My last post has evidently struck a nerve. Three blogger/archaeologists associated with Saving Antiquities for Everyone responded, two with multiple posts addressing the same issue. You can find them all through this post from Nathan Elkins: http://coinarchaeology.blogspot.com/2008/10/controversial-excavation-of-coin-hoard.html
I may not always agree with Nathan, but at least he generally makes a real effort to be polite!
Anyway, all seem concerned by the alleged loss of context of this find, which apparently sat upon an ancient midden or garbage dump. But what would have that context really told us other than someone deposited bronze nummi out with trash?
I'm sure Messrs. Gill, Barford and Elkins will come up with something, but certainly all context is not created equal. Here, for example, the follow up investigations by a professional archaeologist apparently did not come up with anything more of real signifcance or we would likely have heard it by now.
All this actually points to the genius of the British and Welsh system. Treasure Trove and the Portable Antiquities Scheme in effect put amateurs into a partnership with professional archaeologists. The amateurs may be in it just for the money(as at least Messr. Barford insinuates) or they may be in it because they truly love history-- but the effect is much the same. Trained archaeologists are few in number and no one can expect them to spend much time roving the countryside in search of promising sites. This is where amateurs come in. Most of the time they find little of archaeological significance, but sometimes they lead archaeologists to important discoveries. There may be some loss of context along the way, but isn't this a price worth paying when an otherwise unknown archaeological site of significance comes to light?
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Reported Treasure Find Prompts Catcalls Rather Than Congratulations
The British Press is reporting another large find of Roman coins declared under that country's treasure trove law. For more details, see: http://www.mk-news.co.uk/mknews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=361917
I think the finders should be commended for following the law and declaring their hoard to the authorities. Two bloggers associated with the advocacy group "Saving Antiquities for Everyone" evidently disagree. See: http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2008/10/just-finding-history-digging-for-coins.html
They appear to be griping because they claim archaeological context was disturbed. However, both seem to miss the point that the find-- like most in Britain and Wales-- was made on ploughed land where the archaeological context was already disturbed. For more, see: http://www.accg.us/issues/news/bland/ Presumably, their concern is based on the fact that the coins were recovered at a depth of 1 meter (approximately 3 feet), but the fact that the coins were found with broken pottery (presumably the remains of the container that initially protected the coins) still argues that earlier ploughing operations already damaged the context of the find.
In any event, I find all their focus on context in this circumstance to be a bit laughable. Does anyone seriously believe that archaeologists would have been visiting this field any time soon to do a full scale investigation that would have come upon this hoard? If anything, this find should prompt local archaeologists to investigate the site further to see if there is anything really worth excavating nearby. If so, the price of disturbing the context of this hoard (if it was in fact disturbed) will likely be greatly outweighed by the value of any larger find.
One final note. I have spoken to several classical archaeologists (with no axe to grind against collectors) that have told me that large hoards like that found here are not typically found at archaeological sites (in contrast to much smaller purse hoards). As there appears to be a difference of opinion on this point, I think it is best to focus on the fact that most hoards found by detectorists are found on ploughed land where context has already been disturbed.
I think the finders should be commended for following the law and declaring their hoard to the authorities. Two bloggers associated with the advocacy group "Saving Antiquities for Everyone" evidently disagree. See: http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2008/10/just-finding-history-digging-for-coins.html
They appear to be griping because they claim archaeological context was disturbed. However, both seem to miss the point that the find-- like most in Britain and Wales-- was made on ploughed land where the archaeological context was already disturbed. For more, see: http://www.accg.us/issues/news/bland/ Presumably, their concern is based on the fact that the coins were recovered at a depth of 1 meter (approximately 3 feet), but the fact that the coins were found with broken pottery (presumably the remains of the container that initially protected the coins) still argues that earlier ploughing operations already damaged the context of the find.
In any event, I find all their focus on context in this circumstance to be a bit laughable. Does anyone seriously believe that archaeologists would have been visiting this field any time soon to do a full scale investigation that would have come upon this hoard? If anything, this find should prompt local archaeologists to investigate the site further to see if there is anything really worth excavating nearby. If so, the price of disturbing the context of this hoard (if it was in fact disturbed) will likely be greatly outweighed by the value of any larger find.
