ISSUE 15        7th MARCH 2000

Inside This issue

 

 

 

 

TEES AREA NEWS

An Update

By

Alan Richardson

 

Is this face familiar?

 

We first saw this face in the November issue of 1998. The face is carved into the face of a stone, weighing about 500lb. It was found lying in the river Skerne, directly under a footbridge, in Darlington. Dave Shires, our industrious Darlington and Tees Valley representative, is still researching the stone and I look forward to being able to publish his full account in some future issue.

In the meantime, the stone has been the subject of some great interest; indeed its discovery may even have sparked off some considerable debate as the local Tubwell Row Museum closed in 1998. In the absence of a suitable local museum, in which to place the stone, it was found a home in the Bowes Museum in October 1999. There are those who would argue that such an interesting and valuable item should be on display locally in Darlington.

The stone may date from the 1700's, but Dave Shires is of the opinion that the subject is a "Green Man", a mythological figure dedicated in pre-Christian times to the celebration of spring.

Mr Wilf Richmond, a fire fighter, originally spotted the stone in the river as his watch rescued ducks, which had been shot by a crossbow. Mr Richmond photographed the stone. Alan Suddes, who was the curator of the Tubwell Museum before it closed, showed these photographs to Dave Shires. Dave was later quoted by the Darlington and Stockton Times, one of several local newspapers that took an interest at the time of its removal from the river, "When I went to look at it, I decided it was a satyr of some description and we decided to leave it where it was until it could be moved somewhere to receive proper attention."

In late summer 1999, circumstances changed. It became known that vandals had decided that the stone was a good target for brick throwing, so a rescue operation was mounted. The Fire Brigade returned to the story by donating their staff, equipment, knowledge and expertise to the task. With their assistance, the stone was safely lifted from the river and transported to Bowes Museum.

 

 

 

Dave Shires later showed the aforementioned photographs to Ann McBain, another of our enthusiastic contacts in the Tees Valley. Ann McBain immediately recognised the figure as "Green man", an opinion supported by the depiction of a Fleur de Lys, a sacred tree, on the reverse side of the stone.

 

 

 

 

         

 

 

 

Five Churches Road.

 

Those of you familiar with the five churches line and associated roads, may be interested to know that the most easterly church on the line—St. Mary’s at Seaham—was originally dedicated to St. Andrew. This is yet another St. Andrew’s church on one of our suspected Roman sites.

 

 

         

 

 

 

Who Discovered America Again?

 

In the last issue, I referred to an article in the Sunday Telegraph in which there were suggestions of America having been discovered by just about everyone from ancient Chinese, to the relatively recent Vikings.

 

The Daily Mail included a similar article on the 10th of February 2000. This time, the suggested discoverers were the Romans.

 

A terracotta head unearthed from a burial site in Mexico was made by a Roman craftsman around 200AD. The bearded head was buried at least 10 years before the first Spanish settlers arrived from Europe, the researchers say.

 

They claim that the discovery is evidence of commerce between Europe and America before the arrival of Columbus. It also offers the tantalising possibility that Roman ships were capable of sailing the Atlantic to trade with Native Americans. Until now, historians have argued that Vikings were the first Europeans to reach America some time in the 11th century. The startling conclusion comes from two independent anthropologists.

 

Roman Hristov, of the Southern Methodist University in Dallas, has studied a black terracotta head unearthed in the Toluca Valley 40 miles west of Mexico City in 1933. The head is just two inches tall and totally unlike other works of art in Mexico dating from before the arrival of the Spanish.

 

With help from Mexican anthropologist Santiago Genoves, Dr Hristov drilled out a small sample of the terracotta from the statue’s neck and tested its age at the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany. A dating technique called thermo luminescence revealed that the terracotta was fired 1,800 years ago, New Scientist magazine reported. This technique uses heat to force high-energy electrons that have accumulated in the sample over time to release their energy as light. Researchers measure the amount of light released. Independent art experts confirmed that the head was Roman.

 

Researchers cannot say for certain when the head was brought to Mexico from Europe, but they are confident that it was long before the time of Columbus and the first wave of Spanish settlers.

