IAPN and PNG join 88% of the public comments posted on the regulations.gov
website that express concerns about the MOU’s restrictions on ancient coins. The
cumulative effect of these restrictions has already damaged private and
institutional collecting, the preservation of coins, the study of the history
they represent, the appreciation of other cultures, and the people to people
contacts collecting brings. And, of
course, it has hurt the ability of Greek Americans to get in touch with their own culture.
Greece—which is still trying to dig
out of a terrible sovereign debt crisis that has been exacerbated by an influx
of Syrian refugees—needs our help, but import restrictions on coins are not the
way to go. As applied by US Customs to coin types made in Greece
rather than exclusively found in Greece, they do nothing but hurt legitimate
collectors who want to obey the law.
In this regard, I would like to commend Carmen Arnold-Biucchi for recognizing the wrong-headedness
of an approach that focuses on where a coin is made rather than found. However, her proposal that all coins found in Greece be designated
will just sow more confusion and further damage legitimate coin collecting
UNLESS Customs is directed only to
detain and seize coins WHERE there is specific proof that they were illicitly
exported from that country. And, really, who is going to do that?
Restricting all Greek coins merely
because some coins of the same type have been found in Greece would make a mockery of the plain
meaning of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act. It requires that objects of “archaeological
interest” must be first discovered within Greece and subject to Greek export
control before they can be restricted.
Let me also
comment on some of the statements made by Dr. Nathan Elkins. Elkins now suggests the designated list should include all coins “commonly found” in Greece. However, Elkins previously advanced a
different standard in his Journal of Field Archaeology article that attacks the
Ancient Coin Collectors Guild and its test case. There, Elkins claims that the current
designated list is proper because it is limited to coins that “primarily circulated there.” Such shifting positions totally ignore the statutory mandate and for
that matter the past Greek Ambassador’s promise made on the record at the last
MOU hearing that Greece only seeks restrictions on artifacts that are exclusively found there.
Elkins (and Prof. Jane Evans) also point
to an increase in applications
for metal detectors as a reason for restrictions, but isn’t that instead
a reason for Greece to be either more careful in issuing such permits or adopting
something akin to the PAS in the UK?
Next, Elkins suggests that a seizure
of valuable Greek coins from Peter Weiss, a former ANS Trustee back in 2012
justifies restrictions. However, he
fails to mention that a number of the coins had old provenances from the early 20th and late
19th century. If anything, the seizure and repatriation of
coins with such old provenances should raise serious questions about overreach
by NY State authorities.
Finally, Elkins points to a change in
the ANS acquisition guidelines,
but fails to note the ANS’ “cultural property” statement continues to
recognize, “because most coins in private collections have been traded and held
without any provenance, it is unreasonable to assume that a coin is stolen,
illegally exported, or illegally imported merely because the holder cannot
establish a chain of custody beyond receipt from a reputable source.”
Rather than overbroad
restrictions that adversely impact Americans interested in Greek culture, let’s
consider modest steps
archaeologists can take—like ensuring their sites are monitored in the long off-season and ensuring
local people they employ
are paid a fair living wage so they don’t have an incentive to loot to
help make ends meet—instead.
Simple steps like these could do far
more to help protect Greece’s cultural patrimony than prohibitions on imports
that only hurt legitimate collecting and people to people contacts and
appreciation of Greek culture it engenders. Thank you.
12 comments:
Hi Peter:
I see that one internationally known commentator on all things archaeology, currently resident in Eastern Europe, reckons you are displaying 'weak logic' in your critique on Greek MOUs, but at the same time reiterates claims I and others have previously made that looted ceramics and statues are not put on the black market by metal detecting treasure hunters. He says:-
"Firstly many of the designated antiquities covered by the existing US legislation are non metallic (statues, ceramics etc) and thus not acquired using metal detectors."
Past convictions of archaeologists for theft of non-metallic archaeological items proves the 'internationally known commentator' as being right on the money. Indeed, Elkins is at odds with him since Elkins (presumably a well-meaning amateur on the topic) reckons that the increase in applications for metal detectors in Greece is the reason for a data-free statement that antiquities theft is on the rise. That of course is a superb example of 'weak logic'.
It's a weakness that's hardly surprising, but indicative of a poorly camouflaged hidden agenda; neither of which bodes well for those for who claim the monopoly of data accuracy.
Best they stick to what (they claim) to know, than their amateurish dabbling in archaeo-politics with the inevitable results. However, seeing egg all over their smarmy faces does have a certain appeal.
Well done and keep their ridiculous statements in the public eye.
Best
John Howland
UK
What legal or practical steps would Cultural Property Observer suggest are needed to prevent illicit artefacts stolen by thieving archaeologists getting onto the legal market? Is it possible, following teh IAPN/PNG recommendations to the CPAC, to get collectors to fund monitoring (for example by metal detectorists) of all excavations to make sure finds are not pocketed? Could they ensure, following the same advice, that archaeologists are paid a fair living wage so they don’t have an incentive to loot to help make ends meet? Or should the archaeologists reportedly selling finds like these be forced to show an individual agreement with a landowner (with a photo of the object concerned) that ownership of the items they are selling has been legally assigned to them?
What is the solution to this plague of thieving archaeologists identified by Mr Howland? I think the documentation of legal ownership is the more realistic alternative, and cheaper for collectors, don't you Mr Tompa?
Okay, I'll let you have your say since Mr. Holland mentioned you, no matter how silly your comment. As for documentation, sure. It already happens. Legitimate dealers already import ancient coins with commercial invoices from the seller proving legal ownership, But that's different than requiring a picture in an auction catalogue dating before the date of restrictions or even a declaration to that effect. There are plenty of coins lawfully in markets in Greece's EU partners that can't be imported legally, at least according to the views of some. Foolish, no?
