What's Wrong With This Picture?

CPO has reported on this story before, but it should be mentioned again given the fact that yesterday was the deadline for comments on the renewal of the China MOU.   One wonders why the the same archaeological interests that scream about looting in places like China and Afghanistan remain so silent when a major Afghan Buddhist site is being destroyed by a Chinese mining company.  Remember when the the world was incensed when the Taliban dynamited the Bamiyan Buddhas in the name of religion?  So, why the silence  when another major Buddhist site, Mes Aynak, is to be dynamited in the name of profit?

Rewriting the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act

It's no surprise that Dr. Nathan Elkins-- one of the AIA's chief proponents of import restrictions on common historical coins of the sort collected worldwide-- claims that any coin type that circulated "predominantly" in a given country should be placed on the "designated list" for restrictions when it's easy for him to generalize that coins circulate "predominantly" where they are made.

But the governing statute, the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, calls for much more.  Assuming other statutory criteria are also met, it only authorizes seizure and forfeiture of artifacts "first discovered within and...subject to export control by" a given country. 19 U.S.C. Section 2601(2)(c).

The ACCG has indicated that the Government could comply with the plain meaning of the CPIA in either one or two ways:  (1) establishing by undisputed scholarly evidence that the coins placed on the designated lists could only have been discovered in a given country for which import restrictions are granted and, hence, must be subject to their export controls; or (2) demonstrating by documentary evidence that any coins Customs seizes were in fact discovered in that country and, hence must be subject to that country's export controls.


The ACCG and others have offered scholarly evidence to suggest that ancient coins as a general rule circulated far from where they were minted.  The fact that some (local bronze coins) typically circulated closer to home than others (precious metal coins and Imperial bronze issues) does not excuse the State Department's and U.S. Customs' efforts to ban coin imports based on place of production rather than s find spot.

The overbroad import bans Elkins and the AIA support threaten to cut off collector access to the vast majority of ancient coins openly available on the international market.  In contrast, restrictions squarely linked to find spots are more narrowly tailored to deterring pillage of archaeological sites.  That, of course, is the primary goal of the CPIA; not the furthering of nationalistic impulses that lay claim to any unprovenanced coin as the presumptive state property of the AIA's allies in foreign cultural bureaucracies.

Object Registry Fragment Foolishness

Archaeo-Blogger David Gill wants more details of the Met�s 10,000 or so vase fragments placed en masse on the AAMD�s object registry.  Presumably Gill wants each pictured separately to facilitate detailed study of their potential origin so additional pieces can be repatriated to Italy or perhaps Greece or Turkey.  But why should the AAMD�s procedures be the same for the $10,000,000 artifact as for the $10 artifact?  Gill�s confidant Nathan Elkins has already recognized that coins�given the sheer numbers that have survived-- should not be treated as the AIA treats other artifacts.  Gill should give vase fragments the same break.

Tail Wags Dog

Nathan Elkins has publicized a workshop he helped organize.   While I�m all for numismatic research, a perusal of the workshop topics just underscores what a former CPAC member told me: that he thought the State Department has allowed the archaeological tail to wag the numismatic dog.

     

The archaeological establishment has preached at CPAC meetings and elsewhere that coins�like other artifacts--lose their meaning without context, and that import restrictions are necessary to encourage academic research.  But all the workshop topics about coin iconography (including one Elkins himself chaired) simply belie this claim.   

Are import restrictions on coins and the considerable damage they have already done to thousands of American collectors and hundreds of American small businesses of the numismatic trade really justified by such academic endeavors?   Or does Elkins' workshop just provide more evidence that the archaeological tail has been allowed to wag the numismatic dog with little reflection on the veracity of the archaeological establishment�s claims?

Addendum (3/1/13):  On his blog, Elkins now confirms (rightly in my view) that despite the AIA's position to the contrary on unprovenanced objects, coins do indeed retain meaning without context.  He further states on Barford's blog (again rightly in my view) that the AIA's 1970 date should not apply to coins.  [I'm not posting either statement here, however, because frankly they are written in a rather insulting manner.]