 

The head was removed in the 1930’s from a burial ground, which was dated to before 1510.  The first Spanish settlers arrived in Mexico at least ten years later. Columbus himself reached the West Indies in the 1490’s. David kelley, archaeologist at the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada, said professionals had excavated the head. “This was sealed under three floors,” he said. “It’s as close to archaeological certainty as you can get.”

 

It languished in a Mexico City museum until Dr Hristov tracked it down six years ago. Dr Hristov believes that the statue is the first hard evidence of contacts between Europe and America before the era of Columbus.

 

Anthropologist Betty Meggers, of the National Museum of National History in Washington DC, said: “I see no reason why ancient contact is not possible.” She added that ancient Ecuadorian and Japanese pottery has identical features - despite the vastness of the Pacific between the two cultures.

 

Archaeologist David Grove, of the University of Illinois, agreed that the head is Roman but questioned its significance. He said there was no evidence of ancient cultures from Europe making a significant mark on pre-Columbian America.

 

Stories of mysterious Roman wrecks off the coast of central and South America have been rife for decades. But Professor Simon Keay, Roman expert at Southampton University, said although Roman remains had been discovered as Far East as India there were no records of trade routes to the Americas.

 

 

         

 

 

 

Fresco Frenzy

 

(From an article in the Sunday Times, 13/2/2000)

 

 

THE Vatican has condemned plans to let children as young as 11 see a collection of erotic art sp sexually explicit that it has been locked away since being dug out of the volcanic ash of Mount Vesuvius at Pompeii three centuries ago.

 

The National Archaeological Museum in Naples is to open its so-called "secret collection" of frescoes, mosaics and statues to the public next month. The 250 exhibits depict sexual activity involving gods and goddesses, satyrs, nymphs and pygmies. The museum decided to display the works, previously accessible only to scholars or with special permission from the director, after they were featured in books. But the Catholic Church has denounced the initiative as an affront to public decency "Whatever these things meant to ancient Romans, today they're obscene, full stop," said Father Bernard Ardura, secretary of the Pontifical Council on Culture. "It's outrageous to think children could wander in."

 

The collection includes Pompeii's own Kama Sutra: a series of frescoes showing sexual positions that decorated the town's baths. Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, director of the British School in Rome (who seems to get a mention in every issue nowadays) and an expert on life in ancient Pompeii, said there was nothing obscene about the collection, every item of which was a masterpiece. "The Vatican's stand just fuels the widespread 'nudge-nudge, wink-wink' approach to sex in ancient times," he said.

 

 

         

 

 

 

Darwin's "Worm Theory"

Tom Wright

 

If you have ever wondered why England's Roman remains sank so far below the surface in nearly 2000 years, Charles Darwin provides the answer - Worms!

In 30 years worms buried every stone in a once very stony field near Darwin's home, Down House. Darwin proved that on every acre of ground worms brought up 18 tons of earth each year. The "worm stone", a device he invented for measuring worm induced sinkage, can still be seen at his house today, which is now run by English Heritage.

 

 

 

Footnote: - If you have ever visited the Roman Forts on the Wall in spring, you will see that moles also contribute to this "sinkage".

 

 

 

 

         

 

 

 

The Roman North, part VII

By Tom Wright

 

Whilst Severus was defeating the armies of Albinus from Britain and Gaul, The northern tribes of Britain seized their chance during the absence of the Roman legions. History does not name the tribes concerned but certainly the Brigantes were involved and tribes north of Hadrian's Wall. It would appear that the trouble spread as far south as York and possibly as far as Chester. Severus, now firmly established as emperor, sent a new governor to Britain named Virius Lupus in 197AD to recover the province. Unfortunately Virius only had the defeated and demoralised legions that Albinus had taken from Britain in his quest for the throne of Rome.

