To those of us who advocate for cultural property protection, it is impossible to think that such efforts would have anything but positive effects on the preservation of information and cultural heritage. However, one lobby, the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG), opposes such protective measures as they relate to the uncontrolled trade in ancient coins and assert that if cultural property legislation were to affect the trade in ancient coins it would kill numismatics (the study of coins) as a science. (This is a common theme, among others, in the blogs of ACCG officers and activists such as Wayne Sayles and Dave Welsh). In so doing, members of this lobby (the majority of its officers and leadership being dealers as well as all of its benefactors and most of its patrons) assert that they are protecting the interests of “numismatic scholarship.” Does this claim have any validity to it? Can cultural property legislation kill numismatics as an academic discipline?
In short, my point of view is the quite contrary; ancient coins must be considered by cultural preservationists no differently than any other ancient object and that protective efforts can only preserve valuable numismatic information (for the value of coins studied in context and the need for greater awareness of and attention to the unregulated trade see, in general, Beckmann 1998, von Kaenel 1994; 1995; 2007). When ancient coins are found in archaeological contexts they provide a wealth of information that does not come with undocumented coins that appear on the market, lacking any context or provenance. Additionally, the majority of ancient coins enter the market the same way that most antiquities enter the market - through suspect means (see Kersel 2006 for one of the most recent discussions of the way ancient objects make it to the antiquities market – she discusses ancient coins in particular). Archaeological sites throughout Europe and the Middle East are systematically looted in order to provide ancient coins for the market, which are frequently smuggled in large quantities to destination countries. One published account records the interception of approximately 20,000 ancient coins (originating from Bulgaria) at Frankfurt airport, a shipment bound to the U.S.; customs officials determined this one shipment comprised just one of many others which had previously gone through the airport recently and the total smuggled out was in the area of a ton (c. 340,000 ancient coins; see Dietrich 2002). This quantity represented only the actions of a single smuggler in a relatively short period of time.
Perhaps just behind pottery sherds, ancient coins are the most common archaeological finds. This is certainly the case at Yotvata, a remote auxiliary fortress on the Roman Empire’s borders, where I work as the site’s numismatist. In addition to dates, coins in archaeological contexts provide information that can help numismatists and archaeologists to understand the expansion and contraction of settlements, areas of importance and the movement of peoples within a specific settlement. Additionally, coins in context are invaluable to studies of the ancient economy and circulation studies. In fact, contextual study of ancient coins is an increasingly important aspect of serious numismatic and archaeological research. Entire research centers can be devoted the study of ancient coins in archaeological contexts as at Frankfurt University, where one department publishes the inventories of coin finds from archaeological contexts in Germany, Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschland – a project which has inspired similar projects in other countries. Additionally, this department sponsors a very important numismatic monograph series that publishes contributions in English, French, Italian, and German that study ancient coins in archaeological contexts (Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike). From October 25-27, this department is also hosting a three day conference on “Coins in Context.” (For additional information on the scientific value of coins in archaeological contexts, see the AIA’s page and my forthcoming article on the SAFE website).
One vocal lobby member and officer recently proclaimed:
“Numismatics is a much older science than archaeology, which has made many important contributions to the historical record and whose teachings (to which archaeology has contributed very little)are used by archaeologists as a stratigraphic dating tool. It is ironic that this venerable and beneficial field of study is now threatened by a discipline that could hardly be said to exist until the twentieth century, and really began to take shape only after the end of WWII. There are very few (if any) archaeologists who have any knowledge of numismatics, its accomplishments or its importance.”
In my view, the lobby’s rhetoric and assertions that archaeologists know nothing about numismatics are simple fabrications that have no basis in fact and are easily disproved. Dozens of archaeologists are also numismatic experts and some of the leading authorities on ancient coins are archaeologists employed by museums and universities (http://msn-list.te.verweg.com/2007-August/007945.html; for other lobby tactics see David Gill’s blog entries: “Coins, Cabals…and Huff and Puff,” and “Coins and Cyprus: Listening to the Coin Forum”). Familiarity with serious numismatic research also indicates the contrary. Numismatics contributes to archaeology and archaeology contributes to numismatics. One of the best examples of how contextual archaeological study has contributed to the study of ancient coins is from Morgantina, where stratigraphic excavation allowed archaeologists and numismatists to establish a date for the introduction of the Roman denarius.
I am well aware that coin collectors have often contributed to serious numismatic research, but is the continued “free market in ancient coins” necessary for good “numismatic scholarship” and is the fact that some collectors have contributed to such scholarship an excuse for indiscriminate collecting? Perhaps the question is best answered by framing the question in terms of other disciplines. Is it necessary for archaeologists to collect ancient objects to produce scholarship on archaeology? No, the vast majority of archaeologists today do not privately collect objects and view the practice as detrimental to scientific study. Is it necessary for anthropologists to collect arrowheads and old pots to study prehistoric and primitive civilizations and human society? No. Is it necessary for zoologists to trade in endangered species to study them? No. Ancient coins are no different. In fact, when coins enter the market through suspect means – without provenance, without archaeological context - all useful information regarding its find circumstances are lost and part of history is irrecoverably destroyed.
What is to be done? Currently the unchecked trade in undocumented ancient coins is a severe problem and requires increased activism on the part of cultural preservationists. However, direct dialogue with the dealer lobby seems unlikely given its inherent financial interest in maintaining a completely unregulated and unchecked trade and the willingness of some of its members and officers to act irresponsibly and untruthfully in their writings no doubt engenders a great degree of distrust.
In my view, we can only hope to be successful in preserving the future of numismatic research by activism that specifically addresses the trade in ancient coins and public education. Without a doubt we share a passion with ancient coin collectors about ancient history and the ancient world. I believe most ancient coin collectors are either unaware of the way in which ancient coins are procured and the damage that the demand for them causes, or buy into the lobby’s rhetoric since they are hearing only one distorted perspective (Lobby officers control the most popular ancient coin collecting magazine, the Celator, and sympathetic coin dealers own and moderate most every online ancient coin collecting discussion forum including the most popular one, Moneta-L). I, myself, actively collected ancient coins until I educated myself about the issues and the facts. It is the collector to whom we must reach out and educate.
Most ancient coin collectors in the U.S. enter that hobby by first collecting American coins and as a result make little distinction between the two forms of collecting, even though the sources of the objects are very different and are at the heart of the debate. We must highlight the differences between source of coins for collectors of U.S. coins (family collections, directly from circulation) and the source of coins for ancient coin collectors (the ground, very few on the market come from pre-UNESCO collections, most are looted, illicitly excavated and illicitly exported and are openly sold without documentation or appropriate pedigrees). Many excavations do not have academic numismatists in the field because many are employed at museums and many are overburdened with material. I recognize that many collectors have great expertise and capability in attributing ancient coins. It is my opinion that it would be useful to invite such competent individuals to participate in field excavations as site numismatists. The archaeologist would benefit from a specialist to provide dates for the coin finds and, with some training in contextual numismatic research, who could also prepare them for scholarly publication. The collector would benefit from seeing firsthand where ancient coins come from and how invaluable they are to archaeological and contextual research; the thrill of discovery would also be much greater and interesting than the simple acquisition of a coin from an auction or a batch of uncleaned coins. This is one simple suggestion and clearly further discussion on the complex issues currently dividing the academic and collecting community regarding ancient coins is needed. At this point, however, the opinion of the collector – not the dealer – is the most crucial.
Refs:
Beckmann, M. 1998. “Numismatics and the Antiquities Trade,” The Celator (May): 25-28.
Dietrich, R. 2002. “Cultural Property on the Move – Legally, Illegally,” International Journal of Cultural Property 11.2: 294-304.
