Ancient Coins

Italian Show Trials

2012-01-20T12:38:00.000-08:00

Italian Justice on Trial: Bob Hecht Vindicated?

http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2012/01/italian-justice-on-trial-bob-hecht.html

by Peter Tompa

Well, that is one way this sorry tale can be spun: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2012/01/italian-antiquities-robert-hecht-case-ends.html

After all the headlines, Bob Hecht, the alleged middleman at the center of an international conspiracy to launder looted art, has been freed because the statute of limitations has run under Italian law.

Paolo Ferri, Hecht's prosecutor, points the fingers at the "system." but presumably Ferri was responsible for moving the case forward, and with a little less show boating, perhaps that might have actually happened within the allotted time.

In any event, without a conviction in such a high profile case, perhaps Hecht can feel vindicated, at least to some extent.

The Italian show trial did convince US Museums to repatriate significant pieces to Italy. I wonder though, whether any have any nagging doubts about that now, at least with respect to some pieces. Also, the trial likely helped convince the AAMD and others to adopt a 1970 provenance rule. The foolishness of that decision is only now being felt, but nagging doubts about that one will grow too as fewer and fewer items become available for accession under these rules.

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

COMMENTARY

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

The Italian "show trials," beginning with the Getty Museum case, were in reality political maneuvers designed to create favorable publicity that would delude the Italian public into believing that Italy was "doing something" to protect its cultural heritage.

As such they were hugely successful. They generated a great deal of publicity and masked the true state of Italy's neglect in conserving and protecting the antiquities and monuments in State custody. Eventually, however, such publicity stunts will be forgotten, whereas the neglect endures and in Italy's case, worsens.

Meanwhile a very significant injustice was done to American museums and to individuals such as the Getty Museum's director and Hecht, who had solid cases prepared to demonstrate their innocence, but were never given an opportunity to present them in court; the prosecution abandoned these cases as soon as their publicity value was exploited.

In this respect Italy stands guilty of conducting media-circus "show trials," just as unfair and dishonest as those of the Stalinist regime during its purges. While the accused still live, their careers were murdered.

An Appeal to Reason

2012-01-18T22:46:00.000-08:00

There is No Reason for CPAC to Change its Recommendations on Coins

http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2012/01/there-is-no-reason-for-cpac-to-change.html
by Peter Tompa

Here is my prepared oral statement regarding the proposed renewal of the MOU with Cyprus:

I’m speaking on behalf of IAPN and PNG, which represent the small businesses of the numismatic trade. In many ways, this hearing is a much greater test for CPAC than for coin collectors. Prior committees have twice recommended against import restrictions on coins for good reason. Yet, there will certainly be pressure to change course and to fall into line with the State Department’s controversial 2007 decision to impose import restrictions on “coins of Cypriot type.”

Each Committee member must ask themselves whether they can do so in good conscience after considering these undisputed facts, particularly because the restrictions at issue can lead to civil or criminal liability for American collectors and the American small businesses of the numismatic trade, including seizure of their coins:

1. Coins were evidently placed on the designated list on the orders of former Undersecretary Nicholas Burns – now of Harvard University’s Kennedy School-- as a “thank you” to Cypriot advocacy groups which had given him an award;

2. Jay Kislak, CPAC’s former chair, has stated under oath that the State Department misled Congress and the Public about CPAC’s vote against import restrictions on coins;

3. In 2007, the AIA claimed that Cypriot coins “rarely circulated” to justify restrictions on “coins of Cypriot type.” However, a top Cypriot official has admitted that “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…” Moreover, this view has substantial scholarly support, as set forth in our papers;

4. The CPIA requires less drastic remedies to be tried first before import restrictions are imposed, but Cyprus has no coherent regulatory scheme for metal detectors and even allows British tourists to bring them to the Island;

5. Restrictions imposed on unprovenanced “coins of Cypriot type” only discriminate against American collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade; such coins may be shipped from abroad to anywhere but the USA, including Cyprus.

Moreover, there is no good reason to renew the MOU for yet another 5 years. Cyprus has already had the benefit of restrictions since 1999 on ethnological artifacts and 2002 on archaeological artifacts. Yet, a Swiss scholar reports most looted material goes to wealthy Greek Cypriot collectors, and not as has been maintained to collectors abroad. In addition, all this appears to be done with the full knowledge and acquiescence of Greek Cypriot authorities. Under the circumstances, why should the US burden its own citizens and small businesses with such restrictions? To do so will only reward Cypriot authorities for their own hypocrisy and thus make a mockery of the supposed purpose of such MOU’s to protect archaeological context.

In sum, please give heed to the 77% of the public comments posted on the regulations.gov website opposed to import restrictions on coins. Thank you.

Monuments for Rent?

2012-01-18T07:47:00.000-08:00

Acropolis for Rent

http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2012/01/acropolis-for-rent.html

by Peter Tompa

In a move that will no doubt leave archaeological purists aghast, the bankrupt Greek state is considering putting up its major historical sites for rent:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jeUrA6jll-SsuqVTVwl6nmZRk4LA?docId=CNG.f8db7d69218339b9285abcf6567bb20c.471

Hopefully, the next step will be the deaccession of excess museum inventory and the creation of a licit antiquities and numismatic market in the country.

What better way to generate much needed cash and to end a corrupt system that allows only the connected to collect what they want.

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

COMMENTARY

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

The failure of the archaeological and cultural ministry establishment to consider economic realities in forming their policies regarding private collecting of antiquities has now led to a situation in which nations such as Greece must choose between supporting an ever more costly and burdensome state-custody system for antiquities and other "archaeological artifacts," and providing social services which their citizens view as being essential. The European economic crisis has reached a point where hard choices must be made to avert consequences such as the collapse of the EEC, and forced return to national currencies for nations such as Greece and Italy with subsequent devaluation and severe austerity regimes.

In such an economic environment it is inevitable that reality will prevail, and rational decisions will be made regarding funding for archaeology, the custodial system for antiquities and maintenance of monuments. It will be found essential to give priority to measures that generate revenue, such as the proposed rental of monuments and maintenance of income-generating sites such as Pompeii.

Peter Tompa's observations regarding deaccession of excess museum inventory and the creation of a licit antiquities and numismatic market are very much in line with this forthcoming focus on revenue generation. Releasing excess museum inventory to the antiquities trade with provenance would be doubly beneficial, in that it would reduce costs at the same time as it would generate significant revenue. It would also create opportunities for collectors worldwide to become interested in these nations and their cultural heritage, and to perhaps visit them.

Destroying the Numismatic Market

2012-01-11T16:22:00.000-08:00

No Shipment to the USA

http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2012/01/no-shipment-to-usa.html

by Peter Tompa

The practical impact of import restrictions should be made crystal clear with these words, "No Shipment to the USA."

This German dealer will no longer ship this Syracusian Tetradrachm to the USA, presumably because of import restrictions on "coins of Italian type." See

http://www.vcoins.com/grotjohann/store/viewItem.asp?idProduct=820

There is no indication this coin is a "fresh find." Indeed, given its toning, this coin has likely been in a collection for years. Yet, since the dealer has not identified this coin as being pictured in an auction catalogue or price list dating from before the restrictions, the dealer cannot ship it to the USA lest it be seized by US Customs and returned to its presumptive supposed find spot, the modern day Republic of Italy. (Though US Customs is supposed to accept certifications that such coins were out of the country before the date of restrictions, even where this information is available, Customs has been known to reject them absent auction catalogue citations.)

Yet, the same coin can be shipped to collectors ANYWHERE else in the world, including within Italy. How then do the restrictions comply with the CPIA's "concerted international response requirement" that was meant to the ensure the comity and effectiveness of import restrictions and also thus preclude any such discrimination against American collectors?

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

COMMENTARY

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

As pro-collecting advocates have pointed out since the first proposal to include ancient coins in US import restrictions, such restrictions will not do anything at all to prevent or discourage illicit excavation and smuggling of ancient coins.

Their actual effect will be to divide the numismatic market into two zones: the USA and the rest of the world. It is difficult to believe that such a division can serve any purpose, other than a conspiracy to restrict and eventually destroy the licit international market for ancient coins.

Rescuing Artifacts from Destruction

2012-01-11T16:20:00.000-08:00

Metal Detectorists Preserve Artifacts Archaeologists Often Destroy or Ignore!

http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2012/01/metal-detectorists-preserve-artifacts.html

by Peter Tompa

Karl also makes this interesting observation in his "Highway to Hell" article cited below:

But what are Austrian metal detectorists really digging up? Do they typically dig sizeable trenches, and do they dig down into stratified contexts? As far as can be ascertained from the results of my survey, they normally do neither. Rather, the overwhelming majority restrict their activities mostly to digging just the topsoil (Figure 10) and to digging pits of less than one-quarter of a square metre (Figure 11).

Yet, the topsoil is that part of an archaeological stratigraphy that is usually removed by a mechanical digger on the vast majority of Austrian excavations. This is true for pretty much all rescue excavations, and even for many, if not most, research digs. Manual removal of the topsoil is the rare exception to the rule, and even where this happens, the topsoil is rarely thoroughly searched for finds (least of all using a metal detector), if at all.

Thus, most of the activity of metal detectorists seems to be limited to those parts of archaeological stratigraphies neither observed nor documented in systematic archaeological excavations. It thus seems rather peculiar that we accuse these amateur archaeologists of intentionally destroying the archaeological contexts of their finds. After all, professional archaeologists rarely even bother attempting to recover the finds that derive from topsoil contexts; rather, they run them over with a large digger or remove them rapidly and with little regard for implementing intensive recovery strategies.

