Dear Fellow Landowners,
I’m so happy! My brother Moses who lives in West Sussex has sent me this from the minutes of Billingshurst Parish Council that will help me enormously when people come asking if they can metal detect on my land:
“Mr Ray Deefholts wished to speak about agenda item 9 on metal detecting. Mr Deefholts stated that he is a member of the Federation of Independent Detectorists and is seeking permission from the Council for himself and two friends to use metal detectors on Parish Council land. Smaller items found will remain in the possession of the land owner i.e. the Parish Council, but Horsham Museum may be interested in these finds. Other finds may fall under the Treasure Act….”
Well! Mr Ray Deefholts can have a pint with me any time and I suggest from now on if anyone comes asking to metal detect your land “for the love of history” you ask if they’ll be using the Deefholts-Billingshurst method – i.e. what they find will remain in the possession of the land owner (you!). It’s a pretty neat question because if you don’t see them for dust after that you’ll know they weren’t proper history lovers or amateur archaeologists at all, whatever they or others had told you before !
Good luck,
Silas Brown
*****************************************************
NOTE: The Worlingworth History Group is persisting in holding a metal detecting rally in aid of church repairs today (see here and here). It will not use the Deefholts-Billingshurst method – so the smaller items found (that often add up to thousands of pounds) will not be available to aid the church when they could and should have been. So they’ve been physically and intellectually mugged as they may now know and have only gone ahead to save someone’s face. The only consolation is that it’s more than likely they’ll quietly but firmly refuse any request for a repeat exercise next year!
_______________________________________________________________
[For more from the Brown family put Silas in the search box]
_______________________________________________________________
More Heritage Action views on metal detecting and artefact collecting
_____________________________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
30 comments
Comments feed for this article
29/09/2013 at 20:24
Daryl K
But nowhere does it state that finds MUST be recorded??
It is all very well giving the finds to the landowner but for what?, for them to sit gathering dust in some cupboard before eventually ending up being disposed of by whatever means.
30/09/2013 at 00:35
heritageaction
So he should be deprived of his property because a random stranger will be more likely to report it?!
30/09/2013 at 07:48
Daryl K
No, and that is not what I posted. It is the knowledge and not the object itself that is of value, therefore not to record it means there is no record of the knowledge. THAT is the point in question. Mr Deefholts and the council make no mention of recording the items in the terms of their arrangement.
30/09/2013 at 08:13
heritageaction
No, and that is not what I posted.
Well at least we are agreed that the objects should stay with the owners.
As to whether a local farmer or parish council with fixed, known addresses are easier to persuade to report finds than a hundred random strangers, the answer is surely yes?
So the case for who should take charge of finds is pretty conclusive on both legal and practical grounds.
30/09/2013 at 08:25
Daryl K
On the contrary, it is far from conclusive and I never agreed who the objects should stay with, I am merely stating that in this case you cite and seem to praise, there is NO MENTION of recording being a pre requisite of the permission to detect. THAT is the point in question.
The question of legal ownership of finds is a separate issue to that of creating a historical record.
30/09/2013 at 08:35
heritageaction
So it’s “far from conclusive” that PAS would find it infinitely easier and more successful to outreach to Farmer Giles of Manor Farm than a hundred random rally-goers from all over Britain and Europe? We’ll have to disagree about that.
30/09/2013 at 08:42
Daryl K
Please don’t try to broaden this into a new discussion about metal detecting rallies. The point in question is that here we have a case of praising a metal detectorist for his actions yet there is no pre-requisite of making him or her RECORD all finds as he or she should do from a moral and practical standpoint. I’m surprised the council allowed this and granted permission. So much for PAS outreach to councils !
30/09/2013 at 09:00
heritageaction
Looks a bit like a smokescreen being put up. If not, please acknowledge that step one must always be that people are given what they own, not deprived of it.
Incidentally, are you an artefact hunter?
30/09/2013 at 09:11
Daryl K
Oh really. An artefact hunter? most certainly not and nor do I collect artefacts or anything else for that matter.
