How to categorise this?

I was going to post this up here for future reference with minimal comment. Archaeologists coming across this blog will know what I mean. "Metal detectorists" coming across this blog will know what I mean. Real professional numismatists coming across this blog will know what I mean... On a collectors' forum, collectors' rights advocate, coin dealer Dave Welsh writes in a vein that is so typical of the pro-collecting lobby as a whole, so worth examining in detail:

There is no sanity in thinking that eliminating coin collecting would diminish looting of archaeological sites. First, very few coin hoards are found in the vicinity of structures. Dealersand advanced collectors know that in almost all cases involving bronze coins(and also for the majority of silver coins), coins found in isolation tendto be in poor condition and have little or no value to collectors, afterbeing exposed to many centuries of
corrosion on all surfaces. The exceptionsare the few coins found in anoxic environments (e.g. river bottom mud) anddessicated desert soils, neither of which are likely to be the locus of structures or other significant human activity. Second, there is abundant evidence that eventual sale to collectors is only one channel through which looters and the local dealers who
buy their loot can profit from coin discoveries. When coins can be disposed of so as to eventually find their way to collectors, the local market takes advantage of this opportunity. When that is not possible, coin finds are simply treated as scrap metal. Almost every village in the rural Middle East has its "melting pot"
in which unwanted metal objects are recycled. Metals have vastly more value to these villagers than they do to us - a couple of poundsof old scrap coins can be more than a week's income for a villager. The difference paid to finders in most cases is not nearly so much as you mightthink, given present high values for
metals (including bronze and copper) and the very low value of uncleaned coins sold in bulk quantities. Third, individuals who have interviewed prospectors for ancient coins incountries like Bulgaria relate that the best places to search for coins arethe borders of ancient battlefields. Before a battle soldiers would hide their few valuables (usually a small purse of coins)
to retrieve after the engagement. When was the last time the vicinity of an ancient battlefieldwas excavated? There's a very significant difference indeed between those who prospect for coin hoards (nearly all buried at a depth of no more than a meter in out of the way places) and those who seek out tombs
and other traditional sourcesof valuable artifacts - which when they are discovered normally require digging huge destructive pits to get to the valuables. Coin prospectors simply don't look in the same places nor do they excavate in anything like the same manner, since coins aren't worth enough to dig big pits to get atthem. Prospecting for coins with metal detectors is
illegal in most antiquities source states and I do not in any way condone it, but the effect this activity has on the archaeological record is by no means what Paul Barford and his fellow travellers would like everyone to believe it is.
Dragging coin collectors and dealers into the looting vs. collecting controversy simply is not justified by verifiable facts. Real sanity would demand a social cost vs. benefit assessment for imposing legal restrictions and regulatory burdens on the collecting community. There is no sanity in declaring virtually everything made by the hand of man that is more than 100 years old to be a "cultural object" as UNESCO 1970 does,then leaving it up to source states to determine whether such objects(including common replicated things like printed books, postage stamps, coins and photographs) are "cultural property."
Nor is there sanity in demanding that collectors of objects of small individual value (such as coins and stamps) shall be held responsible for carrying out due diligence preacquisition investigations of provenance (such as a museum
considering the acquisition of an Old Masters painting must perform), as UNIDROIT 1995does.
Dave Welsh Unidroit-L Listowner

(1)“eliminating coin collecting to diminish looting of archaeological sites” . Nope. Wrong Mr Welsh. Nobody is trying to eliminate coin collecting. What we’d like YOU dealers and collectors to do is eliminate the trade in illicit looted items. That’s not the same surely, is it? Yes, even a twelve year old would see that this would help reduce the looting.

(2) “very few coin hoards are found in the vicinity of structures” wrong, but let’s pass on. I guess Mr Welsh does not see too many ancient coin hoards in situ in California.

(3) “Dealers and advanced collectors know that in almost all cases involving bronze coins (and also for the majority of silver coins), coins found in isolation tend to be in poor condition and have little or no value to collectors” How on earth can they “know” that if they do not actually know where the individual coins they have in their bargain bins come from? UK metal detectorists collect them, that’s what they go out in the fields for.

(4) ”eventual sale to collectors is only one channel through which looters and the local dealers who buy their loot can profit from coin discoveries”. and “When that is not possible, coin finds are simply treated as scrap metal” . I’m hoping, time permitting, to do a separate post on this one. Later (“the buy a coin, feed a family fallacy”).

(5) “the very low value of uncleaned coins sold in bulk quantities” Now wait a second, where are they coming from? Surely not those “hoards”? Something not quite adding up here Mr Welsh. There is a sneaky double fallacy here, Welsh argues that serious collectors are not interested in coins which are not from hoards (as allegedly too badly preserved to collect) ergo, all coins on the market must be from hoards (and then he argues that digging up hoards does no archaeological damage). A moment looking at eBay will tell us that even almost featureless slugs find buyers among collectors. There are ancient coins in varying states of preservation ON the market. They do not all come from hoards.

(6) “ individuals who have interviewed prospectors for ancient coins in countries like Bulgaria” Oh I wish he'd shared his source of information. National Geographic? Discovery Channel?

(7) “relate that the best places to search for coins are the borders of ancient battlefields” . Really? I suppose they know where they are from old Roman campaign maps then? How does one define the “border of an ancient battlefield”?

(8) “Before a battle soldiers would hide their few valuables (usually a small purse of coins) to retrieve after the engagement” This is an old collectors’ myth. Romantic isn't it? No, actually they did not. That way their earnings would not reach their next of kin if something happened. I’d have thought that a “professional numismatist” would know about what arrangements the Roman army had for this. This is pure nonsense.

(9) “the effect this activity [metal detecting] has on the archaeological record is by no means what Paul Barford and his fellow travellers would like everyone to believe it is” I do not expect Dave Welsh sees much metal detecting of ancient sites in California, so I do not see on what he bases this judgement. Metal detecting is so damaging to the archaeological sites of the balkans that many dealers are now (since about 2001/2) carrying increasing numbers of fakes, because the more accessible real stuff in decent condition has already largely gone. Britain is going the same way, metal detectorists now travel considerable distances to find accessible and ‘productive’ search sites that have not already been “hammered” (as they say) by the competition since the 1970s. I think Mr Welsh should join a few “metal detecting” forums before pronouncing on it so glibly. (Who are my alleged “fellow travelers”?)

(10) “ Dragging coin collectors and dealers into the looting vs. collecting controversy simply is not justified by verifiable facts” It is totally justified, as Mr Welsh and all the ACCG are only too well aware. There is no reason why coin collecting should be treated differently from any other kind of collecting of portable antiquities. There is in fact no “controversy” in the real world, looting of archaeological sites to produce collectables and collecting of portable antiquities are clearly linked.

(11) “There is no sanity in declaring virtually everything made by the hand of man that is more than 100 years old to be a "cultural object" I believe some American collectors see objects younger than that as collectable due to their connection with American culture. The World Heritage List has monuments younger than that on it, as does the UNESCO Memory of the World List (at least one of them dates from 1981, I know because I translated the text that put it there). It is in any case a total fallacy to say that international legislation declares virtually everything more than 100 years old to be a cultural object. I presume this is a deliberate piece of misinformation since the fallacy has been pointed out to Welsh a number of times. Its in black and white on the printed page – one only has to read it.

(12) “leaving it up to source states to determine whether such objects (including common replicated things like printed books, postage stamps, coins and photographs) are "cultural property". There you are, see? Welsh has read it. How dare UNESCO leave it up to sovereign foreign countries to determine for themselves what they do and do not consider to be their OWN cultural property. The very idea! And without asking US collectors whether they agree? Unthinkable.

(13) “Nor is there sanity in demanding that collectors of objects of small individual value (such as coins […]) shall be held responsible for carrying out due diligence preacquisition investigations of provenance” There is every justification for this. Collecting archaeological objects should, I think, be seen as a privilege which carries responsibilities, not a "right" that carries none. As museums tighten up their acquisition policies, it is to the private collector the market will increasingly turn with looted objects. Of course an ETHICAL collector is going to check out whether the dealer is offering potentially looted items. Stamp collectors Mr Welsh? Oh Pleeeease…

Such a blatant twisting of facts coming from an collectors-rights activist and dealer in ancient artefacts really deserves attention. Mr Welsh, as he proudly tells us is the Unidroit-l listowner, where a number of these odd collectors' mantras (for here we have a veritable hoards of them in association) have been fully discussed. So its simply an indication of a totally closed mind that merely comes back and repeats the whole lot over again. Time and time again. Are these the people that we are being urged by the politically correct to "build bridges" with?