Conference: Currencies between Cultures

The University of Warwick has announced a conference entitled "Currencies between Cultures" to be held July 3, 2014.  More information can be found here.

ACCG Case Rejected by the Supreme Court

As an update to the previous post concerning ACCG's ongoing litigation against U.S. law enforcement agencies, it is worth noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has, as anticipated, rejected ACCG's case.  Rick St. Hilaire provides a succinct description of the saga ("U.S. Supreme Court Rejects ACCG's Coin Case").  Attorney and lobbyist Peter Tompa hints at further litigious activities in an interview with Chasing Aphrodite. 

Numismatics at the 2011 APA/AIA

Once again there will be no shortage of numismatic topics presented at the next Joint Annual Meeting of the American Philological Association (APA) and the Archaeological Institute of America on January 6-9, 2011 in San Antonio. A total of three panels will be devoted to numismatic research.

The Friends of Numismatics have organized an APA panel (session 12) on "Coinage and Art: Techniques and Production" that takes place on Friday, January 6 at 11:15AM. See the full list of APA panels and abstracts.

There are two AIA sessions. The first is an organized colloquium (session 4C) on "Production and Consumption Mechanics in Hellenistic and Classical-Period Coinage," which begins on Saturday, January 7 at 8:30AM. The second is an open session (6F) on Numismatics on the same day at 2:45 PM. See the AIA's preliminary program.

Somerset Hoard Declared Treasure

The discovery of a hoard containing around 52,500 Roman coins from Somerset has been widely covered in the media. The PAS blog has presented some initial findings ("Metal-Detectorist Finds Largest Pot of Roman Coins in Britain").

Today, BBC News reported that the Coroner has formerly declared the Somerset Hoard treasure. It is hoped that the enough money will be raised for the Museum of Somerset to acquire the hoard. Initial estimates suggest it may cost about £1 million.

Gladiator Cemetery Found in Northern England?

From CNN:

Heads hacked off, a bite from a lion, tiger or bear, massive muscles on massive men -- all clues that an ancient cemetery uncovered in northern England is the final resting place of gladiators, scientists have announced after seven years of investigations.

The archeological dig has found "what may be the world's only well-preserved Roman gladiator cemetery," the York Archaeological Trust said.

Scientists have found 80 skeletons in the "unique" cemetery under the city of York, northern England, since 2003.

They announced their discoveries on Sunday, ahead of a documentary about the site due to air in Britain on June 14. This was one of two big archaeological developments, with Israeli scientists announcing the discovery of a huge cache of ancient religious objects.

They first thought the graveyard might contain the remains of criminals or political purges.

But that doesn't explain the teeth mark.

"One of the most significant items of evidence is a large carnivore bite mark - probably inflicted by a lion, tiger or bear -- an injury which must have been sustained in an arena context, " said Kurt Hunter-Mann, the lead archeologist on the dig.

"Nothing like them has ever been identified before on a Roman skeleton," said Michael Wysocki, who examined the remains in the forensic anthropology laboratory at the University of Central Lancashire.

He said the bite marks suggest the remains were of someone who fought as a gladiator.

"It would seem highly unlikely that this individual was attacked by a tiger as he was walking home from the pub in York 2,000 years ago," he said.

One arm was bigger than the other in many remains, the scientists found -- a suggestion that the men were gladiators who trained from a young age with a weapon in one hand.

Other clues include healed and unhealed weapon injuries, possible hammer blows to the head, and burial with "grave goods" such joints of meat or pottery -- a sign of respect.

It's not certain that the men were gladiators, Hunter-Mann cautioned.

"The research is continuing and we must, therefore, keep an open mind," the archeologist said.

But "almost all the individuals are male, very robust and mostly above average height -- features which would also be consistent with a gladiator interpretation. Many also have muscle attachment marks on their arm bones suggesting severe muscle stress," he said.

They also appear to come from all over the Roman empire, which straddled the Mediterranean for hundreds of years, starting more than 2,000 years ago.

"These are internationally important discoveries. We don't have any other potential gladiator cemeteries with this level of preservation anywhere else in the world," Wysocki said.

The skeletons are between 1,600 and 1,900 years old.

The most impressive grave was that of a tall man aged between 18 and 23, buried, probably in a coffin, in a large oval grave about 1,700 years ago. He had been decapitated by several sword blows to the neck, the scientists said.

Buried with him were what appear to have been the remains of substantial joints of meat from at least four horses -- that left behind 424 horse bones -- possibly consumed at the funeral, plus some cow and pig remains.

Other graves also had joints of horse, sheep or chicken, possibly remains of funeral feasts, the archeologists speculated.

The site was first discovered when archeologists probed an area scheduled for a housing development in 2003.

Also on Monday, Israeli archeologists announced the discovery of a huge cache of religious objects about 3,500 years old -- older than the Bible itself, and nearly twice the age of the Roman skeletons.

"It would appear that the vessels were used in a pagan cult that worshipped idols. During this period it was customary that each city had a temple of its own where special cultic vessels were used," said archaeologists Uzi Ad and Edwin van den Brink.

They include a vessel that was used for burning incense, a sculpted face of a woman that was part of a cultic cup used in dedicating a libation to a god, goblets and bowls with high bases and tableware that was intended for eating and drinking, the Israel Antiquities Authority said.

"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.

Video About the Gold Vessel and Antiquities Trading in Germany

The gold vessel from Ur that was seized from a German auction house in 2005 has been handed over to German authorities after residing in the care of the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum in Mainz where it was analyzed by an expert in Mesopotamian metalwork, Michael Müller-Karpe. It is now feared that the object may be allowed to go auction since the antiquities laws in Germany are rather lax, one of the reasons the reasons that Germany is an important transit market for recently surfaced antiquities.

