Suzie Thomas

Searching for answers: a survey of metal-detector users in the UK

The relationships between archaeologists and metal-detector users are often more complex than is realised, partly because little has been published to date on the dynamics that exist, though there is more about the artefactual information that has been gleaned through these relationships (see e.g. www.finds.org.uk/database). It is crucial to understand the drivers behind metal-detector users’ activities, if archaeologists are to be able to communicate and interact meaningfully with this significant community concerning the treatment of archaeological heritage. Attendance at a selection of some of the most controversial of metal-detecting events in England, metal-detecting rallies, proved an important opportunity to access a large number of metal-detector users, and a chance to carry out a survey that focused on the metal-detector users themselves, rather than the archaeology or their impact on it. The ways in which rallies in England and Wales are conducted are the subject of continued debate between different organisations, with the Council for British Archaeology, for example, planning a guidance note for the promotion of archaeologically good practice. However, this paper focuses more on individual metal-detector users who go to such rallies, and what they can tell us about the opinions and drivers of metal-detector users in the UK in contemporary times.

The Future of Studying Hobbyist Metal Detecting in Europe: A Call for a Transnational Approach

Abstract Much research on hobbyist metal detecting has either focused on the archaeological impact only, conflated hobbyism with criminal activity (namely looting and illicit trade), or generalized the motivations and drivers for metal detectorists. Studies to date have targeted specific countries and regions, with only limited reference to metal detecting activities elsewhere. This has meant that the transnational aspects of metal detecting – such as the international trade of metal-detected objects, and transnational movement of metal detectorists themselves (for example through touristic activities) – has mostly been overlooked or merely speculated upon. Much debate has revolved around assumptions, stymied by perceived ethical barriers and accepted attitudes which limit deeper engagement with the metal detecting community. Approaching the study of hobbyist metal detecting at a trans-European level would encourage greater understanding of the scale of hobbyist metal detecting and the world views, activities and contact and trade networks of metal detectorists. This may challenge traditionally-held perspectives concerning what should be valued as cultural heritage and who is entitled to make use of it. In this paper I set out our current state of knowledge, and propose directions for future research.

Nazi memorabilia, dark heritage and treasure hunting as “alternative” tourism: Understanding the fascination with the material remains of World War II in Northern Finland

Sites connected to the Second World War (WWII) are increasingly recognized as worthy of archaeological investigation. Researchers are also becoming aware that that the collectors market in objects connected to WWII, particularly those connected to Germany, is encouraging the stripping of conflict landscapes in the search for “collectors items.” Finnish Lapland is sometimes regarded as peripheral compared to more centrally located regions of Europe. Archaeologists working here nonetheless find themselves in direct competition with enthusiastic treasure hunters. This is complicated even further by the myriad ontologies employed by different individuals in the construction of their relationship with the material culture connected to recent conflict periods, and on specific “other” or “exotic” landscapes, such as Lapland. This paper examines what might be learnt about the nature of treasure hunting for and trading in WWII material from Lapland, and its position within the emerging research on broader trends in “dark” approaches to and encounters with heritage.

‘I have better stuff at home’: treasure hunting and private collecting of World War II artefacts in Finnish Lapland

ABSTRACT Almost all archaeologists encounter collectors of different kinds of artefacts at some point in their career, whether it is the private collectors of financially valuable antiquities or ‘amateur archaeologists’ who have amassed personal collections of local finds. In our research into the material legacy of the German presence in northern Finland during World War II, we have encountered both artefact hunters (primarily but not exclusively metal detecting enthusiasts) and artefact collectors (sometimes the same people) with a specific interest in military remains from this location and period. In this article, we explore these alternative perspectives on collecting, and frame them within the context of treasure hunters, militaria collectors and other history hobbyists, and their relationship to the ‘official’ heritage managers and curators.

Collaborate, Condemn, or Ignore? Responding to Non-Archaeological Approaches to Archaeological Heritage

Comments on Suzie Thomas: Collaborate, Condemn, or Ignore? Responding to Non-Archaeological Approaches to Archaeological HeritageComments on Suzie Thomas: Collaborate, Condemn, or Ignore? Responding to Non-Archaeological Approaches to Archaeological Heritage

Metal Detecting in Finland - An Ongoing Debate

Abstract This outline article presents and critiques legislation as it affects the metal detecting hobby and the archaeological profession. It considers some of the ways in which metal detectorists themselves have caused controversy but also positive news in relation to archaeological heritage in Finland. A selection of examples of collaboration based on the authors own experiences is presented, also the impact of metal detecting on material culture and archaeological research. The continuing object-oriented focus of both metal detectorists and the media is identified. New collection and engagement strategies could enhance archaeological research, while engaging this particular section of the wider public.

