Thomas Jefferson Opposes Potential U.S. State Department Import Restrictions?

.
I think we should add to the voices of the three Europeans objecting to the US regulation of imports of illegally exported cultural property the voice of Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, barrow-digger and first Secretary of State in the newly-founded State Department initially appointed by Washington (1789-1793). He had various ideas in his time - this apparently is one of them:

The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the States are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign affairs. Let the General Government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves, and our General Government may be reduced to a very simple organization, and a very inexpensive one; a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants.

Of course the internet-based postal sale of dugup ancient coins from all over the classical world was not around at the end of the eighteenth century, but even iof it was, one suspects Jefferson might have been on the no-questions-asked coiney side:

Money and not morality is the principle of commerce and commercial nations.

So we see the notions of the ACCG and their coin dealing and collecting pals are firmly set in America's long eighteenth century. I wonder if we will see those arguments turning up in the ACCG/IAPN/PNG court cases?

Vignette: Jefferson, Monticello.

Upcoming UK Conference: New Labour's Cultural Policy and its Post-Recession Legacy

.
On 12th November 2010 at University College there will be a Cultural Trends International Conference: "A "Golden Age"? Reflections on New Labour's Cultural Policy and its Post-Recession Legacy". The keynote speech ("Creative Britain”: Myth or Monument") is followed by five sessions:
"The Reckoning",
"Patterns: Private, Public & the Lottery",
"Industries & Culture that Works",
"Leadership, Public Value & Social Good",
"Myths & Realities. Labour’s Core Script & Instrumental Measures".

So which session is the PAS and Treasure hunting going in? This is the archtypical example of New Labour cultural "policy", socially inclusive, not to say populist and not at all "joined-up thinking". What is its archaeological "legacy"?

"Allow market forces to take over": The US Perversion of the Intent of the 1970 UNESCO Convention

.
In reply to Kent Davies' 5th September article 'Bulldozers Destroy Priceless Archaeological Site in Cambodia, Dr Robert Steven Bianchi, art historian fulminates:

What do the cultural purists have to say now? Obviously this is not an isolated instance because we can document other cases in which so-called source countries abrogate their responsibilities as custodians of our shared cultural past. These destructive acts by custodians in name but not in deed argue in favor of allowing market forces to take over. Those serious about art–dealers, collectors, museums, and galleries–should collect without any national or international interference because they are the true custodians and preservers of culture.

Well, oddly enough it was precisely "market forces" that led to the destruction of the archaeological site in question! Peter Tompa has a similar approach on his "Told-ya-they-wuz-no-good" blog in which he attacks any nation with which the US government has a cultural property agreement (plus Egypt). Cambodia is one of them, so gets short shrift from Tompa. Methinks he's not read the follow up article (Sept 10th). It is not "unexplained at all", sadly this kind of thing happens all the while.

"Cultural purists" Dr Bianchi? So you think that archaeological sites like the one destroyed by uninformed developers here should be protected by the international community working together, and not just the Cambodian rubber company that owns the land? So do I, so do I.

Tompa draws attention to the word "corruption" in the US-Cambodia MOU. In the context of the implications of what Dr Bianchi says, I'd draw attention to Article II, B and C:

B. Representatives of the Governments of the United States of America and the Kingdom of Cambodia shall participate in efforts to publicize this Memorandum of Understanding and the reasons for it, particularly as they relate to the Bronze and Iron Ages.
C. The Government of the United States of America shall continue to use its best efforts to facilitate technical assistance in cultural resource management and security to the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia, as appropriate under available programs in the public and/or private sectors.

I'd suggest that this case and the reaction to it reflect that the "best efforts" of the US government are not being very effective in this area.

We are increasingly seeing in the CPAC hearings and related events, opinions and texts that demonstrate unequivocally that US dealers and collectors want to use the MOUs as a tool of US imperialism, to dictate to the governments and citizens of other countries what they should and should not be doing and subjecting them to criticism and ridicule if they do not comply in the manner they (the Americans) see fit. This was not at all the intent of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. It was not created to be used as a nationalist tool of domination and exertion of political influence of the USA over the internal policies of other countries, but to secure equable and licit international dealings in cultural property.

