Ancient Coins and Looting
Preserving the context
Ancient coins provide a precise chronology when discovered in context. Unfortunately, they are also some of the most frequently looted artifacts and are often traded without regulation.
“Let’s think of an ancient coin as a murder weapon. No one would disagree that going into a crime scene before the investigators arrive and absconding with the bloody knife, cleaning it and then putting it in a private collection would seriously compromise the case. But this is what happens when looters descend on an archaeological site and remove coins and other artifacts: They disturb objects, their relationships with one another and remove evidence that may well be the ‘smoking gun’ for an excavation.”
So writes Baylor University professor and Huqoq numismatist Nathan T. Elkins in “Investigating the Crime Scene: Looting and Ancient Coins” in the July/August 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. In his Archaeological Views column, Elkins describes the importance of ancient coins as primary chronological indicators. When found under sealed floors, foundations or walls, they can provide definitive chronological evidence. Unfortunately, they are also the most widely collected and sought-after artifact type, and millions of coins enter the market each year from unrecorded digs.
Do museums and educational organizations have the right to sell antiquities from their collections? This was the question the AIA-St. Louis Society faced when artifacts from its Egyptian collection were put up for auction. Learn more >>
Looted ancient coins do still provide information for numismatists who want to study, say, iconography. But Elkins notes that ancient coins’ iconography, archaeology, text and inscription are all pieces of the same historical puzzle, and we must “endeavor to preserve, and encourage the preservation of, as much information as possible.”
If archaeologists are the detectives of history, then ancient coins are the “smoking guns” of the ancient crime scene, according to Elkins. Detectives reconstruct crimes by looking at the relationships between weapons, footprints, fingerprints, broken glass and other evidence. Archaeologists do the same by analyzing artifacts within their find contexts. Looting not only removes valuable evidence from the equation—such as dates or imperial faces inscribed on ancient coins—but also scatters the primary context of the disturbed area, destroying our ability to recreate the story behind the evidence.
BAS Library Members: Read “Investigating the Crime Scene: Looting and Ancient Coins” by Nathan T. Elkins as it appears in the July/August 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.
Not a BAS Library member yet? Join the BAS Library today.
Learn more about ancient coins in Bible History Daily:
Roman Emperor Nerva’s Reform of the Jewish Tax by Nathan T. Elkins
Gold Nero Coin Comes to Light in Jerusalem
Rare Roman Gold Coin Minted by Trajan Found
Judaea Capta Coin Uncovered in Bethsaida Excavations
Coins Celebrating the Great Revolt Against the Romans Unearthed near Jerusalem
This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on June 18, 2014.
Related Posts
Must-Read Free eBooks
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Become an All-Access Member to explore the Bible's rich history. Get Biblical Archaeology Review in print, full online access, and FREE online talks. Plus, enjoy special Travel/Study discounts. Don't miss out—begin your journey today!
Well, please tell the archaeologist working on Herculaneum that my wife found a denarius while on a tour. She didn’t know any better so she brought it to me as a souvenir. I didn’t believe her until I saw it. I thought she was bringing me a replica or plastic coin. Little did I know she brought me a smoking gun..
There are two problems here, on is there is little monitoring of many sites because of funding and some countries put in place laws that discourage legal practices. There needs to be a wider debate and education to coin collectors about this problem.
If archaeologists are the “detectives” of history, and they truly believe that “coins provide a precise chronology when discovered in context” I fear that the past will forever remain a cold case. The truth is that coins are far less accurate as chronological markers than other contextual objects. Why echo such a specious claim in the quest for site protection, and why to an audience that has no control whatever over that protection? It sounds like the quest is not for site protection but for regulation and mandatory registration. What is the real agenda here?
As an archaeologist I would say that “Wayne” needs to do a little more reading up on the subject of archaeological methodology before coming out with such a negative suggestion that “coins are far less accurate as chronological markers than other contextual objects”. First of all, I wonder what a so-called “contextual object” is in the first place, this is not an archaeological term. Secondly in stratified contexts, coins and coin assemblages are extremely useful as chronological markers and in reality few other artefact types have such a precise chronology (terra sigillata is one example). Even in such cases, if you, in turn, look at the methodology behind the establishment of their dating, their controlled excavation from coin-dated contexts has played a large part in its development. In any case, if you say looting coins does not damage sites because they can’t be used for dating anyway, you are missing the point, looting a site for coins and other collectables will destroy the context of those “other” objects you think are in some way “more important”.
