I am somewhat amazed at the failure of modern archaeologists to combine numismatic evidence with other finds. The above is an interesting recent discovery of a Roman complex in Switzerland. Looking at the picture more closely, however, I was surprised to see among the finds the famous Caesar denarius of the elephant trampling a serpent: This made the finding so much more interesting for me. No mention was made of the possible significance of the Caesarian coin, however. It also opens new questions. Too often I see these archaeological reports ignoring the numismatic evidence, or at best, failing to highlight these fascinating aspects of the discovery. Archaeologists uncover large Roman complex in gravel quarry | HeritageDaily - Archaeology News
I have watched numerous shows on archaeology digs and I agree when they find a coin(s) they appear to just blow it off. A piece of broken pottery they will throughly evaluate and save for further examination. Maybe they do the same with coins later with an expert present. I have seen the two brothers on Oak Island a couple of times call-in a numismatist to examine coins they have found treasure hunting.
That's kind of a summary news story, not the actual archaeological work, so I wouldn't see that as an indication the archaeologists are ignoring the numismatic evidence. All that gets bagged/documented, then cleaned/conserved, photographed, later cataloged, and eventually is part of the "data analysis." Possibly after years or maybe sooner for preliminary reports. A lot of excavations keep going for decades (this one since the 1990s, looks like). Big excavation reports usually have chapters (or sometimes even volumes) summarizing the coin finds, sometimes describing and photographing every one, including mostly coins that a collector would consider basically worthless. At some sites they find coins spanning 1,000 years or more in different layers. Archaeologists tend to find coins useful for dating the site (and various contexts within) and sometimes telling about what kind of a site it was (temple, market, etc.) and what the people were up to (merchants, soldiers, tourists). Incidentally, there's probably a similar post somewhere on the boards for ancient glass collectors and forums for collectors of ancient ceramics, asking why they're not making a big deal of those!!
It is difficult to give much credence to items that are typically traded or found and carried back as curiosities by the inhabitants. Even our indigenous people picked up things they found that may have been made a thousand years before them. There are so many contaminants in a dig.
Other articles highlighted the Caesar denarius. It's a relatively common coin, however. As noted, it offers broad popular appeal but I don't know that it is especially significant archaeologically. It certainly hasn't been "ignored". It's the assemblage in context as a whole that tells the tale. https://www.popsci.com/science/roman-switzerland-alps-archeology/
