SAFE Founder Receives AIA's 2016 Outstanding Public Service Award

Congratulations to Cindy Ho, founder of Saving Antiquities for Everyone (SAFE), who will receive the 2016 Outstanding Public Service Award from the Archaeological Institute of America.

I became aware of SAFE back in 2007 when I began research on the illicit antiquities trade in response to some of the bizarre arguments I saw repeatedly deployed to defend it.  Cindy was very encouraging of those early explorations .  Cindy has done a great deal to raise popular awareness of the looting problem and is thus well-deserving of this distinction.  As she might say, looting is not just a loss to archaeology and historical study, but it constitutes a loss to us all.  The AIA's citation for Cindy's award states "For her prominent and dedicated work to raise public awareness of the need to safeguard archaeological heritage."

Summary of the Public Hearing on the Renewal of the MOU with Cyprus Now Online

In January, I summarized some of the discussion that took place on January 18, 2012 during the U.S. State Department's meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee to hear public testimony on renewals of the Memoranda of Understanding with Cyprus and Peru ("Comments on the Extension of the MOU with Cyprus").

Most of those present spoke in support of these agreements. The Archaeological Institute of America has now posted a report on the January 18th meeting: "Report on CPAC Public Hearing, January 18, 2012."

Comments on the Extension of the MOU with Cyprus

On January 18, the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) of the U.S. Department of State held a public hearing in Washington. The committee was receiving public comment on the requests for extensions of Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with Peru and Cyprus; these MOUs are a vehicle to protect the cultural patrimony and archaeological resources of these nations from looting, trafficking, and smuggling. Speakers were asked to address any of the four determinations, upon which the committee makes their recommendations, in their written and oral comments. I attended this meeting and spoke in support of an extension with Cyprus. Below is a summary of my comments.

After introducing myself, I stated that my comments would be related to the first and second determinations. I discussed a January 2010 raid by police in Cyprus. It is one of the biggest antiquities busts in Cyprus' history. Members of the smuggling ring were arrested and 11 million euro ($15.5 million) in looted antiquities were confiscated. Among those objects were a miniature gold coffin, terracotta urns, limestone figures, and bronze and silver coins. This important seizure bears on the first and second determinations as 1) it shows that the cultural patrimony and archaeological resources of Cyprus are in jeopardy through pillage and 2) shows that the Republic of Cyprus is taking proactive measures within its own borders to combat plunder.

My primary area of expertise and research is Roman coinage. And, as many individuals who follow MOU hearings are well aware, the inclusion of coins in the designated list of objects protected through an MOU is a hotly contested issue as there is a flourishing trade in ancient coins and a great demand for new material. Therefore, I took the opportunity to point out to the committee the need to protect coins alongside other objects on the designated list, such as sculpture, ceramics, metalwork, etc. The above-mentioned seizure illustrates the fact that looters and smugglers often procure ancient coins and antiquities from the same sources, i.e. tombs and archaeological sites of various sorts.

After briefly discussing the international market for Cypriot material and providing some numbers, I countered one of the arguments that is most often used by opponents of the protection of coins. Essentially the argument goes like this: "coins circulated in antiquity and thus it is impossible to know in what nation they might have been found once they enter the North American marketplace; as a consequence of this, coins cannot be protected according to the framework of the Cultural Property Implementation Act." In response to this claim, I made the point that it is in fact true that coins circulated in antiquity. But coin circulation is actually a much more complex issue than is often presented to the committee by those opposed to the protection of coins. Some coins circulated more or less than others. One example I gave is the imperial gold and silver coinage, struck at Rome and Lugdunum (Lyons); this coinage circulated widely across the Roman Empire. But in contrast to this, some Greek coinages and the locally produced Roman provincial coinage circulated regionally or locally. Such locally produced and circulating coins are already protected in the current MOU with Cyprus.

One tradesman, who had submitted a letter in opposition to the inclusion of coins in the designated list, provided a list of hoards from outside of Cyprus that included Cypriot coins. In the letter it is claimed that the list provides "uncontestable (sic) evidence that these coins circulated in antiquity and since." Yes, coins circulated. But the letter in question did not examine the evidence in a critical way. After all, the hoard evidence from Cyprus itself was wholly omitted. As I pointed out in my letter and in my oral commentary, the hoard evidence, which deals primarily with the Cypriot coinage of the Hellenistic period, shows a remarkably greater proportion of Cypriot coins in Cypriot hoards in comparison with the foreign hoards. I cited eight hoards from Cyprus recorded in IGCH. In aggregate, coins of Cypriot type comprised 45% of the total of all hoards found in Cyprus. On the other hand, coins of Cypriot type, in aggregate, composed 9% of the foreign hoards mentioned in the other letter. That letter had a list of 33 hoards containing a total 3,662 coins, of which 313 are Cypriot. The much smaller number of eight hoards from Cyprus totaled 2,878 coins, 1,303 of which are Cypriot. The evidence indicates that Greek Cypriot coins are much more prominent in Cyprus than outside of Cyprus.

Finally, I addressed the Roman provincial coinage in Cyprus. The authoritative study on this series is D. Parks, The Roman Coinage of Cyprus (Nicosia, 2005). One chapter, "Circulation of Cypriot and Imported Coinage in Cyprus" (pp. 137-162), examines Cypriot coins from a number of sources and provides ample evidence that Roman coins of Cypriot type circulated abundantly on the island and less frequently outside of it. The current designated list only includes coins until c. AD 235. As there are also Cypriot coins of Byzantine and Venetian type, it was suggested that these be added to any renewal.

Two other numismatists, distinguished in their areas of expertise, provided testimony in support of the extension of the MOU and the continued protection of coins.

I expect that a summary of the public hearing will soon be posted on the website of the Archaeological Institute of America by someone who attended the meeting. Summaries of the public hearings in November on Belize and Bulgaria can be found here.

David Gill Receives SAFE Beacon Award

Congratulations to David Gill, who will receive the 2012 SAFE Beacon Award. David was among first scholars to quantify the illicit and unethical trade in trafficked antiquities; his seminal articles (with Chris Chippendale) published in the American Journal of Archaeology were instrumental in raising awareness and sensitivity among the academic community.

David has maintained his publication agenda and in recent years has also taken his case to the public, most notably through his widely read weblog "Looting Matters." In recognition of his public advocacy, it was announced earlier this year that the Archaeological Institute of America would recognize David Gill with the Outstanding Public Service Award at the 2012 Annual Meeting in Philadelphia.

It is good to see that David is being honored for his years of tireless work by these two awards in 2012.

Numismatics at the 2011 APA/AIA

Once again there will be no shortage of numismatic topics presented at the next Joint Annual Meeting of the American Philological Association (APA) and the Archaeological Institute of America on January 6-9, 2011 in San Antonio. A total of three panels will be devoted to numismatic research.

The Friends of Numismatics have organized an APA panel (session 12) on "Coinage and Art: Techniques and Production" that takes place on Friday, January 6 at 11:15AM. See the full list of APA panels and abstracts.

There are two AIA sessions. The first is an organized colloquium (session 4C) on "Production and Consumption Mechanics in Hellenistic and Classical-Period Coinage," which begins on Saturday, January 7 at 8:30AM. The second is an open session (6F) on Numismatics on the same day at 2:45 PM. See the AIA's preliminary program.

CFP - Coinage and Art: Technique and Production

Speakers delivered stimulating papers in the panel on "Memory in Greek and Roman Coins" at the APA/AIA Meeting in Anaheim last week.

The Friends of Numismatics have already announced the theme for next year on "Coinage and Art: Technique and Production" at the San Antonio meeting. The call for papers and submission details can be found here. Deadline for submissions is February 15, 2010. The 2011 APA/AIA Joint Annual Meeting will take place January 6-9, 2011.

Numismatic Events at the 2010 AIA/APA Meeting

The 111th Joint Annual Meeting of the AIA and APA will be held in Anaheim from January 6-9, 2010. As at last year's meetings, several events of numismatic interest will take place. Several individual papers will no doubt make use of numismatic evidence, and there will be a session devoted to "Memory in Greek and Roman Coins" on Friday, January 8.

