Do Coins Belong in a Museum?

I thought I might bring up something that may be controversial, that is, whether ancient coins are of such inherent worth and interest that they belong in museums. This obviously goes to the issue of cultural patrimony, but I wanted to avoid that, and get to the issue of whether ancient coins belong in a museum at all, irrespective of whether coins are considered cultural artifacts, which I think is nonsensical. My own view is that they do not, at least for the most part - while there may be some coins that are of such beauty and artistic worth that they should be exhibited, the vast majority are interesting but only to collectors.

Plus I have heard stories about coins rotting away in museum basements. Bronze coins are incredibly prone to disease, and it is disheartening to think of coins that have survived for millennia only to be destroyed by moisture in some cellar storeroom. I recall hearing of a find in Germany of barrels of fourth century coins, at the site of a former mint. What happened to those coins? - too many to exhibit, probably turning to dust.

Anyway that's one mans opinion, I am sure there is another side, at least besides the Indiana Jones view that, "It belongs in a museum!"

...and hopefully this is not something that has already been addressed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I went some months ago to the Manchester museum, the curator there received me with open arms and together we went through absolutely thousands of Ancient Greek coins that were stored there, I was there literately hours long (really amazing experience it was). Anyway, he told me that they don't have enough funding to give these Ancient coins any attention. After he pushed the museum for a long time they finally granted him permission to work with the coins 1 afternoon a week. In that time he documented the coins to put it in a up to date catalogue and also he would treat the coins with bronze diseasse (some were quite bad to be honest.

He was more of a specialist in ancient artifacts (Greece, Rome, Egypt etc.), however his knowledge in Ancient coins was fine and I am glad atleast someone is taking care of these coins or literately as you say, they would be rotting away.

So in other words, Ancient coins belongs to someone, museum or not, who can take care of them for future generations, I think that is the most important.

 

I am not a professional, especially for ancient coins. But I would say that the only reason a ancient coin should be in a museum is if it was historically know to take place in a special historical event , For example, if the exact match of the widows mite ( a widow in the bible) was found and it was indeed in the hands of that poor widow....... then it should belong in a museum.
"The Lesson of the widow's mite is presented in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 12:41-44, Luke 21:1-4), in which Jesus is teaching at the Temple in Jerusalem. The Gospel of Mark specifies that two mites (Greek lepta) are together worth a quadrans, the smallest Roman coin".

 

Sorry to disagree with doctor Jones buuuuut, coins do not belong in dingy boxes covered in dust in the basement of museums.
That said, when they are displayed and shown to the public it is awesome! But as is, they barely get play in those often stuffy places. My 2 cents (probably worth a hey penny).

 

Well spoken, Sir! Beautiful lepton!

 

I agree with @Pavlos . Coins should belong to anyone that will study and appreciate them, including museums.

I've been to some great ones and I'm always glad there are less crowds. More time to appreciate at my leisure.

The National Museum in Rome



Carrer Museum, Venice



Archeological Museum of Split



Museums like the British museum have also been instrumental to research, are often the primary places of numismatic study (at least historically) and in some cases post thier collections online making it easier for the rest of us to study our coins as well.

 

Great post, @Blake Davis ! And great question. I think young Master Finney @Noah Finney spoke my opinion as well. Ancient coins associated with an interesting historical event would be a great addition to an exhibit. Ancient coins in general are not very interesting to the average visitor to an art or history museum. Unless it’s big and it’s gold $$$$?

I think museums should keep collections of ancients, not necessarily on display all of the time, but available for study by appointment.

 

I believe that specific coins which are a part of the cultural heritage of an area belong in a museum. For example, the rare/unique Viking coins found earlier this year, coins found at Pompeii, coins found with a Roman soldier’s remains, Trier’s massive hoard of aurei, significant (rare/valuable/good-condition) coins found at archaeological sites, etc. These, like other major artifacts, tell the story of the area’s rich culture, and it would be a shame for the area to be stripped of its heritage.

Some coins, like Syracuse dekadrachms or Athenian gold, are so rare and valuable that museums are the only way people/collectors can enjoy the coins in person, so I support their presence in museums. Also some coins supplement the exhibit by adding to the story, rare or not.

However, massive collections/hoards that are simply gathering dust in museum basements would probably be better taken care of and appreciated if they were put on the market. Plus it would raise much-needed revenue for the museums.

 

I agree that certain specific extremely rare and high value pieces should be in museums, so long as they are prominently displayed. The Stanford Art Museum has a great collection of Ptolemies. At the school I attended (Berkeley) there was a large collection of Central Asian AR coins (Bukhara, Samarkand, etc,) that were kept in boxes in the basement of Kroeber Hall, which houses an archaeological and anthropological museum. So basically nobody knows about these coins unless they are taking grad school courses in numismatics or Central Asian history. (There was one numismatics class in the catalog) as they are inaccessible. To me, this seemed rather pointless at the time. In contrast, the National Museum in Amman, Jordan has a nice collection of Roman coins which is well displayed.

