Following his rousing lecture in Philadelphia at the 2009 SAFE Beacon Award Lecture & Reception Professor Colin Renfrew will be speaking tomorrow at a lecture in New York City entitled “Combating the Illicit Antiquities Trade: a Time for Clarity” at the Graduate Center at the City University of New York, located conveniently at Fifth Avenue and 34th Street. Prof. Renfrew will argue that a point of crisis has been reached in the destruction of the world's archaeological heritage, and that this can be met only by a general agreement not to acquire unprovenanced antiquities.
We invite all those who have questions for Prof. Renfrew about his position on these matters to take advantage of this rare opportunity and attend this lecture, which is free and open to the public. (Photo: Collin O'Brien)
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Colin Renfrew asks for clarity in New York City
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
You are working against Capitalism.
Archaeologists need to institute a system of documenting and releasing less signifigant finds, thereby allowing the creation of an individual known as the "ethical collector."
The position you are arguing turns many thoughtful, good-natured, curious, well educated, wealthy people into criminals. Obviously this won't work. Arcaeologist are attacking their most passionate audience instead of looking for ways to join forces, and probably increase their general audience, readerships and budgets. Instead you will fritter time and resources away fighting people who view antiquities as their connection to history and the larger narrative of world culture.
The following response from Prof. Colin Renfrew is posted with his permission:
"The crime I am concerned about is the looting of archaeological sites to provide antiquities for the market, thereby destroying the possibility we might have of learning more about the human past. The unethical behaviour I am concerned about is wealthy collectors paying millions of dollars for unprovenanced antiquities, thereby becoming accomplices in that crime. The unethical behaviour I am also concerned about is unprincipled museum curators accepting gifts of unprovenanced antiquities from wealthy collectors thereby making their institutions accomplices in the crime.
I have much sympathy with Mr. Donovan's passionate interest in the past. But I think he has to ask himself how what remains of that past can best be protected. Not, I think, by the kind of capitalism I have categorised above."
I agree with your argument. I think there is a definite, clear overlap between our positions.
If you want to win your argument, and defend culture and history against the unethical behavior of a powerful minority, you need to find a system which accepts and nourishes people who want to both have private collections and behave ethically.
I am against the state telling me I cannot own something as common as a bronze Roman coin. Roman coins were produced in the hundreds of millions, and are scattered in the top soil through out Europe. I think if archaeologists brought people like me, a casual collector, who is also a professor of art, and desires to collect completely ethically into the fold, their argument would win itself. Right now I feel threatened as a collector, but I desperately want to transform my position into one called the: ethical collector.
I don't know how to do this.
Maybe you could switch the debate from how best to persecute lay-people who have identical interests to your own, to how to incorporate these potential supporters into your position.
Incidentally, I think your field is fascinating.
Well, first of all, I do not accept the argument that its „archaeologists” who need to change the current status quo. As Bill says, it is a “minority” of the population which are causing this problem, and the effects and scale of the quarrying of the archaeological record for collectables is an issue that the conservation-minded majority is becoming more aware of. The “benefits” of which Mr Donovan speaks affect that minority, the damage that is done by looters to the archaeological record to supply this erosive hobby affects everyone, and not only of the current generation. If collectors want to carry on, then instead of just going on about their “rights” as collectors, it’s obviously time for them to start considering their responsibilities. I suggest that, instead of allowing themselves to be pushed about by the dealer naysayers as they self-evidently do at the moment, collectors they need to take the initiative and show that a legitimate trade does exist and can exist (if it can). If this is, as Mr Donovan explains, capitalism, then it is the demand which shapes the supply.
The obvious first step would be for collectors to create a collectors’ code of ethics, which cuts out all the weasel-wording of the existing traders’ ones and answers the concerns of the critics of collecting in its current archaeology-damaging form. Let it clearly and unambiguously define what (in a period when the looting of sites to supply this market is taking place on an unprecedented scale) is and what is not acceptable to collect. Let it define the questions the supplier is required to answer to demonstrate to the ethical collector the licit origin of their goods, and let it say unequivocally that if the seller cannot answer the questions, the ethical collector moves on to one who can. Perhaps when they have defined what ethical collecting actually is, ethical collectors can form an association of people united under that banner which could act as its spokespersons, so we can bypass the aggressive defenders of the no-questions-asked trade that so far dominate the discussions and cloud the issues. That seems to me to be vital for progress in this area.
