Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:27:08.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards a Cooperative Approach to Hobby Metal Detecting: The European Public Finds Recording Network (EPFRN) Vision Statement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2020

Andres S. Dobat Open the ORCID record for Andres S. Dobat [Opens in a new window] ,
Pieterjan Deckers Open the ORCID record for Pieterjan Deckers [Opens in a new window] ,
Stijn Heeren Open the ORCID record for Stijn Heeren [Opens in a new window] ,
Michael Lewis ,
Suzie Thomas Open the ORCID record for Suzie Thomas [Opens in a new window]  and
Anna Wessman Open the ORCID record for Anna Wessman [Opens in a new window]
Andres S. Dobat
Affiliation:
School of Culture and Society, University of Aarhus, Denmark
Pieterjan Deckers
Affiliation:
School of Culture and Society, University of Aarhus, Denmark
Stijn Heeren
Affiliation:
Faculty of Humanities, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Michael Lewis
Affiliation:
Portable Antiquities Scheme, The British Museum, London, UK
Suzie Thomas
Affiliation:
Department of Cultures, University of Helsinki, Finland
Anna Wessman
Affiliation:
Department of Cultures, University of Helsinki, Finland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hobby metal detecting is a controversial subject. Legal and policy approaches differ widely across national and regional contexts, and the attitudes of archaeologists and heritage professionals towards detectorists are often polarized and based on ethical or emotive arguments. We, the European Public Finds Recording Network (EPFRN), have implemented collaborative approaches towards detectorist communities in our respective contexts (Denmark, England and Wales, Finland, Flanders, and the Netherlands). Although our motivations are affected by our national circumstances, we base our work on an agreed set of goals, practices, and visions. This article presents the EPFRN's vision statement and provides insight into its underlying thoughts. We hope to create a debate on how to develop best practice approaches that acknowledge the inherent challenges of hobby metal detecting while realizing its potential.

La détection de métaux est un loisir sujet à controverses. La réglementation et les lois diffèrent selon les régions et les pays et les attitudes des archéologues et professionnels du patrimoine envers les utilisateurs de détecteurs de métaux sont souvent polarisées et fondées sur des arguments d'ordre éthique voire émotionnel. Le Réseau européen d'enregistrement d'objets découverts par le public (EPFRN) a élaboré des démarches collaboratives envers les utilisateurs de détecteurs de métaux dans les pays où il opère. (Danemark, Angleterre, Pays de Galles, Finlandes Flandres, Pays-Bas). Bien que les motivations des auteurs soient influencées par les conditions prévalant dans chaque pays, leur travail repose sur un ensemble d'objectifs, de pratiques et de visions communs. Ils présentent ici la vision de l'EPFRN et donnent un aperçu des idées sur lesquelles elle se base, dans l'espoir d'encourager un débat sur la meilleure façon de formuler de bonnes pratiques qui tiennent compte des défis inhérents à la détection de métaux de loisir tout en lui permettant de réaliser son potentiel. Translation by Madeleine Hummler

Das Hobby der Sondengängerei ist ein umstrittenes Thema. Die rechtlichen Vorschriften und praktischen Ansätze sind je nach regionalen oder nationalen Voraussetzungen sehr unterschiedlich. Die Einstellungen von Archäologen und Denkmalpflegern gegenüber Sondengängern sind oft polarisiert und stützen sich auf ethische oder sogar emotionale Argumente. Als Europäisches Netzwerk für die Aufnahme von Privatfunden (EPFRN) verfolgen wir den Ansatz einer Zusammenarbeit mit Sondengängern in Dänemark, England, Wales, Finnland, Flandern und den Niederlanden. Obgleich vor dem Hintergrund verschiedener nationaler Voraussetzungen unterschiedlich motiviert, beruht unsere Arbeit auf einer Reihe von gemeinsamen Zielen, Vorgehensweisen und Zukunftsvisionen. Dieser Artikel stellt die Vision des europäischen Netzwerks für die Aufnahme von Privatfunden vor und bietet einen Einblick in die zugrunde liegenden Überlegungen. Damit verbunden ist die Hoffnung, eine Diskussion über die Entwicklung von vorbildlichen Verfahrensweisen anzuregen, mit denen sich sowohl die Herausforderungen der Sondengängerei als auch ihr Potenzial verwirklichen lassen. Translation by Madeleine Hummler and Andres Dobat

Keywords

