1

ISSUE 8All the latest news from the National Council for Metal Detecting

P1-7 NCMD NewsP7-8 Insurance MattersP9 The Robin and

Karolyn HattCompetition – Final

P9 Review of theTreasure Act Code of Practice – Part 4

P10-21 Treasure NewsP21-23 Regional NewsP24 Book Reviews

C O N T E N T SMeeting with Ed Vaizey Minister for Culture, Communications & Creative Industries

On 17 November 2011, theNCMD were invited, as keystakeholders, to a round tablemeeting with Ed Vaizey theMinister for Culture. Recentdeliberations on the single Coronerfor Treasure as envisaged in theCoroners and Justice Act 2009(reported earlier in these pages)were thought not financially viablein the light of the unprecedentedeconomic situation, but thatconsiderations on feasibilitycontinued. The Minister and hisOfficials, in light of this, called themeeting to discuss the best courseof action for the future.

Present at the meeting were; SteveCritchley NCMD Chairman, TrevorAustin NCMD General Secretary,Roger Bland head of PortableAntiquities and Treasure, LordColin Renfrew, Lord Alan

Howarth, Victor Round TheCoroners Society, Helen LaughlinDCMS, Hillary Bauer DCMS, BobCroft ALGAO, Pete Wilson EH,Richard Dale Treasury Solicitors(Tsol) and Mike Heyworth CBA.

The Minister began by outliningthe difficulties in providing fundingwhich although the DCMS wereprepared to provide in part, TheMinistry of justice (MoJ), whowere conspicuous by theirabsence from the meeting, hadrefused to fund the post. Anothersuggested option, was that theservices of the coroner for treasurebe run on a pro bono basis,however legal advice given by theTsol indicated that this wasunworkable, the reasons for whichseemed a little thin to the meetingand in particular Lords Renfrewand Howarth.

3 issues for £8.75 only by Direct Debit

Call 01778 392036 Email: subscriptions@

warnersgroup.co.uk

NCMD Newsletter Manager: Trevor AustinPublisher: Editor, Design & Layout: Harry Bain, Searcher Publications LtdTypesetting, Production and Repro: Tradeset LtdPrinted and Distributed by: Warners Midlands PLC, West Street, Bourne, Lincs, PE10 9PH.

The only other outcome would beto await the next spending reviewdue in 2014. However othersuggestions were considered on away forward which, although Icannot report on at this time,could provide an alternative.Should these alternatives prove tobe a viable option, I will report ata later date.

Also briefly discussed was theoverdue Code of Practice review,and although the consensus ofopinion is that this should takeplace early in 2012, it is stilldependant on the outcome of theamendments outlined in theCoroners and Justice Act, whichmay need amendment to theTreasure Act through primary orsecondary legislation.

Trevor Austin

Ed Vaizey

The Duchy of Cornwall Beach PermitThe Duchy of Cornwall recentlyannounced that they would beintroducing a beach permit (orlicence) scheme for personswishing to metal detect onbeaches owned by the Duchy. Thepermit will allow metal detectorusers to detect on the portion ofthe beach between mean high andmean low water, with a proposedfee of £60. There has been much speculation and complaintabout the proposal, and some

misinformation on how the permitwill work and the costs to familiesand clubs.

The NCMD has spoken with theDuchy and a meeting is plannedfor January to discuss theimplications and workability of thepermit. Some agreement hasalready been reached on familyand club permits, where a singlepermit (or licence) would beissued to cover named club or

family members. There has alsobeen agreement that those visitingthe beaches on holiday would beable to obtain a permit at areduced cost for the duration oftheir stay.

Obviously as there are still on-goingdiscussions, more information willbe available at a later date.

Trevor Austin

N E W S

See your new NCMDwallet inside

The NCMD officers wish all our members A Happy Christmas and prosperous New Year

2 www.ncmd.co.uk

Professor Norman Palmer CBE QCAppointed as Standing Honorary Counsel to NCMD

ITV Finds Day at Arundel Castle

The Executive Committee ispleased to announce that followingan approach by the GeneralSecretary Trevor Austin, ProfessorNorman Palmer has agreed toaccept appointment as StandingHonorary Counsel to the NationalCouncil for Metal Detecting.

In that capacity Professor Palmerwill advise the Council on lawreform proposals affecting theactivities of the Council and itsmembers, on individual points oflaw and practice that arise fromtime to time, and on relatedmatters covering the field of

treasure, portable antiquities andfinders. The appointmentcommenced after Professor Palmerhad completed his outstandingobligations as Chairman of theTreasure Valuation Committee.

Trevor Austin

Last July many NCMD membersin the South East received an e-mail from ITV’s Sinead Fox urgingthem to visit Arundel Castle on 30July for a PAS Finds Day thatwould be filmed by ITV, addingthat ex-news reader MichaelBuerk and historian BettanyHughes would be the resultingprogramme’s presenters. Sheasked us to bring along any of ourfinds ancient or modern, recordedor unrecorded. This contrastedwith the views of David Williams,Surrey FLO who would be atArundel doing some of therecording. He saw the event as atypical PAS finds day for the mainpurpose of recording pre-1700finds onto the PAS database.

Detectorists who had pre-bookedwere given free admission to theCastle, which was itself a bonus forthose with children. Inside theCastle Keep the PAS had set up itsfinds tent. A long queue hadformed in front of the finds desk. Ifelt concerned that the event wouldshow the hobby in a bad light.Most ‘salt of the earth’ or ‘backboneof the hobby’ detectorists recordwith their clubs or visit their FLO

privately. It was likely that many ofthose in the queue would be amotley collection of beachcombers, house clearers andoccasional detectorists plus a fewwaifs and strays who just wanted toget on the telly.

I then noticed David Smith andGordon Browne from BrightonMDC in the queue and feltsomewhat reassured. They toldme that Gary Crace, a Brightondetectorist since 1974 was nowworking as a Sussex PAS internand was on the recording deskthat day. Gary had given a talk atthe PAS’s Conference on SelfRecording at Maidstone theprevious January. Today he wasworking alongside David Williams,Stephanie Smith (Sussex FLO)and Ian Richardson, the BM’sTreasure Registrar. I had a briefword with him and he told me thatthe day was proceeding ratherwell and that there was no point inanyone worrying about thecontents of any future TVprogramme until and unless it wasbroadcast. He definitely did notsee himself as archaeology’sanswer to Simon Cowell!

He pointed out the PAS/BM’s starpersonnel, or more accuratelyfinds experts, Helen Geake,Phillipa Walton and JustineBayley, seated at tables outsidethe tent. There was indeed asteady stream of people movingup the queue to the finds desk,some of whom then clearly passedthe audition for instant TVstardom. This select few then tooktheir places at a table withMichael Buerk or Bettany Hughesand the relevant BM finds expertwhile the cameras whirred. Fameat last! Sinead Fox appearedexplaining that no financial valueswere to be mentioned in front ofthe cameras with the exception ofvalued Treasure.

No one would be informed thattheir fragment of a RomanColchester type brooch was ofimmense interest to the PAS butwas actually worth about 4p,which was probably just as well.Michael Buerk went into the findstent and spoke to a few people.Everyone became more relaxedand able to explain who they wereand why they were there. They allappeared to be reassuringlysensible. Some were there out of

curiosity. There were twobeachcombers and a member ofHorsham District ArchaeologyGroup who had brought alongsome finds made by detectoristson their recent digs.

A reporter from the LittlehamptonGazette was also thereinterviewing some finders. Heexplained that he had done somedetecting in the past. It seemedlikely his article would bedetectorist friendly. The dayground to a halt at 5.30pm. TheVIPs from PAS and ITV adjournedto a local pub while all the lessermortals pushed off home with noknowledge of what (if indeedanything) they would eventuallysee of themselves on TV.

Roger Bland later told the NCMDthat other filming had taken placeboth at the BM and at a detectingclub meeting.

Roger Mintey

NOTE: I can report that I havenow seen the final pilotprogramme, which has not yetbeen scheduled, however thehour long programme was verywell put together and quiteinteresting. Trevor Austin

3www.ncmd.co.uk

Treasure Chest Exhibition Chester Town HallChester Town Hall proved a grandand historic setting for TheTreasure Chest Exhibition – anExhibition of Metal DetectingDiscoveries which took place onAugust 6. The event wasorganised by Northwest Regionalrepresentatives of clubs within theNCMD, with input from nineclubs: Lune Valley, Wrexham,West Kirby, Kendal, Blackpool &Fylde, Bolton, South Lancs &Cheshire, Northwest and Mold.

the present day. Many of the clubsalso brought along touch trays fullof choice coins and artefacts foryounger visitors to explore.

Judges, including Rob Philpotts,from the National Museum ofLiverpool, TV presenter and authorMark Olly, and Ken Wilcox, theNCMD delegate from East Anglia,were all thoroughly impressedwith the displays. The theme ofthe event was LEAD THROUGHTHE AGES, and each club had

Lancashire and Cheshire MDC asthe winner.

The winner for the overall generalstand was the Mold Club, whichput on a staggering display, both interms of quantity and quality, withitems, coins, jewellery andartefacts, in all shapes, sizes andmetals, and dating from all periods.

Rob Philpots was tasked withjudging the winner of the overallcoin, a job he admitted wasincredibly difficult with all theexcellent pieces on display. Hehad to select just one, and it wasthe silver dram of Hussran II(591-628) of Iran, which wasfound by Trevor Brown from theMold Club.

Finally the artefact categorywinner, judged by Mark Olly, wasa medieval bronze anointing bottlefound by Tommy McCormick fromSouth Lancashire and CheshireMDC. Mark said he wasimpressed by many of theartefacts on show but he chosethe flask because of all the workput in by Tommy to research theitem, effort which paid off whenhis find redefined our view of aparticular part in history. It seemsthe flask, a small sealed bronzepot, with two little handles on it,would have been used in medievaltimes by priests, for christenings,confirmations and the last rites. Itwas sent to the British Museumwhich got permission to open itand inside they found badger hair!Baffled at first, the archaeologistscame to the conclusion thataround the time the pot was used,12th to 14th Century, the plague

was still around, so rather thanputting their hands on a person tobless them, the priest used thebadger hair so they didn’t have totouch them.

Besides the overwhelming findson display at the exhibition,visitors were also entertained byMark Olly who came decked out inhis regalia and answeredquestions from enthusiasts. Theinfamous ‘Viking’ Ian Uzzellfascinated crowds with his ‘coinstriking’; he struck visitors theirvery own Viking currency.

It attracted hundreds of visitorseager to find out more about thehobby and see what kind of thingscan be found using a detectorthese days. And they were notdisappointed. There were someamazing items on show, each clubhad brought along their mostinteresting, attractive and preciousfinds, with coins and artefactsdating from prehistoric times to

made up a special display casewith some fascinating items datingfrom medieval times to thepresent. The judge of the categorywas Ken Willcox. He said he wassurprised at first by the choice ofthe theme but on examining allthe displays, he was veryimpressed with the interestinglead items that came out. Hefinally singled out the South

There was also the chance to getany unidentified or interestingfinds explained, as the PortableAntiquities Scheme’s Finds LiaisonOfficers Peter Reavill and DotBroughton attended, givingadvice, identifying and recordingitems.

Chairman lifts the cup: Cliff Passey receivesthe cup for the lead category prize

Winners the team: South Lancs and Cheshire Club members with some of the judges

4 www.ncmd.co.uk

Hoarding & Deposition of Metalwork: A British PerspectivePAS Conference 29 October 2011

I was one of around a dozenNCMD members who made theirway to the British Museum (BM)for this event. I had a specialreason for attending since I hadfound the Reigate Hoard of 6705silver and gold 13th-15th centurycoins just over 20 yearspreviously. This experience gaveme an insight into how theacademic world perceives hoards.The significance of a hoard to theexpert who investigates it iscompletely different to that of the

to the academic the hoard is notmerely a finite number of coins orartefacts, it is a perpetual andinfinite supply of information.Information is, as we know, thelifeblood of the PAS andinformation and context were thereal subjects of this conference,rather than mere pieces of metal.

