Clowns and moron logic

Bring out the Clowns

http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/12/bring-out-clowns.html

By Paul Barford

The US is considering renewing the bilateral cultural property agreement with Cyprus pursuant to the US being a state party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property'. This is the occasion of the inception of yet another parade of moron logic from US collectors of dugup ancient coins. The first public comment has been published on the e.gov website. The author writes:

U.S. import restrictions [on illegally exported artefacts] will not, in any case, deter looters because there will always be a world market for coins. [...]. These import restrictions will, however, undermine a hobby of great value to historians, numismatists, lovers of metallic art and your people. I hope you will oppose import restrictions.

It is not clear to whom this person thinks he is writing, it looks ("your people") as if he will be surprised to learn that he was addressing to the Washington-based Cultural Property Advisory Committee. It looks like he is unaware also of the fact that the import restrictions are already in place and here are merely up for renewal (his lack of awareness on this raises the question of what actual - rather than imagined - effect the measures are indeed having on US collectors if some of them do not even know they exist). Probably the author of this comment would also be equally surprised to learn that the 1970 UNESCO Convention rather than "looting" is about "the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property". This rather reduces the impact of his suggestion (unthinkingly cut-and-pasted from Peter Tompa's instructions):

To prevent looting of coins, medal detectors are the thing to regulate not trade in coins.

In what way does the writer of this advice to the CPAC think that the use of metal detectors to search for collectables on the archaeological sites of Cyprus is not "regulated", and how would deregulating trade in dugup artefacts (that is allowing an unmonitored free-for-all) "prevent looting"? The attitude of coiney collectors over in the US to metal detectors (the tool) and metal detectorists (those who use them for seeking various things - including meteorites) seems wholly ambiguous. Why "regulate metal detectors" and not - for example "spades"? In what way is the Washington CPAC entitled to dictate the rights and restrictions of Cypriot citizens the other side of the world? Why anyway should any Cypriot government listen to a bunch of collectors of decontextualised ancient bric-a-brac to some and potentially to a large extent dug up while trashing archaeological sites in foreign countries and smuggled out of them in defiance of antiquity preservation and export legislation? These people seem hardly in a position to dictate anything to anyone, still less a foreign government .

...

*********************

COMMENTARY

*********************

Hmm. Clowns and moron logic? Perhaps the author of this screed might have given a bit of thought to using such terms to describe a collector ... people who live in glass houses, etc. What he has written, in the eyes of any genuinely knowledgeable and intelligent observer, actually recoils and rebounds against his unceasing efforts to denigrate "coineys" and other collectors. Examining the "points" he so unsuccessfully essayed to make in his blog post:

1) It is not clear to whom this person thinks he is writing, it looks ("your people") as if he will be surprised to learn that he was addressing to the Washington-based Cultural Property Advisory Committee.

All that the commenter need understand is that he is addressing the US Government in presenting his opinions regarding the proposed MOU extension.

2) It looks like he is unaware also of the fact that the import restrictions are already in place and here are merely up for renewal (his lack of awareness on this raises the question of what actual - rather than imagined - effect the measures are indeed having on US collectors if some of them do not even know they exist).

It looks as though the blogger does not understand the 1983 CCPIA, which essentially anticipated that nearly all MOUs would NOT be renewed and would instead be allowed to lapse unless very convincing evidence could be shown, to the effect that the proposed continuation of what was presumed to be a temporary emergency justifying extraordinary measures would be justified. Congress did not ever intend that MOUs should automatically be renewed unless some extraordinary situation intervened. The way the question of renewal has been twisted around into the exact opposite of what Congress intended is ipso facto convincing evidence that Maria Kouroupas and her henchmen have systematically undermined, frustrated and negated the legislative intent of Congress and the very purpose of the 1983 CCPIA.

3) Probably the author of this comment would also be equally surprised to learn that the 1970 UNESCO Convention rather than "looting" is about "the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property". This rather reduces the impact of his suggestion (unthinkingly cut-and-pasted from Peter Tompa's instructions):

To prevent looting of coins, medal detectors are the thing to regulate not trade in coins.

Probably the author of the blog post in question would be surprised to learn that the title of the 1970 UNESCO Convention does not really describe what it is about, and that its actual purpose is very clearly to control "looting" in all its forms, from stripping a nation of ethnological and historical artifacts that have never been buried, to smuggling antiquities that might once have been buried. This very typical quibble is evidence of his own obfuscating attempts at logic chopping, which might meet with more success if he understood the formal discipline of logic and the very basic and easily understood list of elementary fallacies into which his own arguments so frequently fall. It is not however really fair to criticize him for this, because the pseudo-science of archaeology is inherently illogical in so many of its tenets and allegedly "scientific" methods. The writings of the blogger in question are indeed very clear evidence that archaeology does not in fact actually follow the scientific method, and is therefore not a real science but instead, only an imperfectly organized discipline of study which might be described as a pseudoscience. As in the case of alchemy and astrology, both of which eventually evolved (after many centuries of study and experiment) into real sciences.

4) In what way does the writer of this advice to the CPAC think that the use of metal detectors to search for collectables on the archaeological sites of Cyprus is not "regulated", and how would deregulating trade in dugup artefacts (that is allowing an unmonitored free-for-all) "prevent looting"?

Can the author of the blog post in question establish that Cyprus is doing anything effective to actually regulate use of metal detectors on that island? Or is he instead under the impression that publishing a decree regarding their use suffices?

Why does he think that " deregulating trade in dugup artefacts" must be shown to prevent looting in order to be justified? He has got the question the wrong way around, as he so often (one might say habitually) does. The actual requirement, according to the 1983 CCPIA, is to show that regulating trade in artifacts of types that might conceivably (even if only rarely) have been "dugup" is absolutely necessary to control looting for a relatively short time, while the source state in question brings the situation under control by its own efforts.

