7/29/2019 Wits Chon Ke Heath Final

1/2

IntroductionRick WitchonkeAncient coins have been collected and studied orcenturies and, until airly recently, the trade in newly

discovered coins was an accepted eature o thehobby. Historically, there was oen a close coopera-tion among dealers, collectors, and scholars whowished to study ancient coins to advance numismaticknowledge. Inormation about the ndspot o coinswas oen transmitted rom the nder to the dealer,and thence to collectors and scholars. And it wasoen possible to make complete records o newly-dis-covered intact hoards o ancient coins, which are ocrucial importance in establishing the chronologieso many series. Under this arrangement, o course,much inormation was lost, but much was preservedas well.

Beginning in the 1960s, a number o actors com-bined to undamentally change the way the market inancient coins operated. First, sensitive metal detectorsbecame widely available, and these were increasingly

used to search or metal antiquities, including coins.Although the use o metal detectors is illegal in manycountries, their use has become widespread, and thevolume o recently excavated ancient coins availableon the market has increased dramatically.

Secondly, countries where ancient coins are ound be-gan to more aggressively enorce their national patri-mony laws, which claim ownership or the state o allantiquities ound in the country, whether on public orprivate land. Tis increased vigilance drove the illicittrade in ancient coins underground, and nders anddealers were no longer willing to pass along inor-mation on where coins had been ound, since thatinormation could be used to incriminate them. And,as the nders became more sophisticated, they beganto break up hoards, or mix them with other coins(including orgeries), beore they could be properlyrecorded. Tus, the bulk o ancient coins available onthe market today carry no inormation about whenand where they were ound (provenance), or evenwhen and how they were imported into the US.

Tird, international eorts were initiated to curb thetrade in illicit antiquities, culminating in the 1970

UNESCO reaty, which was signed by many coun-tries, including the US. Ten, in 1983, the US passedthe Convention on Cultural Property Implementa-tion Act (CCPIA), which allowed countries to apply

to the US or import restrictions on specic antiqui-ties rom that country. At present, under this law, theimportation o some ancient coins rom Italy, Chinaand Cyprus is prohibited, and restrictions are underconsideration on ancient coins rom Greece. And, inthe 2003 Schultz decision, US courts decided that,under certain conditions, antiquities imported intothe US could be considered stolen property under USlaw, and the importer punished accordingly. Tesenew legal constraints, along with additional measuresimplemented by other countries and the EU, haveincreasingly impeded the ow o unprovenancedancient coins into the numismatic marketplace.

Finally, archeologists, led by the Archeological In-stitute o America (AIA), have mounted an eectivecampaign to curtail the trade in unprovenenced an-tiquities (including coins) and thereby to reduce the

attendant loss o important contextual inormation.Some archeologists believe that the suppression o theillicit trade will also eliminate demand or antiqui-ties, and thereore end illicit excavation. Tus, in theongoing debate, archeologists are largely aligned withthe countries where antiquities are ound. Tey areopposed by dealer and collector groups who wish tomaintain the trade in ancient coins. So the currentsituation is complex and evolving, and it is importantor collectors to understand the issues involved.

Te ANS has a long tradition o scholarly numismaticresearch and publication, oen based upon the avail-ability o inormation about the source o ancientcoins, and thus supports eorts to preserve contex-tual inormation. On the other hand, much o themembership o the ANS consists o coin collectorsand dealers, who have a strong interest in preserving

the right to responsibly collect ancient coins. And thebulk o the ANS wonderul cabinet o coins is theresult o generous donations rom member collectors.Tus, the ANS seeks a balance wherein the licit tradein ancient coins can be maintained, while preservingcontextual inormation. So, in the interest o inorm-ing its membership (and the public at large) on the

Ancient Coins and the Cultural Property Debate

issues involved, we have inaugurated a series o ar-ticles on various topics relating to ancient numismat-ics and the cultural property debate.

Te rst in the series, presented below, is an article ex-plaining the archeologists perspective, by Dr. SebastianHeath. Sebastian is a long-time member o the ANSstaf who now works with the Institute or the Study othe Ancient World. Moreover, Sebastian has worked asa eld archeologist, and serves as the Vice President orProessional Responsibilities at the AIA.

Te second article in the series, which will appear inthe next number o the Magazine, will be authoredby attorney Peter ompa, an ANS Board memberwho oen represents the Proessional NumismaticGuild, the International Association o ProessionalNumismatists, and the Ancient Coin Collectors Guildon cultural property issues. Peters article will outlinethe perspective o the numismatic trade.

Beginning the Dialog: An Archaeologists

PerspectiveSebastian HeathSomebody has to go rst. With that phrase I start whatI hope will be an ongoing discussion exploring theoverlap o archaeology, numismatics and the vigorousdebate over the trade in ancient coins. Im grateul toUte Wartenberg Kagan or asking me to contributeand I want to stress that I look orward to reading whatothers will have to say. I will not always agree withthem, and I know that not allANS Magazine readerswill agree with me. Tats the point. Te ANS is aninstitution that can accommodate diferences amongits members, especially when it has an opportunity topromote dialog between their difering views.

