Huge hoard of Roman coins discovered
Michigan
Posts: 4,942 ✭
A HOARD of Roman coins unearthed in a Suffolk field is the largest discovery of its kind ever to be made in Britain.
Experts say the rare find of 621 copper alloy coins, made by a metal detector enthusiast in October, could have been buried for safe-keeping during times of political turmoil.
John Newman, from Suffolk County Council's Archaeological Service, said the treasure, which would originally have been adorned with a silver wash, was of the usurper emperors Carausius (287-293 AD) and Allectus (293-296 AD).
“This appears to be the largest hoard of legitimately minted coins of the two usurpers from Britain to date,” he said.
“The coins are made up of 258 of Carausius, and 347 of Allectus, minted at London and possibly Southhampton or Colchester, which was the first time official mints were set up in Roman Britain.”
During a treasure trove inquest in Bury St Edmunds yesterday, coroner for Greater Suffolk Peter Dean heard how metal detectorist Paul Flack contacted Suffolk County Council after discovering 30 of the coins, which he correctly identified as being of Roman origin.
“We were able to mobilise a small team of archaeologists - funded by the Portable Antiquities Scheme - who excavated the area and found the remaining coins,” said Mr Newman.
“We ascertained the coins had originally been placed in a pottery jar and then buried on the edge of a Roman period ditch, close to an area of known settlement - probably a moderate farm - but had been scattered by the plough lines running through the field.
“A pile of flints was also discovered which may have been used to mark the spot where the coins were.”
The coins, which are currently being kept at the British Museum where they will be cleaned and conserved ready for valuation by the Treasure Valuation Committee, were probably worth around four or five months wages for a labourer at the time they were buried.
Dr Dean commended Mr Flack for helping to save the “great historical value” of the coins by reporting his find to the council immediately. “This is a find that should be considered treasure under the Treasure Act,” he said.
Local museums have now expressed interest in buying the coins. Peter Merrick, chairman of Friends of Mildenhall Museum, said he would be making enquiries to determine exactly where the coins were discovered.
Experts say the rare find of 621 copper alloy coins, made by a metal detector enthusiast in October, could have been buried for safe-keeping during times of political turmoil.
John Newman, from Suffolk County Council's Archaeological Service, said the treasure, which would originally have been adorned with a silver wash, was of the usurper emperors Carausius (287-293 AD) and Allectus (293-296 AD).
“This appears to be the largest hoard of legitimately minted coins of the two usurpers from Britain to date,” he said.
“The coins are made up of 258 of Carausius, and 347 of Allectus, minted at London and possibly Southhampton or Colchester, which was the first time official mints were set up in Roman Britain.”
During a treasure trove inquest in Bury St Edmunds yesterday, coroner for Greater Suffolk Peter Dean heard how metal detectorist Paul Flack contacted Suffolk County Council after discovering 30 of the coins, which he correctly identified as being of Roman origin.
“We were able to mobilise a small team of archaeologists - funded by the Portable Antiquities Scheme - who excavated the area and found the remaining coins,” said Mr Newman.
“We ascertained the coins had originally been placed in a pottery jar and then buried on the edge of a Roman period ditch, close to an area of known settlement - probably a moderate farm - but had been scattered by the plough lines running through the field.
“A pile of flints was also discovered which may have been used to mark the spot where the coins were.”
The coins, which are currently being kept at the British Museum where they will be cleaned and conserved ready for valuation by the Treasure Valuation Committee, were probably worth around four or five months wages for a labourer at the time they were buried.
Dr Dean commended Mr Flack for helping to save the “great historical value” of the coins by reporting his find to the council immediately. “This is a find that should be considered treasure under the Treasure Act,” he said.
Local museums have now expressed interest in buying the coins. Peter Merrick, chairman of Friends of Mildenhall Museum, said he would be making enquiries to determine exactly where the coins were discovered.
0
Comments
Thanks for posting that
My OmniCoin Collection
My BankNoteBank Collection
Tom, formerly in Albuquerque, NM.
