Rick addresses head on the main issue: Collectors (and numismatists and archeologists and historians and etc., etc., etc.) would benefit from the greater context of new finds being routinely documented, and they lose out from all the information that's lost from the current system, a system that -- my point -- is centered on the black market. The solution isn't some tangential photo stamping system that's as impractical as it's silly or some even sillier system of embedding identifying microchips in coins. (!) The solution is changing irrational laws in source countries, to do what's needed to move in this direction. This is where the focus should be, all of it, not maintaining the current "Hear no evil, see no evil, smell no evil"system where nobody knows nuthin' about where new finds come from ...a system that benefits only dealers.Hmm. So all the "source countries" should change their entire archaeological heritage laws to accomodate the US collector of ancient coins, so the poor mites do not have to keep records themselves of provenance for example by some "tangental" (sic) system? For example solve the "looting" problem in Iraq by liberalising the laws so digging deep holes in stratified sites for saleable cuneiform and cylinder seals is totally legal? I think we've heard all this before. From American collectors that is.
I wonder how all those US collectors would feel about the global community enforcing on their homeland a few legislation changes to make our world a better place. I think we can all identify a few things we'd like to change over there. I bet they would not appreciate it too much if we were able to enforce a change of their laws from the outside (I rather think that's why they fought a war of independence).
In any case, let us note that what Witschonke proposes apparently does not actually "address the main issue head-on", since his suggestion would achieve nothing to curb the exploitation of the archaeological resource merely as a source of collectables for foreign markets, just makes it easier for the collector. The destruction of archaeological evidence will go on, just legalised and under a different name. Like it does in the United Kingdom where the archaeologists of the "NuPAS" are now "partners" with artefact hunters in the dismantling of the archaeological record of England and Wales.
_______________________________________________
PS The comments here would mean that Reid Goldsborough only summarised part of Witschonke's arguments, the ones that fitted his own.
.jpg)
7 comments:
There are many things more important than the archaeological record of England and Wales
To address the issue head on source countries need to incentivise people who find objects to report those finds. If the people benefit they will report the finds, the finds can then be cataloged, and what doesn't go to museums can enter the marketplace. That is the only thing that is going to stop looting.
There are many things more important than the archaeological record of England and Wales
Indeed there are. But then are you saying that because of that, it does not make any difference to you if its trashed? As an archaeologist with a blog about archaeological matters on which you are the guest, I guess I am permitted to have another view.
As for your second post.... There is a difference between an accidental finder (which is what you appear to be talking about) and a deliberate commercial artefact hunter which is what I am (presumably Witschonke too?). How would you and Witschonke like to incentivise the tell-shovelling artefact hunter in Iraq?
You see, the whole thing is that for a number of very good reasons, we do not want (or need) all the stuff dug up by money-seeking artefact hunters right now, rather than being preserved intact for proper investigation. We don't want the tells shovelled out leaving us with a bucketload of contextless cuneiform fragments and a cylinder seal or two. That is the point you collectors don't seem to grasp (or want to grasp).
So first legalising then incentivising commercial artefact hunters to dig up more and more right now really is doing nothing whatsoever to preserve the archaeological record from this kind of destruction.
What we need is to cut the diggers off from the people who will buy illicitly dug archaeological artefacts, collectors included. So I think we need more disincentives. And as I said, we would all like to see RESPONSIBLE collectors joining in with that effort, and not expecting the whole world to change just to accomodate them.
Paul,
Reid did present a somewhat skewed version of Witschonke's article. Thank you for the link and update to my comments on it. Rick, a very knowledgeable and well-respected collector, urges in his article the immediate need for greater responsibility and proactive efforts on behalf the collecting and dealing community. As Reid points out, he is sympathetic to the implementation of PAS-like schemes in other countries, but he does believe that collectors/dealers should be more concerned about what they are buying and where it is coming from instead of denying any and all criticism. In my view, it is refreshing to hear these much more moderate comments while many dealers simply say that the illicit trade should simply be legalized so that it then isn't technically looting. The latter does not solve the ethical problem whereby archaeological are systematically looted and knowledge is systematically destroyed.
Best,
Nathan
Thanks for that, it sounds more interesting an article than Mr Goldsborough's summary makes out. I'll try and get hold of it.
For the record, here is the text of my editorial:
Celator Letter to the Editor
Rick Witschonke
11/27/08
I read with interest both Ed Snible's guest editorial on photo registration of ancient coins in the October Celator, and Wayne Sayles' reaction to it in his November column: "Registration". Although I applaud much of the work that my friend Wayne has done through the ACCG to support the hobby of collecting ancient coins, I find I must disagree with his position that the status quo is perfectly acceptable: "(I) wonder why something already legitimate needs to be legitimized". There are two problems with this position.
