EVALUATING THE MANAGEMENT OF ANCIENT COIN COLLECTIONS IN AMERICAN MUSEUMS
A Thesis submitted to the faculty of San Francisco State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree MUSSl Master of Arts
In
Museum Studies
by
Karissa Ann Hurzeler
San Francisco, California
January 2018 Copyright by Karissa Ann Hurzeler 2018 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
I certify that I have read Evaluating the Management of Ancient Coin Collections by
Karissa Ann Hurzeler, and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree Master of Arts in
Museum Studies: Collections Management at San Francisco State University.
Michael Anderson, Ph.D. Professor EVALUATING THE MANAGEMENT OF ANCIENT COIN COLLECTIONS IN AMERICAN MUSEUMS
Karissa Ann Hurzeler San Francisco, California 2018
In this thesis, the care and management of Ancient coin collections in American museums is examined. Although ancient coins hold vast amounts of information about history, society, and economy, they are often underappreciated components of American museum collections, and can be challenging to exhibit and to utilize for educational programming. A literature review and an informal survey of American museums with Ancient coin collections were conducted in this thesis, followed by four case studies of collections management practices of institutions that care for ancient coins. After a discussion where key themes are identified, several conclusions and recommendations are presented, including a set of best practices for managing Ancient coin collections in American museums. Overall, it is concluded that care and management practices for Ancient coin collections should be regularly updated and reviewed, and that these collections should be fully digitized so that they can be made accessible to the public and employed more often in educational programming.
I certify that the Abstract is a correct representation of the content of this thesis.
it~£-11- Date ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge Dr. Edward Luby and Dr. Michael Anderson for their dedication and guidance throughout the thesis process. Thanks, are also owed to Christine Fogarty and Dr. Heather Graybehl for their encouragement and guidance through this process and my time in the program; and to Dr. David Leitao for providing me with the opportunity that inspired my thesis research. Lastly, I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks to Douglas Mudd, Jennifer Allen, Judith Barr, Hillery York, Jennifer Gloede, and Emily Pearce Seigerman for their insightful and enthusiastic interviews on this topic.
I would also like to acknowledge the late Dr. Jean DeMouthe for her dedication and support of my thesis and education.
I would like to thank my family for their unwavering support throughout this program and thesis process, I would not have been able to succeed without them. I would also like to offer my whole-hearted thanks to my cousins, Dennis and Tamra O’Leary, and my mentor, Lynda Rieman, for opening up their homes to me and making my life easier while I was conducting research interviews. Finally, I would like to thank my fellow colleagues in the Museum Studies program, who encouraged and inspired me throughout our time together.
v TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables...... ix
List of Figures...... xi
List of Appendices...... xii
Chapter 1: Introduction...... 1
Justification of Thesis...... 4
Thesis Overview...... 6
Chapter 2: Methods...... 9
Literature Review...... 9
Informal Survey...... 11
Case Studies...... 14
Chapter 3: Collections Management Policies...... 24
Collections Management Policy Basics...... 24
Ancient Coins in Collections Management Policies ...... 33
Review of Collections Management Policies...... 34
Chapter 4: A History of Coinage and Ancient Numismatics...... 39
A Brief History of Coinage...... 40
The Development of Numismatics and Ancient Coin Collections...... 50
Chapter 5: Numismatic Terms and Practices...... 56
Definitions...... 56 Care and Conservation Requirements of Coins...... 58
Housing of Coins ...... 62
Chapter 6: Digitization and Access of Coin Collections Terms and Applications...... 65
Definitions...... 66
Digitization Plans and Digital Collections...... 70
Linked Digital Collections and Public Access ...... 76
Chapter 7: Informal Survey...... 84
Methods...... 84
Survey Results...... 88
Analysis ...... 103
Chapter 8: The Edward C. Rochette Money Museum, American Numismatic
Association...... 106
About the Edward C. Rochette Money Museum...... 106
Management of the Ancient Coin Collection...... 109
Analysis ...... 116
Chapter 9: Harvard Art Museums...... 119
About Harvard Art Museums...... 119
Management of the Ancient Coin Collection...... 122
Analysis ...... 129
Chapter 10: The J. Paul Getty Museum...... 131
About the J. Paul Getty Museum...... 131
Management of the Ancient Coin Collection...... 133
Analysis ...... 140 Chapter 11: The Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection...... 143
About the Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection...... 143
Management of the Ancient Coin Collection...... 148
Analysis ...... 157
Chapter 12: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations...... 160
Discussion...... 161
Conclusions...... 172
Recommendations...... 176
Concluding Remarks...... 184
Bibliography...... 188
Appendices...... 198
viii LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Table 2.1: Informal Survey Components...... 13
2. Table 7.1: Informal Survey Components and Possibilities...... 87
3. Table 7.2: Accessible Collections Management Policy...... 88
4. Table 7.3: Coin or Numismatic Specific Gallery...... 89
5. Table 7.4: Digitally Searchable Collections...... 89
6. Table 7.5: Physical Description...... 90
7. Table 7.6: Typological Description...... 91
8. Table 7.7: Numismatic References...... 92
9. Table 7.8: Basic Administrative Information...... 93
10. Table 7.9: Provenance...... 94
11. Table 7.10: Credit Line...... 95
12. Table 7.11: Exhibition History...... 96
13. Table 7.12: Obverse Side Digital Image...... 96
14. Table 7.13: Reverse Side Digital Image...... 97
15. Table 7.14: Coin Description...... 98
16. Table 7.15: Coin Legend...... 99
17. Table 7.16: Coin Legend Translation...... 99
18. Table 7.17: Online Map...... 100
19. Table 7.18: Related Objects...... 100
20. Table 7.19: Ancient Coin Collections...... 101 21. Table 7.20: Estimated Number of Total Coins and Ancient Coins in Each Collection...... 102
22. Table 7.21: Museums by Type of Institution...... 104
23. Table 8.1: ANA Money Museum Online Object Record for Ancient Coins...... 112
24. Table 9.1: HAM Online Object Record for Ancient Coins...... 125
25. Table 10.1: The Getty Museum Online Object Record for Ancient Coins...... 137
26. Table 11.1: The Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection Ancient Coins Count...... 147
27. Table 11.2: NMAH Object Record for Ancient Coins...... 157
28. Table 12.1: Recommended Catalog Information for Ancient Coins...... 180
x LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page
1. Figure 4.1...... 43 2. Figure 4.2...... 45 3. Figure 4.3...... 45 4. Figure 4.4...... 52 5. Figure 6.1...... 75 6. Figure 12.1...... 180 LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
1. Appendix A: Glossary of Useful Terms...... 2. Appendix B: Table B. Metal Corrosion...... 3. Appendix C: Table C. Coin Grades...... 4. Appendix D: Alphabetical Listing of Surveyed Museum Collections Websites...... 202 5. Appendix E: Informal Survey Institutional Results...... 223 6. Appendix F: Alphabetical Listing of Online Catalog Samples from Case Study Institutions...... 243 7. Appendix G: Case Study Interview Questions...... 250 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Since 600 BCE, coinage has been used in a variety of ways: as payment, as a source of information, as a means to commemorate a person, place, or event, as propaganda, and as precious artifacts to collect and display. As Babelon (2004, 27) notes, “A coin cabinet is a kind of unique historical archive, which cannot be modified by way of clumsy transcriptions, intentional interpolations, and arbitrary or unintentional suppressions.” Coin collections are unique, consisting of small objects from which critically important information about history, technology, and modern-day culture and society can be derived.
Since Roman times, coins have been used for economic purposes. They have also become a means of discovering the past and objects for collecting. Indeed, most museums in the world include coins and medals in their collections because of the significant role they have played in history and the influence coinage continues to have in contemporary society. In fact, coins continue to be a part of everyday life, inside and outside of the museum. Ancient coin collections are comprised of the earliest coins ever minted and used; coins that have changed hands, been buried, sold, and collected; and coins that have been displayed for millennia. These collections hold vast amounts of information and data for scholars, and through museums, can be shared with the public.
However, due to the commonplace nature of coinage and money, these collections are often underappreciated, which can impact how they are cared for and managed. 2
Before examining Ancient coin collections, it is important to understand the objects that these collections are made of. The first step in this is defining a “coin”. The following are three useful definitions of a coin. First, P.J. Casey defines a coin as “a form of money which may also serve as currency; or they are a form of currency which may be money” (1986, 11). Casey’s definition focuses on the economic function of coins, which is “anything that serves as a medium of exchange and a store of wealth”
(Casey 1986, 11). Casey continues to define the most important characteristic of a coin:
“it should expressly or implicitly show the authority by which it was issued and which, in the last analysis, guarantees its utility as a means of exchange” (1986, 11). This additional definition in the characteristic of coinage suggests that coinage is not solely defined by its economic uses, but also its iconography and design, which reflects the historicity and culture of the maker.
Second, Mina Galani-Krikou et al. define a coin as, “a piece of metal of standard weight bearing the stamp of the issuing authority or city, attesting to its validity and guaranteeing quality control” (1996, 66). Galani-Krikou et al.’s definition is more specific for coins in terms of their use, in that they require a weight standard and include a stamp identifying who made it, and that quality control is guaranteed. This definition expands on Casey’s and is useful in describing ancient coinage.
Lastly, Christopher Howgego defines a coin as “A piece of money made of metal which conforms to a standard and bears a design” (2002, 1). Howgego’s definition, while similar to Galani-Krikou et. al’s, identifies the stamp as a “design.” This last detail 3
is important, especially for ancient coinage, because it demonstrates an artistic interpretation of the iconography on coinage. Howgego’s definition gives ancient coins a new context; one that is relevant to their role and interpretation in private and museum collections.
In light of these definitions, in this thesis, a coin will be defined as a piece of metal, which conforms to a standard, bears a design by an issuing authority or city, and that has acted at one point in time as a form of currency. It is important to note, especially when addressing Ancient coin collections, that while these coins no longer function as currency, all of them would have at one time. Moreover, these coins have come to serve a new function, as cultural and historical objects.
This thesis will focus on the care and management of Ancient coins. Ancient coins can be overlooked in American museums and numismatic collections, when compared to local and historic coins, whose relevance may be more apparent. They may also require additional care because they are archaeological objects. For the purpose of this thesis, Ancient coins are defined as coins dating to approximately the 6th century
BCE through the Byzantine period (approximately the mid-15th century CE) in a geographic region ranging from the ancient Mediterranean to the Indus Valley. The ancient Mediterranean region is an area of focus here because its coins were produced for purposes beyond monetary use, even during Ancient times, and through many years of research, have come to be defined as Ancient coins. Ancient coins are also archaeological objects that were likely buried and then excavated at some point in the 4
past, and then, once uncovered, may have changed hands many times over the years, and were perhaps even conserved and displayed in either private or public venues.
Justification of Thesis
In this thesis, the care and management of Ancient coins will be examined in order to outline best practices. The goal of this thesis is to prompt museums to consider how they care for Ancient coin collections and to serve as a guide by providing a standard of best practices for the management of these collections. What collections management requirements are in place for Ancient coin collections? Are they adequate?
How long has it been since the Ancient coin collection was examined and inventoried?
Are there fundamentals of the collection’s care that should be updated regularly? These questions will be examined here because Ancient coin collections can tell much about the past, but only if they are properly cared for.
Furthermore, many museums face funding issues when it comes to collections care, and because of their nature, Ancient coin collections are likely to be one of the types of collections for which funding is postponed. This may be due to their commonplace nature, to the fact that they are metal objects with fewer conservation needs than other object types, or because they are often not the main spectacle for exhibits. Finally, by reviewing the background of Ancient coin collections and their potential role in museums, this thesis will highlight why Ancient coin collections require regular care and attention. 5
Key challenges that often cause museums and the public to be unaware of Ancient coin collections are the size of these objects and the broad scope of most Ancient coin collections. Ancient coins, like coins today, were mass-produced objects, for millennia, and were used throughout several large empires (Nomikou 2011). This led to coins being mass-collected and passed around, long after they ceased to function as money. The earliest form of Ancient coin collections was the coin cabinet of private collectors
(Nomikou 2011). Developing from these cabinets, numismatic collections and money galleries in museums were often intended for specialists and enthusiasts, such as private collectors and scholars, not for the public (Nomikou 2011).
As museums today move towards new means of expanding their visitor base and demographics, Ancient coin collections may not be incorporated into these efforts even though they are meaning-rich objects. Furthermore, the information found on ancient coins can often be more comprehensive than literary sources. Despite their academic value, they are small objects, which can prove challenging in their display and exhibition in museums. Coins need to be enlarged for visitors, while explanatory information often needs to be contracted in order for the information to be accessible to all visitors. The challenge of coin galleries, therefore, is that the objects are small and displayed in copious amounts, with text that is often larger than the coins themselves. The somewhat awkward nature of these collections has caused Ancient coin collections to fall out of favor as objects of traditional display, and associated with this, they may not receive continuous attention by museums, as compared with other types of objects. 6
However, despite the challenges, Ancient coins still deserve appropriate levels of care and management. The amount of information associated with these objects is exceptional, and therefore, these coins, as well as the artistry of early die makers and the ancient politics and society they illustrate, must be preserved. Finally, new digital techniques are enabling museums to further develop, preserve, and share collections publicly. These techniques allow us to observe smaller objects on a larger scale, as well as to 3D print these objects in a larger format. Such methods allow us to make Ancient coins more accessible to the public and to increase awareness of these collections, renewing the relevance of Ancient coin collections and calling for a review and potential update of collections care and management techniques.
Thesis Overview
To address the care and management of Ancient coin collections, a review of relevant literature will be conducted, and case studies of four museums that manage
Ancient coin collections will be presented.
First, after the introductory chapter, the methods used in this thesis will be outlined in Chapter 2. Next, in Chapters 3 through 6, a literature review, which includes an overview of collections management policies, the study of coinage and numismatics and development of Ancient coin collections, important numismatic terms and policies, and collections digitization and access will be presented. Specifically, Chapter 3 offers a review of collections management policies and how they apply to Ancient coin 7
collections, as well as provides an analysis of current collections management policies;
Chapter 4 introduces Ancient coins and the history of coinage, the study of numismatics, and the development of Ancient coin collections and how they have been used over time;
Chapter 5 presents key numismatic terms and practices for the care of Ancient coin collections; and Chapter 6 examines collections digitization and access plans and recent examples of how museums are digitizing their museum collections, especially coin collections. The literature review provides a framework for conducting an informal survey, presented in Chapter 7, and the case studies, conducted in Chapters 7-11.
Chapter 7 outlines an informal survey of the digital presence of Ancient coin collections around the world via an assessment of their web pages. The results of the informal survey were also used to select the case studies for this thesis. Chapters 8 through 11 present the four case studies: The American Numismatic Association Edward
C. Rochette Money Museum; the Harvard Art Museums; the J. Paul Getty Museum; and the National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian National Museum of American
History. In each chapter, a brief introduction to each institution, the results of interviews with content experts from each institution, and an analysis of the information acquired is presented.
Finally, Chapter 12 will discuss the findings and key themes of this thesis, as well as present conclusions and recommendations for the management of Ancient coin collections. 8
In the publication for the Numismatic Museum of Athens, Galani-Krikou et al. emphasize the significance of Ancient coin collections to museums: “Coins, this primary source of knowledge of the past, have many advantages over the other artifacts from antiquity. Despite the laconic nature of their individual elements and their size, they are comparable to monumental works of art (sculpture, painting), inscriptions and papyruses, in multiplicity of meanings, in resistance to time, in the narrated moment,” (1996,74):
As a result, they should receive the same level of care and attention as do other museum collections. 9
Chapter 2: Methods
This thesis examines the management of Ancient coin collections in American
museums and will explore methods employed by different types of museums. Key
elements that will be examined are storage and housing, handling, and digitization of
collections.
The methods employed for this thesis are a literature review, an informal survey,
and four case studies that included interviews with content experts. In this chapter, I will
summarize key points of the literature review, which provides background information on collections management policies, numismatic collections terms and practices, and collections digitization and digital access policies and examples. I will also outline the
informal survey and criteria that was surveyed and examined. I will discuss how case
studies were determined based on the informal survey, how case studies were conducted, what content experts were interviewed, what interview questions were asked, and how case study chapters were structured. Finally, I will outline my interview questions and detail my interactions with content experts.
Literature Review
The literature review is divided into four chapters. The first chapter, Chapter 3, explores collections management policies and how they relate to ancient coin collections.
Key sources include books by Marie Malaro, John E. Simmons, Rebecca A. Buck, and
Jean Allman Gilmore. Other key sources were from the American Alliance of Museums 10
(AAM) and the International Council of Museum (ICOM) publications on ethical practices. The AAM is an organization that develops standards and best practices for museums and is responsible for accrediting American museums and holding them to those standards (AAM 2017a). ICOM is an international organization of museum professionals that consults with the United Nations and is a leader in museum ethics
(ICOM 2017). This chapter also examines collections management policies from museums reviewed in the informal survey.
Chapter 4 provides a brief history of coinage and an introduction to the field of numismatics and Ancient coin collections. This chapter features sources from the field of numismatics, including Ancient History from Coins: Approaching the Ancient World by
Philip Grierson and Ancient Numismatics and Its History by Ernest Babelon. It also references Coins & Numismatics by Mina Galani-Krikou, Mando Oeconomides, Vasso
Penna, Ioannis Touratsoglou, and Eos Tsourti, a publication based on the collection and exhibits of the National Numismatic Museum in Athens, Greece.
Chapter 5 focuses on numismatic practices and a list of numismatic terms commonly used when referring to coin collections. This chapter features key sources regarding conservation, such as The Museum Handbook Part I: Museum Collections by
Martine Burke and the Canadian Conservation Institute. It also references The Coin
Collector’s Survival Manual by Scott A. Travers, a resource provided to members of the
American Numismatic Association. 11
Chapter 6 discusses digitization methods and practices currently used by museums with ancient coin collections. Key sources in this chapter are the British
Museum and Smithsonian Institution, as they serve as examples through their various digitization efforts.
Informal Survey
In addition to the literature review, an informal survey was conducted in order to determine the case study institutions to be used for this thesis (Chapter 7). The informal survey was carried out using the tools available online for museums and similar institutions with known coin collections in America.
A list was assembled based on information available through the American
Numismatic Society (ANS), the Forum Ancient Coins, the Smithsonian Institution, and
Capitol Gold Groups websites, as well as emails from the American Numismatic
Association (ANA) and American Numismatic Society (ANS) (ANS 2016; Marshall
2016; Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History 2016b; Capital Gold Group
2015). Ultimately, 18 institutions were identified and analyzed in the informal survey.
Additionally, based on these 18 institutions, three types of museums were identified as holding Ancient coin collections: art/history/natural history museums, numismatic museums, and university museums.
The informal survey examined the online collections information for the Ancient coin collections of the 18 institutions identified. Eighteen elements relating to collections 12
care and digitization were considered in terms of the content and information that was publicly available online through each website. The 18 elements are listed in Table 2.1 below. These elements were selected to assess the transparency and degree of information available on the Ancient coins in each institution’s collection/s. Chapter 6 will detail the informal survey conducted here and present the results of the survey, as well as how it was used to determine the case studies for this thesis. 13
Table 2.1: Informal Survey Components
Accessible Collections Management Policy
Coin or Numismatic Specific Exhibition
Digitally Searchable Collection
Physical Description
Typological Description
Numismatic References
Basic Administrative Information
Provenance
Credit Line
Exhibition History
Obverse Side Digital Image
Reverse Side Digital Image
Coin Description
Coin Legend
Coin Legend Translation
Online Map
Related Objects
Ancient Coin Collections
Case Studies
Case studies were conducted to supply an in-depth look at how Ancient coin collections are managed in American museums, including whether Ancient coin collections are managed differently in different types of museum institutions. Each case 14
study consists of brief background information on the institution, information derived from an interview of a content expert, and an analysis.
Utilizing the results of the informal survey, three case studies were selected for further research. One institution from each type listed above were selected for the case study. Within each type of museum, the case study was determined based on the size of the Ancient coin collection available online, the information available on each coin online, and whether digital images of individual coins were accessible online. To deepen the analysis conducted here, a fourth case study was added, to include an institution that was federally owned, and one that was considered an art/history/natural history museum.
Initially, all 18 institutions examined in the informal survey were considered for case studies and broken down into the three categories mentioned above; seven art, history, and natural history museums, 2 numismatic museums, and 9 university museums were identified. From each category, two or three museums were identified as possible case studies based on the criteria mentioned above. For art, history, and natural history museums the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (MFA, Boston); The Getty Museum; and the
Metropolitan Museum of Art (MET) were designated as possible case studies. For numismatic museums, the ANS headquarters and the Edward C. Rochette Money
Museum, ANA were identified as possible case studies. For university museums, the
Harvard Art Museums (HAM), Yale University Art Gallery, and the Kelsey Museum of
Archaeology at the University of Michigan were selected as possible case studies. From these lists, three final case studies were selected: the Getty Museum, the Edward C. 15
Rochette Money Museum, and HAM. These three were selected based on the availability
of content experts for interviews, the schedule of the author, and the ability of the author
to travel to museum sites. In addition, a fourth case study, the Smithsonian Institution’s
National Numismatic Collection, was included, as a representation of a history museum associated with a deferral institution.
Interview Questions
Interview questions were developed based on the literature review and the informal survey that were conducted. The interview questions for content experts were designed to survey the collections care and digitization methods of Ancient coin collections in different types of American museums. The questions focused on the care and management of the collections, methods employed for digitization, and the educational uses of the collection by the museum and/or parent institution. The questions also focused on the involvement of collections staff in outreach related to the Ancient coin collection.
The first two questions explored the details of the institution’s Ancient coin collections. The first question asked was, “How many coins are in your organization’s
Ancient coin collection?” And the second question asked, “Is your organization still adding to your Ancient coin collection?” These questions were asked to determine the scope of the Ancient coin collection and to assess whether the collection was continuing to grow. Furthermore, these questions allowed for the size of the collection versus the 16
number of Ancient coins available online to be compared, how collecting is addressed in
terms of collections care and digitization, and whether collecting affects collections care
and digitization methods.
The second set of questions examined storage and handling. The first question
asked was, “Please describe how your organization stores its ancient coin collection. Are
the coins housed individually? In metal or wood cabinets?” This question was asked in
order to learn how the organization stores its coins and to use this information to evaluate
the methods employed. The second question asked was, “Are the storage requirements
for Ancient coins different from other similar collections, e.g. numismatic collections,
ancient collections? If so, how are those stored differently?” This question was asked in order to learn about how Ancient coins are stored in relation to similar collections, and if there are any specific different care practices.
The third set of questions addressed cataloging practices. The first question asked was “How does your institution catalog your coins? What categories of information are prioritized, e.g. material, imperial period, donor?” This question was asked because
Ancient coins have their own numismatic terms and content, as discussed in Chapter 4.
What information is selected and detailed for the Ancient coins will shed light on collections access policies and the amount of research conducted on the coins. The second question in this section asked was, “Is information used in catalog based on numismatic standards, or did your institution develop its own template? This question was asked following the previous question to establish how museum institutions 17
determine the information collected on their coins, and whether numismatic sources are consulted. This question was also asked to assess whether different institutions select different numismatic content in their database.
The fourth set of questions focused on collections care for Ancient coins and consisted of three questions. The first question asked was, “What environmental factors are tracked in caring for Ancient coins? Is there a specific temperature and relative humidity you maintain? Are these factors different than when caring for different kinds of coins or metal objects?” This question was asked to gauge what the primary environmental concerns are for Ancient coins in museums. The second question asked was, “Are there different procedures in place for managing Ancient coins, or struck or cast coins, vs. pressed coins?” This question was asked to determine if there is a difference in care level for different types of coins in museums. The third question asked was, “How are conservation issues with ancient coins identified? What are the most common conservation issues observed in your organization’s collection?” This final question was asked to ascertain what conservation issues are prevalent in Ancient coin collections and how they are dealt with on a daily basis. Additionally, this question was asked to discover the level of conservation care for coins, and at what point a professional conservationist is consulted.
The fifth set of questions concentrated on public access to the coins. These questions were asked in order to assess the security measures employed for Ancient coin collections and how organizations made their collections accessible to the public. The 18
first question asked in this set was, “Is your institution’s collection of Ancient coins published and/or publicly accessible online?” This question was asked because online accessibility is a key way to access small objects and collections not on display in museums. The second question was, “What are the main ways your institution’s coins are used or accessed?” This question enabled me to ascertain the main ways that Ancient coin collections are used through museums and their parent organizations. The final question in this set was, “Can you outline your organization’s policy for access to coins?
Do you require gloves to be worn? If it is not available for public access, why not?”
This final question was designed to learn how access to Ancient coin collections is controlled in institutions. Due to their size, coins are high risk objects for theft and access can be difficult to regulate.
The sixth set of questions examined digitization methods for Ancient coin collections being employed currently in institutions. The first questions was, “Has your organization digitized its coins?” This question was asked to determine whether digitization has already been or is currently being carried out. The second question asked was, “What technology was used to digitize the coins?” This question was asked to determine what methods are being used, and if there is a preferred method among institutions. The final question in this section was, “What was the process for digitizing coins? How long did the process roughly take [hours]? What staff position oversaw the execution of the digitization process? Is the digitization process complete or are there future digitization efforts?” This group of questions was asked to gain a better 19
understanding of the digitization efforts and methods being employed in order to examine each digitization method further.
The seventh set of questions was focused on collections websites and the information that is accessible online. The first question for the set was, “How did you determine what catalog information to present online?” This question was asked because
Ancient coins, as numismatic objects, have a variety of information that can be associated with them, and different elements of this information will be relevant based on the user.
This question enable me to assess who the intended user base was, and what information is chosen for exhibition purposes. This led to the second question: “What was the process for deciding which images to place on your organization’s web page? Who on the staff was involved, by position?” This question encouraged more details as to how the information for the website and database was determined and what division or staff member (such as curatorial) made this decision. Along the same lines, the final question asked was, “What search terms or tags were developed to access the collection on your organization’s web page, and what staff position developed the search terms?” This last question went into detail on how coins were being identified in the database itself and how the organization utilized its search-ability. This question also revealed who the organization anticipated was searching their online Ancient coin collection database.
The eighth set of questions were about outreach and how the Ancient coin collection is used in an organization’s public programming. The first question asked was,
“What outreach and educational efforts do you support in your role as a coin collections 20
manager?” This question was asked to ascertain how involved the collections manager
and collections division is in educational and public outreach for the organization. The level of outreach can provide an idea of whether an organization is actively using its coin collection. The second question asked was, “Is there any outreach or educational efforts specific to the coin collection? Are there any future plans related to outreach and education specific to your coin collection?” This question was asked to gauge how actively an organization is using its coin collection or intends to use its coin collection.
The utilization of the collection by the organization may reflect on and affect public access to the collection.
The final set of questions were concluding questions focusing on collections care and digitization methods for the future. A final question regarding collections management policies was also asked at the end of the interview. The first question asked was, “Would you consider participation in a collective, cooperative data resource?” This question was asked because digitization is one of the main concentrations of this thesis, and the concept of a shared database is explored in the Chapter 5 literature review, as a means of further access for Ancient coin collections, especially for research purposes.
The second question was, “Does your organization have possible plans for 3D scanning of your coins?” This question was asked because 3D scanning is becoming a prominent digitization method in the museum field, and it is important to understand whether it is becoming a consideration for Ancient coin collections and what it might mean for publicly accessing coins, as well as exhibiting coins. The final question asked in the 21
interviews was, “Does your institution have a Collections Management Policy? Does the
department that houses your Ancient coins have its own Collections Management Policy?
Is it publicly accessible?” This final question was asked if a policy was unavailable online. This question was asked to understand how collections care is documented for an organization and how it relates to the care of Ancient coin collections, especially in terms of archaeological coins. This last question examines the transparency of an organization and the level of care it has employed to its Ancient coin collections.
Interviews with Content Experts
The content experts interviewed for this thesis were collections managers, directors of museums, or curatorial assistants with experience in managing Ancient coin collections. For each content expert, a contact script was developed in consultation with faculty.
The first content expert was from the Edward C. Rochette Money Museum
(Money Museum for short) of the American Numismatic Association (ANA). On March
6, 2017,1 contacted Andy Dickes, the Collections Manager for the ANA’s Money
Museum. He directed me to Douglas Mudd, the Director of the museum, who had prior work experience for the National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian and working with Ancient coin collections. Douglas Mudd agreed to be interviewed on March 22,
2017. The interview was conducted in person at the Money Museum for roughly 30 22
minutes. The collections care and digitization methods were discussed for the museum’s
Ancient coin collection and numismatic collection.
The second content expert was from the Harvard Art Museums. On March 6,
2017,1 contacted Jennifer Allen, Director of Collections Management. She agreed to be interviewed on April 25, 2017. The interview was conducted in person at Harvard Art
Museums for roughly 30 minutes. The digitization methods and collections care policies were discussed for the Ancient coin collection, as well as the impact of the recent renovation on these policies.
The third content expert was from the Getty Museum. On April 24, 2017,1 contacted visitor services and was directed to Judith Barr, a curatorial assistant at the
Getty Villa. She agreed to be interviewed on June 7, 2017. The interview was conducted in person at the Getty Villa for roughly 30 minutes followed by an escorted viewing of the storage of the Ancient coins. The collections care and cataloging and digitization methods were discussed for the Ancient coin collection, as well as the recent impact of the reinstallation taking place and future possibilities for the digital records.
The fourth case study interview was conducted with three content experts from the National Numismatic Collection (NNC) at the Smithsonian National Museum of
American History (NMAH). On August 6, 2017,1 contacted Hillery York, the
Collections Manager for the National Numismatic Collection through the NMAH’s website. She agreed to be interviewed August 8, 2017. The interview was conducted via video chat on August 22, 2017 for roughly 45 minutes with Hillery York, who was joined 23
by Jennifer Gloede, the Outreach and Collections Specialist for the NNC, and Emily
Pearce Seigerman, a Museum Specialist for the NNC. The collections care policies and methods were discussed for the collection, along with new digitization projects being carried out for the Ancient coin collection and the entire numismatic collection.
Chapters 8 through 11 will present the three case studies by providing a brief history of each organization, detailing the information acquired during the interviews with a content expert, and providing an analysis of the results. 24
Chapter 3: Collections Management Policies
This chapter will provide a basic framework of collections management policies
and how they relate to coin collections. It will also provide a brief survey and analysis of
the collections management policies of eight institutions that were accessed as part of the
informal survey conducted to determine the case studies for this thesis (see Chapter 6).
These policies were selected because they were either formal collections management
policies or provided detailed informal policies on management and access of their collections.
Collections Management Policy Basics
The key texts cited in this chapter are the MRM5: Museum Registration and
Methods 5th edition by Rebecca A. Buck and Jean Allman Gilmore (2010), Things Great and Small: Collections Management Policies by John E. Simmons (2006), A Legal
Primer on Managing Museum Collections 3rd edition by Marie C. Malaro and Ildiko
Pogany DeAngelis (2012), and Museum Basics by Timothy Ambrose and Crispin Paine
(2012). All four texts act as sources and guides for museum professionals to use in managing collections and developing comprehensive collections management policies.
Buck and Gilmore define collections management as “everything that is done to document, care for, and develop museum collections and make them available for use,”
(2010, 54). Collections management is essential to the function of a museum and to caring for all aspects of a museum’s collections. Simmons similarly defines collections 25
management as “everything done to take care of collections, develop the collections, and make the collections available for use,” (2006, 2). Both definitions demonstrate the significance of collections management to any museum, and a strong collections management policy is therefore necessary to support and guide collections management practices in an institution.
Malaro and DeAngelis define a collections management policy as a “written statement that explains why a museum is in operation and how it goes about its business.
The policy articulates the museum’s professional standards regarding objects left in its care and serves as a guide for the staff and as a source of information for the public,”
(2012,46). Based on this definition, a collections management policy is the foundation for a museum’s practices and acts as a means of providing guidance to staff, as well as ensuring the public that the collections are well cared for. In developing their definition,
Malaro and DeAngelis discuss that museum collections are held in the public trust; in other words, the museum is responsible to the public to care for its collections, and as
Simmons points out, the collections management policy gives that authority to the appropriate staff.
According to Simmons, a collections management policy governs “what a museum does to care for and grow its collections and make them available to the public.
Through these policies, the governing authority establishes museum’s guidelines and professional standards for collection stewardship and gives the staff the authority to implement the policies” (2006, 2). A collections management policy makes the museum 26
accountable for its collections and the actions it takes in growing, managing, and caring for those collections. It also ensures proper documentation of practices for future reference. A collections management policy will specify who on the staff is responsible for certain aspects of collections management, such as accessioning and deaccessioning of objects (Simmons 2006). In doing this, a collections management policy minimizes risk to the collections (Buck and Gilmore 2010). The more thorough a collections management policy is, the stronger it will be. The aim of a collections management policy is consistent care and documentation of collections over time in order to ensure that all objects are properly stored, cared for, and their location is known at all time.
Ambrose and Paine state that a collections management policy “describes clearly and simply, but in some detail, how the museum looks after its collections. Its purpose is to both remind members of the governing body, staff, and volunteers what their responsibilities to the collection are, and to tell donors and users how the museum fulfills its duties” (2012, 213). The collections management policy is a road map for museums.
However, as Ambrose and Paine point out, the policy should be accessible for both staff and the public to reference (2012). The collections management policy establishes the relationship of the museum to its collections, governance, staff, and the public (Simmons
2006). Therefore, a collections management policy should be easy to understand, but comprehensive in defining this relationship. 27
Introduction
All collections management policies should begin with a general statement of the museum or how it identifies itself as an institution. Often this will include the mission statement, how it fulfills its mission, its status as a nonprofit, governance, and an institutional code of ethics (Malaro and DeAngelis 2012, Simmons 2006). This introductory section is the museum establishing its identity to the public and its staff.
This section may also describe the museum’s collection/s, their relationship to the museum, and how they fulfill the museum’s mission (Ambrose and Paine 2012). This is the defining section for the museum- any reader should be able to understand what the museum is and does as an institution and what collections are under its care based on this section. Depending on the size of the collection as well, the introduction may also include the scope of the museum’s collections and the types of collections in the museum
(Simmons 2006). The introduction is a museum’s statement of purpose.
Authority and Administration
The second article that should be covered in a collections management policy is administration and personnel functions; it should establish authority within the institution and the collections. This should include authority over intellectual property that is derived from or relating to the collection, insurance coverage of the collection, and documentation (Buck and Gilmore 2010). Establishing clear authority over who on the 28
staff is responsible for what aspects of collections management further strengthens insurance in any documentation and handling of the collection.