The session, organized by W.E. Metcalf, will feature five speakers plus a discussant:

1. Dennis Trout, The University of Missouri - "Romulus and Remus in Theodoric's Rome and the Roma invicta Series." (abstract unavailable online)

2. Karen L. Acton, The University of Michigan - "Spes and Imperial Succession: Claudian and Vespasianic Narratives."

3. Clare Rowan, Macquarie University - "Mythical Memory: The 'Commemorative' Medallions of Antoninus Pius and the Temple of Venus and Rome."

4. Kyle Erikson, The University of Exeter - "Remembering One's Father: Paternal Images on Seleucid Coins." (abstract unavailable online)

5. Edward M. Zarrow, Westwood High School - "The Image and Memory of Julius Caesar in the Coinage of the Triumviral Period." (abstract unavailable online)

Discussant: Alain Gowing, The University of Washington

As at past meetings, there will be a Friends of Numismatics reception and also the Friends of Numismatics committee meeting. Details can be found in the respective AIA and APA programs.

Memory in Greek and Roman Coins: Call for Papers

Bill Metcalf has circulated the Call for Papers for a organized session on "Memory in Greek and Roman Coins" at the 111th AIA/APA Joint Annual Meeting in January 2010. The session is sponsored by the Friends of Numismatics:

MEMORY IN GREEK AND ROMAN COINS

The Friends of Numismatics invite paper submissions for the 2010 AIA/APA annual meetings in Orange County (Anaheim), CA, on the topic of memory. How do coin types transmit, record, and alter memory? And to what purpose? How accurate is their historical transmission of places, events, and people? How do they portray illustrious men and women of the past? Are foundation legends and founding heroes an expression of memory?

How do Hellenistic rulers, Roman Republican moneyers, or Roman emperors use portraits and divinization as self-representation? Why and how did Trajan "restore" so many denarial types of the Roman Republic? Why did Titus commemorate and "restore" the images of the "good" emperors? The negation of memory, damnatio memoriae, could be just as powerful a tool for political propaganda.

Please send abstracts of a maximum of 250 words to Jane Miller, Yale University Art Gallery, P. O. Box 208271, New Haven, CT 06520-8271 ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>) by February 15, 2009. Submissions will be evaluated anonymously by at least two reviewers. All persons who submit abstracts must be APA members in good standing.

The 110th AIA/APA Joint Annual Meeting Concludes: A Personal Reflection

Yesterday afternoon I returned from 2009 Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America in Philadelphia. Although a bit chaotic, the meeting was very productive. The chaotic bit refers to the fact that the AIA extended its academic program to three paper sessions per day rather than the normal two, and so there were many more sessions and lectures to choose from. The down side of this was that the sessions were scheduled tightly together with no great length of time between sessions and events. This also meant that lunch time committee meetings were not possible and thus committees were scheduled for early morning and evenings. Although the daily program was densely packed, the natural plus side was a greater variety of papers and speakers to hear from. Since this is the first time the AIA has experimented with extending its daily program, I expect there will be some fine tuning in future meetings.

My own experience at the AIA meeting bears no particular significance, but I will summarize it anyway for any readers who have never attended these meetings or who are unfamiliar with the myriad activities at the Annual Meeting.

Thursday, January 9, 2009.

I arrived on Thursday afternoon and checked into the conference hotel. As is typical at these incredibly large conferences (last year's meeting in Chicago saw over 3,000 participants including 1,100 active AIA members), I began recognizing colleagues from around the globe immediately. As I passed the bar on the way to the room with my garment case I saw several fellow doctoral candidates and M.A. students from the University of Missouri. It was good to see them since I have been away for the University for some time on account of my work in Frankfurt and I was pleasantly surprised to see others who had not initially planned on attending since they had also been conducting research abroad.

After settling in, I went upstairs to register and receive my name badge, AIA program, and AIA abstract book. Just behind registration was the exhibit hall, hosting dozens upon dozens of important academic presses, organizations, and other groups. Over the past several years that I have been going to these meetings, there has always been a good crowd around the Journal of Roman Archaeology's small booth and so I had never really stopped before. Additionally, I have subscribed to the journal since 2002 or 2003 and keep a close eye on their monograph series and so I keep up with what they produce. This year, however, there was no one standing at the booth (perhaps it was still early enough and a number of conference attendees had not yet arrived), located next to the exhibit hall's entrance and so I stopped. Dr. Laura Humphrey was operating the booth while Dr. John Humphrey was engaged in conversation nearby. It was a pleasure to meet and talk for a moment with Laura Humphrey, who recognized my name having sent my JRAs to the University of Missouri while I pay from Germany (I try to cut down on the weight I have to transport back and forth over the Atlantic). I expect that my JRA 2008 is in the department in Missouri somewhere and so I got to page through a copy of the one at the booth. It will probably be some time before Frankfurt University's JRA 2008 is accessioned and put on the shelf in the library.

I then proceeded towards the back of the exhibit hall while noting the location various academic presses that were exhibiting recent archaeological and historical monographs. I came to the booth by Strati-Concept and saw many of the field tools they had available. Field archaeologists go crazy seeing high quality forged trowels and spatulae, dental probes, and brushes; these are the tools of the trade. Of course, I already have some good basic tools for my own fieldwork (trowel, measuring sticks, brushes, etc.), but I was really drawn to their toolsets which include precision instruments such as small spatulae, dental instruments, and fine brushes, particularly their "Premium Vintage" precision archaeological toolset. At the past couple of sites I have worked, such precision instruments were not available or were in high demand, meaning that when they were needed we often had to improvise with things like wooden skewers. It would be useful to pick up a set like this for future work. However, I just recently finished working with the excavations at Yotvata as the staff numismatist and we are now preparing for the final publication and so I am not affiliated with another excavation at present. It would probably be wise to get the publications for Yotvata out of the way first and to finish off the Ph.D. before joining another excavation campaign. As the staff numismatist, I spent much/most of my time identifying the coins at the site 'laboratory,' but I did spend a good amount of time excavating in the field - some seasons I processed the coin finds too quickly! In 2005 when a hoard of Late Roman bronze coins was found in a stratified context I was on site and was able assist in the removal of the coins from the earth. Fortunately, we were able to wrangle dental tools away from another excavator for this. One of these sets would be useful for my future fieldwork, and hopefully future excavation of coin hoards, but in the end it was not sensible to buy one of these high quality sets right now.

I then walked along the back wall and came to the SAFE booth. I saw several familiar faces including that of Cindy Ho, Paul Kunkel, and Sarah Pickman. It had been a year since I had seen them, the last AIA meeting in Chicago, and it was good to catch up. Prof. Renfrew (link to Wikipedia article - caveat emptor) was also at the booth at this time and it was good to meet him and to speak to him for a few minutes. I had seen him before and heard his inspiring talk "The Dimensions of Prehistory," which he delivered at the Natural History Museum in Frankfurt on February 20, 2008. Many individuals focus on his work relevant to the antiquities trade, but aside from that Prof. Renfrew is a great theoretician and is a visionary in regard to archaeological method and theory and the role archaeology plays in society and understanding the past. His lecture in Frankfurt focused on prehistory, but certainly his observations had implications for the entire discipline.

After speaking with everyone at the SAFE booth, I went back down to the bar (always a hot spot at the meetings!) and joined my colleagues from the University of Missouri. My colleague from Frankfurt and the co-organizer of the colloquium to be held on Saturday, Stefan Krmnicek, was in Philadelphia staying with friends and so I called him to let him know where I was at so we could meet up. While I was there with my cohorts from Missouri, Fleur Kemmers from the Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen (our colloquium discussant) saw me and came over and shortly thereafter some of the other panelists followed: Nanouschka Myrberg (Stockholm), Ragnar Hedlund (Uppsala), and Georges Depeyrot (Paris). Georges, Fleur, Nanouschka, and Ragnar had already been in Philadelphia for a couple of days to see the sights and it seemed that they had an excellent and enjoyable time. I had learned from Nanouschka and Ragnar that it was their first time to visit the United States and so it was interesting to hear about their experiences and how certain things correlated with particular presuppositions they had about the United States from television and movies. It was interesting that Nanouschka commented on how the telephone and sirens sounded just like they did in movies and shows she had seen; I remember thinking the exact same thing when I traveled to Europe for the first time. I was pleased to hear that they found people in the United States, at least thus far, incredibly friendly. Of course they were astonished, but maybe a little intrigued, by some of our excesses such as 24-hour fast food restaurants, free refills, and the very large portions served at restaurants! Stefan soon joined us and we began making plans to take trollies over to the Opening Night Reception at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

