Slashdot Mirror


Man Finds Roman Gold Coin Hoard Worth £100,000 With Metal Detector

An anonymous reader writes "A novice metal detector has found one of the largest roman gold coin hoards ever unearthed in the UK. From the article: 'National newspapers reported on Wednesday that the man, from Berkhamsted, had been sold a beginner’s metal detector from the town’s High Street-based Hidden History for £135. He is reported to have gone back with 40 of the “solidi” coins, dating to the last days of Roman rule in Britain, and asked: “What do I do with this?”'"

249 comments

  1. Spend 'Em!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What else are you supposed to do with money? Of course, they may not be selling spears, shields and trebuches any longer.....

    1. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Funny

      Learn Latin and Anglo Saxon. Find a time machine. Become extremely wealthy.

      The second part may be a little tricky but look for a strangely dressed eccentric and you might have some joy.

    2. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Learn Latin and Anglo Saxon. Find a time machine. Become extremely wealthy.

      Don't forget to burry your treasures when you die in the past in order to close the loop.

    3. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by StoneyMahoney · · Score: 5, Funny

      Money not going as far as it did? Pay not stretching to the end of the month? Well why not send your Roman treasure to http://www.cashforyourgold.co.uk/ for a free valuation! Just pop all your treasure in the freepost envelope with our address written plainly on the outside so any light-fingered postman can pinch it and drop it in the bin*ahem*post box! It couldn't be simpler! Even if*ahem*when your gold arrives at our foundry, we'll only quote you 10% of it's scrap value, so don't forget to argue on the phone and we'll double it instantly! We'll still bel ripping you off, but hey, we've got a great advert with lots of exclamation marks in it!!!

    4. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by hawkinspeter · · Score: 5, Funny

      Remember to bury your treasure BEFORE you die in the past.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    5. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by TuringCheck · · Score: 1

      Learn Latin and Anglo Saxon. Find a time machine. Become extremely wealthy. The second part may be a little tricky but look for a strangely dressed eccentric and you might have some joy.

      Filthy rich or rather filthy and rich in that order...
      Do anyone think it's worth it?

    6. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by 91degrees · · Score: 2

      Well, this would be Roman era, so it's one of the cleaner civilisations of history. You'd have access to useful things such as baths, and not be seen as odd for washing regularly

    7. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by rednip · · Score: 1

      Considering that soap hadn't been invented yet, ancient Rome wasn't as 'fresh smelling' as you'd seem to expect.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    8. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by drainbramage · · Score: 4, Funny

      Shouldn't this be modded informative or insightful?

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    9. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They did have an alternative though. They used oil. Oil binds to grease and dirt. It doesn't wash off like soap does because it doesn't bind with water but it can be scraped off with a strigil. No idea how effective this actually would be. Would be interesting to put this to the test.

    10. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Anglo-Saxon language arrived (well, developed) in England only in post-Roman times. Some Celtic dialect is probably more useful for time-travellers. It really shows the importance of learning languages other than English!

    11. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by whoda · · Score: 2

      They are antiquities, so he will have to give them up.
      He will get a percentage of their value, not close to the real value.

    12. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by wift · · Score: 2
      --
      ....... Thus ends my attempt at wit or whatever
    13. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by operagost · · Score: 1

      Here are the directions to the gold hoard of hawkinspeter. He who is valiant and pure of spirit may find itARAGHHHHHHH

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    14. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not hard to make though. I'm sure you could scrounge up some potash, get some lye out of that. Then just get some butterfat from some source of milk. (Goat/cow doesn't matter.) Get some kind of nice smelling herbs or plants and make an extract from them. Mix those together in the right amounts and there you go. Soap isn't that hard to make. (Technically at least.)

      Perhaps this would be a way for a time traveler to build up a fortune in Roman times? I'm sure it'd sell.

    15. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by deltaromeo · · Score: 0

      The link you provided quotes £33.87 paid per gram of scrap gold. Current market rate is around £34.75 so it's not that bad at all.

    16. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Anglo-Saxon language was a dialect of West Germanic that developed in southern Denmark and northeastern Germany (the Angle) in the first centuries AD and was already spoken by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes when they invaded Britain, and in fact those early dialects the three groups brought over were the source of several English dialects found in England and southern Scotland even 1,500 years later.

      Just to be totally pedantic :)

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    17. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by KingRobot · · Score: 2

      The value of the coins as historical artifacts is likely to be significantly higher than the market rate for gold.

    18. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And make sure you bury it in the same place, alongside the original treasure. Then next time through, you will have twice as much!

    19. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      Water is the most important part of the cleansing. The soap could almost be ancillary if you had enough clean water.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    20. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      What? Surely you jest sir. Oh, I'm sorry I meant No Shit.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    21. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He just have to go the nearest pub. They have a special a pint for a coin. After he has spent his coins he doesn't even remember ever having them.

    22. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by jedwidz · · Score: 1

      Put the aforementioned time machine to good use, and tell that to the Spanish Empire...

    23. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rome did not use soap, Gauls, Celts and Britons did.

    24. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by dwye · · Score: 1

      but look for a strangely dressed eccentric and you might have some joy.

      If you mean The Doctor, you had better be careful. He leaves a trail of corpses behind him as thick as The Outlaw Josey Wales did.

    25. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Not quite:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap#Roman_history

      Soap had been around for a couple thousand years at that point, that we know of.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    26. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Start off with soap and bandy.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lest_Darkness_Fall

    27. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Trebuchets came to Europe in the 11th or 12th century, well after the Western Roman empire had collapsed. The Romans had various types of catapult, but not trebuchets (at least, if you believe their "Being a General for Dummies" books).

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    28. Re:Spend 'Em!!! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      It works perfectly well. Try it.

      One thing is, it requires another human to do it thoroughly. Which isn't a problem in a society based on slave labour. It's a bit more of a problem without the slaves.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Good that he reported it by tudza · · Score: 1

    Isn't it against the law to dig up such things in the UK and not report them? If so, reporting them was a good thing. He should get some amount of value from the find. Hope he didn't tear up the place digging them up or the archaeologists will be pissed. These things would have been used for paying taxes usually. Wonder what sort of place they came out of.

    1. Re:Good that he reported it by Dave+Whiteside · · Score: 5, Informative

      as long as he has the landowners permission he can dig ,
      he cannot sell them though
      if it goes as treasure trove then him and the landowner get to share the value

      --
      who where what when now?
    2. Re:Good that he reported it by ciderbrew · · Score: 5, Informative

      The search was on private land. So they person that owns the land owns the stuff. Normally a farmer give permission for you to piss about in their land with a detector and if you find anything they'll give a 50/50 split.

      http://www.archaeologyuk.org/ba/ba114/feat2.shtml
      The Property Act 1925, and subsequent judicial rulings, state that a person owns everything which is in their land. This has been understood to mean, as Lord Renfrew put it when writing about an iron age hoard (in Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership, Duckworth 2000), that "the original owner of the land where the finds were made [is...] their rightful owner". This assumption is correct – so long as the artefacts were not removed from the land by a person authorised to do so.

    3. Re:Good that he reported it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      in Italy, if you find something on your own land, the owner of archaeological stuff is Italy, moreover the country can temporarily occupy the piece of land interested and the owner is entitled to indemnification.

      This is why in Italy people does not find historical stuff on the owned lands...

    4. Re:Good that he reported it by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Informative

      as long as he has the landowners permission he can dig

      With the obvious exception of land which covers scheduled monuments or Archaeological Priority Areas, where permission form English Heritage is needed (and rarely granted to individuals with metal detectors)

    5. Re:Good that he reported it by Neil_Brown · · Score: 4, Informative

      The search was on private land. So they person that owns the land owns the stuff

      My feeling is that, in the UK, there is a reasonably large exception to this, which is where the find constitutes "treasure" for the purposes of the Treasure Act 1996 (which has been extended by the Treasure (Designation) Order 2002).

      Where a find is classified as treasure, it belongs to the Crown (or its franchisee, where there is one), "subject to prior interests and rights." (s4). Ownership of the *land* is not necessarily a sufficient prior interest or right here — to override the Crown's ownership, one would need to establish a right coming from the original owner of the treasure, such as being an heir to the treasure. (Paragraph 19 to The Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice.)

      The Act includes a duty to notify, within 14 days (s8).

    6. Re:Good that he reported it by Lumpy · · Score: 0, Troll

      Wow! here in the USA you dont own anything, not even any LAND you claim to own. you have a Ownership title and a Occupancy permit, but those can be revoked by the local, state, or federal government at any time. Very VERY few people hold a real deed to their property here. The government does not like allowing people to actually own what they buy.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Good that he reported it by ciderbrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think in Italy you've got a much better chance of finding a roman coin in the soil than in the UK. :)
      Regarding the owner, can you get back payment for rent from the government? They kept their property stored on your land for 2000 years.

    8. Re:Good that he reported it by flyneye · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you find something in the U.S., keep your mouth shut or the Government takes the "historical" find, declares the site a national park and prevents anyone but scientists from studying/looting the treasure. Maybe not bad as all that, but you gotta be careful about showing what you found. If it's not worth all that much, you can "salvage" the site, just for the love of God, don't show them any gold or jewels. www.melfisher.com for an example of a successful salvage operator, who has incidentally, had trouble salvaging gold coin from shipwrecks in the past.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    9. Re:Good that he reported it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You couldn't get two bits for an arrowhead back in the 60s. Now you can't legally pick one up.
      Fucking politicians.

