Towards a Forum for Constructive Dialogue

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.

The Economic Benefits of Displaying Antiquities

ArtInfo reported this week (December 5, 2007) on the "economic benefit" of the new Greek and Roman Galleries at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York:

The new Greek and Roman galleries at the Metropolitan Museum of Art have brought 764,000 visitors, $567 million in revenue, and $56.7 million in taxes to the city in the past seven months, according to the museum.

I suppose this is trying to deflect major criticism of the museum from senior North American classical archaeologists (see e.g. "The Time of Illicit Acquisitions is Long Gone").

Stephen L. Dyson ("Temple of Beauty Learning: the New Greek and Roman Galleries at the Metropolitan Museum of Art", Apollo, 165, no. 543) has recently noted:

Not only the Euphronios vase but other new material in the expanding Met collection assumed a central role in the international debate about 'who owned the past'. The debate remains very heated, with the Met assuming both conciliatory and truculent positions. Most of the new pieces in the Classical collection came with very little verifiable history. Most are in excellent condition, an indication to the experienced archaeologist that they were found in burial contexts. If even the stated presumed provenances are correct, most came from countries that have had strict, longstanding laws on the exportation of antiquities.

What has been the destructive impact on the archaeological record to supply these objects? What is the cultural deficit?