Peter McCrone wrote:
> It is the landowners property - change in the Treasure Act to take in non
> 'treasury' items anyone??
Or alternatively widen the definition of the term "treasure" to potentially
cover cases like this - while getting rid of that awful term - at least
changing it to something a bit more helpful like "cultural heritage
Landowners may have "custody" of the heritage for us all, some of them
exercise it well, while others do not. I think I am not alone in wanting to
see the law take this into account better than it does.