4 ms·
Impressed that people turned in "1.5 kilograms of Viking Age gold artifacts". That gold is worth about $160k! If I ran the program I would pay at least the me
by BurningFrog 1y ago
Impressed that people turned in "1.5 kilograms of Viking Age gold artifacts".
That gold is worth about $160k!
If I ran the program I would pay at least the metal value to anyone turning artifacts in. To remove the temptation that doubtless keeps some finds away from the science.
- colechristensen 1y agoOnce properly documented, I have some skepticism that it's really necessary to hold every historical artifact found, inside some museum archive basically never to be seen again.
- AlotOfReading 1y agoIt isn't, but it's impossible to know what will be useful for research again in the future, so historical researchers make an effort to preserve what they can and avoid excavating if possible.
- BurningFrog 1y agoYou can probably do a detailed 3d scan and retain 95% of the scientific value.
- heikkilevanto 1y agoNo, at some point they want to analyze the impurities in the gold, or the isotopes, or something else we don't know yet...
- BurningFrog 1y agoSure, that can be done together with the scanning.
- rectang 1y agoThank goodness you weren't in charge of the Herculanum scrolls.
- pbhjpbhj 1y agoWe can produce 3D scans of the gold, do mass spectroscopy. Do you feel that vikings somehow embedded secrets in their coin? Scrolls have writing on, if we can't yet read them we'd know that there was something else to discover (known unknowns) and clearly wouldn't dispose of them. Of course the Vikings might have embedded secret extraterrestrial technologies in their coins, but I'd take the bet that they haven't. The downthread comment about leaving things in the ground is right though -- it was, and is imo, the right thing to do.
- fc417fc802 1y agoIt can't, because we don't know what yet unknown questions we might want to ask in the future or what yet uninvented technology might come to exist. Add a limited budget and storage space and it becomes clear why the preference is often not to excavate but instead to restrict public access to the site and leave things in the ground.
- BurningFrog 1y agoWe can measure impurities and isotopes extremely well, which is what the post I responded to mentioned. This is very mature technology. You're right that we don't know what new branches of science might be developed that could produce new insights from old artifacts. But remember the situation. My idea makes it possible to record and analyze ancient finds that currently just disappear. It only gets us 99% of what we want, but in the current system we get 0%. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Nirvana-Fallacy https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Nirvana...
- fc417fc802 1y agoThe isotopes were just an arbitrary example. The important bit was at the end "or something else we don't know yet". Granted I'd guess that's fairly unlikely for coins specifically. > currently just disappear They don't though. The preferences are as other comments have described - to stash the artifacts away in storage or to leave them in the ground for excavation in the future. Whether or not the laws and common practices are fair to the people who discover the items is a separate matter.
- delusional 1y agoI'm pretty sure more than 5% of the scientific value is in the actual physical material. You can't examine the physics of the thing from a 3d scan.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- southernplaces7 1y agoWhat else should be done with the artifacts? And also why not? It's like storing your data. If you can keep it relatively inexpensive, why not keep it around just in case some future need or curiosity makes it worthwhile?
- colechristensen 1y agoIf I find something without particular significance that's not a part of an archaeological site, say a Roman coin in a field somewhere, it's fine if there's a requirement that a museum gets to take records and do any sort of scans it wants. But unless it was some item of particular cultural heritage or research interest, the museum should give it back to me or buy it from me or give me something in return like a fair tax break. Lots and lots of stuff gets cataloged and archived and basically never looked at again resulting in little archeological value or any other public value and is kind of just scientific hoarding.
- neaden 1y agoI mean roman coins for example are so plentiful that they are sold relatively cheaply, we have more then enough of them for all the museums of the world if they wanted them. I don't think viking era treasure is anywhere close to as common but there comes a point where it's plentiful enough.
- ambentzen 1y agoHow would law abiding citizen Joe Random from Nowhere even know where to offload that on the black market? It's a bit like internet piracy, make it easy and convenient to follow the law and most people will do it.
- thrance 1y agoYou'd be surprised of how easy it is for "Joe Random from Nowhere" to sell their illegaly sourced priceless artefacts. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lava_Treasure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lava_Treasure
- BurningFrog 1y agoCan't say I've tried, but I think it's pretty easy to find buyers for gold. Melting it removes the legal risk.
- dwattttt 1y agoMelting it removes _a_ legal risk. I'm sure if someone looks they can find a risk or two still there somewhere.
- protocolture 1y ago>How would law abiding citizen Joe Random from Nowhere even know where to offload that on the black market? Considering the state of copper theft, the large number of videos on facebook and youtube describing how to melt metals into bar stock, and the low cost of the tools I dont know why this would be considered specialist knowledge. Maybe if they needed aqua regia or something.
- TulliusCicero 1y agoThis comment reminds me of discussion when weed gets legalized in the states. There's always people going, "psh, this won't make weed any more accessible, it's already so easy to get, anybody can do it!" And yet, nevertheless, inevitably there are people who try it only because it's now legal and openly sold in stores. A lot of people simply don't want to do things they consider shady, no matter how easy it is. Maybe it being legalized doesn't make it any more accessible to you, but you aren't everyone.
- kefal 1y agoIt's Denmark, of course they will turn it in.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bazoom42 1y agoCrime and theft happen in Denmark as in other countries. But finders get compensated for the metal value so unless they are collectors or have contacts to private collectors, there is not a lot to gain. I know a guy who found a gold treasure on a field and he was contacted by a private collector after appearing in local news (he turned them down). So who knows how often it happens? But I don’t think finds are common enough that detecting and selling can be a lucrative business. It is usually enthusiasts with an interst in history.
- simonask 1y agoIt's enthusiasts - hobbyists willing to invest in metal detection gear, spending their free time doing this. If their aim was to get wealthy, they would be doing basically anything else. Digging for gold artifacts and treasure is not a great strategy to become rich - these people are obviously much more interested in the history, and maybe the recognition. Of course they will turn it in.
- fudgybiscuits 1y agoWhether that's good or not really does depend on how much gold was found though, could be that 10kg was kept for all we know!
- southernplaces7 1y ago>could be that 10kg was kept for all we know! Doubtful. Finding such a hoard and reporting it to the authorities for formal examination by default means showing where you found it so the site itself can be examined by archaeologists. They'd likely be able to tell if you'd found more than you reported in the cache site. It's like forensics, but for ancient artefacts and ruins, pretty sophisticated at times.
- tokai 1y agoThe budget to pay for these finds is regularly exceeded already. Paying the gold price would fleece the National Museum.
- BurningFrog 1y agoUnderstood. But it's also true that you get what you pay for.
- tokai 1y agoIn this case it bought the most productive amateur archeology community in Europe :)
- jopsen 1y agoGetting a cut is probably better. Spending gold you can't document the origin of is most decidedly going to be a hassle. Certainly not without risk. And you probably don't have money laundering connections. And you'll sleep better at night.
- olalonde 1y agoIf I understand correctly, they were paid $150k for it. > Aagaard, Dreiøe and their friend the late Poul Nørgaard Pedersen discovered nearly 1.5 kilograms of Viking Age gold artifacts near the modern town of Fæsted, including armbands that archaeologists have interpreted as oath bands [...] Aagaard, Dreiøe and Nørgaard received just over a million kroner for the oath ring treasure, the equivalent of about $150,000.
- BurningFrog 1y agoSo they already have a system like I suggested! I'm glad to hear it! Less glad that I missed this fact reading the article :)
- bazoom42 1y agoYou do get compensation for the metal value.