Abstract
Since the Valletta Convention (1992), the debate concerning non-professional archaeological metal-detecting in Europe has been conducted largely at the level of individual legislations. Papers in this Topical Issue take stock of current knowledge of and attitudes towards metal-detecting across Europe; its nature and impact as well as the policies and approaches that arise from it within professional archaeology and heritage management. With this collection of papers, the editors aim to stimulate a more unified debate and, ultimately, a common understanding of ethics and best practices in relation to metal-detecting that transcends national and jurisdictional boundaries in Europe.
References
Bland, R. (2005). A Pragmatic Approach to the Problem of Portable Antiquities: the experience of England and Wales, Antiquity, 79 (304), 440–447.10.1017/S0003598X00114218Search in Google Scholar
Dobat, A.S. (2013). Between Rescue and Research: an evaluation after 30 years of liberal metal detecting in archaeological research and heritage practice in Denmark, European Journal of Archaeology, 16(4), 704–725.10.1179/1461957113Y.0000000041Search in Google Scholar
Haldenby, D., & Richards, J.D. (2016). The Viking Great Army and its Legacy: plotting settlement shift using metal-detected finds, Internet Archaeology, 42. http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.42.310.11141/ia.42.3Search in Google Scholar
Lehorst, M. (2013). A way to balance societal needs in law: Suggestions for new regulations on the use of metal detectors in the Swedish Heritage Conservation Act. In A. Langerlof (Ed.), Who Cares? : Perspectives on Public Awareness, Participation and Protection in Archaeological Heritage Management. (pp. 15-17). Budapest: Archaeolingua.Search in Google Scholar
Musteaţă, S. (2014). Archaeological Heritage Crimes in Romania and Moldova: A Comparative View, in L. Grove, S. Thomas (Eds.), Heritage Crime: Progress, Prospects and Prevention. (pp. 71-80). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Search in Google Scholar
NWO (2016). PAN: Portable Antiquities of the Netherlands. http://www.nwo.nl/onderzoek-en-resultaten/ onderzoeksprojecten/i/20/26420.html (accessed 23 December 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Rasmussen, J. M. (2014). Securing cultural heritage objects and fencing stolen goods? A case study on museums and metal detecting in Norway, Norwegian Archaeological Review, 47(1), 83-107.10.1080/00293652.2014.899616Search in Google Scholar
Thomas, S. (2012). Searching for answers: A survey of metal-detector users in the UK, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 18(1), 49-64.10.1080/13527258.2011.590817Search in Google Scholar
Ujhelyi, N. (2016). The Relationship Between Archaeology and Metal Detecting in Present Day Hungary. Budapest: Central European University unpublished MA dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Ulst, I. (2010). The problems of “black archaeology” in Estonia, Eesti Arheoloogia Ajakiri, 14(2), 153-169.10.3176/arch.2010.2.04Search in Google Scholar
Winkley, F. (2016). The Phenomenology of Metal Detecting: Insights from a Unique Type of Landscape Experience, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 25(2), Art. 13. http://doi.org/10.5334/pia.496 10.5334/pia.496Search in Google Scholar
© 2016 Pieterjan Deckers, et al.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
