AIA Commands American Museums to "Stop Collecting"?

.
A fundamental element of the dogmas and mantras of US no-questions-asked collecting of dugup artefacts is that archaeologists (except the ones who themselves collect) are bad guys who are rabidly opposed to collecting. In an institutionalised form, this is expressed in the alleged anti-collecting ideology of the Archaeological Institute of America. It is necessary for the no-questions-asked dealers and their lobbyists to create an "Other" as a scapegoat and an object of hate in order to create internal unity within the group, and this is the role fulfilled by the caricature image of the "anti-collecting archaeologists" in the process of programmatic misinformation by the dugup dealers' lobbyists.

It is no matter that there is not a single statement on the AIA website supporting the interpretation that the AIA is out to abolish all private collecting of archaeological artefacts. I've analysed them exhaustively and one (one) collector was convinced of that fact. The rest of them however could not care less what the truth is, like sheep they'll happily believe whatever nonsense the dealers and their lobbyists want to force upon them, and obviously are not going to look for themselves. Presumably they think the absence of any indications of the AIA's (alleged) "real" aims in the material it produces are all part of the great Satanic Conspiracy of the "Elders of Archaeon" against collectors.

Coiney Conspiracy Theorist Number One, the paid lobbyist of the numismatic associations, has dug up new "evidence" to support his theory. It comes from an article published in "Cleveland.com" which as Larry Rothfield correctly observed long before Peter Tompa noticed the text "takes a rather parochial view of the issues based on the Cleveland Museum's insistence that it will continue to buy antiquities". In passing in his comments in a session at the meeting: “Saving Cultural Heritage in Crisis Areas”, Rose said that current changes in the context of the acquisition of museum objects, and the ongoing processes of repatriation of items from US museums which apparently left source countries in a less-than-legal manner, means that "he felt the era in which American museums can collect antiquities is coming to a close". Not least is the fact that through negligence of previous owners and dealers, most of the antiquities currently on the market have not collecting histories adequate enough to meet the now much-more-stringent criteria for ethical acquisition that US museums now apply (in response to the crisis brought about by them having allowed too much obviously-looted material into their collections). I think, given some of the news emerging from the US museum world in recent months, his comments of course could equally be applied to paintings and manuscripts and not just ancient dug up artefacts (so-called "ancient art").

With a gleam in his eye, cat-like, Tompa jumps on this, and deftly twists it round:

Brian Rose, the AIA's immediate past president, has been quoted as telling America's museums to stop collecting antiquities. [...] Despite such quotes, archaeo-blogger Paul Barford continues to claim that the AIA is really not against collecting.

This really is an incredibly blatant non-sequitur. Pointing out that something may in future be less easy for museums than it was in the past is not the same as commanding them to stop doing that thing. It will be noted that - in order to find tenuous support for his allegations - the lobbyist snipes at an English blogger working in Europe about AIA policy (on the basis of a biased report on a US website about a meeting that took place in Rome), instead of contacting the AIA or Dr Rose (whose reported 'feeling' he would no doubt confirm is a private opinion). Will the coiney trade associations' lobbyist "Cultural property Observer" be seeking clarification of his position from Dr Rose? I doubt it, after all this is not about the truth is it?

Despite the fact that the comment abstracted from its context (coin collectors are happy to study things abstracted from their context) is not evidence of an otherwise secret conspiratorial policy known only to a few adepts from the higher circles of the AIA and Peter Tompa, this does not stop the coineys from drawing conclusions. This is how one of the ACCG dealers reacted to the "revelation":

The AIA really is dead-set against private collecting. It instead wants all "archaeological artifacts" including minor antiquities such as ancient coins to be locked up in institutions and warehouses where they will never again
be touched by the public, and can only be studied by archaeologists and artifact studies specialists who serve archaeologists.

This is beginning to look like a cult. The affirmation of faith: "The AIA really is dead-set against private collecting (it will not admit it, but we know better don't we brothers?)". The claim that the "Other" is an arcane elitist organization ("where they will never again be touched by the public") which therefore must be opposed by all means, fair or foul. As in militant "metal detecting" circles in the UK, the opposition has started in coiney circles in the US:

The AIA is completely out of step with public opinion. It has alienated US collectors to the point where these once enthusiastic supporters of archaeology have come to think that archaeology has grown into such a malignant cancer upon society that they have consequently not only stopped supporting it, they refuse to allow their children to study archaeology, they are looking for ways and means to stop all public funding of archaeology, and they are seeking ways to reform the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center to end its slavish affiliation with the AIA.

Archaeology has grown to be a "malignant cancer" which must be stopped? Collectors affiliated to the ACCG and its lobbyists are praying for someone to put a stop the cultural heritage protection establishment in Yurope, it is stated that they are turning their children against the discipline (does that apply too to the "ANCIENT COINS FOR EDUCATION" (sic) program (sic) which Dave Welsh's ACCG so avidly supports?), now we hear that US collectors "looking for ways and means to stop all public funding of archaeology". Why? Because archaeologists are among those who signal that the archaeological record is severely threatened by the ongoing commercial and erosive exploitation to fuel the no-questions-asked market for collectables? Because the US promulgated a law back in 1983 the application of which is now causing problems to those who want to import ancient artefacts from source countries without having the bother of documenting how they got to the US? This is beyond silly, this is simply cretinous.

If there is a legitimate trade in ancient artefacts (and I am constantly told by those engaged in it that there is), then why is there such rabid resistance to the requirement (a LEGAL requirement in the US) that part (just part) of the trade is indeed being carried out licitly in accordance with the international convention to which the US willingly became a state party back in the early 1980s? If "US collectors" cannot abide and are so unwilling to abide by those rules, then let them lobby Congress for the US to withdraw from that Convention. Then we will see whose side US and world "public opinion" is on.

AIA Leader Found "thinking" Coineyly

.
Wayne Sayles gives: "Kudos to a thinking AIA leader". He represents a CPAC comment from an AIA "leader" from Washington DC, a "blinding flash of light". Why? because he'd cut and pasted some of Peter Tompa's coiney nonsenses into this comment. According to Sayles this was

one AIA member who spoke clearly with an enlightened understanding of the situation on the ground and an obvious concern for truth. This gentleman, Gerard Casale, is a current member of the Board of Directors of the Washington DC Society (George Washington University) of the Archaeological Institute of America.

Because it contains so many Tompaisms, Sayles calls Dr Casale's account:

a very nice summary of the points that the ACCG and Numismatic Trade have made regarding not only coins from Bulgaria but from virtually all source countries that produced coins in antiquity.

It is indeed a very typical coiney text. I am unaware of the field Dr Casale specialises in, Google scholar is no help. I would not mind betting he collects coins.

Mr. Casale considers that since "coins from mints in what is now Bulgaria are both common and usually very inexpensive" this does not mean that they are looted on a massive scale. Even though there are already "tens or hundreds of thousands of these coins existing in collections around the world", he sees no reason to stop fresh imports of illegally exported (for that is what the 1970 UNESCO Convention and the CCPIA are about) into the US. The numbers of coins there already are "not enough' for him.

Furthermore, Casale adds they: "have never have been through an auction or other transaction where precise provenance has been recorded". Whoops, slight deviation from the Tompa prepared text. But Mr Casale WHERE in the CCPIA is any mention whatsoever mentioned of "provenance"? Where is an importer required to document "provenance"?

The hapless AIA "leader" goes on "Nor is it vital to the interests of scholarship inside Bulgaria that such provenance be demanded now". Eh? Who is demanding "provenance" for the "benefit of Bulgarian scholarship"? Has Mr Casale ANY idea what we are discussing here? This is an AIA "leader"?

More Tompaism still:

Regulations at 26 USC Section 2601 (2). provided that for an artifact to be restricted under the CPIA, it must be of both archaeological interest and cultural significance. These coins exist in many multiples, already well represented in Bulgarian state collections and are therefore not of cultural significance within the meaning of the rule.

If the AIA "leader" would read the Act (and let's give the proper reference, "Section 2601(32)(C)(1)(I)" with a little bit of understanding, he'd see it is talking about something else. Excavations produce many types of material which are of "archaeological interest", such as snail shells, pollen, charcoal samples and pig bone fragments. These are very interesting for an archaeologist, helping to reconstruct environment, diet etc. They are however excluded from the CCPIA by the above-mentioned Section 2601(32)(C)(1)(I) because they are not what would be termed "material culture". That's what that section means. Mr Casale can import as many Roman pig and horse bone fragments and charcoal samples as he likes bought on the black market and derived from looted Bulgarian, Greek, Italian and Cypriot sites for his studies. They are not covered by the CCPIA. That is what Section 2601(32)(C)(1)(I) does, likethe Art. 1 of the 1970 Convention, so badly misrepresented in US collecting circles ("the Article one lie").

Coins are indeed of "cultural significance", as it is one of the staples of the coiney argument that by their study one can learn so much about ancient cultures (this is the core of the coiney's "cultural property internationalism" arguments - that the study of other cultures is being prevented by "retentionism"). As archaeological evidence they too carry much cultural information - look at the mapping of celtic coins in the UK, the mapping of coins beyond the Roman frontiers in Scotland (or within them in Wales), or in eastern European barbaricum, the flow of Islamic silver and Merovingian gold in the Early Medieval period. It beats me how any INFORMED archaeologist could say that coins are not material culture, are not of cultural significance. That their removal from the archaeological record has no consequences for our understanding of the past and its cultures. I wonder what Mr Casale's field is, lithics?

The Tompaisms continue: Since ancient coins circulated widely beyond the borders of modern Bulgaria, even in ancient times, one cannot assume that all coins of Bulgarian types, “were first discovered in” Bulgaria, as required by the CPIA. (26 USC Section 2601 (2) (c).)
Well, again, let us give the whole phrase: "was first discovered within, and is subject to export control by, the State Party". So, I assume that Dr Casale accepts (he does not say) that items dug up and illegally removed from Bulgaria (ie shipped directly to the US from a culture-criminal in Bulgaria) should be stopped by US customs under the CCPIA, yes or no? Certainly if he says "no" then he would be in clear opposition to AIA policy over the illicit antiquity trade.

What about antiquity 'laundering'? How does AIA "leader" Dr Casale and his fellow supporters of a no-questions-asked approach propose dealing with that? What Dr Casale is saying is if a Bulgarian looter can dig up some stuff and put it in a car boot and drive across to - say - Thessalonika, it should be perfectly legal and proper to import it into the US on the grounds that it "was not actually shipped from Bulgaria"? Even if the objects quite obviously came from Bulfgaria (like a tombstone with an inscription identifying the burial site?). What about artefacts which are found exclusively, almost exclusively, most frequently on sites with the borders of modern Bulgarian territory? (Like some of the coin [and 'primitive-money'] issues of the Greek colonies there which were for internal use, like some of the provincial issues of the Roman period). Should US authorities simply shrug their shoulders to the 'laundering' of antiquities through their illicit transfer on their way to the US markets? We've seen the use of Free Ports in this sort of antiquities laundering before, we've heard that some dealers may have been using a middleman in Dubai to cover the origins of material allegedly looted from Egypt (and one of those dealers was expelled from the ACCG before his case even came to court), we've heard that material looted in surrounding countries taken across the borders is laundered by being exported from Israel with an Israeli export licence. Metal detectorists claim that material being sold as "British antiquities" on eBay UK comes from other countries where metal detecting is illegal, and thus being "laundered" through the British system. Basically if Tedor Kradets the Bulgarian metal detectorist finds a hoard of solidi of Honorius in the ruins of the principia of a Danubian fortlet in Bulgaria, sticks it in a hollowed-out pumpkin and drives it in his little car to Herman Munzenwangler the notorious Munich fence who sends it to auction in New York, there is basically no way that the US barrier of bubbles which is its border control is going to spot its illegal export. If the hoard was of silver issues of a local despot of limited circulation primarily within the area of modern Bulgaria, then yes, the US border authorities should be stopping it and investigating what this freshly surfaced material is doing on its way to the US market. If it gets through the barrier of bubbles, it would be nice to think that somebody in the US would still be investigating freshly surfaced material on the open market (but they don't, do they?)

So, Dr Casale ends up by saying lamely:

"Less severe remedies must be considered before import restrictions are placed on Bulgarian coins."

Why? What about the arrowheads, encolpions, pendant crosses, finger rings, harness bosses, military fittings, earrings and all the rest of the Roman bric-a-brac metal detected on Bulgarian sites being sold at this moment [by the kilogramme some of it] by US sellers on ebay? What remedies can the US (the US) apply to deal with this? Why should the US NOT do something to resolve this scandalous discrepancy between what it says it will do (as a state party of the 1970 UNESCO Convention - see its article 3) and what it actually does?

I imagine we can all think of more severe remedies (involving questioning of dealers and collectors, detentions, arrests and seizing of computer hard discs and business records) that would certainly do more to resolve this problem. Most coin collectors seem happy to quote the report linking the trade in this material and organized crime networks, which seems sufficient reason why Homeland Security and the FBI should be looking very carefully at this trade which it seems they've virtually ignored (say it ain't so) for all these years.

It seems to me that US customs examining import documentation to check the proper export procedures have been followed is not exactly a measure that could be termed either "severe" or "drastic". Especially as all coin dealers say they are responsible and respectable businessmen who do everything they can to avoid dealing in smuggled and looted artefacts.

