by Nigel Swift
We previously suggested the National Council for Metal Detecting’s Search Agreement leaves landowners wide open to being ripped off. We didn’t mention the other main Agreement, produced by the Federation of Independent Detectorists. Its actually worse. Look at these 5 clauses:
If you’re a landowner you may wonder how come EH, the CBA et al advise you to sign a finds agreement when it’s clearly throwing you to the wolves. One of your number, Silas Brown, has asked them about it. Hopefully they’ll reply to him soon and issue a pukka official Finds Agreement that looks after your interest in your property and Britain’s in it’s heritage knowledge. Personally I’d never sign anything that didn’t do all that. Just tell the bloke at the gate you want him to sign a document that says you must be given all your property and make all the decisions about it. It’s not rocket science, and any piece of paper that says anything else whatsoever is NOT in your interest. You can tell EH and CBA that too if you write to them.
_____________________________________________________________
More Heritage Action views on metal detecting and artefact collecting
_____________________________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
45 comments
Comments feed for this article
14/10/2012 at 12:04
Paul
If anyone approached me with THAT I would tell them to eff orf. I’m a shooter and I just ask farmers if I can shoot on their land and it’s a simple yes or no. No need for any formal agreement.
14/10/2012 at 12:25
heritageaction
If anyone approached me with THAT I would tell them to eff orf.
Exactly.
I just ask farmers if I can shoot on their land and it’s a simple yes or no. No need for any formal agreement.
Sure. But none of the pheasants are potentially worth massive amounts of money or are going to contribute to the country’s heritage knowledge so that won’t do for artefact hunting.
14/10/2012 at 12:35
Paul
How many detectorists actually use a formal agreement? I imagine they just ask and get the same yes or no from the farmer.
14/10/2012 at 12:43
heritageaction
No, it is recommended as “Best Practice” on all sides and a large number of detectorists seek one – for their OWN benefit of course, not the farmer’s. It’s a racket and a disgrace.
14/10/2012 at 12:54
Paul
I know a lot of farmers aren’t the sharpest tools in the toolbox but even a vaguely literate one must be able to read that and I take it they do sign them so it beggars belief how little they seem to care.
14/10/2012 at 13:05
heritageaction
A lot of farmers are both sharp and well educated. They’re the ones that say no to detecting or no to exploitative documents I guess. Detectorists are forever saying “my farmer insists I don’t record” or “my farmer doesn’t want to see the finds” so I guess it’s the less than switched on farmers that get targetted. It’s monstrously insulting to farmers in general for them to claim the ones that don’t care are typical. No, they’re the least informed, that’s all.
14/10/2012 at 13:19
Paul
Farmers don’t get targeted, you just ask around and they let you use their land for all manner of things.Some don’t want shooters on their land, many do. Some allow the hunt across their land, others don’t. Some care about their farm, others just trudge on and don’t care much. They are a very mixed breed for sure.
14/10/2012 at 13:29
heritageaction
OK, not targetted, profiled perhaps! If he’s driving a Bentley he’s less likely to say yes I should imagine!
14/10/2012 at 13:33
Paul
If he’s driving a bloody Bentley someone must have found a pot of gold on his farm lol
14/10/2012 at 14:56
heritageaction
The great bulk of the monetary value that comes out of a farmer’s field ends up with the detectorist not the owner. Take this classic rule from Central Searchers: “Any item found with a value over £2,000 must be shared 50/50 with the landowner.”
It’s legalised mugging.
14/10/2012 at 15:31
Paul
Why do farmers sign these agreements then? I should start charging for vermin control in that case!
14/10/2012 at 15:49
heritageaction
Why do farmers sign these agreements then?
Must be because of something they are told, mustn’t it?
Also, because EH/CBA advise them to!
😦
15/10/2012 at 07:08
Paul
As I said, not the sharpest tools in the toolbox are they?
15/10/2012 at 08:17
heritageaction
I think that’s unfair on most of them. For a start it implies you can run a farm these days while being slow-witted, which seems unlikely considering what’s involved. But more to the point: they come to the subject without previous knowledge so are reliant on what they are told. If they ask PAS they’ll get a thumbs up about metal detecting and a strong recommendation to sign a finds agreement (but zero warning about the certain pitfalls). Their other source of information is the detectorist – who has a huge vested interest in him saying yes and may well be economical with the actualité. Its an awful business and shouldn’t be dismissed as due to farmers being not the sharpest tools in the toolbox. Its the system that stinks. I know a very smart but elderly peer who allowed a big rally in a sensitive but not statutorily protected area having been assured by the organisers: “Its OK we all report all our finds”. Yeah, right, that’ll be a first!
16/10/2012 at 22:11
Mark
You want farmers to say no so it sees the end of metal detecting so stop with this false indignation on farmers behalf. It’s pathetic and you’re just trying to hide behind this. There are decent and honest detectorists who share information upfront, show and record all finds and any value that goes with it. Farmers can read and can make informed decisions. This works but you don’t like it because it doesn’t fit your agenda. This site does some good work but the constant attack on detectorsists is bordering on paranoid frenzy. For goodness sake get a grip…..
17/10/2012 at 05:34
heritageaction
Your assertion regarding our motivation is wrong and therefore irrelevant. The fact there are “honest and decent detectorists” is also irrelevant. What is relevant is that millions of items go unreported to either the owner or society and we are entitled to campaign against that for so long as detectorists refuse to put their house in order.
Lest others are unaware, here is the Finds Agreement we believe detectorists should sign:
““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”
So it’s all about putting the decision on who gets what and what gets recorded into the hands of the rightful owner. If anyone opposes that it is pretty clear why.
As for “paranoid frenzy” ….. nah, it’s quiet determination.
17/10/2012 at 07:51
Paul
II’m struggling to understand why, if metal detecting and the removal of items without proper archaeological study of context is so damaging, why are we bothered about the wording of a finds agreement? Farmers should not be allowing metal detecting at all surely?
17/10/2012 at 08:21
heritageaction
Absolutely. Not in the manner most detectorists conduct themselves anyway. The whole world knows that but at present in Britain unregulated metal detecting IS legal so a less exploitative finds agreement would be a small but welcome improvement to a pretty dire situation.
17/10/2012 at 08:29
Mark
So the landowner can’t make their own decisions? Is it not a fair agreement that the finder keeps some the finds with the landowners permission? You’re making out that landowners don’t know what they are doing and are easily duped because they are feeble minded.
There is nothing wrong with sharing if all parties agree. If finds are reported in accordance with the rules then you should be happy. But you’re not because you don’t want detectorists to get a thing. You want to drive them out and leave everything underground. Your agenda is see-through and your claim otherwise is laughable. Honest detectorist is not irrelevant. I know you think we are socially and educationally challenged ( as per your comment on another thread) and your reason for this assertion? You read forums!!! Well I don’t comment on detecting forums so you know nothing about me and your assumptions show you to be intolerant, bigoted and , in your mind, superior. At least be honest about your true intentions…..
17/10/2012 at 08:48
heritageaction
“So the landowner can’t make their own decisions?”
That’s the problem, isn’t it – the landowner can’t make the decisions about his artefacts, someone else is doing it. You can argue till you’re blue in the face but that is simply wrong.
I can only repeat:
“it’s all about putting the decision on who gets what and what gets recorded into the hands of the rightful owner. If anyone opposes that it is pretty clear why”
If you wish to continue to say that’s wrong or that we’re wrong for saying it you must do it somewhere else.
17/10/2012 at 08:53
Mark
Ah right because I don’t agree with your point of view and have the balls to say so I must go somewhere else? Ah free speech not allowed on this site? Welcome to Pravda!!!
17/10/2012 at 09:20
heritageaction
No.
It’s just that if you won’t agree that: “it’s all about putting the decision on who gets what and what gets recorded into the hands of the rightful owner. If anyone opposes that it is pretty clear why” there is absolutely no point in you posting here as this is a conservation site and one that believes in legality. So now it’s entirely up to you.
17/10/2012 at 18:09
Paul
The solution would be for metal detectorists not to have a finds agreement and therefore the finds are automatically the property of the farmer at all times.
I think the mindset of most farmers if one of “good luck if you find anything” and farmers only get interested if something big and shiny is found. It appears most farmers think metal detectorists are spending hours and hours searching and hoping to find the big pot of gold that rarely happens, hence the nerdish image of the hobby.
20/11/2012 at 16:56
Steve ray
STEVE RAY I would realy like to know how to go about getting the Private land owners Permission Forms as the ones which are on metal detector web sites will not let me PRINT them out so what the point of having the Agreement if you cant Print it of the detector web site can anyone Tell me how to get a copy and one which is easy to under stand as I cant do any detecting untill I get the land owners form. p.s sorry about the spelling I have Disslexia
20/11/2012 at 17:04
heritageaction
This will print out very easily:
http://www.ethicaldetecting.org.uk/
02/12/2012 at 00:04
Andrew
What a ridiculous argument stating that everything that is found on the land belongs to the land owner.