    10. Re:Good that he reported it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you have a Ownership title and a Occupancy permit, but those can be revoked by the local, state, or federal government at any time. Very VERY few people hold a real deed to their property here.

      You've been listening to too many Sovereign Citizen seminars. A deed is used to transfer a title, and a title is the strongest form of "ownership" for things you can't hold in your hand.

    11. Re:Good that he reported it by some+old+guy · · Score: 0, Troll

      Quite right. The ability of almost any government agency to attach private property, often without fair-value compensation, is one of the better reasons to rent one's domicile rather than "buy". The unscrupulous use of "eminent domain" by local government to attach property for commercial re-use by anyone from utility companies to land developers is an on-going story.

      Even if one does acquire a deed, it often excludes certain so-called "rights" to everything from water to mineral deposits.

      Private property is a worse than a myth, it's a sham. Rather than argue and litigate about it, it's simpler to just accept the fact and not get involved in real estate at all.

      Property "owners" are merely renting their parcels from the government, with taxes being the rent.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    12. Re:Good that he reported it by ciderbrew · · Score: 2

      Treasure (Designation) Order 2002 Does the title deed not establish a right? I guess if the dead person wanted their property back then they should have registered the lost property with the police :) I'd mod you up; but cannot. thank you for the links.

    13. Re:Good that he reported it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in the UK. All finds of value belong to the crown, i.e. the Queen. At best you get a 50/50 deal if your find is good and you get enough national press coverage.

    14. Re:Good that he reported it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the taxes cover the government services that one requires to make use of their property. Things like roads and storm sewers. Police and fire protection. Not to mention the costs associated with ensuring that nobody steals your land from you.

      Contrary to popular belief all that isn't free, somebody has to pay for it, and attaching it to the land as a property tax is the fairest way I can think of to handle it.

    15. Re:Good that he reported it by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      Would you be paying them to protect their own land, whilst you make use of it in that case? Its fair until they make it unfair and take it away.

    16. Re:Good that he reported it by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      They kept their property stored on your land for 2000 years.

      I don't have time to learn the entire history of land ownership of ancient Rome, but I doubt you owned the land 2000 years ago when the stuff was left there.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    17. Re:Good that he reported it by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

      No, the taxes cover the government services that one requires to make use of their property. Things like roads and storm sewers. Police and fire protection. Not to mention the costs associated with ensuring that nobody steals your land from you.

      Contrary to popular belief all that isn't free, somebody has to pay for it, and attaching it to the land as a property tax is the fairest way I can think of to handle it.

      Malarkey. Even unimproved remote rural property that benefits from none of these so-called services is taxed.

      Roads, sewers, and other public works are generally financed via other taxes, levies and districts, often by user fees fees, which are much fairer. Property taxes are usually paid into "general fund" or public schools accounts, where they are squandered as government sees fit.

      The point here is that you either pay or lose the land. Rent by any other name.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    18. Re:Good that he reported it by Neil_Brown · · Score: 2

      Does the title deed not establish a right?

      It's a good question, and I do not know the answer — my gut feeling would be that the title deed establishes title to the land and that, if ownership of the land on which an item was found is sufficient, I would have expected (perhaps too much to expect) that the code of practice would make it clear that ownership of land constituted a relevant prior interest. Similarly, since property must always have an owner under English law (it reverts to the Crown if no other owner is traceable, via bona vacantia, from memory), if ownership of the land did count as a prior interest, treasure would never go to the Crown as it would always be owned by the landowner, making the provisions redundant?

      However, some of the material in the document you cited suggested that ownership of the land is indeed relevant, so it sounds as if further research is needed!

    19. Re:Good that he reported it by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      So the real question is what the equivalent rules are for Roman treasure finds here in the United States!

      (No, I'm not being serious)

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    20. Re:Good that he reported it by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Not much different in the U.K., well at least England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland might be different.

      People who own land own the "freehold" which means they hold it free of rent to the Crown, which actually owns all the land. Thus the Crown can "confiscate" the land should it choose to do so, because it is there's in the first place. Though these days you do get compensated when they do so. One of the points of the Magna Carta was to stop the Crown arbitrarily seizing land from the Baron's.

    21. Re:Good that he reported it by slimdave · · Score: 3, Informative

      Only if the circumstances are strongly suggestive that the hoard was deliberately hidden with the expectation of later recovery by the owner -- treasure buried as part of the internment of a body are an obvious case where there is no intent to recover, hence the Sutton Hoo treasure was not treasure trove.

    22. Re:Good that he reported it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you rent a house, you might reasonably expect the landlord to fix potholes in the driveway as part of what your rent is paying for. The fact that services are provided doesn't contradict the original comment.

    23. Re:Good that he reported it by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 2

      Curiously enough, I doubt anyone else today did either! Thank you for bringing this highly salient point to our attention!

    24. Re:Good that he reported it by Skater · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then I pay a lot less in rent than I would actually renting, so I'm still coming out ahead. And I have an asset I can sell. And if the gov't decides they want to rezone my neighborhood, they have to pay me fair market value for it. But go ahead and keep claiming owning land is just like paying rent. It's not, but you can claim that.

    25. Re:Good that he reported it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      This depends on what is found.
      The first thing to consider is if you own just the land, or if you also own the Mineral Rights. In most cases as long as you own the mineral rights you can pretty much do what you want.
      However, if you live within a city, you have to think about laws which might restrict digging or excavation of any sort (at least, without a permit). You might find that, for example, you're too close to a protected wetland or waterway to come in with a bulldozer, but might be ok using hand-tools. And any type of commercial use of the land might also have some restrictions on it.

      Now, there is one major exception to the "pretty much do what you want" rule of thumb:
      If you find Native American artifacts, burial grounds, or settlement remains, there are special rules which can apply. Certain artifacts cannot legally be owned by non-Natives without certain permits (like feathers from a Bald Eagle).

      There's usually some kind of "treasure hunters" association who can give you details specific to your area.

    26. Re:Good that he reported it by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      I've been making the case that you can't really "own" anything that can be confiscated for taxes either, but let's not run off a clockwork-driven ideological recording.

      If you "own" the property, you can apply the taxes on it against other tax liabilities. You can often apply depreciation. Stuff you can't do when someone else "owns" it.

      Eminent domain is another matter, but my observations have been that it's the government that's more often taken to the cleaners when they buy up property, not the owners. The real stink of Eminent Domain is more often that "My Grandad and I built this house" or "We're a community. We've all lived here for 30 years". Those thing are intangible and have no absolute monetary value, even when they're more important to the inhabitants than simple cash compensation. And actually, some or even all of the inhabitants may be renters, not "owners", especially in old historical impoverished districts.

    27. Re:Good that he reported it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. The strongest form of "ownership" for things you can't hold in your hand is "eminent domain", and those are mage words that only certain may invoke with authority and octarine power.

    28. Re:Good that he reported it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why in Italy people does not find historical stuff on the owned lands...

      I lived in Spain, where the law is the same -- it's illegal to go around looking for this stuff purposefully, and if you find it by accident it belongs to the state.

      But don't for a minute think that just because it's illegal it doesn't happen. People are making finds like this both in Spain and in Italy all the time. However, because it's illegal, the finds are sold on the black market, archaeologists never find out about them, and they are obviously never reported in the press.

      The worst side effect of making it illegal is that it blurs the difference between metal detecting in a field somewhere that has no known archaeological significance (Illegal in Spain and Italy, but not the UK), and metal detecting in an archaeologically important site (illegal in all three countries). Someone starts by breaking the nonsensical law, but pretty soon starts to rationalize breaking the other laws -- and it's then that real damage is done.

      It's like setting the speed limit on the roads so low that most people don't care about it anymore and are breaking the law most of the time anyway. Once that happens, it becomes much easier to ignore lower speed limits around construction areas, for example -- where the limits may actually make sense in order to keep the construction crew safe.

    29. Re:Good that he reported it by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Natural persons clearly not, but how about legal ones? Corporations can theoretically live forever.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    30. Re:Good that he reported it by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      Trouble with laws like this is that it creates a large incentive for him to keep it quiet, melt them down and collect the raw value of the metal. Good for him for reporting it. I wonder if other caches went unreported?

    31. Re:Good that he reported it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. That's just another way of saying, "Does the owner of the land own the treasure?" which GP already pointed out is *not* the case.

    32. Re:Good that he reported it by dkf · · Score: 1

      Does the title deed not establish a right?

      Not at all. This is an area where the UK is completely different to the US; the rights to what is below the surface of the land do not go with the rights to the surface of the land at all here. (This means that people are much more opposed to mining operations, fracking, etc.)

      On the other hand, the award that you get for reporting your find properly is pretty good (though perhaps not as much as you'd get at a well-run auction). You don't get to keep the treasure, but you get financially compensated and the find can be displayed publicly in a suitable museum.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    33. Re:Good that he reported it by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Common wisdom when my father was in road construction was that if you found a burial or other historical site when excavating, you quietly reburied it and told no one. Especially burial sites. Find one and you're instantaneously one year or more behind schedule.

    34. Re:Good that he reported it by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      If that idea turns up in an awful Michael Bay film, you've got a lot to answer for!

    35. Re:Good that he reported it by d3ac0n · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is true enough. Since the 1960's much of the US Government has been infected with Leftists who don't believe in Property rights. thus they have spent 50 years slowly whittling away at it through laws passed at midnight on a weekday, various "rules" passed by unelected leftists bureaucrats, and by activist leftist judges. All with the intent of placing into law that you DON'T actually own any land or anything on or in it. this has been happening both at federal and state levels, with the more leftist controlled states being worse.

