On Second Thought

After reading the latest Elkins and Barford blog posts, I was inclined to consider the source and ignore them. But, having slept on it, I have to ask myself WHY? Why should I have spent more than 40 years of my life learning about ancient coins, and the cultures that produced them, just to have some star-gazer with a fixation on academic supremacy characterize me personally as a rank amateur with nothing but $$$ for a motivation?

I have never been one to brag about achievements or consider myself any better than the person standing next to me, but facts are facts and maybe a look at the facts will put the comments of Mr. Elkins into perspective. The "so what" attitude that rings through very clearly in his pointless description of my background is typically condescending and elitist—far too elitist for someone of his youth and inexperience. It is more akin to bravado. Elkins is not alone in the elitist stratosphere, Barford refers to his associates as "colleagues" while my associates are "ACCG pals". What a feeble attempt at sublimnal influence. Elkins, in a similar manner wrote:

"He has written some books on collecting"

-- Actually, I have written 13 books about ancient coins and have two more monographs in progress as well as a revision of one earlier work. One series, in six volumes, has sold more than 50,000 copies in aggregate and three of the six volumes are in expanded second edition. In total, the series consists of 1,554 pages with thousands of illustrations, charts, tables, indexes, and loads of biographical, geographical and historical information. This award-winning series is very highly acclaimed by everybody except Mr. Elkins and crew. The studies written by William F. Spengler and myself about Artuqid and Zengid coins are the standard references to these coinages and are used by essentially all researches in this field, whether collectors or academics. My monograph Classical Deception is widely regarded as the best and most complete general introduction to the subject of coin forgery. It was by invitation that I wrote the exhibition catalogue of the Ned H. and Gloria A. Griner Greek and Roman Coin Collection at Ball State University. In addition, I have published four numismatic titles for other authors, one of them being Alexandrian Coins by Keith Emmett. This extraordinary catalogue is the only publication in existence that includes all coins and denominations from Roman Egypt by year of issue and rarity of known examples worldwide. In addition to publishing the title, I personally illustrated the catalogue and created the sections dealing with iconography, though I chose not to be listed as a co-author. My latest book (not coin related) is a biography about a West Point cadet who was killed in action during WWII. Yes, it is true, I have written "some books."

"publishes articles about collecting in a collector magazine he founded,"

-- This sounds pretty inconsequential. In fact, I did found The Celator in 1987. To refer to it as a "collector magazine" is a sort of like referring to the Rosetta Stone as a rock. Besides surviving for the past 22 years, which is something of a record for non-institutional publications in the ancient coin field, The Celator has an enviable record of publishing significant research by some of the most distinguished names in numismatics. It should be said, however, that I have not owned the journal since its sale in 1999 to Paradigm Numismatics and Publishing, Inc. I do continue to write a monthly column, which frequently addresses cultural property issues these days. I have never tried to count all of the articles that I have written about ancient coins, but is does number well in excess of 200 articles in a wide variety of publications. A considerable number of the articles that I have written over the years for The Celator have been reprinted in other publications worldwide. It was by invitation from Encyclopaedia Britannica that I wrote the current article on "Coin Collecting" and updated the general article by the late C.H.V. Sutherland on "Coins". It was also by invitation that I wrote an article for the 25th Anniversary of the Turkish Numismatic Society and delivered that paper in person at the Symposium held in Istanbul. I was invited to, and did, write another paper for the recent 40th Anniversary symposium of that organization. I was also invited to, and did, write a paper for the 39th International Congress on Medieval Studies at Western Michigan University. I am particularly proud of an article that I wrote about the Cult of Zeus at Anazarbus which was published in Nomismatika Kronika, the journal of the Hellenic Numismatic Society. I wouldn't begin to list all of the public presentations that I have delivered about ancient coins—scores of them. Yes, it is true that I have written "some articles."

"he organized a group of dealers together and founded a lobby (the ACCG) in 2004 to combat what he calls "radical archaeologists."