There are two issues here;
1 – Ownership of finds
2 – Recording of finds
In the hierarchy of knowledge, the recording of finds must come before ownership. It is all very well knowing that person A has a collection of finds handed to him but what does that tell us? nothing as they are now out of any context be it spatial or stratigraphical. They are now merely objects.
30/09/2013 at 09:25
heritageaction
Unfortunately ownership must come first as it’s the law and it can’t be tossed aside on the grounds recording (which is voluntary) is more important. So again, unless that’s agreed there’s no basis for a realistic discussion.
30/09/2013 at 13:41
Daryl K
Well landowners are hardly the paragon of virtue of Heritage protection and ownership when there is no shortage of them entering into agreements with artefact hoikers to go 50:50 on the value of finds and I don’t see any landowners stipulating (as they should do) that all finds are recorded either with the PAS or in cases of important finds, in situ. How many of the public are even aware of the PAS ? My instinct tell me ‘not a lot of them’. Landowners are as complicit in knowledge theft as those that do the taking. The difference is the landowners open the door to let them in to see what they can find and want a cut of the money when they do by ceding their legal rights to their property.
30/09/2013 at 15:47
heritageaction
Once again, ownership must come first as it’s the law and it can’t be tossed aside on these new grounds that some landowners are not paragons of virtue.
30/09/2013 at 16:54
heritageaction
Sorry, accidentally replied on your reply, thereby deleting it.
30/09/2013 at 17:19
Daryl K
Farmer Brown most certainly is getting confused and is even sending out mixed messages now.
https://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/farmer-brown-gets-very-confused-can-anyone-help-him/
Dear Colleagues,
Oh dear. My brother Jacob sent me some Guidelines that the Culture Minister has issued this week. It’s got me in a right old muddle as it says stuff no-one told me about. Things like ….
> “Archaeological objects must be excavated in a structured scientific manner”
> “Failure to expertly record the context from which an object has been removed results in an irreplaceable loss of knowledge of the past”
> “Unregulated and inappropriate use of metal detectors causes serious damage to archaeological heritage.”
Jacob lives in Ireland but what’s true there must be true here mustn’t it? So why haven’t we been told? Or is the Irish culture minister lying? Or not? It’s a puzzle.
—
But now Farmer Brown will buy Mr Deefholts a pint because Mr Deefholts will hand over his finds? But what about the inarguable points below?
“> “Archaeological objects must be excavated in a structured scientific manner”
> “Failure to expertly record the context from which an object has been removed results in an irreplaceable loss of knowledge of the past”
> “Unregulated and inappropriate use of metal detectors causes serious damage to archaeological heritage.”
So, after the damage is done Farmer Brown is happy to be handed ‘His’ finds. He might record them (probably won’t) but how will he know the exact 6 figure find spot reference of each and every item and also details of the stratigraphic context It was found within? No chance because Mr Hoiker has already done his damage. Even Farmer Brown knows it is wrong – “they could be knowingly making me an unwitting party to serious cultural damage”
If you are applauding Mr Deefholts less than altruistic offer as a model of best practise in Heritage conservation because the finds are with the landowner then you really are advocating the Curates Egg of conservation.
30/09/2013 at 17:47
heritageaction
No. Farmer Brown recognised Mr Deefholts is a detectorist in a thousand, literally, so deserves a pint but he did NOT say Mr Deefholts was welcome to detect on his land. That would depend on whether Mr Deefholts was willing to comply with a whole lot of other ethical standards that Silas supports.
01/10/2013 at 15:54
dannyboyL
Daryl seems to work very hard finding reasons why farmers shouldn’t be given what is theirs !!!! I think he has a little secret.
01/10/2013 at 20:16
Daryl K
And where have I advocated anything AGAINST the landowner keeping his or her property AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME? I am however advocating recording of the historical record and my concern is that merely giving finds to a landowner WITHOUT the pre requisite that the finds be recorded (be it before or after handover) then nothing changes because the damage has already been done. As for the Parish council in question, they are even going against the advice and guidelines issued by their local council re heritage management so they gain little praise from myself for that.
