The classification of cultures generally tracks along two interrelated lines: chronological and geographical. For centuries, coin collectors struggled with the lack of a coherent system for cataloguing the vast array of issues from antiquity through the modern era. Joseph Eckhel (1737-1798), a secularized Jesuit abbot who served as numismatist to the imperial court of the Holy Roman Empire, devised a system for arranging coins geographically that is still in use today.

This system basically records coins in a progression beginning at the northeast quadrant of the Mediterranean basin and continuing from west to east, then south through the Levant and from east to west through northern Africa. Though far from perfect, nobody has yet devised a better approach for non-Roman coins. The classification of coins and cultures into chronological divisions is far more complex than the Echkel scheme.

Chronologically, the primary divisions of coinage are almost universally accepted as being Ancient, Medieval and Modern. Within the United States, collectors tend to separate U.S. coins from the modern coins of other nations by referring to the latter as “World Coins.” Coins in the West were first struck in Western Anatolia during the 7th century BC. The transition point between ancient and medieval is more difficult to date.

Some would argue that the end of the ancient period is coincident with the fall of Rome in AD 476. Others choose the accession of Anastasius I in AD 491 as the transition point. But, almost everyone who collects “Byzantine” coins thinks of them as being “ancient” even though they start with the accession of Anastasius and end in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople.

Likewise, coins struck in India and Central Asia are typically thought of as ancient up to the Islamic conquests, which did not happen at a single point in time.

Further complicating the chronological classification, coins of the post-Roman era in western Europe (e.g. Spain, Gaul, Britain and Germany) from as early as the sixth century AD are thought of by many as ‘Medieval”.

In fact, by the time of Constantinople’s fall, some coinage in western Europe is already being thought of by collectors and scholars as falling into the “Modern” or “World” classification. The incongruity is difficult to understand and even more difficult to explain to a new collector.

Illustration Note: [Above] Imago Mundi – Babylonian map, the oldest known world map, 6th century BCE .

From a purely practical point of view, the distinction may not be all that important. After all, a rose is a rose…. But, to a cataloguer it is frequently a conundrum. Perhaps the next Joseph Eckhel is reading these lines right now and conjuring up a system that will allow for the vastly differing cultural environments and reshape our definitions in a way that seems sensible.

Related posts:

1. Ancient coins discovered on beach
2. Putting History Into the Hands of Children with Ancient Coins
3. Using Ancient Coins to Map Trade Routes in Mediterranean Europe

In practical terms, the U.S. government is about to decide whether antiquities and other forms of cultural property that Italy claims as its heritage ought to be restricted from entry into the U.S. unless accompanied by Italian export permits. There is already such an agreement in place, but ancient coins have been exempted twice before in these renewal requests that cover a 5-year window.

We have very good reason to believe that Italy and members of the archaeological community will this time seek to add coins to the list of restricted items.

There is a period open for public comment on the issue and the best way to comment is by fax. Don’t despair, this is VERY easily done. Simply go to the ACCG web site at http://accg.us and click on the Fax Wizard link (picture of U.S. Capitol Building) on the left side of the page. It says “Fax Your Legislator” but will indeed send your message to the State Department. You will be guided through a brief and easy to follow process that sends a free fax to the State Department registering your views.

Why oppose these import restrictions? Because Roman coins are at the very core of the cultural experience that we all treasure. They have circulated all over the known world in antiquity and since through trade and collector markets. It is impossible to distinguish a Roman coin found in Britain, for example, from exactly the same type, mint, etc found in Italy.

Requiring an export permit from Italy on a coin found and legally exported from Britain would not only be impractical, it would not have any legal foundation. Still, any court challenge by an individual is unlikely since the legal costs usually far exceed the value of seized objects.

We simply MUST oppose any expansion of the MOU with Italy to include coins. We must do so with an absolutely resounding voice.

Import restrictions are simply not a viable solution to protecting archaeological sites. They are an idealist panacea that cause far more harm to society than any possible good. Excluding the U.S. collector and trade from the legitimate world market for Roman coins, or unilaterally forcing draconian documentation requirements on Americans, would be grossly prejudicial and would certainly be against the interests of American citizens and their traditional freedoms.

EVERY person reading this has an interest in ancient coins, even if you don’t collect Roman coins, and needs to make their view known. The entire hobby is being challenged. There is simply nothing more important to do RIGHT NOW than to take five minutes, go to the ACCG fax wizard and register your concern. Don’t wait ’til the 22 April deadline.

The ACCG will defend the hobby to the best of its ability, but in the final analysis it is the will of the people that will prevail. Those who speak most loudly and clearly will succeed. DO IT!

With best wishes,

Wayne G. Sayles
Executive Director, ACCG

Related posts:

1. Ancient Coins: The Yin and Yang – A Smorgasbord of Views on Cultural Property
2. Ancient Coins: Freedom of Information and New Import Restrictions sought on Greek “Cultural Property”
3. Roger Bland to speak at Field Museum

In marked contrast to last year’s event the bidders appeared to be out in force. Seth Freeman of Baldwin’s commented that there was a real buzz around this years event, both the convention and the auction and buyers ‘seemed to be focused on one thing, spending money to secure key items’.

