Congratulations to Cindy Ho, founder of Saving Antiquities for Everyone (SAFE), who will receive the 2016 Outstanding Public Service Award from the Archaeological Institute of America.
I became aware of SAFE back in 2007 when I began research on the illicit antiquities trade in response to some of the bizarre arguments I saw repeatedly deployed to defend it. Cindy was very encouraging of those early explorations . Cindy has done a great deal to raise popular awareness of the looting problem and is thus well-deserving of this distinction. As she might say, looting is not just a loss to archaeology and historical study, but it constitutes a loss to us all. The AIA's citation for Cindy's award states "For her prominent and dedicated work to raise public awareness of the need to safeguard archaeological heritage."
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Saturday, May 30, 2015
The Tactics of a Dealers' Lobbyist
In the light of some recent posts and activities of IAPN's and PNG's lobbyist, Peter Tompa, who is also a member and representative of the ACCG, I have been considering his tactics again as I have witnessed them multiple times and commented on their apparent purposes in the past. It is perhaps worthwhile to survey some of those tactics here.
Personal Attacks. Personal attacks are often used as a substitute for engaging with the substance or accuracy of another party's comments. Users of personal attacks attempt to impugn another party's character, often with misleading or false commentary, so that they do not have to engage with and/or provide evidence to counter an argument or position. Peter Tompa has often used personal attacks as a tactic and frequently allows his compatriots to post personal attacks in the 'moderated' comments section of his blog. A recent example on Mr. Tompa's blog may be found here. He also is proud to count among his comrades the outspoken ACCG leadership; they have consistently made particularly repulsive attacks against organizations and individuals who advocate preservation, characterizing them as fascists, Nazis, or similar to terrorist organizations. A summary of some of these repugnant remarks is available in my 2012 article on the North American trade in ancient coins (pp. 100-104).
Dismissal/Denigration. A common component of personal attacks include the dismissal of one's credentials and/or the denigration of one's credentials by applying inaccurate labels. Academics who advocate preservation and sensitivity to looting issues are, therefore, often dismissed as "ivory tower" elitists. A recent example on Mr. Tompa's blog is found here (the post also contains a straw man). Like the personal attack, such dismissal evidently has as its aim to excuse not engaging with the evidence or argument of a different position (pointed out here). Mr. Tompa almost exclusively refers to preservationists like myself, David Gill, Paul Barford, Rick St. Hilaire, and others as "archaeobloggers," as if blogging is the only way our research and opinions are disseminated, and as if we do not have any other credentials and professions. Rick St. Hilaire is not even an archaeologist, but a lawyer and specialist in cultural properties! But Mr. Tompa does not like Rick St. Hilaire's insights and position on cultural property issues and so he gets called an "archaeoblogger," a label that the lobbyist and his friends use as a slur. In a recent post, Mr. Tompa has again referred to me as an "archaeoblogger and anti-trade advocate," in spite of the fact that I have rarely blogged for several years now. My occupation is that of tenure-track professor at a ranked research university. I teach and have authored numerous articles on ancient coins and coin iconography in addition to co-edited a book on coin iconography; a single-authored book will be in print by the end of the year. My research on the relationship between looting and coin trade in its current incarnation has also been published in several peer-reviewed outlets.
Deception. Deception is frequently another component of personal attacks or dismissal. After all, the ultimate effect or goal is to avoid formulating effective counter argumentation and presentation of fact-based evidence. For example, Mr. Tompa recently characterized me as an "anti-trade advocate." That is an incorrect characterization. Anyone may read for themselves what I have blogged in the past or what I have published. What I have consistently critiqued is the problematic relationship that the trade in its current incarnation has with looting and the illicit market in coins and antiquities. Mr. Tompa seeks to maintain a no-questions-asked status quo, evidently protecting business interests that wish to remain unconcerned when it comes to the sourcing of material! In fact, in my 2012 article, I suggest that a solution to obstruction posed by trade lobbying groups, which cater primarily to a dealer interest, is to circumnavigate them and engage directly with collectors (pp. 104-107). An "anti-trade advocate" would hardly suggest engagement with collectors. For an unvarnished riposte to the notion that preservationists are inherently "anti-trade," or as one unsightly comment on Mr. Tompa's blog that Mr. Tompa allowed (from a dealer known for hyperbole and personal attacks) suggests, "anti-science," see here.
The Straw Man. A common tactic is the straw man. By falsely attributing a statement or position to an individual and demolishing it, one does not engage with one's real position and makes the opposition appear foolish and absurd. In so doing, the user of a straw-man argument creates an imagined, inaccurate character. The straw man is a debate tactic often used in American political discourse. A popular example is Clint Eastwood's imaginary engagement with President Obama in an empty chair at the 2012 Republican National Convention, whereby he attributed positions to President that he does not hold and potential statements the President wold never make (some comments here and here).
In the comments section of one of his recent personal attacks against me, Mr. Tompa has claimed again that I have stated that Ptolemaic and early Roman period coins did not circulate out of Egypt (this all bears on the "first found in" argument that is part of the ACCG's test case). I posted a comment to that blog again asking him to substantiate the claim as I have never made it. Curiously, my comment was never posted. Maybe he never received it. Nonetheless, what I have said is that such coins tended to circulate primarily within Egypt as Egypt had a well-known closed currency system that promoted the retention of such coins. I have even published a Ptolemaic coin in the coin finds from Yotvata, Israel, although the site is very near the modern Egyptian border. So surely I would never state that no single Egyptian coin would never make it out of what is modern Egypt. Mr. Tompa's straw man claim is demonstrably false. It also curious that, in his own dealings with CPAC, he never acknowledged the well-known fact that Egypt had a closed currency system and that Ptolemaic and early Roman period Egyptian coins are primarily found in Egypt. Mr. Tompa attempts to distort my own position, which takes an honest account of the evidence, in order to distract from his own untenable position, which itself purposefully ignores decades of scholarship and common knowledge on coin circulation in Egypt.
Deflection/Innuendo. Sometimes one simply changes the subject or makes innuendo to distract from the question or issue at hand. So rather than presenting evidence to substantiate his straw-man claim that I apparently said Egyptian coins never traveled outside of Egypt, Mr. Tompa instead began making innuendos about "hidden" comments to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee. First of all, Mr. Tompa makes assumptions since he could not know if I submitted confidential comments to CPAC for any particular hearing or not. Secondly, the CPAC makes allowances for confidential comments to be submitted under certain circumstances where they could not be made publicly. If one submits confidential comments to CPAC, appropriately following the guidelines, the contents of those comments are no business of a trade lobbyist, especially one who chooses to engage in underhanded and slimy tactics. Finally, we see the purpose of deflection and innuendo: not only does he have me going on about a different subject now, attempting to distract me and his readers from his straw-man claim, he still has not substantiated his straw-man claim! He cannot, after all, substantiate a straw-man claim. By their very nature, straw-man claims are indefensible when you ask for substantiation and evidence.
Intimidation. Why does the lobbyist want access to comments that are potentially privileged or sensitive? No doubt he wants to spin and twist them on his blog, using the tactics above, in an attempt to intimidate into silence those with opinions different from his own. He has already criticized individuals with opinions different from his own for speaking at public hearings or submitting public comments to CPAC in the past. Mr. Tompa and his cohorts are well-known for using the tactics of intimidation. In the past they have communicated directly and secretly with colleagues of preservationists in attempt to impugn their reputations in the eyes of their colleagues and, worse, in an attempt to compromise their employment. I have a file documenting each attempt that is currently known to me.
Why? Why does Mr. Tompa use such tactics? One reason may be true ignorance of the issues or a misunderstanding of them. He is, for example, angry about an article I recently published that critiques the "first found in" argument presented in the ACCG's test case. Mr. Tompa dismisses the article as "obscure" and suggests the article is somehow "hidden" because it is published in a peer-reviewed print journal. David Gill points out how ill-informed the statement is that the journal is obscure and that the article is somehow hidden (here and here). Rather than expecting him to find the article for himself, the lobbyist is upset that I have not shared the article with him, although I shared it with colleagues. I explained to Mr. Tompa that the article cannot be placed for free, public download on a third-party website at this time owing to copyright issues and that I will not send him nor the lobby's founder an offprint as they are neither colleague nor collegial. He persists nonetheless. And this is not the first time that the lobbyist has behaved this way (for a response on the first episode, see David Gill's post). It is particularly troubling that Mr. Tompa does not seem to understand, at least in what he writes, how publication and research works (or evidently how to access a prominent archaeological journal in a library) since he himself is a legal professional and purports to represent dealers and collectors who claim to be independent scholars, who would necessarily conduct library research and publish in peer-reviewed journals.
