Cultural property 101 for collectors

Over the past few days there has been a tedious discussion going on over on a collectors’; forum where a bunch of the usual pseudo-intellectuals debate the meaning of the word “heritage” (meaning the archaeological one, but they omit the adjective) and the phrase “cultural property”. It is really is rather pathetic to see, their understanding of the concept turns out to be extremely superficial. Both concepts have of course a fairly substantial academic literature which discusses their meaning, use and pitfalls, there are whole university course units (and some courses) devoted to the first. Yet all this is way over the heads of the defenders of no-questions-asked collecting of antiquities. These would-be kitchen table intellectuals cannot even be bothered to find more than a modicum of the material available on the internet, let alone reach for a book or two. It seems to me that they are kidding themselves if they consider they are adding anything to human knowledge by a discussion which does not begin with making a survey of what actually is already written on the topic.

They should surely be aware of the fact that the concept of "cultural property" (biens culturels) in global discussions on the material embodiments of human culture developed mainly as a result of the destruction of material deemed of irreplacable cultural value in the Second World War. So when Nicholas Roerich was putting together his “Pact” in the 1930s (I would hope collectors would not disagree with the principles it embodies) the term was not used in it. The term however gained currency with the 1954 Hague ‘Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict’. The no-questions-asked collectors in question seem to have problems deciding what the term “cultural property” means and to what (and whom) it applies, let us take a look at the definition given in the Convention:

Article 1. Definition of cultural property For the purposes of the present Convention, the term "cultural property" shall cover, irrespective of origin or ownership:
(a) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above;
(b) buildings whose main and effective purpose is to preserve or exhibit the movable cultural property defined in sub-paragraph (a) such as museums, large libraries and depositories of archives, and refuges intended to shelter, in the event of armed conflict, the movable cultural property defined in subparagraph (a);
(c) centres containing a large amount of cultural property as defined in subparagraphs (a) and (b), to be known as "centres containing monuments".

This is what the convention (signed by several developed and militarily aggressive nations rather belatedly let us note) defines as worthy of protection. Now I would like to see the collectors’ arguments indicating that this sort of material should not be protected from harm in the event of military conflict. When in 2003 the invader of a certain oil-rich sovereign country failed to do that, most of the world considered a great wrong had been committed (that nation had not ratified the Hague 1954 Convention at the time – and of course any dealers and collectors who got the looted stuff at a suitable price were no doubt happy).

Of course the no-questions-asked collectors arguing against the notion of cultural property are not concerned about ‘Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict’. What concerns them is another international document which embodies the term. This is of course (let us note once again its full title and function) 1970 UNESCO ‘Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property’. As we know Article 1 of this convention “the term `cultural property' means property which, on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each State as being of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science and which belongs to the following categories: […]”. Article 2 follows on from this: “The States Parties to this Convention recognize that the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property is one of the main causes of the impoverishment of the cultural heritage of the countries of origin of such property and that international co-operation constitutes one of the most efficient means of protecting each country's cultural property against all the dangers resulting there from”. I think that would be rather difficult to argue with. The no-questions-asked collectors of and especially dealers in certain types of this material are however attempting this. Fortunately though they have not really bothered to find out even in a very perfunctory manner what it is they are up against so they are merely tilting at windmills.

Silvio, Sex and (archaeological) Scandal

.

I am extremely surprised that the anti-conservationist antiquity dealers' lobby have not picked up on the latest installment of the Silvio Berlusconi sex scandal. This seems just the sort of thing they like. Tapes of intimate conversations between high class escort Patrizia D'Addario and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, 72, are the talk of Italy today - but not because of their racy content. Instead Italians are outraged at the Prime Minister's inadvertent boast in them while showing Ms D'Addario around his Villa Certosa estate on Sardinia of 30 ancient tombs buried under the swimming pool. By law, any discovery of historical significance should have been reported to the Ministry of Culture in Rome and to the local paramilitary police office in charge of cultural heritage, failure to do so can result in a fine of up to 3,000 Euro and or a year in jail - and it would appear that Berlusconi has not reported the existence of the tombs. The opposition Democratic party, which had been looking for a way to embarrass the prime minister without getting immersed in his eventful sex life, was not slow to spot the opening. Representatives in both houses of parliament tabled questions, demanding that Berlusconi and his heritage minister give an explanation. Instead of the artistic photos of Ms D'Addorio in scanty attire which most news services have appendeded to this story [no doubt to show how clever she was to hide the dictaphone dressed like that], I am sure my readers would prefer a photo (from the Daily Mail) of the Villa Certosa.

(compiled from: Archeologiczny wątek nagrań Berlusconiego i prostytutki PAP, 23.07.09; John Hooper, Berlusconi digs himself a bigger hole and claims he found Phoenician tombs Guardian 24 July 2009; Nick Pisa Italians finally outraged over Berlusconi's sex tapes (not the sex, the bit where he reveals the 30 ancient tombs on his estate) Daily Mail 24th July 2009).

A question and Two Answers

I think I mentioned earlier Robyn’s question to Peter Tompa:

Given the scale of damage done by commercial diggers to ancient Native American burial, sacred, and other sites which are protected by law, would you also oppose an MOU between the US and another country that restricts the import of Anasazi pots (such as the ones in the Blanding case) into another country? Or would you welcome their help in enforcing our own cultural property laws? After all, it's not illegal to own Anasazi pots in Egypt. Would you support their "right to collect" them, even though they were illegally dug up here?

The Washington lawyer chickened out of giving a straight answer “Robyn - If you fully identify yourself, I will be happy to answer that question. Regards, Peter Tompa”. I think Robyn is sufficiently identifiable, a collector that asked Mr Tompa a question he is not prepared to answer.

Coin collector Bill Donovan had no such qualms, his long comment goes over some of what he has garnered from the writings of the “sages of collecting”, none of which has any relevance, philosophical or otherwise, to the question posed in the main post. He does however answer it. What a revealing answer it is, it speaks volumes for the mentality of these collectors and their failure to connect elements of the wider picture.

[...] I personally would not have a problem with someone in Egypt owning an Anasazi pot, because that object would bring that person a little closer to a global awareness. That Native American pot in a foreign country might build a little bridge of friendship, empathy, and optimism. I am so proud of my country that I am willing to share its identity objects. In fact, I would much rather have a person who would identify with, look it, and study an artifact be able to purchase and own it over a state. [...]

Jeepers, he’s so “proud of his country” that he’s willing to give away illegally excavated pots from Anasazi graves to “build a little bridge of friendship, empathy and optimism”. (In other words, use it in international diplomacy – is that not what the ACCG is criticising the Cyprus MOU for?) As Robyn quite rightly observes, what kind of "bridge" is built on the proceeds of illegal activity? It would appear from this that Mr Donovan basically is not against the looting of archaeological sites in the USA since some of the loot can go to collectors and build empathy. With what?

Why would Mr Donovan use ancient Native American grave goods to "build empathy" between a nation that came into being in 1776 and others? Isn't that what the ACCG is criticising nations like Italy, Greece and Turkey for doing, because there is "no continuity" (they say, I'd dispute that) between the ancient people that made the stuff they covet and the modern nation? Why for a collector is it American heritage when old stuff is dug up in Utah, but a "global heritage up for grabs by US collectors whose heritage it is too" when not.


Vignettes: Oedipus and the sphinx ; chicken; vulture - Getty Images

How To Get Involved In Archaeology in the UK

A brief guide to "How To Get Involved In Archaeology in the UK". This is a

short guide designed to help answer some of the basic questions that are asked about getting started in archaeology, whether as an interested amateur a determined schoolchild or a student getting ready to leave university or college. It can't be completely comprehensive, without being hundreds of pages long, but hopefully adds enough detail, and links to other resources to satisfy most questions. Includes YAC clubs, starting a local society, Writing a CV and a few other pointers.

Not a mention of a metal detector in sight. Good. More puzzling, no mention of the role of the PAS bringing archaeology (sic) closer to the public. But I suppose (given the manner in which this is currently done), we might question whether they do.

To what degree are comparable resources open to those wanting to "get involved in archaeology" in other artefact-collecting countries such as the USA or Canada?

The Sages of Collecting

In the past few weeks there have been a number of nit-picking posts on Moneta-L taking issue with what coin collectors have seen discussed on blogs like this one – mostly without giving links back to the items discussed. Another has just appeared there (John Hooker, “What is heritage?”) which though it's all about Celtic coins seems to be a reply (of sorts) to my post here a penny and an old shoe, though of course avoids addressing the issue raised. At this, one list member broke ranks and wrote:

I'm a lurker but this has been really irritating me and others I bet too. Is this a group about collecting? Or is it a place for hissing about how evil archaeologists are and how superior we and our little pet projects are in comparison? The people targeted aren't posting here so can't we please take it
elsewhere? Rob.

The writer was soon put in his place by painter Bill Donovan

[…] Speaking for myself, I like the discussions on this list lately, because they pertain to the philosophy of collecting. I like to read what the sages of our hobby have to say.

Try as I might I cannot actually find anything particularly philosophical in the flood of anti-conservation witterings from the "sages of the hobby" on Moneta-L. There seem mainly to be accusations that to try to protect the archaeological record against looting is "nationalist" and to have a "heritage" must be a bad thing, though in fact almost all nations try very hard to do the first and most try even harder to have one of the second. There however is not very much sagacity in the positions held by the no-questions-asked collectors and dealers of portable antiquities, just a lot of dubious self-justifications and when they are challenged, instead of a philosophical reply, what we most often see is tactics to avoid the issue, including name-calling and personal attacks.

A Group of Artefacts Exported from Where?

Readers of this blog may recall the eBay seller who was offering unreported "dugups" from England and the ensuing discussion. He is now advertising another lot of uncleaned "dugups" on the Yahoo Uncleanedcoins list, this time he's not letting on where they are from.

Re: An Uncleaned Lot From Un-Named Middleast Country
Costly to get but an interesting lot as can be seen. I am accepting $135 for the 45 coin lot and that includes shipping. Paypal accepted as well as checks and money orders. Need to cover 3% paypal fee is required if used to pay. First come gets the lot. You wont be disappointed.

Hmm, there's some little Late Roman bronzes (or is one maybe silver?) a Byzantine coin, some Islamic ones, Mamluk it looks like. This unnamed source country would not by any chance be one of those Middle Eastern countries (Turkey, Egypt, Syria, [Iraq?]) with export laws which means that anybody shipping them to the USA without following the proper procedure is committing an illegal act, would it? I am sure honest Joe Blazick ("romanpeddler") has an export licence for them, just failed to mention it in the sales offer. I guess that means though that he will not be able to sell this lot until he posts this additional information on the website, as I am sure no collector of ancient artefacts would touch it without such an assurance that the transaction was legal from beginning to end.

Map: Area under Mamluk control in red (Wikipedia)

A penny and an old shoe

US dugup Coin fondlers are continually looking to justify to each other (and the rest of us) why the subject of their hobby should continue to be carried out “as petrarch collected coins” with no-questions-asked about where the items on sale are coming from and without seeking any assurance that they are of legal origin. They do this by appealing to US exceptionalism and numismatic exceptionalism. This is the conviction that coin collectors are in some way a special and privileged group within antiquity collecting, for whom exceptions “must” be made, and as US citizens are in some way a special and privileged group within the world community, for whom (again) exceptions “must” be made. In reply to some (rather superficial) remarks of Canadian coin collector John Hooker on Heritage on Moneta-L, Jorg Lueke suggests:

This is one reason that coins are very important, especially their access (sic) to a wide range of individuals from scholars both public and private to indivisual (sic) collectors. Ancient coins are the most accessible primary source material. There's no question about subsequent alterations of texts, no chance of altering a legend or devices. They tell an unaltered story about the past, sometimes the only primary sources that exist are coins. Ideally they would be preserved and studied by the largest pool of people, and the market is clearly the best tool for all but the most rare items.

This is laughable. Rarity of course has nothing to do with it, an irreplacable archaeological context is destroyed by the removal from it of a common late Roman Bronze worth a few dollars or pence as much as it is in removing a unique medallion worth tens of thousands of dollars or euros.

Lueke claims that the “story of the past” is constructed from the interpretation of “legends and devices” on coins, and not from any other “primary source” which can be “altered” (I presume he means written sources such as chronicles and charters). It does not seem to occur to Lueke that the legends on coins were created to achieve the same propaganda as the written sources which he dismisses. One might take for example the “Fel. Temp. Rep” reverses. The worst and most disasterous reigns of any monarch will appear on their coins and other mass media as the time of shining glory and enlightened and successful social policy. It is therefore difficult to see why writing should necessarily be more "reliable" just because it has been impressed into little metal discs rather than inscribed on stone or on parchment.

Mr Lueke seems (deliberately?) to ignore archaeological evidence. Nevertheless the archaeological record is a valuable primary source too, but is “altered” by artefact hunters burrowing into sites randomly to obtain saleable collectables. The “story of the past” the archaeological evidence tells however is not that of “kings and battles” concerned with the succession of monarchs and pharaohs which is the most numismatists can create from their "legends and devices", but of the everyday life, some might say the everyday experience of life, of the ordinary man who inhabited the landscape we now walk in.

In a site at Westgate Street in Canterbury, England is an infilled cess pit which was sealed by the extension of the timber outbuildings in the yard at the rear of a plot which we know from the twelfth century rent rolls of the monks of Christ Church Canterbury was owned at the time by mercer Richard de Barefoot. In its fill is preserved a leather shoe with the pattern of wear caused by everyday use by a twelfth century inhabitant of the town. There is also rich environmental evidence telling us what was growing in the yard. These have a different story to tell from the legend HENR]ICVS RE[X] /[ ] ON LVND (or whatever here, here and here for example) and "devices" (a cross and some grouped round bobbles) on the halved silver coin that is lies alongside them in the same pit.

We know quite a lot about Henry II. The places where coins were minted for him, the names of the moneyers and the number of dies used at different times etc, are part of that story of course, but only a small part of the story which the recording of the context of finding of that coin contributes to. Deliberately digging through the remains of the timber building and trashing a context to hoik out a coin that will then appear on “the market” without any indication where it came from is simply vandalism. In most countries (with the major exceptions of Britain and the USA) such vandalism of archaeological sites is treated as a crime.

Mr Lueke narrows his view of the past to what “coins” can tell him, he does not seem to appreciate that creating the “story of the past” can and should take other sources of evidence into account. As in investigating a crime scene, just finding a bloodied knife next to the body is not enough to build a case that will stand up to the scrutiny of the defence team without collecting fingerprint, DNA evidence, examining the house for signs of a break-in and so on. The mere information that a a moneyer made a portrait of a slightly dorkish looking guy with effeminate hairstyle and labelled it Henri[cus] who was regarded as a “rex” (but did not claim it was Dei gratia) tells us nothing whatsoever about the nature (or even extent) of Angevin kingship. Furthermore it tells us nothing about the life and household of Richard de Barefoot and in what kind of streets a member of his family trod in those worn out shoes.

PS. The cess pit and shoe are no doubt there (though my photo from a Canterbury Archaeological Trust website shows another site), but I made up the name of the plot owner, my copy of William Urry's magnificent work "Canterbury under the Angevin Kings" is a long drive away from where I write this. I cannot imagine however anyone taking a spade to twelfth century Canterbury and trying to interpret the results without using the written evidence summarised in that book (and in earlier and later studies). Likewise I cannot imagine the same archaeologist ignoring the results of numismatic study of the coin types they find - which is itself a branch of artefactology which is part and parcel of the interpretation of archaeological evidence. So why do coin collectors like Mr Lueke ad his ACCG pals seem intent on turning their backs on the value of the other archaeological evidence?

Well Organised "Mafia" Business

The attempt to clear internet sales portal eBay of as many sellers of forged archaeological finds goes on. There is (as collectors well know) a large centre involved in the production of fake antiquities in Bulgaria. Some of the sellers of such items however are proving difficult to get rid of. As soon as one account is deleted, dormant accounts are reactivated. Some of these sellers operate from bases in the UK, where the products are lost among the numbers of material coming (their sellers claim) from legal artefact hunting on local archaeological and other ‘productive’ sites.