Kersel, M.M. 2006. “From the Ground to the Buyer: A Market Analysis of the Trade in Illegal Antiquities,” in N. Brodie, M.M. Kersel, C. Luke, and K.W. Tubb (eds.) Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, and the Antiquities Trade. Gainesville: University Press of Florida: 188-205.
von Kaenel, H.-M. 1994. “Die antike Numismatik und ihr Material,” SchMbll 44.173: 1-12.
von Kaenel, H-M. 1995. “La numismatica antica e il suo materiale,” Bollettino di Numismatica 13.1: 213-223.
von Kaenel, H-M. 2007. “Gauner, Gräber und Gelehrte. Antikenraub und Archäologie im Lichte der aktuelle Gesetzeslage,” Paper read at the symposium, Gauner, Gräber und Gelehrte at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität, 4 May, Frankfurt am Main.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Can Cultural Property Legislation Kill an Academic Discipline?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Nathan Elkins boldly attacks a discipline that he evidently does not understand. Numismatics evolved as a science over many centuries, through the cooperative effort of independent and professional scholars. The views of Mr. Elkins seem to miss the whole point of this symbiotic relationship. The first words of the Elkins post are designed to cast independent and institutional scholars as having different interests. He singles out the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) and its officers as opponents of cultural property protection and asks rhetorically and tongue in cheek, whether cultural property legislation can kill numismatics as an academic discipline. Numismatics is not an "academic discipline" but rather a science that embraces all who nurture it.
It is first necessary to correct a misconception under which Mr. Elkins labors. As founder and Executive Director of the ACCG, I can say with unequivocal assuredness that the guild does not oppose cultural property protection. In fact, our mission is very clearly stated in our guild bylaws. That is, we seek to "promote and nurture the free and independent collecting of coins from antiquity." That is our sole purpose. The bylaws also state that "The guild does not in any way support, condone or defend the looting of designated archaeological sites, nor the violation of any nation’s laws concerning the import or export of antiquities. " The ACCG has never taken any action that would lead to or condone the destruction of cultural property. Contrary to Mr. Elkins' claim, it is not our aim, nor has it ever been, to hinder the protection of cultural property. It is our aim to preserve the freedom of private ownership. We simply demand fair treatment for coin collectors and dealers from government bureaucracies, here and abroad.
In that respect, we are particularly concerned about “import restrictions” that effectively impose unrealistic, unfair burdens of proof onto collectors and dealers, to prove the negative - i.e. that a particular coin was either not first found in the ground in its source country, or that it left that country before import restrictions went into effect. We also advocate that source countries should investigate fair and well thought out systems like Britain’s Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme, which have proven to be far more effective in encouraging locals to report their finds than reliance on draconian legal strictures to punish people who find coins, particularly on their own land. It is not fair or reasonable to blame and burden coin collectors and dealers for problems that really originate in misguided, ineffective, inadequately enforced antiquities laws in source countries.
Mr. Elkins observes that the majority of ACCG officers, benefactors and patrons are coin dealers, implying that this is a "bad" thing. What he may not understand is that coin collecting is an avocation. Most people who collect coins have real jobs that require real commitments. It is only natural that professional numismatists (those who make a living as such) will be the most likely and logical people to invest the time required to lead an advocacy group. If one examines the list of officers in the ACCG, one will find that it is really quite a widely recognized group with extraordinary achievements and worldwide acclaim for their contributions to numismatics. That acclaim does not come merely from collectors, but from academia as well. Still, the ACCG is a collector organization and its officers and supporters are primarily collectors above all. The vast majority of ancient coin dealers were collectors long before they became professionals and many still maintain their private collections. More than 1,100 individuals used the ACCG fax service to comment on the Cyprus request for import restrictions. These were clearly not all coin dealers.
It is ironic that Mr. Elkins quotes the Martin Beckmann article of 1998 in The Celator regarding the antiquities trade. As founder and publisher/editor of that periodical, I personally accepted the Beckmann article and indeed typeset it myself. I didn't see a conflict of interest then and I don't now. The fact that finding coins in an archaeological context tells us something is undeniable. The suggestion that coins which cannot be linked to a specific context are of little or lesser value is simply uninformed. This "context rules" mentality is a modern vogue that stems from the Historical Particularism of Franz Boas. It certainly is not universally accepted, even within the archaeological community. The contribution of numismatics to history, art history, economics, philosophy, religion, astronomy, biology and a host of other disciplines far surpasses the meager information provided by the context in which a coin is found. Useful? Yes. Desirable? Yes. Of paramount importance? No.
Claims to the contrary are usually due to a poor understanding of numismatics in general. Or, they may in some cases be an attempted rationale for controlling coins—reviving the dictum "Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it." Since this point was raised, let's re-examine Morgantina. It took some 30 years for the results of the initial excavation to be published and nothing has been updated in the past 15 years. Although a strong proponent of import restrictions on coins, Professor Malcolm Bell recently admitted in responding to a Freedom of Information Act request that he had "no written or electronic communications regarding Greek and Roman coins found at Morgantina since January 1, 1999. In contrast to the glacial pace of academic publication, I venture to say that new information about Sicilian coins would echo through the collector community faster than a speeding bullet. Collectors can look for The Celator without fail each month and learn about all sorts of new discoveries and works in progress. How many excavation reports come out each year, and of these how many mention coins? Better question: who reads them or even knows about them? The answer is of course, other archaeologists. Is there not something wrong with that picture?
Another misconception under which Mr. Elkins labors is the view that collectors consider all archaeologists lacking in numismatic knowledge. Actually, several ancient coin dealers have degrees in archaeology. At least two of them have doctorates in archaeology, one with a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania. At least ten archaeologists are dues paying members of the ACCG. All of these people are serious and very competent numismatists. There are a number of archaeologists working as curators of institutional collections of coins. There are archaeologists on the Board of Trustees of the American Numismatic Society. There are also archaeologists like John Boardman who work in fields other than "excavation archaeology". Professor Boardman is a strong advocate for private collecting. I could go on. There are a number of archaeologists who know a LOT about ancient coins. However, few if any of these archaeologists are opposed to the private collecting of ancient coins. That opposition comes from a different breed.
Mr. Elkins asks whether private collecting is necessary to assure continued excellence in numismatic scholarship. The short answer is yes, but the question is really obscuring the point. Is numismatic scholarship the only reason to collect? Of course not. People collect for all sorts of reasons and not all become scholars. Should they not collect? Joseph Alsop in "The Rare Art Traditions" argues convincingly that man has been collecting since he lived in caves. It is a natural and instinctive human trait, indeed an important facet of human culture. Some believe it is a right. Should some things be preserved by states or institutions? Absolutely. Legitimately rare and endangered objects or species should of course be protected.
By Mr. Elkins own statistics, if one person tried to move 340,000 coins across a border in a short period of time, coins cannot be rare or endangered. I do have to wonder though how someone managed to strip all these coins from an archaeological site. Every excavation report that I have ever read, and that is quite a few, lists a few or maybe in some cases a few hundred coins. In fact, there are millions upon millions of common ancient coins scattered all over the civilized world. These coins are perfectly licit, have been in collections for hundreds of years, and have never needed documentation of any kind. The call to begin documenting individual coins now is absurd. Is the anti-collecting movement really about preservation? Perhaps it is really about control. Ah, that ageless human foible. Who will control our access to the past and thereby the scholarship that goes with it?
Finally, Mr. Elkins states that the unchecked trade in undocumented ancient coins is a severe problem. Is it the trade that is the problem, or is it instead misguided laws and the lack of law enforcement on archaeological sites? Should we put barriers on our freeways because people speed? Mr. Elkins would have more controls, more regulation, more restriction. That is a typical bureaucratic approach to solving a perceived, and in this case imperfectly understood, problem. I will continue to disagree.
Wayne G. Sayles
Having been prominently mentioned in Mr. Elkins' post, I am obliged to correct (a better word might be to clarify) a point of which he made a major issue. In doing so, I understand why he found my remarks objectionable, however the difficulty is that words are inherently imprecise things meaning different things to different people. In this case the first seriously conflicted word is "archaeologist."
To Mr. Elkins, an "archaeologist" evidently means an individual having a significant interest in archaeology, to the point of having formally studied that subject, perhaps receiving a university degree in that discipline.
To me an "archaeologist" is instead an individual who professionally practices archaeology. In other words, someone who earns a living by excavating ancient sites, interpreting, publishing and lecturing about the results.
There is a significant difference between these two perspectives, and I believe mine is clearly the correct one. When one discusses professions, one does not include among the ranks of "lawyers," "doctors" or "engineers" those who have studied law, medicine or engineering but who do not actually practice these professions. Specifically, one does not include academics who teach these subjects. Those who carry out research in universities may or may not qualify as practising professionals, depending on the exact nature of their activities.