The archaeological use of coins however goes far beyond their use for dating stratigraphic sequences and zones of sites. Applied numismatics has for some time been used in the UK to say a lot more about classical and medieval society using sourced numismatic evidence, and addressing wider questions about their use and significance than a few decades ago. None of this information is available when coins are surreptitiously dug up and flogged off to grabbing coin dealers who do not care where they came from. The study of the ‘pictures and writing’ on unprovenanced artefacts tells you much less than the sort of information being obtained by studies such as archaeologists Philippa Walton in the Heberden Coin Room at Oxford and Tom Brindle at Reading.
I would say that encouraging better and more nuanced scholarship like this using more full information about the numismatic source material is, as you put it, the “agenda”, one which I would have thought anyone seriously interested in learning more about coins would support.
Elkins makes a lot of specious assumptions about the importance of coins in dating archaeological sites. In fact: (1) only coins from secure contexts (like under a paving stone) have any real value whatsoever (and really, how many of these are found at a typical site?); (2) ancient coins circulated for hundreds of years so their value as dating tools is quite limited– a better indicator is apparently pottery shards, which are found in abundance at archaeological sites..
Leaving aside dating, the real issue is that Elkins and others (like Paul) who don’t like private collecting are using these claims about the importance of coins as dating tools to justify a clamp down on private collecting. Why not instead actually pay site guards to protect sites in the many months there are no archaeologists to be seen? Or, use cameras to monitor the sites? This seems to be a far more targeted approach than going after collectors, who after all share archaeologists’ passion for studying the past. As for Paul’s concerns, I’m sure he’s aware that the UK has a great program called the PAS and Treasure Act that encourages coins to be recorded for the purposes he speaks about. That’s why we know so much more about coin circulation in England and Wales than in many other countries without similar enlightened laws.
As a numismatist with over fifty years experience, some publications (including what is fastly becoming the standard text on one series) and having reclassified an entire series, I have to fully agree with Wayne and Peter.
There is some value in dating sites with Roman coins and some other series that have ruler’s names, dates, etc. (but with many caveats), but the dating on many other types of ancient coins is very often “provisional”. For example, an issue might be cited as being 365 – 283 BC. beginners often think that this means that there was a continuous production over that span, but really the two dates are “markers” based, usually on two events that are seen to frame the series. In reality, the issue might have been “early 361 BC” or “late 290 BC” (all examples fictitious).
Even if a deposit is stratified, it only says that it cannot be dated earlier than the last coin. I have heard of coins of about 40 AD being the most recent in a hoard buried in the second century AD.
Having a Ph.D on a numismatic topic does not make one an expert in ancient numismatics. I knew a person who had a Ph.D from a study of a particular issue of Corinth. She was hired, on the basis of that degree, to be the head of the numismatic department at a museum. Unfortunately, she could not even recognize a bronze coin brought to her as being Ptolemaic (and the commonest type at that!). She was finally fired after sending all of the Greek silver coins to be polished by a jeweler to make them bright and shiny for the museum visitors.
Calling someone an expert because of a degree speaks volumes about the limited intelligence of the person making such a claim.
Finally, if the only important thing about a coin is to date a site, it means that the site is either not terribly important, or the excavators need too much spelled out for them and have little in the way of research abilities. That pretty well sums up many archaeological reports that I have read. With all that coins can tell us about ancient technologies, sources of metals, styles and tenets of art, mythology and iconography, economics and monetary systems, and so on. Thinking that dating a site is the one thing worth mentioning is really harnessing Pegasus to the plough and speaks volumes of the sad state of archaeological knowledge at this time.
Very few people without at least twenty years of experience in numismatics can make much of an impact on the subject and you cannot teach the subject of numismatics very well in the short amount of time allotted for a university career. Perhaps, one day, Elkins will realize that he just shot himself in the foot!
This issue will remain forever controversial but Noah’s writeup does little to turn the tide in favor of his viewpoint mainly because it repeats the same old talking points that are so easily debunked.
Rather than beat the same dead horses I’d suggest a new angle to break the stalemate. Ultimately, the problem is one that like many others boils down to money. Archaeology is in a race to discover, document and preserve historical sites against determined looters who are in almost every case desperately poor people to who despoil the earth of historical artifacts in order to supplement meager incomes. Provide them with economic incentives that are a viable alternative and you will instantly turn them into fierce guardians of those same sensitive locations. Or just step up the work of the archaeologists and/or increase site security. Either way it takes money. Money that I’m keenly aware isn’t available but that all the same is the underlying current that animates the trade.
Noah’s lament isn’t merely ineffective; by its rehashing of the same easily attacked positions all it really accomplishes to do is alienate a potential base of support. Ancient coin collectors are already often consumate history buffs with skills in conservation and a desire to preserve and reconnect with the past. On the other hand, as a block demographic, and this bears emphasizing, they absolutely swamp the few Noahs out there who pine away for the day that only trained archaeologists, museum staffs and related academia reserve all rights to historically sensitive sites and the objects within it. This, of course, means that antagonizing them spurs them to seek remedies that directly or indirectly only results in accelerated and intensified efforts at preserving the infrastructure that supplies them in the first place.