As a follow up to this story, DW-TV has posted an interesting online video broadcast (31 July 2009) discussing the gold vessel and role that Germany plays in the international trade.

Future of the Gold Vessel from Ur (or Troy?) Remains Uncertain

Earlier I discussed the case of a gold vessel from Iraq that was offered for sale by ancient coin auction house Hirsch Nachfolger in 2005 and seized by German officials after it was spotted ("The Curious Case of a Gold Vessel from Ur"). The case has received less press in English speaking media than in Germany, but has been summarized and commented upon by some others in the blogosphere: "Gold Vessel from Ur - or is that Troy?" (Gill); "Mainz and the Gold Vessel" (Gill); "Why do Antiquities from Iraq Continue to Surface on the Market?" (Gill); "What is Münzhandlung Hirsch going to do with the Ur-Troy Goldgefäß?" (Barford).

Michael-Müller Karpe, an authority on ancient metalwork from Mesopotamia, examined the vessel and determined it was likely looted from a royal tomb in or near Ur. Münzhandlung Hirsch Nachfolger claims the vessel is from Troy. Müller-Karpe had been retaining the vessel at the request of the Iraqi embassy in Berlin, but the vessel has now been turned over again to German authorities and its future remains uncertain.

From the Earth Times via the Museum Security Network:

Setback for Iraq as Ancient Gold Vial Seized in Germany

Berlin - In a setback for Iraqi efforts to claim a tiny ancient gold vial, the item has been sent to a valuer in line with a German court order, a lawyer said Tuesday. Both a Munich auctioneer and the Iraqi government claim the dented little container. A German archaeology museum, which has taken Iraq's side, believes the item is 4,500 years old and comes from ancient Mesopotamia.

The attorney representing Gerhard Hirsch Nachfolger, the Munich auction company, said the museum had surrendered the item after a stalemate of many weeks.

The auctioneer hopes that a Berlin valuer will decide the mystery item is not Mesopotamian, but Roman, allowing it to go back on sale. It was seized in 2005, halting an earlier auction.

Customs agents appointed by a tax court in Munich picked up the plain vial, which is 35 millimetres high, on Monday from the Roman and Germanic Museum in Mainz.

Iraq's ambassador to Berlin had hoped the museum would safeguard the vial until its provenance and value are clear.

But the museum director decided to surrender the item, 3sat television reported. Archaeologist Michael Mueller-Karpe of the Mainz museum believes the object was looted from a royal grave in Iraq.

(Photo from Deutsche Welle)

The Curious Case of a Gold Vessel from Ur

Last Wednesday, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung carried a story entitled "Deutsch-irkaischer Archäologenkrimi / Aus Ur oder aus Troja? Ein Goldgefäß macht derzeit den Behörden Probleme. Es soll von Raubgrabungen aus dem Irak stammen. Bagdad hat Strafanzeige gegen einen deutschen Händler gestellt" (by D. Gerlach, 29.6.2009, pp. 1,3) about a gold vessel looted from Ur that was offered by a German auction house. A slightly more condensed article in English also summarizes the story ("Mesopotamian Vase Sheds Light on Germany's Artefacts Trade," Deutsche Welle, 30.6.2009).

The vase was first spotted for sale in 2005 at the German ancient coin auction house Hirsch Nachfolger, when it was then seized by authorities and handed over to Michael Müller-Karpe at the Römisch-Germanische Zentralmuseum in Mainz for an expert opinion. Müller-Karpe, an archaeologist who works on material from the region and a specialist in metalwork, concluded that it was likely looted from the royal cemetery at Ur where many similar vessels have been found. Looting in Iraq has dramatically increased since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Customs officials have now asked Müller-Karpe to return the vase to them, but has refused stating that the Iraqi Embassy in Berlin has asked him not to return it to customs. Iraqi officials have warned that anyone who helps or participates in the sale would be liable to up to five years imprisonment in Iraq. Münzhandlung Hirsch Nachfolger claims the vessel comes from Troy.

(Photo from Deutsche Welle)

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."

Week 6 and Week 7: "Picture Language on Roman Coins: Approaches and Interpretations"

Unfortunately I must write this update quickly since I remain busy trying to organize an international move and also need complete some essential research in Frankfurt before returning to the U.S.

We had two meetings this week since last week's meeting was cancelled. Yesterday we discussed the topic for week 6 "The Art Historical Context: Defining Roman Art and Redefining the Role of Images on Roman Coins – The Concept of Bildsprache" (handout Deutsch - English). In previous weeks we discussed early- and mid-twentieth century understandings of coin images, strongly rooted in a text-based tradition, and then the critics of the way that numismatists had studied coin images up to that point; this sparked a methodological reevaluation in the discipline. In week 6 we turned to some contributions to the study of numismatic images by ancient art historians and discussed in some detail the current understanding of Roman art as a semantic system in which coinage plays an essential role. In particular we discussed the two articles by Hölscher and Zanker and the advantages/disadvantages of their approach which focused on symbolism, the ways that symbols were used in conjunction with one another, and the way that images in general evolved through time (sorry that I do not have time to go into detail).

Today we met to discuss week 7 "The Numismatic Context: Emissions, Die Studies, and Ascertaining the Frequency of Types" (handout Deutsch - English). Although questions such as emissions, die links, and frequency are technical questions, they can provide much insight into the understanding of Roman coin images. We began by discussing one of Ted Buttrey's articles on calculating ancient coin production and the inherent problems in doing so. Although it was not required reading, we talked about the wider discourse relevant to the academic exchanges between de Callatay and Buttrey. The question of differentiating the frequency of types in comparison to one another is useful to the study of ancient coin images since certain types were not as common as others and since, presumably, the more common types would have typically played a more significant role in a visual program. From there we moved on to consider two short historiographical articles, by H.-M. von Kaenel, regarding correspondence between Theodor Mommsen and Fredrich Imhoof-Blumer on Corpus Nummorum project. Theodor Mommsen, who in many ways began modernizing the study of ancient numismatics, argued that in corpora of different collections we need to recognize individual dies, not just individual types. We still have this problem today. Hundreds or thousands of coins of the same type are published in many different museum catalogues or disparate auction catalogues, but their dies are not differentiated. We have multiple examples of one type, but we can say little else. And so to say anything more meaningful, scholars must drudge through every possible publication in order to conduct a die study as they are not built into our corpora. As an example of using some numismatic methods in the interpretation of coin images, we then considered my 2006 article and die study of the Colosseum sestertii. The article begins with discussion of the "historical context" based on the textual sources and then moves onto a discussion of "numismatic context" where I associated other coin types produced by Titus with the dedication of the Colosseum and contextualized the Colosseum sestertii in the wider visual program of Titus' coinage. The die study showed that the surviving Colosseum sestertii were produced from five unique obverse dies (quite a low number for a sestertius). Based on the low number of dies and the context of the emissions, I postulated the coins were commemorative in nature and probably distributed in conjunction with the inaugural games in the Colosseum. The article includes a discussion of the nuanced imagery on the coins themselves.

Next week will discuss "On the Semantic 'Value' of Coin Types: Statistical Evidence from Archaeological Sources" (handout Deutsch - English). The week after that we will continue with "The Importance of Archaeological Evidence: Nuances in the Semantic System and the Intended Audiences of Coin Images" when we will discuss some recent revelations with regard to the study of coins from archaeological context that shed light on the supply of coins to certain populations with respect the images they bear.

Again, apologies for the compact nature of this update.

Week 6: "Picture Language on Roman Coins: Approaches and Interpretations" - Postponed

This is just a notice that due to more scheduling conflicts our meeting for week 6 on "art historical contexts" and contributions (handout Deutsch - English) to the study of Roman coin images has been postponed until next week.

Next week, we will have two meetings: one to discuss the topic for week 6 and the one to discuss week 7, in which we will consider "numismatic context" (handout Deutsch - English) in the study of Roman coin iconography.

Week 5: "Picture Language on Roman Coins - Approaches and Interpretations"

Another short update.

Today was our fifth meeting. In previous meetings we examined the historiographical development of the iconographic approach to Roman coins up to c. the mid-twentieth century and critiqued their interpretation as instruments of "propaganda." Today, we looked at A.H.M. Jones' influential and provocative essay "Numismatics and History" in which he argued that numismatic scholars should not investigate political questions via iconography, comparing them to postage stamps, something which few people would pay much attention to at the time they were produced (handout Deutsch - English). He also criticized the haphazard way coin images had been studied and interpreted as propaganda as creating fanciful histories. In Jones' view numismatics and history could be better served if scholars were to focus their energies on questions revolving around technical concerns, volumes of issues, intricacies of coin circulation and supply, law, chronology, and economy.

To his credit, Jones influenced many numismatic scholars who investigated the potential of these other areas and, in our discussion, we commented on the ways where numismatic science has matured (or has started to mature) in these other areas (e.g. the work of Kemmers on the logistics of Roman coin supply and circulation). Although we may disagree with Jones' negative assessment of the iconographic approach to coins, his critique also stimulated a methodological review in the discipline.

C.H.V. Sutherland is perhaps one of the best-known twentieth century Roman numismatists who regularly investigated political question via coin iconography. In 1959 he published a response to Jones' article and outlined the ways in which coin images can be soundly studied and pointed to numerous examples where attention to coin images enhances our understanding of Roman politics and the Roman world. The participant who was to report on Sutherland's two articles in the handout was preoccupied with an important report for another seminar and so we will discuss the two contributions from Sutherland in more detail in our meeting next week.

We then talked about Weigel's methodological essay from 1995. Weigel turns against Jones' criticism of the iconographic approach, much like Sutherland, but layed out a firmer methodology. His emphasis was on interpreting coin images from multiple perspectives and the necessity for both a critical and interdisciplinary approach to Roman coin images, whereby they are not studied in insolation of other comparative evidence.

In coming weeks we will look at the interdisciplinary nature of studying coin images by discussing the contributions art historical, numismatic, and archaeological contexts. Next time we will address the topic of "Art Historical Context: Defining Roman Art and Redefining the Role of Images on Roman Coins – The Concept of Bildsprache" (handout Deutsch - English).

Week 4: "Picture Language on Roman Coins: Aproaches and Interpretations"

I am in the midst of a load of work and so this will be a short post on this week's meeting.

We first began by discussing how the Lex Gabinia of 139 BC, which allowed for a secret ballot in elections, may have affected the character of Roman coinage from then onward (see links to handouts at the end of the previous post). While traditionally accepted as one of the prime causes for the change in the character of Republican coinage, we also discussed the article by Meadows and Williams which argues that general social and cultural trends were just as responsible. The authors argue that the period witnessed a growing culture of commemoration and monumentality which naturally affected the coinage.

We then discussed Alföldi's article which provided a general description and interpretation of coinage through the Republican period and examined them in terms of propaganda. We skipped over Toynbee's article and may address it in a future meeting.

