Greek Economic Woes Hit Cultural Establishment

Greece is facing severe economic troubles. Its national debt as a percentage of GDP is a cause for grave concern. As this article makes clear, all this has also impacted Greece's ability to care for its cultural heritage. See http://www.theage.com.au/world/economic-woes-cloud-ancient-greek-glories-20100227-pa2x.html The crisis is so bad major cultural sites have been closed. Even worse, corruption and waste has eaten into what funds are available.

Greece needs to rethink its priorities. State control over everything "old" only exacerbates the problems of severe underfunding. Greece should allow a licit market in redundant artifacts and tax it so monies can be used to fund Greece's underfunded cultural treasures.

AIA and SAFE Outreach Programs: Education or Indoctrination?

Nathan Elkins' "scholarly" hatchet job on Ancient Coins for Education ("ACE") and its program to teach kids about ancient history through coins (see below at http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2010/02/elkins-treasure-hunting-101-in-americas.html), got me to think about the Archaeological Institute of America's ("AIA's") and Saving Antiquities for Everyone's ("SAFE's") own outreach programs to youth.

A link to the AIA programs can be found here: http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10260

A less well-developed link to SAFE's programs can be found here: http://www.savingantiquities.org/education.php

I'll let the reader decide to what extent each organization's programs reflect a desire to educate versus a desire to indoctrinate.

Elkins' "Treasure Hunting 101 in America's Classrooms:" Propaganda or Scholarship?

With some difficulty, I've finally been able to procure a copy of Nathan Elkins' "Treasure Hunting 101 in America's Classrooms," published in the rather obscure (to at least some well-known libraries) "Journal of Field Archaeology." While an archaeologist of the David Gill school may view Elkins' work as scholarship, I consider it little more than distasteful propaganda, designed to demean Ancient Coins for Education ("ACE") and its program to pair collectors with schools to teach children about ancient history through coins.

According to Elkins, "[t]he program's practices directly sponsor criminal activities in source countries, such as Bulgaria, and the destruction of archaeological and cultural heritage." (Elkins at 487.) Never mind ancient coins of the type ACE uses in its program are widely available for sale in Bulgaria itself, and, indeed, the Bulgarian Constitutional Court recently struck down aspects of Bulgaria's recent antiquities law and instead concluded that an invoice will be sufficient to establish ownership. See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/10/bulgarian-constitutional-court-strikes.html, a fact Morag Kersel and Christina Luke rather crankily admit in their "editorial introduction." (Id. at 481.)

Darkly, Elkins also claims ACE effectively exploits children, cynically using them as pawns to support the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild's (ACCG's) agenda. He states, "ACE's activities ought to be of concern for another reason: the program is clearly being used to manipulate school children in order to promote their own private and commercial interests, especially since it became an affiliate member and ally of the ACCG in 2004." (Id. at 485.)

In this regard, Elkins first takes ACE to task because its founder appeared at a meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee in 2005 to testify in favor of continuing an exemption for coins from import restrictions [because such would likely impact the ability of ACE to perform its core mission to use Roman coins to teach children about ancient history]. (Id.) But really, what's wrong with that? Elkins himself has testified at a subsequent CPAC hearing on Italy in favor of restrictions on coins, and pro-archaeological groups like the Archaeological Institute of America ("AIA"), Lawyer's Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation, Saving Antiquities for Everyone, and the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute ("CAARI") have become fixtures at such meetings. Does Elkins agree with CAARI VP Ellen Herscher's patently ridiculous claim that archaeologists don't lobby? http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2010/02/response-to-caari-vp-ellen-herscher.html Or, is "lobbying" only okay if you take Elkins' "archaeology over all perspective?"

Elkins specifically dislikes ACCG's work with ACE to promote ancient coin collecting, suggesting that it is corrupting our youth. According to Elkins, "the remarks made by [ACCG ED] Wayne Sayles and [ACE Director] Scott Uhrick indicate an awareness that the ACE program is an excellent way to recruit future hobbyists and collectors and to indoctrinate them to the dealer lobby's point of view regarding the ethics of collecting and the attitudes they wish to impart." (Elkins at 486.) His antidote? Well, what I might characterizes as a good "brainwashing" by archaeologists, of course! (Id. at 487.) But really, is what ACE actually teaches children about ancient coins and history substantially different from similar programs undertaken over the years? No, but then, ACE actually gives ancient coins to both teachers and students. And that is what likely actually irks Elkins the most.

For more about ACE and its programs, see http://ancientcoinsforeducation.org/

Cyprus Mail on ACCG Test Case

Today's Cyprus Mail (the nation's leading daily newspaper) has published this article about the ACCG's test case. See http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/us-collectors-regain-right-trade-ancient-cyprus-coins/20100225 Though I like the headline "US collectors to regain the right to trade ancient Cypriot coins," I must admit it is a bit premature.

Unposted Comments to Gill Posts

One would think if one is going to do a blog critical of another, one would at least have the courtesy to allow that person to comment.

