.
The coiney Lobboblogger, paid by the PNG and IAPN to promote their point of view says that preservationists like Nathan Elkins have avoided addressing some basic questions. These consist of:
A "fair way" to regulate the trade would involve the trade strengthening the supervisory mechanisms which ensure standards are upheld, which would take an active part in the cleaning up of the market. The trade associations and informal groupings are at the moment doing far too little and in a passive (reactionary) mode. They need to actively promote best practice. I am not sure "the trade" as a whole (ie in the 200- odd countries of the world) actually faces too many "difficulties in complying with the current regulatory scheme". I rather think it is US dealers that are referred to here. Obviously dealers have to work together to circumvent any problems they have with the minimal rules applicable (and only to import of fresh material, the rest of the US trade in coins and even dugup coins is left wholly unregulated). I would say the PNG and IAPN should - among other things - stress among their dealer members the need to fully and conscientiously comply with any export and import restrictions that a given country may impose (and educate collectors of the need for patience when they do). It would obviously be helpful if they would produce a handbook outlining what exactly they are for every country likely to be a source of dugup coins of interest to the collector. Presumably (since they all import and export coins in accordance with the law) this is just a matter of collating the personal knowledge of members. Maybe they could get external funding for such a project.
As for the measures that "source countries and archaeologists" should take to "encourage reporting and recording of coin hoards", obviously this requires closer supervision of the legislative measures. The law should get tougher with criminals caught with unreported and illicitly obtained artefacts, and the contacts of such individuals should be aggressively investigated in order to identify supply chains. At the moment an apprehended would-be smuggler is more often than not let off with a warning and the seized goods merely "repatriated". That is no deterrent and also does not aid the location and punishment of other criminals involved in handling the material.
There should be registration of ancient artefacts legally and licitly held in private hands to confirm licit ownership and act as a record of such material and its collecting history (which in turn aids their "preservation and study"). The CPRI was working on such a scheme, but seems to have made little progress. Buyers will be able to look up intended purchases before parting with their money to learn their background. There should be an active public awareness programme informing the public about the database and its purposes, with the aim of de-legitimizing those holding ancient material who are not willing to have "their" material, for whatever reason, entered on it.
Such a record would also be an aid in ensuring the huge numbers of ancient coins extant in private collections are properly conserved. Since at its basis would be a photographic record (rather like the PAS or UKDFD databases) any time the condition of the object changes (whether by cleaning or deterioration) the collector should be obliged to submit a new photo. If at the time of transfer of ownership, the object does not look like the photo in the database, it would drop out of the database of licitly-held material, with all the consequences that would entail.
There seems nothing inherently "unfair" in requiring progressive collectors and dealers to scrupulously comply with the relevant legislation (they all claim they do anyway), it is a matter of systematising and codifying this as well as introducing stricter sanctions on those that damage the good name of the trade by refusing to comply. Likewise since collectors themselves stress the importance of their role in recording and preserving these archaeological artefacts in private hands, they should be encouraged to develop that to as high a standard as possible, and produce high quality records and supporting documentation and strengthen their roles as responsible curators. Proper transparency will also provide a basis for public discussions of the real stakeholders in the heritage (the public) of the issues involving the antiquities trade and the way it is conducted, and the way the public thinks it should be conducted.
And why not let is start with the 50 000 collectors of ancient coins in the United States of America? Once they have set the pace and provided a model to be emulated the Germans, Swiss, Italians and French and all the rest can build on their experience and follow their lead making this an effort of international co-operation.
Vignette: Pirate treasure (Whydah)
The coiney Lobboblogger, paid by the PNG and IAPN to promote their point of view says that preservationists like Nathan Elkins have avoided addressing some basic questions. These consist of:What is a fair way to regulate the trade that takes into account the difficulties they face in complying with the current regulatory scheme and the positive contribution collectors and dealers make to preserving and studying coins? What can source countries and archaeologists do to encourage reporting and recording of coin hoards and ensuring the huge numbers of ancient coins extant are properly conserved?If we are to "take into account" the "positive contribution collectors and dealers make to preserving and studying coins" let us first of all see that collectors and dealers are indeed curating these objects with the highest standards of documentation, to best-museum standard. Let us see a real code of ethics adopted by these progressive collectors which requires objects to fulfil the same criteria as with museum accessions (after all, some of these collections will later be going to museums). As has been pointed out, one cannot talk of a sub-discipline of the "study" of heap-of-coins-on-a-table without the literature, where are the comprehensive methodological textbooks of such a field of "study" applied to ancient coins? The IAPN and PNG could sponsor the production of such textbooks to fill this gap.
A "fair way" to regulate the trade would involve the trade strengthening the supervisory mechanisms which ensure standards are upheld, which would take an active part in the cleaning up of the market. The trade associations and informal groupings are at the moment doing far too little and in a passive (reactionary) mode. They need to actively promote best practice. I am not sure "the trade" as a whole (ie in the 200- odd countries of the world) actually faces too many "difficulties in complying with the current regulatory scheme". I rather think it is US dealers that are referred to here. Obviously dealers have to work together to circumvent any problems they have with the minimal rules applicable (and only to import of fresh material, the rest of the US trade in coins and even dugup coins is left wholly unregulated). I would say the PNG and IAPN should - among other things - stress among their dealer members the need to fully and conscientiously comply with any export and import restrictions that a given country may impose (and educate collectors of the need for patience when they do). It would obviously be helpful if they would produce a handbook outlining what exactly they are for every country likely to be a source of dugup coins of interest to the collector. Presumably (since they all import and export coins in accordance with the law) this is just a matter of collating the personal knowledge of members. Maybe they could get external funding for such a project.