While boarding the trollies I spotted Philip Kiernan, a numismatist whom I had met (and later drank with) at the Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference (TRAC) in Amsterdam in April 2008. At the time he was working in Heidelberg, Germany. Once we arrived at the museum, I was amazed by the extensive collection that the University of Pennsylvania had. The reception was held in the galleries and so it was nice for conference participants to have this opportunity to view the collection in such a relaxed atmosphere, though it was somewhat crowded. Although we all entered as a group with Philip, we soon broke apart to mingle as we began recognizing and seeing other colleagues. We had one ticket for any free drink, after that we had to pay. In the true spirit of the occasion, one of Stefan's colleagues, whom he had met while studying in Cambridge, recommended we use the ticket for a cocktail since that would be the most expensive drink. Sensible enough, though I must say it was a much stronger drink than I would have expected from a catered reception. The buffet was excellent as well: there was a bit of a middle eastern flair with hummus and falafel in addition to an impressive array of fresh vegetables and fruit. At the reception I also had the opportunity to talk to Sebastian Heath (American Numismatic Society, New York) and introduce him some of my European colleagues who had come over for the meeting. I first came to know Sebastian when I was at the ANS seminar in 2004. I had seen Sebastian busily darting about the conference hotel in the hours before the reception - as an Academic Trustee and also the new Vice President of Professional Responsibilities for the AIA, he stayed very busy at the meeting.

It was not too late after the reception, but I was exhausted and had go over an agenda for a 7:00 AM committee meeting the next day, and many of my European colleagues were still suffering from jetlag, and so we decided to call it a night.

Friday, January 10, 2009

Originally, I had booked a hotel room for myself. In previous years I had done the typical 'graduate student thing' whereby we share and split room costs four or five ways. This is very useful since we graduate students do not have any real money, just lots of debt and sometimes some credit. I decided to book my own room this time since I am usually rather busy (at least presenting a paper) and have found sharing a room often chaotic as night time festivities go into the wee hours of the night. I do not think I am prudish, I just cannot function on less than seven hours of sleep, let alone just three or four. However, my financial situation always seems to deteriorate towards the end of the fall semester and towards the end of the spring semester as student loan money runs out and so I opened up my reservation to two fellow graduate students from the University of Missouri, Tristan Barnes and Doug Underwood. We had a good time rooming together during the conference and did not really disturb each other coming and going, but I do hope that my alarm going off at 5:30 AM on Friday for the committee meeting did not jar them too much!

At 7:00 AM I had the AIA's Cultural Heritage Policy Committee meeting. Afterwards I made my way to the hotel restaurant for breakfast. I was happy to have had a brief moment to speak to Brian Rose again, who is naturally incredibly busy at these meetings as the AIA President.

Where I come from (West Texas), $10 to $20 is a lot of money for breakfast, but I had a full agenda for the day and did not want to brave the cold to find a local place. My cafe latté at the Marriot hotel restaurant cost about $5. They had an impressive breakfast buffet, but the price was around $20 and so I opted out. I saw eggs Benedict on the menu, a dish I first had in Columbia, Missouri at a restaurant that offered high quality and natural fresh foods (free trade and the like), and so I tried it. It was excellent, worth $12.50 for a little indulgence I must say.

Over breakfast, I read through my presentation which I was going to be giving for SAFE and made sure I had it all worked out. After breakfast I went to the exhibit hall and began going more systematically through the academic presses taking note of books I might wish to buy or see if we have them at the library in Frankfurt.

Shortly before 10:00 AM I ventured over to the SAFE booth to make sure everything was in order for my presentation. I gave a lecture entitled "The Ancient Coin Trade in the USA: Scale and Structure." That talk was based on a series of lectures I have been giving in Frankfurt and throughout Germany in the past year. As Paul Barford has already noted, the Hellenic Society for Law and Archaeology has put an English version of my German lectures online in addition to my peer-reviewed article in Frankfurter elektronische Rundschau zur Altertumskunde on "A Survey of the Material and Intellectual Consequences of Trading in Undocumented Ancient Coins: A Case Study on the North American Trade;" the latter is meant to serve as an introduction to the issues and as a starting point for future and forthcoming research on the coin trade while the lecture focused on how big the trade is and how it is supplied. The version of the text that is now on the Hellenic Society for Law and Archaeology's website is nearly identical to the presentation I made on Friday with only some minor changes, but that text is not accompanied by images. In the coming weeks my lecture will be put on SAFE's website along with the PowerPoint presentation.

In the small crowd around the booth, I saw Richard Buxton, another one of our panel participants, who was unable to meet with the rest of us the night before, and I met him immediately after the presentation and spoke with others who were interested in the issues and problems raised in the talk. One attendee explained to me a view of the trade from Canada and how she believes some masses of material are being imported directly into Canada and then spirited across the border into the United States, something worth looking into more. Accordingly, from her explanation it seems there may be more loopholes in Canadian law with regard to the protection of cultural heritage and archaeological goods than in the United States. After the presentation, I had arranged some meetings with colleagues that occupied me until the early afternoon.

I was able to catch the end of Blythe Bowman's organized session on "Crimes Against Culture: Perspectives on Archaeological Site Looting and Illicit Antiquities Trade." The room was packed - I had to stand in the back. I recognized a number of important personalities in the field in the front rows and also saw a few of our panel participants attending the session. At the end of the session, Larry Rothfield and I glimpsed one another and exchanged greetings as he was on his way to another event or session. I went back to the exhibit hall to snoop around some more at the book stalls and then headed over to the SAFE booth to say hello to Blythe, who had just finished her session, and Jessica Dietzler whom I had seen with her.

Robert Wittman, recently retired from the FBI, then gave an illuminating presentation at the SAFE booth about some FBI operations and the law with regard to illicit antiquities. I spoke with him some afterward and there were some other students who spoke with him, interested in joining the FBI with the hopes of moving into the unit that works on art crimes. Apparently, the FBI is hiring some 850 agents and even more support staff this year.

I then went to Elizabeth Gilgan's organized session on "Selling Our Past to the Highest Bidder: A Global Snapshot of Antiquities in the Art Market" and saw the final four presentations. I particularly enjoyed Morag Kersel's "Destroying the Holy Land: Archaeological Site Destruction and the Lure of the Relic." Her presentation examined the "licit trade" in antiquities in Israel and its relationship to the illicit excavation of antiquities. Anyone interested in this will find a description of the current situation in her essay "From the Ground to the Buyer: A Market Analysis of the Trade in Antiquities," in N. Brodie, M.M. Kersel, C. Luke, and K.W. Tubb (eds.) Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, and the Antiquities Trade. (Gainesville 2006), 188-205. Essentially, only licensed dealers may sell antiquities in Israel and they may only sell antiquities that have been registered prior to 1978. Dealers provide buyers with a certificate of authenticity, but they are only obliged to offer an export permit if the buyer asks for it. If the buyer does so, a form with the registration number is faxed to the Israel Antiquities Authority who checks the registry number and then issues and export license. These registry numbers are therefore only used when an export license is issued and since buyers most often do not know they ought to ask for an export license, dealers regularly recycle registry numbers for similar objects since they are not routinely checked or policed. For example, a dealer might sell hundreds of Roman oil lamps using the same registry number over and over again until a buyer asks for an export license and that particular number cannot be used again. Antiquities are essentially laundered and given false provenances in Israel's "licit market." Morag documented this activity through observations and interviews in antiquities shops in Jerusalem. One of her case studies included following the activities of one shoe shiner who imports coins smuggled from the Palestinian territories and Jordan who sells these recently looted coins to tourists on the streets and who also supplies local dealers with higher quality coins. Morag's observations are a strong counterargument to those who tout the Israeli situation as a model.

At 5:00 PM my colleagues from the panel and I went to the Friends of Numismatics reception at the adjacent hotel and were reacquainted with the North American group of numismatists who frequent the AIA/APA meetings. Afterwards we met up with a group of Australian numismatists and archaeologists and all went to an excellent dinner at a local Chinese restaurant. After that many of us went to the hotel bar for a cocktail or two before bed. While leaving the table to search after a waitress, I ran into Cindy and Paul from SAFE and Donny George, the former director of the Iraq Museum. I first met Donny at the last AIA meeting when SAFE honored him and Neil Brodie with the 2008 SAFE Beacon Award and I was surprised he remembered me. I joined them for 10 or 15 minutes and then introduced them to the remaining panel participants at our table. It was very exciting to discuss the coin trade with Donny and to hear about his perspectives and experiences with coins in Iraq. He had some interesting stories about looting in Iraq as well as remarkable Islamic coin finds there.

