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.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Wayne,
You are a very perplexing individual. Anyone who is familiar with the dialogue we have had knows you only insult this proposed academic panel and call for papers because you personally despise me so. This has nothing to do with you or your personal crusade.
First of all, you completely misinterpret the premise of the panel and fail to state I am co-organizing with another colleague who works in contextual numismatics. As is explicitly stated, the purpose is to underscore the contributions of contextual study in numismatics as well as the application of interdisciplinary perspectives. I believe such a statement can be applied to any scientific discipline.
Are you are also aware that there are research tools available apart from Google? I'm not the only one that has said that work needs to be done to bridge the methodological gaps between archaeology, ancient history, art history, and other disciplines. This has been a theme reiterated by several numismatists and other scholars. Just this past October, the University of Frankfurt hosted a conference on Coins in Context and is preparing a collection of essays for publication. There are people who study coins in context and who apply interdisciplinary theoretical and methodological approaches. Are you going to criticize these people as well? Of course, I'm afraid you'll have to open a real book and do some real research before you condemn the approach.
I've only been a professinal numsimatist for 24 years, so I can't claim seniority - but at least I can confirm that I've been doing contextual numismatics all that time, and that I started doing it even earlier as a student. It may have had a different name in those days, but "A rose by any other name ..."
David Wigg-Wolf
David;
If you have been doing "Contextual Numismatics" professionally for 24 years, then I would suspect there is a huge body of work to be found in that field. Mr. Elkins apparently does not recognize your work since he bemoans its absence. I think, however, that you made my point. It was called something else (you can give it a name, I'll abstain). I'm quite confident that those who did whatever you choose to call "contextual numismatics" 24 years ago never foresaw nor intended the conflict that has since emerged. The once highly respected discipline of archaeology was in every sense a partner with disciplines like art history, museology and private collecting (independent scholarship) in a variety of disciplines. As one small example, I reference the Appendix to Turkoman Figural Bronze Coins and Their Iconography. Vol. II (1996) co-authored by William F. Spengler and myself. Both of the authors being private collectors. In this appendix one will find a detailed and valuable archaeological report on the coins found in excavations at Tell Tuneinir, Syria. This report was written and contributed by Drs. Michael and Neathery Fuller, a highly respected team of archaeologists. Their report, a valuable contribution to the study cited, appears in no other publication that I am aware of. The Fullers exemplify a long standing tradition of cooperation that radical elements of academic archaeology now reject and actively oppose. I could cite many similar examples, but that is hardly necessary.
I agree with you, a rose is a rose, but that rose has become the victim of an early frost and is struggling to survive. I hope that you are not one of those who prefer thistles.
Nathan;
Thank you for the compliment, I don't at all mind being described as perplexing. You flatter yourself by thinking that I "personally despise" you. I have never met you in person, so it would be impossible for me to have any personal feeling about you one way or the other. But since you bring it up, I do have very strong feelings about people who aggressively push their own ideology into my face. I will readily admit to having an intense dislike for "do-gooders", elitists, pontificators, manipulative bureaucrats, self-serving politicians and self-appointed stewards of society. Worst of all are educators and media professionals who abuse the trust of the general public by using their positions to indoctrinate and propagandize. If you fit into any of these categories, then I probably would find your physical presence distasteful. Just being an archaeologist, educator, bureaucrat or politician does not qualify you. You will have to be aggressively dedicated to restricting my freedoms before you will truly earn the title "despicable".
As for my interpretation of your panel's premise, I posted a copy of it in my blog so that readers can determine for themselves how it should be interpreted. If it meant something else, you should have said so.
Your catty comment about me opening a real book and doing real research is a stupid childish and elitist comment that is precisely the reason you earn my insults rather than my support and respect.
Regular readers of this blog will know that I have in the past rejected several of your rambling and argumentative posts. That is a right that I continue to exercise since this is MY blog and I enjoy the position of Dictator in this small corner of cyber space. Anyone who wants an open and free dialogue can go read someone else's blog. This place is reserved for expression of my views and is open to comments to the extent that I choose to allow. I chose to allow your latest post because it illustrates my point so well.
Wayne, I found myself wanting to say more than I could on a reply here so I wrote a post on my own blog.
Elkin's use of the phrase “archaeologically recovered coin finds” is code for irritation with the unprovenanced coin market. Not looking at undocumented coins is a handicap for archaeologists studying numismatics because it hides clues. I don't think provenance rules will be a significant limitation for contextualists. One doesn't need all 30 die combinations to discuss the meaning of, for example, Caesar's use of an elephant to justify his dictatorship.
That someone wants to investigate new disciplinary approaches to studying coins does not discount all the research numismatists have done in the past. Surely Elkins' goal is to open up new ways of thinking rather than to disparage preexisting scholarship (which I did not conclude from his writing at all).
Paul Romer's "new growth theory" essentially says that new information can be found by thinking outside the traditional box, in "better recipes, not just more coooking." Regardless of how long contextualism has been around, wouldn't it ultimately be to your advantage to learn from it instead of view it as a threat?
Theresa;
Apparently you and I are not reading the same comments by Nathan Elkins. The version that I have read and posted in my original blog states:
"For centuries numismatic objects have been intensely
examined by specialists in the field with little attention to broader questions apart from those inherent to the objects themselves. Coins have often been reduced to mere aesthetic objects or chronological references divorced from their original contexts in which they were once embedded. Even modern scholarship often neglects the countless individual dimensions of an ancient object (functional, social, historical, political, personal, etc.)."
This is blatantly inaccurate, to the point that it casts serious doubt on the author's understanding of numismatics as a science. Mr. Elkins proposes that a "new" approach is necessary, when in reality his approach is not new at all to the world at large, it is only new thinking to archaeologists who have lived in isolation numismatically. In that sense, I suppose it is good that archaeologists start thinking "outside the box" like the rest of the world's professional numismatists, institutional academics and independent scholars have been doing for well over a century.
The use of buzz words and phrases like "little attention", "reduced to mere aesthetic objects", "divorced from their original contexts" and "neglects" functional, social, historical, political, personal, etc. is not what I would call complimentary of previous scholarship. Instead, it seems to me a bit presumptuous.
There is an implication that you may not have considered in the notion that "new" ways of thinking are necessary to resolve the inadequacies of the past. Surely, you are aware that every generation goes through its own "new wave" of thought. We should all think "outside of the box", all of the time, but to promote our own ideas as a necessity to correct the supposed or perceived shortcomings of previous scholars and previous generations is merely an egocentric insult.
The "threat" is not that Mr. Elkins may generate a new thought, it is that Mr. Elkins supports an agenda that is far removed from scholarship for the sake of learning. That agenda seeks to cloister knowledge within a system of stewards that would regulate our access to the past and disparage the effort, intelligence or ability of anyone not "certified" by that society of stewards. His proposal is just a bully pulpit for the "Context is King" crowd. The resistance to this Orwellian power play is not limited to private collectors, it is evident in many fields of academia and is a matter of publicly stated concern to some of the world's foremost scholars.
Post a Comment