Addressing Looting at the Source by Remote Viewing

Archaeologist Sarah Parcak has decided to use her Ted Prize to fund crowdsourcing and remote satellite viewing to protect archaeological sites from looters.

CPO commends any effort to address looting at the source.   However, for the situations in places like Egypt to improve, issues of poverty and encroachment by development must also be addressed not by more dictatorial measures, but by engaging local people and encouraging an appreciation of past cultures.  

Fall of Palmyra Calls for Safe Harbor for Syrian Antiquities

As fear grows that ISIS may target Palmyra's ancient ruins for destruction, it's time to rethink the wisdom of repatriating artifacts to failed states like Syria and Iraq.  If anything, artifacts of cultural significance from such war zones should be removed and given temporary safe harbor, something suggested by the AAMD.

Stepping Up to the Plate

CPO may not agree with his colleague's desire to restrict Egyptian coins, but David O'Conner and the American Research Center are to be commended for their efforts to train Egyptian conservators and hire their own site guards.  Moreover, CPO appreciates Brian Daniels' suggestion that archaeologists hire their own guards and publish their reports in Arabic in addition to English or some other language.  These are small steps, but focused ones that will have a positive impact on the appreciation and protection of Egypt's cultural heritage.

Monica Hanna: The Arab Spring and the State of Egyptian Antiquities

On April 14, 2014, Monica Hanna, an Egyptologist and social media activist, spoke at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C.  She was introduced by Haleh Esfandiari, the Director of Middle East Programs at the Center.  There were approximately forty (40) attendees in the audience.

Esfandiari indicated Hanna’s talk was co-sponsored by the Antiquities Coalition.  Hanna is a Post-Doctoral Fellow at Humboldt University (Berlin) and was recently awarded the SAFE Beacon Award.  She created Egypt’s “Heritage Task Force” as a social media platform to combat looting.

Dr. Hanna discussed serious damage done at several Pharaonic, Ptolemaic, Coptic, and Islamic sites. Those most at risk are in urban areas.  A “Land Mafia” typically repurposes sites over time so they lose their character as archaeological sites in the mind of locals.  Tactics include using the sites as garbage dumps, farms and cemeteries.  Cemeteries in particular are difficult to remove for obvious reasons.   Local government, Religious Institutes or even National Government ministries have also been at fault.  They have built football pitches or even buildings adjoining or directly on archaeologically sensitive sites.  In the process, monuments are either defaced or utterly destroyed.  In this regard, Dr. Hanna displayed several slides that compared 19^th century prints with present day vistas.  In each case, significant monuments are no longer visible at all or have suffered considerable damage.

Villagers are a problem.  Families with children go out for a picnic and then loot.   There also is more organized looting that Hanna attributes to the illicit international antiquities trade.  They use bulldozers and dynamite to destroy sites in search for loot.  Hanna showed pictures of a looted Coptic site where religious reliefs were pried out from stonework.  She also showed other pictures of looters’ pits where remnants of mummies and mummy cases were left behind.  Apparently, families know not to store looted material in their houses because of the danger of arrest.  Instead, they bury it elsewhere for later retrieval once a middleman is found.

Hanna next discussed looting and destruction at the Malawi Museum in Minya.  She showed before and after slides of mummies that had been burnt by the mob.  Unfortunately, mummies burn quite easily.  Little kids destroyed pottery and other artifacts.  She asked one teenager why he did it.  In response, he told her, “Because they belong to the Government and I’m mad at the Government.”   [Looting of the museum was tied to rioting following a military coup that overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood Government of deposed President Mohamed Morsi.]  Hanna blamed the government for a slow response.  She was finally able to persuade a local police official to bring his family along to drive out the looters.  It took the army three days to send one tank to protect the museum.  [This sounds familiar.  The archaeological community registered similar complaints against the American Army’s alleged slow response to the looting of the Iraq National Museum.]

Hanna asserts that looting destroys history because 70% of an object’s historical value comes from the context in which it was found.  [Others will disagree.]  She advocates that activists report on anyone they believe is selling looted material.

