Sunday, 28 October 2012

Focus on UK Metal Detecting: Paid me Tenner, Want the Lot

.
There's an interesting discussion on Detectorist Forum that is not insignificant. Obviously all non-Treasure artefacts found on a landowner's property are precisely that, their property.  It seems not all metal detector users in the UK agree with that principle.
On a recent paid - for dig, £10 per head via a digging club, one member found a sestertius The father of the farmer turned up saw it and said I would like that and took it from the bemused finder. was it not for the paid for aspect obviously it would be for the landowner to decide but I believe the limit before anything is split is if its treasure or worth over £2000 with that club's agreement. 
 Responses so far have been pretty unanimous:
- He took my money, I keep what I find on his land
- Seems like there was no written agreement which was down to the organiser
- No written agreement (Regardless of what verbal may have been agreed) all finds belong to the landowner. Answer= Always use a written agreement (After the fiasco of the lantern I always do)
- On mine that I organise it is always the finder unless treasure under the Treasure Act.
- Did he get his tenner back ? Sounds like a funny old carry on if you ask me
- i bet hes gutted, makes you wonder how many will just be sliding stuff in their pockets and keeping their mouth shut from now on?.......sad carry on
Let us note that the name of the hobby metal detecting is a misnomer, suggesting the fun is in the finding - when in fact this example shows very well that for every one of those commenting, finding is not the lure, it is getting to keep what is "detected" that is the real aim. This is not "metal detecting" but "artefact hunting" and is a form of antiquity collection. The farmer presumably thought that metal "detecting" is exactly what the name implies - but it is a name deliberately employed to mislead.

As anyone who's looked at how these things go in sales will know, a "tenner" is pretty cheap for any decent looking sestertius, so the tekkie thought he was doing quite well until he found out it was not his to keep.

Nevertheless, since clearly they were hoiking stuff from a field with at least Roman activity, maybe a Roman site, the "deprived finder" will probably have found other things, may have filled his finds pouch with them, and their total value, without the coin, would almost certainly be more than ten pounds.

Note the lack of detail, where, when, what kind of site, name of club etc.

Hat tip to anonymous HA member for the heads-up.

3 comments:

Unknown said...

I look forward to seeing if the land owner reports this find to the PAS for recording but of course recording with the scheme is voluntary so he may not even bother.Is it not rather presumptive to assume that this is a Roman site? When the coin may just of been a stray loss in antiquity. But then again you could also consider the whole of the British mainland to be a site of Roman activity.

Paul Barford said...

Why do you lot think this is all about whether the PAS get a record or not?

The coin may have been what you call a "stray find" but all the same, I bet the tekkie concerned did not go home empty-handed.

The point is though this bold expression of the attitude of entitlement this case reveals. That they can buy away the landowners rights for a tenner (see the post about the guy who gave the farmer a box of duplicate finds as a Christmas present for another example).



Anonymous said...

To claim that making a payment entitles them to particular items is breathtaking hypocrisy.

99% or perhaps more of artefact hunting involves zero payment to the landrover yet detectorists are extremely keen to get a finds agreement specifying they can have some or most of what they find.

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