      By way of example, see New York State. You own a farm? Discover oil, or coal, or some other mineral resource on it? Go ahead and TRY to sell that resource. You will find that your "Mineral Rights" don't actually exist. Oh, you still legally HAVE them, but you can't actually USE them due to all the other regulations in place.

      The same goes with Archaeological finds, treasure finds, et al. If you find anything of potential archaeological, historical or intrinsic value on your property, TELL NO ONE.

      - If it is archaeological, DESTROY IT or re-hide it as fast as you can. Or your entire property is forfeit to Eminent Domain as an Archaeological site.

      - If it is historical, Keep it to yourself, unless you want your property declared a historical site and thus ineligible for further improvement. (IE: You won't be allowed to fix up your now historical house without a mile long ream of paperwork. Even if the roof is leaking.)

      - If it is intrinsic, such as gold or silver coins, jewels etc, then TELL NO ONE, buy a small jeweler's forge and melt down the coins into small bars, remove the jewels from any settings and melt down the settings, then quietly place all of it into a safe deposit box (preferably in the caymans if you can afford it). Otherwise the US Government will simply TAKE IT from you and you will then have to pay a tax on the value of the stuff you now no longer have, thus bankrupting you for having the temerity to find something valuable.

      One of the first things that despots and leftists do is remove personal property rights. If not directly, then by a thousand regulations. If you want to keep your stuff, then you keep quiet.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    36. Re:Good that he reported it by capedgirardeau · · Score: 1, Informative

      Lefties don't respect property rights?

      The most egregious abuse of private property rights I have ever seen was in Connecticut where the right wingers took private land to make sure the shopping mall developers could make more money.

      It was the liberals on the US Supreme Court that tried to stand against such illegal confiscation.

      For reference:
      http://www.law.pitt.edu/magazine/fall-2007/taking-homes-for-a-shopping-mall-the-abuse-of-eminent-domain-in-a-post-kelo-world

      God right wingers are delusional.

      --
      Wax on, wax off baby!
    37. Re:Good that he reported it by TheMathemagician · · Score: 1

      Totally false. You get the full value. Of course it is often split 50-50 between the landowner and the finder. Oh and it's taxed.

    38. Re:Good that he reported it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh goodness me, somebody can't tell the difference between respecting the past for the benefit of all, and actual property rights.

      Sorry Mr. Alloidal Title, but you've NEVER had that in the US, as subject to proper compensation, the idea of eminent domain is enshrined in the US Constitution.

      You know, that document produced by those oh-so-important Founding Fathers.

      Now you can wax eloquently all you want about the limits of it, but you're not going to persuade people of your aggrievement here. People actually DO care about the past, and they do realize that it's a public concern, not just a private one.

      Of course, you probably think the guy who buried his wife in his own yard needs to be respected for his property rights, regardless of his neighbors feelings.

      That's why your suggestions are to behave like a jackass, taking things entirely into your own power, without concern for others.

      And you say it's others who are the takers. Nope, it's you, and your selfishness.

      Individual tyrants are probably the worst of all, since they think it's they who deserve everything.

    39. Re:Good that he reported it by operagost · · Score: 0

      It must be "right wingers" because a corporation involved? This was only last decade-- most of us are quite familiar with the case, and we know that this was not libertarianism or conservatism run amuck. A strict reader of the Constitution would realize that handing private property over to another individual or company, instead of reserving it for a public use, is wrong. Don't believe me? Here are the US Supreme Court justices who held the majority decision: John Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Do those sound like "right wingers" to you?

      QED.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    40. Re:Good that he reported it by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Whihc is a great way to risk loosing the treasure forever. I mean, Look a pound of ancient gold coins we can't keep. Lets melt them, form it into gold wire, and make 'jewelry'.
      Then just sell for weight.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    41. Re:Good that he reported it by redmid17 · · Score: 1

      Did you even read that link? The only Justice in the majority that can even be considered remotely conservative is Kennedy and he's considered the swing vote on the court? You really don't know anything about SCOTUS or that decision do you? Hint: Conservatives do not like that decision

    42. Re:Good that he reported it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Malarkey. Even unimproved remote rural property that benefits from none of these so-called services is taxed.

      At a typically low-rate, and yes, it does receive plenty of services, some of which may not be direct, but they are still present.

      If you feel you're being taxed too much, fine, convince us how much benefit you're receiving versus how much taxes you're paying. Or convince us that your property assessment is too high.

      Do it objectively, and make us believe you. Or just continue to assert things that rely on an argument of principles, rather than practicals.

      You won't understand how that won't persuade people.

      Roads, sewers, and other public works are generally financed via other taxes, levies and districts, often by user fees fees, which are much fairer.

      Then why do I continually see people complaining about them as well?

      People don't like paying for stuff. They complain. Sometimes their complaints might be valid, other times, it tends to be general grousing.

      Property taxes are usually paid into "general fund" or public schools accounts, where they are squandered as government sees fit.

      The point here is that you either pay or lose the land. Rent by any other name.

      Ah, payments to schools are considered to be a society benefit, as we all benefit from an educated society. That's why it's part of state constitutions across the land. You can claim it's wasted if you want, but as I said, that's what some people always do, complain, complain, and complain. Then they tend to complain that all their critics are doing is complaining about them.

      Here's something you don't know: You have the right to try to fix public schools if you want to offer your suggestions, you can. Of course the people who do are the ones who tend to sell us a bunch of snake oil (which chances are good you might support them as they'll play to your ideals) which actually just ruin the schools.

      But that's another problem.

      Still, you're not fixing things, you're just running around screaming at the injustice of it all.

      Because you're really just a selfish entitled brat who wants everything for free and hates the thought of not being in complete control of everything.

      You are a taker, of the worst kind, because you are a hypocrite and a liar.

    43. Re:Good that he reported it by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Since the vast removal or proerty right in the US were NOT done by liberals, I think you might want to STFU before looking even more stupid.

      The rest of your post is nonsense as well. They only thing more incorrect then your post, is your sig.

      Seriously, you are stupid and factually wrong. I just thought someone should let you know so you can work on that.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    44. Re:Good that he reported it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roads are paid through gasoline taxes, not property taxes. In Florida, the majority of the property taxes have nothing to do with properties at all, it's for the public school system.

    45. Re:Good that he reported it by FuzzyDustBall · · Score: 1

      It could be seen this way.. If while giving me a tour of your land I fumble my wallet onto the ground, do you own the wallet? if so when does it become yours? the instant it hits the ground, when i have move 50ft from it years etc...
      If you extend this to treasure the person burying the treasure may not have been the land owner. So the land owner never owned the treasure, it was just like the fumbled wallet. The land owner not owning the treasure cannot legally change ownership of the treasure. Reasonably the treasure should be disseminated to the descendents of the real owner.
      It appears that under British law, when the owner cannot be established it is automatically claimed by the crown.

    46. Re:Good that he reported it by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Ah, another person talking about the Constitution who clearly has not read anything the founding fathers said on the topic he is talking about.

      BTW, condemnation was brought to the US as part of the 'Common Law'. The constitution SPECIFICALLY allows for it. The cases for private ownership being allowed to take property goes back to 1832.
      None of the Justices you mention were alive in 1832 when that was established. So learn a little history before pretending to know something next time, please.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    47. Re:Good that he reported it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the Public School system is part of their constitution:

      SECTION 1.Public education.—
      (a)The education of children is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida. It is, therefore, a paramount duty of the state to make adequate provision for the education of all children residing within its borders. Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools that allows students to obtain a high quality education and for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of institutions of higher learning and other public education programs that the needs of the people may require.

      If you don't like the values established by your state Constitution, feel free to work to change them. But they clearly do state that the people (who own the property) consider it a duty and benefit to them.

      Besides, that the schools receive a share doesn't mean that local governments don't fund themselves through property taxes. According to this site:

      http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/property/taxpayers/pdf/ptoinfographic.pdf

      30% of local government funding comes from property taxes. What share that is of the overall taxes, I don't know.

      But clearly local governments are using the money.

    48. Re:Good that he reported it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My kingdom for a mod point.

    49. Re:Good that he reported it by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      With the exception of some land in Nevada, nearly all land in the US belongs to 'the crown'. So-called landowners may own a piece of intellectual property called a 'title' which is described by a 'deed', often recorded by a county government.

      I the case of eminent domain, the crown siezes the title and provides the titleholder with compensation for the IP and attached property (e.g. houses).

      This system is known as holding land 'in fee simple'. Holding an 'alodial title' to the land is much closer to true land ownership, but even that the crown encumbers with restrictions that do not apply to other kinds of property.

      Folks who pretend that the US system is one of strong property rights are kidding themselves. Those who eschew intellectual property on its face should examine their notions of real estate.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    50. Re:Good that he reported it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The land owner would actually be the Queen of England, because they have freeholds there,

    51. Re:Good that he reported it by micahraleigh · · Score: 0

      Government should keep everything the government earns.

      In other words, very little.

    52. Re:Good that he reported it by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was the liberals on the US Supreme Court that tried to stand against such illegal confiscation.

      Absolute hogwash. This is exactly the opposite of what happened.

      Justices in the majority: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kennedy.

      Dissenting justices: O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas

    53. Re:Good that he reported it by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

      So "the liberals on the US Supreme Court" = O'Connor, Renquhist, Scalia, and Thomas and "right wingers" = Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer?