Hanna  then answered some questions.  The first questioner [who appeared to be associated with the Wilson Center] asked about government involvement in looting, but Hanna did not answer that question.  Instead, she maintained that 20% of the looting came from locals selling to antiquities dealers and 80% was attributable to “the Mafia.”  She did not explain how she came by these figures.  She indicated that there needs to be much better community outreach to stem looting.  She wants to use social media to get information about sites being looted.  She said that the same networks that move drugs and guns move antiquities. Again, she did not disclose the source of this information.  She also stated that there are direct channels to middle men in the United States.  Again, no source was provided for this information.  She stated that two (2) recently looted artifacts surfaced at auction in London.  These were discovered because they were from museum stores and were published in 1956.  

The first questioner again asked Hanna if the authorities were involved.  In response, she stated the Mubarak regime was certainly involved and that the Chief of Police for Cairo was arrested for running a smuggling ring.  The questioner then pressed Hanna about any involvement by the current government.  Hanna indicated that it was too soon to tell.

Another questioner asked about whether there was a “concerted international response” to looting.   Hanna indicated it was essential to get the UN involved.  There are markets in the US and the Gulf.  If these markets were closed, the problem would be lessened.  Over the long term there needs to be more investment in local communities in Egypt.  The people must see that antiquities have a value to them.  One reason they loot is that they think it’s their right to do so because corrupt government officials are doing it too.  

Another questioner asked Hanna about the MOU with the United States.  Hanna indicated that it is essential to close markets.  She indicated that Egyptian authorities recently recovered 6,000 artifacts destined for a Swiss collector.   

Another individual indicated he had a State Department contract with a company that planned to assist Egypt create a database of artifacts in State Museum stores.  He wanted it to be known that two consecutive US Ambassadors had tried to get the Egyptian government to cooperate with the project, but the Mubarak Government stymied it.

Hanna indicated that governments need to be pressured to take a strong stance against illicit antiquities collecting.   The last time this was successful was Iraq.  In response to another question, Hanna indicated that she does not approve of private collecting.  She indicated that private collectors should be satisfied with objects with a demonstrable provenance back to 1970 or 1983, the date of a clear Egyptian patrimony law.   She does not think collectors should be able to “get away with” collecting unprovenanced artifacts.  They are likely stolen.  [CPO disagrees.  Egyptian artifacts have been actively and legally collected since the 19^th c. and Egypt itself has only had clear law vesting title in the State since 1983.   Many Egyptian artifacts, particularly minor ones, have lost any information on how and where they were found over the years.  CPO submits to assume they are “stolen” is both factually wrong and grossly unfair to law abiding collectors.]

BM to Determine Whether PAS Has Led to the Discovery of New Archaeological Sites

While the archaeological blogosphere has raised valid questions about the methodology of a new study that equates the passage of restrictive laws with declines in the discovery of archaeological sites, that study still asks an important question:  Do such laws work or do they just award a monopoly to a chosen few state-sponsored archaeologists and so ultimately discourage reported finds?

Or, stated another, more affirmative way, would a less restrictive approach that actually encourages the public to report their finds and work with professional archaeologists be a better way forward?

CPO suspects so and hopes that a British Museum own study  will help elucidate that issue.  According to the BM's website, that study asks the following:

Comparing the metal detected data with other forms of archaeological information, this research seeks to determine whether the information gathered by the Portable Antiquities Scheme can be used to tell us about previously unknown Roman sites, and whether it can add to our knowledge of those Roman sites that are already known.

Do More Restrictions Equate with Fewer Archaeological Discoveries?

Yes, according to what will surely be an unpopular study with those in the archaeological community who equate conservation with control.

According to the author of the  study,

In country after country, empirical data show that when rigid cultural property laws are put in place, major archaeological excavations and discoveries slow markedly, making source countries — and the world at large — culturally poorer.

I surveyed 90 countries with one or more archaeological sites on UNESCO's World Heritage Site list, and my study shows that in most cases the number of discovered sites diminishes sharply after a country passes a cultural property law. There are 222 archaeological sites listed for those 90 countries. When you look into the history of the sites, you see that all but 21 were discovered before the passage of cultural property laws.

On average in art-rich countries, discoveries that landed on UNESCO's list diminished by 90% after these laws were passed. To illustrate: Italy has seven archaeological sites on the World Heritage list; five were discovered before its 1909 cultural property law, but only two after.

