 |
| Analysing the Frome Hoard (BBC) |
For why I see this as important, see my post "Dugup "Numismatics is the study of dies....""]
Peter Tompa suggests that items claimed as treasure in the UK may be "not of real cultural significance so a listing in the [Treasure] report and on-line is probably quite enough" to deal with them
For coins, I'm not sure that more than a listing with information about how and where they were found is necessary in most cases.I raised the issue of the die linkage studies which are trotted out as an excuse for private collecting by the ACCG. Mr Tompa does not seem to regard this in the same light as his fellow numismatists:
Die studies are great, but not sure why they should be a Treasure Act or PAS requirement as they are very time consuming and rely upon finds of the exact same coin type or related types sharing obverses or reverses.Like in a hoard for example. But that is exactly the point I am making, if we are digging up material from undisturbed archaeological depoosts, then we have to devote the time and resources to studying and publishing them properly, which in the majority of cases with 800-900 reported Treasure finds annually, the UK is failing to do.
3 comments:
It must be true. The august Arthur Houghton has given Peter Tompa his blessing and dubbed him a great scholar, even though he publishes zilch on numismatics. It must be great to have such pontifical powers and to criticize other commentators who have published exponentially more. Good thing Arthur Houghton got to inherit daddy's name. So authoritarian. He's so well known as a scholar too. His publications, almost always co-authored with others who do the real work.
You are talking apples and oranges. Die studies are done using large groups of coins (often unprovenanced) of an identical type or where the obverse or reverse are the same. Hoards can, but don't typically contain the exact same coin types, indeed they often contain diverse types from different mints and geographical locations. That certainly appears to be the case for most coins reported in the UK.
If you don't believe me, why not confer with Elkins about it. Now that he has indicated he is a fan of the Treasure Act and PAS, it will be interesting to hear if he thinks conducting die studies should be a requirement under the Treasure Act and PAS. And if so, why not make it a requirement for coins found by archaeologists as well?
On the contrary, most third and fourth century coin hoards from Britain (due to the nature of coin supply) do indeed contain very large numbers of coins from the same issue, in any case, we have so many of them, that the same issue can be studied across many hoards.
If you don't believe me, why not ask Professor Elkins?
The same goes for large deposits of 'Celtic' coins, if you don't believe me ask John Hooker, you may be aware he did such a study based on some hoards.
I thought the ACCG position was that die studies should be carried out, no?
What IS the ACCG position on what constitutes the proper publication of a coin hoard find? The standard to which collectors aspire and would find useful for their own deliberations?
Post a Comment