May 27, 2008 at 12:01 pm
· Filed under General Coins
Think about it:
A person spends years, often a lifetime, developing a skill that earns them a living—and more. What do they do with the “more”? They use it to entertain themselves. Many of those who succeed in a capitalist society are the sort of people who are interested in things like art, history, philosophy and the “social sciences”. Why? Because they are intelligent, educated, inquisitive and because these subjects are usually a diversion from what they do every day. They are naturally more inclined to these disciplines than to the latest societal fad. The vast majority of people in the world who have discretionary income fall into this category.
Some people choose to follow the path of academia, and they “entertain” themselves with the same pleasures as those in the private sector. The difference is only that in the academic world it is not “kosher” to own, while in the private sector ownership is perceived as an inalienable right. Does this mean that the academic world and the private world are really worlds apart? Hardly. It merely means that the age-old conflicts of human want and need are confronted. What is new about that? By what standard is the steward of society’s interests better than the member of society whose interests are supposedly being served?
For centuries, private and public scholarship have had a symbiotic relationship—especially in numismatics. That relationship was a constant proof that private and public interests can exist, prosperously, in harmony. In the 1970s, the situation began to change and the symbiosis was fractured by a surge of territorial dominance within the archaeological community. This escalated into a zealous crusade among archaeological organizations to eliminate private parties (independent scholars) from the “congregation”. The discrimination against “non-certified” scholars became epidemic and grew to such a fanatical height that the archaeological community ostracized even its own members who would cooperate with the “heathen” masses. Scholarship for the sake of learning became scholarship for the sake of controlling.
Any rational and thinking person must, on serious reflection, be able to see that what happened to archaeology over the past several decades has been a disaster of the greatest magnitude—not just for that discipline but for the whole of humanity. Today, we are told that the public is not qualified to inquire, not ordained to protect nor empowered to preserve the past. Is that the society that we have created? Is a government that supports that sort of mentality a government “of the people, by the people and for the people?” It sounds more like some of the experiments in governing that failed in the 20th century.
It is time that serious archaeologists took a stand and reclaimed their discipline from the brink of destruction—before the prestige earned by their predecessors is blackened by universal and eternal enmity.
Permalink
May 13, 2008 at 6:13 pm
· Filed under General Coins
- Image by LLudo via Flickr
The Buffalo Nickel Coin Value Tables are now updated for 2008. The tables were previously upated in 2006. Since then, we’ve seen strong price increases across the board, especially for key date coins in lower grades, which appeal to a broad range of collectors. The 1913-S Type 2 and 1937-D 3-legged buffalo enjoyed very sharp price surges.
Permalink
May 7, 2008 at 2:44 pm
· Filed under General Coins
An 1804 Draped Bust Silver Dollar sold for $3.738 million on April 17. The winning bid was placed through the Internet. Prior to the sale, the fabled coin was professionally cleaned and judged by Numismatic Guaranty Corporation as a PF-62. The seller purchased the silver dollar in 1993 for $475,000.
Permalink
May 3, 2008 at 11:38 am
· Filed under General Coins
According to Merriam-Webster:
schol·ar, pronunciation: \ˈskä-lər\ is:
1: a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher: pupil.
2 a: a person who has done advanced study in a special field
b: a learned person.
3: a holder of a scholarship.
By this definition, the list of scholars throughout recorded history is extensive. According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the oldest continuously operating degree granting institution in the world is the University of
Al-Qarawiyyin (Arabic:
جامعة القرويين) founded in AD 859 at Fes, Morocco. From that time on, there has been a distinction between institution affiliated scholars and independent scholars. In some fields, the distinction is subtle and the degree of cooperation between institutional scholars and independent scholars is such that one could hardly distinguish the two. That was indeed the case during the formative years of the discipline we call archaeology. As institutional archaeology grew, the resource did not. Consequently, intense competition developed within and between these institutions for the access necessary to legitimize and sustain departments and the associated hierarchy of administrators, teachers and students. Over time, cooperation with non-affiliated scholars became problematic as it spread the limited resource even further. Out of this, came a pervasive attitude of protectionism that to the rest of the world was perceived as academic elitism. During the latter half of the 20th Century, while cooperation between institutional scholars and independent scholars flourished in most other disciplines, a gulf emerged between these two groups of scholars in the area of cultural property. The codification of institutional views in the UNESCO convention of 1970 marked a turning point in the study of ancient cultures.
The controls over cultural property incorporated into the convention were purposely structured to mandate a stewardship over the human past. That stewardship was vested (through self-appointment) in academic institutions and anthropology/archaeology laid claim without any serious opposition. The long and productive history of independent scholarship in the field of numismatics was just one of many endeavors that was marginalized and the institution of archaeology took square aim at the avocation of ancient coin collecting which it considered to be outside competition. The Archaeological Institute of America resolved, as a body, to reject any research done in collaboration with independent scholars — to them, mere collectors. That, in itself, seems contrary to the very principles of scholarship.
Over the past decade, the Archaeological Institute of America and its support groups have actively campaigned for restrictions against the flow of cultural property, including coins, using the tedious accusation that private collecting encourages the looting of archaeological sites. While these claims can rarely be substantiated with respect to coins, that seems to make little difference. In reality, the “collecting = looting” charge has always been a red herring that masks the real objective, institutional protectionism. This is a sad situation for our study of the past, because thousands of capable and enthusiastic researchers are disenfranchised under the stewardship concept. Many private collectors and independent scholars are better educated than their institutional counterparts. They certainly have produced more, and in many cases better, numismatic studies. With the benefit of private collections formed over the past 600 years, they have infinitely better resources.
There are several organizations in the United States that recognize the value of independent scholarship, including The National Coalition of Independent Scholars (NCIS) and the National Association of Scholars (NAS). There are also many universities and associations that welcome the participation of independent scholars at their symposia, conventions and congresses. It’s a disgrace to the field of archaeology that they lack the same openmindedness.
Permalink
