He was fortunate enough to receive a good education, which set him in good stead for the complex situations he would meet with as the eventual ruler of England and other territories.

Becoming king

Agreement with King Stephen

Henry’s first visit to England was as a child in 1142; later in the 1140s two attempts to gain the throne failed. Another invasion mounted in 1153 could have led to much bloodshed had not a settlement been reached, whereby Stephen would remain as king until his death and then Henry would take the throne.

Marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine

In May of 1152 Henry married Eleanor of Aquitaine, only two months after her marriage to Louis VII of France had been annulled. The couple would eventually have five sons and three daughters: William (died very young), Henry, Richard, Geoffrey, John, Matilda, Eleanor and Joan.

Crowned King of England

On 25 October 1154 Stephen died and on 19 December Henry Plantagenet was crowned as King Henry II of England. In 1150 Henry had become Duke of Normandy. On the death of his father in 1151 he became Count of Anjou and through his marriage to Eleanor in 1152 he gained Aquitaine. This made him the greatest ruler in Western Europe and his charters were issued under the titles of King of the English, Duke of the Normans and Aquitanians, and Count of the Angevins. Through war, luck and marriage he had come to rule over not only England but a huge slice of France.

Early years as king

Resolving problems from the past

Henry’s first task after he ascended the throne was sort out problems left by the reign of Stephen. Many castles that had been built without license were pulled down and royal authority re-established throughout most of the land. These two aims had been achieved by 1158, together with the overlordship of Scotland. In 1157 Northumberland and Cumberland were surrendered by Malcolm IV of Scotland to England and relations between the two countries remained stable for some time afterwards.

Unruly barons

An example of his early problems with unruly barons is Hugh Bigod, who was allowed to inherit the numerous East Anglian estates of his elder brother when he was drowned in 1120, along with Prince William (heir to the throne) and many other nobles. He also gained the lands of his aunt, Albreda, which were situated in Yorkshire and in Normandy.

On the death of Henry I, Hugh initially supported Stephen but proved to be untrustworthy. At one stage he seized the castle at Norwich but was forced to surrender when Stephen laid siege to the city. At the First Battle of Lincoln in 1141 Hugh fought on Stephen’s side but then took him prisoner. This led to Hugh being granted the earldom of Norfolk by the Empress Matilda. He also supported the notorious Geoffrey de Mandeville during his rebellion against Stephen in 1143-44. Henry II spent the first years of his reign restoring order to his kingdom but Hugh remained troublesome. However, he submitted when Henry marched into the eastern counties in 1157.

Wales

When it was believed that England had been subdued some of the Marcher lords who had been granted land on the frontier zones between England and Wales started to expand their territories. Henry himself attacked Wales in 1157, 1158 and 1163, in an attempt to bring the Welsh leaders to heal. However, bad weather and the ‘hit and run’ tactics of the native combatants prevented him from scoring a significant victory.

In a fit of pique Henry II ordered that the noses and ears of the daughters of Welsh princes, at the time being held as hostages, be cut off; this was followed by the blinding and castration of the girls’ brothers. Later, in 1175, Seisyll ap Dyfnwal of Gwent, together with his wife and small son, were among the Welsh victims of a massacre at Abergavenny. Henry then decided to simply let the Marcher lords do much as they pleased in Wales. The push into Wales by these lords would continue and eventually lead to many castles being built.

One commentator wrote: “They [the Normans] vigorously subdued the natives [of Wales], imposed law upon them in the interests of peace and made the land so productive that it could easily have been mistaken for a second England. There can be little doubt that the Welsh would not share this rosy view of their land being invaded.“

Ireland

Soon after Henry II came to the throne he discussed plans for an invasion of Ireland. However, Henry had more pressing problems to solve, so for the time being the plans were shelved.

In 1169 Richard de Clare (full name Richard fitz Gilbert de Clare), who was the second Earl of Pembroke and later known as Strongbow, answered an appeal for help from the King of Leinster. This was the first time that English soldiers entered Ireland in force. Richard would eventually marry the daughter of an Irish king.

Two years later 400 ships transported Henry II and a large army over to Ireland. Henry claimed he had come to stop the Irish killing each other and most of the local kings submitted to him. After keeping the most important ports for himself (Dublin, Wexford and Waterford) he granted estates to his main followers. In the north John de Courcy took a large part of Ulster in 1177 and set himself up as an independent ruler. In the same year Henry made his youngest son, John, King of Ireland, hoping that Pope Alexander III would agree to him being crowned. Consent never arrived but John took up the title of Lord of Ireland and visited the country in 1185.

Nobles in England became the owners of great estates in Ireland, despite the fact that some of them never went there. Some English settlers, together with a few Welsh and Flemish, crossed the Irish Sea to farm, trade or manufacture goods of one kind or another. William of Newburgh, writing in the 1190s, said of the changing face of Ireland: “This marked the end of freedom for the Irish, a people who had been free since time immemorial. They had not been conquered by the Romans, but now they fell into the power of the King of England.”

European affairs

Henry’s Continental possessions would always take up more of his time and during a reign of 34 years; he spent 21 of them across the Channel.

Flanders

Soon after the start of his reign, Henry had expelled from the country all the Flemish mercenaries then in England, for he had heard that some of them were planning to kill him. The Count of Flanders (Thierry of Alsace) had favoured the French king (Louis VII) but he then leaned towards Henry, as the wool trade between England and Flanders (passing through the port at Boulogne) was very profitable to both parties. Relations between these two trading partners became so friendly that when in 1157 Thierry went on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem he appointed Henry as the guardian of his eldest son, Philip.

Boulogne and a forced marriage

In 1159 William of Blois, the second son of King Stephen, fell ill and died outside the gates of Toulouse, presumably when he was part of Henry II’s army. This left vacant the lordships of Mortain and Boulogne; the latter included manors in Colchester and London. Henry added Count of Mortain to his long list of titles but wanted to grant Boulogne to Thierry’s son, Matthew. However, William’s sister, Mary, inherited the county and became Countess of Boulogne. Around the year 1150 Mary became a nun and by 1155 she was Abbess of Romney Abbey in Hampshire.

This could have scuppered Henry’s plans in regard to Boulogne but he soon managed to find a way to settle matters to his satisfaction. On Henry’s order Matthew abducted Mary from Romney Abbey and forced her to marry him. This raised up Matthew to be co-ruler of the County of Boulogne and thereafter he was favourable towards England. The marriage between Matthew and Mary was annulled in 1170 and she then became a nun at Montreuil, dying there in July of 1182.   

Toulouse

In 1163 a treaty originally set up during the reign of Henry I was renewed between Henry II and Thierry of Alsace, through which Flanders would provide Henry with knights in exchange for an annual payment.

Henry’s first major campaign on the Continent was against Toulouse, which he claimed should be his by right through his wife’s inheritance. The county was the largest in the kingdom of France and the city of Toulouse was very rich and heavily fortified. Other significant cities included Narbonne, Cahors, Nimes and Carcassonne.

In June of 1159 Henry assembled a large army (one account says the army was led by his Chancellor, Thomas Becket), with contingents from his territories in France, plus English soldiers and added forces from Flanders and Scotland. There can be no doubt that these fighting men hoped to be able to share out the wealth of Toulouse between them. Henry attacked from the north, whilst some of his other supporters opened fronts in different areas.

Cahors was captured together with a number of other castles and the fighting dragged on after Henry left to sort out problems elsewhere in his empire. He was in Toulouse again in 1161 but then left it to his allies to continue the struggle for the county. In 1173 the Count of Toulouse, Raymond V, finally gave up and paid homage to Henry II of England.

Brittany

In 1156 the Duchess of Brittany, Bertha, died. Bertha was the widow of Alan de Bretagne, with whom she had a son, Conan. On the death of his father in 1148 Conan had inherited the title of Earl of Richmond. When his mother died Conan became Duke of Brittany. In 1160 he married Henry’s cousin, Margaret of Scotland. There was a tradition of weak rule in Brittany and discontent amongst the nobles led to a revolt in 1166. This was put down by Henry, who then betrothed his son Geoffrey to the daughter of Conan, who was forced to abdicate in favour of his future son-in-law. This left Henry in control of Brittany, a situation to which many Breton nobles were opposed. This led to invasions of Brittany, which were followed by confiscations of estates of holders, who were replaced by supporters of Henry.

By 1173 Brittany, though not officially part of Henry’s empire, was under the control of men loyal to him. The way that Henry manipulated the affairs of Boulogne, Toulouse and Brittany highlights the method in which he gained influence over territory he did not have direct rule over.

Thomas Becket

Becket’s early life

Thomas Becket was born in 1119 or 1120 in Cheapside, London. Both of his parents were of Norman descent and his father owned property in London. He was influenced by Richer de L’Aigle and visited his estates in Sussex. Becket was fortunate enough to receive a good education but was forced to take up a position as a clerk when his father’s business interests suffered a setback. Later on he gained a position in the household of Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury. He represented Theobald on missions to Rome and was then sent to study canon law at Bologna and Auxerre. In 1154 Theobald raised Becket up to Archdeacon of Canterbury and gave him several other ecclesiastical offices.

Beckett and Henry become close friends

He proved to be so efficient that in January of 1155 Henry II appointed him Lord Chancellor of England. Becket and the king soon became close friends. From relatively low beginnings, Becket had risen up to be the holder a secular position second only to the king. It is said that he became famous for his luxurious style of living and that his table was resplendent with gold and silver plate.

Archbishop of Canterbury

Theobald died in 1161 and the See of Canterbury was vacant for more than a year. Early in 1162 Becket was nominated as Archbishop of Canterbury and on 23 May his election was confirmed. Many said he was undeserving of this high ecclesiastical office, for his lifestyle was too extravagant and worldly. No doubt King Henry believed he would be the ideal archbishop, as he would put the government of the realm before that of the Church.

On 3 June 1162 Becket was consecrated as Archbishop of Canterbury by Henry of Blois (brother of King Stephen), Bishop of Winchester, together with other subordinate bishops. The king was in for a great surprise, for the consecration of Becket turned him into a different man. He took his position as head of the English Church extremely seriously, even when it meant antagonising the king. Their close friendship was soon forgotten.

Disputes

One of their disputes centred on the way that churchmen who had committed crimes could circumvent the civil law by being tried in an ecclesiastical court. In this way their punishments, if any, were usually far less severe. Henry demanded that miscreant churchmen should be defrocked and handed over to the civil authorities. This was opposed by Becket and in this he received support from other high officials of the Church.

In January of 1164 Henry drew together a council at Clarendon and presented the bishops with a statement of the king’s customary rights over the church; he then demanded from them a promise to observe these customs. After arguing for two days Becket gave in. However, he then changed his mind. Thoroughly exasperated by this, Henry summoned him before the Royal Court to answer trumped-up charges. Becket was found guilty and stripped of all his estates.

Fleeing to France and returning to England

In fear for his life, he fled from England and appealed to Louis VII of France and the Pope for protection. However, by first agreeing to the demands made at Clarendon and then doing an about-turn, he left the English Church in a state of confusion.

In 1169 Henry met Becket (perhaps by appointment) at Touraine in France and this led to the archbishop being recalled to England.

His return on 2 December 1170, amidst a splendid retinue, is said to have been welcomed with great applause.

The final straw

On 14 June 1170 Henry II had his eldest son crowned by the Archbishop of York as King Henry III. This is the first and only time that there have been two kings of England at the same time.

After spending years in exile Henry might have hoped that Becket would be more conciliatory in his dealings with the king. This wasn’t to be. Becket was furious that the Archbishop of York had taken part in the coronation on 14 June and he persuaded the Pope to suspend the archbishop.

It was in a rage after hearing about this that Henry II uttered the words: “Will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest?”

Murder

On 29 December four knights (William de Tracy, Reginad FitzUrse, Hugh de Morville and Richard le Bret) entered Canterbury Cathedral and murdered Thomas Becket. Afterwards they took all the loot they could lay their hands on and then rode off.

This deed shocked the entire Christian world. Henry II did penance for this crime and in record time Pope Alexander III declared Becket to be a saint.

The coinage

It is probable that the last issue of pennies of Stephen (‘Awbridge’, type 7) started to be struck after the king had agreed that Henry would succeed him on the throne of England. They would continue to be struck until 1158, when the first coinage commenced in the name of Henry II. The new king had much work to do at the start of his reign, so the currency of the realm would be left to others.

In 1154 all sorts of official and unofficial coins would be in circulation. The latter would include many baronial coins, which were struck without royal authority under the slack rule of Stephen. In 1158 a new coinage (from 31 mints) commenced: the obverse with a crude portrait of the king and the reverse with crosslets in the angles of a cross pattee.

Tealby coinage

A large hoard of these coins was found at Tealby in Lincolnshire in 1807 and afterwards pennies of this type were named after that hoard.

The weight and fineness of English pennies remained the same. However, the standard of striking of the ‘Tealby’ type was appalling as illustrated here by one of our reader’s finds.

Well-struck specimens are few and far between.

The only exceptions being some of those from the northern mints situated in Carlisle, Durham and Newcastle, as illustrated by this find from Anthony Hopkinson.

Improvement to the coinage

In 1180 the ‘Tealby’ coinage came to an end and was replaced by coins with a voided short cross with a cross pommee in each angle on the reverse. This was a change for the better, for the standard of striking was far superior to pre-1180 coins. For this coinage the number of mints was reduced to only ten; they were spread about the country to facilitate the circulation of coins. Below are examples of this coinage found by readers of this website:

Rhuddlan

From around 1180 until well into the reign of John, there was a mint at Rhuddlan in Wales.

The dies were produced locally and the coins struck from them do not conform to the rest of the short cross series. The example shown here was found by reader, John Lashmar.

Anglo-Gallic coins

The reign of Henry II witnessed the first issue of Anglo-Gallic coins. These would come to be struck not only in the king’s name but also in the names of other members of the royal family. Over time the Anglo-Gallic coinage became larger, more complicated and included gold, silver and base metal issues. The earliest coins (the denominations were deniers and oboles) were struck in the name of Henry II to circulate in Aquitaine. Although meant only to circulate in parts of France, a few Anglo-Gallic coins ended up in England and occasionally turn up as detecting finds. The early coins and some of the later ones are not scarce but the series includes some extreme rarities, which are eagerly sought after by collectors.

Henry II and the laws of England

Curia Regis

During the reign of Henry II there was no House of Commons. There were laws of one kind or another, which the king would swear to uphold at the time of his coronation. The Curia Regis (Court of the King) was the central court, which the king, as supreme feudal lord, held for his tenants-in-chief (both secular and spiritual) and this could be described as a House of Lords. Others who had some kind of special knowledge or influence might also be called to attend the Curia Regis.

Development of the justice system

Henry saw a need to spread royal justice over all his subjects. It has been said of him that one of his greatest achievements was his development of English government and justice. His measures included giving the Curia Regis the exclusive jurisdiction over all serious crime; the establishment of the principal of the ‘King’s Peace’, which meant that a crime was no longer regarded as a wrong against an individual but instead as a wrong against the State. He hastened the demise of the old and unsatisfactory means of trial (ordeal and battle) by developing the system of trial by jury. All this tended to make the English more equal with their rulers. In 1154 lectures on canon and civil started to be held at Oxford.

Feudal system

Amendments were also made to the feudal system, one of which led to an increase in the payments of scutage. The feudal system was based upon reciprocity. At the top end a tenant-in-chief had been granted land in exchange for specific obligations, the main of which was to provide the king with fully equipped fighting men during times of need. The tenants-in-chief themselves could grant land to lesser tenants, who also had obligations, which could include military service. At the bottom end of the feudal triangle were serfs, who were tied to the estate they lived on. They would have to do a specified amount of unpaid work and in return they would be under the protection of whoever ruled over the area in which they worked.

