On Paul Barford’s blog as well as several of his many posts he likes to point out that the ACCG’s board is comprised mostly of dealers. He as well as others that make up the radical archaeologist “movement” really take issue with “profit” being made from the sale of ancient numismatic items and “portable antiquities”.
According to the Archeological Institute of America’s website they are “Led by a professional staff of nearly thirty full-time and part-time employees supported by dedicated students and consultants, the AIA maintains offices in Boston and New York. A board of trustees who represent our general membership, the academic community, and our local societies governs the Institute, and the organization operates under an annual budget of approximately $7 million.” I am sure the SAFE also has a budget and I would make another assumption, that both budgets include the salaries of employees.
I also think it is safe to say that Paul earns a living that allows him to pay the bills and live in relative comfort in Europe as an Archaeologist as many other archaeologists do. (And rightly so, everyone deserves to get paid for their work)
Now, concerning the ACCG board. I can say from personal knowledge that NONE of the board members receive any compensation for their work with the ACCG. In fact, the ACCG does not have any full-time employees. Most of the dealers that are involved are also well known authors and scholars in their own right and consider themselves numismatists and collectors before being dealers In addition, dealers are for the most part professional numismatists that work closely with customers, scholars and other numismatists on a daily basis and are intimately familiar with the issues. Who better to take the lead in an organization that is defending the science of ancient numismatics and the right of collectors and yes, dealers?
The argument that it is inappropriate to profit from ancient coins and antiquities is flawed. Archaeologists themselves “profit” from their work in the salaries they receive. In fact, on the Yahoo discussion group “ArchaeologytheoryMethod” there was a recent post titled “the journals racket” where the cited article by Andrew Brown of the Guardian says: “Scientific journals are a notorious racket: because they are essential tools for the professions that use them, they can charge pretty much what they like.” The article goes on to say that “Almost all these journals are indexed and references to them will be found on Google Scholar, PubMed Central and anywhere else you look beyond Wikipedia. So the truth is out there. But it will cost you. I just paid $32 for a printout of one piece and this is by no means exceptional.”
Based on the above, even the knowledge which is learned at the expense of government grants, donations and the blood sweat and tears of archaeologists, interns and volunteers is generally available only at a very steep (financial) price.
Tags: AIA, Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, Ancient Coins, Archaeology, Paul Barford, profiting from archaeology, SAFE
My understanding is that very little of the money in archeology is in academic archeology. Most of the money is in “Cultural Resource Management”.
There are many federal and state laws that must be followed and cannot be followed without an archaeologist.
http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/research/anthropology/crsp/crm_faq.html
An archeology degree is like a union card for these jobs.
I think it’s great we protect the past with these laws. Unfortunately the current system creates incumbents who are more than happy to see every dig in every country require professional archeologists. Many archeologists would support private collecting rights if the government required all collectors to keep a paid archeologist/conservator on staff!