Smallest Bronze Age Hoard possible but Official

Dave The Slave
Posts: 3698
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:36 pm
Has thanked: 12251 times
Been thanked: 4084 times

I`ve mentioned these items before and how, due to my own stupid naivety of taking a lump of dross or casting waste. Instead of having two items recorded and returned, that innocuous blob of waste, meant three items of Pre Historic metal, within a prescribed area, meant reporting as a scattered hoard.
Inquest took place about 6 weeks ago. Won`t hear anything back until, the Valuer says it is worth the expected Tenner.
Did write a letter to the Coroner asking if i could have the items back after all how many examples does a Museum need ?
Decided to check my PAS account today and the Awl had been added last week under the heading of Hoard.
Twenty odd items recorded and one classed as a Hoard, although the smallest possible under that term.
Here is the Official record now for you to see.
https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts ... /id/951281
So far been in the system for just under two years.
Cheers all,
Dave. :thumbsup:
User avatar
Allectus
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:05 pm
Location: Essex
Has thanked: 239 times
Been thanked: 5524 times

Just everyday items from a BA site. Classing that as a hoard is nothing short of ridiculous! :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Allectus
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:05 pm
Location: Essex
Has thanked: 239 times
Been thanked: 5524 times

The awl is in very good shape! :thumbsup:
User avatar
Saffron
Posts: 1827
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2020 7:31 pm
Has thanked: 2506 times
Been thanked: 2389 times

Be positive about it .........

1) Its not everybody that can claim to have found a hoard.

2) Most of us know that one person who always done better / found something better, the next time they start say "well I have found a hoard thats been recorded on PAS", and make sure you have a good smirk on your face as they are forced to admit that they have not.

Cracking awl to be well proud of finding.

Evan
User avatar
Oxgirl
Posts: 13416
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:21 pm
Location: Oxfordshire
Has thanked: 10072 times
Been thanked: 11696 times

Good example of where really a bit of common sense should be applied by the FLO! Guess they aren’t allowed to use their expensive education though :roll:
Yes I really don’t like Roman coins, I’m not joking
User avatar
Emily
Posts: 452
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:30 pm
Has thanked: 304 times
Been thanked: 362 times

At least you asked to have items back. ☺️

I don’t know why it would be classed as a hoard. Surely there was just movement in the area and these items were just lost. Like very thing else we find?? 🤔

At least it’s recorded and you’ll always know that you found it and may get some money for it, but as you say, probably not much after it’s been divided by 50%. Maybe you could get a coffee by the end of it. 😂🤦‍♀️

Congratulations on finding them. ☺️
Live long and prospect
Pete E
Posts: 2814
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:05 pm
Location: North Wales
Has thanked: 3696 times
Been thanked: 2424 times

Can't this be challenged? If a lump of metal is casting waste, surely it means it's been discarded and should therefore not be part of any hoard?
User avatar
Emily
Posts: 452
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:30 pm
Has thanked: 304 times
Been thanked: 362 times

Pete E wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 12:28 pm Can't this be challenged? If a lump of metal is casting waste, surely it means it's been discarded and should therefore not be part of any board?
AGREED!!
Live long and prospect
User avatar
figgis
Posts: 7099
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:21 pm
Location: Norfolk (just)
Has thanked: 4132 times
Been thanked: 4813 times

When I first started out I was coming across lots of lumps of molten bronze, clearly of great age, which was thought at the time to be casting waste. The FLO was umming and ahing about recording it as treasure, not because it had any intrinsic value but because, strictly speaking, it qualified.

But common sense prevailed :thumbsup:
User avatar
DaveP
Posts: 1781
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:40 pm
Location: Spread in England
Has thanked: 664 times
Been thanked: 1949 times

Pete E wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 12:28 pm Can't this be challenged? If a lump of metal is casting waste, surely it means it's been discarded and should therefore not be part of any hoard?
I imagine casting waste isn't waste at all as it would have been recycled - just the same as it's done today.
It does seem to be an over interpretation of the Act but then there are probably archaeological metallurgists who are interested in this sort of thing. I suppose you could challenge it as the act says 2 or more metallic objects and your waste ( not your waste :shock: ) is probably more of a something than an object.
Who was the recording FLO?
Dave The Slave
Posts: 3698
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:36 pm
Has thanked: 12251 times
Been thanked: 4084 times

Yes probably over interpretation.
Think when i took items along for recording, 100m x 100m was the area mentioned, for Pre Historic metal. These came from around 80m x 30m.
Did put a written challenge in to the Coroner before the inquest.
Also the Coroner would have seen, the PAS description before it was added to their Database.
Will put all this down to experience.
Thanks for all the comments.
Cheers all, :thumbsup:
Dave.
User avatar
Easylife
Posts: 9759
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2020 2:47 am
Location: Valhalla
Has thanked: 10069 times
Been thanked: 8827 times

figgis wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 4:15 pm When I first started out I was coming across lots of lumps of molten bronze, clearly of great age, which was thought at the time to be casting waste.
I find a fair amount of rough bronze lumps ranging in size from 10 - 100mm. I guess that they can only be casting waste but they were careful not to lose whatever it was that they cast. :pulling hair out:
D2 - 13"x11" coil - audio only.
Pete E
Posts: 2814
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:05 pm
Location: North Wales
Has thanked: 3696 times
Been thanked: 2424 times

Dave The Slave wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 5:33 pm Yes probably over interpretation.
Think when i took items along for recording, 100m x 100m was the area mentioned, for Pre Historic metal. These came from around 80m x 30m.
Did put a written challenge in to the Coroner before the inquest.
Also the Coroner would have seen, the PAS description before it was added to their Database.
Will put all this down to experience.
Thanks for all the comments.
Cheers all, :thumbsup:
Dave.
Next time leave any anything not easily identifiable Insitu.....
Steve RC
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:20 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire
Has thanked: 702 times
Been thanked: 493 times

The PAS like to have the Treasure stats bumped up as much as possible before the next Treasure report release. Stats make headlines as we see each year with the way the Treasure stats are handled by the media. It is one of the measurable success stats. However as we all know it hides a multitude of scrap and general junk Treasure which only the academic can get worked up about.
Dave The Slave
Posts: 3698
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:36 pm
Has thanked: 12251 times
Been thanked: 4084 times

Today i received a handwritten envelope from the British Museum.
Although the Inquest had been held in February, had not heard anything since.
Still not valued, although now declared Treasure.
Now given a choice.
Can i either have the Provisional Valuation Report done on the basis of the photographs from the Recording , or wait for them to be seen by a valuer and the TVC. Timeline will be another 3 weeks before any progression starts.
As the Valuation is likely to be 50% of a tenner, will go down the photograph route, as i will most likely donate to the Museum anyway
Now that`s got me thinking, if the Museum get items worth a tenner, would they sell the Awl back to me for £15 and they can keep the other 2 items.
Having seen how the process works, if my Roman coins get Treasure status, they can be valued in hand and by the TVC. Hoping that 34 will generate around £100 as my share. Probably get to this stage in about 2 years.
Cheers, :thumbsup:
Dave.
Post Reply