We briefly discussed the section in Crawford's book about "Designs and Propaganda" which discusses textual cases where ancient coins are described and how they are used by ancient authors. There is also an interesting speculative discussion on what persona "chose" coin types. A good general reference. We then moved on to discussion of Shotter, who discussed the significance of coins in the study of Roman history and especially understanding coins in terms of ancient texts.

R. Wolters article was similar to Alföldi's as far as interpreting "propaganda" on coins, though his focused on the imperial period. Wolters, however, included more explicit methodology and critiqued the term "propaganda" and the role of Roman coin images.

Next time we will discuss reactions against the iconographic mode of inquiry and then some methodological reevaluations that followed (handout Deutsch - English). From there, in future meetings, we will discuss the potentials of approaching coin images from archaeological and art historical perspectives.

Apologies for the rushed post. Hopefully, I'll have more time to write about next week.

Week 3: "Picture Language on Roman Coins: Approaches and Interpretations"

After a couple of scheduling conflicts and delays, we finally gathered last week to discuss our third theme, "Greek Art and the Nature of Images on Greek Coins," in the course (download handout, Deutsch - English).

We began by discussing some nineteenth century scholarship and the way that images on Greek coins were understood at the time. We read articles by both E. Curtius and T. Burgon (full citations in the handout) which argued that both the selection of Greek coin types and the invention of coins were governed by religion. We considered the factors that led such scholars to come to these conclusions and the flaws in such a regimented view on the motives of selection. Although the reading was not required, we also discussed the dismissal of these viewpoints by later nineteenth and early twentieth century scholars such as Head and MacDonald, who offered a slightly more complex accounting for the choice of Greek coin types. The citation to head in the handout can be said to summarize, in a very abbreviated fashion, the current understanding of Greek coin images.

The last part of the course was spent discussing sections from S. Ritter's Bildkontakte. Götter und Heroen in der Bildsprache griechischer Münzen des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Berlin, 2002). While following the modern understanding of ancient Greek coin images, as sketched out by Head, MacDonald, and others, Ritter discusses Greek coin images further in terms of Bildsprache (picture language). His themes examine the emergence and evolution of specific images through time and contextualizes them in terms of comparative representations in the coins of other Greek states. The subtleties of pictorial elements or style could play a significant role in the meaning of a Greek coin image and it is clear that states were expressing different and competing ideals in subtle ways via coin images (e.g. the section "Polarisierung: Die Athena-Bilder Athens und Korinths im 5. Jahrhundert").

This excursus into Greek numismatic images was limited to one meeting since studies of Roman coin images are more prolific and is the main subject of the course. I would also argue that, from a methodological perspective, there is more systematization (or at least developing methods) for the critical study of Roman coin images. In our next meeting, which must be postponed until next week, we will return to Roman coinage with the theme "Traditional Methods and the Historical Context: Roman Coin Images as 'Propaganda'" (download handout, Deutsch - English). We will read and discuss some essays by text-based historians that developed or perpetuated the understanding of Roman coin images as "propaganda," and term which is sometimes still used today in discussing Roman coin designs. We will discuss the problems of the label "propaganda" as applied to Roman art and coin designs and subsequent meetings will develop their understanding not as instruments of mass propaganda per se, but rather as part and parcel of a visually complex semantic system. Ultimately, we will address the interdisciplinary methodologies (i.e. historical, art historical, and archaeological) that provide the most potential for understanding the function, meaning, and reception of coin images in the Roman world.

Week 3 postponed: "Picture Language on Roman Coins: Approaches and Interpretations"

Last week was meant to be our third meeting for the course, but several people could not attend even with the schedule change. This week I have a previous engagement that necessitates I cancel today and so, for those readers who have been following along, you will find a short discussion about week 3 ("Greek Art and the Nature of Images on Greek Coins") here next week. The following week, I have another engagement abroad and so we will have another canceled session before going to "week 4." Since there was some extra time at the end of the course for "long reports," we still have adequate time to make it through all discussion topics before the end of the term in mid-July.

EBay: A Solution to the Illicit Antiquities Trade?

A story from the latest Archaeology Magazine (C. Stanish, "Forging Ahead. Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love eBay," Archaeology Magazine 62.3 (May/June 2009)) has been the subject of some blog discussions lately, e.g.:

Larry Rothfield, "eBay Reduces Looting -- Maybe," The Punching Bag (21 April
2009)

Derek Finchman, "'What Fools the Curator Also Fools the Collector'," Illicit Cultural
Property (21 April 2009)

Stanish argues that eBay has been flooded with fake antiquities, ultimately making looting less profitable as the prevalence of fakes drives prices down. Like Larry Rothfield, I think the overall point of the article is persuasive, but I do find parts of it too simplistic.

Undeniably, the rise of the internet and online sales platforms like eBay made looting a more profitable enterprise by allowing the potential for finders and middlemen to dispose of their finds directly, rather than searching for a dealer. Additionally, internet sales widened the customer base for antiquities, making looting a more lucrative venture. One good reference, available online, is C. Chippindale and D.W.J. Gill, "Online Auctions: A New Venue for the Antiquities Market," Culture Without Context 9 (Autumn 2001)).

While eBay may now be flooded with fakes, I am not convinced this alone diminishes the profitability of illicit antiquities and thus also the incentive to loot. As Rothfield points out, as long as the customer base remains wide (and I would add indiscriminate), there will be a demand for loot and, consequently, an impetus to produce fakes. Obviously, the fact that fakes appear over and over again on eBay means that customers are buying them alongside the genuine artifacts that are sold on eBay.

