Skip to main content

The Newport Pagnell Coin Hoard: Update

I have had further feedback about the discovery of the Newport Pagnell coin hoard. Julian Watters of the Verulamium Museum who acted as the Finds Officer for the case has informed me:
Just to clarify, it is a hoard of 1471 mid 4th century nummi. Most of the coins were initially recovered by the two finders; I was then called the next day and came out and did an excavation, recovering some pottery and more coins in the process.
He then adds:
The detectorists dug out the coins and then filled the hole in. The excavation was entirely my work (I think it was 2m by 2m). I'm not sure which photos you are referring to but if they show a man in a square hole, they were taken the following day.

The photographs appear here.

So it seems that the detectorists dug a 1 m deep hole in the dark to recover most of the coins and that Julian Watters investigated the disturbed find-spot the following day.

The hoard is not yet on the PAS database as that will be upgraded in the new year.

Comments

BAJR said…
the photo does not seem to show a 1 m deep hole... Did Julian verify this 1 metre deep hole? or are you assuming from a newspaper article?
David Gill said…
It appears that Julian 'excavated' the hole that had been 'dug' the previous evening. So the photograph of Julian's trench does not show the depth at which the hoard was found.
BAJR said…
"It appears that Julian 'excavated' the hole that had been 'dug' the previous evening. So the photograph of Julian's trench does not show the depth at which the hoard was found."


Sorry but I don't understand

I don't see a 3ft hole at all.. or the traces of a 3ft hole pit that is filled in... I see a 2m square excavation...
Paul Barford said…
David, as you can see in the third photo in the sequence referred to, showing the very beginning of the excavation, and you can see that the crop has previously been heavily trampled in that area.

The question is though whether really the find was made by these two detectorists the "previous day" (the fill of the pit is pretty well compacted for a hole that was dug and backfilled in the dark the previous day) or whether the discovery was made earlier as seems to be suggested by my correspondence on Friday with local metal detectorists. There are some other things which simply do not "tally" in the account which the (admittedly brief) newspaper report suggests was presented to the coroner. I am intrigued.
BAJR said…
I am intrigued.

Me as well..

there seems to be lots of guesses and assumptions and everyone says they are facts.

As yet... nobody is coming up with hard facts... and that is what worries me.

Do you have anything other than the newspaper report and a guess at what the the photo shows?

Paul Barford seems to have set in stone the events, which are then quoted and agreed with as if hard facts .. but when it is looked at carefully, everyone is just guessing and assuming... not the sort of way archaeologists should work.
David Gill said…
I have read the short (2 pages of A4) report compiled by two members of the British Museum: for further details see here.
BAJR said…
sorry, but that was not the questions asked - the concept of "disturbed stratigraphy" is already a given - though the type of pot ... and the location, and other details and dating evidence are available..

I asked other questions.. s'ok though, you don't need to answer.
Julian Watters said…
I feel I should add something to this ongoing debate. To be perfectly honest, I find the whole thing completely ridiculous! The use of secondary, or even tertiary, source material as the basis for this debate is lazy journalism at best.

I would like to state that I am satisfied with the way this case has proceeded to date. My excavation of the hoard site was carried out to the highest professional archaeological standards and the strategy employed was entirely appropriate for the situation encountered. A report detailing the circumstances of the find, the excavation methodology, and the results of both my work and that of any associated specialist contributors will be published in the near future. Until then, I don’t think it is possible to have an informed debate on the subject.

Julian Watters (Herts and Beds FLO)
Julian Watters said…
I feel I should add something to this ongoing debate. To be perfectly honest, I find the whole thing completely ridiculous! The use of secondary, or even tertiary, source material as the basis for this debate is lazy journalism at best.

I would like to state that I am satisfied with the way this case has proceeded to date. My excavation of the hoard site was carried out to the highest professional archaeological standards and the strategy employed was entirely appropriate for the situation encountered. A report detailing the circumstances of the find, the excavation methodology, and the results of both my work and that of any associated specialist contributors will be published in the near future. Until then, I don’t think it is possible to have an informed debate on the subject.

Julian Watters (Herts and Beds FLO)
David Gill said…
Dear Julian

It would be helpful if you could state where your report will be published.

I have not questioned your professional standards - you were called in to investigate a reported 1 metre deep (back-filled) hole from which a hoard of Roman coins had been extracted.

For the record I have seen the short two page report prepared by staff in the British Museum.

Best wishes

David

Popular posts from this blog

Marble bull's head from the temple of Eshmun

Excavations at the temple of Eshmun in Lebanon recovered a marble bull's head. It is now suggested that it was this head, apparently first published in 1967, that was placed on loan to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art (Tom Mashberg, "Met Museum Turns Over Another Relic With Disputed Past to Prosecutors", New York Times August 1, 2017 ). The head is reported to have been handed over to the Manhattan district attorney after a request was received from the Lebanese authorities.

It is suggested that the head may have been looted from an archaeological storage area at Byblos in the 1980s during the Lebanese civil war. Mashberg has rehearsed the recent collecting history:
The owners of the bull’s head, Lynda and William Beierwaltes of Colorado, say they have clear title to the item and have sued Manhattan prosecutors for its return.  The Beierwaltes bought the head from a dealer in London in 1996 for more than $1 million and then sold it to another collector, Michael …

The Toledo skyphos and a Swiss private collection

The Attic red-figured skyphos attributed to the Kleophon painter in the Toledo Museum of Art (inv. 1982.88) is now coming under further scrutiny following the research of Dr Christos Tsirogiannis. The skyphos shows Hephaistos returning to Olympos.

Tsirogiannis has identified what appears to be this skyphos in five photographs in the Medici Dossier. The museum acknowledged that the skyphos had resided in a 'private Swiss collection'. Tsirogiannis suggests that this is probably a reference to Medici.

Enquiries to the museum by Tsirogiannis elicited the information that the skyphos had been acquired from Nicholas Koutoulakis (although that information does not appear on the museum's online catalogue).

The curatorial team at the Toledo Museum of Art will, no doubt, be contacting the Italian authorities to discuss the future residence of the skyphos.

For further discussion of the Toledo Museum of Art on LM see here.

Reference
Tsirogiannis, C. 2017. "Nekyia: Museum ethics an…

Metropolitan Museum of Art hands over Paestan krater

In May 2014 I commented on a Paestan krater acquired by New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art after it had been identified by Dr Christos Tsirogiannis in photographic images seized from Giacomo Medici. Tsirogiannis published his full concerns in the Journal of Art Crime in 2014, but it has taken a further three years for the museum to respond.

The krater showing Dionysos in a hand-drawn cart was purchased in 1989 from the Bothmer Purchase Fund (details from the Museum's website, inv. 1989.11.4). The krater surfaced through Sotheby's New York in June 1989.

It is unclear who consigned the krater to Sotheby's New York.

It has now been revealed that the krater has been handed over to the US authorities after a warrant had been issued (Tom Mashberg, "Ancient Vase Seized From Met Museum on Suspicion It Was Looted", New York Times July 31, 2018).

It appears that the museum did make an attempt to resolve the case in December 2016. Mashberg notes:
The Met, for its par…