Mystery as 4k-year-old axe-heads sent to museum(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Mystery as 4k-year-old axe-heads sent to museum
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cydvn07d7vdo
110 comments
Actually, in most countries, the public agents are forced to pursue persecution whenever they are aware of a "crime", not doing so is usually defined in most countries legal statutes as the crime of "prevarication".
So, unless a formal procedured issues a legal valid document granting immunity, I hope this guy/gal keeps quiet.
So, unless a formal procedured issues a legal valid document granting immunity, I hope this guy/gal keeps quiet.
>Actually, in most countries, the public agents are forced to pursue persecution whenever they are aware of a "crime"
Source?
Source?
No gp, but I know of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandated_reporter in US.
It’s for abuse so we’re not talking about a few old axes. But such a thing as a concept does exist.
It’s for abuse so we’re not talking about a few old axes. But such a thing as a concept does exist.
So no evidence any sort of law exists then.
> So no evidence any sort of law exists then.
The link I showed mentions this:
> If a mandated reporter fails to report, they can be subject to civil penalty, criminal prosecution, or both.
Not sure how subject to criminal prosecution would work without a law.
So that's good enough for me. Do I want to dig through the legal docs today to quote the exact paragraphs for all the US states or other countries? Nah, maybe some other time.
The link I showed mentions this:
> If a mandated reporter fails to report, they can be subject to civil penalty, criminal prosecution, or both.
Not sure how subject to criminal prosecution would work without a law.
So that's good enough for me. Do I want to dig through the legal docs today to quote the exact paragraphs for all the US states or other countries? Nah, maybe some other time.
You understand that having doctors and social workers report a specific type of crime to law enforcement is not the same thing, and not even related to the idea, as the idea that law enforcement has to pursue prosecution of crimes they are aware of, right?
Law enforcement has no real obligation to investigate and prosecute crimes that are reported to them. Beyond that, the idea that mandated reporting, which mostly involves medical professionals reporting abuse, is such a big deal is because the default state is that you are under no obligation to report crimes or assist with prosecution of crimes.
Law enforcement has no real obligation to investigate and prosecute crimes that are reported to them. Beyond that, the idea that mandated reporting, which mostly involves medical professionals reporting abuse, is such a big deal is because the default state is that you are under no obligation to report crimes or assist with prosecution of crimes.
> You understand that having doctors and social workers report a specific type of crime to law enforcement is not the same thing, and not even related to the idea, as the idea that law enforcement has to pursue prosecution of crimes they are aware of, right?
There are multiple entities here. The OP mentioned "public agents", both the museum employees may be public agents (working for some preservation or historical department), and the police, or the prosecutors maybe public agents. I was talking about the first case most when someone witnessed a crime and they have to report it. It doesn't apply directly to the case here, but that general principle exists.
It seems you're talking about whether the prosecutors can selectively prosecute or not. In US they pick and choose, can but other countries that may not have that choice they are forced to if they are aware of crimes: https://www.ibanet.org/article/A835FD91-8EB7-4CBF-8AFE-E7E2E...
> For example, the new German corporate criminal liability framework[3] removes prosecutorial discretion (opportunity) and requires that public prosecutors prosecute legal persons whenever there is sufficient reasonable suspicion of occurrence of a criminal offence attributable to a legal person. Furthermore, due to the legality principle, the majority of legal systems are not allowed to choose whom to prosecute and must prosecute both the legal person and the natural person without the possibility of giving a preference.
So both options exist: forcing people to report crimes they are aware of, and prosecutors not having the discretion to prosecute but being forced to.
There are multiple entities here. The OP mentioned "public agents", both the museum employees may be public agents (working for some preservation or historical department), and the police, or the prosecutors maybe public agents. I was talking about the first case most when someone witnessed a crime and they have to report it. It doesn't apply directly to the case here, but that general principle exists.
It seems you're talking about whether the prosecutors can selectively prosecute or not. In US they pick and choose, can but other countries that may not have that choice they are forced to if they are aware of crimes: https://www.ibanet.org/article/A835FD91-8EB7-4CBF-8AFE-E7E2E...
> For example, the new German corporate criminal liability framework[3] removes prosecutorial discretion (opportunity) and requires that public prosecutors prosecute legal persons whenever there is sufficient reasonable suspicion of occurrence of a criminal offence attributable to a legal person. Furthermore, due to the legality principle, the majority of legal systems are not allowed to choose whom to prosecute and must prosecute both the legal person and the natural person without the possibility of giving a preference.
So both options exist: forcing people to report crimes they are aware of, and prosecutors not having the discretion to prosecute but being forced to.
It depends a lot, many countries do have Prosecutorial discretion (opportunity principle).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_discretion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_discretion
> It is illegal to use a metal detector to search for archaeological objects anywhere in the Republic of Ireland, unless you have written permission from the government.
> Those convicted of the offence can face a fine ranging to more than €63,000 (£53,000).
No wonder they donated anonymously, what an insane law.
No wonder they donated anonymously, what an insane law.
>No wonder they donated anonymously, what an insane law.
By contrast, where I live in Philadelphia, developers are not required to perform any archaeological studies before excavating - even along the Delaware River waterfront, where the oldest European settlements are, as well as countless indigenous sites.
Sometimes, before history gets scraped away and sent to the dump, bottle diggers will excavate the trash pits, typically discarding anything that's not 100% intact, and selling the 18th and 19th century bottles on eBay or at flea markets. However, like the axe heads in the article, these artifacts are absent context, removing nearly all historical value. And of course, the stratification of the pits they're extracted from is also destroyed, further reducing the ability to interpret any finds that might otherwise have been saved.
It's only projects paid for by our federal government that are required to do archaeological studies, and when they do, it's not uncommon to find early colonial artifacts, but also remnants of pre-contact Lenni-Lenape sites.
You only really get one shot at recovering history through archaeology. That doesn't mean that preservation holds permanent veto over progress, but a little bit of disincentivization can go a long way in the study of history.
By contrast, where I live in Philadelphia, developers are not required to perform any archaeological studies before excavating - even along the Delaware River waterfront, where the oldest European settlements are, as well as countless indigenous sites.
Sometimes, before history gets scraped away and sent to the dump, bottle diggers will excavate the trash pits, typically discarding anything that's not 100% intact, and selling the 18th and 19th century bottles on eBay or at flea markets. However, like the axe heads in the article, these artifacts are absent context, removing nearly all historical value. And of course, the stratification of the pits they're extracted from is also destroyed, further reducing the ability to interpret any finds that might otherwise have been saved.
It's only projects paid for by our federal government that are required to do archaeological studies, and when they do, it's not uncommon to find early colonial artifacts, but also remnants of pre-contact Lenni-Lenape sites.
You only really get one shot at recovering history through archaeology. That doesn't mean that preservation holds permanent veto over progress, but a little bit of disincentivization can go a long way in the study of history.
Systems like these need the right incentives to work.
If the builder is compensated for the costs associated with working around the fonds, plus a little extra, they will be happy to report everything they find.
I'd throw in making museums obliged to display which builder company found the item when displaying it.
This probably costs a lot more than the average government wants to spend on archeology though.
If the builder is compensated for the costs associated with working around the fonds, plus a little extra, they will be happy to report everything they find.
I'd throw in making museums obliged to display which builder company found the item when displaying it.
This probably costs a lot more than the average government wants to spend on archeology though.
And then when you or your relative need to buy a house, "Oh woe is me, why is building a house so expensive in the US!"
Sounds like you want to read through https://www.museum.ie/en-IE/Collections-Research/The-Law-on-... to tone down the indignation a little. It's a perfectly fine law: if you use a metal detector on your farm and you happen to find archeological metal, you're not breaking any laws. But now you do have a duty to report that find, and you can't keep using your metal detector and stabbing the ground with a shovel when it beeps because then you'd be intentionally disturbing and possibly destroying a site of potentially historical significance.
And also lose the complete use of your land because it now has a designated ring fort or fairy bush on it listed as a protected structure.
Or worse, hold up the construction of a motorway for a decade and lead to its eventual re-routing at the cost of millions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latoon_fairy_bush
Or worse, hold up the construction of a motorway for a decade and lead to its eventual re-routing at the cost of millions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latoon_fairy_bush
You don't lose "the complete use of your land" because a small part of it is considered historically significant, it's not the US. You do get to wait for them to figure out the boundary though.
As for your Wikipedia link, it's a good idea to actually read the whole text in it.
As for your Wikipedia link, it's a good idea to actually read the whole text in it.
small part. And if it is a “zero-sized” residential lot, you just S.O.L.
Again, it's not the US: are you just trying to come up with arguments that you can keep being angry about instead of knowing, or looking up, how this law's been used?
Didn’t realize that US is the scope of the OP article.
It's not, which is my point. Criticize it on the merits of how the law's used in Ireland instead of coming up with "things that happen" that don't happen.
And you would know that this didn't happened ... how?
Between the museum, the prospector, and the government, this is a stacked prisoner dilemma game; not worth playing.
Between the museum, the prospector, and the government, this is a stacked prisoner dilemma game; not worth playing.
'Lenihan himself mentioned in a 2009 interview that the National Road Authority "were forced to bend the road a little bit around the bush, which they did, which is fine. There was no need to demolish the bush at all. Just adjust the road a little bit and landscape the bush into the roadway"'
Is saying that you searched for non-archeological objects and just happened to find one a valid defense? Or is it illegal to find archeological objects even if you weren't explicitly searching for them?
We have a law that somehow covers this in France. It is permitted to use a metal detector for leisure provided that it is not a search for archaeological objects.
However, this law can be interpreted from many angles, as it is difficult to define what is archaeological or not. There are certain associations which defend “leisure detection” as long as it is not located on a registered archaeological or historical site. But their point of view is not shared by archaeologists, who consider that any place can be considered an archaeological site, relegating leisure detection to fine sandy beaches.
In this context, case law says that there are no completely accidental archaeological discoveries with a metal detector.
