European Journal of Archaeology 16 (4) 2013, 704–725
Between Rescue and Research: An Evaluation after 30 Years of Liberal Metal Detecting in Archaeological Research and Heritage Practice in Denmark
ANDRES S. DOBAT Department of Culture and Society, Aarhus University, Denmark
Since the early 1980s, metal detector surveying conducted by amateur archaeologists has contributed significantly to archaeological research and heritage practice in Denmark. Here, metal detecting has always been legal, and official stakeholders pursue a liberal model, focusing on cooperation and inclusion rather than confrontation and criminalization. Like no other surveying method since the invention of the shovel, the metal detector has contributed to increasing enormously the amount of data and sites from metal-rich periods. Virtually all of the spectacular and ground-breaking discoveries of the past decades are owed to metal detectors in the hands of amateur archaeologists. And it is these finds and sites that today constitute one of the very foci of archaeological research. This article provides an over- view of the current status of liberal metal detector archaeology in Denmark 30 years after its inception, and attempts to identify the reasons why this popular hobby never developed into the problem it has become in other parts of the world. It concludes that the success of the liberal model in Denmark is the result of a very complex interplay of legislative, historical, cultural, and social factors. On this basis, it is discussed whether the Danish experience can be used as a source of inspiration in the necessary pro- gression towards a new legal agenda for responsible metal detector archaeology.
Keywords: Metal detector, metal finds, surveying methods, heritage practice, protection laws, citizen-based research, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Medieval Period
INTRODUCTION relics from the great wars. The antiquities procured by such illegal searches rarely Illegal metal detecting constitutes a severe reach the light of day and certainly not the threat to cultural heritage in many Euro- records of the official heritage manage- pean countries as well as an ethical ment agencies or research institutions. dilemma for archaeologists. The problems Accompanied only by limited information are manifold: prehistoric and historic sites —if any at all—on contexts and location, from metal-rich periods are systematically these antiquities will always remain blind plundered; archaeological excavations sources. receive unwelcome night-time visitors who On the other hand, we have many well- empty the context of its metal content; known finds brought about by illegal and and battlefields of more recent periods are legal metal detectorists alike. Single anti- haunted by metal detectorists hunting for quities or big assemblages that do make
© European Association of Archaeologists 2013 DOI 10.1179/1461957113Y.0000000041 Manuscript received 4 January 2013, accepted 21 May 2013, revised 8 April 2013 Dobat — Between rescue and research 705 their way to the public: finds like the archaeological establishment and legis- Nebra sky disk, the Staffordshire Hoard or lators decided to pursue a liberal model the recent Jersey coin treasure. These finds based on cooperation and inclusion rather not only intrigue millions with their story than confrontation and criminalization of adventure and ancient mystery and (Olsen, 1984; Petersen, 1991). Since then, riches, they also contribute new knowl- metal detecting has developed into a edge, even though, in the many illicit popular hobby practiced mainly by cases, a great deal of information is lost amateur archaeologists, as in many other due to the circumstances of their discov- countries worldwide (including those ery. To this, one must add the enormous banning or criminalizing metal detecting media attention on such finds, which has by non-professionals). Today—30 years made metal detector finds a central later—amateur metal detecting in element in the public promotion of Denmark is not only generally evaluated as archaeology. This is the ethical dilemma a great success, but it has also had pro- for many archaeologists: for although the found implications for archaeological metal detector may pose a potential threat, heritage practice and research. it has also become an important source of In this study, I will provide a status scientific knowledge, public legitimization, update after 30 years of liberal metal and popular recognition. detector archaeology in Denmark and Both as a hobby or professional occu- attempt to identify the reasons why this pation, metal detecting is growing in popular hobby in Denmark never devel- popularity and profitability. For some, this oped into the problem it has become in is about the sheer desire to hold a piece of other parts of the world. I will also ask the history, be it the distant and mystic past obvious question: whether the Danish of Roman or Celtic civilizations or the experience can be used elsewhere as a ever-so-present terror in the trenches of model and a source of inspiration in the the two World Wars. For others, it is necessary work towards a new legal agenda about cold cash, and just a brief review of for metal detector archaeology. auction forums on the Internet clearly demonstrates the scale of the financial interests involved (on the motivations of THE DANISH EXPERIENCE metal detectorists in general, see Garrison, 2009; Henriksen, 2011b; Thomas, 2012). The effect of the metal detector on the Until now, a sceptical attitude towards sheer quantity of material source data, and amateur metal detectorists in many Euro- hence the understanding of Iron Age and pean countries has prompted a refusal of early medieval societies in particular, cooperation with amateur practitioners or cannot be underestimated. Like no other even attempts to legally ban the surveying method, the metal detector has unauthorised use of metal detectors in contributed to a profound increase in the archaeological surveys by non-professionals. amount of data and sites from the metal- This is not so in Denmark. According to rich periods, mainly the Bronze Age, the the Danish Museum Law (LBK nr 1505), Iron Age, and the medieval periods. the use of metal detectors is legal, except Virtually all the spectacular and ground- on or within two meters from protected breaking discoveries of the past decades heritage monuments and sites. From are due to metal detectors in the hands of the very beginning of metal detector amateur archaeologists. Artefacts that were archaeology in the late 1970s, the considered exceptional or unique 20 years 706 European Journal of Archaeology 16 (4) 2013