Ancient coins - the class of ancient objects examined on this blog - are commonly sold on eBay along with fake ancient coins. The volume of recently surfaced genuine ancient coins remains high, and eBay is a primary venue for the mass disposal of "low quality" coins that mid-range and upper-range dealers do not wish to purchase from suppliers. The prevalence of fake ancient coins has indeed led many collectors to abandon eBay, and much (if not most) of the individual ancient coin transactions have moved to other online venues such as VCoins, which presently hosts the inventories from about 140 ancient coin dealers. Here fakes are much less common than they are on eBay, but "fresh" material still shows up in some inventories as do the bulk lots from Balkan countries. It seems to me, at least in regard to the ancient coin trade, that fakes on eBay are not curbing the demand for new material to any significant degree. It is easy enough for dealers who do not knowingly deal in fakes to organize and find an alternative online sales platform as ancient coin dealers have done with VCoins.

What I do find interesting, however, is the intrinsic connection between looters/suppliers and fakes. Several times it has been demonstrated that suppliers who systematically loot to fill market demand are often times the same people who make forgeries and introduce them into the market. For example, a major sting in Bulgaria last year led to the seizure of c. 2,800 authentic ancient coins, a complete bronze chariot, a number of other antiquities, and also dies for making fake ancient coins. A move against looters in Sicily in 2007 also revealed material for making coin forgeries (discussed by D.W.J. Gill, "Operation Ghelas: Some Implications for Coin Collectors," Cultural Heritage in Danger (29 January 2008)). Some of the forgeries that have entered the market in recent years have been very sophisticated and fooled top experts in both academia and the trade. Such forgeries have appeared, with some frequency, in major auction catalogues and are sometimes discovered before the end of the sale and removed.

Just as the organized commercial interest does not wish address the looting issue in a proactive fashion, many dealers also shy away from discussion of the number or role of forgeries in the marketplace and one can easily find instances where collector-operated online forums devoted to the discussion of ancient coin forgeries are virulently condemned or simply dismissed by certain dealers who feel that a dialogue about forgeries is a direct attack on their practices. But certainly few would seriously suggest that most dealers would knowingly deal in forgeries.

In any case, there is a clear connection between the indiscriminate sourcing of fresh material for the market and the appearance of forgeries, which can easily make their way into the inventories of respected auction houses and dealerships as looters and middlemen are increasingly peppering the market with sophisticated forgeries at the same time they are selling genuine loot.

After the lecture I gave last week in Frankfurt to a local collectors society, over dinner we actually discussed the connection between the indiscriminate market demand and the increasing problem of forgeries. This is yet another reason why collectors, archaeologists, and conservationists have a common cause in demanding more transparency from dealers and suppliers. Loot and forgeries are often coming from the same sources and if you diminish the looting problem you also diminish the forgery problem. Interestingly, one collector on the Moneta-L forum remarked a few weeks ago that naturally most dealers will not address the looting and forgery problem in the same way non-dealers would (i.e. academics/archaeologists and collectors).

Thanks are due to S. Rosenblum who suggested this story be covered on Numismatics and Archaeology.

Week 2: "Picture Language on Roman Coins: Approaches and Interpretations"

Today was our second meeting for the course "Die Bildsprache auf römischen Münzen. Methoden und Deutungen." I mentioned earlier that one participant had enrolled as of last week, which had cast doubt on the future of the course, but another non-credit participant has signed up and it appears that two more students may begin attending as soon as we can arrange an alternative time slot (apparently Tuesday mornings are very popular for courses here in the Institute for Archaeological Sciences). This is good news and means that the course can carry on. I have decided, however, that the course blog will not be updated regularly since it will be easy enough to distribute course materials directly to such a small number of participants and we can easily discuss and review themes each week amongst ourselves.

For interested readers who wish to follow along, I will continue updating this blog weekly with reports on our activities and will upload English versions of our reading lists for each week. After our introductory discussion last week, we turned our attention today towards the theme of "The Relationship between Art and Coin Images" (download handout, Deutsch - English). Our first few meetings will be dealing with the historiography of the study of coin images and so I intentionally assigned some dated readings to give us a sense of 19th and early 20th century thoughts about the relationship between art and ancient coins and to provoke discussion.

We began by discussing Poole's article from 1869. Poole characterized Greek coins as important works of art in their own right, particularly related to relief sculpture, and argued that they represented local Greek styles. He further defined the stylistic characteristics of several different artistic "schools" in the Greek world, working in the antiquarian tradition of classifying and defining. By modern standards, the argumentation is weak on several points and the text contains several value judgments on artistic execution (common in literature of the period), but Poole's contribution lay in the recognition that Greek coins and other artistic media share common features. Although this may seem obvious to us today, before the mid 19th century, few critical studies sought to explore coin images in the same way that other artistic media was studied. Numismatic inquiry, as it sometimes is today, was often isolated from interdisciplinary studies. Poole, and other contemporaries, contributed to bridging that gap and placing coinage within the broader context of the study of ancient art.

Next we briefly discussed Bernard Ashmole's article from 1938. This rather short contribution examined "the community of style between coins and sculpture." Among other things, he discussed examples where coins might be used as stylistic indicators whereby we, in turn, could date sculptures.

