Coins, contexts and collecting

I recently read Nathan Elkins’ paper “Why Coins Matter: Trafficking in Undocumented and Illegally Exported Ancient Coins” and have been following the discussion it evoked on several websites and blogs ever since. As an archaeologist and numismatist, involved in research and teaching at a Dutch university, with no affiliations either to any coin collectors organization nor any lobby group in the USA, I felt the need to contribute to the ongoing discussion in what I hope is a positive way.

Let me first state that while reading Elkins’ paper I was constantly nodding to myself and uttering approval under my breath. I could not agree more with the conclusions of his paper. Given several reactions to his paper, there is no general consensus in this however.

Having been trained as an archaeologist (MA in Roman archaeology), but specializing afterwards in numismatics (PhD in Roman numismatics), I would like to confirm and enhance several of Elkins’ arguments regarding the problem of undocumented coins entering the commercial market, and thereby hopefully clarifying matters for those persons who are not familiar with todays practices in archaeology in Europe.

Elkins emphasizes the importance of contexts for the study of ancient coins (where was a coin found, in which stratigraphical layers, in association with which other artefacts, etc.?), information clearly irrevocably lost when a coin is illegally dug up and then sold on the market. A counterargument by his opponents is that in the past nobody ever bothered about context and still numismatics as a discipline has made great progress. Furthermore, they continue, ancient coins being so numerous and often of low value, what is the added value of contexts for any ancient coin? Yes, it is true that in the past little attention was paid to context of archaeological finds (including coins), and, equally true, very important research on coins has been done without ever knowing the contexts from which they came. However, numismatics and archaeology, like any other scholarly discipline, are a dynamic field of study. Over the last decade or two there has been a growing awareness that coins are an integral part of the archaeological record and should be studied as such. Research questions never thought of before, or thought inanswerable, now prove to be persuable thanks to this approach. And although the majority of ancient coins has not a substantial financial value on the commercial market, each and every coin found in a context and properly recorded has a scientific value.

To give just one example from my own studies: quadrantes are the smallest roman bronze denomination, of small size, plain copper and usually without any exiting iconography. An excavation in a roman legionary fortress in The Netherlands yielded over 300 of those coins (not as a hoard but as single finds), all of exactly the same type. A careful study of the associated finds showed that the quadrantes had arrived at the fortress en block, shortly after their time of minting in Rome. In this way it was possible to reconstruct a special consignments of coins to a legion posted in frontier province, at the same time revealing a need for and use of the smallest denominations possible, a clear indication of a monetized economy (F. Kemmers, 2003: Quadrantes from Nijmegen. Small change in a frontier province. Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 82, 17-35). Conclusions and insights that would have never been achieved had the coins been illegally dug up and sold seperately.

It seems to be a blessing in disguise that ancient coins are such popular items and well liked by the larger public. Although this makes it usually rather easy to find a platform for sharing the newest insights, and always provides great pictures for lay-publications, it also causes the large scale looting of sites for exactly these same coins. No one I know is particularly interested in, or has started the collecting (regardless of the source) of bits and pieces of animal bones. An even more common phenomenon on archaeological sites and of undisputed value in archaeological research.

Archaeology and numismatics are not two mutually exclusives disciplines, far from it. In close cooperation the best results are obtained. It can not be denied, unfortunately, that in the past archaeologists have not been very swift in publishing coin finds from their excavations, if at all. This does not apply to coins alone, numerous categories of finds still await further study and publications. In Europe things are changing however. Due to the ratification of the treaty of Valetta, concerning the preservation of cultural heritage, by almost all European Union members, excavators (be it commercial companies, universities or government funded agencies) commit themselves to publish the data of their research within two years after completing the fieldwork. After this date, the objects are available for all to study and are stored in large depots, accessible to the public. In the Netherlands this is indeed enforced, companies can loose their license when not fulfilling the requirements.

In my opinion it is far better for coins to be excavated, analysed, published and then stored, then to disappear, ripped from their context, into private collections of which no records are kept and access is usually very limited if at all.

