Ancient Coin Collecting

The World's Largest Collection of Export Permits?

2012-01-23T23:16:00.003-06:00

A January 18th special report on CNN prompts one to wonder, where in the world would the largest collection of export permits exist? The report itself is not of course about export permits—that would hardly attract the producers of a major news medium. It is a report about the astounding collection of some 40,000 Biblical artifacts assembled by Hobby Lobby president Steve Green. Mr. Green is a consummate collector, to be sure, and is presently laying claim to a fragment of what he and his expert advisor believe is the earliest manuscript known of the Book of Romans.

Collecting biblical artifacts must be a legal minefield since there are few objects that could better qualify as cultural property. Anyone who would assemble 40,000 objects of cultural property in today's environment must certainly understand national patrimony laws, Memorandums of Understanding, the National Stolen Property Act, Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and the nuances of bureaucratic overreach that exceed the actual provisions of any of these controls. Mr. Green must know better than anyone how important provenance and export permits are, because his massive collection is stewarded by Biblical Archaeologist Dr. Scott Carroll of Baylor University. According to his RBC Ministries website bio, Dr. Carroll was founder and executive director of the National Bible Museum, listed in Manta as a private company. The museum was apparently to be based on the Green collection. That affiliation was however disclaimed in an official Green family release in 2010. The details are obscure. In any case, Dr. Carroll is apparently still engaged with the Green collection and from some press reports remains involved in organizing a private museum under some other name that presumably will be based on that collection. Meanwhile, active and ongoing primary research based on objects from the collection is being conducted at Baylor University where Dr. Carroll is on staff.

The art and archaeology departments at Baylor ought very well to know about provenance and the transfer of cultural property. A fellow member of the academic staff at Baylor is Dr. Nathan Elkins who has become a vocal advocate for controls over cultural property and is very critical of private ownership of artifacts without legitimizing provenance. Elkins is a proponent of the view that collecting is a primary cause of looting and has lobbied for import restrictions at the past two Cultural Property Advisory Committee hearings in Washington. One might assume that archaeologists at Baylor would follow the AIA mandate not to research or publish anything unprovenanced from a private collection. Therefore, the objects being studied at Baylor must by their own academic standards and ethics be accompanied by firm provenance back at least to 1970. This would, in itself, be an impressive collection of documentation and one has to wonder if the export permits, invoices and trail of legal ownership will be placed on display or cited along with these objects when Baylor returns them to the private museum that Green and Carroll ultimately conceive. I rather doubt that is going to happen.

In any case, the relationship between Baylor and Mr. Green seems to fly in the face of two things that the archaeological community covets—national ownership and academic stewardship. It would appear that for the sake of access, Archaeology's philosophical line in the sand might have been temporarily redrawn. Is the lofty perch of academic elitism only invoked when dealing with rank and file citizens? If common ancient coins struck in the millions are so important to history and heritage that they must be controlled, then one would certainly think that the history of Christianity is equally important. I think the word for that disconnect is hypocrisy and it seems very odd when one sees its manifestation among those who promote themselves as being politically correct. I'm sure that Dr. Elkins will bring his influence to bear in straightening out any misguided archaeologists down there in Texas.

Cyprus: Round Two

2011-12-26T23:11:00.001-06:00

The U.S. State Department in its infinite wisdom chose in 2007 to override the recommendation of its own advisory committee and to impose import restrictions on coins from Cyprus. And what has been gained? Certainly not the salvation of cultural heritage in Cyprus, where even the country's head archaeologist rails against the inept system. That State Department decision led to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that has been ongoing for four years now. It prompted a court challenge of the implementing Memorandum of Understanding that after two years of litigation is now in U.S. Appellate Court and could run on for several more years. The cost to taxpayers, as well as to innocent collectors and independent scholars has been significant.

Now, five years later, we are visited with a request for renewal of this ill-begotten fiasco. And, without a doubt, the State Department will continue to march to its own drum and ignore the interests and will of the American people. And the coin collectors? They will ratchet up the opposition and the costs will escalate on both sides—that is a certainty. At some point, someone in Washington may look at the issue and say "This is Nonsense!" But I wouldn't wager on it. What is so important that the State Department would allow this to happen? Can it really be over a misguided ideology of comprehensive national stewardship, spawned in UNESCO of all places? That sort of ideology has little appeal in a capitalistic society founded on individual freedoms and personal rights. Furthermore, America has had a love-hate relationship with UNESCO for years. Is this battle really over coins? One would think not. It seems more likely that it is about absolute and total control of the past and that is not an issue of consequence to the State Department. It is, however, a matter of considerable importance to the academic world of archaeology and the link between that world and the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is conspicuous by its omnipresence.

It's no accident that the American Institute of Archaeology's website article about this CPAC hearing leads with the words "Protecting Archaeology...." not "Protecting Cypriot Cultural Heritage". The AIA is above all a professional society that nurtures opportunities for its own. Nothing wrong with that.... until the nurturing becomes obsessive. Surprisingly, archaeologists are among the most vocal at expressing their own obsessiveness. In a fairly recent issue of Archaeology magazine, then AIA president C. Brian Rose stated "We must preserve the whole cultural record." If you think that's a quote out of context, read the article which I have conveniently linked here. It's no secret that archaeologists need the permission of foreign governments to dig, and foreign governments have learned in the past couple decades that those permits can have diplomatic strings. Likewise, the State Department has discovered that the granting of import restrictions can have diplomatic benefits. It's a neat little triad with everbody's back getting scratched except that of American collectors and independent scholars. But, in the scheme of things, that's a small, disorganized and inconsequential group—right?

On January 18th, the State Department will entertain public comment on the issue of extending the current Cypriot import restrictions. This comment period is their way of saying "We gave you an opportunity to be heard". Of course, the State Department has also said that they are not obligated to do this—as though we should be ever so thankful for their generosity. And they also have said that they are not obligated to follow their own advisory committee's recommendations. In other words, the hearing process is pure unadulterated and unabashed lip service—a prerogative of unfettered power.

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild has submitted formal written comment and will be represented at the January hearing. The time allotted for oral comment at that hearing is only five minutes, and the nature of what can and cannot be said is very strictly controlled and monitored. Still, we will have our moment of "freedom" to serve notice by our very presence, if nothing else, that the honorable and legitimate avocation of ancient numismatics remains engaged against this modern tyranny.

Kudos to a thinking AIA leader

2011-11-03T20:03:00.002-05:00

Just about the time I was ready to give up on the AIA altogether, out of the wilderness (if you can call Washington DC the wilderness - and some might) came a blinding flash of light. Perhaps I should preface my following comments by pointing out that to me, light is the precursor of truth. Some readers of this blog might remember that in 2004 I chose "Per Lucem ad Veritatem" as the motto for the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild. The guild has tried to live by those words in the face of very dark forces in which light and truth are anathema. Among the 500 or so respondents to the U.S. State Department call for comment on a proposed Memorandum of Understanding with Bulgaria was one AIA member who spoke clearly with an enlightened understanding of the situation on the ground and an obvious concern for truth.

This gentleman, Gerard Casale, is a current member of the Board of Directors of the Washington DC Society (George Washington University) of the Archaeological Institute of America. Mr. Casale submitted a comment to CPAC through the public online comment system and said: "Ancient coins from mints in what is now Bulgaria are both common and usually very inexpensive. This means that tens or hundreds of thousands of these coins existing in collections around the world have never have been through an auction or other transaction where precise provenance has been recorded. Nor is it vital to the interests of scholarship inside Bulgaria that such provenance be demanded now. Regulations at 26 USC Section 2601 (2). provided that for an artifact to be restricted under the CPIA, it must be of both archaeological interest and cultural significance. These coins exist in many multiples, already well represented in Bulgarian state collections and are therefore not of cultural significance within the meaning of the rule. Since ancient coins circulated widely beyond the borders of modern Bulgaria, even in ancient times, one cannot assume that all coins of Bulgarian types, “were first discovered in” Bulgaria, as required by the CPIA. (26 USC Section 2601 (2) (c).) Less severe remedies must be considered before import restrictions are placed on Bulgarian coins."

Indeed, this is a very nice summary of the points that the ACCG and Numismatic Trade have made regarding not only coins from Bulgaria but from virtually all source countries that produced coins in antiquity. I personally have talked with other AIA members who express the same sentiments but are frankly afraid to make those views known publicly for fear of professional reprisals -- and have been told that without equivocation. In this environment, the statement of Mr. Casale is not only a ray of light, it is a very brave appeal for reason. I sincerely hope that it does not come back to haunt him.

My own academic background is in Art History and that discipline is linked very closely in many universities to the Departments of Archaeology and Anthropology. One of my program advisors as a Graduate Student at the University of Wisconsin was at that time an editor of the American Journal of Archaeology. I was, in fact, a card-carrying member of the AIA and proudly so at the time. I attended many local chapter meetings in Madison and took Archaeology 101 as an elective. In fact, that's where I first learned about Historical Particularism, which I later came to view as the downfall of Archaeology as a respected profession. The Franz Boas theory was a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. That focus on the tail, is what has eventually led to the sorry state of affairs that we are burdened with today where "archaeological context" trumps everything else in life. It's refreshing to find a member of the AIA who can look past that nonsense and see the light of truth.

Where is Cultural Justice?

2011-10-01T11:46:00.000-05:00

The daily Iraqi newspaper Azzaman announced today that Italy and Iraq have signed a "memorandum" that will provide assistance in the preservation of artifacts and the modernization of displays at the Iraqi National Museum in Baghdad. This follows on previous projects at the museum undertaken by the Italians. The report mentions, without a hint of embarrassment, that "Italian experts have organized several seminars for their Iraqi counterparts on how to preserve and safeguard antiquities." To anyone who follows the news about Italy's problems preserving and safeguarding its own antiquities (which are literally countless) this might raise and eyebrow and a smirk. The report goes on to say that "The Italian side will pay for the rehabilitation and the training". This must surely rankle some of Italy's domestic archaeologists who have suffered from severe budgetary constraints and are unable to do the most basic forms of preservation in their own country—where it seems that everything is disintegrating. Even with assistance from other countries they cannot do that. In fact, no country on earth can keep up with the tremendous burden created by trying to save the entire history of mankind within national storehouses and controlled sites. Really, what is the point?

These efforts are reported as Italian assistance to Iraq's national heritage, but ironically the present national government in Iraq has no cultural connection whatever with the Assyrian artifacts that are being preserved. Any heritage from that ancient civilization is diffused in the bloodlines of millions of people who inhabit virtually every corner of the earth today. If anything, the Assyrian heritage is global today, just as most cultural heritage is. The UNESCO construct that led to its 1970 convention and resolution was already antiquated when it was adopted and becomes more and more irrational with each passing day and with each new birth in a world where cultures are homogenized. Yet, emerging governments try desperately to attach themselves, like parasites, to a distant and more stable past. This "nationalist" view is, of course, a feeble attempt to solidify their manifest destiny to rule and history is replete with failed examples. Still, some things never change and governments are slow to learn from the mistakes of others.

So, while Italy flounders with its myriad cultural property issues at home and exports its money and experts to places like Iraq instead of solving its own problems, the United States government will do everything within its power to make sure that the nationalist interests of both these countries are protected. The rights and interests of our own citizens are irrelevant. We will impose controls on the transfer of anything that might be imagined as "cultural property" under the ridiculous guidelines of UNESCO 1970 and we will disenfranchise natural descendants of a vanished cultural group just because they happen to live in the USA. This, we do in favor of the political ambitions and aspirations of an unrelated nationalist successor state. Where is the cultural justice in that?

Coins and Panetta's Biggest Fear

2011-09-18T17:44:00.001-05:00

In today's Washington Post, on page 19, columnist George Will (one of my favorite people) writes about the problems facing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. Mr. Will astutely describes a plenteous list of threats that Panetta has on his plate every day, but sees the biggest threat on that plate as being the congressional super-committee that will deal with the nation's budget that everyone agrees is out of control. There will be many heated debates over the need and the cost of programs over the coming months (or years). In fact, those debates are already raging. As a retired military officer I can empathize with Mr. Panetta, albeit on a much lesser scale, as I frequently was faced with severe budget constraints in the post Viet Nam era. Yes, history does repeat itself and it seems we do learn nothing from it.

The national budget may seem very remote from coins and coin collecting, but not really. The federal propensity to throw money around like it's worth nothing does not begin at the desk of a Leon Panetta or of the President himself (not that they are immune). It begins at the desks of a quadzillion bureaucrats with special interests. One of those seemingly countless bureaucratic agencies is the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, an element of the U.S. State Department. How much of the government's budget funds the special interests of this small Bureau and its archaeological coterie's minions? That's a riddle wrapped in an enigma shrouded in mystery. In comparison to the dollar cost of America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that bureaucracy's war against coin collectors may seem like small potatoes, but the fallout in terms of public disenchantment and lost faith in government is huge. That's not to say that the budget impact is insignificant, it most surely is not. The programs managed or encouraged by the altruistic sounding Cultural Heritage Center cost taxpayers millions of dollars each year. Worse than that, what shows up on the budget appropriation each year for ECA and CHC is only the tip of the iceberg. Their programs have tentacles that leach dollars from many other government entities.

The State Department is not the only department of government that archaeologists have their claws sunk deeply into. The enforcement of controversial DOS import restrictions on common utilitarian objects, proclaimed by archaeologists as being threatened "cultural property", has cost Customs and Border Protection (and the taxpayer) dearly. Likewise, law enforcement agencies that are hard pressed for the resources to deal with serious crimes are increasingly involved in cultural property witch hunts that serve neither law, justice nor society. Even the National Park Service has succumbed on occasion to the hypnotic appeal of academic archaeologists. After being pummeled by a vicious and grossly exaggerated campaign of outright lies and distortions by archaeologists about looting of the Baghdad Museum, the Department of Defense is now spending time and money on training combat troops in cultural property sensitivity. This is nothing more than placation of the vocally indignant, and a concession to special interest proselytization, as archaeologists are employed to do the training—just as they do for Customs. It's little wonder that the law is often misinterpreted by those "trained". One British web site, Heritage Key, very frankly states: "The history of archaeology is populated with cavalier aristocrats, hard-nosed scientific geniuses — and no small amount of controversy, deceit and downright quackery." That is a harsh characterization, that calls up a lot of past misdeeds, but there is still an element of the discipline today that is not very far removed from that past. Unfortunately, that element often speaks louder than the silent and intimidated majority.

Just the expense of defending itself in court against public challenges to its own extralegal actions has proven costly to bureaucratic agencies that fall under the spell of radical crusading archaeologists. Add to that the huge cost of public subsidies to archaeology through educational grants, sponsored workshops, institutional funding, government contracts and tax exemptions. The cost of archaeology to the general public is huge and growing, just like the federal budget and deficit. Are we getting our money's worth? Can we afford this as a public largesse? While Leon Panetta must rightfully ponder the needs and cost of our defense system, he and his fellow cabinet members ought to take a look at the special interests of Washington bureaucrats that are constant and cancerous. They may be too small individually to show up on the radar screen, but in aggregate they form a huge hole that money pours into without restraint. I hope George Will rains a little on their parade.

The Morning After

2011-08-09T11:31:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I received a telephone call from Peter Tompa, attorney for the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, informing me that the District Court in Baltimore had ruled in favor of the defense and dismissed the ACCG lawsuit challenging import restrictions on ancient coins from Cyprus and China. It was of course a disappointing turn of events and severely tested my confidence in the system of government that would lead us to this conclusion. But, this morning the sun came up and I went about my morning chores as usual. The intolerable heat of recent weeks had abated, the birds were singing and the "butterfly bush" in our front yard was like Penn Station at rush hour. Oh, and the Ancient Coin Collecting hobby was still in place.

This decision in effect gives the State Department free rein over import restrictions. But, what's new? DOS has had free rein for the past five or six years and has absolutely no qualms about exercising their own will regardless of the intentions of Congress or the guidance of law. Import restrictions on ancient coins are a fact of life, but they have not ended life in the collecting world. They are, to be sure, unfair and unproductive. But then, what about government these days isn't?

My own interest in the past will certainly not abate because a judge in Maryland thinks the government is beyond reproach. In fact, I really doubt that my life will change measurably as a result of this decision. It is a sad day, but there's much work to be done and little time to reflect on what might have or should have been.

Tips for Buyers of Ancient Coins

2011-08-07T21:23:00.002-05:00

Some ACCG members have asked what they can do to assure that the purchases they make are legal. One might theoretically ask the same question about many objects or substances that are traded domestically and internationally. The ACCG web site offers a few common sense precautions and general observations that all collectors might keep in mind.

A basic precept of criminal law is that "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty." This principle is called mens rea. It simply means that an element of intent is necessary for guilt to be assigned. Within fields related to art and cultural property, the responsibility of a buyer in this regard is often referred to as "due diligence". A buyer should have a reasonable expectation that title is clear and transferable before purchasing something that may be controlled by law or administrative rule and should exercise a normal degree of caution in coming to that conclusion. Of course, "reasonable" and "normal" are subjective terms that can and are debated endlessly.

The legitimate market for ancient coins operates worldwide, even in some countries (like Italy) from which import of certain types of ancient coins into the United States is restricted. In some countries, like Israel, export permits are issued to registered dealers. In other countries, coins above a specified monetary value require export permits. Buyers from established dealers in the traditional market can reasonably expect that their purchases are offered with good and transferable title. But, it never hurts before making a purchase to ask whether a coin has been (or is being) legally imported into the United States. The seller of a coin already in the United States may not know when or where a particular coin was imported, and is not required to know. But the seller should be willing to state in writing that he or she has clear title to the object being sold. This statement is obviously a "best knowledge and belief" statement because ancient coins do not come with a title like an automobile.

Here are a few very simple precautions that a buyer might take:

Only buy from reputable sources that will guarantee title for your purchases.
Always ask for an invoice for your purchase, which should be retained along with any collecting history you have for your coins.
For purchases directly from abroad, make sure the sender properly declares the country of manufacture of the coin and its value.
For coins subject to import restrictions directly purchased from abroad, ship separately from other coins and make sure they are accompanied with certifications attesting to the fact that they were out of the country for which restrictions were granted before the date of the restrictions.

The prospect of seizure of coins from law abiding rank and file collectors is remote and is not a cause for undue concern. This does not, however, absolve collectors from doing their part to discourage the illicit transfer of cultural property. The ACCG is chartered to defend the legitimate hobby of ancient coin collecting and calls on all of its members, collectors and dealers alike, to exercise due diligence as buyers of cultural property.

A "pass it on" email too good to delete

2011-07-23T17:04:00.001-05:00

I don't generally pass along email forwards. But, on rare occasions one comes along that is just too good to ignore. The following is probably an old recycled piece, but it was new to me:

WAL-MART SENIOR GREETER

You just have to appreciate this one.
Young people forget that we old people had a career before we retired......

Charley, a new retiree-greeter at Wal-Mart, just couldn't seem to get to work on time.

Every day he was 5, 10, 15 minutes late. But he was a good worker, really tidy, clean-shaven, sharp-minded and a real credit to the company and obviously demonstrating their "Older Person Friendly" policies.

One day the boss called him into the office for a talk. "Charley, I have to tell you, I like your work ethic, you do a bang-up job when you finally get here; but your being late so often is quite bothersome."

"Yes, I know boss, and I am working on it." "Well good, you are a team player. That's what I like to hear.”

“Yes sir, I understand your concern and I’ll try harder.”

Seeming puzzled, the manager went on to comment, “It's odd though your coming in late. I know you're retired from the Armed Forces, What did they say to you there if you showed up in the morning so late and so often?"

The old man looked down at the floor, then smiled. He chuckled quietly, then said with a grin,

"They usually saluted and said, ‘Good morning, Admiral, can I get your coffee, sir?’”

This is obviously an internet joke, but like all good humor it embodies a kernel of truth. The point is absolutely on the mark as any of us "Old Timer's" who refuse to quit will attest. What we do today may not be comparable to what we did when we were younger, but it still can be important. I hope the individuals photographed here, whoever they are, appreciate the poignant message that underlies this humor. And, by the way, thank you Walmart for your "Greeter" program.

Indictments in Customs case

2011-07-16T16:46:00.001-05:00

Two dealers and one collector living in the United States, and one dealer in the UAE, have been indicted by a Grand Jury in U.S. District Court - Eastern District of New York on charges related to violations of Customs laws. The extent of the violations are detailed in an ICE announcement and in documents filed as Case 1:11-cr-00340-ERK filed 05/04/11. The indictment was sealed until recently as the investigation was apparently continuing. Mousa (Morris) Khouli is an American citizen operating under the business name Windsor Antiquities. Salem Alshdaifat reportedly holds dual citizenship in Jordan and Canada and is operating as Holyland Numismatics in the U.S. under permit. A third dealer, Ayman Ramadan, based in Dubai, UAE, was also indicted as was an American collector, Joseph A. Lewis II.

The essence of the charges leading to this multiple count indictment is that Mr. Lewis was a customer of Mr. Khouli and that Mr. Khouli is alleged to have acquired through Mr. Alshdaifat and/or Mr. Ramadan, for Mr. Lewis, several ancient objects of Egyptian origin. In the process, the individuals are jointly charged with violating several laws or rules related to the importation of these objects (conspiracy to smuggle). They are also charged with money laundering conspiracy as funds were allegedly transferred outside of the U.S. during these transactions. There were not any charges brought under any cultural heritage or patrimony laws or agreements, nor were any violations of the National Stolen Property Act cited. Since Khouli and Alshdaifat are well known within the numismatic community, it is obviously distressing to those who know and have worked with them in some respect.

The U.S. judicial system will decide the final outcome of these charges and it is pointless for us as casual but interested observers to speculate about that outcome. Of course, there are anti-collecting advocates prancing in glee over this indictment—that is not any great surprise and is hardly worthy of note. It is, however, worth noting that the press and Customs officials quoted in the press have already sensationalized this case.

For example, an article in the Wall Street Journal quoted Egyptian antiquities minister Zahi Hawass as saying "This is one of the largest and most significant cases of antiquities smuggling in recent memory." That is a far reach, even for the Grand Poobah who may perhaps be forgiven for having senior moments. The WSJ article also quoted James T. Hayes, special agent in charge of the custom service's Homeland Security Investigations unit in New York. Mr. Hayes said "It's a breakthrough case, eye-opening for us...We had not yet seen a for-profit network [dedicated to smuggling antiquities]." The comment is a bit cryptic, but also very enlightening. It is an outright admission that smuggling by the antiquities trade in America's most active port for this trade is so rare that Homeland Security agents had never seen a case. Elsewhere in the WSJ article, we read "Mr. Hayes said trafficked antiquities usually have been looted or stolen from their rightful owners." Taken at face value, and especially in contrast to the immediately previous comment by Mr. Hayes, those words reflect a distinct bias against the legitimate antiquities trade. It suggests a sort of profiling, that is inappropriate in law enforcement or in government service of any kind. One has to wonder when the last AIA propaganda [they call it training] session was held at the NY office of Homeland Security.

The facts of this case will be presented and the evidence will be weighed. If it is determined that a crime was committed, the court will decide what action is necessary under law to serve the cause of justice. In fairness to all concerned, we should let that process work.

Forever Dumb?

2011-06-14T20:00:00.000-05:00

I was reading an article by professor Stephen Urice in the Winter 2010 issue of the New Mexico Law Review when a familiar quote popped up. Urice was expanding on his earlier commentary about the National Stolen Property Act in "Between Rocks and Hard Places: Unprovenanced Antiquities and the National Stolen Property Act." The article raises important questions, but I'll leave those for legal scholars and the courts to ponder. I do feel compelled, however, to comment on one seemingly innocuous quote. Urice wrote "Although a great deal may be determined about an unprovenanced antiquity from stylistic and other analyses, the antiquity's archaeological context, and, thus, a vital component of its history, is irretrievably lost." Urice hangs this conclusion on archaeologist Clemency Coggins, saying further that, "...an unprovenanced antiquity may be forever beautiful, but forever dumb."

In all fairness to professor Coggins, she was talking about Mayan artifacts. To extend this observation from Mayan pots or figurines (which might have some relevance) to ancient coins is a quantum leap and one that betrays a rather appalling ignorance. Now, Urice was not talking about ancient coins, any more than Coggins was. But, there are plenty of "certified" archaeologists in the world these days who do make that leap daily. To make a general statement that implies that provenance is of critical importance to all antiquities, is—I'm sorry to say—flat out stupid. Anyone who is intelligent enough to earn a PhD should know very well that this is not the case, but like the NSPA advocates that Urice writes about, they are caught between a rock and a hard place. The mantra adopted by the archaeological community is so deeply dependent on this notion of archaeological record primacy that they can have it no other way. It is blatant and pitifully obvious Big Lie propaganda that is self serving, deceptive and manipulative.

The field of Roman Provincial Coinage is rich with specimens where iconography is vastly more important than the coin's find spot. I don't feel a need to cite examples here, since I've published well over a hundred articles about them in the past 25 years. These coins, almost without exception, bear the name of the issuing mint. Knowing that they were found at a specific site tells us practically nothing. Knowing where they were made, and by whom, and what their narrative reveals, can tell us volumes of information. When they did circulate in antiquity, they did so randomly—not as trade coins—and therefore the find spot is of little consequence to history. When they circulated during the past 2,000 or more years as collectables, they were already divorced from any find spot and provenance became irrelevant. So irrelevant, in fact, that few collectors (or curators) ever bothered to record it or pass on any find spot information that might have been available. Those cases where provenance might exist are usually cases where the coin resided at one time in the collection of a famous personality. That provenance is merely a who's who of ownership, not part of any archaeological record. So, to suggest that a coin with provenance today is somehow more "licit" than one without is ludicrous. The same can be said for scores of utilitarian objects that collectors admire and use productively both to learn and to teach others with an interest in the past.

Every coin tells us something important and its precise find spot is normally not one of its most highly valued messages. Forever dumb, they are not.

The Roman Dodecahedron

2011-06-12T11:35:00.001-05:00

An article in Fox News recently asked for reader opinions on the purpose of an unusual artifact that is found in widely dispersed areas and has apparently stumped scholars for centuries. Here's my guess as to its purpose:

This is a game piece similar to rolling dice. A round ball, slightly smaller than the largest hole in the dodecahedron, is dropped through the largest hole into the center of the ball. The dodecahedron is then rolled, like a die, and comes to rest on one of its twelve sides - held slightly above the playing surface by its projectile points. If the ball drops out of the hole that comes to rest on the bottom, the player gets a point. There can be more than one hole large enough to pass the ball. The more large holes the dodecahedron has, the easier it is to score. For example three large holes offer more chances to score a point than one large hole (3:12 vs. 1:12). Therefore, the dodecahedron can be manufactured in different degrees of difficulty that changes the chance of success from easy to hard. One can imagine playing to a total of ten, twenty or more points depending on the number of players and the amount of time at hand. This game is highly portable, culturally anonymous, educationally unbiased and can be played by people who cannot even speak each others' language. The winning prize is limited only by one's imagination.

