www.speleophilately.com

Perhaps the greatest attraction of topical or thematic philately is the opportunity -- even the necessity -- for each collector to assemble and organize his or her collection in a very individual, personal way. Especially if the collector is more interested in the topic than in the formalized rules of exhibition, the challenge of such collecting can produce same fascinating results.

At first glance, it might seem that speleophilately is very limited in scope if compared to same other topical themes: birds, on stamps, for example. If one collects only the stamps, this may be partially true. But if one begins to include First Day and other covers, and "Cinderella" items, the possibilities for personal gratification and personal expression through speleophilately are virtually limitless. In my own collection, I have whole sections on limestone caves and the rocks they inhabit, cave exploration per se and cave explorers and their organizations, travertine caves, littoral caves and solution caves in the littoral zone, talus caves, glacier caves, and lava tube caves (only on postal stationery to date). (see figure 1)

Then I have short sections on caves in literature, and the arts, on speleobiology, speleoarcheology, and caves as religious sites, plus an entire notebook of spelean cancellations and additional notebooks on noted caves and cavers as reflected in "corner cards" of return addresses and cachets. (see figure 2)

Different speleo stamp collectors inevitably will assemble their collections quite differently, reflecting their individual interests and knowledge. I happen to use my mint single and FDC of the 1976 Poland Ojcwski National Park stamp to begin my section on bats. But this is a famous palaeontological site, and could equally well begin a section on speleopalaontology. (see figure 3)

I have removed my single and FDC of Sweden’s Cave of the Winds sculpture as being too remote from the thrust of my collection. (see figure 4)

But I would not quarrel with anyone else who included it in their collection. The interface of archaeology and speleology is one where I have particular uncertainties in my own mind, and this may serve as a useful point of discussion of the bounds of speleophilately.

The "Caves and Man" section of my collection begins with a page including mint singles of the three Basutoland “Mission Cave House" stamps (I do not collect by watermarks). (see figure 5)

Obviously I need the similar Lesotho stamp, and am seeking it. Also in this page is the 1978 Lebanon Mikhail Naimy Festival stamp, which looks as if it ought to be there. But I know nothing of this cave nor of this festival and its placement here is only temporary. (see figure 6)

The Zanzibar 1962 and 1963 Mangapwani Cave stamps also would be on this page except that I have hopes of finding a First Day Cover and some local overprints to go with my singles, on a separate page.

So far, so good. Then, comes the controversial U.S. 4c 1934 Mesa Verde stamp -- perforate and imperforate, singles, blocks, and multiples. A handsome page, and the next page is the 1976 souvenir card with the same scene. But to me the cliff dwellings of Mesa Verde are in rock-shelters rather than true caves, and I am inclined to delete these pages and the next -- "Cinderella" representations of the same cliff dwellings on a 1938 advertising stamp of Tidewater Associated Oil Company: single and a handsome block of 4. (see figure 7)

Same speleo stamp collectors might criticize my including topical "Cinderellas". Others would think it nonsense that I would even consider deleting Mesa Verde. At the 1977 International Symposium of Speleology in England I attended one of the archeological sessions and was surprised to find that it was almost entirely devoted to surface archeology in Italy and Crete. Clearly some central European speleologists see archeology and speleology as inextricably entwined, even if the archeological site is many kilometers from any cave. Such speleologists almost automatically would include stamps in their topical collection that most of the rest of the world would think far less relevant than the Mesa Verde items. Such a point of view is reinforced by such books as Lubke’s In Search of Adam. (published in England as I Looked for Adam) I have no quarrel with it, although my collection really is limited to true caves (although I must admit to a few exceptions!). The motto of the Collectors Club of Seattle is: "I collect what pleases me, and I am pleased that others collect what pleases them". And this is my own viewpoint.

The rest of my speleoarcheological section is less controversial. I have a fine First Day panel of Abbe Breuil, followed by a page with mint singles of the Monaco Altamira bison, and the three Cuba stamps of Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal man, a page of French pictorial cancels of prehistoric art: Les Eyzies and Rouffignac. Then the Monaco Lascaux horses - mint single and FDC, and the recent France "affranchi" Les Eyzies: perforate and imperforate, with a maximum card of a cancellation of the same scene (unhappily lacking the affranchi stamp) for the sake of art. (see figure 9)

The next page has blocks of the perforate and imperforate and a postal cover with the same cancel, for the same reason. Lascaux follows: mint single and a maximum card, FDC's and postally used cover, then the same for Niaux (with perforate and imperforate singles). Then the Spain cave artset and a FDC maximum card of the Altamira bull. One page of the rather messy Romanian cave art covers and pictorial cancellations, then the Australian cave painting - single and FDC - (probably in the controversial class, like Mesa Verde), followed by the Belize Actun Balam (Balam Cave) Vase - single and FDC plus explanatory sheets. (see figure 10, 11 and 12)

The Venus of Brassempouy / Dame a la Capuche follows; much the same and finally comes the Jordan Qumran Caves / Dead Sea scrolls stamps, on the borderline of history and religious shrines in caves. Perhaps I should add that I do not collect Grotto of the Nativity because I believe it to be an artificial excavation like other so called cave stables in the Nazareth area. But since I include Japan's Ao Cave, high on a cliff face, I cannot claim consistency. (see figure 13 & 14)

And if a speleophilatelist should ask me why I include the Venus, the vase and the scrolls but not other spelean artifacts on stamps, or the Gibraltar cave skulls, I would have no valid answer, (see figure 15) except that I like these well enough to include them. Maybe later I will decide to delete even these. I see my collection as a dynamic, almost living entity, changing as I myself change.

So …. as a speleophilatelist, I collect what pleases me, and I am pleased that you collect what pleases you. We should be able to argue happily and endlessly on what should and should not be included, learning all the while and occasionally changing our minds as we learn.

I know I have much to learn yet; long live the Speleo Stamp Collector! And to all its readers: Happy Collecting!