Cultural Heritage

Dr. Alan Walker of Nomos in Switzerland regularly sends out notifications of upcoming sales and results of recent sales. Sometimes he includes some thoughts about coin collecting. Here is what he wrote about "cultural heritage" in an email subscribers got today. All the rest of this post is a direct quote of his words, used with permission:

"But seriously now, if you really want to feel low, you could start doing what I have been doing: that is, reading some of the many articles - books even - on the subject of heritage crime, which all almost invariably, in a hyperbolic way, pin all the blame for all losses of all archaeological and cultural 'treasures' in countries all over the world solely on Western European and Anglo-American art historians, collectors, dealers, museums and tourists. It really is quite depressing.

"Frankly, when the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property came into force in 1970 most thinking people thought it was quite a rational treaty. It provided a framework for preventing the loss of items, which were great masterpieces of artistic, cultural, historic and literary importance for a nation's identity; or if already lost, for their return. While the primary reason for the convention was the anger of so many Third World nations at the losses they suffered while under colonial rule, many First World nations simply thought it was the right thing to do. Especially since there were many prematurely woke scholars who had enjoyable frissons of righteous guilt (could they have flagellated themselves in private?) at the thought of the depredations their countries perpetrated during the near past. But they weren't all wrong.

"The theft of the Parthenon Marbles, ripped from a partially still standing building in the still inhabited city of Athens by the greedy Scottish Lord Elgin is probably the most egregious example. Though one should not forget that it was the Venetians who blew up the Parthenon in 1687 and then destroyed some of the marbles in an inept attempt to remove them. Earlier still, it was again the Venetians who, because of their commercial greed, were directly responsible for the fall of Constantinople in 1204 and for both the subsequent destruction of incalculable amounts of cultural heritage, some going back to the 5th century BC, which had been preserved in Constantinople for centuries, as well as for so drastically weakening the Byzantine State that it was completely unable to hold back the Ottoman advances into Europe. While Venice may well be the most beautiful city in the world, if it does sink below the waves, due either to governmental corruption or the pounding of hundreds of millions of tourist feet, the Greeks won't be that sorry.

"But there were other great losses, like that of the then still standing Las Incantadas (Ladino for the "The Enchanted Ones" - Roman pillaster statues of the 2nd-3rd century) of Thessaloniki, ripped down by a Frenchman despite considerable local opposition in 1864 (they are now in various parts of the Louvre); or the barbaric looting and destruction of the Old Summer Palace in Peking in 1860 by a British (!) army under the command of the 8th Lord Elgin (!! - the subsequent Lord Elgins, the 9th-11th, went against the then family tradition and actively refrained from looting anything); or the destruction and looting of Benin City by a British (!) expedition in 1895. This resulted in the plunder of a vast number of bronzes, dating from the 14th through the earlier 19th centuries, that are among the most remarkable of all surviving sub-Saharan works of art (somewhat ironically the cost of their manufacture was met by the King of Benin's profits from the slave trade); they are now dispersed all over the world though the Nigerian government is trying to get them all back. Interesting enough, the commander of the British expedition to Benin - Sir Harry Rawson - was also the commander of the British forces who won the shortest war in history, the Anglo-Zanzibar War of 27 August 1896: it lasted precisely 38 minutes.

"Basically, all those things stolen - yes, stolen - including the Parthenon marbles, should go back. That is not because what happened was immoral or any other of the many reasons adduced today, but primarily because they were truly looted from inhabited buildings that were still in use; by people who really should have known better, and had a complete, even racist, contempt for the people they took them from. AND, EVEN MORE SO, ALL OF THESE ITEMS ARE OF MAJOR IMPORTANCE FOR THE COUNTRY FROM WHICH THEY COME. The Parthenon was the symbol of Athens since the year it was built, and Athens, because of its political, literary and educational importance, was the symbol of Greece. Las Incantadas had stood openly visible for some 1600 years, becoming one of the symbols of both the Greek city of Thessalonika, but also of the Hispano-Jewish majority city of Salonika, which had existed for over 300 years and whose majority Sephardic neighbourhoods surrounded those statues. The Old Summer Palace complex had been one of the chief centers of the Imperial Chinese government for over two centuries, and was arguably the most beautiful group of buildings in the whole country. That the British should have both pillaged it from top to bottom and then burnt it down should remind us of the actions of the Vandals, the Goths and the British who burnt down the first White House in Washington on 24 August 1814. Finally, the Benin bronzes had been on display since they were made, some several hundred years earlier, all the way up to 1895 when they were looted, and were truly a symbol of the power and continuity of that African kingdom; thus, they can rightly be seen as an inalienable symbol of present-day Nigeria. None of these items, the Parthenon Marbles, Las Incantadas, the Old Summer Palace art, and the Benin bronzes had ever been underground or otherwise lost to view, and they are, and were, enduring symbols of the cities and countries from which they came. Thus, they should go back.

