The Government has publicized the repatriation of some ancient coins to Bulgaria. But we should be clear about the background of the return. The coins were evidently abandoned after they were seized based on alleged misstatements on a customs form. Though Bulgaria has sought a MOU with the United States, US import controls have not yet been promulgated. Moreover, there is no allegation the coins in question were "stolen" from Bulgaria. Indeed, that would be a difficult case to make given Bulgaria's open and legal trade in the exact same items.
For more about the issues surrounding the MOU that is being considered see here.
Showing posts with label Bulgaria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bulgaria. Show all posts
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.
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.
PAS on Tour
Roger Bland of the PAS will be speaking about the PAS and Treasure Act before a number of AIA chapters around the country. See http://finds.org.uk/news/stories/article/id/233
Given the audience, the lectures will touch not only successes of the system but gaps in the system as far as archaeologists are concerned. See http://www.archaeological.org/lectures/abstracts/5775
No system is perfect, but hopefully the AIA grandees will also pause to consider how the system in Britain and Wales compares with the systems (such as they are) in places like Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, and Italy, when it comes to encouraging members of the public to report their finds.
Given the audience, the lectures will touch not only successes of the system but gaps in the system as far as archaeologists are concerned. See http://www.archaeological.org/lectures/abstracts/5775
No system is perfect, but hopefully the AIA grandees will also pause to consider how the system in Britain and Wales compares with the systems (such as they are) in places like Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, and Italy, when it comes to encouraging members of the public to report their finds.
Labels:
AIA,
Bulgaria,
Cyprus,
Greece,
Italy,
pas,
Treasure Trove,
United Kingdom
Archaeological Blather Obscures Rational Approaches to Metal Detectors
The archaeological blogosphere has been filled with rather colorful denunciations of metal detecting in response to popular TV shows about the practice in both the US and the UK.
Though metal detecting has been widely popular since the 1970's, apparently some archaeologists still can't accept that reality or perhaps the fact that the devices make it easier for amateurs to encroach on their turf.
There is even some real question whether metal detecting really harms archaeology at all. In the UK at least, most metal detecting takes place on ploughed land, i.e., land where the archaeological context has already been disturbed. Second, though metal detectors are becoming more accurate, most metal detectorists still only excavate items found quite near the surface, i.e., an area that archaeologists would in any event likely dig through on their way to far "juicer" strata below.
The issue of metal detectors is also relevant to the State Department's process for imposing import restrictions on coins. Coins can typically only be found with metal detectors. This begs the question why we are imposing import restrictions on all coins of a given type coming here to the United States when it would be far more effective (and fair) to regulate metal detectors at the source. The CPIA is quite clear that self help measures like effective regulation of metal detectors should be tried first before import restrictions, but the State Department regularly reads this requirement out of the CPIA (as it does with most every other requirement).
What does effective regulation look like?
Look no further than Ireland, Scotland, Britain and Wales.
Ireland has banned the use of the metal detector, and critically it did so before the use of the metal detector took off in that country.
In contrast, Scotland has a common law system of treasure trove and Britain and Wales have statutory requirements of the Treasure Act along with the voluntary Portable Antiquities Scheme.
I much prefer these systems to that of Ireland as they encourage the discovery of coins that would otherwise never be found by archaeologists (who are limited in number and who are only interested in relatively few sites) their recordation into a database accessible to all (in Britain and Wales), and depending on the circumstances, their display in museums or their return to finders who can then sell them to collectors who will cherish them.
Yet, I must acknowledge that the Irish system is at least a coherent one.
And what does ineffective regulation look like?
Look no further than Cyprus and Bulgaria.
Each country has laws on the books that in theory at least limit the use of metal detectors, but in practice they are widely used, often right under the nose of the authorities.
In Cyprus, they even turn a blind eye to British tourists bringing them to the Island on holiday.
And to exacerbate the problem, both countries have few, if any incentives for metal detectorists to report their finds, or any coherent system to record them even if they were reported.
Yet, some archaeologists still hold up such countries as some sort of model.
And what of the United States? Here, our Constitution protects our liberty to exploit our own land, but you would not know that from the AIA's indictment of a popular show on Spike TV. I do think that historical artifacts should at least be recorded, but American archaeologists should work with American detectorists to create a system of voluntary recording, rather than making wild claims about their supposed "rights" to control what people do on their own land based upon their self-appointed status as stewards of the past.
Though metal detecting has been widely popular since the 1970's, apparently some archaeologists still can't accept that reality or perhaps the fact that the devices make it easier for amateurs to encroach on their turf.
