Posted on 09/25/2009 10:10:49 AM PDT by Justaham
The guy in the video says they will split it
“Actually it is surprising the dude was smart enough to get a metal detector but stupid enough to tell folks he found something. What an idiot. “
You seem to have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. This thread is about a major find in England. Aside from the fact a man with a metal detector and his friend who owns the land could never ever move ***the largest anglo-saxon treasure find EVER*** on the black market without being caught and going to jail in the orwellian surveillance state of UK, but beyond that they are now subject to the antiquities act (or whatever it is called), which controls compensation to treasure-finders.
Could you, right now, move the best of 1500 ancient objects including 12 lbs of gold objects unlike almost anything ever actually found besides Sutton Ho quietly at a price that will beat what they are paid for everything and be unlikely to be caught?
I hope the finder and the owner get to keep a relic apiece as an heirloom. I think I’d have made sure to pocket one before turning in the hoard.
There was a metal-detector find a few years ago I read about in England that was moderately-sized, and the owner somehow was permitted to keep or bid on (and win) 1 small piece he liked. I cannot imagine that some accomodation will not be reached with these 2 guys if they are interested in keeping an item, which one would think they might certainly be.
http://www.staffordshirehoard.org.uk/interview/
This narrows down possible origins of this hoard a great deal, lots of info on the site.
I’d put forwrd this general proposition: You don’t bury a hoard like this and run off without coming back for it unless you are prevented from doing so by war or sudden death.
I’d try to date it and then see what warfare was going on in the neighborhood at that time.
“If more folks tried maybe they would change the laws. “
Serious question - do you understand the laws applying to this find?
It is almost entirely martial-related finds. Nothing feminine. Most deliberately separated from non-gold elements of original items (sword pommels/hilts for example) from my above link -
“The discovery of this Hoard in Staffordshire should cause no surprise. It is in the heartland of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Mercia which was militarily aggressive and expansionist during the seventh century under kings Penda, Wulfhere and Aethelred.
This material could have been collected by any of these during their wars with Northumbria and East Anglia or by someone whose name is lost to history. Here are seeing history confirmed before our eyes.”
Ah, I see your point now and agree, in that context. Yes, the crown takes it. That said, if one is concerned about money rather than owning the items themselves, the english scheme is about as fair as it is going to get.
There can be another argument applied - finds such as this are singularly unique and, with proper study, can teach as much about the history of the time they were made as may be known now in some areas. If the owner simply can melt them and sell by weight, I might see some value in giving the state the mechanism to try to deter that. Making it so the owner gets paid the full amount they sell for or gets the items back if too low is far more that most would think a government would give. It is unfortunate that such a view as I offer above can be abused (or in the case of the spanish gold found and confiscated, simply used as a mechanism of theft), but that is what government does.
A find like this may not happen again in our lifetime, or this century, and is probably the most spectacular saxon dark-age england find ever that has survived or been recorded (presumably things have been found over the centuries that are melted). Assuming the finders get rational compensation (meaning a LOT), I don’t have a problem with the english law if the alternative is giving them the option to melt and resell, if that is their wish.
My points are two, really. One, the current gummint scheme encourages people to just melt the things down and take the raw value losing forever the history of the items and their archeological significance, yet another scheme of gummint gone awry. Two, gummint’s sole, let me repeat, SOLE function is to protect the rights of the individual (if one is conservative) and when it strays from this mission it cretes the problems we see all around us in the world. So to be true to our conservative ideals, the gummint should let treasure finders do what they will with their finds, but ackowledging them for them “citizenship” when they agree to sell to museum for a fair price. IMHO.
LOL Well, not at this point, anyway.
|
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe · |
|||
Antiquity Journal & archive Archaeologica Archaeology Archaeology Channel BAR Bronze Age Forum Discover Dogpile Eurekalert LiveScience Mirabilis.ca Nat Geographic PhysOrg Science Daily Science News Texas AM Yahoo Excerpt, or Link only? |
|
||
|
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · |
|||
If you do not report it, you forfeit any moneys if they find out.
The law is that an independent board values the treasure. The British Museum then gets first shot at meeting that price, followed by other museums. If none of them comes up with the money, it goes to the landowner, although usually the practice is for the treasure hunter and the landowner to agree to a 50/50 split of anything found before the hunt begins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
