Skip to main content

Defining Treasure and DCMS Consultation

(c) David Gill
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) is holding a consultation on 'Revising the definition of treasure in the Treasure Act 1996 and revising the related codes of practice' (link).
This consultation deals with proposed changes to the Treasure Act 1996 (‘the Act’), its associated Codes of Practice (‘the Codes’) and the process for finds that may be treasure following a review of the treasure process. The aim of the Act is to ensure that important archaeological items are preserved in public collections. 
We propose to improve the treasure process so that it is more efficient, that it is focused on the aim of preserving significant finds for public collections, and that it is more rational and easier to understand. We are also keen to ensure that there is a sustainable future for the treasure process.
The aim of the consultation is to gather views on the proposed changes, and obtain information that will help us to assess the impact of these changes on groups and individuals. We also ask for opinions, suggestions and evidence which will support the development of future policies on the Act, the Codes and the treasure process.
There are 32 questions that are raised.

The so-called Crosby Garrett helmet is cited as an example of why the Treasure Act 1996 needs to be revised.
Since the introduction of the Act, certain important finds such as the Crosby Garret helmet have not been acquired by a public institution but have been sold on the open market because they did not meet the definition of treasure.
The helmet has featured in news stories related to the consultation (e.g. The Guardian). The implications of the Treasure Act for such pieces were discussed in forum piece, 'The Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Treasure Act: Protecting the Archaeology of England and Wales?', in the Papers of the Institute of Archaeology (2010) [link]. There is even a specific section entitled, 'The Treasure Act: Time for Revision?'. The concluding section, 'The Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Treasure Act: Protecting the Archaeology of England and Wales? Reply to Austin, Barford, Moshenska, Renfrew and Worrell' [link], even comments:
The Crosby Garrett helmet affair has added momentum to enhancing the Treasure Act. Several contributors responding to the forum piece discuss its inadequacy. Renfrew noted the need ‘to expand the definition of Treasure to include groups of two or more objects of base metal of the Roman or Anglo-Saxon periods.’ Austin also accepts that the Act is ‘overdue for review.’ Moshenska acknowledges that a ‘revision’ to the Treasure Act would be an appropriate response to what he terms ‘the frustrating losses and damage to heritage’ that the original forum piece highlights.
It is not clear why it had taken nearly nine years for DCMS to respond to these concerns.

It is disappointing to see a public consultation citing a Wikipedia article as the source for the Crosby Garret helmet. (Would academics find this acceptable from their students?) My own views on the helmet can be found in 'Context matters: The So-called Crosby Garrett Helmet' [link].


Bookmark and Share so Your Real Friends Know that You Know

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.