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.

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.