m-e-t--h-o-d-o-l-o-g-y, watch the lips

I fail to see where the confusion arises. A bunch of guys tells us we should treat them nicely because they practice some serious scholarly discipline with a load of decontextualised dugup coins from other countries.

"OK", you say, "very interesting, discipline you say? What's the body of methodology and theory at its basis?"

"Eh?"  the reply.

"the body of methodology and theory at its basis" you explain.

"errr..." is the reply.

Suddenly a shout is heard from a back room as Cultural Property Research Institute Director Houghton bursts into the room, foaming at the mouth.: "You are an idiot! A mate of mine whose name I cannot reveal says he knows you and he says you are an idiot!"

"which is why I'd like you to give me the references so I can learn" you reply calmly.

"Yes, you are an ignoramus" Dave the dealer accuses looking around at the others, "My library's bigger than yours I'll wager. I have read and comprehensively understood every one of these many thousands of references! It is upon that extremely solid foundation that I assert that my knowledge of the science of numismatics is very likely far more detailed and complete than your knowledge of the so-called science of archaeology, i.e. glorified and academically formalized grave-robbing, so there!" His voice rises in excitement and his eyes glaze over and saliva dribbles down his chin as he delivers his impassioned self-gratulation.

"You, sir, are a pop-gun!" Houghton interjects enigmatically, pointing a trembling finger at me, " a pea-shooter! I can't even find you on Facebook, you are a nobody!" 

And so on.  More insults.

What is the problem with just saying where the methodology of this academic 'discipline' is codified? Without the insults?

Welsh points me to a  list of reference works on a trade site of catalogues and descriptive works (what we call here in Polish archaeology "materiałówki").* This is not an exposition of methodology, it is not the presentation of a body of theory. We seem to be talking at cross purposes. Welsh seems to think I am asking about "books" in general, as if having books in the house automatically guarantees you scholar status (maybe it does in California, who knows?).

 According to Mr Welsh, numismatics is "a science whose published literature easily equals (and in my opinion probably surpasses) everything published on the subject of archaeology". If that IS the case (and is "size" always what matters?) then the coineys should have no difficulty whatsoever finding among that mass of high quality literature ten textbooks on the methodology and theory of dealing with decontextualuised coins on a table, n'est ce pas? But the man who has digested a mountain of books sems to have precisely such a problem. He excuses himself from the task by saying: "heap of assorted coins on a table numismatics is not a subject of interest to anyone other than [Mr Barford] himself and the few benighted souls [...]". Well, hang on a moment, we were told, were we not, that 50000 US collectors of assorted and contextless dugup ancient coins are engaged in the scholarly study of precisely such material. That is hardly a "lack of interest". It is also a whopping big market for somebody who's digested a whole mountain of books in his 15x15m Goleta housing estate bungalow, to write the next edition of "Theory and Practice of Classical Numismatics".

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that home study of imported coins bought through US dealers is a "discipline" with a methodology of its own and its very important, but that "nobody but a few benighted souls are interested in such a discipline", can you?

Maybe Mr Welsh could explain that to this "ignoramus", or better still, just stump up a list of the books on  the m-e-t-h-o-d-o-l-o-g-y (watch the lips) of what these people do on their kitchen tables with all the coins they buy. Not the catalogues, not the picture books, not the results of their art-historical seriation,  not an "all the coins from Miletus" corpus, but a presentation of the theory and methodology of a certain type of numismatics, because that is what they insist they have.
 
* By the way the purpose of Welsh's "booklist" is as a key to explain the shorthand terms used in the sales offers of individual coins for sale to give the types a name and make the presentation look as if the dealer knows his stuff well enough to find a picture of a similar one in a reference book. So, it explains that "C." is the abbreviation for "H. Cohen, Description Historique des Monnaies Frappeés sous l'Empire Romain. Paris, 1880-92 (Reprint)". Note neither the original publisher , nor any of the details about the "reprint" are cited in this booklist