First, pragmatically, the collector's unrestricted legal "right" to purchase ancient coins is rapidly eroding. Any knowledgeable participant in the market for ancient coins knows that a significant proportion of the coins on the market at any point in time come from the ground, not from old collections. One can argue about the percentage, but whatever it is, a large number of coins are being dug up and exported contrary to the laws of the source country, and these coins are being purchased by collectors in the U.S., through a network of dealers. And, although the collector may not be violating any U.S. law because he is a "good faith purchaser", laws are being broken somewhere in the chain of events. And, under the McClain Doctrine (now upheld by three U.S. District Courts of Appeal), antiquities exported from a source country in contravention of their antiquity laws can, under certain conditions, be considered stolen property under U.S. law, making the importer subject to federal prosecution.
Wayne's column traces the history of the 1970 UNESCO convention, and deplores its adoption by the U.S. But, with the U.S. enactment of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act in 1986, it became U.S. law, and the bilateral Memoranda of Understanding signed under it have increasingly restricted the importation of antiquities from certain countries (including coins in the case of Cyprus). While one may disagree with these actions, they are, for the present, the law of the land.
And source countries continue to wage an increasingly successful non-legal battle for restitution of their antiquities. While these initiatives have mostly involved high-end antiquities repatriated from U.S. museums, they have involved coins (in the case of the Dekadrachm Hoard returned to Turkey), and private collectors (Shelby White). And, while it is hard to imagine a source country going after a $5.00 late Roman bronze, there is no reason to expect that these initiatives will cease. In fact, many museums have now adopted the UNESCO date as a cutoff, requiring that any new acquisition have a solid provenance predating 1970. So, increasingly, the burden of proof that an object has been legally obtained is shifting to the possessor, making Ed's proposal of photo registration a prudent step.
But there is another reason, to my mind more compelling, why the status quo is unacceptable. Whenever an ancient artifact is dug up and sold without recording the location and other circumstances of the find (the archeological context), valuable information is forever lost. In the case of coins, this information includes the recording of the complete contents of an intact hoard. Research on the dating of many series of ancient coins depends on such information, and yet much of it is being lost today due to illicit digging. And make no mistake, hoards are a finite resource, and with the advent of increasingly sensitive metal detectors and ground-penetrating radar, they are disappearing at an alarming rate. Even the systematic recording of stray finds can tell us much. For example, the geographic territories of iron age tribes in the U.K. have been significantly redefined based on the recording of coin find sites. Thus, the illicit excavation of ancient coins deprives coin enthusiasts of new information about the very coins they are fascinated with.
Wayne tends to characterize the debate as a battle between the interests of the collectors and those of the archeologists; I would submit that the two groups are natural allies, sharing a common interest in the preservation of archeological context. Some archeologists have taken the extreme position that collecting per se causes looting, and that collecting must therefore be eliminated in order to halt the loss of context. However, based on my experience, this is actually a minority view (albeit a vocal one) among the archeological community. And, if a way could be found for collecting to coexist with responsible excavation of artifacts, they would support it.
So, is there middle ground which would encourage the recording of context information of found antiquities, while allowing the trade in such objects to continue? The demonstrable success of the U.K. Treasure Act/ Portable Antiquities Scheme over the past decade perhaps illuminates a way forward. This is not the place for a detailed discussion of the approach, but it has dramatically increased the reporting and recording of finds, while allowing many of the found objects to legally enter the trade. While some archeologists would prefer to do all of the excavating themselves, the approach has the support of many, including Lord Colin Renfrew, one of the leading spokesmen for the anti-collecting faction. And serious academics have begun to advocate this approach in peer-reviewed articles.
Convincing other source nations to adopt a similar approach will be very difficult. But if the collecting and archeological communities come together in support of an enlightened U.S. law which encourages such approaches, we might just reach a resolution that works for both groups. One thing is certain: if we merely maintain the status quo, both groups will be the losers.
And, to respond to Paul's point, I am not suggesting that source countries change their antiquities laws in order to accommodate American collectors, but rather to reduce looting. TA/PAS has demonstrably accomplished this in the UK, although Paul refuses to acknowledge it.
Thanks for that, it saves me trying to get it through Interlibrary loan. It turns out that this is an interesting example (see above) of seeing what you want to see in a text !
I assume "will be the losers" is the actual end of the original text.
I'd like to respond to some of those comments, but I'll do it in the main blog text.
Post a Comment