Coin Collecting News » Wayne Sayles

Ancient Coins: How old is “Ancient”?

Wayne Sayles — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:25:31 +0000

By Wayne Sayles – Ancient Coin Collecting Blog

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.

The Whole Cultural Record

Wayne Sayles — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:57:49 +0000

By Wayne Sayles – Ancient Coin Collecting

In the latest issue of Archaeology magazine (Nov-Dec 2010) AIA President Brian Rose proposes an intriguing professional goal, saying — “We must preserve the whole cultural record.” By “We”, I presume that he means archaeologists, since nobody else on the planet would dare to dream so big. We need not guess about what he means by the “whole” record. Dr. Rose decries a series of events from the Damnatio Memoriae of Nero to the anti-Saddam activities of president day Iraqis and views a panoply of destructive events in history as examples of “Iconoclasm”. He makes the interesting statement that “For me, as an archaeologist, there is no excuse for the destruction of cultural property…” he goes on to say “We may never be able to temper the passion for destruction, but we can at least situate those passions in historical perspective and ensure that today’s historical evidence will still be here tomorrow.”

The logic itself escapes me because the “iconoclastic” events mentioned were in themselves cultural acts and just as historical and important as the events they reacted to. Deplorable and despicable as their destruction may have been, are the empty niches of the Bamiyan Buddhas any less a cultural record than the statues that once stood there? His statement is all the more remarkable since some archaeologists have openly advocated destroying cultural property recovered from their excavations, rather than allowing it to fall into private collector hands—and who in fact followed through with the deed.

How, I have to wonder, could everything listed in the UNESCO resolution as “cultural property” be stewarded by archaeologists ad aeternum? Here is the laundry list of items so defined in that resolution—I’ve posted it before, but it’s worth another look:

(a) Rare collections and specimens of fauna, flora, minerals and anatomy, and objects of palaeontological interest;

(b) property relating to history, including the history of science and technology and military and social history, to the life of national leaders, thinkers, scientists and artist and to events of national importance;

(d) elements of artistic or historical monuments or archaeological sites which have been dismembered;

(e) antiquities more than one hundred years old, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals;

(f) objects of ethnological interest;

(g) property of artistic interest, such as:

(i) pictures, paintings and drawings produced entirely by hand on any support and in any material (excluding industrial designs and manu-factured articles decorated by hand);

(ii) original works of statuary art and sculpture in any material;

(iii) original engravings, prints and lithographs ;

(iv) original artistic assemblages and montages in any material;

(h) rare manuscripts and incunabula, old books, documents and publications of special interest (historical, artistic, scientific, literary, etc.) singly or in collections ;

(i) postage, revenue and similar stamps, singly or in collections;

(j) archives, including sound, photographic and cinematographic archives;

(k) articles of furniture more than one hundred years old and old musical instruments.

It’s a sobering thought. If none of the items listed above are ever destroyed, nor preserved in private hands, and each year the 100 year rolling window adds another layer of qualifying objects, then global warming will quickly become a very small issue in comparison to the space problem at institutional repositories. Of course, the notion of saving “everything” is so preposterous that we automatically assume that Dr. Rose does not really mean what he said. What then does he mean? One is tempted to conclude that he means any object within this vast group can at will be considered cultural property and therefore be placed under state controls. That quickly leads to the obvious follow-on: Who shall decide what is significant and “on the list” at any point in time? We all know the answer to that question — it shall be vested within the authority and power of the state. And who shall exercise that authority and power? The ever-benevolent and omniscient bureaucracy.

This scenario seems vaguely reminiscent of governmental models that permeated the mid 20th century and whose benevolence and wisdom wreaked havoc upon the world at large. They were called “Nationalists” and the common thread among them was total state dominance over people and property. I really doubt that this is what Dr. Rose advocates, and he probably meant to imply something other than what leaps boldly from the page. Still, we have little choice but to take the words of an esteemed academic at face value. It would be infinitely better for society if the past were preserved as a cooperative venture of private and public entities. In my view, acknowledging private collectors as legitimate stewards of the past makes considerably more sense than trying to build enough institutional warehouses to store every cultural object found around the world—or in the alternative destroying them.

