I recently read Nathan Elkins’ paper “Why Coins Matter: Trafficking in Undocumented and Illegally Exported Ancient Coins” and have been following the discussion it evoked on several websites and blogs ever since. As an archaeologist and numismatist, involved in research and teaching at a Dutch university, with no affiliations either to any coin collectors organization nor any lobby group in the USA, I felt the need to contribute to the ongoing discussion in what I hope is a positive way.
Let me first state that while reading Elkins’ paper I was constantly nodding to myself and uttering approval under my breath. I could not agree more with the conclusions of his paper. Given several reactions to his paper, there is no general consensus in this however.
Having been trained as an archaeologist (MA in Roman archaeology), but specializing afterwards in numismatics (PhD in Roman numismatics), I would like to confirm and enhance several of Elkins’ arguments regarding the problem of undocumented coins entering the commercial market, and thereby hopefully clarifying matters for those persons who are not familiar with todays practices in archaeology in Europe.
Elkins emphasizes the importance of contexts for the study of ancient coins (where was a coin found, in which stratigraphical layers, in association with which other artefacts, etc.?), information clearly irrevocably lost when a coin is illegally dug up and then sold on the market. A counterargument by his opponents is that in the past nobody ever bothered about context and still numismatics as a discipline has made great progress. Furthermore, they continue, ancient coins being so numerous and often of low value, what is the added value of contexts for any ancient coin? Yes, it is true that in the past little attention was paid to context of archaeological finds (including coins), and, equally true, very important research on coins has been done without ever knowing the contexts from which they came. However, numismatics and archaeology, like any other scholarly discipline, are a dynamic field of study. Over the last decade or two there has been a growing awareness that coins are an integral part of the archaeological record and should be studied as such. Research questions never thought of before, or thought inanswerable, now prove to be persuable thanks to this approach. And although the majority of ancient coins has not a substantial financial value on the commercial market, each and every coin found in a context and properly recorded has a scientific value.
To give just one example from my own studies: quadrantes are the smallest roman bronze denomination, of small size, plain copper and usually without any exiting iconography. An excavation in a roman legionary fortress in The Netherlands yielded over 300 of those coins (not as a hoard but as single finds), all of exactly the same type. A careful study of the associated finds showed that the quadrantes had arrived at the fortress en block, shortly after their time of minting in Rome. In this way it was possible to reconstruct a special consignments of coins to a legion posted in frontier province, at the same time revealing a need for and use of the smallest denominations possible, a clear indication of a monetized economy (F. Kemmers, 2003: Quadrantes from Nijmegen. Small change in a frontier province. Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 82, 17-35). Conclusions and insights that would have never been achieved had the coins been illegally dug up and sold seperately.
It seems to be a blessing in disguise that ancient coins are such popular items and well liked by the larger public. Although this makes it usually rather easy to find a platform for sharing the newest insights, and always provides great pictures for lay-publications, it also causes the large scale looting of sites for exactly these same coins. No one I know is particularly interested in, or has started the collecting (regardless of the source) of bits and pieces of animal bones. An even more common phenomenon on archaeological sites and of undisputed value in archaeological research.
Archaeology and numismatics are not two mutually exclusives disciplines, far from it. In close cooperation the best results are obtained. It can not be denied, unfortunately, that in the past archaeologists have not been very swift in publishing coin finds from their excavations, if at all. This does not apply to coins alone, numerous categories of finds still await further study and publications. In Europe things are changing however. Due to the ratification of the treaty of Valetta, concerning the preservation of cultural heritage, by almost all European Union members, excavators (be it commercial companies, universities or government funded agencies) commit themselves to publish the data of their research within two years after completing the fieldwork. After this date, the objects are available for all to study and are stored in large depots, accessible to the public. In the Netherlands this is indeed enforced, companies can loose their license when not fulfilling the requirements.
In my opinion it is far better for coins to be excavated, analysed, published and then stored, then to disappear, ripped from their context, into private collections of which no records are kept and access is usually very limited if at all.
To conclude: the aim of all archaeologists, numismatists and collectors of ancient coins is to get a better understanding of the past. New techniques and approaches allow us to unveil this past better than ever before. Collectors should be aware that by buying coins of unrecorded provenance, not retrieved in controlled excavations or surveys, they are severely hampering the study of antiquity. Numismatists and archaeologists however, should not neglect their duty to the larger public: to inform – frequently, willingly, and correctly – the public of the breakthroughs, discoveries and exciting new insights gained by studying coins from excavations.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Coins, contexts and collecting
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Dear Dr. Kemmers,
Interesting article--yes, clearly context matters. In fact, a search of collector-centered internet discussion groups will show that many collectors themselves have often discussed the valuable information that is irrevocably lost when coins are looted, then dumped on the market with no provenance.