Acquisition
The next aspect of collections management that should be addressed is acquisition and accessioning— how the museum builds and develops its collection. Museums acquire collections and objects in a variety of ways: donations and gifts, purchases, field- collecting, exchanges, and bequests (Ambrose and Paine 2012). The collections management policy should be clear that all acquisitions are acquired ethically and legally.
Provenance for all acquired objects should be clear and well-established. If provenance is unknown, the institution should do as much research as possible to ensure the artifact has been legally acquired per U.S. and international law (AAM 2017c). In addition, objects should only be acquired if they are relevant and beneficial to the museum’s collection and mission (Malaro and DeAngelis 2012). The authority to accession should be well-established and understood by all museum governance authorities and staff (Simmons 2006). The museum’s mission is partially defined by what it chooses to collect and take into its trust. A museum should acquire objects that both fulfill its mission and that it is ready to properly care for, as the responsible party for every object. 29
Objects in Custody
Every museum will find objects in its collection that are not properly documented.
In these cases, the museum should be able to turn to the collections management policy on the proper procedures for these incidents. These objects can include found in collections objects, or objects with no clear ownership. The best thing to do in this situation is have a clear policy in place, to ensure that the object is properly accessioned, deaccessioned, or returned (Malaro and DeAngelis (2012).
Deaccessioning
In addition to clearly outlining its accession policies, a museum needs to clearly define its deaccession policies. Both the American Alliance of Museums (AAM) and the
International Council of Museum (ICOM) have clearly outlined codes of ethics that can be referenced when preparing a deaccessions policy in a museum (Simmons 2006, AAM
2017b, ICOM 2013). Deaccessioning of objects can be a much more difficult task than accessioning objects for a museum, as the museum is accountable to the public for its decision to give up their responsibility for an object. Authority to deaccession should be clearly defined and enforced in a museum, and clearly documented reasons for making the choice to deaccession the object should be outlined (Simmons 2006). The deaccessioning process should also be well defined, with specific guidelines to be followed for every object. 30
Deaccessioning should be approached with caution and as a legal action. Despite
these cautions, deaccessioning is a necessary part of managing museum collections and
properly caring for them. Often a museum may change its mission or collecting policies,
which will require deaccessioning. However, an object may also be repatriated or
reclaimed, which are other procedures for deaccessioning objects. Museums should take
care to be as transparent as possible when deaccessioning an object and should take care
to follow a clearly outlined process when doing so (Malaro and DeAngelis 2012).
Deaccessioning is a situation that all museums often find themselves in and should be
clearly outlined and defined in the collections management policy.
Loans
Loan policies and criteria should be clearly outlined and defined in a collections management policy. For incoming loans, there should always be a written contract and the museum should ensure that it is prepared to take on all costs and care for the object(s) being loaned. All incoming loans should be discussed and agreed on, from the reception to the return of the object (Malaro and DeAngelis 2012). Loans most often occur between museums or similar institutions or with private collectors.
Regarding outgoing loans, the museum should have established time frames in their collections management policy. This will ensure that there is regular communication and care for the object (Malaro and DeAngelis 2012). In all cases, loans are agreements between similar entities to properly care for each object. Loans terms and 31
conditions should include approval and notification of receipt, packing and shipping, care
of materials on loan (including risk management and insurance), and any special
conditions (Simmons 2006). Proper authorities should always be consulted to ensure that
both incoming and outgoing loans are thoroughly planned and that the institution is able
to support them.
Care of Collections
The collections management policy should state proper procedures for regular care of collections. Collections care may be overlooked by museum governance authorities, such as trustees, which is why it is important to have well established collections care documentation (Malaro and DeAngelis 2012). Basic care and preventative conservation procedures should be documented in the collections management policy. These procedures should focus on the long-term and require regular inventory counts on the collection (Simmons 2006). A collections care policy should ensure that the collection is the recipient of regular housekeeping and that regular maintenance is practiced.
Care of collections should cover staff responsibilities, preventative conservation, handling procedures for objects, packing and shipping policies, conservation treatments and measures, storage environment standards, integrated pest management, and all storage-related policies (Simmons 2006). Collections care should be as detailed as possible. It should also include the decision to consult a conservator. Although 32
preventative conservation can be built into the policy, any serious conservation procedures should only be undertaken by a conservator (Malaro and DeAngelis 2012).
This section is the most important section when it comes to establishing the policies for caring for a collection and should be developed with the long-term needs of the collection in mind.
Access to Collections
Lastly, there should be clearly defined procedures for allowing access to the collection. Malaro and DeAngelis describe access as a “balancing act” between the museum’s responsibility to serve the public and to properly care for the collection (2012).
In addition to this balancing act, disability needs also need to be considered in all policies
(Malaro and DeAngelis 2012). Access to a collection should be determined based on an assessment of the status of the object and what other forms of research on the object may be available. With digitization becoming more common in museums, public accessibility is able to increase, while handling of the objects decreases, allowing for the balancing act mentioned above to get easier (although it does introduce possibly copyright issues).
Public access to a museum collection cannot legally be denied per the 1996
Freedom of Information Act (Malaro and DeAngelis 2012). Although this raises concerns for museums, well developed access policies will accommodate suitable and efficient access to collections. Therefore, access policies should be detailed and clear in the collections management policy. Simmons suggests three factors should be considered 33
when evaluating how a collection should be used and accessed: stewardship; professionalism; and documentation (2006). Overall, a museum must consider its responsibilities to its collection, as well as to the public, when evaluating its access policies.
Ancient Coins and Collections Management Policies
Museums with coin collections should ensure that they are properly cared for through a comprehensive collections management policy. If a coin or numismatic collection is large enough, it should be defined as a type of collection under the museum’s holdings in the first sections of the policy (Simmons 2006). Identification of coins as a part of the collection will ensure that they are not overlooked. Additionally, proper coin care, storage, and handling should be addressed specifically in the collections care section (for proper conservation and preservation procedures for coins see Chapter
4). Many coins are archaeological artifacts, and therefore, provenance and care should be determined accordingly (Stone 2007). Overall, the collections management policy covers general procedures; however, a policy that is properly detailed will address all object types in the collection and will ensure that all objects are properly cared for and handled.
Within the institution, departments should have detailed and specific collections management policies for their collections, like coins and medals. 34
Review of Collections Management Policies
Based on the literature review provided in this chapter, the author reviewed eight
collections management policies provided through the website of nine of the institutions
assessed in the informal survey (Chapter 6). These were the collections management policies of American Numismatic Society (ANS) (2012); Harvard Art Museums (HAM)
(2016b); J. Paul Getty Museum (the Getty Museum) (2016b); Kelsey Museum of
Archaeology University of Michigan (Kelsey Museum of Archaeology) (2016b);
Metropolitan Museum of Art (MET) (2015); Museum of Fine Arts Boston (MFA Boston)
(2016b); Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology University of California Berkeley
(Phoebe A. Hearst Museum) (2016b); Princeton University Library (2016a, 2017); and the Smithsonian Institution (2001). These nine institutions were selected because they provided a detailed summary or document regarding their collections policies. These policies were reviewed for their mention of their Ancient coin collections and how they follow suggested professional guidelines per the sources reviewed above.
In reviewing the policies, the author recognized two publicly accessible forms of collections management policies, identified in this thesis as formal and informal. Based on the author’s interpretation, a formal collections management policy was the official document of the institution accessible digitally via the institution’s website; an informal policy was any page or source that provided detailed information on the collection policies of the institution for public use and understanding. For this thesis, both are relevant sources of information and demonstrate the institution’s decision to make its 35
collecting policies and management policies available to the public, demonstrating institutional transparency and recognition of the public trust.
Basic Overviews of Each Provided Policy
The ANS provided a formal policy that included a statement of purpose, acquisition, deaccessioning, loans, and review and compliance (2012).
HAM provided an informal collections management policy, which discussed how the collection grows. This covered acquisitions, stewardship, claims, and provenance
(2016b).
The Getty Museum provided a formal policy that covered the statement of purpose and mission, purpose of the collection policy, the scope of the collections, duties of the board of trustees, acquisitions, staff policies related to acquisitions, deaccessioning, care of collections, records and inventories, access to museum collections, outgoing loans, and the date the policy was effective (2016b).
The Kelsey Museum of Archaeology provided an informal policy covering acquisitions, outgoing loans, rights and permissions, and their formal code of ethics. The institution also provided all necessary forms through their website (2016b).
The MET has made their official policy accessible online. The document states all reviews and approvals, governing authorities, acquisitions, deaccessioning, records and inventory, access, and outgoing loans (2015). 36
The MFA Boston provided an informal policy that focused on who was responsible for care and how they cared. This covered the registrar’s office, collections care staff, collections documentation, and conservation and collections management overview (2016b).
The Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, provided informal policies concerning access and research to the collections, including photography of the collection, destructive analysis, outgoing loans, and donation of objects (2016b).
Princeton University Library provided an informal policy that gave an overview of specialists, collections development policies, recent acquisition highlights, collections development department staff, gifts, and recommend-a-title for the library to acquire.
Princeton University also provided a formal policy that governed departmental policies through the Office of Finance and Treasury (2016). This policy stated the departments’ responsibility for their collections, provided definitions of applicable terms, detailed the policy, procedures, forms, and contact roles and responsibilities (Princeton University
Office of Finance and Treasury 2016).
The Smithsonian Institution policy was formal, and the full document was available through the institution’s website. The document covered the purpose of the collection’s management policy, background of collecting units, authority and responsibility, ethics, accounting for collections, exceptions, and unit policy requirements. The introductory statements covered accessioning, deaccessioning, 37
preservation, collections information, inventory, risk management and security, access, loans, intellectual property rights, and legal and ethical issues (2001).
Analysis
Based on the overview of policies, it is clear that all policies address collecting methods and accessions in a publicly accessible forum. The consistency of this transparency suggests that these institutions are making their policies open to the public, recognizing the public trust, and granting the public access to their information. The formal policies reviewed also covered deaccessioning, which was often thoroughly explained. For instance, the MET provided a list of reasons why the museum may choose to deaccession objects (2015). The coverage of the policies of how they build the collections indicates that through their websites, the institutions are participating in a dialogue with the public, as Simmons discusses (2006). All of the policies reviewed aligned with the basic suggestions of the literature and allowed the user to understand the collection’s origins and purposes, strengthening the institution’s mission.
Although none of the policies specified care of certain collections, such as metals, the ANS’s policy recognized archaeological acquisitions (2012). Ancient coins are archaeological artifacts, as will be discussed further in Chapter 4, and therefore, accession and deaccession policies should recognize this context. Any collection that includes ancient coins should ensure that its policy provides appropriate ethical standards and procedures for the handling of its archaeological artifacts, similar to how the 38
reviewed policies do. The ANS’s collections management policy, the Getty Museum, and the MET provide strong examples for addressing the accessioning and future claims of archaeological materials. 39
Chapter 4: A History of Coinage and Ancient Numismatics
This chapter will include a brief history of coinage, including an introduction to the history of numismatics and Ancient coin collections. This chapter supplies a context for Ancient coin collections, highlights why these collections are important to museums, and provides a background for understanding how ancient coins can be utilized by museums. Moreover, an understanding of objects in any collection is essential to providing proper care. The context provided for Ancient coin collections in this chapter will emphasize their significance to museums today.
Before looking at the history of coinage and the study of numismatics, it is important to define a coin, and more specifically, an ancient coin. As stated in Chapter
One of this thesis, a coin is defined as a piece of metal, which conforms to a standard and bears a design by an issuing authority or city, and has acted at one point in time as a form of currency. For the purpose of this thesis, an ancient coin is a coin that dates to the end of the Byzantine period and earlier, and are primarily sourced from the Mediterranean and European region to the Indus Valley. This definition is based on an informal survey of coin collections (see Chapter 6) and the common inclusion of coinage dating through the Byzantine period in ancient, or pre-modem, coin collections.
It should be noted that in addition to the ancient Mediterranean, ancient China also produced a form of coinage starting circa the 3rd century BCE. However, this coinage differed from the coinage the Mediterranean had at that time. In China, the coins were cast, not struck and were made of bronze or brass, less valuable metals. They were 40
small, round coins with a square hole in the middle and four characters around the hole
(Grierson 1977). It is believed these early coins supplemented the bronze ‘knife’ and
‘spade’ money, and became the national money of China under the Ch’in and Western
Han dynasties. These coins remained in use until the 19th century CE (Grierson 1977).
Although they were used for currency, these early coins in China used bronze and brass as the standard metal for the coin, suggesting their value was not inherent to the material.
Additionally, the design was simple and not used as a means of cultural or societal identity, as is seen in the ancient Greek world. Because of these differences, these coins are often seen as tokens as opposed to coinage (Grierson 1977). Therefore, early Chinese coins are not commonly included in Ancient coin collections and are not directly addressed in this thesis.
A Brief History of Coinage
Prior to coinage, livestock, mainly the ox, was commonly used as a standard in the Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations in the Bronze Age (Davis 1967). However, livestock was a challenging value-unit because there is no set value for livestock, as it varied according to each individual animal and species. During the second millennium
BCE, value-equivalents began to emerge. One such equivalent was the talent, which was developed in Babylonia as a basic unit of weight. The Mycenaeans also used talents, which were large pieces of bronze in the shape of ox hides; talents were often curled at the edges and had simulated hair on the outside to make them appear similar to ox hides 41
(Davis 1967). These talents weighed up to sixty pounds and could be cut up as needed.
The weight of the talent was related to the abundance of metal locally (Davis 1967).
The talent is an example of how metals came to be used as units of value and took on monetary roles prior to the invention of coinage. Part of the appeal of using metals was that they were easily transportable, durable, divisible, imperishable (by ancient standards), and had universally recognized value (Galani-Krikou et al. 1996). It should be noted that bronze and iron were already in production when coinage first appeared.
Therefore, the process for producing coinage only required the application of existing techniques (Howgego 2002).
Even during this proto-coinage period, metals had assigned values in relation to each other (Davis 1967). When gold was introduced as currency, the value between copper and gold was approximately three thousand to one by weight: a gold talent weighing 8.6 grams was equal to a sixty-pound bronze talent (Davis 1967). Gold was also considered to be worth thirteen times more than silver. Three final examples of early fixed-value objects are gold and silver rings used in western Asia, iron rods known as
‘spits’, and lumps of electrum of fixed weight in Lydia (Davis 1967). These early examples show that metals already carried set values that would have easily transferred into coinage.
The true time and place for the invention of coinage is unknown because there is a lack of evidence. Additionally, P.J. Casey points out that present-day beliefs affect how we interpret the “origin” of coinage because it relies on how we define a “coin”, which 42
has been defined previously for this thesis (1986). During the early part of the 1st
millennium BCE, merchants in Lydia and Ionia began to put marks on small, bean
shaped lumps of electrum to make them easier to identify (Davis 1967). These marks
were made by hammering the broken end of an iron nail into the piece of metal and
would have been easily identified by the man whose mark it was (Davis 1967). These
pieces of electrum are not considered coins because the marks were not made by an
issuing authority with the power to establish a denomination or guaranteed value of the
metal. Instead, their value was determined by the market price of the metal in whichever
city it was being tendered in at the time. The development of these early pieces of
electrum suggests the start of the transition into coinage (Davis 1967).
Although there is not much known about the origin of coinage, there is a general consensus that coins started to be minted in the region of Lydia circa the 7th century BCE
and that they were made of electrum, a natural alloy of gold and silver (Galani-Krikou et
al. 1996). Early coins were also made of gold and silver, with bronze coming into use in
the mid-fourth century BCE for denominations of small value. Coins were mainly struck,
with some evidence for casting in later periods (Galani-Krikou et al. 1996). Some of these early coins needed to be very small, as small as 0.044g in weight, because the metal they were made of was very valuable. However, the small coins were not altogether functional because they were easy to lose. This is the best possible explanation for the introduction of bronze coins at the end of the 5th century BCE, because larger bronze coins made small denominations easier to handle (Howgego 2002). 43
The earliest context for electrum coinage was the discovery of a coin hoard underneath the Temple of Artemis at Ephesos (the Artemision), which dates to circa 560
BCE. The hoard was found in a ceramic vessel, which dates to c. 650-625 BCE, and is attributed to Croesus, a Lydian king (Howgego 2002). These coins were rounded lumps of electrum made to a weight standard. Few of these flans (a circular or globular piece of metal) were unmarked; however, many had designs. The designs included plain punch marks, striations on one side and punches on the other, a lion’s head, and, occasionally, inscriptions (Howgego 2002). Figure 4.1 below is an example of a gold Lydian coin from the reign of Croesus.
Figure 4.1. Obverse and reverse image of a gold Lydian coin from the British Museum’s collection (British Museum 2017a).
There are two main interpretations used to date this coin hoard. The first is to assume the hoard is contemporary with the vessel, and therefore date the coins to the 7th century BCE. The second method is that they are contemporary with the Artemision and the archaeological context of the find, which dates the coins to the 6th century BCE
(Howgego 2002). If the coinage dates to the earlier 7th century BCE, as suggested above, then the coinage would be attributed to Ardys or Sadyattes of Lydia instead of Croesus. 44
The dating of the hoard to the temple’s context is the more accepted interpretation
because the earliest form of banking most likely took place in temples and the hoard may
have been deposited in an older pot (Davis 1967). However, this interpretation also
suggests that coinage may have been invented earlier because the development of banking would have been a result of the invention of coinage. It can be seen by the various arguments presented that it is near impossible to determine the absolute origin of coinage. This find also provides the earliest known iconography on coinage, which
suggests that authorities had begun to use coinage as a form of identity early on.
Coinage is commonly considered a Greek invention because Lydia was under
Greek influence at the time. By the 5th century BCE, coinage had spread rapidly through the Greek and Mediterranean world. In particular, the Greek states of Aegina, Corinth, and Athens, all cities of commerce, produced mass amounts of uniform coins for centuries. An example of this is the Athenian tetradrachmas, seen in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 below, which featured the head of Athena on the obverse and the Athenian owl on the reverse (Davis 1967). 45
Figure 4.2. Obverse image of an Athenian Silver Tetradrachm from the J. Paul Getty Museum Collection (J. Paul Getty Museum. 2016a). Figure 4.3. Reverse image of an Athenian Silver Tetradrachm from the J. Paul Getty Museum Collection (J. Paul Getty Museum. 2016a).
Over time, other Greek city states, especially those of Magna Graecia and Sicily, competed in producing a variety of aesthetically appealing coins (Davis 1967). Other nearby civilizations began to strike coins on their own as well; the Phoenicians began to strike coins in the mid-5th century BCE, the Carthaginians produced coinage at Sicily in the second half of the 5th century BCE, and the Etruscan civilization saw a few issues in the 5th and 4th centuries BCE, however Etruscan coinage was not plentiful in coin production until the 3rd century BCE (Howgego 2002).
As mentioned above, weight standards in the ancient world originated in
Mesopotamia. The spread of coinage further increased the need for weight standards, especially by the 5th century BCE. In Greece, silver coinage was dominant and the relation of silver to gold was thirteen to one. In Asia Minor, electrum continued to be the primary metal used for coinage and was valued against silver at about ten to one (Davis
1967). Later, in the 4th century BCE, Philip II of Macedon and Alexander the Great 46
began to mint large amounts of gold coins, causing the value of gold to decline to a rate
of ten to one with silver. Despite the development of coinage, barter continued to be a
large part of trading in the Ancient Mediterranean world; the chief use of coins was for
taxes, fines, and the payment of ship dues (Davis 1967).
How and where was Ancient coinage minted? There is minimal evidence for early production techniques and minting of coins (Galani-Krikou et al. 1996). The archaeological evidence that exists consists of tools, such as dies, bars, flans, and tweezers, which are limited in amount. Examination of ancient coins and the archaeological record shows that striking was the main form of minting coins in the
Ancient Greek and Roman worlds, although there is occasional evidence for cast coining as well, especially in Spain and Italy. The cast coinage method is when the metal is poured into a pre-designed mold (Galani-Krikou et al. 1996). The evidence suggests that cold striking was one of the earliest methods, which is when the coin is struck after it has been cast and cooled down. However, once coins became widely produced, they were struck while the metal was still hot and soft, as it made the process quicker (Cooper
1988). The presence of designs and inscriptions supports the idea that early coins were being struck.
The basic equipment required for minting coins was a small anvil, a pair of tongs, a brazier or charcoal fire, and a pair of leather bellows. First, the flan was heated to the softness required to strike the impression of the dies onto the metal. Then, the flan was placed using the tongs in the recess in the anvil, which held the obverse die. The punch, 47
which held the reverse die, was then set over the flan and struck one or more times with
the hammer. This process usually resulted in the obverse die being the sharper
impression due to its position in the anvil. Additionally, the obverse die’s location in the
anvil resulted in them lasting longer than the reverse dies on the punches, which resulted
in a larger variety of reverse dies on Ancient coinage (Davis 1967).
There is marginal evidence for local mints throughout the ancient Mediterranean world. A mint is a place where metals are converted into coinage. Two of the most well- known mints are from Athens and Rome. The Athenian mint was in the Agora on the east end of the south side and was in use from the end of the 5th century to the late 1st century BCE (Howgego 2002). In the Greek world, there was a general practice for each state to appoint a magistrate to oversee the mint. The magistrate’s term would be for one year, and his name or monogram would appear on the coins (Davis 1967). The Roman mint was originally located on the Capitoline Hill during the Roman Republic and was moved by Nero to his private residence, the Domus Aurea, following the Great Fire of
Rome in 64 CE. The mint was later returned to public ownership under the Flavian dynasty (Howgego 2002).
Additional evidence for mints also comes from ancient literature. Few mints have been discovered in an archaeological context and one suggestion for this is that civic coinages may have been sporadically minted. Smaller mints may have been located in buildings that had other business uses as well and, therefore, go unrecognized in the archaeological context. It is generally assumed by numismatists that coins were minted 48
in the cities alluded to in inscriptions or iconography. Although this assumption is
usually correct, it cannot be proved in most cases (Howgego 2002).
A final consideration when examining minting and coin production is where bullion (the form of metals in bulk before minting) was sourced from. It is possible to find the sources of bullion through examination of ancient coins and metals, especially in the Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman periods (Howgego 2002). For Athens, their source of silver was from the mines at Laurion and silver tribute from their allies. In Macedon, there was extensive gold mining under Philip II. Alexander the Great would melt down
Persian treasures from his conquest as a source of gold for coining as well (Howgego
2002). Lastly, Rome fed mainly upon the stored-up wealth of the Hellenistic world and extraction of resources and mines throughout the Roman Empire. In addition to coinage and archaeological evidence, literary evidence also aids in the identification of bullion sources and coin minting in the Ancient world (Howgego 2002).
Modern scholars are not the only ones who have studied the origins of coinage; ancient literary sources suggest ancient intellectuals were also interested in this invention.
Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, wrote during the 4th century BCE about the development of coinage in his work, Politics:
For when, by importing things that they needed and exporting things of which they had too much, people became dependent upon more distant places, the use of money was invented out of necessity. For not all of the things that are required by nature are easy to transport; and so, for use in exchanges, they agreed among themselves to give and take something of a sort that, being itself one of the useful items, was easy to handle for the needs of life, such as iron or silver or anything else like that. At first it was simply defined by size and weight, but finally they 49
also added an impressed stamp, to free them from measuring it, since the stamp was put on a sign of the amount (Aristotle Politics 19.7-8, trans. Schaps 2004, 5).
Aristotle identified the economic and trade-related factors that influenced the development of coinage (Schaps 2004). This passage reveals that the development of coinage and money was a topic of discussion during Aristotle’s time and provides us historical literary evidence to consider when exploring the development and use of
Ancient coinage.
In addition to Aristotle, Paulus, a Roman jurist during the 2nd and 3rd centuries
CE, wrote in his work, Digest, about the nature and development of money:
Buying and selling took their origin in exchange. For once there was no such thing as coin, nor was one thing called a commodity and the other a price, but everybody would exchange what he did not need for what he did, according to the needs of the time and the situation, since it often happens that one person has too little of that which another has too much. But since neither always nor easily happened that when had what I needed, I, in turn had something that you were willing to accept, a material was chosen to have a fixed value, guaranteed by the state, which could help the difficulties of exchange by equalizing its quantity. The material, struck by the state, shows its use and title not so much by its substance as by its quantity, and no longer are both items called commodities, but rather one of them is called the price (Paulus Digest 18.1.1 trans. Schaps 2004, 5- 6).
Paulus, like Aristotle, focused on the economic use of money and its role in exchange and the creation of a universal standard (Schaps 2004). Paulus looks at coinage and money in terms of individual use between people, whereas Aristotle discusses the greater world of importing and exporting. Paulus’ passage additionally shows the transition of coinage from a commodity to a standardized system of value. 50
These passages demonstrate the varying accounts of the development of coinage in ancient Greece and ancient Rome. The authors wrote at different periods from different cultures, yet both agreed that the function of coinage was to create a standardized commodity (Grierson 1977). Furthermore, neither author commented on the cultural and historical elements that are often identified on ancient coinage, such as the use of the iconography as propaganda. This suggests that this usage for coinage may not have been relevant to these sources.
The Development of Numismatics and Ancient Coin Collections
The term ‘numismatics’ derives from the Ancient Greek, nomisma or numisma, meaning “coin” (Babelon 2004). Today, the study of numismatics has come to include coins and medals, as well as money and related subjects, such as credit cards. The study of numismatics has become fundamental to the study of archaeology and has become
“one of the most prolific sources of information about the economic evolution of civilized societies,” (Babelon 2004). In early modern Europe, ancient coins were often used to supplement and correct the information taken from written texts about rulers, customs, and institutions of the ancient world. The accumulation and study of these coins contributed to a more vivid picture of the ancient world, and during the 16th to 18th centuries CE, numismatics began to take shape (Grafton 2009).
As numismatics is the study of coins and medals, numismatic collections are often comprised of both of these types of objects as well. The inclusion of medals in 51
numismatics originates from the Middle Ages when the term “medal” came to refer to old
(ancient) coins that were no longer in use. The word, “medal,” is derived from the Latin,
medaliaov medalla, which referred to an obol or half-denarius (Babelon 2004). This
word was adapted into Italian, medaglia, to refer to the same coins, which eventually fell
out of use. The term, however, maintained the definition of old coins which no longer
had recognized monetary value. Later, in France, medaille (medal) was applied to coins with no face value and were created to commemorate a person or event through artistic means, similar to iconography seen on ancient coins (Babelon 2004). Similarly, the term for early antiquarians who studied ancient coins were medallistes or curieux de medailles, which draws a connection between ancient coins and medals. The term, numismatiste
(numismatist), was introduced in the 18th century for these scholars and continues to be the most common term used today (Babelon 2004). The linguistic history of numismatics is significant because it demonstrates how the study and collection of coins and medals has developed, and provides a context for how and why Ancient coin collections were formed.
Today, numismatics is generally divided into two spheres: ancient numismatics
(ancient Greek and Roman) and modern numismatics. However, these spheres are not easily defined in terms of their beginning and end because there is no clear transformation of coinage at any point in history. Currently, ancient numismatics extends to all coinage of the ancient world that originated under or was influenced by the coinage of the ancient Greeks and Romans. This is because after the fall of the Roman Empire 52
under Romulus Augustus circa 475-476 CE, coinage under the “barbarians” in the
Western Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire continued to use or mimic Roman types
circa the 5th century CE. Since these coins mimicked the style of ancient Roman coinage,
it is difficult to distinguish them from ancient Roman coins and so, consequently, they are classified as ancient coins (Babelon 2004).
Within ancient numismatics, there is an additional divide: ancient Greek and
ancient Roman. Commonly, ancient Greek coins are defined as “all coins which cannot be properly called Roman,” or all coins not minted using a Roman die (Babelon 2004,
20). Although this is a problematic definition, it is the easiest distinction between the two types, as mint cities are difficult to identify. Ancient Roman coins are those which have discernable Roman features, such as Latin inscriptions and specific types and weights
(Babelon 2004). Figure 4.4 below is an example of a Roman Imperial coin minted under
Augustus.
Figure 4.4. Image of a Roman Imperial coin of Augustus in the British Museum’s collection (British Museum 2017a). 53
Coins minted outside of Rome during the Roman Empire are often classified as Greek.
This is due to the strong Greek linguistic and cultural influence that continued during the
Roman Empire. It was also common during the ancient Roman times for coinage to be
minted under dual authority by the Roman Emperor and the local ruler, suggesting it would not be “properly Roman” (Babelon 2004). Although Greek and Roman are the
two basic coin types in ancient numismatics, many coin collections also include
Byzantine coinage as the field continues to evolve.
Why is numismatics studied and what information does it provide? Numismatic evidence is commonly used in many fields, such as archaeology and art history.
Numismatic material evidence is vast: as of 2004, there were 140,000 known coin types.
In the Greek world, there are 500-600 hundred coin types that identify known kings, tyrants, or authorities and approximately 1,400 towns which struck coins (Babelon 2004).
One of the main reasons that there are so many types found from the Greek world is because all ancient coins were struck using handmade dies. Die cutters would have been artists in ancient times, and for them, merely copying the previous design would not have been acceptable. Additionally, the replacement of dies would have allowed the magistrates to control minting and mark their term in office. Therefore, although the iconography may not have been specifically altered, changes, especially small ones, were inevitable as different die cutters employed their own styles and techniques. These slight variations over time have resulted in a large variety of coin types in ancient Greek coinage (Davis 1967). 54
In ancient Roman coinage, there are thousands of symbols identified on coin types. For Augustus there are 500 reverse coin types, for Nero there are about 300, for
Vespasian about 520, and for Marcus Aurelius about 850 (Babelon 2004). Under
Hadrian’s reign, there are no less than 2,500 coin types, including 1,600 Latin inscriptions and 900 Greek inscriptions (Babelon 2004). The number of types listed here is an example of the amount of data that can be derived from ancient coins.
Coins are also often the most accurate records for identifying ancient events, people, and monuments. The study of ancient coins has aided in the identification of portrait heads, sculptures, architecture and monuments, mythology, and the economic status of Ancient civilizations among other subjects (Galani-Krikou et al. 1996). Due to the amount of information that ancient coins are able to provide, it is logical that they have been collected and studied over time. It is even acknowledged that Augustus collected Greek coins for reference purposes, which is additionally reflected in the thread of antiquarianism identified in Roman coinage (Galani-Krikou et al. 1996). There is additional evidence that during the Renaissance, ancient coinage was collected and systematically studied. This indicates that even early on, ancient coins were sources for identifying dates, places of issues, and issuing authorities (Casey 1986). The
Renaissance was when numismatics and Ancient coin collections began to be categorically developed and studied the way that they are in museums and collections today. John Cunnaly writes: 55
Renaissance coin collections and the printed coin books functioned also as a kind of kindergarten of taxonomy, training the researcher to handle an endless variety of units of data accumulated from the phenomenal world... coins could be arranged and rearranged by metal, chronology, issuing authority, mint, and iconography, and these linkages, relationships and hierarchies could be made visible in the form of a gridded network, laid out on the tabletop or across the printed page (2009.46).
This passage demonstrates how early Renaissance studies and collections laid the foundations for modern studies and collections of Ancient coins, and even the design and layout of today’s online collections databases. In the identification of fields and the suggestion that it was possible to form a “gridded network” from the data shows that these taxonomies were early databases of Ancient coin collections. In addition to the coins themselves, these early taxonomies should be considered early databases and be used as reference tools for modern databases.
Numismatics and numismatic collections have played and continue to play a vital role in the study of ancient history today. Ancient coin collections are significant components of museums because they complement and inform other objects and collections, provide insight and knowledge about ancient art and literature, and often reveal details of ancient cultures that are not found in other sources or evidence.
Therefore, they should be actively utilized by American museums both for study and public programming, as well as receive the proper care and necessary management they require. 56
Chapter 5: Numismatic Terms and Practices
The following chapter will define numismatic terms that are necessary to the understanding of this thesis and will give an overview of the conservation and housing requirements of coins and coin collections.
Definitions
The following are numismatic and conservation terms relating to coins and coin collections that will be commonly used throughout this thesis and may not be common to the collections management vocabulary.
This thesis will specifically address ancient or pre-modern coins. The author is defining Ancient coin collections as collections consisting of coins dating from the end of the Byzantine period, and earlier.
An alloy is a solution that can be natural or man-made by mixing two or more metals (Burke 2002). Copper and silver alloys are commonly seen in coins, such as bronze coins, made from an alloy of copper and tin, and billon or coin silver, an alloy of silver and copper (Davis 1998).
Casting is an object that has been created by pouring molten metal into a mold
(Burke 2002). Casting is a method used for making coins as early as the third century
BCE (Smith 1999). 57
The coin legend is the original, untranslated inscription on the coin (Travers
2015).
Corrosion is the result of the chemical reaction that occurs between a metal and environmental or handling factors that results in the deterioration of the metal object
(Burke 2002). Patina (defined below) is a common form of corrosion found on coins.
The denomination is the face value of a coin (Travers 2015).
The devices are the parts of the coin that stand out. The devices are what make up the physical design of the coin (Travers 2015). Devices and the image or iconography of the coin can sometimes differ, as the iconography or image is the interpretation of the coin’s devices.
Die is the object or stamp, usually made of metal, used to impress the coin’s design during the striking process (Travers 2015).
Die Axis, also known as die alignment or coin rotation, is the degree to which the obverse and reverse dies were aligned to each other when the coin was struck. Zero degrees is when the obverse and reverse sides of the coin are both right side up, while
180° is when the obverse side is right side up and the reverse side is upside down (Forum
Ancient Coins 2017).
Th& field of the coin is the area within the encircling legend, where symbols are often found (Casey 1986).
The flan (also known as the blank) is the shaped piece of metal onto which the coin design is struck (Casey 1986). 58
Numismatics is the study of money, specifically coins, medals, and paper money
(Travers 2015). This thesis will be focusing specifically on coin collections, which are often part of numismatic collections.
Obverse refers to the front side of the coin, often referred to as the “heads” side.
Reverse refers to the back side of the coin, often referred to as the “tails” side (Travers
2015).
Patina is a colored layer of corrosion found on bronze or copper coins and some silver coins as a result of exposure to the environment. Typically patina is a brownish, reddish, or greenish color. Patina is considered desirable to collectors, as it forms a barrier that protects against further corrosion and is aesthetically pleasing (Suarez 2005).
Patina is most commonly found on copper and copper alloys, such as bronze coins (Davis
1998).