Perhaps Dr. Rose will weigh in on this and enlighten the discussion.

Ancient Coins: The Yin and Yang – A Smorgasbord of Views on Cultural Property

Wayne Sayles — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:03:16 +0000

This week I was treated to a smorgasbord of views on cultural property from members of the archaeological and collecting communities.

On Tuesday morning, I listened with interest to the presentations of several archaeologists at the U.S. State Department’s Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) in Washington, DC. This was my fifth appearance at a CPAC hearing in as many years. In every case, the general tenor of oral comments by public presenters has reflected a dichotomy of interests—those of collectors versus those of nationalist governments (defended mainly by the archaeological community). The dividing line has always been clear, and not just in the rhetoric that is entered into the public record at these events. Even the informal assemblage of speakers prior to the event (call them gaggles, if you will) is indicative of the diverse philosophical views. I suppose it’s only natural for like-minded people to congregate, but the atmosphere is and has very much been one of “us and them” . This is not to say that either camp is overtly unfriendly, in fact the opposite is true. I think both camps try very hard to be polite and cordial in a personal sense. But camps there are, and gaggle they do.

The Collector camp is comprised mainly of collector advocacy groups. Occasionally, individual collectors, dealers or concerned citizens have appeared or have been represented by counsel. However, the lion’s share of opposition to Memorandums of Understanding these days has come from the Ancient Coin Collecting community and the Art Museum community. The former is represented by advocacy groups, like the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) and the American Numismatic Association (ANA), along with representatives of the numismatic trade and other non-profit organizations like Ancient Coins for Education. The latter is represented primarily by the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD).

The proponents of Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) are primarily the representatives of governments seeking import restrictions and the archaeological community, including its related museums—most of which are institutional. The advocacy group Saving Antiquities For Everyone (SAFE) has consistently supported import restrictions, but has not appeared before CPAC in the public sessions lately. A rather late attempt by SAFE to compile and introduce a petition in support of the MOU with Greece was apparently aborted when it failed to meet the State Department imposed deadline for public comment.

One of the most striking views that I heard during the public session was a comment from Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) president Dr. Brian Rose. In response to a question from the committee, Dr. Rose stated that he was not aware of any schism between the collector community and the archaeological community. That statement must have shocked most of those in attendance, regardless of their philosophical position. Even some eyebrows of normally stoic CPAC members showed signs of disbelief. For the past decade, the antagonism between collectors and archaeologists has grown exponentially and can hardly be unknown to the leadership of the AIA. Perhaps Dr. Rose was expressing his hope that such a schism is not insurmountable, and if that be the case I do share his sentiments. But, I don’t want to misrepresent his view in any way and will leave further comment on that to him.

Hot on the heels of the public comment session came news of a post by one of the more vocal archaeo-bloggers that called American dealers and collectors “cultural property bandits: xenophobic, neo-colonialist, introverted, self centered and careless consumers.” While viewed by many as an irrational extremist, this blogger is sometimes defended and encouraged by more reputable names in the field. The blogger went on to say “I think it would save a lot of people a lot of time and angst if the USA was to simply withdraw from the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property.” This is of course a preposterous and ridiculous suggestion. America enjoys the largest legitimate market for cultural property in the world and clearly has a responsibility to maintain the integrity of that market. The United States legislature worked hard and long (13 years in fact) to craft a law that serves the interests of the international community regarding the protection of cultural property. That law, the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (variously CPIA or CCPIA), is also designed to protect the interests of American citizens and businesses that are equally a part of the international community. The collector community opposition to recent Memorandums of Understanding is predicated on what we see as a failure of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government to implement the law as enacted and intended. That opposition does not in any way reflect a disdain for the law, nor for the original intent of the UNESCO resolution. Hopefully, the drift away from that original intent can be corrected to allow for a return to cooperative and inclusive efforts rather than a further schism.

