Irish museum solves mystery of Bronze Age axe heads delivered in porridge box | Hacker News Reader

Irish museum solves mystery of Bronze Age axe heads delivered in porridge box

theguardian.com

91 pointsspeckx84 comments

> It is against the law in Ireland to search for archaeological objects using a metal detector unless written permission has been given. Penalties can be up to three months in prison or a fine of up to €63,486 (£53,435).

Written permission from who? He was on his own farmland. You have to write a plea to the government to request permission to use a metal detector on your own land? And, if that's the case, are such requests usually granted? What's the rationale here, and what harms does this permission-first system aim to prevent?

> It is understood, however, that Dunne will not face charges.

If it's a bad law that they're making a point of not enforcing, why not repeal the law?

So many questions.

These laws are a balancing act between heritage conservation and civil rights like allowing people to enjoy metal detecting as a hobby. Without these laws and effective enforcement of them, looters show up with bulldozers, metal detectors, and work crews in the middle of the night to dig up anything they can sell to what's now a billion dollar global market. I've spent a lot of time as an archaeologist looking at the aftermath and doing public education to stop it.

Antiquities laws are generally designed to make antiquities "visible" to the state while also giving authorities teeth if they need to go after these sorts of people. To do that, there's a whole host of laws and conventions that require reporting virtually everything and align the financial incentives/penalties to ensure valuations on any antiquities discovered are as reasonably accurate as possible. It makes things a little inconvenient for the hobbyists, but I personally find that a reasonable tradeoff given the damage that otherwise occurs.

>>These laws are a balancing act between heritage conservation and civil rights like allowing people to enjoy metal detecting as a hobby. Without these laws and effective enforcement of them, looters show up with bulldozers, metal detectors, and work crews in the middle of the night to dig up anything they can sell to what's now a billion dollar global market. I've spent a lot of time as an archaeologist looking at the aftermath and doing public education to stop it.

That doesn't seem to happen in England, which allows metal detecting.

Effectively the same thing applies in the UK. Intentionally searching for these kinds of objects requires an archaeological excavation permit. Unintentionally finding one requires reporting it.

> That doesn't seem to happen in England, which allows metal detecting.

In England you need permission of the landowner (or which ever authority is responsible for a piece of public land) and must report any archeological finds. There's a lot of illegal metal detecting at night - "Nighthawking", and fairly tough convictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nighthawking

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-humber-68445207

Laws requiring permission from the land owner to use a metal detector and dig vs. needing such permission on your own land seems very different IMO.

The English law seems focused on preventing trespassing and digging holes in people's yards, and also to make sure the land owner gets compensated for anything of value found. (e.g. from the link by madax below: In England "An experienced detectorist, Davies would have known he was entitled to half of the proceeds of legal sale of the treasure, instead choosing to deprive the landowner and public by stealing this exceptional and significant treasure.")

The Irish law seems focused on preventing anything from being found.

There is also a fair bit of anger against FLOs (Find Liaison Offers) that the finds are reported to. Detectorists often get low-balled on the value of their find (after a 2 year wait) to make the item affordable for local museums.

The sitcom The Detectorists goes into this hobby in the UK in a lot of detail and has several plots about reporting responsibilities.

What a fantastic show. The entire thing was so cozy.

Yes, reporting. Not that the whole thing is illegal unless granted government permission.

Literally from the same day’s news: “Metal detectorist who stole £3m Viking hoard jailed for five more years”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/sep/12/metal-detect...

It seems to me that the evil of having haphazard laws that are enforced arbitrarily on discretion is worse than the evil of heritage loss. This solution is much worse than the cure. Yes it's hard for governments to write narrowly tailored laws to achieve narrowly tailored objectives while avoiding loopholes. That doesn't mean they should devolve into making overly broad laws and then enforcing those laws arbitrarily. That's just behaving like a tyrant.

>You have to write a plea to the government to request permission to use a metal detector on your own land?

no, that's not the law (because you changed what you quoted). the law is "you can't use a metal detector on your own property to search for archaeological objects without permission." You can use it as this farmer said he did as part of working your farm, although if you do find an archeological object I think you are required to leave it in place which he did not do.