5) The attitude of coiney collectors over in the US to metal detectors (the tool) and metal detectorists (those who use them for seeking various things - including meteorites) seems wholly ambiguous.

The attitude of US collectors is not ambiguous at all, it is instead based upon a perception that nations such as the Republic of Cyprus must solve their own problems, and that it is unfair and unreasonable to create difficulties for US collectors because foreign governments are unable to control the behavior of their own citizens. A government that cannot do that, ipso facto stands indicted as being incompetent to be the steward and guardian of cultural property of any sort. This is of course an example of a consequent logical conclusion, which the blogger in question has not been trained to understand or to recognize.

6) Why "regulate metal detectors" and not - for example "spades"?

Spades are used for many innocent and socially beneficial purposes, whereas metal detectors can only be used to search for buried metal artifacts, which is exactly the sort of behavior the blogger himself incessantly condemns -- as any metal detectorist could attest to.

7) In what way is the Washington CPAC entitled to dictate the rights and restrictions of Cypriot citizens the other side of the world?

It is entitled to recommend to the US Government that the requests of the Cypriot government are not in the best interests of the USA.

8) Why anyway should any Cypriot government listen to a bunch of collectors of decontextualised ancient bric-a-brac to some and potentially to a large extent dug up while trashing archaeological sites in foreign countries and smuggled out of them in defiance of antiquity preservation and export legislation?

Who cares what the Cypriot government listens to? Their jurisdiction does not extend beyond their own borders.

Of course, the blogger in question does not believe that, just as he does not believe in the rule of law or that archaeology should be subject to the rule of law and should accordingly respect the legal rights of collectors. Instead he advocates that archaeology should be entitled to dictate to everyone what "moral law" regarding "dugup artefacts" is, and that archaeology is personified by him, and that as the personification of archaeology he should be allowed to incessantly criticize, insult, denigrate and even libel and slander anyone and everyone who disagrees with his own extremist views. Which views clearly include those of almost everyone else in the discipline of archaeology, to whom the blogger in question has become an enormous and discrediting embarrassment and figuratively, a virtual albatross hung around their neck.

9) These people seem hardly in a position to dictate anything to anyone, still less a foreign government .

The only government "these people" seek to dictate to is their own. And they will indeed do so, as they are constitutionally entitled to do and morally required to do for the US government is the servant, not the master of the American people. They are responsible to themselves and to the whole world for keeping a good lookout, and keeping their government under proper discipline and control (no conspiracies, riots or mutinies by officials or employees of that government against their right to command can or will be tolerated). They are responsible for their government's obligation to scrupulously and carefully always obey the rules of the road, and for carefully plotting its course and guiding it through the tumultuous seas across which it must sail, neither colliding with other ships of state nor running down any of innumerable small craft owned and steered by private individuals innocently going about their lawful business.

The US ship of state, steered by a conspiring gang of mutinous bureaucrats disobeying the accepted rules of conduct for its crew and rebelling against discipline necessary for its proper control and direction, has lately run down many small craft owned and steered by private individuals innocently going about their lawful business. It is past time to put down that mutiny and get our ship back on course.

Cronyism

Will the Obama State Department Uphold Import Restrictions Allegedly Founded on Cronyism?

http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/12/will-obama-state-department-uphold.html

By Peter Tompa

How did the controverisal decision to impose import restriction on Cypriot coins come about? This is a significant issue because this "precedent" has formed the basis for far more extensive restrictions on Chinese, Italian and now Greek coins.

Well, here are some unrebutted allegations from ACCG's Amended Complaint in the Baltimore Test Case. They are largely based on information from FOIA releases:

48. In or about November 2005, Dr. Pavlos Florentzos, Director of the Cyprus Department of Antiquities, visited the United States at the invitation of CAARI and with the support of the U.S. Embassy in Cyprus. During this time, CAARI facilitated a meeting between Florentzos and employees of ECA’s Cultural Heritage Center, including its Executive Director, Maria Kourpoupas, and a staff archaeologist. See J. Green, Cyprus Director of Antiquities, Dr. Pavolos Flourtzos, Visits the U.S., 31 CAARI News 3 (Winter 2006).

49. Upon information and belief, CAARI has benefited from direct and/or indirect financial and/or material support from State, the Government of Cyprus and Cypriot entities, including the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation.

50. Upon information and belief, the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation was established to rescue the Island’s cultural heritage, which the Foundation maintains was pillaged and destroyed by Turkish forces when they occupied the Northern part of the Island. Upon further information and belief, the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation maintains one of the largest collections of ancient coins of Cypriot type within Cyprus. Upon further information and belief, the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation purchases unprovenanced coins on the open market for its collection of the sort now subject to U.S. import restrictions on coins of Cypriot type.

51. On January 19, 2006, State announced a five (5) year renewal of its Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Italy relating to cultural artifacts. Once again, Defendants exempted ancient coins struck in Italy from import restrictions.

52. On December 7, 2006, the Federal Register carried a notice indicating that CPAC would conduct a review of the MOU with Cyprus. That notice invited public comment to be submitted no later than January 11, 2007. The Federal Register notice contained no mention of an effort to extend new restrictions to coins. See 71 Fed. Reg. 71015-71016 (Dec. 7, 2006).

53. On December 8, 2006, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, ECA Miller Crouch indicated in a response to an e-mail inquiry that he “d[id] not anticipate” that new restrictions on coins would be addressed at CPAC’s hearing to consider the renewal of the MOU with Cyprus.