The huge gulf between the statement of Dr. Rose and the statement of the blogger referred to above represents a sort of Yin and Yang of views within the field of archaeology. There are similar polarities within the collecting world. In both cases, rationality and balance seem to be nurtured by moderation. As I said in my closing remarks to CPAC, “The general interest of the international community is best served by inclusive cultural policies. We should be working together—stewardship should include the private sector.” By that, I simply mean that private collecting and independent scholarship are in the general interests of the international community and should, in light of demonstrated expertise, experience and dedication, be fully partnered with governments and institutions in preservation of the past.

Ancient Coins: Freedom of Information and New Import Restrictions sought on Greek “Cultural Property”

Wayne Sayles — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:31:46 +0000

By Wayne Sayles – Ancient Coin Collecting Blog

Comments related to issues of cultural property management

The Freedom of Information Act, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in 1966, was born from the notion that “the people” (as in each individual citizen) have a constitutional right to know how the government acts in their behalf. This is of course a democratic notion that nationalist governments do not share. One might wonder at times if it is a notion that the U.S. Government shares?

FOIA has been amended and altered in its execution by Executive Branch order or parallel legislation many times during the past 24 years. While a forest of trees have been exterminated in filling FOIA requests, the amount of information provided to the public has been a matter of constant and continuous concern and variability. What the situation boils down to, in a nutshell, is that the Executive Branch of the U.S. government releases eactly and only what it wants to release and when it wants to release it. The public often is obligated to fight in the courts for the most innocuous of details about some item or action of interest.

Filing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit is an adventure in frustration—fraught with government impediments. The prosecution of a simple suit can be delayed by repeated government requests for extensions of time and the excruciatingly slow pace of the legal system in general. Then, the ultimate judgement is not always a black and white reflection of law. Political persuasion is not a stranger to the bench, and the outcome of litigation can depend, it seems, nearly as much on luck of the draw as on the merit of arguments presented. The consequence of this cumbersome review process is that the impetus for a request may well be moot by the time a judgement is rendered. The suit itself is sometimes more important, as a statement of dissatisfaction with government, and demand for accountability, than the material that might conceivably be released.

Why should any person, or organization, have to endure the trials and tribulations of litigation against their government to affirm basic rights promised by the law of the land?

The cause of this pervasive and untenable attitude of secrecy and unresponsiveness in American government is its very structure. Law is rightly regarded by the Legislative Branch as a means to assure rights and protections. Elected officials within the Executive Branch typically espouse a similar view. However, neither elected officials nor political appointees are directly involved in the execution and enforcement of law. This key, and often most important, element of any law is delegated to an army of bureaucrats that are directly responsible for that part where the rubber meets the road. The technical authority of politically appointed Secretaries and Undersecretaries, etc., means little in a world of revolving doors. Just as bureaucratic agencies can drag an issue on in the courts for years, they also can “stonewall” the most ardent elected or appointed official with relative ease and virtual impunity. The judiciary often seems, perhaps understandably, reluctant to serve as the nation’s guardian against government excess.

Do we really have Freedom of Information in America today? Well, that depends on who you are, who you are asking, and what you are asking. Ancient coin collectors and dealers obviously do not enjoy much freedom to examine the workings of State Department processes that threaten their avocation and trade. The State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is one of the most secretive and manipulative bureaucracies in Washington. For the past decade, national investigative reporters have exposed that secrecy in the media, legislators have repeatedly expressed concern about that secrecy and one former Chairman of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee called that secrecy “unAmerican”. The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild is presently arguing in the U.S. Court of Appeals that the widely experienced secrecy at State is unfounded and rises beyond the limited exemptions allowed by Congress.

Import Restrictions sought on Greek Cultural Property

A request from Greece asking that import restrictions be imposed on cultural property will be considered by the US State Department in October.

A Federal Register notice filed by the US State Department (DOS) on 25 August 2010 announces receipt of a request for import restrictions on cultural property from Greece. Despite all the previous concerns expressed about fairness, again the comment period is rather short. Although the request was received by DOS on 7/2/10, notice to the public was delayed nearly two months.

In contrast, comments from the public must be received by 9/22/10 a window of 28 days. This tight window to assemble arguments and publicize the issue to interested parties is increasingly typical of the State Department’s public comment policies.

A three-hour public hearing by the Cultural Property Advisory Committee is scheduled for 10/12/10. Oral comments at that hearing are typically limited to five minutes. The option to fax or email comments has also been eliminated.

