[HN Gopher] Mystery as 4k-year-old axe-heads sent to museum
___________________________________________________________________
Mystery as 4k-year-old axe-heads sent to museum
Author : thunderbong
Score : 96 points
Date : 2024-07-16 17:40 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| pbj1968 wrote:
| $60,000 fine... who can imagine why these were anonymously
| donated... probably dug them up in his backyard
| bitshiftfaced wrote:
| 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.
| c-linkage wrote:
| 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
| blowski wrote:
| Part of it was filmed where I live, and there has been a huge
| increase in the number of "detectorists" out in the fields.
| fnordian_slip wrote:
| "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.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > 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?
| rozab wrote:
| 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...
| inglor_cz wrote:
| 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?
| poulpy123 wrote:
| > 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.
| tsukikage wrote:
| > 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.
| blowski wrote:
| 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.
| anotherhue wrote:
| Probably. If only there were some way to align the incentives.
| Oh well.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Paying a "bounty" for artefacts seems the obvious one. If
| they're so valuable and all.
| jordanb wrote:
| 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.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| 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.
| tsukikage wrote:
| 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.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| 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!
| tsukikage wrote:
| 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.
| fnordian_slip wrote:
| 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.
| rockbruno wrote:
| 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...
| dougdimmadome wrote:
| 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.
| esel2k wrote:
| 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?
| voidUpdate wrote:
| I assume there is a kind of permit system, given the "unless
| you have written permission from the government" part
| fullspectrumdev wrote:
| 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.
| lazide wrote:
| 'When metal detectors are outlawed, only outlaws will have
| metal detectors'?
| slackfan wrote:
| Man, I've missed classic Slashdot-style "didn't read TFA".
| chairmanwow1 wrote:
| Yeah this is what a $60k fine gets you. It's a silly law to try
| and prevent metal detecting.
| lukan wrote:
| 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.
| RichardLake wrote:
| 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.
| fnordian_slip wrote:
| 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 :)
| lukan wrote:
| 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.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Likely yes, but if you reversed the incentives (say,
| paying a bounty or declaring a free-for-all, even more
| sites would be _destroyed_.)
| lukan wrote:
| "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)?
| actionfromafar wrote:
| I'm thinking, more people could go "hunting" that way.
| lukan wrote:
| And if they do so in a controlled, legal setting, where
| they cooperate with proper scientists, wouldn't that be
| way better?
| altairprime wrote:
| 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.
| nasvay_factory wrote:
| what a chad! just finds a really old thing and sends it to a
| local museum anonymously. i would've done the same.
| rdtsc wrote:
| > Those convicted of the offence can face a fine ranging to more
| than EUR63,000 (PS53,000). They can also be sentenced to up to
| three months in prison
|
| > 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.
| elzbardico wrote:
| 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.
| Suppafly wrote:
| >Actually, in most countries, the public agents are forced to
| pursue persecution whenever they are aware of a "crime"
|
| Source?
| 23B1 wrote:
| The cognitive dissonance on display.
|
| The nanny state is allergic to common sense.
| neontomo wrote:
| is there no way to verify where the package was sent from? not
| the address, but the specific post office that handled it?
| bell-cot wrote:
| > 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.
| janpmz wrote:
| 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?
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| From the artists biography.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| When your error bars are a few hundred years or so, the few
| weeks between "making paint" and "using paint" isn't terribly
| relevant.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| 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.
| Zitrax wrote:
| 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.
| nu11ptr wrote:
| 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_
| thomasdeleeuw wrote:
| Also, the museum hardly has any say in prosecution.
| Connector2542 wrote:
| > 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
| EUR63,000 (PS53,000).
|
| No wonder they donated anonymously, what an insane law.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Yup.
|
| I believe the term, here is "hoist with his own petard," to
| quote an Englishman (or Dane) of some repute.
| lawlessone wrote:
| 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
| justinclift wrote:
| "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.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| 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.
| lawlessone wrote:
| 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.
| JTbane wrote:
| 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?
| lawlessone wrote:
| >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.
| justinclift wrote:
| Sure, in Ireland. In other counties people use metal
| detectors as well. Recent example:
|
| https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/amateur-
| treasure-h...
| brudgers wrote:
| An old cache of coins or jewelry is unlikely to be in a
| stream.
| lawlessone wrote:
| >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
| brudgers wrote:
| Panning isn't done for the archeology. It's done for the
| gold.
| RandallBrown wrote:
| I guess that in the same way guns aren't really a hobby in
| Ireland, neither is metal detecting.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| 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.
| Suppafly wrote:
| 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.
| leviathant wrote:
| >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.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| 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.
| GeoAtreides wrote:
| It's to protect historical artifacts from looters, also to
| protect historical sites from being disturbed.
| jobigoud wrote:
| 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?
| donalhunt wrote:
| I believe one only ever finds such objects by tripping over
| them... allegedly...
| jblezo wrote:
| 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.
| throwup238 wrote:
| 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.
| radpanda wrote:
| 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.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| 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.
| piltdownman wrote:
| 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
| mavhc wrote:
| '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"'
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| 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.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| 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.
| meroes wrote:
| There we go. Put your money where your mouth is
| eggy wrote:
| 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.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| 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.
| fullspectrumdev wrote:
| 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.
| flerchin wrote:
| A classic example of a 2nd order effect.
| INTPenis wrote:
| 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.
| PenguinCoder wrote:
| 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...
| myspeed wrote:
| It can be also a smuggled item from elsewhere.
| elzbardico wrote:
| 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.
| Aardwolf wrote:
| > 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-18 23:13 UTC)