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  October 2010

BRITARCH October 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Calls for Treasure Act review

From:

Mike Heyworth <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

British archaeology discussion list <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:34:15 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (173 lines)

Pete

The most important thing at this stage is to get the review of the Treasure Act underway - and I hope we can all agree that this is worthwhile and much needed. Please press the case for this with DCMS and other politicians.

No doubt there will be debate about any proposals for an extension of the Treasure regime, and the review will allow everyone to put forward reasoned arguments in support of their proposals.

I do not think that we should consider the issue of available resources in determining public policy. We should be seeking the outcome which delivers the appropriate level of public benefit and then using the agreed policy as the basis for seeking the necessary level of resources to ensure its delivery. After all, no-one is arguing that we should remove the laws of theft and trespass from the statute book just because the police do not currently have the resources to deal with all the issues of (so-called) 'nighthawking' (heritage crime) across the country ....

Best wishes

Mike
 

-----Original Message-----
From: British archaeology discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Twinn
Sent: 11 October 2010 5:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Calls for Treasure Act review

Whilst I agree whole heartedly about the need to see the Treasure Act
changed to encompass such finds as the Crosby Garrett helmet it would seem
that to take every single  roman and Saxon silver coin into the Treasure Act
is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. 

Any more than two coins already constitutes treasure, so are single Roman
and Anglo Saxon coins going to add that much to any than we can already take
in, and what about Viking coins (surely you meant Early Medieval)? It seems
to me that all this will do is add even more workload to our overloaded
FLO's, let alone the fact that the vast majority of museums will not want
the coins as they either have vast collections or they don't have the funds
to buy them anyway. 

Whilst there is a good argument to have such items at least offered to the
nation (I support such a move) my feeling is that all this will do is stop
the recording of such items with the PAS as detectorist will always see such
coins as 'prize finds!' They'll say they found them pre 2011 when the
Treasure Act maybe changed, so how do you prove that they weren't found
before that date!

It also raises the question about how we'd manage the vast quantities of
these silver or gold coins that have been found already? How does the CBA
say we ought to deal with this thorny issue? Those coins that are out in the
market place or in private collections? Has this really been thought
through!

Regards all

Pete



-----Original Message-----
From: British archaeology discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Mike Heyworth
Sent: 11 October 2010 14:51
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [BRITARCH] Calls for Treasure Act review

The Council for British Archaeology has asked the DCMS Minister for Culture,
Communications & Creative Industries Ed Vaizey MP to move forward with the
long-awaited review of the Treasure Act as soon as possible. In a statement
on the CBA web site
(http://www.britarch.ac.uk/news/101011-treasureactreview) I said:
 
"The review of the Treasure Act was due to have taken place back in 2007. We
are writing to the Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative
Industries Ed Vaizey MP to ask him to ensure that the long-promised review
happens as a matter of urgency. It was a tragedy that the Crosby Garrett
helmet has now apparently disappeared into a private collection and may
never be seen in public again. This is not in the public interest, and it is
certainly highly frustrating for all the supporters of the fantastic appeal
to raise funds to keep the find in Cumbria in a public museum where it
surely belongs. 

The CBA believes that the definition of Treasure should be extended to
incorporate Roman base metal hoards and single finds of Roman and
Anglo-Saxon coins made of precious metal.

At the same time the CBA will be asking the Culture Minister to speak with
colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to move forward with the
implementation of aspects of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which relate
to the Treasure Act."

This follows on from an earlier column I wrote for the CBA's 'British
Archaeology' magazine published earlier this year on metal detecting and
treasure - see http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba111/update.shtml.

I have written to Ed Vaizey today as follows:

"Dear Minister

Treasure Act review

In an article published in the CBA's British Archaeology magazine earlier in
2010 (copy attached) I called for the long-awaited review of the Treasure
Act (originally promised for 2007). The review will provide an opportunity
for the Government to consider the extension of the definition of Treasure
to include base metal hoards of Roman date (which can be achieved without
the need for primary legislation). Had this opportunity been taken in the
last three years then the nationally important Crosby Garrett helmet would
have fallen within the definition of Treasure and it is likely that it would
have remained in public hands. It is a tragedy that the helmet may never
been seen in public again, though if there is an attempt to take it out of
the UK then I would urge you most strongly to use your powers under the
export licensing regime to provide a further opportunity for the helmet to
be purchased by the Tullie House Museum in Cumbria.

We appreciate that there are a number of high priority issues demanding your
attention, but the CBA urges you to press ahead with the review of the
Treasure Act as soon as possible. At the same time we would encourage you to
work with Ministers in the Ministry of Justice to implement the related
measures agreed as part of the Coroners & Justice Act 2009 which will
strengthen the effectiveness of the Treasure Act.

The implementation of the Treasure Act relies on the network of Finds
Liaison Officers in place across England and Wales through the Portable
Antiquities Scheme. We hope that with the future demise of the MLA it will
be possible to transfer the Scheme to the management of the British Museum
with sufficient resources to ensure that the Scheme is able to maintain its
nationwide coverage."

This follows on from a letter from the officers of the All Party
Parliamentary Archaeology Group published in 'The Times' on Saturday (9th
October) which reads:

"Sir, 

You report (8 October) the sale at auction, to an anonymous buyer for 2m,
of a Roman helmet discovered by a metal detectorist at Crosby Garrett in
Cumbria. This was six times more than the pre-auction estimate and,
unfortunately, considerably above the 1.65m raised by the Tullie House
Museum in Carlisle, in a short time and with strong local and national
support, in the hope of the museum being able to acquire the helmet.

Surely an object of this archaeological importance should go to a public
museum, preferably within the region where it was found. There is, however,
a deficiency in the legislation intended to secure this. A review of the
Treasure Act was due in 2007 and is now clearly overdue. The Act has worked
well in many circumstances, for example with the Staffordshire Hoard. We
believe, however, that the definition of treasure should be extended without
further delay to ensure that the public interest is more reliably
safeguarded in the future. This can be done by order and does not require
primary legislation.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn (Chair, All Party Parliamentary Archaeology
Group)
Lord Howarth of Newport (Vice Chair)
Lord Redesdale (Secretary)

House of Lords
London SW1 0PW"

The CBA is encouraging everyone to use the new DCMS facility to put email
questions to Ed Vaizey (see
http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/7476.aspx) to ask for a
timetable for the Government review of the Treasure Act.

It would also be helpful to ask your local MP to raise this with DCMS as
Ministers are then obliged to respond.

APPAG officers are also seeking an opportunity for a debate on these issues
in the House of Lords.

Mike

==================================================================
Dr Mike Heyworth MBE, Director, Council for British Archaeology 
St Mary's House, 66 Bootham, York YO30 7BZ, UK  
tel 01904 671417, fax 01904 671384, web www.britarch.ac.uk 
A Company Limited by Guarantee, registered in England 1760254 &
Registered Charity 287815. Join CBA/YAC at www.britarch.ac.uk/shop 
================================================================== 

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