But if so, how does Elkins square all this with his association with the AIA's position on cultural heritage issues, particularly if memory serves (it's not available on the AIA webstite) that Elkins is or has been a member of the AIA's Cultural Heritage Policy Committee?  Are the positions the AIA stakes out serious ones that its own members are expected to accept or are they to be conveniently discarded when their application might interfere with an AIA member's research interests?  It would seem the AIA is happy to try to hold museums, collectors and dealers to its views, but how about those associated with the organization itself? 

Funding Opportunities Abound?

In reviewing some of the submissions for CPAC's upcoming public session concerning the proposed renewal of the MOU with Cambodia, I was struck by the submission of Christina Luke to CPAC advocating tapping into a vast amount of federal dollars for archaeological projects.   Ms. Luke is associated with Boston University and serves as the Chair of the AIA's "Cultural Heritage Policy Committee."

Leaving aside the self-serving nature of any such request, let's talk about its bad timing, what with sequestration coming this week.     If anything, the State Department should be considering whether any funding for foreign archaeological projects makes sense in a tough budgetary climate where there is pressure to cut other programs that benefit people in foreign countries far more directly, like funding for clean water and HIV/AIDs prevention.

Belize Lays Claim to Crystal Skull Movie's "Illegal Profits"

It must take awhile for movies to get down to Belize.  It's been out for years, but now an archaeologist, purportedly acting on behalf of that nation's government, is suing the owners of the Indiana Jones franchise for their alleged unauthorized use of a facsimile of an artifact from that country.

According to press reports, "Scientist Jaime Awe claims Hollywood hot shots used a model of the swiped Belizean relic in the 2008 flick, �Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull� to rake in 'illegal profits.'�

Of course, he now wants a piece of the action, i.e., a portion of the Crystal Skull Movie's $378 million profit, for the Central American country.

In so doing, Awe and Belize seem to be taking a page from Zahi Hawass and Egypt who hoped to copyright  the pyramids and rake in even larger sums.  

Leaving aside the dubious merits of this lawsuit, I have to assume this news is a bit embarrassing for Harrison Ford, a.k.a "Indiana Jones," who is a past AIA Trustee.

And which side will the AIA take in this dispute?  The downtrodden and exploited country of Belize or the Hollywood hot shots who have helped promote archaeology?

And will SAFE and other hard liners be telling the AIA "we told you so" for its efforts to promote the movie and make its leading man an AIA Trustee?

Minerva Provides Open Access

The AIA claims it acts in the public interest and antiquities dealers are only interested in profit.  If so, how is it that Minerva, a commercial journal run by an antiquities dealer, has allowed open access to past issues, but the AIA continues to oppose open access, even for research material paid for by taxpayer dollars?

Cultural Nationalism Now Bites American Archaeologists

A Kurdish source is reporting that the Iraqi Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities has stopped dealing with US archaeological teams in response to the refusal of US authorities to return Iraqi Jewish artifacts to the country. 

If so, this is a rebuff not only to American archaeologists who have tirelessly promoted the interests of the Iraqi archaeological establishment (both during and after the fall of Saddam's Baathist regime) but also to the US State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center, which have lavished millions of dollars on the Iraqi archaeological establishment-- all at a time US cultural institutions are finding themselves in an extremely harsh financial climate.

In punishing American archaeologists for a dispute over the repatriation of cultural artifacts, the Iraqis are apparently taking a page from the Turkish Government which has also recently punished German archaeologists for the perceived transgressions of German state museums.

Here, the Iraqis are apparently specifically miffed at US reconsideration of a controversial State Department "commitment"  to return cultural artifacts confiscated from Iraqi Jews who were forced from their homeland in a callous act of "ethnic cleansing".   Given their own "unclean hands," it's hard to see any "moral rights" Iraq may have to such artifacts. 

And in an ironic twist, American archaeologists apparently have now themselves become the "victims" of the very same virulent cultural nationalism they have themselves done so much to foster.  Perhaps it's finally time for the Archaeological Institute of America to rethink its unqualified support for the broadest claims of any nation state where American archaeologists excavate. 