But if the lobbyist and the organizations he represents are not truly ignorant of the issues and are not ill-informed about the evidence that is out there, why might he liberally use the tactics summarized here? Readers of the lobbyist's blog might take Mr. Tompa at his word and not follow up on original sources or explore for themselves the validity of his statements and arguments. Perhaps this convinces his constituency of the good work he does for them and for the organizations he represents. Perhaps there are other reasons, one of which may be the awkwardness of engaging with real evidence to advance his position or to counter the evidence-based position of preservationists. Fortunately, policy makers and researchers use more than blogs and tend to check sources and look for evidence and substance.
Update 5/31/2015. Mr. Tompa has responded to this post via a comment on his own blog. Interestingly, he does not link to my post so that readers can easily find it for themselves. It is more or less what I expected: further demands that I answer questions to satisfy his innuendo of a hidden conspiracy. There is no acknowledgement of wrongdoing on his part, no apology, and no substantiation of his recent straw-man claim (an impossibility after all). Interestingly, he seems, however, to acknowledge the deployment of underhanded tactics on his part by implying that whatever he does, it's okay because I have already done what I accuse him of; that, quelle surprise, is not substantiated. Indeed, I do not recall fabricating statements and attributing them to him (the straw man), nor do I recall me or my colleagues implying he or his compatriots are fascists or Nazis (a form of personal attack commonly used in ACCG quarters), nor do I recall trying to undermine his employment (intimidation) as he and his ACCG-friends have. We are all very aware of how you operate, Mr. Tompa. It is truly a pity that organizations have spent good money to support such a despicable and painfully transparent modus operandi. At least its transparency and lack efficacy will only hinder the cause to protect the damaging status quo.
Personal Attacks. Personal attacks are often used as a substitute for engaging with the substance or accuracy of another party's comments. Users of personal attacks attempt to impugn another party's character, often with misleading or false commentary, so that they do not have to engage with and/or provide evidence to counter an argument or position. Peter Tompa has often used personal attacks as a tactic and frequently allows his compatriots to post personal attacks in the 'moderated' comments section of his blog. A recent example on Mr. Tompa's blog may be found here. He also is proud to count among his comrades the outspoken ACCG leadership; they have consistently made particularly repulsive attacks against organizations and individuals who advocate preservation, characterizing them as fascists, Nazis, or similar to terrorist organizations. A summary of some of these repugnant remarks is available in my 2012 article on the North American trade in ancient coins (pp. 100-104).
Dismissal/Denigration. A common component of personal attacks include the dismissal of one's credentials and/or the denigration of one's credentials by applying inaccurate labels. Academics who advocate preservation and sensitivity to looting issues are, therefore, often dismissed as "ivory tower" elitists. A recent example on Mr. Tompa's blog is found here (the post also contains a straw man). Like the personal attack, such dismissal evidently has as its aim to excuse not engaging with the evidence or argument of a different position (pointed out here). Mr. Tompa almost exclusively refers to preservationists like myself, David Gill, Paul Barford, Rick St. Hilaire, and others as "archaeobloggers," as if blogging is the only way our research and opinions are disseminated, and as if we do not have any other credentials and professions. Rick St. Hilaire is not even an archaeologist, but a lawyer and specialist in cultural properties! But Mr. Tompa does not like Rick St. Hilaire's insights and position on cultural property issues and so he gets called an "archaeoblogger," a label that the lobbyist and his friends use as a slur. In a recent post, Mr. Tompa has again referred to me as an "archaeoblogger and anti-trade advocate," in spite of the fact that I have rarely blogged for several years now. My occupation is that of tenure-track professor at a ranked research university. I teach and have authored numerous articles on ancient coins and coin iconography in addition to co-edited a book on coin iconography; a single-authored book will be in print by the end of the year. My research on the relationship between looting and coin trade in its current incarnation has also been published in several peer-reviewed outlets.
Deception. Deception is frequently another component of personal attacks or dismissal. After all, the ultimate effect or goal is to avoid formulating effective counter argumentation and presentation of fact-based evidence. For example, Mr. Tompa recently characterized me as an "anti-trade advocate." That is an incorrect characterization. Anyone may read for themselves what I have blogged in the past or what I have published. What I have consistently critiqued is the problematic relationship that the trade in its current incarnation has with looting and the illicit market in coins and antiquities. Mr. Tompa seeks to maintain a no-questions-asked status quo, evidently protecting business interests that wish to remain unconcerned when it comes to the sourcing of material! In fact, in my 2012 article, I suggest that a solution to obstruction posed by trade lobbying groups, which cater primarily to a dealer interest, is to circumnavigate them and engage directly with collectors (pp. 104-107). An "anti-trade advocate" would hardly suggest engagement with collectors. For an unvarnished riposte to the notion that preservationists are inherently "anti-trade," or as one unsightly comment on Mr. Tompa's blog that Mr. Tompa allowed (from a dealer known for hyperbole and personal attacks) suggests, "anti-science," see here.
The Straw Man. A common tactic is the straw man. By falsely attributing a statement or position to an individual and demolishing it, one does not engage with one's real position and makes the opposition appear foolish and absurd. In so doing, the user of a straw-man argument creates an imagined, inaccurate character. The straw man is a debate tactic often used in American political discourse. A popular example is Clint Eastwood's imaginary engagement with President Obama in an empty chair at the 2012 Republican National Convention, whereby he attributed positions to President that he does not hold and potential statements the President wold never make (some comments here and here).
In the comments section of one of his recent personal attacks against me, Mr. Tompa has claimed again that I have stated that Ptolemaic and early Roman period coins did not circulate out of Egypt (this all bears on the "first found in" argument that is part of the ACCG's test case). I posted a comment to that blog again asking him to substantiate the claim as I have never made it. Curiously, my comment was never posted. Maybe he never received it. Nonetheless, what I have said is that such coins tended to circulate primarily within Egypt as Egypt had a well-known closed currency system that promoted the retention of such coins. I have even published a Ptolemaic coin in the coin finds from Yotvata, Israel, although the site is very near the modern Egyptian border. So surely I would never state that no single Egyptian coin would never make it out of what is modern Egypt. Mr. Tompa's straw man claim is demonstrably false. It also curious that, in his own dealings with CPAC, he never acknowledged the well-known fact that Egypt had a closed currency system and that Ptolemaic and early Roman period Egyptian coins are primarily found in Egypt. Mr. Tompa attempts to distort my own position, which takes an honest account of the evidence, in order to distract from his own untenable position, which itself purposefully ignores decades of scholarship and common knowledge on coin circulation in Egypt.
Deflection/Innuendo. Sometimes one simply changes the subject or makes innuendo to distract from the question or issue at hand. So rather than presenting evidence to substantiate his straw-man claim that I apparently said Egyptian coins never traveled outside of Egypt, Mr. Tompa instead began making innuendos about "hidden" comments to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee. First of all, Mr. Tompa makes assumptions since he could not know if I submitted confidential comments to CPAC for any particular hearing or not. Secondly, the CPAC makes allowances for confidential comments to be submitted under certain circumstances where they could not be made publicly. If one submits confidential comments to CPAC, appropriately following the guidelines, the contents of those comments are no business of a trade lobbyist, especially one who chooses to engage in underhanded and slimy tactics. Finally, we see the purpose of deflection and innuendo: not only does he have me going on about a different subject now, attempting to distract me and his readers from his straw-man claim, he still has not substantiated his straw-man claim! He cannot, after all, substantiate a straw-man claim. By their very nature, straw-man claims are indefensible when you ask for substantiation and evidence.
Intimidation. Why does the lobbyist want access to comments that are potentially privileged or sensitive? No doubt he wants to spin and twist them on his blog, using the tactics above, in an attempt to intimidate into silence those with opinions different from his own. He has already criticized individuals with opinions different from his own for speaking at public hearings or submitting public comments to CPAC in the past. Mr. Tompa and his cohorts are well-known for using the tactics of intimidation. In the past they have communicated directly and secretly with colleagues of preservationists in attempt to impugn their reputations in the eyes of their colleagues and, worse, in an attempt to compromise their employment. I have a file documenting each attempt that is currently known to me.