54. On December 14, 2006, two numismatic trade associations filed a request with State to recuse CPAC member Joan Connelly from voting on any last minute effort to impose import restrictions on ancient Cypriot coins. That recusal request noted that Dr. Connelly excavated in Cyprus and had publicly thanked “the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus, its Director, Dr. Demos Christou and the Ministry of Communication and Works, Republic of Cyprus, for granting us the license to excavate on Yeronisos Island.”

55. On January 12, 2007, State summarily denied the recusal request.

56. On January 17, 2007, according to a heavily redacted document released in response to a FOIA request, a State ECA Cultural Heritage Center staff archaeologist conferred with the late Dr. Danielle Parks, an archaeologist associated with the CAARI, about the inclusion of coins in the Cypriot request.

57. On January 19, 2007, according to a document released in response to a FOIA request, Cyprus requested State to amend the designated list of artifacts subject to import restriction to include coins of Cypriot type.

58. On January 25, 2007, CPAC conducted a public hearing on the renewal of the MOU with Cyprus. At that hearing, CPAC Chairman Jay Kislak announced that he had learned that Cyprus had requested that State amend the designated list of Cypriot artifacts subject to import restrictions to include coins of Cypriot type.

59. Upon information and belief, at that same hearing, neither Cypriot authorities nor members of the archaeological community could point to any material change of fact justifying a change in the exemption from import restrictions on Cypriot coins.

60. On January 26, 2007, in response to complaints about the lack of public notice for the inclusion of coins in the Cypriot request, State announced an additional ten (10) day comment period. State made this announcement on the Cultural Heritage Center website and not in the Federal Register. Nevertheless, during this extremely short time frame, numismatic groups generated over 1100 letters opposing the extension of import restrictions to coins.

61. Upon information and belief, comments provided by ACCG and others established: (a) that Cypriot coins were common, with many known examples of coin types struck on the Island; (b) that Cypriot coins travelled widely so that one could not assume that a coin struck in Cyprus was “first discovered” there; (c) that less drastic remedies like the imposition of a treasure trove law and/or the regulation of metal detectors should be tried before import restrictions were considered; (d) and that the CPIA’s “concerted international response” requirement could not be met.

62. Upon information and belief CAARI, the AIA, the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation, and the late Dr. Danielle Parks submitted comments supporting import restrictions at the behest of Cyprus.

63. In a letter dated February 5, 2007, the AIA’s president claimed that it was proper to assume that coins of Cypriot type can be assumed to have Cypriot find spots, because “Coins minted on Cyprus were very rarely taken from the island in antiquity.”

64. On May 2, 2007, Assistant Secretary of State, ECA Dina Powell, the decision maker for the extension of the MOU with Cyprus announced her departure to become the Director for Global Corporate Engagement at Goldman Sachs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dina_Powell (last checked, 7/2/10).

65. Upon information and belief, Goldman Sachs is a bank holding company with worldwide business interests, likely including relationships with Cyprus or Cypriot entities like the Bank of Cyprus.

66. On or about May 7, 2007, according to a document released in response to a FOIA request, CPAC issued its report making its recommendations concerning the extension of the MOU with Cyprus.

67. On or about May 14, 2007, according to a document released in response to a FOIA request, Pavolos Flouretzos, Director, Cypriot Department of Antiquities, admitted in a private communication to State, “It is true that Cypriot coins shared the same destiny as all other coins of the ancient world. As a standard media of exchange they circulated all over the ancient world due to their small size, which facilitated their easy transport… The continuous circulation of coins for many centuries amongst collectors and between collectors and museums make any attempt to locate their exact find spot extremely difficult.”

68. On or about May 16, 2007, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, upon information and belief the third ranking official at State, accepted an award from Greek and Greek Cypriot advocacy groups as these groups lobbied the State policy makers. According to a press release, "Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns was the first Philhellene to receive the Livanos Award. This award is given each year to, as its states on the award, 'that individual who, like George P. Livanos, has utilized ancient Hellenic values to realize extraordinary achievement in modern society while contributing to the improvement of our civilization.'" See http://news.pseka.net/uploads/img/documents/PSEKA-SAE_2007_Conference_EN_01_CEH_01.pdf (last checked, 7/2/10).

69. On or about May 16, 2007, State’s news service quoted Burns as stating on receipt of the Livanos award, "I wear this title of Philhellene rather proudly. You don’t spend four years in Greece, as my wife and three daughters and I did, and not come back feeling committed to Greek thought, to the Greek way of life, to Greece itself in my case....We’re personally committed to the country, to the relationship."

70. On May 17, 2007, according to a document released in response to a FOIA request, Kurt Volker, Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, wrote the Assistant Secretary, ECA Dina Powell, stating “[G]iven our general support for protection of antiquities and the importance of this MOU to our bilateral relations with Cyprus, EUR strongly recommends that ECA approve the renewal of the MOU and include the protection of coins.”

71. On May 29, 2007, according to a document released in redacted form in response to a FOIA request, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, ECA Miller Crouch wrote an “Action Memo” to the decision maker Assistant Secretary, ECA Dina Powell regarding the extension of the MOU with Cyprus. That Action Memo only provides the decision maker with the false choice of approving the import restrictions including coins in their entirety or disapproving them in their entirety. The Action Memo does not provide the decision maker the option of continuing the then current import restrictions without extending them to coins.

72. On May 30, 2007, according to that same document, Assistant Secretary of State Dina Powell signed off on that action memo that authorized import restrictions on ancient coins of Cypriot type.

73. On July 13, 2007, Defendants formally extended import restrictions to coins of Cypriot Types. See Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Pre-Classical and Classical Archaeological Objects and Byzantine Period Ecclesiastical and Ritual Ethnological Material from Cyprus, 19 CFR Part 12, reported at 72 Fed. Reg. 38470-74 (July 13, 2007).

74. On July 16, 2007, the MOU renewal with Cyprus was signed. That MOU fails to suggest that restrictions under the agreement satisfy the CPIA’s requirements, including the requirement “concerted international response” requirement or the requirement that less drastic remedies than import restrictions on coins are not available.

75. On July 19, 2007, Undersecretary Nicholas Burns conducted a signing ceremony for the MOU to coincide with Greek and Greek Cypriot lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill and at the State Department itself. Upon information and belief, representatives of CAARI were invited to this signing ceremony.

76. The official transcript of the Cyprus MOU signing ceremony omits several significant words. In the transcript, Ambassador Kakouris of Cyprus is reported as saying, "In fact, I was reminded just before we came in about something that I had said in January when we were before the Committee and responding to someone very much on the side of the coin collectors who -- talked about the hobby of collecting coins. And I said to him: ‘It may be your hobby, but it's our heritage!" and that is the way that we look at this issue.’"

77. In fact, what Kakouris actually said can be heard (at 10:09 of the audio). There, he states, "In fact, I was reminded by [Cultural Heritage Center ED] Maria Kouroupas just before we came in about something that I had said in January when we were before the Committee and dealing with the coin collectors and somebody who was very much on their side, when he talked about the hobby of collecting coins. And I said to him: ‘It may be your hobby, but it's our heritage!" and that is the way that we look at this issue.’" (Emphasis added.)

78. On July 20, 2007, State issued a press release about the MOU. That press release stated, “With the extension of this MOU, DHS amended the designated list of restricted categories to include ancient coins of Cypriot types produced from the end of the 6th century B.C. to 235 A.D. Coins, a significant and inseparable part of the archaeological record of the island, are especially valuable to understanding the history of Cyprus. This extension of the MOU is consistent with the recommendation of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, which is administered by the Bureau for Educational and Cultural Affairs.” (Emphasis added.)

79. On August 29, 2007, State sent a report mandated under the CPIA to Congress. Under 19 U.S.C. § 2602 (g)(2), that report is required to: (a) describe the actions taken; (b) whether there were any differences between those actions and CPAC’s recommendations; and, (c) if so, the reasons for those differences. That report, however, contains no indication whether State rejected CPAC recommendation against import restrictions on coins, and, if so, why?

80. In addition, that report also indicates that Customs acted as the lead agency for imposing import restrictions on coins. In pertinent part, the report states, “The Federal Register notice for Cyprus was amended by the Department for Homeland Security, in consultation with the Department of State, to include coins of Cypriot types which are also vulnerable to archaeological looting.”

81. In or about July 17, 2007, ECA publicized the new restrictions on coins of Cypriot types on its website as follows: “The Government of the Republic of Cyprus requested and amendment to the designated list to include coins…. Q. What was the response? A. The Cultural Property Implementation Act places the authority for the Designated List with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in consultation with the Department of State. On July 13, 2007, DHS published a Federal Register notice concerning the extension of the agreement and amending the Designated List to include certain coins from Cyprus, effective July 16, 2007.”

82. In or about May-June 2008, the Cyprus News Service quoted CAARI’s president as stating, “CAARI has been in the forefront of the successful effort to renew the Memorandum of Understanding between Cyprus and the USA restricting the import of Cypriot antiquities into the United States…..” See http://www.caari.org/CAARIat30.htm (last checked, 7/2/10).

83. On January 16, 2009, the Federal Register announced import restrictions on Chinese cultural artifacts, including those on early media of exchange to Tang era cash coins. See 19 CFR Part 12, reported at 74 Fed. Reg. 2838-2844 (Jan. 16, 2009).

84. On April 20, 2009, past CPAC Chairman Jay Kislak signed a declaration in FOIA litigation that stated in pertinent part:

o I am told that Section 303 (g) of the CPIA requires the State Department to report to Congress any differences between CPAC’s recommendations and the State Department’s ultimate decision to impose import restrictions. In this regard, the release of the most recent CPAC report related to Cyprus and its discussion about coins could clarify misleading information contained in official State Department documents.

o I specifically recall the Cypriot request that then current import restrictions on other cultural artifacts be extended to coins was a matter of great public controversy. CPAC considered the question specifically and I recall a special vote being taken on this particular issue.

o With that in mind, I have reviewed both an official State Department Press Release and a State Department report made pursuant to CPIA Section 303 (g) about the MOU with Cyprus…I believe it is absolutely false to suggest in those materials that the State Department’s decision to extend import restrictions to ancient coins was consistent with CPAC’s recommendations. The full release of CPAC’s recommendations with regard to coins could be in the public interest because it should clarify misleading information contained in official State Department documents.

******************

COMMENTARY

******************

There is a great deal of evidence that has come to light supporting the belief of the ACCG and its allies opposing import restrictions, that secret collusion and negotiations with diplomats of foreign states and their undeclared US agents in the AIA, by Maria Kouroupas and her henchmen in the Cultural Heritage Center have taken place, and that this conduct has been both unethical and perhaps also illegal, in that such conduct is believed to contravene the 1983 CCPIA.

Until the truth about this dishonorable and disgraceful conduct, and the cynical manner in which the CPAC process has gradually been turned into a rigged rubberstamping sham by Kouroupas et al., comes out [note that two chairs of the CPAC have reigned in protest over this issue ], and until administration of the CPAC and the entire process of reviewing and considering requests for import restrictions has been reformed to make it open, transparent and evenhanded, the Cultural Heritage Center can no longer be trusted to act in the best interests of the American people and their government.

When accusations of such gravity are made against public servants, they must be suspended from their duties until an independent investigation has been conducted and the truth is disclosed. Until this has happened, no more requests for new import restrictions or extensions of existing restrictions should be granted.

The State Department is not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth regarding what they are doing. The American people cannot accept a lower standard of honor and veracity from its diplomats (and their bureaucratic assistants) than is required from every American citizen who appears on a witness stand.

