+- 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 - P Prentice - 18th January 2012
nauseating case of theft from the nation
Metal detectorist to auction Roman helmet - geo - 18th January 2012
I am afraid to say Oxbeast that i still stand by my comments. As for other so called associated finds this seems to be scurrilous speculation and besides i understand that to be captured as Treasure two or more base metal objects found in close association need to be of prehistoric date which i am told is pre 43 AD.
Not happy with the "nauseating case of theft from the nation" comment - that is the usual bleat expected of the heritage bloggers who have no understanding of the real world and dwell in one dominated by prejudice.
Metal detectorist to auction Roman helmet - Dinosaur - 18th January 2012
What, like Scotland? - where such an outrage would never have been allowed
!
Metal detectorist to auction Roman helmet - Dinosaur - 18th January 2012
Ah, just been told who you are, hi!
Metal detectorist to auction Roman helmet - Navajo - 18th January 2012
Who are you talking about, me or...?
Metal detectorist to auction Roman helmet - Sith - 19th January 2012
Dinosaur Wrote:(no one except archaeologists wants a battered helmet).
And some with certain specialist proclivities.
Sorry, couldn't resist such an opportunity.
Metal detectorist to auction Roman helmet - P Prentice - 19th January 2012
geo Wrote:Not happy with the "nauseating case of theft from the nation" comment - that is the usual bleat expected of the heritage bloggers who have no understanding of the real world and dwell in one dominated by prejudice.
that comment is surely straight out of the fens - positively meltonesque
Metal detectorist to auction Roman helmet - moreno - 19th January 2012
geo Wrote:As for other so called associated finds this seems to be scurrilous speculation...
I see nothing “scurrilous” about an opinion derived from the result of further examination of pieces related to the Crosby Garrett helmet. It’s a bit self-serving and disingenuous to claim otherwise.
Quote: Not happy with the "nauseating case of theft from the nation" comment - that is the usual bleat expected of the heritage bloggers who have no understanding of the real world and dwell in one dominated by prejudice.
I would opinion that greed is by far more the motivator for furthering prejudice towards the ability to accept reasoning for protecting national heritage.
Metal detectorist to auction Roman helmet - geo - 19th January 2012
Seems that i am in the firing line this time. Well Mr. Prentice i dont live in the Fens and as for my comment regarding the putative additional finds: we have yet to be presented with any evidence of these so my opinion still stands.
Metal detectorist to auction Roman helmet - moreno - 19th January 2012
geo Wrote:...as for my comment regarding the putative additional finds: we have yet to be presented with any evidence of these so my opinion still stands.
A more appropriate context for comment as oppose to innuendo (points italicised by me):
"The dominant reaction in the UK of dismay that the helmet had not been declared treasure, would not have been seen even a few years ago. The helmet contains no gold or silver, but part of the definition of treasure embraces non-precious metal items found in association. However, this currently applies only to prehistoric objects, and there is a clear case for extending it into Roman times: it would be absurd to think that even a group of seven bronze parade helmets would not legally be treasure. A small bronze rectangle amongst the Crosby Garrett fragments may not have been part of the helmet (Bradbury recorded traces of lead, possibly solder, on one face, but could see no lead on the inside of the visor or helmet). Though now impossible to tell without further examination, if this strip was not part of the helmet, it would have made the find treasure under the act's likely revision.
However, the helmet might well have been a genuine isolated find, and would thus probably have escaped even a revised act. To further strengthen the act could mean a radical change in the proven system of trust in the world of portable antiquities in this country. Leaving aside the issue of ownership, it is a system that has benefited the helmet: we know exactly where it came from, archaeologists have been able to examine and record it and Christie's has allowed public access to the restoration records. On the other hand, conservation and more detailed study would have revealed more about the object, and its loss to identity and public interest in Cumbria and beyond is very strong. There is a debate to be had – one in which personal attacks on the buyer or finder have no place."
From, ‘The Crosby Garrett Roman Helmet’ in British Archaeology (116), Jan/Feb 2011 by Sally Worrell, Ralph Jackson, Andrew Mackay, Roger Bland and Mike Pitts. 16
again please refer to my earlier post.