Fellow Landowners,
As golden rules go it couldn’t be simpler: never sign a finds agreement without seeing what you are giving away….
It’s obvious isn’t it: the finds are your property so you should control what happens to them, once you have them in your hand. Obvious yes, yet since I mentioned it last week lots of detectorists have been trying to deny it – which tells a dodgy tale I think. Some have been leaning over to a ludicrous degree to oppose its implications, saying it’s OK to take the finds home in the first instance because “sometimes you cannot get to see the farmer straight after a dig.” Yeah right. Not possible or respectful or responsible or practical to restrict your detecting to just those days when the owner IS there, eh?!
So Friends, to repeat: there’s no good reason for things to be taken straight home nor for you not to be given the opportunity to take independent advice on them. So if someone asks you to agree to it you ought to ask yourself why. The sale of British artefacts is a multi-million pound industry in which the owners get a lamb’s share (how about you?) Most artefact hunters won’t tell you that, nor will anyone working for the Portable Antiquities Scheme. But take a look at Ebay, Treasure Hunting Magazine, The Searcher and coin dealers’ catalogues and see for yourself. The evidence is overwhelming.
Your friend
Silas Brown,
Grunter’s Hollow Farm,
Worfield,
Salop
.
********************************
PS…
Wording to look out for and avoid:
A portion of the National Council for Metal Detecting Model Finds Agreement showing the two crucial phrases that make the detectorist, alone in the field, the sole arbiter of the value of each object and hence whether you get any money for it or even ever see it. As contracts go, it must surely be one of the most manipulative in history.
Update:
And now comes yet more defence of the “take it home without showing him” system! “You wouldn’t find a person who shoots pigeons on behalf of a landowner having to go along to the farmhouse at the end of the day to show the farmer how many birds they shot…. “
Eh??!! What a desperate comparison to make – and how strongly it signals there’s no respectable defence?! It’s up to you Friends, but I personally see ludicrous gyrations in defence of taking home items of yours that might be worth multi thousands of pounds without showing them to you as instructive. The question that remains hanging in the air is why, why, why would anyone NOT want you to see what they’ve found?
The same fellow even has the almighty neck to conclude with: “Truth, openness and honesty with your landowners is all that is required” Too damn right it is, Sunshine, the same as Tesco’s require of their customers! Just bring every farmer everything you’ve found before you leave their premises, using the moral standards of normal people outside your circle, and stop trying to wriggle out of it. Grrrr.
And….
Another one has just said: “The ‘Farmer Brown’ character in these posts is a joke in terms of a balanced attitude”. Damn right, Moonbeam! I’m a farmer that’s pro-Farmer, what’s wrong with that? Have years of PAS flattery and talking to your mates convinced you you’re owed a balanced attitude? Truth is, you’re simply random people who turn up at our gates proposing you go on our fields and keep everything of ours worth up to 300 or 500 pounds while saying you’re mad keen on history. Is that not 100% accurate? Yes it is. So how is saying so not a “balanced attitude”? Do you mean you want me to pretend it’s not true and that you’re some sort of national hero? The brass monkeys in Hell will be crying their eyes out before that happens, ooh arr.
Oh, and here’s a true jewel of detectorists’ self-delusionary self-praise from one of his colleagues…
“I bet every detectorist on this forum has a good relationship with their farmer/landowner(s)“. (I’ll bet they do!). “Honesty and trust is paramount.” Oh really! Then how come, instead of getting farmers to sign binding contracts you just trust them to give you some of them back when you deliver them? Oooh, er, ummm, ignore Farmer Brown he’s an extremist who presents an unfair image of us…. !! [And predictably, the remarks have now been hidden. Makes you proud to be British doesn’t it!]
And someone else doesn’t like facing up to reality….
“I for one am sick to death of having my words twisted, ignored and dismissed by these seemingly educated people who are only interested in the improvements that are offered on their terms.Therefore rather than keep on banging my head against a brick wall, I have decided to shut down this blog and just get on with my metal detecting…the way that I like it.!”
To clarify: They aren’t terms and they aren’t ours. They are a description of civilised behaviour If he doesn’t want to comply when other detectorists have happily done so without difficulty or complaint for many years then so be it, but don’t blame us or civilisation. No-one is being fooled.
And another equally uncomprehending fellow chips in … accusing us of “extremist demands” that have caused “responsible detectorist Steve Broom to vacate his responsible metal detecting blog”. Makes us sound more like terrorists than conservationists. Boo hoo. That comes of us taking stuff home without showing the owner and saying it’s the responsible thing to do. Oh no, that’s not us is it?!
__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
25/05/2014 at 20:35
Edwin
Agree absolutely that the landowner is the natural owner as the heir to whatever was lost or concealed on their land. The government did not exist when the original owner left their possessions.I would hope that the information from the artefact would become part of our common heritage and really significant pieces would be bought for the nation but any idea that the detectorist has first possession etc is ridiculous.
25/05/2014 at 21:43
Paul Barford
Edwin, I would hope the landowner donates really significant pieces to a public collection, and the landowner then would owe the metal detectorist (who is acting temporarily as his agent on his land) nothing. They do it for the history they say.
25/05/2014 at 22:52
Andy Baines
The farmer should donate a find to the public collection? Paul, I thought half your argument was that metal detectorists were walking away with X amounts worth of cash leaving the farmer with nothing. Now your saying he should waive his right to reward and receive nothing anyway ? I think you need to sit down and get your argument straight. None of it makes sense and it is off on all sorts of tangents.
26/05/2014 at 06:08
Paul Barford
I think you are still not grasping what is being said here. I do not think that artefact hunters or farmers should be selling off everybody’s archaeological heritage for cash. If they are (because it currently is legal to do so), then responsible collecting means that it should be done in such a way that that same law is honoured, hence the transfer of ownership is documented (whether or not the find is SOLD, that has nothing to do with it). I rather think it is you who are trying to lead discussion of this core point off on a tangent.
26/05/2014 at 08:08
Silas de Worfield
There are two concepts that are guaranteed to drive some artefact hunters doolally – “hand over to the owner before you go home” and “donate”. I think my letter has been a very elegant way of showing who are history lovers and who are artefact hunters for whom “responsibility” is a step too far – as I’ve had to do nothing, just watch while they’ve pointed their own fingers at themselves!
It’s instructive to reflect that if you yell “hand over to the owner before you go home” and “donate” through the keyhole of any amateur archaeology club you’ll get a round of applause, not bedlam. I shall continue to use both phrases, as a public service.
26/05/2014 at 08:40
Steve Broom
I have personally donated well over 40 finds to landowners and a museum and the group I detect with has also recently completed a project where over 120 items have been donated to a local museum. (This figure is a lot more if you count all of the musket balls and buttons). All of the items were declared during the dig before being taken home for research and cleaning. All of the objects were then inventoried a reported to the landowner. We have then processed the finds with the PAS and once returned, these have been handed over to the landowner and cleared from the inventory. That is responsible detecting and that is why I say that your “hand it over to the owner before you go home” policy is utter nonsense.
I state again…the landowners on all of my digs know what has been found and if they really want to keep an item…it is theirs without question. The issue of when they physically see the finds is down to the personal agreement that exists between the detectorist and the landowner.
Please continue to use both phrases and enjoy the so called “bedlam” that you believe this causes. In the meantime the more responsible detectorist will continue to do what we do with the agreement of our landowners and your opportunity to show any improvement by actually using one of these examples as a beacon of how it really can be done properly will slip away.
There are those of us that are trying to help and show other detectorist how things can be done differently but on reflection…if there is no support for it…then why bother
26/05/2014 at 09:00
Silas de Worfield
“The issue of when they physically see the finds is down to the personal agreement that exists between the detectorist and the landowner.”
You might say that, in the context of your own proclaimed sainthood. But how many millions of pounds-worth of artefacts have gone walkies to Wolverhampton without the owner being even told of their existence? If you’re honest you’ll admit it is likely to be many and utterly unacceptable.
What you are proposing to hold up as “Good Practice” plays directly into the hands of the crooks and hence will cause great harm. If you’re honest you’ll admit that too.
Yes I WILL continue to say it. I’m right and you have offered zero arguments to the contrary – other than saying that YOU behave. Your behaviour is not the issue.
If you wish to do good you should promote standards that crooks find uncomfortable, not delightful. It’s as simple as that. Now tell me I’m wrong. Actually, don’t bother. You’ve wriggled so hard to hang on to “the virtuous (and criminal) detectorist’s inalienable right to take people stuff home without showing them” in the last day or two you’ll do yourself a mischief.
You really should stop deluding yourself that promoting rules that help crooks is responsible. On that basis Central Searchers are responsible. Get it?
26/05/2014 at 09:22
Steve Broom
If my behaviour is not the issue then rather than knock me for it….use it to demonstrate how things can be achieved. I have agreed that there are instances where people pocket the finds and take them away without the landowner knowing, but that is theft…pure and simple. That is not the same as taking the finds away to be cleaned identified and then declared under agreement with the landowner. This distinction should be made…!!
What…exactly….is it that you are asking detectorists to do then…??? This argument seems to have morphed so much now that even I don’t understand what it is you and Paul are driving at… Much of what you suggest is not practical…it simply would not work (and that is not me trying to achieve some wriggle room, that is my experience from the time that I have been detecting). Because I know that I can self regulate my activities I am not going to limit when and where I go detecting to times when the farmer is around that is impractical nonsense…and to be frank… why should I. It is the agreement between the landowner and detectorist (or any other person that is lucky enough to be granted access to their land) that is key here and as I have maintained all the way along this relationship needs to be built on trust and common decency.
I don’t have the answers as to how we can stop people taking things home if they are untrustworthy… You might have a policy of showing all the finds, but people still have pockets and a small artefacts can easily be concealed from view if someone is that way inclined. No amount of control is going to prevent that. It is therefore probably more beneficial to target the route that these people use to sell their finds… why ebay allows this is beyond me…yet I accept the point that Paul makes with regards to finds documentation. Maybe the landowners name and details should form part of the PAS finds record…and then artefacts could not be sold without the landowners permission….I don’t know, would this help…???
It is a tricky one to answer, but the control that is being suggested would have no impact on those people who truly have no respect for the land, farmers or artefacts that they come into contact with…
26/05/2014 at 09:26
heritageaction
“Much of what you suggest is not practical”
Garbage.
26/05/2014 at 09:49
Steve Broom
So be it… It seems that there is no sensible way forwards here…
26/05/2014 at 09:49
Paul Barford
Steve, should PAS be handling finds where they do NOT have a signed release form from the landowner from each of them saying the has given the finder the permission to search for that item on his land and take it away? How without it can they prevent nighthawked finds getting ‘laundered’ by being entered into the database as from being from a totally different farmer’s lands altogether? Like that Malmesbury coin. Yes, these too can be faked, but the PAS has taken reasonable steps to avoid handling stolen material. If they have not obtained such documentation, they have not. Neither by the same token is it particularly responsible detecting not to have such documentation, whether or not your FLO is interested in playing it by the book. I do not see this as about stealing as much as documenting the licit and documenting behaviour classifiable as licit and clearly distinguishing those who engage in such transparent practices from those whose activities are clandestine and less than illicit.
I think the notion of “responsible” cannot be constrained by the idea of what is “too much bother”. If one is going to do it properly, then why not set oneself the aim of doing it 100% properly, and 100% better than everybody else? I don’t think you’ll get much support if you say “I am responsible, except when it is too much bother, and what seems to be required here is too much bother for me, but I’m responsible anyway”.
Surely responsible detecting is looking at what goes on now and looking forward to how it could/should be (and why) and working towards working out how to action that, it seems the two of you (Andy and you) want to just tread water, carry on doing what everybody’s doing, and resist any discussion of change – ‘impractical’ you both snort, and carry on as before. If you look at what is happening in a wider context, it is clear that there has to be more transparency, and this begins with how an object got out of the ground, where and under what circumstances. This goes for collecting of Roman coins from Bulgaria and Egypt, and it applies to the PAS-partnership in the UK which so many look to as a “model”. OK, so let’s make it into a model system, not a “as much as we can be bothered to do” one.
26/05/2014 at 11:24
heritageaction
“So be it… It seems that there is no sensible way forwards here…”
On the contrary. Doing right by the farmer and hence the resource (as Paul outlines) is not at all impractical or complicated. I know that for an absolute fact because there are detectorists who do so and have done so for many years without the least difficulty or fuss.
(There’s a sensible way forward alright but I suspect the problem is that there are those in your club that simply won’t agree to it and your wriggling is on their behalf not yours.)