This introductory article foregrounds the articles in this special issue, “Professional–Collector Collaboration: Global Challenges and Solutions,” complementing the special issue “Professional–Collector Collaboration Moving beyond Debate to Best Practice,” also published in Advances in Archaeological Practice. The articles that we introduce here cover examples and case studies from European settings such as Norway, the Czech Republic, England, Wales, Finland, and Belgium—places that have been exploring how to respond to the challenge of working meaningfully with collectors and finders of archaeological artifacts, especially metal detectorists. These are joined by examples from Australia, Mexico, Uruguay, and even the United States, in the context of handling—at first glance—problematic collections originating from elsewhere. The articles are diverse in their settings and the challenges they describe, but they point to the need for participatory and democratic approaches to archaeological heritage and the different publics that engage with it.

This article considers the relevance of the Society for American Archaeology's 2018 “Statement on Collaboration with Responsible and Responsive Stewards of the Past” for imported antiquities (specifically, “classical” ones—that is, from Mediterranean regions). Various practical, legal, and ethical differences between collecting imported versus domestic objects make it difficult to identify “responsive and responsible stewards” of the former. An obstacle to responsible stewardship of privately owned classical collections—and to collaboration between classical archaeologists and collectors—is the 2008 acquisition guidelines issued by the two leading professional organizations in the museum field. I argue that the best home for unprovenienced and poorly provenienced antiquities collections is in university museums, where their complicated object biographies can be fully researched, taught, and displayed.

This article briefly outlines underwater cultural heritage artifact management in Australia from an unregulated collecting environment in the 1940s–1960s to the increasingly regulated environment of the present. In 1993, in conjunction with new legislation, an amnesty was declared in order to inventory artifacts collected from now-protected historic shipwrecks that were in private hands. The amnesty period concluded with approximately 20,000 artifacts notified at a time when information was being stored in a range of formats and to different standards. Today, the Australian Government manages the possession, custody, and control of approximately 500,000 underwater cultural heritage artifacts, most of which are in collecting institutions, with one-tenth in public custody. This article highlights the contemporary legislative, policy, and administrative framework for the management of underwater cultural heritage artifacts in Australia, particularly those that remain in the possession of private individuals and are subject to trade.

In Uruguay, there are records of archaeological collections at least since Darwin's visit in 1832. Since then, the role of collections and collectors has been changing in relation to official institutions, researchers, and professional archaeologists. In the years following the creation of the university degree in anthropology, during the 1980s and 1990s, academic and official speeches considered collectors one of the greatest threats to the development of the discipline in the country. Their collections were seen as useless for research, and it was argued that they had no context. New generations of archaeologists have been reversing this situation, redefining the research of archaeological collections and reviewing the relationships and interactions with nonacademic stakeholders. We present some of our experiences here, based on students’ training in this line of work, the integration of responsible and responsive collectors in the research process and site conservation, the collaborative register of archaeological sites, and the promotion of donation or conservation of collections (avoiding commercialization). We propose possible work methodologies at the national level, such as the formation of research groups, which involve the coparticipation of different stakeholders, the development of a professional code of ethics, and changes in legislation.

In Mexico, archaeological heritage belongs to all members of society, according to section XXV of Article 73 of the Mexican Constitution and Article 27 of the federal law on monuments and archaeological sites. The Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) was founded in 1939 as a federal government agency for the research, protection, and dissemination of archaeological heritage. Although this heritage belongs to all, stringent rules and procedures create an unequal relationship between career professionals and the diverse communities interested in the past (i.e., collectors, local museums, descendant communities). It is long due to begin practicing an inclusive archaeology that considers all the various knowledge systems (i.e., academic, technical, local, and traditional) of the communities interested in the past. Here, we describe case studies from Sonora, Mexico, to propose the implementation of several far-reaching activities with artifact collectors, Indigenous communities, researchers, archaeologists, and INAH Sonora authorities. Our pilot proposal needs to be implemented in other areas of Mexico that continue to prioritize archaeological narratives over other narratives about our past.

