iapn and png submission on renewal of italian mou (april 8, 2015)

BAILEY & EHRENBERG PLLC 1015 18th Street, N.W. • SUITE 204 • WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 • TELEPHONE (202) 331-4209 • FACSIMILE (202) 448-2943

Peter K. Tompa

[email protected]

March 18, 2015

VIA Regulations.gov Portal Prof. Patty Gerstenblith, Chair Cultural Property Advisory Committee Cultural Heritage Center (ECA/P/C) U.S. Department of State 2200 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20037

Re: Meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee Regarding Renewal of Memorandum of Understanding with the Republic of Italy, Federal Register: February 18, 2015 (Volume 80, Number 32 (Pages 8749-750))

Dear Prof. Gerstenblith and Committee Members:

I am writing on behalf of the International Association of Professional Numismatists (“IAPN”) and the Professional Numismatists Guild (“PNG”) (jointly “the Numismatic Trade”)1 concerning the Cultural Property Advisory Committee’s (“CPAC’s”) review of a renewal of a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with the Republic of Italy (“Italy”). A MOU has been in place for 15 years. Another extension will make it 20. Enough is enough. Any benefit import restrictions have provided are now outweighed by the damage they do to lawful collecting, and the people to people contacts and appreciation of Italian culture it fosters. CPAC should advocate dropping current restrictions on Greek, early Republican and early Imperial era provincial coins struck in

1 The IAPN is a nonprofit organization of the leading international numismatic firms founded in 1951. It was formed in the aftermath of WW II to help reestablish relationships amongst professional numismatists that had been badly frayed during years of conflict. The objectives of IAPN are the development of a healthy and prosperous numismatic trade conducted according to the highest standards of business ethics and commercial practice, the encouragement of scientific research, the propagation of numismatics, and the creation of lasting and friendly relations amongst professional numismatists around the world. The IAPN has 118 member firms in 20 countries, including thirty-one 32 in the U.S and 12 in Italy. More about the IAPN may be found on the internet at http://www.iapn-coins.org. The PNG is a nonprofit organization founded in 1955. The PNG's motto, “Knowledge, Integrity, Responsibility” continues to reflect its aims, and is expressed in the strict requirements for election to membership to the PNG. The PNG has over 300 members across the U.S. and abroad. More about the PNG may be found on the internet at http://pngdealers.com.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.iapn-coins.org/

http://pngdealers.com/

BAILEY & EHRENBERG PLLC March 18, 2015

2

Italy which were imposed without CPAC’s knowledge or consent. At a minimum, all coins which circulated outside the confines of modern Italy should be delisted. In addition, under no circumstances should this renewal be used as an excuse to impose new import restrictions on late Roman Republican and Roman Imperial coins. These coins were indisputably used throughout Europe, the Middle East and even parts of Asia. They have been actively and legally collected since at least the Renaissance. They “belong” not to Italy, but to us all. CPAC should promote the lawful exchange of cultural artifacts. Over the past 15 years, Italy has failed to honor its commitment to make it easier to export archaeological objects lawfully available for sale within Italy itself. CPAC should not give the Italian bureaucracy yet another pass. Instead, CPAC should recognize the obvious ramifications of Italy’s membership in the European Union (“E.U.”). Coins on the current designated list that are widely and legally sold within Italy itself are also freely traded and sold around the E.U. and under E.U. law may be traded outside the E.U. from other E.U. Member states, with or without an export license according to local law. CPAC, the State Department and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) should honor these E.U. export controls, which, after all, are also binding on Italy as an E.U. member. I. Background

A. Coins and Collecting

Coinage originated in Asia Minor sometime around the 7th c. B.C. This innovation spread to the Greek Islands and the Greek Mainland before reaching the Greek Colonies situated in present-day Southern Italy and Sicily circa 550 B.C. From there, Rome adopted the idea, and with its military expansion soon became one of the most prolific issuers of coinage in history.2

2 For example, one scholar has estimated the output of Roman gold Aurei and Silver Denarii by reign A.D. 64-180 as follows: Reign

Aurei (millions)

Per year

Denarii (millions)

Per Year

Combined value in sesterces (millions)

Per Year

Gold: silver ratio (by aggregate weight)

Nero, 64-8 32.26 8.07 31.9 8.0 3,353 838 1:0.45 Vespasian 34.33 3.61 357.6 37.6 4,864 512 1:4.8 Trajan 24.03 1.23 362.9 18.6 3,855 197 1:6.9 Hadrian 22.70 1.11 319.3 15.6 3,548 173 1:5.4 A. Pius 32.42 1.41 442.7 19.2 5,013 218 1:6.3 M. Aurelius 23.70 1.24 294.8 15.5 3,549 187 1:5.7 Richard Duncan Jones, Money and Government in the Roman Empire 167 (Cambridge University Press 1994).


3

B. Where Do Ancient Coins Come From? Ancient coins have been found in great numbers for millennia. In an era without

modern banks, the ancients typically buried their savings in hoards, many of which were never retrieved, leaving them to be found to even to this day. Most coins found in collectable condition come from such hoards found in pots or other containers that may contain hundreds, if not thousands, of coins. These containers protect the coins from corrosion due to contact with the soil. In an era before modern banking, people typically buried their savings in secret locations. If they did not return to claim them, those coins remained hidden until found by chance or design. Large savings and accumulation hoards are often found outside the archeological stratum.3 In contrast, coins archeologists typically find are “small change” of bronze that is likely corroded due to exposure to the elements.4

C. Collectors and Professional Numismatists During the Middle Ages, any ancient coin that was discovered was likely to be melted

for bullion, but some coins escaped the melting pot to be incorporated into jewelry or religious art. The situation began to change during the 14th Century when discoveries of Greek and Roman coins in Italy helped spark the Renaissance. Numismatics, the study of coins, began during this period. It remains one of the few academic endeavors where ideas are exchanged freely among collectors, academics and museum professionals.

Today, an estimated 7-10 million people collect coins of all types seriously in in the United States.5 There are probably more ancient coin collectors in Europe (including Italy), where numismatics enjoys a long and illustrious history. Not surprisingly, then, most international numismatic trade takes place between the United States and various countries within Europe. As part of this trade, professional numismatists buy and sell coins amongst themselves for resale or sell directly to collectors and numismatic institutions on either

3 See Mary Washington College Presents Symposium on Ancient Numismatics, ANS Magazine 8, 11 (Spring 2002) (hereinafter Mary Washington Symposium) (“Coins recovered in good condition from containers, like those found in savings and accumulation hoards, are only found infrequently at archaeological sites.”). 4 See e.g., John H. Kroll with Alan Walker, The Athenian Agora XXVI The Greek Coins 1 (American School of Classical Studies at Athens 1993) (“In comparison with museum or hoard specimens, it is in the area of absolute metrology that the Agora specimens are most deficient. Most are worn to some degree; almost all are found in a heavily corroded state.”); Theodore Buttrey, Kenan Erim, Thomas Groves, and R. Ross Holloway, Morgantina Studies II The Coins at xi (Princeton University Press 1989) (“The coins found at Morgantina are most entirely of bronze, as is usual in most excavations. The metal, less durable than gold or silver, has suffered not only from wear during the circulating life of the coins, but from the corrosive action of the soil, so that many have remained illegible even after cleaning.”). 5 David B. Wilkerson, How to Follow the Money in Rare Coin Collecting (Market Watch September 6, 2012) available at http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-to-follow-the-money-in-rare-coin-collecting-2012-09-06 (last visited March 18, 2015). Most coin collectors probably have at least one ancient Roman coin. In addition, there are probably 50,000 or so serious ancient coin collectors in the United States.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-to-follow-the-money-in-rare-coin-collecting-2012-09-06

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-to-follow-the-money-in-rare-coin-collecting-2012-09-06


4

continent. While the dollar value of these transactions is not large when compared with the antiquities market as a whole, the numismatic trade is extensive in that many thousands of historical coins travel back and forth across the Atlantic Ocean each year.6

Not surprisingly, most historical coins have lost their provenance over time. There simply was no reason to keep such information in most cases, and even now, there is no legal requirement either here or in Europe to keep the documentary history of coins in one’s collection. This is particularly true of Roman Imperial issues. Given their great numbers and generally low values, few such coins are provenanced, even where they are fine enough to appear at auction.

D. The Law, Past Actions on Coins, and Their Impact

The Cultural Property Implementation Act (“CPIA”) contains significant

procedural and substantive constraints on the executive authority to impose import restrictions on cultural goods. Import restrictions may only be applied to archaeological artifacts of “cultural significance” “first discovered within” and “subject to the export control” of a specific UNESCO State Party. 19 U.S.C § 2601. There must be some finding that the cultural patrimony of the UNESCO State Party is in jeopardy. Id. § 2602. The import restrictions must be part of a “concerted international response” “of similar restrictions” of other market nations, and can only be applied after less onerous “self-help” measures are tried. Id. They must also be consistent with the general interest of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes. Id.

CPAC is to provide the executive with useful advice about this process. The CPIA contemplates that CPAC is to recommend whether import restrictions are appropriate as a general matter and also specifically whether they should be placed on particular types of cultural goods. Id. § 2605.

In the past, CPAC has recommended against import restrictions on historical

coins. Initially those recommendations were followed, but past CPAC Chairman Jay Kislak has stated in a court declaration that in 2007, CPAC recommended against import restrictions on Cypriot coins, but the State Department rejected that recommendation and then misled the Congress and the public about it. Now, eight 6 At hearings before a select committee of Parliament, the British Antiquities Dealer Association has estimated the worldwide antiquities market (for Greek and Roman antiquities) is ₤ 200 million ($360 million) to ₤ 300 million ($540 million) per year. (Page 56 in Minutes of Evidence Taken Before the House Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, Cultural Property: Return and Illicit Trade, Seventh Report, Session 1999-2000, Vol. II.) IAPN and PNG know of no similar hard numbers about the value of the numismatic trade. This is not surprising because the trade is made up of hundreds of small businesses dealing internationally in many thousands upon thousands of common objects which are typically of limited value. (The vast majority of ancient coins retail for under $100 a piece. There certainly are numerous more valuable coins (based on condition, style and rarity), but only a distinct minority sell in excess of $5,000 a piece.)


5

years later, there are now restrictions on coins made in Cyprus, China, Italy, Greece and Bulgaria with additional restrictions being considered on Egyptian coins.

The 2011 imposition of new import restrictions on Greek, Etruscan, early

Republican and early Imperial colonial and municipal issues “of Italian types” was highly controversial. In making its decision, the State Department: (1) changed the two-time precedent of 2001 and 2006 allowing for an exemption, though there had been no material change in the underlying facts; (2) ignored the vast majority of the public comments to CPAC against such restrictions;7 (3) ignored bipartisan concerns raised in Congress;8 (4) imposed requirements that only discriminated against American collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade; and (5) issued impossible to comply with documentation requirements at the very moment President Obama promised to scale back job-killing regulations.9 As a result of this decision to apply new import restrictions to coins “of Italian types,” CPAC member Robert Korver, who indicated that CPAC was never consulted on the change, resigned in protest.

This decision has had severe, practical consequences for collectors and the

small businesses of the numismatic trade. Import restrictions make it impossible for Americans to legally import collectors’ coins widely and legally available worldwide. Foreign sellers are typically unwilling or unable to certify that the coin in question (which can retail as little as $1) left a specific UNESCO State Party before restrictions were imposed as required by the CPIA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection rules. The cumulative impact of import restrictions has drastically limited Americans’ abilities to purchase historical coins from abroad10 and has negatively 7 An analysis prepared in conjunction with CPAC’s 2010 review counted over 1900 comments (mostly from coin collectors) either opposed to the MOU or to the extension of import restrictions to coins. In contrast, only about 100 comments supported the MOU, and, of those, a mere 13 sought restrictions on “coins of Italian type.” The final number of comments today will likely be far fewer because of the widespread public perception that the State Department could not care less what collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade think. Though some may applaud this development, low public confidence combined with the increasing public perception that the State Department is running little more than a special interest program for politically connected academics does not bode well for CPAC’s future. 8 Letter from the Hon. Paul Ryan to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, dated Sept. 27, 2010 (bipartisan correspondence joined by eleven other House members expressing concerns about MOUs with China, Cyprus and Italy). 9 See Barak Obama, Toward a 21st Century Regulatory System, The Wall Street Journal (Jan. 18, 2011) available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703396604576088272112103698 (last visited March 18, 2015). 10 Some in the archaeological community have claimed that import restrictions are “much ado about nothing” because it is simple to comply with the CPIA’s documentation requirements. As set forth above, that is patently untrue for low value artifacts like coins. Leaving that aside, it has also become increasingly clear to importers that even where there is information available that should allow for a legal import, Customs will ask for more and more and more. Here is what James McAndrew, a retired former senior agent involved with cultural property issues, said on the subject at a recent public forum:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703396604576088272112103698


6

impacted the cultural understanding and people to people contacts that collecting fosters.

