PAS Treasure Report

[John Walford]

Archaeologists are just as obliged as anyone else to declare treasure finds. There are several examples of treasure from commercial excavations in the Treasure annual report 2004, including, for example, two sets of Roman grave goods from the Lankhills cemetery, declared by OA.

However I have come across two instances recently where archaeologists have not declared treasure finds (one was a fragment of ring brooch, another a group of votively deposited coins) because 'its all too much hassle, and the finds will be recorded and published anyway'. I don't intend to name names or stir up trouble but I do wonder what would happen were someone to find mention of these undeclared finds in the site reports and decide to make a fuss to the coroner or the police.

"Hidden wisdom and buried treasure, what use is there in either?" (Ecclesiasticus ch20 v30)

[garybrun]

I'll do it... give me the info
To all those poltically correct archaeologists... this is a joke.:face-stir:



Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.

[BAJR Host]

I feel for them though.. as I am currently writing the same bleedin thing 3 times over... an at the end of the day.. it gets published anyway... you want it? It s there to be seen. However... it is required... - not suggested --- but required to declare treasure... the ring brooch.... not sure thats treasure.. but the coins... now that would be classed as.

The difference being... if a member of the public fails to declare.. the artefact and info are lost forever... if an archaeologist fails to declare.. they are still publishing, and both the artefact and info are NOT lost forever. So I would put it as a lesser 'crime' a telling off rather than anything else.. After all, its not as if they are keeping quiet about it, nipping onto ebay and flogging it... that would be wrong... and sadly there are enough members of the public willing to do that already. :face-stir:

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[shovelnomore]

A few points:

1) If you don't know one of the (very few) fundamental statutory elements of English archaeological regulation, you don't deserve to expect anyone to respect you as a professional.

2) Can we stop calling it Treasure Trove (in England at least). Not a term or a legal concept used since, well, since the law changed in 1996. Scotland's Treasure Trove has always been different and still applies (as hosty put it).

3) Treasure is treasure whether it goes through the PAS or not. The PAS is NOT part of the primary legislation, which is why there are repeatedly fears that it will be abandoned. As I understood it, the PAS was intended to be an approachable and informed system to provide detectorists and other non-professional archaeologists with a way of finding out what that lump of copper was (not that most of the detectorists I've ever met needed any help in that...), as well as a way to process treasure. The PAS Officer is usually more of a conduit to finding/liaising with the relevant specialists when something nice turns up, or dealing with the more common finds themselves.

4) ANY project design should have a clause relating to treasure in it, just as it should have a clause relating to what to do with the finds. This covers the ownership issues etc. See comments of professionalism above.

5) you have no personal rights to the treasure as finder, nor in most cases does the unit/employer. It's the landowner's property (in England) unless signed over to the museum/another nominee in advance. As has always been the case, even in the 'good old days...' The urban myth about having to wait for the unit director to turn up to excvate any gold was just that. In Scotland, you'll find you're written out by law, so tough.

6)The reason there's so little treasure, or for that matter intact artefactual material of any type, from archaeological sites is that by and large we're looking at discard contexts. The obvious exception is cemeteries, but even then treasure is pretty unusual (as now, most people couldn't afford to bury most of their families possessions...). The majority of treasure is chance loss or deliberate hoards, hence the wording of the original treasure trove act about whether it had been buried in the hope of recovery. By definition, most of these happened as far away as possible from habitation.

7) That and most archaeologists don't go through the PAS but direct through the receiving museums.

Rant over. Please can we make sure we know the law- there's little enough of it around to protect our heritage.

[shovelnomore]

And another thing.

Archaeologists, publish? I'll not mention any major English historic urban centres.

[shovelnomore]

And yet another thing.

Not reporting anything that you have grounds to believe MAY BE TREASURE to the coroner is a criminal offence. You need reasonable grounds for not doing so (unspecified in the statute, don't know the case law). 'Can't be @rsed' isn't reasonable grounds, and is pretty appalling (previous comments on profesionalism apply). However, I can't see the Police or CPS chasing it very hard.

[BAJR Host]

Apologies for the TT gaff myself ...

I suppose it shows how easy it is to be offended when people talk about PPG 16 all the time.. when in reality that only covers England and Wales.. .. point taken though ... and well made

Leading people on to make sense of it all... as you have now done... is a 'good thing' :face-approve:

The basics are as said... and to reiterate

Non reporting of treasure items is a criminal offence (in Scotland too -but that covers everything!) Archaeologists don't often find treasure, cos we ain't looking for it... PAS are a liaison organisation for the public.

I am interested to know however, if the PAS database should not include those items reported by Archaeologists, as this surely leaves a whopping gap...

Shovelnomore, you hopefully feel better now B) and actually, put succinctly the whole answer -

Sadly you are right about "Archaeologists, publish? I'll not mention any major English historic urban centres." but in the main... they do edge out into the light (well.. soon will, with a new BAJRish scheme!) and also I tend to agree... can't be @rsed is not a good excuse... indeed to allow it to go is abetting - we would not alow it of a detectroist or member of the public.. so should not of a fellow archaeologist.

will examine





"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[Rachelintheoffice]

I have known workmates get part of the reward for finding treasure on archaeological sites - admittedly, this was under the old Treasure Act, and the rules may be different now. I also know somebody who made an outstandingly good treasure find, and was told by the unit employing him that, while they couldn't prevent him from claiming the reward, they would see to it that he never worked in archaeology again if he did so. When he found out how much it was worth, he really regretted not calling their bluff... he could have set up his own unit with the proceeds...

[Silent Bob]

Am I not right in thinking that under at least the current Treasure Act an archaeologist (at least a commercial one) is specifically ruled out from claiming any part of a reward for 'treaure' found during an excavation. This doesn't necessarily count for a machine driver working on that site though, something you probably shouldn't tell them.

[BAJR Host]

... the quote from the Treasure Act ... so yes they are (while they are acting as archaeologists)

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.

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers