This paper was recently uploaded on Academia, www.academia.edu/926203/Rethinking_Numismatics_the_archaeology_of_coins. I found it a very interesting read.
Hmm. I read the article, and here is how I would sum up the entire paper: (author's voice): We, the archaeologists, have been lazy about studying the coins found in excavations and now regret that numismatists have taken over our task of learning about the context and history of coins. We want them back. Really-- all of the points she makes about learning everything possible from coins... that is what numismatists already do! Why the angst about the separation of the disciplines? Scholarly numismatic treatises are available for archaeologists to read. What's the big deal?
Have not read that article so far, but the name of one of the authors rang a bell here. Fleur Kemmers is a professor in Frankfurt and has been working with coins for many years. See https://www.uni-frankfurt.de/47223515/FKemmers Bringing numismatics and archaeology together is not exactly news for her. Christian
As stated by the author N. Myrberg Burström - Quote - "The mutual benefits of our approach to the fields of archaeology and numismatics highlight the need for a new and constructive dialogue between the disciplines." closed quote She should join the COINTALK FORUM!
I guess I was unaware that such a separation of the disciplines even existed. I have always taken it for granted the numismatic finds were just as equally important to an archaeologist as say, a piece of pottery or jewelry.
As far as I can tell, some archaeologists consider numismatics to be some kind of auxiliary science. Those people tend to forget that archaeology is, from a historian's point of view, an auxiliary science itself. Christian
When I first started my website, I got inquiries as to my qualifications to post such scholarly material and wanting to know what degrees qualified me to have the site. That led me to post the following from my index page which is intended to keep people away who actually believe that reading my drivel will harm their intellects. "This page is very much a 'fast food' or 'pop culture' approach to the subject of ancient numismatics. I am an amateur collector and offer no guarantee of completeness or accuracy on any material on this site. I recommend that you research your questions rather than accepting blindly anything posted here. I also recommend you apply this same degree of care in using any other source material online or in hard copy. This site was intended to expose new collectors to an enjoyable hobby. No claim is made to serious scholarship. Serious numismatists are also welcomed here while they await publication of more proper and scholarly coverage of this material. Images posted on this site are taken from a variety of sources including my personal collection and several other private collections." Similarly, I warn you not to listen to anything said here on CT unless you first research which of our posters are PhD's. Some are. I'm not.
One part, in particular, of this paper is notable for its ingenuous elitism and academic snobbery: "Why numismatics did not develop alongside the discipline of archaeology is hard to discern. It might be related to the institutionalization of the field within museums and departments of (art) history." "Hard to discern?" Uh, maybe it's because archaeologists have always looked down their noses at mere numismatists, who couldn't possibly have the intellect, knowledge, or academic discipline to contribute to the history of other periods and civilizations. Really, it's astounding that academics can make a living writing such tripe as this paper contains.
That sentence stood out to me as well. It's worse than elitism. It's an outright lie. Numismatics HAS developed alongside the discipline of archaeology, into an enormously rich and complex body of work. Coin evidence has contributed massively to our understanding of history.
I wouldn't read too much into the language used - the author is using a vague statement to set up a problem which justifies the paper (as someone who has written such 'tripe,' I recognize my own tricks...)
I think you are putting too much confidence in PhDs. I've worked with too many PhDs and doctoral students who were total idiots. I've learned more from this insightful hairstylist than I've learned from hours of listening to many blathering, insufferable, and pedantic professors: guy
I am in NO way belittling anyone of their efforts or degree. I have been fortunate in my life to have worked with some impressive people. One notable person that I always think about: I had an "Engineer" that was one of the more prolific inventors that I ever knew. Many of the consumer products you may have at home and use in your everyday life might have his name on it. When I was in a personal conversation with him about his education... he was an High School graduate. I personally learned a lot by that revelation.
