Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
If you find a treasure find on a site... should the reward be shared?
Putting aside the fact it is against the law for archaeologists to receive any reward for treasure finds... a friend has posed this question..

Quote: diggers are horribly underpaid. The state could always award a proportion of 'true market value' to the finder, which could be used as a bursary or similar award.

Go on then... what do you think.
For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he
Thomas Rainborough 1647
which law
txt is
I didn't knoew it was against the law, is that even in our spare time ?, it not as if a none offical trained person couldn't work out the best places to go base on a bit of internet use and local knowledge
bad form certainly, but ........
txt is
Treasure Act

Quote:Who is not eligible to a share of the reward?

an archaeologist who makes a Treasure find.
a finder or a landowner who has acted in bad faith and not in accordance with the Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice may expect a reduced share of the valuation, or none at all.

and here is some extra for you - which might make you think :0

Quote:The Treasure (Designation) Order 2002 extended the definition of treasure to include metal prehistoric finds with a low precious metal content. Treasure is now defined as:

* Any metallic object (but not coins) found after 24 September 1997 which is over 300 years old (when found) and containing at least 10% by weight of gold or silver.
* Any group of two or more metallic objects of any composition and of prehistoric date that come from the same find.
* All coins from the same find provided they are at least 300 years old when found. If the coins contain less than 10% gold or silver, there must be at least ten of them.
* Any object, whatever it is made of, that is found in the same place as, or had previously been together with, another object that is treasure.
* Any object that would previously have been treasure trove, but not covered by any of the above. That is, objects that are less than 300 years old, made substantially of gold or silver, that have been deliberately hidden with the intention of recovery and whose owners (or their heirs) are unknown.
* Objects are part of the 'same find' if they are found in the same place, or had previously been together and have been scattered (perhaps by ploughing) since being deposited. Objects may well be part of the 'same find' (in an archaeological sense) even if they have been found at different times.

All finds of treasure must be reported to the Coroner for the area in which the find was made within fourteen days of the date the find was made, or within fourteen days of it being realised (perhaps because a find has been shown to a specialist) that a find may be treasure. Everyone, including archaeologists, are required to report finds of possible treasure. Failure to declare finds of treasure may lead to prosecution, leading to a fine or custodial sentence.
For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he
Thomas Rainborough 1647
So if i was walking along the beach with my dogs and found something i would be better off phoning my Mum to hand it in and fight her for the money
Do the laws above only applie in Scotland i know you guys have it a bit diffrent up there
I thought it was if the find was made during an archaeological excavation that the finder couldn't claim it, not just if they were 'an archaeologist'. This discussion was had before and my response was what's to stop you in that case, having noted a heap of gold glinting in front of you immediately standing up, slapping your supervisor (you know you've always wanted to), shouting 'I quit' at the top of your voice and then saying 'oh look, some treasure. As I am no longer an archaeologist I claim the finder's reward'? As Drunky says it would be a bit much to say someone couldn't claim because they were an archaeologist - the response might well be 'not any more I ain't!' Maybe it is different in Scotland. In terms of the question though, I think archaeologists should be able to claim any reward, after all they've probably worked harder for it than the average metal detectorist...
after all they've probably worked harder for it than the average metal detectorist...

No comment.:o)
Other - say what you feel below

As archaeologists you have a code of ethics if I understand correctly??
David has already quoted the law regarding treasure.

Are Archaeologists also in a better position to "find" treasure than detectorists are on digs?
It would be so easier to do a little research and so... OK well have a dig here... knowing the background etc.
So I dont believe the system would work and would really be open to abuse.

I'm a little torn here between what I personally believe is right and what I would like to see. I mean that my views are my own and would I think also be scorned at by other detectorists. I made them known a little while ago.. and was already accused of being one of you and a arki lover!!! :-)
I "personally" believe that any treasure found valued at "amount" a percentage should be put aside in a fund to pay for conservation, purchasing other treasure items or financing digs etc. This would be a fair and ethical way.
I really believe the Treasure System cant continue to keep paying out multimillion pound payouts. We have had three this year that I know off.

Lets face it and be honest about it.
No matter what ... you all like to see the glitter of gold do you not?

Please dont tell me you are not excited if you found a Saxon hoard etc.

If you could get paid so that you could retire and wouldn't have to dig on your hands and knees in all weather which one would you take? If I'm really honest I know which way I would go.
But if you did get paid... I can imagine such a huge influx of new people wanting to become and archaeologist.
Companies giving very cheap quotes for tenders and the best metal detectorists being hired at considerable amounts of "dosh"! Maybe even a percentage on the finders fee???!

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  It's that old travel to and from site hut out of pocket Marc Berger 4 4,318 11th June 2014, 07:46 AM
Last Post: kevin wooldridge
  Is there a bar in the site hut? Or can this be it? deadlylampshade 1,156 534,043 28th March 2014, 01:31 AM
Last Post: Marc Berger
  Amazing French site -Bodies in the well BAJR 1 1,739 31st December 2013, 11:15 AM
Last Post: BAJR
  Find out about BAJR origins BAJR 4 3,845 20th December 2013, 01:38 PM
Last Post: P Prentice
  Storm exposes site... how many more appear? BAJR 1 1,816 12th December 2013, 04:29 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  Development next to the Prittlewell burial site redexile 10 7,876 1st November 2013, 01:05 PM
Last Post: Kajemby
  why can't I just find some work? Bonesgirl 68 34,313 31st July 2013, 08:48 AM
Last Post: Dinosaur
  Crannog site keeps on going! BAJR 1 1,724 14th April 2013, 04:55 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  'Haunted house' at skeletons car park site BAJR 6 4,601 11th April 2013, 07:15 PM
Last Post: Dinosaur
  RIP Time Team, you were a national treasure BAJR 47 23,982 8th April 2013, 08:35 AM
Last Post: Sith

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)