Cite this as: Oksanen, E., Thomas, S., Deckers, P., Dobat, A.S. and Wessman, A. 2025 Metal detecting and archaeology in the Nordic region. Introduction. Internet Archaeology 68. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.68.8
Metal detecting and its relationship to archaeological heritage is a complex theme. On the one hand, illicit or irresponsible amateur detecting poses a severe threat, resulting in the undocumented plundering of archaeological sites, as well as the loss of important contextual information for finds; many of these are retrieved only to be included in closed private collections or to be traded on the international antiquities market (e.g. Rasmussen 2014; Lecroere 2016; Daubney 2022). On the other hand, responsible and responsive (sensu Pitblado et al. 2022) detecting leads to the identification and understanding of important archaeological finds and sites (e.g. Brindle 2014; Christiansen 2020; Knuutinen et al. 2022; Bondesson and Bondeson 2021; Komoróczy 2022; Wessman and Oksanen 2022), which otherwise are in danger of damage or irreversible destruction by modern industrial farming machinery and chemicals used on the land, construction activities, forestry industries, or through natural erosion (Haldenby and Richards 2010, 1160; Robbins 2014, 29; Dobat 2016, 52; Henriksen 2016, 75-76; Maaranen 2020). Numerous studies have shown internationally that metal-detected archaeology can contribute significantly to the generation of new knowledge, often at a spatially large scales (e.g. Bevan 2012; Deckers 2014; Stine and Shumate 2015; Cooper and Green 2017; Kars and Heeren 2018; Christiansen 2019; Pajdla et al. 2023; Gilså 2021; Oksanen and Lewis 2023). In addition, where legally permitted, the practice is a legitimate arena for public interaction with cultural heritage, and a potential catalyst for the democratization of heritage management along the line of current trends of citizen science, participatory sciences, and crowdsourcing (Smith 2014; Dobat et al. 2019; Wessman et al. 2023).
These discussions and debates between archaeologists, researchers, metal detectorists, and other actors with an interest in portable archaeological objects are not new, and seem to be a perennial topic for articles, conferences, informal chats and even student research and teaching. Policy and governments have responded in different ways, exerting greater or lesser degrees of control over who possess rights for studying, valuing (in all its meanings), displaying, and claiming ownership of objects discovered in the landscape. Sometimes these policies have changed in light of new research and new ideas concerning public participation with the past, or, at least, 'pragmatic' responses to the situation at hand (Bland 2005).
The Nordic countries, namely Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, present a particularly varied range of responses within a single region to the detecting phenomenon. At the moment, different Nordic countries have developed unique responses to metal detecting and public finds. For example, while in Iceland and Sweden metal detecting is de facto prohibited (Icelandic Cultural Heritage Act no 80/2012; Swedish Heritage Conservation Act (1988:950) chapter 2, section 18. English translation), in Norway metal detecting is legal but recommended to be performed on cultivated land only (Cultural Heritage Act English translation). In Denmark and Finland metal detecting is permitted within certain constraints (e.g. outside historical monument sites), and national services and online databases are currently being developed to identify and record finds (Guidance to detectorists by the Finnish Heritage Agency; Guidance to detectorists by the Danish Ministry of Culture).
In those Nordic countries where hobby metal detecting is legal (albeit with restrictions) it has developed into a widespread leisure and avocation activity, and especially over the last decade or two has grown significantly in popularity (Dobat 2013; Axelsen 2022; Wessman et al. 2023). The increasing media attention, amplified by social media, is likely to only enhance the current 'metal detector boom' going forwards. The implications of this development entail both important potentials and challenges for the management and for participatory approaches within archaeology and with cultural heritage. We would argue that any future policy initiatives adopted by Nordic (or other) governments and heritage bodies should be well-informed and based on the significant body of research knowledge on the heritage, scientific and social impacts of the hobby. Moreover, and as will be discussed, the added value to be drawn from international experiences is considerable.
Inspired by the existing debates, as well as the emergence in recent years of the European Public Finds Recording Network (EPFRN) creating a space in which researchers and heritage managers have been able to address challenges and opportunities specifically in relation to metal detectorists and the finds that they uncover, funding was obtained in late 2020 from the Joint Committee for Nordic research councils in the Humanities and Social Sciences (NOS-HS) to organise a three-part workshop series From Treasure Hunters to Citizen Scientists: metal-detecting and archaeology in the Nordic region. The series' workshops had the following titles:
While there have been previous workshops that looked at the issues around metal detecting on local and national levels in the Nordic countries (such as in Örebro and Stockholm, Sweden in 2019, in Aarhus, Denmark in 2016, in Helsinki, Finland in 2015, and in Oslo, Norway in 2014), From Treasure Hunters to Citizen Scientists was the first time that this set of related topics were brought together covering all five Nordic countries. The continuing COVID-19 pandemic meant organizational challenges, but the hybrid format that was adopted for all events (in-person event combined with video stream and chat functions) ensured accessibility both for international participants as well as, importantly, members of the hobby community and the wider public who might have otherwise found it difficult to attend.
