If one is interested in cultural property issues, one quickly notices that the archaeological blogosphere is full of highly moralistic denunciations of those who collect unproveanced artifacts, including those as common as coins.
One suspects this only carries over from the official pronouncements of archaeological groups like the Archaeological Institute of America. See http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10352
The AIA's website suggests that most of its ethical pronouncements relate to the perceived evils of the antiquities trade, and, indeed, they go so far as to suggest AIA members should inform the authorities about suspected illegal exports and imports of archaeological material. (In my opinion, this stricture may unfortunately be taken by some to authorize "witch hunts" for illicit antiquities.)
Archaeological groups are free to write their own ethical rules, but when those rules largely focus on the activities of others, outsiders are also entitled to wonder some about it.
In particular, why not more emphasis on requiring AIA members to:
"Seek to ensure that the exploration of archaeological sites be conducted according to the highest standards under the direct supervision of qualified personnel, and that the results of such research be made public."
Certainly, proper publication and conservation of archaeological artifacts is an important, but seemingly underemphasized issue, at least when it comes to the archaeological blogosphere. It is perhaps easier to criticize others outside of one's discipline, but if it is all about preserving the world's culture, isn't it also important for the archaeological community to monitor whether its own house is in order too?
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Another Perspective on the "Status Quo"
Nathan Elkins has an interesting post where he expresses concern about the "status quo." See: http://coinarchaeology.blogspot.com/2009/04/we-need-to-change-status-quo.html For some reason, I can't open the link to Nathan's lecture, but I think I understand his drift from this post and others he has done over the past several years.
Specifically, he complains about
"an unregulated and unconcerned market, the distasteful nature of the dialogue that has developed in North America, and the urgent need for thoughtful collectors, archaeologists, and law enforcement to find common ground in the face of organized and unconcerned commercial interests."
Let me agree on some points and disagree on others. First, one must conclude that the market is hardly "unregulated." Customs officials in the US and Europe actively enforce their regulations. Nathan may think those regulations do not go far enough, but that is a different issue.
Second, Nathan wrongly discounts the contributions and views of ancient coin dealers, because like many in the archaeological community, he betrays a distrust for "commercial interests." But why are such interests any less valid than those of source countries, collectors and archaeologists? Certainly, all these groups are motivated to some extent by "self-interest." What dealers, collectors, archaeologists and source countries share is an interest in preserving artifacts, like ancient coins.
The differences between archaeologists and source countries on one hand and collectors and dealers on the other hand relate to value of private efforts to preserve ancient artifacts. In my opinion, a heavy dose of academic snobbery motivates those who constantly belittle the contributions of collectors and dealers in preserving, publishing and displaying artifacts from the past.
Nathan may or may not agree with this himself, but certainly coin dealers and collectors have been responsible for preserving millions and millions of ancient coins from oblivion. Coin dealers are also heavy contributors to organizations like the American Numismatic Society and American Numismatic Association. Without their generous funding, there would be a large void in numismatic research in the United States. In short, if coin dealers and collectors are suppressed, who will preserve, display and study all those coins? Certainly, archaeologists and source countries have difficulty handling those coins already in their charge. For example, it often takes decades for coin finds to be published, if they are published at all. This will hopefully change over time with the ability to post coins on line, but such a project is massive, and it is doubtful it will ever be mandated.
Third, as to the "distasteful nature of the dialogue that has developed in North America," I would have to agree that strongly held opinions in the area are all too often expressed in unfortunate terms. Still, it is wrong to imply that only those supporting the rights of collectors and coin and antiquities dealers are at fault or to suggest that the problem is limited to North America. Indeed, one of the very worst offenders posts from Eastern Europe and purports to represent the interests of the archaeological community.
All this raises another important point. The impact of spirited, but all too often nasty debate on the Internet between collectors and archaeologists pales in comparison to the effect of efforts to "blackball" academics who question the status quo within the archaeological community itself. Sometimes this is a none too subtle hint that speaking too strongly in favor of collectors is not good for one's career. Other times, there are more active "disciplinary measures" in the form of delays in processing excavation permits and the like.
Expressing one's opinion in negative terms on the Internet is one thing. Threatening an other's academic career is quite another. Such efforts to stifle debate within the archaeological community can only diminish any real hope for a workable compromise between the archaeological community and source countries on one hand and collectors and dealers on the other about the best way of protecting ancient artifacts. That is what is really wrong with the "status quo" in my opinion.
Specifically, he complains about
"an unregulated and unconcerned market, the distasteful nature of the dialogue that has developed in North America, and the urgent need for thoughtful collectors, archaeologists, and law enforcement to find common ground in the face of organized and unconcerned commercial interests."
Let me agree on some points and disagree on others. First, one must conclude that the market is hardly "unregulated." Customs officials in the US and Europe actively enforce their regulations. Nathan may think those regulations do not go far enough, but that is a different issue.
Second, Nathan wrongly discounts the contributions and views of ancient coin dealers, because like many in the archaeological community, he betrays a distrust for "commercial interests." But why are such interests any less valid than those of source countries, collectors and archaeologists? Certainly, all these groups are motivated to some extent by "self-interest." What dealers, collectors, archaeologists and source countries share is an interest in preserving artifacts, like ancient coins.
The differences between archaeologists and source countries on one hand and collectors and dealers on the other hand relate to value of private efforts to preserve ancient artifacts. In my opinion, a heavy dose of academic snobbery motivates those who constantly belittle the contributions of collectors and dealers in preserving, publishing and displaying artifacts from the past.
