"Coins in Context" at the International Numismatic Congress

Regular readers of this website will know that I have been making a series of posts discussing the new book Coins in Context I: New Perspectives for the Interpretation of Coin Finds, which was based on a colloquium held at Frankfurt University in the fall of 2007. The book was entitled Coins in Context I in order to indicate that research in this direction should continue and that future volumes may be produced.

Two contributors to the book, Fleur Kemmers (Nijmegen) and Nanouschka Myrberg (Stockholm) have organized a round table session on "Coins in Context" to take place at the XIVth International Numismatic Congress in Glasgow. The summary of the round table session reads as follows:

Coins are an integral part of the archaeological record. Yet, the coins are often separated from the other finds and brought to a specialist, who will treat them as a separate entity regardless of their find context. The archaeologist accepts the list of coins and lacks the knowledge to evaluate its full meaning. Thus a lot of the information of coin finds is wasted. Yet a close study of the context in which coins have been found might not only reveal a lot of information on the archaeological site, but perhaps even more so on the coins themselves and how they functioned in the past. By only using coins to establish the chronology of a site, the full potential of this particular category of archaeological sources is not considered.

When archaeology and numismatics are deliberately combined, the great potential of this approach will present immediate results. To study coins in their various contexts has greatly contributed to our understanding of the functions, use, loss and deposition patterns of coins, of the way and pace in which coins were brought into a society, of the perceptions surrounding the coins themselves and their deposition, and more. Such studies are not only of interest to numismatists, but just as much to archaeologists and historians. Nevertheless, this kind of research is still in its infancy, and often regarded with suspicion by numismatists and archaeologists alike.

The phrase ‘context’ is here intended as the archaeological feature (pit, posthole, well, etc.) on a site in which a coin is found, but also as its functional context (Iron Age religious site, late Roman villa, Merovingian cemetery, etc.) or its ideological or historical context as a context of thought and history. The research paradigm in which the coin is treated also constitutes a context, which may well have a decisive impact on the interpretation of the coin and its finding circumstances. Since the approaches of a numismatist, an archaeologist or an art historian are surely quite diverse, their research objectives will vary accordingly.

The aim of the roundtable session is to investigate innovative methods and research questions relating to the coins as objects with their own distinctive cultural biographies, ranging from the production context to the depositional context. We would like to discuss the topic in a broad chronological (600 BC – AD 1750) and geographical scope. However, we expect proposals to go beyond particularities of a period or region, and rather focus on theories and methods with wider applicability.

Coins in Context I: P. Beliën, "From coins to comprehensive narrative? The coin finds from the Roman army camp on Kops Plateau at Nijmegen..."

The first three essays by von Kaenel, Elkins, and Krmnicek from Coins in Context I: New Perspectives for the Interpretation of Coin Finds composed the first series of articles on "methodological overviews." The next four articles are grouped in a section called "potential at site level." The first of those is Paul Beliën's "From coins to comprehensive narrative? The coin finds from the Roman army camp on Kops Plateau at Nijmegen: problems and opportunities" (pp. 61-80). It should be noted that the military camp on Nijmegen's Kops Plateau should not be confused for the legionary fortress on the Hunerburg whose coin finds have already been systematically studied and analyzed (see F. Kemmers. 2006. Coins for a Legion: An Analysis of the coin finds of the Augustan Legionary Fortress and Flavian canabae legionis at Nijmegen. Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 21 (Mainz: von Zabern)).

Beliën's contribution lays out his methodology for a study of the coin finds from the fort on the Kops Plateau, founded c. 12 BC and abandoned in AD 69 during the Batavian Revolt, which he is currently undertaking. The first eight pages provide the historical background which need not detain us here. The author then provides a short history of the excavations on the Kops Plateau on page 69. The site has been rather productive. Beliën states "By 1995, 42,000 features, 375,000 sherds, 35,000 fragments of brick and loam, 30,000 metal objects, 3,000 pieces of slag, and 4,668 coins were found. In addition to this, copious amounts of organic material were recovered, such as 62,000 animal and human bone fragments." As he indicates one of the problems in studying material from the Kops Plateau is that little has been published, which he attributes to the fact that much of the site was excavated before the Malta Convention (alt. Valetta Treaty) was enacted in 1992, which has a provision for regular publication and reports. But at least the complete coin lists were published in 2002 in FMRN 3.1.

Beliën begins delving into his methodological discussion on page 70. In studying the coins in context, his primary goals are to understand what processes were in place to supply coins to the Kops Plateau and if there is any significance to deposition patterns of the coin finds. He adds:

"When analysing the coins and their contexts, we must take into account the various factors that governed the deposition and loss of coins and the post-depositional processes that influenced the ways in which the coin complex was formed. The size of coins, the metal they are made of, their value (in the Roman period, as well as in modern times), the number of coins of a certain type or denomination in circulation on a site, the way they were used and the methods used during excavation, must all be considered" (p. 70).

The author also plans on conducting a "numismatic analysis" that at this stage will focus on AVAVCIA coins, countermarked coins, and "barbaric imitations" which he expects will be new sources of information and which perhaps also were produced locally. Beliën also supposes that Celtiberian and Gallic coins may provide information about the origins of the soldiers on the Kops Plateau. All of this taken together should provide insights into how the coin series here came to be and will no doubt open the door to chronological questions and raise further questions on the way coins were used by or supplied to different military units at different periods of time.

Beliën will also examine the coin finds in a regional context in order to determine what relationships between the camp and outlying settlements and sanctuaries may have had through the lens of the coin finds: "By making an inventory of the coin finds from the area and comparing the loss patterns, it should be possible to learn more about the nature of the monetary interaction between the Roman military at Nijmegen and the people living in the Batavian countryside, which could be considered a militarised zone at the time" (pp. 72-73). The author then formally discusses some geographical and chronological limits of his study which need not occupy us here since we are most interested in the broader methodology.

Pages 74-77 address the data set. There are 5,340 coins from the Kops Plateau which are available for study. Most coin finds come from disturbed contexts. So far, approximately 200 coins were recovered from undisturbed features and in sealed contexts associated with other datable objects. Although much of the total corpus is considered "stray finds," they will still be essential components of the broader study. Coins from private collections or in the Museum het Valkhof that were found by metal detectorists, and those from early 20th century excavations, are excluded since it is not known where on the Kops Plateau they were found. This reduces his sample to 4,483 coins and ten coin hoards from the Kops Plateau. Beliën is also cautious against using coins from collections since they have undergone a modern process of selection in order to enter a collection and do not represent the ancient reality of what was lost.

Beliën also notes that while certain parts of the site were thoroughly excavated, and in these a metal detector was used in every trench after every 10-15 cm of excavation to ensure that all coins and metal objects were recovered, other parts were not and so the sample he is using will only reflect what was occurring at certain parts of the site at certain time periods. Large parts of the Kops Plateau remain unexcavated, and other areas of the site have been vandalized by looters and the sample of coin finds further diminished.

The final section of the article is entitled "A research strategy." It begins by telling us how each coin will be photographed and put into a database. Initial research questions will focus on the AVAVCIA coins, countermarked coins, and the "barbaric imitations," as well as the Celtiberian and Gallic coins. After the systematization of the data, Beliën will consider archaeological contexts in conjunction with the numismatic data. A distinction is made between coins with coordinates and coins without coordinates. Those without coordinates are only known to have come from a specific trench, other spatial information regarding their features or layers in which they were embedded is lost. He explains, however, "If we use the coordinates of the centre of the trenches in which these coins were found, we can still use them for the analyses to get at least some idea about the general distribution of these coins on the site."

The coins with an exact find spot are divided into three further categories: 1) not from features, 2) from features, and 3) closed contexts. Those in the first category will be used in spatial distribution maps. He expects this may provide some information on the date and function of various parts of the forts. Those in the second category may provide information on the feature or, alternatively, the feature may provide information on the coins. For the final category, Beliën explains:

"After analysing the coins and the associated data and material from every closed context, it has to be established if patterns can be discerned in the distribution of certain coin types, countermarks, etc., over these archaeological contexts. This might tell us something about the date and function of coins and coin use as well as the contexts in which they were lost. The coins from post holes, for example, may provide us with some interesting information: Harry van Enckevort, one of the excavators, told the author that several denarii were found in post holes of the praetorium and it is quite likely that these were intentionally deposited there" (p.79).

After this work is done and all of the information on the coin finds and various features is collated, the comparative work with outlying and neighboring settlements can be undertaken and preliminary plan is sketched.

Coins in Context I: St. Krmnicek, "Das Konzept der Objektbiographie in der antiken Numismatik"

Here is the third installment in the series of posts about the new book, Coins in Context I: New Perspectives for the Interpretation of Coin Finds. Stefan Krmnicek’s "Das Konzept der Objektbiographie in der antiken Numismatik" (pp. 47-59) discusses theoretical applications in numismatics, namely the concept of "object biography." It is the only contribution in the volume that is not published in English, though it is preceded by a short abstract in English (p. 47).

