaged by the original disturbance"

baaba maal

Maudi wrote: »

You are almost describing the way the NRA carry out digs here as soon as they announce a new route..."just the forced removal of objects to prevent them being robbed or damaged by the original disturbance"

Well I did say previously that I disagreed with a lot of the "rescue" archaeology done (and in some cases for motorways that have never realised the traffic volumes for which they were rushed to conclusion). But that, as they say, is another story.

RDM_83 again

Meathlass wrote: »

Have to agree with slowburner above.

Our local heritage group have been looking at the Lidar images for our area. We've discovered 4 previously unknown sites and discovered that one of our national monument sites is much more complex and important than previously thought.

Sorry for taking the thread of topic but any tips on finding sites using Lidar, I've the pleasure of working with a high resolution dataset at the minute (0.5 m resolution) and what I currently do is just create a hillshade and bump the Z axis to bring out the verticals.

Meathlass

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Sorry for taking the thread of topic but any tips on finding sites using Lidar, I've the pleasure of working with a high resolution dataset at the minute (0.5 m resolution) and what I currently do is just create a hillshade and bump the Z axis to bring out the verticals.

No tips as such, we've just been playing around with various options to bring out the resolution. There's an incredible amount of detail but luckily we have a geologist looking over stuff for us and he's been able to rule out lots of 'features'