Why should a person who has a degree in the field of archaeology be termed an "archaeologist" unless he or she is actually practising archaeology?
In the post to which Mr. Elkins objected, I admit to being somewhat careless in using the phraseology "very few (if any) archaeologists" to convey the paucity of practicing archaeologists who really understand numismatics. There are a number who do, as Wayne Sayles so eloquently points out, among whom Dr. Roger Bland is certainly a very highly respected example. However, I continue to believe that the ranks of those who join Mr. Elkins in advocating repressive measures against coin collecting include very few if any practicing archaeologists who have what I would consider to be a real understanding of numismatics.
Similarly, the word "numismatist" and its derivatives "numismatic" and "numismatics" have likewise become conflicted. To Mr. Elkins a "numismatist" is evidently an individual who in any way seriously studies money, more specifically coins. To me a "numismatist" is instead (as in the American Heritage Dictionary) "a collector and student of money (and coins in particular)." Thus, in using the term "numismatic community" I meant the "coin collecting community" not the "academic research in numismatics community."
As a professional numismatist, I have a conflicted view of Mr. Elkins' remarks. On the one hand I join Wayne Sayles in observing that the collecting and professional numismatic community are not and have never been opposed to protection and conservation of legitimate cultural property.
On the other hand, I observe that uncritical dogmatism and insistence upon rigid application of general principles without regard to practical details have, through the centuries, proven to be by far the most prolific sources of error. In all honesty, my understanding of this issue - which I have studied in at least as much depth as Mr. Elkins - suggests that collecting really is not the root problem.
Until the archaeology lobby understands that there really are two honorable, meritorious sides to this discussion, and that the perspective of the collecting community should be studied and analyzed with the same respect given to views of the archaeology lobby, this unproductive, unhelpful conflict between two communities that naturally ought to be allies against indiscriminate destruction wrought by looters will continue.
For a response to the attack on Nathan Elkins see http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2007/09/cyprus-ebay-and-coin-lobby.html.
Wayne,
I note that your comments, posted here, are a copy of your blog entry, “Blinded by the Light,” (http://ancientcoincollecting.blogspot.com/2007/09/blinded-by-light.html) criticizing my essay , “Can Cultural Property Legislation Kill an Academic Discipline,” on SAFECORNER and that you also essentially proclaimed me an ‘enemy’ by posting your response as a feature article on the ACCG page “ACCG attacked by archaeologist Elkins,” to which I will be unable to respond directly. The purpose of SAFECORNER is to promote constructive dialogue and we welcome reasoned commentary and feedback and, in the hopes of furthering dialogue and allowing participation from both sides of the argument, we welcome your response here. I hope you are equally willing to post this response in the comments section of your blog entry, which I will send right away.
According to your response, I “attack” the discipline of numismatics – a discipline you say I do not understand. In my view, it is a curious unsubstantiated claim that does not accurately describe my essay. I am a numismatist and it is absurd to claim I would attack my own discipline. It is regretful part of the response was made personal and attacked my credentials without substantiation – to the contrary, my background indicates I am well-informed about numismatics. Did you read my mini-bios or attempt or research my background or academic interests? The purpose of my essay was to demonstrate that many archaeological professionals, such as myself are not trying to stomp out private collecting or control objects, but advocate for cultural preservation because the acts of looters destroy valuable contextual and historical information. I have collected ancient coins before and have purchased properly pedigreed ancient coins since I made a personal decision to cease indiscriminate collecting of undocumented material. My post was neither an “attack” on private collecting or numismatics, but rather discussed how serious research in the discipline could be improved by regulation that would curb looting and preserve archaeological sites and ancient coins for contextual study. Obviously, I do know something about this discipline. At an early stage in my career, I am far from a giant in the field of serious numismatic research, but I have published on numismatics, I am completing a numismatic dissertation, I work as a numismatist at an archaeological site, I will be employed by Fundmümnzen der Antike to identify some ancient coin finds for a forthcoming volume (starting in January) and I have been fortunate to collaborate with some of the most distinguished numismatists of our time – read my SAFE bio or the one on SAFE Corner; perhaps if you would something more substantial you should check out my slightly out-of-date Curriculum Vitae (http://students.missouri.edu/~ahagsa/CV%20Elkins1.doc) , which could have easily been found by a Google search.
I am well aware of the evolutionary development of numismatics as an academic discipline and it is something I will discuss in more detail in a long article I am preparing for printed publication. I am aware that collectors and scholars have cooperated through the decades (centuries even) in various ways – I believe this was clearly acknowledged in my essay. Again the point of the essay was to point out that the increase in looting in recent decades is a severe problem for scientific and contextual study of ancient coins and, in my view, such looting is clearly fueled by increased demand and ancient coin dealers who are willing to import and pay for undocumented material without questioning it. For those who wish to preserve information and cultural heritage, legislative efforts are a natural, albeit incomprehensive, solution to these problems. I also believe that claims that regulation on the currently uncontrolled trade in ancient will end the “science of numismatics” are exaggerated, hence the title of my essay.
It was said that I incorrectly called numismatics an “academic discipline” and that it is, instead, a “science.” Are these terms mutually exclusive? I think this a trivial point, but let us call it a "science" as Sayles suggests. Scientists seek to preserve and study all forms of information. For example, an archaeologist or an anthropologist, a biologist, a zoologist, an astronomer, or any other professional whose discipline employs scientific techniques will not willingly or knowingly destroy information without first recording it. The very act of trading in undocumented and unrecorded ancient coins, which may well have been robbed from archaeological or historical sites and illegally excavated and smuggled from source countries, contributes to the destruction of a very important form of information: the original context. We will never know its associated material remains, the other coins it was found with, where it was found, etc. A true scientist would never destroy valuable information without recording as much of that information as possible.
The point of dealer Codes of Ethics was raised. For my comments see my new blog entry, “Codes of Ethics vs. the Financial Interest,” which includes citations to the reality of practice regarding “Codes of Ethics” adopted by other groups of antiquities dealers
It is clear that the vast majority of ancient coins on the marketplace have a post-1973 pedigree (AIA ethical guidelines, the U.S. ratified the 1970 UNESCO Convention in 1972) or even none at all and it is clear that fresh material is actively being imported on a large scale from source countries. In my view, the reality of the situation makes it quite clear why the dealer lobby opposes import restrictions they fear might “effectively impose unrealistic, unfair burdens of proof onto collectors and dealers…” If collectors/dealers were required to provide such proof, which at present very rarely happens with ancient coins, then dealers would be unable to import and trade in undocumented material indiscriminately and potential profit margin would decrease.
I did not mean my post to imply that my observation that the majority of the ACCG’s consitutents are dealers is a “bad thing,” but I do think it quite naturally elicits some suspicion and questioning of the lobby’s motives. As I have already mentioned, the ACCG and allied dealers closely guard the ears of ancient coin collectors on online discussion forums and I have experienced this firsthand. I provide one example: earlier this year on the Moneta_L list on Yahoo groups, when Cyprus’ request was a hot topic, I was virtually silenced when attempting to provide a rather moderate, reasoned and affably worded point of view that challenged some of the diatribes and polemics on that list that I felt personally attacked cultural preservationists and archaeologists (many by name), mocked archaeology as a bonafide discipline, exaggerated professional view points, and so on. Most of these were written by ACCG activists. Instead of constructive dialogue, I received some very abrasive and abusive responses by ranking members and prominent committee members of your lobby group both on and off the list (these people were also coin dealers). In my view, such tactics are dishonorable and such censorship can be perceived as dishonest for a group that claims to promote understanding and dialogue. Even some of the articles on the ACCG webpage, many authored by yourself, seem to mock the academic standing of archaeology and, in my view, are little more than diatribes (see for example: “Archaeology: a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?” (http://accg.us/issues/editorials/pro/wolf) and “Hijacked by Zealots.” (http://accg.us/issues/editorials/pro/zealots) Are these tactics and abrasively worded attacks truly the way to achieve dialogue and promote the formulation of real solutions? No. In fact, it is quite clear some ancient coin collectors are increasingly frustrated by the tactics employed by the ACCG and its more vocal leaders: see David Gill’s blog entry, “Coins, Cabals…and Huff and Puff” (http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2007/08/coins-cabals-and-huff-and-puff.html). Only when people on both sides of the argument are willing to treat each other with respect and speak with open minds will such constructive dialogue be possible. Emotional reactions and alarmist tactics have no place in the debate.
I do not see the irony in citing Beckmann’s article. It was cited, because apart from von Kaenel, few numismatists have addressed the problem of coins as cultural property and the antiquities trade in print; Beckmann’s article is in English and is accessible to a general audience. In my view, it seems to have suffered from a degree of over-editing, but I do understand his desire to publish in a forum with a collector oriented audience – an American Journal of Archaeology article, for example, would have “preached to the choir” in large part. On the other hand, I continue to believe that the Celator, which has been handed down to another ACCG officer, is a somewhat biased venue for discourse on these issues. It regularly featured (does it still?) monthly columns from you on cultural property issues, which exaggerated and denounced cultural preservationist viewpoints in some very hostile ways, such as “Hijacked by Zealots,” which I cited previously. Many others can be found on the ACCG webpage with a keyword search for the Celator.
You stated “The suggestion that coins which cannot be linked to a specific context are of little or lesser value is simply uninformed.” Can people really believe this? It is quite clear that coins found in archaeological contexts, or any other object for that matter, reveal a greater amount of information than those that simply exist with no recorded origin. It is not dissimilar to removing objects from a crime scene; as soon as it is removed and the context is not recorded, its usefulness to recreate past events is immensely diminished. Yes, you are correct, there have been some very good iconographic and technical studies of ancient coins, but this is only one dimension of numismatic inquiry. As I have already discussed, context is essential to numismatic studies that include economic studies, circulation studies, expansion/contraction of settlements, and even the movement of peoples in ancient settlements. My recent article in Numismatic Chronicle 2006 was a die-study and an iconographic analysis; I argued that the Flavian Colosseum sestertii were distributed by the emperor at the inaugural games of the Colosseum as a form of largess. I largely based this conclusion on the die-study since not one of the coins covered in the study, to my knowledge, have a recorded archaeological provenance. Better and reliable ways of determining the function of this series of coins may have been employed if a find spot were recorded – unfortunately that was not the case, though I have found some examples since then that have an excavated context and I intend to update my work. For information on the value of coins in archaeological contexts see my SAFE article, which should be available on the SAFE website within the week, as well as the AIA page that I referenced in the original blog posting. The response implied that I have a “poor understanding of numismatics in general” and minimized the great potential for studying coins in situ and disregarded the vast bibliography which has analyzed ancient coins in archaeological contexts. The contextual approach is not the only way to study ancient coins, but it is a very important and useful avenue of inquiry which should not be discounted or minimized. I am confident in my competence in serious numismatic research and I understand the personal aspects of the response are the result of an emotional response. I kindly ask, however, that useless and unsubstantiated personal attacks be removed from the debate. In my view such belligerence does not aid ACCG cause and does not foster dialogue or positive change; the point was also made in the spring issue of the American Numismatic Society Magazine when the ANS Executive Director stated your emails (she referred to you anonymously) to her were “bellicose” and did not further any constructive efforts. You responded to this by acknowledging authorship of the emails in your blog and reveled in being called “bellicose”(Yes, it’s a war http://ancientcoincollecting.blogspot.com/2007/07/yes-its-war.html).
I view some ACCG members as propagating the mistruth that archaeologists know nothing about ancient coins and I do not believe this is a misconception. Clearly some of them have done so. One of the ACCG’s most vocal activists and officers, Dave Welsh, made this claim explicitly in an MSN post I referenced in my original posting and quoted. Some of your ACCG articles even imply that all archaeologists continuously allow ancient coins to deteriorate after obtaining a date and do not release them for more serious studies, painting a grim and exaggerated scenario that is not reality in modern archaeology. A blog entry by Jim McGarigle (http://rightwingcoingeek.blogspot.com/2007/07/saving-antiquities-for-everyone-yeah.html), an active and vocal ACCG member, curiously argued that archaeologists know nothing about ancient coins because a SAFE webpage contained a transcriptional error that read “Gold Attic-Standard Tetradrachm” rather than a “Silver Attic-Standard Tetradrachm.” He claimed the transcriptional error was an example of how professional archaeologists (even though SAFE is an advocacy group composed of professionals and concerned citizens outside of archaeology) know nothing about ancient coins. From this curious jump in reasoning, he proclaimed: “I'll put my real world numismatic background (no degree) up against the professional archaeologists at SAFE and ARCHAEOLOGY on ancient coins any day. I have no doubt that some degreed expert made both of these errors.” Can an enthusiast of the Animal Planet channel credibly claim to know more about animals than a zoologist or an animal behaviorist or can an amateur science fan seriously claim to know more about physics than degreed and trained professionals in that field? Do coin dealers and collectors never make typographical or transcriptional errors in their online listings or in auction catalogues from time to time? Next time a Classical Numismatic Group (CNG) auction catalogue has typo or transcriptional error, should one lose complete faith in their numismatic knowledge?
I continue to disagree that the unbridled trade in undocumented ancient coins is necessary for the continued existence of numismatic scholarship and I think it is clear that the trade is having negative effects on aspects of the “science of numismatics.” I offer a parallel example: much has been written how the widespread demand and collecting of Cycladic figures (which prompted people to prospect for them to sell on the market) has had a profound negative impact on our understanding of them since so few have been recorded from properly recorded contexts.
I find it a little concerning that you seem to condone the illicit activity of the smuggler of ancient coins I referenced in my essay, since you stated the ACCG has a clear stance regarding illicit activity and unethical importation. There is undeniable proof that a great deal of the undocumented material surfacing on the market today is fresh. Clear examples of this can be illustrated by dealers who trade in bulk lots of uncleaned coins in particular.
I realize that legislation is not a complete solution, but at present it is one of the few tools that cultural preservationists have at their disposal to counter looters and smugglers who seek to profit from the widespread destruction of history. If we are truly concerned about the destruction of world history, compromises will need to be made on both sides of the argument and there are, perhaps, ways that private collecting and contextual study can coexist, but it is clear that some regulation is needed in the dealer community, which at present is indiscriminately trading in undocumented material on a large scale in order to keep up with demand. Schemes like that in Britain are a start, but they are also problematic and cannot stop systematic looting that occurs to supply a widespread demand (in general, see David Gill’s post on the Portable Antiquities Scheme http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2007/09/portable-antiquities-scheme.html). In any case, personal attacks, deceptions, and alarmist emotional appeals will not positively contribute to the debate.
Dear Mr. Welsh,
Thank you for your comments. I agree compromises will be necessary on both sides if looting is ever to be significantly curbed and that a discourse is necessary. This discourse, however, must remain civil and cannot result in impulsive emotional responses, alarmism, exaggeration, and overt personal attacks - which is how I view the first reaction to my essay, which Mr. Sayles published in multiple venues. I understand the success of Cyprus' request has provoked outrage among many in the collector/dealer community, but I do not believe abrasive reactions (on either side) help anyone with a stake in the debate.
One aspect of your response with which I disagree is your view of what an "archaeologist" actually does. Although many archaeologists actively conduct field work, not all do. An archaeologist can, in fact, be a material culture specialist who rarely 'works' in the field, but may be an object specialist who instead works in a lab. In any event, degreed archaeologists are trained in (and frequently required, in academic programs, to participate in) archaeological field work and excavations. The simple fact of the matter is that even though an archaeologist may not be actively excavating a site, he/she does understand archaeological method and theory, field technique, and how to read and analyze an excavation report. Excavation reports are basic sources for any archaeologist, whether or not they conduct field work. Therefore any respectable and trained archaeologist knows what comes from archaeological excavations and the significance of those objects. I must also disagree with your distinction between a 'field archaeologist' and an 'academic archaeologist' who teaches. Classical archaeologists who are employed and live in the United States almost always work at universities or museums during most of the year. If that archaeologist conducts field work or participates in excavation, it is done in the summer, while research, publication, and teaching obligations take over during the 'academic year.' Among American Classical archaeologists, the term 'field archaeologist' often refers to someone (usually without a Ph.D.) who does contract archaeology within the U.S.: for example, checking building sites before a new Wal-Mart goes up to make sure a potential archaeologically significant site is not disturbed. In American Classical archaeology, you simply cannot make a distinction between those "who teach" and those "who do." We (American Classical archaeologists) do both. Thank you for clarifying the intent behind your words behind your MSN post. I would venture to say, however, that many more Classical archaeologists know about coins and work with coins much more than you think.
All, best,
Nathan
Dear Mr. Elkins,
Thank you for this response to my comments. I hope it is now clear that some remarks which may inadvertently have given offense were really not intended in the way that they were taken.
The matter of who is or is not a professional archaeologist can, in my view, be settled relatively simply. If an individual earns a living primarily through practicising archaeology, whether that be by excavating in the field, or in an institution carrying out other related archaeological activities at a professional level (i.e. beyond what technicians and student interns can do), such as the material culture work you cite, that individual can reasonably be considered a professional archaeologist. However, someone who primarily earns a living through teaching archaeology, even if that is combined with occasional field work or other professional activities, is really a professional teacher or academic, according to the ordinary and customary meaning of the word "professional."
I do not know of any other recognized profession (I cited law, medicine and engineering with which I have some familiarity) in which an individual who is primarily an academic is considered to be a practising professional. There are examples in medicine of individuals holding university appointments while maintaining a professional practise, but in such cases their activities usually are devoted more toward their practise and to research than toward teaching.
Thus, there is in my view a real distinction between those who teach and those who do. In making that distinction I do not view it as being in any way pejorative, believing instead that it must simply be recognized that there is a difference between a teaching or academic professional and a practising professional.
I don't think it is reasonable or proper for archaeologists to maintain their own unique standard for who shall be considered a professional archaeologist - that is something which, in my view, properly belongs to our language rather than to any individual discipline.
Addressing your next point, academics and practising professionals in the field of archaeology who have some knowledge of coins, I would agree that there are without question some who do. It would be interesting to compile a complete list, more accurately defining the very imperfectly understoood intersection between archaeology and numismatics. In doing so it would also be essential to find means of capturing the extent of such knowledge.
Numismatics is a science comparable in complexity to archaeology, at least to the extent that no individual could ever hope to master all of it. I would agree that Dr. Roger Bland has a significant mastery of numismatic knowledge. I do not think you will be able to find many other professional archaeologists whose numismatic knowledge can compare with his. Thus, the true point at issue between us is where one draws the line between those who really understand numismatics and those who don't. As a professional numismatist, my view of that threshold tends to be fairly discriminating.
I would say that as a minimum "screening" requirement, a competent professional numismatist in the field of classical ancient coins (given an eclectic mix of 100 unidentified coins of different genres and types in their usual imperfect state of preservation) should be able to perform sight attributions with something on the order of 90% accuracy as to culture, period or reign if applicable, and issuing authority.
This is not much different conceptually from a fluency standard in linguistics. Being able to correctly read, pronounce and immediately translate an ancient text or inscription is quite a different standard from laboriously transliterating it, then constructing a translation using dictionaries and grammars. Being able to "sight read" certain ancient scripts whilst having to deal with others "the hard way," I am thoroughly familiar with that difference.
Finally I would like to leave you with the thought that archaeologists may very well underestimate the extent to which coin dealers and coin collectors are also scientists, with much to contribute to mankind's understanding of the ancient world. Perhaps we would all be better off if the archaeological community would experiment with visualizing and treating coin collectors as knowledgeable, helpful and well intentioned colleagues, rather than incorrectly (in my view) perceiving them as dangerous competitors.
Best Regards,
Dear Mr. Welsh,
I should like to discuss one of your comments:
"Finally I would like to leave you with the thought that archaeologists may very well underestimate the extent to which coin dealers and coin collectors are also scientists, with much to contribute to mankind's understanding of the ancient world. Perhaps we would all be better off if the archaeological community would experiment with visualizing and treating coin collectors as knowledgeable, helpful and well intentioned colleagues, rather than incorrectly (in my view) perceiving them as dangerous competitors."
I think this is an important point you raise. I agree and have acknowledged that collectors have made some great contributions to numismatics. Indeed, some collectors have written some brilliant articles in scholarly venues such as the Numismatic Chronicle, American Journal of Numismatics, etc. I think one of the reasons that debate is heating up on 'ancient coins as cultural property' is because the past decade or two has seen an immense increase in suppliers of ancient coins to meet with a growing demand, which can be credited to the commercialism of the internet and also the networking opportunities that technology provides. In order to keep up with that demand, an increase in supply is needed meaning that large shipments of ancient coins have been intercepted by customs officials and there is an increase of literature that is showing us that the effects of the avocation are not as innocuous as it was once perceived (at least from a general professional point of view). Simultaneously, archaeologists and art historians alike have become increasingly sensitive to contextual concerns for all types of objects and generally view looting activities as detrimental to scientific inquiry. This is why many archaeologists advocated a 'divorce' between archaeology and the antiquities trade in the 1970s. It is my perception that numismatics, on the other hand, was still largely in the realm of antiquarianism during this time, at least in the English-speaking world (the Germans were already working with archaeological contexts in numismatics to a significant degree). It wasn't until later that contextual approaches were widely applied to numismatics by scholars in North America. From my observations from my past several years of attendance at AIA meetings, there is increased interest by archaeological professional in numismatics and there are usually at least two or three coin sessions (with multiple papers) between the AIA/APA joint meetings and many young archaeologists are also emerging numismatists. Archaeologists are aware coins are worth more than just a means of dating for stratigraphic layers and as such view them as vital archaeological objects. I also think that much of the conflict lies in the different approach to coins applied by archaeologists and collectors/dealers. The archaeologist always has context first and foremost in mind, since this is how a material culture specialist answers questions. On the other hand, collectors and dealers usually appreciate ancient coins for aesthetic value and historical interest, to which context is only a secondary concern and the source of the acquired objects is often immaterial. I agree that cooperative efforts will ultimately be the most successful solutions. Without discussing the practicalities the possibility, this is why I suggested encouraging collectors to apply their expertise by volunteering to work at archaeological sites (see my original blog post). I think it would promote dialogue and understanding between the two points of view. This, of course, may be a difficult proposition, however, given some of the distrust that has built up over the years. Nevertheless, I know some collectors have worked at archaeological sites in the past, such as David Hendin at Sepphoris. If such a program could be developed, archaeologists could employ and understand the useful knowledge that many collectors posses and the collector could see that context is not an insignificant and secondary concern. Without doubt, however, I think what is happening in numismatics today is not very dissimilar to the dialogue that occurred within archaeology in the 1970's and this dialogue is likely to provoke emotional reactions on both sides. It may be a turbulent dialogue as both sides try to cope with the changes that are and need to be taking place; nevertheless we must keep our wits about us and keep that dialogue civil. Thank you again for the comments.
All best,
Nathan
Dear Mr. Elkins,
I would like to pursue this discussion further. You stated: "I agree and have acknowledged that collectors have made some great contributions to numismatics. Indeed, some collectors have written some brilliant articles in scholarly venues such as the Numismatic Chronicle, American Journal of Numismatics, etc." I would make a significant amendment to that, i.e. that coin dealers and collectors have, throughout the years, made not just some but actually most of the great contributions to numismatics. That's a large subject and if it is desired to pursue it further, it may be appropriate to open a different thread, perhaps in a venue such as Moneta-L.
You also stated, "I think one of the reasons that debate is heating up on 'ancient coins as cultural property' is because the past decade or two has seen an immense increase in suppliers of ancient coins to meet with a growing demand, which can be credited to the commercialism of the internet and also the networking opportunities that technology provides. In order to keep up with that demand, an increase in supply is needed meaning that large shipments of ancient coins have been intercepted by customs officials and there is an increase of literature that is showing us that the effects of the avocation are not as innocuous as it was once perceived (at least from a general professional point of view)." To that I will respond that you have it backwards.
The recent increase in interest in collecting ancient coins was primarily driven by two developments that began in the 1980s: widespread use of improved metal detectors as a recreational hobby, and the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. It was the resulting large increase in newly discovered finds of certain common types of ancient coins, such as late Roman bronzes, and the availability of eBay as a venue on which to sell them, that brought so many new "dealers" and "collectors" into the field. It has always been recognized by really knowledgeable veteran observers that this was a transient "bubble" caused by the opening up of virgin prospecting territories combined with availability of an efficient means of discovery.
