AN41CH15-Haselgrove ARI 16 August 2012 15:57

ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further The Archaeology of Money∗
Click here for quick links to
Annual Reviews content online,
including: Colin Haselgrove1 and Stefan Krmnicek2
• Other articles in this volume 1
School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH,
• Top cited articles
United Kingdom; email: cch7@le.ac.uk
• Top downloaded articles
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:235-250. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

2
• Our comprehensive search Institut für Klassische Archäologie, Universität Tübingen, 72070 Tübingen, Germany;
email: stefan.krmnicek@uni-tuebingen.de
by Universidad Austral de Chile on 04/03/14. For personal use only.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012. 41:235–50 Keywords

First published online as a Review in Advance on coin, currency, value, context
June 28, 2012

The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at Abstract

anthro.annualreviews.org
This article’s doi:
10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145716
Copyright  c 2012 by Annual Reviews.
All rights reserved
0084-6570/12/1021-0235$20.00
∗
This article is part of a special theme on
Materiality. For a list of other articles in this
theme, see this volume’s Table of Contents.
Money is one of the most timeless, all-pervading, and arbitrary inven-
tions in human history. Its ubiquity in time and space offers great scope
for comparative archaeological research into its varying material mani-
festations. This article takes a broad approach, ranging from Old World
prehistory to twentieth-century ethnography. First, the development
of archaeological approaches to coinage and money is outlined. Subse-
quent sections explore research into the use of objects as currencies in
prehistory; the origins of coined money; archaeological sites illustrat-
ing the adoption and functions of coinage in and around the classical
Mediterranean; and the study of coins as archaeological artifacts in the
more recent past and in non-European contexts. Finally, we suggest
some potential ways forward, employing comparative archaeological
study to enhance our understanding of the complexity of functions per-
formed by monetary objects, both in the past and in the present.

235
 AN41CH15-Haselgrove ARI 16 August 2012 15:57
INTRODUCTION
Archaeology provides a unique perspective on
Money/monetary
object: artifact (or the role of money/monetary objects over space
commodity) acting as and time. As artifacts, coins and other kinds of
a means of exchange, currency are an integral part of the archaeolog-
method of payment ical record. By unifying notions of value, sym-
and/or standard of
bolism, and fetish in a material form, monetary
value
objects open up a multiplicity of viewpoints on
Medieval: the period
the peoples who created and consumed them.
of European history
between the fall of the However, even though archaeology offers in-
western Roman valuable insights into the disparate functions
empire and the Early and forms that money can assume in different
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:235-250. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Modern era cultural settings, we must rely on archaeolog-
Numismatics: ical evidence—either alone or in conjunction
academic study of with historical sources—to reconstruct the spe-
by Universidad Austral de Chile on 04/03/14. For personal use only.
coins, medals, and
cific economic, social, or ritual contexts within
related monetary
objects which such objects were used. The risk of cir-
cular argument that this creates, together with
a mistaken idea that we know what money is,
helps explain why archaeological data have long
been marginalized in discussions of the evolu-
tion of money, rather than taking center stage,
as they should.
This article takes a broad geographical
and chronological approach, ranging from Old
World prehistory to twentieth-century ethnog-
raphy. Within this wider remit, we privilege the
classical Mediterranean and medieval Europe,
partly because these fields have been the focus of
much archaeological research on noncontem-
porary money and coinage and partly because
of the wealth of material (Amandry & Bateson
2009; for the textual sources, see Melville Jones
1993, Szaivert & Wolters 2005). We are also
concerned primarily with coinage, rather than
with the myriad other forms of money that po-
tentially existed in the past, because otherwise
meaningful boundaries become almost impos-
sible to draw.
To help distinguish between concepts of
money and coinage, we begin with the defi-
nitions used in archaeology and adjacent dis-
ciplines. Whereas in anthropology, the so-
cial and symbolic dimensions of any money
stuff receive particular consideration (Bloch
& Parry 1989, Maurer 2006), in both classi-
cal studies and economics, coins are generally
236 Haselgrove • Krmnicek
characterized by their inherent material prop-
erties as standardized objects—usually of metal,
flat, and circular in shape, and issued (by an au-
thority) for use as currency—emphasizing their
political, economic, and technological dimen-
sions (Shell 1994, Gorini 1997, Eagleton &
Williams 2007). Coins are in fact just one spe-
cific form of money, if especially well developed
for the purpose. Moreover, following its spread
throughout the world in the wake of West-
ern colonization and the growth of modern in-
dustrialized societies, coinage is the prevailing
physical manifestation of money today—for a
historical outline of the divergent evolution of
coinage in the Eastern and Western worlds, see
Scheidel (2008). In sum, coinage is money; but
money is not necessarily coinage.
Like classical archaeology, the discipline of
numismatics, as the study of money and coinage
in the past came to be known, is rooted in the
antiquarian tradition of the European Enlight-
enment. Early curiosity about ancient coins
came from a desire to visualize famous and
mythical people from the Greco-Roman world,
who were then known only from ancient liter-
ature, through their portraits on classical coins.
Thanks to the variety of their obverse and re-
verse types and imagery, the numerous Greek
and Roman coins surviving across Europe thus
served as exotic fossils of a distant past and a
unique illustration of life in the ancient world
(Momigliano 1950).
Coins with less distant and mythologically
blurred origins, such as medieval European is-
sues and contemporary foreign coins, were also
collected and ordered alongside their classical
antecedents to display the lineage of (European)
history and thereby implicitly support contem-
porary ruling dynasties claiming descent from
Roman emperors or mythical characters (Stahl
2009). At the same time as taxonomies were be-
ing established in the natural sciences, scholarly
interest in the study of ancient coins shifted to-
ward the classification, dating, and categoriza-
tion of the increasingly large corpus available
through the systematic collection of classical
and medieval coins (e.g., J.H. Eckhel’s Doctrina
numorum veterum).
 AN41CH15-Haselgrove ARI 16 August 2012 15:57
From the late eighteenth century onward,
knowledge of the ancient world was en-
hanced by the enormous quantities of objects
unearthed in major excavations around the
Mediterranean, including the spectacular dis-
coveries of Pompeii and Herculaneum. In con-
junction with the improvements in scholarly
communication associated with the birth of sci-
entific journals, this focus on the material ev-
idence from Classical societies led to the eco-
nomic attributes of early coinages taking center
stage in numismatic research (Clain-Stefanelli
1965). The dominance of textual evidence in
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:235-250. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
classical scholarship led most numismatists un-
critically to treat the beliefs and mindset of
the Greco-Roman world as more or less iden-
by Universidad Austral de Chile on 04/03/14. For personal use only.
tical to their own contemporary values, sepa-
rated merely by two millennia and a few “mi-
nor” cultural constraints. Consequently ancient
coinages, and their uses and function, were per-
ceived as equivalent to contemporary Western
money as used in elite circles in Europe and
North America. Interestingly, however, Iron
Age coins were not perceived as part of the
modern European money ideal, being seen in-
stead as exotic objects that needed to be clas-
sified and—in step with emerging evolutionary
theories—arranged in hierarchical order to un-
derstand their chronology and development of
production (Schlanger 2010).
In the late nineteenth century, the great clas-
sical historian, Theodor Mommsen, in his sem-
inal work on the chronology of Roman Republi-
can coinage and on the probable location of the
battlefield where Augustus’ legions were dis-
astrously defeated in 9 CE (now identified as
Kalkriese, Germany), was among the first schol-
ars to emphasize the need to record the archae-
ological context of coin finds comprehensively
(Mommsen 1885). Paradoxically, however, the
scientific development and increasing institu-
tionalization of numismatics as an academic dis-
cipline achieved the exact opposite, reinforc-
ing the supremacy of the single object over
its context and perpetuating an approach that
examined coins detached from the rest of the
archaeological evidence with which they were
associated.
The later twentieth century saw the gradual
adoption of archaeologically based methodolo-
gies for the study of Iron Age and Roman coin
Iron Age:
finds (Gebhart et al. 1956, Haselgrove 1987, Archaeological period
Casey & Reece 1988), which have reshaped the characterized by iron
discipline (Christophersen 1989, Rotroff 1997, technology, beginning
Walker 1997). The study of both periods had in the late second
millennium BCE in
by then become firmly based on fieldwork, es-
the east Mediterranean
chewing the study of the object in isolation in
favor of employing archaeological evidence to
reconstruct and interpret the biographies of ob-
jects in their contexts of use (Krmnicek 2009,
Kemmers & Myrberg 2011). This hermeneutic
approach eventually led to a partial reintegra-
tion of numismatic studies into the archaeolog-
ical mainstream (Guest 1999), and in the past
decade, the study of premodern coinages has
become noticeably more open to ideas and ex-
planations from other disciplines, including an-
thropology (see Klüßendorf 2005 for medieval
numismatics; see Haselgrove & Wigg-Wolf
2005 and Nick 2006 for the Iron Age–Roman
periods). For protohistoric coinages, even the
cherished notion that coins can be more pre-
cisely dated than other types of artifacts—
however limited the textual sources—has been
abandoned. It is now generally accepted that
Iron Age coinages must be dated first and fore-
most by their stratigraphic occurrence and as-
sociations and not vice versa (e.g., Haselgrove
1999).
The ubiquity and (generalized) uniformity
of coins make them well suited to quantifi-
cation. For the Roman period especially, nu-
merical and statistical methodologies are now
integral to the study of archaeological site
finds (e.g., Casey 1986; Reece 1987, 1995;
Lockyear 2000). By making large numbers
manageable, these approaches have revealed
important patterns but can be criticized for per-
petuating our perception of coinage as an in-
herently familiar medium, which behaves ac-
cording to known rules, while maintaining the
division between coins and the rest of the ar-
chaeological record by analyzing them as ag-
gregated assemblages effectively divorced from
their contexts. Tellingly, there has been lit-
tle interest in developing methodologies that
www.annualreviews.org • The Archaeology of Money 237
 AN41CH15-Haselgrove ARI 16 August 2012 15:57
might help us identify specific monetary ob-
jects and uses in an archaeological setting, and
most discussions of whether a certain class of
Bronze Age:
archaeological period artifact might have functioned as currency are
characterized by little more than anecdotal.
bronze technology, Beyond the Old World, in Africa, in
spanning the third and Melanesia, and in the Americas, the bound-
second millennia BCE
aries between the archaeological and anthro-
in the Old World
pological study of money tend to be blurred
Hoard: a set of objects
[for Melanesia, see Gilliland (1975), including
deliberately deposited
together, whether or archaeological documentation of the objects,
not with the intent of in addition to records on acquisition and ex-
later recovery port, and Akin & Robbins (1999); for Africa, see
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:235-250. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Herbert (1984) and Eagleton et al. (2009)].
There can be little doubt that more archae-
ological study of money uses outside the
by Universidad Austral de Chile on 04/03/14. For personal use only.
confines of Eurocentric history will reap sig-
nificant rewards, not only by enhancing and ex-
tending the time depth of historical and ethno-
graphic accounts, but also by making us rethink
the functions of money in premodern Western
societies.
THE EVOLUTION OF
COINED MONEY
In economics and social science, numerous the-
ories have been published about the supposed
reasons for the invention and consequent use of
early money and coinage (Laum 1924, Schaps
2004, Carrier 2005). Archaeology cannot claim
to provide a complete answer to these debates,
but it can contribute a solid foundation for dis-
cussion by presenting data drawn from the ma-
terial record and by providing an interpreta-
tion. In the absence of literary sources that can
give further insights to the evolution of mon-
etary use, the study of early money is, more
than any other branch of numismatic research,
dependent on the information that can be ex-
tracted from the archaeological record. Accord-
ingly, the interpretation of whether particular
objects or commodities (e.g., salt) performed a
monetary function in prehistoric societies relies
solely on our reconstruction of that society and
its uses of material culture.
Artifacts of European and Near Eastern
prehistory made of valuable material offer an
238 Haselgrove • Krmnicek
excellent example with which to illustrate the
continuing debate in archaeological circles on
the difficulties of recognizing early monetary
phenomena in general and the possible proto-
monetary functions of these objects in partic-
ular (Briard 2001). For decades, the discus-
sion of hoarding in Bronze Age and Iron Age
Europe and the Near East was driven by at-
tempts to define the precise nature of assem-
blages and from this to reconstruct the in-
tentions of the individuals responsible for the
deposit. Consequently, utilitarian definitions
tended to dominate discussion, from the con-
cealment of personal wealth in periods of up-
heaval to merchants’ hoards or the burial of
metalworkers’ stock. Since the 1980s, however,
in line with other developments in archaeolog-
ical theory, scholars have increasingly tended
to emphasize social and especially votive or rit-
ual reasons governing the deposition of hoards
(Harding 2000, pp. 352–68). In effect, any at-
tempt to interpret particular artifacts as an early
form of money must be seen against the theo-
retical perspectives prevailing in European or
Near Eastern prehistory at the time.
Polished stone axes or adzes are found in
large quantities throughout Neolithic Europe
(Thirault 2005). Petrographic analysis in con-
junction with the distributions show that while
some blades were produced and consumed lo-
cally, others traveled long distances as raw ma-
terial or semifinished or finished products via
interregional networks of production and sup-
ply. The large-scale distribution of these ob-
jects across Neolithic Europe highlights their
social and symbolic value, as does their dispro-
portionate occurrence, when recovered in ex-
cavations in intentional deposits such as buri-
als or hoards. The accepted interpretation of
these polished axes or adzes as having had a
purpose and value beyond the functional lim-
its of tools for mundane work is thus based on
a reasoned set of observations including careful
sourcing of the raw material, the highly struc-
tured mode of manufacture and the extensive
geographical distribution of the blades on the
one hand, and the functioning of the societies
which consumed them on the other.
 AN41CH15-Haselgrove ARI 16 August 2012 15:57
A similar approach has been followed in dis-
cussions of the vast number of bronze hoards
found in Bronze Age Europe (Hänsel & Hänsel
1997, Sommerfeld 2004). Some are a mixture of
metal scrap, semifinished products, and finished
objects, whereas others contain only finished
products, both broken and intact. Deposits of
bronze sickles, ring-ingots, and bar-ingots have
received particular attention because they stand
out from other Bronze Age hoards, owing not
only to their wide geographical distribution but
also to their uniformity of weight, composition,
and production (Sommerfeld 1994, Innerhofer
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:235-250. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
2004). Again, a combination of the nature and
form of the objects on the one hand and the
deposition patterns of hoards in both ritual and
by Universidad Austral de Chile on 04/03/14. For personal use only.
nonritual spheres on the other makes their in-
terpretation as forms of monetary objects very
plausible.
The Late Bronze Age shipwrecks of Ulubu-
run (Yalçin 2005) and Cape Gelidonya (Bass
1967), discovered off southwestern Turkey,
have yielded the largest archaeological assem-
blages to date of various traded commodities
that were previously known only from ancient
texts and Egyptian tomb paintings. In addition
to carrying bun-shaped ingots of copper and tin,
both vessels carried large quantities of oxhide-
shaped copper ingots, which are generally as-
sumed to combine the functions of raw mate-
rial and objects of monetary exchange within
and between Mediterranean Bronze Age soci-
eties. Their association in hoards with scrap
metal, finished products, and other objects of
value, together with their geographical distri-
bution along trade and exchange routes from
Egypt, Cyprus, Crete, and Turkey in the east to
Sardinia and Sicily in the west, emphasizes their
supraregional significance (Mangou & Ioannou
2000, Gale 2001, Kassianidou 2001).
Contemporary accounts in Egyptian hiero-
glyphs and Mesopotamian cuneiform scripts
provide our first written confirmation of the
appropriation for monetary purposes of valu-
able weighed-out commodities such as precious
metal objects and grain by later Bronze Age
and Iron Age societies in the Old World. Ac-
cording to these sources, metals were used both
as a means of direct payment and as units of
value or account for a range of goods exchanged
in barter transactions (Eagleton & Williams
Cowrie shell:
2007, p. 19). Archaeological evidence of Egg-shaped shell of
Egyptian and Near Eastern metal hoards con- sea-snails (Cypraeidae)
taining gold and silver ingots, jewelry, and with porcelain-like
pieces of cut silver (“Hacksilber”) provides fur- shine, used in many
parts of the world as a
ther corroboration of the written record. The
form of currency
weights of the ingots and the pieces of cut sil-
ver in Egyptian hoards seem to approximate to
multiples and fractions of standard weights used
to account for value. The same is true of the “re-
distributive economies” of the Near East (Le
Rider 2001, Rollinger et al. 2004), where the
value of particular commodities, labor, and so-
cial obligations was expressed in terms of fixed
amounts of silver of standard weight (for a dis-
cussion of the depth of monetization, see Gitin
& Golani 2004, Kletter 2004). The plenti-
ful archaeological evidence for balance weights
in the Eastern Mediterranean provides further
grounds for inferring the development of ne-
gotiated standards of shared value (Albert et al.
2006, Pakkanen 2011). In this context, the Iron
Age silver hoards from Cisjordan, found in bun-
dles wrapped in cloth and sealed by stamped
clay bullae, are of particular significance for trac-
ing the transition from money to money and
coinage, since by guaranteeing weight to a set
standard and indicating authoritative control,
this “sealed silver” anticipates two of the key
features of early coinage (Thompson 2003).
Early monetary development in East Asia
also seems to be based on notions of value
given to rare natural and artisanal products.
Cowrie shells (and later their imitations), bul-
lion, and metal and jade objects are all thought
to have performed functions of monetary char-
acter from at least the second millennium BCE
(Yung-Ti 2006). The literary reference dating
from the later Zhou period to the monetary
use of these objects, in conjunction with ar-
chaeological evidence mostly from burials, pro-
vides solid grounds for acknowledging these
artifacts as early money. A recent overview
of published literature highlights the new ap-
proaches now being applied to the study of early
money in China (Wang et al. 2009), reflecting
www.annualreviews.org • The Archaeology of Money 239
 AN41CH15-Haselgrove
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:235-250. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Universidad Austral de Chile on 04/03/14. For personal use only.
ARI 16 August 2012 15:57
the changes in Chinese archaeology since the
1960s, in particular advances in recording an-
cient monetary objects in their archaeological
context. From around the late seventh century
BCE, broadly contemporary with the adoption
of coinage in the Aegean, a range of bronze ob-
jects were apparently all embraced for monetary
purposes in China: round discs with a hole in the
center; imitation cowrie shells; and spade and
knife “money,” modeled on agricultural tools
but cast in miniature and bearing inscriptions
confirming the issuing authority and weight. In
the third century BCE, under the unifying rule
of the Qin dynasty, bronze coins with a square
hole and a two-character inscription, literally
“half-ounce,” were established as standard cur-
rency throughout their empire (Thierry 1997,
2003).
In the Mediterranean, comparable devel-
opment toward a stamped piece of metal of
standard weight, certified by an authority
with marks of identification, took place in a
framework lacking comparable large-scale cen-
tralization of social life and political power. The
earliest coinage, made of electrum (a naturally
occurring alloy of gold and silver), emerged in
the seventh century BCE in western Asia Mi-
nor. Although abundant literary sources of later
date refer to the invention and use of coinage
in the Aegean (e.g., Testart 2001, von Reden
2010), archaeological data are limited to a few
well-documented finds and hoards. For early
electrum coinage, discussion still rests heavily
on the hoard excavated in 1904–1905 beneath
the temple of Artemis at Ephesos, Turkey,
and recent archaeological reassessments of
the site (Karwiese 1991, Williams 1993, Muss
2008). This discovery remains the largest and
