Taking and Giving Credit

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

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

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

The lawyer asserts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Collectors' Concepts of "Discrimination"

.
Coin dealers' paid lobbyist Peter Tompa suggests that I am wrong in suggesting that it was specifically requested that the public comments to the CPAC on Bulgaria's request to help stop the trade in smuggled artefacts restricted to section 303(a)1 of the CCPIA . Well, it is there in black and white what the comments are supposed to address. Tompa says that instead of doing this:

many collectors have quite rightly focused on the potential impact of import restrictions on their hobby. Don't such concerns go to the ability of Americans to trade and collect ancient coins that are freely available worldwide (including within Bulgaria itself)? And as such, don't complaints about discriminatory import restrictions go directly to the CPIA's concerted response requirement as well as the use of ancient coins as educational tools? So, what exactly is Barford, the obnoxious know-it-all, talking about?

I am talking about section 303(a)1 of the CCPIA, which does not ask the President to consider "the potential impact of import restrictions on legitimate antiquity collecting". The impact on collecting smuggled artefacts is clear, and having that impact is what the MOU (and the Convention upon which it is based) is all about. "Obnoxious" though that may seem to those who sees nothing much wrong with a little bit of "free enterprise" trading smuggled goods supplied by culture criminals, that's what I am talking about. It is also what the CPAC will be discussing as part of the commitment of the US to play their part in curbing the trade in illicit antiquities, as expressed in becoming a state party of the 1970 UNESCO Convention in 1983.

Tompa suggests it is "quite right" that in their public comments, collectors do not address the issues raised for the President's consideration by section 303(a)1 of the CCPIA. The President of the USA is not asked either by section 303(a)1 to consider whether the proposed measures "go to the ability of Americans to trade and collect ancient coins that are freely available worldwide (including within Bulgaria itself)". Again, the coins with paperwork showing legal origins are legally bought and sold in most countries party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention. Mr Tompa has not yet provided the list I asked for of the countries which are states parties of the 1970 UNESCO Convention where it is actually legal (licit trade) to peddle dugup artefacts smuggled out of Bulgaria. Perhaps he could do that to help the President consider this question which the dealers' lobbyist thinks the President (and his advisory committee) should be pondering (and so that collectors can refer to it in their comments). In which other countries party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property is it not only perfectly possible to buy looted, stolen or smuggled artefacts on the open market, but is also entirely LEGAL to do so?

Tompa asks "don't complaints about [what he calls] discriminatory import restrictions go directly to the CPIA's concerted response requirement"? No, as I've explained earlier. Any import restrictions actioning article 3 of the UNESCO Convention are those which apply to any trader (importer) in any 1970-UNESCO-Convention-Party state trying to import smuggled antiquities. The rest of the states parties apply these measures automatically, only the US refuses to recognise its obligations in that regard in favour of excusive MOUs on the basis of Article 9.

The crux of the matter is that the Americans are notorious in the rest of the world for believing that they are in some way exempt from this or that measure that they do not want to apply. Over the decades we have seen various forms of manifestation of this American exclusionism in a variety of contexts in international affairs. The result is that, when required to behave like the citizens of every other nation among those of the international community which have become party to a convention, it is seen as some kind of discrimination. Being asked to behave like everybody else is asked to behave is not - in my opinion at least - discrimination. For two decades the US trade in dugup artefacts from Bulgaria has been going on under everybody's noses, nobody has ever lifted a finger over there to stop it. Kilogramme loads of this stuff have been changing hands weekly on EBay. This has engendered a feeling of entitlement, as shown by Mark Hogan who does not think there should be any curbs on teh US trade in dugup: "coins, bronze crosses, Byzantine religious metals, etc.". Why is this if the US is a state party of a convention that explicitly forbids (as illicit) such trade in the absence of proper export procedures being followed by both parties (seller and buyer)? Where are the US authorities and lawmakersw? Asleep? Powerless? Or simply totally apathetic?

If they don't like the Convention, let the US withdraw from it, not hypocritically pretend they are adhering to it, while continuing to ignore the core of its measures totally. Nobody is being "discriminated against" by being asked to do what all in the US antiquities trade should have been doing (and not just in the case of Bulgarian artefacts) since 1983.

Vignette: USA as an island

The Problems a US Coiney Has Being an Educationalist

.
A thread running through the public comments of US coineys against measures intended to curb the flow of smuggled coins into the US is "the use of ancient coins as educational tools" (see also Tompa's post "No Credit to the Archaeological Community"). I wonder whether one needs coins that have been smuggled to educate anyone in a US school, when the coineys bend over backwards to point out that the "vast majority" of coins on the US market are legitimately obtained. Surely in a more holistic approach to educating the next generation of citizens, there is more educational value in a chunk of metal than "here's a coin of Caligula, the mad one, you can touch it". Surely there are other issues we could be teaching the young about, ethics for example being one of them (see Nathan Elkins' thoughtful article "Treasure hunting 101 in the classroom" article). These however are precisely the issues avoided ("like the very plague") by schemes like the "Ancient Coins for Education" Some reactions to comment suggest that some teachers taking part in this programme are not exactly over-endowed with the ability to think these issues through either.

One wonders also about the educational benefits of introducing into American classrooms as 'educators' a group of people whose online comments suggest that among them those who can think issues through and construct a coherent argument to any standard of literacy are a rarity. Should not education really be in the hands of people who can at least use their native language to at least an adequate standard of articulacy? The school caretaker probably knows where the teaching materials for the lessons on atomic theory are kept and has the key to the cupboard, that does not make him the best person to conduct even a hands-on lesson on it ("see, its highly radioactive, but if you put your hand in the jar, you can't feel anything can you?").

