It’s a simple story. A hoard is found but the museums say the Treasure Valuation Committee valuation is too high so they decline to buy it. So it has gone to auction and out of the public’s view forever. In the event it sold for a little more than the Treasure Valuation figure but of course anyone other than those with the playground mentality of most detectorists will know that valuations comprise a spread of probabilities and ranting about and appealing against the half you don’t like makes you look like a greedy, illogical dimwit. As always, if these were amateur archaeologists that would be understood and there would be fewer complaints about the system.
There hasn’t been much public fuss over the loss of this hoard, probably because people mistakenly equate “not wanting to buy at that price” with “not wanting”. But of course, the hoard IS wanted and in any logical or civilised scenario it should be in a museum. But Britain’s portable antiquities laws and practice are not a logical or civilised scenario and the two finders and the farmer are flogging it for as much as they can get and there’s not a thing anyone can do to stop them.
One thing shouldn’t be forgotten though: if the finders (who reckon they are part of a history-loving group who aren’t motivated by money and who are permitted to pursue their activities on that basis) had offered to forego or significantly reduce their share a museum would have bought it and the rightful owners, the public, would be able to see it.
Update I think we’ve just been Orwelled! A Finds Liaison Officer, no less, has complained on the Rescue facebook page that we are “ill-informed” and “prejudiced” and we haven’t highlighted those who DO give up their rewards. That is because they are a tiny minority and frankly we aren’t in the PAS game of pretending the majority (in this matter and in the whole of best practice) are well behaved and responsible. They aren’t, and even PAS has conceded that in its published figures. We aren’t apologists for metal detecting and our continuance isn’t dependant upon praising them. Can PAS say the same? “Prejudiced” means taking a particular line in defiance of the evidence. Hasn’t PAS done that for 17 years?