MiddenMonster
Bronze Member
I'll bet you that if you were to get an investigative TV reporter on who's pockets are getting padded concerning who get's permits and who doesn't, that will bring some attention to it. Kinda like the bribes going on at the colleges right now. Treasure recovery land or sea are sooo pirated....and for good reasons IMO. There's a a guy somewhere across the pond that found like the worlds largest Anglo Saxon hoard, I believe his name is Terry Herlbert. Anyway, VERY COOL how this local government handled the find. The metal detectorist knocked on the farmers door, asked if he could MD his pasture...homeowner says great and if he found anything of importance, they would split the profits. Treasure hunter starts to find gold pieces everywhere and informed the local universities for help...local authorities were involved...huge hoard. Museum bought the hoard and homeowner and treasure hunter split the profits from the sale.
I think you are being kind to the "local" government here. The find to which you are referring is the Staffordshire Hoard, found by Terry Herbert in 2009. It was "valued" at 3.285 million English pounds, split between Herbert and the landowner. Unfortunately, that valuation was performed by the Treasure Valuation Committee, which is a group handpicked by the government to represent the interests of the government. How much more could Herbert and the landowner have made if they were allowed to control the sale of the hoard? The sad fact is that Herbert was compelled by the Treasure Act, 1996 to report the find within two weeks. The government appointed committee set the value for the hoard, and a couple of government museums bought the hoard for the government established value. At least in the U.S., a find like this on private property ostensibly belongs to the finder and the landowner. But if this type of hoard was found at the bottom of the ocean off the coast of Florida, who would value it and how much would the finder get to keep?
My point is, I believe that if people were allowed to benefit from their finds, either monetarily or recognition, and asked by the state to report any historical finds for documentation, the people and the State would have far far more information of our past.
All things considered, I'd gladly take the money and would prefer to not have any recognition. Archaeologists also get hot under the collar when people dig anything up. They say that unless they get to deal with it in situ, removing it destroys the contextual value of the find. In other words, don't try this at home, people.