In recent CPAC deliberations, thousands of faxes were received from coin collectors. Instead, it will now be necessary for those wishing to comment to use the online comment feature of the http://www.regulations.gov website. Those electronic comments will reportedly be made available for review by the public. Though a summary of the request is promised, the actual details of the request are secret. In other words, it is unlikely that DOS will announce whether coins are to be considered in this request.

It may be worth noting that coins were included in import restrictions recently imposed on cultural property from China and Cyprus. Members of the archaeological community also argued before CPAC recently that coins should be added to a renewal of the Memorandum of Agreement with Italy. That action is still pending. More information about this request will be posted here as it becomes available. Specific details of the comment system, along with talking points, will be provided in the forthcoming ACCG newsletter.

Ancient Coin Importation Restrictions: Thoughts on becoming a target of the “cultural property” advocates.

Wayne Sayles — Mon, 24 May 2010 13:07:42 +0000

By Wayne Sayles – Ancient Coin Collecting Blog

Some people crave attention and will do almost anything to draw a spotlight toward themselves, even if it is outrageous. I’m not one of those people by nature. I much prefer the serenity and seclusion of our pastoral environment here in the Ozarks to the hustle and bustle of the city or the glad-handing that people in the corporate and political world call “networking.”

In fact, my most precious moments have been on a sailboat ghosting along in a light breeze with nothing but sky and water to contemplate. I find an isolated mountain stream equally inviting if I have a rod in hand and a trout waiting to be tempted. Yet, I often find myself drawn to the city and sometimes into the spotlight as a matter of necessity. Why? Having endured all that I could stand of the outlandish criticisms and insults hurled by fanatical archaeologists at the antiquities market, and by extension at my lifelong passion of ancient coin collecting, I felt compelled to speak out.

That happened in 2004, and here I am six years later still speaking out against the same atrocious behavior. If anything, the situation has gotten worse since the antiquities trade and the museum world have essentially abdicated before a combination of foreign and home-grown nationalist attacks. The numismatic community seems to be the only roadblock these days to sweeping nationalist and institutional control of cultural property and thereby to absolute control of history and the record of the past. Is that bad? Only from the point of view of those who favor truth over revisionism or those who feel that culture is as much a personal as a national heritage, or believe in personal property rights and freedoms. Of course it is also bad for the numismatists who have suddenly been thrust into that unwelcome spotlight.

Personally, my career in numismatics dates back some 40+ years and I enjoyed that time in the comfort that the discipline, call it a hobby if you will, was genteel. The relationships between professional and amateur numismatists were not only friendly and cooperative, they were in most cases collegial. Respect flowed both ways. What a difference we see today! Understandably, I’ve become a focal point for criticism, along with others, by virtue of my active opposition to cultural nationalism. That, I expected.

What I did not expect and am sincerely saddened by is the depth of hatred and hostility that permeates the opposition today. Being the focus of an ideological polemic is one thing, but being personally villified and ridiculed by educated people, from a discipline that I once respected, is something entirely different. That sort of verbal barrage has now become a daily event in my life. Initially, I was offended.

My career as an officer in the U.S. military instilled in me a very strong sense of personal pride, integrity and responsibility. I founded the ACCG to create a voice for ancient coin collectors that was conspicuously absent in the face of a growing assault. The numismatic trade in this field had its advocacy groups, collectors had none. I’ve spent the past six years, as a volunteer, working for the interests of collectors.

When my motives are criticized as “self serving” because I also have an unrelated commercial interest in the hobby it is an absolute insult. When the principles that I have lived by for virtually all of my adult life are ruthlessly assailed by people who don’t know the first thing about me, I feel a swell of indignation. Sometimes I instinctively lash back, but more often I try to press on and concentrate on the task at hand rather than the slings and arrows that fly incessantly.

What I have learned through this experience is that being the focal point for any controversial cause is undoubtedly a risky venture — and one that should be avoided by anyone with thin skin. I have also learned that people who are driven by ideological fervor very often have little regard for truth if it happens to get in their way. I get a little indignant just thinking about it.