Dear English Heritage and Council for British Archaeology,
No word yet on if you’ll publish an official finds agreement to protect us farmers from being ripped off but I notice EH has already written something that would do nicely. It’s in their document that all participants in official archaeological projects (including many detectorists) happily sign. There’s no reason it shouldn’t be used in all leisure detecting too. It is just 30 simple words:
“I understand that all finds from the site, other than Treasure shall remain the property of [the landowner!] and I will not claim ownership, possession, or any other right in such finds”. They oblige the finder to bring all finds to the legal owner (me!) at which point, if I feel like it, I may give him some or all of them. What could be righter or fairer?
Yet dangnabbit, you advise people (in the official Code and elsewhere) to sign just “a” finds agreement, leaving them wide open to “other” words and agendas. (Just look at the agendas in the NCMD one!). Worse, you say it will “avoid subsequent disputes” when that’s simply untrue. They’re my artefacts. By law. How can there be an ownership dispute? That can ONLY happen if extra words are added to the 30. Why a respectable profession is frightening a trusting public into thinking otherwise goodness knows. (Well actually, I do know, but you should stop.)
Thanks,
Silas Brown
.
************************************************
.
PS – I see that, following my first letter, Glasgow Uni amended its Encyclopedia. Now, not disclosing finds to the landowner is nighthawking “(except where this was agreed in advance with the landowner to be unnecessary).” However, non-disclosure is never, ever “unnecessary” for a clause that authorises it leaves the hapless landowner wide open to being massively ripped off. Hence, anyone getting him to sign it cannot be acting in his interest and a university definition that implies it is normal also works against his interest. Let’s hope it is changed.
_____________________________________________________________
More Heritage Action views on metal detecting and artefact collecting
_____________________________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
42 comments
Comments feed for this article
02/10/2012 at 23:35
calmgrove
Having lived in the city I know that it’s not only irritating if someone came into your garden and dug up some plants or liberated some garden furniture that they took a shine to, worse, it feels like a kind of violation. Now that I live in the country I think the same principle applies.
04/10/2012 at 20:39
Jenny
The taking of and selling of the common heritage is immoral, regardless. Makes no matter whether the finder or the farmer claims legal right, it is WRONG, plain and simple.The notion of protecting farmers being ‘ripped off’ goes against the principle that ownership of our heritage belongs to all, not just the elite few.
Judging by how readily farmers allow metal detecting on land and that they show little interest in the matter of what is found is indicative in my opinion that farmers are not the least bit interested in history or heritage and are at best, complicit in our heritage loss and destruction.
05/10/2012 at 11:04
Nigel
Three points:
First, very many farmers refuse to have detectorists on their land so they at least may well have concern for heritage.
Second, “farmers aren’t interested in what is found” is something only detectorists say. It’s a very convenient claim, and neatly covers the fact they don’t get shown a lot of finds. I dont think, for a moment, most farmers would be uninterested, if shown. Not the farmers I know anyway. As for the idea they arent interested even if the finds have monetary value, that’s simply preposterous – yet it’s a claim that thousands of detectorists have made. Every time a farmer is not shown an article worth £5 – or lots of them – he is being scammed. Fact. Ask Silas Brown, the truth-telling literary device.
Third, the Portable Antiquities Scheme won’t say a word against detecting to farmers so the only information they get on whether it is a good thing to allow on their land is from the man at the gate with a vested interest.
You can check whether I’m right by writing to PAS and asking: “Is metal detecting a good thing for farmers?”. You will get no affirmative answer, just sidestepping.
05/10/2012 at 20:33
Geoff Webb
Here is an interesting story. A farmer friend of mine in West Berks put in planning permission for some new farm buildings (2 large free standing barns). The planning authority as part of the process informed the local archaeological society who then objected to the building work unless a full archaeological survey was carried out as at some point an Anglo Saxon coin had been found on his land and recorded with the PAS. The find was no where near where the barns was to be located. Farmer friend then had to fork out a large sum of money for a commercial archaeology unit to dig. They found nothing.
The legacy of this was the farmer, who was mightily hacked off at the cost, informed the lad who metal detected on his land NOT to record anything to the authorities and if he did, he would be chucked of his land for good!
05/10/2012 at 21:06
heritageaction
“Here is an interesting story…..”
A full archaeological survey because a single coin had been found nowhere near! Sounds like “an interesting story” told round a metal detecting camp fire!
06/10/2012 at 09:31
Geoff Webb
The story was told to me directly by the farmer. I would be churlish for anyone to deny the fact that when it comes to planning permission, the majority of landowners hope that NOTHING is found during an archaeological survey as this then potentially scuppers the building works and adds additional cost.
