Renfrew: Review of Treasure Act is well overdue

On Saturday, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn wrote a letter on behalf of the All-Party Parliamentary Archaeology Group to The Times ['Treasure Act Must Be Updated Now', October 9, 2010]. Referring to the recent public discussion surrounding the finding and immediate sale of the so-called Crosby Garrett helmet andpointing out that it is obvious that "an object of this archaeological importance should go to a public museum, preferably within the region where it was found" he points out that there is a "deficiency in the legislation intended to secure this". That seems to be a lordly understatement. Renfrew points out that:

A review of the Treasure Act was due in 2007 and is now clearly overdue. [...] We believe, [...] the definition of treasure should be extended without further delay to ensure that the public interest is more reliably safeguarded in the future. This can be done by order and does not require primary legislation.

It will be interesting to follow debate how one can extend the definition of something called "Treasure" to include objects of "archaeological importance" since that in itself at least to some degree is dependent on where and how the object "surfaces". Let us recall, when this item "surfaced" there was no information whatsoever about where it had been found, on whose land and it turns out that the information provided about "by whom" may indeed have been questionable too. I personally think that apart from broadening the definition as a matter or urgency in response to this, Britain does need to take a good hard look at that "primary legislation" which really protects nothing, and certainly not the archaeological record.

For the text of Renfrew's letter, see David Gill's "Crosby Garrett, the Treasure Act and Lord Renfrew".

.