Britain Potentially But Inadequately Attempts to Change Definition of "Treasure"

According to a GOV.UK Press release published 18 February 2023:

" Thousands more treasures to be saved for the nation as rules about discoveries are changed Government changes the legal definition of Treasure so that more new discoveries can go on public display"

New definition of what constitutes treasure will mean many more objects of exceptional archaeological, historical and cultural importance are protected:
- Objects of historical importance more than 200 years old and containing metal will now fit the criteria of ‘treasure’
- Move will see more finds on display in museums across the country for the public to see and enjoy in England, Wales and Northern Ireland
- Treasure enthusiasts and museum visitors are to benefit as the Government changes the legal definition of treasure so that more artefacts can be saved for the nation. The change will mean that more new discoveries go on public display and help deepen people’s understanding of the country’s history.
Under the current definition, newly discovered artefacts can only be legally classified as treasure if they are more than 300 years old and made of precious metal or part of a collection of valuable objects or artefacts. But to make sure the most significant future discoveries are acquired by museums for the benefit of the nation, the Government is expanding the definition set out in the Treasure Act. The move has been prompted after a number of recent discoveries fell outside the scope of the Act, including spectacular Roman finds such as the Ryedale Hoard, now at York Museum, and the Birrus Britannicus figurine on display at Chelmsford City Museum. While these artefacts were, thankfully, acquired by museums, this new definition will make it easier for them to do so in the future.

The new criteria will apply to the most exceptional finds over 200 years old – regardless of the type of metal of which they are made – so long as they provide an important insight into the country’s heritage. This includes rare objects, those which provide a special insight into a particular person or event, or those which can shed new light on important regional histories.

Discoveries of treasure meeting these new criteria will be assessed by a coroner and will go through a formal process in which they can be acquired by a museum and go on display to the public.

Arts & Heritage Minister Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay said:

“There has been a huge surge in the number of detectorists – thanks in part to a range of TV programmes – and we want to ensure that new treasure discoveries are protected so everyone can enjoy them. “Archaeological treasures offer a fascinating window into the history of our nation and the lives of our ancestors. “We are changing the law so that more artefacts uncovered by archaeologists and members of the public can go on display in museums rather than ending up in private hands. This will make sure they can be studied, admired and enjoyed by future generations.”

[...]

Alan Tamblyn, National Council for Metal Detecting, General Secretary, said:

“Each year over 96% of all archeological finds reported by the public come from the detecting community resulting in many amazing new finds in our museums. We are very proud of the massive contribution our members make to archaeological knowledge. “The National Council for Metal Detecting (NCMD) supports the principle of the new significance category and the increased legal protection it gives to our Nation’s most important new finds. We also welcome the proposed improvements to the smooth running of the Treasure process.”

Ahem... this means the finders and landowners will get their money mre rapidly.

Two things, first the Act goes even further in this modified form than the previous one in shhowing this has nothing to do with any kind of prtection of the archaeological resource, but about getting displayable trphy piecesinto museums. Secondly, despite all the fulsome phrases and pious hopes they express, I really do not see how this is to be implemented, and the press release is devoid of any indications of that little detail.

The statutory instrument to widen the definition is due to be laid in Parliament on Monday 20 February. It will be made under the Treasure Act 1996 which provides the Secretary of State with powers to designate new classes of treasure. This power was last used in 2002 to expand the definition to include prehistoric hoards. The associated codes of practice, which detail the operation of the Treasure Act and its administration, will be laid in Parliament on Thursday 23 February. Both are affirmative and are therefore subject to Parliamentary debate. If Parliament approves the change, it will come into force four months after signing.

Of course this in no way protects the archaeological record from being indiscriminately looted for metal (and other) collectables that are then pocketed, unless (checks notes) they are "over 200 years old, contain some metal, and at the same time "provide an important insight into the country’s heritage", for example being "rare [types of?] objects, those which provide a special insight into a particular person or event, or those which can shed new light on important regional histories".

Define "rare" and "important" (on legal grounds), and is this determination really to be at the sole discretion of the Coroner with no appeal? Also, is it not the case that the "insight into the counry's heritage" given by archaeological finds is NOT the existence of the actual loose object itself, or even findspot, but its context of deposition?

So Baz Thugwit metal detecting on a field behind a sewage works in Darkest Essex finds a celtic leaded bronze chariot fitting. He decides not to report it and not to put it on eBay. It is of a very unuual type, almost unique, and had fallen off the chariot of Queen Boudicca, (but then how do you test and prove it?) so in terms of the proposed law would be Treasure and declarable but Baz will not if he does not know that, and he the finder (backed up by the ignorance of the landowner) does not think it is important - maybe Baz is very ill-read and knows nothing of the typology of these things, and the landownewr has never even heard of the celts. So Baz does not declare Treasure, though under obligation to, within 14 days. How is this new law to be enforced? A law that cannot be enforced, because the terms on which it is based are so vague, might as well not exist. Who wrote this law?

See also: Steven McIntosh ( Entertainment reporter), 'Treasure definition may be broadened to help museums' 18.02.2023

Vignette: a controversial restored helmet from the antiquities market