To own or not to own: Is that the question?

“Who Owns the Past?” “Who Owns Antiquity?” “Who Owns Culture?” “Who Owns Art?” “Who Owns Objects?” “Who Owns History?” A flurry of similar-sounding questions has been circulating in the media for some time now. Varying on the same theme, they are used as headlines in an array of formats: books, articles, lectures, panel discussions, etc.

While these questions raise some interesting points, we would like to ask some of our own:

1. “Who Owns __?” advocates imply: The right to ownership and possession of artifacts trumps all other considerations.

SAFECORNER asks: By focusing on ownership, are we neglecting the single most important point: the discovery of our yet-unknown past through protection, and the proper excavation of, ancient sites and tombs and burial grounds? What about the "past" / "antiquity" / "culture" / "art" / "objects" / "history" that remains underground? What part do these arguments have in stemming the plunder of cultural heritage caused by looting and the illicit antiquities trade?

2. “Who Owns __?” advocates contend: International conventions and national laws have failed because looting persists.

SAFECORNER asks: Instead of challenging the best legal mechanisms we have, should not more effort be made to observe and respect them? We don't throw away the criminal justice system because crimes are committed, do we?

3. “Who Owns __?” advocates insist: The importance of archaeological context is overstated, because virtually everything we need to know is inherent in the object.

SAFECORNER asks: If not found in graves, or in context, what could the Tilya Tepe hoard tell us about ancient Bactria if it had been discovered as loose pieces of beautiful gold jewelry? One doesn’t need to be an Afghan to appreciate the value inherent in discovering an untouched ancient site. Conversely, aside from speculations, what do we know about who was buried in the now-looted tombs of Cerveteri? What do we really know about the Vicús culture, which has been looted to near-extinction, or the civilization that created the artifacts looted from Batán Grande, now on display at the Met?

4. “Who Owns __?” advocates suggest: The stakeholders in these debates are archaeologists versus acquirers: museums, dealers, and private collectors.

SAFECORNER asks: What about the rest of us? Many people from all walks of life who are not archaeologists, collectors, museum curators, dealers, nationalists, or socialists also feel very strongly about these issues. Our opinions also matter. After all, it is public opinion that shapes politics and policies and the politicians who create them. UNESCO is an organization of member nations that choose to join. And sovereign nations are governed by politicians who exercise power on behalf of the public, for the most part.

5. “Who Owns __?” advocates argue: Nations that did not exist in ancient times have no inherent right to ancient artifacts found within their territories. For example, does Italy really have the right to claim objects taken from institutions such as the Metropolitan Museum of New York, which was actually built before the Italian state was formed?

SAFECORNER asks: Is a nation ever too young to assert its sovereignty or jurisdiction? What about the United States? Barely over a couple hundred years old since our founding fathers created the nation, should we give up all claims to Native American artifacts? Revoke the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)?

Finally, we recommend that ALL stakeholders ask themselves this question: what are we going to do to stop the continued destruction of our "past" / "antiquity" / "culture" / "art" / "objects" / "history"?

Are Strings Attached?

Today's New York Times article When Strings Are Attached, Quirky Gifts Can Limit Universities rekindles concerns over the ethical and moral issues of big donations to educational institutions.

Two years after the announcement of the $300 million gift from private collector Shelby White to New York University to finance a new Institute for the Study of the Ancient World (ISAW), the furor seems to have faded, if not completely disappeared. Ms. White, who has been criticized for allegedly collecting objects that are looted from their countries of origin, recently returned a number of disputed objects to Italy.

Robert K. Durkee, vice president and secretary of Princeton was quoted in the article that “Institutions do get shaped by the interests of donors”. We can only hope that the fears of Randall White, a professor of anthropology at NYU for 25 years, who resigned his honorary position with the university’s existing Center for Ancient Studies in protest over NYU's acceptance of the gift are unfounded.

According to its website, "ISAW is a center for advanced scholarly research and graduate education, intended to cultivate comparative and connective investigations of the ancient world." Perhaps the study and "analysis of artifacts", also mentioned on ISAW's website, will emphasize the importance of documentation and context, so that such investigations may be possible.

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.