The discussion continues in metal detecting circles of the ‘Dunelme hoard’ and my comments about a news item in the public domain about how artefact hunters had treated an archaeological site over the weekend. Another detectorist's apparently sincere hoard hoiking defence reveals the extent and penetration of PAS outreach:
"if it was in say a wooden box delicate care is needed as the box is also evidence from the past, but in the case of a pot urn of roman coins that was obviously quite delicately dug I don't really see it as so much of a problem".and does he see the wooden box here? Tattoo man could well have his foot in it. It seems by "quite delicately dug" the detectorist thinks that the whole point of getting in archaeologists "with their cake slices" is so the pot (object) does not get broken. In his view, the hoikers did not break the pot (dug object), so everything is "OK". But British archaeology (and the detectorist's own FLO) are maintaining stubborn silence over this. I hope it is an embarrassed and thoughtful silence, because there is an issue here to be dealt with.