Some Recommendations for Publishing Coins from Excavations

Frédérique Duyrat

One of the major difficulties when starting a comparative study of coins from excavations
is the absence of norms in the publications examined. There is no reference literature, no
common guidelines, and each author chooses his own rules of publication. A significant
number of authors of excavation reports are not numismatists but archaeologists who have
a good knowledge of the coins they find, but fewer of the standards of the discipline. As a
consequence, there is a very wide variety of form and content in publications of coins from
excavations.
This symposium has offered a rather wide overview of the range of possible uses of coins
from excavations, from their extraction from the earth to the reconstruction of historical
episodes, from the excavation to a GIS.

Why standardize publications?

During the meeting, O.  Picard underlined the limits of standardisation: it can lead
to impoverishment. This is probably true if one considers the number of archaeological
numismatic publications of any size and quality. However, standardisation makes data
comparable and understandable by any reader. Therefore we must seek a standardisation
with enough flexibility to avoid the impoverishment of catalogues. There are some good
reasons to encourage the use of a norm:
1. Coins are a good chronological marker, especially if properly combined with other
materials bearing chronological data, such as pottery 1.
2. In a regional perspective, standardisation of numismatic publications will make
available the data on coin circulation from one or several excavations: nature, density,
changes according to the period, proportion of local and foreign coins, relationships with
neighbouring mints 2.
3. At a more general level, the capacity to compare numismatic data can highlight
historically disruptive events, such as economic crisis, foreign armies, etc. Local and
regional history is thereafter enhanced as showed by S. Psôma in this volume, with the
long-lasting occupation of Olynthus after Philip II had destroyed the city, or by S. Kremydi
and K. Kryssanthaki in this volume, who delineate episodes of the history of Aegae and

1 Butcher 2003; Doyen 2011.

2 See Grandjean in this volume.

F. Duyrat, in : Les monnaies de fouille du monde grec, p. 297-302

298 Frédérique Duyrat

Amphipolis according to the contrasts they observe in the density of coinage found in
excavations.
4. A standardized approach to coins from excavations can also shed light on the economy,
especially concerning the monetisation of an area through a better knowledge of the use
of bronze coins, of their value (are they valuable enough to be hoarded?) versus the use
of silver, particularly silver fractions. Our knowledge of the output of bronze coins is
tightly related to what excavations provide. The Thasian example is especially interesting:
O.  Picard finds very high die ratios for bronze coins from the excavations of the city,
for obverse dies compared to the number of coins found as well as for obverse dies vs
reverse dies 3. Such results, quite unusual, would probably be commoner if such careful
examination of the dies of coins from excavations were performed more frequently.
5. Finally, to standardise the publication of coins from excavations would allow mapping,
quantification, and comparison on a broader and easier scale. Sharing data would be
possible without the huge preparatory work needed today.

Current problems in the publication of coins from excavations

Numismatic studies are technical and often based on numerous and complex data: die
studies, die ratio, survival index are concepts difficult to understand for a non-specialist.
The content of the papers of this colloquium is not accessible to a neophyte. However, in
this respect it is simply a reflection of the content of publications of coins from excavations,
which are often similarly difficult to comprehend.
The size of publications can be very different, from short notes (less than one page in
some articles of a periodical like ‘Atiqot) to volumes entirely dedicated to coins 4. One of the
major difficulties in these publications is that a large number of them only deal with one
part of what was found. While selecting one part of these data, the authors often omit to
provide information about the periods preceding the one they chose to publish: was the site
already occupied or not? Is there an evolution in the period under consideration? To provide
an overall framework, general figures are needed, such as the total number of coins found,
and some general data about the activity of the site before and after the period studied.
From one publication to another, the criteria of classification can differ. Usually, Greek
coins held in coin cabinets are classified according Strabonian geographical order, clockwise
from Spain to North Africa. That makes the collections easily compared and used throughout
the world. But this system is less obviously useful for coins from excavations. To begin with
coins from Western Mints when excavating in Turkey would require the catalogue to start
with rare foreign coins seldom found locally, when it might make more sense to begin with
the most important coinages found on the site.

3 Picard 2015, 159-160.

4 Kroll 1993.
Some Recommendations for Publishing Coins from Excavations 299

Formal choices can make a real difference in the clarity and use of a catalogue.
1. Numbering. The best solution is to choose a continuous numbering, from the first
coin to the end of the catalogue. The practice of providing no numbering at all must be
prohibited 5. A wide range of complicated systems has been developed. For instance, in
the publication of the excavations of Antioch and Seleucia Pieria, a catalogue number is
given to the coin types, and the total numbers of items are given in two separate columns,
one for each excavation, with totals by series and reigns 6. The tables at the end of the
volume give joint totals for the two sites. Thus, someone looking for the coins of one or
the other site must go through the catalogue making their own calculations. Moreover,
the use of bis numbers often leads to wrong results in tables.
2. Illustrations provided are often scarce, on the grounds that the items are to poorly
preserved to justify a photograph. Therefore, the reader can almost never come to his
own opinion, since he is deprived of the primary source. This raises the question of
the choice of pictures: should it consist only of the best preserved items? Or of those
essential for the dating of the stratigraphic layers? The whole corpus? Or even drawings?
3. Finally, the bibliography is often a problem. There is no complete overview of Greek
coinage in the way that Roman Imperial Coinage or Roman Provincial Coinage are now
universal references for Roman coinage. Therefore, Greek coins from excavations
are often described according to very different books or articles, or according to the
possibilities available to the person in charge of their identification.
Beyond this general context, one point must be made concerning hoards found in
excavations. They are not so numerous and it is remarkable that, on many occasions, the
publication places little or no value on the container in which it was found. It is often barely
described, or not at all.