Denkmalscheiße

Denkmalscheiße in England

http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/12/denkmalscheie-in-england.html
by Paul Barford

There is an article in the latest issue of British Archaeology which presents (once again) the argument that "the British Way" is a "good" way forward for dealing with archaeological looting. It does not say who the author is, we are left guessing, which is perhaps just as well (let's just call him "BA"). I am a bit of a disadvantage discussing this short readable discussion piece as it refers to a text which has not reached Poland, so I have not seen Raymund Karl's article to which it refers. I would therefore like to make it clear that this is a discussion of the BA text and not the original research (which I would very much like to see if somebody could see their way to lobbing a copy over here). I bet though many people will be drawing their conclusions from the BA article too, rather than the original, hence my addressing here what it says (and what it does not). In summary after reading it very carefully it transpires that this text seems to be the same twisty-turny stuff that we see from the supporters of artefact collecting all over the place.

...

What, surely, is important is the degree to which we protect the archaeological record from destructive interference. That is what - at least from the archaeological, heritage "management" point of view - the whole looting debate is about, no? This text however bangs on about what a lot of recording is or is not done. I would say merely listing the number of reports of sexual assaults of minors, or car thefts in central Birmingham, or road accidents on the A412 is a statistic which is totally unrelated to the practical on-the-ground actions taken to remove sexual predators, organized car thieves and reckless drivers from the streets. A report of an occurrence like this is a report of the FAILURE to do something about these things. The same goes for archaeological looting surely? Throughout the debate about British policies we are hampered by the lack of proper statistics about the patterns of activity. This would not be strange except that in England, and at times in Wales, there has been a thirteen-million quid programme which has been running for coming up to a decade and a half which "partners;' and liaises with artefact hunters. So why have we no proper facts and figures about the activities of these people? All we have are the "look wotta lotta stuff we got" figures of the annual reports ad the tedious flow of good news media reports telling the public how much money they could be making out of Britain's archaeological record were they only to go ad buy a metal detector.

Not deterred by this, the BA account makes use of the chalk and cheese approach so beloved of the supporters of collecting. This includes a bit where Austria is compared with Scotland (and just before somebody says it, I think in Scotland the number of metal detectorists is only slightly lower than Karl's estimate for Austria). Two entirely different legislative systems - but what is carefully NOT said is how many of those Scottish reported fnds are made by archaeologists. If you look at the Annual Reports of the Treasure Trove Unit north of the Border, artefact hunters there are no more forthcoming with reports of their finds than those of Austria. That is despite that "open approach" to reporting, that is despite every finder in Scotland handing in something which is retained for the national collection getting a market-value reward (which is discretionary, but seldom refused). There is a discrepancy here between what the author says and the model he is trying to prove.

Then we go off on the well-trodden path of how many Treasure finds are 'reported' in England and Wales (PAS-land) and how exciting it is that the numbers are going up and up (well, not this year they are not, could it be that the resources are running out?). The creation of the PAS was followed in the later 1990s, BA says, in the numbers. What BA does not say is the year the PAS was formed was the exact period that the law changed, and the definition of Treasure was changed. That to some extent accounts for the quantitative changes seen at this time (the same thing happens in 2003 when again the definition changed).

Austria has a different system of 'denkmalscutz'. England has no "schutz" for most of its denkmals. In England any Tom, Dick and Harriet can traipse over one million archaeological sites and dig up and take away whatever they like with just a nod from the landowner. Probably many people think that is just how it should be, everything up for grabs. That however provides no protection for the archaeological record (and let us think in broader terms than single sites but in terms of landscape, surface evidence, surveys too) which is being progressively, randomly and unmanageably depleted at a rate that would probably be considered alarming if we knew what it was. The reporting and non-reporting of 'Treasure" is not the only index of this, the number of recordable artefacts (lost archaeological evidence) which are NOT getting on the PAS database is. The evidence for this being very high indeed is dismissed by supporters of artefact hunting, but they have never tried to say what the true figures, according to them, are and why they are not worried about the long term effects of this activity.

It is not true to say artefact hunting ("metal detecting") in Austria is illegal, it can be done (like other disturbance of archaeological sites) with a permit. All those who have not obtained a permit before going out with their machines are like the teenage joyrider who tears down the motorway before he has obtained his driving licence. It is illegal. In other words, the 2-3000 Austrian "metal detectorists" who according to BA are not reporting their finds perhaps include a number who are not getting the permits, and therefore cannot legally do what they are doing (in other words "nighthawks" in the imprecise British terminology). That is what would make their detecting illegal. Perhaps we should seek clarification from the PAS whether they would accept and record information from reports made by evident nighthawkers? I am pretty sure that the PAS would have to differentiate between data obtained legally, and those produced illegally, are there any of the latter on the PAS database? I would hope not. Here then, we come to the fundamental difference between the two systems, it is not one of "openness and tolerance", but one of legality. So what is BA suggesting Austria do to get "more recording" resulting from archaeological looting? Remove the denkmalschutz completely and make Austrian archaeological sites a free-for-all like in England? Abolish the permit system for archaeological intervention? (Why?) Is recording of some of what is looted from archaeological sites a substitute for their protection? Is gathering fragmentary statistics of how many young boys and girls are sexually assaulted by adults in Britain a substitute for dealing with the predators? Frankly, I do not see any difference (at least when treated solely on the level of a strategy for dealing with the problem of protecting something). In what way would liberalising Austria's denkmalschutz help to protect the denkmals?

It should be recognised by BA and others that Britain's dotty social experiment (the PAS) is the result of particularly useless archaeological resource protection legislation, which derives from elitist Victorian ideals and leaves the vast majority of Britain's archaeological sites and an even more vast segment of the archaeological record (seen as a historic landscape) totally unprotected.

...

*************** COMMENTARY ***************

Reading this turgid screed, it's clear why no one in British archaeological circles has any use for (or respect for) archaeoGoebbels. Nothing that does not conform in every detail to his personal views is acceptable. In his usual verbose and unreadable style, he expounds upon these views in a manner that uses at least ten words to convey thoughts that are not worth one word. I shall prove that point:

The Reader's Digest version of all this impenetrable bosh distills down to:

Someone wrote an article in British Archaeology which he does not like. He could not read the source material it refers to. The article is about recording practices, not what he thinks it should be about. There aren't statistics included on the subject that he approves of. It doesn't include certain details that might support his views. Austria has a different system regarding taking objects from "archaeological sites" which he approves of and wishes were the law in the UK. He dislikes the PAS.

There, everything actually said (none of which was important) has been conveyed in less than one tenth of the words he used. The man is like old-fashioned orators who thought they had cheated their audience if their speeches lasted less than three hours.

Greek Culture Sector

The answer to Collectors' Prayers? Greek Debt Crisis Hits Culture Sector

http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/12/answer-to-collectors-prayers-greek-debt.html
by Paul Barford

US collectors are reportedly praying for the collapse of the cultural sectors of European countries like Greece which they perceive as an enemy to be opposed. It seems that their prayers are being answered all over the world, as archaeological units close in the UK and Greece has had to lay off 2000 cultural sector staff in recent years too. Where will this all end? In the triumph of no-questions-asked collecting of dugup ancient bric a brac? Or the defeat of all who truly care about culture?

The situation in Greece is described in a Reuters article by Gareth Jones ('Debt crisis strikes Greek monuments, irks tourists', Dec 6, 2011) ), which will no doubt have "cultural property observers" in US collecting circles rubbing their greedy hands in glee and trumpeting: "we told you the ["corrupt" and "irresponsible" sic] Greeks cannot look after their heritage, so give the best bits to us to look after". The rest of us can only shake our heads in disbelief at their blatantly self-centred philistinism and despair, for the cultural sector has always been poorly-resourced and
exposed to every twist and turn of the political situation and things do not seem set to improve in the near future.

****************
COMMENTARY
****************

> ... which will no doubt have "cultural property observers" in US collecting circles rubbing their greedy hands in glee and trumpeting: "we told you the ["corrupt" and "irresponsible" sic] Greeks cannot look after their heritage, so give the best bits to us to look after". The rest of us can only shake our heads in disbelief at their blatantly self-centred philistinism ...

Hmm. Now a realistic (and very sensible) appraisal of the crippling budgetary problems faced by an irresponsible source state that cannot take care of its existing responsibilities, and a very natural desire to defend one's longstanding and legitimate legal rights (which involve due respect for private property) are condemned by this bigoted, rabidly anticollecting archaeofanatic as "rubbing their greedy hands" and " blatantly self-centred philistinism."

We in the collecting community can only shake our heads in disbelief at the "blatantly self-centred philistinism" of this utter hypocrite and all the rest of the extremist archaeologists, whose real goal (which most of them will not honestly admit to) is to bring an end to private collecting of anything old that might possibly ever have been buried.

What is their motive? Pure and essentially amoral self-interest. They want control of the source material so that they can monopolize its study and publication of findings, to advance their own careers. That is what all of this dishonest and deceptive trumpeting about "protecting the archaeological record" and "protecting cultural heritage" distills down to. Archaeologists are every bit as greedy and self-centered as their most extreme and farfetched imaginings of what collectors are like (which in nearly all cases could not be farther from the actual truth).

If archaeoGoebbels and his ilk are actually representative of the archaeological community, then collectors would be very well justified in thinking of archaeology as a malignant cancer upon society, which for the public good ought to be suppressed. If they are not representative of the archaeological community, it would be wise for that community to denounce these irresponsible fanatics before more damage is done.

A Prayer for Change

Coiney Prays for Change

http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/12/coiney-prays-for-change.html
by Paul Barford

A contribution to the Numisma-L coiney discussion forum gives an insight into the workings of a coiney mind. Greg Rehme from Missouri (St Louis area) says:

Germany and France are trying to clean up Greece's mess of over spending and over borrowing now. Maybe the EC will force Greece and other EC States to cut these culture guys from the payroll. We can only pray.

So over in the US Mr Rehme is not one of those collectors who claims they are passionately "interested" and "concerned" about history and culture. All he wants is the cultural heritage preservation systems of what he calls "EC states" to be abolished so he and his fellow collectors can get their hands on lots of the stuff (he seems from the Uncleaned coin list to be a "coin zapper"). ...

So how many other US collectors think that "Yurope" would be better off without cultural preservation?

***************
COMMENTARY
***************

Once more Mr. Barford insufferably hectors, harasses, insults and denigrates collectors (or "coineys" as he pejoratively refers to them), as though he desires to incite one of these thousands of long-suffering individuals to "take it personally."

I have just come from watching a movie entitled "Full Metal Jacket" starring R. Lee Ermey as Sgt. Hackett, the archetypal Parris Island drill instructor who incessantly hectored, insulted and harassed the miserable mangy maggots he was responsible for making into Marines to the point where one of them finally had much more than enough of that, and brusquely blew him away.

Hmm ... a word to the wise perhaps?

AIA: Stop Collecting!

Immediate Past President of the AIA to American Museums: Stop Collecting!

http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/12/immediate-past-president-of-aia-to.html
BY Peter Tompa

Brian Rose, the AIA's immediate past president, has been quoted as telling America's museums to stop collecting antiquities. According to the report, Rose said he felt the era in which American museums can collect antiquities is coming to a close. Source countries are becoming more aggressive in pursuing traffickers and enforcing laws against looting, he said.

....

Buying antiquities could alienate foreign governments and prevent the cooperation necessary for international loans of individual objects or traveling exhibitions, Rose said. “You’ll end up in litigation, and you won’t be able to enter into collaborative projects,” he said. “It’s all about collaboration now.” Rather than collect, museums ought to forge agreements with source countries to share cultural riches, Rose said.

See http://www.cleveland.com/arts/index.ssf/2011/12/conference_at_the_american_aca.html

Despite such quotes, archaeo-blogger Paul Barford continues to claim that the AIA is really not against collecting. But if so, where are quotes from the AIA's leadership indicating that they support the rights of ordinary Americans to collect minor portable antiquities, such as coins, let alone more significant items?

*************************
COMMENTARY
*************************

The AIA really is dead-set against private collecting. It instead wants all "archaeological artifacts" including minor antiquities such as ancient coins to be locked up in institutions and warehouses where they will never again be touched by the public, and can only be studied by archaeologists and artifact studies specialists who serve archaeologists.

The AIA is completely out of step with public opinion. It has alienated US collectors to the point where these once enthusiastic supporters of archaeology have come to think that archaeology has grown into such a malignant cancer upon society that they have consequently not only stopped supporting it, they refuse to allow their children to study archaeology, they are looking for ways and means to stop all public funding of archaeology, and they are seeking ways to reform the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center to end its slavish affiliation with the AIA.

Baltimore Test Case Update

U.S. Court of Appeals grants Amicus Briefs

http://www.accg.us/News/Item/U_S_Court_of_Appeals_grants_Amicus_Briefs.aspx
by Wayne Sayles

In an Order Granting Filing of Amicus Briefs dated 5 December 2011, the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has granted motions to submit amicus briefs by six entities in support of the ACCG appeal of a dismissal in the Baltimore court challenge to import restrictions on coins from Cyprus and China. The briefs were filed by American Committee for Cultural Policy, International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art, International Association of Professional Numismatists, The American Numismatic Association, Ancient Coins for Education, Inc., and Professional Numismatists Guild, Inc.

In an earlier action, the government replaced the counsel of record, bumping the action up to the Department of Justice Civil Appellate Division under lead attorney Mark B. Stern. The impetus for this change of counsel is conjectural, but one cannot help but feel that the government is taking the appeal seriously — as they should. Counsel for ACCG in this appeal is the Washington DC firm of Bailey and Ehrenberg, PLLC.

Smuggling

"The most amoral and dangerous individuals in the world"

http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/12/most-amoral-and-dangerous-individuals.html
by Paul Barford

"the most amoral and dangerous individuals in the world" is how a Californian dugup dealer characterises those who wish to impose restrictions on the import into the USA of archaeological and ethnographical artefacts without documentation of lawful export. In other words take away "from the longstanding and traditional rights of US collectors -- without any compensation whatsoever". Long-standing RIGHTS to import illicitly exported artefacts? Surely any such illusions ended when the USA became a state party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention back in 1983? What are these dealers thinking?

Peter Tompa continues his incessant moaning about how hard-done-by are US collectors (already in possession of a huge chunk of the above-ground resources of portable antiquities from all over the ancient world - but still want "more and more"). ...

"Winners" according to Tompa are:
The Greek Cultural Bureaucracy ("poorly managed" and "corrupt") The Greek Government ("poorly managed" and "corrupt") "The Obdurate State Department Cultural Bureaucracy" ("obdurate", "entrenched") "The AIA and its Archaeological Fanatics" ("anti-collecting", "fanatics") "Wealthy Greek Collectors".

One wonders just how long the buffoonery of pretending that the archaeologists (institutional or otherwise) are all "fanatics" (was "radicals") who are to a man rabidly "anti-collecting" can persist. The evidence is very clear that the AIA is not against collecting per se, but - in line with US legislation since the early 1980s - against collecting of ILLICITLY exported cultural artefacts. No more, no less - and it is all in black and white for any dealer, lawyer or collector with more brain cells than my cat to check. Of course such nonsense suits well the yapping dogs that try to frighten, huddle and herd as many ovicaprid collectors onto the barren thistle patches of indignant opposition as possible, but it is not the truth. But then what evidence has there been from the ongoing dialogue of the deaf that dealers' lobbyists or collectors are even a bit concerned about the truth?

According to Tompa:

These fanatics hold that the only legitimate exchange of archaeological artifacts is a museum loan.

...

As for those "Wealthy Greek Collectors" (where the adjective wealthy magically become pejorative...). Surely there is a huge faultline running through the ACCG logic here. The whole point the collectors opposed to import controls are making is that the vast majority of the artefacts affected are too cheap (on the US market) for it to be at all "economical" to get documentation of licit origins and transfer. So they are not the kind of things one has to be inordinately "wealthy" to buy.

How shocking to the American psyche that:

Greek collectors will gain a competitive advantage over their American counterparts who can no longer import undocumented cultural goods.

They will stay in Greece, rather the best items being constantly and illegally siphoned off to a voracious and well-financed foreign market. How curious though that an American collector (and Peter Tompa, who is if I am not mistaken of Hungarian Jewish stock, collects dugup ancient Greek coins) feels he has MORE right to Greek cultural property than the citizens of that country (even if these items are illicitly exported?) and considers it a matter of regret that fellow collectors (though of a different nationality) will be able more easily to collect items which reflect their own cultural heritage.

