My knowledge of the regulations continued with The Detectorists but began with The Mildenhall Treasure by Roald Dahl. (Here is a PDF of the full article.)
The Crab Nebula is [11 light-years across](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/in England there is a very curious law), so gotta be a handful of stars in there.
Quite possibly they could do that. Again, what I was grumbling about was that the story originally posted didn’t discuss the issue at all. If they’d discussed it, working out a loan to the museum might well have been something to discuss; but they ignored the whole issue entirely.
(Presuming the BBC article is accurate, the article originally posted also lied about what happened; the OP article says she claimed to have lost the coin and eventually the museum and the state just quit bothering her about it, but the BBC says she turned the coin over to the coroner and then won it back in court.)
Not just that though - the limited vocabulary, the incredibly simple sentence structure, constantly repeating the same information, etc, it’s literally like it was written by someone in middle school trying to pad out their 500 word essay assignment.
“The older she got, the more information she could get ahold of and process.”
“Things were about to get heated as she found herself in some hot water.”
“Kate was living her life, minding her own business, when she received a knock at her door.”
Though the stock images of things like a pile of envelopes under the mail slot were pretty funny.
It’s designed to try to preserve the discovery of potentially important archaeology (and not just the artifacts themselves) - if you find a single coin, it could be just a dropped coin - if you find a cluster of coins, it’s likely someone put them in that place on purpose - and that starts to imply that the site itself might have some other things about it to be discovered.
Clickbait is not trying to aim particularly high, doing so would be cross-purposes.
That’s what she gets for going to the Hogwarts Museum of Numismology.
Look, I realise America is all about ‘me me me, finders keepers, go away or I’ll shoot’, but the UK regards archaeology as part of the national heritage, and we’d rather it ended up cared for and researched in a museum for future generations than lost in the crack between the floorboards underneath some 12 year old’s bed.
If what you find isn’t of much historic interest, then you can keep it. If not, then you’re entitled to the market value (shared with the landowner where you found the item). So it’s not as if you’re getting stiffed by the Government.
A lot of Americans aren’t even aware there’s a second verse to “The Star-Spangled Banner” let alone know the words. Impressive deep dive from across the pond here, SanVito!
^^^This is why we need a “Like” button. 
Not really.
Finding even a single coin may be important, if it was previously thought that no such coin would be in that location.
Most finds aren’t going to be that sort of thing, of course – but a requirement to report allows people who understand the issues to check whether a particular find is of importance or not.
In addition, even for common items, a surprising amount of information can now sometimes be gotten from the precise location in which something’s found, and/or from its relationship to other finds. In this case of course the in situ situation no longer existed; but the finder presumably still remembered at least the general location and depth.
Quit the dickering! How much “current currency” did she get for the old coin?
~VOW
Are you from the USA? You do realise that the modern human archaeology in your country is even older than the the vast majority of the archaeology in the UK, yeah? And the ancient archaeology in the USA means a great deal to some of the people that live there now.
Do you realize I don’t live in the UK, and was not familiar with the law? That’s kind of why I asked the question! You know, “fighting ignorance” and all that?
Sheesh. Did I make a judgement on the law?
My brother found actual Indian arrowheads on our property, and no cops came and arrested him, and it didn’t make international news. All I asked was why the UK was different.
Unfortunately the valuation that is frequently given is by assessors from preservation institutions such as museums and archives, and it often over two/thirds less than actual market value.
One reason posited is that those institutions do not want to raise the value of the item or of similar items and will often use low valuations as justification for low valuations on further discoveries, and its not as if they are ever intending to make use of the real value since they will never be put on the market anyway.
Result is that such items are found and sold in other markets and the context of the find is then lost, and the context is almost always more important to academia than the object itself.
There have been finders who have gone completely down the legal route and cooperated with the authorities only to be denied treasure trove or feel they have been ripped off in the valuation - along with the grindingly slow pace of assessment which can and does take years, and in some cases decades. Result is that low value items might be turned in, but higher value ones don’t get notified - and again its not the actual item that is important, its where it was located and in relation to other archeology. Stuff shows up from time to time on the markets that could have revealed important information but if you are the finder and potentially losing out on ££££ or don’t get an outcome for years then why would you bother - the chances of being caught are minimal.
The law on treasure trove is fine, its the arrogant practices of academe that causes the issues.
You kind of did make a judgement on the law with the questions I quoted.
One of the answers to the question ‘why’ is that there is still so much we don’t know about life in Britain in the past, why things changed and when etc., especially before the Romans came, or for example during the early medieval period. Any archaeological find has the potential to provide a breakthrough in understanding.
I think Indian arrowheads are probably common and relatively uncontroversial (though I’d be interested to find out if there is any debate about that). But if you were to dig up decorative Indian artefacts that were as old as the coin in question here (ie pre-conquest), what you did with them would definitely raise moral questions, if not legal ones.
It’s illegal in the USA to disturb artifacts on State or Federal land. It’s usually legal to do so on private land with the permission of the property owner, but not if human remains would be disturbed.
https://www.saa.org/about-archaeology/archaeology-law-ethics
The lack of protection on private lands probably has a whole lot more to do with the attitude towards private property in the USA, and with the historic development of USA property law, than it does with whether either sites or particular artifacts are in need of protection.
Part of the issue is that the untrained person isn’t likely to know which “old shit” matters and which doesn’t. People who think they’ve found a relatively recent and common arrowhead may have picked up and removed from all site context something which is a great deal older and/or rarer. Here’s an example:
The particular finds being discussed there aren’t all that rare either – but given that (not surprisingly) most people can’t tell a 10,000+ year old spear point from a 300 year old arrow head, most people can’t tell an important artifact from an unimportant one, either.
And a lot of the rest of the issue is that a great deal of information can be discovered from things most people don’t think of as mattering at all; in particular if these things can be found in their original relation to each other. Here’s an article discussing some of the issues:
and here’s one about the importance of a particular more recent site,
including that part of the analysis involved
Now if you’re picking up points out of a tilled farm field: yes, a whole lot of that context has been destroyed already. And it’s possible that those points are all common, that their prevalence in the area is already well known, and that they’ve got no connection with a ceremonial or grave site that still matters to anybody. But the point I’m trying to make here is that most people picking up what they think is a pretty arrowhead have no idea whether any of that is true, because they don’t know enough about the subject to tell. And it seems to me that that’s what the UK law is trying to accomplish: making sure that somebody who does know enough about the subject gets to take a look.
In the USA, at least, there’s also the issue that often descendents of the original owners are still around. They’re likely to have varying opinions on the subject (at least, if we’re just talking about stone points; I think there’s a pretty good consensus about grave sites and human remains.)
Of course, we learned it from the Great Masters of “Finders Keepers” and the originators of “Go Away Or I’ll Shoot.” Those, of course, would be the folks that brought you the British Empire.
“Look, some land! We’ll declare it ours! Ignore those pesky people who say it’s theirs. Shoot them if necessary. Mine mine mine!”
How soon we forget History…
Oh dear, touched a nerve it seems.
One reason, which archaeologists are very aware of, is that what we can learn from it today may well not be all that the artefact can tell using currently unknown technologies.
A good example are the carbonized papiriy from Herculaneum, recently some amazing work has been done to be able to read them that were completely unfathomable when they were first discovered, or 20 years ago for that matter.