PING: Some thoughts for Economist Olson [long]

oly wrote:
On Feb 18, 9:17 pm, oly wrote:
On Feb 18, 4:03 pm, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com
wrote:


Numismatics remains an important science today, but probably not
quite as important as it was to scholars from the Renaissance to the
First World War.

This situation in Numismatics reminds me of how the study of Latin
used to be one of the primary expected requirements of any educated
person (for more than five hundred years), but it fell out of the
common curriculum of American schools between 1950 and 1980.

Vale Magister!

oly

P.S. I am thinking about the reply to the OP. Last weekend was a
five day weekend with much time to read and goof off. Now I am busy
and exhausted.

On attend.

Prof

oly wrote:
On Feb 18, 4:03 pm, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:


I had many rather heated discussions with an erstwhile colleague in
the social studies (yes, that's what I insisted it be called, much
to the consternation of my interlocutor) department where I taught.
That doesn't mean that effort should not be made in the direction of
understanding, classifying, and documenting the issues in those
disciplines, but rather we should realize, as you correctly counsel,
that there is a lot of room for their theories to slosh around.
Let's see now, where exactly does numismatics fit in to this
dichotomy?

James- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

IMHO, Numismatics is both a combination of social studies and certain
hard physical sciences. Frankly, the present day importance of
numismatics to scholars depends on the exact human societies that one
wishes to study.

I borrow from a very good book:

"[From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment], ancient, primarily
Roman, coins were collected for two reasons: as moral exemplars and
as sources of information about the classical past. Both aspects can
be illustrated by the Italian poet Petrarch, who presented coins with
the portraits of the Roman emperors to the emperor Charles IV and
encouraged him to gaze upon and study the features of those whom he
had suceeded and wished to emulate. Petrarch and other scholars used
coins to help their understanding of classical texts and their
reconstruction of the classical world." - written by Andrew Burnett,
Chapter 11 ("the King Loves Medals"), from "Enlightenment, Discovering
the World in the 18th Century" The British Museum (dated 2003),
edited by Kim Sloan.

Oly personally expounds (badly):

But, as western man has uncovered the many formerly lost texts and
inscriptions of various societies, numismatics often becomes an
auxiliary aide to historical understanding of the traditional western
world. Today, coins still provide a primary source for societies like
Celtic, pre-Roman Britain. Such a society has left only a small
amounts of textual material, while the meaning of archaeological
materials is often doubtful; and this uncertainty enhances the
educational value of the coins. But coins are secondary sources
(largely supporting and confirming) for a society like ancient Rome or
a more recent society like France under the Bourbon Restoration, where
texts, inscriptions, letters, etc. can tell us far more than the coins
(and medals) alone can tell.

Numismatics remains an important science today, but probably not quite
as important as it was to scholars from the Renaissance to the First
World War.

This situation in Numismatics reminds me of how the study of Latin
used to be one of the primary expected requirements of any educated
person (for more than five hundred years), but it fell out of the
common curriculum of American schools between 1950 and 1980.

Vale Magister!

Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae...

Iacobus

On Feb 18, 9:31*pm, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
oly wrote:
On Feb 18, 4:03 pm, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:

I had many rather heated discussions with an erstwhile colleague in
the social studies (yes, that's what I insisted it be called, much
to the consternation of my interlocutor) department where I taught.
That doesn't mean that effort should not be made in the direction of
understanding, classifying, and documenting the issues in those
disciplines, but rather we should realize, as you correctly counsel,
that there is a lot of room for their theories to slosh around.
Let's see now, where exactly does numismatics fit in to this
dichotomy?

James- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

IMHO, Numismatics is both a combination of social studies and certain
hard physical sciences. *Frankly, the present day importance of
numismatics to scholars depends on the exact human societies that one
wishes to study.

I borrow from a very good book:

"[From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment], ancient, primarily
Roman, coins were collected for two reasons: *as moral exemplars and
as sources of information about the classical past. *Both aspects can
be illustrated by the Italian poet Petrarch, who presented coins with
the portraits of the Roman emperors to the emperor Charles IV and
encouraged him to gaze upon and study the features of those whom he
had suceeded and wished to emulate. *Petrarch and other scholars used
coins to help their understanding of classical texts and their
reconstruction of the classical world." - written by Andrew Burnett,
Chapter 11 ("the King Loves Medals"), from "Enlightenment, Discovering
the World in the 18th Century" *The British Museum (dated 2003),
edited by Kim Sloan.

Oly personally expounds (badly):

But, as western man has uncovered the many formerly lost texts and
inscriptions of various societies, numismatics often becomes an
auxiliary aide to historical understanding of the traditional western
world. *Today, coins still provide a primary source for societies like
Celtic, pre-Roman Britain. *Such a society has left only a small
amounts of textual material, while the meaning of archaeological
materials is often doubtful; and this uncertainty enhances the
educational value of the coins. *But coins are secondary sources
(largely supporting and confirming) for a society like ancient Rome or
a more recent society like France under the Bourbon Restoration, where
texts, inscriptions, letters, etc. can tell us far more than the coins
(and medals) alone can tell.

Numismatics remains an important science today, but probably not quite
as important as it was to scholars from the Renaissance to the First
World War.

This situation in Numismatics reminds me of how the study of Latin
used to be one of the primary expected requirements of any educated
person (for more than five hundred years), but it fell out of the
common curriculum of American schools between 1950 and 1980.

Vale Magister!

Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae...

Iacobus- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Illinois est omnis divisia in partes tres, and that's even if you push
Chicago into the lake...

Olav

oly wrote:
On Feb 18, 9:31 pm, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
oly wrote:
On Feb 18, 4:03 pm, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com
wrote:

I had many rather heated discussions with an erstwhile colleague in
the social studies (yes, that's what I insisted it be called, much
to the consternation of my interlocutor) department where I taught.
That doesn't mean that effort should not be made in the direction
of understanding, classifying, and documenting the issues in those
disciplines, but rather we should realize, as you correctly
counsel, that there is a lot of room for their theories to slosh
around. Let's see now, where exactly does numismatics fit in to
this dichotomy?

James- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

IMHO, Numismatics is both a combination of social studies and
certain hard physical sciences. Frankly, the present day importance
of numismatics to scholars depends on the exact human societies
that one wishes to study.

I borrow from a very good book:

"[From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment], ancient, primarily
Roman, coins were collected for two reasons: as moral exemplars and
as sources of information about the classical past. Both aspects can
be illustrated by the Italian poet Petrarch, who presented coins
with the portraits of the Roman emperors to the emperor Charles IV
and encouraged him to gaze upon and study the features of those
whom he had suceeded and wished to emulate. Petrarch and other
scholars used coins to help their understanding of classical texts
and their reconstruction of the classical world." - written by
Andrew Burnett, Chapter 11 ("the King Loves Medals"), from
"Enlightenment, Discovering the World in the 18th Century" The
British Museum (dated 2003), edited by Kim Sloan.

Oly personally expounds (badly):

But, as western man has uncovered the many formerly lost texts and
inscriptions of various societies, numismatics often becomes an
auxiliary aide to historical understanding of the traditional
western world. Today, coins still provide a primary source for
societies like Celtic, pre-Roman Britain. Such a society has left
only a small amounts of textual material, while the meaning of
archaeological materials is often doubtful; and this uncertainty
enhances the educational value of the coins. But coins are
secondary sources (largely supporting and confirming) for a society
like ancient Rome or a more recent society like France under the
Bourbon Restoration, where texts, inscriptions, letters, etc. can
tell us far more than the coins (and medals) alone can tell.

Numismatics remains an important science today, but probably not
quite as important as it was to scholars from the Renaissance to
the First World War.

This situation in Numismatics reminds me of how the study of Latin
used to be one of the primary expected requirements of any educated
person (for more than five hundred years), but it fell out of the
common curriculum of American schools between 1950 and 1980.

Vale Magister!

Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt
Belgae...

Iacobus- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Illinois est omnis divisia in partes tres, and that's even if you push
Chicago into the lake...

Olav

Heh heh, good one! No way I'll top that.

James