Although I have critically examined the trade in ancient coins, I have never proclaimed an "anti-collecting" position; instead, I have been concerned with destruction and the problems caused by indiscriminate collecting. Over the past several months it has become clear that our viewpoints diverge on philosophical and statistical elements, e.g. the relative value of contexts and scale of the flow of 'fresh' materials into the marketplace. Although we differ on these issues I hope we can agree that there are valid points that emerge from the concerns of both 'sides': e.g. collectors have a genuine interest in and passion for the ancient world; collectors can make (and have made) important contributions to serious numismatic research; the destruction of sites and information is deplorable; and the market at large is supplied by freshly dug material to some degree, as multiple collectors and dealers have acknowledged on various discussion lists.
I think if we can agree on such points we can perhaps move forward with a more constructive dialogue that goes beyond our electronic exchanges and works towards addressing the concerns of academics, cultural heritage preservation advocates, collectors, and dealers in a way that may lead towards solutions that are amenable to all concerned parties. Collectors and dealers wish to trade in ancient coins as they have done; others believe that a controlled market will contribute to curbing the destruction of sites and information. Perhaps we can come together and have a meeting of minds. For example, I have seen proposed models of databases, which might curb the flow of recently dug material into the market if they were used as registries and universal market guidelines were adopted concerning the sell of unregistered material; several weeks ago some of these were discussed on the Unidroit list. I note that one active ACCG member, Jim McGarigle, was the author of one interesting suggestion/model. One thing that I discussed with a colleague several weeks ago was the prospect of a sort of conference or panel that would explore solutions and discuss various methods of implementation.
Such a conference or panel would be hosted by some mutually agreed upon organization, which has no special interest in one 'side' or the other and a mutually agreed upon moderator could be chosen as well. Different groups could, perhaps, send a certain number of delegates/presenters to discuss some models that would both work toward establishing greater transparency of market activity in an attempt to diminish the role market demand plays in active looting and facilitate cooperation between academics and members of the trade community at large and establish an atmosphere of greater trust. After the conference, a panel or committee consisting of members from different groups could explore the feasibility and implementation of such models. If it is agreed some event like this would be beneficial, I would look forward to working with interested parties towards that end.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Towards a Forum for Constructive Dialogue
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Nathan Elkins makes an excellent suggestion assuming there is a will to give it a try. One could certainly see an organization like the ANS fostering such a discussion. Obviously, given the levels of mutual distrust that have grown up, nothing will come easy or fast. I suggest anyone interested in Mr. Elkins' suggestion (like me) give it some serious thought over the holidays and come back with some concrete ideas about how such discussions might be made a reality.
Sincerely,
Peter Tompa
Nathan;
I'm pleased to hear that you are not "anti-collecting", I must admit that I was confused on this point and apparently mistaken. I would certainly agree that both collectors and archaeologists have a genuine interest and passion for the ancient world. In an interview by James Carlton earlier this year for the Radio National Breakfast show, on the Australian National Radio system, Dr. Brian Rose and I exchanged views along this same line. Dr. Rose concluded the interview with almost precisely the words that you have used about shared passion. I agreed with him then and I will agree with you now.
The beginning of any constructive dialog is a recognition that all parties in the discussion have a legitimate right to be "at the table". For several years now, coin collectors have felt that we were not deemed legitimate by those who consider themselves "preservationists" and therefore a meaningful dialog was impossible.
I understand that our discussion here is merely an exchange of opinions. Any real change in the conditions at hand will necessarily involve the leadership of AIA and individuals in decision making positions of government. But with the hope that some preliminary discussion will highlight basic areas of mutual concern, I am willing to give it a try.
I will agree that both collectors and archaeologists have made important contributions to numismatics. I will agree that the destruction of sites and information is "deplorable". I will also agree that to some degree the market sees coins that have been recently discovered. I would not use the word "dug" because in my experience many or most of the coins that are "new" finds come from farmers' fields, the sifting of construction residue, and accidental finds in the course of normal human endeavors. Some small percentage might unfortunately have been excavated illegally, it is impossible to say with certainty where, when or how many. If CDs and DVDs can be pirated and sold through vendors without suspicion, it is surely possible for an illicit coin to be sold over the counter to a dealer at some coin show. Some "new" finds come from countries where export is perfectly legal and some probably have come at some point from countries where export was illegal. Trying to quantify the coins from either source is impossible and purely speculative. But, having been in the trade for more than 40 years, I can state without any misgiving whatsoever that the vast majority of coins that I see year in and year out on the market are not "new" finds. It is absolutely inaccurate to characterize the market as being driven by such coins. There may be venues where the percentage is skewed one way or the other, but the mainstream legitimate market that I have been involved in for these many years does not survive on the marketing of illicitly excavated material and the size of the market is nowhere near what some critics have claimed it to be. The market survives, and indeed prospers at times, through the sale of coins that mainly have been in the hands of collectors for decades, if not centuries.
If you can agree that the 600-year-old ancient coin market is inherently legitimate, then perhaps we could discuss the issue of coins that might, by exception, not be legitimate.
Regards,
Wayne
Peter and Wayne,
I am pleased to see that you are interested in the prospect of a conference. I think something like this could potentially lead to some productive dialogue and, perhaps, constructive outcome. I agree with Peter's suggestion that we should think about this some over the holidays and think critically about what we would desire from such a conference. I have suggested that the purpose of such a meeting should be to discuss proactive concrete solutions that may satisfy all interested parties. Over the holidays, could you think about what the goals of such a conference should be and then come back with some goals/suggestions in mind? In the meantime, I will consult with some of my colleagues about this prospect and seek their input as well. After we agree on the goals, we can then proceed with more detailed discussions of logistics and the organization of the conference. As a gesture of good faith, may I also suggest that we put our blogging, online editorials, and 'back and forth' on the discussion lists regarding "ancient coins and cultural property issues" on hiatus and instead focus our efforts on this endeavor? I think it would also help encourage my colleagues and others to participate and convince them that this is a serious proposal on both our parts and that we are mutually sincere in our pursuit of a meeting of the minds.
Happy Holidays,
Nathan
Staff and Trustees of the American Numismatic Society have long discussed the possibility of conference aimed at building consensus among collectors, scholars, museum professionals and coin dealers about how best to protect both archaeological and numismatic context and the long standing tradition of collecting ancient coins. Nathan Elkins recent post (December 13, 2007) has provided this idea with a new impetus. The ANS is in the process of moving to a new location and cannot address this issue immediately. However, it does not hurt to gauge the level of interest in such a discussion as well as some topics for discussion. Here is a proposed agenda for a day long conference, but obviously, fruitful discussions about these issues could be carried on further elsewhere:
Conference on Numismatics and Cultural Property Issues
The Stakeholders and their Contribution to Preservation, Display and Study of Coins
Collectors
Dealers/Auction Houses
Scholars
Numismatic Associations/Groups
Museums
Market Countries/Source Countries
Overview of Historical Coinage
Numbers minted, find spots, finders and survival rates
History of Numismatics including roles of Professional Scholars and Amateurs
The value of context (both archaeological and numismatic) and provenance
Technology and its Impact on Numismatics
Metal Detectors
Computerized Databases
Imaging Systems
Technical Means of Studying Coins
Legal Regimes
Legal Strictures in Source Countries
Legal Strictures in Market Countries
Codes of Ethics
Collectors
Dealers/Auction Houses
Museums
Scholars
Treasure Trove Law and Portable Antiquities Scheme
Areas of Agreement and Grounds for Consensus
I would be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on this proposal.
Sincerely,
Peter Tompa
A slot on the material and intellectual consequences of collecting classical coins would be a sensible move.
I think Peter Tompa's suggestions are a valuable first step towards planning a conference to address the issues Nathan Elkins' recent SAFE articles have raised.
I suggest though that much of Mr Tompa's proposed programme is going over what we all know and accept. Numismatics is useful, coins are important, we all agree on that. There are many opportunities for collectors to mull over those aspects of coins if they so feel the need.
I rather think though that what was suggested was to get several sides together to discuss a matter of concern here, and especially those aspects of it which seem to be contended. This is the relationships between portable antiquity collecting (in this case of coins) and the erosion of the archaeological record, and furthermore to establish a constructive dialogue to resolve any conflict of interests.
The subject is a complex one and time will be limited, so I do not think it should be spent going the basics of what we all agree about 'why studying coins is important'. What is of much more interest is "where all these coins are coming from, and where they are going and how we know". I'd like to see a section on that, especially contributions from the dealers about this. I'd like to see a corresponding contribution from the archaeologists' point of view.
I suggest that a conference of this type should be accompanied by the preparation of a published volume of the proceedings, and should end with the voting of participants on a concrete resolution setting out what was discussed and decided and the recommendations for further action.
Paul Barford
Peter,
Thank you for your comments and for your patience while I had to attend to some pressing matters after returning to Germany.
I am glad that you and others are open to the idea of a conference or some sort of personal dialogue. We both say we are concerned about looting and the center of controversy has been the degree to which market activity plays in it. Coin collectors wish to collect without stigma and many scholars in archaeology and numismatics are worried about the destruction of irrecoverable scientific and contextual information. I readily accept that ancient coin collectors do not wish to contribute to the active destruction of archaeological sites, but certainly more moderate collectors have admitted that market activity contributes to the problem to varying degrees.
What I would like to avoid is rehashing the same ‘back and forth’ about ancillary and tangential issues, e.g. ‘ownership,’ which detract from the real problem and point of concern: destruction and looting. We have gone ‘back and forth’ already on the blogs and discussion list and could continue doing that forever, but that will not fix anything. If we really want some positive change, I think we need to come together and participate equitably in order to bring about some sort of constructive change. As I suggested, and as Paul Barford discussed, I think that a conference or meeting should address “solutions” rather than going over the same issues that distract from the real problem. I would propose that we consider some solutions to the problem, e.g. universal registers and the widespread implementation of market and academic guidelines relating the sale/use of unregistered material. Naturally, something like a register would require a lot of work and time and thus much of the discussion could revolve around proposed models, the logistics, feasibility, and timetable for such plans.
I must admit that I have recently been discouraged about the notion of a conference/moderated discussion since I first suggested it. I originally suggested we put the antagonistic discussions on hiatus, but Wayne Sayles has apparently refused to do so. He first took the opportunity to twist my comments on the Unidroit list and then made another particularly venomous and petty personal attack on me through his blog when I advertised an academic panel that I am co-organizing with a colleague, which has nothing to do with him or his “crusade.” Unprovoked and highly abrasive rants do not contribute to a positive atmosphere for dialogue or foster any positive change and I think it is precisely this sort of behavior which often discourages active participation from academic community in a dialogue with collectors. He is not interested in participating equitably in dialogue, even as his comment on his blog entry suggest, but rather in winning his “war.” I cannot and will not work with an individual who proudly engages in such undignified behavior in order to obfuscate the issues and foil any progress. However, I recognize that there are people who are interested in discussion and in real solutions and I have corresponded privately with several collectors who are interested the proposition of this conference. I think we can and should work together towards that end. I am interested in your ideas regarding concrete solutions. As I mentioned before, I know that others had once discussed some sort of register on the Unidroit list and perhaps we can come together and find common ground along these lines. What do you think about something like this, models for solution, being the agenda for a meeting?
Nathan,
Thank you for your note. A conference that focuses on "solutions" would be fine as long as it seeks input from a wide variety of interest groups and the solutions focus not only on the preservation of context alone, but also on how that can be reconciled with the preservation of coins themselves as well as their study and appreciation by others outside the field of archaeology. Certainly, such solutions also cannot focus only on mandates directed at museums, dealers and collectors alone. There also needs to be recommendations for both the archaeological community and source countries as well.
Hopefully, the ANS will be able to sponsor such a project after the move to their new headquarters is completed in June.
In the interim, I am happy to confer with you and any others interested in this topic, particularly after April 15th or so, by which time hopefully things will have calmed down a bit in my work life.
Best regards,
Peter Tompa
Post a Comment