5 ms·

> It is illegal to use a metal detector to search for archaeological objects anywhere in the Republic of Ireland, unless you have written permission from the go

> It is illegal to use a metal detector to search for archaeological objects anywhere in the Republic of Ireland, unless you have written permission from the government. > Those convicted of the offence can face a fine ranging to more than €63,000 (£53,000). No wonder they donated anonymously, what an insane law.

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
Yup. I believe the term, here is "hoist with his own petard," to quote an Englishman (or Dane) of some repute.
oldpersonintx 2y ago
[dead]
lawlessone 2y ago
ok but... >The letter stated that the axe-heads were discovered in County Westmeath using a metal detector. >The museum explained those "severe penalties" are in place because unauthorised metal detecting can cause "serious damage to Ireland’s archaeological heritage
- justinclift 2y ago
  "But PULEEEEAASE tell us who you are and where you found these! We pinky swear we'll ignore the law and you won't get in trouble." Good luck with that.
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    It would be a lot more reassuring if they just fined the culprit 1 EUR and closed the case. Most European countries don't allow a judged case ("res iudicata") to be reopened unless new serious material evidence comes to light, and many not even then.
    - lawlessone 2y ago
      The problem is this has happened more than once and, not 100% certain, it appears to be the same person doing it twice. If that's the case they've repeatedly committed a crime and shown clear understanding they're breaking the law.
JTbane 2y ago
Yeah that law is ridiculous. What happens if you are a metal-detecting enthusiast looking for valuables and you stumble upon something archaeological? Are you just gonna get fined?
- lawlessone 2y ago
  >metal-detecting enthusiast looking for valuables and you stumble upon something archaeological? Most things of value are going to be archeological. If you want gold you do panning.
  - justinclift 2y ago
    Sure, in Ireland. In other counties people use metal detectors as well. Recent example: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/amateur-treasure-hunter-unearths-englands-largest-gold-nugget-with-broken-metal-detector-180984041/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/amateur-treasure-h...
  - brudgers 2y ago
    An old cache of coins or jewelry is unlikely to be in a stream.
    - lawlessone 2y ago
      >An old cache of coins or jewelry is unlikely to be in a stream. And would likely be considered important archeologically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_Brooch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_Brooch
      - brudgers 2y ago
        Panning isn’t done for the archeology. It’s done for the gold.
  - fullspectrumdev 2y ago
    Just wait til you hear about the rules for gold prospecting in Ireland. TL;DR finds of over 2 grams have to be given to the state (you might get it back).
leviathant 2y ago
>No wonder they donated anonymously, what an insane law. By contrast, where I live in Philadelphia, developers are not required to perform any archaeological studies before excavating - even along the Delaware River waterfront, where the oldest European settlements are, as well as countless indigenous sites. Sometimes, before history gets scraped away and sent to the dump, bottle diggers will excavate the trash pits, typically discarding anything that's not 100% intact, and selling the 18th and 19th century bottles on eBay or at flea markets. However, like the axe heads in the article, these artifacts are absent context, removing nearly all historical value. And of course, the stratification of the pits they're extracted from is also destroyed, further reducing the ability to interpret any finds that might otherwise have been saved. It's only projects paid for by our federal government that are required to do archaeological studies, and when they do, it's not uncommon to find early colonial artifacts, but also remnants of pre-contact Lenni-Lenape sites. You only really get one shot at recovering history through archaeology. That doesn't mean that preservation holds permanent veto over progress, but a little bit of disincentivization can go a long way in the study of history.
- BurningFrog 2y ago
  Systems like these need the right incentives to work. If the builder is compensated for the costs associated with working around the fonds, plus a little extra, they will be happy to report everything they find. I'd throw in making museums obliged to display which builder company found the item when displaying it. This probably costs a lot more than the average government wants to spend on archeology though.
- Onavo 2y ago
  And then when you or your relative need to buy a house, "Oh woe is me, why is building a house so expensive in the US!"
GeoAtreides 2y ago
It's to protect historical artifacts from looters, also to protect historical sites from being disturbed.
jobigoud 2y ago
Is saying that you searched for non-archeological objects and just happened to find one a valid defense? Or is it illegal to find archeological objects even if you weren't explicitly searching for them?
- donalhunt 2y ago
  I believe one only ever finds such objects by tripping over them... allegedly...
- jblezo 2y ago
  We have a law that somehow covers this in France. It is permitted to use a metal detector for leisure provided that it is not a search for archaeological objects. However, this law can be interpreted from many angles, as it is difficult to define what is archaeological or not. There are certain associations which defend “leisure detection” as long as it is not located on a registered archaeological or historical site. But their point of view is not shared by archaeologists, who consider that any place can be considered an archaeological site, relegating leisure detection to fine sandy beaches. In this context, case law says that there are no completely accidental archaeological discoveries with a metal detector.
  - Aerroon 2y ago
    So the outcome is that if somebody does find something then it gets reburied or destroyed?
throwup238 2y ago
I'm fairly certain that "anywhere" bit is wrong. You only need a license when doing it on public land, except for scheduled monuments, historic monuments, and areas of archaeological interest which require special permission as well. If it's on private land and you have permission from the landowner, you don't need the license. You still need to report any treasure or archaeological finds to National Museums NI though.
- radpanda 2y ago
  FYI the article was about a find in the Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland. No idea about the relevant rules in either case though.
TheRealPomax 2y ago
Sounds like you want to read through https://www.museum.ie/en-IE/Collections-Research/The-Law-on-Metal-Detecting-in-Ireland https://www.museum.ie/en-IE/Collections-Research/The-Law-on-... to tone down the indignation a little. It's a perfectly fine law: if you use a metal detector on your farm and you happen to find archeological metal, you're not breaking any laws. But now you do have a duty to report that find, and you can't keep using your metal detector and stabbing the ground with a shovel when it beeps because then you'd be intentionally disturbing and possibly destroying a site of potentially historical significance.
- piltdownman 2y ago
  And also lose the complete use of your land because it now has a designated ring fort or fairy bush on it listed as a protected structure. Or worse, hold up the construction of a motorway for a decade and lead to its eventual re-routing at the cost of millions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latoon_fairy_bush https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latoon_fairy_bush
  - mavhc 2y ago
    'Lenihan himself mentioned in a 2009 interview that the National Road Authority "were forced to bend the road a little bit around the bush, which they did, which is fine. There was no need to demolish the bush at all. Just adjust the road a little bit and landscape the bush into the roadway"'
  - TheRealPomax 2y ago
    You don't lose "the complete use of your land" because a small part of it is considered historically significant, it's not the US. You do get to wait for them to figure out the boundary though. As for your Wikipedia link, it's a good idea to actually read the whole text in it.
    - egberts1 2y ago
      small part. And if it is a “zero-sized” residential lot, you just S.O.L.