The workshop series was motivated by the realization that the individual Nordic countries (and their regions) cannot be treated as isolates, given that interest in the hobby and hobbyists themselves cross jurisdictional borders within a European 'free movement' context. Members of metal-detecting communities are known to travel between countries to detect and to engage with each other on online platforms (e.g. Axelsen 2018). Perhaps most crucially, from a public archaeology perspective, there is evidence that detectorists (like other members of the public) consider the Nordic countries to possess a shared historical identity that is manifested in the unearthed material culture (see Dreiøe et al. in this issue). Public finds are a vital new archaeological resource for understanding these historical connections within the region (Deckers et al. 2021).
Academic and popular interest in developments and discoveries in one country therefore does not end at its border. As an example, as came out of the discussions with detectorists participating in the workshops, the Swedish detectorist community is actively looking to neighbouring countries for inspiration in lobbying for legislative change in archaeological heritage management. In some areas it could be argued that hobbyists are more dynamic in looking for examples and information outside their own borders than professionals, who may be burdened with duties associated with the management and recording of the quickly and significantly increased number of reported public finds. A transnational assessment of this phenomenon therefore cannot overlook dynamics taking place outside the sphere of professional heritage management.
The aim of the workshop series was to develop a timely, inclusive and multivocal intervention in the development of public archaeology in northern and north-western Europe. Added value was generated because the workshops and associated academic activity could draw upon a pre-existing foundation of cross-border engagement at an academic level (e.g. the EPFRN, which already included researchers from Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway, along with Austria, Belgium, Czechia, England and Wales, Estonia, Hungary, Germany, Scotland and the Netherlands), from established transnational collaborations through the Nordic Council of Ministers, and through the workshop grant's administrator NordForsk, which provides research and funding support for pan-Nordic cooperation.
The series stands as an example of the possibilities in creating platforms that combine different heritage attitudes, legislature and landscapes. As will be elaborated further in some of the papers included in this issue, or which were presented at the workshops but have been published elsewhere (e.g. Oksanen et al. 2024; Wessman 2023), this provided an opportunity for multi-perspective examinations with a deep knowledge base for and expertise on northern Europe's archaeological heritage, while addressing needs that are unique to Nordic countries in light of shared heritage, institutions and social structures.
The deliberate inclusion of representatives of heritage management and, in particular, of hobby practitioners was an innovative feature of all three workshops, and a crucial step towards advancing mutual understanding between heritage communities as well as improved policy and practice. For example, the final workshop in Aarhus explored cultural and social aspects of metal detecting, including presentations from metal detectorists themselves (as was the case also in Helsinki and Bergen) and with a focus of several papers on well-being results. Inclusion of speakers from Sweden highlighted the increased challenges in jurisdictions where there is greater restriction and thus fewer opportunities for co-creation, although possible future changes were also discussed with Swedish professionals and hobbyists.
The series explored solutions to challenges in how public finds and community archaeology can benefit from shared Nordic societal values, namely openness (of information), transparency of administrative and research processes, democratization of archaeology, and international cooperation in cultural matters. It remains to be seen if there will be longer term impacts in the heritage sector from the workshops and the current issue, but the discussions were lively and succeeded in reinforcing professional networks across regional and country boundaries. The discussions that took place in Norway, for instance, can be seen as a kick-off in many ways, advancing the consensus that management of metal-detected data must be discussed at the national instead of regional level. The topics that were developed in the Bergen workshop were also brought up in two separate sessions at the Norwegian Archaeology Meeting (NAM) that was held in Bergen in November 2023. The workshop series generated interest and motivation to set up an annual EPFRN conference. The first event, entitled Hobby archaeology: from citizen science to heritage practice communities, was held in June 2024 in Brussels, Belgium and brought together stakeholders in public finds recording and research from across Europe. Furthermore, a geographically and thematically broader Scientific Research Network (SRN), funded by the Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO) and Global Wales, was launched in January 2024 and explores the concept and realities of Heritage Practice Communities in a Digitized World. The network of eight research groups from Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Wales includes several researchers who were involved in and inspired by the possibilities of the NOS-HS workshop series (Deckers, Oksanen and Thomas), and includes metal-detecting heritage practice communities as an area of interest. The 5-year SRN, like the NOS-HS workshop series, aims to bring researchers together and to facilitate the possibility of future research collaborations, especially involving early career researchers where possible.
