Article About Metal Dectorists in the New Yorker

I found this article in the New Yorker interesting:

The Curse of the Buried Treasure

My guess is that many CT members have heard of this find.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Wow.. Very interesting and super long article.
I started reading it and have heard similar stories and the laws.

Will read it all when I get my lunch break.
Thanks for sharing.

 

Thanks for sharing. I don't detect, but, I do like anything history related.

 

It won't let me read it because I have an Ad Blocker.
I tried to read the darkened text then it shows this.



I suppose every other person who clicked the link and read it contributed to the complimentery article free read.

Cheapskate prats

 

I do get the New Yorker magazine. I'll have to check it out.

 

..is that you or are you talking bout the New Yorker?!?...><...i've got adblock too..

 

I tried to read it too, but got blocked out. They must have learned something from the Mint.

 

I had some trouble too but then managed to read the article by signing in without a subscription in Google. I had read about this before with interest because I used to live not more than 3 miles from the Antiques Centre referred to in the article. I used to metal detect and other than a World War One Sea Mine and hundreds of beer can pull rings was never able to contribute to my ancients collection and did not have the time to pursue the hobby diligently. What is apparent from reading the Metal Detecting press is that "finds" are usually declared in a proper manner and hoards are properly excavated by archeologists in the UK, probably as a result of the success of the good reporting of fair market value being given to finders and the appeal of good publicity. Who wants to hide their light or prowess under a bushel!

 

Paddyman98 are you mentioned in the article....?

 

Very interesting thanks for posting it.

 

Interesting read. Bad lapse of judgement and quite a severe penalty as a result.

 

Despite the enormity of what these people did, the article was almost wryly encouraging, not only for the severity of the penalties, but for the author's care to mention the more commonly followed protocol. To this day, whenever I look at the UKDFD or Portable Antiquities Scheme, it's truly heartening to see the extent to which most detectorists are willing to function almost (at some risk of exaggeration) as an unofficial 'fifth column' for archaeologists.

 

Fascinating article. I had read about the case before, but this was the most detailed treatment. In general, the U.K. system, while not perfect of course, seems to work rather well to incentivize the reporting of hoard finds. Certainly a great deal better than the systems in many Eastern European countries where, as I understand it, all metal detecting of ancient coins and artefacts is illegal. Why would anyone ever report anything they found?

Do I understand correctly from the article that under UK law, bronze coins (or any coins < 10% silver) do not have to be reported, no matter how many one finds? So if a detectorist finds 500 post-250 AD antoniniani, he or she can simply keep or sell them? What if they find a mixed hoard of 500 bronze coins and three silver coins? Do they have to report only the silver coins, or the entire find?

 

...All I know is that, anecdotally, later Roman hoards (presumably running to bronze, but from memory), if they're substantial enough, routinely get coverage from the BBC, including some notice of, for instance, the museums they end up in.

 

Oh absolutely not, thankfully I have never had any dealings with them!
I am based in Wales so know the area but from my point of view doubtful provenance is catching a Tiger by the tail, eventually it will bite you!

 

Well like many laws it is "grey" and open to interpretation. Theoretically the law relates to precious metals and quantum but in reality the finders now know that provenance enhances value. On the whole , these are intelligent people not looking for wedding rings on beaches and they research topography and history and I am affiliated to a local group to consider "finds" but have no time to participate. I was shown a magnificent Octavian denarius Bull denarius recently declared to the local FLO but did not have to be declared as a single item but its declaration indicated movement from East Wales to West Wales.
The major problem with museums is that they have budgets but no space to exhibit and as a consequence they subjugate history. I hate them in many respects. For example in Wales, I have seen museums with trash buckets filled with donated WW1 medals but the museum will never show them because they do not have the space. Collectors on the other hand will conduct genealogical research and perpetuate the history of the recipient. Medals donated to museums normally destroy the history of the recipient and this is disgraceful because recent generations will venerate and preserve.
Museums like most religions can destroy history. Why simply observe when we can participate and ask why ? Why? seems to be a major problem in Covid Society.
This is probably a subject for another thread.

 

This article is a fascinating read and a cautionary tale as well.

Thank you for the link.

 

That doesn't matter nearly as much anymore, now that museums are able to put their entire numismatic collections online for everyone to see, as opposed to leaving most of their collections in storage where nobody will ever see or even study them. I don't know, however, what percentage of museums with major coin collections have done that.

 

I do wonder why museums hold insignificant finds as in anecdotally, buckets? I do know the British museum has in the past sold off stuff like Egyptian scarabs etc that they had in the many thousands - I own a couple of them and one of them is a blue faience example.

 

Even the Smithsonian doesn't exhibit their whole numismatic collection. I have contacted the Museum of African American history regarding the donation of a post civil war era plantation scrip note - even though the piece is likely unique and tells a story so far they have not been interested.