    54. Re:Good that he reported it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kill yourself

    55. Re:Good that he reported it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they haven't the oldest corporation currently in business is Nisiyama Onsen Keiunkan est. 706; which would be after the fall of the Roman Empire, and in Japan.

    56. Re:Good that he reported it by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That is nonsense.
      In the UK such a treasure belongs to the crwon. And the crown will compensate you with a very high percentage of the real value.
      The only way to make more money is selling it on the black market (and not getting cought).
      If you melt it you get raw gold value, wich is less than 10% of what the crown will pay you.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    57. Re:Good that he reported it by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure, that the land in your example, with all those oil and coal and historical treasures, had those not included on the bill, when the land was bought.
      And the first land buyer likely bught it from the state, from the public. So why should 'resources'/treasures not still belong to the public?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    58. Re:Good that he reported it by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      No, you are utterly wrong. The raw melt down value of such treasures is far below 10% of what you get as compensation from the crown.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    59. Re:Good that he reported it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'N' while we're on the subject of delusional. I notice one of the effective ways the Repubmocrats have ruled as a one party system for the last century is by convincing rubes that "right" and "left" leanings are more important differences to focus on than the ass reaming they've been giving Constitutional rights with their carefully selected SCOTUS. Republican or Democrat both fart off rights and the people for personal power,riches and fame, passable to their next generation of progeny.

      Kids....worried about a damn shopping mall
      Eminent Domain isn't exactly a new concept.
      Buying property in town is a crapshoot with more caveats than E.D. to worry about.

    60. Re:Good that he reported it by flyneye · · Score: 1

      I'd give that a +1 informative.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    61. Re:Good that he reported it by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware that the crown pays anything. Why would they?

    62. Re:Good that he reported it by dwye · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware that the crown pays anything. Why would they?

      To encourage more treasure hunters, of course. If one depended on professional archeologists, one would wait forever while they spent all their time investigating peasants' hovels and pre-Iron Age middens.

    63. Re:Good that he reported it by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      First of all, thats the law.
      And the sense of the law is to prevent destruction of findings (melting etc.)
      And also if the findings are remarkable they get exhibited in a museum.
      Bottom line the british people love their history and the crown is rich. After all such findings are not happening every day.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    64. Re:Good that he reported it by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Shouldn't that be labelled as common stupidity? What a scientific waste and cultural disservice.

      Then again, this from the land that allowed early civ artificats to be destroyed and stolen during their terrorism attacks in Iraq.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    65. Re:Good that he reported it by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      The world will be a better place when stupid people don't give out stupid selfish advice like you.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    66. Re:Good that he reported it by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      Ah, USians, your viewpoints blind you to non-selfish, humanity enriching acts that happen all over the world.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    67. Re:Good that he reported it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for stating that, really nice to have a fact in with all tha conflagration. The guy who found those gold and inlay sword findings did quite nicely (after taxes).

    68. Re:Good that he reported it by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 1

      People aren't stupid, nor are they insensitive to what they are doing. The reality is that the banks that fund new developments don't really care why there's a delay in a job - just that there is one. Contractors, for good or ill, are very aware that this job and possibly the next one depends upon getting the project done on time. It's just the way things work in construction.

    69. Re:Good that he reported it by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      You have a weird definition of stupid. If you know something is wrong and you do it anyways, then you're stupid and if you do it just because someone else might get the job then you're selfish and stupid.

      I know that in the US this agressive stupidity is actively encouraged by the american dream, do whatever you have to do to get ahead, but the rest of the world see's it as stupidity...except of course where selfishness reigns.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    70. Re:Good that he reported it by Raenex · · Score: 1

      You have a weird definition of stupid. If you know something is wrong and you do it anyways, then you're stupid and if you do it just because someone else might get the job then you're selfish and stupid.

      You have a weird definition of stupid. Selfish doesn't equal stupid. If I owned a business or my job depended on it, I wouldn't want to lose it over a tiny bit of history, as if every piece of pottery or body from hundreds of years ago is some invaluable artifact.

    71. Re:Good that he reported it by operagost · · Score: 1

      I was responding to the specific allegation by the GP poster that the Kelo case was decided by the right-wing of the Supreme Court when it was exactly the opposite. Don't feel bad, because some idiotic moderator modded me down because he couldn't believe it (and didn't feel like checking Wikipedia) either. But you are still wrong, because the ability to take private property for any private use whatsoever is not enumerated-- at ALL. Amendment V only says that private property taken for PUBLIC use must be compensated. As the President says, it's a charter of negative liberties and that means the federal government only has enumerated powers... and Obama hates that. That being said, the law of Connecticut may be different, and the US Constitution allows states to set their own laws. But that wasn't part of the Kelo decision.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  3. Illegal in Ireland by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Informative

    Using metal detectors without prior permission and a degree in archaeology is illegal here in Ireland, punishable by stiff fines and prison, as is wandering around the countryside with archaeological tools. Well technically the latter isn't illegal as such, but you'd better have a good reason for carrying them. Its understandable really given the quality and rarity of some of the treasures that have already been turned up I suppose, the government doesn't want looters making off with priceless artifacts to adorn their mantelpiece.

    1. Re:Illegal in Ireland by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So basically, not finding items of historical value is better than finding them and destroying a bit of historically valuable surroundings?

      Isn't the worth of historically relevant findings in the knowledge they provide rather than their existence? If that was the case, any dude coming up with this without totally destroying everything around the coins provides a net gain to our understanding of history. I can't help but think that would be better than never finding anything at all (which is very probable).

      Also, NOW they know where to go look for another archaeological site, right?

    2. Re:Illegal in Ireland by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Using metal detectors without ... a degree in archaeology is illegal here in Ireland

      Seriously? I can sort of understand the rest of it, but there are other uses for metal detectors besides digging up treasure. Or did you just mean to imply "Using metal detectors to find loot"?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:Illegal in Ireland by petsounds · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So basically, not finding items of historical value is better than finding them and destroying a bit of historically valuable surroundings?

      Yes. They will still be there for a proper archaeologist to discover at some future time. Given how many artifacts were damaged or ruined by bungling explorers in the 1800's and early 1900's, I'd say it is prudent to leave the task to experts.

    4. Re:Illegal in Ireland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's so insane I'm inclined to think your understanding is incorrect.

      I just kicked around on the web a little, and among forums for metal detecting clubs and such in Ireland, and I haven't seen anything like what you're saying. Just the usual stuff about asking permission and the like. Could you clarify?

    5. Re:Illegal in Ireland by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

      I think you can go beachcombing on some beaches, but there's an exclusion zone around areas of interest, which in Ireland where you trip over someone's cairn every half mile basically means the whole island.

      As I understand it you require an individual Detection Device License to be issued for each and every time you plan to go metal detecting with the intention of finding any kind of historical object - and the law assumes that that is what you are doing whenever you are using a metal detector. Archaeologists do use metal detectors in field work but they also have to apply for and be granted a licence each time - in addition to the licence they require for each an every dig they do. A consent to use a detection device does not include permission to dig for archaeological objects. If digging or the recovery of archaeological objects is envisaged, a separate excavation licence must be applied for.

    6. Re:Illegal in Ireland by the_other_chewey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So basically, not finding items of historical value is better than finding them and destroying a bit of historically valuable surroundings?

      Yes, in most cases.

      Isn't the worth of historically relevant findings in the knowledge they provide rather than their existence?

      No, because in archaeology, the context of a find is everything. Of course, valuable and beautiful objects make for
      great exhibitions, but context is really the main part of what is interesting. You'll see an archaologist become much
      more excited over an unusual and unexpected piece of wood than over "another roman gold coin. meh."

      We have tens of thousands of roman gold coins already, and I doubt any of the coins this guy found are of
      an unkown kind.

      However, an amateur will not know to care for some fibres around the gold coins that may have been a
      uniquely crafted bag, thereby proving trade contacts with $faraway_place. Of will discard a couple of shovels
      full of dirt with bone fragments or plant seeds in them which would make this a unique and invaluable find.

      If you find something, don't touch it and report it, but don't dig around yourself - you'll do way more
      harm than good, and may even commit a crime.

    7. Re:Illegal in Ireland by HungryHobo · · Score: 2

      He wasn't quite accurate.

      It is illegal to dig for archeological objects and to use metal detectors for such a purpose without a special licence.

      You can use a metal detector to find bottle caps in your lawn or to locate pipes.

      but too many amature treasure hunters have fucked up sites.

    8. Re:Illegal in Ireland by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Informative

      PDF warning:

      http://www.archaeology.ie/media/archeologyie/PDFS/Irish%20Field%20Monuments.pdf

      Page 23 there, "The National Monuments Acts, makes it
      unlawful to excavate for archaeological
      purposes without a licence from the
      Department of the Environment, Heritage &
      Local Government. Their consent is also
      required to use a metal detector for the
      purpose of searching for archaeological
      objects. Such consents are normally issued
      to qualified and experience archaeologists"

    9. Re:Illegal in Ireland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no wonder all your kids turn to drinking. what a shite rule. fuck history. "Oh my GOD they traded with those other guys and this proves it!" How is that getting us closer to a space colony. Where is the adventure in life. I ought to come over there and dig the fuck out of your little island.

    10. Re:Illegal in Ireland by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      " I ought to come over there and dig the fuck out of your little island."

      The Brits beat you to that.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:Illegal in Ireland by realxmp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So basically, not finding items of historical value is better than finding them and destroying a bit of historically valuable surroundings?