C. The Renewal

If approved, this will be the third renewal of import restrictions, first promulgated

on January 23, 2001. Any renewal would extend import restrictions for another 5 years, making a total of 20 years Americans have had to endure significant constraints on their ability to import cultural goods made in Italy in ancient times. Meanwhile, whatever the decision, Italian collectors, like their E.U. counterparts, will continue to enjoy collecting the exact same sorts of coins embargoed since 2011. II. Analysis After some 15 years, any benefit of import restrictions is now outweighed by their negative impact on people to people contacts and the appreciation of Italian culture collecting brings. Accordingly, CPAC should advocate for a renewed MOU that focuses exclusively on facilitating cultural exchange. Current import restrictions, particularly on coins, should be allowed to lapse. Under no circumstances should there be new

One of the things that customs does when an object comes in from one of the 14 countries that has a bilateral agreement under the CPIA, the CPIA says that if an object is imported without a permit from the source country then the import can be allowed under the statute by providing “satisfactory information” that the object was out of the country before the imposition of the bilateral, or has been out of the country for more than ten years. And there are two paragraphs that quote what that satisfactory evidence consists of and what it should state. It was out of the country for 10 years prior to import - it was out of the country before the imposition of the bilateral, and so on. Just to show you what happens in that case. An affidavit that satisfies this should be sufficient for the piece to be released, but it is not. You can literally lift that language right out of the law and have your client sign an affidavit that attests to that. Because it states exactly what the statute requires it should be sufficient. The shipment should be released, right? No. The CPIA does not put limitations on customs and homeland security to stop asking for more. The agent or inspector comes back and says, I want more. They say, I don’t like that affidavit, give me another. I don’t know that person, give me one from another person. They continually ask for more and create, at a whim, what they want. The question is do you feed the government more? If you don’t give them more, they seize it. If you do give them more, they ask for more again. Maybe they are looking for you to establish that you made a false statement and take you down the path you never intended to go down. Then the case goes from civil to criminal. Don't forget that behind the scenes, any document you give them, they are sending collateral requests to the agents in foreign countries to verify the document. And if they can catch you with a false document or a false statement, intentionally or unintentionally now you have a criminal problem. There is no limitation on what is called quote unquote satisfactory evidence. I have a client who had an object seized in April 2011 – this is April 2014, and I still haven’t got it released. This could go on for another 30 years. Again, there is no limitation on what they can ask for and what is satisfactory evidence and that is what is wrong with the CPIA.

Transcript, Reform of U.S. Cultural Property Policy Accountability, Transparency and Legal Certainty, Cardozo Law School, New York, N.Y. (April 10, 2014) at 11 available at http://committeeforculturalpolicy.org/symposium-april-10-2014-reform-of-u-s-cultural-property-policy-accountability-transparency-and-legal-certainty/ (last visited March 18, 2015).

http://committeeforculturalpolicy.org/symposium-april-10-2014-reform-of-u-s-cultural-property-policy-accountability-transparency-and-legal-certainty/

http://committeeforculturalpolicy.org/symposium-april-10-2014-reform-of-u-s-cultural-property-policy-accountability-transparency-and-legal-certainty/


7

restrictions on late Roman Republican and Roman Imperial coins. Late Roman Republican and Roman Imperial coins circulated throughout Europe, the Middle East and even parts of Asia. They belong not to Italy, but to the world. Finally, if restrictions are retained, cultural exchange should be facilitated by allowing legal entry of coins on the designated list that are lawfully exported from any E.U. member state either accompanied by an E.U. export certificate or official documentation from a competent authority showing no such E.U. export certificate is necessary.

A. Coins Should Be Delisted and No New Restrictions on Late Roman Republican and Roman Imperial Coins Should Be Contemplated.

Although the State Department has claimed otherwise11, the CPIA itself contemplates that CPAC will play an important role in ascertaining what types of objects ultimately appear on the designated list. See CPIA, 19 U.S.C. § 2605 (f) (4) (B) (CPAC report shall list “such archaeological or ethnological material of the State Party, specified by type or such other classification as the Committee deems appropriate, which should be covered by such agreement or action.”). Accord S. Rep. No. 97-564 (1982) at 8 (“The Secretary [of the Treasury] [now U.S. Customs and Border Protection] will consult with the Director of the United States Information Agency [now Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs] before promulgating such a lists [sic], as the latter is responsible for servicing the work of the Advisory Committee that is expected to contribute heavily to the composition of the list.”). Here, CPAC should recommend that current coins on the designated lists be removed and that no new restrictions be contemplated against late Roman Republican and Roman Imperial coins. 1. The “First Discovery” Requirement Must Apply.

First, CPAC cannot properly conclude that all the coin types that were placed on the designated list in 2011 are only found in the confines of modern day Italy, a prerequisite under the CPIA.19 U.S.C.§ 2601(2)(c). At a minimum, the current designated list should be reviewed closely to ascertain whether the coins on it circulated outside Italy. If so, they should be delisted.

The current designated list takes in ALL Greek coin types struck in Italy and

Sicily, ALL Etruscan coin types struck Italy, ALL early Roman Republican coin types,

11 In its test case, the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (“ACCG”) alleged, based on the sworn testimony of Jay Kislak, CPAC’s former Chairman, that CPAC recommended against import restrictions on Cypriot coins, but the State Department and U.S. Customs imposed them anyway and then misled the Congress and the public about it. In response, the State Department argued that CPAC’s role is limited to making recommendations as to the general findings found in 19 U.S.C. § 2602(a). However, the courts did not reach the merits of the dispute, instead holding that the ACCG was not entitled to judicial review of State Department and U.S. Customs decision-making. See Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, 698 F.3d 171, 175 (4th Cir. 2012).


8

and ALL municipal and Roman colonial coin types struck in Italy and Sicily.12 There appears to have been absolutely no effort whatsoever to ascertain whether such coins are only found within the confines of the modern Italian nation state or not.13

12The current designated list restricts the following coins:

a. Lumps of bronze (Aes Rude)— Irregular lumps of bronze used as an early medium of exchange in Italy from the 9th century B.C.

b. Bronze bars (Ramo Secco and Aes Signatum)—Cast bronze bars (whole or cut) used as a media of exchange in central Italy and Etruria from the 5th century B.C.

c. Cast coins (Aes Grave)—Cast bronze coins of Rome, Etruscan, and Italian cities from the 4th century B.C.

d. Struck coins—Struck coins of the Roman Republic and Etruscan cities produced in gold, silver, and bronze from the 3rd century B.C. to c. 211 B.C., including the ‘‘Romano-Campanian’’ coinage.

e. Struck colonial coinage—Struck bronze coins of Roman republican and early imperial colonies and municipia in Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia from the 3rd century B.C. to c. A.D. 37.

f. Coins of the Greek cities—Coins of the Greek cities in the southern Italian peninsula and in Sicily (Magna Graecia), cast or struck in gold, silver, and bronze, from the late 6th century B.C. to c. 200 B.C.

See 76 Fed. Reg. 3012, 3013 (Jan. 19, 2011). 13 These restrictions depend on sleight of hand. Members of the archaeological lobby have contended that ancient coins struck thousands of years ago in a given country also must have circulated "predominantly" there, making restrictions on them lawful. However, this claim is wholly dependent on a limited data set about finds of mostly locally issued bronze coins at certain Greco-Roman archaeological sites. Even here, coins issued elsewhere account for more than a quarter of the finds. F. de Callatay, “Greek Coins from Archaeological Excavations: A Conspectuses and a Call for Chronological Tables,” in P. van Alfen, (ed.), Agoranomia: Studies in Money and Exchange Presented to John H. Kroll (New York, 2006), pp. 184-185. In any event, the CPIA calls for much more. Import restrictions only apply to “designated archaeological material” under 19 U.S.C. § 2606. This “designated archaeological material” is that “covered by an agreement” and “listed” under Section 2604. 19 U.S.C. § 2601 (7). Section 2604 states that CBP and/or the Treasury Department “may list this such material by type or other appropriate classification, but each listing made under this section shall be sufficiently specific and precise to insure that (1) the import restrictions under Section 2606 are applied only to the archaeological . . . material covered by the agreement . . . ; and (2) fair notice is given to importers . . . as to what material is subject to such restrictions.” 19 U.S.C. § 2604 (emphasis added). The word “only” emphasizes the requirement that “designated archaeological material” must be only that covered by the agreement, i.e., “first discovered within” and “subject to export control by, the State Party.” 19 U.S.C. § 2601 (2). The word “shall” emphasizes the mandatory nature of this Congressional direction; there is simply no discretion allowed. See, e.g., Black's Law Dictionary 1407 (8th ed. 2004) (defining "shall" as "has a duty to; more broadly, is required to"). Under the CPIA, the proper standard is not whether a coin type “predominantly” circulated within the confines of a given, modern nation state, but whether it can only be found there.


9

This failure to comply with the CPIA’s plain meaning is all the more troubling because IAPN provided CPAC with an academic study in conjunction with the 2011 renewal entitled “”Italian Type” Coin Finds Beyond the Border of the Italian Republic” that (hereinafter “Finds Study”) (Exhibit A.) that addresses these issues. That study concludes that Greek coins struck in Italy “cannot be justly characterized as purely local coins of Italy.” (Finds Study at 1.) Yet, without CPAC’s advice or consent, the State Department and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) nonetheless placed restrictions on all such coins anyway.

Even if there is no sentiment to delist all these coins, import restrictions on Greek

cultural goods (that were imposed later in 2011) should be a guide for the Greek coins of Italy and Sicily. While far from strictly adhering to the statutory mandate, those restrictions at least make some effort to distinguish coins that only circulated locally from larger denominations (stater, tetradrachm and gold) which acted as trade coins, circulating far and wide based on their intrinsic value in precious metal.14 As precious metal coins, these coins are also far less likely to be found at archaeological sites within Italy or Sicily as compared to local, bronze issues. Here, even if all coins are not delisted, CPAC should recommend that list of restricted Italo-Sicilian Greek coins be made consistent with the Greek designated list so that larger denomination coins—which were probably largely struck to pay mercenaries from all over the Celtic and Greek worlds-- are freed from restrictions.

Whatever may be said about the circulation of Greek coins struck in Italy and Sicily must be said with an exclamation point for later Roman Republican and Roman Imperial coins. As explained in IAPN’s Find’s Study (Ex. A), given the huge numbers minted, it is not at all surprising that Roman Imperial coins can be found in large numbers in countries such as Albania, Algeria, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Luxembourg, Macedonia (FYROM), Mauritania, Morocco, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and Vietnam. (Id. at 7-8.) It absolutely makes no sense whatsoever to restrict Roman Imperial coins in all metals, given their wide circulation pattern, let alone the sheer numbers extent, and their wide availability in legal markets abroad. These were the stuff of a great Empire, not coins that circulated exclusively in Italy.

2. Most Historical Coins Lack “Cultural Significance.”

Second, it is hard to claim with a straight face that “Italian” historical coins—which probably exist in the millions—are of cultural significance, a prerequisite for restrictions. The CPIA requires that restricted archaeological artifacts be of “cultural significance.” CPIA, 19 U.S.C. § 2601 (2) (C) (i) (I). The State Department has misapplied this “cultural significance” requirement when it comes to Italian coins. The

14 See 76 Fed. Reg. 74691, 74693 (Dec. 1, 2011).


10

huge numbers of such coins extant (probably millions) strongly argues against them being considered of “cultural significance.” Archaeologists have claimed that coins are “culturally significant” as dating tools at archaeological sites, but such an “archaeological significance” test finds little support in the CPIA. For “archaeological material” to be restricted, it must be both of “archaeological interest” and “cultural significance.” CPIA, 19 U.S.C. § 2601 (2). While the use of coins that are “archaeological material” for dating at some sites may give them “archaeological interest,” that in itself cannot also make them of “cultural significance” without doing violence to statutory intent. In any event, coins make poor dating tools because many circulated for hundreds of years. 3. There is No Concerted International Response.

Finally, it is impossible to assume that the “concerted international response” requirement is met with respect to such coins. The CPIA’s “concerted international response requirement” seeks to ensure the comity and effectiveness of any import restrictions before they can be legally imposed.15 Without a concerted international response, import restrictions do nothing but disadvantage American collectors and small businesses at the expense of their foreign competitors.

