Open-Access Publications (Numismatic, etc.) from the American School of Classical Studies at Athens

I have just heard from a colleague at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens that the publications committee recently voted to place ASCSA's out-of-print monographs on the Athenian Agora, Corinth, and the Hesperia supplements on its website.  The publications have been made freely available in consultation with JSTOR, which provided the scans.

Some important references on coin finds in Greece are included and have been placed online.

• Thompson, M. 1954. The Athenian Agora II: Coins from the Roman through the Venetian Period. (Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
• Miles, G.C. 1962. The Athenian Agora IX: The Islamic Coins. (Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
•  Kroll, J. 1993. The Athenian Agora XXVI: The Greek Coins. (Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens).
• Edwards, K.M. 1933. Corinth VI: Coins, 1826-1929. (Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens).

In addition to the monographs on the coin finds, there are of course several other important reports on various objects and monuments (ceramics, architecture, sculpture, etc.).  A complete list of the ASCSA's open-access monographs can be found here.

"Coin Project" Launched

It has been announced that "Coin Project" has been launched and made available for public use. Among other things, the site allows users to catalogue coins of various types and upload images.

I was invited to test the site several months back and it appeared to have several promising study applications. I have been unable to spend much more time with it than that, but I am sure that I will have cause to use it in the future. The website will no doubt become a source for quick images and will be consulted by researchers, especially now that CoinArchives is available only through paid subscription.

The architect of "Coin Project" discusses it in more detail here.

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."

Week 9: "Picture Language on Roman Coins: Approaches and Interpretations"

This was our final meeting and the topic under consideration for our course on methods of interpreting and understanding Roman coin images was "The Importance of Archaeological Context: Nuances in the Semantic System and the Audiences for Coin Images" (handout Deutsch - English).

We began by discussing F. Koening's publication of the coin finds from the necropolis at Avenches and his observation that certain reverse types such as Salus, Felicitas, and Roma were preferred for deposition with the dead. This trend would seem to indicate that the viewers were making judgments about the coins most appropriate for deposition and thus responding to or thinking about certain images, something which was only recognized here via the context. One criticism of the study, however, is the relatively small sample size.

Next we discussed Fleur Kemmers' study of the coin finds from the legionary fortress at Nijmegen, which I have mentioned several times before here and elsewhere. Her detailed and comprehensive study of the finds there also indicated a remarkable concentration of militaristically-themed Flavian coins in contrast to neighboring civilian settlements and the finds from Rome. Her study also examined the logistics of coin supply to Nijmegen and it was demonstrated that these coin types were deliberately supplied to the legions stationed at Nijmegen. This realization provides a new perspective on the semantic system on Roman coinage and clearly shows that, at least at certain times and in certain instances, the Roman state directly targeted certain groups with coins based on specific reverse designs. Future studies of excavation coins may well benefit from attending to the distribution of reverse types as compared with other sites.

We moved on to Hekster's article about the targeting of audiences based on different denominations. This article was not "archaeological" per se, but did distinguish visual programs as they appeared on precious metal and bronze coins and certainly has implications for studies of "coins in context" that address iconography.

Finally, we briefly discussed the last four pages of my recent methodological article on Roman coin iconography that address recent insights into the study of Roman coin images provided by archaeological contexts and then lays out a series of methods and steps that could provide a more encompassing view of Roman coin images in future studies. Among other things, it is argued that using find corpora and inventories, we may better understand the semantic system on Roman coinage by studying the regional distribution of bronze coin types.

Researching and writing this article provided the inspiration for this course when Prof. von Kaenel asked me to instruct a course on the interpretation of Roman coin images.

Week 8: "Picture Language on Roman Coins: Approaches and Interpretations"

A brief update.

In our eighth meeting we discussed "On the Semantic 'Value' of Coin Types: Statistical Evidence from Archaeological Sources" (handout Deutsch - English). We began by considering the methodology of Carlos Noreña's article in which he quantified the personification of imperial virtues from precious metal hoards and argued that certain ideas played a stronger role in the overall visual programs of different emperors.

There was some confusion about preparing discussion of Depeyrot's book and so I simply provided an overview of it; for our purposes it suffices to say here that it addresses the frequencies of certain types according to the Reka Devnia hoard.

