SA-5, Floor C2 US Department of State 2200 C Street NW Washington, DC

January 6, 2020

Cultural Heritage Center (ECA/P/C) SA -5, Floor C2 U.S. Department of State 2200 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20522-05C2

Dear Members of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee:

I write to you in firm support of the request of Tunisia for a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States of America. I write specifically from a perspective informed by my own expertise in archaeology and ancient coinage. I have published extensively on the subject of numismatics and have been the numismatist for three archaeological sites: Yotvata and Huqoq in

Israel, and ‘Ayn Gharandal in Jordan. I consistently deploy archaeological information and coin circulation studies in my research; such information has bearing on the inclusion of coins in the proposed MoU with Tunisia as I address the first and second determinations.

As an archaeologist and art historian, whose research draws on both material context and more

traditional historical and art historical approaches, I am sensitive to the problem of looting and the consequent loss of information. In particular, I have published peer-reviewed research that documents the relationship between the antiquities trade – specifically the trade in ancient coins – in North America and the looting in “source countries” that occurs to feed this trade.1

Pursuant to the first and second determinations determination, it is clear from a simple Google

search that the archaeological and cultural heritage of Tunisia, including ancient coins, are under threat and that Tunisia is taking steps to combat looting and recover its heritage.2

In antiquity, the area of what is now Tunisia produced Punic and Roman coins. Punic coins were struck at the mints of Carthage and Utica. Roman provincial coins were struck at Carthage, Utica, Gergis, Achulla, Alipota, Hadrumentum, Leptis Minor, Thaena, Thapsus, and Thysdrus.

1 N.T. Elkins, “A Survey of the Material and Intellectual Consequences of Trading in Undocumented Ancient Coins: A Case Study on the North American Trade,” Frankfurter elektronische Rundschau zur Altertumskunde 7 (2008): 1-

13 (available online: http://www.fera-journal.eu); id, “Treasure Hunting 101 in America’s Classrooms,” Journal of Field Archaeology 34.4 (2009): 482-489; id, “The Trade in Fresh Supplies of Ancient Coins: Scale, Organization, and Politics,” in P.K. Lazarus and A.W. Barker, eds., All the King’s Men: Essays on the Impact of Looting and the Illicit Antiquities Trade on Our Knowledge of the Past. (Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology, 2012), 91-107; id., “Ancient Coins, Find Spots, and Import Restrictions: A Critique of Arguments Made in the

Ancient Coin Collectors Guild’s ‘Test Case’,” Journal of Field Archaeology 40.2: 236-243. 2 E.g., “Everything is Stolen from Us”: Tunisians Fight to Preserve Cultural Heritage. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tunisia-art-propertyrights/everything-is-stolen-from-us-tunisians-fight-to- preserve-cultural-heritage-idUSKCN1TK007.

COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES I Department of Art & Art History One Bear Place #97263 • Waco, TX 76798-7263 • (254) 710-1867 Such coins would have circulated rather locally and, contrary to the unsubstantiated assertions made by dealer lobbyists, are not just “found anywhere.” As I have indicated to the committee in the past with regard to Roman provincial coins, there is a mountain of evidence for their localized circulation patterns and numismatists and archaeologists are very familiar with the “rule of locality” when it comes to their study.3 Even books written for collectors and introductory audiences comment on the local circulation of Roman provincial coins, usually staying rather near to where they were minted.4 The designs on Roman provincial coins were, logically, concocted for local audiences.

In previous discussions regarding the inclusion of coins in various MoUs, the lobby of ancient coin dealers has skewed information. For example, in 2011 they presented a list of coin hoards found outside of Cyprus that contained Cypriot coins as “uncontestable evidence that these coins circulated widely during antiquity and since.” They did not, however, pay any mind to the numbers of Cypriot hoards containing Cypriot coins found in Cyprus! When this information that the lobby had omitted was presented to CPAC at the public hearing in 2011, a rough comparison of the numbers prompted one member of the committee to observe that approximately 80% of Cypriot coins with known find spots in hoards are recorded as found in Cyprus itself.5 This tactic of data omission has been deployed consistently by the opponents of bilateral agreements, as in the renewal with Greece where a list of Greek coins found outside of Greece was provided without any discussion of the numbers of Greek coins found within Greece. In the recent hearing on a renewal with Cyprus in 2016, the lobby took quotes from Danielle Parks’ book on the Roman provincial coinage of Cyprus out of context to suggest that such coins circulated in abundant numbers far outside of the island, which is not at all what her research suggested or what she concluded. At the public hearing on Libya in 2017, one lobby spokesman made the reckless claim: “Libyan coins are not found in Libya.” Although the lobbyist provided data for some Libyan coins found in neighboring countries, he had totally ignored evidence for Libyan coins found in Libya. That evidence was easily available in the same source he used for coins found in neighboring countries; I pointed out the omission and the preponderance of evidence pointing to more localized circulation patterns.

Therefore, I urge the committee to use vigilance when assessing any “evidence” of lists from the lobby of ancient coin dealers that they assert proves that ancient coins from Tunisia are not found in Tunisia, or “circulated widely.” Indeed, the lobby often argues that coins cannot and should not be protected in MoUs because coins circulated widely. While this is true for some types of coins, many other types of coins tended circulate much more locally and did not travel far from the areas where they were made and put into circulation. In fact, the designated lists for the various MoUs implemented thus far protect these classes of coins (see attachment for a rebuttal of the lobby’s assertions regarding coin circulation and MOUs and a critique of deceptive tactics when advocating against MoUs). Widely circulating types, such as Roman Republican and Imperial denarii, have routinely been omitted from the designated lists.