Here, there is simply no real concerted international response. In conjunction

with the 2011 renewal, IAPN estimated that the world auction market for Greek and Roman coins struck in Italy before 238. A.D. was approximately $29.3 million in 2009, with U.S. firms accounting for a mere 25% of that total. Whatever the actual figures today, the volume of collectors’ coins in commerce over the last hundred years is truly enormous, far more than any non-collector could imagine. They appear regularly in auctions in all the countries that hold auctions of ancient coins: Australia, Austria, China (Hong Kong), France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and others. None of these countries has any restriction on the importation of Italian coins, and, indeed, despite some discussion on the topic, there are no effective internal controls on the transfer of these coins within the E.U. Coins struck in Italy are widely traded as collector’s pieces and curiosities worldwide

Indeed, Italy’s own vast internal market for coins currently on the designated list underscores the lack of any “concerted international response.” Italy’s Professional Numismatic Association (Numismatici Italiani Professionisi) has well over 100 members, many of whom sell ancient coins. See http://www.numismaticinip.it/ (last visited March 18, 2015). IAPN has 12 Italian members. At least two Italian firms, Art Coins Roma (http://www.artcoinsroma.it (last visited March 18, 2015)) and Varesi (http://www.varesi.it/ (last visited March 18, 2015)), conduct auctions and sell ancient coins in great numbers internationally. Not only is there no “concerted international

15 In particular, under that provision, the decision maker must find that the United States is acting in concert with other nations unless he can also find that there can be a substantial benefit in the United States acting alone to deter a serious situation of pillage. 19 U.S.C. § 2602 (a) (2). This criterion is referred to as the “concerted international response requirement.”

http://www.numismaticinip.it/

http://www.artcoinsroma.it/

http://www.varesi.it/


11

response” of other market nations; Italy itself is a major market nation without any real internal controls on the sale of ancient coins or enforceable restrictions on their transfer within the E.U.

B. Any Renewal Should Facilitate Cultural Exchange By Allowing Legal Import with E.U. Documentation. Import restrictions were never meant to be permanent. Rather, they are aimed at

cutting market demand to allow time for a source country to get its own house in order. In one sense this has worked. In the past 15 years, Italy has mounted aggressive police actions that have greatly diminished looting in the country.16 Yet, all this enforcement effort has done little to actually protect Italy's "cultural patrimony." During this same period, gross under-funding, bureaucratic ineptitude and corruption have hamstrung Italy's own care for even major sites like Pompeii.17 And at the same time, promises of long term loans to museums made by Rome as a quid pro quo for import restrictions have faded with devolution of power to regions such as Sicily. So, it would seem any minimal benefits that import restrictions have provided are now far outweighed by the damage they do to legitimate collecting and the appreciation of Italian culture and people to people contacts it brings.

The Association of Art Museum Directors and others will no doubt address site

preservation and museum issues in their own comments.18 However, there is another area where CPAC can help encourage cultural exchange. As an additional quid pro quo for all prior MOUs, Italy promised to facilitate the issuance of export certificates for archaeological objects artifacts legitimately sold within Italy itself.19 However, this has not happened over the past 15 years. Indeed, IAPN members report that Italian export certificates remain difficult to obtain in a timely fashion, with continued delays in their issuance and fewer items approved for export. This makes absolutely no sense when 16 Though some may point to recent repatriations as a justification for continuing import restrictions, most of these items left Italy years ago and were seized as the result of old criminal investigations. For example, one might not know from press reports that a recent (2015) Rome press conference put on by the Caribinieri displayed antiquities that were seized back in 2002 and 2005 in Switzerland. If anything, the lack of “new criminal investigations” lends support for the view that Italy has largely won its battle against looters. In contrast, CPIA import controls cut off legitimate trade, including here trade in the exact same sorts of items legally available for sale within Italy itself. 17 Hugo Gye, £90 Million Project to Restore Pompeii Overshadowed by Claims Officials Gave Corrupt Payouts to Contractors “Linked to the Mafia,” The Daily Mail (Feb. 7, 2013) available at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274859/90million-project-restore-Pompeii-overshadowed-claims-officials-gave-corrupt-payouts-contractors-linked-mafia.html (last visited March 18, 2015). 18 As further set forth in IAPN and PNG’s 2010 paper, Italy’s stewardship of its public numismatic collections leaves much to be desired. Stewardship of “Italian Type” Coins by Institutions in the Italian Republic (IAPN 2010) (Exhibit B.) In Italy as in America, numismatics depends on a healthy private sector to help fund numismatic research. 19 2001 MOU, Art. II, F; 2006 Extension, Art. II, F; 2011 Extension, Art. II, G.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274859/90million-project-restore-Pompeii-overshadowed-claims-officials-gave-corrupt-payouts-contractors-linked-mafia.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274859/90million-project-restore-Pompeii-overshadowed-claims-officials-gave-corrupt-payouts-contractors-linked-mafia.html


12

undocumented coins identical to those already on the Italian designated list are openly and legally sold within Italy, where such coins can travel freely back and forth between European collectors, and where such coins can be legally exported from E.U. member states either with or without licenses, depending on local law. Given Italy’s failure to take its obligations to ease export controls seriously, CPAC should recommend that CBP accept proof of lawful export from any E.U. member state20 to help facilitate the legal import of coins “of Italian types” also legitimately for sale within Italy. Such a recommendation honors the MOUs’ intent to facilitate lawful export and is consistent with E.U. law, which, of course, binds Italy as well. III. Conclusion

Any renewal should let import restrictions, particularly on coins, lapse. No new

restrictions should countenanced on late Roman Republican or Roman Imperial coins. CBP should be directed to allow entry of coins of the sort lawfully available for sale in Italy that are accompanied by E.U. export permit or other documentation evidencing legal export from an E.U. member state.

Sincerely,

/s/

Peter K. Tompa

Attachments:

20 See Guidance to Exporters of Archaeological Objects (including Numismatic Items) Arts Council England available at http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/what-we-do/supporting-museums/cultural-property/export-controls/export-licensing/ (last visited March 13, 2015).

http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/what-we-do/supporting-museums/cultural-property/export-controls/export-licensing/

http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/what-we-do/supporting-museums/cultural-property/export-controls/export-licensing/

EXHIBIT A

“Italian-Type” Coin Finds Beyond the Borders of the Italian Republic

Graeco-Italian Coins of Italy and Sicily Deposits of Graeco-Italian coins beyond the borders of the modern Italian Republic are listed in Table 1. The table summarizes the published information on 1,100 individual pieces found in hoards from 11 different modern states in Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. The data is drawn only from the Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards, the Coin Hoards series of the Royal Numismatic Society, and major archaeological reports with dedicated numismatic sections. The table does not (and cannot) take into account private finds, unpublished find records from archaeological sites, or hoard material that was not recorded prior to sale. Bearing these limitations in mind, the numbers are likely to be higher than those presented here. On the basis of the evidence it cannot be argued that Graeco-Italian coins circulated in the same quantities outside of Italy, as did their later Roman counterparts (see below). However, it is clear that some series were very wide ranging. Single and multiple finds of Syracusan coins in 6 different countries make a strong case for regular export to foreign lands. To a lesser degree, this also seems to be the case for coins of Leontini found in Greek, Egyptian, and Spanish contexts, and single specimens of Acragas from Lebanon, Spain, and Greece. In addition to the hard evidence for actual finds of Graeco-Italian coins outside of Italy, foreign circulation is also strongly implied by the imitation of Graeco-Italian types (especially of Syracuse) for coins in such distant places as Larissa in northern Greece, Cilicia in present day Turkey, and Samaria and Philistia in what is now modern Israel.1 An example of a Syracusan tetradrachm overstruck with the types of Athens also serves as a reminder that many Graeco-Italian coins that may have traveled beyond the borders of Italy may have disappeared from the record through remelting and overstriking by other ancient states.2 In short, there are enough single and multiple finds and signs of influence outside of Italy to show that Graeco-Italian issues cannot be justly characterized as purely local coins of Italy. The various Italo-, Siculo- and Sardo-Punic issues struck by the Carthaginians within the borders of what is now the modern Italian Republic were issued to pay mercenary armies operating there in the third century BC.3 The large concentrations of these coins in North Africa, Malta, and Spain leave little doubt that mercenaries regularly carried them home

1 For the wide ranging imitation of the Syracusan facing Arethusa type see Y. Meshorer and S. Qedar, Samarian Coinage (Jerusalem, 1999), p. 41 with nos. 17-18 and 71-73; E. Levante, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Switzerland I: Levante-Cilicia (Berne, 1986), nos. 69-70, 78-80, 89-98, 213, 217-219, 233-235; G. Hill, Coins of Ancient Sicily (London, 1903), p. 107. 2 D. MacDonald, Overstruck Greek Coins: Studies in Greek Chronology and Monetary Theory (Atlanta, 2009), pp.146-148. 3 C.M. Kraay, “Greek Coinage and War” in W. Heckel and R. Sullivan (eds.), Ancient Coins of the Graeco-Roman World (Waterloo, Ontario, 1984), p. 6.

1

after their terms of service in Italy or Sicily were over. Indeed, considering that these particular coins were actually struck by the Carthaginians, a Semitic people of North Africa, carry Punic legends, and occur with some frequency outside of Italy, it is a little perverse to include them under the rubric of Italian-type coins. They belong to the cultural heritage of modern Tunisia just as much (if not more) than to that of Italy.

Table 1: Graeco-Italian Finds outside of Italy Issuer Number Find Country Findspot Reference Populonia 1 Spain Penedes CH IX 702 1 Spain Torello d'en Cientes CH IX 735 Mamertini 2 Greece Athens Kroll 423-424 Himera 1 Greece Euboea IGCH 26 3 Egypt Asyut IGCH 1644 Leontini 4 Greece Euboea IGCH 26 1 Egypt Naucratis IGCH 1652 1 Spain El Arahal IGCH 2310 1 Spain Mongo IGCH 2312 Brundisium 1 Greece Athens Kroll 418 Agrigentum 1 Spain Villarubia-Ojos CH IX 716 Segesta 1 Spain El Arahal IGCH 2310 1 Turkey Black Sea CH I 15 Syracuse 46 Greece Euboea IGCH 26 1 Albania Orik IGCH 211 1 Turkey Cilicia IGCH 1259 1 Beirut Massyaf IGCH 1483 1 Egypt Naucratis IGCH 1647 1 Egypt Naucratis IGCH 1652 1 Spain Mongo IGCH 2312 3 Greece Athens Kroll 425-427 Gelon II (Syracuse) 1 Spain Mogente IGCH 2328 Hieron II (Syracuse) 1 Greece Euboea IGCH 230 1 Bosnia Vrankamen-Berg IGCH 643 Selinus 1 Malta Malta IGCH 2260 1 Spain Mongo IGCH 2312 1 Spain Tarragona IGCH 2314 Taras 2 Greece Cephallenia IGCH 140 1 Greece Lechaena CH VIII 417 1 Spain Morella IGCH 2311 3 Morocco Tangier CH IX 689 Thurii 6 Greece Cephallenia IGCH 140 Velia 1 Greece Cephallenia IGCH 140 Cumae 1 Spain Pont de Molins IGCH 2312 Caulonia 1 Albania Butrinto IGCH 207 1 Egypt Asyut IGCH 1644 Heracleia Lucaniae 1 Greece Zacynthus IGCH 245 Zancle 1 Turkey Asia Minor IGCH 1177 2 Egypt Asyut IGCH 1644

2

1 Egypt Zigazag IGCH 1645 Acragas 1 Beirut Massyaf IGCH 1483 1 Spain El Arahal IGCH 2310 1 Greece Athens Kroll 421 Gela 1 Spain El Arahal IGCH 2310 1 Greece Athens Kroll 422 Rhegium 1 Egypt Asyut IGCH 1644 1 Greece Athens Kroll 420 Metapontum 2 Egypt Asyut IGCH 1644 2 Spain El Arahal IGCH 2310 1 Spain Mongo IGCH 2312 Brettii 1 Spain Andalusia CH IX 709 Croton 1 Egypt Asyut IGCH 1644 1 Spain Penedes CH IX 702 1 Greece Athens Kroll 419 Messana 1 Egypt Naucratis IGCH 1652 4 Spain Mongo IGCH 2312 1 Spain Pont de Molins IGCH 2313 Neapolis 2 Monaco Monaco IGCH 2324 1 Spain Penedes CH IX 702 Velia 199 France Auriol IGCH 2352 Italo-Punic 5 Morocco Tangier CH IX 689 1 Spain La Plana de Utiel CH IX 725 Siculo-Punic 50 Tunisia Tunisia IGCH 2267 18 Tunisia Cap Bon IGCH 2268 1 Tunisia Tunisia CH IX 685 268 Malta Mqabba IGCH 2269 282 Malta Malta IGCH 2270 50 Tunisia Tunisia IGCH 2272 8 Morocco Tangier CH IX 689 1 Spain Andalusia CH IX 709 1 Greece Athens Kroll 428 Sardo-Punic 11 Tunisia Tunisia IGCH 2272 1 Tunisia Tunisia IGCH 2281 6 Tunisia Tunisia CH IX 685 19 Monaco Monaco IGCH 2324 50 France Southern France IGCH 2355 1 France Marseille IGCH 2358 1 Greece Athens Kroll 429 TOTAL 1100

Roman Republican Coins The widespread extra-Italian circulation of coins struck by the moneyers and dynasts of the Roman Republic cannot be disputed in light of the data presented in Table 2. Here we have published information on 7,568 individual pieces found in hoards and archaeological excavations from 16 different modern states in the United Kingdom, Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. As the data derives only from the Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards, the Coin Hoards series of the Royal Numismatic Society, and

3

major excavation reports with dedicated numismatic sections, the table does not (and cannot) take into account the numerous private finds reported in various media, unpublished find records from archaeological sites, or hoard material that was not recorded prior to sale. Therefore it is virtually certain that the real quantity of Roman Republican coins found outside of Italy and the number of modern countries involved is much greater than the table might suggest. The vast majority of the Roman Republican coins found outside of Italy is silver denarii (the most common Roman denomination struck in the republican period) although bronze coins also appear, especially as excavation finds.4 The denarius was the standard coin used to pay the legions and therefore traveled widely throughout the Mediterranean world as the Roman Republic acquired an overseas empire over the course of the third-first centuries BC.5 The prevalence of republican silver as opposed to bronze outside of Italy is explained by the general tendency of pre-imperial Roman bronze coins to circulate close to the place of issue and by the fact that for the majority of the republican period bronze coins were struck in very limited quantities compared to the vast output of denarii.6 Nevertheless, it is worth noting that even the large bronze currency bars known as aes signatum, which one would not expect to find outside of Italy, actually appear hoarded in the Balkans.7

Table 2: Roman Republican Finds outside of Italy Roman Republic 3 Greece Hierapytna IGCH 318 200 Greece Hierapytna IGCH 352 1 Greece Lechaena CH VIII 417 1 Greece Vonitsa CH VIII 431 2 Greece Nekromantion CH VIII 530 17 Greece Preveza CH VIII 542 17 Greece Dolj County CH VIII 543 120 Romania Somesul Cald IGCH 650 9 Romania Fundeni IGCH 651

4 It has been pointed out recently that foreign coins account for more than a quarter of the finds at archaeological sites: F. de Callataÿ, “Greek Coins from Archaeological Excavations: A Conspectus of Conspectuses and a Call for Chronological Tables,” in P. van Alfen (ed.), Agoranomia: Studies in Money and Exchange Presented to John H. Kroll (New York, 2006), pp. 184-185. 5 K. Harl, Coinage in the Roman Economy (Baltimore, 1996), pp. 60-72. 6 O. Mørkholm, Early Hellenistic Coinage (Cambridge, 1991), p. 6; K. Butcher, “Small Change in Ancient Beirut,” Berytus 45-46 (2001-2002), pp. 37-40; M. Crawford, The Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge, 1974), p. 265. 7 L. Milani, “Aes rude signatum e grave rinvenuto alla Bruna presso Spoleto,” Rivista Italiana Numismatica (1891), pp. 27-116; J. Brunsmid, “Nekoliko nasasca novaca na skupu u Hrvatskoj i Slavoniji,” Viestnik Hrvatskoga arheologoskoga drustv (1896-1897), pp. 3-64; M. von Bahrfeldt, “Der Münzfund von Mazin (Croatien) : Afrikanische und Italische Kupfermünzen, Aes Rude und Signatum,” Berliner Münzblätter 241 (1900), col. 2863-2868.

4

8 Romania Suhaia IGCH 652 47 Romania Kerassia IGCH 653 25 Romania Hotarani IGCH 654 42 Romania Hunedoara IGCH 655 93 Romania Sfintesti IGCH 656 21 Romania Beius IGCH 657 1 Romania Furculesti IGCH 658 21 Romania Gradistea IGCH 659 100 Greece Cavalla IGCH 660 38 Romania Lunca IGCH 661 34 Romania Stancuta IGCH 662 1 Romania Licuriciu CH VII 119 1 Romania Hilib CH VII 129 2 Romania Deva CH VII 144 21 Romania Calarasi CH IX 273 92 Romania Calinesti CH IX 274 10 Romania Zimnicea CH IX 315 125 Romania Satu Nou CH IX 318 7 Romania Boljarino CH IX 274 3 Greece Platania IGCH 663 1 Greece Veroia CH VII 97 1 Greece South Macedonia CH VII 102 91 Greece Macedonia CH VII 139 1 Bulgaria Mindja IGCH 664 3 Bulgaria Vetrea CH VII 141 39 Albania Tirane IGCH 665 3 Romania Dolj IGCH 673 50 Bulgaria Rodina IGCH 679 2 Bulgaria Kamen IGCH 681 280 Bulgaria Orehovica IGCH 686 338 Bulgaria Kojnare IGCH 687 7 Bulgaria Rasovo IGCH 688 7 Bulgaria Boljarino IGCH 975 36 Bulgaria Belica IGCH 976 12 Bulgaria Nova Maxala IGCH 977 35 Bulgaria Karavelova IGCH 978 4 Bulgaria Korten IGCH 979 89 Bulgaria Ostrov IGCH 980 1 Bulgaria Stracimir CH III 79 6 Bulgaria Calarasi CH IX 273 1 Bulgaria Pernik CH IX 280 3 Bosnia Bosanska KjustendilKrupa CH IX 277 214 Croatia Gracac CH IX 267 132 Tunisia Cani Islands IGCH 2301 136 Algeria Constantine IGCH 2306 3 Morocco Tangier CH IX 689 2 Spain Cadiz IGCH 2326 1 Spain Grenada IGCH 2327 1 Spain Mogente IGCH 2328

5

1 Spain Los Villares IGCH 2330 1 Spain Cheste IGCH 2333 12 Spain Valeria IGCH 2334 7 Spain Tivisa IGCH 2335 13 Spain Drieves IGCH 2336 120 Spain Las Ansies IGCH 2337 50 Spain Segaro IGCH 2342 1 Spain San Llop IGCH 2347 74 Spain La Barroccca IGCH 2348 11 Spain Azaila IGCH 2349 1058 Spain Gerona IGCH 2350 1130 Spain Emporda CH II 77 1 Spain Coll del Moro CH V 40 51 Spain Cuenca province CH VIII 375 225 Spain Cordoba CH VIII 475 1 Spain Camarasa CH IX 707 1 Spain Andalusia CH IX 709 2 Spain Martos CH IX 710 8 Spain Villarubia de losOjos CH IX 716 1 Spain Cheste CH IX 719 11 Spain Ecija CH IX 721 2 Spain Ebre-Segre CH IX 724 1 Spain La Plana de Utiel CH IX 725 4 Spain El Saucejo CH IX 728 7 Spain Empuries CH IX 729 2 Spain Empuries CH IX 730 3 Spain Alt Emporida CH IX 733 187 Spain Cordoba CH IX 734 385 Spain Torello d'en Cientes CH IX 735 1 Spain Borriol CH IX 737 14 Spain Salvacanete CH IX 740 58 Spain Salvacanete CH IX 744 1346 Portugal Idanha-a-Velha CH IX 739 2 France Marseille IGCH 2358 3 France Entremont IGCH 2371 1 France Bouches-du-Rhone IGCH 2378 1 Syria Jebel Khalid Nixon 266 1 Turkey Aphrodisias MacDonald 428 210 Armenia Sarnakounk CH I 105 TOTAL 7568

Roman Imperial Coins The vast numbers of Roman Imperial coins in bronze, silver, and gold from hoards, archaeological sites, and surface finds outside of Italy make it difficult to quantify individual finds in the same manner that we have done for the Greek and Roman Republican issues in Tables 1 and 2. It is a well-known fact that it is virtually impossible to excavate a European or Near Eastern site that saw occupation in the period from the second to the fifth century AD and not uncover at least one Roman imperial coin. The

6

sheer volume of the find and hoard material make it impossible to provide a quantitative table for Roman imperial coins, but a review of the works in the select bibliography covering only reported hoard material, clearly shows that Roman imperial coins circulated in quantity throughout the United Kingdom, Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and to a lesser degree in India, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. The full list of 39 modern sovereign states from which Roman imperial hoards and finds have been reported is as follows:8 Albania Algeria Austria Belgium Bosnia Bulgaria Croatia Denmark Egypt France Germany Greece Hungary India Ireland Israel Jordan Lebanon Libya Luxembourg Macedonia (FYROM) Mauritania Morocco Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania

8 Out of caution, we exclude Roman imperial coins said to have been found in the United States and Canada. In many cases the reliability of the reports is doubtful. However, it has been suggested that these coins could have come to North America mixed in with the stones and earth commonly used as ballast in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries or as tokens for use in the cash-starved North American economies of the same period. For some of the finds reported before 1980, see J. Epstien, “Pre-Columbian Old World Coins in America: An Examination of the Evidence,” Current Anthropology 21.1 (February 1980), pp. 1-20. For a report of a sestertius of Domitian and an antoninianus of Constantius Chlorus found in the change drawer of a nineteenth-century Canadian grocer, see A. B. McCullough, Money and Exchange in Canada to 1900 (Toronto, 1984), p. 101.

7

Russia Serbia Spain Sri Lanka Sweden Switzerland Syria Tunisia Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Vietnam This heavy blanket of Roman imperial coins throughout the Mediterranean world and beyond is attributable to three major factors: 1) The continued export of coins from Italy to territories in the United Kingdom, Europe, the Near East, and North Africa as a means of paying the legions stationed there and supporting provincial infrastructure and officials; 2) The development of a Roman taste for eastern luxuries that led to the large scale export of coins to such exotic destinations as India, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam;9 3) The proliferation of imperial branch mints located in the provinces beginning in the mid- third century AD.10 All of these factors contributed to the widespread circulation of Roman imperial coins beyond the confines of the modern Italian Republic. It is completely unreasonable to argue that the coins of these branch mints belong to the sole purview of the modern Italian Republic since they were produced in territories now belonging to the modern sovereign states of Egypt (Alexandria), Tunisia (Karthago/Carthage), France (Ambianum/Amiens, Arelate/Arles, Lugdunum/Lyon), Spain (Barcino/Barcelona), the United Kingdom (Camulodunum/Colchester, Londinium/London), Turkey (Constantinople/Istanbul, Cyzicus, Heraclea/Eregli, Nicomedia/Izmit, Antioch/Antakya), Bulgaria (Serdica/Sofia), Croatia (Siscia/Sisak), Serbia (Sirmium/ Sremska Mitrovica), Greece (Thessalonica), and Germany (Treviri/Trier). If these coins are primarily considered the cultural property of Italy because they were struck under the authority of the Roman Emperors, by the same logic, coins of the Greek cities in Italy and Sicily must belong to modern Greece since they were produced by and for Greek colonial settlements in Italy and Sicily and the Italo-, Siculo-, and Sardo-Punic issues, as mentioned above, must belong to Tunisia. As the term used to describe it would suggest, the Roman imperial coinage was not a local initiative of Rome and Italy, but rather an evolving and immense administrative,

9 See, for example, D. MacDowall, “The 1891 hoard of Roman silver denarii from Yeswantpur.” Numismatic Digest, 25-26 (2001-2002), p. 57-64; C. Rodewald, Coinage in the Age of Tiberius (London, 1976), pp. 48-50. The drain of Roman imperial coins (especially gold) to the east was thought to be so great that it was included as one of the causes of the Roman financial crisis of AD 33. 10 Harl (n. 5), p. 144.

8

political, and fiscal project that took into account the needs of the provinces (especially after the total collapse of local provincial coinages in the mid-third century AD), as well as those of the capital, and even the requirements for trade beyond the borders of the empire. To suggest otherwise is to fly in the face of the extensive and constantly expanding find evidence. Select Roman Imperial Hoard Bibliography 1. Abdy, R. “Worn sestertii in Roman Britain and the Longhorsley hoard.” Numismatic Chronicle Vol. 163 (2003), p. 137-146. 2. Agallopoulou, P. “Thesauros” arguron Romaikon denarion apo tis anaskaphes tou Oropou (1984).” In Charakter: aphieroma ste Manto Oikonomidou. Athens, 1996. p. 29-34. 3. Andrew, J. “Roman gold hoard found : 43 gold aureii found in London by museum archaeologists.” Coin World 19 (February 2001), p. 100. 4. Arce, J. “A solidus hoard from the vicinity of Karanis.” Revue suisse de numismatique 66 (1987), p. 181-191. 5. Arslan, M. “The Manyas Hoard of denarii.” In Studies in Ancient Coinage from Turkey. Istanbul, 1996. p. 31-36 6. Arslan, M. “The Kapulukaya hoard of solidi” In Studies in Ancient Coinage from Turkey. Istanbul, 1996. p. 105-106 8. Babelon, J. and A. Duquenoy. “Medaillons d'or du Tresor d'Arras. L'entree de Constance Chlore a Londres en 296 apres J. J.-C.” Arethuse (1924) p. 45-52. 9. Bagnall-Oakeley, M. “A hoard of Roman coins found at Bishop's Wood, Ross-on-Wye.” Numismatic Chronicle 16 (1896) p. 209-237. 10. Bakic, L. “The Roman denarii hoard from the 2nd century A.D. from the locality of Vrsac-Ludos.” In Medunarodni numizmaticki kongres u Hrvatskoj = International Numismatic Congress in Croatia (2001 Pula) Pula, 2002, p. 13-31. 11. Baramki, J. “Coin hoards from Palestine : a hoard of late Roman coins from Yamun.” Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine XI. 1-2 (1944), p. 30-36. 12. Barclay, C. “A hoard of fourth-century Roman bronze coins from Haxby, North Yorkshire.” Numismatic Circular 102.4 (May 1994), p.155-156. 13. Barcsay-Amant, Z. The hoard of Komin (Antoniniani of the 3rd century A.D.). Budapest, 1937.