Figure 1. Metal detector survey as part of the ‘Kongens Borge’ research project at the Viking Age ring fortress at Aggersborg in 2009. More than 30 amateur metal detectorists from different detector associ- ations participated in the survey for two days. Photo: Andres Dobat, Aarhus University ago now have hundreds of example of of not only additional gold treasures, but each type. And many of the sites that have also countless spectacular artefacts, such as been discovered via metal detector survey- complete and fragmented pieces of dress ing constitute the very foci of archaeological accessories, coins and hack-silver, scrap research today (see below for examples). metal and so forth from the plough–soil Similar to the development in the UK, horizon. Scattered around the modern it is especially within Danish settlement village of Gudme, the finds indicated a archaeology that the metal detector has huge settlement area with a continuous demonstrated its potential as a means of occupation spanning over more than a providing new data. An illustrative millennium, from the Pre-Roman Iron example is the discovery of the Gudme Age and well into the late Viking Age complex on the island of Funen in the (first century BC to eleventh century AD) early 1980s, the early days of the detector (Figure 1). Later, large-scale excavations boom. Since the nineteenth century, the conducted by the local museums (Odense Gudme area had a special status in Danish Bys Museer, and Svendborg and Omegns archaeology, with its dense concentration Museum) and the Danish National of treasure finds and single gold objects Museum resulted in the documentation of from the Migration period (Thrane, the architectural elements of the settle- 1994). ment, consisting of several farms with The initial detector surveys at Gudme, longhouses and smaller buildings, as well which were conducted by two local unem- as a massive hall building from the Roman ployed citizens, did result in the discovery Iron Age in the very centre of the Dobat — Between rescue and research 707 distribution of metal finds. In the course focus of archaeological research into these of these investigations, the metal detector periods, and whether it is the question of finds could be demonstrated to relate to the evolution of early towns, religious the underlying features and the functional transitions, trade and exchange, patterns structure of the site (Petersen, 1994; of supra-regional contacts or military Sørensen, 1994, 2000) (Figure 5). organization, the sites and material discov- Today, after many years of continuous ered by metal detectors are one of the key metal detector surveying and excavations, sources for respective studies (see, for Gudme is an icon of Danish archaeology example: Fabech & Ringtved, 1995; and the many thousands of individual Stjernquist & Larsson, 1998; Henriksen, finds tell the vivid story of a chiefly elite 2002; Jørgensen, 2003; Skre, 2007; Moes- residing on the shores of a sacral lake, gaard, 2009; Baastrup, 2012). with far-reaching international connec- Not only within the field of Iron Age tions and political alliances, gathering and medieval settlement have metal detec- around them specialised craftsmen and a tors in the hands of passionate amateurs military retinue (for a summary of the sig- contributed new knowledge. Many single nificance of the Gudme site, see finds of bronze or gold, for example, have Hedeager, 2001; Randsborg, 2007; significantly broadened our picture of the Jørgensen, 2011). material world and deposition practices in The discovery of Gudme foreshadowed the Bronze Age (Jensen & Runge, 2008; the discovery of many sites by metal detec- Henriksen, 2011a; Hansen & Henriksen, tors in the following decades. As late as 2012) (Figure 4). And the rise in the the 1970s, the evidence of early medieval number of coin finds, especially from the settlements was limited to fewer than early medieval period onwards, has paved twenty localities. Today, the number of the way for new possibilities in the study sites with metal finds indicating settlement of the development of monetary systems activity or regular settlements from this (Grinder-Hansen, 2000; Horsnæs, 2002; period can be counted in several hundreds, Moesgård, 2002; Mäkeler, 2003). In exposing a settlement landscape of addition, the metal detector has led to hitherto unexpected density and complex- new research areas, such as battlefield ity: aristocratic residences such as Tissø on archaeology (Olsen, 2009). Sealand or Sorte Muld on Bornholm; Today, amateur metal detecting in rural settlements and manors; specialised Denmark is deeply rooted in cultural heri- production places with evidence of a broad tage practice. As a surveying tool, the range of craft activities; and landing-places discovery of countless archaeological sites and smaller market centres in the coastal by amateur metal detectorists has helped regions (Näsman, 1991; Ulriksen, 1994; to identify sites that otherwise would have Fabech, 1999; Henriksen, 2000; Jørgensen, been in danger of destruction from con- 2003; Christiansen, 2008; Adamsen, 2009) struction activity. Amateur metal (Figures 6 and 7). detectorists are key voluntary personnel on The large number of sites that have rescue and research excavations alike, emp- been and are still being discovered has tying the plough horizon of metal artefacts radically changed our understanding of the prior to excavations (Rasmussen, 2007; socio-political constitution of Scandina- Nielsen, 2008; Hansen & Henriksen, vian societies in the first millennium and 2012). The incorporation of amateur the medieval period. Today, these sites detectorists has proven necessary not least discovered by metal detectors constitute a due the fact that they, in terms of 708 European Journal of Archaeology 16 (4) 2013 experience and knowledge, generally are 1983; see also Nielsen & Petersen, 1993). far superior to archaeologically trained The reason why things turned out differ- museum staff. ently is complex, and the answer to the As was the case in Gudme, the experi- above question has to be sought in very ence from these investigations has different domains. demonstrated the fact that even though metal detector finds from plough horizons cannot be related to specific contexts, their Legal basis spatial distribution pattern nevertheless adds meaningful information to the struc- The legal foundation of metal detector tures unearthed below the plough soil, archaeology in Denmark is the Treasure allowing the structural or organizational Act (the danefæ [treasure trove] regulation aspects of a given site and even individual in section 30 [1] of the Museum Law). buildings to be assessed (Jensen, 1992; Dating back to the thirteenth century, the Jørgensen, 2000, 2011; Helgesson, 2004; law covers certain, mainly metal, finds: Henriksen, 2010). ‘artefacts and coins from the past which For many metal finds and metal find- have been found in Denmark and which complexes(allcategoriesincluded)still nobody can rightly claim to be his prop- remaining in situ,thediscoverybyan erty are considered danefæ, as long as they amateur detectorist is the only chance of are made of precious material or are of preservation. The increasingly acidic rain special cultural-historical value’ (Museums- and the increasing use of chemical fertilizers loven, 2006). In broad terms and as far as are beginning to affect artefacts in the metal objects are concerned, all artefacts plough-soil. Furthermore, intensive agricul- made of gold or silver that are older than tural activity is increasingly destroying in situ one hundred years, bronze and lead, as well find contexts, such as graves or hoards as iron weapons or tools from prehistoric (Asingh, 2001; Jørgensen, 2001). In the periods or the Middle Ages, fall within this light of these threats, metal detector archae- category. ology is the only chance of rescuing these According to the Danish Museum Law, artefacts from irrecoverable destruction. such objects rightly belong to the state and must be delivered to the Danish National Museum. In practice, finds are normally PRECONDITIONS FOR THE DANISH delivered to one of the many local EXPERIENCE museums, which forward them to the National Museum (Section30 [2] of the The contribution of the metal detector to Museum Law). The state compensates Danish archaeology has turned out to be the finder with a certain sum. The amount substantial and generally positive. But why is determined by the National Museum, did metal detector archaeology in based on the find’s material value and Denmark not become the problem it has rarity, as well as on the care taken by the developed into in many other countries finder during the recovery of the find worldwide? Numerous official stakeholders (Section 30 [3] of the museum law). of cultural heritage management in In contrast to the situation in many other Denmark did in fact utter such concerns European countries with treasure trove in the early days, anticipating the legislation, the Danish danefæ regulations large-scale destruction of cultural heritage have never included compensation to land- by ruthless treasure hunters (Fischer, owners. (For general comments on the Dobat — Between rescue and research 709
