+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Metal detectorist to auction Roman helmet (/showthread.php?tid=3450)
Metal detectorist to auction Roman helmet - Navajo - 17th January 2012
The abuse he recieved went far beyond what was called for, after all he has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law of the land. The find was removed from the ground and an excavation/evaluation was undertaken which found nothing, absolutely nothing therefore we will never know its `context` in the landscape.
So I take it you are an archaeologist who works everyday on site removing finds from their contexts therefore whats the difference? I can think of a huge number of large projects in the NW whos finds will never see the light of day or be seen by the public.
Have a look at Sotherbys
Metal detectorist to auction Roman helmet - deadlylampshade - 17th January 2012
monty Wrote:....and yes i would take the money.....as would many impoverished archaeologists.......and it's only a roman helmet......not that special in my opinion !!!!
One can only assume you're revelling in being a forum troll as the stupidness of your remark is mind numbing by anyone's standards and shameful for an archaeologist.
Metal detectorist to auction Roman helmet - geo - 17th January 2012
I think we need to return to the fact that neither the finder nor the landowner did anything at variance with current laws governing the discovery of non Treasure archaeological material. There was a lot of abuse aimed at the finder and landowner from those seeking to use it to serve other agendas.
Lets look at it another way if by chance the findspot area had come under an excavation brief prior to development the helmet would have probably been missed by trial trenches and bulldozed away when the developers moved in and be lost in the many tons of excavated spoil dumped elsewhere. So much for heritage protection in such cases when so much is destoyed daily by developers after the minimal archaeological planning brief has been satisfied.
At least there is a record of the helmet and perhaps in another hundred years someone will find another.
Metal detectorist to auction Roman helmet - monty - 18th January 2012
deadlylampshade Wrote:One can only assume you're revelling in being a forum troll as the stupidness of your remark is mind numbing by anyone's standards and shameful for an archaeologist.
Explain ?????? mind numbing ? wheres the shame ?
ps a forum troll ???
READ the posts by Navajo and Geo !!!
Metal detectorist to auction Roman helmet - Wax - 18th January 2012
The treasure act needs re writting and not least because it excludes professional archaeologists from making any claim on objects declared as treasure. :face-stir:
Metal detectorist to auction Roman helmet - monty - 18th January 2012
Wax Wrote:The treasure act needs re writting and not least because it excludes professional archaeologists from making any claim on objects declared as treasure. :face-stir:
Nice one Wax !
Metal detectorist to auction Roman helmet - RedEarth - 18th January 2012
Navajo Wrote:So I take it you are an archaeologist who works everyday on site removing finds from their contexts therefore whats the difference? I can think of a huge number of large projects in the NW whos finds will never see the light of day or be seen by the public.
I assume you don't understand the difference between removing something from context but recording what that context is and just removing from context. The former makes all the difference. You seem to know a vast amount about this find and I am starting to think I know who you are, which is a bit disappointing.
Metal detectorist to auction Roman helmet - Oxbeast - 18th January 2012
Intersting that people are claiming that other objects were found in association. I am under tham impression that the helmet was claimed to have been found alone, as that would make it exempt from the treasure act. The act inculdes any votive or ritual deposit, as well as two metallic prehistoric objects found together, as well as hoards that have been delibearately hidden. Helmet + sword could qualify for any of these. It sounds like grave goods to me.
http://finds.org.uk/treasure/advice/summary
@Navajo and geo, you might have to revise your opinion that no one has done anything illegal. Even if someone has not broken the law, it is prefectly legitimate to criticise them (and the law). Witness the perfectly legal but immoral tax avoidance schemes.
Metal detectorist to auction Roman helmet - Navajo - 18th January 2012
RedEarth Wrote:I assume you don't understand the difference between removing something from context but recording what that context is and just removing from context. The former makes all the difference. You seem to know a vast amount about this find and I am starting to think I know who you are, which is a bit disappointing.
Of course I understand the difference, but like I said the site was evaluated after the find which revealed nothing. The reason why a significant number of finds are not reported is exactly what i have been talking about and the abuse that both the landowner and finder recieved was shocking. Like I keep saying they have not done anything wrong, the went through the correct channels after seeking full legal advice. Who can blame them if they wanted to sell it at the highest price, I know I would if I found the item under the same circumstances. That said, of course the find is of international importance but so are lots of other items which remain hidden in unit store rooms etc etc.
Do I really care if you do know me...hmm no.
Metal detectorist to auction Roman helmet - BAJR - 18th January 2012
The reason finds are not reported being abuse. I think the 'abuse' came from the local people ( my contacts tell me the locals were none too chuffed that after all the effort put into trying to save the helmet for all to see - it went to a private buyer who could outbid the public and mean it will never be seen for a long long time)
Now the question comes to - did they do anything wrong? Not by teh law of the land (unless you are in Scotland of course! Where this would not have happened - they would have received an ex-gratia, but the find belongs to us all)
Who can blame them for selling to the highest bidder? Well many detectorists were not that happy either? Now they could have shared ?1.7m and the people of the area would have had the needed boost to economy and tourism and they would be hailed as heroes.... but no... for that extra ?300k they were seen as greedy. sad but true - perhaps it is British character flaw of fair play...
For us as archaeologists this question does not (or should not) arise. We do what we do, for our 300 quid a week and no matter what we find, it is for all to share, not to sell.
How much for a Bronze Age log boat anyone?
Quote:hat said, of course the find is of international importance but so are lots of other items which remain hidden in unit store rooms etc etc.
That is an old chestnut... and if you want to see it... you can... just ask.. if you want to know about it... just ask, or read out it, or view the publication...etc............... the thing is, this does happen, and given that any museum can only display a fraction of what it stores, and the public are also not so well know for enjoying the 309th case of broken local pottery body sherds then yes of course it is in storage, BUT you want to see it - you can The helmet or the collection of finds under the bed. You never will.
There is also the question that hangs over the helmet... how, if it was found where it was said to be found, was there nothing to be seen at all? most odd. There are many cases recently where dectectorists have called in the archaeologists or PAS as soon as they can, so teh find can be excavated and the extra information recovered, without losing one penny of reward, and often being part of the excavation as well. Do I envy them the reward... well... they did not just follow the letter of the law, but they also ensured that we (and by that I mean everyone) could share the find. A question of morals and ethics.