Treasure Hunt

[Solomon]

I am in the process of planning a treasure hunt in England and have joined this forum mainly in order to discuss procedures at this point.

The members of my team are not recognised archaeologists, even though we have some experience in that that field. The target we seek - which will be defined as treasure - is well below the ploughed surface of a field and we therefore expect to need the services of an archaeological team, headed by a recognised archaeologist.

We are now arranging a geophysical survey to confirm the location and we expect the target area to be quite large. Then we will try to buy the land and only if we cannot do that will we attempt to negotiate an arrangement with the landowner for us to dig. Once we have full access to the location, we will conduct a detailed survey.

It is at that point we will need to take on the archaeologist team. We would rather have our own team than have the site taken over by one appointed by government.

From my understanding of the current laws, regulations and good practice, this project falls between treasure detecting and the practice of archaeology, as we will be employing the practices of both. We intend to comply with all laws, regulations and relevant codes of good practice.

With this post, I am merely opening the topic for discussion. Maybe we can learn from the comments of others here and even make constructive contact with any who can contribute to the project. It would be inappropriate for me to reveal data that is commercial-in-confidence.

[Elgin]

"It would be inappropriate for me to reveal data that is commercial-in-confidence"

A bit of a clue wouldn't do any harm though would it?
Norfolk? Lincolnshire?

On an entirely unrelated matter, I was in Worcester Cathedral yesterday afternoon, looking at King John's effigy, above his grave.
He looks a bit washed out but i'm SURE he gave me a fleeting grin.
;)

[BAJR Host]

Aren't we all ;)[8D]

Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

I would also be interested to see how you bypassed the membership authorisation .. ;) or should I just say welcome back Mattockman.. er... or Darren ... er or Simon?

... :face-huh: [:o)]

Another day another WSI?

[Solomon]

Elgin: Ha! I've not lost my marbles. Nobody knows where that treasure is, do they? Well, I live on the Isle of Thanet: is that a clue?

BAJR Host: Bypassed membership authorisation? Maybe: your system failed twice to accept registration, so I tried to login anyway and it worked. Rest assured, I am not a previously-registered member under a new nick.

Glad I have your interest. Any practical thoughts?

[BAJR Host]

Well then , can you give us some details about yourself.. it is difficult to answer a question when we don't even know what the question is.

Who for example are the Geophysics Crew.. (you could Private Message me if you wish)

What depth is the 'treasure'

Why are you believing that a goverment appointed team would take over...

As I say... if you want to discuss a topic... then it might be good to actually have a topic to discuss. }:)

Another day another WSI…

[Curator Kid]

Are you going to tell the current owner that you reckon there's treasure on his land before you try to buy it off him? }:)

[kevin wooldridge]

Isn't 'The Solomon Key' the title of Dan Brown's forthcoming book?

I wonder Host if BAJR isn't being led up some kind of spurious garden path here and maybe consideration should be given to a lock out on this subject, at least until the original author (Solomon Key!!) provides you with some more details.

I can't see that this thread as it stands can do very much to enhance the reputation of BAJR/archaeology in general. (My opinion....)

[BAJR Host]

I do hope so... I like a nice mystery }:)

what with me applying to the Search ... could this be a test? could the IP address of Solomon mean they are indeed one in the same?

Another day another WSI…

[Solomon]

Well, I understand the desire to see a mystery and then try and solve it, but that activity has nothing to do with the reason for starting the thread, the purpose of which was stated at the start. Most of the questions asked in response have been mere attempts to get me to reveal data which as I said, I would not reveal.

I've given some details of myself: where I live and that my team has some exprience in archaeology. I've also said that our target is treasure, that it is in a ploughed field and sufficiently deep as to move out of treasure detecting and into the realm of archaeology.

The geophys crew is part of my team, which is deeply experienced in these matters (though not in the UK).

Curator Kid: Is it a requirement to tell a landowner one's future intentions? If not, would it help me if I did? In your view, would I be damned in some way if I did not?

BAJR Host: You ask - Why are you believing that a government appointed team would take over...
My limited understanding is that (put simply) once one digs significantly below the surface and archaeology is found, then one must use an archaeologist. We could just report our finds and sit back while the local government arkies take over, however it is our intention to employ our own team.

It is precisely because there is a series of procedures to follow that I am discussing this here. My own UK experience predates the current act, so I am generally ignorant of how to handle a treasure hunt that digs deep.

[Cautionary Tale]

So the facts are:
There is treasure which you wish to excavate You know enough about the treasure that you believe it to be deeply buried You wish to employ a team of archaeologists to remove the treasure for you to prevent involvement of local government archaeologists

These facts are probably causing most of the posters here some difficulty (I'm not actually completely clear if the treasure is actually an archaeological artefact, but then it has been hot lately [xx(]).

I considered writing a response to you initial queries, but I tend to agree that any even remotely detailed advice on the basis on the limited information you have provided would do no good to you. The only advice you should follow is to contact the local authority archaeologist and discuss it with them


Of the Clan Sutton

[Solomon]

Barnesy: Two out of three.
You wrote:
You wish to employ a team of archaeologists to remove the treasure for you to prevent involvement of local government archaeologists
That is not what I wrote, but an interpretation in the worse possible light. Maybe that's your view of treasure hunters in general, but it is unjustified in this case.

I have a number of reasons for wanting to employ my own archaeologists. This is commpon practice. There is no reason to assume the bad intent of those who follow this approach.

My understanding of the 1996 Act and related regulations is that there is treasure hunting using detectors and archaeological investigation/excavation. My project is partly both, in that it is a treasure hunt, yet anticipates archaeology. I would have thought that this hybrid approach may have interested forum members and allowed a sensible discussion of proper procedures, as I first asked.

The only advice you should follow is to contact the local authority archaeologist and discuss it with them - leave everything to the government - yes, I've heard that before and I didn't agree with it the first time. Clearly you do not believe in responsible private initiative. So if I hired the archaeology department of a local university, that would not be good enough for you?

I seem to be wasting my time here. Bye!

[Grant Consent]

Hi Folks - Ah well.... just when it was getting interesting.

If there was a project brief, dealing with the aspects of archaeology, and that had been agreed by the relevant authorities (especially the local curator) and the final report was produced to a standard. The problem of course is if this is a known site? I applaud the initiative, using both detectorists and archaeologists to investigate a site for common benefit – but have concerns about the reasons. A treasure Hunt is never a good starting point for a project – often the goal can cloud the process.

I suspect that the ‘goal’ may be one which will not be found… like Templar Sancturies, or the tomb of Arthur, or those Hidden tunnels that lead to treasure under almost every Castle. Searching can lead to losing track of what else is found… As I have said, it can be difficult to discuss a project that has no clear form. That’s why, if a site like this is to be investigated, it would require (at an early stage) discussion.

It would be fair to say that local arkies are not in the habit of taking sites over.. never seen that happen before.

The only thing that would happen, is if a site is dug below disturbed soil and hits archaeology, then the local Curator must be informed, and may not be too happy if this is the first they hear of it.

A happy Curator is an informed curator. An unhappy curator is one that suddenly discovers that a Pyramid is being excavated in their county

For a sensible reply, we need a sensible question. ;)

[tom wilson]

'Stand aside, I'm a govenment archaeologist and I'm taking over!'
What an enchantingly quaint notion.

I do hope that really was Dan Brown researching his new book. I can't wait to hear what howlers he comes up with this time (by word of mouth of course).

'Have a good plan, execute it violently, do it today'.
General MacArthur

[the invisible man]

I'm having difficulty understanding the proposed sequence of events. Evidently the site is known as it is described as having a ploughed surface, and archaeological remains, in the form of artefacts, are known or believed to exist below the ploughsoil.

However a non-intrusive survey is proposed in order to locate the "target area" which is "quite large". Presumably this is to more precisely locate the non-artefactual remains and to attemnpt to determine their extent and nature? No doubt however there is already some knowledge of the anticipated nature of the remains as it believed that some artefacts will fall under the Treasure Act, perhaps from some form of assessment?

The landowner must be aware of the proposals as his permission is required to carry out the geophysical survey, so there must be "full access" to the site already, I presume? What is meant here by "detailed survey"? Is that another reference to the geophysical survey or is that a metal detector survey targetted as a result of the geophysical survey? If so I am confused as "full access" must alreday be possible, as I say.

I would say that the time to "take on" the archaeological team was at inception (again I am confused as I would include the geophysics team as part of it). Failing that, I suggest that the time is right now. If nothing else this will give some understanding of the "current laws, regulations and good practice".

I also have doubts about the (dare I say) aims and objectives. I read this as a proposal for a full area excavation, with the sposnors/instigators interested in the shiny bits but accepting the costs and implications of the full excavation. I also read it as people wanting to fish out the shiny bits while having the pits recorded for them.

No doubt I am totally misunderstanding the whole thing. It is rather hot you know.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[Alfie]

Shame hes gone; from what I understood he was expecting to pass through archaeology on his way to treasure. Wheres Mr Barford when you need him?}:)

[Paul Barford]

Right here, but spent the last nine days nursing an extremely sick kitten back to the land of the living (successfully). This gave me tlittle time for anything else.

There seemed little point trying to go into all the possible variants of the legal etc situation when Solomon Key had given so little background (Scheduled/not scheduled, church property, DEFRA Scheme land etc etc)... Anyway, I have a suspicion that it was actually a wind-up.

And if it was Dan Brown and he's lurking, I'd be happy to discuss it confidentially off-list, I did not mind the Da Vinci Code as much as thought I would (actually quite readable if you skip the boring "factual" Priere de Sion etc etc bit in the middle).

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

Glad the kitten made it.. :face-approve: certainly more worthwhile than Solomon Key ;)

If it is Dan Brown :face-huh: then I agre with Paul about the diVinci Code.. though it has caused me no end of trouble in Midlothian (home of Roslin Chapel ... thats British for Red Rough Water...(Ros Llan) not the Rose Line by the way)

Off to see the film tonight.... welll..... no your enemy I say

Another day another WSI…

[Beardstroker]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
[
Off to see the film tonight.... welll..... no your enemy I say



I would spend the money on a better film, Mr Hosty (or alternatively beer and chips) it really is the most godawfully dull piece of bilge.:D
Shame as the book was actually moderately entertaining.

[Paul Barford]

May I start a new topic on this back in "Solutions - Problems with the Past" as nobody seems to have posted there a while?

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

go on then

Another day another WSI…