If not for us the archaeology would be lost anyway...

davycc

I think your confused by my unique posting style lets deal with the basics 1st....

• Other than under licence, it is illegal to use a metal detecting device to search for archaeological objects in Ireland, both on land and underwater.


This is only true if you are deliberately setting out to find archaeological objects-
To which Im not in any way & neither would/should any ethical MDer..

& Dr Gonzo thanks for your open honest reply I knew you were letting off some steam about some of the badguys but I didnt take it personally, Its about time I was allowed to reply without it being deleted without so much as a pm or warning from a mod..

A metaldetector is a survey tool in the hands of professional archaeologists
& an enjoyable interesting harmless hobby in my hands
I realise that when criminal gangs use them to loot protected sites to sell to black market collectors this is an awful state of affairs & these sites & monuments need a lot more security in place & maybe gardai could bust these animals & lock them up make an example of them..

Jakub25

No kidding.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/900-looted-artefacts-recovered-29281305.html

Treasure hunters in the Republic of Ireland need a licence to search or dig and are obliged, by law, to report any finds or face up to five years in jail and a fine of 63,500 euro.

slowburner

Jakub25 wrote: »

No kidding.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/900-looted-artefacts-recovered-29281305.html

Yes.
This is no joke.

cfuserkildare

Can I just get a little clarification on this then,

It is more important for us to leave everything undisturbed and learn nothing, than it is to learn a little about them!!!

Such a sad situation.

No wonder most Irish know nothing about they're own land prior to 1916.

Such a pompous attitude towards knowledge.

Meathlass

cfuserkildare wrote: »

It is more important for us to leave everything undisturbed and learn nothing, than it is to learn a little about them!!!

With respect, I would contend that it is more important to excavate material properly, perhaps waiting for some future date when technological advances are widespread, and therefore gain vast amounts of info than to dig it all up now and gain comparatively little.

The techniques used today in archaeology would be unrecognisable to someone working in the area in the 70s. When I first started digging in the late 90s all our dating was C14. Now because of the huge reduction in price it's all AMS dating. Techniques change for the better and it would be common practice on non-rescue digs to leave areas for future excavation.

tayto lover

Meathlass wrote: »

With respect, I would contend that it is more important to excavate material properly, perhaps waiting for some future date when technological advances are widespread, and therefore gain vast amounts of info than to dig it all up now and gain comparatively little.

The techniques used today in archaeology would be unrecognisable to someone working in the area in the 70s. When I first started digging in the late 90s all our dating was C14. Now because of the huge reduction in price it's all AMS dating. Techniques change for the better and it would be common practice on non-rescue digs to leave areas for future excavation.

But if nobody found it using a metal detector then it would remain hidden and might never be found at all.
Surely if the finder were educated properly and told what to do when he/she finds something then it would be a win / win situation.

cfuserkildare

To the rest of Europe, it would make more sense to learn a little about our past than just to ignore it and find out in 10 years time that it was destroyed by a farmer or property developer who didn't want the hastle of reporting it.

This is happening on a regular basis.

We have already lost so much it is very dispiriting.

I know of several good examples, ie

The original Dublin to Galway road running through Celbridge, 10 years in the courts and the property developer still was allowed to build a bunch of houses on it.

Or the extension built in St Patricks park in Celbridge that uncovered skeletal remains but didn't report it because it would have suspended or even halted building progress.

The more we leave alone for the future, the less will be found safe in the future. ( If you get my drift)

Cheers.

robp

cfuserkildare wrote: »

To the rest of Europe, it would make more sense to learn a little about our past than just to ignore it and find out in 10 years time that it was destroyed by a farmer or property developer who didn't want the hastle of reporting it.

This is happening on a regular basis.

We have already lost so much it is very dispiriting.

I know of several good examples, ie

The original Dublin to Galway road running through Celbridge, 10 years in the courts and the property developer still was allowed to build a bunch of houses on it.

Or the extension built in St Patricks park in Celbridge that uncovered skeletal remains but didn't report it because it would have suspended or even halted building progress.

