More Misinformation of Collectors on the Yahoo AncientArtifacts List

Following on from the Yahoo AncientArtifacts group thread which I discussed earlier here, Adrian White (probably not a collector I would think) wrote there:

Translation of this from Dave [Welsh]s' tedious 'bureaucrat-speak':- we coin dealers want to go on dealing in anything we want with no regard to the destruction of archaeological sites by looters who are our primary source. And we don't want foreigners telling us what they want to do with their heritage.

John Hooker disagrees:

it is utterly wrong! Most collectors are not terribly interested in site finds -- their average density/ value ratio is not very high. There are exceptions of course, but not enough to count on! The vast majority of coins in desirable condition are hoard coins. The majority of hoards are accidental finds, not prospected. Various sorts of construction and erosion being the source of their discovery (See c. Haselgrove BAR 174). Why is this so? -- because a metal detector is not going to locate a hoard buried two feet down. The majority of metal detected hoards are on plowed land at a depth of less than a foot (generally 4-8 inches)

Now, somehow although this thread started off discussing glass bought at Bonhams, the artefacters seem to be on the topic of coins yet again. the coineys are taking over the asylum.

Now, on that topic, I have actually been metal detecting and I would like to ask whether all those collectors who write with such confidence about what metal detectors and metal detectorists "do" (and "don't do") have even held a metal detector in their hands? Mr Hooker seemingly has not. So we find the following inaccuracies in what he wrote on the Yahoo AncientArtifacts list:

1) "Most collectors are not terribly interested in site finds" Nonsense, targetting known archaeological sites is a prime means of finding "productive" sites for collecting. Not only is this the practice, but even the non-detectorist can pick this up from the literature on "how to find a productive site". In any case once the artefact has wandered no-questions-asked across the Atlantic to a dealer's website, how can the collector possibly tell if a given artefact on sale comes from a settlement, grave, hoard (or stolen from a site museum)? The collector is interested in what takes their fancy if the price is right, and is generally ("traditionally") not at all interested in where it actually comes from.

2) "their [archaeological sites'] average [artefact] density/ value ratio is not very high". Complete nonsense, see above. That the finds from them have a value beyond the archaeological is indicated by how many are nighthawked.

3) "The vast majority of coins in desirable condition are hoard coins". Nonsense. A coin can be lost in any condition (some pretty nice ones come from cess pit and sewer fills in towns), not all hoard coins are uncirculated. This is very much the case here in central European barbaricum, but I guess Hooker is talking of other places. Nevertheless generalisations like this are always unsafe.

4) "The majority of hoards are accidental finds, not prospected. Various sorts of construction and erosion being the source of their discovery (See c. Haselgrove BAR 174)". Well, instead of an ancient pre-PAS book why not cite the figures from the discoveries under the English Treasure Act and Scottish Treasure Trove system? The contrary is in fact true, as any Treasure Report will show. The majority of hoards in the UK is found by metal detecting, most often on sites the finder knew was likely to be "productive".

5) "The majority of metal detected hoards are on plowed land at a depth of less than a foot (generally 4-8 inches". No, anything lying in ploughed land at a depth of four inches is scattered by the plough. You would be most unlikely to find a complete pot containing coins in a ploughed field at a depth of four inches.

6)"Why is this so? -- because a metal detector is not going to locate a hoard buried two feet down". Nonsense again. Mr Hooker has obviously not been metal detecting. The factors which affect depth of penetration are many and various, but one of them is the weight of the metal present. The larger the mass of metal down there, the deeper the signal will be detectable. A single coin may be impossible to find two feet down, a few thousand of them will give a signal. A World War Two tank even more so from an even greater depth (I've seen it).

It seems to me that portable antiquity collectors prefer to hear such glib platitudes uttered by somebody who actually has little idea of what they are talking about to having an open and frank discussion about the origins of the things they collect. This obviously makes them feel uncomfortable, and they prefer to shut out such discussion from forums like Tim Haines' Yahoo AncientArtifacts group. Nevertheless, however uncomfortable these issues may be, they will not go away by simply not talking about them. Especially in a group which purports to support "responsible collecting" as this one does.

I wonder why there are so few UK metal detectorists contributing to the discussions on the yahoo "AncientArtifacts" group? Do they not collect ancient artefacts, or do responsible metal detectorists find all this talk about avoiding export licences while hypocritically claiming to be "responsible collectors" as distasteful as the rest of us?

UPDATE: I learn that Mr Hooker has now posted on the Yahoo list a link to somebody else's "experiments" ("We decided to carry out 2 tests in my garden (while woman was at work)") to substantiate his claim that metal detectors cannot detect hoards at any depth (this by the way was Gary's Detectors, the one that sells the night-vision stuff for seeing if the farmer is coming). There are a number of reasons (apart from the spelling) why this "experiment" cannot be regarded as definitive. in any case Mr Hooker will have to explain how hoards are found at these depths by metal detectorists in the UK. [OK, perhaps they have surprising unknown telepathic abilities, which is why they must wear tinfoil helmets and hide the contents of their forums from the rest of us]. I'll address Gary's "experiments" another time...

Photo: Courtesy Heritage Action.