Oops, Mr Howland of course.
Thanks, but inasfar as the documentation of legal acquisition goes, this is not as you so dismissively remark a "silly point" at all, but a reference to the legal situation in most countries.
I was not referring to import (and neither was Mr Howland) but the act of stealing an object from the ground from its lawful owner. Objects in the archaeological record have owners. As you should be aware, to prevent theft, the British "Nighthawking Report" recommended the measure of documenting legal acquisition for metal detectorists. I am saying should this not be extended to all, and put the "thieving archaeologists" (claimed on this blog as a source for artefacts on the market) under the same strictures?
Why do you say it is "silly" to propose the same measures be applied to prevent these crooked archaeologists from stealing objects from sites as you - on behalf of the IAPN and PNG - propose to stop crooked artefact hunters from doing it? Is universal application of a resolution of the problem of artefact theft which you proposed "more silly" than the idea that such a method could be applied at all?
Surely since there are many millions of vulnerable sites worldwide among many tens of millions of poor people with spades, it makes sense to deal with the issue at the other end of the chain where the goods are funnelled by several hundred dealers to a mere handful (comparatively) of collectors, a minority.
Hello Peter:
No problem, it's an easy 'Barfordism' to make.
"What is the solution to this plague of thieving archaeologists identified by Mr Howland?" Mr Barford asks. Firstly it's reassuring that he recognises there's a problem. As for the cure then perhaps it needs to be dealt with by the international archaeological community, say, by initially removing credentials and permits to excavate, or even lifetime bans.
Maybe archaeology per se, ought to fund monitoring (for example criminal record checks on all staff and not simply the casual on-site 'diggers') for all excavations to ensure finds are not pocketed? Bearing in mind that many excavations are handling high-value, non-metallic finds, site security is paramount and must be treated as such. After all, one wouldn't allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to wander at will in around around the premises of bullion and diamond dealers.
Best
John Howland
UK
Mr Howland proposes that archaeologists monitor other archaeologists, but that is what happens now. Mr Howland says that in general, there is a problem with the existing system. If true, this surely then calls for system change - to external monitoring as Mr Tompa suggested for artefact hunters. "The cure" can only be applied after detection and conviction. But that still does not resolve the issue of a living wage which Mr Tompa identifies as a key factor. What about paying white "thieving archaeologists" more to persuade them that honesty pays like the brown-skinned folk of the source countries?
The question remains though whether thieving archaeologists really are the main source of metallic artefacts on the market (such as dugup ancient coins) or whether they are produced by looters with specialised tools for detecting buried metals? To claim otherwise sounds to me like an obvious example of "a data-free statement".
So are we going to monitor metal detectorists, and how and shouldn't the PAS be carrying out criminal record checks on all its "partners" before agreeing to work with them? http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2013/05/900-looted-artefacts-recovered-in.html
Hi Peter:
I see that Mr Barford wisely stayed well away from the findings of the 'Nighthawking Report' which he recruits to give his flimsy comments some strength.
The report which cost the UK taxpayer £66,000 did find incidents of illegal and clandestine excavating by users of metal detectors. However, when the figures are examined they amount to 1.6 incidents per month, certainly not the crime wave Mr Barford and his small cadre of vocal followers would have everyone believe. To put this into some perspective, it is likely that more people are brought before the courts for riding bicycles at night without lights.
Mr Barford twists my words to suit his 'silly' argument. Unlike him, I was referring to the Greek MOU which even the most hard of understanding would realise.
The only common ground I have with Mr Barford is that he acknowledges there is a thieving problem within archaeology when he says: "What is the solution to this plague of thieving archaeologists identified by Mr Howland?" I notice he sidestepped yet another difficult question by not offering a solution.
Finally, he shifts the blame to "many tens of millions of poor people with spades..." That in my view gives a measure of the man.
Best
John Howland
UK
Hello Peter:
"What about paying white "thieving archaeologists" more to persuade them that honesty pays like the brown-skinned folk of the source countries?" Mr Barford writes.
The argument here started out as the theft of ceramics, NOT those metallic items found by detectorists. Mr Barford's racist comments have crossed the line of debating decency.
I won't be debating further with Mr Barford. I find his racist views utterly abhorrent.
Best
John Howland
UK
I wasn't aware Greeks were "brown skinned folks" as Barford calls them. And yes, he does sound racist, doesn't he? And he also belittles the idea of rich US Universities paying the diggers their archaeologists hire a fair living wage. Paying service people at Universities a fair living wage is something lots of US Universities have agreed to at home. So why not at the archaeological digs they support abroad?
But Barford evidently cares little about people archaeologists should care about. And I thought he was a communist or at least a socialist!
Hello Peter:
You'll get no argument from me on your last comments; I agree wholeheartedly.
However, I feel debating with Barford somehow imbues a measure of legitimacy to his repugnant racism and I want no part of that.
Is Barford a communist or at least a socialist? Well he embraced Polish Communism, took their money and employment, all at a time when indigenous Poles were striving to rid themselves of the yoke of Soviet-backed communism.
It could be argued that in 1986 he not only betrayed the Polish People, but himself, archaeology, and the Free West and I find it difficult to differentiate between his motives and those of say, Harold 'Kim' Philby or Anthony Blunt.
Best
John Howland
UK
Mr. Barford is no longer welcome to post on this blog even to respond because of his harassing emails to CPO and clients. An earlier ban was lifted as an experiment to see if he could respond politely to issues of interest to him. Big mistake. The idea of AMERICAN Universities paying their GREEK workers a fair living wage was just one of several suggestions as to what archaeologists themselves can do to help the situation in Greece. CPO understands a similar suggestion was made at a recent conference in Chicago. It's unclear why a common sense proposal has provoked such controversy in certain circles.
Post a Comment