Nathan Elkins has raised some important issues in "Codes of Ethics vs. the Financial Interest". It has drawn my attention to the code of ethics published by the ACCG.
Appended to the rather brief list is this statement:
"The ACCG Board of Directors also agreed that the standards of conduct of museum professionals and archaeologists ought to include certain issues like conservation, publishing responsibilites, respect for private ownership and public access. These concerns will be communicated to the appropriate organizations or associations in the form of an ACCG petition for consideration."
In the interest of dialogue, can I take the opportunity to give some feedback on ACCG point 1?
"Coin Collectors and Sellers will not knowingly purchase coins illegally removed from scheduled archaeological sites or stolen from museum or personal collections, and will comply with all cultural property laws of their own country."
Elkins has already commented on the clause "comply with all cultural property laws of their own country". But we have seen with the return of antiquities from North American collections to Italy that objects apparently purchased or donated and in compliance with US laws were still deemed to have left their country of origin illegally. (See observations by Gill and Chippindale on the Boston return.) There were good ethical (and professional) reasons for distinguished institutions like the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, and the J. Paul Getty Museum to co-operate with the Italian authorities.
But what about the first section, "coins illegally removed from scheduled archaeological sites"? In the UK "scheduled" has a distinct meaning. But I presume that this part of the code suggests that it is unacceptable to remove coins from known, listed ("scheduled") archaeological sites. But what about the archaeological sites that have yet to be discovered? Is it acceptable to destroy undisturbed archaeological contexts because by "chance" the site is unknown to archaeological science?
Then there is the phrase "will not knowingly purchase coins". Elkins has commented on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. So an ethical policy needs to ask questions. A purchasing strategy needs to be rigorous.
So can I presume to make a humble stab at rephrasing code 1? (And can I suggest three clauses?)
a. Coin Collectors and Sellers will seek to be rigorous in establishing the collecting history ("provenance") of the coins that they acquire.
b. Coin Collectors and Sellers will not buy coins that they know or reasonably suspect were removed from archaeological sites or stolen from museum or personal collections.
c. Coin Collectors and Sellers will comply with all cultural property laws of the countries associated with the material that they aspire to acquire.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Coins, ethics and scheduled monuments
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Perhaps if a somewhat influential group of collectors and dealers, like the ACCG, did make such amendments to the 'Code of Ethics' and enforced it, it would set a precedent that could positively influence changes in dealing practices throughout the North American community. In my view, it would be an important step in the right direction if VCoins, which hosts dealer inventories from over 100 individuals, also were to adopt similar amendments and strictly enforce them. I think one thing that creates a great deal of distrust, at least from the cultural preservationist viewpoint, is that such 'Codes of Ethics' are vaguely worded and there is ample evidence that they are rarely enforced by that community that formulates them. On the other hand, adoption of more precise language and stricter enforcement of such a code could only be a positive thing and would go far in promoting dialogue and building trust between the currently polarized factions on either side of the debate.
David;
Thank you for your serious comments. I'm sure that you understand the difference between the code of ethics of a consumer group and that of a trade association. The ACCG has no legal or moral authority to enforce its code upon commercial interests. The code was adopted as a statement of principles by which the Board of Directors encourages all with an interest in ancient coin collecting to abide.
Regarding Point 1 of the ACCG code of ethics, which you have copied above:
The repatriated items from the Getty, the Met and the BMFA did not include coins and have no bearing whatever on the private collecting of ancient coins. The decisions of these institutions were driven by factors that do not apply within the numismatic community because of the very nature of coinage. If ancient coins had been in question, the guild would have taken a position consistent with its code of ethics.
The ACCG code of ethics and indeed the guild bylaws are very clear in stating that the guild does not condone or defend the looting of archaeological sites. The term "scheduled" sites is used in the same sense as it is used in the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act which governs the control of cultural property within the United States. But, beyond that, the ACCG does not condone the looting of known archaeological sites in any sense. Some proponents of cultural property nationalism have argued that any place where an artifact is found constitutes an "archaeological site". That is an absurd position and we hardly need to spill any ink arguing against it. We respect the cultural property laws of other countries and the right of those countries to enforce them within their boundaries of jurisdiction.
In response to your suggested rephrasing of Point 1.
a. Establishing provenance is desirable for any collector because coins with an established provenance are naturally worth more money. A simple fact. Because there are so incredibly many coins available on the market each year, and because common coins may only be worth $5 to $10 each (that is really a truthful estimate) they are commonly sold in "bulk lots" of several hundred coins each. Virtually every auction worldwide has such lots and often hundreds of such lots. The average value may climb to $20 or $30, but the point is the same. It is simply not feasible to record a provenance for each coin any more so that it would be to establish the provenance of every seashell sold at Fort Lauderdale during Easter weekend. This is why we feel that such suggestions reflect a lack of knowledge and understanding about coins and the coin market. With cultural property, one size does not fit all and age of the object is not a rational qualifier.
