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