There were several responses to my last post that suggest that the AIA and archaeologists do not support treating Roman Denarii struck in Italy as presumptively Italian, but at the same time it was also suggested that it is okay to presume that an unprovenanced Roman denarius is indeed presumptively Italian because, not surprisingly, such coins can be found in Italy.
To me, this is a fine distinction without much of a difference. And, for that matter, not a very helpful one. Certainly, using such an analysis one could also presume that Roman denarii are the cultural property of any number of modern nation states in Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and even the Far East where they are found, including places where it is okay to collect them.
If, on the other hand, the AIA and other responsible archaeological bodies would abandon supporting such presumptions and instead limit their support for the repatriation of artifacts proven to be taken from illicit investigations, that would be a major step forward to bridging the gap between collectors and archaeologists.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
A Question of Presumptions
Posted by Cultural Property Observer at 7:00 AM
Labels: AIA, Import Restrictions
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Roman coins are not my strong point, but don't quite a few have mint marks? So coin marked as made in Londinium would be presumed to have been found in the UK?
Hi Dorothy- Late Roman coins frequently do have mint marks, but not earlier denarii. In any case, if you take a look at British finds on the PAS database, it will become quickly apparent that many late Roman coins struck outside of the present UK circulated in Britain.
Dorothy- I should have finished my thought. Also, if you look at the coin hoards series or site publications listing Roman coins by mint, you should also note that London mint coins circulated throughout the Roman Empire as well.
Post a Comment