 

As Severus could not send more troops, Virius had no option but to gain time by bribing some of the tribes to retire. Inscriptions record work done by the new governor in Yorkshire and Cumbria before the end of the second century, but it would appear that no rebuilding inscriptions appear on Hadrian's Wall until 205AD. Evidence from the Wall and its forts show massive rebuilding programmes early in the third century on orders from Severus. In fact, up to the mid nineteenth century historians were convinced that Severus had built the Wall; we have Natanial Clayton (who lived at Chesters and excavated many places as well as Chesters Fort) to thank for proving that Hadrian originally built the wall, even though his method of excavation was primitive.

 

Our history books tell us that many forts were destroyed during the revolt and stretches of the wall were pulled down. This may be so but some doubt can be put on this. The Wall and its forts were now nearly 80 years old and built with lime mortar, the northern winters and frosts must have severely eroded the mortar and stone by 205 and probably some major rebuilding was required anyway. I can only think that tribes bent on plunder would possibly put wooden gates and buildings to the torch, but would they linger to take on the task of pulling down stone walls?

 

A fine inscription from Risingham, an outpost fort north of the wall reports rebuilding under the governor of the time, Senecio, it reads as follows - (abbreviated)

"In honour of the Emperor Lucius Septimus Severus this gate and walls, fallen down in the passage of time, were rebuilt from ground level by order of the Governor Alfenius Senecio by the First Cavalry Cohort of Vangiones."

This inscription can be dated between 205 and 208AD. Historians think that the words "Fallen down in the passage of time" are only fiction as the Romans would not want the truth to be known, but one must ask - why mention it at all in that case?

 

Many inscriptions record rebuilding work in the wall area for the next 25 years whether this was repair following damage or erosion we do not truthfully know. The Governor Alfenius Senecio re-established the Wall area and forts but was still not happy about the situation, so he wrote to the Emperor saying that tribes were still not settled, but he had not the troops to mount a campaign. He requested reinforcements or the Emperor's presence with an army to mount an expedition northward.

 

 

Caracalla

 

It was now 208AD and Severus was ill with gout and had to be carried in a litter, but he decided to come to Britain with his two sons Caracalla and Geta. This proves how important Britain was regarded by Rome. Severus and his sons spent three years in this country and it would seem, from the writings of Dio, that the Emperor intended to settle the problem by a northern expedition to conquer the whole island.

 

Geta

 

According to Dio, most of the tribes north of the Wall had now merged into two large ones, the Maeatae who occupied the region just north of Hadrian's Wall and the Caledonians north of the Antonine Wall, the latter now out of use.

 

When Severus and his army moved north they met with stiff resistance, they levelled woods, filled in swamps, bridged rivers, but they were never able to fight a full scale battle, the troops having to suffer from guerrilla warfare and being lured into marshland by the enemy putting out sheep and cattle for plunder. Troops who were injured and could not march were killed by their comrades rather than suffer capture by the savage Caledonians.

 

Severus, being carried all of the way and his illness getting worse, progressed almost to the northern coast of Scotland at the cost of 50,000 casualties and with no permanent solution. He returned to the Wall area and came to terms with the tribes on condition that they evacuated a strip of land. Dio does not tell us where the strip of land was, but one would imagine that it was just north of Hadrian's Wall or possibly in the western area on the Solway coast.

 

Unfortunately, the tribes revolted again and Severus sent an army with the orders to kill every tribesman they met. Whilst this was in progress, Severus died at York in 211AD. His eldest son, Caracalla, took over the throne and his younger brother, Geta, was killed in 212AD.

 

There is scant detail of Caracalla's campaigns and little archaeological evidence. However, we must assume that the campaigns were successful and he left northern Britain in a peaceful frame, because the Caledonians and Maeatae gave no more trouble for nearly 90 years.

 

Severus, before he died, was intent on avoiding another usurper from Britain so he divided the province in two - Britain Superior and Britain Inferior - with separate armies and army commanders. After the death of Severus, no ancient historian mentions Britain for over 70 years, so we can assume that there was a relatively peaceful period. However, this was not destined to last - more in part VIII.

