Blame the Victim?

While some in the archaeological blogosphere dismiss questions raised about poor stewardship of cultural resources in source countries as nothing more than "blaming the victim," others take a far more thoughtful view of the subject.  Arthur Houghton suggested in a comment on a recent blog post on CPO that source countries should forfeit their rights to demand repatriation when they fail to take care of their own cultural patrimony.   Now, Yale educated archaeologist Sally Johnson raises the same issues on the Art World Intelligence Blog.  In so doing, Johnson discusses the casual destruction of a Mayan pyramid in Belize to provide road building materials.  Johnson asks, "What rules can be put in place�and enforced�to prevent such intentional destruction if the 'owner' of the 'property' chooses to destroy it?"  Ironically, just this year the State Department granted Belize a MOU that supposedly will assist that country "preserve its own cultural patrimony."

Comment to Chasing "Chasing Aphrodite" for Answers

Arthur Houghton asked me to post this comment to Jason' Felch's answers to CPO's questions, but "Blogger" but would not me allow me to do so due to its length, so I post it here. As Arthur has "gone on tour" with Chasing Aprhodite, his response to Jason's post is worth considering.     

Peter, I was so glad to see Jason's responses to your questions. I have spoken about them to a friend with an incisive mind, who somewhat shockingly said that in view of his reputation as a responsible journalist, Jason's answers reveal a master of evasion, denial, mendacity, willful ignorance and upended logic. They are particularly strange, since Jason is himself could be a looter, having scattered through his blog photographs that he may not have permission to use. That's just plain theft, as you know. Jason the picture-picker.

Well, I guess my friend's comments are true. Still, they are pretty tough on my poor young friend Jason. So I decided to help our here a bit, and give you the answers that I believe he really meant to provide -- not those he felt compelled to give. Here they are:

1. You�re an award winning investigative journalist, but also an advocate for archaeologists and source countries. Do you see any contradictions between those two roles?

Peter, I could tell you that I reject the premise and say I am not an advocate, but that would be both an evasion and an egregious untruth. The truth is that I am certainly an advocate for the interests of other countries but it doesn't really bother me at all. I mean, I've been entertained and applauded in Italy, and that makes me feel good, and it really doesn't matter what journalistic ethics might exist, since I can say anything I well please on my blog and not have some damn editor or fact-checker looking over my shoulder.

2. Do you truly believe that unprovenanced objects are illegitimate? If so, please say how you come to this conclusion.

You know, I could say that "illegitimate" means "looted" but that would be an evasion -- sort of twisting the question, no? So let me tell you what I really think, which is that I have no idea how I got to that conclusion. I've always been a bit muddled about what is legitimate, but it seems to get people excited when I throw allegations like this around, whether I can substantiate them or not. Actually, as we both know, most unprovenanced objects are totally legal, whether they are owned by Americans, or in private collections in Italy or whatever. To think they are anything else is poppycock.

3. Do you think the same rules should apply to the $1 million dollar vase as to the $10 ancient coin?

Golly, I could go off on a really nutty tangent and tell you about rules and the law -- which I've never really understood -- and morality and ethics, which I am on firmer ground about since I can say almost anything I want and someone will agree with me. Also I got a C in my ethics course, so I'm qualified, no? Anyway the short answer to your question is yes, of course. But don't ask me why, since I really don't know how I got there. It's all a bit confusing to me.

4. The State Department has been criticized by both academics and former CPAC members for a lack of transparency in its decision-making concerning import controls on cultural goods. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?

CPAC has turned into a bunch of rubbish. They stopped following the law -- the CPIA -- decades ago. As someone once said -- who? -- "government, like the art market, festers in darkness." I don't really know what that means, but it sounds good, so I agree with it. And I'd have to agree that CPAC festers. Very noisome.

5. During a Chasing Aphrodite lecture I attended, I was surprised to hear Gary Vikan, the Walters� then Director, say that it is �none of our business� what happens to artifacts that are repatriated. Do you agree or disagree and why?

Sure. Why not? Let the little devils destroy their heritage. Blow up the Bamiyan Buddhas. I mean, who really cares about the Getty Aphrodite, or whatever it is, now that it's in, where? Aidone? I mean, who's ever heard of the place? And you can ask me about Fano the next time around. ("Fano" you ask? You might as well want to know where the Villa Guilia is. Who goes there, anyway?)