Many variables may cause a drop-off in archaeological discoveries country by country, but statistically speaking, it's nearly impossible that the decline shown in the data isn't also related to the passage of cultural property laws.

Addendum (4/8/14):  As anticipated, the long knives are out in the archaeological blogosphere, particularly from those whose careers depend on pushing an anti-collector agenda.  Of course, holes can be poked in any study, but in the end it does raise an interesting point that deserves further attention:  Do strict laws that only allow state sponsored archaeologists and cultural bureaucrats legal access to uncovering the past actually diminish discoveries?    I suspect the answer is yes.  Monopolies have never been good in any field.  Why not instead empower all who care for the past as they do in the UK with its Treasure Act and PAS?

Unclassified Archaeological Remains Piling Up in Storage

BBC News Northern Ireland has reported that

"Hundreds of thousands of archaeological items recovered from historic sites in Northern Ireland are lying unclassified in plastic bags and boxes."

One wonders about the situation in countries that aggressively seek to control all archaeological items, like Egypt, Greece, Cyprus, etc.  

Yet, such information never finds its way into the archaeo-blogosphere, which instead insists every last shard must be under the control of state sponsored archaeologists so it can be properly studied and preserved.

Real Archaeologists Without an Agenda Say Metal Detectors' Damage Limited; PAS Adds to Archaeological Record

Real archaeologists without an agenda have acknowledged for some time that amateur metal detectorists do little real damage to the archaeological record.  Archaeologists are few; so where they end up digging is limited.  And when they dig, they don't typically record and preserve what is located in the top layers of the ground anyway.  Rather, they dig right through to concentrate on archaeological strata of interest and end up just dumping the top layers they excavate, with little, if any study of what it may contain.  Sure, sometimes archaeologists conduct "surface surveys," but amateur metal detectorists have added far more to the archaeological record under the the PAS and Treasure Act.  Because of their hard work, archaeologists in England and Wales have become aware of promising sites which otherwise would have gone unnoticed.  A win-win for anyone who loves history.  

So, why does an archaeo-blogger in far off Poland go on and on about the evils of metal detecting, even where finders properly record the artifacts they find under the Portable Antiquities Scheme and Treasure Act?  And why do American archaeologists who depend on nationalistic foreign cultural bureaucracies to provide them with excavation permits go on and on about the same issue in order to justify import controls on common collectors' coins of the sort widely and legally collected here and abroad?   Is it about conservation or is it really about control?

Italian Cops Seek Pompeii Brick in Tennessee While Site Itself in Jeopardy Due to Incompetence and Corruption

It's a longstanding but bad practice for tourists to take souvenirs from archaeological sites.  Still, in yet another case of severe overkill, Italian cops, tipped off by ever vigilant archaeologists, are after a brick taken from Pompeii in 1958.  No doubt, US law enforcement will cooperate with this effort and threaten the offending eBay seller with a federal criminal prosecution, but will graciously relent if the seller will just relinquish that old brick his mother brought back from vacation so it can be returned to its rightful home in Italy.

Meanwhile, in Italy itself,  Pompeii remains in jeopardy due to the incompetence and corruption of the very officials charged with protecting it.  Perhaps, Italian cops and the press should instead be focusing their attention on this present day tragedy rather than on some hapless eBay seller in Tennessee.

Private Public Partnership Between Odyssey Marine and United Kingdom Strikes Gold with Silver Haul

Odyssey Marine's partnership with the United Kingdom has struck it big with a huge haul of silver from a World War II shipwreck.  Perhaps, bankrupt governments of places like Spain, Cyprus and Greece should take note.

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.

State Department Ambassadors Fund 2010 Awards Announced

The State Department Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation 2010 Awards have been announced. See http://newsblaze.com/story/20100724131615stat.nb/topstory.html

All well and good, but one wonders somewhat about the award to Libya to help record artifacts from Cyrene.

Libya is a wealthy oil state with a small population. It should already have enough money available to care for its own cultural heritage. I suppose this is all part of the rapprochement with Libya since it voluntarily gave up its weapons of mass destruction programs. Still, the timing of this award is not great, what with the negative publicity over the suspicious "compassionate release" of a Libyan intelligence agent convicted in the downing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

Addendum: Secretary of State Clinton speaks about the Ambassadors Fund here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhcNFd_3spQ&NR=1