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

Abstract

Through netnographic analysis of online forums and social networks, this study presents quantitative analysis of the scale and intensity of metal detecting and the quantity of metal-detected cultural goods. It adapts open-source data to develop empirical measures; to ensure reliability and consistency of sourcing and interpretation, these data were drawn from English-language forums and networks. Based on a poll of 668 online community members, it infers the size of active detecting communities from the size (93.42%) of online detecting communities. Based on open-source data on the detecting practices of 101 detectorists, the worst tolerable weather for 151 detectorists and seasonal variations in the reporting of 1,089,337 finds to the Portable Antiquities Scheme over 13 years, it determines a pragmatic minimum average of 286.02 h of detecting per person per year. Comparing activity in a wide range of permissive, restrictive and prohibitive regulatory environments - based on local-language forums and networks in Australia, Austria, Flanders and elsewhere in Belgium, Canada, Denmark, England and Wales, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and the United States - it finds that permissive regulation is ineffective in minimising harm to heritage assets, whether in the form of licit misbehaviour or criminal damage. Restrictive and prohibitive regulation appear to be more effective, insofar as there is less overall loss of archaeological evidence.

Keywords:

• cultural property crime
• heritage crime
• illicit antiquities trade
• metal detecting
• netnography
• open-source analysis
• property crime
• quantitative analysis

View correction statement:

Corrigendum

Public Interest Statement

It is possible to estimate how many people are metal-detecting, how much detecting they do and how many historic or cultural objects they find, by analysing publicly-available (“open-source”) evidence from online forums, social networks and elsewhere. This study compares activity in Australia, Austria, Flanders and elsewhere in Belgium, Canada, Denmark, England and Wales, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and the United States. These territories apply a wide variety of permissive, restrictive and prohibitive systems of regulation. So, by comparing these, it is possible to evaluate which are most (in)effective in minimising cultural harm and illicit trade. The statistics suggest that more people engage in unethical but legal detecting under permissive regulation than engage in unethical and illegal detecting under restrictive or prohibitive regulation. So, even if illicit trade is technically reduced by the act of legalising it, cultural harm is increased.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Paul Barford, who discussed data and caught missteps in the estimations; Natasha Ferguson, who discussed the challenges of interpreting the evidence from Scotland; David Gill, who discussed data and whose comments sharpened the text; Raimund Karl and Katharina Möller, who shared a draft of an English-language article (“Vinegar or honey? An empirical examination of the per capita-ratio of metal-detectorists in a British-German comparison.”), which greatly eased the use of their German-language publication; Raimund Karl, for further discussions of the situation in Austria, Germany and the UK; Mads Schear Mikkelsen, for the estimation of the number of detectorists in Denmark; Suzie Thomas, who discussed the idiosyncrasies of detecting and reporting behaviours and shared an advance copy of “the future of studying hobbyist metal detecting in Europe: a call for a transnational approach”; and the peer reviewers, whose comments made the article much clearer, more usable and more concise.

Corrigendum

This article was originally published with errors. This version has been corrected. Please see Corrigendum (https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1448229).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Samuel Andrew Hardy

Samuel Andrew Hardy conducted much of this analysis while being the Critical Heritage Research Fellow at the Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations (ANAMED), Koç University. He is an Adjunct Professor at the American University of Rome (AUR) and an Honorary Research Associate at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London. His doctoral research focused on the law, ethics and politics of cultural heritage work; destruction of cultural property and propaganda; and trafficking of antiquities in the Cyprus Conflict. Since then, he has focused on trafficking of cultural goods in the conflict in Syria and Iraq and the history of such trafficking by armed groups and repressive regimes around the world. This piece of research develops methods of open-source analysis and quantitative analysis that advance techniques to understand illicit trade. Focusing on the trafficking of cultural goods by armed groups and repressive regimes, he blogs his research on Conflict Antiquities: https://conflictantiquities.wordpress.com