Metal detecting: the 'treasure' controversy

One of the most controversial issues in archaeology today is metal detecting – which is how the South Carlton site was originally discovered.

At the extremes, there are two schools of thought. One holds that our heritage should be managed only by qualified professionals; the other says that it should be open (within minimal constraints) to everyone. Most people's views fall somewhere between the two, believing that our past belongs to all of us: highly qualified academics and armchair enthusiasts alike. The key is to manage our archaeological heritage responsibly. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees on the same issues.

Although Time Team has done much to encourage the responsible use of metal detectors in conjunction with professional excavation, there are some professionals who will not use metal detectors as a matter of principle. It all harks back to the days of 'treasure hunting'. Though many detectorists now work closely with archaeologists, there is a huge market in artefacts for private collection and sale. This is directly opposed to the traditional archaeological view that artefacts should be valued by what they can tell us about the past and not by what they are worth financially.

Mick Aston has long been outspoken on this issue. He feels passionately that we have to respect our past, and has little time for those who take the cavalier approach of hunting for 'treasure' and digging up artefacts that lose most of their potential meaning when removed from the context in which they are found.

'You often get people who own metal detectors purely to find treasure,' he says. 'The problem is they find things and dig them up without any recording. We end up with a lot of objects completely out of context and then it's the archaeologist who has to come in and sort out the mess.'

What does Time Team think of metal detectors?

Back to South Carlton

Text only