The PAS is a popular program in England and Wales. As I understand it, the Welsh Government is now expected to pay the modest amount necessary to maintain it as part of a general devolvement of central authority. However, Welsh authorities have been slow to address the issue.
This delay has apparently raised the hopes of PAS' few remaining critics in archaeological circles that any effort to continue to record finds in Wales will be killed off as an austerity measure. See
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/12/portable-antiquities-in-wales-details.html
Of course, that won't stop metal detecting, only efforts to record finds not required to be reported under the Treasure Act.
I've already observed that archaeological fanatics are far more interested in control than in conservation. See
http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/09/ancient-coins-and-cultural-property.html
Isn't this more proof of that observation? So, if this is not a make work program exclusively for archaeologists, PAS is not worth keeping?
ACCG Comments to CPAC
ACCG Comments on Cyprus MOU Renewal Request
ACCG comment has been submitted to CPAC
By Wayne G. Sayles
December 26, 2011
The ACCG has submitted formal written comment to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee regarding the consideration of extension to the Memorandum of Understanding with Cyprus. The present MOU added ancient coins to the list of restricted items in 2007. The guild will be represented at this hearing by Wayne G. Sayles, ACCG Executive Director.
The deadline for public comment is January 3, 2012 and all members and interested parties are encouraged to comment online at:
http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=i6gbilcab&et=1108968579110&s=0&e=001KF8fwa5AljruuAP2RWzzMmvmwcyrvx-sPPUcl4UpJUz6ieGuK-SyLVmycAvqkbJerT3UZKfR8MDwxThCO4ytRLS0WRMDSud0RAHiyqxyhVv_Iej_d_knynNSvnPiizK1KGtss9kBrd9l89IUMQOzLs3posKZWaDn-YZQW8Mkeqs=
For a PDF download of the ACCG submission Click Here
For a direct link, to the above see http://www.accg.us/News/Item/ACCG_Comments_on_Cyprus_MOU_Renewal_Request.aspx
ACCG comment has been submitted to CPAC
By Wayne G. Sayles
December 26, 2011
The ACCG has submitted formal written comment to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee regarding the consideration of extension to the Memorandum of Understanding with Cyprus. The present MOU added ancient coins to the list of restricted items in 2007. The guild will be represented at this hearing by Wayne G. Sayles, ACCG Executive Director.
The deadline for public comment is January 3, 2012 and all members and interested parties are encouraged to comment online at:
http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=i6gbilcab&et=1108968579110&s=0&e=001KF8fwa5AljruuAP2RWzzMmvmwcyrvx-sPPUcl4UpJUz6ieGuK-SyLVmycAvqkbJerT3UZKfR8MDwxThCO4ytRLS0WRMDSud0RAHiyqxyhVv_Iej_d_knynNSvnPiizK1KGtss9kBrd9l89IUMQOzLs3posKZWaDn-YZQW8Mkeqs=
For a PDF download of the ACCG submission Click Here
For a direct link, to the above see http://www.accg.us/News/Item/ACCG_Comments_on_Cyprus_MOU_Renewal_Request.aspx
Library Tragedy to be Used to Justify New Import Restrictions and Return of Hawass?
Will the tragic burning of a historic library in Egypt during continuing unrest be used to justify "emergency restrictions" on Egyptian cultural artifacts and the return of Zahi Hawass to power?
Read this http://www.drhawass.com/blog/december-17-2011-sad-day-my-life and
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2011/1076/he2.htm
What do you think?
Meanwhile, a generous Gulf sheik has promised financial help to rebuild the collection. See http://gulftoday.ae/portal/1eb8d27d-5e5b-4a25-82aa-fbab4e59f123.aspx
Read this http://www.drhawass.com/blog/december-17-2011-sad-day-my-life and
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2011/1076/he2.htm
What do you think?
Meanwhile, a generous Gulf sheik has promised financial help to rebuild the collection. See http://gulftoday.ae/portal/1eb8d27d-5e5b-4a25-82aa-fbab4e59f123.aspx
My Own Comments to CPAC
Dear Prof. Gerstenblith and CPAC:
I am writing on my own behalf, and will be submitting comments on behalf of IAPN and PNG shortly. CPAC recommended against import restrictions on Cypriot coins twice. There is no reason for this to change, and if anything, there is every reason to recommend that the current MOU with Cyprus be terminated.