Museum law, see Axboe et al., 2010; The activities of these museums, ranging Moesgaard et al., 2010.) from contract archaeology to communi- From the very beginning of metal cation and research, often feature detector archaeology, the Treasure Act of prominently in the local press. Based on the Danish Museum Law has played a this background, archaeological museums crucial role, ensuring that the majority of in Denmark are not only generally well the many thousands of finds uncovered by embedded in their local political and social amateur detectorists did in fact make it context, but they are also seen as auth- into the inventory lists of both local orities in the broad field of public museums and the National Museum. And archaeology. with its emphasis on the finder’s caution To this, one must add the generally during recovery, it has also ensured that high level of generalized trust in society the objects are accompanied by essential and, in particular, trust in official insti- contextual data, such as find location and tutions—a distinct and quantifiable feature relation to other finds. that distinguishes Danish society in com- parison with many other societies on a global scale (Bjørnskov et al., 2011). Just The Danish museum landscape like any other public institution, archaeo- logical museums profit from this prevalent Denmark, in comparison with most other attitude and are generally perceived as European countries, has a relatively high highly trustworthy. Since it is seen as an number of archaeological museums. expression of social trust and responsibility Besides the National Museum, there are to hand in identified or unidentified more than thirty museums with archaeolo- objects to the local museum, the legal gical departments and administrative regulations of the Treasure Act can be responsibility for the archaeological heri- seen as a formal framework for a com- tage in a given district (Iversen & Nielsen, monly accepted practice. 1993). This decentralized structure has The archaeological museums have suc- always been the basis for a close inter- ceeded in establishing a general action between museum staff and society, understanding of metal detector archaeol- and the short distance from museums to ogy as necessarily based on mutual the field in simple spatial terms has cooperation between detectorists and enabled the establishment of close bonds museums. In practice, this cooperation on between professional staff and amateur the part of the museums typically involves, metal detectorists. among other things: identification and Even though the majority are of more processing of finds; forwarding finds to recent date, these local museums have the National Museums; supplying infor- their ideological roots in the National mation on potential find-spots and Romantic Movement of the nineteenth cartographic material; instructing detector- century—a movement that emphasised ists on the handling of finds and on regional and, in particular, rural history as documentation standards; and arranging the main basis for national identity in large-scale detector rallies. The latter are Denmark (Kristiansen, 1981; Adriansen, seen as a natural extension of the good 2003). Even today, much of the financial cooperation between detectorists, and the support for these institutions typically results often feed directly into research comes from local sources in the form of projects or surveying programs (see, for private funding and municipal support. example, Horsnæs & Ingvardson, 2010; 710 European Journal of Archaeology 16 (4) 2013
Henriksen, 2011b; Hansen & Henriksen, though great finds have proven possible, as 2012). Last but not least, one important the many spectacular discoveries of gold service provided by the museums is the and silver treasures or exceptional single promotion of the finds—together with the finds clearly illustrate, they are comparably proud finders—in local or even national rare (Figure 2). Although a small group of media. highly active metal detectorists in especially In exchange for the museums’ involve- profitable regions (Bornholm and, to some ment the metal detectorists provide their degree, also Funen and Sealand) can gain finds and contextual data as a basis for up to several thousand Danish kroners research, as an important tool of heritage every year on average in compensation paid management and as a source of public under the Treasure Act legislation, these attention. Many amateur metal detectorists compensations rarely outweigh the invest- participate in surveying campaigns or exca- ment of man hours (especially in the light vations, and hence contribute to the of the average wage or even social security management of archaeological heritage. benefits in Denmark). In this way, metal detector archaeology— Another important parameter is the despite being practiced by amateurs—is a nature of the contextual background of highly integrated part of the museums’ detector finds in Denmark. As in most research activities and their obligations European countries, virtually all treasure within cultural heritage management. The troves are found in the plough horizon of expertise of Danish metal detectorists has cultivated fields, or fields that have been even been applied by research institutions under the plough at least at some point in outside Denmark—for example, during more recent history. The finds can thus be the recent archaeological investigations in expected to have already been detached Uppåkra, southern Sweden (Paulsson, from their original context (at least in 1999), or Hedeby, northern Germany cases where the ground penetration of the (von Carnap-Bornheim & Hilberg, 2012). respective detector is not more than 30 cm), which naturally does not mean that they cannot be used as highly informative The archaeological material and sources for the interpretation of underlying surveying parameters features (Jensen, 1992; Jørgensen, 2000; Helgesson, 2004; Henriksen, 2010) Theclearmajorityofthetreasuretroves (Figure 5). (However, this situation is registered at the National Museum in the about to change with the on-going tech- last decades were either bronze, lead, or silver nological development towards metal artefacts (Figure 3), whereas gold objects detectors with ground-penetrating capacity have only played a minor role (only approxi- beyond the average plough soil horizon.) mately 1 per cent of the finds for which The greater part of the Danish landmass compensation is paid under the danefæ is characterized by intensive agricultural regulation are gold objects; P.V. Petersen, activity and there are hardly any ruin sites personal communication, 2012). On this or settlements with intact occupation basis, any precious metal artefact found layers. Only in the relatively few areas through metal detecting in Danish soil is with intact prehistoric surfaces (forests, usually the result of many hours of single- heaths, moors, dunes, and the like) can we minded persistence. Being a metal detectorist expect possible finds to be in danger of in Denmark simply demands considerable being removed from their original context. patience and personal commitment. Even Due to dense vegetation, however, these Dobat — Between rescue and research 711