heritage protectionmetal detectingfindsdigital archaeologyhistoric environmentcrowdsourcingcitizen scienceprotection du patrimoinedétection de métauxobjets#archéologie numériqueenvironnement historiquecrowdsourcingsciences participativesDenkmalschutzSondengängerdigitale ArchäologieKulturlandschaftcrowdsourcingBürgerwissenschaft (citizen science)
Type
Article
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , May 2020 , pp. 272 - 292
Copyright
Copyright © European Association of Archaeologists 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ariadne, , 2019. ARIADNEplus: Advanced Research Infrastructure for Archaeological Dataset Networking in Europe [online] [accessed 1 November 2019]. Available at: https://ariadne-infrastructure.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ARIADNEPlus_synopsis-short.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bland, R. 2005. A Pragmatic Approach to the Problem of Portable Antiquities: The Experience of England and Wales. Antiquity, 79: 440–47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00114218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Phillips, T., Shirk, J. & Wilderman, C.C. 2009. Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing its Potential for Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Washington, DC: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE) [online] [accessed 1 November 2019]. Available at: http://www.birds.cornell.edu/citscitoolkit/publications/CAISE-PPSR-report-2009.pdfGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, T.T. 2019. Metal-detected Late Iron Age and Early Medieval Brooches from the Limfjord Region, Northern Jutland: Production, Use, and Loss. Journal of Archaeology and Ancient History, 2: 3–41. http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1297079&dswid=4103Google Scholar
Cooper, A. & Green, C. 2017. Big Questions for Large, Complex Datasets: Approaching Time and Space Using Composite Object Assemblages. Internet Archaeology, 45. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.45.1Google Scholar
Daubney, A.J. 2016. Portable Antiquities, Palimpsests, and Persistent Places: A Multi-Period Approach to Portable Antiquities Scheme Data in Lincolnshire. Leiden: Sidestone.Google Scholar
Deckers, P. 2012. ‘Productive Sites’ in the Polders? ‘Griffin Brooches’ and Other Early Medieval Metal Artefacts from the Belgian Coastal Plain. Medieval and Modern Matters, 3: 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.MMM.5.102018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deckers, P. 2019. Archaeological Metal Detecting by Amateurs in Flanders: Legislation, Policy, and Practice of a Hobby. In: Campbell, S., White, L. & Thomas, S., eds. Competing Values in Archaeological Heritage. Cham: Springer International, pp. 103–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94102-8_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deckers, P., Bleumers, L., Ruelens, S., Lemmens, B., Vanderperren, N., Marchal, C., et al. 2016. MEDEA: Crowd-Sourcing the Recording of Metal-Detected Artefacts in Flanders (Belgium). Open Archaeology, 2: 264–77. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deckers, P., Dobat, A., Ferguson, N., Heeren, S., Lewis, M. & Thomas, S. 2018. The Complexities of Metal Detecting Policy and Practice: A Response to Samuel Hardy, ‘Quantitative Analysis of Open-Source Data on Metal Detecting for Cultural Property’ (Cogent Social Sciences 3, 2017). Open Archaeology, 4: 322–33. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2018-0019CrossRefGoogle 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: 704–25. https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957113Y.0000000041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobat, A.S., Trier Christiansen, T., Jensen, P., Henriksen, M.B., Holst, M.K., Ruhe, R., et al. 2019a. The DIME Project: Background, Status, and Future Perspectives of the User Driven Recording Scheme for Metal Detector Finds. Danish Journal of Archaeology, 8: 1–15. https://tidsskrift.dk/dja/article/view/111422/164712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobat, A.S., Wood, S.O., Jensen, B.S., Schmidt, S. & Dobat, A.S. 2019b. ‘I Now Look Forward to the Future, by Finding Things from our Past…’: Exploring the Potential of Metal Detector Archaeology as a Source of Well-being and Happiness. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 25: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2019.1639069Google Scholar
Fahlander, F. 2017. The Changing Roles of Archaeology in Swedish Museums. Current Swedish Archaeology, 25: 13–19.Google Scholar
Faro, , 2005. Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, Faro, 27.X.2005 (Council of Europe Treaty No. 199). [online] [accessed 1 November 2019]. Available at: https://www.coe.int/fr/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/0900001680083746Google Scholar
Ferguson, N. 2013. Biting the Bullet: The Role of Hobbyist Metal Detecting within Battlefield Archaeology. Internet Archaeology, 33. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.33.3Google Scholar
Ferguson, N. 2016. Lost in Translation: Discussing the Positive Contribution of Hobbyist Metal Detecting. Open Archaeology, 2: 115–26. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feveile, C. 2016. Understanding the Hinterland of the Ladby Ship Grave. In: Turner, V.E., Owen, O., Waugh, D & Bradford, F., eds. Shetland and the Viking World: Papers from the Proceedings of the Seventeenth Viking Congress Lerwick. Lerwick: Shetland Heritage Publications, pp. 229–35.Google Scholar
Ganciu, I. 2018. Heritage for Sale! The Role of Museums in Promoting Metal Detecting and Looting in Romania. Heritage, 1: 437–52. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage1020029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, D.W.J. 2010. The Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Treasure Act: Protecting the Archaeology of England and Wales? Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 20: 1–11.Google Scholar
Gundersen, J., Rasmussen, J. & Ragnar, L. 2016. Private Metal Detecting and Archaeology in Norway. Open Archaeology, 2: 160–70. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Günther, G. 2019. Sieht nach Volltreffer aus. Chrismon, January 2019 (1): 34–40 [online] [accessed 4 October 2019]. Available at: https://chrismon.evangelisch.de/artikel/2018/42247/kriegsgraeber-gefallene-weltkriegssoldaten-estlandGoogle Scholar
Guttormsen, T.S. & Swensen, G. eds. 2016. Heritage, Democracy, and the Public: Nordic Approaches. Farnham: Ashgate.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadley, D.M. & Richards, J.D. 2018. In Search of the Viking Great Army: Beyond the Winter Camps. Medieval Settlement Research, 33: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.5284/1017430Google Scholar
Haldenby, D. & Richards, J.D. 2010. Charting the Effects of Plough Damage Using Metal-Detected Assemblages. Antiquity, 84: 1151–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00067144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, S.A. 2017. Quantitative Analysis of Open-Source Data on Metal Detecting for Cultural Property: Estimation of the Scale and Intensity of Metal Detecting and the Quantity of Metal-Detected Cultural Goods. Cogent Social Sciences, 3: 1298397. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1298397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heeren, S. & van der Feijst, L. 2017. Prehistorische, Romeinse en middeleeuwse fibulae uit de Lage Landen. Beschrijving, analyse en interpretatie van een archeologische vondstcategorie. Amersfoort: Eigen Beheer.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C. 2005. From Stonehenge to Las Vegas: Archaeology as Popular Culture. Walnut Creek (CA): AltaMira.Google Scholar
Huth, C. 2013. Vom rechten Umgang mit Sondengängern: Das ‘Portable Antiquities Scheme’ in England und Wales und seine Folgen. Archäologische Informationen, 36: 129–37. https://doi.org/10.11588/ai.2013.0.15327Google Scholar
Immonen, V. & Kinnunen, J. 2017. ‘Quidditching’ and the Emergence of New Heritage Identities: Amateur Metal Detecting in Finland. Public Archaeology, 15: 163–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/14655187.2017.1352188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeppesen, J. 2011. Randlev. In: Varberg, J. & Skov, H., eds. Aros og vikingernes verden: syv vikingers fortællinger og rejseberetninger fra Aros. Højbjerg: Moesgård Museum, pp. 34–38.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, L. 2000. Storgården ved Tissø. Tolkning af aktivitetsområder og anlæg på grundlag af detektorfundene fra pløjelaget. In: Henriksen, M.B., ed. Detektorfund: hvad skal vi med dem? Dokumentation og registrering af bopladser med detektorfund fra jernalder og middelalder (Skrifter fra Odense Bys Museer 5). Odense: Odense Bys Museer, pp. 27–43.Google Scholar
Kajda, K., Marx, A., Wright, H., Richards, J., Marciniak, A., Rossenbach, K.S., et al. 2018. Archaeology, Heritage, and Social Value: Public Perspectives on European Archaeology. European Journal of Archaeology, 21: 96–117. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karl, R. & Möller, K. 2016. Empirische Untersuchung des Verhältnisses der Anzahl von Metallsucher/Innen im Deutsch-Britischen Vergleich. Oder: Wie wenig Einfluss die Gesetzeslage hat. Archäologische Informationen, 39: 215–26. https://doi.org/10.11588/ai.2016.1.33553Google Scholar
