From Thomas Browne’s Urne-Burial to the most recent series of BBC Four’s Detectorists, the practice of unearthing archaeological treasures has held an enduring fascination across the centuries. Perhaps the appeal is rooted in the tantalizing thoughts of a link to a lost world submerged just beneath our feet, or, as Browne (2005: 1) puts it: ‘The treasures of time lie high, In Urnes, Coynes, and Monuments, scarce below the roots of some vegetables’. While the dreams of these treasures may be ubiquitous, the means of recovering such finds are highly contested. Since the popularization of the metal detector in the 1960s, the relationship between amateur and professional archaeologists in the UK has often been fraught, with the Stop taking our Past! campaign, launched in 1979, and the responses to this from the Detectorist Information Group (Thomas, 2012). Through a process of on-going dialogue, relationships between these opposing groups have been repaired and strengthened, culminating in the introduction of the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) in 1997. This has produced a partnership in which amateur archaeologists have contributed vital work to help uncover the archaeological patrimony, while professionals have benefited from the contextual information accrued from accurate finds recording. This is not to belie the continual problems of ‘Nighthawking’ (cf. Milmo, 2015; Oxford Archaeology, 2009) throughout the country, but that each year seems to bring a record number of reported finds for PAS is an encouraging sign of the power of outreach and compromise (Kennedy, 2016). However, archaeological looting remains a significant problem in a range of contexts around the globe. While PAS is an example of the productive way that technology (i.e. the internet) can engineer solutions, it can also be problematic in terms of creating platforms for illicit detectorists and black market sales (e.g. Chippindale & Gill, 2001). There are a multiplicity of circumstances in which illicit detectorist activity takes place and differing approaches to combating this problem; even in Europe the nuances of archaeological legislation can vary significantly in neighbouring territories and require bespoke responses (cf. Deckers, et al., 2016). It is, therefore, increasingly important that work continues to be done to understand the metal-detecting community – the desires, circumstances, and motivations of those who participate in this activity – to better craft collaborative solutions that help preserve archaeological remains. With this in mind, Public Archaeology is delighted to present a range of papers offering innovative approaches to the subject, with studies addressing the situation from the UK, Finland, and the wider Eastern European context. The analyses here are characterized by attempts to better understand the sociological and methodological processes of metal detecting, and in so doing offer valuable insights that public archaeology, Vol. 15 No. 4, November 2016, 161–162

中文翻译：

---

社论

从 Thomas Browne 的 Urne-Burial 到最近的 BBC Four 侦探系列，发掘考古宝藏的做法在几个世纪以来一直令人着迷。或许这种吸引力源于一种与淹没在我们脚下的失落世界的联系的诱人想法，或者，正如 Browne (2005: 1) 所说：“时间的宝藏高高在上，在 Urnes、Coynes 和纪念碑中，在一些蔬菜的根部以下很少见”。虽然这些宝藏的梦想可能无处不在，但恢复此类发现的方法却备受争议。自从 1960 年代金属探测器普及以来，英国的业余考古学家和专业考古学家之间的关系经常充满争议，停止带走我们的过去！1979 年发起的运动，以及侦探信息组（Thomas, 2012）。通过持续的对话过程，这些对立团体之间的关系得到了修复和加强，最终于 1997 年引入了便携式古物计划 (PAS)。这产生了一种伙伴关系，其中业余考古学家贡献了重要的工作来帮助发掘考古遗产，而专业人士则从准确的发现记录所产生的背景信息中受益。这并不是要掩盖全国范围内“夜鹰”（参见 Milmo，2015 年；牛津考古学，2009 年）的持续问题，但每年似乎都为 PAS 带来了创纪录数量的报告发现，这是令人鼓舞的力量迹象外展和妥协（肯尼迪，2016 年）。然而，考古掠夺在全球范围内仍然是一个重大问题。虽然 PAS 是技术（即互联网）可以设计解决方案的有效方式的一个例子，但它在为非法侦探和黑市销售创建平台方面也可能存在问题（例如 Chippindale & Gill，2001）。发生非法侦探活动的情况多种多样，解决这一问题的方法也各不相同；即使在欧洲，考古立法的细微差别在邻近地区也会有很大差异，需要定制响应（参见 Deckers 等人，2016 年）。因此，继续开展工作以了解金属探测社区——参与这项活动的人的愿望、环境和动机——以更好地制定有助于保护考古遗迹的协作解决方案变得越来越重要。考虑到这一点，公共考古学很高兴发表一系列论文，提供有关该主题的创新方法，研究涉及英国、芬兰和更广泛的东欧背景的情况。这里的分析的特点是试图更好地理解金属探测的社会学和方法学过程，并以此提供公共考古学，卷。15 No. 4, 2016年11月, 161–162 并且这样做提供了宝贵的见解，公共考古学，卷。15 No. 4, 2016年11月, 161–162 并且这样做提供了宝贵的见解，公共考古学，卷。15 No. 4, 2016年11月, 161–162