best-stratified assemblage of weighed electrum
pieces stamped with simple designs, together
with unstamped silver nuggets. These finds im-
ply the acceptance of coins and bullion equally
as objects of value and suggest the overlapping
monetary character of early coinage and valu-
able metals. The adoption and subsequent rapid
spread of coinage did not mark the immediate
end of noncoined money; in various parts of
the Greek mainland weighed silver continued
240 Haselgrove • Krmnicek
to be employed as currency, attested both by
the written sources (e.g., the laws of Solon) and
archaeologically through mixed hoards (Kroll
2008).
THE DIFFUSION OF COINAGE IN
THE GRECO-ROMAN WORLD
Following its adoption in western Asia Minor,
the concept of coinage was swiftly transmitted
and elaborated through and beyond the Aegean.
Thanks to the increasingly extensive data from
well-documented excavations, it is now possi-
ble to examine how the economic, technologi-
cal, and symbolic dimensions of coined money
were transformed by successive encounters with
different ideologies, value systems, and non-
monetary currencies (see, for example, papers
in Garcı́a-Bellido et al. 2011). However, the
fact that key Mediterranean communities, no-
tably the Phoenicians, Egyptians, and Romans,
did not see fit to adopt coined money until
the fourth century BCE demonstrates that this
medium did not necessarily fulfill the economic,
social, or political requirements of ancient soci-
eties, but instead became important within par-
ticular networks (von Reden 2010, p. 71).
In this section, we draw on three exten-
sively excavated sites—Lattes, the Magdalens-
berg, and Pompeii—to explore the evolving
use of coinage in the Greek, Celtic, and
Roman worlds from an archaeological perspec-
tive. These examples show the ability of ar-
chaeology to reconstruct ways in which coinage
was used and perceived in past societies, from
the level of the individual household to general
spheres of social, cultural, and economic behav-
ior. The coins from these sites also contribute
to debate about the noneconomic qualities of
money in the ancient world, as compared with
modern western concepts of money (see also
Aarts 2005, Bursche et al. 2008, von Kaenel &
Kemmers 2009).
The Celtic-speaking settlement of Lattara
(modern Lattes) was founded toward the end
of the sixth century BCE on the Mediterranean
coast of southern France. For half a millen-
nium, Lattes served as a prominent port of
 AN41CH15-Haselgrove ARI 16 August 2012 15:57
trade and center of cultural interaction between
the peoples of southern Gaul and Etruscans,
Greeks, and Romans; after 121 BCE, Lattes was
assimilated into the Roman province of Gal-
lia Narbonensis, before falling into decline dur-
ing the Empire. Extensive excavations since the
1980s have yielded more than 6,000 coins with
good contextual information (Py 2006, Luley
2008). Unlike some settlements in southern
Gaul, Lattes never minted its own coins. In-
stead, most of the coins used there originated
from the nearby Greek foundation of Massalia
(Marseille). Coins from other Mediterranean
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:235-250. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
cities and from more distant parts of Gaul are
relatively uncommon, and even Roman coins
remained rare until well after the conquest. Al-
by Universidad Austral de Chile on 04/03/14. For personal use only.
though Massalia began to strike coinage around
the time that Lattes was founded, no coins have
been found at Lattes in archaeological deposits
dating before the later fourth century BCE,
when small numbers of Massalian silver issues
of low denomination (obols) occur. In stark
contrast, however, three hoards dating to the
late fourth and third century BCE have been
found in the town; between them, they contain
almost 3,500 Massalian silver obols, indicating
that some of the inhabitants at least had access
to large numbers of coins.
In the centuries that followed, individual
coin finds become more common. A growing
number are base metal issues after Massalia
started to strike bronze coins as well as sil-
ver, but interestingly, virtually all come from
domestic contexts. Prior to the Roman con-
quest, hardly any coin finds occur at work-
shops or other places where commercial ex-
changes might be expected to have taken place.
This fact challenges the conventional expecta-
tion that, once adopted, the Greek coins would
have played a full monetary role in the daily
life of the settlement. Instead it would appear
that the value system represented by the sil-
ver coinage introduced by the Massalian Greeks
was incompatible with preexisting indigenous
systems of value, exchange, and the calculation
of wealth (Luley 2008, p. 183).
Before the Roman conquest, coin use ap-
pears to have been bound up with the sphere
of external exchange and foreign imports, but
with the social transformation set in motion by
Roman rule, coinage entered other exchange
Casual loss: a result
networks and became a more widely shared of accidental loss
standard of value. More than 20% of coins rather than deliberate
from stratified contexts postdating the conquest deposition, regularly
come from workshops (Py 2006), suggesting used for individual
coin finds on
that by the first century BCE, craft specialists
archaeological sites
such as bronze- and ironworkers were accept-
ing money in exchange for goods and services
(Luley 2008, p. 185). Emergent use of coins in
the ritual sphere at Lattes is attested by a hand-
ful of deposits, such as an obol placed under a
mud-brick bench along with a pig jawbone (Py
2006). Interestingly, the hoards were all buried
around the edges of the town, which recalls
the widespread practice in Iron Age temperate
Europe of depositing coin hoards or hoards of
iron bars in liminal contexts, such as enclosure
boundaries, bogs, and cliffs (e.g., Hingley 2005,
Score 2011).
The extensively excavated site on the Mag-
dalensberg, Austria, was founded by the Ro-
mans in the mid first century BCE, apparently
as an emporion for the territory of Noricum. Af-
ter the Roman conquest around 15 BCE, the
settlement briefly became the administrative
center and economic hub of the region before
being abandoned in the mid first century CE.
Good contextual data are available for the 1,434
coins from the site. In contrast to preconquest
Lattes, finds from both residential and work-
shop contexts are plentiful, enabling us to ex-
amine how the inhabitants of this settlement
on the fringe of the expanding Roman Empire
made use of coins in different spheres of activity.
Study of the stratified sequence shows that
by the Augustan period Roman coins pre-
dominated among the casual losses, suggest-
ing that once introduced into the local coin
pool, Roman issues rapidly supplanted Iron Age
coins for commercial transactions (Krmnicek
2010). However, from their occurrence at sig-
nificant structural locations, many other coins
found at the Magdalensberg appear to have
been intentionally deposited in the enactment
of ritual practices. These deposits included
coins embedded in walls or under doorways or
www.annualreviews.org • The Archaeology of Money 241
 AN41CH15-Haselgrove
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:235-250. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Universidad Austral de Chile on 04/03/14. For personal use only.
ARI 16 August 2012 15:57
associated with hearths, in both these latter
cases echoing earlier votive traditions in the re-
gion. The earliest of these intentional deposits
were of Iron Age coins only, and it was not until
the final phase of occupation well into the first
century CE that Roman issues accounted for
the majority. This implies a time lag in the tran-
sition away from using Iron Age coins in a ritual
context, compared with the earlier adoption of
Roman coins in the economic sphere. The few
Greek coins from the site were treated differ-
ently from either Iron Age or Roman issues,
being deposited exclusively in wet locations.
The Roman towns of Pompeii, Hercula-
neum, and Oplontis near Naples, Italy, are inex-
tricably linked to the eruption of Mount Vesu-
vius in 79 CE, burying the settlements under
thick layers of volcanic ash and pumice. The
time capsule of material culture created by the
sudden destruction makes these sites the most
prominent case studies for investigating the use
of Roman coins in the near-intact contempo-
rary setting of first-century rural towns in cen-
tral Italy—even if coins from the earlier excava-
tions were not recorded in the detail they would
receive today. Few other sites provide a similar
unbiased view directly into the past.
Recent studies have used these data to pro-
vide insights into the inhabitants’ attitudes to-
ward coinage before and during the catastrophe
(Taliercio Mensitieri 2005, Vitale 2008). The
pre-eruption evidence reveals a highly mone-
tized society, utilizing coins as impersonal to-
kens of value. Individual hoarding at Pompeii—
from small change kept in jars set into the
counters of food and drink outlets, to high de-
nominations saved in wooden caskets—implies
deliberate saving of earnings (Castiello &
Oliviero 1997, Giove 2003). On the other hand,
ritual deposits, such as Greek coins buried near
the temple of Jupiter (Duncan Jones 2007,
p. 12), or coins placed in wall foundations (El-
lis & Devroe 2006), point toward diversified
use of these objects. In addition to objects of
financial or sentimental value (precious gold
jewelry and simpler adornments of glass beads)
or on which their livelihood depended (surgi-
cal instruments and basic work tools), individu-
242 Haselgrove • Krmnicek
als fleeing the eruption carried with them both
high- and low-value coins (d’Ambrosio et al.
2003, pp. 137–49), underlining the different sets
of values coins communicated to their owners.
The possessions of some 300 individuals slain
in the boat houses at Herculaneum provide a
unique record of the types, number, and value
of coins that people belonging to different so-
cial groups selected and carried with them in
the emergency (Petrone & Pagano 2006).
MONEY AS ARTIFACT
Like other artifacts, coined money encapsu-
lates a wide range of material and stylistic
attributes (for developments in archaeometry,
see Ponting 2003, Nick & Diaz Tabernero
2007, Rehren & Pernicka 2008). Although only
partially explored, the archaeological evidence
for minting is better understood than are
underlying processes such as the sourcing of al-
loys (Butcher & Ponting 2005). Quantification
of mint output remains an imprecise science
for most periods of the past, although there
have been useful studies of how known outputs
are reflected in actual coin finds (e.g., Newton
2006). Even where mint inventories and other
documents survive, archaeological data can
often add significant information (La Guardia
2001), as studies of Spanish colonial mints in
the Americas have shown (Anes y Álvarez de
Castrillón & Céspedes del Castillo 1997). In
Germany, where abundant literary evidence for
medieval minting survives (Emmerig 2006),
a study of twelfth- to nineteenth-century
mints in Frankfurt shows what can be gained
from a combined archaeological-historical
approach (Möller 2006). A similar holistic
approach was pursued to investigate the Royal
Mint in London (Challis 1992). Elsewhere
in medieval Europe, particularly Scandinavia,
archaeological fieldwork on its own has pro-
duced worthwhile results (Risvaag 2001, Skre
2007).
Abundant evidence indicates that, even in
the recent historical past, coins were put to
a variety of nonmonetary uses. In particular,
those found in contexts atypical of their cultural
 AN41CH15-Haselgrove ARI 16 August 2012 15:57
setting may well not be indicative of general
circulation patterns. One example is provided
by coin finds from late medieval Swiss churches
(Zäch 1992). Although these finds were initially
viewed generally as casual losses, there is now a
growing body of opinion that at least some were
conscious deposits (Schmutz & Koenig 2003,
Meier 2004, Eggenberger et al. 2009), although
the precise intentions of the depositors remain
unclear.
Like coins, medals were intended as objects
conveying political messages and thought, but
in an artistic form suitable for passing on as
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:235-250. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
gifts. In Renaissance Italy, deposits of medals
were built into the walls of prominent buildings
as foundation deposits, including the Tempio
by Universidad Austral de Chile on 04/03/14. For personal use only.
Malatestiano in Rimini (Panvini Rosato 1970)
and the Palazzo di Venezia in Rome (Balbi de
Caro 1973). Contemporary sources allude to
the custom, behind which lay the belief that the
inclusion of these coin-like objects in a struc-
ture would preserve the memory of contempo-
rary glory for the future. Medals were deemed
particularly appropriate for such a purpose be-
cause they combined the most recent taste in
fashion and developed craftsmanship in a small
object (Weiss 1958).
The African Diaspora provides another clear
example of the assimilation of coins, medal-
lions, and even metal discs as objects imbued
with meaningful powers. Such objects are doc-
umented as charms for protection against spells
and as a general cure-all and are often recov-
ered in archaeological contexts associated with
enslaved African Americans. Finds of pierced
coins corroborate the documented practice of
tying a piece of silver with a hole in it to one’s
leg, thought to offer protection from malevo-
lent forces (Fennell 2000). Similarly, unmodi-
fied coins were carried in the stocking or shoe
as protective charms. Although behavior of this
type is almost impossible to reconstruct from
the archaeological record, the occurrence of
outdated or unusual coins in antebellum African
American contexts might suggest that such ob-
jects were kept and passed on deliberately for
the purpose of providing luck, healing, or pro-
tection (Russell 1997, p. 68).
The meaning with which these objects were
imbued in an African American context mir-
rors the powers thought to be encapsulated
Circulation:
in coins placed in medieval European burials. movement of coins
The occurrence of coins, mostly low-value de- between individuals in
nominations, in medieval burials is geographi- economic or social
cally widespread if relatively infrequent across transactions, the total
in circulation being
Europe (for recent surveys of objects, includ-
defined as the coin
ing coins, deposited in medieval graves, see pool
Travaini 2004 for Italy and Gilchrist 2008 for
Britain). The coins are generally interpreted
as protective and apotropaic charms, thought
to possess or transmit supernatural or occult
power (e.g., Merrifield 1987).
Although much is still unanswered about the
potentially multiple meanings of coins recov-
ered in the contexts of superstition, folk magic,
and formalized religion, some distinctive pat-
terns emerge of intentional modification of the
objects before deposition. A good example is
the presence of bent or folded coins in medieval
burials. According to medieval accounts of mir-
acles, bending a coin represented a contract
with the saint, the promise to make a pilgrim-
age to their shrine, often undertaken as part of
a healing charm. Coins folded in this manner
have been recovered at various religious centers
in Britain (Gilchrist 2008, p. 135). This muti-
lation of coins resembles the bending of textual
amulets, which implies that the act of folding
was crucial to the rite connected with the invo-
cation of the saint. Ritual “killing” or mutilation
of coins (and indeed other forms of material cul-
ture, especially weaponry) is not infrequent at
Iron Age and Roman religious sites in north-
west Europe. In medieval Christian custom,
coins were utilized in the course of venerating
saints’ remains. Coins deposited around and in-
side reliquaries are well recorded for medieval
Italy (Travaini 2004, Perassi 2009). Burials of
saints were apparently deliberately opened and
coins inserted to establish personal and endur-
ing contact with the remains of the deceased.
In early medieval Europe, artifacts, partic-
ularly coins, from Roman times were appar-
ently attributed the power to bring luck or avert
evil because it was thought that their antiquity
gave them apotropaic value and magical power.
www.annualreviews.org • The Archaeology of Money 243
 AN41CH15-Haselgrove
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:235-250. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Universidad Austral de Chile on 04/03/14. For personal use only.
ARI 16 August 2012 15:57
Given the widespread early medieval belief that
the ruler’s portrait on contemporary coins was
endowed with protective properties (Maguire
1997), a coin from a distant or mythical past
was presumably an even more powerful talis-
man. Early medieval graves containing Roman
coins range from the tomb of King Childeric
in Tournai, Belgium (Cochet 2008), to those
of ordinary individuals in Northern Italy or
France. Particular designs may have been es-
pecially prized, a good example being the Iron
Age “torc-bearer” potin coins, which are reg-
ularly found in early medieval graves beyond
their primary area of circulation. Frequent re-
working of coins as ornaments or jewelry (e.g.,
Maué & Veit 1982, Perassi 2007) provides an-
other example of the diverse afterlives of mon-
etary objects through the ages.
RECONFIGURING THE
ARCHAEOLOGY OF MONEY
The production and technology of non-
European money have received far less atten-
tion than have European currencies. The same
is true of the archaeological study of non-
European monies in general. Although a range
of ethnographic accounts record the nature and
dynamics of monetary practices encountered
in the context of colonial expansion, there has
been little archaeological study of the relevant
artifacts in context to complement or qualify
the written accounts and oral traditions. Much
of the work undertaken on ethnographic mone-
tary objects relies heavily on data gathered from
research collections, which are subject to many
of the same uncertainties as are museum coin
holdings (Casey & Reece 1988, Klüßendorf
2005, Barello 2006), added to which the col-
lection of unprovenanced objects is increas-
ingly seen as unethical because it feeds looting
(Brodie & Renfrew 2005; for coin evidence, see
Elkins 2008).
As in other branches of archaeology, the po-
litical dimension has impacted on the study of
money. In colonial Africa, the study of money
bolstered the contemporary political agendas
of European supremacy. Coins of Mediter-
244 Haselgrove • Krmnicek
ranean origin found in sub-Saharan Africa, and
to a lesser degree East African Islamic coins,
were subtly used to convey a model of an-
cient colonialism and a tradition of the eco-
nomic superiority of the nonindigenous peoples
(e.g., Davis 1950; on the historical significance
of coin finds, see Freeman-Grenville 1960,
Chittik 1963, Chami & Msemwa 1997). Al-
though we have come on a long way since
then and the record of cultural encounters in
Asia, the Americas, and Africa provides a wide
range of excellent data, the study of money
in such situations is still rarely driven from a
noncolonial perspective (e.g., notable excep-
tions for Africa are Schrire & Meltzer 1992,
Stahl 1999, Wynne-Jones & Fleisher 2012; for
Asia, see Walburg 2008; for the Americas, see
Hoge 2002, Cooper et al. 2008). Independent
of its material manifestation, whether wampum,
cowrie shells, or silver coins, many scholars
seem to see money as an elite product, mean-
ingful only within its specific cultural context,
rather than utilizing a cross-cultural approach
(for the South-East Asian–African evidence of
cowrie shell economies, see Ogundiran 2002,
Yang 2011).
Independent of continent or period, and ir-
respective of the quality of historical sources
available, we can be confident that comparative
archaeological study using data collected un-
der controlled conditions—whether at a site or
a landscape level—has the capacity to augment
our understanding of the forms that money and
money uses have taken in the past. As noted
above, one priority is to devise methodologies
that will help us identify in an archaeological
setting whether and which objects had mone-
tary uses of any kind and, by extension, to treat
the functions of past coinages as a subject for in-
vestigation rather than assumption, to be char-
acterized through cross-cultural analysis of the
types of context in which coins were lost or de-
posited and of their archaeological associations
(for initial steps, see, for example, Haselgrove
2005, Hingley 2005).
While seeking to collapse the dichotomy
between coins and other general- or special-
purpose currencies, we need, however, to avoid
 AN41CH15-Haselgrove ARI 16 August 2012 15:57