-- True, I did found the non-profit Ancient Coin Collectors Guild. The Guild is guided by a Board of Directors elected by the membership at large. I serve as Executive Director at the pleasure of that board. They can terminate my tenure in a heartbeat if they choose. Why Mr. Elkins continues to insist on calling it a "group of dealers" is beyond me. I have explained several times (to no avail) that the guild is a collector organization. More than 75% of the Guild's members are private collectors with no commercial affiliations whatever. Speaking for myself, I have been a collector for more than four decades. I became a dealer, like many others, to allow the purchase of coins that I collected and studied. A side benefit of being a dealer is that one gets to see and mentally register a lot of specimens of any particular type. This is a huge advantage over having access to only one or two specimens. Anyway, I do not need to justify becoming a dealer. It is a legal and honorable profession and the slings and arrows of the Elkins and Barford types in this world ("radical archaeologists") will do nothing to change that. The ACCG was formed to protect and nurture the hobby of ancient coin collecting. That is clearly spelled out in the Guild bylaws and the Board of Directors sees to it that the effort of the Guild is directed toward that aim. No, it is not true that I organized a "group of dealers."

Elkins continues:

"We disagree on the issues, but we are capable of discussing them openly and frankly without constantly exchanging barbs. I am also fortunate to be able to turn to them as peers when I wish to discuss other research with them or ask questions about an area of numismatics in which they are more specialized. Why are some of the ACCG's leaders incapable of doing the same?"

-- Elkins is speaking above about collectors that he calls "friends" and "peers". It amazes me that anybody can call another "friend" and "peer" while trampling all over their legal rights and subscribing to policies and rhetoric that condemns them. I really have to wonder how many times politeness is mistaken by Elkins for friendship. Perhaps Mr. Elkins has not yet come to understand the concept. I may not be as polite as some people would like, but nobody has ever called me two-faced. I will always tell you exactly what I think and will not smile at you face-to-face while I connive and plot against you. Nor will I ever be called elitist. There is nothing more disgusting to me, as a human trait, than a person who feels they have some claim to moral, ethical or intellectual superiority. Elkins and Barford cannot even cite a quote without making editorial corrections within brackets or using the obnoxious "sic" to subtly say "I'm smarter than you" - what it really says is "I'm more obnoxious than you." ACCG and I personally can certainly discuss issues when there is an intelligent and open dialogue, which the archaeological community has yet to endorse. Who, in the archaeological community, besides internet junkies like Barford and Elkins, will sit at a serious table of discussion? I have asked repeatedly and the oracle has yet to speak.

Both Elkins and Barford rail constantly about "obfuscation".

-- The fact is that trying to have a discussion with either of these two is an adventure in frustration. They simply cannot communicate because they cannot and will not hear. The reason that the present discourse has become so "testy" is because of a very long history of previous discourse that was increasingly fruitless and frustrating. They want to throw the blame for harsh dialogue on me, and ACCG, but anybody who has ever dealt with either of these two for very long will not need to hear any defense on my part. The fact is that they try to hide their own guilt by laying charges of the same against those who refuse to accept their logic or worldview and in the face of the slightest criticism they whine like a couple of babies. Anyone who really wants to see what obfuscation is ought to read some of the Elkins and Barford posts on the Unidroit-L archives.

In the past four years, my feeling has increasingly transformed from one of wanting to build bridges and trying to reach accomodation with archaeologists into one of applying every possible weapon to thwart the aggressive and blindly ideological ambitions of those like Elkins and Barford. Much to my regret, I am beyond caring what they think because all that ever comes out of their lips is the same old saw about archaeological context. They cannot see any broader picture and they cannot discuss any other aspect of the huge and diverse problem. Why these two seem to think they are so morally and intellectually superior to those of different persuasions is a mystery to me, but there are parallels in history and I'm not all that surprised that some have mentioned them. It should be patently obvious that Elkins and Barford are not the brain-power behind the cultural property nationalist movement. In fact, they really have no power to injure the coin collecting hobby at all, except with a mind-numbing avalanche of meaningless words. While they obviously think of themselves as erudite, they are frankly a disgrace to academia. The antagonism that they create does, however, perpetuate a gulf that prevents discourse at a higher level. That is an absolute shame, but it is a reality that we live with.

Until there is an overture from someone truly representative of the archaeological community, and not a nut case with a personal agenda, there will be continued animosity between that community and ancient coin collectors. A sad situation for sure. I have said repeatedly that I would welcome serious and substantive discussions that would lead to a unified position on cultural property management, I will not, however, deal with gadflies that have no authority, no plan of action and no ability to think beyond the box of their own ideology. The failure of the archaeological community to embrace any such discussions is a validation of their rigid ideological position which will be satisfied only by the total demise of private collecting. Expect a fight!