Council for
Independent Archaeology Council for
Independent Archaeology On 18th May 1996, the Counncil held its spring meeting at Flag Fen. A main part of the meeting was to salute Francis Pryor, the Director of Flag Fen, and an outstanding example of an 'independent' archaeologist.
The tour round Flag Fen was followed by a discussion of the 'Treasure Bill' which at the time was approaching the stature book, and these comments form an intesting critique of the proposed legislation.
.
On the 1st March the Department of National Heritage issued a discussion document on Portable Antiquities. This distinguished between two aspects of the problem, firstly treasure trove and secondly the recording of finds.
The document begins by outlining the current Bill introduced by Sir Anthony Grant. Under this, the definition of treasure is extended firstly to all coin hoards of whatever composition over 300 years old except for groups of over 10 base metal coins; and secondly to all objects other than coins that are at least 300 years old and have a minimum precious metal content of 5%; and thirdly to objects found in clear archaeological association with finds of treasure. Penalties are introduced for failure to report expected treasure within 14 days. Land owners now loose all rights over treasure found on their land and instead coroners merely have a duty to make reasonable efforts to inform landowners and occupiers that finds have been made. ("Dear Sir: Treasure has been found on your land. We have confiscated it, but the finders have been rewarded. We thought you would like to know").
The second aspect concerns the recording of finds where two options are put forward, either for a voluntary code of practice, or alternatively for legislation requiring the duty to report. The Government believes that it would be right at least initially to go for a voluntary system while recognising that there may be the need in the long term to move towards a legal requirement.
The Document concludes with an estimate of costs. This is based on the voluntary scheme that has been in place in Norfolk where 4 full time members of staff record 24,000 objects a year at a cost of around £70,000. From this they estimate that some 65 to 70 staff might be needed throughout the whole of England and Wales implying total additional costs of perhaps £700,000 a year.
This all seems ludicrously low. The figure of £70,000 for four staff works out at £17,500 each, a figure which clearly excludes any overheads or accommodation costs. A figure more like £30,000 to £50,000 a head would be more reasonable. Furthermore there are 54 Counties in England and Wales, and Norfolk, though comparatively rich in metal objects, is also comparatively small, and the costs are probably fairly typical. If one therefore allowed for some 200 staff at £50,000 each this would come to nearer £10 million a year. Furthermore the estimates apparently only apply to finds made by metal detectorists; since one must add in finds made by professional archaeologists, independent archaeologists and the general public, this would at least double the figure to nearer £20 million per year: does the Government know what it is letting itself in for?
The discussion document is available free of charge from Heritage Division, Department of National Heritage, 2 - 4 Cockspur Street, London SW1Y 5DH, or by ringing 0171 211 6363, and comments should be sent not later than 28th June 1996 to Iain Newton at that address. Since the most objectionable aspect of the document is the way in which it appears to be unaware of the existence of the independent sector, but divides archaeology between professional archaeologists and metal detectorists, we must hope that all members of the Council will ring up for a copy of the Document, and send in their comments.
Some members may have received from Stephen Walls at Bournemouth University a daunting document entitled Archaeological Investigations in England 1990 - 1994. This is described as an information-gathering exercise commissioned by English Heritage to compile a computerised record of every archaeological investigation/ fieldwork carried out from 1990 - 1994.
This is worthy enough, no doubt - though rather resembling a how-long-is-a piece-of-string exercise. But what is really off-putting is the appallingly bureaucratic language in which it is couched. It consists of no less than 30 questions, over 4 A4 pages, asking such questions as whether a site is a pre-determination planning/ Development related desk-based assessment, or whether it is a non-planning/ development related investigation? The latter, for all its length, appears to be ambiguous. Do they mean: Is it a non-planning or a development-related investigation? Or do they mean: Is it a non-planning, i.e. a non-development-related investigation (i.e. research)? I suspect the latter, but this is one of the cases where people so entangle themselves in their own jargon, that they end up talking nonsense, and in this case omitting a negative!
There are lots of other anomalies too. The original commission said they should record every event with an "interventional" element - which surely means excavation; yet the form also includes desk-based assessments, which is surely exceeding their brief. Similarly and most perversely, they define 'open area' excavation to include slit-trenches; yet open area excavation to my mind specifically excludes slit trenches!
I am sure that most people are very willing to fill in forms and provide information providing that the forms are reasonable in length and coherent in their approach, and do not use special language. But I fear this is the sort of gobbledegook we are increasingly getting from English Heritage: these days they are increasingly bound up in their own jargon, carrying out interminable surveys and never actually getting down to doing any real archaeology: they really should cut this form down to one side of one sheet of paper! I fear this is why we need a body like to CIA to try and restore a little sanity into this bureaucratic hothouse.
If anyone wishes one of these forms, they are available (apparently)
from S.M. Walls, AIP supervisor, School of Conservation Sciences,
Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole BH12 5BB. Though, perhaps typically,
it nowhere says on the actual documents where they should be sent!
Andrew Selkirk writes:
For 20 years now, proposals have steadily been made for changing the law of treasure trove. I have listened to the arguments and as time goes by I have come less and less convinced by them. I shall be putting my case at the meeting, but perhaps here I could outline some of the major points.
The first point to make is that treasure trove works well. The recent discoveries of major and spectacular hoards at Hoxne and Snettisham were a triumph for the treasure trove system. The hoards were properly reported and properly excavated; we know where they come from, what they contain and we have the complete hoard.
It is interesting to compare this with the so-called Seuso hoard of late Roman silver tableware. Here we do not even know what country it comes from, nor whether it is a single hoard. Indeed, there is a suspicion that it may be two hoards put together! It seems strange that some British archaeologists should wish to change the British system for a continental type system, when so many continental-type systems clearly work so badly. We should remember that in any treasure trove system there will be some objects that get away. In England it seems likely that somewhere between 60 and 80% are properly recorded. In most countries the figure is more like 10%.
(In the February issue of British Archaeology, Richard Morris, the Director of the CBA writes that "This (argument) is hard to accept": has he not heard of the Sueso hoard? Is he really not aware of the situation in most other countries whose laws he would like to imitate?)
The reason for success is quite simple: the present Treasure Trove system is based on the law of private property. Indeed, this is probably the root of the dis-satisfaction with the present system. It is tempting to believe that archaeological objects should belong to 'the state', and that all historic finds should be nationalised. Yet the case for private property remains as always a strong one. What belongs to the state belongs to nobody, so nobody looks after it. Where property is assigned to a single owner, that owner will normally look after it - and most landowners fortunately take great pride in their property. In most countries in the world, if a farmer finds treasure, he gets nothing from it because it is nationalised: he therefore has every incentive to conceal his find, excavate it illicitly and sell it on the black market.
(It is interesting that Richard Morris does not seem to have met any enlightened landowners: he disparages 'the freedom of owners to wreck them'. Richard, have you never met any landowners? Why do you think they are raving monsters, simply wanting to wreck their own property?)
The whole basis for treasure trove is far more sophisticated, and generally misunderstood. It tends to be seen as a 1940s style nationalisation act that was never fully worked out and is therefore imperfect. In fact it is an extremely sophisticated system worked out by the Victorian lawyers, to provide a compromise between the rights and duties of a landowner, and the interests of archaeologists.
The compromise is that archaeological objects belong to the landowner - except where they were lost in the first place: if the original owner did not intend them to leave them there, they still belong to their original owner; however since the original owner is unknown, they therefore pass to the crown. It is a most ingenious compromise that works well - even if the British Museum sometimes grumbles about it.
And since the crown rewards the finder (not the landowner), it also provides an ingenious solution to the other perennial problem: if you give rewards, do you reward the finder or the landowner? Under the new proposals, it appears that the rewards will always be given to the finders; thus it is the treasure hunters who will benefit, because they will receive the reward, while the landowner gets nothing.
The new bill is often presented a being directed against the treasure hunters but in practice the treasure hunters will either benefit from it or they will ignore it. The way to deal with treasure hunters is by using electronic detection methods: metal detectors are in effect radio transmitters which can easily be detected and it would be a fairly simple system to detect them in this way.
There are comparatively few sites that are at risk: Roman temples and markets - probably not more than a couple of thousand in the country as a whole. Sadly English Heritage and others have failed to protect these sites, largely one suspects because of the vain belief that the new law will do their work for them. Yet if English Heritage were to devote even a small part of the vast sums that they spend on their interminable 'surveys' on actually protecting sites, the wholesale looting could be considerably reduced.
The new bill will also be an expensive one. In the first place, the cost of making rewards will be doubled. At present, roughly half the objects notified under Treasure trove are declared to be TT: the remainder revert to the landowner. In future, all rewards will be made to the treasure hunters, so the cost will roughly double. In addition there will be the cost of the extra museum staff needed to police the new law: estimates range for £5m to £20m a year. At the time when the government is proclaiming the need for stringency, is the government aware of these costs?
The people who will in fact lose out from the new bill will be the amateurs. The treasure hunters will largely ignore the laws, but the amateurs will find that the authorities will try to make out that every flint, every potsherd the amateurs pick up will have to be reported. This is already happening in Scotland, where the authorities are busy extending the law by making regulations so that local societies are learning that their finds are being 'treasure troved' so they are not even able to keep them for study purposes. At the same time, local museums are finding that discoveries made in their area are taken away to the National Museum.
Finally one must be aware that the new law is the top of a very slippery slope. Richard Morris distinguishes between 'graduated reform' and 'radical reform': the CBA, he says, is in favour of moderate reform. I have heard that one before. The trouble is that once the so-called 'moderate' reform is passed, the radical reformers - many of them in the CBA and the British Museum - will take over and claim that they have carte blanche for their radical reform and will rapidly introduce a far more draconian law - as has happened in other countries, most recently Ireland. Indeed, it may not even be necessary to pass a new law, for the crucial clause in the new bill is that which gives power to extend the law by making regulations. And unfortunately, once the English ruling classes are given powers to regulate - by God, they regulate! If the new bill gets through, it will mark the beginning of the end for amateur archaeology in England.
(from Newsletter 20)