Affirmation of Audacity

2011-04-20T22:45:00.001-05:00

During the period from July 2004 through August 2007 the numismatic community, by way of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG), the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) and the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG), submitted eighteen requests for information to the U.S. State Department (DOS). These were formal requests under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). By November of 2007, not one of these requests had produced responsive information. Repeated appeals to DOS for response were either ignored or denied. Related queries from U.S. Senators and Representatives on behalf of the numismatic community were stonewalled. While the requests covered a range of issues, one common thread was the request for information regarding reports produced by the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) following their deliberation on requests for import restrictions that included ancient coins.

One major objective of these requests was to ascertain whether DOS had followed the advice of CPAC when they imposed restrictions on the importation of ancient coins from Cyprus. Even though a report to Congress is mandated when DOS deviates from CPAC guidance, neither the public nor Congress have been provided access to the CPAC reports. Another objective was to determine whether import restrictions imposed on ancient coins from China had actually been asked for by the Chinese. These are not questions affecting national security or the sensitivity of diplomatic relations. They are questions that any American citizen ought to be able to pose regarding the activities of their government. They are the very sorts of questions that the Freedom of Information Act was designed to sanction. When answers to these questions were not forthcoming, and it became clear that DOS would not address them, the ACCG with the cooperation of IAPN and PNG launched a FOIA law suit to seek judicial review of DOS actions.

The numismatic community's lawsuit (which by the way is not over quite yet) challenges a veil of secrecy that permeates DOS and allows extralegal activities within its bureaus to flourish. It is a multi-faceted complaint, but the primary objective of the litigation is to illuminate the process by which Memorandums of Agreement with foreign nations are generated, approved and implemented. These MOUs have deeply and immediately affected ancient coin collectors. The initial complaint was filed in U.S. District Court at Washington, DC on November 15, 2007. As might be expected, the Department of Justice (DOJ) defended DOS with the standard tools of their trade. One delay after another pushed the issue aside. During this period, the State Department did begin to release documents (70 in their entirety, so they claim). Having read every document produced, I can say unequivocally that the exercise was a sham and an insult to FOIA. The majority of documents that were released in their "entirety" were pages of general information from web sites, transcripts of public meetings or copies of material that the plaintiffs themselves had submitted. Those documents that related directly to the question at hand were heavily redacted, sometimes to the point that the only text on a page was the page number itself. One can only imagine the glee with which those responsible must have reveled in their audacity as they submitted these "responses". The releases were not in good faith, they were a subterfuge that DOS and DOJ would later use in their arguments to claim responsiveness. The number of documents provided sounds impressive on paper, but is far less impressive in the hand. The facts are quite clear on this point, DOS was totally unresponsive over a three year period and then disingenuously responded with primarily useless information only when forced by litigation. They boldly circumvented the spirit and intent of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) and of FOIA.

Quite by accident, I'm sure, DOS failed to redact some information that gave ACCG clues about activity of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) in the MOU and CPAC processes. One series of documents suggested that DOS had communications with the archaeological community about ancient coins prior to any actual request for the addition of coins by the government of Cyprus. When an 11th hour request for this addition materialized, it seemed to validate the suspicion of ACCG that the request was being orchestrated from the U.S. contingent, not from the Cypriot. On November 20, 2009, more than two years after the initial filing, Judge Richard J. Leon issued a ruling of Summary Judgment in favor of the defendant (DOS). On December 22, 2009 ACCG filed an appeal to this decision in the United States Court of Appeals, Washington DC. Predictably, DOJ moved for Summary Affirmation. Naturally, that involved additional argument and filings. The three-judge panel denied the DOJ motion for Summary Affirmance on June 9, 2010 thereby agreeing to hear the case and at the same time allowing the introduction of an amici curiae (friend of the court) brief by certain former members of CPAC.

The introduction of testimony by former members of CPAC lent a new dimension to this case, clearly elevating it to a matter of public concern as opposed to the concern of what might have been argued to be a special interest. The "amici" were not a group of "experts" for rent, they were people of impeccable credentials appointed by the President of the United States to serve on the committee that was under criticism in the suit. What they had to say about DOS secrecy should have raised more than one eyebrow, even in Washington. The Amici included Jay Kislak, Kate Fitzgibbon, Arthur Houghton and Gerald Stiebel — quite a distinguished group. The Amici spoke to "a Congressional intent that federal agencies disclose records to the fullest extent possible while withholding records only to a limited extent." They expressed a concern with "the undesirable public policy consequences, and with the frustration of the CPIA’s statutory aims, that would come from federal courts’ too-readily upholding boilerplate FOIA exemption claims made by the State Department." Amici also expressed their view that "If this Court were to accept the State Department's position, the Court would in effect allow the State Department to withhold everything submitted by the private sector simply because some people request confidentiality."

In other venues, former members of CPAC expressed their concerns more pointedly. At a public event held by the International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR) at the National Academy in New York on April 17, 2008, former members of CPAC gave their candid assessment of the committee and its management. Former member Kate Fitz Gibbon said "The secrecy under which the Committee operates harms it, as does the lack of transparency...". Jay Kislak related that "This is the only advisory committee that I have been able to find that conducts everything in secret and will not disclose anything." He went on to say "I want to make it clear that I am not necessarily against any actions that were taken or any of the MOUs which were recommended by the Committee and put into action. I am, however, opposed to the way it was done because I think it is absolutely, completely, un-American, and I don't mind saying that." At a Cultural Policy Research Institute (CPRI) symposium held in Washington, DC on March 21, 2011 Ms. Fitz Gibbon said "CPAC's committee review and recommendation process fails to meet the law. And, when CPAC's administration is called on these failures, it will not let that sunshine in. It cloaks its processes in quite extraordinary secrecy. It has refused multiple times Freedom of Information Act requests." At the same CPRI event, Mr. Kislak amplified on DOS secrecy at CPAC, "We'd get a memo this big each meeting, probably 75, 100 pages, maybe more, with mostly reprints of articles of newspapers and magazines, et cetera, all marked 'confidential information, do not disclose.' And I'd ask why it was done that way, 'Well, it's just we do it every page.' There was no rhyme or reason. The secrecy is inexcusable."

Unwarranted and unjustified secrecy has been the hallmark of State Department policy for a very long time. National reporters, elected officials, advocacy groups, and even State Department insiders have complained about it. Even though some points of the Circuit Court ruling were reversed, the Appellate Court decision of April 15, 2011 was in large measure a stamp of approval on the secrecy that permeates DOS. Ironically, the first of the ACCG objectives mentioned above was achieved when members of CPAC confirmed publicly that DOS did not follow CPAC's advice and expanded restrictions to ancient coins over CPAC's vote to exempt them. Some information obtained from the cryptic redactions of DOS will certainly be useful in the Baltimore suit filed by ACCG against DOS and CBP. Other information pertinent to that case may still be forthcoming under the Appellate Court reversal of the lower court's Summary Judgment. More importantly, the State Department wall of secrecy is a stain on government by the people and this challenge was long overdue. The result, unfortunately, is less than encouraging for those who would like to believe that America is still a land of freedom and justice. The U.S. Appellate Court had a chance to right a grievous wrong and failed to step up when the opportunity was presented.

Relegated to Insignificance

2011-04-03T23:35:00.000-05:00

In reading documents recently released to ACCG under the Freedom of Information Act, it struck me as odd that the Treasury Department was in the loop for approval of the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) rule that would implement the Italian Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). A document titled "Memorandum for Executive Secretary" answered that question. The first restrictions on artifacts from Italy were imposed by Treasury Decision 06-01 when Customs was still under Treasury. Apparently, CBP still needs to get Treasury to sign off on any actions related to the original imposition even though CBP (now under Homeland Security) is responsible for all of the actions and enforcement. CBP sent a request for review to Treasury (Asst. Secretary Timothy E. Skud) on 5 January 11. They asked for an "expedited" review in order to meet the statutory 19 Jan 11 deadline on which the MOU would expire if not extended.

The proposed rule included a revised Designated List that includes for the first time a restriction on certain coins of Italian type. Although CBP did advise Treasury that "Coins of Italian Type" were included in the extension, they stated "We believe that this document will not generate press coverage or controversy." Apparently they do not consider litigation in Federal court "controversy"! They also stated that "We believe that it is not necessary for the Secretary or Deputy Secretary to review this document." In other words, CBP led Treasury to believe that this was not an important issue and a perfunctory approval was in order (keep in mind that Treasury is generally coin collector friendly and may have delayed the response for further input if they had been aware of significant collector opposition). In the resulting "Notice of Planned Regulatory Action Pursuant to Executive Order 12866" the nature of this action was designated by CBP as "Not Significant". This has a statutory bearing under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) on how the rule is processed since rule changes that are not significant are exempt from the otherwise mandatory public comment period. The CBP agency contact in this matter was Michael Craig, Chief, Interagency Requirements Branch, Office of International Trade.

The individual who handled this review at the Treasury Department undoubtedly knew nothing about the DOS agenda to stifle trade and collecting of ancient coins. I'm confident that he was also unaware that DOS received some 2,000 faxes opposing the addition of coins to the Italian MOU, or that about half of the individuals testifying at the CPAC hearing represented the collecting community's opposition, or that the Cultural Property Advisor Committee actually voted against adding coins to the extended MOU and that Department of State (DOS) added them nonetheless. None of this information was presented to the Dept. of Treasury reviewer, only a simple request to sign off on an "insignificant" issue.

What kind of review was actually performed? A redacted email exchange in which one party is addressed as "Lesleyanne" (apparently CBP attorney Lesleyanne Koch Kessler) sheds some light on this. A 14 December 2010 query from a redacted agency (presumably DOS) to Lesleyanne was responded to on 21 December 2010 with the message:

"I am reviewing this and I don't think we will have comments. I will get sign-off and send forward."

This evoked the response (from DOS?):

"Thanks for emailing me on the status. I was beginning to wonder if CC had a problem with the package."

To which Lesleyanne replied "You were probably perplexed if you thought we had a problem with it...pretty standard stuff!"

In another correspondence of 5 January 2011 from CBP to Treasury, the immediacy of the Treasury sign-off was highlighted. The proposed rule needed a high ranking official's signature and CBP was having logistical problems getting that. The Commissioner was apparently not available and the Deputy was heavily committed. In an attempt to get the package to Treasury for a signature, a member of the CBP staff wrote:

"As we discussed on the phone, this is a plain vanilla rulemaking which extends for another 5-years the import restrictions. If Chief Aguilar could sign as Acting Commissioner, we would appreciate it very much to prevent a lapse in restrictions if this does not get published on time."

Another CBP staff email to Treasury said:

"After I received word from ---- (redacted) that DVA [David V. Aguilar] signed last night, I sent an email to Treasury attaching an electronic copy of the document for them to informally start reviewing the document and stating that the hard copy would be taken over there this morning. ---- (redacted) mentioned to me last night whether we wanted to take a risk with FR [Federal Register] and use auto pen. If a document does not contain an original signature, the Federal Register will reject it. If Chief Aguilar will be back today, I think we should wait as I don't want to have to tackle another hurdle when we deliver the document to the FR on 1/14/11."

A flurry of emails document the Chinese fire drill at CBP obtaining that signature, but the document did apparently get signed and delivered to Treasury sometime on the 5th of January. Treasury reviewed, signed and returned the document to CBP by January 11. That meant it was at Treasury for part of a six day window that included a weekend. In other words, Treasury had no more than three full work days to review the document and its implications. That is, three days to review a document that was formally described to them as "not significant". One can hardly fault Treasury under the circumstances for signing-off with the expectation that the change was staffed and found justified by CBP. In reality, the reason that Treasury was put in this impossible position is that CBP was negligent in processing the rule change that had been in their possession since November. They were not staffing the rule change, they were blissfully ignoring it. For example, one CBP email dated 5 January 2011 states:

"There will be a delay in getting the package over to Main Treasury this morning. I hope that we can get it to you later today. The document was taken over to CBP Front Office on 12/21/10 and it just sat. I had hoped to get this to Treasury well before the end of the year so that Tim [Timothy E. Skud] would have the document when he returned to work on January 3rd. Best laid plans have gone awry."

Another said: " It should not be difficult for Treasury to expedite this. They've seen quite a few of these things."

It is obvious from the FOIA released documents that the rule change was never actually reviewed for content, it was merely massaged, with apparent difficulty, through the various offices that needed to sign-off. The biggest issue and, aside from a couple grammatical comments, the only one discussed in the released FOIA documents was getting the designated reviewing officials in the office long enough to get a signature. There was no attempt whatever to solicit public comment for this rule change either at CBP or at Treasury. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553 (the APA) were ignored because the rule was arbitrarily designated by CBP or DOS as "Not Significant".

So, we have at hand an action that is classified as "not significant", and described by government bureaucrats as "plain vanilla rulemaking" and "pretty standard stuff". All it really did, in essence, was to cripple a 600-year-old avocation that has infinitely expanded our understanding and appreciation of past and distant cultures.

To put this all into perspective, let me summarize. A mid-level bureaucrat at DOS orchestrates the addition of coins to the Memorandum of Understanding with Italy after the Cultural Property Advisory Committee has already heard extensive comment from the public and voted to exempt coins. A politically appointed Assistant Secretary of State signs off on the MOU even though it ignores specific provisions of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act that only authorize the use of Memorandums of Understanding and consequent import restrictions in special cases. The enforcement of these import restrictions falls to CBP, which receives a Designated List prepared by DOS and essentially sits on it for more than a month. When the rule and new Designated List are finally sent to legal staff for review they are quickly approved and sent to the Treasury Department for their mandatory review. Treasury returns them in six days, which includes a weekend, and the rule change is announced in the Federal Register. It does not appear that CBP or Treasury reviewed or cared about the content of the change. They were only concerned with getting the signatures necessary to make the document legal. In effect, the decision of one bureaucrat at ECA went unchallenged through the entire government rule making process. This, unfortunately, has become the modus operandi at the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and not even legislators in Washington seem to have any significant influence over it. Bureaucracy has in this case become the enemy of the American people rather than their servant and the only people who appreciate the scope of this travesty are their victims. But then we already know that those victims are usually plain vanilla folks and not very significant, so why care? A rule usurping their rights is no big surprise, "They've seen quite a few of these things."

The Irrelevance of Fact and Law in the Bicameral Mind

2011-03-15T13:20:00.000-05:00

Anyone who has ever wondered how we, as a species, became cognitive beings should read the intriguing work of Professor Julian Jaynes. At the risk of oversimplifying, Jaynes saw within humans at about the time of the Trojan War a change in our way of processing thoughts that led to reason and deduction. Earlier humans, according to the Jaynes hypothesis, were driven by a bicameral mind that processed thoughts as auditory commands perceived as being from the "gods". That earlier state was seen as being similar to modern day schizophrenia, though it was of course a cultural norm at that stage of evolution. Indeed, Jaynes saw the "abnormal" schizophrenic today as merely a vestige of that earlier condition. The hypothesis is compelling and widely accepted. It is also thought provoking. There are roughly 24 million people worldwide who have been diagnosed with schizophrenia. There's no telling how many others suffer from the condition without diagnosis or lie somewhere on the genetic scale between their Trojan War ancestors and the most advanced state of evolution.

As the human cognitive process developed, so too did society and ultimately law. Where a literal "voice from the gods" may have guided one's actions three thousand years ago, the evolved human is guided today more by intuition and assessment. One might call that "common sense". Yet, even today, there is some vestige of that "voice of the gods" within most people (we're all a little bit schizophrenic). It is embodied within that personal faculty we think of as conscience. Regardless of one's religious or lack of religious beliefs, conscience is that silent voice that creates our individual sense of morality and ethics. Since all humans exist at some variable point of evolution within the species, that sense of conscience varies as well and its lack of uniformity is a hinderance to social interaction and development. The cognitive or common sense solution for any group of assembled humans is to create and enforce a system of codes or a "social contract" that governs their behavior. Of course that contract (law) will not be the same for every assembled group. As the size of the group increases and nations are formed the differences in national law can become significant and a source of conflict. Out of that comes a need and inevitable yearning for international law—but that clashes with the interests of nationalism.

As society evolves, we find the entire spectrum of genetic evolution debating on issues of control. From those who hear a voice from the gods, to those who hear their ethical conscience, to those who hear only the voice of law. Among the first of this group, law is irrelevant since the revelation is not to be challenged. To the second, the end always justifies the means even if law is perverted. To the latter, ethics have no place since they are a variable construct that lacks universal approbation. The Cultural Property War exemplifies this evolutionary conflict. It is a clash of thought processes as much as a clash of law and ethics and the prospect of the two extremes coming to a lasting agreement seems remote. If we have learned anything from the past three thousand years of experience, we should know that good laws and fair, effective enforcement are the hallmark of a successful society. It's the only way to keep all of the voices in line.

The Grand SLAM

2011-02-17T00:18:00.002-06:00

Mask of Ka-Nefer-Nefer
St. Louis Art Museum Photo

   In a world where many American museums have been tiptoeing through cultural property minefields, the St. Louis Art Museum has taken a heartwarming stand for sanity and rationality. Zahi Hawass has coveted the SLAM's Egyptian mummy mask of Ka-Nefer-Nefer for some time and has plenty of allies within the U.S. government and the halls of academia who would love to hand it over to him. But, the museum's vibrant and intrepid director, Brent Benjamin, has within the parlance of refined society told them in no uncertain terms where to shove their ambitions. In fact, the SLAM is seeking an injunction against government seizure of the remarkable artifact.
   The museum's argument is simple. There is no legal basis for repatriation. What more needs to be said? All of the emotional hand wringing and wailing from retentionists lined up at the cultural property nationalist trough seems to have been wasted on Mr. Benjamin.

   You have to know that this man is doing something right because S.A.F.E. called his appointment to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee "Outrageous". Actually, what is outrageous is the way his appointment was then circumvented by bureaucratic political maneuvering during the transition from the Bush to the Obama administration. Well, it probably was a blessing in disguise for Mr. Benjamin because his efforts to justly administer the law that enables that committee would have been an adventure in frustration. At the end of the day, it is law that will prevail. The lofty platitudes and appeals on "ethical" grounds are a lot of emotional claptrap. Mr. Benjamin apparently sees through that ideological smoke screen and has acted decisively in the interests of his patrons and by extension the whole of society in a global environment. He has earned my respect and I wish him and the SLAM well in their litigation.

Dancing with the Universe

2011-02-02T11:40:00.001-06:00

With kind permission of John Hooker

I'm sure that most are quite familiar with the infamous Wanborough Hoard of Atrebates coins. As the link here describes, it was a badly mishandled discovery which became a major impetus for the new Treasure Act to replace the old treasure trove laws. Pretty well every account of the hoard focuses only on the circumstances: a "packet" of the total was discovered; It was reported to a museum; At the inquest, the location was revealed in open court; There was an immediate "gold rush" of metal detectorists which wrecked a lot of the site; The police were called in and recovered some of the coins, but many thousands more entered the international market.

Apart from that, the best account of the hoard details are recorded in Colin Haselgrove, Iron Age Coinage in South-East England -- The Archaeological Context_, 2 Volumes, British Archaeological Reports, British Series 184, Oxford, 1987, a brilliant work that, ironically, seems to have been read by very few archaeologists who constantly talk about looting and the importance of context for everything. If you happen to be one of those archaeologists, it's probably best to preserve your ignorance because it paints a picture rather different from your Weltenshauung! It is also not an "easy read": heavy in data, I found it most useful to read it three times, cover-to-cover and in quick succession.

So much for the background, now on to the postmodernist bit:

Back in 1963-6, I was already very interested in British Celtic coins, "ancient British" as they were commonly called back then. I used to visit Seaby's in Great Portland St. on a regular basis. Often, I would ask if they had any ancient British coins. Most often, the answer was "No", but sometimes they would have a British tin coin, common Iceni unit or a cast AE Durotriges stater that I could afford. On a rare occasion, a gold stater that I could not afford. Once, I bought a corroded Coriosolite stater, which changed the direction of my life.

The commonest Wanborough coin was the silver unit of Epatticus, difficult to find back in the sixties. I think I recall that one would cost a few hundred pounds back then, but my 1976 Seaby's catalogue lists them at 150 pounds. The metal detector was already being used by 1976, but not by many -- still, I think it had had already started to reduce prices a little. The Wanborough hoard changed all that. I bought some of the Wanborough coins in Calgary (of course, not advertised as such) within a couple of years of the discovery. The price of that Epatticus was then about a hundred dollars for a mint-state example, with rough ones going for about half that. They are much more expensive now, probably mostly around the 1976 price again. Of course, inflation must come into play.

In 1966, I was earning the princely sum of seven pounds, ten shillings a week at a prestigious West End antique shop (Pearl Cross, St. Martin's Court) as the shop's young "gopher". I had been offered the job not long after I left school. I got home, one day, from my first job at Southend Airport at the age of fifteen and my mother told me that a man had phoned to ask if I would be interested in working for him in London at an antique shop. I had never met him, and was unfamiliar with the shop, although I had visited a couple of shops in the adjacent Cecil Court. Someone must have told them about me, but no one in Cecil Court had my address, so it was quite the mystery. I got the job at once, and when my father dragged me off to live in western Canada in 1966 I got the most glowing letter of reference from my former employer. Useless, though, because I was too young to be "bonded" at a jewelry store here at the time (jewelry, silver and clocks was -- and still is, Pearl Cross's specialty)

My time at Pearl Cross was life-forming. I got to meet some of London's greatest craftsmen, and often got to see them work. Being the "gopher", I was always dismantling clocks and taking them and other things to various restorers, metal-smiths, enamelers, platers, and so on. They all liked me because I was visibly impressed with their skills. I also worked in the shop and its customers were unlike anyone I had ever known. One of the best customers was Marius Goring, They told me he lived at Hampton Court and was acquainted with Her Majesty. He always wore a duffle coat and scuffed brown shoes, and drove an old Humber. The only clues to his eminence were his five carat diamond ring and his hand-made Havana cigars. There was Princess Marina, who always made a grand entrance -- all furs and diamonds, and of course, all manner of theatre people like some of the cast of Lionel Bart's Oliver! which was playing at the New Theatre across the court. I used to often buy books at Marks & Co. around the corner, and I like to think that, once in a while, while I was browsing in the shop, Frank Doel was in the back corresponding with Helene Hanff in New York City.

My first experience with "provenance" came when, as part of my apprenticeship, I was taken on a buying trip one evening to a house in North London. The lady of the house wanted to sell some of her husband's effects just after his death. He had known the Emperor of Japan and once, when walking with the Emperor in his garden, had picked up a pebble from the path as a souvenir. The Emperor told him that he was not allowed to do such a thing and took it from him. Just before the man left Japan, the Emperor presented him with a silver dish, duly inscribed as a gift from the Emperor. At the centre of the dish was set that same pebble! The lady insisted that we should have the engraving removed before we sold it. The dish never found its way into stock. I suspect that my boss took it home with him.

Life became quite different for me than it had been when I was a young street-urchin living in Palace Gates Road in Wood Green. There was little history in that part of London. My friends and I had a little "gang" and our entertainment was distinctly on the wrong side of the law -- but not oppressively so, like some of the older guys.

Once, at the age of twelve, I was walking through Alexandra Park with my girlfriend, Diana, when we encountered about half of the Muswell Hill Mob. I was rather concerned about this. I knew that I might have to "defend Diana's honour" and that could end up very bad for me! Fortunately, they were surprisingly civil, chatting with us for a while before waving goodbye and heading off to do whatever evil they had planned for the day.

I was what is now called a "gifted child", but back then -- according to one headmaster as he dragged me from my class, cane in hand, a "lazy bastard". I had learned to read at the age of three and was devouring teen novels by four. At seven, it was Robert Louis Stevenson, a bit of Dickens, and my favorite of all: Jack London, who lives in my soul to this day. At school, I excelled in what interested me and ignored everything else. Think of a scaled-down version of "Good Will Hunting". I despised mediocrity, it was either all or nothing. I didn't like the "good kids", they got tolerably good marks in everything, were teacher's pets, spouted things like trained parrots, and undoubtedly left school for well-paid, pedestrian jobs. Worse still, some of them probably became academics of the gray majority -- builders of the boxes that I like to think outside of (note the sentence construction -- I also love to start sentences with "And" and "But").

But what of these boxes of which I speak? Where is Derrida when we need him (Do we ever need Derrida?) Once, at the age of eleven, I was walking with a friend back along the railway cutting that ran from the abandoned railway station behind Alexandra Palace. We had been wandering about Highgate Wood generally doing nothing. In the railway ballast left after the tracks had been removed, we found a few fossils and took them with us. As we entered Wood Green we saw a man working on his racing motorcycle and stopped to admire the bike and chat a bit. In the course of the conversation, I showed him the fossils and asked him if he knew anything about such things. He didn't, but then he said something that changed my life from that moment on. He said, "Everything that you would want to know is in a book somewhere". Of course, the son of a bitch had lied to me, but at that time, and until much later, I didn't know that.

Books were entertainment, a refuge from drab Wood Green, the sound of dripping taps, and the clink of tea cups in boring relative's living rooms as the clock measured time oh! so slowly -- tick, tick, tick. I met him again after that summer, at my new school. He was my arithmetic teacher! Of course, arithmetic was boring too, so I ignored it. Many decades later, I met my wife. She was also a teacher, and I saw her inspire kids in just the same way (We do need these sort of people).

And so, I bid farewell to Jack London and resumed my studies in the non-fiction section of the library. These studies had been abandoned at the age of four when I was forced to go to school -- what cruelty that was! I never forgave my parents. I had been very busy mentally cataloging the insect life in my back garden, but there was something else there too -- the detritus of human existence, bits of broken pottery in the earth that I had disturbed to see what the ants would do. I read it all, correctly. Now, I would call it a natural "vanitas". I saw our existence as temporary, we could so easily be forgotten and most of us will be forgotten. I asked my mother, "When I die, who will my next mother be?" She freaked.

In London, back in the sixties, and after I left the prison called School, the class system was rather different than it is now -- there was a sort of "noblesse oblige" that does not exist much today. Regardless of your original social station in life, if you had that that certain spark -- a passion, if you will, it was recognized by those at the opposite end of your social and educational spectrum who shared the same passion, and nurtured.

I walked into "Pearl Cross" one morning. Everything about the shop was much as I had left it the previous day that I had been there. Keith greeted me at the door, he was my immediate superior. The boss was not around. "We were just talking about you last week", he said. It was 1999 and I had last walked out of that shop more than thirty years earlier. I was sorry that Dennis Strange -- my old boss, was not around. He was still alive, though, and came in twice a week. I returned to visit him. He looked just like his father had looked back when. White haired, he was a picture of bliss: someone who had spent his whole life doing what he loved. It was a terrific reunion, but then some gray people came in to measure the place -- his 99 year lease was about to run out. It had been in his family all of that time.

