Hat tip to Janner53's blog for linking to the story about a rare coin found near Nottingham. The detectorist could have just pulled the coin out, put in a box and then forgotten about it. Instead it sounds like he recorded the find with his Local Finds Liaison Officer (FLO). On my understanding of the Treasure Act 1996 he did not have to report this item as possible treasure nor did he have to get it recorded. As you will note from the article it's great that he did as not only did it reveal the monetary value of the coin but also the historical.
http://www.thestar.co.uk/what-s-on/out-about/sheffield-metal-detection-fan-nets-find-of-a-lifetime-1-6491544
Therefore if you are a detectorist and have anything in your finds box that you have not identified then why not take them to your local FLO.
For me personally if one silver coin can be so historically and monetarily valuable it makes one wonder if the Treasure Act 1996 shouldn't be amended to include single coin finds with 10 pct precious metal content rather than the current state of play whereby you have to find two coins before reporting it. In reality who is to know if you found the coins at the same time? I imagine this is sadly used by some / many detectorists not to record a possible treasure find.
Maybe there could be some sort of accelerated process with such single coin finds as there are a lot of them and the majority could probably be discounted as being 'rare' etc rather quickly. Just random thoughts really as it would appear that there is a danger of losing out on history by not having them recorded.
I think this situation needs to be put into perspective. The Treasure Act was not implemented to capture single precious metal coins as these would add little to the archaeological record. All this would prove is that a person walked over a field and dropped a single coin on that journey. However if that person buried a group of such coins that becomes archaeologically important rather than numismatically with a single coin. Although there are some archaeological lobbies wanting to capture single coins as Treasure using the 10% precious metal clause, they have not taken on board the archaeological context of single finds and it has simply become a wish list item. The PAS was set up to record finds which fell outside the defintions of Treasure and in an ideal world all finders would be able to record their finds with the permission of the landowner. However recording is a freedom of choice ,but with the resource limited Scheme that the PAS is, it could never cope with a greater level of recording. More money more finds recorded and in the current state of HMG finances this is not going to change in the near future so many more finds will go unrecorded. However the downside of this lack of resource is that the hobbies detractors can make specious comment on this issue and make it seem that detectorists dont record their finds when in fact they are unable to, limited by FLO capacity to record. They conveniently forget that bit of the equation.
ReplyDeleteThanks Steve,
ReplyDeleteGood point. Yeah I agree trying to get finds recorded can be really difficult and time consuming but I think this to is also used as an excuse not to bother.
I guess the PAS were trying to address capacity issues with the lottery funded volunteer scheme (i think i read about that somewhere). Will have to see how it has progressed.
It looks like Paul Barford has decided to run his mouth off again, this time about your blog post. Ignore him he is only trying to provoke you into writing about him so he can try paint a bad picture. Its what he does, a known trouble maker.
ReplyDeleteThanks Andy, for my sins though I won't ignore him, yet. Oddly I quite like him (for the moment) so I've sent him a big cuddle as I think it's what he needs. Everyone needs a cuddle sometimes :)
ReplyDeleteI think what puts a lot of people off reporting finds to the FLO is the time scale involved in the processing of finds. My own experience of this was a silver spoon I found, dated 1712, that put it just over the 300 year old mark and so handed it over to the FLO. That was just over one year ago and they still have it. I know of people who had finds with the FLO for 2-3 years before getting them back. Now I don't know if this is the norm, but it is here with our local FLO.
DeleteHI Janner, yeah I think your experience is pretty normal from reading the forums and from my own experience.
ReplyDeleteIn fairness though the non treasure recording only takes 3 months here which i don't think is bad at all really.
I think the Treasure reporting could certainly be streamlined and I don't blame the FLO's for the recording time as a lot of it seems out of their hands between the Museum's, coroner etc.
"It looks like Paul Barford has decided to run his mouth off again,"
ReplyDeleteIt is actually what we call discussing something, and it is what I think a blog is for. Perhaps Mr Baines could keep his snide remarks about me to his own blog instead of spreading them all over other people's.
