a response to a response on metal-detecting and open-source analysis

Last spring, I published a quantitative analysis of open-source data on metal detecting for cultural property: [an] estimation of the scale and intensity of metal detecting and the quantity of metal-detected cultural goods in Australia, Austria, (Flanders and elsewhere in) Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, (the jurisdictions of England and Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland within) the United Kingdom and the United States (Hardy, 2017a).

This summer, Pieterjan Deckers (in the Netherlands), Andres Dobat (in Denmark), Natasha Ferguson (in the United Kingdom), Stijn Heeren (in the Netherlands), Michael Lewis (in the United Kingdom) and Suzie Thomas (in Finland) published a consideration of the complexities of metal detecting policy and practice: a response to Samuel Hardy, ‘quantitative analysis of open-source data on metal detecting for cultural property’ (Cogent Social Sciences 3, 2017) (Deckers and others, 2018).