7th February 2008, 06:49 PM
I think the exchange between vulpes and garybrun is perhaps getting a bit too personal, and to an extent off the subject. Perhaps, if it is to continue, it ought to go via private messages rather than on the forum.
However, there is a serious point that bears some questioning. The object in question is described as being found 'in or near a neolithic tumulus'.
Most known neolithic tumuli are Scheduled Ancient Monuments, and it would be an offence to detect there.
On the other hand, if the object came from topsoil in a ploughed field adjacent to a tumulus that was also under the plough (or had been), or the tumulus had been completely ploughed-out, then the relationship with the tumulus may be simply a piece of speculative interpretation. No offence need have been committed, and the detectorist may have been acting perfectly responsibly.
The statement about the relationship is ambiguous, and it would be very useful to find out something more precise, rather than arguing about it here on the basis of incomplete information.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
However, there is a serious point that bears some questioning. The object in question is described as being found 'in or near a neolithic tumulus'.
Most known neolithic tumuli are Scheduled Ancient Monuments, and it would be an offence to detect there.
On the other hand, if the object came from topsoil in a ploughed field adjacent to a tumulus that was also under the plough (or had been), or the tumulus had been completely ploughed-out, then the relationship with the tumulus may be simply a piece of speculative interpretation. No offence need have been committed, and the detectorist may have been acting perfectly responsibly.
The statement about the relationship is ambiguous, and it would be very useful to find out something more precise, rather than arguing about it here on the basis of incomplete information.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished