Alan Walker of the firm Nomos in Switzerland wrote an e-mail advertising their upcoming auction. At the end he mused about cultural property issues. I thought it was so interesting that I wrote him and asked for his permission, which he gave me, to reproduce it here. He wrote: On 14 November 1970 the well-known UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property was first ratified, coming into force on 24 April 1972: for each individual state party (i.e., countries) it came into force on the date of that country's ratification of the Convention. In many ways, this Convention was a completely understandable reaction on the part of the countries of the Third World (and elsewhere, of course), and those of the members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), to what they considered to be the theft of so many items of their heritage by the European colonial powers over past centuries. Over the years the Convention has been expanded by other international documents, as well as by ever-greater enforcement processes within what might be termed the "collecting/consumer nations." In some ways the concept does sound reasonable: objects that are really an integral part of a modern country's heritage should be protected so that they stay within that country, as a way of supporting the identity of that country's people. A perfect example of an item that has an almost mystical importance for a modern state is the original Magna Carta of 1215, which has such a vital position for the heritage of England (and through Great Britain on many of the countries of the world today); there are four original copies in existence, 2 in the British Library and 1 each in the cathedral libraries of Lincoln and Salisbury - these documents can never, ever, be alienated into foreign hands. Yet a copy of Shakespeare's First Folio of 1623, one of the most important books in the English language, would certainly not be prevented from leaving Britain, despite its tremendous significance. Originally some 750 copies were printed, of which around 235 copies survive: 5 are in the British Library; 1 in the National Library of Scotland; 1 is in the Indian Institute of Technology in Roorkee; 1 was recently discovered in the public library of St. Omer in France where it had lain, apparently unread, for some 200 years; and 82 copies are in the Folger Library in Washington DC. While I would expect that neither the copy in Roorkee nor that in St. Omer would be allowed out of either India or France, there really would be no reason for the vast majority to be subject to export bans. About a generation ago when I first became interested in Cultural Heritage questions I seem to remember that, at that time, there were about 2,000 items, whether objects, manuscripts, paintings, buildings (?), etc., that simply could not be removed from Germany because they were such inherent parts of what might be termed "Germanness." In other words, a number of serious people, working and thinking over a number of years, decided on things that were really important to Germany. And importance was the operative word: not just rarity or value or place of origin or artist, maker or composer: just true importance to the country's cultural heritage. On the contrary, if I remember correctly, the equivalent number of items subject to an export ban in Italy was 30,000,000. This brings us to the really huge problem that is inherent with the 1970 Convention: there is no sense of proportion. Instead of focusing on individual items, or even specific types of objects, the Unesco guidelines have been used to regulate virtually everything over a certain age; in many places this effectively makes the sale, transport, or, even, ownership of a vast number of items ipso-facto illegal. Not only that, while there are many kinds of objects that have a primarily local or regional circle of interest, meaning their highest sale value can be found solely within a specific country, other items are of international importance commercially (for example, Rembrandts are not just desirable for art lovers in Amsterdam or Haarlem, but also in London, Tokyo, Chicago and Cape Town); thus, an export ban on any item with an international market effectively deprives its owner of a fair price should he or she want to sell it. And do note that the refusal of an export license does not oblige the refusing state to compensate the owner by acquiring the item at its international market price. Far from it, once an owner has applied for a license and been turned down - with the result that the item is registered with the relevant government ministry - he or she can only either sell it within the country at the national price, or retain it, serving more-or-less as an unpaid custodian for the state (with the possibility that if he or she is accused of not caring for it properly, it might well be expropriated). In addition, one should also remember that many of the items that could be subject to export control, as listed in the Unesco Convention, were always in private ownership, without any state subvention or help in their maintenance. For example, Article 1, i of the Convention covers "postage, revenue and similar stamps, singly or in collections"; as a group these items would have been amassed almost entirely due to private enterprise. While a present owner might want to donate the family collection to the state postal museum, he might equally want to consign the stamps to an auction abroad to reach a much larger cross section of buyers in order to help pay for a new roof and other household improvements, his childrens' education, etc., etc. Why should a state be allowed to effectively expropriate those stamps? As for coins, here is what the Convention covers in Article 1, e: "antiquities more than one hundred years old, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals." For all intents and purposes, this is so broad that if, for example, the German authorities wanted to, they could, following the Convention, ban the export of Vereinsthalers (1857-1871), and, even, Reichsmünzen! Most readers will say, "But surely, they wouldn't be crazy enough to do that, would they?" Would they? To end, as an illustration of how the Convention, which was envisioned by many of its drafters and signatories as a good solution for keeping important cultural treasures in their country of origin, has been used by certain interested state parties to totally change the Convention's meaning. The US State Department, one of the great supporters of the Unesco Convention, has recently (14 August 2019) enacted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Algeria in order to protect that country's cultural heritage. This is what it covers: The Designated List includes archaeological material in stone, ceramic, metal, bone, glass, and other categories ranging in date from the Paleolithic period (beginning around 2.4 million years ago) to the middle of the Ottoman period in Algeria (A.D. 1750). That's right, virtually everything ever made by human beings in the territory of modern Algeria from 2.4 million years ago to 1750 is included! Read in detail it almost seems to be a kind of crazy joke: in section G, Textiles, Basketry, and Rope, here is sub-section 3. Rope—Rope and string were used for a great variety of purposes, including binding, lifting water for irrigation, fishing nets, measuring, and stringing beads for jewelry and garments. Do you think it is possible that the US State Department thinks there is actually a market, anywhere, for antique Algerian rope and string? And how does one tell Algerian rope and string apart from Moroccan or Tunisian or Spanish or German or Chinese robe and string? What kind of hallucinogens are they on? But not only does this MOU cover items actually from Algeria, it also covers items that might have been found in Algeria, though it basically misdates them: section B, Ceramic, sub-section 4. Vessels, b. Greek—Includes both local and imported fine and coarse wares and amphorae. Also imported Attic Black Figure, Red Figure, and White Ground pottery—these are made in a specific set of shapes (e.g., amphorae, kraters, hydriae, oinochoi, kylikes) decorated with black painted figures on a clear clay ground (Black Figure), decorative elements in reserve with background fired black (Red Figure), and multi-colored figures painted on a white ground (White Ground). Includes imported painted pottery made in Corinth in a specific range of shapes for perfume and unguents and for drinking or pouring liquids. The very characteristic painted and incised designs depict human and animal figural scenes, rows of animals, and floral decoration. Approximate date: 8th century B.C. to 6th century B.C. It's nice to know that Attic Red-Figure and White Ground were made during the 8th to 6th centuries BC. It is also good to know that any Attic RF coming to the US without what they consider to be adequate paperwork will not be sent back to Italy or Greece, the way we would have thought they might be, but to Algeria!! As for Greek coins, section C, Metal, sub-section 9. Coins, part a. Greek we have: in silver, bronze, and gold, struck in Algeria and in nearby mints (Cyrene, Carthage). Well, Cyrene is in modern Libya and Carthage is in Tunisia; so now their coins will have to be sent back to Algeria?
Unfortunately, this is all a wasted effort along the lines of preaching to the choir. The issue transcends technicalities. It is political. The whole MOU process whereby they asked the public for input and debate on the matter was a charade. The decision had been made beforehand and the outward show of consensus was simply public relations fluff. It's very clear that coins got swept up alongside one-of-a-kind historical artifacts even though as this article, and many other similar ones, make a compelling case why they shouldn't be lumped together. The law being applied unjustly I personally don't feel any compunction about importing coins from, say, Cyprus. And given that it hasn't really made much of a dent in the trade (coins can always be exported through secondary countries if necessary) I don't think we as collectors need to worry overmuch. At least not in the foreseeable future. Rasiel
I love the Spartan King Leonidas I comment to the Achaemenid ShahanShah Xerxes I... "μολὼν λαβέ". Laconic. I agree with Raisel (@Suarez ), Long Live the Rebels!!! Marsic Confederation AR Denarius 89 BCE Bovianum-Asernia-Samnia Italia bust, VITELIV (Italia) in Oscan Soldier standing facing, head right, foot on Roman standard, holding inverted spear and sword; at his feet to right, recumbent bull facing; in exergue retrograde B HN Italy 407 Sear 230 SCARCE
This tendency to make things harder for collectors does not help humanity, it goes against it. Sometime ago, I sent official letters from a museum to several european museums asking for spare coins to exhibit, a donation of the thousands of common ancient coins that any regular museum has gathering dust in Europe, the answer (when they were kind enough to reply) was that they couldn´t, because law forbids them to give away any of their stocks.
Ancient coins are extremely plentiful and great ambassadors for making average people fall in love with the ancient world. This in turn, makes them support history and other fields that are otherwise rapidly dropping away from the public consciousness. The current attitude of some academics is totally counterproductive to the continuation of the fields at all.
Apparently the archaeological lobby thinks it's a good idea to kill a gnat with tactical nuclear weapons. I'm glad to be in Canada but am sorry for my U.S. collecting friends. That said, as the recent court case showed, it does seem to take a heck of a lot of effort to get any goods intercepted on the basis of these MOUs. So perhaps they are "purely political" (as Ras says) in more benign sense as well...
Maybe this thread will be shifted under politics by the moderators I think one has to be sensible about all this. Will the Persians have a claim against the Greeks for the conquest (and plunder) by Alexander and his armies?? Or the Egyptians and Greeks for their ancient artefacts and Elgin marbles from the British or the Mayans from the Spanish etc. etc. I believe that even today those who have power or technical expertise would try to AND do get fair or unfair benefit from consumer nations. This is and always has been the law of the jungle that we live in and it won’t change. Additionally, a limited exchange or sale of artefacts is not such a bad thing and promotes tourism, understanding of civilisations, knowledge and acceptance of different cultures IMHO. Many of the items may well have been ‘stolen‘ by local smugglers and sold to foreign collectors. In their original country they probably would not command any great importance or value. Thankfully I don’t live in a country where this might be required from me but hypothetically........If I was required to return my Ptolemy II coin would I send it to Egypt o Greece??!! Also does this mean that a modern one-off coin or unique work of art sold legally to some collector will be required to be returned after a couple of hundred years!!! Quite a ridiculous thought
The easiest way to see how ridiculous some of these laws are is to pretend they apply to US “cultural property.” Rightly speaking, there are a few artifacts that are so American, they should never leave this country so long as they both exist: original drafts of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, the Liberty Bell, the gun that shot Abraham Lincoln, original notes from Thoreau’s time at Walden Pond, etc. But, to say “everything made in America over 100+ years ago” has somehow acquired enough significance that it should be repatriated is ridiculous. What “cultural significance” has a random Indian Head cent, for example? Or an antique desk? Or any number of workaday items? And coins, being tokens of commerce, are really the ultimate workaday items. Coin finds should be documented, yes, but that doesn’t mean the coins need to live in some museum, or to never leave the country they were found in. Granted, there might be a few numismatic exceptions, such as the Roman coins found, IIRC, in Japan a few years ago. But, by and large, coins don’t actually mean much, historically speaking. To say otherwise is simply baffling to me.
Alan Walker adroitly illustrates in so many words how absurd this "Cultural Heritage" movement has become. What really triggered this whole movement was the failing economies of countries like Italy & Greece when they joined the European Union & accepted the Euro as their new currency to avoid fiscal bankruptcy. Since then it has gotten totally out of hand being motivated by "political correctness".
Let them buy back their history at fair market prices just like the wealthy Chinese and Russian elite are doing!!! Their coins and antiques sell for many times that of their other European counterparts. Why?? Because they are prepared to buy a bit of their old culture and heritage back and are prepared to pay for it.
Exactly. Sensible laws like the UK Treasure Act (and the Portable Antiquities Scheme if it were made mandatory) both increase archaeological knowledge far beyond what is achievable with draconian prohibitions AND make most of the items available to collectors. Why the archaeological lobby doesn't make an effort to move everyone in this direction is beyond me.
A member of our local coin club [in NC] mostly confines his metal detecting to the UK. Not because he is a British citizen [he is], but because the Treasure Trove laws are, as you put it, sensible. [IIRC, you need an agreement with the landowner - generally a 50-50 split. Anything you find that qualifies as treasure trove is reported to the government. If it is not of great significance, you get it back. If the government keeps it, you are compensated.] His view on Italy, on the other hand: "If i was walking on the beach in Italy and saw an aureus in the sand, I'd just walk on by. Even just touching it could cause me untold grief."
Alan Walker of Nomos ( https://nomosag.com/ ) wrote a followup on cultural property to the comments I quoted in the original post. Here it is, with his permission: In my first post on Nomos 19 I wrote about some of the problems, which have arisen from the passing of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, a treaty that was thought by many of its ratifiers to be a way to insure that items that were truly of real importance for a country's heritage would be protected; and if looted and dispersed abroad the Convention would make it easier for them to be recovered and returned. I think the operative word for so many people was importance, and that is surely why so many people supported the Convention, even including many collectors, dealers, art historians and museum professionals who one would think were the Convention's natural opponents. To most people, there were types of archaeological pillaging that were simply unacceptable: like the destruction of ancient buildings in Central America to get wall reliefs; the smashing of statues to gain salable fragments in Southeast Asia; the ransacking of ancient tombs solely for salable items, with the remainder being destroyed or discarded; and so on. But those same people were fully capable of thinking that other forms of treasure hunting were much more defensible. In other words, most of the commentary, both pro and con, on the 1970 Convention, at least that, which concerns us as collectors of, dealers in, and scholars working on, ancient coins, actually only covers precisely 2 out of the 15 categories of objects covered by the Convention. It is about time we look at those categories, and the thinking that led to their choice, a lot more closely. Before we do so, however, we really ought to look at the background of the Convention, since if we do so it becomes clear just how much it is a product of its time, which was a period of accelerating decolonization; of continued belief in the merits of communist forms of government; and a deep-seated dislike of anything hinting of any form of elitism (cultural, racial, social, sexual, etc.), such as a perceived belief that items of one nation state's cultural heritage might be better off in another nation's care. In addition, the predilection for state over private ownership, held by so many of the nations that contributed to the drafting of the Convention, made the general tone of the document one greatly in favor of state control. Actually, I always believed that the Convention was only intended to protect state owned heritage objects (!), that misconception was probably because I never properly read it, or understood what I was reading. In fact, the vast majority of the controllable items enumerated in the Convention are actually privately owned; as such, it is clear that the majority of the writers of the Convention must have clearly intended to prevent the legitimate owners of a wide variety of material from from being able to freely dispose of their own property as they saw fit. The reason for this being a clear reaction against the capitalist world and private property in general. For example, in Article 1b, if a family retained the personal archive of a relative who was a "...national leader, thinker, scientist...<or> artist" and if they wished to dispose of it, perhaps because of financial need, they could be, and probably would be, banned from exporting it to a foreign institution ready to pay a higher price than a domestic one would be. In 1a, collectors of 'rocks' and fossils face controls; in 1e, collectors of coins or gems over 100 years old, are targeted; 1f, puts controls on "objects of ethnological interest", without explaining what they are; 1g covers a vast array of "property of artistic interest" (without any limitation of date), as 1g(i), pictures, paintings and drawings produced entirely by hand or 1g(iii). original engravings, prints and lithographs; 1h covers "rare manuscripts and incunabula, old books, documents and publications of special interest (historical, artistic, scientific, literary, etc.) singly or in collections" - what might be included within the rubric old books? A first edition of Historia Numorum from 1887? A set of the five volumes of van Loon's Histoire Metallique, 1732-1737? A specially bound set of offprints by Friedrich Imhoof-Blumer? A first edition of Harry Potter? Many of the participants in the process of writing the Convention, especially those from the developed nations of the West must have clearly viewed the categories of Article 1 as being ones from which truly important items of cultural property might be chosen, rather than the all-inclusive terms they have apparently become. They also must have viewed the Convention as a way of protecting heritage, rather than being a way of doing political favors to a foreign country without spending any money, which is exactly what has happened. More about that in the future.
Personally I fear we are treating the symptoms rather than the causes in this thread. I judge 1920’s events - the backlash against the rolling out of democracy - long prefigured what happened at UNESCO in the early 1950’s. By looking merely at 1970+ we are missing the real point. I judge more sophisticated comments on the fundamental problems raised here are found in this paper, on the Adam Smith Society web site: https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...e8e9e4364/1519815844247/who-owns-the-past.pdf It represents an analysis of what was happening to the tradition of amateur archaeology in the UK in 1997 – a battle that I think has since been lost. I quote the author, Andrew Selkirk, in his defense of amateurism: “We need some fresh 'independent' ideas in the interpretation of the past. And we need to establish an intellectual 'marketplace' where such new ideas can emerge.” Perhaps this is a little unfair to Valentinian - but elsewhere he wrote “I don't mind not knowing. We can have lots of fun, and scholars can spend ink on the route to tenure, speculating about such matters.” I feel that tends to point us in exactly the opposite direction to the one Selkirk and I favour. Selkirk called his paper “Who owns the past?” If we accept a world where numismatists merely “have lots of fun” and leave the interpretation of the past to professionals - who are centrally organised by ultimately political masters - then we have relinquished claims of ownership of the past to those political masters. Rob T
