=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2364/43_paper
|storemode=property
|title=A Citizen Science Approach to Archaeology: Finnish Archaeological Finds Recording Linked Open Database (SuALT)
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2364/43_paper.pdf
|volume=Vol-2364
|authors=Anna Wessman,Suzie Thomas,Ville Rohiola,Jutta Kuitunen,Esko Ikkala,Jouni Tuominen,Mikko Koho,Eero Hyvönen
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/dhn/WessmanTRKITKH19
}}
==A Citizen Science Approach to Archaeology: Finnish Archaeological Finds Recording Linked Open Database (SuALT)==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2364/43_paper.pdf
A Citizen Science Approach to Archaeology:
Finnish Archaeological Finds Recording Linked
Open Database (SuALT)
Anna Wessman1[0000−0001−6886−5455] , Suzie Thomas1[0000−0002−3365−0136] , Ville
Rohiola2 , Jutta Kuitunen2 , Esko Ikkala3[0000−0002−9571−7260] , Jouni
Tuominen3,4[0000−0003−4789−5676] , Mikko Koho3[0000−0002−7373−9338] , and Eero
Hyvönen3,4[0000−0003−1695−5840]
1
Department of Cultures, University of Helsinki, Finland
firstname.lastname@helsinki.fi, anna.wessman@helsinki.fi
2
Finnish Heritage Agency, Finland
http://www.nba.fi, firstname.lastname@museovirasto.fi
3
Semantic Computing Research Group (SeCo), Aalto University, Finland
http://seco.cs.aalto.fi, firstname.lastname@aalto.fi
4
HELDIG – Helsinki Centre for Digital Humanities, University of Helsinki, Finland
http://heldig.fi
Abstract. In this paper, we present an ongoing project called Finnish
Archaeological Finds Recording Linked Open Database (Suomen arke-
ologisten löytöjen linkitetty avoin tietokanta – SuALT), including the
reasons why this citizen science project is underway. SuALT will be a dig-
ital web service catering for discoveries of archaeological material made
by the public; especially, but not exclusively, metal-detectorists. SuALT
engages the citizens by providing them access to contextualized data
about other related finds by linking data from different data sources in
Finland and beyond. SuALT is a collaborative consortium project. The
project team members work in three sub-projects, each led by a dif-
ferent organization and thus represents a broad interdisciplinary group,
that combines specialisms from archaeology, semantic computing, cul-
tural heritage studies, and archaeological heritage management. Subpro-
ject 1, which is based at the Department of Cultures at the University
of Helsinki, focuses on user needs research and on the public Cultural
Heritage interactions. Subproject 2, based in both Aalto University and
in Helsinki Centre for Digital Humanities at the University of Helsinki,
is specializing on the technology and implementation of the SuALT pro-
totype. Subproject 3 works with ensuring the sustainability of SuALT
at the Finnish Heritage Agency, the organization that will manage the
database after the end of this project in 2021.
Keywords: metal-detecting · linked data · citizen science.
470
1 Introduction
The relationship between metal-detecting and archaeology is an issue that fre-
quently attracts debate, from testimonials of the positive impact of collaborative
work (e.g. [3]) through to caution about the potential of metal-detecting to result
rather in destroyed archaeological information, and criminal activity (e.g. [12]).
The reception of metal-detecting in different countries is affected also by the le-
gal status of the hobby. Because there are different degrees of permission relating
to metal-detecting activity, it is possible to carry out the same activity in two
different jurisdictions, and to be breaking the law in one while acting perfectly
legally in another [25, p. 143].
In countries where metal-detecting is not illegal, sometimes referred to as ’lib-
eral’ in this respect, many have sought practical solutions to capture the data
that metal-detectorists may be uncovering in their hobby. Deckers et al. have
argued that ”[T]hose with a liberal approach to metal-detecting might prag-
matically argue that the data of finds discovered by metal-detectorists is more
important than the source” [7, p. 428]. This wish to record the finds data discov-
ered by metal-detectorists, as well as a philosophy to democratize and decolonize
archaeology (e.g. [9]), has led to the development and implementation of several
national and regional open databases to which metal-detectorists and others can
report their finds. Metal-detecting is legal in Finland, provided certain rules are
followed, such as prompt reporting of finds to the authorities and avoidance of
legally-protected sites. Despite misgivings by some about the value of research-
ing metal-detected finds (e.g. [18,16]), others have convincingly demonstrated
the potential of researching such finds [17,28].
In this paper, we present an ongoing project Finnish Archaeological Finds
Recording Linked Open Database (Suomen arkeologisten löytöjen linkitetty avoin
tietokanta – SuALT), including the reasons why this citizen science project is un-
derway. SuALT is a digital web service catering for discoveries of archaeological
material made by the public; especially, but not exclusively, metal-detectorists.
SuALT engages the citizens by providing them access to contextualized data
about other related finds by linking data from different data sources in Fin-
land and beyond. SuALT is a collaborative consortium project, with project
team members working in three sub-projects, each led by a different organiza-
tion. Hence, the University of Helsinki’s Department of Cultures is responsible
for the user needs research and on the public Cultural Heritage interactions,
the Semantic Computing Group at Aalto University along with HELDIG – the
Helsinki Centre for Digital Humanities, University of Helsinki, specializes on the
technology and implementation of the SuALT prototype, and finally the Finnish
Heritage Agency for the third component, which is ensuring the sustainability
of SuALT. The project’s team represents a broad interdisciplinary group, that
combines specialisms from archaeology, semantic computing, cultural heritage
studies, and archaeological heritage management.
471
2 Metal-detecting in Finland
The Finnish Heritage Agency (FHA) is responsible for protecting archaeological
cultural heritage in Finland, including a liability for collecting archaeological
artefacts. In Finland, metal-detecting is allowed without a separate permit in
all places, in which law or prohibitions have not forbidden it. Metal-detectorists
should ask the landowner for permission to dig on private land.
The Finnish Antiquities Act [2] forbids unauthorized metal-detecting on ar-
chaeological sites and the protected areas around them. Once an archaeological
feature is discovered, the site is automatically protected and the site must not
be disturbed further. The Antiquities Act also obligates the finder of a movable
ancient object that does not have a known owner, and that is at least 100 years
old, to immediately report and submit the object and associated information
to the Finnish Heritage Agency. In some regions, provincial museums or city
museums have a collaboration agreement with the FHA. Those museums with
professional archaeologist often act also as mediators for reported archaeological
artefacts that are handed to them by metal-detectorists and other finders.
In Finland, recreational metal-detecting has grown rapidly in recent years.
The number of finds registered to the Archaeological Collections of the Finnish
Heritage Agency has increased tenfold compared to the time before metal-
detecting became widely popular in Finland. In the middle of the 2010s, the
number of finds registered to the FHA Archaeological Collections ranged yearly
from 2500 to 3000 objects [20, p. 18],[30, p. 85],[21]. In recent years, the number
of reported objects has slightly decreased and at the same time, the amount of
assemblages has evidently increased. Improvement indicates that there are con-
tinuously more assemblages reported that include only one or just a few finds,
which is an important enhancement for metal-detecting in Finland. This is a
step towards the right direction to find new sites rather than digging up too
many objects. Hopefully this is a direct result of the educational work done by
the FHA as well as archaeologists working in museums and in Universities.
3 A Citizen Science Approach
Due to SuALT’s goal to encourage metal-detectorists, but also other finders of
chance material, to record their discoveries, much of the data handled through
the online system will be from outside of formal archaeological excavations.
Hence it may shed light on sites and features not usually picked up through ’tra-
ditional’ fieldwork approaches. By engaging meaningfully with metal-detectorists
and other stakeholders, the project hopes to ensure that more finds are reported
than at present, including retrospective recording.
The project is unique in responding to the archaeological conditions in Fin-
land, and in providing solutions to its users’ needs within the context of Finnish
society and cultural heritage legislation. While it focuses primarily on the metal-
detecting community, its results and the software tools developed are applicable
more generally to other fields of citizen science in cultural heritage, and even
472
beyond. For example, in many areas of collecting (e.g. coins, stamps, guns, or
art), much cultural heritage knowledge as well as collections are accumulated and
maintained by skillful amateurs and private collectors. Engagement with SuALT
is rewarded by providing the users with a personalized view to the database en-
riched with data from the national authorities as well as the fellow detectorists
for community building. Fostering collaboration, and integrating and linking
these resources with those in national memory organizations would be beneficial
to all parties involved, and points to future applications of the model developed
by SuALT [26].
The benefits of SuALT, aside from the huge potential for regional, national,
and transnational research projects and international collaboration, are that it
offers long term savings on costs, shares expertise, and provides greater sustain-
ability than was possible before. Internationally, SuALT corresponds with the de-
velopment of comparable schemes in other European countries and regions (e.g.
Portable Antiquities Scheme – PAS, Portable Antiquities Scheme of the Nether-
lands – PAN, MEDEA in Flanders, Belgium, and Digitale metaldetektorfund in
Denmark – DIME). The first of these European voluntary finds databases is the
Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) operating across England and Wales. PAS
has been significant in developing a pragmatic response to metal-detecting. Nu-
merous academic projects (e.g. [5,6]) have demonstrated the research potential
of finds data. Furthermore, research emerging from different European countries
(e.g. [9,24,8]), including Finland [15,18,30,29], sheds light on the behaviour and
motivations of metal-detectorists. This is valuable for understanding these com-
munities ethnographically, but also for identifying the most successful ways in
which to collaborate and engage, especially concerning how they contribute to
the archaeological record. These European schemes, together with SuALT, all
aspire to an ultimate goal of a pan-European research infrastructure, and will
work together to a larger international collaborative research grant in the fu-
ture. A contribution of our work in relation to the other European projects is to
employ the Linked Data paradigm, which facilitates better interoperability with
related datasets, additional data enrichment based on well-defined semantics and
reasoning, and therefore better means for analysing and using the finds data in
research and applications. SuALT initiated a questionnaire survey in 2018 to
reach out to the public – including mainly metal-detectorists but also archae-
ologists and other heritage professionals – and hear what they think about the
upcoming database. This was an opportunity for respondents to express their
preferences and hopes, as well as concerns, about how the new database will
function.
The data collection took place in the form of an online questionnaire survey
available in Finnish and English, asking a range of multiple choice and open text
questions. These questions ranged from expectations and previous experiences
of artefact databases, through to motivation and more detailed features and user
needs of the future SuALT infrastructure. We also asked about the willingness of
respondents to contribute to the future development of the database, for example
473
by participating in focus groups or user need (UX) interviews, or even testing
early versions of SuALT for operability.
The questionnaire surveys gained a total of 178 responses mostly from Fin-
land (160), but also from Europe and the USA. This shows that the SuALT
project has already in its early stages gained interest from the public, and we
were pleasantly surprised at the response rate [31].
The majority of the answers expressed enthusiasm towards the database. The
main motivations mentioned for using SuALT in the future were the sense of re-
sponsibility to report finds correctly and legally (73.3%), and the chance to get
feedback on finds (72.6%). Approximately 58% of the respondents also wanted
to use the database for social interaction online via discussion forums or chats.
Over 50% felt that they wanted to ’do the right thing’ by reporting their finds to
the database [31]. The key elements in mobilizing detectorists seems thus to be
the feedback from the professional archaeologists and heritage managers. This
has been seen also before in questionnaires (e.g. [23, p. 38–39],[18]) and re-
flects similar findings also from other countries where there is active engagement
between archaeologists and metal-detectorists [32, p. 16,18],[24, p. 61–62], [11].
On the other hand, there were also concerns. 54% of the respondents were
worried that sharing their find information in SuALT would make the sites vul-
nerable to looters. This is a justified concern that could prevent people from
using the database. Other obstacles that could hinder the future users of SuALT
were a lack of internet access in the field, which is a genuine concern in Lapland
(48.4%) and a fear that the recording would be too time-consuming (23.8%).
This is a matter we need to take seriously during the development phases of
the database in order to avoid such pitfalls. Almost a quarter of all respon-
dents felt that they do not want to share information about their finds publicly
(24.6%) [31]. This might relate to the competition amongst metal-detectorists
and the fact that detectorists want to keep knowledge of ’their’ sites to them-
selves (e.g. [1, p. 56–59],[19, p. 95]). Naturally this also relates to genuine fears
of looting.
In the future we would also like potential users – especially metal-detectorists
and archaeologists – to test out the software and give feedback at each stage to
make sure that SuALT remains user-friendly and meets their expectations. We
are currently conducting user need research by interviewing future users of the
database, to hear their opinions and wishes regarding the contents and privacy
policy of the database and the functionalities of the user interface. In these
discussions several opinions and views have come up, which the project can take
into use already in this development phase.
The project has an active blog5 and social media presence on Twitter6 and
Facebook7 , through which we post research updates as well as sharing other rel-
evant news, for example related to our ’cousin’ projects elsewhere in Europe. We
also give talks at different events aimed at diverse audiences, from archaeology
5
https://blogs.helsinki.fi/sualt-project/
6
https://twitter.com/sualtproject
7
https://www.facebook.com/SuALTProject/
474
students to metal-detectorists, to digital humanists. In addition to a final project
conference, we are discussing the possibility of having smaller public events in
different parts of Finland at different points in the project, to allow people to
hear about progress and to ask questions. One idea would be to organize public
workshops for testing the database early on.
4 The Infrastructure
Publishing the information produced by citizens as open data, in a structured
format and using open licenses and standards, facilitates the use of the data in
research. Similarly, open data – and open access publishing of scientific results,
methods and tools – enables the engagement of citizen scientists in scientific
activities [27, p. 483],[22, p. 24]. The recent advancements in web technologies,
including the Linked Data paradigm [13,14], have proliferated the initiatives for
making cultural heritage data openly available on the web. While archaeologists
increasingly use finds information and other data, its full utilization is still lim-
ited. Data can be hard to find, and available open data remains fragmented.
Although in Finland more and more archaeological archive material is available
in digitized form, like excavation reports and find catalogues, the situation is
no different in Finland caused by the delays before objects are catalogued and
accessible for research due to limited resources. SuALT aims to speed up the
process of managing finds data, making it available more quickly for academic
researchers and public to use.
Based on the initial feedback from the stakeholder organizations of the Su-
ALT project and the metal-detecting community discussed above, a first draft
of the of the workflow in the SuALT system has been designed (Fig. 1). The end
user is facilitated with a web interface that helps her in 1) analysing the find, 2)
creating the find report with high quality metadata at the find site (via a mobile
phone), and 3) later on in managing her personal finds data via a PC with a
larger screen. The user can interact with the metal-detecting and expert com-
munity through the web interface to get feedback and help the identification of
the find. The underlying knowledge base is based on Linked Data and SPARQL
endpoint, containing existing finds data from the Finnish Heritage Agency as
seed data, and other archaeological information (e.g., museum item collections
data). The knowledge base is linked to other European Finds databases, provid-
ing users access to contextual information. The Linked Data Finland platform8
is used for hosting the data as a service.
5 Public and Community Engagement Challenges
One of the most important challenges for SuALT is that it is successful in en-
gaging the public in its work, especially hobbyist metal-detectorists, who we
anticipate will make the majority of reportable discoveries. Metal-detecting is
8
http://ldf.fi
475
Fig. 1. Workflow in SuALT.
a growing hobby in Finland, and likely represents the majority of avocational
hobbyists that are physically engaging with archaeological material. Another im-
portant goal is to get Finland’s professional archaeological community to accept
SuALT as both a repository of research-worthy data and as a place to guide
public enquiries about reporting finds. Although the Finnish Heritage Agency
will have primary responsibility for the resource once the project completes after
2021, it is important that SuALT is known to, and used by, archaeologists who
are also based in other institutions such as university departments and muse-
ums, as well as independent researchers and freelancers [26]. According to our
surveys and ongoing user experience research, there is a lot of interest among
archaeologists and researchers in this database but also an interest to participate
in validating and interpreting finds [31].
The outcome of the SuALT user need research so far has resulted in a dilemma
– whose wishes should we listen to and what should we do with suggestions that
are not used or are in conflict with each other? This is a common issue for
participatory approaches – that even communities with shared interests do not
represent a homogeneous group, with many contradictory opinions and values
coming to the fore (see e.g. [10] for discussion of these challenges in the context
of participatory planning and heritage tourism). Even though we are a partici-
patory project, we naturally also need to proceed with the developing phase of
the database, which means that we have to make decisions that might not be
pleasing to everyone. But if the outcome of the project is a database that is not
accepted by our key stakeholders then there is a fear that it will not be used.
The solution to this dilemma lies in keeping up a constant dialogue with
all the future users of the database throughout the development process, and
in trying to acknowledge different opinions but also being honest about the
fact that everybody’s wishes might not come to fruition. It’s also important to
acknowledge that metal-detectorists might have different reasons for utilizing
476
this database. For some, it might be a tool through which they can obtain
status by exhibiting their own expertise in validating objects, while for others
the opportunity for social engagement through e.g. a chat forum is most valued.
Therefore, the main question might be how much the metal-detecting community
will actually gain from joining the database and taking it into active use. If they
feel that they do not gain anything new from this, then it might not be a tempting
option and we risk that they do not record their finds data at all [26].
6 Conclusions and Ways Forward
The process of developing SuALT provides an unprecedented opportunity to
research the use of digital platforms to engage the public with archaeological
heritage in Finland. As a self-recording scheme, SuALT will in time also demon-
strate in what ways the public can engage with the official processes of the
Finnish Heritage Agency.
Inspired by successful initiatives such as our ’cousin projects’ PAS, PAN,
DIME, and MEDEA, the potential for individuals to self-record their finds into
the database also echoes the emerging use of crowdsourcing for public archae-
ology initiatives [4]. Therefore, SuALT offers a significant opportunity to con-
tribute to further understanding of digital cultural heritage and its uses, includ-
ing its potential role within society.
Because the current funding is for just a finite amount of time, a key challenge
in guaranteeing the sustainability will be to make sure that there are investments
in maintaining and upgrading the software in the future. Like all digital inter-
faces, it cannot and will not run smoothly if it is just left to its own devices
without monitoring and dedicated staff time. Equally, in many ways SuALT is
simply ’phase one’ of potential future innovations, and as such we may discover
yet more questions requiring further research at the end of the project’s funding
period. Similarly, it is likely that the research infrastructure and database itself
will require updates and upgrades, as software and user needs expand and evolve
over time. One key element to ensure the sustainability of SuALT is collabora-
tion of different user-levels, for example, active communication between different
users and levels of experience in archaeology.
Acknowledgements
SuALT project is funded by the Academy of Finland under decision numbers
310854, 310859, and 310860. The authors wish to acknowledge CSC – IT Center
for Science, Finland, for computational resources.