Coins should be accessible or if not, they probably are better off in the hands of collectors who will appreciate them and probably offer better care.

 

I think that coins/ other historical artifacts should belong to the the finder. Then, the finder can decide whether he/she want to keep them for their personal collection/ sell them to a museum or consign to auction. If, I where still living in Germany and found a small hoard of Postumus Aurei, I then would want those choices (I would keep them for my coll.)
John

 

I do not believe that only governments should be allowed to own significant or interesting items. I say this not only because of my philosophical belief in smaller less intrusive governments, although that certainly does come into play.

I believe that if you concentrate all important ancient coins and artifacts into a few centralized location, although they may be better protected from loss, theft or damage over the short term, they are actually at greater risk over the long sweep of history. Sooner or later every government will become corrupt, or be overthrown. By putting everything in one place you make it an easy target for the Vandals, Huns, Norse, Turks, French mobs, Bolsheviks, Nazis or ISIS of the future. It is far better for the chances of survival of these ancient treasures to disperse them to tens of thousands of collectors who are motivated to preserve and cherish them.

**Edit to add - It is not my contention that no coins should be housed in museums or that museums do not render a valuable and welcome service in preserving our history. They do and I enjoy going to museums when the opportunity arises. As a hobby we are also deeply in debt to the staff of museums for their research (think Harold Mattingly).

 

*edit*

 

Some of these issues have been discussed here: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/brazilian-national-museum-fire.322973/

 

When governments get involved bad things happen. Look at the case in 1934/ USA. The new President FDR passed a law that allowed the confiscation of gold coins/ bars/ certificates. Also he ordered the US mint to stop minting real $= out of gold/ replacing it with paper money. All of the 1933 gold coinage was melted down. Anyone with a brain / and a heart would have kept a thousand MS examples from @ year aside for future collectors, secondly encourage citizens to have gold bullion, coins since its the only real money. Now we live in an era where people speculate in worthless "bitcoin" go into debt because of plastic (credit cards) and have high inflation since the paper currency is not backed by gold. So how can you trust them to preserve rare coins, artifacts
John

 

@panzerman I'd like that post 10 times if I could, very well said.

 

Museums don't really show coins , not in the way we would like. So no I don't think Ancient coins should all be in museums BUT I think they should know and document every coin found to shed more light on the past of the coin. Where it circulated, how common of a find is it, and with that information and more they can give us a more complete with that information our hobby would be stronger.

Here is a perfect example on what can be done with the right information in the right hands. A paper on the costs of things in the Byzantine Empire ( Mostly late.) It took a lot of information from various sources to put this together. It is also an interesting read because it tells you what your coin was worth and could purchase back in its day.

https://www.academia.edu/1431390/Pr....C._2002_ISBN_0-88402-288-9_vol._2_p._799-878

If coins bypass the academics then we are leaving them with incomplete information, so the data to them must be more important than the object.

 

I don't think any of us will bemoan the fact the British Museum, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, and Staatliche Museen have coin collections. We would be the poorer without them. On the other hand, just like collectors, museums will vary in the handling of their coin collections. Small museums have smaller budgets and thus less man power and expenses to properly deal with objects that are not on display. I don't know what the solution is to rectify this, but banning coins from all museums isn't the answer.

 

Another thread on the matter, referencing a popular CoinWeek article on “WHY MUSEUMS HATE ANCIENT COINS.”
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/why-museums-hate-ancient-coins.247075/

 

I think ancient coins belong anywhere there is someone to properly curate the collection. Many museums properly maintain their collections, even if they are not on display. Witness the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, the British Museum, the Bibliotheque Nationale, the collection of Gottingen University, the Elvejem Museum, the Wheaton College collection, the Max Wulfing collection at Washington University, etc.

 

I'd add that coins of historical interest belong in a museum as well. In the context of a museum exhibit that is not about the coins themselves, coins should add depth to the material that they are supporting and help to advance the story being told. Exhibits exist to tell a story. An exhibit that doesn't tell a story isn't an exhibit at all, it's merely a display. While displays can be interesting, they do little to educate or advance understanding

And yet someone responded to your question by saying that the only coins that belong in museums are of historical interest, ignoring artistic merit as a reason.

But I would argue that any artifact possessing artistic merit possesses intrinsic historical value as well, even if not connected to a specific known historical event because:

1. The production of a work of art is itself a cultural event, which can be placed in the context of a historical timeline to tell us something about the culture within which it was produced at a specific place on that timeline.
2. The coin as a work of art reflects or advances a style, and as such is worthy of study from an art-historical perspective.

The question of whether or not all coins belong in museums has been covered before in great depth and detail in other places, so I don't think that there's a need to rehash it here. But the answer is no.

The vast majority of ancient coins are corroded slugs or nearly so, of little interest even to collectors.