Professional Numismatist Publishes Lord Renfrew's Coin Collection

Lord Renfrew, a vocal critic of the antiquities trade, has graciously allowed his collection of Etruscan coins to be published in Italo Vecchi’s impressive new corpus. The work publishes thousands of specimens from private and public collections and includes many coins that cannot be traced back to the 1970 date favored by archaeologists and some museums.

In supporting this endeavor, Lord Renfrew has demonstrated a commitment to scholarship shared by many collectors and,  indeed, professional numismatists like Italo Vecchi.

New Work on Etruscan Coinage

I'm looking forward to coin dealer and scholar Italo Vecchi's new work about the enigmatic coinage of the Etruscan city states. I understand that Lord Renfrew collects this series.  One wonders if all Lord Renfrew's coins have a demonstrable provenance back to at least 1970.

Archaeologists Train Guns on Odessey Marine Again

Archaeologists-  this time in the United Kingdom- have once again shot a broadside at Odessey Marine-- this time with regard to its deal with the UK Government to salvage the wreck of the HMS Victory.  See http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/06/hms-victory-shipwreck-odyssey-excavation?newsfeed=true

For an interesting critique of the position of archaeologists with regard to Odessey's work, see http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org/blog?mode=PostView&bmi=711550

According to the author, Tom King, an archaeologist who was commenting not specifically about the Victory wreck, but rather generally in favor of Odessey's work: 

1. Shipwrecks are deteriorating, both from natural causes and particularly as a result of modern methods of fishing, which plow up the bottom as effectively as agricultural land-levelers have torn up the Mississippi Valley.

2. Academic institutions and museums lack the financial resources to excavate everything that's being destroyed, or even a small percentage of it.

3. There are commercial salvagers who conduct very high quality archaeological excavations, and who have technological and financial resources that the academic community can’t touch (See, for example, the two recent publications by Odyssey Marine Exploration here and here --- which are substantial archaeological survey and site reports, some of which also document my point #1 above).

4. The only difference between such “salvage” and the work of academic underwater archaeologists (other than that, in my experience, Odyssey at least does better work) is that a percentage of the recovered material gets sold after it is described and analyzed.

5. Odyssey at least has rather strict protocols governing what can and can't be sold; what gets sold comprises mostly manufactured items of limited research interest;

6. We archaeologists used to claim that we were interested in the data from sites, not the goodies. The violent and near-mindless standard archaeological reaction to responsible shipwreck salvage proves that we've been dissembling all these years, or simply don't understand our own motivations.

Incantation Bowls Story Recycled Yet Again

Lord Renfrew's efforts to shift the burden of proof to collectors in the U.K. may have failed for now, but his reference during a House of Lords debate to Jewish incantation bowls allegedly stolen from Iraq has led to yet another story about them years after the initial controversy had subsided. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/08/british-link-stolen-treasures

The story fails to detail the basis for the conclusion that the bowls originated in Iraq as opposed to Jordan, but the article does go onto gratuitously claim that such stolen antiquities help fund insurgents in Iraq.

This incendiary claim has also been disputed. Indeed, a New York Times reporter that has specifically looked into the issue has characterized such claims as a "red herring." See: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/03/20/iraq_roundtable/ ("Garen: I think this is an important point about the link between looting and terrorism, and I know that that was made in a New York Times Op-Ed piece, but we were actually the ones that discovered that potential link. We never published it. We were freelancing for the New York Times. We never wrote a story about it because there's no proof. And I think it was a bit of a red herring.")

The article also fails to explore the distinct irony that repatriating Jewish artifacts to a country that has systematically destroyed its Jewish culture poses. See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/07/joffee-critiques-justifications-for.html

Is there anything else going on here? One certainly wonders if this incantation bowl story comes up over and over again at least in part because archaeologists are miffed that epigraphists continue to see value in the study of unprovenanced artifacts. See http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2007/10/ucl-and-incantation-bowls.html Even worse, could anti-Semitism also be part of the mix? See https://www-ucl-slb.ucl.ac.uk/hebrew-jewish/ijs/news.htm

International Archaeological Lobby Presses Efforts to Shift the Burden of Proof

The "archaeology over all" lobbies in Bulgaria and the UK are seeking to shift the burden of proof onto collectors and antiquities dealers to demonstrate the valid "ownership" of the artifacts in their collections--just like their American colleagues.

Archaeologists have already succeeded to some extent with the passage of Bulgaria's new cultural heritage law, but parts of that law were then struck down by the Bulgarian Constitutional Court as violating Bulgarians' right to own private property. See http://sofiaecho.com/2009/10/30/806668_archaeologys-losing-fight and http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/10/bulgarian-constitutional-court-strikes.html

Though written from an "archaeology over all" perspective, a recent Sofia Echo article does acknowledge that this "hot button" issue helps explain why collectors find the new law so controversial:

One of the bill’s provisions that most stirred controversy was that holders of any artwork or antiques should prove their ownership. This provision, central to the law’s intention to regulate the balance between the state’s goal of preserving Bulgaria’s cultural heritage and the private interests of art collectors, would become the defining battleground between the law’s supporters and its detractors.