Nine speakers presented half hourlong papers on hoards dating fromthe Bronze Age to the Civil War,examining the distribution of coinsor artefacts within particularhoards, the historical distributionof hoards throughout a particularperiod and the geographicaldistribution of hoards buried at thesame time. Some speakers madethe point that what a particularhoard didn’t contain was just asimportant as what it did contain.Some hoards raised morequestions than answers but therewas always the hope that the nexthoard would answer the questionthat the last one posed.

Some speakers referred to ‘placinga hoard in its archaeological orhistorical context’ and they meantexactly that; examining itsrelationship with othercontemporaneous finds. Too oftendetectorists hear the same phraseused by the anti-detectingfraternity to mean “leaving ametallic object in the groundwhere the only living creatureswith any knowledge of it areworms, beetles and the oddbadger”. This was a detectorfriendly event where all concernedwere dealing with metal

detecting’s most spectacularresults.

Kenneth Painter’s paper explicitlycompared two Roman depositsfound in Germany in around 350AD but also implicitly comparedBritain’s attitude to detecting withthat in Europe. The first hoard hetalked about was recovered fromthe River Rhine during recentgravel extraction having mostlikely fallen overboard when beingcarried up the river by a raidingparty. The second hoard wasburied in three pits near Hanover.There was sufficient data onEuropean hoards from that periodto make some deductions aboutthis rather violent period under theusurper emperor Magnentius, butnowhere near as much as there isin Britain where detecting ismaking such a valuable

contribution. The Europeanequivalents of Dave Crisp (whowas there) and Terry Herbert (whowas mentioned and praised)would be twiddling their thumbsin frustration.

The event con-cluded with aquestion andanswer session.One lady askedabout the hoardsand finds thatwe don’t knowabout. This wasa rather tastydouble-edged question. Dr. RogerBland replied with his usualdiplomacy. “Well we don’t know”.A memorable end to a memorableevent.

Roger Mintey

The Next NCMD Executive meeting will be on the 19 February 2012

The Next Treasure Valuation Meeting will be on the 19 January 2012

The Next Portable Antiquities Advisory Board meeting May 2012 (date TBC)

G E T I N T O U C HM E E T I N G D A T E SFor membership enquiriescontact the MembershipSecretary: John Rigby6 Arkholme AvenueBlackpool, Lancs, FY1 6QJ

Tel: 01253 692313jjrigby@sky.com

For all other enquiries pleasecontact the General Secretary:Trevor Austin51 Hilltop GardensDenaby, Doncaster, DN12 4SA

Tel: 01709 868521trevor.austin@ncmd.co.uk

N C M D S U B S C R I P T I O N

R A T E 2 0 1 2The subscription for membership for 2012 will be as follows:

Individual Members £8.00Central Register Club Members £8.00NCMD Regional Club Members £6.00 + NCMDRegional levy.

These rates will apply to the membership subscriptionyear beginning 1 April 2012.

NCMD Executive Committee

Brian Pollard and Byron Tosh taking refreshments

person who originally buried it.The anonymous but importantperson or people who buriedhoards may have done so either topreserve their life savings introubled times or to make somekind of offering to their gods. But

© PAS

Roger Bland

5www.ncmd.co.uk

Heritage Crime Initiative and Alliance toReduce Crime against Heritage (ARCH)Following a recent meeting withTrevor Austin and Steve Critchley,Chief Inspector Mark Harrisonattended the November meeting ofthe NCMD executive committee todiscuss the Heritage CrimeInitiative and Alliance to ReduceCrime against Heritage (ARCH),which the NCMD have agreed tobe a member of.

What is heritage crime?Heritage crime is defined as 'anyoffence which harms the value ofEngland's heritage assets and theirsettings to this and futuregenerations.'

England's heritage assets include:

� World Heritage Sites

� Scheduled monuments;

� Listed Buildings

� Protected marine wreck sites

� Conservation Areas

� Registered Parks and Gardens

� Registered Battlefields

� Protected military remains ofaircraft and vessels of historicinterest

� Undesignated but acknowl-edged heritage buildings andsites e.g. local designations.

There is a consent regime andspecific offences in law to protectcertain designated heritage assetsagainst damage and unlicensedalteration. However, crime such astheft, removal of objects of historicinterest, criminal damage, arsonand offences of anti-socialbehaviour can also lead to harm toheritage assets.

How widespread isheritage crime?The true extent of heritage crime isdifficult to measure: this is due tothe way in which it is currentlyrecorded and because it tends tobe under-reported by victims. A

2010 study found that arson,architectural theft (including metaltheft), removal of artefacts fromprotected sites and vehiclenuisance pose the greatest threats.For example the number ofinsurance claims in 2010 formetal theft from churches istwenty times as many as that in2005.

Tackling heritage crimeThe Heritage Crime Programme isbeing coordinated by EnglishHeritage, the Police (through theAssociation of Chief Police Officers(ACPO)) and the CrownProsecution Service (CPS). Eachof the three organisations hassigned a memorandum ofunderstanding on tackling heritagecrime (MoU) which delineatesresponsibilities between the threestrategic partners EnglishHeritage, ACPO and CPS. Localauthorities will also be encouragedto join this coordinated effort andsign the MoU. Seven localauthorities have showed theircommitment to tackling crime inthe historic environment by joiningARCH and signing the enforce-ment MoU:

� Canterbury City Council

� Dover District Council

� Ipswich Borough Council

� Cheshire West and ChesterCouncil

� Herfordshire County Council

� Norfolk County Council

� Northamptonshire CountyCouncil.

It is hoped that many moreauthorities will join thepartnership in the coming months.

Developing a partnershipmodelA partnership model for theenforcement of heritage crime wasagreed on after months ofdiscussions with the Police andother organisations in severalauthorities. These included thoseinvolved in wildlife crimeprevention, local authorities,professional groups responsible forregulation of historic buildings andsites and community groups withan interest in the area. The aim

was to set a model for futureprevention and enforcement thatis realistic, efficient, withinexisting and anticipated resources,sustainable and with the capacityto grow its coverage andeffectiveness over time. The modelof Neighbourhood Policing,established to tackle the crime andday to day anti social behavioursmost affecting local neighbour-hoods provides a useful model fortackling heritage crime.

Reducing heritage crime Local communities are being urgedto understand what heritage assetsthey have in their area that may beat risk of irreversible damage fromcrime and to report suspiciousbehaviours to their neighbourhoodpolicing teams. The profile andaccountability of heritage crimesamong police officers will alsoincrease. For the first time, there isa national lead in ACPO onheritage crimes, Chief ConstableRichard Crompton of LincolnshirePolice, with a dedicated portfolioholder in many police forces acrossthe country. NeighbourhoodPolicing and community involve-ment is expected to contributeconsiderably to improvedintelligence and data on theground. The national agencies willbe responsible for encouraging theuse and development of the modelat a local level. The initiative willbe focused on the followinggeographical areas for the first 12months:

East Region – all counties

South East Region – Kent, EastSussex, West Sussex andHampshire

South West Region – Gloucester-shire, Wiltshire and Somerset

National Parks – Northumberlandand Peak District and

Any other district or county thatwas enthusiastic to engage.

These areas were selectedbecause they have a particularlyhigh number of heritage assetsand because local stakeholderswere willing to get involved in theinitiative.

Priorities for reducingheritage crimeThe following issues will be givenpriority:

� Preventing and detectingcriminal damage caused to thehistoric environment.

� Preventing and detectingunlawful excavation andremoval of articles from thehistoric environment.

Mark Harrison

© English Heritage Damaged informationsigns at Camber Castle

©English Heritage. Clifford’s Tower York isan unusual 13th century keep atop William

the Conqueror’s fortress and a principalfeature of York’s medieval castle.

Vandalised in 2010.

6 www.ncmd.co.uk

� Preventing and detectingarchitectural theft from thehistoric environment.

� Prevention and enforcement ofunauthorised works to listedbuildings.

These categories are deliberatelybroad and will be refined over timewith improved intelligence.

Next stepsOver the next few months we will be:

� Encouraging the use anddevelopment of the partnershipmodel in the identified areas.However, if you are not withinone of those areas we wouldstill encourage you to set up themodel in your own area.

� Encouraging local authorities tosign up to the Memorandum ofUnderstanding.

� Publishing a range of guidanceincluding a Guide forSentencers, Heritage ImpactStatements, Out of CourtDisposals, Risk AssessmentGuidance for Heritage Assetsand Heritage Crime preventionmeasures.

� Working closely with colleaguesto develop a range of trainingcourses on topics such asinvestigation techniques,evidence gathering and forensicmethods.

How can I get involved?� Some excellent partnerships are

already developing across thecountry to tackle heritage crimeand we hope that this willcontinue with the support of theheritage sector and localcommunities in the future. Ifyou are interested in finding outmore about the initiative orgetting involved whether as avolunteer please let TrevorAustin know.

Alliance to reduce crimeagainst heritage (ARCH)The Alliance to Reduce Crimeagainst Heritage (ARCH) is avoluntary national network whichwill take forward initiatives totackle heritage crime andgalvanise local action as part ofthe National Heritage ProtectionPlan. The overriding objective ofthe group is to reduce the amountof crime that causes damage to orinterferes with the enjoyment ofheritage assets in England.

Members of ARCH have a sharedinterest in preventing and seeingeffective enforcement of heritagecrime and through conferencesand training events it will be ameans of discussing priorities,sharing information about heritagecrime, carrying out training andhighlighting best practice andmaking local contacts. A

conference for ARCH memberswill be held annually whereexperiences, ideas and prioritiesfor tackling heritage crime can beshared.

There are now over 80 membersof ARCH.

Arch conference onheritage crimeThe first conference organised bythe Alliance to Reduce Crimeagainst Heritage (ARCH) was heldin London on 11 February 2011.Representatives, from a widerange of organisations, cametogether to discuss:

� The problem of heritage crime;

� Learn more about the HeritageCrime Programme; and,

� How they could tackle heritagecrime in their areas bydeveloping a partnership model.

The conference was attended byBaroness Kay Andrews, Chair ofEnglish Heritage, Chief ConstableRichard Crompton of LincolnshirePolice and lead for Association ofChief Police Officers (ACPO) onmatters relating to Rural Issuesand Wildlife and Heritage Crimeand Nick Hunt, Director ofStrategy and Policy Directorate forthe Crown Prosecution Service(CPS).

English Heritage, together withACPO and the CPS, signed the

Heritage Crime Memorandum ofUnderstanding at the opening ofthe conference. Councillor JohnGilbey, Heritage Champion &Leader of Canterbury City Council,the first local authority signatory tothe Memorandum of Under-standing, spoke at the conference,as did Councillor Dr AndrewRichardson Heritage Champion forDover District Council and KentPolice Heritage Crime Volunteer.There was widespread mediacoverage of the event and anextremely enthusiastic responseboth before and after the eventhighlighting just how muchinterest there is in tackling thisproblem.

Chief Inspector Mark HarrisonBSc (Hons)Policing and Crime Advisor -Heritage Crime Initiative andAlliance to Reduce Crime againstHeritage (ARCH)

©English Heritage. Remains of Romansettlement were damaged by off road

vehicles in Easton Grey, Wiltshire

Detecting & Rallies on Land Under ELS AgreementThere are no restrictions on metaldetecting on land entered into anEntry Level Scheme (ELS)agreement before 1/10/2008.Since ELS agreements run for fiveyears, some of these pre October2008 agreements will still be inplace in 2013 with no restrictionson detecting.

