The Matter of a "Hobby of Kings"

.
"Let's Not Make Coin Collecting the "Hobby of Kings" Once More" says Peter Tompa, its what he said at the CPAC meeting on 12th October. Leaving aside the question of why restricting ancient artefact imports from Greece to those with export licences would make any kind of collecting only available to "kings" rather than responsible collectors, I am puzzled by the reference to royalty. Back in England when was a kid, it was stamp collecting that I was told was the "hobby of kings" - and so in England it was, the Royal Stamp Collection created by Queen victoria's children and continued famously and assiduously by the "Old King", George V was rightly celebrated. Googling the phrase shows I was not mistaken. But yes, coin collecting too is frequently called in the Internet "the hobby of kings" too. But when you look more closely something else emerges, the most frequent users of the phrase are recent US coin dealers (not necessarily of ancient dugups). It is obviously a selling-point: "it was once the hobby of kings, but due to Acme coin exchange you too can enjoy it at a reasonable cost... call us now". The part of the metal detector and the emptying of archaeological sites is seldom mentioned as the reason why these coins are now within everybody's reach -despite a vastly expanded market. A good parallel seems the activities of art dealers like Duveen who persuaded the financial elite of the New World that they could emulate their social betters in the old families of Europe through the creation of collections of Old Masters - and they bought it (and them).

So how true is it that coin collecting was one of the attributes of monarchy in the past? Well, the USA never had a king, so Americans really can only imagine what they did. Yes, indeed, while there were rulers who seem to have collected nothing, both kings and queens, dukes and duchesses, counts and viscounts collected coins in the past. What the pro-collecting propaganda tends not to admit is that this was most frequently as part of a wider collecting trend. I'd like to see the ACCG compile a list of monarchs that collected ONLY coins (and while they are at it, only ancient coins). Many monarchs and members of the elite, in Europe in particular (but also beyond, King Faisal for example) indeed had coin cabinets, but only as part of more extensive art collecting activities, which would include intaglios and other gems and in almost all cases galleries full of oil paintings and suchlike (Old Master drawings, graphic art). Some had classical sculptures and vases and other exotic items. Let us not forget exotic animals and plants in the gardens outside.

But actually at the time of the formation of the United States and for many years afterwards, the main collectors of dugup ancient coins in Europe (for of course they are not to be found in the soil of the US) were not the "kings". The collecting was mainly in the hands of an educated elite, certainly, but the clergy and landowners. Over here in eastern Europe (Prussia especially), teachers played an important role. They tended to obtain these items from the people who worked the land, farmhands and navvies (though landowners sometimes organized excavations on their property). But I guess "hobby of schoolteachers" does not quite have the same cachet for the US buyer.

.

Yet Another Discussion List for Portable Antiquity Dealers and Collectors

Portable antiquity collectors interested in questioning the need for further legal regulation of the antiquities trade already have their increasingly monologous Unidroit-L discussion list devoted to “ the Unidroit Convention and related legislation […] anything to do with the law as it applies to trading in and collecting stamps, coins and ancient artifacts”. Now a group of nine of them (mainly one suspects living in the US) have deemed it necessary to create another discussion list. This new one, the UNESCO-L Discussion List has been set up to examine the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. An introductory text (very similar to that of the Unidroit-L discussion list) proclaims the aim is to provide a “forum for discussion of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, and related legislation”. Personally I cannot see the difference, where one set of 'related legislation' differs from the other. But this discussion list, we are assured will be different.

The organizers of this initiative assert:

The UNESCO Convention (1970) […] includes among the items defined as "cultural objects:" (e) antiquities more than one hundred years old, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals (i) postage, revenue and similar stamps, singly or in collections […] The definitions of stamps, coins and antiquities are so broadly stated that any collector or institution acquiring a stamp, coin or minor antiquity (such as a scarab or oil lamp) more than one hundred years old, originating in another country than that in which the collection resides, could be prevented from importing it to his nation of residence, and may be required to return it to the country of origin in the absence of documentary proof that the object was legally exported.

Ah, here's the rub. They obviously expect the collector of so-called "minor" pieces of somebody-else's-archaeological-heritage such as coins, scarabs or oil lamps to be worried by that latter phrase. Simply “acquiring” an item is not enough to fall foul of the legislation which this convention requires the international community to honour (clue: “export licences”).

The authors of this text are misleading the reader about what the convention defines as cultural objects. They neglect to draw the reader’s attention to the most important element of Article 1, which reads: “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…”. So for example as we saw in the case of Great Britain the other day, the category of “postage stamps and other articles of philatelic interest” is specifically excluded by state legislation (The Export of Objects of Cultural interest (Control) Order 2003, Schedule 1 Article 1 [a]) as objects of cultural interest. My guess this omission is deliberate, as is the selective presentation of categorises that might be included seems to be a cynical attempt to make stamp collectors feel threatened in an attempt to gain their support in the questioning of this Convention (they tried it in the case of Unidroit-L too). I think we can safely assume philatelists outnumber the 50 000 collectors of ancient coins in the US. One presumes however that most stamp collectors can read the Convention themselves and probably will conclude that an attempt is being made to manipulate them.

In fact, if one examines with attention the FAQ of this list, it becomes abundantly clear that its author(s) completely misunderstand (that is more charitable than misrepresent) the nature of the Convention, its scope and purpose, as well as completely ignoring its relationship to the national laws of sovereign countries that the US of America.

A second objective of the list will be discussion of whether:

in view of the […] now well established, rapidly growing and
serious extent of controversy and social conflict that have resulted from its implementation, continuation of this Convention is beneficial to mankind.

Let us get this straight, a bunch of US collectors is questioning whether international co-operation in the field of fighting the trade in illicit antiquities is “beneficial to mankind”. I wonder if equally under discussion will be whether the unregulated continuation of illicit trade particularly beneficial to mankind, or just North American collectors of portable antiquities which are not found in the soil of the USA?

Let us also bear in mind who it is that threatens "turmoil" until the archaeologists cave in and agree to forget about archaeological context when talking with collectors of archaeological material taken from archaeological sites. Precisely who is stirring up social conflict over a comparatively simple issue of morality and responsibility towards the use of a finite and fragile resource?

These collectors presumably want to discuss on the new list whether disregarding Article 2 (opposing illicit trade) of the Convention is “beneficial to mankind”, and likewise Articles 5 and 14 (heritage protection). From past experience, we may be sure that in their discussions they will be dead against Articles 6 and 8 (clue: export licences), what about Article 7 (museums)? I am sure they will say “Nine (international co-operation) – nine is right out”, (that’s what the Cyprus MOU bru-ha-ha is about). Article 10 (education), well, that must be real uncomfortable for some collectors. I’d like to see what US collectors make of Articles 11 and 12 (military occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan etc.). We can see from their introductory texts, the members of this list also intend to usurp for themselves the duties alluded to in Article 16 and part of 17 (reporting).

One of the stated agendas of the discussion list is:

To define the impact of the 1970 UNESCO convention on collectors of coins, stamps and antiquities […]and whether it may create uncertain or unfavorable market conditions that would impact collectors and the sale of collections.

How about favourable conditions for the prohibition and prevention of the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property? In what way would (we presume continued) complying as the Convention requires with legal export requirements "impact" the current market, one wonders?

The Convention as befits an agreement of significance to the international community (Article 18) was published simultaneously in four languages (English, French, Russian and Spanish) “The language used in all posts [to the UNESCO-L list] shall be English” as befits what seems to be little more than a unilateral attempt by a minority group of Americans to exert what they see as their "rights" at the expense of the cultural heritage of members of the international community.

Let us hope that the international community pays very close attention to what these US collectors want, understand and have to say about their relationship to the ideals that the Convention is intended to uphold.