Coins are economic tools and are frequently studied from this single perspective in modern discourses but, just as today, objects can have multiple varying and simultaneous functions. This contribution examines the contemporary reception of ancient coins by exploring the different potential functions they had. The first section of the article "Die Grundlagen des modernen Fachverständnisses" (pp. 48-52) is a short historiographic discussion on the way that our understanding of ancient coins has been shaped by centuries of study. The end of the section introduces a discussion on how developing theories and perspectives in prehistoric archaeology have influenced Iron Age numismatics, especially in defining a dichotomy between ritual and non-ritual interpretations.

The rest of the relatively short contribution provides an example from Arrian’s Cynegeticus (32, 1-2) where coins take on a completely different function as ritual offerings and posits a hypothetical model illustrating how the meaning of a coin could have changed at different times in its "lifetime." As archaeologists and numismatists, we must be aware that in most cases the only function or meaning of a coin that we can recognize will be that from its final deposition, i.e. from its find context. Any meaning it had before its final deposition will, in most cases, be lost to modern observers.

It is argued that the foundations for a discussion on the value of theory in numismatics have been laid in studies on Iron Age coin finds, but such perspectives could be applied to other areas of ancient numismatics as well.

All current and future posts pertaining to this book can be easily found by the keyword "Coins in Context I."

Coins in Context I: N.T. Elkins, "Coins, contexts, and an iconographic approach for the 21st century"

The second contribution in H.-M. von Kaenel and F. Kemmers (eds.). 2009. Coins in Context I: New Perspectives for the Interpretation of Coin Finds. Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 23 (Mainz: von Zabern) is my article "Coins, contexts, and an iconographic approach for the 21st century" (pp. 25-46).

To provide some background, this article grows out of the methodology I developed for my dissertation, "Architectural Coin Types: Reflections of Roman Society," but which should have relevance to other studies on Roman coin images in light of recent developments in Roman numismatics.

After a short introduction that briefly compares and contrasts the general characteristics of Greek and Roman coin images, the article surveys the iconographic approach to ancient coins from the Renaissance to the 20th century in the context of wider developments in numismatic science. The study of coin images became more systematic after the 18th century with the development of corpora and type catalogues. Many studies in the Renaissance fancifully invented coin types that would depict certain mythological and religious figures and so the work of Eckhel in the 18th century, among others, helped weed out fact from fantasy and order our knowledge of what the ancients produced. Multidisciplinary approaches to ancient coin images were not very common until the mid- to late 19th and early 20th centuries when Greek coin images were commonly studied in comparison with relief sculpture and statuary. But the study of Roman coin images was less developed – a likely consequence of the prevailing view at the time that Roman art was merely a derivative and degenerate form of Greek art. In the early and mid 20th century, as Roman art was given more attention (see below), so too were Roman coin images by scholars such as Harold Mattingly, Andreas Alfoldi, Konrad Kraft, C.H.V. Sutherland, and many others. The study of Roman coin images at this time was rooted in the traditional study of ancient history and the reading of ancient texts. Common 20th century interpretations of Roman coins were as instruments of "propaganda," a term less frequently used because of its problematic and false connotations. The use of the term "propaganda" as ascribed to Roman art and coins corresponds with historical events in Europe leading up to, during, and after the Second World War.

By the mid 20th century, the study of Roman coin images was a beloved topic in numismatic research, but some scholars felt the methodology used was weak and felt that "fantastical" histories were being built on iconographic evidence alone. This sentiment prompted A.H.M. Jones to criticize the iconographic approach in his contribution to the Festschrift for Harold Mattingly in 1956. While few today would accept the notion that the iconographic study of coins is a fruitless exercise, credit must be given to Jones who prompted a methodological reevaluation within the discipline. A few years later Sutherland published a response to Jones which highlighted promising ways that Roman coin images could be studied in conjunction with other forms of evidence and the sorts of questions that scholars should ask of Roman coin images. Since the publication of Jones' and Sutherland's respective articles, several methodological treatises on the study of numismatic images have been published and have underscored the need for interdisciplinary study and a critical approach to the source material.

