Some coin collector hiding his real identity behind the pen name “Augustus” (though his first name apparently is “Warren”) has left a comment on my blogged remarks on Harlan Berk declaring that he wants to “beat the archaeologists”. Warren's apologia for coin collecting contains about every argument cliché there is in the book. I do not know why he feels it necessary to tell us what we have read on their forums time and time again.
Warren reassures us that “millions of ancient coins exist”. Nobody is denying that, some are in private and institutional collections, many are still in archaeological contexts in the ground. The removal in their “millions” of the latter to join the former, just to assuage the greed of the dealer and collector, is what the problem is when it leads to loss of information. It is the loss of archaeological information caused by their removal in millions that concern me rather than the “saving” (sic) of the “numismatic content” which is all the collectors narrowly bang on about.
So the fact that “The people who study them and extract information about them are overwhelmingly collectors and institutions supported by collectors like the RNS and ANS, not archaeologists” is totally beside the point. We are talking about two kinds of information here. The archaeological context and what can be derived from the pictures and writing on a single group of objects ripped from that context. Frankly whether the star above the campgate has ‘x’ points and not ‘y’ really is not the sort of “information” that turns me on as an archaeologist. Nor is it that a coin was struck by the same die as one from an unknown site sold by Harlan J. Berk in September 1998.
Once again we note the intense rivalry that I commented on in the case of Berk: “archaeologists have a terrible record of …”, “See what you can find on the web about coins from archaeologists. It is not 1/100 of what collectors worked hard to create for your enlightenment”. Collectors mainly produce websites to brag about their collections, or about their knowledge, dealers likewise with the added kickback is that some viewers might be tempted to buy a few coins themselves. The claim that ancient coins are made available on the web for "education" is camoflage. Most ancient coins on the web are for sale, they apppear on the plethora of commercial sites that is part of the looting problem. But if you want to educate yourself about where the coins depicted had actually come from (or what coins come from a particular region), a veritable sea of information about coins suddenly turns into an information desert.
Once again “Warren” mouthing the traditional coiney mantras totally ignores the fact that we are talking about two different kinds of information about the past (one wonders just how much “Warren” understands about what archaeology is). He criticises the "terrible record" "archaeologists" have of reporting coins. Numismatists however have a terrible record of reporting the results of their studies into social structure, rural settlement patterns, life expectancy, the exploitation of the natural environment in the past. Terrible, atrocious in fact. Warren castigates all “archaeologists” for their inability to keep up with the flow of coins being dug out of the ground without recognising that a specialist in coins is the same as a specialism in any other archaeological artefact type (such as snail shells, Neolithic pottery, fish remains, non-ferrous metallurgical waste). Who studies snail shells? "Archaeologists" or conchologists? Is it "archaeologists" who are responsible for the lack of publications of material housed in institutions? Or is it numismatists? Or is it due to the way museums are staffed and run? Is the latter the fault of the archaeologists?
Warren reassures us that “millions of ancient coins exist”. Nobody is denying that, some are in private and institutional collections, many are still in archaeological contexts in the ground. The removal in their “millions” of the latter to join the former, just to assuage the greed of the dealer and collector, is what the problem is when it leads to loss of information. It is the loss of archaeological information caused by their removal in millions that concern me rather than the “saving” (sic) of the “numismatic content” which is all the collectors narrowly bang on about.
So the fact that “The people who study them and extract information about them are overwhelmingly collectors and institutions supported by collectors like the RNS and ANS, not archaeologists” is totally beside the point. We are talking about two kinds of information here. The archaeological context and what can be derived from the pictures and writing on a single group of objects ripped from that context. Frankly whether the star above the campgate has ‘x’ points and not ‘y’ really is not the sort of “information” that turns me on as an archaeologist. Nor is it that a coin was struck by the same die as one from an unknown site sold by Harlan J. Berk in September 1998.
Once again we note the intense rivalry that I commented on in the case of Berk: “archaeologists have a terrible record of …”, “See what you can find on the web about coins from archaeologists. It is not 1/100 of what collectors worked hard to create for your enlightenment”. Collectors mainly produce websites to brag about their collections, or about their knowledge, dealers likewise with the added kickback is that some viewers might be tempted to buy a few coins themselves. The claim that ancient coins are made available on the web for "education" is camoflage. Most ancient coins on the web are for sale, they apppear on the plethora of commercial sites that is part of the looting problem. But if you want to educate yourself about where the coins depicted had actually come from (or what coins come from a particular region), a veritable sea of information about coins suddenly turns into an information desert.
Once again “Warren” mouthing the traditional coiney mantras totally ignores the fact that we are talking about two different kinds of information about the past (one wonders just how much “Warren” understands about what archaeology is). He criticises the "terrible record" "archaeologists" have of reporting coins. Numismatists however have a terrible record of reporting the results of their studies into social structure, rural settlement patterns, life expectancy, the exploitation of the natural environment in the past. Terrible, atrocious in fact. Warren castigates all “archaeologists” for their inability to keep up with the flow of coins being dug out of the ground without recognising that a specialist in coins is the same as a specialism in any other archaeological artefact type (such as snail shells, Neolithic pottery, fish remains, non-ferrous metallurgical waste). Who studies snail shells? "Archaeologists" or conchologists? Is it "archaeologists" who are responsible for the lack of publications of material housed in institutions? Or is it numismatists? Or is it due to the way museums are staffed and run? Is the latter the fault of the archaeologists?
Nevertheless, Warren invites the reader to forget that the "information" about the past which can be obtained with the minimium of effort from the pictures and writings on coins is of the "kings and battles" type. Coins are first and foremost addressed sources and carry the information intended by their emitters. They give therefore a very biased and narrow vision of the past. Archaeological evidence however is capable of telling us much more about life in the past than that chronicled on paper or stamped into round pieces of metal. Numismatists can only ever produce a very narow vision of the past. This would be fine if it was "better than nothing", but when it is obtained with not only disregard for but the actual destruction of other sources of much more holistic information, then that self-centred narrow focus is inexcusable.
Warren writes about the “ "It belongs to us" approach of some archaeologists”. If he were to take the trouble to actually read what is written on the topic rather than echoing the wording of the gurus of the "ACCG school", he would find that the archaeological record is considered by archaeologists to belong to all of us. To be preserved or documented, interpreted and studied for the benefit of everybody, both now and in the future. This is why they are opposed to the “dig-it-all-up-now-to-sell-off-and-hang-the-consequences-who-cares-what-is-lost-because-its-not-a-coin” approach of the coin collectors and dealers. Their approach is entirely self-centred and their self-serving arguments really need to be combatted by those who care about the study of the past as a holistic entity and not through some myopic object-oriented approach. The current manner in which coins are obtained for the collectors to collect is destructive. It is destructive moreover not of the archaeological record in the country where collectors live, but more often than not of countries beyond its borders. Collectors have all sorts of cutesy arguments about why this is “acceptable” or “unavoidable” all of which have one thing in common, that it is “not their fault”. It is all the fault of somebody else – usually a “furrin gub’nmint”. This is unacceptable behaviour for a milieu that in the next breath protests it is “scholarly” and engaged in some form of academic study.
In any case it is not. Coin collecting is not an academic discipline. It is further removed from being an academic discipline in that it does not concern itself with the origin of the data it uses (individual specimens studied or their accumulations). For these scholars any old data selected totally randomly from what is commercially available on a given but highly secretive market will do to draw conclusions from. Yet in many other sciences, the origin of the data used is of fundamental significance. A primary topic of discussion now on numismatic forums is the detection of fakes, which is becoming increasingly more difficult. Obviously the spread of fake information (for that is what coins are being treated as by numismatists) is aided by the disregard of provenance and context of discovery by the discipline as a whole. Another question is whether it is permissable to talk of a "discipline" which has no methodology of its own. Where is the textbook of the theoretical basis of Modern-heap-of-decontextualised-on-a-table-Numismatics? A professional numismatist has admitted to other artefact collectors that coin collecting is not really an “academic” discipline in that it does not need publications to be a “numismatist”, nor presumably any kind of textbook or theoretical foundations to be an independent discipline.
Warren urges “Collectors and archaeologists do not have to be at odds”. They do not indeed. They will cease to be once antiquity collectors at last take responsibility for the effects of their hobby on the archaeological record. The start of this would be when they stop buying artefacts from dealers who are unable to demonstrate that what they are offering was not dug up illegally a few months or years ago in some far-off land from which they were smuggled across Europe or the Atlantic to appear in some “legitimate” (nod-nod-wink-wink) market. When they stop deceiving themselves that it is “somebody else” who is buying the looted antiquities, when they stop deceiving themselves and the rest of us that “a lot” of the antiquities and coins on the market today come from “an old collection”. When they stop unthinkingly using deceptive argument-mantras to justify ignoring inconvenient laws which stand in the way of them getting freshly dug-out antiquities from looted archaeological sites delivered to their door from the online dealer in old tat. When they stop supporting groups like the ACCG and IAPN which are kicking against these laws (which if the truth were to be known the majority of their members and supporters probably already ignore anyway).
All antiquities collectors are aware of how much illicit material there is on the market. Warren pretends he has not seen that what is being argued is that it is not just antiquity hunting that needs to be made illegal to protect the archaeological record from commercial and destructive exploitation, but the no-questions-asked sale of artefacts which shields the trade in illicitly-obtained items. There is no doubt that this is what would cut down looting dramatically.
People like Warren are afraid to admit it to themselves, but deep down in their heart they must know it is true - which is what is really detestable about these repetetive debates with collectors, they are simply unable to be honest with themselves, let alone the rest of us.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment