SLT - "Thumb Down: 15 wrists slapped"

Salt Lake Tribune's feature 'The Thumb', Aug 12 2011 discusses the leniency of the US judicial system's Four Corner Looting verdicts:

THUMB DOWN: 15 wrists slapped
The score in the prosecution of people who illegally looted southern Utah archaeological sites and sold ancient artifacts is: pot hunters 15, the public and native tribes 0. Among 15 artifacts dealers tried in Judge Dee Benson’s federal court, not one has been sentenced to serve a day behind bars for their felonies. Incredibly, Benson told the latest pot hunter to appear before him that because he has "lost decades’ worth of collecting materials" and was a nice person, he would get only probation. What Vern Crites and others like him "lost" belonged to Indian tribes and were located on federal land. What about them?

Scrap ARPA and set up a Portable Antiquities Scheme for the USA?

.
Over in the US collectors and dealers somewhat repetitively assert some such nonsense as the Witschonke premise which is the US should do nothing to help nations whose archaeological heritage (I think he means "coins") is threatened by looting until they adopt measures to protect that heritage approved by the USA. In his opinion, that is the adoption of the "British system" of a Treasure Act and a voluntary 'portable antiquities scheme'. Yesterday we saw the same proposal again being put out by an ACCG coin dealer:

The Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme which prevail in the United Kingdom are the best (and almost the only) existing example of intelligently devised, successful antiquities laws, and in my view something resembling this should be universally adopted. Although the existing political climate does not favor such a sensible and practically motivated resolution of differences, I believe that the adoption of a global Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme, with appropriate adjustments for the individual concerns of States presently restricting private ownership of and export of archaeological antiquities, would do far more to control looting of archaeological sites than any possible combination of repressive and punitive measures.

It is really quite tiresome to have these Americans attempting to dictate to the whole world how they 'should' run their affairs, or they will not get the Uncle-Sam-Seal-of-Approval. Instead of telling everybody else what to do and expecting them to jump when ordered to jump, maybe they could lead the way by example. Set the moral lead. Quite obviously before dictating what others 'should' do, they should first set up such a system in their own country before encouraging others to do the same. The USA has considerable problems with looting of archaeological sites by artefact collectors. The undocumented exploitation of otherwise unthreatened archaeological sites by lithics collectors and pot diggers is a source of damage to the archaeological record in the USA. While it is restricted by law on public and 'Indian' lands which vests control of archaeological material there to the state (just as much as in Egypt, Greece or any other source countries), this does not stop the looting, and the losses to the archaeological record due to site exploitation on private land to serve the expanding collector market are also considerable. I read an account of a US archaeologist who said that in many regions of the USA there is not a single ancient site within walking distance of a means of access which had not been visited and searched by arrowhead hunters. According to him, they are being collected away just as surely as the sites in the Sahara. So US legislation is not protecting the archaeological record there from undocumented damage by collectors and looters.

Perhaps then US antiquity dealers would like to draft a proposal to change US legislation to take into account the proposal that state ownership of archaeological remains is not stopping looting in places like the Four Corners area and does nothing to stop the destruction of sites on land not owned or administered by the state. Let them propose a system like the British one which they insist is the "only intelligent way forward" for OTHER countries. Let them first apply it at home. Why don't they?

How would 'Treasure' be defined in terms of native American and Early Colonial artefacts? In order to make sense and selectively get archaeologically significant items vested in the state it would have to cover archaeologically significant artefacts and assemblages of all the ancient cultures of the country, from Archaic campsites, western pueblos and caves, Woodland and Moundbuilder sites of the east, as well as artefacts from early colonial forts, settlement and trade routes. Once a list of such items has been drawn up and agreed, all that is needed is for the dealers and collectors force the scrapping of scrap the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and related measures and institute their new National Treasures Act which defines state ownership of the designated artefact types, and lays down the process of an inquest and museum acquisition, with the full market value being split between finder and landowner (where the latter is the state, the finder only getting his due share). Just like the British model they want OTHER countries to adopt.

Then to set up a US Portable antiquities Scheme state-wide to cover all the thousands of non-Treasure items found annually by artefact hunters and members of the public, arrowheads, baskets, potsherds, colonial artefacts. How would that be organized to give equivalent coverage to that in the UK? How many Finds Liaison Officers would there have to be to cover the entire USA? What is the optimum distance between them, where would they be based (museums, academic institutions, parks services)? Who would finance it and co-ordinate its activities, and how much would it actually cost?