My question to you is this: In the case of the 300 quadrantes or other groups of ancient coins, do you foresee the future possibility that any of them could be sold to the collecting public once they have been properly excavated and their contextual data extracted? Clearly, there may be a need for many individual coins or hoards of coins to be kept by institutions for further research, but is it necessary for ALL of the many millions of ancient coins in existence to be kept by such institutions indefinitely?
The common complaint of archaeologists on this blog and elsewhere is that collectors are contributing to the problem by buying unprovenanced, ergo possibly looted coins, and that if they would only buy properly documented coins, then looting would decrease. The collector's dilemma is that for the most part there are no such coins for sale.
Anecdotally I can relate my own experience. I am aware of only one coin in my area of interest currently on the market with a pedigree which ensures it wasn't looted (anytime recently that is). It's in poor condition and overpriced or I would have snatched it up long ago since like most collectors, I value a pedigreed coin. However, any coins which come from documented hoards are even more highly sought after. For example, hoards of coins which have been found in the UK, recorded then dispersed in accordance with the law, provide one of the rare opportunities for collectors to obtain coins with a known find spot and hoard composition. Any such coins which come on the market are sold quickly and at a premium. If other countries and institutions would make properly excavated coins available to collectors, I have no doubt that such coins would be highly preferred to unprovenanced ones. When given the choice, many collectors would doubtless opt to purchase only properly documented coins.
In 7 years of collecting I've only had the opportunity to buy properly excavated coins twice. As the market stands now, for a collector to stop buying unprovenanced coins would in reality mean to stop collecting altogether--something which is simply not going to happen. Therefore, I hope that the more practical minded, solution-oriented individuals in the academic community can come up with constructive ways to change the market and give collectors and dealers who wish to be responsible the realistic opportunity to do so.
Alternatively, as I’ve commented elsewhere, coin-holding institutions could go a long way to satisfying collectors/independent researchers by making coin data and photos available via web-accessible databases. You stated: “Numismatists and archaeologists however, should not neglect their duty to the larger public: to inform – frequently, willingly, and correctly – the public of the breakthroughs, discoveries and exciting new insights gained by studying coins from excavations.” While this would be nice for the public at large, it won’t do much to satisfy advanced collectors who have their own research interests and simply want access to more coins in their chosen field. Speaking for myself, I’d rather receive that access in the form of a database record and photograph via the internet, than having to purchase the coins from dealers or on eBay—especially with no provenance. Unfortunately at present, buying the unprovenanced coins is the only way for me to learn more about them since there are no web-resources and very few print resources which even touch upon them at all, let alone provide in-depth coverage.
Yours respectfully,
Voz Earl
Dear Dr. Kemmers;
Voz has eloquently stated the Catch 22 that collectors face. It is impossible to collect only provenanced coins if the definition of provenanced is "archaeologically excavated". The archaeological community, at least in the United States, has created this impasse by condemning cooperation between professional archaeologists and private collectors. Several archaeologists have bluntly stated that destroying artifacts is preferable to selling them to collectors. The inescapable question is what becomes of those millions of coins discovered by chance all over the world. Most have no provenance at all. Only the most wild-eyed idealist would suggest that a farmer should stop tilling his field whenever he or his children find a coin. Some archaeologists have proposed that all construction should stop immediately when any artifact is found. But, that is a double edged sword. During the preparations for the recent Olympic games, the Greek government destroyed countless artifacts and the provenance from which they came. That disaster was defended in the press as an unfortunate but necessary act. Is the prohibition of some farmer from retrieving common coins laying on the surface of his fields worthy of comparison? The farmer is criminal, but the city officials and government planners who destroyed genuine treasures are rewarded with accolades? These sorts of issues make it hard for collectors to accept the picture as it is painted by archaeologists who see context as trumping all other interests and retentionists who feel that every artifact of human existence more than 100 years old should be held by the state. There are many good reasons to defend archaeological sites, but none of them, in my view, are good reasons to throttle the avocation of ancient coin collecting.
Wayne G. Sayles
Post a Comment