However, this law can be interpreted from many angles, as it is difficult to define what is archaeological or not. There are certain associations which defend “leisure detection” as long as it is not located on a registered archaeological or historical site. But their point of view is not shared by archaeologists, who consider that any place can be considered an archaeological site, relegating leisure detection to fine sandy beaches.
In this context, case law says that there are no completely accidental archaeological discoveries with a metal detector.
So the outcome is that if somebody does find something then it gets reburied or destroyed?
I believe one only ever finds such objects by tripping over them... allegedly...
ok but...
>The letter stated that the axe-heads were discovered in County Westmeath using a metal detector.
>The museum explained those "severe penalties" are in place because unauthorised metal detecting can cause "serious damage to Ireland’s archaeological heritage
>The letter stated that the axe-heads were discovered in County Westmeath using a metal detector.
>The museum explained those "severe penalties" are in place because unauthorised metal detecting can cause "serious damage to Ireland’s archaeological heritage
"But PULEEEEAASE tell us who you are and where you found these! We pinky swear we'll ignore the law and you won't get in trouble."
Good luck with that.
Good luck with that.
It would be a lot more reassuring if they just fined the culprit 1 EUR and closed the case. Most European countries don't allow a judged case ("res iudicata") to be reopened unless new serious material evidence comes to light, and many not even then.
The problem is this has happened more than once and, not 100% certain, it appears to be the same person doing it twice.
If that's the case they've repeatedly committed a crime and shown clear understanding they're breaking the law.
If that's the case they've repeatedly committed a crime and shown clear understanding they're breaking the law.
It's to protect historical artifacts from looters, also to protect historical sites from being disturbed.
Yeah that law is ridiculous. What happens if you are a metal-detecting enthusiast looking for valuables and you stumble upon something archaeological? Are you just gonna get fined?
I guess that in the same way guns aren't really a hobby in Ireland, neither is metal detecting.
Shooting is more popular than you would think in Ireland, but people tend to keep quiet about it.
In my experience, nearly all metal-detecting enthusiasts hope to find valuable antiques, not modern iron scrap. Alright, some of them hope to find lost jewelry, but also valuable antiques. None of the ones I've known are prospecting for boring metal veins, for example.
There is a bit of a line to be drawn between 'valuable antiques' and things that are 'archeological' though. Lots of people are happy to find bullets and belt buckles from 100 years ago vs specifically looking for iron age artifacts.
>metal-detecting enthusiast looking for valuables and you stumble upon something archaeological?
Most things of value are going to be archeological. If you want gold you do panning.
Most things of value are going to be archeological. If you want gold you do panning.
Sure, in Ireland. In other counties people use metal detectors as well. Recent example:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/amateur-treasure-h...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/amateur-treasure-h...
An old cache of coins or jewelry is unlikely to be in a stream.
>An old cache of coins or jewelry is unlikely to be in a stream.
And would likely be considered important archeologically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_Brooch
And would likely be considered important archeologically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_Brooch
Panning isn’t done for the archeology. It’s done for the gold.
Just wait til you hear about the rules for gold prospecting in Ireland.
TL;DR finds of over 2 grams have to be given to the state (you might get it back).
TL;DR finds of over 2 grams have to be given to the state (you might get it back).
Yup.
I believe the term, here is "hoist with his own petard," to quote an Englishman (or Dane) of some repute.
I believe the term, here is "hoist with his own petard," to quote an Englishman (or Dane) of some repute.
I'm fairly certain that "anywhere" bit is wrong. You only need a license when doing it on public land, except for scheduled monuments, historic monuments, and areas of archaeological interest which require special permission as well.
If it's on private land and you have permission from the landowner, you don't need the license. You still need to report any treasure or archaeological finds to National Museums NI though.
If it's on private land and you have permission from the landowner, you don't need the license. You still need to report any treasure or archaeological finds to National Museums NI though.
FYI the article was about a find in the Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland. No idea about the relevant rules in either case though.
My head-cannon is that both sets of artifacts reported in the story were sent in by the same person. The dude just loves metal detecting and he won't be stopped! And it's better to preserve the finds anonymously rather than face stiff penalties.
EDIT: Shout-Out for metal detecting in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detectorists
EDIT: Shout-Out for metal detecting in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detectorists
"The dude just loves metal detecting and he won't be stopped!"
As someone who used to be in that field, I never understood why people don't do any research before getting into metal detecting. It should be obvious after even a tiny bit of reading about it that most finds are mostly useless without the context in which they were deposited. This context is usually completely destroyed by digging without knowledge of how to properly document it (that's why so many archaeologists kind of hate Schliemann, even though it has been 150 years). And on top of that most laypeople don't even properly record the location of the find. But many people, once they have started, seem to develop a sort of identity around it, and from that point on, most are impervious to new information. I've often heard that "these greedy archaeologists / government officials want to take what's rightfully mine" or "they don't appreciate me, I'm just trying to preserve history".
It's generally either total ignorance or "I didn't want to get fined" that lead to situations like the article. The latter is the same reason shady companies don't record where they disposed of chemicals in the woods, but somehow it's okay for you? Because you have convinced yourself you are "preserving history" by removing a bronze axehead from a location that has preserved it for over 2000 years?