Scutage

The payment of scutage released a person or institution (for example a monastery or abbey) from a certain obligation. Henry was a very wise man and must have speedily realised that when people are paid they will put in more effort than if they are doing something simply because they are obligated to do it under the feudal system. Therefore, when he was in need of an army he often called upon his tenants-in-chief not to provide men and arms but to pay scutage instead. Leading on from this, whilst part of an army might have joined through being obligated to do so, the other part would be there because they were being paid.

Money

The money in circulation greatly increased when the voided short cross coinage was introduced in 1180. Whole pennies become more common, as do cut fractions. This may well be to do with scutage descending down the feudal triangle. Tenants-in-chief and their sub-tenants may have been in the same mind as King Henry, in that they had come to believe that men worked harder and longer for cash. Therefore, even some of the lowest members of society may have been able to pay scutage in order to release them from obligations owing to their immediate superiors.

Family affairs

When there was trouble somewhere within or outside his empire Henry was willing to take up arms when he was challenged. Experience would have taught him that it was impossible to keep everyone content but the challenges of the early 1170s came from an unexpected source: his own family.

The disputes would involve his four surviving sons: Henry, Richard, Geoffrey and John.

Young Henry

In 1170 Henry’s oldest surviving son, Henry, had been crowned as king but was given no land to support his raised status. A couple of years later Richard became Duke of Aquitaine. In 1173 the Young King Henry asked his father if he would grant him part of his inheritance – England, Normandy or Anjou – but Henry refused.

The Young King was so upset by this refusal that he joined Louis VII at the French Court. The younger Henry then joined with Eleanor (his mother) and together with his brothers Richard and Geoffrey revolted against Henry II. Seizing on an opportunity to bring down Henry II, William of Scotland, Count Philip of Flanders, Count Matthew of Boulogne and Count Theobald of Blois joined with them. King Henry put down the revolt and imprisoned his mother.

William of Scotland was captured and held at the Chateau de Falaise in Normandy where he was forced to sign the treaty of Falaise.

Hugh Bigod again

In England one of the main leaders of this revolt was an old enemy of the king, Hugh Bigod. Together with Robert de Beaumont (Earl of Leicester), he besieged and took Hagenet Castle in Suffolk. However, Robert was taken prisoner at the Battle of Fornham (near Bury St. Edmunds) by Richard de Luci and other barons. Robert then turned against Hugh, who was forced to enter into negotiations. The end result was that he had to surrender his castles but he was allowed to keep his land and earldom. Hugh would never again have the strength or will to trouble King Henry II. 

Richard and then John

Louis VII died in 1180 and was succeeded by his son, Philip, who was 15 years old at the time. Henry’s fourth son, Geoffrey, became Duke of Brittany in 1183. Richard’s administration of Aquitaine made him unpopular and in 1183 the younger Henry joined in a revolt to overthrow him. Others involved were Philip of France, Count Raymond V of Toulouse and Hugh III of Burgundy. However, the death of Henry later in 1183 led to Richard holding on to Aquitaine.

The death of the young Henry left Richard as heir apparent to Henry II. Richard refused when he was ordered by Henry to hand over Aquitaine to John. Geoffrey of Brittany fell out with his brother Richard and Philip II hoped to use this to his advantage. However, this plan came to nothing when in 1186 Geoffrey was killed whilst taking part in a tournament.

Soon after this Philip and Richard became allies. Needless to say, this was much to the displeasure of King Henry. In 1188, after paying homage to Philip II for the Continental lands held by his father, Richard and Philip went to war against Henry II. Le Mans, Henry’s place of birth, was captured, Tours fell, and Henry was eventually forced to surrender at Chinon.

Two days later Henry died, some say of a broken heart, after hearing that John, the son who had previously stayed loyal to him, had joined with Philip and Richard.

Henry II’s legacy

Brighter future after the civil war

In 1154 Henry became king of a country whose people had lived through a civil war fought between King Stephen and supporters of the Empress Matilda. Some of the ruling elite might have profited from this but most ordinary folk must have been relieved when the conflict ended, for it allowed them to get on with their everyday lives. Thus, the death of Stephen would have brought a sigh of relief and the crowning of Henry II will have met with cheering and hopes for a brighter future.

Control over the law and finances

With England free from strife Henry could attend to other matters of State. His legislative achievements, merely touched on in this article, were many. The strict control over the Exchequer ensured that money wasn’t wasted or misappropriated by those appointed to collect it. And, all the tenants-in-chief in England bowed to the word and authority of the first king of the Plantagenet dynasty.

Energetic and cunning

Louis VII of France once commented that the King of England seemed to be here, there and everywhere all at the same time. This, of course, would be impossible but when inspecting parts of his empire he did it with great speed. Fortunately for him, he started his reign as a young and fit man, so he would take in his stride the distances covered. Henry had boundless energy, a sharp and educated mind, imagination and vision. However, when the situation demanded it he could be forceful, cunning and manipulative, which, it could be argued, were attributes needed by a 12^th century ruler of both England and lands on the Continent.

Four great lessons

It has been said of Henry II that by the time of his death four great lessons had been instilled into the English people:

One: They had been taught to pay taxes, which is a lesson the French monarchy never succeeded in pressing home;

Two: They had been taught that a crime was an offence against the king’s peace, over which the Curia Regis would have exclusive authority

Three: They had learned that there was one law for whole country, administered by one supreme court, the Curia Regis, with its judges going on circuits throughout the country representing the power of the king; and

Four: they had become aware of the duty of co-operating in various ways in the task of government, either as tenants or citizens, or as jurors for the assessment of taxes, or in the judgement of cases in the county courts.

Over worked

Rather than from a broken heart, the death of Henry II is more likely to have been caused by decades of over-work. All the years of strain and effort involved with governing a complex empire had finally taken their toll.

The post Henry II – his life and coinage appeared first on Detecting Finds.

Anyone keeping up to date with recent events will know that at an EGM on 10th July 2021, the majority of the NCMD Executive decided that they “will no longer recognise … as members of the Executive Committee” four executive officers of the Yorkshire, Midlands, Southern and Western regions. Effectively, they were removed from their long-standing positions. It strikes me as obvious that these four men should take part in the mediation process as they represent one side of the disputed matters.

Curiously, the NCMD is refusing to accept the chosen nominees from the four regions. This is tantamount to picking and choosing. The representatives from the four regions are ready and willing to enter into the mediation procedure. The ‘four’ are not picking and choosing: they will meet with any officer or officers of the NCMD who wish to be involved.

One side to a mediation process should not say who can and cannot attend it from the other side. The NCMD offered mediation and the ‘four’ said they would be involved in it – so, stop the bickering and let’s get on with making the necessary arrangements. I hope that the NCMD’s public offer of mediation was not a hollow promise. It offers the best way forward and an opportunity to re-unite the NCMD and allow it to focus on the threats and opportunities that face our hobby. The NCMD has always been a broad church and let’s hope it continues to be so.

By the way, I’ve been accused more than once of being biased towards the ‘four’; this, despite the fact that I said my website may be the only platform where both sides could state their case. The offer still stands. The only thing I won’t permit is abuse, whatever direction it comes from. However, I do welcome comments, opinions and legitimate criticism.

The post Talks about talks in deadlock appeared first on Detecting Finds.

In December 2020, I published Institute of Detectorists – a cause for concern? The article detailed how the Association of Detectorists (AOD), led by Keith Westcott, is proposing to set up an Institute of Detectorists (IOD). Historic England gave the IOD £50,000 in July 2020 to fund a feasibility study. The National Council for Metal Detecting (NCMD) were invited to participate on the Advisory Board of the IOD, but declined to do so.