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago

Yup. I believe the term, here is "hoist with his own petard," to quote an Englishman (or Dane) of some repute.

oldpersonintx 2y ago

[dead]

lawlessone 2y ago

ok but... >The letter stated that the axe-heads were discovered in County Westmeath using a metal detector. >The museum explained those "severe penalties" are in place because unauthorised metal detecting can cause "serious damage to Ireland’s archaeological heritage

justinclift 2y ago
"But PULEEEEAASE tell us who you are and where you found these! We pinky swear we'll ignore the law and you won't get in trouble." Good luck with that.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  It would be a lot more reassuring if they just fined the culprit 1 EUR and closed the case. Most European countries don't allow a judged case ("res iudicata") to be reopened unless new serious material evidence comes to light, and many not even then.
  - lawlessone 2y ago
    The problem is this has happened more than once and, not 100% certain, it appears to be the same person doing it twice. If that's the case they've repeatedly committed a crime and shown clear understanding they're breaking the law.

JTbane 2y ago

Yeah that law is ridiculous. What happens if you are a metal-detecting enthusiast looking for valuables and you stumble upon something archaeological? Are you just gonna get fined?

lawlessone 2y ago
>metal-detecting enthusiast looking for valuables and you stumble upon something archaeological? Most things of value are going to be archeological. If you want gold you do panning.
- justinclift 2y ago
  Sure, in Ireland. In other counties people use metal detectors as well. Recent example: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/amateur-treasure-hunter-unearths-englands-largest-gold-nugget-with-broken-metal-detector-180984041/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/amateur-treasure-h...
- brudgers 2y ago
  An old cache of coins or jewelry is unlikely to be in a stream.
  - lawlessone 2y ago
    >An old cache of coins or jewelry is unlikely to be in a stream. And would likely be considered important archeologically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_Brooch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_Brooch
    - brudgers 2y ago
      Panning isn’t done for the archeology. It’s done for the gold.
- fullspectrumdev 2y ago
  Just wait til you hear about the rules for gold prospecting in Ireland. TL;DR finds of over 2 grams have to be given to the state (you might get it back).

