No. 42. — 1891.] PROCEEDINGS. 



27 



Archaeology. 



No. 130. Anuradhapura, November 21, 1890. 



Sir, — I have the honour to annex for your information copies of 

 letters Nos. 129 of 20th instant and 131 of this date, addressed by me 

 to Government in connection with your letter to the Hon. the Colonial 

 Secretary of the 20th August, regarding the better preservation of 

 objects of Archaeological interest. 



I am, &c, 



To the Hon. Secretary, Ceylon Branch, H. C. P. Bell, 



Royal Asiatic Society. Archaeological Commissioner. 



Archaeology. 



No. 129. Anuradhapura, November 20, 1890. 



Sir, — I have the honour to return the enclosed letter and G. O. 

 (Madras) No. 373, 1889, Archaeology, received with your letter of 

 August 27, 1890, and to offer the following remarks thereon, for the 

 consideration of Government : — 



1. It is generally admitted by those interested in the question of 

 the preservation of antiquities that more effective action than has 

 been heretofore exercised should be taken to put a stop to the undue 

 appropriation or misuse of ruins throughout the Island. 



2. Some orders to this end were, it is believed, issued a few years 

 ago, but it is doubtful whether they were given that publicity or 

 enforced with the strictness essential to their efficacy. 



3. In addition to those orders, the Legislative Enactment touching 

 the question is Ordinance No. 17 of 1887. This Ordinance follows in 

 some respects the Indian Act, No. VI. of 1878, but in others departs 

 from it materially. 



4. It is needless that I should enter into a close comparison of the 

 Ceylon Ordinance with the Indian Act. I shall limit comment to one 

 or two salient points wherein I venture to think the Ordinance No. 17 

 of 1887 requires amendment on the lines of the Indian Enactment. 



5. Clause 1. This, the "Interpretation Clause," is not sufficiently 

 comprehensive. It might be made to run : " For the purposes of this 

 Ordinance Treasure Trove should mean money, coin, gold, silver, 

 plate, bullion, precious stones, antiquities, or anything of any value found 

 hidden in the earth or in anything affixed thereto'" This broader 

 definition, as with Act VI. (India), Clause 3, would cover sculpture, 

 remains of buildings, and other objects of antiquarian interest, as well 

 as coins and articles of intrinsic value. 



6. So long as Government continues to assert absolute property in 

 all Treasure Trove, irrespective of its value, and to limit the finders 1 

 reward to half the value as a minimum, it would be a mere work of 

 supererrogation to recommend a more equitable treatment of the 

 question. The more summary, if less liberal procedure, of our Ordi- 

 nance relative to the obligation of finders and possessors, the 

 magisterial inquiry, penalties, &c, meets all practical requirements. 



7. On the other hand, if the Government is prepared to reconsider 

 the terms under which treasure is claimed by the Crown, an approxi- 

 mation to the Indian policy is greatly to be desiderated in public interest. 