As a result of pressure fromarchaeological groups a number ofrestrictions on detecting werewritten into the 2008 ELSStewardship Handbook producedby Natural England, whichgoverns ELS agreements madeafter 1/10/2008. The followingthree restrictions, set out inSection 1.5.5 of the handbookapply to detecting:

1) Metal Detecting on “knownarchaeological sites” undergrassland is prohibited.Grassland is defined as “landthat is used to grow grasses orother herbaceous foragenaturally and which has notbeen subject to cultivation forat least 5 years”. “Knownarchaeological sites” aredefined in the handbook asarchaeological sites identifiedin the Farm EnvironmentRecord (FER) and anyadditional sites of which thefarmer is subsequently advisedin writing by Natural England.

2) All metal detecting has to beundertaken in accordance withthe principles laid down in the

Code of Practice forResponsible Metal Detectingand all finds must be reportedto the Portable AntiquitiesScheme (PAS).

3) Details of large scale detectingevents, including rallies, on anyELS agreement land, must benotified to Natural England(who manage all forms ofEnvironmental Stewardshipincluding ELS on behalf ofDEFRA) at least 12 weeks inadvance of the event. TheLandowner should provide allrelevant details including thedate, location, a map showingthe fields to be searched(marked with any areasexcluded) and the expected

number of participants. Thiswill enable Natural England toprovide the landowner withadditional advice to ensure thatthe event does not conflict withthe requirements andobjectives of the ELSagreement.

The handbook also instructs thelandowner to “protect and retainarchaeological sites and otherenvironmental features (asidentified in the FarmEnvironment Record) over thewhole area under ELSagreement”. The landowner must“ensure that no damage is causedto these features and anyadditional features of which he issubsequently advised in writing by

7www.ncmd.co.uk

Natural England, wherever metaldetecting takes place”.

Damage to archaeological sites istaken to mean disturbance ofpreviously undisturbed deposits inand on archaeological sites andmonuments, and any removal,loss and/or disruption of standingmasonry or other upstandingstructural material. If thelandowner is in doubt aboutwhether any operations would“damage” environmental features,he should contact his NaturalEngland office.

Natural England also recognisesthat activities other than metaldetecting could compromisehistoric areas and archaeologicalsites and as a result have imposedcontrols and restrictions onground-working, ploughing, andthe disposition of livestock inthese areas. Free range pigs, forexample, can not be placed onarchaeological features under anycircumstances.

In February 2010 the latestversion of the ELS Handbook waspublished governing ELSagreements made after1/2/2010. The three restrictionson detecting are identical withthose in the 2008 Handbookexcept that they now appear inSection 1.6.5. instead of 1.5.5.

The three basic restrictions set outabove are, in theory, all thatanyone detecting on ELS landneeds to understand. Unfortu-nately life is never that straight-forward and detectorists will oftenencounter landowners, rallyorganisers, archaeologists andmaybe even Natural Englandemployees who for whateverreason do not appear tounderstand the contents of theELS Handbooks. It could thus be

beneficial for ELS land detectoriststo understand a little more of howELS works and thus the rationalebehind some of the clauses in theHandbooks.

Environmental StewardshipSchemes, including ELS, areaimed at conserving wildlife,maintaining landscape quality,protecting the historicenvironment, promoting publicaccess and protecting naturalresources. Farmers who sign anELS agreement are entering into alegal contract with NaturalEngland under which theymanage their farm according tothe aims of the ELS and are paidfor doing this. ELS agreements arefive year legally binding contracts,the terms and conditions of whichare set out in the relevantHandbooks, which are dividedinto three relevant sections.

Section 1 is mainly procedural,dealing with who can apply forELS, which land is eligible, thepenalties for breach of theagreement and finally (sub-sections 1.5 in 2008 and 1.6 in2010) the various restrictions onELS land including thoseconcerning over/under grazing,public rights of way, protection ofhistoric features and buildingsand, as we have seen, metaldetecting.

Section 2 is concerned withmethods of application and thevarious records which the farmermust keep including the FER, amap which indicates all thehistoric and environmental featureson the farm which the farmer hasagreed to protect and retain.

Section 3 sets out all themanagement options which thefarmer chooses to implement.These are the options for which

the farmer is actually paid todeliver and relate to boundaryfeatures, trees, historic featuresand buildings, buffer strips, arableland (including bird protection)crops, soil erosion, water andlivestock. Farmers must ensurethat no outside activity, includingmetal detecting, interferes withtheir ability to deliver theseoptions.

To sum up, a farmer in ELS has toabide by the various restrictions atthe end of Section 1, preserve thehistoric and environmental featuresdescribed on the FER map inSection 2 and choose and deliverthe options set out in Section 3.

On re-examining the proceduresnecessary to hold a rally on ELSland it is reasonable to argue thatif, under the terms of ELShandbooks, a farmer providesNatural England with all thenecessary details 12 weeks inadvance and that it is clear thatthe planned rally will not breachany of the restrictions set out inSection 1, will not damage any ofthe farm’s historic orenvironmental features (FER mapSection 2) and will not interferewith the farmer’s ability to deliverhis agreed options (Section 3)then there is no clear reason whythe rally should not proceed. Theproposed event would not “conflictwith the requirements andobjectives of the ELS agreement”.

In reality this argument couldprove unrealistic or even fanciful.It is possible, indeed likely thatNatural England, after consulta-tion with various third parties fromthe heritage community, couldwell impose conditions whichrender the proposed rally almostimpossible to stage.

All the farmer and rally organisercan do is to follow the proceduresset out in the handbook. There isno excuse for failing to do thiscorrectly. After that the destiny ofthe rally is out of their control andall they can do is hope for asatisfactory outcome.

It is a common misunderstandingamongst some archaeologicalgroups that a farmer needs toapply for a derogation when henotifies Natural England of aproposed rally. This is not thecase. A derogation is a procedurea farmer should use when hewishes to temporarily alter any ofthe restrictions to which he isbound by his ELS contract.Natural England do not expectfarmers to attempt to alter theterms of their contract by seekinga derogation more than threetimes in a five year agreement.Derogations are thus rareoccurrences. Holding a rally,provided the proper notice hasbeen given, does not constitute analteration of the terms of thefarmer’s contract and does nottherefore require a derogation.

On a lighter note the FER Map, ofwhich the farmer should hold acopy, also indicates each field orparcel of land under the farmer’sELS agreement. Each field islabelled with its own unique RuralLand Registry (RLR) number. TheFER map will also show fieldswhich the farmer owns which are,for any number of reasons, notentered into the ELS agreement,and on which no metal detectingrestrictions exist. Find these fieldsand you might find yourself … aGeorge V halfpenny, a few ring-pulls and the odd lump of lead!

Roger Mintey

Insurance MattersI frequently receive mail frommembers enquiring about theNCMD insurance and whethertheir particular situation iscovered. So I thought I wouldcompile some of the morecommon situations that membersenquire about and one or two ofthe less common.

Q. We will be holding a stall forthe club at a local event, but thepeople who will be in charge ofthe stall are not NCMD members.

Is the club still covered by theNCMD insurance for holding suchan event?

A. Providing the persons in chargeof the stall are doing so at therequest of the club, both the cluband the persons in charge of thestall will be covered by the NCMDinsurance. The persons in chargeof the stall will be classed asvolunteers and as such arecovered by the insurance policy.

Q. I wonder if you could help mewith an insurance question. Wehave a disabled member whorequires physically carrying up anddown stairs to attend club meetingsas the venue is on the first floor …In the short term the question is areour members covered by ourinsurance for carrying the disabledmember up and down the stairs atour club site venue?

A. The safety of individuals withina public building is the

responsibility of the owner of thebuilding who must have their ownpublic liability insurance. If anymishap occurs while carrying thedisabled person up the stairs; thenany claim for injury will bedirected at the property owner.The NCMD insurance not wouldapply in this case.

Q. I am writing to you to confirmsomething I think I already knowbut to make it official for theorganisers.

8 www.ncmd.co.uk

I currently work in Manningtree,Essex and for the last four yearsthe town has held a 'Beach Bash'which involves sandcastlebuilding, street performers, stallsetc. This year I have beenapproached to see if my clubwould do a metal detectingdemonstration for the children.

Here is a summary of what I shallbe doing and I am asking if myinsurance will cover me for thisevent!

I have been allocated a section ofthe local, man-made beach,which has recently had some newsand added so it is fresh andclean. I intend to bury coins andartefacts for children to find andafter finding they will have thechance to research the item on ainformation sheet and then theyget to keep their find.

I shall be digging a shallow trenchand lining it with plastic to preventadding to natural losses and alsoto ensure that everything I bury isrecovered. Then during thedemonstration I shall bury a smallquantity of items to preserve thestock as long as possible. Thechildren will be using an old

C-Scope machine because in thepast the children have loved thedifferent sounds it makes and atrowel (hard unbreakable plastic)to recover the finds. There will alsobe a display and the children willnot be handing dangerous orhazardous items. This means allthe risks are very minimal ifindeed there are any at all.

I noticed on the insurancesummary that in order for thecover to be in effect the activity isto be recognised / authorised byThe National Council for MetalDetecting. So I am asking you ifthis activity is within theguidelines!

A. You are quite right, and haveacted in the correct and propermanner. Such activities arecovered by our insurance providedthat, as you have done, particularsof the event are cleared by theNCMD.

Q. I and three fellow detectoristshad the misfortune of spookingsome cattle on a farm we detectwhich caused some damage to anumber of fences. The farmer hasadvised that he wishes to claim forrepair of the said fences. I have

obtained and completed anIncident Notification Advice Formfrom Perkins Slade but I would begrateful if you could complete asmall section on the form toconfirm I am a current member.

A. Although not strictly a question,it does raise some importantissues. Firstly, never acceptliability as this could prejudice anyclaim and secondly, to be coveredby insurance the farmer wouldhave to prove you were negligentin your actions, causing the cattleto “spook”.

The members completed theaccident form which wasforwarded to me for verification ofmembership.

Q. Hi Trevor, quick question - Ihave been invited to put on adisplay of metal detecting finds ata public event so I was justwondering in the NCMD publicliability insurance covers this?

A. Displaying finds is a recognisedpart of the hobby and the NCMDinsurance is designed to give coverfor such events. The cover of£10,000,000 is designed to caterfor most organisers and councilrequirements. As with mostrequests of this type, it isimportant to inform the NCMD ofthe event.

Q. I recently ran over my detectorwhile reversing, can I claim for anew one on the NCMD insurance.

A. Unfortunately the insurancepolicy does not cover accidentaldamage to personal property; youwould have to claim off your motorinsurance.

Q. I will be attending a metaldetecting rally in Poland. Does theNCMD insurance cover me for thiswhile I am on the rally?

A. Yes the NCMD insurance wouldcover you for detecting on the rallyin Poland.

Q. I would be very grateful if youcould advise on the followingproblem, we the committeemembers are experiencing at themoment. A few members insist onbringing their dogs to club digs.We, the committee are not happywith this, as we are sure the NCMDinsurance held by all membersdoes not cover dogs on site. I wouldbe very grateful indeed forclarification on this point,

A. The NCMD Public LiabilityInsurance does not covermembers who bring dogs on toclub outings, or while detectingalone. We would have to re-negotiate our cover should wewish to include damage done bymembers pets, which wouldobviously incur extra cost whichwe would then have to pass on.This would be unfair to themajority of members who do nottake their pets along.

While the answers to thequestions above can hopefullygive guidance to members, eachcase must be treated separatelyand be dependent on theparticular circumstances.