It seems to me that unless US collectors and dealers are willing to take steps to introduce such a system into the administrative system of their own country and iron out all the problems that would arise from doing this (making the "appropriate adjustments for the individual concerns of States" in the case of their own), then they really should refrain from making comments about what they think other ('source') nations should be doing to accommodate the US market in dugup antiquities. The Witschonke Premise is a bankrupt premise while US dealers and collectors steadfastly refuse to even consider putting it into action in the case of their own country. It is just the epitome of US hypocrisy.

The US antiquities market has a turnover of millions of dollars annually, their lobbyists have access to considerable resources. If they really believe in the Witschonke Premise, let them commission a feasibility study from the Cultural Property Research Institute, or a real academic institution such as the Capitol Archaeological Institute (CAI) at George Washington University, or maybe the Getty Institute to scrap the ARPA and replace it by a system modelled on the 'exemplary' and 'intelligent' British legislation and then submit it to public consultation. Let us see some honest and transparent debate developing in place of the hypocrisy and glibness that characterises the position of the US no-questions-asked-marketeers.

ACCG "Newcastle paper": US Collectors Versus the rest of the World

.
.
Ancient coin dealers Wayne Sayles and David Welsh have edited a 61-page documement about "Coin Collectors and Cultural Property Nationalism" which was specifically prepared by the US Ancint Coin Collectors' Guild (ACCG) lobby group for the Newcastle Conference on "Portable Antiquities: Archaeology, Collecting, Metal Detecting" held last weekend. To judge from subsequent discussion on UK metal detectorist forums, the paper did not create the best of impressions. It has to be said that as texts go, this is a pretty awful example of how not to present an argument. When we teach kids to write we tell them to first identify the audience whom they are addressing, think through what they want to say and how, and then to plan the text carefully. The character of this text shows that Sayles and Welsh (henceforth S&W)have done none of these things and produced for their audience a rambling text full of duplication and superfluous detail - not to mention the crooked reasoning one expects from them.

The authors claim this is their own work though the style and content of one section quite clearly is written by John Hooker. Other bits are culled directly from the internet without being sourced. Typical schoolkid essay stuff then. So much for the scholarship of the "professional numismatists". The organization of the text could have done with a much firmer editorial hand, for example referring the reader to readily available information (the US CPIA, the story of the PAS etc) would have cut its volume considerably.

I expect I will return to this text in the future, I've made a list of "quotable quotes", but here I thought I'd like to just run through its structure, while keeping my own comment to a minumum. This is what I make of it, the reader can of course plough through its turgidity themselves.

"COIN COLLECTORS AND CULTURAL PROPERTY NATIONALISM Wayne G. Sayles and David Welsh, Ed."
The purpose of the paper (p. 3) is stated as to “highlight [two] divergent points of view and explore the political background that has brought adherents of those viewpoints to a sphere of open hostility”.

The first section purports to “define culture” (but actually fails to do so), and Contains the “Article 1 lie”. S&W strenuously deny however that there is such a thing as national culture. Their text identifies two groups called (after John Henry Merryman 1986 “Two ways of thinking about cultural property”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 80) “Cultural Property Internationalists” and “Cultural Property Nationalists” (with a capital N). One is good (because the authors claim they are in this camp) the other we are led to understand is evil (but it is never defined why). Cultural Property Internationalists include advocates of the encyclopedic (“universal”) museum, question-free market in antiquities and unregulated private collecting. The “Nationalists” “include retentionist states, nationalist leaning archaeologists and ideologically inspired “preservationist” groups". (Incidentally the term "retentionist states" is not defined for the reader. Are not all preservation groups inspired by some kind of ideology"?)

“The prevention of theft, clandestine excavation and illicit export seems innocuous enough, until one places the concept within the framework of a nationalist state with retentionist laws where all cultural objects can be, and sometimes are, declared property of the State. Through the repression of personal property rights, any export without a state permit is thereby rendered illicit and any private possession of cultural objects without a state permit is considered theft".

I'd like to return to that fragment of the text in my next post as it is quite crucial to putting S&W's arguments in their wider context - one they themselves ignore.

