Last November, not far from Can­terbury in Kent, retired electri­cian Cliff Bradshaw was scanning a field with his metal detector when he made the find of a life­ time-a gold cup from around 1600 B.c. Bradshaw telephoned a local archaeologist, who was at first skeptical but quickly changed his mind when he saw a photograph of the object. The discovery alerted authorities to an ancient mound that had been flattened by millennia of plowing, and which was subsequently excavated by the Canter­ bury Archaeological Trust. Bradshaw, under Britain’s 1996 Treasure Act, looks set to share the cup’s estimated $350,000 value with the landowner on whose property it was discovered, the cup itself going to the British Museum. The find showcases the trust and coop­eration that exists between many metal detector enthusiasts and archaeologists in the United Kingdom.

But there is a disturbing new wrinkle in the U.K. metal-detecting scene: visit­ing tour groups of Canadian and Ameri­ can detectorists whose poor understand­ing of British laws and codes of practice are alienating their British counterparts and archaeologists. In February 1999, for example, an American citizen return­ing home from a metal-detecting vaca­tion in England was stopped by customs officers at Heathrow Airport. The detec­torist had ignored his tour organizers’ warnings that all archaeological objects found in the U.K. need to be licensed for export, and his finds-medieval and later artifacts-were seized. He was not prosecuted and left the country with only a warning. The problem may not be simply rogue individuals. Anecdotal evi­dence suggests that some tours act in an unprincipled and illegal manner, taking participants detecting on private land without permission and even “night­ hawking” (staging nighttime raids) on protected sites.

Modern metal detectors can find small coins up to a depth of about 12 inches, and larger objects deeper. They can also discriminate between different metals and alloys. When these high-resolution detectors first appeared in the U.K. during the 1970s, they ushered in a golden age for enthusiasts but one of dark­ ness for many archaeologists. Stories began to circulate of archaeological sites that had been looted, often at night, and many of these stories were substantiated: Roman bronzes removed from Icklingham in the early 1980s, some 5,000 or more coins pilfered from the Romano-British site of Wan­ borough in 1985, and the Iron Age Salisbury Hoard of 535 bronze artifacts also taken in 1985. By the late 1980s loot­ing of Roman sites such as Corbridge and Caistor St. Edmunds was chronic, and it was estimated that something like half a million objects per year were being discovered nationwide but that few were coming to archaeological, or public, attention. Some archae­ologists retaliated by seeding sites with nails or metal scrap.

Meanwhile British detector-users and sympathetic archaeologists were pointing out the benefits of responsible detector use. Much detecting was being carried out on farmland to recover objects that had already been pulled out of context by the plow, and were being damaged by the action of chemical fertilizers. Not all finds were looted or lost to the records. The Hoxne Hoard of Roman gold and silver, for instance, was discovered in 1992 by a detector-user, properly reported, and eventually acquired by the British Museum. Detectorists also began to organize themselves into associations­ National Council for Metal Detecting (NCMD) in 1981 and the Federation of Independent Detectorists in 1982- with codes of conduct that prohibit use of a detector on a protected site or on private land without permission. In 1984, archaeologists in Norfolk demon­strated the value of a metal-detector survey in advance of excavation at the Roman site of Thetford. Since then, many archaeologists have enlisted the services of local detectorists, and some now considered it bad practice to take to the field without them.

In 1996, there was a spirit of rap­prochement in the air as the old com­mon law of treasure trove-with its subjective assessment of what consti­tuted “treasure”-was replaced in Eng­land and Wales by the 1996 Treasure Act, after consultation with the NCMD and others. Under the old trea­sure trove law, only gold or silver objects that had been deliberately buried with the intention of recovery and with no known owner could be declared treasure trove. There were often problems in establishing who had buried the objects in antiquity and what their motives had been. The 1996 act clarifies this by placing a sovereign claim on specific categories of portable antiquities, termed Treasure, which include: objects that contain at least ten percent gold or silver and are at least 300 years old when found; coins that are at least 300 years old when found (if the coins contain less than ten percent gold or silver there must be at least ten found together); and objects found in the same place as, or that had previously been together with, another object that is Treasure.

Any such find must be reported to the coroner for the district in which it was found (archaeologists, too, must comply with this rule). The find is for­ warded to an expert for evaluation. If it is declared Treasure it may be acquired by a museum whereupon the piece is valued by a committee of independent experts, and the value of the find is paid as a reward (archaeologists are not eli­gible for a reward). Failure to report a Treasure is a criminal offense with a maximum penalty of three months’  imprisonment, a fine of £5,000 (about $7,250), or both.

The Treasure Act came into force in September 1997 and since then the number of finds reported has increased dramatically. In the ten years up to 1997, on average, there were about 24 potential cases of treasure reported each year. Between September 1997 and Sep­tember 1998, the number increased nearly tenfold.

The increased reporting may have been due in part to the establishment in 1997 of a government-funded voluntary reporting pro­ gram, called Finding Our Past, which was intended to complement the Trea­sure Act. It established a system for recording archaeo­logical finds made by mem­bers of the public (largely, but not exclusively, metal detectorists), with a view to acquiring information about recovered artifacts and their find­ spots, and making it available for study or other educational purposes. Finding Our Past was supported by the NCMD, and it was hoped that the program would develop and strengthen coopera­tion between archaeologists and metal detector users. It was launched on a trial basis in six areas, each with its own “finds liaison officer.” These offi­cers are qualified archaeologists or numismatists able to identify and record archaeological objects brought to their attention. The finder is under no compulsion to report, unless the object constitutes Treasure, but neither is there a financial incentive. The finder retains possession of the object.

In early l 999, the program was extended to 11 areas, and it presently provides cover for about half of Eng­land and the whole of Wales. During the program’s third year of operation, 31,783 objects were reported by l,788 finders, including 1,405 detectorists. Finding Our Past has also developed outreach projects designed to raise public awareness of the importance of archaeological finds and to encourage the recording of artifacts. In May 2002, a publicly accessible database of finds (www.finds.org.uk) contained 18,858 artifact records and 2,092 images. Analysis of 2,137 findspots recorded in the database shows that about 88 per­ cent of finds are made on cultivated land, confirming that detectorists work in areas likely to be plow damaged, and recover material that is already out of context. Government funding for the program is currently guaranteed through the end of 2003.

Although the situation today is in marked improvement to that of ten or 20 years ago, rumors persist of night raids on archaeological sites, and old favorites such as Wanborough and lck­lingham continue to be hit. Neverthe­less, with archaeologists and detec­torists working together, it is now possible to isolate and identify these nighthawks, and hopefully put an end to their destructive use of metal detec­tors on archaeological sites.

Unfortunately, rogue elements within the U. K. are turning increasingly to the United States to market their finds, and that, in turn, is attracting U.S. detectorists to Eng­land’s archaeologically rich fields. This is due at least in part to the rise of online auctions, which have made it much eas­ier for individuals in the U.K. to sell material abroad. The quantities of arti­ facts now being sold online are so large as to preclude any systematic examina­tion, but casual monitoring in early 2000 showed that in April, 500 uncleaned Roman coins said to have been found in England with metal detectors were advertised for sale in New York, while already in February a lot of 840 Roman coins, described as found by an English detectorist just north of London, had been offered in San Diego. This latter find does not appear to have been reported as Treasure, as mandated by law, and so was presumably exported illegally. Nor can it be the same unde­clared hoard (or hoards) from Britain about which the British Numismatic Trade Association circulated a warning in February 2000. Rumored to contain between 6,000 and l 6,000 Roman coins, the hoard was offered for sale in London and New York with an apparently invented “European” origin. Huge quantities of Roman coins now appear­ing on eBay are said to be from the Balkans or Bulgaria. Where they really come from is anybody’s guess.

Some material offered for sale online in the U.S. seems to have been purchased directly from English detec­torists, but some Americans are coming to the U. K. themselves. “Are you inter­ested in metal detecting in England,” ran one U.S.-based eBay sales tag in July 2000. “Please e-mail me for more information on how you could have the thrill of digging up those ancient pieces of history.” There is nothing inherently wrong with a metal-detecting tour of the U.K., provided it stays within the law and adheres to the currently accepted standards of practice. California­ based Discovery Tours, for instance, is recognized by the NCMD and operates in England with the consent and cooperation of a local museum. It records all finds with the finds liaison officer, offers to donate non-Treasure items of special interest to the museum and, most importantly, doesn’t go out at night. Not all tour operators are so responsible.

At least one organizer in England claims to run “private” tours, known only through word of mouth, but some tours are openly advertised. One com­pany which advertises is Affiliated Travel, of Florida. Affiliated also sells English coins on eBay and since 1999 has organized annual English-style metal-detecting rallies in Colorado. These rallies take place over an area of 25 to 100 acres that has been seeded with over 10,000 British coins and other targets, from ancient to modern (before 1942). The rallies are popular and drum up customers for trips to the U.K. Affiliated acquires much of its material from sources in the U.K., and it seems that not many export licenses are applied for by the vendors, but, as Affiliated points out, there is a lot of confusion within the U.K. itself about the export licensing system, and very little enforcement.

The U.K. export licens­ing system dates back to 1952 and was never designed to cope with metal detec­tors and online auctions. A U.K. government-appointed panel of inquiry into the illicit trade of cultural prop­erty recommended in Decem­ber 2000 that the export licensing system should be reviewed and that-cru­cially-additional resources be made available for its operation. Nevertheless, despite its weaknesses, it remains the law, and unli­censed exportation is a prosecutable offense.

Some tours set out to mislead their participants. In 1997, a sixth-century Roman pottery lamp con­taining eastern Mediterranean coins of various dates was delib­erately planted by two American detectorists who organized a tour at Carnmellis in Cornwall. It was subse­quently reported as a genuine find, but the mixed condition of the coins gave the game away. The U.K.-based Inter­ national Treasure Tours went one step further in 1999 by advertising metal detecting on the protected site of Cais­tor St. Edmunds in Norfolk. “Never before has anyone been given permis­sion to search some of England’s great­est archaeological sites,” ran the promo­tional literature. “You will be participating in treasure hunting on a scale never before experienced within the United Kingdom.” International had in fact applied to English Heritage, the gov­ernment agency that oversees protected sites, for permission, although it was not forthcoming. Whether the tour went ahead, or indeed what happened to International, are not known.

Nighthawks, whether American or English, are a pest. Not only are they causing irreparable damage to archaeo­logical heritage, but they threaten to undo the good work of all those in both the archaeological and metal detecting communities who have worked long and hard in recent times to reconcile their sometimes conflicting interests in the country’s past.