The third article that we talked about, and in my view the most interesting, was Sutherland's "What is Meant by 'Style' in Coinage?" (1950). Here Sutherland was particularly concerned with highlighting the inventiveness and independence of the die-engraver and argued that periods do not have artistic styles, but rather that artistic styles come from artists. We had a long discussion over his arguments and these two points. Whether or not it was a conscious move, Sutherland's view that periods do not dictate styles somewhat contradicts the arguments put forth in Alois Riegl's Spätrömische Kunstindustrie (1901, reprinted and revised in 1927), in which it was argued that art of a given period will exhibit demonstrable features that reflect underlying cultural, social, and intellectual trends, which he termed Kunstwollen. Certainly, many readers will recognize that Alois Riegl is a very important art historian who influenced the whole of the discipline since this was essentially one of the first works where art was viewed as a tool for understanding the societies that created it, moving art history into the historical sciences and away from just aestheticism or connoisseurship. Back to Sutherland. His point that artists ultimately dictate a style was taken, but then we asked the question how far can we really say that die-cutter was a creative artisan. In this contribution, the fact that coins were utilitarian objects, mass produced for daily transactions, which necessitates that they be regular, consistent, and often relatively simplistic, remains far in the background. Certainly an average die-engraver could not be all that inventive in the style or choice of designs and must have been constrained by the rigid parameters of the medium (size of flan), tradition, and any stipulations set forth by the minting authority. Naturally, there may have been exceptions. The signed dekadrachms from Syracuse or Roman medallions represent instances where die-engravers might have enjoyed the freedom for more creativity and an ability to express "style" in different ways. We may also presume that a "master die-engraver" worked at mints and that other engraver's essentially copied his work, though the master engraver himself would have been subject to the same constraints listed above. Martin Beckmann presented a paper at the AIA meeting in 2008 in which he discussed Trajanic coin types that appear to have been produced early in a series by a "master engraver," which then served as prototypes for subsequent die-cutters. A similar phenomenon is observed by the identification of a master die-cutter dubbed the "Alphaeus Master" by C.T. Seltman ("Greek Sculpture and Some Festival Coins," Hesperia 17 (1948), 71-85. [JSTOR]). Sutherland discussed John Beazley and was undoubtedly influenced by his pioneering the use of Morellian analysis on Greek painted vases, but the ability to attribute dies to individual engravers is limited. Only in a few instances can we distinguish the work of different die-cutters, namely "master engravers."

We turned for a few moments to discuss Kurt Regling's Die antike Münze als Kunstwerk (1924), which is similar to Sutherland's contribution in several respects, such as addressing the inventiveness of engravers, though Regling often stuck to more specific examples such as Syracuse. A discussion followed on the hazards of narrowly viewing coins as artworks and, consequently, dangerously aggrandizing the creative role a die-engraver had. In all aspects of numismatic research, we must constantly remain cognizant of the multivalent roles that coins played in the ancient world. With a few exceptions, coins were mass produced currency and other functions would have been secondary.

Finally, we discussed Martin Price's article about paintings serving as prototypes for coin designs. While it is clear that sculpture and architecture influenced coin designs, far fewer paintings survive today and it is thus difficult to ascertain what coin depictions may have been based on famous paintings. He did offer us with some examples where it is probable that designs were based on painting and pointed to the conventions which allowed this to be realized, as in the labeling of figures. Much of the article was necessarily speculative, but provided much to consider. All the four readings for today showed how coin designs, and the die-engravers who produced them, could be dependent on wider artistic trends or specific prototypes and, at other times, more independent and creative. Although many of today's readings may not be so important in the modern discourse regarding images on coins, I think the first three articles provided a sense as to the state of these questions regarding art's relationship with coins in the 19th and early- to mid 20th centuries.

This course is devoted to images on Roman coins, but I thought it necessary to give participants a taste of the nature of images on Greek coins and the current understanding and analysis of Greek coin images in terms of Bildsprache. Therefore, for next week, we will be discussing "Greek Art and the Nature of Images on Greek Coins" (download handout, Deutsch - English). The first two articles are from the 19th century and are assigned to provide a glimpse into the conception of Greek coin images at this time. The final two assigned readings come from Stefan Ritter's Bildkontakte. Götter und Heroen in der Bildsprache griechischer Münzen des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (2002), which is one of the few extended studies which applies the concept of Bildsprache to Greek coin images in a consistent and critical fashion. By contrast, much more has traditionally been done in the study of images on Roman coins. I also provide a list of further readings to get anyone started who may wish to pursue questions relating to images on Greek coins. The section I list in Barclay Head's book contradicts the articles of Burgon and Curtius, which I assigned. In some respects, Head's short section summarizes, even if in a simplistic fashion, the way that images on Greek coins have traditionally been understood and approached by many modern scholars. After next week, we will stick strictly with Roman coins for the remainder of the course.

Bis nächstes Mal...

Week 1: "Picture Language on Roman Coins: Approaches and Interpretations"

Yesterday we had our first meeting for the course "Die Bildsprache auf römischen Münzen. Methoden und Deutungen."

At present, only one participant has signed up for the course and so its future is uncertain. The University of Frankfurt has a very peculiar modulized system for its course requirements which can make the choice of courses inflexible for many students. I am also told that due to the scheduling of introductory departmental meetings for students in other departments, like Classical Archaeology, that other potential students may have been unable to attend the first meeting. Therefore, it is a possibility that more students may come to register next Tuesday. We will see. If no one else shows up, I will see if the one registered participant wishes to continue independently or if we should cancel altogether. Should we continue, the course will become a more informal discussion on the historiography of the study of Roman coin images and the potential of developing numismatic, art historical, and archaeological methodologies to the understanding of images on Roman coins. If there are very few participants, the course blog will probably be dropped since it will be easier to distribute course materials directly, though I will still post reports for those interested in the topic here.

In the meanwhile, I thought interested readers might like to see what we did during our introductory session. As presented in the handout for week 1 (Deutsch - English), I posed four discussion questions:

The first dealt with the question of why coin images are important. We discussed that Roman coin images have traditionally been viewed as instruments of "propaganda" or sometimes likened to "newspapers" that could convey important events taking place in the Roman Empire (these approaches and understandings will be critically examined later in the course). It was also remarked that in the absence of literary evidence, we might turn to coin images for some information as in the third century when our literary evidence is either lacking or unreliable.

