JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH Archives

BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH  June 1998

BRITARCH June 1998

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

RESCUE News Release - Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities

From:

"P.M. Graves-Brown" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

P.M. Graves-Brown

Date:

Mon, 29 Jun 1998 17:26:11 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (94 lines)

 RESCUE
THE BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGICAL TRUST
NEWS RELEASE


TREASURE ACT FAILS TO PROTECT BRITAINS HERITAGE

In a recent press release (DCMS 131/98) the Department of Culture,
Media and Sport praised the success of the 1997 Treasure Act (Note
2). RESCUE believes that this praise is extremely premature.

The act, which is complicated, confusing and has many loopholes, has
actually discouraged the public from reporting archaeological finds
(Note 3). The legislation is too weak and is clearly treated with
contempt by some metal detector users, who are among the principal
sources of "treasure" finds:-

"The [Treasure] act is without doubt a grubby piece of legislation. 
Our enemies have spent a great deal of time, money and energy on it.
 Make no mistake its sole purpose is to damage the hobby of metal
detecting and in this respect I am sure it will fail miserably. 
Like all bad laws there are holes in it.  Legal holes for lawyers to
exploit and common sense man in the street holes for you and I to
exploit." (Note 4)

In order to cope with the failings of the act DCMS is developing a
scheme for the voluntary reporting of all portable antiquity finds
(Note 5). But this too has hit problems. In a recent statement on
the scheme, Dr Roger Bland of DCMS said "We have to reconcile the
principle that data gathered should be available for public
benefit...with the need to respect the fact that most finders will
only be willing to divulge find-spots if they know that they will be
kept confidential." (Note 6) Clearly these two goals are
irreconcilable.

RESCUE believes that it is ridiculous to use public funds, including
money from the National Lottery, to collect information that will be
kept secret from the public.

Dr Robert Young, Chair of Rescue, said; "We recognise the legitimate
interests of metal detector users and wish to encourage co-operation
between them and archaeologists. But the government are conceding
too much to this small vocal lobby group and are thereby ignoring
the interests of the vast majority of the British public who would
like to know more about their heritage".

Contact Dr Robert Young, Department of Archaeology, University of Leicester. tel. 0116 252 2846
 Notes to Editors

1)RESCUE, The British Archaeological Trust, is the only entirely
independent national archaeological organisation in Britain, and has
campaigned vigourously for the preservation of archaeological
heritage since the 1960s.

2)The Treasure Act redefines what is considered to be treasure under
the law and thus requiring a coroner's inquest to decide ownership.
The act defines as treasure all artefacts more than 300 years old
containing more than 10% gold or silver (although some more recent
objects may be treasure). Finds of 10 or more coins more than 300
years old are also treasure. Objects found in association with other
artefacts that may be treasure can also be considered treasure (e.g.
a pot containing gold coins is treasure as well as the coins).
Objects considered treasure by association need not be found at the
same time as the original treasure! The act is complex and confused
- 9 coins are not treasure but ten are, allowing finders to split
hoards of coins up and avoid the law.

3)A survey in Wales of reporting centres for the new act including;
archaeological Sites and Monuments Records covering former counties
of Glamorgan, Gwent, Dyfed, Powys and Clwyd, and of museums in
Swansea, Neath, Newport, Abergavenny and Merthyr Tydfil; revealed
that none had had any finds reported under the Treasure Act to date.
Most reported that they had had a general decline in finds reports
of all kinds and this was attributed to suspicion of the new act. To
our knowledge, only the National Museum in Wales has had any such
finds reported to it. This was despite the expectation that the
Treasure Act would produce a vast increase in finds reports.

4)Quote from metal detectorists internet site at
http://home.clara.net/saxons/act.html

5)The portable antiquities scheme has so far allowed the setting up
of 6 pilot posts in England. Staff liase with finders and compile a
database of finds. 6 new posts, funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund,
are expected to get the go ahead in August. But the database will be
kept secret if finders wish - even archaeologists charged with
protecting archaeological sites may not be allowed this information.

6)Quote from Statement by Dr Roger Bland mailed to the Britarch
internet list on 9/6/98 


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager