From: dwelsh46 [mailto:dwelsh46@...]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 7:54 PM
To: 'Goodetompa@...'
Subject: RE: HR 1047
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 7:54 PM
To: 'Goodetompa@...'
Subject: RE: HR 1047
Peter,
I think it might also be very important to make the case that archaeological sites in Iraq (and elsewhere) are not being looted to find coins.
I do not pretend to be an expert on site looting, never having been involved in it, but from reports that I have read the coins that are found in archaeological investigations are normally of little numismatic value, although they may be very valuable aids to dating strata.
As I understand it, found coins are basically divided into two categories: hoards and "ground finds." Hoards are coin groups that were deliberately concealed, generally in a bag or container such as a box or pot. Bags and boxes have rotted away over the centuries leaving concreted masses whose center coins may be well preserved. Pots may be intact with the contents superbly preserved. But in most types of soil, "ground finds" become corroded unless they are gold.
I have handled many such ground find coins, and the only ones that I have ever found to be in better than Fine condition after cleaning were those from a desert type climate. There are a few other soil types such as alkaline soils and certain types of clays that are said to preserve coins, but it has not been my fortune yet to acquire such examples and I think they are probably rare.
About the worst type of soil for corroding ground finds is a soil with a high salt content. This is exactly what the soil tends to be like in areas that are irrigated over a long period of time. In fact, much of Iraq today could be characterized as a "salt desert" because so much salt was deposited in the soil over thousands of years of irrigation. I do not think that any place on earth, other than the Nile Valley, has been irrigated so consistently and so long as Mesopotamia, and the Nile irrigation is (or was, pre-Aswan) quite different because it resulted from an inundation that washed away salt and deposited new fertile silt each year.
This salty soil was very likely to eventually be turned into mud bricks for building purposes. I haven't researched this, but I would bet that the pH of the soil in typical mounds where mud brick cities used to be is well below 7.
For this reason I think it is very unlikely that valuable coins are often found scattered among the other objects in formerly built up archaeological sites in Iraq.
The other type of site that is commonly looted is graves. I do not believe that hoards of coins are commonly found in graves, although many other valuable objects are.
The valuable coins, as numismatists have long recognized, tend to come on the market in groups that suggest they were originally found in a hoard. People didn't often bury these hoards in built up areas. One of the primary reasons for concealing coins was fear that an enemy would sack a city or town and take everything valuable in it. Instead coin hoards were concealed in remote places, just like a pirate burying a treasure chest. They are often found today out in areas that have never in the memory of man been anything but a pasture or forest. Many small coin hoards are also the result of soldiers burying their purses before a battle, and ancient battlefields are sought after by detectorists both for weapons and for coins. I have not read that ancient battlefields are considered archaeologically significant sites.
Dave Welsh
dwelsh46@...
Unidroit-L Listowner
-----Original Message-----
From: Goodetompa@... [mailto:Goodetompa@...]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 7:00 PM
To: dwelsh46@...
Cc: pkt@...; wayne@...; IAPNPres@...; info@...
Subject: Re: HR 1047
Dave-I agree there may be a good case to exempt coins assuming the President's designees at State follow the test for "emergency restrictions" strictly:SEC. 304.11 EMERGENCY IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.
(a) EMERGENCY CONDITION DEFINED.-For purposes of this section, the term
"emergency condition" means, with respect to any archaeological or
ethnological material of any State Party, that such material is-
(1) a newly discovered type of material which is of importance for the
understanding of the history of mankind and is in jeopardy from pillage,
dismantling, dispersal, or fragmentation;
(2) identifiable as coming from any site recognized to be of high
cultural significance if such site is in jeopardy from pillage,
dismantling, dispersal, or fragmentation which is, or threatens to be,
of crisis proportions; or
(3) a part of the remains of a particular culture or civilization, the
record of which is in jeopardy from pillage, dismantling, dispersal, or
fragmentation which is, or threatens to be, of crisis proportions; and
application of the import restrictions set forth in section 307 on a
temporary basis would, in whole or in part, reduce the incentive for
such pillage, dismantling, dispersal or fragmentation.
http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop/97-446.htmlYou make a good point. Coins for the most part were struck on behalf of cultures centered elsewhere than Iraq. I think we have a good argument (a)(1) and a(2) cannot be made out and your argument can help us on (a) (3).This is a key difference between HR 2009 and HR 1047. HR 2009 simply imposed import restrictions while HR 1047 gives the executive discretion as long as he finds an emergency condition. What is missing is the usual CPAC review process.Of course the problem here is that we really go as supplicants to State on this issue. We would have had a better shot before CPAC which has been quite friendly in the past. The State Department people are not bad people, but there brief IS NOT to help US collectors.Thanks for your continued interest. As you should note from the prior post, we through nothing but serendipity have a slight bit more time.Best wishes,Peter
Offline 
Send Email