This "detectorist bubble" is really something new and different, superimposed upon the traditional licit numismatic market with its centuries-old, vast reservoir of unprovenanced coins in countless tens of thousands of collections, of which only a tiny fraction enter the trade in any given year. This traditional market had previously received only a relatively small influx of newly discovered coins, originating mostly in chance finds stemming from normal human activities such as agriculture and construction excavations.
The traditional market was not, and prior to about 1980 had never been considered to be, a threat to archaeology. To the extent any threat exists (which I think is greatly exaggerated) it lies in this "detectorist bubble," not the traditional market. I should add that dealers such as myself, and many veteran collectors did not and still do not welcome this "bubble." It has greatly distorted the numismatic market, creating unsustainable demand for cheap common ancient coins as well as unpleasant conflict with the archaeology lobby.
The supply is already falling off to a very noticeable extent. I believe that within at most five years this "bubble" will collapse from exhaustion of finds easily discoverable by detectorists, after which the numismatic market will soon return to its former, sustainable small influx of newly discovered material originating in ways that do not threaten archaeology. Then, there will be no reason for conflict between coin collectors and archaeologists.
Best Regards,
Dear Mr. Elkins,
You make some very well-reasoned arguments and though I am a collector I share your viewpoint on a number of issues including the enormous value of context.
I'd like to state, in as simple of terms as possible, why I nevertheless feel compelled to support the ACCG's stand against import restrictions. Simply put, the only thing they will accomplish is cutting off collectors/enthusiasts from access to studying that which many of them have devoted years of personal research to. That's all. They won't stop the coins from being looted, they will simply hinder or kill the present licit market and drive the trade underground. Then instead of numerous enthusiasts worldwide, sharing information, photographs, analysis, and theories concerning the coins in their specific area of interest, you will simply have large private collections in the hands of wealthy individuals who happen to have "connections."
The fact that so many of the source countries for coins today already have very-restrictive cultural property laws on the books shows precisely how ineffective such legal methods are at stopping the looting. The coins will continue to be looted, but where will individuals such as myself be able to learn about the latest finds/information/research concerning, in my case, Late Roman coinage of the Tetrarchic period? What journals, websites, discussion groups will make this information available to me and other enthusiasts? You mean, if I wait 15 or 20 years I might be able to read a book about the distribution/circulation of the coins, and the light this sheds on matters of economic policy of the time? Heck, the book might even have a smattering of photos as well! Don't get me wrong--I'd love to have such a book--but surely you must see how much the cultural property folks are asking us to give up and how little they are offering in return.
While the UK treasure trove model is by no means perfect, it is, to my understanding, one of the first examples of a good-faith effort to come to a practical solution regarding the looting problem. I hope that a similar solution can be found for those of us who live elsewhere, so that valuable information about context may be preserved.
Yours respectfully.
Voz Earl
Dear Mr. Welsh,
I would prefer to keep this discussion here (see above for my past experience with dialogue on the Moneta-L list). I appreciate the civil dialogue you and I are able to have here, but there are less rationally minded individuals who will react with great hostility to anyone who has a viewpoint other than their own, whether or not it is substantiated. A new comment (4th one down) on Wayne Sayles’ blog makes this clear (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21793457&postID=1085757998428218746). Although the discussion was, to that point, a mirror of the discussion here, the comment was not submitted to this venue for obvious reasons: such hostility is not useful to the debate and it would certainly have been moderated. Only when people treat each other with mutual respect can progress in the discussion be made. It is no secret that you and I have had some great disagreements on the Museum Security Network (MSN) List, but clearly we are able to have reasoned discussions here. With that being said, I welcome further reasoned dialogue here with anyone who would like to participate in the debate.
I understand why you would suggest such an amendment to my statement. Indeed, most, literature produced on ancient coins, until relatively recently, was produced by collectors and dealers (such as Herbert Cahn) and many of those who held academic appointments, such as Philip Grierson, were also collectors. As all disciplines do, however, they evolve and change as new ways of approaching the material and scientific approaches develop. Numismatics is a discipline which has done likewise. If you read the writings of Hans-Markus von Kaenel, a most distinguished and knowledgeable numismatist, he has demonstrated that there are two approaches to numismatics and that there was essentially a split at the time of Mommsen; he distinguishes between the antiquarian approach and defines the other as ‘Geldgeschichte.’ The former is the interest in the object itself, the treatment of it in simple aesthetic terms, the differentiation between fakes and forgeries, etc. The latter cannot be translated well into English, but literally means ‘money history’ and essentially defines the ‘scientific’ approach to ancient coins. Geldgeschichte would be the employment of the study of coins for broader questions not just about the coins themselves, but also treats them as primary historical sources which, if properly studied, can inform us about ancient ways of life, trade, economies, and so on. Die-studies and iconographic analyses are great, but how much better could they be when context is known and when context is granted the important place it deserves? Context is essential to scientific research. The antiquarian approach, to which many collectors/dealers proudly ascribe to be inheritors, is – for lack of a better word – ‘antiquated’ and does routinely pay attention to developments that have taken place in related fields. I’ll cite another example from the early days of classical archaeology. The study of sculpture and Greek vases was first driven by people who wanted to accumulate the objects for their own collections and interest was in the object itself and its aesthetic – not at all dissimilar to numismatics. Now, however, it is realized that these objects are much more informative for our knowledge of the ancient world with an excavated context, rather than without, and the scholarship has changed as has the general approach to the objects. While it is probable that collectors and dealers have perhaps provided the most ‘voluminous’ amounts of literature on the topic of numismatics to date, are they the greatest contributions? I would agree they provided the foundation for much of what we call ‘numismatics,’ but is that all there is? Clearly, coins are more informative when they are studied in a scientific fashion that takes care to study context. Before anyone accuses me of ‘academic elitism,’ I would invite the reader to consult the bibliographies of H.-M. von Kaenel, M.R.-Alföldi and others, and he/she will see this is not a new line of thought that has been applied to the scholarly study of numismatics. It has taken a longer time for ancient numismatics to ‘grow up’ than it did for other fields of relating to material culture, but is an antiquarian origin an excuse for continued unrestricted plunder? If it is, then we might as well argue that we should have a free-market for undocumented Greek vases, sculpture, and in fact anything else from the ancient world.
In your second point you said that you think I ‘have it backwards.’ I don’t think I had it backwards, but I think you went into more detail describing the problem. Indeed, metal detectoring provided an influx of material on the market as did the fall of the Iron Curtain (this is mentioned in the forthcoming online article), but I think one thing that is fueling much of the looting today (along with continued developments in detectoring technology over the decades) is clearly the increased demand that can be credited to the Internet and the efficient means of disposal that it offers.
You acknowledge that the 1990’s saw this increase in detectorist activity and state that it somehow ‘polluted’ (my word) the trade by causing an influx of ‘cheap coins’ from Eastern Europe and other places and differentiate that from the ‘traditional market’ in ancient coins, which, you say, had little influx of freshly discovered coins. I would argue there is little distinction between the two; while there may be more demand for ‘cheaper’ coins, it is quite clear that some very rare and ‘expensive’ coins are emerging on the market all over the place. Since I have some specialized knowledge on the Flavian Colosseum sestertii, I will use them as one example. My die-study contained only 42 (if I remember correctly) legitimate specimens, two of those specimens were not known before 2006 (the year the article was printed) and appeared in auction catalogues while a third was recently auctioned by CNG this year, without any prior documentation. These coins are very rare, as my die-study demonstrated, and these are some of the most famous and desirable ancient coin types and yet several have recently appeared on the market without documentation and are selling for high-dollar amounts. The sources for cheap and expensive coins are the same: the ground. Even as early as 1993, McFadden (who wrote in Minerva) estimated 80% of the coins on the market had been dug up within the past 30 years (this is referenced in the forthcoming article). If so much of the ‘traditional market’ is composed of coins from old collections, then why is such a huge proportion of that material sold without any prior reference to ownership or previous auction? CNG, for example, an auction house known for quality coins, sells a very high proportion of undocumented coins to previously documented ones (see the article that will be on the SAFE website in a couple of days). From my investigations, I see no difference in source between the distinction of a ‘traditional’ and new market for ‘cheap coins.’ If, however, many coin dealers are concerned about this new demand for cheap coins, which you seem to acknowledge is destructive to both archaeology and the ancient coin trade, why then does the ACCG allow dealers of bulk cheap coins to be contributing members if the practice is universally deplored amongst ‘more proper’ (my word) ancient coin dealers? Many of these types of dealers are ‘patrons’ of the ACCG. According to the ACCG website, contributing members are allowed only at the discretion of the ACCG. I understand you do not represent the ACCG in an official regard here, and so I merely ask the question to make a point.