I said a fond goodbye and left to meet Joe for lunch. Joe Gillespie is an ex web guru and designer. A couple of years earlier, he had joined myself and my family for a holiday at the Sylvia Hotel in Vancouver, British Columbia. He was impressed by that city, its architecture and its polite and helpful people. "London is not like this anymore", he had lamented at the time. Joe's first customer in London, as a photographer and advertising designer many years earlier, was Camilla Parker Bowles who, at that time, owned a boutique in Chelsea. Joe is an unassuming and soft-spoken gray-haired man who came from a very poor background in Northern Ireland. His subsequent fame and fortune had never ruined him -- the most delightful person you would wish to meet and a mentor to many young web designers. I think he has finally retired completely, but in 1999, he just retained his two favorite clients, for whom he created their product CD's: Sony and Canon. He said he loved to work with the Japanese, their word was their bond, and he never needed a legal contract with them. They paid him handsomely, and his bag contained a couple of their products he was given for his work - as yet not released.

After lunch, I dragged him off to Spinks as I had brought a little Langyao bottle-vase of rare form that I thought I might need to sell. I was patient with the woman at Spinks. At first, she did not recognize it entirely. Its crackle was subtler than most you see about, and it did not have the celadon base of the inferior varieties, but one of fine white glaze with just a couple of little "pin-holes" deliberate, so that it would not be perfect. It was liver-shaped with a carefully trimmed foot rim, unctuous to the touch. It had the smallest layer of white at the top. It was Imperial ware -- and of course, because of its blood and liver connotations, did not have the Emperor's mark. Spinks only wanted to pay me 800 pounds for it, so we left. I still have it, and it, or the money it gets will go to my daughter.

Joe had been sitting, bolt upright and silent, in a chair near the door of that department all this time. As we left the building, he gave this huge sigh of relief. "I was too afraid to open my mouth!" he said. "Why?" I asked. "I didn't want her to hear my accent", he replied. I was shocked -- this famous and talented man was intimidated by his imagined class. I apologized to him, saying that it was not my intention to make him so uncomfortable and had no idea that this would happen. We went to the closest pub!

A few days later, I was back in Oxford, where I had been staying in order to inform the Institute of Archaeology that I would design and my wife would build an on-line Celtic Coin Index. I was walking down a narrow street, behind a professor who was wearing robes and seemed in a hurry to get somewhere. An Indian or Pakistani woman was walking fairly slowly in front of us with a toddler in tow. I heard the professor say "Get out of my way, woman!" I was shocked at this, and before I could think of something particularly nasty to say to him, he was gone. I understood why Joe had reacted the way he did.

So why all of this in an article about the Wanborough hoard? If one takes a good postmodernist approach it is all very important. What I see through my eyes is not what is, neither is what you see through your eyes. Our observations are as much ourselves as what we observe. It is a dance where we lead and the universe follows. Sometimes, a number of us get together within a temporary, and carefully constructed matrix and we build ourselves a box to contain what we create, together. If we are not vigilant, that box starts to look like reality, and it captures us. We lose our freedom and what is just a box can seem like the whole universe. We can see other boxes, though, but from within our box they look just like other boxes. Snug, smug and secure within our own box we think that we are looking out from reality, and that the contents of all of those other boxes contain things that are not reality.

What is the universe's response to this? It forgets us, because we can no longer dance with it -- we are stuck in a box! Frustrated, by this, the universe then does its best to dance with all of the boxes together. It finds this quite difficult to do and often has to eliminate a few boxes who can't keep step with the rest. But at best, it is a clumsy dance full of trial and error. We call this evolution. Those of us who are vigilant quickly step outside of our box and say "I am here!" and the universe either starts to dance with us or at least marks us down on its dance card for later.

So what becomes of those people who still think that their own box is the entire universe? They die, turn to dust, and are forgotten. What they created for themselves starts to fragment, and eventually becomes little potsherds in a boy's back garden in Palace Gates Road, Wood Green. The boy is more interested in the insects that crawl over them. The insects contain life. One day, and to his horror, his parents place him in box called School, and if he does not get out of that box in time it will capture him and he too, will be forgotten. When he escapes from his box, he plants a tree, raises a child, and writes a book. Problem solved? Well, not exactly.

The universe, with gratitude, accepts the gift of the tree and they contribute to each other. The child is also similarly favored, providing that her father has not tried to make her just part of his box that he has just left. She too, must dance with the universe in her own way, being wary of others who might place her in a box later. That danger is ever present and might manifest itself anywhere -- in the form, perhaps, of an Oxford professor in hurry to attend a ceremony in his own box. If she is lucky, she will encounter someone who has rejected the box that others have placed them inside and thus step out into the sunshine nurtured by someone like a teacher fixing his bike on the street, or Joe, taking a fledgling designer under his wing and allowing them to learn while being themselves. All of these nurturers are agents of the universe, and they are dancing too.

The orchestra takes a break, and the universe returns to her table and reaches for the book, or perhaps views a painting, or listens to someone's idea. There are so many things that she does when the music pauses. If she sees that the book, painting or idea is original, this pleases her, and she emits something we do not understand, but it gives our bodies' brain certain chemicals that makes us feel wonderful and endorphins that ease our physical pain and exhaustion from all of the creating we have been doing. However, if she finds no originality and discovers that it is just another expression of an old and tired out box that someone else had created a long time ago, then it, too, gets trashed and turns to dust. Even if it survives, say, as a book in a library somewhere, no one ever opens it covers and looks inside. Even if the book's original idea becomes commonplace, people still will look at again to see where they have come from and its author achieves a sort of immortality within the universe. The spirit of Plato, Mozart, Darwin, Cezanne and Einstein will last as long as humans walk the earth. They have become part of the universe too.

But what of those people who, having stepped outside of their box turn their own creation into another box and then retreat back inside where they feel it must be comfortable? The universe, slowly, starts to turn off the taps of those lovely chemicals until the flow stops. They must then make their own chemicals, with drugs, alcohol or other worldly pleasures of some form -- even apathy can become a pleasure. The problem is it does less and less and demands more and more and it becomes a very strong box indeed, one that the universe will cast aside with a casual sweep of her hand.

Let's look inside one of the boxes marked "Wanborough Hoard", the very box I gave a link to at the start of this article. Why this one among all of the other boxes marked "Wanborough Hoard"? Because its author, Suzie Thomas is still very much alive within her box and she might break free of it at anytime. She sees a few things that others have not, but she has not quite lost all of her shackles yet.

The universe reads "commodification" and giggles -- that is the door to this box! The universe also smiles kindly at the touches of humanity, at least some people are not being cast aside.

What did the Wanborough situation create? New laws to prevent the same thing happening again? Sure, but that is just box building again. A box stays built the way it is, you can tell this easily -- it doesn't change, or it becomes more so and even more solid. The universe only rewards creativity. There has to be newness in the isness or its entropy for all!

The paper posits a stone that has been tossed into a pond but has made no ripples, or at best, has ripples that travel only a short distance and then stops! Come on Suzie, get that brain working! This is not how the universe works. If you really want that sort of thing, it can only take place within a box obeying very different rules to those that the universe is operating with. Yes, you can do that, but once you take it outside the box it loses corporeality. Inside the box, it has substance, but remember what the universe does with boxes that lose step and get confused by the rhythm. You really don't want to do that. The universe and Bob Dylan are both saying "That he not busy being born is busy dying"

So where did those ripples really go -- you know they are still traveling, right? The universe is a very big pond indeed.

The Wanborough hoard, at least the parts of it that got away, went around the world and worked their magic. People started buying metal detectors to find even more, and what do you know? They did! The little coins inspired me and many more, Some of us started to collect and write about them. The literature and the research ballooned. Before all of that there were only a few people working on this stuff -- Sir John Evans in the nineteenth century, then much later, Commander Mack, and the very great Derek Allen who was a friend of two friends of mine, a smallish assortment of lesser known scholars and a few collectors who could wait for the occasional British Celtic coin to show up at Seaby's. I was one of the latter before I climbed on to the shoulders of a few giants. It was too small a flow to reach escape velocity, you need much larger numbers for that sort of thing.

Wanborough was our salvation. The commodification of Celtic coins eventually created even conferences about the things! Evans would have shaken his head in disbelief if someone would have predicted such a thing to him.

So what would have happened if the restrictions preceded the hoard? The site would have been excavated and the report, if it was ever published, might have been read by a few inhabitants of boxes, but two weeks later, the world would have forgotten about it and the hoard, itself, would be in its own box in the bowels of the British Museum, soon to be forgotten. A few might have gone on display as entertainment, or something to look at before the rain stopped.

Don't believe me? I have worked at a museum. Get permission to randomly look in their storage cabinets and boxes to see what you might find. It will amaze you to see what has been forgotten and is sitting in boxes while the universe dances on.

Do you want proof of what I say? go here:

http://www.celticcoins.ca/pubs.php

This is the bibliography that Philip de Jersey constructed at Oxford for the Celtic Coin Index and was migrated to the online version. Analyze the dates and their frequency, plot it out and compare it to metal detector use. People found coins, they asked about them, Those they asked started to look more and write. Some of the collectors turned to scholars and wrote more. This is a frozen view -- it stops in about 2002. It is even bigger now.

This is what those commodification ripples achieved and they are still moving. This is how the universe works -- growth, expansion and small deaths along the way, but it is surviving. Conservationists are trying to freeze time, but it will all turn to dust for them. We need death to continue life. Things evolve only outside of the boxes that people try to create to save them. Inside the boxes are just forgotten bodies.

People don't like this -- it scares them. Some academics see commodification as a bad thing. A few of them look at coin dealers as maggots, but without maggots, dust mites, and dung beetles we would soon be buried in our own muck. They do not know that many of these coin dealers and collectors sometimes make amazing discoveries -- they are dancing with the universe. Even more of them are inspiring others to take to the floor.

It is so poetic: through variety and recombination, we avoid entropy. Look at the dna molecule, one of the universe's greatest hits that she loves to dance to because it is ever-changing. It is a sestina that contains only four different words, and it keeps changing. How amazing is that?

A Drone in CGCGCC

2011-02-02T00:57:00.001-06:00

"Say what?" That must be the phrase of the day on Beacon Street as huddled masses of archaeological community activists scratch their heads in dismay over the week's events in Cairo.

First, we heard of dreadful vandalism and looting at the National Museum and other sites around Egypt. Headlines reported the heads being ripped off of mummies and artifacts being destroyed. On its Daily News web page, National Geographic boldly asserted that "Looting attempts at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo and theft at other historic sites have underscored the vulnerability of 'a cultural legacy that belongs to mankind.' Can the country's antiquities and sites be protected?" Archaeologists immediately reacted, in true military contingency plan fashion, with suggestions for a U.S. government response. That response, no surprise to seasoned followers of the AIA methodology, would be centered around emergency import restrictions. The AIA and five other "preservationist" organizations called for U.S. law enforcement agencies to "be on the alert for the next several months" for Egyptian antiquities (as if there were some U.S. collector conspiracy to empty the Cairo Museum through a staged overthrow of the government). Ricardo St. Hilaire proposed that Congress pass "An Emergency Protection for Egyptian Cultural Antiquities Act". Dr. Larry Rothsfield echoed that call on the S.A.F.E. website and encouraged Egypt to request import restrictions via a MOU through the State Department.

Scene 2: Suddenly, the storm clouds part and a bright ray of light shines upon the Great Pyramid -- all is well! Zahi Hawass has been named Minister of Antiquities and the problems of Egypt are so much smaller than they were just days ago. Everything is Safe! "The people in the streets have to give this government an opportunity to change," Hawass said cheerfully. "Beautiful things happened in the last five days."

OK...... nice spin, but what about the call for import restrictions? Yesterday they were crucial and Congress was being urged to act. Today, there isn't any problem. That sort of takes the wind off shore in Boston as far as justifications go. But, knowing how these things tend to go, I expect that the hype will be strummed loud and long. American intervention in world cultural affairs is becoming a tedious drone of self-righteousness and politically correct indignation. Like a guitar tuned in Open C5, it has a very flat edge to it. Maybe we should mind our own business?

Archaeologist Alexander Joffe hit the nail on the head in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed on Tuesday. The influential professor summed up his critical analysis of the current situation by saying "The heritage of Egypt on Egyptian soil belongs to Egyptians and should remain in Egypt. It is up to the Egyptian people to decide whether to preserve or destroy it." This amazingly rational statement is particularly poignant in the context of Joffe's accompanying argument that opposes repatriation of objects already outside of Egypt. Joffe is well remembered for his "Museum Madness in Baghdad" published in 2004. In that Middle East Quarterly paper he exposed and criticized the wild exaggerations of archaeologists and Baghdad Museum officials that ultimately led to emergency U.S. import restrictions (and did nothing to address the real looting issues in Iraq). Those restrictions have yet to be lifted even though their congressionally mandated sunset has long since passed. It's ironic that he (and we) should have yet another opportunity to weigh in on the same sort of sensationalism.

An Open Letter to “Indiana Jones”

2011-01-30T23:05:00.000-06:00

Dear Dr. Jones,

As a General Trustee of the Archaeological Institute of America, you must be well acquainted with the AIA position on cultural property. Your fans will recall those immortal words from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade -- "It belongs in a museum." That might well be true for the Ark of the Covenant, but did you really mean to say that EVERY cultural object, from broken pottery to long-lost pocket change, belongs in a nationalist state museum near the place it was found? I rather doubt it, but that is precisely what your esteemed AIA colleagues lobby for and exactly what their "friends" in the U.S. State Department (DOS) are delivering through a stream of bilateral agreements with cultural property nationalist countries. Make no mistake, we're not just talking about rare objects from the dawn of civilization, but about ordinary objects that can range from musical instruments to postage stamps. Under the UNESCO Resolution of 1970, that cultural nationalists consider their Bible, millions of common objects made at the beginning of the 20^th century are already classified as "cultural property" and are subject to import and/or export controls.

Think about it – a mid-level bureaucrat working for the U.S. Government essentially decides whether an American citizen can legally import something as mundane as a postage stamp. Crazy idea? Orwellian? Yes, it is, and they would have thought so in 1911 as well -- but similar restrictions have already been imposed here in the "land of the free." Contrary to its own law, the American government is restricting the importation of minor utilitarian objects, including common coins, under the guise of protecting cultural property.

Why? Because archaeologists believe that trade encourages looting? What would the State Department gain by restricting trade in old coins and the like? Is this some sort of quid pro quo for diplomats to repay favors from nationalist governments--including some who deny personal property rights and even basic human rights to their own citizens? What do archaeologists gain for their support of these nationalist regimes? Approval of excavation permits in foreign lands? Why do these cultural property nationalist countries even care about coins? The evidence seems to suggest that some probably don’t – that they didn’t even ask for restrictions that have been imposed by the State Department on coins. It's all quite convoluted and masked behind a wall of secrecy.

There are a lot of unanswered questions here Dr. Jones. Maybe it's time for you to ask some serious questions of your own in those closed-door board sessions and consider whether you really do want to lend your fame and fortune to the ideological warfare that the AIA and DOS are waging on the rest of America.

Planning a vacation in Italy? -- DON'T

2011-01-19T16:25:00.000-06:00

Today, the U.S. State Department (DOS) imposed import restrictions on numerous types of ancient coins cast or struck in Italy. Although the clear majority of public comment on the Memorandum Of Understanding with Italy was in opposition to restrictions on coins from any period, DOS sided, as usual, with the views of the archaeological community and a nationalist foreign government. Ironically, this announcement comes on the heels of Legislative and Executive Branch appeals for less government regulation, especially of small businesses, where President Obama called some restrictions "just plain dumb". At the same time, appeals to DOS from a bipartisan group of twelve U.S. Representatives to exempt coins from any MOU extension with Italy went unheeded. Obviously, the communication from government's highest levels has not trickled down through the morass of bureaucracy at the State Department, where they continue to thumb their nose at critics of their policies—including elected officials. Although technically under the direction of the president, DOS has traditionally marched to the beat of its own drum.

The trade in licit coins of the types covered in this MOU will certainly be repressed because of the widespread absence of provenance information for coins and other minor antiquities in general—never before required, but now instantly mandatory. Maintaining provenance records for every coin struck in the history of civilization is about as useful and realistic as counting raindrops in a thunderstorm. While the impetus for restrictions of trade in objects like ancient coins is purportedly for preservation of cultural information, the actual effect of these restrictions is to repress a natural interest by Americans in cultures from abroad, to create hurdles for independent scholarship, and to cloister academic activity within a narrow and ideological special interest group that has the undivided attention of the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center. All that would have been necessary to comply with the governing law and to protect the interests of Italy and the archaeological community was to impose import restrictions on coins "first found" in Italy — as CPIA clearly and specifically mandates. Instead, it has been the choice of DOS to use the phrase "of Italian type", which applies as well to coins first found outside of Italy. The distinction is enormous in that it not only criminalizes countless "orphans" that do not have recorded provenance but have been in the trade for centuries, it also shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused when a coin is detained at Customs. This is not some mere semantic issue, it is a purposeful phrasing with full knowledge of its impact and ambiguity.

In recent months, the media has been inundated with reports of a pandemic in Italy where cultural property has been literally crumbling from neglect and mismanagement. Countless genuine treasures from the past have been lost forever. The government is simply unable to deal with the scope of preserving the millions of objects already in its possession—let alone the new finds every time a new road or building is built. Yet, the very thought of private citizens owning, cherishing and preserving ancient objects is anathema to the intelligentsia of Italy and apparently of America. The elitist attitude of professional stewards, and their self-serving protectionism, is medieval. Yet, they claim a peremptory right of total control over objects from the past. After all, how could a stupid peasant adequately study and preserve anything? It must be in the best interests of Society (with a capital S) that they "save antiquity for everyone." No? Well, in my considerable experience as an observer, I have come to realize that diplomas and intelligence are not necessarily related.

As a solution to their cultural property woes, Italy is now contemplating commercialization of its precious cultural heritage in true Casino and McDonald's fashion. I wonder if they'll pass out an ancient coin with every McFlurry? (Offer does not apply to residents of the U.S.). They must think this approach is preferable to allowing private stewardship. After all, Casinos make enough money to hire more "experts" (like the ones they have now). All this rhetoric about the preservation of priceless artifacts is at best disingenuous. Cultural Property policies in Italy are all about control and job protection and everyone knows that. So, if you're planning a trip to Italy to see all those fantastic sites, think about the MOU and what it does to your rights. Do you really want to reward Italy for their intransigence? Maybe you'd do better to visit Britain where they have a few treasures as well, along with a law and an attitude that actually does help preserve our knowledge of the past.

Dealing with the inconsequential

2011-01-14T16:14:00.000-06:00

Salmaan Taseer once said "I'm not made from a wood that burns easily". I feel genuine empathy with a man of such feeling and it seems that he encapsulated some of my own thoughts in this simple but profound statement. Especially in the past five or six years, every word that I utter publicly, and particularly on this blog or other internet venues, has been jumped on with a vengeance by those archaeobloggers espousing a contrary point of view. I suppose their need is great and my words are like a fix to a junkie who lives for nothing else. Early on, I felt compelled to lash back and soothe my indignation. These days, having become inured to their slings and arrows, I simply discount them as inconsequential. They have nothing of real consequence to offer the world, no real contributions, certainly no plan for a way forward, and therefore have no relevance to society. Think about it, for all of the ink spilled what have they achieved? It is pointless to become upset by, or try to counter, the babblings of a marginalized fool. The best approach is simply to consider the source and move on. One might think this is a sad situation, but frankly I believe that we create our own stations in life and we either have to live with who we are or change. With rabid ideologues, change is an unlikely scenario. Therefore, we can expect that they will remain mired in their little mini-worlds and that their egos will continue to be soothed by their own self-stroking. So, the best way to deal with these comic figures who long to be on the world stage is to laugh at their performances and recognize their lack of influence in the greater scheme of things.

How Government Works

2011-01-13T18:12:00.000-06:00

We all learned in 8th grade Civics class how government works. At least we thought we did. The utopian idea that the populace should elect representatives sensitive to their specific needs and rely on those elected officials to serve their interests as a part of the nation's government sounds very appealing. Sadly, more than a few Americans have died defending that notion, while newly-elected officials are likely to discover a quiet and different reality once they unpack their bags in Washington. Don't misunderstand, I believe that most elected officials do genuinely feel a responsibility to their constituents and are sincere in their desire to help. Every elected senator or representative has some sort of direct contact with folks back home via "listening post", "kitchen table" or "town hall" meetings. They WILL listen to problems presented and WILL promise to look into any rational grievance (even some not so rational). Typically, problem areas highlighted in this fashion relate to some branch of government that has failed to act in a way that someone or some group anticipates they should act. The way that these concerns are addressed varies depending on their potential impact and on the number of people affected.

In many (perhaps most) cases, a telephone call from a junior legislative aide is sufficient to move the wheels of government in a direction that favors resolution of the real or perceived problem. But, what about those cases where an aggrieved constituency runs head on into firmly entrenched ideological bureaucrats? A telephone call of that nature is not going to move the mountain. The "fourth branch" of government, the bureaucracy, is a formidable player in Washington infighting and some agencies, like the State Department, have developed a very efficient, savvy and fearless corps of bureaucrats. They differ from the elected official in the sense that they have no specific constituency, are extremely secure in their positions and have no particular loyalty to the general population. They are often fixated on creating and maintaining agency control over areas of special interest rather than public interest.

When stonewalled by a member of the bureaucracy (and yes, they do get stonewalled too), the next logical step for a legislator is to attempt to raise the issue at a more formal and somewhat higher level. Of course this means a greater expenditure of resources and elected officials are rarely overstaffed or overfunded. Simple mathematics winnows out the chaff from the wheat and practical considerations dictate which issues will move forward. A personal query (often a visit) from a representative or senator's senior staff to an agency department head will sometimes break or slow the juggernaut. Indeed, this is the point when the rubber meets the road, as the old expression goes. There is either traction or there is a serious problem building.

Failing success at that level, an elected official is faced with raising an issue directly to the Secretary of the unresponsive Department. This is obviously not the desired route, since people at a relatively high pay grade (with lots of responsibilities) are becoming engaged. Consequently, an issue only goes this path if the elected official strongly believes in the validity of the aggrieved party's claim and also believes that a resolution is possible and necessary. In some cases, more that one elected official might sign on to a joint letter of concern. In one recent case, twelve congressional representatives signed such a letter to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton asking for a review of actions by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs regarding import restrictions on coins from Cyprus and China. The DOS response, signed by the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs (not even "for" Secretary Clinton), was telling in that it parroted the party line of ECA and ignored the stated congressional concerns. So, what happens next?

Congress obviously has the means to impose its will when necessary, but rarely does a matter of limited national scope lead to an open confrontation between the legislative and executive branches of government. It would seem in this case that the bureaucracy is counting on that axiom. Is the right to collect ancient coins without repressive governmental controls a matter of paramount national interest? Well, maybe in a way it is. Coins may well be the straw that broke the camel's back in a growing milieu of over-regulation, restriction of personal freedoms, repression of property rights, and the loss of constitutional guarantees like the presumption of innocence. Where do our elected representatives take a stand for freedom? No better place than here and now. More and more of them seem to realize that an innocuous hobby willing to challenge the U.S. government in Federal Court, on two fronts no less, must have the strength of conviction that only comes from a righteous position. Kudos to those representatives who signed the "Ryan Letter" and congratulations to those newly sworn members of congress who campaigned on exactly the sorts of issues mentioned above.

Merry Christmas

2010-12-25T13:48:00.000-06:00

To those celebrating Christmas today, my wife Doris and I wish the best for a peaceful and joyous time with warm memories of the past and new ones being made at this very moment. On occasions like this we can and should put aside any philosophical differences and enjoy the opportunity to focus on the really important things in life.

Greetings to all,

Wayne and Doris Sayles

The Yin and Yang: Part 2

2010-11-24T10:25:00.002-06:00

The U.S. State Department web site reports today that its Cultural Heritage Center has been recognized by the U.S. National Committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (US/ICOMOS) with its first annual Heritage Award for International Excellence. The award was accompanied by a Certificate of Appreciation to Cultural Heritage Center staff from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Ironically, this public recognition comes on the heels of a 12-member bipartisan letter to Secretary Clinton expressing congressional concern about a history of activities within the Cultural Heritage Center "that appear to undermine the legislative intent of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act."

The incongruity exemplifies a long-standing disparity of views within the realm of cultural property management today. Meanwhile, the numismatic world awaits a decision on the request from Italy for extension and expansion of the existing Memorandum of Understanding, and on the request from Greece for a Memorandum of Understanding that would potentially include restrictions on the importation of ancient Greek coins into the United States.

The ACCG has opposed both the Italian and Greek requests on several grounds, including points of law, and is challenging earlier MOUs with Cyprus and China in U.S. District Court.

How old is "Ancient"?

2010-11-10T22:24:00.003-06:00

The classification of cultures generally tracks along two interrelated lines: chronological and geographical. For centuries, coin collectors struggled with the lack of a coherent system for cataloguing the vast array of issues from antiquity through the modern era. Joseph Eckhel (1737-1798), a secularized Jesuit abbot who served as numismatist to the imperial court of the Holy Roman Empire, devised a system for arranging coins geographically that is still in use today. This system basically records coins in a progression beginning at the northwest quadrant of the Mediterranean basin and continuing from west to east, then south through the Levant and from east to west through northern Africa. Though far from perfect, nobody has yet devised a better approach for non-Roman coins. The classification of coins and cultures into chronological divisions is far more complex than the Echkel scheme.

Chronologically, the primary divisions of coinage are almost universally accepted as being Ancient, Medieval and Modern. Within the United States, collectors tend to separate U.S. coins from the modern coins of other nations by referring to the latter as "World Coins." Coins in the West were first struck in Western Anatolia during the 7th century BC. The transition point between ancient and medieval is more difficult to date. Some would argue that the end of the ancient period is coincident with the fall of Rome in AD 476. Others choose the accession of Anastasius I in AD 491 as the transition point. But, almost everyone who collects "Byzantine" coins thinks of them as being "ancient" even though they start with the accession of Anastasius and end in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople. Likewise, coins struck in India and Central Asia are typically thought of as ancient up to the Islamic conquests, which did not happen at a single point in time. Further complicating the chronological classification, coins of the post-Roman era in western Europe (e.g. Spain, Gaul, Britain and Germany) from as early as the sixth century AD are thought of by many as 'Medieval". In fact, by the time of Constantinople's fall, some coinage in western Europe is already being thought of by collectors and scholars as falling into the "Modern" or "World" classification. The incongruity is difficult to understand and even more difficult to explain to a new collector.

From a purely practical point of view, the distinction may not be all that important. After all, a rose is a rose.... But, to a cataloguer it is frequently a conundrum. Perhaps the next Joseph Eckhel is reading these lines right now and conjuring up a system that will allow for the vastly differing cultural environments and reshape our definitions in a way that seems sensible.