There is even some real question whether metal detecting really harms archaeology at all. In the UK at least, most metal detecting takes place on ploughed land, i.e., land where the archaeological context has already been disturbed. Second, though metal detectors are becoming more accurate, most metal detectorists still only excavate items found quite near the surface, i.e., an area that archaeologists would in any event likely dig through on their way to far "juicer" strata below.
The issue of metal detectors is also relevant to the State Department's process for imposing import restrictions on coins. Coins can typically only be found with metal detectors. This begs the question why we are imposing import restrictions on all coins of a given type coming here to the United States when it would be far more effective (and fair) to regulate metal detectors at the source. The CPIA is quite clear that self help measures like effective regulation of metal detectors should be tried first before import restrictions, but the State Department regularly reads this requirement out of the CPIA (as it does with most every other requirement).
What does effective regulation look like?
Look no further than Ireland, Scotland, Britain and Wales.
Ireland has banned the use of the metal detector, and critically it did so before the use of the metal detector took off in that country.
In contrast, Scotland has a common law system of treasure trove and Britain and Wales have statutory requirements of the Treasure Act along with the voluntary Portable Antiquities Scheme.
I much prefer these systems to that of Ireland as they encourage the discovery of coins that would otherwise never be found by archaeologists (who are limited in number and who are only interested in relatively few sites) their recordation into a database accessible to all (in Britain and Wales), and depending on the circumstances, their display in museums or their return to finders who can then sell them to collectors who will cherish them.
Yet, I must acknowledge that the Irish system is at least a coherent one.
And what does ineffective regulation look like?
Look no further than Cyprus and Bulgaria.
Each country has laws on the books that in theory at least limit the use of metal detectors, but in practice they are widely used, often right under the nose of the authorities.
In Cyprus, they even turn a blind eye to British tourists bringing them to the Island on holiday.
And to exacerbate the problem, both countries have few, if any incentives for metal detectorists to report their finds, or any coherent system to record them even if they were reported.
Yet, some archaeologists still hold up such countries as some sort of model.
And what of the United States? Here, our Constitution protects our liberty to exploit our own land, but you would not know that from the AIA's indictment of a popular show on Spike TV. I do think that historical artifacts should at least be recorded, but American archaeologists should work with American detectorists to create a system of voluntary recording, rather than making wild claims about their supposed "rights" to control what people do on their own land based upon their self-appointed status as stewards of the past.
Labels:
AIA,
Blogging,
Bulgaria,
Bulgarian MOU,
CPIA,
Cyprus,
Cyprus MOU,
metal detecting,
pas,
Treasure Trove
CPAC To Meet
The Federal Register reports that the Cultural Property Advisory Committee will meet to discuss renewals of current MOU's with Guatemala and Mali, and to conduct further discussion in secret about a request from Bulgaria. See http://www.ofr.gov/(S(mb4uyziobevezdhmm1qt4oyc))/OFRUpload/OFRData/2012-05909_PI.pdf
Archaeo-blogger Rick St. Hilaire's post about the upcoming meeting seeks to portray the secrecy and culture creep that has marked the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs'administration of the CPIA as both necessary and consistent with the statutory mandate. See http://culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com/2012/03/mali-guatemala-and-bulgaria-up-for.html
However, others-- including several former CPAC members-- have questioned this, most recently during a public forum on Capitol Hill. See http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/03/cultural-property-implementation-act-is.html
Archaeo-blogger Rick St. Hilaire's post about the upcoming meeting seeks to portray the secrecy and culture creep that has marked the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs'administration of the CPIA as both necessary and consistent with the statutory mandate. See http://culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com/2012/03/mali-guatemala-and-bulgaria-up-for.html
However, others-- including several former CPAC members-- have questioned this, most recently during a public forum on Capitol Hill. See http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/03/cultural-property-implementation-act-is.html
AIA View of CPAC Meeting on Bulgarian and Peruvian MOU
Here is the AIA's view of the Bulgarian and Peruvian MOU hearings: http://www.archaeological.org/news/advocacy/7317
The discussion underscores the ideological nature of the AIA's opposition to collecting. Practical concerns and fairness to small business don't rate for these out of touch academics. They also willfully ignore the fact that the unprovenanced coins they want to restrict are freely available within Bulgaria itself. If collecting unprovenanced coins is such a problem as Bulgaria is concerned, why doesn't the Bulgarian government clamp down on Bulgarian collectors? It won't as that would cause an uproar, but that won't stop the obdurate State Department bureaucrats from clamping down on US collectors.