There are other restrictions concerning public lands and registered sites of some description.

From the end of the article:

> The NMI also wishes to remind the public that unregulated use of detection devices causes serious damage to Ireland’s archaeological heritage.

If you want to know more, the NMI have a detailed article explaining the rationale

https://www.museum.ie/en-IE/Collections-Research/The-Law-on-...

There is no "his own farmland". All land in Ireland is owned by Ireland. You don't magically become a sovereign of your own plot just because you have a title deed, Ireland still ultimately owns that land. You're just granted most of the rights relating to use of that land. But not all rights. And archeological finds fall in the "not all rights" category.

The rationale is that while you may own the land, you don't own the artifacts, and the state has an interest in ensuring that history is recorded and preserved professionally. In effect, archeology is a licensed occupation, but then so is cutting hair in most US states.

If the story about metal in machinery is true, then really no offense was committed. Using a metal detector to find what you think is a loose horseshoe is fine. The story might also just be a convenient cover, but no-one will really care. In Ireland, authorities tend to be good natured and mostly only out to get egregious offenders. Maybe the metal detector guy has been looking for coins without permission, and it'll be handled at the level of "ah here would you have a bit of cop on".

“In effect, archeology is a licensed occupation, but then so is cutting hair in most US states.”

This doesn't strengthen the argument.

I do see some value in having the state license people who make a business of convincing strangers to allow them to use sharp cutting implements on their body in ways that, if not properly maintained and used, could lead to injury, to undesired slow-to-reverse harm to appearance, or to transmission of infestations like head lice.

There's plenty of room to disagree on what the specifics of this oversight should involve, but some degree of pre-approval seems very much appropriate.

>The rationale is that while you may own the land, you don't own the artifacts[...]

At first I bristled a little, but given a pause to think it through, it makes great sense!

Fact is, we as a species did not advance quickly enough to record our origins and a lot of our history. Perhaps this kind of thing always happens. Nobody knows and we have a sample size of one at present.

Our history is a shared thing by our very human condition and the nature of history.

Of course we benefit overall with policy like this even if at times a few of us feel wronged.

A lot of people throughout history thought the world would end long before this because an issue. They would have laughed at the idea of preserving things for thousands of years.

Maybe in another thousand years post-apocalyptic scavengers will wonder why we tried to preserve history while simultaneously destroying our future.

"Owning" the land is more of a license from a government. It is a taxi medallion you trade with other people for money.

Lots of stuff you cant do on your own land without permission.

Not to mention, you likely don't own the water or mining rights to the land you own, nor does your ownership extend significantly up, either.

In Spain we have a mining law that goes as follows: I have a plot of land, but I need a permission to mine it. But if mining company X suspects my plot can be mined, they can get permission to mine my plot before I do. They can't mine it if I don't let them, but if anyone is going to mine is the company.

IIRC, a few years ago some company called Odyssey that go around trying to unearth gold from antiquity, was reminded by the government that in Spain you can't do that, and every single gram of gold you find is property of the State. https://www.elmundo.es/cultura/2021/10/19/616e897de4d4d8e73f...

Unfortunately, our justice is painfully slow and ineficient, and Odissey got 500 millions in gold from a shipwreck due to a legal failure.

> your own land

Your assumptions about what this means are parochial. Think a bit deeper about what ownership really means in this context.

So much will never be found thanks to this law.

Random amateurs digging stuff up is next to useless from an archaeological perspective - once you've disturbed the earth and taken stuff out of the ground you've already destroyed so much contextual information.

Even professional trained archaeologists intentionally only excavate parts of sites when they know there's more to find because we expect there to be much better technology in the future.

Amateurs digging for artifacts are destroying knowledge, not discovering it.

I mean, this incident should call your assumptions about this into question.

Yes, some might be lost by random digging. But if it would not otherwise ever be found then nothing has been lost.

If something's been in the ground for hundreds of years, it'll still be there for a few hundred more. There's little reason to want to maximize the amount you're excavating right now. Unless your goal is to find treasure and profit somehow.

I think the greater concern for artifact loss is someone doing earthworks, finding something, and then not reporting it because they don't want to wait for archaeologists to check out the site.

So much will never be looted or destroyed because of this law. As an Irish person who has spent some time working as an archaeological grunt (basically, I dig then as soon as I spot something, pass it over to a real archaeologist) - this is a hugely important law. Because, for large developers, the immediate response on finding something is to hide/destroy it so that they don't lose money while an archaeological survey is carried out. And for landowners, I wager a majority are likely to keep it as a curio if it doesn't look valuable.

The fact is that owning a piece of farmland doesn't give you ownership of our country's heritage. Nor should it. You get to raise cows on the land. You don't get to mine it (without permission), you don't get to turn it into a housing development (without permission), and you don't get to turn it into an archaeological dig site (without permission).

In response to "our country's heritage": Ireland is not a person so the concept is entirely political.

And provided you don't cause any negative externalities, you should have the default right to do whatever you want on your land.

> Ireland is not a person so the concept is entirely political.

Of course. Is that some kind of gotcha?

> provided you don't cause any negative externalities, you should have the default right to do whatever you want on your land.

Destroying our chances to understand history is the externality.

But here is the thing, if you are an Irish citizen you are free to advocate for a change in law. If you convince enough of your peers that it should be changed it will be changed. Isn’t that great?

Generally, the later we excavate something, the greater the amount of historical information we'll be able to get from that excavation.

Of course, this has to be balanced with some amount of excavation to actually improve those methods, and with enough information being gleaned today to keep us interested in actually funding the practice of archaeology for tomorrow.

Templo Mayor. Mexico. They discovered it recently next to the big famous Cathedral.

They flattened a few city blocks to excavate it.

But they will never flatten the cathedral, or other large famous buildings in the vicinity.

Point is: the longer we wait to excavate, the more the likelihood that something's been constructed on top.

For one thing, you can require an archeological survey before starting the build, as part of the normal permitting process. And this is especially important (and easy to enforce) if the building requires excavation anyway.

But secondly, as long as the building doesn't destroy the site (say, the ruins/remains are buried deep enough), then there is no problem, and the logic still applies: it will be found some few decades or centuries later, so chances are there will be more that can be gleaned from it then.

In the early 80s a couple of lads found the Derrynaflan hoarde. A collection of stunning religious artefacts dating from the 9th century.

This resulted in a whole legal mess where they were demanding a payment from the state of what would be arounf €25 million in todays money, after months of legal arguing they got a payout of what would be around €200k today. While this was ongoing there was an explosion in the number of people going out metal detecting for similar items and it's almost certain some items were found and not delcared to the state.

So to protect the nations heritage - and we have a lot of it - from being scavenged these strict laws were introduced.

> “crucial to know the exact location where they were found” for “reasons that could range from ritualistic to supernatural”

I wonder what they implied there.

Just that the discovery was missing something called context in archaeology. Where they were found geographically, the stratigraphy such as the dirt it was found in and the layers around it, where it was found in relation to the nearest settlement, what kinds of animal bones were found in the same general area, and so on. Archaeologists are meticulous about recording these little details because every any one of them could become important to the investigation.

An artifact on its own is (relatively) scientifically useless. Without at least geographic location and a rough idea of the area it was discovered, most analytical methods will have a hard time getting accurate results and any conclusions are suspect.

What would be a supernatural reason then? Is there some context in archeology that is labeled as supernatural that's different from ritualistic context? And what other things lie in the range between those two?

Ritualistic is what archaeologists call everything when they can't tell what it's there for, but it was clearly there for a reason.

It sounds like it means religious, but it's more general than that.

The word ritual is orthogonal to how much is known about the usage. "Ritual" is just a way to describe objects that have some higher purpose, beyond any mundane and utilitarian purposes their basic form might serve. The textbook example is a thurible, the censer on a chain used in churches. They're not used because anyone specifically wants a lot of smoke in the air (a fog machine would do just fine) or because swinging them is fun, but rather because there's a higher ritual purpose being served by those particular objects being used in those particular ways.

It's like calling an object rugged or utilitarian. It's not a statement on what you know about the object's specific purpose, but rather an adjective describing something else entirely.

Hmm, isn't rugged strongly associated with the purpose of something? It's like "military-grade", it means it's designed to stand up to heavy usage in bad conditions.

Maybe that's "ruggedized".

It's not indicative of the specific purpose of something. You can have a rugged backpack, a rugged water bottle, and a rugged vehicle without any of them sharing the same purpose to you.

I get all that. But then what "supernatural" context is?

I had the same question. Anyone from Ireland here that might have any idea at all what that's about?

Idk about this specific thing, but this is much simpler than it sounds if it operates like other anthropology. Ritualistic means intentional, and supernatural means symbolically meaningful. In other words, this is less of a specific claim and more of an "idk but they were clearly up to something".

The problem is how it's written, I think.

I now understand what you're saying, but the way it's phrased in the article makes it seem like they need to know where it came from for ritualistic and supernatural reasons. Like there are rituals the anthropologists have to perform, not that they might have ritualistic use in the past.

It's a weirdly written sentence.

Or maybe I've just been awake for too long.

You are not wrong. The Guardian made an absolute hash of it. I recommend that you read the original document which says this: “However, to fully understand and appreciate these artifacts, it's crucial to know the exact location where they were found. The context of such discoveries helps archaeologists piece together ancient settlement patterns and cultural practices. For instance, hoards or collections of objects were often deliberately placed in specific locations for reasons that could range from ritualistic to supernatural.”

Here is the link: https://www.museum.ie/en-IE/News/Appeal-for-information-abou...

I interpret supernatural to mean religious in this context. I don't think this find will take on an X-Files direction.

> I interpret supernatural to mean religious in this context.

TBH I have no clue what the word "religious" means outside of abrahamic faiths. Might as well be a meaningless word. Anyway, the supernatural certainly encompasses many aspects of religion without implying anything about aliens.

“We’d rather it rotted away to dust versus you digging it up.”

Good grief.

I think the point is "We'd rather you left them where they were after you found them and notified a museum, so that they could be dug out with all due care by professional archeologists".

They've survived since the bronze age. They're not rotting away to dust any time soon.

What I thought when the British claimed they can stole things because they preserved it better. This thing have preserved in this land for centuries, and who's to say that British Museum won't get nuked in the next 100 years?

That’s not a particularly strong argument considering the state of some of the items in the British Museum.

Or as alternative title: "Finder explained all, Irish museum did nothing".

THIS. Yes, I understand why HN wants to discourage "editorial" titles from submitters. OTOH, less-bad web sites often put the actual sober facts in the subtitles - as was done here. Maybe if HN allowed submitters to use those instead, when the title is just click-bait?

Flahavans makes excellent porridge

First off, Flahavans are from Waterford and this find was in Westmeath.

Second, if you want the actual best porridge get yourself some Kilbeggan (which are actually from Westmeath, funnily enough).

HN has a wonderful reputation for always finding an unexpected expert to comment - from nuclear physics to philosophy, pre-history to … porridge :-)

But we have buried the lede - Flahavens or not, is it water and salt, or is it milk?

Milk is preferable, with a splash of water. I use oat milk, but water is fine in a pinch. I add such a small amount of salt that it may as well be a placebo.

Here are my hard-earned porridge cooking tips, not that you asked:

Start soaking the oats the night before in the pot you'll cook them in (in the fridge if you're using dairy). This softens the oats and reduces cooking time by a lot.

First thing in the morning, cook them on the lowest heat for about 20 minutes while you do your routine. This way you don't need to stir them constantly, they're extraordinarily creamy, and you won't burn the oats to your pan.

Then add a touch of cream (or milk) to your bowl to cool the oats down some, and add some maple syrup if you're into decadence. Ultra low effort, maximum effect.

And if you want to get real weird with it, add some pomegranate seeds. I don't generally bother, because pomegranates are a bit of work, but it's awesome.