9

14. Bateson, J. and W. Hanson. “A Flavian hoard from Scotland: a foundation deposit?” Numismatic Chronicle 150 (1990), p. 233-236 15. Bellinger, A. “A Constantinian hoard from Attica.” American Journal of Archaeology (1928), pp. 496-501. 16. Bendall, S. “An Eastern Hoard of Roman Imperial Silver.” Numismatic Chronicle 7.6 1966, pp. 165-170. 17. Berger, F. Kalkriese , Die roemischen Fundmuenzen. Mainz, 1996. 18. Berghaus, P. “Augusteische Bronzemünzen Nordwestdeutschland.” Bremer archaeologische Blaetter 5 (1969), p. 49-54. 19. Berghaus, P. “Two imitations out of the Valuvally hoard of Roman aurei (Kerala) 1983.” Studies in South Indian Coins 4 (1994), p. 33-42. 20. Besly, E. and P. Webster. “A hoard of tetrarchic nummi from Bridgend, South Wales.” Numismatic Chronicle 162 (2002), p. 169-215. 21. Bijovsky, G. “Numismatic evidence for the Gallus revolt: the hoard from Lod.” Israel Exploration Journal 57.2 (2007), p. 187-203 22. Bland, R. Coin hoards from Roman Britain, Vol. III. The Blackmoor hoard. London, 1982. 23. Bland, R. ed. The Chalfont hoard and other Roman coin hoards. London, 1992. 24. Bland, R. and A. Burnett, eds. The Normanby hoard and other roman coin hoards. London, 1988. 25. Bland R. and P. Aydemir. “The Haydere hoard and other hoards of the mid-third century from Turkey.” In C. Lightfoot, ed. Recent Turkish coin hoards and numismatic studies. Oxford, 1991. p. 91-180. 26. Bodianskii, A. “Nakhodka nebol'shogo klada rimskikh monet na nizhnem Dnepre = Find of a small hoard of Roman coins from the lower Dnieper.” Numizmatiak i sfragistika 1 (1963), p. 95-96 27. Boon, G. “A Constantinian hoard from Llanbethery, near Barry, Co. Glamorgan. Numismatic Chronicle” 20 (1960), p. 253-265. 28. Boon, G. “Part of a Constantinian hoard from Wollaston, Clos. (1887-8).” Numismatic Chronicle 20 (1960), p. 267-270.

10

29. Bozhkova, B. “Sukrovishte ot rimski moneti ot S. Ruzhevo Konare (Plovdivsko) = A hoard of Roman coins fro the village of Ragevo Konare (Plodiv Region).” Izvestiia na narodniia Muzei Burgas 4, 2002, p. 17-185 30. Bozhkova, B. “Hoard of Roman gold coins from the village of Stakevci.” Macedonian numismatic journal 4 (2000), p. 35-44 31. Bozhkova, B. “Rimski moneti ot sukrovishteto ot s. Bazaurt (Dobrichko) = Roman coins from the hoard of Bazaurt (Dobrich region).” Numismatica i epigraphica 1 (2003), p. 35-49. 32. Brachevskii, M. “K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii Obolonskogo klada = (On the problem of the origin of the Oblonski Hoard).” Kratkie Soobshcheniia 66 (1956), pp. 59-64. 33. Breitenstein, N. “De Romerske montfund fra Gudme Herred.” Nordisk Numismatisk Arsskrift (1942), p. 69-98 34. Breitenstein, N. “De Romerske montfund fra fyen udenfor Gudme Herred.” Nordisk Numismatisk Arsskrift (1943), p. 1-20 35. Burton, D. “Bourton-on-the-Water (Gloucestershire): hoard of Constantinian Folles.” Numismatic Chronicle 7.13 (1973), p. 98-125. 36. Buttrey, T. “A hoard of Sestertii from Bordeaux and the problem of bronze circulation in the third century A.D.” American Numismatic Society. Museum Notes 18 (1972), p. 35-58. 37. Carson, R. ed. Coin Hoards I. London, 1975. Nos. 161-181, 183-204, 207-229, 231-233. 38. Challis, C. and M. Blackburn, eds. Studies in the coinages of Carausius and Allectus. London, 1985. 39. Clarke, R. “A Theodosian coin hoard from Norfolk.” Numismatic Chronicle (1936), p. 255-257 40. Clayton, J. “Discovery of a hoard of Roman coins on the Wall of Hadrian, in Northumberland.” Archaeologia Aeliana (1880), p. 1-25. 41. Clute, S. “An old hoard discovery of Roman sestertii..” Canadian Numismatic Journal 24.9 (Oct. 1979), p. 403-405. 42. Corder, D. “A second hoard of Roman Denarii from Darfield.” Numismatic Chronicle 6.8 (1948), p. 78-81.

11

43. Dukat, Z. and I. Mirnik. “Skupni nalaz rimskog carskog novca iz Balijine Glavice = Roman imperial coin hoard from Balijina Glavica.” Vjesnik Za Arheologiju i Historiju Dalmatinsku 86 (1994), p. 267-273. 44. Erge, A. The Kusakkaya hoard of aurei in Studies in Ancient Coinage from Turkey. Istanbul, 1996, p. 37-39 45. Evans, J. “Account of a hoard of Roman coins found near Luton, Bedfordshire.” Numismatic Chronicle 3 (1863), p. 112-118. 46. Evans, J. “Note on a hoard of coins found on Pitstone Common, near Tring, 1870.” Numismatic Chronicle 10 (1870), p. 125-132. 47. Evans, J. “On a hoard of Roman coins found at East Harptree, near Bristol.” Numismatic Chronicle 8 (1888), p. 22-46. 48. Evans, J. “On a small hoard of Roman coins found at Amiens.” Numismatic Chronicle 10 (1890), p. 267-272. 49. Evers, J. “The Haarlemmermeer Hoard : late Roman bronze coins up to about A.D. 400.” Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden 47 (1966), p. 31-101. 50. Fleur, L. “An analysis of trade between the Roman Empire and India using coin hoard data.” The Picus (1996), p. 81-118 51. Gallwey, H. “A hoard of third-century Antoniniani from Southern Spain.” Numismatic Chronicle 7.2 (1962), p. 335-406. 52. Gazdac, C. “Tezaurul monetar Roman imperial Apulum I restudiat = The Roman imperial coin hoard Abulum I revised” Revista Bistritei 9 (1995), p. 133-144 53. Gebhart, H. et al. Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschland. 4, 3/2, Abt. IV, Rheinland-Pfalz ; Band 3/2, Stadt und Reg.- Bez. Trier, Die Sog. Römerbauten (3003-3020). Mainz, 2006. 54. Gorecki, J. et al. Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschland. 4,1,1, Abt. IV, Rheinland-Pfalz ; Bd. 1, Nachtrag 1, Stadt Mainz. Mainz, 2006. 55. Guberman, J. “The Cambridge hoard of 1897 revisited.” The Celator 22.6 (2008), p. 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18-20. 56. Gupta, P. “Nasthulapur hoard of silver Roman and punch-marked coins.” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 19.1 (1957), p. 1-4.

12

57. Hadzi-Maneva, B. “Hoard of solidi and siliquae of Stobi” in Coins and mints in Macedonia : proceedings of the symposium held in honor of the 80th birthday and 50th anniversary of the scholarly and educational work of Ksente Bogoev, member of the Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences. Skopje, 2001, p. 69-81 58. Hamburger, H. “A hoard of Antoniniani of Late Roman Emperors from Tiberias.” Israel Numismatic Journal 2.3/4 (1964), p. 19-31 59. Harl, K. “A hoard of Roman Antoniniani from the bath at Metropolis, Ionia.” American Journal of Numismatics 18 (2006), p. 75-111. 60. Haupt, P. Römische Münzhorte des 3. Jhs. in Gallien und den germanischen Provinzen : eine Studie zu archaeologischen Aspekten der Entstehung, Verbergung und Auffindung von Münzhorten. Grunbach, 2001. 61. Karyshkovskii, P. “Klad rimskikh monet iz basseina r. Tiasmin = Hoard of Roman coins from the Tiasmin river basin”. Numizmatika i epigrafika 3 (1962), p. 136-140. 62. Kiiashkina, P. “Monetno sukrovishte ot nachaloto na IV vek ot S. Razboina, Oushina, Puen = A hoard from the early IV century A.D. from Razbona village, Ruen District.” Izvestiia na narodniia Muzei Burgas 4, 2002, p. 186-199. 63. Kokocinsky, L. “Skarb poznorzymskich monet brazowych z Jezierzan ko o Tarnopola, Ukraina = The hoard of late Roman bronze coins from Jezierzany near Tarnopol, Ukraine.” Wiadomosci Numizmatyczne, v. 43, n. 1-2, 1999, p. 153-168 64. Kromann, A. “A fourth century hoard from Denmark.” Rivista italiana di numismatica 90 (1988), p. 239-261 65. Kropff, A. “A hoard of third-Century Roman coins from Vught.” Jaarboek voor munt- en penningkunde 74 (1987), p. 5-20. 66. Kropotkin, W. “Skarb rzymskich denarow ze wsi Turia w Okregu Czerkaskim (ZSRR) = Hoard of Roman denarii from Turia, Cherkassy, USSR.” Wiadomosci Numizmatyczne 13.3 (1969), p. 149-152 67. Kunisz, A. “A hoard of Roman denarii of the 2nd century AD from Tokary, Zamosc Province.” Prace i Materialy 10, 1993, p. 37-93 68. Lampinen, P. The gold hoard of 4th-c. solidi found in 1993 in Holum, K., A. Raban, and J. Patrich, eds. Caesarea papers 2 : Herod's temple, the provincial governor's Praetorium and granaries, the later harbor, a gold coin hoard, and other studies. Portsmouth, RI, 1999, p. 369-388.

13

69. Laser, R. and K. Stribrny. Die Fundmuenzen der roemischen Zeit in Deutschland. Abteilung IX, Sachsen. Abteilung XI, Brandenburg. Abteilung XII, Berlin. Abteilung XIV, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Berlin, 1997. 70. MacDowall, D. “The 1891 hoard of Roman silver denarii from Yeswantpur.” Numismatic Digest, 25-26 (2001-2002), p. 57-64 71. Mattingly, H. “A fourth-century Roman hoard from Egypt.” Numismatic Chronicle 6.16 (1956), p. 179-188. 72. Mihai, D. Tezaurul de la Cislau = Cislau hoard. Bucharest, 2001. 73. Mihailescu-Birliba, V. “Tezaurul de denari romani imperiali de la Gheraiestii Noi, 74. Jud. Neamt (The hoard of roman imperial denarii from Gheraiestii Noi, Neamt County).” Arheologia Moldovei 14 (1991), p. 57-65. 75. Milne, J. “A hoard of Constantinian coins from Egypt.” Journal International d'Archeologie Numismatique 16 (1914), p. 1. 76. Mitkowa-Szubert, K. “Zawartosc, losy i proba interpretacji skarbu rzymskiego z Boroczyc na Wolyniu = The contents, fate and tentative interpretation of the hoard of Roman denarii of Boroczyce in Volhynia.” Wiadomosci Numizmatyczne 43.1-2 (1999), p. 137-150 77. Noeske, H. et al. Die Fundmuenzen der roemischen Zeit in Deutschland. Abteilung IV, Rheinland-Pfalz. Band 3/3, Stadt und Reg.-Bez. Trier, Muenzen ohne Fundart und/oder ohne Inventarnummer (3021,1-2). Mainz, 2004. 78. Paszkiewicz, B. “Jeszcze dwa fragmenty skarbu monet rzymskich za Zulic = The hoard of Roman coins of Zulice : two more parcels.” Wiadomosci Numizmatyczne, v. 43, n. 1-2, 1999, p. 99-114. 79. Popescu, A. “Denari romani imperiali din tezaurul gasit la Desa, jud. Dolj.” Cercetari numismatice, 7 (1996), p. 47-48. 80. Price, M. ed. Coin Hoards II. London, 1976. Nos. 184-189, 192, 195-198, 200-201, 203-205, 208-220, 222-281, 283-320, 323-328. 81. Price, M. ed. Coin Hoards III. London, 1977. Nos. 136-232. 82. Price, M. ed. Coin Hoards IV. London, 1978. Nos. 97—101, 103-177, 179-182. 83. Price, M. ed. Coin Hoards V. London, 1979. Nos. 105-166, 168-227. 84. Price, M. ed. Coin Hoards VI. London, 1981. Nos. 95-196, 198-200.