It's truly a shame. There are of course some who work with local archaeologists, have received a bit of training and know how to dig and document, and when to stop digging, but from what I've seen, they are a tiny minority. And even many of them do more harm than good.
Some archeologists only work with them because they know that these people would dig or loot without them otherwise, and destroy much more in the process. But they can't say that openly, because in today's climate of anti -intellectualism, this would be seen as "ivory tower behaviour", and even more people would go detecting completely unsupervised. Just like rolling coal and the like, some people just really don't like being told what to do, no matter the disparity in knowledge about the subject.
Sorry about the rant, it's just all rather frustrating sometimes. In my country, the laws surrounding excavations are so stupid that no-one is happy with them, but archaeologists don't have a lobby of course, so we'll just have to live with the status quo.
As someone who used to be in that field, I never understood why people don't do any research before getting into metal detecting. It should be obvious after even a tiny bit of reading about it that most finds are mostly useless without the context in which they were deposited. This context is usually completely destroyed by digging without knowledge of how to properly document it (that's why so many archaeologists kind of hate Schliemann, even though it has been 150 years). And on top of that most laypeople don't even properly record the location of the find. But many people, once they have started, seem to develop a sort of identity around it, and from that point on, most are impervious to new information. I've often heard that "these greedy archaeologists / government officials want to take what's rightfully mine" or "they don't appreciate me, I'm just trying to preserve history".
It's generally either total ignorance or "I didn't want to get fined" that lead to situations like the article. The latter is the same reason shady companies don't record where they disposed of chemicals in the woods, but somehow it's okay for you? Because you have convinced yourself you are "preserving history" by removing a bronze axehead from a location that has preserved it for over 2000 years?
It's truly a shame. There are of course some who work with local archaeologists, have received a bit of training and know how to dig and document, and when to stop digging, but from what I've seen, they are a tiny minority. And even many of them do more harm than good.
Some archeologists only work with them because they know that these people would dig or loot without them otherwise, and destroy much more in the process. But they can't say that openly, because in today's climate of anti -intellectualism, this would be seen as "ivory tower behaviour", and even more people would go detecting completely unsupervised. Just like rolling coal and the like, some people just really don't like being told what to do, no matter the disparity in knowledge about the subject.
Sorry about the rant, it's just all rather frustrating sometimes. In my country, the laws surrounding excavations are so stupid that no-one is happy with them, but archaeologists don't have a lobby of course, so we'll just have to live with the status quo.
> It's generally either total ignorance or "I didn't want to get fined" that lead to situations like the article. The latter is the same reason shady companies don't record where they disposed of chemicals in the woods, but somehow it's okay for you? Because you have convinced yourself you are "preserving history" by removing a bronze axehead from a location that has preserved it for over 2000 years?
You’re heaping a lot of assumptions on to people who do metal detecting.
What makes you so confident that these people went out with the goal of finding and destroying archaeological sites with their metal detector? Finding archaeological artifacts is an extremely rare edge case in metal detecting. I doubt these people had any idea they were digging up valuable artifacts until they were completely out.
> It's generally either total ignorance or "I didn't want to get fined" that lead to situations like the article
When the fine is on the order of a decent annual income, it should come as no surprise that people don’t want to get fined. It should also come as no surprise that anyone who discovers any artifacts like this would be highly incentivized to hide their origin.
I don’t know what you expect. For someone to generously turn their probably accidental finding in and pay a massive amount of money for the privilege?
You’re heaping a lot of assumptions on to people who do metal detecting.
What makes you so confident that these people went out with the goal of finding and destroying archaeological sites with their metal detector? Finding archaeological artifacts is an extremely rare edge case in metal detecting. I doubt these people had any idea they were digging up valuable artifacts until they were completely out.
> It's generally either total ignorance or "I didn't want to get fined" that lead to situations like the article
When the fine is on the order of a decent annual income, it should come as no surprise that people don’t want to get fined. It should also come as no surprise that anyone who discovers any artifacts like this would be highly incentivized to hide their origin.
I don’t know what you expect. For someone to generously turn their probably accidental finding in and pay a massive amount of money for the privilege?
I've heard a bit about metal detecting in the UK from a relative who is into it. I assume the laws aren't too far off how it works in Ireland.
I know that finding hoards of 1000+ year old coins is completely par for the course and is really the goal of the exercise. It may be different in the new world where ancient metal is uncommon, but that's how it works here.
Groups like the one my relative is in get special permission to search on building sites before they lay the foundations. I believe the developers are obliged to allow this. Destruction of the archeological context isn't such a concern there because the site is being destroyed anyway, but detectorists are still legally obliged to report any treasures to the authorities and can be forced to sell them to a museum.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/18/change-to-uk...
I know that finding hoards of 1000+ year old coins is completely par for the course and is really the goal of the exercise. It may be different in the new world where ancient metal is uncommon, but that's how it works here.
Groups like the one my relative is in get special permission to search on building sites before they lay the foundations. I believe the developers are obliged to allow this. Destruction of the archeological context isn't such a concern there because the site is being destroyed anyway, but detectorists are still legally obliged to report any treasures to the authorities and can be forced to sell them to a museum.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/18/change-to-uk...
