tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post9130383436624616226..comments2024-03-27T04:46:33.198-07:00Comments on Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues: More codes of ethical collecting?Paul Barfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-79034009456095101432008-08-15T09:09:00.000-07:002008-08-15T09:09:00.000-07:00Surely the answer is clear from the text of the do...Surely the answer is clear from the text of the document itself http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop/unesco01.html . Article 1 states that: “For the purposes of this Convention, the term "cultural property" means property which, on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each State as being of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science and which belongs to the following categories: […] c. products of archaeological excavations (including regular and clandestine) or of archaeological discoveries; d. elements of artistic or historical monuments or archaeological sites which have been dismembered; e. antiquities more than one hundred years old, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals; f. objects of ethnological interest”. Its quite clearly talking of anything the states signatory wish to regard as the cultural property of its citizens, whether it comes from below or above the soil within its borders. So coins, potshards, or fibulae if the state determines that these are its cultural property, and most states do indeed see archaeological remains from their territory as a very important part of the story of the region. If the state of Ambrosia wishes to declare its coins up to 1908 the cultural property of all Ambrosians, it has the right to do so, though it is under no obligation to do so, it can state that only coins struck before the “Great Ambrosian Revolution” in 1577 as the cut-off date if they so wish. Who are you or I to say they cannot? What outsider would have the right dictate what your country can regard as its own cultural heritage which you determine to protect? <BR/>The 1970 document has to be seen in the context of earlier documents and in particular the 1956 New Delhi Recommendations on International principles Applicable to Archaeological Excavations http://www.icomos.org/icahm/newdelhi.html#anchor309739 <BR/>Obviously the trade in antiquities in general and the international trade in antiquities in particular has undergone both a qualitative and quantitative change since 1956 and 1970. Whereas it was probably more concerned with “arty objects” and the odd coin or two found in ploughing sold through small coin shops, the advent of the metal detector and Internet trading changed all that totally in a way which would probably never have occurred to the authors of these documents in their wildest dreams. The motor of the main part of the market today are so-called “minor antiquities” sold at cut price rates to many more individuals rather than the bulkier items sold to museums and the fewer rich guys of yesteryear. The scale of the destruction is now vastly greater than thirty years ago, the market is dynamically expanding, and with it the severity of the damage to the archaeological record to get more and more items out of a dwindling resource. <BR/><BR/>This is why in addition to respecting the laws and international agreements, we need to persuade responsible collectors (the ones that really ARE interested in the past) to adopt a more reflexive approach to what they do and think about its effects on the historic environment. This is where a code of ethics comes in. So far the collectors have been stridently demanding that archaeologists adopt a more "collector-friendly" approach, I say why do we not see a move towards an archaeological-environment-friendly type of collecting?Paul Barfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-5751481107394432972008-08-15T08:26:00.000-07:002008-08-15T08:26:00.000-07:00Paul, you make some good points. (and others I di...Paul, you make some good points. (and others I disagree with!)<BR/><BR/>When I first heard of the 1970 convention -- in the 1980s -- it was justified in the (slightly) popular press with stories about faces being hacked off statues, church walls being knocked down and giant vases being dug up at midnight. I was collecting 18th and 19th century farthings and other kid-type coins. In my mind there was an association between antiquities laws and "the good stuff." I wasn't thinking of coins, potshards, or fibulas. I didn't actually read the treaty.<BR/><BR/>Question: In the late 1960s when the treaty was being debated was it widely understood in the academic archaeology press that 99% of the objects to be controlled by the treaty were coins and potshards and tesserae? Did the popular press fall down in explaining this? Or did it come as a happy surprise to realize when you learned that efforts to stop "big looting" could be applied to coins as well?Ed Sniblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17346392312959087285noreply@blogger.com