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

COMMENTARY

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

Pro-collecting advocates have for a long time endeavored to point out that charges that those who search for coins and other objects with metal detectors are not doing any significant damage to the archaeological record, contrary to sweeping allegations made by anticollecting [perhaps antisocial might be a more accurate term for such negative views] ideologues, who apparently regard every cubic inch of our planet as a sacred archaeological treasure reserved for archaeologists to excavate.

Here we have evidence from a respected archaeologist, that a rational examination of what "artifact hunters" [to use an emotionally charged pejorative term invented by anticollecting ideologues] are actually doing must conclude that they are preserving artifacts from the destructive activities of archaeologists.

Highway to Hell

2012-01-11T16:17:00.000-08:00

On the Highway to Hell

http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2012/01/on-highway-to-hell.html

by Peter Tompa

Raimund Karl of Bangor University in the UK has written a thought provoking piece entitled, On the Highway to Hell: Thoughts on the Unintended Consequences for Portable Antiquities of Section 11 (1) Austrian Denkmalschutzgesetz. See http://www.ngoe.at/publikationen/HEN_Karl.pdf

He concludes that a change in Austrian law has led metal detectorists to stop reporting finds they would otherwise report:

By effectively outlawing the use of metal detectors by members of the public to search for archaeological finds through § 11(1) DMSG, the many responsible amateur archaeologists who would be both willing to assist and interested in assisting with the protection of the archaeological heritage have been criminalized. This has completely removed many people’s motivation to report finds, intended to be strengthened by § 8 DMSG awarding a half share in the ownership of legally found and reported finds to the finder. As a result, most have practically stopped reporting any of their finds: this would, after all, be an at least implicit admission of having broken the law, resulting in the loss of any ownership rights to the finds according to § 400 ABGB, and possibly even inviting prosecution.

After reading his article, one might conclude that Professor Karl seems to be blessed with common sense that has detoured him away from the "highway to hell" that has been taken by some of his more ideological colleagues in the archaeological community.

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

COMMENTARY

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

Dr. Karl, a highly respected archaeologist, has provided one more convincing reason to realize that the anticollecting ideological approach supported by radical archaeologists is inherently destructive both to protection of the archaeological heritage and to public support for archaeologists and their activities.

That ideological approach is indeed a "highway to hell" whose first major disaster was to irreparably destroy the once close relationship between the archaeological community and the collecting community, and which is now proceeding toward destruction of support for archaeology amongst the general public.

Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius.

Americans Again Reject Import Restrictions

2012-01-07T06:39:00.000-08:00

77% of Posted Comments Against Renewal of Cypriot MOU

http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2012/01/77-of-posted-comments-against-renewal.html
by Peter Tompa

John Hooker has performed the following analysis of the 338 comments posted on the regulations.gov website in response to the State Department's invitation to comment on the proposed renewal of the MOU with Cyprus:

The following results are rounded to 1% and are accurate to within 0.5%

Against the renewal of the MoU: 77%

For the renewal: 20%

This breaks down over the coin issue thus:

Those against the renewal that mentioned coins: 71%

Those against the renewal that did not mention coins: 6%

Those for the renewal that mentioned coins: 8%

Those for the renewal that did not mention coins: 12%

Inappropriate responses (6 people thought they were responding to a Peru MoU, one to the Bulgarian MoU): 3%

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

Another overwhelming rejection of import restrictions by the American people, to be followed by another demonstration that the Obama Administration does not care enough about violations of the spirit (and even the letter) of US Cultural property law by the bureaucrats responsible for its administration, to take action to correct these shameful abuses.

Once again the Kouroupas maladministration will simply ignore the desires of the American people and reimpose these unfair and illogical restrictions for their own purposes, despite clear evidence that this is not justifiable.

This is not the American way. Our laws are not playthings to be exploited by bureaucrats with private ideological agendas. The Kouroupas gang has got to go, and if the Obama administration is not willing to recognize its responsibility to act in that direction, let that be recorded as one more reason to seek change at the polls.

Triumph for the Treasure Act

2012-01-07T06:36:00.000-08:00

Another Triumph for the Treasure Act

http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/12/another-triumph-for-treasure-act.html
by Peter Tompa

A British Metal Detectorist has discovered and reported an immensely important hoard of Viking era coins and silver artifacts. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/8955955/Viking-hoard-provides-new-clues-to-previously-unknown-ruler.html and http://finds.org.uk/news

The hoard contains a coin of a previously unknown ruler as well as coins from from far off Germany and the Middle East. More proof that even in the "Dark Ages" coins travelled long distances from their place of manufacture.

Although archaeological cranks may still find reason to criticize the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme and the cooperation if fosters among members of the public, archaeologists, and museum professionals, how many such hoards are voluntarily reported in their preferred models of cultural heritage management such as Greece, Egypt, Turkey, Italy and Cyprus?

Fair Play

2012-01-07T06:25:00.000-08:00

Turnabout is Fair Play

http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2012/01/turnabout-is-fair-play.html
by Peter Tompa

Archaeo-Blogger Paul Barford has sought to make sport of the heartfelt comments of ancient coin collectors opposed to the extension of the MOU with Cyprus. Accordingly, his own comments to CPAC deserve at least some scrutiny.

Barford has stated to CPAC:

As somebody deeply concerned about the illicit international trade in antiquities and other cultural property and the role of US dealers and collectors in this, I support the renewal of the MOU with Cyprus to help curb the movement of illicit antiquities across US borders by increased scrutiny of imports as per Art. 3 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention and the CCPIA. It gives out a strong message of US commitment to equable [sic] relations with the international community in such matters.

Comment: I don't doubt Mr. Barford's sincerity, but it should also be noted that Barford is apparently a contractor for UNESCO. This is at least as relevant to the validity of his views as his claims that US Dealers and collectors are motivated by financial interests in their opposition to these MOU's. It's interesting that Barford suggests that MOU's "give[] out a strong message of US Commitment to equable [equitable?] relations when these MOU's impose restrictions on Americans not borne by others including collectors in Cyprus.

The rich cultural heritage of Cyprus continues to be seriously threatened by looters who, in defiance of antiquity preservation laws, are systematically and clandestinely stripping sites of collectable items many of which are destined for sale on foreign markets. Cyprus applies the measures envisaged in the Convention to attempt to combat this looting but the financial temptations of the international no-questions asked market for smuggled goods (and the US market plays a potentially big role) encourage criminals to try and subvert these efforts.

Comment: A Swiss academic who has studied the issue has concluded that most looted artifacts no longer go abroad and instead go into collections of wealthy Cypriot collectors with the full knowledge and acquiescence of Cypriot authorities. Under the circumstances, Greek Cypriot Government propaganda repeated here masks a different truth.

I would ask the CPAC to urge the appropriate US authorities to pay especial attention to the US trade (both across the country’s borders as well as internally) in what the trade persists in calling “minor antiquities”, and in particular in dug-up coins. Coins like any other archaeological artefacts illegally taken out of the archaeological record and unlawfully exported cannot be exempt from scrutiny. Yet this is what the people who profit from trading this type of material would apparently like to see. It cannot fail to escape the notice of the CPAC that US coin dealers and their lobbyists are currently engaged in active opposition to the imposition of import controls on items without documentation of lawful export (19 U.S.C. 2606) which can only draw attention to the current form of the market for such items in the US. The comments in this docket include those of a few hundred collectors (among the 50 000 collectors of ancient coins the lobby group the Ancient Coin Collectors’ Guild claims). They, fired up by the alarmist rhetoric of the dealers’ lobbyists, oppose restricting imports onto the US market to only those with documentation of what the CCPIA considers to be lawful export. Their collective voice in favour of the reintroduction of an unrestricted flow onto the US market of freshly imported archaeological artefacts such as ancient coins without documentation of lawful export shows why it is so important that US vigilance is maintained.

Comment: Barford misstates the impact of import restrictions and thus mischaraterizes the nature of the opposition. Barford suggests that restrictions only impact freshly imported archaeological artifacts from Cyprus. In fact, import restrictions impact all imports of coins of Cypriot type from legitimate markets abroad. Such restrictions are grossly overbroad. Coins legitimately for sale in the UK or Germany cannot be imported under these restrictions without detailed documentation that does not exist for most ancient coins. Even worse, US Customs has evidently taken the position that coins of Cypriot type on the designated list may only be imported if they are pictured in an auction catalogue predating the 2007 restrictions. This bars entry of virtually all Cypriot coins. In addition, the "current form of the market in the US" Barford complains about is no different than the "current form of the market" in the EU, of which Cyprus is a part. As such, restrictions only discriminate against American citizens.

The US needs to maintain their [sic] tough stance with anyone attempting to abuse the system and continue to seize illicitly-exported material of this type at the US borders (in accordance with the measures envisaged by the 1970 Convention), and in doing so help make international controls on the movement of illicit artefacts more effective.

Closer scrutiny of archaeological and ethnographic material of Cypriot origin crossing US borders is a non-drastic means of providing this help and respecting the obligations of the USA and other states parties under the 1970 UNESCO Convention.

Comment: US Customs already has plenty of tools at its disposal to interdict artifacts looted from Cyprus (including claims of smuggling and theft) without resort to grossly overbroad restrictions that only discriminate against American citizens. If such restrictions are such a good idea, how come only the US applies them? And if Mr. Barford is so concerned about Cypriot cultural heritage, shouldn't he spend at least as much time railing against corrupt Cypriot practices as he does against American collectors?

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

Were Mr. Barford genuinely interested in ensuring that the law is properly administered regarding US cultural property statutes, he would wax just as wroth when the rights of collectors are trampled upon as he does when a report of illegal metal detecting is published.