 

         

 

 

 

 

Oldest New Testament Under Threat

(as per The Sunday Times 20/2/2000)

 

THE British Library is under pressure to return one of its most prized possessions to a Middle Eastern monastery, which is supported by the Prince of Wales. St. Catherine's monastery in Egypt, whose patron is the prince, is demanding the return of a "priceless" 4th-century Bible. Known as the Codex Sinaiticus, it is the world's oldest existing New Testament.

 

"It belongs to us," said Father John of the monastery, which is in the foothills of Mount Sinai.  St Catherine's has submitted a formal request for the Bible's return.

The prince visited the monastery in 1995 and the following year became patron of St Catherine's Foundation.  He has long been interested in eastern Christianity and is a close friend of the composer Sir John Tavener, who is a convert to Greek Orthodoxy.  Charles has also expressed private support for the return of the Elgin Marbles to Greece, as did President Clinton last autumn.

 

"The prince has been a great help in what we're doing," said Demitri Dondos, one of the monastery's London-based trustees.  Both St Catherine's Foundation and St James's Palace said the prince's views about the Codex were private.

The monks claim that the Bible was stolen about a century ago by a German scholar, Count Tischendorf, and was later seized by the Russian royal family.  In the 1930s, Stalin sold the Bible to the British Museum. The codex was moved a couple of years ago to the British Library.

Written on parchment, it now resides in the Ritblat Gallery, which also houses the Magna Carta and the Tyndale Bible, which dates from 1525.  Michele Brown, the library's curator of medieval and liturgical manuscripts, argues that the Codex Sinaiticus belongs to the nation, having been "bought', and that it should stay where it is well looked after.

The call for the return of the codex will be examined by the House of Commons culture committee, which next month looks into the restitution of displaced works of art.  The most emotive issue remains the Elgin Marbles, but the Labour MP Gerald Kaufman, the committee' s chairman, emphasises that its remit will be much wider.

Many objects came into British museums in the 19th or the first half of the 20th century in circumstances, which would not be tolerated today.  But the museums argue that they look after the objects extremely well and legally own them.

"That may be the case, but Britain would be in a better ethical position to defend its right to retain items if the government was seen doing something about antiquity theft," said Lord Renfrew, professor of history at Cambridge University.

 

 

 

 

 

         

 

 

 

 

 

Re-think on South Shields Strong-Room

By

Alan Richardson

 

A couple of years ago, I took my nephew Adam to visit Arbeia, the Roman Fort at South Shields. The site has been examined, scrutinised and latterly dismantled in fine detail by several experts over many years. So, I thought that this would be a simple matter to take Adam around the site where everything would be clear and all aspects would be clearly described in the 'on-site' information boards and locally available documentation. Adam enjoys his history, the Romans being not the least of his interests. You see, this visit was not for my benefit, it was for Adam's. It turned out somewhat differently, certainly Adam did enjoy it, but I came away with an idea stuck in my head that I could not get rid of.

Regardless of any dissatisfaction that I may express about someone else's ideas about history, Adam did enjoy himself. The reconstructed west gatehouse is an eye-catcher and a real drawer for children. Maybe that is the point, so much of what is there is for children, and with insufficient aimed at the adult or more discerning observer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The work of the Northern Archaeology Group and my personal involvement with it has left me thinking "water" as a major consideration of so many aspects of our research, mostly with regards to engineering techniques but also in connection with early Christianity. During that visit with Adam I became distracted by the two strong rooms, neither of which made sense to me when attempting to make sense of the current 'official' explanations for them. Initially it was the larger strong room and that was mainly because of the dove-tail stones, which is an engineering method that we have seen deployed so often in many other locations to withstand water pressure. The two strong rooms are similar only insofar as each one is at least partly underground and they each have a flight of stairs leading down into them, beyond those two points they are otherwise completely different. As the two strong rooms are so different, they are worth evaluating separately.

 

The larger, or earlier strong room is situated amongst the original headquarters buildings at the centre of the original layout, to the north of the cross-hall. I have drawn the following points directly from The Roman Fort at South Shields by J.N.Dore and J.P.Gillam (Newcastle Society of Antiquaries, 1979). Details in the book are from various excavations up to the date of publication in 1979. The headquarters buildings were first uncovered during excavation work begun in 1875.

