Astounding new Mercian Anglo-Saxon hoard
Surreyman
Apart from its massive monetary value, pieces shown so far are
outstandingly beautiful.
And many new questions posed as to why & who.
This is going to be researched for years.
No interest here?
Oh well ................
Surreyman
Andrew Chaplin
49f7-a7b0-4...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
> Far larger than Sutton Hoo and not a word on this site yet?
> Apart from its massive monetary value, pieces shown so far are
> outstandingly beautiful.
> And many new questions posed as to why & who.
What are the laws on treasure trove in England. Are they the same
throughout the UK?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Michael Siemon
<a68a0e61-328e-49f7...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Surreyman <alandavi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
As a (rather pleasant!) surprise, most of the comments I've seen
have been on soc.history.medieval.
William Black
> Surreyman <alandavi...@googlemail.com> wrote in news:a68a0e61-328e-
> 49f7-a7b0-4...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Far larger than Sutton Hoo and not a word on this site yet?
>> Apart from its massive monetary value, pieces shown so far are
>> outstandingly beautiful.
>> And many new questions posed as to why & who.
>
> What are the laws on treasure trove in England. Are they the same
> throughout the UK?
The law in England may be different to that in Scotland.
In England a coroner's court sits and decides if the times were hidden
or lost.
If lost they become the property of the finder and/or the property owner.
If deliberately hidden then the material is 'treasure trove' and so the
property of the state. The finder and the land owner are paid their
value split between them.
Items found between the high and low water marks belong to the crown...
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
John Dean
> Andrew Chaplin wrote:
>> Surreyman <alandavi...@googlemail.com> wrote in
>> news:a68a0e61-328e-
>> 49f7-a7b0-4...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>> Far larger than Sutton Hoo and not a word on this site yet?
>>> Apart from its massive monetary value, pieces shown so far are
>>> outstandingly beautiful.
>>> And many new questions posed as to why & who.
>>
>> What are the laws on treasure trove in England. Are they the same
>> throughout the UK?
>
> The law in England may be different to that in Scotland.
>
> In England a coroner's court sits and decides if the times were hidden
> or lost.
>
> If lost they become the property of the finder and/or the property
> owner.
> If deliberately hidden then the material is 'treasure trove' and so
> the property of the state. The finder and the land owner are paid
> their value split between them.
>
> Items found between the high and low water marks belong to the
> crown...
Official site is at http://www.staffordshirehoard.org.uk/
With a link to a site covering the Treasure Act 1996 etc
http://www.finds.org.uk/treasure/
The 'deliberately hidden' concept seems to have been relegated to a
'otherwise' category:
"The following finds are Treasure under the Act, if found after 24 September
1997 (or, in the case of category 2, if found after 1 January 2003):
1 Any metallic object, other than a coin, provided that at least 10 per cent
by weight of metal is precious metal (that is, gold or silver) and that it
is at least 300 years old when found. If the object is of prehistoric date
it will be Treasure provided any part of it is precious metal.
2 Any group of two or more metallic objects of any composition of
prehistoric date that come from the same find (see below)
3 All coins from the same find provided they are at least 300 years old when
found (but if the coins contain less than 10 per cent of gold or silver
there must be at least ten of them). Only the following groups of coins will
normally be regarded as coming from the same find:
a) hoards that have been deliberately hidden
b) smaller groups of coins, such as the contents of purses, that may been
dropped or lost
c) votive or ritual deposits.
4 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.
5 Any object that would previously have been treasure trove, but does not
fall within the specific categories given above. Only objects that are less
than 300 years old, that are made substantially of gold or silver, that have
been deliberately hidden with the intention of recovery and whose owners or
heirs are unknown will come into this category."
So this find would have been treasure under category 1 whether it had been
found in a Chubb safe or down the back of a settee.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Peter Jason
"Surreyman" <alandavi...@googlemail.com> wrote in
message
news:a68a0e61-328e-49f7...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Why aren't archaeologists out buying these new-fangled
"metal detectors" and raking all England for more loot?