The timeliness of the workshops ties into the establishment of open digital public finds registers for enhancing the accessibility and democratization of archaeological heritage, including disseminating lessons learned from six national or regional public finds schemes in different stages of development: in Denmark (DIME), Finland (Ilppari and FindSampo) and Norway (Nasjonalt digitalt registreringssystem for metallsøkerfunn/NDR) among the Nordic countries, with perspectives and valuable experience-sharing from further afield in Estonia (FindAtlas), England and Wales (PAS), and Scotland (Treasure Trove Scotland). The series reinforced the stance that forward-looking goals are facilitated by an enhanced understanding of public finds and heritage management from multiple stakeholder perspectives: metal detectorists, members of the public, academic researchers, and heritage management professionals. On this topic, the considerable and still underexplored potential for transnational cooperation both in the Nordics and further abroad includes but is not limited to:
While similar public finds managements and recording projects exist across the Nordic countries and Europe, these also possess distinct aspects that respond to local administrative, legislative or socio-cultural needs. This includes, as an example, increased open access to finds data in the case of Finland, where precise findspot coordinates — when known and recorded, and unless specifically protected — are opened as a matter of course through the FindSampo and CoinSampo data services, and in the Finnish Heritage Agency's archaeological register to all users. By contrast, the FindAtlas service in Estonia is designed to generalize spatial information on the publicly available finds data to squares some 50km2 in size as a precautionary measure due to concerns over looting in newly discovered sites. From both policy and technological perspectives, such varying practices will inevitably impact on ongoing and future efforts to link archaeological data and digital heritage services on a transregional and indeed Europe-wide level (notably ARIADNE, see Richards and Niccolucci 2019; Richards et al. 2023). As will be discussed below, diversity in stakeholder interests and needs encapsulates a large section of both the potential and the challenges with archaeological metal detecting the Nordic region.
The speakers involved in the workshop series, some of whom have contributed to the current Special Issue, included heritage management professionals, metal detectorists, and scholars in the fields of archaeology, cultural heritage studies, digital humanities, and computer sciences among others. By including individuals from outside of the Nordic regions (e.g. Belgium, Estonia, the UK and the USA), students, early career researchers as well as more senior researchers, the workshops succeeded in providing opportunities for networking and experience sharing. The papers for this issue have deliberately encouraged, where possible, co-authorship across sectors and countries to further enhance capacity-building. These papers are not strictly speaking conceived as the proceedings of the workshop series, but as articles that further explore and develop the research presented by speakers, or independently respond to the series' major intellectual themes.
The contributions to the three workshops, and the papers in this issue, coalesce around a number of key themes in metal-detected archaeology and citizen science, within the Nordic countries and beyond.
The central overreaching theme is the diversity of stakeholders in relation to hobby detecting. The organisation of the three workshops reflects the triangle of heritage managers, professional researchers and detectorists. Other stakeholders were involved more or less directly, for instance in the field of valorization and public outreach. This included museums (e.g. presentation of Line Maj-Britt Højberg Bjerg [video, slides] in the Helsinki workshop), but also schools and even retirement homes (e.g. presentation by Adam Daubney [video, slides] in the Bergen workshop). Another noteworthy group were professional archaeologists in the field, who may respond to detector discoveries or collaborate with detectorists in the field (e.g. presentation by Martin Rundkvist in the Aarhus workshop). Understanding the interaction between these groups and their core activities and operational frameworks within a broader archaeological ecosystem — policy and management, data collection, interpretation, public outreach, etc. — is of key importance in fostering a productive environment for collaboration in those countries that legally allow hobby detecting.
A related key topic for future research (emerging from discussion following the contribution by Gitte Kragh in the Aarhus workshop) is how the activity of detectorists relates to citizen science. As it is commonly conceptualised, participation in science is hierarchical in nature, categorised by the involvement of the public in projects initiated and directed by professional scientists (Arnstein 1969; Bonney et al. 2009). Metal detecting as a hobby, however, is typically self-motivated and self-directed, and as an activity in heritage enjoyment and engagement fits poorly into this paradigm. It may be helpful to consider this through the expanded the framework of different types of citizen scientist activities proposed by Jennifer Shirk et al. (2012), in which archaeological hobby detecting is best described as being collegial, meaning 'non-credentialed individuals conduct research independently with varying degrees of expected recognition by institutionalized science and/or professionals'.
The workshop series theme of building future communities and mutually enabling best practices (Aarhus) responded directly to the potential tensions inherent in these formulations. Several articles in this issue engage from a variety of different perspectives with the important topic of training, whether heritage management-led training for detectorists, self-organized within detectorist communities, or organized in collaboration between professionals and detectorists — perhaps leading to better integration of different communities.
