Wild camping and metal detecting.

[boatman]

If you are not prepared to disclose all of your finds then don't do it.

Who are you to decide that any find is rubbish, of course if you define rubbish as something you can't turn into cash then you are the problem.

Clubs "pay a lot of money" but the kicker is again that "anything of value" and the fact that many clubs put an arbitrary value limit on what they will declare.

We have a monopoly on our history and archaeologists are our agents to analyse the found history which can only be done by proper excavation and full disclosure.

"many important discoverys have been made by detectorists which in some cases archaeologists have tried to claim all the glory for." Name the sites where this has happened. Incidentally how does a random discovery convey glory?

 

[Toddy]

I think Skate's reply is very sound,

Both these pastimes can be enjoyed without destroying the enviroment but sadly both on occasions do.
So lets not chop down living trees to play at making camps and lets not dig in sensitive areas and always fill in the holes.

but I would add that it would do a hell of a lot of good, if metal detectorists would do a short course on foundation archaeology.
We can see your side of things, but damned few metal detectorists see ours.
We don't just take metal, we research an entire site and it's context. We learn a thousand times more about a site, and leave that knowledge for everyone, it's our cultural heritage, our history, not just a metal detectorists lucky find. Archaeology is constrained by the "Presumption of preservation in situ", having hundreds of other people aware, interested and active, and doing it properly, could be such a good thing. Instead, every archaeologist in the country has horror stories.

I know the reality of having to apply to the Govt for a licence to so much as put an origin stake in the ground on a site, and come back the next day to find the pristine site full of holes.
Not a word of a lie in that. The licence was for fourteen days to get a geophys survey done, I wasn't permitted to so much as stick a trowel in the ground of a scheduled ancient monument.
Another time I was told in no uncertain terms that if I hadn't been so 'prissy' about doing it properly, then I could have had the contents of a grave bar the gold that was 'found' not two miles away from where I live. The gentleman who told me of it kindly sketched the layout. It was apparantly a wettish site, I asked if there were evidence of timber, "Aye, some of the metal was stuck to rotten wood".
Ripped apart, destroyed, not recorded, no context, no finds worth anything except the gold that they melted down because they couldn't prove where they'd found it.
Did I want to swear ?

That's not just 'my' cultural heritage ripped apart, it's our cultural heritage ripped apart. Lost, gone, cannot be recovered, cannot be investigated properly or fitted into a wider context of our history.

As I said,

I know some very sound metal detectorists, but I've come across more than a few that I would cheerfully choke. M

Toddy

 

[Jaeger]

Aye Up All,

Just wandered into the thread. I'm not a metal detector-ist and know little about the subject but I'm a bit puzzled

I can understand the issues re detecting on land that you have permission to do so and see the point re destruction of archelogy - but the beach - regardless of public holidays?

Wouldn't anything that you found there be subject to the same procedure as if you find it in the street - i.e. you are obliged to hand it in to a police station and its yours after 6 months or something if no one claims it, otherwise it qualifies as 'theft by finding?'

Or is that an urban myth?

 

[Toddy]

I don't know I suspect you raise a good point though. Someone loses a phone, a ring, a watch, some spare change; finder's keepers or hand it into the police ?
Hopefully one of the metal detectorists who do things properly will chip in and let us know. I think common sense would apply.


cheers,
Toddy

 

[Jaeger]

Aye Toddy,

I seem to recall something about a finder having to take reasonable steps to find the rightful owner (phone/wallet etc) and if not possible - hand it in.

Can't help but think of the potential comedy connotations of handing in something ancient and then going back six months later to claim it, to be to by plod -
"Aaaah yes Sir, the gold Roman amulet - yes, that was claimed soon after you handed it in by a mister......... er ....Julius something......"

 

[dewi]

Wouldn't anything that you found there be subject to the same procedure as if you find it in the street - i.e. you are obliged to hand it in to a police station and its yours after 6 months or something if no one claims it, otherwise it qualifies as 'theft by finding?'

Nope, not according to the 1996 Treasure Act, which seems to have been completely ignored in this thread... but then it doesn't fit necessarily with the narrative.

In the act it states that unless is at least 300 years old, there is no need to report it. There are exceptions when it comes to precious metals, but even then, if a hoard is found and less than 10% in precious metal, the finder is not obliged to inform the coroner (should explain there, that is who you inform if there is significant precious metal or it exceeds 300 years in age).

There was a Roman helmet found in Cumbria, made of bronze and that was sold through auction to a private collector for £3.5million. Because it was a single object and made of bronze, the Treasure Act had a loop hole which meant the find didn't need to go through the regular channels and could just be sold.

