Fighting Back

Ancient Coin Trade Fights Back

http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2012/10/ancient-coin-trade-fights-back.html
by Peter Tompa

The Art Newspaper (Oct. 2012) has published an article by Riah Pryor about the ACCG's test case, currently pending before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.   The article correctly notes that one of  ACCG's key complaints is that the applicable regulations " muddl[e] up the place a coin was made with the place it was found."  If the point of import restrictions is to protect archaeological sites in source countries, why has the Government written restrictions based on a coin's place of production rather than its find spot? 

Nathan Elkins, a strident critic of collectors and the coin trade, suggests that the dispute is between "experts and academics on one side and and collectors and dealers on the other," but several more seasoned academics I know have also expressed concern that such over broad restrictions do little but encourage grasping cultural bureaucracies like  those of Cyprus, Greece, Italy, and China to lay claim to any artifact that may have been produced in those countries millenia ago. 

...




************

Arthur Houghton asked me to post this response:

Peter, thank you for posting about the interesting article from the Art Newspaper. It casts a harsh light on the extra-legal measures the government will take to further the national claims of other countries. Anyone with the faintest familiarity with ancient coins, Greek in particular, knows they were produced for state needs, including the financing of armies that traveled and carried them on campaigns well outside their place of issue. The problem is that most of our archaeologist friends don't know much about coins and get a little stupid -- perhaps willfully? -- in endorsing the view that the place of production is equivalent to their findspot.

Nathan Elkins is another matter. ...  On the question of collecting and archaeological ethics ... he appears to be deeply conflicted. On one hand he preaches stridently, almost obsessively, about the effect of the antiquities market (the coin trade in particular) on looting.

On the other, he seems dependent on the market for his research ... At some point Dr. Elkins should unwind his conflicted views, get on with the business of scholarship and teaching and stop railing at the market that yields up the evidence he so eagerly uses in his own work. ... perhaps Dr. Elkins would best just can his view of disparate "sides" to the troubling question of unprovenanced coins, those of "experts and academics on one side and collectors and dealers on the other."

He knows better. With the exception of a relative handful of specialist scholars, academics know almost nothing about coins, while the scholarly literature, including major works that have defined the field, is replete with the contribution of collectors and dealers. Dr. Elkins prates about "us" (the good, experts and academics) versus "them" (those horrible collectors and dealers), but he is wrong. The division is false, and he knows it.

Best regards,

Arthur

***************
COMMENTARY
***************


 >  Nathan Elkins, a strident critic of collectors and the coin trade, suggests that the dispute is between "experts and academics on one side and and collectors and dealers on the other" ...

The archaeology lobby and archaeology bloggers constantly endeavor to portray "experts and academics" as "good," presumably because they are not involved in buying and selling antiquities, whereas conversely "collectors and dealers" are portrayed as "bad" because they are involved in buying and selling antiquities.

This stems from the code of ethics to which archaeologists subscribe, the AIA's version of which may be viewed at http://www.archaeological.org/news/advocacy/130 . According to this code, archaeologists must
"Refuse to participate in the trade in undocumented [ i.e. unprovenanced] antiquities and refrain from activities that enhance the commercial value of such objects."

It would clearly be wrong to contend that archaeologists and the societies that govern their professional conduct do not have the right to set these standards regarding "unprovenanced antiquities" as an ethical requirement for archaeologists. It is, however, equally wrong for archaeologists to seek to extend their ethical standards regarding "unprovenanced antiquities" as a requirement applying to everyone, by stating or implying that collecting and trading in "unprovenanced antiquities" is unethical for individuals who are not archaeologists.

By endeavoring to portray collectors and dealers as "bad" because they are involved in buying and selling antiquities, the archaeology lobby and archaeology bloggers do indeed seek to extend their ethical standards regarding "unprovenanced antiquities" as a requirement applying to everyone. In this observer's view, that pejorative endeavor can fairly be criticized as unjustified and unethical conduct.

Arthur Houghton's remarks highlight the dichotomy inherent in this. In his incessant criticism of  collectors and dealers, Dr. Nathan Elkins has become both ethically conflicted and logically conflicted. As Houghton suggests, "Dr. Elkins should unwind his conflicted views, get on with the business of scholarship and teaching and stop railing at the market that yields up the evidence he so eagerly uses in his own work."