A non-negligible number of archaeology students first discovered their passion for the past through hobby detecting. In their article, Julie Reinhold Aagaard, Caroline Hjulmand Larsen, Jens Emil Bødstrup Christoffersen, Julie Munch Thomsen, Katrine Birk, Mathias H. Kaas, Rikke Fur, Signe S. Termansen, and their professor, Andres S. Dobat, discuss the experiences at Aarhus University of integrating metal detecting into a university archaeology curriculum. The Masters course that they use as their case study highlights how metal detecting has become an essential tool in Danish archaeology. It has contributed significantly to discoveries and research, thanks partly to a cooperative, liberal legal framework that encourages collaboration between hobbyists and professionals. The authors argue here that, despite this, metal detecting is often neglected in academic training, which may leave future archaeologists ill-prepared for real-world situations of working with the metal detecting community. By incorporating metal detecting into university education, students can gain practical fieldwork skills, a deeper understanding of community dynamics, and they are better equipped for engaging in citizen science and heritage management. The article therefore advocates for a reciprocal approach where archaeologists and metal detectorists are educated about each other's practices and needs, fostering mutual respect and better preservation and research of the archaeological heritage.
Detectorist communities may contribute to heritage management by promoting responsible conduct through self-regulation, as exemplified in the training and other activities organised by Harja in Denmark, but also in the peer pressure evident both in the field and in online communities. In the discussion paper by Kristen Nedergaard Dreiøe, Arne Hertz, Glenn Abramsson and Rikke Søgaard the personal experiences and reflections to the Danish model are shared by a group of Danish detectorists. The paper also includes an Appendix by Glenn Abramsson where the content of the Harja metal detecting course is listed. Although these detectorists operate under Denmark's supportive heritage laws, which encourage collaboration between amateurs and professionals, their contribution also discusses a historic reflection from a time that has not always been this supportive. Nonetheless, the cooperation between detectorists and museums has expanded the knowledge of Denmark's cultural heritage greatly.
The workshop theme of the scientific research and public archaeology engagement potential of metal-detected finds (Bergen) was similarly evaluated by several presentations as well as articles in this issue. The article by Eljas Oksanen and Anna Wessman in this issue produces an assessment of the relevance of metal-detected finds data to creating new information about the Finnish archaeological past. It examines Finnish metal-detected data as a digital knowledge reservoir powerfully shaped by both past socio-cultural processes and by modern recovery-reporting-recording biases. Oksanen and Wessman discuss contributions that these finds have already made to archaeology in Finland, and argue that there exists by now a sufficient quantity of public finds records in Finland to produce novel 'big data' assessments. This has not only the potential to further advance our knowledge of the past, but, by its combination of traditional qualitative and new quantitative (especially computational) approaches, research on this field is particularly well-positioned to support digital research infrastruture and methodological developments in archaeology as a scientific discipline in Finland.
The archaeological and heritage knowledge potential of detectorist finds is further explored by Pieterjan Deckers in this issue. A crucial challenge is not just the volume of data generated by hobby detecting under permissive regulation contexts, but also its dispersal across often suboptimal sources such as social media and other bottom-up publications. Deckers' contribution explores the consequences of this observation, pointing out that the benefits from exploiting this rich information in terms of knowledge gain should be framed against significant obstacles in the compilation and analysis of datasets containing archaeological metalwork. Furthermore, he argues that beyond the challenges for the individual academic researcher this situation holds important implications for archaeological research at large, and how the discipline situates itself towards hobby communities and independent researchers.
This research engagement is, and has always been, a cross-community cutting issue in archaeological metal detecting: it is critical to understand that many detectorists do not simply passively consume research produced in established academic institutions, but conduct their own research based on their own and other detectorists' finds (e.g. Bondesson and Bondesson 2020; 2021). The expertise of certain detectorists when it comes to finds identification is widely recognized both within and outside detecting communities (Immonen and Kinnunen 2020). For example, the Harja 'brooch tables' is a key example of detectorist research achieving wide distribution and relevance in the professional world.
An important observation that emerges from the recent online survey of the Estonian hobby metal detecting and archaeological communities, conducted and analysed in the article by Tuuli Kurisoo and Maria Smirnova in this issue, is how much detectorists tend to value communication with the Estonian Heritage Board and scientific feedback on their finds, rather than simply monetary compensation and rewards. Kurisoo and Smirnova explored how both heritage professionals and hobby detectorists view the current system for managing metal-detected archaeology in Estonia, and what their expressed priorities are in terms of further development. Among the professionals who responded to the survey, the potential for new archaeological information, as well as collaboration with and training of detectorists, ranked among its top aspects. Systemic deficiencies (e.g. lack of resources and oversight, slow finds processing speed) were identified, and clearly echoed in the detectorists' responses. Drawing upon the commonalities inherent in the survey data, Kurisoo and Smirnova recommend continuing to develop cooperations between the stakeholder communities and note the perhaps (in the Estonia context) unexpected result that despite the rather 'individualistic' detectorist culture with few community organisations detectorists nevertheless share in many cross-cutting concerns.
These observations directly support the workshop theme on the need of heritage agencies and institutions to enhance engagement with metal detectorists and other interested members of the public (Helsinki), with which the entire series launched in the summer of 2022. There exists a diversity of engagement approaches across the Nordic region, responding to local political and regulatory backgrounds, but also to the characteristics and needs of the archaeological record, and the attitudes amongst stakeholder communities. This diversity reflects, to some extent, the diversity seen more widely in Europe. The article by Caroline Fredriksen, Kjetil Skare, May-Tove Smiseth and Lars Pilø discusses metal detecting in Norway, with a specific case study of Innlandet County, a key player in this field. Innlandet County's approach stands out for its proactive and cooperative model. Since 2012, the county (formerly known as Oppland) has developed local guidelines, encouraged detectorists to follow best practices, and promoted education through annual meetings, direct communication, and an online community. They were the first in Norway to introduce a Finds Liaison Officer, inspired by the UK's Portable Antiquities Scheme, to ensure consistency in how finds are managed. By focusing on dialogue, education, and evidence-driven decisions, the county has managed to integrate metal detecting into heritage management in a constructive and sustainable way, offering a potential blueprint for other regions in Norway and beyond.
The range of possible engagement initiatives is considerable, from exploring the educational potential of metal-detected citizen science finds data in cooperation with the education sector, including school, college and lifelong learning opportunities, to well-being agendas that can be adopted more broadly. Dobat et al. (2019) has investigated the initial research on connections between mental health well-being and metal detecting, and this theme was taken by Aja Smith, Stephen Humphreys and Andres S. Dobat in the context of engaging military veterans in archaeological metal detecting. Their article examines how archaeological metal detecting can provide lasting health benefits for military veterans, focusing on two programmes: the American Veterans Archaeological Recovery (AVAR) and Denmark's VETEKTOR Buddy initiative. Both of these programmes engage veterans — many coping with mental health challenges — in metal detecting activities. Participants report this participation as empowering and beneficial for their wellbeing. Smith, Humphries and Dobat highlight that metal detecting offers therapeutic elements such as mindfulness, outdoor activity, social connection, and a sense of purpose, all of which align with recognized pathways to improved mental health. While AVAR emphasizes structured employment and long-term contracts, VETEKTOR relies on informal, voluntary participation, illustrating how different national frameworks can support sustained engagement and empowerment. The authors argue that involving veterans in archaeological metal detecting not only aids their recovery but also enriches archaeological practice, and they advocate for tailored programs that foster both independence and commitment to maximize long-term positive outcomes.
As organisers we therefore call attention to the importance of different actors and stakeholders coming together to build critical interdisciplinary mass and expertise towards creating a strong scientific foundation for the subject. This will support future research on how best to continue developing digital and other heritage infrastructure and methodologies for public archaeology, along its associated communities and practices. It will lead to more results and quality-assured conclusions in shaping the statutory framework and rationalizing public administration, and in promoting innovation and solutions to enhance intersectorial development and cooperation in the Nordic region.
The EPFRN Vision Statement, around which the intellectual framework of the workshop series was conceptualized, calls for enabling broad public engagement and access to archaeological heritage at every level, supports a democratized and citizen science-based approach to heritage management, and promotes the recognition of public (including metal-detected) finds as an important form of evidence of past human activities and societies (Dobat et al. 2020, 285). In this context, has Nordic archaeological metal detecting (following the title of the workshop series) transitioned 'from treasure hunting to citizen science'?
We may again point to the key overarching theme of diversity. Just as a multitude of contextual factors determine the relationship of hobby detecting across the Nordic countries to the principles described in the Vision Statement, so do the substantial differences between these groups in terms of motivations, networks, resources and constraints. Whilst operating within a shared Nordic regional (arguably cultural) context, these differences not only influence their practices, but also inform ethical considerations, and their attitudes towards each other and the archaeological heritage.
In comparisons between different countries, it became clear that positive conditions related to responsible archaeological citizen science and metal detecting are fragile and do not arise easily or quickly: they are the outcome of change at a generational pace, often driven by a few motivated individuals — both archaeologists and detectorists — that manage to affect attitudes amongst their communities, but also to exert influence on a political level. Consequently, and as an example of a country-specific situation, the Danish 'detectorist's utopia' (paraphrasing Lewis 2016) of close collaborations between hobbyists and museum professionals is not static. Recent developments pose new opportunities and challenges. These include the creation of DIME as a hugely successful online resource for crowdsourcing detector finds data. However, as a scientific project based at Aarhus University rather than a national scheme organisationally situated in the Danish institutional heritage landscape, its future is fundamentally uncertain unless more permanent funding can be secured. Similar “single points of failure” based on limited availability of expertise and key personnel have been recognised in Finland (Oksanen et al. 2024, 15), and organisationally tackled in more established schemes in England and Wales (Lewis 2016) and the Netherlands (Kars and Heeren 2018; Carpentier 2022). Moreover, the growing popularity of the hobby currently results in many new practitioners not necessarily being up to speed with responsible practice in the hobby, as well as a fragmentation of the community that is reflected, for example, in the growing number of closed Facebook groups dedicated to detecting.