3 E.g., On the local circulation patterns of Roman provincial coinage, see T.B. Jones, “A Numismatic Riddle: The So-Called Greek Imperials,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 107.4 (1963): 308-347; A. Burnett, ‘‘The Roman West and the Roman East,’’ in C. Howgego, V. Heuchert, and A. Burnett, eds., Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) pp. 171–180. 4 K. Butcher, Roman Provincial Coins: An Introduction to the Greek Imperials (London: Seaby, 1988), pp. 23-38. 5 For discussion of the use and misuse of finds data presented to CPAC, see the attachment, esp. pp. 238-239 on Cyprus. In view of the evidence that import restrictions on coins of Tunisian type are appropriate and that coins, among other objects, are subject to pillage to supply markets, I recommend implementation of the MoU with Tunisia and in the inclusion of coins in any designated list. As the committee understands well, ancient coins are valuable cultural, historical, and archaeological artifacts. Removing them from protections, in order to transform them into simple collectibles, undermines their cultural, historical, and archaeological significance, as it divorces them from their contexts and the informative relationships they had with other objects. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Nathan T. Elkins, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Art History Greek and Roman Art & Archaeology

(Attachment)

Ancient coins, find spots, and import restrictions: A critique of arguments made in the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild’s ‘‘test case’’

Nathan T. Elkins

Baylor University

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) has launched multiple legal challenges aimed at undermining import restrictions on ancient coins into the United States in bilateral agreements with foreign countries. One key component of the ACCG’s argument is that the State Department has inappropriately restricted certain types of coins according to where they were made rather than where they are found, as mandated by the 1983 Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act. Although the ACCG has thus far been unsuccessful, it has not been pointed out that existing import restrictions on coins, in fact, have been written to include coins that tended to circulate locally and that are found primarily within the borders of the country with which the bilateral agreement is made. The ACCG’s argument is thus on shaky ground. As the ACCG continues to press ahead with new litigation, it is worth drawing attention to realities and probabilities of ancient coin circulation as they pertain to protected coins.

Keywords: antiquities trade, coins, lobbying, looting, CPIA, CPAC, ACCG

Introduction to import restrictions in the existing bilateral agree- The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) has ments (the agreement with China that includes ancient consistently challenged and protested the inclusion Chinese coins is not dealt with here as Chinese coinage of ancient coins in the designated lists of import is beyond the author’s area of expertise). restrictions in the United States government’s bilat- The United States became a party to the 1970 eral agreements with foreign countries. The ACCG is UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting a lobbying group, supported by dealer interests, and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer which actively combats any legislative measures that of Ownership of Cultural Property in 1972 when the restrict the trade in ancient coins, regardless of how Senate gave its consent to the ratification of the those coins make it to the marketplace (Elkins 2009, Convention with the reservation that the Convention 2012: 100–104). In the view of many archaeologists would not be effective until implementing legislation and numismatists, the undocumented removal of coins was enacted (U.S. Senate 1972). Enforceable legislation from archaeological sites or the unrecorded dispersal was created by means of the Convention on Cultural of hoards, by looters and treasure hunters, com- Property Implementation Act (CPIA) in 1983 (U.S. promises numismatic, archaeological, and historical Senate and House of Representatives 1983). The CPIA information (e.g., Beckmann 1998; Butcher and Gill states that ‘‘archaeological or ethnological material of 1990; Elkins 2012; Finley 1975: 96; Go¨bl 1987: 74–75; the State Party’’ may be subject to import restrictions Kraay 1976: xxiv; von Kaenel 1994, 2009: 22–23; and specifies: ‘‘any object of archaeological interest; Wartenberg Kagan 2007, 2012). Among its arguments, any object of ethnological interest; or any fragment or the ACCG has asserted that coins should not be part of any object referred to in subparagraph (A) or subjected to protective legislation or import restric- (B) which was first discovered within, and is subject to tions as coins circulated widely in the ancient world. export control by, the State Party’’ (U.S. Senate and This article assesses the ACCG’s reasoning with House of Representatives 1983). respect to numismatic and archaeological scholarship In the extension of the Memorandum of Under- on ancient coin circulation in the Mediterranean world standing (MOU) with the Republic of Cyprus that and the types of Greco-Roman coins that are subject went into effect on July 16, 2007, coins of Cypriot type were added to the designated list of restricted Correspondence to: Nathan T. Elkins, Department of Art, Baylor archaeological and ethnological materials. Specified University, One Bear Place #97263, Waco, TX 76798-7263. Email: [email protected] were (U.S. Department of State 2007):

ß Trustees of Boston University 2015 236 DOI 10.1179/0093469015Z.000000000114 Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL.40 NO.2 Elkins A critique of arguments made in the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild’s ‘‘test case’’

