eBay | Central Unit blogs

Coroners and Justice Bill – Treasure Act

Yesterday in the House of Lords, the Coroners and Justice Bill received its second reading and it contained some important discussions about the role of the Coroner with regard to the Treasure Act. The full transcript can be read on the theyworkforyou website. The important parts are displayed below:

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bach):

…Aside from their heavy responsibilities for the investigation of certain deaths, coroners retain one residual function dating back to their 12th century origins; namely, the investigation of treasure finds. Following the debates in the other place, we are persuaded of the case for establishing a national coroner for treasure so that in future local coroners can devote all their time to their core responsibilities. I hope this decision will be particularly welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport and other noble Lords who have played an important role in this field and by their colleagues on the All-Party Group on Archaeology…

Lord Kingsland:

…However, I want to start off on a positive note. The Minister announced that the Government have had second thoughts about the position of the treasure coroner and have decided to restore it. That was the position when the draft Bill was considered. I say on behalf of the Opposition that we welcome that move, as, I am sure, do many Members of your Lordships’ House…

Lord Howarth of Newport:

My Lords, the Bill raises momentous constitutional, judicial and ethical issues which are being debated with your Lordships’ customary incisiveness. I shall just consider one item from the extensive menu that the Bill presents, and that is the issue of treasure. The Minister reminded the House earlier that, since the 12th century, coroners have had responsibility in relation to treasure. It is therefore perhaps not unreasonable that, in the 21st century, we should update the legislation. We should not be impetuous in these matters, but we should not be dilatory either.

It was a mystery why the provisions on treasure in the 2006 draft Bill were omitted from the Bill which we have before us, but happily we no longer need to inquire into that mystery, because today my noble friend told the House that the Government would reinstate in the legislation the provision for a single national coroner for treasure for England and Wales. I am very grateful to him for that. I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Archaeology Group, and a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries.

The draft provisions on treasure were widely supported when they were presented, as certainly will be the Government’s change of heart announced today. Already, it has been generously welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, from the opposition Benches. It will be very much welcomed by the all-party group and the Society of Antiquaries, and by the British Museum, which has statutory responsibilities for administration on behalf of the DCMS of the regime created by the Treasure Act 1996. It will be welcomed as well by the National Council for Metal Detecting, which represents the vast majority of people who actually make finds of treasure.

The definition of treasure is complex and derives from the 1996 Act but, in summary, it means any gold or silver finds that are over 300 years old; groups of coins in certain circumstances; and, where they are prehistoric, base metal groups or hoards of items.

The provisions in the draft Bill were retabled in Committee in another place, and debated on 24 February. Mr Henry Bellingham set out the case for them admirably and in doing so acknowledged then, as I do today, an indebtedness to the British Museum for its advice on these issues. Ministers listened to what was said in that debate, and, in due course, accepted its conclusions. That seems to me, on a miniature scale, a very good instance of how parliamentary democracy ought to work-a point I think worth making, given that today it is unfashionable to suppose there is any good whatsoever in parliamentary democracy in this country.

Why is it right to establish a single coroner to deal with all cases of treasure? Coroners in many areas, facing a multitude of pressures-a number of which have been described by noble Lords earlier-have been failing to meet the target set for them in the Treasure Act’s code of practice to resolve treasure issues within three months. The average time taken is about twice that. There is much variability: in some areas-Durham and Leicester, for example-it has been taking a year to deal with these cases. In Bridgend, it took nearly three and a half years for the coroner to hold an inquest in a particular case of treasure. I of course make no complaint or criticism of the Bridgend coroner. As was movingly described to us in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the Bridgend coroner was under the most extraordinary pressure in the exceptionally tragic circumstances in that community. Indeed, any coroner being aware of the urgent desire of bereaved families for inquests to be completed could readily be excused for not making the consideration of treasure cases his top priority. But evils have arisen out of these delays. People who have reported finds have been prevented from receiving their due rewards, which is unfair on them, and the prevalence of delays has made it likely that others will be deterred from reporting finds that they may make. That tends to take us back towards the state of affairs that prevailed before the 1996 Act and before the creation of the Portable Antiquities Scheme. That was chaos: items of treasure simply disappeared, important information about our archaeology and history was not recorded, and lucrative opportunities were provided for criminals operating in the antiquities market-a matter which the Government solemnly committed themselves to tackle seriously when they subscribed to the UNESCO convention.

Not only will the system of having a single national coroner be more efficient and speedier, we can expect that a dedicated coroner will be more expert in this field, and it will be cheaper to have a single treasure coroner-never a negligible consideration. The BM has computed that the saving will be of the order of £320,000 to £400,000 a year. So the decision that the Minister has announced today will be good for everyone: good for the finders of treasure, good for the landowners on whose land the treasure is found, good for the museums where these items of treasure should be consigned, good for scholars, and good for the public who appreciate items of treasure and learn from them.

I did not hear the Minister say earlier whether it was the Government’s intention also to reinstate in the Bill the provisions that were in Schedule 3 to the draft Bill. That schedule would have brought forward three amendments to the Treasure Act, all uncontroversial and all recommended in the 2002 review. The first provision would widen the obligation to report finds of treasure to anyone who comes into possession of it, not just finders. That would put pressure on dealers and others such as people operating internet sites, notably eBay. The second alteration would provide a power for the coroner to require anyone reporting a find of treasure also to deliver that treasure-if it was in their possession-to the coroner. The third reform would extend the limitation period for prosecutions, which is currently six months. If coroners take a year to establish the evidence, it is very difficult indeed for the police to proceed.

The system created by the Treasure Act is a success. The number of finds reported has risen from some 25 a year before 1997 to more than 800 in 2008, but the delays which have infested the system have tended to bring it into disrepute and to undermine its effectiveness. Parliament would, therefore, do well to legislate the solution that the Government themselves originally proposed.

Lord Redesdale:

My Lords, many noble Lords have complained that this is a ragtag Bill or a dog’s breakfast, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, just said, but for some of us this is a fantastic thing. Those involved in legislation to do with heritage or archaeology always find their issues tagged on the end of something else, so to find them in this Bill is a wonderful feeling. Before I thank the Minister for accepting the amendment on the coroner for treasure, I should say that I am almost disappointed because I have with me a briefing with coloured tags for an incisive and decisive argument. I have never been so well prepared for an amendment, but he has shot the fox, as the expression goes. However, I thank the Minister for accepting the arguments and for the work done by other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, and all those in the All-Party Parliamentary Archaeology Group.

However, I think that the Minister would be upset if I said that I would leave it at that and that I was going to sit down, so there are a few points that I want to make. I thank the Minister for putting something back that had been in the draft Bill, so these are almost government points. Three other small points that would be of incredible value to those of us in the heritage community were contained in Schedule 3 to the 2006 draft Bill. If they were included, life would be a great deal simpler for those in the heritage sector. They all concern aspects of treasure. Some noble Lords may not be aware of the growing number of finds due to the Portable Antiquities Scheme, which is now looking at much stronger funding due to the Government’s work. Treasures are being brought to light by metal detectorists in areas the majority of which would have been destroyed by the actions of industrialised farming. Noble Lords can go to the British Museum to see the treasure exhibition or catch it on tour to appreciate the value of the finds that are coming up through the Portable Antiquities Scheme.

The first of the three amendments that I ask the Minister to replace in the Bill, because they would make life a great deal easier, is to widen the obligation to report finds of treasure to anyone who comes into possession of treasure. At present, the duty to report treasure in the Treasure Act 1996 rests solely with those who find treasure. The British Museum has an agreement with eBay to monitor its site for potential treasure, although it is thought that many items of treasure are sold by third parties without applying the appropriate due diligence tests. The amendment would encourage best practice.

I have had a number of meetings with eBay on this after the passing of the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Bill, a Private Member’s Bill that I had the joy of taking through your Lordships’ House. When I found the legal representative for eBay and said that I would like to talk to him about this, his first answer was: “How the hell did you get this number?”. It is not the easiest thing tracking down eBay. I am not saying anything about the quality of the company, but there is a major problem with the fact that a market could be created in finds. We know from the English Heritage report on nighthawking that the illicit selling of finds is a major problem. If this market is created on eBay and takes hold, we will see a large number of our sites raided. Of course eBay has made agreements with other European countries on this. We asked it why it had not signed an agreement in this country and it said that it was because our legislation is not as strong as legislation in other European countries, which I believe says something about how we prioritise our heritage. This is an extremely important amendment and I hope that the Minister will look at it kindly, because there are a large number of APPAG members who are going to enjoy a few discussions on this. If he just accepted what of course was a government amendment, against which it is going to be very difficult to argue, that would shorten the course of the Bill.

The second point is to give the coroner powers to require anybody who reports the discovery of found treasure to deliver it to the coroner. We know of a case where Bronze Age axes were reported to the coroner but some of the best of them were kept out of the report, which meant that there was a real problem in finding out about their existence.

The third point, which I think is extremely important in making sense of the Treasure Act at all, is to allow more time for prosecution to be brought under the Act. The case that I just mentioned took a long time and, even though the police were prepared to prosecute, the statute of limitations, which at present is at six months, is not long enough to deal with the process. If a coroner’s report is taking a year-or in some cases two years-the statute of limitations kicks in and the whole system is made a farce.

These would be three small but valuable changes. They would not be very costly but would make the job of the coroner for treasure announced by the Minister far more relevant. I believe that they would make our heritage far safer from that small minority of people among the metal-detecting community who use metal detecting for profit rather than for extending the knowledge of our heritage.

Oxford Archaeology/ English Heritage 'Nighthawking report' published

A report upon the impact of illicit detecting (also known as “nighthawking”) is launched today at the Society of Antiquaries by English Heritage. This report, conducted by Oxford Archaeology on behalf of English Heritage, is available from our website and also from the HELM website and produces the following key points:

Provide clear guidance to the police, Crown Prosecution Service and Magistrates on the impact of Nighthawking, how to combat it, levels of evidence and possible penalties.
Provide more information for landowners on identifying Nighthawking and what to do when they encounter it.
Develop better ways to find out what is going on and establish and promote a central database of reported incidents of Nighthawking.
Publicise the positive effects of responsible metal detecting and the negative effects of Nighthawking.
Ensure the PAS is fully funded, so links between archaeologists and metal detectorists are further strengthened.
Integrate metal detecting into the archaeological process, including development control briefs.
Implement changes recently introduced in Europe which increase the obligation on sellers of antiquities to provide provenances and establish legal title, and urge eBay to introduce more stringent monitoring of antiquities with a UK origin offered for sale on their website.

The Report shows that Nighthawking seems to have declined on two counts compared with an earlier survey in 1995, although there is still a significant problem with Nighthawking down the eastern side of England from Yorkshire through Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex.

On two measures which were surveyed in the CBA’s 1995 Survey, “Metal Detecting and Archaeology in England”, nighthawking appears to have declined: (a) in 1995 188 scheduled monuments were reported as having been damaged, and in 2008 the number was 70 and (b) in 1995 74% of archaeological units reported that they had been attacked, whereas in 2008 the number is 28%. The Report attributes this, in part, to the work of PAS.

If you are interested in discussing the Scheme’s role in the production of this report, please contact Michael Lewis or Roger Bland in our Central Unit on 0207 323 8611.