> I never understood why people don't do any research before getting into metal detecting.
Because people do it for fun, not to do archeological research
> And on top of that most laypeople don't even properly record the location of the find
what detectorists find is 99.9% of the time just crap, and the 99.9% of the 0.1% remaining is just stuff that is not interesting for archeology or history. Interesting finds are extremely rare
> The latter is the same reason shady companies don't record where they disposed of chemicals in the woods,
Yes, polluting a place and finding a badly damaged roman coin on a field used for centuries is exactely the same
> but somehow it's okay for you? Because you have convinced yourself you are "preserving history" by removing a bronze axehead from a location that has preserved it for over 2000 years?
They don't preserve history, but neither do historians and archaeologists in the cases mentioned, because they don't and won't carry out any research in these places anyway. It's obviously different when detectorist work on archeological places but it's forbidden almost everywhere
If they were smarter, archeologists should push for more sensible rules, and for collaboration with detectorist associations instead of blind repression.
Because people do it for fun, not to do archeological research
> And on top of that most laypeople don't even properly record the location of the find
what detectorists find is 99.9% of the time just crap, and the 99.9% of the 0.1% remaining is just stuff that is not interesting for archeology or history. Interesting finds are extremely rare
> The latter is the same reason shady companies don't record where they disposed of chemicals in the woods,
Yes, polluting a place and finding a badly damaged roman coin on a field used for centuries is exactely the same
> but somehow it's okay for you? Because you have convinced yourself you are "preserving history" by removing a bronze axehead from a location that has preserved it for over 2000 years?
They don't preserve history, but neither do historians and archaeologists in the cases mentioned, because they don't and won't carry out any research in these places anyway. It's obviously different when detectorist work on archeological places but it's forbidden almost everywhere
If they were smarter, archeologists should push for more sensible rules, and for collaboration with detectorist associations instead of blind repression.
> what detectorists find is 99.9% of the time just crap
That's a bit of a disingenuous argument though. To a first approximation, no-one's out to find ring pulls and bottle caps. The fun is feeling like you might win the lottery, encouraged by reports of people who do. If it wasn't for the 0.1% no-one would be doing this.
> "archeologists should push for more sensible rules"
...like what?
The thing that is of value is the site with the artefact in place. Digging up and sending in the artefact on its own with no other information is like scraping all the paint off a painting and sending the scrapings. Yes, your paint detector found some paint, and for once it wasn't junk. You've won the lottery. Great! Awesome! Bully for you! I bet it felt wonderful. But it's too late. You've already destroyed the thing that made it interesting, valuable and important.
A rule that fails to discourage this destruction is not a "sensible rule". Sure, once the destruction has happened, it's better to have the anonymous paint scrapings than to have nothing at all; but the archaeologists will still grieve when they receive that package, just as you would grieve if someone broke something important to you - even if you weren't previously aware of its existence! - and sent you some of the broken pieces; and they will push back on any change that might in any way encourage more people to pull this crap.
> because they don't and won't carry out any research in these places anyway
Until the site is destroyed, it's possible it will be identified and researched. Once it is destroyed, this can never happen.
That's a bit of a disingenuous argument though. To a first approximation, no-one's out to find ring pulls and bottle caps. The fun is feeling like you might win the lottery, encouraged by reports of people who do. If it wasn't for the 0.1% no-one would be doing this.
> "archeologists should push for more sensible rules"
...like what?
The thing that is of value is the site with the artefact in place. Digging up and sending in the artefact on its own with no other information is like scraping all the paint off a painting and sending the scrapings. Yes, your paint detector found some paint, and for once it wasn't junk. You've won the lottery. Great! Awesome! Bully for you! I bet it felt wonderful. But it's too late. You've already destroyed the thing that made it interesting, valuable and important.
A rule that fails to discourage this destruction is not a "sensible rule". Sure, once the destruction has happened, it's better to have the anonymous paint scrapings than to have nothing at all; but the archaeologists will still grieve when they receive that package, just as you would grieve if someone broke something important to you - even if you weren't previously aware of its existence! - and sent you some of the broken pieces; and they will push back on any change that might in any way encourage more people to pull this crap.
> because they don't and won't carry out any research in these places anyway
Until the site is destroyed, it's possible it will be identified and researched. Once it is destroyed, this can never happen.
I just visited the Danish National Museum in Copenhagen and they seem to have good working relationship with Danish detectorists, explicitly thanking them for some finds.
It might be a better attitude than criminalization. People are still going to do it, so instead of repression, try to reel them in and teach them the basics for harm reduction.
Wait, can't something similar be written about pot or abortion?
It might be a better attitude than criminalization. People are still going to do it, so instead of repression, try to reel them in and teach them the basics for harm reduction.
Wait, can't something similar be written about pot or abortion?
Part of it was filmed where I live, and there has been a huge increase in the number of "detectorists" out in the fields.
Wow, I can't imagine why the person sent these anonymously, lol.
Them to Sender: "Where did you get these from? It is very important!"