Kars, M. & Heeren, S. 2018. Archaeological Small Finds Recording in the Netherlands: The Framework and Some Preliminary Results of the Project Portable Antiquities of the Netherlands (PAN). Medieval Settlement Research, 33: 21–30. https://doi.org/10.5284/1017430Google Scholar
Komoróczy, B., Vlach, M. & Zelíková, M. 2017. Dokumentace, publikace a interpretace detektorových nálezů na příkladu spon typu Jobst 4F 31. In: Droberjar, E. & Komoróczy, B., eds. Římské a germánské spony ve střední Evropě. Brno: Archeologický ústav AV ČR, pp. 31–64.Google Scholar
Lecroere, T. 2016. ‘There Is None So Blind as Those Who Won't See’: Metal Detecting and Archaeology in France. Open Archaeology, 2: 182–93. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M. 2016. A Detectorist's Utopia? Archaeology and Metal-Detecting in England and Wales. Open Archaeology, 2: 127–39. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M. ed. 2018. The Portable Antiquities Scheme Annual Report 2017. London: The British Museum [online] [accessed 16 December 2019]. Available at: https://finds.org.uk/documents/annualreports/2017.pdfGoogle Scholar
Majchczack, B.S.M. 2016. The Current Model of Archaeological Metal Detecting and its Success in Schleswig-Holstein. In: Martens, J. & Ravn, M., eds. Pløyejord som kontekst. Nye utfordringer for forskning, forvaltning og formidling. Kristiansand: Kulturhistorisk museum & Universitetet i Oslo, pp. 89–100.Google Scholar
Makowska, A., Oniszczuk, A. & Sabaciński, M. 2016. Some Remarks on the Stormy Relationship Between the Detectorists and Archaeological Heritage in Poland. Open Archaeology, 2: 171–81. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marín-Aguilera, B. 2012. Italy: A Huge Open-air Museum: ‘Tombaroli’ at Cerveteri and Tarquinia. In: Castillo, A., ed. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Best Practices in World Heritage: Archaeology. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, pp. 563–79.Google Scholar
Meller, H. ed. 2004. Der geschmiedete Himmel. Die weite Welt im Herzen Europas vor 3600 Jahren. Stuttgart: Theiss.Google Scholar
Nord, A.G. & Lagerlöf, A. 2002. Påverkan på arkeologiskt material i jord: Redovisning av två forskningsprojekt. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet. http://samla.raa.se/xmlui/bitstream/handle/raa/69/9172092823.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=yGoogle Scholar
Oksanen, E. & Lewis, M. 2015. Medieval Markets and Portable Antiquities Scheme. Medieval Settlement Research, 30: 54–59.Google Scholar
Patiwael, P.R., Groote, P. & Vanclay, F. 2019. Improving Heritage Impact Assessment: An Analytical Critique of the ICOMOS Guidelines. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 25: 333–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1477057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perring, D. & Orange, H. 2017. Commercial Archaeology in the UK: Public Interest, Benefit and Engagement. In: Moshenska, G., ed. Key Concepts in Public Archaeology. London: UCL Press, pp. 138–50.Google Scholar
Perry, S. 2019. The Enchantment of the Archaeological Record. European Journal of Archaeology, 22(3): 354–71. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, S. & Beale, N. 2015. The Social Web and Archaeology's Restructuring: Impact, Exploitation, Disciplinary Change. Open Archaeology, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2015-0009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, P.V. 1994. Excavations at Sites of Treasure Trove at Gudme. In: Nielsen, P.O., Randsborg, K. & Thrane, H., eds. Archaeology of Gudme and Lundeborg (Arkaeologiske studier 10). Copenhagen: Akademisk forlag, pp. 30–40.Google Scholar
Portable Antiquities Advisory Group 2017. Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England & Wales (2017 Revision). London: PAAG [online] [accessed 16 December 2019]. Available at: https://finds.org.uk/documents/file/Code-2017.pdfGoogle Scholar
Portable Antiquities of the Netherlands 2019. Gedragscode en regels voor verantwoord gebruik van de metaaldetector in Nederland. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam & Amersfoort: Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed. [online] [accessed 16 December 2019]. Available at: https://portable-antiquities.nl/pan/resources/downloads/NL-2-Brochure%20regelgeving%20Metaaldetectie%20mei%202019%20LR.pdfGoogle Scholar
Rácz, T.A. 2017. Metal-detector Users Affiliated to Museums: Building a Model of Community Archaeology in Pest County. Hungarian Archaeology, Autumn 2017. http://www.hungarianarchaeology.hu/?page_id=3661#post-7346Google 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: 83–07. https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2014.899616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbins, K.J. 2013. Balancing the Scales: Exploring the Variable Effects of Collection Bias on Data Collected by the Portable Antiquities Scheme. Landscapes, 14: 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1179/1466203513Z.0000000006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez Temiño, I. & Roma Valdés, A. 2015. Fighting Against the Archaeological Looting and the Illicit Trade of Antiquities in Spain. International Journal of Cultural Property, 22: 111–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S094073911500003XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serrano Sanz, F., Holocher-Ertl, T., Kieslinger, B., Sanz Garcia, F. & Silva, C.G. 2014. White Paper on Citizen Science in Europe. Socientize Consortium/European Commission [online] [accessed 1 November 2019]. Available at: http://www.zsi.at/object/project/2340/attach/White_Paper-Final-Print.pdfGoogle Scholar
Scheschkewitz, J. 2013. Merely Searching for Treasures or Valid Interest in Cultural History? Various Motivations in Germany. In: Lagerlöf, A., ed. Who Cares? Perspectives on Public Awareness, Participation, and Protection in Archaeological Heritage Management (EAC Occasional Paper, 8). Namur: Jambes, pp. 53–59.Google Scholar
Stebbins, R.A. 1992. Amateurs, Professionals, and Serious Leisure. Montréal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Svensson, H. 2014. Uppdragsarkeologin och kulturmiljölagen hotar fornsakerna – svar till Raä. Fornvännen, 109: 139–44. http://kulturarvsdata.se/raa/fornvannen/html/2014_139Google Scholar
Thomas, S. 2012. Searching for Answers: A Survey of Metal-Detector Users in the UK. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 18: 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2011.590817Google Scholar
Thomas, S. 2016. The Future of Studying Hobbyist Metal Detecting in Europe: A Call for a Transnational Approach. Open Archaeology, 2: 140–49. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, S., Wessman, A., Siltainsuu, J. & Perttola, W. 2015. Understanding Metal Detecting and Archaeology in Finland. Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arquelogia de la Universidad de Granada, 25: 185–97.Google Scholar
Tronner, K., Nord, A.G. & Borg, G.C. 1995. Corrosion of Archaeological Bronze Artefacts in Acidic Soil. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 85: 2725–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01186246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulst, I. 2010. The Problems of ‘Black Archaeology’ in Estonia. Estonian Journal of Archaeology, 14: 153–69. https://doi.org/10.3176/arch.2010.2.04CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UN 2019. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [online] [accessed 1 November 2019]. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdfGoogle Scholar
Valletta, 1992. European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage, Valletta, 16.I.1992 (Council of Europe Treaty No. 143) [online] [accessed 1 November 2019]. Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168007bd25Google Scholar
Wessman, A. forthcoming. Searching for the Past: Metal Detecting and its Impact on Cultural Heritage in Finland. In: Bintley, M., Hines, J., Richardson, A., Seaman, A. & Swift, E., eds. Lands and Seas: Post-Roman Transitions and Relations across the Channel, North Sea, and Baltic Worlds (Neue Studien Zur Sachsenforschung, 10). Stuttgart: Theiss.Google Scholar
Wessman, A., Thomas, S., Rohiola, V., Koho, M., Ikkala, E., Tuominen, J., et al. 2019. Citizen Science in Archaeology: Developing a Collaborative Web Service for Archaeological Finds in Finland. In: Jameson, J.H. & Musteață, S., eds. Transforming Heritage Practice in the 21st Century: Contributions from Community Archaeology (One World Archaeology). Cham: Springer, pp. 337–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkley, F. 2016. The Phenomenology of Metal Detecting: Insights from a Unique Type of Landscape Experience. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 25: Art. 13. https://doi.org/10.5334/pia.496Google Scholar
Worrell, S., Egan, G., Naylor, J., Leahy, K. & Lewis, M. eds. 2010. A Decade of Discovery: Proceedings of the Portable Antiquities Scheme Conference 2007 (British Archaeological Reports British Series 520). Oxford: Archaeopress.CrossRefGoogle Scholar