Christian Rizzo (near Villefranche sur Mer on the French Riviera, eBay seller "shams06") writes:

The problem with the bulgarian dealers it's that they seem are working all together (or alone with several pseudo[nym]s ) with the same fake makers ( we can find some of these fake makers on the web looking for "art foundry" in Bulgaria where they show their models ). It's why we use to see at the same time from different sellers exactly the same items. And they use the same agents for collecting the money and sending the sold items. It's why you cannot have a direct contact with the seller and why a lot of sold items never arrive to the buyer ( see the feedback of Annaatana37 for example) or when they arrive they need more than 1 month shipping because the do grouped shipping. Unregistered you can find them some time later with an other pseudo[nym], in another country but with the same items. It's a very well organised " mafia " business.

The significance of the evidence is clear to dealers and collectors - as it should be to eBay who've been happy to take money from these people for providing a sales place for their activities all these years. All know that their no-questions-asked approach favours the use of the antiquities market as a source of funding for organized crime through fraud, the selling of forgeries. Yet they still refuse to even contemplate doing anything about it. I presume they treat it as “somebody else’s problem”, nothing to do with them. Like looting of archaeological sites.

"Collectors' Rights" in the Shadow of the Ozarks

Less than ninety kilometres from the home of "collectors' rights" campaigner Wayne Sayles, another court verdict marking an erosion of the "rights" of US citizens with a passion for collecting ancient artefacts was passed down a month ago ('Artifacts Excavation Results in Prison Term and Fine'). I wonder if the dealer in antiquities and antiquity collectors' spokesman was there to lend them his support?

William A. Graves and his wife Misty Graves were sentenced on June 24th, 2009 in US District Court for possession of ancient artefacts that had been dug up on public land in violation of archaeological resource protection legislation (Couple Sentenced for Looting Buffalo River Archeological Site). As a result of a plea bargain, the husband was sentenced to six months imprisonment and one year of supervised probation, while his wife received one year of supervised probation. In addition, the two have been ordered to pay $4,613 to cover repairing the damage they caused to the land (filling in the holes no doubt). The damage to the archaeological record where they had been digging however cannot be repaired so easily.

At the beginning of January 2008, rangers in the Buffalo River National Park found holes and disturbance indicating the recent looting of a known archeological site in the park (Lee Brumbaugh, 'Worse than Poaching: Husband And Wife Sentenced On ARPA Charges', Yosemite News). After two days of keeping a close watch on the site, rangers installed surveillance equipment near it. While this was in progress they met William A. Graves and a juvenile walking toward the area carrying digging tools. Graves was wearing boots which matched impressions of footprints left in the bottom of the looter's holes. Misty Graves was waiting in a vehicle nearby with artefacts and a pickaxe. After preliminary investigations, a search warrant was issued and a search of their home produced numerous items associated with collecting artefacts and other evidence linking the couple "and others to excavating activities in the park and on nearby private land". Graves admitted to digging in the park and "relinquished 71 stone tools, projectile points, or other artefacts that he said originated from the site". After a six month investigation in conjunction with agents from the NPS Investigative Services Branch, the Cultural and Archeological Response Team (CART), William and Misty Graves were indicted by a federal grand jury. The park’s archaeologist, Dr. Caven Clark, was instrumental in the investigation and provided expert testimony during the sentencing proceedings.

These people by going out and digging up what they wanted to collect were exercising in the US what collectors' and dealers' lobby groups in the US (such as the ACCG) regards as simply "free enterprise" when done in foreign countries which have what they call "restrictive antiquities laws" which declare the private search for archaeological finds illegal. The US antiquity collector considers, when the laws are foreign ones, that these are "bad laws" imposed by "corrupt governments". As a result, the purchaser and collector of the items they dig up and sell envisages themselves as striking a blow for freedom and free enterprise doing so.

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act in the US restricting the rights of US collectors of ancient relics from the land they live in was inposed by the Carter Government in 1979. In almost all respects this law is parallel to the foreign ones that groups like the ACCG consistently portray as "bad laws", "restrictive", "nationalistic" laws, which are fundamentally "unfair" to the citizens of the country whose "corrupt" government imposed them, and 'unfair' to collectors outside the country which may claim that country's as their heritage too and want to get their hands on pieces of "their" past. So, obviously if the ACCG wants to get the laws changed in these foreign countries to give US collectors and dealers freer access to the items they protect, they must first lead the way by leading to the abolition of the parallel US laws.

Perhaps collectors might consider that the opportunity seems right for a few ACCG members from the Ozark region to stage a test case by going to the Buffalo River park and emptying out the backfill of Mr Graves' holes after first informing the Park Rangers of their intentions. While they are awaiting trial, a Washington lawyer could then make an FOI request to try and identify any circumstances surrounding the institution of the 1979 ARPA legislation, which can then be used to challenge the arrest of the pot-digging ACCG members as "unconstitutional". After all, the ACCG can hardly fight for the freedom for US citizens to collect ancient artefacts from foreign lands in disregard of the laws and wishes of the governments of those countries if they do not first establsh the (Constitutional) "freedom" to do so in their own land. That is simply illogical, isn't it?

The Executive Director of the ACCG was complaining the other day they were getting so little suport from collectors, well just over the state line from him there has been a petition created for supporting "collectors' rights" in Arkansas. It is called "Metal Detecting In Arkansas State Parks" and it has collected 1095 signatures in support of allowing "coin shooting" on public land. If the ACCG was to champion this collectors' cause, they could boost their membership figures by a substantial percent. That is just one state, why if Mr Sayles was to support metal detectorists, pot-diggers and grave robbers from all fifty US states, his organization would potentially have more than 50 000 new supporters to "fight the fight" for the hobby. So what is stopping them?

Bottle Digging in New York

Jack Fortmeyer a NY fireman digs for old bottles in New York backyards, interesting video story from the New York Times.

Antiquities in Space

Putting together a slide show to coach my daughter for her History of Art exams last year when covering "Cycladic art" (sic), I came across this photo. It is of course 'Star Trek' (apparently Star Trek "Voyager", series 1 episode "Time and Again").

It makes one think where the portable antiquities we discuss today will be in half a millennium from now.

Medici, Scapegoat or first to fall?

David Gill's highly interesting post on Looting matters "Giacomo Medici: scapegoat or first in a series?" certainly deserves reading and reflection together with the other material reported on that blog. As he says, "lack of transparency will merely prolong the agony as the information is likely to come out at some stage. Should Medici be singled out as the only example of wrong-doing?".

"Huub Meyer" spills the beans, or does he?

One Huub Meyer was assured by members of the Yahoo AncientArtifacts discussion list that “most” [Egyptian] antiquities are “sold legally and were excavated legally for example in Egypt as for 200 years the local, Egyptian, government did not care much about its own culture, and no records were made of the hundreds of thousands of objects that were exported”. He remains however sceptical and replies:

I think that 90% of the items that are now in the antique shops are more recently excavated. I think it is not possible that those items are excavated more than 200 years ago. I know a Guy who is collecting items in the Near East, than brings them to Europe and sells them to major antique dealers over here, no questions asked... I know for a fact that he Sold items to Dick Meyer, Mieke Zilverberg, Akanthos (now living and selling in Belgium) and others. And did you see the items sold by Stormbroek, no way that they were excavated more than 200 years ago... correct me if I am wrong. Also In Belgium, France and England he sold items to several major antique dealers (Drees Gallery in Brussels) no provenance asked, in fact they know were the items are coming from. I myself purchased some items from some major dealers in the Netherlands, not once they did give my proper provenance out of themselves, I always hat to ask them. I also remember a few years ago 90 % of the antique sellers in archeology were closed in London (Mews Gallery or something) for selling looted items. In France, England and Germany there are large archeology auctions several times a year, I do not believe that all those items were excavated more than 200 years ago. I think it is simply not possible that there are so many items on the market that were excavated more than 200 years ago.

Me too. Although this message looks like provocation (and one can imagine a number of reasons why it might have been made), let us look at the dealers he mentions.

Dick Meijer was mentioned in a previous post, the photos of the interior of his shop show mostly what seem to be (Dutch and Spanish ?) post-Medieval ceramics, which suggests he is more of a general antiques seller than a specialist antiquities dealer. He has no website I can see, but sells stuff on eBay and from the feedback we can access his old auctions, where we find comments like the object concerned comes from “a private collection of all kind of items, collected in the before 1950-1980”, “private collection from The Netherlands, of Pre Columbian pottery etc. collected in the 1950-1960. in Mexico”. A cuneiform tablet is provenanced “Privat collection Wally Elenbaas, artist the Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Solt by the estate actionhouse Rotterdam”. (This is the deceased artist). A money back guarantee covers authenticity issues, but no mention is made of documenting licit provenance.

Mieke Zilverberg’s website (Kunsthandel Mieke Zilverberg, Rokin 601012 KV Amsterdam) offers Greek, Roman and Byzantine coins and archaeological objects "from Egypt, Western Asia, Greece, Etruria and Rome, ranging from 3000 BC to 500 AD". We are assured that "Kunsthandel Mieke Zilverberg undertakes not to purchase or sell objects until we have established to the best of our ability that such objects were not stolen from excavations, architectural monuments, public institutions or private property". No indication is given how this is striven for, apart from a mention of the Arts Loss Register. She gives some objects the vague provenance “ex private collection [+country]” but others have more explicit ones, including a number in which inclusion in two (successive?) collections are cited. Nevertheless there is no hint that the purchaser will get any kind of documentation of the provenance beyond what is stated on the website.

The Drees Gallery website (Nelly Drees, Rue des Minimes 22 B- 1000 Bruxelles, Belgium) claims it has a “fine selection of Ghandaran artefacts, as well as a fine selection of Greek, Sassanian and Roman gold, silver and bronze coins. The art of south-east Asia (Myanmar-former Burma) […] is well represented”. No mention is made anywhere of any acquisition policy or maner of exercising "due diligence", and sometimes gives the formulaic “private collection”, “[nationality] individual collector”. In many cases objects have no indication of provenance (“A certificate of authenticity will be delivered to the buyer's request”. How about a written guarantee of legitimate origins instead?)

Stormbroek Ancient Art Gallery (Stormbroek antiquities/ Ancient Art Gallery Stormbroek BV, Ekkersrijt 4411, Son en Breughel, Netherlands - proprietor seems to be A.C. Wouters):offers "thousands of collectibles and antiques direct from European Private Collections. A touch of history: Ancient artifacts, coins, antiques and collectibles from the Bronze Age, Celtic, Roman and Medieval to the 20th century". The website seems to be down at the moment. Stormbroek was discussed here earlier as the seller of a Wenneb… shabti. Also just now a Dutch collector of shabtis remarked that "Stormbroek has sold these pieces to the major dealers as he also sold large amounts of shabtis to many dealers with uncertain provenance". Hmmm.

Akanthos might be “Akanthos Ancient art and Antiques” (Oever 7, 2000 Antwerpen, België [other addresses seem also to be listed]) but it seems to be off-line at the moment.

[There have been a number of galleries in England called the "Mews gallery", it is not clear to which of them Mr Meyer might be referring, anyway, as we all know, no BRITISH dealer would ever offer objects of uncertain or tainted provenence would they?].

While there may be no foundation whatsoever in Mr Meyer's allegations that these Dutch and Belgian dealers are knowingly buying ancient material of tainted origins, the standards of documentation which each of them seem to be offering does not allow the concerned buyer independently to check how in fact many of the items they sell came to the market. It is not even a matter of accepting a dealer's word for it (relying on a dealer's good "reputation"). Stating that a dealer has determned that the collection they bought something from was made between the 1950s and 1980s self-evidently is insufficient (especially as within that 30 year period there were decisive legal watersheds). The "estate sale" sales pitch is a commonly used ploy by dealers to say "I don't know anything about where this comes from and the guy who does is dead so you cannot touch him or me for it". Either the object has a documented provenance or it does not and in the latter case a truly reputable dealer would not touch it.

If a hypothetical dodgy dealer was slipping illictly-obtained goods onto the market alongside other items, how on earth - given the current state of the facilities offered by dealers such as the ones mentioned here to would-be ethical collectors to check - would it be possible to determine them? Anybody can say any old object comes from "an old Ruritanian private collection" and refuse to provide any documentation or further information. We all know that such "provenances" are worth nothing without the ability to verify them. They are also meaningless if the fact that they were in a particular collector's ethically-obtained collection cannot serve to show that the object itself had been legitimately obtained. A collector buying items no-questions-asked from a mixture of due-dilligent and dodgy dealers has a contaminated collection. The mere fact that an object comes from that particular collection is not enough to establish licit origins. Or do we accept that objects become legitimate by passing through such contaminated collections? How on earth can the current laissez faire system operate to exclude the passage of illicit items onto a legal market? Given that the present situation is intolerable, how could collectors and dealers improve on the present system (I use the term loosely), or is the only way to achieve that going to be through strict registration and regulation coupled with an aggressive public relations campaign condemning no-questions-asked collecting?

Photo: Relief from Portus apparently showing smugglers bringing illicit goods to Roman antiquities dealer.

Meyer and Meijer

In a recent article about 69 objects apparently stolen from Iraqi museums are discussed ("Netherlands sends back Iraq artefacts", Agence France Presse July 9, 2009, see BBC news report "Dutch hand back looted Iraqi art"). They have been seized by Dutch authorities and are destined for return to Iraq (German government please take note). In the text, archaeologist Diederik Meijer of Leiden University is quoted as saying "These things should not be bought and sold". This has produced a little flurry of interest on the Yahoo AncientArtifacts forum, one member claiming that "Dick Meijer" is not an archaeologist, but an antiquities dealer and appraiser ("Dick Meijer Antiquiteiten", Keizersgracht 539, 1017 DP Amsterdam, here and here). He is however confusing Dick Meijer with Diederik Meijer of Leiden who is presumably the gentleman quoted in the news articles. What is interesting is that the person concerned, going by the name of Huub Meyer made a later post which I will discuss above, I suspect there is a story behind it.

"Heritage" is the biggest danger.

A Canadian collector has a a somewhat outspoken opinion of cultural heritage:

The biggest danger right now is the growing concerns over "heritage". This is an anti-intellectual movement, obviously of great use in the promotion of nationalisms. I entertain the hope that it is merely the last dying gasp of an outmoded and elitist xenophobia which fears true globalization. Its association with history is an insidious scam as it only ever attempts to create current myths about the past. Heritage sees no differences in Julius Caesar, King Arthur and Bugs Bunny -- it doesn't matter if one is real, one is legendary and the other is a cartoon character. All that is important is how they can be used to affect minds.

Discuss. No prizes for guessing which nation claims Bugs Bunny as its "national heritage" (it's the one that cannot legimately claim the other two).

The author of this text being based in north America seems to think "globalisation" is a positive phenomenon, I think there are a goodly few over the other side of the Atlantic and Pacific that might not share that view, for whom cultural diversity is as desirable as global cultural homgeneity seems to be for the North Americans. ["What has Canada done for us?" seems here a totally valid question.] The actual material culture of globalism however does not consist of material from the ancient civilisations of the Mediterranean basin, even when they formed the centres of geographically extensive and culturallly relatively homogeneous empires. They are of an entirely different nature, among them are: rifles, barbed wire, telegraph insulators, steam locomotives, blue jeans, McDonalds happy meal toys, airline ephemera, Michael Jackson CDs, manga and so on.

Perhaps the problem here is that there are some new nations (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc) which do not in fact treat the ancient ("native") cultural heritage of their territories as their own but as that of an "other" to which they were opposed at least at the time of the creation of their statehood. This, as Roger Bland noted reviewing Cuno's "Who Owns Antiquity?", is inevitably going to colour the thinking of at least some of their citizens on such matters. I really however do not see the logical basis of the negationism expressed by Hooker, nor why the rest of the world (where perceived links with an ancient landscape are much more alive in the social consciousness) is expected to follow suit.