Care and Conservation Requirements of Coins
Coins are small metal objects that have been created for thousands of years and may be susceptible to corrosion from environmental factors and handling. Scott Travers points out that coins are “essentially dirty. During their manufacture, their metal is rolled, punched, annealed, die-struck, and handled by various mechanical devices. Even the most well preserved coins are best by a multiplicity of contaminants: oil and grease, rag dust, bag dust, metallic particles, and others” (Travers 2015, 318). As Travers points out, it is essentially impossible to have a coin that has not come into contact with one or more 59
contaminants over the course of its creation. Therefore, all ancient coins require routine observation and housekeeping to ensure that no further damage or corrosion is incurred.
Ancient coins, are especially susceptible to corrosion and damage as archaeological artifacts, excepting gold coins. In addition, coins that are the result of archaeological excavations are often brought into collections with patination and corrosion already present. Therefore, they may require additional observation and housekeeping, as well as possible isolation from other coins and metal objects. In the section below, the author will address common contaminants of coins and metals, environmental needs of coins and metals, suggested handling procedures, and preventative conservation procedures and suggestions.
Coins and metals are most susceptible to contamination from environmental factors and handling. Metals are highly reactive, which means that introduction to certain chemicals or elements can result in deterioration. The main form of deterioration or damage to coins is corrosion, defined above. Agents that contribute to corrosion are relative humidity (RH), temperature extremes, atmospheric pollutants, and improper care and handling. Metals are reactive to water and atmosphere, therefore an environment with too much humidity will lead to corrosion in coins (Logan 2007). All metals should be kept in an environment with an RH below 35%. However, this may often be impractical with mixed collections or shared spaces; in these cases an RH between 35% and 55% is suggested in mixed collections spaces (Logan 2007). Agents that may be used to control humidity are activated charcoal paper or silica gel, which can be used to 60
create a microenvironment in a sealed container, such as a plastic bag or box (Burke
2002).
Furthermore, urban and coastal atmospheres are severe environments for metals.
Sulfur and sulfur compounds, present in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels,
are strong tarnishing agents, which react with silver (Burke 2002). Improper handling, or
handling without proper gloves, can result in deterioration, as hands can have oils, saliva,
dandruff, and other contaminants picked up through contact and then transferred onto the
coins themselves (Travers 2015). For handling of coins, gloves should be worn at all
times and coins should be handled by their edges as much as possible. Cotton gloves or
nitrile gloves may be used when handling coins, except for silver coins. Silver coins
should be handled only using cotton gloves because nitrile gloves contain sulfur, which is
highly reactive with silver. Cotton gloves should additionally be cleaned regularly because they accumulate sweat during use, which can transfer contaminants onto the coins after extensive use (Logan 2007). In addition to wearing gloves, jewelry should not be worn on hands when handling coins, as many metals are easily scratched (Schultz
1992). Lastly, certain cleaning and polishing agents can be more damaging than helpful when addressing coins because they can leave behind residue that can cause corrosion later on. Over-cleaning may also result in damage, as scrubbing to make a coin shiny may remove layers of the original material and cause deterioration to the object. Any cleaning should be done with clean, soft cloths and involve light rubbing of the coin.
Softer metals should be handled very carefully, as they scratch easily. Despite the many 61
factors that threaten coins and metals, light is harmless to coins and not a factor that needs to be considered when storing, handling, and exhibiting coins (Burke 2002).
Different metals will react differently to specific contaminants and environments.
Therefore, it is important to identify the material of individual coins in order to determine the best methods for storage and, if necessary, preventive conservation measures. Before any conservation is undertaken in a collection, a conservator should be consulted.
Additionally, if a coin’s material cannot be identified, a conservator should be consulted.
Corrosion can be identified using two factors: color and formations on the surface (Burke
2002). Presence of patina is not a sign of active corrosion, and often is a wanted factor for coin collectors because it is considered a sign of the coin’s age and value. Stable patina also creates a protective layer between the surface of the coin and contaminants, making it valuable to collectors and museums (Travers 2015). A wet surface color on a coin is a sign of active corrosion, however a dry surface is a sign that the coin is stable even if corrosion is present. The other sign for corrosion is if there are powdery or flaky formations on the surface or around the coin; if there is active flaking then the coin may have active corrosion (Burke 2002). For further details on metal corrosion see Table B in
Appendix B.
The most common metals found in coins are gold, silver, bronze and other copper alloys. Silver and gold are both very soft metals and easily scratched. Silver is also easily tarnished or damaged. Silver found in archaeological contexts is often already corroding and brittle. Usually in this state, removing any corrosion or patina would 62
further damage the coin and any conservation efforts should focus on preventing further damage. Similar issues apply to bronze and copper coins. Bronze coins are especially susceptible to bronze disease, which occurs when the bronze is contaminated by chloride salts and combined with oxygen and water. Bronze disease is best prevented or halted by storing the coin in an environment with an RH below 35%, as mentioned above (Schultz
1992). For all coins, if any serious cleaning or conservation is required, a conservator should be consulted.
Lastly, established grading guidelines for numismatic collectors exist that are used for providing basic standards in establishing a coin’s preservation status. These grades are used more by collectors of modem coinage than collectors of ancient coinage, but are important tools to note a coin’s status in accession documentation and in databases as references to the coin’s conservation needs. These grades are commonly provided by auction houses and private collectors. For further details on coin grades see
Table C in Appendix C.
Housing of Coins
The final section of this chapter will discuss suggestions for the housing of coins to minimize contamination and damage to the collection. Metals in general are best stored together, as this storage technique can enable a shared environment and standardized storage practices that can be overall more efficient and beneficial to the collection. Storing metals together also prevents any objects, such as wooden objects and 63
textiles, from causing damage to metals from any gases they may produce (Burke, 2002,
Logan 2007). Coins especially are best stored together in standardized casing, as this can reduce handling and allow for coin access to be in one central location. Coins should be stored in locked storage cabinets, preferably metal cabinets. Cabinets that are sealed and can provide microenvironments are optimal (Burke 2002). Wooden storage products should be avoided when storing coins and metals because wood releases sulfur compounds and organic acid vapors that are damaging to metals (Logan 2007). All storage cabinets or spaces for coins should be additionally secured in a locked room with minimal access (Burke 2002).
In addition to storage cabinets, coins should be stored in individual flips or holders. Plastic flips made of Mylar, polyethylene terephthalate, are the suggested material for storing coins individually (Stone 2007). Plastic flips are optimal for use because they allow for coins to be handled while in the flip, reducing the need for the coin to be removed and handled for observation. Paper flips may be used, as long as they are made of good-quality, acid-free rag paper. Paper flips are not optimal due to their shorter life spans. All storage holders should be designed for long-term use and protection. Some archaeological coins may be too fragile to be housed in an individual flip. In these cases, boxes made of archival materials or polystyrene boxes should be used with custom-carved polyethylene foam, such as Ethafoam, lined with a soft, non abrasive textile (Stone 2007). Coins should be stored in flips individually to prevent any spread of corrosion or patina that may be active (Logan 2007). 64
In general, coins should be easy to house and stored efficiently in an accessible and efficient manner. Coins require routine housekeeping and observation to ensure that no corrosion is taking place and to identify and address corrosion early in the process. As long as the environment where coins are stored is well monitored, then a coin collection should require minimal maintenance. 65
Chapter 6: Collections Digitization and Access of Coin Collections Terms and Applications
The purpose of this chapter is to explore the digitization of ancient coin collections in museums and similar collecting institutions. This chapter will review
digitization plans, digital collections, and linked digital collections used for ancient coin collections by museums and other authorized digital collections. A list of related terms will be defined, and several digital databases and sources of digitized ancient coin collections will be discussed in terms of the role they play as facilitators of public access to coin collections.
The digitization of coin collections is vital to the proper care and management of any coin collection, as it improves the ability to track and document individual coins within the museum, as well as to link the coin’s data with research on the collection, including provenance history of the coins and any associated archaeological excavation notes. As the Smithsonian Institution’s Digitization Strategic Plan emphasizes in its description of a digital collection, “picture a room with infinite capacity. It is absent cabinets or shelves, holds tens of millions of objects and records — scientifically invaluable specimens, artifacts that connect us to our heritage, and research findings from some of the greatest minds in the world,” (Smithsonian 2010, 2). This quote emphasizes that a digital collection is virtually a space without limits, providing the ability to store vast amounts of information and research, links with the digitally born objects, and to 66
share them through online access internationally. This is why digitization has become an
important element to museums and their collections.
In her article, “The Other Side of the Coin,” Effrosyni Nomikou points out that
“the advantage of coins is that they typically combine text and image; they are meaning- rich objects that bear a great deal of information in a condensed form” (2011, 166).
Speaking both in curatorial terms and from the perspective of collections management
and archives, coins, especially ancient coins, are meaning-rich objects for museums.
Building on Nomikou’s point, John Orna-Omstein adds that coins are small, and they were designed to be admired up close, not from a distance (2011). These elements are only deepened with digitization. The digitization of coin collections, and eventual 3D scanning and digital replication, will not only improve the ability to access, view, and study coin collections without the need for a microscope, but it supports the preservation of the coins themselves. Through digitization and databases, the vast information related to the coins can be linked to their physical descriptions and images. Furthermore, coin collections can be digitally shared and linked to collections at other institutions to support research and information sharing.
Definitions
Before outlining digital plans and policies, key terms related to digitization and museums will be outlined in this section. In addition to defining the terms, additional context, when necessary will be included. 67
Accessibility “refers to the relative ease with which digital assets are available through technological means to be accessed, shared, exchanged, and otherwise used”
(Smithsonian 2011, 3-4).
A Content Management System (CMS) is a software tool that allows users to create, edit, and publish content online (TechTerms 2017). Many collection’s management systems and databases now used by museums are content management systems.
A Digital Asset is any “content that is recorded and transferred in a digital format”
(Smithsonian 2011, 4). A digital asset can include any media that is created in a digital format, such as text, still images, moving images, sound recordings, and, according to some, metadata. Digital assets also include digital surrogates that have been created through digitization techniques from another format or object (Smithsonian 2011). A digital asset can also consist of a digital replica or a digital object that a museum creates or acquires.
Digitization is a “set of processes that converts physical resources to a digital form, or that creates materials in a digital form (born digital)” (Smithsonian 2011, 4).
Details of digitization processes will be discussed in the next section of this chapter; it should be noted that digitization is the creation of digital objects and can be interpreted as a form of acquisition by museums. As such, similar policies for ensuring ethical acquisition and ownership of digital surrogates or objects should be established in museum collections management policies, as discussed in Chapter 3. 68
Disposition is “the process of permanently removing a digital asset from the
institution by transferring it to another entity or, if it is no longer needed, by destroying
it” (Smithsonian 2011, 4). Disposition is the digital counterpart to deaccessioning for museums in terms of their digital assets and collections. Similar to deaccessioning, the disposition of any digital assets should be done according to an ethically established policy and as deemed by the appropriate authority. Deaccession policies are discussed in
Chapter 3.
Interoperability is the ability of two diverse digital systems to work together effectively (Smithsonian 2011). Interoperability can refer to digital systems within the same institution, as well as to digital systems of individual institutions.
Life-cycle management is, “a comprehensive approach to managing digital assets that addresses these assets through all the stage of their ‘life’” (Smithsonian 2011, 4).
The life-cycle of a digital asset is the process that begins with the planning for the creation (or acquisition) of the digital asset (or object), the maintenance (or conservation and preservation) and use (access or digital exhibition) of the digital asset, and ends if or when the digital asset is disposed of or transferred to another entity (Smithsonian 2011).
In many respects, digital assets and digitization can be approached and treated similarly to physical objects that museums have collected, and therefore they should be equally cared for in their life-cycle management.
Linked Data is the method of connecting data on the web from different digital sources using hypertext links (Beal 2017). Linked data is a method in which related 69
sources can be digitally connected to allow for people to access similar resources and information more efficiently. In relation to ancient coin databases, linked data can be a useful method in drawing connections between two related objects within the same database, or connecting related objects and collections between the databases of individual institutions.
Metadata is data about data. Metadata is more specifically defined as
“information used to describe the intellectual content as well as the technical properties of a digital asset” (Smithsonian 2011, 5). Metadata often includes the date and/or time of creation, the subject, any restrictions, equipment used, digital dimensions, location of creation or storage, title, and other possible descriptors (Smithsonian 2011).
Open Source technology or software is a “software with source code that anyone can inspect, modify, and enhance” (Opensource.com 2017). There are many different types of software that are open source today, many of which concern creating databases and collections or content management systems. Two examples of open source web publishing platforms designed for and used by museums and other collecting institutions are Omeka and CollectionSpace (Collectionspace 2017; Omeka 2017).
A Project Digital Assessment Management plan is a “written plan associated with a unit project that defines the roles, responsibilities, and processes needed to ensure the systematic attention to a digital asset throughout its life cycle” (Smithsonian 2011, 5). A project digital assessment plan “addresses aspects such as impact and use, creation and receipt of data, description of data, access issues, preservation for long-term 70
sustainability, and ownership” (Smithsonian 2011, 5). The project digital assessment management plan is similar to a collections management plan, in which specific details of acquisition and handling of an object is specified and well-documented for use by an institution’s staff and trustees, as well as for the general public.
A Trusted Digital Repository (TDR) is “a mechanism for providing reliable, long term access to the managed digital resources of those who deposit their digital assets in the repository” (Smithsonian 2011, 5). The TDR can be considered a digital equivalent to collections storage, except it concerns digital objects. Like collections storage, it also requires a proper accessible environment; this includes hardware and software, human resources to care for it, administrative structures to support its viability, and it must be economically sustainable to ensure long-term access, management, and preservation of all digital assets deposited in it (Smithsonian 2011).
Digitization Plans and Digital Collections
Below, digitization plans implemented by museums and that involve ancient coin collections will be discussed briefly. Particular attention will be paid to the digitization plan of the Smithsonian. This will be followed by outlining the online digital collection for ancient coins from the British Museum, because it has developed an influential approach.
As defined above, digitization is the act of converting physical resources into a digital form and giving birth to these resources in a whole new format (Smithsonian 71
2011). The digitization of coin collections, or any museum collection, can be
comprehended as a form of construction of those resources in a digital domain through
the production of digital surrogates, or reconstructions, to use a more familiar term. The
standard method for digitization is the creation of a database that is accessible online
through the entry of data and the use of digital images.
Before reviewing specific digitization plans and processes, it should be emphasized that digital assets require the same measures that physical objects do. As institutions continue to propagate their digital collections as part of their collecting and collections management procedures, they should therefore also develop digital collections management policies. These policies should be separate from those established for the physical resources in order to thoroughly address the needs of digitized assets to the same extent that physical objects are documented and cared for.
Smithsonian Institution’s Digitization Strategic Plan
The Smithsonian Institution launched its digitization strategic planning initiative in 2009 and published a Digitization Strategic Plan in 2010 (Smithsonian 2010, 2011).
The plan outlined three main goals for digitization: to increase the amount of its digital assets in order to provide “unparalleled access to Smithsonian collections, research, and programs,” to “integrate digitization into the core functions of the Smithsonian”; and through innovative technology, to “secure sufficient resources and build capacity to create and sustain a digital Smithsonian” (Smithsonian 2010, 11-13). 72
On March 31, 2011, the Smithsonian also established its “Digital Asset
Management Policy,” separate from its collection management policy. The Digital Asset
Management policy outlines how the institution’s digital assets, both new and old will be managed. It also details the purpose of the policy, the principles behind it, the background of strategic planning for digitization, the scope of the directive, important definitions to understand, the roles and responsibilities of the staff and Smithsonian units, and policies and plans for digitization and digital asset management. Overall, the policy is detailed and thorough and provides users with the ability to understand the program and its digital policy, as well as who in the Smithsonian has the authority and responsibility for all aspects of their digitization program. This policy is a best practice example for how digital collections and assets can be managed, especially as technology rapidly progresses.
The British Museum’s Collections Online
One of the largest digital collections is the British Museum’s online collection, which currently has 2,312,517 digital records available (British Museum 2017a). The
British Museum began its digital aspirations early and first introduced database systems, such as BMUSE and GOS in the 1970s. In the 1980s, the museum decided a museum- wide digital inventory was necessary, and the MAGUS system was developed in 1988 to fulfill this need. MAGUS became the founding system that led to the current system,
Merlin (Ghey 2011). 73
Merlin currently provides both public online access to the British Museum’s collections and stores information on collections management. From 2000-2001, records
were converted from MAGUS to Merlin and released externally as the “Collections
Online.” Merlin consists of sub-databases for departmental collections, allowing departments to tailor elements within the database and to update information without affecting the museum-wide system (Ghey 2011).
For the Department of Coins and Medals, Merlin allows for “separate entries for obverse and reverse ‘aspects’ to define the position and content of inscriptions and to link production places and issuing authorities to controlled terminology databases” (Ghey
2011, 68). As of 2011, the Department of Coins and Medals had 520,000 records, 21.5% of which also had images, and about 40-50% were Greek and Roman Collections. In
2006, it was decided that public access to the database would be made available, and access was launched in 2007, with the final two releases made (Ghey 2011).
Interestingly, all records were launched regardless of their completion status. This decision highlights the transparency of the museum in its approach to collections information in this area. Records are updated online weekly as internal records are improved and updated (Ghey 2011).
The British Museum clearly has a well-organized system, one that has been in the process of development for decades now. In addition, the availability and transparency of its digital collection demonstrates the museum’s desire to share its collections with as wide an audience as possible, and its efforts in increasing accessibility. 74
As it has developed its digitization system and digital collections, the British
Museum has also added an element to their online database; online research catalogues
designed to link objects of specific, popular collections together for more efficient public
access and researcher needs (Ghey 2011). In 2011, there were five catalogues available online, one of which was on the “Roman Republican Coins” collection. As of February
27, 2017, there were eleven catalogues online, two of which displayed coin collections; the “Roman Republican Coins” collection mentioned above, and “Coinage of the
Ostrogoths in the British Museum” (British Museum 2017b). The British Museum has also posted multiple guides and manuals on how to use both its online collections and research catalogs in order make its collections accessible and enhance the searchability of its vast collection. Figure 6.1 depicts the homepage for the Roman Republican Coins catalog. On the user’s left-hand side, guides and information on the collection are supplied, and on the right-hand side of the page, a quick introduction to the catalog itself is presented (British Museum 2017c). 75
Membership The British Whafs on Support us Search me websfta About us Museum >["•Learning
Research > Online research catalogues > RRC > Roman Republican Coins ■ Search catalogue : Roman Republican Coins in the British Museum E Ghey, i Leins (eds) * descriptions and chronology after MH Crawford Advanced search >
Contents A catalogue of the Roman Republican Coins in the British Museum, with descriptions anti How to as© thi s chronology based on M.H. oat&Sogue Crawford, Roman Republican Thu history of the Coinage (1974} * this catalogue collection brings together over 12,000 Roman Republican coins, ft aims to provide an coinage introduction to the coinage, the Roman Republican Moneyers history of the Museum collection and an aid to the A guide to types Identification of coin types. Ail objects
Entries are generated directly from Glossary our collection database and might Bfbllogmphy change as Museum curators discover more about the objects. This format aims to provide a Wing* catalogue so its contents can be adapted to -reflect current research.
Figure 6.1. Homepage for the “Roman Republican Coinage” Catalog (British Museum
2017c).
The British Museum’s online collections catalogs provide strong examples of
transparency and ease of access, as well as a digital catalog that lives separately from the
associated physical resources.
As the examples discussed above highlight, technology and digitization are increasingly playing a key role in all aspects of museums. As Pilides notes, “the ever increasing pace of progress, and the fast rate of technological development necessitates freeform, and measures need to be taken to ensure a more effective management through 76
the adoption of new technologies” (2011, 1). For ancient coin collections, the approaches
outlined above have increased accessibility as efforts to enhance collections care and
preservation of museum collections have continued. Below, efforts involving collaboration between institutions are outlined because they represent a next step, in
which similar collections and objects are linked digitally in order to increase the overall
accessibility of information about museum collections.
Linked Digital Collections and Public Access
Several years ago, Ans B.M. terWoerds, a librarian with the Geldmuseum who oversaw the integration of three numismatic collections in 2004, called for the creation of a “one-stop-shop” for numismatic researchers based on his experience (2008). This section will concentrate on the development of such “one-stop shops” and how linked data and collaboration between institutions in their digital collections management is beneficial for museums and collecting institutions. Such systems hold great promise, as they provide the ability to increase accessibility, to share collections management information, and to increase the protection of collections, as outlined below.
This section will feature examples from the Digitization of Antiquities project by the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) by the
British Museum, the Nomisma project by the American Numismatic Society (ANS), the digitization of Enkomi Tombs (British excavations) Project by the British Museum and
Cyprus Museum, and the International Image Interoperability Framework (IIIF). 77
The Department of Antiquities, Cyprus
In 2009, the Cyprus Museum launched the eighteen-month Cyprus
Archaeological Digitization Programme, which was headed by Despina Pilides and
Chrysanthi Kounou (Pilides 2011). The primary goal of the program was to “increase
efficiency and effectiveness in retrieving and handling information relating to ancient
monuments and portable antiquities, using a Geographical Information System (GIS) to
increase protection of Cypriot cultural heritage through better management of data”
(Pilides 2011, 1). The Department of Antiquities states on its website that it regards
digitization as “one of its main objectives and priorities because it ensures protection”
(Department of Antiquities 2017). In addition, there was an objective to train members
of the Department of Antiquities so that they could pass on their training to others, and
the plan was to continue the program after the initial eighteen months.
This project was designed to improve and increase the management and
documentation of antiquities and archives acquired from archaeological excavations. A
website was created for the database and multiple archaeological sites and museums participated in the program. The data and research is available upon application, but not to the public. During the initial project, 5,000 objects were digitized, 1,544 (31%) of which were coins dating from 600 BCE-1960 CE (Pilides 2011). The strength and example of a program like this is the collaboration between the governmental Department of Antiquities, museums, and other cultural heritage institutions and sites in order to preserve and centralize Cypriot antiquities through digital means. 78
The Portable Antiquities Scheme
In addition to its online catalog mentioned in the previous section, the British
Museum launched the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS), which was designed to hold records of archaeological finds discovered by members of the public (Portable
Antiquities Scheme 2017). Because coins are commonly found by the public, there are many examples of them in this open source database. Designed for public use, the database has levels of information so that it is accessible to users of different educational backgrounds. Since its founding in 1997, it has become the primary source of information for all objects under their recording mandate, including a significant number of ancient coins (Pett 2011). The database currently has 1,248,879 objects within
792,210 records, a majority of which are coins. In the process, the database has become an important place for numismatic research (Portable Antiquities Scheme 2017).
In 2010, the database integrated datasets from Oxford University’s ‘Celtic Coin
Index,’ and Cardiff University’s ‘Iron Age and Roman coins of Wales’ (IARWC) in order to provide a better platform for applied numismatists to interrogate numismatic material for England and Wales. Since integration of these data sets, the use of this database for academic research purposes has increased significantly (Pett 2011).
PAS demonstrates a truly integrated and collaborative database between museums, universities, and the general public in an effort to provide as thorough and universal a research database as possible. The extent of this database highlights the 79
power of linking data between collections and standardizing specific collections for more efficient universal access.
Nomisma
Nomisma is a collaborative project by the American Numismatic Society (ANS) that was designed to “provide stable representations of numismatic concepts according to principles of Linked Open Data” (Nomisma 2017). The project is steered by a committee of professionals from a variety of museums and similar collecting institutions. The project itself provides access to twenty-six databases, including MANTIS (ANS) and those from the Harvard Art Museums, the British Museum, and the Metropolitan
Museum of Art (Nomisma.org 2017).
While still in development, the project shows the value and the steps toward creating a center for numismatic digital collections, and the possibility of developing a central resource for all numismatic collections. A resource such as Nomisma can have benefits for managing many aspects of museum collections management, as well as for research.
The Digitization ofEnkomi Tombs (British excavations) Project
The Digitization ofEnkomi Tombs (British excavations) Project was a collaborative endeavor between the British Museum and the Cyprus Museum to digitize and publish the artifacts and excavation notes and research online together. While it did 80
not focus on ancient coin collections, it is useful to examine briefly because of the scope of the data that was brought together and the increase in accessibility that the project represents. The British Museum owns two-thirds of the collection, while the Cyprus
Museum owns one-third of the collection. The British Museum’s portion had been previously digitized during the museum’s own digitization process (mentioned above), while the Cyprus Museum’s collection was digitized in 2008 with a grant from the
Research Promotion Foundation (Pilides 2011).
The short-term aim of the project was to identify and document objects from these tombs, to draw and photograph them, to locate any information relating to the excavations, and then to create a digital catalog accessible online. The databases from the two institutions were connected using linked data. The result of this project was a successfully linked database of the excavated contents of the tombs, with all relevant documentation and digital reconstructions made available to researchers online (Pilides
2011). This project provides a strong example as to how museums can collaborate to link shared collections and research held by the individual institutions to create a centralized source of information.
International Image Interoperability Framework
The International Image Interoperability Framework (IIIF) was developed by a community of over 100 cultural heritage organizations, libraries, and other image repositories that are working to develop an interoperable technology and community 81
framework for image delivery. This project was initiated because image-based resources are fundamental to cultural heritage and knowledge for research and scholarship purposes
(IIIF 2017). The goals for the IIIF are as follows: “To give scholars an unprecedented level of uniform and rich access to image-based resources hosted around the world. To define a set of common application programming interfaces that support interoperability between image repositories. To develop, cultivate and document shared technologies, such as image serves and web clients, that prove a world-class used experience in viewing, comparing, manipulating and annotating images,” (IIIF 2017).
The IIIF is included in this chapter because museums are actively participating in the framework and it provides an example of a technological development designed specifically for cultural heritage institutions and scholars. The IIIF is a framework that leading world heritage organizations are actively participating in to make their content universally accessible in one place. The IIIF is not designed as an image database, but instead as a system to make it easier “to share digital image data, migrate across technology systems, and provide enhanced image access for scholars,” (IIIF 2017). The
IIIF allows its users to bring together images from multiple institutions into one user interface. The IIIF demonstrates how technology can be developed to facilitate the sharing of cultural heritage data and information between leading institutions in a cooperative manner, and is one that is being widely utilized and that will have significant benefits to scholars and researchers. The IIIF is an example of how cooperative efforts among organizations can have holistic benefits. 82
The examples outlined above supply evidence concerning the benefits of linked data and collaboration among museums in the area of collections databases, especially numismatic databases. Although collaboration and the linking of research and objects is important, standardization is required to improve the overall accessibility of collections, whether they are linked or not. As Daniel Pett argues, “[there is a] need for authoritative sources of numismatic information.. .If each denomination could be assigned a stable entity, and all the variant forms (in different languages) attached to this stable entity, it would enable easy navigation between disparate resources” (2011,77).
In particular, Pett suggests the revival of The Numismatic Description Standard
(NUDS) (2011). NUDS is a standard for numismatic information that recommends field names for numismatic databases. It has lost some of its following in the past several years, and is often not a resource used by museums when determining content for their numismatic collections databases (Online Greek Coinage 2017). A possible reason for the lack of use is that museums often have to construct or adapt a CMS to apply to all of their collections. This can be a challenge when tailoring a CMS to address the needs of specific type collections, such as ancient coin collections. By standardizing numismatic standards across museums, research and accessibility would be significantly increased, along with shared approaches to collections management, to further increase preservation and protection of ancient coin collections and general numismatic collections.
With standardization in place, linked data should start to become a strongly considered option. Linked data has the potential to benefit institutions in learning about 83
their own collections, as well as to benefit external researchers by supporting digital access, thus reducing the amount of time spent researching individual collections. Within the numismatic world, while there are multiple types of academic resources, more resources now include digital coin collections, which allow the user access to various collections in one place (Pett 2011). By collaborating and linking collections databases, the accessibility, usability, and efficiency of digitized databases can significantly increase the value, use, preservation, and awareness of ancient coin collections.
This chapter has outlined and reviewed digitization plans, digital collections, and linked digital collections between museums. Ancient coin collections often contain thousands of coins. Due to the nature of coins, storage and access of these collections can be challenging and overwhelming for many institutions. Digitization provides relief to these challenges by making coin collections accessible, and reducing the handling of coins and the coordination of accessing such large collections. For all digital collections and databases, certain information should be accessible only to museum staff and a backup should always be maintained. Linking of digital collections provides the ability to link objects and data between collections, furthering academic and institutional research of these distinctive objects, as well as renewing public awareness and interest in these collections. 84
Chapter 7: Informal Survey
Methods
An informal survey of select museums in the United States of America with coin collections was conducted as part of this thesis to assess current information available on coin collections, and to assist in the selection of case studies. The informal survey gauged the number of institutions in the U.S.A. with coin collections and the types of institutions these collections are most commonly housed in. The informal survey was conducted using information and data found through the websites of institutions.
Institutions included in the informal survey were identified through lists provided online by the American Numismatic Society (ANS) (2016), the Royal Numismatic
Society (Amold-Biucchi 2010, Hopkins 2010), the Forum for Ancient Coins (2016), the
Smithsonian Institution (2016a, 2016b), and the Capital Gold Group (2015). In addition, the author emailed the ANS and American Numismatic Association (ANA) directly requesting a suggested list of institutions with prominent coin collections in the U.S.A. for research purposes. In an e-mail to the author on November 14, 2016, Douglas Mudd of the ANA provided a list of museums and institutions with prominent coin collections.
In an email to the author on November 14, 2016, the ANS was unable to provide a list, but directed the author to the ANA for a list of institutional coin collections in the U.S.A.
The following is the list of 21 museums that was compiled from this research and that was used in the informal survey: 85
1. American Numismatic Association Edward C. Rochette Money Museum, Colorado. 2. American Numismatic Society, New York. 3. Durham Museum, Nebraska. 4. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Learning Center and Money Museum, Ohio. 5. The Fralin Museum of Art, University of Virginia. 6. Harvard Art Museums, Massachusetts. 7. The Institute for the Study of Archaeology and Religion Numismatic Project at Pepperdine University, California. 8. The J. Paul Getty Museum, California. 9. Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan. 10. Lawrence University, Wisconsin. 11. Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA), California. 12. Museum of Fine Arts Boston (MFA, Boston), Massachusetts. 13. Metropolitan Museum of ART (MET), New York. 14. Newman Collection at Washington University, Missouri. 15. The North Carolina Collection at the University of North Carolina. 16. Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley. 17. Princeton Numismatic Collection, New Jersey. 18. Rare Books and Special Collections at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana. 19. The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20. The Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection, National Museum of American History, Washington, D.C 21. Yale University Art Gallery, Connecticut.
Overall, the informal survey was conducted using online data and materials provided by the 21 listed institutions on their websites. Online information was chosen 86
for the survey because it allowed the author to gauge the size of the collections, as well as
to obtain an idea of what information was readily available from each institution and
estimate how much research has been done on the coin collections. There were 18
components analyzed in the informal survey, ranging from accessibility of institution
policies and accessibility of online documentation to accessibility of object information
online. The 18 components are listed in Table 7.1. These components were selected
based on an analysis of the online databases referred to above, using data from 18 of the
21 institutions originally listed. To view each component table with a list of institutions
in the results see Appendix E. Three of the 21 institutions were found to have no online
presence or access, or to no longer exist and were not included in this survey. These 3
institutions were the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Learning Center and Money
Museum; the Institute for the Study of Archaeology and Religion Numismatic Project at
Pepperdine University; and the Newman Collection at Washington University. 87
Table 7.1. Informal Survey Components and Possibilities
Component Result Options
Accessible Collections Management Policy Yes/No
Coin or Numismatic Specific Exhibition Yes/No
Digitally Searchable Collection Yes/No
Physical Description Yes/No
Typological Description Yes/No
Numismatic References Yes/No
Basic Administrative Information Yes/No
Provenance Yes/No
Credit Line Yes/No
Exhibition History Yes/No
Obverse Side Digital Image Yes/No
Reverse Side Digital Image Yes/No
Coin Description Yes/No
Coin Legend Yes/No
Coin Legend Translation Yes/No
Online Map Yes/No
Related Objects Yes/No
Ancient Coin Collections Yes/No 88
Survey Results
The first of the 18 components assessed in the informal survey was a digitally
accessible collections management policy. This was to evaluate the transparency of institutions and to determine if the institution was a possible case study. An accessible collections management policy included any digitally published document or page that explained the collecting policy of the institution or how the collection was managed.
Results were either yes or no. Seventy-two percent (13) of the institutions surveyed had accessible collections management policies, 28% (5) of the institutions did not (Table
7.2). These results show that most institutions have made their collections management policy or collecting practices publicly accessible.
Table 7.2. Accessible Collections Management Policy
Result Number Percentage
Yes 13 72%
No 5 28%
The second component assessed was whether or not the institution had a coin or numismatic specific exhibition. This component was selected because it would highlight the likely significance of the coins to the institution's collection as well as if the coins were exhibited regularly. Results were either yes or no. Twenty-two percent (4) of the institutions had a coin or numismatic specific gallery, 78% (14) did not (Table 7.3).
These results suggest that coins and numismatics rank low in exhibitability, and that most 89
issues involving the care of coins takes place behind-the-scenes, in collections areas, as
opposed to exhibit galleries.
Table 7.3. Coin or Numismatic-Specific Gallery
Result Number Percentage
Yes 4 22%
No 14* 78% institution was under construction at the time of the survey and has no galleries.
The third component assessed was whether or not the collection was digitally
searchable, where at least some of the information and/or images of individual coins were
supplied, along with basic catalog information. This component was selected because a digitally searchable collection indicates whether the public has access to the institutions’ collections, and can help establish the size and scope of an institution's collection.
Results were either yes or no. Ninety-four percent (17) of the institutions had digitally searchable collections, 6% (1) of the institutions did not (Table 7.4). These results indicate that most institutions have both digitized their collections and made them publicly accessible.
Table 7.4. Digitally Searchable Collection
Result Number Percentage
Yes 17 94%
No 1 6% 90
The fourth component assessed was a physical description of the coins provided through the digital database. This component was included because it allowed the author to evaluate the amount of information the institution has made accessible to the public, and because the presence of a physical description reflects the extent to which the coins have been studied. The physical description that was searched for included the die axis, weight, and/or diameter of the coin. Results were yes or no. For a result of yes, only one element of the physical description needed to be provided online. Seventy-two percent
(15) of the institutions provided a physical description, 28% (3) did not (Table 7.5).