6. Greece, Cyprus and to a lesser extent Italy are suffering from an economic meltdown that by necessity will impact these countries ability to fund preservation efforts. Do you believe that this budget crisis calls into question the �state control over everything old� model advocated by the archaeological community?

I really believe there's room for creative thinking here. Like these and other countries like the UK and Israel letting their antiquities loose on the market, so that collectors and museums that can take care of them can buy them up. Now, I could take this moment to give you a preachy little lecture about Winston Churchill and democracy, but that's a bit trite and worn out, so I won't go there.

7. Your WikiLoot proposal has been criticized for promoting �vigilante justice.� Please explain the concept, where the proposal stands, and respond to that criticism.

Of course it's vigilantism -- I mean who in their right might would want a bunch of unknowledgeable people running around and pointing their fingers at things and whining, "loot, loot!" and believe it's for real? It sounds, well, irresponsible, even absurd, heh? But it gets people excited to think that I can then write them up in Chasing Aphrodite, and expand my readership. Sex sells. So does vigilantism. Pretty neat, no? But no one seems to want to pay for it, so we're getting a little desperate for money. Do you think you could pony up something to help?

8. Italian authorities have been criticized for playing �gotcha� with auction houses and collectors when Medici material comes up for sale. What do you think of these tactics?

Well, you know the Italians! When it comes to self interest, you know, some people think they are real masters of denial, mendacity, willful ignorance and upended logic. I've learned quite a few things from them. You could too!

I could end this by misquoting my friend Houghton who I think I recall advising that one should stay clear of antiquities that are missing a documented ownership history. But I would be wrong if I did that. Houghton never said such a thing. I've been in contact with him recently and can tell you his advice is to buy, buy, buy, as long as it's legally on the market and there is no likely comeback by putative source-country owners. Build collections for museums and privately that can go into museums and be exhibited, studied, and educate the public. That's what it's all about Houghton says. And I must say that I agree with him. In fact, I've almost always agreed with him.

Warm best wishes, and keep up the good work.

Jason

(Note Arthur is speaking for "Jason")

Chasing �Chasing Aphrodite� For Answers

Turnabout is fair play. Chasing Aphrodite was kind enough to post my views on coins and cultural patrimony issues in a question and answer format and I�m doing the same here, though, of course, Chasing Aphrodite�s interests are far broader. I�ll let Jason�s answers speak for themselves, but I would reiterate my view that the gulf that exists between rhetoric and reality concerning archaeologists� own preservation of context strongly suggests that the concept is being misused by some to justify governmental controls.

1. You�re an award winning investigative journalist, but also an advocate for archaeologists and source countries. Do you see any contradictions between those two roles?

I reject the premise, Peter. I�m a journalist, not an advocate. The conclusions I have come to are based on several years of reporting on the illicit antiquities trade, not any affiliation with a certain group or country. If I�m an advocate, it�s for truth, transparency and rule of law.

2. Do you truly believe that unprovenanced objects are illegitimate? If so, please say how you come to this conclusion, and whether you would apply it to ancient material of whatever culture, or more broadly to objects that do not meet the definition of ancient.

I don�t know what you mean by �illegitimate,� but I suspect you mean looted. There is good reason to suspect that antiquities with unclear ownership histories are the product of illicit excavations and illegal export from their countries of origin. This is not just the conclusion of archaeologists and source countries and investigative reporters, but of Harvard-trained museum curators like our mutual friend Arthur Houghton. In 1984, when he was a curator at the Getty, he warned his bosses that 95% of antiquities on the market had been "found" (i.e. looted) within the last three years. His successor Marion True gave museum directors a similar warning in June 2000: �Most museums have long preferred to consider objects innocent until proven guilty�But experience has taught me that in reality, if serious efforts to establish a clear pedigree for the object�s recent past prove futile, it is most likely � if not certain � that it is the product of the illicit trade and we must accept responsibility for this fact.�

This reality has not meaningfully changed since 1984 or 2000, and it is not unique to the trade in Classical antiquities. Yet auction houses, collectors, dealers and museums both in the United States and abroad continue to operate on the �innocent until proven guilty� standard. That's why I continue to write about them.

3. Do you think the same rules should apply to the $1 million dollar vase as to the $10 ancient coin?

It depends what �rules� you�re referring to. If by "rules" you mean the law, the answer is often no -- in some cases, for example, US law only applies if the objects are worth more than $5,000. If by �rules� you mean ethics or morality, it is more complicated. Clearly some ancient objects � amphora, vase fragments or some coins � were mass produced are are common today. From the art market's point of view, they aren�t particularly beautiful and don�t hold much value. But these are not just pieces of art, they are also artifacts that hold historical meaning. A old Chinese coin may be worthless on the market, but would be invaluable to archaeologists and numismatists alike if it were carefully excavated in an undisturbed Roman tomb. If knowledge of that findspot were lost, it would become a worthless old Chinese coin again. For these reasons and others, an object�s �value� shouldn�t be reduced to what it can be sold for on today�s market.

4. The State Department has been criticized by both academics and former CPAC members for a lack of transparency in its decision-making concerning import controls on cultural goods. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?

I haven�t covered CPAC, but have read about concerns about the process. Government, like the art market, festers in darkness. Sunlight should be let in. Some government processes legitimately require confidentiality, but many don�t and should be carried out transparently.

5. During a Chasing Aphrodite lecture I attended, I was surprised to hear Gary Vikan, the Walters� then Director, say that it is �none of our business� what happens to artifacts that are repatriated. Do you agree or disagree and why?

I'm of two minds on this. Obviously, there is a shared interest in protecting the world's cultural heritage, including objects that have been repatriated. We are rightfully outraged to see the golden hippocamp from the Lydian Hoard, which the Met returned to Turkey, stolen from a local museum and replaced with a fake (and recently recovered in Germany, I should note.) At the same time, cultural property is property under the law, and we have no legal ability to dictate terms to its owner. I think Gary�s point was that we can�t have it both ways -- if we return a looted object, we also give up the right to dictate terms of its display, conservation and, yes, protection. But that doesn't mean we have to cease caring about it and advocating for its safekeeping.

6. Greece, Cyprus and to a lesser extent Italy are suffering from an economic meltdown that by necessity will impact these countries ability to fund preservation efforts. Do you believe that this budget crisis calls into question the �state control over everything old� model advocated by the archaeological community?

I think it was Winston Churchill who said that democracy is the worst form of government -- except for all the others we have tried. The same could be said for treating archaeological finds as the property of the state in which they're found. It doesn't make much sense that Berlusconi's government has control over Caesar's remains, but "state control" is the system they've adopted and I don't see it changing soon, economic crisis or not. By the way, is not the model of the "archaeological community" as you suggest but the legal regime selected by the majority of world governments. Yes, I'm aware of the exceptions and intrigued by the Japanese designation approach, juyo bunkazai, and Britain's portable antiquities scheme, though I'm not convinced they would work in the Mediterranean. The economic crisis should inspire similarly creative thinking among those who care about preserving knowledge about the ancient world. For example, I wonder how many years of site protection and careful excavation the Getty Museum could have paid for with $18 million, the amount it spent on a single statue looted from Morgantina, Sicily. Should museums fund excavations in return for loans, a modern version of partage?

7. Your WikiLoot proposal has been criticized for promoting �vigilante justice.� Please explain the concept, where the proposal stands, and respond to that criticism.

The idea of WikiLoot is simple: seek the public's help collecting and analyzing information about the illicit antiquities trade with the goal of building an authoritative database that would help academics, journalists, auction houses, collectors and museums understand the scope of the problem and steer clear of trouble. I think of it as a collective public service, much like Wikipedia. If it sounds like vigilante justice, perhaps you have something to hide. Now, creating a web platform to organize the work -- and handle quality control questions -- is rather tricky, and I've been researching successful crowdsourcing projects to see what works and what doesn't. We're building a prototype database right now while we seek funding and partnerships for the broader effort. I'm doing this in my spare time with a handful of interested parties, so it will likely take a while.

8. Italian authorities have been criticized for playing �gotcha� with auction houses and collectors when Medici material comes up for sale. What do you think of these tactics? Should the Medici archive (and other archives of likely looted material) be made available to the public in some fashion so collectors and auction houses can be informed about what material they should avoid?

