ANS: Heath Tries to Persuade

.
The next contribution to the American Numismatic Society (ANS) discussion about "Ancient Coins and the Cultural Property Debate" (see the post above this) is a text by archaeologist ("lifetime ANS member") Sebastian Heath who is there to present the archaeological view ( Peter Tompa is the next contributor invited ). I must admit I found Heath's text disagreeably smarmy in tone and lacking somewhat in content (the first two paragraphs are solely about the author - repeating to some extent Witschonke's introduction - so a slow start).

The archaeological content is missing because like coiney Witschonke in the preceding piece, Heath inexplicably presents an object-centred view. In his all-too brief presentation, a hoard (the Frome Hoard from England) is contrasted with coins the selling of which somehow (not really explained) "leads to further destruction of knowledge about the ancient world" because "the coins found by a detectorist and his mates could have been of great cultural importance". Well obviously they are not, I discuss this case in some detail on this blog (Wednesday, 6 October 2010, Wisconsin Reverend has Metal Detecting Friends in the UK and here, 20 October 2010 More Coins Fresh from the English Archaeological Record on Sale in Wisconsin ) and list the sort of coins involved.* Its not the coins that are important here, but the fact that they were ripped from an unknown site or sites without any form of documentation, which is information that can never be put back into the archaeological record. The archaeological information contained in those sites has been damaged or destroyed just so that somebody across the sea can have a few more coins to fondle.

Sadly, Heath gives his readers not an inkling of the fact that what is of importance is not that "the coins are taken" to fuel the expanding no-questions asked market, but "what they are taken from" and the damage caused when this occurs. That is what the archaeologist invited to contribute to this debate should surely be getting over here.

Perhaps he cannot do that for two reasons. The first is that the USA where this debate is taking place has no archaeological sites of its own producing these ancient coins. The looting the market for "minor" (sic) metal artefacts from Antiquity causes is perhaps not so much in-your-face over there as it is on this side of the Atlantic. The American collector is divorced from it somewhat, these apparently are wholly abstract concepts for them - but this should not apply to Dr Heath who has worked over here if I am not mistaken. Also this is just a result of the narrow focus of such people, looting of other artefactual material does take place in the US and the destruction to the archaeological record is just as great if it is Anasazi pots or Attic pots and coins being dug out.

Perhaps a more significant reason is that Heath chose the British Isles as his example, and as we all know, "metal detecting" is not there in any way (we are asked to believe) "damaging", but instead the British artefact collectors plundering British sites for collectables some of which are destined for the international market are (we are asked to believe) British archaeology's "partners". It would have been better if Heath had taken Bulgaria as his example - for that is clearly where very many of the coins on the US market are coming from, and the issues are far clearer. The photos from Archar for example are really shocking.

[*Far more apposite as a contrast to Heath's hoard example would have been the comparison with another dodgy deal of the same seller: Monday, 8 March 2010 Wisconsin Clergyman Sells Unprovenanced Augustan Coin hoard on eBay].

Vignette: this should be about conservation, not saving numismatic information.
Threatened heathland at Hawley Common, Rushmore England.
.