Destroying Undocumented Artifacts: What Were They Thinking?

Kate FitzGibbon asks in reaction to a series of  revealing "tweets" from some well-known archaeologists and academics associated with the archaeological lobby which appear to either support the idea of destroying undocumented artifacts in order to keep them off the market, support the idea with some qualifications, think its for the source country to decide, or think it should not be discussed, not because it's wrong, but because it undercuts their anti-looting argument.

Of course, collectors like Kyri don't think that way.   For them, "all antiquities 'merit saving' with or without context."  CPO heartily agrees.

Sofaer Collection

The ANS has published the Sofaer collection of coins of the Holy Land.  This publication will add to the scholarship in the area.   The coins were all purchased on the collector market in the United States, Europe and Isreael.  Yes, numismatists can derive significant meaning from studying coins independent of any archaeological context.  Abe Sofaer is a former federal judge and State Department legal adviser.

Archaeological Context: Is it About Preservation or Control?

Archaeo-Blogger Rick St. Hilaire somehow believes that I have discounted the importance of archaeological context, but all I have said is that coin collectors derive their own context from the iconography and fabric of the coins themselves and that the goal of preservation of archaeological context—however worthy-- should not be allowed to control all else.  Perhaps, then, he should not take such statements about context out of context!

St. Hilaire then seems to discount the value of numismatic context, though his fellow archaeo-blogger Nathan Elkins organized an entire conference on the subject.  Perhaps, coins do indeed tell us something without reference to where they are found.

Finally, though suggesting that a good lawyer looks at all the evidence, St. Hilaire somehow apparently missed the ANS article appended to the Chasing Aphrodite interview.  In it I explained that perhaps archaeological practice may be different than archaeological rhetoric when it comes to issues of context.  I state:

Frankly, I might feel a bit better about all this if I had evidence that the archaeological community as a whole makes every effort to not only record the coins they find but to publish them.   Both are critical to the preservation of numismatic knowledge.  Even if a coin is recorded in an excavation notebook, it does little good if it is never published, and, if the notebook or computer data file is not backed up in some way, the information about its provenance could easily be lost.  That, of course, would render the coin for all practical purposes, “an orphan” of the sort members of the archaeological community roundly condemn—at least when held in a collector’s trays.  

This is not a hypothetical concern.    Indeed, a recent study prepared at the behest of the numismatic trade for the use of the State Department’s Cultural Property Advisory Committee concluded,

• The publication record for coins found in Italian excavations is poor.
• What has been published is thanks to a few dedicated individuals, not to the encouragement of the archaeological community.
• Without publication it is almost impossible to know what has been found and what has become of the material.

Let me give just one concrete example.  Some 60,000 - 70,000 ancient coins from excavations at the City of Rome, which were recovered by archaeologists during the 19^th century, still await publication in Frankfurt.  One would have thought coins excavated in Roman contexts would be of utmost importance, but the fact that they are still awaiting publication after over a century speaks volumes.  

All this raises a larger question.  Is all the talk about protecting archaeological context for real or is it actually about justifying further controls?

Archaeologists' Mantra Not Applicable to Coins

One of the mantras one hears from the archaeological community is that an artifact without context is worthless from a scholarly perspective.  It's refreshing then to hear from archaeologists that the iconography of coins does indeed give them quite a bit of meaning.  See http://coinarchaeology.blogspot.com/2012/04/call-for-papers-art-in-round-new.html

At least Give Them a Decent Burial

The Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation is apparently advocating reburial for repatriated objects. See http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org/events?eventId=462717&EventViewMode=EventDetails ("[I]n other circumstances only an outright return and reburial of artifacts will satisfy the wronged side.")

However, CPO must claim first credit for that proposal in a post dated, April 1, 2009:
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/04/advocacy-group-hopes-to-recontextualize.html

But at the time, CPO suggested it as an April Fools' Joke!

Hopefully, the Lawyers' Committee's [serious?] thinking about such a proposal will be revealed on its website, but without more, doesn't this all suggest that as far as the self-identified "preservation community" is concerned, "context" is indeed far more important than preserving artifacts themselves?

But, if so, is it really all about preservation or control?

Archaeological Tail Wags Numismatic Dog?

Nathan Elkins is publicizing a new book entitled, "Coins in Context I" on his blog. See: http://coinarchaeology.blogspot.com/ He is also a contributor to the work.

The book does sound interesting. Still, I don't know if I will purchase it or, if I do, whether I will actually have the time necessary to read it in the depth that it deserves. Thus, I am happy that Nathan Elkins is also taking the time to summarize the book on his blog.

While I welcome the book and his efforts and those of the other contributors to take archaeology away from merely treating coins as dating devices for archaeological stratum, I hope the work will not be used to dismiss the efforts of others who focus on different aspects of numismatics, or, for that matter, justify the imposition of import restrictions on coins.

For a look at other recent numismatic research, see the contents of the ANS 150 th Anniversary Edition of the American Journal of Numismatics: http://numismatics.org/wikiuploads/Store/AJN20TOC.pdf The reader should note that while topics related to coins and archaeology appear, there are also titles that focus on other aspects of coins.

Archaeology and coins is certainly an important topic. But, numismatic research is broader than just archaeology and however useful the study of coins and their context may be, there are simply far too many coins out there to be studied, preserved and displayed solely by archaeologists or museums in source countries. In other words, the archaeological tail should not be allowed to wag the numismatic dog.

Reported Treasure Find Prompts Catcalls Rather Than Congratulations

The British Press is reporting another large find of Roman coins declared under that country's treasure trove law. For more details, see: http://www.mk-news.co.uk/mknews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=361917

I think the finders should be commended for following the law and declaring their hoard to the authorities. Two bloggers associated with the advocacy group "Saving Antiquities for Everyone" evidently disagree. See: http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2008/10/just-finding-history-digging-for-coins.html

They appear to be griping because they claim archaeological context was disturbed. However, both seem to miss the point that the find-- like most in Britain and Wales-- was made on ploughed land where the archaeological context was already disturbed. For more, see: http://www.accg.us/issues/news/bland/ Presumably, their concern is based on the fact that the coins were recovered at a depth of 1 meter (approximately 3 feet), but the fact that the coins were found with broken pottery (presumably the remains of the container that initially protected the coins) still argues that earlier ploughing operations already damaged the context of the find.

In any event, I find all their focus on context in this circumstance to be a bit laughable. Does anyone seriously believe that archaeologists would have been visiting this field any time soon to do a full scale investigation that would have come upon this hoard? If anything, this find should prompt local archaeologists to investigate the site further to see if there is anything really worth excavating nearby. If so, the price of disturbing the context of this hoard (if it was in fact disturbed) will likely be greatly outweighed by the value of any larger find.

One final note. I have spoken to several classical archaeologists (with no axe to grind against collectors) that have told me that large hoards like that found here are not typically found at archaeological sites (in contrast to much smaller purse hoards). As there appears to be a difference of opinion on this point, I think it is best to focus on the fact that most hoards found by detectorists are found on ploughed land where context has already been disturbed.