References
1. Addyman, P.: Before the Portable Antiquities Scheme. In: Thomas, S., Stone,
P.G. (eds.) Metal detecting and archaeology, pp. 51–61. Boydell Press, Woodbridge
(2009)
477
2. Antiquities Act. 295/1963, https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/1963/
19630295, accessed September 31, 2108 (in Finnish only)
3. Balco, W., Worick, C.P., Shaw, C.A.: It takes a community to bridge the
professional-avocational divide: Collaborative archaeology at the Yahoola High
Trestle. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage 5(1), 30–44 (2018), https:
//doi.org/10.1080/20518196.2017.1324594
4. Bonacchi, C., Pett, D., Bevan, A., Keinan-Schoonbaert, A.: Experiments in crowd-
funding community archaeology. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage
2(3), 184–198 (2015)
5. Brindle, T.: Making the most of PAS data: Macro- and micro-level studies of
Romano-British settlement. Landscapes 14(1), 73–91 (2013), https://doi.org/
10.1179/1466203513Z.0000000001
6. Campbell, G.: Ampullae, re-imbursed: a formal analysis of medieval “shell-shaped”
lead-alloy pilgrim ampullae. Journal of Medieval Art and Architecture 5(2), 97–134
(2015), http://digital.kenyon.edu/perejournal/vol5/iss2/6
7. Deckers, P., Dobat, A., Ferguson, N., Heeren, S., Lewis, M., Thomas, S.: The
complexities of metal detecting policy and practice: A response to Samuel Hardy,
’Quantitative analysis of open-source data on metal detecting for cultural property’
(Cogent Social Sciences 3, 2017). Open Archaeology 4(1), 322–333 (2018), https:
//doi.org/10.1515/opar-2018-0019
8. Dobat, A.S., Jensen, A.T.: ’Professional amateurs’. metal detecting and metal de-
tectorists in Denmark. Open Archaeology 2(1), 70–84 (2016)
9. Dobat, A.S.: Between rescue and research: An evaluation after 30 years
of liberal metal detecting in archaeological research and heritage prac-
tice in Denmark. European Journal of Archaeology 16(4), 704–725 (2013).
https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957113Y.0000000041, https://doi.org/10.1179/
1461957113Y.0000000041
10. Dragouni, M., Fouseki, K., Georgantzis, N.: Community participation in heritage
tourism planning: is it too much to ask? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 26(5),
759–781 (2018)
11. Ferguson, N.: Biting the bullet: the role of hobbyist metal detecting within bat-
tlefield archaeology. Internet archaeology 33 (2013), https://doi.org/10.11141/
ia.33.3
12. Gill, D.: The Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Treasure Act: Protecting the
archaeology of England and Wales? Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 20,
1–11 (2010), https://doi.org/10.5334/pia.333
13. Heath, T., Bizer, C.: Linked Data: Evolving the Web into a Global Data Space
(1st edition). Synthesis Lectures on the Semantic Web: Theory and Technology,
Morgan & Claypool (2011), http://linkeddatabook.com/editions/1.0/
14. Hyvönen, E.: Publishing and Using Cultural Heritage Linked Data on the Semantic
Web. Morgan & Claypool, Palo Alto, CA (2012)
15. Immonen, V., Kinnunen, J.: ’Quidditching’ and the emergence of new heritage
identities – amateur metal detecting in Finland. Public Archaeology 15(4), 163–
185 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1080/14655187.2017.1352188
16. Knuutinen, T.: 284 syytä nostaa kissa pöydälle. Raaseporin Slottsmalmenin
tapaus, metallinilmaisinharrastajat ja arkeologinen tutkimus. SKAS 2017(1), 3–14
(2017)
17. Kuusela, J.M., Ikäheimo, J., Hakamäki, V., Vilkama, R., Salmi, A.K.: Suutarin-
niemi: The late iron age/early medieval cemetery of Ii (Northern Ostrobothnia,
Finland). In: Fennoscandia archaeologica XXX, pp. 126–132. Archaeological Soci-
ety of Finland (2013)
478
18. Maaranen, P.: Metal detecting and archaeology in Finland: An overview of the
hobby and its consequences. Iskos 21, 273–284 (2016)
19. Rasmussen, J.: Securing cultural heritage objects and fencing stolen goods? a case
study on museums and metal detecting in Norway. Norwegian Archaeological Re-
view 47(1), 83–107 (2014)
20. Rohiola, V.: Metallinilmaisinlöydöt ja harrastajat. katsaus Kansallismuseon
kokoelmien metallinilmaisinlöytöihin vv. 2011–2014. SKAS 2014(2), 17–25 (2014)
21. Rohiola, V.: Metallinilmaisinlöydöt kartuttavat Museoviraston kokoelmia. Kult-
tuurista perinnöksi 2017(1) (2017), http://www.kulttuuristaperinnoksi.fi/
valokeilassa?Article=6487, accessed 17.4.2018
22. Serrano Sanz, F., Holocher-Ertl, T., Kieslinger, B., Sanz Garcı́a, F., Silva, C.G.:
White paper on citizen science for Europe. Tech. rep., Socientize consortium (2014),
http://www.socientize.eu/?q=eu/content/white-paper-citizen-science, ac-
cessed 4.12.2015
23. Siltainsuu, J., Wessman, A.: Yhteistapahtumia ja esineiden tunnistusta. Espoon
kaupunginmuseon metallinilmaisinyhteistyö vuonna 2014. Muinaistutkija 2014(3),
34–40 (2014)
24. Thomas, S.: Searching for answers: A survey of metal-detector users in the UK.
International Journal of Heritage Studies 18(1), 49–64 (2012)
25. Thomas, S.: The future of studying hobbyist metal detecting in Europe: A call for
a transnational approach. Open Archaeology 2(1), 140–149 (2016)
26. Thomas, S.E., Wessman, A.P.F., Ikkala, E., Tuominen, J.A., Koho, M., Hyvönen,
E.A., Rohiola, V.: (Co-)creating a sustainable platform for Finland’s archaeological
chance finds: The story of SuALT. In: Watrall, E., Goldstein, L. (eds.) Digital
Heritage and Archaeology in Practice. University Press of Florida (submitted)
27. Vayena, E., Tasioulas, J.: ”We the scientists”: A human right to citizen sci-
ence. Philosophy & Technology 28(3), 479–485 (2015), https://doi.org/10.
1007/s13347-015-0204-0
28. Wessman, A.: Women along the river banks: New iron age finds from Espoo. In:
Harjula, J., Helamaa, M., Haarala, J., Immonen, V. (eds.) Mankby: A deserted
medieval village on the coast of southern Finland, pp. 17–29. Archaeologia medii
Aevi Finlandiae XXI, Society for Medieval Archaeology in Finland (2016)
29. Wessman, A.: Searching for the past: Metal detecting and its impact on cultural
heritage in Finland. In: Bintley, M., Hines, J., Richardson, A., Seaman, A., Swift,
E. (eds.) Neue Studien Zur Sachsenforschung. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss Verlag
(2019, forthcoming)
30. Wessman, A., Koivisto, L., Thomas, S.: Metal detecting in Finland: An ongo-
ing debate. Open Archaeology 2(1), 85–96 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1515/
opar-2016-0006
31. Wessman, A., Thomas, S., Rohiola, V., Koho, M., Ikkala, E., Tuominen, J.,
Hyvönen, E., Kuitunen, J., Parviainen, H., Niukkanen, M.: Citizen science in ar-
chaeology: Developing a collaborative web service tool for archaeological finds in
Finland. In: Jameson, J., Musteata, S. (eds.) Transforming Heritage Practice in
the 21st Century – Contributions from Community Archaeology. One World Ar-
chaeology, Springer (forthcoming)
32. Winkley, F.: Talking to metal detectorists in the field: A methodology for analysing
motivations and attitudes to landscape. Public Archaeology 15(4), 186–213 (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1080/14655187.2017.1359914