PAS Treasure Report

[BAJR Host]

less than a thousand, as that would be classed as a hoard of trowels!

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

[RedEarth]

quote:Originally posted by Dirty Dave Lincoln

You mean death by a thousand trowels?

I just think it a bit much that noble archaeologists, already poorly paid, are then not allowed to claim what anyone else could - except if they were on their day off. It could always be spread around so that everyone on site gets some. I don't think I would hold it against someone if they did - it would be about as daft as being upset because an archaeologist won the lottery, especially considering how many projects are now funded by it!

Anyway the wording was 'anyone engaged on an archaeological excavation or investigation' so if a genuine member of the public happened to wander by and found a load of treasure, say for the sake of argument on the spoil heap, what then?

[BAJR Host]

I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply above

however, seriously, and Gary and I have discussed it, why not? what a way to finance research sites, training etc.... though that did not mena that every site turned into a trerasure hunt... the idea being that we are already paid to do it... but as you say... the pay and post ex moeny is not enough.....

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

[Silent Bob]

Then again, I do remember buying an oyster shell whilst visiting the Jorvik dig site when I was about 7. They must have been coining it, each with their own TR7. Perhaps we should start selling willow pattern next time we do a dig (or as it affectionately alaways referred to as 'granny's pot' as in 'nuts, just found a bit of granny's pot in the bottom of this ditch I hoped was medieval').

[shovelnomore]

I think we're missing the point, which is that as an archaeologist working on organised archaeological investigations, you can't claim a reward. And this is probably the way to go- after all, who actually is the finder? do we want all research digs to be targetted on treasure like they were 100 years ago?

If you check your contract, it's proably covered. If you're self-employed,it should be in the terms of contract for the job. Which of course we all check religiously...

Just wondering how this affects detectorists, or at least those who profess to be doing serious archaeological research? A question based on genuine curiosity. WHo is an archaeologist? One for the IFA chartering fans to consider?

[Mike.T.]

I worked for an Archaeology company earlier this year and half my job was to do on site metal detecting. I must have recovered literally 100's of coins and artefacts, some of which were declared treasure. No, i didn't claim a reward. Any property that I find in that instance isn't mine.

The rules between metal detecting on an Archaeological site and on private land ( which i also do ) are completely different.In the case of the former, the finder doesn't have any claim on anything valuable found. This is always stated in the Arch contract. Provided that is you've been supplied with one !

[BAJR Host]

There is an answer shovel... and one I have seen time and time again...

however as you have cunningly pointed out...

Who is an archaeologist? What defines an archaeologist... ? your question cuts again into the absurdity of 'archaeologist' as a a title...




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

[shovelnomore]

I was going to write a long post on whether there is actually a difference between metal detectorists and archaeologists. We're just equally deluded types who look for old stuff. But that thread could sooo easily get out of hand, so I'll not go further. Pity as these are fascinating issues if we can continue to discuss them in a grown-up fashion. For now, here's the law. No excuses for not knowing now.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1996/ukp...60024_en_1
(actual statute)

http://www.ncmd.co.uk/docs/treasure%20act.pdf
(code of practice revised 2001 including the purpose of the PAS)

Obtainable through google first hit (statute) and third hit (CoP)

Also predictable but depressing to see that archaeologists still don't always issue contracts to their subbies as well as their staff... I can only call them muppets for not doing it and extend the furry title in your direction for not making sure you got one if there was cash involved. You'd probably have lost the claim for the gold torc in the end on the archaeology clause but not after lashing out pots for the lawyers. Either that or you could have ended up with no cash or much less than you exected- you'd not be the first by any means. I forgot to check once, and got right royally sh@fted.

[kevin wooldridge]

Don't know if this is a million miles away from the subject, but I have just been reading the results of the long awaited study into the function and funding of PAS. Seemingly (mostly) everything is rosy in that particular garden, although the question of funding is addressed.

And partially answered. The 30 odd local authorities who currently provide funding for the scheme (in addition to the BM and DCMS) are to be asked to double their contribution next year. So that should be OK........

[RedEarth]

I was of course playing Devil's advocate in my previous post, and not seriously suggesting archaeologists start haggling over whether they can claim treasure rewards!

However, the ownership is never an issue - it always belongs to the land owner unless some prior agreement has been made.

Since archaeologists are excluded from claiming treasure, why not also exclude them from any money that could be made from collecting scrap metal from the site or even flogging old flag stones or cobbles (these things do happen)? It just seems a bit random and further encourages the view perpetuated by the media that treasure is only found by accident.

I was particularly amused by recent coverage of a major Roman find apparently made by utilities contractors while water pipes were being laid - by which they meant found by archaeologists during a routine assessment. It doesn't fit the media's cosy view when such things are done in an organised framework in response to recommendations made as a planning condition placed some months before anyone went near the site. Once again archaeologists don't get the credit due to them.

Anyway, I seem to have lost the plot a bit.