For starters if I drop something on someone else’s land the item that is dropped belongs to me not the land owner.
Secondly, if an object that is found is beyond a certain age then that object can be claimed by the government with the land owner having no say one way or the other as to what happens to that object.
Thirdly, having been a detectorist for over 40 years and having placed numerous items into museum collections all over the world I can tell you that in many cases those museums who legally are charged with the responsibility of keeping an item of historical value are often not the best custodians.
I have spent in excess of £100,000 pursuing my hobby of metal detecting over the years and I have rescued literally thousands of objects from intensively cultivated land which otherwise would have been destroyed by modern farming methods.
At the end of the day it all comes down to one question and that’s whether ancient artefacts of historical value should be rescued or be destroyed.
If they are to be rescued, of course give the land owner the chance to recover them at his cost, however if he insists on destroying them because he sees little value in spending the time and money in attempting to retrieve those objects, then I see no logical reason as to why a metal detectorist should not be rewarded for his efforts and be able to keep a percentage of what he finds.
Heritageaction, unlike yourself I believe that keeping a percentage of something that has been saved from destruction on your land is better than keeping 100% of what has been or will be destroyed. By saving historical items of value, we are preserving our history for future generations and like most farmers, us metal detectorists cannot afford to spend endless hours at our own expense and time in trying to locate lost artefacts without the chance of reaping any rewards.
I don’t know any archaeologist who works for nothing, it’s illegal to employ someone without paying them and therefore metal detectorists should be entitled to share in the spoils of what is found on anyone’s land providing they are searching with permission.
In closing, if say a person dropped his ring and lost it 2,000 years ago – Who owns that ring? I’ll tell you – legally it belongs to the person who lost it in the first place. If that person has died it belongs to his next of kin or one of his relations. Just because a land owner buys a farm it does not give him a right to own what belongs to someone else that has been dropped on that land.
I’m sure Heritageaction that if you break down in your car and have to push it off the road for reasons of safety onto my land you would be anything other than delighted if I claimed that vehicle because it was parked on my land. Yes I know this is tongue in cheek – but you get my point.
Incidentally I work closely with many museums and am brought in on a consultancy basis particularly when it comes to the identification and recording of late medieval through to Elizabethan furniture as well as associated artefacts, so I’m speaking from a position of a small amount of knowledge.
02/12/2012 at 05:50
heritageaction
“In closing, if say a person dropped his ring and lost it 2,000 years ago – Who owns that ring? I’ll tell you – legally it belongs to the person who lost it in the first place.”
Not true. Legally it belongs to the farmer. If you openly misrepresent the truth here one wonders what you tell farmers in private.
02/12/2012 at 08:27
Andrew
“Not true. Legally it belongs to the farmer. If you openly misrepresent the truth here one wonders what you tell farmers in private.”
Heritageaction you are totally incorrect.
Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth’s non ocean surface.
She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory. This land ownership is separate from her role as head of state and is different from other monarchies where no such claim is made – Norway, Belgium, Denmark etc.
The value of her land holding is approximatel £17,600,000,000,000
This makes her the richest individual on earth. However, there is no way easily to value her real estate. There is no current market in the land of entire countries. At a rough estimate of $5,000 an acre, and based on the sale of Alaska to the USA by the Tsar, and of Louisiana to the USA by France, the Queen’s land holding is worth a notional $33,000,000,000,000 (Thirty three trillion dollars or about £17,600,000,000,000). Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns. Her main holdings are Canada, the 2nd largest country on earth, with 2,467 million acres, Australia, the 7th largest country on earth with 1,900 million acres, the Papua New Guinea with114 million acres, New Zealand with 66 million acres and the UK with 60 million acres.
She is the world’s largest landowner by a significant margin. The next largest landowner is the Russian state, with an overall ownership of 4,219 million acres, and a direct ownership comparable with the Queen’s land holding of 2,447 million acres. The 3rd largest landowner is the Chinese state, which claims all of Chinese land, about 2,365 million acres. The 4th largest landowner on earth is the Federal Government of the United States, which owns about one third of the land of the USA, 760 million acres. The fifth largest landowner on earth is the King of Saudi Arabia with 553 million acres
This in turn means that ‘legally’ a farmer DOES NOT own the land which he is farming if that land falls within Queen Elizabeth’s estate, likewise I do not own the house or the land that I have bought nor indeed do you should you reside in or use property situated within the Sovereign’s extended Kingdom. Ultimately all property and land in the UK belongs to Queen Elizabeth II.