Why? Why does Mr. Tompa use such tactics? One reason may be true ignorance of the issues or a misunderstanding of them. He is, for example, angry about an article I recently published that critiques the "first found in" argument presented in the ACCG's test case. Mr. Tompa dismisses the article as "obscure" and suggests the article is somehow "hidden" because it is published in a peer-reviewed print journal. David Gill points out how ill-informed the statement is that the journal is obscure and that the article is somehow hidden (here and here). Rather than expecting him to find the article for himself, the lobbyist is upset that I have not shared the article with him, although I shared it with colleagues. I explained to Mr. Tompa that the article cannot be placed for free, public download on a third-party website at this time owing to copyright issues and that I will not send him nor the lobby's founder an offprint as they are neither colleague nor collegial. He persists nonetheless. And this is not the first time that the lobbyist has behaved this way (for a response on the first episode, see David Gill's post). It is particularly troubling that Mr. Tompa does not seem to understand, at least in what he writes, how publication and research works (or evidently how to access a prominent archaeological journal in a library) since he himself is a legal professional and purports to represent dealers and collectors who claim to be independent scholars, who would necessarily conduct library research and publish in peer-reviewed journals.
But if the lobbyist and the organizations he represents are not truly ignorant of the issues and are not ill-informed about the evidence that is out there, why might he liberally use the tactics summarized here? Readers of the lobbyist's blog might take Mr. Tompa at his word and not follow up on original sources or explore for themselves the validity of his statements and arguments. Perhaps this convinces his constituency of the good work he does for them and for the organizations he represents. Perhaps there are other reasons, one of which may be the awkwardness of engaging with real evidence to advance his position or to counter the evidence-based position of preservationists. Fortunately, policy makers and researchers use more than blogs and tend to check sources and look for evidence and substance.
Update 5/31/2015. Mr. Tompa has responded to this post via a comment on his own blog. Interestingly, he does not link to my post so that readers can easily find it for themselves. It is more or less what I expected: further demands that I answer questions to satisfy his innuendo of a hidden conspiracy. There is no acknowledgement of wrongdoing on his part, no apology, and no substantiation of his recent straw-man claim (an impossibility after all). Interestingly, he seems, however, to acknowledge the deployment of underhanded tactics on his part by implying that whatever he does, it's okay because I have already done what I accuse him of; that, quelle surprise, is not substantiated. Indeed, I do not recall fabricating statements and attributing them to him (the straw man), nor do I recall me or my colleagues implying he or his compatriots are fascists or Nazis (a form of personal attack commonly used in ACCG quarters), nor do I recall trying to undermine his employment (intimidation) as he and his ACCG-friends have. We are all very aware of how you operate, Mr. Tompa. It is truly a pity that organizations have spent good money to support such a despicable and painfully transparent modus operandi. At least its transparency and lack efficacy will only hinder the cause to protect the damaging status quo.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Donate to the ANS Seminar Online
The ANS appeal to alumni for donations to the ANS summer seminar was the subject of the previous post. The ANS now has put a donations link on their seminar page that will make it easy to donate by credit/debit card and to earmark them automatically for the seminar.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Support Numismatics and the ANS Summer Seminar - An Appeal to ANS Seminar Alumni
The American Numismatic Society (ANS) annually hosts the Eric P. Newman Graduate Seminar in Numismatics. This year, the ANS hopes to admit nine or ten students, but the endowment has not been so productive in light of the current economic situation. The ANS is appealing to ANS seminar alumni for support:
I urge anyone who has benefited from the ANS Graduate Seminar to contribute to this most worthy cause. The contact persons for the seminar are the co-directors, Peter van Alfen (vanalfen@numismatics.org) and Rick Witschonke (rickwitschonke@yahoo.com).
The ANS has received an excellent crop of applications for the 2010 Seminar, including some outstanding Islamicists (which we encouraged this year). We will have Islamic numismatic scholars Stefan Heidemann, Jere Bachrach, and Michael Bates lecturing and advising the students, and Romanist Berhard Woytek of Vienna as our Visiting Scholar. It promises to be an outstanding Seminar, and we hope to admit nine or ten students, but due to our endowment performance we find we will only be able to underwrite four stipends ($4000 each). A number of the applicants have indicated that they are willing to attend even without financial support, but we would like to offer at least one additional stipend, and are therefore appealing to this group for assistance. If you can make even a small contribution to help underwrite a student it would be very much appreciated.
(via the Friends of Numismatics list)
I urge anyone who has benefited from the ANS Graduate Seminar to contribute to this most worthy cause. The contact persons for the seminar are the co-directors, Peter van Alfen (vanalfen@numismatics.org) and Rick Witschonke (rickwitschonke@yahoo.com).
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Week 9: "Picture Language on Roman Coins: Approaches and Interpretations"
This was our final meeting and the topic under consideration for our course on methods of interpreting and understanding Roman coin images was "The Importance of Archaeological Context: Nuances in the Semantic System and the Audiences for Coin Images" (handout Deutsch - English).
We began by discussing F. Koening's publication of the coin finds from the necropolis at Avenches and his observation that certain reverse types such as Salus, Felicitas, and Roma were preferred for deposition with the dead. This trend would seem to indicate that the viewers were making judgments about the coins most appropriate for deposition and thus responding to or thinking about certain images, something which was only recognized here via the context. One criticism of the study, however, is the relatively small sample size.
Next we discussed Fleur Kemmers' study of the coin finds from the legionary fortress at Nijmegen, which I have mentioned several times before here and elsewhere. Her detailed and comprehensive study of the finds there also indicated a remarkable concentration of militaristically-themed Flavian coins in contrast to neighboring civilian settlements and the finds from Rome. Her study also examined the logistics of coin supply to Nijmegen and it was demonstrated that these coin types were deliberately supplied to the legions stationed at Nijmegen. This realization provides a new perspective on the semantic system on Roman coinage and clearly shows that, at least at certain times and in certain instances, the Roman state directly targeted certain groups with coins based on specific reverse designs. Future studies of excavation coins may well benefit from attending to the distribution of reverse types as compared with other sites.
We moved on to Hekster's article about the targeting of audiences based on different denominations. This article was not "archaeological" per se, but did distinguish visual programs as they appeared on precious metal and bronze coins and certainly has implications for studies of "coins in context" that address iconography.
Finally, we briefly discussed the last four pages of my recent methodological article on Roman coin iconography that address recent insights into the study of Roman coin images provided by archaeological contexts and then lays out a series of methods and steps that could provide a more encompassing view of Roman coin images in future studies. Among other things, it is argued that using find corpora and inventories, we may better understand the semantic system on Roman coinage by studying the regional distribution of bronze coin types.
Researching and writing this article provided the inspiration for this course when Prof. von Kaenel asked me to instruct a course on the interpretation of Roman coin images.
We began by discussing F. Koening's publication of the coin finds from the necropolis at Avenches and his observation that certain reverse types such as Salus, Felicitas, and Roma were preferred for deposition with the dead. This trend would seem to indicate that the viewers were making judgments about the coins most appropriate for deposition and thus responding to or thinking about certain images, something which was only recognized here via the context. One criticism of the study, however, is the relatively small sample size.
Next we discussed Fleur Kemmers' study of the coin finds from the legionary fortress at Nijmegen, which I have mentioned several times before here and elsewhere. Her detailed and comprehensive study of the finds there also indicated a remarkable concentration of militaristically-themed Flavian coins in contrast to neighboring civilian settlements and the finds from Rome. Her study also examined the logistics of coin supply to Nijmegen and it was demonstrated that these coin types were deliberately supplied to the legions stationed at Nijmegen. This realization provides a new perspective on the semantic system on Roman coinage and clearly shows that, at least at certain times and in certain instances, the Roman state directly targeted certain groups with coins based on specific reverse designs. Future studies of excavation coins may well benefit from attending to the distribution of reverse types as compared with other sites.
We moved on to Hekster's article about the targeting of audiences based on different denominations. This article was not "archaeological" per se, but did distinguish visual programs as they appeared on precious metal and bronze coins and certainly has implications for studies of "coins in context" that address iconography.
Finally, we briefly discussed the last four pages of my recent methodological article on Roman coin iconography that address recent insights into the study of Roman coin images provided by archaeological contexts and then lays out a series of methods and steps that could provide a more encompassing view of Roman coin images in future studies. Among other things, it is argued that using find corpora and inventories, we may better understand the semantic system on Roman coinage by studying the regional distribution of bronze coin types.
Researching and writing this article provided the inspiration for this course when Prof. von Kaenel asked me to instruct a course on the interpretation of Roman coin images.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Week 8: "Picture Language on Roman Coins: Approaches and Interpretations"
A brief update.