Figure 2. Migration period gold bracteate hoard from the Gudme settlement complex on the Island of Funen. Photo: National Museum of Denmark areas tend to represent difficult terrain for belonging to Greek or Roman civilizations, metal detector surveying. where far more precious metal was circulat- In effect, the relatively small proportion ing in society. The potential danger of of precious metal in average metal detector metal finds being removed from their orig- find assemblages renders inefficient any inal contexts, resulting in the loss of attempt at profit-motivated treasure irreplaceable information, is low due to the hunting (at least for the great majority of nature of the typical Danish heritage sites. practitioners), and can thus be seen as a crucial factor for the positive development of metal detector archaeology in Denmark. The metal detectorists In this respect, the situation in Denmark certainly differs when compared to archae- The number of metal detectorists in ological sites in the Mediterranean region Denmark is difficult to access. Around 712 European Journal of Archaeology 16 (4) 2013
Figure 3. Selection of bronze artefacts (dress accessories and other implements) from different periods (ranging from the Bronze Age to the Medieval period) found on sites around Kerteminde in the north- eastern part of Funen, Denmark. The collection is representative of an average assemblage of so-called ’danefæ’ (treasure trove), i.e. finds for which financial compensation is paid to the finder by the state (length of the fibula button right: 6.2 cm). Photo: Østfyns Museer, Kerteminde, Denmark
700 people are registered as members in local engaged amateurs in museum practice has or national associations (H. Christensen, per- been characteristic of Danish archaeology sonal communication, 2012). An estimated (Lyngbak, 1993). figure of active users can be obtained from Many of the detectorists are organized in the Danish National Museum’scountof one or several local and national associ- danefæ transfers. In 2011, the museum’spre- ations (examples include the Bornholmske historic department and the department for Amatørarkæologer, Harja, Tellus, and coins and medals paid danefæ compensation Thy-Mors Detektorforening). These associ- to a total of 202 individuals (a small percen- ations regularly cooperate with local tage was paid for artefacts found without museums and other research institutions in metal detector). Hence, one must estimate at surveying projects or in the context of exca- least 200 highly active metal detectorists in vations. An example is the ‘Thy rally’,a Denmark and an unknown number of less large-scale surveying project covering active (or less lucky) practitioners in the field. various sites in different parts of the As non-professionals, these people continue country, organized by the Thy-Mors Detek- a long tradition of amateur (in the positive torforening in cooperation with the local sense of the word) archaeology in Denmark. museums and relevant landowners. This is Since the institutionalisation of archaeolo- an annual event that regularly attracts close gical research and museums, the active to one hundred detectorists from all over participation and inclusion of often highly Denmark (Horsnæs & Ingvardson, 2010). Dobat — Between rescue and research 713
Figure 4. Bronze Age toggles found during metal detector investigations around the Voldtofte burial mound complex in southwest Funen, Denmark, organized by Odense City Museums in cooperation with the Harja and Tellus amateur metal detector associations. Photo: Asger Kjærgaard, Odense Bys Museer
The amateur detectorists’ surveying ‘to abide by the treasure-trove regulations areas tend to be either large areas or of the museum law’ and ‘to find and con- certain archaeological sites in the vicinity serve Danish cultural heritage as a resource of their respective places of residence. to obtain further knowledge of Danish A trend observed by museum curators cultural history’ (Thy-morsdetektor, 2012). more recently is the establishment of fixed The majority of metal detectorists in ‘claims’: one or a group of detectorists Denmark are characterized by a highly reach an informal gentlemen’s agreement professional attitude towards their hobby. with a given landowner to provide exclu- Individual finds are positioned with GPS sive surveying rights in exchange for a coordinates, the spatial extent of surveying share of a possible danefæ compensation. is mapped or documented via GPS track- Metal detecting has thus developed along ing systems, specific sites are surveyed similar lines to hunting grounds on the continuously, and the finds are presented continent or in Scandinavia. This close and discussed on Internet platforms (e.g. personal connection incites the individual Detecting People, 2012), and, most metal detectorists (and the respective land- importantly, all finds are handed over to owners) to monitor ‘their’ personal the local museums. Many amateur archae- surveying areas. ologists take obvious pride in their According to the statutes of, for affiliation with the local museum, often example, the Thy-Mors Detektorforening, referring to it as a partner or even the individual members commit themselves ‘employer’. 714 European Journal of Archaeology 16 (4) 2013
Figure 5. Metal detector finds and the underlying structural features of the early medieval settlement at Tissø on Sealand, Denmark. Map orientated towards north. Data and drawing: Lars Jørgensen, Danish National Museum
The various associations fulfil an impor- rooms’, the various internet platforms also tant function as an institutional link serve to satisfy the very human desire for between detectorists and museums or other sharing successful experiences with peers research institutions. As a social and or the public. The ‘trophy factor’ is cer- cultural context, they also provide an tainly one of the reasons why metal additional contribution, shaping a positive detecting in Denmark has been character- culture and professional attitude around ized by transparency from the start. metal detecting as a hobby. The emphasis Key to understanding the generally high of the Thy-Mors Detektorforening statutes moral attitude of Danish metal detectorists (mentioned above) illustrates the associ- and the perception of metal detecting as ation’s educational role, in particular as contributing to cultural history is the regards novices, for whom such associations widespread and profound historical con- often serve as the introduction to the field. sciousness found in Danish society. Finally, just like many other popular Archaeological and historical journals or hobbies, metal detectorists are partly television shows are surprisingly popular, driven by a competitive spirit. As ‘trophy and there is a general acceptance of the Dobat — Between rescue and research 715
