You may remember the Twinstead Detecting Rally where lots of detectorists pocketed Treasure and took it home without a word to the Landowner. Well it’s happened again! Here’s what the organiser of “Amber’s Digs” (closed to the public) posted on their website the day after their recent event near Thirsk:
“I have just told the farmer that a hoard of twenty two coins were found on his field and that when the field is ploughed again there will probably be more. He was happy to have been told and I told him I will show him these coins next week as we are going back on the pasture around the farm and stubble further away. So please get them in to us…your name will be attached to your coin/coins.”
To explain:
- On the day of the event the farmer wasn’t given the coins or even told they’d been found.
- They were gathered together (well 22 were anyway) but then various detectorists were allowed to take them home. (Why?!)
- How many took them home is unclear as elsewhere the organiser said “About ten” implying they’re not sure.
- Now they’re appealing to the finders (“about ten” plus any others not known) to bring back twenty two coins (plus any others not known) to show to (not give to) the farmer at a further event next week!
Good luck with that! Surely that will strike anyone that isn’t a metal detectorists as no way to treat someone else’s property or potential national Treasure or ensure it is delivered in full to either the current owner or the Coroner? As we have said ad nauseam, if a potential hoard is found it shouldn’t be taken away (particularly in ten or more pieces to ten or more locations by ten or more people none of whom owns it!). Common sense and logic dictate it should be delivered as a whole for safekeeping to the one person that currently owns it and who can be easily contacted by the authorities.
How long must we wait until the archaeological establishment tells detectorists that is the only reasonable way to behave and warns every landowner to beware of people that tell him otherwise? There really is no excuse for official or professional silence on this. And of course, if detectorists dared to disagree or failed to comply it would blow their “only in it for love of History” claim sky high.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Update 25 April 2012:
First we note that the organiser posted on a forum that the (known) 22 coins were returned to be declared but “One new member who had never found a hammered before brought his back a little cleaner [big smiley face] than when he took it home He thought it was ok to give his a polish”
(That perhaps illustrates the “shambolic” nature of the stewardship).
Second he had posted on another forum…. “The coins will be going off soon as we have 14 days to actually hand them in, the farmer wanted to see them it’s the least we could do.” It is indeed the least they can do considering the coins aren’t their property!
(And that illustrates the “inappropriate” nature of the stewardship).
This whole incident begs a significant wider question that doesn’t deserve to be ignored: it’s a plain fact that the way Treasure and other significant finds are temporarily curated is a matter of national importance so should the temporary curator be a known landowner or multiple less known artefact hunters? The answer can hardly be in doubt, so the opinion should surely be officially expressed? One has to wonder, if such an opinion was widely known and farmer Eric Robinson had not allowed the Crosby Garrett helmet off his farm would much knowledge not have been lost and would the helmet now be on display in the museum?
_____________________________________________________________
More Heritage Action views on metal detecting and artefact collecting
_____________________________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
23 comments
Comments feed for this article
24/04/2012 at 08:49
Gareth Marklew
I agree with most of what you say, bar one point. Surely the most appropriate course isn’t to hand the finds to the land owner, but to note their location and leave them in the ground pending proper archaeoogical excacation? Without a proper examination of the site, with the finds in situ, you’ve lost the whole context of the coins, not to mention any finds that aren’t metal or are of no interest to the detectorists.
Has anybody considered reporting these people to the police? If items have been removed without the owner’s consent, or if any of them constitute “Treasure”, you’ve presumably got potentially proveable offences. Maybe it’s worth putting a dossier together and sending it to the appropriate authorities? It’s bad enough that sites are being looted around the world, without this continuous plundering in our own backyard as well.
24/04/2012 at 09:09
heritageaction
The police were involved at Twinstead. How this differs from that is a mystery so it will be interesting to see if they do get involved and if they don’t what reason they give.
Perhaps the organisers have a signed contract saying if Treasure is found then they are authorised to let Tom, Dick and Harriet take bits of it away to goodness knows where but somehow we doubt it.
No doubt disturbing the context in this case would be defended on the grounds it was already disturbed. But yes, very commonly detectorists keep digging and don’t call professionals in when it is obvious they are causing damage and information loss. Very rarely do their Treasure rewards get reduced or withheld as a result.
25/04/2012 at 08:33
Graham dale
There are two contentious points in this article.
1.The implied widespread dishonesty of the finders without any evidence whatsoever is appalling.Do we really live in a country where guilt by ridicule is the norm?
2.Your suggestion that the coins should be left with the farmer seems to ignore the FINDERS legal resposibility to ensure these are handed to the Coroner.
Graham Dale
25/04/2012 at 09:22
heritageaction
There is no ridicule, this is far too serious for that.
1.) At no point did we imply “widespread dishonesty of the finders”. But we certainly don’t think that public policy on temporary curation should be based on the idea that all artefact hunters are honest. Evidence would suggest that some aren’t, would it not? Or did Twinstead not happen?
2.) You say “Your suggestion that the coins should be left with the farmer seems to ignore the FINDERS legal resposibility to ensure these are handed to the Coroner.” Really? So they have to be taken home and then brought back to the organisers as part of this responsibility do they? Why? And what’s wrong with leaving them with the owner, and informing the authorities? Can’t PAS then deal with it as they so often do? What IS the problem with that? Are you implying “widespread dishonesty” amongst farmers? Where’s your evidence? If it was put to a vote, who do you suppose the public would want as temporary curators – ten or more detectorists with ten or more addresses or Farmer Giles of Manor Farm who owns the coins and has been there for decades?
25/04/2012 at 10:06
Graham dale
You know perfectly well that the niether the farmer nor landowner is the owner of Treasure found on land they farm/own so why do you imply that they do.Treasure belongs to the State .If the `public` which to change the Law no doubt they will attempt to0 do so but in the meantime you cannot expect Finders to ignore their legal obligations just because you disagree with the system.
25/04/2012 at 10:42
heritageaction
Until ruled Treasure the coins are the property of the farmer and a finder’s obligation is to REPORT suspected Treasure, not to take personal possession of it.
Your “dig” operated as if neither was true. Please don’t persist in telling us otherwise. Ask the authorities. Or a lawyer. Or the police.
25/04/2012 at 11:27
graham dale
You will be fully aware of the British Museums advice to finders on what to do with items of Treasure that they find which is quoted below
WHERE WILL I HAVE TO TAKE MY FIND?
Your local Finds Liaison Officer is normally the main point
of contact for Treasure finds (details of your local Finds
Liaison Officer can be found at http://www.finds.org.uk, email
info@finds.org.uk or telephone +44 (0)20 7323 8611).
Upon depositing the find you will be given a receipt.
You will need to provide information about exactly
where you made the find (the findspot), wherever
possible to the equivalent of a six-figure National Grid
Reference (100m2): in official dealings, the parish or a
four-figure National Grid Reference (1km2) will be
used, whilst a more general location description may
be used for particularly sensitive finds. It is strongly
recommended that you and the landowner should keep
the find-site location confidential.
Why do YOU persist in suggesting the Finders should ignore the advice of the British Museum and follow your suggested practice of giving it to the Landowner..
For the record by the way I am not associated with the group in question and was not at the `dig` I just object to your critisism of people who were obeying the Law and have complied with it in every way.
25/04/2012 at 13:10
heritageaction
Yes, we know the document. http://finds.org.uk/documents/advice.pdf Anyone that reads it will see that you have misrepresented it. The advice you quote relates to later in the process, when and if it has been decided the artefacts need delivering. That advice is irrelevant at this early stage when the clear instructions are:
“HOW DO I REPORT A FIND OF TREASURE?
“You may report your find to the Coroner in person, by letter, telephone, fax, or email: your Finds Liaison Officer will be able to help you to do this.”
It is farcical to suggest that something that can be done in person or by telephone, fax or email gives you the right or need to take the owner’s property home to ten different houses. (How often is such a claim made to farmers? One shudders to think.)
We asked you not to persist in misrepresenting the position but you have, in a most blatant fashion. But no more.
25/04/2012 at 18:07
Gareth Marklew
Interesting, ‘though isn’t it? If the finders in this case had followed the guidance that Mr Dale refers to, then the organisers wouldn’t be asking the finders for the finds back, because the finders wouldn’t have them any more. I wonder how many of those with coins have contacted their FLO, or the Coroner so far?
25/04/2012 at 19:30
heritageaction
Quite!
“I wonder how many of those with coins have contacted their FLO, or the Coroner so far?”
None probably, as it seems to be being left to the organisers despite there being no reference to it being OK to delegate your responsibility!
Add to that the failure to hand them over to the current owner and shambles looks too kind.
26/04/2012 at 05:26
Paul Barford
and of course the guy who decided to polish the coin that was not his to alter.
26/04/2012 at 12:33
Christine
It’s simply outrageous in my humble opinion and as for polishing one of the coins, a coin that is part of our common Heritage, well that simply beggars belief. It is akin to Jetwashing Stonehenge to make it look better.
26/04/2012 at 15:50
John Bishop
“Jetwashing Stonehenge” lol. God that’s a thought. Comparing a poxy single coin to Stonehenge is taking the biscuit. Really, do people really take that viewpoint? Beggars belief
26/04/2012 at 16:21
Michael Hammond
What beggars belief is that these people try to suggest they are fit and proper persons to take charge of what isn’t theirs yet they didn’t even bother to make sure that fellow knew the basics of conservation.
26/04/2012 at 19:05
Gareth Marklew
I think the “one poxy coin” comment sums up the lack of understanding on the issue quite nicely. We don’t know if the coin is poxy or not, because we don’t know for ceratain what the coin is, where it was found, or what the layers cleaned off contained, or what impact the cleaning process will have on what remains. Assuming it’s reported to the coroner in due course, we might get some of that information, but it will be forever divorced from all context
27/04/2012 at 10:23
John
What exactly are the coins in questions? Can you shed any light on type,age etc?. Are they Celtic?
27/04/2012 at 11:10
heritageaction
http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2012/04/11/durham-group-unearth-13th-century-silver-coins-61634-30734508/
27/04/2012 at 19:22
Annabelle
When will this sordid practise finally stop? Common Heritage belongs to the people, the public, the stakeholders in our past. When will museums finally realise this and desist in their actions?. It is about time the law was changed so that we can all benefit as a nation of the enlightened.
29/04/2012 at 20:32
Paul
Annabelle, what is it exactly that you want museums to desist from doing?. Are you referring to them hoarding artefacts in vaults, away from the public?
30/04/2012 at 20:08
Mike Bowlen
I for one would like to see more stuff in museum archives out on display or at least sold off to fund the acquisition of artefacts that are more appealing to the public. More footfall through the doors means more public interest in heritage and its management and also less chance of a museum closure.
25/04/2013 at 07:16
john robinson
graham one of the club organisers has posted on central searchers website that he found a gold posy ring and members found 25 hammered coins on a site have these been declared treasure??
10/05/2013 at 12:39
Nigel Ford
What kind of site is this that censors Graham dale because it doesn’t like or agree with his comments?
He has not tried to be rude or unpleasant.
10/05/2013 at 13:10
Pat
This is a conservation website. Our view is that metal detecting should be legally regulated so as to maximise the public benefit. Anyone that doesn’t subscribe to that aim will get no soapbox here. The site is about such people not for them.