As I said, there is a great difference between what the metal detectorist finds and the vesting legislation considers as Treasure (which is derived from the old Treasure trove laws) and that which is not. I don't know how much you remember or have read about the whole process leading up to the creation of the Treasure Act, it was rather a painful process and it must be said the principle stumbling block was the attitude of metal detectorists. It is really rather comical today to recall what they were saying in the early 1990s the Treasure Act would mean for them, when it turns out that the actual result is (and was - but they did not see it) very much in their favour. I do not think this history can be forgotten when proposing Treasure Act reform.
I'm not sure what you mean by "treasure reporting' by FLOs in the post at 06:25. Can you explain?
Thanks Paul, I meant the whole process of reporting a possible treasure find. Whilst I appreciate it is for the Coroner to be informed it's usual for us to tell the FLO at first instance who then gets the ball rolling.
ReplyDeleteI guess I call the statutory obligation to report possible treasure 'treasure recording' and the voluntary recording of other items as 'non treasure recording'
Again I appreciate that this might be misinformed and if it is then happy to consider other terminology.
I personally think "reporting" is what the finder does by taking it to the FLO, "recording" is the entry of the object onto a record/database - in this case the PAS database (and unless its a self-recorder job, by the FLO) . The Treasure Act (art 8) says that Treasure is to be reported by the FINDER to the Coroner (who does not "record" it - but holds an inquest). The FLO does not then, in accordance with the Act "report Treasure".
ReplyDeleteI would suggest ( in response to Detectorbloke) that some detectorist may use the lack of capacity in the PAS to not bother recording/reporting their finds ,but in the great scheme of things i doubt this would make any difference.Those who have submitted items for recording can soon overwhelm the capacity of any FLO to record and from the stats that the PAS publish, a FLO is working to capacity recording about 20 ish finds per week on average. The situation will not change until more funding is found to increase capacity though the HLF scheme using volunteers is still very much in the planning /development stage and as such remains an unknown quantity with respect to increasing recording capacity.
ReplyDeleteThe issue with reporting a potential Treasure find has been somewhat confused by the PAS FLO's trying to get finders to report such items direct to them with the premise that they will ensure that it is reported to the Coroner. Many finders are being mislead into thinking that this is normal procedure. As Paul rightly points out the onus under the law is on the finder to report a potential Treasure find to the Coroner or the Coroners Officer. Using a third party to do this is incorrect procedure and until the TAct is modified to place FLO's as agents for the Coroner it is presumably illegal. If the FLO lost the find or it was not reported within the statutory 14 days of realising that an item was Treasure, then the finder could well be held for criminal sanction for non reporting.
DeleteHowever many FLO's have confused the process even more by getting Coroners to agree to let them be the reporting point for Treasure contrary to the law. I discovered this when reporting an item of Treasure to the Suffolk Coroner and was met with the comment that i report it to the FLO. I had previously asked the FLO for the Coroners contact details and they did not say that the coroner would simply send me back to them. I was left going round in a circle contrary to the law.
The PAS are desperate to get FLO's into a position where its FLO's become indespensible to the Treasure process and so by default safeguard its position in case its future is ever put on the line again. There was a clause added to the recent Coroners and Justice Act whereby FLO's would be designated as acting as coroners agents in the reporting of Treasure and thereby give both them and the PAS a role defined in statute law. However the implications of this were presumably noted by the powers that be and this clause was not enacted. Currenly the PAS have no stautory function and remain vulnerable to future cuts or closure.
Thanks for your comment Steve. I doubt very much the Coroner's have any sort of legally binding agreement for the FLO to act as their agent so as you say it's a bit of a gray area especially if the FLO loses a find. I think i might put having a chat about the whole process with my Local Coroner on my list of to do things.
ReplyDeleteThanks again
There cannot be any legal agreement between FLO's and their local coroner, but some have come to an unoffical arrangement. I have no problem with the FLO's being the contact point for reporting Treasure, but expect this to be done on a proper legal footing.
DeleteSorry about the typos in my last comment which was done a bit quick before going to work !
Hehe no worries Steve your comments are much appreciated.
ReplyDelete