Illicit: A Word Whose Meaning Can Be Very Misleading
In a recent post to his notorious anticollecting blog, Paul Barford, a Warsaw language teacher, translator and sometime writer on the subject of archaeology, who deceptively represents himself as an "archaeologist" (although he does not presently practice archaeology in any meaningful way, and never accomplished anything of significance in fieldwork - the essence of archaeology as I understand it) took umbrage at this statement I had made (in a comment to Peter Tompa's blog) regarding looting and smuggling of looted artifacts:
"Please note that I do NOT subscribe to using the term "illicit" in this discussion. Referring to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illicit , the primary definition of "illicit" is 'not allowed by law: unlawful or illegal.' A secondary definition is 'involving activities that are not considered morally acceptable.' The manner in which archaeologists use the word "illicit" trades upon that secondary definition in a manner which in my opinion amounts to doublespeak: "language that can be understood in more than one way and that is used to trick or deceive people." [...] by deliberately and intentionally engaging in "doublespeak" to pursue their vendetta against collectors, archaeologists who use such terminology violate OUR standards of ethics, which I believe are also those which prevail among the general population."
and then Mr. Barford uttered the following nonsense:
"In the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language the word illicit is defined in the way I and my colleagues use it ...
Definition of illicit in English: Pronunciation: /ɪˈlɪsɪt/ adjective Forbidden by law, rules, or custom: illicit drugs, illicit sex
It is not in any way 'unethical' (sic) to use the term illicit sex in a way which does not mean illegal sex."
In an illogical and misleading attempt to relate that "statement of the obvious" to discussing the looting and smuggling of looted artifacts, the context in which I had objected to the manner in which "illicit" is being used, Barford continued:
"There is a reason why the good folk of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization called their 1970 Convention: "Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property..."
In his attempt to legitimize deceptive and misleading use of the word "illicit" by anticollecting archaeologists in their writings, Mr. Barford ignored the following very clear and precise definition of its meaning with respect to the Convention he referred to:
Article 3
The import, export or transfer of ownership of cultural property effected contrary to the provisions adopted under this Convention by the States Parties thereto, shall be illicit.
The Convention subsequently refers (in Articles 7 and 10) to illegal export of cultural property as being illicit, in a manner which makes it very clear that illicit, when used in that document, always and only means illegal. More precisely, contrary to the law(s) of the state from which the cultural property in question was exported.
The 1970 UNESCO Convention being the internationally adopted agreement governing transfer of cultural property across international borders, it is absolutely clear that in reference to cultural property such as ancient artifacts, illicit always and only means illegal.
It is therefore misleading and 'unethical' to use the term 'illicit artifact' in a public discussion, on a public venue, in a way which does not mean 'illegally exported artifact.'
Archaeologists opposed to collecting of unprovenanced artifacts, however, use the term illicit in their scholarly writings in a manner which is clearly described here:
"The question of what to call, and indeed what to do with, cultural objects which have no apparent evidence of illegality or proof of its absence in their past is really at the centre of the contemporary debate about the looting problem, and within the cohort of unprovenanced antiquities there will be objects that are more and those that are less suspicious. Some proponents of free trade in cultural objects would hold that without definitive proof of looting, trade in unprovenanced artefacts should simply be viewed as legal. The criminological perspective outlined above, however, encourages us to be more nuanced in our approach, and to develop terms and concepts which can capture the uncertainty which the justice system has obscured with its harsh binary distinction."
"‘Illicit’ antiquities is the term which has developed in the research literature to convey the perceived suspect origins of artefacts which cannot be, or have yet to be, proven illegal."
A term which has developed in the research literature. A term whose only actual substance is that it has become accepted use in the writings of archaeologists discussing perceived suspect origins of artifacts.
What are suspect origins? The context in which this is used in the article cited above clearly intends that to mean "objects that are more, as distinguished from those that are less, suspicious." So in the view of its author , suspect origins means origins which with good reason may be considered to be suspicious. It does not mean origins which are simply unknown.
