Cultural Property Protection

Everyone has their own opinion on the protection of cultural property. All the arguments have been on the table for a long time and have been repeated endlessly: Collectors argue that states treat their cultural property carelessly and barely protect it. Archaeologists counter that these cultural objects are only in danger because of collectors. Collectors then list what they do for museums and the dissemination of numismatic knowledge. Archaeologists acknowledge this, but are hardly interested in it because, for them, the context of the find is the measure of all things.

Neither is entirely right, but both sides have good arguments. As is often the case, the issue isn’t black and white, but rather many shades of gray.

But why do archaeologists argue with collectors about how best to protect cultural assets? And what role do coins play in this? This article summarizes the genesis of the dispute. Getting to the root of the issue is important in order to find a joint solution to a seemingly hopeless dilemma.

Solution to a Greek problem

It all began in 1949, when the Greek Civil War between communists and monarchists ended. Culture Minister Melina Mercouri developed a cause to culturally unite the deeply divided nation: She demanded the return of the Parthenon frieze from the British Museum. This was a resounding success! Not because Greece had actually gotten the Parthenon frieze back. That hasn’t happened to this day, and it wasn’t that important. What was important was that this cause drew the attention of all Greeks to their shared heritage, thus creating a Greek identity beyond communists and monarchists.

Melina Mercouri’s idea came during a period we now know as decolonization. Many countries under European rule demanded their freedom and economic independence. A shared culture played a central role in their nation-building. Yet many of the works of art that survived were not located in their own countries, but in museums around the world. Indeed, one could certainly say that many works of art survived only because they had been in museums around the world. Nevertheless, the attention of the young nations was focused on these very works of art.

What inflation has to do with the UNESCO Conventions

Now we must consider another factor: the inflation that plagued Western countries after the dollar was cut from the gold standard in 1971. At that time, everyone tried to invest their money in inflation-proof ways. Collectibles thus evolved into investment goods. Coins, in particular, experienced a boom because they represented an affordable alternative for those who couldn’t afford real estate or gold bars.

Criminals took advantage of the rising demand to steal cultural assets from war zones and countries with weak, corrupt administrations and offer them on the international art market. The UNESCO Conventions of 1970 and 1972 were aimed at combating this. They dealt with the central objects important to a nation’s identity. Coins were of no interest to anyone at that time.

Why archaeologists turned against coin collectors

That changed when small, affordable metal detectors came onto the market in the 1970s . They made it possible for the first time to systematically search for hoards and individual finds. People in economically weak but archaeologically interesting regions invested in metal detectors and began digging. This annoyed archaeologists because their layers were disturbed. Understandably, that’s true. But archaeologists were a tiny and elite minority, facing hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of collectors. How could this tiny minority exert such a powerful influence on public opinion?

This is because archaeology, power and governments have been closely intertwined since the 19th century. It is not for nothing that the Parthenon Frieze is in London. And it is not the only one. The British Empire documented its power by researching the past of as many nations as possible. Each major power used its own institutions to do this. In Germany this institution is called the DAI, the German Archaeological Institute. It still has branches today in Rome, Athens, Istanbul, Cairo, Madrid, Damascus, Baghdad and Sanaa, Beijing and Tehran, not to mention Ulaanbaatar . Much more importantly, however, the German Archaeological Institute is directly affiliated with the German Foreign Ministry and thus enjoys the attention of politicians.

Let’s also consider that television has overtaken radio in popularity since the 1970s . This means that since the 1970s , images have been more important than words. And archaeology delivers stunning images. This is why it has experienced an unbroken boom for half a century, even among the general public. Media attention gives archaeologists the publicity they need to disseminate their views to the masses. Only in this way could they successfully apply the UNESCO Conventions of 1970 and 1972 to insignificant cultural assets such as coins.

(Too) late reaction of governments

This puts all interests on the table. And now we add to this the inadequacies of governments. For decades, they did nothing to regulate or even monitor the export and import of coins. In most cases, a simple import without stating the origin not to mention export documents was sufficient to trade coins completely legally. This past government failure is fueling the debate about the protection of cultural property today. Since the 1970s, there has been a large group of coins on the market whose trade is perfectly legal, but whose origins no longer meet today’s moral standards.

Added to this is the problem of documentation. Until well after the turn of the millennium, much of the coin trade was conducted not through auctions or sales lists, but in person at a coin dealer or coin fair. Many pieces were not photographed due to the high photography costs. Therefore, it is often difficult, if not practically impossible, to distinguish which coins were already traded before the UNESCO Conventions of 1970 and 1972 were adopted and which only entered the country after their adoption.

Unity and room for negotiations

This is where we can start. Even the most radical archaeologist will allow collectors to continue collecting coins from old collections. Conversely, hopefully, every collector will know that coins from recent looting are taboo. This limits the discussion to coins that have been on the market since the 1970s and whose provenance cannot be verified.

What should be done with these millions and millions of coins? No museum in the world is capable of storing, documenting, and preserving them for future generations. Only the collective intelligence of coin collectors can do that.

We, the collectors, must therefore convince archaeologists and governments that it is in their best interest to keep these coins on the market so that they can focus on preventing new looting. At the same time, every collector has the responsibility to encourage all their fellow collectors to not buy coins from new lootings, to the best of their knowledge and belief. We need a new ethic of coin collecting that outlaws the purchase of suspect coins.

Only in this way can we secure the long-term viability of collecting coins and medals and preserve the diverse world of numismatics, which includes coin collectors, coin dealers, curators, and academic numismatists alike. In this world, every single member has an equal right to exist. But equally, every single member bears the responsibility of preserving the diversity of the numismatic world!

Text and images: Ursula Kampmann