3 ms·

There are UK treasure trove laws that requires a split I believe.

ljf 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Act_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Act_1996 Quote: For the purposes of the Act, 'Treasure' is defined as being: All coins from the same find, if it consists of two or more coins, and as long as they are at least 300 years old when found. If they contain less than 10% gold or silver there must be at least 10 in the find for it to qualify. Two or more prehistoric base metal objects in association with one another Any individual (non-coin) find that is at least 300 years old and contains at least 10% gold or silver. Associated finds: any object of any material found in the same place as (or which had previously been together with) another object which is deemed treasure. Objects substantially made from gold or silver but are less than 300 years old, that have been deliberately hidden with the intention of recovery and whose owners or heirs are unknown.
- cletus 9y ago
  That Act is from 1996. The hoard was found in 1992. I, too, am impressed the guy reported it not knowing if he’d get anything and I’m super glad he did.
  - timthorn 9y ago
    Treasure Trove goes back much earlier than 96. That act was just the latest
  - ljf 9y ago
    There were previous rules enacted by the Treasury in the 20th C, and also Common Law dating back at least 1000 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_trove#England_and_Wales_common_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_trove#England_and_Wal... Also people pay attention to the act as the police will prosecute: (sorry for Daily Mail link) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253991/Woman-coin-worth-2-000-garden-prosecuted-reporting-treasure.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253991/Woman-coin-w...
timthorn 9y ago
Moreover, digging it all up would have destroyed the archaeological context. If he detected because he was a history buff rather than a collector, he wouldn't want to dig it all up.
jandrese 9y ago
It's nice that there are laws requiring the split. A similar story happened with Sue[1] the most complete T-Rex skeleton ever unearthed. The archeologist who discovered it and did the work to unearth the bones and preserve them got nothing while the landowner got $7.6 million because he owned the land where they were found. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_(dinosaur)#Dispute_and_auction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_(dinosaur)#Dispute_and_auc...

ljf 9y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Act_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Act_1996 Quote: For the purposes of the Act, 'Treasure' is defined as being: All coins from the same find, if it consists of two or more coins, and as long as they are at least 300 years old when found. If they contain less than 10% gold or silver there must be at least 10 in the find for it to qualify. Two or more prehistoric base metal objects in association with one another Any individual (non-coin) find that is at least 300 years old and contains at least 10% gold or silver. Associated finds: any object of any material found in the same place as (or which had previously been together with) another object which is deemed treasure. Objects substantially made from gold or silver but are less than 300 years old, that have been deliberately hidden with the intention of recovery and whose owners or heirs are unknown.

cletus 9y ago
That Act is from 1996. The hoard was found in 1992. I, too, am impressed the guy reported it not knowing if he’d get anything and I’m super glad he did.
- timthorn 9y ago
  Treasure Trove goes back much earlier than 96. That act was just the latest
- ljf 9y ago
  There were previous rules enacted by the Treasury in the 20th C, and also Common Law dating back at least 1000 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_trove#England_and_Wales_common_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_trove#England_and_Wal... Also people pay attention to the act as the police will prosecute: (sorry for Daily Mail link) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253991/Woman-coin-worth-2-000-garden-prosecuted-reporting-treasure.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253991/Woman-coin-w...

timthorn 9y ago

Moreover, digging it all up would have destroyed the archaeological context. If he detected because he was a history buff rather than a collector, he wouldn't want to dig it all up.

jandrese 9y ago

It's nice that there are laws requiring the split. A similar story happened with Sue[1] the most complete T-Rex skeleton ever unearthed. The archeologist who discovered it and did the work to unearth the bones and preserve them got nothing while the landowner got $7.6 million because he owned the land where they were found. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_(dinosaur)#Dispute_and_auction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_(dinosaur)#Dispute_and_auc...