As an archaeologist, I must say I am puzzled by th...

2007-11-05T18:02:00.000-05:00

As an archaeologist, I must say I am puzzled by the dedication with which Sayles and other collecting advocacy activists pursue their vendetta on archaeology and archaeologists (conservationists in general are labeled “radical” (sic) archaeologists). The solemnity and severity with which they repeat their same old tired mantras may lead the uninitiated outside observer to believe that they have wide knowledge about the subject. And yet, when they expand on the topic it becomes clear that there are instead extensive lacunae in their grasp of what modern archaeology is about. Even more so when making pronouncements on the ancient artefact collector’s favourite archaeological project - the British Portable Antiquities Scheme.

Thus the claim that “archaeologists know little about ancient coins” is completely incomprehensible in light of the facts. Coins are just one kind of archaeological material found commonly on many sites across the ancient world and beyond, so it would be odd to find archaeologists paying close attention to snail shells and charred seeds and leather offcuts from the sites they dig, but for some reason not coins. In fact the opposite is the case, coins have a lot to tell the archaeologist not only the date (terminus post quem) of individual deposits and assemblages, but their patterns of deposition can tell us about the economic activity of the site, possibly reveal evidence of status and site function (and in the case of votive deposits belief systems) as well as the taphonomy of deposition. This much Sayles et al could probably learn from a good archaeology textbook if they had cared to look, or from talking to any archaeologist.

In the area of my current research the fundamental corporae on chance finds of ancient coins and their interpretation were written by archaeologists working with gifted individuals who straddled the archaeological and numismatic worlds. I am referring to works such as the huge catalogues of Early Medieval silver hoards over all of central Europe produced by the Polish Academy of Sciences in the 1950s and 1960s, I am talking of individuals such as Stanisław Suchodolski and Ryszard Kiersnowski, authors of many synthetic works and individual studies. The first attempt to produce a theory of tezaurization to explain and allow interpretation of these hoards was by an archaeologist (Stanisław Tabaczynski), whereas all previous generations of numismatists had attempted were empirical and subjective interpretations based on guesswork rather than explicitly outlined theory. A similar situation may be found in the cataloguing of Roman period finds in the same area (Andrzej Kunisz, Renata Ciolek, Jerzy Wielowiejski and above all Aleksander Bursche). Again, the theory comes from an the archaeologist, previous generations of collectors had been content to produce lists of emperors whose issues were found. The interpretation of the changing distribution patterns of finds of solidi on the south coast of the Baltic has also been done by archaeologists (Kazimierz Godlowski, Eligia Gassowska) working with the bare lists produced by previous generations of collectors. Such examples can, I am sure, be extended over a much wider area. To say that archaeologists are “unaware of the importance of coins” or have become so only” recently” simply displays a deep ignorance. The British antiquary John Yonge Akerman (“Remains of pagan Saxondom” 1855) initiated the British Numismatic Journal way back in 1836. Do the collecting advocacy activists seriously think that since them the archaeological community has undergone some form of collective amnesia?

The Cyprus MOA is a welcome admission of the simple fact (so simple I am surprised anyone should question it), that – no matter what coin collectors would prefer to argue - coins are as much a component of Cyprus’ archaeological record as any other ancient metal object buried in its soil. The archaeologist has every reason to be concerned about the unregulated exploitation of Cypriote sites for portable collectables whether the looter’s spade brings out a fibula, a coin, or golden chalice, in all three cases, the looter’s spade utterly trashes the area of site around where the metal detector blindly bleeped. Archaeologists do care about coins too, and have every right to question the motives of those who out of self-interest and in total disregard of the facts would argue otherwise.

Paul Barford

The SAFECORNER moderator is attending a conference...

2007-10-26T14:22:00.000-04:00

The SAFECORNER moderator is attending a conference and so if anyone should like to leave a comment, it may be a couple of days before the moderator is able to approve it. Registered SAFECORNER bloggers, of course, can post comments at any time.

In the meantime, I have noticed that Mr. Sayles has responded to comments made by Sebastian Heath on his blog, http://ancientcoincollecting.blogspot.com/2007/10/intrinsic-interests.html.

Again, Mr. Sayles' comments attempt to downplay the cooperative relationships between numismatists and archaeologists in organizations such as the AIA. He also downplays the strong record of numismatic publication (past and present) in the American Journal of Archaeology by stating that the Celator publishes significantly more articles on coins. Indeed, it does and it publishes more than the American Journal of Numismatics or the Numismatic Chronicle or any other academic numismatic journal. Mr. Sayles, however, is paying attention only to quantity of articles and not the quality of scholarship. The Celator, founded by Mr. Sayles, is a magazine geared towards a collector audience and allows collectors to write about their interests and what they have learned about the subject via coin collecting. While I understand many collectors and dealers enjoy a popular magazine as such, I must point out, with all due respect, that having personally examined several issues of the Celator, the articles are rarely of the same quality, critical nature, or as well researched as those that appear in journals such as the Numismatic Chronicle, American Journal of Numismatics, American Journal of Archaeology, Journal of Roman Archaeology, or other foreign journals. There must be a distinction made between critical and thorough research and that which is not.

In his book on ancient coin collecting (Sayles, W.G. 1996. Ancient Coin Collecting. Iola: Krause) in the section entitled "Periodicals can be Educational and Entertaining," Mr. Sayles himself recognized this:

"In 1987, a 'popular' journal burst onto the scene and was immediately embraced by both the collector and dealer fraternities. Named after the artists from antiquity who carved dies for the striking of ancient coins, The Celator became a forum for expression, a vehicle for sharing MARKET NEWS, and a source of BASIC COLLECTOR INFORMATION. Today, with a subscriber base of more than 2,000 collectors, and over 100 regular advertisers, theis monthly magazine has become a fixture in the HOBBY....Although published more frequently, none of these commercial publications match the SCHOLARLY level of the Numismatic Chronicle, the Revue Suisse de Numismatique or the American Journal of Numismatics. These are the annual reviews published by the Royal Numismatic Society and the American Numismatic Society respectively. Part of the reason for this is that these professional journals are 'refereed.' That is, articles submitted for publication are subjected to the scrutiny of a panel of experts before they are accepted. This helps to assure HIGH STANDARDS, but it also requires a great deal of time and effort."

Emphasis within Mr. Sayles' quotation is my own.

Comments on Cultural Heritage in Danger: Archaeologists don’t care about ancient coins?

As an archaeologist, I must say I am puzzled by th...

The SAFECORNER moderator is attending a conference...