God knows what these amateurs have pocketed over the past
few years!
William Black
Because, despite the 'Indiana Jones' movies, archeologists are not
that interested in treasure.
Ray O'Hara
news:h9lg6g$pog$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Peter Jason wrote:
>> "Surreyman" <alandavi...@googlemail.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:a68a0e61-328e-49f7...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>> Far larger than Sutton Hoo and not a word on this site
>>> yet?
>>> Apart from its massive monetary value, pieces shown so far
>>> are
>>> outstandingly beautiful.
>>> And many new questions posed as to why & who.
>>> This is going to be researched for years.
>>> No interest here?
>>> Oh well ................
>>>
>>> Surreyman
>>
>>
>> Why aren't archaeologists out buying these new-fangled
>> "metal detectors" and raking all England for more loot?
>>
>> God knows what these amateurs have pocketed over the past
>> few years!
>
> Because, despite the 'Indiana Jones' movies, archeologists are not
> that interested in treasure.
>
>
> --
> William Black
they aren't interested in looking but as soon as someone finds any they
show up claiming it's of historic value and it should be turned over to
them.
William Black
Not in the UK.
In the UK the government turns up and says 'That's mine, if you haven't
broken any laws we'll give you a reward.'
Archaeologists may be involved at some point, but as agents of the state.
Surreyman
> >news:h9lg6g$pog$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> Peter Jason wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
And now today's 'capital of Mercia' - Birmingham - is attempting to
stop the grasping British Museum (London) snaffling the lot!
Surreyman
William Black
Not a hope.
If they're very polite the BM might just let them have copies...
Ulysses at Langdale Tarn
And this is why the Treasure Act of 1996 is such a mess.
The statute is so confusing and obfuscated that the government can use
it
like a catch 22. It's a lot simpler in Texas where the hoard goes to
the
owner of the property and the finder gets a fee of 10%. UNLESS there
are
"antiquities" involved.
Cheers, David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Surreyman
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
But then what happens?
Surreyman
William Black
It's a lot simpler in Texas where the hoard goes to
> the
> owner of the property and the finder gets a fee of 10%. UNLESS there
> are
> "antiquities" involved.
Hmm...
Antiquities...
Texas...
Yes, I can see why you don't have any problems...
Andrew Chaplin
@news.eternal-september.org:
> Ulysses at Langdale Tarn wrote:
>
> It's a lot simpler in Texas where the hoard goes to
>> the
>> owner of the property and the finder gets a fee of 10%. UNLESS there
>> are
>> "antiquities" involved.
>
> Hmm...
>
> Antiquities...
>
> Texas...
>
> Yes, I can see why you don't have any problems...
Eividently you're not that familiar with native American politics.
Ulysses at Langdale Tarn
wrote:
> William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in news:h9su0o$ua0$1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sunken Spanish galleons would qualify. But there may be a 3 mile
limit for state ownership. The Federals may come in for booty located
3-12 miles out. Dunno the details. The Corpus Museum of Science &
History
has booty from
the French 17th C ship "La Belle" . I suspect the total booty was
distributed
among other Texas museums. The La Belle was Sieur De La Salle's
flagship.
It sank in Matagorda Bay. When the Spaniards heard about the French
landing, they came up from Mexique and burned the French settlement at
Garcitas Creek. The French did not return to the Gulf until
Napoleon's
interregnum.
David H
~~~~~~
William Black
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in news:h9su0o$ua0$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Ulysses at Langdale Tarn wrote:
>>
>> It's a lot simpler in Texas where the hoard goes to
>>> the
>>> owner of the property and the finder gets a fee of 10%. UNLESS there
>>> are
>>> "antiquities" involved.
>> Hmm...
>>
>> Antiquities...
>>
>> Texas...
>>
>> Yes, I can see why you don't have any problems...
>
> Eividently you're not that familiar with native American politics.
Oh yes I am, I spent some time in a place called 'Wall, Texas'.
They don't like digging stuff up because the law is complicated.
It's easier just to ignore it...