Somerset Hoard Declared Treasure

The discovery of a hoard containing around 52,500 Roman coins from Somerset has been widely covered in the media. The PAS blog has presented some initial findings ("Metal-Detectorist Finds Largest Pot of Roman Coins in Britain").

Today, BBC News reported that the Coroner has formerly declared the Somerset Hoard treasure. It is hoped that the enough money will be raised for the Museum of Somerset to acquire the hoard. Initial estimates suggest it may cost about £1 million.

Update: Unrecorded and Freshly Dug British Coins Sold in the USA

My previous post, "Having Cake and Eating it too: Unrecorded and Freshly Dug Coins Sold in the USA," prompted further remarks by archaeologist bloggers David Gill and Paul Barford and also caught the attention of Roger Bland, Head of Britain's Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS).

PAS officials and employees contacted the two sellers named in the previous post to seek details on the unrecorded ancient coins from Britain being sold in the United States. It also contacted the ACCG, the dealer lobby group which consistently points to the PAS as the only reasonable solution to looting.

In response to the inquiry by the PAS, seller Tony Jaworksi of Common Bronze indicated that the British coins he is selling were procured from a large number of detectorists (some actual collectors and some not) and assumes that they were accumulated over a year or more. He does not have any knowledge as to whether the coins were recorded under the PAS or not. He did not obtain an export license and stated he was unaware of the need for one.

Seller Joe Blazick still has not yet responded to the PAS' inquiry.

It appears that the PAS' contact with the ACCG may have been the impetus for Peter Tompa's post on the subject, with links to export requirements in the UK - something which one hopes future sellers will take more note of in the future when selling recent coin finds from Britain. Tompa agrees that information should be preserved, but disagrees with the "tone" of my original post. By "tone" Mr. Tompa must be referring to the questions I posed which the dealer lobby does not wish to answer or engage with:

"However enlightened they may be, schemes like the PAS are not effective deterrents against systematic looting for commercial gain unless collectors and dealers are willing to hold their suppliers legally and ethically accountable. So who are the collectors and dealers buying these coins from British metal detectorists who do not record their finds? If the PAS is to be touted as a way forward in other countries, why are not the antiquities dealers who favor the scheme actively denouncing this behavior within their own ranks? Why are list owners allowing commercial advertisements of material that is not being recorded when there are schemes such as the PAS in place? The indiscriminate market is the driving force behind looting; ethical dealers should conduct greater due diligence and hold suppliers to high standards. Conscientious consumers and collectors are the only real solution to the looting problem."

One of the ACCG's newest active devotees, John Hooker, - collector and author of the recent series of uninformed inculcations appearing on the ACCG website under the somewhat presumptuous title of "The Hooker Papers" (some discussion here) - was more bold, having simply dismissed concern over the British coins as "amusing" while inventing a number of scenarios whereby the coins in question were too insignificant to record. Of course, since the coins were taken out of Britain without any record, it is impossible to know how useful the coins may have been for the historical and archaeological record. Let us hope that Mr. Hooker's resentment for the need to record finds in Britain does not reflect wider views in the ancient coin collecting community in North America. After all, the scheme is meant to preserve information that would otherwise be destroyed by commercial or self-interest. If, as the ACCG has constantly argued, the PAS is the perfect solution to the looting problem, then why make excuses for profiteering that does not take the time to record finds when the PAS is available?

The ancient coin collecting and dealing communities are very small indeed and various classes of dealers and suppliers often have close personal and business relationships. Sellers like those discussed, and their suppliers, will no doubt have conducted business with dealers and/or collectors associated with the ACCG. The advertisements for uncleaned coins and unrecorded British finds were made on lists owned and/or moderated by ACCG members. Should not the ACCG be expending more energy on establishing proactive market guidelines and due diligence practices that address the negative effects of an indiscriminate market than it does on vilifying archaeologists and concocting disinformation to argue to the public that ancient coins are not archaeologically significant objects even when excavated in situ?

While touting the potential of the PAS as a model for other "source countries," the ACCG leadership resists promoting or advocating due diligence by dealers and collectors. Schemes like the PAS could preserve much information that is otherwise lost by casual hobbyists, but information continues to be lost so long as consumers (i.e. dealers and collectors) are not holding their suppliers (especially bulk suppliers) accountable. Indeed, some PAS officials have expressed irritation and dismay at the way the dealer lobby has used the PAS in its agenda.

Is it time to practice what is being preached?