1)      To the north of the cross-hall a massive sunken strong room was built. This is interesting architecturally as it is a completely self-contained unit. None of its walls is party with any of the structures surrounding it.

2)      Its south wall, built flush with the north wall of the cross hall, composed of large oblong blocks, the largest of which is some 08.m by 0.35m by 0.2m It is one course thick and survives four courses high.    (NOTE: - At this end of the site the ground slopes downhill to the north, so the outside of the lower courses of the south wall were underground)

3)      In one of the plates of the original excavations (Hooppell, 1878, pl. Vii) two blocks forming the base of a window between the strong room and the cross hall can be seen on the topmost surviving course. The window had deeply splaying jambs and a chamfered sill with holes in it for three upright iron bars. The window does not survive today.

 

 

 

 

4)   Of the other walls only the west and about a third of the north survived above the foundations.

5)   The lowest course was composed of a double row of blocks 0.6m square and 0.25m high originally tied together with dovetail cramps. Richmond inferred that the cramps had originally been of wood since there was no trace of metal in the holes.

6)   The second course was composed of dressed stone across the full width of the wall, with no rubble or mortar core.

7)   In the same plate as mentioned above (3), three large cramped blocks of similar dimensions to those of the first course can be seen forming the third course. Only one of these survives today and this is almost certainly not now in situ.

8)   Two of the blocks of the second course have a slightly splayed surface ending in a prominent check. Richmond was of the opinion (1934, p. 91) that these had originally served as springers for a barrel-vaulted ceiling to the strong room. It seems equally possible, however, that the blocks were re-used from elsewhere.

9)   The strong room had been floored with large rectangular paving stones and must have had a tendency to dampness, as there was a square sump near the northeast corner.

10) The floor was 1.35m below that of the cross-hall and entrance was gained down a narrow flight (c. 0.8m wide) of five stone steps.

 

The description from the above points (my numbering) allows us to reflect on each part. If the room was not a strong room, what was it? I have already pointed to water. If the room were in fact a water storage facility, then there would have been an engineering need to build in the strength to retain the water within the walls.

Ø Point 1) shows that the walls were independent of any adjacent room or building, it was built as a self-contained unit.

Ø      Points 2) and 3) describe the room's relationship with the cross-hall to the south, including a feature thought to have been a window, complete with iron bars. There are other possible explanations for this, including both an overflow and an intake.

Ø      Points 4), 5) & 6) describe the nature are in. It is apparent that a lot of these stones have been moved, indeed point 7) demonstrates that some more were removed even after the excavations started.

 

 

The South Shields "Strong Room"

 

 

 

Opus Revinctum

 

 

 

Another view of the strong room showing the sump in the consolidated floor

 

 

 

Ø      Point 8) is where the suggestion of a barrel-vaulted ceiling entered the discussion. In the 1979 book, the authors were quick to dismiss this, it would appear that a barrel-vaulted ceiling starting at only the second course of stones would not fit their concept of a strong room, but it would be consistent with a large water storage tank. The drawing opposite is from a display board on the site.

 

 

 

Ø Point 9) is where it is conceded that the room must have had a tendency to dampness and there was a square sump in the floor, near the northeast corner. This sump is still visible and is an important feature. This photograph, by Mr. Godfrey Hastings c. 1900, gives a better indication of what it originally looked like, prior to modern consolidation work. The photograph apparently shows a void under the floor, which is something we have seen elsewhere, as part of an impluvium (and cistern), indeed an impluvium is exactly what the room is called when included in DURHAM, by W.J.Weston, M.A., B.Sc (Cambridge University Press, 1914).

 

 

 

 

Ø Point 10) describes the stone stairs giving access from the cross-hall. This remains consistent with water storage as there would have been need to allow access to something as large as this for maintenance purposes.

