If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
PING: Some thoughts for Economist Olson [long]
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
PING: Some thoughts for Economist Olson [long]
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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
PING: Some thoughts for Economist Olson [long]
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Economist Cover | Byron L. Reed | Coins | 1 | February 23rd 07 06:46 AM |
PING Eric Tillery: Coin Photographers' Challenge (Long) | Eric Babula | Coins | 17 | October 18th 06 06:07 PM |
Long: My 1891-S Morgan I wanted to resubmit - Ping Eric T, Anita, Ira et al | Eric Babula | Coins | 59 | May 21st 05 10:56 AM |
PING: guy who e-mailed me for wheats a long time ago | Chrysta Wilson | Coins | 7 | August 15th 03 04:15 AM |
Tim Olson Autograph Fleer Hot Prospects FS | RAbra68 | Baseball | 0 | August 2nd 03 12:14 PM |