Figure 6. Growth of the number of find-spots that have produced danefæ finds discovered either with (blue) or without (red) metal detectors in Denmark during the period 1970–2011. The great majority of the non-metal detector danefæ finds are of stone, amber or glass (the decline between 2006 and 2008 is to be explained by administrative issues and does not mirror the actual situation). Source: Mogens Bo Henriksen, Odense Bys Museer, based on data from the Danish National Museum relevance of the preservation of cultural metal detector offers these citizens the heritage as a valuable and shared property. possibility to actively produce cultural heri- In the popular view, Danish prehistory is tage and thus contribute to a common intimately linked with national sentiments good. Metal detecting has thus become and seen as a common ancestral past, more a source of social and cultural capital providing an important source of national than of economic income. identity. According to Christopher Garrison (2009: 45), who has included the Danish case in his analysis of various incentives for ALL THAT GLITTERS IS NOT GOLD the reporting of portable antiquities, an ordinary Dane would feel a strong ‘identity As in countries where metal detecting is incentive’ and a strong ‘reward incentive’ to prohibited by law, negative cases only report a find, whereas the ‘punishment seldom reach public attention. The gravity incentive’ would only be weak. of the problems relating to metal detecting Danish metal detectorists consider their in Denmark is therefore difficult to assess. work not merely to be a contribution to It would, however, be naïve to believe cultural history in general. It is in fact seen that, for example, ‘night-hawking’ (illegal as a way to contribute to the writing of metal-detecting on registered heritage sites Danish national history. Instead of pas- or without the landowner’s consent) does sively consuming cultural heritage through not occur. Neither can we exclude the media or in the context of museums, the possibility that metal detector finds are 716 European Journal of Archaeology 16 (4) 2013
Figure 7. Distribution of find-spots with danefæ finds discovered with metal detectors in Denmark up to and including 2006. Data: Kulturstyrelsen; drawing by Mogens Bo Henriksen, Odense Bys Museer held back and instead offered for sale on find handling, such cases are relatively the global market, where the monetary rare, even though they do occur (see, for rewards may exceed the compensation example, Henriksen, 2011b). paid under the legislation of the Danish A pressing issue is and will be the Treasure Act. In general, however, this constant ‘improvement’ of metal detectors, compensation still beats the fictitious allowing deeper ground penetration. Already market price, and until now, only very few today, several producers offer devices with a such cases have been reported (Jensen, search range beyond the average depth of 2004; Henriksen, 2011b; P.V. Petersen, the plough horizon. The majority of Danish personal communication, 2012). metal detectorists have proven patient A more general problem observed by enough to contact officials in those cases museum curators is the unsatisfactory where they hit upon in situ assemblages. handling of finds and incomplete or even The consequences of the increased effec- completely missing information on find tiveness of future metal detectors, locations. As both the amount of danefæ however, are difficult to assess at present. compensation and (maybe more impor- One of the unintended and rather tant) the status/esteem of the individual unfortunate effects of the Danish Treasure detectorist within the associations is very Act is a separation between ‘good’ finds much dependent on the standard of the (i.e. finds for which compensation is paid) Dobat — Between rescue and research 717 and ‘bad’ finds (i.e. finds for which no registered at local museums—if at all— compensation can be expected). The bulk each of them following different regis- of the assemblage of metal finds from an tration practices and standards. There is ordinary Iron Age or early medieval settle- no central registration of finds comparable ment belongs to the second group (scrap to, for example, the Portable Antiquities metal, melted pieces, unidentifiable frag- Scheme (Portable Antiquities Scheme, ments of bronze and lead, etc.). Even 2012), and the best place for the public though such finds are in fact important and researchers alike to get a comprehen- sources of archaeological data, the focus sive view of new finds is on the Danish on danefæ-finds ultimately leads to a mis- metal detector associations’ own internet representation of the evidence, as these platform (Detecting People, 2012) (for objects are often either not even collected positive exceptions, see, for example, by detectorists or omitted from the find Jensen, 1992; Christiansen, 2008; Feveile, registration at the respective local museum. 2011; Baastrup, 2012; or the publications All surface surveying, but especially of the Swedish Uppåkra Project: Hårdh, metal detector surveying with its ‘trophy 1999, 2003). The consequences are dis- factor’, carries the risk of resulting in a turbing. Not only is the enormous and biased representation of artefact scatters, unique research potential of the many since areas with a high ratio of finds are finds impossible to exploit, but the finds generally prospected more thoroughly than and their contextual data (and with them a areas where finds appear to occur less reg- central component of Danish cultural heri- ularly. Repeated reconnaissance may tage) are in fact in danger of being confirm or even strengthen the appearance irretrievably lost; and this despite the fact of artefact concentrations or supposed that the individual finds have been peripheral areas, generating a biased reported. Even now, it is impossible to representation of the outer limits or the gain a comprehensive picture of the internal structure of, for instance, a settle- massive amount of data. The development ment complex (Paulsson, 1999: 51; Watt, of a central registration system for the 2000: 6). This problem can be easily thousands of metal detector finds that tackled, however, through the application have already been discovered and that are of a systematic working approach, based to come in the next decades is therefore on a grid system or a GPS tracking system one of the most pressing challenges that and continuous monitoring of surveying Danish archaeology has to face. intensity (Gregory & Rogerson, 1984; Even if the real extent of the various Skre, 2007; Dobat, in press). problems connected to liberal metal The biggest challenge by far of Danish detecting in Denmark are difficult to metal detector archaeology is the lack of assess, and future developments may also any central and enduring registration pro- change the picture, one must conclude cedure or system. The many thousands of that there are only few ‘black sheep’ metal detector finds being handed over to among the Danish metal detectorists. local museums and the National Museum In general, the protagonists in the field remain inaccessible to the public eye and abide by the treasure-trove regulations of researchers. Only a selection (especially the museum law and practice their hobby spectacular objects made of gold with glit- with a highly professional attitude. And tering stones and the like) is published even though undetected cases of illegal (see, for example, Andersen & Nielsen, detecting, sale and export of artefacts cer- 2010; Nielsen, 2012). The bulk is only tainly exist, and some practitioners may 718 European Journal of Archaeology 16 (4) 2013 have unsatisfactory registration standards, I rich periods, but also opened new research am convinced I speak for the majority of perspectives. As an integrated tool of heri- Danish archaeologists when I state that the tage practice, metal detecting has secured positive effects of liberal detector archaeol- an important part of cultural heritage and ogy far outweigh the negative effects. ensured the identification of countless The lack of central and enduring regis- archaeological sites that otherwise would tration procedures for past and future have been in danger of destruction by metal detector finds, however, is a ticking factors such as construction and agricultural bomb under the shining surface of Danish activity, acid rain, chemical fertilizer, etc. metal detector archaeology. The solution To be sure, these benefits have come at for this problem lies in the application of a price. It can be estimated that a total the new possibilities offered by public sum of more than 10 million DKK (1.3 internet databases. The Portable Antiqui- million Euros) has been paid to individual ties Scheme for England and Wales