To conclude: the aim of all archaeologists, numismatists and collectors of ancient coins is to get a better understanding of the past. New techniques and approaches allow us to unveil this past better than ever before. Collectors should be aware that by buying coins of unrecorded provenance, not retrieved in controlled excavations or surveys, they are severely hampering the study of antiquity. Numismatists and archaeologists however, should not neglect their duty to the larger public: to inform – frequently, willingly, and correctly – the public of the breakthroughs, discoveries and exciting new insights gained by studying coins from excavations.

Sphere: Related Content

Blogging on SAFECORNER

Thank you very much for visiting and participating in our forum, we appreciate your posts, comments and responses. Our goal is to bring these issues and age-old debates into the public domain, so that we can all become aware of the damaging effects of looting and the black market trade of antiquities. And most of all, take part in the solutions.

The destruction of the world’s cultural heritage is everyone’s problem, not the archaeologist’s, the collector’s or the dealer’s alone. Whether you are an academic, professor, student, anyone is welcome to post a comment on SAFECORNER. Academic credentials are not required.

We, however, reserve the right to moderate comments and ask that all commentators observe our usage terms listed at the bottom of the page. At SAFE, we value a positive approach and favor suggestions or ideas that contribute to solving problems.

When adding a comment to a post, we also ask that before you hit the “publish” button, read and reread what has already been posted and said before to the person who originally made the post. If the same points have already been made, wait until a new point comes to mind before you post again. At that time, we encourage you to start a new post. If you are not a SAFECORNER Author (listed to your right) send the post to safecorner@savingantiquities.org and we can post it in your name.

If you disagree with someone on a point, do provide the reasons. If you want to point out a mistake, show the evidence and offer your version of what the correction should be. As we know, unsubstantiated assertions without solid facts or reasoning behind them are easily ignored. Similarly, endless repetitions only turn readers off.

Ultimately, we are here to express our ideas and opinions; we should all want to do this in a way that allows all the good thinking to come through and be positively received.

Thank you again,

SAFECORNER

Sphere: Related Content

Diolkos Petition

An ancient monument in Greece called the Diolkos is being worn away by erosion, industry and neglect. The Diolkos was the ancient pathway used by ships to travel overland on the Isthmus of Corinth, thus reaching Athens more quickly and avoiding the dangerous Peloponnese peninsula. The route was in use for hundreds of years and represents a unique engineering feat.

The Diolkos was excavated in the late 1950s but has been largely neglected since that time. In June the local government agreed to clean up the monument and continue some archaeological work but no further rescue efforts have been planned.

A number of concerned citizens are asking for petition signatures to convince the Greek government to protect and excavate this unique ancient monument.

Click here to sign the petition.

Photo by Rich Pianka

Sphere: Related Content

Coins, ethics and scheduled monuments

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.

Sphere: Related Content

Codes of Ethics vs. the Financial Interest

It is curious that some groups of antiquities dealers have adopted "Codes of Ethics," which do not seem to be rigorously enforced or acknowledged in practice. One group of ancient coin dealers that claims to advocate for cultural preservation, while opposing any legislative efforts designed to curb looting and the trade in illicit antiquities that also affect the unregulated trade ancient coins (routinely found in archaeological contexts), has adopted such a code. The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) has adopted a “Code of Ethics” for its members, which states: “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.” VCoins, an online “coin show” hosting multiple dealer inventories, also has a similar statement in its “Code of Ethics.” The careful wording of the ACCG “Code of Ethics” seemingly allows the dealer lobby and its members to skirt the actual problem of provenance by stating that they will not trade in coins that come from “scheduled archaeological sites.” Does this mean they can feel free to trade in coins robbed from historical sites that are not currently being excavated?

The vast majority of ancient coins imported by dealers and subsequently sold have no recorded find spot or an old pedigree, so where do they come from anyway? Who knows! Additionally, the statement that the ACCG “will comply with all cultural property laws of their own country,” along with the relative lack of enforcement, allows for the potential to import illegally excavated and exported material with a clean conscience since the U.S. does not have import restrictions on ancient coins with many foreign nations (except Iraq and, recently, Cyprus), although it is illegal prospect for or to export coins from most source countries without a permit - especially important source countries like those in the Balkans.

Generally, among the North American ancient coin dealing community, there appears to be a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in effect regarding their participation in the trade of undocumented and potentially illegally excavated/exported material: import and sell the material, just “don’t ask and don’t tell” where it came from (for example see some dealer suggestions to circumvent legal issues with illicitly imported coins in David Gill's blog entry, "Cyprus, eBay and the Coin Lobby"). Should American citizens and coin collectors expect or even accept such unscrupulous activity from sellers? It is documented that similar practices amongst dealers of other sorts of antiquities exist (see Cook 1991, 533-534; cf. Karich 2006). Dealers of uncleaned ancient coins have also adopted a "Code of Ethics," which deals only with selling practices and does not make any presumption to prohibit the import of coins that were illegally exported or excavated.

A number of the ACCG’s donating ‘patrons’ actively import ancient coins in bulk and often sell them in bulk without any record of provenance. In fact, one ancient coin dealer and patron of the ACCG is also, curiously, the president of a customs clearing company in New York and is one of the more important suppliers of bulk lots of uncleaned coins in the U.S. This individual also deals in other types of antiquities, many of which appear to be of Balkan origin and has online storefronts on VCoins.

Despite the rhetoric and token “Codes of Ethics” subscribed to by some groups of antiquities dealers, it is clear that antiquities and ancient coins are being systematically looted from historical and archaeological sites at an alarming rate in order to supply for market demand. This activity is destroying valuable contextual and historical information in the process, harming not only archaeological and historical inquiry, but also - in the case of ancient coins - the "science of numismatics" (for further discussion see the article “Why Coins Matter…,” which should be made available on the SAFE website within a week).

REFS:

Cook, B.F. 1991. "The Archaeologist and the Art Market: Policies and Practice," Antiquity 65.248: 533-537.

Karich, S. 2006. “Der Bundesverband Deutscher Kunstversteigerer hat einen neuen Verhaltenskodex für seine Mitglieder aufgestellt. Transparenz ist bisher nicht immer vorhande,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 180 (05 Aug.): 47.

Sphere: Related Content

Yale to Return Machu Picchu Artifacts to Peru

Here's the BBC's coverage of the major repatriation effort between Yale University and Peru: the return of thousands of artifacts taken from the site of Machu Picchu by Yale professor Hiram Bingham nearly a century ago. I believe this a truly momentous event in the world of cultural heritage repatriation, for it involves both one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the world, and one of the most-visited and most-loved archaeological (and now archaeological-tourist) sites in the world. Hopefully, Yale's clout will inspire other major Western institutions holding objects of questionable provenience to follow suit.

The details of this agreement show that repatriation can be mutually beneficial for both the home nation and the outside institutions where these objects often end up; there will be a scholarly exchange between Yale-based American and Peruvian academics, as well as a traveling exhibit of the pieces to bring the pieces to an even wider audience than they have encountered by being at the school.

Some might say that keeping objects such as these in American and European museums is more beneficial than sending them home, because it inspires Westerners who see them on display to want to visit the places where they originally came from. In this case, given that Machu Picchu is one of the most famous ancient sites in the world, and has such a strong hold in popular imagination, I can't imagine that many people need the prompting of a few artifacts in a museum to want to go to Peru and see it for themselves!

Sphere: Related Content

The Rape of Europa: A Continuing Saga

Pillage and destruction of cultural property has always been a by-product of armed conflict. Yet no military power in history has equaled the Third Reich in its ability to use culture not merely as a trophy of war, but as a weapon of war: a means to dominate, demoralize and control the nations that it sought to conquer by stripping them of their cultural and spiritual identity.