Having Cake and Eating it too: Unrecorded and Freshly Dug British Coins Sold in the USA

Over the past several days I have taken note of some bulk lots of ancient coins offered for sale. Bulk lots of fresh uncleaned coins from the Balkan or "Holy Land" regions are commonly sold on internet venues like eBay and VCoins. Often times these bulk lots contain hundreds or even thousands of coins and represent the "leftovers" of the material that suppliers could not get mid-range and upper-range ancient coin dealers to buy from them (I have discussed the ancient coin trade structure before: e.g. here and here).

Clearly, much of this material has been looted and illegally exported (smuggled) into the United States and other consumer nations. Leaders of the ancient coin dealer lobby and some of its members flatly dismiss the legal and ethical concerns about the wholesale destruction of information that these bulk lots represent, instead blaming the "repressive laws of source countries" which they assert are the real cause for looting – not an indiscriminate market demand. Part of the dealer lobby’s rhetoric includes pointing to "enlightened schemes" such as the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) in Great Britain as a solution.

I agree that schemes like the PAS could help preserve information in many countries if properly used and adhered to, but I feel that the dealer lobby and some of its hangers-on misunderstand and/or misrepresent the issues in the way that they champion the PAS scheme. As I and other commentators have pointed out multiple times, schemes like the PAS are not effective solutions against systematic looting as long as dealers and collectors refuse to conduct any degree of due diligence. The PAS, designed for casual metal detector finds from the topsoil, is a voluntary scheme in which metal detectorists report finds to be recorded in a public database for scholarly research. It is not a license to loot systematically in order to provide masses of material for market consumption.

Within just four days, two separate dealers in the United States advertised freshly dug ancient coins from Britain for sale via the Uncleaned Ancient Coins (UAC) discussion list. The first was advertised by bulk ancient coin seller Joe Blazick on 11 May 2009, who wrote:

"I am selling this lot of English Dugups for $150 for the lot shiped.A few can be cleaned to make them a lot better.Lots of large coins as you can seen in the scan." [unedited text - photo of lot to the left]

Just a few days later, on 14 May 2009, Tony Jaworski of Common Bronze, a dealership which sells huge volumes of uncleaned ancient coins from a number of source countries, wrote in a message entitled "Speaking of British coins…":

"We happen to have a fresh lot from England…here was the little blurb that we shared with our customers when they first arrived.

These coins are straight from multiple detectorist’s in England. My guy normally washes the coins something I told him not to do and he did not this time. So you are receiving the coins as I did and as he did. This is about as close to finding them yourself as I have been able to find. These coins are from a group that was detecting in the Suffolk East England area. So we are clear, they have come from a group of guys who detect for anything (some are collectors some are not). Each guy handles the coins a little differently so some look like the detector may have washed them some are literally as they came out of the ground.

They are all mostly Roman … but there is a chance you will get something that is medieval English or something else. They were not sorted as normal by my supplier! (I Think a huge plus).

Link to this lot: http://www.commonbronze.com/catalog/product_%20info.php?

In addition we have a new type of uncleaned coin … the Spanish found Arabic coins. Tom and I really don’t know anything about this type … just that they are new to us.

Link to this lot: http://www.commonbronze.com/catalog/product_%20info.php?" [also unedited text - photo of lot to the right]

It appears in both cases that none of these coins from Britain were recorded under the Portable Antiquities Scheme and were, therefore, found and are being sold without any record of their find spot. Absolutely all contextual information has been lost. British laws also appear to be broken since export licenses are required for all products of "excavation."

However enlightened they may be, schemes like the PAS are not effective deterrents against systematic looting for commercial gain unless collectors and dealers are willing to hold their suppliers legally and ethically accountable. So who are the collectors and dealers buying these coins from British metal detectorists who do not record their finds? If the PAS is to be touted as a way forward in other countries, why are not the antiquities dealers who favor the scheme actively denouncing this behavior within their own ranks? Why are list owners allowing commercial advertisements of material that is not being recorded when there are schemes such as the PAS in place? The indiscriminate market is the driving force behind looting; ethical dealers should conduct greater due diligence and hold suppliers to high standards. Conscientious consumers and collectors are the only real solution to the looting problem.

UPDATE: The sellers in question are apparently upset that attention has been called to the fact the British coin finds sold by them were not recorded under the PAS and that images of their bulk lots were shown here, even though they publicly posted these photos on the internet themselves. For the meantime, I have removed the photos here, but they can be viewed directly here and here.