Them to Public: "We want to remind everyone that metal detecting for something like this is illegal and will be fined!"
Also Them to Sender: "Oh...err...but we won't apply that to you!" wink wink
Them to Sender: "Where did you get these from? It is very important!"
Them to Public: "We want to remind everyone that metal detecting for something like this is illegal and will be fined!"
Also Them to Sender: "Oh...err...but we won't apply that to you!" wink wink
Also, the museum hardly has any say in prosecution.
At a guess, a landowner doesn't want archaeologists forcing their way in to dig up their garden and place restrictions on future works on the property.
Interesting how the article says they're puzzled why he decided to be anonymous, then proceeds to mention that what he did is highly illegal in Ireland. It seems pretty obvious why he wants to be left alone...
I live in rural Ireland, and I've heard more than one story about a farmer who discovered some archeological find on their land and just plowed over it to avoid the hassle.
Probably. If only there were some way to align the incentives. Oh well.
Paying a "bounty" for artefacts seems the obvious one. If they're so valuable and all.
It's the opposite of what they want. Artifacts in isolation are not very useful to archeologists. They want them "in situ".
For instance, digging up a graveside and pulling all the artifacts out, without extensively documenting every inch of what was found at the graveside even uninteresting things like arranged rocks, destroys the context that might have yielded insights about burial customs.
Archeologists prefer everything to be left alone undisturbed, and generally the idea is you only go looking for artifacts when trying to answer a specific question, or if the site is going to be destroyed anyway for construction. From their perspective treasure hunters are going out there and destroying the record of history.
For instance, digging up a graveside and pulling all the artifacts out, without extensively documenting every inch of what was found at the graveside even uninteresting things like arranged rocks, destroys the context that might have yielded insights about burial customs.
Archeologists prefer everything to be left alone undisturbed, and generally the idea is you only go looking for artifacts when trying to answer a specific question, or if the site is going to be destroyed anyway for construction. From their perspective treasure hunters are going out there and destroying the record of history.
I see this repeated here in the comments, but it doesn't make much sense to me. The site will still be there to be dug by professional archeologists. Pulling up a few artifacts do not destroy it.
The location and surroundings of the artefact are a key part of what makes it interesting.
Consider: a painting restorer would be happy with a discovery of an old painting, and will eventually be scraping and polishing and removing layers from it to reveal the full picture hidden under the dirt and rot of the ages (carefully, a tiny bit at a time, after they've recorded what they're starting with, and recording everything as they go).
But if you just scrape random flakes of paint off yourself and send them over with no other information, they will be mostly sad and hardly happy at all. The paint is important! - without the paint, the painting is nothing; but the flakes of paint are not in themselves valuable.
Consider: a painting restorer would be happy with a discovery of an old painting, and will eventually be scraping and polishing and removing layers from it to reveal the full picture hidden under the dirt and rot of the ages (carefully, a tiny bit at a time, after they've recorded what they're starting with, and recording everything as they go).
But if you just scrape random flakes of paint off yourself and send them over with no other information, they will be mostly sad and hardly happy at all. The paint is important! - without the paint, the painting is nothing; but the flakes of paint are not in themselves valuable.
The location and surroundings will still be there, just as they've been for centuries. They can be investigated and dug by archeologists. There is a much higher risk that interesting archaeological sites get disturbed by construction, farming, and nature herself, such as floods and tree roots.
A metal detectorists do not like unnecessary digging, so you can be sure that they will retrieve their objects of interest with the minimum upheaval necessary.
I liked your analogy very much!
A metal detectorists do not like unnecessary digging, so you can be sure that they will retrieve their objects of interest with the minimum upheaval necessary.
I liked your analogy very much!
By "the location and surroundings" I don't just mean the farmstead or whatever. I mean things like the cubic centimeters of dirt immediately around, above and just below the object, recorded in meticulous detail. You know, all the stuff you've just dug through to get to it. People elsewhere are complaining about how long digs take, but have you ever seen an archaeologist's toolset? They "dig" sometimes with a sharp flat trowel but mostly with a tiny little paintbrush. The "dig carefully" of a hobbyist spending a fun couple of hours on a Sunday with their metal detector and shovel is not the "dig carefully" of an archaeologist with their six-month grant, tiny trowel, ruler, calipers, camera and 1/4" sieve for the dirt.
[deleted]
I can see how this might seem like an obvious solution at first glance, but all it would do is make the problem of amateurs destroying the context of finds worse, and by a lot. This kind of incentive will provide for many artifacts and little knowledge, as most artifacts are useless without the context in which they were found.
It is of course appealing if you think that all an artifact is good for is looking nice in a glass case. But if you want to gain knowledge about the past, this would certainly be the worst policy you could implement (apart from obviously insane ones, such as a bounty for destroying artifacts on sight, of course).
But I already wrote an extensive rant about this in another comment, which you might find interesting if you are curious about the topic. If so, sorry about the bad writing style and potentially divisive rhetoric, I'm supposed to be working decided to take a quick peek at hn where I found some discussion about a pet peeve of mine, which is of course a recipe for disaster.
