tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3279887958085077691.post1387145938623303199..comments2024-02-22T10:35:12.485-08:00Comments on Cultural Property Observer: System Now Rigged; Underlying Facts Have Not ChangedCultural Property Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05924359202414555962noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3279887958085077691.post-83081040607320413382016-10-27T09:10:19.672-07:002016-10-27T09:10:19.672-07:00This comes from a scholar/dealer:
I just read you...This comes from a scholar/dealer:<br /><br />I just read your latest post, which I must say strikes me as extremely well written, sensible and rational. In fact, it is one of your best to be sure.<br /><br />Needless to say, I also tuned in to our favorite fountain of knowledge and good sense to see what he had to say. My, my, my but he does seem upset! In any case, among his many curious comments is the following:<br /><br />"The 'cultural property lawyer' would presumably think that in Colonial Williamsburg 'coins are the most common artefact' found. I wonder if he has been there and asked the staff or is he just making this up as he goes along? In Pompeii? In Pharaoh Ahmose's tomb? On the streets of Dura Europos? In a Pictish crannog? A Tuscan Roman villa? The Athenian Agora? The excavation of WW1 trenches at Ypres?"<br /><br />This is a perfect example of how you can be criticized for what you haven't said and don't mean. I would say that coins are among the most common of all ancient artifacts that are found in areas where coins were used.Of course, pot sherds, bricks, tiles and so on are actually found in much greater number than coins are, but this should be obvious. After all, a large transport amphora can shatter into 100s of pieces, each appearing as a single find, while a coin from the same period remains a single find. <br /><br />1. While coins undoubtedly were used in Colonial Williamsburg, they were certainly not a major part of its economy. I would bet that coins were not all that common there until the later 18th and earlier 19th century. <br /><br />2. Immense numbers of coins have been found in Pompeii, ever since it was first excavated in the 18th century. Though pots, tiles and bricks are surely more common.<br /><br />3. No coins were found in Pharaoh Ahmose I's tomb - one reason for that might be that Ahmose I, founder of the 18th Dynasty and of the New Kingdom, ruled in the mid 16th century BC, approximately 1000 years before coins were invented.<br /><br />4. Huge numbers of coins were found in Dura-Europos - just look at the final report volume by A. R. Bellinger.<br /><br />5. Pictish Crannogs might have the occasional coin that had been taken in raids or the like, but the Picts had no coinage of their own and probably only used them as bullion if they had them.<br /><br />6. A Tuscan Roman villa, or a villa in Britannia or Dalmatia, or anywhere else, will not produce many coins simply because the inhabitants would not commonly be walking around the house dropping and losing coins. If danger approached a villa might be the site of a hoard, secreted for safety, but a villa site is not the same as a city site where coins would be dropped in passing.<br /><br />7. The Athenian Agora has produced over 100,000 coins (including illegible pieces).<br /><br />8. A WWI trench at Ypres is not a place where anyone would bring a purse of coins, so its excavator should not expect to find more than a very few.<br /><br />How's this to answer one of his vaporings?Cultural Property Observerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05924359202414555962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3279887958085077691.post-78924658880443072222016-10-26T08:20:22.184-07:002016-10-26T08:20:22.184-07:00Hi Peter:
I've just visited another blog and ...Hi Peter:<br /><br />I've just visited another blog and I'm still laughing. It's very funny stuff. Highly recommended and a brilliant example of how not to write a blog; turgid and dense, the latter being the operative word. You'll need a machete to cut a path through it. <br /><br />Nevertheless, in relation to the 'dig dollars' debacle you highlighted, my initial reaction was that poor pay is no indicator of criminal intent; nor should it be assumed that only underpaid excavation workers are the only ones with sticky fingers and connections to that part of the criminal underworld specialising in heritage theft. There are many well documented examples of antiquities theft carried out by those further up the salary scale and food chain. <br /><br />But in a rare moment of candour, the aforementioned prose masher who's not widely known for his love of numismatists, collectors, metal detectorists, the US, Israel, democracy, or anyone smarter than he is, appears to have had a Damascene conversion:- <br /><br />"The lawyer [that's you, Peter!] fails to prove that looting is exclusively, mainly or sometimes done by former site workers. Or restricted to archaeological sites (and what about church thefts?)." <br /><br />The inference being heritage criminality really does reach further up the salary scale (something we've all known about for years). Then he goes and spoils things by introducing - without, as usual, any proof whatsover - a new class of heritage villains...crooked clergymen. <br /><br />I think he'd be wise not to venture outside when there's lightning about. <br /><br />Best wishes<br /><br />John Howland<br />UKJohn Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752752229384757087noreply@blogger.com