There have been test cases in law about this very point and it has been made perfectly legally clear that the Sovereign grants permission for Her/His subjects to use/work the land which She/He owns, no land or property belongs to anyone other than the Sovereign.
The ownership of ‘Chattels’ does not fall under laws applicable to the Sovereign’s of ownership of land with ‘Chattels’ being deemed to belong to the holder of those ‘Chattels’ with possession still being nine tenths of the law when the original owner has deceased or been misplaced.
Whilst I applaud the ‘flavour’ of your position, you are basing your entire argument along with the conclusions that you have drawn on misinformation because you are legally incorrect.
02/12/2012 at 08:56
heritageaction
What an extraordinary statement! Of course when we speak of the farmer owning the artefacts we mean “if he is the landowner” – no-one is silly enough to think a tenant farmer owns the land or the artefacts. All the stuff about the Queen is bizarre. If she owns the land she owns the artefacts on it, and if a farmer owns the land, he does. So what? In neither case does an artefact hunter own a molecule of the land or the artefacts, which is the sole reason why they try to get owners to sign finds agreements.
We have over 3,000 followers, many of them farmers. There’s no way we are going to give you an unchallenged platform to blatantly misinform them about the fact the artefacts are legally 100% THEIRS (or occasionally, after an Inquest, the State’s) and never ever yours, no matter how many times you repeat an untruth. We can only repeat, if you persistently voice such a ridiculous claim here in public we shudder to think what you tell farmers in private.
02/12/2012 at 12:15
Andrew
Heritageaction – Not for a second am I going against the ethos of that which you are wishing to promote – however I am purely pointing out what is correct with regard to the law in the UK.
Irrelevant of what you or I or indeed anyone else thinks – we are all bound by UK Law if we reside or work on the land that ultimately belongs to our Sovereign.
By ignoring the fact of Sovereign ownership of all lands in the UK, you are basing your crusade of self appointed morality on legally shaky ground that just is not correct and does nothing positive for the integrity of this forum.
Whether you like it or not – it is FACT that should you look at any Title Deed for land/property in the UK you will see that the Title Deed is underwritten and bound by the Law applicable in the UK. The fundamental basis of the law in the UK is and has been for many centuries is that all land ultimately belongs to our Sovereign who is currently Queen Elizabeth II.
If you concede this point which is legally correct – whether it’s fair or not is irrelevant because us commoners have no say in the matter – we have to accept that the land on which we live and work does not actually belong legally to us even though we may be granted temporary usage by our Head Of State – and incidentally that includes all farmers.
I happen to be what is effectively a temporary custodian of some land myself in the UK and am fully aware that I have paid for the privilege of being allowed to look after that land rather than being given the right of physical ownership.
As a concluding point should a person with land or property die without having made a will – after a period of time that land/property is returned to the State if a relation – however distant cannot be located. Again this clearly demonstrates ownership should the next custodian be unable to be found.
Modern farming methods with heavy cultivation on arable land and the use of fertilizers do by their very nature disturb and destroy artifacts from their archaeological context and move them from a stratified layer. This from an archaeological point of view takes them from being an ‘in context’ object to being a spurious find. Rescuing these objects is important for the benefit of all of those generations to come so that they never forget the history of our past – however these items are recovered and by whom from unstratified conditions such as plough soil is actually irrelevant. The important point being that they are recovered and used to further future generations understanding of our past.
Discussions about ownership are counterproductive because ultimately we are only custodians of these objects for a small period of their lifetime. Responsible people aim to ensure that such items are preserved and kept safe so that understanding in the future will never forget our past.
02/12/2012 at 12:49
heritageaction
“Discussions about ownership are counterproductive”
Evidently.
You have argued at length that the artefacts belong to the Queen yet detectorists take them home as their own so you have been hoisted by your own petard.
Imagine someone exiting through someones window with their pockets full of items and calling back to them “Discussions about ownership are counterproductive”!
What sort of person would do that?
02/12/2012 at 13:44
Andrew
“You have argued at length that the artefacts belong to the Queen yet detectorists take them home as their own so you have been hoisted by your own petard.