In light of recent researches on coin images, I then propose an interdisciplinary methodology for the study of coin images introducing three crucial themes that provide answer to different questions relevant to Roman coin images: "numismatic context," "art historical context," and "archaeological context." Together these three perspectives give us the broadest understanding of the way coin images functioned Roman society.

In the section on "numismatic context," I discuss the importance of attention to emissions and the role of die studies. All too often, images on Roman coin images are studied in isolation and sometimes even apart from the image on the other side of the coin. In order to understand the overall visual program of an emperor via the coinage it is therefore necessary to attend to the emission from which a coin comes. I draw an example from Neronian coinage: his sestertii showing the Claudian harbor at Ostia and the dupondii showing the Macellum Magnum are often featured in individual texts and especially books on architectura numismatica, discussed in terms of how these coins celebrate the construction of the respective monuments. However, if we look at the other coin types Nero was striking contemporaneously we also see bronze coins bearing images of Annona and Ceres or a congiarium. The overall visual program gives a fuller understanding of these architectural images: they comprise a group of types which emphasize the emperor's concern with the grain supply and the well-being of the people. In addition to the discernment of emissions based on titulature, die studies can also nuance our understanding of ancient emissions further. An example is provided by the first emission in Claudius' reign:

"A die study of Claudius' coins indicate that the emperor's first precious metal emission of AD 41/42 consisted of aurei and denarii showing him within the walls of the praetorian barracks or standing before a praetorian signifer, with the legends IMPER RECEPT and PRAETOR RECEPT, respectively, aurei and denarii with a representation of Pax Augusta and the accompanying legend PACI AVGVSTAE, and gold quinarii with a flying Victory holding an oak wreath and a shield inscribed OB C S. Independently, these types could be interpreted in various ways, but taken together in the context of the emission there is a unifying theme: the circumstances surrounding Claudius' accession. The first two types reference the role the praetorian guard played in his acclamation and were used as donativa to pay them, the quinarii honor his receipt of the corona civica and the clupeus virtutis in service to the citizens of Rome, and the PACI AVGVSTAE types reference a peaceful transition of power to the new princeps" (p. 32).

The article continues in surveying other potential applications for die studies with respect to iconographic questions. Die studies by Sarah Cox on the Temple of Concord sestertii of Tiberius and by Fred Kleiner on the Arch of Nero on Neronian sestertii show that the most detailed – and presumably the most "faithful" representations of these monuments – were those that were struck earliest and that later strikes were more abstract or less detailed, probably as a result of copying. All too often, scholars approach ancient coin images without a well developed numismatic methodology. An example is provided by a study in which Trajanic coins were employed in reconstructions of the Forum of Trajan. Here the reconstructions based on numismatic evidence were somewhat haphazard since the arguments revolved around what "most" coins show rather than a comprehensive die study. The reconstructions also did not take account of the conventions used by die engravers who produced architectural coin images and so the author read some depictions too literally, such as the number of columns on the coin representation of a temple. Any scholar who approaches Roman coin images must have some firm grounding in numismatic methods and an understanding of the die engraver's conventions.

Die studies may also have the potential to discern the occasions that necessitated the striking of coins, which may in turn have some bearing on the meaning of the images themselves. A study by H.-M. von Kaenel on Early Imperial coinage has suggested that peaks in the number of obverse dies occur in the same years that large building projects were underway in the city of Rome.

I conclude the section on numismatic context with a discussion of frequency. Certainly not all Roman coin types were equal in the sense that some are more common than others and it stands to reason that those that were produced more abundantly would have played a more dominant role in a visual program. Die studies have been used to calculate the frequencies of coin types in ancient reality, but this methodology has been critiqued by numismatists such as T.V. Buttrey since a number of factors could have affected the productivity of ancient die. Another method of determining frequency of types is through hoard analysis which has provided promising results. For example, Carlos Noreña employed this methodology in a study in which he "ranked" the imperial virtues and their importance through their frequency in precious metal hoards.

The section ends and introduces the next section on "art historical contexts":

"We cannot restrict our studies of coin types to individual depictions or certain categories without being aware of both the political and cultural history of the period and the other coins that were struck together and in circulation at the same time. A command of historical/textual evidence and a strong grasp of numismatic contexts and methodologies – especially regarding emissions, die studies, and frequencies – are essential for anyone who approaches the question of numismatic iconography. Coins are more than historical documents and economic tools: they are products of the societies that produced and used them. The images they bear were not produced in isolation of contemporary art historical trends and the state clearly used them as a medium for communication. In order to have a fuller appreciation of how representations on ancient coins can inform us about the ancient world, one must also examine the material in both art historical and archaeological contexts" (p. 35).