Important new Treasure finds announced

More success for Treasure and the Portable Antiquities Scheme

The Treasure Annual Report, announced today, records another dramatic increase on the amount of finds reported in the last year, with 749 objects reported in 2007 (up from 665 in 2006). The current report includes all finds which have passed through the Treasure Process in 2005 and 2006, 1,257 finds in total. Key finds include one of the best Iron Age torcs to be found in the last 50 years. The ‘Newark Torc’ provides an excellent example of the value of the Treasure Act, in that its discovery has forced historians and archaeologists to re-think the importance of the Trent Valley area 2,000 years ago. The proper recording of this find, and indeed all the finds listed in the report, have contributed inestimably to our understanding of our past.

Culture Minister Barbara Follett said:

“The treasures of the past that are found in the fields, farms and fells across the UK are vital pieces in the puzzle that help us understand the origins and development of our culture and identity. Since the implementation of the Treasure Act in 1996 – which ruled that finders and landowners will be eligible for rewards for finds – museums have reported a ten-fold increase in the treasure items offered to them. I am delighted that through the work of all those involved in the scheme more archaeological material is now available for all to see at museums, helping us to learn about the lives and behaviours of people of the past.”

Museums across England and Wales have benefited from the increase in Treasure finds in terms of their collections. Thanks to funding from sources such as the Art Fund and the National Heritage Memorial Fund, 282 of the finds from last year have been acquired by museums across the country. 2006 has also seen an increase in donations of Treasure finds to museums, following an initiative by the Government to encourage
finders to gift their discoveries to local museums. 44 finders generously donated finds to museums in 2006, up from 25 the previous year.

The Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) plays an increasingly important role in the operation of the Treasure Act. Since 2003, when the PAS was extended to the whole of England and Wales, there has been an average increase of 193.68% in the reporting of Treasure. The highest increases have been in the Isle of Wight (1507%), Sussex (964%) and the North East (440%). The Scheme is managed by the British Museum on behalf
of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council.

The PAS was established to record all finds found by the public; not just Treasure. In 2007 a further 77, 606 archaeological objects were recorded on the PAS database (www.finds.org.uk), with the overwhelming majority of finds discovered by people metal-detecting. The database currently lists more than 360,000 objects and is widely used by scholars, archaeologists and the public alike. The British Museum is delighted
that funding has been secured for the continuation of this excellent scheme.

For further information or images please contact Hannah Boulton on 020 7323 8522 or
communications@britishmuseum.org

FINDS AT THE LAUNCH

A wide range of significant objects have passed through the Treasure process in 2005 and 2006, below are some key examples:

A stunning Iron Age Torc. Date, c. 200AD – 50 BC. Made of a combination of
gold and silver, this torc was found by Mr Richardson in 2005 near Newark in
Nottinghamshire. Mr Richardson was searching for a crashed WW2 aircraft when he
discovered this important find. Although torcs have been found in the UK, most
particularly in Norfolk, this is the first time one of these objects has been found in this
part of the country. It has therefore forced archaeologists to re-think the importance of
the region 2,000 years ago and to question how and why this high-status object
travelled from East Anglia to Nottinghamshire. Valued at £350,000, the torc has been
acquired by Newark Heritage Service and is the most expensive single Treasure find in
recent history. 2005 T52 (Cat 82)
A beautiful Anglo-Saxon mount. Date, 7th century AD. Made of gold and garnet,
this small object was found by Mr Minshall whilst metal-detecting in Essex in 2006. Its
exact function is unknown but it may have been part of a necklace pendant. The object
has been acquired by Chelmsford Museum for £3,000. 2006 T440 (Cat.252)
An Anglo-Saxon roundel. Date, 10th – 11th century AD. This gold and enamel
roundel is probably from Hampshire. It was found by Mr K Hollyfield while metaldetecting
between 1980 and the early 1990s, and reported Treasure by his son. Though
it was not declared Treasure – because it was found before the commencement of the
Treasure Act 1996 – the object was such a rarity that it has been purchased by the
British Museum. This object shows the Hand of God descending in a gesture of blessing
or divine acknowledgement. The setting almost certainly derived from a larger object
of some kind and in terms of design shows similarities to the famous ‘Alfred Jewel’.
2006 T242 (Cat.286)
A Medieval silver seal matrix. Date, 13th century AD. This matrix features a
Roman red jasper intaglio and was discovered in Swanley, Kent in 2005 by Mr Mann.
Whilst it is not unusual for a Medieval seal matrix to contain a Roman intaglio, this is a
unique find as the intaglio shows the only known surviving gem portrait of Roman
Emperor Antoninus Pius (r.138-81). Antoninus Pius was the successor to Hadrian. It
has been acquired by the British Museum for £2,750 2005 T75 (Cat.536)
Large Roman Coin Hoard. The hoard found in Snodland, Kent consists of more
than 3,600 coins and associated pottery deposited in about 347 AD. Found by a digger
driver during a geo-technical survey prior to development, it was excavated by the Kent
Finds Liaison Officer. The hoard is currently under investigation at the British Museum
2006 T467 (Cat.1118)

Notes to Editors:

All finders of gold and silver objects, and groups of coins from the same finds, over 300
years old, have a legal obligation to report such items under the Treasure Act 1996.
Prehistoric base-metal assemblages found after 1 January 2003 also qualify as Treasure.
Treasure finds must be reported by law to the local coroner, which is normally done
through the finders local PAS Finds Liaison Officer. The Treasure Process is
administered by the British Museum. More information is available on
www.culture.gov.uk or www.finds.org.uk
The Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) is a voluntary scheme managed by the British
Museum on behalf of the Museums Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) to record
archaeological objects (not necessarily ‘Treasure’) found by members of the public in
England and Wales. Every year many thousands of objects are discovered, many of
these by metal-detector users, but also by people whilst out walking, gardening or going
about their daily work. Such discoveries offer an important source for understanding
our past. More information can be found on www.finds.org.uk
The MLA is government’s agency for museums, libraries and archives. Leading
strategically, we promote best practice to inspire innovative, integrated and sustainable
services for all
The British Museum and MLA have also developed an agreement with eBay to monitor
the site for unreported Treasure, and the Department of Portable Antiquities & Treasure
(British Museum) works closely with the Metropolitan Police’s Art & Antiquities Unit in
this aspect of its work. In 2007 intelligence on 144 cases was passed to the police.

Our Museum experience on YGMG scheme

Over the last two weeks, the Museum has been hosting a group of teenagers who are part of the Young Graduates for Museums and Galleries Scheme. We have had Helen Etheridge and Dominic Coyne working with us on various tasks. They have been absolutely brilliant and we would host them again. Maybe they will end up working here one day. Below, Helen and Dominic write about their experience at the Museum. Thanks for all your help.

—————

When applying for a place on the Young Graduates for Museums and Galleries scheme I had no idea of the wealth and diversity of information I would come across. These two weeks have been invaluable and have included a whole variety of experiences, ranging from studying medieval jewellery to examining Egyptian limestone under a scanning electron microscope. I could never have imagined such a wide-ranging experience of museum life and have benefited hugely from this.

For the initial two days of the placement I worked with the Portable Antiquities Scheme which records archaeological objects found by members of the public in both England and Wales. This is extremely important as it advances current knowledge of the history and archaeology of England and Wales, makes objects more accessible and raises awareness of the true extent of information that can be learned from these objects .Our first task was to search EBay for any objects which could be counted as treasure. In 1996 the Treasure Act was passed and meant that any object that is at least 300 years old and is at least 10 per cent by weight a precious metal must be counted as treasure. There are many other points which the object must comply with and if it it turns out to be treasure then the object is property of the Crown. When we found such objects on Ebay the details were placed in a database and the seller was notified about the Act and what steps they needed to take. Although we did not always find many objects it was interesting to see what kind of archaeological objects people were trying to sell and how many were trying to avoid the Treasure Act.

PAS has to produce an annual report of all the finds which have been recorded. We helped to input the relevant images of the Neolithic, early Medieval and Roman periods and they are to be used by the designers who are going to put the report together, matching the images to their descriptions.

We spent the following week in the science department which was extremely enlightening, particularly as I am not currently studying any science subjects. It was interesting to see how science is used in the museum and how the science that you learn in the classroom can be applied to many different situations. Each day we were able to learn about and witness the use of different scientific machinery such as the photographic microscopes, scanning electron microscope and the Xray diffraction technique. I particularly enjoyed studying the different types of Egyptian limestone so as to work out why the Egyptians chose limestone from different quarries to use for stelae due to their individual properties. While in the science department we were set the task of recording flint tools found in excavations in Tell es-Sa‘idiyeh, having already been taught how these tools were created from an original core and what purpose they may have once had.

Our final week began with a tour of the conservation department which took us through conservation such as that of stone, paper and organic objects. We returned to PAS for the rest of the week and carried on with our original tasks. Towards the end of the week we were both given cameras and took photos of treasure acquired through the scheme in gallery 49, most of this being from Roman Britain. After labelling and writing information about our photos they were put on www.flickr.com where they can be viewed by the public as well as on the Portable Antiquities Scheme website.

Overall this has been an amazing experience and has given me an insight into the true extent of work that is done behind the scenes at the museum.

Helen Etheridge – Coloma Convent Girls’ School

As a student on the Young Graduates for Museums and Galleries I was lucky enough to be able to work with the Portable Antiquities Scheme and Treasure and the Conservation, Documentation and Science Department at the British Museum.

I started with a week with the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) with Dr. Michael Lewis, the deputy head of the department and Daniel Pett, the ICT adviser.

The department deals mainly with the public face of British archaeology, helping to further public education on archaeological matters and to help enforce the Treasure Act which enshrines the legal status of ancient gold and silver objects found in Britain.

My first task was directly related to the enforcement of the Treasure Act, searching EBay for items of treasure that had possibly been found by accident or by metal detectors and whose finders are unaware of the terms of the Act by which any gold or silver items over 300 years old had to be reported to the coroner in case a museum wishes to acquire it. Our first taste of treasure was the Harrogate Hoard, a newly found 617 Viking silver pieces of jewellery and coins in an engraved silver bowl.

After spending a short time in PAS we moved to the Department of Conservation, Documentation and Science. Here, working with Dr Caroline Cartwright and expert on analysis of organic materials where we were introduced to her work on tel-es-Sa’idiyeh, a Canaanite settlement in Jordan. we were also introduced tot the methods that the department use to analyse objects in the Museum’s collection such as electron microscopy, X-ray fluorescence and x-ray diffraction (which can be used to find the elemental make up of objects).We were also involved in a project aiming to identify the quarry sites of Ancient Egyptian limestone used to make Stele in the British Museum’s collection.

After a week in the Science Department we moved back to PAS where we were involved in the production of the department’s annual report. We also took pictures of items of treasure on display in the Museum and these were then uploaded to the Flickr photograph website and now appear on the Portable Antiquities Scheme website www.finds.org.uk.

I really enjoyed myself in the departments and I was made to feel very welcome by all members of staff. I already had an interest in archaeology and the placement here confirmed that I would enjoy a career in the subject . I would definitely come back to the department if invited. The British Museum is fascinating to see from the inside as the polished façade and public galleries gives way to a warren of store rooms, offices and laboratories, among the highlights being the Asian conservation studio with its bamboo floor and temple like atmosphere and the Organic conservation studio, a converted Egyptian gallery containing the mummies and sarcophaguses not normally on display to the public.

I would recommend the programme to anyone who has never experienced the inner workings of a museum and wants to see the wonders of the ancient world up close and without the glass in the way.

Dominic Coyne – Wallington County Grammar School

Portable Antiquities news stories

Sword fitting The Times online featured a story relating to an Early Medieval Sword pommel that was reported to the Portable Antiquities Scheme and subsequently was processed under the Treasure Act. This object was recorded in the 2002 Treasure Report as 2002 T285 and has since been acquired by the BM. I’ll add a better picture to this article when I get back to work. This was the sword featured in 2003 in the Hidden Treasure series on BBC2. I have hazy memories of that show! However you can download this from a bit torrent site – http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=hidden+treasure – probably slightly dodgy and therefore no endorsement from me or the BM.
The article written by Dalya Alberge (who recently wrote about our work on eBay) can be found at:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2532089,00.html

One of my colleagues, Dr Marzinzik said:

“The large garnet settings are extraordinary, as substantial garnets of this kind are scarce, particularly in the 7th century when supplies from the Indian subcontinent and Sri Lanka dried up. Their analysis can shed light on the economic background of gemstone provenance and trading networks. Suddenly we’re part of a much bigger picture. Before, we were not in the picture.”

The next story that I’ve seen on RSS feeds is a story about the discovery of a hand axe, I’ll embellish this page with the find number later when I can find it. There’s a range of lithic implements that this gentleman has found…

Monitoring eBay for illicit antiquities

Since our joint announcement with eBay back at the start of October, the Scheme has been monitoring sales on a regimented basis. However, this proved to be quite a labour intensive task. Therefore, I started to look into ways to monitor eBay more efficiently from an IT perspective. There were a couple of techniques that I turned to and these focussed on:

Screen scraping searches
Making use of the eBay API
Making use of XML (RSS feeds)

After some playing around, I decided the most easy to implement was making use of the RSS feeds that you could generate directly from eBay’s search results. These come as RSS 2.0 XML. So for example, if one searched for gold ring you would return the following XML feed (see image for screen shot). This can then be read in any RSS reading software or via more current browsers such as Firefox 2 or IE 7. Other possibilities could be opened up, for example importing the XML directly into a MySQL table (not quite sure how to do this via PHP script – any ideas?) using a 3rd party tool such as Navicat. Once this data is stored in MySQL, you could then perform custom queries on these data. This can be far more powerful than manual searching or filtering of these data. However, as I only have Navicat on my home pc, I can’t do this just yet. Therefore the other solution as an intermediate point is to use the import data function in Microsoft excel. You can select import XML – in this case RSS – and paste this directly into a spreadsheet. By setting up individual custom searches and creating an RSS feed, you could have a work book set up which saves wasted surfing time and weeded out the Chinese listings in the British category for example. Example searches within antiquities might include:

Roman
Anglo-saxon (and variants.) The definition of Anglo-Saxon implies that it is an English find normally.
Gold

What we then do is check through Treasure records to see if the object posted for sale has:

A likely provenance from England and Wales.
A comparison within a Treasure Report or if it has been recorded and disclaimed.
Whether it is subject to the Treasure Trove law or Treasure Act (1996) – ask an expert in the field.

Ergo, if we think a find has a possibility of being “Treasure”, then we contact the finder via eBay’s email mechanism – we don’t obtain personal details unless someone responds from their own email address, and like all other information we record it is subject to DPA - and ask questions regarding the item’s status and whether they are willing to record/ report it if need be. We’re there as a preventative measure rather than as enforcement. We would rather people were aware of their obligations and law enforcement would only be called in as a last resort if the seller is clearly in breach of the law and is unwilling to co-operate after being informed of their obligations. We have had a good success rate, with the majority of people being unaware that they were potentially breaking the law. [People are free to sell and buy antiquities, as long as they don't break antiquities laws.]

Statistical analysis produced in the past is probably highly flawed, and this methodology may allow for much more accurate recording of the “problem” of artefact sales. It went on number of archaeological objects on sale on any day. It did not reflect the unique appearance of each sale; I have noticed over time that a large amount of offered antiquities don’t get bought at all and are offered for sale several times. Therefore some of the figures bandied about on various internet fora may well be well wide of the true scale of archaeological object sales. Over the next few months, it may well be the case that we can produce some highly sophisticated statistical analysis.

Revision to Treasure Act debated in House of Lords

Last night saw revisions to the Treasure Act COP debated in the House of Lords, transcript of debate as follows:

Draft Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice (Second Revision) England and Wales
7.53 pm

Lord Davies of Oldham rose to move, That the draft code of practice laid before the House on 20 July be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this debate relates to proposed revisions to the code of practice published under the Treasure Act 1996 by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. It spells out the principles and practice to be followed by her in the treasure process and provides guidance to other parties involved in the treasure system. The Secretary of State is under a statutory duty to keep the code under review and to revise it when appropriate. It is being revised now to reflect the fact that certain administrative responsibilities relating to the valuation of finds of treasure and the payment of rewards are to be transferred from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to the British Museum.

Currently the DCMS undertakes a number of responsibilities relating to the valuation of treasure finds and the payment of rewards to finders and landowners. It is intended to transfer, with conditions, these responsibilities, in respect of finds made in England and Wales, to the British Museum. The museum already undertakes a number of other responsibilities in relation to the administration of the Treasure Act 1996.

This transfer of responsibilities is designed to have two primary benefits. It will improve the service offered to those who report and acquire treasure. No

24 Oct 2006 : Column 1164

longer will they have to deal with two institutions as a find works its way through the system. They will have to deal with only one institution, the British Museum. By being involved throughout the whole process, staff at the British Museum will be best placed to ensure the smooth progress of any item from the beginning to the end of the treasure system. Locating these responsibilities in one body will also remove the current need to replicate files and expertise over two organisations. This will improve the efficiency of the treasure system, leading to related savings. However, we are also mindful of the need to preserve the integrity of the current system and to ensure that it retains public confidence.

We recognise that the British Museum is a potential purchaser of treasure finds and, at the same time, under these proposals, it will also be responsible for the administration of the system which recommends to the Secretary of State the price that museums should pay for such finds. It is because of these concerns that a number of safeguards have been built into this transfer to preserve the integrity of the system. These include: in all cases it will remain the Secretary of State’s responsibility to make decisions in relation to rewards and valuations; the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will also retain its responsibilities relating to valuation in cases where the British Museum has shown an interest in acquiring a find; appointments to the Treasure Valuation Committee will continue to be made by the Secretary of State; the right for interested parties to make representations to the Secretary of State against the Treasure Valuation Committee’s recommendations will remain; and a detailed memorandum of understanding will be agreed between the DCMS and the British Museum. This will spell out the responsibilities of both organisations and will be available for public scrutiny. We feel confident that these safeguards will ensure that the system retains a high level of confidence among those involved that all finds are fairly valued.

The code of practice needs to be amended to reflect the new procedures which will be followed once the transfer of responsibilities has taken place. A full review of the code is planned for 2007, when other proposed amendments to the treasure system will be considered. However, the last review of the code took two years to complete and it was considered that the benefits associated with this transfer were sufficiently compelling for these amendments to be made in advance of the forthcoming review.

Both the principle behind the amendments to the code of practice and the amendments themselves have been consulted on. The consultation documents were sent to stakeholders, including the British Museum, the National Council for Metal Detecting and various museums and their representative bodies. All responses to the consultation were supportive of the proposed transfer of responsibilities and of the proposed amendments to the code. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft code of practice laid before the House on 20 July be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.

24 Oct 2006 : Column 1165

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches support the code. It seems to us to be logical. I know that many groups have been consulted. Moving the responsibility from the DCMS to the British Museum, with the appropriate safeguards, makes all the sense in the world because the British Museum has extensive knowledge. Of course, it will cut down on some of the costs involved.

One issue that we have to raise is that of integrity. The Minister said that while those bringing forward treasure would have to feel that they were receiving a fair price, the Treasure Act itself is a law to try to stop those who take part in illicit activities and do not bring forward treasure finds to be valued. That is one of our major problems we have: the system of “night hawking” by metal detectorists who RAID some of our fine sites, taking metal objects which could have been used for dating purposes.

It is unfortunate that no prosecution has taken place under the Treasure Act, which is of course a valuable tool to show where the law lies. It has, however, been extremely difficult to bring about a prosecution. Despite some good work done by the police, the value of these finds often means that no prosecution is made, even though the damage to our ancient monuments in the acquisition of those illicit objects should not be underestimated.

8 pm
I raise this issue because the DCMS is giving up a responsibility to the British Museum. We should be looking carefully at the enforcement of the Treasure Act. This is one aspect of the Treasure Act, but we must also ensure that people are aware of the functioning of the Act. That has been undertaken by the Portable Antiquities Scheme, which is also based at the British Museum. There are 49 find liaison officers who liaise with finders and ensure that much of the information is gathered and recorded. The Portable Antiquities Scheme was originally set up with lottery funding, but the DCMS has taken on board that it has a responsibility to fund the scheme. Without the scheme—the linchpin of the Treasure Act—the Act would be worthless to a degree, because few people would know of its provisions and comply with them.

I raise this issue because Portable Antiquities Scheme funding is currently under threat. Under the spending review for 2007, there has been a requirement to make cuts, year on year, of 7 per cent. That means that the Portable Antiquities Scheme would lose 19 posts by 2010, making it inoperable. There would then be a question mark over whether the Government were doing enough to ensure that the Treasure Act was properly supported. I asked the Government whether they could give an assurance that this would be reviewed; there is a review of the Portable Antiquities Scheme next year. It would be helpful, however, if the DCMS could give some assurance that the very linchpin of the Treasure Act is not going to be removed through funding cuts.

Lending support to the idea that this must be done, objects are coming up for sale on the illicit market. One of the major ways in which illicit objects are now

24 Oct 2006 : Column 1166

being traded is through eBay. The Portable Antiquities Scheme has done good work in monitoring what is happening on eBay. However, while the scheme and the Treasure Act have been incredibly successful in bringing forward treasure items to be valued and therefore saved for the nation—some of these items are quite exquisite—there is a growing market in illicit British finds being sold. I therefore hope that the Government will not pass off their responsibilities to other departments, such as the British Museum, and pass up their responsibility for paying for them.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I, too, welcome these provisions, and the success of the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme as a whole. These revisions, savings and proposed rationalisations are clearly entirely appropriate. Much of the scientific work is done at the British Museum.

However, the Minister was a little modest in his presentation of the scheme. One reason for the formal transfer of many of these responsibilities to the British Museum is the formidable success of the Treasure Act, as reinforced by the Portable Antiquities Scheme. I do not think the late, lamented Lord Perth, when he was so vigorously pressing for the new Treasure Act, passed in 1996, could quite have envisaged the success of the scheme. In that year, about 25 treasure trove finds went through the appropriate procedure. In the most recent year for which we have figures, 2005, it was something like 596: an increase by a factor of 20. It has been an enormous success. As I shall say in a moment, and as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has indicated, the Portable Antiquities Scheme and the finds liaison officers have played an important part in that process.

The very success of the treasure trove scheme means that many more pieces are being offered to the nation’s museums, including the British Museum, and which it is desirable to acquire. Fortunately, it has been possible to provide the funding, in large measure through the Heritage Lottery Fund as well as the Victoria and Albert Museum scheme. I declare a benign interest as a trustee of The Art Fund which has also played a role. It is suggested that the Heritage Lottery Fund is likely to play a decreasing role in future. I wonder whether it is not time for the Government to set aside a modest sum—£1 million a year or so—for treasure acquisition. Otherwise, there will be a considerable problem.

Wonderful things have been acquired in recent years. One of the most remarkable was the Ringlemere cup: a wonderful gold cup from the beginning of the early Bronze Age, around 2000 BC, which compares with the Rillaton cup. I remind the House that the treasure scheme has been updated from earlier days. I think I am right in saying that on the death of King George V, the Rillaton cup was found on his desk, containing his cufflinks. In those days the treasure system clearly worked in a less formal manner than today. I am sure we welcome that, and the fact that it is now safely in the British Museum.

24 Oct 2006 : Column 1167

This is linked to the great success of the Portable Antiquities Scheme. The finds liaison officers, as the House will know, not only encourage the effective operation of the Treasure Act, but also the voluntary reporting of antiquities, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has reminded us, which are not treasure—they are not gold, silver or whatever—but which are worth recording. In 2005, 57,000 antiquities were so recorded. The scheme is an enormous success on which the Government are warmly to be congratulated. It also has an outreach dimension: there are millions of hits on the website associated with the scheme, and the very efficient team based at the British Museum goes to schools and gives lectures. The nation’s treasure is not only being put in the right place—in museums, in many cases—but is being of educational value.

If I may be even more affable about the Government, it has been a good decade for antiquities. It started in 1996, when there was still a Conservative Government, as the Minister will recall, but since then a number of significant steps have safeguarded antiquities in this country. The ratification of the 1970 UNESCO convention by this Government, is one of them, and the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003—in which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, had a significant hand—was a great step forward. However, the Act does not work retrospectively and, like the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I am still uneasy about some of the things that go on.

For instance, the Sevso treasure was recently exhibited in a London saleroom. It is not believed to have been found in this country—although I do not think the Minister could give me an assurance that it was not—and it was probably exported from its country of origin, almost certainly illegally, after 1970 and must therefore be of uncertain ownership. I find it difficult to see how the Government could grant it an export licence. However, we cannot blame the Government for the failure of the legislation at that point because of the convention that legislation does not act retrospectively. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said in today’s Guardian, it is a knotty problem that requires resolution, but that will not be easy. However, the larger picture has been entirely positive.

I shall conclude on the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, by pointing out that the success of the working of the Treasure Act and the Portable Antiquities Scheme depends on the team of 47 or so people based at the British Museum who work in liaison with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The Comprehensive Spending Review is causing anxiety among those of us who admire the working of the scheme. I am told that it will require about £1.5 million to operate at the present level in 2008-09 and about £1.6 million in 2010. Like the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I ask the Minister to consider ring-fencing those sums so that the scheme can go forward.

It is sometimes said that the present Government are looking for a legacy. There may be some areas where the legacy does not command my entire admiration, but in this area, for which the Minister is responsible, it is a fine legacy, and my advice to the Government is to safeguard it by ring-fencing it. I am therefore happy to support the code.

24 Oct 2006 : Column 1168

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who contributed to this short debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, for his comments about the advances we have made in allocating finds to their proper place, which, in many cases, is for the good of the national museums. I could expand his praise of recent developments in terms of museum attendance, the figures for which are so much higher than they were in the recent past. That reflects the fact that we now address ourselves to a nation that is much more aware of this legacy and of the enormous rewards than can be derived from our museums and that takes a keen interest in this subject. That is why the Government are committed to our strategy.

Both noble Lords stretched the discussion on the code. I sought to emphasise not only that the code of practice is based on rationality, but also that there are administrative gains by effecting reductions in unnecessary expenditure, thereby releasing funds for necessary expenditure. I hope the noble Lords recognise that we are concerned about these matters, but they ranged much more widely than that.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that we have a genuine problem with those who do not declare their finds. Those involved in detection give enormous help in rescuing treasure. They play their part in archaeological digs and engage in their own forays. Many honest citizens and true ensure that, as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, indicated, finds become available, and proper rewards go to those who have discovered them and to those on whose land they have been found.

8.15 pm
However, there is the hidden market and the substantial activity—although we are not able to quantify it with any accuracy—of those who do not follow the procedures that we expect them to with regard to such finds. That is a genuine problem. The British Museum, the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council and eBay have recently produced a partnership agreement so that eBay can be alerted to items on its site that may be unreported treasure finds. Of course not everything will be sold through eBay, but there is no doubt that this action will potentially close down the illicit activity of people advertising their finds when they have no right to be selling them. We are concerned to block that.

I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, suggests about greater activity by my department in pursuit of the illegal. That is not the direct responsibility of the DCMS. The Home Office is concerned with illegal acts. It is very much in the nation’s interest that we reduce such illegal activity to the absolute minimum, but the noble Lord will recognise that prosecuting authorities will act only on clear evidence that such activity has occurred. That is not easy to establish, as I am sure he will recognise.

Both noble Lords indicated that departmental cuts might affect the efficiency with which the work is carried out. All departments are under the rubric of finding efficiency gains. The DCMS and its supporting agencies are in the same position as others. The noble

24 Oct 2006 : Column 1169

Lord, Lord Renfrew—quite rightly, given his enormous interest in and massive contribution to this work over the years—says that this item of government expenditure and activity should be ring-fenced. He will not be surprised to hear me say that I believe that if I succumbed to such a concept—I am mindful that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is sitting opposite me and knows exactly where the economic pennies fall—there would be a wide range of representations in this House for ring-fencing of a similar kind. So I cannot promise that this evening, but I can undertake to ensure that efficiency gains will increase the efficiency of organisations and not damage process. I am entirely at one with both noble Lords that this work is of great benefit to the nation.

The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew—he will not mind if I say it on this occasion—predictably raised the issue of the Sevso treasure. I did not think that I could stand at the Dispatch Box this evening and introduce an instrument with the word “treasure” in it without the Sevso treasure being mentioned. I assure the House that the Government have not been asked to grant an export licence. If they are, they will consider whether they have any discretion in the matter. Although we cannot guarantee where the Sevso treasure was found or who owns it, there are sufficient vigorous claims around for the Government to be unlikely to need to decide whether there should be an export order. I cannot go any further than that from the Dispatch Box—and the noble Lord will recognise why I cannot—but we obviously have a keen interest in the outcome if the Sevso treasure actually comes to market. There are great uncertainties about all aspects of the Sevso treasure. The nation is right—and I am glad that the noble Lord raised the matter this evening—to be to be alert to the problems attendant on that.

I want to say how much I appreciate the constructive way in which both noble Lords discussed the issues this evening. Both of them have contributed an enormous amount to this work over the years. If I introduced the Motion modestly, it is because, as I am all too well aware, I personally have a great deal to be modest about, in comparison with the two noble Lords who have spoken on the issue. What is more, a guiding light of the department is to do as much good by stealth as we are able. The code of practice, which is in the public domain without stealth, will, I hope, do good. Accordingly, I commend it.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

You can comment on this directly at the excellent “They work for you” website.

Press coverage for the eBay announcement

The announcement of the MOU with eBAY and MLA has already generated some press coverage this morning. These include:

The story is slowly filtering through internet news sites and I’ll add these as the day goes on.

BBC news – Treasure trove warning over eBay
Web user news – eBay stops illegal treasure sales
This is London – eBay teams up with Police
Mirror online – eBay to hit looters
Guardian unlimited – Netted: agreement to control sale of antiquities on eBay
The Register – British Museum to police eBay (sly dig at the end noted.)
Britarch – discussion list
BAJR forum
Econsultancy news
24 Hour Museum – PAS monitors eBay
BBC Radio 4 – You and Yours (select Tuesday and use rubbish realplayer!)
Blogging stocks – eBay after the bell 10-3-06: Some policing, but not by eBay
CRONACA blog – British Museum & eBay accord on antiquities
Computer active -Ebay to help stop illegal antiquities auctions
MLA – press release

eBay Memorandum of Understanding

Today is quite momentous for the Scheme, as we’ve been working on this MOU ever since I joined. So here goes:

MLA logo eBay logo

The British Museum and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) have partnered with eBay.co.uk to ensure that antiquities found in the UK are being sold legally on its site.

In order to prevent illegal sales of treasure, the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS, which is managed by the British Museum on behalf of the MLA) has set up a team to monitor antiquities sold on eBay.co.uk and to ensure that sellers have the right to trade them. Where the listing is illegal, PAS will report it to the Art and Antiques Unit of the Metropolitan Police and eBay.co.uk, which has committed to end illegal listings.The commitment is the latest development in eBay’s on-going work with national law enforcement agencies.

eBay.co.uk is the first website to reach an agreement with the British Museum and the MLA banning the illegal sale of treasure over its trading platform,

English, Welsh and Northern Irish archaeological finds which constitute ‘treasure’ must be reported to the relevant authorities under the Treasure Act. Failing to report a find of treasure is a criminal offence.

In many cases, sellers innocently trade items on the web, unaware that finds need to be reported under the provisions of the Treasure Act. eBay has therefore also worked with the British Museum and PAS to create a guide to buying and selling antiquities safely on its site with advice about reporting obligations. The guide is to be found at http://pages.ebay.co.uk/buy/guides/antiquities

Dr Roger Bland, head of Portable Antiquities and Treasure at the British Museum said:

“We welcome eBay’s assistance in helping stop the illegal sale of antiquities on the internet with this partnership. Our experience is that most people who buy and sell UK archaeological finds do so without being aware that they may be breaking the law if items have not been reported. We have therefore worked with eBay to ensure that its users are aware of its obligations through our guide. We will also be contacting sellers to ensure that they have reported items and have appropriate documentation.”

Chris Batt, MLA Chief Executive added:

“For those who are selling items illegally, this partnership means we have in place a process to stop listings and take action against the individuals concerned. Doing so is vital because such activity is not only illegal but could also damage the archaeological record as, without effective reporting, valuable insights into our past could be lost forever.”

David Lammy, Culture Minister comments

“eBay is one of this century’s greatest success stories. A truly global phenomenon. But like us, they recognise that the expanding internet trade in art, antiquities and antiques has potential for abuse, and it is important that steps are taken to ensure that it does not unwittingly become a cover for criminality. I commend eBay for taking such a responsible stance.”

Garreth Griffith, head of Trust and Safety at eBay.co.uk, comments:

“Educating our customers on what to look out for when buying antiquities on eBay and informing sellers of their obligations is of paramount importance. Giving our customers the knowledge and engaging that knowledge to help with our investigations work means we have 15 million pairs of eyes and ears out there working with us on a day-to-day basis.

Working with British Museum and PAS and harnessing the strength of our community of buyers and sellers means we have an extensive network to ensure that antiquities are sold legitimately. It is also an excellent example of the way that eBay can work with law enforcement to track people seeking the break the law and bring them to account.”

DS Vernon Rapley, head of the Met Police Art & Antiques unit said:

“This is a really good example of the art market and those concerned in the preservation of antiquities working together to help prevent and detect cultural property crimes. We are fully supportive of the initiative and hope that it has a real impact on preventing illicit sales.”

———————-

The Scheme has also produced the attached monitoring leaflet, which documents the work of two volunteers who worked for me recently monitoring the trade on eBay and enriching our database for all to use. I am sure this story will generate much interest in the media. You can also download eBay’s guide to buying antiquities – buying_guide.pdf and the Scheme’s own version guide.pdf. Advice for potential purchasers of antiquities can also find this on the internet.

———————–

Monitoring eBay report | PAS advice for potential purchasers of Antiquities
Memorandum of Understanding document | eBay buyer’s and lister’s guide