These results indicate that most institutions had carried out basic measurements on individual coins in their collections and that they had made this information publicly accessible.
Table 7.5. Physical Description
Result Number Percentage
Yes 14 78%
No 4 22%
A further breakdown of the results is as follows: 39%, 7 institutions provided all three elements of the physical description; 22%, 4 institutions provided only the diameter and weight; 6%, 1 institution provided the die axis and diameter; 11%, 2 institutions provided the diameter; 6%, 1 institution provided the weight; and 22%, 4 institutions provided no physical description. 91
The fifth component assessed was a typological description of individual coins.
The typological description included the issuing authority, source culture, coin type, date, geographic region, or material. This component was selected for similar reasons that the fourth component was chosen. The inclusion of this data in the online database allowed the author to evaluate the amount of information the institution has made accessible to the public, as well as to ascertain some of the research that the institution has conducted for the coin collection. Results were yes or no. For a result of yes, only one element of the typological description needed to be provided online. Ninety-four percent (17) of the institutions provided typological descriptions, 6% (1) of the institutions did not (Table
7.6). These results suggest that the typological information is considered significant in describing coin collections, and is, in most cases, publicly accessible.
Table 7.6. Typological Description
Result Number Percentage
Yes 17 94% No 1 6%
A further breakdown of the results is as follows: 39%, 7 institutions provided all six elements of the typological description; 11%, 2 institutions provided authority, date, geographic region, and material; 17%, 3 institutions provided culture, type, date, geographic region, and material; 6%, 1 institution provided culture, type, date, and material; 6%, 1 institution provided culture, type, date, geographic region, and material; 92
11%, 2 institutions date, geographic region, and material; 6%, 1 institution provided geographic region and material; and 6%, 1 institution did not provide any typological description.
The sixth component assessed was if numismatic references were provided in the information on the online database. This component was evaluated because it is common when verifying ancient coins that a numismatic publication reference be used. For an institution to include this information in their online website signifies that they have researched their coin collection and that they are transparent in providing their references.
Results were yes or no. Fifty-six percent (10) of the institutions included numismatic references in the online database, 44% (8) of the institutions did not (Table 7.7). These results indicate that most institutions consider a citation to be relevant information to provide with coins, and that these institutions are following numismatic standards. These results also indicate that some standardization exists between museum institutions and numismatic practices.
Table 7.7. Numismatic References
Result Number Percentage
Yes 10 56%
No 8 44% 93
The seventh component assessed in the informal survey was basic administrative information. This component included catalog numbers, collection name, department name, and if the coin is on or off exhibit. This component was included because it allowed for the museum context and history of the coin collection to be accessed publicly and aided in determining the selection of case studies for this thesis. Results were yes or no. For a result of yes, at least one element of the administrative history needed to be provided in the online database. Eighty-nine percent (16) of the institutions provided administrative history information, 11% (2) did not (Table 7.8). These results indicate that most institutions are indeed willing to provide basic administrative information about the collection, database, and documentation to the public.
Table 7.8. Basic Administrative Information
Result Number Percentage
Yes 16 89%
No 2 11%
A further breakdown of the results is as follows: none of the institutions provided all four of the elements: 22%, 4 institutions provided catalog number, collection, and department; 11%, 2 institutions provided catalog number, department; and on/off exhibit,
11%, 2 institutions provided catalog number, collection, and on/off exhibit; 17%, 3 institutions provided catalog number and department; 11%, 2 institutions provided catalog number and collection; 1 institution provided department and on/off exhibit; 6%, 94
1 institution provided the catalog number only; 6%, 1 institution provided the collection only; and 11%, 1 institutions provided none of the basic administrative information.
The eighth component assessed was provenance, which is defined for this informal survey as the history of ownership of an object from its source to the present day, from which ownership and authenticity are established (ICOM 2013, Garth 2017).
Provenance was included because the listing of provenance provides insight into the transparency of the institutions in the area of basic collections information, as well as important information on the history of the coin collection, which is significant to the determination of case studies for this thesis. Provenance also aids in understanding the sources of the collection. Results were yes or no. Fifty percent (9) of the institutions provided provenance, 50% (9) did not (Table 7.9). These results suggest that not all institutions find it appropriate to share provenance information online, or that this information is not yet available to post.
Table 7.9. Provenance
Result Number Percentage
Yes 9* 50%
No 9 50% institution provided only the institution's history of the objects and collection.
The ninth component assessed was credit line, which for this informal survey is defined as the ownership and direct acquisition of the object, either through purchase or donation (Garth 2017). This was included for similar reasons to the eighth component 95
listed above. Results were yes or no. Fifty percent (9) of the institutions provided credit
line, 50% (9) did not (Table 7.10). Similar to the above, the results suggest that this
information is not considered appropriate or readily available for individual coins in collections.
Table 7.10. Credit Line
Result Number Percentage
Yes 9 50%
No 9 50%
The tenth component assessed was exhibition history, which is defined for this informal survey as a list of exhibitions the object was or is currently displayed in. This component was chosen because it reveals the history of use of the Ancient coin collections by the institutions, as well as the level of data that is included in the online accessible database. Results were yes or no. Six percent (1) of the institutions provided exhibition history for the coins, 94% (17) of the institutions did not (Table 7.11). These results indicate that exhibition history is not considered by institutions to be relevant information to share for coin collections online. 96
Table 7.11. Exhibition History
Result Number Percentage
Yes 1 6%
No 17 94%
The eleventh component assessed was whether a digital image of the obverse
(heads) side of the coin was provided in the digital database. This component was included because it indicates whether the institution has taken digital images of their coin collection and made them accessible to the public online. Results were yes or no.
Eighty-nine percent (16) of the institutions provided a digital image of their coins, 11%
(2) of the institutions did not (Table 7.12). These results indicate that most institutions have taken digital images of the obverse side of their coins for their databases and have decided to share them online.
Table 7.12. Obverse Digital Image
Result Number Percentage
Yes 16 89%
No 2 11%
The twelfth component assessed was whether or not a digital image of the reverse
(tails) side of the coin was provided in the online database. This component was included separately from the obverse side of the coin because it was found that institutions were 97
not consistent in providing digital images of both sides of the coins. Similar reasons given to the eleventh component apply to this component; by providing the reverse image online, it could be determined that digital images had been taken of both sides of the coins in the prospective collections and that the institution had decided that this information warranted sharing with the public. Results were yes or no. Seventy-eight percent (14) of the institutions provided a digital image of the reverse side of the coin,
22% (4) of the institutions did not (Table 7.13). Eleven percent (2) of the institutions that provided digital images of the obverse side of the coins did not provide reverse images.
These results suggest institutions consider the reverse side of the coin to be slightly less important, but that most institutions have taken digital images of both sides of their coins for their databases.
Table 7.13. Reverse Digital Image
Result Number Percentage
Yes 14 78% No 4 22%
The thirteenth component assessed was a description of the coin iconography.
This component was evaluated because it indicates how much research on the coins has been completed and how much educational information is publicly accessible about individual coins in the collections. This information includes a description of the iconography on the coin and any interpretation of that information. Results were yes or 98
no. Seventy-two percent (13) of the institutions provided some description of the coins,
28% (5) of the institutions did not (Table 7.14). These results suggest that most
institutions have analyzed individual coins in their collections and have made the
information publicly accessible.
Table 14. Coin Description
Result Number Percentage
Yes 13 72%
No 5 28%
The fourteenth component assessed was if the coin legend (defined in Chapter 4) was provided in the online database. The inclusion of the legend is significant because it is a piece of numismatic-specific information. Results were yes or no. Fifty-six percent
(10) of the institutions provided the legend, 44% (8) of the institutions did not (Table
7.15). These results indicate that coin legends are not considered high priority information for individual coins and that this information is not commonly included in online databases that are publicly accessible. This may also suggest that the institutions do not anticipate their frequent users seeking this information. 99
Table 7.15. Coin Legend
Result Number Percentage
Yes 10 56%
No 8* 44% *One institution did not provide the legend, but provided the language that the legend was in.
The fifteenth component assessed was an English translation of the coin legend.
This component was included separate of the legend because during the informal survey it was found that often the legend was provided without a translation. Results were yes or no. Eleven percent (2) of the institutions provided a translation of the coin legend,
89% (16) of the institutions did not Table 7.16). These results indicate that translation of legends on coins is not a priority, and that institutions have concluded that users can either translate legends on their own or that the translation of the legends is not relevant information for them.
Table 7.16. Coin Legend Translation
Result Number Percentage
Yes 2 11%
No 16 89%
The sixteenth component assessed was a map or visual aid of the source location, mint city, or any other significant location to the collection. This was chosen because 100
coin collections are sourced from all over the world and maps commonly accompany coins. Results were yes or no. Seventeen percent (3) of the institutions provided maps online, 83% (15) did not (Table 7.17). These results suggest that mapping of coins in collections or in general collections is not considered relevant information to make publicly accessible or is not yet available to include in databases.
Table 7.17. Online Map
Result Number Percentage
Yes 3 17%
No 15 83%
The seventeenth component assessed was if related objects in the institution’s collections were linked to the online database object pages or not. This was evaluated to assess the extent of the online database and if the institution had linked like objects in their collection. Results were yes or no. Eleven percent (2) of the institutions linked related objects to coin pages, while 89% (16) of the institutions did not (Table 7.18).
These results suggest that coins are not commonly linked objects among museum collection databases.
Table 7.18. Related Objects
Result Number Percentage
Yes 2 11%
No 16 89% 101
The eighteenth component assessed was if there were ancient coins in the
institution's coin collection. This was assessed because this thesis is specifically
examining the management of Ancient Coin Collections in American museums. This
element was essential in identifying possible case studies for this thesis. Results were yes
or no. Eighty-three percent (15) out of the 18 institutions with coin collections had
ancient coins in the collection, 17% (3) of the institutions did not (Table 7.19). These results indicate that most major coin collections do indeed include ancient coins.
Table 7.19. Ancient Coin Collections
Result Number Percentage
Yes 16 89%
No 2 11%
Further evaluation of the ancient coin collections assessed in the informal survey was undertaken to identify possible case studies. First, an attempt to estimate the size of each coin collection was made by searching the online databases discussed above, and associated documentation of the collection, as provided through websites (Table 7.20).
Next, the estimated number of ancient coins (defined above) in the collections was determined. In Table 20, the size of each ancient coin collection is listed along with the total number of coins in the collection; note that some institutions’ websites did not support a search for the total number of ancient coins, nor did they supply the percentage of the collection that is comprised of ancient coins. 102
Table 7.20. Estimated Number of Total Coins and Ancient Coins in Each Collection (For citation of web pages of each organization refer to the Bibliography.)
Institution Estimated Estimated Percentage Number of Coins Number of of Ancient in the Collection Ancient Coins Coins in Collection American Numismatic 75,000 8,000 11% Association Edward C. Rochette Money Museum American Numismatic Society 575,025 191,000 33% Durham Museum Unable to Unable to NA determine* determine* The Fralin Museum of Art, 576 576 100% University of Virginia Harvard Art Museums 18,045 16,458 91% The J. Paul Getty Museum 8,771 8,214 94% Kelsey Museum of 10,000 10,000 100% Archaeology, University of Michigan Lawrence University Unable to Unable to NA determine* determine* Los Angeles County Museum 155 103 66% of Art (LACMA) Metropolitan Museum of ART 1,638 666 41% (MET) Museum of Fine Arts Boston 7,500 1,089 15% (MFA, Boston) The North Carolina Collection 15 None 0% Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of 759 Unable to NA Anthropology at the University determine* of California, Berkeley Princeton Numismatic 110,000 4,700 4% Collection Rare Books and Special 1,375 None 0% 103
Collections at the University of Notre Dame The Smithsonian National 164 60 37% Museum of Natural History Smithsonian National 76,000 26,972 35% Numismatic Collection, National Museum of American History Yale University Art Gallery 59,623 26,424 44%
Analysis
Based on the informal survey conducted and the attempt to identify the percentage of ancient coins held by institutions, it is possible to identify three types of museum institutions that house coin collections: art, history, and natural history museums; numismatic museums; and university museums. In light of this result, it was decided that one institution from each category would be selected to serve as a case study. This approach was chosen because it supplied an analysis of collections management policies and needs regarding coin collections in three different types of institutions. Each of the institutions surveyed was then placed in one of the three categories (Table 7.21). 104
Table 7.21. Museums by Types of Institution
Art, History, and Natural History Museums
Durham Museum, Nebraska
The J. Paul Getty Museum, California
Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA), California
Museum of Fine Arts Boston (MFA, Boston), Massachusetts
Metropolitan Museum of ART (MET), New York
The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C.
The Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection, National Museum of American History, Washington, D.C.
Numismatic Museums
American Numismatic Association Edward C. Rochette Money Museum, Colorado.
American Numismatic Society, New York
University Museums
The Fralin Museum of Art, University of Virginia
Harvard Art Museums, Massachusetts
Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan
Lawrence University, Wisconsin
The North Carolina Collection, University of North Carolina
Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley
Princeton Numismatic Collection, Princeton University, New Jersey
Rare Books and Special Collections, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
Yale University Art Gallery, Connecticut 105
To select each actual case study, the author focused on institutions with large numbers of Ancient coins, digitized images of the Ancient coin collection available online, and an overall majority of “yes” results to the other 16 components of the informal survey. In the end, for art, history, and natural history museums, the Getty
Museum was selected; for numismatic museums, the American Numismatic Association
Edward C. Rochette Money Museum was selected; and for university museums, the
Harvard University Art Museums was selected. In the next chapter, each case study will be presented and discussed. 106
Chapter 8: The Edward C. Rochette Money Museum, American Numismatic Association
Chapter 8 will examine the second case study, the American Numismatic
Association’s Edward C. Rochette Money Museum. This case study explores the management of the museum’s Ancient coin collection and numismatic collections. The chapter presents information collected during an interview with content expert, Douglas
Mudd, Director and Curator of the museum. First, this chapter will provide a brief history of the ANA Money Museum, the collection, and the American Numismatic
Association (ANA). Next, it discusses the management policies of the museum for its
Ancient coin collection and numismatic collections. Finally, an analysis will be provided by examining the management policies for the museum’s Ancient coin collection using the context of the literature provided in Chapters 3,4, and 5 of this thesis.
About the Edward C. Rochette Money Museum
The Edward C. Rochette Money Museum (ANA Money Museum) is the official museum of the American Numismatic Association (ANA) and houses the ANA’s collections. The ANA originally started with the publication of The American
Numismatist by George Heath, a pharmacist who collected coins as a hobby, in 1888.
The title of the publication was soon changed to The Numismatist. The publication was very successful and in March 1891, Heath published a proposal to found the American
Numismatic Association. In July 1891, he nominated a board, which was officially 107
approved at the first ANA convention by the Committee on Temporary Organization of the ANA on October 7, 1891 (Bowers 2017).
The ANA’s membership grew rapidly after its establishment and it began to grow its numismatic collection, with clubs forming around the U.S.A. During its early years, the collection was housed at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. (Mudd
2017). In 1961, the association began to focus on its plans to build an official headquarters; by 1965 more than $200,000 had been raised for the new headquarters and a space was leased from Colorado College in Colorado Springs. In 1971, permanent headquarters was built in Colorado Springs to house the association’s needs, and the
ANA Money Museum opened on September 1 under the direction and curatorship of
Richard Long. The museum was formally dedicated on January 18, 1975 (Bowers 2017).
The museum continued to expand over the years and by the mid 1990s, the museum was attracting ANA members, numismatists, and the general public. In 2004, the ANA Money Museum and ANA Library underwent a $3 million expansion and was remodeled into the current building. One year later, the museum was named in honor of
Edward C. Rochette (Bowers 2017).
Rochette joined the ANA staff as editor of The Numismatist in 1966 and soon became the executive vice president for twenty years. After retiring from his staff position, he joined the Board of Governors in 1987, and served as vice president of the board for two terms from 1989-1993 (American Numismatic Association 2017b). In
1998, Rochette returned to the ANA staff to act as interim executive director with the 108
approval of the Board of Governors and the recommendation of the ANA President
Advisory Council. He stepped aside on January 1, 2003, and acted as a senior advisor
until his retirement on July 31. Rochette was dedicated to the ANA and a successful
contributor to the numismatic world, including authoring several books. These
accomplishments led to the ANA Money Museum being named in his honor in 2005
(American Numismatic Association 2017b).
Unfortunately, in 2007, the museum suffered a large theft of rare coins by its prior collections manager (7 News 2012). The museum was forward and transparent when
dealing with the situation, and developed a website with direction and information for the return of of these coins, which still appears today on its website (Bowers 2017).
Today, the Edward C. Rochette Money Museum is America’s largest museum dedicated to numismatics and acts to bring “culture to life,” (American Numismatic
Association 2017d). “The museum explores art, history, science, and much more to promote the diverse nature of money and related items,” (American Numismatic
Association 2017d). In addition to its on-site exhibits, the museum also publishes its most popular exhibits online to make them accessible to numismatic enthusiasts around the world (American Numismatic Association 2017e).
In addition to virtual exhibits, the museum has a portion of its collection available through its website to ANA members (American Numismatic Association 2016). The museum’s website also features a series of blogs, “Tales from the Vault,” designed to highlight lesser-known portions of the ANA collection. These articles have been written 109
by the collections manager and the director and curator (American Numismatic
Association 2017c; Mudd 2017). The ANA Money Museum continues to thrive with physical and virtual exhibits for people of all ages and a growing numismatic collection that includes 8,000 ancient coins and over 75,000 objects (Mudd 2017).
Douglas Mudd became the Curator and Director of the ANA Money Museum in
2004, and previously he was the manager of the National Numismatic Collection at the
Smithsonian Institution since 1991 (Bowers 2017). Today, he continues to act as Curator and Director, which includes the curation of museum and virtual exhibits, publishing articles in “Tales from the Vault” with the collections manager, Andy Dickes, and instructing seminars at ANA events (Mudd 2017).
Management of the Ancient Coin Collection
Collecting
The ANA Money Museum has an Ancient coin collection of approximately 8,000 ancient coins. Currently, the museum is adding to the collection through gifts and donations; however, it is not actively purchasing ancient coins for the collection (Mudd
2017).
The ANA Money Museum does have a Collections Management Policy (CMP) in place to govern its collections and their care, however the policy is not accessible to the public (Mudd 2017). 110
Storage and Housing
Each coin is housed in an acid-free 2x2 inch paper envelope, which is then covered in a plastic sleeve to reduce friction when rubbing. The envelopes are stored in metal cabinets in drawers fitted for 2x2 inch envelopes. The Ancient coin collection is stored similarly to all other coin collections in the museum; paper money is stored differently. The main storage area consists of vaults, which are secured by alarms. The museum does not employ specific controls in the vault, but the environment usually maintains temperature between 65°F and 75°F with an RH above 25% (Mudd 2017).
Care
The ANA Money Museum provides routine care for its collections in the storage and exhibition spaces. For the Ancient coin collection and other coin collections, the main environmental factors tracked in the storage vaults are humidity and temperature.
For paper money, light is also monitored, primarily during exhibition, as the numismatic collections are stored in cabinets and drawers. All coins, cast and struck, are stored in similar conditions and units (Mudd 2017).
The coins are not regularly checked for conservation needs, however, during routine cataloging, inventory, and day-today collections activity, coins are often reviewed. If any coin displays conservation concerns, they are identified and addressed.
If the conservation need is basic, such as cleaning, it may be handled in-house. However, I ll
for any significant conservation concerns, a professional conservator is consulted (Mudd
2017).
The museum does not require gloves to be worn when handling coins, as cotton gloves often may result in the dropping of the coin. Instead, all coins are handled by their edges over velvet trays to ensure minimal contact from oils on the skin, as well as to reduce the risk of the coin being dropped a large distance on the floor (Mudd
Cataloging
The ANA Money Museum uses Past Perfect for its digital database. The museum had to adapt the Past Perfect system for a numismatic collection, which involved replacing the original lexicon with a customized lexicon developed for numismatic collections, and using a variety of numismatic resources to develop the catalog system and categories. The catalog utilizes three main categories for their numismatic collections: the American collection, the World collection, and the Ancient collection
(Mudd 2017).
For ancient coins, the categories that are prioritized are date, origin, ruler, metal, weight, and denomination. These categories were developed using numismatic standards and resources (Mudd 2017). Table 8.1 below displays the online object record for
Ancient coins at the ANA Money Museum. In addition to the catalog information, images of the object are displayed to the left of the object information (American
Numismatic Association 2016). 112
Table 8.1 ANA Money Museum Online Object Record for Ancient Coins (Based on ANA Money Museum Collections Website, American Numismatic Association 2016.) Title Material, Denomination, Authority, Place, Date ANA Number ANA ID/Catalog Number Object Name Denomination* Description Obverse iconography description Reverse iconography description Other Name Authority* Material Material (Silver=AR, Bronze=AE, etc.). Date Approximate date, if known. Reference Numismatic references for the object. Mint Mark Mint City (if known) Category Collection Category/Type: Ancient Sub-Category Place or source, i.e. “Greece: Macedon” *May vary with different Ancient Coins
Digitization
The ANA Money Museum has been working to digitize its collection in the Past
Perfect database for three years now. This database includes images, which are essential in coin identification. The digitization process was developed by the director and the collections manager, and is carried out by the collections manager, a technician, and two student assistants. Data entry is completed primarily by the technician and two student assistants. All images are taken by a photographer, who is hired and utilized by the ANA
(Mudd 2017). 113
The main technology used is a camera for high resolution images of the coins.
For paper money in the ANA’s collection, a scanner is used. High resolution images are stored in a separate database due to their size and linked to the Past Perfect entries (Mudd
2017).
The process for digitizing the ANA Money Museum’s collection has been to work through their collections one-at-a-time, starting with the American collection, followed by the World collection, and finishing with the Ancient collection. The first step for digitization is to review of the collection and its object accession numbers. Any issues with accession numbers are clarified prior to digitization. Once the cataloging is in order, the coins are photographed, their information is added to the database, and the images are linked to the database (Mudd 2017).
For the American and World collections, the process for the objects has been alphabetical; however, a new system will be used when addressing the Ancient collection. The average speed for digitization is 800-900 objects in a month; however, during a busy month, 300-400 objects may be digitized. It is expected that this project will be completed in the next ten years. There are no plans for additional digitization techniques; however, the museum would consider participation in a collaborative database in the future (Mudd 2017). 114
Access to the Collections
The ANA Money Museum collection is used and accessed primarily for educational and exhibition purposes, and occasionally for research as well. The collection is regularly used for educational purposes at ANA seminars, workshops, and conventions. A portion of the ANA Money Museum’s collection is also accessible online to ANA members. Once the entire collection is digitized, it will be accessible to ANA members (Mudd 2017).
Access to the collection is primarily by staff. The collection is kept in a vault, which requires a security code for access. Security is layered; select staff members have the code to the vault and these staff members provide access to additional staff when needed. For seminars and workshops, coins are under the surveillance of staff. Often counterfeit coins will be used at seminars when they are available in order to protect the originals (Mudd 2017).
The collection may also be accessed for research purposes. Research requests and appointments must be made in advance, and all researchers are accompanied by a staff member at all times. In addition to an appointment, in most cases, research is conducted in a separate room equipped with video cameras for security purpose.
Additionally, images of the objects being accessed may be taken before and after use.
During public access, security is heightened to ensure that coins are not stolen or switched with counterfeits (Mudd 2017). 115
Online Access to the Collections
The Past Perfect web version is used by the ANA Money Museum to update the online collections database. Most of the catalog information is accessible to users online.
The information that is not available online is donor name and information for individual objects and collections. The online collections database is accessible only to ANA members (Mudd 2017).
The images put up on the online database are selected by the photographer and are high resolution images. The search tags used for the online database were initially automatically generated by the Past Perfect system. At one point, the museum realized that nicknames and other numismatic jargon (i.e. “nickel” for a five-cent piece) were not included in this initial set of tags and additional tags were created and input. The online database and associated information was completed by the Director and the collections manager (Mudd 2017).
Outreach
The ANA Money Museum and its staff are involved with the ANA’a educational and public outreach efforts. The museum itself does not have an educatiol department.
Outreach mostly includes the annual convention, summer seminars and workshops, and talks. Summer seminars usually include one or two classes specific to ancient coins; however, ancient coin seminars are not in high demand and there are no future plans for expanding programming on ancient coins at this time (Mudd 2017). 116
The ANA has programs for young numismatists that encourage collecting and education in numismatics for collectors from ages 5-17. These programs include membership, projects that involve research and writing, and seminars designed specifically for youth (American Numismatic Association 2017f). The project for young numismatists that involves ancient coins is the “ANA David R. Cervin Ancient Coin
Project.” This project is designed to encourage young numismatists to learn about ancient coins and gives them the opportunity to earn ancient coins by writing papers and conducting research (American Numismatic Association 2017a, Mudd 2017).
As mentioned above, Douglas Mudd participates as the Director and Curator in the blog, “Tales from the Vault,” with the collections manager, Andy Dickes, and additionally instructs seminars on the collection (Mudd 2017).
Analysis
Overall, the ANA Money Museum is a notable example of proper collections care and planning for an Ancient coin collection. The collections policies described above meet many of the criteria discussed in Chapter 4. Additionally, as a numismatic-specific museum, its collections care can be used as a resource since the collection is comprised primarily of coins and paper money.
As discussed in Chapter 4, temperature and humidity are the primary environmental factors of concern for Ancient coin collections. These are the two factors that the ANA Money Museum monitors for its ancient and other coin collections. With 117
the collections vault, the museum can maintain a stable temperature and humidity for its collections. In addition, the museum consults a conservator when necessary, as suggested in Chapter 4.
Moreover, in terms of housing, each object is housed individually within drawers and cabinets, as suggested in Chapter 4. The ANA Money Museum uses acid-free paper envelopes as opposed to plastic envelopes, a choice made because the collection is actively used and accessed. Plastic envelopes often get brittle and break with use and access, which would require routine replacement, which is costly in time and effort
(Mudd 2017). As discussed in Chapter 4, many resources recommend plastic, but acid- free paper envelopes are just as effective.
Most importantly, the security employed by the museum regarding access is layered and requires a staff member with a secure code. Moreover, due to the nature of the museum’s objects, the museum takes the necessary precautions, including in-person monitoring of researchers, carefully controlled use of objects to protect its collection, and videotaping of public access to the collection to prevent theft. These are all very strong and effective security measures.
In sum, the ANA Money Museum has an approach to collections management that recognizes the value of the objects it cares for while making the collection accessible to the public via the web, public programming, and in-space access. The overall approach to collections management at the ANA Money Museum strongly balances its collections’ needs with the needs of the public, demonstrating stewardship of its 118
collections, including the Ancient collection, in ways that also recognize the unique educational characteristics of ancient coins and money. 119
Chapter 9: Harvard Art Museums
Chapter 9 will examine the second case study, the Harvard Art Museums (HAM).
This case study investigates the management of the museums’ Ancient coin collection.
The chapter includes a brief history of HAM and its collections, how the museums care for the Ancient coin collection, and the results of an interview with content expert
Jennifer Allen, the Director of Collections Management. Finally, an analysis of HAM’s collections care for the Ancient coin collection, in the context of the literature review outlined in earlier chapters, will be presented.
About Harvard Art Museums
HAM consists of three separate museums; the Fogg Museum, the Busch-
Reisinger Museum, and the Arthur M. Sackler Museum at Harvard University. Their mission is to “advance knowledge about and appreciation of art and art museums. The museums are committed to preserving, documenting, presenting, interpreting, and strengthening the collections and resources in their care” (HAM 2017c). Harvard
University was founded in 1636 by the Great and General Court of the Massachusetts
Bay Colony (Harvard 2017b).
HAM hold one of the largest art museum collections in the United States, compromised of approximately 250,000 objects, and is internationally renowned. The collection spans ancient times to the present day, and includes objects from the 120
Mediterranean, Americas, Asia, Europe, and North Africa, made across a variety of
medias (HAM 2017a).
The Fogg Museum was the first of the three museums founded. It opened in 1895
as a museum and teaching facility designed specifically for the specialized training of museum professionals, art scholars, and conservators. Its early collection initially consisted of plaster casts and photographs. Today, the museum’s collection consists of
Western paintings, sculpture, decorative arts, photographs, prints, and drawings from the
Middle Ages to the present (HAM 2017b).
The Busch-Reisinger Museum was founded in 1901 as a “Germanic Museum” with a focus in central and northern European art from German-speaking countries. Its current collection encompasses late-medieval sculpture and eighteenth-century art, which includes works of Austrian secession art, German expressionism, 1920s abstraction, materials related to the Bauhaus, and postwar and contemporary art from German speaking Europe (HAM 2017b).
The Arthur M. Sackler Museum was founded in 1985 to house Harvard
University’s collections of Asian, ancient, Islamic and Indian art, including its Ancient coin collection. Prior to the development of the museum and current building, the collection was housed in the Fogg Museum (Allen 2017; HAM 2017b).
In November 2016, the museums opened a new facility that brought all three museums and their collections under the same roof, although they continue to maintain their separate identities. The new facility is LEED Gold certified for its green initiative, 121
including the installation of energy efficient LED bulbs and an innovative water conservation system. The expansion was a six year-long building project that resulted in
40% more gallery space and the expansion of the Art Study Center, conservation labs, and classrooms (HAM 2017b).
The renovation resulted in 30,000 square feet of new storage space and prompted a complete inventory to be taken of all three museum collections, a rehousing project of the collections, and work on a new electronic cataloging system (Allen 2017). The museum also developed a new security system in-house, which included assigning bar codes to each object for tracking purposes; scan-able employee cards for controlled access; security cameras triggered by security access; and a policy for checking staff and visitor bags when leaving the storage area (Allen 2017). With the new single facility, all three museum collections are stored together in the same space. In addition to a new space, the move also prompted the development of a Collections Management department to oversee the museums’ collections, currently headed by Jennifer Allen
(Allen 2017).
Jennifer Allen is the Director of Collections Management for Harvard Art
Museum, and has been with the institution for seventeen years. She oversees six units of the museums: the Art Study Center; registration departments for collections, exhibitions, and loans; collections administration; the campus lending program; exhibition design and production; and collections care (HAM 2017d). 122
Management of the Ancient Coin Collection
Collecting
The HAM Arthur M. Sackler museum has an Ancient coin collection of
approximately 22,000-25,000 objects, which is still being added to each year under
direction of the curator, Carmen Arnold-Biucchi, through acquisitions, along with gifts
and donations (Allen 2017).
HAM currently has one Collections Management Policy (CMP) governing its collections. Although each museum still distinguishes its individual collection, the collections are housed together in the new facility, and therefore, overseen and governed by one policy and department. Currently, the CMP is undergoing review and is being updated due to changes since the renovation and is not currently accessible to the public
(Allen 2017).
Storage and Housing
Due to the recent renovation, the entire Ancient coin collection was inventoried and rehoused. The coins are housed individually in plastic trays, which are then stored in metal cabinets. All materials are tested for environmental hazards before being used.
Currently the coins are organized by mint (Allen 2017). Although HAM has an off-site storage facility, the coins are housed on-site because they are high-risk objects for theft and the collection is best stored altogether in a permanent, easily accessible space. Each coin also has a bar code associated with it for tracking purposes within the institution, 123
which was part of the new security system implemented with the renovation. Ancient coins compromise most the numismatic collection and all are stored using the same methods (Allen 2017).
Care
Care for the Ancient coin collection is provided routinely. Conservation labs are located in the newly renovated facility and the conservation department is consulted regarding all conservation needs for the collections. During the move, relative humidity
(RH) was an environmental concern regarding storage of the coins and collections.
However, it was ultimately decided that a low RH would be too costly and difficult to maintain. The collections facility currently maintains a temperature of 70 plus or minus 2 degrees (Allen 2017).
Collections staff wear plastic gloves when handling the coins and when they are used for educational purposes. Curatorial staff does not always wear gloves when handling the coins, in order to experience the texture of the coins. The conservation staff has approved this action. Handling is significantly reduced using the plastic trays, which allows coins to be viewed with minimal handling (Allen 2017). 124
Cataloging
HAM had a cataloging system made in-house during the renovation and as part of efforts to digitize their collections. For Ancient coins, the catalog information provided online is broken into seven sections, which is outlined in Table 9.1 below. 125
Table 9.1 HAM Online Object Record for Ancient Coins (Based on Harvard Art Museums’ Collections Website, Harvard 2017b.)
Section Title Catalog Information Identification and Creation Object Number. People (issuer or authority for coins). Title of object. Classification (object type). Work Type. Date. Places (places are specified, e.g. creation place). Period. Culture.
Physical Descriptions Medium (material). Metal. Technique. Dimensions (weight of coin). Die Axis. Denomination. Inscriptions and Marks (specified for obverse and reverse).
Provenance Provenance description.
State, Edition, Standard Specifies which number is provided. Reference Number Acquisition and Rights Credit Line. Accession Year. Object Number. Division of the museums. Contact information for the division followed by image copyright use and access information.
Descriptions Detailed description of obverse and reverse side of the coin.
Subjects and Contexts Collection highlights (when present). 126
As reflected in the table above, the catalog information available online is detailed, thorough, and transparent. This information was established using numismatic resources. The design of the web pages distinguishes each section, making it clear and readable. Some information is withheld from the public, such as in-house notes and sensitive donor information. Images available on the website were taken during the renovation inventory and were approved by the staff as they were taken during the process (Allen 2017).
Digitization
HAM had a digitization program developed in-house specifically for the needs of the collections. This program no longer exists; once the project was completed, the system was retired because it was no longer needed and became obsolete. All its ancient coins have been digitized. For digitization of the coins, this program included weighing each coin and taking pictures of the obverse and reverse sides of the coins (Allen 2017).
Once pictures were taken, a program was written in-house to merge the two photos together and add a digital measurement on the side. The coin digitization process began in 2004 and took between one and one-and-a-half years to complete. Staff were hired to work specifically with the inventory program, no interns or fellows were used.
Initially, a professional photographer was brought in for the digitization, and eventually the inventory staff were trained to take over. Currently, no 3D scanning of the coins or the collections is planned (Allen 2017). 127
Access to the Collections
Access to the ancient coins is granted upon request or takes place through educational programming. Security measures are taken when the coins are accessed, which includes photographs taken before and after use (Allen 2017).