A policy change that seeks to enlist their help as allies through programs that legitimize the acquisition of certain antiquities like coins is the only sensible approach that has any chance at all of diminishing the worst consequences of the illicit trade in antiquities. Either that or, like I said, throw buckets of cash at the problem… money I know full well is not available.
Rasiel Suarez
Some very valid points raised here. Like John, I also am in my 50th year as a numismatist. Paul’s advice to do a little more reading is rather humorous. He obviously has no clue. When assailed by an academic with wet ink on the sheepskin, it is hard not to react with fairly predictable defensiveness. I agree that Rasiel’s final paragraph is the only way forward, but my repeated calls for genuine dialogue on that topic have been ignored or met with scorn. Unless there is a wake-up-call in the archaeological community, the future will not be any brighter than the past. All that can come in the alternative is a widening gulf and ultimate isolation. By the way, because “contextual object” is not a recognized “archaeological” term, does that mean it is unintelligible? I think most intelligent 5th graders today could offer a fairly good definition.
Wayne G. Sayles
Judging from the tone and inaccuracy of his comment, ‘Paul’ appears to be one Paul Barford, an archaeo-blogger well known for his ad hominen attacks on collectors and anyone else who opposes his near-lunatic and radical views; neither is he an archaeologist.
Where he writes “Secondly in stratified contexts, coins and coin assemblages are extremely useful as chronological markers and in reality few other artefact types have such a precise chronology (terra sigillata is one example),” is a sly dig at those archaeologists and excavators tempted to supplement their incomes, the only ones with access to these contextual coins.
I suggest “Peter” (Tompa I would guess) like “Wayne” (50 years a numismatist, but how many excavation reports under his belt?) needs to do a little more reading too into the methodology he criticises. The statement that “In fact: (1) only coins from secure contexts (like under a paving stone) have any real value whatsoever” betrays a real lack of understanding about the interpretation of finds assemblages from stratigraphic sequences on modern excavations. As for the PAS I look forward to the day the US government sets up one so we can see some similar applied numismatic work being done on freshly-surfaced finds by US numismatists too. Then an ACCG reading list would be nice.
“Rasiel” suggests job-creation projects for looters (does he know any he’d like to employ? ) falls flat on his assumption that they are all “desperately poor people to who despoil the earth of historical artefacts in order to supplement meagre incomes”. These are generalisations without any real substance. Desperately poor people do not own JCBs and metal detectors (Archar), nor are they likely to be responsible for the looting on an industrial scale we see at sites like Apamea and Dura Europos in Syria, or get high on meth as we see in the US. I think rather that it is Rasiel” who is “repeating the same old talking points” here to avoid discussing problems associated with the current form of the antiquities market. Whether or not he has been following the debate, this whole question of “subsistence looting” has been gone through so many times before. Now we have the Glasgow Trafficking Culture project, run by criminologists which should dismantle some of the old stereotypes of collectors and dealers. Whether or not they will listen is another matter.
In any case, I’d like to ask where these collectors think the money for the site guards and the job-creation programmes they propose in stead of cleaning up the market will come from. who will foot the bill, and why? Not even the USA can afford to do the same to solve its own looting problems on public lands in the west. The UK has not even considered this in the case of highly endangered sites like the Staffordshire Hoard findspot. Let’s see the rich countries applying these costly solutions first and testing how well they work before asking the poor countries to do so.
Surely, instead of this, all it needs is for the buyers in the rich countries to just tidy up their act and stop irresponsibly buying freshly-surfaced artefacts ‘blind’ (just say ‘no’). That, as has been pointed out many times, is where the help of “collectors as allies” is sought. If all responsible collectors took a conscious decision to switch to buying only that which they can personally verify is 100% of licit provenance, that is precisely a programme of action that would “legitimize the acquisition of antiquities like coins” and immediately resolve the conflict over clandestine excavation and artefact smuggling. Without it, eliminating illicit dealings in antiquities will be impossible, and surely eliminating illicit artefacts from the market is not against the interests of responsible collectors. And if in addition in the promotion of transparency, collectors would like to set up some kind of register (as William Pearlstein of the US Committee for Cultural Policy has recently suggested) along the lines of the PAS, that would be a great idea too.
I do not see what point “John” is getting at, whoever he is, I do not think I have ever met him, so am puzzled by his claimed insights into my personal biography etc., not that this matters, I rather think we were discussing something else.
Paul Barford