# Who Owns a Thing Nobody Owned > In 1939 a jury decided the Sutton Hoo burial was not treasure trove, so it belonged to the landowner. The same ground would answer differently today. > The Study - 2026-08-29 > Canonical HTML: https://iconotheca.com/study/who-owns-a-thing-nobody-owned/ ## Key points - A find that nobody owns is allocated by the law of the place it was found and the date it was found, not by anything about the object. Two comparable Anglo-Saxon burials from the same country, seventy years apart, produced opposite outcomes. - The Sutton Hoo inquest of 14 August 1939 turned on intention. The coroner directed the jury that treasure trove required the goods to have been hidden with a view to recovering them later, and a grave deposit is not hidden in that sense. The jury found on all five points that the find was not treasure trove, and it passed to the landowner, Edith Pretty, who gave it to the British Museum within the week. - The Treasure Act 1996 removed the intention test. Under section 4 treasure now vests in the Crown, or in a franchisee where one exists, subject to prior interests and rights held when the treasure was left where it was found. - The Staffordshire Hoard, found in 2009, ran through that newer machinery: declared treasure at inquest, valued by the Treasure Valuation Committee at 3.285 million pounds, and the sum split equally between the finder Terry Herbert and the landowner Fred Johnson. - Italy does not run a rewards system for this at all. Archaeological finds vest in the State automatically, which is why the Getty bronze was forfeited by order of the Tribunale di Pesaro in 2011, confirmed by the Court of Cassation in 2019, and why the European Court of Human Rights found no violation on 2 May 2024. ## The question a find asks is not who found it ## In 1939 a jury decided the Sutton Hoo burial was not treasure trove ## The 1996 Act deleted the test the 1939 jury applied ## The same soil, seventy years apart ## Italy does not ask the question at all ## Greece kept the paperwork from the first day ## What a buyer should actually check ## Why this archive is free to read The same helmet, buried in the same county, would belong to different people depending on which century somebody dug it up. That is not a defect in the law so much as the honest shape of it: ownership of an unowned thing has to be assigned by rule, and the rules were written at different times for different reasons. What follows for anyone assessing an antiquity is narrow and unforgiving. The findspot and the date of discovery are the two facts that decide title, they are the two most commonly missing from a provenance line, and no quantity of later documentation will substitute for them. ## Questions **What was treasure trove, and how did it differ from the Treasure Act 1996?** Treasure trove was the common law rule under which gold and silver hidden by an owner who intended to recover it belonged to the Crown. Concealment was the trigger, so grave goods and abandoned objects fell outside it. The Treasure Act 1996 replaced that with a statutory definition based on age, material and composition, and dropped the question of intention entirely. **Why did the Sutton Hoo find belong to Edith Pretty?** Because the inquest of 14 August 1939 found it was not treasure trove. The coroner directed the jury that they would need to be satisfied the objects had been concealed by someone intending to recover them later, and a ship burial is not concealment in that sense. With treasure trove ruled out, the owner of the land took the find, and prior authority preferred the landowner to the finder. **Who owns an archaeological find made in Italy?** The Italian State. Italian cultural heritage law vests archaeological objects found underground or on the seabed in the State automatically at the point of discovery, whether the finder is private or public. There is no reward split comparable to the English system, because ownership never passed to the finder in the first place. **What did the European Court of Human Rights decide about the Getty bronze?** On 2 May 2024, in application number 35271/19, the Court held that Italy's confiscation order engaged the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions but was justified by the interest in recovering unlawfully exported cultural property. The Italian confiscation, ordered at Pesaro in 2011 and made final by the Court of Cassation in 2019, therefore stood. The statue nevertheless remains at the Getty. **How much was the Staffordshire Hoard valued at, and who received the money?** The Treasure Valuation Committee valued it at 3,285,000 pounds in November 2009. The sum was divided equally between the finder, Terry Herbert, and the landowner, Fred Johnson. Birmingham and Stoke-on-Trent raised the money by public appeal to acquire the hoard for their museums. ## Sources - [1] Treasure Act 1996, section 4, Ownership of treasure which is found, on legislation.gov.uk. Read for the vesting of treasure in the franchisee or the Crown subject to prior interests and rights, and for the definition in subsection 2 of the prior interests that count. - [2] Treasure Act 1996, table of contents, on legislation.gov.uk, for the structure of the Act: meaning of treasure at sections 1 to 3, ownership at 4 to 6, coroners' jurisdiction at 7 to 9A, and rewards, codes of practice and report at 10 to 12. - [3] The Sutton Hoo Ship's Company, 'The Sutton Hoo Inquest, Part 1', for the date of 14 August 1939, the coroner L. H. Vulliamy, and the coroner's statement of the treasure trove test as turning on hiding rather than abandonment. - [4] The Sutton Hoo Ship's Company, 'The Sutton Hoo Inquest, Part 2', for the jury's verdict of not treasure trove on all five points, the direction on intention to resume possession, the preference for the owner of the soil over the finder, Edith Pretty's title, and her gift to the British Museum announced a week later. - [5] Rescue, The British Archaeological Trust, 'Staffordshire hoard worth 3.285 million', for the Treasure Valuation Committee's figure set at the British Museum in November 2009, the equal split between finder Terry Herbert and landowner Fred Johnson, and the Birmingham and Stoke-on-Trent acquisition appeal. - [6] Center for Art Law, 'Case Review: Getty v. Italy (2024)', for the European Court of Human Rights judgment of 2 May 2024 in application 35271/19, the Tribunale di Pesaro confiscation order of 10 February 2011, the Court of Cassation's confirmation of 2 January 2019, and the automatic vesting of finds in the Italian State. - [7] Art-Law Centre, University of Geneva, ArThemis platform, case note on Victorious Youth, Italy v. J. Paul Getty Museum, for the procedural history of the Italian proceedings.