Comments on Josephine Munch Rasmussen: ‘Securing Cultural Heritage Objects and Fencing Stolen Goods? A Case Study on Museums and Metal Detecting in Norway’

As has been seen over the past decade, the research of metal detecting as a hobby has begun to develop like never before. By this, what I mean is research in terms of looking beyond the archaeological impact of metal detecting (while not ignoring this important aspect), in order to analyse the individuals themselves and to begin to understand the different drivers that motivate metal detecting enthusiasts. In presenting perspectives derived from a selection of interviews and from information shared through social media, within the context of Norwegian legislation and with reference to studies carried out elsewhere, Rasmussen provides a key contribution to this growing body of literature. Recent research on the characterization of metal detecting, as well as its wider impacts, has included studies on the UK (e.g. Thomas 2012, Ferguson 2013), Estonia (Ulst 2010), Denmark (Dobat 2013) and very recently the Netherlands (van der Schriek and van der Schriek in press 2014) and Finland (Immonen and Kinnunen in press 2014) to name a few European examples. This article, introducing for the first time such a study carried out in Norway, represents an important and timely addition to the metaldetector user research discourse. Commentators on the state and scale of metal detecting in other countries have noted that at times there is a lack of statistical data to support or dispel claims made by groups opposed to the metal-detecting hobby (e.g. Gransard-Desmond 2013 on metal detecting in France). It is perhaps also a minor drawback within this article that estimations are not given for the number of metal detectorists active within Norway. It may be that current estimates are too vague to include or, perhaps more likely, that research is still needed to ascertain these numbers. Personal experience in research has shown that estimating numbers, especially taking into account individuals belonging to more than one metal-detecting club (or conversely to none at all), means that even official estimates can be problematic and abstract in the extreme (e.g. Thomas 2012, p. 58). Nonetheless, quantitative research into the possible number of active detectorists, in Norway but in other European countries too, would be welcome for many reasons. A connected question to explore DISCUSSION Norwegian Archaeological Review, 2014 Vol. 47, No. 2, 196–217

What’s the Future for Heritage Crime Research?

This volume has drawn together contributions on heritage crime from around the globe. Authors have drawn attention to the plight of heritage in their respective countries and shone a light both on laudable practice and areas that need further attention. Time and again authors have called for more understanding of the issues at both micro and macro levels. Cooperation and collaboration are seen as key to the success of future endeavours to protect the world’s heritage.

Training Community Archaeologists for the Future: The Community Archaeology Bursaries Project

From time to time, a special issue of this journal will be published which has a specific theme. This issue is one of these, and focuses on the Community Archaeology Bursaries Project (CABP). The project was established as an initiative across the United Kingdom to provide year-long on-the-job training opportunities for aspiring community archaeologists. It was in part inspired by previous work-based bursaries across various archaeological specialisms that were offered by the UK’s Institute for Archaeologists (IfA). However, the CABP was coordinated by the Council for British Archaeology (CBA), a leading UK-wide archaeological charity, in partnership with host organizations across England, Wales, and Scotland. While the project was open to participation from host organizations from Northern Ireland as well, in practice a potential host did not materialize throughout the project’s duration, unfortunately. The whole scheme, running from 2011 to 2014, was funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund under their Skills for the Future funding stream, with additional support from English Heritage, Cadw and Historic Scotland — the non-government organizations charged with managing heritage for England, Wales, and Scotland respectively. Papers within this issue reflect upon the successes and challenges of the CABP, as the project itself comes to a close in 2014. In addition to the papers themselves, which represent very different perspectives and experiences in relation to the project, we also welcome a Guest Editorial from the CBA’s Director Mike Heyworth. Tara-Jane Sutcliffe, as the project’s Coordinator, opens the issue with an overview and explanation of the rationale behind the Bursaries Project, including some useful insights into the objectives of the training, and also the trajectories of the trainees. From Surrey County Archaeological Unit, and Mentor to two Community Archaeology Training Placement recipients, Abby Guinness provides a host organization perspective, drawing on views of both former trainees and their subsequent employers. Kevin Grant spent a year with the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland for his Community Archaeology Training Placement, here he explains his prior interest in community archaeology and the impact of the traineeship on his career, and reflects on his subsequent work and research. The next paper represents a collaborative effort between trainee, host organization, and community-based group. Samantha Rowe began as a Community Archaeology j. of community arch. and heritage, Vol. 1 No. 2, May, 2014, 103–104

Vulnerable by Design: Theft and Finnish Architecture

Abstract This paper examines the apparently growing phenomenon of architectural and design theft in Finland. Finnish design is world-renowned, with key architects and designers, not least the iconic modernist Alvar Aalto, achieving recognition and admiration on a global level. Many key modernist buildings within Finland are protected by various laws, as are, in some cases, their internal fixtures, and objects of design over fifty years of age of which a limited series has been produced legally require an export licence. However, in recent years the demand overseas for vintage Nordic design seems to have led to architectural theft and illegal exportation. Vulnerable objects range from easy-to-remove door handles through to entire sets of railings, meaning that original furniture in public buildings is no longer safe. This paper discusses the possible causes for this phenomenon, examines the legal protection available for key design, and suggests possible measures for increasing protection of this twentieth-century cultural heritage. A number of significant and recent case studies, particularly centring on the work of Alvar Aalto, are drawn upon to illustrate the situation.