throwing out the baby with the bathwater. As
Kemmers & Myrberg (2011, p. 89) emphasize,
a very distinctive feature of coins is that they
are archaeological artifacts as well as, in most
cases, historical documents, able to furnish in-
sights into behavior, actions, and events at all
levels of society from top to bottom. They also
integrate image, text, and materiality, each of
which can be studied separately but when com-
bined form more than the sum of their parts
(p. 89). Work by Creighton (2000) provides a
good example of how the interplay of these dif-
ferent dimensions can enhance our understand-
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:235-250. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Kemmers & Myrberg 2011, pp. 94–103), but
already archaeology is producing innovative in-
sights into how past peoples used monetary
objects and how these shaped their behav-
ior (for coins used in the context of bathing
in late medieval Solothurn, Switzerland, see
Frey-Kupper 2009). The scope of this ap-
proach is not confined to past societies but
can illuminate present behaviors, as demon-
strated by an analysis of money lost on the
streets in Australia between 2006 and 2008
(Frazer & van der Touw 2010). In effect, ar-
chaeology offers a way to understand human

ing of the big picture in a protohistoric setting choices, preferences, and fears when dealing
(see also Williams 2005). with money according to social and cultural
We have only just begun to consider background and beyond the purely economic—
by Universidad Austral de Chile on 04/03/14. For personal use only.

