Hello Fellow Landowners,
Yes it’s me, Farmer Silas Brown, once again promoting your interest in relation to metal detecting because the Government and officialdom won’t.
This time I’m highlighting the fact lots of detectorists take finds home without showing us. Not sure what they tell farmers but they tell the public it’s “because he isn’t interested”. Hmm. Does that sound like you or anyone you know? Thought not. They also tell the public “If he had them he wouldn’t report them” – implying the average farmer is less educated or socially responsible than the average detectorist. Hmm again! Take a look at any detecting forum!
But the main issue is they’re our finds not theirs so letting anything be taken away unseen is crazy. Many finds are valuable, but how would we know? Plus there’s an immutable law of the universe: what leaves an owner doesn’t necessarily all find it’s way back to him! So my strong advice (and something the Government and officialdom ought to spend outreach money telling you) is NEVER let your property leave your farm until you have obtained independent advice on its value and significance. You can then decide what YOU want to do with it. That could include showing it to PAS. (You can phone them or visit them, here they all are. They might even visit you as they visit hundreds of pubs to meet detectorists – so it really couldn’t be easier for you to report your property to them, whatever you may have been told!)
That advice, and much else is in the Journal’s Ethical Detecting Code. You won’t find any official or archaeologist saying any part of that is wrong so if any detectorist says he won’t keep to it, well, you decide! The Southern Detectorists Group detects 20 farms and in no case do they hand the finds to the farmers at the end of their digs. I’m only a humble farmer, less educated or socially responsible than the average detectorist, but to me that’s scandalous. And it’s not just me. Tesco’s don’t like people taking things home without going through the check-out either.
Best wishes,
Silas Brown
.
______________________________________________________________
More Heritage Action views on metal detecting and artefact collecting
______________________________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
14 comments
19/01/2014 at 12:42
Natasha Hendridge
And you are most likely just like the other greedy farmers such as the one at Oldport farm that are willing to sell of their land to build house right up against a nationally important Hillfort – Disgraceful. Do not expect any sympathy from me or anyone else who can see what a shady bunch of money grabbers you really are.
19/01/2014 at 13:07
heritageaction
Natasha,
If you read more of Farmer Brown’s contributions to the Journal you’ll realise he’s a literary device. And a saint! 🙂
19/01/2014 at 18:30
Natasha Hendridge
Literary device or not, Farmers are responsible for destruction of archaeology and Heritage assets on a daily basis so they get no sympathy from me nor do they deserve any sympathy.
“I’m only a humble farmer, less educated or socially responsible”
Less sociably responsible- That I have to agree with!!
19/01/2014 at 19:08
heritageaction
Poor Silas. He tries so hard!
19/01/2014 at 21:05
Steve Broom
Well Silas… Thanks for highlighting our little detecting group in your post. What you fail to add is that our landowners are 100% aware of what is found and have agreed with us that they are happy for us to deal with the PAS recording requirements. Unfortunately the Ethical Code that you refer to is impractical, inflexible and ineffective….this is probably why there has been no take up…!!! Unfortunately the people who wrote it believe that they have the right to dictate to landowners and detectorists alike how to conduct themselves….Well, fortunately, they don’t and as long as metal detecting is undertaken responsibly and the landowners are well informed and happy, then all is well and everyone can feel included in the recovery of our heritage. The SDG would love to come along to your farm and show you how we operate because unfortunately some of the writings on this forum have been distorted and are untrue. However, from reading your offerings on here I think your values are slightly more “old fashioned” and I doubt you will take us up on the offer. Still, the offer still stands….
20/01/2014 at 04:10
heritageaction
“Our landowners are 100% aware of what is found”
No, they CANNOT know what is found since you take all the finds straight home without showing them to them, thus depriving them of the opportunity to verify them with their own eyes or get independent advice on what they are and their value!
Why you are so anxious to avoid having owners see and check their own property before your members take it away is a complete mystery. What isn’t a mystery is that it’s not fair dealing and wouldn’t happen in any other walk of life that you can name.
20/01/2014 at 07:28
Steve Broom
You have not seen how we operate and therefore are in no position to say what we do, or don’t do… All of our landowners know what gets found on their land. The only thing that I am anxious about is putting right the tainted view that you paint of all detectorists. We might not do it “your” way….but that doesn’t mean that it is not done correctly and with the full agreement of our landowners. Oh….and the tesco references also falls flat on its face because in 2014, we now have self service checkouts whereby you can check your own shopping out as long as the relevant controls are in place…see, even tesco can modernise and change. Your ethical code could work and I am still happy to explore this (even after all the word twisting and name calling)…but it needs to be flexible and practical as to what actually happens….
20/01/2014 at 07:56
heritageaction
“You have not seen how we operate and therefore are in no position to say what we do, or don’t do”
Not true. We have simply commented on what you have said publicly – that you don’t show the finds to the owners before taking them home.
“The only thing that I am anxious about is putting right the tainted view that you paint of all detectorists.”
You needn’t worry. Lots of detectorists don’t adopt your “don’t show the owner” attitude and we applaud them for it.
“the tesco references also falls flat on its face”
No it doesn’t. Their technology is designed to ensure you don’t take things home without telling them, something you reckon you are morally free to do to farmers.
” it needs to be flexible”
Ah, flexible ethics, eh? Says it all.