 

Still referring to The Roman Fort at South Shields, there is an abundance of additional material of relevance. Immediately beyond the northwest corner of the strong room there is a well. This well was quite large and appeared to have been in use since the initial construction of the fort. Members of the South Shields Archaeological and Historical Society excavated it during 1949 and 1950. They had some difficulty and, even with the assistance of steel bars to support the side, there was a collapse. Work was suspended at an overall depth of c. 7m. To a depth of 4.9m the sides were of regular masonry courses. Below this to the bottom of the excavation, the sides were revetted with an open framework of timber planks, pinned at the corners with timber uprights. Although the description of the excavation included no reference to an underground connection between the well and the strong room, neither was it able to point to any source of water for the well.

 

 

 

 

Even though it is clear that this well was in use since the foundation of the fort, there is an inscription dated to "precisely AD 222/3", which records the installation of the water supply for the use of the Cohors V Gallorum through the agency of the governor Marius Valerianus. The emperor was Severus Alexander and the attributes of singular tribunician power and consulship date the inscription precisely. So what water supply was being marked with an inscription in AD 222/3? It cannot have been drinking water as that would have been available since the fort was first established, hence the early and continuous use of the well. The Romans were known for other uses for water, such as for bathing, running water in latrines (positioned downhill to the strong room), fountains and street cleaning. Any one of these purposes would have required a facility for water storage, but South Shields would need a storage facility more than most other forts, simply because it stands on top of a hill with no easy means of providing a constant supply of running water through an aqueduct.

 

The strong room lies at the centre of a line of headquarters buildings, which have been dated using a small number of stratified finds. A denarius of Julia Domna dated to AD 207-11 was found in the cobble foundations of the west courtyard of the building immediately to the east of the strong room. The coin was extremely worn and Mr Casey, who was charged with dating the find, was "unwilling to see its date of deposition placed much earlier than c. AD 220." This brings me to the conclusion that the headquarters buildings as they are now oriented (including the strong room) can be put at a date approximate to the installation of the water supply. By inference, I am led to the observation that it is then quite likely that something amongst that line of building is significantly associated with the updated water supply.

 

Is there anything to compare at other locations? Well, yes there is. Firstly, when considering the basic concept, I will look at the house of Trebius Valens, Pompeii. The following diagram shows the relationship between a visible impluvium, with a cistern below it, and a well immediately outside it. The illustration is of a very much domestic arrangement, whereas the strong room at South Shields (if indeed it was part of a water supply) would have been part of something much more substantial. Nevertheless, the comparison is a valid one as it clearly indicates the concept that was in use at a time well before the installation of the water supply at South Shields, Pompeii was destroyed by the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79.

 

 

Please note the overflow to the street and the compluvium above the impluvium.  This allowed for the collection of rainwater to be added to the water supply. Although there is some evidence of a barrel vaulted ceiling above the strong room, there is also excavation evidence of a large courtyard area to the south (or uphill) side of the strong room, with ground level stone guttering running north/south.

 

The location is also worth comparison with similar features at Corstopitum (Corbridge). The headquarters buildings, including strong room, at Corbridge show no signs of opus revinctum, which is only visible at the water storage tank at the point where the water from the aqueduct is received inside the fort. (See the illustration below)

 

Much of this detail at Corbridge is an artist's impression (above left). I have included a photograph of what it looks like today. (Above right)  I will remark on some aspects. There are two water tanks at the fountain, the larger and more substantial tank (with opus revinctum) immediately at the outflow of the aqueduct. The smaller tank, referred to as a cistern, is made up of stone slabs laid on edge and forming a rectangle standing at the side of the road and immediately in front of the larger tank. This type of cistern, visible at the front, is repeated several times around Corstopitum. The use of opus revinctum in the more substantial stone work at the main receiving tank suggests the need to withstand substantially greater water pressure than each of the other cisterns on that site, including the cistern immediately adjacent to it, therefore I strongly suspect that the original structure was somewhat higher than the artist's impression would suggest.

 

 

 

The strong room at South Shields is considerably larger than the receiving tank at Corbridge and the corresponding containment stonework and opus revinctum is similarly more substantial at South Shields. Remember, as the topography at South Shields did not allow an aqueduct like that at Corbridge, which is low down, almost at river height and overlooked by hills, there is a much greater need for water storage at South Shields than at Corbridge.

