post from Yahoo group Numism-L

[chrisfuccione]

 

 

 

 

 

Message: 1

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:17:28 -0400

From: "Michael E. Marotta"

Subject: Numismatics and Philosophy

 

Empirical truths are logically consistent and rational truths can be

demonstrated with facts. Reality is unified and complete. Our

perception of it is correct. The problem of error is interesting but does not

invalidate the senses. (There is no such thing as an

analytic-synthetic dichotomy.)

In numismatics, I see a lot of "logical positivism" or perhaps "Hume

empiricism" in which scholars get so focussed on the coins that they err

when trying to explain them. Numismatists can match dies but they

cannot "put" themselves in the time and place they come from.

Case in point: The origins of coinage. Seltman said that merchants

invented coins. He wrote the Britannica article. As a Hellenist he

thought that only a Greek could have been clever enough to think of this.

But Seltman was not himself a merchant. Like many academics, he knew

little about trade and commerce. He claimed that money was scarce and

likely to come back to the merchant who stamped a lump of electrum to

avoid reweighing it. This is logically inconsistent. The purpose of trade

is exchange and rare items do not come back. Seltman's experience was

with the "bad penny" the coins in the neighborhood that never left a

locale but returned to the taverns and other merchants in a small circuit.

Such coins were not rare. They could not be traded away. On the other

hand, if such coins did in fact leave the neighborhood, they could

travel far to where coins were wanted -- in colonies in America the Indies

or Africa or Asia -- and then they never returned to the neighb!

orhood. Seltman's Merchant Theory was illogical -- and it was

contradicted by the facts.

Numismatists refuse to recognize Alexander as Herakles, claiming that

there was no tradition of royal portraiture before Alexander. This is

empirically false: we have the Carian satrap portaits. It is also

illogical because we have a development of self-aggrandizement on coins that

started with people like Walwes and Phanes and continued through to the

Alexander and Perdikkas forefathers of Perdikkas and Alexander.

Jenkins claimed that there was a taboo about using metal to advertise

the glory of the king because metal was the proper province of the gods.

However, he never cited any philosopher or poet to support that claim.

His claim was unempirical and illogical.

The claim that you can learn about fakes by studying them is the

numismatic equivalent of devil worship. You do not avoid evil by immersing

yourself in it. All of the arguments of the pseudologists are

internally inconsistent.

They also fail on empirical grounds. If studying fakes does anything

to limit their creation and distribution, they would have ceased

generations ago. In fact, buying fakes only encourages their manufacture.

Studying them and publishing the studies --- with some exception,

perhaps: the countefeit bulletin that exposes them --- only attempts a false

validation of fakery and faking as proper subsets of numismatics.

In these and every other case, the truth is empirically verifiable AND

logically consistent. In order to _BE_ factual, a claim _MUST_ be

rational. Synthetic truths must be analytically true. Conversely, when

something is wrong, it collapses from internal error and it cannot

withstand external assault. A false claim is not just false in its claim but

fails to lead to new truths and fails to be derivable from known other

facts.

In numismatics, we too often study die varieties without setting the

coin itself in its proper historical context. We also make sweeping

statements about history that the coins contradict. As scholars, we tend

to accept this without question. At least, I have never seen it

questioned. Perhaps the lack of empirical knowledge about this is mine alone

and I am being illogical to raise the issue -)

Michael-------------------------"The mountains look on Marathon and

Marathon looks on the sea; and musing there an hour alone, I dreamed that

Greece might still be free." -- Byron.

 

[chrisfuccione]

I found that great post on the Yahoo group Numism-L. He has a lot of intresting views.

 

That a lot of collectors know alot about coins but they do not know how the coins were part of society at the time or were part of history. A great example is the Morgan Dollar. How many people are collecting them compared to how many people who know the history of Bland-Allison act and how there was a very big debut between the partys that wanted gold to be the standard and those who wanted silver to be the standard. It was so bad it decided the outcome of a few Presidental elections.( If you want a book on this I highly recomend CRIME OF 1873 THE COMSTOCK CONNECTION by Robert R. Van Ryzin).

 

Here is link to that club.

