nigelswift
|
Re: "and another thing"
Oct 08, 2010, 17:08
|
it's hometime really isn't it. Why am I getting het up about this old chestnut.
Quite!
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: £2.3m for a Roman helmet
Oct 08, 2010, 17:24
|
|
Howburn Digger wrote: goffik wrote:
May I just say, of aforementioned heritage thief and destroyer of archaeological context: what a c... What a pri... What a fuc... What a shame. Shame on everyone involved. Terrible precedent.
G x
He was metal detecting legally.
He had permission from the landowner.
The plough has long removed any stratographical context from the field it was found in.
He reported the find to the PAS (though he was under no obligation to).
It was not treasure trove, because the powers that be have decided that only gold, silver and coin hoards are treasure.
He was entitled to sell his find.
The thing of extraordinary beauty has sold for a large sum which the finder and the landowner share.
Good luck to him.
I must say that after you put it like that HD you are right. I know MD's take a bashing but there must be plenty of responsible ones out there like this bloke seems to have been. Is it not better to know about this find then for it to be never found at all? At least it helps us gain a little more knowledge of Roman movement/settlement/occupation/artifacts does it not?
|
Deepinder Cheema
|
Edited Oct 09, 2010, 01:40
Re: £2.3m for a Roman helmet
Oct 09, 2010, 01:38
|
There needs to be a tightening up of procedures. The public do not understand fully the importance of excavating the item in situ just in case there is an important context, as context is everything. Treasure trove and PAS needs to be finely balanced to give some incentive to MD and anyone else who stumbles across some gear to report finds. I think there should something all encompassing with export license to not allow finds of this quality to leave the country. I genuinely thought there were progressive measures in place to protect important finds.
If there was an auction subject to being provisional to obtaining an export licence, then I can see some abuse. The £300'000 estimate here was woefully inadequate for a unique piece as the market yielded £2m plus £300'000 buyers commission, so items can be bidded up just to make hard pressed campaigning groups cough up more.
I have attended dodgy auctions here in the UK, it is apparently not illegal to take bids off the wall up to the reserve to generate interest in the crowd, that is why some auctioneers are great actors. Some auctioneers are great actors, but TV personalities make crap auctioneers.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: £2.3m for a Roman helmet
Oct 09, 2010, 06:14
|
|
Sanctuary wrote: Howburn Digger wrote: goffik wrote:
May I just say, of aforementioned heritage thief and destroyer of archaeological context: what a c... What a pri... What a fuc... What a shame. Shame on everyone involved. Terrible precedent.
G x
He was metal detecting legally.
He had permission from the landowner.
The plough has long removed any stratographical context from the field it was found in.
He reported the find to the PAS (though he was under no obligation to).
It was not treasure trove, because the powers that be have decided that only gold, silver and coin hoards are treasure.
He was entitled to sell his find.
The thing of extraordinary beauty has sold for a large sum which the finder and the landowner share.
Good luck to him.
I must say that after you put it like that HD you are right. I know MD's take a bashing but there must be plenty of responsible ones out there like this bloke seems to have been. Is it not better to know about this find then for it to be never found at all? At least it helps us gain a little more knowledge of Roman movement/settlement/occupation/artifacts does it not?
I think you have chosen the wrong one to say is responsible. No-one, be they metal detectorists, archaeologists or PAS has said that about him, in fact they have said quite the reverse. In addition there are huge suspicions surrounding the whole affair but I'm not going to repeat them here.
A couple of points of fact though - he didn't show PAS what he said was the findspot until 3 months later, PAS first saw the helmet at Christies, at no point was the object in the care of PAS (or the British Museum) and the helmet was restored (not conserved) for Christie's (apparently against a request from PAS and the British Museum). PAS are on record as saying: "we regret that the finder and landowner were not willing to offer this find directly to Tullie House museum and that Christie’s have restored it before it could be scientifically examined."
So all in all (and even without the additional huge suspicions) I'm more with Goff on this -
"..... heritage thief and destroyer of archaeological context: what a c... What a pri... What a fuc... What a shame. Shame on everyone involved. Terrible precedent."
;)
|
Resonox
|
Re: £2.3m for a Roman helmet
Oct 09, 2010, 06:35
|
|
nigelswift wrote: PAS first saw the helmet at Christies, at no point was the object in the care of PAS (or the British Museum) and the helmet was restored (not conserved) for Christie's (apparently against a request from PAS and the British Museum).
The telling phrase IMO is nigelswift wrote: for Christie's ...just who restored it for them???
If anyone is as to any doubt about bronze "heads" being fake contact Worthing Museum and ask how long they exhibited the Cissbury Head(affectionately nicknamed The Fuhrer at the time...oh that wacky wartime spirit!) before it was eventually shown for what it really was.
I'm not suggesting for one second that the Roman one is a fake...but it's "restoration" is a remarkable piece of technological wizardry and I'm curious as to know who carried this out "for Christies".
|
Resonox
|
Re: £2.3m for a Roman helmet
Oct 09, 2010, 06:38
|
|
tjj wrote:
This is a whole new topic really - I wonder how many ancient circles/sites were destroyed in this country during the 1960/70s when all the new motorways were being driven through.
The A25 through Surrey cuts through at least two sites to my certain knowledge.
|
Howburn Digger
|
Re: £2.3m for a Roman helmet
Oct 09, 2010, 07:15
|
|
nigelswift wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Howburn Digger wrote: goffik wrote:
May I just say, of aforementioned heritage thief and destroyer of archaeological context: what a c... What a pri... What a fuc... What a shame. Shame on everyone involved. Terrible precedent.
G x
He was metal detecting legally.
He had permission from the landowner.
The plough has long removed any stratographical context from the field it was found in.
He reported the find to the PAS (though he was under no obligation to).
It was not treasure trove, because the powers that be have decided that only gold, silver and coin hoards are treasure.
He was entitled to sell his find.
The thing of extraordinary beauty has sold for a large sum which the finder and the landowner share.
Good luck to him.
I must say that after you put it like that HD you are right. I know MD's take a bashing but there must be plenty of responsible ones out there like this bloke seems to have been. Is it not better to know about this find then for it to be never found at all? At least it helps us gain a little more knowledge of Roman movement/settlement/occupation/artifacts does it not?
I think you have chosen the wrong one to say is responsible. No-one, be they metal detectorists, archaeologists or PAS has said that about him, in fact they have said quite the reverse. In addition there are huge suspicions surrounding the whole affair but I'm not going to repeat them here.
A couple of points of fact though - he didn't show PAS what he said was the findspot until 3 months later, PAS first saw the helmet at Christies, at no point was the object in the care of PAS (or the British Museum) and the helmet was restored (not conserved) for Christie's (apparently against a request from PAS and the British Museum). PAS are on record as saying: "we regret that the finder and landowner were not willing to offer this find directly to Tullie House museum and that Christie’s have restored it before it could be scientifically examined."
So all in all (and even without the additional huge suspicions) I'm more with Goff on this -
"..... heritage thief and destroyer of archaeological context: what a c... What a pri... What a fuc... What a shame. Shame on everyone involved. Terrible precedent."
;)
Okay some people are suspicious. You get suspicious people. Some of them have huge suspicions about all sorts of suspicious stuff. All sorts of stuff. Usually they cant talk about it because its so secretly suspicious.
The finder was under NO obligation to report it to PAS. He did them a favour. This wasn't treasure trove. It was nothing to do with PAS. NOTHING. They dont have a look in. If the finder spoke to them three months later it was a kindness on his part.
Good job Christies restored it. Romans helmets appear to have been very shabbily constructed and not looked after. The ones Curle found at Newstead (Trimontium) in 1903 had been dumped down a well along with a chained-up female dwarf (T C Lethbridge had some stuff to say about that).
The more recent helmet in question was in loads of pieces. That's ploughing for you ( farmers are no doubt "destroyers of archaeological context" what with their tractors and ploughs and crops and stuff). The state would not have paid to re-assemble it. It wasn't in their remit. If we expect the State or the MPs in this country to do anything about this kinda thing then we're on a hiding to nothing. They only put money into bailing out banks and ripping off expenses to clear out their moats.
I hope the finder can now enjoy the fruits of his find and spend a lifetime wandering fields looking for more stuff. Brilliant!
|
nigelswift
|
Edited Oct 09, 2010, 08:51
Re: £2.3m for a Roman helmet
Oct 09, 2010, 07:40
|
The finder was under NO obligation to report it to PAS.
No LEGAL obligation to report it (unlike in Scotland and every civilised country on earth except England and Wales!)
But a huge MORAL obligation to the rest of us (underlined by the Code of Responsible Detecting). Or is there no such thing as Society?
He did them a favour.
Did he? You sure Christie's didn't ask them for a reference number to make it ten times more saleable?
It was nothing to do with PAS. NOTHING.
Really? Let's just close them down then and let anyone dig anything and keep quiet about it. It's only History, who needs it?
----------------
PS I'm really puzzled by you saying It was nothing to do with PAS. NOTHING since they were set up specifically for people like this to report finds like this.
I'm wondering if you think that because it's not Treasure it's not in their remit. Nothing could be less true.
|
Howburn Digger
|
Re: £2.3m for a Roman helmet
Oct 09, 2010, 08:45
|
Lets be thankful he reported it to PAS then.
It had been lying in the ploughsoil in bits for 2,000 years so another three months probably wasn't gonna make any difference.
I see PAS didn't buy the helmet.
PAS? Moral obligation? They didn't seem to have one.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: £2.3m for a Roman helmet
Oct 09, 2010, 09:08
|
|
Howburn Digger wrote: I see PAS didn't buy the helmet.
PAS? Moral obligation? They didn't seem to have one.
Eh?
PAS are a taxpayer-funded organisation for recording stuff and outreaching to finders. They are given £1.5 million to do this and to pay a staff of about fifty. So how could they be accused of having a duty or mandate or money to buy the helmet?
|