Sayles ends:

The statement of Mr. Casale is not only a ray of light, it is a very brave appeal for reason. I sincerely hope that it does not come back to haunt him.

Well, let us reason through it then. I invite his reply here.

AIA CPAC Templates: Ummmmmm...

.
Well, either I do not understand what it means when it says: "All comments must relate specifically to the determinations under Section 303(a) (1) of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2602, pursuant to which the Committee makes findings", or the Archaeological Institute of America don't.

They've produced some templates for the thousands of caring and informed US citizens who are somehow failing to write supporting the MOU request. I think these templates do not provide what the CPAC requested, any more than what the coineys are writing.

I am at a loss to see where the divergence of interpretation arises, it seems quite a simple sentence, and it is repeated:

All comments /Again, your comments
must / must
relate specifically to / relate specifically to
the determinations / the determinations
under Section 303 / under Section 303
(a) / (a)
(1) of the / (1) of the
Convention on Cultural Property / Convention on Cultural Property
Implementation Act, / Implementation Act,
19 U.S.C. § 2602, / 19 U.S.C. § 2602,
pursuant to which / pursuant to which
the Committee makes findings. / the Committee must make findings.

Perhaps the reason why there are so few responses from the White Hat guys on the Regulations.gov website is a lack of leadership. Look at what the 1970 Convention says about that (article 5 (esp. f), 10(b) and 14). The USA quite clearly is not fulfilling its obligations to the Convention in that regard. Even so, I am sure the AIA is capable of far better, isn't it?

AIA on Helping to Preserve Archaeology in Belize and Bulgaria

.
The Archaeological Institute of America is committed to preserving the world's archaeological resources and cultural heritage for the benefit of people in the present and in the future. As part of its Site Preservation Program it supports the requests by Belize and Bulgaria to help curb the trade in smuggled artefacts from those countries. Both countries have now asked for the USA to pay closer attention to the paperwork of imported artefacts from those countries than hitherto - despite being states parties of the 1970 UNESCO Convention. The material presented by the AIA in support of their position on these requests can be found here:

Preserving Archaeology in Belize and Bulgaria: Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) to Consider New Bilateral Agreements to Protect Belizean and Bulgarian Archaeological Heritage

It is short and to the point. Although (unlike the coiney appeal does not contain "what to say" bits to cut-and-paste) I think it is worth giving this campaign some support just to show that not all are on the side of the cultural philistines who don't give a hoot about the smuggling of archaeological material and ethnographic objects from Belize and Bulgaria (although I will be concentrating on Bulgaria, because "somebody else" will, let's not forget Belize either).

Sadly the AIA forgot to put a clearly visible link on their webpage showing where people who wish to submit a comment can go, which is a bit dozy of them. So here they are:

Link for Comments on Belize MOU.

Link for Comments on Bulgaria MOU.

AIA Policies on Portable Antiquity Collecting

.
Collectors are frequently heard to moan that "archaeologists" ("here in the USA anyway") are "radicals" who allegedly want to "ban private ownership of antiquities". Like most of us hearing such repeated allegations, I was wondering where they are getting this information from. I wrote to the AIA a while back asking for clarification, but the query went unanswered. I wonder if a collector writing to them with such a query would also get ignored, that seems bad PR.

So what actually are the policies of the Archaeological Institute of America towards private ownership of archaeological artefacts, either found within the USA or those bought on the international market from foreign lands? The Institute's webpage does not have a separate page covering this topic (which is odd, because for many US citizens buying an artefact on the Internet or going out and searching is obviously a more accessible means of direct- tactile - "contact with the past" than participation in the excavations and fieldwork projects the Institute sponsors). On the page Policies and Documents, however we find the following texts referring to this problem:

Resolutions on the Importation of Antiquities (Resolution in support of the Draft UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property; adopted by a vote of the AIA Council, December 30, 1970). This is the usual "we support the...." stuff, but collectors might note a little towards the end: "The Archaeological Institute of America urges that, in accordance with the provisions of the UNESCO Draft Convention, concerned countries take practical steps to facilitate the legitimate export, import and exchange of archaeological materials and antiquities". In other words, facilitate a legal market for antiquities so people can acquire them without going through illicit channels. That hardly looks like a postulate of an organization intent on stamping out private ownership of antiquities.

Resolution on the Acquisition of Antiquities by Museums (Adopted by vote of the Council of the AIA, December 30, 1973). Again the same sort of pattern: "It is recommended that all nations establish effective laws and develop proper control over export so that illicit traffic may be stopped at its sources. However, wherever possible, within the limits of national law, consideration should be given to legitimate and honorable means for the acquisition of cultural property. It is hoped that nations will release for acquisition, long term loan, or exchange, cultural property of significance for the advancement of knowledge and for the benefit of all peoples". The same comments apply, the AIA postulates facilitate a legal market for antiquities so people can acquire them ("for advancement of knowledge and for the benefit of all peoples") without going through illicit channels. There is certainly no evidence here that the AIA is intent on stamping out private ownership of antiquities.

Resolution on the Presentation of Undocumented Antiquities at the AIA's Annual Meeting (Adopted by vote of the Council, December 30, 1973, and revised 2004) "....must conform with the AIA Resolutions on the Importation of Antiquities [...] in accordance with the he AIA’s Resolution Concerning the Acquisition of Cultural Properties Originating in Foreign Countries (1973), "the Annual Meeting may not serve for the announcement or initial scholarly publication of any object in a public or private collection acquired after December 30, 1973, unless its existence can be documented prior to that date, or it was legally exported from the country of origin". Note there the word "initial" which is explained in the next document.

1973 Annual Meeting Presentation Policy (PDF) In 1978 the editors of the American Journal of Archaeology (AJA) adapted the 1973 Annual Meeting Presentation Policy to apply to articles published in the AJA. See Editorial Statement, AJA 82 (1978), p. 1. The policy has been clarified in the AJA 86 (1982), pp. 1–2; 94 (1990), pp. 525–527; and, most recently, in N.J. Norman, "Editorial Policy on the Publication of Recently Acquired Antiquities," AJA 109 (2005), pp. 135–136. It is worth noting that in collecting circles this publication policy of the AIA towards items which have been illicitly obtained in public and private collections has been consistently misrepresented in the creation of a straw man argument. I suggest collectors and "collectors' rights" advocates READ what the policy is before attempting to interpret what it "means".

Code of Ethics (adopted December 29, 1990, amended December 29, 1997). Pretty short and to the point, two of the three principles refer to portable antiquities:

2 Refuse to participate in the trade in undocumented antiquities and refrain from activities that enhance the commercial value of such objects. Undocumented antiquities are those which are not documented as belonging to a public or private collection before December 30, 1970, when the AIA Council endorsed the UNESCO Convention on Cultural Property, or which have not been excavated and exported from the country of origin in accordance with the laws of that country;
3 Inform appropriate authorities of threats to, or plunder of archaeological sites, and illegal import or export of archaeological material.

There is nothing whatsoever here about any sanctions against (including participating in the trade of?) possessors of "documented antiquities", or those dug up and exported according to the laws of the source country - presumably this being demonstrated on the basis of "documents". So again, nothing about any kind of a "ban" on the private possession or trade in artefacts.

Code of Professional Standards (adopted on December 29, 1997). This covers many aspects of professional behaviour, the only reference to artefact collecting is the first point of the first section: "Professional archaeologists should adhere to the Guidelines of the AIA general Code of Ethics concerning illegal antiquities in their research and publication."

Now, and rather oddly, what actually is missing here is any detailed guidelines/policies towards collecting of (or trading in) artefacts taken from the soil in the territory of the USA. Arrowhead collectors, pot-diggers, coin shooters, civil war relic hunters and the suchlike. No published policy on metal detector use in the USA for example. Certainly the first principle of the Code of Ethics applies: "Seek to ensure that the exploration of archaeological sites be conducted according to the highest standards under the direct supervision of qualified personnel, and that the results of such research be made public" (but here the definition of "archaeological sites" is an important factor in interpreting this principle). The third principle of the second section of the Code of professional standards also might be applicable to metal detecting "meets" (and underwater salvage operations) for example: "Professional archaeologists should not participate in projects whose primary goal is private gain". It seems to me that this is a serious gap in the coverage of the topic by the AIA, whose policies are primarily focussed on artefacts on the commercial market and mainly those coming from other countries.

Then there is a Frequently Asked Questions page about artefact collecting (with the focus on museums) on the Site Preservation page, answering some of the commonly-raised objections heard by collectors:

Q: What is at the heart of the disagreement of between museums and private collectors and the AIA?
Q: So, what's the connection between collectors and looters?
Q: What are the necessary bona fides that an object should present to ensure context and provenance?
Q: Does the AIA want to abolish art museums?
Q: Isn't it better for an object to be acquired by a museum with curators, conservators, air conditioning, security, and an engaged public than to languish in much less favorable conditions in the country of origin?
Q: Doesn't the world deserve to see these objects? Aren't they part of the cultural heritage of all of us, not just of those who live in the area where the object was found?
Q: With local stewardship can come serious risk. Does the AIA really think that the Taliban should have been in charge of the Buddhas at Bamiyan?
Q: Isn't this disagreement between collectors and archaeologists really the work of a bunch of radical archaeologists who have lost touch with the public?
Q: What about the orphaned object that is out of the ground and circulating in the market with its context already destroyed and it provenance uncertain? Shouldn't this object be acquired and given a good home?
Q: In many cases there are multiple copies of certain antiquities, some with so many duplicates that they cannot all be displayed. What is wrong with the trade in multiples?
Q: Why is the AIA trying to prevent scholarship by refusing to publish information about unprovenanced material? Isn't that censorship?
Q: Should all antiquities be repatriated?

The answers to these questions again reveal the issues concern illegally obtained and illegally exported items, not the collecting of artefacts themselves.

The upshot of this is that all those claims in collecting circles about the AIA being a group of "radical" archaeologists who want to see an end to the antiquities trade and collecting of artefacts have no basis whatsoever in the published policies of that body. I doubt they have any basis in anything, except the clear tendency of the entire antiquity collecting milieu to make up foundationless myths on the basis of which they build up a picture of themselves as "victims" deserving public sympathy. I am sure, as is the way with conspiracy theorists in general, they will attribute the lack of a written statement to the organization having "a hidden agenda". Anti-semitic conspiracy theorists have something in black and white - their "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", perhaps it is time for the supporters of the no-questions-asked trade in portable antiquities to produce a "Protocols of the Elders of Archaeion" to persuade others of the truth of their allegations.

We seem to be observing another manifestation of the typical situation when discussing things with US collectors. On the one hand we have rational observers differentiating between a legitimate and legal antiquities market (in artefacts obtained and taken from the 'source' countries by legal means, or documented as having been in some collection prior to 1970) and dealings in illegally obtained and "undocumented" antiquities, ones about which there are doubts about their licit origins. These people say material of these two different types should be treated differently. On the other hand we have those - almost all of them representing the trade and collecting milieus - who equate the two, see them as the same market. For them, anyone who wants to curb the sales of the illicitly obtained and "undocumented" material just "surfacing" on the market from goodness-knows-where-and-how is against the whole market and collecting as a whole. Through insisting we see all antiquities as equal, these people are in fact refusing to accept that there is a legitimate and legal manner to acquire and use antiquities.

Certainly the AIA takes a very clear stand on the illicit trade in artefacts. There is no evidence whatsoever that their policies in anyway oppose the legitimate and responsible collecting of archaeological artefacts.

David Gill Honored

.
Congratulations to David Gill who is the recipient of the AIA's 2012 Outstanding Public Service Award, as it says on Facebook where it was first announced, it is for:

his work on http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/. Looting Matters is a wonderful resource and breaks new ground in bringing the issue of undocumented antiquities to the attention of world-wide audiences.

I am particularly happy that David has received this acknowledgement since - despite ever being the gentleman in what he writes - over the past few years he has been the object of a number of rather unpleasant attacks from the US dealers' lobbyists.

So this is brilliant news which shows that the grassroots work of raising public awareness of the issues surrounding looting and the illicit trade is considered important for archaeology, at least over the ocean. I expect if British archaeologists were giving such things out, they'd all go to metal detectorists.

AIA "War Chest"

.
Over in Washington a lawyer retained by an international dugup ancient coin dealers organization is questioning what he calls the "AIA Lobbying War Chest" (sic) money which goes for "organizing campaigns that sent hundreds of letters to Washington in support of renewing import restrictions on archaeological materials from Italy and Greece" for example. Tompa wants to know how much money was spent on public outreach about this.

I'd like to know how much money and time the AIA devoted this year to demonstrating to the US public and policy makers that the CCPIA does NOT "implement" the Convention, and requiring the US to resolve to either modify the implementing legislation so that it does in full, or withdraw from pretending to honour the Convention. Or is this a battle the AIA has no will to fight as part of its "Site Preservation Program"? What is it that the US intends to preserve by the continued existence of the cop-out 1983 CCPIA? I wonder if there's going to be some Wikileaks on this?

"Too many scholars look the other way" Muscarella.

.

In expressing his firmly held opinions on looting culture, Oscar White Muscarella is not known for pulling his punches. His latest text on the SAFECorner forum is true to form, he discusses in no uncertain terms the meeting of the Leon Levy Foundation discussing some aspect or other of 'partage' (which was mentioned here earlier as well as on the SAFECorner and other blogs) . The implications behind his stinging comments on the participants' involvement are worthy of reflection. He takes what is happening as an indication that the "archaeological discipline is fragmenting while too many scholars look the other way". My thoughts exactly on the wider implications of the UK's PAS. I note he is rather scathing of the AIA which sits oddly with the complaints of the dealers and collectors that it is a bastion of institutional standoffishism. Muscarella says:

Brian Pennsylvania Rose, Deputy-Director of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, is the President of the said-to-be Archaeological Institute of America. He is infamous for crippling the AIA, smilingly reaching out to the plunderers, proclaiming that plunderers and archaeologists have a “Common Ground.” He first linked the AIA to plundering activities by declaring Indiana Jones, an archetype plunderer, as a model “in stimulating the public’s interest in archaeology….as a benefit to archaeology… archaeologists... dig Indy”. Rose celebrated the actor who played Indiana Jones at an AIA Gala “Honoring” party, and had him appointed a Trustee of the AIA [...] Rose [has] now brought the AIA [...] further into the depths of the plunder culture. [...] Rose has now added Shelby to his list of those plunderers he digs. Query: will he soon get her an appointment as Trustee of the AIA?

Several US collectors have been heard moaning loudly that serious archaeologists will not discuss "issues" with them. We seem to have an indication here that this is not really the case, the AIA is perfectly willing to discuss things with collectors perhaps the ACCG are simply not moving in the right circles.

.

Bullying Tactics within Archaeology

As I mentioned above, just a few hours after collector David Knell made a post on his 'Ancient heritage' blog, Peter Tompa pounced on him, posting a comment castigating him for being "a bit naive". He claims that "collectors and dealers groups have attempted to reach out to the main archaeological groups to discuss the issues, but without any success or even much interest". He uses the plural but then continues to discuss the Archaeological Institute of America, which "bullies" organizations like the American Association of Museum Directors.

One of the truly sad things is that archaeologists that do want to continue good relations with collectors and reach some accomodation have been intimidated from pursing the issue openly. [...] the ACCG and coin dealers have no power to blackball collectors who disagree. "Hardline" archaeologists do. The prospect of having one's excavation license pulled by a source country based on complaints that an archaeologist is "soft on looting" by being "soft on collecting" has been enough to keep the silent majority in the archaeological community silent indeed about reaching an accomodation with collectors.

Really? The phrase "archaeologists do" implies that lawyer Tompa can produce evidence that this is the case, that individual US archaeologists have had their excavation licence "pulled" (eh?) because of a complaint to a foreign government by the AIA (?) that at home they are "soft on collectors". Any continent Mr Tompa, take your pick, but some hard evidence to back up these continuing claims that an alleged substantial body of "collector-friendly archaeologists" are bullied into submission by "radicals". I have a simpler explanation, that while indiscriminate collecting continues to shield the trade in illicitly obtained artefacts, most archaeologists look askance at anone involved, directly and indirectly in it. No bullying, simply distaste for poor hygiene.

The Leon Levy Foundation and "Partage" of Research Archives

.

The Leon Levy Foundation recently organized a meeting "Archaeology Experts Discuss Publication Of “Partage” Records". David Gill remarks on the presence of one of its participants. Peter ["archaeologists in bed with Saddam Hussein"] Tompa comments on another. SAFECorner (Talking about "partage") remarks on them all and especially who else is not there. SAFE points out that again collectors are disenfranchising the stakeholders in the heritage, the people from whose lands the items held in western collections came from. The sole possessors of this material and the source-based and non-source-based information it are not collectors, museum men or "scholars".

At this meeting,

several distinguished archaeologists, museum directors, and curators from around the world gathered at the Foundation’s offices. Led by the Foundation’s Special Advisor, Philippe de Montebello, they discussed how best to make available the trove of unpublished information from important ancient world sites excavated under “partage” agreements. [...] The Foundation hopes to play a leadership role in making this information available to scholars around the world.

This is indeed an awkward problem.If the division of the excavated material and their records took place after the final excavation report was written, then the latter remains the basis for making the trove of information from these projects available for study. The blurb however clearly states "unpublished" information is the topic of discussion. So it seems we are dealing with excavations carried out by foreign expeditions in foreign lands, they then cart off a portion of the material evidence ("partage") and then sit on it, without getting round to writing the report. No wonder then the practice of allowing untrustworthy western archaeologists to split project archives like this fell into disfavour.

Former Metropolitan Museum Director Phillipe de Montebello was 'special advisor' at this meeting, and the Met's own excavations at Deir El Bahari in Egypt are a case in point. The main reports of many season's work by Herbert Winlock were chatty accounts in the museum's bulletin, some portions of the work were written up in more detyail, many were not. Some of the finds are in New York, some are in various storerooms in Egypt (where I was privileged to see them earlier on this year - including some amazing unpublished material). The records however are in New York. Mr Winlock will not be publishing the final account of all his excavations, since he died leaving this undone, and it falls to others to complete the job, but the material from the excavations being separated in two (at least) groups of storerooms 10000 km apart is somewhat of a hindrance. Perhaps the presence of Dorothea Arnold at the meeting is a hopeful sign. Today material from projects like these is catalogued and studied in situ and what the foreign expeditions take home is a duplicate of the records made in situ, while the material itself is archived in one place (often in storerooms built for [and sometimes by] the project itself).

I do wonder rather about what the Levy Foundation has in mind by "making available" the "trove of unpublished information from important ancient world sites excavated under “partage” agreements". I rather suspect that what they have in mind is primarily the publication of the finds now in western institutions. But of course the results of an archaeological project do not consist of lots of "things dug up", but the dismemberment of stratigraphical sequences and associations. The aim of any project on this material should be the creation of a single full report in accordance with modern standards of the results of these old projects utilising the material and records scattered by "partage" around the globe.

Methinks this whole affair is a propaganda exercise on behalf of the notion of "partage" much praised by Cuno (more interested in the trophy objects from excavations than the practicalities of writing them up). The non-publication of much of the material partaged away acrosss the seas is a strong argument for the host countries not renewing this unreliable type of research "partnership" which brings more dugups to western collections.

(what was Dr Mindayev of Sankt Petersburg's trans-Baikal expedition doing there?)

.
Vignette: The President of the Archaeological Institute of America smiles as he poses for a photo with the "owner" of the looted "Icklingham Bronzes" (images from Leon Levy foundation website).

Nathan and the AIA meeting

Over on Nathan Elkins' blog is an interesting and witty personal account of the 2009 Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America in Philadelphia at which SAFE had a not insignificant role. I think it's worth a read to give the atmosphere of this kind of event. From the attention he's paid to the menus and bookstalls, I suspect that its not just because of a mutual interest in the antiquities trade that Nathan and I would get along very well together should we ever meet at a conference!

Photo: ancient artifact.

Curbing the Killing by Keystrokes: EBay ivory ban

For the past few days, conservation blogs and news have been full of stories that from the beginning of 2009, eBay will ban all sales of items made of elephant ivory - Yielding to Conservationists, eBay Will Ban Ivory Sales. Lobbyists had been campaigning for the closure of the loopholes that de facto had existed in the existing regulation of the ivory trade, and unregulated internet sales were one of the biggest.

This is a victory for the conservation lobbyists who have been pointing out that it is the inability of buyers (and here US ones figured largely) to curb their acquisitiveness and ask where the raw material was coming from which has been directly responsible for the continued poaching of elephants in the wild, even in places where they are supposed to be protected. Good profits are still involved because despite existing bans there is still an unquestioning market for ivory, as a result elephants are being gunned down even in wildlife reserves, despite the presence there of armed rangers and other measures taken to protect them. I wrote on this depressing situation earlier and reflected on its relationship to the antiquities trade.

This is an interesting parallel to the antiquities market in several ways. First of all the current situation is a foil to the arguments of portable antiquity collectors that "it is not they who are responsible for looting", but the archaeologists who “do not guard sites against the looters”, or the laws "are ineffective". It is clear that in the case of ivory, the market and therefore the incentive for poaching exist because there are people willing to buy ivory goods no-questions-asked. Here internet-aided sales have a large influence. Conservation groups detail how much ivory they found being traded in the US alone through sites like eBay. They labeled it “Killing by Keystrokes” which is an interesting parallel to Elias’ “Collectors are the real Looters” epigram referring to portable antiquities.

It is the same with document-less antiquities. There in an incentive for people to go out with spades and metal detectors to dig up little scraps of the past from a local archaeological site while there are acquisitive people who are willing to buy them.

In the case of ivory, EBay faced with the criticisms of a whole bunch of animal rights and nature conservation groups has decided to do its bit to protect the elephant (and also of course its corporate image). Good for them, one can only applaud this decision and hope it will do its bit to curb the disgusting killing to give a few selfish individuals the hedonistic but perverted pleasure of owning a piece of dismembered elephant in the form of some kitschy gee-gaw. What I would like to know however is where are the archaeological and heritage lobby groups insisting they take the same sort of measures to protect the world's archaeological heritage from being similarly dismembered?