Detecting Controversy
By KEVIN CANFIELD
The Hartford Courant
January 19, 2001SHARON - Few in this small town on the New York line seem to care about a proposal to prevent people with metal detectors from removing items found on public land.
But how about metal detector enthusiasts?
They care. They care a lot.
Angry "detectorists" from across the country have taken to Internet chat rooms to register their displeasure with what they see as an infringement on their rights as hobbyists, though officials say they are only trying to act as caretakers of local history and to protect any historical artifacts that may be buried underground.
"God forbid you remove something from the ground," wrote Bruce Purpura of West Bridgewater, Mass., in a message dripping with sarcasm. "Let's leave it there to rot!"
Fueled by Connecticut hobbyists who alerted others of the situation, chat rooms on two sites that are favorites of metal detector enthusiasts, The Treasure Depot and Findmall, have been abuzz for about a week.
A week ago Thursday, correspondents from New Hampshire, New York, Maryland, Colorado, Massachusetts and Connecticut posted messages about Sharon on the sites. The online discussion continued into this week.
"I'm always up for giving these people a piece of my mind," Jason Joseph of Fort Collins, Colo., wrote last week in response to a message urging metal detector users to send letters to Sharon town officials. "They are probably Demonrats and union members." (First Selectman Bob Moeller, the most well-known local backer of the proposed ban, is neither a Demonrat nor Democrat; he's a Republican.)
Said Brookfield resident and detectorist Conrad Rasinski of the proposal, "That's hot news among us enthusiasts. We stick together. We're brothers in our hobby."
The matter became an issue last fall when a stranger gave the local historical society some antique hoe blades, and a few coins and buttons that looked to be from the 19th-century.
A nice gesture? Maybe, but some residents were troubled when they learned that the donor had pulled the items from the soilbeneath the town green. After all, reasoned members of the historical society and some town officials, that's public property.
A law was passed in 1989 that prohibits archaeological digs on state public land without a permit. But municipalities have to deal with their land on their own.
These impromptu archaeological digs had been happening with increasing regularity - several townspeople, including the first selectman, had seen men with metal detectors patrolling the green. Officials and local preservationists began talking: What if a detectorist decided to keep an item of historical value that actually belongs to the town? What if, in the process of unearthing an item, others of greater importance were destroyed?
"It's a bit of an intrusion," said William Trowbridge, a member of the historical society board.
"Being that this is public property and maintained by taxpayers, the taxpayers should be able to use this property in a responsible manner," Joseph said in an interview. "Unless there are reports of vandalism or damage by these metal detectorists, then what harm could they possibly be causing?"
"For the most part," said Jim Yates, a metal detector enthusiast from Kingston, N.Y., "a metal detector will only see a few inches into the ground. We mainly look for coins or buttons, and very few finds from these public areas hold any historical or even any monetary value."
After an autumn of complaints from a few residents, officials began considering an ordinance that would ban hunting for artifacts on public land without a permit. It could be voted on by the board of selectmen as soon as next month, but March is more likely, Moeller said.
"It's of some concern," said Moeller. "If there are things like that found on property owned by the town, we ought to be made aware of it and have an opportunity to claim ownership.
"I don't see it as taking a right away," Moeller added. "The way we were discussing the proposed ordinance, there was room for an entity like a historical society - I suppose it could even be the Connecticut metal detector club - that might have a reasonable reason to be doing it and might qualify for a permit. I don't see this as necessarily keeping out anybody who is legitimate."
None of the men who were seen digging up the green could be reached for comment, so it's unclear why they chose to look there for relics.
But Nicholas Bellantoni, the state archaeologist, said it's not surprising that they did.
"People think that because it's public land they have the right to go and dig," he said. "That's not the case. That belongs to the people of the town."
And it's not surprising that someone looking for artifacts would choose the town green, Bellantoni added.
"Someplace like the green, that's got historical context," he said. "Those town greens have been used for centuries. It's a prime spot. It's had a lot of public use; it goes back in history. The towns usually formed around those greens and many of those greens go back to the colonial period. While there may not have been a structure on them, they've had a lot of use and there are artifacts on them that have historic value."
Sharon was settled in 1732 and incorporated seven years later. The area in the center of town that is now the green may have had buildings on it then, Trowbridge said.
Trowbridge, who was trained as an archaeologist, is concerned that amateurish excavation of certain items could ruin others.
"If a guy with a metal detector yanks that coin, it eliminates the dating evidence for the rest of the artifacts in that layer," he said. "These guys with the metal detectors are destroying archaeological resources."
Rasinski and his fellow hobbyists disagree. And he's not at all surprised that his fellow detectorists have responded so passionately.
"After all, it's our hobby," he said. "And it's a very exciting hobby."