Coins of Cypriot types made of gold, silver, and without mandating that the government demonstrate bronze including but not limited to: 1) Issues of the that they were first discovered in modern Cyprus or ancient kingdoms of Amathus, Kition, Kourion, China. They suggest ‘‘merely identifying coins by Idalion, Lapethos, Marion, Paphos, Soli, and Salamis dating from the end of the 6th century B.C. country of origin is statutorily insufficient, for if this to 332 B.C. 2) Issues of the Hellenistic period, such as were all that were required, Congress would have those of Paphos, Salamis, and Kition from 332 B.C. to emphasized the place of ‘production’ rather than the c. 30 B.C. 3) Provincial and local issues of the Roman place of discovery’’ (U.S. Federal District Court of period from c. 30 B.C. to 235 A.D. Often these have a Maryland 2011: 33). In their complaint, the ACCG bust or head on one side and the image of a temple quotes a draft paper by the attorneys Stephen Urice (the Temple of Aphrodite at Palaipaphos) or statue (statue of Zeus Salaminios) on the other. and Andrew Adler (2010: 33–34, 2011: 154–159), who argue that the government is exceeding its authority In April 2009, the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild through import restrictions on ancient coins. In their imported 23 ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins from argument, Urice and Adler take at face value the a dealer in London in order to launch a legal assertion of two other lawyers, Peter Tompa and challenge to ‘‘strike down the unprecedented regula- Anne Brose (2005: 205, 214), that coins are a special tions banning importation of whole classes of ancient class of object and cannot be treated legally like other coins’’ (ACCG 2009). The coins were seized at the artifacts because they circulated widely; it follows Baltimore-Washington International Airport when then that one cannot determine where they were they were declared to be of Chinese and Cypriot found once they have been decontextualized without origin and to have neither recorded collecting record. It is worth noting here that Peter Tompa is histories nor known find spots. Prior to this 2009 the attorney and lobbyist for the ACCG as well as an test case that was designed to undermine import officer of the group. Wisely, the federal district court restrictions on ancient coins, the ACCG, along with notes ‘‘interpreting the ‘first discovered in’ requirement two other coin dealer lobby groups, the International to preclude the State Department from barring the Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) importation of archaeological objects with unknown and the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG), in find spots would undermine the core purpose of the 2007 initiated a series of Freedom of Information Act CPIA, namely to deter looting of cultural property. See suits in order to gain information about the imposi- 19 U.S.C. 1 2602(a)(1)(A)’’ (U.S. Federal District tion of import restrictions (e.g., ACCG 2007). Court of Maryland 2011: 35). The court further notes After several years in the courts, the ACCG has that the ‘‘ACCG’s argument, if taken to its logical been unsuccessful in its efforts to defeat the imposi- conclusion, could bring into question the import tion of import restrictions on ancient coins. On restrictions on every, or almost every, item on the August 8, 2011, the federal district court of Maryland designated lists’’ (U.S. Federal District Court of granted the government’s motion to dismiss (U.S. Maryland 2011: 36). Federal District Court of Maryland 2011). And on As the ACCG is now attempting to relitigate October 22, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals various issues in their case by contesting the forfeiture for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s of the seized coins (St. Hilaire 2012), it is worth ruling (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit exploring the validity of ACCG’s and Urice’s and 2012). The ACCG then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Adler’s (2010, 2011) claim that import restrictions Court, which declined to hear their case (U.S. have been applied to coins based on their place of Supreme Court 2013). The litigation continues as production rather than where they are found. This is the United States government is now forfeiting the especially germane as the ACCG continues to press coins, and the ACCG rehashes the same issues raised the ‘‘found in’’ versus ‘‘made in’’ argument. in the original case as it contests the forfeiture The assertion that import restrictions on ancient (forfeiture entails the confiscation of the coins by the coins have been applied to coins based on place of government as a lawful penalty for wrongdoing). production rather than where they are found is The ACCG challenges import restrictions from problematic. And it is worth observing that the multiple angles. One notable position put forward by unnuanced position of the ACCG that coins circu- the ACCG is that import restrictions are not being lated widely is promulgated solely on the unsup- properly applied to coins ‘‘first discovered within’’ the ported declarations of attorneys Urice and Adler borders of the State Party (that enters into a bilateral (2010: 33–34, 2011: 154–159), who in turn rely on the agreement with the United States), as required by the unsubstantiated pronouncements of attorneys CPIA; instead coins are being restricted, they say, Tompa and Brose (2005: 205, 214). Actual research according to their place of production. They assert on coin circulation is not cited by either group of that the President of the United States does not have authors; similarly, in the ACCG’s legal complaints, the authority to restrict all coins of a certain type empirical evidence and the research of bona fide

Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL.40 NO.2 237 Elkins A critique of arguments made in the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild’s ‘‘test case’’

