C
oin collector Ed Snible bought an ancient Kushan coin from a dealer based in India and was placed in a quandary when, only AFTER receiving his purchase he remembered the Indian antiquities law regarding export licencing procedure. He says: "I feel like I may have violated the ACCG code of ethics by asking for the [...] coin to be shipped to the US. I can't actually find the ACCG ethics code on line so I am not sure". Indeed this sketchy document seems no longer to be on line, the only link on the ACCG website goes here.Still that's probably no great loss, as far as I recall it contained neither of these two principles (applicable in the purchase of other commodities such as motor vehicles, mobile phones, music CDs and flat screen TVs):
"The responsible collector will ascertain before purchase that the person/venue they are buying from fully complies with all applicable laws and will supply the purchaser with any documentation required to verify that this is the case"(here, an export licence) and
"In all cases where you ascertain or suspect that an illegal transaction has been proposed or taken place, the responsible collector or dealer will alert the appropriate authorities in order that they may investigate and take action against any guilty party".
Readers might care to have a look at my earlier discussion of this "Code of Ethics" and especially the manner in which it was reworded to make sure it was not misunderstood as standing for truly ethical handling of ancient artefacts dug up in foreign countries. It was later clarified that to be an "ACCG-ethical" collector it did not matter if a transaction in which a member takes part breaks local laws (for example on illegal removal of an artefact from the ground or country of origin), as long as no laws are broken within the territory of the USA. That seems to me an odd and somewhat insular understanding of the word "ethics", but I guess Ed Snible can sleep soundly that according to the ex-ACCG-so-called-Code-of-Ethics, since the transaction in which he took part broke Indian and not US law, it's all squeaky-clean as far as the "ethics" of an ACCG collector are concerned.
So, according to the ex-Code-of-ethics, the ACCG collector can buy any looted and smuggled Greek, Cypriot, Italian, Chinese and Bulgarian coins they want with a clear conscience, as long as no US law is broken, and if the ACCG get their own way and get the CCPIA MOUs with those countries overturned, there will be no legal, and therefore no "ACCG-ethical" constraints on buying anything at all. That is, after all, what the ACCG is all about, isn't it?
Like the coins, as long as the mobile phones on offer by a dodgy dealer were illegally obtained from non-American citizens outside the country and smuggled by mobsters to the US without being stopped at either border, it would be wholly ethical for an ACCG member to buy them without documentation of licit origins on the premise that "no US law was broken". No?
4 comments:
This is the coin. It was listed on eBay India and legal for anyone to buy. This damaged slug sold for my opening bid -- literally the equivalent of two cents. I had it shipped out of India and documented it for all to see.
Are you suggesting it would have been better to let an Indian citizen buy the coin? How is that a better outcome? I would be happy to give it to the Indian Antiquities bureau in exchange for a plaque or certificate thanking me; can you set that up?
I am disappointed to find myself a target on your high profile blog. I had thought you only targeted ACCG officials. I am the lowliest kind of ACCG member. Please next time you write an editorial condemning me can you at least email me with a warning?
"This is the coin".
yes, I know, I saw it on your blog.
"It was listed on eBay India and legal for anyone to buy" Whether or not it was "legal for anyone to buy" rather depends on a number of factors. Certainly (like it or not) not legal to export in the circumstances you describe.
But then the whole point I am making is the DIFFERENCE between what is ethical and that which is merely legal (or not illegal).
"I had it shipped out of India and documented it for all to see. Are you suggesting it would have been better to let an Indian citizen buy the coin?",
Are you suggesting it is in some way benefical that it was "saved" from being bought by an "Indian citizen", even at the cost of being involved with a smuggled archaeological artefact? How so?
No, I don't think a plaque or thanks are in order here.
As for "Target on a high profile blog", my target here is discussing all aspects of the collecting of portable antiquities which includes the antiquities trade, it includes smuggling of artefacts, and includes ethics among collectors.