In our wider discussion we looked at the benefits of using this methodology (esp. Noreña's) to understand the frequencies of particular reverse types as contrasted with die studies which are problematic for such things, as we discussed in Week 7. One of the problems with hoard evidence, however, is that most are predominantly precious metal hoards (at least the best recorded ones) and so bronze coins will be underrepresented, though such studies on the frequency of certain reverse types in various regions could be undertaken by examining the find corpora and inventories such as FMRD.

The final article we discussed was that by Kaczynski and Nüsse in the new book, Coins in Context I. Using a few case studies, this article probed the question of whether or not a personal "type selection" based on reverse type can be determined according to the third century coins found in sanctuaries. I will discuss this contribution in more detail when I get to it in my ongoing series of posts about the book's contents.

Next time will be our last meeting in which we will discuss the theme "The Importance of Archaeological Context: Nuances in the Semantic System and the Audiences for Coin Images" (handout Deutsch - English). This topic focuses on the insights that the archaeologically recovered coin finds give us into iconographic numismatic research, especially as regards the audience for coin images and individual responses to coin types. We will also end this meeting with a general discussion looking back at the numerous methods we discussed throughout the course.

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"

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.

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.

Course: "Picture Language on Roman Coins: Approaches and Interpretations"

Next month I will begin leading an upper-level course entitled "Die Bildsprache auf römischen Münzen. Methoden und Deutungen" (Picture Language on Roman Coins: Approaches and Interpretations) at the Goethe Universität Frankfurt.

This course grows out of my own research where I have been developing methodologies for understanding Roman coin images, but the course is designed to give a broad overview of the historiography of the study of coin reverses in addition to introducing students to the potential of developing methodologies in numismatics, Roman art historical theory, and archaeology.

I understand I am fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct a course on a specialized topic relating to coins since it is rare for even general numismatic courses to be offered at North American universities. Naturally, I realize there may be a broader interest in this subject and, taking advantage of the Internet Age, I invite any interested readers to follow along as we progress.

I have started a blog for the course: "Die Bildsprache auf römischen Münzen." When the course begins on April 14, I will begin updating the blog weekly with new themes and readings for each meeting. All of the downloadable course materials on the blog will be in German. However, I understand that some interested parties may not read German and so I will try to post handouts in English here, on this website, as we go through the course.

Although this course is upper-level and thus I would normally plan a more intensive list of readings for a seminar-style course such at this, I have consciously scaled back. I am told by my colleagues it will be of a more "elective" nature, according to the course requirements and system here, and so too many readings would scare off otherwise interested students. Therefore, for certain themes I will also be listing "further readings" for those who wish to be more thorough.

The documents I have posted on the course blog so far, which I provide in English here, are:

-Syllabus with course overiew (pdf)

-Tentative course schedule (pdf)

-Week 1 (pdf)

-Week 2 (pdf)

(Foto: Sesterz von Vespasian, 71 n. Chr. Münzkabinett der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Objektnummer 18200606.)

WildWinds Hacked

A couple of weeks ago it was announced that Dave Surber, creator of the WildWinds coin database, passed away. WildWinds is one of the best-known websites among both ancient coin collectors and numismatic scholars. In addition to being a reference for attribution and price research for collectors, it is widely used by scholars as well since it records so many unique and variant types.

In the wake of the tragic news of Mr. Surber's untimely death, several numismatic discussion lists have now reported that WildWinds has been maliciously hacked. It is terrible that someone would deliberately destroy another's hard and significant work - a deed made all the more terrible on account of its timing. It seems that the section on Greek coins suffered the most while some pages on Roman imperial and provincial coins also were deleted. One individual estimated that about 30% of the WildWinds database had been damaged.

Shortly after Surber's death, there were vague indications that an effort was underway to maintain the WildWinds database and I hope that those who take on this task will be able to restore the lost information. It seems that some of the lost pages are still present in the Google cache and so, hopefully, these will be saved and reintegrated into the website before they are purged from the Google cache (things do not stay in Google cache forever).

It is hard to imagine why anyone would attack a site like this. There is abundant speculation in the online discussion groups, but many seem to think it may have been an attack carried out by a forger or by someone who was resentful of the fact that the site is used for price research. But again, no facts appear to be known yet as to the identity or motivation of the hacker. I would hope that the situation has been referred to law enforcement authorities who perhaps can track them down and hold them accountable.

Anyone with any specific information on efforts to restore the WildWinds database or with any information as to any action being taken against the hacker are welcome to post comments.