As for the measures that "source countries and archaeologists" should take to "encourage reporting and recording of coin hoards", obviously this requires closer supervision of the legislative measures. The law should get tougher with criminals caught with unreported and illicitly obtained artefacts, and the contacts of such individuals should be aggressively investigated in order to identify supply chains. At the moment an apprehended would-be smuggler is more often than not let off with a warning and the seized goods merely "repatriated". That is no deterrent and also does not aid the location and punishment of other criminals involved in handling the material.
There should be registration of ancient artefacts legally and licitly held in private hands to confirm licit ownership and act as a record of such material and its collecting history (which in turn aids their "preservation and study"). The CPRI was working on such a scheme, but seems to have made little progress. Buyers will be able to look up intended purchases before parting with their money to learn their background. There should be an active public awareness programme informing the public about the database and its purposes, with the aim of de-legitimizing those holding ancient material who are not willing to have "their" material, for whatever reason, entered on it.
Such a record would also be an aid in ensuring the huge numbers of ancient coins extant in private collections are properly conserved. Since at its basis would be a photographic record (rather like the PAS or UKDFD databases) any time the condition of the object changes (whether by cleaning or deterioration) the collector should be obliged to submit a new photo. If at the time of transfer of ownership, the object does not look like the photo in the database, it would drop out of the database of licitly-held material, with all the consequences that would entail.
There seems nothing inherently "unfair" in requiring progressive collectors and dealers to scrupulously comply with the relevant legislation (they all claim they do anyway), it is a matter of systematising and codifying this as well as introducing stricter sanctions on those that damage the good name of the trade by refusing to comply. Likewise since collectors themselves stress the importance of their role in recording and preserving these archaeological artefacts in private hands, they should be encouraged to develop that to as high a standard as possible, and produce high quality records and supporting documentation and strengthen their roles as responsible curators. Proper transparency will also provide a basis for public discussions of the real stakeholders in the heritage (the public) of the issues involving the antiquities trade and the way it is conducted, and the way the public thinks it should be conducted.
And why not let is start with the 50 000 collectors of ancient coins in the United States of America? Once they have set the pace and provided a model to be emulated the Germans, Swiss, Italians and French and all the rest can build on their experience and follow their lead making this an effort of international co-operation.
Vignette: Pirate treasure (Whydah)
.jpg)
4 comments:
Well, you are suggesting things here, but I'm not sure they would be very practical to do given the huge numbers of coins extent and the costs involved.
But conspiciously absent are undertakings by archaeologists and foreign cultural bureaucracies to ensure the coins in their possession are properly conserved, studied and displayed.
You seem far too willing to place burdens on collectors and dealers than on archaeologists and the foreign cultural bureaucracies they work with. Are you suggesting their practices are already perfect?
Well, you are suggesting things here, but I'm not sure they would be very practical to do given the huge numbers of coins extent and the costs involved.
But conspiciously absent are undertakings by archaeologists and foreign cultural bureaucracies to ensure the coins in their possession are properly conserved, studied and displayed.
You seem far too willing to place burdens on collectors and dealers than on archaeologists and the foreign cultural bureaucracies they work with. Are you suggesting their practices are already perfect?
Well, the question was about "a fair way to regulate the trade" not run an archaeological institute or organization.
it also mentioned "encourage reporting and recording of coin hoards" so I presume by finders because I suspect you had the PAS in mind.
I also assumed that the "huge numbers of coins extant" referred to the coin market, coins that people like you an Dealer Dave would allege would be in some way threatened were archaeologists to get their hands on them.
I really do not know what your problem is that you obviously expect everybody else to drop everything else and come running to help collectors collect and dealers make a decent profit from dealing (but not "interfere" of course). This seems very childish, why cannot coin dealers and coin collectors take control of their own lives, why do you want everything handed to you on a plate - and at public expense too?
I really do not understand who is going to give "undertakings" to whom about what.
Coins in the British Museum and I am sure a whole host of US, German, Finnish, Japanese etc etc museums are coins in their possession are "properly conserved, studied and displayed" what kind of "undertaking" do you want from them, and why? What kind of "displays" do you want? How much of its holdings does your precious ANS have on display at any one time? I do not see your point.
On the other hand, none of us have any idea at all how well the items in the Peter Tompa collection or the Silas Gray Thugwit, or the newbie collector produced by the ACE are "properly conserved, studied and displayed". I do not see too many of those displays and I note that V-coins or Classical Coins do not sell conservation chemicals.
.
As for "burdens", nobody MAKES anyone collect coins. Having a nice fluffy doggy's very nice, but with it comes responsibilities of feeding it and taking it to the vet. Of course you could buy a doggie and shirk any responsibilities and dump it by the side of the road for somebody else to deal with. Out of sight, out of mind, shoulder shrug. Are coin collectors responsibility-shirkers?
Post a Comment