In our eighth meeting we discussed "On the Semantic 'Value' of Coin Types: Statistical Evidence from Archaeological Sources" (handout Deutsch - English). We began by considering the methodology of Carlos Noreña's article in which he quantified the personification of imperial virtues from precious metal hoards and argued that certain ideas played a stronger role in the overall visual programs of different emperors.
There was some confusion about preparing discussion of Depeyrot's book and so I simply provided an overview of it; for our purposes it suffices to say here that it addresses the frequencies of certain types according to the Reka Devnia hoard.
In our wider discussion we looked at the benefits of using this methodology (esp. Noreña's) to understand the frequencies of particular reverse types as contrasted with die studies which are problematic for such things, as we discussed in Week 7. One of the problems with hoard evidence, however, is that most are predominantly precious metal hoards (at least the best recorded ones) and so bronze coins will be underrepresented, though such studies on the frequency of certain reverse types in various regions could be undertaken by examining the find corpora and inventories such as FMRD.
The final article we discussed was that by Kaczynski and Nüsse in the new book, Coins in Context I. Using a few case studies, this article probed the question of whether or not a personal "type selection" based on reverse type can be determined according to the third century coins found in sanctuaries. I will discuss this contribution in more detail when I get to it in my ongoing series of posts about the book's contents.
Next time will be our last meeting in which we will discuss the theme "The Importance of Archaeological Context: Nuances in the Semantic System and the Audiences for Coin Images" (handout Deutsch - English). This topic focuses on the insights that the archaeologically recovered coin finds give us into iconographic numismatic research, especially as regards the audience for coin images and individual responses to coin types. We will also end this meeting with a general discussion looking back at the numerous methods we discussed throughout the course.
In our eighth meeting we discussed "On the Semantic 'Value' of Coin Types: Statistical Evidence from Archaeological Sources" (handout Deutsch - English). We began by considering the methodology of Carlos Noreña's article in which he quantified the personification of imperial virtues from precious metal hoards and argued that certain ideas played a stronger role in the overall visual programs of different emperors.
There was some confusion about preparing discussion of Depeyrot's book and so I simply provided an overview of it; for our purposes it suffices to say here that it addresses the frequencies of certain types according to the Reka Devnia hoard.
In our wider discussion we looked at the benefits of using this methodology (esp. Noreña's) to understand the frequencies of particular reverse types as contrasted with die studies which are problematic for such things, as we discussed in Week 7. One of the problems with hoard evidence, however, is that most are predominantly precious metal hoards (at least the best recorded ones) and so bronze coins will be underrepresented, though such studies on the frequency of certain reverse types in various regions could be undertaken by examining the find corpora and inventories such as FMRD.
The final article we discussed was that by Kaczynski and Nüsse in the new book, Coins in Context I. Using a few case studies, this article probed the question of whether or not a personal "type selection" based on reverse type can be determined according to the third century coins found in sanctuaries. I will discuss this contribution in more detail when I get to it in my ongoing series of posts about the book's contents.
Next time will be our last meeting in which we will discuss the theme "The Importance of Archaeological Context: Nuances in the Semantic System and the Audiences for Coin Images" (handout Deutsch - English). This topic focuses on the insights that the archaeologically recovered coin finds give us into iconographic numismatic research, especially as regards the audience for coin images and individual responses to coin types. We will also end this meeting with a general discussion looking back at the numerous methods we discussed throughout the course.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Week 6 and Week 7: "Picture Language on Roman Coins: Approaches and Interpretations"
Unfortunately I must write this update quickly since I remain busy trying to organize an international move and also need complete some essential research in Frankfurt before returning to the U.S.
We had two meetings this week since last week's meeting was cancelled. Yesterday we discussed the topic for week 6 "The Art Historical Context: Defining Roman Art and Redefining the Role of Images on Roman Coins – The Concept of Bildsprache" (handout Deutsch - English). In previous weeks we discussed early- and mid-twentieth century understandings of coin images, strongly rooted in a text-based tradition, and then the critics of the way that numismatists had studied coin images up to that point; this sparked a methodological reevaluation in the discipline. In week 6 we turned to some contributions to the study of numismatic images by ancient art historians and discussed in some detail the current understanding of Roman art as a semantic system in which coinage plays an essential role. In particular we discussed the two articles by Hölscher and Zanker and the advantages/disadvantages of their approach which focused on symbolism, the ways that symbols were used in conjunction with one another, and the way that images in general evolved through time (sorry that I do not have time to go into detail).
Today we met to discuss week 7 "The Numismatic Context: Emissions, Die Studies, and Ascertaining the Frequency of Types" (handout Deutsch - English). Although questions such as emissions, die links, and frequency are technical questions, they can provide much insight into the understanding of Roman coin images. We began by discussing one of Ted Buttrey's articles on calculating ancient coin production and the inherent problems in doing so. Although it was not required reading, we talked about the wider discourse relevant to the academic exchanges between de Callatay and Buttrey. The question of differentiating the frequency of types in comparison to one another is useful to the study of ancient coin images since certain types were not as common as others and since, presumably, the more common types would have typically played a more significant role in a visual program. From there we moved on to consider two short historiographical articles, by H.-M. von Kaenel, regarding correspondence between Theodor Mommsen and Fredrich Imhoof-Blumer on Corpus Nummorum project. Theodor Mommsen, who in many ways began modernizing the study of ancient numismatics, argued that in corpora of different collections we need to recognize individual dies, not just individual types. We still have this problem today. Hundreds or thousands of coins of the same type are published in many different museum catalogues or disparate auction catalogues, but their dies are not differentiated. We have multiple examples of one type, but we can say little else. And so to say anything more meaningful, scholars must drudge through every possible publication in order to conduct a die study as they are not built into our corpora. As an example of using some numismatic methods in the interpretation of coin images, we then considered my 2006 article and die study of the Colosseum sestertii. The article begins with discussion of the "historical context" based on the textual sources and then moves onto a discussion of "numismatic context" where I associated other coin types produced by Titus with the dedication of the Colosseum and contextualized the Colosseum sestertii in the wider visual program of Titus' coinage. The die study showed that the surviving Colosseum sestertii were produced from five unique obverse dies (quite a low number for a sestertius). Based on the low number of dies and the context of the emissions, I postulated the coins were commemorative in nature and probably distributed in conjunction with the inaugural games in the Colosseum. The article includes a discussion of the nuanced imagery on the coins themselves.
Next week will discuss "On the Semantic 'Value' of Coin Types: Statistical Evidence from Archaeological Sources" (handout Deutsch - English). The week after that we will continue with "The Importance of Archaeological Evidence: Nuances in the Semantic System and the Intended Audiences of Coin Images" when we will discuss some recent revelations with regard to the study of coins from archaeological context that shed light on the supply of coins to certain populations with respect the images they bear.
Again, apologies for the compact nature of this update.
We had two meetings this week since last week's meeting was cancelled. Yesterday we discussed the topic for week 6 "The Art Historical Context: Defining Roman Art and Redefining the Role of Images on Roman Coins – The Concept of Bildsprache" (handout Deutsch - English). In previous weeks we discussed early- and mid-twentieth century understandings of coin images, strongly rooted in a text-based tradition, and then the critics of the way that numismatists had studied coin images up to that point; this sparked a methodological reevaluation in the discipline. In week 6 we turned to some contributions to the study of numismatic images by ancient art historians and discussed in some detail the current understanding of Roman art as a semantic system in which coinage plays an essential role. In particular we discussed the two articles by Hölscher and Zanker and the advantages/disadvantages of their approach which focused on symbolism, the ways that symbols were used in conjunction with one another, and the way that images in general evolved through time (sorry that I do not have time to go into detail).
