samarbejder med 29 arkæologiske museer i Danmark
fungerer som digital samling og museum med 100.000 fund
[cooperates with 29 archaeological museums in Denmark
functions as a digital collection and museum with 100,000 finds] DIME
The DIME (Digitale Metaldetektorfund: dime.au.dk) project was launched five years ago to facilitate the user-driven recording of metal detector finds removed from the archaeological record by members of the public. Its aim is "to provide a portal for the registering and hence safeguarding of the increasing number of metal detector finds and to make them accessible for the general public and for research" (@@@@@@). The idea is "to realise the potential of recreational metal detecting as a medium to implement an inclusive and democratic approach to heritage management in Denmark and to advance the incorporation of principles of citizen science and crowdsourcing in museum practice". Hmmm.
DIME was apparently supposed to have been begun a year earlier ['Denmark, Inventory of Metal Detector Finds', PACHI Friday, 26 January 2018]. According to Peter Jensen of Aarhus, on the first day of the launch (20th September 2018), there were 6.700 visitors, 289 new users and 760 finds submitted [PACHI Friday, 21 September 2018 'Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark': a 'new' Database? ]
By May 2019, it is reported that more than 1330 detector users had joined the community and uploaded all together more than 26700 individual finds.
By March 2021, the DIME portal had recorded its first 100,000 loose metal detected finds (30 months later, a rate of 3333 finds a month) [PACHI Wednesday, 5 May 2021 DIME 100k], handed in by 2600 artefact hunters. That's 38 objects each since the beginning. In light of the scepticism of the Helsinki Gang to Hardy's work on metal detectorist numbers, it is worth noting the figure of 2600 detectorists is very similar to Hardy's estimate of 2777 (Hardy 2017, 13-4).
100k finds from 2600 detectorists would be only 38 objects each if they'd all been members for the full 30 months.
At the time of writing, the website owners claim DER ER NU 184.521 FUND I DIME ("there are now 184521 finds in DIME"), though the "search" page gives the number of searchable results as a puzzling "171181". The number of conused by over 2600 amateur archaeologiststributing metal detectorists is given by the phrase: "bruges af over 2600 amatørarkæologer ["used by over 2600 amateur archaeologists"]" (I presume "amateur archaeologists" is a mistake for artefact hunters - they are NOT the same).
2600 artefact hunters reporting 184,5k finds Oct 2018-March 2023 is just under 71 finds each but if we divide that by the fifty months the Scheme has been operating that's only 1.42 finds a month (17 finds a year).
One may legitimately ask if this is all these people are finding. According to the search engine, 45381 are coins (mønt). That is 26% of the total. This is the same problem as we have with the UK's Portable Antiquities Scheme and the UK DetectorFindsDatabase, that coins are well overrepresented (on most sites in Britain coin finds will not make up more than 5-6% of the assemblage of metal finds, if that). So it seems quite clear that this "user-driven recording" is leading to a bias introduced into the record.
One therefore notes the proportion of personal ornaments and dress fittings in the table of contents. This looks like a table of collectables rather than the actual contents of the archaeological record of the whole of Denmark
Another problem of having metal detectorists recording their own finds and a lack of handson supervision ensuring data quality are inconsistent use of terms. For example, there are 1687 records of DirhEms, eighteen of DirhAms and even five DirhIms. Useless.
Equally useless are a large number (how many?) where you have something like this:
Støbekegle · Støberest 209825 https://www.metaldetektorfund.dk/ny/fund/?dimeid=209825 Støbekegle · Støberest med DIME-nummer 209825 blev fundet ved afsøgning d. 08. april 2023 i Frederikssund Kommune. Genstandens tilstand er ikke angivet og den er endnu ikke dateret. Materialet er ikke identificeret og finder har ikke oplyst genstandens mål og vægt.[trans. Casting cone · Casting residue 209825 Casting cone · Casting residue with DIME number 209825 was found during a search on 08 April 2023 in Frederikssund Municipality. The condition of the item is not stated and it has not yet been dated. The material has not been identified and the finder has not disclosed the object's measurements and weight.]
First of all, the object shown in the photo is not a casting cone, though it might be a sprue, the single photo showing one side is not at all informative. The actual date of the search is not archaeologically as important as where in the whole of the 250,61 km² of Frederikssund Kommune it was found, and with what else. Even if you search for other finds made on the same day from Frederikssund Kommune , you still do not get a clue as to the archaeological background to this find. So what does the record here in DIME tell us about the archaeology of the site from which it came? (spoiler: nothing, this is just 'show and tell', not "citizen science").
While one commends the fact that its not all metal detector finds, one wonders how much information we are getting from bulking out the record with individual burnt stones ("archaeological observations" in the table of contents) with no information whether they form a cluster in the field with anything else:
Brændt/ildskørnet flint med DIME-nummer 132311 blev fundet ved afsøgning d. 28. august 2021 i Frederikssund Kommune. Genstandens tilstand er ikke angivet og den dateres til stenalder (ca. 250000 f.Kr. - 1701 f.Kr.). Den består af flint, og finder har ikke oplyst genstandens mål og vægt.Burnt/fire chipped flint with DIME number 132311 was found during a search on 28 August 2021 in Frederikssund Municipality. The condition of the item is not stated and it is dated to the Stone Age (approx. 250000 BC - 1701 BC). It consists of flint, and the finder has not disclosed the object's dimensions and weight.
We may compare that with another one:
Brændt/ildskørnet flint med DIME-nummer 209336 blev fundet ved afsøgning d. 07. april 2023 i Varde Kommune. Genstandens tilstand er ikke angivet og den dateres til oldtid (ca. 250000 f.Kr. - 1066). Den består af flint, og finder har ikke oplyst genstandens mål og vægt.Burnt/fire chipped flint with DIME number 209336 was found during a search on 07 April 2023 in Varde Municipality. The condition of the item is not specified and it dates to ancient times (approx. 250000 BC - 1066). It consists of flint, and the finder has not disclosed the object's dimensions and weight.
Again, amateurish handheld photos where part of the object is obscured, no scale. Can't these "citizen scientists" do any better? Note, on the front page of DIME is a "how to take better photos" guide - obviously, not everyone is reading it, but hey, doesn't matter does it because they are all anonymous.
Then you can visit the front page... "10 SPÆNDENDE FUND", it shouts. Clicking on the links to these "exciting" items, you get things like this: "Dirhem 209946
Dirhem med DIME-nummer 209946 blev fundet ved afsøgning d. 09. april 2023 i Thisted Kommune [...]" with a huge narrativisation - presumably by the finder who reckons themself to be a bit of an expert on Islamic silver coins... which reads like anything written by a coiney.
Yet, the findspot within "Thisted Kommune" is nowhere given, and: "Genstandens tilstand er ikke angivet og den dateres til vikingetid (ca. 750 - 1066). Den består af sølv, og finder har ikke oplyst genstandens mål og væg ["The condition of the object is not specified and it is dated to the Viking Age (approx. 750 - 1066). It consists of silver, and the finder has not disclosed the object's dimensions and weight "]. The photo is too small, has no scale, shows only one side of the object, no attempt has been made to transcribe the fragment of the inscription shown or describe the typology of the coin itself. The further reading is to a general book, rather than one that enlightens the reader on that particular coin. This is not "citizen science", but "show and tell". It is not related to the archaeology of the site (or landscape) it was pulled from, but a wandering and repetitive object-centric tale.Typebeskrivelse [...], Baggrund [...], Symbolsk betydning [...], Typer og variationer [...] [Reference-illustration] [...], Særlige kendetegn og forvekslingsmuligheder [...] . [...] Læs mereType description [...], Background [...], Symbolic Meaning [...], Types and Variations [...] [Reference Illustration] [...], Special characteristics and possibilities of confusion [...] . [...] Read moreSilver Economies, Monetisation and Society in Scandinavia AD 800–1100. Edited by James Graham-Campbell , Søren Sindbæk and Gareth Williams . Aarhus: Aarhus University Press 2011.
The portal promises a definition of the term "Danefae" (property of the state, must be handed-in)... but no such page appears in the portal, despite it operating five years... On the other hand, one can see many examples of the pandering-talk that the UK\'s PAS uses to address artefact hunters and their concerns, which is a bit pathetic to see alongside the portal's (anonymous) authors' attempts to present Danish artefact hunters as the best in the world in terms of their responsible and public-spirited behaviour ("citizen scientists" all of 'em). The details of what these "citizen scientists" are doing to the public's heritage are kept from the public: "Can others see my locations? "No! Finds and private information are only visible to you, museum archaeologists and researchers with special access", ''The closest public users or other detector users come to is the municipality in which a find was made". So what kind of a public record and transparency/responsibility is that? What are "my locations" in archaeological terms?
Læs mere
Læs mere
Dobat, A. S., Christiansen, T. T., Jessen, M. D., Henriksen, M. B., Jensen, P., Laursen, S. V., Ruhe, R., Holst, M. K., & Arntsen, F. (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://doi.org/10.7146/dja.v8i0.111422
No comments:
Post a Comment