Mr. Barford of course really is not interested in fair play or equitable administration of US law. He instead seems to view that subject as a sort of smorgasbord from which he can pick bits and pieces to turn to his own purposes, whilst ignoring the massive maladministration and betrayal of collectors' legitimate rights that has characterized the Kouroupas regime.

Mr. Barford, it seems, is just one more example of that radical fringe of archaeologists which seeks to ban private collecting of antiquities so that they can monopolize this source material for their own career-centered interests.

CPAC and CPIA

2011-12-24T14:41:00.000-08:00

CPAC and CPIA Issues Recap

http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/12/cpac-and-cpia-issues-recap.html

by Peter Tompa

Archaeo-Blogger Paul Barford has this rather uncharitable advice for a small businessman looking for information about the ... CPIA, CPAC and import restrictions [blog URL deleted].

…

I've covered this area before, and here are some of the posts that hopefully will be of some help to those looking for some basic information:

For a short recap of the governing law, see: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/07/short-recap-of-cultural-property.html

Posted to the list by:

Dave Welsh

Unidroit-L Listowner

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unidroit-L

dwelsh46@cox.net

Ownership of antiquities

2011-12-24T06:55:00.000-08:00

> Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy,

Vol. 15, No. 1, 01 Jan 2012 -- available online on Taylor & Francis Online.

> This new issue contains the following articles:

> Articles

> Can we own the past? Cultural artifacts as public goods Peter Lindsay

> Pages: 1-17

> DOI: 10.1080/13698230.2011.583533

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

COMMENTARY

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

This article is simply one more ideologically driven, anticollecting rote recitation of the archaeologist zealot's mantra: that antiquities inherently "belong to the public" and may not be privately owned.

The author presents this utter, unthinking, unintelligent idiocy as "broadening" the public perspective, which is about as far from the truth as anything could possibly be, for in every sense of the word what he advocates would instead be a drastic and very destructive narrowing of the public perspective.

The author further foolishly, irresponsibly neglects to address the extremely important question of how, in a global economic crisis where governments of most "source countries" are unable to fund their existing responsibilities in caring for their immense holdings of sadly neglected antiquities, the measures he advocates could possibly be funded.

Once again we see the flights of fancy into which advocating public policy measures based upon nothing more than ideological principles, without any consideration of practical realities, inevitably descends. This is ivory tower academic idealism at its most dangerous, for there are still decision makers who, misled by academic credentials, believe that such nonsense ought to be taken as revealed truth.

Cyprus MOU extension

2011-12-22T21:12:00.000-08:00

Cyprus MOU renewal under consideration - Comment from collectors and dealers is needed once again

http://www.accg.us/News/Item /Cyprus_MOU_renewal_under_consideration.aspx
by Peter Tompa

Fresh on the heels of its deliberation over import restrictions on coins from Bulgaria, the US State Department has now announced a hearing on extension of the MOU with Cyprus that is now up for its 5-year renewal. The Cultural Property Advisory Committee is seeking public comment on the renewal request. To submit comments electronically to the State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC), see below:

Those present restrictions bar entry into the United States of the following coin types unless they are accompanied with documentation establishing that they were out of Cyprus as of the date of the restrictions, July 16, 2007:

1. Issues of the ancient kingdoms of Amathus, Kition, Kourion, Idalion, Lapethos, Marion, Paphos, Soli, and Salamis dating from the end of the 6th century B.C. to 332 B.C.

2. Issues of the Hellenistic period, such as those of Paphos, Salamis, and Kition from 332 B.C. to c. 30 B.C. (including coins of Alexander the Great, Ptolemy, and his Dynasty)

3. Provincial and local issues of the Roman period from c. 30 B.C. to 235 A.D.

Why bother to comment when the State Department rejected CPAC's recommendations against import restrictions on Cypriot coins back in 2007 and then misled both Congress and the public about its actions? And isn't it also true that although the vast majority of public comments recorded have been squarely against import restrictions, the State Department and U.S. Customs have imposed import restrictions on coins anyway, most recently on ancient coins from Greece?

Simply, silence just allows the State Department bureaucrats and their allies in the archaeological establishment to claim that collectors have acquiesced to broad restrictions on their ability to import common ancient coins that are widely available worldwide. And, of course, acquiescence is all that may be needed to justify going back and imposing import restrictions on the Roman Imperial coins that are still exempt from these regulations.

Under the circumstances, please take 5 minutes and tell CPAC, the State Department bureaucrats and the archaeologists what you think.

How do I comment? To submit comments three pages in length or less electronically, go here:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=DOS-2011-0135-0002

If you are having trouble, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal ( http://www.regulations.gov ), enter the Docket No. DOS-2011-0135 for Cyprus, and follow the prompts to submit a comment. To send comments via US Mail or FEDEX see the directions contained in the Federal Register Notice above. For further information, also see http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/whatsnew.html.

What should I say? The State Department bureaucracy has dictated that any public comments should relate solely to the following statutory criteria:

1. Whether the cultural patrimony of Cyprus is in jeopardy from looting of its archaeological materials;

2. Whether Cyprus has taken measures consistent with the 1970 UNESCO Convention to protect its cultural patrimony;

3. Whether application of U.S. import restrictions, if applied in concert with similar restrictions by other art importing countries, would be of substantial benefit in deterring a serious situation of pillage and that less drastic remedies are not available; and,

4. Whether the application of import restrictions is consistent with the general interest of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes.

(See 19 U.S.C. § 2602 (a).) Yet, collectors can really only speak to what they know. So, tell them what you think within this broad framework. For instance, over time, import restrictions will certainly impact the American public's ability to study and preserve historical coins and maintain people to people contacts with collectors abroad. Yet, foreign collectors - including collectors in Cyprus - will be able to import coins as before. And, one can also remind CPAC that less drastic remedies, like regulating metal detectors or instituting reporting programs akin to the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme, must be tried first.

Be forceful, but polite. We can and should disagree with what the State Department bureaucrats and their allies in the archaeological establishment are doing to our hobby, but we should endeavor to do so in an upstanding manner.

For more information about these issues, see:
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/

Please submit comments just once, before the deadline on Jan. 3, 2012.

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

Until the Kouroupas ECA regime has been ousted and the CPAC process is reformed, US numismatists and other antiquities collectors should forcefully oppose every request for a new MOU or extension of an existing MOU, and the grounds that administration of this system is dishonest and corrupt, and that it has lost the confidence of US citizens, who do not believe its decisions to be in their best interests.

End of the "Barford Chronicles"

2011-12-21T18:32:00.000-08:00

Those who have long desired to see an end to this reposting and commentary refuting this insufferable man’s misleading and deceptive blog posts have at long last gotten their wish, which has gradually also become my own, See the Postscript to http://classicalcoins.blogspot.com/2011/12/arsonist.html

Apologies to all who were bored into a coma (a state I have now also entered) by all that anticollecting bosh.

The Arsonist

2011-12-20T16:45:00.000-08:00

Focus on CCPIA: "Protrection of Cutural Heritage Treasures - Please stop it"

http://paul- barford.blogspot.com/2011 /12/focus-on-ccpia- protrection-of-cutur al.html
By Paul Barford

Coin collector Bill Howden would like to see the United states "stop" its International Cultural Property Protection program, he is concerned about restrictions on the "free flow of collector coins [without documentation of lawful export] from one country to another". He urges the CPAC "Please stop it with the [...] restriction on the free import and export of coins [...]".

He says this "is very detrimental to the exchange of cultural information and experiences and will undermined world efforts for better understanding and appreciaiton of other nations, especially among the young. The free export of coins, a movable object that was often meant to flow internationally, does no harm to traditional protrection of cutural heritage treasures. It is a very different matter".

Although the joining-up of the thinking seems to be lacking, the meaning is clear, Howden does not mind people buying dugup coins without documentation of lawful export... Similar sentiments are revealed by another "member of the public" (obviously another coin-fondler):

Renewing this would do nothing but continue to infringe upon my rights as a US citizen. Why are you allowing these people to create MOU's [about the trafficking of artefacts without documentation of lawful export] that don't serve to protect the interests of the US people NOR the people who we are agreeing to have an MOU with? I can bet you that the people of Cyprus DO NOT CARE about ancient coins and other common archeological items. Honestly, this probably doesn't make sense to those making this decision, and I'm tired of typing the same message, so I'll just say that the only decision you should be making is to say NO to this MOU. That is a NO! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

...

a "black market"' would involve the trading of ... well, things like artefacts removed from the country clandestinely without documentation of lawful export. In other words precisely what is regulated by the CCPIA (which the collector surely should be aware contains absolutely no measures to "curtail collecting")

Twelve days into the comment-gathering process, Frank Robinson reveals he too has no idea what the discussion is about ("there are more than enough coins to go around") and thinks refusing entry to the USA of coins without documentation of lawful export is hurting what he calls "honest dealers". That is a new definition of honesty then. Coin collector Mark McGlone posits that "Such prohibitions [on the movement of material without documentation of lawful export] [...] reduce respect for the law" (among collectors, or dealers, or smugglers, he does not say). Collector "Michael" also thinks there are enough coins to go around.

Sam Spiegel suggests, but fails to justify that "the restriction of the importation of coins from Cyprus [without documentation of lawful export] is not consistent with the general interest of the international community".

There are so many coins he says that preventing the smuggling of "the vast majority cannot be considered integral to preserving cultural heritage" because it allows "a wider audience ...] to appreciate them". And a fair number of dealers to make a tidy profit from making them available to collectors who do not really care if they are smuggled or not.

