Securing Cultural Heritage Objects and Fencing Stolen Goods? A Case Study on Museums and Metal Detecting in Norway

Abstract

Private metal detecting is frequently suggested as a favourable recipe for saving objects that would otherwise perish in agricultural fields in Norway. Metal detector communities portray themselves as heritage rescuers. For this they receive considerable praise from sympathetic archaeologists and museum staff. By contrast, finders who keep objects for themselves are portrayed as so-called nighthawks. However, accounts from informants who collect, trade or search for archaeological objects reflect more ambivalent attitudes than the idealized image of heritage rescuers and the hostile image of nighthawks indicate. In this article, the issue of private metal detecting is approached through recorded interviews, official correspondence in public archives and informal accounts in online forums.

Norwegian cultural heritage law forms a background to the analysis, while certain legal concepts are employed more actively. The relation between museums and detectorists is deconstructed and explored through the legal provisions on receiving and laundering the proceeds of criminal acts in Norway’s General Civil Penal Code. It is argued here that, while it might seem practical from the point-of-view of museums to assume that finds that are handed in according to law also have been legally procured, such acceptance might also be understood as unlawful legitimation.

Keywords:

• Museums
• metal detecting
• cultural heritage management
• legitimation
• law
• interview research
• online research
• qualitative methodology

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Writing this article, I have benefited from valuable advice, insights and information from a number of people, first and foremost all of my informants. I also wish to thank those hobby detectorists, archaeologists and museum professionals who have contacted me to share their opinions and experiences after I wrote about metal detecting for the first time in the summer of 2013. I am grateful to Jostein Gundersen who provided statistics on rewards and also answered all my inquiries concerning the formal practices of the Directorate. Eline Ova Sveen, legal advisor at the Directorate, referred me to preparatory legal works that proved to be very useful. I am also grateful to Kenneth Didriksen, police officer and heritage crime expert in ØKOKRIM, who provided valuable information and statistics on criminal investigations of heritage crime. Much appreciated comments and critical remarks were given by my colleagues Unn Pedersen and Herdis Hølleland who read early drafts of the article. Moreover, I am grateful for the valuable comments and critique provided by the editors of Norwegian Archaeological Review and by two peer reviewers, Jens Christian Moesgaard and an anonymous referee. The interpretations and conclusions as well as any mistakes appearing in this article are the responsibility of the author. The metal detectorists, archaeologists and businesses whose names appear in the illustrations used in this article are not among the informants in my study nor have they been involved in any of the episodes and occurrences referred to here.

Notes

¹ Norges metallsøkerforening. Støtt Norges Metallsøkerforening, http://nmf.nu/stott-norges-metallsokerforening/

² According to numbers in Straffesaksregisteret (STRASAK) there were 14 reported complaints concerning the Cultural Heritage Act each year in 2010, 2011 and 2012. STRASAK numbers have been provided by ØKOKRIM, who have also permitted their publication in this article. It should be noted that the numbers are inaccurate, since many complaints are not categorized as heritage crime, but are instead filed as criminal damage, vandalism and so forth.

³ Numbers of complaints identified by document titles and case IDs in the Public Electronic Postal Archives (Offentlig Elektronisk Postjournal, OEP) of the Directorate are seven in 2010, 25 in 2011 and 18 in 2012.

⁴ Interviews were conducted as part of my PhD research, not primarily for the purpose of illuminating the relation between detectorists and archaeologists, but to provide insights into how stakeholders with an interest in prehistoric materials operate, and their experience with the formal heritage management institutions, like museums. Names have been withdrawn in quotes from informants in accordance with the research permission given by the national board for ethical research (Personvernombudet for forskning, Norsk Samfunnsvitenskapelig Datatjeneste).

⁵ Two of the four are also active collectors, a third has studied archaeology, but is not currently working with archaeology and the fourth reported no connection with archaeology other than through his hobby.

⁶ The Ministry of the Environment is highest authority for cultural heritage. The Directorate maintains the ministry’s contact with the museums and with the county administrations for cultural heritage (who safeguard and perform archaeology registrations).

⁷ University Museum of Bergen (Bergen museum), University of Oslo: Museum of Cultural History (Kulturhistorisk museum, KHM), University Museum of Stavanger (Arkeologisk museum, AMS), University Museum of Tromsø (Tromsø Museum), University Museum of Trondheim (NTNU Vitenskapsmuseet).

⁸ Pursuant to the Swedish Cultural Monuments Act, chapter 2, Ancient monuments and finds.

⁹ Established in the Danish Consolidated Act on Museums, chapter 9, Treasure trove and fossil trove.

¹⁰ Among Norwegian detectorists and their clubs there appear to be high levels of rivalry and conflict. This runs counter to results found in studies of British metal detectorists, where cohesion and solidarity are identified as key features of the metal-detector communities (Thomas 2012, Ferguson 2013)

¹¹ The competent authority means the five regional university museums and NIKU, according to section 1 in the act.

¹² The appointed authorities to which objects must be reported are the county administrations for cultural heritage preservation, according to administrative regulation (MD 1979-02-09 8785), though in practice objects are often reported directly to the museums.

¹³ Provided that there has been illegal removal and disturbance of cultural heritage (CHA section 3) or failing to report a find (section 13).

¹⁴ For the expressed purpose of rescuing Buddhist manuscript fragments from the Taliban, Norwegian businessman and collector Martin Schøyen bought what were later revealed to be objects stolen from Kabul museum. Some archaeologists expressed concern that by paying large sums of money Schøyen had effectively created a market for the material, and thereby put similar objects in danger of theft and looting (e.g. Brodie 2009). Other scholars claimed that the objects would most likely not have survived, and probably not been available for research, if Schøyen had not bought them (e.g. Braarvig 2000).

¹⁵ A similar tendency among Norwegian archaeologists was addressed through a national conference on Norwegian archaeology in 2010 (Norsk Arkeologmøte), with Høgh as a keynote speaker. http://www.arkeologiinorge.no/news/NAM%20nyhetsbrev%202010.pdf

¹⁶ Numbers from 2013 are not referenced in the report from KHM, but, by 8 August 2013, the museum’s protocol of acquisition shows 30 registered cases which appear to be associated with metal detecting (in total more than 123 objects).

¹⁷ https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/254168/Treasure_Statistical_Release_2011-2012.pdf

¹⁸ ‘Hopes to buy Silverdale Viking hoard for Lancaster’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-22603527

¹⁹ In 2012, 73,903 finds were recorded by the PAS and 990 treasure cases reported