Not whether, but how

A response to a comment by Paul Barford

Raimund Karl and Katharina Möller

In a series of reactions on his blog (see here and here), Paul Barford (and a commentator) have questioned the results our study “An empirical examination of metal detecting”. Yet, apparently, they both have seriously misunderstood the point of our paper. Much like Sam Hardy (see “Estimating numbers?”) they seem to not understand the difference between comparing data of the same kind for the purpose of deductive hypothesis-testing and 'estimating' numbers of metal detectorists based on different kinds of data; and why such hypothesis-testing is needed for coming up with better solutions for regulating metal detecting than archaeology, as a profession in general, seems to have come up with as of yet.

Thus, also as further explanation, we would like, in the following, to respond to these comments. Not that we believe it will help Paul Barford, since it is our feeling that he has long dug himself into too deep a hole to be able to get out again; or even see the need to stop shovelling. Rather, it hopefully will allow somewhat more open-minded readers to better understand why our results, and the conclusions we have drawn and actions we have taken based on them, are both helpful and suitable to move forward the debate on how to best regulate metal detecting; and possibly even to find more effective solutions for actually doing so.

'Estimating' numbers?

A response to a paper by Samuel A. Hardy

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.