Searching under old bridges

scamalert

As topic states has anyone in Ireland conducted such archeological searches?Don't know much about Irish history,but in Most Europe in early Ages,there would be gangs who would guard them and charge or rob people of their goods,around small bridges that led to towns or other areas.And back then it was often the case where fights would occur or people would drop the items into the river,risking loosing them to robbers.
Now ive seen plenty of small old bridges in Ireland and there are hundreds more in most parts of country.I guess the most interesting would be the ones that aren't used anymore,or where rivers have dried out.

wayoutwest

J would imagine that a lot of old bridges would yield some good 'finds'- being focal points for human activity. There's a bridge near to me [built in 1740's] and it was said that a lot of axe heads were found during its construction so it suggests that it's probably been a crossing point for 5000? years .I would have thought that there is a good chance of finding 'treasure',lost in the way you describe but I suppose it would just be treasure hunting [if that was the goal],and not archaeology?

slowburner

If you find an archaeological object and keep it, then you are guilty of treasure hunting and you are committing an offence under section 23 of The National Monuments Act.
Wandering along a river bank searching for interesting objects in surface fluvial deposits only, could be seen as unlikely to pose any threat to archaeology or damage the original depositional context of an archaeological object.
Indeed, some might argue that it is an act of preservation to rescue objects which have been removed from their original context by the action of watercourses or tidal action, and which might otherwise be lost or destroyed.
Watercourses and the tide frequently carry objects away from their depositional context and undoubtedly, many important objects have been lost forever to the water. From time to time, tidal or fluvial turbulence stirs up the littoral zone and objects buried for some time can be redeposited on the surface.

However:
It is almost impossible to determine the areas within and around watercourses or the littoral zone, which are intact and may retain depositional context versus those which are disturbed.
Some zones within watercourses may have been untouched by erosion and may still retain original context.
Deep pools and slow flowing sections in watercourses could be original context. Beaches and the intertidal zone could be original context. Areas under bridges could be construed as original context, especially if it is known that objects were discarded there.

• If there is any doubt, leave the object where it is, and seek further advice.

• Digging for archaeological objects, structures or things of archaeological interest is an offence.

• Only objects found on the surface may be removed, and these should be reported to the antiquities duty officer at the National Museum or an Garda Síochána within fourteen days.

Of course it is expected that the good followers of this forum have the best interests of archaeology at heart, and they will do much more;
having researched the background history of the site, they will...
photograph the object where it was found,
photograph the context and general area,
note the topography,
note the coordinates,
and record all and any other useful information concerning the find.
Most importantly, they will only remove the object if it is sincerely believed that the object is likely to become damaged or lost, or that the object is genuinely threatened.

scamalert

Id imagine one would have to use metal detector to find anything and fairly shallow or dry river to be able to go around it,also since metal detectors are sorta banned to use, so not very legal activity.Also newer bridges would have a lot of trash considering if they are still used,as for findings its really up to the person to decide what to do with it.But i think once something is found,its better to hand it to museum or some archeology college.As its more the joy of finding something,and being the person who did it,then just keeping what would have little meaning to one person itself.

pueblo

slowburner wrote: »

If you find an archaeological object and keep it, then you are guilty of treasure hunting and you are committing an offence under section 23 of The National Monuments Act.
Wandering along a river bank searching for interesting objects in surface fluvial deposits only, could be seen as unlikely to pose any threat to archaeology or damage the original depositional context of an archaeological object.
Indeed, some might argue that it is an act of preservation to rescue objects which have been removed from their original context by the action of watercourses or tidal action, and which might otherwise be lost or destroyed.
Watercourses and the tide frequently carry objects away from their depositional context and undoubtedly, many important objects have been lost forever to the water. From time to time, tidal or fluvial turbulence stirs up the littoral zone and objects buried for some time can be redeposited on the surface.

However:
It is almost impossible to determine the areas within and around watercourses or the littoral zone, which are intact and may retain depositional context versus those which are disturbed.
Some zones within watercourses may have been untouched by erosion and may still retain original context.
Deep pools and slow flowing sections in watercourses could be original context. Beaches and the intertidal zone could be original context. Areas under bridges could be construed as original context, especially if it is known that objects were discarded there.

• If there is any doubt, leave the object where it is, and seek further advice.

• Digging for archaeological objects, structures or things of archaeological interest is an offence.

• Only objects found on the surface may be removed, and these should be reported to the antiquities duty officer at the National Museum or an Garda Síochána within fourteen days.

Of course it is expected that the good followers of this forum have the best interests of archaeology at heart, and they will do much more;
having researched the background history of the site, they will...
photograph the object where it was found,
photograph the context and general area,
note the topography,
note the coordinates,
and record all and any other useful information concerning the find.
Most importantly, they will only remove the object if it is sincerely believed that the object is likely to become damaged or lost, or that the object is genuinely threatened.

Excellent and informative post SB.

If this advice was followed more often I believe we would see much more added to, as opposed to removed from, the archaeological record.

slowburner

As a postscript to the above: Roman coins were recently found in a river bank in Kilkenny.
I hasten to add that these significant finds are now with the National Museum and form an integral part of the increasingly complex picture of Romano-Hibernian relations.
I understand that this find will be discussed in the forthcoming LIARI (Later Iron Age and 'Roman' Ireland) project publication, due next year.

Aelfric

Check out the work done in Kilkenny in 2000, as part of the flood relief scheme, and also the work done near the castle in Limerick - a revolver was recovered from the silt below the bridge in LK.

pueblo

Also check out this youtube video by James Balme on River Archaeoloogy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-mQnLMeofg

slowburner

pueblo wrote: »

Also check out this youtube video by James Balme on River Archaeoloogy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-mQnLMeofg

I have reservations about this.

Do we know anything about this chap who calls himself an archaeologist/historian? He doesn't feature in any academic directory.

It is important to bear in mind that the laws in Ireland and the UK are different.
Here's Mr. Balme engaged in his hobby (4.45 mins in).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIQJMHdZC5E

flyingoutside

slowburner wrote: »

As a postscript to the above: Roman coins were recently found in a river bank in Kilkenny.
I hasten to add that these significant finds are now with the National Museum and form an integral part of the increasingly complex picture of Romano-Hibernian relations.
I understand that this find will be discussed in the forthcoming LIARI (Later Iron Age and 'Roman' Ireland) project publication, due next year.

Has there been any articles released about this find yet?

pueblo

slowburner wrote: »

I have reservations about this.

Do we know anything about this chap who calls himself an archaeologist/historian? He doesn't feature in any academic directory.

It is important to bear in mind that the laws in Ireland and the UK are different.
Here's Mr. Balme engaged in his hobby (4.45 mins in).


He doesn't appear to be an archaeologist per se; on his LinkedIn page he lists the following as his archaeological credentials...

South Trafford Archaeological Group

Field Archaeology

1979 – 1988
Trained in all aspects of archaeology under the guidance of archaeological Director and chairman Derek Pierce. I was a founder member of South Trafford Archaeological Group starting in 1979. Also worked on excavations in conjunction with the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit under the guidance of Dr Michael Nevell
Activities and Societies: Field Archaeology, Resistivity Surveying, Archaeological Surveying, Excavating, Recording, Archaeological Drawing, finds identification and recording techniques, field walking, aerial photographic interpretation.





...so yes it seems to be a hobby.



SB are your reservations based on the fact that he is not a qualified archaeologist or that he is encouraging ameatur archaeologists to 'treasure hunt'?


While the former is not a crime, the latter certainly could be....


Much more irresponsible imo is the program 'Hoard Hunters' airing on the History channel soon...


This from the promo on their website...


Hoard Hunters follows Gordon Heritage and Gary Brun as they team up with archaeologist Mike Webber to embark on a quest to unearth hoards of treasure and unlock historical mysteries. Each week the treasure hunting heroes take on a fresh challenge at a new UK location, heading to sites where previous hoards have been found in an attempt to salvage what may have been left behind and maybe even find a whole new hoard."

scamalert

Well i see this topic went off the rails ,and because of such mentality there is very little enthusiasts that go exploring.Why do i have a feeling that some people here see others who might do it as a hobby or for fun straight away as some treasure hunters,or someone who is looking to make profit.Its Easier to buy some silver coins on ebay for 10-30pounds in great shape with little bother,as where it would take you hundreds
to buy metal detector find a site where you can legally use it,let alone find something.I mentioned bridges as id imagined people who do go looking for Historical items would most likely have some chance to really find something.Now Ireland is such country where every field belongs to someone,law basically prohibits any exploration for regular people,like ex in the video posted above guy was going through a field which was scheduled to be seeded next day,because person who owns it doesn't care if theres few coins lying around as his business is to grow crops so if it wasnt for that guy the history would be lost anyway as it would never been found.Now im not trying to imply than anyone should be able to go though the fields digging up stuff or around sites that are of important heritage to be digging stuff that might have big importance or historical value.But reading some posts i think that people imply if you dont have a degree is archeology and aren't educated and funded by government or some uni you should sit on your hands.

Maudi

*gets popcorn*

slowburner

flyingoutside wrote: »

Has there been any articles released about this find yet?

I don't think a paper has been published on the finds themselves, although they may feature in phases 2 & 3 of the River Nore Heritage Audit. The coins were found by Coilin O'Drisceoil.

pueblo wrote: »

SB are your reservations based on the fact that he is not a qualified archaeologist or that he is encouraging ameatur archaeologists to 'treasure hunt'?

The latter, of course.

pueblo

slowburner wrote: »

I don't think a paper has been published on the finds themselves, although they may feature in phases 2 & 3 of the River Nore Heritage Audit. The coins were found by Coilin O'Drisceoil.


The latter, of course.

Just on a small point of fact I don't think Cóilín actually found them. My understanding is that someone fishing found them while digging for worms and brought them in to him.


Reverting to the MD thing again for a moment, are archaeologists permitted to use metal detectors in a situation where they are not on a licensed excavation?

slowburner

pueblo wrote: »

Reverting to the MD thing again for a moment, are archaeologists permitted to use metal detectors in a situation where they are not on a licensed excavation?

A licensed archaeologist does not necessarily have to be engaged in an excavation to use such a device.
The license can be issued for a wider investigation.

• It is public policy not to issue metal detecting consents other than in the context of licensed archaeological excavations or investigations being undertaken under the direction of a professional archaeologist.

from this post