Time Team and Ainsbrook Hoard

[tom wilson]

I'm just loving the image of Darth Vader in a tweed cape or in pinstripes.
I certainly never worked on sites where everyone else went to public school, although the ones that did are generally the scruffiest. Fair enough though; nothing wrong with being born posh is there?

Anyway, thanks for the public perception Shorty, and well done for starting such an unwittingly provocative thread.
I'm sure Gary could give us some insights into how his fellow amateur archaeologists felt in general, but I don't think he trusts my good intentions.

I wouldn't mind learning how to use a metal detector. It'd surely be better than the all-day meeting I've just crawled out of.

[BAJR Host]

And thats where skill sharing comes in... along with training DVDs!



"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[BAJR Host]

Good idea from the detecting forums was to get archaeologists and detecting club on a YAC day... that should break down barriers and allow interaction

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[DAZ 1900]

quote:Originally posted by tom wilson



I'm sure Gary could give us some insights into how his fellow amateur archaeologists felt in general, but I don't think he trusts my good intentions.

Hi Tom

I rarely post on the forums nowadays but reading your quote above i wanted to give you my view being a Detectorist of 10 years myself

I watched the Program in it's entirety and had mixed feelings at the end. I felt the Program had the potential to put the Hobby back a good few years at the very begining with the "Nighthawk" statement and then came the ill thought out statments/comments made by the two Detectorists (the younger one especially!!)which had me hating them and questioning their every word with clenched fist Money was the only motive in Detecting for them and i was disgusted by this.It was at that point that i wanted to hear from the Landowner and what his thoughts were on this but we never did,which then had me thinking had the program been extensively edited and was we seeing everything.To summarize the Detectorists both acted and re-acted to situations throughout the whole Program that could be equated to how we are sometimes viewed within Archaeology.The Archaeologists did (in my view anyway!) investigate the site the right way as Topsoil Archaeology is only part of the picture.They would always have had to look for dateable structure within a sealed context in order to make sense of the site, but probably due to a lack of knowledge on the practices of Archaeology (at that time!!)they may not have known this and acted accordingly.

best wishes

Darren

[tom wilson]

thanks Darren.
I'd have very much liked to hear from the landowner too, good point. It's a bit like talking about commercial archaeology without mentioning the developer.

[BAJR Host]

Thanks Daz... appreciate your post... and the landowner... another missing piece (and an important one) in the jigsaw

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by Shorty
On a more optimistic note, I think all archaeologists can now take hope from the fact that this 'public perception' issue is now about to change for the better with tonight's Steven Seagal movie as an archaeologist embarks on a revenge killing spree. Archaeology: cool, dynamic, sexy...

Steven Seagal? I thought he was a cook. [:p]


D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

Don't make me destroy you, Curator

[garybrun]

http://www.finds.org.uk/wordpress/wp-con...letter.pdf

quote:
Chambers of Geoffrey Vos QC
3 Stone Buildings
Lincoln’s Inn
London WC2A 3XL

Time Team special: Codename Ainsbrook, 14 January
I would like to correct an unfortunate inaccuracy in the Time Team special on the Ainsbrook hoard screened on 14 January. The programme featured two detector users, Mark Ainsley and Geoff Bambrook, who found a Viking Treasure hoard in Yorkshire which they correctly reported as potential Treasure. The hoard was declared Treasure by the coroner and it was offered to museums to acquire. As the British Museum wished to acquire the hoard, it came before the Treasure Valuation Committee so that my Committee could recommend a valuation to the Secretary of State. The remit of the Treasure Valuation Committee is to value finds at their full market value, as between a willing buyer and willing seller and, if museums wish to acquire Treasure finds, they have to raise this sum. If museums are unable to raise the money then the find is returned. Only about half of all finds reported as Treasure are actually acquired by museums.
The Committee commissioned two valuations from members of a panel of valuers who work for the Committee: these are all the leading experts in the fields of antiquities and coins. The finders had an opportunity to comment on the provisional values before the Committee considered the find and then they had an opportunity to appeal against the Committee's valuation. The Committee reached its valuation of the objects that were reported after taking advice from the leading experts in the market and after having considered the finders' comments very carefully and we believed that a value of £5,000 was right, taking into account all the considerations involved, such as the condition of the objects and their market value.
Tony Robinson implied in the programme that the Committee values finds below their true market value because museums cannot afford to pay the full price. I wish to repudiate this impression unequivocally, and to place it on record that any suggestion that a recommended reward should be scaled to the acquiring museum's particular resources would be decisively rejected. However, your readers do not need to take my word for it: it is stated very clearly in the Treasure Act Code of Practice, which is subject to Parliamentary approval and which the Committee is bound to follow that the Committee's terms of reference are `to recommend to the Secretary of State valuations for the items brought before it which correspond as closely as possible, taking account of all relevant factors, to what may be paid for the object(s) in a sale on the open market between a willing seller and a willing buyer' (Treasure Act 1996. Code of Practice (Revised), p. 41, paragraph 65).
I am very surprised that Time Team, during whose programmes finds of Treasure have been made on several occasions, should have made such an elementary mistake about the Treasure Act and I have contacted the producers to place the true position on record.
Yours sincerely
Professor Norman Palmer
Chairman, Treasure Valuation Committee

Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.

[gumbo]

Ah ha! Very interesting Mr.Brun.

A slightly different aspect of the debate. I dont really know anything about valuations of such things but does the Treasure Valuation Committee do research on e-bay or that sort of thing? Was the implication that the discrepancy between the detectorists at Ainsbrook's valuation and the valuation committee's valuation was due to the fact that the Ainsbrook detectorists had a 'very willing' buyer in mind? Does anyone know about such things?

[Unitof1]

I must say that I did not see the twit team program. But why let that stop me.

What the metal detectorists should argue is that they should be paid the excavation cost (or some proportion of it) because without their finds and notification of it the “archaeologists” would not have got the chance to have a hog feast (a large proportion of the costs would have been their fees). I wonder how much it cost and who made what out of it ---that includes twit team, press, valuation team and all the nationalists. Isn’t that part of the true value…..The metal detectorists must feel like right mugs. They pick up something and then the whole world gets in on the act. In effect the excavation/evaluation costs are what the value of finds location is worth. If its not the archaeologists would not have spent it. PAS/archaeologists have been trying to get that location for free or for values related to the gold standard, which I think Churchill ditched after the war.

This is the type of compensation that I think landowners should be paid on pipelines etc