could metal detectorists only in the last ten be drawn upon as a suitable model. The years. In terms of a cost–benefit calcu- professional attitude and commitment of lation and in the light of the general the many amateur metal detectorists could expenses for archaeological rescue exca- be included as a potential resource in this vations in Denmark, this can be regarded respect. With their various internet-based one of the most profitable investments in databases of detector finds, the amateur Danish archaeology. metal detector scene in Denmark is Another price of the liberal model is the already far ahead of the Danish archaeolo- occasional loss of single finds or assem- gical establishment. Along the lines of blages that are not handed over to the current trends of civic participation and official stakeholders, but are instead sold, citizen-based research initiatives also officially (all antiquities that are not within cultural heritage management, declared for danefæ can be officially future registration of metal detector finds traded) or on the black market. However, should try to include and empower the would such cases have been prevented by a many amateur detectorists not only as qua- restrictive policy? The experience in lified fieldworkers, but also as monitors countries with a prohibition model pro- and registrants, reporting and registering vides a clear answer to this question. the result of their work (the Wiki- Given the prevailing benefits gained from principle could be a suitable model for the many finds that are registered, even such a user-driven database). those few real and a hypothetical number of unknown cases can be considered a cheap price to pay. CONCLUSIONS The primary goal of this article was to provide a status update after 30 years of Drawing some conclusions from the 30 liberal metal detector archaeology in years of liberal metal detector archaeology Denmark, and to identify the reasons why in Denmark, one can state the following: the concept of liberal metal detector from a research perspective, metal detect- archaeology has proven as successful as ing has contributed to a staggering demonstrated above. The following increase in the amount of data and sites. aspects have been identified as crucial in In effect, it has not only radically altered this respect. (1) The provision of a simple our understanding of central aspects of the set of rules for liberal detector archaeology Scandinavian societies during the metal- and the securing of financial compensation Dobat — Between rescue and research 719 for the finders in the Danish treasure- the Danish model has to be seen as based trove legislation, with the amount being on a very complex interplay of legislative, dependent on the care taken by the finder historical, cultural and social aspects, and during the recovery of the find. (2) The even the psychological disposition of the decentralized character of the Danish practitioners has to be included as an museum landscape and the deep embedd- important factor (for comparable con- edness of museums in society as clusions, see Olsen, 1984; Henriksen, 2005, trustworthy institutions. (3) Close 2011a, b; Garrison, 2009; Ulst, 2012). cooperation and mutual respect between museums and individual or organizations of amateur metal detectorists. (4) The PERSPECTIVES:AFUTURE FOR THE relatively small proportion of precious LIBERAL MODEL? metal in the average metal detector find assemblages and the nature of the typical This leads us to an obvious question: can Danish metal detector sites (ploughed the Danish experience be used as a model fields). (5) The long tradition of amateur for liberalising metal detector archaeology (in the positive sense of the word) archae- in other countries? Given the success of ology in Denmark. (6) The generally the Danish model based on very specific, professional attitude of metal detectorists and to some degree even unique, social towards their hobby and their understand- and cultural factors, the answer must be ing of metal detector archaeology as a no. Simply transferring the Danish contribution to Danish cultural history. (7) model’s legislative foundation to a differ- The high level of organization among ent cultural context cannot be expected to metal detectorists and the various associ- result in the same positive result. ations and museums’ educational role. (8) The countless examples of the looting The general popularity of archaeology and and destruction of cultural heritage sites in a widespread and profound historical countries with highly restrictive regulations awareness in Danish society, closely linked for metal detector archaeology (mirroring with national sentiments. (9) A wide- only a small fraction of the problem’s real spread understanding of cultural heritage extent) prove the inefficiency of the prohi- as valuable and communal property and a bition model. In the same way as drugs, source of national identity. (10) The illegal metal detecting cannot be effectively ‘trophy factor’ and the significance of stopped by legislative means. In effect, the metal detector archaeology as a potential restrictive model forces archaeology to source of social and cultural capital. largely omit an important element of cul- An important conclusion one must tural heritage and archaeological research, draw from this analysis is the fact that the while at the same time failing to contrib- legislative foundation and in particular the ute significantly to its preservation. Instead financial incentive embedded in the danefæ of being able to ‘work’ on open and law has to be regarded as only one of ploughed fields, illegal metal detectorists many reasons why the liberal model of are forced to seek the cover of forested metal detector archaeology has proven suc- areas with intact prehistoric surfaces, cessful. Any attempt to find an answer to which is precisely where we do not want this question has to include a number of them to be under any circumstances. And factors far beyond the influence of legisla- the constant verbalization of metal detect- tive regulations and official stakeholders. ing and its practitioners as the incarnation From this broad perspective, the success of of evil criminalises and pushes further 720 European Journal of Archaeology 16 (4) 2013 afield the practitioners who could even- Adriansen, I. 2003. Nationale symboler i det tually be motivated to actually cooperate danske rige 1830–2000. Vol. 2: Fra with the official stakeholders of heritage undersåtter til nation. Etnologiske studier 8. København: Museum Tusculanum. management. Seen in this light, the only Andersen, M. & Nielsen, P.O. eds. 2010. positive consequence of the prohibition Danefæ – Skatte fra den danske muld. model is that it helps the official stake- København: Nationalmuseet/Gyldendal. holders maintain the illusion of protecting Asingh, P. 2001. Højfolkenes jammersminder. cultural heritage, while at the same time In: A. Nørgård Jørgensen & J. Pind eds. Før landskabets erindring slukkes. Status og this heritage is constantly being destroyed. fremtid for dansk arkæologi. København: The problems that come along with Rigsantikvaren/Det Arkæologiske Nævn, illegal metal detecting are not going to pp. 41–52. solve themselves in the near future. On Axboe, M., Grinder-Hansen, P., Horsnæs, H. the contrary, they will increase in gravity & Pentz, P. 2010. Finder en mand sølv eller guld – da skal kongen have det. and distribution around the globe. It is In: M. Andersen & P.O. Nielsen, eds. therefore necessary to re-evaluate the Danefæ – Skatte fra den danske muld. prohibition model and to discuss seriously København: Nationalmuseet/Gyldendal, the various options for a more successful pp. 11–20. Baastrup, M.P. 2012. Kommunikation, legislative framework. It is worth consider- – ing whether the Danish experience can be kulturmøde og kulturel identitet tingenes rejse i Skandinaviens vikingetid. PhD used as a source of inspiration in this thesis, Copenhagen University & National process towards a legal agenda for respon- Museum Denmark. sible metal detector archaeology. One Bjørnskov, C., Svendsen, G.T. & Svendsen, could argue that archaeology does not G.L.H. 2011. På sporet af den skandina- really have a choice. viske tillid. In: P. Hegedahl, G.L. Haase & G.T. Svendsen, eds. Tillid – Samfundets Fundament: Teorier, tolkninger, cases. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag, pp. 127–40. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS von Carnap-Bornheim, C. & Hilberg, V. 2012. En sjælden arabisk mønt fra This paper has benefited greatly from the Hedeby. In: M. Andersenv & kind contribution of many people. For P.O. Nielsen, eds. Danefæ – Skatte fra den data, ideas, guidance, and critique, I want danske muld. København: Nationalmuseet/ – to thank Morten Axboe, Lars Jørgensen Gyldendal, pp. 170 73. Christiansen, T.T. 2008. Detektorfund og and Peter Vang Petersen, from the Danish bebyggelse. Det østlige Limfjordsområde i National Museum, as well as Mogens Bo yngre jernalder og vikingetid. Kuml, Henriksen (Odense Bys Museer), Jens 2008:101–43 Ulriksen (Roskilde Museum), Claus Detecting People. 2012. Detecting People Feveile (Østfyns Museer) Ulf Näsman [accessed 17 June 2013]. Available at:
Religion. In: T. Dickinson & D. Griffiths, 10. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia Ser. in eds. The Making of Kingdoms.Anglo-Saxon 8°, No. 48. Stockholm: Almqvist & Studies in Archaeology and History 10. Wiksell, pp. 223–39. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Henriksen, M.B. 2000. Lundsgård, Seden Syd Archaeology/Oxbow, pp. 37–47. og Hjulby – tre fynske bopladsområder Fabech, C. & Ringtved, J. 1995. Magtens geo- med detektorfund. In: M.B. Henriksen, grafi i Sydskandinavien. In: H.G. Resi, ed. ed. Detektorfund – hvad skal vi med dem? Produksjon og samfunn. Om erverv, spesiali- Dokumentation og registrering af bopladser sering og bosetning i Norden i 1. årtusind e. med detektorfund fra jernalder og midde- Kr. Oslo: Universitetets Oldsaksamling, lalder. Skrifter fra Odense Bys Museer 5. pp. 11–37. Odense: Odense Bys Museer, pp. 17–60. Feveile, C. 2011. Korsfibler af Råhedetypen, Henriksen, M.B. 2002. Metalhåndværk og En upåagtet fibeltype fra ældre vikingetid. håndværkspladser fra yngre germansk jer- Kuml, 2011:143–60. nalder, vikingetid og tidlig middelalder. Fischer, C. 1983. Den har Fanden skabt. Rapport fra et seminar på Hollufgård den Skalk, 1983(1):8–14. 22. oktober 2001. Skrifter fra Odense Bys Garrison, C. 2009. What’s My Incentive? A Museer 9. Odense: Odense Bys Museer. New Approach to Investigating Reporting Henriksen, M.B. 2005. The Metal Detector – Portable Antiquity Finds in North West Friend or Foe for the Archaeologist? Europe and Beyond. MA dissertation, Aspects of Metal Detector Archaeology in University of London. Denmark. In: K.M. Hansen & K. Gregory, T. & Rogerson, A.J.G. 1984. B. Pedersen, eds. Across the Western Baltic: Metal-Detecting in Archaeological Proceeding from an Archaeological Conference Excavation. Antiquity, 58:179–84. in Vordingborg. Sydsjællands Museums Grinder-Hansen, K. 2000. Kongemagtens krise: publikationer 1. Vordingborg: Sydsjællands det danske møntvæsen 1241-ca. 1340. Den Museum, pp. 217–26. pengebaserede økonomi og møntcirkulation i Henriksen, M.B. 2010. Gold Deposits in the Danmark i perioden 1241-ca. 1340. Late Roman and Migration Period København: Nationalmuseet/Museum Landscape: A Case Study from the Island Tusculanum. of Funen (Fyn), Denmark. In: U. Hansen, J. & Henriksen, M.B. 2012. Hvem L. Hansen & A. Bitner-Wróblewska, eds. samler de for? Eksempler på lægmænds Worlds Apart? Contacts Across the Baltic Sea bidrag til Odense Bys Museers oldsags- in the Iron Age. Network samling. Fynske Minder, 2012:87–105. Denmark-Poland, 2005–2008. Nordiske Hårdh, B. ed. 1999. Fynden i centrum. Fortidsminder Serie C, 7. København & Keramik, glas och metal från Uppåkra. Acta Warszawa: Det Kongelige Nordiske archaeologica Lundensia. Series in 8°, 45. Oldkriftselskab, pp. 389–432. Uppåkrastudier 2. Stockholm: Almqvist & Henriksen, M.B. 2011a. Nye fund fra Wiksell International. Sydvestfyns gyldne bronzealder. Fynske Hårdh, B. ed. 2003. Fler fynd i centrum: Årbøger, 2011:26–39. Materialstudier i och kring Uppåkra. Acta Henriksen, M.B. 2011b. Detektorarkæologi. archaeologica Lundensia. Series in 8°, 45. Et lille kig udenfor Danmarks grænser. Uppåkrastudier 9. Stockholm: Almqvist & Fund og Fortid, 2011(2):4–11. Wiksell International. Horsnæs, H.W. 2002. Roman Bronze Coins Hedeager, L. 2001. Gudme – a ‘Central Place’ from Barbaricum: Denmark as a Case in the North. In: M. de Jong & Study. In: H.W. Horsnæs & F. Theuws, eds. Topographies of Power in J.C. Moesgaard, eds. Single Finds, the the Early Middle Ages. The Transformation Nordic Perspective. Nordisk Numismatisk of the Roman World 6. Leiden: Brill, Årsskrift. Stockholm: Nordisk pp. 467–508. Numismatisk Union, pp. 53–99. Helgesson, B. 2004. Tributes to be spoken of: Horsnæs, H.W. & Ingvardson, G.T. 2010. Sacrifice and Warriors at Uppåkra. In: Detektortræf i Thy. In: M. Andersen & L. Larsson, ed. Continuity for Centuries: A P.O. Nielsen, eds. Danefæ - Skatte fra den Ceremonial Building and Its Context at danske muld. København: Nationalmuseet/ Uppåkra, Southern Sweden. Uppåkrastudier Gyldendal, pp. 100–04. 722 European Journal of Archaeology 16 (4) 2013
Iversen, M. & Nielsen, P.O. 1993. The Denmark. Højbjerg/København: Jysk Archaeological Museums. In: S. Hvass & Arkæologisk Selskab/Det Kgl. Nordiske B. Storgaard, eds. Digging Into the Past: Oldskriftselskab, p. 280. 25 Years of Archaeology in Denmark. Mäkeler, H. 2003. Einzel- und Depotfunde Højbjerg/København: Jysk Arkæologisk von Münzen in den skandinavischen Selskab/Det Kgl. Nordiske Zentralplätzen der Eisenzeit. Oldskriftselskab, pp. 274–75. Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg- Jensen, J. & Runge, M. 2008. Sværdfangst. Vorpommern, 51:89–115. Skalk, 2008(6):3–5. Moesgård, J.C. 2002. Single Finds as Jensen, J.S. 2004. Stort møntfund fra Sjælland. Evidence for Coin Circulation in the Nyt fra Nationalmuseet, 104:34. Middle Ages: Status and Perspectives. Jensen, S. 1992. Metalfund fra In: H.W. Horsnæs & J.C. Moesgaard, vikingetidsgårdene ved Gl. Hviding og eds. Single Finds, the Nordic Perspective. Vilslev. By marsk og geest 1992(3):27–40. Nordisk Numismatisk Årsskrift 2000– Jørgensen, L. 2000. Storgården ved Tissø. 2002, Stockholm: Nordisk Numismatisk Tolkning af aktivitetsområder og anlæg på Union, pp. 228–75. grundlag af detektorfundene fra pløjelaget. Moesgaard, J.C. 2009. Harald Blåtands In: M.B. Henriksen, ed. Detektorfund – ‘Jellingemønter’ cirka 975–985. Nordisk hvad skal vi med dem? Dokumentation og Numismatisk Unions Medlemsblad, 2009 registrering af bopladser med detektorfund (2):43–6. fra jernalder og middelalder. Skrifter fra Moesgaard, J.C., Pedersen, A. & Petersen, Odense Bys Museer 5. Odense: Odense P.V. 2010. Nuværende danefæpraksis. In: Bys Museer, pp. 27–43. M. Andersen & P.O. Nielsen, eds. Jørgensen, L. 2001. En tabt fortid eller beskyt- Danefæ – Skatte fra den danske muld. tet kulturarv – de truede bebyggelsesspor København: Nationalmuseet/Gyldendal, fra jernalder og vikingetid, 500 f.Kr. – pp. 21–4. 1000 e.Kr. In: A. Nørgård Jørgensen & Museumsloven 2006. Bekendtgørelse af J. Pind, eds. Før landskabets erindring museumsloven (LBK nr 1505 af 14/12/ slukkes. Status og fremtid for dansk 2006). [online] (December 2006) arkæologi. København: Rigsantikvaren/Det [accessed 3 June 2012]. Available at: Arkæologiske Nævn, pp. 65–74.