And it's certainly time to cut any further funding of Iraqi archaeology or the repatriation of any "Iraqi looking" cultural goods based on the slimmest suspicion they may have left that country after an international embargo was placed on the import of any Iraqi products. 

AIA Posts Pics from Posh Party

The Archaeological Institute of America has posted pictures of �the beautiful people� attending its posh gala in New York. See http://www.archaeological.org/news/aianews/9084

Talk about �the One Percent!�

Certainly, the optics of such an event do not square very well with the rhetoric one sometimes hears at Cultural Property Advisory Committee meetings and elsewhere vilifying �wealthy collectors� and US business.  Or perhaps, it is just done for effect.

Cultural Nationalism Bites German Archaeologists

American archaeologists have been generally supportive of  the repatriation efforts of countries like Egypt, Turkey, Greece and Italy.  Although they may claim that they are disinterested experts that only support repatriation for moral reasons, the fact is their careers may very well depend on excavation permits issued by the cultural bureaucracies of these same countries.

But now the same cultural nationalism that has motivated Turkey's recent repatriation claims appears to have led the Turkish cultural bureaucracy to force German archaeologists out from excavations at Troy.   See http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/german-team-leaves-ancient-site.aspx?pageID=238&nID=21959&NewsCatID=375  Although the above article points to "financial problems" as the reason German archaeologists are leaving the site, it also suggests that Turkey ultimately wants to replace German archaeologists with Turkish ones.   Moreover, other sources suggest that move is part of a larger dispute between German state museums and Turkey over repatriation demands for artifacts in their collections.  See http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20110224-33323.html

Indeed, as quoted in the above article, a Turkish minister has stated quite bluntly, "Turkey has new universities, new archaeological institutes, not to mention engaged and successful archaeologists....When we don't see the cooperation we hope for in this area, then we won't hesitate to transfer digs to our own universities."

For now, American archaeologists' careers at Troy and other Turkish sites appear safe.  But one can only imagine that Turkish authorities expect unqualified support from American archaeologists for their recent repatriation claims against US Museums.  See http://chasingaphrodite.com/2012/03/30/scoop-turkey-asks-getty-met-cleveland-and-dumbarton-oaks-to-return-dozens-of-antiquities/

And what of the 1970 UNESCO benchmark that the AIA hoodwinked American museums into accepting in order to buy peace?   That "safe harbor" has evidently suddenly become all but forgotten given what one reads about Turkey's claims in the archaeological blogosphere.

ACCG: AIA Under Fire on Open Access

Here is a revised press release from the ACCG critical of the AIA on its stand against "open access" to archaeological research: http://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2012/05/30/CL14513

At public meetings before the State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee, AIA members have claimed that import restrictions on cultural goods are necessary to promote archaeological research which is then shared with members of the public.

Isn't the AIA's stance against open access to federally funded research inconsistent with such claims?  Should the AIA instead provide CPAC with a disclaimer that archaeological research is only made freely available to fellow members of the archaeological trade?

Closed "Open Access" Debate?

One of the archaeologists that has taken the AIA to task on its "Open Access" Position apparently feels free to edit my comments to his blog here:  http://dougsarchaeology.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/petty-bull-and-open-access-pitbulls-how-to-control-your-message-online/

I'll let the reader judge whether his own attempt to steer the debate about "open access" away from its broader implications is warranted or not.  Here is my comment in its entirety:

This actually appears to be a bit of a childish response to this press release. You admit the content is largely accurate; what you disagree with seems to be the fact that an advocacy group with a different perspective than your own has used the Open Access website for its own purposes-- welcome to the Internet! If you want, I can point out to you several archaeological blogs that regularly do the same thing. And why not? Your group put this statement out on the web for all to see. To change the link to change the message may have some "gotcha" appeal to people who agree with you, but it does also suggest that you think only fellow archaeologists have the right to criticize AIA policies.


As to what this has to do with import restrictions point, see my blog here: http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2012/04/aia-seeks-to-maintain-monopoly-on.html Basically, it is fair to point out that the AIA has suggested in public meetings before the State Department�s Cultural Property Advisory Committee that import restrictions are necessary to promote numismatic research which then can be shared with the public.