The Whole Cultural Record

2010-10-28T18:04:00.007-05:00

In the latest issue of Archaeology magazine (Nov-Dec 2010) AIA President Brian Rose proposes an intriguing professional goal, saying — "We must preserve the whole cultural record." By "We", I presume that he means archaeologists, since nobody else on the planet would dare to dream so big. We need not guess about what he means by the "whole" record. Dr. Rose decries a series of events from the Damnatio Memoriae of Nero to the anti-Saddam activities of president day Iraqis and views a panoply of destructive events in history as examples of "Iconoclasm". He makes the interesting statement that "For me, as an archaeologist, there is no excuse for the destruction of cultural property..." he goes on to say "We may never be able to temper the passion for destruction, but we can at least situate those passions in historical perspective and ensure that today’s historical evidence will still be here tomorrow."

The logic itself escapes me because the "iconoclastic" events mentioned were in themselves cultural acts and just as historical and important as the events they reacted to. Deplorable and despicable as their destruction may have been, are the empty niches of the Bamiyan Buddhas any less a cultural record than the statues that once stood there? His statement is all the more remarkable since some archaeologists have openly advocated destroying cultural property recovered from their excavations, rather than allowing it to fall into private collector hands—and who in fact followed through with the deed.

How, I have to wonder, could everything listed in the UNESCO resolution as "cultural property" be stewarded by archaeologists ad aeternum? Here is the laundry list of items so defined in that resolution—I've posted it before, but it's worth another look:

(a) Rare collections and specimens of fauna, flora, minerals and anatomy, and objects of palaeontological interest;

(b) property relating to history, including the history of science and technology and military and social history, to the life of national leaders, thinkers, scientists and artist and to events of national importance;

(c) products of archaeological excavations (including regular and clandestine)
or of archaeological discoveries ;

(d) elements of artistic or historical monuments or archaeological sites which have been dismembered;

(e) antiquities more than one hundred years old, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals;

(f) objects of ethnological interest;

(g) property of artistic interest, such as:

(i) pictures, paintings and drawings produced entirely by hand on any support and in any material (excluding industrial designs and manu-factured articles decorated by hand);

(ii) original works of statuary art and sculpture in any material;

(iii) original engravings, prints and lithographs ;

(iv) original artistic assemblages and montages in any material;

(h) rare manuscripts and incunabula, old books, documents and publications of special interest (historical, artistic, scientific, literary, etc.) singly or in collections ;

(i) postage, revenue and similar stamps, singly or in collections;

(j) archives, including sound, photographic and cinematographic archives;

(k) articles of furniture more than one hundred years old and old musical instruments.

It's a sobering thought. If none of the items listed above are ever destroyed, nor preserved in private hands, and each year the 100 year rolling window adds another layer of qualifying objects, then global warming will quickly become a very small issue in comparison to the space problem at institutional repositories. Of course, the notion of saving "everything" is so preposterous that we automatically assume that Dr. Rose does not really mean what he said. What then does he mean? One is tempted to conclude that he means any object within this vast group can at will be considered cultural property and therefore be placed under state controls. That quickly leads to the obvious follow-on: Who shall decide what is significant and "on the list" at any point in time? We all know the answer to that question — it shall be vested within the authority and power of the state. And who shall exercise that authority and power? The ever-benevolent and omniscient bureaucracy.

This scenario seems vaguely reminiscent of governmental models that permeated the mid 20th century and whose benevolence and wisdom wreaked havoc upon the world at large. They were called "Nationalists" and the common thread among them was total state dominance over people and property. I really doubt that this is what Dr. Rose advocates, and he probably meant to imply something other than what leaps boldly from the page. Still, we have little choice but to take the words of an esteemed academic at face value. It would be infinitely better for society if the past were preserved as a cooperative venture of private and public entities. In my view, acknowledging private collectors as legitimate stewards of the past makes considerably more sense than trying to build enough institutional warehouses to store every cultural object found around the world—or in the alternative destroying them.

Perhaps Dr. Rose will weigh in on this and enlighten the discussion.

The Yin and Yang

2010-10-14T21:10:00.004-05:00

This week I was treated to a smorgasbord of views on cultural property from members of the archaeological and collecting communities.

On Tuesday morning, I listened with interest to the presentations of several archaeologists at the U.S. State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) in Washington, DC. This was my fifth appearance at a CPAC hearing in as many years. In every case, the general tenor of oral comments by public presenters has reflected a dichotomy of interests—those of collectors versus those of nationalist governments (defended mainly by the archaeological community). The dividing line has always been clear, and not just in the rhetoric that is entered into the public record at these events. Even the informal assemblage of speakers prior to the event (call them gaggles, if you will) is indicative of the diverse philosophical views. I suppose it's only natural for like-minded people to congregate, but the atmosphere is and has very much been one of "us and them" . This is not to say that either camp is overtly unfriendly, in fact the opposite is true. I think both camps try very hard to be polite and cordial in a personal sense. But camps there are, and gaggle they do.

The Collector camp is comprised mainly of collector advocacy groups. Occasionally, individual collectors, dealers or concerned citizens have appeared or have been represented by counsel. However, the lion's share of opposition to Memorandums of Understanding these days has come from the Ancient Coin Collecting community and the Art Museum community. The former is represented by advocacy groups, like the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) and the American Numismatic Association (ANA), along with representatives of the numismatic trade and other non-profit organizations like Ancient Coins for Education. The latter is represented primarily by the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD).

The proponents of Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) are primarily the representatives of governments seeking import restrictions and the archaeological community, including its related museums—most of which are institutional. The advocacy group Saving Antiquities For Everyone (SAFE) has consistently supported import restrictions, but has not appeared before CPAC in the public sessions lately. A rather late attempt by SAFE to compile and introduce a petition in support of the MOU with Greece was apparently aborted when it failed to meet the State Department imposed deadline for public comment.

One of the most striking views that I heard during the public session was a comment from Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) president Dr. Brian Rose. In response to a question from the committee, Dr. Rose stated that he was not aware of any schism between the collector community and the archaeological community. That statement must have shocked most of those in attendance, regardless of their philosophical position. Even some eyebrows of normally stoic CPAC members showed signs of disbelief. For the past decade, the antagonism between collectors and archaeologists has grown exponentially and can hardly be unknown to the leadership of the AIA. Perhaps Dr. Rose was expressing his hope that such a schism is not insurmountable, and if that be the case I do share his sentiments. But, I don't want to misrepresent his view in any way and will leave further comment on that to him.

Hot on the heels of the public comment session came news of a post by one of the more vocal archaeo-bloggers that called American dealers and collectors "cultural property bandits: xenophobic, neo-colonialist, introverted, self centered and careless consumers." While viewed by many as an irrational extremist, this blogger is sometimes defended and encouraged by more reputable names in the field. The blogger went on to say "I think it would save a lot of people a lot of time and angst if the USA was to simply withdraw from the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property." This is of course a preposterous and ridiculous suggestion. America enjoys the largest legitimate market for cultural property in the world and clearly has a responsibility to maintain the integrity of that market. The United States legislature worked hard and long (13 years in fact) to craft a law that serves the interests of the international community regarding the protection of cultural property. That law, the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (variously CPIA or CCPIA), is also designed to protect the interests of American citizens and businesses that are equally a part of the international community. The collector community opposition to recent Memorandums of Understanding is predicated on what we see as a failure of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government to implement the law as enacted and intended. That opposition does not in any way reflect a disdain for the law, nor for the original intent of the UNESCO resolution. Hopefully, the drift away from that original intent can be corrected to allow for a return to cooperative and inclusive efforts rather than a further schism.

The huge gulf between the statement of Dr. Rose and the statement of the blogger referred to above represents a sort of Yin and Yang of views within the field of archaeology. There are similar polarities within the collecting world. In both cases, rationality and balance seem to be nurtured by moderation. As I said in my closing remarks to CPAC, "The general interest of the international community is best served by inclusive cultural policies. We should be working together—stewardship should include the private sector." By that, I simply mean that private collecting and independent scholarship are in the general interests of the international community and should, in light of demonstrated expertise, experience and dedication, be fully partnered with governments and institutions in preservation of the past.

Shut up and get in line!

2010-10-10T16:02:00.005-05:00

Today I learned first hand why everything in America today is a mess. The government has total control and that has amounted to total chaos and absolute idiocy in the name of political correctness. Tuesday is the State Department hearing on the request for import restrictions on cultural property from Greece — I know, it's hard to keep track without a globe stuck with little pins all over it. So, being a veteran traveler, I made my airline reservation a month ago. When I tried to get a seat assignment, the web site reservation system told me politely that I could not do that right now, but touch base later. OK, I did that. One-two-three and you're out. Over a month of trying to enter my seat assignment I found it impossible to do so.

Today, I received a friendly email from American Airlines saying

"You are now able to check-in on AA.com for your upcoming flight. To check-in, simply click the button below and print your itinerary and boarding pass."

Ah! finally I get to select my seat assignment and check in for tomorrow morning's flight. NOT. When I click on the link and try to check in I get this message that says I must have a seat assignment before I can check in. OK, I go to the seat assignment section one more time and guess what? Same message as above. So, after some sophisticated sleuthing I find a telephone number and call American to get a seat assignment so I can check in. The nice lady answering my call (after ten minutes of navigating a mindless automated system) tells me she cannot give me a seat assignment. Well that didn't brighten my day. So I maintained my cool and avoided telling her what I REALLY thought of the American Airlines reservation system and tried to get a rational answer. I asked if the flight was overbooked? No. Was the airline trying to extort an extra fee to get a seat assignment? No. Well, why can't I get a seat assignment and check in as the email had prompted me to do? Well, she replied with all the concern of a boa constrictor, "because the government won't let us".

Now, that truly did stop me in my tracks. Here I was about to launch a vitriolic polemic against American Airlines and come to find out that it was my own good old Uncle Sam that was the problem. It seems (or so I'm told) that there is a federal regulation that requires the airline to hold 20% of its seat assignments in compliance with the federal Disabilities Act. The logic offered is that if a person with a disability does not have an accessible seat available, the airline would have to move somebody else out of their seat. GOD FORBID! Now, I've flown on a lot of commercial airlines, more than a million miles in fact, and I've yet to see an issue over the seating of a handicapped person. I asked the lady at the other end of this telephone line, how often this happened. She said maybe 1% of the time. I questioned whether maybe 1/10th of 1 percent might even be an exaggeration and she agreed. In fact, people with disabilities know better than to walk up to an airline gate without telling the airline in advance that some extra consideration is necessary. Also, a point of fact might be that anyone with a disability who does not do this deserves the hassles they get themselves into. But, in any case, prohibiting 20% of the people on every airplane that flies in the U.S. from getting a seat assignment until they reach the airport is an insane solution to an extremely minor "potential" problem. So, tomorrow morning I will get my seat assignment at the airport after standing in line with everyone that has checked baggage and getting up at 4:30 AM instead of 5:00 AM to make it to the gate in time. What's the big deal?

The big deal is that this is not an isolated incident. Our lives have become radically complicated in myriad ways by government regulation that is based entirely on wide-sweeping PC reactions to statistically insignificant incidents. And, as I prepare to offer my oral comment on Tuesday, rigidly constricted of course to the five-minute limit, I will be opposing one more of those wide-sweeping PC reactions to a vastly overstated problem. But, in this case, I'm not one of the 20%, I'm one of the 80% and it still is unlikely to matter.

Nationalist Cancer

2010-09-21T09:37:00.009-05:00

Among the many ills that may befall mankind, disease is undoubtedly the most prevalent. In our day and age, the multi-tentacled and indiscriminate assailant that we know as "cancer" is ever present in our consciousness and is universally dreaded because of its aggressiveness and persistence. Cancer manifests itself in many forms, but the characteristic that defines it in general terms is its abnormality and malignancy. In fact, the term cancer has through general usage become a sort of generic metaphor for all things abnormal and malignant—not necessarily within a living organism, but even extending to ideas and ideology.

History records many examples of cancerous ideology and its devastating impact. One might include phenomena like the Spanish Inquisition, Bolshevism and the National Socialist movements of the 20th century among ideological cancers that have beset mankind. These ideologies did not share any political perspective but they did have in common a cult-like fanaticism. I refer the reader to George Orwell's views on this point. Today, we see a similar phenomenon emerging—at least in a philosophical sense—among a new breed of nationalists. The Cultural Property Nationalist has not yet matched the depths of historical forerunners, but the malignancy and aggressiveness found among its adherents is very troubling. The main premise of this group is that the modern geo-political state should control not only expressions of culture within their sovereignty, but all of the tangible elements of the land's cultural history—even when it has no demonstrable link to the present.

Like the nationalist movements of earlier ages, Cultural Property Nationalism relies on government oppression to achieve its aim of domination and control. Consequently, a process of infiltration and manipulation lies at the heart of its agenda. This oppression, as historically has been the case, is masterfully couched in egalitarian terms—even though the objectives are anything but. It is often accompanied by historical revisionism. The actions of nationalist government, when they inevitably run counter to the will and interests of the majority, are typically defended by a non-government group that is perceived as trustworthy and benevolent. These surrogates are often brought into the nationalist fold as "stewards" of the associated tangible property. The nationalist's surrogate is not always in concert ideologically with the primary advocate, but internal pressures and intimidation create a barrier to public opposition and thereby cast an impression of unanimity. After a time, the rhetoric and polarization becomes so intense that the surrogate becomes, by default, part of the "us and them" scenario. At that point, the malignancy spreads to a new potential surrogate either horizontally or vertically.

The success of nationalist ideologies has always relied on a pyramid of effort. No single action in the long stream of evolution is significant enough to cause massive reaction. Sporadic or isolated opposition is marginalized through a wave of focussed personal assaults that generally wear down the will of any individual to resist. In the end, within a nationalist regime, it is nearly impossible to evaluate or understand how the prevailing environment evolved. Cultural Property Nationalism is no different in that sense than any other form of nationalism. The proponents of this view have, with great skill and cunning, chipped away at age-old private property rights and have graduated from a subtle ideology to a controlling force. The process that has worked throughout time is working for Cultural Property Nationalists today.

The cases of nationalist excess that history preserves for us have all been reversed by a cataclysmic event. While the domination of nationalism comes slowly and insidiously, it is typically expunged in rapid fashion when the masses refuse to accept it. Cultural Property Nationalism is doomed to the same fate since culture is, always was, and always will be a personal and individual aspect of the human experience. We each create our own cultural frame through the merging of our interests, our beliefs, our associations, our backgrounds, our heritage and our feelings of belonging. Unopposed, cultural nationalism would strip that frame from the individual and replace it with the party line.

That, in my view, is an unacceptable situation and worth opposing.

Freedom of Information

2010-08-29T12:36:00.011-05:00

The Freedom of Information Act, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in 1966, was born from the notion that "the people" (as in each individual citizen) have a constitutional right to know how the government acts in their behalf. This is of course a democratic notion that nationalist governments do not share. One might wonder at times if it is a notion that the U.S. Government shares? FOIA has been amended and altered in its execution by Executive Branch order or parallel legislation many times during the past 24 years. While a forest of trees have been exterminated in filling FOIA requests, the amount of information provided to the public has been a matter of constant and continuous concern and variability. What the situation boils down to, in a nutshell, is that the Executive Branch of the U.S. government releases exactly and only what it wants to release and when it wants to release it. The public often is obligated to fight in the courts for the most innocuous of details about some item or action of interest.

Filing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit is an adventure in frustration—fraught with government impediments. The prosecution of a simple suit can be delayed by repeated government requests for extensions of time and the excruciatingly slow pace of the legal system in general. Then, the ultimate judgement is not always a black and white reflection of law. Political persuasion is not a stranger to the bench, and the outcome of litigation can depend, it seems, nearly as much on luck of the draw as on the merit of arguments presented. The consequence of this cumbersome review process is that the impetus for a request may well be moot by the time a judgement is rendered. The suit itself is sometimes more important, as a statement of dissatisfaction with government, and demand for accountability, than the material that might conceivably be released.

Why should any person, or organization, have to endure the trials and tribulations of litigation against their government to affirm basic rights promised by the law of the land?

The cause of this pervasive and untenable attitude of secrecy and unresponsiveness in American government is its very structure. Law is rightly regarded by the Legislative Branch as a means to assure rights and protections. Elected officials within the Executive Branch typically espouse a similar view. However, neither elected officials nor political appointees are directly involved in the execution and enforcement of law. This key, and often most important, element of any law is delegated to an army of bureaucrats that are directly responsible for that part where the rubber meets the road. The technical authority of politically appointed Secretaries and Undersecretaries, etc., means little in a world of revolving doors. Just as bureaucratic agencies can drag an issue on in the courts for years, they also can "stonewall" the most ardent elected or appointed official with relative ease and virtual impunity. The judiciary often seems, perhaps understandably, reluctant to serve as the nation's guardian against government excess.

Do we really have Freedom of Information in America today? Well, that depends on who you are, who you are asking, and what you are asking. Ancient coin collectors and dealers obviously do not enjoy much freedom to examine the workings of State Department processes that threaten their avocation and trade. The State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is one of the most secretive and manipulative bureaucracies in Washington. For the past decade, national investigative reporters have exposed that secrecy in the media, legislators have repeatedly expressed concern about that secrecy and one former Chairman of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee called that secrecy "unAmerican". The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild is presently arguing in the U.S. Court of Appeals that the widely experienced secrecy at State is unfounded and rises beyond the limited exemptions allowed by Congress.

In Search of a Balanced Bibliography

2010-07-20T10:55:00.015-05:00

Education... has produced a vast population able to read

but unable to distinguish what is worth reading,

an easy prey to sensations and cheap appeals.

~ G. M. Trevelyan ~

A posting on Kimberly Alderman's blog yesterday caught my attention as I'm always looking for cultural property related resources and materials. The post lauded an online bibliography developed by the University at Buffalo Anthropology Department. The effort is titled: “The "Looting Question" Bibliography: Web and Literary Resources on the Archaeological Politics of Private Collecting, Commercial Treasure Hunting, Looting, and "Professional" Archaeology.” After reviewing the contents, I commented on the Alderman blog, saying that

"In my view, this site and its bibliography are a disgrace to academic research. It is merely a list of publications by and for archaeologists and does not even attempt to address the vast published scope of private and public collector thought on the subject."

This led to a counter comment that "Huffing and puffing without making specific suggestions for improvement will not effect positive change, and it sounds quite unreasonable." Since it seems unfair for me to monopolize someone else's blog with the lengthy response required, I've decided to address the question here.

Prefacing the Buffalo bibliography is the following paragraph: "This resource is intended to be provide (sic) a comprehensive overview of what is often a controversial topic, for scholarly and classroom use. Coverage is intended to include extreme perspectives as well as more neutral or consensus-seeking views. The list is extensive, with the hope that users will be able to find a range of these items close to hand. While the main focus is on North America, materials from around the world are noted whenever possible (and certainly encouraged). Items are added as they come to my attention or are contributed by others. Annotations are mine except as noted, and are NOT intended to be incendiary. Comments and additions are most welcome!"

In retrospect, I suppose my comment on the Alderman blog might have been a bit incendiary. I must admit to being piqued by the delusory claim of balance, which was in my view totally lacking. In the first place, no comprehensive overview of the "Looting Question" could possibly focus mainly on North America. The supposed multi-billion dollar illicit market, that is fueled by looting, and often compared in scale to drug and weapons dealing, most certainly is not comprised in any significant way of North American artifacts. And, in fact, this bibliography does NOT focus mainly on North America despite its rather odd and confusing claim to that effect. The vast majority of citations deal with what one would expect in this subject area, the ubiquitous issues stemming from the UNESCO resolution of 1970. In that respect, there are many pertinent sources listed. That was not my criticism. The problem with this bibliography from my perspective is that it offers a very slanted view of the debate by excluding relevant views from the private and public collector worlds that stand in contrast to the views of archaeologists. Consequently, if this is a bibliography intended to facilitate education, it fails in a very big way. What it does do is present the archaeological party line to young impressionable scholars in a biased way. That is not education, it is indoctrination. In order not to be further accused of "huffing and puffing", I'll point out some rather obvious illustrations.

The bibliography is divided into seven topical areas: Periodicals; Books & Articles; Government Action & Legislation; Web articles, pages & sites; Other net resources; Attached Documents and Acknowledgements/Contacts.

Section A - Periodicals: Includes seventeen periodicals, seven of which are characterized by the assembler as "archaeological views" and two as "a perspective from the side of the collectors". Those two are the Indian-Artifact Magazine and Treasure Quest Magazine, which are undoubtedly useful and entertaining but hardly the leading cultural property debate resources within collecting literature. The remaining eight periodicals listed are characterized as "mixed perspective". One of those is a link to the Web Journal on Cultural Patrimony. This periodical was launched in 2006, posted three issues online and has not been updated since 2007. Two of the citations in this category are to the Boston Globe, where the reader is directed to search for the keyword "Antiquities" (OK, what about the scores of other print periodicals like the Washington Post, Art Newspaper, Wall Street Journal, Congressional Quarterly, Forbes, etc. that do publish pertinent and insightful articles? Why not just do a Google search? One citation is to a singular article in The Glyph, the newsletter of the Archaeological Institute of America, San Diego Society. One has to wonder how "mixed" that perspective might be? In the same section is a citation to the "Anthropology in the News" website. In reality, that imbedded link takes one to the home page of the Department of Anthropology at Texas A&M University which is dominated by local department news and program information - not the promised cultural property resources.

Section B - Books and Articles: This is a veritable who's who of writers on the cultural property views of archaeologists. It would be pointless to try summarizing this lengthy section other than to say it is as much a polemic as might be possible for a bibliography. Based on sheer volume, this would necessarily be of some benefit, but where are the classic collector perspectives written by Cuno, Merryman, Fitz Gibbon, De Montebello, Alsop, Boardman and others? Amidst a sea of articles written about ancient coin collecting and cultural property, the only reference to numismatics in the entire bibliography is one paper by PhD candidate Nathan Elkins. If you're looking solely for the archaeological point of view, here you have it.

Section C - Government Action and Legislation: This section is primarily a useless laundry list of links to pages on the web site of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs at the U.S. State Department and the UNESCO web site. One link to each site would have been more than most people need.

Section D - Web Articles, Pages and Sites: A listing of Loss/Theft Reporting Sites within this section seems useful, though I'm puzzled as to why "Safe Corner" would be included in that group. A second group of citations are to "Miscellaneous Sites & Pages". Herein are 41 links to a potpourri of resources dealing with archaeology and theft reporting. Very little to do here with the philosophical or legal questions regarding the transfer of cultural property between individuals or states, or with the distinction between art theft and archaeological site looting. No coverage whatever of the legitimate market and issues facing law abiding collectors nor of the raging debate over application of nationalist laws in an international market. The third group of citations within this section is "Codes of Ethics". Virtually all are examples of codes of ethics of archaeological groups. No collector group or museum codes of ethics are mentioned.

Section E - Other Internet Resources: Radio & Television Transcripts: This section is a diverse listing of a few documentaries of general interest, one online course in Anthropology and a limited assortment of online archaeology discussion groups. None of the many collector discussion lists are listed and only two museum related lists are cited.

Section F - Attached Documents: Select bibliographies from two archaeological monographs and two orphaned articles are included in this section.

Section G - Acknowledgements/Contacts: Included here is a list that is conspicuous mainly by the absence of any collector contributions. Since there is a huge corpus of material informing the anti-nationalist view, one would think that an odd reference or two might have cropped up somewhere amidst this assemblage.

There are at least three blogs mentioned within the bibliography, all of which represent the archaeological perspective. None of the well known collector blogs are cited, nor are any of the moderate archaeology blogs like that of Derek Fincham. In summary, the bibliography discussed here is very far from balanced and is in fact nearly exclusive of any collector oriented content. As such, I fear that it fails the test of academic credibility.

To balance this bibliography with a list of publications and articles reflecting the collector/museum viewpoint I have created a supplemental bibliography which is posted at http://www.accg.us/issues/editorials/supplemental-bibliography/ . I did not segregate the references by topical area nor by type since it is a rather limited and superficial attempt merely to expose a broader view.

Some personal thoughts on becoming a target

2010-05-20T14:25:00.006-05:00

Some people crave attention and will do almost anything to draw a spotlight toward themselves, even if it is outrageous. I'm not one of those people by nature. I much prefer the serenity and seclusion of our pastoral environment here in the Ozarks to the hustle and bustle of the city or the glad-handing that people in the corporate and political world call "networking." In fact, my most precious moments have been on a sailboat ghosting along in a light breeze with nothing but sky and water to contemplate. I find an isolated mountain stream equally inviting if I have a rod in hand and a trout waiting to be tempted. Yet, I often find myself drawn to the city and sometimes into the spotlight as a matter of necessity. Why? Having endured all that I could stand of the outlandish criticisms and insults hurled by fanatical archaeologists at the antiquities market, and by extension at my lifelong passion of ancient coin collecting, I felt compelled to speak out.

That happened in 2004, and here I am six years later still speaking out against the same atrocious behavior. If anything, the situation has gotten worse since the antiquities trade and the museum world have essentially abdicated before a combination of foreign and home-grown nationalist attacks. The numismatic community seems to be the only roadblock these days to sweeping nationalist and institutional control of cultural property and thereby to absolute control of history and the record of the past. Is that bad? Only from the point of view of those who favor truth over revisionism or those who feel that culture is as much a personal as a national heritage, or believe in personal property rights and freedoms. Of course it is also bad for the numismatists who have suddenly been thrust into that unwelcome spotlight.

Personally, my career in numismatics dates back some 40+ years and I enjoyed that time in the comfort that the discipline, call it a hobby if you will, was genteel. The relationships between professional and amateur numismatists were not only friendly and cooperative, they were in most cases collegial. Respect flowed both ways. What a difference we see today! Understandably, I've become a focal point for criticism, along with others, by virtue of my active opposition to cultural nationalism. That, I expected. What I did not expect and am sincerely saddened by is the depth of hatred and hostility that permeates the opposition today. Being the focus of an ideological polemic is one thing, but being personally villified and ridiculed by educated people, from a discipline that I once respected, is something entirely different. That sort of verbal barrage has now become a daily event in my life. Initially, I was offended. My career as an officer in the U.S. military instilled in me a very strong sense of personal pride, integrity and responsibility. I founded the ACCG to create a voice for ancient coin collectors that was conspicuously absent in the face of a growing assault. The numismatic trade in this field had its advocacy groups, collectors had none. I've spent the past six years, as a volunteer, working for the interests of collectors. When my motives are criticized as "self serving" because I also have an unrelated commercial interest in the hobby it is an absolute insult. When the principles that I have lived by for virtually all of my adult life are ruthlessly assailed by people who don't know the first thing about me, I feel a swell of indignation. Sometimes I instinctively lash back, but more often I try to press on and concentrate on the task at hand rather than the slings and arrows that fly incessantly.

What I have learned through this experience is that being the focal point for any controversial cause is undoubtedly a risky venture -- and one that should be avoided by anyone with thin skin. I have also learned that people who are driven by ideological fervor very often have little regard for truth if it happens to get in their way. I get a little indignant just thinking about it.