I suppose I could make it all up, just generalise (you know, "all collectors have two heads, beat their wives, and eat babies" sort of stuff), but that's not really as believable as taking a case discussed on the internet (so people can check out that the things I say are said actually were said and in what context) and expressing a view on what I see and read. What is wrong with that?
I do not just write about ACCG "officials". While they are the ones blogging the most stupid stuff one can find on portable antiquities issues on the Internet, they get a lot of attention, but when something else catches my eye, I talk about that too.
Remember, it is the passivity and acquiescence and ease of manipulation of the "lowly ACCG members" that lets the ACCG "Leaders" get away with what they do. Stand up to them.
I would have thought that since it is a "guild" FOR collectors, perhaps instead of looking what the dealers have anonymously written for you, collectors (responsible collectors, those trying to be responsible) should be getting together and writing it yourselves.
If I were a collector and writing a code of ethics, it certainly would not leave wriggle room for
illegal activity like the ACCG one does. Would you? Or is that me being in "Wolkenkuckucksheim" thinking that such a thing might be possible among collectors of the 21st century?
Ed, I have always put you at one end of the coiney spectrum, where you have in my estimation very few fellows. I was a bit disappointed to read what I read from you today, but no particular offence was meant by my taking it up. I assumed you had written about this case on the discussion list to start a discussion about it.
I didn't mean to imply I am a more worthy steward than an Indian citizen. I meant that the coin was already in commerce. The point of the antiquities treaties is to prevent Western wealth from tempting diggers. It shouldn't matter whose tray holds a $0.02 object.
It's true I wanted to start a discussion but I had hoped to have it among my peers before opening it to tenacious critics. I applaud national pride and understand the appeal of patrimony laws but feel they lead to "tragedy of the commons" situations stripping landowners of rights and incentives to protect cultural objects. I'm looking to discover not a code of ethics but a framework that aligns the interests of scholars, scholar/collectors, collectors, and land-owners.
"I didn't mean to imply I am a more worthy steward than an Indian citizen."
Well, it certainly came over that way, and that IS a staple of the ACCG neo-colonialist stand on "cultural property internationalism", isn't it?
"I meant that the coin was already in commerce",
The coin was in INDIA. If there is a constant and unregulated drain of coins from the local market, this will have to be topped up by more looting. Which is why I'd like to see the regulations followed by sellers and buyers alike. What is wrong with that?
"The point of the antiquities treaties is to prevent Western wealth from tempting diggers."
Actually it is not, read them, not Tompa. Look at the wider context.
"It shouldn't matter whose tray holds a $0.02 object"
Perhaps you are right, and if the girl is just a few months under the age of consent, or somebody was only 35 miles an hour over the speed limit and the flatscreen TV is only a little bit stolen, and so on. Does (did) the ACCG Code of Ethics give the monetary limit above which it begins to be applicable? In what currency?
"It's true I wanted to start a discussion but I had hoped to have it among my peers ..." Ha! What kind of "discussion" would you expect from the guffawing mob on one of Dave Welsh's mud-slinging "discussion" lists? Don't make me laugh.
"I'm looking to discover not a code of ethics but a framework that aligns the interests of scholars, scholar/collectors, collectors, and land-owners.,
Which landowner did you have in mind in the case of your Kushan coin?
My thought is that any such framework ought to start with the notion of private collectors actually recognising the existence of laws that regulate such things as the extraction of artefacts from the ground and their removal from one country to another. It would start with them refusing to have anything to do with those that break those laws - for whatever reason. How can you have "scholarship" based on stolen and illicitly obtained data? Can you name me any other branch of scholarship in the US which would allow such a thing? It seems to me that nobody is going to want to establish any kind of "framework" with a group of people that support the ACCG Schutz und Trutband which is fighting to continue the trade in illegally exported artefacts from the source countries, "no-questions-asked". Carry on like that and there will be no "framework". How would you imagine there could be? Write your own code of ethics which would not weasel-word around the issue of the illicit coins on the market, and face up to the challenge of RESPONSIBLY doing something about it. Until collectors do something about it, they will be criticised - and quite rightfully so.
Post a Comment