The Art Newspaper (Oct. 2012) has published an article by Riah Pryor about the ACCG's test case, currently pending before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The article correctly notes that one of ACCG's key complaints is that the applicable regulations " muddl[e] up the place a coin was made with the place it was found." If the point of import restrictions is to protect archaeological sites in source countries, why has the Government written restrictions based on a coin's place of production rather than its find spot?
Nathan Elkins, a strident critic of collectors and the coin trade, suggests that the dispute is between "experts and academics on one side and and collectors and dealers on the other," but several more seasoned academics I know have also expressed concern that such over broad restrictions do little but encourage grasping cultural bureaucracies like those of Cyprus, Greece, Italy, and China to lay claim to any artifact that may have been produced in those countries millenia ago.
Is this really what protecting archaeological sites should be about?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Arthur Houghton asked me to post this response:
Peter, thank you for posting about the interesting article from the Art Newspaper. It casts a harsh light on the extra-legal measures the government will take to further the national claims of other countries. Anyone with the faintest familiarity with ancient coins, Greek in particular, knows they were produced for state needs, including the financing of armies that traveled and carried them on campaigns well outside their place of issue. The problem is that most of our archaeologist friends don't know much about coins and get a little stupid -- perhaps willfully? -- in endorsing the view that the place of production is equivalent to their findspot.
Nathan Elkins is another matter. He is a trained numismatist, and while he's a little underpublished, he shows promise of being an able scholar. On the question of collecting and archaeological ethics, however, he appears to be deeply conflicted. On one hand he preaches stridently, almost obsessively, about the effect of the antiquities market (the coin trade in particular) on looting. On the other, he seems dependent on the market for his research: his fine 2006 Numismatic Chronicle article on Flavian Colosseum sestercii, for example, makes extensive use of unprovenanced coins (no less than five of which appeared after 1970!) as evidence, and in his catalogue duties at Yale, he seems to have happily buried himself up to the armpits in unprovenanced, recently found material. At some point Dr. Elkins should unwind his conflicted views, get on with the business of scholarship and teaching and stop railing at the market that yields up the evidence he so eagerly uses in his own work. Or, he might direct his attention at his own institution, Baylor University and a number of Baylor's eminent scholars for exhibiting and publicizing the Green collection of Biblical artifacts that was formed in stunning four years of active collecting, much (most?) of which appears to be market-bought and substantially unprovenanced.
Or, perhaps Dr. Elkins would best just can his view of disparate "sides" to the troubling question of unprovenanced coins, those of "experts and academics on one side and collectors and dealers on the other." He knows better. With the exception of a relative handful of specialist scholars, academics know almost nothing about coins, while the scholarly literature, including major works that have defined the field, is replete with the contribution of collectors and dealers. Dr. Elkins prates about "us" (the good, experts and academics) versus "them" (those horrible collectors and dealers), but he is wrong. The division is false, and he knows it.
Best regards,
Arthur
In response to Arthur's comments I would say that anyone must take modern "journalism" with a grain of salt. I was disappointed to see that the Art Newspaper published my comment somewhat out of context. I went on to say that there are of course academics who are sympathetic to dealer arguments and and collectors who oppose the ACCG/dealer position. I also told the Art Newspaper that there is a great need for collaboration (not confrontation) and increased due diligence in the trade. These comments were not included in the Art Newspaper.
As for Arthur's barbs about my "conflicted nature", I would simply state that anyone who has read my articles on ethics on the coin trade (there are three of them) can see for themselves what my thoughts on the issues are and it is clear that I have never "preached" that 1970 be a set guideline as my goal is to combat present and future looting. As I stated in my 2012 article, there are extreme partisans on both side of the issue. And as far as the rest of the personal digs, they are unnecessary and unwarranted.
Elvira Bunnyflum has asked me to post this:
"I cannot understand why, if they have an issue with what somebody says about no-questions-asked collecting of dugup coins they do not prove him wrong by reasoned argument. Is that so difficult for them?"
I'm inclined to agree with her. Why the personal attacks and patronising tone? Is that all that this lobby can muster? Elkins has a number of articles out, including in peer-reviewed publications, where are the equivalent rejoinders from all those coin collectors that allegedly know so much more than real academics?
Arthur asked me to post this too:
Peter, and Nathan, thank you for the forum and, Nathan, for your helpful response. If the idea was to have a little attention given to what should be done, I am pleased and wish to apologize if I seem to have gone too far in my response. I am an admirer of Nathan's work and do not want to see it compromised by the irredentist views of friends who would like to shut down the discussion. And I am pleased in particular that Nathan appears to seek compromise, not confrontation. So do I.