To Be or Not To Be

2010-05-07T08:19:00.012-05:00

That is the Question on everyone's mind this morning as the Cultural Property Advisory Committee reconvened on Friday to consider the extension of a bilateral agreement with Italy that restricts the importation of certain classes of antiquities into the United States. Thursday morning, the committee heard comments in open public session from representatives of five main groups of concerned citizens—Archaeologists, Museum Administrators, Art and Antiquity Collectors, the Numismatic Trade and Ancient Coin Collectors. From the numismatic community's perspective, extension of the current Memorandum Of Understanding in some form seems a foregone conclusion, though some opponents argued very persuasively that the whole MOU is badly flawed and should be scrapped. The pressing issue for coin collectors is whether the addition of coins, already exempted in two previous five-year terms of the MOU, is to be or not to be.

In an era when politicians on both sides of the aisle are clamoring for transparent government and "sunshine" laws offer a promise of fair play and access, the U.S. State Department doggedly maintains its "distance" from the looking glass of public scrutiny. None of the seven speakers from the numismatic community had the foggiest notion whether Italy had even requested that coins should be added—an ironic situation, since the State Department hearing was held in that part of Washington known as "Foggy Bottom." Unlike the mysterious Chinese request some years ago, one might presume, from the comments of Mr. Stefano De Caro, General Director of Antiquities within the Italian Ministry of Culture, that Italy did indeed ask for the addition of coins—even though the State Department ignored direct requests for an answer to that question.

Sebastian Heath, whose affiliation was vague and was actually the point of a followup question by one committee member, was listed by the State Department as an American Institute of Archaeology representative. He claimed, upon pressing of the point, that he actually represented himself. The fact that Heath often works for or at the American Numismatic Society, and personally participated in drafting the ANS statement on cultural property, was questioned in light of his recommendation that coins be added to the MOU. The ANS statement says, in part, ".....within the world of artifacts, coins as a class do, in fact, stand apart." Heath avoided the apparent conflict of positions by stating repeatedly that to his knowledge the ANS takes no position in the issue. It would have been interesting to see that question explored in some depth, but Mr. Heath mercifully escaped being hoist with his own petard for lack of time in the busy agenda.

Arthur Houghton, former Getty curator and ANS president, spoke eloquently from the perspective of his background as a former State Department official and a former member of CPAC—though he officially represented none of the above in this case and did not specifically weigh in on the coin issue. He characterized the MOU with Italy, in considerable detail, as a seriously deficient and poorly crafted agreement. Houghton opined that the original agreement signed ten years ago may actually have been written by someone other than a State Department employee. One might assume that he was suggesting Italian involvement. Another numismatist speaking without affiliation was Rick Witschonke, who (like the ACCG) advocated the British system of cultural property protection as a way forward.

Art Friedberg, speaking as a private numismatist, pointed out that imposing legal restrictions would not serve to restrict the flow of material in any serious way because of the impracticality and unpopularity of this approach. Attorney and registered lobbyist Peter Tompa represented the numismatic trade and I represented the ACCG while Mrs. Souzana Steverding represented Ancient Coins for Education. The ACCG paper is online at the guild website. Clifford Mishler, President and Doug Mudd, Museum Curator of the American Numismatic Association appeared in person to oppose any addition of coins to the MOU. Although several trustees or fellows of the ANS were present as speakers at this public session, the ANS position as adopted on 22 October 2005 was never mentioned. In fact, its existence seemed to be intentionally avoided.

The archaeological community was represented by an equal number of speakers and their message was consistent, if not predictable. They expressed concern over site looting and argued that controlling the collector market for coins would eliminate that looting. There were a few interesting comments. Susan Alcock, of Brown University, made the remarkable statement that "coins don't walk" in a futile attempt to demonstrate the overriding importance of coins in context. She also made the quite inaccurate statement that coins are the archaeologist's most important tool for stratigraphical dating. This fundamental lack of understanding exemplifies the sort of ideological banner waving that archaeological zealots are prone to. Actually, savvy field archaeologists realize that individual coins are not very effective for dating strata because they remained in circulation for a very long time, hundreds of years in some cases. Pottery is actually considered a more reliable medium for dating. Furthermore, coins rarely stay in the strata where they first were lost, unless they are part and parcel of, or restricted in movement by, some larger object. Loose coins migrate to the surface just like rocks and arrowheads. Alcock flippantly admitted that "there may be millions of the little suckers" but advocated that they should be included in the list of restricted items anyway. Another archaeologist, Elizabeth Burton, tossed out the obligatory and trite refrain that " the market fuels looting". Alice Friedman of George Washington University argued that it is impossible to understand artifacts without a scientific record of their context. As an Art Historian, I found that a woefully inaccurate and rather uneducated statement. I couldn't help but wonder how Prof. John Boardman would have responded to that? The Oxford archaeologist has been quite outspoken in criticizing this sort of myopia.

AIA President Brian Rose seemed to support a continued exemption for coins that circulated in antiquity beyond the borders of modern day Italy. This is a rather odd position that essentially negates the "cultural heritage" argument and places the decision on a purely artificial basis. Virtually any coin type struck in Italy can be said to have left the country prior to any applicable nationalist laws being imposed since they were exported to collectors in Northern Europe with considerable intensity as far back as the days of the Italian Renaissance—even if they didn't circulate in trade. The phrase that Dr. Rose used to recommend import restrictions on coins was subtly insightful. Although he clearly stated that coins should be added, he used the term "along the lines that Italy has requested" in that context. Was that a slip of the tongue? Did Dr. Rose actually have knowledge of something that nobody in the numismatic community was privy to? Was he personally in communication with the State Department before this hearing and was he provided "inside" information that the addition of coins (or some coins) had formally been requested by Italy? Of course we can't know that, and probably never will know unless the question were to come up somewhere in a legal deposition.

Richard Leventhal of the University of Pennsylvania, made and reemphasized the bold and unambiguous statement that "duplicates do not exist" in reference to coins. Each coin, according to Leventhal, has it's own context and therefore all are unique in his view. He also argued that expanding loans to museums would eliminate the need for a licit market. Nobody on the committee challenged that obvious attack on licit activity, even though CPIA is supposedly about controlling "illicit" activity. It was an unusually clear statement of intent against the legitimate hobby, which most archaeologists superficially avoid even though they support draconian restrictions that would affect the licit market like chemotherapy—killing the good along with the bad.

Issues of law became a point of some contention in the comments of attorney William Pearlstein of New York City and law professor Patty Gerstenblith of DePaul University. Pearlstein represented a group of private collectors outside the numismatic community. The work of CPAC is largely a function of making determinations that are mandated by the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act and consequently the law itself, and its application, comes constantly into question.

Covering the event were reporters from the Washington Post and Coin World, along with a few other interested observers.

The wait now begins for release of the outcome, which will likely manifest itself in a formal announcement by the State Department if the MOU is to be extended of expanded.

What are we saving?

2010-04-09T10:42:00.003-05:00

The bibliography of cultural property literature is rich in titles that talk about saving the past. Every question from who made it to who owns it and who should guard it has had buckets of ink spilled on it. Even organizations have taken their names from this "Saving the Past" sound bite. The U.S. State Department has a Cultural Heritage Center that clearly defines its role as one of saving the past. Yes, this seems to be a very popular and lucrative enterprise for some.

I was a bit surprised when I noted the title of a recent blog post by archaeologist Sebastian Heath. A notice of the upcoming CPAC hearing on the Memorandum of Understanding with Italy was headlined "Saving Archaeology in Italy." Kudos to Mr. Heath for cutting through the chaff and hitting the nail on the head. The requested import restrictions are not about saving the past in Italy, there is probably no better studied ancient civilization in the world than that of the Romans. It is about job protection. Yes, archaeology as a profession is at risk and that point is painfully obvious to those who dig in nationalist countries like Italy where the state lays claim to cultural property.

The concern is not that the earth will run out of objects to cough up and study. Heavens, our civilization is producing objects faster than archaeologists 100 years from now could ever gather and study them, even if the profession doubled in size. Archaeology is not dealing with a finite resource, it is dealing with the rolling window of human existence and that resource just keeps getting bigger every day. Just think, for a moment, about the number of WWII related objects that lie in the earth or under the sea from Britain to India and Japan to Singapore -- and that's just a six-year window. No, it's not about the "finite resource." Nor is the concern about site looting. Yes, archaeological sites are looted in many countries. That is a concern. But even archaeologists know that putting import restrictions on tiny utilitarian objects is not going to stop site looting for a host of obvious reasons. So, if it's not about the resource and not about the looting, what is it about?

Permits.

Nationalist countries have come to realize that they can control the cultural sphere by controlling the archaeologists. No career-oriented field archaeologist would even think about expressing a public view contrary to the interests of the regime that grants their permit and thereby controls their professional destiny. Some archaeologists perceive that supporting the views of nationalist governments will endear them to the host nation bureaucracy that decides whether they work or not. This is not really so unexpected. After all, they do need to work. But, does their support for import restrictions really help save the past? No, it helps save "archaeology". Thank you to Sebastian Heath for highlighting that easily forgotten fact.

I, for one, believe that archaeology needs to be saved. It is an honorable and obviously useful profession that society needs and can afford. I just think that casting a light of vilification on collectors and independent scholars with the notion that it will somehow help save archaeology is woefully misguided thinking. Perverting the well-intentioned and balanced provisions of the Cultural Property Implementation Act as a means to satisfy foreign nationalist governments is, in my view, anti-American and any attempt to do that deserves to be rigorously opposed (which the ACCG is doing both in Court and within the State Department system of public input).

If we're going to save the past, we ought to try to save the present as well because it, all too soon, will become the past.

Time to Speak Out

2010-04-08T17:15:00.002-05:00

Friends (and otherwise);

The U.S. State Department has announced a date of May 6-7 for Cultural Property Advisory Committee hearings on the request for renewal of the Memorandum of Understanding with Italy. Hopefully your eyes are not already glazed over by this first sentence. In practical terms, the U.S. government is about to decide whether antiquities and other forms of cultural property that Italy claims as its heritage ought to be restricted from entry into the U.S. unless accompanied by Italian export permits. There is already such an agreement in place, but ancient coins have been exempted twice before in these renewal requests that cover a 5-year window. We have very good reason to believe that Italy and members of the archaeological community will this time seek to add coins to the list of restricted items. There is a period open for public comment on the issue and the best way to comment is by fax. Don't despair, this is VERY easily done. Simply go to the ACCG web site at http://accg.us and click on the Fax Wizard link (picture of U.S. Capitol Building) on the left side of the page. It says "Fax Your Legislator" but will indeed send your message to the State Department. You will be guided through a brief and easy to follow process that sends a free fax to the State Department registering your views.

Why oppose these import restrictions? Because Roman coins are at the very core of the cultural experience that we all treasure. They have circulated all over the known world in antiquity and since through trade and collector markets. It is impossible to distinguish a Roman coin found in Britain, for example, from exactly the same type, mint, etc found in Italy. Requiring an export permit from Italy on a coin found and legally exported from Britain would not only be impractical, it would not have any legal foundation. Still, any court challenge by an individual is unlikely since the legal costs usually far exceed the value of seized objects. Import restrictions are simply not a viable solution to protecting archaeological sites. They are an idealist panacea that cause far more harm to society than any possible good. Excluding the U.S. collector and trade from the legitimate world market for Roman coins, or unilaterally forcing draconian documentation requirements on Americans, would be grossly prejudicial and would certainly be against the interests of American citizens and their traditional freedoms.

We simply MUST oppose any expansion of the MOU with Italy to include coins. We must do so with an absolutely resounding voice. EVERY person reading this has an interest in ancient coins, even if you don't collect Roman coins, and needs to make their view known. The entire hobby is being challenged. There is simply nothing more important to do RIGHT NOW than to take five minutes, go to the ACCG fax wizard and register your concern. Don't wait 'til the 22 April deadline.

The ACCG will defend the hobby to the best of its ability, but in the final analysis it is the will of the people that will prevail. Those who speak most loudly and clearly will succeed. DO IT!

With best wishes,

Wayne G. Sayles
Executive Director, ACCG

Dealing with the Mentally Fixated Ideologue

2010-03-25T09:41:00.006-05:00

Anyone who has been vicitmized by a Mentally Fixated Ideologue (MFI) can attest to the gamut of emotions that the experience evokes. It's sort of like encountering an IED with a graduate degree. Even if one does survive the outburst(s), there is usually collateral damage—like wives, friends, associates, careers and certainly reputations being assailed and one's quality of life in general being degraded. The MFI exhibits many of the recognizable traits of the traditional sociopath, a condition historically termed "moral insanity", "psychopathic personality", and more recently "antisocial personality disorder". Psychopaths are now segregated by definition from the less physically dangerous sociopath or mentally fixated ideologue and few MFIs are true psychopaths (though the convergence is not unknown). The MFI is typically glib and "catty", has a vastly inflated sense of self worth to the point of cerebral narcissism and is a pathological liar.

Like most sociopaths, the MFI feels no sense of guilt or shame for inflicting harm on others. It is, in fact, a form of self-gratification that appears to reach insatiable orgasmic levels. They invariably find blame in others for conditions that do not fit an often myopic worldview. Their own lives are often a textbook case of thwarted ambitions which are counterbalanced by a faux grandiosity. In general, they have no other life but the incessant battle that rages within them and could not envision a world without conflict—particularly without their role as a catalyst.

Dealing with the Mentally Fixated Ideologue is a challenge because the natural human reaction when under attack is to defend. The laws of physics teach us from an early age not to touch hot objects, not to pet a sleeping dog and not to throw rocks at a hornet's nest. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Responding rationally and logically to a MFI is no different. There will be an equal and opposite reaction—one that is irrational and illogical. In fact, the MFI often takes perverse delight in using sophistry to make the victim's words (and especially defense) seem suspect.

The most effective defense against a MFI is not to respond at all. The MFI appeals to an emotional reaction, not to a genuine threat. The old adage "sticks and stones...." is altogether true when dealing with the MFI. Any response at all merely fuels their aberrant libido. They have no authority base, no real power or influence and usually have disgusted even those of the same ideological persuasion who may have encouraged them at some level before becoming aware of a growing guilt by association. Most normal people do not want to be associated with a sociopath or MFI—not even when they advocate the same underlying principles. As painful as it may seem on any given day, in any given instance, the only effective way to deal with a MFI is to ignore them.

Guarding America?

2010-03-20T14:47:00.006-05:00

"US Customs and Border Protection secures the homeland by preventing the illegal entry of people and goods while facilitating legitimate travel and trade." Or, so says the CBP web site. I guess the homeland security was in good shape then when UA flight 929 inbound from Heathrow landed at Chicago's O'Hare airport last Tuesday. As the passengers made their way through baggage claim to the first CBP checkpoint, Immigration, an agent politely asked where I had been and for what reason. The question and answer were innocuous enough, I had been to the UK for an academic conference at which I represented the ACCG as a speaker. When he placed my passport on the electronic scanner, I noted a slight hesitation. He looked at me, looked at the photo, made a penned annotation and then reached for an official looking stamp to apply to my entry card—passing me through without another word. About 50 feet farther down the corridor was another official, representing the Customs entry phase of my passage. He took one look at my entry permit and said, "please move over to aisle 2." Now, I had a pretty good idea that meant something because everybody else on the plane was zipping right on out the door without so much as a wink. Two customs agents met me at aisle 2 and had me remove my hat and jacket, empty all of my pockets and place my bags on a table. They then proceeded to remove all of the contents and disassemble every object in my luggage. They searched my wallet, unwrapped underwear, looked through books, etc. They made a point of asking me how much money I was carrying and reasking me. In short, they searched everything thoroughly.

I was a bit conspicuous standing there, since I was the only one being searched amongst this long line of passengers. So, I asked a simple question: "Am I on a watch list?" They looked at me with some surprise, like why would I know what a watch list is? They repeatedly asked me where I had been and what I was doing there. I wanted to say "Asked and answered", like they do on Law and Order, but thought it might not be good to taunt these fine gentlemen. And, in all fairness, they were indeed polite and professional. They found one of my business cards in my briefcase and made a big point out of the fact that I had put my home street address on my customs form and my business card had a P.O. box listed on it. They also made quite an issue out of my profession, which is listed on the card as "Numismatist, Author, Publisher." I had to explain in detail what a numismatist is because (they claimed) they had never heard the word. They seemed quite intent on getting me to say that I was in Britain on business - which of course I was not. Odd, if they had never heard of a numismatist, why were they so fixated on my business overseas? Well, the answer obviously was that they expected me to be doing business on this trip. SORRY to disappoint, but the only ancient coins I saw during my stay in Britain were during a quick visit to the coin study room of the British Museum on my final day (where, by the way, I was delighted to find Dr. Elizabeth Pendleton and Dr. Brent Upchurch, two staunch ACCG supporters).

Back to the watch list thing, I asked again. The agent pointed to a poster on the wall and advised me that the policies were posted there. OK. He didn't lie and he didn't deny it. So, I explained to him why I asked the question. That I'm the Executive Director of a non-profit organization that has filed a lawsuit against CPB and DOS. I explained about the Cyprus and China import restrictions and our importation of coins at Baltimore to challenge the restrictions. They were taking this all in with seemingly genuine interest. I explained about the problem with restricting coins by "type" and why we felt compelled to take the issue to court. By now, they were starting to pay more attention to me than to my bags, which they had pretty much annihilated anyway. I suggested to them that the only reason I was being searched was because I had been targeted by the "system" and of course that was not their fault. One of the two agents, apparently junior in grade, asked the other "if that were the case, how would he be singled out?" The more senior member pointed to my entry card—confirming my suspicion that the stamp applied back at Immigration was not the same stamp that everyone else on the plane received. By now, we were having quite a conversation and I thought, why not mention the bill before Congress to mandate Customs training? Yes, they knew about customs training on cultural property issues. I asked "Who does that training?" They both looked at me a little puzzled, so I helped them out, "Archaeologists". The senior fellow said "Of course, that makes sense." I abruptly interrupted him by saying NO, that does not make sense. Most of them know little or nothing about numismatics and they have an ideological agenda. Having them train customs agents is like having the fox guard the hen house. By now, the junior member was getting the drift pretty clearly and offered that archaeologists know about digging, not about coins. I don't know where he got that, but bless his soul. The senior agent wasn't far behind. He looked at me and said "You put US right in between you and the State Department." I immediately corrected him: "I" didn't put you there, DOS put you there. He nodded. I reached for the entry form, hopeful that I might get another look at it, but he was having no part of that. We shook hands and I went on my way to the gate for my final leg home.

In the final analysis, I was not harmed by the episode because our flight enjoyed one of those rare east to west jetstreams and we came in almost an hour early. But, I could have missed the connection if that had not been the case, and I would have ended up spending the night in Chicago. That would not have been on the top of my "things to do" list and my perception of the incident in retrospect might have been less tolerant. Still, the question remains as to why I was placed on a watch list. This was my first trip outside of the country since before the Trade Tower attacks, so it was not because I was profiled as a frequent traveler or an importer. Actually, the business that my partner John and I operate does very little importing. The vast majority of our stock and sales are of coins from collector or other U.S. dealer consignments. It is not possible that I was "selected" because of any business issue. Neither is it possible that I was randomly selected, as the agents themselves made clear enough. Therefore, one can only conclude that I was placed on a watch list by somebody in CBP officialdom — presumably because of the Cyprus/China test case. That is a rather disconcerting prospect. Would the U.S. government intentionally hassle me because I used the due process of our legal system to defend the rights of fellow Americans? As a staunch patriot, I wish I could believe that this was just a misunderstanding. But, that would probably be a form of denial. Is my experience part of a larger pattern? That is a question worth asking and worth investigating. I'd welcome comments or anecdotal information from any other coin collectors or coin dealers who feel they have been singled out because of a coin related issue. Contact me confidentially at wgs@wgs.cc

Civility

2010-03-18T16:32:00.007-05:00

One of the most noted aspects of British culture is its tradition of civil ity. In the cultural property world, civility is a rare bird. But, every now and then even a blind squirrel finds an acorn and this past week I did indeed find a refreshing display of British cultural property civility. Not to say that everyone British is civil, I know a few who are not. In fact, they are undoubtedly more fixated already on me being a "blind squirrel" than on anything I might say hereafter. Last weekend I participated in "Portable Antiquities: Archaeology, Collecting, Metal Detecting", a conference hosted by the Council for British Archaeology and the International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies at Newcastle University.

The two-day conference included speakers from archaeology, collecting, metal detecting, museums and law enforcement presenting a diverse perspective and interacting as respectful equals. The CBA is a non-profit organization, called a "charity" in Britain that supports the goals and aims of archaeology, as their name implies. The countervailing view in Britain would, in a perfect world, have been the National Council for Metal Detecting (NCMD). For some reason vaguely and cryptically described, the NCMD chose to withdraw at the last minute from this conference. Not only was that in poor taste, it was terribly counterproductive. I contacted the leadership of NCMD as soon as I heard about their withdrawal and received back a canned response that essentially said "We'll tell you in our newsletter." Which they did not. Anyway, all was not lost because several NCMD members did show up as independent parties and shared their views with all. That was my first clue that civility is not dead. It was also my first clue that the problems in Britain are not exactly the same as they are in the United States.

The general mood of this conference was that everyone wanted to work together, within the law, to preserve cultural property. That's a pretty safe stance. The nuances of that position can sometimes create disagreements, but the overarching fact or "bottom line" is that most people do care about cultural property preservation. Over the course of two days, it became increasingly evident to me that the British are on the right path. Their main concern was not ownership, that was clearly defined by law as it is in the U.S., the issue was reporting. With an active and growing cadre of private citizens engaged in the hobby of metal detecting, a country rich in historical objects, like Britain, is constantly at risk of losing important information about the past. This has led to a situation where "responsible" detectorists report their finds and illegal "nighthawkers" don't. None of the latter bothered to defend their views at this conference, for obvious reasons. The parallels to collecting within the United States are not identical, but there are some similarities. Collectors who purchase coins without any concern whatever for their source may unwittingly become part of what a law enforcement officer at the conference referred to as the "disposal network." That is not to say that they themselves are breaking any laws, but they may be helping to enable a law breaker elsewhere.

This is not a new notion, the topic has been raised often in the past. The real question is one of controls. How does one insure that coins, for example, are properly recorded when found? If they were, the world would be a far more civil place. The answer, in my view, is for source countries to impose fair and incentive based laws that do not criminalize normal activities like trying to profit from finding something valuable on your own property. Once a coin has been removed from its find spot without recording, it is an orphan. It joins millions of other orphans that have been circulating around the world for centuries. Trying to prevent that by draconian restrictions is a pointless exercise. It is far better to engage the finder, at the time of the find, and extract the information. The British figured that out long ago and they have the most advanced system of cultural property management in the world. Yes, they still have squabbles over details but the basic premise works.

It was a refreshing change to see intelligent and reasonable people discussing common interests in a thoroughly civilized manner and I do have to thank British archaeologists for that.

Exaggeration

2010-02-27T12:15:00.008-06:00

Many readers of this blog have undoubtedly been to Disney World in Orlando, Florida and taken a course at the Imagination Institute sponsored by Eastman Kodak. Figment, a cute and colorful dragon accompanies the visitor on a "people-mover" journey through the land of dreams. The whole experience is accompanied by a captivating musical composition in which the theme IMAGINATION spools repeatedly. That tune becomes so deeply imbedded in the subconscious that one finds themselves humming it for the rest of the day and truthfully for years after.

When I read a recent press release on Cyprus Mail, I couldn't shake that Disney tune. But, instead of IMAGINATION ringing in my ears it was EXAGGERATION! The Cyprus mail article, titled "US collectors to regain right to trade ancient Cyprus coins" was a tiny bit of an exaggeration, unless the author knows something that I don't know. The ACCG has merely begun the long and tedious challenge that will ultimately ensue. Even though it would be the prudent, honorable and decent thing to do, I don't see Cyprus or the U.S. State Department folding their cards on this issue. But the Cyprus Mail article contains an interesting quote nonetheless. Maria Hadjicosti, Director of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus Museum Nicosia, said about the coins imported by ACCG for the subject test case:
“There is not much financial value in antiquities, but the coins are not just money....They are important archaeological items, because they can be accurately dated and used for historical study.” This is basically a true statement as it pertains to coins. While even archaeologists debate the utility of coins for dating strata, they obviously are of some value to anybody who finds them, including archaeologists. The most striking portion of the quote is however the admission that, relatively speaking, there is not much value in them—either financially or in terms of national heritage. Certainly not when compared to unique objects like the Rosetta Stone or the Euphronios Krater.

That revelation by Ms. Hadjicosti flies directly in the face of sensationalizing statements (exaggerations) by nationalist advocates who claim that the antiquities trade is third only in size to the illegal drug and weapons trades. These same nationalist gurus, mainly archaeologists, promote themselves and their "colleagues" as brighter, morally superior and specially ordained to promulgate their dogma. I highlight the word colleague because in their elitist rhetoric they always have colleagues where collectors have "cronies". They view all antiquities in the same light, whether they be ancient safety pins, broken parts of pottery, stone arrowheads, postage stamps (yes they are included in the UNESCO resolution), coins (which exist in countless numbers - many millions) and a laundry list of other utilitarian objects that are exceedingly common. The loss to the world's cultural heritage is a gripping hook for a news story, but the exaggeration and rhetorical hype that goes along with most of these stories is nothing short of criminal. If lies pave the path to Hell, it's clearly going to be overpopulated.

The most audacious exaggeration is the claim that there is no difference between the "licit" trade in antiquities and the "illicit" trade. In other words, anyone who owns anything described by the UNESCO resolution as cultural property is in the mind of a cultural nationalist a law breaker. This is absurd, but it is a theme that nationalist archaeologists beat on without respite. They talk very loudly about ethics, but aside from the ethics that they proclaim for their ideology, they themselves have few ethical bones in their bodies. If they did, they would not be attacking a "licit" market to condemn an "illicit" market. Of course the licit market is open and visible, the illicit market is not. It would be hard to attack something you can't see. How would you even prove it exists? Easier just to paint them all with the same brush. I suppose that approach is not uncommon for ideological fanatics, who value only their own egocentric view, and there have been plenty of them in world history to compare the present against.

The whole point that the anti-collector coterie evades is that the coins in question are NOT in an archaeological context and CANNOT provide contextual information. How will eliminating the licit market for coins serve their ideological agenda? Well it obviously won't, so there must be another reason behind this fervor. Is it because eliminating the licit market will dry up the demand and put looters out of business? Come on, nobody with half a brain, not even our dear dragon Figment, believes that. Why aren't the cultural nationalists lobbying host governments for more protection at the sites? Well, maybe because if they get too vocal they won't get their permits renewed next year. Oops, too much fervor.