Saturday, January 11, 2009

Famished I again ventured down to the overpriced hotel restaurant considering whether or not I would have the eggs Benedict again. Good food is something I sometimes enjoy too well. The waitress came over and immediately recommended the eggs Benedict. I told her I had it the morning before and really enjoyed it and was thinking about having it again, but then she pointed out to me that they had a crab cakes Benedict which substituted the English muffin component for crab cakes. It sounded good and was very good, but I think I prefer the traditional eggs Benedict. Over breakfast I went through my introductory comments for our session which would be that afternoon.

After that I went to the SAFE booth for Neil Brodie's talk on the market in Iraqi antiquities which he surveyed over the past 20 years. He focused on the internet trade in recently looted/surfaced Iraqi antiquities. It never ceases to amaze me how brazen certain antiquities dealers can be and how destructive their indiscriminate activities are. He showed a number of inscribed cuneiform bricks from a temple that had clearly been cut down by looters and exhibited marks from circular saw blades. Clearly they are easier to smuggle and easier to display when they are smaller.

Late that morning I went to the session on "Patrons and Building in the Roman Empire" (aside from numismatics, Roman topography and architecture as well imperial building programs are studies which interest me). I was especially interested in hearing Elisha Dumser's paper on "Diocletian and Maximian's Architectural Patronage in Rome." I first met Elisha when I was at the British School in Rome in the summer of 2003. She and her dissertation supervisor, Lothar Haselberger, came to Rome that summer for the book presentation for Mapping Augustan Rome which they gave at the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in Rome. Since then we have usually talked at AIA meetings and I have regularly attended her presentations. Her research has often centered around Maxentius' building program, which was the topic of her dissertation. Our scholarly convergence comes through our mutual interest in architectural coin types. My dissertation is on the semantic value and meaning of architectural coin types in the Roman world and she has focused her numismatic inquiries on Late Roman architectural coin types. One very good article of hers that I admire is E.A. Dumser, "The AETERNAE MEMORIAE coinage of Maxentius: an issue of symbolic intent," in L. Haselberger and J. Humphrey (eds.), Imaging Ancient Rome: Documentation - Visualization - Imagination (Portsmouth 2006, JRA Supplement 61), 106-119.

After the second paper in the session, I ducked out and went down to the Starbucks for an iced mocha and to go over my introductory comments one more time before our session. Shortly after I ordered and sat down I could tell that the midday sessions were over on account of the crowds swarming into the coffee shop. Georges Depeyrot came through and sat down and so we talked for a while before we had to go up to our session.

Our session, "Contextual Numismatics: New Perspectives and Interdisciplinary Methodologies," went very well. The only complaint I had was that during the second paper by Nanouschka, there was an incredible disturbing noise coming from an adjacent room where a theatrical session by the APA was evidently taking place. Overall I think the papers and approaches presented in the session were well received. There was some good discussion at the end of Richard Buxton's paper, which offered some very new interpretations on the meaning of chisel cuts on Athenian owls in the Near East. At the end of the colloquium Fleur Kemmers, our discussant, provided some very well articulated comments on the papers and the issues they brought up. She offered a penetrating vision of where numismatic studies needs to mature (that is my wording) as it continues to define itself as a discipline. I was very happy with our colloquium and our panelists and would like to thank all of them again for their work and for sharing their research with us at the AIA. Considering that our session was competing with hot topics like the "Archaeology of Battle" and "Houses of Ill Repute: The Archaeology of Brothels, Houses, and Taverns in the Greek World," we had a very good turnout of attendees. It was nice to know that, for some, numismatics still won out over sex and violence.

After our session I went to the exhibit hall and swung by the SAFE booth and helped them for a while until the booth shutdown and then I took some materials upstairs as they were preparing for the 2009 SAFE Beacon Award Reception for Prof. Colin Renfrew. Stefan, Fleur, and I attended the reception. The first half an hour or so was for drinks and mingling. I again talked some more with Donny until the introduction for Colin Renfrew began. Renfrew's talk, "Combating the Illicit Antiquities Trade: the 1970 Rule as a Turning Point (or How the Metropolitan Museum lags behind the Getty)" was a forceful indictment against unethical acquisitions policies by public institutions. Many times he pointed to the value and accomplishments of SAFE and the work of scholars who have brought the illicit antiquities trade to public scrutiny. The importance of Renfrew's advocacy and that of SAFE is highlighted by events surrounding the announcement of Renfrew's lecture. In days before his lecture, the Metropolitan Museum of Art finally decided to publicize its decision to abide by the recent policy of AAMD that it apparently made this summer. It will be interesting to see if the Met will use the strict 1970 Rule or if it will exploit the wiggle-room in the AAMD policy to continue buying looted art. I believe that SAFE will be putting a summary of Renfrew's lecture online in the near future. After his talk, Cindy Ho presented Colin Renfrew with the 2009 SAFE Beacon Award.

After the reception Stefan, Fleur, and I met up with our fellow panel participants, and our new Australian friends, at a local Thai restaurant for a celebratory dinner after our panel. I had the House Special Squid, which was excellent; I wish I could remember the name of the place. We then visited some of the different receptions that evening before heading off to bed.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

I got up early again on Sunday morning to stand in line for the opening of the exhibit hall. This is a tradition at the AIA/APA meetings since many of the exhibiting academic presses will drastically slash prices (50% or more) on the books they have brought with them. The line gets very long and when the doors open, graduate students and seasoned professors alike sprint towards the booths to get their hands on books they have staked out in the days before and save some money. Two of the biggest academic presses, Cambridge and Oxford, are often the most popular destinations.

In this free-for-all I managed to score six titles, probably spending more money than I should have:

G. S. Aldrete, Floods of the Tiber in Ancient Rome (Baltimore 2007) - while looking for other books, I saw the author whom I had recognized from a very intriguing lecture about the distribution of certain building types in relation to the regular area for the Tiber's flooding in the Campus Martius in Rome at an earlier AIA meeting. Remembering how innovative and interesting that paper was I asked him if he had published it as an article or anything and he told me that he actually had published a monograph about Tiber floods and directed me to the Johns Hopkins University Press booth to look at the book. It was discounted 50%.

O. Hekster, G. de Kleijn, and D. Slootjes (eds.), Crises and the Roman Empire. Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Nijmegen, June 20-24, 2006) (Leiden and Boston 2007, Impact of Empire 7) - discounted 50%; nevertheless, books from Brill academic press are still expensive. The discounted price was $89.50 and list price is $179.

N. Lenski (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine (Cambridge 2006) - all Cambridge hardcovers were discounted to $20 and paperbacks to $10.

F. Millar, The Crowd in the Rome in the Late Republic (Ann Arbor 2002) - discounted 50%.

D.S. Potter and D.J. Mattingly (eds.), Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire (Ann Arbor 1999) - discounted 50%.

C. Renfrew and P. Bahn (eds.), Archaeology: the Key Concepts (London and New York 2005) - this was discounted 20%. If I had paid greater attention earlier I would have realized that this was the same price throughout the conference; Routledge did not offer any drastic discounts on the last day.

After scoring some good deals and exceeding my book budget, I decided to spend the rest of the morning doing a bit of sight seeing since I really had not been able to leave the hotel for all of my other obligations. I went down to see the Liberty Bell first of all. The image at the top of this post is that of a blind man I saw who was allowed to go up and touch it; personally, I found this one of the most moving moments while being in Philadelphia. I then went to Independence Hall, the place where our nation was born.

After visiting these, I went back to the hotel and said goodbye to various colleagues before packing and going off to the airport. I did not have a Philly cheesesteak sandwich while in the city and so I tracked down a restaurant in the airport and had one; it was very good.