"They were not taken from abandoned sites in the middle of nowhere (like the Bassai frieze or the Nereid Monument), or from no longer visible sites (like the Pergamon Altar or the Assyrian/Babylonia winged bull men), nor were they found reused in some different way, which could have lost them forever (like the Rosetta Stone). How can any of those objects be rationally considered the symbol of a modern nation if they had been underground or lost for thousands of years? How can any rational person argue that the Euphronios/Sarpedon Krater is a vital part of Italy's heritage, or even more wildly, that it helps modern Italians know who they are, if it was made in Athens by Greek artists, sent in trade to ancient Etruria/Campania, and had not been seen by anyone, and, thus, was unable to influence anyone, for nearly 2400 years? This is all true for the vast, vast majority of all the items of cultural heritage in private and public collections all over the world; additionally, at the time the vast majority of them were taken, virtually none of the local people where they were found had any interest in them whatsoever.

"Another major point is this, can anyone, anyone, provide a rational reason for insisting that ancient, medieval or early modern coins belong solely to the modern country where they were made (in the past) or found (in the present)? Do all the silver tetradrachms struck in the mint of Athens from the later 6th through the 1st centuries BC belong in Greece, no matter where they were found? Are they part of the heritage of a modern country like Egypt, which in ancient times used them either as bullion or for foreign trade (in the same way they used British sovereigns in the 19th and 20th centuries)? Of course, coins found in archaeological excavations, whether long term or emergency, belong where they were found, regardless of where they were minted, since they were there, and often in use, in ancient times; but if the coins, for whatever reason, have lost their archaeological context, and often even their exact findspot, all they are are coins. Such coins can be of historical or art historical interest, they can be intriguing, they can be attractive (or not), and they can be collectable (or not), but their archaeological importance can, at most, only be peripheral; in fact, in many cases that importance is basically nonexistent.

"Finally, the favourite reason given by the heritage advocates for insisting that all manner of objects (in some cases virtually everything made by human beings dating from as early as 100 years ago all the way back to the Palaeolithic and beyond, plus fossils as well as, in several Turkish cases, ordinary rocks and beach sand), have to remain in the county where they were made/found is that they help the modern people "know who they are." Think about that. Logically that seems to mean that Athenian tetradrachms of the 5th century BC help modern Greeks know who they are (have you ever known a Greek who doesn't know who he or she is?); or that modern French people need silver drachms of Massalia, gold staters of the Parisi or gold tremisses of Dagobert I to know who they are; such eminently French people as Nicolas Sarkozy, Christiane Taubira, Teddy Riner, Omar Sy, MC Solaar or Surya Bonaly need them to know who they are? Or that any modern Turkish people need any of the Greek, Roman, Byzantine or Armenian coins minted in Anatolia to know who they are?"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

These extracts raise very pertinant issues. I agree that objects that were essentially looted during colonial and imperialist times should be repatriated to their countries of origin. We, as a global civilization have responsiblity to correct prior wrongs through repatriation.

In the case of the Summer Palace, keep in mind that in the 1850's the British East Indian Company imposed the opium trade on the Chinese, following China's defeat in the Opium War. In their conquest of India, in the 18th century, the same British East India Company brutally crushed the resistance of Tipu Sutlan in the kingdom of Mysore during the 1790s.

I do see the problematic aspects of the restrictions on exporting ancients and other coins from countries with MOUs wtih the US and other countries. Given the fluid nature of coins, and the ways they ciruculated over the centuries, claims of cultural relevance become tenuous. Further, some of the countries with MOUs, such as Yemen, are in the midst of a savage civil war that has brutalized and killed untold numbers of civiians, including children starving to death in the middle of a famine. No doubt international politics is playing a major role behind many agreements, but the seizure and repatriation of coins to to war zones does nothing beneficial to the victims of these conflicts.

 

This is an interesting debate.
Perhaps, there is no right or wrong answer. Perhaps, it's just a matter, of what people want to do, or what people like. In a democracy, people will vote, and the majority wins.
Or, maybe, there is a right answer. But, can that right answer be proven, in a convincing way?
What I want, or what I like, is for all artifacts, to belong to all of humanity. I would like anyone, to be able to own any artifact, no matter where that person lives, and no matter who that person's ancestors were, and no matter where that artifact was originally created.
Regarding artifacts taken during times of war, or taken by force, or taken by payment of money, I don't worry about that. It seems like everything on this Earth, was taken by force, or taken by payment of money, at one time or another in the past. Land, food, water, cities, statues, coins. It seems like, all of it, was taken by force, or taken by payment of money, at some point in the past.
All of this, is just my personal preference. I'm not saying, that I'm right or wrong. It's just, what I want, or what I like. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm right. Maybe I'm neither right nor wrong. I don't know.

 

One could make a convincing argument that prior to the current Digital Age, antiquities and coins in private hands were being hoarded away to benefit one person instead of being for all to enjoy.

That is no longer the case; in fact I would likely argue the opposite. I've never personally been to a museum with a particularly noteworthy coin collection (save for the site of the Dalonegha Mint and the displays at the Denver Mint - but those aren't relevant). I do know that the majority of museums' coin collections are stashed well away from view, only to be seen by the public under appointment in some back room.

I know that a lot of ancient coins go into black holes, never to be seen again, but increasingly, the collective communities of coin collectors in places like CT, CCF, FORVM, WoC, Zeno, Reddit etc are becoming a hive mind, drawing in more thinking power, more observant eyes, and connections to legacy "dead tree" knowledge that would be out of reach for others (ever looked up the price of Mitchiner lately? Ouch!)

If the goal is to learn from our past, allowing the experts to extract their findspot data and then making an impartial judgment call on whether they would be best kept as national treasures or returned to the free market (with only the most important being retained) - we would maximize the amount of knowledge that could be extracted from each object. Museums don't want or need literally tens of millions of ancient coins to be sorted through by a dozen or so overworked curators.

As we say in IT - ten thousand users can find more bugs in an hour than ten QA testers can in six months.

 

I agree with Dr. Walker's thoughts. I am amazed at how strong some feel that really old stuff belongs in museums, universities (to educate students or do research), warehouses (until someone needs data for a study grant or thesis) or the ground (until it is used to date an archeological dig). I am impressed at how many ancient coin collectors are willing to share their collections with online databases or through blogs.

 

As so often, the real history is a lot more complicated than "a British expedition destroying Benin City and looting bronze sculptures". The kingdom of the Edo with its centre at Benin was an oppressive, warlike state based on slavery and human sacrifices.
In 1897 the Edo slaughtered a large delegation of unarmed Europeans and Africans - many were beheaded and sacrificed on bronze altars. The British organized a retaliation expedition, which destroyed the Edo kingdom. The British conficated the bronzes, not because they thought they were of artistic value, but because they thougth they were of historical value which they feared would be lost in the ensuing chaos.
The modern multi-ethnic state of Nigeria has very little to do with the Edo kingdom and it is very doubtful that modern Nigerians need Edo bronze sculptures to know who they are. Most importantly, these scuptures are almost certaintly best cared for in the places were they are now.
Things are entirely different with art looted during WWII, first by the Nazis and than by the Allies. These objects were simply stolen and need to be returned, no matter what.

 

Things that were stolen, by even a loose definition of the word, should be returned. Anybody with a modicum of civility and sense of justice should agree with this IMO.

That aside, items from antiquity that could fall into these categories were made by human beings and represent pieces of human history. We are all human beings, so arguing that items belong to one group of people over others because of the location of origin or whose ancestors were whose doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Feeling an innate sense of ownership over items because of cultural connections is the same type of tribalistic thinking that allowed for the events described in the OP in the first place.

Of course, I view these things from the perspective of the group that tends to do the pilfering as opposed to being pilfered, so there is that.

 

While I'm not in disagreement to most of Dr. Walker's post, I do find it somewhat tainted by the fact that one of his colleagues was arrested for the traffic of coins he knew to be looted.

I also find some of it to be purely rant, such as the aside concerning the Venetians and Constantinople. After having read through that history in Gibbon's work, the history seems to be far more complex than simple Venetian greed.

The more I've thought about repatriating artifacts and international agreements concerning them, the more I've realized that one cannot simply draw a line across the issues to fully separate them into "repatriate" and "don't repatriate" camps. Each is a very complicated case and needs to be debated and judged individually.

 

I do not agree at all with this gentleman. Archaeological importance of coins is not peripheral and in every state of the art publication of an archaeological dig there is a chapter devoted to coins. Sometimes, a special volume.
Coins are essential for archaeologists because they date the layers in which they are found. Radiocarbon dating is not always possible, and pottery dating is not always precise enough. When detectorists go digging for ancient coins, an archaeologist will say that they pick the metallic material out of a still unexplored site, leaving only the ceramic or lithic material. Sometimes, when archaeologists find a site that cannot be immediately studied (maybe it will, but in the future...), they salt it by dispersing on all the surface kilograms of tiny copper or aluminium fragments so metal detectors will ring everywhere and discourage the detectorists.
Coins are also interesting when we know where they were found, because all did not circulate everywhere. And what about all these hoards that are dispersed on the market with bogus provenances, to hide the fact they were found hoarded together? The interesting info would be : what coins were in the hoard? Where was it buried, and when? What was its archaeological context? When by chance a hoard is found by archaeologists, it sometimes becomes a reference book. But what the finders, the traffickers, the dealers and auctioneers do is destroy these informations by forging false provenances to the coins and disperse the hoard for a maximum profit.

 

Most excavated coins have been melted. Most struck coins have been circulated to a frazzle, lost, mutilated, or recoined. A few nobles, prelates and wealthy persons throughout history could afford to preserve, collect, and study these tokens of the past.
We owe the survival of ancient coins to the development of a market for them, which accords them a value above their bullion value. The discoverer of a hoard makes more money selling the discovery as coins than as bullion, so nowadays the coins are preserved. A lively international numismatic trade assures their survival.

It is anyone’s guess as to the percentage of excavated precious metal coins, and bronzes, discovered before 1800 went straight to the melting pot. I would bet it was about 99%.

 

That is an argument, which archaeologists should acknowledge, for changing national laws to be more like those in England, where far more finds are reported than in other countries. There are reasons why archaeologists have not, individually or as a community, advocated for rational changes in laws, and those reasons do not do the archaeological profession credit.

It has been over 50 years since the current approach to restricting looting, to restricting collecting, and to publication of antiquities, has been in effect. Is it working well? Did it do what was intended? The answer is clearly "No."

In any context (e.g. relations with Cuba, sex education, etc.), when an approach used for decades does not work, you can double down or rethink the approach. It seems that people who developed any failing approach (in any context) tend to respond to contrary evidence by doubling down. How do we get the archaeological community to admit failure and try a different (proven!) approach?

 

"changing national laws to be more like those in England", says UK which, in the same time, more than any other European country, protects looters with its perfectly legal no-questions-asked market of highly suspect antiquities auctioned without any provenance, origin or pedigree...
This is not an acceptable answer. So, with laws like those in UK, it is OK to pick the metallic material of an unprotected archaeological site if I have the land owner's agreement and if I declare from time to time some of the coins I found to the local authorities? These laws only attenuate the damage done, they do not eliminate it. And what are the UK laws about endangered animal species? It's OK to shoot in the wild at everything that moves if I have an authorisation from the land owner and if I show some dead animals to the local authorities?

 

Warren is bang on/ the United Kingdom ie "Treasure Act" is reasonable to both the "finder" and "land owner". So, in certain "draconian" Countries, I find a buried Roman clay pot containing 50 Aurei on my property, the govt. seizes it, if I report my find/ naturally I would not....
In the United Kingdom, someone discovered 75 AV Unites from James I in their old house. The coroner looked at the coins/ eventually the museum requested to purchase two for their collection/ at finder's agreed price. The finder was happy/ museum same. One is in my collection, so I am happy too

 

Ah! Apparently someone thinks/hopes laws can eliminate damage. Really?

My previous post was arguing for a realistic approach. I like evidence-based arguments. I invite anyone to chime in with evidence there is a better approach than that of England. (There is lots of evidence that other countries have worse ones.)

 

OK let's be realistic. All countries have laws about hoards and treasures. In the Muslim world they even have treasure acts since the middle ages, saying who is the legal owner of a "rikaz", a hoard (it depends of circumstances of the discovery, if it's a muslim or non-muslim hoard, if it's found on inhabited land or in abandoned ruins, etc. In any case, if no lawful owner or heir can be found, there is 20% that must be distributed to the muslim people present when the hoard was found). In France the law since Napoleon says that a hoard must be divided 50% for the owner of the land, 50% for the inventor (the person who found it), with a modification in 1941 saying that if the discovery is of historical interest it's state property and the owner and inventor get fair compensation. In all countries lawmakers never thought it necessary or interesting to adopt the English laws in this matter, not more than driving on the wrong side of the road or having neon pink live jelly for dessert.
In my personal opinion, the principal effect of this English law is encouraging amateur metal detection and make clandestine excavations legal. Let's be realistic, again: for one detectorist who is an honest law-abiding citizen and will scrupulously declare what he found to the competent authorities, how many will not tell anybody to avoid having to share? Would British archaeologists swear on their ancestors' bones that these laws are good and amateur detectorists taking the metallic material out of archaeological sites not a scourge for archaeology?
It seems to me the problem with such laws is that they are more pro-business than pro-science. In Israel and Palestinian Territories they used to have very pro-free-market laws at the beginning. I remember buying there in 1978 a bronze age dagger, they just asked me to give my name and passport number to be registered, and it was OK for me to carry it home. They have changed the law since, and adopted more restrictive ones stating all newly discovered antiquities are state property.

 

There will now be a "Cone of silence" in Israel. Nothing will be reported/ finds kept secret/ unless someone rats out the person to the cops. Meantime, back in the UK, finds are reported/ museum personel there to supervise/ conserve artifacts and if their price is right/ obtain part/ all for their display boxes. Its a win/ win for everyone. Also for collectors/ imagine a World where governments would control all "finds"/ confiscate them to their museums displays/ nothing left for us to collect.

 

We read about finds and compensation in England many times a year. How come we almost never hear about hoards found in France and "fair compensation"? Is it because it happens and our media emphasizes English over French? (Some of us can read French and would love to read about French finds.) Or, is it because reporting and compensation for French finds rarely happens?

I remember reading many years ago about a German finder of a large hoard of Roman gold (on the order of 1000 pieces, I recall) who got compensation from the government amounting to about 7 DM per piece. (My numbers may be a bit off, but the point is correct.) That's not a lot of encouragement to report the next find.

If someone can provide a link to a report of a French (or anywhere else, for that matter) find that mentions compensation we would be interested.

 

FWIW, here's one post. According to the article, the finder kept a few of the coins, and the owner of the land worked with the government to sell the rest. I'm not sure what the laws are in France, or what would have happened were the coins more valuable.

 

I remember reading many years ago about a German finder of a large hoard of Roman gold (on the order of 1000 pieces, I recall) who got compensation from the government amounting to about 7 DM per piece. (My numbers may be a bit off, but the point is correct.) That's not a lot of encouragement to report the next find.

Best thing to do in that case......
Recover the coins properly/ do not tell anyone/ not even Family. Then in private, curate the coins/ keep all the "one of" Aurei for your collection. Put inferior quality duplicates into various auctions/ 2-3 at a time to avoid suspicion. Thats way better then getting 7 DM= $4.50 per coin. 1000X $4.50= $4500. In reality this hoard is worth millions.....

 

Here is the law in France : https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Regions...rer-une-decouverte-de-vestiges-ou-de-monnaies
At the bottom of the page it is written: "L'Etat peut revendiquer les trouvailles dont la propriété ne lui revient pas moyennant une indemnité fixée à l'amiable ou à dire d'expert.": "The State may claim finds whose ownership does not belong to it in return for compensation fixed amicably or by expert opinion."