In recent years, law enforcement officials in several countries have gathered a wealth of information about the illicit trade in Classical antiquities. Once the judicial process has run its course, I think authorities should make this information publicly available so it can be studied and analyzed by others. I've made my case, and there are certain legal limitations on what can be released, as well as strategic considerations. In the absence of that cooperation, I've relied on leaks from sources in and outside of government. Meanwhile, auction houses and collectors can be informed about what to avoid by following the advice of Houghton and True -- steer clear of antiquities that are missing a documented ownership history.

Barford Takes on the Mudlarks

Somehow, NPR has tapped archaeo-blogger Paul Barford to speak for U.K. archaeologists in a story about "mudlarking" on the Thames though he has not lived in the U.K. for decades, no longer actively digs, and has no PhD in the subject matter.

Today, however, most U.K. archaeologists (like the other one quoted in the story) have largely made peace with metal detectorists.  The fact is most metal detectorists dig in ploughed fields and places like river beds where any context has already been disturbed.   And let's not forget the Portable Antiquities Scheme has given us a far better picture of the past than is the case in countries where confiscatory laws actually discourage finders from doing anything but keep their finds to themselves.

Debate with Tea and Biscuits?

Archaeo-blogger Paul Barford is promoting a "debate with tea and biscuits" on his blog.  This does not appear to be a real debate between individuals with different views to me. Perhaps, Mr. Barford really is debating tea and biscuits because they won't talk back....

Archaeological Context: Is it About Preservation or Control?

Archaeo-Blogger Rick St. Hilaire somehow believes that I have discounted the importance of archaeological context, but all I have said is that coin collectors derive their own context from the iconography and fabric of the coins themselves and that the goal of preservation of archaeological context�however worthy-- should not be allowed to control all else.  Perhaps, then, he should not take such statements about context out of context!

St. Hilaire then seems to discount the value of numismatic context, though his fellow archaeo-blogger Nathan Elkins organized an entire conference on the subject.  Perhaps, coins do indeed tell us something without reference to where they are found.

Finally, though suggesting that a good lawyer looks at all the evidence, St. Hilaire somehow apparently missed the ANS article appended to the Chasing Aphrodite interview.  In it I explained that perhaps archaeological practice may be different than archaeological rhetoric when it comes to issues of context.  I state:

Frankly, I might feel a bit better about all this if I had evidence that the archaeological community as a whole makes every effort to not only record the coins they find but to publish them.   Both are critical to the preservation of numismatic knowledge.  Even if a coin is recorded in an excavation notebook, it does little good if it is never published, and, if the notebook or computer data file is not backed up in some way, the information about its provenance could easily be lost.  That, of course, would render the coin for all practical purposes, �an orphan� of the sort members of the archaeological community roundly condemn�at least when held in a collector�s trays.  

This is not a hypothetical concern.    Indeed, a recent study prepared at the behest of the numismatic trade for the use of the State Department�s Cultural Property Advisory Committee concluded,

• The publication record for coins found in Italian excavations is poor.
• What has been published is thanks to a few dedicated individuals, not to the encouragement of the archaeological community.
• Without publication it is almost impossible to know what has been found and what has become of the material.

Let me give just one concrete example.  Some 60,000 - 70,000 ancient coins from excavations at the City of Rome, which were recovered by archaeologists during the 19^th century, still await publication in Frankfurt.  One would have thought coins excavated in Roman contexts would be of utmost importance, but the fact that they are still awaiting publication after over a century speaks volumes.  

All this raises a larger question.  Is all the talk about protecting archaeological context for real or is it actually about justifying further controls?

Anti-Trade?

I'm a bit amused by "cultural heritage lawyer" Rick St. Hilaire's take on exports of cultural goods particularly as spun by fellow archaeo-blogger Paul Barford.   Most decision-makers think international trade which goes through proper channels (as must be the case here as it was captured by government statisticians) is a good thing.  But that does not seem to be the assumption of the archaeological blogosphere.

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.

New Art and Cultural Heritage Law Blog

Michael McCullough, an art, cultural heritage and customs lawyer,  has started a new blog.  Michael can draw on a wealth of expertise from years at Sotheby's and in private practice representing the interests of dealers, collectors, artists and auction houses concerning the transfer of cultural goods.  His views should be a welcome addition to blogging in an area that remains dominated by academics with no practical experience in how markets work and the difficulties facing the trade.