Imagine someone exiting through someones window with their pockets full of items and calling back to them “Discussions about ownership are counterproductive”!
What sort of person would do that?”
Heritageaction you amuse me and are now endeavoring to score a cheap point because you are unable to construct a valid argument based on the UK Law under which even you are bound assuming that you reside and/or work here.
Having worked closely with many museums worldwide along with many in the UK I find your fiercely antagonistic rhetoric directed towards metal detectorists to be both ill informed and not true of the majority.
Without revealing too much I worked on an important archaeological dig with a renown and well published lead archaeologist who I witnessed pocketing a number of finds from that site and selling them for his own financial personal reward. I was appalled but am old enough to realise that this does not happen with every archaeologist – likewise do not tar all metal detectorists with the same brush.
I never suggested that what is legally considered to be a ‘chattel’ belongs to our Sovereign – in fact the opposite is true unless of course through the process of declaring a ‘found’ item of historical value it is deemed to be so.
Whether you or indeed I like it or not – we do not own the land which we work or the house in which we live should we reside within the curtilage of our Sovereign’s realm. The ownership of my farmland along with my farmhouse belongs to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and I have merely purchased the right of ‘use’ as with all the land/properties that I have purchased in the UK.
Ownership of all land in the UK belongs to our Sovereign – the ownership of ‘chattels’ is a completely different legal issue but one thing for certain – any item found on any piece of land in the UK does not necessarily belong to our Sovereign who is the owner of that land – the person who is working the land – or the person who found the object.
In truth the item belongs to the person who misplaced/lost that object and if that person can no longer be located then the object passes to their next of kin or a relation.
If you believe otherwise – come and park your car on my land and I’ll happily take ownership of your car as I know that I have your full consent to do so – whereupon under normal circumstances I would always endeavor to locate the owner of any vehicle parked on my land and would do everything in my power to ensure that the rightful owner is reunited with their vehicle.
The points that you are making are legally incorrect and anyone with a modicum of understanding can I’m sure see the validity of the position which I have taken which is different from your own.
02/12/2012 at 14:33
heritageaction
“I never suggested that what is legally considered to be a ‘chattel’ belongs to our Sovereign”
Ah, so now she owns all the land but not the archaeological artefacts!!!
So the landowners don’t own them because the Queen owns their land and she doesn’t own them EVEN though she owns the land! So that only leaves artefact hunters, THEY must own them, is that it?! Thanks for the chat.
02/12/2012 at 15:31
Andrew
“Ah, so now she owns all the land but not the archaeological artefacts!!!
So the landowners don’t own them because the Queen owns their land and she doesn’t own them EVEN though she owns the land! So that only leaves artefact hunters, THEY must own them, is that it?! Thanks for the chat.”
Heritageaction – Legally our Sovereign does own the land but not the ‘chattels’ lost/secreted in/on that land unless due process deems otherwise through normal reporting procedures as you well know.
This means that neither our Sovereign – the farmer or the metal detectorist has the automatic right of ownership of an item found on any land in the UK.
The law is the law and however you ‘dress it up’ to attempt to favour your own agenda – I’m afraid that a lost item will always belong to the person who owned that item unless through due legal process it is deemed otherwise.
We all know that the statutory reporting of found items over a certain age is one of those legal processes – but ownership of those items is not defined in law unless the State wishes to retain those items whereupon ownership passes to them.
Good to chat.
02/12/2012 at 16:15
heritageaction
As you very well know (but perhaps farmers aren’t told) “due process” and “normal reporting procedures” relates to a tiny minority of Treasure items whereas no due process is necessary to establish who owns the approx 11.5 million other artefacts found since 1975 for they belong to the landowner (yaaaawn!) yet strangely, have almost all ended up not with him but with detectorists or on EBay. Your “chat” has revealing a lot and I’m sure people understand who is saying what, and why.
02/12/2012 at 21:07
Andrew
Heritageaction – Your posts demonstrate a total lack of acceptance of the law of the land – and a misguided belief that farmers automatically own what belongs to someone else that has found it’s way onto the land which they are working.
Unfortunately your position is legally incorrect and your argument is based on misinformation.
I will continue to work with museums and archaeologists doing my bit to rescue historically important artefacts from being damaged by modern farming methods whilst you continue to spread the word that everyone is trying to ‘get one over’ on farmers which is totally untrue.
Clearly unlike yourself I have an interest in preserving the past for future generations whilst you clearly have an interest in stopping those of us from doing exactly that. Unfortunately in my case you have failed in your endeavours because I have placed many items that would otherwise have been destroyed by modern farming methods into museum collections world-wide and have a good working relationship with many museum curators – plus I have been doing this for 40 years and no I have never sold an item On Ebay.
What a shame that the views that you have expressed on this forum are exactly opposite to those detailed as the reason for your very existence: ‘Heritage Action is a rallying point for anyone who feels ancient heritage places deserve greater protection. We believe this generation holds its heritage in trust for future generations’.
Enough said – you have shown your true colours to all who read this forum.
Over and out…
03/12/2012 at 04:42
heritageaction
OK you win, farmers don’t own the 11.5 million artefacts, they belong to the random people with metal detectors who knock on their doors. It’s the law, you can show how the Theft Act is invalid and the Courts and Parliament have backed you up many times.
Also, you personally have “have placed many items that would otherwise have been destroyed by modern farming methods into museum collections world-wide”(British items? Really? Why? Export Licenses?! What’s wrong with British museums?!!) and you did so without asking the farmer, presumably, as they were yours not his.
Yes it’s all very believable. Thanks for explaining.
03/12/2012 at 09:33
heritageaction
Well Anrew you’ve posted another great long abusive screed but we aren’t going to publish it as you have become boring.
Next time you take something home from a field try telling the landowner, his solicitor or the police that it isn’t his so you’re entitled. It could be a long conversation – it has certainly gone on long enough here and your fellow detectorists must be squirming with embarrassment.
You supply artefacts to museums worldwide do you, and yet you’re actually a furniture dealer in Southern England. Amazing!
03/12/2012 at 10:14
heritageaction
More spam. Go away. You’re embarrassing decent metal detectorists (they have told us exactly that). If, as you say in the spam, you have complaints that we are doing something legally questionable and if you have anything to say about the ownership of the articles you dig up on other people’s land please contact the police, don’t bother us with it. You’ve had a very extensive say on here but that’s all you’re getting.
23/01/2014 at 13:48
Alan Davis
This shows the significant part played by metal detectorists and farmers who permit them to detect on their land. End of story.
Click to access Treasure_Statistical_Release_2011-2012.pdf
23/01/2014 at 14:45
heritageaction
So how does that have any bearing on the article?
23/02/2014 at 04:20
matt duncan
I cannot believe what i’m reading! The standard split is 50/50. For this the landowner has to do bugger all! In what way is this a rip-off?
The detectorist does all the work!
If you want full ownership of any (historical) finds on your land(even then they’re not yours) then get off your arse and find them, don’t gripe about it.!
You try to say it belongs to the landowner, have you never heard of treasure trove?
You’re a bitter , twisted individual who needs an introduction to the real world, one where people get along for the benefit of historical interest.
You want to have full ownership for doing nothing!
Greedy bastard!
23/02/2014 at 06:13
heritageaction
“You try to say it belongs to the landowner, have you never heard of treasure trove?”
Yes I’ve heard of treasure trove.It applies to 0.01% of what is found. Presumably, since you say it here, you say the same thing to farmers. That’s why PAS should outreach to them not leave them “informed” by such as you.
“You want to have full ownership for doing nothing!”
No. The farmer DOES have full ownership already so it doesn’t matter what he does or doesn’t do. And anyway, you do it “purely for the love of history”, don’t you… Amateur archaeologists don’t ask for money, only you …
09/02/2016 at 16:05
Joe Tilt
I must be very lucky according to your one per cent are treasure trove, has I have found many artefacts classed as treasure trove, and as for the farmer not getting a fair deal, in my cases and I am sure I am just average the agreement always goes 50/50 share without exception, I have been lucky enough to make very significant finds ,these finds are always classed as myself the finder, and the farmer as the land owner but at no time are they ever classed as belonging to myself or the farmer, the reason being they do not the finds are our heritage, yes the same heritage you are supposed to be protecting, I am sure the heritage people will not like the thought of you stating they belong to the farmer
09/02/2016 at 16:23
heritageaction
“these finds are always classed as myself the finder, and the farmer as the land owner but at no time are they ever classed as belonging to myself or the farmer, the reason being they do not the finds are our heritage”
Well there we are, it’s misinformation such as that which farmers need to be protected against. Treasure items belong to neither you nor the farmer. Non-treasure items belong to the farmer.