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)

Deckers, Pieterjan; Dobat, Andres Siegfried; Ferguson, Natasha; Heeren, Stijn; Lewis, Michael; Thomas, Suzie

doi:10.1515/opar-2018-0019

Cited by 11 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Denmark, for example, only a small minority of 485 finds (1.6 per cent) of the total amount of 30,224 finds recorded in the DIME scheme up to July 2019 were found in the context of possibly undisturbed landscapes. Likewise, of the 79,353 finds logged with the PAS in 2017, 93 per cent came from cultivated land; just over 2 per cent from grassland, and 2 per cent from the foreshore (Lewis, 2018). Normally, any contextual associations of an object in the soil have been compromised by the mixing effect of ploughing and other agricultural processes.…”

Section: Preservation Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We contend that the systematic recording and study of metal-detected objects under a cooperative scheme yields a greater gain in knowledge about the past than is possible under a restrictive scheme. By contrast, in most restrictive contexts, detector finds are largely unreported and information about them is, therefore, difficult to access and interpret (see for example Hardy, 2017; Deckers et al, 2018). The mistrust between professional archaeologists and hobby detectorists, often a consequence of restrictive legislation and disapproving attitudes, further obscures the availability of reliable metal-detected finds data.…”

Section: Explaining the Visionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Towards a Cooperative Approach to Hobby Metal Detecting: The European Public Finds Recording Network (EPFRN) Vision Statement

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hobby metal detecting is a controversial subject. Legal and policy approaches differ widely across national and regional contexts, and the attitudes of archaeologists and heritage professionals towards detectorists are often polarized and based on ethical or emotive arguments. We, the European Public Finds Recording Network (EPFRN), have implemented collaborative approaches towards detectorist communities in our respective contexts (Denmark, England and Wales, Finland, Flanders, and the Netherlands). Although our motivations are affected by our national circumstances, we base our work on an agreed set of goals, practices, and visions. This article presents the EPFRN's vision statement and provides insight into its underlying thoughts. We hope to create a debate on how to develop best practice approaches that acknowledge the inherent challenges of hobby metal detecting while realizing its potential.

show abstract

Section: Preservation Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Explaining the Visionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a Cooperative Approach to Hobby Metal Detecting: The European Public Finds Recording Network (EPFRN) Vision Statement

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most recent estimation is provided by Hardy (2017), who suggests that around 96 percent of recordable objects are not reported. This figure has been challenged by Deckers et al 2018. 22 Daubney 2017, 792.…”

Section: Existing Knowledge Of the Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detecting Heritage Crime(s): What We Know about Illicit Metal Detecting in England and Wales

Daubney

Nicholas

2019

Int J Cult Prop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Metal detecting is a popular hobby in England and Wales, and, since 1997, over 1.3 million finds have been recorded by the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS), a scheme to encourage the voluntary recording of artifacts found by the public. The metal detector can be a useful archaeological tool when used lawfully and responsibly; however, it is also a tool that is used for illicit purposes by individuals and groups wishing to obtain artifacts from archaeological sites on which they have no permission to detect. Information on the number and nature of incidents of illicit metal detecting, however, is difficult to collate owing both to the nature of the crime and to the way it is recorded (or not) by law enforcement authorities. In this article, we examine the strengths and limitations of the available official and unofficial sources on illicit metal detecting in England and Wales and explore the potential they have to tell us about current trends in this form of heritage crime. The first unofficial source is a list of incidents reported to Historic England, which contains basic information on 276 incidents recorded between 2010 and 2017. The second source is the result of a survey of the PAS’s finds liaison officers regarding the extent to which they assisted law enforcement authorities for the years from 2015 to 2017. Both sources were then contrasted with a freedom of information request that was sent to all 49 police forces in the United Kingdom. Although there are some synergies between the unofficial and official sources, the lack of detail in any one dataset makes them of limited use in demonstrating trends in the macro- and micro-scales of time and place. Accordingly, many of the issues highlighted in this article could be resolved by devising a better system for police record keeping of metal detecting offences.

show abstract

“…For example, it leads to the nonsensical conclusion that damage by licit detectorists is 81 times higher when 10% of their finds go unreported than when 90% of their finds are unreported. Possibly Deckers et al (2018) actually meant this term to be the proportion of reported finds. In other words, the two terms may have been accidentally reversed, but making that correction still does not make this expression yield what Hardy was measuring.…”

Section: Characterization Of Hardy's Measure Of Cultural Damagementioning

confidence: 99%

“…An article in Open Archaeology by Deckers et al (2018) critiques Hardy's (2017) analysis of the impact of the metal-detecting hobby on archaeological resources in a number of mostly anglophone countries. Both articles, following in the wake of several others (e.g., Campbell, 2013;Deckers et al, 2016;Dobat & Jensen, 2016;Thomas, 2013), raise substantive issues regarding metal detecting, and particularly the importance of evidence-based policy for the restriction, regulation or permission of metal detecting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Archaeological Impacts of Metal Detecting

Banning

2019

Open Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a comment on two recent articles on the archaeological impacts of metal detecting, this paper advocates clearer and more valid measures of those impacts and more nuanced classification of the legal and cultural environments in which metal detecting takes place. The need to rely on open-source, online data for transnational analysis makes the former challenging but not impossible. Using the example of Canada, the paper shows that jurisdictional and other complexities make simple “permissive” and “restrictive/prohibitive” dichotomies unhelpful, and suggests using multivariate analysis that accounts for such factors as presumption of ownership, locations of metal detecting, availability of finds reporting, and whether heritage legislation concerns artifacts or only sites. This is essential for development of sound, evidence-based policy on the metal-detecting hobby.

show abstract

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)

Cited by 11 publications

References 27 publications

Towards a Cooperative Approach to Hobby Metal Detecting: The European Public Finds Recording Network (EPFRN) Vision Statement

Towards a Cooperative Approach to Hobby Metal Detecting: The European Public Finds Recording Network (EPFRN) Vision Statement

Detecting Heritage Crime(s): What We Know about Illicit Metal Detecting in England and Wales

The Archaeological Impacts of Metal Detecting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About