If we're going down this route of sticking strictly to the law and what it says, the Treasure Act has numerous loopholes. So lecturing someone on what they 'must' do in the event of finding something with a metal detector without first familiarising yourself with the Treasure Act is a bit daft. On the other hand, after reading what M has to say about historical context, that isn't strictly speaking covered by the law... so it becomes something that has to be done by agreement. Rarely do people agree with each other when one side is barking orders or essentially telling them what they can and can't do... ironically whilst having no real knowledge of what that person can and can't do anyway.

Would I be right in saying that amateur metal detector enthusiasts have helped archeology in some cases by highlighting areas of interest that the professionals may never have come across?

Swings and roundabouts.

 

[skate]

What I decide is rubbish is ring pulls and tin foil etc. Maybe these items will have some context in the future but I can assure you farmers don't want them
Responsible detectorists only dig in the land already disturbed by ploughing so "in situ" is a moot point.
It is very sad that people spoil legitamate pastimes with their inconsiderate ways.
It seems to happen in all walks of life.
As Toddy says more education is the way forward not blind animosity towards each other.
I have heard of several cases where the fact something was found by a detectorist was omitted from the report but cannot name specific ones.
Regarding beach finds the proof of ownership of modern coinage is almost impossible to prove but rings etc. are a different matter and should be handed in.
Last week I travelled thirty miles to a windsweep campsite to search for a lost ring. I found it, contacted the owner and paid to have it sent back securly.
I asked for no reward but just enjoyed the pleasure of helping someone. We are not all monsters.

 

[Toddy]

Would I be right in saying that amateur metal detector enthusiasts have helped archeology in some cases by highlighting areas of interest that the professionals may never have come across?

Very much so, especially if they are aware and knowledgeable. Very capable MD's are brilliant to work with, and many of them know not just a 'site' but an entire area, and investigate it's history, take note of the previous land use and the land ownership patterns of the past too.
I can well understand their enthusiasm and their interest and involvement.

cheers,
Toddy

 

[Toddy]

That 'ploughed land' though, Skate. That's a case in point of the wider context. If the finds are from stuff like the midden heaps spread on the land, then yes, all the context there tells us is just that. Might give us a period of the spreads, an idea of the status of the landowners, but yes, often not much more.
However, if there's a spread that's recorded and mapped, and someone with a good eye and understanding of the way that slope wash works, just for instance, then it can lead to the realisation that this isn't midden debris we're looking at, particularly when it's not just the metal work.
That's the rub, archaeology studies and records it all, not just the metals, and it's all in context, all in relationship to the rest of the site and it's surroundings, it's previous usages and the societies that created them.

M

 

[Jaeger]

Aye Up dewi,

I assume that your inference of not having to report a 'find' relates to items that the 1996 Treasure Act were intended to cover (and which are defined in the Act) as opposed to the beach scenario that I was thinking of specifically and the type of items that Toddy identified - which I suspect might come under the 1968 Theft Act
Larceny/Theft/Stealing by finding.

I don't have any vested interest either side of the argument (unless it's my property that you find!) but with reference to the OP (Iain) (and any other members that might embark on the pass-time) I think it would be wise for them to be aware of the full implications.

 

[sunndog]

I was tempted to dig out our metal detector, but after reading this thread... blimey! Doesn't make gr8 reading.

*sniggers.

 

[dewi]

I assume that your inference of not having to report a 'find' relates to items that the 1996 Treasure Act were intended to cover (and which are defined in the Act) as opposed to the beach scenario that I was thinking of specifically and the type of items that Toddy identified - which I suspect might come under the 1968 Theft Act
Larceny/Theft/Stealing by finding.

I think the dividing lines between the two acts would be primarily intent, and to a certain degree, common sense would have to come into it. 'Finding' a wallet on a beach which contains bank cards and cash couldn't be classed as a treasure find, but finding a 19th century pocket watch would be a different matter. 'Finding' a pound coin on the beach, nobody would reasonably assume that the owner could be found, so involving the police would be wasting their time and resources, but 'finding' a smart phone, that would probably come under the Theft Act as its reasonable to presume the owner could be traced using the phone, so you would be knowingly denying someone their property.

Interesting though because this crosses over into scavenger territory... maritime law??

 

[Jaeger]

I agree dewi,

Aaah yes - 'intent' - that illusive 'frame of mind' often difficult to establish/prove (either way) and often not going the way you might desire!

Scavenger law/maritime law/Treasure Act/Theft Act -

It just goes to show that you think that you're just nipping out for 'a bit of harmless recreation' then boom! What's on the telly?

Anyone wanna discuss stealth camping?

 

[beezer]

this thread is almost as good as the one about canvas being rubbish lol.

 

[dewi]

this thread is almost as good as the one about canvas being rubbish lol.

Nah, the canvas thread was much funnier... this one has dips and peaks, but nowhere near as funny.

 

[Red Kite]

Don't know about other forces, but here in London the Met have stopped accepting "lost property" so I guess its down to the finder to make any reasonable attempts to locate the owner.

 

[mick91]

Nah, the canvas thread was much funnier... this one has dips and peaks, but nowhere near as funny.

That was something else the canvas one makes you feel for the OP in a way. I know one thing, any metal detector I find is getting safely locked away in the gun cabinet and never looked at again... The device I mean not planning on kidnapping a detectorist

 

[Toddy]

Oh the image

M

 

[Graveworm]

I think the dividing lines between the two acts would be primarily intent, and to a certain degree, common sense would have to come into it. 'Finding' a wallet on a beach which contains bank cards and cash couldn't be classed as a treasure find, but finding a 19th century pocket watch would be a different matter. 'Finding' a pound coin on the beach, nobody would reasonably assume that the owner could be found, so involving the police would be wasting their time and resources, but 'finding' a smart phone, that would probably come under the Theft Act as its reasonable to presume the owner could be traced using the phone, so you would be knowingly denying someone their property.

Interesting though because this crosses over into scavenger territory... maritime law??

Well if the watch was gold then it would need to be at least as old as 18th century ..

The mistake is to assume anything not treasure is finders keepers. The treasure act tells you what is treasure and that ownership and reward is established in accordance with the act. If it is not treasure good title never moves to the finder, the landowner or any other person; it belongs to the owner who lost it or their heirs. Treating it as your own is theft, the defence is always that you were not dishonest. So if you believe, with good cause, that the owner could never be found then you are not being dishonest. But if the circumstances or the item mean that there is a chance the owner could be found then you should take it to the police. Then if it's not reported lost you do get to keep it, if you claim it (28 days by the way) but there are exceptions which includes mobile phones even if the owner can't be found.

With you on the pound coin/wallet/phone etc.

 

[dewi]

Well if the watch was gold then it would need to be at least as old as 18th century ..

The mistake is to assume anything not treasure is finders keepers. The treasure act tells you what is treasure and that ownership and reward is established in accordance with the act. If it is not treasure good title never moves to the finder, the landowner or any other person; it belongs to the owner who lost it or their heirs. Treating it as your own is theft, the defence is always that you were not dishonest. So if you believe, with good cause, that the owner could never be found then you are not being dishonest. But if the circumstances or the item mean that there is a chance the owner could be found then you should take it to the police. Then if it's not reported lost you do get to keep it, if you claim it (28 days by the way) but there are exceptions which includes mobile phones even if the owner can't be found.

With you on the pound coin/wallet/phone etc.

You've just repeated what I said... essentially it is down to intent. If your intent is that you know the owner can be traced, you're a thief. But that is in relation to the 1960's Theft Act, not the Treasure Act. The Treasure Act specifies the length of time before something is considered treasure as 300 years, unless it has 10% gold content. So if the watch was indeed an 18th century piece, the 300 year rule would no longer apply, but the gold content would... which is why I said a 19th century pocket watch. With a 19th century pocket watch you can not automatically assume it is gold, it is not 300 years old and given that it is from the 19th century, depending on the circumstances of the 'find', the Theft Act would not apply necessarily.

Should the finder of the singular bronze Roman helmet have returned said item to its presumed origin in Italy? Well, no, because it was not covered by the Treasure Act, but lucky person to have found it after the Treasure Act came into being because before that we were subject to the Treasure Trove law. Said law, coming from (ironically) the Romans presumed that every 'find' was to be shared between the land owner and the finder... but the problem arises when Royalty casts the net of ownership on all lands, which means half belongs to the finder and the other half to the crown. That is if the finder lives long enough to claim any reward for the find.

My point is that it is not as simple as finders keepers, but at the same time it is not "Report All Finds"... the law is more complex that a simple right or wrong when it comes to treasure hunting. I still lean towards M's point of view though, she makes a very valid point about archeology and finds remaining in place for the wider context to be discovered. Would that apply to the Roman helmet? We already know the Romans were there and they wore helmets... so significant 'find' or trophy of the past?