The collectors of foreign ancient atefacts in the countries divorced from the native ancient culture justify what they are doing by claiming the artefacts of ALL ancient cultures as their "heritage". So physical objects from far-off lands such as dugup coins from ancient Greek city states are the "cultural heritage" of the owner of a hamburger bar in Punxsutawney, whose "constitutional rights" in some mysterious way override any other considerations. The collecting of antiquities from the "Old World" clearly has however as much a political and social context in the New World as anything the no-questions-asked-collecting activists criticise in the "heritage movement" in the source countries. These objects are used to create and reaffirm identities which do not come from a continuity of population of a territory or a region. They are the medium of the transplantation of an identity, the material confirmation of an origo gentis myth and an expression of domination and identity which are necessary for individual groups withing a self-consciously "global" community, seeking some form of little homeland in an imagined past.

In order to provide backup for his views on "heritage" John Hooker announced he's going to write a "review for ACCG soon" of Lowenthal's "The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History", real cutting edge scholarship, it only came out in 1998 - but I guess the problem for the kitchen-table-scholar is that the Google Books version appeared online only recently.

Photo: somebody else's "heritage" according to Hooker.

Archaeology, Conservation and the New World Order

Ohio collector John Rieske is (he says) a former archaeology student, he claims to know what archaeology is about. He has just explained his theory to his fellow collectors. It goes something like this:

1) "We must realize that many zealots are not really out to stop only the collection of things considered old. That is just the first step toward total collectivism and I don't mean collectors. The first step in these radicals view is to label those who collect as elitists and as criminals: the enemies of mankind."

2) " When collectors become criminals in the rest of society's eyes, the next step toward totalitarianism becomes just that much easier: the banning of all private ownership of anything."

3) "When all property belongs to the state, everybody becomes de facto state property. That accomplished, the true elitists can then control everything to their hearts' content."

4) Presumably the rest of the argument would claim that this is part of the proccess of establishing the New World Order. Over the past decade concerned citizens have witnessed an extreme acceleration of the physical implementation of a framework and infrastructure ready to receive those who will not go along with a coordinated destruction of traditional American values and freedom. Evidence of this is in the FEMA prison trains with guillotines, and stock piles of plastic coffins for its victims, and the concentration camps that are even now springing up on federally-owned property on US soil. Peter Tompa has produced "evidence" he says proves the US State Department is ignoring the interests of the US people.

5) It would seem that collectors like Mr Rieske regard it as "obvious" that there is a secret conspiracy of archaeologists to aid and abet the institution of the New World Order. The original name of the Society of Antiquaries was the Society of Dilettanti - might for example be seen as a cover organization for the secret organization of the Illuminati.

In fact, was it not during the 1986 World Archaeological Congress (ArchCong) in Prague that a group of senior archaeologists met at the central point of the old Jewish cemetery to agree the plan of action, and it was there that the document known as the Protocols of the Elders of ArchCong was created? The document, if genuine, unequivocally proves the role of heritage professionals in the plan for total world domination.

6) Mr Rieske has therefore suggested that by fighting conservationists, by collecting antiquities without checking whether they have been obtained and exported legally, and by honouring the lost values and glories of the the vanished classical world, the collector is doing his bit for the perpetuation of the Old World Order and fighting the establishment of the New World Order. Tinfoil hats on, and watch out for those black helicopters.

[Alternatively, you could read the bit in exasperated mauve in the post below].

It is interesting to note that there are over 2000 collectors on the discussion list to which Rieske posted his conspiracy theory this morning, many of them showing little restraint in disagreeing with other views and other writers of posts made on that forum. Nevertheless, several hours later, not a single list member to date has questioned it. We might conclude from that perhaps that many of them go along with this sort of the vision of the world. Astounding. Where did our educationalists go wrong?

"Discretion" a necessary priority for the no-questions-asked marketeers

Alfredo de la Fe was describing on the Moneta-L forum a new database he was setting up similar to the CoinArchives site which, as I mentioned earlier, has priced itself out of the range of the casual or average collector. It was gratifying to observe that he and his advisory group were contemplating including a section which would allow the movement of coins from owner to owner to be followed and also reconstruct associations (such as coins coming from the splitting of hoards). This seems a step on the road to a fuller transparency in dealing with archaeological artefacts by this branch of the market and is to be welcomed. Not, however by the no-questions-asked dealers who apparently have reason to feel uncomfortable that somebody could look over their shoulder. Thus Californian coin dealer Dave Welsh was quick off the mark to "warn":

Considering the hunger Paul Barford and others of his ilk have for obtaining this sort of traceability information, caution is necessary to insure (sic) that it does not get into the hands of those who seek to discredit ancient coin collecting. It is unfortunate that collectors must think of such
considerations when considering the wisdom of information sharing regarding their holdings and acquisitions, however the reality today is that there are enough zealots out there whose goal is to abolish collecting, to make discretion a necessary priority.

Priority over what? Transparency? I wonder what is the difference for the ACCG and its officers in "discretion" and secrecy? When it's the State Department exercising discretion about its dealings with foreign governments (as US law allows and diplomatic protocol requires) its regarded as reprehensible by US no-questions-asked dealers. They want to import whatever they make a quick buck on without having to be asked by an impudent US customs officer where the export licenses are. But when it involves the deliberate suppression of information about where those artefacts are coming from and going, that is OK, because then it is ("necessary") "discretion".

There is nothing very discrete about the way Mr Welsh tries to cover his no-questions-asked tracks. Yes, I asked him outright (three times) about the origin of the Balkan dugups he is selling as special lots. I asked him (twice) about a group of Parthian coins he was selling (discussed here, here, and here). He said the latter came from "Spain", the Balkan ones he effectively refused to discuss. I have no "hunger" for the information, I asked him, I got singularly evasive replies, which we can all see and check and ponder over. I think we may all fairly draw whatever inferences we make on what Mr Welsh sells on their basis.

Once again, we see the same blatant misrepresentation of the facts of the case. Welsh asserts that "there are zealots out there whose goal is to abolish collecting". Where, precisely? I've been through all this before (see also here), but Mr Welsh still uses the same tired old mantras to try to whip up the indignation of the masses. Of course he knows his audience, sheep like "Fred S." are obviously gullible enough to believe any old nonsense the pro-no-questions-asked-market activists like him try to foist off on them, without checking the facts for themselves.

So once again, but this time I will write it in exasperated mauve and I'll write it in big letters for the 'hard of reading' in the portable antiquity collecting community:

When will collectors get it into their heads that what is being urged here is a more ethical, responsible, sustainable, accountable and transparent trade, not its abolition?

By all means however let us abolish from the legitimate market those who cannot and will not exercise due dilligence to cut down the ease with which illicit items enter and circulate in the market, those who deny the need for it, those who refuse to even consider that the "Petrarch collected coins like this" status quo is unsustainable in the twenty-first century.

I suppose the existence of the imaginary "zealots" is supposed to act as an excuse for why "collectors must think of such considerations when considering the wisdom of information sharing regarding their holdings and acquisitions". It could not possibly be, of course that collectors who buy from certain dealers have something to hide? Mr Welsh sounds here so much like a certain group with the UK "metal detecting" milieu. Interestingly though, when he came onto the Britarch forum to spread his poison, even the "metal detectorists" rejected him.

Repeat: "Four legs good, two legs bad, four legs good....."

The pro-collecting lobby frequently presents collectors of portable antiquities (aka decontextualised archaeological artefacts) as erudite scholars on the whole engaged on a quest to increase our knowledge of the past. Here is one of them ("Fred S.") expressing his views on the future of his hobby:

I feel very sad at what I see happening and I am particuarly sad about this very real threat to the hobby of governments outlawing collecting of anything over a hundred yrs. or so (like the EU) and pronouncing objects over that meager time frame as being "antiquities" and "cultural treasures" and such like rot.? Now mainland China, Italy, Cyprus and soon others are getting into the game as well with various demands, all of them dire for private collectors.? If this trend continues, and it seems to be trending that way, I don't give the private ancient collecting community extinction in 100 yrs., more like 20 or so, alas.? Take care and be well...

Astounding, isn't it that groups like the ACCG can pretend it represents intelligent people engaged in a scholarly pursuit while it rams such nonsense down the collectors' throat and presumably looks on with a self-satisfied smile when it sees its supporters quoting such rubbish in public as here.

It would be difficult to know where to start explaining to the likes of Mr "S." the actual situation. Governments have not "outlawed collecting" of anything over 100 years, not in the EU nor anywhere else except Mr "S.'s" imagination. In the case of Cyprus and Italy (China being a more complex situation) the national antiquities legislation was in place well before the 1970 UNESCO Convention on (and let us again note the title) 'the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property'. I really fail to see what "demands" China, Italy, Cyprus and "others" have which are all so "dire for private collectors [...]". What, in fact, they ask from foreign collectors in countries signatory to the above-mentioned UNESCO convention is that they collect material which has been legally obained (they have determined is not stolen) and has been legally removed from their countries (with export licences). Is this really an impossible demand? Are the consequences of collectors abiding by such principles really so "dire"? It makes one wonder what "Mr S." collects and who he buys from, doesn't it?

Mr "S." says if the trends of the international community and (increasingly) domestic public opinion to get the antiquities market to clean up its act continue, that the "private ancient collecting community" will be extinct in twenty years. I'd say to him to stop listening to the inflamatory self-serving nonsense put out by self-appointed and commercially motivated spokesmen from the nineteenth century neo-colonialist no-questions-asked school of antiquities dealing with their advocacy of the maintenance of a damaging (erosive, exploitive and unsustainable) status quo. I'd ask him and his follow collectors to stop being mantra-chanting sheep mouthing the words prompted by no-questions activists. I'd urge them to make a bit of an intellectual effort and sit down with some books (or if he cannot manage that some websites), find out what the UNESCO convention actually says and what it deals with and why, read a few articles by Nathan Elkins and others and have a bit of a think about what he has just said actually compares to what he discovers.

Far from becoming extinct, the ethical collector could be taking the avocation into the twenty-first century and leaving behind the loud naysayers and no-questions activists in the dark shadows of an unenlightened nineteenth century legacy. Of course it requires a bit of intelligence and reflection to make that happen, we will all see to what degree the artefact collecting community is equipped to meet the challenge.

Vignette: Stop frame from an animated version of Orwell's Animal Farm. Bottom: The activists' website depicted in the 1999 John Stevenson film of 'Animal Farm'.

"The UK finds database"

There was some "monetan" discussion on the Republican Roman coins in the Stratford Upon Avon 'four foot deep' hoard the bungled Daily Mail journalism of which was discussed in the post below. A collector, Ted Watts has a solution to the problem of how many such coins are found in British assemblages. Despite the fact that the pro-collecting lobby makes great efforts to present coin collectors as largely comprising erudite scholars busily researching and increasing our knowledge of the past, it was not through perusal of the literature on the subject. He goes straight to the source of those on the market:

Out of around 1113 Roman coins in the UK Finds
database, 102 of the coins are listed as Republican or Imperatorial denarii or aureii (and there's one Republican AE). [...] While that may to be an accurate reflection of the balance of coins (would you be more likely to go to the trouble of reporting a Republican silver coin or your 200th cruddy bronze from one of Constantine's relatives?), the numbers do seem to imply a reasonable number of Republican denarii made it to Britain.

The collector has found the privately-run UK Detector Finds Database (sic) rather than directing his attention to the Portable Antiquities Scheme database which is much more ample and (claims to be) more representative. The UKDFD is a show-and-tell showcase for detectorists to boast about what they have found, and Mr Watts predicts is used by most of the contributors to sow the highlights of their personal collection rather than provide an objective record of what is being found. It has been running a couple of years now, 1113 Roman coins recorded there is hardly going to be representative of the proceeds of the exploitation of "productive sites" by ten thousand detector wielding collectors is it?

Zmarł Leszek Kołakowski

Kołakowski urodził się 23 października 1927 roku w Radomiu. Po wojnie studiował filozofię na Uniwersytecie Łódzkim i Uniwersytecie Warszawskim. Wśród jego profesorów byli m.in. Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz, Maria Ossowska, Tadeusz Kotarbiński. Pod koniec 1945 roku wstąpił do Polskiej Partii Robotniczej, następnie w latach 1947-1966 był członkiem PZPR. Był pracownikiem Instytutu Kształcenia Kadr Naukowych przy KC PZPR. Do 1966 profesor, kierownik katedry marksizmu-leninizmu na Uniwersytecie Warszawskim. W latach 50. Kołakowski zaczął jednak stopniowo odchodzić od doktrynalnej wersji filozofii Marksa. W 1966 r. odebrano mu katedrę i usunięto z PZPR za zbyt radykalną krytykę władz i odchodzenie w nauczaniu studentów od oficjalnego kanonu marksizmu. Kołakowski został oskarżony o "kształtowanie umysłów młodzieży w kierunku rażąco sprzecznym z dominującą tendencją rozwoju kraju i narodu". W 1968 r., za udział w Wydarzeniach Marcowych, odebrano mu prawo wykładania i publikowania, co zmusiło go do emigracji. Pracował najpierw na McGill University w Kanadzie (1968), a następnie wykładał na University of California w Berkeley (1969), zaś od 1970 r. do emerytury rozwijał działalność naukową i nauczycielską w oxfordzkim All Souls College. Na emigracji został członkiem Komitetu Obrony Robotników, współpracował też z paryską "Kulturą".

Leszek Kołakowski - jeden z najwybitniejszych polskich filozofów, publicysta, prozaik, autor satyr i bajek filozoficznych.

A four-footer, or bad journalism?

One of the largest hoards of Roman coins ever discovered in Britain has been officially declared 'treasure' today. "Metal detectorist" Keith Bennett discovered a total of 1,141 Roman denarii, or silver coins, in a field near Stratford-upon-Avon last July. The coins, buried in a pottery vessel and buried around four feet underground, date (the Daily mail journalist says) from between 206 BC and 195 BC. That is not the date of the ones shown in their photograph, which makes you wonder about that "four feet" reported, which would be well below plough level. The Birmingham Post report says they were about "a foot down", but the Coventry Telegraph has the four-foot version..

Guild refuses to Question Money-making trend

I mentioned earlier on this blog the discussion of the “slabbing” of ancient coins over on Moneta-L which seems to reflect a trend away from the use of ancient coins as a resource to be studied closely for the information about the past such study may impart, to becoming a commodity for investment like modern US coins are. As part of this discussion, a collector had the temerity to suggest that the “Guild” which claims to represent the interests of the collector of ancient coins should adopt a standpoint with regard this trend in the development of the hobby towards the use of ancient coins merely as a way of generating capital. Just now, the Executive Director of the ACCG, coin dealer Wayne Sayles disabused ancient coin collecting "Monetans" of the idea that the dealers’ lobby group has any intention of listening to them and opposing any such thing.

The first reason he gives is that the person proposing the idea is “not an active member of ACCG”. He complains that there are currently over 2400 ancient coin enthusiasts participating in the Moneta-L list. He says that “All should be members of the ACCG, but most seem content to call on others to do the work. Having said that, now we can all look forward to reading in some nauseating Blog that collectors don't support the ACCG”. That's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy Mr Sayles. How could any blogger fail to point out a simple fact? It is a false assumption that all collectors and students of ancient coins “must” see eye-to-eye with the dealers’ lobby. That’s like saying all gay men in the US should be members of NAMBLA. The ACCG has embarked on a program of confrontation and provocative law-breaking to make a point. A point perhaps that not all ethical coin collectors will agree with (ie that US dealers have a “right” to ignore all export and import controls for the goods they trade in, even though in many countries for very good reasons there are restrictions on their movement). When the same executive director answers the expression of their concerns of the ACCG-sceptics with abuse, then it is not likely to attract too many converts. ACCG claims “5000 affiliated members” which is not much in a milieu estimated as numbering 50 000. Mr Sayles may regard this as “noxious”, it is nevertheless something that cannot be dismissed. I think Mr Sayles and his dealer pals will need to work a bit harder for the support they desire, not assume it is due to them by rights, like they regard taking their pick of some source country's archaeological artefacts.