Museer den 10. oktober 2005. Skrifter fra Gudme and Lundeborg. Papers presented Odense Bys Museer 10. Odense: Odense at a conference at Svendborg, October Bys Museer, pp. 19–25. 1991. Arkaeologiske studier 10. Olsen, J. 2009. Slagmarken. Om de Copenhagen: Akademisk forlag, arkæologiske undersøgelser på slagmarken pp. 41–7. ved Nyborg. In: J.M. Jensen, ed. Slaget Sørensen, P.Ø. 2000. Detektorfundene fra ved Nyborg 1659. Historie, arkæologi og Gudme og den digitale arkæologi. In: erindring. Nyborg: Østfyns Museer, pp. M.B. Henriksen, ed. Detektorfund – hvad 80–107. skal vi med dem? Dokumentation og regis- Olsen, O. 1984. Danefæ i dag. Nationalmuseets trering af bopladser med detektorfund fra Arbejdsmark, 1984:5–20. jernalder og middelalder. Skrifter fra Paulsson, J. 1999. Metalldetektering och Odense Bys Museer 5. Odense: Odense Uppåkra. Att förhålla sig till et detektor- Bys Museer, pp. 13–26. material. In: B. Hårdh, ed. Fynden i Stjernquist, B. & Larsson, L. eds. 1998. centrum: Keramik, glas och metal från Centrala platser – centrala frågor: Uppåkra. Uppåkrastudier 2. Acta samhällsstrukturen under järnålderen. Archaeologica Lundesia, Series IN 8°, No. Uppåkrastudier 1. Stockholm: Almqvist & 30. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell Wiksell International. International, pp. 41–58. Thrane, H. 1994. Gudme – A Focus of Petersen, P.V. 1991. Nye fund af metalsager Archaeological Research 1833–1987. In: fra yngre germansk jernalder. In: K. Randsborg, P.O. Nielsen & P. Mortensen & B. Rasmussen, eds. Fra H. Thrane, eds. The Archaeology of Gudme stamme til stat i Danmark. 2 and Lundeborg. Papers presented at a confer- Høvdingesamfund og kongemagt. ence at Svendborg, October 1991. Højbjerg: Jysk arkæologisk selskab, pp. Arkaeologiske studier 10. Copenhagen: 49–66. Akademisk forlag, pp. 8–15. Petersen, P.V. 1994. Excavations at Sites of Thomas, S. 2012. Searching for Answers: Treasure Trove at Gudme. In: A Survey of Metal-Detector Users in the K. Randsborg, P.O. Nielsen & UK. International Journal of Heritage H. Thrane, eds. The Archaeology of Gudme Studies, 18(1):49–64. and Lundeborg. Papers presented at a confer- Ty-morsdetektor. 2012. Thy/Mors detector- ence at Svendborg, October 1991. forening [accessed 17 June 2013]. Arkaeologiske studier 10. Copenhagen: Available at: http://www.thy-morsdetektor Akademisk forlag, pp. 30–40. .dk. Portable Antiquities Scheme. 2012. Portable Ulriksen, J. 1994. Danish Sites and Antiquities Scheme [accessed 18 June Settlements with a Maritime Context, AD 2013]. Available at:
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE and society, Old Norse religion, the history of religion, and survey Andres S. Dobat is Assistant Professor archaeology. in the Section for Prehistoric Archaeol- ogy of the Department of Culture and Address: Department of Culture and Society at Aarhus University. His Society (Archaeology), Aarhus University research interests include Viking and Moesgård Allé 20, 8270 Højbjerg, medieval Scandinavia, Iron Age culture Denmark [email: [email protected]]
Entre sauvetage et recherche: une évaluation après 30 ans de politique libérale par rapport à la détection de métaux dans la recherche archéologique et les pratiques du patrimoine au Danemark
Depuis le début des années 80, la prospection à l’aide de détecteurs de métaux par des archéologues amateurs a significativement contribué à la recherche archéologique et aux pratiques du patrimoine au Danemark. La détection des métaux a toujours été légale dans ce pays, et les intervenants officiels pour- suivent un modèle libéral qui se focalise sur la coopération et l’inclusion plutôt que sur la confrontation et la criminalisation. Aucune autre méthode de prospection depuis l’invention de la pelle n’a contribué plus à l’énorme augmentation de la quantité de données et de sites des périodes riches en métal. Prati- quement toutes les découvertes spectaculaires et révolutionnaires des dernières décades sont dues à des détecteurs de métaux dans les mains d’archéologues amateurs. Et ce sont justement ces découvertes et sites qui constituent aujourd’hui un des épicentres de la recherche archéologique. Cet article fournit un aperçu de l’état actuel de l’archéologie libérale avec détecteurs de métaux au Danemark 30 ans après son début et essaie d’identifier les raisons pour lesquelles cet hobby populaire n’est jamais devenu le problème qu’il représente dans d’autres parties du monde. Pour conclure, on avance que le succès du modèle libéral danois est le résultat d’une interaction très complexe de facteurs législatifs, historiques, culturels et sociaux. Sur cette base on discute si l’expérience danoise peut être utilisée comme source d’inspiration dans la progression nécessaire vers un nouveau agenda législatif pour une archéologie avec détecteur de métaux responsable. Translation by Isabelle Gerges.
Mots-clés: détecteur de métaux, découvertes en métal, méthodes de prospection, pratiques du patrimoine, législation sur la protection, recherche citoyenne, Âge du Bronze, Âge du Fer, période médiévale
Zwischen Rettung und Forschung: Eine Evaluation nach 30 Jahren liberaler Metalldetektorensuche in der archäologischen Forschung und der Denkmalpflegepraxis in Dänemark
Seit den frühen 1980er Jahren hat die Suche mittels Metalldetektoren durch Laienarchäologen signifi- kant zur archäologischen Forschung und Denkmalpflegepraxis in Dänemark beigetragen. Hier ist Metalldetektorensuche immer legal gewesen und die Vertreter der öffentlichen Institutionen folgen einem liberalen Modell, das auf Kooperation und Einbeziehung statt auf Konfrontation und Kriminalisierung setzt. Wie keine andere Surveymethode seit der Erfindung der Schaufel hat der Metalldetektor zum Dobat — Between rescue and research 725 enormen Anstieg von Daten und Fundplätzen metallreicher Perioden beigetragen. Praktisch alle spekta- kulären und bahnbrechenden Entdeckungen der zurückliegenden Jahrzehnte sind Metalldetektoren in den Händen von Amateurarchäologen zu verdanken. Und es sind diese Funde und Fundplätze die heute einen von vielen Schwerpunkten der archäologischen Forschung bilden. Dieser Beitrag bietet einen Überblick über den derzeitigen Stand der legalen Metalldetektorenarchäologie 30 Jahre nach ihrem Beginn und will die Gründe identifizieren, warum dieses populäre Hobby nie zu dem Problem gewor- den ist, das es in anderen Teilen der Welt darstellt. Es wird gefolgert, dass der Erfolg des liberalen Modells in Dänemark das Resultat eines sehr komplexen Zusammenspiels von Gesetzgebung, histor- ischen, kulturellen und sozialen Faktoren darstellt. Auf dieser Basis wird die Frage diskutiert, ob die dänischen Erfahrungen als Inspirationsquelle für die notwendige Veränderung hin zu einer neuen rechtlichen Agenda für eine verantwortungsvolle Metalldetektorenarchäologie dienen können. Trans- lation by Heiner Schwarzberg.
Stichworte: Metalldetektor, Metallfunde, Surveymethoden, Denkmalpflegepraxis, Denk- malschutzgesetze, bürgerbasierte Forschung, Bronzezeit, Eisenzeit, Mittelalter