The second question was "what can coin images tell us about the past," a question similar to the first but more pointed. We again turned to examples in the third century where one might look to them as historical sources in the absence of literary evidence, but also supposed that close attention to coin images might be able to inform us about how the Roman state conceived of itself and that the personal use or transformation of coin images (e.g. deliberate defacement of coin portraits or the selection of certain types to be buried with the dead) could tell us how individuals responded to or understood certain images.

The third question dealt with how we could correctly interpret Roman coin images and what prerequisites are necessary to understand coin images. Here we spoke about several contexts including the historical context in which an image was produced and the numismatic context (other coins struck at the same time). I also emphasized that we had to understand Roman visual culture in order to unpack the meaning of images. I showed a slide of several coins from different eras (ancient and modern) with eagles on the reverse. We could see that eagle conveyed different meanings in all instances. On the Ptolemaic coin it was an attribute of Zeus and on the coin of the deified Marcus Aurelius it signified his consecratio as eagles are commonly shown in imperial art as bearing the souls of the divi to the heavens. On the American half dollar, the eagle (part of the Seal of the President of the United States) conveys freedom and independence. As an American more familiar with our visual culture, I easily understood more subtle aspects of the design such as the olive branch in the right claw and the arrows in the left, which conveyed the ideal that peace and diplomacy ought to be sought before war. The final two coins showed were German: one from the World War II era and a modern euro coin. When I asked what the eagle symbolized to Germans, it was clear and expected that the German student had a greater understanding of the eagle as a German symbol than I did. He better understands German visual culture. The eagle on the WWII era piece was depicted aggressively and clutches a swastika in a laurel wreath in its talons. We discussed the aggressive depiction of the eagle in the context of the ideology of National Socialism and discussed how other representations of eagles from this time period in both Italy and Germany were modeled on Roman representations as the fascist movements in these two countries were conciously presented as rebirths or incarnations of the Roman Empire. Eagles with spread wings clutching laurel wreaths are very common in Roman art and often resembled the eagles that were carried as standards in German military parades during WWII or that adorned government buildings at the time. By contrast, the eagle on the modern euro coin is executed in a contemporary artistic style and symbolizes the modern German state, but with a meaning and intent is very different from that produced over a half century ago.

The final question was "what does Bildsprache mean." We discussed how it implies that images on Roman coins had a communicative property. We also discussed that just as several characters make up a word or just as several words make up a sentence, so too could several independent or co-dependent symbols in a coin design formulate a particular message. I also introduced the concept of "connotative" or "denotative" types. The former tends to rely the most on abbreviated symbols or personifications which could communicate broad ideals or concepts, but which may require more thought or reflection to unpack the meaning. Denotative types are "more to the point" and may convey a meaning with straightforward representations, often accompanied by descriptive legends. I then showed several slides of Roman coins and we discussed the various symbols used on their reverses in the context of Roman visual culture and whether or not we might consider them to "connote" or "denote" a message.

I have put the Power Point slides for our first meeting online.

Reflections on an Acquistion

Part of the rhetoric used by the dealer lobby, and hangers-on, against those who advocate due diligence and transparency in the market to lessen the deleterious “material and intellectual consequences” of looting includes the use of derogatory labels. Such labels serve to reassure proponents of the indiscriminate market of the lack of a need for any oversight or concern and paints preservation advocates as undesirable “others.”

One such label frequently banded about is “anti-collector.” I view this term to be unhelpful and inaccurate. It is no more accurate than it would be to call the average collector “anti-archaeology,” or “anti-history,” “anti-science” or even “pro-looting.”

I have often been called “anti-collector” by various participants on the “other side” of the debate, in spite of the fact that I have never advocated an end to collecting. Such commentators also seem to forget that I am myself a “collector,” though it has been a while since I have been active and that I collected in a restricted manner in the final years of being active. Personally, I have chosen only to collect objects from old collections, before c. 1970, since I know these were not the fruits of recent looting, an activity I do not wish to support. My own c. 1970 cutoff coincides with the rise of the metal detector, which modernized and multiplied the negative effects of looting and made it an even more profitable enterprise.

I have not purchased anything for several years for multiple reasons: As a doctoral candidate, things like rent, food, and books take priority over collecting. Secondly, on principle, I no longer wish to purchase from certain American dealerships that provide substantial financial support for a profit-oriented lobby that refuses to acknowledge or address the indiscriminate commercial force that drives the systematic destruction of the material past and the information that goes along with it. Instead it seeks to protect and further those interests.

In any case, I thought some readers might enjoy seeing my last acquisition (pictured) and some discussion of it. Of course, I view it as the obligation of collectors to pass on all previous ownership information of their objects to future owners and I fully intend to do the same. The following is a translated excerpt from a lecture about the ancient coin trade that I have been invited to give to the Frankfurter Numismatische Gesellschaft next week (on that, stay tuned). The FNG is a local group of collectors and researchers in and around Frankfurt.

“To begin with, I would like to show you a picture of my last acquisition as a collector. It is a medallion of Marcus Aurelius, struck in December AD 173. It is a remarkable specimen, unique because it is the only known example of this type in lead. The obverse die matches some known bronze specimens. This medallion comes from an old collection, that of the famous literary scholar Thomas Ollive Mabbot, auctioned by the J. Schulman auction house in 1969 [after Mabbot’s death]. On account of the documented history of this object, I had no concerns about buying it because I knew it had been long divorced from its context. Naturally, we must all understand that practically all ancient objects that have been bought and sold through the course of time come from undocumented excavations, even if looting was not recognized for what it is in times past. I bought this medallion because I have a particular interest in Roman medallions and also the reign of Marcus Aurelius, which I personally find a fascinating period in Roman history. This medallion can be appreciated for its high artistic and aesthetic qualities and we can recognize its historical significance on the reverse design, which celebrates the emperor’s campaigns against Germanic tribes. But since this object was ripped from its original context we cannot answer other important questions about it. Although relatively rare, Roman medallions survive in some quantities and most have long been in the large museum cabinets or private collections and new specimens often surface for the first time on the market with some regularity. Only a small number of Roman medallions have documented find spots and find contexts via archaeological investigation. Therefore, it is still today not possible to say with any certainty what purpose or function that Roman medallions served in the Roman world. This medallion is not like most [second century AD] Roman imperial medallions that are known to us today since it is made from lead rather than bronze. Since such rare lead-struck medallions are not known through archaeological context, we can only speculate as to their purpose and function as well. It is often supposed that such lead examples were “test strikes,” but without written or material contexts it simply remains a hypothesis. This medallion was taken out of the ground decades ago, probably at a time when little distinction or difference was made between the methodology and goals of archaeological excavation and treasure hunting. It has long since been recognized that unscientific excavation (looting) is the destruction of historical information.

We might collect coins from older collection so that we can be sure that they were not recently taken from the ground and that we are not supporting looting today. If, however, we do not ask any questions of what we buy and do not concern ourselves with the destruction of historical information, commercial interests will destroy our past…”

Yes, this medallion is a unique rarity and has important historical significance, and it is a great novelty to know it was once owned by a prominent individual of our era, but one important dimension of this object is not known and is forever lost on account of its unrecorded separation from its context: that is the physical history of the object. Roman medallions are some of the most interesting ancient numismatic objects there survive, but it is not surprising that J.M.C. Toynbee’s Roman Medallions (New York 1944), written more than a half century ago, remains the authoritative treatment on this class of objects when so few have been examined with recorded contexts. Toynbee provided an excellent discussion of these objects and eruditely offered suggestions as to their possible functions, but even she remarked that a lack of recorded contexts meant that we could not say anything specific or determinate about their function.

Just as crime scene investigators reconstruct crimes through various strands of material evidence and their relationships to one another, archaeology reconstructs the human past by examining objects and their relationships. The material and intellectual consequences of looting, therefore, are analogous to someone taking evidence from a crime scene, an action which could make it impossible to say anything meaningful or certain about the past and how objects were used by people in various circumstances.

The value of context has proven itself time and again and continues to do so, even in ways that one might not readily expect context to contribute. I provide another translated excerpt from this upcoming lecture:

“Iconographic representations on Roman coins have long been the subject of study. In this way, Roman coins have been understood as embodying a concentrated picture language that could transmit ideological messages to the viewer. The study of coins in context has added another dimension to this field of study. Fleur Kemmers has demonstrated in her analysis of the coin finds from the legionary fortress at Nijmegen [F. Kemmers, Coins for a Legion: An Analysis of the Coin Finds from the Augustan Legionary Fortress and Flavian canabae legionis at Nijmegen. Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 21 (Mainz 2006), 189-244, esp. 219-244] that the soldiers stationed there were supplied by the Roman state, deliberately, with coins bearing militaristic themes. Through a comparison of the coin finds from local civilian settlements and the corpus of coin finds from Rome, and through a thorough study of coin circulation and coin supply, she showed the fundamental quantitative differences in coins that were supplied to the soldiers there and to other regions and settlements. The semantic system deployed on Roman coins can now be understood as being more nuanced than we had previously thought and the potential applications of her research for the study of Roman coin iconography are clear [see further discussion in N.T. Elkins, “Coins, Contexts, and an Iconographic Approach for the 21st Century,” in H.-M. von Kaenel and F. Kemmers (eds.), Coins in Context I: New Perspectives for the Interpretation of Coin Finds. Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 23 (Mainz 2009), 25-46 (this collection of essays should be in print by May 2009)]. Some of my own current research is now concentrating on the geographic distribution of Flavian and Trajanic coin types with architectural designs and preliminary results are showing that certain types were intentionally directed at specific audiences [-The results of this research are to be presented at the XIVth International Numismatic Congress in Glasgow]. For example, coin types that celebrated the construction or reconstruction of a specific building in Rome are more frequent in Rome and Italy, but ‘connotative’ types that communicated more general ideas, such as the Ara Providentia types of Vespasian, which referenced the emperor’s foresight in naming an heir, are very common and particularly abundant in excavations in the western Roman provinces. These few examples indicate how numismatics and attention to context can provide new perspectives and understanding of the ancient world.”

There is more to a coin or to antiquities than the object itself which we can admire. As a onetime active collector, I understand the passions of collectors and the thrill of establishing a physical connection with the past by the purchase of antiquities. However, if we are to be responsible stewards of the past and really do have a concern for understanding the world of our forbearers, and for preserving the potential of future generations to realize that knowledge, then we must consider the sources of what we are buying and the effects of our actions. Great progress could be made if every collector would put some limits on their acquisitions, such as coming up with some cutoff date for their purchases. If every collector today were to say I will not buy anything that is not documented as having a recent history before (DD/MM/YYY) then he or she could be rather comfortable in knowing he or she were not funding more recent exploits, which would decrease the demand for and profitability of freshly looted material. We all need to change the detrimental status quo and the greatest power to force that necessary change lies with the consumer.

Image: CNG Triton IX (10 Jan. 2006), lot 1487 = Ex John F. Sullivan Collection = Ex Thomas Ollive Mabbott Collection (Part II, J. Schulman, 27 October 1969), lot 4792