Anyway, ACCG is not going to oppose slabs because the no-questions-asked “free market trade” of ancient coins “is facing a prolonged and concerted attack”:

Within the United States, it has come in the form of legislation, emergency administrative action, State Department imposed import restrictions, overreaching Federal prosecution of the National Stolen Property Act and a malicious PR campaign from the archaeological community lobby that casts [no-questions-asked PMB] collectors as looters and thieves of the past. All of this is done in the name of protectionism and stewardship, when everyone on this list knows that the private collector is the most dedicated protector, scholar and steward conceivable. ACCG fights this mindset daily and with every tool at its disposal—which are woefully few in comparison to the powerful opposition.

Heart-breaking isn’t it? How absolutely rotten it must be to be so misunderstood! All these people want to do is the “protect, study and be stewards of” archaeological information and we keep reminding people they cannot claim to be doing that if in the process a major part of the archaeological information is being destroyed by the manner in which they currently do so.

A US collector poses a question to US collectors' rights advocates

Robyn, the US author of a blog on ethical collecting as the result of a post she made there (‘Silence’ - about the refusal of the collectors' rights lobyists to acknowledge her earlier comments) has recently been the target of the usual slimy smear attacks from certain elements of the pro-collecting lobby. The one that attacks anyone who question the effects of the no-questions-asked market. Given they really have no other real arguments, this is part of the strategy of the pro-collecting naysayers, to shout down any potential opposition to the one-sided picture they wish to impose. Such behaviour can of course only reflect badly on the collecting milieu as a whole and – usefully - reduce public sympathy for their cause.

Anyone who has been involved in debating these issues with foul-mouthed collectors and their supporters tends to become hardened to it. Being faced with such aggression might however be a daunting and off-putting prospect to any ethical collector who might be considering putting pen to paper to express their concerns and doubts.

Robyn however gives as good as she gets. Faced with a barrage of the usual sneering comments (including accusations of being me in disguise!)and challenges from the former ACCG President Peter Tompa, a Washington lawyer with an ancient coin collection, she kept the upper hand in the discussion about the ACCG/PNG/IAPN illegal coin import stunt with which he is involved.

Tompa justifies the actions of these coin dealers by stating “the ACCG really just wants to preserve the rights of American collectors to import unprovenanced ancient coins JUST AS Cypriot and Chinese collectors can do”. Robyn pointed out that US citizens demanding the same rights (with none of the responsibilities I would add) to Chinese and Cypriot archaeological material as those of citizens of the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of Cyprus really is stretching the point. She then asks a question I think we would all like to see the Ancient Coin Collectors’ Guild answer:

Given the scale of damage done by commercial diggers to ancient Native American burial, sacred, and other sites which are protected by law, would you also oppose an MOU between the US and another country that restricts the import of Anasazi pots (such as the ones in the Blanding case) into another country? Or would you welcome their help in enforcing our own cultural property laws? After all, it's not illegal to own Anasazi pots in Egypt. Would you support their "right to collect" them, even though they were illegally dug up here?

The reply of a US cultural property lawyer on this topic would be very interesting. The ACCG is a group concerned with collectors “rights” in general. Ancient coins do not occur in the soil of the USA, but there are ancient objects to be found there and collectors that collect them, but also preservationists who are concerned about the preservation of the archaeological record and laws which reflect those concerns. Those laws are the same as those in the source countries whose archaeological record is exploited and damaged to produce the items Mr Tompa and his fellow "coineys" like to collect and US antiquity dealers like to sell. The problems involved are the same. A minority group of US collectors of portable antiquities are fond of talking about their "rights" as collectors and US citizens, let us see the discussion extended to the rights of all US collectors of portable antiquities, pot-diggers, lithics collectors, and the dealers that supply the whole antiquities market in the US and in its US context.

Of course we will not actually see a proper answer to Robyn's question. I am sure in "lawyer school" they teach about Karl Popper, perhaps even in "coin collecting school" they do too. In a nutshell, Popper says that the validity of a model is tested not so much by the facts which seem to confirm it, but those that falsify it. I think Robyn's question quite neatly falsifies the whole ACCG model, the paradigm on which the whole pro-collecting structure is erected. I think the "coineys" deep in their hearts know that too. This is why when I raised the topic on Moneta-L the discussion on what to do about looting was brought to an abrupt end by the moderators, the question has been asked before and no collector has taken up the gauntlet to try to answer it. I really do not think they will, because the answer to this question requires admitting too much (though if the Washington lawyer wants to try it and address it properly, it should be a fascinating piece of text). While however the collectors' (actually dealers') "rights" advocates refuse to respond to it, it seems worth asking it again and loudly, it will give people pause for thought, why it is not being answered.

Brasso on New York dig?

A team of US students led by papyrologist Roger Bagnall of New York University is digging at the town of Amheida in Egypt which is the subject of a story in "Imaginova, Live Science". It is stated that:

The archaeologists at Amheida apply dental tools, Brasso metal polish and gentler chemicals to hundreds of Roman coins and sift through millions of potsherds, sorting and drawing some of them for records.

Brasso metal polish? Surely some mistake! In the Giacomo Belzoni textbook on field techniques (Manuale di scavo... 1824, just under the chapter on "dynamite as an excavation tool") we find the information that the declared ingredients of Brasso are 15-20% silica powder (abrasive), 5-10%ammonia , isopropyl alcohol 3-5%, and oxalic acid 0-3%. It however leaves a non-volatile oily film on the surfaces of objects on which it has been used (to prevent rapid tarnishing of exposed raw metal) which on analysis has been found to contain oleic acid andhexadecanoic (palmitic) acid.

As an archaeologist and former finds specialist, I really can think of no reason to "treat" excavated objects with "brasso", in fact I can think of more than a few why they should not be treated with such a product. I think we'd all be very interested to hear the US investigator's explanation of that reference. I have written to ask, but received no reply. All very odd. it makes you wonder what else these "archaeologists" are up to out in the desert as guests of a foreign country.

UPDATE 23rd July, still no reply to my polite email requesting clarification.

And so:

Antiquities, Neustein said, “are being contested all over the world. The Greeks want the Elgin marbles back. We’ll end up in the Western Hemisphere with just tepees”. Personally I do not see anything so demeaning about tipis, though myself have always more fancied living in a yurt.

Photo: Jarnhirose tipi hire.

Most of Medici Conviction Upheld

In Rome an appeals court has upheld the conviction of art dealer Giacomo Medici, for his role in supplying museums and collectors around the world with antiquities looted from tombs and smuggled out of Italy. The case is especially important because evidence gathered in the investigation (such as thousands of photos found in a 1995 raid on Medici’s Geneva warehouse) has been used to question the legitimacy of the acquisition of numerous objects by US (in particular) museums such as New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles and Boston’s Museum of Fine Arts. Confronted with such evidence that they had been looted and then smuggled out of Italy, red-faced museum trustees have had no option but to return the items in question to Italy. The archaeological evidence destroyed in the clandestine digging of which these objects are the product however can never be returned.

In Medici’s December 2004 conviction he was sentenced to 10 years in prison and a 10 million-euro ($14 million) fine for smuggling, receiving stolen antiquities and conspiracy. After the appeal, the sentence was reduced to eight years. The charges of conspiracy and receiving remain, along with the fine. Medici called Italy a "Mickey Mouse state" and said he was going to appeal the latest judgement. Medici has been free during the appeals process.

Through what was described as a “procedural error” by Rome Judge Guglielmo Muntoni in 2004, Medici was cleared of receiving stolen antiquities that ended up at the Metropolitan (including the iconic 2,500-year-old krater by the Greek painter Euphronios looted from an Etruscan tomb sold to them in 1972 for $1 million by American dealer Robert Hecht.

Hecht and the Getty’s former antiquities curator, Marion True, have been on trial in Rome since 2005 for conspiracy and handling looted antiquities. Hecht is also charged with smuggling. Hecht and True deny the charges.

Trends in ancient coin collecting in the US

A surprise (?) announcement has been made that the hitherto free online resource CoinArchives (a consolidated archive of summaries of old auction sales with superb photography) will now require a $600 per annum subscription to access the full archive. Ancient coin collectors are, understandably, upset and this has generated much discussion on coin forums like Moneta-L. In this a number of contributions are worth commenting on. For example, Reid Goldsborough makes some interesting remarks about the future of ancient coin collecting:

$600 a year is indeed a huge fee for this kind of service, not to mention a huge change, not a transition, from what CoinArchives previously was. It totally changes the service. Along with greatly reducing the number of people who will go to the site, it will greatly reduce its utility to the coin collecting community in general. It also is another step in the trend toward elitism in the ancient coin business. Just as the International Association of Professional Numismatists no longer shares its knowledge of forgeries with collectors, CoinArchives will no longer be letting typical collectors use its information in any practical way, to check for rarity of coin types/varieties, attribution differences, die comparisons, and all the rest. It's a further concentration of knowledge in the hands of dealers, away from collectors.

Blake Davis adds:

This appears to be another indication of how expensive ancient coin collecting is becoming […]. I really miss 2000 to 2006 – that was truly the golden age of ancient coin collecting. Heck, I thought it would last forever, and still don't quite understand how and why it ended. It does appear that the more casual collector's days are numbered. I never believed that what was outlined in the article in the Celator some months back - involvement by uber large auction companies, slabbing, and insane prices even by today's standards, and a switchover from the thoughtful collector and dealer who looked at ancient coin
collecting from an historical and ae[st]hetic perspective to one of purely for investment purposes, where coins are almost fungible objects, would ever come to pass. The wild card here is what the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild is addressing - what happens to all this when the gov't comes around and puts the burden on
dealers and collectors to prove that the coins came from "legitimate" sources - and I mean not just tracing it back to the last owner, but beyond that. […]

Good grief. This collector regards it as a “burden” for dealers to prove the coins he buys come from legitimate source when we all know there is so much on the market that is of extremely illegitimate origin? The halcyon days which Mr Davis identifies correspond to the time when the Balkan archaeological artefact mines were still productive, now the most accessible productive sites have been emptied of archaeological evidence (aka “collectables”/portable antiquities) the market is experiencing problems. This is the real context of the ACCG fight.

To come back to CoinArchives, Jasper Burns observes:

I have used the site for research purposes and will greatly miss the resource. […] One of the strongest arguments against denying the public ownership of ancient coins has been the significant scholarly contribution of amateur collectors to numismatics. The CoinArchives database was a very important tool for the amateur. Its effective loss will reduce the opportunities for research by collectors and therefore undermine the argument in favor of private ownership. […] I think that coin dealers benefit greatly from a knowledgeable collector base that is actively involved in research. Perhaps this should justify the subsidizing of sites like CoinArchives by coin dealers […].

I see scope for another ACCG fund here…. :>) Well, Mr Burns might like to consider that nobody is actually trying to deny the public (sic, I think he means private) ownership of ancient coins. What is being criticized (and rightly so) is the no-questions-asked acquisition of ancient artifacts by collectors from could-not-care-less-out-for-a-quick-buck dealers which allows the looting and smuggling of artifacts to continue.

Frankly, I have never seen the “scholarship” argument as having much foundation or validity, there are an estimated 50 000 collectors of ancient coins in the US alone, and the number of scholarly works produced by private collectors in a decade is a pitiful fraction of that number.

It is risible to see that the limitation of accessibility to a single online source will reduce the opportunities for scholarly "research" by these people and will thus "undermine the argument in favor of private ownership" (he got it right that time). What will undermine the argument in favor of private ownership of archaeological artefacts is, instead of collectors taking a pride in the ethics of collecting responsibly, the persistence of attitudes which regard it as a "burden" to document the practice of due dilligence in their acquisition. After all, that is what those who in future who will be treating the acquisition of ancient coins (a finite resource) as an investment will be requiring of the present generation of collectors.

British humour: CBA's "Britarch Debates on Portable Antiquities"

Trying (unsuccessfully) to get a link to the CBA page on HMS Sussex in an old post here to work, I came across a little page tucked away in "Conservation/ Current Issues/ Debates/ Portable Antiquities" called "Britarch Debates on Portable Antiquities" (let's see if this link works). Apparently the CBA thinks "This section provides an archive of the latest debates on portable antiquities in the United Kindom". Well, there has not been much in the way of "latest debates" on the topic since Andy Holland the CBA Education Officer over there told us to shut up because he'd rather talk about "Iron Age fish". I was therefore interested to see this "archive".

It did not take long to look through it. In fact it consists of ten random posts (presumably the head of topics), one from no less than Californian coin dealer Dave Welsh proclaiming that “the black market in [Iraqi] antiquities seems to have stopped”, and a snide comment from a Norwegian "metal detectorist" about the latest Treasure report. There's one from me about something or other (also Iraq), though not particlarly representative of anything I said there in 2007 or 2008 on portable antiquities. There is something about the "Nighthawking" report being set up, nothing of any discussion after its publication. One wonders what the basis for the selection of this rather haphazard collection of unrelated items actually was and who is responsible (though I can guess). Really if that is the best that the Council for British Archaeology can do to highlight and show the public the scope of the debate that HAS been going on about artefact hunting, then its a pretty poor show.

Facebook group criticises government stand over underwater loot seeking

While US collectors of portable antiquities of all kinds (ancient coin collectors, supporters of pot-digging robbers of ancient Native American graves etc. ) are trying to oppose their government's plans to protect the archaeological heritage, the British have another fight on their hands with theirs. The British government seems relatively unconcerned about the archaeological heritage as a whole. Quite apart from declaring the archaeological establishment to be a "partner" of metal detector usung artefact hunters and collectors, we have the Sussex fiasco. There is now a new Facebook group set up in order

to encourage the British Government to pledge that it will never again sign profit sharing deals with US-based Odyssey Marine Exploration and that it will always oppose mercenary profit-led salvage of historic marine archaeology sites'.

This seems a bit of a lost cause, as I bet they'll never pledge any such thing as they demonstrably like the "Treasures" so much more than preserving real archaeology, but please join to show your disapproval.

To become a member of the Group, you'll need to have a Facebook account,and then navigate to the group's page.

There is some interesting coverage of marine issues in the online version of the magazine "British Archaeology", mmostly based on the story of Odyssey Marine Exploitation's discovery of HMS "Victory" here (note the share prices graph), and a feature on undwerwater landscapes here.

"Doing the Romans", while doing no damage

A practical exercise designed by teacher Philippa Holden at Brushwood junior school, Chesham, Buckinghamshire (Alice Woolley Extreme pots, the Guardian, Tuesday 14 July 2009) seems an imaginitive way to help people learn about the past and how we know what we do about it. It was done in a totally sustainable manner without damaging archaeological sites and assemblages.

It certainly makes the ACE’s “archaeological simulations” over in the USA with decontextualised foreign coins of dubious provenance buried in sandboxes look a bit tame and futile. Ms Holden said:

"The aim was to give the children the means to think for themselves, to discover things and then figure out what they might have been used for, and what room they were in, [...] I'm into not just teaching them facts. I wanted them to think about it".

In other words using evidence. I guess that is why the ACE will not be doing anything like this for a while. After all, they cannot really have the kids, the new ancient coin collectors of the future thinking too carefully (about the contexts those coins might have been found in and what that might tell us, and what is lost when we lose that information), can they?

Blanding, "Hurt him real bad"

There has been another twist in the already convoluted story of the crackdown on illegal artefact trafficking in Utah (Christopher Smart 'Blanding man accused of threatening to beat up informant in artifacts case', Salt lake Tribune 14th Jul 2009). Charles Denton Armstrong, a 44-year-old Blanding man has been charged with threatening to beat up the anonymous undercover informant in the case with a baseball bat. Armstrong told BLM Special Agent Daniel Love that "he was going to tie the Source to a tree and beat him with a stick. Armstrong further clarified that the stick was a baseball bat." Armstrong "indicated his intent was not to kill the Source, but to 'hurt him real bad' ". He was arrested Saturday in Blanding and faces a possible 20-year prison term and a $250,000 fine.

