It occurred to us there isn’t a club or code of conduct for detectorists who just want to metal detect for the love of history alone. Surely, among 27,000 detectorists, there are some who want a club like that? So we’ve made one!
.
It’s the first detecting club dedicated to promoting the public’s interest alone. It’s purely for detectorists who believe anything they find belongs to the landowner (or if special, to the country) not them, and who gain their pleasure from gaining the historic knowledge alone. What’s more, they believe the knowledge surrounding artefacts is everyone’s so shouldn’t be withheld or destroyed.
Those simple beliefs are the essence of this club: If we dig, it’s in pursuit of knowledge, not possession. Without that guiding principle, we don’t think it would be right for us to rummage in the public’s historical back yard.
We should stress this isn’t another version of “responsible detecting”. It’s better described as “acceptable metal detecting” for we’re pretty sure, if you speak to any archaeologist, they’ll think it’s the best. Accordingly, since every week hundreds of new people take up metal detecting, in the next few weeks we’ll suggest some of the things they should do if they want to align with our notional club and to act acceptably, in the public’s interest.
.
.
HERITAGE JOURNAL METAL DETECTING CLUB GUIDANCE FOR MEMBERS
1. Getting permission
-
- Please don’t rush to the nearest farmer and ask if you can start. Remember, the knowledge you may unearth doesn’t belong to him or you, it belongs to everyone and he may not know whether it’s appropriate or safe to detect in his bit of society’s historical back yard.
- So first, (as Historic England advises) contact the Local Authority Archaeologist and local Portable Antiquities Scheme Finds Liaison Officer and say “I’m thinking of asking for permission at a particular farm or area – is it OK? They may say yes/yes except certain places/maybe yes but come back when you can be more specific/ or no.
- Please abide by their advice. They represent society. Why would you rummage in society’s backyard without society’s permission?
2. Talking to the landowner
- You can ask, but please don’t try to persuade. The very first thing you should do is to give him the contact details of the archaeologists you spoke to as he should be advised by them, not you. That’s a basic element of fair-dealing: a decision shouldn’t be influenced by someone with a vested interest. However well-meaning, they may have an unconscious bias.
- Next, you should give him a signed undertaking that says: we dig for the pleasure of knowledge, not possession, and anything we find belongs to you, the landowner (or, if it’s special) to the country) and consequently, we don’t want a find-sharing agreement, we only ask that everything recordable is shown to the Portable Antiquities Scheme.
- If he asks “are you a member of the NCMD or FID?“ we suggest you say yes (if you have needed to for insurance cover) but no with regard to following their codes of conduct which are vague and involve find sharing agreements which you don’t want or a clear commitment to showing everything recordable to PAS, which you do.
- If he asks “do you follow the official Code of Practice for England and Wales“ we suggest you say: broadly, yes, although its recommendation to get a finds agreement to avoid future problems is irrelevant as you don’t wish to own anything.
- If he asks “what about treasure rewards“ we suggest you say you won’t accept one as doing so would mean your declaration that you dig for the pleasure of knowledge, not possession would be rendered hypocritical, but if he wishes to accept a reward that’s up to him.
- If he asks “what will happen to the finds“ we suggest you say that’s up to him as he owns them (unless any belong to the country) but can he please show them to PAS (or we will, on his behalf). Thereafter, he could keep them as a collection (we could tabulate them for him) or offer them to a museum or give them to his local archaeology group, parish council or school.
.
NEXT WEEK: 3. Conduct in the fields
.
__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
10/10/2020 at 11:32
Pete D
Not all landowners are male !
Less gender stereotyping please.
10/10/2020 at 12:15
heritageaction
“Not all landowners are male!”
Indeed, but it’s very telling that the only criticism we’ve had is about that. I guess most metal detectorists aren’t keen to be seen criticising the idea of metal detecting for the public’s benefit alone despite all those tens of thousands of claims that they’re only in it for the history!
No matter, they aren’t the ones we’re trying to recruit!
