"Studying the Past Through Little Round Bits of Metal"

Coin collectors like to dignify their acquisitive habits by calling it numismatics and suggesting it is a discipline (though apparently one without a formalised methodology of its own). They claim that we have to allow them to buy smuggled coins no-questions-asked, because the other approach (getting them to acquire these study material responsibly like in other disciplines) would in some way hold up the science. They are all home-based independent scholars you see? It is therefore interesting to take a look at a collectors' forum and see what evidence there is of that. Please do. So, in the thread I was discussing earlier we find two telling signatures. The first belongs to Gil-galad, the ACCG supporter:

Ancient Coins: 116, Roman Emperors: 68, Roman Provincial: 4, Byzantine: 3, Islamic: 2, Judean: 5, Chinese: 5 

So, he's collecting to make up what they call a 'date series' (by emperor)? What kind of 'study' is that? the second is Masis (Pillar Of The Community ):

Aquired since December 2011: 103 Roman emperors, empresses and caesars in coin, 1,245 in total and counting (and learning!). Some are currently for sale here

 So another who is collecting by emperor. Note that in 13 months (this was posted  01/13/2013 ) he'd managed to get through 1245 dugup coins. 1245 holes in archaeological sites in God-knows-where, 1245 missing pieces of potential archaeological information. Multiply that by the number of coin collectors in just Europe, the USA and Canada and you will get an idea of the scale of damage caused to the archaeological record each year by this activity.

Another contributor to the thread is bobbyhelmet. His signature in this thread contains evidence of his level of erudition:

In 423 AD Honorius, Emperor of the West, banned the wearing of pants in Rome!My eBay: http://www.ebay.com/sch/bobbyhelmet/m.html

Let's take a look at that. My eye was caught by this coin "Rare Silvered Quintillus Hoard Coin - CONCOR EXER Roman Coin Top Grade", and that's not because it is not actually "top grade" (sic) - it being seriously missrtruck for a start - and he'll give the buyer a certificate of authenticity. It's from a hoard:

 From a hoard found on the south downs near Worthing, England [...] 100% authentic, from a hoard (cant give any further provenance but the information I got from the buyer - but this is definitely from a hoard, I sifted through many hundreds of similarly beautiful coins to find it).  [...] I also have other coins from the hoard but wasnt carrying enough money to buy many - the nicest of the rest being a Gallienus zoo series Hippocamp. 

Two things significant here, Bought from a "buyer' and not the finder, but more to the point, it's been through perhaps two pairs of hands and already lost its provenance. All we have is the hearsay "I heard from the bloke I got it from it's from a hoard".  Where is the reference to it having been disclaimed as Treasure? How does the buyer know it HAS been if the seller does not give documented proof of that? If the hoard has not been declared, and it should have been, the seller would be selling illegal goods. So where is the information which affirms that this is not an illegal piece of cultural property, just silence and vagueness around the issue? The antiquity laws of Britain (such as they are) are not actually all that difficult to keep to. Which is why, surely, here at least we should expect clear indications in each case that they are being adhered to. Wuill the BM "policing eBay" query this? No, I bet they do not. Will eBay contact the seller to make sure that they undertstand that they are not allowed to sell illicitly-obtained items through the portal, and ascertaining that no law has been infringed in these coins coming onto the market? What do you think? When will we see an end to this utterly careless attitude among those selling such items? We have here an item that could have been put on sale with the name of the hoard, the date it was found and the number of the treasure case /PAS record, information which it would be up to the buyer to keep with the coin when they pass it on. Instead all we have is a vague "a bloke told me" collecting history and no more, which means a lost collecting history and a lost provenance. Pathetic.

http://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=155283