      Yes. They will still be there for a proper archaeologist to discover at some future time. Given how many artifacts were damaged or ruined by bungling explorers in the 1800's and early 1900's, I'd say it is prudent to leave the task to experts.

      Amusingly many of those bungling explorers were the "experts" of the time. Also in order for archeologists to know there's anything worth digging up, someone has to make a chance discovery. Proper archeology takes a lot of time and resources, and thus sites are only excavated if there's reason to suspect there's something to look for in the first place.

    12. Re:Illegal in Ireland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insert obligatory joke about there being any money in Ireland to find or finding alcohol with a metal detector.

    13. Re:Illegal in Ireland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here in China they know where the Tomb of Qin Shi Huang is located, but they won't be actually excavating the site until such a time as they can figure out how to do so without destroying everything in there. Assuming that it's properly preserved.

      It's the responsible thing to do. Once something is damaged or destroyed, that's it. You can sometimes repair it, but it's never the same as if it weren't damaged or destroyed in the first place.

      As much as I'd love to see the tomb opened, it's more important that it not be destroyed before the technology is there to open it safely. There's been way too many archeological sites damaged over the years by people that didn't know or didn't care about how to do it correctly.

    14. Re:Illegal in Ireland by Bayoudegradeable · · Score: 1

      the government doesn't want looters making off with priceless artifacts.

      And that's the REAL reason Guinness was invented; to prevent unauthorized archaeological activity.Otherwise, the Irish would have categorized the the entire subterranean contents of the Emerald Isle by now...

      --
      Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
    15. Re:Illegal in Ireland by HungryHobo · · Score: 0

      yes and doctors of the past didn't wash their hands between autopsies and surgery.

      yet a modern doctor knows better and could be jailed for criminal negligence for doing the same now.

      same deal.

      The explorers of the past were mostly just treasure hunters looking for gold rather than information about the past.

      indeed many sites which are known about but which aren't in peril are intentionally left as they are because they know very well that in 50 years we'll probably be able to pull info from a site that we wouldn't now.

    16. Re:Illegal in Ireland by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      " Their consent is also
      required to use a metal detector for the
      purpose of searching for archaeological
      objects."

      That's why people never 'search' for archaeological objects, they just 'find' them while searching for rare bottlecaps.

    17. Re:Illegal in Ireland by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      That's why the police and judiciary tend to just arrest and prosecute people wandering around with a metal detector and a shovel. Its a bit like having a boxcutter in your pocket in a nightclub, you may think you can come up with a good excuse for it but you can't where it matters. You can jig around with not carrying a shovel or having a photo of a missing watch or something, but its not fooling anyone, least of all a judge.

    18. Re:Illegal in Ireland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yet a modern doctor knows better and could be jailed for criminal negligence for doing the same now.

      Or more likely here in the UK first they'll get 12 of their colleagues to swear that it never happened, after all the British hippocratic oath is "first do no harm to your peers."

    19. Re:Illegal in Ireland by usuallylost · · Score: 2

      What I wonder about with all of these restrictions how many finds are simply ignored or destroyed because people don't want to lose the use of their land? Farmer X plows up a roman era treasure and is faced with the prospect of having his whole farm disrupted for who knows how long, perhaps permanently. You have to think that perhaps he isn't so thrilled with this. Makes you wonder just how many farmer X's go get a sledge hammer smash whatever it is up and put it out in with the trash. I guess it would depend upon the compensation rates for locating things and cooperating with archeological preservation vs. the penalties for destruction. Though my guess is as long as you didn't try to sell it you could throw out king tuts treasure in your trash without people noticing. Especially if you say burned it all before you did it.

    20. Re:Illegal in Ireland by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

      Where it's clearly accidental I don't think there have ever been any prosecutions, turf cutters occasionally haul up bog mummies (although I'd say they've probably dismembered many more unknowingly). There was a story in the news a while back about a woman who pulled a bronze age brooch out of her fireplace after burning through a turf fire. http://celticmythpodshow.com/blog/turf-fire-reveals-celtic-treasure/

      What many people don't get about Ireland is its pretty much wall to wall historical sites, layered one on top of the other over thousands of years; despite previous plundering there's still a whole lot of history hereabouts.

    21. Re:Illegal in Ireland by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      If you talk to archeologists, you'll hear that this is a very common occurrence. Technology is always improving, and over time it becomes easier to non-destructively examine a site. This makes it very difficult to decide when it's the correct time to start a dig. If you wait a few years, you'll probably get more information out, but if you wait forever then you won't get any. It's quite common to excavate a small part of a site and leave the rest for future archeologists.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    22. Re:Illegal in Ireland by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Screw that. This 'it's history so you loose everything becasue of it' attitude is bullshit.

      I'll let you in on a secret: Nothing we learn about the Romans will change a damn thing today. It's not really that important. We won't discover a new power source, we won't discover anything that changes out course in history, and we won't even learn everything new about the Romans beyond a piece of trivia.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    23. Re:Illegal in Ireland by geekoid · · Score: 1

      ", thereby proving trade contacts with $faraway_place"
      becasue THAT'S important.

      This guy did the work, and now archaeologist want to take ti from him, take in from the land owners all to learn that maybe there is a place Romans traded with we don't know about.

      Add to that the amount of context Archaeologist and 'experts' shove onto an item that is based on nothing is laughable.

      ".. invaluable find."
      to a couple of people, that will be put into a book read by about 100 people and no will ever think of it again. But hey, interesting by a few people is sure worth completely turning over someone s life, right?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    24. Re:Illegal in Ireland by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Sweet, as I kid I built metal detecting shoes. Time for that to pay off!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    25. Re:Illegal in Ireland by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "but too many amature treasure hunters have fucked up sites."
      So? Maybe we should stopping idolizing the past and focus on the future?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    26. Re:Illegal in Ireland by geekoid · · Score: 2

      " for archaeological purposes"
      No sir, I planned to destroy it using a bulldozer, clearly not an archaeological purposes

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    27. Re:Illegal in Ireland by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      make sure shut down the telescopes too, after all the starlight they pick up is just a snapshot of the stars state in the distant past. and there's obviously nothing of value we can learn from things which happened in the past.

      Oh and comparative genomics too. who needs to know about the history of mutation in genes, that's in the past! we need to focus on the future! There's nothing of value to be learned from looking at things which happened in the past!

    28. Re:Illegal in Ireland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This guy did the work

      completely turning over someone s life

      Way to lose perspective, he was using a "beginner’s metal detector" - hardly a life's work!

    29. Re:Illegal in Ireland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you that guy from the Lorax? I thought it was fiction ...

    30. Re:Illegal in Ireland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are shit analogies and you fucking know it, cunt.

    31. Re:Illegal in Ireland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll let you in on a secret: Nothing we learn about the Romans will change a damn thing today.

      Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
      -George Santayana

    32. Re:Illegal in Ireland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, you people in Ireland are bleeping stupid.

  4. British local press at their best (not) by Tim+Ward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "Are you the man who found the coins? Do you know who he is? Contact reporter David O’Neill on 01442 898451."

    Duh! - one might have expected the journo to get the name, or even an interview!

    1. Re:British local press at their best (not) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What was Mr. O'Neill supposed to do? I mean, it's not like he can hack the guys metal detector and listen to his voice mail.

    2. Re:British local press at their best (not) by Tim+Ward · · Score: 1

      His job. It's a reporter's job to find out stuff. Some of them are better at their job than others.

    3. Re:British local press at their best (not) by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Because you know he didn't have any higher priorities than a stupid feel good "oh look I dug up some treasure!" story?

  5. not the largest find by rapiddescent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    TFA is way out. The was a more valuable Roman find of Roman Torcs 3 miles to the west of Stirling in Scotland which netted around £4m which he had a share of £500k

    What's interesting is that the Romans didn't last long in Scotland but there are still visible signs of our italian pals from 2000 years ago, such as the Fendoch fort in the Sma Glen north of Crieff and the fort at Braco some 5 miles south of Crieff.

    We found some tunic broaches with a metal detector in my parents field a few miles away. Still looking for the pot of Roman gold. There are legends that Fendoch had a large stash of gold but there just legends and no one has ever found them plus metal detecting is illegal on recognised Roman forts which is a bit of a set back!

    1. Re:not the largest find by MarkKB · · Score: 2

      "One of the" != "the".

    2. Re:not the largest find by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Since when where Torc's coins?

    3. Re:not the largest find by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      Maybe learn English? Pay particular attention to the meanings of "one of" and "coin".

  6. In the year 4012... by Razgorov+Prikazka · · Score: 5, Funny

    Man unearths 2000 year old bit-coin with metal-detector

    An anonymous reader writes
    "A novice metal detector has found one of the largest bit coin servers ever unearthed in the UK. From the article: 'National newspapers reported on Wednesday that the man, from Berkhamsted, had been sold a beginner’s metal detector from the town’s High Street-based Hidden History for £135. He is reported to have gone back with 40 of the bit coins, dating to the last days of 'Cameron' rule in Britain, and asked: “What do I do with this?”'"

    Read all comments.

    --
    rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
    1. Re:In the year 4012... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Not only is that bad Data Protection policy (Not wiping a drive before disposal? The lunatic!) but I bet it wasn't disposed of in compliance with the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE Directive).