And please tell me what my little secret may be and provide evidence to support whatever allegation you make dannyboyl
01/10/2013 at 20:41
dannyboyL
Oh just hand the goods over to their rightful owner asap and stop making endless excuses not to, OK?
Whether they then get recorded is entirely up to HIM not you (but I bet the average farmer would do it a lot more than the average detectorist – for loads of reasons).
01/10/2013 at 20:57
Daryl K
Oh dear, you seem to be hell bent on ownership and seem to care little about mitigating the loss of knowledge. So, let anyone with a metal detector dig away, hoiking artefacts willy nilly but it is OK as long as they are handed to the farmer who may or may not record them, but even if he does record them, you can bet it will be with little detail of where it was found, any associated context or any other key information – GREAT!!. Why not leave the finds in the ground instead where they rest unharmed and in context for the future. A far better solution in my books.
I note you did not elaborate on or provide evidence regarding the ‘secret’ you allege I have.
Your little secret would seem to be that you are the originator of this article as it is strange that you comment very little but manage to reply to my post just 25 minutes after my comment, probably because it sends you a ‘comment’ alert. I believe this is why you seem hell bent on defending the notion of your own post and cannot see the flaws in saying if you give finds to landowners then everything is then OK.
01/10/2013 at 21:01
heritageaction
“And where have I advocated anything AGAINST the landowner keeping his or her property AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME?”
The appropriate time is STRAIGHT AWAY and without conditions. Only an artefact hunter would argue otherwise.
01/10/2013 at 21:06
heritageaction
“Oh dear, you seem to be hell bent on ownership”
Yes he does, doesn’t he, it being the law!
That’ll do.
02/10/2013 at 01:07
heritageaction
Please don’t spam our other threads “Daryl”. There’s no point.
(FYI no-one else involved in “sustainable heritage management as a career choice” would ever say landowners should only have their property “at the appropriate time” or that landowners were less likely to do the right thing than detectorists).
02/10/2013 at 09:17
heritageaction
Again “Daryl” please don’t spam our other threads. Anyway, you wrote:
“Glad to see you read my comment and it touched a nerve with you. Shame you still want to try to smear my intentions by misrepresentation but then again, that is what you seem to do when it suits you. BTW, ‘Appropriate Time’ is a reference to ‘After Recording’ which is exactly what you advocate yourselves. Then again, constructive and practical heritage conservation isn’t exactly your strong point is it?”
First, the “appropriate time” is straight away – i.e. BEFORE some random artefact hunter takes it home saying he’ll get it recorded so you have that completely wrong.
Second, we like to think constructive and practical heritage conservation IS our strong point but even if it isn’t we at least don’t dig up history and fail to report 70% of it to the rest of society, so goodbye!
03/10/2013 at 09:01
dannyboyL
Oh so he was a detectorist! That explains A LOT!
03/10/2013 at 09:05
heritageaction
Probably. The latest in a long line. Trouble is it always becomes obvious once they say stuff!
05/10/2013 at 13:05
heritageaction
“Daryl”,
You now say
“once recorded, fine, give them to the owner”.
No. For the final time, it must go to the owner FIRST and not be entrusted to those who don’t own it (and who have a record of not recording 70% of what they find!). It’s not complicated.
05/10/2013 at 13:24
Daryl K
And therefore that is why tighter legislation to make recording COMPULSORY is required as obviously the current system does not work. Or even better, don’t let people onto land to metal detect in the first place.
05/10/2013 at 16:08
heritageaction
“And therefore that is why tighter legislation to make recording COMPULSORY is required as obviously the current system does not work.”
Totally agree.
“Or even better, don’t let people onto land to metal detect in the first place.”
Not in the way most of them are allowed to at present, certainly, totally agree with that too!
05/10/2013 at 16:49
Daryl K
I’m glad we finally agree on something. Shame we had a little ‘spat’ but hey, that’s life.
05/10/2013 at 19:37
heritageaction
Never mind, we won’t record it!
😉