I placed several polls in that article to gauge opinions from the detecting community and will provide the results of those in this update. Also in this update are the results of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to Historic England. These reveal the hidden agenda and strategy for the IOD. It’s how Keith Westcott plans to seize control of the hobby of metal detecting.

Poll results

There were some 250 submissions made for the four polls in my first article. Here are the results:

Conclusion

The last three questions provided a clear view on where detectorists stand on the IOD. Given what I have unearthed since then, they were right to be concerned.

Less clear cut, although still 2 to 1 against, was whether the NCMD should participate. I presume those against participation are concerned that the NCMD’s participation could give the IOD undue credibility. They would certainly have been outnumbered by bodies with an archaeological interest.

Historic England frustrate Freedom of Information request

Initial Request

On 2 December 2020, I submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to Historic England. FOI requests should be responded to within four weeks, although most responses are quicker than that. Historic England said they would need six weeks to respond. They failed to respond within six weeks. When they eventually responded, it was incomplete and significantly redacted.

Review

I asked Historic England to conduct a formal review of their response. Once again this was returned late and incomplete. I complained to them that their review was incomplete, but they did not respond.

ICO Complaint

I have, therefore, lodged a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) who oversee FOI requests. Hopefully, this will lead to the release of all the requested information.

Transparency of award of public funds

My FOI request is regarding the issue of £50,000 of taxpayer’s money to the IOD. Among the information that Historic England are currently refusing to release is their internal procedures for processing the award of a grant. They will also not release who authorised the grant. I would expect bodies that give out public money not only to have robust procedures but be keen to demonstrate that they have them.

This lack of transparency contrasts markedly with the publicity they gave to the award of the grant.

IOD’s hidden agenda

Historic England have released some documents and emails. Although these are redacted and incomplete, they do provide a valuable insight into the true agenda of the IOD.

Project Design

To apply for the grant, the IOD were required to produce a Project Design. Historic England paid Keith Westcott £3,000 to write this.

Project Design – Final Version

The final version of the Project Design is available here: 7851 The Institute of Detectorists. It is written by Keith Westcott and Manda Forster and details the plans for the IOD.

When I read this Project Design it seemed professionally produced and most of what it contained seemed reasonable.

Project Design – Draft Versions

However, there appear to be a number of previous drafts of the Project Design. Historic England have repeatedly refused to release these to me.

These drafts were distributed to various third parties for their comments. It is by reading these comments that it becomes clear what Keith Westcott’s true intentions are and what he really thinks about detectorists.

Below, I have set out some of those comments and alongside, what this tells us. I have used a green background for quotes from third parties and a blue background for those from Keith Westcott.

It is clear from these comments that significant changes were made to the Project Design. It appears that this was only done to enable funding to be secured.

Absence of comments from the Detecting Community

In the information released to me by Historic England, it appears that there have been no comments sought from or obtained from the detecting community.

What is the £50,000 being spent on?

It is clearly of significant public interest how £50,000 of taxpayer money will be spent. Historic England have redacted the finance section of the Project Design, claiming it is commercially sensitive.

Project Ambassadors

A number of detecting publications, rally organisers and equipment suppliers were either ambassadors to the IOD or sat on the advisory board of the AOD. Several of these have now publicly distanced themselves from the IOD and AOD. In particular, I have been informed that The Searcher and its editor now has nothing to do with the IOD, and have made a public statement to that effect.

Other emails

Other emails either from Keith or third parties to Historic England provide further evidence of Keith’s agenda and strategy.

Ignore the detecting community and go direct to landowners

Detectorists shouldn’t own their finds

Funding avoids the need for consensus

Regulation to suit archaeologists rather than detectorists

Appearing to be a detectorist

No Passport – No Detecting!

Conclusion

Keith is keen to appear to be a detectorist, who is on the side of detectorists in general. However, his comments indicate the disdain in which he holds the detecting community, the NCMD and even the PAS system. His strategy is not to engage with detectorists. Instead, he will circumvent them by going to the land owners. Also, he doesn’t need the support of the detecting community, as Historic England will provide him with funding. Under his vision for detecting, you will pay him for the privilege of going out detecting, via his Passport scheme. And what you find will become part of his National Collection.

What to do about it

NCMD

If you are concerned about the IOD and you are not already a member of the NCMD then consider joining them at www.ncmd.co.uk.

Threats

I am aware that threats of violence have been posted online and sent to Keith Westcott and other parties associated with the IOD and AOD. Criticism is fine but threats are quite clearly not.

The post IOD – the hidden agenda appeared first on Detecting Finds.

I most certainly can’t say the same about the weather in 2021 but in 2020 it started off quite good. In January I was out on the 5^th, 12^th and 19^th, on each occasion with my club. In February outings were held on the 16^th and 23^rd and in March on the 1^st and 8^th. Then, of course, the lockdown started and my club had only one more outing during the whole of 2020.

Plenty of scrap metal and then something special

The find I refer to now turned up on 16 February. My club was on a very large field that had recently been ploughed. It was too rough to detect in some places but other areas had been flattened down a bit by rain the previous day. During the morning session I’d found a small Roman grot, which isn’t much but better than nothing. After lunch I had a few decent sounding signals but they all turned out to be bits of scrap metal.

It would be around 2 o’clock when I dug up something I thought I recognised. However, I had to put on my glasses to be sure. Now that I could see it clearly I could hardly believe my eyes. It was an Anglo-Saxon pyramid mount (see the illustrations). These things aren’t particularly rare but my club has had access to this field for around 15 years and the mount was the first find that dates from the Anglo-Saxon period.

Did it count as Treasure?

When I arrived home I studied the mount more closely. They are usually 12-15mm square at the base, the sides can be decorated or plain, the top is inset with a garnet and they are almost invariably silver-gilt. My find was intact except for the garnet but appeared to me to be gilded copper-alloy rather than silver-gilt. If it was copper-alloy it would not count as a Treasure find. However, I couldn’t be certain about its composition, so to be on the safe side I reported it as Treasure. Within a couple of months I heard from the FLO that it was silver-gilt and it had been given a Treasure reference number. The PAS reference is SWYOR-CEFC54.

If in doubt, report finds

This proves what many detectorists already know: totally unexpected finds can and do turn up just about anywhere. It also highlights that fact that if there is any doubt whatsoever about the composition of a find then it needs to be reported. No harm is done if it turns out to be base metal. However, if at some time in the future you realise you have a find in your collection that should have been reported then you could be in trouble.

Given a Treasure reference number

My find was speedily given a Treasure reference number because York Archaeological Trust had expressed an interest in acquiring it. Presumably, it was regarded as a worthwhile addition to the Anglo-Saxon collections already in museums situated in York.

Yorkshire Post phone me with result of Treasure inquest

On 25 January I received a letter from the office of the Senior Coroner for North Yorkshire and York, letting me know that an inquest on the mount would be held on the 1^st of February. Due to the fact that the inquest would be held in North Yorkshire and travel was impossible because of the Covid restrictions, I did not attend. However, a reporter from the Yorkshire Post telephoned me and said the coroner had declared my find to be Treasure. I spoke to the reporter for about ten minutes, telling her about the circumstances surrounding the find and other snippets about finds and detecting in general.

Connection with Sutton Hoo

Mounts like the example I found are thought to have been attached to the scabbard of Anglo-Saxon swords. Evidence for this comes from the burial of the ship at Sutton Hoo. Three large mounds were excavated there; two contained very little but inside the third was a ship and some utterly superb Anglo-Saxon artefacts. A pair of mounts, similar but much finer than the one I found, were discovered close to a sword hilt. It has been suggested they could have adorned a scabbard. Date wise, they could be late 6^th to 7^th century. Leading on from this, at this moment in time my find is rather topical, for a film has just been released that focuses on the excavation of the mound at Sutton Hoo.