Today we met to discuss week 7 "The Numismatic Context: Emissions, Die Studies, and Ascertaining the Frequency of Types" (handout Deutsch - English). Although questions such as emissions, die links, and frequency are technical questions, they can provide much insight into the understanding of Roman coin images. We began by discussing one of Ted Buttrey's articles on calculating ancient coin production and the inherent problems in doing so. Although it was not required reading, we talked about the wider discourse relevant to the academic exchanges between de Callatay and Buttrey. The question of differentiating the frequency of types in comparison to one another is useful to the study of ancient coin images since certain types were not as common as others and since, presumably, the more common types would have typically played a more significant role in a visual program. From there we moved on to consider two short historiographical articles, by H.-M. von Kaenel, regarding correspondence between Theodor Mommsen and Fredrich Imhoof-Blumer on Corpus Nummorum project. Theodor Mommsen, who in many ways began modernizing the study of ancient numismatics, argued that in corpora of different collections we need to recognize individual dies, not just individual types. We still have this problem today. Hundreds or thousands of coins of the same type are published in many different museum catalogues or disparate auction catalogues, but their dies are not differentiated. We have multiple examples of one type, but we can say little else. And so to say anything more meaningful, scholars must drudge through every possible publication in order to conduct a die study as they are not built into our corpora. As an example of using some numismatic methods in the interpretation of coin images, we then considered my 2006 article and die study of the Colosseum sestertii. The article begins with discussion of the "historical context" based on the textual sources and then moves onto a discussion of "numismatic context" where I associated other coin types produced by Titus with the dedication of the Colosseum and contextualized the Colosseum sestertii in the wider visual program of Titus' coinage. The die study showed that the surviving Colosseum sestertii were produced from five unique obverse dies (quite a low number for a sestertius). Based on the low number of dies and the context of the emissions, I postulated the coins were commemorative in nature and probably distributed in conjunction with the inaugural games in the Colosseum. The article includes a discussion of the nuanced imagery on the coins themselves.
Next week will discuss "On the Semantic 'Value' of Coin Types: Statistical Evidence from Archaeological Sources" (handout Deutsch - English). The week after that we will continue with "The Importance of Archaeological Evidence: Nuances in the Semantic System and the Intended Audiences of Coin Images" when we will discuss some recent revelations with regard to the study of coins from archaeological context that shed light on the supply of coins to certain populations with respect the images they bear.
Again, apologies for the compact nature of this update.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Week 6: "Picture Language on Roman Coins: Approaches and Interpretations" - Postponed
This is just a notice that due to more scheduling conflicts our meeting for week 6 on "art historical contexts" and contributions (handout Deutsch - English) to the study of Roman coin images has been postponed until next week.
Next week, we will have two meetings: one to discuss the topic for week 6 and the one to discuss week 7, in which we will consider "numismatic context" (handout Deutsch - English) in the study of Roman coin iconography.
Next week, we will have two meetings: one to discuss the topic for week 6 and the one to discuss week 7, in which we will consider "numismatic context" (handout Deutsch - English) in the study of Roman coin iconography.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Week 5: "Picture Language on Roman Coins - Approaches and Interpretations"
Another short update.
Today was our fifth meeting. In previous meetings we examined the historiographical development of the iconographic approach to Roman coins up to c. the mid-twentieth century and critiqued their interpretation as instruments of "propaganda." Today, we looked at A.H.M. Jones' influential and provocative essay "Numismatics and History" in which he argued that numismatic scholars should not investigate political questions via iconography, comparing them to postage stamps, something which few people would pay much attention to at the time they were produced (handout Deutsch - English). He also criticized the haphazard way coin images had been studied and interpreted as propaganda as creating fanciful histories. In Jones' view numismatics and history could be better served if scholars were to focus their energies on questions revolving around technical concerns, volumes of issues, intricacies of coin circulation and supply, law, chronology, and economy.
To his credit, Jones influenced many numismatic scholars who investigated the potential of these other areas and, in our discussion, we commented on the ways where numismatic science has matured (or has started to mature) in these other areas (e.g. the work of Kemmers on the logistics of Roman coin supply and circulation). Although we may disagree with Jones' negative assessment of the iconographic approach to coins, his critique also stimulated a methodological review in the discipline.
C.H.V. Sutherland is perhaps one of the best-known twentieth century Roman numismatists who regularly investigated political question via coin iconography. In 1959 he published a response to Jones' article and outlined the ways in which coin images can be soundly studied and pointed to numerous examples where attention to coin images enhances our understanding of Roman politics and the Roman world. The participant who was to report on Sutherland's two articles in the handout was preoccupied with an important report for another seminar and so we will discuss the two contributions from Sutherland in more detail in our meeting next week.
We then talked about Weigel's methodological essay from 1995. Weigel turns against Jones' criticism of the iconographic approach, much like Sutherland, but layed out a firmer methodology. His emphasis was on interpreting coin images from multiple perspectives and the necessity for both a critical and interdisciplinary approach to Roman coin images, whereby they are not studied in insolation of other comparative evidence.
In coming weeks we will look at the interdisciplinary nature of studying coin images by discussing the contributions art historical, numismatic, and archaeological contexts. Next time we will address the topic of "Art Historical Context: Defining Roman Art and Redefining the Role of Images on Roman Coins – The Concept of Bildsprache" (handout Deutsch - English).
Today was our fifth meeting. In previous meetings we examined the historiographical development of the iconographic approach to Roman coins up to c. the mid-twentieth century and critiqued their interpretation as instruments of "propaganda." Today, we looked at A.H.M. Jones' influential and provocative essay "Numismatics and History" in which he argued that numismatic scholars should not investigate political questions via iconography, comparing them to postage stamps, something which few people would pay much attention to at the time they were produced (handout Deutsch - English). He also criticized the haphazard way coin images had been studied and interpreted as propaganda as creating fanciful histories. In Jones' view numismatics and history could be better served if scholars were to focus their energies on questions revolving around technical concerns, volumes of issues, intricacies of coin circulation and supply, law, chronology, and economy.
To his credit, Jones influenced many numismatic scholars who investigated the potential of these other areas and, in our discussion, we commented on the ways where numismatic science has matured (or has started to mature) in these other areas (e.g. the work of Kemmers on the logistics of Roman coin supply and circulation). Although we may disagree with Jones' negative assessment of the iconographic approach to coins, his critique also stimulated a methodological review in the discipline.
C.H.V. Sutherland is perhaps one of the best-known twentieth century Roman numismatists who regularly investigated political question via coin iconography. In 1959 he published a response to Jones' article and outlined the ways in which coin images can be soundly studied and pointed to numerous examples where attention to coin images enhances our understanding of Roman politics and the Roman world. The participant who was to report on Sutherland's two articles in the handout was preoccupied with an important report for another seminar and so we will discuss the two contributions from Sutherland in more detail in our meeting next week.
We then talked about Weigel's methodological essay from 1995. Weigel turns against Jones' criticism of the iconographic approach, much like Sutherland, but layed out a firmer methodology. His emphasis was on interpreting coin images from multiple perspectives and the necessity for both a critical and interdisciplinary approach to Roman coin images, whereby they are not studied in insolation of other comparative evidence.
In coming weeks we will look at the interdisciplinary nature of studying coin images by discussing the contributions art historical, numismatic, and archaeological contexts. Next time we will address the topic of "Art Historical Context: Defining Roman Art and Redefining the Role of Images on Roman Coins – The Concept of Bildsprache" (handout Deutsch - English).
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Week 4: "Picture Language on Roman Coins: Aproaches and Interpretations"
I am in the midst of a load of work and so this will be a short post on this week's meeting.
We first began by discussing how the Lex Gabinia of 139 BC, which allowed for a secret ballot in elections, may have affected the character of Roman coinage from then onward (see links to handouts at the end of the previous post). While traditionally accepted as one of the prime causes for the change in the character of Republican coinage, we also discussed the article by Meadows and Williams which argues that general social and cultural trends were just as responsible. The authors argue that the period witnessed a growing culture of commemoration and monumentality which naturally affected the coinage.
We then discussed Alföldi's article which provided a general description and interpretation of coinage through the Republican period and examined them in terms of propaganda. We skipped over Toynbee's article and may address it in a future meeting.
We briefly discussed the section in Crawford's book about "Designs and Propaganda" which discusses textual cases where ancient coins are described and how they are used by ancient authors. There is also an interesting speculative discussion on what persona "chose" coin types. A good general reference. We then moved on to discussion of Shotter, who discussed the significance of coins in the study of Roman history and especially understanding coins in terms of ancient texts.
R. Wolters article was similar to Alföldi's as far as interpreting "propaganda" on coins, though his focused on the imperial period. Wolters, however, included more explicit methodology and critiqued the term "propaganda" and the role of Roman coin images.
Next time we will discuss reactions against the iconographic mode of inquiry and then some methodological reevaluations that followed (handout Deutsch - English). From there, in future meetings, we will discuss the potentials of approaching coin images from archaeological and art historical perspectives.
Apologies for the rushed post. Hopefully, I'll have more time to write about next week.
We first began by discussing how the Lex Gabinia of 139 BC, which allowed for a secret ballot in elections, may have affected the character of Roman coinage from then onward (see links to handouts at the end of the previous post). While traditionally accepted as one of the prime causes for the change in the character of Republican coinage, we also discussed the article by Meadows and Williams which argues that general social and cultural trends were just as responsible. The authors argue that the period witnessed a growing culture of commemoration and monumentality which naturally affected the coinage.