Instead of clamping down on collectors, how about regulating metal detectors at the source?
The preferred method of regulation, of course, is a system akin to that in Britain, Wales and Scotland, but the CPIA itself requires that the source country try effective regulation of metal detectors before US authorities restrict American's ability to import cultural goods like coins.
For my view of the public meeting, see
http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/11/public-cpac-meeting-on-belize-and.html
The discussion underscores the ideological nature of the AIA's opposition to collecting. Practical concerns and fairness to small business don't rate for these out of touch academics. They also willfully ignore the fact that the unprovenanced coins they want to restrict are freely available within Bulgaria itself. If collecting unprovenanced coins is such a problem as Bulgaria is concerned, why doesn't the Bulgarian government clamp down on Bulgarian collectors? It won't as that would cause an uproar, but that won't stop the obdurate State Department bureaucrats from clamping down on US collectors.
Instead of clamping down on collectors, how about regulating metal detectors at the source?
The preferred method of regulation, of course, is a system akin to that in Britain, Wales and Scotland, but the CPIA itself requires that the source country try effective regulation of metal detectors before US authorities restrict American's ability to import cultural goods like coins.
For my view of the public meeting, see
http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/11/public-cpac-meeting-on-belize-and.html
My CPAC Comments: Any Successful Cultural Policy Needs Public Buy-In
Here the comments I presented at today's CPAC hearing on the Bulgarian MOU:
I�m speaking on behalf of IAPN and PNG, which represent the small businesses of the numismatic trade. Over the past decade, I�ve exhibited common ancient coins similar to ones available to collectors worldwide so that you would know exactly what coins are subject to possible restrictions. However, some of you might recall that for some unfathomable reason I was not allowed to show you any Greek coins when you met last year. So, I�ve left my Bulgarian coins at home, and instead, I�ve brought you this ruler.
Professor Gerstenblith will know I�ve borrowed this prop from Stuart Campbell, a Scottish archaeologist, but the point he made at a recent conference is just as apt here. We can all agree some things are wrong, like murder. That would be a �12� on this ruler. But what about illicit excavations? Campbell would submit�as would I�that most people would consider looting as a �1� on this scale �more like a traffic violation than anything else.
Most Bulgarians would also consider looting to be no worse than speeding. A Center for the Study of Democracy report estimates that up to 250,000 Bulgarian citizens engage in treasure hunting. It also depicts both law enforcement and the cultural establishment as being heavily involved in looting, theft and smuggling of Bulgarian cultural goods. So, a Bulgarian citizen might be forgiven if he or she also fails to take such things very seriously.
It is true that Bulgaria recently passed a cultural heritage law. You will no doubt hear it represents a sincere effort to reign in looting. But that law was apparently rammed through the Bulgarian legislature by ex-Communists solely based on input from archaeologists. It seeks to suppress looting through complicated registration procedures, but Bulgaria�s constitutional court has struck down some of its most important provisions.
The law itself seems mainly to be honored in its breech. For example, Numismatic News reports that although 50,000 Bulgarians are members of organized numismatic groups, only 150-200 collections have been declared under this law. Moreover, though this law makes legal export of Bulgarian artifacts virtually impossible, such impediments will do nothing to stop anyone from just jumping into their car or onto an airplane and taking what they want out of the country now that border checks have been eliminated with Bulgaria�s entrance into the EU.
Let�s get real. All that restrictions would accomplish would be to greatly limit the ability of Americans to import the exact same �coins of Bulgarian type� that are freely available worldwide and indeed within Bulgaria itself. Under the circumstances, IAPN and PNG would request that CPAC give heed to the 71% of the public comments opposed to import restrictions on coins. CPAC should follow prior Committee precedent, and recommend against import restrictions on coins, particularly any restrictions based on a coin�s type rather than its find spot.
Alternatively, we would ask that CPAC table Bulgaria�s request to give the country time to get its own house in order and undertake the self-help measures the CPIA contemplates. Specifically, CPAC should recommend that Bulgaria clamp down on metal detectors rather than collectors, that Bulgaria freely issue export certificates for common artifacts like most ancient coins, and that Bulgaria pass a new antiquities law that takes into account the concerns of collectors and dealers as well as the views of the archaeological community.