14

85. Price, M. ed. Coin Hoards VII. London, 1985. Nos. 227-273, 277-284, 286-316, 318-339. 86. Rasovic, D. “Ostava rimskih denara sa pokaliteta Crnokalacka Bara.” Numizmaticar 18/19, 1996, p. 53-70. 87. Reece, R. “Coins and frontiers: the Falkirk hoard reconsidered” in W. Hanson and L. Keppie, eds. Roman frontier studies 1979 : papers presented to the 12th International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. Oxford, 1980. p. 277-282. 88. Reece, R. “The Normal hoard” in C. Carcassonne and T. Hackens, eds. Statistics and Numismatics. Strasbourg, 1981, p. 299-308. 89. Ripolles, P. and M. Gozalbes. “The Les Alqueries hoard of antoniniani.” Numismatic Chronicle 158 (1998), p. 63-77 90. Satyamurthy, T. “Nedumkandam hoard of Roman dinarii.” Studies in South Indian Coins 6 (1996), p. 31-41. 91. Savu, E. Tezaurul de monede romane imperiale de la Sahateni, jud. Buzau = The Roman Imperial hoard from Sahateni, Buzau county. In E. Nicolai, ed. Simpozion de numismatica : organizat in memoria Martirilor Cazuti la Valea Alba, la implinirea a 525 de ani (1476-2001), Chisinau, 13-15 mai 2001. Bucharest, 2002, p. 33-61. 92. Slavova, M. “Sukrovishte ot rimski imperatorski moneti ot s. Mineralni bani, Khaskovska oblast = Hoard of Roman imperial coins from the village of Mineralni bani, Haskovo region.” Numismatica i epigraphica Vol. 1 (2003), p.69-82. 93. Stewart, I. “Coins of the mint of London from the Boursies Hoard.” Revue Numismatique 36 (1994), p. 90-108. 94. Streefkerk, M. “Een nieuwe kijk op de Haarlemmermeer.” Jaarboek voor Munt- en Penningkunde 82 (1995), p. 1-18 95. Talmatchi, G. “Despre un nou tezaur monetar din prima parte a secolului III p.Chr. descoperit la Tomis = About a new monetary hoard from the first part of the 3rd century A.D. discovered in Tomis.” Pontica. 40 (2007), p. 593-605. 96. Touratsoglou, J. He nomismatike kyklophoria sten archaia Makedonia, per. 200 p.X-286 m.X : he martyria ton "thesauron". Athens, 1993. 97. Touratsoglou, J. “The 1976 Patras hoard of Aurei from the early Empire.” Nomismatika chronika 5-6 (1978), p. 41-52 98. Tsourti, E. “A Roman hoard from Euboea.” In Mneme Martin Jessop Price. Athens, 1996. p. 173-176.

15

16

99. Vertan, A. “Tezaurul monetar roman imperial descoperit la Abrud (com. Adamclisi, jud. Constanta) = The Roman monetary coin hoard discovered at Abrud (Adamclisi, Constantza county).” Pontica 33-34, p. 597-624 100. Zadoks, J. “The late Roman gold hoard of Beilen. II : the coins.” Palaeohistoria 4, p. 103-111.

EXHIBIT B

Stewardship of “Italian Type” Coins by Institutions in the Italian Republic I. Coins in Museums Very limited numbers of the many thousands of coins found in Italian contexts can be seen in the public displays of the thousands of museums of antiquity in Italy. This means that the bulk of the numismatic material in these collections must remain in storage, where it is completely unavailable to the general public, and often difficult to access even for the professional scholar. Indeed, some institutions, such as the Museo archeologico di Napoli, have even been known to refuse photographs and information to scholarly enquiries even for a fee. Because of this situation, the publication of museums coin collections must be a critical element in their stewardship and preservation in the present and for posterity. However, a brief survey of monographs and articles devoted to cataloguing “Italian type” material held by Italian institutions reveals a poor publication record. These monographs and articles catalogue the holdings of some 37 institutions. Although many of these works, such as the catalogues of the Civiche Raccolte Numismatiche (Milan), aim at comprehensive publication of the coins of each institution, others focus only on specific areas. Some, such as G. Fiorelli's Catalogo del Museo Nazionale di Napoli (1866-1872) are now quite old and in need of updating. In sum, we lack anything even approaching full coverage of the relevant holdings of all 37 institutions. This is not a particularly impressive showing for institutions in a country claiming exclusive cultural custodianship of these coins. However, the less-than-complete coverage of these museum and university collections borders on the appalling when we consider that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of Italian institutions with some collection of “Italian type” coins. A very cursory survey of Italian museums reveals at least 27 institutions with respectable numismatic holdings, but which have failed to publish full catalogues of even part of them:

1. Guarnacchi Museo archeologico (Volterra) 2. Museo archeologico nazionale (Vulci) 3. Museo archeologico nazionale (Tarquinia) 4. Museo archeologico nazionale di Bologna (Bologna) 5. Museo archeologico “Paolo Giovio” (Como) 6. Museo archeologico e etnologico (Modena) 7. Museo archeologico regionale “Antonio Salinas” (Palermo) 8. Museo archeologico nazionale dell’Umbria (Perugia) 9. Museo archeologico nazionale di Potenza (Potenza) 10. Museo archaeologico provinciale di Potenza (Potenza) 11. Museo nazionale della Magna Graecia (Reggio Calabria) 12. Musei Capitolini (Rome) 13. Galleria nazionale d’arte antica (Rome) 14. Museo della civiltà Romana (Rome) 15. Museo nazionale Etrusco (Rome)

1

16. Museo archeologico provinciale di Salerno (Salerno) 17. Museo civico d’arte antica di Turin (Turin) 18. Museo archeologico nazionale di Venizia (Venice) 19. Museo archeologico di Giardini Naxos (Mesina) 20. Museo archeologico regionale di Aidone (Enna) 21. Museo archeologico regionale di Caltanisetta (Caltanisetta) 22. Museo archeologico regionale di Palermo (Palermo) 23. Museo archeologico nazionale di Parma (Parma) 24. Museo civico di Termini (Termini) 25. Museo archeologico di Gela (Caltanisetta) 26. Museo archeologico “Vagliasindi” (Randazzo) 27. Museo archeologico di Lentini (Lentini)

This number is only a little smaller than that of institutions that appear in the publication record. The true number of institutions with decent coin collections but no published catalogues is almost certainly much greater than the 27 listed here. The care for the coins in Italian museum collections is not always of the highest standard. Over the years, many thousands of coins have been stolen from museums without great difficulty. Some examples of these thefts are the 1977 heist from the Museo archeologico nazionale di Napoli, the 27,000 coins that went missing from the Museo di Palazzo Tricni (Foligno) in November of 2003, and the 213 Roman gold coins that disappeared from the Museo archeologico nazionale di Parma at some point before July of 2009.1 Many of these incidents appear to be the work of commissioned thieves involving museum personnel. Poor internal documentation of material in many collections means that in case of theft it is almost impossible to identify and recover items if they appear on the market. The last inventory of the Parma material was made in 1978. All of this shows that the museum community has failed to live up to the mandate of custodianship for “Italian type” coins that the Italian government might like to set for it. The deep cynicism behind any such claim in attacks on the numismatic dealer/collector community is openly revealed by collection publications like Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. Italia. Firenze. Museo Archeologico Nazionale Vol. II, Etruria, which included the editorial involvement of the well-known numismatic firm, Numismatica Ars Classica. Likewise, if private collecting is truly the bane of the Italian museum, as has been suggested by some, it is hard to explain why it is that the nuclei of most museum collections were actually formed by private collectors first and then donated to the museums.2 It is difficult to take seriously the Italian claim of moral superiority in the

1 J.-P. Divo, Coins stolen from the National Archaeological Museum, Naples, IAPN Bulletin-Circular Suppl. 68. 1977; L. Fugoni, “Monete rubate valevano milioni” Gazzetta di Parma (15 July 2009), p. 1. Online at: http://www.gazzettadiparma.it/primapagina/dettaglio/1/23895/Monete_rubate:_valevano_milioni.index.html 2 A prime example is the cabinet of the Museo archaeologico civico di Forli, based primarily on the private Santarelli and Piancastelli collections.

2

custodianship of coins when the country’s museums do not refuse donations from sources that it would otherwise condemn as unclean. In its present state, the Italian museum community at large tends to serve as an obstruction to the preservation and study of the ancient Italian numismatic heritage. Summary

• Except for possible displays, coins in Italian museums are not easy to access. • Coins in museums have historically suffered from major thefts and poor internal

documentation. • Institutional collections are poorly documented in published form. • Many institutional collections are not published even in part. • Cynical attack on collectors and dealers when they are involved in some museum

publication efforts and often provide the core for museum collections. Survey of Publications 1. Acquaro, E. La monete puniche del Museo Nazionale di Cagliari : catalogo. Roma, 1974. 2. Acquaro, E. Monete puniche nelle collezioni italiane. Pt. 1. Roma, 1989. 3. Acquaro, E. Monete puniche nelle collezioni italiane. Pt. 2 : Enna, Museo Comunale "G. Alessi". Roma, 1992. 4. Acquaro, E. Monete puniche nelle collezioni italiane. Parte 3, Napoli, Museo Archeologico Nazionale. Roma, 2002. 5. Arslan, E. Monete repubblicane romane. Brescia, 1983. [material in Museo di Brescia]. 6. Arslan, E. et al. Le monete greche. Parte 1, Hispania – Sicilia. Biassono, 2002. 7. Bellocchi Amoroso, L. Le monete romane repubblicane dei Civici Musei di Reggio Emilia. Reggio Emilia, 1979. 8. Belloni, G. G. “Il medagliere di Milano al Castello Sforzesco.” Istituto Italiano di Numismatica. Annali 2 (1955): 151-152. 9. Belloni, G. G.� Le monete di Traiano : catalogo del Civico Gabinetto Numismatico Museo Archeologico di Milano. Milano, 1973. 10. Bergamini, M. and F. Catalli. Museo Comunale di Todi : Monete. Perugia, 1991. 11. Bergamini, M. Museo Claudio Faina di Orvieto : monete romane imperiali da Augusto a Commodo. Perugia, 1995. 12. Bergamini, M. Museo Claudio Faina di Orvieto : monete etrusche e italiche, greche, romane repubblicane. Perugia, 1995. 13. Bergamini, M. Museo comunale di Bevagna : monete. Milano, 2005. 14. Bernadelli, A. et al.� Le monete romane imperiali da Augusto a Vitellio / Musei Civici di Vicenza. Padova, 1998., [1998]

3

15. Bertone, A. Ai margini dell'economia monetaria : le monete celtiche nella provincia di Cuneo. Milano, 1998. 16. Bisi, A. M. “La monete con leggenda punica e neopunica del Museo Nazionale di Napoli.” Istituto Italiano di Numismatica. Annali v. 16/17 (1969-70), p. 55-127. 17. Bolis, A. C. et al. La collezione numismatica dell'Università di Pavia. Milano, 2003. 18. Breglia, Laura. “Le collezioni monetali del Museo Nazionale di Napoli.” Istituto Italiano di Numismatica Annali 2 (1955): 153-165. 19. Caccamo Caltabiano, M. Roma e Bisanzio, Normanni e Spagnoli : monete a Messina nella Collezione B. Baldanza, (III sec. a.C. - XVIII sec. d.C.). Messina, 1994. 20. Caccamo Caltabiano, M. Sylloge nummorum graecorum Italia : Agrigento, Museo archeologico regionale : fondo dell'ex Museo civico e altre raccolte del Medagliere. Agrigento, 1999. 21. Chiaravalle, M. Le monete di Ticinum nella collezione di Franco Rolla ; catalogo delle Civiche raccolte numismatiche di Milano. Milano. 1987. 22. Chiaravalle, et al. Ripostigli monetali in Italia : schede anagrafiche. Milano, 1987. [material in the Civiche raccolte numismatiche di Milano]. 23. Cocchi Ercolani, E. Catalogo della collezione numismatica di Carlo Piancastelli : Aes grave - moneta Romana Repubblicana. Forli, 1972. 24. Cocchi Ercolani, E. Catalogo della collezione numismatica di Carlo Piancastelli : monetazione Romana Imperiale, 253-305 d.C. Forli, 1974. 25. Cutroni Tusa, A. “Ripostigli del Museo Nazionale di Palermo.” Istituto Italiano di Numismatica Annali, v. 4 (1957), p. 109-112. 26. Cutroni Tusa, A. “Ripostigli monetali del Museo di Palermo.” Istituto Italiano di Numismatica Annali, v. 7-8 (1960-61), p. 73-90. 27. Cutroni Tusa, A. “Ripostigli repubblicani romani del Museo di Palermo.” Istituto Italiano di Numismatica Annali, v. 9-11 (1962-64), p. 161-173. 28. De Nitto, G. “Museo Archeologico Provinciale di Potenza.” Istituto Italiano di Numismatica. Annali Vol. 38-41, 1994, pp. 173-194. 29. Fava, A. S. “Il medagliere de Museo Civico di Bologna.” Istituto Italiano di Numismatica. Annali 5-6 (1958/59): 240-244. 30. Fiorelli, G. Catalogo del Museo Nazionale di Napoli. 5 vols. Napoli, 1866-1872. 31. Gentili, G. V. “Ripostiglio monetali del Museo di Siracusa.” Istituto Italiano di Numismatica. Annali Vol. 2 (1955), pp. 63-94 32. Giard, J.-B. Ripostiglio della Venra : nuovo catalogo illustrato. Rome, 1987. 33. Giard, J.-B. Ripostiglio della Venra : nuovo catalogo illustrato. Vol. II/1: Aureliano. Rome, 1995. 34. Giard, J.-B. Ripostiglio della Venra : nuovo catalogo illustrato. Vol. IV: Caro – Diocleziano. Rome 2000.

