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

detectorist wrote: »

Can I use a metal detector on the beach or riverside?
/not on archaeological sites and fields/
I don't want to search for archaeological artefacts!!! I know unfortunately in Ireland it's illegal and I don't want trouble.
I spoken with a gardai and he told to me no problem to use an md on the beach.

There is an important piece of information missing in this discussion, in Section 2 (6). Unless you have been licenced, there is a presumption that you are breaking the law - unless you can prove the contrary. I wouldn't fancy my chances in court.

To attempt ot answer some of Jakub's original questions,
I'm no expert, but the effectiveness of metal detectors in urban areas can be quite minimal, especially on development sites where the top layers, if not concrete, will comprise an inordinate amount of metal junk from the last century or so. Where there are archaeological sites, layers and features in urban areas, their depths are often measured to several metres. Metal detectors have a penetration of a few centimetres (what are the expensive ones capable of? .. maybe 15-20cm?), as these archaeological features will be excavated in open-area, by hand, there is very little chance that finds, metal or not, will be misssed - as with any method.

Where it is thought by archaeologists that a metal detector would be of benefit, a licence will be applied for by the qualified archaeologist and a method statement submitted, and if the archaeologists in the DoEHLG agree, they'll issue a licence for its use. In short they get used if they are going to be of use.

Archaeological sites are not all known by a long shot, and thats why archaeologists are brought in to find previously unidentified sites in destructive development programmes. So there is little recourse, under the legislation, of you claiming you are not near an archaeological site. You might be. This might even extend to beaches unless you can prove there is previous disturbance that has removed any traces of archaeological artefacts, but you might get away with it.

Don't trust the Gardai for advice, although you are right to ask. If you ended up in court because you were in the wrong place you would be prosecuted by the DoEHLG, not an archaeologically unaware gardai, and would have to make your case against lawyers.

The main reason why the law came into place in Ireland was to protect the heritage from people who were trying to claim it as "their own". It's a good question why is different in the UK. Firstly, I think, its because by 1987 metal detectoring was more established in the UK as a practice.
Secondly, when MDs were invented the UK legislation didn't offer as much protection to archaeological sites as Irish legislation did (and does).
Thirdly, some famous cases of farmers in Ireland asking for more money for finding what they considered as "their treasure" from the museum, lead to a perceived need to protect the heritage from the greedy. I might also add that I believe, very generally speaking of course, that people in Ireland have a different view of ownership of land to the British.

I'm reminded of a quote from Crocodile Dundee:
"So arguing over who owns them is like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog they live on".

I believe you should be able to use them on beaches, when you're looking for money dropped by bathers etc. I believe that MDs would be most profitable in the snow at bus stops. The number of times I have found change that no-one had heard dropping...

Interesting point. Personally why would you want to touch one? Would it be the same touching a replica? Something that looked like it, smelt like it, felt like it?

Don't think so. To me, the sense of awe you get from seeing, leave alone touching, an artefact comes from the knowledge that someone you will never know created it. Hundreds, even thousands of years ago. That it had a purpose, and depending on the artefact you might even have a good idea what that purpose was. Maybe you won't - some things are left entirely to the imagination.

But mostly it comes from the image you get of somebody throwing it away, or losing it in the bog, it dropping between the floor boards. They have gone along time ago, yet this thing remains. Its not the only thing though. Thats why I like archaeology. That thing is one part of a much bigger picture.

You can take all the metal bits out if you like. Show em off. Get some little sense of wonder at the little artefacts and perhaps remain happily ignorant of the rest of the artefacts you didn't pick up on. Cos they aint metal, and you couldn't find em. An excavation reveals all those little details that tell you - from some rather insignificant stains in the soil - there were three wooden houses here 3,500 years ago, that they liked to eat sheep, raised cows too. Were still using tiny flint tools to scrape hides and tip their arrows for hunting alongside a quite developed bronze axe technology.

With metal detecting you just find an axe - not the shallow pit it was buried in at the back of the house. You don't know there was a house there for it to be at the back of. You don't wonder why no-one came back for it - you tend to just think all these things were lost or thrown away. Sure, but maybe it doesn't matter - but then why would you be interested in artefacts in the first place?

The other thrill in metal detecting, of course, is nothing to do with having a sense of heritage, and comes from that feeling you get when you think you might strike it lucky. You have better odds playing the lotto.