Please keep in mind my ruler as you deliberate. Any successful cultural policy --whether in Bulgaria or the US -- needs public buy- in to have any chance at success. CPAC has an important role to play in balancing all interests�including those of collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade -- to help ensure that fair and workable solutions to the complex problem of looting are found. Thank you.
I�m speaking on behalf of IAPN and PNG, which represent the small businesses of the numismatic trade. Over the past decade, I�ve exhibited common ancient coins similar to ones available to collectors worldwide so that you would know exactly what coins are subject to possible restrictions. However, some of you might recall that for some unfathomable reason I was not allowed to show you any Greek coins when you met last year. So, I�ve left my Bulgarian coins at home, and instead, I�ve brought you this ruler.
Professor Gerstenblith will know I�ve borrowed this prop from Stuart Campbell, a Scottish archaeologist, but the point he made at a recent conference is just as apt here. We can all agree some things are wrong, like murder. That would be a �12� on this ruler. But what about illicit excavations? Campbell would submit�as would I�that most people would consider looting as a �1� on this scale �more like a traffic violation than anything else.
Most Bulgarians would also consider looting to be no worse than speeding. A Center for the Study of Democracy report estimates that up to 250,000 Bulgarian citizens engage in treasure hunting. It also depicts both law enforcement and the cultural establishment as being heavily involved in looting, theft and smuggling of Bulgarian cultural goods. So, a Bulgarian citizen might be forgiven if he or she also fails to take such things very seriously.
It is true that Bulgaria recently passed a cultural heritage law. You will no doubt hear it represents a sincere effort to reign in looting. But that law was apparently rammed through the Bulgarian legislature by ex-Communists solely based on input from archaeologists. It seeks to suppress looting through complicated registration procedures, but Bulgaria�s constitutional court has struck down some of its most important provisions.
The law itself seems mainly to be honored in its breech. For example, Numismatic News reports that although 50,000 Bulgarians are members of organized numismatic groups, only 150-200 collections have been declared under this law. Moreover, though this law makes legal export of Bulgarian artifacts virtually impossible, such impediments will do nothing to stop anyone from just jumping into their car or onto an airplane and taking what they want out of the country now that border checks have been eliminated with Bulgaria�s entrance into the EU.
Let�s get real. All that restrictions would accomplish would be to greatly limit the ability of Americans to import the exact same �coins of Bulgarian type� that are freely available worldwide and indeed within Bulgaria itself. Under the circumstances, IAPN and PNG would request that CPAC give heed to the 71% of the public comments opposed to import restrictions on coins. CPAC should follow prior Committee precedent, and recommend against import restrictions on coins, particularly any restrictions based on a coin�s type rather than its find spot.
Alternatively, we would ask that CPAC table Bulgaria�s request to give the country time to get its own house in order and undertake the self-help measures the CPIA contemplates. Specifically, CPAC should recommend that Bulgaria clamp down on metal detectors rather than collectors, that Bulgaria freely issue export certificates for common artifacts like most ancient coins, and that Bulgaria pass a new antiquities law that takes into account the concerns of collectors and dealers as well as the views of the archaeological community.
Please keep in mind my ruler as you deliberate. Any successful cultural policy --whether in Bulgaria or the US -- needs public buy- in to have any chance at success. CPAC has an important role to play in balancing all interests�including those of collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade -- to help ensure that fair and workable solutions to the complex problem of looting are found. Thank you.
71% of On-Line Comments Against Bulgarian MOU
John Hooker (ACCG) has performed an analysis of the on-line comments about the Bulgarian MOU. Other comments reflecting pro or con positions were also sent via US Mail so they cannot be included in this survey.
In any event, there were 499 relevant comments posted on the regulations.gov website. (A couple of people mistakenly posted their support for the Belize MOU with the Bulgarian comments.) Of these, 353 were opposed the MOU and 146 favored it. This makes for a break-down of 71% opposed and 29% in favor of the MOU.
Most of the comments related to coins. Of these, 342 either opposed the MOU in toto or opposed the inclusion of coins. Thirteen individuals supported their inclusion, including archaeologists who excavate in Bulgaria, AIA staff and David Gill and Paul Barford, archaeo-bloggers well known for their hostility to ancient coin collecting.
These percentages again point to the very slim support for import restrictions, particularly when they may possibly include new restrictions on coins.
The figures mirror the public comments recently recorded on the regulations.gov website for the Greek MOU. There, some 71% opposed the MOU either totally or provisionally if it included coins, with 28% in favor. See http://www.accg.us/News/Item/Summary_of_Greek_MOU_Public_Comment.aspx
Based on these numbers it should become increasingly clear that MOU's are special interest programs for archaeologists that have very, very little actual public support.