Intermediate Archaeology: Unit Seven

2010-02-01T13:02:00.004-06:00

Many thanks to David Meadows for mentioning this hilarious clip in his latest Explorator newsletter—proof that archaeologists can have fun :-) It's apparently a BBC video from 2008, but new to me and now on You Tube. To subscribe to Explorator send a blank email to Explorator-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

The quiet reality of Babylon

2010-01-25T14:59:00.004-06:00

After reading Melik Kaylan's revelations, in the Wall Street Journal and in Forbes magazine, about the real story at Babylon during the U.S. military action there, I immediately ordered a copy of Chaplain Emilio Marrero's A Quiet Reality. My recollection of the news reports during that time was still strong because of my own military background and my disbelief that these reports could be true. Now, many years later, someone directly involved has shown the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say they were not true and indeed that they may have been purposely distorted.

Chaplain Marrero creates for his readers something more than a mere description of events. He paints, with great realism, a portrait of humanity trying not only to survive in the most hostile of environments, and challenging times, but to maintain its dignity and honor. Refreshingly, he lays out the truth about the American military presence at Babylon without any underlying agenda. One sentence near the end struck me as really saying it all. "It is ironic that in this modern age of mass media and global outreach the very message that we had hoped to demonstrate to the world through our actions, that we acted responsibly and cared enough of Iraq's treasures to preserve it, the very opposite has happened and our message has been lost and in some cases intentionally buried."

While professional journalists and archaeologists blatantly lied about the American military presence at Babylon, and in some cases continue to do so, Chaplain Marrero lays out the quiet reality in a most convincing way and gives us pause to consider the motivation behind self-serving attempts by others to deceive. The press, spurred and duped by archaeological zealots who cared less for the truth than their ideological program of mass propaganda, jumped on the back of a fire-breathing dragon and accused the U.S. military of everything from insensitivity to rampant vandalism. Chaplain Marrero, who was not only there, but actually ran the operation within the perimeter of the ancient site, has come forward and told the whole story in considerable detail. The truth should humble and embarrass the archeological community, but frankly I think that would be expecting the impossible. Kudos to U.S. Navy Captain Emilio Marrero, Jr. for putting himself in the inevitable firing line by stepping up and telling the truth.

NRA supporting America's military

2010-01-14T21:20:00.004-06:00

At the NRA Annual Meeting in 2009, Lt. Col. Oliver North presented a stirring tribute to the American soldier of today. At a time when many of the values of America are being questioned, nobody on the face of this earth can question the patriotism, strength and compassion of our men under arms. They carry on a proud and honorable tradition and do great credit to the memory of those who have served before them.

Clicking on the photo below will take you to the NRA video of this touching tribute.

Peek-a-boo!

2009-12-21T11:27:00.013-06:00

If you came to this blog page through a search engine looking for the chic Alpine skier of yore, Picabo (pronunced peek-a-boo) Street, I'm sorry to disappoint you. But, feel free to stick around and play a little Cultural Property Slalom :-) Navigating the deaks and the dives of cultural property management can be almost as challenging as an Olympic course sometimes. It's sort of like the race committee hiding the gates and laughing as skiers careen back and forth in a frantic search for some logical path. The race committee is, in this case, the U.S. State Department's Cultural Heritage Center and the cultural property nationalists who support, indeed help to mold, their ideological view.

Hiding the gates is a slightly more sophisticated version of hiding the ball. But before we get all wrapped up in metaphorical doublespeak, let's just focus on the word "hiding". Some of my readers will undoubtedly remember as a young child playing peek-a-boo. The object was, naively, to avoid being seen. As long as one's eyes were covered, that person became invisible. Until, of course, the barrier was abruptly removed and up popped a Cheshire Cat grin and the popular verbal expression. The processing of requests from China and Cyprus for import restriction reminded me of this child-like game. DOS never did tell the American people if China had asked for import restrictions on coins. They hid the request itself behind a bureaucratic stone wall that not even Congressmen and Senators could break down. Oddly, Ronald Reagan is often credited with tearing down the Berlin Wall, but nobody in Washington seems willing to touch that little stone fence in Foggy Bottom. Yes, bipartisan interest from several Senators did slow down DOS action for a while, but once the attention of legislators was diverted to other issues it was time for peek-a-boo and out came a Memorandum of Understanding.

When the MOU on cultural property from Cyprus

came around for renewal, the numismatic community asked DOS point blank if there had been any request from Cyprus to add ancient coins, which in the original MOU had been exempted from import restrictions. The reply from DOS was that they did not anticipate adding coins. At the scheduled hearing of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee on this issue, it was peek-a-boo time again as DOS announced that a "last minute" request from the government of Cyprus had been recognized and coins were indeed to be considered. Although that august committee ultimately recommended that the exemption for coins be continued, DOS was still playing peek-a-boo and overrode the CPAC committee by adding coins to the MOU anyway.

In the midst of a sea of proclamations about the need for governmental transparency, both here and abroad, the Executive Department of the U.S. Government cannot, it seems, keep its own family in line. DOS is notorious for withholding even the most mundane of information and will fight for that prerogative in court. Why? It seems to me, that it is pervasive in the mentality of the people who develop policies and programs within that fiefdom. That mentality is influenced mainly by leaders, and their protégés, of the academic archaeological community. These activists are not above playing the game themselves. Playing peek-a-boo is a talent that some people seem to cultivate as a professional tool. One of the interesting things about the internet, and its blogs, is that one can rarely hide. I can, for example, analyze the traffic to this blog on a daily basis and see who visits, how many and which pages they read, and see the process that they used to get here. No, I don't have any super-sleuth software, nor any particular technical ability. It's a feature that is available, free of charge, on any blog or any web page for that matter. In one of my recent forays into the statistical world, I noted several visits from one intriguing source.

It was a series of visits from Yale University, redirected through a service that purports to hide one's identity. The name of the service is somewhat mis-appropriately "hidemyass.com". Well, sorry to say, it doesn't. Now, granted, there are a lot of people at Yale but I don't know very many of them, and fewer yet who would try to hide their presence from me. It really does remind me of my childhood.

Peek-a-boo!

Its about control

2009-12-09T20:27:00.009-06:00

Dr. Zahi Hawass, the incorrigible Grand Poobah of Egyptian Archaeology is in London this week saber rattling about getting the Rosetta Stone back. In a point/counterpoint interview on BBC radio, Dr. Hawass reminded Roy Clare (Chief Executive of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council) that a tiff with the Louvre in France led to French archaeologists being ejected from an ongoing dig in Egypt. The Louvre subsequently acquiesced to the demands of Hawass for return of five paintings that Egypt wanted repatriated. After bringing up that point, Dr. Hawass was suspiciously quick to deny that he was threatening the British Museum. While Mr. Clare argued the merit of culture and its objects as a global interest, the position of Egypt's chief culture czar was simple, "It's part of Egypt's culture only." And, they want it back.

Major artifacts like the Rosetta Stone or the Parthenon Sculptures are perhaps worth a little hostile rhetoric in the ageless battle over national symbols, but what do upcoming young nationalists cut their eye-teeth on? No aspiring young archaeologist or bureaucrat is going to get a word in edgewise in the main arena. Fortunately for them, there are lesser objects to focus on. In fact, "protecting" the most useless piece of broken pottery can turn an idealist into a zealot. A couple years ago, the Italian ministry of tourism ran an advertisement inviting tourists to visit the many archaeological sites in Italy. The ad showed a young man and woman holding a small broken piece of ancient pottery—all abeam at having found this object on the ground. The advertisement led to an uproar among archaeologists who felt it sent the wrong message. That message, presumably, was that tourists shouldn't touch broken potsherds.

Having lived in Turkey and Greece, and traveled extensively in both countries, I can state without any doubt in my mind that there are more potsherds there than there are fish in the ocean. One can't walk on any unpaved surface without seeing broken pottery. I've seen roadbeds in Turkey where the fill used to build up the road base itself was simply littered with ancient potsherds gathered and deposited by huge earth movers and crushed by a constant stream of cars, trucks and horse-carts. Some of the fragments are painted, some are incised, but God forbid any inquisitive individual should pick one up and look at it, much less put it in their pocket. The fact of the matter is that nobody in Turkey would pay the slightest attention to someone pickup up ancient potsherds, but the thought alone is enough to send some radical academics into a tizzy. It's not the loss of context that is the issue, there isn't any context to lose, it's the prospect of losing complete and absolute control that raises the hackles of a cultural property nationalist.

It's a lust for control that pits many young idealists against private collectors and the associated antiquities trade. They routinely claim that it's only "illicit" antiquities that they oppose, but then define illicit as anything lacking their self-imposed standard of documentation. In effect, they have characterized the lion's share of all privately owned antiquities as illicit—not through any law, nor compiled evidence, but through their myopic ideology. Consequently, while Zahi Hawass is in London charging that the Rosetta Stone was stolen from Egypt, a troop of Zahi Wannabees are busily vilifying collectors of some of the most innocuous objects ever created by man. Can it really be about context and loss of information? That's a catchy sound bite, but looting is the smallest part of archaeological site destruction. Dams and bulldozers destroy far more archaeological material every year than the antiquities market has ever seen. Archaeologists themselves have been responsible for huge losses of data and material both during and after excavations. The challenge has never really been about context, it has always been about control. Everybody, it seems, wants to be a Zahi Hawass.

A Matter of Aesthetics

2009-12-04T13:54:00.003-06:00

A 90-year-old Virginia Medal of Honor winner and veteran of WWII and Vietnam has been ordered to remove the flag pole from his front yard because it does not conform "aesthetically" to the standards of the homeowners association where he lives. They want the most highly decorated combat soldier alive to fly his flag from a wall mount. The story is covered by WTVR.com out of Richmond.

http://www.wtvr.com/news/wtvr-veteran-flagpole,0,2550197.story

In the first day of posting, more than 3,000 comments have been appended to the article and the issue is gaining national attention.

Excavation Analysis

2009-11-29T20:09:00.005-06:00

A friend sent this unprovenanced report via email, which ironically was passed over a wireless system:

After having dug to a depth of 10 feet last year, New York scientists found traces of copper wire dating back 100 years and came to the conclusion, that their ancestors already had a telephone network more than 100 years ago.

Not to be outdone by the New Yorkers, in the weeks that followed, a California archaeologist dug to a depth of 20 feet, and shortly after, a story in the LA Times read: 'California archaeologists, finding traces of 200 year old copper wire, have concluded that their ancestors already had an advanced high-tech communications network a hundred years earlier than the New Yorkers.

One week later, The Kansas City Star, a local newspaper in K.C., Mo, reported the following: After digging as deep as 30 feet in his pasture near Warsaw, Mo, Bubba Brown, a self-taught archaeologist, reported that he found absolutely nothing. Bubba has therefore concluded that 300 years ago, Mo. had already gone wireless.. "

Just makes you proud to be from Missouri !

Welcome

2009-11-24T17:39:00.004-06:00

At the right of this page, readers will see a FEEDJIT live traffic map. This feature records the readership of this blog on a day-to-day basis. I want to welcome and thank today's visitors from the following countries for their interest in cultural property and its preservation:

Argentina,

Australia,

Bangladesh,

Bulgaria,

Canada,

Cyprus,

Czech Republic,

Estonia,

Ethiopia,

France,

Germany,

Greece,

Hungary,

India,

Indonesia,

Iran,

Ireland,

Italy,

Jordan,

Kuwait,

Latvia,

Malaysia,

Netherlands,

Nicaragua,

Pakistan,

Philippines,

Poland,

Romania,

Russia,

Serbia,

Singapore,

South Africa,

Spain,

Sweden,

Turkey,

Ukraine,

United Kingdom,

United States of America

Our Cosmopolitan Past

2009-11-24T10:28:00.007-06:00

In a "Looting Matters" blog posted earlier this week, Dr. David Gill left his readers with a fascinating closing statement:

"The ACCG needs to work with archaeologists to preserve the archaeological record. Its present position seems to suggest that collecting is more important than the preservation of our cosmopolitan past."

Aside from the usual faulty logic, Dr. Gill uses a phrase that I find quite extraordinary—"preservation of our cosmopolitan past."

Merriam-Webster defines the adjective cosmopolitan as:

1 : having worldwide rather than limited or provincial scope or bearing
2 : having wide international sophistication: WORLDLY
3 : composed of persons, constituents, or elements from all or many parts of the world

in other words, "Globalist" rather than "Nationalist."

For an advocate of Cultural Property Nationalism, this is literally heretical. If the past, and its tangible evidence, is "cosmopolitan" how can its ownership be claimed by one party? I think that Dr. Gill has been hoist with his own petard, as one famous Brit put it. I don't argue with his use of the word, it is truly the case (contrary to the incongruous view of UNESCO) that culture and history are without territorial constraints—yes, cosmopolitan. The relatively few cases where either have been repressed at a national level led to serious social upheaval. I would even agree with Dr. Gill that archaeologists and collectors should work together (maybe he got that subliminal message from my recent post here). But wait, did Dr. Gill say we should work together to preserve the past? No, he said we should work together to "preserve the archaeological record." Is preserving the archaeological record more important than preserving the past? Collectors have been preserving the past for centuries, archaeologists have been destroying the past for a hundred years or so and the information that they do extract from a dig is mostly lost in unpublished manuscripts and inaccessible files that are far from cosmopolitan. Their tangible evidence is recorded to an amazing degree of accuracy in terms of physical location and surrounding context. Reams and reams of paper document these exacting details and then what? A few major objects gain the attention of some researcher who extracts from them a detail or two about the past. Compare this with an army of private scholars who study every aspect of a coin, for example, from its iconography to its economic relationships. Who are the better stewards?

Truthfully, both have something important to offer. Why there is such a vehement rejection of private scholarship and collecting by some academic archaeologists is way beyond my ability to comprehend. Dr. Gill is on the right track, collectors and archaeologists should work together. But, not just to preserve the archaeological record (a nationalist and egocentric thought process) but to preserve the past in a truly cosmopolitan sense.

Nuance in New York

2009-11-17T21:29:00.014-06:00

"Holy heart failure Batman, did you see the Gotham papers this week?"

Yes, the unthinkable did happen. On Saturday, November 13th, Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by Melik Kaylan headlined "Myths of Babylon." four days later, The New York Times ran a piece by John Tierney titled "A case in antiquities for 'Finders Keepers' ." The mere fact that these editorially antithetical publications published back-to-back articles about cultural property is not so remarkable—the topic is, after all, becoming steamy. What is remarkable is that both were critical of cultural property nationalists. When these two publications share a common view, it is worth paying attention.

Melik Kaylan has been a New York based journalist for 25 years. His resume includes positions as Editor of the Village Voice, Associate Editor of Connoisseur magazine and Arts Editor at Forbes.com. He has written for numerous publications including Wall Street Journal, Vogue, New York Times, The Times of London and others. Kaylan has won Cultural Awards in Italy and Turkey for print and television work on antiquities smuggling. The Kaylan report mentioned above roundly criticizes nationalists and archaeologists for orchestrating massively overblown media hype over the military's supposed failure to protect Iraq's heritage. While not specifically charging archaeologists with willful deception, Kaylan leaves his readers with few alternate conclusions. He cites unfounded reports and "highly provocative" accusations flowing from their community without any exercise of what he calls "responsible judgement."

John Tierney writes a twice-a-week column for The New York Times, where he has worked since 1990. He has written for The New York Times Magazine and The Times Metro Section, and has served as a correspondent in the Washington and Baghdad Bureaus. He has also written for The Atlantic, Esquire, New York Magazine, Newsweek and numerous other publications. In making a case for "Finders Keepers", Tierney makes a bold statement that others have merely danced around. "...there is no doubt that the cultural-property laws have turned archaeological discoveries into political weapons." In this respect Tierney echoes the conclusions of his colleague Michael Kimmelman, whose article "When Ancient Artifacts Become Political Pawns" appeared in The New York Times on October 23rd. He goes on to challenge several cultural property nationalist tenets, agreeing in many cases with Art Institute of Chicago Director James Cuno. Mr. Kimmelman and Mr. Tierney are probably unaware that the U.S. State Department treated ancient coins as political pawns in the Memoranda of Agreement with Cyprus and China, but they certainly have the situation pegged correctly.

In and of themselves, neither of these articles by Melik Kaylan nor John Tierney are breaking news. They are opinion editorials. In 2004, when the ACCG was founded, the press was almost exclusively dominated with condemnation of the antiquities trade, criticism of American museums and vilification of private collectors. Articles like the two mentioned above were virtually unheard of. Finally, that rush to judgement has come into question and the national press is beginning to realize that academic archaeologists are not the only interest group with a legitimate point of view. The pendulum may finally be starting to swing back.

Symbiosis Lost

2009-11-16T16:51:00.004-06:00

Ancient coins have existed since the 7th century BC. They attracted the interest of collectors shortly after that and have continued to inspire ordinary people around the world for going on three millennia. During the Italian Renaissance, the collecting of ancient coins became so popular that a sophisticated commercial market emerged and numismatic scholarship blossomed. Anyone with sufficient interest and erudition was able to study the past through its coins. The development of numismatics as a science is a result mainly of private collectors and their dedication to the pursuit of knowledge. When academia became aware of the value of coins as voices from the past, coin collectors and professional scholars found that they had much in common and worked closely together. Yes, that was a long time ago.

What we see today is a bitter turf war between private collectors, independent scholars, museums, nationalist governments and archaeologists. What happened to the symbiosis? Deep within the collecting community, there is still a longing for cooperation and symbiotic support with those academics who dedicate their lives to study of the past. But, the mutual cooperation and respect of those halcyon days is all but gone. The only words that most private collectors hear from archaeologists these day are disparaging. And, in equal measure, the response is unfriendly. As archaeological blog comments about the recent CPAC hearing on Italy reveal, the symbiosis is all but dead. It is unlikely ever to reappear to the extent that we saw in the 19th or 20th centuries. That is sad from a collector's point of view, but is it equally sad from the academic archaeologist's point of view? I am coming to doubt that it is. They have very little use for private collectors and are not reticent to say so. There is no denying that a bitter antagonism exists between collectors and archaeologists. I've called it a Cultural Property War and have been criticized therefore as being "bellicose". I didn't start the Cultural Property War and I see it in the light of all wars—as a devastating and unwelcome event. Personally, I long for those symbiotic collaborations of the past. But, I am a realist and there seems to be little chance that the forces guiding and controlling the discipline of archaeology and the cultural ministries of nationalist nations will ever again embrace private collecting as a friend. I see that as their loss, but it is really a loss for all of us.

The die is cast, I fear, and the present struggle will continue until archaeology has established its dominance or private collecting its independence. I would predict that neither will happen soon nor without considerable animosity and a terrible loss of opportunity.

COME TO AMERICA! (forfeit your heritage)

2009-11-01T11:09:00.009-06:00

What is "Heritage" anyway? We all know the word, and probably think that we know what it means, but when you get right down to it the exact meaning is a slippery little rascal. The Heritage Foundation, a Washington DC based conservative think tank, believes in "free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom...." (our American heritage?) Not a word about ethnicity, ancestry nor culture. My Heritage, an Israel based firm specializing in genealogy, seeks "to make it easier for people around the world to use the power of the Internet to discover their heritage and strengthen their bonds with family and friends." The implication of this introspective view being that family is a key ingredient in heritage. In fact, they do not mention any of the core elements of the Heritage Foundation. UNESCO's World Heritage Centre sees a different picture. To them, "What makes the concept of World Heritage exceptional is its universal application. World Heritage sites belong to all the peoples of the world, irrespective of the territory on which they are located." Wikipedia lists no less than nine different senses of the word ranging from plant life to birthright. So, when we speak of heritage, we have to be quite specific about our intention lest we be legitimately misunderstood. But two things that all of the various senses of heritage seem to have in common are belonging and inheritance. There can be no heritage without a donor and a receptor.

The sense of the word that applies to culture, has come to be divided into two parts, tangible and intangible. The former is mainly associated with objects while the latter deals with behavior, values, traditions, customs, etc. In a confusing dichotomy, UNESCO sees their World Heritage Sites from a globalist perspective and essentially all other objects from a nationalist perspective. The UNESCO resolution of 1970 takes quite a narrow view of sharing the "ownership" of culture and heritage. The conclusions and proposals of a later UNESCO convention dealing with intangible cultural heritage, and its ownership, are nothing short of bizarre. Ancient coin collectors are perhaps among the most passionate advocates of globalism. They derive genuine and considerable satisfaction from learning about the past in a tactile way. Many of them see a direct and inseparable connection between the "cultural heritage" of a particular place and their own "cultural heritage" in the ancestral sense. In more than 40 years of involvement as a professional numismatist, I have met a great many people who collect coins based on ethnic or patronymic associations. Others simply crave the intellectual thrill of arm chair travel to distant cultural enclaves.

Many of these people now live within the United States where, except for a small Native American population, virtually everyone has a cultural heritage from some other place or places. In the nationalist view of the cultural universe, these Americans have essentially forfeited their heritage. Of course, those who view the world in this myopic way are reticent to admit that they are often immigrants themselves within the land that they claim as their cultural heritage. That they have the power to create and enforce laws within their own political sphere of influence is an undeniable fact. Indeed, they have been known to intentionally erase the memory of former inhabitants (if not the inhabitants themselves). Should their narrow and often unjustifiable view obviate the interests and rights of all others who do not currently live within the geo-political boundaries that they administer? Are Italians who now live in Manhattan or Cypriots who now live in Los Angeles any less entitled to their heritage than those who live in Rome or Nicosia?

The propensity of the U.S. State Department to negotiate bilateral agreements that in essence forfeit the rights of those Italian and Greek Americans (and not them exclusively) to partake in the same cultural appreciation that their fellows and often relatives in Italy and Greece enjoy is in my view un-American. Maybe the Heritage Foundation is not too far off the point in this case. Should the U.S. Government be involved in a matter like this? It's easy to see how some view it as overreach on the part of Washington bureaucracy. My own personal view is that State Department bureaucracy has run amuck and has become nothing more than a self-serving special interest. But, my view is obviously not shared by a good number of people who are quite happy to see all cultural property sequestered and controlled by what they prefer to term as "stewards." In other words, someone other than the inheritor of a particular heritage will guard and preserve it for all of us. In fact, one such organization literally calls itself "Saving Antiquity For Everyone". I've always had trouble figuring out who "Everyone" is, but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't include me. Excuse me, but I don't need someone to save my heritage for me and to dole it out to me as they choose.

Just who are these "stewards" anyway? You guessed it. They are the cultural property nationalists and those who rely on the largesse of cultural property nationalists for their livelihood. How much do we get from these stewards in return for the rights that the U.S. government forfeits on our behalf? To be kind, it is not a good trade. The words of Emma Lazarus on the base of America's Statue of Liberty, "Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" may be inspiring, but what they don't say is that when you come to America you may forfeit your own personal heritage, compliments of the U.S. State Department. I don't think that's what our founding fathers had in mind.

The "illicit" antiquities trade

2009-10-20T09:38:00.004-05:00

For the past five years I have read a nauseating stream of blog posts, news articles, discussion list comments and convention presentation reports that condemn the "illicit" trade in antiquities. The fact that anyone might condemn illicit activity is not in itself nauseating, but the ringing of the same bell 24/7 until the brain fogs over in biological rejection is not only nauseating but obnoxious. It reminds me of the parent in a grocery story who repeatedly harps (in the most irritating shrill cacaphony) "Johnny, don't touch that!" over and over and over until you wish they would take little Johnny and paddle his behind (even though that is certainly not PC these days.) Really, it's not little Johnny that needs paddling, it is the parent for not approaching the problem with a reasonable and effective solution.

When do the harpies of cultural property nationalism ever talk about the "licit" antiquities trade? From the ratio of ink spilled, one would presume that there is not even a legitimate trade in existence. Never mind that there are laws in Britain and the United States that protect private collectors and the legitimate trade in antiquities. Never mind that countries like Greece, Italy and Israel (among others) have state licensed and regulated antiquities dealers. Never mind that EC rules prohibit restrictions on the legitimate exchange of antiquities between private citizens and businesses within the European Union. Is there a legitimate trade? Of course there is, only an idiot would suggest that there isn't. But is there any attempt among cultural property nationalists to work with the legitimate trade and private collectors to reduce incidents of archaeological looting? Very little if any, and none that I am personally aware of. In fact, as Executive Director of the ACCG, it has been my observation that the door is not and has not been open to any such collaboration for well more than a decade—and, in fact, the ACCG has tried.

The obsession among cultural property nationalists (especially those archaeologists who blog about the subject) has been to label everything without a documented provenance as illicit. Because much of the trade in antiquities does not require documented provenance, and because provenance is not especially valued by collectors of minor objects, it often does not exist. Consequently, the entire trade is painted with a broad brush as illicit. Excuse me, but that's an asinine position and one that is a non-starter for any serious discussion. No legal system, short of autocratic government, recognizes a premise where something is illegal unto proven legal. In fact, attempts to create this sort of legal environment have led to several major upheavals in global society. A common coin or a clay pot, that is literally one of millions of surviving specimens, is treated by hardline nationalists in the same light as the Rosetta Stone. They can rave on about context and priceless information, but really, one doesn't have to think very hard to see through that. The UNESCO resolution, and laws that stem from it, are based on a sliding threshold. Every year, the detritus of another year of civilization is added to the heap. In the year 2109, virtually everything made by the 6.95 billion (and counting) people on Earth today will become "cultural property" and will technically fall within the controls established by this resolution and set of laws. Look at the room around you, at your desk, at your garage, and multiply this times several billion. Is it important that every item be preserved to tell some future scholar how we lived? Now look backward in time 100 years. We are talking about 1909. There are countless objects among us at this moment that were made in 1909. There are garages that have not been cleaned out since 1909 and sometimes I think mine is one of them. Is all this "stuff" now "illicit" if it doesn't have a recorded provenance? NO. It is not and any attempt to say it is merely highlights the absurdity of the philosophy.

The problem of archaeological sites being looted is real and deserves a concerted response. It is a concern to collectors and the trade as well as to archaeologists and nationalists. The approach of some, to characterize private collecting and the associated trade as "evil" or "illicit", and as the "root cause" of looting, is simply not going to solve the problem. There are far too many people in the world who know better and that lie is simply not going to win the day. Instead, it hinders any real progress toward a rational response to the problem. The situation is not going to improve until the rhetoric changes and the legitimacy of any given view is accepted as a function of law, not of philosophy, dogma or desire. There are more than enough laws in place today to protect and control cultural property. When the existing laws are enforced, as legislated and intended, activists on both sides of the issue can go back to doing something constructive in the quest for broadened cultural awareness and interaction.

Drivel Control

2009-10-15T17:40:00.006-05:00

The twitter around the cultural property nationalist blogs at the moment is that a rare tribal octadrachm of the Bisalti has been seized from an auction firm in Switzerland. One of these bloggers even uses the episode to disparage, by linkage and innuendo, the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) and its allies in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation now in progress against the U.S. State Department. This is not the first such episode by any means. I have seen a lot of misguided enmity in my varied careers, but never in my memory have I seen such absolute drivel as I have over the FOIA suit. It really deserves a prize.

First of all, the FOIA lawsuit filed against the State Department by the ACCG, with the collaboration of the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) and the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG), has absolutely NOTHING to do with the coin seizure. Mentioning them in the same breath is nothing less than ignorant—unless of course it is thought in some malevolent way that it might damage the ACCG. If that is the case, then we have a different issue, don't we? Perhaps one would call that a volley in the cultural property war. Well, if so, the cannoneers haven't quite got the range and bearing down.