The use of 'illicit' is however being extended to include unknown origins, in the journals in which archaeologists publish. Here is an example:
"In the United States an illicit antiquity has come to be defined as any ancient cultural artifact that did not belong to a public or private collection formed prior to 1983 ... The American Journal of Archaeology, for instance, will not 'serve for the announcement or initial scholarly presentation of any object in a private or public collection acquired after 30 December 1973, unless the object was part of a previously existing collection or has been legally exported from the country of origin' (F.S. Kleiner, 'On the Publication of Recent Acquisitions of Antiquities', AJA 94 (1990), p. 525.) and the journal Antiquity has adopted a similar policy (C. Chippindale, 'Editorial', Antiquity 65, no. 246 [March 1991]"
This extension sets a standard for what might be described as archaeological ethics. So far as archaeologists writing for scholarly journals in their field are concerned, illicit artifact means an ancient cultural artifact that did not belong to a public or private collection formed prior to 1983.
Archaeological ethics, needless to say, apply only to archaeologists. They, and the associations to which they belong, have every right to define such ethics as they see fit, however they do not have a right to insist, or assume, that archaeological ethics should govern the conduct of people who are not archaeologists, or employed in a related field such as museum curation.
It is therefore misleading and 'unethical' to use the term 'illicit artifact' in a public discussion, on a public venue, according to the archaeological ethics standard, in a way which does not mean 'illegally exported artifact.'
Now we have arrived at the essence of my comment that
"The manner in which archaeologists use the word "illicit" trades upon that secondary definition in a manner which in my opinion amounts to doublespeak: "language that can be understood in more than one way and that is used to trick or deceive people." [...] by deliberately and intentionally engaging in "doublespeak" to pursue their vendetta against collectors, archaeologists who use such terminology violate OUR standards of ethics, which I believe are also those which prevail among the general population."
Archaeologists and others with an interest in the artifacts trade are freely and loosely using the term "illicit" in public venues that are not scholarly journals, in a sense which in practice means, unprovenanced.
A notable example of this came in this Memorandum submitted by Professor Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn in 2000 to the House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport:
"The illicit trade in unprovenanced antiquities has a damaging effect upon the reputation of the much wider legitimate trade in cultural property."
Another instance of this usage appears in STOLEN ART, LOOTED ANTIQUITIES, AND THE INSURABLE INTEREST REQUIREMENT:
"The trade in unprovenanced antiquities has exploded over the past forty years. Indeed, most antiquities (between sixty and ninety percent) offered for sale on the international market have no provenance. These unprovenanced antiquities generally end up in private and public collections in Europe, North America, and the Far East. The market for illicit, unprovenanced antiquities is huge."
Such indiscriminate usage, without any accompanying disclosure that 'illicit' actually only means not conforming to archaeological ethics, clearly implies that the trade in unprovenanced antiquities is either illegal or immoral. Such an implication, in a public venue not restricted to archaeologists and others understanding their specialized terminology, is wrong. To an uninformed reader, it is very misleading and deceptive.
It is impossible to believe that those who are doing this are unaware of the extent to which the use of loaded language such as this prejudices a discussion.
By deliberately and intentionally engaging in such "doublespeak" to pursue their vendetta against collectors, archaeologists who use such terminology do indeed violate the standards of ethics which prevail among antiquities collectors, which I believe are also those which prevail among the general population.
I don't believe they should be allowed to continue doing this, without being called to account by those whom they are so freely criticizing.
"Please note that I do NOT subscribe to using the term "illicit" in this discussion. Referring to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illicit , the primary definition of "illicit" is 'not allowed by law: unlawful or illegal.' A secondary definition is 'involving activities that are not considered morally acceptable.' The manner in which archaeologists use the word "illicit" trades upon that secondary definition in a manner which in my opinion amounts to doublespeak: "language that can be understood in more than one way and that is used to trick or deceive people." [...] by deliberately and intentionally engaging in "doublespeak" to pursue their vendetta against collectors, archaeologists who use such terminology violate OUR standards of ethics, which I believe are also those which prevail among the general population."
and then Mr. Barford uttered the following nonsense:
"In the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language the word illicit is defined in the way I and my colleagues use it ...
Definition of illicit in English: Pronunciation: /ɪˈlɪsɪt/ adjective Forbidden by law, rules, or custom: illicit drugs, illicit sex
It is not in any way 'unethical' (sic) to use the term illicit sex in a way which does not mean illegal sex."
In an illogical and misleading attempt to relate that "statement of the obvious" to discussing the looting and smuggling of looted artifacts, the context in which I had objected to the manner in which "illicit" is being used, Barford continued:
"There is a reason why the good folk of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization called their 1970 Convention: "Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property..."
In his attempt to legitimize deceptive and misleading use of the word "illicit" by anticollecting archaeologists in their writings, Mr. Barford ignored the following very clear and precise definition of its meaning with respect to the Convention he referred to:
Article 3
The import, export or transfer of ownership of cultural property effected contrary to the provisions adopted under this Convention by the States Parties thereto, shall be illicit.
The Convention subsequently refers (in Articles 7 and 10) to illegal export of cultural property as being illicit, in a manner which makes it very clear that illicit, when used in that document, always and only means illegal. More precisely, contrary to the law(s) of the state from which the cultural property in question was exported.
The 1970 UNESCO Convention being the internationally adopted agreement governing transfer of cultural property across international borders, it is absolutely clear that in reference to cultural property such as ancient artifacts, illicit always and only means illegal.
It is therefore misleading and 'unethical' to use the term 'illicit artifact' in a public discussion, on a public venue, in a way which does not mean 'illegally exported artifact.'
Archaeologists opposed to collecting of unprovenanced artifacts, however, use the term illicit in their scholarly writings in a manner which is clearly described here:
"The question of what to call, and indeed what to do with, cultural objects which have no apparent evidence of illegality or proof of its absence in their past is really at the centre of the contemporary debate about the looting problem, and within the cohort of unprovenanced antiquities there will be objects that are more and those that are less suspicious. Some proponents of free trade in cultural objects would hold that without definitive proof of looting, trade in unprovenanced artefacts should simply be viewed as legal. The criminological perspective outlined above, however, encourages us to be more nuanced in our approach, and to develop terms and concepts which can capture the uncertainty which the justice system has obscured with its harsh binary distinction."
"‘Illicit’ antiquities is the term which has developed in the research literature to convey the perceived suspect origins of artefacts which cannot be, or have yet to be, proven illegal."
A term which has developed in the research literature. A term whose only actual substance is that it has become accepted use in the writings of archaeologists discussing perceived suspect origins of artifacts.
What are suspect origins? The context in which this is used in the article cited above clearly intends that to mean "objects that are more, as distinguished from those that are less, suspicious." So in the view of its author , suspect origins means origins which with good reason may be considered to be suspicious. It does not mean origins which are simply unknown.
The use of 'illicit' is however being extended to include unknown origins, in the journals in which archaeologists publish. Here is an example:
"In the United States an illicit antiquity has come to be defined as any ancient cultural artifact that did not belong to a public or private collection formed prior to 1983 ... The American Journal of Archaeology, for instance, will not 'serve for the announcement or initial scholarly presentation of any object in a private or public collection acquired after 30 December 1973, unless the object was part of a previously existing collection or has been legally exported from the country of origin' (F.S. Kleiner, 'On the Publication of Recent Acquisitions of Antiquities', AJA 94 (1990), p. 525.) and the journal Antiquity has adopted a similar policy (C. Chippindale, 'Editorial', Antiquity 65, no. 246 [March 1991]"
This extension sets a standard for what might be described as archaeological ethics. So far as archaeologists writing for scholarly journals in their field are concerned, illicit artifact means an ancient cultural artifact that did not belong to a public or private collection formed prior to 1983.
Archaeological ethics, needless to say, apply only to archaeologists. They, and the associations to which they belong, have every right to define such ethics as they see fit, however they do not have a right to insist, or assume, that archaeological ethics should govern the conduct of people who are not archaeologists, or employed in a related field such as museum curation.
It is therefore misleading and 'unethical' to use the term 'illicit artifact' in a public discussion, on a public venue, according to the archaeological ethics standard, in a way which does not mean 'illegally exported artifact.'
Now we have arrived at the essence of my comment that
"The manner in which archaeologists use the word "illicit" trades upon that secondary definition in a manner which in my opinion amounts to doublespeak: "language that can be understood in more than one way and that is used to trick or deceive people." [...] by deliberately and intentionally engaging in "doublespeak" to pursue their vendetta against collectors, archaeologists who use such terminology violate OUR standards of ethics, which I believe are also those which prevail among the general population."
Archaeologists and others with an interest in the artifacts trade are freely and loosely using the term "illicit" in public venues that are not scholarly journals, in a sense which in practice means, unprovenanced.
A notable example of this came in this Memorandum submitted by Professor Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn in 2000 to the House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport:
"The illicit trade in unprovenanced antiquities has a damaging effect upon the reputation of the much wider legitimate trade in cultural property."
