A bit late in period, but WOW!!!

close
more_vert
tjj T
tjj Oct 1, 2009 01:39:53
Replying to thesweetcheat

thesweetcheat wrote:
tjj wrote:
If metal detecting was illegal then this unique find would never have been discovered ... isn't the issue more about what metal detectorists do with their finds. Perhaps it should be illegal to keep, or sell on, finds that may be deemed of archaeological importance.
Hi June,

The issue isn't only about what happens to the finds, it's also about what gets damaged/destroyed during course of extracting them.

A find of this nature is made much more valuable in its proper, preferably undisturbed, archaeological context. The fact that you can dig it up and polish it doesn't mean that you should.

You can pick up "antiquities" all over the place, hand axes, Egyptian statuettes, Roman coins, etc. But unless you know their provenance they are effectively worthless.

Unless you're digging into a monument that's about to be destroyed anyway (for example due to the wonders of our planning laws and the disregard they place on heritage), there's no real excuse for excavation, unless it's very controlled and everything is recorded. Even then, by nature excavation is destructive to some degree. Rather like the other thread about votive offerings, I'd much rather just see the monument left alone (although I have no problem with a spot of judicious stone re-erection).

Enough monkeys with typewriters can write Shakespeare, so enough monkeys with metal detectors will sooner or later find something shiny to dig up (erm, not sure where I'm going with this now, so I'll shut up).

:-)

Thanks for the answer tsc. Its a debate I am not really qualified to comment on; if I personally found something that looked ancient and interesting I would take it along to the nearest museum.

It sounds as though you are saying the Staffordshire/Mercia horde should have been left in the soil. Surely that would eventually have resulted in the artefacts being destroyed by the plough.

CiamMcLiam's suggestion sounded pragmatic inasmuch it would give a clear message about the ethics of 'treasure hunting'.

Your last paragraph quotes the 'infinite monkey theorem' which sent me off on an interesting rummage through google's search engine.

Whatever else, you made a sound counter-argument to the use of metal detectors and thats what discussion forums should be about. I'm shutting up now too, going to bed to ponder on monkeys, typewriters, Shakespeare zzzzzzzz ...

T thesweetcheat
thesweetcheat Oct 2, 2009 22:48:48
Replying to tjj

tjj wrote:
Thanks for the answer tsc. Its a debate I am not really qualified to comment on; if I personally found something that looked ancient and interesting I would take it along to the nearest museum.

It sounds as though you are saying the Staffordshire/Mercia horde should have been left in the soil. Surely that would eventually have resulted in the artefacts being destroyed by the plough.

CiamMcLiam's suggestion sounded pragmatic inasmuch it would give a clear message about the ethics of 'treasure hunting'.

Hi June,

I'm certainly not qualified to comment either, just opinionated :-)

Thinking about my post and your reply, you're right to point out that the find might have been destroyed by the plough (or otherwise) if left undisturbed. Maybe there's a balance to be had depending on the nature of the site itself. By nature, a "hoard" may simply be a hole dug in the ground with no other associated monument or structure - obviously the hoarder would want to be able to find it again but wouldn't want someone else to, so they wouldn't want a big barrow/flag pole/giant 'X'.

However, even a hole in the ground has archaeological context and might be full of evidence that isn't obviously important now but could be in the future. For example, think of they way that early excavations were simply treasure hunts and concentrated on "finds". There was no consideration of the fact that with the technology of later years there may be infinite amounts of information to be extracted from things like seeds, soil composition, insects, etc, etc. so those things were overlooked and destroyed. Actually, it's those things that tell us much more about the period and its people than the shiny cups do (lovely as they are).

I suppose in a rambling way I am saying that if we can avoid disturbance of the site, we should and that investigation should be non-invasive where possible. However, you are right that consideration to retrieving objects should be given where they are at risk of future damage if left in situ. Phew.

Finally, I would probably be like you with regard to rushing off to the nearest museum, but I'm sure StoneGloves will tell you that they might just say "that's nice Mrs, but we're not really very interested in your dodgy artificact, we've got some files to dust." Then again if your find was like the one that started the thread I guess even the most hardened musuem curator might take you seriously!

Alken