We then discussed Alföldi's article which provided a general description and interpretation of coinage through the Republican period and examined them in terms of propaganda. We skipped over Toynbee's article and may address it in a future meeting.
We briefly discussed the section in Crawford's book about "Designs and Propaganda" which discusses textual cases where ancient coins are described and how they are used by ancient authors. There is also an interesting speculative discussion on what persona "chose" coin types. A good general reference. We then moved on to discussion of Shotter, who discussed the significance of coins in the study of Roman history and especially understanding coins in terms of ancient texts.
R. Wolters article was similar to Alföldi's as far as interpreting "propaganda" on coins, though his focused on the imperial period. Wolters, however, included more explicit methodology and critiqued the term "propaganda" and the role of Roman coin images.
Next time we will discuss reactions against the iconographic mode of inquiry and then some methodological reevaluations that followed (handout Deutsch - English). From there, in future meetings, we will discuss the potentials of approaching coin images from archaeological and art historical perspectives.
Apologies for the rushed post. Hopefully, I'll have more time to write about next week.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Week 3: "Picture Language on Roman Coins: Approaches and Interpretations"
After a couple of scheduling conflicts and delays, we finally gathered last week to discuss our third theme, "Greek Art and the Nature of Images on Greek Coins," in the course (download handout, Deutsch - English).
We began by discussing some nineteenth century scholarship and the way that images on Greek coins were understood at the time. We read articles by both E. Curtius and T. Burgon (full citations in the handout) which argued that both the selection of Greek coin types and the invention of coins were governed by religion. We considered the factors that led such scholars to come to these conclusions and the flaws in such a regimented view on the motives of selection. Although the reading was not required, we also discussed the dismissal of these viewpoints by later nineteenth and early twentieth century scholars such as Head and MacDonald, who offered a slightly more complex accounting for the choice of Greek coin types. The citation to head in the handout can be said to summarize, in a very abbreviated fashion, the current understanding of Greek coin images.
The last part of the course was spent discussing sections from S. Ritter's Bildkontakte. Götter und Heroen in der Bildsprache griechischer Münzen des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Berlin, 2002). While following the modern understanding of ancient Greek coin images, as sketched out by Head, MacDonald, and others, Ritter discusses Greek coin images further in terms of Bildsprache (picture language). His themes examine the emergence and evolution of specific images through time and contextualizes them in terms of comparative representations in the coins of other Greek states. The subtleties of pictorial elements or style could play a significant role in the meaning of a Greek coin image and it is clear that states were expressing different and competing ideals in subtle ways via coin images (e.g. the section "Polarisierung: Die Athena-Bilder Athens und Korinths im 5. Jahrhundert").
This excursus into Greek numismatic images was limited to one meeting since studies of Roman coin images are more prolific and is the main subject of the course. I would also argue that, from a methodological perspective, there is more systematization (or at least developing methods) for the critical study of Roman coin images. In our next meeting, which must be postponed until next week, we will return to Roman coinage with the theme "Traditional Methods and the Historical Context: Roman Coin Images as 'Propaganda'" (download handout, Deutsch - English). We will read and discuss some essays by text-based historians that developed or perpetuated the understanding of Roman coin images as "propaganda," and term which is sometimes still used today in discussing Roman coin designs. We will discuss the problems of the label "propaganda" as applied to Roman art and coin designs and subsequent meetings will develop their understanding not as instruments of mass propaganda per se, but rather as part and parcel of a visually complex semantic system. Ultimately, we will address the interdisciplinary methodologies (i.e. historical, art historical, and archaeological) that provide the most potential for understanding the function, meaning, and reception of coin images in the Roman world.
We began by discussing some nineteenth century scholarship and the way that images on Greek coins were understood at the time. We read articles by both E. Curtius and T. Burgon (full citations in the handout) which argued that both the selection of Greek coin types and the invention of coins were governed by religion. We considered the factors that led such scholars to come to these conclusions and the flaws in such a regimented view on the motives of selection. Although the reading was not required, we also discussed the dismissal of these viewpoints by later nineteenth and early twentieth century scholars such as Head and MacDonald, who offered a slightly more complex accounting for the choice of Greek coin types. The citation to head in the handout can be said to summarize, in a very abbreviated fashion, the current understanding of Greek coin images.
The last part of the course was spent discussing sections from S. Ritter's Bildkontakte. Götter und Heroen in der Bildsprache griechischer Münzen des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Berlin, 2002). While following the modern understanding of ancient Greek coin images, as sketched out by Head, MacDonald, and others, Ritter discusses Greek coin images further in terms of Bildsprache (picture language). His themes examine the emergence and evolution of specific images through time and contextualizes them in terms of comparative representations in the coins of other Greek states. The subtleties of pictorial elements or style could play a significant role in the meaning of a Greek coin image and it is clear that states were expressing different and competing ideals in subtle ways via coin images (e.g. the section "Polarisierung: Die Athena-Bilder Athens und Korinths im 5. Jahrhundert").
This excursus into Greek numismatic images was limited to one meeting since studies of Roman coin images are more prolific and is the main subject of the course. I would also argue that, from a methodological perspective, there is more systematization (or at least developing methods) for the critical study of Roman coin images. In our next meeting, which must be postponed until next week, we will return to Roman coinage with the theme "Traditional Methods and the Historical Context: Roman Coin Images as 'Propaganda'" (download handout, Deutsch - English). We will read and discuss some essays by text-based historians that developed or perpetuated the understanding of Roman coin images as "propaganda," and term which is sometimes still used today in discussing Roman coin designs. We will discuss the problems of the label "propaganda" as applied to Roman art and coin designs and subsequent meetings will develop their understanding not as instruments of mass propaganda per se, but rather as part and parcel of a visually complex semantic system. Ultimately, we will address the interdisciplinary methodologies (i.e. historical, art historical, and archaeological) that provide the most potential for understanding the function, meaning, and reception of coin images in the Roman world.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Week 3 postponed: "Picture Language on Roman Coins: Approaches and Interpretations"
Last week was meant to be our third meeting for the course, but several people could not attend even with the schedule change. This week I have a previous engagement that necessitates I cancel today and so, for those readers who have been following along, you will find a short discussion about week 3 ("Greek Art and the Nature of Images on Greek Coins") here next week. The following week, I have another engagement abroad and so we will have another canceled session before going to "week 4." Since there was some extra time at the end of the course for "long reports," we still have adequate time to make it through all discussion topics before the end of the term in mid-July.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Week 2: "Picture Language on Roman Coins: Approaches and Interpretations"
Today was our second meeting for the course "Die Bildsprache auf römischen Münzen. Methoden und Deutungen." I mentioned earlier that one participant had enrolled as of last week, which had cast doubt on the future of the course, but another non-credit participant has signed up and it appears that two more students may begin attending as soon as we can arrange an alternative time slot (apparently Tuesday mornings are very popular for courses here in the Institute for Archaeological Sciences). This is good news and means that the course can carry on. I have decided, however, that the course blog will not be updated regularly since it will be easy enough to distribute course materials directly to such a small number of participants and we can easily discuss and review themes each week amongst ourselves.
For interested readers who wish to follow along, I will continue updating this blog weekly with reports on our activities and will upload English versions of our reading lists for each week. After our introductory discussion last week, we turned our attention today towards the theme of "The Relationship between Art and Coin Images" (download handout, Deutsch - English). Our first few meetings will be dealing with the historiography of the study of coin images and so I intentionally assigned some dated readings to give us a sense of 19th and early 20th century thoughts about the relationship between art and ancient coins and to provoke discussion.
We began by discussing Poole's article from 1869. Poole characterized Greek coins as important works of art in their own right, particularly related to relief sculpture, and argued that they represented local Greek styles. He further defined the stylistic characteristics of several different artistic "schools" in the Greek world, working in the antiquarian tradition of classifying and defining. By modern standards, the argumentation is weak on several points and the text contains several value judgments on artistic execution (common in literature of the period), but Poole's contribution lay in the recognition that Greek coins and other artistic media share common features. Although this may seem obvious to us today, before the mid 19th century, few critical studies sought to explore coin images in the same way that other artistic media was studied. Numismatic inquiry, as it sometimes is today, was often isolated from interdisciplinary studies. Poole, and other contemporaries, contributed to bridging that gap and placing coinage within the broader context of the study of ancient art.