What I find most amazing about the Sutton Hoo burial is that for generations afterwards people in the surrounding area will have known that a ship and treasure was in the mound. Yet no-one attempted to dig into it! In Egypt most of the tombs of Pharos were speedily robbed out. Does this mean that the Anglo-Saxons were more honest? I don’t know. Perhaps generation after generation guarded the mound until a time came when the content was forgotten. Whatever is the case, it was left intact until the 20^th century, when it was opened up to reveal its wonderful hidden secret.

The post A story about one of my finds appeared first on Detecting Finds.

George Gordon Byron

Newstead Abbey was eventually sold for £94,000 in 1818. On 19 April 1824 Byron died in Greece, a country of which he was exceedingly fond. The details about Lord Byron and Newstead Abbey might seem irrelevant but the reason I have included them will become clear later on.

Discovery of the hoard

Press reports

On 25 March 1966 The Times published an account of the initial discovery of the Fishpool hoard. It also appeared in the May 1966 issue of Seaby’s Coin and Medal Bulletin. The report in the latter was the first I heard about the hoard, as I had missed the notice in The Times. A hoard of about 1,000 ancient gold coins had been found on a building site near Newstead Abbey, Nottinghamshire. The coins had been handed over to the police at Mansfield. The hoard was to be sent to the British Museum for examination and cataloguing. A museum curator said he would not argue with a tentative value of £30,000. The site developers said the coins bore traces of having been enclosed in a canvas or leather bag, which had rotted away.

Unearthed by an excavating machine

For those involved in the recovery of this spectacular hoard the day would have started much like any other. There were four workmen and a lorry driver on the site. Also present was a small boy, aged five, who lived nearby. One of the workmen was operating an excavating machine. He said coins were first sighted when the mechanical shovel scooped up a group of them. From this account, it is impossible to say if the shovel hit upon the hoard just below the surface or in a trench. Imagine the scene: piles of large and shiny gold coins suddenly appear out of the blue! The job in hand must have been forgotten as the four workmen and the lorry driver started to pick up coins and jewellery. The small boy, too, joined in and managed to get hold of four coins.

The finders

The four workmen were John Craughwell (the excavating machine driver), James Flint, Alfred Martin and Michael Blythe. The lorry driver was Bernard Beeton and the small boy David Welham. In 1966 the old law of Treasure Trove was in place. An inquest would be needed to establish whether the hoard had been lost or purposely hidden.

Coins sold to a dealer

A mystery man

Prior to the inquest, in May of 1966, a man calling himself Hewlitt Cosgrove Thompson walked into a coin dealer’s shop in London with three gold nobles. Thompson said the coins were part of his grandfather’s collection and the dealer paid him £500 for the group. This dealer (Dealer A) sold them to Dealer B for £625. This wasn’t big profit in percentage terms but £125 was a lot of money in 1966.

In June Thompson sold four more nobles to Dealer A for £1,500. On this occasion Thompson said he had an Edward IV noble; this was a great rarity, for at the time only four specimens were known. On the next visit Thompson was paid £7,330 for a number of gold coins, one of which was an Edward IV noble. In July Dealer A bought more coins for £14,280 in cash. Two of which were sold to Dealer B for £12,750. In all, Dealer A had bought coins for a total of £23,610.

Suspicions aroused

By now Dealer B was becoming suspicious about all the hammered gold coins coming from Dealer A. Dealer B, a director of the company on whose behalf he had bought the coins, is quoted as saying: “I contacted the British Museum authorities before I had learned of the finding of the hoard at Fishpool. I only learned of the hoard as a result of my inquiries at the British Museum. I established beyond doubt that these coins belonged to this find. As a result I handed them over shortly afterwards to the British Museum.”

Hewlitt Cosgrove Thompson was never traced, so his exact identity remains a mystery. However, somehow or other he had access to coins from the Fishpool hoard. Had his identity been established he could have been prosecuted.

Treasure Trove inquest

The inquest into the hoard was held on 14 and 15 December 1966. Most of what follows is taken from pieces published in The Times. These were included in the February 1967 issue of the Numismatic Circular. There are also extracts from the Nottingham Evening Post, which were featured in the February 1967 issue of Seaby’s Coin and Medal Bulletin.

Coroner’s instruction to the jury

The coroner told the jury that about 1,200 coins had been found at Fishpool. He went on to say: “If you establish that it is Treasure Trove you will have to decide whether the find was properly disclosed to me through my officials in such a manner that in no circumstances the finders could be deemed to have concealed any part of it. If you determine it is Treasure Trove and there was concealment, the right to receive any reward from her Majesty’s Treasury will be lost.”

Craughwell and Flint admit to hiding coins and jewellery

At the inquest, John Craughwell and James Flint both admitted that they tried to hide part of the hoard from the police. In an office on the building site, the day after the discovery, Mr Craughwell handed over some coins and jewellery to a PC Taylor. He told the officer he had found one gold chain, one gold locket, one gold ring and 244 coins. However, only 190 coins were revealed. In August he amended his statement and said he had found 279 coins and kept 35 of them. He later admitted to finding 285 coins. He said he hid some of them behind a skirting board at his home.

On 24 March and 20 August 1966, James Flint made statements saying he had found 325 coins, a ring and a brooch. On 25 August he admitted that he had found 354 coins. He said that he had handed over 348 to PC Taylor and kept six, which he buried in his garden. He is reported as saying: “We always felt like telling the truth but we were frightened of what might happen.”

Coroner’s summing up

In his summing up, the coroner described Mr Craughwell as a “self confessed liar”. Of Mr Flint, he said: “He had the chance to come clean earlier, but did not take it”. The coroner added that the conduct of Mr Blythe and Mr Martin was just the same. He suggested that the four of them might have “got together to cook the goose” for PC Taylor.

At the previous day’s hearing PC Taylor was alleged to have short-counted the coins handed in by Mr Craughwell. The constable had been suspended during police investigations into the find and later temporarily reinstated pending a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The coroner praised PC Taylor for coming to the inquest to face the challenge of cross-examination. He was described by the coroner as “a lowly policeman”, whose word was entitled to be believed just the same as anyone else’s.

The inquest jury decided that the find was Treasure Trove and the property of the Crown. They ruled that only two of the six finders – Bernard Beeton and the boy, David Welham – should be rewarded. The others had concealed some of the items they had found. In doing so their right to a reward was forfeited.

Content of the hoard

Accompanying the coins were a number of pieces of gold jewellery: a heart-shaped enamelled brooch, an amethyst-set pendant cross, a sapphire-set roundel, a padlock, four finger rings and a quantity of gold chain. All the items are in wonderful condition and of superb quality.

As could be expected with a hammered gold hoard of this exceptional size, it included quite a number of rarities and a few coins that were previously unknown. The latter included a Henry VI leaf mascle coinage half noble, a Henry VI cross pellet coinage noble, and an Edward IV heavy coinage quarter noble.

The most amazing element of the hoard, though, was the inclusion of no less than 62 heavy coinage nobles of Edward IV. Prior to the discovery of the Fishpool hoard only four examples were known. Now those four were joined by another 62! Included amongst these coins were several new varieties. As these were the ‘newest’ coins when the hoard was deposited in the soil, most of them were in close to mint condition.

Who originally owned the coins and jewellery?

The identity of the original owner of what has come to be known as the ‘Fishpool hoard’ must remain a mystery. What we can be sure of, though, is that it must have been someone of high status. It has been estimated that the content of the hoard would have a purchasing power of around £400 in the 1460s. At the time this would be an enormous sum of money. A sum so great that it would be in the possession of only substantial landowners and a few very wealthy merchants.

Deposited by someone fleeing a battle?

Henry VI had been deposed in 1461 and replaced by Edward IV; after a good deal of turmoil a member of the Lancastrian dynasty was replaced by a member of the House of York. Ordinary people rejoiced, as they hoped this would bring an end to the arguments between the Lancastrians and Yorkists. Their hopes were in vain, as several more fallouts would occur during the following years.

