Lost and Found

"They did leave behind them", said a TV archaeologist the other day, "some of the greatest archaeological finds ever seen".

To an archaeologist, of course, a Roman coin or a Saxon sword is a 'find'. To the Roman or Saxon owner it was a loss.

And 'seen' by whom ? The 'seeing' is, presumably, in the eyes of the archaeologist, not the original loser (or perhaps 'depositor', because the artefact may have been buried on purpose). But whether accidentally dropped or conscientiously buried, it probably wasn't to become a 'find for us to see' for the next two thousand years.

As for 'the greatest archaeological finds ever seen', it is quite possible that the Aemilius or Oswulf who lost them, and their contemporaries, had seen objects even 'greater', before these too were lost to view and buried. They are possibly still there, unknown, underground: great objects, but so far only 'losses', not 'finds'.

To archaeologists the term 'archaeological find' is a handy and not too solemn piece of professional jargon, indicating something buried perhaps centuries ago but 'recently retrieved by us'. Though it might be a good thing, in the cause of clear and accurate thinking, speaking and writing, not to use the jargon too carelessly.

Lost and found