06/10/2012 at 10:05
heritageaction
“when it comes to planning permission, the majority of landowners hope that NOTHING is found during an archaeological survey”
Perhaps so, but that is supremely irrelevant to the question of whether most farmers, having allowed someone to search on their land, are uninterested in what is found. It’s preposterous to suggest such a thing and only detectorists do. Who wouldn’t be interested – unless told nothing interesting had been found?
06/10/2012 at 13:07
Geoff Webb
It comes down to what is deemed ‘interesting’ doesn’t it? ‘Interesting’ in this context to most people means either something of substantial value monetary wise or glittery and sparkling.
Regardless of this, as someone pointed out earlier, taking objects from the historical record for a bit of fun as a hobby is damaging, so whether farmer Palmer gets shown the ‘booty’ or not is irrelevant isn’t it? Farmer Palmer should not be allowing metal detecting on his land full stop!!
It is just 30 simple words:
“I understand that all finds from the site, other than Treasure shall remain the property of [the landowner!] and I will not claim ownership, possession, or any other right in such finds”. They oblige the finder to bring all finds to the legal owner (me!) at which point, if I feel like it, I may give him some or all of them. What could be righter or fairer?
So where is the key wording that states the landowner MUST record items found on his land?
“at which point, if I feel like it, I may give him some or all of them”
So this is passing the greed element from the detector user back to the farmer who then decides what he wants to do?. Are we now to expect farmers flogging off finds on eBay instead of detectorists?
No, unless there is wording that both parties agree to record ALL finds, then the problem has not been resolved.
06/10/2012 at 16:35
heritageaction
“It comes down to what is deemed ‘interesting’ doesn’t it? ‘Interesting’ in this context to most people means either something of substantial value monetary wise or glittery and sparkling.”
That dismisses the average member of the public as being of the same level as most metal detectorists, whereas many of them are perfectly able to understand that “interesting” is not determined by monetary value or glitter.
“Farmer Palmer should not be allowing metal detecting on his land full stop!!”
Couldn’t agree more, in it’s current form anyway. Shame PAS doesn’t tell them.
So this is passing the greed element from the detector user back to the farmer who then decides what he wants to do?.
But they are his!! It’s not passing the greed element (he may not be greedy) just ensuring the owner has what is his, no-one else. How can that possibly be wrong?
Are we now to expect farmers flogging off finds on eBay instead of detectorists?
I think it’s likely the chances of finds being recorded and dealt with responsibly are hugely increased if they are in the farmers’ hands.
06/10/2012 at 18:39
Geoff Webb
That dismisses the average member of the public as being of the same level as most metal detectorists, whereas many of them are perfectly able to understand that “interesting” is not determined by monetary value or glitter.
—————-
Well Metal Detectorists are members of the public and look at how the media consistently concentrates on the glittery shiny aspect of artefacts and fosters and nurtures this notion then. ‘Many’ of them is not the same as ‘Most’ of them.
Why do you think the chances of finds being recorded by farmers are to use your words ‘Hugely’ increased? If farmers currently allow mass scale metal detecting on thier land without even considering the legal & ethical impact of such actions, without any regard for insisting that finds are recorded, then that is not a precursor to expect them to be keen to take on the extra work involved with recording objects does it? As for finds being dealt with responsibly by farmers, that is simply laughable. Have you been to an average farmhouse and yard and seen the state that their own average environment is in?
To try and shift the argument to one of ownerships rights of the farmers takes heritage protection no where and totally contradicts the mantra that it is our common heritage and that it needs protecting.
06/10/2012 at 19:04
heritageaction
Well, detectorists have absolutely no legal or moral right to take anything whatsoever away without first showing the owner and second getting his permission to do so – after, if necessary, he has taken independent advice. If we can agree that basic principle we can go on to discuss conservation – but all that must come first as it is a legal imperative.
06/10/2012 at 19:29
Geoff Webb
Well it goes without saying that anyone metal detecting or carrying out ANY activity has to have the permission of the landowner to do so. That is common law. As for the morality of taking items without showing the landowner?, well to you and I there is a moral issue of course, but when one considers that farmers let metal detectorists repeatedly onto his/her land, sometimes over a period of many years, it would be incredulous to imagine the farmer does not think the metal detectorist is finding anything, otherwise why would the detectorist keep coming back? farmers aren’t insisting they be shown what is found but the practice continues (or ARE they being shown the items but show little other than a passing cursory interest) therefore the inference is that the farmers aren’t really bothered are they? The facts simply don’t add up to them feeling ‘ripped off’.
As for farmer Palmer taking independent advise re finds, who will fund this? The farmer certainly won’t so are we left with it being the taxpayer yet again?
So that we can continue the discussion, lets agree on the principle as i’m interested to hear your proposition, taking into account the costs, the infrastructure required and the benefits. I’m all ears…………
06/10/2012 at 20:24
heritageaction
“Well it goes without saying that anyone metal detecting or carrying out ANY activity has to have the permission of the landowner to do so.”
Indeed, but that isn’t the basic principle I said we needed to agree about. It was that
“detectorists have absolutely no legal or moral right to take anything whatsoever away without first showing the owner and second getting his permission to do so”
Do you agree or not?
06/10/2012 at 20:39
Geoff Webb
Of course I agree. did you not take time to read my comments?
So, please share your viewpoint on conservation and the wider context of administration.
06/10/2012 at 20:51
heritageaction
“Of course I agree. did you not take time to read my comments?“
Indeed I did, and at no point did you agree to the principle. But now you do.
“So, please share your viewpoint on conservation and the wider context of administration.“
There is no “administration”. It is a matter purely for the landowner to take advice on the finds if he wishes – from his local museum, PAS, a friend, whoever – the point being it is quite wrong and unacceptable that he is advised by the detectorist – who has a clear vested interest in his decision.
Do you agree thus far?
06/10/2012 at 21:17
Geoff Webb
You – Indeed I did, and at no point did you agree to the principle. But now you do.
————
Me in prior post – So that we can continue the discussion, lets agree on the principle
It doesn’t come much clearer than that does it?
Anyway, moving on. The gist was your comment “If we can agree that basic principle we can go on to discuss conservation”
So, what about conservation? who is going to do it? Where will the finds be kept?, how much does conservation work cost?
Also, you mention him being advised by a detectorist yet these spotty herberts are walking away without showing the farmer the finds so spotty herbert can’t be advising him can he?. It is theft by another name.
06/10/2012 at 21:40
heritageaction
Once again, do you agree that…
“It is a matter purely for the landowner to take advice on the finds if he wishes – from his local museum, PAS, a friend, whoever – the point being it is quite wrong and unacceptable that he is advised by the detectorist – who has a clear vested interest in his decision.”
(Only when that is agreed, and we know who is in control of decisions – detectorist or landowner – can we have a meaningful discussion about conservation.)
07/10/2012 at 11:36
Geoff Webb
Despite agreeing three times now, you still want to be evasive – why?
Even if I did not agree with you, why do you not want to discuss conservation? Why side step the topic so much?
Hmmm, I will let others draw their own conclusions……….
07/10/2012 at 11:47
heritageaction
Seriously, I’m not being evasive, it’s just that you have not confirmed you agree with the statement in my last message.
Please do – it’s essential to any discussion on conservation that we both agree who should be in control of the process. It has to be the landowner 100% so far as I am concerned. Can you give a simple yes or no to that please?
07/10/2012 at 11:57
Geoff Webb
YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
07/10/2012 at 12:10
heritageaction
THANKS!!!!!
So Conservation at that point is as it is now but is being organised by a different person – the owner. He is a man with a known name, fixed address and no previous record of years of artefact hunting for monetary or personal gain – all of which suggests he’s a better bet than the detectorist.
07/10/2012 at 12:25
Geoff Webb
Is that it???
Really????
So, he has a known name (as do all of us)
He has a fixed address that is the location of the find (agreed)
He has no record of artefact hunting for monetary or personal gain….for now, because he doesn’t currently have the finds. When he does have the finds, what happens then? Who will conserve the items and where are they to be kept? What system do you propose to prevent the farmer from selling the finds or to ensure they are properly recorded with whatever body and how do we ensure that the items thereafter are properly curated by said farmer?
You use the terms ‘Better bet’ but a bet is speculative. Are we to advocate a different process of heritage protection on the basis of a gamble?. Does not our Heritage deserve a more solid advocacy based on known facts?
I agreed (4 times) that the farmer should be in control of the process but what is the process that he is controlling and where are the measures to ensure that process if followed?? or are we just ‘gambling’?
07/10/2012 at 13:46
heritageaction
Farmers are a “better bet” since 60% plus of detectorists fail to report all their finds so farmers have a low target to aim at to make things better. They are also, on average, better read and far more likely to respond to entreaties than detectorists are.
In any case, the artefacts will at least be with and under the control of those that own them, not those that don’t.
I’m sure you know what I mean by fixed address and known name. Two choices: the finds from the rally are with Farmer Jones of Manor Farm or with 400 people from goodness knows where. It’s pretty obvious which is the best arrangement.
