Saturday 1 September 2012

I Have Double, So He (the Landowner) Can Have It


So this "present" (a plastic fishing tackle box with a lot of loose items in each compartment) is that the metal detectorist gives back to the landowner what was already his, but only if he has duplicates? What kind of a "present" is that? One might have thought that the collector could have at least labelled the objects so the farmer knows what it is and what date it is supposed to be... . So why are the copper alloy finds a uniform dark colour as though they've been soaked in old engine oil to "preserve" them? He says he will give further information if asked and will answer "any questions about these finds". I think we all might have a few... 

The same guy posted another video. Its a boring 'rally-flick' like many others (the Bishop Burton 'Help for Heroes' Rally), but I think of interest is the middle bit where on a commercial rally we find a dealer is present buying and selling stuff straight from the ground. Now look at the prices on the labels beside each of these objects. When a farmer allows these people to take stuff away, is he fully appraised of how much it is worth?

Note the "everything in this tray a pound a piece" tub. And what happens to the bits that do not sell for a quid? Do they end up as scrap to be melted down? That seems to me to be a perfectly valid question to ask in the circumstances.

UPDATE 30.09.2012:
In a comment under this post,  the metal detectorist threatens me that he will "press charges" connected with my drawing attention to these blogs and discussing them here. I have asked him just what kind of "charges" he thinks he can "press" in the circumstances. Whether he likes it or not, it is not (yet) a crime to discuss issues raised by artefact hunting and collecting. Let us see what his answer is. I'd like to ask him again, what kind of "present" is he making of the landowner's own finds, and whether he thinks in Britain (the rally is in the UK) each landowner is fully appraised of the value each item that is taken away has on the market, as shown by this UK dealer's trays (and did he have permission to film them and post them on You Tube?).

[While on the topic, in a post on a forum he tells other members about the three great finds he made at the rally concerned. Can he save us the effort of checking, did he obtain a UK export licence for each of  them (as the law of course requires) when he took them back to Groeningen? What were their dates of issue? I ask because the Polish metal detectorists were reporting problems they were having getting their finds back that they had made about the same time]. 

Just for the record, at the time of writing (I've just checked) the 'embed' feature of both videos discussed here is not disabled, which my lawyers have informed me (the last time metal detectorists tried to block discussion of their videos here - it happens quite often) in legal terms means the person posting the original videos is giving permission to use this facility to insert (embed) a link - this is not a copy of his video- into other media such as Google blogs.  Basically all I can suggest is if metal detectorists do not want what their videos show being discussed openly in public media by people who have watched them and formed an opinion about them, they should simply not post such material in the public domain where other people can see them.

But while they are publishing material which can be used to discuss the archaeological effects of artefact hunting, then there surely is no reason why it should not be made use of in any attempt to discuss artefact hunting.  

UPDATE 6th October 2012:
Well, the "answer" is that Marc Stavast has deleted the two videos I discuss, the one showing his "present" to the farmer, and the one showing the Bishop's Burton rally with the sequence showing the dealer's stall to which I refer. That seems to me an admission that there are indeed issues with both of these topics. It is a shame that instead of threatening behaviour and then walking off in a huff whenever troublesome issues are raised, we do not see a more forthcoming attitude from artefact hunters and a willingness to discuss the issues. They just want to walk away from them, and are hoping others will too. Have a look at the rest of his other videos while you can, several of them are really revealing.


1979MDG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Barford said...

What "charges"? For discussing videos you have published on You Tube? I am not talking in my post about any "laws", I'm talking here about ethics.

Olive oil? Euuuue.

Paul Barford said...

Olive Oil:

Paul Barford said...

As for the dealer selling "not old and important artifacts", I guess that is a relative concept. In their context that Roman (so I'd say Old) greyware pot base may well have been important evidence, out of it its just a one-pound saleable geegaw. I see also a spur fragment in the scrap bin. How old and important it is is difficult to say, but it should not be in a scrap bin. was it entered on the PAS database before it ended in a dealer's scrap bin? It is not just "buttons" and "simple buckles" (the latter too can be archaeological evidence - even in Holland, see the reports from town sites like Amsterdam). Why are archaeological artefacts ending up in scrap bins?

1979MDG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
1979MDG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Barford said...

What do you mean "blog my videos"? I blog about two of your videos because I find them interesting and they make a point. Surely that is the reason you placed them on You Tube.

As I say if you don't want people watching your video, why post them?

I think the issues that both raise are important ones and my use of them here falls within the principles of "Fair Use". Look it up.

Once again your videos are not "on" my blog. They never move from the You Tube servers where you placed them, if you look at the embed code in the "share" box under your own video you will see it consists of a HYPERLINK to your video on the You Tube servers (owned by the same company that owns blogger).

As I say if you wish to answer the questions I asked here, you may do so here.

1979MDG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Barford said...

Well, I'll answer the long comment as a post, the short one I'll deal with now.

I see that you were reading my other post about the Bishops Burton Rally yesterday, so you know what I think about that.

I do not think commercial artefact rallies are an archaeologically ethical way to treat the archaeological record. So from that point of view I would say the participation of the PAS guys is problematic, to say the least. In any case their being there does not automatically render the event in ANY way any the more "ethical". Even if recording was 100% and compulsory, it still would not.