Incidentally, it is the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, not the American Coin Collectors Guild as you state. (Though, of course, you are correct to point out the error related to the AIA.).


Sincerely,


Peter Tompa, ACCG Board Member

Ponder the Fate of Zeugma

Before the Trustees of  Bowling Green State University seriously consider calls to send mosaics installed in their new arts center to Turkey because some academic claims they might have come from Zeugma, a Turkish site, they should ponder the fate that city-- sunk beneath waters created by a Turkish Government hydroelectric dam.

The Trustees should also consider that the AIA and other archaeological groups that support repatriation -- and which are so quick to jump on collectors, museums, and dealers at the mere whiff of looted art-- instead turn into pussycats when it comes to the decisions of foreign governments to sacrifice whole sites to dams and the like.  Indeed, instead of outrage for inundating Zeugma and many of its magnificent artifacts -- these groups only offered the Turkish Government their thanks for allowing "rescue excavations" that, of course, were largely funded not by the Turkish Government itself, but by an American Foundation.  See http://www.archaeology.org/0009/etc/turkey.html   Could this be because American archaeologists are beholden to the Turkish cultural bureacracy for excavation permits? 

It's not all that surprising that the Turkish Government wants to downplay its own calculated destruction of Turkey's archaeological past.  Yet, why should the Trustees of Bowling Green State University ignore Turkey's unclean hands as they consider any repatriation request?

Cooperation Fails to End Confrontation

For more evidence that American Museums' efforts to cooperate with the cultural bureaucracies of source countries like Italy has not bought them the peace that was promised, read Jason Felch's blog about the latest efforts to send the "Getty Bronze" to Italy.  See http://chasingaphrodite.com/2012/05/04/the-gettys-bronze-italian-court-upholds-order-to-seize-a-getty-masterpiece/

He states,

Since 2005, the Getty has voluntarily returned 49 antiquities in its collection, acknowledging they were the product of illegal excavations and had been smuggled out of their country of origin. Hundreds of other objects were returned by other American dealers, collectors and museums. In the wake of those returns, several American museums struck cooperative deals with Italy and Greece that allow for long-term loans of ancient art.

But such agreements have not shielded American museums from further claims that ancient art in their display cases are the product of a black market responsible for the destruction of archaeological sites around the world. In March, Turkish officials revealed they were seeking the return of dozens of allegedly looted antiquities from the Getty, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Cleveland Museum of Art and Harvard�s Dumbarton Oaks.

It's high time for American Museums to rethink their efforts to appease source countries and the AIA.  Such appeasement does little in the end, but encourage other, ever more aggressive claims.

Swank AIA Gala at Odds with Anti-Business, Due Dilligence Rhetoric?

The AIA has announced the success of its Spring Gala on its website.  See http://aia.archaeological.org/gala/

But the optics of such a posh event are seemingly at odds with the anti-business rhetoric one sometimes hears from AIA members at hearings of the State Department Cultural Property Advisory Committee. 

It's also interesting to note that the AIA auctioned off an antique Turkish kilim during the event.  See http://aia.archaeological.org/gala/auction/fethiye-kilim  Again, one wonders given all the rhetoric about due dilligence whether the item was imported into the United States consistently with Turkish export controls. See http://www.turkeytravelplanner.com/details/Shopping/AntiquitiesWarning.html

No Shipment to the USA

One of the major Swiss coin auction houses has announced that it will no longer ship ancient coins to the USA, due to the growing list of import restrictions (and presumably recent problems importers have had with US Customs with regard to unrestricted ancient coins).

Here is the communication that has been sent by Sincona (formerly the numismatic arm of UBS) to US bidders:

Dear Mr. xxx

We would like to thank you very much for your bids.

Due to specific US customs regulations, Sincona is no longer shipping ancient coins into the USA!

Either you can personally pick up your auction lots at our office in Zurich (or having someone to do so on your behalf) or you have to provide us with a mailing address within the European Community, where we can send your purchase. If we do not receive your respective directives within 48 hours before the sale, we are sorry but cannot accept your bids for ancient coins!

Thank you for your understanding.

Elements within the AIA, the archaeological blogosphere, and cultural bureaucracies here and abroad will no doubt [at least secretly] applaud such developments.  On the other hand, others may now conclude that any speculative benefit import restrictions may have on the protection of archaeological sites is far outweighed by the direct,  negative consequences they undoubtedly also have on US small businesses, collectors, and ultimately the study, preservation and appreciation of ancient coins and the cultural exchange it fosters.

Latest Pompeii Collapse: Will State Control Model Collapse Next?

There has been another collapse at Pompeii despite recent EU funding efforts.  See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9219470/Pompeii-wall-collapses-despite-new-conservation-initiative.html

Yet, the US State Department, the Italian cultural bureaucracy, and the archaeological lobby still maintain that the Italian State should control anything old as it is the best steward to conserve, study and protect it.

No state has enough resources to protect everything, particularly one teetering on the edge of bankruptcy like Italy.  The sooner this basic fact is recognized, the sooner more rational approaches to cultural heritage preservation-- including ones that embrace the value of private collecting-- will be tried, rather than the current approach that assumes a nation state should control everything and anything old.

AIA Doubles Down Against Open Access

AIA President Elisabeth Bartman has responded to criticism about the AIA's opposition to legislation meant to guarantee open access to federally funded research.  See http://www.archaeological.org/news/8905

This criticism extends to AIA ranks.  Recently, Sebastian Heath, the AIA's Past Vice President for Professional Responsibilities, took the AIA to task here:  http://ancientworldbloggers.blogspot.com/2012/04/aia-and-open-access-response.html

The AIA claims it represents the public interest before the State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee and in lobbying before Congress.

If so, its publications-- particularly those funded through federal dollars-- should not be used as profit centers.  Instead, this research should made freely available to the public, and other fundraising efforts be used to ensure that the organization's publications program continues.

AIA Seeks to Maintain Monopoly on Research About the Past

The AIA is under attack from groups supporting open access to government funded research for its efforts to oppose the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2012.

The legislation is meant to ensure that government funded research is made available to the public on the Internet.

A group called, "Open Access Archaeology" takes the AIA to task, noting,

�The AIA does not understand that the legislation does not force them to make their materials Open Access. It only requires that research paid for by the US federal government be made Open Access after a period of closed access.
 
�We believe the AIA does not actually know what Open Access is or even what the term means. While public lectures are great it is not Open Access PUBLICATIONS.
 
�It is not the AIA that adds value to publications but the researchers who write the articles and peer reviewers who make improvements. Both actions are not paid for or undertaken by the AIA but by volunteers for FREE.
 
�We interpret the AIA mission statement, �Believing that greater understanding of the past enhances our shared sense of humanity and enriches our existence, the AIA seeks to educate people of all ages about the significance of archaeological discovery., to be in full support of Open Access and NOT in support of closed access.

For more, see http://www.openaccessarchaeology.org/response-to-aia.html
 
The AIA's stance in this matter certainly belies any claims made before Congress and the State Department Cultural Property Advisory Committee that import restrictions are necessary to further research that is then made available to the public. 
 
Interestingly, the AIA's efforts against open access appear nowhere on the AIA's advocacy page.  See http://www.archaeological.org/sitepreservation/advocacy

Is the AIA interested in the dissemination of knowledge as widely as possible or information control?

AIA Young Patrons Treated to Undocumented Coins at ANS

AIA Young Patrons have been treated to a visit of the ANS and its vast collection of ancient coins, which includes hundreds of thousands undocumented coins of the sort the AIA has condemned before the State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee. See http://www.archaeological.org/news/aianews/8634

The ANS only exists because of the generous contributions of collectors and dealers, though archaeologists associated with the AIA have also condemned them as no better than looters.

Yet, condemning collectors and dealers has not stopped the AIA from profiting from the ANS' wonderful collection of unprovenanced coins.

Hopefully, the more inquisitive of the AIA's young patrons will question the hypocrisy of the the AIA's actions.

Or, perhaps, this experience will be treated as a bit of a "guilty pleasure."