As to coins, scholarly evidence proves that one cannot assume that coins of Cypriot type only circulated within the Island as has been claimed to justify restrictions. If one cannot assume that Cypriot coins only circulated on the Island, one cannot legally impose import restrictions which by law must apply only to artifacts first discovered in and be subject to the export control of Cyprus.
Moreover, there is no reason to renew the MOU for another 5 years. Cyprus has already had the benefit of restrictions since 1999 on ethnological artifacts and 2002 on archaeological artifacts. Cyprus claims that restrictions are needed because of looting on the occupied side of the Island, but a Swiss scholar who has studied the issue indicates most looted material from both the Turkish and Greek sides of the Island goes to wealthy Greek Cypriot collectors, and not as has been maintained to collectors abroad. In addition, all this appears to be done with the full knowledge and acquiescence of Greek Cypriot authorities. Under the circumstances, why should the US burden its own citizens and small businesses with such restrictions? To do so will only reward Cypriot authorities for their own considerable hypocrisy and thus make a mockery of the supposed purpose of such MOU�s to protect archaeological context.
Thank you for your consideration of my views.
I am writing on my own behalf, and will be submitting comments on behalf of IAPN and PNG shortly. CPAC recommended against import restrictions on Cypriot coins twice. There is no reason for this to change, and if anything, there is every reason to recommend that the current MOU with Cyprus be terminated.
As to coins, scholarly evidence proves that one cannot assume that coins of Cypriot type only circulated within the Island as has been claimed to justify restrictions. If one cannot assume that Cypriot coins only circulated on the Island, one cannot legally impose import restrictions which by law must apply only to artifacts first discovered in and be subject to the export control of Cyprus.
Moreover, there is no reason to renew the MOU for another 5 years. Cyprus has already had the benefit of restrictions since 1999 on ethnological artifacts and 2002 on archaeological artifacts. Cyprus claims that restrictions are needed because of looting on the occupied side of the Island, but a Swiss scholar who has studied the issue indicates most looted material from both the Turkish and Greek sides of the Island goes to wealthy Greek Cypriot collectors, and not as has been maintained to collectors abroad. In addition, all this appears to be done with the full knowledge and acquiescence of Greek Cypriot authorities. Under the circumstances, why should the US burden its own citizens and small businesses with such restrictions? To do so will only reward Cypriot authorities for their own considerable hypocrisy and thus make a mockery of the supposed purpose of such MOU�s to protect archaeological context.
Thank you for your consideration of my views.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to readers of this blog.
Cultural Property? Bah humbug, at least for tomorrow.
Rather, if you celebrate Christmas as I do, may you spend tomorrow with family and friends, and pay no attention to anything other than celebrating the day in a most suitable way.
Cultural Property? Bah humbug, at least for tomorrow.
Rather, if you celebrate Christmas as I do, may you spend tomorrow with family and friends, and pay no attention to anything other than celebrating the day in a most suitable way.
CPAC and CPIA Issues Recap
Archaeo-Blogger Paul Barford has this rather uncharitable advice for a small businessman looking for information about the the CPIA, CPAC and import restrictions. See http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/12/looking-for-ccpia-duh.html
I've covered this area before, and here are some of the posts that hopefully will be of some help to those looking for some basic information:
For a short recap of the governing law, see: http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2008/07/short-recap-of-cultural-property.html
For a discussion of the impact of import restrictions, see http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-is-impact-of-import-restrictions.html
For discussion about how the governing law operates in practice, see
http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/03/cultural-property-implementation-act-is.html
http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2010/04/aba-panel-on-1970-unesco-convention-and.html
I've covered this area before, and here are some of the posts that hopefully will be of some help to those looking for some basic information:
For a short recap of the governing law, see: http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2008/07/short-recap-of-cultural-property.html
For a discussion of the impact of import restrictions, see http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-is-impact-of-import-restrictions.html
For discussion about how the governing law operates in practice, see
http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/03/cultural-property-implementation-act-is.html
http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2010/04/aba-panel-on-1970-unesco-convention-and.html
No Christmas Truce
Evidently, there is an element within the archaeological community that thinks it is entirely appropriate to ridicule American citizens and others who have responded to the US State Department's invitation to comment on the proposed renewal of the Cypriot MOU. See http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/12/these-people-are-americans-so-you.html
Shame on them and their efforts to suppress any public opinion against the "archaeology over all" perspective. And shame on the other archaeological blogs that link to them and hence promote their views.
Shame on them and their efforts to suppress any public opinion against the "archaeology over all" perspective. And shame on the other archaeological blogs that link to them and hence promote their views.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)