the plethora of alternative meanings, biogra- not immaterial in these days of global financial
phies, and roles associated with coins (see also instability.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that
might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

LITERATURE CITED
Aarts J. 2005. Coins, money and exchange in the Roman World. A cultural-economic perspective. Archaeol.
Dialogues 12(1):1–28
Akin D, Robbins J, eds. 1999. Money and Modernity: State and Local Currencies in Melanesia. Assoc. Social
Anthropol. Ocean. Monogr. 17. Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. Pittsburgh Press
Albert ME, Ascalone E, Peyronel L, eds. 2006. Weights in Context. Bronze Age Weighing Systems of the Eastern
Mediterranean. Chronology, Typology, Material and Archaeological Contexts. Studi Mater. 13. Rome: Ist. Ital.
Numis.
Amandry M, Bateson D, eds. 2009. A Survey of Numismatic Research 2002–2007. Int. Assoc. Prof. Numis. Spec.
Publ. 15. Glasgow: Assoc. Prof. Numis.
Anes y Álvarez de Castrillón G, Céspedes del Castillo G, eds. 1997. Las casas de moneda en los Reinos de Indias.
II. Cecas de fundación temprana. Madrid: Mus. Casa Moneda
Balbi de Caro S. 1973. Di alcune medaglie di Paolo II rinvenute nelle mura del Palazzo di Venezia in Roma.
Medaglia 5:25–34
Barello F. 2006. Archaeologia della moneta. Produzione e utilizzio nell’antichitá. Rome: Carocci Editor.
Bass GF. 1967. Cape Gelidonya. A Bronze Age Shipwreck. Transl. Am. Philos. Soc. 57(8). Philadelphia: Am.
Philos. Soc.
Bloch M, Parry J, eds. 1989. Money and the Morality of Exchange. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Briard J. 2001. Les objets paléomonétaires de l’Europe Atlantique protohistorique. Rev. Numis. 157:37–50
Brodie N, Renfrew C. 2005. Looting and the world’s archaeological heritage: the inadequate response. Annu.
Rev. Anthropol. 34:343–61
Bursche A, Ciołek R, Wolters R, eds. 2008. Roman Coins Outside the Empire: Ways and Phases, Contexts and
Functions. Collect. Moneta 82. Wetteren, Belgium: Moneta

www.annualreviews.org • The Archaeology of Money 245

 AN41CH15-Haselgrove ARI 16 August 2012 15:57

Butcher K, Ponting M. 2005. The Roman denarius under the Julio-Claudian emperors: mints, metallurgy and
technology. Oxford J. Archaeol. 24:163–97
Carrier J, ed. 2005. A Handbook of Economic Anthropology. Cheltenham-Northampton, UK: Elgar
Casey J. 1986. Understanding Ancient Coins. London: Batsford
Casey J, Reece R, eds. 1988. Coins and the Archaeologist. London: Seaby. 2nd ed.
Castiello D, Oliviero S. 1997. Il ripostiglio del termopolio I.8.8 di Pompei. Ann. Ist. Ital. Numis. 44:93–205
Challis CE, ed. 1992. A New History of the Royal Mint. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Chami F, Msemwa PJ. 1997. A new look at culture and trade on the Azanian Coast. Curr. Anthropol. 38:
673–77
Chittik N. 1963. Kilwa and the Arab settlement of the East African Coast. J. Afr. Hist. 4(2):179–90
Christophersen A. 1989. Coins in complex archaeological contexts—a source-critical survey. In Coins and
Archaeology. Proc. Meet. Med. Archaeol. Res. Group, 1st, Isegran, Norway, 1988. Int. Ser. 556, ed. H Clarke,
E Schia, pp. 1–8. Oxford: Br. Archaeol. Rep.
Clain-Stefanelli EE. 1965. Numismatics: An Ancient Science. A Survey of its History. Contrib. Mus. History
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:235-250. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Technol. 32. Washington, DC: US Gov. Print.

Cochet J. 2008. Le tombeau de Childéric Ier (481) avec une note complémentaire de G. Depeyrot. Collect. Moneta
76. Wetteren, Belgium: Moneta
by Universidad Austral de Chile on 04/03/14. For personal use only.

Cooper J, Martinón-Torres M, Valcárcel Rojas R. 2008. American gold and European brass: metal objects
and indigenous values in the cemetery of El Chorro de Maı́ta, Cuba. In Crossing the Borders: New Methods
and Techniques in the Study of Archaeological Materials from the Caribbean, ed. CL Hofman, MLP Hoogland,
AL van Gijn, pp. 34–42. Tuscaloosa: Univ. Ala. Press
Creighton J. 2000. Coins and Power in Late Iron Age Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
d’Ambrosio A, Guzzo PG, Mastroroberto M, eds. 2003. Storie da un’eruzione. Pompei, Ercolano, Oplontis. Milan,
Italy: Electa
Davis S. 1950. A coin of Pisa. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 5(18):55–59
Duncan Jones RP. 2007. Coin evidence from Pompeii and the Vesuvian cities. In Presenza e circolazione della
moneta in area Vesuviana. Atti del 13. Convegno organizzato dal Centro Int. Studi Numis. dall’Univ.
Napoli “Federico 2,” Napoli, 30 maggio-1 giugno 2003, pp. 11–26. Rome: Ist. Ital. Numis.
Eagleton C, Fuller H, Perkins J, eds. 2009. Money in Africa. Br. Mus. Res. Publ. 171. London: Br. Mus. Press
Eagleton C, Williams J. 2007. Money, A History. London: Br. Mus. Press. 2nd ed.
Eggenberger P, Bacher R, Frey J, Frey-Kupper S, Heigold-Stadelmann A, Ulrich-Bochsler H. 2009. Seeberg,
Pfarrkirche. Die Ergebnisse der Bauforschungen von 1999/2000. Bern, Switz.: Verlag Rub Media
Elkins N. 2008. A survey of the material and intellectual consequences of trading in undocumented ancient
coins: a case study on the North American trade. Frankf. Elektron. Rundsch. Altertumskunde 7:1–13
Ellis SJR, Devroe G. 2006. Towards an understanding of the shape of space at VIII.7.1–15, Pompeii: pre-
liminary results from the 2006 season. Fasti Online Doc. Res. 71. http://www.fastionline.org/docs/
FOLDER-it-2006-71.pdf
Emmerig H. 2006. Glossar zu Münztechnik und Münzverwaltung in Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit. Zum
frühneuhochdeutschen Wortschatz in ausgewählten Quellen (14. bis 17. Jahrhundert). Abh. Braunschw. Wiss.
Ges. 55. Braunschweig, Ger.: Cramer
Fennell CC. 2000. Conjuring boundaries: inferring past identities from religious artifacts. Int. J. Hist. Archaeol.
4(4):281–313
Frazer EJ, van der Touw J. 2010. The random walk: a study of coins lost and found in an urban environment.
Numis. Chron. 170:375–405
Freeman-Grenville GSP. 1960. East African coin finds and their historical significance. J. Afr. Hist. 1(1):31–43
Frey-Kupper S. 2009. Die Fundmünzen. Badegeld und andere Zeugnisse des Kleingeldverkehrs in Solothurn.
In Archäologische Ausgrabungen im Garten des Palais Besenval in Solothurn. Ein Quartier an der Aare vom
Mittelalter bis in die Neuzeit, ed. A Nold, pp. 64–76. Solothurn, Switz.: Amt Denkmalpfl. Archäol.
Gale N. 2001. Archaeology, science-based archaeology and the Mediterranean Bronze Age metals trade. A
contribution to the debate. Eur. J. Archaeol. 4(1):113–30
Garcı́a-Bellido MP, Callegarin L, Jiménez Dı́ez A, eds. 2011. Barter, Money and Coinage in the Ancient Mediter-
ranean (10th–1st centuries BC). Anejos Arch. Esp. Arqueol. 58. Madrid: Cons. Super. Investig. Cient.

