We posted this on our sister website but felt it should get a broader readership.
Metal Detecting & Archaeology
Since we wrote the previous piece on metal detecting and its interesting relationship, we did some more research on the topic. It seems that there is a long-standing history between the hobby and the research field.
But like many other unique archaeological work, traditional archaeologists want to ban or license those using metal detectors to find artifacts. Metal detecting is about as limited as archaeology is since it can only find metal objects.
Then, those detectorists cannot present any more information as they have already dug up the artifact in a non-archaeological manner. Not that the traditional archaeological manner is effective.
Some detectorists are ethical and know what to do as this man from Switzerland called for a team of archaeologists to investigate the area of his find:
An amateur archaeologist in Switzerland has discovered an ornate dagger wielded by a Roman soldier 2,000 years ago.
That discovery, found using a metal detector, led a team of archaeologists to the site, who then uncovered hundreds of artifacts from a “lost” battlefield where Roman legionaries fought Rhaetian warriors as Imperial Rome sought to consolidate power in the area.
Archaeologists think one of those legionaries may have buried the newfound dagger intentionally after the battle as a token of thanks for a victory. Only four similar daggers — with distinctive features like its cross-shaped handle — have ever been found in former Roman territories.
Lucas Schmid, then a dental student, started exploring the area near the mountain village of Tiefencastel in Switzerland’s south-east Graubünden canton in the spring of 2018. Archaeological excavations in 2003 had unearthed traces of an ancient Roman army nearby, and the area was thought to have been picked clean of any artifacts since then. (source)
But not all archaeologists are in favor of these detectorists as they make more and more discoveries. Here is one article that clearly states that metal detectorists are not archaeologists:
Archaeology is not metal-detecting – the discovery of objects is not the aim, however “valuable” an item or hoard may appear to be (Stealing Britain’s history: when metal detectorists go rogue, 2 June).
The use of the term “treasure” in the name of English and Welsh legislation is highly misleading, only fostering views such as that of the National Council for Metal Detecting that a find is akin to “opening a Christmas present”.
As a professional archaeologist, I approve of the antiquities systems in Ireland and Scotland, and would advocate that the use of an electronic device to detect lost metal should be licensed.
Important metal finds only come to life when discovered in the context of rare sites such as the bronze age village at Must Farm, Cambridge – our “prehistoric Pompeii”. Metal finds can be significant, but do not need to be held in the hand – my most significant recent discovery was from the pages of an academic journal, describing a substantial nail in an unusual context, an object which links to a historical source and could indicate the existence of a totally new site type in Britain. That requires more research in the museum store and a thorough site survey – the stuff of real archaeology. (source)
The opposition continues even after metal detectorists made some great finds in 2016:
There’s been reason for cheer in metal detecting circles, with the news this month that 2016 saw a record number of finds reported to the Portable Antiquities Scheme. This announcement has spawned numerous congratulatory reports – including in the Guardian – detailing the wonderful things found, the back-stories of the lucky finders, and the sometimes extraordinary sums of money their finds have fetched. The rise in finds is attributed to improved detector technology and an increase in the number of people taking up the hobby, encouraged by recent spectacular finds and the popularity of the BBC’s Detectorists series.
Within the archaeological community the response has not been quite so cheerful. Several archaeologists have complained to me about the Guardian appearing to promote metal detecting as a harmless leisure pursuit, and online there’s been a distinct rumble of archaeological discontent. So why are some archaeologists upset about the swelling ranks of detectorists and the flood of important finds they’re turning up? The explanation lies in the uneasy relationship between archaeology and metal detecting which stretches back over the last 50 years. (source)
We can see their point, a little. But it is the same problem that Dr. Eric Cline had when he wrote his 2007 Boston Globe article ‘Raiders of the Faux Ark‘. he said that:
Biblical archeology is too important to leave to crackpots and ideologues. It’s time to fight back…As a result, however, we have seen a rise of two cultures – the scientists and the amateur enthusiasts. Lacking the proper training and credentials, the amateurs are sustained by vanity presses, television, and now the Internet…
Sanders describes himself on his website as a “Biblical Scholar of Archaeology, Egyptology and Assyriology,” but according to the Los Angeles Times, he “concedes that he has no formal archeological training.” Other newspaper accounts describe him as a “self-made scholar” who did research in parapsychology at Duke University.
And we must not forget documentary filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici. He bills himself as “The Naked Archeologist” in a television series on the History Channel, but has repeatedly stated during media interviews that he is an investigative journalist rather than an archeologist. Jacobovici is perhaps best known for “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” which first aired in March 2007 and which has been described by professor Jodi Magness of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as making “a sensationalistic claim without any scientific basis or support.”
In short, the amateur arena is full of deeply flawed junk science. Important issues are cloaked in legitimate-sounding terminology, little attention is paid to the investigative process, and contrary evidence is ignored.
We understand what both the traditional archaeologist feels and what the metal detectorist feels when their work is opposed. However, we would not put the detectorist in the same category as some of those amateurs biblical archaeologists have to put up with.
But the modern archaeologist can no more stop the metal detectorist than biblical archaeologists can stop the amateurs. They do not own the research field and their track record compared to the amateurs is telling.
Some of the best archaeological finds have been found by amateurs and we are sure, as you shall soon see, metal detectorists. We know there are not enough archaeologists to cover all the ancient sites so a little help never hurt.
On Dr. Cline’s part, we feel a little jealousy is involved as he has never really found anything significant during his career. Seeing amateurs discover what you couldn’t is hard on professional archaeologists no matter where they excavate.
The same may apply to archaeologists who suffer because metal detectorists make some great finds that they could not:
Metal detecting and archaeology have had a troubled relationship.
Archaeologists once dismissed metal detectorists as “night hawkers” who seek treasure and who destroy the archaeological record. But over the past 20 years important archaeological discoveries have been made using metal detectors, and they have become a standard element of our geophysics armoury.
Whether metal detectors are a benefit or a curse for archaeology depends on how they are used. The notes below are drawn from training materials prepared for metal detector training sessions organised for FRAG members. (source)
That article seems to have some practical advice for metal detectorists. We just scanned it though. What we didn’t like was this:
‘STOP’ (Stop Taking Our Past: the campaign against Treasure Hunting). This draconian attempt to ban amateur metal detecting in the 1980s generated animosity on both sides and eventually met with failure (Ibid)
We feel that archaeologists are also taking our past as they create theories that have nothing to do with the actual events of the past. We also feel that many archaeologists just like recreating their own concept of the past regardless if it is true or not.
There has to be a way for both to work together so the truth comes out, and not the archaeologists’ fabrications. Archaeologists get too possessive of the past even though it is not theirs. Also, they cannot cover every inch of ground that needs to be covered.
Surveys do not work for the most part and leave too much information buried. Their methods are not any more accurate than the metal detectorists’ as no one knows the original position or use of any discovery.
With that said, here are two links to a website and a video depicting the many discoveries metal detectors have made over the years. Archaeologists already use a variety of tools and they should incorporate the metal detector as it will help make some great finds. Plus, make their work go faster.
There are a lot more articles on this issue. We just do not have the time to mention them all. But one thing is for sure, this may be a great tool to help uncover the truth of the past even though only metal is detected.
theologyarchaeology 