Ringing the changes: when terminology matters

• Autores: Gillian Varndell
• Localización: Antiquity, ISSN 0003-598X, Vol. 75, Nº 289, 2001, págs. 515-516
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • Under the old Treasure Trove laws, small, single items of precious metal were frequently dismissed by Coroners as casual losses (although they still had to be reported). This meant that numbers of small items never went to inquest, as one of the criteria for Treasure was that in all likelihood objects had been buried with the intention to recover them (the animus revertendi). This criterion was removed when the new Act was passed some five years ago. The extension of the law to cover such items has thrown up at least one problem of definition.

    A later Bronze Age gold penannular ring was recently found not to be treasure at inquest, because the piece was held to be a coin. Single, stray finds of coins are not counted as treasure, whereas any ornament of precious metal at least 300 years old, small or large, is now eligible under the 1996 Treasure Act. This raises two issues. The first concerns the definition of ‘coin’ as explained in the Code of Practice; the second is about terminology, and specifically the use of the term ‘ring-money’ to describe such objects.