In any event, there were 499 relevant comments posted on the regulations.gov website. (A couple of people mistakenly posted their support for the Belize MOU with the Bulgarian comments.) Of these, 353 were opposed the MOU and 146 favored it. This makes for a break-down of 71% opposed and 29% in favor of the MOU.
Most of the comments related to coins. Of these, 342 either opposed the MOU in toto or opposed the inclusion of coins. Thirteen individuals supported their inclusion, including archaeologists who excavate in Bulgaria, AIA staff and David Gill and Paul Barford, archaeo-bloggers well known for their hostility to ancient coin collecting.
These percentages again point to the very slim support for import restrictions, particularly when they may possibly include new restrictions on coins.
The figures mirror the public comments recently recorded on the regulations.gov website for the Greek MOU. There, some 71% opposed the MOU either totally or provisionally if it included coins, with 28% in favor. See http://www.accg.us/News/Item/Summary_of_Greek_MOU_Public_Comment.aspx
Based on these numbers it should become increasingly clear that MOU's are special interest programs for archaeologists that have very, very little actual public support.
SAFE: Say Yes to the Corrupt Bulgarian Status Quo?
Saving Antiquities for Everyone (SAFE) has started yet another "Say Yes" advocacy campaign in support of import restrictions, this time on behalf of Bulgaria. http://www.savingantiquities.org/Bulgariamou.php
But, what will SAFE's campaign (and that of the AIA) for "no questions asked" import restrictions really do for Bulgaria and the protection of its cultural patrimony, but help support the corrupt status quo?
Though SAFE's advocacy document has plenty of links detailing individual stories about looting of archaeological sites, SAFE's advocacy fails to mention a sobering report about the state of Bulgaria�s cultural policy prepared by the Center for the Study of Democracy. See The Antiquities Trade-Dealers, Traffickers, and Connoisseurs, in Organized Crime in Bulgaria: Markets and Trends 178-197 (Center for Study of Democracy 2007) (�CSD Report�) (available at:http://www.csd.bg/artShow.php?id=9120(last checked, 10/19/11).
This report, prepared with funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, appears to largely reflect the views of government cultural officials and archaeologists. Nevertheless, the report contains some eye-opening facts that should give pause to anyone who might assume all is well with how Bulgaria manages its own cultural patrimony:
� From 100,000 to 250,000 Bulgarians regularly conduct illicit excavations. (Id. at 179.)
� �Most Bulgarian museums have poor recording practices of the artifacts in stock. The general lack of accountability, in particular of museum directors, further aggravates the situation�. The majority of museums do not observe the international standard for describing art, antiques and antiquities with photographs and descriptions of each object (the so called Object ID). In Bulgarian museums objects are often loosely described in general terms, which makes it impossible for them to be tracked, positively identified and restored. The dire state of museum documentation dooms to failure any efforts to trace stolen coins or other items transferred abroad.� (Id. at 183.)
� �To make their anti-looting and anti-trafficking efforts seem more effective enforcement agencies announce lavish values of the illicitly acquired cultural objects they capture.� (Id.)
� �During interviews, carried out for purposes of this paper, it was made clear that the prescribed system of registration [of coins in private collections] by commissions made up of local museum employees was not found trustworthy, as it did not provide safeguards against the theft of valuable coins which could be replaced with cheaper lower grade versions by museum workers.� (Id. at 193.)
� �Some collectors have voiced their suspicions that past burglaries of private coin collections have been committed with the involvement of corrupt police officers or other enforcement officials.� (Id. at 193 n. 312.)
� �Inertia and neglect are not the only factors to throttle effective enforcement. Widespread corruption among local middle-ranking law-enforcement officers who earn personal gains on the black cultural property market also has an adverse effect. Experts have outlined three major forms of corrupt relationships between police officers and antique dealers/looters: 1) policemen are bribed to cover looters and deter police investigation; 2) officers of higher rank become directly involved in illicit antiquities trading, and 3) officers that must prevent and fight cultural property violations become collectors. In addition, the grading of cultural objects held by looters, dealers or collectors is itself often done by would-be experts whose only training is a two-week course delivered by the Privatization Agency on a regular basis that can hardly have equipped them with the knowledge they need to possess about cultural goods. Despite their determination to get looters or persons in illicit hold of antiquities convicted, law-enforcement and investigative bodies are often hampered by either incompetent or intentionally falsified expert assessments presented at the trial phase.� (Id. at 194.)