Thomas Brown who collects "private coins" does not want to see coins without documentation [without documentation of lawful export] denied entrance to the US markets this would " limit our trade with Cypriot as well as other foreign dealers". Surely that is exactly the point, to limit the contacts with those in Cyprus and elsewhere selling such material to only those able to supply responsible collectors with coins accompanied by documentation of lawful export. No? Who'd want to enter into business agreements with the other type (in other words, smugglers)? Mr Brown?
...

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

Retired administrative law judge Frank Robinson possesses incomparably
greater intellect, knowledge of the law and personal dignity than the
deluded fanatic who has here ventured to criticize him, without having any
concept at all of what the law actually mandates. Any normal person would
certainly gain such an understanding before venturing to comment,
considering that there has for thousands of years been a folk tradition that
if one does not thoroughly understand a subject one should not open one's
mouth, for evil spirits might thereby be able to enter his person and
possess his soul -- which in this case has long since happened.

Possessed by evil delusions and prejudices, archaeo-Goebbels vomits forth an
unending nauseating flood of erroneous and misinformed assertions, filled
with unjustified criticism and unwarranted pejoratives. This incessant nasty
invective far exceeds what any respectable archaeologist might ever consider
saying about collectors and dealers, regardless of the ideological
opposition to collecting he or she might feel. There are socially essential
standards of fair play and decency to observe which no one other than this
man would ever consider violating, even to a small fraction of the extent he
has. Archaeo-Goebbels might best be described as a social arsonist,
constantly seeking to ignite and consume (by the incandescent intensity of
his hatred) the structure and substance of our free society and its
democratic institutions.

By his own utterances he stands condemned as being what he himself has
warped his hateful personality into -- a deranged caricature of all that
archaeology stands for. Instead of living in the once respectable nation of
Poland [now besmirched by his presence], he should relocate to Pyongyang
where the authorities appear to be much more in harmony with his goals and
methods.

**************
POSTSCRIPT
**************

This will be my last commentary on archaeo-Goebbels, unless something really newsworthy occurs involving him, such as his appointment to a significant academic position or (hopefully this extremity won't happen) his assassination by an equally deranged fanatic.

2011-12-18T03:56:00.000-08:00

The Freak Writer and the Taxi Cab Driver

http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/12/freak-writer-and-taxi-cab-driver.html
by Paul Barford

Coin dealer Dave Welsh has a post (A Call for Action) over on the appropriately-named Freak website in which with - apparently - a straight face he informs his readers over there that:

[Paul] Barford, so far as I am able to determine, has for many [...] years [...] a hardscrabble impoverished existence, first as a cab driver and later as a document translator in Warsaw, Poland [...].

Makes your heart bleed, don't it? This is what this coiney rabble rouser (see the rest of his sad post) claims to have "determined". That's obviously the way these people "determine' something - by simply making them up and not checking their facts or citing sources. Welsh has made the claim earlier, for example ("In reality, he is presently a self employed translator and before that, was a taxicab driver"), and here: "Reality for instance might be that one may actually drive a taxicab, or translate documents, for a living".

Here are the contact details for Barford Cabs

...

But don't bother phoning enquiring if I work there, I do not. Neither do I drive a "taxicab" in Warsaw. Among other things, I do however translate texts (on archaeological, historical topics, culture, culture preservation and cultural property law etc) for a number of institutions such as UNESCO, ICOM, ICOMOS, the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, I've done texts for most of the major universities and museums (archaeological and art collections, National Museum too) here, the Academy of Science, the State Service for the protection of Historical Monuments and a variety of other clients. That is not what I do for a living, neither is driving a taxi cab.

Of course if Mr Welsh had done his "determination" with a little more care, he would find the source of his mistaken information was a comment back in May 2009 by fellow coin dealer Joe Blazick on that classic source of coiney misinformation, the Moneta-L discussion list ("I suggest you change your profession..Get back to digging up history or become a taxi driver in Warsaw if the digging business is so not to your capabilities").

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

Unlike those whom he incessantly, vitriolically criticizes archaeo-Goebbels adamantly refuses to disclose any details -- even general, personally nonthreatening disclosures -- which would provide insights regarding his recent background and present circumstances. Such disclosures have contrastingly been provided by every single one of his "targets" including myself, as a routine, expected matter of being honest with the public and stating our claims to be taken seriously. That refusal on his part invites suspicion.

There is something abnormal and unsavory about such secrecy, because such disclosures are an essential prerequisite for informed judgment as to the qualifications of one who publicly comments upon past and present events and policies, in the expectation that he should be viewed as amounting to something more significant than another example of the deluded fanatics who can be found standing upon a soapbox, haranguing derelicts who congregate in our seedier public places. Such unreasonable, inappropriate secrecy has notoriously been pursued by the Kouroupas regime in the US State Department's Educational and Cultural Affairs Bureau, and that secrecy has not only invited but absolutely mandated suspicion of the most searching, far-reaching character.

It is my firm belief that when any individual with a public persona (such as Maria Kouroupas has, by virtue of her important position held in public trust and confidence) refuses to allow his or her actions, motives and associations which may in any way relate to employment in a position requiring the trust and confidence of the public to be subjected to normal, routine and appropriate public scrutiny, that individual is thereby acting in a manner absolutely and fundamentally inconsistent with the essential democratic principles upon which the United States of America was founded.

No one in the employment of the United States Government, in my opinion, has a moral right to make that sort of refusal. Anyone who does is in my view, ipso facto thereby demonstrated to be unworthy of continued public employment. It is my belief that the best interests of the American people require that any and every so-called "public servant" who refuses to allow his or her actions, associations and motives to be exposed to the full light of day must be searched out, exposed and driven from ever again holding any position of public trust and confidence. The United States of America has a government of the people, by the people and for the people. No one who refuses to be scrutinized by the people and to be continually subject to their informed judgment as to performance and motives ought to be employed by the people.

According to that perspective, it is likewise my belief that what was once described as the "free world" should also be viewed by extension as having a government of the people, by the people and for the people, and that no one who in any way refuses to be scrutinized by the people and consequently to be continually subject to their informed judgment as to performance and motives, ought to be publicly employed anywhere in whatever fraction of the world ventures to demand to be taken seriously and respected by the people of the United States.

Now we come to the much more unclear question of those who are not formally employed by the people, but whose employment nevertheless essentially depends upon the people. Let's consider the highly relevant case of a news commentator or public affairs "pundit" such as Walter Cronkite, to cite one famous, respected and ethical example. Here is a knowledgeable and highly qualified individual whose views must be taken seriously. One may not always agree with those views (as I have not always agreed with Cronkite's views), but I have always taken them seriously.

And finally we come to the case of another less well-known individual, who also ventures to comment (with pretensions to having expert knowledge and experience) upon questions of high public importance and interest -- an individual who is clearly also a public personality by virtue of making such highly publicized comments, whose present employment appears to essentially depend upon the people. He describes himself as a "British archaeologist living and working in Warsaw Poland. Since the early 1990s a primary interest has been research on artefact hunting and collecting and the market in portable antiquities in the international context."

Hmm. One would ordinarily expect that an "archaeologist" would presently be gainfully employed in performing work in some way directly relating to archaeology - which could for instance include excavating, artifact and monument conservation, collection curation, site surveying and a host of other activities that in one way or another are essential (or at least important) to archaeology. However the individual in question, according to best available information and belief, not only is not so employed -- he has not been so employed for perhaps fifteen years, and when he actually was so employed he did not (according to best available information) ever hold any important position, nor did he ever discover anything of importance, so far as I or any other of those whom he so freely criticizes (many of whom themselves have held important positions and discovered things of importance) can determine.

According to normal expectations of how one should honestly describe one's occupation, he ought to describe himself as a "former archaeologist" presently doing whatever he actually does to support himself today. Instead he has carefully drawn a veil of secrecy around his present and recent employment (or lack thereof) and has misleadingly misrepresented himself as still being an archaeologist.

Hmm. Now why should the public be so unwise as to repose trust and confidence in such an individual? Would someone who needed professional guidance in other important aspects of life, such as an actual or possible legal dispute, be well advised to repose trust and confidence in an individual who had not practiced law in fifteen years, and whose record during a relatively brief career as a lawyer was at best undistinguished? Would any sensible person think of that as a reasonable or sensible thing to do? I think not.

And if not, then why should any reasonable or sensible person now take this individual, whose interminable utterances all relate in one way or another to actual or possible legal disputes, seriously? What factual, publicly verifiable reason is there to view him as being anything other than an imposter and a charlatan?

Hmm. Translators and taxicab drivers are (at any rate) pursuing respectable, socially beneficial occupations. If my impression that this individual is or was occupied in such a manner is incorrect, there is this obvious question: what does he actually do, that he is so obsessively secretive about and unwilling to disclose? Something less respectable and socially beneficial than these occupations? Who knows? Who can accurately or even approximately judge the matter? And if no one can judge the matter, why should anyone pay any attention to this insufferable man and his far reaching pretensions?

One thing however does seem clear amid all this murky uncertainty: no one presently and significantly employed in the field of archaeology does seem to pay any attention to him, other than to view him as an embarrassment and a detriment to the good name of archaeology.

Where do these coins Blong?