      Some people just want to watch the world burn.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  7. The risks of fame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It was an interesting way to launder stollen gold coins, too bad he is an internet sensation now

  8. Expedted title by psholty2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Man Finds Roman Gold Coin Hoard Worth £100,000 With Metal Detector, Plans To Exchange Them For BitCoins - Slashdot

  9. Not a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As an archaeologist, promoting such stories in the media is generally a bad idea. It encourages people to go and loot archaeological sites, and when they ask themselves 'What do I do with this', the answer is often 'sell it on ebay'. The archaeological context is lost, and potential dating evidence for a site is not recorded.

    That said, responsible metal detecting where finds are reported to the local Finds Liason Officer (in the UK) are a good thing, as they can reveal new sites. I have done a geophysics survey on a site found in this way.

  10. Sure he "found" them by Quick+Reply · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It sounds like he came across a fortune through illegal means, bought a beginner metal detector someplace (really who spends 135 quid on a beginner item, he must have been certain he would find something worth at least that value) and then played dumb when he says that he "found" it.

    He reports it in, nobody will claim, and he will get to keep it legally. Easy way to "legalise" something you shouldn't have. Works for bags of money some people "dig up" in their backyard too (which is really their drug money they need to bring off the black market to make a legitimate purchase). Just hope that nobody else can make a plausible enough claim for it.

    1. Re:Sure he "found" them by Xest · · Score: 1

      "He reports it in, nobody will claim, and he will get to keep it legally."

      AFAIK that's not how it works in the UK, I believe it defaults to museum or council ownership or something unless they explicitly state they don't want it.

    2. Re:Sure he "found" them by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      And whoever had it stolen won't wonder and look into it.

      That's a pretty amateurish thief. And anyone who liberated it from a national museum would sell to a private collector.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:Sure he "found" them by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "(really who spends 135 quid on a beginner item, he must have been certain he would find something worth at least that value"
      so, you are saying that the only people who buy metal detectors are people who already found a treasure? Seems to be quite a limiting factor on sales.
      As some who has a metal detectors, I can assure you that I have no found hordes to cover up.
      In fact, the only horde I have ever found was only after invading a Dragons home and slaying said dragon. While eating Cheetos and Drinking Dr. Pepper.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  11. Not stolen by the banks by zaax · · Score: 1

    They had a much better system of banking in Roman times - They didn't have banks!
    Which bank could you give your money to and still the bank will still have it in 2,000 years. Put our money in the a whole in the ground it will still be there in a couple of millenniumâ(TM)s later.

    1. Re:Not stolen by the banks by nomad-9 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, Romans had a "light" version of it, mostly in the form of money lending activities. Apart from loans, they were deposits, checks and currency exchange.

      The early bankers, were already looked upon with contempt...We can now see why, by looking at what can happen when they are given too much power....

    2. Re:Not stolen by the banks by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      They had a much better system of banking in Roman times - They didn't have banks!

      They didn't have politicians either.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    3. Re:Not stolen by the banks by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Yes they did, you blithering idiot.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Not stolen by the banks by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      Nope, no politicians. And no concept of sarcasm until they learned it from the conquered Gauls.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    5. Re:Not stolen by the banks by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes they did. They got it from the Greeks, who got it from the Syrians. About about 4 millennium ago.
      Banking was very highly developed in Roman law. As I have said may times, take a few minutes to look up the subject you know nothing about before posting. Seriously, I bet a simple google search would have the information you need in the first spot. If you don't want to do a google search, then ASK if the Romans had banking instead of making a blanket statement about something you never studied.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Not stolen by the banks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gauls were a fabrication in Caesar's Commentaries, he never crucified any.

    7. Re:Not stolen by the banks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The early governments, were already looked upon with contempt

      Nah, people actually LOVED government back in the day. Some cultures even thought their kings (their government) had divine rights or heavenly mandates

      People would die for their king (and country) for no other reason than "honor" and "glory", instead of useful things like gold and profits.

      That attitude lasted for thousands of years. It was only within the last 800 years or so that people started to think that maybe kings aren't divine and can't do whatever they want (a la the Magna Carta)

      It was only about 300 years ago (the Age of Enlightenment) that the concept of libertarianism as we know it started to take form, when people stopped believing in kings altogether. The USA was founded as a government without a king, but most people still believed in governments - the general public mostly supported the federal government when the government sent in troops to suppress people who didn't want to pay a tax (ironic, considering one of the major triggers for US independence lies in taxes)

      It is only in recent years (~100 years, give or take) that people became outright resentful and hateful of government. These people like to tell us that people have always at war with eastasia^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H hated government

  12. Let me get my Roman gold coin hoard expert... by louzer · · Score: 1

    The best I can do is 10 dollars.

    --
    Heroes die once, cowards live longer.
    1. Re:Let me get my Roman gold coin hoard expert... by boarder8925 · · Score: 1

      Well, I had really been hoping to get $160,000 for this... Ok, $10 it is.

  13. I smell a rat by GoodnaGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    am I the only one smells a rat here? Gold roman coins are worth a lot more than gold alone, therefore a tidy profit is to be made by printing you are own fake roman coins and then claiming to have dug them up.

    1. Re:I smell a rat by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Mostly because roman gold coins were almost as thin as paper. There is no real weight in Gold in a Roman coin.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:I smell a rat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your basis for this is precisely what? 40 coins aren't just going to go missing without being noticed and anybody interested in buying the coins is going to hire somebody to authenticate them. It's surprisingly hard to fake the kind of wear and tear that you get from use and having something buried in the ground for centuries.

      As unlikely as it is, I'm sure there are plenty of other sites where there are hidden troves of coins that were lost over the centuries.

    3. Re:I smell a rat by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mostly because roman gold coins were almost as thin as paper. There is no real weight in Gold in a Roman coin.

      Yes, only 4.5 grams in a solidus, or only about £150 worth of gold in each... paper thin, indeed. For some value of paper thin.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    4. Re:I smell a rat by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      It is quite hard to plausibly fake archaeological gold artifacts. We are much better at making gold today, so there is less silver in modern gold, which is pretty easy detect.

    5. Re:I smell a rat by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Yeah these ones would only be worth $40,000. Worthless I say!

    6. Re:I smell a rat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a real one is worth 250 pound sterling in value if it's pristene. So again he is right and you are wrong... but hey, dont let that get in your way.

    7. Re:I smell a rat by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      If he was a fool and melted them all down? yes. but the point was they are worth more as roman coins than as gold. Which is 100% correct.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:I smell a rat by ultranova · · Score: 1

      It is quite hard to plausibly fake archaeological gold artifacts. We are much better at making gold today, so there is less silver in modern gold, which is pretty easy detect.

      Because silver can't be bought and mixed in.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    9. Re:I smell a rat by geekoid · · Score: 1

      But they can't remove modern radioactive isotopes.

      Using silver as a mean to detect fraud? what the fuck is this, 1930?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:I smell a rat by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      But that has nothing to do with them being "as thin as paper" and having "no real weight" - if the Romans had used cubic inch gold blocks as coins they'd still be more valuable as artifacts than as bullion.

      Whether melting them down and keeping $40,000 is more foolish than having the Crown declared as the owner and hoping they determine you should get the reward is another matter.

    11. Re:I smell a rat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Counterfeiters are just not that smart. Haven't you seen Pawn Stars?

    12. Re:I smell a rat by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That is nonsense.
      The coins are as thick as bronce or silver coins, but usually smaller in diamter. Depending on time and value the weight is between 3.5g to 4.5g. 4.5g is about 180â actual worth in gold.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  14. Next Hoard by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

    Run buy a bunch of those metal detector makers shares, quick!

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  15. Romans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I didn't even know the Romans had metal detectors!

    It makes sense that if a roman has a metal detector, he'd probably also have a lot of money, so it's not unusual that the two would be found together.

  16. Re:“What do I do with this?”'" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are just up-set that you are not a part of ze Superior Race!. Quick scurry away to ze fatherland!

    And yes I can say that, I'm german... well 88.7% german. Dad was 100% mom was mostly around 85%
    Time for sauerbraten!

  17. Leave it in the ground... by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 4, Informative

    The sad thing is that by digging it up he's destroyed the archaeological context which might have shown why it was buried, when, and, to some extent, who by. The end of the Roman period in Britain is a very interesting period of history, but one about which we have far too little information. Yes, it's great that these things get found, but when you've found something, for heaven's sake leave it in the ground and alert the county archaeologists (or, technically, the coroner who will in turn alert the archaeologists, but...). You'll still get the 'treasure trove' value as the finder, and the context will get recorded.

    --
    I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    1. Re:Leave it in the ground... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was so fucking important the archaeologists would have dug it up.
      Since they left it there, clearly it wasn't important.
      Besides, how is he supposed to know what it is without digging it up?
      Should he alert the county archaeologists for every piece of trash that sets off the detector for fear of disturbing a site?

    2. Re:Leave it in the ground... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was present on the Archaeological dig that followed the initial discovery by the finder, there were no other areas of interest, no vessel or container of any form was present over a approx 20 meter area. The team who came were from st albans museum and I am sure a full report will be available online soon.

  18. Sounds suspicious - or am I too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    The Roman empire was a big place. A lot of Eastern European museums must be short of cash. If some coins leaked out of a museum, and found their way to London, what would the new owner do? Maybe go out and buy a metal detector and say "look what I found"

    Just a possibility. But I suppose the "lucky first timer" scenario could be true as well.

  19. I'm glad I'm in America! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    We don't have such silly laws! So, it will be a big help when I'm using a metal detector to find those ancient Roman and Gaylick treasures - especially in the South East US! And I'll have the means too. See, I took ALL engineering and math classes in college - none of that nonsense liberal arts stuff like history and art! Nope!