It is important to realise (as has been noted before in Deckers et al. 2016, 427) that the various stakeholder communities are not monolithic groups. For example, heritage management is organised on local or regional and national levels; detectorists stem from different areas and may have very different socio-economic backgrounds; and research approaches to metal-detected artefacts may vary significantly between disciplines such as numismatics and landscape archaeology. Furthermore, these roles may overlap with individuals relating to metal detecting through multiple perspectives, which are often not seen in opposition. Heritage managers may have a keen interest in scientific research of the artefacts and sites discovered by detectorists (e.g. Fredriksen 2021; Moilanen and Raninen 2022), while detectorists may collaborate in the dissemination to wider audiences of the results of the activities (e.g. the recent exhibition 'The Hunt for the Denmark's Past' at the National Museum in Denmark or the 'Detector — Lost and found' mini-exhibition at the Historical Museum in Oslo, Norway).
The papers presented in this issue provide legacy to the workshops from which they originated, but more importantly present a state of the field for current successes, opportunities, and remaining challenges in engaging with metal detecting and its outputs — both social and scientific — within the Nordic region and beyond. We hope that they will provide inspiration as well as points for future debate and development.
Corresponding author: Eljas Oksanen
[email protected]
Department of Cultures, Faculty of Arts, University of Helsinki, Finland
Suzie Thomas
[email protected]
Department of Heritage, University of Antwerp, Belgium
Pieterjan Deckers
[email protected]
Archaeology, KU Leuven, Belgium
Andres S. Dobat
[email protected]
Department of Archaeology and Heritage Studies at Aarhus University, Denmark
Anna Wessman
[email protected]
Department of Cultural History, University of Bergen, Norway
Aagaard, J.R., Hjulmand Larsen, C., Bødstrup Christoffersen, J.E., Munch Thomsen, J., Birk, K., Kaas, M.H., Fur, R., Termansen, S.S. and Dobat, A.S. 2025 'Metal Detecting in University Education: Empowering future archaeologists through training', Internet Archaeology 68. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.68.1
Arnstein, S. 1969 'A ladder of citizen participation', Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4), 216-224.
Axelsen, I. 2018 'Digital archaeology. A democratic utopia', Nordisk Museologi 2-3, 107-114. https://doi.org/10.5617/nm.6658
Axelsen, I. 2022 'Collaboration and Communication between Hobby Metal Detectorists and Archaeologists in Norway', Advances in Archaeological Practice 10(3), 295-310. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2022.14
Bevan, A. 2012 'Spatial Methods for Analysing Large-scale Artefact Inventories', Antiquity 86, 492-506. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X0006289X
Bland, R. 2005 'A Pragmatic Approach to the Problem of Portable Antiquities: The Experience of England and Wales', Antiquity 79, 440-447. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00114218
Bondesson, T and Bondesson, L. 2020 'Balt-Norwegian migration of brooch design. New examples found – in Denmark', Fornvännen 115(2), 99-104.
Bondesson, T. and Bondesson, L. 2021 'Update on brooches with Balt traits in Norway - the map redrawn by metal detecting', Fornvännen 116(2), 145-150.
Bonney, R., Cooper, C., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K.V. and Shirk, J. 2009 'Citizen Science: A Developing Tool for Expanding Science Knowledge and Scientific Literacy', BioScience 59(11), 977-984. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.9
Brindle, T. 2014 The Portable Antiquities Scheme and Roman Britain, London: British Museum.
Carpentier, F. 2022 'The Portable Antiquities of the Netherlands: A Review', Advances in Archaeological Practice 10(3), 347-353. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2022.25
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 24, 3-134.
Christiansen, T.T. 2020 'Exploring Spatial Patterns at “Nørholm”, a Metal-rich Site by the Limfjord, Northern Denmark: on Metal Detection, Settlement History and the Development of Land Exploitation', Danish Journal of Archaeology 9, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.7146/dja.v9i0.114872
Cooper, and 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.45.1
Daubney, A. 2022 The Afterlife of Private Collections, Historic England Project 8487, Report number 52/2022. https://historicengland.org.uk/research/results/reports/52-2022 [Last accessed: 21.04.2025]
Deckers, P. 2014 ''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.