Centuries ago, images on ancient coins were used by antiquarians to illustrate history or myth, but in the 19th and 20th centuries the study of coin images became more critical and interdisciplinary in terms of the wider study of art history. Several scholars in the 19th century such as Karl Otfried Müller included coins along with other objects in their classification and definitions of style. Other examples are treated in some detail. Much of the literature of the 19th century in particular focused almost exclusively on Greek coin images and, as I have said, was an effect of the way Roman art was perceived at the time. An exception to this general trend, however, was in the study of Roman portraiture which was greatly advanced in the 19th century by attention to Roman coin images as in the monographs published by Johann Jakob Bernoulli between 1882 and 1894. Roman coin images gained much more attention in the 20th century:

"Alois Reigl laid the first critical theoretical and methodological foundations for the study of Roman art when he published his formalistic treatment of Late Roman art, Spätrömische Kunstindustrie, in 1901 (Vienna, reprinted and revised in 1927). Indeed, Riegl's contribution impacted the whole of art history and not just Roman art; for the first time art was viewed as a tool for understanding the society that produced it and drew the study of art away from simple aestheticism. Riegl understood that human society does not just experience art but actively produces art, and through this simple – but profound – methodological realization he coined the term Kunstwollen, expressing the notion that the form or style of art was dictated by a collective 'will', 'intent', or 'habit' that also drove contemporary social, political, and intellectual trends. While coins were not specifically treated in Spätrömische Kunstindustrie, Riegl's work set the study of art history on a new course, influencing the way that Roman art, and ultimately also Roman coins, would be viewed and approached by later scholars" (pp. 38-39).

After a quick look at some other developments in Roman art history in the mid 20th century, I move onto the current understanding of Roman art as a semantic system. In this theoretical framework, Roman coins play a significant role as communicative instruments and have been given much attention by pioneering theoreticians and scholars such as Tonio Hölscher and Paul Zanker. The section concludes after a few more pages of discussion on the semantic system in Roman art and the concentrated picture language (Bildsprache) on coins.

The next section addresses the importance of archaeological contexts in the study of Roman coin iconography. It focuses on some very recent and significant revelations yielded by an intensive study of the coin finds from the legionary fortress at Nijmegen, published by Fleur Kemmers in 2006. Among other things, her work demonstrated that that the Flavian legionaries at Nijmegen were regularly supplied with coins that bore militaristically-themed images. Her comparative analysis of finds from neighboring civilian settlements and from Rome clearly showed a much higher concentration of militaristic types in the fortress at Nijmegen in contrast to these other sample areas. The supply of these militaristically-themed types to Nijmegen was connected to the soldiers' payment. The section ends:

"Where Hölscher expounded the semantic nature and system of Roman coinage, and where scholars such as Noreña and Depeyrot have quantified and applied hierarchical semantic 'value' to individual types, Kemmers compared finds from a particular site to local and regional finds and discovered that the semantic system was more nuanced than we had previously thought and that a certain population was supplied – deliberately – with certain coin types relevant to its station in Roman society" (p. 43).

It is then argued that we can further advance the study of Roman coin images by studying the distribution of coins at a regional level in order to discern the specific audiences to which certain types may have been directed. Several resources are outlined in the article. For example, we have a strong corpus of coin finds from the Northwestern provinces and there are some important finds from Rome which have been published and also the large corpus of c. 70,000 coins from Rome that awaits publication, but which has already been frequently made available to scholars studying coin finds. The essay concludes:

"Roman coins are multifarious objects that served a number of functions during their 'lifetimes' millennia ago. As with the study of any other category of ancient art, the understanding of an ancient coin is broadened by the number of contexts to which we can relate it and, when this is done properly and critically, our knowledge of the ancient world is enhanced. For the historical and cultural contexts in which to place a Roman coin, one might turn to ancient texts and modern historical discourses. Traditional numismatic methods such as die studies, associating certain types with emissions, and quantifying the frequency of a particular type provide the numismatic context; these may allow one to 'rate' the semantic value of types in relation to one another and understand them in conjunction with wider ideological programs. The art historical context, namely approaching images on Roman coins as part of a semantic system, allows one to unpack the meaning of an image. Not the least of the contexts to consider is the material or archaeological context, which may allow researchers to define the audience to whom certain types were directed on regional and site-specific levels. It is no longer sufficient that iconographic studies on Roman coins be relegated purely to historical, art historical, or numismatic perspectives. The nature of the objects themselves demands a more comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach. Only in this manner, can one hope to use the source material to its greatest potential and fully appreciate the role numismatic imagery played in the Roman world" (p.46).