One final note. I have spoken to several classical archaeologists (with no axe to grind against collectors) that have told me that large hoards like that found here are not typically found at archaeological sites (in contrast to much smaller purse hoards). As there appears to be a difference of opinion on this point, I think it is best to focus on the fact that most hoards found by detectorists are found on ploughed land where context has already been disturbed.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Good Read: Thomas Laird's "The Story of Tibet"
I don't get to read "for fun" as much as I would like to. One good thing about train trips is that as long as there is no work that needs to be done, it is a good time to read a good book. Thomas Laird's "The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama" is such a good book.
Through Laird's interviews, the Dalai Lama himself recounts Tibetan history. That history unfolds as an expression of the Buddhist version of "Divine Provenance." Along the way, one learns about the long alliance between the Mongols and Tibetans. One can easily imagine that long memories about Mongol subjugation of the Chinese perhaps helps explain China's uncompromising efforts to subjugate Tibet. China may have lost out on controlling much of the Mongolian homeland based on Russian support for the Mongols in the 1920's, but Tibet lacked strong foreign support against the Chinese invasion in 1951. At the time, world powers most likely to help were busy fighting off China's efforts to dominate the far more strategic Korean Peninsula.
For those interested in cultural property issues, the book provides a stark record of China's efforts to destroy Tibetan culture by destroying most of its monasteries and temples along with thousands and thousands of ancient religious artifacts. The Dalai Lama himself recounts a particularly poignant story:
The Dalai Lama said, " A large clay statue of Chenrizi [a Buddhist savior for Tibet] was made in Jokhang [the site of the first and most important Buddhist Temple in Tibet], and that wood statue of Buddha from Nepal [associated with an early Tibetan king, Songzen Gampo] was put inside the bigger one." These two statues, a tiny wooden one nested in the larger clay one, sat in the Jokhang undisturbed for thirteen hundred years... "The large statue, like nearly all of those in the Jokhang, were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution. When they destroyed the larger clay statue, they found the small wooden statue at the center. Some Tibetan kept it after the larger one was destroyed and then sent it to me, which is very good."
Laird, supra, at 40. No wonder the Dalai Lama himself has praised Western collectors for their efforts to help preserve Tibet's past. Why, then, have members of the archaeological community supported China's efforts to seek import restrictions on virtually all Chinese archaeological and ethnological items, including those from Tibet? Could it be that the prospect of cooperation with Chinese archaeologists silences any inclination to speak out? If so, such archaeologists are little different than many of the "foreign policy experts" that appear in the media. Id. at 365-66. Laird reports that the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party stressed that one of the main targets for its external propaganda were foreign experts as "propaganda created by foreigners is more powerful" than propaganda produced by Chinese. Id. at 366. I suspect the same can be said for the efforts of some members of the archaeological community to plead China's case for control over Tibetan cultural artifacts reaching this country.
Through Laird's interviews, the Dalai Lama himself recounts Tibetan history. That history unfolds as an expression of the Buddhist version of "Divine Provenance." Along the way, one learns about the long alliance between the Mongols and Tibetans. One can easily imagine that long memories about Mongol subjugation of the Chinese perhaps helps explain China's uncompromising efforts to subjugate Tibet. China may have lost out on controlling much of the Mongolian homeland based on Russian support for the Mongols in the 1920's, but Tibet lacked strong foreign support against the Chinese invasion in 1951. At the time, world powers most likely to help were busy fighting off China's efforts to dominate the far more strategic Korean Peninsula.
For those interested in cultural property issues, the book provides a stark record of China's efforts to destroy Tibetan culture by destroying most of its monasteries and temples along with thousands and thousands of ancient religious artifacts. The Dalai Lama himself recounts a particularly poignant story:
The Dalai Lama said, " A large clay statue of Chenrizi [a Buddhist savior for Tibet] was made in Jokhang [the site of the first and most important Buddhist Temple in Tibet], and that wood statue of Buddha from Nepal [associated with an early Tibetan king, Songzen Gampo] was put inside the bigger one." These two statues, a tiny wooden one nested in the larger clay one, sat in the Jokhang undisturbed for thirteen hundred years... "The large statue, like nearly all of those in the Jokhang, were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution. When they destroyed the larger clay statue, they found the small wooden statue at the center. Some Tibetan kept it after the larger one was destroyed and then sent it to me, which is very good."
Laird, supra, at 40. No wonder the Dalai Lama himself has praised Western collectors for their efforts to help preserve Tibet's past. Why, then, have members of the archaeological community supported China's efforts to seek import restrictions on virtually all Chinese archaeological and ethnological items, including those from Tibet? Could it be that the prospect of cooperation with Chinese archaeologists silences any inclination to speak out? If so, such archaeologists are little different than many of the "foreign policy experts" that appear in the media. Id. at 365-66. Laird reports that the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party stressed that one of the main targets for its external propaganda were foreign experts as "propaganda created by foreigners is more powerful" than propaganda produced by Chinese. Id. at 366. I suspect the same can be said for the efforts of some members of the archaeological community to plead China's case for control over Tibetan cultural artifacts reaching this country.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Grand Opening of New ANS Site: Good News, Bad News, Good News
The American Numismatic Society has opened its new headquarters and has updated its website. For more, see: http://www.numismatics.org/
The Executive Director, Ute Wartenberg Kagan, and the staff should be commended for all their hard work in making the new headquarters a reality.
Of particular interest should be a small but wonderful exhibit of coins from members of the New York Numismatic Club. These range from ancient coinage to early U.S. coinage and medals.
Overall, the annual meeting of the ANS I attended in conjunction with the opening offered a bit of good news, bad news and good news. The good news is that the move is completed and the ANS finally has excellent facilities which have a finished look about them. The bad news is that like many not for profits, the ANS has seen its endowment get hit in a big way with the recent downturn in the stock market. On the bright side, however, all the money received for the sale of the old building has been held in cash so it has not evaporated like other funds in the endowment.
Over the near term, ambitious plans for expansion of programs will need to be put on hold and more than ever the ANS will need to rely on the generosity of its members to not just survive but grow. Unlike the Smithsonian and many institutions in Europe, the ANS is highly dependent on its members (chiefly academics, collectors and members of the numismatic trade) for funding. Anyone who supports repressing private collecting of artifacts as common as coins should realize this can't but also impact the continued vitality of one of the few places in the United States where coinage of all eras is not only preserved, but studied on an academic basis.
The benefits of the academic study of coins is evident to most numismatists, but it should also be noted that such study has real world benefits as well. Edmund C. Moy, the Director of the U.S. Mint, spoke at a dinner I attended in conjunction with the opening. He made clear that he hopes to reinvigorate our present day coinage, not by directly copying historical coinage, but using some of its design precepts to guide how we can make our own coins reflect the best of our own society of today has to offer.
The Executive Director, Ute Wartenberg Kagan, and the staff should be commended for all their hard work in making the new headquarters a reality.
Of particular interest should be a small but wonderful exhibit of coins from members of the New York Numismatic Club. These range from ancient coinage to early U.S. coinage and medals.
Overall, the annual meeting of the ANS I attended in conjunction with the opening offered a bit of good news, bad news and good news. The good news is that the move is completed and the ANS finally has excellent facilities which have a finished look about them. The bad news is that like many not for profits, the ANS has seen its endowment get hit in a big way with the recent downturn in the stock market. On the bright side, however, all the money received for the sale of the old building has been held in cash so it has not evaporated like other funds in the endowment.
Over the near term, ambitious plans for expansion of programs will need to be put on hold and more than ever the ANS will need to rely on the generosity of its members to not just survive but grow. Unlike the Smithsonian and many institutions in Europe, the ANS is highly dependent on its members (chiefly academics, collectors and members of the numismatic trade) for funding. Anyone who supports repressing private collecting of artifacts as common as coins should realize this can't but also impact the continued vitality of one of the few places in the United States where coinage of all eras is not only preserved, but studied on an academic basis.
The benefits of the academic study of coins is evident to most numismatists, but it should also be noted that such study has real world benefits as well. Edmund C. Moy, the Director of the U.S. Mint, spoke at a dinner I attended in conjunction with the opening. He made clear that he hopes to reinvigorate our present day coinage, not by directly copying historical coinage, but using some of its design precepts to guide how we can make our own coins reflect the best of our own society of today has to offer.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Police Posse to "Raise Awareness" About ICOM "Red List of Afghan Antiquities at Risk"
The Metropolitan Police in the London have announced a special initiative to warn off art and antiquities dealers from purchasing "looted" Afghan artifacts: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/10/21/baafghan121.xml
As the article states,
12 volunteer 'ArtBeat' special constables drawn from the art world, including one at the British Museum, will help the Met's Art and Antiques Unit police the industry. On Monday they started visiting art dealers, auction houses, museums and collectors across London to "raise awareness" about the stolen Afghan items.
