DO YOU THINK IF WE HAD THE SAME TREASURE TROVE LAW AS U,K

roughneck

Do you think that if we had the same treasure trove law as in the u.k that our country might actually get to keep our history ,since 1981 when they changed our law , ive heard of many significant items leaving the country ,to me and im sure to you its shocking , but lets be real here money is money ,why cant this country reward people for their finds , most if not all of the world does ,and before i here the recession word ,i think i decent object would bring them flocking to see it ,why not ?

dr gonzo

roughneck wrote: »

Do you think that if we had the same treasure trove law as in the u.k that our country might actually get to keep our history ,since 1981 when they changed our law , ive heard of many significant items leaving the country ,to me and im sure to you its shocking , but lets be real here money is money ,why cant this country reward people for their finds , most if not all of the world does ,and before i here the recession word ,i think i decent object would bring them flocking to see it ,why not ?

I'm confused by your point. Youre saying that stuff is leaving the country at the same rate as it would be anyway under different laws (entirely untrue by the way) so we might as well throw taxpayer money on the fire while we're at it? Im not trying to attack you here by the way, this is a very valid question and discussion. So what youre asking is, is Britain more progressive with regard to arch materials then Ireland? The short answer is a resounding no, for a number of reasons. Firstly, the legality of selling archaeological materials means their removal from context, is actually incentivised, as opposed to Ireland where it is entirely illegal. Since its safe to say that most Irish people would have neither the desire to break the law, nor the contacts to fence such items, our archaeological materials are far safer. Secondly, even with the portable antiquities scheme, the British government, and its constituent museums, often are unable meet the demands of "owners" and look to the people of Britain to pay one of their own, to keep their heritage in the country. Finally, and most worryingly, this issue of cost is only further compounded by the fact that valuers and auction houses really have no means of actually setting a price for these objects, meaning they invariably run with simplistic figures, such as bullion cost, to value them. This can lead to ridiculous prices based on aspects that, to an archaeological and heritage point of view, are effectively irrelevant.

The point here is that the British system breeds treasure hunters, mass movement of artefacts out of the country, citizens leveraging their own countrymen and women for protection of their own heritage, destruction of archaeological sites, ad infinitum. And on top of all this you mention the recession? Surely in a recession, the Irish system is best, whereby the tax payer is never hit for the cost of their own heritage as it already inherently belongs to then. Instead a person might get a nominal finders fee in the form of tax credits. This way there isnt enough incentive to destroy sites in the hunt for artefacts, but there is enough to not keep them should they find them accidentally.

EDIT: Apologies, I misread the point you were making about the recession. To answer you, I would say that the National Museum is free, its one of the few things they have gotten absolutely right, so I cant say I agree with your proposal that the purchase of an object may be recouped through admission fees, if that is the point you were making? Or were you just saying that we would get a lot of people to see it, which is worthwhile in itself...?

As a final point, I would just like to highlight a consistent issue that arises when discussing the Irish and British system with regard to archaeological finds. Invariably the person arguing in favour of the British system is operating under the assumption that the fact that an artefact has been found in the first place is a good thing, it often isnt. Archaeologists have little or no interest in the artefact in and of itself, they are interested in the context it was deposited in. So in other words, the more that we can do to dissuade and disincentivise the deliberate amateur search for archaeology, the better it is for everyone.

Coles

Good post dr gonzo.

pueblo

I agree with the doctor...

Are sites like ebay policed by the 'authorities'? Unlikely I suppose.

dr gonzo

pueblo wrote: »

I agree with the doctor...

Are sites like ebay policed by the 'authorities'? Unlikely I suppose.

Yeh fairly unlikely I would imagine. Also, theres nothing to stop a person from going, "this is a British polished stone axe" or "this is a British torc" etc because outside of their context it would take an expert to even try and geographically locate objects like that, and even then they probably still couldnt.

robp

roughneck wrote: »

Do you think that if we had the same treasure trove law as in the u.k that our country might actually get to keep our history ,since 1981 when they changed our law , ive heard of many significant items leaving the country ,to me and im sure to you its shocking , but lets be real here money is money ,why cant this country reward people for their finds , most if not all of the world does ,and before i here the recession word ,i think i decent object would bring them flocking to see it ,why not ?

Its common knowledge that finders are given an award with big discoveries. I don't think the figures are disclosed. I presume to avoid encouraging people breaking the law. At the same time it isn't anything like the Portable Antiquities Scheme. There are a lot of other complex issues which dr gonzo covers.

Jakub25

I found video where archeologist is using a metal detector,
but i doesn't see any stratigraphy, contex work for me that person
is working very similar as treasure hunters.(looking for good stuff)
Even if it is a rubbish it should be diged in a proper way.
There is only one difference, that person have archeology licence.


It is between 5:30 and 7:00 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfbw91CnrPM

slowburner

Jakub25 wrote: »

I found video where archeologist is using a metal detector,
but i doesn't see any stratigraphy, contex work for me that person
is working very similar as treasure hunters.(looking for good stuff)
Even if it is a rubbish it should be diged in a proper way.
There is only one difference, that person have archeology licence.


It is between 5:30 and 7:00 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfbw91CnrPM

1. This is not an opportunity to revisit the metal detecting debate.
2. The person using the metal detector is licensed.
3. No damage was caused to the stratigraphy, because only the topsoil was searched.
4. The search was under the supervision of respected archaeologists.
5. The person using the device, was using it for the greater good. It was being used to further all of our knowledge about the past.
6. Any finds by the person licensed to use this device were not going to become his private property.