Quantitative analysis of open-source data on metal detecting for cultural property: Estimation of the scale and intensity of metal detecting and the quantity of metal-detected cultural goods

Hardy, Samuel Andrew

doi:10.1080/23311886.2017.1298397

Cited by 31 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To conclude, in this short discussion it has been demonstrated that Hardy's (2017) article is fundamentally methodically and arithmetically flawed.…”

Section: Conclusion: Hardy's Fundamental Mistakesmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Illicit Table 1: Comparison table of methods, data source, value and census date, data inflation or deflation, magnitude of data in-or deflation, source for factor used for in-or deflation, final 'low' estimate given and liberality or restrictiveness of national system used by Hardy (2017). Countries with restrictive systems shown with grey background, those with liberal systems with yellow background, the Netherlands with no colour due to recent change in this characteristic from restrictive to liberal.…”

Section: Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Estimating Numbers

2010

Starting Statistics: A Short, Clear Guide

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a recent paper in Cogent Social Sciences, 1 Samuel A. Hardy (2017) has attempted a wide-ranging comparison of the efficacy of different kinds of regulations of metal detecting. In it, he attempts to estimate the number of metal detectorists active, whether lawfully or illegally, in several different European countries, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the USA.He also attempts to estimate the 'damage' caused by their removal of artefacts ex situ. This, he does by first estimating the average amount of hours per year searched by the average metal detectorist, and then estimating the number of significant artefacts found per hour of searching. By multiplying these estimates, he arrives at the estimated number of significant artefacts removed ex situ per year in each of the examined countries, which he takes to be the 'damage' that is caused.These estimates he then compares transnationally, and arrives at the conclusion that comparably permissive or liberal regulatory regimes are ineffective in minimising harm to the archaeological heritage. Methodical and arithmetic flaws in Hardy's (2017) paperWhile I appreciate Hardy's attempt, there sadly are serious flaws both in his methodology and arithmetic, and thus also his conclusions. Since he specifically quotes a recent paper on the matter that I co-authored (Karl & Möller 2016) as the inspiration for his method of estimating the number of metal detectorists active in different jurisdictions, I feel the need to respond directly to his paper. Remarks on our methodologyThe methodology Möller and I used (also see "An empirical examination of metal detecting") in the paper cited by Hardy as an inspiration for his is based on a quite simple principle: the direct comparison of like data with like.In our paper, we specifically explained why such a direct comparison, rather than a comparison of estimates, is essential for debates about regulation of metal detecting: estimates of the total number of metal detectorists active in any particular country can and do vary widely, frequently by an order of magnitude or even more (see e.g. for Austria the range from as little as 250-500 to as many as 10,000+ in 2010, Karl 2011, 120 fig. 5; cf. the range of between as little as 9,000 to as many as 250,000 for England and Wales, Hardy 2017, 15).Comparing any estimates picked from these ranges with each other transnationally is obviously meaningless: if one compares, per capita, the lowest estimate for Austria of 250 active metal detectorists (1 metal detectorist per 34.340 inhabitants) with the highest estimate of 250.000 for 1 Cogent Social Sciences is a 'Pay to Publish' Open Access Journal, which allegedly ensures high quality standards of papers published in it by a rigorous process of peer-review. As recently demonstrated by Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay (2017), that quality assurance process seems to be less efficient than desired. This is also demonstrated by the fact that Cogent Social Sciences refused to correct the serious arithmetical error in Hardy's calculation of t...

show abstract

“…To conclude, in this short discussion it has been demonstrated that Hardy's (2017) article is fundamentally methodically and arithmetically flawed.…”

Section: Conclusion: Hardy's Fundamental Mistakesmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating Numbers

2010

Starting Statistics: A Short, Clear Guide

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Qu'advient-il des 40 à 70 % restants? Page 156 Enfin, dans une étude récente (2017), un chercheur britannique, Samuel Hardy, a tenté d'estimer le nombre des utilisateurs de détecteurs et d'objets découverts par an dans plusieurs pays, aux législations restrictives ou permissives [35]. Il en arrive à la conclusion que la mise en place d'une législation restrictive permet de contenir la perte d'informations, tandis qu'a contrario une législation permissive semble avoir tendance à créer une sorte d'appel d'air pour les détectoristes, pas forcément suivie d'effets en termes de déclarations de trouvailles archéologiques.…”

Section: Une Si Vertueuse Collaboration?unclassified

L'étude des données "grises" issues de la détection illégale de métaux : sauvegarde du patrimoine ou cercle vicieux du pillage?

Lecroere

2019

bioethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The practice of metal detection has developed considerably over the past forty years. Taking into account the risk that it posed to the archaeological heritage, public authorities, following international recommendations, have put implemented legislation to try to reduce its impact. Some nations such as England and Wales, and recently Belgium, nevertheless consider users of metal detectors more as research assistants than as a real risk to the archaeological heritage and encourage them to report their findings to the competent authorities. In addition, discoverers of exceptional objects can be rewarded financially. In France, where legislation requires administrative authorization to use a metal detector, declaratory systems are models for the detector user community who have dreamed of “active collaboration” between themselves and archaeologists. Some scientists, arguing that illegal detection is a reality that cannot be combated, nevertheless choose to record and study the discoveries of clandestine users of metal detectors, seeing in this the possibility of “saving what can be saved”. However, various examples from current events and the media show that, far from its original purpose, this practice provides a scientific validation for the detection of metals and a market value for the objects discovered, thus creating a demand for the looting of heritage sites.

show abstract

“…arguably greater threats can come from activities that take place lawfully, such as through arable cultivation (Darvill and Fulton 1998), through permitted development (Flatman and Perring 2013), through management failures and state-sanctioned activities that contravene indigenous customs (Hutchings and La Salle 2017), so called managed coastal retreat (Flatman 2009), and through the non-reporting of antiquities discovered by metal detectorists operating under lawful circumstances (Lewis 2016a;Daubney 2017;Hardy 2017). We recognise these are major threats when compared with illicit metal detecting; however, for the purposes of the present article our focus is solely on those activities that involve metal detecting and which are against the law in England -although the risk factors we discuss are applicable across international contexts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As with the Nighthawking Survey, much of the existing literature on illicit metal detecting in England has, understandably, been written by archaeologists in an attempt to better understand the problem and thereby better protect the resource (see for example Dobinson and Denison 1995;Bland 2009;Gill 2010;Moshenska 2010;Bailie 2017;Hardy 2017). While the literature has advanced our understanding of the impact that illicit metal detecting has on the archaeological resource, there are many other stakeholders with an interest in preserving heritage.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Grove

Daubney

Booth

2018

International Journal of Heritage Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

Quantitative analysis of open-source data on metal detecting for cultural property: Estimation of the scale and intensity of metal detecting and the quantity of metal-detected cultural goods

Cited by 31 publications

References 13 publications

Estimating Numbers

Estimating Numbers

L'étude des données "grises" issues de la détection illégale de métaux : sauvegarde du patrimoine ou cercle vicieux du pillage?

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About