Blanding mayor Toni Turk expressed the hope that in the future federal authorities would go about enforcing antiquities laws in a more even and educational way. Education, rather than raids, would win cooperation and collaboration from residents, he said.

I think there is already more than enough material in this tale of Blanding life and antiquity hunting for a fascinating book or two.

Photo: Charles Armstrong (photo: Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office).

ACCG attacks Ethical Collecting Blogger

Yesterday I made a post about a comment posted on Robyn’s “Pieces of the Past” blog (if you’ve not visited the blog, please do) and today I wake up to find two comments by the Executive Director and the former president of the ACCG have been added to it. While the former restricted himself to his customary abusive manner of response, the latter made a number of comments which are worthy of highlighting.

Here Tompa confronts the blog owner in the same aggressive manner that he reserves for all that dare to ask questions of the ACCG. He writes:

I am curious why your blog is anonymous. Please identify yourself and any relationships you may have with members of the archaeological community. There is some speculation that you are merely Mr. Barford or some other member of the
archaeological community posing as an "ethical collector," presumably as a point of contrast to the supposedly "unethical collectors" that support the ACCG. Hopefully, not.

Yeah right. Help the coineys stop their conspiracy-theory speculation by identifying yourself to Mr Tompa, declare the source of the income supporting your blogging and collecting and what affiliations you have to foreign governments. Are you now or have you ever shaken hands with Nicholas Burns? We’ve heard it all before.

Let me just go on record here as saying that for better or worse I write here under my own name and I am not “Robyn”.

How odd that Mr Tompa should think that there would be NO ethical collectors willing to write anything about the ethics of collecting, surely the whole point behind ACCG lobbying is that they want to convince the public and lawmakers that most US collectors are indeed ethical, and intimations to the contrary are hateful propaganda by people like me. Please get your side's story straight Mr Tompa.

Tompa accuses his correspondent of ignorance. He says “I suggest you review the requirements of the CPIA rather than relying on Barford et al. for legal analysis”. Absolutely. But then in my posts on this blog (for instance, among others, here, here, here, here, and here) I have more than enough times given reference to the CPIA and the exact paragraphs to which I am referring, enough to enable the reasonably intelligent reader to check whether what I have been saying has any basis in fact. We will note that nowhere, neither here (in comments to this blog), nor on their blogs or on the ACCG website do Tompa or Sayles or any others ACCG Merry Men give any indication to their readers where and how what “Barford et al.” have written about the actual contents of the CPIA is a misinterpretation. I suggest we take that silence as significant.

Mr Tompa admits that it is true however what I say when I assert that to legally import items on the designated list, “they must be accompanied either by an export certificate or proof the item was out of the country as of the date of the restrictions”. That is exactly what I have been saying since the coin stunt (well, actually as I pointed out earlier here, if you look at the dealer friendly CPIA, it is not even “proof” that is required, but merely a vague assurance). The ACCG had ninety days to provide the latter, and as I pointed out yesterday failed to do so. In which case if this documentation cannot be provided, the ACCG bought items which cannot legally and thus (by their own code of ethics at least) ethically be brought into the USA.

Mr Tompa tries to throw Robyn off the scent by declaring:

Without getting bogged down too much in detail, as to the ACCG coin importation, all the coins were properly declared to US Customs

Well, actually it is the detail we non-coineys are most interested in Mr Tompa. The use of the term “properly” is somewhat disingenuous here. Properly declaring imported goods which are among those restricted by US law would be with the presentation of the documents required by law. Documents which in this case the importer deliberately left out, because as “[i]t was made clear to Customs that ACCG wishes to test their regulations in Court”. This is not declaring restricted goods properly but provocatively improperly.

Tompa is proudly candid about the origins of these coins, he admits that the “ACCG has no idea where or when they may have been found”. But they were selected as a test case as representative of what ACCG dealers would still sell them to their customers. That surely is the point that I have been making all along about the no-questions-asked market and its relationship to the flow of looted artifacts onto the market. Which brings us onto the next point.

Ethical collectors don’t need lawsuits

In replying to Robyn, the former President of the ACCG Washington lawyer Peter Tompa suggests that:

"unethical dealers" and "unethical collectors" would not worry about contesting the State Department's actions through lawsuits and the like. Rather, they would just smuggle these highly concealable items and not worry about the niceties of legal import. As such, I find your posts about this test case as well as those of Barford, Gill and Elkins to be highly insulting if not defamatory.

Well, first of all there is a confusion here about the role of dealers and collectors, the hypothetical unethical dealers would be the ones smuggling, the collectors just buy what the dealers offer them. This is a confusion born of the naming of a dealers’ lobby group the Ancient Coin Collectors’ Guild.

As somebody employed by a legal firm specializing in employment law Tompa will be well aware that there is a great differences between business ethics and businesses staying within the letter of the law. It may not be illegal in some Third World countries to employ children in sweatshops, but many of their customers would regard it as unethical for a US business to buy only goods produced under such conditions, their customers are less interested in what the law allows that the ethics about how the goods on offer were obtained. So it should be with portable antiquities.

The Cyprus and China MOUs introduce into the coin market the idea that coins with documentation of legitimate origin are not only desirable, but also documentation of legitimate origin may be demanded by US law. Here US law comes dangerously (for no-questions-asked dealers) close to the notions of ethical trading proposed by the conservationists. Despite all their protests to the contrary, that is why, we may fairly conclude, US coin dealers are fighting it.

Mr Tompa finds posts which questions the ACCG actions in staging this “test case” to be “highly insulting if not defamatory”. I really do not see it makes an antiquities dealer in any way “ethical” if he fights a law which aims to help prevent illegal transfer of ownership of cultural property from two countries which have requested such help. To my mind quite the opposite. Neither do I think this is in the interests of US “collectors”. But I’d be happy for Mr Tompa to explain it all to us, but please do not spare the details.

"Cyprus does not offer export licences for coins"

Mr Tompa announced to Robyn that "Cyprus does not offer export certificates for coins of Cypriot type. China does for some ancient Chinese coins".

That’s an odd phrase, "Cyprus does not offer export certificates for coins of Cypriot type". The United Kingdom does not “offer” them for UK dugups either, the exporter has to apply for one. In both cases the term is “licence” and not “certificate”. Now as far as I can see there is nothing in Cypriot legislation (there is a summary here) which specifically forbids coins from leaving the island any more than any other kind of artefact. Cultural Property Lawyer Mr Tompa can no doubt fill in the legal details here.

What is clear however is that even recently a British antiquities dealer (Helios Antiquities) managed to find some rather nice Cypriot antiquities which were specifically advertised as being accompanied by an export licence. I am going to have to give a reference to the cached version of the page, as those items were snapped up leaving most of the rest still unsold for now. Obviously some collectors are concerned to acquire items that are demonstrably untainted for their collections, the question is, how many dealers can supply them? So if a British dealer can find portable antiquities which have export licences and decent documented provenances, why cannot US dealers of the ACCG, PNG and IAPN?

Is it actually true that if an ACCG buyer obtained some duplicate coins of common Cypriote type from a registered collector, that the latter would be refused a licence to export them from the island? I think this statement needs testing.

Silence and Feet of Clay

If what they are doing is such a good thing and I'm just misunderstanding their intentions, why can't they even be bothered to attempt to persuade me, as a collector, why this is for my benefit?

Thus writes a portable antiquity collector about Mr Sayles' failure to discuss (or even acknowledge) her questions sent as comments on his blog and a coin news site.

I'll answer that for her. The ACCG actually cannot explain why what they are doing is for the benefit of ethical collectors of portable antiquities of any kind, because it is not.

As a matter of interest and a pointer to the way the discussion in coiney circles goes, just compare the perfectly sound comments she sent which Sayles (though so interested in "the Truth"apparently) twice rejected and the one from Peter Tompa that Sayles published on his blog. The difference between them is clear. The significance of his accepting one and rejecting the other is equally so.

UPDATE 14th July 2009:

Mr Sayles replied to Robyn. He was not however concerned to explain the ACCG's reasoning to a fellow portable antiquities collector. In fact he was rather rude to her:

Do you really a think response is justified? Who do you think you are? Hiding behind a pseudonym does nothing to disguise your egomania and hateful disposition. Play your silly game with someone else.

Well, one might wonder just who Wayne Sayles thinks he is, writing to the lady like that when all she did was express an opinion as a collector about what the ACCG were up to. Of course, we are asked to believe that US coin collectors (his customers) never appear on any of their discussion forums using pseudonyms or signing their full name. But they do, don't they? As for "egomania", what is more egotistical than no-questions-asked collecting of archaeological objects ripped from the archaeological record? Utterly trashing the latter so a few selfish people can have some nice object to fondle and gloat over or brag about to their friends and neighbours.

Give the lady a proper answer, Mr Sayles; show that coin dealers like you are capable of engaging in civil discussion with fellow collectors. While you are at it, you might like to explain why you rejected her earlier comments, and only "answer" (I use the term loosely) when she places them on her own blog. .

[I see Mr Tompa has also replied to Robyn, but discussing the porridge of nonsense he has served up there requires a separate post].

What is Münzhandlung Hirsch Nachfolger going to do with the Ur-Troy Goldgefäß?

A while ago I reported here on the spin being put by advocates of the no-questions-asked trade in portable antiquities on the story of the dilemma of archaeologist Michael Müller-Karpe over a gold vessel. He was asked to provide an expert opinion on the origin of a vessel being sold by the Munich-based Münzhandlung Hirsch Nachfolger as from Troy, when it is of a type which indcates it is Sumerian and probably looted from the Royal Cemetery at Ur. He has apparently been asked by the Iraqis not to return it to the dealer, as every indication is that it would be sold to a collector who is not really interested where it comes from and how it arrived in Munich. There is even a hint that if the dealer does this, Muller-Karpe will be treated by the Iraqis as a accessory to a crime.

So far this story has not gained much attention outside Germany, but I think it raises some questions which need answering. Why is Münzhandlung Hirsch Nachfolger [instead of sticking to selling coins "from old European collections"] branching out to other unprovenanced objects and now selling a previously unknown gold vessel apparently from Ur? Why, when questions were raised about where it came from, was (it would seem) no statement issued by the firm to explain the discrepancy, and stating what the firm now intends to do with this object to remove the stain on the "good name" of the firm which selling it would now undoubtedly bring. Why are the German authorities not stepping in and ensuring that the matter is properly investigated, and guarantee that the object returns to Iraq if that is where it came from? How many looted Iraqi objects on the German market have the German returned to that country since 2003?

(Photo from Deutsche Welle)

Unlucky Thirteen: The ACCG Baltimore coin stunt – time is up

Today is the thirteenth of July. The CPIA allowed 90 days for the ACCG to show that the coins that they imported into Baltimore in April were (as required by US law in such cases) purchased from somebody who had legitimately imported and then exported them. By my reckoning today the ninety days is up. Unless there is some piece of breaking news I have missed, no such paperwork is reported to have been presented to US Customs. The ACCG, PNG and IAPN has embarked on a process of confrontation with the US government in an attempt to overthrow conservation-orientated laws. They have an uphill battle ahead of them, their FOI request has not produced (and seems unlikely to produce) the documents they need to fight the legality of the Cyprus and China MOU. Public opinion is increasingly turning against antiquity dealers who try to bypass measures which allow the trading of illicitly obtained portable antiquities. Reputable dealers and ethical collectors are stressing their adherence to good practice and the law in line with the overall aim of day of reducing this trade. Yet a small group of collectors (who claim to be acting in the name of all the ancient coin collectors of the USA) is bucking the trend, they are trying to reverse the trend to a more ethical collecting of portable antiquities. For this they deserve to be condemned and shunned, together with all the antiquity dealers that support them.

Petrarch collected coins but John Donne apparently did not

By a sheer coincidence in April this year, at the time the plane landed at Baltimore airport containing the package with the ACCG’s illegally imported coins , a document was found tucked into an old volume earlier bequeathed to the Baltimore Public Library. It seems to be an earlier draft of John Donne’s Meditation 17, from "Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions" revealing that concern about the finite and fragile historical resource goes back well before the founding of Baltimore, and even Maryland. It seems appropriate that it is published for the first time here on this day, when the early morning bells announce the start of the day after ninety days have passed. The author wrote:

No antiquity is an island, entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own, or of thine friend's were,
Each context's death diminishes me,
Like I, it is involved in the story of mankind.
Therefore, unconcern’d relicke collector,
Send not to know for whom today the bell tolls,
For it tolls for thee.

"Fake" says Stanish and sellers vanish

Professor of Anthropology, the Director of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA Charles Stanish, first wrote about how eBay has altered the transporting and selling of illegal artifacts in the last part of the 2008 issue of the newsletter Backdirt: Annual Review, Why I love eBay pp 82-5. In April 2009, the UCLA Newsroom ran a story based on the latter. The article was then rerun by the May/June 2009 issue of Archaeology magazine. Since then, the story has become very widely reported, it has been picked up by numerous media outlets, including the Nature blog, and Scientific American. A Google search found many dozens of examples of different online versions of this story. I covered it here. I also posted a link to the AncientArtifacts Forum. Oddly enough – since fighting fake items, especially sold through the world’s best known internet sales portal is one of the leitmotifs of the group’s activity - nobody wanted to discuss it. Silence.

This problem has been around since the beginning of eBay, the number of fake ancient (and not only) coins for example on sale there is staggering. Ebay has been going through the motions of providing customer protection, but one gets the impression that they have been more interested in hanging on to the revenue-producing sellers than looking after the customers who buy things there. Many of the people buying portable antiquities clearly have not the foggiest what they are looking at. People in the know who contacted bidders and told them they were People reporting sellers to Ebay for selling fakes were ignored. bidding on fakes were routinely warned by eBay and suspended. Now, in a bout of paranoid absurdity, even the bidders’ pseudonyms is hidden to prevent this happening. Among hard-core collectors of portable antiquities, eBay (they call it contemptuously "fleabay") has very little credibility.

Since Professor Stanish’s story became big news, there have however been further quite unexpected developments. Ebay has actually been booting the most notorious fake sellers off their portal. One of the first to go was a dealer with shops in Byblos and Dubai selling a load of the most excrable stone (?) sort-of-classical sculptures all of them given “provenances” as having been dug up in the Syria-Lebanon area. They have now announced that they are withdrawing from eBay, in other words, in eBay slang, they have been NARUed.Another one to go is the eBay seller “The-Oddest-Thing”, discussed here a couple of times.

What seems to have happened (see the archives of the Yahoo AncientArtifacts discussion list was an antiquities dealer from Erie Colorado managed to get hold of the email addresses to two top executives in eBay (John Donahoe - President/CEO and Lorrie Norrington, Head of North America) and alerted them to the problem. The executives seem to have instructed their staff to take these problems seriously (presumably the Stanish articles were generating bad publicity) and several people have been reporting fake antiquity sellers from the group’s black list. Within a few days, 26 had gone of a list of 251 individuals sent to eBay. A week later, the accounts of the following sellers are reported to have been suspended or closed: n

919nba1981, activ555, ancientantiques, ancientmix, annaatana37, Byblosantiques, camilia.123, Egyptian.deals , egyptianbrilliant, egyptiancivilization, egyptianhistory, egyptianseller, egyptiantrust, egyptianworld, exceedbay, friendship_curio, g..f..w, green_id_monster, kiroseez, lazaropolett, lost_civ, loveuegypt, perfect.antiques, pharaonichistory, pharaooooh*2007, tianboyiyuan, vergina**, w-daboor, and fakes removed from the listings of: solmon123 and knights*castle (Roman*1).

The whistleblower now reports:

My latest attack is trying to get the mysterious "prohibited items group" to establish a carte blanche policy of not allowing anyone in Egypt, China, Peru, Lebanon, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Syria, Mexico, from even offering anything "ancient" on eBay. If authentic, it's against most laws of cultural patrimony,
and if fake, it's fraud. By definition, eBay should not allow either. Hopefully we will hear back on this front soon.

The dealer does not seem to accept that items from these countries are legal if accompanied by an export licence or other such paperwork. The new policies established on eBay.de as well as Austria and Switzerland take this into account. It should not be too difficult to apply this to sellers in the US too. Could it be that the US dealer is simply interested in cutting down the competition? Let us see eBay establishing a rule that only items which can be documented as being sold in accordance with ALL "cultural patrimony" laws should be sold through their portal.

Meanwhile, if this continues, eBay seems headed towards going from (according to Charles Stanish) a phenomenon undermining the antiquities trade through diluting it with fakes, to one fuelled by looted artefacts, though I wonder if their top executives are at all worried about that? Maybe we should start emailing them too.

Ancient Coin fondling again

.

A few months ago collectors of ancient coins were angry at me that I called them on my blog coin fondlers (referring of course to the phrase beloved of both sellers and buyers of portable antiquities „a piece of the past in your hand”). They did not notice that at that time had been going on over on the Moneta-L Coin collecting forum a discussion about the “slabbing” of ancient coins (enclosing them in protective plastic holders). This discussion has just broken out again. An ancient coin collector identifying him self only as “Joe” writes:

I avoid slabbed ancients as to me part of the allure is being able to touch history. However, I recently purchased a "NGC" slabbed Republic M. Volteius denarius […] I'd like to liberate it but may have to think about it if its really going to effect (sic) the value.

Steve from incitatuscoins says,

Personally I don't like the increase in 'slabbing' that is creeping into our hobby. All my coins need to be handled, looked at under magnification, tilted, edges examined, etc, all of which are not easy/possible to do in a slab. I'm also a bit paranoid and always verify authenticity in hand, regardless of slab/ pedigree/ source/ etc. […] Liberating ancients from slabs has become a bit of a 'passione' of mine. They all cry out to be freee!

Pierre concurs

How right you are Steve! A slabbed ancient coin is like bird in a cage !

Two points,, apart from the key concept here of handling (fondling) "history", first note the use of words like "liberate", "free", the idea that a coin is in some way imprisoned. The coin in some way itself needs to be handled. I wonder how far the "liberator" paradigm extends to liberating coins from "retentionist governments" (sic), "ivory tower fascist intellectuals" (sic), and "archaeological contexts".

Secondly however the idea of slabs is not only to protect the coin inside, but associate it with information important to a collector. The unique reference number on a label in a slab could easily give access to information on provenance and collecting pedigree. The reason why they cannot, it would seem, is because collectors of these items (unlike collectors of fine modern coins) want to hold them, touch them, feel them, fondle them.

A further post on the topic on the Moneta-L forum however gives food for thought:

For the ancient numismatist... Slabs are like condoms... They might provide an element of safety (bronze disease, for example) and false confidence with authenticity and grading (although there may be "holes" in both), but... They take away a lot of the sensation. So, many of us practice unsafe ancient coin collecting. Allan (unsafe and loving it) White

Unsafe coin collecting surely is numismophillic intercourse with coins when you don’t know where they have been and who they have previously been with. They may very well be tainted. “Just say no”.

Detectorist’s Treasure is wrongly valued by BM and fails to meet minimum

There was a bit of media fuss in past weeks over the upcoming auction of a 15th century gold plaque found by a former pub cook in a field at Great Gaddesden, near Ashridge. The 57-year old housewife was for a while the talk of the metal detecting blogs (frivolous bloggers noted the alliteration Mary Hannaby, housewife from Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire and one even wrote a song about it). There is a You Tube video of her detecting in grassland, and a number of online news stories, such as this one which gives a totally odd view of the Treasure process, despite eleven years of outreach by you-know-who.

But then there is much in this story as reported which is unclear. For example, I was unable to find any mention in any of the news reports of the date when this object was actually found. It was presumably reported as Treasure and therefore valued “by the British Museum” as worth 4000 GBP. But, according to the news reports, the BM did not have that much cash in the office desk drawers which (it was said ) was the reason Mrs Hannaby took it to Sotheby’s where it was examined by a specialist (Carolyn Miner – we’ve seen her before) who pronounced it was very valuable, something like 150-250 000 GBP. So it was put up for auction on July 9th. A curiosity is that the landowner said he only wanted 30% of the proceeds instead of the more conventional 50% which treasure hunters usually agree with the owners of productive sites so they can empty them of collectable and saleable artifacts. It is interesting to note that the new valuation was based on it reputedly being one of “only three of the kind” and it was compared to that of the Middleham Jewel, which sold at auction for £1.3million in 1986 and was later resold to the Yorkshire Museum for £2.5million (actually, the Gt Gaddesden object is nothing like the Middleham one in date, function or quality of workmanship).

Two points emerge, Sotheby’s treated the object as a great treasure, but the fact that it came on the market suggests that the British Museum did not. The British Museum valuation of its market value quoted in the media is well below the estimate that Sothebys placed on it.

In the end, both were wrong, bidding opened at 30 000 pounds and closed at 38 000, the minimum having not been reached. But that is still 34 thousand pounds more than the BM is reported to have said it was worth on the market.

Obviously the more and more "metal detecting" finds come to the market the argument that “only three are known” of something wears a bit thin. A few years ago there were “only two”, next decade there might be “thirty two” known, therefore prices for this type of dugup based on (current) "rarity" are devoid of sense. Perhaps this was behind the BM's questionable valuation of the object?
.
In any case, who sees the Holy Trinity on this plaque? Where is the Holy Spirit?

Photo: Top, Mary Hannaby (from the Daily Mail's "the beep that made me leap"(sic);

bottom, gold plaque no collector really wants to pay 250 000 quid for (Sothebys)

Antiquity Seller Claims "Bulgarian Bonanza is over"

A few weeks ago I discussed here the eBay seller „the oddest thing” who said he’d been a US Navy Journalist aboard the USS Springfield (CLG-7) based in Villefranche-Sur-Mer on the southern coast of France in 1966-8. He was selling antiquities he claimed he’d bought while in the region alongside objects which were in fact for the large part imported more recently from Bulgaria. These included a large number of what seemed to be fake antiquities. See my discussion here.

Since then, the gentleman has had a change of heart and the merchandise he is currently offering is of a different nature (well, some of it is the same as before, but he has changed his description of where he gets it). Now he writes:

About Bulgarian artifacts: While Bulgarian law does not consider treasure hunting a crime, they also don't consider the manufacture of artifact reproductions as a crime either! The Bulgarian Bonanza, as I used to call it, is apparently over! The question of authenticity has placed a black cloud over all
Bulgarian imports, so I will no longer offer artifacts imported from Bulgaria.

Now, the first part of the quotation is as untrue now as it was when he claimed it earlier. While objects are represented and sold as “reproductions”, they are legal more or less throughout the world, the moment they are sold as authentic originals problems start, as it seems Mr Oddest-Thing was experiencing.

What however is more interesting is the term “Bulgarian bonanza”. By this the seller obviously means the flow of bulk lots of metal-detected antiquities from ancient sites in the Balkans, principally exported through Bulgaria along the same routes as other illicit commodities. The archaeological record is however a finite and fragile resource, it would seem that even this eBay seller has realized that one cannot keep taking multiple kilogrammes of metal artefacts annually from that resource without it ultimately becoming depleted to the extent that there is hardly anything left in the more accessible places. This is when the faking began. As far as I am concerned, it is not the “question of authenticity” which “has placed a black cloud over all Bulgarian imports” of portable antiquities, it is the destruction that has been caused to the archaeological record in the name of a particularly odious form of commerce.

A further point may be added. As Nathan Elkins has shown in a number of papers and blog/forum posts, a large part of the US ancient coin trade is based on illicit exports from the same Bulgarian suppliers that are providing the metal detected artefacts to eBay sellers like "the Oddest Thing". If these supplers are having the same problems then we may soon be seeing signs of a severe destabilisation of the ancient coin trade, and a search for new sources of saleable material. As this process goes on coin dealers' lobby groups such as the ACCG, PNG and IAPN are likely to get louder in their protesting of the innocence of the o-questions-asked market in antiquities and that "in any case coins are not archaeological artefacts".

UPDATE 12.07.09
Now "the-Oddest-Thing" is listed on eBay as "not a registered user"

"Wise not to respond"?

I was having a look through Wayne Sayles’ “ancient coin collecting (sic) blog” and was struck by one comment sent by coin collector Bill Donovan from New York. It was appended to a text by Sales about the Euphronios krater, in which as far as I could see my name does not appear once. So it is very odd to see that he wrote...

It is hard to decipher all the arguments, because behind a facade of logic sits an irrational foundation. When you try to argue with someone or something who holds an irrational viewpoint (which they are probably unconscious of) you get drawn into their insanity. I think you are wise not to respond to Paul Barford, for the reason mentioned above.

Wise not to be drawn into my insanity, into my irrationality? Anyone would think that instead of the effects of the no-questions-asked antiquities trade, I was discussing FEMA prison trains, thought control chips inserted into citizens’ heads, conspiracy theories about the personal life of a US Secretary of State or whatever. According to MR Donovan there is a mere facade of logic in my position, but the underlying foundation does not fit what Mr Donovan considers rational. Mr Donovan is very proud of his artwork, let us watch and listen to him talking about it on his blog “inkstained hands” (caution: contains coins and topless video scene). The "rationality" Mr Donovan seeks apparently looks a bit like this, or maybe this, or as seen here and here (etc.).

The author of this art considers it the “wisdom” of the proponents of the no-questions-asked market to avoid answering the questions and points raised by their critics. Instead of dismissing a position by pretending it is "based on an irrational foundation", what would be even more wise would be to do what the critics of no-questions-asked collecting are doing to the arguments of its proponents. We are consistently exposing the irrationality at the core of their own arguments and stubbornly-maintained positions. After all, if critics of no-questions-asked market really are using irrational arguments, it should be easy to chase them (us) off the field of public debate on the heritage. There would be no need for all the personal attacks and glib platitudes that substitute in the pro-collecting rhetoric (I use the term loosely) for proper reasoned debate. Mr Donovan might do well to try to articulate that "irrationality" he sees in the archaeological resource preservation case - if he cannot put it into words, maybe (please) in the form of a cycle of colour-clash cartoonic artworks.

Photo: When it comes to accidental art, I personally prefer something more like this.

U.S. settles with family of scholar

.
The U.S. government has agreed to pay $880,000 to the estate of the late Roxanna Brown, the 62-year-old Southeast Asia scholar who died in federal custody in Seattle last year. Brown, a US citizen, directed the Southeast Asian Ceramics Museum at Bangkok University, in Thailand. She was arrested on a single charge of 'wire fraud' on May 9th 2008 in Seattle, where she was scheduled to speak at the University of Washington. During her imprisonment in a detention center at the SeaTac detention centre (a multi-story, maximum-security facility that serves the Northwest region) where she was awaiting transfer to Los Angeles to face the charge there, she complained of being ill and missed a court date. Four days later (May 14th) she died in her cell from a perforated ulcer for which no medical assistance had been supplied by federal authorities.

Ms Brown's arrest was part of last year's investigations into the donation of allegedly looted artefacts to US museums and related tax offences in a case which got a lot of media coverage at the time. In January 2008, hundreds of federal agents had raided the Bowers Museum in Orange County, the Pacific Asia Museum in Pasadena, the Mingei Museum in San Diego and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, along with nine other locations in California and Illinois. Brown was expected to play a key role in the case as an expert witness and informant to government investigators. Her death in federal custody has been a setback to investigators; since it, there have been no public moves in the case.

In a paradoxical turn of events, Brown had become a target of the same investigators who she had earlier been aiding. She was arrested because her name was allegedly associated with the appraisal of objects for Jonathan and Cari Markell, Los Angeles gallery owners. Authorities said they had found her electronic signature on the appraisal forms that inflated the value of artwork. It is alleged that the gallery's clients then donated objects to local museums for inflated tax write-offs.

More disturbingly it was also alleged that Ms Brown had been involved in the sale of Thai antiquities to Robert Olson, an alleged smuggler from Cerritos (see the letter published in the LA Times which if genuine certainly raises some questions). The settlement therefore leaves unanswered broader questions about Brown's role in the alleged scheme.

The Los Angeles Times produced a lengthy three part portrait of the deceased and account of this case which made interesting reading:
Part 1: a passion for art, a perilous pursuit,
Part 2: Her career revived, scholar turns tipster,
Part 3: Once an aid in a federal probe, antiquities scholar becomes a key target .

Photo: Roxanna Brown during her years covering the Vietnam War (Fred Leo Brown)

What happens to dugups when collectors get their hands on them

Request for information on a collectors' discussion list from one Geremy Gilbert:

My name is Geremy and im new to collecting old roman coins. It has been a complete blast so far. Does any one have any great tips on how to clean up old roman coins? Ive been soaking them in olive oil for a couple of months then taking a nylon brush and water to them. Im open for suggestions.

Reply helpfully offered by coin collector Bob Lilja:

You have quite a selection of methods, many engendering criticism. Electrolysis is popular, tumbling with various media is another, and there are assorted chemical treatments. Usually, patina and heavy cleaning are incompatible. Depends on how far you want to go.

The methods "engendering criticism" are the ones that destroy the artefact, making something which was already stripped of its potential information value by ripping it out of context (decontextualisation) into something also devoid of any information that may be contained in its original surface within the corrosion layers that formed on it when buried in archaeological contexts. In such a manner the destruction of evidence at the hands of the collector is total and irreversible. No surprises there, then.

To be fair, alongside Mr Lilja's scandalous recommendations, we have one from a Ken Baumheckel who puts the "dry coin under a low power stereo microscope and use a needle or a fiberglass scratch pen to remove obscuring material from the coin's legends and devices". This is far closer to what archaeological conservation specialists would do, though in the wrong hands such tools can also lead to damage (when does mechanical cleaning become "tooling"?). Mr Baumheckel forgets though to mention the safety precautions needed for using a "fibergalass scratch pen" (nasty tools) in such a manner and the necessity to stabilise the corrosion products remaining by use of inhibitors and/or controlled storage. Of course those who buy coins in bulk simply dunk them in something, "zap" them by electrolysis, or tumble them. They bought them "cheap" after all, and even if the majority are damaged by such treatment (and can be dirtied up a bit and sold on), some may come out to be identifiable, after a little "enhancement".

Posts like Mr Lilja's really do put the claims made by portable antiquity collectors that they are "saving and preserving pieces of the past for future generations" into perspective. Many of them are instead actively trashing the artefacts in their "tender, loving" care through ignorance, carelessness and haste.

ANS Executive Director on the war between coin collectors and conservationists

In an editorial from the Spring 2007 American Numismatic Society newsletter, Ute Wartenberg Kagan the Executive Director of the ANS spoke out against the belicose rhetoric employed by the ACCG and its supporters (here the emphasis is mine):

an e-mail from a member has prompted me to speak up. This message ended by asking me to “get SERIOUS before American numismatists experience their own ‘holocaust’ at the hands of these ivory tower fascists.” This message had been preceded by an e-mail in which the phrase “Pearl Harbor of the Cultural Property War” was used. Although I understand that this is an important issue, the increasingly belligerent tone of the debate makes me wonder whether a better response and attitude may exist.

Pointing out that the ANS "has long been a place where academics, collectors, dealers, and curators have shared their interest in coinage and other items", she expresses the hope that the ANS will serve as a place where the issues concerning looting, the market and illegal imports could be discussed and debated. She expresses the conviction that "there is common ground between archaeologists who care about their sites and collectors who care about their coins". I guess for this reason the ANS seems not to be involved in the ACCH illegal coin import stunt.

Indeed, the ANS takes a dim view of the illicit trade. The collection policy of one of the largest collections in the Americas (800 000 objects) thus states that:

The ANS supports the spirit and intent of the UNESCO convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illegal Import, Export, and Transfer of Cultural Property of November 14, 1970. The Society will not purchase or exhibit numismatic objects or other items that the Society reasonably suspects to have been unlawfully removed from archeological sites, stolen from public or private collections, removed from their country of origin in contravention of that country's laws declaring them state property or otherwise imported in contravention of the laws of the United States.

Good for them. But then if they get a gift of somebody's collection, in the present Petrarchian mode of undocumented collection, there are unlikely t be records which show which coins come from Petrarch's old collection and which ones came from a Punxatawney dealer in ancient coins who bought them in a German auction from a seller supplied by a bloke with a brother in Bulgaria and a van.

I wonder how many of the 2260 members supported the ACCG protest against the Cyprus MOU?

Seven days to go....

Two US dealers’ associations the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild and Professional Numismatists Guild together with the Belgium-based International Association of Professional Numismatists have decided to challenge the legality of the US government’s imposition of import controls on certain types of archaeological artefact. Wayne Sayles, executive director of the CCG declared this a “war” with the conservation lobby.

The first stage of this “war” was through a Freedom of Information suit to attempt to obtain copies of documents from the US State Department which would be compromising and indicate that the imposition of the import controls being fought (the two of eight which involve restrictions on the import of ancient coins) was achieved in some way unlawfully. So far the plaintiffs have not received the documents they need to prove this case, so are merely left to mouth conspiracy theories.

Stage two of the “war” involved provoking US customs into seizing a package of coins imported by an individual or individuals associated with the ACCG (in conflict with their own “code of ethics”). These had been sold to the US buyer by an (unnamed) foreign seller who had not supplied them with the documentation required to allow them to pass through US customs unchallenged. In the absence of the export licences required by section 307(a) of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) there is a dealer-friendly let-out clause which allows the exporter and importer to skirt right round the export licence problem by simply signing a what amounts to a “due diligance” statement (section 307(b) and 307 (c). They have ninety days to do this. Three months seems ample time for an importer and exporter to arrange a simple signed statement is sent across the Atlantic to allow these objects to reach their purchaser.

Stage three of this “war” is presumably intended to be an expensive legal case where in fighting to have “their” coins returned by US customs, the ACCG and affiliated organizations will attempt to show that it s not they who are acting against US law, but the US government in imposing import restrictions on US citizens buying undocumented archaeological material abroad. As another collector has noted, this is at the US tax-payer’s expense.

Presumably there is intended to be a fourth stage where if the ACCG and affiliated bodies win the first three legal cases, they would intend to use this as a lever to change US legislation to allow unregulated movement of decontextualised archaeological material into the US regardless of origin. This seems to be the ultimate aim of the ACCG/PNG/IAPN’s FOI request and the Baltimore illegal coin import stunt.

Meanwhile we have seen that in the ninety days in which the ACCG and affiliated bodies could have supplied a signed due diligence statement, dealers in other antiquities from the countries involved in the same MOUs have been continuing trade, and collectors of other collectable material from these countries in the US have continued collecting without complaining. Without protest. Without deliberately engaging in illegal activity to challenge their government’s ability to enforce the laws. Ninety days in which the only problem-makers have been a small group of ancient coin dealers intent on being free to trade material without paying any attention whatsoever to any restraints whatsoever. The epitome of the no-questions-asked trade.

There is of course time for a transatlantic fax or courier of a simple piece of paper from the seller to allow these coins to continue on their journey from US Customs in Baltimore to their purchaser, but time is running out. In fact it runs out on the thirteenth, a day future coin collectors may come to regard as an unlucky one as a result of the long-term effects of this coin stunt on their hobby and "freedoms".

Tompa gets excited that I mentioned Princeton Curator

Referring to yesterday’s post here, former ACCG president Tompa writes (Alan Stahl's suggestions to (sic) Cyprus (sic)'):

SAFE associated blogger Paul Barford believes he may have found a kindered (sic) spirit based on some quotations from Alan Stahl's review of "Studies in Early Medieval Coinage." Before Mr. Barford gets too excited, however, I suggest that he also review Prof. Stahl's letter to CPAC on the Cypriot MOU's renewal.

The letter is here, and seems to have been written in response to something like this.

Two points. [Though when I wrote yesterday's post I admit I was enjoying a perfectly chilled bottle of extraordinarily fine Rhenish white wine], I was not getting particularly “excited” that not all numismatists in the US think like the mouthpieces of the dealers’ lobbying group the ACCG. I actually believe that not all US coin collectors are so oafish and so unconcerned as the Merry Men of the ACCG. In fact I suspect that if the truth were known, it would be found that such radicals are in a minority in the US numismatic milieu as a whole. Obviously though my pointing out here that there are other opinions within it touched a raw nerve with the ACCG.

Secondly, I note what Tompa does not point out. In Stahl’s letter we find written:

“There are many aspects in which coins are like any other
archaeological artifact and deserve the same protections accorded to other classes of artifact”.

He also points out the damage done to archaeological and numismatic knowledge by exploitation of sites for saleable collectables (using Morgantina as an example). He also writes:

“Ancient people sometimes secreted their hoards within or near their homes; such a hoard would be part of a larger archaeological context”.

Oh dear, that is not what the ACCG spokesmen say, is it? ACCG Spokesmen like Californian coin dealer Dave Welsh claim that collectable coins come from hoards which are always buried away from settlements. Maybe the US government can call upon Dr Stahl rather than a dealer as an expert witness when the question comes up in the ACCG coin stunt case of whether coins are archaeological artifacts or not.

For Mr Tompa however the key point of Dr Stahl's letter to the CPAC is the "proposal" he makes therein ("to Cyprus" - in fact he seems only to have sent it to the US CPAC) . Let's look at it in the next post.

Enhancing the trade in ancient artefacts between Cyprus and the U.S.A.

Peter Tompa draws attention to a 2007 “proposal for the regulation of the trade in coins between Cyprus and the U.S.A.” sent to the US advisory committee, the CPAC by Princeton numismatic scholar Alan Stahl. This is intended to provide for a mechanism “so that American collectors who esteem the cultural heritage of Cyprus can buy coins minted or found there”. Well, since our attention has been drawn to it, let us take a look at it.

Obviously nobody would have anything against artefact reporting, recording and registration if they are from accidental discoveries (or archaeological excavations as Stahl suggests). That is after all what ratification of the Valetta Convention (Art. 2 iii) also requires. Cyprus has ratified the convention (April 2000).

Neither would anyone have anything against legal exports and legal imports of archaeological material which has previously been assessed as not comprising a loss to the regional archaeological heritage. That again is what is required by the Valetta Convention and the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (Art. 6)

What I simply do not understand however is why Stahl’s proposal suggests such a system should apply ONLY to “coins” (if not – according to the title of the document - only to coins sold to US dealers and collectors).

Neither do I see any mention of how Stahl (who has worked in Cyprus) envisages the legal basis of the measures he proposes. No reason is given why Cyprus should in this regard accede to the interventionist “needs” of US coin collectors (still less of the US advisory committee to whom this proposal was addressed).

More to the point, Stahl does not enlarge on what sort of “incentives” he thinks the Cypriot government would provide “finders”. He does not specify whether these incentives would be paid only to accidental finders, or whether artefact hunters and looters would also be rewarded. This is the key question, whether the measure is to provide a means of conserving the resource, or whether paying artefact hunters simply results in the acceleration of its exploitation as a source of state cash handouts.

Neither is it explained whether in Stahl's conception it is only “finders of coins” who will be rewarded, or whether finders of pots from tombs, diggers up of statuary, mosaics and frescoes also.

More to the point, in making this “proposal”, Alan Stahl does not state where he envisages this money coming from, perhaps from the “licensing fee” American collectors would pay to buy coins with documented provenance and legally exported? How high would that have to be to cover even part of the payouts then?

All in all, as a workable proposal, Dr Stahl’s suggestion is poorly constructed and in any case addressed to the wrong body. It is thus totally unclear why Peter Tompa regards it as so noteworthy.

The odd thing is that it has at the basis the notion of coins being exported with export licences, which Stahl suggests US coin collectors would be respecting. So what is the difference between that and the current imposition of import controls which mean that only coins from Cyprus with the requisite documentation are imported legally in the US? On the other hand, we have seen that in fact not all US dealers and collectors give a hoot about such things even when such systems are operational, as the “English dugups” on sale over there showed.

Proposals like this from collectors and dealers of portable antiquities and their “partners” and supporters suggesting how others (“archaeologists”, the governments of source countries) “should” deal with the problem of looting and smuggling are a substitute for action by the milieu actually responsible. The problem actually results entirely from the fact that large numbers of collectors of portable antiquities (US collectors especially, and US collectors of ancient coins notoriously) are for the most utterly careless about establishing the legitimacy of the “dugup” objects they purchase and possess. Even if all foreign governments set up systems like that Dr Stahl proposes, there is no guarantee that all collectors would respect them, indeed we have seen there is ample evidence they would not. Proposals like this are however a smokescreen for inaction within the artefact collecting community.

But there is something here I do not understand. Since Dr Stahl says he has worked as an archaeologist in Cyprus, he may be expected to know the legislation involved. There is an English translation of the recent antiquities legislation of the Republic of Cyprus here. From it (Articles 3, 4 and 5) it turns out that Cyprus already has a system for dealing with accidental finds (including licences for the finder to retain objects not needed for museum collections and payments for those that are) which is similar to that which Dr Stahl suggests Cyprus "should adopt". It has had it for some time. I presume the CPAC (as part of investigating the Cypriot request) would actually know this, the question is, why did Dr Stahl suggest otherwise? Why does lawyer Tompa think it is so noteworthy that Dr Stahl suggests Cyprus adopt a system that is already embodied in Cypriot legislation?

Blanding looting case: Guilty plea

Blanding resident Jeanne Redd and her daughter pleaded guilty to multiple felonies Monday morning for illegally trafficking in ancient artifacts. Jeanne Redd, 59, admitted in Salt Lake City's federal court to seven felonies: two counts of violating the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, two counts of theft of government property, three counts of theft of American Indian tribal property. Her 37-year-old daughter, Jerrica Redd, pleaded guilty to three felonies involving theft, excavation and possession of property from tribal lands. As part of the plea deal, she acknowledged knowingly taking artifacts from Navajo land. Jerrica Redd was not indicted in the original raid, she was charged Friday. Federal authorities say evidence against her surfaced during searches of the Redds' Blanding home. The two will be sentenced Sept. 16.

Photo: Jeanne Redd, police mugshot.

Alan Stahl reviews 'Studies in Early Medieval Coinage'

In the online Medieval Review, Alan M. Stahl, Curator of Numismatics at Princeton University, reviews a 2008 book on sceattas [Abramson, Tony, ed. Studies in Early Medieval Coinage, volume 1: Two Decades of Discovery. Woodbridge, Suffolk, and Rochester, NY: Boydell and Brewer, 2008. Pp. 202. $80. ISBN 978-1-84383-371-0] .

I found this review interesting as a counterpoint to the usual moanings and mantras of no-questions-asked coin-collecting US “professional numismatists” we are used to encountering. Let us hear what Dr Stahl made of this book. He starts off:

The studies in this volume treat, from a very wide range of methodologies and disciplines, a specific segment of early medieval coinage: silver coins of the seventh and eighth century circulating on the English and Continental sides of the North Sea, which are generally called sceattas by modern scholars and
collectors. These small coins rarely have any inscriptions or other indications of origin, so their attributions must be based on find spots and comparisons with other series. In the past few decades, the study of sceattas has been taken up by archaeologists and art historians as well as a growing cadre of numismatists, and attributions that were once mere guesses can now be evaluated on the basis of substantial amounts of evidence.

Let us note the order there, archaeologists, art historians and then "a growing cadre of numismatists". So no "Petrarch collected coins, so there!" here then. So far, so good.

One of the principal sources of the growing interest in sceatta study has been the enormous proliferation of newly published finds, some with full contexts and others with frustratingly limited ones. An example of the former type is in the report by Claus Feville, "Series X and Coin Circulation in Ribe," (pp. 52—67) where a careful analysis of stratigraphic finds from more than three decades of excavation gives a chronological as well as geographical dimension to the attribution: not only was the series in question (commonly known as the Wodan/Monster type) minted in the region of the Jutland site (and possibly at the emporium itself) in the mid-eighth century, but examples of the issue continued to be lost until well into the ninth century, after Carolingian reformed pennies had taken over the circulation in other parts of the continent.

So "coins in context" then. Mr Stahl does not seem at all surprised that coins as archaeological artefacts can have an archaeological context and that context can provide information about coin use.

An example of less satisfying provenance information is found in "Sceattas from a Site in Essex" by Mike Bonser and Tony Carter (pp. 91-95). The authors explain that "the detector user, who is known to both of us, agreed to allow his coin finds to be examined and published on condition that the location was not
revealed... The productive area...has produced Celtic, Roman and medieval coins...through to late medieval. The total number of coins, which have all been single finds, numbers several hundred." Despite the value of the publication of photos of twenty of these specimens and the knowledge contributed by the
information that they were found in Northwest Essex (in the end rather little), one cannot but be alarmed at the apparent systematic destruction of an archaeological site of at least a millennium's duration.

Oh dear. Nobody told the US numsmatist that we are supposed to pat metal detector users on the head, call them "darling", "hero" and "partner". Fancy a US numismatist stepping out of the ranks and saying he (we?) “cannot but be alarmed at the apparent systematic destruction of an archaeological site” by what? Well, by the search for collectables such as coins. I’m beginning to like the style of Dr Stahl, saying what the others are apparently afraid to for fear of being shouted down by the no-questions-asked bully-boys.

Many of the new additions to the corpus of sceattas with known provenance derive from relatively recently enacted antiquities legislation in England and Wales: the Treasure Act of 1996 and the Portable Antiquities Scheme introduced soon thereafter. While coin hoards are subject to state regulations similar to those of other European countries, coins found singly can be shown to regional experts who record them and their findspots for inclusion in an online database. [...] The availability of these specimens on the internet (along with unprovenanced ones on such sites as eBay) has allowed such intensive studies as "The Sceattas of Series D" by Wybrand op den Velde in collaboration with D. M. Metcalf (pp. 77-90), which divides a predefined series into three distinct issues on the basis of die-strings and suggests that while most are of Frisian origin, certain varieties were probably minted in England. The growing precision in attributions presented in this book has allowed archaeologists, historians and art historians to draw new inferences about this poorly documented era.

Well, there we are, the numismatic curator sees these coins as primarily something to be studied by archaeologists and historians and coin collectors and dealers (aka: ”[professional] numismatists”) aren’t even mentioned here. Good for him. He concludes:

This book is announced as the first volume in a series devoted to the current research on sceattas. In view of the potential of further findings on this large and complex coinage to illuminate the history of the transition of the North Sea region from a marginal fringe of the late Roman world to the center of new medieval civilizations, this is a welcome prospect.

Well, unless you are an American no-questions-asked collector of heaps of decontextualised coins of the Classical civilizations such as ancient Greece and Rome ripped from archaeological sites all over Europe, North Africa and the Near East, in which case such arguments, even from fellow US numismatists, will of course fall on deaf ears.

Photo: an eBay decontextualised sceatta - who knows where it was really from and what it could have told us if we knew?

.

Wenneb... shabtis still on Sale, in New York this time

In February we were examining the sale of "Wenneb..." shabtis as a result of which several ethical British dealers withdrew them from sale because it looked likely that they were from a recently looted tomb. No new evidence has emerged to show that these were legitimately excavated and legally exported items, nor any securely provenanced to old collections, so it is therefore disappointing to see they are still on sale. In addition to the UK artefact hunter (still) offering one, we find Windsor Antiquities from New York offering one on eBay. Where did it come from? The seller says nothing.