Should Transparency Be a Two Way Street?

Archaeo-Blogger and Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire wants to mandate additional record-keeping for dealers in cultural goods in the name of "transparency."  Leaving aside whether creating more red tape will accomplish anything other than to place additional administrative burdens on the small businesses of the antiquities and coin trade, one wonders whether he would also acknowledge that transparency should be a two way street. 

So, how about some transparency for the State Department and CBP concerning their process for imposing import restrictions on cultural goods?  Or how about imposing new record keeping requirements on archaeologists, such as requiring them to publish their findings within in a reasonable time on the Internet so they will be easily accessible to interested members of the general public?

After all, State, CBP and the archaeological community all purport to act in the public's interest, so is some transparency from them too much to ask?

150,000 Served

CPO's statcounter currently reads:

StatCounter


150014

View My Stats

Thank you to all who read Cultural Property Observer.  CPO's last milestone was 100,000 page loads, which was achieved on Nov. 11, 2011.

Now, Where Does One Go to Get Their Reputation Back?

After years of rumor and innuendo largely fed through archaeo-bloggers and friendly "access journalists," Italian cultural authorities have notified Princeton's antiquities curator, Michael Padgett, that he is no longer the subject of a criminal investigation.  Now, where does Padgett go to get his reputation back?  Certainly, not to the archaeo-bloggers and access journalists who are so quick to condemn but are so slow to exonerate.  Indeed, despite their connections to Italian authorities, they have yet to so much as acknowlege this news. 

Archaeobloggers Seek "Union Shop?"

The UK's PAS and Treasure Act are popular programs because they encourage the public to report coins and other ancient artifacts they find so they can be properly recorded.  That which the government does not need for its collections is disclaimed, and returned to the finder to do with what he or she will.   Moreover, the State pays fair market value for what it keeps, which incentivizes the State to only retain what it will properly care for, study and display.

What is the result of this win-win situation? The UK's Minister of Culture recently observed surprise, surprise, that incentivizing the public to report what they find has led to more finds being reported in England and Wales than anywhere else:

A little known fact I discovered this week � Britain tops the league table for hoards. I am told, we have more archaeological finds every year than any other country. Whether this is per square foot or per head of the population, I am not sure, but it is a good statistic so I�m going to use it.

However, the archaeological blogosphere does not celebrate, but rather condemns this news, claiming that the U.K.'s system encourages metal detecting rather than the recording of finds.  Yet, take the case of Bulgaria.  It has been estimated that 100,000-250,000 Bulgarians conduct illicit excavations, and little is  actually recorded because all the incentives in that corrupt system discourage people to report what they might find.  So, which system is better?

Clearly, the U.K.'s system, no?  Yet, the archaeological blogosphere begs to differ.  Instead, they claim that even the most common artifacts like coins should be left in the ground for some future archaeologist to find.  But the reality is that archaeologists will always be few in number and it is highly unlikely any will ever actually tread where many of the artifacts reported by the PAS and Treasure Act are found.

Thus, one really must wonder whether the archaeological blogosphere is more concerned about preserving and recording the past or ensuring that cultural heritage is a union shop for card carrying archaeologists.

No Sense of Humor or Balance, Just Useful Cover?

I guess on reflection it's not all that surprising that the archaeological blogosphere, what with its archaeology over all fanaticism, lacks a sense of humor.  Or that somehow an advertisement for the sale of a collection of Islamic coins becomes a springboard for a diatribe against the seller (the ACCG's founder), the collector (a man of the cloth), the Arab Spring (dislocation dethrones some of archaeology's friends in the region?), American Culture (grasping rather than free?), and U.S. Foreign Policy (US made tear gas and "political assasination drones" rather than support for democracy and vast amounts of foreign aid?). But if so, how can the State Department bureaucracy really take the rants of such archaeologists whether in the blogosphere or in comments to CPAC seriously?   Or do they just provide a useful cover for State's proclivity to trade the interests of US small businesses, collectors and museums for the fleeting good will of some foreign potentate? 