Deckers, P. 2025 'All the single ladies? Detector finds, dispersed data and suboptimal sources in the study of Viking Age metalwork', Internet Archaeology 68. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.68.6
Deckers, P., Croix, S. and Sindbæk, S.M. 2021 'Assembling the Full Cast: Ritual Performance, Gender Transgression and Iconographic Innovation in Viking-Age Ribe', Medieval Archaeology 65, 30-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/00766097.2021.1923893
Deckers, P., Lewis, M. and Thomas, S. 2016 'Between Two Places: Archaeology and Metal-detecting in Europe', Open Archaeology 2(1), 426-429. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0031
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(4), 704725. https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957113Y.0000000041
Dobat, A.S. 2016 'Metal detecting in Denmark: Advantages and Disadvantages of the Liberal Model' in J. Marten and M. Ravn (eds) Pløyejord som kontekst. Nye utfordringer for forskning, forvaltning og formidling, Portal forlag: Kristiansand. 51–68.
Dobat, A.S., Trier Christiansen, T., Henriksen, M. B., Jensen, P., Laursen, S. V., Jessen, M. D., Ruhe, R., Arntsen, F. and Holst, M. K. 2019 'The DIME project: Background, status and future perspectives of a user driven recording scheme for metal detector finds as an example of participatory heritage', Danish Journal of Archaeology 8, 1-15. https://tidsskrift.dk/dja/article/download/111422/165531/ [Last accessed: 21.04.2025]
Dobat A.S., Deckers P., Heeren S., Lewis M., Thomas S., Wessman A. 2020 'Towards a Cooperative Approach to Hobby Metal Detecting: The European Public Finds Recording Network (EPFRN) Vision Statement', European Journal of Archaeology 23(2), 272-292. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2020.1
Fredriksen, C. 2021 'Et bitte lite gullfunn på Byneset', Spor [online article]. https://spormagasin.no/2021/12/et-bitte-lite-gullfunn-fra-byneset/ [Last accessed: 21.04.2025]
Fredriksen, C., Engesveen, A., Skare, E., Smiseth, M-T. and Pilø, L. 2025 'Preserving the Past in the Plough Zone Together: Hobby metal detecting in Innlandet County as a case of good practice within the Norwegian legal framework', Internet Archaeology 68. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.68.2
Gilså, N. 2021 Et spørgsmål om stil: Urnesspænder i gennembrudt arbejde fra tidlig middelalder, Højbjerg: Middelalderarkæologisk Forum.
Haldenby, D. and Richards, J.D. 2010 'Charting the Effects of Plough Damage Using Metal-Detected Assemblages', Antiquity 84(326), 1151-1162. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00067144
Henriksen Mogens, B. 2016 'Pløyelagersfund og formationsprocesser. Problemer ved førtolkning af detektorfund fra dyrket mark' in J. Marten and R. Ravn (eds) Pløyejord som kontekst. Nye utfordringer for forskning, forvaltning og formidling, Portal forlag: Kristiansand. 69-88.
Immonen, V. and Kinnunen, J. 2020 'Metal detecting as a social formation: A longitudinal survey study from Finland', Journal of Social Archaeology 20(3), 313-334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605320943737
Kars, M. and 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
Knuutinen, T., Kunnas-Pusa, L., Salo, K. and Kirkinen, T. 2022 'A Pre-Roman burial site in Puijonsarvennenä, Kuopio, Eastern Finland: preliminary results and interpretations', Fennoscandia Archaeologica 39, 5-27. https://journal.fi/fennoscandiaarchaeologica/article/view/125721 [Last accessed: 21.04.2025]
Komoróczy, B. 2022 'Archaeology, metal detecting, and citizen science in the Czech Republic,' Advances in Archaeological Practice 10(3), 322-335.
Kurisoo, T. and Smirnova, M. 2025 'Unearthing Perspectives: Exploring the views of heritage professionals and hobbyists on the current state of metal detecting in Estonia', Internet Archaeology 68. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.68.3
Lecroere, T. 2016 '"There Is None So Blind as Those Who Won't See": Metal Detecting and Archaeology in France', Open Archaeology 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0014
Lewis, M. 2016 'A Detectorist's Utopia? Archaeology and Metal-Detecting in England and Wales', Open Archaeology 2(1), 127-39. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0009
Maaranen, P. 2020 'Muinaismuistojen vaurioituminen 2010-luvulla. Ihmistoiminna vaikutus muinaismuistolailla rauhoitettujen kiinteiden muinaisjäännösten säilymiseen Suomen alueella', Museovirasto selvityksiä 5. [research report] https://stmuseovirastoprod.blob.core.windows.net/museovirasto/Meista/Julkaisut/MuinaismuistojenVaurioituminenLoppuraportti2021.pdf [Last accessed 21.04.2025]
Moilanen, U. and Raninen, S. 2022 'Merovingiaikainen polttohauta Kihniön Pyhäniemessä', Muinaistutkija 2022(2), 24-31.