In 1464, the Earl of Warwick was conducting mopping up operations in the north on behalf of Edward IV. In May a decisive battle was fought and won at Hexham (Northumberland). After this, Warwick’s brother, John, became Earl of Northumberland. For a few years, the spilling of blood ceased.

The latest coins in the Fishpool find (the Edward IV nobles) point towards the hoard being deposited during 1464. The only major battle fought in that year was the battle at Hexham. This is a long distance away from the find spot. Hoards are usually deposited in the soil at times of strife. However, the area around Fishpool seems to have been free from conflict in 1464. Therefore, not only is the original ownership a mystery but so too is the reason why such a huge cache of gold was placed in the ground. Only of one thing can we be certain: whoever buried this store of wealth did not live long enough to return and unearth it.

Differing outcomes for the Finders

Bernard Beeton

Mr Bernard Beeton was described by the coroner as “an honest little chap”. He had found 100 coins, all of which were handed over to the police. Out of these 100 coins, 85 were returned to Mr Beeton. The other 15 were retained for the British Museum and local museums. For the whole group Mr Beeton received £1,485, which was reported as being “the full market value”. To the best of my knowledge, the identity of these coins has never been published.

David Welham

The four coins found by the small boy, David Welham, were returned to him; the group was made up of nobles of Henry IV, V and VI and a lion d’or of Philip the Good of Brabant. The coins were sold as a group to a leading London coin dealer for £1,075. It’ a pity the lad wasn’t playing on the building site with some of his pals. Had that been the case then other small boys might have managed to grasp a handful of late medieval gold coins.

Auction of Mr Beeton’s coins

On 17 October 1968 Glendining & Co. offered for sale at auction the 85 coins returned to Mr Beeton. The auction was made up of two nobles of Edward III, three nobles of Richard II, four nobles of Henry IV, 24 nobles and one half noble of Henry V, 34 nobles and three half nobles of Henry VI, two Scottish lions, two Anglo-Gallic salutes, and four coins of Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy. The star lots were numbered 72 to 77 in the sale catalogue. They were six Edward IV heavy coinage gold nobles.

How would the large find affect prices

Prior to the Glendining auction potential buyers might have been wondering how the market would react to a high number of hammered gold coins going under the hammer. Would prices hold up? Or, might they drop from the current level? The largest group in the sale was made up of 34 nobles of Henry VI. These included several coins of the not particularly scarce annulet coinage; the 1968 catalogue price for the latter was £47.50 in Fine condition.

Day of the auction

The saleroom was packed when at 1.00 o’clock the auction commenced. Catalogue prices were ignored as the bidding got under way. Most of the Henry VI annulet nobles were in VF or better condition; only one was graded as Fine and that was knocked down for £120. The VF coins averaged a little over £200 each and EF specimens £360. This sounds cheap today but it certainly wasn’t back in 1968. Everyone had been wondering what price the Edward IV nobles would bring. The first two, about EF and EF, realised £4,400 and £4,200, which were really high prices for the time. However, the last four did much better, the hammer prices being £10,000, £9,600, £10,000 and £10,500.

The 85 lots were sold in well under 85 minutes. No doubt most of the buyers would have been very pleased to have acquired coins from the Fishpool hoard. However, some might have wondered if they had paid too much for the privilege. We can be pretty certain that Mr Beeton would have been pleased, for the grand total for the 85 coins came to £85,000. He would have to pay 12.5% commission to Glendinings but in 1968, had he wanted to, he could have bought two dozen semi detached houses with the proceeds.

Craughwell, Flint, Martin and Blythe

The honest Mr Beeton and young David Welham did well out of the Fishpool hoard. What about the other four finders? At the inquest the jury had ruled that only Beeton and Welham should be rewarded; the other four finders had concealed some of the items they had found. In doing so their right to a reward was forfeited.

Ex gratia awards

On page 353 in the October 1968 issue of Seaby’s Coin and Medal Bulletin there was an update on the Fishpool hoard. After mentioning what happened at the inquest, it said that the four other persons involved were to receive ex-gratia awards of £5,228, £4,172.10s, £2,501 and £244. It did not state which of the men received which amount. The report went on to say: “A very full and careful investigation after the inquest, in the course of which the British Museum heard representations on behalf of these men from their legal advisers, revealed mitigating circumstances in the light of which it seemed inappropriate to make no reward at all. The Trustees of the British Museum, with the consent of the Treasury, have therefore approved awards for these men, on a very much reduced scale.”

Did their conduct merit any reward

Because of their conduct, there would be some who argued that the four men should not receive a penny. Quite what the “mitigating circumstances” were wasn’t stated. They must have been fairly strong to overturn the wishes of the inquest jury.  At Glendining’s sale of Mr Beeton’s coins the average price for the six Edward IV nobles worked out at over £8,000 each. There were roughly 1,200 coins in the hoard and let’s say that it included 60 Edward IV nobles; this would average out at five nobles for every 100 coins. Therefore, in terms of the number of Edward IV nobles in his 100 coins, Mr Beeton’s total was slightly above average.

From information gleaned from the inquest, it would seem that Mr Flint found 354 coins and Mr Craughwell found 285; therefore, the two highest figures – £5,228 and £4,172.10s – probably relate to these two men. Averages don’t always work out as one would expect them to, but in the case of this hoard let’s say they might have. If there were five Edward IV nobles in every batch of 100 then 354 should contain no less than 17, and 285 coins should contain at least 14. From these figures we could say that in 1968 the value of the Edward IV nobles in these two batches would amount to £136,000 and £112,000. To these figures could be added the value of all the other coins and any accompanying jewels.

Because of their dishonesty the men were lucky to receive any reward. However, the amounts received pale into insignificance in comparison to the figures they would have been entitled to had they revealed the true extent of their finds at the first opportunity.

Back to Lord Byron

A few years back there was a programme on one of the main TV channels about Lord Byron. It examined his literary work and, as could be expected, it went into some detail about his somewhat dubious private life. For example, the women with whom he had affairs were named; this, of course, is typical of some TV companies, which believe that throwing in a bit of scandal will interest viewers.

Marriage, child and debts

In 1815, after what has been described as a hesitant courtship, he eventually married Annabella Milbanke, the daughter of Lady Melbourne. Through their union a daughter, Augusta Ada, was born. Byron was disappointed, for he had been hoping for a son. A few weeks after Ada (as she came to be known) was born Byron dismissed his wife and daughter from the family seat. He never saw them again. His debts were piling up, doubts were being cast on his sanity, and rumours about his private life were met with horror and condemnation. Thoroughly disillusioned, in 1816 he left England and never returned.

Search for treasure at Newstead Heath

Apparently, there was a family legend, which might have dated back hundreds of years, about a cache of treasure. Could this have related to the hoard that was buried a relatively short distance from Newstead Abbey? Perhaps there was a connection and if Byron’s men had widened their search they could have stumbled upon the treasure discovered by accident in 1966.

How close was Byron to finding the hoard?

Had the producers done a bit more research they could have included details in regard to the Fishpool hoard in the programme about Lord Byron. What better ending could there be than to show the hoard as it is displayed, today, in a large case in the British Museum? Viewers might have been impressed by the information about Byron. I would wager they’d be far more impressed by the sight of a huge circle of medieval gold coins, plus the Fishpool jewellery. Perhaps Lord Byron even walked over the find spot and never realised his feet were very close to a pile of gold, which would have gone a long way towards clearing all his debts.

Tailpiece

Ada Byron

The post Largest hoard of hammered gold coins ever found appeared first on Detecting Finds.

The Merovingians

Migration Period

Who were the Merovingians? To answer this question it is necessary first to look at what became known as the Migration Period. The date range is sometimes given as wide as the 3rd to the 11th century but in Europe the high point was the 3rd to the 6th century. This was a time when peoples moved from one place to another; the reasons included a thirst for plunder, jealousy of the power of Rome or simply a better place to settle.