It is also important to rememberthat under no circumstances mustany member accept liability forany claim which may arise. Thedecision as to liability will beassessed by our insurers.

Trevor AustinHey Mable fancy some fun … which way did those detector thingies go? © Tyler Larson

Typical finds display

9www.ncmd.co.uk

The Rob and Karolyn Hatt MemorialTrophy Competition – The Final The Robin and Karolyn Hatt Competition brings to the fore the result of detectorists hard work, skilland dedication.Each year brings a wonderful selection for the three categories: Coin, Artefact and Hoard. Thecompetition table looked very healthy, proving there were still many exciting finds to be made in 2010.Once again we were pleased to see entries from Central Register Clubs, and Individual membersincluded, through the posting and voting facility on our own NCMD Forum.After a hard fought battle in both the Artefact and Coin sections, with a tie for first place, it fell toHarry Bain, Searcher editress, to make a final decision. It is always so difficult to differentiatebetween the quality of the finds.

Best Artefact1st 14th Century Ring Brooch,Royston Greenacre, CoventryHeritage Detector Society,Midlands Region.

2nd Roman wine-jug handle,Finder – Graham Dale, HoylandClub, Yorkshire Region.

3rd Roman gold finger ring, Finder – Anthony McCormick,North West Region.

Best Coin1st Silver penny of William III,Finder – Chris Matthews,Warwickshire Club, MidlandsRegion.

John Wells Receiving the Trophy for bestArtefact on Behalf of Royston Greenacre

Dave Philpotts Receives the Best HoardTrophy on Behalf of Dave Crisp

Once again we would like to thankDaniel Wright for giving up hisSunday to attend the meeting,where he took photos of the findsand of the whole proceedings. Hisshots are of excellent quality andskill. We are extremely grateful tohim. I hope he enjoys the bottle ofhis namesake.

To find something of such qualitythat is able to compete at this levelis something every competitorshould be proud of. Many thanksto those clubs who organised theircompetitions, and thanks also tothe delegates who travelled onyour behalf to regional meetingsand then on to the NationalCouncil meeting with their region'sentries.

Hilary Fagen Competition Manager

2nd Gold 2 Escudo (or cob) 1665-1700, Finder - Jim Burvill, IpswichSuffolk Club, Anglian Region.

3rd Coenwulf penny, 805-810,Finder – Graham Dale, HoylandClub.

Best HoardThe Frome Hoard, Finder – DaveCrisp, Trowbridge & District Club,Western Region.

Frome Hoard© Somerset County Council

Images courtesy of Daniel WrightThe Final Judging Results are as follows:

Following on from the last issue inwhich I discussed the proposedCoroner for Treasure, which isbeing considered by the DCMS.No sooner had that issue ofDigging Deep come off the press,than I received a letter from theMinister Ed Vaizey informing methat the proposal for a singleCoroner for Treasure, within theBritish Museum structure, hadbeen considered by the TreasurySolicitors with the followingconclusion.

“After careful consideration of yourproposal, we have concluded thatit would not be appropriate for theCFT to be housed at the BM or forthe treasure team at the BM toprovide administrative support to

the Coroner for Treasure. The mainreason for this is that there is aclear potential conflict of interest.This arises because under theTreasure Act and Code of Practicethe BM, as the national museum,has first refusal to acquire treasureitems found in England. If therelationship between the BM andthe CFT is perceived to be tooclose then questions may ariseabout the influence of the BM overthe coronial process. The lack of aproper separation of the CFT fromthe BM would be damaging to therole of the CFT and this issomething that we must ensure isavoided. We have consulted withthe Coroners’ Society of Englandand Wales and they share this

view. We do not believe that thispotential conflict of interest is onewhich can be dealt with by anyinternal safeguards that might beput in place.

We are continuing to consideroptions for funding the Coroner fortreasure post and will keep youinformed about this once we havereached a conclusion.”

The NCMD agrees with theseconclusions and has decided notto challenge its decision; howeverthat does not mean we haveabandoned our support for asingle Coroner for Treasure, or thereasons for its implementation,which I have outlined in detail inearlier issues, quite the contrary.

I know that Ed Vaizey has beenpursuing alternative options for bothadministration and funding and theBM are also keen to progress theissue. However the problem offunding still remains and theMinistry of justice, the DCMS andthe BM seem to be the only oneswho can come to an arrangementon this, there is going to be no extrafunding from anywhere else, so theestimated £150,000 cost, which issmall change in the scheme ofthings, will have to come fromexisting budgets. I know that EdVaizey offered to share costs withthe Ministry of Justice (MoJ) butthey declined.

See separate story the report of thesubsequent meeting on the cover.

Review of the Treasure Act Code of Practice – Part 4 continued Trevor Austin

10 www.ncmd.co.uk

Museum Acquisition of Treasure itemsI recently received a telephone callenquiring about the delay inpayment of an item previouslyvalued by the Treasure ValuationCommittee (TVC). This hasprompted me to write and try toexplain some of the reasonsbehind unforeseen delays.

The speeding up of inquests by theintroduction of a single Coroner forTreasure is one area that I havecovered comprehensively else-where in these pages, so I will belooking at those areas that canhave just as much influence onthe treasure procedure.

One of those areas, whichalthough not a regular occurrence,can inflict unexpected delays, isthe withdrawal from acquisitionby the acquiring museum. Thereasons for this can vary fromcase to case, however there is aneed to look at the problem inmore detail with a view toreducing the number ofwithdrawals.

Firstly though let me clear up onepoint that many finders areunaware of, and can have abearing on a museums decision towithdraw. All museums, including

the British Museum, do not haveany funds set aside for theacquisition of treasure finds. Themuseum has to apply for fundingfor any item it wishes to acquirethrough funding bodies such asThe Hedley Trust, The Victoriaand Albert Museum and TheHeritage Lottery Fund. This initself can pose problems for lowervalue items as many fundingbodies have a £500 minimum forpurchase grants. When youconsider that the value of themajority of treasure finds fallbelow this minimum, the sourcesof funding for such items can

become severely restricted.

Another area, which althoughdesigned to speed up the handlingof cases, can occasionally catchthe museum unprepared, is thedeclaration of interest by amuseum.

When an item of potential treasureis delivered, at the direction of thecoroner, to the Finds LiaisonOfficer (FLO), one of theirresponsibilities is to enquire withboth local and national museumsas to their interest in acquiring.Although it may seem to be‘jumping the gun’ by making these

2008 T549 plaque ©Trustees of the British Museum

2008 T325 ©Trustees of the British Museum

2009 T670 French seal ©Trustees of the British Museum

2009 T755 ©Trusteesof the British Museum

11www.ncmd.co.uk

enquiries before the item hasneither been declared treasure bya coroner or valued by the TVC. Itis intended to speed up the systemand if no museum wishes toacquire the item, the Crown’sinterest can be disclaimed and thefind returned to the finder/landowner, thus saving the time itwould have taken to go to inquestand then to the TVC.

However, as we will see later fromthe data, although museums willhave a rough idea of the findsworth, and in some cases mayhave had professional advice, theprovisional valuation by the tradeor the eventual valuation by the

TVC may in some cases exceedtheir expectations, causing themto withdraw; and from the databelow we can see that just lessthan 60% of the museums listedwithdrew after receiving thevaluation from the TVC.

Let us have a look at the delaycaused by an unusual combinationof events that occurred with 2009T755:

Discovered in December 2009and valued by the TVC inNovember 2010, the originalacquiring museum, Reading,withdrew in February 2011,therefore the treasure team had tofind another museum interested inacquiring the find. Windsormuseum expressed an interest in

acquiring the find and wereinvoiced in June 2011, museumsare given four months to securefunding from the date of invoice,and the treasure team receivedpayment for the find in earlyOctober 2011 for disbursement tothe finder and landowner. As youcan see, the decision of theReading Museum to withdraw, forwhatever reason, at such a latestage meant that an extra eightmonths were added to the process.

The fact that it took nearly a yearfrom valuation by the TVC to thefinder receiving his reward doesnothing to endear the system tofinders and is just one examplewhere acquiring museums havecaused unexpected delays.

It is difficult to see how, in today’sfinancial climate, a reduction inmuseum withdrawals can beachieved. However, wheretardiness is evident, museumsneed to understand that they arepart of a procedural chain, andthat they need to make sure theyare not the weak link in that chain.

2010 T122 Bodkin ©Trustees of the British Museum

2006 T073 ©Trustees of the British Museum

2009 T648 ©Trustees of the British Museum

12 www.ncmd.co.uk

I have included a chart ofmuseum withdrawals over the lasttwo years giving the treasure casenumber, the original acquiringmuseum, at what stage themuseum withdrew, time ofwithdrawal and eventualdeposition of the find.

I would like to thank Janina Paroland Caroline Lyons, AssistantTreasure Registrar’s, for compilingthe data.

The treasure team can be contactedanytime Monday to Friday on 0207323 8243 (before the case hasbeen to inquest) or on 020 73238509 (for when the case has beento inquest and is being valued).

Trevor Austin2010 T330 ©Trustees of the

British Museum2009 T070 ©Trustees of the British Museum

PV = museum that withdrew after the provisional valuation sent RV = museums that withdrew after the recommended valuation sent Inv = museums that withdrew after the invoice is sent

T-number Museum that withdrew PV RV Inv Date withdrawn Subsequent action 2009 T670 Newark M x 04/08/2010 Returned to Finder 2009 T070 Norwich Castle Museum x 24/08/2010 Returned to Finder 2010 T122 Guildford M x 26/08/2010 Returned to Finder 2009 T727 Isle of Wight Heritage Service x 26/08/2010 Returned to Finder 2008 T530 Oxfordshire Museum Service x 31/08/2010 BM acq 2008 T729 Oxfordshire Museum Service x 31/08/2010 Ashmolean acq 2009 T113 Oxfordshire Museum Service x 31/08/2010 Ashmolean acq 2007 T546 Oxfordshire Museum Service x 31/08/2010 Vale & Downland M acq 2008 T354 Oxfordshire Museum Service x 31/08/2010 BM acq 2007 T487 Oxfordshire Museum Service x 31/08/2010 Wantage M acq 2007 T488 Oxfordshire Museum Service x 31/08/2010 Ashmolean acq 2008 T325 Diss M x 14/09/2010 Returned to Finder 2009 T109 Colchester & Ipswich M x 14/09/2010 Returned to Finder 2008 T620 Doncaster Museum & Art Gallery x 27/09/2010 Returned to Finder 2009 T085 Eastbourne M x 28/09/2010 Returned to Finder 2008 T268 Leicestershire CCHS x 28/09/2010 Returned to Finder 2009 T627 Bedford M x 01/10/2010 Returned to Finder 2009 T292 Bedford M x 01/10/2010 Returned to Finder 2009 T158 Worcestershire County M x 02/10/2010 Returned to Finder 2005 T386 Yorkshire Museum Service x 04/10/2010 Returned to Finder 2009 T243 Colchester & Ipswich M x 04/10/2010 part acq by BM 2007 T505 British Museum x 06/10/2010 Returned to Finder 2010 T270 Chichester District M x 14/10/2010 Returned to Finder 2010 T330 Isle of Wight Heritage Service x 15/10/2010 Returned to Finder 2009 T136 Gloucester City M x 18/10/2010 TBD 2010 T021 Littlehampton M x 29/10/2010 Returned to Finder 2009 T092 Museum of London x 03/11/2010 Returned to Finder 2009 T684 Royal Institute of Cornwall x 04/11/2010 Returned to Finder 2009 T312 Royal Institute of Cornwall x 04/11/2010 Returned to Finder 2009 T368 British Museum x 05/11/2010 Returned to Finder 2009 T416 Somerset County Museum x 05/11/2010 BM withdrew 2007 T300 Derby M x 12/11/2010 Returned to Finder 2008 T225 Royal Albert Memorial M x 12/11/2010 Returned to Finder 2010 T060 Isle of Wight Heritage Service x 08/12/2010 Returned to Finder 2009 T706 Isle of Wight Heritage Service x 10/12/2010 Returned to Finder 2009 T292 Bedford M x 15/12/2010 Returned to Finder 2009 T627 Bedford M x 15/12/2010 Returned to Finder 2008 T718 Somerset County M x 22/12/2010 Returned to Finder 2008 T592 Salisbury & South Wiltshire M x 29/12/2010 Returned to Finder 2010 T023 Salisbury & South Wiltshire M x 29/12/2010 Returned to Finder