Some Recent Discussions about Nighthawking and the Ancient Coin Trade

One of the perks of working in Europe is nationalized health care. Eight years ago or more, I was told my wisdom teeth needed to come out, but I could not afford the two thousand dollars it was going to cost. Fortunately, this long overdue dental work is done (all only for a 10 Euro copay!), but the pain and the painkillers have hindered my work over the past week, including posting to this website.

Therefore, I just wanted to draw the attention of my readers to some recent discussions that have developed regarding the "Nighthawking Survey," referenced in my previous post, as well as some other discussion relevant to the ancient coin trade and ethical collecting.

David Gill and Paul Barford have been providing some interesting and enlightening observations on nighthawking in Britain:

"'To Say the Problem is Gone is Absolutely Untrue'" (Gill)
"What Kind of Nighthawking (sic) has Declined?" (Barford)
"The Tide Turns for the British Antiquities Market" (Barford)
"What is Illegal Artefact Hunting in the UK?" (Barford)
"Damage to Archaeological Sites in the UK caused by Illegal Searching and Removal of Antiquities" (Barford)
"Prominent Metal Detectorists says 'Illegal Metal Detecting is Now Virtually Non-Existent'" (Barford)
"British Nighthawks on Facebook" (Barford)
"Regulating the Sales of Artefacts in Britain Soon?" (Barford)

David Gill draws attention to the fact that some ancient coin dealers in the U.S. still completely misunderstand the issues at stake in the dialogue about looting and indiscriminate market demand:

"'Some Activist Archaeologists...[are] too left wing in their approach'"

Paul Barford points out two blogs by antiquities collectors ("Two New Blogs and a Website"). Unlike the blogs of disciples of the ancient coin dealer lobby in the U.S. that have been cropping up left and right, trying to excuse unethical and indiscriminate collecting, these two collector blogs highlight how collectors can be proactive and collect ethically. For a long time I have received a lot of private feedback and encouragment from collectors of ancient coins and antiquities and it is, in my view, now quite refreshing to see that some collectors are starting to come out publicly and combat the mantras and deceptions of tradesmen and those who wish to paint looters as humanitiarians and indiscriminate collectors as erudite rescue archaeologists.

I have been particularly interested in following the blog "Pieces of the Past: Ethical Antiquities Collecting" and I have added it to the feed on the lefthand side of this website.

Illegal Metal Detecting in Britain and the World

Today the nighthawking survey in Britain is released and already there have been several news reports. Although the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) in the Britain has been successful in deterring some irresponsible metal detecting, the media reports demonstrate that illegal metal detecting persists in that country. Ill-gotten finds are typically sought after to supply dealers and collectors who are not so concerned about due diligence and where material is coming from. The PAS is a wonderful scheme, but this shows that, as long as some collectors and dealers do not really value its goals or mission, and do not conduct due diligence, its real effectiveness is minimized.

We should also keep in mind that in other nations, illegal metal detecting is even more rampant and damaging, as is the case in Bulgaria and other Balkan nations which are the primary suppliers for the indiscriminate trade in portable antiquities (ancient coins, fibulae, buckles, weapons, and other small metal finds).

Nighthawks and illegal metal detectorists around the world largely supply the voracious and unquestioning market, not those operating ethically within the Britain's PAS scheme.

For some news reports on nighthawking in Britain visit: D.W.J. Gill, "From an Illicit Hobby to a Semi-Professional Criminal Industry," Looting Matters (16 Feb. 2009).

See also a recent story posted to the Museum Security Network: "Bronze Age Axes found in Buckinghamshire Using Illegal Metal Detection Were Sold on Internet Auction Site eBay, English Heritage Warned Today" (16 Feb. 2009).

For some recent discussions here on Numismatics and Archaeology about looting in Bulgaria and the Balkans and its relationship to the indiscriminate trade in ancient coins and antiquities see:

"Italy Returns Thousands of Looted Coins to Bulgaria: Is there a Connection to Past Criminal Activities?"

"Archaeology Magazine's 'Under Threat' List Includes Bulgaria"

"The Illicit Antiquities Trade in Bulgaria"

The lecture, "The Trade in Ancient Coins in the USA: Scale and Structure" also addresses Bulgarian and Balkan sources.

The Controversial "Excavation" of a Coin Hoard

Paul Barford and David Gill have both commented on a news report (L. Hannam, "Treasure hunters set to coin it with Roman haul," MK News) about English metal detectorists who dug out a meter of soil to recover a large Roman coin hoard, which was associated with other ancient remains. To their credit, the detectorists did report the hoard - formally declared a treasure - to the responsible authorities.

Barford and Gill, however, both question whether or not situations like this are what the PAS was designed for. Many think of the PAS as recording primarily surface finds from ploughed fields, which were already "decontextualized" (in addition to the two original posts, see also Barford's "What would the PAS Say?"). The concern in this instance is the amount of earth removed to get to the coins and the fact that the hoard was not an isolated find. Important contextual information, which could provide greater insight into the circumstances surrounding the deposition of this hoard or conversely the associated remains have been destroyed.

Peter Tompa, a former president of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG), has responded forcefully to Barford and Gill's respective concerns. While he is correct in that it seems the detectorists did what UK law requires of them, his attempts at assuaging ethical concerns from an archaeological perspective are inadequate.

For example, he stated that since the find was made on ploughed land, the context was already disturbed. This is an argumentative claim since it is impossible to know how far the ploughed topsoil affects the archaeological remains without a proper archaeological investigation. Since one meter of earth had to be removed to get at the coins, it would appear the plough might not have reached this depth as the coins would have been scattered and pulled out to the surface had this been the case (on the depth of ploughing, see also Barford's "The Washington Lawyer and the Metal Detectorists").

Mr. Tompa also claims that the broken vessel which contains the coins is an indication the plough broke the vessel. Again, this is another assumption. It may be a possibility, but it impossible to tell without the context (now lost). Coin hoards are frequently recovered in archaeological contexts in broken or damaged vessels - this can be an effect of the geology or weather or can be a result of other post-depositional processes in which something may have fallen on the container or the container itself fell, etc.

Mr. Tompa cites Roger Bland and the PAS in his response, as so many of the dealers and collectors at the ACCG often do. It appears, however, they frequently take his work and views out of context. In a review of Cuno's recent book, Bland reacted strongly against "US cultural imperialism" of the sort the ACCG subscribes to (see Gill's, "'An Example of US Cultural Imperialism at its Worst'").

The archaeological inaccuracies in Mr. Tompa's reply are perhaps natural since he is not an archaeologist but rather a collector and attorney. I am sure if I were to attempt to discuss legal issues in some detail I would make some errors as well.

The concern of archaeologists and many numismatists is that information and history is destroyed in the search for curios and/or profit. The value of context and the threat of the indiscriminate trade has been highlighted in my article "A Survey of the Material and Intellectual Consequences of Trading in Undocumented Ancient Coins..." Frankfurter elektronische Rundschau zur Altertumskunde 7, 2008, 1-13. A collection of 11 essays - 10 of them in English -discussing the value of archaeological and contextual methods in relation to coin finds from excavations, hoards, etc., is about to be made available: H.-M von Kaenel and F. Kemmers (eds.). 2008-forthcoming. Coins in Context I: New Approaches in Interpreting Coin Finds (provisional title). Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 23 (Mainz: von Zabern). It is the goal of these essays to make developing contextual methods, which are already at the fore of research on numismatics and archaeology, more widely known and they build upon methods and theories that have been forming over the past few decades.

As Barford and Gill point out it is a false assertion made by some ancient coin dealers (which does not qualify them as being archaeologists) that most hoards are "isolated," i.e. found in the middle of nowhere with no associated remains and thus archaeologically "insignificant." In the above-mentioned article, I examined this assumption and pointed out that hoards can compose substantial percentages of all the coin finds recovered at archaeological sites. One of the largest hoards ever recovered (perhaps the largest), the Reka-Devnia Hoard, contained 350 kg of Roman silver coins and was found within a structure in the ancient city of Marcianopolis - not in an empty field devoid of associated remains.

While the finders of the controversial treasure acted legally and are to be commended for reporting the find as mandated by the law, we ought to consider the ethics of disturbing archaeologically significant sites in such a way as removing large amounts of earth and disassociating objects with their broader contexts (associated remains) and stratigraphy: these are the building blocks for writing histories for which we can only use material evidence (cf. Barford's forceful, but on point, "Give and Take of Obeying the Law"). Indeed, in most source countries this type of destruction is illegal, much to the chagrin of ancient coin and antiquities dealers who often trade in such material despite laws in source countries. There is a difference between picking up decontextualized surface finds and disturbing contexts deep in the earth.

(Image: A selection of coins from the hoard in question from L. Hannam, "Treasure hunters set to coin it with Roman haul," MK News)