Hooker quotes A.A. Milne

Canadian coin collector John Hooker writes this morning to ancient coin collectors on Moneta-L on the subject of "Bulk lots of Roman coins" and reveals something of his taste in literature.

There is a tremendous amount of nonsense being spread about bulk lots of Roman coins from Britain being sold in the U.S. Almost all of this is by people who have very little knowledge of numismatics, have never published anything on the subject and who have even less knowledge of coins in the archaeological context. Only one of these spokesmen can make any claim to some knowledge of these subjects and he is a tyro to the subject. In dealing with the more complex levels of numismatics, especially in its archaeological context, one starts to get the hang of things usually after about twenty years. [...] As for these supposedly "well-meaning" "concerned citizens" with little real knowledge of the subject and no art at all, what can I say? I think that Winnie the Pooh sums it up nicely: “When you are a Bear of very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.”

Well, of course one of the purposes of blogging thoughts is so that it gets them out in the open and has other people looking at them and examining them in various contexts. This discussion is of course not about coins as art objects or subject of typological study, but about coins as archaeological artefacts (just like any other). It is about the use (or in this case prevention of use) of a particular group of ancient metal artefacts as evidence of the patterns of human activity within a region. That region is not in Canada or Wisconsin, but the place from where those archaeological artefacts were removed from the ground. On that subject I do have (well) more than twenty years experience.

I say that removing random elements from among the patterns and assemblages of archaeological artefacts from the soil in the places where they have been laying since they were deposited is damaging our ability to interpret those patterns. John Hooker likens me to a "bear of little brain" for saying so. He seems to be of the view that removing year after year an unknown (but obviously large) quantity of material like ancient coins from unknown areas of relict landscapes all over the old world has no 'significant' effect whatsoever on the archaeological record. Like Mr Tompa then.

I really think the PAS, "partner" of collectors, and "Friend of Numismatists" needs to step in here. Collecting these data and making them available for research is what it does. Collector Hooker is questioning the fundamental reasons behind that. Let the PAS for once defend what they do against the misinformation that is being constantly spread by ACCG-affiliated collectors of ancient coins who see the Scheme only as a shield for their hobby when it suits them. Until they do, with reference to what Hooker says, I'll add that no amount of "statistics" can compensate for a randomly damaged database. John Hooker suggests that:

if you want to attempt some sort of distribution pattern from non-site surface finds, then go ahead. It will not be very useful because you must make a number of assumptions without good evidence. Should you try to include every coin found? of course not!

I'd question what Mr Hooker really knows about the "assumptions" that he claims lie behind archaeological field survey. So, by that argument, we can pack up the PAS then as we've already gathered some hundreds of thousands of pieces of information about findspots. It seems to me that there is a different problem, if we allow destruction of a finite, fragile and important resource, then we cannot let that damage go on unmitigated. All we "tyros" are asking is that collectors ("friends" and "partners" of archaeology ostensibly) help ensure that it is by only buying material which has been properly recorded and legally obtained and exported. Obviously for people like Mr Hooker that is far too much of us to ask or expect and merely suggesting it is enough to make individuals the object of his comments.

What is more, John Hooker reckons that because of the concerns that have been raised about unethical and illegal practices on the antiquities market:

Asking a European dealer for a provenance sets up alarm bells with them these days. They know what can then happen. It is far simpler to say "it's from an old ___ collection". This is what these supposedly well-meaning fools have accomplished.

The dealers admitting where the stuff they sell comes from "know what can then happen", so that's why they keep quiet? Well, one of the things might be that they could go to jail if it turns out they are dealing in illegally obtained materials. Hooker suggests that if a dealer will not reveal where something comes from and where they got it from its the fault of those "fools" in the heritage protection lobby, and not the collectors who will buy stuff no matter where it came from and how it got there? A neat way for collectors to absolve themselves of responsibility.

Readers can find the rest of John Hooker's lengthy post here.

Photo: Bear of Very Little Brain (Allegro).