Completely off topic, but have you ever run across any additional information about the alleged Incan treasure find on the "Robinson Caruso" island? Great story to set the imagination running, but I never saw any followup. It ran about 6 months ago I believe.
<< <i>“This is a find that should be considered treasure under the Treasure Act,” he said. >>
Except I thought the treasure trove laws only covered objects made of gold or silver. Being copper alloy these coins would not be considered treasure under the treasure trove laws. It is very nice that he notified the authorities but under the law the coins would be his.
(Fortunately Britains treasure trove laws are very fair. If objects are declared treasure and taken by the state, the finder is compensated the fair market value so he doesn't lose out. It encourages people to report their finds because they can't "lose" if they do, but can lose big if they don't and are found out.)
(Fortunately Britains treasure trove laws are very fair. If objects are declared treasure and taken by the state, the finder is compensated the fair market value so he doesn't lose out. It encourages people to report their finds because they can't "lose" if they do, but can lose big if they don't and are found out.)
This is wise, indeed. Our legislators could learn a thing or two.
Obscurum per obscurius
<< <i>Good story - you consistently post the most interesting articles on both the US and this forum!
Completely off topic, but have you ever run across any additional information about the alleged Incan treasure find on the "Robinson Caruso" island? Great story to set the imagination running, but I never saw any followup. It ran about 6 months ago I believe. >>
I remember that story. Haven't heard anything more about it.
<< <i>
<< <i>“This is a find that should be considered treasure under the Treasure Act,” he said. >>
Except I thought the treasure trove laws only covered objects made of gold or silver. Being copper alloy these coins would not be considered treasure under the treasure trove laws. It is very nice that he notified the authorities but under the law the coins would be his. >>
If more than 10 coins are found (hoard) they are also considered treasure under the act, no matter what they are made of.
<< <i>(Fortunately Britains treasure trove laws are very fair. If objects are declared treasure and taken by the state, the finder is compensated the fair market value so he doesn't lose out. It encourages people to report their finds because they can't "lose" if they do, but can lose big if they don't and are found out.) >>
He actually only gets half of the money, as he must split it with the land owner of the site the treasure was found.
I would not strike the landowner from some compensation, but on the other hand it just seems pretty strong to get 50%.
Possibly the best solution for lack of a better one.
Nick
<< <i>He actually only gets half of the money, as he must split it with the land owner of the site the treasure was found. >>
Is this written into the law? I would think that the split between the landowner and the searcher would be a private matter between them. Although I can see how a mandated split would encourage property owners to allow detectorists to search. It would also help to prevent hard feelings or lawsuits that would come from a property owner not making an agreement with a detectorist beforehand and then the detectorist keeping all the money. I would think that 50% woud be excesseve though since the detectorist does all the work. It wod seem to me that 25% would be more reasonable.
<< <i>
<< <i>He actually only gets half of the money, as he must split it with the land owner of the site the treasure was found. >>
Is this written into the law? I would think that the split between the landowner and the searcher would be a private matter between them. Although I can see how a mandated split would encourage property owners to allow detectorists to search. It would also help to prevent hard feelings or lawsuits that would come from a property owner not making an agreement with a detectorist beforehand and then the detectorist keeping all the money. I would think that 50% woud be excesseve though since the detectorist does all the work. It wod seem to me that 25% would be more reasonable. >>
Here is what the law states in chapter 24.
(3) If the Secretary of State determines that a reward is to be paid, he must also determine, in whatever way he thinks fit-
(a) the treasure's market value;
(b) the amount of the reward;
(c) to whom the reward is to be payable; and
(d) if it is to be payable to more than one person, how much each is to receive.
(4) The total reward must not exceed the treasure's market value.
(5) The reward may be payable to-
(a) the finder or any other person involved in the find;
(b) the occupier of the land at the time of the find;
(c) any person who had an interest in the land at that time, or has had such an interest at any time since then.
In all cases I have seen, the land owner received half without question.