It is of course appealing if you think that all an artifact is good for is looking nice in a glass case. But if you want to gain knowledge about the past, this would certainly be the worst policy you could implement (apart from obviously insane ones, such as a bounty for destroying artifacts on sight, of course).
But I already wrote an extensive rant about this in another comment, which you might find interesting if you are curious about the topic. If so, sorry about the bad writing style and potentially divisive rhetoric, I'm supposed to be working decided to take a quick peek at hn where I found some discussion about a pet peeve of mine, which is of course a recipe for disaster.
[deleted]
> It is illegal to use a metal detector to search for archaeological objects anywhere in the Republic of Ireland, unless you have written permission from the government.
So if you were (say) digging some footings for your new garden shed, found the items, and didn't much trust law enforcement - but were, in abstract, a patriotic sort, who wanted to do the right thing...
True story: A friend of mine was digging foundations for a new shed in the back yard of a house he owned - and discovered human bones. Police got involved, and it was a big, big PITA. Even though experts from the local university pronounced "the remains were buried over a century ago; the victim appears to have died of infectious disease". And my friend had bought the house (from an unrelated party) just a few decades prior. And the house had been used as a hospital a century or so earlier, when "bury the paupers in the back yard" could easily be tiny-hospital SOP during an epidemic.
So if you were (say) digging some footings for your new garden shed, found the items, and didn't much trust law enforcement - but were, in abstract, a patriotic sort, who wanted to do the right thing...
True story: A friend of mine was digging foundations for a new shed in the back yard of a house he owned - and discovered human bones. Police got involved, and it was a big, big PITA. Even though experts from the local university pronounced "the remains were buried over a century ago; the victim appears to have died of infectious disease". And my friend had bought the house (from an unrelated party) just a few decades prior. And the house had been used as a hospital a century or so earlier, when "bury the paupers in the back yard" could easily be tiny-hospital SOP during an epidemic.
> It is illegal to use a metal detector to search for archaeological objects anywhere in the Republic of Ireland, unless you have written permission from the government.
What if you use it to search for non-archaeological objects, but then accidentally find one?
Not surprising they receive anonymous donations without information if they treat finders like that.
What if you use it to search for non-archaeological objects, but then accidentally find one?
Not surprising they receive anonymous donations without information if they treat finders like that.
I wonder how they know the axe-heads are 4k years old. Carbon dating tells them how old the material is, but how do they know when the head was formed into an axe? The same goes for cave paintings. They can date how old the paint is, but how do they know when it was painted?
I don't think you can date the axe-heads from the material? I assume they date based on objects found nearby and the technique used to make them. Which is also why knowing the exact location is important.
When your error bars are a few hundred years or so, the few weeks between “making paint” and “using paint” isn’t terribly relevant.
Well, we can safely rule out the idea that a cave painting was made with thousand-year-old paint.
It's more difficult to rule out the idea that a thousand-year-old painting was restored with usable paint.
It's more difficult to rule out the idea that a thousand-year-old painting was restored with usable paint.
From the artists biography.
It looks to me that if the museum really wants all the details, they will have to pay $60k (or $60k x 2?) in order to get them.
There we go. Put your money where your mouth is
The law says it is illegal "to use a detection device to search for archaeological objects anywhere within the State or its territorial seas; without the prior written consent of the Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht"
What if you are searching for gold, lost items, underground cables, or other, and you stumble upon an archaeological object? You were not hunting those objects, so I would say you were within the law. What you do with the fortuitous find is another matter (IANAL).
My brother and I were the first to buy a house in our immediate family. My Uncle Vic was the first to say you never really own your house or land. You pay property taxes after you have paid off your house. Your land can be taken with little compensation in some matters, etc. I can see why you would be happy and worried at the same time discovering artifacts whether you were looking for them or not.
What if you are searching for gold, lost items, underground cables, or other, and you stumble upon an archaeological object? You were not hunting those objects, so I would say you were within the law. What you do with the fortuitous find is another matter (IANAL).
My brother and I were the first to buy a house in our immediate family. My Uncle Vic was the first to say you never really own your house or land. You pay property taxes after you have paid off your house. Your land can be taken with little compensation in some matters, etc. I can see why you would be happy and worried at the same time discovering artifacts whether you were looking for them or not.
So using them for searching for cables/pipes or lost items is “allowed, sort of” - you can readily buy metal detectors in Ireland for these purposes.
Prospecting for gold, on the other hand, is a legally thorny subject in Ireland. Finds above a couple of grams have to be reported and handed in.
If you happen to “stumble across” historical artefacts on your land you are meant to stop doing whatever caused you to find them (eg construction), report it, and then wait forever while archaeologists eventually show up and spend ages poring over the find to ensure you don’t destroy anything of historic value.
Prospecting for gold, on the other hand, is a legally thorny subject in Ireland. Finds above a couple of grams have to be reported and handed in.
If you happen to “stumble across” historical artefacts on your land you are meant to stop doing whatever caused you to find them (eg construction), report it, and then wait forever while archaeologists eventually show up and spend ages poring over the find to ensure you don’t destroy anything of historic value.