13www.ncmd.co.uk

T-number Museum that withdrew PV RV Inv Date withdrawn Subsequent action 2010 T267 Bedford M x 06/01/2011 Returned to Finder 2009 T066 Hampshire Museum Service x 07/01/2011 TBD 2009 T646 Yorkshire Museum Service x 20/01/2011 Returned to Finder 2006 T485 Hampshire Museum Service x 20/01/2011 Returned to Finder 2007 T059 Hampshire Museum Service x 20/01/2011 Returned to Finder 2008 T407 Hampshire Museum Service x 20/01/2011 Returned to Finder 2009 T234 Hampshire Museum Service x 20/01/2011 Returned to Finder 2009 T250 Somerset County M x 24/01/2011 Returned to Finder 2010 T191 Wiltshire Heritage Service x 26/01/2011 Returned to Finder 2009 T755 Reading M x 02/02/2011 Windsor M hopes to acq 2009 T289 Shropshire MS x 02/02/2011 Returned to Finder 2009 T420 Hampshire Museum Service x 04/02/2011 Returned to Finder 2010 T153 Salisbury & South Wiltshire M x 18/02/2011 Returned to Finder 2009 T674 Hereford M x 22/02/2011 Returned to Finder 2009 T460 British Museum 25/02/2011 Returned to Finder 2007 T167 Hampshire Museum Service x 02/03/2011 Returned to Finder 2009 T229 Museum of London x 02/03/2011 Returned to Finder 2008 T405 Lewes M x 03/03/2011 BM acq 2009 T381 Lewes M x 03/03/2011 BM acq 2008 T427 Lewes M x 03/03/2011 BM acq 2008 T549 Lewes M x 03/03/2011 Returned to Finder 2009 T501 Colchester & Ipswich M x 10/03/2011 Returned to Finder 2009 T579 Colchester & Ipswich M x 10/03/2011 Returned to Finder 2010 T255 British Museum 15/03/2011 Returned to Finder 2010 T589 Museum of Lancashire x 15/03/2011 Returned to Finder 2008 T501 Newark M x 15/03/2011 Returned to Finder 2009 T554 Yorkshire Museum Service x 16/03/2011 Returned to Finder 2008 T088 Oxfordshire Museum Service x 21/03/2011 Returned to Finder 2008 T089 Oxfordshire Museum Service x 21/03/2011 Returned to Finder 2009 T648 British Museum x 24/03/2011 Returned to Finder 2009 T692 North Hertfordshire M x 01/04/2011 Returned to Finder 2010 T177 Priests House M x 05/04/2011 Fitzwilliam M hopes to acq 2008 T497 Oxfordshire Museum Service x 13/04/2011 Returned to Finder 2009 T540 Oxfordshire Museum Service x 13/04/2011 Returned to Finder 2009 T598 Ware M x 13/04/2011 Returned to Finder 2008 T473 Leicetsrehire CCCHS x 13/04/2011 Returned to Finder 2009 T110 Colchester & Ipswich M x 14/04/2011 Returned to Finder 2010 T192 Museum of London x 27/04/2011 Returned to Finder 2009 T043 Hampshire Museum Service x 27/04/2011 BM acq 2009 T375 Warwickshire M x 11/05/2011 Returned to Finder 2009 T499 Colchester & Ipswich M x 13/05/2011 Returned to Finder 2006 T073 Peterbrough M x 03/06/2011 Returned to Finder 2009 T615 Colchester & Ipswich M x 10/06/2011 Returned to Finder 2008 T629 Horsham M x 13/06/2011 Returned to Finder 2010 T400 Ware M x 23/06/2011 Returned to Finder 2010 T367 British Museum x 01/07/2011 Returned to Finder 2010 T274 British Museum x 01/07/2011 Returned to Finder/1 2009 T449 Harlow M x 04/07/2011 Returned to Finder 2008 T622 Yorkshire Museum Service x 08/07/2011 Returned to Finder 2008 T672 Yorkshire Museum Service x 08/07/2011 Returned to Finder 2008 T723 Yorkshire Museum Service x 08/07/2011 Returned to Finder 2010 T578 Yorkshire Museum Service x 21/07/2011 Returned to Finder 2010 T225 St Neots M x 22/08/2011 Returned to Finder 2010 T405 Newark M x 24/08/2011 2009 T191 Newark M x 08/09/2011 2010 T709 The Herbert (Coventry) x 08/09/2011 2010 T764 Yorkshire Museum Service x 08/09/2011 2009 T537 Gloucester City M x 08/02/2011 & 10/05/11 A & RTF (3 coins)

Total after approx 1 yr 23 60 14

14 www.ncmd.co.uk

Technically TreasureA proposal for streamlining the acquisition of minimal interest or value treasure finds

It comes as no surprise to mostfinders that the length of timetaken for items of treasure to passthrough the system can beinexorably long. The TreasureValuation Committee (TVC) hasseen its workload increase fromaround 27 cases in 1997 to itscurrent level of 779 reportedtreasure cases in 2009.

Although many of these aredisclaimed and returned to thefinder, with this level of increase itshould be expected that delays areinevitably going to creep in, but isthere any alternative for dealingwith certain objects, whichalthough technically treasure,have no other attributes whichwould afford them the title? Ibelieve that there is, and given theright support could be adopted ona pilot basis. The purpose of thisvoluntary scheme would be toallow a museum with an interestin an item to negotiate and agreea value with the finder andlandowner and then notify the TVCof that agreed value.

Firstly let us look at the type of findswhich could be covered. Fig 1 andFig 2, “Returned to finder afterbeing disclaimed as Treasure”.This is typical of many findsreturned to the finder when nomuseum wishes to acquire thefind, the finder/landowner are thenfree to dispose of the item as theysee fit and in some cases aresubsequently bought by localmuseums for a mutually agreedprice.

the inside of a display case, andare usually acquired for academicor research interest. Theseacquired finds have to completethe treasure process fromreporting, assessing, inquest andvaluation, which is both timeconsuming and costly, in fact inmost cases the cost greatlyexceeds the monetary value of thefind and the eventual reward canvary from as little as £10, and ifsuch a model was used in thecommercial sector, it would beunsustainable.

At the moment any find, usually of

minimal interest or value that nomuseum wishes to acquire, isdisclaimed by the Crown andreturned to the finder/landowner.This usually occurs before inquestand valuation, enabling the find tobe dealt with quickly. It is mybelief that there is a good case toanswer for this procedure to beextended to cover minimal interestor value finds which museumswish to acquire through thetreasure process, enabling finds tobe disclaimed prior to inquest andvaluation under ‘LocalArrangements’ for items with an

agreed market value for exampleof less than £100.

If we look at Fig 3, (2010 T42),this find was discovered on 1 April2009 and after going through thetreasure process the localmuseum was invoiced inSeptember 2011, the agreedvaluation was £10. Such casesare prime candidates for ‘LocalArrangement’ with both time andmoney expended far in excess ofthe value of the find.

Interestingly in 2011 out of the320 cases the TVC viewed, 288were new cases, of which 135were valued at less than £100and of these only four werechallenged by either the finder,landowner or acquiring museum.Clearly there is potential for manyof those 131 unchallenged casesto be dealt with under ‘LocalArrangement’ benefiting allinterested parties as well asgovernment expenditure.

Proposed detail ofoperation1. Finder reports his discovery to

local museum FLO and atreasure receipt is issued.

2. A report on the find is preparedby the local museum.

3. Finder and landowner areinformed by the museum thatthe find may qualify for ‘LocalArrangement’.

4. If the finder and landowner andmuseum wish to pursue avaluation under ‘Local Arrange-ment’ a joint or separatevaluation is sought by themuseum*.

5. If the valuation/s exceed £100.The find passes through thetreasure process in the normalway.

6. If either of the interested parties

Figure 1 © Trustees of the British Museum.

Figure 2 © Trustees of the British Museum.

Figure 3 © Trustees of the British Museum.

However there are a large numberof these types of finds, whichalthough they have little or nocommercial value, are acquiredthrough the treasure process. It ishighly unlikely they will ever see

15www.ncmd.co.uk

disagree the valuation, they canwithdraw from ‘Local Arrange-ment’ at any time and the findpasses through the treasureprocess in the normal way.

7. If the find is valued less than£100 and all parties agree thevaluation, a joint agreedvaluation is forwarded to theTVC.

8. If the TVC agrees with thevaluation, a recommendation ismade to the secretary of statethat the item be disclaimedunder ‘Local Arrangement’.

9. If the TVC disagrees with thevaluation, the TVC willcommission one of itsprovisional valuers to commenton the valuation. If theindependent valuer thinks thatthe agreed value is not a fairprice then he or she shouldgive their own valuation.

So could we see analternative for these typesof minimal interest andvalue finds? Well, it would firstly need anagreement on the procedure byinterested parties includingfinders/landowners, museums,PAS and the DCMS in order tofacilitate a change to the TreasureAct Code of Practice.

Secondly one must be sure thatthe process is sufficientlysearching and flexible to enable allinterested parties to be involved inthe agreement and sharing of thereward, in accordance with theCode of Practice. It would not do,for example, if the reward wereshared by agreement betweenfinder and occupier only to findlater that there was a landowner towhom the TVC might haverecommended payment of part of

the reward.

Thirdly the ‘local’ process wouldhave to be sensitive to potentialcontroversies. These wouldinclude reward sharingagreements among interestedparties, and the disputes to whichthey sometimes give rise, andincidents of alleged misconduct byone or more parties. The TVC hasprofessional expertise that enablesit to deal with issues of rewardapportionment and the abatementof rewards. There is also a publicinterest in the abatement ofrewards, which prevails regardlessof value or of the parties’willingness to overlook suchmatters. Any dispute about rewardsharing, and any situation wherethere is a potential case forabatement of reward, shouldcontinue to go through the TVC.

Fourthly the outcome of local

assessment would have to be avoluntary arrangement betweeninterested parties; with eitherparty free to pursue the normalcourse of events should anagreement not be reached.

Fifthly both parties will need to beassured of an objective valuation,which does not favour the otherparty, and their acceptance ofwhich does not threaten to giverise to later allegations of undueinfluence or exploiting somerelevant disadvantage.

Sixthly, the mechanism fordisclaiming the Crown’s interestwould need to be extended tocover ‘Local Arrangement’.

Trevor Austin*Usually this will be an agreedvaluation between the interestedparties rather than a private valuation,the cost of which may exceed thevalue of the find.