The more we leave alone for the future, the less will be found safe in the future. ( If you get my drift)

Cheers.

Developments do find a lot of archaeology and for that very reason the NRA archaeologist or local archaeologist decides what needs to be done before planning permission is granted. Just because the development went ahead doesn't mean the archaeology was unrecorded. The NRA road programme have enormously increased our archaeological knowledge though road building for instance.

tayto lover wrote: »

But if nobody found it using a metal detector then it would remain hidden and might never be found at all.
Surely if the finder were educated properly and told what to do when he/she finds something then it would be a win / win situation.

What needs to be done is a proper licensed scientific archaeological excavation. A metal detector can only identify what they found once it is lifted from the earth but by that time it is too late to do a proper excavation. Most of the time they find only find modern junk metal. It would be impossible to ask a metal detector to call an archaeologist to do a licensed excavation everytime they hear a beep. Who would pay for it.

dr gonzo

Clearly there is still a lot of confusion around this issue, so lets discuss these points.

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Can I just get a little clarification on this then,

It is more important for us to leave everything undisturbed and learn nothing, than it is to learn a little about them!!!

Yes, because then if its found in the future we might get the more complete record rather then the absolutely minimal record that can be derived from a metal detectorist pulling the object out of the ground. Its worth noting here that archaeologists often deliberately forgo invasive methods themselves.

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Such a sad situation.

Is it? Is it truly sad that the law places the undiscovered heritage of this country in the hands of the only people who know how to maximise the amount of knowledge that can be derived.

cfuserkildare wrote: »

No wonder most Irish know nothing about they're own land prior to 1916.

We have a stunningly good understanding of the Irish past. Thousands of books, theses, websites etc derived almost entirely from the archaeological record. Whether or not the Irish people choose to go and learn any of it is their own prerogative.

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Such a pompous attitude towards knowledge.

Its not pompous but it is exclusionist. It is in your best interest as much as mine that you allow professionals to search for archaeology. Its great that youre interested but the repercussions of your hobby, with regard to the artefact itself, instantly removes a substantial number of possible analysis methods; you destroy the possibility of a more complete record. Who is that helping, I ask?

tayto lover wrote: »

But if nobody found it using a metal detector then it would remain hidden and might never be found at all.
Surely if the finder were educated properly and told what to do when he/she finds something then it would be a win / win situation.

As I've said already in this thread, metal detecting returns just one type of archaeological material, and based on that point alone metal detectors are dangerous, as they bias the archaeological record heavily in favour of metal objects. More importantly though the record that surrounds the object is obliterated because, like I and robp have said, you are forced to pull an object out of the ground just to see what it is.

As for educating users, the point at which a metal detector enthusiast would be capable of removing an object out of the ground to an acceptably thorough degree would be the point that they became archaeologists themselves. The skills required to maximise the data potential of any object (not to mention a myriad of other concerns, such as conservation) are vast. There is no crash course that will prepare a hobbyist. It may be seen as elitist but it is a fact. If you are not an archaeologist, and have had no training as one, then you are incapable of removing an archaeological object from the ground without substantial destruction taking place.

Do whats right for our heritage and leave the metal detectors at home.

Dr Strange

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Or the extension built in St Patricks park in Celbridge that uncovered skeletal remains but didn't report it because it would have suspended or even halted building progress.
.

This is actually a serious offence under the Coroner's Act. In cases of human remains the Coronoer's Act is the foremost act and has precedence even over the National Monuments Act. As soon as it has been established that the remains are of no forensic interest AND the Coroner is aware of this and has given his/her OK, the case falls under the National Monuments Act.

In either case, not reporting the discovery of human remains is a serious obmission!

cfuserkildare

Hi Preusse,

Yes it is a serious ommision, but happens on such a scale that we are losing as much as we are finding.

How many farmers have flattened a mound in a field, or dragged away a large stone that was in the middle of a potential pasture site.

If we leave them for the future, then we will lose them forever.

As a side point, is there any attempt to conserve Carbury Castle? or will it be left to fall down? just to give the future generations comething to do?
An important site that dates back thousands of years and it is being left to fall apart.