As part of Harvard University, an educational institution, the collection is frequently used for educational purposes and programming. As the mission of the museum reflects, educational programming is an important aspect of all parts of the institutions, including the collections. Accordingly, the Ancient coin collection is regularly accessed by classes for teaching purposes. HAM additionally hold a lecture about the Ancient coin collection every fall, which is given by the Damarete Curator of
Ancient Coins, Carmen Arnold-Biucchi. The Materials Lab in the museums also uses the coins occasionally when they are applicable to its programming (Allen 2017).
Online Access to the Collections
The Harvard Art Museums’ collections are completely digitized and accessible to the public online (HAM 2016a). Images are provided for most objects and all Ancient coins are in the online collections. Coin images provided include a merged image of the obverse and reverse sides with a digital ruler to the right, and for some coins, individual obverse and reverse images (HAM 2016a). The online access also provides contact information for direct departments, making access to information and research help readily available. Most information is included in the online database. Specific fields 128
may not be included for security and privacy purposes; these fields were determined by
the Division of Information and Emerging Technology (DIET) in consultation with the
Curatorial division. Search tags were also developed by DIET, which included the
database administrator, the head of web infrastructure, TMS administrator, and the
curatorial division (Allen 2017).
Outreach
As part of a teaching institution, HAM’s educational programming is focused on both academic and public audiences. This includes the Art Study Center and research centers, as well as a Materials Lab and Conservation Lab on site, which are involved in the training of future professionals and for instructional purposes. The Collections
Division directly oversees the Art Study Center; however, Collections staff are not directly involved with the outreach, which is overseen by Academic and Public Programs
(Allen 2017). The museums’ collections are also routinely accessed by university classes. The Ancient coin collection is not regularly included in the programming and outreach of the museums aside from classes, except for the annual lecture mentioned above. The collections database is also accessible for use through HarvardX, the university’s free online courses website, which utilizes all of Harvard’s digital assets.
HarvardX is also shared with other universities around the world (Allen 2017, Harvard
2017a). 129
Analysis
In its efforts to make the collections accessible digitally, HAM, with the new renovations, has employed notable 21st century standards to care for its collections. Its mission, staff size, and structure also reflect its dedication to caring for its collections.
HAM take a “best practices” approach to caring for its Ancient coin collection, one that supports use of the collection, both to the museums and their parent institution.
As discussed in the literature review in Chapter 4, museums today emphasize monitoring temperature and humidity, as part of collections care and work, to maintain sector-wide standards in collections. Such conditions are monitored for the Ancient coin collection. In addition, gloves are worn as much as possible when handling the coins and access is strictly monitored. Moreover, on-site conservation labs ensure that consultation for best practice is readily available.
Furthermore, in terms of the housing of the Ancient coin collection, each coin is housed individually in a plastic tray, which increases ease of access and minimizes handling of individual coins. The trays allow for coins to be observed without handling and isolate coins from one another, which prevents the spreading of patina or any other conservation concerns among the objects.
Most importantly, the museum employs strict security measures, which reduces the risk of theft. General security measures include video camera surveillance and checking of bags when leaving the collections facility. Additionally, when the Ancient coins are accessed, photos are taken before and after of the tray to ensure the coin was not 130
stolen (Allen 2017). This specifically addresses the nature of Ancient coins as small portable, valuable objects.
Finally, HAM have also created strong public access policies to the Ancient coin collection. HAM make the contact information for all objects, as well as the governing department, easily accessible and included with each entry on their web page, which facilitates access to the collection and makes information on the collection readily available.
In conclusion, the Harvard Art Museums have a strong approach to collections care and management that addresses the educational value of its Ancient coin collection.
The overall approach in managing the Ancient coin collection seems to be focused on security and access, both for museum staff and educational purposes. HAM have taken great strides recently to make the collection completely accessible to the public online, which is a clear expression of stewardship and the recognition of its collection’s educational value. 131
Chapter 10: The J. Paul Getty Museum
Chapter 10 will examine the management and care of the Ancient coin collection
at the J. Paul Getty Museum, referred to here as the Getty Museum. First, a brief history of the Getty Museum and its collection will be presented, followed by a review of the collections management policies for the Ancient coin collection and the results of an interview with content expert, Judith Barr, a curatorial assistant at the Getty Villa.
Lastly, an analysis of the Getty Museum’s collections care for its Ancient coin collection will be presented. It should be noted that at the time of the interview, the coin gallery was undergoing reconstruction and the Ancient coin collection was not currently on display, except for select objects that were incorporated into other exhibits.
About the J. Paul Getty Museum
The Getty Museum and its collection were founded by J. Paul Getty, a businessman, philanthropist, and art collector. The current mission statement of the J.
Paul Getty Museum is, “The J. Paul Getty Museum seeks to inspire curiosity about, and enjoyment and understanding of, the visual arts by collecting, conserving, exhibiting and interpreting works of art of outstanding quality and historical importance” (The J. Paul
Getty Trust 2017a). The current mission statement of the J. Paul Getty Trust, the parent organization of the Getty Museum, is:
The J. Paul Getty Trust is a cultural and philanthropic institution dedicated to the presentation, conservation, and interpretation of the world’s artistic legacy. Through the collective and individual work of its constituent programs—the Getty 132
Conservation Institute, the Getty Foundation, the J. Paul Getty Museum, and the Getty Research Institute—the Getty Trust pursues its mission in Los Angeles and throughout the world, serving both the general interested public and a wide range of professional communities in order to promote a vital civil society through an understanding of the visual arts (The J. Paul Getty Trust 2017c).
The J. Paul Getty Museum currently has two locations: the Getty Center in Los Angeles and the Getty Villa in Malibu, California.
In 1945, Mr. Getty purchased a home located on 64 acres of land in Malibu,
California, which he expanded to house his growing art collection. In 1954, Mr. Getty opened the J. Paul Getty Museum in his “Ranch House” to share his art with the public.
Mr. Getty believed that art should be available to the public for educational and enjoyable experiences. Fourteen years later, Mr. Getty began plans to build a Roman-style villa, modeled after the Villa dei Papiri at Herculaneum, on the Malibu site, and ground was broken on this project in 1970. The new building became the home of the J. Paul Getty
Museum from 1974 to 1997 and became a cultural landmark of Los Angeles (The J. Paul
Getty Trust 2006).
Mr. Getty passed away in 1976, and in 1982, most of his personal estate was passed to the J. Paul Getty Trust. The trustees wanted to expand the collection and further the Trust’s contribution to the visual arts through a variety of new programs, which included the development of the Getty Center in Los Angeles, which would bring together the J. Paul Getty Museum, along with the Getty Conservation Institute, the Getty
Foundation, and the Getty Research Institute. Plans for the Getty Center began in the mid-1980s and it opened in 1997, and it remains the current home of the J. Paul Getty 133
Museum and its collection. Today, the Getty Trust is the world’s largest cultural and philanthropic institution of the visual arts (The J. Paul Getty Trust 2006, 2017b).
In 1995, the Getty Trust introduced a new mission for the Getty Villa, “as a center devoted to the display, conservation, and interpretation of ancient art in the broadest sense and as a branch of the Getty Trust that promotes deeper understanding of, and critical appreciation for, comparative archaeology and culture” (The J. Paul Getty Trust
2017b). Following this announcement, the Getty Villa closed for renovations in 1997.
These renovations included adding new parking, an entry pavilion, and a classical outdoor theatre, as well as installing windows and skylights in the upper galleries.
Additionally, a Master’s Program on the Conservation of Ethnographic and
Archaeological Materials, in cooperation with the University of California, Los Angeles is now hosted there. The Getty Villa reopened in January 2006, and is where the Ancient coin collection is currently housed (The J. Paul Getty Trust 2017b).
Management of the Ancient Coin Collection
Collecting
The Getty Museum has a collection of just over 8,700 ancient coins. Currently, the museum is adding passively to the Ancient coin collection through donations and selective purchases. The most recent acquisition was the purchase of two ancient coins in
2015 by the Trust. A collection management policy (CMP) for the Getty Museum is publicly available online (Garth 2017). 134
Storage and Housing
The coins are housed in two ways at the Getty Museum; the primary way is in an
individual slot in a plastic shelf within a larger unit protected by ethafoam to minimize
movement. The other method is storage in individual ethafoam cutouts within a plastic
box or in polyethylene envelopes in a plastic tray. Both the plastic shelves and the plastic
boxes are stored in metal cabinets in a temperature controlled room. This room is used to
store all metal objects in the collection and a relative humidity (RH) of 30% is
maintained in this space.
The Ancient coin collection is stored in similar conditions to other ancient metal
objects, with a lower temperature and a RH of 30%. The lower RH is maintained for
ancient coins rather than Historic metals, which are more stable and can be stored in the
standard condition with 50% RH. There are no different procedures in place for
managing struck vs. cast coins either, as once in the collection, coins are stored in stable
conditions, which reduces deterioration for all types of coinage. Currently, the Ancient
coin collection is the only numismatic or coin collection stored at the Getty Villa. Other coins in the Getty Museum’s collection are stored throughout other departments at the
Getty Center (Garth 2017).
Care
In caring for the ancient coins, the Getty Museum primarily tracks temperature and humidity, similarly to the other metals in the collection at the Getty Villa. The Getty 135
Museum recognizes that ancient coins may have differing stabilities due to their archaeological histories and the differing conditions that the coins may have undergone prior to acquisition. Unless there is a conservation issue with a coin, all coins at the
Getty Villa are stored using the same methods (Garth 2017).
Regarding conservation, improper storage has been the largest concern for the
Getty’s collection. Prior to the current storage methods discussed above, the coins were stored in wooden cabinets, primarily oak cabinets. These cabinets were identified as a conservation risk because they emitted organic acids and the potential for mold to develop on the wood. It became a priority to rehouse the ancient coins into plastic and metal storage units. The rehousing was carried out 25 years ago. All materials currently used by the Getty Museum are archival materials that are safe for the collection.
Furthermore, deterioration issues are noted when possible and addressed by a conservation team as needed (Garth 2017).
Cataloging
The Getty Museum uses Gallery System’s TMS software with an in-house designed cataloging system. This cataloging system was developed for the entire J. Paul
Getty collection and is designed to be flexible and to fit all objects in the collection. The basic cataloging data includes tombstone data and a description, as well as parallel references when available. Currently, museum staff are working to add provenance and bibliographic data to their catalog information on the ancient coins (Garth 2017). 136
Museum registrars are responsible for cataloging information and set the policies for the cataloging system. The content in the system was developed in conjunction with the Collections Information and Access department. Currently, the Getty Museum is working on updating all the fields for every object in the collection, which is a highly- involved process. This process includes the standardization of terminologies in the cataloging system and, in the future, linking to the Getty Museum vocabularies. There are syntax guides used across all museum departments (Garth 2017).
The online cataloging information for the Getty’s Ancient coin collection is outlined in Table 10.1 below. This information appears below the image space. Images are not yet available for all coins (J. Paul Getty 2016a). 137
Table 10.1 The Getty Museum Online Object Record for Ancient Coins (Based on the Getty Museum’s Collection Website, J. Paul Getty 2016a.) Object Details Title Artist/Maker Culture Place (Place Created, Place Found, etc.) Date Medium Dimensions Credit Line Alternate Title Object Type Object Number Additional Information Related Works (Some or all may be displayed on the Provenance object’s collection page.) Exhibitions Bibliography
The catalog information presented online was chosen based on collaboration between the Curatorial, Registration, Collections, and Public Access departments. The
Curatorial department are the staff who record the catalog information into the program.
As mentioned above, the priority for cataloging is updating the provenance and bibliographic information, which includes ongoing research being carried out by the
Curatorial department. Elements of the cataloging system that are unavailable to the public are curatorial notes and donors who have requested to remain anonymous (Garth
2017). All other information is available through the online catalog. The images made available online are determined by the Photography and Curatorial departments and usually consist of the best available image of the object. There has not yet been a tagging 138
system put in place for the online search catalog. The input fields are indexed for searching and can be used if further details are required (Garth 2017).
Digitization
The Getty Museum has begun the digitization process for the Ancient coin collection, however not all images have been completed and some of the images are outdated. As part of its process, the Getty Museum focuses primarily on taking images of coins that had no previous images in their catalogs or files, and has been using any previous photos that had been taken for various purposes, such as exhibition and publication, or previous collections work.
Photography protocols and standards were developed for the coins based on discussion between the photographers from Imaging Services and the curatorial department. These standards are used for other objects as well, but the processing of the images can vary based on intended use for the photos. Some of the uses includes images for in-gallery iPads and Curatorial uses, as well as online collections use. The process for the ongoing Online Scholarly Catalogue Initiative (OSCI) at the Getty Museum that deals with the Ancient coin collection has included shooting new photographs and the scanning of old photographs and images (Garth 2017).
Currently there are no additional plans to 3D scan the Ancient coin collection at the Getty, however 3D scanning or re-creation using auto cad and phone applications is allowed by visitors to the museum (Garth 2017). 139
Access to the Collection
The coin collection can be accessed through a request submitted via email, which can be found on the Getty’s website (The J. Paul Getty Trust. 2017a; Garth 2017). There is no specific policy on access to the coins, however the collection is only available for academic study and not for public access. Access to facilities are secure; guests are escorted by staff and gloves are worn at all times when handling objects. The coins are considered cultural/artistic objects by the museum and so they are shown the same care as all other cultural/artistic objects (Garth 2017).
Online Access to Collections
The Getty Museum’s collection is accessible to the public through the Getty
Museum’s website. As discussed above, the Ancient coin collection has not yet been fully digitized, however the staff are working to complete the digitization. Once it is complete, the entire collection will be available through the online collections site (Garth
2017).
For the objects on the collections website, all catalog information is available except for donor information. Additionally, high resolution images of both the obverse and reverse images are available for download. Digital media through the organization is allowing the public to use high resolution images to better study coins and smaller objects, especially those selected by curators for display (Garth 2017). 140
Lastly, the Getty Museum would be interested in participation in a cooperative database depending on its context and purpose. Currently, the Getty Museum is already participating in a digital image database, the International Image Interoperability
Framework (IIF), discussed in Chapter 6, and a shared database through the American
Numismatic Society (ANS) (Garth 2017).
Outreach
Currently there are no specific outreach programs focused on the Ancient coin collection. When applicable, coins may be used to support other programs. There are no plans to focus outreach on the coins; however, it is a possibility for the future, as the chief curator is a numismatist (Garth 2017).
Analysis
The Getty Museum is notable for its collections care and conservation efforts.
The closely related research and conservation facilities aid in the museum taking optimal care of its Ancient coin collection. Additionally, the current digitization project and participation and development of online catalogs and image databases shows a strong dedication to making the collection as accessible as possible to both the public and for scholarly pursuits.
As discussed in the literature review in Chapter 4, the Getty Museum follows best practices policies for storing its ancient coins in conditions with an RH of 30% and at a 141
low temperature. This standard is maintained for all metals and is closely monitored. In addition, gloves are worn at all times when handling the ancient coins and are readily accessible in the collections areas. Lastly, onsite conservators allow for consultations to take place readily when an issue arises.
Furthermore, in terms of housing, the Getty Museum has recently sought to improve the storage of the ancient coins from moving them out of wooden cabinets and into plastic and metal storage cabinets to better protect the coins. Additionally, the storage methods, plastic flips, drawers, and boxes allows for access to the coins with reduced handling. These storage practices also ensure that conservation issues can be spotted more readily upon basic review of the objects.
Most importantly, reduced access to the physical collection through the development of digital resources and security measures ensures the continued safety of the collection. The digital resources currently being developed through the Getty
Museum continue to make digital access more thorough, balancing out public and scholarly access to the coins and reduced handling. These digital resources and participation in the IIIF and ANS database also raise public awareness of the collection.
The emphasis on provenance and its inclusion with research information in the online catalog further strengthens the online exhibition of the Ancient coin collection and demonstrates the institution’s commitment to transparency.
In conclusion, the Getty Museum has a strong, standardized approach to its collections care and management of its ancient coins. Although the digitization and 142
catalog update is a lengthy process, the continued work in this area will ultimately result in a strong digital presence. Currently, it seems like the approach to managing the collection is focused on the ability to study and access the coins for academic pursuits, which is in strong support of the J. Paul Getty Trust’s mission. The future online catalog and images that will be made available as the process continues will build the presence of the Getty’s Ancient coin collection, and will, no doubt, serve as a strong example for online databases. 143
Chapter 11: The Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection
Chapter 11 examines the National Numismatic Collection (NNC) housed at the
Smithsonian National Museum of American History (NMAH). This case study
investigates the Smithsonian Institution’s management of its Ancient coin collection, the
methods used to care for the collection, and current projects regarding the collection. The
chapter will include a brief history on the NNC, the NMAH, and the Smithsonian. The
chapter will also present the result of an interview with three content experts: Hillery
York, the Collection’s Manager of the NNC; Jennifer Gloede, the Outreach and
Collections Specialist for the NNC; and Emily Pearce Seigerman, a Museum Specialist
for the NNC. Lastly, the chapter will provide an analysis of the NNC’s collections care
regarding its Ancient coin collection.
About the Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection
The Smithsonian Institution was originally founded under the last will and
testament of James Smithson, a British scientist in 1835. Smithson named his nephew as his beneficiary, stipulating that should his nephew die without heirs, the estate should go to “the United States of America to found at Washington, under name of the Smithsonian
Institution, an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men”
(Smithsonian Institution 2017a). Smithson died in 1828 having never traveled to the
United States, and his nephew died six years later in 1835 without heirs. As per
Smithson’s wishes in his will and testament, his estate was bequeathed to the United 144
States. In 1835, President Andrew Jackson revealed the bequest to Congress and on July
1, 1836, Congress accepted the bequest and “pledged the faith of the United States to the
charitable trust” (Smithsonian 2017a). Smithson’s legacy of approximately 100,000 gold
sovereigns was delivered to the Philadelphia mint in 1838 and re-coined into U.S. currency, and amounted to over $500,000. Eight years later, after heated debate, the
Smithsonian Institution was established on August 10, 1846 in an Act of Congress, 9
Stat. 102, signed by President James K. Polk. The institution was to be a trust administered by a Board of Regents and a Secretary of the Smithsonian (Smithsonian
2017a).
Today, the mission of the Smithsonian remains the same as established in
Smithson’s will; “the Institution was founded in 1846 with funds from the Englishman
James Smithson (1756-1829) according to his wishes ‘under the name of the Smithsonian
Institution, an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men”
(Smithsonian 2017b). The vision of the Smithsonian is, “Shaping the future by preserving our heritage, discovering new knowledge, and sharing our resources with the world” (Smithsonian 2017b). Additionally, the Smithsonian states its Values to be discovery, creativity, excellence, diversity, integrity, and service. Its Priorities are broadening access, revitalizing education, crossing boundaries, strengthening collections, organizational excellence, and measuring performance. Finally, it lists its Grand
Challenges as unlocking the mysteries of the universe, understanding and sustaining a 145
biodiverse planet, valuing world cultures, and understanding the American experience
(Smithsonian 2017b).
The Smithsonian Institution’s collections are currently made up of approximately
154 million artifacts, works of art, and specimens (145 million of these are held at the
National Museum of Natural History); 10 million digital records accessible through the
Collections Search Center; 2 million library volumes held by the Smithsonian Libraries; and 156,830 cubic feet of archival material stored at the Archives across the Smithsonian
(Smithsonian 2017c).
As mentioned above, the NNC is housed at the NMAH in Washington, D.C. The mission of the NMAH is, “Through incomparable collections, rigorous research, and dynamic public outreach, we explore the infinite richness and complexity of American history. We help people fully understand the past in order to make sense of the present and shape a more humane future” (Smithsonian NMAH 2017b). The NMAH incorporates exhibitions featuring major themes of American History, a full roster of public programs, an Archives Center, and an active online presence that includes online exhibitions and behind-the-scenes glimpses, all in accordance with the museum’s mission
(Smithsonian NMAH 2017b).
The NMAH opened in January 1964, as the Museum of History and Technology, and was the sixth Smithsonian building on the National Mall. President Dwight D.
Eisenhower signed the bill authorizing $36 million for the museum on June 28, 1955, and the groundbreaking took place on August 22, 1958. The building’s location on the 146
National Mall makes it a National Historic Landmark. The building was also one of the last buildings designed by the renowned architectural firm of Me Kim, Mead, and White, also making it eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places
(Smithsonian NMAH 2017b). The museum’s name was officially changed to the
National Museum of American History in 1980 to better represent its mission, and in
2008, a two-year renovation costing $85 million was completed. The renovation focused on architectural enhancements to the center core of the building, including a grand staircase and skylight, construction of the new Star-Spangled Banner Gallery, and enhancements to the building’s infrastructure. The renovation dramatically transformed the “building’s architectural appeal while reorganizing and renewing the presentation of its extensive collections” (Smithsonian NMAH 2017b). The museum is continuing to transform with a new renovation project that is focused on renewing the building’s exhibition wing (Smithsonian NMAH 2017b).
The NNC is comprised of 1.6 million objects (26,900 ancient coins) and is considered the largest collection of money in the world. The collection spans over three millennia of monetary history. Objects in the collection include Mesopotamian tablets, coins, paper money, medals, commodity and alternative currencies, coin dies, printing plates, scales and weights, credit cards, and many other objects related to the history of money. The collection is also the U.S. monetary system’s collection of record and incorporates the collections of the U.S. Mint, Treasury, and Bureau of Engraving and
Printing (NNC 2017b). 147
In 2016, the NNC carried out a general assessment of its Ancient coin collection and counted about 26,900 ancient coins. The assessment was carried out by Christian
Cloke, a Smithsonian Intern; Andrew Burnett, Former Deputy Director at the British
Museum; Emily Pearce Seigerman, a Museum Specialist; and Jennifer Gloede, the
Outreach and Collections Specialist. Below is a table (Table 11.1) adapted from the report reflecting the count of ancient coins in the collection (NNC 2016).
Table 11.1. The Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection Ancient Coins Count (Based on the NNC Overview Report)
Gold Silver Bronze Unsorted/Mixed Totals
Greek 131 4,775 15,999 N/A 20,905
Roman 217 2,093 3,609 148 6,067
In the overview provided online, the Greek coins include Greek city coinage during the
Roman period, which partially accounts for the significantly larger number of Greek coins in the inventory. In the Greek coinage, Italy and Sicily are well-represented regions with many silver tetradrachms of Messana; additionally, the north-eastern Balkans from the Roman Imperial period is a strength of the collection. Bronze provincial and city coinage from modern-day Turkey also make up a large part of the Greek collection (NNC
2016). Strengths of the Roman collection include a series of gold aurei representing nearly every emperor, two coin hoards, and a collection of Roman Republican coins.
There is also a significant number of bronze and debased silver coins from Egypt in the 148
Roman provincial coinage. Finally, the collection also features a significant number of forgeries of the early Imperial period made by Giovani Cavino in the Renaissance and
Carl Wilhelm Becker in the 19th century, (NNC 2016).
In August 2017, Hillery York, the Collections Manager for the NNC, as well as
Jennifer Gloede and Emily Pearce Seigerman were interviewed via video chat. All three staff members have been with the collection for about four years now, and were brought on for new projects and management initiatives for the NNC.
Management of the Ancient Coin Collection
Collecting
The NNC has an Ancient coin collection of approximately 26,900 coins; 20,905
Greek coins and 6,067 Roman coins. Presently, the Smithsonian is still adding to its collection, but not actively. Additions are made primarily through gifts and donations, as there is not a significant amount of funding for purchases, and all new acquisitions must have a proven provenance before being accessioned (York et al. 2017).
The NMAH has an older collections management policy (CMP) that predates current staff, which is not accessible online. The current staff members hope to develop an updated CMP within the next couple of years that will complement the larger institution. A collecting plan for the NNC may also be developed (York et al. 2017). 149
Storage and Housing
All the NNC’s coins, including the ancient coins, are stored individually in small boxes that provide space to write the ID information inside the box and cataloging information on the backside of the box. These boxes are all made of archival materials and were custom-designed with Hollinger Metal Edge for the NNC. Previously, the coins were housed in cardboard boxes; however, the collection was able to be rehoused recently with a grant. The boxes are stored in metal shelves, which are in metal cabinets
(York et al. 2017).
All coins and medals are stored in the same conditions at the NNC. Temperature and relative humidity (RH) in the storage vault is kept as low as possible. The building in which the collection is housed is equipped with an HVAC system that is contemporary with the building (York et al. 2017).
Care
Currently, there is no routine for reviewing the state of the Ancient coin collection. Recent rehousing, collections care, and digitization projects, have insured that the collection has been reviewed. The primary environmental factors tracked for all coins in the collection are temperature and humidity. The focus of conservation in the storage vault is maintaining stable temperature and humidity conditions, as fluctuation in either factor could cause deterioration. Gloves are worn when handling the objects as well
(Yorket al. 2017). 150
The major conservation issue that has been seen with the Ancient coin collection,
and coin collection, is the presence of wax on the coins from a prior exhibition method that used wax to fasten the coins. This issue is currently being treated by conservators using grant funding. For ancient coins, standard corrosion and Bronze disease is also
seen in the collection; however, it is all inactive at this point in time. The NNC staff addresses conservation issues primarily using grant funding as received. There is also a conservation department in the building that the collection is housed in, making conservators accessible for consultation when it is required (York et al. 2017).
Cataloging
The Smithsonian Institution uses the Multi Mimsy XG collections management software. The cataloging information provided online for the NMAH Collection is outlined in Table 11.2 below. 151
Table 11.2 NMAH Catalog Information for Ancient Coins (Based on NMAH Collections Website, Smithsonian NMAH 2017a.) Section Title Catalog Information Title Count, Denomination, Location, Date Description Discussion of the coin, its origins, who designed it, questions it raises, how it can relate to American history, etc. Date Made Approximate date made is listed. Maker Listed, if known. If unknown, the city or region is listed. Place Made Modem country: Modern province, ancient region. Physical Description Material Measurements Overall: Diameter in millimeters, Weight in grams ID Number ID Number Accession Number Accession Number Catalog Number Catalog Number Credit Line Credit line as known for object. See More Items In List of collections that the object is a part of. Exhibition List of exhibitions the object is a part of. Exhibition Location Institution the exhibit listed above is located at. Data Source Location where the catalog information is sourced from.
Images of the obverse and reverse sides of each coin are provided below the title at the top of each page. Also, at the bottom of the page is a comments section for visitors 152
to submit comments or questions about the object that they may wish to share with the community. Comments may be selected to appear on the object’s catalog page and may receive a museum response, although it is not guaranteed (Smithsonian NMAH 2017a).
The basic information for the catalog is designed for identification of the coins in case of an incident. Curators can add additional information, such as label text as well (York et al. 2017).
There are previous numismatic references in the catalog, but these have not been recently updated. There is a plan to update numismatic references in the near future.
Images are not yet fully included in the database for the Ancient coin collection (York et al. 2017).
Digitization
There is an ongoing digitization project by the current staff that is based on the availability of funding and grants. The goal of the project is to digitize the NNC’s entire collection of 1.6 million objects. As noted above, the ancient coins have not yet been digitized. The American collection was the first that was digitized, aligning with the mission of the NMAH, and recently, the NNC received a grant to digitize the East Asian collection (York et al. 2017).
The current process for digitizing the collection will be used for the ancient coins in the future. Three pictures of each coin are taken: an identification shot with the catalog number in it, an obverse image, and a reverse image. A fourth picture of the rim 153
might be taken if there is anything significant about it. All images are taken primarily by
Emily Pearce Seigermen, and Hillery York and Jennifer Gloede assist her as needed
(York et al. 2017).
The technology being used for digitization is a copy scanner, a Canon EOS 5D
Mark IV DSLR camera with an EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM macro lens and a 24-
105MM f/4L II lens, and a camera stand. This is a permanent set up developed by the photography department of the NMAH and used only for the NNC (York et al. 2017).
The process is relatively slow going, as there is one staff member working to digitize 1.6 million objects with limited funding. It is estimated that the East Asian coins will be completed by December 2017. The photography and copyright policies are specific to the NMAH. Images are sent to the Registration office then to the Digital Media department at the NMAH, they are then sent to Eden and collections search, which is the greater Smithsonian Institution. There are some Smithsonian-wide policies in place as well, although most policies are NMAH (York et al. 2017).
Access to the Collections
As previously noted, the Ancient coin collection is not yet accessible online. The
Ancient coin collection has been previously published before by curators (mainly the
Roman coins) and Paparazzi Indo-Greek and Bactrian coins. Research and exhibition are the primary reasons the collection is accessed. About four years ago the new staff, including those interviewed as content experts for this thesis, were brought in to manage 154
the NNC (York et al. 2017). This team has been working as best they can with a goal to bring a new era of thinking to the collection derived from a new generation of staff trained in professional collections management. This includes bringing in more engagement and access to the collection, especially for research and publication purposes. The goal is to make the collection as accessible as possible on an international scale (York et al. 2017).
Within the last four years, the collection has once again become accessible for research. The process for accessing the collection is to contact staff through the website to set up an appointment. Prior to approval, staff will ask who prospective visitors are, what their research is what the research goal is, and what objects they want to see (York et al. 2017).
There is a secure space for researchers between the offices and the vault, and visitors are always escorted by a staff member, who answers questions during visits. A list of rules for access is reviewed by the escorting staff member and is also available on the website (York et al. 2017). These rules include the presentation of a photo ID upon arrival; that coats and bags must be left in the Outer Library and only pencils are allowed for notetaking (NNC 2017b). Gloves must be worn at all times when handling the objects; both cotton and nitrile gloves are available, and no metal tools are allowed to be used when studying the coins. Food and drink of any kind are also not permitted in the collections space or in any space, where an object is present (York et al. 2017). The
NNC provides tools in the research space, all of which are safe for the coins, such as 155
plastic calipers. Lastly, only one object can be viewed at a time, and a list of objects or types of objects must be provided before the visit (NNC 2017a). This policy creates a very secure, controlled environment (York et al. 2017).
Researchers are allowed to publish the coins, and the staff encourage publication as it raises the awareness of the Ancient coin collection. A form must be filled out if a researcher will be publishing any information or research using the collection. The NNC also permits photography of the coins by researchers, including images to be used for publication. Publishing a photograph requires an additional form. The NNC also provides professional photographs or “glamor shots” of the coins upon request. There is a charge for these “glamor shots,” and they are edited using layering by the photographer.
Often these shots are used for publications, such as in textbooks (York et al. 2017).
Online Access to the Collection
Although the ancient coins have not yet been digitized and images made accessible online, the policies for the current objects online will apply to the collection and will be discussed here. Catalog information is available online for select ancient coins. The goal of the staff is to make the collection fully accessible and to reach as many people as possible. Images selected for online use are those that present the most honest representation of the object. Typically these are unedited images, as the current focus for digitization is completing photographs of the entire collection (York et al.
2017). 156
For the objects of the NNC that are available through the online catalog, there is
an open and transparent policy. Personal information attached to an object may be
withheld, such as names or credit card numbers on modem objects. Search terms and
tags are developed through Eden and the Registration office. Typically, all catalog
information is searchable, although specific terms and tags are not applied. Searches can be narrowed down to numismatics, as well as featured object groupings. The grouping feature is pre-determined to speed up the search, i.e. “Athenian coins” (York et al. 2017).
In addition to the digitization plans, the NNC has already 3D scanned some of their coins through the Smithsonian’s Digitization Program. Five coins have been scanned, one from each theme. This included an Athenian tetradrachm, which was also
3D printed in an enlarged form in metal (York et al. 2017). This 3D printed copy is used for education and touch purposes, allowing visitors to feel the coin and observe the coin in a larger format. The Smithsonian recognizes that there are counterfeiting concerns with 3D printing of coins and they are sure to add “copy” to any 3D print files to better control the data (York et al. 2017).
The NNC staff would also consider participation in a cooperative numismatic database if given the opportunity and if the Smithsonian Institution supported participation. There is already talk of open-linked data, although no current plans are in progress. The staff is committed to making the collection accessible and are willing to consider any methods in which they may be able to achieve this goal (York et al. 2017). 157
Outreach
The collections staff write blogs and articles for the website as part of their outreach, and these sometimes include the Ancient coin collection. Additionally, the collections team assisted in developing an education cart with touchable objects, which may include ancient coins, but is not ancient-specific. Usually staff is available with the cart to answer questions about the collection. The collections staff is also available to the education department for consultation as needed, such as for the lesson plans developed for teachers. Currently, there are no additional outreach programs being planned, as future programs would require additional funding (York et al. 2017).
Analysis
The new initiatives being carried out by the NNC show efforts in improving the management of the Ancient coin collection, as well as raising the profile of the collection through research and digitization. The staffs emphasis on transparency and open-access policies demonstrate that the NNC is focused not only on the care and management of the
Ancient coin collection, but on its accessibility as well. The “new era of thinking” discussed by the three staff members during the interview is a strong demonstration of how the NNC is moving forward with the Ancient coin collection, as well as the entire numismatic collection.
The storage conditions maintained by the NNC align strongly with the conditions discussed in the literature review in Chapter 4. The emphasis on maintaining a stable 158
environment for the collection shows the staff is especially aware of the collection’s needs. Access to the conservation department is also a very strong element for the management of the collection, as it provides easy access in a conservation emergency.
The development of custom-made storage boxes for individual coins is both an exemplary practice, as deterioration cannot spread from one object to the other, and the availability of catalog information reduces the need for handling the object.
The security measures in place for access to the coins, and the focus on research, is also a strong practice. The publication of the rules on the institution’s website and the process for access is both user-friendly and thorough, ensuring that access to the objects is efficient. The use of a designated space for access, as well as providing object-safe tools for researchers, further establishes the thoroughness of the staff and the commitment to proper collections management.
In addition to the management of the coins, the digitization initiatives are strong, and the commitment to public access is excellent. The use of the education cart and consulting with the education department show inter-departmental participation and outreach efforts of the collections staff. The utilization of 3D printing to create objects that make ancient coins (and coins) more accessible to the public shows the staffs commitment to raising the profile of the collection. Furthermore, the allowance of researchers to have access to the collection and to publish the material represents the transparency and open-data policies that link the collection to academia and the public. 159
In conclusion, robust initiatives are being taken at the NNC regarding the Ancient coin collection. The overall approach of updating the management and storage methods, as well as the increase of access both in person and online, is a strong demonstration of their commitment to stewardship. The staff have been efficient in addressing the needs of the collection in recent years and in developing realistic plans and projects to complete their goals. 160
Chapter 12: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
“What better objects [than coins] to tell stories that help to make sense of our
world—those stories link the local to the global, the past to the present, connecting one
locality to another. They are stories of movement and change, of interaction and
engagement, stories that bring people together rather than push them apart” (Orna-
Ornstein 2011, 76).
This thesis investigates the management of Ancient coin collections in American
museums. As noted in the quote above, coins are invaluable objects that carry the stories
of past and present peoples with them. Ancient coin collections are comprised of the
earliest coins in history: coins that were actively used in ancient times, stamped by
issuing authorities, and preserve political, social, artistic, and historical elements of
ancient civilizations. The information they provide is unparalleled in its importance in
understanding the ancient world, and therefore, Ancient coin collections must receive the
appropriate care.
In this thesis, the care and management of Ancient coin collections was assessed by conducting an informal survey, and completing four case studies of the American
Numismatic Association Edward C. Rochette Money Museum (ANA Money Museum); the Harvard Art Museums (HAM); the Getty Museum; and the Smithsonian National
Numismatic Collection (NNC). As a result, an overview of current practices regarding how Ancient coin collections are managed in various types of American museums, 161
including numismatic museums, university museums, private art and history museums, and federal institutions was obtained.
This chapter will begin with an overview of the four case studies and an analysis of eight key themes that emerged from examining the management of Ancient coin collections. Following the presentation of key themes, five conclusions will be outlined: first, strong advocacy is required for Ancient coin collections in American museums; second, ancient coins require regular inspection and up-to-date storage methods; third, collections staff should receive proper training for Ancient coin collections; fourth, digitization and 3D technology is fundamental to the public accessibility of Ancient coin collections; and fifth, collections staff should consider utilizing blogging to connect audiences with Ancient coin collections to increase accessibility to these collections.
Finally, eight best practice recommendations for the management of Ancient coin collections will be presented, and the thesis will close with concluding remarks.
Discussion
As noted previously, four case studies were conducted, and each included an interview with content experts. The content experts were Douglas Mudd, Director and
Curator of the ANA Money Museum; Jennifer Allen, Director of Collections
Management at Harvard Art Museums; Judith Barr, Curatorial Assistant at the Getty
Villa (Getty Museum); and Hillery York, Collections Manager, Jennifer Gloede, 162
Outreach and Collections Specialist, and Emily Pearce Seigerman, Museum Specialist at
the NNC. Outlined below are the eight key themes identified from the case studies.
Collecting
The first theme identified concerned collecting policies and practices for the
Ancient coin collections. All four collections have collections management policies in
place and are accessible to museum staff. However, only the NMAH’s policy, which
governs the NNC, and the Getty Museum’s policies, are publicly accessible online. None of the institutions had policies that strictly covered their Ancient coin collections, but most of them addressed the acquisition and handling of archaeological objects, which
includes ancient coins. Both the Getty Museum and NMAH’s access policies indicates that they are transparent about their collecting and management of their collections.
While HAM did not have their policy accessible, they did have a collecting statement online for the public, indicating transparency.
All four institutions indicated that they were still growing their Ancient coin collections, although not by substantial numbers and mainly through gifts and donations.
The Getty Museum and HAM both add to their collections through selective purchases as well. These collecting policies indicate that there is limited interest in adding to and investing in Ancient coin collections, and that, as indicated by the Getty Museum, the emphasis is on adding coinage that holds significance or fills in gaps in the institution’s
Ancient coin collection. 163
Both the collecting policies and practices employed at all four institutions revealed that there is an awareness that ancient coins should be properly purchased and acquisitioned, but also that the institutions were not currently focused on adding actively to these collections.
Storage and Housing
The second key theme identified was the storage and housing practices of Ancient coin collections. All four institutions had different methods for storing ancient coins.
The ANA Money Museum used archival paper envelopes, HAM used plastic trays, the
Getty Museum used plastic shelving and archival boxes, and the NNC used custom-made archival boxes. All four institutions stored the individual housing in metal cabinets on site. Additionally, all other materials used for storage and housing was archival.
Moreover, all institutions made efforts to maintain a low temperature and RH for the collections space. Both HAM and the NNC recently updated their storage methods for the coins, and indicated that these were improvements on prior methods.
Overall, these are strong standards for storage techniques, especially the use of archival materials. Each institution also indicated that the coins were stored on-site for security purposes, as they are high-risk objects for theft. Each institution also expressed a lack of specific storage space for Ancient coin collections and indicated that they were either stored with other metal collections or in the general storage area. Although a lack 164
of storage space is common for all museum collections, there is an indication that these collections are not prioritized when it comes to storage and housing needs.
Care
While all four institutions did not regularly review the ancient coins in their collections, they noted that routine projects, loans, and exhibitions often lead to an inspection of the objects. In particular, all four noted that conservation issues, when seen, are immediately addressed. HAM, the Getty Museum, and the NNC all have conservation departments readily accessible to them, allowing for efficient consultation.
The ANA Money Museum indicated that conservation concerns that cannot be treated in- house are sent out to a professional conservator.
The policy regarding gloves varies, with each institution having their own policy.
All institutions except for the ANA Money Museum required that gloves be worn when handling the coins. The ANA Money Museum does not require gloves, as the use of cotton gloves may result in dropping the coin. HAM allows curators to handle the coins without gloves when they conclude it is required. In most institutions, plastic or nitrile gloves are used. None of the content experts indicated that cotton gloves were to be worn when handling silver coins, even though nitrile gloves can be damaging to silver coins.
These policies demonstrate a strong understanding of stewardship and an overall mindfulness of conservation requirements. The differentiation in the policies regarding requiring gloves to be worn reveals that there is no set standard practice among 165
institutions and that there may be a lack of training in proper conservation care for ancient coins.
Cataloging
Digital cataloging systems were in place for all four institutions. The ANA
Money Museum uses a Past Perfect database, HAM a custom-made database, the Getty
Museum TMS software with an in-house designed cataloging system, and the NNC the
Multi Mimsy XG software. The ANA Money Museum referenced numismatic resources when adapting the Past Perfect system for cataloging, while the others fit the numismatic information into their databases. HAM, the Getty Museum, and the NNC used a more standardized cataloging system, which was designed to meet the needs of their entire collection. While not all four institutions have images available for individual ancient coins, all of them are working on digitizing their collection and updating the catalog information.
For all institutions studied, the collections department and/or registration department and the curatorial departments are all involved in the digital cataloging process. For the Getty Museum, the Public Access department is included in the process as well. All four institutions included: Object ID numbers, date, origin and/or provenance, authority or ruler, material, weight and diameter, a physical description, and notes for collections managers and curators as necessary, such as exhibition history or 166
important information for an individual object. All institutions emphasized provenance and its establishment as being important to the catalog information.
Overall, the catalog systems were up-to-date and each presented a standard set of information for individual coins. The databases were accessible for education and research purposes and all of the necessary information was provided. The details and the inclusion of digital images signifies that these institutions are working to make their collections accessible to the public online and to provide sufficient information about them.
Digitization
All the institutions either have completed or are in the process of completing a digitization project for their Ancient coin collection except for the NNC, which is currently working on finding funding for digitizing their collection. In all cases, a professional photographer was brought in for consultation or was available through the photography department of the institution. There were a variety of staff members involved with these processes at each institution, with 1-4 staff members working to digitize the coins. Additionally, the availability of funding, especially at the Smithsonian, was an issue. HAM was the only institution to have completed the digitization process, which was part of an overall collections digitization project.
In discussing collaborative databases, all institutions expressed that they would be interested in participating, depending on the database and project. The Getty Museum is 167
already participating in a shared digital image database and a shared database through the
American Numismatic Society (ANS).
Regarding plans for 3D scanning of Ancient coin collections, the NNC has already 3D scanned and printed two ancient coins and five modern coins from their collection, and expressed the intention for further collection scanning. The ANA Money
Museum, HAM, and the Getty, on the other hand, indicated that currently there were no plans for 3D scanning of their Ancient coin collections.
All the institutions had strong digitization programs and protocols in place, with the NNC’s projects including other parts of their collection. However, there is a general lack of awareness in how technology can be used to benefit and increase the use of
Ancient coin collections in American museums.
Access to Collections
The main purposes for access to all four Ancient coin collections were education, research, and exhibition. Both the ANA Money Museum and HAM primarily use their collection for educational purposes. Both institutions use the coins for lectures, seminars, and workshops. On the other hand, the Getty Museum and the NNC only allow access to their collection for research purposes, which stresses the academic use of their collection.
For all institutions, access to the collection could be arranged via email request.
Security measures were in place, with secure rooms to access the collections. For the
ANA Money Museum, visitors are under video surveillance while accessing the 168
collections and only select staff members have the codes to the vault. HAM requires
escorted access in their collections space and a search of all bags before visitors are
allowed to leave the building. The Getty Museum has no clear policy for access to the collections, however visitors are escorted and have limited access to the collection at all times while visiting the institution.
The NNC has a separate room for access to the collection and visitors may only
see one object at a time; in addition, visitors are supervised the entire time, required to produce an ID, and are only allowed object-safe tools. In addition to research access, the
NNC allows researchers to publish and photograph the coins upon completion of an additional form. The access policies to the collections show that each institution understands the high-risk nature of supplying access to ancient coins and takes appropriate measures for ensuring the security of the collections and that coins are appropriately handled.
From this research, it is clear that Ancient coin collections are primarily used for research and educational purposes behind the scenes, as opposed to for exhibition. This has resulted in standard security practices for these collections, as research access can be a serious security risk. Additionally, limiting the number of coins available at one time and requiring a form to be filled out strengthens security access, as well as the ability to monitor the use of the collection. 169
Online Access to Collections
All four institutions were at different stages of digitizing their Ancient coin collections. HAM has completed the digitization process, and images and catalog information for every coin is available through their website. HAM also links its online database with the HarvardX program to increase online accessibility. The ANA Money
Museum is working on completing the digitization of their collection; however, the collection is only available online to ANA members. The Getty Museum is also working on digitizing their entire Ancient coin collection, and the catalog information is available online. The Getty Museum also contributes to a digital image sharing system and the
American Numismatic Society’s shared database. The NNC has not yet begun the process of digitizing their ancient coins, but they are working on digitizing their entire collection. They rely primarily on directed grant funding, which has not yet been focused on the Ancient coin collection. However, once the coins are digitized, images and catalog information will be accessible online to the public.
For all institutions, a search system has been put in place with elements to aid website visitors in their searches. The tagging systems are centered primarily around catalog information and adjusted as needed.
The movement to digitize museum collections is fast-growing. The priority of
Ancient coin collections in this movement is revealing as to the status of ancient coins within greater museum collections. Additionally, the research and educational status of these collections plays a role in their priority for digitization. Considering the size of 170
ancient coins, digitization is one of the key means to make these collections more
accessible to the general public, while reducing handling and access to the objects
themselves for research. This seems to be understood in museums when considering the
digitization of their collections.
Outreach
The ANA Money Museum has an active outreach program for their Ancient coin collection. Both the Director and Collections Manager participate in the website’s blog that features behind-the-scenes views of the collection. The ANA also holds an annual convention, summer seminars, workshops, talks, and programs for young numismatists, all of which involve the Ancient coin collection. Because the ANA Money Museum does not have an education department itself, the collections staff takes on active roles in educational outreach and public programming.
HAM has an active educational program as part of Harvard University, and the collections department oversees the academic and public programs, but is not directly involved in the outreach. However, the collections department is directly involved with the Art Study Center, which occasionally uses the Ancient coin collection.
There are no outreach programs for the Ancient coin collection at the Getty
Museum at this time, and most outreach is handled through another department. Lastly, the NNC’s collections staff writes blogs and articles for their website as part of outreach, and these occasionally involve the Ancient coin collection. The collections staff also 171
participates in consultation with the education department, especially with the recent development of an education cart for the exhibition space. For the NNC, no future outreach programs are planned through collections or for the Ancient coin collection, due to a lack of funding.
Digital and online access to collections increases inclusion of ancient coins and small objects in public programming, as well as the collections staff in these programs.
The utilization of blogs by the ANA Money Museum and the NNC is an active way for the collections staff to connect to the public and raise the awareness of their Ancient coin collections and are strong examples of collections staff being involved in public outreach.
The digital outreach and the use of different technologies to achieve online access of collections reflect the primary use and function of Ancient coin collections in museums.
By increasing the presence of Ancient coin collections in online educational programs, institutions can raise awareness and interest in Ancient coin collections and, ultimately, can make them a more relevant part of the museum’s collection.
Below, five conclusions regarding the state of Ancient coin collections in
American museums are presented. These conclusions have been drawn based on a consideration of the literature review, the informal survey, and the case studies. 172
Conclusions
Conclusion #1: Strong advocacy is required for Ancient coin collections in American museums.
As discussed earlier in this thesis, ancient coins were historically collected and displayed in specialized environments for academics and private collectors.
Concurrently, coins in general present challenges for exhibition and display that have led to a lack of attention in the management and care of Ancient coin collections in American museums. Furthermore, a focus on coinage from American history can lead to a diminished emphasis on ancient coins, as seen in both the ANA Money Museum and the
NNC. When digitizing their collections, both institutions began with the American coinage, and both feature exhibits that focus on American coinage. The NNC is housed at the National Museum of American History (NMAH), further emphasizing American coinage over other coin types of the collection.
Stronger advocacy for Ancient coin collections in American museums could make them more relevant to American numismatics and other aspects of museum collections.
Museums with prominent Classical collections appear to give more efforts and care for their Ancient coin collections. Both HAM and the Getty Museum, institutions with large
Classical art collections, were further along with the digitization efforts of their Ancient coin collection and had more ancient coins on display in their museums. Advocating for
Ancient coin collections will further their role in American museums and benefit collections care. 173
Conclusion #2: Ancient Coins require regular inspection and up-to-date storage methods.
Ancient coins, more recent coins, and metals often do not require complicated
storage methods, as discussed in Chapter 5, but have basic primary needs, which include housing in an environment with low temperature and a relative humidity (RH) between
35%-55% and proper storage materials. Additionally, their status as archaeological materials need to be considered when considering their conservation needs, such as regular inspection. As staff in the Getty Museum emphasized, ancient coins have often undergone initial handling, burial for thousands of years, handling after excavation, and then exposure to the modem atmosphere. This cycle means that ancient coins may be more unstable than more recent coinage and may require additional routine maintenance and observation. The status of ancient coins as low-maintenance storage objects often causes these needs to be overlooked.
Furthermore, as highlighted in the case studies, ancient coins are usually inspected when they are being prepared for their loan or exhibition. This suggests that regular inspections may not be scheduled frequently enough, and updated storage methods are not always considered. Up-to-date storage methods would ensure that ancient coins remain in stable condition, ultimately requiring less individual attention.
Proper storage techniques, such as plastic flips, can also reduce further handling of these coins and ensure long-term stability. 174
Conclusion #3: Collections staff should receive proper training for Ancient coin collections.
As discussed above, along with proper care and regular maintenance of Ancient
coin collections, collections staff should receive basic training in handling ancient coins
and numismatic collections. As noted above, Ancient coin collections are type-specific
and contain archaeological materials and small objects with varying levels of stability.
While they do not require large amounts of storage space, they do require suitable
environmental conditions and storage materials. A basic knowledge and understanding
of the needs of ancient coins and numismatic collections will strengthen collections staff
abilities to properly and regularly care for these collections.
Conclusion #4: Digitization and 3D technology are fundamental to the public
accessibility of Ancient coin collections.
The size of ancient coins often present challenges in their management, both in
terms of handling coins and in their display. Moreover, the amount of information often
required for cataloging of ancient coins can be vast and detailed. Digitizing and applying
3D methods to Ancient coin collections would improve their overall management by
making them more accessible and reducing the regular handling of the coins. Digital
technology enables museums to raise awareness of the objects held by the institutions,
which raises their educational value and leads to further exhibition and review of the
objects. Digitization and 3D technology also supports the increased trend of online 175
exhibits, which makes the museum accessible to a greater public. Online exhibitions are strong platforms for the display of Ancient coin collections, as their size would not be an issue. Exhibiting these collections online with high-resolution digital images would allow visitors around the world to explore the objects in-depth without requiring the use of a magnifying glass or other aid. Additionally, visitors would be able to view the object up-close alongside the text more easily, reducing the need to go back and forth between the interpretive text and the object itself.
As seen in the NNC case study, the main goal for digitizing their collection was to make it as accessible as possible to the public. Additionally, the Getty Museum also participates in the International Interoperability Framework (IIF), in order to make their
Ancient coin collection accessible through cooperative software. Both initiatives demonstrate the use of digital technology for heightening awareness of Ancient coin collections. The participation in digital databases in accessible online databases, also demonstrates effective stewardship by making the collection fully available to the public.
Cooperative databases also provide a platform for uniting split coin collections and for sharing collections from multiple institutions around the world.
Conclusion #5: Collections staff should utilize blogging and similar platforms to connect audiences with Ancient coin collections and increase accessibility to these collections.
The staff at both the ANA Money Museum and the NNC utilized blogging as a means of reaching out to their audiences and increasing awareness of their collections. 176
These blogs allow website visitors to peer behind-the-scenes and to understand the inner
workings of these institutions and their collections. Not only does this produce a sense of
awe and a unique perspective into museums, but it allows the collections staff to be
involved in public outreach and for the collections group to have a public presence as
well. It also supports visitors from around the world in viewing objects that may not be on exhibition or may never be exhibited.
In the case of Ancient coin collections, which have throughout history been considered specific to numismatic and archaeological audiences, it is especially important that they be highlighted, as they have been underappreciated through a lack of exhibition and focus. Through online platforms, ancient coins can now take on a new role in the museum. Finally, blogs can make ancient coins more accessible for viewing, by using high resolution images, while 3D scanning of these coins can allow audiences to experience coins in new and different ways.
Recommendations
As American museums begin to explore their Ancient coin collections through digitization, proper and updated care for these collections will become more important.
To meet the highest standards of care for these collections, a standard set of practices should be followed. Below, eight recommendations for standardizing care are outlined to support the appropriate management of Ancient coin collections in the field. 177
Recommendation #1: Ancient coin collections must be acquired in a thoughtful manner
First, Ancient coin collections are often very large because coins are small objects
that take up minimal space and are easily available for collecting. Museums should take
proper precaution not to collect coins that they are not prepared to properly care for and
that may not be complementary to the institution’s collection as a whole. Furthermore,
museums should only collect ancient coins whose provenance is known, as to ensure the
object is properly accessioned, and to discourage illicit collecting. Museums should,
therefore, consider developing special acquisition policies when it comes to acquiring
ancient coins, and exercise care in accepting donations of ancient coins.
Recommendation #2: Appropriate storage and housing is required for ancient coin collections
The optimal storage techniques for ancient coins is in individual plastic flips or archival boxes with a fitted space for the object. Each coin should be stored individually to reduce the objects from rubbing against one another and to ensure that if any form of corrosion, such as Bronze disease, were to appear on one object, it would not spread to additional objects in the collection. Individual plastic flips or boxes are recommended because these methods reduce the handling of the object itself, especially plastic flips, which allow the object to be viewed fully without needing to remove or handle it from its individual housing unit. 178
Individual units should be stored in secure shelving with organized slots in metal cabinets. Metal cabinets are optimal for storage as they are secure and metal has no corrosive properties, such as off-gassing. Metal cabinets also can be sealed to ensure that coins are not exposed to pollutants that may be in the environment. These basic storage and housing practices are efficient and ensure long-term care for the collection.
Recommendation #3: Appropriate collections management techniques should in place for ancient coin collections
Ancient coin collections should be stored in environments that are stable and will not induce further corrosion, primarily in facilities with low relative humidity (RH) and temperature. RH should optimally be kept below 35%; however, given the nature of collections facilities, a RH between 35%-55% is recommended. The temperature should be as low as possible. However, a stable temperature is the most important element because changes in temperature can induce corrosion.
Gloves should be worn at all times to reduce the transfer of oils from fingers and to ensure proper conservation practices for the collection. Cotton gloves should be used when handling silver coins, as the sulfur in nitrile gloves may react with the silver and cause corrosion. Most ancient coins have already undergone handling during the course of their existence, so reducing further handling in the present can ensure that the coins are preserved for the future. 179
Recommendation #4: Basic cataloging information should be linked to all ancient coin collections
The following table outlines basic catalog information recommended for Ancient
coin collections. This includes information necessary both for object identification and
care, as well as information that supports public and academic accessibility (Table 12.1). 180
Table 12.1: Recommended Catalog Information for Ancient Coins
Object Information Title Iconography Description Obverse Iconography Description Reverse Inscription Obverse with translation Inscription Reverse with translation Issuing Authority Origin (Source City, Find Site, and/or Mint City, etc.) Denomination Material Weight Diameter Die Axis* Image Obverse Image Reverse Museum/Institution Information Catalog/ID Number and/or Additional Numbers (Exhibition Number*, Accession Number*, etc.) Accession Year Provenance Credit Line Donor (backend only)
Additional Information Numismatic References Related Works* Conservation or Collections Care Notes* Curatorial Notes* Exhibition History* Public Programming History* * When Applicable
The basic elements outlined in this table provide a detailed description of the object, as well as possible additional notes that could be relevant to the care of these collections in the future. Providing full details and descriptions of the object’s obverse and reverse sides, including inscriptions and translations of inscriptions, will make the 181
objects more accessible to the public as well as to researchers. This will in turn increase
awareness, use, and publication of the collections. Additionally, linking digital
information to the record will minimize the need for objects to be handled. While the
inclusion of numismatic references is specific to numismatic objects and to the study of
numismatics, it is a useful reference system for both private collectors and collecting
institutions, one that builds on more than a century of research and publications that are
important in understanding the objects and collections.
Recommendation #5: Ancient coin collections must be digitized
The digitization of Ancient coin collections is essential to preserving these collections. Possessing digital images on file is the most secure way to ensure the proper
identification of each individual coin. Images of the obverse and reverse sides of each individual object is the only method for guaranteeing proper identification of ancient coins, especially in distinguishing them from counterfeit reproductions.
Furthermore, when Ancient coin collections are available digitally, public access to the entire collection is increased. Due to the previously stated nature of these collections, most ancient coins are not exhibited regularly or at all. In-person access is not the most efficient way to access these collections, especially for the general public.
Publishing digital information about Ancient coin collections online supports increased access for everyone, while having high resolution images online will reduce the amount of handling of individual objects. Digitization is increasing every day in museum 182
environments, and this technology promises to be especially important in managing
Ancient coin collections and in increasing their overall accessibility.
Recommendation #6: Ancient coin collections must be accessible
Ancient coin collections should be accessible in-person for research, as they play
key roles in several academic fields, and digital access will not always be sufficient. As
they are high-risk objects for theft, limiting public access to Ancient coin collections is
logical, especially with technology and online access, which will be discussed below.
This high-risk of theft means that these collections should have standardized access and
security policies. This should include limited access to the collections (such as one
object at a time), allowance of minimal tools and materials for research, a security check
of bags after access, a staff escort, a secure room dedicated to collections access, and either video surveillance during access or the taking of images before and after access to each object. Lastly, Ancient coin collections should be stored on-site as much as possible
and should not be moved to off-site collections locations to ensure minimal damage through movement and to reduce the risk of loss or theft.
Standardized security measures ensure continued security of the collection.
Requiring forms to be filled out, providing the researcher’s name and intentions of research is another step in guaranteeing that the collection is secure and being accessed appropriately. Also, providing tools for researchers that are not damaging to the objects, 183
such as plastic calipers, can further ensure the safety of collections and that researchers are supported.
Recommendation #7: Online access to ancient coin collections is critical
As mentioned above, digital technology and online collections catalogs can help control public access to objects. Ancient coin collections should be made available to the public online to increase their accessibility and to reduce handling and risk of theft. In addition, the ability to view and enlarge images of coins is especially useful, as is simultaneously accessing the image and information about the object.
Increasingly, shared databases are enhancing museums’ abilities to reach out to the public and increase accessibility and awareness of collections. Ancient coin collections are one of the collections that benefit most from this level of access. Through digital techniques, Ancient coin collections can be made available to a wider public, thereby gaining relevance and enhancing the museum experience.
Recommendation #8: Outreach for Ancient coin collections is good collections management
Collections departments should use online platforms to become more involved with outreach. Especially with Ancient coin collections, blogs that connect the public to collections care and individual objects that staff find personally interesting can help build relationships with the public and increase their relevance and use to the institution. 184
Finally, making Ancient coin collections accessible through education carts, or lectures
or seminars, demonstrates that new and interesting uses outside of exhibitions and
research access can be developed for these collections, with collections staff taking the
lead.
Concluding Remarks
Recently, in American museums, Ancient coin collections have been overlooked
due to their size, which makes them difficult to exhibit, and the fact that they are not
American, as reflected in select case studies. However, the care and management of
Ancient coin collections is entering an exciting new phase, as digitization and databases
move center stage. With this move, museums with Ancient coin collections should consider collaborating on the development and use of shared digital locations. Ancient coin collections would be collectively accessible and research could be easily facilitated.
Likewise, museum staff from participating institutions could compare information about
collections and more efficiently accommodate inter-institution activities, such as exhibition loans. A collaborative database could similarly lead to shared online exhibitions among collections, while re-uniting donated collections that may have been divided among institutions, and allowing them to be viewed in a shared digital location.
3D technology is quickly becoming more and more common among museums.
Although mostly focused on larger objects, this technology has enormous potential for
Ancient coin collections. Through 3D scanning, the online experience can be enhanced 185
on collections websites. At the same time, 3D printing allows museums to make these objects handle-able and observable. This could lead to new developments in how ancient coins are exhibited and used in public programming. 3D technology has the potential to change the way that Ancient coin collections are approached for education, exhibition, and access.
Available online platforms also have great potential to increase the accessibility and educational use of Ancient coin collections. For example, online mapping programs could be used to make the collections visually stimulating, as well as to represent the extent of the museum’s collection in a navigable way. Below is an example, using a generated data set, of how ArcGIS software can be used to represent an Ancient coin collection. In Figure 12.1, the geographical range of the collection can be seen on an interactive map. 186
UN I 11 f * ; K J NGI> OM Dublin H U i A rib »<***> v m \n t> * n -A R U * IOfriton O CIRMANY »' ' , Kiev . C o lw in e o c z k . n q P m * R1 rUHl IC UKUVIMi \ ol->vjf
VK",M- Bud:,^t VOSTRIV » I RA MCI UUMCAKY MlLitt ROM A HI .A • * * <(f* n - u > •uiiNi" Kw.ol.™ CIOKC.A M atiJ • tm ** «* ^ * * M •#••
Ain m wi IR A«> I R A M ■ Cairo m » * Kip* ait C% i ' 3 f j
M A U R It A M 1 A
0 * 300 * S00m t S U 1 Figure 12.1 A sample map representing the origins of an Ancient coin collection. Especially when utilizing interactive programs, a map like this could be an exciting tool for exploring an Ancient coin collection on a new level. Additionally, having these maps available to collections staff would enable further understanding and organization of the collection. Furthermore, mapping software could be used for uniting collections that have been split up or for tracking the spread of specific type of coins in museums around the world. Through digital technologies, new ways of interpreting and using museum collections are emerging every day, and these could be especially beneficial to Ancient coin collections. In closing, Ancient coin collections in American museums should be managed according to standardized practices provided by professionally trained staff who 187 understand the needs of these collections. As museums digitize their Ancient coin collections, the need for proper care will become more and more apparent. In the end, as Ancient coin collections become more visible, their levels of care and management will improve, providing a unique window into the past for everyone. 188 Bibliography 7 News. 2012. “Man Admits Embezzling Rare Coins from Colo. Museum.” Accessed March 20, 2017. http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/man-admits- embezzling-rare-coins-from-colo-museum. Ambrose, Timothy, and Crispin Paine. 2012. Museum Basics 3rd Edition. New York: Routledge. Allen, Jennifer, interview conducted in person on April 26, 2017, and email on May 8, 2017. American Alliance of Museums. 2017a. “About Us.” Accessed April 17, 2017. http://www.aam-us.org/about-us. American Alliance of Museums. 2017b. “Code of Ethics for Museums.” Accessed February 12, 2017. http://www.aam-us.org/resources/ethics-standards-and-best- practices/code-of-ethics. American Alliance of Museums. 2017c. “Standards Regarding Archaeological Material and Ancient Art.” Accessed February 12, 2017. http://www.aam-us.org/resources/ ethics-standards-and-bestpractices/collections-stewardship/archaeological- material-and-ancient-art. American Numismatic Association. 2017a. “Ancient Coin Project.” Accessed March 25, 2017. https://www.money.org/young-numismatists/coin-education/ancient- coin-project. American Numismatic Association. 2017b. “Edward C. Rochette.” Accessed March 20, 2017. https://www.money.org/money-museum/edwardcrochette. American Numismatic Association. 2017c. “Explore the Vault Today.” Accessed March 23, 2017. https://www.money.org/tales-from-the-vault. American Numismatic Association. 2017d. “The Edward C. Rochette Money Museum, American Numismatic Association.” Accessed March 20, 2017. https://www.money.org/money-museum/edwardcrochette. American Numismatic Association. 2016. “The Money Museum Collection.” Accessed November 7, 2016. https://www.money.org/money-museum/museum-collection. American Numismatic Association. 2017e. “Virtual Exhibits.” Accessed March 23, 2017. https://www.money.org/money-museum/virtual-exhibits. American Numismatic Association. 2017f. “Young Numismatists.” Accessed March 25, 2017. https://www.money.org/young-numismatists. 189 American Numismatic Society. 2012. “Collections Management Policy.” Accessed November 7, 2016. http://numismatics.org/about/collectionsmanagementpolicy/. American Numismatic Society. 2016. “Links to External Websites.” Accessed November 7, 2016. http://numismatics.org/resources/links/. Babelon, Ernest. Elizabeth Saville, trans. 2004. Ancient Numismatics and Its History. London: Spink & Kolbe. Barr, Judith, interview conducted in person on June 7, 2017, and via email on August 7, 2017. Beal, Vangie. 2017. “Linked Data.” Webopedia. Accessed February 27, 2017. http://www.webopedia.eom/TERM/L/Linked_Data.html. British Museum. 2017a. “Collection Online.” Accessed February 27, 2017. https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/search.aspx. British Museum. 2017b. “Online Research Catalogues.” Accessed February 27, 2017. https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/publications/online_research_catalogues .aspx. British Museum. 2017c. “Roman Republican Coins.” Accessed February 27, 2017. https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/publications/online_research_catalogues /rrc/roman_republican_coins.aspx. Buck, Rebecca A. and Jean Allman Gilmore, ed. 2010. MRM5: Museum Registration Methods 5,hEdition. Washington, D.C.: the AAM Press. Burke, Martin. 2002. “Appendix O: Curatorial Care of Metal Objects.” The Museum Handbook Part I: Museum Collections. Last modified 2002. Capital Gold Group. 2015. “Top Five Numismatic Museums in America.” Accessed November 7, 2016. https://www.capitalgoldgroup.com/blog/numismatic- museums/. Casey, P.J. 1986. Understanding Ancient Coins: An Introduction for Archaeologists and Historians. London: B.T. Batsford. Collectionspace. 2017. “About.” Accessed February 27, 2017. http://www.collectionspace.org/about/. Cooper, Denis R. 1988. The Art and Craft of Coin Making: A History of Minting Technology. London: Spink & Son. Cunnaly, John. 2009. “Of Mauss and (Renaissance) Men: Numismatic, Prestation, and the Genesis of Visual Literacy.” In The Rebirth of Anqitquity: Numismatics, Archaeology, and Clasical Studies in the Cultre of the Renaissance, edited by Alan M. Stahl, xiii-xvii. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 190 Davis, J.R., ed. 1998. Metals Handbook: Desk Edition, Second Edition. Materials Park: ASM International. Davis, Norman. 1967. Greek Coins and Cities. London: Spink and Son. Department of Antiquities. 2017. “Cyprus Archaeological Digitization Programme.” Accessed February 27, 2017. http://www.mcw.gov.cy/mcw/DA/DA.nsf/0/lA7B F21DA2D1652DC225750C0022845670penDocument. The Durham Museum. 2016. “Byron Reed Gallery of Coins and Documents.” Accessed November 7, 2016. http://www.durhammuseum.org/leam/collections/byron- reed.aspx. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. 2016. “Learning Center and Money Museum.” Accessed November 7,2016. https://www.clevelandfed.org/en/learningcenter. aspx. Forum Ancient Coins. 2017. “Die Axis.” Accessed January 29, 2017. https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Die%20axis. Forum Ancient Coins. 2006. “Grading Guidelines for Ancient Coins.” Accessed January 29, 2017. https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Grading %20Guidelines%20for%20Ancient%20Coins. The Fralin University of Virginia Art Museum. 2016. “Numismatic Collection.” Accessed November 7, 2016. http://coins.lib.virginia.edu/. Galani-Krikou, Mina, Mando Oeconomides, Vasso Penna, Ioannis Touratsoglou, and Eos Tsourti. 1996. Coins & Numismatics. Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture. Ghey, Eleanor. 2011. “Collections Online at the British Museum.” The British Museum and the Future of UK Numismatics: proceedings of a conference held to mark the 150h anniversary of the British Museum’s Department of Coins and Medals (2011): 68-70. * Grafton, Anthony. 2009. “Preface.” In The Rebirth of Anqitquity: Numismatics, Archaeology, and Clasical Studies in the Cultre of the Renaissance, edited by Alan M. Stahl, xiii-xvii. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Grierson, Philip. 1977. The Origins of Money. London: The Athlone Press. Harvard Art Museums. 2016a. “Browse Our Collection.” Accessed November 7, 2016. http://www.harvardartmuseums.org/collections. Harvard Art Museums. 2016b. “Collecting.” Accessed November 23, 2016. http://www.harvardartmuseums.org/collections/collecting-policy. 191 Harvard Art Museums. 2017a. “Harvard Art Museums’ Renovation and Expanded Facility to Open November 16, 2014.” Accessed April 24,2017. http://www.harvardartmuseums.org/about/press-media/harvard-art-museums- reno vated-and-expanded-facility-to-open-november-16-2014 Harvard Art Museums. 2017b. “History and the Three Museums.” Accessed April 24, 2017. http://www.harvardartmuseums.org/about/history-and-the-three-museums. Harvard Art Museums. 20167c. “Mission.” Accessed April 24, 2017. http://www.harvardartmuseums.org/about/mission. Harvard Art Museums. 2017d. “Staff Profile: Jennifer Allen.” Accessed April 24, 2017. http://www.harvardartmuseums.org/about/staff/73. Harvard University. 2017a. “HarvardX.” Accessed April 29 2017. http://harvardx.harvard.edu/. Harvard University. 2017b. “History.” Accessed April 26, 2017. http://www.harvard.edu /about-harvard/harvard-glance/history. Hopkins, Edward C. D. 2010. “Collection of Parthian Coins.” The Royal Numismatics Society. Last modified March 18, 2010. http://www.parthia.com/parthia_ collections.html. Howgego, Christopher. 2002. Ancient History from Coins: Approaching the Ancient World. London: Routledge. ICOM. 2013. “ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums.” 2013. [PDF file. http://icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Codes/code_ethics2013_eng.pdf. ICOM. 2017. “ICOM in Brief.” Accessed April 17, 2017. http://icom.museum/the- organisation/icom-in-brief/. International Image Interoperability Framework (IIIF). 2017. “About IIIF.” Accessed August 8, 2017. http://iiif.io/about/. The J. Paul Getty Museum. 2016a. “Collection.” Accessed November 7, 2016. http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/. The J. Paul Getty Museum. 2016b. “J. Paul Getty Museum Collection Policy.” Accessed November 7, 2016. [PDF file], http://www.getty.edu/about/govemance/pdfs/ acquisitions_policy.pdf. The J. Paul Getty Trust. 2006. The Getty Legacy. History and Bibliography, January 20, 2006. Accessed June 6, 2017. https://www.getty.edu/news/press/getty_villa/ a03_villa_history_release.pdf. The J. Paul Getty Trust. 2017a. “About the J. Paul Getty Museum.” Accessed June 6, 2017. http://www.getty.edu/museum/about.html. 192 The J. Paul Getty Trust. 2017b. “History of the Getty.” Accessed June 6, 2017. http://www.getty.edu/about/whoweare/history.html. The J. Paul Getty Trust. 2017c. “Our Mission.” Accessed June 6, 2017. http://www.getty.edu/about/. Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan. 2016a. “Collections.” Accessed November 7, 2016. https://lsa.umich.edu/kelsey/collections.html. Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan. 2016b. “Collections Policies.” Accessed November 23, 2016b. https://lsa.umich.edu/kelsey/collections/ collections-policies.html. Lawrence University. 2017. “Lawrence University Coin Collection.” Accessed November 7, 2016. Accessed November 7, 2016. Logan, Judy. 2007. “Storage of Metals.” Canadian Conservation Institute. Accessed January 29, 2017. Rev. Lyndsie Selwyn. http://canada.pch.gc.ca/eng/14399251 70350. Los Angeles County Museum of Art. 2016. “Search the Collection.” Accessed November 7, 2016. https://collections.lacma.org/. Malaro, Marie C. and Ildiko Pogany DeAngelis. 2012. A Legal Primer on Managing Museum Collections Third Edition. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books. Marshall, Paul H. 2016. “Museum Collections of Ancient Coins (that are available on the web).” Forum for Ancient Coins. Accessed November 7, 2016. https://www. forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=museum%20collections. Metropolitan Museum of Art. 2016. “Collection.” Accessed November 7, 2016. http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection. Metropolitan Museum of Art. 2015. “Collections Management Policy.” Accessed November 7, 2016. http://www.metmuseum.org/about-the-met/policies-and- documents/collections-management-policy. Mudd, Douglas, interviews conducted in person on March 22, 2017 and via email on April 1, 2017. Museum of Fine Arts Boston. 2016a. “Collections.” Accessed November 7, 2016. http ://ww w. mfa.org/collections. Museum of Fine Arts Boston. 2016b. “Collections Management.” Accessed November 23, 2016. http://www.mfa.org/collections/conservation/division_collections management/. 193 Nomikou, Effrosyni. 2011. “The Other Side of the Coin: Audience Consultation and the Interpretation of Numismatic Collections.” In Museum Gallery Interpretation and Culture, edited by J. Fritsch, 165-175. London: Routledge. Nomisma.org. 2017. “Nomisma.” Accessed February 27, 2017. http://nomisma.org/. Omeka. 2017. “Project.” Accessed February 27, 2017. http://omeka.org/about/. Online Greek Coinage. 2017. “NUDS- The Numismatic Description Standard.” Accessed February 27, 2017. http://www.greekcoinage.org/nuds.html. Opensource.com. 2017. “What is Open Source?” Accessed February 27, 2017. https://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source. Orna-Ornstein, John. 2011. “Money for the Masses: Coins, Museums and the Public.” The British Museum and the Future of UK Numismatics: Proceedings of a conference held to mark the 150"' anniversary of the British Museum’s Department of Coins and Medals, 2011 (2011): 66-67. Pett, Daniel. 2011. “Distributing the Wealth: Digital Knowledge Transfer for Numismatics.” The British Museum and the Future of UK Numismatics: Proceedings of a conference held to mark the 150"' anniversary of the British Museum’s Department of Coins and Medals, 2011 (2011): 71-80. Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology. 2016a. “Collections Overview.” Accessed November 7, 2016. http://hearstmuseum.berkeley.edu/collections/overview. Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology. 2016b. “Museum Policies, Services, and Fees.” Accessed November 23, 2016. http://hearstmuseum.berkeley.edu/about/ policies-services-fees. Pilides, Despina. 2011. “Digitizing the Antiquities of the Department of Antiquities.” ICOMONe-Proceeding Nicosia (2011) [PDF File]: 1-6. Portable Antiquities Scheme. 2017. “Welcome to Our Database.” The British Museum. Accessed February 27, 2017. https://finds.org.uk/database. Princeton University Library. 2017. “Collections and Collecting.” Accessed February 13, 2017. http://library.princeton.edu/about/collections. Princeton University Library. 2016. “Numismatic Collection.” Accessed November 7, 2016. https://rbsc.princeton.edu/divisions/numismatic-collection. Princeton University Office of Finance and Treasury. 2016. “Department Collections Policy.” Accessed November 23, 2016. https://finance.princeton.edu/policy- library/insurance-risk-management/department-collections-po/. Schaps, David M. 2004. The Invention of Coinage and the Monetization of Ancient Greece. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 194 Schultz, Arthur W., ed. 1992. Caring For Your Collections. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Incorporated. Simmons, John E. 2006. Things Great and Small: Collections Management Policies. Washington, D.C.: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. Smith, Tom. 1999. “Cast Greek and Roman Coins.” Forum Ancient Coins. Accessed January 29, 2017. http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/feac56cas.html. Smithsonian Institution. 2017a. “A Brief History of the Smithsonian Institution.” Accessed August 26, 2017. [PDF File], https://naturalhistory.si.edu/press_office/ releases/SI- history.pdf. Smithsonian Institution. 2001. “Collections Management.” Accessed November 7, 2016. [PDF file].https://www.si.edu/content/pdf/about/sd/SD600andAppendix.pdf. Smithsonian Institution. 2010. “Creating a Digital Smithsonian: Digitization Strategic Plan.” Accessed February 27, 2017. [PDF File]. http://www.si.edu/Content /Pdf/About/2010_SI_Digitization_Plan.pdf. Smithsonian Institution. 2011. “Digitization and Digital Asset Management Policy.” Accessed February 27, 2017. [PDF file], https://www.si.edu/content/pdf/about/sd /SD610.pdf. Smithsonian Institution. 2017b. “Our Mission.” Accessed August 26, 2017. https://www.si.edu/about/mission. Smithsonian Institution. 2017c. “Smithsonian Collections.” Accessed August 26, 2017. https://www.si.edu/collections. Smithsonian National Museum of American History. 2017a. “Collections.” Accessed September 9, 2017. http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections. Smithsonian National Museum of American History. 2017b. “Mission and History.” Accessed August 26, 2017. http://americanhistory.si.edu/museum/mission- history. Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. 2016. “Research and Collections.” Accessed November 7, 2016. http://naturalhistory.si.edu/rc/. Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection. 2017. “Contact and Inquiries.” Accessed August 28, 2017. http://americanhistory.si.edu/national-numismatic- collection/contact-and-inquiries. Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection. 2016a. “The National Numismatic Collection.” Accessed November 7, 2016. http://americanhistory.si.edu/national- numismatic-collection. 195 Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection. 2016b. “Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection: Review of ancient Greek and Roman coins.” December 13, 2016. Accessed June 20, 20187. [PDF File] https://americanhistory.si.edu/ sites/default/files/file-uploader/0verview_0.pdf. Stone, Tom. 2007. “Basic Care of Coins, Medals, and Medallic Art.” Canadian Conservation Institute. Accessed January 29, 2017. http://canada.pch.gc.ca/eng/1439925170372. Suarez, Rasiel. 2005. ERIC The Encyclopedia of Roman Imperial Coins. Asheville: Dirty Old Books. PDF e-book. Travers, Scott A. 2015. The Coin Collector’s Survival Manual. New York: House of Collectibles. TechTerms. 2017. “Content Management System.” Accessed February 27, 2017. https://techterms.com/definition/cms. ter Woerds, Ans B.M. 2008. “Numismatic libraries and the exchange of information and knowledge.” ICOMON e-Proceedings Utrecht (2008): 22-30. University of North Carolina. 2016. “Historic Moneys in the North Carolina Collection.” Accessed November 7, 2016. http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/ numismatics. University of Notre Dame Hesburgh Libraries. 2016. “Numismatic Collections.” Accessed November 7, 2016. http://rarebooks.library.nd.edu/collections/ numismatics/index.shtml. Van Alfen, Peter. 2010. “Greek Numismatics.” The Royal Numismatics Society. Last modified 2010. [PDF File]. Accessed November 7, 2016. http://numismatics.org /wikiuploads/Seminar/ANSBibGreek 10.pdf. Yale University Art Gallery. 2016. “Search the Collection.” Accessed November 7, 2016. http://artgallery.yale.edu/collection/search. York, Hiller, Jennifer Gloede, and Emily Pearce Seigerman, interviews conducted in person on August 22, 2017 and via email on August 23, 2017 and August 28, 2017. 196 Appendix A: Glossary of Useful Terms Accessibility: “the relative ease with which digital assets are available through technological means to be accessed, shared, exchanged, and otherwise used” (Smithsonian 2011, 3-4). Alloy: a solution that can be natural or man-made by mixing two or more metals. Casting: an object that has been created by pouring molten metal into a mold. Coin legend: the original, untranslated inscription on the coin. Content Management System (CMS): a software tool that allows users to create, edit, and publish content online. Corrosion: the result of the chemical reaction that occurs between a metal and environmental or handling factors that results in the deterioration of the metal object. Denomination: the face value of a coin. Devices: the parts of the coin that stand out. The devices are what make up the physical design of the coin. Die: is the object or stamp, usually made of metal, used to impress the coin’s design during the striking process. Die Axis/Die Alignment/Coin Rotation: the degree to which the obverse and reverse dies were aligned to each other when the coin was struck. Zero degrees is when the obverse and reverse sides of the coin are both right side up, while 180° is when the obverse side is right side up and the reverse side is upside down. Digital Asset: “content that is recorded and transferred in a digital format” (Smithsonian 2011, 4). A digital asset can include any media that is created in a digital format, such as text, still images, moving images, sound recordings, and, according to some, metadata. Digital assets also include digital surrogates that have been created through digitization techniques from another format or object. Digitization: a “set of processes that converts physical resources to a digital form, or that creates materials in a digital form (born digital)” (Smithsonian 2011,4). Disposition: “the process of permanently removing a digital asset from the institution by transferring it to another entity or, if it is no longer needed, by destroying it” (Smithsonian 2011, 4). 197 Field: the area on a coin within the encircling legend, where symbols are often found. Flan/Blank: the shaped piece of metal onto which the coin design is struck. Interoperability: the ability of two diverse digital systems to work together effectively (Smithsonian 2011). Life-Cycle Management: “a comprehensive approach to managing digital assets that addresses these assets through all the stage of their ‘life’” (Smithsonian 2011,4). The life-cycle of a digital asset is the process that begins with the planning for the creation (or acquisition) of the digital asset (or object), the maintenance (or conservation and preservation) and use (access or digital exhibition) of the digital asset, and ends if or when the digital asset is disposed of or transferred to another entity. Linked Data: the method of connecting data on the web from different digital sources using hypertext links. Linked data is a method in which related sources can be digitally connected to allow for people to access similar resources and information more efficiently. Metadata: data about data. Metadata is more specifically defined as “information used to describe the intellectual content as well as the technical properties of a digital asset” (Smithsonian 2011, 5). Numismatics: the study of money, specifically coins, medals, and paper money. Obverse: the front side of the coin, often referred to as the “heads” side. Open Source technology: “software with source code that anyone can inspect, modify, and enhance” (Opensource.com 2017). Patina: a colored layer of corrosion found on bronze or copper coins and some silver coins as a result of exposure to the environment. Typically, patina is a brownish, reddish, or greenish color. Project Digital Assessment Management Plan: a “written plan associated with a unit project that defines the roles, responsibilities, and processes needed to ensure the systematic attention to a digital asset throughout its life cycle...[a project digital assessment plan] addresses aspects such as impact and use, creation and receipt of data, description of data, access issues, preservation for long-term sustainability, and ownership” (Smithsonian 2011, 5). Reverse: refers to the back side of the coin, often referred to as the “tails” side. 198 Trusted Digital Repository (TDR): “a mechanism for providing reliable, long-term access to the managed digital resources of those who deposit their digital assets in the repository” (Smithsonian 2011, 5). Definitions Sourced From: Beal, Vangie. 2017. “Linked Data.” Webopedia. Accessed February 27, 2017. http://www.webopedia.eom/TERM/L/Linked_Data.html. Burke, Martin. “Appendix O: Curatorial Care of Metal Objects.” The Museum Handbook Part I: Museum Collections. Last modified 2002. Casey, P.J. Understanding Ancient Coins: An Introduction for Archaeologists and Historians. London: B.T. Batsford, 1986. Davis, J.R., ed. Metals Handbook: Desk Edition, Second Edition. Materials Park: ASM International, 1998. Forum Ancient Coins. 2017. “Die Axis.” Accessed January 29, 2017. https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Die%20axis. Opensource.com. 2017. “What is Open Source?” Accessed February 27, 2017. https://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source. Smith, Tom. 1999. “Cast Greek and Roman Coins.” Forum Ancient Coins. Accessed January 29, 2017. http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/feac56cas.html. Smithsonian Institution. 2011. “Digitization and Digital Asset Management Policy.” Accessed February 27, 2017. [PDF file]. https://www.si.edu/content/pdf/about/sd/SD610.pdf. Suarez, Rasiel. ERIC The Encyclopedia of Roman Imperial Coins. Asheville: Dirty Old Books, 2005. PDF e-book. TechTerms. “Content Management System.” Accessed February 27, 2017. https://techterms.com/definition/cms. Travers, Scott A. The Coin Collector’s Survival Manual. New York: House of Collectibles, 2015. 199 Appendix B: Table B. Metal Corrosion (adapted from Burke 2002, Appendix 0:5.) Characteristics of Metal Corrosion Metal Active Corrosion Stable Surfaces Causes of Corrosion Iron and Orange to reddish-brown Compact blue-black High relative humidity and Steel in color. and red-brown color. surface moisture. Wet or glossy appearance. Surface is scaling, flaking, or pitting. Lead Loose white powder in tiny Smooth gray surface. Weak organic acid vapors, spots or overall. from sources such as wood, cardboard, and vinegar. Copper Corrosion forms in small Wide variety of colors: High relative humidity, and spots overall. Powdery solid blue, green, red, surface moisture, air Copper green, blue, and white brown, or black. pollution, salts from Alloys corrosion products that are Surfaces are smooth inappropriate cleaning and generally over the entire and tightly adherent. handling. surface. Silver and Slight gray dullness Smooth white metallic. High humidity, sulfur Silver through blue/purple that A blue/purple surface compounds, etching from Alloys deepens to brown/black as can be stable if it fingerprints, organic vapors. corrosion becomes thicker. occurs overall and the object is removed from the source of corrosion. Nickel Nickel corrosion is reddish Smooth gray High humidity and sulfur brown and is similar in appearance. compounds. appearance to rust. Green copper corrosion products indicate preferential corrosion from a copper alloy. Tin and White gray, dark gray, to Smooth gray surfaces. High relative humidity, Tin black. Nodules of white to atmospheric pollutants, low Alloys gray corrosion that form temperatures. under the surface layer in nodules that erupt through the surface exposing a light gray or white corrosion product. 200 Appendix C: Table C. Coin Grades (adapted from Forum Ancient Coins 2006.) Coin Grades Grade Name Description FDC Fleur de The coin is in mint state meaning all characteristics are superb, there are Coin no flaws. This grade is rarely used for ancient coins. MS Mint State The coin is as struck with mint luster. There is no evidence or wear, circulation, or damage. There may be strike flaws or die wear. This grade is rarely used regarding ancient coins. aMS about Mint The coin is as struck, meaning no evidence or wear, circulation, or State damage. There may be strike flaws or die wear. This grade is rarely used regarding ancient coins. EF Extremely The coin is exceptional with minimal traces of wear on the highest coin Fine devices. All features are visible and complete, but there may be strike flaws, corrosion, scratches, or piercings. This grade is rarely used regarding ancient coins. aEF about The coin is exceptional with minimal traces of wear on the highest coin Extremely devices. All features are visible and complete, but there may be strike Fine flaws, corrosion, scratches, or piercings. This grade is rarely used regarding ancient coins. gVF good Very The coin is in desirable condition with light wear overall. There may be Fine strike flaws, corrosion, scratches, or piercings. VF Very Fine The coin is in desirable condition with general overall wear. All features are visible and nearly complete, legends are readable, and there may be strike flaws, corrosion, scratches, or piercings. aVF about Very This coin is in collectible condition with general overall wear. Major Fine features are visible, but not complete. Legends are visible and readable. There may be strike flaws, corrosion, scratches, or piercings. Surface may be rough and porous. gF good Fine The coin is in collectible condition with much overall wear. The coin’s design is complete, but obscured by corrosion and the legends are visible, but may not be readable. There may be strike flaws, corrosion, scratches, or piercings. Surface may be rough and porous. 201 F Fine This is a coin with overall visible wear present. The design is obscured by corrosion or worn and legends are visible, but may not be readable. There may be strike flaws, corrosion, scratches, or piercings. Surface may be rough and porous. The coin may also be misshapen from wear. This is the most common grade for ancient coins. aF about Fine This is a coin with a great amount of wear visible. Legends may not be visible, but the main devices on the coin can be identified. There are strike flaws, corrosion, scratches, or piercings. Surface may be rough and porous. The coin may also be misshapen from wear. Fair Fair This is a coin with a great amount of wear visible. The coin’s devices may be unseen and difficult to identify from corrosion and damage. There are strike flaws, corrosion, scratches, or piercings. Surface may be rough and porous. The coin may also be misshapen from wear. Poor Poor This is a coin with extensive wear and difficult to identify beyond its shape. These coins may have several flaws. 202 Appendix D: Alphabetical Listing of Surveyed Museum Collections Websites D. 1 The American Numismatic Society Edward C. Rochette Money Museum D.2 The American Numismatic Society D.3 The Durham Museum D.4 Harvard Art Museums D.5 The J. Paul Getty Museum D.6 Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan D.7 Lawrence University D.8 The Los Angeles Museum of Art D.9 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston D. 10 The Metropolitan Museum of Art D. 11 The North Carolina Collection, University of North Carolina D.12 Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley D.13 Princeton Numismatic Collection D.14 Rare Books and Special Collections, University of Notre Dame D.15 The Smithsonian Institution National Numismatic Collection, The National Museum of American History D.16 The Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History D. 17 University of Virginia Art Museum D.18 Yale University Art Gallery D. 1 The American Numismatic Association Edward C. Rochette Money Museum. The American Numismatic Association (ANA) Edward C. Rochette Money Museum’s website is private and available to American Numismatic Association members through their website (ANA 2016). 203 D.2 The American Numismatic Society MANTIS Deportment* B*tme Search Maps* Compora Cherts APIs Seaneh MANTIS A Numismatic Technologies Integration Service The ANS collections database contains information on more than 600,000 objects in the Society's collections. These include coins, paper money, Navigation tokens, 'primitive' money, medals and decorations, from all parts of the Share world, and al? periods in which such objects have been produced. Home About the ANS Use the menu at the top of the page to navigate the Site or dscK on the links E1Q O O Q Collections below for customized departmental search pages. Recent Acquisitions Photography Departments Browse All DepartmentsGreek Roman Featured Object Byzantine Islamic East Asian South Asian Medieval United States Latin America Modem Medals and Decorations Literary RIC IV Gordian III 6 Archives 1941.131.497 Publications Membership Events and Exhibitions Education Online Resources Linked Data Support the ANS Contact ANS Magazine The ANS Store Latin American Medals And Decorations ANS policies on the acquisition and deacquss»tlon of numismatic items a available online. PrwemandfUumwo^onSteiftttecwty po^^^shaf^of^QBnartswgJftiorte American Numismatic Society. 2017. “Mantis: A Numismatic Technologies Integration Source.” Accessed September 5, 2017. http://numismatics.org/search/. 204 D.3 The Durham Museum THE COLLECTION CONSISTS O f FIVE OVERARCHING AREAS: ADAH AND tEC’N M5UASD f©UNDAT:C?N UBHAir* Vt»TO« **'0 TOUSS 80) S W> StnMK PHOTO ARCHIVE onv** Ntecme RFJNTAU <■*02) 44+*0n Visit Nebraska. Visit Nicer The Durham Museum. 2017. “Museum Collections.” Accessed September 5, 2017. https://durhammuseum.org/exhibits-collections/museum-collections/. 205 D.4 Harvard Art Museums H a rv a rd / Art Museums Visit Browse Our Collections Digital Tool* Index Magazine Support Teaching & Research About Browse Our Collection ) Search by keyword,, ti$e. artist, object num ber, a t Ct«siiftc*tton Work Type technique / Medium Period Waee Century Culture Gaiiery On View Maker s Maik Cipher, apparently (6 Benjamin West 206 Harvard Art Museums. 2016a. “Browse Our Collection.” Accessed November 7, 2016. http://www.harvardartmuseums.org/collections. D.5 The J. Paul Getty Museum The J. Paul Getty Museum ExntUttons S tn*s«tUMton* CotMc-tkw E<*uc«Hon towdi * Pubacst'on* Collection Explore the Collection Discover Recent Acquisition* Collection Channels Owsr tCO vetoes axfrwa ttu» j> V>«* w « a * »*\a tuor«'» «t P * * l W««i> ft# Mawum* ^outxift# v;es*» tjLw «o!'!«cfs.3«, *rt*Hie fifjr Knar Acat&my WMch «**«« > ioin the Conversation Connect with Us . J f»»«i 0 *tty M u j w Thank you for joking «j$ for iMkAOirator Cay? Q □ D □ IS fcrsfcjy as UVE broadcasts or? Goog*+Gooff** imwh*Pntom# Tw*»ftwas#? Art8ate&«A«a»fc»f« Goo## IkjesymusGu^ flfcfasseboo* An Pwjwt She*. sw &«% fm* i.frniim"**** i Pft»»ey**w*y J. Paul Getty Museum. 2016a. “Collection.” Accessed November 7, 2016. http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/. 208 D.6 Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan « S COLLECTIONS | SEARCH COLLECTIONS COLLECTIONS Search Collections Notable Collections Collections Policies Rights and Reproductions Search Collections Most of the K*t*ey*s object* are boused in cliroaio-controHed compact storage units See notable collections of the Kelsey Museum. Three databases are available to help you search for particular Kelsey holdings: • Kelsey Museum Artifacts Database (for records of all items in the Kelsey collections) • Michigan Excavations Records (for all records of Karanis and Seieucia excavations) • Photo Captions database (for captions to photographs in the Kelsey Photographic Archive, excluding fine arts photographs) for access to either of the latter two databases, contact Sebastian Encina. * 'wr*** . K«tsey Museum of 9 434 South State Street K 734 764.9304 Archaeology Ann Arbor. Ml 481094390 © 734.763.8976 n £3 kelseymyse#um)ch.edu Sitemap □ b I \ \ # *4S(P' ^ ■ I P ft COLLEGE Of LITERATURE, More about LSA Student Academics Connect \ U SCIENCE. ANO THE ARTS About LSA Resources Majors ft Minors Social Media M L UI 1 UN I VS KWTY OF MICHIGAN LSA News ft Events Courts Guide Departments ft Units LSA Today Newsletter ISA Magazine Academic Advising LSA Dates and Report Feedback LSA Opportunity Hob Deadlines Global Studies ® 2017 Regents of the University of MteNgen Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan. 2016a. “Collections.” Accessed November 7, 2016. https://lsa.umich.edu/kelsey/collections.html. D.7 Lawrence University Lawrence University Classics Department & Ottilia Buerger Coin Collections Btc***'toms ^w Cdectc^s Afeoyt Adrenal fles&yfcas \ Essays RCCCNTLY AD DIO ITCHS LAWftCNCE UNIVERSITY COIN COLLECTION Lucus P'ostwmjui s. -v«r tfeMrus fjsl*s**!l), 2 S2 & mm Obverse Kelroeted head et ffoma The Wr Art Center Gaifenes and the Classics fight; 0&n»nd, toe* beneath ensn, star. Department at Lawrtnce University von% hold over 3CC Border of dots. Areient and Byzantine coins, The cornerstone of the wnversty s ©dfest on was oenero*&ly donated fey Ott&a 3ue*$er between \Wi mi'WO t, OTTIUA SM£ROCR C O tifC T IO N OF ANCIENT AND BYZANTINE COINS Obverse AVCVSTVS TRSVNC POTEST, tn three tnes oak wreath aagprog m the ! 3S0s, Oftia M, Buerger *38 border.. assembled a collection of rare coins that is w*dety regarded as one of the hnest m the United States Gyideo fey tm conviction that ancient corns were sma8 and beautful eyew tnesses to history. M ss Buerger beleved that her as she ca§e Obverse: Bare head of Octavan facing right £m#i JU'Ui Caew*- Ociavanu*. #sH£r 3 8$ £ Obverse Bearded head of Octavtan right; arcurd. IMP CAESAR D Vs F 111 V R ITER RPC. Border of dots. Viewn Ail items Wnston Art Center Caneres. Lawrence Uriversty, AppMotk Wi S40U Browse Items • Browse Collections * About • Additional Resources - Essays Proudly powered by Qm&ks* Lawrence University. 2017. “Lawrence University Coin Collection.” Accessed November 7, 2016. Accessed November 7, 2016. 210 D.8 The Los Angeles Museum of Art _ VteTft, M I On View Ptogm m Support I LACMA I Shop m fetdyd© t60Qm*Mhc*&tmgrn j m u m H ighlights Sca^m an Cosocsiofi o? 6re«k Ceramics Ttw Grand Tot*r Com«fnpor«iy Jewelry Islamic Ait JSJow: Contoraporafy Art of the Caffe*. Tea arts Cfcsiry Stossoms Msddlt East Chooolabi Latin American Contemporary Art Kc'san Scholar Off oats Glass Curatorial area Fasfion, 1900-2000 L A Opera's Figaro Unbound: Visoas Ait in the Ponrasts Ifie Gilbert Cos::*ctksn at LACMA Tiros of Figaro Gods and Godti#ss«s So Cat Design Chronology GdUca Copula" Spariiaf! Colonial Art & 19th Car&sy Art Woodcuts Object type Advanced search HOWS. MY LACMA. JOBS. TERMS. ACCESSIBILITY UWttUtt fj flickr *auE3 jCm laCma f o r fr e e g en era l admission all y ea r, e Los Angeles County Museum of Art. 2016. “Search the Collection.” Accessed November 7, 2016. https://collections.lacma.org/. 211 D.9 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston ToOsyatthe M'a Tickets Steop ift *Museum of Fine Arts Bostcn visit tm m iio m programs cetucrtONS membership give ------Collections Search Soft by . . , *» > T im t>AT* : A . Owp&y objects on ys*w J Display objects «*h fe«ag*» objects media caosseow fia u tA t o m o Of a young coo HYSfflA, G000ES5 Of {SAftTYPtN) OS ATHLETE HEALTH AND BYPNOl, Collection OAtf: A.D. 340-340 »A t% 1jt«nturyA.at COO Of SLEfcP mat m4 COM HZCt Wf> H I A 8 0 -U T Avs'iut of the Arts £MPi.OVMSNT 46$ HuWififSOft Av*m*« Q D 1 Cat opoates or A-tats c o n t a c t Boston., t'aoptn ng at the V - A, from PS* VACY S»OJCY M#*SAChWSOKS021tS e*te&tons and program to special events and more. ristMS or use ACClSSIO^rTY SWH UP ?>IA*J Y 0 U 8 v S it '^ A M S .A T s 412017 Vus«*?n of Fine Ans, Boston Museum of Fine Arts Boston. 2016a. “Collections.” Accessed November 7, 2016. http://www.mfa.org/collections. 212 D.10 The Metropolitan Museum of Art Collection 449,782 records 213 Metropolitan Museum of Art. 2016. “Collection.” Accessed November 7, 2016. http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection. 