Apparently, however, archaeological blogger David Gill does not think so. I thus post my comments here to his following blogs:

For this one: http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2010/02/misleading-washington-lobbyist.html

David- Please link to posts you comment on. It is only common courtesy. See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2010/02/archaelogist-fails-to-uncover-truth.html

The post should make clear that I found your press release misleading because it said nothing about the actual allegations in [the] Complaint-- which of course are the heart of any lawsuit.

I believe you had some other press releases that touch on this test case, hence the reference to "another."

Peter Tompa

And for this one: http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2010/02/false-claims-made-over-caari.html

David,

ACCG's Complaint speaks for itself. Look at paragraphs 45, 53,72, and 77. The reader can decide for themselves whether this suggests "behind the scenes lobbying" or not. I should also note that Ms. Herscher has previously claimed that CAARI does not "lobby" at all. http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/08/caari-vp-ellen-herscher-response-to.html

Peter Tompa

I would rather just ignore Paul Barford, but...

I would have just ignored archaeo-blogger Paul Barford's latest post (see http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/02/half-ancient-coins-on-us-market-are.html) if it had not already been reproduced on the Museum Security List-Serve (see http://groups.google.com/group/museum_security_network/browse_thread/thread/9018ed3928d3aa89/e64d0b1d79bae255#e64d0b1d79bae255)as well as linked to the blogs of Barford supporters David Gill and Nathan Elkins. God only knows where it may pop up next.

It should suffice to state that the CPRI study Barford purports to rely upon for his conclusions does not in any way suggest unprovenanced coins "must be stolen" as Barford suggests. Indeed, to the extent the study discusses coins at all, it simply states,

The study does not include unprovenanced Greek and Roman coins in private hands, which by the estimate of specialists likely number not less than 700,000 (200,000-300,000 Greek, 500,000-600,000 Roman) and which are not routinely of interest to AAMD Member institutions.

See http://www.cprinst.org/Home/issues/project-on-unprovenanced-ancient-objects-in-private-us-hands

Perhaps even more disturbingly, Barford also seems to suggest that the ACCG Test Case will prompt US law enforcement authorities to arrest ancient coin collectors. Barford concludes,

[I]s it really a wise move at this point in time for US ancient coin collectors to be suing the State Department as well as the Department of Homeland Security? Are US collectors so sure of themselves and their leaders that they can continue with impunity to collect no-questions-asked this kind of material, while at the same time pursuing the very bodies responsible in the US for prosecuting culture crime? How sure are they that such acts are not going to provoke for some of them at least a knock at the door at dawn one day like the rude awakening that awaited artefact-collecting residents of Blanding not long ago?

I'm not sure if this is more insulting to US collectors or US law enforcement. No, Mr. Barford, as far as I know, we do not live in a dictatorship here in the United States. Presumably, our law enforcement generally acts in good faith and would not arrest coin collectors willy-nilly just because some group wants to test the applicability of rather obscure [to almost everyone but archaeologists and collectors] regulations.

Indeed, items are imported for purposes of test cases in other contexts. In fact, a court may require it for "standing purposes" so that it is presented with a "live controversy" to adjudicate.

In this particular case, ACCG imported the coins in question through a licensed broker. They were properly declared on entry and presented to Customs with the expectation they would be seized so that ACCG could seek a test of the applicable regulations. There is nothing more to it. That is the way it is done in the good old USA. Win or lose, the ACCG will hopefully at least get its day in court-- which is its right.

Overall, I find Barford's, Gill's and Elkins' increasingly strident posts in various venues about this test case to be very disturbing. We may disagree on whether it is "okay" to collect unprovenanced ancient coins, but we should all agree that ACCG is entitled to seek judicial review of the applicable regulations.

Are Archaeological Ethics Mostly for the Other Guy?

If one is interested in cultural property issues, one quickly notices that the archaeological blogosphere is full of highly moralistic denunciations of those who collect unproveanced artifacts, including those as common as coins.

One suspects this only carries over from the official pronouncements of archaeological groups like the Archaeological Institute of America. See http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10352

The AIA's website suggests that most of its ethical pronouncements relate to the perceived evils of the antiquities trade, and, indeed, they go so far as to suggest AIA members should inform the authorities about suspected illegal exports and imports of archaeological material. (In my opinion, this stricture may unfortunately be taken by some to authorize "witch hunts" for illicit antiquities.)

Archaeological groups are free to write their own ethical rules, but when those rules largely focus on the activities of others, outsiders are also entitled to wonder some about it.

In particular, why not more emphasis on requiring AIA members to:

"Seek to ensure that the exploration of archaeological sites be conducted according to the highest standards under the direct supervision of qualified personnel, and that the results of such research be made public."

Certainly, proper publication and conservation of archaeological artifacts is an important, but seemingly underemphasized issue, at least when it comes to the archaeological blogosphere. It is perhaps easier to criticize others outside of one's discipline, but if it is all about preserving the world's culture, isn't it also important for the archaeological community to monitor whether its own house is in order too?