Disentangling Strategic and Opportunistic Looting: The Relationship between Antiquities Looting and Armed Conflict in Egypt
Table A1. Key terms for Reuters and Lexis Nexis data. Reuters
Yüklə 1,14 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
|
Table A1.
Key terms for Reuters and Lexis Nexis data. Reuters Lexis Nexis Key Words # of Results Complex Search String # of Results archaeological 28 Egypt
AND archaeological OR archeological OR archaeological site OR archeological site OR historic site OR relic OR antiquities OR art OR antique OR cultural heritage OR cultural property OR artifact OR artefact AND theft OR looting OR danger OR smuggling OR smuggled OR smuggler OR dealer OR antiquities looting 1138 archeological 3 archaeological site 9 archeological site 2 illegal dig 0 looting
27 theft
25 relic
19 antiquities 128 antique
11 antiquities looting 0 cultural heritage 9 cultural property 0 danger
305 historic site 2 smuggling 198 smuggler
71 smuggled
66 Note: “fake” and “forgery” were omitted from the Lexis Nexis search string as an independent search of the terms returned no relevant results. The terms “archeol*” and “archaeol*” were omitted because an independent search did not return accurate results. art
80 fake
24 forgery
30 dealer
1482 artifact
20 artefact
28 archaeol* 0 archeol*
0 Total
2567 Total
1138 Note: The totals in this table include redundancies. For example, if a sentence included both “art” and “dealer”, that sentence would be captured twice—once for each search term. These data contained insufficient information to distinguish between sustained looting, multiple separate looting attempts, multiple coordinated attempts, or an isolated brief incident. As such, unless the article explicitly identified multiple incidents of looting (multiple looters, locations, days, etc.), each incident was coded as one incident per day at a given archaeological site. When a site was described as being looted consistently for a long period of time, it was assumed that at least one looting would happen per day and so the incident was counted as one per day unless details were provided identifying separate lootings. If a story referred to multiple incidents (e.g., at different sites or on different days), each incident was coded separately. In cases where the date was referred to in indirect language (e.g., several, few, couple, many, mid-), the common meaning of the term was used. For example, if an incident took place “several weeks” ago, it would be coded as three weeks prior to the date of publication. For an incident to be considered looting, the object(s) had to have been removed from the ground or structural complex of an archaeological site. Since the act of looting often destroys some, if not all, of a site, an incident was only coded as destruction if the main purpose was indicated as destruction and no objects were taken. Similarly, the terms “looting” and “theft” are often synonymous in the media. In this research, an incident could only be coded as theft if the object(s) had been recorded and removed from the archaeological site. For example, an object taken from an archaeological site storage facility is theft because the objects have already been discovered and recorded.
|