The Franks

The Franks were a confederation of tribes, who in the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries, replaced earlier Germanic groupings in the west. As their influence grew they proved to be a thorn in the side of more than one Roman emperor. However, they were eventually defeated by Constantine and Crispus after a protracted campaign ended in 320 AD.

In 406 AD the Franks was one of the tribes that crossed the frozen Rhine and went on to devastate Gaul. They stayed in Gaul but they had rivals: Germans, Burgundians, Visigoths and Alamanni. Additionally, the Romans fought on, not wanting to give up a precious province. Aetius, the general under Valentinian III, narrowly failed to drive the Franks from northern Gaul but did crush the Huns in AD 451. However, the murder of Aetius in AD 454 meant that Gaul would fall to the strongest of the barbarian federations.

The Salian Franks

Merovingian Coins

Merovingian coins can be categorised as pseudo-imperial and quasi-imperial issues (both struck in the name of a Roman emperor), royal issues (struck in the name of a Merovingian king) and lastly, issues of the national gold coinage. The latter was produced in Aquitaine, Austrasia, Burgundia and Neustria at numerous mints. However, there is no specific dateline, as the different issues tend to overlap each other. The earlier issues are close copies of Byzantine gold coins but the national issues have a far greater range of designs.

The early centuries of the Migration Period could also be said to encompass the age of imitations. Late Roman and early Byzantine coins were copied not only by the Merovingians but by the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Lombards, Burgundians, Suevi, Frisians and some Islamic issuing authorities. The copies could be close or rough and sometimes copies were of copies. All this adds to the fascination for numismatists. It’s not uncommon for really difficult coins simply to be attributed to an ‘uncertain Germanic tribe’.

Glenn’s coin

The obverse on Glenn’s find has a bust in the style of late Roman gold coins but it is also similar to that found on many Merovingian tremisses. The reverse, with the cross on globe, is more akin to Byzantine issues but it occurs less frequently than the cross on steps type. From the reading of the reverse legend it has been suggested that the mint might be Silvanectis (Senlis in modern-day France).

Other numismatic research on this coin

Several eminent numismatists have actually seen this coin and passed comments on it. They include Martin Allen, John Naylor, Arent Pol and Gareth Williams – all PhDs, so all should be addressed as Doctor. Dr Pol traced what appears to be a die duplicate, which has been in the Bibliotheque Nationale de France (Paris) since 1992.

Large quantity of Merovingian coinage

I’d suggest that the date of striking of Glenn’s coin is likely to be circa 580-620 AD. However, this is a strong possibility rather than a certainty. It is one of only of only two known specimens, which makes it a great rarity. However, within the vast area under Merovingian control a huge amount of gold was turned into coins. The standard five volume reference work by A. de Belfort in 1892 includes thousands of coins. Over the last 50 years many more examples have been found in England and the number continues to rise year on year. Of the commonest types a dozen or more might now be on record. However, many are similar to Glenn’s find, in that only one or two specimens are known.

Valuation

Merovingian tremisses appear in London auction sales fairly regularly; they are sometimes from collections but more often than not they are detecting finds. All are rare, so the main factors that influence price are the eye appeal of the design and, above all, the state of preservation.

Glenn’s tremissis bears an attractive obverse, an interesting reverse and scores high in terms of its condition. The flan looks as if it might be uneven but the coin is otherwise in good VF to near EF condition. Putting a figure on it is difficult.

A likely pre-sale auction estimate on Glenn’s find would be £3,000 – £4,000. However, the eventual hammer price would depend on the extent of competition between prospective buyers in the saleroom.

Coin Valuation Service

Have your coin or artefact valued using my free online coin valuation service

The post Merovingian Tremissis appeared first on Detecting Finds.

I have now published a follow-up article IOD – the hidden agenda , following a Freedom of Information request to Historic England. The article below provides the background to the IOD and is worth reading first.

Letter from NCMD

I recently received a circularised letter from the National Council for Metal Detecting (NCMD), addressed to all its members. The letter stated that the NCMD was not going to participate on the Advisory Board of the Institute of Detectorists.

Four questions

In this article, I have set out the background and consequences of that decision and pose four questions:

1. Should the NCMD participate on the Advisory Board?
2. Is the Association of Detectorists a competent body to run an Institute of Detectorists?
3. Could the Institute of Detectorists be used as a vehicle to restrict the hobby of metal detecting?
4. Is the Institute of Detectorists a cause for concern?

Your views

At the end of each of the 4 sections below is an instant poll where you can vote on these four questions. I would welcome your views in the comments section at the end. It is also possible to comment on specific points in the article, wherever you see the green comment box.

Association of Detectorists

The Institute of Detectorists (IOD) is part of the Association of Detectorists (AOD).

The AOD is a Community Interest Company led by a detectorist named Keith Westcott. On his website at www.detectorists.org.uk the main stated aim is “In support of the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting“. Another aim of IOD is to provide an educational programme to detectorists, which would allow them to assist archaeologists on their digs.

I think most responsible detectorists would applaud both these aims.

Historic England award grant to IOD

On 17 July 2020, Historic England announced it had awarded a grant of £50,000 to the IOD. In their grant application, the AOD states that they intend to become “...a recognised membership body which is able to set and monitor standards of metal detecting ...”. This would suggest that their intentions have grown somewhat from those stated on their website.

In their announcement (available here), Historic England says ““A Project Advisory Board and Focus group will be set up to help steer the development of the Institute [of Detectorists]“. The article also states that “the detecting community will be consulted“.

Composition of Advisory Board

The Institute of Detectorists aim is to train detectorists and establish a membership body for them. Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that the Advisory Board for this Institute would have a significant representation from the detecting community.

However, only 1 space out of 15 had been reserved for a representative of the detecting community. Most of the remaining 14 spaces are for organisations with an archaeological interest.

Numismatics

A varied range of archaeology will be represented but will there be anyone from the world of numismatics? I have said a number of times that never in the whole course of human history has one hobby (numismatics) owed so much to another hobby (metal detecting). The great leaps in numismatic scholarship over recent decades are mostly due to metal detecting finds.

NCMD declines to take part

The NCMD is the main umbrella group for metal detectorists and would therefore be the natural body to represent the detecting community on the Advisory Board. However, in NCMD’s letter to its members, it said it is not going to be involved because “we do not believe that we will have an effective voice in the group“. Their concern is that they are the lone voice representing detectorists on the Advisory Board.

The circular goes on to outline a number of concerns that they have regarding restrictions that may be placed on metal detecting.

Previous consultations involving Historic England and NCMD

NCMD was on the advisory group that prepared the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting 2017 (COP). In a detailed article in Digging Deep 25, available here, it considered that its views had not been listened to and that Historic England “had thrown a spanner in the works”. The NCMD did not endorse the COP.

Q1. Should NCMD participate on the Advisory Board?

Should the NCMD participate on the Advisory Board of the IOD so that the voice of the metal detecting community is heard? If they don’t participate, are they allowing the IOD just to dictate new restrictions on metal detecting. The IOD can say that they asked the metal detecting community for their views but they declined to participate.

Or would the NCMD just be wasting their time – they are unpaid volunteers after all. Their voice would be one amongst 14 others. Could their attendance give an undue credibility to the IOD?

What do you think? Please vote below:

AOD’s Competency

The second area to consider is whether AOD is competent to establish an Institute of Detectorists by looking at what skills their founder Keith Westcott can offer and what the AOD have achieved so far.

Skills

In Keith’s biography on his website (here) he details a number of achievements which indicate that he has experience in

• founding significant sized enterprises
• setting standards as an expert
• organising and managing groups of people
• metal detecting for 24 years

This set of skills and experience certainly seem pertinent to the role. However, I couldn’t find anything in his biography to indicate that he had experience in delivering training or running a membership based organisation.