What to do when you find Treasure

What is Treasure?Treasure finds are governed by theterms of the Treasure Act 1996 and the Treasure (Designation)Order 2002. To recap: the Actreplaced the archaic and muchmisinterpreted and abusedcommon law of Treasure Trove inEngland, Wales and NorthernIreland. The Act established theownership of Treasure to lie with theCrown or a franchisee, the latterhaving a vested interest in Treasureunder a previous Royal grant of

franchise for Treasure Trove. The Actprovided unequivocal definitions asto what would constitute Treasureand to remind you these are:

1. Items found after 24September 1997 including anymetallic object, other than acoin, provided that it containsat least 10% by weight ofprecious metal (gold or silver)and is at least 300 years oldwhen found. If the object is ofprehistoric date, up to andincluding the Iron Age, it will beTreasure provided any part of itis precious metal, regardless ofthe percentage of preciousmetal by weight. The intent ofthis definition is to capture asTreasure items such as BronzeAge penannular rings with asurface coating of gold over abase metal core.

2. All coins from the same findprovided they are at least 300years old when found, but if thecoins contain less than 10% ofgold or silver there must be tenor more to constitute Treasure.

If they contain more than 10%precious metal then there needonly be two. Only the followinggroups of coins will normally beregarded as coming from thesame find:

Hoards that have beendeliberately hiddenA smaller group of coins that mayhave been dropped or lost, suchas a purse loss.

Votive or ritual deposits such ascoins deposited in a spring orwater course.

3. Any object, whatever it is madeof including ceramic or stone,that is found in the same placeas, or had previously beentogether with, another objectthat is Treasure. Such items areconsidered to be associatedmaterial such as the pot inwhich a hoard has been found.

4. Any object that wouldpreviously have been con-sidered as Treasure Trove, butdoes not fall within the specific

categories given above. Thiscaptures objects and hoards ofcoins that are less than 300years old, that are madesubstantially of gold or silver(50% or more), that have beendeliberately hidden with theintention of recovery andwhose owners or heirs areunknown.

5. Any group of two or moremetallic objects of anycomposition of prehistoric datethat come from the same find iffound after 1 January 2003.

By way of clarification it isconsidered for the purposes of theAct that an object or coin is part ofthe ‘same find’ as another objector coin if it is found in the sameplace as, or had previously beentogether with, the other object.

For some detectorists the finding of a Treasure item can begin a process thatappears long winded, bureaucratic and one seemingly peppered with pit fallsand procedural complexities, but this need not be the case. Understanding whatyou need to do following a find, gathering the information required by theauthorities and involving the right people can speed up the process and helpavoid any potential problems.

A silver brooch, fashioned from a groat(fourpenny piece) of King Edward I.© Trustees of the British Museum.

A silver bracelet made up of one rod ofcircular section and two smaller intertwinedrods, creating a rope. Due to uncertain date

the item was returned to finder.© Trustees of the British Museum.

16 www.ncmd.co.uk

This is to cover finds that mayhave become scattered forexample by cultivation since theywere originally deposited togetherin the ground.

The Act also defined theprocedures for reporting an item oritems which the finder or thirdparty expert advisor considered toconstitute Treasure. Such materialhas to be reported within 14 daysafter discovery or after the finderhas understood or been informedby a competent person that a findmay be Treasure. It alsointroduced criminal sanction forfailing to report a Treasure findand importantly the concept of fairrewards based on market value forreporting Treasure. The level ofany reward is decided by aTreasure Valuation Committeeusing details submitted byindependent valuers and experts.This was in contrast to theprevious Treasure Trove systemwhereby rewards were not basedon market value and for the firsttime the rights of landowners wasenshrined in the Treasure Act by

establishing a 50:50 divisionbetween finder and landowner ofany reward paid. Under TreasureTrove the finder or finders were theonly persons eligible for a reward.

Whilst the Act provided amechanism to deal with certainrestricted classes of objects, it alsointroduced the concept of therecording or reporting of nonTreasure definition archaeologicalfinds through the PortableAntiquities Scheme (PAS). Thiswas established as a voluntaryprocess and continues to operateas such with recording carried outby a network of Finds LiaisonOfficers based in Museums andCounty Archaeological Depart-ments in England and Wales.Findspots are recorded to the levelof accuracy that the recorder andlandowner feels comfortable withunless there is a mandatoryreporting policy operating, forexample under the terms set by anagri-environment agreement. Thismay mean as little as a Parish orup to 10 figure National GridReference when using aGeographical Positioning System.However, for Treasure findsdisclosure of the exact findspotand other relevant information ismandatory.

So you have found anitem which is or might beTreasure, but what do youhave to do to satisfy therequirements of the law in the form of the Treasure Act?The first requirement is to contactthe landowner and/or tenant to letthem know what you have found

and the process which must nowbe followed to satisfy the terms ofthe Act. If your find is made at arally or club event you will need toinform the organisers and obtaindetails of the relevant landowner/tenant from them. Remember youhave a 14 day period in which toreport your find and in that timeyou can show your find to friendsand family, the landowner or clubmembers, take photographs and ifyou wish gather details fromdealers or relevant experts of itspotential value should it beclaimed as Treasure.

It is important to ensure that youhave good quality photographs ofyour find because if it is claimedas Treasure you are unlikely tohave any further opportunity totake photographs. Howeverphotos are available on requestfrom the Treasure Team at theBritish Museum at no cost; thesecan also be used in magazinearticles provided that the properacknowledgement is given (©Trustees of the British Museum).The relevant purchasing museumfor any Treasure find will also holdthe copyright to any photographs

and returned to finder/landowner.Once the find has been declaredTreasure by the Coroner it willproceed to be valued by the TVCwhere an agreed reward value willbe set. If the interested museumwithdraws at this stage and nofurther interest is forthcoming thefind will go through a disclaimingprocedure whereby the Crowndeclines to lay claim to the findand it can be returned to the finderand landowner.

It is wise whilst you still retainyour Treasure item to obtainindependent valuations shouldyou be unhappy with the TVCvaluation and wish to submit achallenge. After a find has beenhanded over, if you wish to seek aprivate valuation the find will haveto normally be viewed at theBritish Museum. However you willneed to choose who to approachto prepare a private valuation withcare. A prospective valuer willneed to have the required level ofknowledge of the coins or artefactsyou have found and be able toprovide comprehensive evidenceto support any value or opinionthey may give. There is no

Three bronze axeheads of Middle Bronze Age date. © Trustees of the British Museum.

Four coin clippings of Elizabeth I, from her first issue. Most probably from four separate shillings. © Trustees of the British Museum.

they have taken and could make acharge if you wish to acquirephotographs from them. By takingyour own photographs you will bethe copyright holder and able touse them in for example magazinearticles.

Once a find is claimed as potentialTreasure it will go through anexamination process to establishdetails of its age, composition andso on and a report will beproduced by the relevant expertsusually at the British Museum.This information is needed by theCoroner to establish at inquestwhether the find is Treasure andas such the property of the Crown.If a museum has expressed aninterest in acquiring a find it willproceed to inquest, if not the findwill be disclaimed at this point

advantage in asking other clubmembers for an opinion or theman in the pub as any value onthis basis is highly unlikely tocarry much weight with the TVC.Many auction houses willundertake this service as willindependent dealers, but they maylevy a reasonable charge for theservice. It is up to you to decide ifyou wish to spend money to haveindependent valuations whichmay prove to be worthwhile if youwish to challenge a future TVCvaluation.

You may also wish to inform thelocal Finds Liaison Officer (FLO)as soon as you can after you havereported your find to the coroner inorder to allow any potentialarchaeological investigation of thefindspot with the landowner’s

Incomplete penannular gold ring, made ofgold sheet surrounding a core of anunknown material. © Trustees of the

British Museum.

17www.ncmd.co.uk

permission. For example a findconsisting of material still in situsuch as a pot containing a coinhoard, can yield much informationwith respect to its final burialcomposition and where and how itcame to be buried. There isnothing to be gained from diggingout the hoard other than to invitecritical comment from those withan agenda to attack the hobby andthe Treasure process. A finder willnot be disadvantaged with respectto any reward by leaving a find insitu for professional archaeologiststo excavate. If you feel that thefind spot is under threat fromunauthorised access make thisknown to the landowner and theFLO and ensure steps are taken toprotect the site.

You will also need to make it clearto the FLO and any other thirdparties involved in the process ofany wish for your name, that ofthe landowner or the findspot areato remain confidential. At thisstage the FLO may wish to claimthe find and there have beenseveral reports of items beingseized from finders as Treasurebefore the 14 day time limitexpires. Under current legislationan FLO cannot do this withoutyour consent within the 14 daytime limit. If this occurs you needto remind the FLO of the 14 daytime limit and that under the termsof the Treasure Act, it is yourresponsibility to report the itemdirectly to the Coroner.

Although most finders of Treasureare quiet happy to report their find

directly to their local FLO who willinform the Coroner on their behalf,the Treasure Act clearly statesunder Section 8 “that a personwho finds an object which hebelieves or has reasonablegrounds for believing is treasuremust notify the coroner for thedistrict in which the object wasfound before the end of the noticeperiod, which is 14 days”. In thisprocess the FLO or anyone else ismerely a third party and theresponsibility for obeying the lawis yours. It is regrettable thatFLO’s have seemingly placedthemselves in a position wherebyfinders are being misled intobelieving that the FLO acts as thereporting point for Treasure findsunder the Act. This is incorrect:the responsibility is yours as thefinder to report your find directlyto the coroner for the district.The FLO will be happy to adviseyou on the Treasure process andwill certainly be able to provideyou with the contact details of thecoroner for the district where yourfind was made. Reporting to thecoroner can be done either inperson, by telephone or email. Inmost cases your enquiry will bedealt with by the coroner’s officerwho is often an appointed policeofficer. Depending upon theindividual district requirementsdetails may be taken over thephone or you will sent relevantforms to complete.

There have been reports ofcoroner’s officers or administrativestaff telling finders who telephone

to report a potential Treasure findto report it to the local FLO. If youare faced with this problem thenmake a note of the conversationand where possible take theperson’s name and inform themthat you will report the find to theFLO as the coroner’s agent.However it is hoped that theintroduction of new legalprovisions for the reporting ofTreasure directly to the local FLOor person designated by thecoroner contained within theCoroners and Justice Act 2009may be forthcoming.

What if you areapproached by the mediafor comment?Treasure finds inevitably attract theattention of the media and by nowmost detectorists will be verymuch aware of the horror storiesthat appear in the nationalnewspapers with regrettablefrequency. Sad to say this is a factof life and despite their promisesreporters rarely print the story youexpect. What you say on camera,on the telephone or face to facewill inevitably be given the ‘mediatreatment’. The result is often adisaster for the detectorist and theold adage of “never let the truthget in the way of a good story” willring very true. Reporters often lookto sell their story to mediaorganisations and your narrative isunlikely to be sufficientlycontroversial to make a hardpressed Editor consider it unless itis ‘sexed up’ as they like to say.Half truths, innuendo anddownright lies from expertcommentators will be the norm

and after the event no matter howhard you try to seek redress thedamage has been done.

The media enquiries will often bequickly followed by a seedy bandof commentators hell bent onusing your experience to furthertheir own agendas to damage thehobby, the Treasure process anddetecting in general. Bigger findssuch as the Staffordshire Hoardwill attract the greatest crowd anddespite all the best intentions ofthe involved parties this exampleturned very sour as the pressplayed one against another to geta story. Many who have been onthe receiving end of the problemsthat inevitably arise will advise youto stay well clear of the media, butit will be your choice (and that ofthe landowner) whether to comeinto the publicity spotlight and jointhe media circus.

Unless you are a veteranof the Treasure processread onIn the final analysis much of theTreasure reporting process relieson common sense and theadherence to the terms andconditions laid down in the Act.However, until that piece ofTreasure does actually turn up,many finders remain unaware oftheir obligations and are misled byhearsay or half rememberedcomment from others. The NCMDhas the expertise and knowledgeto advise in all Treasure situationsand as NCMD members all youneed to do is ask using the contactdetails printed in the hobby pressor in any issue of Digging Deep.Good luck!