Only through the systematic confiscation, theft, concealment, forced sale and destruction of millions of artistic, religious and historical works and monuments would Europe, in Hitler’s mind, become a suitable home for a tausend jahre reich with Berlin as its capital. Pulling the plug on this diabolical plan is one of the great stories of modern time, brilliantly recounted by Lynn Nicholas in her 1994 book The Rape of Europa, which has been updated and adapted for the screen with remarkable never-before-seen footage by the writer-director-producer team of Bonni Cohen, Richard Berge and Nicolle Newnham.

Truly a “must see” documentary, The Rape of Europa reveals the heroism and tenacity of those who risked their lives to save what others could only covet, control or destroy, and continue to undo the damage caused by the German war machine more than 50 years later.

Among the many stories recounted in the film, one of the most memorable involves the work of the 400-person Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives section of the U.S. military, established in 1943 to assist in the protection and restitution of cultural property during and after World War II. Their efforts, from the restoration at the fire-bombed Campo Santo in Pisa to the recovery of thousands of masterworks stored in mines and castles across Germany, inspired The Rape of Europa co-producer Robert M. Edsel, to document this part of the story in the recently published book Rescuing Da Vinci, which recently prompted a recent Congressional resolution and public ceremony honoring the Monuments Men for their work. Both The Rape of Europa and Rescuing Da Vinci should serve as a useful reference when the time comes to compare our reaction to cultural calamity more than 50 years ago to our current response to the cultural consequences of the conflict in Iraq where cultural heritage became an early casualty and continues to be destroyed with no clear end in sight.

Our advice: make The Rape of Europa required viewing and the Nicholas and Edsel books required reading for all current and future war planners and battlefield commanders.

Sphere: Related Content

Can Cultural Property Legislation Kill an Academic Discipline?

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.

Sphere: Related Content

Pre-Columbian "art" and Christie's

Roland Lloyd Parry has reported today (September 6, 2007) in The Art Newspaper that "Christie’s axes pre-Columbian sales".

He quotes Christie’s spokeswoman Sara Fox, “Our decision was made out of pure business considerations, not as a reaction to lobbying by foreign governments".

In spite of the announcement the Christie's website continues to announce:

"Previously regularly held in Paris, Pre-Columbian Art auctions have returned to New York and will be held twice a year, in May and November.

Interest among worldwide buyers and collectors in Pre-Columbian art continues to grow steadily as is demonstrated by the world auction record prices Christie’s has achieved such as $1.1 million for a Pre-Columbian work with a Mayan Jade Plaque (New York, 2004); $332,050 for a Mayan Codex Plate (Paris, 2004); and $124,679 for a Chimu Silver Figure (Paris, 2003).

The department is pleased to answer any inquiries about the market conditions and arrange insurance and estate valuations."

But not for much longer.

Such news comes in the wake of recent returns of archaeological material to Peru, as well as the revised memorandum of agreement between the US and Peru (June 2007). (For full details.)

Sphere: Related Content

Heritage Watch Petition

Heritage Watch is an organization committed to preserving Cambodia's cultural heritage in the face of wide scale looting and damage to archaeological sites and monuments. Founded in 2003, the organization has a number of projects ranging from education, responsible tourism and advocacy.

They are currently seeking signatures for an online petition to convince the governments of Singapore and Thailand to become signatories to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Both Singapore and Thailand are hubs for the trade in illicit antiquities from throughout Asia. They play a role similar to that of Switzerland in the past (The Swiss government signed the UNESCO 1970 Convention in 2003): a port of exchange where antiquities may be freely traded without laws and regulations to protect against illicitly acquired objects.

Click here to sign the petition.

Sphere: Related Content

Marble sculptures going home

Here is today's New York Times article on two sculptural heads being returned to Sicily. Like the famous set of silver pieces that are in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, these heads are from the Morgantina site, the remains of an ancient Greek colony in Sicily:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/arts/design/01rest.html?ref=todayspaper

It's important to point out that these two pieces are not only going back to their place of origin, they are going into a museum there where they will be looked after. It's not only American or British museums can properly care for and display archaeological treasures.

Sphere: Related Content