  20. Re: Title deed establishing right by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1
    I'd bet it's more like nobility and royalty and other magical beliefs in the superiority of one class over others: buying the land owned by a nobleman does not confer upon one the title of nobility, whereas having a duly recorded ancestry that proves one's linkage to pre-existing nobility establishes the connection to give you a "title" of nobility also.

    .

    In other words, you can't buy your way into the club of nobles by buying their land; you remain a serf vs landed gentry. [warning, opinions only, not even a wikipedia link for this.]

  21. bombs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most finds you hear about here, Belgium, are leftover bombs from two world wars.
    Some entity called DOVO comes in, evacuates the area and blows up your shiny new find.

    There, no hassle about who owns what and should earn which finders fees.

    1. Re:bombs by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I heard that they've got so many to dispose of that if they don't find any more it'll still take them another 20 years. And every now and then a farmer or builder finds another bunker full of them.

      Apparently WW1 gas shells are the worst. The contents have to be extracted very carefully, then passed through chemicals to react with & neutralize the gas. This of course depends on the type of gas, and it can be difficult to read markings on stuff that's been buried for 90 years.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  22. Doesn't the Queen own everything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't just dig it up out of the ground and cash it out -- all these treasures rightfully belong to the Queen. Now get your dirty pauper hands off her gold!

    1. Re:Doesn't the Queen own everything? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Or "The People", for that matter. Using the exact same argument you did, but for some reason because it's a mass of people doing the arrogation, some feel it seems OK.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  23. What odd phrasing by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    ...had been sold a beginners metal detector from the towns High Street-based Hidden History for £135.

    That reads like he had no choice in the transaction. I half-expected the sentence to end with 'at gunpoint'.

    1. Re:What odd phrasing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's subtle, but makes him sound like a scrounger rather than taking an affirmative action. Sets the tone for the rest of the article, presumably to generate the opinion that he doesn't deserve any money from his find.

  24. 40 Roman Coins? by ryzvonusef · · Score: 1

    Judas, that you?

    --
    I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
    1. Re:40 Roman Coins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Judas got silver coins.

    2. Re:40 Roman Coins? by ryzvonusef · · Score: 1

      Ah sorry, I have never read the bible (being a muslim and all); in fact I got this "parable" from Dresden Files.

      --
      I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
    3. Re:40 Roman Coins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      being a muslim and all

      Watch out or Chrisq will start trolling you like the racist fag he is.

  25. Not £100,000 by Danious · · Score: 4, Informative

    I seriously doubt it's worth £100,000, these stories always go over the top on the value quoting the price for mint coins in perfect condition in the existing market trading volumes. There was a recent very large hoard valued in the press at tens of millions of pounds, but the coins were so degraded they were worth only a fraction of their individual mint value, and there were so many coins in the hoard it would have depressed the market value if they had been sold.

    The real worry here is the guy apparently didn't know what to do once he had found the coins, there are legal requirements to be met, and archaeological best practice to be followed. No-one should be sold a detector without first having to take a one-hour training course in their legal and moral obligations. That said, I work with responsible detectorists all the time, many are very good, but there are also many like this guy who do terrible damage.

    1. Re:Not £100,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Your theory is that everyone buying a metal detector is a treaure finder? Wow!

      And how would that work? Licenced metal detector sellers? Inspectors? Yeah right.

    2. Re:Not £100,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real worry here is the guy apparently didn't know what to do once he had found the coins, there are legal requirements to be met, and archaeological best practice to be followed. No-one should be sold a shovel without first having to take a one-hour training course in their legal and moral obligations. That said, I work with responsible shovelists all the time, many are very good, but there are also many like this guy who do terrible damage.

    3. Re:Not £100,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >No-one should be sold a detector without first having to take a one-hour training course in their legal and moral obligations. That said, I work with responsible detectorists all the time, many are very good, but there are also many like this guy who do terrible damage.

      So, hold on a second. I assume you read the article where it said he was doing this on private property. He could have, being that it's private property, destroyed every last portion of everything in the ground, so long as he didn't poison it.

      But you're worried that instead he might have done a poor job digging stuff up?

      Are you mad?

    4. Re:Not £100,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real worry here is the guy apparently didn't know what to do once he had found the coins, there are legal requirements to be met, and archaeological best practice to be followed. No-one should be sold a toothpick without first having to take a one-hour training course in their legal and moral obligations. That said, I work with responsible toothpickists all the time, many are very good, but there are also many like this guy who do terrible damage.

  26. Same in Egypt ... by kbahey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The same principle holds in Egypt: if you discover anything interesting while digging, you have to report it to the Department of Antiquities. They may take over the site and do a dig, or whatever they see fit.

    This is why I know people, from Alexandria, who found Roman era amphorae while digging the foundation of their apartment building just take them home and never tell the authorities.

    I myself have seen Roman earthenware come out on a government owned building when digging for a data center power cable. The managers just said keep quiet, otherwise it will delay our own project.

    The stuff is not even sold or goes on the black market, it sits in storage at someone's balcony or dumped as rubbish.

    1. Re:Same in Egypt ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Similar things happen whenever land use rights get infringed. More than once I've seen a contractor say, "Wow, this species of tree is nearly extinct! Get rid of it before anyone sees it or we'll never get this project finished."

      People really should put more thought into regulations like this, as they're not really motivating the desired behavior.

    2. Re:Same in Egypt ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is as it should be. Unfortunately.

      I've seen it in N. America with native relics. Bottom line -- if I'm a property owner, I have a personal interest in the property.

      Society has a collective interest in the finding, for which they utterly fail to compensate, or even mitigate my individual self interests.

      Not only do they not outweigh it, but they very rarely break anywhere near a fraction of 'even'.

      So -- if you find an artfiact, just like a body. Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up.

      Or...you know...smash, trash, and shut up.

      Alternately, put it in the attic and maybe in 100 years... but that's a lot of risk if someone finds it for very little potential reward.

      Dear Archaeo people...I know you all aren't funded well. That many of you are ...actually really bumbling inept grad students... That those of you who aren't bumbling work long hard hours. That my attitude probably infuriates you.

      I'm sorry.

      But if these fibers and the context is so damned important to you, you need to arrange for appropriate compensation for when you shut down someone's life, someone's project, cock-block their construction and otherwise utterly screw them over.

      Otherwise lots of perfectly reasonable, intelligent, good natured people are going to take your history -- and burn it, because that's the most ethical, pragmatic decision.

      Yes, I said /ethical/, even if it is almost always unlawful. Why should my kids go hungry because of what somebody buried a thousand years ago?

      You can legislate all you want, but if you take a stick approach instead of a carrot to society... I'm going to laugh at the taste of your tears when you're bypassed.

    3. Re:Same in Egypt ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      was rubbish then, its still rubbish.

    4. Re:Same in Egypt ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People really should put more thought into regulations like this, as they're not really motivating the desired behavior.

      Hehe, yeah. It reminds me of the time I accidentally hit this kid on his bike while I was driving in the countryside. If I had called the cops, they would have made a big deal about it, so I just checked to see if anybody had seen (they hadn't) and drove away before he regained consciousness. Who needs the hassle of doing the right thing?

    5. Re:Same in Egypt ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's definitely the same as digging up a pot. Jackass.

  27. The land of the free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh my, you're a free man, as long as the government decides if it okay.

    Yikes.

    1. Re:The land of the free by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      You mean a government that actively protects the national heritage, associated treasures and history from nimrods foreign and domestic? Thats one use I'm quite happy to see my taxes being put towards.

    2. Re:The land of the free by operagost · · Score: 1

      As long as you're OK with them harassing, fining, and imprisoning innocent people in order to protect inanimate objects, be my guest.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:The land of the free by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      You mean inanimate objects like your computer there? Or maybe all your money, that's inanimate. Its easy to stop off at the local police station and ask what the story is, and if you're thinking of digging up antiques that's what you should do first anyway. This isn't jaywalking, its buying a very specialised piece of equipment and going to remote locations to use it, intent isn't difficult to ascertain, even if they aren't caught using it.

  28. In the US he might have been arrested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the United States, it is a federal crime to even possess (let alone use) a metal detector on Federal Park property. This includes all national parks, historic sites, and some other locations owned by the government.

    Several states also ban the possession and use of metal detectors on State-owned property.

    Had he found this kind of stash in the US, it most certainly would have been confiscated by government in the name of national treasure or other such nonsense.

    1. Re:In the US he might have been arrested by Anarchy24 · · Score: 1

      And sent to prison, I'm sure! Scheme to defraud, or tax evasion, or some BS excuse. Creates jobs for 'corrections officers' though right?

    2. Re:In the US he might have been arrested by Grizzley9 · · Score: 2

      In the United States, it is a federal crime to even possess (let alone use) a metal detector on Federal Park property. This includes all national parks, historic sites, and some other locations owned by the government.

      Several states also ban the possession and use of metal detectors on State-owned property.

      Had he found this kind of stash in the US, it most certainly would have been confiscated by government in the name of national treasure or other such nonsense.

      What?

      Shop owners David Sewell and Mark Becher reported the find, and then joined a search party on the private land where the coins had been discovered.

      If he was on private land in the US, he can do whatever he wants. State/public owned land is quite different obviously and he has no rights to its contents but if private land, it's yours. Obviously we don't have the history here that our EU counterparts do so it's sort of understandable the limitations there are on finds.

    3. Re:In the US he might have been arrested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Point of order.

      That may or may not be true in the US, which uses the feudal/fee-simple title system for land ownership.

      Assuming he has permission from the landowner to be on their private property, he still may not have the right to remove things found buried there, as titles in the US may or may not come with excavation, mining, riparian, or treasure-hunting rights.

      Typically when you buy land in the US, you are really only buying the right to build upon the surface of it, and/or excavate a basement for those improvements if your building permit and building codes so allow. For that right you pay a lump sum to the previous rights owner, and rent to the local government in the form of property tax.

      It varies state to state and locale to locale, but generally speaking, one must do some research before digging for things on land he has purchased the right to improve upon.

  29. Don't forget the government donation tax. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised the UK government hasn't stolen it from him, er, uhh, Reclaimed a National Treasuer That Is The Birthright Of Every British British Citizen See What I "Acquired' For You Using Not Money But A Meme As Payment Vote For Me!

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  30. wrong number and wrong coins by RobertLTux · · Score: 3, Informative

    Judas was paid 30 denarians (which are SILVER). of course if you read The Dresden Files it becomes a plot point that all 30 became "cursed".

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    1. Re:wrong number and wrong coins by ryzvonusef · · Score: 1

      Hah! You are citing Dresden File instead of the Bible as the source, awesome :D

      And yes, I got the basic Idea behind this bible story from Dresden Files too. Seems I don't recall my Butcher as correctly as I had assumed...

      --
      I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
    2. Re:wrong number and wrong coins by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      well i wanted to do something a bit less religious in this case

      Im just waiting for Cold Days myself

      Pro Tip if you find "stuff" WEAR GLOVES since you never know what is on/in what you found.

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    3. Re:wrong number and wrong coins by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, the mediocre work known as the Dresden files is the go to places on the history and fact about the 30 denarians Judas was payed..

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:wrong number and wrong coins by PPH · · Score: 1

      Well, that's what he declared on his income tax return.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:wrong number and wrong coins by ryzvonusef · · Score: 1

      If you fail step one, bury the coin and prescribe a circle around it...

      On second thought if you are going to bury the thing back in, better not dig it out in the first place :D

      --
      I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
  31. You're being childish and ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " Easy way to "legalise" something you shouldn't have"

    Why shouldn't he have it? He found it on private land with the owner's permission.

    If the government wants it, reimburse him for the appraised value, and then they can have it.

    You sound silly like he stole it from the Tower of London.

  32. Today's 5sf seems strangely relevant. by baenpb · · Score: 1
  33. Confiscate them! by sycodon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I seem to recall, from reading about other similar situations, that the British government considers all finds of this nature to be the property of the government. Kind of like how in the U.S. the Feds now consider anything that falls from the sky and lands on Federal land to be federal property.

    For some reason the Feds were pissed meteorite collectors were making money off of rocks from the sky and they weren't.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Confiscate them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, next they won't let you cut down all the trees or drill out all the oil under federal lands without working out an agreement with them! Asshole like to pretend they "own the land".

      Honestly, it's a cornerstone of both domestic and international law, states have resource rights to their lands.

    2. Re:Confiscate them! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      This wasn't invented by the United States, it was inherited from English Common Law. The Crown always had a right to such finds.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Confiscate them! by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      I seem to recall, from reading about other similar situations, that the British government considers all finds of this nature to be the property of the government. Kind of like how in the U.S. the Feds now consider anything that falls from the sky and lands on Federal land to be federal property.

      The difference is that Federal property is public property -- the government owns that property, so of course if something falls there, they own it. But if that meteorite falls in your back yard, YOU own it. If it falls in a Brit's back yard, the crown owns it, not the property owner.

    4. Re:Confiscate them! by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      If you find oil in your backyard, do you own it? You dont, in the UK, and am curious about the US system.

    5. Re:Confiscate them! by shiftless · · Score: 1

      No, probably not, because somebody else likely owns the mineral rights to your land.

    6. Re:Confiscate them! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That is not really correct, or half correct or whatever.
      The treasure is property of the CROWN, not the GOVERNMENT (or state if you ment that).
      The crown refunds the finder and the landowner on whoms land the treasure was found. This is ofc not for the real value as that can only be determined by auctioning it away. However the refunding is usually quite generous

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:Confiscate them! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      It's almost certainly Treasure, in the meaning of the 1996 Treasure Act. So it should be (and already has) reported under the Portable Antiquities Scheme. The finder will get a proportion of the assessed value.

      Since a large part of the point of the PAS is to encourage finders to actually report their finds so that their archaeological value can be preserved by proper excavation, study and curation, the assessment of value is transparent and independent, and generally reckoned to be reasonably fair. It is, after all, the easiest way to avoid a criminal record once you've found a potentially valuable item over 300 years old.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    8. Re:Confiscate them! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      This is ofc not for the real value as that can only be determined by auctioning it away.

      That would only determine the monetary value, which is almost always utterly trivial. The only significant value is the archaeological value, and that is what the PAS (Portable Antiquities Scheme ; link up-thread) is intended to preserve.

      Of course, if you only count money as important, what price do you put on your mind? Or, since you wouldn't be able to appreciate the loss of your mind, what price do you put on your nearest living relative's mind?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    9. Re:Confiscate them! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That would only determine the monetary value, which is almost always utterly trivial.
      Thats not the case. A gold coin worth 150 Euro in gold goes for 6000 Euro in collector circles. I assume artifacts go for much more. After all the treasure in this story is also rated on "sales value" and not "gold value".

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re:Confiscate them! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      6000â sale value. And it's value for knowledge? Hugely more.

      Or, look at it the other way - what would be the cost of replicating it, complete with all it's information about (as one of my class-mates specialises in analysing) the provenance of the gold itself (trace elements and isotopic evidence), the provenance of any inclusions within it (mineralogy, bulk and trace elements and isotropic evidence, as well as the shape, size and location of each and every inclusion). The wear marks on the dies from which the coins were struck (there were four different emperors depicted in the hoard, so at least 4 sets of dies ; possibly 4 separate mints ; are other coins known from the same mints, or maybe even the same dies?)

      Just the analytical work to determine what present techniques can reveal would cost more than your 6000â nominal value. Then to replicate it ... start counting.

      What measurement techniques will be available in a working lifetime ... who could know?

      Destroying an archaeological relic for mere money ... it's barbarism. And that is precisely what the Portable Antiquities Sceme is intended to avoid, by keeping relics as relics, and within the system of traceable curation, so people can come back to them in the future with better, more sensitive (and often cheaper) analytical techniques.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  34. Italy will probably want them back by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Just as some deep sea explorer will find a cache of loot in the ocean, and considering how strapped governments are for money, it wouldn't surprise me that the government of Italy will want the gold back.

  35. So, how long until... by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    So, how long until metal detector sales increase?

    1. Re:So, how long until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Efficient market hypothesis says this has already happened.

  36. I had a long discussion with a British coin expert by bdwoolman · · Score: 1

    Apparently the laws and rules surrounding these hoards are, according to my source, quite fair. If you find a hoard -- no matter where -- then you are obliged to report it. It belongs to the crown. However, after a qualified examination, those items of no or little scientific interest are returned to you to dispose of in any way you see fit. This encourages amateurs to look -- amplifying the number of finds -- but sends the most scientifically interesting material into the right hands for study. According to my friend quite often the most interesting stuff is not always the most valuable. There is a lively trade in these coins. All for sale quite legally.

    Lastly, as another poster has pointed out... The system is fair enough so that it is best to leave the material where you found it so that professional archaeologists can extract it in context -- according to the rules of the 'New Archaeology'. One can still be confident in getting credit for the find and, of course, a fair share of the loot.

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
  37. temples stored and lent money in Rome by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Plus individuals

  38. gold was a "reserve currency" by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Not spent on a daily basis, but for large transactions like land or cargos. Silver and copper were the daily currency.

  39. but is it real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hey, todd, why don't we spend 4,000 dollars us, buy two ounces of gold, and use your 3D solid printer to make some dies for Roman coins, roll them in a tumbler with dirt for a day or two to weather them, and then "find" them and sell for a huge, huge, enormous profit....
    jes sayin'
    (I think there may be a technique called thermoluminesence, or chronoluminescence, that can tell how long something has been underground)

  40. No no... by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

    ...you're supposed to give them to me!

    --

    THINK! It's patriotic

  41. Talk about deflation.... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

    “Gold solidi were extremely valuable coins and were not traded or exchanged on a regular basis. They would have been used for large transactions such as buying land or goods by the shipload.”

    ...and this entire hoard of these is now worth £100,000... where buying land will put you in the range of £250,000 at a bare minimum.

    Coins just aren't worth what they used to be. I suggest he look elsewhere for a better exchange rate.

  42. Not only found a fortune ... by IwantToKeepAnon · · Score: 1

    And his wife is proud of all the weight he's lost.

    --
    "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
  43. Don't the brits have this scumbag law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that you have to give them to the government as a historical treasure owned by them? Does the finder even get anything or are they just screwed out of it by Britian??

  44. glad I'm in South-by-God Carolina in U.S.America! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Naw, no roman stuff, if at all up in Greenland and Naw Yawk, most you'll find is likely copper artifacts from michigan traded by the Miami First-Tribes, with may e some feathers from Guatamala. The Miami Tribes traded over pretty much the whole continent, ... Rocks from Arkansas, feathers from Central America, copper form the U.P., coral, turquoise, mica, lots of stuff, but only the copper will show up in your detector.