All posts relevant to the monograph containing this collection of essays can be found by using the keyword "Coins in Context I."

Coins in Context I: H.-M. von Kaenel, "Coins in context – a personal approach"

This is my first discussion of an individual contribution from the new collection of essays in H.-M von Kaenel and F. Kemmers (eds.). 2009. Coins in Context I: New Perspectives for the Interpretation of Coin Finds. Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 23 (Mainz: von Zabern). It makes sense to proceed through the book in an ordered fashion for this series of posts and so I will begin with the section on "Methodological Overviews" in which the first essay is that by H.-M. von Kaenel, "Coins in context - a personal approach" (pp. 9-24).

H.-M. von Kaenel is an internationally known numismatist who has, for over three decades, actively combined archaeology and numismatics in his research. As the title of his contribution indicates, he reflects on the study "coins in context" through his own experiences offering us a sort of retrospective, but also provides critical discussion regarding the state of method and theory in the study of coins from archaeological contexts. He focuses throughout on the benefits afforded by attention to the study of coins from close contexts at archaeological sites in particular.

Following the introduction is a section comparing and contrasting the study of coins from an entire series (i.e. an entire group from a site) and from feature-related ensembles (from a tighter archaeological context). Here the author references his publication of Roman coin finds from Aventicum, which he carried out when he was a student, and tells us how he educated himself on the study of archaeologically recovered coin finds from the writings of Konrad Kraft. Already at young age, he could distinguish ways in which the study of coins from archaeological contexts could be advanced since Kraft had written at a time when excavation techniques were still at an early stage in their development. He references how archaeological work at Aventicum provided a new chronology for the site and then provides a more recent and lengthy example with regard to the study of the coin finds from Vindnossa.

At Vindonissa, a rather small sample of coins from a tight archaeological context associated with the pre-fortress timber phases 1-4 allowed a new chronology and understanding of the history of Vindonissa to be established. Study of the entire series of finds from the site, which had been gathered for several centuries, provided a much larger sample of coins but could not clearly answer questions about the foundation, caesurae, and end of the settlement as clearly as those from tighter features could. The reason for this is because the larger sample of coins from Vindonissa was simply a mix of coins from multiple features and occupation horizons at the site.

In the next section, "reference series" for the study of coin finds are surveyed and discussed as an important aspect of contextual and comparative research. Our best corpora are from the northwestern provinces, with fewer good corpora existing in the central and urban regions of the Roman Empire (i.e. Rome, Italy, Gaul, North Africa). Nevertheless some important corpora from the center have been published such as those on the Caligulan and Claudian finds from the Tiber River. There is also the corpus of c. 70,000 coins from Rome which await comprehensive publication.

The third section, "From 'numismatics or archaeology' to 'archaeology and numismatics'," is an interesting methodological discourse. He begins with an anecdote about publishing the Celtic coin finds from some Swiss excavations which, through their archaeological context, provided a new chronology on the coins themselves. He speaks about how established French numismatists such as K. Castelin and J.-B. Colbert de Beaulieu reacted against this new chronology. Colbert de Beaulieu was particularly forceful. While Castelin entered into an academic dialogue with the young von Kaenel and his colleagues on the numismatic and archaeological rationales for chronologies in Celtic numismatics, Colbert de Beaulieu used his superior institutional position to protect the traditional chronology although young French archaeologists and numismatists quietly agreed with von Kaenel and his colleagues. In the coming years, archaeologists increasingly accepted the new chronology, rooted in material evidence, and it eventually supplanted the traditional numismatic chronology. Von Kaenel concludes this short section:

"The necessary revisions have long been made, and today no one seriously asks the question 'numismatics or archaeology' – the title of a paper by K. Castelin published in 1976. In fact, in Celtic numismatics today it is a matter of 'archaeology and numismatics'. In no other area of ancient numismatics has the discussion on coins and money been so productively stimulated and advanced by archaeologists as in Celtic numismatics" (p. 18).