� �In 2003, the head of Cultural Property Department at the National Police Col. Georgi Getov was discharged. According to media reports he had operated one of the main antiquity smuggling channels in Bulgaria in partnership with a number of prosecutors, NSCOC officers, local archaeological museum directors and other officials who had served as a supply link between looters and the implicated department head. Maritsa Dnes daily, 7 May 2003.� (Id. at 194 n. 316.)
The report goes on to make detailed suggestions on how to address the problem of looting in Bulgaria, including the regulation of metal detectors and the passage of a cultural heritage law that takes into account the concerns of collectors as well as archaeologists.
The report is relevant because Bulgaria is expected to take self-help measures before import restrictions are imposed. In addition, less severe remedies must be considered before the State Department again limits the ability of Americans to import artifacts. (26 USC Section 2602 (a) (1) (B) and (C)(ii).)
Under the circumstances, the US could best help Bulgaria by tabling any talk of import restrictions to allow Bulgaria time to act on the CSD report's recommendations. Though any looting of Bulgarian archaeological sites is regrettable, it is best addressed in Bulgaria itself through the regulation of metal detectors and serious consideration of CSD's other suggestions before import restrictions are imposed.
But, what will SAFE's campaign (and that of the AIA) for "no questions asked" import restrictions really do for Bulgaria and the protection of its cultural patrimony, but help support the corrupt status quo?
Though SAFE's advocacy document has plenty of links detailing individual stories about looting of archaeological sites, SAFE's advocacy fails to mention a sobering report about the state of Bulgaria�s cultural policy prepared by the Center for the Study of Democracy. See The Antiquities Trade-Dealers, Traffickers, and Connoisseurs, in Organized Crime in Bulgaria: Markets and Trends 178-197 (Center for Study of Democracy 2007) (�CSD Report�) (available at:http://www.csd.bg/artShow.php?id=9120(last checked, 10/19/11).
This report, prepared with funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, appears to largely reflect the views of government cultural officials and archaeologists. Nevertheless, the report contains some eye-opening facts that should give pause to anyone who might assume all is well with how Bulgaria manages its own cultural patrimony:
� From 100,000 to 250,000 Bulgarians regularly conduct illicit excavations. (Id. at 179.)
� �Most Bulgarian museums have poor recording practices of the artifacts in stock. The general lack of accountability, in particular of museum directors, further aggravates the situation�. The majority of museums do not observe the international standard for describing art, antiques and antiquities with photographs and descriptions of each object (the so called Object ID). In Bulgarian museums objects are often loosely described in general terms, which makes it impossible for them to be tracked, positively identified and restored. The dire state of museum documentation dooms to failure any efforts to trace stolen coins or other items transferred abroad.� (Id. at 183.)
� �To make their anti-looting and anti-trafficking efforts seem more effective enforcement agencies announce lavish values of the illicitly acquired cultural objects they capture.� (Id.)
� �During interviews, carried out for purposes of this paper, it was made clear that the prescribed system of registration [of coins in private collections] by commissions made up of local museum employees was not found trustworthy, as it did not provide safeguards against the theft of valuable coins which could be replaced with cheaper lower grade versions by museum workers.� (Id. at 193.)
� �Some collectors have voiced their suspicions that past burglaries of private coin collections have been committed with the involvement of corrupt police officers or other enforcement officials.� (Id. at 193 n. 312.)
� �Inertia and neglect are not the only factors to throttle effective enforcement. Widespread corruption among local middle-ranking law-enforcement officers who earn personal gains on the black cultural property market also has an adverse effect. Experts have outlined three major forms of corrupt relationships between police officers and antique dealers/looters: 1) policemen are bribed to cover looters and deter police investigation; 2) officers of higher rank become directly involved in illicit antiquities trading, and 3) officers that must prevent and fight cultural property violations become collectors. In addition, the grading of cultural objects held by looters, dealers or collectors is itself often done by would-be experts whose only training is a two-week course delivered by the Privatization Agency on a regular basis that can hardly have equipped them with the knowledge they need to possess about cultural goods. Despite their determination to get looters or persons in illicit hold of antiquities convicted, law-enforcement and investigative bodies are often hampered by either incompetent or intentionally falsified expert assessments presented at the trial phase.� (Id. at 194.)