Nathan may or may not agree with this himself, but certainly coin dealers and collectors have been responsible for preserving millions and millions of ancient coins from oblivion. Coin dealers are also heavy contributors to organizations like the American Numismatic Society and American Numismatic Association. Without their generous funding, there would be a large void in numismatic research in the United States. In short, if coin dealers and collectors are suppressed, who will preserve, display and study all those coins? Certainly, archaeologists and source countries have difficulty handling those coins already in their charge. For example, it often takes decades for coin finds to be published, if they are published at all. This will hopefully change over time with the ability to post coins on line, but such a project is massive, and it is doubtful it will ever be mandated.
Third, as to the "distasteful nature of the dialogue that has developed in North America," I would have to agree that strongly held opinions in the area are all too often expressed in unfortunate terms. Still, it is wrong to imply that only those supporting the rights of collectors and coin and antiquities dealers are at fault or to suggest that the problem is limited to North America. Indeed, one of the very worst offenders posts from Eastern Europe and purports to represent the interests of the archaeological community.
All this raises another important point. The impact of spirited, but all too often nasty debate on the Internet between collectors and archaeologists pales in comparison to the effect of efforts to "blackball" academics who question the status quo within the archaeological community itself. Sometimes this is a none too subtle hint that speaking too strongly in favor of collectors is not good for one's career. Other times, there are more active "disciplinary measures" in the form of delays in processing excavation permits and the like.
Expressing one's opinion in negative terms on the Internet is one thing. Threatening an other's academic career is quite another. Such efforts to stifle debate within the archaeological community can only diminish any real hope for a workable compromise between the archaeological community and source countries on one hand and collectors and dealers on the other about the best way of protecting ancient artifacts. That is what is really wrong with the "status quo" in my opinion.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Lord Renfrew as Collector
The Financial Times has a blurb about Lord Renfrew as a collector of modern art: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e3817064-bc1b-11dd-80e9-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1
In it Lord Renfrew also states the following about collecting archaeological artifacts:
I’m much in favour of collecting, so long as it doesn’t involve objects recently taken from the ground. In my opinion all too many collections are scandalous for this very reason. I don’t mind so much people buying antiquities looted a century ago, but not if the items in question entered the market post-1970 when the convention on the illegal trade in antiquities was signed.
While the article focuses on Renfrew's collection of modern art, I also understand from several sources that he maintains a collection of ancient Etruscan coins. Given Lord Renfrew's public stance on collecting, it would be interesting to learn more about the "provenance" of the coins in the collection. It would also be interesting to learn if the collection has been published anywhere.
In it Lord Renfrew also states the following about collecting archaeological artifacts:
I’m much in favour of collecting, so long as it doesn’t involve objects recently taken from the ground. In my opinion all too many collections are scandalous for this very reason. I don’t mind so much people buying antiquities looted a century ago, but not if the items in question entered the market post-1970 when the convention on the illegal trade in antiquities was signed.
While the article focuses on Renfrew's collection of modern art, I also understand from several sources that he maintains a collection of ancient Etruscan coins. Given Lord Renfrew's public stance on collecting, it would be interesting to learn more about the "provenance" of the coins in the collection. It would also be interesting to learn if the collection has been published anywhere.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Ten Blogging Commandments
NPR had a story about Christian bloggers coming up with "10 Blogging Commandments." Apparently, strong views expressed online about religious issues prompted a discussion that led to the commandments. Certainly, the cultural property world is also filled with strong opinions (including some expressed on this blog). With that in mind, and in the spirit of the season, I thought it might be useful to post the 10 Blogging Commandments. They are probably worth thinking about, particularly before making a post on a subject one feels particularly strongly about:
1. You shall not put your blog before your integrity.
2. You shall not make an idol of your blog.
3. You shall not misuse your screen name by using your anonymity to sin.
4. Remember the Sabbath day by taking one day off a week from your blog.
5. Honour your fellow-bloggers above yourselves and do not give undue significance to their mistakes.
6. You shall not murder someone else’s honour, reputation or feelings.
7. You shall not use the web to commit or permit adultery in your mind.
8. You shall not steal another person’s content.
9. You shall not give false testimony against your fellow-blogger.
10. You shall not covet your neighbour's blog ranking. Be content with your own content.
For more, see: http://www.eauk.org/articles/blogging-ten.cfm
According to the "Evangelical Alliance" which is responsible for the list,
Ten cyberspace commandments are to be posted online to give bloggers a moral edge in a virtual age.
Based loosely on the real Ten Commandments from the Old Testament, the revamped version for guidance in online communication emerged from an event reflecting on the ethics of today’s most popular form of public comment.
The commandments are intended to cause bloggers to consider the social impact of their blogging.
1. You shall not put your blog before your integrity.
2. You shall not make an idol of your blog.
3. You shall not misuse your screen name by using your anonymity to sin.
4. Remember the Sabbath day by taking one day off a week from your blog.
5. Honour your fellow-bloggers above yourselves and do not give undue significance to their mistakes.
6. You shall not murder someone else’s honour, reputation or feelings.
7. You shall not use the web to commit or permit adultery in your mind.
8. You shall not steal another person’s content.
9. You shall not give false testimony against your fellow-blogger.
10. You shall not covet your neighbour's blog ranking. Be content with your own content.
For more, see: http://www.eauk.org/articles/blogging-ten.cfm
According to the "Evangelical Alliance" which is responsible for the list,
Ten cyberspace commandments are to be posted online to give bloggers a moral edge in a virtual age.
Based loosely on the real Ten Commandments from the Old Testament, the revamped version for guidance in online communication emerged from an event reflecting on the ethics of today’s most popular form of public comment.
The commandments are intended to cause bloggers to consider the social impact of their blogging.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
