4th December 2009, 05:45 PM
All very interesting... If anyone wants to start a thread - then feel free.
What is interesting is the disparity in finds Which may point more to the vast number of negative archaeological evaluations etc.
Metal-detecting 1171 93.16%
Chance find 30 2.39%
Archaeological find 53 4.21%
Reported buyer 3 0.24%
Total 1257
So in 2005 AND 2006 archaeologists only found 53 items in the whole of England that were 'treasure'
This is interesting given that in 2005 we carried out nearly 1074 intrusive or potentially intrusive investigations and in 2006 - 1324 (source AIP projects database http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/aip/aipintro.htm )
based on evaluations/excavations (plus maritime events)
I don't think Gary is trying to suggest that there is anything wrong going on... unless you have a guilty concious?? :face-angel:
I think the point is a complex one. And perhaps has an unusual bearing on what we do. One that is of great interest if we could just stop a sec and look at it. Our investigations - what are they about, what do they do, what do they find... What would be interesting is how many sites where archaeological evidence was recovered - its just we never find the items (which in England/Wales) are classed as treasure - I noted that many items were recovered from the topsoil - an area that we often overlook. However, that said... as we are digging archaeology - and a lot of it... why is our hit rate lower?
puzzling - but not necessarily an accusation of wrong-doing. :face-confused:
What is interesting is the disparity in finds Which may point more to the vast number of negative archaeological evaluations etc.
Metal-detecting 1171 93.16%
Chance find 30 2.39%
Archaeological find 53 4.21%
Reported buyer 3 0.24%
Total 1257
So in 2005 AND 2006 archaeologists only found 53 items in the whole of England that were 'treasure'
This is interesting given that in 2005 we carried out nearly 1074 intrusive or potentially intrusive investigations and in 2006 - 1324 (source AIP projects database http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/aip/aipintro.htm )
based on evaluations/excavations (plus maritime events)
I don't think Gary is trying to suggest that there is anything wrong going on... unless you have a guilty concious?? :face-angel:
I think the point is a complex one. And perhaps has an unusual bearing on what we do. One that is of great interest if we could just stop a sec and look at it. Our investigations - what are they about, what do they do, what do they find... What would be interesting is how many sites where archaeological evidence was recovered - its just we never find the items (which in England/Wales) are classed as treasure - I noted that many items were recovered from the topsoil - an area that we often overlook. However, that said... as we are digging archaeology - and a lot of it... why is our hit rate lower?
puzzling - but not necessarily an accusation of wrong-doing. :face-confused:
For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he
Thomas Rainborough 1647
Thomas Rainborough 1647