Just to clarify, it is a hoard of 1471 mid 4th century nummi. Most of the coins were initially recovered by the two finders; I was then called the next day and came out and did an excavation, recovering some pottery and more coins in the process.He then adds:
The detectorists dug out the coins and then filled the hole in. The excavation was entirely my work (I think it was 2m by 2m). I'm not sure which photos you are referring to but if they show a man in a square hole, they were taken the following day.
The photographs appear here.
So it seems that the detectorists dug a 1 m deep hole in the dark to recover most of the coins and that Julian Watters investigated the disturbed find-spot the following day.
The hoard is not yet on the PAS database as that will be upgraded in the new year.
10 comments:
the photo does not seem to show a 1 m deep hole... Did Julian verify this 1 metre deep hole? or are you assuming from a newspaper article?
It appears that Julian 'excavated' the hole that had been 'dug' the previous evening. So the photograph of Julian's trench does not show the depth at which the hoard was found.
"It appears that Julian 'excavated' the hole that had been 'dug' the previous evening. So the photograph of Julian's trench does not show the depth at which the hoard was found."
Sorry but I don't understand
I don't see a 3ft hole at all.. or the traces of a 3ft hole pit that is filled in... I see a 2m square excavation...
David, as you can see in the third photo in the sequence referred to, showing the very beginning of the excavation, and you can see that the crop has previously been heavily trampled in that area.
The question is though whether really the find was made by these two detectorists the "previous day" (the fill of the pit is pretty well compacted for a hole that was dug and backfilled in the dark the previous day) or whether the discovery was made earlier as seems to be suggested by my correspondence on Friday with local metal detectorists. There are some other things which simply do not "tally" in the account which the (admittedly brief) newspaper report suggests was presented to the coroner. I am intrigued.
I am intrigued.
Me as well..
there seems to be lots of guesses and assumptions and everyone says they are facts.
As yet... nobody is coming up with hard facts... and that is what worries me.
Do you have anything other than the newspaper report and a guess at what the the photo shows?
Paul Barford seems to have set in stone the events, which are then quoted and agreed with as if hard facts .. but when it is looked at carefully, everyone is just guessing and assuming... not the sort of way archaeologists should work.
I have read the short (2 pages of A4) report compiled by two members of the British Museum: for further details see here.
sorry, but that was not the questions asked - the concept of "disturbed stratigraphy" is already a given - though the type of pot ... and the location, and other details and dating evidence are available..
I asked other questions.. s'ok though, you don't need to answer.
I feel I should add something to this ongoing debate. To be perfectly honest, I find the whole thing completely ridiculous! The use of secondary, or even tertiary, source material as the basis for this debate is lazy journalism at best.
I would like to state that I am satisfied with the way this case has proceeded to date. My excavation of the hoard site was carried out to the highest professional archaeological standards and the strategy employed was entirely appropriate for the situation encountered. A report detailing the circumstances of the find, the excavation methodology, and the results of both my work and that of any associated specialist contributors will be published in the near future. Until then, I don’t think it is possible to have an informed debate on the subject.
Julian Watters (Herts and Beds FLO)
I feel I should add something to this ongoing debate. To be perfectly honest, I find the whole thing completely ridiculous! The use of secondary, or even tertiary, source material as the basis for this debate is lazy journalism at best.
I would like to state that I am satisfied with the way this case has proceeded to date. My excavation of the hoard site was carried out to the highest professional archaeological standards and the strategy employed was entirely appropriate for the situation encountered. A report detailing the circumstances of the find, the excavation methodology, and the results of both my work and that of any associated specialist contributors will be published in the near future. Until then, I don’t think it is possible to have an informed debate on the subject.
Julian Watters (Herts and Beds FLO)
Dear Julian
It would be helpful if you could state where your report will be published.
I have not questioned your professional standards - you were called in to investigate a reported 1 metre deep (back-filled) hole from which a hoard of Roman coins had been extracted.
For the record I have seen the short two page report prepared by staff in the British Museum.
Best wishes
David
Post a Comment