ACCGing the Figures

.
The public are asked to submit just one comment on the Bulgarian bilateral cultural property agreement proposal. The coineys' posts are very repetitive, suggesting that there is a "mother text" (behind most of them which is being duplicated by cut-and-pasting. It seems that some coineys however are trying to boost their chances by even more blatant means. One Roy Iwata wrote (October 19 2011, at 12:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time) - possibly from Santa Anna Seal Beach, CA:

I am oppose to any restriction of importation of ancient coins. Many ancient coins left the country of issue legally for purchase of good of other countries or were carry out of the country my its people.

Arrr! And just to make the point, what seems to be the same coin-collecting guy using the same the aberrant grammar wrote again on October 21 2011, at 12:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time:

I am oppose to any import restriction on ancient coins to the USA. It is unfair. Collectors of ancient coins in other countries can import ancient coins, but collectors in the USA can not import ancient coins. Custom agents are expert in telling which ancient coins are restricted from being imported.

Arrrr! I think he meant to say ICE officials cannot easily tell what ancient coins imported into the US without the paperwork showing legal export they should allow into 1970-Convention-Party USA and which they ought to stop. Who knows what he might write tomorrow? Next time will you actually be writing about section 303(a)1 of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act Mr Iwata? Go on, have a go...

Vignette: Snoopy sends his ideas to Washington.

Here's some irony

.
I find this a bit ironic. Collectors of flown space hardware are discussing the splitting for separate sale of unique items that clearly should not be being split. They suggest getting together and creating a code of ethics: "An example which might serve as a template: A Code of Ethics for Collectors of Ancient Artifacts". The words of the latter document are fine (they are mostly what I suggested to them back on 2009) its with the actual application that there are still problems, its just a bunch of fine words as far as most of them are concerned I think. Still it's nice to see the need for something like it being appreciated outside the antiquity collecting milieu.

British Coin Collectors a Different Breed

.
After the disgraceful show from US collectors of ancient dugup coins all forming a united front to support US dugup artefact dealers in their efforts to resist regulations to curb the import of smuggled goods into the country, it is refreshing to see the reaction of an English collector to getting a prompt to take action in his inbox (Chris Brewchorne collector of British hammered coins, quoted from this evening's posts on the "English hammered" Yahoo discussion list with permission):

I imagine others have received alerts from CNG and V Coins appealing for your protestations against restrictions against US imports of antiquities from Bulgaria.

I have to say I think this for from clear-cut as an anti-numismatic move, I think the Bulgarians probably have quite a valid point. There is wholesale looting of Bulgaria's history by organized crime gangs, much to the frustration of the civic authorities such as Museums. Bulgaria is far more at risk than countries like Italy and Greece; many of its historic sites are relatively unresearched and there is a serious problem with organised crime gangs involved in illegal activities from smuggling, extortion, prostitution, arms, drugs, etc, and these are the same individuals running some of the antiquity rackets.

They have emerging tourist markets and probably a great deal to offer historically if researched and protected. I feel it needs thought before signing up to this appeal, but welcome other contributions to the debate. I've certainly seen bagged up bulk quantities of Fibulae and Roman artifacts coming from Bulgaria in bulk, if uncontrolled and run by illegal gangs, this can't be right.

Compare that with what his US counterparts are writing. Mr Brewchorne feels the appeal from dealers needs thought before signing up - while the US collectors en masse respond with a knee jerk reaction, with absolutely no thought involved. As we can all see over on the US government website, they copy-and-paste write what they are told to by the dealers' lobbyists. Mr Brewchorne's reaction to seeing "bagged up bulk quantities of Fibulae and Roman artifacts coming from Bulgaria in bulk", that "if uncontrolled and run by illegal gangs", it "can't be right". I do not think anyone who is not a collector greedy to get his hands on this sort of stuff will disagree.

He followed this up with another post which I am sure he'll not mind me quoting too:

Interestingly, I've had a couple of off-group messages which broadly echo my concern that the Bulgarian antiquity trade is quite dodgy and not in the interests of the local popul[ace], just the criminal gangs and end sellers. Seems Bulgaria is widely considered 'bandit country', and one needs to be careful who you associate with in case it rubs off.

that's a coin collector saying that, not me.

It is worth noting that on the English hammered list there is quite a refreshing approach to where the coins come from and a lot of attention paid to collecting histories of the items in members' collections. (It runs against the grain a little, but I ought to raise the question of whether the PAS outreach has had any influence on this difference of approach between British coin collectors and their US counterparts.)

Mr Brewchorne, by the way, is an accomplished potter from Dowlish Wake, Somerset. Though I am personally not a great fan of stoneware, he does makes some pretty fantastic stuff. Just look at that Chun bowl.

Vignette: Chris Brewchorne.

Maikel Sanad

.
Kate Phizackerley draws attention ("Maikel Sanad") to the hunger-strike protest in jail of this young Egyptian in protest at being tried before a military court without either himself or his lawyer present and sentenced to three years for the "crime" of "blogging about the Revolution and questioned whether the army supported the people". As she points out, this is another reason why people who outside the country have been trying to make sense of the confused news coming out of the country might feel safer staying away.

She points out that:

The case also exposes the ongoing problem of the reliability of reports from Egypt. At present the only reports seem to be essentially press reports reported in Ahram and occasion stories in Youm which tend to be almost impossible to verify.

She stresses the importance of independent bloggers able to report on the status of sites and to give another perspective from that filtered by the Egyptian media.

Our thoughts are with Maikel and his family.