Ancient Egyptian Faience Ushabti w/Hierogliph C.26th Dynasty 600 BC great details Size 2 1/2 inches high (6.3 cm long) Ancient Egyptian Faience Ushabti conditon perfect .Guaranteed Authenticity. coa available for a charge of $5 each.Shipping and handling $5.00 US and Canada $10.00 International. Combined shipping accepted for multiple lots. Windsor Antiques 1050 Second Avenue Gallery 16, New York, NY 10022 Tel 212-3191077

Instead of a "certificate of authenticity" for an additiona five bucks on top of the thirty or so which is how six eBay biddeers currently price this object, I am sure the ethical collector who knows what is what would far more appreciate copies of the documentation that the object has a verifiably legitimate provenance without which (and given the circumstances) that "authenticity" seems pretty damning. Anyway, any seller who says ths item has "great details" is patently stretching the truth suspiciously in at least that aspect of his description.

Where is Dr Hawass and his merry antiquity board men? Why has he not got a hotline set up so market-watchers can report suspicious things like this to his enormous staff so they can investigate? If this object is one of a group freshly looted and illegally transported out of Egypt as some UK dealers apparently suspect, then surely getting hold of those responsible is far more important in protectng the archaeological heritage than quarrelling about the partage of the 1912 Armarna finds or the other repatriation media storms the Egyptians are currently involved in.

Ridding the field of whistleblowers: "in your dreams"

Cultural Property Observer reports, apparently gleefully, that critic of no-questions-asked collecting policies Oscar White Muscarella curator of ancient art and archaeology of the Near East “has taken a recession driven voluntary retirement” from the New York’s Metropolitan Museum. He notes that due to his role as a whistle-blower:

If Muscarella had been in private industry, he would have been sacked long ago. However, in the not-for-profit world of the Met, he managed to hang on for 44 years...

Perhaps employees of one of New York's premier museums have a strong trades union behind them – or perhaps (unlike no-questions-asked collectors) the Metropolitan regards participation in public debate on ethics and the preservation of the cultural heritage part of a museum’s public role. This extraordinary ad hominem statement is however given significance in the context of the fact that, although he does not like us mentioning it, Peter Tompa is an employee of Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC, the core of whose activities concern providing legal representation in the areas of employee benefits law, employment law, and litigation. Frankly I am amazed that a lawyer in such a firm would be so glibly suggesting that whistleblowers can be summarily sacked. Somehow, apart from other factors, I do not think I'd be seeking his firm's help in any conflict with my current employer.

If the Metropolitan had threatened to sack Otto Muscarella after writing of the false provenance of Ziwiye ("Ziwiye" and Ziwiye. The Forgery of a Provenience, in: Journal of Field Archaeology 4, 1977), or the publication of his “The Lie Became Great” (2000), both about the no-questions-asked market in antiquities, would Bailey and Ehrenburg have refused to represent him? Just curious.

It is also interesting that Peter Tompa is among those who claim (falsely) that supporters of collecting of portable antiquities are somehow "black-balled" by the archaeological community (this is to expain away why so few voices are raised in the defence of the no-questions-asked market in the archaeological milieu which collectrs say are solidly behind them, it being just "a few radicals" [sic] that are not). Yet Tompa himself is obviously advocating archaeological black balling of heritage professionals who are anti-looting and confronting the issues caused by the no-questions-asked market. Where is the consistency in that standpoint?

How many more people critical of the no-questions-asked market would ACCG activists like Mr Tompa like to see "sacked" from their workplace, or perhaps in the case of younger academics prevented from being employed there at all?

I wish Dr Muscarella a long, happy and fruitful retirement and long may he continue to spread the word among the public about the damaging effects of the no-questions-asked market in decontextualised artefacts on the preservation and integrity of the world's archaeological record. That is what basically this is about, integrity and truth.

Photo: Oscar Muscarella (SAFE)

"Coiney" concept of "Comedy"

The no-questions-asked acquirers and handlers of heaps of decontextualised ancient coins on transatlantic table tops clearly have a distorted sense of humour. Yesterday Heritage Action discussed the story of the quarrel between two UK metal detector using finders about how the reward for the Dallinghoo Hoard should be split. It raised some perfectly valid questions, how it was "ludicrous it is to be paying metal detectorists millions of pounds in rewards for doing what they all swear blind they would do without any reward anyway" (see what "metal detectorist" Darke is quoted as saying). Heritage Action further raises the question of why on earth in the grip of a recession, the British are spending further millions of money from the public budget "encouraging and supporting them in a hobby that other countries deem illegal and would simply send them to prison for" (if carried out in the manner of this find). Heritage Action adds:

If you pay tax or care about the archaeological record, or think the first should go towards protecting the second not in facilitating its erosion away into the hands of a few thousand nameless and entirely unregulated private individuals (most of whom tell no-one what they have found or where) it’s definitely worth a look.

It is interesting to see what reaction this met in the transatlantic collecting community (who claim to care about the preservation of the archaeological record). Apparently all they could muster to contribute to any discussion of the issues was: "Some things are just too funny to parody". Really? Personally, I do not get the "joke". Saying something is laughable and not explaining why is a pretty transparent tactic.

The monetan poster goes on to say "(although we might try to do something with gambling money being called tax!)". By "gambling money" one can only infer that the author believes that in England and Wales, Treasure rewards are paid from Heritage Lottery Fund money, which is by no means the case, the HLF are no longer even the principal source of PAS funding as it was in the late 1990s. Perhaps "monetans" interested in the workings of the British Treasure Act need to keep up with the news of how it actually does work.

[*What is odd though is that the ACCG Museums Fund (aiming to help British museums acquire numismatic treasure finds) does not mention the HLF in the information about why the collectors think the fund is necessary, though it mentions the Headly Trust for entirely transparent reasons. What is significant is that the author of the Monetan post is closely involved in the ACCG fund's operation.]

UK Artefact hunters disagree over Treasure award

"The battle over Boadicea's gold: Treasure hunters fall out over who deserves £500,000 reward for coins found in field"

Photo: Michael Darke and his former metal detecting companion Keith Lewis (Mail on Sunday).

"Lorry driver Mr Darke was alone when he found the first few coins in a Suffolk field and believes he is entitled to the lion's share of any proceeds. However postman Mr Lewis, who helped him recover the bulk of the hoard, believes he deserves just as much as the other man. The pair now face a legal battle over how to split a reward of up to £500,000 after a coroner yesterday ruled that the coins were Treasure [...], allowing the finders to receive their full value on their sale to a museum. [...] It was in March last year that the 60-year-old from Woodbridge, Suffolk, found ten Iron Age coins buried in a meadow at nearby Dallinghoo. He gave up searching because it was getting late and the weather was bad. He called Mr Lewis, 54, for advice and invited him to join the dig the following weekend. Within an hour of arriving in the field, the pair had unearthed the remains of an Iron Age cooking pot containing another 773 gold coins - the largest such haul found in Britain since 1849. Yet more were found later. […] Mr Darke had permission from farmer Clifford Green, 66, to use his metal detector on the 200-acre farm in return for splitting the value of any find. But Mr Lewis, of Great Blakenham, who has known Mr Darke for 15 years, is also now demanding a share for his efforts. He is suggesting that farmer Green and his family keep 50 per cent of the proceeds while he and Mr Darke share the other half equally".

There is a preliminary report on the finding and context of this "Wickham market" hoard here and by Chris Rudd here. There is also a short BBC news clip made after the inquest. The pair "dug up the coins about two feet below the ground". Mr Darke "had permission from farmer Clifford Green, 66, to use his metal detector on the 200-acre farm at Dallinghoo in return for splitting the value of any find". The find was apparently reported as Treasure by the farmer, not the artefact hunters.

US Antique dealers' approach to the China MOU

Beverly Hills Gallery and Auctioneer Isadore M. Chait have issued a public statement guaranteeing the legality of Chinese artifacts in their upcoming July 12 auction. These objects would come under the terms of the 2008 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on import restrictions of Chinese artifacts into the US. The MOU was created in an attempt to curb illicit trafficking in Chinese antiquities and art in the U.S. and covers all types of collectable Chinese items dating from the Paleolithic Period to the end of the Tang Dynasty (A.D. 907). It also applies to wall art and monumental sculptures that are at least 250 years old. During the period of operation of the MOU, such works can be legally imported into the US only if Chinese officials issue a valid certificate of export or if they left China before January 16, 2009.

Isadore M. Chait assured buyers that that “many of the items in the auction had been purchased from our Gallery in previous years. Others carry impressive credentials, among them the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco, a Paolo Verdes estate, and several private collections” (see also here and here). No mention is made of it, but I assume the gallery will be backing up its claims by supplying the purchasers with some kind of documentation of the object's previous ownership history. This guarantee of legality should be extremely comforting to collectors, given the fact that I.M. Chait’s July 12 auction contains a number of exceptional objects such as an archaic bronze ritual vessel and monumental sculptures as well as collections of Han and Tang pottery.

The lead item is a museum-quality Early Western Zhou Dynasty (1027 – 771 B.C.) bronze vessel estimated at $80,000. Known in Chinese as a gui, the archaic container has a domed lid and is decorated with the intertwined geometrics characteristic of the era. Fantastical animal-heads decorate the handles and
legs. An inscription inside the cover completes its attributes. Another archaic bronze is a pair of massive covered Hu (wine storage containers) from the Warring States Period (770 – 221 B.C.). They are in the $20,000 to $30,000 range. Additionally, a Northern Qi Dynasty (A.D. 550 -577) limestone head of Guanyin falls under the restrictions. Han (206 B.C. – A.D. 220) and Tang Dynasty (A.D. 619-907) pottery horses, camels and ritual pottery figures—those pricey and favored symbols of status and good taste so frequently found on American mantles and in executive offices—also now warrant credential checks. Fortunately for collectors, several fine examples appear in this sale.Among the more outstanding is a massive pair of Tang Bactrian camels caught in mid-stride and bearing riders whose mustaches and outfits clearly identify them as foreigners. (Lot 210.) Not only does this pair have the proper provenance, they come with another of Chait’s assurances, a Thermo Luminescence (TL) Test Certificate. The camels are estimated at $30,000 – $35,000.Similarly qualified are a pair of Han Dynasty painted pottery figures of dancing ladies. These have remains of the original, nearly 2,000 year old pigment , The ladies also come with TL test certificates in addition to the Chait guarantee.

We may contrast the attitudes of the buyers of such items - demanding assurances of legitimacy including secure provenances - with those of a small group of artefact dealers who are currently in the process of trying to overthrow the very same MOU to allow them to continue to import contextless and provenance-less ancient artefacts without the "bother" of being required to show that the objects left the source country legally or before the MOU was established. Whether or not this is what collectors want - or whether it is in the long term interests of collecting at all, remain to be demonstrated. What is interesting is that we do not see other branches of the dealer community attacking the State Department for attemting to reduce the participation of the US in the trade in illicit antiquities. It is just the ancient coin dealers and collectors. I wonder if they imagine they are speaking for all collectors of Chinese antiquities?

I think, however, if buying antiquities from Californian dealers, when there are ones that offer documentation that the antiquities they sell are of legal origin, and those that cannot and will not (and some of which are members of organzations actively intending to overthrow the import restrictions), then it seems to me that the ethical collector's choice is a simple one. Of course the market for some of Chait's arterfacts is a different one from the "cut-price bit o' 'istry in yer 'and" one that the ancient coin dealers and eBay dugup antiquity sellers are catering for.

[Footnote: By the way though, the "ritual pottery figures" ("those pricey and favored symbols of status and good taste so frequently found on American mantles and in executive offices") mostly come from grave robbing just as much as any Utah pots.]

Photo: Gui vessel (Wikicommons)

More on Utah's "Action Cerberus"

The hooha about the Blanding ARPA arrests continues (Nate Carlisle, „BLM agents pulled guns on artifacts suspects, sheriff says” Salt lake Tribune 2nd July 2009) "All this could have been handled by summonses or [federal agents] could have come talk to me," [Sherrif] Lacy said. "I could have gone into any of these homes and not needed a gun". His brother was one of the accused. Had Sherrif Lacy ever wondered where the artifacts in his brother’s house were coming from? Where were the upright citizens of Blanding when apparently the law was being broken under their noses.

Also reported today, facing seven felonies, Jeanne Redd, the wife of the deceased doctor James Redd, may have reached a deal with prosecutors and has been scheduled to appear in court Monday to change her "not guilty" plea. (Patty Henetz, “Artifact-theft suspect to change plea” Salt lake Tribune 2nd July 2009).

Photo: San Juan County Sheriff Mike Lacy

"Can't be trusted" to express an opinion on the origin?

I was not initially going to write about this gold pot seized by German customs. Nathan Elkins has covered it quite well here and here (and clarified what was to me initially a somewhat unclear account in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung). However following on from this, an opinion has been expressed which deserves comment). Its from the Washington lawyer again, the one with an apparent irrational but pathological hatred of anything with a name that begins with the letters "archaeolo...". In his text "Recalcitrant archaeologist embarrasses German Police", Cultural Property Observer writes:

"Muller-Karpe is certainly well-known in Germany for his anti-collector and anti-trade views. Thus, it is a bit surprising German customs ever viewed him as someone who could be trusted to provide an independent opinion on the origin of
the vessel in question".

Regardless of the actual circumstances here, what a bizarre statement to make. I wonder to whom Mr Tompa would have had it taken by the German authorities. The Munich (coin) dealer Münzhandlung Hirsch Nachfolger which was trying to sell it claims it is from Iron Age Troy (but presumably, since this case is dragging on has not been able to document that). The attempted sale was challenged in 2005 and the object seized by customs on the grounds that the object was of a type suggesting it was in fact from Sumerian Ur. Michael Müller-Karpe at the Römisch-Germanische Zentralmuseum in Mainz is a specialist in the metalwork of the region, and the co-author of a 1993 work: Metallgefässe im Iraq I (Von den Anfängen bis zur Akkad-Zeit), Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abteilung II, Band 14. So I'd say he was a suitable person to express an informed opinion on the origin of the object. In the same way US customs officers call on coin dealers such as Wayne Sayles to give expert opinions on numismatic objects stopped at the border.

Why should an archaeologist who is clearly a competent specialist in Near Eastern archaeology not be "trusted" to give an independent opinion on the origin of the vessel in question? Why should we "trust" an antiquity dealer any more?

UK Heritage Bill a Non-Starter again

It is reported on the CBA's website that the Heritage Protection Bill for England and Wales does not appear in the UK's Draft Legislative Programme for 2009/10 announced by the Government this week. This means that there is little hope of the legislative reforms promised by the 2007 White Paper promised will now occur. The proposed legislation envisaged placing the historic environment at the heart of the planning system. As Mike Heyworth, CBA’s Director said: "Our historic environment fundamentally shapes the quality of our surroundings and is integral to policies for sustainability. It must be at the heart of new policies for the way places are designed and planned, not side-lined as a low priority".

The Bill aimed to simplify and strengthen existing legislation and introduce opportunities for people to be more involved in protecting and enhancing their local heritage. It also paved the way for the signing and ratification of the Hague Convention, the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Without the Bill, the UK will soon be the only international power not to have signed the convention.

As the CBA points out, the lack of Government commitment to these reforms is deplorable.

UK Public opinion poll: It is time to return the Parthenon Marbles

The Greek Minister of Culture claims that public opinion in the UK favours the return of the Parthenon Marbles. The Guardian conducted an opinion poll among its readers... it turns out he was indeed right. Only six percent of Brits think that their country has a "right" (or reason) to hang on to the bits of an iconic building that Elgin shipped from Athens, 94% think they should now be united with the rest of the remains of the complex back in Athens. A parallel poll conducted by the London Daily News found that almost 79% agreed that the British Government should return these fragments to Greece.

If this is representative of public opinion in the UK as a whole, it looks like the British Museum has some thinking to do. Maybe there should be a referendum.