Detecting heritage crime(s): What we know about illicit metal detecting in England and Wales

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

Fool’s gold? A critical assessment of sources of data on heritage crime

Purpose To explore critically various sources of data available on heritage crime, and consider how these may be utilised and improved. Design/methodology/approach Primarily a scoping review of the current heritage crime data climate, embedding examples from a range of existing and potential information sources. It highlights opportunities to improve data resources. Findings A lack of consistency in reporting and recording practices means there is little meaningful evidence about heritage crime trends and patterns. This needs to change in order to develop and evaluate appropriate strategies to reduce the problem of heritage crime nationally and internationally. Research limitations/implications It is hoped that by urging improvement of data resources in the heritage crime sector will inspire a greater number of researchers to analyse and address key problems within heritage crime. Practical implications This paper encourages the development of new and improved data collection methods to foster effective assessment of existing heritage crime reduction schemes and better support victims of heritage crime. Social implications Increasing availability and accessibility of high quality data on heritage crime would allow for developing better protections and resource allocation for vulnerable heritage. Originality/value This paper has drawn together, for the first time, evidence of the existing state of affairs of data availability within heritage crime. It is a position paper which encourages the development of improved recording and reporting practices both formally and informally across heritage and criminal justice sectors in order to support further research and understanding of the heritage crime problem

Identifying sites at risk from illicit metal detecting: from CRAVED to HOPPER

© 2018 Louise Grove, Adam Daubney and Alasdair Booth. Published with license by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Archaeological sites are at risk from acquisitive crime: this paper focuses in particular on illicit metal detecting. The effects of theft in this context are not merely financial, but have devastating impact on our knowledge and understanding of the site. Even where items are later recovered, we lose the vital clues about the precise context of an object. We therefore need to reduce the risk of theft occurring in the first place. This paper draws on case studies from England and presents a new methodology to assess which archaeological sites may be at risk from illicit metal detecting: ‘HOPPER’ identifies the characteristics of sites likely to be targeted by offenders looking for antiquities. In brief: History (a history of finds at the site); Open (the site has physical public access, and/or is documented in the public domain); Protection (protected status can act as a beacon for offenders); Publicity (site is known about or receiving new attention); Evasion (there are known ways to escape apprehension); and Repeat victimisation (The site has been a target before). The impact of HOPPER will be its use in the field to develop a pragmatic risk assessment applicable both in a local and international context