News Feeds
Coin Collecting NewsContextual Numismatics?
After reading a recent post by Nathan Elkins on the American Numismatic Society discussion list, I had serious concerns that I might be suffering from a severe case of delusion or dementia. Mr. Elkins proposes to orchestrate a panel of archaeologists to discuss “Contextual Numismatics” at the 2009 AIA meeting.
Granted, I have only been a professional numismatist for 41 years, but I rather thought that I might have heard most of the terminology used in the field. So, I hopped over to that repository of all human knowledge, Google, and searched for the term—hoping to bring myself up to speed. Ouch, not a single hit.
Just to make sure my browser was working, I searched for something everyone has heard of “Ilkhanid Coins”. Bingo, 648 links. Ok, one more “Russian wire money”, 489 more links. Contextual Numismatics? — Zip. This, I thought, ought to be a lively discussion panel. Perhaps I was unfair to search a general resource for an academic term. So, back to the browser I went and pulled up the American Numismatic Society web site. Searching for “contextual numismatics” I found zero documents. Finally, I tried the Archaeological Institute of America web site: “Your search yielded 0 results.”
The term is apparently unknown to anyone but Mr. Elkins. It should be interesting to see how the discussion goes when the subject is undefined and unknown.
It’s all well and good that people want to study ancient coins. It may be particularly good that archaeologists study ancient coins, since they have done relatively little of that in the past. But where, pray tell, does Mr. Elkins find the audacity to criticize numismatic scholarship of past centuries, not to mention more recent times. His view is exceedingly egocentric and patently inaccurate.
If Mr. Elkins wants to feather his academic CV with a panel presentation, it would be a far more reasonable and pertinent premise that archaeologists, private collectors, independent scholars and professional scholars in a wide array of disciplines can learn much from each other. Indeed, that is precisely what happens today, in many cases, despite the polemic ramblings of a few hardliners and the AIA sanctions against cooperation by their members.
In reality, this panel is just a thinly veiled way to seek justification for making context the primary aspect of numismatic research. That is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Meanwhile, we can be comforted by the fact that serious numismatic research continues every day in the real world of numismatics.
Republished with permission from Mr. Sayles’s “Ancient Coin Collecting” Blog
Related News
- ACCG attacked by archaeologist Elkins
- Review of Elkins on “Why coins matter”
- Intrinsic Interests
- Viewpoint: Shepherd is Right Person at Right Time
- Open Letter to Serious Archaeologists
- The ANA School of Numismatics is Coming to Connecticut in November
- ANA’s School of Numismatics Offers Die Varieties, Coin Collecting Courses During Whitman Baltimore Convention
About the Author
Retiring in 1982 from the U.S. Air Force, Wayne earned a MA degree in Art History at the Univ. of Wisconsin. In 1986, he founded The Celator — a monthly journal about ancient coins. He co-authored "Turkoman Figural Bronze Coins and Their Iconography" (2 vols.) and wrote the six vol. series "Ancient Coin Collecting" (3 are in expanded 2nd ed.), the monograph "Classical Deception" and the exhibition catalogue for the Griner collection of ancient coins at Ball State University. He wrote the "Coin Collecting" article and revised the main "Coins" article for Encyclopaedia Britannica. Wayne is a Life Fellow of the ANS; Fellow of the RNS (London); Life Member of the Hellenic Numismatic Society (Athens); Life Member of AINS;and member of numerous other numismatic organizations including the American Numismatic Association and the Numismatic Literary Guild. He is the founder and current Executive Director of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, has lectured extensively, written more than 200 articles about ancient coinage, and is a recipient of the "Numismatic Ambassador" award from Krause Publications. He is a biographee in Marquis, "Who's Who in America" and in "Who's Who in the World".
Nathan Elkins | Apr 21, 2008 | Reply
Unfortunately, Wayne Sayles’ unprovoked attack on me here only reflects his own agenda. He has an axe to grind against archaeologists and people who study material “in context,” since he prefers to promote the treatment of ancient objects as simple curios as a greater science. I have spoken out about the material and intellectual consequences of collecting undocumented ancient coins indiscriminately (e.g. http://www.savingantiquities.org/feature_coins.php) and this attack is purely personal. Elsewhere, I have suggested constructive dialogue between collectors and archaeologists/academic numismatists and a hiatus on these sort of personal attacks (http://safecorner.savingantiquities.org/2007/12/towards-forum-for-constructive-dialogue.html), but Wayne apparently prefers baiting, obfuscation, and harsh rhetoric to constructive discussion and collaboration. At least two other collectors have positively publicly commented on the call for papers, despite Wayne’s vociferous condemnation of it. http://digitalhn.blogspot.com/2008/03/contextual-numismatics.html and http://curatorandcollector.com/?p=139. It is unfortunate that Wayne, who is apparently a figure of some note in the collecting community, prefers buffoonery like this instead of openness to developing scientific methodologies and open dialogue between various interest groups.
CoinLink | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
Nathan:
Having reread Waynes article and then following the links to your articles, let me tender a few comments of my own.
As to Waynes article being nothing more than a personal attack and agenda driven, I would leave that to Wayne to respond, although I disagree with your assessment.
However of greater concern and more to the point is not the creation of new academic terminology, but your apparent desire to translate an academic theory into legal restrictions which are both impractical and onerous.
I do not think that anyone who has a serious love for numismatics and respect for history would encourage or condone the commercial looting of archeological sites. In fact I am sure that there are existing laws in place in the respective countries that make this a criminal offence.
And no doubt many countries, particularly in the Balkan states have not and are not devoting the time and resources necessary to enforce these laws. But to place restrictions on the sale and/or possession of ancient coins that do not have a written provenance going back over 30 years is not only unrealistic but punitive in the extreme.
Also I sense in your articles a disconnect between the perceived benefits of the proposed restrictions vs their real world effects.
Taken to its logical conclusion, Cultural property and the needs of academic study would (or could) make virtually every location inhabited by human beings into an archeological site, where all items, big or small, important or not become “contextual” artifacts that require study, cataloging and preservation. Where does it end?
I remember the first time I handled an ancient coin, and yes I will admit to asking myself the same pedestrian questions, “I wonder who handled this coin” and “where has this coins traveled over its lifetime”. There was a wonder and excitement about the fantasy and speculation. For whatever reason, it seems that human being have some sort of basic need to collect things, to want to hold and posses items and artifacts that conjure up images of history and things long past. They can give us inspiration and insight along with a deeper appreciation of our connection to a physical place or time.
All things ancient should not be the sole property of academics, or the state, or museums, tucked neatly away from prying eyes and “untrained minds”
Somewhere along our travels, certain people cam up with the idea that “Cultural heritage” and artifacts need to be concentrated in the locations of their origin, that somehow the dissemination of this items lessens ones nationalistic identity or has robbed one of their history. To the contrary, I strongly believe that like ideas, dissemination of cultural items should be not only allowed but encouraged, as a uniting force allowing peoples of all countries and backgrounds to appreciate and posses things from far away and from another cutures. It strengthens our bonds between one another and promotes respect for both our differences and commonality.
Life does not take place in a vacuum, nor does history.
Nathan Elkins | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
And where does this academic Call for Papers for an academic archaeological conference “translate an academic theory into legal restrictions”? It does not and that is precisely my point. I have discussed the material and intellectual consequences relevant to the trade elsewhere, but that has nothing to do with this call for papers, which underscores the personal nature of Wayne’s unprovoked attack. I think we would agree that it is to the benefit of archaeological and numismatic science that a wider academic audience is exposed to the value of developing contextual and interdisciplinary methodologies, which is the purpose of this panel that a colleague and I are co-organizing. It is quite telling that Wayne failed to mention I was organizing it with another numismatist - obviously I am the object of Wayne’s personal ire and not the other and so my colleague’s participation in this panel is conveniently forgotten.
CoinLink | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
Nathan:
I think it is a bit disingenuous to attempt to decouple the “Call for Papers” from the arguments you have made concerning restrictions on the sale and importation of ancient coins.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the intent to establish “Contextual Numismatics” into the accepted lexicon of the archeological community, and in doing so, would that not be both the academic and practical justification for supporting the type of legal restrictions you seek?
Clearly you are of the opinion that Wayne has an agenda. I would submit to you that other agendas are also in play. I am 100% in favor of all academic pursuits, conferences and/or inquires into any subject. Differing opinions and challenging discourse is always a positive thing no matter what area of intellectual pursuit. But there is a world of difference between theory and practical solutions, which I guess is where common sense kicks in.
Nathan Elkins | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
It might be interesting for you to know that this panel was planned by my colleague and me early last year before I ever decided to speak out on these issues. It was only after I learned about developing methodologies on “contextual numismatics” that I decided to examine the trade in further detail. I think it is a bit disingenuous for Wayne to claim he is supporting “numismatic science” by condemning and excluding contextual study, when he has an inventory of $250,000 he is selling and claims there is no financial motivation between his simplistic and circular rants. I am concerned about intellectual consequences and the destruction of information that looting and market demand causes.