TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

I am writing in response to the request by the government of Cyprus
to include coins in their new bilateral agreement with the United States
with regard to the import of Cypriot antiquities into the United States.
While I am not a specialist in either Cypriot archaeology or in periods
where coins are likely to be found, I do have some sense of how important
coins can be for solving archaeological problems and especially on what
damage the search for coins can do to archaeological sites.

In regard to the first issue, I have seen some quite harsh comments
indicating that archaeologists care only for coins in that they can provide
a date. Clearly the role of coins in helping develop an absolute
chronology is important—and one that can only be fulfilled if the coins in
question have their precise archaeological context recorded, something
which does not generally happen when coins find their way into the
international numismatic market. But the information provided by coins
when their context is known is much greater. Alan Walmsley (“Production,
Exchange and Regional Trade in the Islamic East Mediterranean: old
structures, new systems?” In The Long Eighth Century. Production,
Distribution and Demand, edited by I. L. Hansen and C. Wickham, pp.
265-343. Leiden: Brill, 2000.) shows how coins can be used to understand
changing trade relationships over time. Were more coins found in context,
instead of being found by looters wielding metal detectors, such studies
would be much more common.

My real expertise lies in the issue of the damage that feeding the demands
of numismatists has on the archaeological sites from which they are
obtained. Here my evidence comes not from Cyprus, but from Iraq, where I
have been using high resolution satellite imagery (60 cm resolution from
Digital Globe Corporation) to survey the patterns of looting in the
southern part of the country. I have surveyed some 1,600 sites which were
surveyed by Adams and Nissen (Adams, Robert McC. and Hans Nissen, The Uruk
Countriside. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1972; Adams, Robert
McC., Heartland of Cities. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1981).
The published data on these includes information on the periods when they
were occupied. The results of my study have been presented to the London
conference on Archaeology in Conflict (November 2006), the annual meetings
of the American Schools of Oriental Research (November 2006) and the annual
meetings of the Archaeological Institute of America (January 2007).

Our data indicate that while the greatest efforts were expended on looting
those sites likely to produce cuneiform tablets (dating to the Ur III to
Old Babylonian Periods), there is a secondary spike in looting which
corresponds to the Parthian and Sassanian periods—sites that generate coins
which are highly valued by collectors. Some four hundred hectares of
archaeological surface has been destroyed through this activity, an area
greater than that for all other periods other than the Ur III and Old
Babylonian periods.

It is therefore clear that the search for coins for export does indeed
result in significant damage to the cultural heritage of the host country,
and that coins do not provide important information when their exact
archaeological contexts are known. Cyprus therefore has good reason to
request that these materials be included in their bilateral agreement.

Elizabeth C. Stone
Professor
Department of Anthropology
SUNY
Stony Brook, NY 11794-4364
Phone: (631) 632-7627
Fax: (631) 632-9165
Email: estone@notes.cc.sunysb.edu