In this article, the ways in which hobby metal detectorists searching for protected objects in the ploughsoil and archaeologists in Norway have collaborated and communicated throughout the public history of metal detecting in the country is outlined and problematized. Due to the opinions of individual archaeologists working in key positions and the autonomy of the country's local and regional management institutions, there are huge variations in both attitudes and practices toward metal detecting and its practitioners. In some areas, metal detectorists are allowed to search more or less freely, whereas in others, entire fields are protected after a few finds, making continued detecting without formal approval from the authorities illegal. Because of this, and the extreme difference in the activity level of individual detectorists, the number of recorded detecting finds varies immensely across county and regional borders. I suggest that channels for collaboration and communication be formalized and that a national and therefore uniform public reporting system be realized—given that it is, for the time being, largely up to individual archaeologists whether some of the country's most active citizen scientists are equally treated by the archaeological heritage management system in Norway.

Hobby metal detectorists search for archaeological finds as individuals and within groups, the latter being the focus of this article. Such groups come together as “clubs” and “meetings,” but also as part of large, often commercially run events typically known as “rallies.” All these activities are attractive to detectorists because they provide them with access to land to search, along with the promise of making interesting (even valuable) discoveries, and they have a social dimension. They are common in England and also well established in several countries in northwest Europe, partly due to changing legislation. Although policies and mechanisms are often in place for collaboration with individual detectorists and even local metal-detecting clubs, larger events (not least, the large-scale commercial rallies increasingly occurring in England) present challenges for professional archaeologists, specifically in relation to the capacity to properly record finds and manage potential damage to the historic environment. To respond appropriately to these changes, a greater understanding of detectorists’ events is needed. For this reason, we explore and define the scale, nature, and diversity of group events, relating them to different legislative and cultural contexts in Flanders (Belgium), England (and Wales), and Finland. Subsequently, we outline challenges associated with group events and identify possible ways forward.

Although the legal conditions are perceived as restrictive, metal detecting has become a popular activity in the Czech Republic. In 2017, a questionnaire survey revealed that a significant segment of this community is made up of passionate people interested in history and archaeology. The majority of professional archaeologists consider metal-detecting finds to be important and believe that cooperation with metal detectorists is necessary, beneficial, and acceptable. A collaborative project called “Joint Forces in Order to Discover the Common Archaeological Heritage of the South Moravian Region” aims to create conditions for citizen science among the metal detectorists in the region. By using tools such as expert workshops for the employees of professional institutions, meetings, educational workshops and field activities with interested members of the public, and production and distribution of printed and digital information materials, the partners in the program have long endeavored to improve the mutual understanding of all relevant actors of society and administration. The creation of circles of citizen collaborators is in progress in several archaeological institutions; nevertheless, this process is far from over. In 2020, with the creation of the Portal of Amateur Collaborators, this activity acquired a unified digital scheme for the registration of finds.

The article discusses practices of cooperation between metal detectorists and professional archaeologists in Germany by exploring the approach of the regional office for historic preservation (Generaldirektion Kulturelles Erbe) in Speyer (Rheinland-Pfalz, southwest Germany). Its model is based on open access to a permit for detecting in a certain area, combined with regular meetings in order to establish knowledge circulation between volunteer and professional spheres. Relying on ethnographic fieldwork and questionnaires, the research shows that the approach creates a symmetric coproduction of knowledge, recognizing the metal detectorists as volunteer researchers producing genuine knowledge. Several theoretical aspects of knowledge circulation are analyzed with regard to their relevance for practices of knowledge production. The enactment of the boundary between public and professionals is the result of boundary work actively performed. As a consequence, this boundary should rather be seen as a fluid, hybrid zone, conceptualized as a translation zone. The concept of boundary objects points to the importance of specific elements for enabling circulation of knowledge between different spheres. Various communities of practice and their shared practices, conventions, perceptions, et cetera, influence the relationship and knowledge circulation, and these should be taken into account in coproduction processes.

The Portable Antiquities of the Netherlands (PAN) is an online system aimed at recording and documenting archaeological finds by the public. Since PAN launched in 2016, it has become an important data contributor to Dutch archaeology, amassing over 100,000 recorded finds. These data, mostly the result of metal detection, enable scholars to gain new insights and policy makers to make more informed decisions. This review describes the context in which PAN was established, along with its current structure and scope, before looking at its different components, including the underlying database and linked data reference collection. In a final section, the article briefly addresses some common issues inherent to public reporting programs and how PAN approaches these issues.