The results from the sale this year reflected the more optimistic view of the financial markets for 2010. Across the board bidders seemed less cautious than last year and prices realised on particular items were substantially higher.

Highlights from the first day of the sale included the catalogue cover piece (pictured above), lot 128, a Roman Empire Drusus Sestertius which sold for $17,250 USD against a pre-sale estimate of $8,500 USD; and lot 251, a Constantinus II Solidus, Treveri, which achieved $34,500 USD.

As ever the Indian section was strong and attracted a lot of attention, the most interesting lot being 304, a very rare Gupta Dinar, Tiger-slayer type depicting the goddess Ganga standing on an elephant-headed fish, sold for $21,850 USD.

Bidding interest and excitement centered on the Medieval, Portuguese and Russian sections and this is demonstrated by the incredibly strong prices achieved. Highlights of the section incorporate lots 470 and 628, a Carolingian Denarius of Toulouse, and a Portuguese Sancho I Morabitino which sold for $13,800 USD and $25,000 USD respectively.

Lot 1027, a 1707 Shestak Half Tymf, was one of the most unique and interesting pieces in the sale. This coin was first recorded in 1897 where it was the only image available of this very rare coin and soon became the plate coin in all standard references. The groups research produced no other specimen of this particular coin offered at public auction and this was reflected in the realised price of $97,500 USD.

Lot 2002, a complete set of the Order of St. Alexander Nevsky also attracted a great deal of interest and more than doubled its estimate by achieving $184,000 USD and becoming the highest priced lot of the auction.

Held in the Norse Suite of the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York, the auction spanned two evenings and the room was packed for both events. Many individuals were bidding on the phone and 91 people registered to bid online over the course of the two days, proving that you no longer have to attend an auction to participate in it. 77% of the 1402 lots offered were sold and a total hammer price of $ 4,815,136 USD (including premium) achieved.

Lots sold online to bidders globally totaled 8.57% of the successful bidders buying 90 lots between them.

Full sale results can be found online at www.baldwin.co.uk or at www.sixbid.com

Related posts:

1. Baldwin’s Ancient and World Coin Auction 67 & 68: The Official COINEX Auction
2. Heritage’s World and Ancient Coin Auction in NYC
3. Ponterio & Associates to Conduct January 2010 N.Y.I.N.C. World Coin Auction

The coins were imported to test the legitimacy of State Department (DOS) imposed import restrictions via two Memoranda of Understanding (MOU). ACCG maintains that actions of DOS relating to implementation of the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) have been secretive, arbitrary and capricious and will contest the seizure in the U.S. Federal District Court in Baltimore.

Information from another Freedom of Information Act lawsuit suggests that the DOS failed to follow the recommendations of its own experts on the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) in extending restrictions to Cypriot coins, and then misled Congress about this decision. Other information implicates DOS bureaucrats adding coins to the Chinese MOU even though Chinese officials never asked for their inclusion.

The Obama Administration has promised transparency and accountability in government. ACCG hopes its challenge to the ban on ancient Chinese and Cypriot coins will lead the Court also to address these and other concerns about the process for imposing import restrictions on cultural goods.

During a 2008 International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR) discussion, former CPAC Chairperson Jay Kislak (2003-2008) said, “I am not necessarily against any actions that were taken on any of the MOU’s which were recommended by the Committee and put into action. I am, however, opposed to the way it is done because I think it is absolutely, completely, un-American, and I don’t mind saying that. Not anywhere in our government do we do things this way, except with this group.”

Kislak also addressed government transparency by saying, “In every other branch of government, there is disclosure, and information is made public. We have a democracy, and it is government of the people, for the people, by the people, not by the bureaucrats over them.”

Another former CPAC chairperson, Jack Josephson (1990-1995), added, “…rarely has Committee membership been in conformity with the Act. During my experience on the Committee, this was not the only part of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) that was disregarded.” Former CPAC member Kate Fitz Gibbon (2000-2003) agreed, saying, “In many cases, from my ‘plain reading,’ the Committee has substantively altered Congressional intent.”

Contact: Wayne G. Sayles, 417-499-9831, director@accg.us, http://www.accg.us

This release was issued through The Xpress Press News Service, merging e-mail and satellite distribution technologies to reach business analysts and media outlets worldwide. For more information, visit http://www.XpressPress.com

SOURCE Ancient Coin Collectors Guild

Wayne G. Sayles, +1-417-499-9831, director@accg.us

Related posts:

1. Coin Collectors to Challenge State Department on Import Restrictions
2. FOIA Suit Filed Against US Dept of State
3. Collectors Claim Bias Epitomizes State Department Advisory Committee Management