There also seems to be a continued distinction between cheap coins vs. those that aren’t so common. Clearly both are traded in large numbers without documentation. If we are truly concerned about scholarship and context, however, the degree of how ‘common’ a coin may be is irrelevant. Thank you again for the continued discussion.
All best,
Nathan
Dear Mr. Elkins,
A few thoughts in response: I wouldn't entirely disagree with your assessment that the market is already largely 'illicit.' However, my point was that if the cultural property folks get their way, people such as myself will be cut off from access to such coins almost entirely. Now I might be able to live with that if the institutions which have coins were living up to their stewardship responsibilities by making them easily accessible to the public, but in this respect they are universally failing miserably.
Honestly, suggesting that amateur researchers can hop on a plane and visit the British Museum or the ANS is such a pathetic offering it's practically laughable. What then would be an acceptable level of public access? At a minimum, web-enabled databases which include basic information such as weight, diameter and die-axis, along with a decent resolution photograph of both sides of each coin. For those who object that such an undertaking is too costly or time-consuming, I reply simply--you have to give something to get something.
Let me point to the example of another discipline--papyrology. By means of three freely available online resources, anyone can access a large corpus of papyrological materials: Advanced Papyrological Information System (APIS), POxy: Oxyrhynchus Online, and the Duke Data Bank of Documentary Papyri (via the Perseus website). Two of these websites provide high-resolution photos of the papyri. Contrast this with the universal lack of such freely available resources in the field of numismatics and you will see why I conclude that coin-holding institutions are coming up woefully short by comparison.
The ANS does have a database of sorts, but it is of limited value since for the most part it doesn't include photos, although they will send you a photo of any coin for $20. So a search of their database yields 743 coins of Maximinus II, of which 9 records include photographs. Therefore, if I'd like to see the remaining 734 coins it will only cost me $14,680--what a bargain! Now if I'd also like to see the coins of the other Tetrarchs: Diocletian, Maximianus, Galerius, Severus II, Maxentius, Licinius and Constantine...well, you can only imagine how much that is going to cost. As paltry an offering as the ANS database is, it is light-years ahead of all other institutions which for all intents and purposes provide ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
And what about the institutions in the source countries themselves, the repositories of all this glorious "cultural heritage"--what are they doing to make ANY information about these coins available? Forget about websites and databases--how about a simple book or meaningful article documenting any one of the numerous hoards of Tetrarchic folles found in Eastern Europe and the Near East in the last half a century. There are only a few which have ever been published (they hardly take up any space on my bookshelf). Meanwhile, many such hoards show up every year on the open market and are both affordable and readily accessible to the amateur researcher. It's sad to think that I can presently learn so much more from possibly looted coins robbed of their context, than I can from the hoards of unpublished coins held by institutions that provide no access to any information about them at all (unless of course I hop on a plane to Bulgaria, and even then, who knows whether I would be granted access, other than looking at a representative sample on display).
If institutions wish to cry poverty and claim that there are so many coins that it's not feasible to publish them or to create web-accessible databases, then how about they start doing as much as they CAN do. Surely they are not so poor that all they can muster is NOTHING. How about starting a project to make, say, 5 or 10% of their material accessible through the web? Folks like myself would be a lot more enthusiastic about all future hoards of coins going to institutions committed to information access rather than disappearing forever into the black holes of inaccessibility which these institutions presently resemble.
Yours respectfully,
Voz Earl
Dear Mr. Earl,
Many thanks for your comments. Import restrictions and other such legal measures are seen by many who advocate for cultural property protection as a tool to discourage looting. In my view, the market is already essentially 'illicit' even though these items are openly traded. The lack documentation and provenance indicates most were probably robbed from archaeological sites since the implementation of the UNESCO Convention. Most lots in the various auctions have no reference to previous owners, collections, auctions. In this sense, the marketis already 'underground.' Upon successful smuggling into the U.S., however, it is difficult to trace ancient coins to their origin and so that, coupled with the vast numbers on the market, would make it very difficult to investigate and prosecute individual cases.
Most collectors/dealers do not seem to be very concerned with making sure the coins the collect/import are not from archaeological sites (see blog entries on the Codes of Ethics). My new article, "Why Coins Matter: Trafficking in Undocumented and Illegally Exported Ancient Coins in the North American Marketplace," is now available online at http://www.savingantiquities.org/feature.php. I invite you to take a look since I discuss how ancient coins enter the U.S. and where they come from. This is why I have adopted a viewpoint, which I believe will help to protect the future of archaeology and serious numismatic research. It seems quite clear that little self-regulation is occurring in the market to protect archaeological sites and so that is why I, along with other archaeologists and numismatists, have supported import restrictions and other legislative measures. I understand the joy and thrill of collecting, having once been an active collector of ancient coins myself. It is possible, however, to conduct research on coins without actively acquiring them. Important collections such as those at the British Museum and the American Numismatic Society allow virtually any individual to consult the numismatic collection by appointment regardless of academic qualifications. Access to research materials are often free at University libaries and non-students/staff can often pay a small fee to have borrowing privileges and use interlibrary loan. Access to the research materials are available to all. In the end, I believe, responsible collectors and dealers will have to hold suppliers accountable, otherwise it will be up to archaeologists and concerned parties to advocate for legal measures.
With best wishes,
Nathan
Dear Mr. Elkins,
I can appreciate your desire to keep our dialogue on this venue, where it can be moderated and your point of view will not be subjected to the sort of intense criticism you had previously experienced on Moneta-L. Such criticism was not to my liking either. However, if the objective is to constructively engage others in the collecting community, that is not going to take place on this venue. But if it's not possible to persuade you to attempt that outreach then I will do what I can within the limits of your venue.
I hope you realize that as listowner of Unidroit-L I have (to the extent humanly possible) always treated the anticollecting point of view fairly, even though I have strong personal opposing opinions. My overriding concern is that a cooperative settlement will never be possible until both sides learn how to participate in contructive and serious dialogue. Although much divides us, I think we should be able to unite in agreeing on concepts such as the importance of dialogue, fair play etc.
I think I should add that my experiences in investigating and pondering upon the conflict between archaeology and collecting have convinced me that the "abolish collecting" goal of certain radical archaeologists is childishly simplistic and also the worst possible strategy, worse indeed than doing nothing.
I am instead convinced that ironically, private collecting - reformed and sensibly regulated - is the only hope for bringing looting under control. According to this point of view, it follows that unless such a cooperative settlement can be worked out, looting will continue to rage essentially unchecked.
I am very hesitant to get into a discussion of von Kaenel's theories, because I see this as distracting from essential issues at hand. I will instead observe that "numismatics" includes a lot of territory, and that I am far from convinced that the theoretical academic approach to numismatics includes all (or even most) of it.
I think it is essential to address these remarks that you made: "Die-studies and iconographic analyses are great, but how much better could they be when context is known and when context is granted the important place it deserves? Context is essential to scientific research. The antiquarian approach, to which many collectors/dealers proudly ascribe to be inheritors, is – for lack of a better word – ‘antiquated’ and does routinely pay attention to developments that have taken place in related fields."
To this I will reply that the importance of archaeological context to numismatics is minimal. Numismatics is mostly about coin hoards and die links, not stratigraphy and contextual relationships with other types of artifacts. Numismatists do care about context of hoards: they want to know which types of coins were found together, their approximate location and the numbers of each coin type. As to whether they were buried in a pot or a wooden chest, and other site details that might interest archaeologists, these normally have no numismatic significance.
You then went on to say "Clearly, coins are more informative when they are studied in a scientific fashion that takes care to study context. Before anyone accuses me of ‘academic elitism,’ I would invite the reader to consult the bibliographies of H.-M. von Kaenel, M.R.-Alföldi and others, and he/she will see this is not a new line of thought that has been applied to the scholarly study of numismatics. It has taken a longer time for ancient numismatics to ‘grow up’ than it did for other fields of relating to material culture, but is an antiquarian origin an excuse for continued unrestricted plunder?"