Both the coins were struck in the reign of Carausius (AD 286-93), one at the mint of London, the other the mint of Rouen. © Trustees of the British Museum.

Two Medieval silver groats of Henry VI (1422-1461), minted at Calais, 1422-30. Found together. © Trustees of the British Museum.

18 www.ncmd.co.uk

A Retrospective Summary 2001-2011By Norman Palmer

Dear Minister

Treasure ValuationCommitteeAs you will know, myChairmanship of the TreasureValuation Committee ended on5th May 2011 after a ten-yearterm of service. Before becomingChairman I served for three yearsas a member, bringing my years ofservice to thirteen.

You may find it interesting to havea short account of salient eventsover my term as Chairman and ofsome of the principal matters thathave pre-occupied the Committee.This is contained in the encloseddocument.

The work has been exceptionallyinteresting and I have learnedmuch from it. In my opinion theCommittee is a valuableinstrument of heritage protection.

Both the Department and I owe anexceptional debt to the past andpresent members of theCommittee for their industry,expertise and dedication.

Yours sincerely

Norman Palmer

[A] Overview of functions1. My appointment as Chairman

of the Treasure ValuationCommittee comprised twosuccessive terms of five yearseach, extending from 2001 to2011. During that time theTreasure Valuation Committee:

- administered anunprecedented volume offinds (in excess of 2,200over the decade);

- superintended the entry intothe public domain ofantiquities of first nationalsignificance and wide publicinterest

- initiated and put intopractice procedural reformsdesigned to expedite thetreasure process andincrease its fairness toparties

- continued to observeprinciples of fairness,objectivity and visible justice

- advised government depart-ments on law reform andpolicy

- advised the Minister on legalchallenges and appeals

- conducted exploratoryexchanges with governmentlegal advisers on mattersrelevant to the rewardsystem

- contributed to public debateon law and policy forarchaeology, museums andthe national heritage

- maintained effectiveworking relations with otherbodies and individuals inthe field

- promoted the publicappreciation of the treasuresystem and portableantiquities scheme

- assisted the education ofstudents of cultural property

- maintained public faith inthe treasure system.

[B] The functions in detail“Administered an unprecedentedvolume of finds (in excess of2,000 over the decade)”

2. The number of finds reported,declared treasure by thecoroner and processed since

the implementation of theTreasure Act 1996 has risensharply throughout the period.In the calendar year 2001 thenumber of finds consideredwas 99, and in 2010 it was236. The number from 1stJanuary 2011 to 5th May2011 has been 49. Theaverage annual numberbetween 2001 and 2010 was222. The total number from1st May 2001 to 5th May2011 was 2272. The numberof finds for consideration hasincreased with the 2002amendments to the TreasureAct 1996 and with theCommittee’s undertakingresponsibility in 2007 for findsfrom the Isle of Man.1

3. The valuation processdemands from the Chairmanand Committee a detailedunderstanding of the TreasureAct, the Code of Practice, theunderlying general law and allrelevant markets. Among theCommittee’s tasks areidentifying and appointingvaluers, commissioningvaluations, questioning thepremises on which particularvaluations have proceeded,and bringing the Committee’sown experience to bear on

individual market appraisals.

4. The matters affecting value arenumerous. In a given case theycan include the visual qualityand professional standard ofthe object, its originality andrarity, its suitability to be worn,its proven or hypotheticalhistorical association, itsnational or local significance,its potential for restoration, itspotential latent virtues, theeffect of non-professionalexploratory intervention thataffects the physical integrity ofthe object, the pressure onprice exerted by specialistcollecting groups2 and therelevance of overseas markets.On occasions the Committeehas, by analogy with law,proceeded on an evaluation ofthe prospective attributes of anobject in circumstances that fallshort of outright proof.

5. Many assessments require notonly an appraisal of the capitalvalue of the object but ananalysis of circumstances thatmight warrant an abatement ofthe sum payable. A furthercommon task to be overseen bythe Chairman is theapportionment of rewardsamong relevant interested

1 Information supplied by Ian Richardson, British Museum, Secretary to the Treasure Valuation Committee. The Chairman is indebted to the Secretariat of the Committee at the Museum,and to Mr Richardson in particular, for their efficient support to the Committee.

2 Such as those concerned with medical artefacts, hawking paraphernalia, thimbles, bodkins.

19www.ncmd.co.uk

parties. Apportionment mayrequire the Committee toconsider relationships,agreements and disputesamong finders, landowners andother connected parties.

6. Such questions call for carefulanalysis of evidence incircumstances where accountsand memories may differsharply. In addressing thesequestions the Chairman hasoften been obliged to formulatead hoc legal opinion and tocommunicate that opinion togovernment legal advisers.

7. The issues can be highlycontentious. The Committeehas observed an increasingtendency by landowners andfinders to engage private legaladvice. Cases often fall to beconsidered over severalmeetings. Contentious matters,together with the provision ofadvice on policy, occupy anincreasing proportion of theCommittee’s time.

8. A further responsibility of theChairman has beenparticipation in the process forappointing new members tothe Committee. This hasinvolved advising on the siftingof applications and the takingof references and participatingat interviews. Formal standardsof transparency and objectivityhave increased the time nowdedicated to appointments.

“Superintended the entry intothe public domain of finds offirst national significance andpublic interest”

9. The Committee has conductedsuccessful valuations of asignificant number of rareobjects that possessoutstanding value toarchaeology. Such objects havecaptured the public interest.Dealing with them has enabledthe Committee to stimulate,through the treasure system,the general public enjoyment ofhistory.

10. Examples of such outstandingfinds are the Vale of YorkHoard of Viking silver in2007, the StaffordshireHoard of Anglo-Saxon gold in2009 and the Frome Hoard ofRoman coins in 2010. TheStaffordshire Hoarddemanded a detailedhistorical, commercial andmathematical analysis of over1,600 items considered in a

variety of contexts, andcommanded wide mediaattention.

11. These discoveries, along withnumerous other hoards andindividual items, have nowpassed into the publicdomain.

“Initiated and put into practicenumerous reforms designed toexpedite the treasure processand increase its fairness toparties”

12. The reforms that theCommittee has adoptedinclude a fast-track system forthe valuation of particular‘starred’ classes of antiquityand a system of active casemanagement.

13. Active case management ismodeled on one of theprinciples underlying thereform of the civil justicesystem in 1998 and owes itsadoption to the Chairman’sexperience as a practisingbarrister. It takes its cue fromthe legal aphorism that justicedelayed is justice denied.

14. Among other initiatives thepolicy requires the Committeeto:

- maintain a constantsupervision over theprogress of cases toidentify ways in whichthey can be expedited andmanaged more fairly, and

- anticipate in timely fashionmatters that might arise atforthcoming meetings,with the object ofintercepting and resolvingthem by action takenbetween meetings, thusensuring that they do notdelay or otherwise hinderthe Committee’s finaldeliberations in fullsession.

15. In complex cases the Chair-man has simplified proceed-ings by writing and distribut-ing in advance a chronology,dramatis personae andsummary of the argumentsfor and against a given courseof action, in terms akin to thebrief that an instructingsolicitor might prepare forcounsel. This providesguidance for the Committeeon the day and expeditesproceedings.

“Observed principles of fairness,objectivity and visible justice”

16. The Committee adheres to therule that it will neither omit toconsider matters that it isrequired to consider norconsider matters that it is notentitled to consider. One ofthe Chairman’s principalduties is to ensure that thisprinciple is maintained. Suchdiscipline is an essentialingredient in the duty toconsider cases fairly.

17. Observance of due processrequires members to show anunfailing grasp of theCommittee’s terms ofreference and of the preceptsembodied in the Code ofPractice. It also requiresreference to the legal rulesunder which the Committeeoperates.

18. In keeping with theseprinciples the Committeeextends unfailing courtesytowards concerned partiesand encourages othersinvolved in the treasureprocess to act similarly.

“Advised government depart-ments on law reform and policy”

19. The Committee receives

invitations to advisegovernment on questions oflaw, ethics, policy andadministration within thebroad field of portableheritage protection.

20. The Committee’s adviceproved influential inpersuading the Department(contrary to other advice) tosponsor the enactment of thenew criminal offence insection 8A of the Treasure Act1996, thus enabling theconviction of acquirers oftreasure who fail to reportacquisitions.

21. Other issues on which theCommittee has advisedgovernment over the past fiveyears include:

- the arguments in favour ofa specialist Coroner forTreasure

- the centralization andrationalization of theCoroner’s administrativefunctions

- the identification ofmatters requiringamendment in the Code ofPractice and of questions

20 www.ncmd.co.uk

warranting considerationin the pending Review ofthe Code.

“Advised the Minister on legalchallenges and appeals”

22. Where an appeal is made tothe Minister following his orher acceptance of arecommendation of theCommittee, the Ministercharacteristically refers thematter to the Committee forreconsideration in the light ofthe grounds of appeal.

23. This is an additional functionof the Committee and onethat is likely to assumeincreasing prominence.

“Contributed to public debate onlaw and policy for archaeology,museums and the nationalheritage”

24. The Committee has become amajor contributor to publicdebate on the law and policyconcerning archaeology,museums and the nationalheritage. Through the variedcharacter of its membershipand its willingness to adviseon questions of policy it hasdeveloped a reputation forexperience and authority in itsfield. In consequence theCommittee is regularly calledupon for specialist advice bylegislators, educators andothers.

25. Matters of public debate onwhich the Committee hasadvised in recent yearsinclude those that are listedas subjects of ministerialadvice. The Chairman hasalso given advice on behalf ofthe Committee to such bodiesas the All Party ParliamentaryArchaeology Advisory Group,the Council for BritishArchaeology and the BritishMuseum. Questions on whichhe has advised includes:

- the defraying of museumconservation costs from theinvoice value of finds, and

- the development of lawsthat curtail transactions ininadequately provenancedantiquities.

“Conducted exhaustive explora-tory exchanges with governmentlegal advisers on mattersrelevant to the reward system”

26. Questions before theCommittee often hinge on theinterpretation of neutral orambiguous terms in the Code

of Practice. The Committeemust sometimes applycomplex abstract principles ofpublic and private law toparticular situations.

27. Settling these questions hascalled for consultationbetween the Chairman actingon behalf of the Committeeand the office of the TreasurySolicitor. Contact is normallyby letter and telephone buthas on occasions required theChairman to attend meetingswith government advisers.

28. Over the past five years thematters for analysis haveincluded:

- the conditions necessaryto secure a fair hearing forall parties and the periodover which one interestedparty may continue tomake to the Committeerepresentations that mightreasonably have beenmade earlier

- the proper form in whichfindings of a coroner mustbe expressed in order forthe Committee to beenabled to act upon them

- the identification of findersfor the purposes of rewardand the participation ofother interested parties inrewards

- the impact of misconductby landowners on thequantum and apportion-ment of rewards

- the operation and role ofthe Committee in theappeal process

- the circumstances inwhich a finder who reportsa find to archaeologicalauthorities may receive areward in respect of laterdiscoveries within thesame or a contiguous area

- the relevance of the UnitedKingdom export licensingsystem to the assessmentof market value

- the principle that aparticipant in ana r c h a e o l o g i c a linvestigation shall notparticipate in any reward.

“Maintained close relations withother bodies and individuals inthe field”

29. The Committee recognizes itsdependence on the co-operation and goodwill ofoutside entities. It tries toensure that its work is fullyunderstood by all groupsconnected to the treasureprocess. These includeexperts on market prices,funding organizations, metaldetecting interests, museumstaff and those administeringthe portable antiquitiesscheme. .