The second section (pp 4-14) is labelled “Cultural Interests” and starts: “there are essentially five basic groups that intersect through an interest in cultural property. They are “Nationalist States and Institutions”, Museums, Dealers, Collectors and “Independent Scholars”. The fundamental thesis is that “these groups have a long history of cooperative effort, but that scenario is gradually changing”, due, it is suggested to the “development and growth of cultural nationalism”. A potted history of the latter is given on p. 4 ( but this seems to be cobbled together from several online sources such as Pulimood 1986) Then there is a bit about “universal” museums (but of course since it does not fit the agenda, omitting mention of the original highly nationalistic motivation for their creation and maintenance, but totally and anachronistically misrepresenting it on p. 5). S&W then go on to mention “the Licit Market” (pp. 5-10). Of course there is nowhere any mention of the market in illicit artefacts as being one of those “basic groups that intersect through an interest in cultural property”. So it is that the authors attempt to lead their reader to believe that it is the licit market for portable antiquities which “is the most directly and aggressively challenged component of the varied cultural interests”. Here there then follows a trotting out of the usual lame arguments, lots of coins around (p. 7; Cf pp.16-7), they travelled far in antiquity, all that same old stuff followers of the debate have heard trotted out so many times before. This however avoids the question of how this alone makes any market "licit". There is something missing here, and it is a feature of the whole article that it is object-centred, rather than recognising the destruction of context is the issue. This is hardly touched upon. Of interest is a statement to the effect that no law compels the market to be more ethical than it is so it will not be (I expect I will be quoting that one later). Then S&W pass on to “Ancient coin collecting”. This is seen in terms of “ownership” and “pride” (“Is that a human trait to be denigrated?”). They tell us Petrarch collected coins, that collectors take great pride in displaying and publishing their collections and taking care of the coins in them. The leitmotif is that “one historically consistent thread in the evolution of numismatics […] is the mutually beneficial interaction between professionals and amateurs” this leads into the next section on “independent (sic) scholars and symbiosis”. This is pure John Hooker. In some golden yesteryear coin collectors “all had a very friendly relationship with other collectors, coin dealers, museum staff, archaeologists, finders of coins and land owners”. Some examples with much name-dropping are quoted. Apparently “most of the animosity against collectors comes from archaeologists who have little knowledge of numismatics” (p. 13).

This brings S&W to their third section “Symbiosis in Jeopardy” (pp. 14-7). This is caused by the fact that “some nationalist leaning advocacy groups have tried to repress cooperation between their members and private collectors or the associated trade”. Preservationists “led by the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA)”, claim the current form of the market encourages looting, which the authors hold is a view held only by a few “young zealots” while advancing the conspiracy theory that it could be the case that most archaeologists do not contradict this “for fear of professional sanctions by nationalist industry leaders” (p 14) [Eh? "Young zealots" or "industry leaders"?]. In any case, S&W argue that considering the sources of the coins on the market today and what processes brought them there and to what they may be linked is “an unproductive diversion from the real issues” (!). Ancient coins are not “an endangered element of cultural heritage” (p. 16).

The fourth section of the paper is a very long one about “Protection, Preservation and regulation” (pp. 17-35) which basically trots out some of the laws which stand in the way between the indiscrimiate collector of dug up ancient artefacts and his prey. [Interestingly the Archaeological Resources Protection Act nor the NAGPRA legislation very much in the news thse days are not discussed. Presumably, being US laws, these are not "Nationalist" enough to merit inclusion.] S&W write: “the philosophical notion that the past is owned by everyone comes into direct confrontation with the philosophy of individual property rights when the subject of controls over tangible objects is brought to a debate”. The authors (“Ownership or Stewardship?”) exhibit a totally object-centred perspective on what the preservationists are attempting to preserve: “coins and other common utilitarian objects have been wrenched out of their archetypal role in society and redefined as endangered cultural property”. S&W claim ownership rights trump any others, and anything which stands in the way of indiscriminate collectors establishing these rights to something dug out of the archaeological record of a foreign country and illegally exported to the US for sale is evil because “there is no law in the United States that prohibits the ownership of objects based on where they were found or how old they are”. From a US point of view, utilitarian objects like coins are not “culturally significant objects”. Anyway anecdotal archaeologists have buckets of coins “sitting in the dank basements of archaeological museums”. State institutions neglect custodial responsibilities. Spreading portable antiquities among collectors is claimed to be a solution. Private collectors produce reference works about the objects they collect. The “scrap metal recovery” mantra (p. 20) is trundled out.
Section B of this part of the text covers “Cultural Property Controls” and suggests that international efforts to regulate the movement of illicit cultural property in UNESCO became marked by the confrontation between “liberal democratic concepts championed by the United States and its allies” and “nationalist political perspectives championed by the Soviet bloc and supported by many newly independent post-colonial states” (p. 22). The wording of the authors conveys a lack of sympathy for post-colonial states seeking return of cultural property stolen from them - which given the origins of their own country is a bit odd. There then follows a long discussion mainly from a US point of view of the 1970 UNESCO Convention… (pp. 23-6) and its “implementation within European nations” and the “US Instrument of Ratification” (pp. 26-8). There then follows (as section C) a presentation of “American (sic) Laws Regarding Cultural Property” which they admit with evident relief is currently symptomatically “a confusing amalgamation of statutes and case law” (pp. 28-35). The CPIA is presented for some reason in great detail which seems totally superfluous. Section D is entitled “Stealth Unidroit” (pp. 35–37) [see here and here]. Section E (pp. 37-40) covers “American (sic) Case law”.

After that lengthy excursus into the nitty gritty of (part of) the legal situation of indiscriminate artefact collecting in just one country, the writers return to the main theme with an all-too-brief stand-alone fifth section (pp. 40-2) which purports to present “Nationalist Cultural Property Laws”, but in fact restricts itself to a selective summary of the legislation of two countries Greece and Egypt (the latter of which was in any case not a coin-using society throughout most of its civilization - why not Bulgaria and Iraq or Iran, since many coins on the US market come from these regions?) S&W conclude that punishment alone has not sufficed to prevent looting and postulate that it is unlikely that stiffening this repressive approach will succeed in doing so. [Actually I think there is evidence that they are wrong, but do not personally think this is the way to go anyway.] They also point out the “Failure of Nationalist Laws to reach the Man in the Street” claiming laws investing ownership of archaeological remains in the state alienate the public from its heritage (pp. 42-3), they claim “repressive laws” promote “Destruction or Intentional Concealment of Antiquities” (pp. 43-4). [These actually are not problems restricted just to countries with the legislation of the type descreibed by S&W.] The authors sum up their position on pp. 48-9:

Repressive laws that deny private ownership and personal rights may serve nationalist political objectives, but they are counterproductive in terms of preserving the very objects that they purport to protect. The cloistering of history and its remnants is essentially a reversion to feudal thinking where knowledge was considered a weapon. Public participation in study of the past and preservation of its artifacts is essential not only to the well being of society but to the success of scholarship on a broad range of topics as well. Preservationist efforts must be inclusive of differing perspectives and programs should be results based rather than ideology based. Preservation of the past is too important to be driven by parochial interests.

Totally incomprehensible in the structure of the argument is the (over-)long section on the “Ancient Coin Collectors’ Guild” (pp. 44- 9). It would have been enough to refer the interested reader to the website. [That is what they are for!].

As an example of the “public participation in the preservation of the past” the authors give a lengthy summary of England’s Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme (“A Viable Model, pp. 49-59). Given that in the conference at which this paper was delivered, this followed a whole morning of presentation of the these topics, it seems totally superfluous for a group of US collectors to come to the UK to describe British institutions when the people running it are sitting in the audience! [In any case the ACCG has shown time and time again in the past that it really has some confused ideas about what the PAS is and what it does, and what it says. It is nice to see however that Sayles and Welsh have at last sat down and read up about the latter in order not to make further gaffes.] They start their text off with a presentation of the old Treasure Trove laws which is basically an unsourced crib from Wikipedia unsourced crib from Wikipedia. The rest is the usual sycophantic stuff about the PAS which can be found everywhere.

Passing on to the “Conclusion” to this text, we find S&W suggesting once again that "the archaeology lobby" has a long term goal that would greatly restrict, perhaps even abolish, all private collecting of antiquities. The U.S. State Department was “by no means a fair or neutral body capable of evenly balancing the interests of U.S. collectors and the trade with those of the archaeology lobby and foreign governments” and had instead effectively become an ally of the preservationists which S&W find disgusting. This is what, they say, led to the formation of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild to lobby and advocate for collector rights.

Sayles and Welsh assure the British audience that “the collectors rights movement does not seek a confrontation, it seeks a solution”. It claims that the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme form a proven, well working system which “offers promise for a better future not only to threatened coin collectors of the United States, but to all the world. What has worked so well in Britain can work just as effectively elsewhere”.

I have already discussed this idea in this blog on the basis of Derek Fincham suggesting a similar thing, but will no doubt return to the topic later. simply disagree with such a notion which is highly simplistic and stuill fails to take into account the specific British social context within which the PAS "success" (if such it is) is situated. This cannot be ignored. Enough.