Nedergaard Dreiøe, K., Hertz, A., Abramsson, G. and Søgaard, R. 2025 'Perspectives on and from the Danish metal-detecting community', Internet Archaeology 68. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.68.7
Oksanen, E. and Lewis, M. 2023 'Evaluating Transformations in Small Metal Finds Following the Black Death', Medieval Archaeology 67(1), 159-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/00766097.2023.2204727
Oksanen, E. and Wessman, A. 2025 'New Horizons in Understanding Finnish Iron Age Material Culture Through Metal-detected Finds', Internet Archaeology 68. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.68.4
Oksanen, E., Ehrnsten, F., Rantala, H. and Hyvönen, E. 2024 'Semantic Solutions for Democratizing Archaeological and Numismatic Data Analysis', ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage 16(4), 1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3625302
Pajdla, P., Lečbychová, O., Novák, D., Antal, R., Komoróczy, B., Chlup, T. and Mařík, J. 2023 'Recording Data from Metal-Detecting Activities in the Czech Republic: The Portal of Amateur Collaborators and Register of Individual Finds (AMCR-PAS)', Internet Archaeology 64. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.64.13
Pitblado, B.L., Rowe, M.J., Schroeder, B., Thomas, S. and Wessman, A. 2022 'Professional-collector collaboration: moving beyond debate to best practice', Advances in Archaeological Practice 10(1), 3-9.
Rasmussen, M.J. 2014 'Securing cultural heritage objects and fencing stolen goods? A case study on museums and metal detecting in Norway', Norwegian Archaeological Review 47(1), 83-107.
Richards, J.D., Aspöck, E. and Niccolucci, F. 2023 'Introduction. International Data Aggregation for Archaeological Research and Heritage Management: the ARIADNE experience', Internet Archaeology 64. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.64.1
Richards, J.D. and Niccolucci, F. (eds) 2019 ARIADNE Impact, Budapest: Archaeolingua.
Robbins, K. 2014 Portable Antiquities Scheme: A Guide for Researchers, British Museum. http://finds.org.uk/documents/guideforresearchers.pdf
Shirk, J.L., Ballard, H.L., Wilderman, C.C., Phillips, T. , Wiggins, A., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Minarchek, M., Lewenstein, B.V., Krasny, M.E. and Bonney, R. 2012 'Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design', Ecology and Society 17(2), 29.
Smith, A., Humphreys, S.D. and Dobat, A.S. 2025 'Detecting Empowerment, Sustaining Commitment: How archaeological metal detecting can underpin enduring health benefits for military veterans', Internet Archaeology 68. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.68.5
Smith M.L. 2014 'Citizen Science in Archaeology', American Antiquity 79(4), 749-762. https://doi.org/10.7183/0002-7316.79.4.749
Stine, L.F. and Shumate, D.L. 2015 'Metal detecting: An effective tool for archaeological research and community engagement', North American Archaeologist 36(4), 289-323.
Wessman, A. 2023 'Med detektoristene ute i felten - Slik samarbeider vi i Bergen', Årbok for Universitetsmuseet i Bergen 39, 157-166.
Wessman, A., Thomas, S., Deckers, P., Dobat, A.S., Heeren, S. and Lewis, M. 2023 'Hobby Metal-detecting as Citizen Science. Background, Challenges and Opportunities of Collaborative Archeological Finds Recording Schemes', Heritage and Society 16(2), 89-108, https://doi.org/10.1080/2159032X.2022.2098654
Wessman, A. and Oksanen, E. 2022 'Metal-detecting data as Citizen Science Archaeology' in P. Halinen, V. Heyd and K. Mannermaa (eds) Oodeja Mikalle. Professori Mika Lavennon juhlakirja hänen täyttäessä 60 vuotta. An Ode to Mika. Professor Mika Lavento's Festschrift as he turns 60, Monographs of the Archaeological Society of Finland 10, Helsinki: The Archaeological Society of Finland. 268-277. http://www.sarks.fi/masf/masf_10/MASF10_34_Wessman_Oksanen.pdf [Last accessed 21.04.2025]
Internet Archaeology is an open access journal based in the Department of Archaeology, University of York. Except where otherwise noted, content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY) Unported licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that attribution to the author(s), the title of the work, the Internet Archaeology journal and the relevant URL/DOI are given.
Terms and Conditions | Legal Statements | Privacy Policy | Cookies Policy | Citing Internet Archaeology
Internet Archaeology content is preserved for the long term with the Archaeology Data Service. Help sustain and support open access publication by donating to our Open Access Archaeology Fund.
Home