Another instance of this usage appears in STOLEN ART, LOOTED ANTIQUITIES, AND THE INSURABLE INTEREST REQUIREMENT:
"The trade in unprovenanced antiquities has exploded over the past forty years. Indeed, most antiquities (between sixty and ninety percent) offered for sale on the international market have no provenance. These unprovenanced antiquities generally end up in private and public collections in Europe, North America, and the Far East. The market for illicit, unprovenanced antiquities is huge."
Such indiscriminate usage, without any accompanying disclosure that 'illicit' actually only means not conforming to archaeological ethics, clearly implies that the trade in unprovenanced antiquities is either illegal or immoral. Such an implication, in a public venue not restricted to archaeologists and others understanding their specialized terminology, is wrong. To an uninformed reader, it is very misleading and deceptive.
It is impossible to believe that those who are doing this are unaware of the extent to which the use of loaded language such as this prejudices a discussion.
By deliberately and intentionally engaging in such "doublespeak" to pursue their vendetta against collectors, archaeologists who use such terminology do indeed violate the standards of ethics which prevail among antiquities collectors, which I believe are also those which prevail among the general population.
I don't believe they should be allowed to continue doing this, without being called to account by those whom they are so freely criticizing.
posted by Dave Welsh at 4:37 AM
21 Comments:
Hello Dave:
One has only to compare your arguments to those of the PACHI claquer, Paul Barford, to appreciate his cunning methodology; doing a 'Yuri Geller' with the facts to burnish his own tarnished standpoint.
He always gives me the distinct impression of being a man treading water in a sea of reason who's also desperately clutching at straws to keep his head above water.
Best
John Howland
UK
John,
I believe that in the end Barford's "cunning methodology" is not convincing to thoughtful readers when countered by reasoned and factual arguments.
I also believe that he is so committed to the "archaeologie uber alles" perspective that he often fails to realize that there are things which archaeologists morally should not do. One of those things is to use the word "illicit" in describing artifacts whose origin is unknown, and for which there is no evidence (or reasonable basis for suspicion) of illegal export.
Regards,
Dave
Hi Dave:
Probably the most disturbing thing about Paul Barford is his ability to fly in the face of commonsense, reason, and good manners; his gratuitously abusive ad hominem attacks on anyone who questions his oddball anti-collecting dogma, or on those he perceives to be of lower social class than he, is very revealing. A typical example is his misinterpretation of the word 'illicit' when applied to (as you put it):-
...artifacts whose origin is unknown, and for which there is no evidence (or reasonable basis for suspicion) of illegal export.
One has to consider the serious question; that with his cavalier attitude towards definitions, some might say carelessness, what credence can be put on anything he writes or has written about history, archaeology, or excavation report (if any) he might have authored during an undistinguished archaeological career.
I hope he makes a better fist of things as an English language teacher; though his continued use of the socially indelicate word, 'bollocks' to describe yours and Dr Peter Tompa's side of the collecting debate doesn't lend much hope.
Regards
John Howland
UK
Interesting how the term "illicit" which was used in the UNESCO Convention to mean an artifact that was exported in violation of law has been transformed by the archaeological lobby to refer to "undocumented" artifacts, i.e., those lacking export permits. More than a few jumps in logic there.
Incidentally, Lord Renfrew's "undocumented" coin collection was recently sold by Baldwin's auction house using a pseudonym. I had heard some archaeologists have claimed that the use of a pseudonym is evidence of illicit origins. Of course, we should all give Lord Renfew the benefit of the doubt. I suspect the use of a pseudonym in this case was to avoid controversy and charges of hypocrisy.
"One of those things is to use the word "illicit" in describing artifacts whose origin is unknown, and for which there is no evidence (or reasonable basis for suspicion) of illegal export".
In other words, any artefact coming onto the market need not be treated with any kind of suspicion and can be sold perfectly openly as a licit artefact, unless it is accompanied by a piece of paper saying "this artefact has been exported illegally"? http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2016/08/two-notions-of-illicit-antiquities.html
"I believe that in the end Barford's "cunning methodology" is not convincing to thoughtful readers when countered by reasoned and factual arguments"
Come on then, let's see some. Are Hopi masks sold in France licitly sold or illicitly sold if there is no mechanism by which their export from US can be proven to be illegal? How can you tell one from the other? Are artefacts which are direct products of illicit excavations in contravention of national patrimony laws licit or illicit? How can you tell one from the other? Are nighthawking finds sold on eBay UK licit or illicit? How can you tell one from the other?