Some "American Culture" on Sale in London

"Dr Alston Weaver was a dentist and ethusiastic collector of native American artefacts, especially those found locally in his home state of Alabama". So reads the sales spiel of a group of items coming up for auction in London:

North America
Lot No. 617 - Spearhead of Quinn River shape/style with nocthed base Obsidian ("Ex Stiegerwalt collection (c. 1890); ex Ira S. Reed Sale 25th July 1936; ex Dr Alston Weaver collection (Alabama, USA). Offered with old annotated collector envelope").
Lot 620 80 Black & White 'Rattlesnake' Trade Beads , 'Montgomery', Alabama
Lot No. 621 Dark and Pale Blue 'Padre' and 'Pony' Trade Beads, 'Pensicola, Fla'
Lot No. 622 Black Trade Beads, 'Ft Conde, Mobile'
Lot No. 623 - Tubular, Round and Facetted Trade Beads , 'Leedstown, Va'
Lot No. 624 Multicoloured Trade Beads, 'Tuplo, Miss'
Lot No. 625 Small 'Seed' Trade Beads, 'Pontotoc, Miss'
Lot No. 626 Five Copper Trade Bracelets
So what else did the Alston Weaver collection hold?

How considerate of the Injuns to scatter so many beads of the same strings in small localised areas of their settlements so they can be picked up by ploughboys and strung together like this. I looked very hard, but could see no antiquities taken from the graves of any members of the Alabama branch of the Weaver family, I guess they must have gone in another estate sale.

Well, of course, the US NAGPRA only applies to objects found after November 16, 1990 on Federal or tribal lands and held by institutions. The ARPA is similarly limited in scope. Private collections of objects dug up on private land can be treated with impunity.


The same "Timeline" auctions also include (in the rather heterogeneous section "Bronze Age Eastern") cylinder seals "bought in London in the 1960s" and other suchlike stuff from all over the world. Most of it advertised as totally unprovenanced. We may remember the discussion on the sale of the "Cambridge Rider", well they've got another British one, ("Cf. Bennet") mounted by a metal detectorist on a piece of scrap wood stained with boot polish and stuck on a nail.

Looting is "justifiable" in Utah: Judge Waddoups supports collectors' rights

Yesterday Sept. 16, two prominent Blanding residents Jeanne Redd, 59, and daughter Jericca Redd, 37, walked out of a court free after having pleaded guilty in federal court to illegal trafficking in American Indian artifacts. This was the first sentencing to be handed down as the result of a 2½-year ("Action Cerberus") investigation into grave robbing and archaeological artefact thefts in the Four Corners region which had cost the taxpayer several hundred thousand dollars. The two had admitted to multiple felonies for excavating, possessing and selling prehistoric seed jars, pottery and personal ornaments. As part of the plea, Jeanne Redd had agreed to give up all of the artifacts in her collection, surrendering 112 boxes of artifacts, including reportedly human remains.

Jericca Redd, admitted to three felonies for digging up a seed jar, a vase and a pottery vessel in 2008, on the Navajo reservation.
Jeanne Redd had pleaded guilty to seven felonies: two counts of violating the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, two counts of theft of government property and three counts of theft of American Indian tribal property. Each carries potential fines of $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison.

Utah Division of Indian Affairs Director Forrest Cuch had said before the sentencing that he hoped the guilty pleas would help prevent future lootings. He said: "This is an opportunity for them [Jericca and Jeanne Redd] to be accountable for their actions [...] It's the right action to take. I hope that they can learn from this, and it will send a message to all other prospective looters that this is a very serious offence".

Prosecutors had sought a minimum 18 months in prison for Jeanne. Instead she received leniency when a U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups rejected the government's request for imprisonment, instead Jeanne got three years of probation and a $2,000 fine. That is about as much as many of the defendents were paying for a single artefact. The fine is derisive, the cost of an old pair of sandals. Jericca Redd was sentenced to two years of probation and no fine on three similar felony counts.

"This is a community where this kind of conduct" is commonly tolerated and "has been justified for a number of years," Waddoups is reported to have said. "This is a woman who has spent her life as a member of her community." I think most collectors of looted artefacts live as "members of their community". A community where grave robbing and looting of archaeological sites is accepted maybe, but JUSTIFIED Your Honour? What on earth are you talking about?

Sadly his online resume seems to be unavailable at the moment, so we cannot find out which American centre of higher education turned out an individual with such 'enlightened' views on the cultural heritage.

It would seem that the two people (James Redd and Steven Shrader) who committed suicide to escape punishment as a result of being accused of similar crimes really should have waited to see what kind of derisive sentences would be handed down by Judge Waddoups. After all there is breaking the law and "breaking the law (but it does not matter)". If the rest of the cases are going to be treated in the same way, what a waste of public money and a lot of people's hard work (and risking serious danger) the investigators of "Action Cerberus" must feel that was.

There is no record of any "collectors-rights" advocates in the courtroom, but even so Judge Waddoups seems to have decided these ladies had done nothing particularly wrong, giving a clear OK signal to looters all over the United States. Right guys, shovels out and grab yerself another piece of the Injun past. Maybe drop Judge Waddoups a line and invite him along with you?

See Patty Henez: Redds dodge prison in artifact sentencing , Salt lake City Tribune 16.09.09.

PS. What happened to the investigations of the computer of the Redds that it was suggested at the time might indicate they were involved in some "pyramid scheme" (reported in the Salt Lake Tribune and other sources back in June)? Is this still an ongoing investigation, or was this a false trail thrown out by federal sources to direct attention away from the role of the artefacts raid in Dr James Redd's June suicide? If so, was a statement later issued clearing Mrs Redd's name from these accusations? All very odd.

Photo: Judge Waddoups, who thinks looting of archaeological sites is "justified".

Ethics Laws and Looting: Reply to Dave Welsh, Yahoo AncientArtifacts message # 49329

This is a reply to the lengthy comments of David Welsh, antiquity dealer and "collectors' rights" activist:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/49329

The thread where it appeared was closed minutes after he made his posting. Convenient for Mr Welsh no doubt.

Collectors of portable antiquities may like it or like it not that there is a divide between the responsible collector who conclusively determines the legitimate origins of every object they acquire for their collections and those who do not. There seems no reason why we should not call such people “no-questions-asked buyers” since that is precisely what they do. If Mr Welsh finds that “insulting” perhaps he should examine his own soul why that is. I have in mind, for example, our previous discussions about how coins get out of the ground in southeastern Europe and into Mr Welsh’s stockroom. This of course does not concern so much merely staying within the letter of the law (arguments along the lines of “no law was broken once they got to my country”), what I am concerned with are the ethics behind, those which actually define, this trade and the way they relate to the problem which concerns me as an archaeologist, the destructive mining (looting) of ancient sites merely as a source of collectables.

Mr Welsh constantly assures us that no archaeological site was damaged to get the stuff he and his fellow dealers in the US and elsewhere supply to their clients, because we have seen (the "edge of battlefield hoard" model) he argues that these coins by some magical process do not come from archaeological sites. Well of course he cannot tell us exactly where the individual coins come from as he bought them from a bloke who bought them from a bloke…. and somewhere down the line there were no questions asked. But then we all have to ask ourselves where precisely is one of the “blokes” in the chain getting kilogammes of mixed metal objects still with the earth on them from? "Old collections" or fresh digging?

The dealers who say that they are merely striving to “preserve presently lawful, time-honoured rights of collectors in the USA and elsewhere” as Mr Welsh asserts might like to specify more precisely quite what “rights” they think they have over coins and ancient artifacts coming from outside their own country. What "rights" Amercans claim over archaeological finds from archaeological sites and assemblages on Bulgarian soil if they cannot show us a Bulgarian export licence or proof they were out of the ground legally and out of Bulgaria before (say) 1970. What “rights” do they have over fresh “English dugups” unrecorded with the PAS?

Merely applying what my good friend Nigel Swift (who Mr Welsh knows) has christened the “it’s legal innit?” argument to define matters of ethics clearly is not enough. Slavery, displacing Native Americans from their lands too and race discrimination and were all no doubt considered “time honored” as well as “lawful” (and possibly even Divinely Ordained) by those involved in the past of North America, but it does not mean they were ethically right. This is the crux of the matter, one cannot define ethics by what is merely within the limits of one country's laws - especially laws which anyone involved in debate on portable antiquities knows were not constructed with the sole aim of protecting the archaeological resource and are in any case full of loopholes. Ethical trade, ethical collecting, morality in general all mean going at least that one step further than what one is legally obliged to do. This is what antiquity dealers in such discussions really fail to accept. It is ethical collecting which we are discussing. The type of collecting that asks questions about where the objects concerned come from, does not acquire blindly.

As for what the law says, I sincerely doubt whether the chairman of the ACCG International committee has the slightest inkling what he is talking about when he writes of the alleged laws in “Poland (where Barford presently resides)” which allegedly are “substantially restricting the rights of private collectors to own and trade in items which may or may not be archaeological artifacts". That is merely a facile attempt to dismiss what I say on the grounds that I am some kind of ignorant foreigner from a country with different ways.

In fact, Mr Welsh should have checked before he spoke. There are no such laws in Poland (for goodness' sake I was involved - albeit in a small way - in their writing!). Private ownership of collections of coins and antiquities is not restricted by Polish law. Neither were they in Communist Poland – where the collector was given help by the state to maintain their collections. This type of uninformed myth making is endemic in the collecting advocacy milieu, more concerned with spreading alarmist propaganda than facts, and thrives on the generally uninformed prejudices of collectors who cannot be bothered to check the facts and apparently simply believe what they are told.

Welsh says foreign laws like those of “Poland” are not necessarily better or more moral “than nations such as the USA which do not impose the same restrictions”. I really do not know what he is thinking saying that there are no restrictions on what people can collect in America when 1001 km almost directly east of his home a drama is playing out in Utah and Colorado which has at its basis laws which are EXACTLY the same as those in Poland and a number of other countries! The United States of America has laws about who can dig up artifacts where and declares them state property, even if they come from unutilized public land. Perhaps before campaigning about "collectors' rights" over archaeological material taken from the archaeological record in foreign countries, it would be far more logical for US "collectors' rights" advocates to establish those same "rights" over archaeological material taken in their own. Why should foreign states be forced by American collectors to accede to demands that would be rejected at home? I have asked this question a number of times now, but it seems to me that the milieu concerned is studiously avoiding supplying an answer - or even acknowledging that the question exists at all. Whose there is the "intellectual dishonesty"?

According to Welsh, "Barford is actually advocating radical changes that would greatly restrict, or even eliminate, existing rights of private collectors and dealers in antiquities". It depends whether one sees rights as existing without responsibilities, and again quite what those “rights” consist of. Actually, it is not just me who is advocating that the current status quo in the antiquities market cannot go on indefinitely. To take just one country as an example, at the official launch of the UK Nighthawking Strategic Report Feb 16th this year, the Director of the Council for British Archaeology said the same thing. The All Party Parliamentary Archaeology Group chaired by Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn says the same. The Portable Antiquities Scheme does too. What is being proposed is nothing more or less than collectors are able to document that the objects in their collection do not come from recent looting. That is all. Now why would any antiquities dealer oppose that? Would that really lead to the elimination "existing rights"? What "rights" would they be precisely, Mr Welsh? To buy anything without questioning origins?

Mr Welsh may have his own personal ethical standard which rejects acquiring coins without valid export licences by (as he himself states) asking the would-be vendor "where are the coins located? " But this question is meaningless in terms of the issue in question, which is the looting of archaeological sites to provide collectables for the market. His approach seems to be symptomatic of a fixation of US dealers (necessarily separated from the source of the ancient coins they collect) with “export, export”.

Since ancient artifacts do not grow on trees or fall from the sky, the important question is “where have these coins come from?”. This is precisely the “No-question” that is of concern here. Mr Welsh does not say he asks it.* So the heap (yes, top photo) of “specials” from the Balkans on sale in Mr Welsh’s shop, how did they leave the ground? So what if somebody bought a bucketload of coins from the Holy Land with an Israeli export licence? On what grounds was that licence issued? I don't know, but the foreign dealer relying on it to ascertain licit origins should check. These may be coins recovered by controlled metal detecting surveys of ancient sites by the Israel Antiquities Service and then sold as surplus to museum needs through registered antiquity dealers. Or they may very well be coins looted from sites in neighbouring countries, exported to the Gulf States, and from there imported into Jerusalem and thus wholly legally exported from there with an export licence. In the latter case they'd be totally “legal”, but looted from archaeological sites nonetheless. These are the questions both dealers and collectors need to be asking (and information dealers which obviously ought to be passing along to the new owners with the artefacts) to avoid being a link in the chain of looting.

The value of a export licence in these discussions is that any normal state would not (we hope) issue an export licence for items that had been looted or otherwise dishonestly obtained from its own archaeological record. Sadly, despite international agreements, most states have no compunction whatsoever about issuing export licences for material taken by whatever means from archaeological sites outside its borders – even if it was illegally imported into that state. That is simply wrong, but it is a fact of life dealers in archaeological artefacts constantly take advantage of. They claim they’ve done "nothing wrong", as indeed in legal terms they have not, but surely the rest of us can agree that looted is looted. So coins looted in Palestine and shipped out through Jerusalem would get an AIA export licence if the dealer assured them (perhaps they require documentation?) that these are not 37 kg of ancient coins stripped from the archaeological record within the borders of modern Israel. There is nothing much under Israeli law that the AIA could do to not give a licence. That does not make the coins un-looted though.

