"Numismatics is a Science" but it'd Cost us too much to Care About the "Archaeological Record"

Coiney blogger Dealer Dave Welsh has broken his recent habit of merely parroting Peter Tompa's blog with a new post ("Numismatics is a science" August 15, 2013) which tries to make yet again the time-worn points that since numismatics (coin collecting) is a "science" (and an old one at that) there really is no need for it to advance beyond the time-honoured ways of doing things and pay any attention to the sources of the material it uses as "data". Indeed, it is - he and his fellows would argue - in some way wrong to even advance such an idea and attempt to discuss it. He attempts to make an argument for it staying stuck in its nineteenth-century rut.

I disagree. I think any humanistic discipline (numismatics) deserving the name needs to evidence its engagement in the wider issues, to display the ability to dynamically develop its methodology, and in this day and age, establish some kind of disciplinary ethics. Otherwise it becomes nothing more than anachronistic, wholly sterile button-counting and self-serving bragging rhetoric. If you scrutinise carefully the kind of coin collecting advocated by Dealer Dave and his fellow ACCG coineys over in the States in reality is often little more than that.

The coin dealer makes reference to a recent blog post of mine ("Studying the Past Through Little Round Bits of Metal" Wednesday, 7 August 2013). In point of fact he does not actually get past the first paragraph. He actually does not address ANY of the points I made in that text. That of course is quite normal. Here's another one, his fellow Peter Tompa did not manage to get his head around answering that one either US Collectors Study These Coins? Where are those ACCG Monographs? Monday, 31 December 2012.

So Mr Welsh's commentary on my text as a whole?

The remainder of Mr. Barford's remarks in this post reiterate his well-known insistence that "the archaeological record" is "irreparably damaged" whenever ancient coins find their way into the hands of collectors without a documented record of their provenance being preserved. 

Well, it would seem that he's not actually read beyond what he calls "the provocative, disparaging and extremely misleading terminology of Barford's first two sentences". The point is that the text which he claims to critique does not concentrate on the aspects he assumes. If he'd read it, he'd see it addresses the very point about the nature of this coiney "study" of the items they accumulate no-questions-asked from assorted sources. I'm not really sure why he adds so-called scare-quotes to the phrases above as though he'd like to deny that there is an archaeological record, or that it is irreparably damaged when you dig holes into it. I suppose the easiest way to answer that is analagous to the method he uses to dismiss my arguments out of hand without even reading them - "Mr Welsh is not an archaeologist, so what does he know about it?" Simple. I would say there is enough written here by me and others elsewhere which would however show that (and show why I think that) Welsh's scepticism is ill-placed.

By the way, I have consistently stated my position which is that the archaeological record (no scare quotes, it exists, I've seen it) is irreparably damaged (no scare quotes because it is, I've seen it) whenever sites are dug over to find ancient artefacts to collect and sell for personal entertainment and profit. What I have suggested is that dealers and collectors who buy items without any concern for where they come from are fostering (nay, financing and encouraging) the international market in illicit antiquities. Mr Welsh cannot even bring himself to understand the terms used:

The term "illicit," which in plain English means "illegal," is falsely and unjustifiably being used to describe coins and other ancient artifacts that are lawfully traded and collected without provenance.

Firstly, I see that Welsh has forgotten the discussion we had several years back (on his now-moribund Unidroit-l forum)  on the difference between the usage of the word "illicit" in UK and US English. I am writing and thinking in UK English, and since we invented the language, I think Welsh should at least respect that there is a difference.  Secondly Mr Welsh seems to be denying that any illicitly obtained artefacts are being sold and collected anywhere under the cover of the no-questions-asked market. Since Welsh is (a) a coin dealer and (b) apparently cannot work out what it is I am talking about I think we may pass over his assessment that I am using the term illicit "falsely and unjustifiably". I have also talked about "they-can't-touch-you-for-it-legality" and its relationship to the US dealers' phrase "lawfully traded and collected". If we also attempt to talk about ethics and responsibility - then the coineys clam up beyond mouthing again "it's legal innit?". 

In reality, coins do not just "find their way into the hands of collectors without a documented record of their provenance being preserved". They are acquired by collectors who could not give a monkey's about whether they come with a documented record of their collecting history and how they came onto the market. This is in no way a factor by which (in contrast to museums now) potential acquisitions are assessed by private collectors.

"Just say no" is not an ethic the dugup coin collector subscribes to - yet. Theirs is "gimme-gimme-gotta-have-one" ("it's legal innit? [they-can't-touch-me-for-it]"! ["The voices in my head said it's OK, gonne-stop-me?"] )