On the flight back to Texas I read a few essays in the book on the age of Constantine that I had purchased and worked my way through much of the book by Renfrew and Bahn that I had also bought. This particular volume is meant to summarize certain theories or concepts present in archaeology in a way that is accessible. Those who have studied archaeological theory know how difficult it can be. I found several of the entries to be rather interesting, especially those relating to Cognitive Archaeology and the recreation of the thought processes and mental patterns of ancient peoples. I think this means I am now going to have pick up C. Renfrew and P. Bahn (eds.), Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice (London 2004, 4th edn.), which I have consulted before but not read in any great detail, and C. Renfrew, Prehistory: The Making of the Human Mind (New York 2008). I just brought back a big stack of books from Germany to store in the U.S. and so I will have to be vigilant about what I take back with me to read since I should limit my weight lest it cost me severely to ship everything back when I leave Frankfurt.

I had a very good time at the AIA meeting and it was great to see so many colleagues and friends again and to meet new ones for the first time. If you have not attended an AIA meeting before and have read all the way through this, you will understand that the AIA meetings serve as more than a venue for academic papers and sessions - they are places where we get together socially with our colleagues, many of whom we can see only once a year. When I went to my first AIA meeting, my former M.A. supervisor at the University of Reading (UK), Janet Delaine (now at Oxford), told me that in Britain they seem take for granted that they see their colleagues rather frequently. All they must do is hop on a train for a short distance to see one another or attend a conference. In the United States we are much more spread out. I look forward to next year's meeting as I tentatively plan on attending.

(Photo by N. Elkins, A Blind Man Touching the Liberty Bell, Sunday, January 11, 2009).

Cultural Heritage Issues at the 2009 AIA Meeting in Philadelphia

In addition the regular archaeology paper sessions and numismatic colloquia I mentioned before, the AIA/APA Joint Annual Meeting in Philadelphia next week will also be host to a number of sessions and events addressing cultural heritage issues:

AIA President C. Brian Rose's Plenary Session: Cultural Property and Armed Conflict. Friday, January 9, 7:00-8:30 p.m."Cultural Property and the Role of U.S. Army Civil Affairs," Major General David A. Morris, Commanding General, United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command, and "The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict," Karl von Habsburg, Vice President, Austrian Society for the Protection of Cultural Property

A colloquium organized by Blythe A. Bowman, a SAFE volunteer, will occur on Friday, January 9 — 11:15 to 1:15 pm. Session: 2H: "Crimes Against Culture: Perspectives on Archeological Site Looting and Illicit Antiquities Trade" (Click hyperlink for paper titles and abstracts).

A colloquium organized by Elizabeth Gilgan, a SAFE board member, will take place on Friday, January 9 - 1:30 to 4:30 pm. Session: 3E: "Selling Our Past to the Highest Bidder: A Global Snapshot of Antiquities in the Art Market" (click hyperlink for paper titles and abstracts).

A workshop organized by Eric Powell, a SAFE board member, will be conducted on Saturday January 10, 1:30 to 4:30 pm. Session 6E: "Legal Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage: National and International Perspectives in Light of the 'Black Swan' Case" (Click hyperlink for a list of participants).

Another colloquium session which may be relevant (organized by Eric Cline and C. Brian Rose) is Session 8D: "Taking Back Our Field: Archaeology and the Media" on Sunday, January 11, 11:15 - am - 1:15 pm (Click hyperlink for paper titles and abstracts).

In addition to these lectures, the public advocacy group SAFE will again be exhibiting at the AIA. Some of SAFE's board members and volunteers organized or will be participating in the above panels. The highlight of SAFE's presence at the meeting will take place on Saturday when the group awards Prof. Colin Renfrew with the 2009 SAFE Beacon Award. Prof. Renfrew will give a lecture entitled "Combating the Illicit Antiquities Trade: the 1970 Rule as a Turning Point (or How the Metropolitan Museum lags behind the Getty)."

At SAFE's booth, volunteers will be on hand to discuss SAFE's activities and mission with conference participants and will also host film screenings and speakers. Speakers who have been invited to give presentations at the SAFE booth include Robert K. Wittman, Dr. Neil Brodie, and Nathan T. Elkins. The schedule and title of these presentations has not been posted by SAFE, but I can say my talk will take place Friday at 10 am and will be entitled "The Trade in Ancient Coins in the USA: Scale and Structure," which is based on some of the talks I have been giving in Germany (e.g. here and here).

As usual the AIA meeting will have a strong showing of regular academic papers and this year it appears there will be abundant opportunity for participants to discuss and learn about current and pressing cultural heritage issues.

Abstracts for Two Numismatic Sessions at the 2009 Joint AIA/APA Annual Meeting: "Contextual Numismatics..." (AIA) and "Coins and Identity" (APA)

In a previous post I discussed the upcoming colloquium, "Contextual Numismatics: New Perspectives and Interdisciplinary Methodologies," at the 2009 AIA Annual Meeting in Philadelphia that Stefan Krmnicek and I organized. The AIA has now finalized the program of sessions and papers for the Annual Meeting in Philadelphia and abstracts are now available online, including those for our session. For convenience I post the abstracts for our session and the topics about which our panelists will speak below. The APA, whose Annual Meeting is joint with the AIA's, has a session on "Coins and Identity" and I post those abstracts below as well.

AIA Session 6A
Contextual Numismatics: New Perspectives and Interdisciplinary Methodologies
Saturday, January 10, 2009, 1:30-4:30

Organizers: Nathan T. Elkins, Goethe Universität Frankfurt / University of Missouri; Stefan Krmnicek, Goethe Universität Frankfurt

1. Session Introduction (Nathan T. Elkins, Goethe Universität Frankfurt / University of Missouri)

Colloquium Overview Statement:

The participants in this panel expound innovative and dynamic approaches to the contextual study of ancient coins within an interdisciplinary framework. Coins have often been reduced to mere aesthetic objects or chronological references divorced from consideration of their original contexts in which they were once embedded. A multidisciplinary treatment of the individual dimensions of an ancient object (functional, social, historical, political, personal, etc.) provides a better understanding of its contemporary meaning. In the study of ancient art and culture, for example, modern scholarship has successfully applied such approaches. Unlike most art objects, however, coins also have an equally strong practical and functional quality, which must be investigated in conjunction with their other dimensions and within the wider context of material culture. Therefore, the numismatist ought to formulate proper methodologies that address these factors suitably.

Using the above methodologies and approaches, the first two papers in this panel explore the theoretical premises in which numismatics can be applied in a wider interdisciplinary framework. The third examines the relationship between hoarders and hoards, while the fourth considers the semantic value of certain coin types. The final paper reconsiders chisel cuts on Athenian tetradrachms in relation to function in light of hoard context. Fleur Kemmers, who has successfully applied the concept of Bildsprache to coins from excavated contexts, and who is sensitive to the advantages of developing numismatic method and theory, provides discussion.

2. Two Sides of a Coin: Etic Structures and Emic Perspectives in Numismatics (Stefan Krmnicek, Goethe Universität Frankfurt)

This study discusses ancient coin finds in the wider cross-disciplinary framework of cultural anthropological and sociological theories. The current state of research in numismatics, the limits of contemporary numismatic methodology, and a discussion about new perspectives take center stage.

Typically in Classical archaeology and historical disciplines, ancient coins are uniformly perceived as money in modern economic terms; alternative or complementary functions of coins are rarely considered. In the past few years—influenced by the concepts of exchange, barter, and reciprocity—Iron Age numismatists have developed a dichotomy between ritual and non-ritual interpretations for a better understanding of the meaning and function of Celtic coins replacing the exclusively economic line of interpretation.

However, like all archaeological artifacts, coins cannot be reduced solely to one lifelong meaning, whether singularly economic or ritual. Ancient coins, like other objects, are actively meaningful in various dimensions through the relationships established with people. The object’s function and usage can change constantly—in the systemic context of the past and even in today’s world. These individual moments of practical usage can be understood through the model of a theoretical biography of the object. In effect, however, only the final context in the biography of a coin in the past Lebenswelt provides proper archaeological interpretations of the archaeological evidence. As a consequence, only archaeologically recovered coin finds, with a well-documented archaeological context, are suitable for understanding the usage and meaning for their contemporary consumer.

3. Working in Between: Numismatics as Historical Archaeology (Nanouschka Myrberg, Stockholm University)

The focus here is on the numismatic discipline as a scholarly field of research. History, archaeology, art history, and economic history are closely related disciplines, whose materials, methods, and terminology are often used and touched upon. Between archaeology’s centering on the object and history’s detached attitude to material culture, there is a space or field of tension where numismatic practice can choose to orient itself more or less outspokenly to the one or the other pole.