246 Haselgrove • Krmnicek

 AN41CH15-Haselgrove ARI 16 August 2012 15:57

Gebhart H, Kraft K, Küthmann H, Franke PR, Christ K. 1956. Bemerkungen zur kritischen Neuaufnahme
der Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschland. Jahrb. Numis. Geldgesch. 7:9–71
Gilchrist R. 2008. Magic for the dead? The archaeology of magic in later medieval burials. Mediev. Archaeol.
52:119–59
Gilliland CLC. 1975. The Stone Money of Yap. A Numismatic Survey. Smithson. Stud. Hist. Technol. 23.
Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press
Giove T. 2003. La circolazione monetale a Pompei. See d’Ambrosio et al. 2003, pp. 26–33
Gitin S, Golani A. 2004. A silver-based monetary economy in the seventh century BCE: a response to Raz
Kletter. Levant 36:203–5
Gorini G. 1997. Problemi e metodi della numismatica oggi. Soc. Acad. 6:33–47
Guest P. 1999. The interpretation of Roman coins—practice and theory. In Theoretical Roman Archaeology and
Architecture, ed. A Leslie, pp. 200–12. Glasgow: Cruithne
Hänsel A, Hänsel B. 1997. Gaben an die Götter. Schätze der Bronzezeit Europas. Berlin: Mus. Vor- und
Frühgeschichte
Harding A. 2000. European Societies in the Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:235-250. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Harris WV, ed. 2008. The Monetary Systems of the Greeks and Romans. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Haselgrove C. 1987. Iron Age Coinage in South-East England. The Archaeological Context. Br. Ser. 174. Oxford:
by Universidad Austral de Chile on 04/03/14. For personal use only.

Br. Archaeol. Rep.

Haselgrove C. 1999. The development of Iron Age coinage in Belgic Gaul. Numis. Chron. 159:111–68
Haselgrove C. 2005. A new approach to analysing the circulation of Iron Age coinage. Numis. Chron. 165:129–
74
Haselgrove C, Wigg-Wolf D, eds. 2005. Iron Age Coinage and Ritual Practices. Stud. Fundmünzen Antike 20.
Mainz, Ger.: Philipp von Zabern
Herbert EW. 1984. Red Gold of Africa. Copper in Precolonial History and Culture. Madison: Univ. Wis. Press
Hingley R. 2005. Iron Age ‘currency bars’ in Britain: items of exchange in liminal contexts? See Haselgrove
& Wigg-Wolf 2005, pp. 183–205
Hoge RW. 2002. Numismatic materials recovered from Fort Vengeance Monument site (VT-RU-216),
Pittsford, Vermont. Am. J. Numis. 14:97–104
Innerhofer F. 2004. Ring und Beil, Barrendepots der Frühbronzezeit. See Meller 2004, pp. 98–99
Karwiese S. 1991. The Artemisium coin hoard and the first coins of Ephesus. Rev. Belge Numis. 137:1–28
Kassianidou V. 2001. Cypriot copper in Sardinia. Yet another case of bringing coals to Newcastle? In Italy
and Cyprus in Antiquity: 1500–400 BC. Proc. Int. Symp. Ital. Acad. Adv. Stud. Am., Columbia Univ., Nov.
16–18, 2000, ed. L Bonfante, V Karageorghis, pp. 97–119. Nicosia, Cyprus: Costakis and Leto Severis
Found.
Kemmers F, Myrberg N. 2011. Rethinking numismatics. The archaeology of coins. Archaeol. Dialogues
18(1):87–108
Kletter R. 2004. Coinage before coins? A response. Levant 36:207–10
Klüßendorf N. 2005. Archäologie und Numismatik. Getrennte oder gemeinsame Wege? Z. Archäol. Mittelalt.
33:73–80
Krmnicek S. 2009. Das Conzept der Objektbiographie in der antiken Numismatik. See von Kaenel & Kemmers
2009, pp. 47–59
Krmnicek S. 2010. Münze und Geld im frührömischen Ostalpenraum. Studien zum Münzumlauf und zur Funktion
von Münzgeld anhand der Funde und Befunde vom Magdalensberg. Kärntner Mus. 80/Archäol. Forsch.
Grabung. Magdalensberg 17. Klagenfurt: Verlag Landesmus. Kärnten
Kroll J. 2008. The monetary use of weighted bullion in Archaic Greece. See Harris 2008, pp. 13–37
La Guardia R, ed. 2001. I luoghi della moneta. Le sedi delle zecche dall’antichità all’età moderna. Atti del convegno
int., 22–23 ottobre 1999. Milan: Comune Milano
Laum B. 1924. Heiliges Geld. Eine historische Untersuchung Über den sakralen Ursprung des Geldes. Tübingen,
Ger.: Mohr
Le Rider G. 2001. La naissance de la monnaie: pratiques monétaires de l’Orient ancien. Paris: Press. Univ. France
Lockyear K. 2000. Site finds in Roman Britain: a comparison of techniques. Oxford J. Archaeol. 19(4):397–423
Luley B. 2008. Coinage at Lattara. Using archaeological context to understand ancient coins. Archaeol. Dialogues
15:174–95

www.annualreviews.org • The Archaeology of Money 247

 AN41CH15-Haselgrove ARI 16 August 2012 15:57

Maguire H. 1997. Magic and money in the Early Middle Ages. Speculum 72(4):1037–54
Mangou H, Ioannou PV. 2000. Studies of the Late Bronze Age copper-based ingots found in Greece. Ann.
Br. Sch. Athens 95:207–17
Maué H, Veit L, eds. 1982. Münzen in Brauch und Aberglauben. Schmuck und dekor. Votiv und Amulett. Politische
und religiöse Selbstdarstellung. Mainz, Ger.: Philipp von Zabern
Maurer B. 2006. The anthropology of money. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 35:15–36
Meier H-R. 2004. Die reformierte Kirche Winterthur-Wülfingen—Neuauswertung der archäologischen Un-
tersuchung 1972. Ber. Kantonsarchäol. Zürich 17:219–71
Meller H, ed. 2004. Der geschmiedete Himmel. Die Welt im Herzen Europas vor 3600 Jahren. Stuttgart, Ger.:
Theiss
Melville Jones JR. 1993. Testimonia Numaria. Greek and Latin Texts Concerning Ancient Greek Coinage. Vol. I.
Texts and Translations. London: Spink
Merrifield R. 1987. The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic. London: Batsford
Möller H. 2006. Topographie der Frankfurter Münzhäuser und Prägestätten. In Einblicke in Geldgeschichte und
Medaillenkunde. Frankfurter Numismatische Gesellschaft 1906–2006, pp. 135–98. Frankfurt: Busso Peuss
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:235-250. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Momigliano A. 1950. Ancient history and the antiquarian. J. Warburg Courtauld Inst. 13(3/4):285–315
Mommsen T. 1885. Die Örtlichkeit der Varusschlacht. Berlin: Weidmann
by Universidad Austral de Chile on 04/03/14. For personal use only.

Muss U, ed. 2008. Die Archäologie der ephesischen Artemis. Gestalt und Ritual eines Heiligtums. Vienna: Phoibos
Newton DP. 2006. Found coins as indicators of coins in circulation: testing some assumptions. Eur. J. Archaeol.
9(2–3):211–27
Nick M. 2006. Gabe, Opfer, Zahlungsmittel. Strukturen keltischen Münzgebrauchs im westlichen Mitteleuropa.
Freiburger Beitr. Archäol. Gesch 12. Rahden/Westfalen, Ger.: Leidorf
Nick M, Diaz Tabernero J. 2007. Zur Anwendung der Neutronenradiographie in der Fundmünzen-
Numismatik. Schweiz. Münzbl. 227:69–77
Ogundiran A. 2002. Of small things remembered: beads, cowries, and cultural translations of the Atlantic
experience in Yorubaland. Int. J. Afr. Hist. Stud. 35(2/3):427–57
Pakkanen J. 2011. Aegean Bronze Age weights, chaı̂nes opératoires, and the detecting of patterns through
statistical analyses. In Tracing Prehistoric Social Networks through Technology: A Diachronic Perspective on the
Aegean, ed. A Brysbaert, pp. 143–66. New York/London: Routledge
Panvini Rosato F. 1970. Ritrovamenti di medaglie nel tempio malatestiano. In Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta
e il suo Tempo, ed. F Arduini, pp. 168–76. Vicenza, Italy: Pozza
Perassi C. 2007. Gioielli monetali antichi e moderni. La documentazione dei cataloghi d’Asta (con appendice
di Francesca Fanelli e Mariangela Piziali). Riv. Ital. Numis. 108:237–94
Perassi C. 2009. Note preliminari per una rilettura della documentazione numismatica dai sepolcri Santam-
brosiani. Stud. Ambrosiana 3:167–81
Petrone PP, Pagano M. 2006. Abformung der Opfer des BootsGauses 10. In Verschüttet vom Vesuv. Die letzten
Stunden von Herculaneum, ed. A Alroggen-Bedel, J Mühlenbrock, pp. 256–58. Mainz, Ger.: Philipp von
Zabern
Ponting M. 2003. Fingerprinting of Roman mints using laser ablation. Archaeometry 45:591–97
Py M. 2006. Les monnaies préaugustéennes de lattes et la circulation monétaire protohistorique en Gaule méridionale.
Mélanges hist. archéol. lattes 19. Lattes: Assoc. Dév. Archéol. Languedoc-Roussillon
Reece R. 1987. Coinage in Roman Britain. London: Seaby
Reece R. 1995. Site-finds in Roman Britain. Britannia 26:179–206
Rehren T, Pernicka E. 2008. Coins, artefacts and isotopes—archaeometallurgy and archaeometry. Archaeom-
etry 50:232–48
Risvaag JA. 2001. Mints in Scandinavia: the case of Trondheim. See La Guardia 2001, pp. 131–40
Rollinger R, Ulf C, Schnegg K, eds. 2004. Commerce and Monetary Systems in the Ancient World: Means of
Transmission and Cultural Interaction. Oriens Occidens 6. Stuttgart, Ger.: Franz Steiner
Rotroff SI. 1997. Coins and stratigraphy. See Sheedy & Papageorgiadou-Banis 1997, pp. 8–16
Russell AE. 1997. Material culture and African-American spirituality at the hermitage. Hist. Archaeol. 31(2):63–
80
Schaps DM. 2004. The Invention of Coinage and the Monetization of Ancient Greece. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich.
Press

248 Haselgrove • Krmnicek

 AN41CH15-Haselgrove ARI 16 August 2012 15:57

Scheidel W. 2008. The divergent evolution of coinage in eastern and western Eurasia. See Harris 2008,
pp. 267–86
Schlanger N. 2010. Series in progress: antiquities of nature, numismatics and stone implements in the emer-
gence of prehistoric archaeology. Hist. Sci. 48(3/4):343–69
Schmutz D, Koenig FE. 2003. Gespendet, verloren, wiedergefunden. Die Fundmünzen aus der reformierten Kirche
Steffisburg als Quelle zum spätmittelalterlichen Geldumlauf. Bern, Switz.: Haupt Verlag
Schrire C, Meltzer L. 1992. Coins, gaming counters and a bale seal from Oudepost, Cape. South Afr. Archaeol.
Bull. 47(156):104–7
Score V. 2011. Rituals, Hoards and Helmets: A Conquest-Period Ritual Site at Hallaton, Leicestershire. Leic.
Archaeol. Monogr. 21. Leicester, UK: Univ. Leicester
Sheedy KA, Papageorgiadou-Banis C, eds. 1997. Numismatic Archaeology. Archaeological Numismatics. Proc. Int.
Conf. Held to Honour Dr. Mando Oeconomides in Athens 1995. Oxford: Oxbow
Shell M. 1994. Art and Money. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Skre D, ed. 2007. Means of Exchange: Dealing With Silver in The Viking Age. Kaupang Excav. Proj. Publ. Ser.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:235-250. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

2/Norske Oldfunn 23. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus Univ. Press

Sommerfeld C. 1994. Gerätegeld Sichel. Studien zur monetären Struktur bronzezeitlicher Horte im nördlichen
Mitteleuropa. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter
by Universidad Austral de Chile on 04/03/14. For personal use only.

Sommerfeld C. 2004. Handel mit den Göttern—das Hortphänomen im nördlichen Mitteleuropa. See Meller
2004, pp. 90–93
Stahl A. 1999. The archaeology of global encounters viewed from Banda, Ghana. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 16(1):5–81
Stahl A. 2009. The Rebirth of Antiquity: Numismatics, Archaeology and Classical Studies in the Culture of the
Renaissance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Library
Szaivert W, Wolters R. 2005. Löhne, Preise, Werte. Quellen zur römischen Geldwirtschaft. Darmstadt, Ger.: Wiss.
Buchgesellschaft
Taliercio Mensitieri M, ed. 2005. Pompei. Rinvenimenti monetali nella Regio IX. Studi mater. 11. Rome: Ist. Ital.
Numis.
Testart A. 2001. Aux origines de la monnaie. Paris: Ed. Errance
Thierry F. 1997. Monnaies chinoises. I. L’antiquité préimpériale. Paris: Bibl. Natl. Fr.
Thierry F. 2003. Monnaies chinoises. II. Des qin aux cinq dynasties. Paris: Bibl. Natl. Fr.
Thirault E. 2005. The politics of supply: the Neolithic axe industry in Alpine Europe. Antiquity 79:34–50
Thompson C. 2003. Sealed silver in Iron Age Cisjordan and the ‘invention’ of coinage. Oxf. J. Archaeol.
22(1):67–107
Travaini L. 2004. Saints and sinners: coins in medieval Italian graves. Numis. Chron. 164:159–81
Vitale R. 2008. Il numerario di piccolo taglio dai rinvenimenti monetali di Pompei. In I ritrovamenti monetali
e i processi inflativi nel modo antico e medievale. Atti IV congr. int. numis. i storia monetaria. Padova, 12–13
ottobre 2007, ed. M Asolati, G Gorini, pp. 29–51. Padova, Italy: Esedra
von Kaenel H-M, Kemmers F, eds. 2009. Coins in Context I. New Perspectives for the Interpretation of Coin Finds.
Stud. Fundmünzen der Antike 23. Mainz, Ger.: Philipp von Zabern
von Reden S. 2010. Money in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
Walburg R. 2008. Coins and Tokens from Ancient Ceylon. Ancient Ruhuna. Sri Lanka-German Archaeological
Project in the Southern Province. Wiesbaden, Ger.: Reichert
Walker AS. 1997. Excavation coins: the use and misuse of numismatic evidence in archaeology. See Sheedy
& Papageorgiadou-Banis 1997, pp. 17–26
Wang H, Weirong Z, Thierry F. 2009. China. See Amandry & Bateson 2009, pp. 528–73
Weiss R. 1958. Un umanista veneziano. Papa Paolo II. Civiltà Veneziana Saggi 4. Venice/Rome: Ist. collab.
Cult.
Williams D. 1993. The “pot hoard” pot from the Archaic Artemisium at Ephesus. Bull. Inst. Class. Stud.
38:98–103
Williams JHC. 2005. “The newer rite is here”: vinous symbolism on British Iron Age coins. See Haselgrove
& Wigg-Wolf 2005, pp. 25–41
Wynne-Jones S, Fleisher J. 2012. Coins in context: local economy, value and practice on the East African
Swahili coast. Camb. Archaeol. J. 22(1):19–36

www.annualreviews.org • The Archaeology of Money 249

 AN41CH15-Haselgrove ARI 16 August 2012 15:57

Yalçin Ü, ed. 2005. Das Schiff von Uluburun. Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren. Bochum, Ger.: Deutsches Bergbau
Mus.
Yang B. 2011. The rise and fall of cowrie shells: the Asian story. J. World Hist. 22(1):1–24
Yung-Ti L. 2006. On the functions of cowries in the Shang and Western Zhou China. J. East Asian Archaeol.
5:1–26
Zäch B. 1992. Kirchenfunde als Quellen zum Kleingeldumlauf im 15. Jahrhundert. Archäol. Schweiz 15(3):144–
51
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:235-250. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Universidad Austral de Chile on 04/03/14. For personal use only.

250 Haselgrove • Krmnicek

 AN41-FrontMatter ARI 23 August 2012 12:10

Annual Review of
Anthropology

Contents Volume 41, 2012

Prefatory Chapter
Ancient Mesopotamian Urbanism and Blurred Disciplinary Boundaries
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:235-250. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Robert McC. Adams p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1

by Universidad Austral de Chile on 04/03/14. For personal use only.