See http://sofiaecho.com/2009/10/30/806668_archaeologys-losing-fight

The Bulgarian Constitutional Court's decision addressed this issue. In its ruling, the Court allowed invoices and the like to suffice to esbablish "ownership," effectively weakening this "provenance" requirement. In contrast, the law as written had required "official paperwork" like a customs declaration or a court decision to establish good title.

Meanwhile, in the U.K., Lord Renfrew and other members of the "Archaeological All Party Group" have sought to attach a provision to proposed Amendments to the Treasure Act that would shift the burden of proof for those dealing in ancient artifacts from all cultures. As Renfrew explained,

Amendment 68 requires that a person dealing in an archaeological object should produce evidence to show that the object has not been unlawfully excavated. That places a duty on the vendor of knowing and stating the recent history of the antiquity. It will no longer be sufficient to say that it fell off the back of a lorry or was found in the vendor's attic.

See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/91026-0003.htm

This proposal will no doubt be quite controversial and, in any event, the Government does not seem interested in pursuing it at this point. As stated by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bach),

I cannot be as helpful with Amendments 68 to 73, which would introduce a new criminal offence of dealing in undocumented archaeological objects. The new offence would add to the existing offence of dishonestly dealing in a cultural object that is tainted. That offence was introduced in the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003. The introduction of the Act showed our commitment to address the problem by facilitating the prosecution of people who trade in objects looted or stolen from buildings and excavations both here and abroad, and its provisions have an important deterrent effect. There may well have been no cases at this stage, but we believe that it has had a deterrent effect and has raised awareness of the importance of the need to make appropriate checks when acquiring items of cultural importance.

I know that the noble Lords to whom I have referred support the provisions of the 2003 Act as the national heritage of many countries is at stake. Our reluctance to accept these amendments is that we are always wary of introducing yet another new criminal offence unless there is a proven need to do so. The proposed new offences would extend to objects which have been excavated in countries other than England and Wales, which is outside the scope of the treasure system.

Id.

Collectors and dealers need to be more vigilant. A fundamental right for both Britons and Americans is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Yet, archaeologists have used "provenance requirements" to chip away at this fundamental right when it comes to collecting antiquities. The debate needs to be refocused towards the impact of proposed remedies to "looting" on our fundamental rights.

Lean Budgets Lead to More Reliance on Amateurs to Record the Past

As noted in Derek Fincham's "Illicit Cultural Property" blog, the Guardian reports on how lean times in the U.K. make it virtually inevitable that more reliance will be placed on interested members of the public to record the past. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/aug/28/archaeology-amateur-rewriting-british-history

Unlike many U.S. archaeologists, Fincham thinks the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities scheme may have something to offer to other countries. See generally http://illicit-cultural-property.blogspot.com/2009/08/metal-detecting-filling-gap-left-by.html

I really don't understand the hostility of many U.S. archaeologists towards the Treasure Act and PAS, particularly when they don't even have personal experience with how the U.K.'s system works. Even Lord Renfrew, a well-known critic of the antiquities trade, has had kind things to say about the Treasure Act and PAS. See: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/01/report-on-lord-renfrew-talk-in-new-york.html

The typical claim of critics is that the Treasure Act and PAS merely "pays people to loot."

But the fact remains that even in boom times, there is never enough money or enough archaeologists to excavate and properly record all the minor artifacts (particularly coins) out there. There certainly is not enough money to ensure they are all properly conserved.

Why not encourage the public to work with archaeologists rather than against them?

What's wrong with letting the public keep minor artifacts after they are recorded, particularly when they will otherwise just be forgotten in the stores of underfunded state museums?

Shouldn't it all be about recording and preserving artifacts rather than "keeping control?"

Report on Lord Renfrew Talk in New York

Rick Witschonke, a fellow ancient coin collector, wrote the following report about Lord Renfrew's recent talk in New York sponsored by the advocacy group, SAFE. Rick kindly gave his consent to post his report on my blog. Here it is:

Friends:

Thought you might be interested in a brief report on Renfrew's talk at CUNY last evening.

