The American cable television channel the "History Channel" does not air as much actual documentary and historical content as it once did. Instead, it has gone the more profitable route with reality TV shows like "Swamp People", "Ax Men", "Big Rig Bounty Hunters," etc. Even worse when one does flip on the TV to find a documentary program airing it is often that damaging, pseudo-archaeological program "Ancient Aliens". The Learning Channel, the Discovery Channel, and to a somewhat lesser degree National Geographic, have similarly switched to focus on reality programing.
Nonetheless, "Pawn Stars" is one top-rated History Channel program with a strong following. I too enjoy the program. The series follows a Las Vegas pawn shop that buys items of historical or collectible interest. Experts are often brought in to evaluate the authenticity of items and to appraise them. Many items, but not all, are great rarities.
On Monday night, a new episode aired; one segment featured a gentleman who sold a shekel of Tyre to the owners of the Pawn Shop. Scholars generally accept that the Tyrian shekel was the mode of currency used in the infamous transaction of the thirty pieces of Judas paid to Judas to betray Christ (Matthew 26:14-16). The thirty pieces are mentioned again when Judas returned the money to the chief priests after being overcome with remorse (Matthew 27:1-10).
A recent article by Haim Gitler provides a great discussion on the identification of the thirty pieces of silver as the Tyrian shekels (H. Gitler, "The Thirty Pieces of Silver: A Modern Numismatic Perspective," in L. Travaini (ed.), Valori e disvalori simbolici monete. I trenti denari di Giuda (Rome, 2009), pp. 63-78). Archaeological excavation has helped to confirm that Tyrian shekels are the best candidate for the medium of exchange in the biblical episode as they circulated widely in the area and period in question.
The Pawn Stars paid $1,600 for the coin. Anyone familiar with the market can attest they overpaid, especially in view of the coin's condition. The Pawn Stars also immediately sent off the coin to be slabbed and graded, a phenomenon which is common in the collecting of modern U.S. and world coins, but which has been resisted in the ancient coin collecting community. It is curious that an expert was not called in as is typical with most historical items featured in the series. The overpayment and slabbing would suggest the Pawn Stars do not regularly deal with ancient coins, or at least that they do not cater to serious collectors.
After purchasing the coin, the Pawn Stars were visited by a detective. The coin was apparently stolen, not by the seller featured in the episode, but by a previous possessor of the coin. A local interview with the man featured in the episode, who bought it along with some other coins at an estate sale for a few hundred dollars, alludes to this: ""It was 2000 years old. I'm sure it was stolen at some point in time after 2000 years yeah." Ultimately the pawn shop was able to keep the coin as the owner from whom the coin was stolen had been reimbursed by his insurance policy.
WDRB 41 Louisville - News, Weather, Sports Community
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Huqoq 2013
The staff are gearing up for another season at Huqoq and the field school student applications are in. The 2012 season was most successful. What will 2013 hold for Huqoq Excavation Project?
The Baby and The Bathwater
Ever the provocateur, paid trade lobbyist Peter Tompa excels at the art of finding subjects to spin and snipe, even the most benign. The post here from February 17, 2013 summarizes an international conference on ancient coin iconography held last fall. Tompa muses ("Tail Wags Dog"):
The study of ancient coin iconography can be worked at multiple angles. Yes. So?
Anyone who read the summary or announcement of the workshop that was posted here should have understood that exploring the various ways that coin iconography can be approached was the whole point of the workshop. Tompa, it seems, would have us discard the importance of archaeological context simply because there are other ways that coin iconography can be studied too. If we are playing with tired idioms, forget about "tail wagging dog," Tompa would have us "throw out the baby with the bathwater"!
Tompa boldly claims "But all the workshop topics about coin iconography (including one Elkins himself chaired) simply belie this claim." Why the deception? Why ignore the fact that the workshop did include a session on "Coin Iconography in Numismatic and Material Contexts"? In case the session title is not clear, some papers in that session approached the study of coin iconography through the lens of find contexts (i.e. material context). For further clarification this means through hoards and/or archaeological excavation.
Coin iconography is, of course, not only worked at via find context and cannot be approached through material context alone, but to ignore its place in the workshop to promote one's own agenda is surely dishonest. And to imply that coin iconography cannot be approached through this route displays an ignorance of recent peer-reviewed research by several specialists on coin iconography that has appeared in-print within the last 5-10 years. The subject of Roman coin iconography is especially fruitful; our understanding of Roman imperial communication via the coins continues to be enhanced by attention to archaeological context.
It is simply wrong-headed to suggest that just because there are other ways of approaching subjects that other methods are irrelevant. We can read ancient historical texts that have survived the ages. Does that mean the study of art and archaeology is irrelevant? No. Art and archaeology can answer questions that texts cannot or can be deployed in conjunction with texts and other forms of evidence to reconstruct a more complete picture of the past.
The lobbyist's attempt at deception and sniping are characteristic of a debate that has become overly polarized, entrenched, and lacking of critical thought though rife with emotion. Would it not be better to acknowledge the importance of archaeological and material context and to seek ways in which both context and ethical collecting can be preserved so that avocational passion and scientific study can continue to coexist? More moderate and reflective voices must prevail.
The archaeological establishment has preached at CPAC meetings and elsewhere that coins—like other artifacts--lose all their meaning without context, and that import restrictions are necessary to encourage academic research. But all the workshop topics about coin iconography (including one Elkins himself chaired) simply belie this claim.
The study of ancient coin iconography can be worked at multiple angles. Yes. So?
Anyone who read the summary or announcement of the workshop that was posted here should have understood that exploring the various ways that coin iconography can be approached was the whole point of the workshop. Tompa, it seems, would have us discard the importance of archaeological context simply because there are other ways that coin iconography can be studied too. If we are playing with tired idioms, forget about "tail wagging dog," Tompa would have us "throw out the baby with the bathwater"!
Tompa boldly claims "But all the workshop topics about coin iconography (including one Elkins himself chaired) simply belie this claim." Why the deception? Why ignore the fact that the workshop did include a session on "Coin Iconography in Numismatic and Material Contexts"? In case the session title is not clear, some papers in that session approached the study of coin iconography through the lens of find contexts (i.e. material context). For further clarification this means through hoards and/or archaeological excavation.
Coin iconography is, of course, not only worked at via find context and cannot be approached through material context alone, but to ignore its place in the workshop to promote one's own agenda is surely dishonest. And to imply that coin iconography cannot be approached through this route displays an ignorance of recent peer-reviewed research by several specialists on coin iconography that has appeared in-print within the last 5-10 years. The subject of Roman coin iconography is especially fruitful; our understanding of Roman imperial communication via the coins continues to be enhanced by attention to archaeological context.
It is simply wrong-headed to suggest that just because there are other ways of approaching subjects that other methods are irrelevant. We can read ancient historical texts that have survived the ages. Does that mean the study of art and archaeology is irrelevant? No. Art and archaeology can answer questions that texts cannot or can be deployed in conjunction with texts and other forms of evidence to reconstruct a more complete picture of the past.
The lobbyist's attempt at deception and sniping are characteristic of a debate that has become overly polarized, entrenched, and lacking of critical thought though rife with emotion. Would it not be better to acknowledge the importance of archaeological and material context and to seek ways in which both context and ethical collecting can be preserved so that avocational passion and scientific study can continue to coexist? More moderate and reflective voices must prevail.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
'Art in the Round' a Sucess
The first two papers addressed theoretical approaches to coin iconography. Gunnar Dumke (Heidelberg) spoke on "Sekundäre Ikonographien. Prolegomena zu immobilisierten und imitierten griechischen Münztypen" and Dr. Ragnar Hedlund's (Uppsala) talk was entitled "‘Whose image is this’ - again? Exploring new frameworks for the interpretation of ancient coin imagery." In the afternoon, the lectures shifted focus to the study of coin iconography in both numismatic and material contexts. Dr. Clare Rowan (Warwick) began the session with her paper "Iconography in colonial contexts: the provincial coinage of the late Republic." Prof. Frank Daubner (Stuttgart) also spoke on provincial coins with his "Statische Bilder, statische Identitäten? Zu Münzdarstellungen römischer
Kolonien in Makedonien." Marta Barbato (Rome) delivered the fruits of her research on "Flavian typology: the evidence from the "sottosuolo urbano“ of Rome." Prof. Johannes Nollé's (Munich) talk compared Roman provincial coins in Asia with local inscriptions: "Kleinasiatische Lokalprägungen und Inschriften." Dr. Ute Wartenberg-Kagan (New York) took us on a stimulating methodological journey in her "The Clazomenae hoard: an archaeological and iconographical puzzle." And Prof. Lutz Ilisch (Tübingen) concluded our session by looking at the transformation of images across the centuries in "Zur Metamorphose der konstantinischen Victoria zum islamischen Schutzengel auf nordmesopotamischen Kupferdirham des 12. Jh."
The second day of the workshop was just as exciting as the first. In the morning session, papers zeroed in on specific iconographic types. Dr. Maria Cristina Molinari (Rome) spoke about meaning of early Roman coin iconography in her "The two Roman types with two-faced god on 3rd century BC coinage." Dr. Kyle Erickson (Lampeter) provided our only study on Hellenistic coinage: "Zeus to Apollo and back again: shifts in Seleucid policy and iconography." Mary Jane Cuyler's (Sydney) research "Portus Ostiensis on the Sestertii of Nero" dissected a well-known architectural image. Dr. David Wigg-Wolf (Frankfurt) reevaluated Christian symbolism on Constantinian coinage via his "Constantine’s silver medallion from Ticinum (RIC 36): 'one small step' o'a giant leap?'" The final session looked at coins through comparisons with texts and with other visual media. Christopher Simon's (Yale) "Etymology as image type in republican and imperial coinage" raised a great many questions about the meaning of republican coins, how the iconography worked with moneyers' names and how the viewer looked at republican coin iconography. Prof. Bernd Steinbock (Western Ontario) spoke on "Coin imagery and Latin panegyrics as means of imperial communication." Dr. Patrick Monsieur (Ghent), "The relationship between Greek coins, gems and pottery stamps: an introduction
through the archaeological evidence of Chios," provided an insights into the comparative world of amphora stamps and coin iconography. Prof. Martin Beckmann (McMaster) ended the day with his look at coins and portraiture in his "The relationship between numismatic portraits and marble busts: the problematic example of Faustina the Younger."
The organizers and participants agreed that workshop provided a series of formidable papers that opened the door for many fruitful discussions about how we study and interpret ancient coin iconography, as well as the potential for our various methods. The papers are currently being prepared for comprehensive publication in an edited volume.
Special thanks to Prof. Thomas Schäfer and the Institut für Klassiche Archäologie for opening their doors for this workshop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)