Wednesday, November 24, 2010

The Yin and Yang: Part 2

The U.S. State Department web site reports today that its Cultural Heritage Center has been recognized by the U.S. National Committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (US/ICOMOS) with its first annual Heritage Award for International Excellence. The award was accompanied by a Certificate of Appreciation to Cultural Heritage Center staff from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Ironically, this public recognition comes on the heels of a 12-member bipartisan letter to Secretary Clinton expressing congressional concern about a history of activities within the Cultural Heritage Center "that appear to undermine the legislative intent of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act."

The incongruity exemplifies a long-standing disparity of views within the realm of cultural property management today. Meanwhile, the numismatic world awaits a decision on the request from Italy for extension and expansion of the existing Memorandum of Understanding, and on the request from Greece for a Memorandum of Understanding that would potentially include restrictions on the importation of ancient Greek coins into the United States.

The ACCG has opposed both the Italian and Greek requests on several grounds, including points of law, and is challenging earlier MOUs with Cyprus and China in U.S. District Court.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

How old is "Ancient"?

The classification of cultures generally tracks along two interrelated lines: chronological and geographical. For centuries, coin collectors struggled with the lack of a coherent system for cataloguing the vast array of issues from antiquity through the modern era. Joseph Eckhel (1737-1798), a secularized Jesuit abbot who served as numismatist to the imperial court of the Holy Roman Empire, devised a system for arranging coins geographically that is still in use today. This system basically records coins in a progression beginning at the northwest quadrant of the Mediterranean basin and continuing from west to east, then south through the Levant and from east to west through northern Africa. Though far from perfect, nobody has yet devised a better approach for non-Roman coins. The classification of coins and cultures into chronological divisions is far more complex than the Echkel scheme.

Chronologically, the primary divisions of coinage are almost universally accepted as being Ancient, Medieval and Modern. Within the United States, collectors tend to separate U.S. coins from the modern coins of other nations by referring to the latter as "World Coins." Coins in the West were first struck in Western Anatolia during the 7th century BC. The transition point between ancient and medieval is more difficult to date. Some would argue that the end of the ancient period is coincident with the fall of Rome in AD 476. Others choose the accession of Anastasius I in AD 491 as the transition point. But, almost everyone who collects "Byzantine" coins thinks of them as being "ancient" even though they start with the accession of Anastasius and end in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople. Likewise, coins struck in India and Central Asia are typically thought of as ancient up to the Islamic conquests, which did not happen at a single point in time. Further complicating the chronological classification, coins of the post-Roman era in western Europe (e.g. Spain, Gaul, Britain and Germany) from as early as the sixth century AD are thought of by many as 'Medieval". In fact, by the time of Constantinople's fall, some coinage in western Europe is already being thought of by collectors and scholars as falling into the "Modern" or "World" classification. The incongruity is difficult to understand and even more difficult to explain to a new collector.

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