In his paper 'Quantitative analysis of open-source data on metal detecting for cultural property', Samuel Hardy suggested that permissive policy is ineffective in minimizing the damage done to cultural heritage by non-professional metal detecting. This response paper contests the basic assumptions upon which this analysis is based. While Hardy's comparative, quantitative approach is laudable, it is founded in a biased and simplistic outlook on the metal detecting phenomenon.
Bibliographical notePublished Online: 2018-06-21
- archaeological metal detecting
- heritage management
- public archaeology