Sad.

Fighting Irish

slowburner wrote: »

You just don't get it do you?
Unlike some posters here whose interest in Archaeology arose out of similar misguided beliefs.
They spent time in this forum and they learned some stuff.
They grew up.
Now they are highly valued contributors.
You refuse to grow up, refuse to learn and you are a member of an ethos which seriously threatens the Archaeology of this island.
Your contributions here are unpleasant, unwelcome and deeply distasteful to people who have a genuine interest in the history and prehistory of this island.

You leave me with no option but to hand out a 2 week ban.

:pac:

slowburner

Fighting Irish wrote: »

:pac:

One month ban. Next time is a permanent ban from this forum.

Auraelium

DP

JimmyOats

http://www.archaeology.ie/News/Name,15124,en.html

Prometheus

Friend of mine regularly metal detects at Courtown beach, Wexford and wanted to know is he breaking the law?
He mainly finds small quantities of money, I know this has been done to death but is he breaking the law just doing this? I could'nt answer the question, the law seems to just relate to archaeology.
Apologies mods if this is over!

maxmo

No problem on the beach.
Big problem anywhere else!

dr gonzo

Traditionally beaches were given as the one loophole for the national monuments legislation on metal detecting, however beaches, and their immediate surroundings, are very often locations of significant archaeological settlements and features. Take for example the highly ephemeral remains of Mesolithic Ireland. The settlement sites of Belderrig, Co. Mayo, and Ferriters Cove, Co. Kerry were both discovered on the shoreline. Similarly the Meso midden in Sutton, like many middens, is also on the coast. Obviously the nature of an MD means that artefacts from these periods will not be found, however a detectorist could easily accidentally dig into these layers.

The point is you cant metal detect in the vicinity of known archaeological monuments, and beaches are often included in that definition. It is essentially a given due to the comprehensive nature of national monuments legislation that metal dectecting is effectively 100% illegal.

Besides all that I cannot stress enough just how appallingly destructive metal detecting is when archaeology is found. I'm not suggesting that this is deliberate, but even well meaning people do incredible amounts of damage to the archaeological record in the pursuit of this hobby. Tell your friend to protect himself and the material heritage of this country by putting the metal detector away.

slowburner

maxmo wrote: »

No problem on the beach.
Big problem anywhere else!

WRONG...

It really can't be said any more plainly than this:

if anyone digs for an archaeological object without a license - they are breaking the law.

People think there might be a way around the law because they think that what they are searching for is not an archaeological object.
They might believe that a 2005 coin, a ring pull or piece of tinfoil is not an archaeological object - but they would be wrong.
Any object which can tell us something about the past - ancient or recent - is technically an archaeological object and therefore subject to the law.
It is understandable that this might be difficult information to take on board but it is important for would be metal-detectorists in Ireland to know that every ounce of the law is designed to crush this pursuit.
There are no loopholes.
There are no grey areas.
You simply cannot use a metal detector to search for archaeological objects without a license.

Here is the relevant extract from the recently published guidelines:

5. What is an “Archaeological Object”?

The term ‘archaeological object’ is defined in the National Monuments Acts 1930 to 2004 and has a broad meaning in terms of type and age of objects. Commonplace objects of relatively recent date such as coins and militaria, including 20th century material, may fall within the category of ‘archaeological object’. Such objects may come within the terms of the definition regardless of their date and degree of antiquity. It may not be apparent until an object has been dug up that it is an archaeological object. In that event, the damage will already have been done and an offence is likely to have been committed.

The guidelines can (and should) be read in full here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85779958&postcount=3

maxmo

20th century.we're in the 21st.

slowburner

maxmo wrote: »

20th century.we're in the 21st.

If you mean by this jibe that the laws on metal detecting have been changed, you are very much mistaken.

You need to read this thread and more importantly, you should make an effort to understand it.

What is missing in the minds of the metal detecting fraternity that they seem unable to comprehend the law?

