We've had this treasure hunting debate int he UK for may
years now. Back in the early 80s, most professional
archaeologists treated metal detector users as if they were
the spawn of Beelzebub or worse, but over the years a more
relaxed attitude has grown up.
 
Many archaeologists now seem to divide the metal detecting
fraternity into two camps: the "responsible" detectorists,
who inform museums/SMRs and so on about their finds, who
work away from known sites and so on, and the
"irresponsible" types who want to keep their finds secret,
sell them on and won't take them anywhere near a museum
because of their unfounded fear that the museum will take
the material off the. Of course, this division into types
is artifical and takes no account of the many reasons
people go out metal detecting.
 
My problem with a lot of detectorists is that they seem to
be entirely artefact obsessed. They often aren't really
interested in the same things as I am - the social context
of the past, the relationships between sites, past
landscapes and so on. A lot of it is like stamp collecting:
I have met people who concentrate on collecting lead
pilgrim's bottles, Roman brooches, Renaissance counting
house tokens and so on. They often claim to be "rescuing
history" but much of the time all they are doing is
collecting objects.
 
I think that this is a failure of the archaeological
community in telling the public what the real purpose of
the discipline is. TV programmes and so on concentrate on
the "buried treasure" aspect of our work which, in my
experience, is often the least exciting and rewarding
aspect, as well as being the least common. I get far more
pleasure from fitting together different strands of
evidence into a previously invisible picture. Perhaps it
comes down, utlimately, to differences in temperament (or
is that too essentialist a position to take?)
 
----------------------
Keith J [log in to unmask]