� �In 2003, the head of Cultural Property Department at the National Police Col. Georgi Getov was discharged. According to media reports he had operated one of the main antiquity smuggling channels in Bulgaria in partnership with a number of prosecutors, NSCOC officers, local archaeological museum directors and other officials who had served as a supply link between looters and the implicated department head. Maritsa Dnes daily, 7 May 2003.� (Id. at 194 n. 316.)
The report goes on to make detailed suggestions on how to address the problem of looting in Bulgaria, including the regulation of metal detectors and the passage of a cultural heritage law that takes into account the concerns of collectors as well as archaeologists.
The report is relevant because Bulgaria is expected to take self-help measures before import restrictions are imposed. In addition, less severe remedies must be considered before the State Department again limits the ability of Americans to import artifacts. (26 USC Section 2602 (a) (1) (B) and (C)(ii).)
Under the circumstances, the US could best help Bulgaria by tabling any talk of import restrictions to allow Bulgaria time to act on the CSD report's recommendations. Though any looting of Bulgarian archaeological sites is regrettable, it is best addressed in Bulgaria itself through the regulation of metal detectors and serious consideration of CSD's other suggestions before import restrictions are imposed.
Bulgaria: Call to Comment
Please consider sending this to any coin collector you know:
The US State Department is seeking public comment on a new request for import restrictions made on behalf of Bulgaria. To submit comments electronically to the State Department�s Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC), go here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=DOS-2011-0115-0001
For further details of the request, see http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/whatsnew.html
What is at issue? Despite President Obama�s efforts to foster government transparency, the State Department has not indicated whether coins are part of the request. Nonetheless, based on recent history, it is probable that import restrictions on coins will be proposed. As a practical matter, this means the State Department and US Customs may be considering restrictions on tribal coinages from Thrace, coins of Greek city states like Apollonia Pontica and Messembria, Roman provincial coins struck at Bulgarian mints, and even some Roman Imperial coins. It�s also possible that any restrictions will include later coins as well. Though details are few, the public summary the State Department has provided indicates that Bulgaria seeks import restrictions on objects from 7500 B.C. to the 19th c. AD. If restrictions are imposed on coins, many common types will likely become so difficult to import legally that they will become unavailable to most collectors.
Why bother? Large numbers of coin collectors have made their concerns known to CPAC. Recently, 70% of the comments CPAC received on a MOU with Greece were from concerned coin collectors. Even though new import restrictions on coins of Italian and Cypriot "type" make it easy to become cynical, public comment can at least help moderate these demands. For example, archaeologists actively sought import restrictions on Roman Imperial coins during the discussions about the Italian MOU, but they remain exempted, and thus easy to obtain on the open market, likely due to the 2000 or so faxes CPAC received from concerned collectors.
What should I say? Tell the State Department and CPAC what you think about the bureaucracy�s efforts to deny you the ability to collect common ancient artifacts that are available worldwide. You might also consider noting that coins from Bulgarian mints are common and often very inexpensive. Tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands exist in collections around the world, and because of the low price the vast majority of these coins will never have been through an auction and will have no verifiable provenance.
If you are having trouble commenting from the direct link above, go to http://www.regulations.gov/
and search on docket number DOS-2011-0115. Further information about regulation.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the dockets, is available on the site under �How To Use This Site.� Kindly note that your comments will be public so avoid conveying any personal information, and, of course, be polite in commenting on the issue.
Please submit comments just once, before the cutoff of 5:00 PM EST Nov. 2, 2011.
The US State Department is seeking public comment on a new request for import restrictions made on behalf of Bulgaria. To submit comments electronically to the State Department�s Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC), go here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=DOS-2011-0115-0001
For further details of the request, see http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/whatsnew.html
What is at issue? Despite President Obama�s efforts to foster government transparency, the State Department has not indicated whether coins are part of the request. Nonetheless, based on recent history, it is probable that import restrictions on coins will be proposed. As a practical matter, this means the State Department and US Customs may be considering restrictions on tribal coinages from Thrace, coins of Greek city states like Apollonia Pontica and Messembria, Roman provincial coins struck at Bulgarian mints, and even some Roman Imperial coins. It�s also possible that any restrictions will include later coins as well. Though details are few, the public summary the State Department has provided indicates that Bulgaria seeks import restrictions on objects from 7500 B.C. to the 19th c. AD. If restrictions are imposed on coins, many common types will likely become so difficult to import legally that they will become unavailable to most collectors.
Why bother? Large numbers of coin collectors have made their concerns known to CPAC. Recently, 70% of the comments CPAC received on a MOU with Greece were from concerned coin collectors. Even though new import restrictions on coins of Italian and Cypriot "type" make it easy to become cynical, public comment can at least help moderate these demands. For example, archaeologists actively sought import restrictions on Roman Imperial coins during the discussions about the Italian MOU, but they remain exempted, and thus easy to obtain on the open market, likely due to the 2000 or so faxes CPAC received from concerned collectors.
What should I say? Tell the State Department and CPAC what you think about the bureaucracy�s efforts to deny you the ability to collect common ancient artifacts that are available worldwide. You might also consider noting that coins from Bulgarian mints are common and often very inexpensive. Tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands exist in collections around the world, and because of the low price the vast majority of these coins will never have been through an auction and will have no verifiable provenance.
If you are having trouble commenting from the direct link above, go to http://www.regulations.gov/
and search on docket number DOS-2011-0115. Further information about regulation.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the dockets, is available on the site under �How To Use This Site.� Kindly note that your comments will be public so avoid conveying any personal information, and, of course, be polite in commenting on the issue.
Please submit comments just once, before the cutoff of 5:00 PM EST Nov. 2, 2011.
The Farce Continues: CPAC Hearings on Requests from Bulgaria and Belize
The State Department has announced that CPAC will receive public comments on new requests for import restrictions from Bulgaria and Belize.
For more, see http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/whatsnew.html
Despite Obama Administration promises of greater government transparency, the public summaries of the requests provide little more than a history lesson about the cultures in both countries and some general information about looting in each country. Nothing at all is said about what particular objects are subject to possible restriction or any particular justifications for such actions.
And once again, the public comment period is exceptionally short, ending on November 2nd.
Accordingly, one must again unfortunately conclude that the State Department and its Cultural Heritage Center really are not looking for informed public comment from the broadest number of stakeholders possible.
And doesn't such a tact merely confirm the suspicions of many that the State Department bureaucracy views CPAC as little more than a rubber stamp for imposing the broadest import restrictions possible?
While I'm sure Bulgaria's former Communist rulers would have approved of such a farce, what does it say about our own State Department's commitment to the democracy it preaches so loudly to others?
For more, see http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/whatsnew.html
Despite Obama Administration promises of greater government transparency, the public summaries of the requests provide little more than a history lesson about the cultures in both countries and some general information about looting in each country. Nothing at all is said about what particular objects are subject to possible restriction or any particular justifications for such actions.
And once again, the public comment period is exceptionally short, ending on November 2nd.
Accordingly, one must again unfortunately conclude that the State Department and its Cultural Heritage Center really are not looking for informed public comment from the broadest number of stakeholders possible.
And doesn't such a tact merely confirm the suspicions of many that the State Department bureaucracy views CPAC as little more than a rubber stamp for imposing the broadest import restrictions possible?
While I'm sure Bulgaria's former Communist rulers would have approved of such a farce, what does it say about our own State Department's commitment to the democracy it preaches so loudly to others?
Misplaced Priorities?
AFP reports that Bulgarian authorites are spending up to 320,000 Euros to repatriate minor Bulgarian artifacts allegedly smuggled into Canada. See
http://www.france24.com/en/20110616-bulgaria-brings-home-smuggled-antiquities-canada#
As is the case with many similar reports, we'll never know the actual facts because the importer abandoned the property.
Meanwhile, Bulgarian archaeologists are lamenting their country's lack of care for its world class archaeological sites. See
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=128889 The report also claims that up to 300,000 Bulgarians are part time treasure hunters.
It seems to me Bulgarian money would be better spent on security for sites under active archaeological investigation and on a treasure trove program for the rest.
Reports of repatriations may be fodder for the likes of archaeo-bloggers David Gill and Paul Barford, but ultimately don't they also just serve as a distraction from the poor stewardship of countries like Bulgaria for their archaeological sites?
http://www.france24.com/en/20110616-bulgaria-brings-home-smuggled-antiquities-canada#
As is the case with many similar reports, we'll never know the actual facts because the importer abandoned the property.
Meanwhile, Bulgarian archaeologists are lamenting their country's lack of care for its world class archaeological sites. See
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=128889 The report also claims that up to 300,000 Bulgarians are part time treasure hunters.
It seems to me Bulgarian money would be better spent on security for sites under active archaeological investigation and on a treasure trove program for the rest.
Reports of repatriations may be fodder for the likes of archaeo-bloggers David Gill and Paul Barford, but ultimately don't they also just serve as a distraction from the poor stewardship of countries like Bulgaria for their archaeological sites?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)