I do not agree that in any instance I can readily call to mind, the numismatic value of an investigation would have been perceptibly enhanced by a study of site context beyond the sort of "hoard report" information I previously described.
I do realize that there is sometimes (by no means is this usually the case) value in studying coins to develop and speculate on information beyond the traditional boundaries of numismatics. One might describe this as "numismatic archaeology" or "archaeological numismatics," a specialty you have made a contribution to. However it would be a mistake to describe it as an alteration of numismatics. In reality it is instead an addition to that long established science.
Finally (for this post) I must address your remarks "Even as early as 1993, McFadden (who wrote in Minerva) estimated 80% of the coins on the market had been dug up within the past 30 years (this is referenced in the forthcoming article). If so much of the ‘traditional market’ is composed of coins from old collections, then why is such a huge proportion of that material sold without any prior reference to ownership or previous auction?"
It is a fundamental error to imagine that the coin population in the hands of numismatists is typified by coins on the market at any given moment. 100% of newly discovered material is on the market and perhaps only 3% of "old collection" material is on the market. That material turns over when collectors pass away or decide to dispose of their collections, events which occur once in several decades.
Even if only 20% of what is on the market is "old collection material" (which seems a very low estimate, I would prefer at least a third and more likely half), then we have this equation:
x + y = 100
x = old collection coins
y = new material
.03x = 20
y = 80
.12x = 80 = y
leading to the conclusion that newly found material is still only perhaps 1/8 of that amassed in private collections during the last six or seven centuries.
As for why auction houses sell a very high percentage of undocumented coins, that simply reflects the fact that demand for documentation is very recent and is coming from archaeologists and not from numismatists. This demand did not exist at all before about 1980, and only in a few relatively rare situations had provenance been considered numismatically significant enough to be recorded and preserved. Can you imagine recording provenance for every record in a LP collection, every stamp in a stamp collection etc?
I don't want to get into discussion of why "dealers of bulk cheap coins" are allowed to be ACCG members because I am not an ACCG spokesman. I don't even know how many such dealers belong to the ACCG. I would prefer that you refrain from making points in this dialogue that I can't reply to.
Finally, it was pointed out earlier that this discussion is wandering all over the place because so many new topics and points are being raised. If dialogue and clarification/resolution are the goals, it would be better to stay with one issue in a thread and start new threads for additional issues.
Best Regards,
In addition to the new SAFE feature, "Why coins matter..." http://www.savingantiquities.org/feature.php,
two new entries by David Gill on "Looting Matters" may be of interest: "The intellectual consequences of collecting classical coins" http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2007/09/intellectual-consequences-of-collecting.html and "the archaeological community's obsession with context" http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2007/09/archaeological-communitys-obsession.html
Mr. Welsh:
We agree with you that "it would be better to stay with one issue in a thread and start new threads for additional issues." Before you post another comment, we'd appreciate it if you would read and abide by our request outlined in: http://safecorner.savingantiquities.org/2007/09/blogging-on-safecorner.html
Thank you for your cooperation,
SAFECORNER
Greetings Nathan and all,
I know I'm a Jonny-come-lately to this discussion but I recently have been catching up with this in light of recent developments. I believe that Nathan really did not directly address, perhaps even ignored Voz's concerns stated back in late Sept.
1) Voz mentioned that museums like the British Museum and ANS are a long ways away. Nathan responded by basically saying anyone regardless of scholarly credentials can use the ANS.
Some time back I got into a polite argument with somebody at the ANS saying that with me living in Wisconsin I was getting tired of constantly being invited to cocktail parties in New York City. I think Nathan may be suffering from an unintentional geographical bias. The UK is fairly small in comparison to the USA. I'm not saying this to get into a "my country is bigger than yours" debate. I just don't think he realizes immediately living in such a compact home country that if I (living in north-central Wisconsin) want to go to a cocktail party at the ANS, I have to drive 1,091 miles, about a 16 hour drive if I don't stop to eat, sleep or relieve myself. The closest museum with an active numismatic display is in Appleton, WI which is on the other side of the state and to the south, about a 4 hour drive. That display is largely devoted to Byzantine coins which I neither collect nor regularly sell.
2) Also, as Voz noted, the ANS public database on the web does not have a lot of pictures. In contrast, websites such as Wildwinds and Coinarchives which are run by collectors and dealers respectively are flush with photographs and are a testament to private, non-professional scholarship such as Wayne frequently touts. There is no university sponsored website I know of that really compares to Wildwinds or Coinarchives. There are very few schools (I don't even know which ones they are!) that even offer numismatics as a degree or a class. In spite of that, numismatic study thrives because private collectors and dealers (most of whom are collectors at heart) have a passion for coins and history.
One other point Voz made that Nathan ignored was that if collecting "goes underground" only the "connected rich" will collect ancient coins. Coin collecting in the USA is largely a middle-class, family activity and the internet has made ancient coins more affordable and accessible so even a boy with a paper route can afford to collect them.
MY OWN THOUGHTS
This facet of import restrictions troubles me most, one reason I collect has to do with my religious faith. In the United States, Freedom of Religion is guaranteed under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution along with Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. Much of my collecting is an outgrowth of my Religious Faith. I collect coins of the Bible and coins & medals of the Protestant Reformation. I collect to impart religious knowledge to my family, friends and others. Import restrictions may have the unintended effect of cutting off my ability to purchase these coins and hence pass on my faith in a manner I and not a few others have grown accustomed to. Most people who fit into this category I belong to are not the well heeled people collecting statue heads, mummified bodies and stolen museum pieces so often shown on venues such as the National Geographic and History Channel. 1) Our faith morally prevents us from such theivery and 2) Most of us are middle class, many are pastors or parochial school teachers, retirees, etc and can only afford items in the $20 to $200 price range - not the extravagant museum pieces. We are the people who buy common coins and maybe other less expensive common items like cheap oil lamps.
You see, coin collecting is very much a family hobby. My grandfather shared it with me. 2 of my cousins collected coins (1 still does) and my oldest child whom Wayne has the pleasure to have met is a serious collector in her own right already at age 13! Import restrictions on coins may have the unintended effect of curtailing religious liberty and interfering with an innocuous family pastime - hardly a worthy expenditure of tax dollars.
I can't speak as an official spokesman for the ACCG, nor am I going to take that mantle but as a member, I take seriously our ethics about having respect for the past. I have always purchased coins from legal & reputable sources. Since the UK and Israel seem to have the most rational laws, licensed dealers of those countries are my main sources for ancient coins.
I too have a passion for serious archaeology and have been a member of both the AIA (in the past) and the BAS from 1985 to the present. I am opposed to looting and get REALLY offended when I am equated with one!
I think there is a middle ground, I think the solution lies in a regulated free-market solution, not a top-heavy bureaucratic one. While I agree with Dave Welsh and Wayne that it is impossible to photograph and record every coin (many ancient coins are slugs) I think it would be reasonable to expect a photograph & provenance for any new coin coming onto the market with a retail value of $25 or more and to begin a prior sales history for all the other existing unprovenanced coins on the market of the same value so there is at least some sort of sales history or pedigree. I know some dealers will groan at that, I know it would be more labor intensive but it would not be impossible. Recording EVERY coin however is impossible. For the more commerce-minded, eventually it would create more jobs for numismatic catalogers and drive up prices!
However, to record every FEL TEMP or GLORIA EXERCITAS that might sell for $1 to $10 is not realistic. In the past, I have bought $5, $10 & $15 coins sight unseen but for a middle class person or a collector of even more modest means, for $25, I'd want a photograph.
About 2 years ago I received a catalog from a UK auction house that had several lots of coins with minimum bids of £100 GBPs (about $200 USD then) that did not have pictures. One was a lot of 6 coins. I asked for a photo and got one (it was a bit blurry and rushed looking) and was not happy with the photo but could still tell they were nice coins and so I bid. I think this kind of practice is deplorable. The description made much of that these coins were from a certain private collection (to imply pedigree) but would not take the care to photograph them properly.
Respectfully,
Jim McGarigle
Post a Comment