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.

Archaeologists Perceive Site Looting; But What Protective Measures Have They Implemented?

The AIA has published a study that purports to measure archaeologists' perceptions of looting worldwide.  Not surprisingly, the study suggests looting is pervasive; however, there seems to be differences in its nature and extent depending on locality. 

I assume this study will be trotted out time and again to justify further restrictions on collectors, dealers and museums.  But what about asking archaeologists to police their own sites in the 10 months or so out of the year they are not worked?  Is it too much to ask them to hire site guards or at least use cameras to monitor their sites?  Regretably, the study does not ask. 

Petition to Save Significant Buddhist Archaeological Site from Destruction

CPO has been following this story for some time.   When the Taliban dynamited ancient Buddhas in Afghanistan, the world was aghast.   Now, the current Afghan Government has authorized the destruction of another important Buddhist site by a Chinese Mining Company, but the outrage has been minimal.

Why has the archaeological establishment been silent?  Good question.

In any event, you can make your concerns known through this petition on change.org, though I question whether it really will matter as it seems that the Chinese will start mining operations shortly.

Principle or Self-Preservation?

The archaeological lobby will no doubt pitch the Penn Museum's decision to repatriate ancient jewelry it purchased back in 1966 (well before the 1970 UNESCO Convention) to Turkey as a matter of principle.  However, given Turkey's hard ball tactics against German archaeologists at Troy, did preservation of digging rights and all that means for U. Penn archaeologists' careers also enter the picture? 

Aquincum

Archaeology Magazine has a nice write up about Aquincum, Roman ruins that can be seen in today's Budapest.  I just had the opportunity to visit again after a period of 16 years.   In addition to the ruins themselves, there is a beautiful new museum, though sadly the old museum on the grounds is now closed and in disrepair.  The site also features a Roman themed playground for children and some neat periscope like devices that place an image of a reconstruction of the site over today's scene.  For those visiting Budapest, Aquincum is a bit off the beaten track, but well worth the visit.

If You Can't Beat Them Why Not Join Them?

The archaeological blogosphere is full at the moment with all sorts of snobby, condescending blather about a new TV show in the UK that highlights some of the most interesting finds made under the PAS and Treasure Act.  I think it would be better if archaeologists recognized that metal detectors are a fact of life-- even in countries like Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Bulgaria etc. where we have heard that they are either banned outright or heavily regulated.

It's a bit amazing to me that archaeologists can abandon a site for 10 months or so out of a year, and then be shocked that locals with metal detectors show up in their absence.  Even worse, some of these same archaeologists then argue the only people who should be "paying for the damage" are American collectors who should be banned from importing coins from abroad-- an argument foreign cultural bureaucrats and their American counterparts are apparently all too happy to buy because it diverts attention from the need to address the problem at the source.

If archaeologists are not going to ensure their sites are secure in their absence, perhaps then they should at least explore the sites themselves with metal detectors, and get there first.   Archaeologists in the UK have long used metal detectors to assist them with their digs.  Archaeologists in countries like Cyprus, Italy, Greece and Turkey should do likewise.  At a minimum, perhaps they will then find all those coins that never get recovered because they are either so small that they go through sieves or are stuck in clumps of excavated earth.

For most people-- but perhaps not archaeo-bloggers or other archaeologists who want to complete control over anything old-- an ounce of prevention is worth far more than a pound of cure.

More Thoughts on Stuart Campbell's Ruler

During CPAC's recent public meeting about the proposed Bulgarian MOU, I borrowed a page from Stuart Campbell, a Scottish archaeologist and government official, to suggest most people consider illicit excavations to be no worse than a traffic violation.

Of course, not all illicit excavations are equal. Here is how I would rank them from the most troubling to the least:

Illicit excavations from world heritage sites;

Illicit excavations from active archaeological sites;

Illicit excavations from inactive archaeological sites;

Illicit excavations from archaeological sites that are obvious, but have not been excavated;

Illicit excavations from mounds of excavated dirt on inactive archaeological sites;

Illicit excavations from private land where there are no obvious archaeological features;

Illicit excavations from private land that already has been disturbed by ploughing.

And speaking of "wrongs," where would most people rank any failure of archaeologists to:

Properly record what they find;

Properly publish what they find;

Properly preserve what they find;

Properly display what they find.

Where would archaeologists rank theses sins? Are they any worse than illicit excavations?

Leptis Magna Safe

This video proves that Leptis Magna is safe despite claims to the contrary publicised by scare mongers from the archaeological community with a vested interest in seeking "emergency import restrictions" on cultural goods. See
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14983921

Will the archaeological blogs now report on this good news in an effort to help correct the record? I doubt it.

Still, this does not change the fact that there have been no credible reports about widespread looting or destruction of Libyan archaeological sites. Under the circumstances, it is a disservice to the new Libyan government and the Libyan people to continue to claim otherwise.

AIA Issues Preservation Report

The Archaeological Institute of America has uploaded its 2011 Site Preservation Report on its website. See
http://www.archaeological.org/sites/default/files/files/2011%20Annual%20Report%20pdfa.pdf

While I'm all for the AIA soliciting private funds for site preservation, I wonder if the AIA's donors have been informed that their money also goes to lobbying activities directed against antiquities and coin collectors and the small businesses that supply them with artifacts and coins.