Wisconsin coin collector and dealer Jim McGarigle (“Polymath numismatics”) says he is “shocked” to learn from this blog what British law defines as Objects of Cultural Interest and in a post on his 'Ancient & World Coin Geek' blog called “Scholarly Pedantics - More Extreme Archaeology” proceeds to poke fun at what he calls “extreme archaeologists” who (as the ACCG-style numismophilic conspiracy theory goes) allegedly must be behind all this. He says “I think documenting any coin 50 years old or older, regardless of value qualifies as a demonstration of pedantry or pedantic behavior”. He then goes on to define the word, presumably worried that some coin collectors may not know what it means. Frankly I do not see any evidence of "scholarly pedantry" has been presented by Mr McGarigle, rather the opposite.
In his disdainful treatment of what the law of the UK says, Mr McGarigle ignores the fact that there might be other types of objects of cultural interest that the British might wish to control the export of. As a foreign collector eager to get his hands on cultural property from other countries, he may not accept that Britain has the right to do this, but fortunately it does. The fifty year watershed is for all types of cultural property, not only that which is the direct product of excavations, and the legislation sets out exemptions (for example postage stamps).
McGarigle ignores this, and pokes fun at the British showing examples of recent UK coins on sale on eBay which have obviously never been in the ground and pretending that British law (personified for some reason by an Indiana Jones icon) is saying “that belongs in a museum!” I invite Mr McGarigle to read the Reports of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and related literature and discover how many coins have had export licences refused and on what grounds. I do not think he will find many 1958 shillings among them.
As I said here earlier, it is essential for collectors of portable antiquities to make an effort to determine what legislation applies in the various source countries to the material they collect. Surely responsible collectors and dealers could easily put together a resource containing this information. It is disturbing that people like Jim McGarigle should be learning about it - apparently for the first time - from sources like this blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think Jim McGarigle is responding to your statement that some Victoria half pennies, such as those from archeological digs, need export licenses.
One of the great difficulties is that there is no way to tell which coins have been dug, which coins were dug before 2003, which coins before 1970, and which entered the UK in the last fifty years.
Collectors want a bright-line rule. A rule that depends on human memory of where something came from leads to compliance problems (as you are seeing).
> I think Jim McGarigle is responding to your statement that some Victoria half pennies, such as those from archeological digs, need export licenses.<
Well, as I said, I did not write the law, and neither did any “extremist archaeologists”. Jim McGarigle’s comments simply betray a very narrow approach to the problem and a complete ignoral (or is that ignorance”) of what the aim of this legislation is intended to achieve, protect, by whom, who for, why and how. As I say, I invite him to read the Reports of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and related literature. His disdainful attitude is ample proof of where the main difficulties actually lie. (I suppose such disdain is not really surprising in someone who was instrumental in the Wisconsin GOP debacle which I discussed earlier). As for the 50 year limit which seems to cause you all so much amusement over in the US, do you not have any laws or social conventions in the US that when taken out of context might seem to outsiders rather silly (especially of a narrow interest group when it affects them)?
http://www.loonylaws.com/
> One of the great difficulties... <
There is in reality no "difficulty". The responsible seller presents the objects and gets the licence and the responsible buyer has the peace of mind that the right thing has been done by both sides. Where’s the “difficulty” in complying with the law?
> is that there is no way to tell which coins have been dug <
Well there is, because I am advocating that ethical trading is being honest, and keeping track, or where archaeological objects actually come from. Again, no “difficulty” – the only one being that collectors and dealers cannot be bothered under the weak pretence that such a thing is "impossible" ever to do. Are these ‘responsible” approaches? In my book, no. We are not back in the nineteenth century, collecting needs to “get responsible”.
> Collectors want a bright-line rule.<
What about “acquire only that where you can properly document where it comes from and has been legitimately obtained ”? Seems pretty straightforward to me. Leave the rest for the cowboys, hillbillies and lawbreakers.
So, Ed, do you support dealers creating a database of all the laws regarding the acquisition of cultural property from the various countries they trade with? Will you join me in urging that they do this for the benefit of all collectors so they don't have to learn about them from blogs like this?
Did you know what the word "pedantry" meant before Jim McGarigle told you, and where do you see the "pedantry" in these UK laws?
Is Jim McGarigle right to poke fun at British law?
What about US export controls regarding cultural property, can you as an interested party tell us more about them please Ed? Is there anything there for the Brits to poke fun at?
Post a Comment