We began by discussing Poole's article from 1869. Poole characterized Greek coins as important works of art in their own right, particularly related to relief sculpture, and argued that they represented local Greek styles. He further defined the stylistic characteristics of several different artistic "schools" in the Greek world, working in the antiquarian tradition of classifying and defining. By modern standards, the argumentation is weak on several points and the text contains several value judgments on artistic execution (common in literature of the period), but Poole's contribution lay in the recognition that Greek coins and other artistic media share common features. Although this may seem obvious to us today, before the mid 19th century, few critical studies sought to explore coin images in the same way that other artistic media was studied. Numismatic inquiry, as it sometimes is today, was often isolated from interdisciplinary studies. Poole, and other contemporaries, contributed to bridging that gap and placing coinage within the broader context of the study of ancient art.
Next we briefly discussed Bernard Ashmole's article from 1938. This rather short contribution examined "the community of style between coins and sculpture." Among other things, he discussed examples where coins might be used as stylistic indicators whereby we, in turn, could date sculptures.
The third article that we talked about, and in my view the most interesting, was Sutherland's "What is Meant by 'Style' in Coinage?" (1950). Here Sutherland was particularly concerned with highlighting the inventiveness and independence of the die-engraver and argued that periods do not have artistic styles, but rather that artistic styles come from artists. We had a long discussion over his arguments and these two points. Whether or not it was a conscious move, Sutherland's view that periods do not dictate styles somewhat contradicts the arguments put forth in Alois Riegl's Spätrömische Kunstindustrie (1901, reprinted and revised in 1927), in which it was argued that art of a given period will exhibit demonstrable features that reflect underlying cultural, social, and intellectual trends, which he termed Kunstwollen. Certainly, many readers will recognize that Alois Riegl is a very important art historian who influenced the whole of the discipline since this was essentially one of the first works where art was viewed as a tool for understanding the societies that created it, moving art history into the historical sciences and away from just aestheticism or connoisseurship. Back to Sutherland. His point that artists ultimately dictate a style was taken, but then we asked the question how far can we really say that die-cutter was a creative artisan. In this contribution, the fact that coins were utilitarian objects, mass produced for daily transactions, which necessitates that they be regular, consistent, and often relatively simplistic, remains far in the background. Certainly an average die-engraver could not be all that inventive in the style or choice of designs and must have been constrained by the rigid parameters of the medium (size of flan), tradition, and any stipulations set forth by the minting authority. Naturally, there may have been exceptions. The signed dekadrachms from Syracuse or Roman medallions represent instances where die-engravers might have enjoyed the freedom for more creativity and an ability to express "style" in different ways. We may also presume that a "master die-engraver" worked at mints and that other engraver's essentially copied his work, though the master engraver himself would have been subject to the same constraints listed above. Martin Beckmann presented a paper at the AIA meeting in 2008 in which he discussed Trajanic coin types that appear to have been produced early in a series by a "master engraver," which then served as prototypes for subsequent die-cutters. A similar phenomenon is observed by the identification of a master die-cutter dubbed the "Alphaeus Master" by C.T. Seltman ("Greek Sculpture and Some Festival Coins," Hesperia 17 (1948), 71-85. [JSTOR]). Sutherland discussed John Beazley and was undoubtedly influenced by his pioneering the use of Morellian analysis on Greek painted vases, but the ability to attribute dies to individual engravers is limited. Only in a few instances can we distinguish the work of different die-cutters, namely "master engravers."
We turned for a few moments to discuss Kurt Regling's Die antike Münze als Kunstwerk (1924), which is similar to Sutherland's contribution in several respects, such as addressing the inventiveness of engravers, though Regling often stuck to more specific examples such as Syracuse. A discussion followed on the hazards of narrowly viewing coins as artworks and, consequently, dangerously aggrandizing the creative role a die-engraver had. In all aspects of numismatic research, we must constantly remain cognizant of the multivalent roles that coins played in the ancient world. With a few exceptions, coins were mass produced currency and other functions would have been secondary.
Finally, we discussed Martin Price's article about paintings serving as prototypes for coin designs. While it is clear that sculpture and architecture influenced coin designs, far fewer paintings survive today and it is thus difficult to ascertain what coin depictions may have been based on famous paintings. He did offer us with some examples where it is probable that designs were based on painting and pointed to the conventions which allowed this to be realized, as in the labeling of figures. Much of the article was necessarily speculative, but provided much to consider. All the four readings for today showed how coin designs, and the die-engravers who produced them, could be dependent on wider artistic trends or specific prototypes and, at other times, more independent and creative. Although many of today's readings may not be so important in the modern discourse regarding images on coins, I think the first three articles provided a sense as to the state of these questions regarding art's relationship with coins in the 19th and early- to mid 20th centuries.
This course is devoted to images on Roman coins, but I thought it necessary to give participants a taste of the nature of images on Greek coins and the current understanding and analysis of Greek coin images in terms of Bildsprache. Therefore, for next week, we will be discussing "Greek Art and the Nature of Images on Greek Coins" (download handout, Deutsch - English). The first two articles are from the 19th century and are assigned to provide a glimpse into the conception of Greek coin images at this time. The final two assigned readings come from Stefan Ritter's Bildkontakte. Götter und Heroen in der Bildsprache griechischer Münzen des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (2002), which is one of the few extended studies which applies the concept of Bildsprache to Greek coin images in a consistent and critical fashion. By contrast, much more has traditionally been done in the study of images on Roman coins. I also provide a list of further readings to get anyone started who may wish to pursue questions relating to images on Greek coins. The section I list in Barclay Head's book contradicts the articles of Burgon and Curtius, which I assigned. In some respects, Head's short section summarizes, even if in a simplistic fashion, the way that images on Greek coins have traditionally been understood and approached by many modern scholars. After next week, we will stick strictly with Roman coins for the remainder of the course.
Bis nächstes Mal...
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Week 1: "Picture Language on Roman Coins: Approaches and Interpretations"
Yesterday we had our first meeting for the course "Die Bildsprache auf römischen Münzen. Methoden und Deutungen."
At present, only one participant has signed up for the course and so its future is uncertain. The University of Frankfurt has a very peculiar modulized system for its course requirements which can make the choice of courses inflexible for many students. I am also told that due to the scheduling of introductory departmental meetings for students in other departments, like Classical Archaeology, that other potential students may have been unable to attend the first meeting. Therefore, it is a possibility that more students may come to register next Tuesday. We will see. If no one else shows up, I will see if the one registered participant wishes to continue independently or if we should cancel altogether. Should we continue, the course will become a more informal discussion on the historiography of the study of Roman coin images and the potential of developing numismatic, art historical, and archaeological methodologies to the understanding of images on Roman coins. If there are very few participants, the course blog will probably be dropped since it will be easier to distribute course materials directly, though I will still post reports for those interested in the topic here.
In the meanwhile, I thought interested readers might like to see what we did during our introductory session. As presented in the handout for week 1 (Deutsch - English), I posed four discussion questions:
The first dealt with the question of why coin images are important. We discussed that Roman coin images have traditionally been viewed as instruments of "propaganda" or sometimes likened to "newspapers" that could convey important events taking place in the Roman Empire (these approaches and understandings will be critically examined later in the course). It was also remarked that in the absence of literary evidence, we might turn to coin images for some information as in the third century when our literary evidence is either lacking or unreliable.
The second question was "what can coin images tell us about the past," a question similar to the first but more pointed. We again turned to examples in the third century where one might look to them as historical sources in the absence of literary evidence, but also supposed that close attention to coin images might be able to inform us about how the Roman state conceived of itself and that the personal use or transformation of coin images (e.g. deliberate defacement of coin portraits or the selection of certain types to be buried with the dead) could tell us how individuals responded to or understood certain images.
The third question dealt with how we could correctly interpret Roman coin images and what prerequisites are necessary to understand coin images. Here we spoke about several contexts including the historical context in which an image was produced and the numismatic context (other coins struck at the same time). I also emphasized that we had to understand Roman visual culture in order to unpack the meaning of images. I showed a slide of several coins from different eras (ancient and modern) with eagles on the reverse. We could see that eagle conveyed different meanings in all instances. On the Ptolemaic coin it was an attribute of Zeus and on the coin of the deified Marcus Aurelius it signified his consecratio as eagles are commonly shown in imperial art as bearing the souls of the divi to the heavens. On the American half dollar, the eagle (part of the Seal of the President of the United States) conveys freedom and independence. As an American more familiar with our visual culture, I easily understood more subtle aspects of the design such as the olive branch in the right claw and the arrows in the left, which conveyed the ideal that peace and diplomacy ought to be sought before war. The final two coins showed were German: one from the World War II era and a modern euro coin. When I asked what the eagle symbolized to Germans, it was clear and expected that the German student had a greater understanding of the eagle as a German symbol than I did. He better understands German visual culture. The eagle on the WWII era piece was depicted aggressively and clutches a swastika in a laurel wreath in its talons. We discussed the aggressive depiction of the eagle in the context of the ideology of National Socialism and discussed how other representations of eagles from this time period in both Italy and Germany were modeled on Roman representations as the fascist movements in these two countries were conciously presented as rebirths or incarnations of the Roman Empire. Eagles with spread wings clutching laurel wreaths are very common in Roman art and often resembled the eagles that were carried as standards in German military parades during WWII or that adorned government buildings at the time. By contrast, the eagle on the modern euro coin is executed in a contemporary artistic style and symbolizes the modern German state, but with a meaning and intent is very different from that produced over a half century ago.