Do you add milk or sugar to your tea? Or both? Or neither?!

What's your favorite biscuit. Asking as a yank who likes tea and biscuits.

If you want an excellent book and many many ways the Irish love their tea read Stumpet City[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strumpet_City

Both milk and sugar are to taste, and if someone offers you tea they'll ask how you like your tea.

There's no right or wrong answer here

When I drink black tea it's with milk, using freshly boiled water (allow bubbling to stop) in a preheated cup. Milk gets added after steeping so as not to scald. For the love of all that's holy, don't microwave the water. Use a kettle or a pot.

Green and most herbal tea gets neither milk nor sugar, but sometimes honey. Add a little cold water to the herbs first, so you don't extract bitter compounds: using near 100C water is why so many people think they dislike green and herbal tea. (Ginger, hemp, chamomile and hibiscus are the main exceptions to this rule - they need boiling water for the floral flavours.)

I love coffee, but I have enough herbal tea to open an apothecary. Just be careful that you're not getting teabags with plastic in them! Pukka are consistently great, as are Suki.

Favourite fancy biscuits are from the Island Bakery [0] in Scotland. Their Lemon Melts and their Chocolate Gingers are just about perfect. I know you can find their shortbread in the US, but not sure about other varieties. The biscuits come in a little cardboard boat and it's adorable.

0 - https://www.islandbakery.scot/product/lemon-melts-2/

> Milk is preferable, with a splash of water. I use oat milk…

Ah so you are using water with a pinch of salt! /s

Milk and Honey, with a handful of in season berries or jam.

The farmer is from Westmeath. The find was in banagher in co Offaly

I’ll fight you on behalf of Flahavans. Meet me.

Porridge is serious business.

Ba Mhaith Liom Bruíon le d'Athair

Is cuma liom sa foc faoi aon gharda

Cúis snámhphointe mé díreach cosúil le féileacán

( agus is féidir liom rith ar nós na gaoithe )

> snámh cosúil le féileacán (cealg ann cosúil le beach) —MA

MA can stand his ground against the gardaí; Tá capall amuigh agam (Breathnaíonn sé cosúil le Billie Piper tar éis leath-unsa cóc)

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, Horse Outside is great craic!

(between the Rubberbandits and Kneecap, it seems like fashionable irish lads are already prepared to live in a camera-full* surveillance society? After all, when you're riding a pony you can give the gait analyst one of these \/m.)

On the other hoof, the shout outs:

Tir Na Og - https://www.skysports.com/racing/form-profiles/horse/138973/...

are kind of depressing:

Shergar - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shergar

* On the white hoof, Kevin Mallon is confident enough nothing will ever link him to Shergar that his face appears all over the Sun. If something should cross my desk before the Devil calls him in, I do know someone with swine.

EDIT: at least the patrimachy was an excellent chaser; nice references both to Philly's finest and the Black "tis but a scratch" Knight.

Also, I don't know if sex ratios have anything to do with it, but rural** russian bridesmaids may be less selective than the irish lasses***; in this vid even Subaru guy pulls: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuSf1UcFRq0

** I've forgotten the details but IIRC it was Ershov visiting Dijkstra — so D takes E for a hike out in the dutch countryside, and E says "aha, you westerners do actually have a few unpaved roads, too"

*** as the irish lasses in my circles are fond of full and frank discussions with sticks, before fighting any of their do stumpa asail fathers I think I'd want "not a rock for twenty mile, not a clump of tree, but covered a man of my own men with his rifle cocked on his knee."

I thought Pirozhkov's "Zacepila" a much better song and story, but just as "Horse Outside" is the Rubberbandit's way of poking fun (with equine accompaniment) at their stereotypical compatriots' wedding traditions, "Gorko!" is his: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuioDDQ3aCs

It is grand when a chorus changes its meaning due to intervening verses, and in particular the line "if you're looking for a ride I've a horse outside" changes both the people referred to by "you" and the identity of the "horse", on either side of your one breaking the fourth wall and saying "I will of course / if you grab me by the ponytail and..."

Does it get more rural than the Republic of Sakha, where cow shed ownership(a) is enough for cover of local edition GQ magazine(b) (no Subaru required!)

a) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95zh-Cgoutg

b) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ax0hL4WIAs

As the father comes before the son, commentary on (b), then (a):

I love how russian artists support their local scene, eg Emin on the piano and Pirozhkov on a pony. (looks like the ones I don't recognise were KVN players?)

Timati's got some good lines, eg:

  Ya vsegda ekstrafresh kak vladelets khimchistki
  Moy otbelennyy kesh ne popadayet pod riski

and

  Odna strochka po TsB ravna barrelyu nefti
  Zaklyuchayu kontrakty s Gazpromom v kazhdom kuplete

but I still prefer MC Doni's tri-scriptal:

  Я нашёл себя и меня нашли
  إن شاء الله или c'est la vie

Now to Sakha (where the population seems just about to recover to its late-Soviet peak):

Looks like tourism[0] may be a better bet[1] than mucking out cowsheds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ob5B3Tqm7A&t=103s

That's especially true because land tenure in the RF doesn't include subsoil (and therefore mineral) rights.

0:29 after hearing so much about metaphorical vatniks, here's a literal quilted jacket?

(Timati's line is that cash sticks to intellectuals; here it's to the cow shed)

1:17 the cow shed is fresh because even european cows are comfortable at a lower temperature range than humans, and the Yakut cow is especially cold-adapted[2]

1:20 pretty sure the steaming has been exaggerated for comic effect — no, wait, that's not steaming, that's probably smudging against the insects. I once asked a colleague who was telling Siberia stories why they didn't do their fieldwork in summer, and they quickly answered: "mud and mosquitos"

1:22 didn't HN discuss blackhouses?[3] this line provides a reason they may have been more popular than "white houses" before screens, or at least glass windows, were cheap and widespread.

1:51 tripod goblets make sense for steppe nomads — circular feet on stemware are pretty unstable until one has cheap and widespread flat tabletops?

how early is attestation for this style of jacket? put a bolo tie on and you could almost go line dancing in that (although the sleeves are more reminiscent of a "Mutz")...

1:54 this seems like a decent design for a cow shed — the slop should wind up in the grabens allowing the cows to stand with relatively dry hooves on the horsts?

2:36 sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakha_cuisine#/media/File:Kier... (cream, berries, and sugar)

2:55 sweet ride; I wonder if they have any double-height tallboy[4] customs there?

3:16 haystacks used to be built in rain-shedding shapes; plastic tarps have been a super useful invention here

Lagniappe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2g8ZrJa1ls

[0] in other unexpected side content, the Rubberbandits guide to 1916: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvKTG8pE_70

it's 3/4 of an hour, so it'll be some time before I get around to it, but I am curious if they go into any more detail than a Michael Collins biography I'd read about how the Republicans had not only had access to, but even been altering the paper files in, the Black & Tans' archives.

[1] how come only the elementary school student knows about the diamond pipes?

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakutian_cattle#Description

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackhouse#Description

[4] eg https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhDfDd...

The Bruno Mars parody features shamanism and stroganina: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmSvPw_Qzj8

While the Taylor Swift shows us downtown Yakutsk (and gives the girls an excuse for more flattering costumes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI5RqKeJKBE

Interesting that what'd I call a "jew's harp" seems to be part of Sakha indigenous identity?

Brrr... at 3:56 the temperature indicated on the building is -51!

(NB I'm a bit handicapped having never seen the originals of either)

Try Kilbeggan first lad.

The oats in clonakilty puddings are all flahavans too

Parsing the title I thought it was going to be about an Irish museum that solved the mystery of bronze age collapse.

My excitement grew exponentially as the words went by, until it crashed at once.

Hopefully though the secrets of that collapse would be unveiled in the coming years.

I hope this works out for this guy, because these days I have zero faith that W. European governments are run by sane, commonsense people.

While I sort of agree with you, I also feel like they’re often still better than elsewhere.

The basis is so solid that even the insane people are still closer to reasonsble than elsewhere.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com