Its not clear whether these "ArtBeat" special constables will mainly concern themselves with potential violations of the U.K.'s Cultural Objects (Offenses) Act of 2003 see: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030027_en_1, or whether they will instead act as some sort of posse for ICOM and its "Red List of Afghan Antiquities at Risk."
More about the Red List can be found here:
http://icom.museum/redlist/afghanistan/en/index.html
If the latter, I fear any such operation could quickly degenerate into some sort of witch hunt that assumes a holder of an artifact of potential Afghan origin is "guilty" until he proves himself innocent to the satisfaction of those not necessarily friendly to the concept of collecting.
Certainly, the breadth of the definitions of the "Afghan Antiquities" supposedly at risk should should give one pause. Here, for example is a how the list describes Afghan coins:
Antique coins, of bronze, silver and gold, are hand stamped. Pre-Islamic coins usually include the portraits of the king on one side and the divinities on the reverse. Islamic examples are decorated only with Arabic script.
Finally, note that both the State Department’s ECA and such activists as SAFE are partners in the larger ICOM effort: http://www.icom-oesterreich.at/2007/press_red-list_afghanistan_background.pdf One certainly gets the feeling that ECA and groups such as ICOM and SAFE work hand in hand to encourage cultural bureaucracies in source countries to take the hard line against collectors. In any event, it should also obviously concern anyone interested in fair play that our State Department is acting in concert with activists who in theory at least are supposed to appear before the ECA's Cultural Property Advisory Committee on equal footing with everyone else.
As the article states,
12 volunteer 'ArtBeat' special constables drawn from the art world, including one at the British Museum, will help the Met's Art and Antiques Unit police the industry. On Monday they started visiting art dealers, auction houses, museums and collectors across London to "raise awareness" about the stolen Afghan items.
Its not clear whether these "ArtBeat" special constables will mainly concern themselves with potential violations of the U.K.'s Cultural Objects (Offenses) Act of 2003 see: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030027_en_1, or whether they will instead act as some sort of posse for ICOM and its "Red List of Afghan Antiquities at Risk."
More about the Red List can be found here:
http://icom.museum/redlist/afghanistan/en/index.html
If the latter, I fear any such operation could quickly degenerate into some sort of witch hunt that assumes a holder of an artifact of potential Afghan origin is "guilty" until he proves himself innocent to the satisfaction of those not necessarily friendly to the concept of collecting.
Certainly, the breadth of the definitions of the "Afghan Antiquities" supposedly at risk should should give one pause. Here, for example is a how the list describes Afghan coins:
Antique coins, of bronze, silver and gold, are hand stamped. Pre-Islamic coins usually include the portraits of the king on one side and the divinities on the reverse. Islamic examples are decorated only with Arabic script.
Finally, note that both the State Department’s ECA and such activists as SAFE are partners in the larger ICOM effort: http://www.icom-oesterreich.at/2007/press_red-list_afghanistan_background.pdf One certainly gets the feeling that ECA and groups such as ICOM and SAFE work hand in hand to encourage cultural bureaucracies in source countries to take the hard line against collectors. In any event, it should also obviously concern anyone interested in fair play that our State Department is acting in concert with activists who in theory at least are supposed to appear before the ECA's Cultural Property Advisory Committee on equal footing with everyone else.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Iraqi Cultural Heritage Project Addresses one of Archaeology's "Dirty Little Secrets"
The Iraq Cultural Heritage Project will evidently include funding for publishing old site reports. See: Iraq Cultural Heritage Project Fact Sheet at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2008/oct/111017.htm ("Complementing this professional capacity building will be: a) The American Academic Research Institute in Iraq Archaeological Publication Project (TAARI). In consultation with the Iraq State Board of Antiquities and Heritage and Iraqi archaeologists, TAARI will publish heretofore unpublished archaeological excavation reports prepared by Iraqi archaeologists.").
I have heard the failure to publish site reports characterized as one of archaeology's "dirty little secrets." I suppose some might be tempted to blame the failure to publish the results of past excavations in Iraq on the effect of Saddam era international sanctions on the Iraqi archaeological establishment. But, of course, sanctions did not stop Saddam from spending money to build palaces in places like Babylon. In any event, I've also read about the failure to publish site reports or even properly record finds elsewhere, in places like Egypt and Cyprus. See: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/725/hr2.htm (quoting Zahi Hawaas as follows: "A full scientific report must be published within five years, or the project will be suspended. This is very important. There are many expeditions that have been working here for 20 years, and have never published their work. Scientific results that are not available to scholars are useless and contribute nothing to our knowledge of the past.") and http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=23075&archive=1 ("Demetriou said the association was alerted to the fact that scientific means were not always used, when a retired archaeologist on a recent dig admitted to not keeping a daily diary, which under archaeological rules is sacrosanct and is a requirement of law.").
