5th December 2009, 07:33 AM
Vulpes Wrote:Not really, having a quick look round Vulpes Towers, most stuff in 'ere ain't made of gold or silver and presumably that has some slight analogy to the past. David you seem to equate archaeology to treasure, how strange, are you Indiana Jones?
Hmmm how strange that someone so perceptive can deliberately twist the meaning.. oh its Vulpes... thats ok then.
Seriously though, do you really think I equate treasures of gold with archaeology? Most amusing.
In you twenty years you have never found any of the following:
Quote:Any object other than coins which was made of at least 10 percent of gold or silver and at least 300 years old when found.
For coins, two or more, from the same find, made of at least 10 percent of gold or silver and at least 300 years old when found.
Ten or more bronze coins from the same find at least 300 years old when found.
Associated objects; any object, made of any material that is found in the same place or considered to be with another object that is treasure.
Prehistoric metalwork, where there are two objects from the same find
Blimey - you need to get out more
In my 28 years I have found many many of these from silver coins to gold earings... and have been on dozens of sites where 'treasure' was found. To me is part of the job - locate, photograph, plan, context record... lift... continue with work.. It was nice to find a silver gilt brooch... but it was just a blip in a day filled with unearthing treasures like stake holes and hearths..
To return to the point ... why is it that archaeologists covering large areas to a great depth - find so little treasure? ( to continue what I said before - is this because either we are digging lots of holes with nothing in them? OR Is it because of some other factor )
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