Metal detectorist makes a discovery that could change our understanding of Anglo...

[garryson]

[h=2]Maidenhead search society member Sue Washington uncovers warrior burial site near the town of Marlow in Berkshire.[/h]A metal detectorist has uncovered a warrior burial site near the Berkshire town of Marlow that is so significant it could change historians’ understanding of southern Britain in the sixth century.



Read more: https://inews.co.uk/news/science/me...r-understanding-of-anglo-saxon-britain-676810

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[ARC]

Imagine what would be found and experienced /learned from if the U.S. would adopt the same policy /stance as the U.K. has concerning metal detectorists.

 

[mindcrime1988]

Neat story and good for her. It is finds like this that make the hobby so exciting and intriguing.

 

[BillA]

Imagine what would be found and experienced /learned from if the U.S. would adopt the same policy /stance as the U.K. has concerning metal detectorists.

a huge "private property" issue to be addressed
where would the line be set: pottery and/or lithics

 

[KANACKI]

a huge "private property" issue to be addressed
where would the line be set: pottery and/or lithics

Hola Amigo

Just because there is a very good potable antiquities scheme in the UK does not mean you have an automatic right to detect on peoples property. Nor can you violate scheduled public historic site. However the law in the UK half goes to the finder and half to landholder. So for some landholder when approached by a detectorist to detect their property. There is clear law that protects both parties if some thing of value is found.

While the landholder has the right to refuse anyone detecting their land. In principle if they was legally entitled to half what is found then its powerful incentive to let detetorist search.

In other countries which rely ambiguous laws which usually end up in courts fighting over ownership of treasure. The only winner is lawyers.

So for me ultimately the property owner has the right to say yes or no to a search. And 50/50 rule protects both parties. And independent body determines the value of the find.

As for pottery and/or lithics there is no real market for such items as 99% are broken in the uk from generations of plowing the fields. Most get handed In and are either given back to be shared by the finder and owner 50/05 or who ever wants the item or as most landowners and detectorist do give to the local museum.

So for me in regards to what happens in the UK there is no huge Property Issue.

Personally I like to see it adopted all over the world.

Kanacki

 

[BillA]

Hi Kanacki
I too admire the UK system.
I am not in agreement with the US 'system'.
My post to ARC was to illustrate the need to change, which would not be acceptable to most.

 

[KANACKI]

Hola Bill

Its not just in America there is 3 cases of treasure trove in Australia with 3 very different outcomes. 3 different judges gave judgements with 3 different interpretations.

Kanacki

 

[BillA]

Hola Bill

Its not just in America there is 3 cases of treasure trove in Australia with 3 very different outcomes. 3 different judges gave judgements with 3 different interpretations.

Kanacki

probably varying from statist to non-statist, all the difference in the world

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

BillA is right. Would be a huge private property issue to work out in the US.

The 5th amendment of the US constitution protects us from unjust seizure of private property for public benefit.
There is no "crown" to retain ownership of treasure, which would be considered an appurtenance to private land ownership. Thank god.

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

Now I'd be in favor of a system regarding treasure on public lands.

Lots to be learned from recoveries that get hidden away for fear of prosecution.

 

[BillA]

note that the searches in the UK are always with the agreement of the landowners

 

[E-Trac-Ohio]

Thanks for the post !

 

[xaos]

While the landholder has the right to refuse anyone detecting their land. In principle if they was legally entitled to half what is found then its powerful incentive to let detetorist search.

I think it should be made clear that when turned in, the UK decides the value.

They also determine whether to return the artefacts to the finder/property owner,
or to keep the artefacts, and give the finder/property owner the VALUE of the artefacts found....