4

35. Gorini, G. Monete antiche a Padova. Padua, 1972 [material in the Museo Bottacin di Padova]. 36. Gorini, G.� Monete romane repubblicane del Museo Bottacin di Padova. Venezia, 1973. 37. Gorini, G. “La collezione numismatica.” Antichità Altoadriatiche 24 (1984), p. 285-298. [material in the Museo Bertoli]. 38. Guido, F. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. Italia. Sassari. Museo Archeologico "G. A. Sanna", Vol. I, Sicilia – Numidia. Milano,1994. 39. Guido, F. Ozieri (SS) : le monete del Museo civico = The coins of the Civic Museum. Vol. I, Monete greche e puniche = Greek and Punic coins. Milano, 1997. 40. Guido, F. Ozieri (SS) : le monete del Museo civico = The coins of the Civic Museum. Vol. II, Monete romane repubblicane = Roman Republican coins. Milano, 1998. 41. Lenzi, F. Le monete antiche della Collezione Venturini di Massa Lombarda. Ravenna, 1997. [material in Museo Carlo Venturini]. 42. Mainetti Gambera, E. Monete romane imperiali del Museo G. B. Adriani. Parte 9, Vespasianus (69-79 d.C.). Milano, 2003. 43. Mammina, G. “Museo comunale di Calatafimi.” Istituto italiano di numismatica. Annali, Vol. 46 (1999), p.271-280. 44. Martini, R. et al. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. Italia. Milano, 1988. 45. Martini, R. Sylloge nummorum Romanorum. Italia. Milano, Civiche Raccolte Numismatiche Vol. 1 Giulio-Claudii. Milano, 1990. 46. Martini, R. ed. Il ripostiglio di Mornico Losana (Pavia), 1919. (Parte Terza). Milano, 1994. [material in the Civiche raccolte numismatiche di Milano]. 47. Martini R. Sylloge nummorum Romanorum. Italia. Milano, Civiche raccolte numismatiche. Res Publica. Parte III. CRA, 285/2-344/4c (nn. 1293-2141). Milano, 1996. 48. Martini, R. Sylloge nummorum Romanorum. Italia. Milano, Civiche raccolte numismatiche. Res Publica. Parte IV. CRA 345/1-479/1) (nn. 2142-3310). Milano, 1996. 49. Martini, R. Sylloge nummorum Romanorum. Italia. Milano, Civiche raccolte numismatiche. Res Publica. Parte V. CRA 480/3-546/3 - Addenda (nn. 3311-3772). Milano, 1997. 50. Martini, R. “Monete delle zecche di Anchialus, Odessus e Pautalia nelle Civiche Raccolte Numismatiche di Milano.” In U. Peter ed. Stephanos nomismatikos : Edith Schönert-Geiss zum 65. Geburtstag. Berlin, 1998. Pp. 449-466. 51. Martini, R. Monete romane repubblicane del Museo "G. B. Adriani". Parte 2, Crawford 343/1b-544/8-39 (nn. 144-290). Milano, 1999. 52. Martini, R. Monete romane imperiali del Museo G. B. Adriani. Parte 3, Caius (37-41 d.C.). Milano, 2001. 53. Martini, R. Monete romane imperiali del Museo G. B. Adriani. Parte 4, Claudius 41-54 d.C.). Milano, 2001.

5

54. Martini, R. Monete romane imperiali del Museo G. B. Adriani. Parte 10, Titus (79-81 d.C.). Milano, 2003. 55. Molinari, M. C. “La collezione numismatica” In M. Buonocore ed. Camillo Massimo, collezionista di antichità : fonti e materiali. Roma, 1996. pp. 159-191. [material in the Palazzo Massimo]. 56. Pancrazzi, O. Le monete dell'Accademia di Cortona (fino a Teodosio). Pisa, 1975. 57. Panvini Rosati, F. “Ripostiglio di monete celtiche al Museo Archeologico di Firenze.” Istituto Italiano di Numismatica. Annali Vol. 2 (1955), p. 59-61. 58. Panvini Rosati, F. “Monete della stipe di Vicarello nel Museo Nazionale Romano.” Rendiconti della Pont, Accad. Rom. d'Arch. Vol. 40, p. 57-74. 59. Panvini Rosati, F. “Ripostigli di denari repubblicani del Museo Nazionale Romano.” Istituto Italiano di Numismatica. Annali Vol. 4 (1957), p. 79-108. 60. Pedroni, L. “Le monete conservate nell'Antiquarium della chiesa di S. Restituta.” Bollettino di numismatica, Anno 17, serie 1, nos. 32-33 (gennaio-dicembre 1999), p. 149-188. 61. Pozzi, E. “Ripostiglio di Mogoro (Cagliari) nel Museo Nazionale di Napoli.” Istituto Italiano di Numismatica Annali, v. 7-8 (1960-61), p. 247-251. 62. Pozzi, E. “Ripostigli Repubblicani romani nel Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli.” Istituto Italiano di Numismatica Annali, v. 7-8 (1960-61), p. 153-245,. 63. Procopio, G. “Ripostigli monetali del Museo di Reggio Calabria.” Istituto Italiano di Numismatica Annali, v. 1 (1954), p. 39-64. 64. Procopio, G. “Ripostigli monetali del Museo de Reggio Calabria.” Istituto Italiano di Numismatica Annali, v. 7-8 (1960-61), p. 59-71. 65. Stazio, A. “Ripostigli di vittoriati nel Museo Nazionale ei Napoli.” Istituto Italiano di Numismaicta. Annali Vol. 4 (1957), p. 67-78. 66. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. Italia. Firenze. Museo Archeologico Nazionale Vol. II, Etruria. Firenze, 2007. 67. Travaglini, A. “Museo provinciale di Brindisi.” Istituto italiano di numismatica. Annali, Vol. 46 (1999), p. 235-264. 68. Vismara, N. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. Italia. Milano, Civiche raccolte numismatiche, Vol. 3, Campania-Calabria. Milano, 1989. 69. Vismara, N. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. Italia. Milano, Civiche raccolte numismatiche, Vol. 2, Gallia ellenica-Guerra Sociale. Milano, 1990. 70. Vismara, N.� Cataloghi dei Civici musei di Pavia. II, Monetazione repubblicana. Pavia. 1992. 71. Vismara, N. ed. Il ripostiglio di Mornico Losana (Pavia), 1919. (Parte Seconda). Milano, 1994. [material in the Civiche raccolte numismatiche di Milano]. 72. Vismara, N. Sylloge nummorum Romanorum. Italia. Milano, Civiche Raccolte Numismatiche. Res Publica. Parte I. CRA 4/1a-65/5 (nn. 1-515). Milano, 1994. 73. Vismara, N. Sylloge nummorum Romanorum. Italia. Milano, Civiche Raccolte Numismatiche. Res

6

Publica. Parte II. CRA 69/4a-285/1 (nn.516-1292). Milano, 1994. 74. Vismara, N. “Le collezioni numismatiche dei Civici Musei di Pavia.” Bollettino della Società Pavese di Storia Patria (1994) p. 341-356 75. Vismara, N. La donazione Athos Moretti di monete dell'Italia antica (Etruria, Umbria, Samnium e Frentani), della Magna Grecia e della Sicilia antica del Gabinetto Numismatico di Locarno . Milano, 1996. 76. Vismara, N. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. Italia. Milano, Civiche raccolte numismatiche, Vol. 4, Lucania-Bruttium. Milano, 1998. 77. Vismara, N. Monete romane contromarcate del Museo G. B. Adriani di Cherasco. Parte 1, Monete repubblicane. Milano, 1998. 78. Vismara, N. Monete romane repubblicane del Museo "G. B. Adriani". Parte 1, Crawford 28/3-342/5b (nn. 1-143). Milano, 1999. 79. Visona, P. “The Punic coins in the collection of Florence's Museo Archeologico : nonnulla notanda.” Rivista di studi fenici, Vol. 27, no. 2 (1999), pp. 147-149. II. Coins from Archaeological Sites Although a very limited number of numismatic site finds from Italian excavations can be seen in museums connected to the sites, the Italian archaeological establishment (like that of many countries) has generally been extremely lax about publishing numismatic finds. A survey of published find reports from controlled excavations reveals some 77 monographs and articles involving “Italian type” coins from 60 distinct excavation sites. These numbers are particularly underwhelming when we consider that these publications are spread over more than a century of excavation in Italy and that multiple sites are investigated in an archaeological season, most of which include numismatic finds. In 2009 alone, excavation and other fieldwork took place at least 12 major sites. These included:

1. Acquachiara 2. Capena 3. Ostia 4. Monte Polizzo (Sicily) 5. Poggio Civitate 6. Poggio Colla 7. Poggio del Molino, Populonia 8. Pompeii 9. Project of 100 Roman Farms, Palazzaccio 10. San Gemini 11. San Vincenzo al Volturno 12. Villa Vignacce

7

Bearing this in mind, it is almost unthinkable that we have only 77 reports over a period of one hundred years to show for it. Of this number, less than half can be considered comprehensive final reports. Most are in fact preliminary reports or find reports for single seasons of excavation. All of this reveals a general disregard for the proper publication of Italian site finds within the archaeological community in Italy and at large (many sites are run by international teams). As many of the same authors appear repeatedly in the literature survey, it should become apparent that what has been published has been done because a handful of individual excavators have numismatic consciences, rather than because the archaeological establishment actively encouraged them. Outside of this small list of publications, information on the bulk of the coin finds from Italian excavations virtually disappears, since the general public and even most scholars cannot access information in excavators’ unpublished notebooks. The poor publication record for coin finds from controlled excavations not only makes accounting for material impossible, but also hampers numismatic scholarship. It certainly belies any claim that the Italian archaeological community might make to be the sole legitimate steward of “Italian type” coins. A true numismatic steward with a proper understanding of its heavy responsibility to both the modern Italian Republic and to the world would take care to encourage and ensure the timely publication of coin finds. To date, with the exception of the archaeological community as a whole has largely shirked this responsibility in Italy. Summary

• The publication record for coins found in Italian excavations is poor. • What has been published is thanks to a few dedicated numismatic scholars, not to

the encouragement of the archaeological community. • Without publication it is almost impossible to know what has been found and

what has become of the material. Survey of Literature 1. Arslan, E. “Milano, scavi di Piazza Duomo (1982-1984).” Bollettino di numismatica ser. 1, 4 (1985), p. 242-244. 2. Arslan, E. “Monete dai recenti scavi di Milano (età romana imperiale ed età medievale).” Rivista italiana di numismatica v. 90 (1988), p. 395-432. 3. Arslan, E. “Le monete [Desenzano].” In Studi sulla villa romana di Desenzano. 1, 1994, pp. 115-143. 4. Arslan, E. et al. "I reperti numismatici greci, romani e bizantini.” In T. Mannoni and G. Murialdi eds. S. Antonino : un insediamento fortificato nella Liguria bizantina. Bordighera, 2001, p. 233-238. 5. Arslan, E. “Monete celtiche dagli scavi di Casalecchio di Reno (BO).” In Romanizzazione e moneta : la testimonianza dei rinvenimenti dall'Emilia Romagna. 2004, p. 67-70. 6. Arzone, A. “Nota preliminare al ritrovamento di monete romane e medioevali nello scavo archeologico del cortile del tribunale di Verona.” Rivista italiana di numismatica e scienze affini v. 89 (1987), p. 199-207.

