Although no longer involved in drafting it, detectorist got their dearest wish from the new detecting code for they can still tell farmers officialdom recommends signing a finds agreement to “avoid disputes” over ownership. It’s just not true. The finds all belong to the farmer (or occasionally the State) so can never be claimed by a detectorist unless a finds agreement is signed! What the new Code ought to be saying is:
.
“All finds must be handed to the landowner before you leave as they are his. He can then get independent advice on what they are and what they are worth (and whether he gives you anything).”
.
Instead, farmers are told – and shown in writing – that officialdom wants them to sign away their rights, even though it’s totally against their interest. Here are the bodies which have let farmers down:
National Museum of Wales / PAS Cymru
Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers
British Museum / Portable Antiquities Scheme
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists
Council for British Archaeology
Country Land & Business Association
Institute for Archaeology (University College London)
Historic England, National Farmers Union
Royal Commission on the Historical & Ancient Monuments of Wales
Society of Museum Archaeologists.
.
.
__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
28/01/2018 at 13:50
rantingpagan
Although I’m normally happy to share your ire it seems strange that you didn’t publish the full quote from the code which clearly states that finds are the property of the landowner.
“Any finds discovered will normally be the property of the landowner, so to avoid disputes it is advisable to get permission and agreement in writing first regarding the ownership of any finds subsequently discovered.”
The code doesn’t state whether or how the tenant/landowner and detectorist should split any money or artefacts (and doesn’t preclude your solution of the detectorist handing everything in with a hopeful smile). It only states that whatever agreement is reached should be in writing. This is pretty bog standard good advice for any agreement you make ever, even in circumstances where agreements are simple and straightforward.
28/01/2018 at 20:43
heritageaction
You misunderstand. If the finds are the landowner’s why should there be a finds agreement? And in writing? These are “amateur archaeologists” with “an interest in history alone” to a man and woman, bear in mind. That is what is said at thousands of farm gates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And have you seen the wording of finds agreements, they’re entirely to the advantage of the detectorist. (Yes, we’ve analysed them in detail. They are the exact opposite of a bog standard or fair agreement and normally allow finds to be taken home unseen. WHY?? It is that crook-aiding arrangement that officialdom has facilitated.)
01/02/2018 at 22:09
rantingpagan
There should be a written agreement so that if a landowner has stated that they want x% of value, all coins (for example), or simply everything then there can be precisely no room for creative misunderstandings. This would clearly turn “It’s probably a civil matter sir” into straightforward actionable theft.
I’d agree with your ‘crook-aiding’ comment if the code endorsed any specific, exploitative pro-forma agreement but they didn’t: There are plenty of other types of agreement, from those used by commercial archs (where the detectorist gets sod all other than a mention in the site report), to back-of-a-fag-packet ones where the landowner sets out their own terms.
Perhaps (and this is not sarcasm) you could draft and publish a ‘farmer friendly’ template agreement which sets out roles, permissions, responsibilities, and rewards in a way that you feel is fairer to landowners?
02/02/2018 at 07:06
heritageaction
We disagree that what the farmer wants should be written down. All he wants is already his, by law. If someone steals, they steal. I do not need to ask the electrician who mended my wiring to acknowledge what’s in my house is all mine. The law tells him that. He doesn’t need a Code of Conduct from an official body suggesting he gets me to sign a piece of paper saying what of mine he can take away!
I disagree with you that the code doesn’t endorse any specific, exploitative pro-forma agreement. ANY agreement opens the door to “creative misunderstandings” i.e. deniable theft. Why aid potential theft?
Incidentally, there’s a compelling background to all this: every detectorist without fail says they are in it for the history, not the gain.
04/02/2018 at 12:54
Paul Barford
Mr Pagan, perhaps – since the PAS has ‘liaison officers’, that is for liaising with finders and the public stakeholders – it is for them to be leading the way to creating a form of liaison of artefact hunters with those stakeholders who are having their property taken from them in a very direct form in the name of ‘(PAS-approved) responsible collecting’ (‘only in it for the history – not at all for gain’). No? What other kind of liaison would be more useful here?