Call for Papers Extended for the 2009 International Numismatic Congress in Glasgow, Grants Also Available

Last time I checked the Call for Papers for the 2009 International Numismatic Congress in Glasgow it extended only until September or October 2008. However, this morning I checked the Congress' website and saw that the deadline has been extend until January 31, 2009. This is welcome news for anyone who has an abstract they would still like to submit. The committee has been evaluating abstracts on a rolling basis responding to submissions in the following month.

The website states: "In order to help younger scholars who may wish to apply for the INC grants the deadline for offering a paper has been extended until 31st January 2009." A new section on the website lists grants that are being offered by the International Numismatic Commission, Numismatische Kommission der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, and the Deutsche Numismatische Gesellschaft. The grants offered by the International Numismatic Commission and the Deutsche Numismatische Gesellschaft appear to be the most appropriate for those presenting research on ancient numismatics.

The international Numismatic Commission will be awarding 40 grants to younger scholars in the amount of 600 Euro each to attend the Congress. Further information is to be posted on the Commission's website in coming days.

The Deutsche Numismatische Gesellschaft is offering two grants in the amount of 500 Euro each. Those who may apply include: "Coin collectors at an advanced stage, students of numismatics and doctoral candidates whose PhD theses focus on numismatics are eligible. The following areas of specialization are desirable: ancient numismatics, German history of coins and money and German medals. The age of applicants is limited to 35 years."

The International Numismatic Congress will be held from 31 August 2009 to 4 September 2009 in Glasgow. The last International Numismatic Congress was held in 2003 in Madrid.

Recording Wear and Corrosion on Ancient Coin Finds

In searching coin reports from excavations one can find analyses and lists of highly varied quality. Much of this, of course, can depend on the academic tradition from which the numismatist comes. In worst case scenarios, a "coin report" may not even have a list of the coins and may only provide a vague summary of types and rulers represented. In addition to a detailed analysis of the overall series from a site, and also of coins in stratified contexts, the most useful coin reports will present the numismatic data in a complete and detailed manner through a list or catalogue. These lists should include reference numbers or a description of the coin if an exact reference cannot be provided, dates/date range, die axes, diameter, weight, etc. One aspect of coin finds that is often overlooked, however, is wear and corrosion.

Recently, Kris Lockyear commented on the need for more standardization in the publication of coin lists from archaeological sites, citing the basic elements that should be included in an average coin list (K. Lockyear, "Where Do We Go Frome Here? Recording and Analysing Roman Coins from Archaeological Excavations. Britannia 38 (2007), 211-224). One of his proposals was to begin an international database for the cataloguing of coin finds which would necessitate certain types of information to be entered. Some regional and national databases and corpus-making projects have been underway for sometime. Apart from the basic information listed above, one of the desirable things on a coin list he mentioned is a measure of the wear and corrosion present on individual coin finds. Some of the things that wear may inform field numismatists about is the individual lives and circulation of coins.

In 1976 Alan Walker commented on the value of studying wear and corrosion on coin finds (A. Walker, "Worn and Corroded Coins: Their Importance for the Archaeologist," Journal of Field Archaeology 3.3 (1976), 329-334). He detailed the need to pay close attention to corrosion on a coin. Although a coin may be nearly unidentifiable because of corrosion, one may still be able to glean some information from it; even coins that are heavily corroded could exhibit few signs of wear. He then surveyed the value of studying wear on coins, which is useful for establishing the chronological sequences of coins that are not dated - an important aspect of Greek coin hoard studies. Wear patterns on coins also provide insight into the duration of time in which they were in circulation and can also be used to examine external issues such as coinage reforms, demonitization, etc. He lists some examples where the study of wear on coin finds proves essential for the understanding of site or the coins themselves. He concludes:

"In order to obtain all the information that numismatic material can supply, archaeologists must be aware of the ramifications of wear and corrosion. The examples cited above show that even exceedingly worn or corroded coins may have a real significance: they can either give a precise date for their contextual assembly or illuminate the economic and political circumstances of their period of deposition."

Certainly, as Lockyear, Walker, and others have pointed out, wear and corrosion deserve more attention in contextual studies and the analyses in excavation reports.

The market already has a general method of "grading" coins in terms of general "eye-appeal" which may be affected by wear and corrosion. The grading of ancient coins is naturally much more arbitrary than grading modern coinage, for which there are entire firms are devoted grading, certifying, and "slabbing" coins in plastic containers. In recent years there has been some demand for slabbed and professionally graded ancient coins and a new venture devoted to the slabbing of ancient coins has recently been a hot topic in online ancient coin collecting boards. Nevertheless, the relatively loose grading systems used in the ancient coin market cannot be applied well to excavation finds where one is more interested in technical aspects than aesthetic concerns. Additionally, market grading systems do not differentiate well between measuring wear and corrosion.

Recognizing the need for a system for coin finds, one was devised and published in 1995 (S. Frey-Kupper, O.F. Dubuis, and H. Brem, "Usure et corrosion. Tables de référence pour la détermination de trouvailles monétaires / Abnutzung und Korrosion. Bestimmungstafeln zur Bearbeitung von Fundmünzen," Inventar der Fundmünzen der Schweiz 2, supplement (1995) (I could only find the French text available online). The text of the guide is in both French and German.

The guide provides a system for gauging corrosion and wear on both sides of a coin using a numbering scale from 0-5:

Wear (W). In German, Abnutzung (A); in French, Usure (U)
W 0 uncertain
W 1 very slightly worn
W 2 lightly worn
W 3 worn
W 4 very worn
W 5 extremely worn to completely worn (flat)

Corrosion (C). In German, Korrosion (K), in French, Corrosion (C)
C 0 uncertain
C 1 very slightly corroded
C 2 lightly corroded
C 3 corroded
C 4 very corroded
C 5 extremely to completely corroded

"0" is used if for some reason one aspect is completely indeterminate, e.g. a coin is so badly corroded (C 5) that one cannot determine how worn it is (W 0). A coin find report using this system might thus include a set of numbers such as W 1/2, C 3/3 in order to relay information about wear and corrosion. Numbers on both side of the slash refer to obverse and reverse respectively. In French or German the abbreviations would of course be different. I first became aware of this system when I began working with Fundmünzen der Antike in Frankfurt, which has implemented the system on new entries to its finds database. Although I did not use the system when I began identifying and analyzing the coin finds from Yotvata, I did use it for the last couple of seasons of coins after I learned about it.

It seems to me that the use of this system in coin lists is rather efficient and exacting, but still compact enough to incorporate into a coin list. The system has been accepted in a number of find publications on the continent, but I am not aware of its use in the English/American scholarship or coin find publications. If any readers are familiar with it, have comments on it, or have incorporated it into their work, I would enjoy hearing from you here or privately.

Certainly we are in need of preserving as much detailed information about archaeologically recovered coins as possible and we ought to make as much of that information available as possible for future comparative research. The study of wear patterns on ancient coin finds ought to provide further insight in future studies and is an area of Fundnumismatik with little detailed exploration at present. In my opinion, these guidelines seem to be a good way of enhancing our corpus. Feedback welcome.

Updated 28 November 2008: After discovering the French version of the corrosion/wear guide was available online, a link was inserted above.

Leisurely Blogging, Laggardly Thinking

I have sometimes commented on the tenor of the "debate" between archaeologists/preservationists and their opponents, some of the most vocal of which are portable antiquities dealers.

While archaeologists have sought to shed light on the relationship between the demands of indiscriminate trade activities and systematic looting through empirical studies and research, naysayers - with some exceptions - have a tendency to respond simply with vague ideological premises, deceptive factoids, or even derisive personal attacks.

I and others have made observations before on the role of disinformation and personal attacks coming from certain members of the trade lobby:

• e.g., N. Elkins, "Archaeologists Don't Care about Ancient Coins?" Cultural Heritage in Danger. 12 October 2007.
• e.g., N. Elkins, "Dilettanti and Shopmen: Divergent Interests in Looting and Cultural Heritage Issues." Numismatics and Archaeology. 7 May 2008.
• e.g., N. Elkins, "Archaeological 'Brown Shirts'." Numismatics and Archaeology. 10 November 2008.
• e.g., P. Barford, "An Example of US Numismophilic Erudition." Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues. 20 July 2008.
• e.g., D.W.J. Gill, "Respect for Colleagues." Looting Matters. 20 August 2008.
• e.g., D.W.J. Gill, "Cyprus Discussion: Etiquette?" Looting Matters. 21 August 2008.

Neil Brodie has commented on various deceptions and tactics used by such individuals before in his 2006 essay "Smoke and Mirrors," in E. Robson, L. Treadwell, and C. Gosden (eds.), Who Owns Objects? Oxford: Oxbow. 1-14. Brodie interprets such obfuscatory tactics as attempts to undermine any solution to the looting problem so that the status quo remains and all antiquities can be traded freely with little concern for law or ethics.

In recent years many archaeologists, preservationists, and government officials have been personally targeted by certain leaders of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG), a lobby which opposes anything but a free-market in ancient coins and actively combats legislative measures designed to protect archaeological and cultural heritage when the unfettered trade in ancient coins might be hindered as a result of protective legislation. Among those that consistently have been the object of personal attacks launched by the ACCG's leaders is Maria Koroupas, the Executive Director of the U.S. State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee.

Maria Kouroupas has been vituperated by ACCG leaders a number of times since Cyprus' request for the inclusion of certain ancient coins of Cypriot type in the bilateral agreement on import restrictions was implemented in 2007, an event which angered ancient coin dealers in the U.S. Some of these dealers allege she worked in the shadows to undermine the "interests of collectors." Some of the most venomous attacks made against her include D. Welsh, "Stealth Unidroit: The State Department's War Against Collecting," Ancient Coins, 1 August 2007 and D. Welsh, "Maria's Fingerprints," Ancient Coins, 10 August 2007. In the latter Welsh quoted the late Steven Vincent, a journalist who was sympathetic to the American collector and dealer lobby, in calling Maria Kouroupas the "devil incarnate" to collectors and dealers. Dave Welsh is the chair of the ACCG's International Affairs Committee and an ancient coin dealer.

Today I read a post entitled "Leisure" on Wayne Sayles' blog. Sayles is the Executive Director and founder of the ACCG and also a long-time dealer in ancient coins. In the latest posting, "Leisure," Sayles directs vitriol again towards Maria Kouroupas:

"I just couldn't resist passing this one on. Condé Nast lists "Top Executive" profiles on their website Portfolio.com and among the elite profiled there one will find Maria Kouroupas, Executive Director, Cultural Property Advisory Committee, Washington, DC. Condé Nast lists the Industry of Ms. Kouroupas as "Leisure".

Bravo!"

Apparently Sayles finds amusement or irony in the fact that a website aggregating information on various executives lists Kouroupas' industry as "leisure." Had he done some more research on the site he might have also found that Phillipe de Montebello, who many dealers and collectors would no doubt count as an "ally," is also classified under the industry label of "leisure."

Jane Waldbaum, the former president of the Archaeological Institute of America, is recorded as being in the "professional services" industry.

Eric McFadden of the North American ancient coin auction house, CNG, is listed as a retailer. Robert and Tory Freeman and David R. Sear of the auction house Freeman & Sear are also listed as working in "retail."

Portfolio.com's industry headings are certainly limited and inaccurate. It would appear anyone involved with cultural affairs is filed under "leisure" - I guess there is no "culture" industry. The label portfolio.com provides for the operators of CNG and Freeman & Sear would seem to imply their work relates to slapping stickers on cans of vegetables, but I am well aware their work goes well beyond that sort of activity. To say the least, the descriptions of "industries" covered by this online list are narrow and imprecise.

Mr. Sayles merely took the opportunity to launch another gratuitous and baseless insult. Is not such behavior rather childish and unbecoming of someone of certain age and alleged repute, and especially of one who is supposed to be the leading representative of ancient coin collector and dealer interests - the ACCG's Executive Director - an office which one might expect to necessitate a certain level of dignity and decorum?

Although I fully expect this critique to be countered with a further caustic personal attack on me, I ask once again: where is the erudition, intellectualism, and moderation in the discussion of these issues? Is the "other side" able to offer more than chicanery and insults? I know there are some out there who want to go beyond that, so why can we not discuss the issues in an adult manner?