8

7. Autori vari. Sibari IV: relazione preliminare della campagna di scavo: Stombi, Parco del Cavallo, prolungamento strada, Casa Bianca. (1972). Roma, 1974. 8. Barenghi, F. “Le monete di Ercolano.” Cronaca Numismatica Anno 8, n. 72, febbraio 1996, p. 60-61. 9. Bechtold, B. La necropoli di Lilybaeum. Palerme, 1999. 10. Belli, R. “Trento : monete dall'area del Teatro Sociale (scavi 1990/1992). Evidenze composizionali e strutturali dei materiali in relazione all'indigine numismatica e alla destinazione.” In E. Cavada and G. Gorini eds. Materiali per la storia urbana di Tridentum. II, Ritrovamenti monetali. Trento, 1998. pp. 361-374. 11. Ben-Dor, I. “ Coins found during the 1931-2 and 1933 campaigns (at Mintunae).”In J. Johnson ed. Excavations at Minturnae. Vol. I. Monuments of the Republican Forum. Philadelphia, 1935. p. 91-120. 12. Bolla, M. “Le necropoli romane di Milano.” In Notizie dal Chiostro del Monastero Maggiore suppl. 5 (1988). 13. Buora, M. and A. Candussio. “La monete rinvenute nell'area del complesso archeologico di Pavia di Udine (Udine).” Rivista italiana di Numismatica e scienze affini Vol. 89 (1987), p. 109-128. 14. Buttrey, T. V. “Cosa : the coins.” American Academy in Rome. Memoirs v. XXXIV (1980), p. 1-153. 15. Buttrey, T.V. Morgantina studies. Vol. 2, The coins. Princeton, 1989. 16. Callegher, B. “Trento-Teatro Sociale : scavi 1990-1992 : le monete repubblicane, imperiali e medievali: analisi critica e catalogo del complesso numismatico.” In E. Caveda and G. Gorini, eds. Materiali per la storia urbana di Tridentum. II, Ritrovamenti monetali. Trento, 1998. 17. Callegher, B. Ritrovamenti monetali di età romana nel Veneto. Provincia VII, Rovigo. Volume 2, Adria, Comune di: Adria, Ariano Polesine, Arqua Polesine, Ceregnano, Crespino, Gavello, Guarda Veneta, Loreo, Pettorazza Grimani, Polesella, Pontecchio Polesine, San Martino, Villadose. Padova, 2000. 18. Camilli, L. “Appendice V : le monete.” Notizie degli scavi di antichità Serie IX, Vol. VII-VIII, 1996-1997, p. 269-277 19. Carbe, A. “Circolazione monetale a Gela : I rinvenimenti negli scavi dell'ex scalo ferroviario (1984-85, 1987).” Quaderni dell'Istituto di Archelologia della Facolta' di Lettere e Filosofia Universita' di Messina vol. 8, (1993), p. 51-59. 20. Catalli, F. “Ritrovamenti di monete negli scavi di Roselle le campagne.” Istituto Italiano di Numismatica Annali. No. 23-24 (1976-77), p. 121-150. 21. Catalli, F. “Le monete.” In R. Linington ed. Lo scavo nel Fondo Scataglini a Tarquinia. Milano, 1997 22. Catanuto, N. “Crotone (Catanzaro), Monete argentee del secolo VI-III av. Cr.” Notizie degli scavi di antichità (1932), p. 387-392. 23. Catanuto, N. “Monete argentee del periodo Repubblicano romano.” Notizie degli scavi di antichità (1932), p. 384-386. 24. Catanuto, N. “Santo Stefano di Rogliano (Cosenza) : Monete argentee del VI-V secolo av. Cr.” Notizie degli scavi di antichità (1932), p. 383-384

9

25. Ceci, F. “Moneta e archeologia : materiale numismatico proveniente dalla zona compresa tra il Tevere e la Via Nomentana : scavi 1989-1993.” Bolletino di Numismatica Vol. 25, Serie I, luglio-dicembre, 1995, p. 75-135. 26. Cesano, L. “Monete rinvenute negli scavi di Norba.” Notizie degli scavi di antichità (1904), fasc. 11. 27. Cesano, S. L. “Scavi di Nemi-le monete.” In G. Ucelli, ed. Le navi di Nemi. Roma, 1940. p. 307-327. 28. Chiaravalle, M. “Un ripostiglio di monete di fine IV-inizi V secolo d.C. dagli scavi di Via S. Maria Fulcorina in Milano 1985.” Notizie dal Chiostro del Monastero Maggiore Fasc. 43-44 (1989), p. 91-94. 29. Cicali, C. “Montemassi (Grosseto) : campagna di scavo 1993.” Bolletino di Numismatica Vol. 25, Serie I, Luglio-dicembre (1995), p. 270. 30. Cicali, C. “Siena, Piazza del Duomo : campagna di scavo 1988.” Bolletino di Numismatica Vol. 25, Serie I, Luglio-dicembre (1995), p. 271. 31. Cipollone, M. “Umbria. 1, Gubbio (Perugia) : Necropoli in loc. Vittorina : campagne di scavo 1980-1982.” Notizie delgli scavi di antichita, serie 9, Vol. 11-12 (2000-2001), p. 5-371. 32. Cocchiaro, A. “Monete dagli scavi di Brindisis (1984-1985).” Istituto Italiano di Numismcatica. Annali 37 (1990), p. 81-133. 33. Colburn, O. “VIII. - Torre del Mordillo (Cosenza) : Scavi negli anni 1963, 1966 e 1967.” Notizie delgli scavi di antichita. Series 8 Vol. XXXI (1977) pp. 423-526. 34. Colonna, G. “Carpineto Sinello, (Cieti) - Tombe in contrada Policorvo.” Notizie degli scavi di antichità Vol. 84 (1959), pp. 277-286 35. Colonna, G. “Pyrgi. Regione VII. Le monete.” Notizie degli scavi di antichità Vol. 95 (1970): Supplement 1, pp. 263-266, Supplement 2, pp.578-582. 36. Crawford, M. “Coins from a cemetery at Malignano.” American Journal of Archaeology v. 72, no. 3 (July, 1968), p. 281-283. 37. Del Chairo, M. “An archaeological-topographical study of the tolfa-allumiere district : preliminary report.” American Journal of Archaeology v. 66, no. 1 (Jan, 1962), p. 49-55. 38. Del Chiaro, M. “Coins and brick-stamps from a Roman villa in Tuscany and their chronological significance.” Numismatica e Antichita Classiche vol. 21, 1992, p. 159-172. 39. Faccenna, F. “Fontanamare (Cagliari) : il relitto di Fontanamare : nota preliminare.” Bolletino di Numismatica Vol. 21, Serie I, Luglio-Dicembre, 1993, p. 136-138. 40. Galifi, Caterina. Ritrovamenti monetali di età romana nel Veneto. Provincia I, Belluno. Volume 2, Feltre. Padova, 1998. 41. Gnecchi, F. “Nouveautes numismatiques provenant des fouilles faites a Rome en 1890.” In Congres international de Numismatique, Bruxelles, 1891 p. 403. 42. Gnecchi, F. “Le novita degli scavi di Roma durante il 1890.” Rivista Italiana di Numismatica (1891), p. 287 43. Gnecchi, F. “Scavi di Roma : 1886-1891.” Rivista Italiana di Numismatica (1902), p. 13-18.

10

44. Gnecchi, F. “Scavi di Roma nel 1891 : appunti di Numismatica Romana.” Rivista Italiana di Numismatica. (1892), p. 163. 45. Gnecchi, F. “Scavi di Roma nel 1892 : appunti di Numismatica Romana.” Rivista Italiana di Numismatica (1893), p. 127. 46. Gnecchi, F. “Scavi di Roma negli anni 1895-1896 : appunti di Numismatica Romana.” Rivista Italiana di Numismatica (1896), p. 409. 47. Gnecchi, F. “Scavi di Roma nel 1897.” Rivista Italiana di Numismatica (1898), p. 165 48. Gnecchi, F. “Scavi di Roma, 1903, 1904 : appunti di Numsimatica Romana.” Rivista Italiana di Numismatica (1904), p. 11 (1905), p. 160. 49. Gnecchi, F. “Scavi di Roma del 1906 : appunti di Numsimatica Romana.” Rivista Italiana di Numismatica (1907), p. 167 50. Gnecchi, F. “Scavi di Roma nel 1907 : appunti di Numsimatica Romana.” Rivista Italiana di Numismatica (1908), p. 127. 51. Grassi, M. “Rinvenimenti monetali da Angera, scavi 1980-1984.” Bollettino di Numismatica Ser. 1, no. 11 (1988), p. 7-151. 52. Henry, G. “Pontecagnano. Tombe del IV-III secolo av. Cr. in localite S. Antonio.” Notizie degli scavi di antichità Vol. 93 (1968), pp. 197-204 53. Hobbs, R. “Coins from the AAPP excavations, Pompeii.” The Numismatic Chronicle, Vol. 163 (2003), p. 377-379. 54. Hobbs, R. “Coins from the AAPP excavations, Pompeii : update 1.” The Numismatic Chronicle. Vol. 165 (2005), p. 377-381. 55. Lamboglia, N. “La necropoli Romana di Isasco.” Rivista di Studi Liguri Vol. 22, no. 1 (Jan.-Mar., 1956), p. 41-65. 56. Lamboglia, N. “La necropoli roman di Perti (finale).” Rivista Ingauna e Intemelia. N. S. Vol. 12, nos. 1-3 (Jan.-Sept., 1957), p. 31-47. 57. Lamboglia, N. and A. Siccardi. “Nuovi scavi nella necropoli romana del "monte" ad Albenga.” Rivista Ingauna e Intemelia. N. S. Vol. 14, nos. 1-4 (1959), p. 63-73 58. Lamboglia, N. “Punti fermi sul teatro romano di Ventimiglia.” Rivista di Studi Liguri Vol. 28 (1962), p. 270-290. 59. Libero Mangieri, G. “Monete rinvenute negli scavi di Velia : l'acropoli.” Rivista Italiana di Numismatica Vol. 92 (1990), p. 19-32. 60. Linington, R. et al. Lo scavo nel Fondo Scataglini a Tarquinia : scavi della Fondazione. Milano, 1997. 61. Lo Porto, F. “Metaponto (Matera). IV, Ritrovamenti monetali : rinvenimenti nella città antica e nel suo retroterra ellenizzato.” Notizie degli scavi di antichità Ser. 8 v. 42-43 = v. 113-114 (1988-1989), p. 422-441. 62. Malberti, M. “La necropoli della "Monzina".” Notizie dal Chiostro del Monastero Maggiore fasc. 43-44 (1989), p. 23-59.

11

12

63. Manfredi, L-I. “Tharros (Oristano) : scavi 1993.” Bolletino di Numismatica Vol. 21, Serie I, Luglio-Dicembre, 1993, p. 116-117. 64. Manfredi, L.-I. “Tharros (Oristano) : scavi 1995-1996.” Bolletino di Numismatica Vol. 25, Serie I, Luglio-Dicembre, 1995, p. 272-276.

65. Rovelli, A. “Le monete del castello di Scarlino : materiali per lo studio della circolazione monetaria nella Toscana meridionale.” Istituto Italiano di Numismatica. Annali Vol. 43, 1996, p. 225-254. 66. Serafin Petrillo, P. “Scavi 1966 sull'acropoli di Egnazia : le monete.” Notizie degli scavi di antichità Ser. IX, Vols. 5-6, 1994-1995, p. 196-204. 67. Rüdiger, U. “Santa Maria d'Anglona. Scavi nell'anno 1967.” Notizie degli scavi di antichità Vol. 94 (1969), p. 171-197. 68. Scheers, S. “Les monnaies trouvees durant les campagnes de 1964.” In J. Mertens, ,ed. Ordona IV. Brussels, 1974. p. 103-160. 69. Scheers, S. and J. van Heesch. “Les monnaies trouvees durant les campagnes de 1972 a 1986.” In J. Mertens, ed. Ordona V. Brussels, 1988. p. 229-293. 70. Serra Ridgway, F. I corredi del Fondo Scataglini a Tarquinia : scavi della Fondazione. Milano, 1996. 71. Stettiner, P. “Scavi de Roma, 1889.” Rivista Italiana di Numismatica (1890), p. 176. 72. Strazzulla, M. “Reperti monetari degli scavi del santuario sannitico di Pietrabbondante.” Istituto Italiano di Numismatica. Annali Vol. 20 (1973), p. 31-99. 73. Travaglini, A. “Documentazione numismatica della necropoli brindisina de via Cappuccini: nota preliminare.” Bollettino di numismatica, suppl. al n. 4 (1987) (Studi per Laura Breglia, v. 1), p. 203-204. 74. Travaini, L. “Monete di scavo nell'aula di S. Isidoro in Thermis.” Notizie degli scavi di antichità Serie IX, Vol. VII-VIII, 1996-1997, p. 412-413. 75. Travaini, L. “Sito numismatico B : monete dallo scavo di Lungotevere Testaccio (anni 1979-1983).” Bollettino di numismatica, ser. 1 5 (1985), p. 71-126. 76. Travaini, L. “Sito numismatico C : il ripostiglio del Testaccio (via Bodoni 1911).” Bollettino di numismatica, ser. 1 5 (1985), p. 153-155. 77. Zancani M. “La campagna archeologica del 1932 nella Piana del Crati, parte seconda : i retrovamenti al "Parco del Cavallo.” Atti e Memorie della Società Magna Grecia, N. S. Vol. 4 (1961), p. 7-63.

iapn and png submission on renewal of italian mou (april 8, 2015)

Documents