Fund an Inclusive Approach to Archaeology

With limited funding available in challenging financial times, should the Government continue to fund a program that promotes recording finds and an inclusive view of archaeology that is popular with members of the general public?   I would say yes and view claims that funding should be reprogrammed to fund "crumbling castles" as promoting a false choice.  If there needs to be cuts, why not defund programs that only benefit a tiny group of insular archaeologists?  Professor Gill,  are you a good value for the UK taxpayer? 

Religious Bigotry Finds Home in Archaeological Blogosphere

One member of the archaeological blogosphere has now insulted the religion of one of the US Presidential candidates.  The basis for the attack is the opinion of a prominent UK atheist, who presumably thinks all other world religions are frauds too.  But what would that atheist think about the secular religion of archaeology, what with its view that culture bureaucrats and archaeologists are gods with absolute rights to control everything old and a first commandment that there can be no meaning without archaeological context?  I just wonder....  

The Aleppo Codex Mystery

The New York Times has an interesting article about the mystery how the Aleppo Codex came to Israel and how it might have lost some 200 pages along the way.  It does ask whether the Codex should belong to the Modern State of Israel or Aleppo's Jewish exiles.  It does not suggest, however, like some in the archaeological blogosphere have, that the Codex still belongs in Syria, which conducted a thorough "ethnic cleansing" of its Jewish population well before the Assad regime began its recent bombardment of Aleppo itself. Interestingly, even some associated with the hard line archaeological advocacy group Saving Antiquities for Everyone (SAFE) have begun to acknowledge that perhaps Jewish artifacts are not best off in the hands of governments that have persecuted Jews after all.  Will others in the archaeological blogosphere follow?

Everyone is Entitled to Find Out What the Government is Up To

Scott Hodes, an attorney who devotes his practice to Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") cases, has commented on the archaeological blogosphere's attack on the efforts of  ACCG, IAPN and PNG to seek transparency in how the State Department and US Customs impose import restrictions on cultural goods.

The drafters of FOIA hoped that the release of government files would help the public learn what its government is up to.  The fact that ACCG, IAPN and PNG have sought to shed some light on what State Department and US Customs Bureaucrats have been up to behind closed doors should be applauded, not condemned by archaeological groups, particularly given their own demands for transparency from private parties involved in the trade in cultural goods.

District Court Again Accepts State Secrecy Claims; But Transparency Needed More than Ever

The same US District Court judge who ruled for the State Department in the ACCG-IAPN-PNG FOIA case has again ruled for the government on the remaining issues on remand from the D.C. Circuit.

Just because the US District Court gave the State Department another pass does not mean that the State Department is acting in accordance with President Obama's promise to make his Administration the most transparent ever.  To the contrary, the veil of secrecy placed over State Department decisions to impose import restrictions on cultural goods would seem to be entirely inconsistent with that pledge. 

The State Department needs to be far more transparent about its decision making processes, which after all have a real impact on the ability of American collectors, businesses and museums to import cultural goods.

Archaeologists should also support greater transparency.  The archaeological lobby harps on the need for more transparency about private transactions involving the sale or transfer of cultural goods, but has been supportive of government secrecy concerning how import decisions are made.  Why?  Could it be that it fears that any such transparency will only confirm that such decisions are actually the products of bias/and or prejudgement and/or ex parte contacts between State Department staff and members of the archaeological lobby?  The particular redacted document at issue in the remand (an email communication between an archaeologist associated with the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute and a State Department employee about including coins in the MOU that predated a Cypriot request for import restrictions on coins) certainly suggests as much.

Addendum 6/15/12): Some in the archaeological blogosphere have now claimed that using the FOIA process to seek the email mentioned above is somehow "absurd," "shameful," "disturbing" and "disgusting."  Here is my response to archaeo-blogger Paul Barford, which he apparently refuses to publish:

Well, perhaps you should give your readers the whole context of why ACCG was seeking the Parks email, and let them decide if seeking some transparency as to how the import restrictions decision was made is as disgusting or disturbing as you claim: http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/12/will-obama-state-department-uphold.html
Either State was using Parks (the now deceased archaeologist in question)  as a supposedly neutral expert (when she was not) or conferring with her about CAARI's effort to include coins in the Cypriot MOU. Because we don't have the entire document, we don't know which it was, but since Cyprus had not yet asked for restrictions on coins when the email exchange occurred, it presumably would be the latter.

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