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

Abstract

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.

FindSampo: A Linked Data Based Portal and Data Service for Analyzing and Disseminating Archaeological Object Finds

“…1. The largest of them, Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) 10 , records 11 archaeological discoveries found by members of the public in England and Wales since 1997 [1]. 2.…”

Freedom of Information Research and Cultural Studies: A Subterranean Affinity

“…Finally, Daubney and Nicholas have used FOI requests to study "heritage crimes" in England and Wales. They obtained data on how individuals illicitly use metal detectors on archeological sites to obtain artifacts that they can then keep for personal enjoyment or trade in the underground market for stolen antiquities (Daubney & Nicholas, 2019). Although Daubney and Nicholas (2019) are not working in the tradition of cultural studies, there is much potential to conduct similar kinds of studies from a cultural studies lens.…”

“…They obtained data on how individuals illicitly use metal detectors on archeological sites to obtain artifacts that they can then keep for personal enjoyment or trade in the underground market for stolen antiquities (Daubney & Nicholas, 2019). Although Daubney and Nicholas (2019) are not working in the tradition of cultural studies, there is much potential to conduct similar kinds of studies from a cultural studies lens. A cultural studies scholar might use FOI to explore how cultural, heritage, and memorialization agencies make decisions or how "heritage crimes" are managed.…”

Professional–Collector Collaboration

“…Palabras clave: colaboración, coleccionismo responsable-receptivo, administración responsable-receptiva, ética arqueológica, ética del coleccionismo, colaboración arqueólogo-coleccionista, coleccionismo privado de artefactos For decades, debate has persisted within archaeological and critical heritage discourses concerning the position of collectors and finders of archaeological material. Some see collectors, hobbyists, and other amateurs as inherently destructive and their practices as contrary to knowledge generation and stewardship (e.g., Ascherson et al 2000;Daubney and Nicholas 2019;Gill and Chippendale 1993;Goebel 2015;Lecroere 2016;Temiño and Valdés 2015). Others view them as invaluable partners and sources of data otherwise inaccessible to professionals (e.g., Balco et al 2018;Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2004;Dobat et al 2020;Douglass et al 2017;Pitblado 2014a;Shott and Pitblado 2015; van der Schriek and van der Schriek 2014).…”