Anyway, this has gone far enough. People will decide for themselves if removing an owner’s property without showing him is normal, decent human behaviour or something else.
20/01/2014 at 08:16
Stroud 223
I vote Something Else! If I was a crook, which I’m not, I would be clamoring to join his club. It’s tailor made for ripping farmers off. Completely ridiculous.
20/01/2014 at 08:34
Steven Broom
More word twisting… If you actually read the content of the responses that i have been providing you might try to understand where we are trying to assist..So for that reason, let me provide some clarity to the incorrect nature of the points raised above…
#1 – Yes, we do take the finds home as the practicalities of having the farmer on hand at the end of every dig simply doesnt happen. Farmers are busy people and we have agreed with them that the finds will be cleaned, curated, catalouged and reported to them. I am slightly concerned that your “ethical” approach seems to suggest that we should feverishly scrape, brush and wash the mud off on site so that we can hand over to the farmer an item that is readily idenfitiable…Sometimes we have to research the items to let the farmer know what has been found. I dont see any point in risking the condition of the finds, or handing over to the farmer a pile of muddy artefacts that we dont know what they are. Far better to be responsible about it (and in agreeance with the landowner) take them home so that they can be properly cared for and reported.
#2 – Your reply is incorrect – If you actually read the posts you will see that the farmer is aware of what has been found and that they have agreed to let us retain the finds for recording purposes prior to an agreement over ownership being discussed. Why you think that you have the right to dictate the process by which this happens is simply outrageous. You are not party to how the metal detecting takes place on a landowners property and therefore i think you should conceed that it is between the landowner and the people that he allows to detect on their land to decide the process by which the items are handled as long as this is in line with the current process for finds recording The adoption of an inflexible, out of touch and dogmatic code of conduct is of no help here which is why no-one will agree to it. All we are asking is that one clause is made more flexible to reflect what actually happens…
#3 – Yes self service checkouts have security in place to make sure that the items are properly procured and if you read a bit deeper, you will see that i was trying to draw a parallel with having a well run metal detecting club that has the right culture, checks and securities in place….and i have never advocated that we dont tell the farmer what is found.
#4 – Flexible in terms of practicalities… the ethical code simply does not allow for the practicalities of how landowners permit us to detect, or what happens to the finds immediatley after a dig. This is the only point that i have lobbied against as the immediate handing over of all finds to the landowner would not be condusive to getting them properly looked after and recorded….that is the only point.
Hopefully the people that read your threads will see that over the past weeks and months i have been up front and open about what happens. As i have said before, i have nothing to hid about how (in practice) metal detecting does, and should work. If this has gone far enough, then stop posting threads about it. The reason i put myself up for more of your word twisting humiliation is that that i believe that the Ethical Code does offer somthing that could be used and conceed that it would be of great benefit to the responsible detecting community, if there were a couple of changes that would just allow us to keep managing the more practical side of what happens to the finds once they are made… This is not protecting my interests as a detectorist, nor is it pick and mix ethics… this is about the practicalities between two people, the landowner and the detectorists and the agreement that exists between them both to ensure that the finds are properly handled and reported to all interested parties.Now wouldnt that be a better thing to report…!!! The offer still stand by the way…!
20/01/2014 at 09:18
heritageaction
This really is enough.
There is simply NO practical or responsible or ethical or respectable reason preventing you from handing the landowner’s property over to him at the end of the day for him to get INDEPENDENT advice on it’s identity, significance and value. It’s a crook’s charter, as I’m sure you know very well. (“Farmers are busy people”, indeed! They don’t have front doors or letter boxes then?!)
20/01/2014 at 14:00
Tiff
Tesco’s is a shop that sells goods for profit. To leave the store without paying you are clearing showing INTENT to steal and the intent is the part of law which creates an offense.
20/01/2014 at 16:20
Steve Broom
I absolutely agree Tiff. If I intentionally do not declare a find with the landowner then yes, I am in the wrong and can see why people would think that this is dishonest and unlawful. However, if the landowner and I have an understanding that the finds will be cared for, cleaned, identified and then reported I don’t see what right anyone else has to claim that this is unethical or irresponsible. It is down to the agreement between the detectorist and the landowner as to how the finds are handled and the timescales that are appropriate. Better this way than giving a delicate object a quick wash and scrub up in the field so that it can then be “posted” through a letterbox to be trampled on by the farmer when he walks through the door, or be chewed up by his Jack Russell, or be thrown out with the junk mail…. That would hardly be ethical…would it…??? In fact, I think that it would be down right disrespectful…!?! The code would work if it can fit in with the way in which the majority of finds are already handled.
21/01/2014 at 05:40
heritageaction
” Better this way than giving a delicate object a quick wash and scrub up in the field so that it can then be “posted” through a letterbox to be trampled on by the farmer when he walks through the door, or be chewed up by his Jack Russell, or be thrown out with the junk mail….”
And presumably if you put it in a box the box fairies would get it! You should have stopped a while back, when people were still unsure about your motivation.
As for Heritage Action Members needing to hold an ethical mirror up to themselves, as you have written elsewhere, it is not us who have helped ourselves to nearly 12 million artefacts and mostly told no-one – it is artefact hunters! What a cheek. And here’s you desperately and transparently defending a rule that makes it easier for them…