Intrinsic Interests

Suddenly, the Archaeological Institute of America is interested in ancient coins. That is good. The more that archaeologists learn about coins from antiquity, the more they will realize that the context within which they are found is merely one aspect, and a small one at that, of the tremendous historical resource that coins present. Unfortunately, the AIA's motives for this blossoming interest are suspect. Having virtually ignored coins for scores of years, why is the AIA disposed now to highlight the value of coins to archaeology? The answer is really quite basic. The numismatic community, comprised primarily of independent scholars, has argued effectively that archaeologists do not have a preeminent claim to the acquisition or study of ancient coins, much less to the dissemination of knowledge about them and about the past from whence they came. If the AIA were to acknowledge this simple fact, it would expose a chink in the armor of their perceived supremacy. So, be prepared to see a lot more ink spilled by the AIA and other archaeological support groups regarding the "importance" of coins. Oddly, collectors have always known that coins are important. This awakening by archaeologists is probably a good thing if they really consider the issues rather than just fill the web and print media with institutional propaganda.

In an installment of Archaeology Watch on the AIA web site, we read the following:

"Just as with pennies today, ancient coins were lost during everyday activities. Small change, usually small bronze coins, comprises the huge bulk of excavation coins. They are indicative of the kind of coin that is dropped or lost, with the owner having no intention of, or no chance to recover them. Although they are not usually intrinsically interesting to collectors, they tell us about the changing use of coins--especially pocket change--and the distribution of coins from the place where they were minted."

Seemingly innocuous, this statement embodies a widespread prejudice against and misunderstanding of ancient coin collectors. The implication is that since "small change" is generally bronze or minor silver (low intrinsic value), collectors would find it uninteresting. That implication belies a fallacious belief that collectors are interested mainly in the "intrinsic" or monetary value of an object. Why collect something worthless? It seems inconceivable to the author of a statement like this that private collectors, really better described as independent scholars, might actually be capable of analysis, interpretation and discovery. Are the walls of an ivory tower really so thin that they are vulnerable to barbaric intrusion by independent scholars? Collectors appreciate humble coins for the same reasons that an archaeologist digs holes in the ground under a scorching desert sun. It's too bad that more archaeologists don't understand this.

The AIA article concludes with the statement:

"Careful excavation of coins from both hoards and sites combined with systematic archaeological recording is key to further progress in understanding the ancient world. In this effort, numismatists and archaeologists can work hand in hand, facilitating discoveries and interpretations that neither discipline could produce in isolation."

This is undeniable. It is, however, a fact that the "discipline" of Numismatics is dominated by independent scholars. Working hand in hand is a worthy objective, but it requires a mutual recognition and respect that has all too often been compromised in recent years.