The FOIA suit makes a complaint in U.S. Federal Court that an agency of the U.S. government failed to comply with the U.S. law governing release of information to the general public. This is a suit that is widely supported by academics and civil rights advocates, even some who advocate cultural property import controls, because every thinking person in America recognizes the importance of transparency in government. Even President Obama has made a very big issue of government transparency. That he has not been able to simply order the State Department to follow the law is telling in itself. Oh! Excuse me, he DID order them to, they just chose not to comply. So, anyone who would criticize this FOIA lawsuit would seem to be either a confirmed anarchist or repressive nationalist. The latter is more to the point in this case, I believe. National pride is one thing, but the extreme fringe of nationalism is anti-social to say the least and dangerously arrogant in most cases. We ought to heed the words of Patrick J Geary (The Myth of Nations), "As a tool of nationalist ideology, the history of Europe's nations was a great success, but it has turned our understanding of the past into a toxic waste dump, filled with the poison of ethnic nationalism, and the poison has seeped deep into popular consciousness." At a time when cultural awareness and interaction should be at the top of our agenda, we oddly (and sadly) find the U.S. State Department promoting and rewarding repressive nationalism.

Secondly, what about the Octadrachm? Well, we don't really know the whole story, do we? So, before we start dancing in circles or baying at the moon, why not let the laws of Switzerland prevail and hope that the Swiss law enforcement agencies and judiciary come to a just evaluation and resolution of the situation? There are laws in place that govern the situation. If the laws are unjust, then it is the duty of the Swiss people to seek redress. By the same token, if laws in the United States are unjust, or improperly enforced, it is our duty to seek redress through the courts. That is exactly what the ACCG is doing. For cultural property nationalists to mischaracterize this legitimate legal challenge is worse than distasteful, it adds another layer to that toxic waste dump.

Finally, I am beginning to wonder if anybody really pays any attention any more to this mindless banter. Some may have noticed a spell of silence in this blog recently. It is not for lack of activity, there has been plenty of that. It is more a feeling that time is an increasingly precious commodity and there is little point to hammering the same old tune on our dulcimers. Personally, I intend to concentrate on using my time to seek justice through the means at my disposal as an American citizen. A federal judge will soon be laying out the future path and we will take it from there.

I do intend to comment here from time to time, but I do not intend to waste any more of my time engaging in drivel control.

Best to all,

Wayne

SAFE gets it right! (sort of)

2009-08-06T10:17:00.012-05:00

In browsing the web site of Saving Antiquities For Everyone (SAFE), an advocacy group for archaeologists and Nationalists, I recently found something surprising that caught my attention. On the organization's page appealing for donations, is a sidebar about Ai Khanoum. This mysterious ancient city in Afghanistan was discovered in the 1960s and excavated by French archaeologist Paul Bernard between 1964 and 1978. During the ensuing Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the site was heavily pillaged and was also damaged by military action and occupation. During the 1990s, according to the eminent historian Osmund Bopearachchi, the site was further devastated by "systematically planned illicit digs." Bopearachchi published the sad tale of destruction in Afghanistan in his article "Vandalized Afghanistan" which first appeared in March of 2000 in the Indian periodical Frontline, and was reprinted in 2002 in Nomismatika Kronika the journal of the Hellenic Numismatic Society (comprised of private collectors, dealers and professional scholars). Much of the history of Ai Khanoum was lost during these two disastrous decades. SAFE quotes Bopearchchi's comment about systematically planned illicit digs and illustrates the tiny infomercial with a rare tetradrachm struck by Diodotus during the reign of Antiochos II.

But, did they tell the whole story? Well, not really. They neglected to point out that Dr. Bopearchchi lays the blame for this devastation squarely where it belongs, on the political and religious zealotry that turned all of Afghanistan (not just ancient sites) into a waste land. Ironically, SAFE's sidebar illustration tells more of the story. The tetradrachm by Diodotus is known and preserved (and yes recorded) today because it is in the hands of a private collector. Bopearchchi describes how huge hoards have found their way to the bourse of Peshawar in Pakistan, many of them apparently being melted down for the silver content, others migrating to collectors in "Japan, Britain and America". A few local collectors, like Aman ur Rahman and Khurshid Ahmad Khan, saved some of the most important pieces from oblivion. They not only saved the coins, they collaborated with Dr. Bopearachchi on his important survey of Pre-Kushana Coins in Pakistan. Were the markets of Peshawar not mined by these collectors, even more of Ai Khanoum's and Afghanistan's history would have been consumed in the melting pots.

Of course this is not the sort of thing that SAFE really wants to highlight, so I doubt we will get that little sidelight to history in a SAFE sidebar. Nor will we hear that some archaeologists have actually advocated destroying ancient artifacts after they have been recorded. Why? Because they lack space to store them and destruction is deemed preferable to private ownership. Speaking of storage, one of the constant themes in anti-collector diatribe is that coins in private collections are not available for research and their "provenance" is usually not known. This is, in the first case, not true as there are scores of private collections published in the numismatic record (as well as online) and some of those publications are like the Bopearachchi study in the sense that professional scholars worked hand-in-hand with private collectors to produce them. The Levante Collection is a prime example, though only one of many. In the second case, private collectors are often better stewards of coins than institutions are and invaribly extract more useful information about the past from an unprovenanced coin than an archaeologist does from a perfectly measured find spot.

The hot buzz word these days is PROVENANCE. It is often suggested by archaeologists that without provenance an artifact loses its meaning and value. That is such a shallow argument that it really does not deserve a counter, but what about the recording of provenance? That surely does have some value when it is possible and practical to do so. Does the diligent recording of provenance by archaeologists give us a superior record of the past? Well, perhaps in some cases but certainly not in all and maybe not in most. Publication of archaeological site data is excruciatingly slow, if at all, and is normally not accessible to the general public without going to a major university or research center. The Swedish Institute at Athens reveals just how deplorable the situation can become. When attempting to develop the Database of Archaeological Material from Swedish Excavations in Greece (DAMSEG), the often hushed "museum basement" assets came under review. In their report on the process, which is in itself a laudable undertaking, they point to a widespread but rarely acknowledged problem that continues to grow as excavation material is now stored mainly in low budget, under staffed, regional state museums near the excavation sites in most countries. With typical Swedish candor, the report states: "What those who went into the storage found must have been chaos, for masses of archaeological material had lost its provenience and could often not be identified as coming even from a specific excavation, where publications did not exist. It turns out that some material was also lost... When all identifiable material had been taken care of, several tons of non-descript pottery fragments were dumped into the bay and what looked worthwhile keeping, was stored for the future." We could hope that the Swedish experience were an isolated occurrence, but alas it is not. The President of the Association of Cypriot Archaeologists in a scathing assessment of Archaeology in his homeland wrote ""We dash everywhere in Cyprus to dig and then we dump things. If you don't have space, don't dig." And there are similar reports, by archaeologists themselves, from virtually all countries where objects from the past are excavated. We might call them "Ethical Archaeologists."

Now, back to Afghanistan, there is one more detail that ought to be mentioned before I close this already lengthy post. In the Spring of 2005, the ACCG advanced a proposal to the Government of Afghanistan that the guild launch a concerted effort within the hobby and trade to recover coins known to have been stolen from the Kabul Museum. This was a project to be funded entirely by the guild with no cost whatever to the Afghan people. Our overture was initially embraced with enthusiasm by Embassy personnel and a representative of the ACCG met in person on more than one occasion with the Afghani Cultural Attache, Mr. Elmi, in Washington. As the details began to solidify, the embassy indicated that it would be necessary to coordinate with the home Ministry of Culture. At that point, communication ceased and the project ran up against a stone wall. No explanation was ever given, but it was more than obvious what had happened. Cooperation between a collector advocacy group and a source country Ministry of Culture was radically inconsistent with the Collector = Looter stance that Nationalists had developed as doctrine. One can easily see why the government of Afghanistan would not want to become embroiled in a political tug of war between collectors in America and the U.S. State Department or the American archaeological community.

Yes, there is a lot more to the story of Afghanistan's archaeological nightmare than just a mention of the looting, but SAFE did at least get it right in the sense that the losses are a monumental tragedy.

Forever Young

2009-07-26T00:43:00.009-05:00

This past week I spent an afternoon with Ralph Conte in Columbia, Missouri. This active nonagenarian was a Bombardier/Navigator with the 669th and 670th Bomb Squadrons of the 416th Bomb Group during WWII and authored the Group history Attack Bombers We Need You. Most of his 65 combat missions were flown in the A-20 Havoc. He is the recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Purple Heart and numerous other U.S. and Allied Nation decorations and awards. Ralph graciously consented to sitting for a video taping session and for three hours he shared many remembrances of his days in the 416th, some delightful and some insightful—all of them interesting. At the very end of the session, Ralph reflected on the process of looking back. It was a poignant moment that I thought worth sharing now. The remainder of this interview will serve as source material, along with other interviews, photos and remembrances, for an eventual documentary about the 416th.

Ralph Conte

An IFAR Evening

2009-07-24T22:32:00.003-05:00

On April 17, 2008 the International Foundation for Art Research hosted a public forum at the National Academy in New York. This rather unusual forum was titled "The Who, What, Why and How of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC). The panelists consisted of five, at that time, current and former members of the committee. Two of them were archaeologists, two chairpersons, and one a former dealer in the art trade. The long-awaited public report of this meeting appears in the most recent volume of IFAR Journal, Vol. 10, Nos. 3&4 (2008/2009). Peter Tompa has mentioned the report in his blog and has indicated that he plans to summarize the presentations of each individual—so I'll leave the bulk of the report itself to Peter. My copy of the journal arrived today and I read the 25 page article with great interest. Aside from the predictable philosophical differences of some panelists, I was struck by the candor of a number of comments from panelists that were very critical of the State Department's administration of this committee. Then current chairperson Jay I. Kislak shared the thinly veiled complaint that "We have a democracy, and it is a government of the people, for the people, by the people, not by the bureaucrats over them." What came through loud and clear from these presentations is that the basis for ACCG's claim that the State Department has perverted the law (CPIA) is on solid ground. The lack of transparency, indeed outright secrecy, at DOS was heavily criticized by three of the panelists and was characterized by Mr. Kislak as "absolutely, completely, un-American." He further opined that "this committe is going to continue in secrecy so long as the people controlling it can control it that way." Another panelist mentioned the ACCG led FOIA lawsuit as an example of how desperate the transparency issue has become at DOS.

Another point that seemed obvious to me was the clear dichotomy of interests that CPAC represents. Theoretically (under law) the committee is composed of eleven appointees from four major interest groups—three members represent the fields of archaeology, anthropology or ethnology; three members represent the trade; three members represent the general public and two members represent the museum community. As panelists in the IFAR forum pointed out, the committee has essentially become a vehicle for imposing import restrictions. It does in practically every case, recommend import restrictions as requested by foreign countries. One notable exception was the request from Cyprus in 2007 where CPAC did not recommend extending the existing restriction to include coins. The State Department added coins nonetheless, disregarding CPAC's advice. The only interest group of those mentioned above that dogmatically supports import restrictions is the archaeological community. That creates what amounts to a black and white situation. Therefore, it is rather amazing that their view has prevailed over so many years and through so much diversity of CPAC membership. In fact, it is downright mind boggling that the nationalistic archaeological view could be so predominant when their physical numbers are so tiny in comparison to the globalist view. This begs a number of questions about how CPAC works. ACCG has asked those questions, and sought documents related to the process, but the shroud of secrecy blocked every path. Although some archaeologists have criticized or ridiculed the FOIA lawsuit now nearing a conclusion, the IFAR report makes it clear that this challenge was long overdue and is as American as apple pie. Petitioning government for answers and accountability is an American right and ridicule from abroad notwithstanding, it is still a right that many Americans hold dear and will fight for.

That collectors are forced into an adversarial situation with archaeologists is a sad and unfortunate situation. However, it appears that as long as archaeology is dominated by ideologues bent on the elimination of opposing views, we are left with the train wreck that cultural property management and protection is today. Kudos to IFAR for bringing this topic out into the sunshine even if it was an evening event.

Questions and Truth

2009-06-27T09:22:00.028-05:00

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) argued that truth is a value judgement and questioned the premise that truth is always preferable to (or more valuable than) untruth. He also suggested that we should learn from the ancient Sphinx how to ask questions. Should a question always seek the truth as a response? One would normally think so, but what of the case where an untruth is valued more highly by someone than the truth? Is insinuation of an untruth in the form of a question a reflection of values and therefore acceptable? Nevermind, that's a rhetorical question that has no truth or untruth in the answer.

In a news article headlined "Why are Ancient Coins From Cyprus Featured in a Suit Against the US Department of State?" archaeologist David Gill asks a misleading question. Of course, they are NOT featured in any such lawsuit (at least not yet). This question was posed by Gill in a press release filed through a commercial news service. It ran, as these releases always do, in scores of media outlets that reach a very wide spectrum of society. Being a news medium, with certain standards of veracity, the reader might expect to find an answer based on truth. Unless, of course, the question is framed with a Nietzschean mindset. In that case, an untruth may be viewed by the author as a perfectly acceptable answer, irrespective of societal norms. The typical reader of a press release is not going to know much about Nietszche or about ancient coins, maybe not even about Cyprus. They definitely will not know much about the U.S. State Department, which is by design one of the most secretive agencies in the U.S. government. For Gill's answer to the headline question, the reader is referred to his most current blog posting. But, as a final teaser at the end of his press release Gill asks one more question: "Are these aggressive legal tactics really for the benefit of collectors, or are there other factors at work?" Once again, the reader expects a question to be followed by a truth. Instead, what they are fed is a potpourri of inaccuracies, untruths and insinuations. What poses as an innocent question is really the sort of catty insinuation that one comes to expect in blogs these days, not in the media.

Let me just outline a few specific inaccuracies in the Gill press release and blog. Speaking about the ACCG/IAPN/PNG Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, he writes: "The alliance objected to the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) restricting the import of ancient coins minted in Cyprus as part of a wider memorandum of understanding (MOU)."

The truth is that CPAC did NOT restrict the import of ancient coins minted in Cyprus. CPAC voted against adding coins to the extension of the existing MOU. The U.S. State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs added coins on its own volition, disregarding the advice of its own advisory committee. Moreover, the FOIA lawsuit is not about the Cyprus import restrictions as the sources that Gill himself quotes will attest.

It's unfortunate that Dr. Gill chooses to argue against the actions of ACCG et al when he clearly does not understand how the U.S. government or legal systems work. The FOIA lawsuit is not about the Cyprus MOU, it is about a series of nine FOIA requests for information dating back to 2004. The requested information consists of documentation that should, under law, have been released to the general public. However, the State Department has in every case denied access to even the most mundane information. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit exhausted every possible administrative appeal prior to launching this suit. Since filing the suit, the State Department has voluntarily released hundreds of documents previously denied. Further releases of material still withheld may be mandated by the federal judge presiding over the case. To characterize this suit as commercially motivated is either ignorant of the facts or malevolent. But, even if it were commercially motivated, so what? Is commerce immoral or against the law? Dr. Gill is certainly not a member of the ACCG and has no standing to complain on that account. As a point of fact, not one single member of the guild has complained about this lawsuit or how it is being handled. On the contrary, they are funding it.

Gill asks on his blog: "Is this alliance of three organisations in reality acting over freedom of information? Could there also be an implicit commercial interest in the liberalisation of the market in ancient coins? This reference to "the liberalisation of the market in ancient coins" is actually a bit comical. The market is constantly being assailed and restricted in one action after another. I don't quite understand how trying to deflect this onslaught is a liberalization of the market. He quotes the following phrase from a State Department filing in court: "Consequently, Plaintiffs’ claims that they are advocating the public interest are properly viewed with some skepticism given ACCG’s “two phase” “coordinated plan” to attempt to rescind the import restrictions, which would commercially benefit a number of its benefactors, who appear to be U.S.-based dealers and brokers of ancient coins."

The Freedom of Information Act protects the rights of all U.S. citizens whether they be archaeologists, collectors or coin dealers. Gill ought to know this, since he is quoting above from court documents provided for the public on the ACCG web site. Although he states in his blog that the plaintiffs refuted the above statement, he chooses to post it anyway and conveniently neglects to post or link to the plaintiff's response (below) from those same documents:

"Initially, it should be noted that Defendant [State Department] spends a great deal of space in its reply/opposition discussing Plaintiff ACCG’s efforts to challenge import restrictions. (Defendant’s reply/opposition at 4, 25-26.) No matter how Defendant feels about these actions, they are completely immaterial and unrelated to this FOIA action (1). NARA v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 172 (“[A]s a general rule, when documents are within FOIA’s disclosure provisions, citizens should not be required to explain why they seek the information.”) reh’g denied, 541 U.S. 1057 (2004). The fact that Defendant is upset with one of the three Plaintiffs actions is not surprising when reviewed in the prism of this lawsuit. Defendant initially refused to process most of the requests at issue until Plaintiffs brought this action. See Compl. At Counts I to IX. And the releases grudgingly made by Defendant illustrate the lengths Defendant’s component controlling many of the responsive records, the Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs (“ECA”), has gone to circumvent Plaintiffs and others with similar points of view from voicing their opinions on import restrictions.

(1) In fact, only one of the three named Plaintiffs in this matter, ACCG, is making the challenge to the import restriction as detailed by Defendant. At pages 4-5, Defendant claims ACCG is pursuing that matter in support of the “commercial interests” of some its benefactors. This tact, evidently cribbed from some of the more outspoken archaeological blogs, is not only inaccurate, but beside the point. See http://ancientcoincollecting.blogspot.com/2009/05/rose-is-rose.html (last visited June 2, 2009) and http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/05/whats-wrong-with-commercial-interests.html (last visited June 2, 2009). In any event, only U.S. Customs has the power to ensure that ‘test case” will proceed. To date, U.S. Customs has detained some 23 inexpensive, common, “unprovenanced” ancient Chinese and Cypriot coins properly declared before import from the United Kingdom into the “Port of Baltimore.” See http://www.accg.us/issues/news/coin-collectors-to-challenge-state-department-on-import-restrictions (last visited June 2, 2009). Customs will either return the coins or take the legal steps necessary to seize them either through an administrative process or through an “in rem” action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland."

Gill further states in his blog: "The growing realisation that action needs to be taken about the antiquities market has been reflected in the work of the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC). The most noticeable action was over antiquities from Iraq in the wake of the Second Gulf War and the looting of the Baghdad Museum."

This statement is really ludicrous as well as being one of those "untruths" that get tossed about with such wild abandon. Regarding CPAC, the committee was formed under law expressly to protect the rights of the trade and general public. That is why the seats on the committee are mandated by law to include representatives from the trade, museums, and general public as well as archaeologists. Any change of concensus that may be detected at CPAC in recent years is not a reflection of a change in market dynamics, but rather a product of the fact that pro-archaeology and nationalist leaning individuals had been appointed to some of the museum and general public slots, skewing the ideology and consequently the vote from its legally mandated representative base toward a special interest. Gill's comment about CPAC and Iraq is profoundly off the mark. CPAC had no involvement whatever with Iraq and in fact could not have had under law. The temporary import restrictions on antiquities from Iraq (which are soon to expire) were authorized by specific legislative action, not by the State Department under CPIA.

He goes on to say: "The ACCG seems intent on criticising a policy that is intended to offer some protection to the archaeological heritage of Cyprus and China by placing restrictions on the movement of material that may have been derived as a result of illicit diggings on archaeological sites." I would consider this an innocent misunderstanding had we not plowed this field so many times in the past. In the present light, I can only see it as a purposeful and malicious mischaracterization. The ACCG has never opposed CPIA and indeed has stated publicly and often that it is a fair and equitable law. The ACCG has opposed the tyranny, secrecy, and disregard for the letter and intent of CPIA evidenced repeatedly by the State Department's arbitrary and capricious application of select provisions of the law while ignoring basic protections within that law. That Dr. Gill finds this objectionable seems odd to me since it is a matter between American citizens and the U.S. Government and he is neither. The ACCG has always condemned illicit digging on archaeological sites. That is a well known fact that Dr. Gill fails to admit. Instead, he suggest through his implicit language that the situation is otherwise. He is being neither coy nor subtle, he is courting his own distorted view of the truth.

Despite their erudition, Dr. Gill and his colleagues seem to know precious little about American law and even less about the ACCG court cases in progress and pending. They, in fact, know very little about the ACCG itself and obviously operate on presumptions made within their narrow ideological framework. They spread misinformation, like wildfire on the plains, often through pure murdering of the truth. I don't think even Neitzche had that in mind. He did, however, say:

"To help a perception to achieve victory often means merely to unite it with stupidity so intimately that the weight of the latter also enforces the victory of the former."

Human, all too Human, s.122, R.J. Hollingdale translation.

Coming Home

2009-06-01T11:27:00.001-05:00

Anyone who has an Email account has had more than one experience with forwarded inspirational messages. While these are always well intentioned, and often touching, they do tend to gang up on one's free time and tax one's ability sometimes to fully appreciate them. As a matter of course, I rarely pass them on. But, one came from a friend in the mail last week that I simply must share. Any copyright info was long since lost in the forwarding process but the origin is clearly a message from Ford Motor Company™. It is, in fact, a commercial of sorts. So, let's add the copyright back in and give full credit to Ford for producing the most poignant commercial that I have ever seen. Yes, even better than the Budweiser Christmas commercials. I'm not given to emotionalism, as all who know me well will quickly attest, but this video brings tears to my eyes every time I watch it. Now, even if you are a fan of the new State-owned General Motors products, you owe it to yourself to watch this one. I'm pretty sure that Ford will forgive my transgression in passing it along.

The Walls of Foggy Bottom

2009-05-11T17:51:00.008-05:00

Ancient coin collectors are hoping for a 21st century rerun of Joshua and the Walls of Jericho as the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild musters its forces beneath the Walls of Secrecy surrounding the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs in Washington. The collectors advocacy group has launched a bold initiative to challenge unprecedented import restrictions that coin collectors feel were imposed without proper advice and considerations by the U.S. State Department. Indeed, the ACCG is claiming that the imposition of these restrictions was an abuse of discretion by State Department personnel.

While some nationalistic (and one can hardly avoid the word elitist) archaeologists have reviled and ridiculed private collectors, the ACCG has methodically moved forward with its effort to bring the cultural property battle to the halls of Justice. A recent and intentional importation of prohibited Chinese and Cypriot coins by the ACCG will serve as a test of the validity of import restrictions imposed through State Department agreements with China and Cyprus. As a consequence, the walls of secrecy at DOS that have long been considered impregnable could start to crumble. In a recent administrative order, President Obama himself called for a new era of transparency within governmental agencies. It will be interesting to see what effect this shared view of the White House and Ancient Coin Collectors, filtered through the Federal Courts, will have on the Walls of Foggy Bottom.

The Stick and Carrot

2009-03-20T11:25:00.007-05:00

In a recent New York Times article by Benjamin Genocchio, an interesting quote appeared on the bottom line. Referring to the recent import restrictions on Chinese cultural property, Dr. Stephen K. Urice, a former archaeologist and now Associate Professor at the University of Miami School of Law, reportedly said: “We got the stick, and now it’s time to see the carrot”. The Stick and Carrot metaphor is insightful in that it reveals a mindset that academic archaeologists often share but couch in other terms in a futile effort to appear subtle. The objective of nationalist archaeologists is to preclude (by any and all means) the distribution of material objects from the past—which to them means diffusion of culture. All of this "cultural property" (and the list is very, very long) belongs, in their view, in the place where it was created. Nevermind that it might have originally been produced for export, and migrated freely aroud the world for centuries. True national treasures aside, the very concept of national retention of cultural property runs against the grain of globalism. Yet, countries that seek the nationalism of what they call cultural property are often the same countries espousing more global assistance in their internal development. The U.S. State Department publicly advocates cultural sharing, yet advocates a restriction on shared "cultural property" of the most mundane and innocuous nature. The dichotomies are extreme and nonsensical.

Dr. Urice obviously considers the levying of import restrictions on Chinese cultural property as a "stick" in the master plan of cultural property nationalists. The "carrot" must, in his view, come from the Chinese. That is, the Chinese government should be enticing its citizens with incentives to hinder the search for objects of antiquity and, when found, to retain them within China. Is there something wrong with this picture? The United States government, perhaps the most active promoter of globalism in history, is using a stick against its own citizens to advance nationalist interests abroad. At the same time, it is asking (respectfully and gently) that the Chinese government TRY to dangle a carrot before its own people. The dichotomies are astounding and the pride with which nationalist archaeologists point to the China MOU as being good for society is literally beyond comprehension.

When the United States prohibits the importation of the very coins that the Chinese government advertises and sells directly to tourists through its Bank of China, there ought to be some sort of awakening to the reality that there is a disconnect. That the State Department imposed import restrictions knowing full well about those coin sales is an abomination. But, no, the U.S. imposed restrictions are applauded by nationalist archaeologists as a good thing. How, might I ask, can the Chinese government provide the carrot when they are officially and happily doing exactly what these archaeolgists would have them discourage among their citizens? When Richard Nixon opened the door to China, he could never have anticipated such a bizarre and incomprehensible situation—least of all with the blessing of the U.S. State Department and the archaeological community, once the largest importer of antiquities in the world.

Copycat Hydra?

2009-03-03T10:10:00.006-06:00

In an earlier blog, I referred to the U.S. State Department as the "Hydra of bureaucracy." The Hydra was, in Greek mythology, a multi-headed sub-terranean creature with a poisonous breath. If some adventurous soul managed to cut off one of the heads, two more would spring up in its place. That is, I will be the first to admit, a harsh metaphor to describe government employees serving "the people." In other posts on this blog, I have provided some examples of why I personally feel that service to the people has not always been the primary motivation at DOS, or at least not at the Cultural Heritage Center of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.

Today, I found online a new State Department "Organization Chart" that I initially presumed was part of the DOS website. The fact that the site had a Blogspot URL did not strike me as odd at first because DOS has widely advertised its new interest in blogging. However, when I clicked on "About Me" it quickly became apparent that this was a copycat and likely a rather creative advertising scheme. In checking all of the posts to date on this private blog, I was able to find nothing but very generic descriptions of the State Department and its functions—nothing controversial or objectionable. But, the thought occurred to me, what if some website creating the impression of an official DOS medium started posting ideological views? Would that not be another head of the same Hydra? Call me paranoid if you like, but in a world where a superpower like China will openly sanction sabotage of a legal auction in another country, I harbor no illusions about the lengths to which ideologues will go in pursuit of their objectives.

Actually, the organization chart posted by this anonymous blogger was enlightening since I have never really looked at the entire DOS structure like this. I don't doubt that it is accurate. A reading of the list of offices within DOS makes it very clear that the structure, as one might expect, is pyramidal and there does seem to be an office for everything imaginable. Beneath the Secretary of State are six Undersecretaries heading a plethora of agencies and functions. One of those Under Secretaries is the "Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs: The senior economic advisor for the Secretary and Deputy Secretary on international economic policy. This position is responsible for bureaus, headed by Assistant Secretaries, dealing with trade, agriculture, aviation, and bilateral trade relations with America's economic partners." These are obviously the people who know about business and trade.

Another Under Secretary is the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs: "This position manages units that handle the department's public communications and seek to burnish the image of the United States around the world." Some might say that these are the "Spin Doctors". Beneath this Under Secretary is the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. I'm not sure how effective that Bureau has been in recent years as Americans are not viewed these days in the most favorable light. Be that as it may, the thing that seems peculiar to me is that the people who know about trade and business are not the people who evaluate requests for trade restrictions on coins. In fact, those people do not even seem to be in the loop. The decision on requests for import restrictions comes under the purview of an agency geared not to trade and business issues, but to enhancing public image overseas. Is it any wonder that the Cultural Heritage Center consistently finds in favor of foreign diplomacy over the interests of domestic trade?

These two divisions, with opposed interests in this case, converge only at the Deputy Secretary position, the number two person at DOS. Consequently, unless an issue is of grave consequence, it is not likely to receive inter-departmental attention. Thus isolated from broad departmental oversight, and traditionally operating under a shroud of secrecy, the Cultural Heritage Center has essentially had a free rein when it came to advocating and implementing its own ideological views. We can probably not expect any change in that situation until a greater and wiser power intervenes. But, hope springs eternal—now that change has arrived in Washington, maybe we will see this stone wall in Foggy Bottom torn down.

"Who do these materials belong to?"

2009-03-02T17:44:00.010-06:00

Carol Conover, a Manhattan art dealer specializing in Chinese art, asked this apparently rhetorical but exceedingly apropos question in an interview with Susan Adams of Forbes magazine. There are hundreds of news articles sizzling on the internet about this issue, so I won't go into it in any detail, but the essence is that the Auction firm of Christie's sold two bronze animal heads from the collection of Yves Saint Laurent for some $40 million and the buyer reneged. Why the heads brought this kind of money at all is a mystery to me, but maybe that's why I'm still relatively poor :-) The buyer, one Cai Mingchao, was reportedly trying to be a Chinese patriot by "sabotaging" the auction. He is, according to press reports, an advisor to a Chinese heritage group as well as being a private collector and auctioneer who had earlier bid successfully on a $15 million Buddha in a Sotheby's sale. He apparently wanted to keep the objects from being sold to someone outside of China. Or, perhaps he had another intention that did not suit the Chinese government and was forced to reneg? Or, was he actually acting as an instrument of the Chinese government? Whatever the case, the issue brings up some important questions, which are timely for numismatists. Who owns any of this "stuff" that is highly touted as "cultural heritage" and indeed, whose culture is it that's being preserved?

There has been so much hooplah about private collectors "stealing the past" that one would think the past (read that as artifacts) must be pretty clearly defined in terms of ownership. After all, one can't claim that something has been stolen from them unless they can claim ownership in the first place. That is at least the concept of justice that Americans have always understood as a universal truth. But, is it really universal? Many cultural property laws in force today are based not on any traditional ownership claim, but rather on an idealistic national heritage claim. It is really a misnomer to call any of the objects from antiquity residing in the ground in Turkey or Egypt, for example, cultural heritage. The present day governments of these countries bear no semblance at all politically, ethnically, religiously nor culturally to those that formerly controlled these lands. Let's call a spade a spade. These countries, and others like them, believe they "own" the material that they lay claim to because they won that material by conquest—not because it is their heritage. Yet, they deny previous tenants of the same land any claim to art and artifacts from that region—railing often about all the "looted" objects of the past that reside in museums and private collections elsewhere. Nevermind that the supposed "looting" often took place before their own governments even existed, and often with the full knowledge and cooperation of local authorities. Ironically, Greek and Armenian objects still rest in Turkish museums, while Turkish and Greek objects reside in Egyptian museums. It's nonsensical. Can cultural heritage be defined by political authority or GPS coordinates? The whole notion of cultural heritage as a national phenomenon is highly overstated and extremely esoteric in our age.

Does the Chinese government have a right to the rabbit and rat's heads that they claim were "stolen" from their country? Not in the eyes of a French court that failed to block the Christie's sale. Since the objects left China in 1860, the supposed theft is itself ancient history. The People's Republic of China did not exist when these bronze decorations left the country—how could they possibly claim ownership? Kudos to the French court for standing on law and not bowing to politics. Kudos also to Christie's for standing firm and auctioning the items amidst furious objections from the Chinese government. The Chinese, it seems, were caught between a rock and a hard spot. They could have purchased the pieces for the state, it would have amounted to a tiny fraction of the income from exports to the U.S., but this would have been an admission that the objects were not illicit. They couldn't have it both ways! In my opinion, Christie's should offer the items to the underbidder, but that is a matter between the consignor and the auctioneer under any applicable laws in France.

A related question might be: does the PRC own all of the coins struck prior to AD 970 by Chinese rulers—no matter where those coins are found today? Huge hoards of these coins have been found in Vietnam, deposited centuries ago. Should a Chinese coin of the Tang Dynasty found in Vietnam be restricted from importation into the United States? Common sense says no, the coins found in Vietnam are owned by someone in Vietnam, not by the Chinese. But such coins are indeed restricted by the Memorandum Of Understanding between the U.S. State Department and China because there are no records to show when they left China. The presumption that every Chinese coin lacking an export permit was exported illegally from China is an unreasonable assumption and the requirement for an importer to prove legality is a reversal of the burden of proof that rightfully rests upon the accusing party — the state in this case. The answer to Carol Conover's question "who do these materials belong to" is already imbedded in the legal codes of each nation. Trying to construct an ideological model as a replacement for public law is a recipe for disaster. There are already plenty of laws in every civilized country that deal with ownership and theft. There is no need or justification for replacing law with ideological administrative controls that become in essence a law without checks and balances.

Shared Group Identity

2009-02-02T23:16:00.006-06:00

Over the past several years I have frequently encountered the view that repatriation of cultural objects is ethically the "right" thing to do. That is a claim loaded with philosophical nuances that have been, are being and will continue to be hotly debated. One might think that the views are consistent and polarized between two extremes, and typically that is true. There are cases, however, where one simply cannot find a logical and consistent thread.

The archaeological community has consistently supported repatriation of unprovenanced artifacts to countries of origin and heralds every known case of such, no matter how seemingly insignificant. It is a rare press report that does not identify even mundane artifacts as "priceless historical treasures". The return of even a few low grade and insignificant coins to the embassy of some foreign nation is often cause for an official ceremony with plenty of back-patting and media coverage. It is, after all, the preservation of cultural heritage at work -- is it not? Without going into a dissertation about what is or is not cultural heritage, it seems intuitively obvious that the most important form of any culture's heritage is that culture's ancestry. The human remains of any culture ought to greatly outweigh in significance any object created by those humans. Why then did the Society for American Archaeology and others file amici briefs arguing that Kennewick Man should not be returned to a native American tribe for burial?

A core element of the SAA brief was that the tribe seeking repatriation of Kennewick Man's remains failed to prove a "shared group identity" and thereby had no legitimate claim to the remains. The SAA argued, "even if it could be shown that contemporary Native American residents of an area were descended from earlier residents who lived in the same area 10,000 years ago, that in itself would not be sufficient to show shared group identity between modern tribes and ancient remains or objects." This is a 180 degree turn-about from the view that comes from archaeologists who work in the classical field. Where is the shared group identity between modern day Turks and the Greek people who produced coins in autonomous Anatolian cities during the Roman era? Does the failure to return coins of this type to the Turkish government constitute a deprivation of cultural heritage? Is it the right thing ethically to repatriate artifacts without direct cultural connection, but not human remains?

The court decided in 2004 that a cultural link had not been met and that scientists (archaeologists) did not have to repatriate the Kennewick Man remains. If the remains of a Native American who had been buried for some 5,000 to 8,000 years have no cultural link to modern Native Americans now living in that region, then surely the coins mentioned above cannot be considered the cultural heritage of Turkey. Of course Turkey is only one of many countries that today are populated by people with no shared group identity to those who struck coins at the same geographical place in antiquity. The inconsistency of arguments in these two cases illustrates all too well it seems that the ethics and principles that are highly touted as a basis for action are really secondary to the ends being served by the arguments.

Context is Truth -- or maybe not :-(

2009-01-24T22:14:00.006-06:00

In perusing the blog of one archaeologist today I noticed an interesting comment. The blogger and a commentor were questioning the accuracy of the reported "find" location of some objects reported in the British Portable Antiquities Scheme. They were, in fact, criticizing the PAS itself. Both implied that professional archaeological excavation was the only way to guarantee the origin of an object (i.e. not "looted") and its authenticity.

The reason that this resonated in my admittedly foggy memory is that some twenty-years-ago I was personally involved in a raging debate over the authenticity of some small silver-alloy coins from the Balkan cities of Mesembria and Apollonia, referred to as the Black Sea Hoard. Without going into a long explanation of the details, I was one of a group of private numismatists that condemned the coins as modern fakes. Opposed to our view was a scientist from a prominent university in Michigan who tested the coins with an Electron Scanning Microscope and pronounced them ancient, not modern. As the debate raged, over a two-year period, the scientist defended his analysis by actually making a trip to Bulgaria, where these coin types were struck in antiquity. At the archaeological museum in Varna, the scientist found deposited there coins of this type from a local archaeological excavation. Indeed, the coins were a die match to some of the coins being debated. This would seem to suggest, since the excavation was an official state controlled project, that the dies were indeed ancient and that the coins in question were authentic. Well, that was not the case. The Black Sea Hoard coins first started showing up in European markets in 1986, the same year that these excavation coins were accessioned at the Varna museum. What a coincidence! To make a long story shorter, I'll cut to the chase. The coins were fakes and the actual dies used to produce them were ultimately made public. The excavation coins at the Varna museum were salted in the excavation to lend credibility to their authenticity.

In November of 2000, a leading Japanese archaeologist admitted fabricating the discovery of exceedingly rare and early stoneware by planting the objects himself. He revealed to reporters that the new discoveries were actually objects found in earlier digs that he had planted in the 600,000-year-old layer of earth and that he had kept more than 60 of the stoneware pieces at his home. Obviously, the information from this official excavation was totally invalid.

There have been many other cases of outright fraud in supposedly controlled environments.
Archaeologist Paul Bahn wrote about the problem of fraud within his own discipline in a 2001 article where he states that: "Careers have been boosted, reputations made and enhanced, salaries raised and honours awarded because the perpetrators have indulged in these kinds of dishonesty. Too often, nobody has felt able or courageous enough to point the finger and expose them; no one, least of all the media, has checked the facts; and, anyway, most people find it hard to believe that scholars would lie and cheat so brazenly." Bahn rightly points out that such cases in relative terms are rare, but they do have an impact on scholarship.

The point, I think, is that there are no guarantees in the realm of human experience. We all need to do the best that we can and the PAS does offer a far superior model for the preservation of cultural property and archaeological sites than any of the draconian laws of Mediterranean countries where antiquities are found in seemingly endless numbers. We ought to be praising the efforts of those who manage the PAS rather than snatching at any and every way to hurl a criticism.

Round one to the Foggy Bottom Klan

2009-01-16T18:59:00.008-06:00

Yes, it's true. The Bush Administration has signed the deeply flawed, much contested and largely unpopular Memorandum of Understanding that restricts the importation of many forms of Chinese art and artifacts into America. Personally, it was a disappointing event for me. No, I don't collect or deal in anything Chinese. In fact, Chinese coins are not particularly popular in the U.S. collector market and will be missed by a relatively few collectors of ancient coins. Why was it disappointing? Because as a person who values personal property rights very highly, I have become disillusioned with the political party that once carried that banner with pride. The Chinese request for import restrictions was flawed from the start and was opposed by a bi-partisan list of legislators including Senators Kit Bond (R) of Missouri and Charles Schumer (D) of New York, both of whom received the ACCG "Friend of Numismatics" award for intervening with the State Department on this issue. They did, in fact, kill action on the MOU back in 2005 when it was being deliberated. But, now that everyone on the White House team is packing their treasures and mementos in Washington, the bureaucrats get to rule the roost and Bush's 11th hour appointee Goli Ameri has been quite happy it seems to sign, smile and skate. It hard to believe that a political appointee with only months on the job would sign a problematic international agreement on the way out the door without any apparent reservation or renewed discussion. Sure, Ms. Ameri can go back to Portland and hang a bunch of impressive photos on her office wall, but her real legacy in Washington is that she helped perpetuate the usurpation of the U.S. Government by mid-level bureaucrats. I'm not sure if it's ironic, or maybe just typical, that Ms. Ameri's predecessor Dina Powell did esentially the same thing with the Cyprus MOU as she was slipping out the door to begin her new job at Goldman Sachs. Are these two at fault? Well probably not, even though one would hope for a bit more political savvy in a high profile job like theirs. They were manipulated by the sharpest bureaucrats the world has ever seen—the Foggy Bottom Klan. The outcome is hardly a major setback for the ancient coin collecting community, but the revolving door of political appointees at ranking State Department positions is indeed a major impediment to fair government and service to the people. I hope that Secretary of State Clinton gets a better handle on it. Whoever Secretary Clinton appoints to replace Ms. Ameri at the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, one thing is certain. They will hear more about Cyprus and China—from both sides, I'm sure.

Ad Usam: A philosophical straight jacket

2009-01-01T17:43:00.010-06:00

A friend and fellow collector of ancient coins sent me an interesting article this year along with the annual family news and holiday greetings. The title is "Everything viewed as 'Ad usam,' For use, as gift." The piece was written by Ron Rolheiser, OMI and may be read in its entirety on Rolheiser's web site. The OMI, by the way, stands for Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate. Father Rolheiser, a Roman Catholic priest, is a noted speaker, columnist and author. He is president of the Oblate School of Theology in San Antonio, Texas. The essence of his article is encapsulated in the extracted quote:

"What ultimately undergirds all spirituality, all morality, and all authentic human relationship is the unalterable truth that everything comes to us as gift, so that nothing can ever be owned as ours by right."

I have to admit that this premise led me to a moment or two of introspection. Try though I may, I cannot personally imagine a world in which we own nothing. The introspection came when I had to ask myself if this view of mine is somehow aberrant. For most people, the philosophical question probably never arises, but having been told by several people in recent years that it is "immoral" for an individual to own cultural property, specifically ancient coins, I've become a bit sensitized to that line of reasoning. Father Rolheiser goes on to say that "...nobody has a right to ultimately claim anything as his own." Admittedly, perpetual ownership is impossible because mortality trumps all. However, for the here and now, I cannot agree with his view that we have no "right to ownership." In fact, I would argue that Father Rolheiser is way out on a limb with his view, as are those who believe that the private collecting of cultural property is somehow immoral or inappropriate.

The essence of Cultural Property Nationalism, and the law of the land in some intensely nationalist countries, is that the State owns everything of cultural significance found in (or on) the ground. The removal of any cultural property from these States is by their law considered theft. In recent years the U.S. National Stolen Property Act has become a vehicle through which foreign governments attempt to retrieve property that they claim as cultural patrimony. It is impossible to have theft without ownership. The laws of practically every modern nation are built around the concept of property rights, whether they be the rights of States or of private citizens. Even the Bill of Rights embodied in the United States Constitution includes the protection of property rights and ownership. I'm sure that the Roman Catholic Church, Father Rolheiser's view notwithstanding, considers its exemption from taxation in the U.S. a "right" rather than a gift. I suspect that the church also believes, beyond any doubt, that they "own" the substantial properties to which they hold title. The observance of absolute poverty and obedience may be spiritually rewarding to some monastical visionaries, but it is not the axis upon which the world turns.

I submit that individuals do have a moral and legal right to own property that is not prohibited by law. In fact, under law in most places what is not specifically illegal is by default legal. Contrary to the opinion of some idealists within the archaeological community, the right to own cultural property is not an exception to basic universal rights. But even if it were, and Father Rolheiser's view were to become a world consensus, what divine or mortal law mandates that possession ad usam is limited to self appointed or parochial stewards? Whether those stewards be Benedictine abbots or academic archaeologists, the controls they wield under the guise of stewardship are no less repressive to mankind than the draconian laws of repressive political regimes. They seek to strip individuals of inalienable rights and often do so with relish and bravado. When a Benedictine monk relinquishes his rights voluntarily, as Father Rolheiser has described, it is one thing. When rights are involuntarily stripped from one person to serve the ideological agenda of another person it is something entirely different.

I really do have a hard time wrapping my mind around the concept of mandatory stewardship when it amounts to nothing more than a usurpation by controlling interests without even the pretense of "Divine Right" or "Controlling Legal Authority." Make no mistake, the confrontation between cultural property nationalists and private collectors is indeed about ownership and rights— the concept of Ad usam is just an esoteric mask for the institutional repression of individual freedoms.

In violation of a convention?

2008-12-09T10:07:00.002-06:00

Cultural property nationalists have a habit of tossing up the UNESCO Convention of 1970 on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property as some inviolable international law. I personally know of two instances in the past year where U.S. Customs agents used the UNESCO convention as an authority to detain cultural property being legally imported into the United States. In both cases, after a simple explanation of the nature of the resolution resulting from that convention, and the U.S. law that implements parts of that resolution, the citing of that convention as an authority was dropped. In a civil complaint (Case 1:08-cv-02109-HHK) filed in District Court at Washington, DC last week by the Republic of Peru against Yale University, this same charge was made: "Yale's conduct violates numerous multinational conventions and treaties concerning the protection of cultural property, such as the 1970 UNESCO Convention...."

The merit or lack of merit in this case aside, it ought to be clear to anyone (especially lawyers filing a cultural property suit) that no individual or institution can "violate" the UNESCO Convention. The convention, and its consequent resolution, have no authority and no basis for enforcement. The law that implements parts of that resolution in the United States (The Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act) is far different than the implementing laws of other nations who have signed the resolution. Only the provisions outlined in CPIA have authority in the United States. Therefore, we must look to this law and related international agreements for guidance on how to deal with perceived transgressions.

So why do Cultural Property Nationalists insist on flaunting UNESCO 1970 as law? My own opinion would be that it is just wishful thinking. Since they were not able, over a period of nearly 15 years, to get the UNESCO resolution adopted verbatim into law within the U.S. they are wishful now that merely alluding to it will be enough to create a perception of authority. Indeed, that was enough in the cases of the customs agents mentioned above, who had obviously received some bad advice from somebody (perhaps somebody with a specific ideology to proselytize). CPIA deals with restrictions (not prohibitions) under very clearly defined and carefully crafted criteria. It is a law that serves all of the people when it is applied as intended and enforced without bias.

The likelihood of all parties with an interest in cultural property finding common ground is lessened by the indiscriminate charges that are levied against private collectors and museums these days. In the face of strong ideological differences, we must rely on law as a basis for our actions. So, I would suggest to the lawyers for the Republic of Peru that they stop trying to obscure the issue with references that, although sensational, are not germane.

Ethics, Law and Globalization

2008-11-24T10:39:00.004-06:00

One view in archaeology today is that private citizens of any given country have an ethical responsibility to preserve the cultural heritage of all countries. The foundation for this view seems to be that cultural property protection requires a global effort. In 1970, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) codified this view through a resolution designed to control the transfer of cultural property between nations through the application of implementing legislation in member states. Indeed, the adherents of UNESCO 1970 would like to see a more global approach to this legislation. It is hard to deny that in the modern age we do see a dramatic increase in economic, political and social interaction between people of diverse national and social backgrounds which often is referred to as "globalization". The internet is a prime example of how globalization actually transcends nationalism. One would think that this might, by default, lead to the evolution of global ethics, but that seems not to be the case.

Oddly, those dealing directly with objects classified by UNESCO as "cultural property" often reject a global view of culture. Instead, they advocate retentionist laws and policies that promote nationalism rather than globalism. The fervor with which these cultural property nationalists press their agenda seems directly proportional to the rise of globalism in all other aspects of life. It seems incongruous that a nation like China, for example, should press for free trade of their export products and at the same time seek over-reaching restrictions on trade in former export products now deemed cultural property. It seems equally incongruous that a country like Cyprus can lay claim to everything ever made in the country's classical past, no matter where it is today or when it left Cyprus. Is it unethical for someone outside of Cyprus to possess such an object without the explicit written permission of the modern government of Cyprus?

Fortunately, ethics (being purely subjective) have nothing to do with the situation. Law and international agreements guide the actions of states and individuals. While some might wish for uniformity of law among nations, the inescapable fact is that one size does not fit all. Since the prospect of reaching any global consensus on cultural property law is remote, we all are bound by the jurisdictional codes of the place that we happen to be. Trying to shift the debate over cultural property control from a legal to an ethical framework is pointless. Instead, we ought to be looking for justice and ethics at the source of law. When cultural property nationalists eventually see that cultural isolation is neither possible nor advantageous, we will hopefully be able to get back to cooperative ventures that serve the global interests of cultural preservation.

Sour Grapes

2008-10-13T17:57:00.002-05:00

My previous blog post heralded the appointment of Brent R. Benjamin to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) as a positive step in fulfilling the intent of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act. Specifically, that is to provide a balanced perspective when evaluating requests from other nations for the imposition of import restrictions on cultural property. The eleven presidential appointments to CPAC come from diverse segments of society that are mandated by law—so that the work of the committee will reflect the views and interests of society, not just of a favored special interest. Archaeologists hold seats on the committee, as do anthropologists and ethnologists. And, so do representatives of the museum community, the trade and the general public. Mr. Benjamin, as Director of the St. Louis Art Museum, was appointed by President Bush to fill one of the positions allocated to the museum community.

As news of this appointment reached the street, there was an immediate furor among some archaeologists who characterized the appointment as "outrageous", among other adjectives, and squalled like bawling little brats who didn't get their way. They refer to supporters of Mr. Benjamin's appointment (I guess that includes me) as "ignorant". What was the impetus behind these little temper tantrums? It's simple—Mr. Benjamin is not one of them! For some time, the museum community has been represented by appointees favorable to the Archaeological community's retentionist world view of cultural property management. It mattered little that the museum community largely opposed import restrictions, their CPAC representatives religiously voted in favor of restrictions. The prospect of a true representative of museums joining the committee must be terribly daunting. The outcry really is a case, however, of the pot calling the kettle black.

When the Cypriot request for import restrictions came before CPAC, it was obvious that committee member Prof. Joan Connelly, an archaeologist who excavates in Cyprus and is beholding to the government of Cyprus for that permission, faced what most rational people would see as a clear conflict of interests. Although this was formally brought to the attention of the Executive Director of the Cultural Heritage Center, which embodies CPAC, the pro-archaeological administration of the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs determined in their infinite wisdom that no conflict existed. Be that as it may, the rant from the archaeological community about Mr. Benjamin, in retrospect, is hardly credible. All that Mr. Benjamin did to provoke their ire was to demand proof that one of SLAM's Egyptian antiquities was actually stolen, as the Egyptians claim, before he would agree to repatriate it. Frankly, given the record of Zahi Hawass, I think Mr. Benjamin is absolutely correct and fully justified in being cautious. The very fact that he has not been intimidated into some irrational response by Hawass is all the more reason to think that he was a good choice for the CPAC post.

I can't help feeling a bit bewildered about the reaction of archaeologists to this appointment. If I, for one, were to challenge an appointment to one of the archaeology or anthropology seats because the appointee was a cultural property nationalist, that would be considered a bizarre criticism—of course they would be, duh! Why is this any different? Frankly, I'm not sure what Mr. Benjamin's feelings are in regard to globalism versus nationalism in the museum world. I am guessing, however, that they are less ideologically based than we have seen in recent years. One can at least hope. Isn't that, after all, why we have mandated sector appointments?

CPAC Appointment is Positive News

2008-09-30T21:20:00.004-05:00

The latest selection by President Bush to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee already has some in the archaeological community grumbling as they see Brent Benjamin's appointment as "bad news". That is hardly unexpected I suppose, considering that archaeologists have in effect had a lock on at least one of the museum community seats on the committee for some time. Based on Mr. Benjamin's background, as Director of the Saint Louis Art Museum, it seems likely that he may be more broadly representative of the museum community's needs and interests than we have seen recently. The mounting friction between museums and archaeology may seem odd, but pressures from the archaeological community against a globalist view of collecting have hurt museums as well as private collectors and made the two groups allies in a cultural property war that has literally been forced upon them. The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild has worked closely with museum administrators and curators in a cooperative effort to preserve collector rights. Mr. Benjamin's appointment bodes well for a restoration of the balance that law mandates in the CPAC process. We wish him well.

Righteousness

2008-09-27T15:55:00.002-05:00

Here in our little backwater community nestled deep in the Ozarks, there are basically two places where one can read the latest local news and views. One is the Ozark County Times, an independently operated weekly and the other is Rural Missouri, a monthly tabloid format publication of the Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives. I find that reading these two publications is a pleasure, because they are a sort of throwback to Thomas Paine's Common Sense. This is, after all, Missouri. In the October 2008 edition of the latter, is a guest column by Richard Biever that caught my eye. Mr. Biever is senior editor of The Electric Consumer, the official publication of Indiana's electric cooperatives. The crux of Mr. Biever's message is that idealism is a laudable human characteristic and passionate idealists help us focus on the ultimate goal. BUT, forcing idealistic solutions through oppressive and onerous governmental policies is, to Mr. Biever, a worrisome approach. I agree. Biever was responding directly to a young student's comment that advocated artificially raising fossil fuel prices to force conservation. After pointing out the adverse effects of such a radical approach, Biever tossed out one of those pearls of wisdom that ought to be tatooed on the forearm of every legislator and administrator in Washington:

"Too much passion—without compassion—breeds self-righteous extremists who seek their ends by any means."

Is that not exactly what collectors of ancient coins face in their defensive struggle against the self-righteous extremists who hold court in the cultural property arena these days? As Mr. Biever points out, idealists are all too often callous to the needs and rights of others. There is nothing partisan about self-righteous idealism, it can wear a coat of many political colors. We have even seen the bastion of democracy, the United States Government, subvert the law of the land in a wave of idealism. No, I'm not talking about excesses perpetrated under the umbrella of the Patriot Act. I'm talking about the supposedly staid and stoic State Department, in a malestrom of self-righteous idealism, trampling all over the legal rights of collectors. Those rights are preserved in the Convention on Cultural Property Implementatin Act, though no casual observer would expect so these days. Left unopposed, the State Department will methodically eliminate, in a wave of self-righteous extremism, the right to import ancient coins from every nation that ever produced them.

There is only one course available to those who respect and honor the 600-year-old tradition of private collecting—we must vigorously oppose the self-righteous extremists who challenge us, just as the energy industry opposes those of a similar mind set. To do that, click on this link http://accg.us and become a member of the most active advocacy group for ancient coin collectors in the world. Even if you don't collect ancient coins, the principle here alone warrants your support.