2011-12-15T02:43:00.001-08:00

Focus on the CCPIA: Where do these coins Blong (sic)?

http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/12/focus-on-ccpia-where-do-these-coins.html

by Paul Barford

Thomas Albert ... reckons that restricting the import into the US market of coins that lack documentation of lawful export is "insane" (coins circulated in the past, don't ya' know) "I do not think - looking at his analogies - that he has quite grasped what the MOU is about

"The logic used in this MOU is flawed and smells of corruption and greed of the few. The question is, who is getting paid off? The agency with political favors? Individuals standing to profit in the future? Or is it an effort to limit the desemination of knowledge, so over time people forget a little more of the real history because a few will totally control the content and distribution of whatever they deem as valued knowledge? We went to war with England to gain our liberty, freedom and our rights to know and grow as a nation. In one fell swoop, you have laid waste to those very ideals."

...

" ... and I thought they went to war in effect to avoid paying King George their taxes. It turns out they went to war so their descendants can bring shame on their nation by standing up for their rights to continue collecting smuggled coins from other countries. Pathetic."

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

COMMENTARY

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

> and I thought they went to war in effect to avoid paying King George their taxes.

Which extremely inaccurate perspective is entirely consistent with archaeo-Goebbels' views regarding everything other than archaeology.

> It turns out they went to war so their descendants can bring shame on their nation by standing up for their rights to continue collecting smuggled coins from other countries.

Their descendants have every right under US law to stand up for their longstanding and legitimate rights to continue collecting ancient coins licitly imported from other countries. Archaeo-Goebbels however does not recognize US law or its foundation the Constitution, instead preferring to base his views upon his own edicts from his throne of magical self-declared moral authority in far-off, cloud-borne Wolkenkuckucksheim.

> Pathetic.

A much too favorable description of archaeo-Goebbels, his utterly insignificant (and brief) career as an archaeologist, his malicious and evil views regarding collecting, and every other twisted, deranged aspect of this embittered failure's miserable and impoverished existence as a cab driver (and occasional document translator) in balmy Warsaw Poland -- where the temperature is presently 37 degrees Fahrenheit.

Who say dat?

2011-12-15T02:41:00.000-08:00

Who Said That?

http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/12/who-said-that.html

by Paul Barford

Who wrote this on Tim Haines' Yahoo "Ancient Artifacts" discussion list, ostensibly for responsible collectors? Three guesses:

"Edgar, You see clearly, and very far ahead. I am entirely in agreement with your remarks below. I would urge every listmember to study them carefully, because the archaeologists really and truly do want to end private collecting of antiquities, and if collectors continue to delude themselves about this they will follow in the footsteps of those German Jews who after 1935 kept saying "It can't happen here." Well it did happen to them, and it will happen to antiquities collectors also unless they finally wake up and start to fight back -- as coin collectors are now doing."

Note how, once again in the ACCG rhetoric, the opponents of the no-questions-asked trade in antiquities are likened to Nazis, and the collector of such items are depicted as God's Chosen People. Frankly I think such trivialisation by this [multiple and unjustifiable pejorative terms deleted] of the European Jewish Holocaust most distasteful, and un-American. Likening the CCPIA on documentation of lawful export of antiquities to the Nuremburg Laws is simply the symptom of a sick mind who simply does not know when to stop.

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

COMMENTARY

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

Archaeo-Goebbels is correct in observing that there is indeed a sick, deranged and destructive mind involved in this, who simply does not know when to stop. He does not however correctly identify its possessor, whom he could easily identify simply by looking in a mirror.

Sacra Archaeologia et sacerdotes suae

2011-12-13T11:07:00.000-08:00

There is a very interesting thread in Moneta-L at the moment:

Message #102012

Harry,

Yes, this is the point I've been trying to make. That we have to stop letting the antis define the issue in terms of 'looting' and 'evil collectors' and expose it for what it really is, the growing efforts by governments everywhere to take away more and more individual freedoms, most often on the basis of manufactured issues of 'political correctness'.

In the case of antiquities and ancient coins there is a peculiar quasi religious zeal to the antis' crusade. They would have everyone believe that even common everyday pottery and coins from ancient times have some sacred quasi religious nature that makes them completely off limits to lowly ordinary people, and that they are only to be held and examined in inner sanctums by the high priests of archaeology, and only these properly sanctified priests have the right to handle such artifacts and only they are qualified to interpret them to us lowly commoners but we must never touch them on pain of violating the commandments.

And that all ancient objects are so sacred that no matter how many of them there are they all must be confiscated from the impure hands of the unwashed and stored forever safely away from our impure possessive desires to share in the common history of mankind. Essentially it's an attempt by governments to expropriate and control history. The effect is to take history away from us and make us more and more dependent on government control of the present.

It is certainly a very strange turn of events for a coin originally used to purchase a loaf of bread!

And isn't it interesting that if all antiquities and coins are off the market the only things left to buy are modern consumer goods where the profits go into the pockets of big business instead of to other people?

Edgar

To which Robert Tye replied:

Message #102013

Hello Edgar

unwashed>>

This is a very accurate summation of the situation, and I can give a rather good illustration of how it works in practice.

Some years back I became troubled that an archaeological dig on the West Coast of the Outer Hebrides was damaging the remains of an iron age broch.

So I designed a kind of sea wall to protect the site. Actually, it was a kind of modern reproduction of the part of the broch that had earlier washed away, with a reinforced concrete skirt hidden below the mock up stonework. I drew the plans myself on my kitchen table, and raised the funds myself, about GBP 12K, to get the work done.

While the work was actually being done, the chief archaeologist on the dig stepped in and stopped the contractor keying the new stonework into the ancient stonework.

Let me explain that the archaeologist only visited the site in summer for a few of weeks, and it was impossible to explain to him the stupidity of his position.

He was not going to have his sacred ancient monument contaminated by have our modern repro. stone work actually touching it – so a gap of about half a meter was left between the old and the new stonework.

There was a force 14 gale the following winter, the new sea wall stood firm, but the sea went straight into the gap, and tore away about 3 metres of the ancient wall – maybe ten tons of big granite blocks.

The archaeologist has since got his professorship and I see him regularly on TV.

I guess most viewers believe the things he says.

I don't.

Rob Tye

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

COMMENTARY

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

This is getting into very interesting subjects. I will follow this thread, and recommend that all collectors also do so.

Clowns and moron logic

2011-12-10T05:14:00.000-08:00

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

2011-12-09T16:05:00.000-08:00

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

2011-12-08T02:44:00.001-08:00

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

2011-12-07T11:13:00.000-08:00

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

2011-12-06T21:04:00.000-08:00

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!

2011-12-06T09:55:00.001-08:00

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

2011-12-06T03:03:00.000-08:00

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

2011-12-06T02:46:00.000-08:00

"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.

Heads they win, tails we lose

2011-12-05T09:46:00.000-08:00

Greek Import Restrictions: Winners and Losers

http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/12/greek-mou-winners-and-losers.html
by Peter Tompa

Winners

1. The Greek Cultural Bureaucracy-- The Greek Government has mismanaged its economy so badly that it is relying on Germany and the rest of the EU to bail it out. Greece's cultural bureaucracy is as poorly managed and as corrupt as the rest of the Greek government. Yet, the MOU will no doubt be cited as some sort of U.S. "seal of approval" for the status quo.

2. The Obdurate State Department Cultural Bureaucracy- You've got to hand it to the entrenched bureaucrats at the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center. Important members of Congress have expressed severe misgivings about the implementation of their statutory authority. They have been sued in Court, and even though their decisions have been upheld to date as a matter of judicial deference, this is not the same as a ringing endorsement. Yet, culture creep has turned into a roll with these expansive regulations, by far the most wide ranging since the Chinese MOU in 2009.

3. The AIA and its Archaeological Fanatics- These fanatics hold that the only legitimate exchange of archaeological artifacts is a museum loan. They view import restrictions as a way to clamp down on a trade they do not believe should exist. So far their anti-collecting agenda has meshed well with the nationalism of countries like Greece and the predilection of the State Department to trade favors to the detriment of American collectors, dealers and museums.

4. Wealthy Greek Collectors- The fanatics criticise American collectors and museums, but don't seem to care that wealthy Greek collectors buy from the same sources as American collectors do. Now, Greek collectors will gain a competitive advantage over their American counterparts who can no longer import undocumented cultural goods. No wonder a representative from the Alpha Bank, which maintains Greece's best coin collection in private hands, was part of the Greek delegation that attended the public meeting of CPAC that discussed the MOU.

Losers

1. Greece's Cultural Patrimony-Even before Greece's recent financial meltdown, the country was highly dependent on EU funds to care for its major sites. Now, with money so tight, how can the country take care of its major sites, let alone the millions of minor objects in its stores? Yet, Greek cultural officials will no doubt hope that news about the MOU will will divert attention away from these hard financial realities and help stave off much needed reforms.

2. The CPIA and the Process Congress Contemplated- Import restrictions under the CPIA are supposed to be limited to culturally significant artifacts. Less onerous measures are supposed to be considered first. The restrictions are supposed to be part of a concerted international response. Here, these broad restrictions simply ignore these requirements. Moreover, the failure to give heed to the vast majority of public comments that opposed restrictions on coins again suggests that the whole process is little more than a farce.

3. The Small Businesses of the Antiquities and Numismatic trade- Import restrictions bar entry of cultural goods legitimately for sale abroad where documentation requirements for legal import cannot be met. This is particularly a problem for the small businesses of the numismatic trade. The documentation necessary for legal import is either typically unavailable for artifacts of limited value like most ancient coins or cost prohibitive to produce for such inexpensive items.

4. US Collectors- US collectors of cultural goods, including the thousands upon thousands of Greek coin collectors will face considerable problems securing material, particularly as time goes on.

5. US Museums- Loans are a poor substitute for purchases or donations for collecting museums. The archaeological fanatics may promote loans as a substitute, but they don't have to arrange such loans with the Greek bureaucracy or pay the considerable expense associated with such loans, which typically include expensive conservation costs.

