To judge from the comments from certain quarters of the collecting world and their supporters - it seems apposite to remind people of what the Treasure Act Code of Practice says. What may make them sit up and take notice is that after the bit about archaeology, there's a bit about the Treasure Ransom, the all-important money (that may mean you never have to work again if you hoik a particularly val'ble bit of the National Heritage):
I wonder if it were adjudged (for example by the CIfA) that what happened in the fading light of the afternoon of 21st December in the middle of a grassland site covered in ancient earthworks was indeed damaging (how could it not be?), and the PAS was involved (we've got photos), are the PAS liable for any shortfall in the expected Treasure Ransom should it be reduced because it is determined that to try and excavate it in just over four hours with a paint stripper and Sainsbury's bag was methodologically reckless? What are their responsibilities here towards their 'partners'?
See Heritage Action: 'Reckless removal of hoards: can the All Party Parliamentary Archaeology Group help?' (Heritage Journal 04/01/2015), who make a suggestion that the wording of the Code can be altered in a way which would immediately lead to a boost the level of “responsibility” and preserve much knowledge that’s currently being lost. In matters of morality a potential kick in the pocket always works best.
See also: 'No to Hurried Hoard Hoiking: "How to Hinder Nighthawks"...' PACHI Saturday, 3 January 2015.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment