If you saw

If you saw a metal detectorist detecting on an Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) would you

a) Call 101
b) ignore them
c) inform them it's an SSSI and hope they move on
d) ask them what they've found.

Thinking about why you would take a particular action is quite interesting.

Elizabeth I and coinage

To all you hammered coin lovers, like me, an interesting article of coinage in the time of Elizabeth I.

Spotted on the BAJR Facebook page.

Rewards for Treasure finding

Janner53 posted an interesting piece on a gentleman called Steven Walker who was unhappy with his £550 reward for a Bronze Age axe and 4 gold rings. Steven and the thought the valuation should be more.

[65] - [70] of The Treasure Act Code of Guidance lay out the guidelines for the valuation of Treasure.

Janner's article was picked up by Paul Barford and The Modern Antiquarian.

For me Janner's article and subsequent discussions raise a number of points to consider (Mr Anonymous I am again considering the points not making one, there is a difference).

1. Why was there such a difference in valuations? The Treasure Valuation Committee came to a decision that was considerably lower than the finder and Suffolk Archaeology Service. I'm not saying this is right or wrong merely that it would be interesting to know the reasoning behind the decision. I understand the views that metal detectorists should be happy with anything they get, however as it stands this is not what the Code of Practice says at [65]
 

'...taking account of all relevant factors, to what may be paid for the object(s) in a sale on the open market between a willing seller and a willing buyer; '

Again and for the avoidance of doubt I am not saying he should have been paid more. I am merely interested to see how the decision was come as it would be interesting to know if there is any possible merit in the argument that the TVC are coming to lower Treasure Valuation decisions because they think that 'metal detectorists should be happy with anything they get.' which I do not believe can be considered a relevant factor as per [65] (happy to be corrected here).

If the Government / society isn't happy with the amount of money being paid out on Treasure finds then perhaps the Code should be adjusted appropriately. This is opposed to the TVC lowering rewards on the sly IF (very big IF) this is happening.

2. Are rewards entirely discretionary? Both Paul Barford and Nigel Swift make the point that detectorists should also be happy with anything they get because detectorists are not entitled to any reward. Paul says that rewards are 'entirely discretionary'. I have to say that when I first started detecting I thought that I was entitled to a reward.

Reading through the Treasure Act Code of Guidance and Treasure Act 1996 I think it is more a case of fettered discretion as entirely discretionary to me implies the SoS can do what they like, free from any constraints, when deciding when considering whether or not to pay a reward.

The Treasure Act states the following,

10 Rewards.

(2)The Secretary of State must determine whether a reward is to be paid by the museum before the transfer

(7)In a determination under this section, the Secretary of State must take into account anything relevant in the code of practice issued under section 11.

11 Codes of practice.

(1)The Secretary of State must

(a)prepare a code of practice relating to treasure;

(b)keep the code under review; and

(c)revise it when appropriate.

(2)The code must, in particular, set out the principles and practice to be followed by the Secretary of State

(a)when considering to whom treasure should be offered;

(b)when making a determination under section 10; and

(c)where the Crown's title to treasure is disclaimed.

This seems to show that the Secretary of State must take into account anything relevant the Code of Practice says before deciding whether to pay a reward.

[71] of The Code states that

The paramount objective in the payment of ex gratia rewards for finds of treasure is to encourage the reporting of finds and to ensure that there are adequate incentives to finders while at the same time discouraging wrong behaviour

 This would seem something that the SoS should take into account when exercising his discretion.

 

Also [84] states that

...In making its recommendations, the Committee shall seek to find a balance between the objective of rewards to encourage the prompt and proper reporting of finds, and the need for rewards not in themselves to provide an incentive for illegal or improper behaviour

I have to say I didn't find 63 [7] very helpful when it said mentioned a 'right to reward' but maybe this was referring to the fact that at the stage the SoS would have come to a decision that a reward should be paid.

 

63 (7) If finders and anyone else with an interest in the find wish to waive their right to a reward on condition that the find is deposited in a particular registered museum, their wishes will be taken into account.

So it seems that I'm not legally entitled to a reward as I first thought, however it would seem that there would have to be a good reason for SoS to decide that I was not entitled to a reward (which could then be abated if I had say destroyed the find site).  I wonder if the SoS has ever determined that a reward should not be offered.

Anonymous comments

I'm thinking about banning anonymous comments. They just seem a bit 'trolly' really. Being new to this blogging malarkey it's difficult to know whether to invite all comments no matter how little they bring or not. Blah.

The HMS Victory

Over on  Stout Standards I was reading an interesting piece entitled 'Treasure Hunting at its very best' on the recovery of bullion from the SS gairsoppa, the bullion consisted of 1574 silver ingots weighing about 1,100 ounces each. To a bloke who thinks a silver half crown is a lot of silver that's a whole lot of treasure.

The SS Gairsoppa was discovered by an organisation called Odyssey Marine Exploration.

Odyssey Marine Exploration (OME) have apparently pioneered what they call 'commercial marine archaeology'.  

Amongst their other discoveries is HMS Victory (not the HMS Victory that was Nelson's flagship).

 It would appear that the wreck was found in May 2008 by OME and this was announced on 1 February 2009. HMS Victory was at the time property of the British Government but was gifted to the Maritime Heritage Foundation in January 2012 (Heritage Daily investigation in the whole affair here). The Maritime Heritage Foundation was created and is chaired by Lord Lingfield, a Conservative Peer. Claims had been made that Lord Lingfield was a descendant of Admiral Balchen, who went down with the HMS Victory along with the crew of about 1150, but it appears that these claims may be false (1150 crew on a 250 odd year old ship is amazing in itself to me).

There are now plans to salvage items from the Victory although they are awaiting ministerial approval something which may not be forthcoming given that Admiral Balchen's actual descendant Richard Temple West and many others are concerned about the commercial exploitation of a war grave. Furthermore OME may have been rather naughty in exploring the wreck without a licence.

OME has been in the Courts before after unlawfully retrieving 17 tonnes of gold and silver from a Spanish Wreck.

I do wonder if there really is there any archaeological benefit in salvaging the items from the HMS Victory or if Treasure Hunting really is the only motive.

Whilst some of this might be old news in the light of the furore over the Nazi War Diggers I thought the story of the HMS Victory is an interesting one as both tales involve disturbing the dead to find artifacts.

Questions for the heritage crime officer

Got the ok for my meeting with the heritage crime officer and his boss today which I'm quite excited about. My idea was to ask more about heritage crime in Sussex including how much of a problem it might be and what sort of things the officers have to deal with. I'm also interested in how hard they find it to prosecute and what the Community can do to help.

I appreciate that illegal metal detecting is only one type of heritage crime but given that many detectorists go out in the field then it would be good to know what sort of dodgy activity to look out for and report including dodgy metal detectorists!

If anyone has any suggestions about what sort of questions you would ask if you were meeting with a couple of heritage crime officers then please let me know.

PAS Job vacancy

I was just browsing the PAS site when I noticed a job being advertised via their Twitter feed.

A few clicks later I saw the PAS are recruiting for a Finds Liaison Assistant for Cheshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside funded by the Headley Trust. I'd never heard of a Finds Liaison Assistant or the Headley Trust and it was interesting to read that the Headley Trust is one of the Sainsbury Family Charitable Trusts. As their website states it recognises the problems that Museums can have in purchasing Treasure finds.  

As I stated in a previous post one of the main reasons I first started detecting was the dream of finding Treasure, preferably mega valuable treasure at that. The fact that Museums may well need charitable help to purchase such Treasure had never really crossed my mind. 

I can't say, sitting here now on my sofa, that if I found Treasure that I would waive the reward but it's something to ponder as if the Trust don't have to spend their money helping Museum's buy Treasure finds then maybe more of it would be available to fund such posts.

It was also interesting to see that the PAS also need such charitable donations to help them reduce their backlog of finds. 

Maybe all detectorists should have to be 'members' of the PAS and pay £10 or something a year which would help fund more FLO's. Ok just a random thought really.