 

Numism-L

 

 

CHRIS

 

 

 

 

 

[jtryka]

What a great post! I can't help but admit that I sometimes get wrapped up in the coins themselves to the detriment of historical context, though often the history is the first thing I consider. The historical aspects of numismatics is probable the single biggest factor in my pursuit of the hobby, so it's much easier for me to get wrapped up in the historical context than die states and various marriages (though I am sure EVP would love for that to change regarding my bust half efforts! ). Just some minor examples, take the seated coins with arrows or without. Well, most collectors just look at it as a type coin, an interesting design change. But in reality it was due to a change in the coin's silver content as a result of a devaluation or revaluation of the dollar. In 1853, the weight of the half dollar was changed to 192 gains from 206 grains, a devaluation. In 1873 again as a result of Bland-Allison, it was increased to 193 grains! It was even more pronounced on gold, where the half eagle changed from 135 grains of 22 carat gold (.917 fine) to 129 grains only .899 fine in 1834, with another change in fineness to .900 in 1839 (things were pretty stable after that).

 

Think of the impact on commerce, as the value of the dollar changed. Inflation and deflation today are largely theoretical concepts given our fiat currency system. If you get a dollar bill, whether it's a seried 2001, or series 1977, it's just a dollar. Now imagine that there was a difference, and a 1977 dollar was worth say, 2.03 2001 dollars (assuming 3% inflation over 24 years), how would that affect commerce? That's what people dealt with in various periods of the 19th century. The value of the currency depended on the content of the metal involved, it wasn't just a "unit of exchange" as the economists like to think about it. I think with today's paper system, a lot of the realities of economics become less meaningful. Like the trade deficit. Today it's just a number on a news release from a government beaurocrat. 100 years ago, it meant loading up a ship with gold and sending it across the ocean! The same thing is true of exchange rates. They used to be fixed, why? Not because we thought it was convenient, but because all currencies were tied to gold. A British pound used to be worth about $5 because a sovereign used to have about as much gold as a US $5 gold piece!

 

Sorry to ramble on about economics, as I know it must be a wonderful topic of dinner conversation for everyone . The other interesting thing he said was about the study of counterfeits. While I have no strong opinion about people who collect them, I think it's essential to point out that the most effective way to learn counterfeit detection is to become very intimately familiar with the genuine article! That's how banks teach tellers to spot counterfeits, and it's just as effective with coins. I have been able to spot several counterfeit eagles and double eagles, not because I study fakes, but because I study the genuine article! The logic is simple really, despite some esoteric differences, government issued genuine coins are remarkably consistent, while fakes are just as remarkably inconsistent. I have seen very good fakes, and then I've seen 1919 Saints (none were minted with dates of 1917, 1918 and 1919). Studying something that is always shifting accomplishes little, and really doesn't help in identification of the inconsistent thing. Studing that which is consistent (genuine coins) makes that which is inconsistent (counterfeits) obvious.

 

Sorry to ramble on so much, but this was a very good post!

[cladking]

What makes history so complex is that there was so very much of it. Even recent history like WWII is a good example; it must be understood in it's entirety to at least a small degree in order to be understood at all. Knowing the details of the battle of Midway means nothing out of context. How did the seige of Stalingrad affect the oil supplies in Eastern Germany? How would D-day have been affected had Stalingrad fallen?

 

It is the human condition and the way of nature itself to make nothing simple. Or simply. This applies equally to coins. It is possible that it was the tokens exchanged by early farmers which led to the written word and the ascent of man to the position he's in today. Few things are ever really understood and when they are they are still no more than a theory, or a compilation of facts and logic used to explain the impossibly complex. It is a house of cards which can always come tumbling down with the addition of another fact. Fortunately there are those who will pick up the pieces and assemble a new structure which will support even more facts and logic.

 

All coins are affected by these same considerations. The coins in circulation at ANY given time in ANY given place say huge amounts about everything. No one has ever really understood all that they mean or how they move and likely this won't really change. But it's a blast to try!

[EVillageProwler]

The historical aspects of numismatics is probable the single biggest factor in my pursuit of the hobby, so it's much easier for me to get wrapped up in the historical context than die states and various marriages (though I am sure EVP would love for that to change regarding my bust half efforts! ).

 

Jeff,

 

You'd be surprised what motivates me. Like you, I have a love of history. This love extends to all aspects of history. Your econ example doesn't bore me at all; I've been interested in obscure matters like climactic changes and how they influence the course of history. Usually, it is wars that bring about (or, accelerate) desertification -- like in Afghanistan when the Mongols swept through. But, what caused the one of the cradles of civilization -- the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers region -- to be surrounded by so much desert nowadays? What caused the decline of the Babylonians and the City of Ur? For all you students of Western Civ, there were two catastrophic diasporas of your ancient world: Ur (Babylonians) and the sudden sinking of the Black Sea coastal regions (Noah's great flood).