Working on coins within the theoretical and methodological framework of historical archaeology implies giving equal weight to several aspects and contexts of the objects. Coins incorporate the dimensions of object, text, and picture. These dimensions have parallel functions and strata of meaning, which do not exclude but reinforce each other, even when they are not obviously speaking with one single voice. The practical function as a monetary object is an essential aspect of coins, but not the only one. Thus it is essential to benefit from the numismatist’s knowledge of the coin’s primary context (origin) as well as to create an understanding of the secondary contexts (uses, reuses, and deposition). Between the one context and the other, the coins go through transformations, which may consist of transportations, demonetisation, mutilation, additions, and various reuses. This is their life biography, of which every stage is of interest to numismatic studies.

4. Interrogating Ancient Coin Finds: What They Say, and What They Do Not Know (Georges Depeyrot, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; Delia Moisil, National Museum of History of Romania)

Over the past decade, we have been publishing the systematic inventories of ancient Greek and Roman coin finds from the regions of the Transcaucasus (Georgia, Armenia) and from the countries of Central Europe (Poland, Romania, Moldova, Ex-USSR, etc.).

This extensive documentation allows a clear understanding of the distribution of coin finds, but also the distribution of ensembles, single finds, and/or hoards.

We can interrogate this documentation to understand how coins circulated in antiquity. Their wear indicates whether or not they were used in daily transactions and for how long. Finally, the importance of hoards reveals several modes of conservation but also the nature of discoveries.

We consider, for example, discoveries of silver Roman coins from Romania. More than 500 hoards have been inventoried. Some hoards were reconstituted by the addition of coins at later dates.

We evaluate the relationship between currencies, money, and those who retained them. It is possible to depart from the traditional numismatic and historical approach and try to consider a new approach to the study of coin hoards. This method is influenced more from anthropology than archaeology.

This systematic study considers the monetary economy during the period from the second century B.C. to the end of the third century A.D.

5. Coin Imagery, Authority and Communication: the Case of the Later Soldier-Emperors, ca. A.D. 260–295 (Ragnar Hedlund, Uppsala University)

I present an investigation of the coinages of the later so-called soldier-emperors of the later half of the third century A.D. This age has often been described as an age of crisis. However, to what extent is this a crisis of imperial authority?

The third century has long been the focus of much scholarly attention. Not least, much recent work has been done on the coinages of this age. I suggest that the idea of a crisis of imperial authority in the later third century can be approached through a combination of more recent historical theory—most prominently concerning issues of legitimacy, authority, and communication—with the most recent publications of numismatic material. I approach the coins struck for the soldier-emperors as a means of communication, the aim of which is to express Roman imperial authority. This authority should be understood in relation to an idea of “Roman identity.”

One of the most important results is that a process of regionalization can be discerned. Images on coins struck in the provinces vividly express the development of a “common Roman identity,” and a sense of a “shared Roman memory.” I argue that the developments of such notions are connected to the process through which the city of Rome was gradually losing its power in favor of the capitals established under the tetrarchs, and ultimately in favor of the city of Constantinople.

6. Chisel Cuts: Bureaucratic Control Marks on Fifth Century Owls in the Near East? (Richard Fernando Buxton, University of Washington)

Gashes made by a chisel across either face of Athenian silver tetradrachms (henceforth “owls”) are a common feature in fourth-century B.C. hoards from the Near East. Although frequently dismissed as the result of unsystematic metal tests conducted on owls that were solely regarded as bullion, recent scholars such as P.G. van Alfen (AJN 14 [2003] 1-57) point to the consistent patterning in the placement of such chisel cuts in relation to the owl’s iconography. Van Alfen accordingly argues that this consistency suggests the marks, whether metal test or not, served to identify the coins not as bullion, but rather as discrete objects within a regularized system of bureaucratic control administered from the Near East.

Since such observations have thus far been confined to fourth century owl hoards, this paper examines evidence for regularized patterns of Near Eastern chisel cuts even earlier in the fifth century when owls first reached wide circulation. I argue that close attention to the find spots (e.g. IGCH 1259) and archaeological contexts (e.g. IGCH 1649) of fifth century hoards demonstrates that systematic chisel cuts were already well developed in the region by the start of the fourth century within a self-contained economy that did not feed back into Greece and its hoards. Such a division is consistent with patterns observed for the fourth century and suggests that the common view that owls were used in the Near East during the fifth-century, primarily for transactions with Greek mercenaries and merchants, requires serious modification.

Discussant: Fleur Kemmers (Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen)

__________________________________________________

APA Section 59
Coins and Identity
Sunday, January 11, 2009, 1:45 - 4:15

Organizers: The Friends of Numismatics / Jane De Rose Evans

Session Abstract:

Six papers will focus on what a coin meant to the person arranging its creation and on what it meant to a person using the coin, as well as what it meant to a person hoarding or collecting the coin. From the types of Campania and the Akarnanian League in the fourth century BC to the iconography of the Late Antique, the papers will analyze how coins reflect political propaganda and how their types relate to contemporary events and local cults and religion.

1. Their Neighbor’s Keeper: A Neapolitan Coin for Capua (Rabun Taylor, The University of Texas at Austin)

The bronze coinage of Hellenistic Neapolis (Italy) is dominated by imagery of Apollo, who is known to have had a robust cult in this city. But in the second half of the third century, shortly before it ceased minting altogether, Neapolis briefly issued an obol representing Artemis/Diana on the obverse and a cornucopia on the reverse. Both motifs are anomalous for this city; and the pairing of the hunter-goddess with a symbol of agricultural bounty seems doubly puzzling. This paper will argue that the imagery on the coin is intended to signify not Neapolis, but the rival Campanian city of Capua – a city which, on the one hand, was an agricultural power befitting the cornucopia; and which, on the other, oversaw the second most important cult of Diana in all of Italy, on nearby Monte Tifata. Why would Neapolis assume an alien identity on its coinage?

In 216, during the Second Punic War, Capua took a desperate gamble by switching its allegiance from Rome to Hannibal. Neapolis, as always, remained firmly allied with Rome. Monte Tifata itself, with its famous sanctuary, became Hannibal’s base of operations for several years. When Rome regained Capua and its territory in 211, it wreaked a selective vengeance, sparing the city’s buildings and its territory but declaring the Campanian plains to be ager publicus, Roman public property. Extraordinarily, Neapolils’ bronze issue was intended to burnish Capua’s greatest assets after their defilement by Hannibal and to appropriate those assets symbolically on behalf of Rome.

2. New Perspectives on Fourth-Century BCE Akarnanian Coinage (Douglas Domingo-Forasté, California State University, Long Beach)

*An error with the hyperlink prevents anyone from viewing the abstract for this paper.

3. Learning from Mistakes: Iconographic and Artistic Errors by Late Antique Die Engravers (Philip Kiernan, Independent Scholar)

One of the most fundamental questions about Roman coinage is the extent to which the messages of reverse types were intentional propaganda on the part of the issuing authority, and to what extent those messages were understood by those who used the coins. This paper looks at a rather unorthodox source to shed new light on this old question – the imitations of the bronze coins of the Gallic emperor Postumus (A.D. 260-269). In a period when silver coins had almost been debased to the point of being bronze themselves, Postumus made the unusual decision to strike large bronze sestertii and double sestertii. After four years, the experiment was abandoned, but the need for the fractional coins seems to have remained, with imitations being struck at local workshops in the Western Empire until at least A.D. 260. Unlike the more common imitations of contemporary antoniniani, the imitations of Postumus' bronze coins had a much larger field on which the die engraver could practice his craft. An examination of these coins reveals a number of interesting mistakes, suggesting that even the more talented of the unofficial engravers had only a minimal understanding of the iconography of the official coins they copied.

