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

• Published in: Cogent social sciences Vol. 3; no. 1; p. 1298397
• Main Author: Hardy, Samuel Andrew
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Abingdon Cogent 01.01.2017; Taylor & Francis Ltd; Taylor & Francis Group
• Subjects: Archaeological evidence; Community; Criminal damage; Cultural heritage; cultural property crime; Harm reduction; heritage crime; illicit antiquities trade; metal detecting; Netnography; open-source analysis; Property; property crime; Quantitative analysis; Reliability; Seasonal variations; Social networks; Weather
• ISSN: 2331-1886; 2331-1886
• DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2017.1298397

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.