tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8972497915033440413.post3176858990362156621..comments2024-03-20T18:15:41.858+00:00Comments on Looting Matters: The Newport Pagnell Coin Hoard: UpdateDavid Gillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13164794689385933318noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8972497915033440413.post-41289791408297156672008-11-07T16:46:00.000+00:002008-11-07T16:46:00.000+00:00Dear JulianIt would be helpful if you could state ...Dear Julian<BR/><BR/>It would be helpful if you could state where your report will be published. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>For the record I have seen the short two page report prepared by staff in the British Museum.<BR/><BR/>Best wishes<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Gillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13164794689385933318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8972497915033440413.post-84796787389180142072008-11-07T16:31:00.000+00:002008-11-07T16:31:00.000+00:00I feel I should add something to this ongoing deba...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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Julian Watters (Herts and Beds FLO)Julian Wattershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01770698961045726852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8972497915033440413.post-65211845219521958192008-11-07T16:29:00.000+00:002008-11-07T16:29:00.000+00:00I feel I should add something to this ongoing deba...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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Julian Watters (Herts and Beds FLO)Julian Wattershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01770698961045726852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8972497915033440413.post-69175039314310290122008-11-03T20:03:00.000+00:002008-11-03T20:03:00.000+00:00sorry, but that was not the questions asked - the...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.. <BR/><BR/>I asked other questions.. s'ok though, you don't need to answer.BAJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09124028864959764080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8972497915033440413.post-52835567117993406952008-11-03T14:34:00.000+00:002008-11-03T14:34:00.000+00:00I have read the short (2 pages of A4) report compi...I have read the short (2 pages of A4) report compiled by two members of the British Museum: for further details see <A HREF="http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2008/10/stratigraphical-relationship-could-not.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.David Gillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13164794689385933318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8972497915033440413.post-21500018204789525952008-11-03T14:03:00.000+00:002008-11-03T14:03:00.000+00:00I am intrigued.Me as well..there seems to be lots ...I am intrigued.<BR/><BR/>Me as well..<BR/><BR/>there seems to be lots of guesses and assumptions and everyone says they are facts. <BR/><BR/>As yet... nobody is coming up with hard facts... and that is what worries me. <BR/><BR/>Do you have anything other than the newspaper report and a guess at what the the photo shows? <BR/><BR/>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.BAJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09124028864959764080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8972497915033440413.post-15200794164738158192008-11-03T09:25:00.000+00:002008-11-03T09:25:00.000+00:00David, as you can see in the third photo in the se...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. <BR/><BR/>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.Paul Barfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8972497915033440413.post-41173011213282217452008-11-02T18:24:00.000+00:002008-11-02T18:24:00.000+00:00"It appears that Julian 'excavated' the hole that ..."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."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Sorry but I don't understand<BR/><BR/>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...BAJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09124028864959764080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8972497915033440413.post-86769779756491590622008-11-01T18:37:00.000+00:002008-11-01T18:37:00.000+00:00It appears that Julian 'excavated' the hole that h...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.David Gillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13164794689385933318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8972497915033440413.post-61808265080262390482008-11-01T11:59:00.000+00:002008-11-01T11:59:00.000+00:00the photo does not seem to show a 1 m deep hole......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?BAJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09124028864959764080noreply@blogger.com