Alan Walker, of the firm Nomos, has written about ancient coins and archaeology in e-mails announcing upcoming sales: https://nomosag.com/default.aspx?page=ucWebAuction&webauctionid=8 He has given me permission to reproduce his comments here. (Last time we had this thread: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/is-ancient-coin-looting-financing-isis.304348/#post-2878563 ) Here are his comments, simply copied, without quotation marks. All the rest of this post is his words: In these mails I have been writing about the ever increasing problems caused by rules designed, supposedly, to preserve cultural heritage; especially since there has never been any form of rational debate over the subject. Quite amazingly, conferences on the destruction/protection/preservation of cultural heritage have been organized by academic groups that have gone so far as to ban the attendance of anyone not agreeing with the organizers' viewpoint! No, I am not making this up. Apparently it was thought that having collectors, dealers, art historians, et al. provide their opinions would offend those holding different views. Turning to coins, we do constantly hear how important they are for archaeology; in fact, sometimes I get the feeling that some present-day archaeologists are simply unable to date anything they find without a coin to help them unravel the chronology! As usual in this ongoing 'debate' some things said about coins and archaeology are true, and some things aren't. First things first, let's look at what coins can tell us when they are found archaeologically (including from surface surveys: i.e., when found on or just below the present ground surface). They can date periods of occupation; they can provide dates for the erection of a building, or its modification, or its destruction; they can help locate ephemeral events such as markets; they can show us where, in simple stadia, groups of spectators all coming from a specific area would gather; they can help us trace road links; knowing where they are found can show that coins bearing certain specific types were designed for use in certain specific areas - even that certain denominations were preferred in certain places but not in others; tabulating their find spots can provide us with a map that can delineate tribal or state boundaries - as well as to show areas where certain coins circulated and others didn't. However, there are rules that apply for such information: the first and most important rule concerns the coin's condition, i.e., how worn or not worn the coin was when it went into the ground. Was it unworn (uncirculated or extremely fine), slightly worn (very fine), worn (fine or so), very worn (very good or so)? And we have to be sure that the wear involved is from actual use, rather than corrosion (corrosion affects the the coin after it enters the ground, while actual wear comes from circulation). For example, if a number of coins are found in the foundations of a building, and all are very slightly worn, if at all, we can make the reasonable assumption that the building was erected shortly after the coins were struck. Of course, that leads to the problem of dating the coins themselves! There are many Roman imperial and provincial coins that can be dated to a specific part of a specific year because they actually have dates on them. Others, however, like almost all Greek autonomous issues, have to be dated by style, historical references, or, conversely, by their archaeological context! The coinage of Athens provides a number of examples to prove this point. When the Agora excavations began in 1931, a bronze with a helmeted head of Athena on the obverse and an Owl to left on the reverse (BMC 240-244 = de Luÿnes 2071 = SNG Copenhagen 94-95 = Svoronos pl. 22, 85-88) was given a wide variety of dates: c. 393-323 BC, 4th century BC or just 3rd century BC! As Agora XXVI, 50 it is given the precise date of 307-c. 300 BC! How did this happen? It was determined by archaeological evidence that proved it was not in circulation c. 320/317, but was by 304, and, thus, could be connected to the short-lived Democracy that lasted from 307 to c. 300 BC. Here, at least, instead of the coin dating the archaeology, archaeological evidence dated the coin! Furthermore, while it is fair enough to use datable coins in good condition do date an archaeological feature, what about worn coins? If a virtually unworn (except for corrosion) dupondius of Vespasian dating to AD 70 is found in a foundation trench for a villa, we can be fairly certain that the building probably dates to c. 75/85 at the latest. But what if it's worn? Our problem is that we have no way of knowing how long it took for a coin to get as worn as it has gotten, and there is virtually no way to ascertain it. In the 260s Postumus reused often extremely worn sestertii of the later 1st and early 2nd centuries as flans for his own issues; in the Agora late Hellenistic coins of Athens, worn completely flat, continued to circulate as late as the time of Gallienus, turning up in the debris from the Herulian sack of the city in 267; finally, worn to extremely worn Roman sestertii, dupondii and asses, mostly Flavian but also including both earlier and later issues, were, using inscribed numerals, apparently revalued as pieces of 42 and 83 nummi in the late 5th and early 6th century (see MEC I, pls. 4-5)! This also means that the those mostly later 1st century coins had to be available in sufficient numbers for them to be re-used in the late 5th century. So it should be clear, while coins can provide a relatively precise date for an ancient site, they often can only tell us that the site dates to an undetermined years later than when the coin was made: i.e., a considerably worn coin of Titus struck in the year 80, found in a layer containing African Red Slip ware (ARS) dating to the 5th century, has no chronological value whatsoever. In fact, closely dated pottery can often provide better dates than coins can. So the idea that the trade in ancient coins has to be heavily regulated because coins are so important for archaeology is based on false pretenses. Even worse is the fact that the evidentiary value of ancient coins