The final question was "what does Bildsprache mean." We discussed how it implies that images on Roman coins had a communicative property. We also discussed that just as several characters make up a word or just as several words make up a sentence, so too could several independent or co-dependent symbols in a coin design formulate a particular message. I also introduced the concept of "connotative" or "denotative" types. The former tends to rely the most on abbreviated symbols or personifications which could communicate broad ideals or concepts, but which may require more thought or reflection to unpack the meaning. Denotative types are "more to the point" and may convey a meaning with straightforward representations, often accompanied by descriptive legends. I then showed several slides of Roman coins and we discussed the various symbols used on their reverses in the context of Roman visual culture and whether or not we might consider them to "connote" or "denote" a message.
I have put the Power Point slides for our first meeting online.
At present, only one participant has signed up for the course and so its future is uncertain. The University of Frankfurt has a very peculiar modulized system for its course requirements which can make the choice of courses inflexible for many students. I am also told that due to the scheduling of introductory departmental meetings for students in other departments, like Classical Archaeology, that other potential students may have been unable to attend the first meeting. Therefore, it is a possibility that more students may come to register next Tuesday. We will see. If no one else shows up, I will see if the one registered participant wishes to continue independently or if we should cancel altogether. Should we continue, the course will become a more informal discussion on the historiography of the study of Roman coin images and the potential of developing numismatic, art historical, and archaeological methodologies to the understanding of images on Roman coins. If there are very few participants, the course blog will probably be dropped since it will be easier to distribute course materials directly, though I will still post reports for those interested in the topic here.
In the meanwhile, I thought interested readers might like to see what we did during our introductory session. As presented in the handout for week 1 (Deutsch - English), I posed four discussion questions:
The first dealt with the question of why coin images are important. We discussed that Roman coin images have traditionally been viewed as instruments of "propaganda" or sometimes likened to "newspapers" that could convey important events taking place in the Roman Empire (these approaches and understandings will be critically examined later in the course). It was also remarked that in the absence of literary evidence, we might turn to coin images for some information as in the third century when our literary evidence is either lacking or unreliable.
The second question was "what can coin images tell us about the past," a question similar to the first but more pointed. We again turned to examples in the third century where one might look to them as historical sources in the absence of literary evidence, but also supposed that close attention to coin images might be able to inform us about how the Roman state conceived of itself and that the personal use or transformation of coin images (e.g. deliberate defacement of coin portraits or the selection of certain types to be buried with the dead) could tell us how individuals responded to or understood certain images.
The third question dealt with how we could correctly interpret Roman coin images and what prerequisites are necessary to understand coin images. Here we spoke about several contexts including the historical context in which an image was produced and the numismatic context (other coins struck at the same time). I also emphasized that we had to understand Roman visual culture in order to unpack the meaning of images. I showed a slide of several coins from different eras (ancient and modern) with eagles on the reverse. We could see that eagle conveyed different meanings in all instances. On the Ptolemaic coin it was an attribute of Zeus and on the coin of the deified Marcus Aurelius it signified his consecratio as eagles are commonly shown in imperial art as bearing the souls of the divi to the heavens. On the American half dollar, the eagle (part of the Seal of the President of the United States) conveys freedom and independence. As an American more familiar with our visual culture, I easily understood more subtle aspects of the design such as the olive branch in the right claw and the arrows in the left, which conveyed the ideal that peace and diplomacy ought to be sought before war. The final two coins showed were German: one from the World War II era and a modern euro coin. When I asked what the eagle symbolized to Germans, it was clear and expected that the German student had a greater understanding of the eagle as a German symbol than I did. He better understands German visual culture. The eagle on the WWII era piece was depicted aggressively and clutches a swastika in a laurel wreath in its talons. We discussed the aggressive depiction of the eagle in the context of the ideology of National Socialism and discussed how other representations of eagles from this time period in both Italy and Germany were modeled on Roman representations as the fascist movements in these two countries were conciously presented as rebirths or incarnations of the Roman Empire. Eagles with spread wings clutching laurel wreaths are very common in Roman art and often resembled the eagles that were carried as standards in German military parades during WWII or that adorned government buildings at the time. By contrast, the eagle on the modern euro coin is executed in a contemporary artistic style and symbolizes the modern German state, but with a meaning and intent is very different from that produced over a half century ago.
The final question was "what does Bildsprache mean." We discussed how it implies that images on Roman coins had a communicative property. We also discussed that just as several characters make up a word or just as several words make up a sentence, so too could several independent or co-dependent symbols in a coin design formulate a particular message. I also introduced the concept of "connotative" or "denotative" types. The former tends to rely the most on abbreviated symbols or personifications which could communicate broad ideals or concepts, but which may require more thought or reflection to unpack the meaning. Denotative types are "more to the point" and may convey a meaning with straightforward representations, often accompanied by descriptive legends. I then showed several slides of Roman coins and we discussed the various symbols used on their reverses in the context of Roman visual culture and whether or not we might consider them to "connote" or "denote" a message.
I have put the Power Point slides for our first meeting online.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Course: "Picture Language on Roman Coins: Approaches and Interpretations"
Next month I will begin leading an upper-level course entitled "Die Bildsprache auf römischen Münzen. Methoden und Deutungen" (Picture Language on Roman Coins: Approaches and Interpretations) at the Goethe Universität Frankfurt.This course grows out of my own research where I have been developing methodologies for understanding Roman coin images, but the course is designed to give a broad overview of the historiography of the study of coin reverses in addition to introducing students to the potential of developing methodologies in numismatics, Roman art historical theory, and archaeology.
I understand I am fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct a course on a specialized topic relating to coins since it is rare for even general numismatic courses to be offered at North American universities. Naturally, I realize there may be a broader interest in this subject and, taking advantage of the Internet Age, I invite any interested readers to follow along as we progress.
I have started a blog for the course: "Die Bildsprache auf römischen Münzen." When the course begins on April 14, I will begin updating the blog weekly with new themes and readings for each meeting. All of the downloadable course materials on the blog will be in German. However, I understand that some interested parties may not read German and so I will try to post handouts in English here, on this website, as we go through the course.
Although this course is upper-level and thus I would normally plan a more intensive list of readings for a seminar-style course such at this, I have consciously scaled back. I am told by my colleagues it will be of a more "elective" nature, according to the course requirements and system here, and so too many readings would scare off otherwise interested students. Therefore, for certain themes I will also be listing "further readings" for those who wish to be more thorough.
The documents I have posted on the course blog so far, which I provide in English here, are:
-Syllabus with course overiew (pdf)
-Tentative course schedule (pdf)
-Week 1 (pdf)
-Week 2 (pdf)
(Foto: Sesterz von Vespasian, 71 n. Chr. Münzkabinett der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Objektnummer 18200606.)
Monday, October 27, 2008
Context Matters: AIA Classroom Excavations Video and Resources for Primary and Secondary Educators
One of the great things about being an archaeologist is sharing your passion with others. There are a multitude of ethical and creative ways to expose primary and secondary education students to archaeology. Archaeological professional organizations have made educational resource available to school teachers and had various cooperative partnerships with them for a very long time.
For some educational resources, see:
AIA Education and Outreach
ASOR Outreach Education
SAA's Education Page
SAA's Archaeology for the Public
The AIA has just released a video on its website detailing an exciting and creative excavation simulation for students. The video is shown below. Visit the pertinent page on the AIA website for more educational videos, links, and discussion.
For some educational resources, see:
AIA Education and Outreach
ASOR Outreach Education
SAA's Education Page
SAA's Archaeology for the Public
The AIA has just released a video on its website detailing an exciting and creative excavation simulation for students. The video is shown below. Visit the pertinent page on the AIA website for more educational videos, links, and discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)