Identifying sites at risk from illicit metal detecting: from CRAVED to HOPPER

Abstract

Alasdair Booth is currently a Doctoral Student at Loughborough University and also a serving police officer in the Lincolnshire Police. Alasdair led the force's response to heritage crime involving the theft of artefacts through illicit metal detecting. Alasdair's interests are in the illicit trade in antiquities and organised crime.2 Identifying sites at risk from illicit metal detecting: from CRAVED to HOPPER AbstractArchaeological sites are at risk from acquisitive crime: this paper focuses in particular on illicit metal detecting. The effects of theft in this context are not merely financial, but have devastating impact on our knowledge and understanding of the site. Even where items are later recovered, we lose the vital clues about the precise context of an object. We therefore need to reduce the risk of theft occurring in the first place. This paper draws on case studies from England and presents a new methodology to assess which archaeological sites may be at risk from illicit metal detecting: 'HOPPER' identifies the characteristics of sites likely to be targeted by offenders looking for antiquities. In brief: History (a history of finds at the site); Open (the site has physical public access, and/or is documented in the public domain); Protection (protected status can act as a beacon for offenders); Publicity (site is known about or receiving new attention); Evasion (there are known ways to escape apprehension); and Repeat victimisation (The site has been a target before). The impact of HOPPER will be its use in the field to develop a pragmatic risk assessment applicable both in a local and international context. KeywordsHeritage crime, illicit metal detecting, portable antiquities, crime prevention, archaeology Heritage crime is an international problem, defined as 'any activity that is prohibited by law that causes loss of, damage to, or other harm to places, monuments or objects considered to be heritage' (Thomas and Grove 2014, 5). The range of assets considered to be heritage is broad, and can include: listed buildings, scheduled monuments, world heritage sites, protected marine wreck sites; conservation areas, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields, protected military remains, and undesignated, but acknowledged heritage buildings and sites (English Heritage 2011). There are also many intangible aspects to cultural heritage, such as skills, rituals and traditions (UNESCO n.d.). Although our focus for the present paper is physical heritage, due to the diverse and rich history of England we are privileged to have an extensive range of both tangible and intangible heritage preserved across the country. However, such a range of historic assets can present significant challenges from a crime and security point of view. Many heritage sites are remote and rurally located, often isolated from extant settlements. This isolation may be perceived as presenting an attractive opportunity to offenders, as acquisitive crime may be carried out with a relatively low risk of apprehension.One particular...

Culture, heritage looting, and tourism: A text mining review approach

“…Crowds in a heritage area can have a negative impact on cultural heritage, causing damage and property thefts (e.g., Stone, 2012 ; Grove et al, 2018 ; Al-Ansi et al, 2021 ). For instance, the floor can be damaged due to the flow of visitors, visitors can also leave trash, steal objects, or cause other damages (e.g., Evans-Pritchard, 1993 ; Egloff and Sayavongkhamedy, 2018 ; Grove et al, 2018 ). The public access and the respective damages caused can also be observed in looting and plundering underwater sites, such as shipwrecks ( Grove et al, 2018 ).…”

What is this thing called the PAS? Metal detecting entanglements in England and Wales

“…When considering the dark-figure problem of unreported finds, it is important not to confuse the issues of illegally-detected finds and legally-detected though unreported finds, nor to develop an analytical polarisation between legal and illegal detecting, which problematizes illegal detecting while accepting legal detecting and implicitly the non-reporting of legal finds. The PAS is actively involved with Historic England in identifying and helping to prosecute incidents of illegal metal-detecting and has tried to quantify the problem (Bland 2009;Daubney 2017;Daubney and Nicholas 2019;Grove et al 2018), though relevant published research has largely been conducted by a single FLO. The primary purpose of the PAS, however, as described, is not to combat illegal detecting but to secure the recording of legally-detected and other chance finds so that the information can be used for research in the public interest (Bland 2008: 78;Bland et al 2017: 115).…”

Preventing crime against cultural and archaeological sites

“…A commonly used framework within crime prevention is that of CRAVED (Clarke, 1999) which identifies items which are likely to be stolen: those which are concealable, removable, available, valuable, enjoyable and disposable. Whilst initially developed for use in generic acquisitive crime, the framework has been adapted to more specific situations such as livestock theft in Malawi (Sidebottom, 2013); parrot poaching in Bolivia (Pires & Clarke, 2012) and the antiquities market (Grove, Daubney & Booth, 2018).…”