PAS has spent millions of pounds unsuccessfully trying to get thousands of detectorists to do what’s right. Let them spend their money outreaching to those who may be more receptive and who, anyway, own the items.
Once PAS has seen the finds and archaeologists and valuers have explained their historic and monetary significance to him, the farmer is then able to make an informed choice on what should happen to them. He could donate some to a museum, keep some or give some or sell some to the detectorist. Up to him of course.
07/10/2012 at 17:38
Geoff Webb
It is a stupidly crass statement to try and say that one group is ‘Better read’ than others and then to postulate that therefore they are likely to respond better to entreaties?. Where did you get that notion from? How you define ‘better read’ between these two groups? That is just an ‘ism’ and frankly, derogatory to either party.. These are the same people that are having their (our?) possessions hoiked out from under their noses currently, without batting an eyelid so hardly the start of a good model of Heritage Curatorship based on their track record to date.
I totally agree that at ORGANISED detecting Rallies, the concept you put forward would work as the rally is not organised by the farmer, therefore all the ingredients (minus current policy you advocate) are there. The detail and arrangements would change, but as for Farmer Palmer and Billy Beep, acting alone and with the consent of Farmer Palmer, I can’t see Farmers being that bothered. More red tape, more bureaucracy for them on top of DEFRA’s hmmmmmm.
I have been pondering whether legislation that said all Landowners are LEGALLY responsible for recording any find over 300 years old discovered on their land would work?. In principle, it would deter metal detecting once Farmer Palmer realises HE personally could be in trouble through vicarious liability of letting Billy Beep take artifacts from his land. Farmer Palmer either allows Billy Beep to do his thing and either records or Farmer Palmer goes to jail – Simple.
However, it then occured to me that how would you enforce such law?. What about that 350 year old bit of worked masonary he ploughs up and uses as hardcore under his yard extension? It would need clear definition on WHAT is recordable and what isn’t.
There is no easy fix to the problem, that’s for sure
07/10/2012 at 17:58
heritageaction
Before you say it is stupidly crass you should read some detecting forums. And farming ones. And check PAS’s own account of the social/educational make up of detectorists.
But in any case, the comparative qualities or otherwise of detectorists are supremely irrelevant since we have agreed they have zero right to make any decisions concerning the landowner’s property.
07/10/2012 at 18:46
Geoff Webb
So we have agreed on the ownership rights but the comparative qualities of the two groups are SUPREMELY relevant (and not as you say – irrelevant) since we hope and expect one group to display different behaviors than the other group. Until we can establish that the Farmer Palmer group WILL display different and more positive behavioral characteristics re heritage curation, the nothing changes other than ownership rights. You do agree on this don’t you?
08/10/2012 at 04:09
heritageaction
“Until we can establish that the Farmer Palmer group WILL display different and more positive behavioral characteristics re heritage curation, the nothing changes other than ownership rights.”
On the contrary, the ownership rights haven’t changed and farmers don’t have to prove they will have “more positive behavioral characteristics” before they are allowed to take charge of their own property.
08/10/2012 at 10:25
Geoff Webb
Well that is nonsensical. The current community of Farmer Palmers who currently enter into biased finds agreements regarding ownership of their own property and who allow commercial metal detecting rallies that they financially benefit from by willingly letting hoards of beep boys walk away with their property, don’t, according to you, have to prove that these current behaviors they display will change??
Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.
You really are a gambling man!
08/10/2012 at 12:15
heritageaction
So owners must demonstrate what level of behaviour they are likely to exhibit before they can be allowed to assert and exert their ownership rights over what they own?! I don’t think so!
08/10/2012 at 16:26
Geoff Webb
This is not about ownership rights, this is about Heritage Protection!!!
Using your notion, a Beep boy who visits a farm and the farmer signs over a finders agreement has acquiesced his right of ownership of the finds and according to you, it is his property and he has every right to do what he wants with his property? Be it giving it away or letting someone speculatively search for the farmers ‘property’ that they can take away because the farmer decided that is what he feels like doing with his property???
On that basis, lets ditch the treasure act as that takes control of the farmers property rights!
Where is the element of common heritage protection and conservation in all of this????
08/10/2012 at 18:36
heritageaction
This is not about ownership rights
Of COURSE it is! As the EH document lays out (and responsible detectorists agree to):
“I understand that all finds from the site, other than Treasure shall remain the property of [the landowner!] and I will not claim ownership, possession, or any other right in such finds”.
You ask: “Where is the element of common heritage protection and conservation in all of this?” The answer is it is right there in those words. If EH, all archaeologists and responsible detectorists all consider acknowledging the finds are owned by the Landowner is the right thing to do then there is no justification for anything else in recreational or commercial artefact hunting.