numismatists and archaeologists who analyze coin pointed out that, while collating data on Cypriot finds and coin circulation are not cited. coins in hoards found outside of Cyprus, the ACCG While it is true that some coins, like many objects ignored and failed to address the contents of hoards in from the ancient world, moved around and circulated Cyprus (Luke and Evans 2012). Table 1 is a list of coin very widely, some types of coins circulated more hoards from Cyprus that contain Cypriot coins (data locally than others. Some classes of coins, such derived from Thompson, Morkhølm, and Kraay 1973 as Athenian tetradrachms, Roman Republican and [IGCH (Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards]) compared Imperial denarii, and late Roman Republican and with the ACCG’s list of hoards outside of Cyprus that Imperial bronze coins, circulated very widely in contain Cypriot coins. antiquity, although the Roman types were struck On average, Cypriot coins comprised about 45% of primarily at Rome at Lugdunum (Lyons, France). the coin hoards recovered in Cyprus compared with But other types of coins, such as the coinage from 9% of such hoards outside of Cyprus (TABLE 1). In the Greek cities that were less powerful, militarily or ACCG’s larger sample of hoards containing a total of economically, than Athens, Corinth, or Aegina, and 3662 coins, there were only total 313 Cypriot coins; the locally produced Roman provincial coinage, did this contrasts greatly with the smaller sample of not circulate as widely and are generally found in hoards in Cyprus that total 2878 coins, of which 1303 greater quantities closer to the cities where they were are Cypriot. Upon reflecting on this data, one CPAC put into circulation. Some ancient regions even member observed that if this were used as a rough deployed certain mechanisms to retain their coinage. guide for estimation, then approximately 80% of It is well known, for example, that Egypt had a closed Cypriot coins with known find spots from hoards currency system in the Ptolemaic and Roman were found on the island of Cyprus. In order to periods, probably to retain its silver coinage as there maintain its narrative, the ACCG spun the data and were not any silver resources in ancient Egypt the CPAC member’s observation to suggest ‘‘as many (e.g., Howgego 1995: 102). as 20% of ancient Cypriot coins are actually found In Cyprus, the evidence available indicates a strong outside of that country’’ (Sayles 2012). But most likelihood that the coins subject to import restrictions Cypriot coins are found on the island of Cyprus itself, primarily circulated in Cyprus. One significant cate- although some circulated to nearby areas (Kraay gory of protected objects in this MOU is the ‘‘Roman 1976: 310–311). provincial coinage.’’ Roman provincial coins, usually Coin circulation is certainly a complex issue and, copper or bronze, were minted for local use in the admittedly, it is impossible to speak in absolute terms Roman East until the late 3rd century A.D.; in the regarding the movement of coins in the past. It is western Mediterranean, the provincial coinage termi- possible that certain Cypriot coin types, such as the nated in the reigns of Tiberius (A.D. 14–37) and early silver coins of Cyprus, were intended for use Caligula (A.D. 37–41). Roman provincial bronze coin- internationally as it is known that some circulated far age, as a rule, tended to circulate locally and is found beyond Cyprus (Kagan 1994, 2011), although the in greatest abundance in local excavations and hoards number of coins from recorded find spots is slim (Burnett 2005: 175; Jones 1963; MacDonald 1976: 4– compared to later coins. Certainly, the Alexander 6). Introductory literature, which ought to be familiar tetradrachms were intended to be an international to scholars, dealers, and collectors alike, even com- form of coinage (Price 1991: 65–66); they are found in ments on the phenomenon of the localized circulation hoards within Cyprus and outside of it. But it is of provincial coins (Butcher 1988: 23–38). In regard undeniable that many coin types had limited circula- to the Roman provincial coinage of Cyprus, the tion areas. ACCG did not acknowledge the authoritative work of While the two lists were presented to CPAC to illu- Danielle Parks (2005), who at length discussed the strate different arguments, not to produce a scholarly circulation of Roman provincial coins in Cyprus. article on coin circulation in Cyprus, they do suggest The written comments of the ACCG, submitted to certain probabilities. The hoard evidence available to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) us suggests that there is a higher degree of probability in advance of the January 2012 public hearing on that Cypriot coins are found in Cyprus than outside of Cyprus’ request for a renewal of the MOU, argued it. The evidence for Greek hoards is skewed towards against the continued protection of Cypriot coins and the Hellenistic periods, and although the Alexander incorporated a list of Cypriot coins found in hoards tetradrachms of this period circulated widely, there is a outside of Cyprus to suggest that the coins circulated tendency for them to be found in greater quantities widely in antiquity and, therefore, ought not to closer to home. The Roman provincial coinage of be protected by import restrictions (Sayles 2011). Cyprus was even more restricted to circulation on the During the public hearing, a commentator in favor of island. While the majority of Cypriot coins in the the renewal and the continued protection of coins designated list were made in Cyprus, the provincial

238 Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL.40 NO.2 Elkins A critique of arguments made in the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild’s ‘‘test case’’ coins of Cyprus were struck at the mint of Rome in the Coins of Italian Types–A type catalogue of listed currency and coins can be found in N. K. Rutter Flavian and Trajanic periods (A.D. 69–117) for use and et al. (eds.), Historia Numorum: Italy (London, circulation in Cyprus (Parks 2005: 93–103). If the 2001). Others appear in G. F. Hill, Coins of ACCG argument is correct that import restrictions are Ancient Sicily (Westminster, 1903). 1) Lumps of applied to coins according to place of production, bronze (Aes Rude)–Irregular lumps of bronze used rather than according to find spot, it follows that the as an early medium of exchange in Italy from the 9th Flavian and Trajanic coinage of Cyprus would have century B.C.2)Bronze bars (Ramo Secco and Aes been exempted from the Cypriot MOU and covered in Signatum)–Cast bronze bars (whole or cut) used as a medium of exchange in central Italy and Etruria from the Italian MOU instead. Clearly, this is not the case. the 5th century B.C.3)Cast coins (Aes Grave)–Cast Since the original imposition of import restrictions bronze coins of Rome, Etruscan, and Italian cities on ancient coins of Cypriot type in 2007, Italy, from the 4th century B.C.4)Struck coins–Struck Greece, and Bulgaria also have signed MOUs with coins of the Roman Republic and Etruscan cities the United States in which some types of ancient produced in gold, silver, and bronze from the 3rd century B.C.toc.211B.C., including the ‘‘Romano- coins are restricted. Certain coins of Italian type were Campanian’’ coinage. 5) Struck colonial coinage– first subjected to import restrictions in 2011. The Struck bronze coins of Roman republican and early designated list specifies the protected types of Italian imperial colonies and municipia in Italy, Sicily, and coins (U.S. Department of State 2011a): Sardinia from the 3rd century B.C.toc.A.D. 37. 6)

Table 1 List of coin hoards from Cyprus that contain Cypriot coins (A) (Thompson, Morkhølm, and Kraay 1973 [IGCH]) compared with the ACCG’s list of hoards outside of Cyprus that contain Cypriot coins (B).