The biography also states that Keith “concentrates on his volunteer roles within various organisations“. This is commendable but perhaps these multiple demands on his time explain the apparent lack of achievement so far by the AOD, as detailed below:

Code of Practice

As stated on their website, the initial main aim of the AOD was “In support of the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting” (COP). Having a Code of Practice for metal detecting, which balances the interests of archaeology and metal detecting, is clearly a good thing. All responsible detectorists would support and follow this. However, there would appear to be a number of problems with this COP.

No single Code of Practice

The lack of endorsement of the COP by the NCMD is clearly a major issue. This leads to there being two separate codes for detectorists to follow, both with broadly the same aims. If the COP were endorsed by the NCMD then it would be much more widely publicised and adopted. The current version is from 2017. In the three years since then, there has been no progress in revising the COP so that the NCMD could endorse it.

Layout

There is no consistent layout of the COP. The versions on the IOD’s webpage, the PAS webpage (here) and the PDF version (here) are all different.

The layout of the PDF is confused and some of the advice is bizarre; it states that if you find human remains, explosives or notice any illegal activity that you should report that “After you have been metal detecting”. Clearly, if you see any of these events, you should report them immediately.

None of the versions are mobile friendly. Nearly half the users of this site access it through a mobile and detectorists wanting to consult the code while detecting will certainly access it through a mobile. The lack of a mobile friendly version demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the target audience accesses information.

Marketing

There is no branding or logo for the COP, which would allow it to be recognised on websites or other publications. The front cover is dull and not engaging.

The COP does not appear on the Historic England website and is hidden below several layers of menu on the PAS website at www.finds.org.uk.

Has the AOD failed in its primary aim?

The support given to the current COP is so lacklustre that it almost feels like a strategy; allowing it to be said that a voluntary code was not followed so it has to be made mandatory.

Courses

The AOD’s other stated aim is to educate detectorists through courses. However, as shown on its website (here) , it has run only one course, back in November 2018. In its article, Historic England tell us that this course won the Archaeological Training Forum Award. Historic England is a member of the forum that makes the award (see here).

Website

On AOD’s website here the content does not appear to have been updated for some time. Apart from a Twitter feed, there is no mention of the award of the grant from Historic England, the Advisory Board’s constitution and purpose, new courses etc.

Cookies and Privacy

As confirmed by a third party scan, (available here), the AOD’s website is using non-functional cookies that collect personal data. No consent for the use of cookies was being sought from users. This is contrary to the UK-GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) and amended Data Protection Act 2018, which require that explicit consent is sought from users.

If the website collects personal data, it must also have a privacy policy. I could not find a privacy policy on AOD’s website.

Other activity

When I look at the AOD’s webpage or IOD’s Twitter feed here there appears to be very little activity. The Twitter feed appears to be entirely retweets of other people’s posts, except one pinned tweet to announce the award of £50,000 by Historic England.

Building relationships with the detecting community

As mentioned above, there would appear to be a rift between Historic England and NCMD. From its letter to members, the NCMD seems to treat the AOD with distrust. I can see no evidence that AOD have sought to connect with the detecting community, either through the NCMD or otherwise.

Q2. Is the AOD a competent body to set up an Institute of Detectorists?

The founder of AOD appears to have a good skill set for the role.

However, the AOD has failed to deliver on its two existing aims. The lack of activity, engagement with the detecting community and attention to detail, particularly in regard to GDPR, are a serious concern.

What do you think? Please vote below:

Does any of this matter?

Some detectorists are also concerned about the IOD seeking to place restrictions on hobby metal detecting. This could be done either indirectly, through conditions on agricultural grants, or directly through changes in the law.

Conditions on agricultural grants

As shown on Historic England’s webpage here, the awarding of grants on some agricultural land is conditional on land owners ensuring that “all hobby metal detecting …must be undertaken in accordance with the current Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting” [emphasis added].

The AOD is strongly linked to the current Code of Practice. A simple mechanism to further restrict metal detecting is simply to revise the Code of Practice. This could include measures such as the need for a training certificate or licence, presumably issued by the IOD.

Note also that it is hobby metal detecting that is being targeted.

Changes in the law

On Friday (4 December 2020), the culture minister, Caroline Dinenage announced plans to widen the official definition of “treasure”, in the 1996 Treasure Act, to cover more rare and precious archaeological finds. In particular this is to include objects from Roman Britain that do not meet the current criteria since they are often made from bronze. Plans to streamline the treasure process were also announced. These plans to protect more of our precious history and make it easier for everyone to follow the treasure process are clearly to be supported.

The announcement also said that detectorists, archaeologists, museums, academies and curators will have the opportunity to contribute to inform the new definition. The issue is that the only real voice for detectorists is the NCMD, which is an unpaid volunteer organisation that may not have the resources to take part. In contrast, the IOD has received public funds to further its aims.

The concern is that the consultation to revise the 1996 Treasure Act will be hijacked by parties with a specific interest, such as the IOD, to restrict hobby metal detecting beyond what could be supported by the metal detecting community.

Q3. Could the IOD be used as a vehicle to restrict the hobby of metal detecting?

When I read blogs or posts on detecting forums on this issue, there is a concern that the IOD is a means to restrict metal detecting. This would be achieved by the imposition of increasing requirements on detectorists, such as membership of the IOD, training certificates and licences.

Or, is the IOD simply an educational body, seeking to assist those that wish to develop their metal detecting skills?

What do you think? Please vote below:

Contribution of Metal Detecting to preserving our heritage

Metal detecting saves coins and artefacts

I count myself as being very fortunate indeed to be involved in a hobby that is responsible for saving so many precious coins and artefacts from being irreparably damaged by farming machinery, or the actions of modern-day chemicals deposited on farm land.

Finds reported

The vast majority of finds reported to the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) are by detectorists. The current total is 1,514,486 objects within 969,912 records. These finds are in a publicly available database and have enormously advanced the study of archaeology and numismatics.

Treasure

The popularity of metal detecting as a hobby has led to an increase in treasure cases from just 79 in 1997 to 1,311 in 2019. In 2017, 96% of finds that were declared treasure were discovered through metal detecting. The culture minister, Caroline Dinenage, said “Each one of these valuable discoveries tells us more about the way our ancestors lived and I want to congratulate all those who played a part in helping uncover more about our shared history.”

Relationship with FLOs

All responsible metal detectorists report finds to the PAS through their FLO. In some cases this is beyond that which they are required to do; for example a single coin. From reading posts on forums and Twitter, many detectorists have a good relationship with their FLOs.

Metal detecting and significant archaeological discoveries

Some recent significant archaeological discoveries are thanks to metal detectorists; for example, the Staffordshire Hoard (artefacts), the Watlington and Lenborough Hoards (coins).

Q4. Is the IOD a cause for concern?

Some hobby metal detectorists see the AOD purely as an elitist group of archaeologists, who ignore the huge contribution that hobby metal detecting has made to preserving our heritage. There are fears that the AOD is intent on restricting the hobby of metal detecting, through increased regulation and is using the IOD to achieve that. The AOD has done nothing to allay those fears.

Alternatively, it could be argued that the IOD will enable metal detectorists to unearth and report finds with a greater understanding of the archaeological impact. This will be done through education and by consent. You might also consider that the IOD will have no impact on the hobby of metal detecting and there is nothing to be concerned about.

Having read the article, do you think the IOD is a cause for concern? Please vote below:

Finding a way forward

The lack of engagement of the AOD with the detecting community is breeding distrust. Surely, the coming together of open-minded parties from both sides would be preferable.

If the AOD were to properly engage with the detecting community and a Code of Practice were agreed that the NCMD could support, would your views on the IOD change?

Please let me have your comments on any of the above in the comments section below.

The post Institute of Detectorists – a cause for concern? appeared first on Detecting Finds.