The presence of a dealer there, and his having a bargain bin of archaeological bits makes that point very well indeed.

Rallies are the weakest link in the whole chain of pro-collecting arguments, as well the pro-collecting lobby are aware. They serve the PAS only to boost "recorded finds" numbers, but that in itself is a questionable aim for the PAS, which was instead set up (and continues to be funded) for something else entirely.

Paul Barford said...

Here are my comments on what you said about "ethics":

Paul Barford said...

Well, this is RIDICULOUS. Marc Stavast (1979MDG) from the Netherlands sends a series of comments to my blog, forcing me to spend time answering them, and then like a fool he deletes them all. What kind of comments are those? What kind of game is this? If he did not want to say those things, why say them?

Number one was as follows:
"1979MDG has left a new comment on your post "I Have Double, So He (the Landowner) Can Have It":


These videos are mine. I gave you no permission to blog my videos. I hereby give you one week to remove this blog or I WILL press charges.

The laws in The Netherlands are different. We ask permission from the farmer. All finds are for the collector (50-50 if I should sell it). I could sell them if I wanted too. But I'd rather give things back to the farmer. And he and his wife loved it. For them to see what I found on his land (old farmhouse) without seeing €€ in my eyes. All items are preserved with olive oil.

The day I gave the present to the farmer I gave a list with details on the finds.

The dealer from the rally can give the stuff away for a pound a piece. Those are his finds. It's not that they are old and important artifacts. A simple button or buckle. Nothing more.

AGAIN: These videos are mine. I gave you no permission to blog my videos. I hereby give you one week to remove this blog or I WILL press charges.

With regards
Marc Stavast (1979MDG)
The Netherlands "

Number two:
"1979MDG has left a new comment on your post "I Have Double, So He (the Landowner) Can Have It":

You can refer to the videos on youtube. You did'nt ask for my permission to blog my videos.
Where is your ethic here???

You don't ask the questions to me directly. You are putting me here in a negative position. Ask questions about my video and I will answer honestly. But not on your blog...

I did'nt have done anything illegal. I metaldetect according to the law of the country I metaldetect in."

Paul Barford said...

Number three, the one where he sets out his "ethics" (which I spent a goodly hour or two answering in a separate post):

1979MDG has left a new comment on your post "I Have Double, So He (the Landowner) Can Have It":

You want a list of my ethics concerning metal detecting?? Here we go

First the NO
- Is it ethical to detect on land you don't have permission? NO
- Is it ethical to detect on land at night when you have permission? NO
- Is it ethical to sell coins/artefacts you find? NO
- Is it ethical to detect on heritage properties (protected by law)? NO (unless you have a
written permission from the head of archaeologists).
- Is it ethical for archaeologists who have the detecting hobby to detect on heritage properties
(protected by law)? NO
- Is it ethical to leaves holes open after detecting? NO
- Is it ethical to film dealers his selling items? NO. I always ask for permission.
- Is it ethical to hit the owner if he ask you not to come back? NO
- Is it ethical to buy items from dealers? NO

Now the YES
- Is it ethical to keep the coins/artefacts you find? YES. Because when the owner gives you
the permission law states that the finder is keeper (in The Netherlands). Does the finder sell
the items, he must give 50% of the collected money to the landowner.

- Is it ethical to give the owner a few double items you found on his land? YES. More ethical
than selling the items. And the owner mostly like it and appreciate it. We don't have to.

- Is it ethical to report the items you detect? YES. But only if it's significant to the
archaeologists. It depends on where you found it and from what time the other items are
(from the same land)

- Is it ethical to throw away items that doesn't concern archaeologists? YES. Only items that has an archaeological meaning shouldn't been thrown away.

- Is it ethical to film your detecting sessions? YES. I like when people comment on my
videos. If they have questions, I'll answer them.

- Is it ethical for England to have rally's? YES. As long as there is an official liaisons officer there to fill in the "Finds Recording Sheet" and take pictures of the finds that they are interested in. Like Mr. Kevin Leahy who attended as official liaisons officer in Bishop Burton. I showed him ALL my finds and he only wanted 3 items to be photographed and recorded on the "Finds Recording Sheet"

Do you have more ethics that I can answer live above? Or do you only have questions to other people who may have an opinion about my videos?

And can you answer my ethics above? What do you think?

Paul Barford said...

Number four was hardly relevant, but I posted it anyway, and he's deleted it:

"1979MDG has left a new comment on your post "I Have Double, So He (the Landowner) Can Have It":

Mr. Adam Daubny was the Finds Liaison Officer

Mr. Kevin Leahy is the National Finds adviser.

There were 2 others from heritage to record everyting. "

Paul Barford said...

Stop messing me about and wasting everybody's time Mr Stavast.

1979MDG said...

I deleted the videos.
You loose.
DIPSHIT (that's for criticising my videos and it's content).

Paul Barford said...

I cannot see why you consider I "lose". I would say it demonstrates that you agree that I had a point in what I said - which still stands whether or not the precise videos to which I refer are visible.

But surely instead of artefact hunters first threatening and then deleting things in a huff, why not discuss the issues that need discussing?

I would say it is through exactly such behaviour that "metal detecting" is the loser.

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