 

 

 

 

Apart from opus revinctum and Lewis holes in the stones within the strong room there is one other feature. The following photograph shows the outside face of one stone in the west wall.

 

The photograph on the left is from South Shields. The picture on the right is part of the Walesby (Lincolnshire) lead tank.  When considering the meaning of each symbol on the Walesby tank, professor Charles Thomas considered that the chevrons on this Roman artefact signify water (Christianity in Roman Britain to AD 500, Charles Thomas).

 

Overall, I am left with the clear impression that the large "strong room" at South Shields is nothing of the sort, but rather it is part of a water storage and supply system, which we know was there, but for which there is no alternative proposition for its detail.

 

I will leave examination of the second strong room, with a totally different proposed explanation, until another issue.

 

 

 

 

This experience, commencing with a visit to a well-known location with Adam, has showed me that it was very easy for me to take for granted the traditional explanation for aspects of these familiar treasures. Oh yes, I do still regard them as treasures; we are very fortunate indeed. It has made me want to look again, in detail, at other sites so familiar.

 

 

 

         

 

 

 

 

THE TREASURE ACT

Information for finders of treasure

(England and Wales)

 

 

 

 

 

The Treasure Act 1996 came into force on 24 September 1997 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, replacing the common law of treasure trove.

This article provides a summary of the main points of the new law: further information will be found in the Code of Practice on the Treasure Act which can be obtained free of charge from the Department of Culture, Media & Sport (Tel.: 0171 211 6200). Metal detectorists are strongly advised to obtain a copy of the Code of Practice which, among other things, contains guidance for detectorists, sets out guidelines on rewards, gives advice on the care of finds and has lists of useful addresses.

A separate Code of Practice and leaflet has been prepared for Northern Ireland. A Welsh language version can be obtained from the Department of Culture, Media & Sport or the Welsh Office.

What is the new definition of treasure?

The following finds are treasure under the Act (more detailed guidance is given in the Code of Practice):

1. Objects other than coins: any object other than a coin provided that it contains at least 10 per cent of gold or silver and is at least 300 years old when found. (Objects with gold or silver-plating normally have less than 10 per cent of precious metal.)
2. Coins: all coins from the same find provided they are at least 300 years old when found (but if the coins contain less than 10 per cent of gold or silver there must be at least 10: there is a list of these coins in the Code of Practice).

An object or coin is part of the same find as another object or coin if it is found in the same place as, or had previously been left together with, the other object. Finds may have become scattered since they were originally deposited in the ground.

Only the following groups of coins will normally be regarded as coming from the 'same find': (a) hoards, which have been deliberately hidden; (b) smaller groups of coins such as the contents of purses, which may have been dropped or lost and (c) votive or ritual deposits.

Single coins found on their own are not treasure and groups of coins lost one by one over a period of time (for example those found on settlement sites or on fair sites) will not normally be treasure.

3. Associated objects: any object, whatever it is made of, that is found in the same place as, or that had previously been together with, another object that is treasure.
4. Objects that would have been treasure trove: any object that would previously have been treasure trove, but does not fall within the specific categories given above. These objects have to be made substantially of gold or silver; they have to have been buried with the intention of recovery and their owner or his heirs cannot be traced.

The following types of find are not treasure:

·    objects whose owners can be traced;

·    unworked natural objects, including human and animal remains, even if they are found in association with treasure;

·    objects from the foreshore which are not wreck.

If you are in any doubt, it will probably be safest to report your find.

What about objects found before the Act came into force?

You should report objects that come into the four categories just described if they are found after 23 September 1997. There is no need to report any objects found before that date unless they may be treasure trove (see 4 above).

What should I do if I find something that may be treasure?

You must report all finds of treasure to the coroner for the district in which they are found either within 14 days after the day on which you made the find or within 14 days after the day on which you realised that the find might be treasure (for example, as a result of having it identified). The obligation to report finds applies to everyone, including archaeologists.

How do I report a find of treasure?

Very simply. You may report your find to the coroner in person, by letter, telephone or fax. The coroner or his officer will send you an acknowledgement and tell you where you should deliver your find. The Code of Practice has a list of all coroners with telephone and fax numbers.

There are special procedures for objects from a few areas for which treasure franchises exist, but they should be reported to the coroner in the usual way. The main franchise-holders (the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, the Corporation of London and the City of Bristol) have confirmed that they will pay rewards for finds of treasure from their franchises in the normal way.

Where will I have to take my find?

You will normally be asked to take your find to a local museum or archaeological body. Local agreements have been drawn up for each coroner's district in England and Wales to provide the coroner with a list of such museums and archaeological organisations. The Department is publishing a series of leaflets, roughly one for each county of England and one for Wales, listing the relevant coroners, museums and archaeological services in each area.

The body which receives the find on behalf of the coroner will give you a receipt. Although they will need to know where you made the find they will keep this information confidential if you or the landowner wish and you should do so too.

The body receiving the find will notify the Sites and Monuments Record as soon as possible (if that has not already happened), so that the site where the find was made can be investigated by archaeologists if necessary. A list of Sites and Monuments Records is in Appendix 2 of the Code of Practice.

What if I do not report a find of treasure?

If you fail to report a find that you believe or have reasonable grounds for believing to be treasure without a reasonable excuse you may be imprisoned for up to three months or receive a fine of up to level 5 on the standard scale (currently £5,000) or both. You will not be breaking the law if you do not report a find because you do not initially recognise that it may be treasure, but you should report it once you do realise this.

What happens if the find is not treasure?

If the object is clearly not treasure, the museum or archaeological body will inform the coroner who may then decide to give directions that the find should be returned without holding an inquest.

What happens if the find is treasure?

If the museum curator or archaeologist believes that the find may be treasure they will inform the British Museum or the National Museums & Galleries of Wales. They will then decide whether they or any other museum may wish to acquire it.

If no museum wishes to acquire the find, the Secretary of State will be able to disclaim it. When this happens, the coroner will notify the occupier and landowner that he intends to return the object to the finder after 28 days unless he receives an objection. If the coroner receives an objection, the find will be retained until the dispute has been settled.

What if a museum wants to acquire my find?

If this happens, then the coroner will hold an inquest to decide whether the find is treasure. The coroner will inform the finder, occupier and landowner and they will be able to question witnesses at the inquest. Treasure inquests will not normally be held with a jury.

If the find is declared to be treasure then it will be taken to the British Museum or the National Museums & Galleries of Wales so that it can be valued by the Treasure Valuation Committee.

How do I know that I will receive a fair price for my find?

Any find of treasure that a museum wishes to acquire must be valued by the Treasure Valuation Committee which consists of independent experts. The Committee will commission a valuation from one or more experts drawn from the trade. You, together with the museum that wishes to acquire the find and any other interested party, will have an opportunity to comment on the valuation and to send in a separate valuation of your own, before the Committee makes its recommendation. If you are dissatisfied you can appeal to the Secretary of State.

What if the coroner or museum loses or damages my find?

They are required to take reasonable steps to ensure that this does not happen but, if it does, you should be compensated.

Who will receive the reward?

This is set out in detail in the Code of Practice. To summarise:

·    where the finder has permission to be on the land, the rewards should continue to be paid in full to him or her (the burden of proof as to whether he or she has permission will rest with the finder). If the finder makes an agreement with the occupier/landowner to share a reward, the Secretary of State will normally follow it;

·    if the finder does not remove the whole of a find from the ground but allows archaeologists to excavate the remainder of the find, the original finder will normally be eligible for a reward for the whole find;

·    rewards will not normally be payable when the find is made by an archaeologist;

·    where the finder has committed an offence in relation to a find, or has trespassed, or has not followed best practice as set out in the Code of Practice, he or she may expect no reward at all or a reduced reward. Landowners and occupiers will be eligible for rewards in such cases.

How long will it take before I receive my reward?

The Code of Practice states that you should receive a reward within one year of your having delivered your find, although this may take longer in the case of very large finds or those that present special difficulties. If no museum wants to acquire the find it should be disclaimed within 6 months or within 3 months if it is a single object.