10/10/2020 at 12:30
Pete D
True but a landowner is gender neutral. It should read as he/she these days.
10/10/2020 at 13:00
heritageaction
Thanks.
11/10/2020 at 06:20
Paul Barford (@PortantIssues)
“but a landowner should read as he/she these days” or, if you are being pedantic, “it”. Land can be owned by a company, the state, a college or a Church.
I wonder though if “Pete D” would like to comment on the other issues raised in this post.
I think they are very sensible, and look forward to seeing the archaeological input (including from the public-funded PAS)
11/10/2020 at 06:38
heritageaction
I doubt there’ll be further comment from Pete D.
As for “archaeological input (including from the public-funded PAS)” they have the option to deliver a simple yes or no to
“this isn’t another version of “responsible detecting”. It’s better described as “acceptable metal detecting” for we’re pretty sure, if you speak to any archaeologist, they’ll think it’s the best”.
16/10/2020 at 12:33
Hywel Smith
And they have disappeared again
16/10/2020 at 15:51
heritageaction
Please resubmit
16/10/2020 at 15:51
heritageaction
Please resubmit
16/10/2020 at 19:11
heritageaction
We’ve found your comments and the answers are:
“Remember, the knowledge you may unearth doesn’t belong to him or you, it belongs to everyone”…
In a previous post everything is owned by the land owner with 0.01% other parties assume treasure items.”
The KNOWLEDGE, see.
“So first, (as Historic England advises) contact the Local Authority Archaeologist and local Portable Antiquities Scheme Finds Liaison Officer and say “I’m thinking of asking for permission at a particular farm or area – is it OK? They may say yes/yes except certain places/maybe yes but come back when you can be more specific/ or no.
So it’s up to FLO to give permission?”
Of course. The FLO or local archaeo should advise the farmer. What has it to do with a detectorist, who is biased? That’s obvious.
“What if a farmer offers u permission and the FLO says no but won’t give you a reason why (some will have the same views as this site)”
That’s right, experts advise, exploiters don’t. Obvious good conservation practice.
Can you imagine the amount of calls the FLO will receive from detectorists for permission t Local archaeos will have the ability and record and will be happy to.
Next, you should give him a signed undertaking that says: we dig for the pleasure of knowledge, not possession, and anything we find belongs to you, the landowner (or, if it’s special) to the country) and consequently, we don’t want a find-sharing agreement, we only ask that everything recordable is shown to the Portable Antiquities Scheme.
I’m confused as the first guide is that it doesn’t belong to him or the detectorist!
AGAIN, THE KNOWLEDGE BELONGS RO EVERYONE.
Then why shouldn’t detectorists revive a reward?
They put in the hours in pay costs with powering their detectors, put fuel in their vehicles!
But you all say you do it for the love of history. So do so, like amateur archaeologists.
So what if a detectorist finds a object that the farmer can prove belonged to a family member he says he doesn’t want the item and the detectorist says I’ll buy it from you but the FLO says they want it?
It wouldn’t be old so that’s not relevant.
* If he asks “what about treasure rewards“ we suggest you say you won’t accept one as doing so would mean your declaration that you dig for the pleasure of knowledge, not possession would be rendered hypocritical, but if he wishes to accept a reward that’s up to him.
this would just make them not report those finds.
But this Code isn’t for crooks.
* If he asks “what will happen to the finds“ we suggest you say that’s up to him as he owns them (unless any belong to the country) but can he please show them to PAS (or we will, on his behalf). Thereafter, he could keep them as a collection (we could tabulate them for him) or offer them to a museum or give them to his local archaeology group, parish council or school.
So the farmer shows the items to PAS?
I’m sure if someone found a unknown Picasso in their attack they would gladly give it to a local museum I think not it would be in the nearest auction house once people know how much items can go for.
Not everyone is uncultured.
What if the farmer decided to sell those items and give half to the detectorists would you then start a rally call to stop that?
Not all farmers are uncultured.
I think we’ve answered enough. The new Code is obviously not for you.