Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2008
26th November 2008, 02:08 PM
Yes, you have missed the point of metal detecting. The point of metal detecting is to find coins and artefacts which have been lost or discarded. The vast majority of items found and I mean the vast majority are worth absolutely nothing.
I've been metal detecting for about 30 years and the commercial value of the coins and artefacts i've found are probably equal to the amount i've spent on metal detectors, research, petrol to get to the site, etc, etc.
Of course you could find something extremely valuable, another Middleham Jewel or Riegate hoard. But realistically, you've more chance of winning the lottery.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
26th November 2008, 02:15 PM
As we see, it is not the realm of the professional, at certain levels or positions to need to know... the need to know is at the level where you are actually dealing with it.. ie Project Managers, Site Directors... A digger does not need to know how to fill in an SMC form.. as Voice says... that does mean that the Project Manager does.
A Detectorist.. (as opposed to a member of the public) will have to know these things, understand about SAMs, Treasure Reporting, Stewardships, etc... as this is exactly the things they deal with... It is interseting that many don't know about SAMs or what the should report, or what they can record etc.
The intial post was indeed a valid comment and question... and led to intersting debate.. the same could be asked of MDs... and the resulting answers would probably show the same...
"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
26th November 2008, 02:22 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Mike.T.
Yes, you have missed the point of metal detecting. The point of metal detecting is to find coins and artefacts which have been lost or discarded. The vast majority of items found and I mean the vast majority are worth absolutely nothing.
I've been metal detecting for about 30 years and the commercial value of the coins and artefacts i've found are probably equal to the amount i've spent on metal detectors, research, petrol to get to the site, etc, etc.
Of course you could find something extremely valuable, another Middleham Jewel or Riegate hoard. But realistically, you've more chance of winning the lottery.
I know and I was exaggerating slightly.
All I can say is that I doubt the combined value of everything I have ever found on archaeological excavations would pay for a new trowel!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
26th November 2008, 03:28 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
As we see, it is not the realm of the professional, at certain levels or positions to need to know... the need to know is at the level where you are actually dealing with it.. ie Project Managers, Site Directors... A digger does not need to know how to fill in an SMC form.. as Voice says... that does mean that the Project Manager does.
A Detectorist.. (as opposed to a member of the public) will have to know these things, understand about SAMs, Treasure Reporting, Stewardships, etc... as this is exactly the things they deal with... It is interseting that many don't know about SAMs or what the should report, or what they can record etc.
The intial post was indeed a valid comment and question... and led to intersting debate.. the same could be asked of MDs... and the resulting answers would probably show the same...
"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton
So the repocibility is for the site manager??
How does that fit to the law?
Is the person who excavated the "treasure" except from the act?
Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
26th November 2008, 03:58 PM
The responsible post holder, would have overall responsibility... the person who excavated the treasure, although thrilled to be the actuall finder, is part of the team, and the site director / manager / officer would take the responsibility for reporting..
"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
26th November 2008, 04:34 PM
My limited experience of "treasure" items is working next to someone who found a gold ring (which probably didn't qualify as "treasure" under the old act as, from the context, it was lost rather than deposited with the intention of later recovery) was a gold ring find - it came off the site as a small find, (although not lobbed in the finds tray for later sorting) and was reported back to the unit who afaik reported it and took it off site to keep in the safe (along with the other bullion - Lord Mayors Gold Plated Coach etc - it was in London)until such time as the coroner made a decision on it.
Most archaeologists, as various others have said, will never find items of precious metal. Rarely will small hoards be found (I know of one buried in a trackway bank in W Lancs)but from what I know of hoards they tend to be buried a little bit away from settlements and most excavations concentrate on the settlement sites. And there are probably vastly more settlements with no hoards than with them in general so the excavation record is in favour of hoardless sites.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2004
26th November 2008, 06:32 PM
The practical responsibility for reporting of Treasure for professional archaeologists employed by an archaeological contractor lies with the 'body corporate', in exactly the same way as dealing with the discovery of human remains and a range of other issues (eg health and safety reporting to HSE re injuries and dangerous aoccurrences).
This is recognised in para 23 of the Code of Practice However, in the case of an archaeological excavation, it may be convenient for one member of the excavation team to take the responsibility for ensuring that the coroner is informed about all finds of potential treasure made during the course of the excavation.
Is that explicit enough for you Gary?
hopefully that's an end to this thread
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
26th November 2008, 07:08 PM
I should add it was a valid question.. and now clearly answered
"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
26th November 2008, 07:37 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
I should add it was a valid question.. and now clearly answered
"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton
Clearly answered and gets me off the hook re not reporting some minor bits of silver/gold from a couple of sites recently!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2006
26th November 2008, 08:43 PM
I'm not sure that para 23 of the code of conduct does get the finder off the hook. The law itself states that "the duty to report lies with the individual". Para 23 does not negate this duty: it only clarifies that someone other than the finder may make the report if this is more convenient. If the delegated person fails to do so, it seems that the finder would still be liable for the failure.
"Hidden wisdom and buried treasure, what use is there in either?" (Ecclesiasticus ch20 v30)