08/10/2012 at 18:47
Geoff Webb
Please don’t be selective with my comments. I actually said
“This is not about ownership rights, this is about Heritage Protection!!!”
So, you have established ownership rights -all jolly good and I agree with that.
But please explain, how this benefits the recording off and the conservation of, our common heritage? You don’t seem to be able to produce an answer to this.
It just looks like sour grapes rather than a viable argument with a viable and beneficial outcome for our past
08/10/2012 at 21:13
heritageaction
“So, you have established ownership rights -all jolly good and I agree with that. But please explain, how this benefits the recording off and the conservation of, our common heritage?”
This seems to be going round in circles. We both agree that owners are the only people entitled to make decisions on their artefacts so to persist in asking “but would that be good for the artefacts” looks as if there is an alternative – but there clearly isn’t. Is there? Property owners are entitled not to be deprived of their property rights whatever the conservation implications. It would need legislation to transfer their rights and that isn’t going to happen.
However, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that if owners WERE able to exercise all their property rights things would be much better for both them and the archaeology than they are now, especially if PAS’s outreach effort was diverted to them as the valid, lawful decision makers. I’m happy to agree to disagree with you on that though so I think there’s no point saying more.
10/10/2012 at 09:43
Charles Bourne
It is ridiculous to say farmers might not be the right people to look after their own property. Only a metal detectorist would argue that.
10/10/2012 at 18:14
James
But is heritage the property of farmers? The common heritage belongs to all
10/10/2012 at 18:22
James
Not all parents are fit to look after their children thats why we have social services.
I support animal rights and if you see how a lot of farmers treat their animals which are their property, you would be disgusted. Just because they are called farmers does not mean they look after things. Most don’t
10/10/2012 at 18:32
heritageaction
All Treasure items belong to the Crown, by law.
All non-treasure items belong to the landowners, by law.
All knowledge is the common heritage and belongs to all.
The endless claim of detectorists that the common heritage means artefacts and therefore they’re entitled to them is complete bilge!
10/10/2012 at 19:26
Charles Bourne
“Just because they are called farmers does not mean they look after things. Most don’t”
Really? How do you know?
Who do you suggest SHOULD look after the farmers’ possessions (as if I didn’t know)?
11/10/2012 at 10:02
Pat
“Who do you suggest SHOULD look after the farmers’ possessions (as if I didn’t know)?”
Exactly Charles. I think we’ve probably had sufficient detectorists in disguise on here making the claim farmers aren’t fit to make decisions about their own property and implying therefore detectorists should do it. It’s like Dracula saying nurses aren’t competent to do blood tests!
11/10/2012 at 18:08
James
I’m thinking of that farmer that used a Gold Torc to fasten his gate.
His property and doing what he wanted with it. Or how about the South East of England where farmers, lured by the attraction of vast sums of money, are selling off land that has been in their famiies for generations, in order to build vast housing estates on.Not all of them can be called true custodians of the countryside can they?
The best thing for farmers to do is to not let metal detecting AT ALL on their land. Let the objects sit in situ, as they have done for XXX years and only let his ‘property’ be be the subject of proper scientific study through archaeological process. Then and only then, can the objects be returned to their rightful owners (the farmer) once the historical knowledge has been gained from them. If the farmer doesn’t want the items, stick them in a museum for everyone to see.
12/10/2012 at 13:33
Silas Brown
My letter has caused a bit of a stir round these parts and on this ere journal. How dare you say I don’t care for my property. I care for my property a lot and what is in the ground is mine, and no one else s.
If people find my property I would like them to hand it BACK to me so I can decide what I want to do with it. I will of course say ‘thank you’ to the finder of my property because us country folk are polite like that.
What I do want is for someone without any bias to tell me how BEST to care for my property and a local told me that we have spent £14m on something they call the PAS to help me with this. How come I have never heard of them?. Why don’t they send me and my landowning friends some leaflets to tell me they can help me with my property? DEFRA do, so why can’t this PAS lot do the same?
Must go, the pigs need their feed and they won’t let me forget them.
13/10/2012 at 18:45
heritageaction
Well Silas, you’re not the same Silas Brown who wrote the article as he’s currently hospitalised with anger problems but you’re equally perspicacious.
Yes, it’s PAS’s duty and raison d’etre to tell you how to look after your property but unfortunately they spend all their time and your taxes on begging someone else to look after it. Barmy or what? That’s why you get very little communication from them whereas if you wore cammo gear and flogged hartefacts on EBay they’d be all over you!. Still, maybe your namesake will succeed in getting EH/CBA to do something to guide you.