214 D. 11 The North Carolina Collection, University of North Carolina The study of money and money related material is coiled numismatics. At the University o# North Carolina at Chapel Mill, which opened to students in *795, the campus library has accumulated over many decades an array of currencies issued fey various governmental authorities and fey private banks, insurance companies, and other businesses. Today, the North Carolina Collection (HOC) cares for the library's numismatic holdings,, which total over 10,000 pieces. Among some of the other moneys preserved in the NCC are a small number of Greek and Roman coins, scores of American colonial and Revolutionary era bills, Sechller corns from North Carolina’s gold rush, thousands of treasury notes from the Civil War, United States coinage, railroad stacks and Confederate feonfes, commercial and military scrip, modern city parking tokens, novelty notes, and currencies from South America, Curope* Asia, and Africa,. While the collection is highly diverse in its geographical representation, its largest subcategories relate to bills of credit and notes produced for circulation in North Carolina during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for more information about North Carolina's numismatic past, refer to the A Brief History of North Carolina Honey. Also see The History of the /University library's Numismatic Collection to learn more about the establishment and subsequent development: of this public reference collection. The numismatic collection currently contains thirty-eight examples of North Carolina paper money from the colony's issues of 1748, 1754, *7$?, 1758, 1760, 1761.* 1768, and 1771 hm The collection preserves a variety of moneys issued fey governmental authorities and businesses during this period. Of special Interest are extremely rare treasury notes issued by the State of North Carolina between ISIS and 1824, The University Library 's Herman Bernard Collection contains twenty-four different varieties of gold coins struck fey the Sechtler family during North Carolina's gold-rush era, Wm M** am i The collection contains specimens of North Carolina bank notes and other currencies issued in the state during the decades prior to the Civil War,, It also holds hundreds of examples of currencies from other southern and northern states in this period. ■ M U '#* Mm i«.*« *m More than 3,300 North Carolina treasury notes from the Civil War are preserved in the North Carolina Collection, as well as hundreds of Confederate notes and other types of money issued during the conflict . Back to too "■.... '""""""... ' "■"«"".. '"'HI I'! HI I """","",,,"1,1" Ml,", ,,,,... I University of North Carolina. 2017. “Historic Moneys in the North Carolina Collection.” Accessed September 5, 2017. http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/ numismatics. 215 D.12 Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley Collections Overview 0 J The ccteso(f» jof we WwkHM Htam Maitum of A«Ww>f»togy m vast m t dJwfse, The «umlwr Of ofcjects tft thf t«8ecac« s» aporoH&naWy mSSert. the ‘ttgnft of wNth «c tht (Mfermi asSeettew, 8 Our t^stery *p»» war wo y*s«, m g« «0# m the process of o & <*» (ofectiom mmagewem A t>ytem » & Srtsith Af>Hsr*4 e«?*p(* Awief-t Aw* i fc#r. *«t»:i* ^ «kw*sa | the Hear** Atowum s ««» Cofte*tie«s Portai is t* S**f,t!r?5« i.Vswv'Yjs, i oreSn* with ttfoffftttioA ( m every object» Or fry o«* of these popoiar &*****»: £*ty1«ura*Aiisotthe#wilat IS^xawoe Sues JAMao «wsfc* j ftsx&o feather**} basket* NSSW&siSfl ?0» wissortr jjho«Bgi»0l*fitofc*i*w «*»*• pase&'ajs )fawft»w w*e>ipi5or* %y?*i (irs*«s «k«s> jf arc&aes sifc J Vanuatu tfm j ?>£«&&»* i»sS*r.t CenwRJt «*s*s j Cerkseitwtt { J»s»r*s« SHSsyfet J NVV CaSfamte *St fcew* spec* SSwwMSert WM#S SHua* (fetation* ftWhScuWMf &*«£&&*& The SouiJmwatift tf**?3BS ?><* s»ti«rvs« «vr f isles’ *m CaSeoJOit* ftortal t h«hh»w Mca^MV- a vvt' «tmw*n<* m cauhj«^ <«s«*0a Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology. 2016a. “Collections Overview.” Accessed November 7, 2016. http://hearstmuseum.berkeley.edu/collections/overview. 216 D.13 Princeton Numismatic Collection PRINCETON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY I B TH. OFPAfirMfiN'f Of f j RARE BOOKS a n d SPECIAL COLLECTIONS A1Hn"onc** * * flndinga!ds'andwd0 Explore ♦ Collections ^ Conducting Research * Visit Us Ask A Question Home Conducting Research Catalogs & Databases Princeton Numismatic Collection database Catalog of the coins, medals and tokens, paper money, casts, exonumia in Princeton's Numismatic Collection. The Princeton University Numismatic Collection database was initiated in 2005 to provide web based access to the entire collection through a searchable database with photographs of all objects. As most of the records are being written by Princeton University students, the order of cataloguing has depended on the scholarly interests and research skills of the students. Only a small fraction of the more than 110,000 pieces in the collection are currently online. If you don't find what you‘re looking for, contact the curator for information of specific areas of our holdings.As each piece is entered into the database, records of its obverse and reverse are made in both JPEG and TIFF formats. In the retrieval list from the searches below, these images appear as thumbnails. You can left -click on the images to make them larger m MrtwiecMi. -wo B.C. Ahtem. m m and right click on them to save them to your computer. High resolution (about 50 MB per side) archival versions of these are available as TIFFs for detailed study and publication; contact the curator for information on procedures, costs, and restrictions.View die definitions of the database fields in the searches and reports. Use This Database Locations Where to About the Department Princeton University Library Today; Open 9,00 am to 4:45 pm Access Your Account Collections and Divisions Ki # RMSB Ask a Question Exhibitions Firestone library Find Material For Children |PR IN CETON One Washington Road F UNIVERSITY Order images Friends of the library Princeton, NJ 08540 teorn About Theses & Dissertations New & Notable O 2016 The Trustees of Princeton 609-258-3184 Review Grant Opportunities Publications University. Ail rights reserved- Scheduie a Class Visit Staff Directory Seeley 6. Mudd Manuscript Library Visit US Staff Workflows 65 Olden Street Princeton. Nj 08540 609-258-6345 Calendars: R8SC} Mudd Princeton University. 2017. “Princeton Numisamtic Collection database.” Accessed September 5, 2017. http://rbsc.princeton.edu/databases/princeton-numismatic- collection-database. D.14 Rare Books and Special Collections, University of Notre Dame tUNIVERSJTY OF N O TR E DAM E HesburghLibraries Rare Books & Special Collections Home Formats Digital Projects Exhibits About Us Hesbuirgb Uhri > ftrwe Books & Special Collections - Numi&tmUcit Coitecfions Contents Numismatic Collections .*■ US History & Culture Notre Dame Special Collections has strong holdings related to the coins and paper currency used: in colonial British * Irish Studies America. There is also an extensive collection of 17th-19th century world coins as we8 as collections of Washington *■ Latin American & Iberian Studies tokens, 19th century US Hard Times, Merchant and CM War tokens. Confederate currency, German and Austrian *■. Natural Science. Natural History rsotgeid. and a fairly complete type set of regular issue US coins. We also have smaller holdings in Spanish-American colonial silver. British Conder tokens, world paper currency, as weil as some ancient and medieval 'com. & Medicine 0. Theology & Church History *■; American Catholic Studies Coins of Colonial America 0. Italian Literature A catalog and historical essay on the coins of colonial and early America from *, fine Presses <8, Artists" Books wampum and Massachusetts silver through the provisional half dlsme of 5792. The 0. Medieval & Renaissance catalog contains over 275 coins divided by coin types. Each section contains an * - Modern European Culture's Introductory essay reflecting recent scholarship followed toy full color htgh-quaftty jpeg *, Russian & East European Studies images and descriptions tor each coin. *■ Sports A few highlights of this collection include:, a group of Spanish American gold ingots from * Numismatics 1659, a well preserved Noe 1 Oak Tree shilling fat right), a Migfey copper, a Continental Coins of Colonial Amer ica r* “dollar. a 1784 Imitation British halfpenny and a 1792 has? disme. ■■ Americ an Colonial Currency t:f Washington Tokens American Colonial Currency £S IS A catalog featuring hundreds of examples of colonial paper currency wrtn Fail Semester Hours supplementary sections on colonial lottery tickets and fiscal documents. Currency examples range from the New York issue of May 31, 1709 to the fractional currency I'SfeCf/W Qf» 21$t private?*,' emitted in the 1790 s during the copper pause. Emissions are listed under the Monday - Fnday 9 am - 5 pm colony of issue followed by Continental Congress issues. There are a number of notes primed hy Beniamin Franklin A few of the highlights >n the collection are: an example of the earliest Washington token the 1783 Georgius Triumpho copper, a Born Virginia token, an example of a Washington memorial funeral token created by Jacob Perkins, a Washington Monument token of 184® sat right) and one of a very few surviving examples of the NO GOOD token. Most of the items on exhibit were part of an anonymous donation to Notre Dame consisting of ? 100 tokens and medals covering the Nineteenth century. The Numismatic Collections of the Department of Specsai Collections have their own Web Site at eoins.nd.edu This Site currently consists of three sections: • Coins of Colonial America • American Colonial Currency • Washington Tokens In addition, we are working on our collections of Confederate Currency and our Nineteenth Century American token collection. To view several hundred of our unlinked token images, click on Index of Tokens. To see preliminary scans of some CSA notes, click on CSA index. University of Notre Dame I Rare Books 8 Special Collections Ug/NOTRK DAME tD2 Hesburgh Library f Notre Dame, IN 46556 libraries Email: rarebookfind.edu Tel: 574.631.02901 Fax. 574.631.6308 Contact information ! Library Policies BesNet »* j Mobile version University of Notre Dame Hesburgh Libraries. 2016. “Numismatic Collections.” Accessed November 7, 2016. http://rarebooks.library.nd.edu/collections/ numismatics/index.shtml. 218 D.15 The Smithsonian Institution National Numismatic Collection, The National Museum of American History # Smithsonian EXPLOPE HISTORY the National Museum of AMERICAN HISTORY mm | National Numismatic Collection Collections Search Subjects Search fm- | Object Groups Search only items with images Contents The National Numismatic Collection is comprised of approximately 16 mMon objects and is thought to be the largest money collection in me world its diverse * intro duction holdings represent every inhabited continent and span more than three millennia. * Online The collection has grown from a few thousand ofcgects m the mid -isth century* to its present m e through donations fwn pudlie institutions and private collections The National Numismatic Collection is unrivaled in its holdings of American material. It is the U.S. monetary system's collection of record and includes the extraordinary collections of the US. Hint Treasury and Bureau of Engraving and Printing.. A small porton of the National Numismatic Collection *s availaole here. The National Numismatic Collection is currently working to develop digitization initiatives In order to make the collection more accessible to the public. 'National Numismatic Collection - introduction* showng items. w* Page 1 of 0 Sign up for Monthly E-newsletter Smithsonian Nmtmd Mmmm efAmtrkan HiMmf Email Addom K m m t k E Behring C'Jnirr Constitution Avenue, NW Between tzth and 14th Streets SI Home WasNngton. D.C. Terms of Us© Privacy Smithsonian National Museum of American History. 2016a. “National Numismatic Collection.” Accessed November 7, 2016. http://americanhistory.si.edu/ collections/object-groups/national-numismatic-collection?edan_start=0&edan_fq =topic%3A%22Legendary+Coins%22. 219 D.16 The Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History Wgm * Jteseands & > Collections Search Museum Collection Records i Cofitelion* Search Pages [ Databasad Collections Stats coteciionResearch coaedJonsunits: of the National Museum of Natural History am available to the pubic for the following ton museum Department of Anthropology (465,658 records) Department of ftotany (2,383,020 records) Department of Entomology (457,969 records) Department of Invertebrate Zoology {1,787,56? records) Department of Mineral Sciences (425,246 records} Department of Paleobiology {656,660 records) Department of Vertebrate Zoology: Division of Amphibians & Reptiles (576,430 records) Division of Birds (522,173 records} Division of Fishes (436,606 records) Division of Mammals <60845$ records) Coiecticns A total of 8,325,166 sped men records ax currently available from this facility. Of these, approximately 292,000 represent all of' the museum’s available extant logical primary type specimen records, Approximately 139,000 are paieobolog Pease note that these electronic data do not represent the museum’s fui colectlon or all electronic or currently digitized specimen records. We constantly add new data and correct information In records, If you see an error in these data please contact us with appropriate details, These data are made avafebe throuuh a custom online facility that is a part of the j& Q > y ^ a p 7 Spemmtkti tmtibrtm ! Pr*aey I Home i Contact 1 Press I Site Wap { Donate Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. 2017. “Search Museum Collection Records.” Accessed September 5, 2017. http://collections.nmnh.si.edu/search/. 220 D. 17 The Fralin, University of Virginia Art Museum The Fralin | UVa Art Museum l l i i Numismatic Collection m u'** The fralin Museum of Art at the University of Virginia houses nearly 600 coins of Greek and Roman origin. The 10 coins were generally acquired in small lots that were purchased or donated from 1987*2001, but larger groups of coins belonging to English hoards were also acquired, including 51 from the *- 'i ,*: -,*v ■ and 302 from the Q i m j 0 chm : Hcx-jfi * About 450 of the total number of coins are from the Roman Republic or Empire, providing a broad sample of coins from the late 3rd century B.C. to the late 3rd century A.D., particularly from the Crisis of the Third Century-including more than 100 coins from the breakaway Gallic Empire of A.D. 260- 274. Among the collection is a small handful of Byzantine, Jewish, Nabataean, and Medieval coinage. This version of the numismatic collection website is based on - an open source framework for managing and publishing coins and medals. Numishare originated with the first release of this collection in 2008 through the : . . . of the : v following its development during a Roman numismatics graduate seminar taught by Prof. John Dobbins in the Fall of 2007. Currently, Numishare is developed and maintained by the a ■- < „ - .Mur v r > ' ' > f, and through Mumishare the fralin Museum collection utilizes numismatic concepts defined by and geographic places defined by the f % to make the collection broadly available by means of linked open data in and , and Nomisma.org. c* Ga I w Vs 1 ?5- 1Wt"t7.43. Of V:;fvS;n; This data is made available under the Open Database PO Sox 40013, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4113 License: Thomas H. Bayly Building ph; {434) 924-3201, fax: (434) 924-1431 ; .x::- 'O -■>^ ;:Vk/;;uo.'i AidbU i,&; . 155 Rugby Road, PO Box 400119 Comments/ Errors: Contact coins (at) Charlottesville VA 22904*4119 collab. itc.virgsnia.edu University of Virginia. 2017. “The Fralin; UVA Art Museum: Numismatic Collection.” Accessed September 5, 2017. http://coins.lib.virginia.edu/. 221 D.18 Yale University Art Gallery YALE UNIVERSITY ART GALLERY VISIT EXHIBITIONS ffltOCftAMS EDUCATION JOIN AND SUPPORT PUBLICATIONS ASOOT Home * C oB m m s * Coiiecftem REFINE RESULTS Search SHAM' < DEPARTMENT * SEARCH THE COLLECTION CLASSIFICATION OATS MAOS ► Enter keyword, artist, title, or object number cu lt u wsm »£ ► . sort 8Y Relevance ▼ (MACS. AVAiUUJU AVAilASiUTY ► « « 164,585 RESULTS • * COtUCfSOK OSfi'CTS Untitled m m %, osuwjncs, and pm rm m m s Artist: 8«ice Warden, American, bom 1938, M.F.A. 1963 Date: n.d. Medium; Graphite Accession Number. 1977.43.2 Culture; American Period 20th century Classification: Works on Paper - Drawings and watercoiors Status; Mot on «©w comcTioN oajetrs Western Motel AMIHSCAN PAiNTiNCS AN© $cuirru«£ Artist: Edward Hopper. American, 1882-1967 Date: 195? Medium: Oil on canvas Accession Number: 196118.32 Culture: American Period: 201ft century Classification: Paintings Status: On view COUKCtiON CHKICTS Flower Garden MOOSftN AMD CONTSMPOSUAY ART Artist James Rosenquist, American, 1933-2017 Date; 1981 Medium: Oil on canvas Accession Number: 1995.32.10 Culture: American Period: 20th century Classification: Paintings Status: Not on view coiUECtiOH oarscrs Portrait Mask of a Woman (Ndoma) Amcm a« Date: early 20th century Medium: Wood and metal Accession Number: 1996.13 1 Culture: Saule Classification: Masks Status: Not on view ■Kra coaxcrwH owners Self-Portrait/Whitc ink mms, DRAWINGS, AND m m mm pm Artist: Chuck Close, American, bom 1940. b.fa 1963, M .FA 1964, HON, 1996 Date: 1978 Medium; Surface-roiled etching in white ink on black paper Accession Number: 1998.50.2 Culture: American Period; 20th centuty Classification; Works on Paper - Prints Status: Not on view 222 couiertoN o m z n Self- Portrait/Black Ink wtwm, and moTo««Arw Artist: Chuck Close, American, bom 1940* BfA 1963. M.fA 1964, HOH, 1996 Date; 1977 Medium: Etching in batek irfc Accession Number: 1998 50.1 Culture. American Period; 20th century Classification: Works on Paper - Phnss Status: Not on view couKJsm tmtets Chalice AMimtAH m com iw t a » t s Maker. Assayer Feiipe De Ribas *EJ Mayor* Date: ca. 1695 Medium: Silver Accession Number: 1999 22.1 Culture; Mexican Period: 17 th century Classification: Containers - Meta! Status: On view couscnm tmtcts Untitled (Tape dawn dimensions, paint mmits., o«AWiNcs, and motocmms internal color, paint tapes which mark out picture to paint .) Artist: Sylvia Bimack Mangold, American. ton 1938. 8,FA 1961 Date: 1977 Medium: AcsrySc and graphite on paper Accession Number: 1999.112.2 Cuiture; Amencan Period: 20!h century Classification: Works on Paper - Drawings and watercoiors Status: No! on view c&tiMcnm om crs Bat. Boyz m o m m an® contsmporastv a r t Artist: Aiison Saar, American, born 1958 Date: 2C01 Medium: Baseball bats and pitcn Accession Number: 2C01.l0l.1a-b Cuiture: American Period; 21st century Classification: Sculpture Status; Not on view touscna* 04IKTS Mask Representing a Beautiful Af mem Am Mother (D'mba) Date: Sate 19th-earfy 20th century Medium: Wood and brass Accession Number. 2006,.51.390 Cuiture: Buiungits. PuKur, or Saga, Sitem subgroup Ciassification: Masks Status; On view* Frm and opm to the public Corctssfct f * m a Yale fH^ws m 4 Hepfw J:«clk» Today's hours; 10 em -S pm fmss^ss y p Copyright © 2017 The Yttfs IWverofcy Art Gatory. M right* reserved WwmlsMw l » s and CnwSfc* 1111 CHapej Strew* (at York Street) Maw Haven, Connecticut im p Yale University Art Gallery. 2016. “Search the Collection.” Accessed November 7, 2016. http://artgallery.yale.edu/collection/search. 223 Appendix E: Informal Survey Institutional Results Alphabetical List of Institutions Surveyed: 1. American Numismatic Association Edward C. Rochette Money Museum (ANA Money Museum). 2. American Numismatic Society (ANS). 3. Durham Museum. 4. The Fralin Museum of Art, University of Virginia (The Fralin). 5. Harvard Art Museums (HAM). 6. The J. Paul Getty Museum. 7. Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan (Kelsey Museum). 8. Lawrence University. 9. Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA). 10. Museum of Fine Arts Boston (MFA, Boston). 11. Metropolitan Museum of ART (MET). 12. The North Carolina Collection at the University of North Carolina (NCC). 13. Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley (Phoebe A. Hearst Museum). 14. Princeton Numismatic Collection (PNC). 15. Rare Books and Special Collections at the University of Notre Dame (University of Notre Dame). 16. The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian NMNH). 17. The Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection, National Museum of American History (Smithsonian NNC). 18. Yale University Art Gallery. 224 Table E.l. Informal Survey Components and Possibilities Component Result Options Accessible Collections Management Policy Yes/No Coin or Numismatic Specific Exhibition Yes/No Digitally Searchable Collection Yes/No Physical Description Yes/No Typological Description Yes/No Numismatic References Yes/No Basic Administrative Information Yes/No Provenance Yes/No Credit Line Yes/No Exhibition History Yes/No Obverse Side Digital Image Yes/No Reverse Side Digital Image Yes/No Coin Description Yes/No Coin Legend Yes/No Coin Legend Translation Yes/No Online Map Yes/No Related Objects Yes/No Ancient Coin Collections Yes/No 225 Table E.2. Accessible Collections Management Policy Result Institutions Number Percenta ge Yes ANS 13 72% The Fralin (informal) J. Paul Getty Museum HAM Kelsey Museum MET MFA, Boston (informal) NCC SMITHSONIAN NMNH Phoebe A. Hearst Museum (informal) PNC Smithsonian NNC Yale University Art Gallery (informal) No ANA Money Museum 5 28% Durham Museum LACMA Lawrence University University of Notre Dame 226 Table E.3. Coin or Numismatic-Specific Gallery Result Institutions Number Percentage Yes ANA Money Museum 4 22% ANS MFA, Boston (informal) Smithsonian NNC No Durham Museum 14* 78% The Fralin HAM J. Paul Getty Museum Kalesey Museum LACMA Lawrence University MET NCC SMITHSONIAN NMNH Phoebe A. Hearst Museum* PNC University of Notre Dame Yale University Art Gallery *The Phoebe A. Hearst Museum was under construction at the time of the survey and has no galleries. 227 Table E.4. Digitally Searchable Collection Result Institutions Number Percentage Yes ANA Money Museum 17 94% ANS The Fralin HAM J. Paul Getty Museum Kesley Museum LACMA Lawrence University MET MFA, Boston NCC SMITHSONIAN NMNH Phoebe A. Hearst Museum PNC Smithsonian NNC University of Notre Dame Yale University Art Gallery No Durham Museum 1 6% 228 Table E.5. Physical Description Result Institutions Number Percentage Yes ANA Money Museum 15 72% ANS The Fralin HAM J. Paul Getty Museum LACMA Lawrence University MET MFA, Boston NCC Phoebe A. Hearst Museum PNC Smithsonian NNC University of Notre Dame Yale University Art Gallery No Durham Museum 3 28% Kelsey Museum SMITHSONIAN NMNH 229 Table E.6. Typological Description Result Institutions Number Percentage Yes ANA Money Museum 17 94% ANS The Fralin HAM J. Paul Getty Museum Kelsey Museum LACMA Lawrence University MET MFA, Boston NCC SMITHSONIAN NMNH Phoebe A. Hearst Museum PNC Smithsonian NNC University of Notre Dame Yale University Art Gallery No Durham Museum 1 6% 230 Table E.7. Numismatic References Result Institutions Number Percentage Yes ANA Money Museum 10 56% ANS Kelsey Museum LACMA Lawrence University MET NCC PNC Smithsonian NNC University of Notre Dame No Durham Museum 8 44% The Fralin HAM J. Paul Getty Museum MFA, Boston SMITHSONIAN NMNH Phoebe A. Hearst Museum Yale University Art Gallery 231 Table E.8. Basic Administrative Information Result Institutions Number Percentage Yes ANA Money Museum 16 89% ANS The Fralin HAM J. Paul Getty Museum Kelsey Museum LACMA Lawrence University MET MFA, Boston SMITHSONIAN NMNH Phoebe A. Hearst Museum PNC Smithsonian NNC University of Notre Dame Yale University No Durham Museum 2 11% NCC 232 Table E.9. Provenance Result Institutions Number Percentage Yes The Fralin 9 50% HAM J. Paul Getty Museum Kelsey Museum Lawrence University MFA, Boston Phoebe A. Hearst Museum University of Notre Dame Yale University No ANA Money Museum 9 50% ANS Durham Museum LACMA MET NCC SMITHSONIAN NMNH PNC Smithsonian NNC 233 Table E.10. Credit Line Result Institutions Number Percentage Yes HAM 9 50% J. Paul Getty Museum Lawrence University MET MFA, Boston SMITHSONIAN NMNH Phoebe A. Hearst Museum PNC Smithsonian NNC No ANA Money Museum 9 50% ANS Durham Museum The Fralin Kelsey Museum LACMA NCC University of Notre Dame Yale University 234 Table E.11. Exhibition History Result Institutions Number Percentage Yes J. Paul Getty Museum 1 6% No ANA Money Museum 17 94% ANS Durham Museum The Fralin HAM Kelsey Museum LACMA Lawrence University MET MFA, Boston NCC SMITHSONIAN NMNH Phoebe A. Hearst Museum PNC Smithsonian NNC University of Notre Dame Yale University Art Gallery 235 Table E.12. Obverse Digital Image Result Institutions Number Percentage Yes ANA Money Museum 16 89% ANS The Fralin HAM J. Paul Getty Museum LACMA Lawrence University MET MFA, Boston NCC SMITHSONIAN NMNH Phoebe A. Hearst Museum PNC Smithsonian NNC University of Notre Dame Yale University Art Gallery No Durham Museum 2 11% Kelsey Museum 236 Table E.13. Reverse Digital Image Result Institutions Number Percentage Yes ANA Money Museum 14 78% ANS The Fralin HAM J. Paul Getty Museum Lawrence University MFA, Boston NCC SMITHSONIAN NMNH Phoebe A. Hearst Museum PNC Smithsonian NNC University of Notre Dame Yale University Art Gallery No Durham Museum 4 22% Kelsey Museum LACMA MET 237 Table E.14. Coin Description Result Institutions Number Percentage Yes ANA Money Museum 13 72% ANS The Fralin HAM J. Paul Getty Museum Kelsey Museum Lawrence University MET NCC Phoebe A. Hearst Museum PNC Smithsonian NNC University of Notre Dame No Durham Museum 5 28% LACMA MFA, Boston SMITHSONIAN NMNH Yale University Art Gallery 238 Table E.15. Coin Legend Result Institutions Number Percentage Yes ANS 10 56% The Fralin HAM J. Paul Getty Museum Kelsey Museum Lawrence University MET NCC PNC University of Notre Dame No ANA Money Museum 8* 44% Durham Museum LACMA MFA, Boston SMITHSONIAN NMNH Phoebe A. Hearst Museum Smithsonian NNC Yale University Art Gallery *One institution did not provide the legend, but provided t he language that the legend was in. 239 Table E.16. Coin Legend Translation Result Institutions Number Percentage Yes J. Paul Getty Museum 2 11% Lawrence University No ANA Money Museum 16 89% ANS Durham Museum The Fralin HAM Kelsey Museum LACMA MET MFA, Boston NCC SMITHSONIAN NMNH Phoebe A. Hearst Museum PNC Smithsonian NNC University of Notre Dame Yale University Art Gallery 240 Table E.17. Online Map Result Institutions Number Percentage Yes ANS 3 17% The Fralin Phoebe A. Hearst Museum No ANA Money Museum 15 83% Durham Museum HAM J. Paul Getty Museum Kelsey Museum LACMA Lawrence University MET MFA, Boston NCC SMITHSONIAN NMNH PNC Smithsonian NNC University of Notre Dame Yale University Art Gallery 241 Table E.18. Related Objects Result Institutions Number Percentage Yes MET 2 11% Yale University Art Gallery No ANA Money Museum 16 89% ANS Durham Museum The Fralin HAM J. Paul Getty Museum Kelsey Museum LACMA Lawrence University MFA, Boston NCC SMITHSONIAN NMNH Phoebe A. Hearst Museum PNC Smithsonian NNC University of Notre Dame 242 Table E.19. Ancient Coin Collections Result Institutions Number Percentage Yes ANA Money Museum 16 89% ANS Durham Museum The Fralin HAM J. Paul Getty Museum Kelsey Museum LACMA Lawrence University MET MFA, Boston SMITHSONIAN NMNH Phoebe A. Hearst Museum PNC Smithsonian NNC Yale University Art Gallery No NCC 2 11% University of Notre Dame 243 Appendix F: Alphabetical Listing of Online Catalog Samples from Case Study Institutions F. 1 American Numismatic Association Edward C. Rochette Money Museum: Ancient; Syracuse 410 BC Dekadrachm by Kimon, ANA Number 1994.0044.0001 F.2 The J. Paul Getty Museum: Silver Coin (tetradrachm) of Athens; Object 2015.5 F.3 Harvard Art Museums: Tetradrachm of Athens; Object Number 1.1965.1585 F.4 The Smithsonian Institution National Numismatic Collection, The National Museum of American History: 1 Decadrachm, Syracuse, about 400 B.C.E.; Catalog Number 1981.1025.0010 F. 1 American Numismatic Association Edward C. Rochette Money Museum: Ancient; Syracuse 410 BC Dekadrachm by Kimon, ANA Number 1994.0044.0001. The American Numismatic Association (ANA) Edward C. Rochette Money Museum’s website is private and available to American Numismatic Association members through their website (ANA 2016). American Numismatic Association. 2017. “Explore the Money Museum Online Collection.” Accessed September 12, 2017. https://www.money.org/money- museum/museum-collection. 244 F.2 The J. Paul Getty Museum: Silver Coin (tetradrachm) of Athens; Object 2015.5 Explore the Getty w ComttX witt? Us 1 Shop of Collections Search Q. Silver coin (tetradrachm) of Athens e < # Main Im age C* 5C OOWNlOAD TfitS *naqrs si waila&te for Not currently on view Alternate Views Object Details Title-. Silver coin (tetradrachm) of Athens Artist'Maker Unknown Culture: Greek Races; Athens, Greece (Place created) Hauran, Jordan (Place found) Date; about 480 - 455 B.C. Medium; Silver Dxrm&on&: 2.5 cm, 17.2 g (1 in., 0.0379 lb.) Marksnp: ATHE (for Athens) Object Type: Coin Object Number: 2015.5 See less A 245 Silver tetradrachm (four-drachma coin) from Athens. On its obverse, the heimeted head of Athena, in profile to the right, and on its reverse, the owl of Athena, facing frontally, with an olive sprig, a crescent, and an inscription. This coin is well-struck and in excellent condition, with the designs relatively centered and rendered in high detail. Athena wears 3 crested Attic helmet decorated with three olive leaves above the visor and a spiral palmette on the bowl Her hair sweeps across her forehead in two loops of parallel strands and is visible behind the helmet's neck guard. She has an archaic smile and a frontal almond-shaped eye, an anachronistic style preferred for this coin type, The design goes to the very edge of the coin, partially cutting off Athena's chin. On the reverse, the owl stands to the right, its head turned to face frontally and tilted at a slight angle. Its wing and three tail feathers are clearly delineated in high detail. The two-leafed olive sprig Is in the top left corner and the crescent, possibly a waning moon, is just above the owl’s wing. The inscription ”ATH£,* located in the bottom right, is an abbreviation of ATHENAiON. "of the Athenians.” The owl is struck in high relief and framed on all four sides by the shape of the die. Athenian "Owls,* as they were called, were minted m Athens for over four hundred years, beginning in 512 B.C. Although the style evolved, the coins retained the same basic design of Athena on the obverse and her patron owl on the reverse. This coin dates to the period just before 449 B.C. when the production of owls increased exponentially to fund building projects and the Peloponnesian War. This coin is one of ten Athenian tetradrachms found in a hoard of coins, ingots, and jewelry discovered in 1967 on the Jordanian-Syrian border in the region of Hauran {near the ancient city of Bostra). The hoard contained coins from over twenty mints, the majority from four areas: Athens (31), Cyprus (21), southwest Asia Minor (15) and the Thrace-Macedonian area (13). The distribution and style of the Athenian coins date the hoard's burial to around 445 B.C. The Jordan hoard, and other examples of Greek coin hoards, speak to the circulation of Greek coins in the Near East and Egypt to be used as bullion. Provenance Bibliography Found: Hauran, Jordan 1967- Private Dealer by 1967 or 1968 Hesperia Art by 1969 Private Collection {Canada] -1969 Private Collection, sold on consignment from a Canadian collection through Frederick S, Knobloch, 1969. -1996 Private Collection Isold, Leu Numismatsk AG, May 21, 1996, lot 167.] by 2000 - 2015 MoneyMuseum {sold, Triton XVIII, Classical Numismatic Group, Inc., New York, January 6, 2015, lot 510, to the J. Paul Getty Museum.) Tivs ttlafffltatk#* is (xMsstwi ?wn me t&aom't cofecfcof; <5ata&aso. Uocsate* md actions from mve&ert kra&rg activities are ongcwig. «*tft ww content muxi week-, # Hess u* improve our rocoftic toy sharing you? csofrataiom or suggests». j(fc)n i— ; Th© text on to* page i* fcoensed a Cftwsva Common* Aanowtk,*^ 4.0 imemafcooai license. unless otherwise rxMd swages and otner meeia are excised. «*.* Tt» eersWftt on ms page $ avaiiaase ac c w sn g to tue Internationa! image fcteroperafeMy fwrttwork IMF) s p e c r f s c m You may vaew thsa o^ect in temtk* - a JHf-eompaiitoie v* * w « -b y ™ csc&ngon the IMP txeow the main wage, or &y otagging the cor an ope* tiW v&mr wnttow Event Caiendar Museum Education library e-Newsietters Press Room M The J. Paul Getty Trust *>J . Paul Getty Trust Privacy Poiicy Terms of Use Contact Us The J. Paul Getty Museum. 2017. “Silver coin (tetradrachm) of Athens.” Accessed September 12,2017. http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/283744/unknown -maker-silver-coin-tetradrachm-of-athens-greek-about-460-455-bc/. 246 F.3 Harvard Art Museums: Tetradrachm of Athens; Object Number 1.1965.1585 W/ x + a & o t ® ^ I / * Identification and Creation 1.1965.1585 Tetradrachm of Athens Coins coin 495 BCE-480 BCE Creation Place: Ancient & Byzantine World, Europe, Athens (Attica) Archaic period Greek 247 Physical Descriptions Silver AR Struck 16.92 g 4 tetradrachm Reverse Inscription: ATHE H Provenance Acquired Gans, 1950 State, Edition, Standard cf. Kroll 8 Reference Number Acquisition and Rights Harvard Art Museums/Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Loan from the Trustees of the Arthur Stone Dewing Greek Numismatic Foundation 1.1965.1585 Division Asian and Mediterranean Art am [email protected] The Harvard Art Museums encourage the use of images found on this website for personal, noncommercial use, including educational and scholarly purposes. To request a higher resolution file of this image, please submit an online request:. Descriptions Obverse: Heimeted head of Athena r. Reverse: Ow! standing r„ head facing; to I., olive sprig. This record has been reviewed by the curatorial staff but may be incomplete. Our records are frequently revised and enhanced. For more information please contact the Division of Asian and Mediterranean Art at am [email protected] Harvard Art Museums. 2017. “Untitled.” Accessed September 12, 2017. http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1255512. 248 F.4 The Smithsonian Institution National Numismatic Collection, The National Museum of American History: 1 Decadrachm, Syracuse, about 400 B.C.E.; Catalog Number 1981.1025.0010 • Smithsonian EXPLORE H5STORY National Museum of AMERICAN HISTORY Collections 1 Decadrachm, Syracuse, about 400 B.C.E Collections Search Subjects Search for Direct Groups Search only items with images See Related Object Groups * National Numismatic Collection ttfsa a rn o w Among the most alluring coins of antiquity was the Syracuse dekadrachm. its artistry (d esig n ed toy K k rm a n d £usnatos, a m o n g o thers)*** incredibly high J*6e# have captivated c a rs lovers for tw o a n d a Half millennia. How did th e Greeks. w ho w orked only by hand, a c h e v e su c h levels o f be au ty ’ O n e of th o se a t t r a c t toy c oins su c h a s this w as a dynam ic Am erican p re sid e n t T heodore Woosevelt stooscvett's record as a political reformer a well known. W hat *s less recognizee is h is rote in reforrrsng A m erican m oney. W hen th e P resident c o m p ared co n tem p o rary A m erican c o n s to Classical m a ste rp ie c e s such a s this de>*adrachm he- b e c a m e indignant. Why, h e w ondered. did th e pow erf ul young nation h e w as leading to le rate its p e d e stn a n goid a ^ d silver c o tta g e ? W hy c o u ld n 't A m erican m o n e y b e m o re artistic5' W hy cou ld n 't it toe a s tocoubfU a s a n cie n t coinage"-' W hy couldn't ,1 feature dram atic refcet so that ewery fa c e t of its d e sig n w as c lear for alt to s e e ? R oosevelt .acted o n his thought e y enlistr-g sculptor .Augustus Sasnt-Gaudens to design what many regard as the most beautiful American con e v er p r o d u c e d th e .1907 tw enty-dollar g o to p iece la te 5th century BCE la te 5th century BCE Syracuse (MCCMAdg s ta te Stolid. Scsly pMvscAt. otscwrrioN silver {overall material) overall d;a 3 4 3 mm;, w t 42433 3 igsijossooto ACCSSSIOW NUMMft Jg6l,i02$ CATMOCNUM8EW jgsnoafiooio outm um A. Rosen 249 Sfc'fc M0«£ >TCMS ’‘Please rear! before submitting the form"1 Hiiw & comment or qt jestion 3bout this object to sivtre wth the commun-ty* Pk\n.e use the term beiow Selectctf comments w>ii appear on th-s page and may receive a ^ponse stout we cant R Your name * E-mait * t rm cof'!«^S :Hs Insist« few* ard be » « « publicly. C o m m e n t * What code is in the image? * Ef'Uf* tN> VHHB&m ifm n *' tm -wag# GMng Sign up for Monthly E*newslett«r m m Smithsonian Contact National Museum of American History Press Sm aiM dnm Kenneth £ Behring Center Site Map ■ an Constitute Avenue, NW Si Home • ■ * B • « Between mh and uth Streets Terms of Use Washington. DC Privacy Smithsonian National Museum of American History. 2017. “1 Decadrachm, Syravuse, about 400 B.C.E.” Accessed September 12, 2017. http://americanhistory.si.edu/ collections/search/object/nmah_ 1255512. 250 Appendix G: Case Study Interview Questions Collection’s Background 1. How many coins are in your organization’s ancient coin collection? 2. Is your organization still adding to your ancient coin collection? Storage and Housing 3. Please describe how your organization stores its ancient coin collection. [Are the coins housed individually? In metal or wood cabinets?] 4. Are the storage requirements for ancient coins different from other similar collections, e.g. numismatic collections, ancient collections? If so, how are those stored differently? Cataloging 5. How does your institution catalog your coins? What categories of information are prioritized, e.g., material, imperial period, donor? 6. Is information used in cataloging based on numismatic standards, or did your institution develop its own template? Care 7. What environmental factors are tracked in caring for ancient coins? [Is there a specific temperature and RH you maintain?] Are these factors different than when caring for different kinds of coins or metal objects? 8. Are there different procedures in place for managing ancient coins, or struck or cast coins, vs. pressed coins? 9. How are conservation issues with ancient coins identified? What are the most common conservation issues observed in your organization’s collection? 10. Does your institution have a Collections Management Policy? Does the department that houses your ancient coins have its own Collections Management Policy? Is it publicly accessible? [If not posted online]. Access 11. Is your institution’s collection of ancient coins published and/or publicly accessible online? 12. What are the main ways your institution’s coins are used or accessed? 13. Can you outline your organization’s policy for access to coins? [If not posted on web page]. [Do you require gloves to be worn?] If it is not available for public access, why? Digitization 14. Has your organization digitized its coins? If so, why? [For example, were specific photography protocols developed? Who on the staff was involved, by position?] 251 15. What technology was used to digitize the coins? 16. What was the process for digitizing coins? How long did the process roughly take [hours]? What staff position oversaw the execution the digitization process? Is the digitization process complete or are there future digitization efforts? 17. Does your organization have possible plans for 3D scanning of your coins? Website 18. How did you determine what catalog information to present online? 19. What was the process for deciding which images to place on your organization’s web page? [For example, who on the staff was involved, by position?] 20. What search terms or tags were developed to access the collection on your organization’s web page, and what staff position developed the search terms? Outreach 21. What outreach and educational efforts do you support in your role as coin collections manager? 22. Is there any outreach or educational efforts specific to the coin collection? Are there any future plans related to outreach and education specific to your coin collection? 23. Would you consider participation in a collective, cooperative data resource?*V%