Hoard and find spot Total coins # of coins of Cypriot type % of coins of Cypriot type

A) IGCH 1469 (Cyprus) 39z 5 13% IGCH 1470 (Cyprus) 48 12 25% IGCH 1471 (Cyprus) 13 1 8% IGCH 1472 (Cyprus) 144 (recorded) 6 4% IGCH 1474 (Cyprus) 123 20 16% IGCH 1475 (Cyprus) 8 7 88% IGCH 1476 (Cyprus) 19 19 100% IGCH 1477 (Cyprus) 2484 1233 50% Totals 2878 1303 45% B) Mit Rahineh Hoard (Egypt) 23z 14% IGCH 1643 (Egypt) 4 1 25% IGCH 1901 (Egypt) 84 1 1% Delta Hoard (Egypt) 30 2 7% Demanur Hoard (Egypt) 165 9 5% Coin Hoards I, no. 7 (Egypt) 23 1 4% Coin Hoards II, no. 10 (Egypt) 14 1 7% Behna el Asl Hoard (Egypt) 77z 45% IGCH no. 1646 (Egypt) 15 3 20% Persepolis before 511 BC (Iran) 12 1 8% IGCH 1790 (Iran) 394 3 1% Ras Shamira (Syria) 39 6 15% Adana Hoard (Turkey) 10 3 30% IGCH 1199 (Turkey) 24z 5 21% IGCH 1255 (Turkey) 1300z 16 1% Coin Hoards I, no. 21 (Turkey) 82 2 2% Coin Hoards II, no. 36 (Turkey) 53 53 100% IGCH 1260 (Turkey) 100 50z 50% IGCH 1261 (Turkey) 16 2 13% IGCH 1259 (Turkey) 89z 44% IGCH 1252 (Turkey) 32 8 25% IGCH 1263 (Turkey) 145 29 20% IGCH 1263 (Turkey) 145z 27 19% IGCH 1252 (Turkey) 32 12 38% IGCH 1254 (Turkey) 18 1 6% Eastern Mediterranean Hoard (uncertain) 66 28 42% IGCH 1482 (Jordan) 113 21 19% IGCH 1483 (Lebanon) 100 4 4% IGCH 1830 (India) 115z 65% Balkh Hoard (Afghanistan) 170z 42% IGCH 1830 (Mesopotamia) 23 2 9% IGCH 1830 (Rhodes) 41z 12% Coin Hoards I, no. 15 (Turkey) 108 2 2% Totals 3662 313 9%

Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL.40 NO.2 239 Elkins A critique of arguments made in the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild’s ‘‘test case’’

Coins of the Greek cities–Coins of the Greek cities in being protected according to their typical place of the southern Italian peninsula and in Sicily (Magna discovery, not their place of production. Graecia), cast or struck in gold, silver, and bronze, Later in 2011, import restrictions that include from the late 6th century B.C.toc.200B.C. certain coins of Greek type were similarly announced A look at the types of restricted coins in the Italian in the MOU with Greece (U.S. Department of State MOU belies the ACCG’s and Urice and Adler’s 2011b): (2010, 2011) allegations that coins are being restricted Coins–Many of the mints of the listed coins can be according to place of production rather than find found in B. V. Head, Historia Numorum: A Manual spot as types that circulated primarily in Italy are of Greek Numismatics (London 1911) and C. M. those subjected to restriction. Early Italian currency Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek Coins (London such as the aes rude, ramo secco, aes signatum, and 1976). Many of the Roman provincial mints in aes grave were used primarily in Italy and have often Greece are listed in A. Burnett et al., Roman Provincial Coinage I: From the Death of Caesar been found in votive deposits there (Grueber 1970 to the Death of Vitellius (44 BC–AD 69) (London, [1910]: xii–xxxv; Rutter et al. 2001: 45). The MOU 1992) and id., Roman Provincial Coinage II: From cites the work of Rutter and colleagues (2001) on the Vespasian to Domitian (AD 69–96) (London 1999). early coinage of Italy, which catalogues and even A) Greek Bronze Coins–Struck by city-states, discusses the circulation of many classes of the leagues, and kingdoms that operated in the territory protected objects. Hoards indicate that the south of the modern Greek state (including the ancient territories of the Peloponnese, Central Greece, Italian Greek coinage primarily circulated locally in Thessaly, Epirus, Crete and those parts of the southern Italy (Rutter et al. 2001: 3–4); in fact, the territories of ancient Macedonia, Thrace and the denominational standards, which are different from Aegean islands that lay within the boundaries of the mainland Greece, may have encouraged the retention modern Greek state). Approximate date: 5th century of silver coins in Italy. Only rarely are south Italian B.C. to late 1st century B.C.B)Greek Silver Coins– This category includes the small denomination coins coins found outside of southern Italy. Etruscan coins of the city-states of Aegina, Athens, and Corinth, and also had a limited circulation, largely restricted to the Kingdom of Macedonia under Philip II and Etruria (Rutter et al. 2001: 23). And the Romano- Alexander the Great. Such coins weigh less than Campanian coinage also circulated primarily in Italy approximately 10 grams and are known as obols, (Rutter et al. 2001: 45). Also covered is the locally diobols, triobols, hemidrachms, and drachms. Also circulating colonial or provincial coinage of Italy. included are all denominations of coins struck by the other city-states, leagues, and kingdoms that operated What is not covered in the Italian MOU is notable: in territory of the modern Greek state (including Roman Republican denarii, struck after ca. 211 B.C., the ancient territories of the Peloponnese, Central and later gold and bronze denominations as well as Greece, Thessaly, Epirus, Crete and those parts of the the Imperial gold, silver, and bronze coins struck at territories of ancient Macedonia, Thrace and the the mint at Rome or at temporary mints in Italy. It is Aegean islands that lay within the boundaries of the modern Greek state). Approximate date: 6th century well known that these coins had a high degree of B.C. to late 1st century B.C.C)Roman Coins Struck mobility in the western Roman Empire and are often in Greece–In silver and bronze, struck at Roman and found outside of the Italian peninsula (the biblio- Roman provincial mints that operated in the territory graphy on the circulation of Roman precious-metal of the modern Greek state (including the ancient coinage, especially the denarii, and associated bronze territories of the Peloponnese, Central Greece, coins is large [e.g., Duncan-Jones 1989, 1999]). If, as Thessaly, Epirus, Crete and those parts of the territories of ancient Macedonia, Thrace and the the ACCG alleges, these agreements restrict coins Aegean islands that lay within the boundaries of the according to place of production rather than the find modern Greek state). Approximate date: late 2nd spot, would not the denarii and other coins of the century B.C. to 3rd century B.C. Republic and Empire, struck at the mint at Rome, As with the Italian MOU, some coins are con- have been restricted as well? spicuously absent in the MOU with Greece, namely the A great many ancient objects in addition to coins typically mobile gold coinage and large denomina- moved. One notable class of objects protected in the tion silver coins from Aegina, Athens, Corinth, and Italian MOU is imported Greek ceramics: Attic Macedonia. These coins are frequently found outside Black-Figure, Red-Figure, and White-Ground pot- of the modern state of Greece and widely circulated in tery, and Corinthian pottery (U.S. Department of antiquity on account of the mercantile and political State 2011a). These pots were made in mainland power of these areas in certain periods (Kraay 1976: Greece, but are very often found in Etruscan tombs 44–45, 63–77, 81–88; Price 1991: 65–66). What is in Italy (as an introduction, see Spivey 1991). included are the smaller denomination silver coins that Contrary to the ACCG’s arguments, and akin to circulated more locally, as well as the locally circulating the coins specified on the designated list, objects are bronze and Roman provincial coinage. And if one