I don't know Irish law, but there are usually excemptions for other activities, like cables etc. In that case, you'd report your finding to relevant authorities.
A classic example of a 2nd order effect.
Screw the crying pleas of museums and archeologists for more locale information, for with an oppressive law with HUGE disincentive to self-report accidental finds of seemingly archeological object that can knock out a good portion of your own precious land usage, there is nothing to be gained by outing yourself.
Now, if there were ample of compensations, then it becomes tenable and possibly fairer.
You should pass on this brand of British & Wales “presumptive justice” until they treat their citizen (as well as their jailed subpostmasters) better.
Now, if there were ample of compensations, then it becomes tenable and possibly fairer.
You should pass on this brand of British & Wales “presumptive justice” until they treat their citizen (as well as their jailed subpostmasters) better.
This isn’t Britain or Wales. RoI is not part of the UK.
We don’t want that people use metal detectors to find archeological material but we want to find archeological material and know everything about it.
Maybe there is a way to deal with it? With licenses/permits including training and a ban on reselling?
Maybe there is a way to deal with it? With licenses/permits including training and a ban on reselling?
I assume there is a kind of permit system, given the "unless you have written permission from the government" part
You can apply for a permit - you usually only will get one for a specific area if you are an archaeologist associated with a university or a museum or something apparently.
The law is intended specifically to prevent random people digging up stuff and causing damage to historic sites.
The law is intended specifically to prevent random people digging up stuff and causing damage to historic sites.
‘When metal detectors are outlawed, only outlaws will have metal detectors’?
Man, I've missed classic Slashdot-style "didn't read TFA".
It is a really stupid law, and I hope the object finder don't fall in the trap of revealling her/his identity before a formal waiver of criminal persecution is issued by the competent authorities.
Probably found in someone's back garden, or they would have sent an equally anonymous note on where they were found. Prison is a harsh deterrent to most people.
what a chad! just finds a really old thing and sends it to a local museum anonymously. i would've done the same.
[deleted]
If real life was a movie, I'd say those likely contain some ancient poison or virus that out ancestors used against alien invasion, and won against. They're surfaced now as a plot device for when we get invaded again (soon) and we find out our only hope is recreating that exact poison. Timely...
Yeah this is what a $60k fine gets you. It’s a silly law to try and prevent metal detecting.
It rather gets you usually nothing at all as it all stays underground and it is rare for somelne to anonymously donate while gaining nothing from it.
My understanding is that the context in which the pieces are found is of enormous import to archaeology. It would be better to one site done properly with the rest in the ground than lose the context from a larger number of sites when the artefacts donated anonymously.
Your understanding is correct, though I believe that you, jordanb and me are tilting at windmills (as most commenters seem to think the laws are insane without even trying to understand the dynamics behind them). The allure of the fantasy of a real life treasure hunt is too strong compared to the boring reality of field work and research :)
But do you understand, that most people are not deeply fascinated by archeology to just let some people dig up their yard or make them wait unspecified time for their new home to be build for some years without proper compensation?
I am deeply fascinated by archeology, but I do think it is insane expecting this of people who do not share my fascination. And the result is likely, most artifacts and sites get lost.
I am deeply fascinated by archeology, but I do think it is insane expecting this of people who do not share my fascination. And the result is likely, most artifacts and sites get lost.
Likely yes, but if you reversed the incentives (say, paying a bounty or declaring a free-for-all, even more sites would be destroyed.)
"even more sites would be destroyed"
Why? If you make a law, that people get a finders fee if they find something of historic value, only if they stop digging after finding it, but get a fine if they do destroy the site, how would that make more destruction?
Harder is it for homeowners, because real compensation there costs real money - but how else would you compensate people for individual loss, for the common benefit (research)?
Why? If you make a law, that people get a finders fee if they find something of historic value, only if they stop digging after finding it, but get a fine if they do destroy the site, how would that make more destruction?
Harder is it for homeowners, because real compensation there costs real money - but how else would you compensate people for individual loss, for the common benefit (research)?
I'm thinking, more people could go "hunting" that way.
And if they do so in a controlled, legal setting, where they cooperate with proper scientists, wouldn't that be way better?
Not if it compels them to hold their land fallow for an indeterminate months or years, in exchange for a one-time payment (or none at all). I’m all for proper archaeology but I can’t expect those who are trying to use their land to prioritize it unpaid. I don’t expect their government offers enough social support and compensation for the lost time to make it worth the risk and annoyance.
It can be also a smuggled item from elsewhere.
is there no way to verify where the package was sent from? not the address, but the specific post office that handled it?
$60,000 fine… who can imagine why these were anonymously donated… probably dug them up in his backyard
Which on top of the fine, I imagine they wouldn't be thrilled to have a digging operation right by their house. The anonymous packages make perfect sense.
The cognitive dissonance on display.
The nanny state is allergic to common sense.
The nanny state is allergic to common sense.
> However, appealing to the sender to get back in touch, staff said information about the discovery of the axe-heads would be "treated with the utmost confidentiality and used solely to verify the find location and its circumstances".
Says the current administration until someone else replaces them or someone eager to see justice served from the law enforcement forces them to disclose their source.