Pick drew a shinp distinction Ix-twccn pnic numis- 

 matics (rcine .\umiswa!ik) and applied numismatics 

 {angcwaniltc A'limi.u/ialik). Under the first, lie con- 

 fined tiic simple acti\ities of collectins^. classifyinsr, 

 and describint;; coins — a preoccupation which he 

 rated on a lower scale and which he, therefore, 

 assiiined contemptuously to the nonspecialist, the 

 amateur, the collector. On the oilier hand, ap])lied 

 numismatics, accordint; to him, became the science 

 that permits the scholar to deduce from coin material 

 importanl conclusions a])plicable to the related liclds 

 of social, political, and economic history, and art and 

 philolo^A'. This latter approach he reserved for the 

 scholar, the highly trained s|«xialist. 



This attem])t to define numismatic science failed 

 completelv. Within a few years W'ilhelm Jesse con- 

 tested these ideas bv pointing out that very olten even 

 purelv descrii)li\e acti\ities require the knowledoe of 

 a liighlv trained |)erson.'' To disregard coin catalogs 

 would be similar to a historian's ignoring a collection 

 of published documents. The qualitative difierencc 

 between an inferior listing of coins and a highly 

 specialized publication of nmnismaiic material rests 

 upon the apjiioach and methods used. Moreover, 

 Jesse contended, applied numismatics cannot be con- 

 sidered an independent science since it results from a 

 blend of other disciplines. 



Starting from these ])remiscs, Jesse proceeded to 

 state his own definition of ninnismatics as a science. 

 Since coins were created for the ])ractical purpose of 

 serving as a medium of exchange, it seemed logical 

 that their research should begin at this point. Thus, 

 Jesse argued, the .search into the history of all past 

 forms of money — attempting to explain their origin, 

 their evolution, their extrinsic appearance as well as 

 their intrinsic qualities, their relation to economics, 

 to social and to cultural history — is the real scope of 

 numismatics as a scientific and historical discipline. 



While .some scholars were involved in theoretical 

 di.scussions of this theme, others tried to give it a 

 practical application. For example, in the Vienna 

 coin cabinet, .\ugust von Loehr built the collections 

 and exhibits according to such a historical concept of 

 money, beginning with primiti\c media of exchange 

 and bringing the cxhiliits up to the present complex 

 period of financial documents; and in the United 

 States, exhibits recently arranged at the Smithsonian 

 Institution emphasize similar ideas (fig. 1). 



Beyond the basic reciuirements of accurate descrip- 

 tion and allocation within a geographical and 

 historical framework, other factors, which in\-olve 

 history, law, economics, art, philology, religion, and 

 even philoso|)hy, must be taken into consideration. 

 A complementary .science to all the.se disci{)lines, 

 ninnismatics in turn utilizes them also in its own 

 research. W ith this rcap|5raisal, the field of numis- 

 matics has expanded considerably, increasing the 

 knowledge requirements for every numismatist.^ The 

 scholar has to exchange the delightful pastimes of the 

 antiquarian and hobljyist, the Lithhahcr of the past, 

 for the more exacting work of the scientist who 

 must [xjs.sess an almost encyclopedic knowledge. 

 Specialization within a determined field or period, 

 as a result, seems the only workable solution. 



When he approaches the economic function of coins 

 as money, the researcher today sees many new factors 

 entering his field of \'ision. Following this predomi- 

 nant school of thought, numismatics should broaden 

 its scope from a science restricted to coins or metallic 

 currency, rarcheologie de la inonnaie metalique^ to a 

 science of all forms of money — including primitive 

 media of exchange, necessity money, money sub- 

 stitutes, and documents of value. 



Although primitive media of exchange generally are 

 considered to be w ithin the province of anthropolog\', 

 recent numismatic theories concerned with a philo- 

 sophic explanation of the origin of money have 

 resorted to the forms of value and exchange used by 

 early or contemporary primitives. Examples of such 

 theories are Bernhard Laum's HeiUges Geld: Eine 

 historische L'ntcrsmhung iihcr den sakralen L'l sprung des 

 Glides (1924), which ex])lains the origin of money as 

 an expression of primitive cult forms and not as a 

 phenomenon produced by economic factors; and 

 Wilhehn GerlofT's Die Enlstelmng des Geldes und die 

 Anjdnge des Geldivescns (1947), which emphasizes 

 sociological factors as the explanation ft)r the origin of 

 money. 



As seen in the history of monetary \alues, in the 

 history of prices and wages, and in the evolution of 

 national economics with their ensuing theories, there 

 is an implicit connection between numismatics and 



' "Aufpabcn unci (Ircnzcn tkr Xumismatik" (1024-1926), 

 pp. 3-5. 



"See Haevernick, "'Cooperation': Some Thoughts and 

 Suggestions for the Intensification of Numismatic Research" 

 (1958). 



" Gilder, "Rapport sur la numismatique moclerne," p. 104. 



BULLETIN 229: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY .AND TECHNOLOGY 