So to reiterate, the only question of importance is “where, exactly, did these objects come from?”.

There very probably is not a dealer in Mr Welsh’s acquaintance who does not declare that they are concerned about handling stolen items, after all, the long arm of the law can reach them for that. But they prefer to take a very narrow view of what the word "stolen" means. If one day however the flow of objects stolen from the archaeological record of many source countries were to dry up, I am pretty sure that would be a source of real concern for many dealers. Many dealers will probably find it much more difficult to buy goods from a bloke who bought them from a bloke….. But of course that source of supply will not run out just yet. The coin and minor antiquity market was revitalized as the Balkan artefact mines started production about 1990. Huge loads of them went to the US. There are signals however that these sites are almost exhausted, where will the foreign dealer turn next for a country to supply the quantities the expanding market needs?

Mr Welsh considers that the use of the word “stolen” for illegally excavated items is “something quite different from the normal, plain English definition of that word”. But that is exactly what 25 (+) residents of Utah and Colorado are going on trial for. The word is used in their indictments in the “normal, plain English definition of that word” by Federal authorities. I really would like to see one day "collectors' rights" advocate Welsh arguing that out with them. US pot-digging for entertainment and profit and Balkan metal detecting for entertainment and/or profit are self-evidently in effect exactly the same. They both trash the archaeological record, they both produce collectables. If it is not "intellectual dishonesty" to treat them as in any way different, then let the ACCG and other collectors' "rights" activists show why.

Mr Welsh says that he has come to believe that “Mr. Barford thinks private collecting of anything that might conceivably perhaps have once been a buried artifact should be prohibited by law”. Well, he can make up whatever nonsense he likes, but there are six hundred posts here and equal numbers on several forums (including his own Unidroit-L) which should be ample evidence of what I really think. Let him show his readers one sentence which states even obliquely the opinion he imputes to me. He cannot because I have never said such a thing. This is the boring old "Banning Bogeyman" argument again.

What I do think is that private collecting of archaeological artifacts should be subject to a rigid code of ethics accepted by responsible collectors aware of the damage that has already been done by looting and intent on enjoying their hobby with a clear conscience. I also believe that alongside this, their trade should be regulated better by law than they are now. I believe that there should be transparency in and public scrutiny of all dealings concerning portable antiquities on the open market. Never have I suggested that the trade and collecting should be stopped, that would serve no purpose whatsoever.

At the beginning of his complaint, Welsh moans that I talk of a no-questions-asked market. I do this to make clear what part of the wide range of activities on the global market in archaeological artefacts I see as a problem. The use of this term should make clear that I am not generalising about the entire market, all dealers and all collectors, just the ones that trade in material of indeterminate, or undertermined origins despite the large quantities of illicit material known to come onto the market annually. These are the people who are causing the problem, and certain factions of the pro-collecting lobby (sadly Mr Welsh and his ACCG chief among them) are intent on prolonging precisely these practices by whatever means, fair or foul it seems at times.

“Barford is actually advocating that no one should be allowed to possess or trade in antiquities unless the individual concerned is able to "prove provenance," Well, no again, that is not at all what I said. I think collectors themselves should in the interests of what may be called the hygiene of their collections be rejecting items which the seller cannot actually demonstrate has legitimate provenance. It would be nice to see the cuneiform tablets without any stated provenance and any stated documentation I discussed here a few months ago still on sale because nobody would touch them. They have however almost all gone. I think dealers on the other hand should be constrained by law to maintain documentation of origins of their stock and be able to present that on demand. That is anyway what some countries today require (Canada and Switzerland for example). That seems to be a not unreasonable request since shops and traders in general do tend to have to be able to provide such documentation any time there is doubt about the quality and origin of the objects they sell.

Neither do I see why it should take any kind of “expert investigation to assemble "paper trail" documentation” on the part of dealers proving the provenance of any ancient object coming on the market. A seller has an object they want to sell, the buyer says “no papers, no thanks”. That applies to dealers as well as their clients. After all, we are constantly told that people have been collecting artifacts like coins in the US for six hundred years, so there must be some artifacts out there with a history. So where are they? Apparently, since the trade "never required" documentation of provenance because the antiquity could be appreciated as an art object without, nobody kept the little tray slips in Petrarch’s handwriting. But I really do not see why the world's archaeological record should continue to suffer as a result of their sheer negligence.

*Addendum, now see Marcus Preen's comment reminding me of an episode I had fogotten.

"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?