Treasure trove’s new look

Press, 19 March 1982, Page 18

Treasure trove’s new look

By

NICOLA TYRER

of the “Observer”

When George Boon, Keeper of Antiquities at the National Museum of Wales, heard that two Bronze Age bracelets had been dug up in a field in Powys he breathed a sigh of relief. The 1200 B.C. ornaments were exquisite — but it was the fact that there were two of them that gave him particular satisfaction.

Not that Mr Boon is a greedy man. He simply knew that if only one had been found the chances are that his museum would have had no claim on them.

As it was they were deemed to constitute treasure trove — that deeply romantic genus of booty — and are now displayed, in all their glittering glory, in one of Mr Boon’s showcases.

Museums are not always so lucky when it comes to harvesting the fruits of earlier civilisations. They have no rights over objects found at a burial site, and while they may be able to lay claim to a hoard of ancient coins they must return the leather purse or earthenware pot that held them to the finder. Similarly, a collection of gold jewellery is almost bound to end up in one of our museums, but the copper ■ coins, bronze brooches and precious stones that so often accompany such a find will almost certainly be sold privately. It is to remedy anomalies such as these that the Antiquities Bill, which recently had its second reading in the House, of Lords, has been drafted. A brave attempt to update an ancient royal prerogative, whose complexities have, if anything, multiplied in recent years, the bill proposes sweeping changes. If it becomes law it will extend considerably the range of objects which qualify as treasure trove, while restricting the archaeological fraternity’s betes noires, professional . treasure hunters.

One man whose leisure pursuits will be affected if the new bill becomes law is treasure hunter Alan Clarke, a 42-year-old unemployed

farm labourer, from Hampstead Norreys, near Newbury, who has just been told that the hoard of 230 fourthcentury Roman coins he unearthed last summer in a Berkshire field are not treasure trove.

Mr Clarke, using a metal detector, . found the coins near the ancient Ridgeway, a favourite prospecting spot. He has been told that he may keep the coins, which are valued between $7OOO and $12,000.

The first of the major changes proposed in the bill is the dropping of the quaintly named animus reverteridi, or intention of recovery clause. This is the one which would have scuppered Mr Boon’s hopes of fielding the Bronze Age bracelet, had only one been found.

The second proposed change is to abandon the current definition of treasure trove as “objects of gold or silver,” thereby widening the

term to include a whole range of artefacts. Treasure trove, which dates back to Roman law and has an equivalent in almost every other country, was originally designed as a measure to enrich the king. Anything, found in the ground which was made of gold or silver was to be handed over to the ruler, who invariably melted it down and recast it as coin or bullion. It was not until the archaeological movement took off in the nineteenth century that aesthetic values came into play. Under pressure from such bodies as the British Museum in the middle of the century the Crown agreed to offer a reward to the finder of treasure trove, neatly turning the treasure from a source of revenue to the Crown into a source of expenditure. As the law stands, anyone finding something made of

gold or silver is obliged to report it to the police who then inform the local coroner. He calls on a jury to decide whether the object or objects were hidden with the intention of recovery, whether they were lost or abandoned, or whether they were part of an interment. If the jury decide there was intent to recover, the find is deemed treasure trove and is seized by the coroner on behalf of the Crown. It is then sent to the British Museum to decide whether they want to keep the contents of. the find. If they do, they assess the current market value of the find, which is then paid as a reward to the finder. If the British Museum and other museums do not want the find, it is returned, via the coroner, to the finder. Archaeologists have known for a long time of the large loopholes in the law. The Sutton Hoo ship burial was

discovered in 1939, and yielded a hoard of seventh century gold and silver objects still largely unsurpassed in northern European archaeology. But it was evidently a burial, probably of King Raedwald or King Anna of East Anglia — and not treasure buried with a view to recovery at a later, safer date. However, honour was saved when' the owner of the land where the find was made, a Mrs Pretty, donated the entire treasure to the nation.

Similarly, Mr Boon’s bracelets, had they been found singly, would not have been deemed treasure trove. A single object, it is reasonably argued, could have been lost or abandoned. Where a pair is concerned this is harder to prove. Dr Henry Cleere, director of the Council for British Archaeology, who has been a power behind the throne in the drawing up of the new bill, feels change is long overdue.

“This bill, if is becomes law, will ensure that a

greater proportion of fine objects from the past become available for the enjoyment and edification of the public at large, rather than for a small group of collectors.

“The situation we have now has proved an absurdity on numerous occasions. How can you require a coroner to decide what the state of mind was of a person who owned an object in antiquity?

“Take the Sutton Hoo find. The Crown might conceivably have had a case 'for claiming this as treasure trove, as, though it is assumed it was a burial, no bones were ever found,” said Dr Cleere. "In that case the British Museum would have got the great buckle and silver bowl. But it would not have got the very fine ironware, or the wooden harp that were with them. Nor would it have got the rivets and nails which have enabled us to recreate the shape of the boat”