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.

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.

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.

The rising popularity of hobbyist metal detecting has provided early medieval scholars with various important new datasets, not least the concentrations of metalwork commonly known as ‘productive sites’. Awareness of these foci derives almost exclusively from archaeological evidence, yet they continue to be interpreted through a documentary lens, and are frequently labelled ‘monasteries’. Using the recently discovered site of Little Carlton, Lincolnshire, as a case study, it is argued that comprehension of metal-rich sites is significantly furthered by turning to archaeologically-orientated research agendas and terminologies. As a consequence, seventh- to ninth-century Little Carlton can be understood as one element of a high-status ‘meshwork’ within early medieval East Lindsey, in which elite power was articulated in the landscape through a number of contemporary centres. On site, archaeology indicates the presence of occupation, burial and craft working, but shows that highly symbolic indigenous practices were taking place too, including intentional deposition into a naturally-occurring pond. Evidence for activity either side of the seventh to ninth centuries also stresses the importance of long-term trajectories in shaping the character of places previously celebrated for their finds-rich phases alone.

FindSampo fosters collecting, sharing, publishing and studying archaeological finds discovered by the public. The framework includes the following: a mobile find-reporting system; a semantic portal for researchers, the public and collection managers to use; and a Linked Open Data service for creating custom data analyses and for application developers.

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.

Metal detecting is a popular hobby in England and Wales, and, since 1997, over 1.3 million finds have been recorded by the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS), a scheme to encourage the voluntary recording of artifacts found by the public. The metal detector can be a useful archaeological tool when used lawfully and responsibly; however, it is also a tool that is used for illicit purposes by individuals and groups wishing to obtain artifacts from archaeological sites on which they have no permission to detect. Information on the number and nature of incidents of illicit metal detecting, however, is difficult to collate owing both to the nature of the crime and to the way it is recorded (or not) by law enforcement authorities. In this article, we examine the strengths and limitations of the available official and unofficial sources on illicit metal detecting in England and Wales and explore the potential they have to tell us about current trends in this form of heritage crime. The first unofficial source is a list of incidents reported to Historic England, which contains basic information on 276 incidents recorded between 2010 and 2017. The second source is the result of a survey of the PAS’s finds liaison officers regarding the extent to which they assisted law enforcement authorities for the years from 2015 to 2017. Both sources were then contrasted with a freedom of information request that was sent to all 49 police forces in the United Kingdom. Although there are some synergies between the unofficial and official sources, the lack of detail in any one dataset makes them of limited use in demonstrating trends in the macro- and micro-scales of time and place. Accordingly, many of the issues highlighted in this article could be resolved by devising a better system for police record keeping of metal detecting offences.

What do archaeologists do when approached by groups or individuals with unorthodox, or even simply inappropriate, approaches to, and ideas about the past? What should they do? While much guidance and literature points to education and engagement, in some of the more sensitive or difficult cases it is often more appealing, and simpler, to ignore the issue, in the hopes that it will simply go away. Similarly, on occasions when archaeologists step forward to criticize alternative approaches to archaeological heritage, this does not always meet with positive or desired results. In this paper, in light of recent personal experience with a controversial piece of television programming, I discuss different approaches to responding to challenges to the expertise (and authority) of archaeologists by problematic encounters with concepts of the past. I suggest that while there are arguments in support of (and against) all three of the approaches that I identify (collaboration, condemnation, or ignoring), none provide an absolute solution. In order to discuss these approaches, I draw upon key cases from the literature, as well as personal reflection.