next »

[Please Support Us!]

Please Support Us!

November Goal: $40.00
Due Date: Nov 30
Gross Amount: $25.00
PayPal Fees: $1.58
Net Balance: $23.42
Below Goal: $16.58
©

59% 

November Donations

7th Anonymous $20.00

5th Anonymous $5.00

TRAILBLAZERS
for students

ArchaeoFind
Archaeology News
Articles
Browse Attachments
Calendar
Downloads
Forum
Gallery
Links
Member Map
Our News Feeds
Submit Article
Tag Cloud
Video Channel

Odyssey Marine in the media
Trailblazers
Play Phaos
Chat
Trailblazers: Virtual Tours

[Bart]

Absolutely, permission from the land owner is the universal rule and guiding principle. Everything that follows is up to the land owner.

But here is the rub in the whole situation. Under the concept of government of, by, and for the people, the people are being denied use of what they perceive to be something they have a right to, which is use of the land. And it is not just detectorists who complain of this, ATV users, prospectors, and hikers also have a beef. Changing cultural and social whims seemingly dictate usage policies ie; environmentalism.

Limitation of usage is understandable to everyone, folks can't just help themselves to any and everything in sight, such as plants, rocks, dirt, game, etc. But to fence it in, whether physically or by decree, and deny all access to it gets the 'owners' understandably upset. Detectorists and prospectors reason that digging a hole to retrieve something, and then refilling the hole harms nothing. To me that is reasonable and understandable. That concept seems to get others bent out of shape, for various reasons.

another 'phenomena' I have noticed regarding many factual treasure stories is the fact that the land where the treasure is supposedly located is now a state, county, or Federal park or forest. I know of several here in Wisconsin, and have heard of many other states with the same situation.

Some of this equates to the situation in GB, as I am sure you can see. Do the people have any limited rights in the use of Crown property?

- Bart

[Solomon]

Well, Bart, I am now beginning - thanks to your patient explanations, for which I thank you - to grasp some of the issues here. Your drawing attention to crown property in the UK beings the issue into sharp focus for me.

The fact is, that although I know of crown property in general principle, I know for a fact that it is too diverse, complicated and detailed for me to claim that I understand it. I know of various twists and turns in law which many are unaware of and the whole situation is frighteningly difficult. One example: it is traditional for the heir to the throne to be granted land in order to have an income. One of these grants is the Duchy of Cornwall, which spreads over 22 counties and the laws this is regulated by are obscure in many regards.

On a wider issue, there is the UK Coastal Zone Law, with the Crown's prima facie title. Generally, the Crown does not mean monarch, but state, though sometimes it does mean monarch, and the landholdings of the queen are large. Clear? I thought not.

The procedure for a metal detectorist must be the same in the USA and UK: find the landowner and ask permission. Whether crown land in the UK, or government land in the USA, it may not be instantly clear who and where the owner is, and depending on the exact land/owner, the rules are likely to be different. In the UK, my first port of call would likely be the local government authority.

As to right of access, we have the same issues in the UK that you have in the USA. I must admit that here, government tries mightily to open land up for public access, much to the distress of some landowners. Metal detecting, though, is a sensitive issue.

One reason why I wanted History Hunters online was that just prior to creating this site, I joined two forums to discuss this exact issue. One was for archaeologists and the other for metal detectorists. In both, I was slammed hard right at the start, just for asking what the position was. I was insulted personally time and again: I was told that I was antisocial, destructive, with an impure heart, ignorant and generally untrustworthy. This is why, if you check my first posts here, I came out swinging - archaeological digging is destructive, judge by results rather than perceived motive, et cetera. Heritage people were watching the metal detectorist forum just to jump on people like me. Oddly - to me - nobody came to my defence.

I support English law and convention that says archaeology should be disturbed only by archaeologists. I hold this view because to my mind, our history belongs to no one person - not even the landowner. This is why we have heritage laws to protect buildings and places, as well as archaeology. To me, our heritage belongs to us.

This is pure politics. Maybe there is no perfect answer, as different interests conflict. All we can do is try to use the system to argue our case.

Solomon

[Bart]

1. "The procedure for a metal detectorist must be the same in the USA and UK: find the landowner and ask permission."

     That is a given, and is more or less the way it is the world over.

     One of the main points I made earlier was that we here in the US, unlike Great Britain, the people own the land, which we the people administer through our elected representatives. I am saying that I am being denied reasonable access to, and usage of my land rights. I really ought not need to petition any representative authority in order to exercise my rights. I really should not have to take a dispute in the matter to court, and at my own personal expense, in order to exercise my land rights, ever, let alone time after time due to some whimsical interpretation or newly codified directive that comes along. These rights of mine precede archaeologists and their associated laws. My rights were in place first and must always take precedence over any and all laws that came along later.

      I have never willingly or knowingly given up those rights, to the best of my knowledge. Please show me if I am mistaken in my above statements here, with the documents that show how and when that happened, or how I am wrong. That challenge is open to anyone who may be able to do such, and is not directed at any one individual.

     Before this gets too bogged down in issues of specific law and legalities, I want to point out that I am not against some of the laws regarding archaeology that are in place. The main law that I refer to is the law regarding human remains. I believe the excavation of human remains should be reserved for trained professionals.

     2. "On a wider issue, there is the UK Coastal Zone Law, with the Crown's prima facie title. Generally, the Crown does not mean monarch, but state, though sometimes it does mean monarch, and the landholdings of the queen are large. Clear? I thought not."

     Clear as mud, but I know what you mean.

     3. "As to right of access, we have the same issues in the UK that you have in the USA. I must admit that here, government tries mightily to open land up for public access, much to the distress of some landowners. Metal detecting, though, is a sensitive issue."

     Here, the case can be made for the opposite. When govt. takes land under their wing in whatever fashion, it is a sure bet that access and use will be limited and denied for many purposes, especially detecting. It seems that they would deny access to all if they thought they could ''get away with it". All but the 'elite', meaning use is limited to favored persons, highest bidder, or only certain govt. officials, etc. In reality, govt. here is no different that a monarchy without absolute rule, as I see it. Or perhaps as I imagine it to be based upon some of the things they do and wish to do. Grousing? Sour grapes? Ani-govt.? Likely some may view my statements in that light and accuse me of such, or even worse. I expect that, when you can't argue the message, attack the messenger, it is the easy and lazy thing to do.

     4. "One reason why I wanted History Hunters online was that just prior to creating this site, I joined two forums to discuss this exact issue. One was for archaeologists and the other for metal detectorists. In both, I was slammed hard right at the start, just for asking what the position was. I was insulted personally time and again: I was told that I was antisocial, destructive, with an impure heart, ignorant and generally untrustworthy. This is why, if you check my first posts here, I came out swinging - archaeological digging is destructive, judge by results rather than perceived motive, et cetera. Heritage people were watching the metal detectorist forum just to jump on people like me. Oddly - to me - nobody came to my defence."

     People are people wherever you go. I try to understand what they are saying while trying to determine where they are coming from. How I understand what they say may be different than what they intended. Your position is your position, based on a long career in your profession, I respect that. I may not always agree with every nuance of your position, but I don't see the necessity for attacking you personally for it. That is just not intelligent discourse. I am no stranger to such attacks, I have been called the worst by the the worst. Not everyone is prepared or capable of coming to the defense of others, for various reasons. Valid reasons or no, that happens. They must live with what they do, as well as with what they don't. The burden is upon them for as long as they live, I like to think.

     5. "I support English law and convention that says archaeology should be disturbed only by archaeologists. I hold this view because to my mind, our history belongs to no one person - not even the landowner. This is why we have heritage laws to protect buildings and places, as well as archaeology. To me, our heritage belongs to us."

     Our heritage belongs to us, I can agree with that. I agree that archaeology should be disturbed only by archaeologists. The problem arises in the definition of archaeology, it's depth and degree. There are some huge differences between the US and the rest of the world, we don't have thousands of years of of cultural wars by billions of different people to the same degree. We don't have the coins and treasure and artifacts, hidden, buried, or lost, to the same extent. Many regard the Amerindian artifacts of some monetary value, which is fine. Archaeology views them somewhat differently, and they each and all have their story to tell in that regard, which is fine also. But a balance needs to be struck, and obviously has been, and always will be I suppose, regarding the care and needs of the living and future generations. On one side, we can ask how many stone axeheads and spearpoints do we need to find and preserve before we have a good understanding of what happened here in the past? I am sure you understand this aspect and can explain it much better that I. I have said elsewhere on HH that Illinois is currently excavating something like a thousand or more Amerindian sites, with 3,000+ more identified and in line for excavation. Many would ask if that many are really necessary, or to what end, etc.?

Perhaps there is no perfect solution as you say, but I applaud Great Britain for their portable antiquities scheme, it seems to be working very well for the most part. I just don't think it will would work here in the US. A variation of it? Not sure of that either, and have been giving it some thought for years, but have not come up with a solution. I think the need exists for a group to put their heads together and do some brainstorming on the matter. What we do have seems to be working after a fashion, and I hate to fix something that isn't broken. I am not sure the rift is so much between detectorists and archaeologists as it is between detectorists and the govt. Neither side is perfectly happy, but what else is new? Govt does best what it does least, that needs to be said often and loud, I believe.

Tum te dum te dum de tum, skipping merrily on my way.... 

- Bart

[Solomon]

Bart:
The problem arises in the definition of archaeology, it's depth and degree.
Yes, that is an important issue and here in the UK, the answer is evolving. I was advised that this is not defined in law, instead it is advised that a metal detectorist *should* not dig below the ploughshare. In that way, they can find and recover artefacts found by the common metal detector without disturbing an archaeological site.

Bart: your situation vis a vis the law and your rights:
My rights were in place first and must always take precedence over any and all laws that came along later.
Which rights are these - when and how did they come into existence?

Solomon

[Bart]

Very good Sol, the proper place to begin, defining and strictly construeing what one means. I shall have to dig out my law material and provide the answers.

- Bart

[Solomon]

I am beginning to think that , as we noted on the ambiguities in maritime law, so governments prefer to keep things vague for land recovery also. It allows a government to take whatever attitude is convenient to it at the time.

Solomon

[Bart]

One could easily make the case for just that, I see it also. Especially when one sees almost daily news events of some horrific new way man has devised to slaughter his neighbor, accompanied by vows of new legislation to prevent each and every such new inventive way specifically. Naturally there is no out-cry by the same folks when someone recovers trove and loses it to govt confiscation.

Here is something I just now ran across, a new law that took effect as of 1 Jan 2006 in California. Another example of the incremental increase and abridgement of rights, and of how laws you are not even aware of can get you in trouble. Many are convinced that the ultimate and secret agenda of 'environmental protection' laws are the desire to return the population back to the stone age. We certainly appear to be on that track and moving along at a good clip. This is just one of hundreds of new laws, or changes of existing law for the year 2005, just in California.

"Wilderness Areas

Provides that a person who violates a state or federal regulation that prohibits entry of a motor vehicle into a designated wilderness area is guilty of a public offense punishable by a fine. The fine will be $150 for a first offense, $225 for a second offense, and $300 or 90 days imprisonment, or both, for a third offense within seven years.

Authorizes the court to order impoundment of the vehicle for up to 30 days at the owner?s expense, if the person convicted is the owner of the vehicle."

- Bart

[Solomon]

I wonder if the law would be applied equally to this chap.

Solomon

[Bart]

In theory, yes, providing he is a US citizen, and resides here. If he is a resident alien, perhaps not. There is a Canadian national residing here permanently who is a stalker, kidnapper, probably an arsonist, has attempted murder, heads a cult, and cannot be touched by the law. I have had some run-ins with him and his cult people, and he actually has more 'legal rights' and a higher 'status' than I do as a citizen, due to his foreign citizenship.  The county government is a business partner with him and turns a blind eye to his shenannigans. I have affidavits from eight different families against him, and the authorities do nothing. Under the 'Patriot Act' I would be a terrorist were I to commit those same acts, he gets a pass. I have tried numerous avenues to stop this clown, to no avail.

OK, I'll bite, who is the tan man with the shiny yellow Hummer?

- Bart

[Solomon]

Arnie the Terminator, governor of California

Solomon

[Tayopa]

Gentlemen:  Keep it going, interesting.  I will put in my two cents later.

Tropical Tramp

[Bart]

"Which rights are these - when and how did they come into existence?"

This is going to be a difficult topic, and will take many posts to answer in order for one to begin to understand. As you have already mentioned, the US adopted the Common Law of Great Britain as the basis or type of govt. to be used here. This will be in my own words, as best as possible, using quotes, example's, etc., where appropo. Understand that some of this is debated yet today, with factional disagreements from several viewpoints.

 The very first words after the title of The Constitution of the United States of America, known as the Preamble, are "We the people." Everything that follows comes under that concept, or so the theory was at the time it was written. Here is the entire Preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "

We the people is a very simple concept, and self-explanatory. As a native American, or natural born citizen, I am one of We the people. The desire to form a more perfect Union is obviously of, by, and for We the people. The same idea applies to each and all of the concepts that follow it. Notice the direct link to me, a flesh and blood man, specifically in the two words 'our posterity'.

 BTW, as an aside, we are not that far down the road of history that blood has changed all that much, and since blood has already been mentioned, and is a very important factor in all this, I wish to state here that I am of the same blood as the reigning Queen of England, Her Majesty, Elizabeth II, which blood specifically being German and Danish. 

Moving on to the Annotations and footnotes most often associated with the above mentioned Preamble, I include them here as follows:

Annotations
PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PREAMBLE

Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, (1) the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. (2) ''Its true office,'' wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ''is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, 'to provide for the common defense.' No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?'' (3)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/preamble/

So far we seem to have a solid base for, and a good understanding of when (adopted July fourth, 1776), and how my rights came into existence.

After any questions or comments, if need be, I can post other specific rights as put down in the Constitution.

- Bart

[Bart]

This should help explain many thing regarding treasure trove laws here.

- Bart

************************************************************************************

                            The Slow Death of Treasure Trove

by Richard B. Cunningham
7 Feb. 2000


     A cache of gold coins found on Rolling Stone magazine owner Jann Wenner's property has sparked a treasure trove claim against the publisher. (Reuters/Corbis-Bettmann)

     The Idaho Supreme Court will soon hear a dispute pitting media mogul Jann Wenner, the owner of Rolling Stone magazine, against Gregory Corliss, a construction worker who discovered a cache of gold coins buried on Wenner's land near the Sun Valley resort area. Corliss made his claim based on the ancient common law rule of treasure trove, which awards title of an artifact to the finder, be he looter or archaeologist.

     Last January an Idaho trial court rejected Corliss' claim, thus joining the other late-twentieth-century courts that have declined to apply the rule. In some American states, however, the law is still recognized. Why should modern American courts continue to be haunted by an outdated and misunderstood law that Great Britain abolished in 1996? The answer involves some arcane but important aspects of archaeological jurisprudence.

     Cases involving finders of hidden property are seldom simple; there are usually numerous parties and interests involved. Corliss and his employer, Larry Anderson, were excavating soil while under contract to construct a driveway on Wenner's land. Corliss was the first to notice the freshly exposed coins, and further digging by both men revealed a broken jar that had contained a stash of 96 American gold coins dating between 1857 and 1914. By agreement between the two men, Anderson retained the coins, but eventually thought better of their actions and turned the gold over to Wenner, who promptly took the coins to his home in New York. Corliss then demanded their return, asserting his title to the coins under treasure trove theory. The image of simple workmen arrayed against a wealthy landowner is unflattering; Wenner wisely offered the men a reward, which both declined, and Corliss then pressed his claim against both his employer and Wenner.

     As with most accidentally discovered artifacts, the history and original ownership of the coins is obscure, and necessarily speculative. They clearly were buried sometime after the 1914 date on the latest coin, probably by some occupant of Broadford, a mining town once situated on Wenner's land. Throughout the intervening years, none of the previous owners of the land appeared to have been aware of the deposit, and none came forward to assert a claim.

     The uncertainty of the facts in finder's cases is compounded by the complexity of the law. Any discussion of finders' law forces courts to confront not only the rules of treasure trove, but also a variety of other judicial doctrines relating to articles that have been not deliberately buried, but either abandoned, lost, mislaid, or embedded on private land. Classic treasure trove law in Britain applied only to items of gold or silver. The rule thus has no bearing on the organic, lithic, or ceramic artifacts that prevail in American archaeology. But old gold coins, as in the Corliss-Wenner dispute, unquestionably satisfy the rule and for most people represent the very essence of a treasure.

     The classic rule also required the treasure to have been intentionally concealed; here again, because the coins were discovered in paper wrappers and buried in a glass jar, there was clear evidence of their deliberate deposit with an intent eventually to retrieve them. *1. Note. A cache discovered under these circumstances could not be categorized as casually lost nor purposefully abandoned. Superficially, then, the Idaho facts appear to present a clear opportunity to apply the rule of treasure trove.

     Are American states bound to honor the ancient rule of treasure trove? In 1863 the legislature of Idaho, like many western states, decided to employ "the common law of England...as the rule of decision in all courts of this state." Statutes of that kind, known as reception statutes, reflect that citizens received the common law of England as part of their collective heritage, either at the time of American independence, the moment of statehood, or some other operative event. The English common law from the 1760s until the 1880s was unequivocal: Treasure trove went to the Crown. For most states, the question thus became whether simply to reject the received English royal prerogative as inconsistent with their legal systems, or instead to consider adoption of the adulterated form of the rule that rewarded finders as it developed in a minority of American courts between 1904 and 1948.

     The treasure trove rule received its first serious consideration by Oregon's Supreme Court in 1904 in a case involving boys who discovered thousands of dollars in gold coins hidden in metal cans while cleaning out a henhouse. Unwilling to identify coins in such circumstances as lost and seizing on the image of gold as treasure, the court awarded the coins to the boys. The landowners, who had been less than generous with the boys, received nothing. Of course, the British law on which the U.S. version was based would have handed the coins over to the king. Dating to early twelfth-century England, treasure trove was one of many royal prerogatives. In those feudal times, the king's claim to discovered articles of precious metal was absolute and preempted any claim by the article's finder or the owner of the land on which it was discovered.

     The Oregon court simply misunderstood the rule, wrongly believing that it operated in the same fashion as the early rules that awarded possession (and thus the effective equivalent of title) to the innocent finders of lost and ownerless items. In awarding ownership of the coins to the boys, the Oregon court unwittingly became the first to imply that buried valuables should be awarded categorically to a finder, thus disregarding entirely any legitimate claims made by the landowner.

     Four years later, Maine's Supreme Court completed the process of confusing the application of treasure trove law. The facts are eerily similar to the recent Idaho case: three workers jointly found gold coins while excavating on their employer's land. Although a series of English and American cases had already established a landowner's claim to buried valuables, the court awarded the coins to the finders, and for the next three decades the American rules remained in considerable confusion. During that period only a few courts opted for the treasure trove formulation; at one time or another the courts of Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, and Wisconsin employed the rule, most recently in 1948. Since then, all the American courts to consider the problem, the Idaho trial court among them, have declined to adopt treasure trove rationales, finding instead that other rules are better suited to a resolution of modern controversies. Unfortunately, the rule of treasure trove persists, still described in contemporary legal texts as a recognized, if not controlling, rule of decision. At best, however, it is a minority rule of dubious heritage that was misunderstood and misapplied in a few states between 1904 and 1948.

     The majority of U.S. courts now follow a mislaid rule for buried objects, which posits that items purposely deposited should be protected until the original depositor can return. The preferable way to protect them is to allow the items to remain in the custody of the landowner on whose property they were discovered. It's a convenient rationale, arguably well designed to assure the best chance to reunite owners with their recently "misplaced" goods. In the context of old artifacts, however, it effectively delivers title to the landowner. The "mislaid" rationale presumes the existence of a living owner, or the vigilance of the depositor's descendants; only occasionally can it be helpful for older artifacts, such as those in Idaho, as the likelihood of the original depositor's return diminishes with each passing year. For artifacts of prehistoric age, the mislaid rule makes no sense, and is thus of little assistance in the vast majority of archaeological applications.

     What rule should be employed by modern courts when faced with conflicting finder-landowner claims to ancient artifacts that are discovered buried on private land? The Idaho trial court, in rejecting the treasure trove rule, wisely aligned itself with all the other American courts that have faced the problem in the last two decades. By rejecting treasure trove and similar finder's rationales, those courts have fostered legal policies that discourage wanton trespass to real property, and give protection to a landowner's possessory claims to any artifacts that have been so embedded in the land as to become part of it. Rejection of the rules that reward finders at the expense of landowners also strengthens anti-looting provisions, and discourages casual, but potentially destructive unplanned searches. Indeed, removal of artifacts from the soil is now recognized in the majority of states either as illegal severance of chattels, trespass, or theft. Modern law has recognized and resolved the problem, leaving no room for royal prerogatives. The old rule of treasure trove may make good theater, but it's poor law, and its death can come none too soon.

Richard B. Cunningham is a professor of law at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, in San Francisco.

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/trove/index.html

*1. Note.

"there was clear evidence of their deliberate deposit with an intent eventually to retrieve them."

     I disagree on this point. There is NOT clear evidence of an intent to eventually retrieve them. There is NO evidence of intent other than to hide them. The coins may have been stolen and buried to get rid of the evidence, or any number of other possible scenarios. They could well have been "purposely abandoned".

     The problem with adopting the English common law in regard to treasure trove is obvious. There is a missing element here, which is the Crown. No provision is made for that missing element in US law, to my knowledge. There are also many fictions in US law, which generally work like this - they can't prove it and you can't disprove it - making  decisions discretionary, or arbitrary. One example would be the law of eminent domain:

eminent domain noun. The power of a governmental entity (Federal, state, county or city government, school district, hospital district or other agencies) to take private real estate for public use, with or without the permission of the owner.

The interpretation of that 'law' is morphing, as a recent court decision allows seizure of private property for the "public benefit." In that case homes were seized so a developer could build commercial property that would bring in higher tax revenue. In short, might makes right.

     In the case of the men returning the coins to Mr. Wenner, the property owner, the decision was correct in stating that the claimant had no right under the treasure trove law. The coins belong to the owner of the property. The men had possession of the coins and (one or both of them) voluntarily gave up that possession, correctly, as it wasn't their property. They could have kept them and done with them as they pleased without the land owner's knowledge, but they didn't. Possession is nine points of the law, it is said. This case is another example that illustrates why so many treasure trove finders are secretive about finds, and do not reveal what they find. at least the 'smart' ones don't.

     All land is owned by someone. Most people have no problem with keeping treasure found on 'Govt.' property. Govt, being a corporate (fictional) entity, is viewed as faceless,  to the point of not existing, among other things. Great Britain has a good treasure law, for Great Britain. I have my doubts that any similar law would would as well here in the US, for several reasons;

1. Creating new law is a problem, the chances of getting something fair and equitable are slim in my view. The process would take years, as our system differs tremendously from GB. We have Federal and State entities that traditional have different perspectives and authority, and create new laws that differ accordingly. Treasure is not a major issue in the US today, so the chances of even considering new laws based upon it are slim to none.

2. Creating new law re: treasure almost necessitates a new govt. agency/ bureaucracy, to oversee and implement it. Visions of pork barrel, boondoggle, excessive authority and implementation, and enforcement loom like hideous spectres of a nightmare. Americans are so ignorant and lazy when they cry for the govt. to 'fix' every little problem that arises, they can't see down the road ten feet when it comes to the effects of new laws. No provision is made for rescission of bad laws, traditional forces 'revisions', changes, improvements, and adjustments, but never rescission.

3. The US obviously does not have the 5,000 to 10,000 year history of gold and silver artifacts as much of the rest of the world has. Not only does that make this issue low priority in regard to new laws, it is the main reason why the US does not need such a new law. The vast majority of cultural heritage in need of preservation are stone implements of the past native cultures, and archaeological laws are in place to deal with them and their associated goods.

     If we need anything, we need current laws to be applied, fairly and justly. We need a better understanding by the courts of property rights. Perhaps some codified change of existing law to determine this issue definitively. And we need education of citizens as to what current laws mean in the hobby. I use hobby because treasure hunting as a profession just doesn't realistically apply in any real or practical sense. For the govt to tell it's citizens "I'm not obligated to teach you the law" is just unacceptable. "Govt does best what it does least" is a mindset of many, but here we see the foolishness of that.

Will things get better in this matter? Will real changes be made? I think not. I hope to explain some of the why in my next.

- Bart

[Solomon]

What a mess this appears to be, Bart. In England, until the new and present law, the decision as to whether the treasure was hidden or not was made by the coroner and I don't remember anyone arguing with that later.

The 'crown' in this regard is the state, so in that sense England and the USA are the same, though I will admit that having a crown stamped on something (e.g. the Royal Mail) tends to give gravitas.

I am surprised that in this case, the rights of the landowner seem to be in question. I know of many cases in England, under the old law, when the finder is secondary in relation to the landowner. Today, the landowner is paramount and if the finder does not have an agreement, the finder is ignored. I suspect that in this case, Wenner could win.

Solomon

[Tayopa]

Good morning,  in Mexico it  depends mostly upon the individual state.  In general, the landowner has proprietary  rights.  Unless a prior agreement is reached, the recovered valuables belong entirely to the land owner  - if caught

.    On gov't  land it is a prior  % agreement, except for Archaeological values,  however,  since that is such a broad term  -------?   Mum is the word, unless, it  is so large that one cannot play  the mum game.  This is the basic problem at Tayopa.

Recently, almost all recovered values  on federal land have been declared as  "As wonderful  depositories of Archaeological value".  hmmmm.      Do not quote me, but I undertand that in the case of duplicates in the museums, you are given the artifact, or it's value.

In Mexico Treasure  hunting is a long and honored undertaking /profession.  Unfortunately,  Mexico eyes her northern neighbor carefully and adopts many of her customs and rulings,  generally the most undesirable  ones. 

As the Shadow used to say "Who knows what evil lies in the hearts of man, only the shadow knows".

Tropical Tramp

Tropical Tramp