4. Not the Egyptian Type: Denominational Distinctions and the Selection of Images at the Roman Mint of Alexandria (Sean O’Neil, Randolph-Macon College)

Much has been made over the extraordinary diversity of individual types issued from the Roman mint at Alexandria. In choosing to maintain the closed currency system of their Ptolemaic predecessors, Roman authorities managed to create an opportunity for the careful direction of images toward a specific provincial audience. While several authors and catalogue editors have commented on the exceptionally broad range of individuals, symbols, monuments, and deities referenced on the Alexandrian coinage, comparatively little focus has been placed on the degree of selectivity displayed by Roman administrators. The mandatory payment of certain taxes in coined money necessarily established the Alexandrian coinage as the lone medium for “Roman” ideas and imagery viewed by each and every provincial, and the ruling authority took full advantage. The intentional dissemination of certain themes and the appearance of select imperial family members on particular denominational classes reflect a keen awareness of the distribution and realms of use for billon and bronze issues throughout Alexandria and the province. The distinctions between Greco-Roman and native Egyptian religious iconography are especially revealing, both in the presence (or lack thereof) of accompanying Greek legends and in the exclusion of the latter from the billon denominations that were typically used for larger transactions in the more Hellenized urban centers. Moreover, this calculated presentation of native religious symbols and themes on Alexandrian types can be placed within the broader context of a pervasive attempt to compel Egyptian provincials to accept a Roman reinterpretation of their own religious culture.

5. Coins and Meaning: Flavian Case Studies (Sarah E. Cox, Independent Scholar)

When the study of ancient coins reveals patterns and regularities in their types and legends, it is natural to infer that they were the result of planning by a central authority, conceived with a purpose, often to convey a message to the people. Using examples from the Flavian period, this paper will look at evidence to support that thesis as well as grounds to believe that people paid sufficient attention to what was on their coins to understand the intended messages. Among the minting patterns in the Flavian period is the congruence of types and Latin legends on aurei struck for Vespasian in 70 in both the East and the West. It seems unlikely that very many, if any, individuals would have noticed this congruence, but clearly someone was coordinating mint decisions, particularly the use of Latin legends, empire-wide. Another meaningful, but potentially unnoticed, decision was to have Vespasian share some precious metal reverse dies with Titus, but not with Domitian, a distinction that marked out Titus as his father’s colleague in power and his heir designate. Certain reverse types were targeted for use in particular regions, such as Pax sacrificing on dupondii of Lugdunum, a type originally struck at this mint by Galba. In the Flavians’ reprise of the type, the pointed allusion was to Galba’s unsuccessful efforts to establish peace. Lastly, some reverse designs were utilized for specific denominations, like those of the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. Asses struck under Vespasian, regardless of when or where, depicted the temple before its reconstruction, while sestertii showed its completed state. Perhaps more readily noticeable to the average viewer would have been the coin types minted to coincide with specific occasions. One of numerous cases is the striking of the laurel tree denarii in 74; because laurel had an apotropaic function, it was used in the lustrum performed at the conclusion of a census, precisely the situation in 74. Another is Titus’s issuance of the Restoration bronzes for Vespasian’s consecratio, all of which carry some form of the word restituit, explicitly stating that Titus was restoring earlier coins. By inserting himself in the numismatic representations of his predecessors, Titus placed both himself and his father, the new Divus, in the long stream of history beside a select group of other worthy individuals. I will conclude with a discussion of how Nero’s reputation is reflected in the treatment of his coinage, based on coin finds in Pompeii. Of 16 hoards of bronze coins found there, four of them have substantial quantities of Neronian coins, but 12 contain none of his coins whatsoever. Particularly interesting is the hoard of over 1300 bronzes from a bar in insula 1.8, where Nero’s coins amazingly constituted less than 1%. Recalling Epictetus’s directive that coins bearing Nero’s portrait should be thrown out as his character was unacceptable, this hoard dramatically demonstrates that one bar owner, at least, paid close attention to his currency and adjusted his actions based on its images and legends.

6. Minting History: The Fabricated Triumph of Drusus (Robin Greene, University of Washington)

Drusus, the brother of the emperor Tiberius, was a critical figure in the Augustan wars against the Germanic tribes until his untimely death while on campaign in 9 BCE. Popular with the people, the soldiers and the senate, Drusus was acclaimed by his troops as imperator and awarded a triumph by the senate; Augustus, however, intervened and granted him an ovatio and “triumphal honors” only. Ancient sources agree that this successful and likable member of the imperial family was never permitted to celebrate a proper triumph. Fifty years later, the emperor Claudius, Drusus’ son, minted a coin series that clearly features triumphal iconography in commemoration of Drusus’ “triumph” over the Germanic tribes; thus, these coins, I argue, advertise a fictitious event as historical fact. Moreover, this series served as a model for Claudius’ own triumphal series issued on the occasion of his triumph for the British campaign, an operation that was generally regarded as far from meriting such an accolade (Suet. Claud. 17). In this paper I explore two main issues implicit in these two series. First, I discuss the various reasons which prompted Claudius to elevate the ovatio of Drusus to a full triumph and to produce these parallel representations, most important among which was his need to legitimize his political position by an emphasis on the achievements and pedigree of his popular father. Second, I consider how the numismatic fabrication of a non-historical event may have been perceived by citizens of Rome and the provinces.

Respondent: Jane Cody, University of Southern California

Ulterior Motives in Discussion of Looting Issues?

One of the arguments that have been made against archaeologists advocating for the preservation and protection of archaeological sites against looting is that this advocacy is a veiled attempt to discredit and exclude independent scholars. In a recent posting I asked some stakeholders in the looting/indiscriminate collecting debate to abandon the obtrusive personal attacks and insults which are not relevant to the issues at hand. In the subsequent comments to the posting, the discussion between me and Wayne Sayles, the ACCG Executive Director, turned toward a discussion of "ownership" of the past and scholarship on the past, and thus it is worth starting a new thread.

While I disagree that advocacy for the preservation of finite archaeological resources serves an agenda to exclude the work of independent scholars, Mr. Sayles raises some points that are perhaps worth addressing. As archaeologists we have a responsibility to make our research and findings available to the public for their own edification or study. What use is there in studying the past if we cannot share our passions and the revelations of our research with other enthusiasts whether they be fellow academics, collectors, or laypeople?

Through the course of the discussion, several points about access to literature and material and the ability to publish scholarship were raised.

Publication

I explained that scholarly journals (archaeological, numismatic, philogical, art historical, historical, etc.) are peer-reviewed and that affiliated scholars and non-affiliated scholars would be on equal footing during the referee process since submissions to such journals are reviewed blindly.

Mr. Sayles countered by stating that the American Journal of Archaeology has publication guidelines prohibiting the publication of material in collections that were unknown before 1973. While this is true, it is wrong to view the AJA's guidelines for ethical publication as a malicious attempt to exclude independent scholars. Clearly the policy was enacted as a means to discourage the illicit and unethical trade in recently looted antiquities. Nearly twenty years ago, Fred S. Kleiner, a well-known archaeologist, art historian, and numismatist, and who was also the Editor-in-Chief of the AJA at the time, attempted to clear up some misconceptions of the AJA's publication policy through a short editorial in the journal (F.S. Kleiner, "On the Publication of Recent Acquisitions of Antiquities," AJA 94 (1990), 525-527 [JSTOR]). Some of his comments regarding the policy and its goals are worth noting (all italics in original text):

"While condemning the illicit trade in antiquities, the Archaeological Institute of America and the American Journal of Archaeology will not, however, stand in the way of legitimate scholarly discussion of antiquities so acquired once they have been published elsewhere. The AIA resolution does not ask scholars to pretend that illicitly acquired objects do not exist and does not require that such objects never be discussed at an AIA annual meeting or in the AJA. To do so would be contradictory to the vey principle of free and open scholarly inquiry for which the AIA and its Journal stand" (p. 526).

"...The policy has had its intended effect, namely to put the Archaeological Institute of America on record as taking an unequivocal stand against the illicit trade in antiquities and the attendant destruction of the archaeological context of those artifacts; to focus the attention of scholars, museum curators, collectors, and the general public on an ethical, legal, and scholarly issue of paramount importance; and to prompt many institutions and individual collectors to reevaluate and amend their acquisition policies - while not putting the AIA in the way of scholarly inquiry and discussion. The AIA's is a carefully framed, balanced policy; I personally support it without reservation" (p. 527).

Pertinent to Mr. Sayles' criticism, I would also add that the current publication policy allows for the publication of undocumented artifacts for which there is no history or provenance provided that the article emphasizes the loss of knowledge resulting from its unscientific excavation. Since context is such an important facet of study for the material remnants of past events, whether an archaeological site or a modern crime scene, it certainly should not be difficult to highlight the loss of information caused by a loss of context.