Archaeology
The Archaeology of Emotion and Affect
Sarah Tarlow p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 169
The Archaeology of Money
Colin Haselgrove and Stefan Krmnicek p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 235
Phenomenological Approaches in Landscape Archaeology
Matthew H. Johnson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 269
Paleolithic Archaeology in China
Ofer Bar-Yosef and Youping Wang p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 319
Archaeological Contributions to Climate Change Research:
The Archaeological Record as a Paleoclimatic
and Paleoenvironmental Archive
Daniel H. Sandweiss and Alice R. Kelley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 371
Colonialism and Migration in the Ancient Mediterranean
Peter van Dommelen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 393
Archaeometallurgy: The Study of Preindustrial Mining and Metallurgy
David Killick and Thomas Fenn p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 559
Rescue Archaeology: A European View
Jean-Paul Demoule p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 611

Biological Anthropology
Energetics, Locomotion, and Female Reproduction:
Implications for Human Evolution
Cara M. Wall-Scheffler p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p71

vii
 AN41-FrontMatter ARI 23 August 2012 12:10

Ethnoprimatology and the Anthropology of the

Human-Primate Interface
Agustin Fuentes p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 101
Human Evolution and the Chimpanzee Referential Doctrine
Ken Sayers, Mary Ann Raghanti, and C. Owen Lovejoy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 119
Chimpanzees and the Behavior of Ardipithecus ramidus
Craig B. Stanford p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 139
Evolution and Environmental Change in Early Human Prehistory
Richard Potts p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 151
Primate Feeding and Foraging: Integrating Studies
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:235-250. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

of Behavior and Morphology

W. Scott McGraw and David J. Daegling p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 203
by Universidad Austral de Chile on 04/03/14. For personal use only.

Madagascar: A History of Arrivals, What Happened,

and Will Happen Next
Robert E. Dewar and Alison F. Richard p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 495
Maternal Prenatal Nutrition and Health in Grandchildren
and Subsequent Generations
E. Susser, J.B. Kirkbride, B.T. Heijmans, J.K. Kresovich, L.H. Lumey,
and A.D. Stein p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 577

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

Media and Religious Diversity
Patrick Eisenlohr p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p37
Three Waves of Variation Study: The Emergence of Meaning
in the Study of Sociolinguistic Variation
Penelope Eckert p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p87
Documents and Bureaucracy
Matthew S. Hull p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 251
The Semiotics of Collective Memories
Brigittine M. French p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 337
Language and Materiality in Global Capitalism
Shalini Shankar and Jillian R. Cavanaugh p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 355
Anthropology in and of the Archives: Possible Futures
and Contingent Pasts. Archives as Anthropological Surrogates
David Zeitlyn p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 461
Music, Language, and Texts: Sound and Semiotic Ethnography
Paja Faudree p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 519

viii Contents
 AN41-FrontMatter ARI 23 August 2012 12:10

International Anthropology and Regional Studies

Contemporary Anthropologies of Indigenous Australia
Tess Lea p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 187
The Politics of Perspectivism
Alcida Rita Ramos p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 481
Anthropologies of Arab-Majority Societies
Lara Deeb and Jessica Winegar p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 537

Sociocultural Anthropology
Lives With Others: Climate Change and Human-Animal Relations
Rebecca Cassidy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p21
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:235-250. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

The Politics of the Anthropogenic

by Universidad Austral de Chile on 04/03/14. For personal use only.

Nathan F. Sayre p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p57

Objects of Affect: Photography Beyond the Image
Elizabeth Edwards p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 221
Sea Change: Island Communities and Climate Change
Heather Lazrus p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 285
Enculturating Cells: The Anthropology, Substance, and Science
of Stem Cells
Aditya Bharadwaj p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 303
Diabetes and Culture
Steve Ferzacca p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 411
Toward an Ecology of Materials
Tim Ingold p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 427
Sport, Modernity, and the Body
Niko Besnier and Susan Brownell p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 443

Theme I: Materiality
Objects of Affect: Photography Beyond the Image
Elizabeth Edwards p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 221
The Archaeology of Money
Colin Haselgrove and Stefan Krmnicek p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 235
Documents and Bureaucracy
Matthew S. Hull p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 251
Phenomenological Approaches in Landscape Archaeology
Matthew H. Johnson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 269

Contents ix
 AN41-FrontMatter ARI 23 August 2012 12:10

Language and Materiality in Global Capitalism

Shalini Shankar and Jillian R. Cavanaugh p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 355
Toward an Ecology of Materials
Tim Ingold p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 427
Anthropology in and of the Archives: Possible Futures and Contingent
Pasts. Archives as Anthropological Surrogates
David Zeitlyn p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 461

Theme II: Climate Change

Lives With Others: Climate Change and Human-Animal Relations
Rebecca Cassidy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p21
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:235-250. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

The Politics of the Anthropogenic

Nathan F. Sayre p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p57
by Universidad Austral de Chile on 04/03/14. For personal use only.

Ethnoprimatology and the Anthropology of the

Human-Primate Interface
Agustin Fuentes p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 101
Evolution and Environmental Change in Early Human Prehistory
Richard Potts p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 151
Sea Change: Island Communities and Climate Change
Heather Lazrus p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 285
Archaeological Contributions to Climate Change Research:
The Archaeological Record as a Paleoclimatic and
Paleoenvironmental Archive
Daniel H. Sandweiss and Alice R. Kelley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 371
Madagascar: A History of Arrivals, What Happened,
and Will Happen Next
Robert E. Dewar and Alison F. Richard p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 495

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 32–41 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 627

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 32–41 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 631

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at

http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

x Contents
 Annual Reviews
It’s about time. Your time. It’s time well spent.

New From Annual Reviews:

Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application
Volume 1 • Online January 2014 • http://statistics.annualreviews.org

Editor: Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University

Associate Editors: Nancy Reid, University of Toronto
Stephen M. Stigler, University of Chicago
The Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application aims to inform statisticians and quantitative methodologists, as
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:235-250. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

well as all scientists and users of statistics about major methodological advances and the computational tools that
allow for their implementation. It will include developments in the field of statistics, including theoretical statistical
by Universidad Austral de Chile on 04/03/14. For personal use only.

underpinnings of new methodology, as well as developments in specific application domains such as biostatistics
and bioinformatics, economics, machine learning, psychology, sociology, and aspects of the physical sciences.

Complimentary online access to the first volume will be available until January 2015.
table of contents:

• What Is Statistics? Stephen E. Fienberg
• A Systematic Statistical Approach to Evaluating Evidence
from Observational Studies, David Madigan, Paul E. Stang,
Jesse A. Berlin, Martijn Schuemie, J. Marc Overhage,
Marc A. Suchard, Bill Dumouchel, Abraham G. Hartzema,
Patrick B. Ryan
• The Role of Statistics in the Discovery of a Higgs Boson,
David A. van Dyk
• Brain Imaging Analysis, F. DuBois Bowman
• Statistics and Climate, Peter Guttorp
• Climate Simulators and Climate Projections,
Jonathan Rougier, Michael Goldstein
• Probabilistic Forecasting, Tilmann Gneiting,
Matthias Katzfuss
• Bayesian Computational Tools, Christian P. Robert
• Bayesian Computation Via Markov Chain Monte Carlo,
Radu V. Craiu, Jeffrey S. Rosenthal
• Build, Compute, Critique, Repeat: Data Analysis with Latent
Variable Models, David M. Blei
• Structured Regularizers for High-Dimensional Problems:
Statistical and Computational Issues, Martin J. Wainwright
• High-Dimensional Statistics with a View Toward Applications
in Biology, Peter Bühlmann, Markus Kalisch, Lukas Meier
• Next-Generation Statistical Genetics: Modeling, Penalization,
and Optimization in High-Dimensional Data, Kenneth Lange,
Jeanette C. Papp, Janet S. Sinsheimer, Eric M. Sobel
• Breaking Bad: Two Decades of Life-Course Data Analysis
in Criminology, Developmental Psychology, and Beyond,
Elena A. Erosheva, Ross L. Matsueda, Donatello Telesca
• Event History Analysis, Niels Keiding
• Statistical Evaluation of Forensic DNA Profile Evidence,
Christopher D. Steele, David J. Balding
• Using League Table Rankings in Public Policy Formation:
Statistical Issues, Harvey Goldstein
• Statistical Ecology, Ruth King
• Estimating the Number of Species in Microbial Diversity
Studies, John Bunge, Amy Willis, Fiona Walsh
• Dynamic Treatment Regimes, Bibhas Chakraborty,
Susan A. Murphy
• Statistics and Related Topics in Single-Molecule Biophysics,
Hong Qian, S.C. Kou
• Statistics and Quantitative Risk Management for Banking
and Insurance, Paul Embrechts, Marius Hofert

Access this and all other Annual Reviews journals via your institution at www.annualreviews.org.

Annual Reviews | Connect With Our Experts

Tel: 800.523.8635 (us/can) | Tel: 650.493.4400 | Fax: 650.424.0910 | Email: service@annualreviews.org