Section B is unchanged from the original.
Section C is totally unreasonable. The reason that each country has different laws and national boundaries is because the citizens of those countries have different beliefs, different values and different expectations of their governments. No country requires its citizens, within their national territory, to abide by laws promulgated in and by another country. That is such a basic tenet of international law that I'm surprised anyone would even suggest it. The ACCG would certainly not suggest something like that and given a little thought on the subject, I'd venture to say that neither would archaeologists or anyone else.
But, just for the sake of dialogue, how would any such plan be enforced concerning coins? Do all Roman coins get treated under the laws of Italy? Do Abbasid coins found in Sweden fall under the laws of Syria? What about the Harun dirhems struck in Anatolia? Do they fall under the laws of Turkey or the laws of Syria? What about the coin from a Greek mint that a Roman soldier who was transferred to Britain took with him? Does that fall under the laws of Greece, or of Britain. Should we abide by all cultural property laws of all countries, all of the time? There are countless issues like this because coins circulated all over the ancient world without respect to national or cultural boundaries. Trying to create those boundaries now is insane. The situation is mind boggling and any attempt at linkage of ancient coins to modern national boundaries is merely guesswork. At this moment, there are 72,750 lots of ancient coins being offered for sale at vcoins.com. This includes many bulk lots. How would it be possible to determine which country's laws should be honored with respect to each coin?
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the problem, but we are unlikely to make any progress until really viable and realistic plans are laid on the table.
The most practical system that we have seen is that developed in Britain. The Treasure Act and the Portable Antiquities Scheme have been incredibly successful in fostering cooperation between collectors and archaeologist and the results have been amazing. Site looting is practically unheard of in Britain because collectors take an active role in protecting sites. The ACCG highly encourages other source countries to employ similar programs. Recently, the ACCG in conjunction with the American Numismatic Society hosted Dr. Roger Bland of the British Museum at a lecture in the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington DC. Dr. Bland addressed a distinguished group of invited diplomats, legislators, educators, government employees, archaeologists and museum representatives. It was a productive session. We should build on that initiative rather than flounder in the quagmire of old rhetoric that will simple prolong the misery of this adversarial position.
With regards,
Wayne Sayles
Dear Wayne
Thank you for continuing the dialogue. There are a number of points that I would like to make in brief.
a. "the ACCG does not condone the looting of known archaeological sites in any sense". But what about the unknown sites? I am not talking about surface scatters but rather material emerging from buried deposits. For example, an unknown and unrecorded Roman villa could be the location for coins. But is it ethical - let alone legal - to remove coins from the site?
b. "Section B is unchanged from the original." In fact there is a difference: "they know or reasonably suspect were removed from archaeological sites". This avoids the turning of "the blind eye" to the issue of looting.
c. "Section C is totally unreasonable". So why have North American institutions returned cultural objects to, say, Italy? Is it just an ethical issue? Or is there a recognition that "laws" - not necessarily US ones - have been broken?
d. "What about the coin from a Greek mint that a Roman soldier who was transferred to Britain took with him?" But how do you know that the bronze coin from a Greek mint actually came from Britain? Because the person selling the coin "said" that he had found it in a field in East Anglia? And does such a story add value? And is it true? And that is why the research I have been conducting with Christopher Chippindale has looked at intellectual consequences
e. Portable Antiquities Scheme. I have discussed this at http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2007/09/portable-antiquities-scheme.html (with a comment by your colleague Peter Tompa).
f. "Site looting is practically unheard of in Britain because collectors take an active role in protecting sites." This does continue. See also http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2007/08/private-collectors-are-potential-threat.html.
g. "We should build on that initiative rather than flounder in the quagmire of old rhetoric that will simple prolong the misery of this adversarial position." I agree that the debate has moved along. And that is why members of the coin-collecting community are saying to one of your officers: "Trying to demonize the archeologists, museum people, and governments of source countries who genuinely believe that private ownership of old coins and artifacts leads to the destruction of historical sites and historical knowledge just turns people off" (http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2007/08/coins-and-cyprus-listening-to-coin.html).
I look forward to reading your response.
Best wishes
David
David;
As usually happens in these discussions, because there are so many serious issues, the dialogue turns into a ping-pong game. In this case, we have seven balls on the table bouncing back and forth. I think we can only deal with one at a time or everyone will just throw up their hands in despair.
Therefore, I will respond at this time only to the first of your points.
a. "What about unknown sites"?
You make the distinction between "surface scatters" and a Roman Villa. That is a very productive step forward. I think we can agree that neither archaeologists nor ancient coin collectors want to see any Roman villa, scheduled or unscheduled, looted or disrupted. Collectors, and I personally, have been criticized repeatedly for being self serving, mercenary and even greedy. As if we seek the destruction of sites just to get our hands on the artifacts. That simply betrays the lack of understanding that exists among some who would prohibit collecting of and trade in cultural property. I don't need to point out all the positive things that collectors have done in the past and continue to do every day. Anyone who fails to realize that through simple observation will certainly not be persuaded by the mountain of facts that I might present.
But, back to unknown sites, you hint that any group find of coins means a corresponding site. You must know that is not the case, and the experience in Britain where finds are well recorded proves it. Rarely does a find of coins (even a huge hoard) turn up a Roman Villa. But, yes, it is possible and it has happened. That is why the British system works so well.
If I am reading between the lines correctly, you seem to be saying that site destruction is the problem to be addressed rather than the philosophical issue of cultural property control. If that is the case, we might make some progress in finding ways to cooperate toward that end. The preservation of ancient sites and the information that comes from them is entirely compatible with the interests and goals of the ACCG.
We can move on to other issues but, unlike Pliny the Elder, I can really only manage one at a time.
Regards,
Wayne
David, Nathan,and Wayne-
I found all your posts interesting. I do not want to be repetitious but please accept these comments to David's initial suggested modifications of the ACCG's code of ethics. Please also note I am responding on my own behalf and not on the behalf of any group:
a. Coin Collectors and Sellers will seek to be rigorous in establishing the collecting history ("provenance") of the coins that they acquire.
Response: As Wayne indicated, this is easier said than done, particularly for coins of minimal value, and when inventories in dealers and collector's hands can number into the many thousands. Also, one should keep in mind the provenance information available might not be satisfactory to those who demand it. For example, I have a denarius of Nerva that was purportedly from the collection of John Quincy Adams and family that was sold by the Massachusetts Historical Society back in 1971. (Whether this historically significant collection should have been dispersed is another question.) All I have is an old ticket and the seller's (who is now deceased) say so. The catalogue of this sale is quite illusive. In any event, I understand that the catalogue does not list all the coins individually nor picture that many. That raises the question of what David and Nathan consider sufficient provenance information for coins.
b. Coin Collectors and Sellers will not buy coins that they know or reasonably suspect were removed from archaeological sites or stolen from museum or personal collections.
Response: Nothing really wrong with this one depending on how you define archaeological site. The word scheduled was included to get around the argument that an archaeological site is anywhere anything ancient is found. David, I am puzzled that you also advocate restrictions on coins from "unknown" archaeological sites. Would "obvious" but not officially recorded be a better formulation? I also don't have a problem with David's "reasonably suspect" standard as long as it is a rule for a code of ethics and not the standard for criminal liability.
c. Coin Collectors and Sellers will comply with all cultural property laws of the countries associated with the material that they aspire to acquire.
Response: This assumes that Collectors should be conversant with the cultural property laws of other nations, which is too much to ask even for most lawyers. It also assumes that one knows the find spot of an artifact or that the laws of that country are fairly written and fairly enforced. There is a huge disparity between the law and the practice in many “source” countries. Let’s take China for example. It is my understanding that China does have laws meant to protect cultural heritage. It is also my understanding that there is a wide open internal market for the exact sort of coins China supposedly is asking the U.S. to restrict. This includes a partnership between the Bank of China and an entrepreneur to sell coins to tourists.
Nathan's and David's critique of the ACCG's code of ethics also raises a question for me. Does the AIA or any other organization have its own code of ethics for handling coins?
The ACCG toyed around with suggesting ethical rules for archaeologists handling coins, but decided against publishing them on the theory that it would be improper for a collector/dealer group to make such suggestions to another group. However, as you have commented on the ACCG's code of ethics, I think it is now warranted to list the proposed rules for archaeologists here, just to get a sense how they might be received:
For Archaeologists
1. Archaeologists will properly conserve coin finds, and ensure that they are stored in safe and environmentally sound environments.
2. Archaeologists will publish coin finds promptly.
3. Archaeologists will comply with all cultural property laws in each country in which they excavate.
4. Archaeologists will advocate cultural property laws that fairly compensate private land owners and finders who report finds to authorities.
5. Archaeologists will advocate sale and/or export of inventories of previously recorded coins no longer needed for study or display with any funds generated being used to help fund further excavations
In closing, while blogging does help elucidate different individual's thoughts about these issues, it is really no substitue for actually talking in an effort to achieve some workable solutions.
Perhaps, ACCG, SAFE, AIA and ANS could consider hosting such a discussion sometime in the not too distant future.
Sincerely,
Peter Tompa
Thank you for these comments which I had read with much interest. I will reply in a fresh piece.
Nathan Elkins has a section on "Ethics and ancient coin collecting" in his article, "Why coins matter. Trafficking in undocumented and illegally exported ancient coinsin the North American marketplace", on the SAFE website.
In addition to the SAFE feature that David mentioned, 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
Post a Comment