To be sure, there is a huge need for collaboration, and I would like to open the door to some discussion of how to create a system that works for everyone -- including archaeologists and scholars (I am a card-carrying member of both communities), collectors (including me, formerly) and those interested in a continuing vibrant market in material that passes everyone's test of non-illegitimacy.
Please carry on.
Best wishes,
Arthur
Nathan, thank you for your response. You’ve been very critical of collectors and dealer practices (and even of non-profits that use old coins to help teach kids about Roman history), but have never acknowledged their concerns with how the State Department and CBP enforce import restrictions, or commented on how poor laws and source country practices have contributed to the problem. I set forth very specific recommendations in an ANS article which was recently reposted on my blog. Other than criticizing collectors and dealers, what would you suggest to help move the ball forward?
Peter, this all falls outside of the subject of your original post which was aimed as an attack on me.
I am happy to engage in dialogue with those who are genuinely willing. With due respect, I do not feel that your weblog is an appropriate venue for this discussion as you, a trade lobbyist, will moderate and direct the discussion. Surely, more neutral venues can be organized in the future. As I discussed in the 2012 article on ethics, the problem with the 'dialogue' (or lack thereof) is that it has been controlled by hardliners.
Nathan, I'm afraid I haven't read anything that you've written that suggests that anyone other than collectors and dealers should modify their practices when it comes to ancient coins. I'd urge you to go beyond mere crticism of collectors and dealers if you ever hope to engage in real dialouge.
What is a fair way to regulate the trade that takes into account the difficulties they face in complying with the current regulatory scheme and the postive contribution collectors and dealers make to preserving and studying coins?
What can source countries and archaeologists do to encourage reporting and recording of coin hoards and ensuring the huge numbers of ancient coins extant are properly conserved?
These are basic questions you have avoided addressing.
Mr. Barford, you once again confirm you really are hopeless!
I am "hopeless" to expect some proper discussion from coin collectors and dealers (who claim to be of an academic bent) instead of this sort of junk?
So instead of throwing some challenges in the face of Professor Elkins, about where "he" ("his side") is willing to compromise, where are the proposals of your side to cut down the no-questions-asked trading of dugup coins? What do the IAPN and PNG suggest? Maybe they could organize some kind of a meeting to discuss these topics?
I've already laid out my views in my ANS article. ACCG, IAPN, and PNG have already laid out ethics rules for their members. Perhaps you will claim they do not go far enough, but do archaeologists and foreign cultural bureaucracies have any rules whatsoever for the proper handling of coins to ensure they are properly preserved, displayed, studied and published? I'm not sure they do. One thing is sure. Prof. Elkins attacks collectors for collecting unprovenanced coins, but then happily uses them in his own research along with resources paid for or generated by collectors and dealers. That was Arthur Houghton's point, which remains undisputed.
Arthur Houghton asked me to post this as well:
Peter:
With regard to what foreign countries do to help people study their archaeology, the UK, France, Italy, Israel, Germany and undoubtedly others provide export permits for objects that come fresh out of the ground and that they do not want for themselves. The most restrictive of these (Italy, Israel), allow domestic markets in antiquities and coins to flourish, and their own archaeologists benefit from the close relationship they have with dealers that are happy to show what they have. The objects these countries allow to leave (tens of thousands of them, including coins, engraved stones, terracotta figures, lamps -- the types go on and on) are picked up by private collectors and often gifted to schools, colleges and institutions eager to have their students look at, even handle, real objects. Some of your critics should curb their invective -- or aim it at source countries that allow their historical past to be dug up, sold off, and sent away -- or worse, encourage public and private development that destroys their own ancient sites. As we know, this is one of archeology's dark secrets, since there is a special peril for those, who could have their excavation or study permits summarily revoked by whatever country they may criticize, and so fall silent in their own self-interest.
Would anyone like to speak up? No? I am not surprised.
Best regards,
Arthur
Elvira Bunnyflum has asked me to ask Mr Tompa to ask Mr Houghton whether exort licences serve to "help people abroad study their archaeology", or whether he thinks they serve to protect a nation's resources of collectable items being siphoned off to foreign markets?
I think she has a point - after all we do not restrict trade in protected species to "help Americans study ecology".
She also wants to know whether the reason archaeologists do not "speak out" against the licit trade is not due to some "dark secret" (conspiracies, conspiracies), but because in fact there are few archaeologists who actually have an issue with the demonstrably licit trade such as the one Mr Houghton describes. It was just a thought she had.
Post a Comment