6. US Customs- US Customs officers now have another broad set of import restrictions to administer. While they may make the "big bust" on occasion, I doubt that will make up for the frustration factor of trying to ascertain whether every ancient coin or minor antiquity that "looks Greek" is on the designated list or not.

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

What a sad, unfair and frustrating situation this is. I disagree with Peter Tompa here, because there will be no "winners." These ill-considered restrictions will do no good for anyone and will instead result in a great deal of wasted time and money, as well as very significant "takings" [in the legal sense of the word] from the longstanding and traditional rights of US collectors -- without any compensation whatsoever.

Only ivory tower academic idealists, devoid of any understand of the practical effects of these measures, could be so deluded as to imagine that the results will be beneficial. In reality, it will be seen that they will instead be hugely destructive. Such idealists are perhaps the most amoral and dangerous individuals in the world.

Poland discredited?

2011-12-03T12:19:00.000-08:00

UK Detectorists: The way to Block Discussion

[toxic URL suppressed to avoid contributing to its statistics] by Paul Barford

Over on the UKRally forum, in the context of the recent Twinstead Theft case, metal detector user "Hammyman" writes about so-called "media misinformation". He reckons "I think you will find B******d is behind this.It's got him written all over it. Most definately, one day he will reap what he sows". if he's talking about the Daily Mail article, this Ba***rd pleads not guilty, never touch the paper myself. Hammyman claims he has at some undisclosed time had some kind of "argument about this with an online Blog artist, I think you know who I mean". Anyway he claims the upshot was that "after contacting the publisher they took it down and made an apology to RallyUK. since then not another thing has been published...". First I have heard of anything being taken down by a blog "publisher" about a rally (Wordpress? Blogspot? Google? or a dedicated server?). Why would any of these supporters of free speech "apologise" to metal detectorists trying to quash free speech? Sounds like a shaggy dog story to me... Hammyman further claims:

the country is now banned from our server so no more worries from there anymore [icon_thumright] Why don't the other forums do the same as us and ban Poland from access to their forums, it's real simple, that would stop him.. if anybody would like to know how to do this, it is a simple command [...]

for the benefit of would-be blockers of the artefact hunting ilk, this is followed by:

here is the Code [...], just copy and paste this into your ,htaccess file using a ftp program.

A whole country banned from accessing discussions of metal detecting in Britain? Wonderful. That really shows the devotion of British artefact hunters to honestly presenting what they do to the outside world.

Poland is a big country RIGHT in the centre of Europe, 38 million people. My Polish colleagues estimate there are 60 000 metal detectorists here (though they are wrong) and at the moment the Polish tekkies are engaged in some serious political wrangling, trying to get the law on metal detecting relaxed (got a whole pile of stuff on my desk on this). Interestingly, the (real) professional numismatists (academics, not shopkeepers pretending) in Poland are behind them. Letters are flying about from professional institutions for and against to the Ministry, and guess what? The situation in "Britain" and the sad old PAS argument is trotted out (how could it be otherwise?) in aid of the Polish tekkies. How remarkable then if the Men from the Ministry want to look into the British scene, they will find their access blocked by some code on a server which makes the forums inaccessible to those central Europeans who do not happen to be a step ahead of the "tekkies" and their "techies". If these blockers have their way, about the only resource on the web they and anyone else in Poland interested in the topic will will be able to use to look into what "benefits" the open British policies on artefact hunting have brought is this "Portable Antiquities and Heritage Issues" blog, which of course only presents one person's (considered) view. Obviously that's not very helpful in generating a picture of the British detecting scene, nor in generating trans-continental debate. But of course British metal detectorists could not give a monkey's about that, they can barely look beyond the hedge around the field with "their" "productive" site in it.

...

Blocking access to uncomfortable candid information however is endemic in what the Daily Mail calls the "murky world of metal detecting". A few days ago, a detectorist here told me where I could follow a link to show what a decent bloke the organizer of the Twinstead rally was. The link led to a forum where you have to register to be able to read that thread. I could have registered as "Bazza1234" or "Beergutmax" or some other suitable screen name, but then, why hide? So I used "Paul Barford". Apparently the account needs site moderator approval to be activated before I can read anything there. That was three days ago and the email welcoming me to the site has yet to arrive, so I guess the moderator (I beliebve this is the one known as "Jammy Johnny" from South Lanarkshire) recognised the name and decided it belongs to the Great Satan and I'll never know from that forum thread what a sweet decent guy that "SkunkyPaul" really is. I'm not really sure that is my loss. I think I've seen him on You Tube anyway. I guess there are things on the new British Metal Detecting forum that the moderator does not want outsiders like me seeing and expressing an opinion about...

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

It now appears that ArchaeoGollum has managed to discredit not only archaeology, whose establishment has for years maintained an embarrassed silence about his fanatical rants, but the entire nation of Poland which is apparently now being looked upon by detectorists as the "Land of the Freak and the Home of the Rave."

The author of this whining complaint apparently thinks that expressing his opinion ought to be welcomed and sought after by others. Here is a different perspective:

“Opinions are like assholes. Everybody’s got one and everyone thinks everyone else’s stinks.”
~Home for the Holidays (1995)"

It's not hard to understand why detectorists and numismatists would have such a perspective toward ArchaeoGollum's toxic opinions. In the vernacular, they would be classified as LLDs.

Obaminable Import Restrictions

2011-12-01T16:15:00.000-08:00

Obdurate Obama Bureaucracy Imposes Broad Import Restrictions on Greek Coins and Cultural Goods

http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/12/obdurate-obama-bureaucracy-imposes.html
by Peter Tompa

Obdurate Obama Bureaucracy Imposes Broad Import Restrictions on Greek Coins and Cultural Goods

The Obama State Department and US Customs have imposed broad import restrictions on most Greek coins and other cultural goods. See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-12-01/html/2011-30905.htm

The restrictions on coins are exceptionally broad, but seem to exclude large denomination trade coins:

Coins—Many of the mints of the listed coins can be found in B.V. Head, Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Numismatics (London, 1911) and C.M. Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek Coins (London, 1976). Many of the Roman provincial mints in Greece are listed in A. Burnett et al., Roman Provincial Coinage I: From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44 BC– AD 69) (London, 1992) and id., Roman Provincial Coinage II: From Vespasian to Domitian (AD 69–96) (London, 1999).

a. Greek Bronze Coins—Struck by city-states, leagues, and kingdoms that operated in territory of the modern Greek state (including the ancient territories of the Peloponnese, Central Greece, Thessaly, Epirus, Crete and those parts of the territories of ancient Macedonia, Thrace and the Aegean islands that lay within the boundaries of the modern Greek state). Approximate date: 5th century B.C. to late 1st century B.C.

b. Greek Silver Coins—This category includes the small denomination coins of the city-states of Aegina, Athens, and Corinth, and the Kingdom of Macedonia under Philip II and Alexander the Great. Such coins weigh less than approximately 10 grams and are known as obols, diobols, triobols, hemidrachms, and drachms. Also included are all denominations of coins struck by the other city-states, leagues, and kingdoms that operated in the territory of the modern Greek state (including the ancient territories of the Peloponnese, Central Greece, Thessaly, Epirus, Crete, and those parts of the territories of ancient Macedonia, Thrace and the Aegean islands that lie within the boundaries of the modern Greek state). Approximate date: 6th century B.C. to late 1st century B.C.

c. Roman Coins Struck in Greece—In silver and bronze, struck at Roman and Roman provincial mints that operated in the territory of the modern Greek state (including the ancient territories of the Peloponnese, Central Greece, Thessaly, Epirus, Crete, and those parts of the territories of ancient Macedonia, Thrace and the Aegean islands that lie within the boundaries of the modern Greek state). Approximate date: late 2nd century B.C. to 3rd century A.D.

Obviously, the obdurate bureaucracy could care less that over 70% of the public comments received by CPAC opposed these restrictions and that the actual support for them is limited to archaeological fanatics who hold that the only legitimate cultural exchange is a museum loan.

It is also ironic that these restrictions provide for the repatriation of any coins seized by US Customs to the bankrupt Greek state, which has no money to care for major cultural sites, let alone for the thousands upon thousands of ancient Greek coins already within State collections.

Again, more proof that the Obama administration is anti-small busines and pro-government regulation, despite all the claims to the contrary.

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

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are both responsible for this latest betrayal of the legitimate interests of large numbers of honest law-abiding American citizens, to pander to the unrealistic and economically destructive desires of a very small number of interested archaeologists, and to pander to the desires of an irresponsible foreign government that cannot take proper care of the antiquities it already has.

Financing the Eurodebt

2011-11-30T06:11:00.000-08:00

ACCG "Sell the Antiquities to US to pay off Eurodebt"

http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/11/accg-sell-antiquities-to-us-to-pay-off.html
by Paul Barford

Economic doom and gloom in Yurope has the coineys over in the US rubbing their hands with glee. They have been banging on for the last couple of months about how Greece and Italy could resolve their 'eurozone' financial problems by the simple expedient of emptying their museum storerooms onto the market and letting private collectors buy the formerly state property (assets) and use the cash raised to pay off their collective debts. According to the BBC, Greece's debt is 340 billion (UK billion 000 000 000) euros. If the US has a population of 312 700 000, that means that to allow this model to function, EACH and every US citizen would have to buy antiquities or work of art to the value of 1091 euros (1453 dollars).

Also according to the BBC, Italy needs 400bn next year to "refinance maturing debt, finance the deficit and pay interest". To pay for that for this year alone, EACH US citizen would have to fork out another 1710 on antiquities and works of art from their museum storerooms.

...

Now I am sure the dealers in such things would be very happy if suddenly (for the problems of Greece and Italy are urgent) 700 billion euros worth of antiquities and works of art suddenly appeared on the market for them to profit from. Those collectors who already have such items in their collections (maybe bought as a nest egg investment) might not be so happy, as their value would plummet as the market is flooded with quality goods.

...

Of course this has been done before, for example the Bolsheviks sold off items from the state collections to finance their repressive regime, many of them ending up in US public collections where they remain to this day (Anne Odom, Wendy R. Salmond (Eds) 2009, 'Treasure into Tractors: The Selling of Russia's Cultural Heritage, 1918-1938, University of Washington Press). It seems some antiquity dealers would like to see the return of the days of the Robber Barons.

Instead of the national patrimony, perhaps the nations concerned might try to find a commodity more easily saleable, such as weapons to Third World states feeling under threat by the sort of US neo-colonial sentiments we see expressed by the US collecting lobby.

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

The difficulties of nations with problems in financing sovereign debt cannot be solved by selling cultural objects, so far as advocates of State ownership of these things are concerned. But the debt must nevertheless be financed in one way or another; it cannot be wished away. Here are the economic alternatives:

1) Leave the EEU and return to the nation's prior national currency, which will then be devalued to absorb the sovereign debt, either intentionally or by financial consequences of default. This will create economic hardships to that nation's citizens. An extreme example of that occurred in the Weimar Republic during the early 1920s, whose consequences included the rise to power of Adolf Hitler.

2) Raise taxes to fund the debt, which will also create economic hardships to that nation's citizens, although it can be socially skewed to place more of the burden upon the wealthy and the middle class.

3) Sell off marketable national assets such as real estate, and award commercial concessions to private corporations. This approach has been tried recently and there have been some success stories, however the potential scope for this is limited and it inevitably attracts some of the same sort of criticism for selling off national heritage as does selling cultural objects.

4) Allow foreign investors to acquire commercial assets such as businesses and privately held real estate, which tends to incur the wrath of the powerful Socialist political faction that exists in every one of the European nations with unfundable sovereign debt.

5) Jawbone Germany and France into paying for funding of the sovereign debt (this is presently being advocated by those who rationally foresee the negative international consequences of default). That would transfer the resulting economic hardships onto the shoulders of French and German citizens, whose enthusiasm for this approach is very limited. There are however so many Frenchmen and Germans that individual hardships would be much less significant than those resulting from forcing citizens of improvident nations to pay for their own follies.

It appears to this observer that 5) and 4) will first be tried, and indeed to some extent this is already underway. It won't suffice, although some degree of relief may result.

Next, perhaps, would be 3), which will start to create political turmoil and also won't suffice.

Then 2) will be tried and, depending upon how resolute political leaders are (and how much their citizens have learned about economic reality), it may possibly suffice to pay down what unfundable debt still remains after 5), 4), and 3). The result would be reduction in sovereign debt to a level the bond market can tolerate and absorb at rates that nation can afford to pay.

One can easily see that this is not a situation that has any painless solution. There will be pain, lots of it, and no one will like it at all. There will be public outcry, which always seems to center upon a perception that such pain does not fall evenly distributed. Every part of society must bear its "fair share" and apparent exemptions will be searched out, and fiercely criticized. Ultimately this scrutiny and criticism will reach every private and public institution, eventually including the costs of heritage protection. Budgets will be cut, museums will be closed or their staffs cut back, archaeologists and conservators will be laid off and priority will be given to maintaining assets that produce income, for example Pompeii.

It is hard to imagine that at some point in all this turmoil, the public in these nations will not come to understand that they are paying huge sums for countless museum storerooms, warehouses and other repositories in which tens of millions of redundant artifacts have accumulated, until there is no more room to accommodate what is dug up now. Can anyone imagine that the public will want to pay for more storerooms and warehouses? Can anyone imagine that they won't realize that the contents of these facilities have become a vast, intolerable dead weight upon society, which competes with their own personal needs and those of their families? Can anyone imagine that at some point an irresistible public demand will not arise, to reduce such artifact holdings to a more manageable level?

This contingency has been discussed for quite some time in archaeological forums. One proposed approach is reinterment, whereby redundant artifacts would be taken to designated publicly owned sites (which would have to be secured and protected against criminals who would like to dig these artifacts up and sell them on eBay) where they would be reburied.

In a way this proposal resembles the sequel to the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, when a public weary of the arms race that led to World War I demanded disarmament. This Treaty imposed a 5:5:3 ratio of naval strength upon Britain, the United States and Japan -- and Britain's allocation included the ships of her Dominions. All these nations had meanwhile realized that ships armed with 12 inch guns had become obsolete due to development of larger shell calibers which could penetrate their armor, and it was decided to dispose of them. On 12 April 1924 HMAS Australia (eleven years old) was towed out and scuttled while a Royal Australian Air Force aircraft dropped a wreath and HMAS Brisbane fired a rolling 21-gun salute. Similar events transpired in other nations. The USA and Japan preferred to dispose of their surplus battleships as targets, systematically sinking them while intensively studying their resistance to damage.

It is certainly feasible to "scuttle" surplus artifacts, which could be sealed up in converted cargo containers filled with an inert gas and buried in a public repository where they could be kept and protected against looters, at far less cost than that of above-ground storage. But in this new form of long term storage, they would not in any way benefit society.

The alternative (which archaeologists and cultural ministry officials refuse to consider on ideological grounds) is to select surplus artifacts that are redundant to science but would have value to collectors, and sell them into the antiquities trade with provenance. This would have important social benefits, including raising significant funds to pay for archaeology and conservation, devaluing looted artifacts and educating the public. But it presumes that cultural ministry officials (and politicians who appoint them) could bring themselves to face facts and make sensible judgments. Perhaps if the perceived alternative were losing their positions, they might be more amenable to this approach.

Atlas Shrugs

2011-11-29T17:06:00.000-08:00

Germany Told to Save Europe

http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/11/germany-told-to-save-europe.html
by Peter Tompa

Europeans (and Americans) are looking to Germany to "save Europe" by doing more to prop up the bankrupt Greek economy and the ever more shaky Italian one. See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d29da7fc-19ee-11e1-b9d7-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1f6othzXp

However, throwing more money at the Greeks and the Italians will only delay the inevitable. What is really needed is to break down the internal barriers in each country that have led to special interests strangling any chance for much needed economic reforms.

But this is a blog about cultural property issues. On that score, isn't it funny that self-righteous archaeologists hold up Italy and Greece as models for all to emulate? Meanwhile, rational systems like those in Germany and the United Kingdom that recognize the importance of collectors and the trade in cultural goods to the appreciation of ancient culture and its ultimate preservation, get little but scorn heaped on them, largely because they don't allow archaeologists to monopolize policy toward cultural property issues.

Archaeologists assume that government control over all cultural artifacts is the answer-- but how can this be, particularly in the current environment where these governments and their economic and cultural systems that favor the connected few are facing default?

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

At the present rate it won't be long before the laws of economics pass an inexorable and drastic judgment upon the irresponsible financial policies of European debtor nations -- a judgment that will shake the EEU to its core.

Alarmed at the prospect of a forced return to fiscal reality with incalculable political consequences, the leadership of the EEU is turning to Germany as the only economic power with the potential financial muscle to take on the role of Atlas, and support for a while longer their tottering EEU world. It however seems as though the final result was decades ago predicted by Ayn Rand in what was perhaps her most famous politico-economic novel.

The German people and their political leaders have very little enthusiasm for bearing such a cosmic burden and being prudent and thrifty themselves, are inclined to think that those who got themselves into such a mess by their own improvidence and stupidity should now get themselves out of it. Germany could probably survive almost unscathed an enforced shrinkage of the EEU to its economically sound core and the departure of marginal economies such as Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland, to return to their previous national currencies which would then be devalued to absorb their unfundable sovereign debt.

While such a course of events would soon return Europe to economic sanity, it would also impose hardships upon the inhabitants of these debtor nations that could have serious consequences. The cost of imported goods and raw materials would skyrocket, and they would become unable to buy nearly as much from abroad as they do now, which could very well mean that economic essentials such as oil would get priority while consumer goods and food from abroad would be almost unobtainable.

Tompa rightly questions how European leaders can possibly justify continuing to pay for the now clearly failed policy of State confiscation and subsequent ownership of all archaeological artifacts, countless millions of which -- insignificant, utterly redundant to science and useless to society -- are now amassed in museum storerooms and warehouses. It seems to me that we are also moving toward a judgment here, in which the laws of economics will in the end inexorably bring about great weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth in the halls of academia, cultural ministries and other lairs of unrealistic cultural ideologues who unthinkingly expect society to forever pay the bill for their social delusions.

Fluff for Brains

2011-11-28T06:51:00.000-08:00

US Import Restrictions Only Apply to Illicitly Exported Items

"The accusation that many coineys with educations gained in US schools have fluff for brains seems to be increasingly confirmed by the flow of whingeing pseudo-justifications which has recently been emerging from the milieu."

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

I shall not (for reasons of both my intense disgust and personal ethics) venture either to identify who it was that said this, or to quote any more of his very defamatory blog post other than to observe that it could only have emanated from an essentially amoral, antisocial individual who in any genuinely rational society would not be deemed fit to be left at liberty (without appropriate clinical monitoring and supervision) to publicly spread such inflammatory poison. Any reader interested in finding out the omitted details will have little difficulty doing that.

