In 2017 Sam Hardy wrote 'Quantitative analysis of open-source data on metal detecting for cultural property: Estimation of the scale and intensity of metal detecting and the quantity of metal-detected cultural goods', Cogent Social Sciences, 3:1 (2017) [DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2017.1298397].
More recently there has been a response: Pieterjan Deckers, Andres Dobat, Natasha Ferguson, Stijn Heeren, Michael Lewis, and Suzie Thomas , '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)', Open Archaeology 4, 1 [Online]. Their unconvincing paper made an attempt to dismiss Hardy's careful research.
Sam Hardy has now written an extended response, 'a response to a response on metal-detecting and open-source analysis', Conflict Archaeology (26 July 2018). Deckers et al. will need to revise their confrontational response.
Discussion of the archaeological ethics surrounding the collecting of antiquities and archaeological material.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Fragments attributed to the Berlin painter
What questions should we be considering when we study the fragments of Athenian red-figured pottery that are dispersed between different co...


-
In the wake of the 1992 Athens conference to discuss the Getty kouros (85.AA.40) , one of the delegates, a "distinguished" America...
-
Source: Sotheby's A marble head of Alexander the Great has been seized in New York (reported in " Judge Orders Return of Ancien...
-
i was very struck by the 2010 words of St Louis Art Museum spokeswoman Jennifer Stoffel when talking about the dispute between SLAM and E...

1 comment:
See also the response from Paul Barford http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2018/07/dr-hardy-responds-to-his-critics-on.html
Post a comment