According to Merriam-Webster:

schol·ar, pronunciation: \’skä-l?r\ is:

1: a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher: pupil.
2 a: a person who has done advanced study in a special field
b: a learned person.
3: a holder of a scholarship.

By this definition, the list of scholars throughout recorded history is extensive. According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the oldest continuously operating degree granting institution in the world is the University of Al-Qarawiyyin (Arabic: ????? ?????????) founded in AD 859 at Fes, Morocco.

From that time on, there has been a distinction between institution affiliated scholars and independent scholars. In some fields, the distinction is subtle and the degree of cooperation between institutional scholars and independent scholars is such that one could hardly distinguish the two. That was indeed the case during the formative years of the discipline we call archaeology. As institutional archaeology grew, the resource did not. Consequently, intense competition developed within and between these institutions for the access necessary to legitimize and sustain departments and the associated hierarchy of administrators, teachers and students.

Over time, cooperation with non-affiliated scholars became problematic as it spread the limited resource even further. Out of this, came a pervasive attitude of protectionism that to the rest of the world was perceived as academic elitism. During the latter half of the 20th Century, while cooperation between institutional scholars and independent scholars flourished in most other disciplines, a gulf emerged between these two groups of scholars in the area of cultural property. The codification of institutional views in the UNESCO convention of 1970 marked a turning point in the study of ancient cultures.

The controls over cultural property incorporated into the convention were purposely structured to mandate a stewardship over the human past. That stewardship was vested (through self-appointment) in academic institutions and anthropology/archaeology laid claim without any serious opposition. The long and productive history of independent scholarship in the field of numismatics was just one of many endeavors that was marginalized and the institution of archaeology took square aim at the avocation of ancient coin collecting which it considered to be outside competition. The Archaeological Institute of America resolved, as a body, to reject any research done in collaboration with independent scholars — to them, mere collectors. That, in itself, seems contrary to the very principles of scholarship.

Over the past decade, the Archaeological Institute of America and its support groups have actively campaigned for restrictions against the flow of cultural property, including coins, using the tedious accusation that private collecting encourages the looting of archaeological sites. While these claims can rarely be substantiated with respect to coins, that seems to make little difference. In reality, the “collecting = looting” charge has always been a red herring that masks the real objective, institutional protectionism. This is a sad situation for our study of the past, because thousands of capable and enthusiastic researchers are disenfranchised under the stewardship concept. Many private collectors and independent scholars are better educated than their institutional counterparts. They certainly have produced more, and in many cases better, numismatic studies. With the benefit of private collections formed over the past 600 years, they have infinitely better resources.

There are several organizations in the United States that recognize the value of independent scholarship, including The National Coalition of Independent Scholars (NCIS) and the National Association of Scholars (NAS). There are also many universities and associations that welcome the participation of independent scholars at their symposia, conventions and congresses. It’s a disgrace to the field of archaeology that they lack the same openmindedness.