Skip to main content

Martin Carver on sums paid to treasure hunters

Professor Martin Carver, editor of Antiquity, discusses recent metal-detecting finds in his December 2010 editorial.
... why should we pay a treasure hunter 1000 times more than an archaeologist to dig up an object? Even to my politician, it seems pretty obvious that new finds like this year’s Crosby Garrett Roman helmet need to be in a museum where people can see them; and equally obvious that the sums of money paid to treasure hunters are as absurd as their public adulation. Two million pounds for the helmet and three for the Staffordshire hoard – these are sums that could keep a small museum going for several years.

There is a huge debate in the United Kingdom about the value of Arts and Humanities. Craver concludes his editorial with this:
Archaeology is in the business of understanding the climate, the soil, society, religion, conflict, commerce, living together: no minor matters. It is as important as every other science, from medicine to space travel, and its findings have a permanent value. Whatever the future brings, let’s hang on to this principle: the true currency of archaeology is knowledge; that’s our gold standard, valid everywhere.

I am grateful to Paul Barford for drawing my attention to this editorial.

Bookmark and Share so Your Real Friends Know that You Know

Comments

Roger Pearse said…
If Martin Carver is correctly reported as saying "why should we pay a treasure hunter 1000 times more than an archaeologist to dig up an object?" then he should find another job.

We don't pay people to treasure hunt. They do it themselves, and they find treasure. What we do is ensure they sell that treasure to us. If we tried to steal it from them, funnily enough they'd do what Egyptian peasants do and just smuggle it abroad.
Paul Barford said…
"If Martin Carver is correctly reported as saying "why should we pay a treasure hunter 1000 times more than an archaeologist to dig up an object?" then he should find another job." Oh yes, he is correctly reported, you can read it yourself, if you do not get Antiquity, the link to the online version of the editorial is in my post to which David referts. Whether or not a Professor should consider "finding a new job" because of expressing his views on the importance of discussing the issues surrounding treasure hunting and archaeological value is a moot point. I think we need such discussion, you seem to think we do not.

As you probably know, the obligation to report potential Treasure finds to the Coroner is a legal one. As is the obligation to report finds of human remains, it is exactly the same procedure. Do you think Britain should introduce a reward system to encourage people not to behave like peasants when they find a dead body in the woods?

I think if you read carefully what Carver says there is a second layer of meaning, about paying them to DIG UP things like the Crosby Garrett helmet, hoiked out of the ground with consequent loss of contextual information, a loss of knowledge(which is what Carver and Gill were talking about) far greater than whether this reconstructed geegaw is subsequently displayed in this or that museum, in this or that country.

To that end, the Treasure Act has a Code of Practice which lays down quite clearly what should happen the moment any member of the public comes across potential Treasure, and adherence to which should determine the amount of discretionary (for it is not laid down in any law) reward paid. Funnily enough, "dig it all out before considering reporting it" is not in it. You would think Treasure hunters would make themselves familiar with its contents before they go out to "do it themselves".

Popular posts from this blog

Codename: Ainsbrook

I have been watching (UK) Channel 4's Time Team this evening. The programme looked at an undisclosed field (under a potato crop) where a Viking burial had been found. The location in Yorkshire was so sensitive that it was given a codename: Ainsbrook. Here is the summary:
In late 2003 two metal detectorists were working in a field in Yorkshire. They found 'treasure' buried just beneath the surface – a collection of Viking material next to a body. Although they had been detecting on the site for a number of years, during which time they had made large numbers of finds, nothing they had uncovered previously compared with this. They decided to share their discovery with archaeologists.The programme explored the tension between metal-detectorists and the English Heritage sponsored archaeologists putting six trenches into the field based on a geo-physical survey. Finds made by the metal-detectorists did not easily map onto the archaeological features.

Part of the programme had an …

Stele returns to Greece

The Hellenic Ministry of Culture has announced (Saturday 8 September 2018) that a stele that had been due to be auctioned at Sotheby's in London in June 2017 has been returned to Greece (Friday 7 September 2018). The identification had been made by Cambridge-based forensic archaeologist Dr Christos Tsirogiannis.

It appeared that the stele had been supplied with a falsified history as its presence with Becchina until 1990 contradicted the published sale catalogue entry. It then moved into the hands of George Ortiz.

A year ago it was suggested that Sotheby's should contact the Greek authorities. Those negotiations appear to have concluded successfully.

The 4th century BC stele fragment, with the personal name, Hestiaios, will be displayed in the Epigraphic Museum in Athens. It appears to have come from a cemetery in Attica.



The scale of the returns to Italy

I have been busy working on an overview, "Returning Archaeological Objects to Italy". The scale of the returns to Italy from North American collections and galleries is staggering: in excess of 350 objects. This is clearly the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the material that has surfaced on the market without a history that can be traced back to the period before 1970. 

I will provide more information in due course, but the researcher is a reminder that we need to take due diligence seriously when it comes to making acquisitions.