for archaeological purposes only exists if they are found and properly recorded. Thus, even surface coin finds can be valuable evidence if their exact place of discovery is recorded. The appearance of individual silver or gold coins over many years all coming from a single field can testify to hoards that were dispersed in the soil by plowing or other types of agricultural work; low value coins that often come up in a certain field close to a settlement site could also be a dispersed hoard, but might also be the only traces of an ancient or medieval market or fair that was set up using temporary tables or stands once or twice a year (minor coins would be dropped and lost around the tables). With no proper record made of such finds, all this information is lost. Oddly enough, the simplest way to prevent such loss is to establish a system like the PAS in England, but with better enforcement and more efficient staff. If anyone finding anything would know that he/she would be very well-treated if they immediately reported finds - carefully recording where surface ones turned up and guarding probable hoards until official archaeological officers promptly arrived to excavate them properly - the situation would be quite different! Fair rewards like those in England, which are based on fair market value, rather than ludicrously low ones, if at all, could result in a sea change in the way finders report their finds. If the 'Black Market' provides vastly more of a reward than the government does... For example, among many stories: we have finders being rewarded with 50% of the metal value for gold coins found - fair enough for common medieval Venetian ducati, but not for staters of Alexander; of inflexible rules, like those in effect in Turkey when the "Dekadrachm Hoard" was found, which provided a maximum reward of the equivalent of $150 for a single coin, or $6000 for a hoard no matter how big (the finders apparently received the equivalent of $178,000 - some 30 times more than if they had gone to the officials) - the Turkish government spent infinitely more on legal expenses in the US to get the coins back than they would have had to pay to be fair to the farmers in the first place; or finders who are entitled solely to a fraction, say 25%, of the official value placed on their find by the government, a value that already is so low as to be laughable. Changing the present system to a fairer one would have a major effect on illegal digging - so why don't governments do it? And why don't archaeologists demand that they do so? Could it be that, despite all their rhetoric about how important and vital and priceless antiquities are for their culture, modern states would rather not spend all that much money on them? Back in the 1970s a number of American and British archaeologists were adamantly against the payment of rewards because they believed that, since many states had laws vesting all ownership of archaeological finds in the state, finders had to turn over anything found to the state anyway, without need for a reward. The fact that this went against all logic and human nature was not considered. In addition, as I have already made clear, no archaeologist will ever criticize the policies of the state in which she/he works, and urging fair rewards, which would result in governments spending money that they would rather spend elsewhere, would not be wise. For all concerned, blaming foreign collectors, dealers, etc., is much more convenient, than blaming the local government's own failings.
Yes, thanks for posting those comments. He makes a great deal of sense. This is sometimes lacking in those who write on this issue.
A very interesting and reasonable write up. The PAS really is the way to go. Even if someone holds a very strong protectionist view, the reality is that one of two things are going to occur if you try to maintain tight control over all finds. The first is that the sites get in the way of development and just get destroyed and then swept under the rug. The second is that they end up on the black market. It’s a no brainer to encourage and reward reporting, and to record the information of even seemingly insignificant finds and add them to a database. It’s worth noting that not all archaeologists are unreasonable about this. But sometimes those with very strong views are the loudest. As an anthropology student, I’ve been around plenty of professionals who were supportive of systems like the PAS. Some of them are even collectors themselves. But academia isn’t very welcoming of dissenting voices, so they tend to keep quiet. Anyway, as far as coins go, they are certainly useful in the context of what’s around them. The information imparted goes both ways: combined with other artifacts, the coins can be dated more precisely, and likewise the coins can date the other artifacts. So finding a coin dated to, say, 70 AD, along with another item dated to a range of 30-90, substantially narrows the date range of a site. But of course, coins aren’t always (or even often) part of any such context to begin with.
This is certainly not true of the university where I teach. Dissent amongst my colleagues is continuous and encouraged.
Oh, I’m sure I should’ve put a caveat there. I’m sure it varies between disciplines and universities, and it certainly should be. But it often does take a very long time for new ideas to supersede the old, and it’s very hard for some people to accept ideas that might, at first glance, go against a core idea of their discipline. But of course, I can only speak from very limited experience and the accounts of others.
Being in Berkeley, there have been many instances lately where "free speech" is not being encouraged anymore, and this extends into the academic ranks, on occasion. Lack of fair debate seems to be becoming a problem in academia. The article raises excellent points, and I agree that a widespread implementation of a PAS like system would greatly assist in the management of antiquities, rather than each state trying to impose its own rules, often widely divergent.
I love Dr. Walker's comments in the Nomos catalogues and certainly enjoyed and agree with the above. Thanks for posting this here.