Te only view I represent in this column is my own.Tats important because there are quite a ew proes-sional personae that I could adopt. Im a aculty mem-

ber at the Institute or the Study o the Ancient Worldat New York University. I hold the elected a nd unpaidofce o Vice-President or Proessional Responsibili-ties at the Archaeological Institute o America. Andmy title is listed as Research Scientist on the ANSwebsite, a position that I use to collaborate with ANSsta to enable online access to the societys immense

resources or numismatic research. I there is ation that I write rom now, its ANS Lie Membthere will be no doubt that I also bring the pertive o a eld archaeologist. Ive been working i

Mediterranean or over 25 years so I share withnumber o my ellow ANS members an abidingnation with the material culture o the ancientand Roman worlds. I, o course, dont choose tthat culture personally and I work as an archato make sure that as much inormation as possabout all ancient objects is recorded and availathe public, particularly inormation about nd

I dont expect an interest in preserving nd spoinormation to be controversial. All members oANS community can appreciate the discovery hoard such as that ound buried more than a underground in Frome, England (gs. 1-3). Tmajority o the 52,503 coins in this hoard are nespecially valuable rom the perspective o howmoney they would etch in trade. Tere are ove12,000 pieces o t he Gallic Emperor etricus I

AD 274) alone, many o which might sell indivally or under $20.00. Dispersed on eBay or VCtwo Internet sites that support a very active traunrecorded coins, this hoard would essentiallylonger exist. Any inormation that it can tell ueconomic integration in Northern Europe woulost. Furthermore, the archaeologists and numtists studying the Frome hoard have now suggethat it is best u nderstood as a votive deposit thhanded over to the gods, and not as a store o whidden or later recovery. It is only ongoing stuthis material that can answer that question, anonly the close archaeological work and subsequcareul recording that allowed the issue to be rnized in the rst place Te Frome hoard may out to be a so-ar unqiue cultural artiact reveaascinating ancient customs and behaviors. It news, thereore, that unds have been raised to

the coins in a public collection available or stuuture generations.

I contrast the successul recording o the FromHoard with the ollowing quote rom an e-macame to me on September 20, 2010 via the Yahgroup Uncleaned Ancient Coins:

7/29/2019 Wits Chon Ke Heath Final

2/2

Fig. 1: Diagram of the Frome Hoard excavation(image courtesy of Somerset County Council)

Fig. 3: Excavating the Frome Hoard(images courtesy of Somerset CountyCouncil)

Fig. 2: Excavating the Frome Hoard(images courtesy of Somerset County Council)

I have received some more uncleaned coins rom myriend in England. Tese are coins he and his mateshave ound while metal detecting. Tere are somenice individual uncleaned coins i you want to cleanan[sic] quality individual coin and also one groupo 20 uncleaned AE-4s. Limited inquiry suggestedthat these coins were not registered within the UKsPortable Antiquities Scheme, which raises the verysubstantial possibility that they were illegally looted.

Im not assuming that the coins described in this oercame rom a hoard as magnicent as the Frome dis-covery. But I hope that all ANS members can recog-nize that buying these coins, and coins rom similaroers that appear on a regular basis, would be parto sustaining demand that in turn sends searchersout into elds and so leads to urther destruction oknowledge about the ancient world. Te coins oundby a detectorist and his mates could have been o greatcultural importance. Unortunately, we do not know.It is certain that the e-mail that is our only record otheir existence will be a source o rustration or anyone trying to reconstruct a complete picture o mon-etization in Roman Britain. Tats not intended as acondemnation o all numismatic trade. But I do thinkoers o plausibly illegal coins coming rom countriessuch as the United Kingdom, which is praised or itslegal market, tell all o us interested in the ancientworld that a very substantial problem exists, both inthe British Isles and elsewhere. Indeed, most collec-tors and dealers whom I speak with in private readilyagree with this assessment.

It is because the ongoing looting o coins is a prob-lem that I have chosen to participate in hearings inront the Cultural Property Advisory Committee(CPAC) in Washington, D.C. as part o the process bywhich the United States enters into or extends agree-mentsknown as Memoranda o Understanding(MoU)with other countries to restrict the import oantiquities under threat o illegal excavation. Te so-called MoU process is complex and like many who

have taken part, I would welcome more transparency.But the principle beh ind my involvement is simple:it is appropriate that our shared public institut ionswork to balance the commercial interests o dealers,the personal interests o collectors, and the strong-elt

interests that I represent as an archaeologist. Mohave been eective in providing a legal context intercepting illegally traded antiquities and thessuccesses indicate to me that t he US should enteagreements with more countries. As it stands, care now included in MoUs with China, Cyprus, Italy. Tis is an important step in allowing the UStates to exercise its own sovereignty in the proto a well-established public interest: the ongoingo our shared past.

Tese brie comments cant stand as a ull exploo all the complex issues. Im hoping to have staconversation and to have done so in a way that iuseul response. Dialog does not require any commise in principles and may lead to concerted actby the numismatic trade, collectors and archaeogists towards a transparent, legal and honest sy sprotecting cultural resources around the globe. a system is not yet in place and may be a long wao. As an archaeologist, I welcome the opportuto nd partners willing to work towards that utwithin the ANS wise and thoughtul membersh

More inormation on the Frome Hoard is availabhttp://nds.org.uk/blogs/romehoard/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frome_Hoardhttp://www.fickr.com/photos/nds/sets/72157624319051565/