Access to Literature

The second point we discussed was access of study material and resources. I explained that unaffiliated scholars can usually join university research libraries for a small fee and make use of the same resources that affiliated scholars can.

Mr. Sayles disagrees about access by claiming that university libraries reserve parts of their holdings for faculty and doctoral students and pointing to institutional affiliation as necessary for access to JSTOR, which archives past issues of some scholarly journals.

To this I can only point to my own experiences. I am currently affiliated with the University of Missouri - Columbia, which maintains a very important research library relating to archaeology, ancient history, and classics. We even have a respectable collection of numismatic resources as well. There are no parts of the library collection which are reserved only for doctoral candidates or faculty. If a member of the public were to join the library, he/she would have access to the same resources to which I and everyone else there would have access. Library memberships typically also provide use of the Interlibrary Loan Program so that one can order any book or article which is not held by the library. The library membership also grants access to JSTOR and members of the public who do not join the library can certainly access it from library terminals. Many public libraries should also provide access to JSTOR. It is true that JSTOR does not yet offer access for private individuals, but it does have a page suggesting ways of accessing it until non-affiliated researchers can subscribe directly (Institutional memberships are only possible at present). Mr. Sayles is a Missourian and so it is highly likely that if he wishes to conduct research, the University of Missouri library would be the most sensible choice for him as it is the best library for ancient world research in the region. I highly recommend the resources we have available for any research he would wish to conduct.

When I studied at the University of Evansville and the University of Reading (UK), the libraries of the institutions did not have collections reserved only for doctoral students or faculty. When I was at the ANS seminar in 2004, I made use of the library at Columbia University and got a visitor's card. Many of the works were not in the main library but divided up around campus and housed within individual departments. I was able to use my visitor's card (which did not indicate I was doctoral student) to access the resources that were housed in the Classics Department.

Personally, I have always been an enthusiastic researcher and between my undergraduate degree and M.A. I had a four or five month long summer break because of the differences between the American and British academic timetables. During that time I made use of the Texas Tech University library in my hometown and I inquired about joining the library in order to make use of Interlibrary Loan since the numismatic and archaeological resources were not that great. If I had joined the library I would have been able to make use of the program.

Certainly, affiliated scholars have an advantage in living in the same town and working at universities with research libraries, but there is no reason that unaffiliated scholars cannot make use of these resources for their own study. One may have to pay a small fee to join a library, but this will open up access to that collection, JSTOR, and virtually anything else one may wish to read could be attained through Interlibrary Loan.

Access to Material

Mr. Sayles also claims there is a bias against independent scholars in the implementation of fees necessary for the reproduction of copyrighted images. Again, I can only speak from personal experiences, but I have had to order images several times. My impression is that fees for the reproduction of images are standard across the board - everyone is expected to pay. When I published my first article this was an overwhelming notion given my small graduate student budget, but a senior colleague informed me that if you explain your financial situation you can often get the fees waived. I tried this and it worked. I explained I was a poor, unwaged graduate student and would not profit financially for the article and so they waived the fees. When I conducted my die study of the Colosseum coins this worked as well for some places, but other museums would not bend the rules and it did cost me about $120 for photographs from one institution in spite of my affiliation and unwaged status! There were other institutions which also refused to waive fees, but their prices were not quite as high as $120 for images of one coin. I know several fellow graduate students who did not explain their situations and simply paid the fees as requested, going further into debt in the process. I have told several of my unwaged colleagues that they should explain their situations when ordering images - it never hurts to ask.

In short, independent scholars are not the only ones who have to battle exorbitant fees in the reproduction of images. Affiliated scholars fight with them equally. I know of some more senior colleagues who have already published books, for which they will not profit in book sales on account of printing costs, and have had to invest their own money and savings in the publication of those books. One academic acquaintance informed me he had to cough up $20,000 for the image rights on one of one of his more amply illustrated scholarly books!

My impression is that institutions are more willing to waive fees for the reproduction of images for unwaged individuals or for people who will not be profiting financially from their published works (e.g. for an article vs. a popular book). Generally, reproduction costs are not based on affiliation or lack of it, contrary to Mr. Sayles' view.

Mr. Sayles also criticized the ANS for discounting him as a participant in the ANS seminar when he expressed interest some years ago. While I am not familiar with the specific circumstances relating to his inquiry, I do know that the ANS seminar is designed for active graduate students or very recent PhDs - individuals who are pursuing scholarly careers. Mr. Sayles said at the time of inquiry he already had a graduate degree and was not enrolled in a doctoral program and so I suspect that would be the reasoning why he would not have been accepted. Certainly he would not have been dismissed as a potential applicant because he is a collector/dealer. At the time I attended the seminar I personally was still collecting to some degree and many knowledgeable collectors give and have given lectures and instruction to seminar participants.

There is also some question about access to museum collections. Here I must simply say that we all struggle with this - affiliated or not. Peter Tompa and I have already shared stories about difficulty accessing material. I was affiliated and he was not, but we both had difficulty with various institutions. With some of these inward-looking institutions you simply have to find a contact who will vouch for you to gain access as I had to do and as Mr. Tompa also had to do. Its absurd I agree, but even as an affiliated academic I have fought with it as well.

***

Mr. Sayles says I am "naive" to believe that independent scholars are not consciously excluded by affiliated academics and that concern about looting is unrelated to a maligned agenda to exclude independent scholars. He references SAA Bulletin 11.5, in which archaeologists Jon L. Gibson and Joe Sanders stated: "Archaeologists must be more than just stewards of the past. They must serve as the public conscience. They must act on society's behalf even when society is insensitive or objects."

I do not read control in this statement the same way that Mr. Sayles does, and I agree wholeheartedly with the statement made by Gibson and Sanders. I maintain that the archaeologist's concern for looting is easily and naturally comparable to the concern of environmental scientists who are worried about climate change and zoologists who are worried about the extinction of certain species and poaching. Would one argue that these specialists simply want to own or control environmental science and endangered animals? It would be a very idiosyncratic view indeed, but that is essentially what is being said about archaeology and its concern about looting issues.

I fully understand that access to research materials can be difficult in some circumstances; even affiliated scholars have battled with access to collections and resources. But I do not think the problem is as grim for independent scholars as Mr. Sayles paints it and I do not believe there is a conspiracy to exclude them from an informed academic discourse. I have read peer-reviewed articles by unaffiliated scholars a number of times in academic journals and I normally see several "At Large" members at the annual AIA meetings. If an independent scholar has the will to access a research library or other resources, this can be accomplished. And let us be honest, the "Good Old Boy's Club" syndrome is just as prevalent in the "real world," perhaps even more so than it is academia. Equally, personal connections can certainly aid the advancement of a collector or dealer in the ancient coin and antiquities trade and I wonder if many of the large auction houses would open their own reference libraries to the public.

Undoubtedly, access to research materials could be improved and the wider scholarly community needs to put pressure on insular institutions to allow access more freely for legitimate research. Nevertheless, this is an issue unrelated to looting and indiscriminate collecting. It is a red herring injected into the debate and meant to distract from the real and pressing issue of systematic looting. Archaeologists have a duty to act as the "public conscience" on looting and are naturally in a position to call attention to the destruction of the material past. An archaeologist's relationship to the material past is analogous to that of zoologists to endangered species or environmental scientists to climate change. Should they not act as the "public conscience" on such issues or should they be demonized for doing so?

Related Discussions

• 
  
  N. Elkins, "Archaeologists Don't Care about Ancient Coins?" Cultural Heritage in Danger. 12 October 2007.


• 
  
  N. Elkins, "Dilettanti and Shopmen: Divergent Interests in Looting and Cultural Heritage Issues." Numismatics and Archaeology. 7 May 2008.


• 
  
  N. Elkins, "Internet Discussions on Looting, Legislation, and Lobbyists." Numismatics and Archaeology. 19 August 2008.


• 
  
  D.W.J. Gill, "Saving Antiquities: The 'Elephant Ivory Model'." Looting Matters. 22 September 2007.


• 
  
  D.W.J. Gill, "Al Gore and the Finite Resource." Looting Matters. 12 October 2007.


• 
  
  SAFECORNER, "Will We Achieve Global Recognition in the Cultural Heritage Debate?" Cultural Heritage in Danger. 13 October 2007.


• 
  
  P. Barford, "Ivory Tower Passivity." Cultural Heritage in Danger. 27 October 2008.