For Tompa, the "losers" are:
"Greece's Cultural Patrimony" [too much stuff to look after as it is], "The CPIA and the Process Congress Contemplated" back in 1983 (sic) "The Small Businesses of the Antiquities and Numismatic trade" [who are now going to have to document licit export to allow legal import into the US: "This is particularly a problem for the small businesses of the numismatic trade". This is because the objects available for import are typically lacking such documentation] "US Collectors" [who will be forced to buy material which has been licitly exported, rather than the other type that was on the market formerly].
"US Museums" who will not be able to carry on purchasing items without any kind of documentation of licit export [not, I think that they are likely to be wanting to in the coming years anyway].
"US Customs" [because they are going to have to do something connected with the fact that in 1983 the USA became a state party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention, too bad, but the idyll of US hypocrisy in this regard could not go on for ever]

What is not explained is the manner in which having mainly material which has passed scrutiny with regard to licit export on the US market as a matter of course is allegedly a "bad" thing for collectors, museums, and responsible (responsible) dealers. What is clear that the persons who have lost (not mentioned for some reason by Tompa) are the smugglers (possibly related in some way to organized criminal groups) and looters, who will have their US markets fundamentally curtailed by these measures if they are applied effectively by all involved. ... What nasty company the no-questions-asked antiquity dealers keep.


*****************
COMMENTARY
*****************

As usual Mr. Barford simply cannot discuss anything relating to antiquities collecting without interjecting a plethora of pejorative nouns and adjectives, which prejudge the issues involved and denigrate collectors and the trade that supplies them. Such a practice is straight out of the propaganda manuals Josef Goebbels wrote for his henchmen to use, in misleading those who read their writings and heard their broadcasts.

Let's see, in this blog post archaeo-Goebbels resorted to the following egregious examples of this practice:
dugup dealer
dealers' lobbyists
ovicaprid collectors [ovicaprid (plural ovicaprids): A domestic sheep or goat.]
no-questions-asked antiquity dealers

Perhaps Mr. Barford hopes by such egregious insults to "get the goat" of the collecting community. Nearly everyone in it, other than myself, has decided to ignore him on the grounds that he is a mere ranting fanatic, the like of which can be found standing upon soapboxes in the more disreputable public parks around the world, spewing delusionary babble.

Mr. Barford is appallingly ignorant about collecting in general and coin collecting in particular. What he has to say on any subject other than archaeology should always be taken with several cubic yards of salt, because not only does he not know what he is talking about regarding any subject other than archaeology, he does not care in the least about the practical difficulties the views he advocates would create were anyone so idiotic as to actually attempt to implement them.

When it comes to buffoonery, it seems to this observer [and many others, especially in the archaeological community] that Mr. Barford sets an example that would be hard to outdo.

Mr. Barford is naïve and foolish in imagining that " ... smugglers (possibly related in some way to organized criminal groups) and looters, ... will have their US markets fundamentally curtailed by these measures if they are applied effectively by all involved ..."

Smugglers and looters are not attempting to import artifacts into the USA nor to export them to the USA. They will not notice any effects at all from what US Customs does or does not do toward implementing these unjust, unwise and totally misguided restrictions. They will continue to bring their loot into EU nations from which it may be freely traded without hindrance regarding importation or export, to almost every nation in the world except the USA. Such nations include Mexico, Canada, the Caribbean islands and the Bermudas.

From any of these nearby islands, artifacts can be brought into the USA almost without risk in small boats. A typical innocent-appearing sailboat no larger than 30 feet overall length can carry an enormously valuable cargo of artifacts from any of these islands into a nearby US marina, without ever passing through Customs and without anyone in the US Government and its institutions and agencies ever having become aware that it had visited foreign territory. Visas and other documents are not involved in such yachting visits. I have made just such voyages on several occasions myself, of course without smuggling anything.

Both the Mexican and Canadian borders with the USA are very long and very porous. It is a ridiculous bit of folly to imagine that when the US Government cannot prevent millions of illegal aliens and thousands of tons of illegal drugs from crossing that border almost without risk, that disguised packages of valuable small portable antiquities would conceivably be detected. A Border Control agent would have no idea what they were. Coins, for example, could be carried in one's pockets and jewelry could be worn. There is an infinity of ways to evade detection in crossing these borders bringing artifacts into the USA.

There are roughly three hundred Indian Reservations in the United States. Referring to certain reservations which span the US border with Canada, "The Spotlight" observes that:

"They [smugglers and illegal immigrants] particularly utilize crossings afforded by the St. Regis or Akwesasne Mohawk Indian reservation near Massena in northern New York. According to SPOTLIGHT sources, the reservation is being used to smuggle aliens from Asian and Middle Eastern countries, as well as virtually every form of contraband, including firearms, laundered money and drugs.

The illegal aliens are interspersed among Canadians who cross the border to shop in the United States and to visit bingo parlors and gambling casinos operated by the American Indians. In St. Regis, aliens can cross the border on sovereign Indian land since the reservation spans the St. Lawrence, with large parts on both sides of the waterway. "

The St. Regis Mohawk Reservation is a Mohawk Indian reservation in Franklin County, New York, United States. It is also known by its Mohawk name, Akwesasne. The population was 2,699 at the 2000 census. The reservation is adjacent to the Akwesasne reserve in Ontario and Quebec. The Mohawk consider the entire community to be one unit. The reservation contains the villages of Hogansburg and St. Regis.

Under the terms of the Jay Treaty (1794), the Mohawk people may pass freely across the International Boundary. They do not have to pass through immigration or Customs in doing so, and in practice, the US government extends that same freedom to those who visit the reservation from US territory. The two parts of the reservation are separated by the St. Lawrence River and the 45th parallel.

The Mohawk are one of the original Five Nations of the Iroquois, historically based in present-day New York, and the "Keepers of the Eastern Door". Today, the reservation is home to the Akwesasne Mohawk Casino and the Mohawk Bingo Palace. The Mohawk Tribe views the reservation as a "sovereign nation," but shares jurisdiction with the State of New York, the United States, and the Town of Bombay, in which it is located.