Readers might be interested to learn that Lot 1 in the Hanson's sale today "Celtic Harness-Brooch" with an estimate of £6,000 - £8,000 sold just now for £55,000 . So I think all the more does PAS owe an explanation of how that record was created last Sunday. Interestingly, the PAS record of this harness-brooch (currently) has "Date(s) of discovery: Saturday 17th October 2020", while on Twitter, the dealer says (58s.) it was found "three years ago". When was it found, and with what?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
2 comments:
Ten years since Crosby Garret and still items of significance and value are not considered treasure in terms of the legislative process.
For an artefact of 'National importance' there's still no obligation to report it and no opportunity for it to be acquired by a local museum.
Unless (as Andy Brockman suggested) it was found in a hoard with other prehistoric objects, which is where establishing more closely the context of discovery becomes important. Which I doubt the lady in Derby was able to do.
And surely it should be PAS/TR every fortnight or so hammering home this very point to the British public and lawmakers, instead of a series of dumbdown texts about how "exciting" random voluntarily-reported metal detector finds are. These totally misrepresent the nature of (real) archaeology. Instead we find them helping out an auctioneer to beat the price up when they flog off an item like this, regurgitating as PAS-material the text of the auctioneer's own catalogue and using the photos taken for that catalogue. I doubt - with the price being so high as a result of phone-bidding - a British museum was the purchaser.
Why are the PAS doing so little to represent the interests of British archaeology and the interests of the preservation of the archaeological resource in the UK?
Post a Comment