MicroPasts

The blog Artefactsandarchaeology has a post about a project called MicroPasts which it seems was officially launched this month.

As per their website MicroPasts is

'a web platform that brings together full-time academic researchers, volunteer archaeological and historical societies and other interested members of the public to collaborate on new kinds of research about archaeology, history and heritage. It is a place where enthusiasts (of any background) can not only create high-quality research data together, but also collaboratively design and fund entirely new research projects. In particular, we want to improve how people traditionally distinguished as ‘academics’, ‘professionals’ and ‘volunteers’ cooperate with one another (as well as with other people out there who as yet have no more than a passing interest).'

From a brief little play on my lunch break it seems that you can join in with archaeological research from the comfort of your own sofa.

I note that the PAS has the project on it's website as well as I would imagine they both work closely together. Certainly how MicroPasts aim of getting people to cooperate with one another will be interesting.

Another of MicroPasts aims is to be a crowd funding site for small projects. This part is under development but I look forward to reading the sales pitches.

I imagine these sorts of projects require a lot of word of mouth marketing to be successful so well here's my part!

I found it, so I can keep it, right?

On the Metal Detecting Forum is an interesting thread about whether you should sell stuff that you find.

It would appear that some detectorists think that if they have permission from the landowner to go and detect on their land that anything they find is theirs to do with what they may, including selling the find if they want. 

I believe this assumption is incorrect. Just because you have permission to detect metal doesn't mean that any metal you find is automatically then yours. 

Why?

Well in short then from digging around I think the simple answer is that if you own land then you also own everything in the land regardless of how it ended up in the land. This comes from a case called Elwes v Brigg Gas Co. (1886) 33 Ch.D 562 where the Judge, Chitty J, stated that lawful possession of land includes possession of everything in the land, naturally there or otherwise.

As such if a landowner gives someone permission to detect, or 'find', metal items on their land then that person, or 'metal detectorist' is merely finding what is the land owners. Just because the 'metal detectorist' has permission to find and dig,  it doesn't mean they have permission to 'take away'. 

If you are the 'metal detectorist' then if you have not entered into an agreement with the landowner that anything you find is yours then the find belongs to the landowner. 

Without such an agreement it doesn't stop the landowner letting the metal detectorist sell the item on say a 50/50 share basis. 

The ownership of property found in or on land is discussed in depth in Waverley BC v Fletcher 1996. This is a story about a chap who went detecting on a Council park and found a gold brooch. He thought the brooch was his, the Council thought otherwise. He went to the County Court and won his case. The Council then went to the Court of Appeal and won. 

Camber Sands hoard

Just got back from a week in Camber Sands with the partner and the little man. I had hoped to do some blogging but on arriving at our rented house I soon found out there wasn't any wifi. Ooops. In hindsight though it was actually rather nice to be free from the shackles of the internet.

Being that Camber Sands is a Crown Estate beach I thought I would take my euroace with me on the off chance that I might grab an hour or two detecting time. 

The weather was great and on Easter Monday I grabbed a few hours in the evening. I've never detected a sandy beach before and it was nice being able to get the targets easily. Unfortunately that was about the only good point as the two hours consisted of mainly ring pulls, bottle tops and cans. I think I spent half of my detecting time trying to find a bin to put the next newly discovered can into. 

I did manage to dig out the following mighty hoard. 

Yup 3p. I tried not to spend it all at once. It was tricky.

Anyway a fab very relaxing week.

Dymchurch beach

Me and my little dude

Some finds from a park

One of my Local Councils allows you to metal detect on certain bits of their land with a free licence. Hrm as I'm writing this I'm wondering why I'm not saying which Council. Fear of some other detectorists ruining it? Selfishness? Not sure. Probably both.

Anyway one of the bits of land is near to where I often go to work. It consists of a number of old fields that were regularly ploughed till the 20th century when they were gifted to the Council as a park.

It makes for some interesting detecting. It was used for bonfire nights for quite some time until the health and safety folks stopped it so there is a fair amount of old decimal coinage, big 50 pences, decimal half pennies etc. There is also a zillion ring pulls. However there are also some older bits. I haven't done it much but have found a crotal bell and an old buckle,as below, in the past both of which have been recorded with the FLO.

Last week I found the below. No.6 I believe is a 'beehive thimble' (more info on thimbles here) which could be from the 12th Century onwards and No.7 is a part of a sword belt mount.

Since I started this blog I wonder if I should carry on detecting the park.

There are a number of things floating around my mind as to what a responsible detectorist would do. Some of these thoughts are, in no order of priority the following.

1. I don't have a lot of land to detect so would do ploughed if I could but don't have any.
2. Anyone with a permit can detect on it and it has been detected on before
3. If I make a little slide and show it to the 'Friends of the Park' would that be a 'good' thing to do?
4. At least I get the bits that I find recorded whereas others might not.
5. I make damn sure i'm neat and tidy when I dig my holes.
6. Should I just stop thinking and just carry on detecting!


Oh yes one question for the Archaeologists who don't like detecting because it takes an item out of 'context'. Let's say a local archaeology group came in, dug a pit and did their Archie stuff, is it then any better to detect or should you then leave the rest of the field in case the entire park is subject to a archaeological dig?

Life is easier when you don't think.

If you saw

If you saw a metal detectorist detecting on an Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) would you

a) Call 101
b) ignore them
c) inform them it's an SSSI and hope they move on
d) ask them what they've found.

Thinking about why you would take a particular action is quite interesting.

Elizabeth I and coinage

To all you hammered coin lovers, like me, an interesting article of coinage in the time of Elizabeth I.

Spotted on the BAJR Facebook page.

Rewards for Treasure finding

Janner53 posted an interesting piece on a gentleman called Steven Walker who was unhappy with his £550 reward for a Bronze Age axe and 4 gold rings. Steven and the thought the valuation should be more.

[65] - [70] of The Treasure Act Code of Guidance lay out the guidelines for the valuation of Treasure.

Janner's article was picked up by Paul Barford and The Modern Antiquarian.

For me Janner's article and subsequent discussions raise a number of points to consider (Mr Anonymous I am again considering the points not making one, there is a difference).

1. Why was there such a difference in valuations? The Treasure Valuation Committee came to a decision that was considerably lower than the finder and Suffolk Archaeology Service. I'm not saying this is right or wrong merely that it would be interesting to know the reasoning behind the decision. I understand the views that metal detectorists should be happy with anything they get, however as it stands this is not what the Code of Practice says at [65]
 

'...taking account of all relevant factors, to what may be paid for the object(s) in a sale on the open market between a willing seller and a willing buyer; '

Again and for the avoidance of doubt I am not saying he should have been paid more. I am merely interested to see how the decision was come as it would be interesting to know if there is any possible merit in the argument that the TVC are coming to lower Treasure Valuation decisions because they think that 'metal detectorists should be happy with anything they get.' which I do not believe can be considered a relevant factor as per [65] (happy to be corrected here).

If the Government / society isn't happy with the amount of money being paid out on Treasure finds then perhaps the Code should be adjusted appropriately. This is opposed to the TVC lowering rewards on the sly IF (very big IF) this is happening.

2. Are rewards entirely discretionary? Both Paul Barford and Nigel Swift make the point that detectorists should also be happy with anything they get because detectorists are not entitled to any reward. Paul says that rewards are 'entirely discretionary'. I have to say that when I first started detecting I thought that I was entitled to a reward.

Reading through the Treasure Act Code of Guidance and Treasure Act 1996 I think it is more a case of fettered discretion as entirely discretionary to me implies the SoS can do what they like, free from any constraints, when deciding when considering whether or not to pay a reward.

The Treasure Act states the following,

10 Rewards.

(2)The Secretary of State must determine whether a reward is to be paid by the museum before the transfer

(7)In a determination under this section, the Secretary of State must take into account anything relevant in the code of practice issued under section 11.

11 Codes of practice.

(1)The Secretary of State must

(a)prepare a code of practice relating to treasure;

(b)keep the code under review; and

(c)revise it when appropriate.

(2)The code must, in particular, set out the principles and practice to be followed by the Secretary of State

(a)when considering to whom treasure should be offered;

(b)when making a determination under section 10; and

(c)where the Crown's title to treasure is disclaimed.

This seems to show that the Secretary of State must take into account anything relevant the Code of Practice says before deciding whether to pay a reward.

[71] of The Code states that

The paramount objective in the payment of ex gratia rewards for finds of treasure is to encourage the reporting of finds and to ensure that there are adequate incentives to finders while at the same time discouraging wrong behaviour

 This would seem something that the SoS should take into account when exercising his discretion.

 

Also [84] states that

...In making its recommendations, the Committee shall seek to find a balance between the objective of rewards to encourage the prompt and proper reporting of finds, and the need for rewards not in themselves to provide an incentive for illegal or improper behaviour

I have to say I didn't find 63 [7] very helpful when it said mentioned a 'right to reward' but maybe this was referring to the fact that at the stage the SoS would have come to a decision that a reward should be paid.

 

63 (7) If finders and anyone else with an interest in the find wish to waive their right to a reward on condition that the find is deposited in a particular registered museum, their wishes will be taken into account.

So it seems that I'm not legally entitled to a reward as I first thought, however it would seem that there would have to be a good reason for SoS to decide that I was not entitled to a reward (which could then be abated if I had say destroyed the find site).  I wonder if the SoS has ever determined that a reward should not be offered.