30. To this end the Committeehas

- organized meetings withparticular groups such asvaluers, coroners and the

Art Fund

- issued invitations to othersto attend sessions of theCommittee

- corresponded with organ-izations both on matters ofgeneral principle and onthe rationale of particularrewards.

31. The Committee acknowledgesits recurrent debt to thosewho contribute to itsdeliberations.

“Promoted the publicappreciation of the treasuresystem and portable antiquitiesscheme and the value of historyto society”

32. Members of the Committeehave publicized the work ofthe Committee in televisioninterviews, press interviewsand magazine articles. Forexample:

- in 2004 the Committee co-operated in the productionof a Channel 4 televisionseries on populararchaeology that showedthe Committee in session.

- following the announce-ment of the valuation ofthe Staffordshire Hoard inNovember 2009 theChairman gave severaltelevision interviews fordomestic and foreignchannels.

- Mr Trevor Austin, Secretaryto the National Council

21www.ncmd.co.uk

for Metal Detecting and a long-standing member of the Committee, writesfrequently in the archae-ological press about findsof portable antiquities andthe issues surroundingthem.

- members of the Committeeattend meetings ofdetecting societies andother interest groups

- the Chairman addressed aweekend meeting of theNational Committee inJune 2010 and hasaccepted over seventyinvitations to explain thetreasure system of Englandand Wales to overseaslawyers, museum curatorsand archaeologists.

33. It is proper to mention in thisregard the indefatigable workof Dr Roger Bland OBE, Headof Treasure and PortableAntiquities at the BritishMuseum, in administering thetreasure regime and theportable antiquities systemand in enlightening the public

and the related professionsabout the Committee’s work.

“Assisted the education ofstudents of cultural property”

34. The Committee has allowed asmall number of responsiblestudents to attend itsmeetings as observers onappropriate terms ofconfidentiality. Those invitedto observe the proceedingshave included students ofarchaeology, law and publicadministration. While mostobservers have been UnitedKingdom graduates, othershave come from Europe andthe Commonwealth.

35. The Chairman responds toquestions from doctoral andother students about the workof the Committee. The sameis true of Dr Bland and othermembers of the Committee’ssecretariat.

“Maintained public faith in thetreasure system”

36. The Committee works to keepfaith with its variedconstituents and to maintaintrust and confidence in the

treasure system.

37. There is a general atmosphereof trust among parties whotwo decades ago wereinclined to question thebalance between professionalarchaeology and the publicresponsibility for discoveredantiquities.

Final remarks38. The nation’s stewardship of

its treasure appears sound.There seems to be a generalbelief that the system iseffective and works fairly.

39. There is however vigorousdebate as to how the systemmight be improved. Inaddition of course individualparties assert reservationsabout results in specific cases.

40. Our policies on treasure andportable antiquities arerespected in other countries.

41. The treasure regime and theportable antiquities schemereceive active support fromthe public. They could notwork effectively without thissupport.

42. The Treasure ValuationCommittee is integral to thenational system and to thesupport that it commands.

43. The Treasure ValuationCommittee relies heavily onthe power of connectedentities to perform their func-tions efficiently and accordingto law. Such entities includecoroners, the BritishMuseum, finds liaison officersand the archaeologicalservices at large.

44. Miscarriages and misunder-standings that occur earlier inthe system can be hard tocorrect, can undermine thetreasure valuation processand can have detrimentallegal consequences.

45. All connected entities must beadequately funded andtrained. To skimp on this is afalse economy.

Norman Palmer QC (Hon) CBE FSA25th July 2011

S C O T L A N D R E G I O N

Conflict Archaeology Conference On 7 – 9 October 2011, theCentre for Battlefield Archaeology,University of Glasgow, hosted itsfirst postgraduate conference inConflict Archaeology.

Members may recollect from anearlier edition of ‘Digging Deep’that Scottish clubs were involvedin October 2009 in carrying out adetailed survey exercise onPrestonpans battlefield, much tothe annoyance of some people incertain quarters of thearchaeological fraternity. It wastherefore agreed that a member ofthe Scottish Region should attendas an observer in case thisparticular topic reared its head,and Nigel Goldsmith, a member ofthe Scottish Artefact RecoveryGroup (SARG) kindly volunteeredto attend on the Region’s behalf.

Keynote speaker was Dr TonyPollard who gave a very interestingaccount of the Jacobite rebellion.His talk covered Culloden,

Sherrifmuir, Prestonpans and FortWilliam, and he acknowledged theuse of local metal detector clubs inthe detecting survey at Culloden.Lots of analysis was made ofmusket balls, canister shot andcannon. He also expressedconcern however that the battlewas very badly misrepresented inthe current tourist site i.e., Clangravestones marked, although thebodies in reality would have beenflung into any pit naked and notby clan tartan etc, which was aVictorian myth.

Dr Pollard also spoke about thelocal saying: “The 'Grave of theEnglish' is a good place to walkyour dog...” The ‘Grave of theEnglish’ is another Victorianinvention and part of the reasonthe whole campaign is distortedinto a Scotland /England eventinstead of the British Civil War thatit actually was. Today, the clangravestones are covered in

cremation ashes from USA,Canada and Australia where ex -pats are foolishly asking to havetheir ashes scattered by their clangravestone. Although theGovernment forces casualtieswere comparatively fewer, hestated that the graves of the Scots,English and Irish who died fightingfor the Government side shouldalso be commemorated.

Dr Pollard then went on todescribe events at Prestonpansincluding the role of the metaldetecting clubs involved in the2009 survey. Thankfully, noadverse comments were madealthough it was disappointing tonote his use of the word ‘rally’ todescribe what was in fact a jointclub outing. The Centre forBattlefield archaeology was madeaware two years ago that ralliesare commercial events.

There was a wide range of papersand topics presented at the

conference which would be toodetailed to summarise in thispublication, but a few are worthyof mention:

There was a talk covering socialaspects of siege warfare, inparticular the interaction betweenRoundheads and Cavaliers duringEnglish Civil War. Incidents suchas Cavaliers being besieged andrunning out of booze, but to raisemorale deciding to drink a seriesof toasts with nothing strongerthan well water. Roundheadshearing the toasts and cheers fromthe besieged castle thought thatthe Cavaliers were getting ‘welloiled’ to launch an attack so theydoubled all their guards onmaximum watch.

Our grateful thanks go to Nigel forproviding this summary of theconference.

Alastair Hacket

22 www.ncmd.co.uk

M I D L A N D S R E G I O N

Everyone’s a Winner!Coventry Heritage DetectingSociety’s farm site liaison memberPam Finch was contacted by afarmer to see if a lost tractor partcould be found. On a wet mid-week day a group made the trip(40 mile round trip) to help thesearch.

After a comprehensive field walk itcouldn't be found, therefore it wasdetector time. The part was foundto the delight of the farmer whosaid: “You can stay as you'realready here”.

Dave Rumsey was lucky enoughto find his first gold coin, a lovely

Edward VII half sovereign. Thissubsequently became moderncoin Find of the Month and byagreement with the farmer Davewas allowed to keep the coin anda cheque was sent to a localcancer charity (Myton Hospice).

Everyone's a winner: The club's

prestige as a search and rescuefacility. A first gold coin for thefinder, the farmer gets his machinepart back and the local cancercharity gets some finance.

Dave Rumsey

An evening’s talk By crotal bell expert Graham PalmerOn the evening of 7 September,Graham Palmer, Curator of theAldebourne Bell Foundry inWiltshire, travelled to Coventry togive a talk to detecting members ofthe Midland Region.

In an absolutely fascinatingpresentation, Graham, ablyassisted by Dave Crisp of FromeHoard fame, presented anaudience of around 35 detectoristsand partners with a veritable

cornucopia of crotal, clapper,hawking and church bells.Together with equipment used inthe earliest manufacture of bells atthe Aldebourne foundry, home ofthe Wells family and successivebell founders for over four hundredyears, a quite amazing collectionof bell ringing apparatus andvirtually every size of crotal bellmade from the smallest to thelargest in the range were available

for scrutiny on his display racksand tables.

His detailed talk on these bellsincluded an interesting overviewof the distribution of bells bysalesmen and pedlars alike overthe whole of England and byitinerant founders whose waresoften of all quantities and qualityare now found throughout theBritish Isles by detectorists.

Graham has made a quiteformidable effort in bringing to ussuch a large range of bells andequipment for our pleasure and isto be congratulated on hispresentation. He is available forthese talks and can be contactedfirstly through the Midland RegionCommittee.

Byron Tosh

23www.ncmd.co.uk

Coventry Heritage WeekendThe Coventry Heritage Weekendwas held in September and a largenumber of local organisations hadthe opportunity to take part. Entryto various historical buildings notnormally open to the public isgranted by Coventry Council andspace in them offered to localgroups to use to set up displaysand exhibitions of their particularsports, pastimes and hobbies.This is 'a not for profit' enterpriseand one that we pulled all thestops out to take advantage of.

John Wells of the Midland Region

of the NCMD applied for a place toenable local detecting clubs todisplay their finds and presentthem in a way that the publicwould find both interesting andenlightening. We were offered theDrapers Hall, a highly desirablehistorical guild house dating fromthe early 19th century and rightnext to the ruins of the oldCoventry Cathedral, for ourvirtually exclusive use (a group ofpeople in period costumewandered the halls and corridorsand added some realistic flavour

of the building's early years).

With his dedicated group ofhardworking helpers, John setabout planning a layout andpreparing the building for whatturned out to be a splendid displayof finds from the earliest periods ofhistorical times right up to thepresent day. Clubs such as theCoventry Historical DetectorSociety, the Warwickshire MDCand the Bloxwich Club took partand hopefully, if this venue isagain made available to us nextyear, we will put on an even more

representative Midland display.

Happily, we were able to welcomeRichard Henry local FLO to comealong and take part and offer aidentification service to the publicpassing through. Judged by theencouraging interest shown, andthe wealth of ideas for next year’sexhibition, this annual spectaclewill grow in popularity, forexhibitors and public alike.

Byron Tosh

24 www.ncmd.co.uk

Disclaimer: “The views expressed in this Newsletter are those of its correspondents and contributors, views which are not necessarily agreed to by officers of the NCMD or the organisations as a whole. Such views orcomment cannot be taken in any way to represent NCMD policy on any particular issue or topic unless stated. It is deemed by the NCMD that the responsibility for the accuracy and content of any articles submitted,either by individual members or clubs remains with their authors. Where possible the Newsletter manager will check the accuracy of statements and their content and reserves the right to edit or amend content whichis deemed unsuitable for publication.”

Detector finds 7 is the latest edition to thispopular series, written by Gordon Bailey andthe Treasure Hunting team, this editioncontains over 500 ‘life size’ line drawings and

Detector Finds 7By Gordon BaileyGreenlight Publishing

119 Newland Street

Witham

Essex

CM8 1WF

Phone: 01376 521900

Email: dan@greenlightpublishing.co.uk

Price £15.00 post free

B O O K R E V I E W

200 photographs, mostly 150% ‘life size’ ofpreviously unpublished artefacts. Each linedrawing or photograph contains a descriptionof the artefact and where applicable date ordate range.

There are eight sections in this edition;Pendants • Open-Type Bells • NapoleonicMilitary Items • Buckle Plates • Belt Chapes •Medieval Gilded Studs • Non-Heraldic Bells •Lead Weights, each with its own informativeoverview.

The appeal of this edition, as with the otherbooks in the series, is that it covers artefactswhich most of us at one time or another mayactually find.

I found Detector finds 7, extremely useful, withclear precise line drawings and excellentphotographs, the sectional text is informative,without being too complex for the beginner.The 126 pages packed with usefulinformation, and when taken with the other

issues in the series, which are still available, itmakes a useful reference package. Definitelyworth buying or putting on your Christmas list.

Trevor Austin