Collecting Late Roman bronze coins? I do not think this is in any place actually “banned” as such, though in some places (though obviously not in the USA) certain conditions have to be met. How can Mr Donovan collect them ethically? Well, thousands of them in perfectly collectable condition come from British sites and are recorded by the Portable Antiquities Scheme. Some are single finds and many are from hoards recorded under the Treasure Act and released on the market as superfluous to museum display and study needs. Buying only such coins should mean that one has an object which has been recovered responsibly and recorded by the archaeological authorities (so the information can be used by the public at large in whatever way they want). The object has a unique number and photo in a database which is accessible online all over the world and can be associated with data on provenance and find circumstances. The PAS record can be the beginning of a chain of ownership which will accompany the coin as it moves from the collection of one responsible collector to another and show it has not been recently ripped from the layers of an ancient military site, cemetery or settlement in Bulgaria and illegally shipped by the lorryload to US wholesalers like many currently on the market. We have all heard the pathetic self-justificatory arguments from collectors, and – especially dealers - why this is “all right because…”. The point is though that any responsible thinking person can see that it is not “all right” at all. Archaeological artefacts are not potatoes to be dug up and sold and bought by the kilogramme.
Whether or not “archaeologists” and politicians should, at great cost to their own citizens, set up PAS-clones in all the source countries to primarily serve the needs of foreign collectors is something that we can obviously only discuss when collectors are able to demonstrate that they actually are concerned enough to actually buy only the provenanced and traceable antiquities that it would produce. At the moment, we see very little evidence that in the collecting community (including the US one) there is actually any real demand for PAS-provenanced antiquities for example. Some US dealers are very dismissive of the whole idea, it is not difficult to guess why though.
The same goes for deaccessioning “duplicate” (how to define that?) items from museum collections for collectors’ enjoyment. Again I would say let us wait with discussions of that until such a time that collectors can mature to a stage where provenanced and associated documentation is not being lost every time an object is sold to a new owner (one can hardly call them a ‘curator” or “steward” is that information is lost every time an object changes ownership among private collectors).
I really do not see the logic in the response to Renfrew’s “a point of crisis has been reached in the destruction of the world's archaeological heritage, and that this can be met only by a general agreement not to acquire unprovenanced antiquities”. Mr Donovan says “ “The position you are arguing turns many thoughtful, good-natured, curious, well educated, wealthy people into criminals. “” I really fail to see the connection there. This is a conservation issue, not one of “personal rights”. Surely the “thoughtful, good-natured, curious, well educated, people” if they cared about the crisis of destruction of the world’s archaeological heritage would indeed agree “not to acquire unprovenanced antiquities”. They would not patronize cowboy dealers offering unprovenanced material from goodness-knows where. They would not be kicking against those trying to stem the tide of destruction of the finite and fragile archaeological resource, but working with them. That seems a no-brainer to me.
It’s the same as elephant ivory, same as any CITES protected items. Ask questions, if the seller gives an evasive answer, then walk on to somebody who can offer something which can be verified as not recently looted. There IS such stuff, isn’t there? After all, portable antiquity dealers bang on about how a “legitimate trade” does exist alongside the cowboys selling looted items. Perhaps it is time to find out how extensive the one is with regard the other and collectors can act accordingly.
So, in a nutshell, to create ethical collectors, I think we need collectors themselves (“thoughtful, good-natured, curious, well educated, people”) to become more aware (through reading material like the SAFE website and supporting organizations like this) of their responsibilities. I’d like to see the responsible and ethical ones working to bring the less responsible, the less thoughtful, good-natured, curious, well educated, people in their ranks round to the idea of ethical collecting. It seems to me that the obvious first step is for collectors of portable antiquities to create their own code of ethics formulating what is and is not socially acceptable for collectors of portable antiquities in the twenty-first century.
Post a Comment