John,
You observed:
"A typical example is his misinterpretation of the word 'illicit' when applied to (as you put it):-
...artifacts whose origin is unknown, and for which there is no evidence (or reasonable basis for suspicion) of illegal export.
One has to consider the serious question; that with his cavalier attitude towards definitions, some might say carelessness, what credence can be put on anything he writes or has written about history, archaeology, or excavation report (if any) he might have authored during an undistinguished archaeological career."
I expect that we shall see some examples of the "cavalier attitude" you mention in what Barford has to say during further discussion of this subject. It is very important, and his own use of 'illicit' is a major source of conflict between him and me. I will according let him argue the point further here, so far as he sticks to the subject with comments appropriate for a respectable venue.
Incidentally Mr. Barford has written a very good excavation report that can be found on the used book market at reasonable prices. It is: "Excavations at Little Oakley, Essex, 1951-78: Roman Villa and Saxon Settlement (EAA 98)."
https://www.amazon.com/Excavations-Little-Oakley-Essex-1951-78/dp/1852812214
This I think helps to explain why (in his student days) he was regarded as having real potential.
Regards,
Dave
Peter,
You observed:
"Incidentally, Lord Renfrew's "undocumented" coin collection was recently sold by Baldwin's auction house using a pseudonym. I had heard some archaeologists have claimed that the use of a pseudonym is evidence of illicit origins. Of course, we should all give Lord Renfew the benefit of the doubt. I suspect the use of a pseudonym in this case was to avoid controversy and charges of hypocrisy."
That collection became a subject of discussion in Unidroit-L, and as I recall Renfrew formed the collection at an early age and mostly if not entirely, prior to 1983.
I'm sure that it's appropriate to give him the benefit of the doubt, and personally see nothing wrong in his conduct.
Regards,
Dave
Paul,
You commented "In other words, any artefact coming onto the market need not be treated with any kind of suspicion and can be sold perfectly openly as a licit artefact, unless it is accompanied by a piece of paper saying "this artefact has been exported illegally"? http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2016/08/two-notions-of-illicit-antiquities.html"
To the contrary, those who acquire or auction such artifacts should observe due diligence to the extent of the information available, deal only with reliable and ethical sources, and avoid anything that "looks suspicious." That is my own ethical standard when acquiring unprovenanced coins.
The word 'illicit' should not be used to describe unprovenanced artifacts for which there are no known grounds for suspicion extending beyond lack of provenance.
Regards,
Dave
Paul,
You queried in another comment:
"Are Hopi masks sold in France licitly sold or illicitly sold if there is no mechanism by which their export from US can be proven to be illegal? How can you tell one from the other? Are artefacts which are direct products of illicit excavations in contravention of national patrimony laws licit or illicit? How can you tell one from the other? Are nighthawking finds sold on eBay UK licit or illicit? How can you tell one from the other?"
I believe that unless there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that an unprovenanced artifact was illegally exported, it should not be described as 'illicit.' That would apply to Hopi masks, in my opinion.
Artefacts for which there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that they are direct products of illicit excavations in contravention of national patrimony laws could appropriately, in my opinion, be described as 'illicit.' But that presumes specific information about their possible origin that raises a "red flag" in the mind of an experienced observer, not mere lack of provenance. I have in mind the sort of material I routinely decline to acquire because I'm not confident that it is "clean."
You queried, "How can you tell one from the other?" In many, perhaps most cases you could not. But experts who routinely handle the material in question develop instincts about it, instincts that raise a "red flag" in the mind when something anomalous appears. It may be nothing more than the manner of the individual one is dealing with. But these instincts are real and important qualities that a trustworthy dealer or auctioneer must have. They are analogous to the ability of an experienced policeman to instinctively perceive an individual encountered on the street as being someone in whom he should take an interest.
You queried, "Are nighthawking finds sold on eBay UK licit or illicit? How can you tell one from the other?"
If there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that an artifact offered on eBay UK is a "nighthawking find," the question then becomes whether its excavation would be considered illegal under UK law. If so, it could appropriately, in my opinion, be described as 'illicit.' As for how you can tell one from the other, my previous answer applies, with the observation that an experienced detectorist such as Mr. Howland might be able to shed further light upon the subject of how to instinctively "smell out" nighthawking finds.
Regards,
Dave
Hi Dave, I agree, Lord Renfew did nothing wrong. But it just goes to show that it's best not to assume a pseudonym in an auction catalogue means something nefarious is going on.....
Hi Dave:
"Incidentally Mr. Barford has written a very good excavation report that can be found on the used book market at reasonable prices. It is: "Excavations at Little Oakley, Essex, 1951-78: Roman Villa and Saxon Settlement (EAA 98)." Good in what sense? That he refrained from using the word 'bollocks' throughout?
If he is prepared to (as you say) do; "...things which archaeologists morally should not do," and that, "One of those things is to use the word "illicit" in describing artifacts whose origin is unknown, and for which there is no evidence (or reasonable basis for suspicion) of illegal export," then what credence can be put on anything he writes or has written about history, archaeology, or excavation report (if any) he might have authored during an undistinguished archaeological career?
This must include the Little Oakley write-up especially if the interpretation of the site was his. If however, his role was purely secretarial/tea maker to (presumably) more experienced archaeologists, then fine. If not, then his findings have to be viewed with greater skepticism along with any and all post-Oakley excavations in which he has been the principal interpreter. He shepherds facts to suit his arguments over the word 'illicit' so it's possible that he's got previous form elsewhere. Any doubt about his archaeological veracity is purely self-inflicted.
I obliged to say that in any debate involving Paul Barford - unlike him - you demonstrate a level of tolerance, courtesy, and a sense of fair play that he's unable to achieve.
Regards
John Howland
UK
John,
You commented:
""Incidentally Mr. Barford has written a very good excavation report ..." Good in what sense? That he refrained from using the word 'bollocks' throughout?"
No, good in that it was a well written, informative report that I personally enjoyed reading.
You further commented,
"If he is prepared to (as you say) do; "...things which archaeologists morally should not do," and that, "One of those things is to use the word "illicit" in describing artifacts whose origin is unknown, and for which there is no evidence (or reasonable basis for suspicion) of illegal export," then what credence can be put on anything he writes or has written about history, archaeology, or excavation report (if any) he might have authored during an undistinguished archaeological career?"
Mr. Barford's achievements as an author should not be judged by the perceived paucity of other important activities such as fieldwork in his brief career as an active archaeologist.
Barford is a good writer, although his dense style makes the reader work for the nuggets of information in his writings. Publications should be taken on their own merits, and the only complaint I would have regarding his, is that there have been fewer significant publications than his capabilities (in my opinion) warranted.
The Little Oakley writeup covered work performed by others who were not, as I remember, professional archaeologists but whose work was a significant and creditable example of traditional British amateur (local) archaeology. Barford compiled a great deal of material, gathered over a long period of time, into a readable and well executed report for which he deserves due credit.
Regards,
Dave
Hi Dave:
I disagree with you on a couple of points: Barford is (in my opinion) light years away from being a good writer. Good copy is easy to read and digest. His current dense prose style where the reader is made to "work for nuggets of information" is not. His appalling blog is further evidence.
His achievements as an archaeological author must indeed be weighed in the balance, particularly where other important activities such as fieldwork and/or practical archaeological experience is limited.
That he collated data from amateur (or even professional) archaeologists at Little Oakley indicates his role was secretarial. Though I have been unable to get a copy of the Little Oakley report, I accept your appraisal.
Regards
John Howland
UK
John,
You commented regarding Barford's writeup of the excavations at Little Oakley:
"That he collated data from amateur (or even professional) archaeologists at Little Oakley indicates his role was secretarial. Though I have been unable to get a copy of the Little Oakley report, I accept your appraisal."
There was much more to it than "secretarial" effort. A good deal of intelligent interpretive judgement was involved in the presentation of the data and its organization. It is difficult to describe all that in a comment here, but before you judge that effort, you should read his monograph.
Regards,
Dave
As I see it, this discussion was about what you give as YOUR “definition of the word illicit antiquities” and what you allege is mine. Firstly, I say that allegation is false. I challenge you to show that I do indeed use the term in the manner you allege. I say I do not, and have explained how I see the relationship between illcit antiquities and unprovenamced antiquities on the no-questions-asked market http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2016/08/explaining-term-illicit-to-metal.html. I do not see what there is not to understand here, but given the company I am in, I fully anticipate some more uncomprehending dismissive derision from the other commentator on this respectable venue.
It seems to me there is a lack of focus in the exchange which goes before. You are failing to address the issue which is your definition, instead shifting your reply to ‘trade practice’.
But what we are discussing is your definition, and why I say it is inadequate as such. I hope we can focus on the question in hand. You accuse me of misuse because I do not narrow the definition in the same way as you do. I think it is your definition that is faulty, and not the way I have been using the word (which you call unethical – unethical Mr Welsh is making an accusation like that, and then refusing to back it up by focussed, reasoned and factual arguments - so let's see some please).
Your original definition as I understand it is solely “illegally exported artifact". Those are your precise words aren’t they? So I asked you about other kinds of antiquities on the market which do not fit that definition and ask you whether or not they are illicit antiquities according to your definition. You somewhat dodge the issue though. I will explain why I say that:
1) An artefact actually labelled as an illegal export – that is illicit according to your definition, right? But then that means that the lack of evidence of illegal export (like no piece of paper saying "I was illegally exported") makes everything else licit according to your definition which you say is based on proof and not inference or suspicion. So a licit artefact according to the Dave Welsh Definition is one where there is zero information about origins. So, the precise opposite of what you say “archaeologists are claiming”. Again, we are talking here about definitions (what is), not trade practices (what can be treated as). A licit artefact is defined by you as one where there is no information about illegal export. Period. You really cannot deny it, it is what you wrote.
2) Hopi masks. According to you these do not have the status of illicit artefacts when taken out of tribal hands and sold in France. Well, that is not the opinion of many people in the States, though I am quite sure the dealers flogging them off are quite happy with your narrow definition. Until the US institutes export licensing or an export they will continue to fall outside your own narrow definition of what illicit cultural property is.
tbc... 4,069 character limit
3) If a nighthawk can fool a dealer by presenting finds in a way that arouses “no suspicion” (like laundering them through PAS as from another site) that renders the stolen finds “not illicit" according to the Dave Welsh definition. If course if they are dug up in England and sold by an English dealer to a Welsh collector or dealer, they are not in any case “illicit” in any way according to the Dave Welsh Definition because they were never exported.
And if suspicions were aroused, they’d still not be “illicit” by the Dave Welsh Definition of illicit until somebody exports them. Until they do, they fall outside your own narrow definition of illicit. And what if a collector has them five years and then exports them to the States, do these metal detector finds become any the less stolen by being taken across the sea on a UK export licence after an interval? Are they suddenly made ‘licit’ by the journey?
4) “Artefacts for which there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that they are direct products of illicit excavations in contravention of national patrimony laws could appropriately, in my opinion, be described as 'illicit.'” Where has this “suspicion” come from suddenly? It is this “suspicion” that you accuse “the archaeologists” as misusing to define “illicit”; now you are applying the same measure yourself. Now if they can “appropriately be described” as illicit, they fall OUTSIDE your own narrow definition. The one we are discussing. The one you falsely allege I am the one misusing.
5) “If there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that an artifact offered on eBay UK is a "nighthawking find" the question then becomes whether its excavation would be considered illegal under UK law.”
Ow. You do know what is meant by the term “nighthawking”, I get it?
”If so, it could appropriately, in my opinion, be described as 'illicit.'...”
but again, that falls outside your narrow definition of the term Illicit, the one I am falsely accused of misusing. Who is being cavalier with the definitions now?
”an experienced detectorist such as Mr. Howland might be able to shed further light upon the subject of how to instinctively "smell out" nighthawking finds”.
Oh I would be very interested to hear of Mr Howland’s dealings with nighthawks and nighthawking finds. So, probably, would the police.
But again this is not the issue, because these artefacts would fall outside your own narrow definition of what are “illicit artefacts" which involves the action of export.
You seem totally oblivious to the point that it is precisely the narrowness of your definition which I was challenging.
6) Now what about Holocaust art? The 1970 UNESCO Convention (see art 1 which you are fond of quoting) is not just about dugup artefacts, it is about cultural property in general. So is illegal export the only criterion of when a work of art is illicit or not? Holocaust art is licitly held as long as it stays in the same country? That’s what the Dave Welsh Definition you published yesterday says.
Maybe you need to revise it? And then if you do it honestly and take into account other eventualities than what you claim/feel/imagine you have in your stockroom, see whether your revised version (including the reasonable suspicion, and national patrimony laws and all that) differs all that much from what Professor Mackenzie wrote.
Paul,
In a comment above you began:
"As I see it, this discussion was about what you give as YOUR “definition of the word illicit antiquities” and what you allege is mine."
That is incorrect. The post was about the meaning of the word "illicit," as defined in the 1970 UNESCO Convention; the meaning of "illicit" in plain English; and the manner in which archaeologists are using the word "illicit" in their writings on public venues that are not scholarly journals.
I don't intend to debate this subject with you in the comments section of my blog.
You continued:
"I challenge you to show that I do indeed use the term in the manner you allege. I say I do not... I do not see what there is not to understand here..."
Everything you say in this is "not to understand." The post to which you are commenting was not about your blog, or the ways you misuse terminology in your blog. Your above remarks are irrelevant.
You continued:
"Your original definition as I understand it is solely “illegally exported artifact". Those are your precise words aren’t they? ..."
It's not my definition. It is the definition given in the 1970 UNESCO Convention, and I pointed that out.
You continued:
"You somewhat dodge the issue though. I will explain why I say that:
"1) An artefact actually labelled as an illegal export – that is illicit according to your definition, right? But then that means that the lack of evidence of illegal export (like no piece of paper saying "I was illegally exported") makes everything else licit according to your definition ..."
That is absolutely not what I said, and the manner in which you worded this displays your "cavalier attitude."
What I said was "those who acquire or auction such artifacts should observe due diligence to the extent of the information available, deal only with reliable and ethical sources, and avoid anything that "looks suspicious." That is my own ethical standard when acquiring unprovenanced coins."
It is not reasonably possible to prove that the vast majority, if not actually all, of unprovenanced artifacts available on the market for acquisition are either legally or illegally exported, within practical time constraints under circumstances prevailing when acquisition decisions must be made.
You continued:
"So a licit artefact according to the Dave Welsh Definition is one where there is zero information about origins."
What I actually said was: "The word 'illicit' should not be used to describe unprovenanced artifacts for which there are no known grounds for suspicion extending beyond lack of provenance." That is by no means a definition of artifacts for which "there is zero information about origins" as being "licit." They are unprovenanced, may be suspect, and should be judged carefully before acquisition.
You continued:
"So, the precise opposite of what you say “archaeologists are claiming”.
Not at all. The sense of my remarks actually distills down to "unprovenanced" artifacts as being of "unknown licitness."
You continued:
"Again, we are talking here about definitions (what is), not trade practices (what can be treated as). A licit artefact is defined by you as one where there is no information about illegal export. Period. You really cannot deny it, it is what you wrote."
That part of your comment is an absolute falsehood. I do deny it. It absolutely is not what I wrote.
I will add that the logic-chopping you have attempted in this comment impresses me as being maliciously intended, of no value toward readers understanding the blog post commented upon, and that much more of this sort of thing will exhaust my now strained tolerance for admitting your comments to publication in my blog.
Dave:
To use Barford's archaeological(?) vernacular; he's talking 'bollocks' - as usual. Dense prose style? It flows like molasses in winter.
Regards
John Howland
UK
Paul,
In another comment above you wrote with great prolixity:
"3) If a nighthawk can fool a dealer by presenting finds in a way that arouses “no suspicion” ... that renders the stolen finds “not illicit" according to the Dave Welsh definition. If course if they are dug up in England and sold by an English dealer to a Welsh collector or dealer, they are not in any case “illicit” in any way according to the Dave Welsh Definition because they were never exported.
...
4) “Artefacts for which there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that they are direct products of illicit excavations in contravention of national patrimony laws could appropriately, in my opinion, be described as 'illicit.'” Where has this “suspicion” come from suddenly?
There's nothing "sudden" about suspicion arising from "red flags" triggering the instincts of an experienced observer.
"It is this “suspicion” that you accuse “the archaeologists” as misusing to define “illicit”; now you are applying the same measure yourself."
No. The archaeologists who use that word in describing unprovenanced artifacts do so without individually examining the actual artifacts or groups thereof, which are offered on the market. I examine artifacts (and those who offer them) before acquisition, and judge them accordingly.
"Now if they can “appropriately be described” as illicit,"
They cannot, since they have not been individually examined.
...
5) “If there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that an artifact offered on eBay UK is a "nighthawking find" the question then becomes whether its excavation would be considered illegal under UK law.”
...
"”If so, it could appropriately, in my opinion, be described as 'illicit.'...”
but again, that falls outside your narrow definition of the term Illicit, the one I am falsely accused of misusing."
It does not. The 1970 UNESCO Convention's definition was restricted to export of artifacts, however illegally excavated artifacts are not lawfully exportable, and accordingly would be illicit if exported.
...
The remainder of your comment being of very little interest or relevance, I won't bother with replying to it.
Everyone has had ample opportunity to have his say.
Comments to this post are now closed.
Post a Comment
<< Home