 

The reasons for the arrows on the Seated coinage are clear to me. Their historical context is also known to me. But, in general, American history is much less exciting to me. It's too short, too modern, and too obvious. It's like collecting Morgan dollars instead of territorial gold.

 

Why do I love to study dies? Because I am also an engineer at heart. Why do I encourage you to study dies as well? Because it's a niche arena for those with a regimented mind, and because for most series it's uncharted territory.

 

EVP

 

PS Who can tell me about the pre-Columbian History of the Americas? Who here has any iota of idea of the vast history of the land from whom (yes, whom, not which, because the land is alive and we should show it respect) you obtain your weal? You may start from as far back as when the ancient Arctic forest spanned the circle unbroken! Tell me about the time when the bison roamed freely between North America and Northern Europe (did you know that scientists found an Am. bison cousin in a forest in Poland recently?).

 

[jtryka]

Well EVP, I am not as interested in climatic changes, though it is a factor in human development to be certain.

 

The reasons for the arrows on the Seated coinage are clear to me. Their historical context is also known to me. But, in general, American history is much less exciting to me. It's too short, too modern, and too obvious. It's like collecting Morgan dollars instead of territorial gold.

 

Ok, now you're talking crazy talk! Just kidding! My attraction to US History has much to do with the fact that my family has been here for 3/4s of our history as an independent nation. So the 19th century is particularly interesting, as my great great grandfather came to this country in the 1850s. Just thinking of what he was dealing with as a cooper during the civil war, how he dealt with the aftermath of the great chicago fire (he was a volunteer fireman). All of these things spark my interest as I have a personal connection.

[cladking]

!

 

PS Who can tell me about the pre-Columbian History of the Americas? Who here has any iota of idea of the vast history of the land from whom (yes, whom, not which, because the land is alive and we should show it respect) you obtain your weal? You may start from as far back as when the ancient Arctic forest spanned the circle unbroken! Tell me about the time when the bison roamed freely between North America and Northern Europe (did you know that scientists found an Am. bison cousin in a forest in Poland recently?).

 

Another very complicated subject. There was a skeleton of a Caucasoid found in the American west a few years back. The skeleton dates to 13,000 years ago.

[EVillageProwler]

Another very complicated subject. There was a skeleton of a Caucasoid found in the American west a few years back. The skeleton dates to 13,000 years ago.

 

Caucasoid? 13,000 years ago, I think only Mongoloids were here. Or, maybe that was your point...

 

EVP

 

[cladking]

There is a great deal of overlap in physiology from one race to another, and there are a more limited number of factors to compare when there is no more than a skeleton. But a skeleton was found in a cave in New Mexico? with all features which lie near mid range for Caucasions and well outside normal parameters for Mongoloids. It was found in the company of several other skeletons which had also been "buried". These skeletons appeared to be Indian and there was nothing else unusual.

 

There were Roman coins found in Kentucky. All evidence pointed to their having been in that location for hundreds of years when they were found back in the 20's. If memory serves National Geographic ran an article on these in the mid-20's and the coins weren't recognized for some time because the pictures had been printed upside down.

[EVillageProwler]

The Norse were well regarded as seafarers; they were known to have sailed up and down the river lanes of the Russian hinterland, connecting the Baltic (St. Pete) and the Black (via the Volga) Seas.

 

In many ways, it is more difficult for them to get to the Black Sea than to get to North America by way of an island-hopping campaign (ok, after Iceland, not too many islands!). But, surely they did make it across. We even commemorated the event with a coin and a stamp!

 

Once reaching North America and the Great Lakes, is it hard to reach New Mexico? Dunno. The Colorado River was far bigger then.

 

The Norse surely could have reached Kentucky, and could have had Roman coins too. (See, we are talking about coins!)

 

EVP

 

[BankNote1]

??

[Count_Erfit]

Early hominids were content in their ignorance to like regular bones.

 

Then some southern California hominids discovered the La Brea tar pits and began covering bones with tar and certifying that the things in the black goop were real good bones.

 

Thereafter, hominids began to reject bones that had not been tarred.

 

And "progress" was born.

[MikeKing]

Great post!

[clw54]

I have no idea what that guy is talking about.

[msmhappy]

ok! its a good post!!

 

and for those of you talking history, to me, "The bad part about history is that its written by people who werent even there!"

 

mike

 

dont forget! collect proof sets!! they were made to collect!!!