Taking and Giving Credit

.
Washington lawyer Peter Tompa finds my blogged comments on what goes on in the world of collecting and dealing in archaeological artefacts "obnoxious" and on that basis suggests that in some way I am "No Credit to the Archaeological Community". In particular he objects to my commenting upon the views of collectors who have been "forced by the State Department's "green initiative" to post their comments about the Bulgarian MOU on line" on what he says are the "State Department's and the AIA's efforts to suppress ancient coin collecting in this country".

Well, first of all the manner in which the common archaeological heritage is treated should indeed be an open, inclusive and public debate with the potential involvement of all stakeholders. Having it online is an entirely laudable thing, it is a shame that collectors feel they are being "forced" to openly say what they think. We all know that dugup artefact collectors ("metal detectorists" and coineys in particular) prefer closed forums and discussion groups where normal people who may question what they see there cannot see what they do or say. They are not kiddie-porn collectors and surely doing nothing that needs shielding from public view, the public who are the major stakeholder in the heritage.

Once again we spot the attempted sleight-of-hand alarmist phrase: "efforts to suppress ancient coin collecting in this country". The State Department is doing nothing other than looking after US interests abroad (the cynics among us will see that if there were no US interests in doing any of this, we may all be sure the US government would not be lifting a finger). I have already dealt with what the AIA's policy on collecting actually is, it is a shame (but wholly typical of the milieu) that Tompa can't be bothered to read it. What anyone with more than half a braincell can see is that the measures under discussion are intended to do is curb smuggling of artefacts. Note that it is the dealers' lobbyist here whose Freudian slip is in effect warning here that if we were to succeed in cutting out the smuggled artefacts, the US antiquities market - one of the biggest in the world - would collapse. He said it, not me.

The lawyer asserts:

"Barford seems to suggest that coin collectors are failing to specifically comment on these provisions of the CPIA" [followed by a cut-and-paste of section 303(a)1 of the CCPIA - I think actually the first time he has ever presented it on his blog]

No, there is no "seems to suggest" about it. I state it outright. Members of the public are specifically and clearly asked only to comment on section 303(a)1 of the CCPIA. I note that if we look, we find that in the submitted online comments, they on the whole talk about anything BUT section 303(a)1 of the CCPIA. I do not "suggest" it, I state it as an incontrovertible fact, and back it up with links to and quotes of what they actually do say. That is what we call discussion Mr Tompa. The next bit of Tompa's text is extraordinary:

But how would most collectors be in any position at all to comment intelligently on most of this legalese?

"Legalese"? What in that fragment of text (just 219 words) is so difficult for anyone of an average intelligence to understand? But surely if lawyer Tompa wants to help coineys make an intelligent contribution to the debate, it would be easy for lawyer Tompa to sit down and write a text translating this alleged "legalese" into simple English to help them understand what the issues are. I've done this for the benefit of any of my readers who might need it, and it really is not so complicated (I also invited coineys do do not understand Washingtonese to look at my exegesis to aid them formulating a comment). If Tompa cannot be bothered to acknowledge that his coiney supporters might have difficulty comprehending what is involved, he could provide a link to my post to save him having to do it. Yet he does neither.

What is extraordinary is the admission that in his 'call to arms' to oppose this proposal (currently being put out by several major coin dealers), he is asking coin collectors to publicly comment on what he now admits he knows they are in no position at all to comment intelligently upon. So this suggests that as far as he is concerned, just any old unintelligent comment is for the sake of coiney propaganda better than none - in this brand of US democracy, quantity takes priority over quality?

So is Tompa himself saying that his coiney mates are too unintelligent to actually find out a bit about the background before making a public comment? In what way is that different to my pointing out that - in the context of what had been requested - the whole series I looked at were singularly unintelligent comments? Surely both lines of argument lead to the same conclusion?

Tompa suggests that instead of the questions posed in section 303(a)1, the President might instead consider - through his advisory committee - whether American collectors are being discriminated against (not mentioned in section 303 - and I'll address that comment in the blog post below this one) and whether import restrictions go directly to the "use of ancient coins as educational tools" (for the latter see my earlier comments). Tompa concludes by suggesting:

In any event, it certainly does no credit to other members of the archaeological community that one of their number is in effect seeking to suppress the First Amendment rights of American collectors as well as the views of collectors outside the US with his obnoxious ridicule of those forced to comment publicly on the regulations.gov website.

I am not suppressing ANYONE's so-called "First Amendment rights" (a much-abused term in the US it seems to me). Are the words and deeds of collectors and dealer somehow sacrosanct and immune to analysis? Or don't I too have my own right to say what I think about what they dealers say and do? I do not consider that those rights are in any way being "suppressed" by lawyer Tompa saying he does not agree with me or like (or thinks other archaeologists would like) the way I am saying what I say. It is called discussion Mr Tompa.

Let the archaeologists who Tompa suggests consider I do them (sic) no credit come onto my blog and tell me why they think smuggling dugup artefacts out of Bulgaria and into the US is a jolly good thing for archaeology, and why we should be extra-specially nice to all those who want a part in the process.