A Historical Perspective

Cultural Property Nationalism

2011-12-20T14:56:00.000-08:00

In a previous post I briefly outlined the conflict during the founding of UNESCO. The educators lost that battle while the politicians won and UNESCO in the United States became a branch of the government. This has made it more difficult to preserve the original goal of world peace through education and the fight against nationalism which led to two world wars in the 20^th century and additional conflicts in Eastern Europe following the Cold War. While the world has generally worked to undermine the most radical political nationalists, the more benign forms of political and cultural nationalism have been tolerated or have even been encouraged.

There's an excellent paper by John Merryman http://www.ibcperu.org/doc/isis/722.pdf which details the history of cultural property protection from both the nationalistic side and the international side. In my view it boils down to state control versus market control of antiquities. As with most things one suspects that the extremes in either case are not best but that nuanced analysis tends to be difficult, expensive, and most of all hard.

The Financial Crisis

2011-12-05T11:31:00.000-08:00

The financial crisis is clearly the most important historical event since the al-Qaeda attacks on 9/11/2001. A tremendous amount of wealth, imagined wealth as it turned out, was destroyed with devastating effects for millions of people. The basic outline that’s emerged and doesn’t seem to be in question is that mortgage backed derivative securities were assessed at inflated values. When the housing market started to weaken causing the backing of the derivatives to lose value in turn, the over leveraged investors couldn’t deal with the market down turn and this led to a snowball effect. The government and the FED finally responded with TARP and 0.01% interest lending in an attempt to soften the bottom. One of my goals is to really understand how this came to be more exactly. As I blog on this topic I’ll begin mainly with background facts and data and less analysis and the slowly try to come to some conclusions. In beginning my research I have noticed an early politization of the causes of the financial crisis. My suspicion is that political infighting prevented both parties from regulating or addressing flaws in the sacred cows of the opposing party. Thus Charles Schumer defended Fannie and Freddie from regulation that was likely sensible while the GOP defended the freedom from regulation in the private market that led to “To big to fail”.

The Death of UNESCO

2011-11-05T13:23:00.000-07:00

The idea of UNESCO growing out of the destruction of World War II is captured at the beginning of Article I in the organization's constitution, "The purpose of the Organization is to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are affirmed for the peoples of the world, without distinction of race, sex, language or religion, by the Charter of the United Nations." During a meeting of the United Nations in Frederick Maryland in 1944 the need for an International Office of Education was affirmed. One of the strongest supporters was James Marshall, a member of the NYC board of education, who strongly advocated for a permanent body. (NYT 6/11/1944). At this meeting nine minimum essentials of an education system in a free society were listed.

The proper aim of education is the development of a free man.
Everyone should be educated
Opportunities for advanced education should be numerous and justly distributed
Learning is a lifelong obligation
There should be complete freedom to learn
Education should enrich human personality
Education should develop economic competence
Education is concerned with the development of character
Education should develop international understanding

By February 22nd, 1946 Mr.Marshall still supported the creation of UNESCO but he did not like the version of the bill before Congress (NYT 2/25/1946). Specifically Mr. Marshall objected to the State Department being allowed to select the US delegates to the UNESCO conferences. He feared government control over the delegates would reduce them to "courtiers" and that the process , "...will place a bureaucratic barrier between and the organizations active in the fields of education, science, and culture”. The American Association for an International Office of Education (AAIOE) instead recommended that each interested organization select its own delegate to UNESCO. Nearly all educators who testified before Congress expressed support for the position of James Marshall and the AAIOE. Congress though passed the bill allowing for State Department control over the US Delegation and President Truman signed the law. Unfortunately the concerns brought by James Marshall and other educators have proven valid as UNESCO has quickly devolved into a sad shadow of its initial potential.

Coin Collectors to Challenge State Department on Import Restrictions

2009-05-13T14:55:00.000-07:00

Coin Collectors to Challenge State Department on Import Restrictions

UNESCO is a failure, How About a Market based Appraoch?

2009-05-01T07:06:00.000-07:00

UNESCO has failed in many respects. Certainly the efforts to combat the transfer of illicit cultural property have born no fruit based on what everyone is saying. So why continue to support something that hasn't worked and will not work? Nation States are no longer primarily interested in preventing new looting, they are interested in repatriation of cultural heritage, the latter nothing more than cultural nationalism.

The Ambassador of Cyprus, Andreas Kakouris, stated "It may be your hobby, but it's our heritage." when talking about import restrictions. (Seattle Times Dec 2, 2007). This has been well discussed but it's important to remember that Cyprus considers the restricted objects to be theirs.

We also recently had the big kerfuffle about the bronze heads that China wanted repatriated. It didn't matter that the objects were made by Europeans for a oppressive minority government that oppressed the majority. Richard Spencer has written about this here. But the facts are not so important to the Chinese, what matters is the myth of cultural nationalism as told by the current government.

Other governments like Italy and Egypt are also playing the repatriation game, claiming that our heritage really belongs to them. UNESCO has done nothing to curb this neo-nationalism while at the same time it has failed to curb looting. UNESCO fails to protect minority cultures within nation states as well as immovable cultural objects like the statues in Afghanistan. It seems to be that all UNESCO is doing is enabling nations to use artifacts as propaganda to weave whatever nationalistic myths they feel like creating this century.

Luckily there are alternatives. Yesterday I happened across this blog entry. It's referencing a discussion of a Milken report "Financial Innovations for Developing Archaeological Discovery and Conservation" which looks at some potential market based solutions to the problems. The report can be downloaded here. An excerpt from the conclusion "To ensure legal archaeological discovery and conservation, the stakes must change and the players must be given incentives to alter their current perspectives. All market participants, from looters and collectors to archaeologists and museum
curators, must broaden their preconceived notions about right and wrong, and what constitutes preservation."

Real Solutions to the Looting Problem

2009-04-15T08:55:00.000-07:00

There are some out there that want to regulate the Ancient Coin Trade by instituting provenance only coin trading. As a solution this demands that all current legal coins be either registered or confiscated, and that all new coin purchases then be registered. Then this would need to occur in all countries with significant collector bases. Such a scheme is at best a fantasy and not helpful for a rational discussion on reducing looting. I went into some detail on this subject on the ACCG blog

Today I wanted to focus more on what can be done?
Can collecting exist in an environment where looting is also reduced?
Two solutions I mentioned in the article above were the creation of a voluntary reporting scheme that could collect data from all countries, and another is the well advocated adoption of a law similar to the UK Treasure Act elsewhere in the world.
But what if source countries don't want to implement a Treasure Act and they can't enforce their own laws leading to looting and smuggling as their own citizens violate the law. Is a demand based solution viable? I don't know the answer but I do know it shouldn't fall on the collector. If anything it seems that better enforcement of of existing laws would provide the solution. The source countries need to address their own looters, the middlemen who smuggle the goods out and those that buy from them in other countries should also be prosecuted. Focusing on this area would reduce the number of illegally excavated coins in the market while allowing the average collector and dealer to trust their sources.

Context in Ancient Coins

2009-04-08T13:22:00.000-07:00

Recently I stated “The most important context aside from the coin being created is arguably the context of a coin in a collection.” I wanted to expand on this a little bit, to put it into more of a context so to speak.

Coins like any other object have no meaning in and of themselves. I know philosophers have argued about the “Ding an Sich” for a long time but for practical purposes if a coin isn't seen or felt or involved in some other contextual relationship then it has no meaning. These relationships are best expressed as contexts, and a coin, like any other object, can be involved in many contexts over its lifetime. Here I'll present a synopsis of the contexts as I think about them and their value.

First comes the creation of the coin. The context of being created leaves the coin with several features that exist for the life of the coin. As an example I am thinking of the coins of Heraclius. When created a piece of metal becomes a coin, that coin can tell a viewer at any time in the future several facts: Where the coin was made, who authorized it's creation, when it was created, it's value at the time, the imagery can often tell us a few more facts. The creation context is quite critical sinc without it there would be nothing to talk about. But what happens next?

What follows are a series of ownership exchanges. The goverment pays a solider or buys supplies. Then the coin enters commerce. For ancient coins each of these ownership contexts is lost to us. No matter how interesting or informative they are gone. At some point the coin is lost and then found again. When it found is the next context. This would be the archaeological context. This context can be quite interesting and valuable or mundane and repetative. A coin that is found for the first time in a specific location will likely impart more information than the thousandth copy of a coin found in a field.

After the coin is found there are several options. The coin can be published and stored, it can be stored and never published, it can be displayed in a museum, it can enter commerce. Coins that enter commerce enter collections. It is in collections that coins can experience repeatedly new contexts each of which has the potential to add new information. An overstruck year 3 Heraclius follis in a collection of year 2 and year 4 folli would tell one story while paired with fractions from the same year might tell another story. In collection after collection the potential exists to explore new relationships and gains new knowledge. Anyone who has ever seen the exhibits at the CSNS or the ANA can attest to this.

There are some people who will shout a specific dogma and say one context is most important. The find spot must always be preserved, all coins must go into museums, or all coins should enter the privat e market. The extreme cases always come with a price to other contexts. Do you want to always know where a coin was found even at the expense of coins being available to collectors, to school children, to museums? Does the marketplace trump all other considerations at the expense of museums and scholarship? There are a lot of opinions and too much dogma. I urge everyone on the list to think about the consequences of each proposal and the impacts on each type of context. When you encounter an extremist ask yourself is this person involved in a specific context? Is their proposal self serving at the expense of others?

There are a lot of ancient coins with a lot to offer to many people. Don't let that knowledge slip from the many to the few.

How Ancient Coins are Found

2009-03-28T06:49:00.000-07:00

At the most recent meeting of the Twin Cities Ancient Coin Club we were treated to a presentation by a long time member and metal detectorist. He told a lot of interesting stories of himself and associates going on trips for detecting. A lot of the trips were in England. But through connections he has travelled to over 27 countries. The common theme throughout the presentation was the grateful response of museums in receiving the items that were found. This, along with this recent post about French detectorists sending find information to England for asylum led me to a new thought.

Could it be that some archaeologists simply can't leave aside the paradigm of their education when it comes to field archaeology? Are they stuck believing in a process that works great for certain types of discoveries even though for other artifacts the process become sill suited? In other words do they see every coin floating in a field as a nail to be struck by the full weight of procedural excavation? If so that explains a lot. It would also imply that archaeologists need some new training to be able to distinguish a meaningful, stratified site where context is key from scattered small coins and artifacts dispersed by loss, time, and erosion. The obsession with archaeological context when it comes to coins is a prime example. In talking with people who have metal detected for decades it is clear that coins aren't found by detectorists stratified amidst sites. For one detectorists go to plowed fields which can't really be excavated in most cases certainly not in the plowed surface. Secondly coins buried for long times are succeptible to be moved by erosion, water, animals, along with the plows and other tools of man.

Who Protects Living Cultures?

2009-03-21T07:36:00.000-07:00

There is a recent article by Benjamin Genocchio in the New York Times talking about the r4ecent import Restrictions on Chinese cultural items including coins. Towards the end of the article the Mr. Genocchio points out that under the agreement China also has an obligation to "crack down on looting and the illicit market for these items within China." But what about living cultures that actually exist? What about the Tibetans? According to a recent article in the Guardian Tibetan culture is facing extinction. It seems only when Tibetan culture exists only buried in the ground will it receive protection under International Law.

Coins in Context: Value of the Findspot

2009-03-15T07:43:00.000-07:00

Since the archaeological context is often brought up in the cultural property debate about coins, I have been trying to find out what percentage of coins found during excavations are in fact found in stratified contexts. Coins found in cultivated land are not likely to have this context due to the work of the plow and the weather. Another important question is what happens to coins after they are excavated? How many are published or displayed in museums? Unfortunately this information is extremely difficult to come by. Take the PAS (Portable Antiquities Scheme), a voluntary reporting scheme instituted with public funds in England and Wales. The money and the data both come from the public but the real data is hoarded only for qualified academics. This is a quote from an email response asking about the percentages of coins found in context, "We do indeed keep this information, which is available to bona fide researchers. If you could provide an academic reference, we can give you access to these data which are confidential." This raises more questions than it answers. Why is this data confidential when it's mostly supplied by the public? Why are bona fide researches necessarily academics? Is there something the keeper of the PAS are trying to hide? I don't know, and I guess they aren't going to tell me.

Reports from archaeological excavations are not much better. They either focus on only the stratified coin finds, or say things like "The stratified coins, although limited in number, will contribute to the chronological calibration of the Thetford ware pottery sequence." This is odd because other antiquities like the pottery in the previously cited article are shown to be found primarily in stratified contexts. Why not publish the coin numbers? Obviously coins were mobile, and with the exception of hoard burials or the occasional temple store, tended to be lost one by one subject to movement by the elements after the loss. Could it be that most coins are not found in stratified contexts? There's some evidence this is true. In The excavations at Wijnaldum by J. C. Besteman 19 of 82 coins are shown with an archaeological context. In The Athenian Agora, Volume XXVI: The Greek Coins. John H. Kroll writes, "In my study of the Agora Greek coins, I was surprised to discover how few, relatively speaking, come from chronologically significant contexts. A majority of the coins were recovered from late or 'mixed' fills, having apparently been redeposited in earth that had been dug up and reused in later building operations".

How many of the coins found are published or housed in museums that are accessible to the public? Another question with few answers. Francois de Callatay states in "Greek Coins from Archaeological Excavations: A Conspectus of Conspectuses and a Call for Chronological Tables" that "Huge numbers of coins indeed have been found in regular archaeological excavations but, as a rule, they are still waiting to be truly published. In practice, archaeological publications with at least five hundred Greek coins remain few (no more than twelve)." He then lists a total of 185,000 coins still waiting to be published some of them from the 1920's. If there is such a backlog why not let these coins enter the marketplace where dealers and collectors will study and publish much more information about them?

I think there is a very simple and rational conclusion to the cultural property debate, cooperation. Why some are seemingly intent on destroying private scholarship, numismatics, and collecting for all but the rich is beyond me.

Treaty on antiquities hinders access for museums by James Cuno

2009-03-13T15:38:00.000-07:00

There is an interview of James Cuno about his new book and the effects of the 1970 UNESCO treaty published by Science News. He goes over some of the major points of failure of the UNESCO Convention.

I certainly agree with the statements made by Mr. Cuno in this article and wanted to take a few moments to elaborate on a couple of his points. He states "In fact, I question whether any culture has ever been autonomous." This is an important idea to remember in the context of the treaty. UNESCO 1970 gives nation states the power to define cultural property in their own domains. Since almost every nation is comprised of many cultures this often leaves cultural minorities with no protection. Tibet in China, the Buddhists under the Taliban, and cultural minorities around the globe are at the mercy of whoever controls the state. Culture should not be at the mercy of any one state or group it should be available to all humanity.
Mr. Cuno then goes on to advocate sharing cultural property. That was the intent of much of what is now labeled cultural property anyway, especially coins. He also says, "sometimes things are better appreciated if they can be compared and contrasted with similar artifacts from other cultures and geographic regions". Of course this is exactly what happens in coin collections. Each coin is presented in a new context when it is placed with new companions generating a fresh view on the material.

Sharing, trading. and openness are what is needed not restrictive laws and cliques of "educated" individuals agreeing amongst themselves about what it all means.

What is Culture?

2009-03-09T18:36:00.000-07:00

I want to take a quick break form the posts on coins in their various educational contexts to address a few points about culture, cultural heritage, and cultural property. These terms are used over and over again and I'm afraid they have little real meaning.

What is culture? What does the word mean in terms of coin collecting? For me this paper by Josep Marti on cultural frames rings the most true. In the end each individual has his own set of behaviors and patterns. While people who live in the same region may tend to share some of these cultural frames no place will you find people behaving identically. I would also assert that culture is not nationalistic. The Chinese government especially seem to be asserting nationalistic goals in their efforts to repatriate antiquities, but Greece, Cyprus, Italy and others have done the same. Yet does a Tibetan have the same culture as a Han? Does a Tyroler have the same culture as a Sicilian? I really don't think so,

Then we get into cultural heritage and property. Believing in individual culture this is an especially difficult area for me. But, my father is a German citizen and I lived in Germany from ages 2 though 10. I speak German, I follow the Bundesliga, I like sauerkraut, pretzels, and all kinds of pork products. There's clearly some behavioral patterns I have that would not exist had I not lived in Germany, perhaps I could call these German culture? Even though I have these elements of German culture, I have yet to find a physical item that triggers in me a response based on culture or heritage. Coins to me are historic and interesting because of their history. I do like the coins of Hamburg, but this is because my grandfather sailed from there and the coins of the city remind me of the stories my dad tells about him and his travels, it is a personal family connection and not related to culture.

The things I could see as being significant to a culture, or at least a large portion of a population, are rare or unique items. Someone recently mentioned the Statue of Liberty to me. The Eiffel Tower, the Declaration of Independence and so on. But coins and other common antiquities? I just don't see it.

As I reader I simply ask you to think about what does culture mean? What is heritage and what is cultural property? In my view, in the end, culture is individual, property is individual, and heritage is individual. Sure we can share it amongst like minded or different individuals but it is all very far away from a monolithic nationalistic idea.

Coins in Educational Contexts: The Classroom

2009-02-20T08:35:00.000-08:00

Some make a lot of a coin's archaeological context. However, there's been little attention paid to coins in other contexts. A coin has a life beyond it's creation, beyond it's loss, beyond it's find, and beyond any single owner. Coin have an innate context, but more importantly coins together for ever shifting educational contexts. You may put together a set of coins highlighting the denominations in use at a time, all the coins of a specific ruler, or any number of other groupings. As John Hooker has pointed out each of these groupings can create new information that wouldn't be available from a purely academic view of the coins. One way this is particularly true is when coins are used in the classroom. Rather than blather on myself about how coins in a classroom context further education I am going to quote some educators on their own experiences

Doug Mudd - Curator ANA

"My experience in using coins in exhibits and classrooms to illuminate the times in which they were issued has been very fruitful - people can relate to objects when they see or touch them, and this connection peaks their interest and causes them to view history as something that actually occurred and that they can be part of through owning or studying objects. In classrooms, the opportunity to handle 2000 year-old coins always brings a sense of wonder and greater attention - hopefully resulting in a greater interest in and connection to the past - a critical need in our time when people are increasingly disconnected from society and culture, (a connection that a knowledge of history creates and strengthens) often through simple lack of exposure or the idea that the past has no relevance to the future. Without knowledge of our past, the future is indeed uncertain and unknowable... and in such a case, there seems little point in acting responsibly on a personal or a societal level."

Ray Lockwood - Education Director Central States Numismatic Society

"When I was a public school teacher I often used coins in the classroom to supplement my World Geography and U.S. History classes. I had at least one coin from every country in the world to show my students. I asked them to explain what they saw on each coin. This peaked their interest and challenged them to interpret signs, symbols and who the leaders were as portrayed on each coin. I also had one example of paper money from each country in the world."

Larry Gaye - Wilamette Coin Club

"We, the Willamette Coin Club has done outreach in many ways. We have done the Coins of the Bible and had great success with it in the wow factor.

Last March and again on March 3,2009 we will be doing a gig with 150 kids at a Salem public school. Our subjects will be Colonial coins and Civil War and Oregon Trail coins. The kids really get excited about the Indian Head cents we gave out last year, and this year we will be adding Buffalo Nickles as well.

We will be displaying along with the above, Colonial period currency as well as coins that circulated in the colonies before and after the Revolution. Same too with the Civil War period, their eyes light up when you put an Indian Head cent or Buffalo in their hands. Their teachers key into the subjects in class. This really is a way, though it isn't called coins in the classroom that a learning experience is taking place. The teachers we work with are ideal candidates for the coins in the classroom courses.
I'm just happy we have the folks in the club willing to help out. It really is a blast to see the kids enjoying and learning about history. The kids are all early middle school age, 4th,5th and 6th graders. We also donate books to their library, a big favorite are the works of John Porteus, lots of images plus great history."

Lane Brunner R.Ph., Ph.D.
Dean, School of Pharmacy
Rueckert-Hartman College for Health Professions
Regis University

"Occasionally I visit schools and give a talk (actually more of a discussion) called "The Roman Newspaper." The conversation surrounds how ancient Greeks and Romans used coins to convey messages, news, propaganda, etc. much in the same way that newspapers are used today. To put the topic in more contemporary context, we discuss how current coinage, such as the the US state quarters, serves a similar function. Of course, the kids just love to play with 2000 year old coins!"

Rodney Gillis - Numismatic Educator ANA

"I only want to add that the ANA is very dedicated in its mission to help educators think of coins as primary documents to important events of the past. An activity involving ancient coins that we promote with educators is using Roman coins in a recreation of a Roman wedding. Students seem to enjoy learning how many traditions found in weddings of today were started in ancient Rome. At one point in the proceedings, the father of the bride hands the groom a dowry. For the dowry, we encourage the use of real Roman coins. Teachers who use this activity often video the wedding for posterity. I have often wondered what it would be like to be able travel back in time to show the ancient coiner how his coins are being used one last time.

In a class that ANA provides called "Coins in the Classroom", we give out contact information to teachers about the Ancient Coins for Education program. The "Coins in the Classroom" professional development program has an alumni of approximately 160 educators. We are currently moving towards providing "Coins in the Classroom" lessons on our website so as to make activities like the one I described available to more educators."

These are a few of the examples of a coin's context in an educational setting aiding to education. The same coin sitting on a desk, in a museum, in a collection, or at a dig site will have a different context and a different impact. The the non profit group ACE (Ancient Coins for Education) promotes the use of ancient coins in a classroom context to "encourage learning about Classical history".

The classroom is not the only setting in which coins flourish as educational tools and I will examine more of these contexts shortly.

Coins as Artifacts

2009-02-19T18:28:00.000-08:00

Older Coins are of course artifacts but are they artifacts like all others as some have claimed? There are several factual characteristics that do make coins different from other types of artifacts:

1. They are quite common. Millions of ancients coins have been recovered making them more available and affordable than most other artifacts.

2. Coins have a direct connection to the past. Unlike a piece of ceramic a coin speaks much more directly about it's history. Often the ruler or emblem of a city can be seen. Writing and mintmarks identify the place and time of the coin's creation. In this way coin's have a much stronger ability to inspire people than other common artifacts.

3. Because of the two previous facts coins are the most utilized educational artifacts that people can own or touch. Coins are used in classrooms, are owned by collectors who meet and share information, and can be displayed in many museums.

Lack of rarity, innate historical information, utility as educational tool are the characteristics that separate coins from other artifacts.

Coins and Context

2009-02-15T19:58:00.000-08:00

Archaeologists use vivid language such as “coins being ripped form their context” to illustrate their view that archaeological context is of extreme importance. While it is obvious that knowing where a coin was found provides some interesting information some of the time, this is just one of many contexts for that coin. There is the coins creation, the context of each ownership change in the coins life, the context of how the coin was lost, how and when it was found, and then there is the context of the coin in private collections, in museums, in educational exhibits, and onward for the life of that coin. When you place primary or sole value on the archaeological context a disregard for the rights of collectors can be a result of such a myopic view. But in reality coins have so much more to tell us than their archaeological context. For one coins are unaltered physical records from the past, primary source material that has not suffered at being translated and copied by generations of monks. A coin usually can't tell it's ownership history but sometime it can. Consider overstrikes, countermarks, ancient graffiti as examples. Coins usually can tell about the context of their creation especially when they come with mint marks. These contexts are completely independent of the archaeological context. Then we cannot dismiss the context of coins in collections. A collector may assemble a series of coins that tells a story that wouldn't be possible to see by merely looking at the archaeological context. A collector may create an educational exhibit at local or national coins shows, in such a context the coin educates. Much the same can be said of coins used by ACE to inspire young children. These contexts are valuable just as the archaeological context and should not play a lesser role. When it comes to context it is almost absurd to focus on a single context for a coin and act as if it is the most important.

Ethical Coin Collecting

2009-02-15T08:03:00.000-08:00

Since a recent response from oxfordian framed the question let me simply reply to this comments.

"... the ethics involved in collecting ancient coins extend beyond “legally dug up” and “legally imported”, they embrace “not contributing to damage”. A collector cannot claim to be acting ethically if he merely acts legally. Nor can he claim to be acting ethically on the grounds the law in the source country is ineffective or inadequate. If US law authorised the importation of fresh ivory from a country without law anyone who did so would be party to great damage and acting in a deeply unethical manner.

So it is with artefacts fresh from the soil of Britain. Importing those without being “sure” is indisputably being party to cultural vandalism since, as I have made very clear, most will have come from significant contexts and will not have been reported.

So, ethical collecting is very simple - no need for a long post - “be sure”. And make sure the Dealer is sure. If you aren’t sure the dealer is sure then buying from him is most assuredly unethical collecting since it is not a case of him “possibly” or “inadvertently” contributing to cultural vandalism – he certainly WILL be, whatever he claims, and so therefore will you."

Thus the standard is set by oxfordian and Paul Barford, legality is irrelevant; you must be sure a coin has been legally dug up and also have been recorded. If you don't get these assurances from the dealer they insist that the collector is acting unethically.

The problem with ethics is that everyone has their own set. How would a liberterian view the demand that every coin be registered and tracked? How would an objectivist look at this, a Marxist or any given individual? Ethics are not one size fits all that is precisely why we have laws and why sometimes we have wars. If everyone agreed what was right neither would need to happen. There are many cases where people disagree with laws based on their own ethics, hence we have politics in order to change laws. But laws are really the codification of the acceptable ethics of a given society. Saying I am right and you are wrong and do as I say because I know better are not very effective ways of changig minds. It's really a rather authoritarian and ideological approach that is going to lead to resistance and conflict.

Why Can't we be sure? There are millions of legally owned coins in every collection. How do archaeologists propose to protect the private property rights of the owners of these legal coins? Private property is in the top 3 of ethical concerns of most US collectors, I don't think they are keen to never be able to sell those coins again.

You can never be 100% sure. There are archaeologists that steal or damage sites, there are archaeologists that don't keep their diary, there are always people willing to break rules and laws, so no solution can be perfect save one: Ban collecting and ban archaeology. Then all relics and artifacts will be safe.

What do I believe?

I believe in openness, collaboration, and education. If the goal is to preserve context of coin finds there are many possible solutions to maximize the number of reported finds, while preserving existing legally owned collections and the opportunity for new coins to enter a licit marketplace. To simply state that all coins must be documented, legality be damned, is a non starter and not worthy of further comment.

Deconstructing Why Coins Matter

2009-02-12T19:22:00.000-08:00

There is a non profit organization called Saving Antiquities for Everyone which advocates the laudable goal of preserving cultural heritage worldwide. In of the articles featured on the SAFE site, Why Coins Matter, Nathan T. Elkins writes about the importance of trafficking undocumented and illicit.
Elkins begins with a short overview of the history of coin collecting, his own collecting, and then his conversion to a new standard of ethics. What is most interesting int his introduction are the following two statements "Therefore, for approximately three years, I have not purchased any ancient coin that does not have verifiable documentation attesting its existence in a collection in or before 1973" and "My personal decision essentially translated into a moratorium on my collecting habits, given the fact that coins from old collections or other verifiable provenance are difficult to find and command a premium on the market." Elkins essentially admits that he is proposing to end collecting for most collectors of normal means.
Having established his ethical base Elkins the proceeds to speculate about the coin market. First, "In 1993, it was estimated that 80% of all ancient coins openly sold on the market had been dug up within the past 30 years (McFadden 1993; see also discussion in Beckmann 1998:" The Beckman piece merely cites the single comment made by McFadden in 1993 in respect to the origin of coins on the market. The 80% figure is disputable as there is no concrete evidence. Regardless of the number Elkins also doesn't address what percentage of the coins are found legally.
Elkins then looks at a Triton catalog, for Triton X, and notes that of the 19,087 coins sold 15,262 or 79.96% had no provenance given. Elkins calls these legally sold coins highly questionable. Of course his conclusion is rather odd given that a atalog of 18th and 19th century United States coins yields the same amount of provenanced and highly questionable auction lots. In the coin market as a whole provenance is given generally when it adds historical significance and perhaps a higher price. That is true of ancient coins and coins that were never buried. The only conclusion one can draw from the Triton X sale is that most legally sold coins are indeed undocumented.
Elkins next moves to Vcoins and Ebay to attempt to size up the ancient coin market. On the Vcoins side he merely lists the number of lots for sale at one point. He then moves on to Ebay. He states he saw between 5000 and 5300 lots on the ancient coins section of ebay. He then assumes that the volume of sales is steady for the year and comes at a number of 260,000 to 280,000 coins sold per year. The numbers per week are fine, one can check any week. However, Elkins does not check how many lots remain unsold. A spot check over a vew weeks shows me that about 25% of the lots are unsold. He then makes a worse leap of logic when he states "These rough numbers indicate the large-scale importation of ancient coins from the Old World and the potential movement of between half a million to a million coins sold in the North American marketplace annually". Now he not only assumes that every coin lot is sold, but also, that not two coins are resold in the same year, that the coins are all coming from the old world and not recycled existing coins in the North American market, nor does he seem to account for replicas and fakes. In short he makes assumption after assumption about the size and source of the market without any hard evidence. Still we can agree that there is an ancient coin market in North America and new coins enter the market.
Now Elkin's details a coin's entry into the North American market. Actually he does no such thing, he makes no attempt to ascertain how coins go from finders, to wholesalers, to dealer, to collectors. Since there is legal detecting of coins in Western Europe it would have been easy to do. Instead Elkins mentions cases of looting that have occurred. No one denies there are lawbreakers in this world, Elkins seems to imply though that coins enter the market only via looting. Of course if one refuses to examine the legal market that conclusion is self determined. Another telling remark comes at the end of the paragraph about looting and smuggling, "the trade in undocumented ancient coins continues to grow and remains a serious problem for those wishing to preserve valuable information about the past and protect our common cultural heritage." Again Elkins relate undocumented coins, almost all of which are quite legal, to illegal activities.
Coins in Context is the next section. Here Elkins loses focus and alternates between attacks on coin dealers, the ACCG, and making the case that coins are valuable to archaeology. Certainly coins in context have value, few would argue that point. But coins out of context also have value, especially once a statistical significant sampling exists. Elkins mentions coin finds have been recorded since 1960 in Germany. There is also the PAS in England and Wales and similar efforts in other countries. While this is laudable and provides good information, though often only to accredited academics, it can also be overkill. After you find the 100th coins of the same type near Trier that information is really not too relvant. Elkins implies that every iota of data for every of the millions upon milions of coins should be recorded.
The section on Common Misconceptions has the most ironic title. Elkins counters the assertion that most metal detectorists find's are in isolation away from protected archaeological sites. He mentiones cases where hoards are found on archaeological sites. Of course! No one says coins aren't found in ancient settlements. However, usually detecting in ancient settlements is forbidden. Most detectorists are quite law abiding and thus search in fields and on private property where it is quite legal and where coins are usually found in isolation. Apparently Elkins doesn't see the difference between the set of all coin finds and the set represented by detectorists finds. Elkins then mentions some cases of looting. Yes these are regrettable and should be punished. But law breakers are a minority in society and should not blacken everypne else.
In the end, Elkins doesn't offer anything but the same ideology. There are few facts and absolutely no evidence that the majority of ancient coins are illicit. Undocumented yes, but illicit no.

The Ancient Coin Market is Legal

2009-02-11T06:54:00.000-08:00

Looking at the discussions ongoing today about coins and cultural property one finds that some are calling for an end to the legal market in coins more than a few hundred years old. You won't hear the phrase "collecting should be banned" outright. What you will hear is the phrase "trade in illicit and undocumented coins should be stopped" . You will hear a call for dealers to only deal in coins that have a documented provenance. I am asserting that to call for an end to trading in undocumented coins is the same thing as calling for an end to coin collecting (there is a variable cut-off at 100 years, 250 years, 1600 AD, and 907AD in any case coins old but not necessarily ancient).
What's wrong with asking for documentation of coins? There's nothing wrong in asking, there is something very wrong in mandating. By all accounts the vast majority of coins that are legal to own today are undocumented. Coin collecting has existed since the Renaissance and it took off in the US and in Europe in the second half of the 19th century. Thus we have 150 years of coins in the market already before any talk of import restrictions and documentation. If dealers agree to only deal in coins with documented papers all these coins that are now legal can no longer be traded. More coins are added each year through legal detecting these are currently imported legally into the United States. In fact, only in the last year is the import of coins restricted in any way into the US. That is only for coins from Cyprus and coins from China from 907AD and previously as of 2009. Even with the Chinese coins, that leaves an enormous amount of legal and undocumented coins on the market. Again, if dealers only dealt in documented coins the market would be quite small.
One way around the problem of currently legal and undocumented coins would be to register all currently legal coins. Is that a solution? Who would pay for registration? How would you prevent criminals from faking the registration of coins? A lot of US coins are registered in a way, via third party grading companies. These services cost $20-$30 per coin. Does that make sense for all the coins with a current market value less than that? At what point in time would unregistered coins no longer be acceptable? Who make the profit registering the coins? It could be done and some would stand to make quite a bit of money, but it would still make a lot of currently legal material either illegal or much more expensive. Consider a collector whose spent $50 per month for 10 years building a nice collection. Under mandated registration he could pay $6000. I know others have cited lower figures for registration costs but they don't actually offer the service.

My questions to those who would like to comment on this post is:

1. If you believe dealers should deal only in provenanced coins, then what should happen to all of the currently legal and undocumented coins?

2. If you believe that most coins currently on the United States market are not legal why do you think this? What percentage of coins do you expect are legal? How should the legal undocumented coins that do exist be treated?

My view is that the bulk of ancient coins traded today in the United States are legal. There are of course law breakers and they should be dealt with, and often are, under existing laws. If any coin is proven to be stolen it is returned just like anything else.

What is an Archaeological Site?

2009-02-10T09:43:00.000-08:00

In the debate about coin collecting and cultural property the assertion is made that those searching for coins not only find the coins, but also damage archaeological sites in the process. My counter has been that coins are not found primarily in archaeological sites, but by themselves. This argument is complicated by the very definition of archaeological site.
The problem becomes apparent rather quickly, there's no standard definition. Nor do all jurisdictions even use the same term. In Minnesota there is a legal definition for state site and state archaeological site. Since no artifacts can be removed from State lands unless approved by the State archaeologist there's no need for a specific definition. Everything on State land is taboo, private land is not covered by the law though the legislators did discourage private field work in the legislation. The Federal law is quite similar. Digging on public lands is generally forbidden without special permission to qualified persons. Again there's no distinction for a site. In in Canada we can finmd different definitions here and here. There are definitions of varying vagueness from around the world. Since laws are vague they don't help our discussion.
In terms of coins there are some conventions we can use. There are single coin finds, there are hoards (multiple coin finds), then there are coins found with other archaeological material (other than the pot they were stored in). Under the Treasure Act finds are to be reported if they contain two or more coins with 10% of greater precious metal content or if it is a group of 10 coins of base metal. Here there is a distinction in law between single coin finds and group finds. However the situation varies in other countries. In Germany there's a wide variety of laws so the situation in Bavaria can be quite different from another state. Thus laws are not too much help here.
Let us look back at the question, does metalo detecting for coins destroy archaeological sites? Clearly, in the broadest definition yes, since the coin itself is the site. But with this defintion virtually all of Europe is a giant archaeological site. So that definition is not practically helpful, it almost implies that all current activities should take a back seat to researching every mote of information from the past. Stating that detectorists are destrying sites also brings to mind more than simply not cataloging the find information. I think it is safest to approach this problem of language by being quite clear. On the subject of coins I think we should specify whether a find was a single coin, a hoard, or if the coins were found with other artifacts or in old buildings. By differentiating between the three types of coin finds we can asses the impact of each type of find.

Coins as Cultural Property

2009-02-07T08:06:00.000-08:00

There has been a lot of news about ancient coins and cultural property recently. The United States has recently enacted import restrictions on ancient coins form Cyprus as well as Chinese coins from the Tang dynasty and earlier (907 AD). Previously coins, by far the most common form of artifact left over from previous cultures, had been exempted from similar import restrictions. However, archaeologists have increasingly made a case that ancient coins are a target for looters of antiquities and that the trade in ancient coins should be restricted (It is worth noting that the restrictions proposed, trading only in material with provenance, would eliminate much or all of the licit ancient coin market). While these arguments carry an emotional punch they are unfortunately quite misguided when it comes to the facts.

Before we look at coins as cultural property it is worthwhile to take a quick step back and look at where the notion of cultural property and it's protection originated. After World War II, in 1954 there was what is called the Hague Convention. In Article 1 we see a definition of cultural property that includes, monuments, buildings, collections, libraries. Items of great cultural importance, many of which were undoubtedly destroyed in the war. Sadly the intent of this convention has really not been met. Armed conflicts continue to destroy objects of the greatest cultural importance. The Taliban destruction of the Buddha statues being a prime example. But, even though the Hague convention's basic goals aren't being met, cultural property's definition and the scope of international protection was greatly expanded in the 1970 Unesco convention. Now almost anything could be declared as cultural property. A sad case of government regulation expanding in the face of it's own failure. But, my point here is simply that the goal of cultural property protection in 1954 was llimited in scope and very understandable while the 1970 expansion is an ill-defined free for all.

Now lets examine coins in some more detail. Coins, just like money today, were made to be exchanged. A Roman coin could belong to and be used by an Arab trader, an English farmer, a Roman senator or anyone else. Persian coins are often found in China. Just like a $100 bill can be used by anyone in the world, so could ancient coins be used in many places. As such coins differ markedly from something like a statue that would exist in a public square or a building that couldn't move at all. Coins represent exchange, the exchange of goods and the exchange of ideas. To say they belong to a culture the way a building or statue does misses a fundamental point. Coins belonged to individuals, they were lost by individuals or buried by individuals. The typically don't tell the story of a culture when found but the story of a person. Secondly, coins are almost always found in isolation. In published reports such as Coin Hoards from Roman Britain we see that coins are found either with some pottery or else scattered about in fields. If we look at the Portable Antiquities Scheme annual reports we can see that the bulk of finds are metal objects (weights, rings etc.), coins, and stone objects (usually pottery). Archaeological sites provide only 0.25% of all finds. This does not mean that coins aren't found at archaeological sites, but it does show that coins are primarily not found amongst most other objects labeled as cultural property. Now there are some who will argue that even a single coin, found in complete isolation is in fact an archaeological site. By that definition much of Europe should cease all building and farming activity. To satisfy those nitpickers we can safely say that the majority of coins come from finds with no other archaeological context.

Thus, given that the original intent of protecting cultural property was scoped to items of great importance, given that while coins exist at archaeological sites they are most often found in isolation, given that coins moved across boundaries and are thus not the property of any specific culture, it seems like flailing at windmills to try to solve the problem of cultural property protection by attempting to restrict the trade of ancient coins.