Section four deals with "object biographies" and coins from archaeological contexts (S. Krmnicek's article, "Das Konzept der Objektbiographie in der antiken Numismatik," pp. 47-59, deals with this theme in more detail). Here the author references the hoard from Neftenbach that was found through the course of the archaeological excavations at the villa there. It is truly a spectacular hoard, not because of the coins themselves, but because of the detailed way in which it was studied and the information that it yielded (H.-M. von Kaenel, H. Brem, J. Th. Elmer, et al. 1993. Der Münzhort aus dem Gutshof in Neftenbach. Antoniniane und Denare von Septimius Severus bis Postumus. Zürcher Denkmalpflege, Archäologische Monographien 16 (Zürich and Egg). When hoards are found by metal detectorists – and sometimes even inexperienced or student excavators – the vessel containing the coins is dumped out and the potentials for studying the "micro context" are lost. At Neftenbach, however, the bronze vessel containing the hoard was taken to Winterthur where it was to be studied by numismatic specialists. H.-M. von Kaenel, B. Hedinger, and H. Brem decided to conduct a "stratigraphic excavation" of the coins inside the canister with the aid of an endoscope. Through the course of this tedious excavation they documented 20 layers within the vessel itself which composed the hoard. There were eight roll-like groups of coins and six other distinguishable groups. These groups of coins, also differentiated by their dates, indicated it was a savings hoard where coins were put into it at different times and in different manners. Biological remains showed that the vessel was padded with foxtail millet to absorb moisture and that it was sealed with a cloth or leather. The vessel and its contents were placed in a tile enclosure hidden beneath floorboards and covered with hay; some of this additional organic material made its way into the vessel after a fire that occurred later after the hoard was hidden. The biological remains and the vessel itself were also analyzed by specialists and published in the volume cited above. The case from Neftenbach indicates the potential of the close study of coin finds:

"Context was thus in many respects vital for determining the value of the hoard from Neftenbach as a historical source. Initially it was a question of the coins themselves, the composition of the series; then the coin rolls and bags and their deposition in the container as well as the insertion of the foxtail millet; next the fate of the bronze vessel in its hiding place in the context of the history of the gate building; and ultimately this as part of the history of the villa at Neftenbach…. When using the word 'context', we refer to everything in the 'space' in which a coin once 'lived', where it fulfilled its function as a coin. Just as 'life' evolves in a manifold network of relationships of a biological, spiritual, religious, social and material nature, so too the 'life' of a coin occurs in one, several or even in a great number of 'spaces'. But not only this; a precondition for being able to hold an ancient coin in our hand today is its transmission, which again took place in its own, specific 'context'. Coins are thus things, objects and these have their own physical and social 'life', their individual and supra-individual history, their object biography. The goal of the scholarly study of coins in general, and more specifically of coin finds, must be to decode this as far as possible.

Coin finds from context have, as a rule, a fundamentally higher potential as evidence than those without context. They hold the key to the reconstruction of the 'social life' of coins as money, and are a precondition for the potential of coins as a historical source being fully exhausted. Archaeological and numismatic research in this direction is, admittedly, still in an early stage. But much of what has been said in the past has not been paid appropriate attention, and so it is necessary to discuss individual examples of the potential of this type of approach" (pp. 20-21).

Von Kaenel turns to Kalkriese in his section on "source criticism" in which he uses studies on Kalkriese to point out on how we must be vigilant about the nature of our sources and how finds were recovered.

The sixth and final section before his conclusion is entitled "Actuality: the decontextualisation of coin finds on a previously unknown scale." Here he calls attention to the systematic destruction that is taking place in many parts of the world to supply the market in ancient coins and antiquities which is also destroying the potential knowledge that contextual study can yield:

"Never before has so much archaeological material been removed from the earth through illegal looting as it has since the 1990s. We are witness to a 'decontextualisation process' on an enormous scale which affects all archaeological objects. However, as regards sheer numbers, coins take first place."

He goes on briefly to contrast the number of coins recorded in our most important finds inventories with the number of fresh coins which appear on the market each year and continues:

"This is a loss of historical source material that is without comparison, and it canot be replaced. The situation for archaeology is just as disastrous as it is for numismatics. Many colleagues are aware of this, but only a few speak out and the authorities responsible have so far not been prepared to intervene actively and consistently."

In his conclusion, the author returns to Theodor Mommsen and the goal of the historical sciences which, as Mommsen put it in a letter to the Swiss numismatist Fredrich Imhoof-Blumer: "Each collation on a grand scale is to some extent the solution of the historical problem on which we work." Von Kaenel states that to understand the past we, as numismatists and archaeologists, must ask why coins were struck, what functions they had, and what meaning they had to their contemporary users, how they functioned in legal frameworks, various institutions, and how actions of the state affected them – all things which are greatly enhanced and perhaps best worked at through attention to context.