Jakub25

New guidelines will not stop “Amateur Metal Detectors Association Of Ireland” (AMDAI)

http://www.thejournal.ie/metal-detectors-treasure-1017051-Jul2013/?eht

AMDAI applauds the minister for confirming that the use of a metal detector can NOT determine if an object is of archaeological interest and therefore the user can NOT be considered to have intentionally searched for it.
AMDAI supports the minister in protecting our heritage and all members must report any finds which may be of archaeological interest to the relevant authoroties.
However, He would have been much wiser to take on board the advice and offer of discussions which we suggested to him over a period of several months. His intention was to publish a guideline which HE claims would be “clear and understandable to the public” . Instead he has opened the entire thing up to legal debate again. Silly, Silly Boys !
Article 1, last paragraph.
“Random searches with metal detectors cannot determine whether a find is of archaeological importance or if it is a recent discard. ”
They then Stumble on to the next bit of nonsense where metal detecting is not mentioned at all.. it’s just aimed at any person digging anything !
Article 5, last paragraph.
“It may not be apparent until an object has been dug up that it is an archaeological object. In that event, the damage will already have been done and an offence is likely to have been committed.”
So a person has as much chance of disturbing objects of interest whilst planting onions or burying their dead parrot , These will also require a public advice publication or it will be considered as Prejudice in the highest order by our association and its members.
Legal action against this will be taken in due course.

slowburner

slowburner wrote: »

What is missing in the minds of the metal detecting fraternity that they seem unable to comprehend the law?

“archaeological object” means any chattel* whether in a manufactured or partly manufactured or an unmanufactured state which by reason of the archaeological interest attaching thereto or of its association with any Irish historical event or person has a value substantially greater than its intrinsic (including artistic) value, and the said expression includes ancient human, animal or plant remains;

(*movable property)

This is from a link supplied by the AMDAI. By linking to this all encompassing definition, they have clearly demonstrated their complete inability to comprehend the law.


The AMDAI are in the business of selling sell metal detectors.
It is in their interest to create the false impression that metal detecting is legal.

slowburner

maxmo wrote: »

No problem on the beach.
Big problem anywhere else!

maxmo wrote: »

20th century.we're in the 21st.

A northern Irish visitor was successfully prosecuted for using a metal detector on Laytown beach recently.

maxmo

Source?

slowburner

Eamonn P. Kelly of the NMI.

maxmo

Sorry,have looked on NMI site and E P Kelly and no sign of it.

Simon.d

maxmo wrote: »

Sorry,have looked on NMI site and E P Kelly and no sign of it.

Link here: http://www.independent.ie/regionals/droghedaindependent/news/metal-detector-man-on-beach-is-fined-500-27122324.html

slowburner

Something to reflect on.

Larry Cissna sold some $60,000 in tickets for his Grand National Relic Shootout — an artifact-hunting competition — at Flowerdew Hundred. The shootout took place in early March, and participants walked away with 8,961 artifacts dating from the Civil War or before.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/03/opinion/open-season-on-history.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

How the right thinking folk of Virginia must envy our laws. How many artefacts will be looted before their laws catch up, if ever?

fiacha

slowburner wrote: »

How many artefacts will be looted before their laws catch up, if ever?

About as many as will rot in the ground or be destroyed by machines before ever being seen by an archaeologist :P

When I heard that there was an updated policy published last week, I was expecting something more than a re-hash of the existing muddy law. The use / sale / possession of detectors should be either legal or illegal, regardless of where they are used or what they are being used to find.

Out of interest, what do the archaeologists think about a scheme that would use the amateur detectorists to assist with surveys of building works / sites subject to planning permission etc. Their work would be supervised by the on site archaeologist. I'm sure they would be happy to pay an annual detecting license fee to help cover the costs of the scheme.
I've heard of similar things being done in the states where the MDer flagged signals without digging them. This archaeologist then used this to prioritise areas to dig. Might also be useful to have someone there to recovery objects from ground / soil that has already been moved by machinery (i'm assuming that the context of the item would no longer be of concern because it had been recently moved / disturbed)

Not looking to kick off the whole debate again, it's just something that popped into my head when reading the thread.:D