Sunday 10 October 2010

Landowners fear flood of treasure hunters after £2.3 million Roman helmet sale

.
David Millward, Transport Editor of the Telegraph has produced a not-quite-accurate story on the obvious threat to Britain's buried archaeological heritage created by yet another highly publicised sale of a dugup archaeological artefact ('Landowners fear flood of treasure hunters after £2.3 million Roman helmet sale').
Landowners have been warned the discovery of a valuable Roman helmet could trigger a flood of treasure hunters. The find is the latest in a series of high profile artefacts unearthed by amateurs armed with metal detectors. However the Country Land and Business Association is warning that property owners can become embroiled in costly legal disputes if they fail to agree contracts with anyone searching on their land. "There is a risk that after this discovery people will rush onto land and there will be a free-for-all," said Angus Collingwood-Cameron, the Country Land and Business Association's director in the North East. There are [...][lots of ] metal detectorists in Britain [...] Many have signed up to a voluntary code designed to minimise the damage they do to farmland. The code advises them to avoid ploughed land and also notify the landowner of any discoveries they make. But the Association believes the prospect of riches could lead to a surge in interest in the hobby and potentially litigation and has produced a new guide for its members. "While such finds are extremely rare, I'm sure that this element of excitement helps to make the activity so popular," Mr Collingwood-Cameron added. "Responsible metal detectorists can unearth much that contributes to our heritage, but landowners must have control over all activities on their property. "I cannot emphasis too strongly the importance of taking professional advice, to avoid costly legal battles in the future, and to discourage trespass. "This high-profile event will make both landowners and detectorists wonder what else can be found, but taking simple steps, will give all parties peace of mind." "What we are saying is that the landowners should have an agreement in place before allowing people onto their land.".
And of course if they want to conserve the archaeological sites on their land they should not allow people to walk off with the archaeological finds from them. In fact the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales (available for FREE) attempts to minimise danger to the archaeological record; the "damage to the farmland" is covered by the non-archaeology centred codes of the detecting organizations. The one the CLA put its name to is the former, not the latter.

Well, this is just a shameless plug for the book "CLA41 Metal Detecting and the Treasure Act 1996" produced by the CLA Publications Department (in Hooray Henry Belgrave Square, London, SW1X 8PQ). This in turn is merely a 2002/3 update of CLA 12 and costs £15 to members and £22 to non-members, so most of us will be content with wondering what sort of advice Hooray Henry landowners get from the CLA. One day soon, no doubt, the PAS will be getting its act tiogether and sending out its Advice to Landowners leaflet which I trust will not cost anything like fifteen quid. I bet Heritage Action can put together an information pack for landowners containing the same information (a lot of the material is available on the INTERNET for goodness' sake) for a fraction of the cost, and the money would be going to a good cause and not on petrol for the Porches of the 74 smug people employed in Belgrave Square we see in the sidebar of the CLA website. Move to Birmingham I say, save costs.

Mr Millward, there are not (yet) 30 000 detectorists in the British Isles. The Heritage Action erosion counter would have to tick three times as fast if that were the case.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

"I bet Heritage Action can put together an information pack for landowners containing the same information (a lot of the material is available on the INTERNET for goodness' sake) for a fraction of the cost"
......................

Ummmmmm.....you mean this, that we've displayed for years -
http://www.heritageaction.org/?page=heritagealerts_metaldetectinghelp

If only PAS had sent that to Farmer Robinson the Helmet would have been reported to them straight away!

The reason they're frit to do anything like that is because detectorists threatened a "reporting strike" if they did - yet now they're all saying the helmet should have been reported!

It's a funny old world innit?

Better late than never PAS! It's copyright free....

Anonymous said...

Incidentally I believe the CLA recommended "model" agreement has a series of dots where the percentage division should go, leaving it open to the parties to decide what they will.

Not that it seems likely that model was used in this case since we are told a gentlemans agreement is the preference of these finders.

One wonders what percentage was agreed, if one was. There's a strange idea going round that it has to be 50 - 50 but I don't know of any legal reason for that. 100 - 0 in the landowner's favour is the legal position before the search starts and the law doesn't say that must change other than to whatever figure he wishes once the search is over. Personally, I wouldn't change it at all on my land since I wouldn't wish to offer 50% to someone that said they were in it purely for the love of history and I wouldn't want to give anything to someone that said they weren't!

I remain desperately puzzled by Farmer Eric Robinson's reported statement: "“I would have liked it to be kept in Cumbria but I can’t do anything about it” since it suggests he is bound by an agreement, written or verbal, which removes the decision making power from him. Which would be rum.

I think if I was the purchaser I wouldn't complete until I had satisfied myself about that agreement. Who knows, maybe Eric Robinson might decide the (possibly unwritten)agreement was an unfair contract and seek to establish that actually the helmet is his!

Paul Barford said...

We've corresponded offline about another individual whose recent communications I suspect may reveal that they may well feel they have been shortchanged by their "partners" in another word-of-mouth part of this deal, worth watching ...

PAS is keeping quiet.

Anonymous said...

Just daydreaming here, but ... if Farmer Robinson, he of the noble aspirations for the people of Cumbria, won a decision against the finder(s) of that helmet, might he then have a claim against Christie's for not undertaking better due diligence regarding the proper ownership of the helmet before beginning what seems to be irreversible work on it? And once he'd got the helmet back, any damages etc, might he then consider offering Tullie House a friendly price on the item, or perhaps even donating it, hence securing the everlasting gratitude and respect of his fellow countrymen?

Okay - enough of that - back to the real world, alas ...

Mo said...

I wonder who actually consigned the helmet to Christies? Someone would have had to sign documentation agreeing to consign and to the terms and conditions. Was a commission negotiated?

I would have thought that Christies would have asked if there was any agreement in place. After all they are going to be paying out around £1.8 million.

The proceeds then will presumably go to the person/persons that consigned the helmet.

It seems as if Farmer Robinson is not "in the loop".

Anonymous said...

Then there's the question of however much money Christie's spent on conservation / restoration / etc, plus the publicity relating to the sale.

If a problem were to emerge with the rightful ownership, either through some sort of legal challenge or simply increasing concern about the bona fides of the vendor(s), with the result either that the successful bidder withdrew or the the vendor's title to the property was seriously in question, then presumably Christie's is out of pocket for these costs, whatever arrangement they may have agreed with the vendor? (Although also stuck with egg on face in PR terms - but then it's hard to put a price on that.)

Paul Barford said...

But all of this assumes that people who buy antiquities care where they come from and finding out anything like a chain of ownership/rights. they do not - which is why we have the mess we have on the antiquities market.

I do not see why this "must-gotta-have-it" person should be any different from those who buy coins and artefacts with narry a thought where they came from and how they came on the market.

 
Creative Commons License
Ten utwór jest dostępny na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported.