Treasure-hunter is banned from 7th century Saxon site

[Satori]

Treasure-hunter is banned from Saxon site after find
25 September 2008 By Jeff Travis

A treasure-hunter who hoped to make his fortune after stumbling across an ancient graveyard is distraught after being banned from the site.
Peter Beasley, a retired bricklayer, thought he had struck gold when he uncovered part of a Saxon shield, spears and a skeleton while out roaming with his metal detector near Clanfield.

The 67-year-old believes the 15-acre site is worth millions, hiding precious jewellery, ancient weapons and up to 3,000 graves from the seventh century.

But his stake to the treasure has been dealt a bitter blow.

The landowner has told him he is no longer welcome on the site – even though Mr Beasley claims an agreement was made to split the finds 50/50.

Mr Beasley, of Gordon Road, Waterlooville, who says he hasn't made a penny from the site since his discovery four years ago, said it wasn't just about the money.

'It should be excavated,' he said. 'It's a fantastic site and it's a disservice to the country not to explore it.'

The landowners, Mr and Mrs Budden, said they have made the decision as they are fed up with people trespassing on their land.

The trespassers include nighthawks, who are metal detectorists who dig for treasure and then sell the finds to unscrupulous dealers, rather than officially declaring them.

Mr Beasley said: 'I think it's disgusting. I have been going there eight years. At least I declare anything that I find.

'This will just open the door to nighthawks who will just help themselves.'

But Elizabeth Budden said: 'People keep turning up with metal detectors all night long and every time we get called out.

'We are fed up with it.'

The Buddens said they had no intentions to dig up any of the treasure as it had been designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest and said there wasn't the funding to excavate it anyway.'

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[stefen]

The landowners have every right to deny any access.

 

[EDDE]

The landowners have every right to deny any access.

yep welcome to the real world

 

[bildon]

If land owner had agreement with finder he shoud stick to it dirty old land owner

 

[BuckleBoy]

If land owner had agreement with finder he shoud stick to it dirty old land owner

If there were money for the Archies to excavate, then they'd be there 24/7.

He should be happy with having gotten to hunt it. If he's been hunting it for four years already, then there's something he's not telling.

 

[stefen]

I don't think that we are getting all of the story...kinda one sided.

The Treasure Hunter's agreement was to split 50/50 and possibly when the owner realized that there were graves on his property, and the potential exploitment would have restricted his use and potential loss of the property...and the possibility of adverse publicity, and publicity hounds bugging the crap out of him...he put the kiabash on things.

The 50/50 agreement would probably stand in court, it most likely it didn't include perpetual use by the Treasure Hunter.

Recreational hunting is one thing, however, it was tending toward a commercial venture...

Time to regroup and put an end to things.

 

[BuckleBoy]

I don't think that we are getting all of the story...kinda one sided.

The Treasure Hunter's agreement was to split 50/50 and possibly when the owner realized that there were graves on his property, and the potential exploitment would have restricted his use and potential loss of the property...and the possibility of adverse publicity, and publicity hounds bugging the crap out of him...he put the kiabash on things.

The 50/50 agreement would probably stand in court, it most likely it didn't include perpetual use by the Treasure Hunter.

Recreational hunting is one thing, however, it was tending toward a commercial venture...

Time to regroup and put an end to things.

Well, I guess another way to look at it then--is that in terms of publicity, the property owner sure lost out if that's what he was trying to avoid.

Funny thing about treasure is, once folks know it is there--someone will recover it.


-Buck

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

I hope the treasure-hunter has it in writing --------


I can understand not wanting everyone all over your place (and why would they come at night?), but something just seems a little fishy.

It was already designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest. (how did that take place?)

Of course, Britain has different laws than we have anyway.

I read an article on it at: http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/ (7th one down, but it changes), and it really sounds like they are more concerned about the selling of artifacts. If it was the United States - it would be a private property issue, since it is a private piece of land.

In Britain, they define their laws a bit differently:

http://www.colchestertreasurehunting.co.uk/treasureact.htm


At the very least, if the land-owner and treasure hunter have an iron-clad - written - agreement, the British government is apt to pay the costs of turning over the artifacts - and the treasure hunter (who has been there with permission for over 4 years) should share in it, I would think, though I cannot seem to verify that Beasely was the actual "discoverer" or not.

B

 

[stefen]

Looks like the site is a magnet for clandestine hunters and the landowner is attempting to get everything under control...and that includes the current treasure hunter.

Be interesting to review the contents of the actual agreement whether verbal or written.

My guess is that there is an agreement to share in finds, but the landowner can limit or cut off the access to the treasure hunter at any time.

 

[hollowpointred]

he should have kept his mouth shut.