The event was sponsored by SAFE, so Renfrew was introduced by Cindy Ho; his topic was "Combating the Illicit Antiquities Trade: A Time for Clarity". He spoke for about an hour, and it was mostly his standard anti-Museum agenda, with a few differences. He still spent a lot of time on the Met and Getty (his primary targets last time I saw him), but, with new Directors and new acquisition policies in place at both, he expressed cautious optimism that things had really changed. Ironically, in his discussion of the return of the Lydian treasure, he showed a photo including the gold hippocamp, but failed to mention that subsequent to its return to Turkey it has been stolen and presumably melted (cf. Waxman "Loot"). He also focused on the Bactrian gold trumpet (L.2001.65.1) which has been published as seen in Kabul in 1977, but is still on exhibit at the Met as "Promised gift of Shelby White". He also showed some very detailed color photos of the Medici Geneva warehouse, which I have never seen in print (I wonder where he got them). Renfrew's new primary target seems to be BMFA, which he strongly criticised; he spent about 5 minutes on the Weary Hercules. The overall message was the need for vigilance to ensure that museums live up to their new policies.

The talk was followed by Q&A, so, knowing that Renfrew had supported PAS when its funding was threatened, I took the opportunity to ask: "Do you think that if other source countries were to adopt similar schemes, that it would help to reduce looting ?". His answer was an unqualified yes ("brilliant scheme"), with none of the usual caveats about it not being our place to dictate antiquity policy to other nations. He did, however, express regret that about the increase in UK metal detecting, but says he considers it a lost cause. Overall, an interesting evening.

Cheers,

Rick

Is Transparency a One-Way Street?

In a series of recent lectures, Lord Renfrew and the advocacy group SAFE have made a big show of demanding greater transparency from museums about their acquisition policies. The same group -- along with associated bloggers and organizations like the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (CARRI) --has also demanded greater transparency from the antiquities and coin trade. I'm not so sure that demands on private parties should be the same as those on public ones. In any case, what about more transparency within the archaeological community itself, particularly when it comes to the archaeological community's interactions with foreign governments as well as its stewardship over archaeological digs and the artifacts found within them?

Milken, Treasure Act and PAS

I have to admit, I have been meaning to read the Milken Institutes's report mentioned here on my blog: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/12/milken-institue-speaks-on-cultural.html However, a busy spell at work, plus an antiquated computer that makes downloads of this nature exceptionally tedious has thwarted my plans. Anyway, David Gill of the "Looting Matters" blog has saved me the trouble. I was particularly interested to learn what Milken had to say about the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS). According to Gill, the nub of the discussion was as follows:

The scheme has also been criticized by some scholars as legalizing looting, promoting the removal of artifacts by amateurs. Proponents of the plan counter that the looting was happening already and that the scheme encourages those who have looted to at least document what was taken and from where, preserving minimal cultural context.

See: http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2009/01/metal-detecting-seen-as-looting-by.html

I have a differnt take. I suspect that the Milken Institute's pejorative analysis probably says much more about the jaundiced views of the those who organized its conference than anything else. In contrast, the British Government and most commentators have viewed the Treasure Act and PAS in a much more positive light.

Where members of the archaeological community that dominated the Milken Institute's conference may have viewed the Treasure Act and PAS as a "license to loot," others --including many prominent archaeologists and archaeological groups-- instead see the Treasure Act and PAS as a successful program that brings archaeologists and members of the public together to help study and preserve artifacts from the past. Even some not normally friendly to the interests of collectors, like Lord Renfrew and the AIA, have voiced support for the PAS during a recent debate over funding for the program. Hopefully, the Milken Institute will reevaluate its own stance on the Treasure Act and PAS in the not too distant future.

Lord Renfrew as Collector

The Financial Times has a blurb about Lord Renfrew as a collector of modern art: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e3817064-bc1b-11dd-80e9-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1

In it Lord Renfrew also states the following about collecting archaeological artifacts:

I’m much in favour of collecting, so long as it doesn’t involve objects recently taken from the ground. In my opinion all too many collections are scandalous for this very reason. I don’t mind so much people buying antiquities looted a century ago, but not if the items in question entered the market post-1970 when the convention on the illegal trade in antiquities was signed.

While the article focuses on Renfrew's collection of modern art, I also understand from several sources that he maintains a collection of ancient Etruscan coins. Given Lord Renfrew's public stance on collecting, it would be interesting to learn more about the "provenance" of the coins in the collection. It would also be interesting to learn if the collection has been published anywhere.

Cambridge Academic Takes on "Mantras" of Members of Archaeological Community Opposed to Collecting

T.V. Buttrey, a well known academic in numismatic circles, posted this critique of Lord Renfrew's views and those of others in the archaeological community who hold that unprovenanced objects should be treated as illicit: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unidroit-L/message/3220

The post is particularly interesting because it highlights not only the intellectual problems with Renfrew's views, but also the fact that academics who disagree with Renfrew and his adherants are subject to being "blackballed." I have heard this before privately, but have never seen an academic state as much publicly.

Another note on Lord Renfrew. I have also heard from several sources that he has a collection of Etruscan coins! I have not heard that the collection has been published. It would be interesting to learn more details, particularly about the coins' "provenance."