Publication criteria
A list of the criteria to standardize the publication of coins from excavations do not need
to constitute a heavy document. They can be summarized as a series of items needed to
allow a full use of data by numismatists or other researchers.
1. General information on the excavations:
– Context; possibly list of stratigraphic layers.
– Nature of the excavated site (street, agora, temple, house, harbour, etc.).
– Total number of coins found.
– Number of illegible coins after restoration.
– Number of coins destroyed by restoration.
– Surface area excavated.

5 As for the excavations of Hama for instance: Thomsen 1986.

6 Waage 1952.
300 Frédérique Duyrat

2. Necessary fields:
– Mints.
– Description of the coin (obverse and reverse type, weight, dies, axis, metal, etc.).
Legends must be noted in a Unicode font.
– Hoards: numismatic study and careful description of the container.
– Bibliographical references.
– Data specific to the site (stratigraphic layer in which coins were found, georeferencing
of the precise location of the discovery, data about the context such as pottery in the
same layer, etc.).

3. Photography
– Of the coin itself or of a plaster cast, often more legible when the coin is a corroded
bronze.
– At actual size (1/1). If enlargements are provided, they should be in addition to actual
size pictures.
– As many items as possible.
One difficult point remains the order of classification. Each archaeological site has its
own characteristics and there may be no single method to suggest. But to make each solution
reasonably manageable, some tools must be added to allow as full a use as possible of the
data. There are two main types of classification.

1. Geographic, by mint, as in the publication of the excavations of Susa 7. It is the

usual system of classification for cabinet collections of Greek coins. This system was
been adopted by J. Pellerin in his 1763 publication and then reused by J. Eckhel in 1792 8. It
follows the geography of the Roman provinces as described by Strabo, with an alphabetical
classification of the mints into each province. It has been criticized but it remains the norm
for general catalogues of Greek coins, such as the Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. However,
in an archaeological publication, the coins are mostly of local provenance, associated with
other more scattered mints. The geographical order emphasizes that dispersion and requires
mental gymnastics useless for a non-numismatic reader. E.  Babelon insisted upon the
interest of a geographical order centered on the region and emphasizing local specificities
and influences 9. L. Robert developed that idea, highlighting the interest of a purely regional
classification of coins, with concentric circles 10. The centre would be the local output, then
the neighbouring mints, and the external circle the farthest coins. The main problem with
such a classification, is to gather coins produced over very long periods of time under the
name of the mint, and scatter coins of Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic and Roman periods
through the whole catalogue. That means that any user wanting to have an overview

7 Le Rider 1965.
8 Pellerin 1763; Eckhel 1792.
9 Babelon 1914, vi.
10 Robert 1951, 89.
Some Recommendations for Publishing Coins from Excavations 301

of one of these periods will need to extract all the data from the catalogue and rebuild it
according to his needs. Thus, if this solution is preferred, an index of mints is necessary,
with chronological tables, along with an introduction explaining which geography has been
chosen, and according to which local frame.
1. Chronological, by periods – Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic, Roman, etc. – as for the
excavations of Antioch 11. This requires a classification by mint in each chronological section,
with an index of mints making it possible to gather the output of those issuing through
different periods. This classification has several advantages:
– It allows an easy historical use of the catalogue.
– It provides a differentiation of the periods, but takes into account the specificities of
classification and dating of coins from excavations.
– It is enriched by an index by mint to reconstitute geographical links through periods
if needed.

Whatever the choice, the basic principles to determine a type of catalogue should be:
– To make data usable for analysis of long periods.
– To make data ready for use without having to deconstruct the catalogue.
– To allow the archaeologist to find easily the dating elements he may need, and the
historian to find points of comparison.
– Finally, commentaries and tools – maps, graphs, charts, indices – associated with the
catalogue may help extracting historical informations by mint 12.
– Indices of mints, hoards, literary sources and inscriptions are basic, useful tools. A
general conspectus as the one added to the masterful publication of the coins from the
agora of Athens by J. Kroll is an excellent way to make sure that any reader can safely
browse through the most complicated finds 13.

Conclusion
All of these suggestions apply to printed publications and do not solve the main problem.
Many excavations are run on a yearly basis, outdating the publication of the preliminary
report of the preceding year or postponing definitive publication to a final book. One
possible answer to many of the difficulties noted through this article would be the digital
publication through standardised databases communicating with each other through the
semantic web. The interest of databases is obvious:
– Easy and free access from any place with a web access.
– No limit to the number of images available in colour.

11 Waage 1952.
12 de Callataÿ 2006, 187-190 highlighted the scarcity of chronological tables in publications devoted to
coins from the Greek world when they are common for the Roman world. See particularly chart 7,
p. 188.
13 Kroll 1993.
302 Frédérique Duyrat

– Stable ids (URIs) giving a single digital identity to each item.

– Links with digital libraries and bibliographies.
– Links with other numismatic, archaeological, historical or economical databases.
– Sorting tools.
– Ongoing and timely publication.
This would lead to lighter printed publications, devoted to the discussion of the material
and offering a selection of the most significant items discovered.

The École française d’Athènes has begun the discussion about creating an online database
for coins from its excavations, and at the same time we are exploring the development of a
general catalogue of Greek coins online (http://www.greekcoinage.org). The future of the
discipline undoubtedly lies there.