240 Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL.40 NO.2 Elkins A critique of arguments made in the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild’s ‘‘test case’’ needs further evidence that the Roman provincial E) Ottoman coins–Struck at mints within the modern coinage was a locally circulating coinage, a few state of Bulgaria. Approximate date: A.D. 1396 through A.D. 1750. examples from excavation reports in Greece will suffice. The predominant mints among the Roman The agreement with Bulgaria protects the same provincial coin finds at Nemea are the nearest cities categories of coins that primarily circulated locally, that struck coins: Corinth and Argos (Knapp and Mac such as the early silver and bronze coinages of Isaac 2005: 36–48). At Corinth, the largest groups of Bulgaria, and the Roman provincial coinage. Unlike provincial finds are from Corinth; other prevalent finds the agreement with Greece, but similar to the represent mints from nearby cities in central Greece agreement with Cyprus, it includes Hellenistic coin- and Macedonia (Edwards 1933). The same pattern is age, such as the Alexander tetradrachms. Although apparent at Athens, where most of the local bronze these coins could travel widely, hoard evidence coinage is from Athens, followed by cities in Achaea indicates that those struck in the area of ancient and Thessaly (Kroll 1993). Bulgaria have a higher probability of being found On January 16, 2014, the Federal Register pub- in Bulgaria than outside of it. A map of hoards lished the designated list for the MOU with Bulgaria containing coins from various mints can be created (U.S. Department of State 2014). It includes: using the Digital Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards Coins–In copper, bronze, silver and gold. Many of (DIGCH). The maps of coins from Mesembria and the listed coins with inscriptions in Greek can be Odessus in hoards indicate that more hoards in found in B. Head, Historia Numorum: A Manual Bulgaria contain coins from these mints than foreign of Greek Numismatics (London 1911) and C.M. hoards (DIGCH 2014a, b; Price 1991). It is notable Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek Coins (London that this MOU also contains some post-Classical 1976). Many of the Roman provincial mints in modern Bulgaria are covered in I. Varbanov, Greek coins: the coinage of the First and Second Bulgarian Imperial Coins I: Dacia, Moesia Superior, Moesia Empires and Byzantine Empire and Ottoman coins, Inferior (Bourgas 2005), id., Greek Imperial Coins struck in Bulgaria. Medieval coinage in the Balkans II: Thrace (from Abdera to Pautalia) (Bourgas tended to circulate locally (Sedlar 1994: 344–345), and 2005), id., Greek Imperial Coins III: Thrace (from such coins are frequently found in large shipments of Perinthus to Trajanopolis), Chersonesos Thraciae, Insula Thraciae, Macedonia (Bourgas 2007). A non- earth-encrusted coins smuggled out of Bulgaria. exclusive list of pre-Roman and Roman mints in- Current import restrictions specify types of coins clude Mesembria (modern Nesembar), Dionysopolis that tended to have a limited area of circulation. (Balchik), Marcianopolis (Devnya), Nicopolis ad More widely circulating coins that were produced in Istrum (near Veliko Tarnovo), Odessus (Varna), these countries, but which cannot with a high degree Anchialus (Pomorie), Apollonia Pontica (Sozopol), of certainty be said to have been found in these Cabyle (Kabile), Deultum (Debelt), Nicopolis ad Nestum (Garmen), Pautalia (Kyustendil), Philip- countries, are not subject to import restrictions. This popolis (Plovdiv), Serdica (Sofia), and Augusta contradicts the ACCG’s position and the assertion of Traiana (Stara Zagora). Later coins may be found Urice and Adler (2010, 2011), which was based in A. Radushev and G. Zhekov, Catalogue of wholly on the all-encompassing and glib claim that Bulgarian Medieval Coins IX–XV c. (Sofia 1999) coins circulated widely, published by the ACCG’s and J. Youroukova and V. Penchev, Bulgarian Medieval Coins and Seals (Sofia 1990). A) Pre- lawyer and lobbyist (Tompa and Brose 2005: 205 and monetary media of exchange including ‘‘arrow 214). money,’’ bells, and bracelets. Approximate date: The nuances of coin circulation as they pertain to 13th century B.C. through 6th century B.C.B) import restrictions merit study. Legal challenges have Thracian and Hellenistic coins struck in gold, silver, been launched by lobbying groups with a commercial and bronze by city-states and kingdoms that operated in the territory of the modern Bulgarian state. This interest that present a highly skewed picture of the designation includes official coinages of Greek-using actual situation that is not based on evidence. CPAC, city-states and kingdoms, Sycthian and Celtic coin- legislators, the courts, professional societies, and age, and local imitations of official issues. Also experts whom the courts might consult ought not to included are Greek coins from nearby regions that rely on unsubstantiated and untheorized claims made are found in Bulgaria. Approximate date: 6th century by lawyers, who are not specialists in coins or coin B.C. through the 1st century B.C. C) Roman provincial coins–Locally produced coins usually struck in bronze circulation, but should instead consult rigorous or copper at mints in the territory of the modern state academic research on coins and coin circulation of Bulgaria. May also be silver, silver plate, or gold. performed by experts. The ACCG has resurrected Approximate date: 1st century B.C. through the 4th its case and is attempting to relitigate issues such as century A.D. D) Coinage of the First and Second the ‘‘made in’’ versus ‘‘found in’’ argument in its Bulgarian Empires and Byzantine Empire–Struck in gold, silver, and bronze by Bulgarian and Byzantine forfeiture case; vigilance must be maintained when emperors at mints within the modern state of Bulgaria. evaluating the ACCG’s arguments as it attempts to Approximate date: 4th century A.D. through A.D. 1396. undermine protective legislation.

Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL.40 NO.2 241 Elkins A critique of arguments made in the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild’s ‘‘test case’’

Acknowledgments International Numismatic Congress, Glasgow 2009. London: Spink and Son, 230–234. I am grateful to Dr. Jane DeRose Evans, Ricardo Knapp, R. C., and J. D. Mac Isaac. 2005. Excavations at Nemea A. St. Hilaire, Esq., and the peer reviewers, whose III: The Coins. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kraay, C. M. 1976. Archaic and Classical Greek Coins. London: critical feedback improved the quality of this article. Methuen. Kroll, J. H. 1993. The Athenian Agora XXVI: The Greek Coins. Nathan T. Elkins (Ph.D. 2010, University of Missouri) Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. is Assistant Professor of Art History (Greek and Luke, C., and J. Evans. 2012. ‘‘Report on CPAC Public Hearing January 18, 2012,’’ Archaeological Institute of America: Site Roman Art) at Baylor University. His principal Preservation, (http://www.archaeological.org/news/advocacy/ research interests include Roman art and archaeology, 8558). MacDonald, D. J. 1976. Greek and Roman Coins from Aphrodisias. Roman coinage and coin iconography, Roman sport, BAR International Series 9. Oxford: B.A.R. spectacle, and entertainment venues, and the illicit trade Parks, D. A. 2005. The Roman Coinage of Cyprus. Nicosia: Cyprus Numismatic Society. in antiquities. Price, M. J. 1991. The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus. 2 vols. London: British Museum and Swiss Numismatic Society. Bibliography Rutter, N. K., A. M. Burnett, M. H. Crawford, A. E. M. Johnston, and M. J. Price. 2001. Historia Numorum: Italy. London: Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG). 2007. ‘‘FOIA Suit Filed British Museum Press. against DOS,’’ (http://www.accg.us/News/Item/FOIA_suit_filed_ Sayles, W. G. 2011. ‘‘ACCG Comments on Cyprus MOU Renewal against_DOS.aspx). Request,’’ (http://www.accg.us/News/Item/ACCG_Comments_ Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG). 2009. ‘‘Coin Collectors to on_Cyprus_MOU_Renewal_Request.aspx; http://www.accg.us/ Challenge State Department on Import Restrictions,’’ (http:// Libraries/Documents/ACCG-CPAC-Cyprus-2012.sflb.ashx). www.accg.us/News/Item/Coin_Collectors_to_Challenge_State_ Sayles, W. G. 2012. ‘‘Renewal of U.S. Import Restrictions on Cypriot Department_on_Import_Restrictions.aspx). Coins being Considered,’’ PR Newswire, (http://www.prnewswire. Beckmann, M. 1998. ‘‘Numismatics and the Antiquities Trade,’’ com/news-releases/renewal-of-us-import-restrictions-on-cypriot- Celator 12(5): 25–28. coins-being-considered-137962828.html). Burnett, A. 2005. ‘‘The Roman West and the Roman East,’’ in C. Sedlar, J. W. 1994. East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000– Howgego, V. Heuchert, and A. Burnett, eds., Coinage and 1500. A History of East Central Europe III. Seattle: University Identity in the Roman Provinces. Oxford: Oxford University of Washington Press. Press, 171–180. Spivey, N. 1991. ‘‘Greek Vases in Etruria,’’ in T. Rasmussen and Butcher, K. 1988. Roman Provincial Coins: An Introduction to the N. Spivey, eds., Looking at Greek Vases. Cambridge: Greek Imperials. London: Seaby. Cambridge University Press, 131–150. Butcher, K., and D. W. J. Gill. 1990. ‘‘Mischievous Pastime or St. Hilaire, Ricardo. 2012. ‘‘Accusations, Embargoes, and More of Historical Science?’’ Antiquity 64: 946–950. the Same for Baltimore Coins Test Case,’’ Cultural Heritage Digital Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards (DIGCH). 2014a. Lawyer, (http://culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com/2013/09/ ‘‘Distribution of Hoards Containing Coins from Mesembria,’’ accusations-embargoes-and-more-of-same.html). (http://nomisma.org/id/mesembria). Thompson, M., O. Morkhølm, and C. M. Kraay, eds. 1973. An Digital Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards (DIGCH). 2014b. Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards. New York: American ‘‘Distribution of Hoards Containing Coins from Odessus,’’ Numismatic Society. (http://nomisma.org/id/odessus). Tompa, P. K., and A. M. Brose. 2005. ‘‘A Modern Challenge to an Duncan-Jones, R. P. 1989. ‘‘Mobility and Immobility of Coin Age-old Pursuit. Can Cultural Patrimony Claims and Coin in the Roman Empire,’’ Annali dell’Istituto Italiano di Collecting Coexist?" in K. Fitz Gibbon, ed., Who Owns the Numismatica 36: 121–137. Past? Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law. New Duncan-Jones, R. P. 1999. ‘‘The Monetization of the Roman Brunswick: Rutgers University Press/American Council for Empire: Regional Variations in the Supply of Coin Types,’’ in Cultural Policy, 205–216. G. M. Paul and M. Ierardi, eds., Roman Coins and Public Life UNESCO. 1972. Convention Concerning the Protection of the under the Empire, E. Togo Salmon Papers II. Ann Arbor: World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 16 November 1972, (http: //www.refworld.org/docid/4042287a4.html). University of Michigan Press, 61–82. United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. 2012. Edwards, K. M. 1933. Corinth VI: Coins. Cambridge, MA: ‘‘Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs and Harvard University Press. Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, 801 F. Elkins, N. T. 2009. ‘‘Treasure Hunting 101 in America’s Supp. 2d 382 (D. Md. 2011), aff’d, 698 F.3d 171 (4th Circ. Classrooms,’’ Journal of Field Archaeology 34: 482–489. 2012).’’ Elkins, N. T. 2012. ‘‘The Trade in Fresh Supplies of Ancient Coins: United States Department of State. 2007. ‘‘List of Archaeological Scale, Organization, and Politics,’’ in P. K. Lazrus and A. W. Objects from Cyprus Representing Pre-Classical and Classical Barker, eds., All the King’s Horses: Essays on the Impact of Periods Ranging in Date From Approximately the 8th Looting and the Illicit Antiquities Trade on Our Knowledge of the Millennium B.C. to Approximately 330 A.D.,’’ 72 Fed. Reg. at Past. Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology, 38,471–473, (http://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/cy2007dlfrn.pdf). 91–107. United States Department of State. 2011a. ‘‘Designated List: Finley, M. I. 1975. The Use and Abuse of History. New York: Archaeological Material from Italy Representing Pre- Viking Press. Classical, Classical, and Imperial Roman Periods Ranging in Go¨bl, R. 1987. Numismatik. Grundriß und wissenschaftliches Date Approximately from the 9th Century B.C. to the 4th System. Munich: Battenberg. Century A.D.,’’ 75 Fed. Reg. at 3013, (http://eca.state.gov/files/ Grueber, H. A. 1970. Coins of the Roman Republic in the British bureau/it2011dlfrn.pdf). Museum, Volume 1: Aes Rude, Aes Signatum, Aes Grave, and United States Department of State. 2011b. ‘‘Designated List of Coinage of Rome from B.C. 268. Photolithographic reprint of Material Encompassed in Import Restrictions [Greece],’’ 76 Fed. the 1910 edition. London: Trustees of the British Museum. Reg. at 74,693, (http://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/gr2011dlfrn.pdf). Howgego, C. 1995. Ancient History from Coins. New York: United States Department of State. 2014. ‘‘Designated List of Routledge. Archaeological and Ecclesiastical Ethnological Material of Jones, T. B. 1963. ‘‘A Numismatic Riddle: The Case of the So- Bulgaria,’’ 79 Fed. Reg. at 2783, (http://eca.state.gov/files/ Called Greek Imperials,’’ Proceedings of the American bureau/bg2014dlfrn.pdf). Philosophical Society 107: 308–347. United States Federal District Court of Maryland. 2011. ‘‘Ancient Kagan, J. 1994. ‘‘An Archaic Greek Coin Hoard from the Eastern Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Mediterranean and Early Cypriot Coinage,’’ Numismatic Department of Homeland Security, 801 F. Supp. 2d 382 (D. Chronicle 154: 17–52. Md. 2011).’’ Kagan, J. 2011. ‘‘Archaic Greek Coins East of the Tigris: Evidence United States Senate. 1972. ‘‘Consent to the Ratification of the for Circulation,’’ in N. Holmes, ed., Proceedings of the XIVth Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing

242 Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL.40 NO.2 Elkins A critique of arguments made in the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild’s ‘‘test case’’

the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Urice, S. K., and A.W. Adler. 2011. ‘‘Resolving the Disjunction Property,’’ 118 Cong. Rec. 27, 924–925 (August 11, 1972). between Cultural Property Policy and Law: A Call for United States Senate and House of Representatives. 1983. ‘‘Convention Reform,’’ Rutgers Law Review 64: 117–163. on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA),’’ Pub. L. 97- von Kaenel, H. -M. 1994. ‘‘Die antike Numismatik und ihr 446, Title III 96 Stat. 2350, codified at U.S.C. 1 2601 et seq, (http:// Material,’’ Schweizer Mu¨nzbla¨tter 44(173): 1–12. eca.state.gov/files/bureau/97-446.pdf). von Kaenel, H. -M. 2009. ‘‘Coins in Context–A Personal United States Supreme Court. 2013. ‘‘Ancient Coin Collectors Approach,’’ in H. -M. von Kaenel and F. Kemmers, eds., Guild v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Coins in Context I: New Perspectives for the Interpretation of Homeland Security, 801 F. Supp. 2d 382 (D. Md. 2011), aff’d, Coin Finds. Studien zu Fundmu¨nzen der Antike 23. Mainz: von 698 F.3d 171 (4th Circ. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1645 Zabern, 9–24. (2013).’’ Wartenberg Kagan, U. 2007. ‘‘From the Executive Director,’’ Urice, S. K. and A. W. Adler. 2010. ‘‘Unveiling the Executive American Numismatic Society Magazine 6: 7. Branch’s Extralegal Cultural Property Policy,’’ Miami Law Wartenberg Kagan, U. 2012. ‘‘An Editorial Comment on Caveat Research Paper Series, Paper No. 20120-20: 1–44. Emptor,’’ American Numismatic Society Magazine 11: 32–33.

Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL.40 NO.2 243