Standard Standard

Not whether, but how: A response to a comment by Paul Barford. / Karl, Raimund; Moller, Katharina.
2018. (Archäologische Denkmalpflege).

Research output: Other contribution

HarvardHarvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Karl, Raimund and Katharina Moller, Not whether, but how: A response to a comment by Paul Barford, 2018.

VancouverVancouver

Author

Karl, Raimund ; Moller, Katharina. / Not whether, but how : A response to a comment by Paul Barford. 2018. (Archäologische Denkmalpflege).

RIS

TY - GEN

T1 - Not whether, but how

T2 - A response to a comment by Paul Barford

AU - Karl, Raimund

AU - Moller, Katharina

PY - 2018/3/20

Y1 - 2018/3/20

N2 - In a series of reactions on his blog, Paul Barford (and a commentator) have questioned the results of our study " An empirical examination of metal detecting ". Yet, apparently, they both have seriously misunderstood the point of our paper. Much like Sam Hardy, they seem to not understand the difference between comparing data of the same kind for the purpose of deductive hypothesis-testing and 'estimating' numbers of metal detectorists based on different kinds of data; and why such hypothesis-testing is needed for coming up with better solutions for regulating metal detecting than archaeology, as a profession in general, seems to have come up with as of yet. Thus, also as further explanation, we would like, in the following, to respond to these comments. Not that we believe it will help Paul Barford, since it is our feeling that he has long dug himself into too deep a hole to be able to get out again; or even see the need to stop shoveling. Rather, it hopefully will allow somewhat more open-minded readers to better understand why our results, and the conclusions we have drawn and actions we have taken based on them, are both helpful and suitable to move forward the debate on how to best regulate metal detecting; and possibly even to find more effective solutions for actually doing so.

AB - In a series of reactions on his blog, Paul Barford (and a commentator) have questioned the results of our study " An empirical examination of metal detecting ". Yet, apparently, they both have seriously misunderstood the point of our paper. Much like Sam Hardy, they seem to not understand the difference between comparing data of the same kind for the purpose of deductive hypothesis-testing and 'estimating' numbers of metal detectorists based on different kinds of data; and why such hypothesis-testing is needed for coming up with better solutions for regulating metal detecting than archaeology, as a profession in general, seems to have come up with as of yet. Thus, also as further explanation, we would like, in the following, to respond to these comments. Not that we believe it will help Paul Barford, since it is our feeling that he has long dug himself into too deep a hole to be able to get out again; or even see the need to stop shoveling. Rather, it hopefully will allow somewhat more open-minded readers to better understand why our results, and the conclusions we have drawn and actions we have taken based on them, are both helpful and suitable to move forward the debate on how to best regulate metal detecting; and possibly even to find more effective solutions for actually doing so.

KW - Archaeology

KW - Heritage

KW - Heritage law

KW - Heritage management

M3 - Other contribution

VL - 2018

T3 - Archäologische Denkmalpflege

ER -