[HN Gopher] English Teenager Finds Bronze Age Ax Using a Metal D...
___________________________________________________________________
English Teenager Finds Bronze Age Ax Using a Metal Detector
Author : pepys
Score : 48 points
Date : 2021-12-03 20:46 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| milliams wrote:
| For a light-hearted insight into the English metal-detecting
| scene,. I'd recommend the TV series "Detectorists"
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detectorists
| scrumper wrote:
| I agree. It was lovely to watch, a good-hearted, entertaining,
| relaxed show with very likable characters and gorgeous
| photography.
|
| And I will forevermore know to call people operating metal
| detectors "detectorists."
| brnt wrote:
| I'll pile on because I haven't seen such an interesting and
| lovely series in a long, long time. Wish the series would never
| end!
| seanhandley wrote:
| It is totally sublime.
| ponow wrote:
| Milly should be able to keep or sell what she found, if it was
| her land. If a museum or government wants these things, then they
| can go find them themselves on their own land. This socialization
| of individual efforts is maddening.
| andylynch wrote:
| That's not really how archeology works... the idea is to
| preserve a shared history and ensure discoveries are properly
| recorded. Also worth pointing out if something is deemed
| treasure, an independent valuation is made. If the museums
| concerned choose to make an acquisition they pay the landowner
| and finder the value of the find. If they don't, it's returned
| to the finder or landowner.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| That's not how land ownership works in many places. You don't
| literally own the land and anything placed upon it, you own the
| right to do specific things with the land.
| francisofascii wrote:
| I think landowner should get some compensation for a find, but
| I think it would be maddening if the landowner was entitled to
| anything found on their land. It is not like the Ax belonged to
| the landowner or was created by the landowner.
| gamerDude wrote:
| Why not? If a company buys land because they think oil is
| below it, are they not entitled to the oil? It definitely
| wasn't created by or previously belonged to the oil company.
| panzagl wrote:
| In the western US it is common for mineral, oil, and water
| rights to be separated from occupation rights to land.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| That turns out to be a rather interesting rabbithole.
|
| Land rights, mineral rights, and rule of capture are
| suggested terms for exploration.
|
| Much of the law has firmer foundations in tradition than
| any consideration of science, empiricism, justice, or
| merits.
| jacksonkmarley wrote:
| TIL there is such a word as 'ax'.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Not to be confused with a Swiss discovery of a bronze dagger,
| posted a few days ago:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29405696
|
| (I'd thought this might be a dupe, it's not.)
| 271828182846 wrote:
| have been thinking of taking up that hobby from time to time.
| somebody here with some insights into it? how would get started?
| debacle wrote:
| If you are in the US, detectoring will be much more boring than
| in the UK.
|
| Best way to get started would be to watch The Detectorists on
| Amazon.
| newman8r wrote:
| unless you're into prospecting or meteorite hunting - in
| which case there's a lot of opportunities in the Southwest US
| on BLM and other federal land.
| https://www.detectorprospector.com/ is a decent resource
|
| The Mojave nugget was found in California with a radio shack
| metal detector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Nugget
| missedthecue wrote:
| I've been doing it for about 8 years. The best part for me is
| the research. Going through old maps and topographies and
| aerial photographs is good fun for me.
|
| The hardest part is getting permissions from land owners, many
| of whom have no idea what you're trying to do and are therefore
| rightly suspicious. But I'm fairly outgoing and friendly in
| nature so that hasn't been too difficult.
|
| As others have mentioned, if you're in the US, you're unlikely
| to find very old things like European and Asian hobbyists are
| able to, but finding 150 year old coins and war relics is
| satisfying enough for me.
| the-dude wrote:
| Do you have a metal detector?
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| I was a little taken aback when they just, kept digging. It was
| clearly a significant find. To continue disturbing it without
| taking proper records was a little careless? Maybe when she
| becomes an archaeologist she will learn a better way.
| afandian wrote:
| It's not a 'government guidelines' it's law! For those interested
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Act_1996
| shmde wrote:
| Quite funny they have this act considering they stole a lot of
| very rare and precious artefacts from India. Maybe they should
| return those too.
| unfunco wrote:
| So what?! Finders keepers! Shut up.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x73PkUvArJY
| ralfd wrote:
| The NYT article is behind a paywall, but does the landowner
| gets something too?
| pmyteh wrote:
| Payments are _ex gratia_ at the discretion of the Secretary
| of State, so in principle it 's entirely up to them. There is
| a legally-guiding Code of Practice[0], though, which gives a
| starting point of 50% to the finder and 50% to the landowner.
| That proportion can change if there's an agreement about how
| to divide any spoils between the landowner and the finder in
| advance of the find, if there's misconduct on behalf of any
| party (e.g. trespass, failure to report in the legal time
| limits), etc. The occupier (e.g. tenant) is eligible too,
| sometimes.
|
| [0]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/treasure-
| act-1996...
| pmyteh wrote:
| Yes! And the definition of Treasure given in the article is not
| only incomplete, but isn't the clause that would apply to these
| objects. (Bronze isn't gold or silver, but these are probably
| covered as multiple associated prehistoric base metal objects).
| OJFord wrote:
| In fairness, the actual (slightly odd perhaps) phrasing is:
|
| > When treasure is found, the finder does not own it, and it is
| illegal to try to sell it, according to government guidelines.
|
| There could well be guidelines that say that, about the law
| ('it is illegal', as it says). HMRC has plenty of guidelines on
| what tax you owe and how to pay it etc. for example, but it
| also comes down to law at the end of it.
| juanani wrote:
| Huh, I wonder if they wrote that in after they looted dry
| their former colonies..
| OJFord wrote:
| Why, what difference would it make? The law is that the
| crown (potentially) owns it, so assuming you're meaning
| that it's hypocritical... no not really? (Unless 'they' is
| 'the British people' who democratically/collectively looted
| and then later (or whenever it was) wrote laws?)
| [deleted]
| tata71 wrote:
| I thought this thread was already goofy, and then you
| started talking about the UK as if it was a democracy.
| OJFord wrote:
| Well, it is, but I didn't assert that anyway, that was a
| hypothetical interpretation of the other commenter's
| 'they' after I'd initially assumed they (the commenter)
| meant HM's Government.
| fnordian_slip wrote:
| And it's law for a reason. While interested hobbyists are often
| appreciated by archaeologists, there are quite a few people who
| are small-scale Schliemanns
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Schliemann#Criticism).
| And with metal detectors being rather cheap, the damages these
| people cause do add up.
| kingcharles wrote:
| https://archive.md/gMdLn
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-06 23:02 UTC)