| Summary: | In a comment on two recent articles on the archaeological impacts of metal detecting, this paper advocates clearer and more valid measures of those impacts and more nuanced classification of the legal and cultural environments in which metal detecting takes place. The need to rely on open-source, online data for transnational analysis makes the former challenging but not impossible. Using the example of Canada, the paper shows that jurisdictional and other complexities make simple “permissive” and “restrictive/prohibitive” dichotomies unhelpful, and suggests using multivariate analysis that accounts for such factors as presumption of ownership, locations of metal detecting, availability of finds reporting, and whether heritage legislation concerns artifacts or only sites. This is essential for development of sound, evidence-based policy on the metal-detecting hobby.
|
|---|