I ask again, if the American people are not going to play by the same rules as the rest of the states party to the Convention and merely intend to pervert its ideals to use it to suit their own political and economic aims and exert influence and pressure on foreign governments, then why do they not withdraw from the umbrella of membership of the Convention itself and merely continue applying their CCPIA in a manner which makes their motives for doing so more transparent? I the US intends to continue to support "no-AMERICAN-law-was-broken cultural property banditry", then let it do so openly and not under the umbrella of being party of a Convention which incomplete implementation in fact renders meaningless in the US market.
.

More Coins Fresh from the English Archaeological Record on Sale in Wisconsin

.
I mentioned this guy (samhan_53024) and his selling of previously undocumented archaeological material here before (here and here), and it seems his eBay sales of coins "fresh from the ground" from England were not a one-off event. He had a whole lot up last week, the auction ended last night, and today he has a new lot. How long will this be going on? Is this one large shipment being split up, or a series of them? Whatever the case it would seem that none of these coins has been through the PAS system, and one wonders about the export licences. Has the Reverend Bulgerin been acquiring these dugup artefacts from somebody who has been avoiding the procedures laid down by British law concerning export of such material?

He says merely "I have been fortunate enough to make connections with someone in England who is a member of a metal detecting club. He is shipping me coins that are fresh from the ground in south-eastern England". One lot is: "made up of four bronze antoniniani; one of which is a nice Gallienus (253-260 AD) and two fourth century AE-3s. Several of the coins look to be decent, while others are more worn. They run in size from 16-22 mm. in diameter and should not be too hard to clean". There's another lot here, unfortunately the seller does not reveal where in "southeast England" they come from, or whether or not they are from the same site, or even one or more undeclared hoards. The coins look from the corrosion to have come from compact silty or clayey soil, one or two of the photos seem to show a pattern which could be textile (hence my point about a hoard find, could have been in a bag).

One lot is of note: 40 Holed and Broken Roman Bronzes - Includes Allectus (is he now coming to the end of the shipment and these are the little bits at the bottom of the container?). The holes include ancient and - oddly - modern drilled ones. The breaks most likely occurred in transport from Southeastern England to Grafton Wisconsin, or perhaps they are this famed "plough damage" that metal detectorists in the UK claim they are "rescuing artefacts" from by ripping out of the soil, failing to document properly where they are from and cramming them into boxes sent off for sale overseas? Is Rev. Bulgerin part of this "heroic rescue" operation too then? Or are both artefact hunter and artefact seller p[art of a huge process of unmitigated erosion of the archaeological record of the UK? That is the same UK you will remember where collectors of the very same ancient coins (like Rick Witschonke) will tell you that the laws "protect the archaeological heritage from looting" and encourage responsible artefact hunting. Not here they do not.

We remember that Rev Bulgerin announced that he was raising money to go to England to take part in the excavations at Vindolanda. Looking at his feedback it is interesting to note the following comment "ALOHA, YOU ENJOY YOUR TRIP NOW, BRING BAC GOODIES. UNDERCOVERANGELS KAUAI Jun-25-10". This was followed by a sale of "Three Nice Quality Roman Bronze Fibulae from the UK (#120583352951) Aug-09-10". Interestingly it was only on 20th September that he announced on the uncleaned coin list that his "friend" in England had sent "some more coins". Looking back at the feedback Rev Bulgerin has received for his sales there is a clear cut-off line where his offerings for the last couple of months are composed wholly of the type of stuff that has been coming in huge bulk out of illegal excavations in the Balkans and a more recent period where these are mixed in with lots of uncleaned coins from this English source. This begins with a sale that ended on the evening of Sep 26, 2010 - so was put up just before the notification that the coins had arrived. So how did the three fibulae for a UK site end up on eBay?

From Foreign Archaeological Records to a Wisconsin Collection

.
In the previous post I was looking at the eBay feedback of seller samhan_53024 who announces himself on the coiney forums as collector Reverend Bulgerin of Grafton Wisconsin from the point of view of the duplicates he was selling off. Here, I'd just like to mention a couple of reflections on what these lists show he was buying

I noted that the coins he was disposing of are dominated by coins of the same types and mints as commonly found in southeastern Europe, such as are coming in huge quantities (from the destruction of archaeological deposits on a huge scale) from illegal excavations in the Balkans. Recently he seems to have bought one or more bulk lots from a metal detectorist in "Southeastern England". Before this he was buying coins from other British metal detectorists to a quite noticeable degree. This rathercalls into question the oft-heard statement that coins from metal detectiong settlement finds are not collectable (because allegedly not in the same state as hoard coins) and that US collectors are not purchasing such finds. Well, here one clearly is. Are these coins really so "uncollectable"? Rev,. Bulgerin obviously knbows his coin typology and finds much of interest in the offered material, and many of the photos show the stuff he is buying to be in perfectly good condition.

Interestingly, looking over the Reverend's purchases, one is struck by the degree to which Hungary now figures there as a source country. I have long suspected that some of the bulk items on both western and eastern European markets are coming from Hungary now, perhaps as the supply of lootable coins from Bulgaria and the Balkans dries up, the archaeological heritage of other countries is now at greater risk.

One final point, as noted above, Rev. Bulgerin has been buying coins from other English metal detectorists, from both northern and southern England. Take a look at their offers and not how many of them say that they will post the coins immediately after receiving payment - and the export licences? Methinks the PAS ought to produce guidelines for sellers of British-dug antiquities abroad informing them of what the law says.
.

.

Just one coin, but....

.

"It is not much to look at - a small pitted brass coin with a square hole in the centre - but this relatively innocuous piece of metal is revolutionising our understanding of early East African history, and recasting China's more contemporary role in the region" says BBC's correspondent in Africa, Peter Greste ('Could a rusty coin re-write Chinese-African history? BBC News, 17th October 2010). The excavations by a joint team of Kenyan and Chinese archaeologists led by Professor Qin Dashu of Peking University found the 15th Century Chinese coin in Mambrui - a tiny, nondescript village just north of Malindi on Kenya's north coast. The coin is of Yong Le (the emperor Chengzu) who reigned 1403-1425 in the Ming dynasty. The coin had arrived here, almost 100 years before the first Europeans reached the region, in some event connected with contacts between China and the outside world. Whether or not this is proof of the western voyages of Zheng He (see Gavin Menzies books) is a moot point. Read the rest here.

What is more interesting is that this coin is one of the more common of the whole dynasty, commanding a few dollars on the market at the most. What makes it special is its context, it has not just "surfaced" on the market, it has not just "surfaced" in east Africa, but is documented as having come from a specific site in association with other material evidence which shows it was not simply a modern loss. This coin decontextualised has no evidential value of anything other than the Chinese cast coins (big deal - we know that). Finding it in context at this Mambrui site not only raises a whole series of questions, but recording and interpreting the associated evidence will enable us to attempt to answer them. It could not have done that if some bloke with a metal detector had dug it up and the sold it with other stuff to a bloke who sold it on ebay to a collector in Alaska.

By the way, Ming dynasty coins are not covered by the US MOU with China.



Photo: Yongle tong bao coin from Mambrui.[Hmm, the fuzzy photo seems to show an IRON coin, if the lumps and bumps we can see are the inscription, it looks as if the Prof is displaying it upside down, and what can be made out of this legend does not suggest it looks like the one on other coins attributed to this reign, but that may be just poor photography - or perhaps this is a stock photo of another coin].

Hackney gardeners dig up hoard of American gold coins

.

This has to be one of the weirdest items to be considered as potential Treasure... In Hackney in east London gardeners have dug up a hoard of 80 large gold coins of the United States of America (Dalya Alberge, Hackney gardeners dig up hoard of American gold coins', 18.10.10). The coins are gold $20 “Double Eagle” pieces dating from 1854 to 1913 which are worth hundreds of thousands of pounds to collectors. Portable Antiquities Scheme Director Dr Roger Bland was interviewed by the London Standard, he went for the "unsolved mystery" trope this time: “There is a huge mystery about who might have buried the coins. It's wonderful to speculate. Who buries so many gold coins?” The find was announced by Inner North London coroner Dr Andrew Scott Reid, saying that the original owner had until next spring to come forward.

The finders are remaining anonymous and the find's location is not being released to discourage false claims. An ill-gotten gain has to be possible and police records are being checked.

If no living owner is forthcoming, a Treasure inquest will be held. If the coins are declared Treasure, they will become Crown property and will be valued. Hackney Museum wants to acquire them and the money paid would be split between the land owner and the finders. But the question is who will be footing the bill so Hackney Museum can exhibit these coins? What in fact do they tell us about the history of Hackney? Are there no other things Hackney could better spend money on? What are these "Treasures acquired for the nation" for?

It is to be noted that since the finders were people who stumbled across them by accident and not Treasure seeking searchers going out equipped to find metal Treasures, the article does not praise them roundly for their "responsibility" in reporting them promptly to the PAS. I suppose there are different kinds of responsibility those of "finders" and those of "seekers".

.

Photo: London Standard'

.