The fact that site reports are not published or that digs may not be properly documented is relevant to the debate over import restrictions. Archaeologists often justify import restrictions by claiming that such restrictions limit demand for artifacts and thereby ultimately discourage the destruction of archaeological context by clandestine diggers. But doesn't the failure of the archaeological community to police their own colleagues when it comes to properly recording and publishing site finds seriously undercut this claim? If archaeologists themselves don't always properly record and publish their finds, how can they then claim preservation of archaeological context as a major justification for the imposition of import restrictions on cultural artifacts?
In any event, I am glad that the State Department has included funding for publishing site reports, but even when site reports are published, they are not usually easily accessible to the public. Hopefully, the State Department will also insist that at least some of the information is put "online."
I have heard the failure to publish site reports characterized as one of archaeology's "dirty little secrets." I suppose some might be tempted to blame the failure to publish the results of past excavations in Iraq on the effect of Saddam era international sanctions on the Iraqi archaeological establishment. But, of course, sanctions did not stop Saddam from spending money to build palaces in places like Babylon. In any event, I've also read about the failure to publish site reports or even properly record finds elsewhere, in places like Egypt and Cyprus. See: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/725/hr2.htm (quoting Zahi Hawaas as follows: "A full scientific report must be published within five years, or the project will be suspended. This is very important. There are many expeditions that have been working here for 20 years, and have never published their work. Scientific results that are not available to scholars are useless and contribute nothing to our knowledge of the past.") and http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=23075&archive=1 ("Demetriou said the association was alerted to the fact that scientific means were not always used, when a retired archaeologist on a recent dig admitted to not keeping a daily diary, which under archaeological rules is sacrosanct and is a requirement of law.").
The fact that site reports are not published or that digs may not be properly documented is relevant to the debate over import restrictions. Archaeologists often justify import restrictions by claiming that such restrictions limit demand for artifacts and thereby ultimately discourage the destruction of archaeological context by clandestine diggers. But doesn't the failure of the archaeological community to police their own colleagues when it comes to properly recording and publishing site finds seriously undercut this claim? If archaeologists themselves don't always properly record and publish their finds, how can they then claim preservation of archaeological context as a major justification for the imposition of import restrictions on cultural artifacts?
In any event, I am glad that the State Department has included funding for publishing site reports, but even when site reports are published, they are not usually easily accessible to the public. Hopefully, the State Department will also insist that at least some of the information is put "online."
Friday, October 17, 2008
Looking a Gift Horse in the Mouth
The Bush Administration has announced a substantial $13 million grant to help Iraq's museum and archaeological infrastructure: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2008/oct/111017.htm Laura Bush helped roll out the program at the Iraqi Embassy: http://www.whitehouse.gov/firstlady/ This money is in addition to millions already spent to date on the Iraq Museum and archaeological establishment courtesy of the US taxpayer.
With American museums and cultural institutions hurting due to collateral damage from the meltdown on Wall Street, I am a bit mystified why authorities like Larry Rothfield have anything to gripe about, particularly when his own University of Chicago's Oriental Institute will share in the government largess. See http://larryrothfield.blogspot.com/2008/10/good-newsbad-news-new-iraq-cultural.html
I take it that Rothfield wants the State Department to pay for site security in Iraq, but hasn't the US already spent hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars building up Iraq's security forces? It is for the Iraqi government to decide how those forces are deployed. And, although Rothfield apparently continues to deny it, others believe that any looting of Iraqi archaeological sites has declined greatly along with the general decrease in lawlessness in the country.
With American museums and cultural institutions hurting due to collateral damage from the meltdown on Wall Street, I am a bit mystified why authorities like Larry Rothfield have anything to gripe about, particularly when his own University of Chicago's Oriental Institute will share in the government largess. See http://larryrothfield.blogspot.com/2008/10/good-newsbad-news-new-iraq-cultural.html
I take it that Rothfield wants the State Department to pay for site security in Iraq, but hasn't the US already spent hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars building up Iraq's security forces? It is for the Iraqi government to decide how those forces are deployed. And, although Rothfield apparently continues to deny it, others believe that any looting of Iraqi archaeological sites has declined greatly along with the general decrease in lawlessness in the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