All current and future posts relating to the book and its content can be found by using the keyword "Coins in Context I."

Coins in Context I: New Perspectives for the Interpretation of Coin Finds

Hot off the press, I just received my copy of H.-M. von Kaenel and F. Kemmers (eds.). 2009. Coins in Context I: New Perspectives for the Interpretation of Coin Finds. Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 23 (Mainz: von Zabern). The book may now be ordered directly from the publisher.

I am personally very happy to see this book in print since I assisted with some of the editorial work and also contributed to the volume. I also believe that this book fills a void in the sense that it presents a number of case studies and methodological essays about the potential of comprehensive studies of coin finds from archaeological contexts in English. A conscious effort was made to publish most of the contributions in English since much of the detailed literature on the study of Roman coin finds in particular has been published in German. Therefore, this volume should make some of the perspectives and approaches available to a wider audience.

The subject matter of the book is briefly summarized on the back cover:

"Coin finds are an integral part of the archaeological record. By studying coins in the contexts in which they were found, a great deal of information can be gained on how coins functioned in past societies. Where archaeology and numismatics are truly combined, the enormous potential of this approach is apparent. The conclusions contribute to our understanding of the use, loss and deposition of coins in antiquity, their circulation speed, the manner and pace in which coins were brought into a society, etc.; conclusions which are not only of interest to numismatists, but also to archaeologists, anthropologists and historians alike.

In order to discuss theories and methods for this particular approach, the conference ‘Coins in Context’ was held in Frankfurt am Main in October 2007. The majority of the papers presented at the conference, as well as some further sollicited papers on the subject, are presented in this volume. The first group of papers gives an overview of the theoretical and methodological status quaestionis of contextual numismatics, while each of them explicitly points out promising directions in future research. The second group of papers focuses on the possibilities of a close study of coins and associated archaeological contexts at the level of a single site. The last group discusses approaches to a better understanding of the use and functions of coins."

This collected volume grew out of a seminar taught at Frankfurt University in 2006/2007 and a colloquium on the subject of "Coins in Context" that was later held in the fall of 2007. A portion of the editors' foreword states:

"The numerous discussions emanating from this seminar prompted us to organize an international colloquium on this topic to enhance the debate further. As both of us [von Kaenel and Kemmers] are involved, in our own work and as program managers, in numismatic research in an archaeological context, we feel that this approach to coins is one of the ways forward in numismatics. The future lies with young scholars, and these are the ones most open to new methods in research and so many younger scholars were invited to participate in the colloquium."

In the coming weeks, I will discuss certain individual contributions here on this website and will use the keyword "Coins in Context I" so that all future posts pertaining to this volume can be easily located by interested visitors to this website. I am careful to use the word "discuss" instead of "review" since I am fully aware that my role as a contributor to the volume would make me an impartial reviewer. Since I am also promoting the content of this book, I should also make it clear that neither I nor any of the contributors to the volume profit from book sales.

The book is divided into three sections: "Methodological Overviews," "Potential at Site Level," and "Potential Uses." For interested parties I provide a list of contributions and their authors below:

Coins in Context - Methodological Overviews:

• H.-M. von Kaenel, "Coins in context - a personal approach"
• N.T. Elkins, "Coins, contexts, and an iconographic approach for the 21st century"
• St. Krmnicek, "Das Konzept der Objektbiographie in der antiken Numismatik"

Coins in Context - Potential at Site Level:

• P. Beliën, "From coins to comprehensive narrative? The coin finds from the Roman army camp on Kops Plateau at Nijmegen: problems and opportunities"
• H. Brem, "Lignum aere perennius? Dendrochronology and Roman coin circulation - taking stock and looking to the future using finds and features from Oberwinterthur"
• B. Kaczynski and M. Nüsse, "Reverse type selection in sanctuaries? A study of antoniniani found in various contexts"
• D. Wigg-Wolf, "Sites as context"

Coins in Context - Potential Uses:

• L. Bjerg, "On the trail of ancient trading places? Finds of Roman denarii from settlements in Jutland - froman an archaeological point of view"
• F. Kemmers, "Sender or receiver? Contexts of coin supply and coin use"
• N. Myrberg, "The social identity of coin hoards: an example of theory and practice in the space between numismatics and archaeology"
• M. Nick, "Economic and social patterns in Celtic coin use"