If you find a treasure find on a site... should the reward be shared?

[garybrun]

There is no point to be made... it is a good question of something I dont know about.
I was just wondering where the records go!
I would have thought that more treasure would have been discovered on archaeological digs.

Vulpes requested a new thread... David can you sort it?

I am not accusing anyone of anything.. if you think that could be my point!

[BAJR Host]

All very interesting... If anyone wants to start a thread - then feel free.

What is interesting is the disparity in finds Which may point more to the vast number of negative archaeological evaluations etc.

Metal-detecting 1171 93.16%
Chance find 30 2.39%
Archaeological find 53 4.21%
Reported buyer 3 0.24%
Total 1257

So in 2005 AND 2006 archaeologists only found 53 items in the whole of England that were 'treasure'
This is interesting given that in 2005 we carried out nearly 1074 intrusive or potentially intrusive investigations and in 2006 - 1324 (source AIP projects database http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/aip/aipintro.htm )

based on evaluations/excavations (plus maritime events)

I don't think Gary is trying to suggest that there is anything wrong going on... unless you have a guilty concious?? :face-angel:

I think the point is a complex one. And perhaps has an unusual bearing on what we do. One that is of great interest if we could just stop a sec and look at it. Our investigations - what are they about, what do they do, what do they find... What would be interesting is how many sites where archaeological evidence was recovered - its just we never find the items (which in England/Wales) are classed as treasure - I noted that many items were recovered from the topsoil - an area that we often overlook. However, that said... as we are digging archaeology - and a lot of it... why is our hit rate lower?

puzzling - but not necessarily an accusation of wrong-doing. :face-confused:

[RedEarth]

All very interesting... If anyone wants to start a thread - then feel free.

What is interesting is the disparity in finds Which may point more to the vast number of negative archaeological evaluations etc.

Metal-detecting 1171 93.16%
Chance find 30 2.39%
Archaeological find 53 4.21%
Reported buyer 3 0.24%
Total 1257

Surely the only way this would even be comparable would be to have a comparative figure of the size of area covered by all metal detectorists (let's just say all the ones who report things to the PAS for the sake of argument). Of course, such figures are impossible to come by (unlike, say the extent of excavation/evaluation carried out per year, which could, with research be worked out reasonably well).

If this were done then you might get a comparable figure, something like treasure found per size of area investigated. Now that would be interesting!

No it wouldn't, why am I contributing to this pointless debate!?

PS Gary, you took the bait...

[garybrun]

That's where your wrong regarding bait. }
This post was a question originally to archaeologists not metal detectorists.
But your trying to divert the issue!

Who's wriggling on the hook now??

[vulpes]

Who's wriggling on the hook now??

Erm Gary Brun perchance????

[vulpes]

What is interesting is the disparity in finds

Not really, having a quick look round Vulpes Towers, most stuff in 'ere ain't made of gold or silver and presumably that has some slight analogy to the past. David you seem to equate archaeology to treasure, how strange, are you Indiana Jones? In 20 years involvement I've never personally found any gold, a little bit of silver yes but that's all and that's fine with me and probably representative of society for whatever period you may choose. Treasure is important, but as the (much better) Scottish legislation shows - it ain't the be all and end all. :face-smart:

As for you Gary - don't worry your reward will come. :face-kiss:

[garybrun]

I've already had my reward :face-angel:

[BAJR Host]

Not really, having a quick look round Vulpes Towers, most stuff in 'ere ain't made of gold or silver and presumably that has some slight analogy to the past. David you seem to equate archaeology to treasure, how strange, are you Indiana Jones?

Hmmm how strange that someone so perceptive can deliberately twist the meaning.. oh its Vulpes... thats ok then.

Seriously though, do you really think I equate treasures of gold with archaeology? Most amusing.

In you twenty years you have never found any of the following:

Any object other than coins which was made of at least 10 percent of gold or silver and at least 300 years old when found.

For coins, two or more, from the same find, made of at least 10 percent of gold or silver and at least 300 years old when found.

Ten or more bronze coins from the same find at least 300 years old when found.

Associated objects; any object, made of any material that is found in the same place or considered to be with another object that is treasure.

Prehistoric metalwork, where there are two objects from the same find

Blimey - you need to get out more

In my 28 years I have found many many of these from silver coins to gold earings... and have been on dozens of sites where 'treasure' was found. To me is part of the job - locate, photograph, plan, context record... lift... continue with work.. It was nice to find a silver gilt brooch... but it was just a blip in a day filled with unearthing treasures like stake holes and hearths..

To return to the point ... why is it that archaeologists covering large areas to a great depth - find so little treasure? ( to continue what I said before - is this because either we are digging lots of holes with nothing in them? OR Is it because of some other factor )

[drpeterwardle]

The Act says
The reward may be payable to?
(a) the finder or any other person involved in the find;
(b) the occupier of the land at the time of the find;
© any person who had an interest in the land at that time, or has had such an interest at any time since then.

The Code of Practice says

81. Rewards will not be payable when the find is made by an archaeologist or anyone engaged on an archaeological excavation or investigation. In cases of uncertainty archaeologists are recommended to require any individuals for whom they are responsible, or to whom they have given, or for whom they have sought, permission to search, to sign a statement waiving their right to a reward. If there is doubt as to whether the finder was an archaeologist (or a person engaged on an archaeological excavation or investigation) the Treasure Valuation Committee shall decide. This will not affect any interest that the occupier or the landowner may have in any reward. The proportion of any reward payable to an eligible landowner (or occupier) is 50 per cent. (See also paragraph 52.)

I am not sure why archaeologists are treated in this way. Fair enough no reward should be paid if the archaeologist or the fieldwork is paid for by the public purse. It would be an absurdity if the diggers working in the Staffordshire hoard site were paid a reward for example. But what about when the landowner is paying for the work? In effect there is a 50% tax on the value of treasure when archaeologists are doing the work.

Peter Wardle

[Geli]

I've voted "other" on this pole. I certainly don't think there should be individual rewards for finding something of financial value on a site which an archaeologist is being paid to work. We're not treasure hunters or antiquarians after all (?). But perhaps some thought should be given to ploughing money resulting from any purchase of valuable items found on professionally run excavations. The idea of setting up a central fund that could provide bursaries to help further training of professional archaeologists does have some appeal. The land owner would still get his cut just the same as if a metal detectorist found something on their land. However, genuinely valuable finds are not that common so there wouldn't be that much money available from treasure in general terms. Still it is something worth considering.