leviathant 2y ago

>No wonder they donated anonymously, what an insane law. By contrast, where I live in Philadelphia, developers are not required to perform any archaeological studies before excavating - even along the Delaware River waterfront, where the oldest European settlements are, as well as countless indigenous sites. Sometimes, before history gets scraped away and sent to the dump, bottle diggers will excavate the trash pits, typically discarding anything that's not 100% intact, and selling the 18th and 19th century bottles on eBay or at flea markets. However, like the axe heads in the article, these artifacts are absent context, removing nearly all historical value. And of course, the stratification of the pits they're extracted from is also destroyed, further reducing the ability to interpret any finds that might otherwise have been saved. It's only projects paid for by our federal government that are required to do archaeological studies, and when they do, it's not uncommon to find early colonial artifacts, but also remnants of pre-contact Lenni-Lenape sites. You only really get one shot at recovering history through archaeology. That doesn't mean that preservation holds permanent veto over progress, but a little bit of disincentivization can go a long way in the study of history.

BurningFrog 2y ago
Systems like these need the right incentives to work. If the builder is compensated for the costs associated with working around the fonds, plus a little extra, they will be happy to report everything they find. I'd throw in making museums obliged to display which builder company found the item when displaying it. This probably costs a lot more than the average government wants to spend on archeology though.
Onavo 2y ago
And then when you or your relative need to buy a house, "Oh woe is me, why is building a house so expensive in the US!"

GeoAtreides 2y ago

It's to protect historical artifacts from looters, also to protect historical sites from being disturbed.

jobigoud 2y ago

Is saying that you searched for non-archeological objects and just happened to find one a valid defense? Or is it illegal to find archeological objects even if you weren't explicitly searching for them?

donalhunt 2y ago
I believe one only ever finds such objects by tripping over them... allegedly...
jblezo 2y ago
We have a law that somehow covers this in France. It is permitted to use a metal detector for leisure provided that it is not a search for archaeological objects. However, this law can be interpreted from many angles, as it is difficult to define what is archaeological or not. There are certain associations which defend “leisure detection” as long as it is not located on a registered archaeological or historical site. But their point of view is not shared by archaeologists, who consider that any place can be considered an archaeological site, relegating leisure detection to fine sandy beaches. In this context, case law says that there are no completely accidental archaeological discoveries with a metal detector.
- Aerroon 2y ago
  So the outcome is that if somebody does find something then it gets reburied or destroyed?

throwup238 2y ago

I'm fairly certain that "anywhere" bit is wrong. You only need a license when doing it on public land, except for scheduled monuments, historic monuments, and areas of archaeological interest which require special permission as well. If it's on private land and you have permission from the landowner, you don't need the license. You still need to report any treasure or archaeological finds to National Museums NI though.

radpanda 2y ago
FYI the article was about a find in the Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland. No idea about the relevant rules in either case though.

TheRealPomax 2y ago

Sounds like you want to read through https://www.museum.ie/en-IE/Collections-Research/The-Law-on-Metal-Detecting-in-Ireland https://www.museum.ie/en-IE/Collections-Research/The-Law-on-... to tone down the indignation a little. It's a perfectly fine law: if you use a metal detector on your farm and you happen to find archeological metal, you're not breaking any laws. But now you do have a duty to report that find, and you can't keep using your metal detector and stabbing the ground with a shovel when it beeps because then you'd be intentionally disturbing and possibly destroying a site of potentially historical significance.

piltdownman 2y ago
And also lose the complete use of your land because it now has a designated ring fort or fairy bush on it listed as a protected structure. Or worse, hold up the construction of a motorway for a decade and lead to its eventual re-routing at the cost of millions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latoon_fairy_bush https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latoon_fairy_bush
- mavhc 2y ago
  'Lenihan himself mentioned in a 2009 interview that the National Road Authority "were forced to bend the road a little bit around the bush, which they did, which is fine. There was no need to demolish the bush at all. Just adjust the road a little bit and landscape the bush into the roadway"'
- TheRealPomax 2y ago
  You don't lose "the complete use of your land" because a small part of it is considered historically significant, it's not the US. You do get to wait for them to figure out the boundary though. As for your Wikipedia link, it's a good idea to actually read the whole text in it.
  - egberts1 2y ago
    small part. And if it is a “zero-sized” residential lot, you just S.O.L.