The world is really not in any way actually about this remarkably unpleasant man, or his insufferable archaeocentric fixations or his virulent compulsive hatred of the "archaeological establishment" which decades ago dispassionately took his limited intellectual, ethical and professional measure, rationally decided that there was no real potential in him and then cast him upon the scrap heap of history, where those who are unable to succeed are socially recycled to become raw material for those who might in the future perhaps achieve something.

Because reality does not conform to his unreasonable and nonsensical desires, he has in his warped, deluded mind almost entirely withdrawn from reality and instead mentally dwells in mystical, cloudborne Wolkenkuckucksheim, that imaginary dream-world where everything is always perfectly in accord with one's personal desires regardless of their actual sensibility or practicality.

He has degenerated into a miserably twisted caricature of the once idealistic, well-intentioned young man who decades ago entered the field of archaeology as a student. By degrees he has made himself perhaps the closest simulacrum in the real world of Gollum, Tolkien's imaginary creature utterly possessed and consumed by his all-pervading need to recover the Ring, that object in this case being some small modicum of respect from the archaeological establishment that long ago rejected him, and today absolutely ignores him -- seeing in him nothing but an unpleasant and professionally discreditable embarrassment. This cantankerous archaeo-Gollum is today an intensely embittered compulsively ranting crank, whose deluded like can be found standing upon soapboxes in some of the more disreputable public parks, verbosely urging sinners to prepare to meet their doom.

Archaeo-Gollum's essentially insignificant life has by degrees degenerated into a compulsive all-pervading need to utter innumerable repetitive, verbose, turgid rants in an evidently insufficient attempt to find some outlet through which to vent his consuming anger and hate. He really stands for nothing of any social value but conversely stands against almost everything important to humanity, apart from his own outlook on archaeology. No one in his or her right mind would ever imagine trusting this irrational ideologue to propose a sensible solution to any burning controversy. Should he ever attempt to do so, his fire hose would not dispense cooling water but 100 octane aviation gasoline.

There are those who believe (probably because I dare to publicly express my candid views upon his irrational fantasies regarding cultural property law) that I hate him. Actually I don't. I have in truth gradually come to hate his poisonous political and social views, however for the man himself in his private capacity, I am only able to feel sadness and pity. Somehow, I sense that he, like Smeagle, may once have had much good in him.

Lawyer Barford

2011-11-27T16:16:00.000-08:00

US Import Restrictions Only Apply to Illicitly Exported Items

http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/11/us-import-restrictions-only-apply-to.html
by Paul Barford

The accusation that many coineys with educations gained in US schools have fluff for brains seems to be increasingly confirmed by the flow of whingeing pseudo- ustifications which has recently been emerging from the milieu. Peter Tompa now asks: Do Import Restrictions Only Apply to "Illicitly Exported" Items?

Do MOU's only apply to "illicitly exported" artifacts as archaeo-blogger Paul Barford has claimed? No. In fact, import restrictions as applied by US Customs bar entry of coins openly and legitimately sold in markets abroad merely because they are of a type on a designated list.

Whoah, whoah. What is the CONNECTION between "openly and legitimately sold" within a country and "openly and legitimately exported"? None. As these clowns well know. The coiney lobbyist whinges on:

First, for coins coming directly from the country for which import restrictions are granted, there is an exception if they are accompanied with an export permit.

"OK, your starter for ten, fingers on the buzzers: "what do we call a coin exported from a country which has export restrictions which is accompanied by an export licence?"..." [buzzzz] "Yes, Oxford Magdalene, "licitly exported". That is the correct answer".

"Fingers on the buzzers, now what do we call a coin exported from a country which has export restrictions which has been taken out of the country without getting an export licence?" [buzzz] "No, I am sorry Wisconsin Numismatic Academy, the correct answer is "illicitly exported", bad luck".

"Fingers on the buzzers again, what is the correct legal term for a coin removed from a country which does not issue export licences and therefore has none? Anyone?" " [buzzz] "Yes, Wisconsin... No... no. No, the correct answer is that we call such a coin 'illicitly exported', or simply smuggled, bad luck again..." [raises eyebrow, discretely makes note to producer never to ask these peabrains back].

Three days later, the TV production company got an indignant letter from the
principal numismatist of the Wisconsin Coin Academy:

The import restrictions discussed on the programme are both illogical and themselves definitely illicit, according to the 1983 CCPIA implementing US accession to the 1970 UNESCO Convention. That [is a] very clear contravention of the terms of the CCPIA...

They ignored the letter as the writings of a madman of course.

Basically, if you have an antiquity of a type which is on the designated lists (which certainly contain many, many more categories than just a few scrappy coins) and you want to import it into the US either get the seller to obtain an export licence, or failing that as the CCPIA (19 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) SECTION 2606. Import Restrictions, (a) Documentation of lawful exportation (note that title, Peter Tompa in particular) "unless the State Party issues a certification or other documentation which certifies that such exportation was not in violation of the laws of the State Party". Note
this has nothing to do with "open and legitimate sale within the country".

Neither has it anything in the least connected with its 'provenance' or collecting history. This is purely and simply about lawful export (note that title everybody, Peter Tompa in particular). All is not lost even if you've not got one of those, there is a get-out clause [2606(c)(1)(B)] "a statement provided by the consignor, or person who sold the material to the importer, which states the date, or, if not known, his belief, that the material was exported from the State Party not less than ten years before the date of entry into the United States, and the reasons on which the statement is based". Not even on oath, not even asking for any supporting material to be supplied. Basically scribbling down some (could be made-up) story of innocence. Now the reason the silly whingers are complaining about even this is that they reckon a fellow dealer scribbling such a note on a company letterhead would - they assert - cost "more than the coin itself". So who else except dumber-than-my-cat coineys would do business with a seller that would charge you an arm and a leg for putting down a few words on paper why the circumstances of the sale of these particular coins are not breaking the law? How much were Spinks charging to scribble a note about the coins seized in Baltimore on their way to the ACCG?

...

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

Emperor Barford seems to have tired of that role for the moment, and now seeks to misrepresent himself as a lawyer, despite the fact that his qualifications in that field are just as insignificant as his knowledge of ancient numismatics. Ignorance has never, however, stopped or even slowed down the ridiculous pretensions of this deluded fanatic.

As best I can understand this particular bit of fanciful drivel, he now describes distinguished cultural Property law expert Peter Tompa, whose activities in that field undoubtedly earn about ten times as much as Barford's current work as a document translator and who graduated from the Washington College of Law, American University (J.D. cum laude, 1986) and the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service (B.S.F.S. 1982). Let's see, Mr. Barford claims to hold a mere baccalaureate degree, which in the field of archaeology isn't much -- one is expected to have a doctorate if one wishes to be taken seriously, which Barford of course is not (by archaeologists at any rate).

Tompa on the other hand not only does hold a doctorate (cum laude at that) from a prestigious university, and has studied Foreign Service as a career field, he has a very solid track record of accomplishment in cultural property law, in which he is a well-regarded, multiply published and often cited authority.

Mr. Barford appears to be unable to open his mouth in discussing cultural property law (or anything other than archaeology, of which he does have solid knowledge) without instantly putting his foot in it, which at any rate would tend to somewhat diminish his incessant outpourings of irrational drivel. Also, come to think of it , that particular physical contortion does seem quite apt, in view of the nearby warm and dark place where his muddled head evidently rests.

Illicit Import Restrictions

2011-11-27T12:16:00.001-08:00

Do Import Restrictions Only Apply to "Illicitly Exported" Items?

http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/11/do-import-restrictions-only-apply-it.html
By Peter Tompa

Do MOU's only apply to "illicitly exported" artifacts as archaeo-blogger Paul Barford has claimed?

No. In fact, import restrictions as applied by US Customs bar entry of coins openly and legitimately sold in markets abroad merely because they are of a type on a designated list.

There are limited exceptions to this embargo, but they provide little solace for coin collectors.

First, for coins coming directly from the country for which import restrictions are granted, there is an exception if they are accompanied with an export permit. However, this is easier said than done. There are currently import restrictions on certain coins of Cypriot, Chinese and Italian types. Cyprus offers no export permits. Italy does, though the process is evidently time consuming. When the issue was being discussed before CPAC, it was said that the Chinese regularly issued export certificates for certain items. However, since there have been reports that they are no longer so easy to obtain. Even if export certificates are provided, the costs of obtaining them may very well exceed the value of the coin itself, particularly if the coin in question is only worth a few dollars.

The second means of legal import is applied in the much more common situation where a coin is coming from one of the open markets in a third country. That anticipates procuring certifications documenting that the coin in question was out of either Cyprus, China or Italy as of the date of the restrictions. Again, even if this information is available and the foreign consigner is willing to provide it, the costs of compliance may very well exceed the value of the coin itself.

Import restrictions do indeed apply to all undocumented coins on the designated list, not just "illegally exported" ones as Barford misleadingly claims.

Such restrictions are therefore grossly overinclusive-- and do indeed suggest that the Obama State Department has taken an anti-small business position in imposing them, particularly on such popular and widely collected issues as the Greek coins of S. Italy, Sicily and certain Roman Republic and Imperial city coins.

Such coins can and are freely traded worldwide, but no longer can easily be imported into the US. Thus, these restrictions are not only place onerous burdens on small businesses, they also discriminate against American collectors.

How then are such restrictions consistent with President Obama's stated goals of eliminating onerous government regulations and protecting the interests of American small business?

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

The import restrictions Tompa discusses are both illogical and themselves definitely illicit, according to the 1983 CCPIA implementing US accession to the 1970 UNESCO Convention. That very clear contravention of the terms of the CCPIA is a key aspect of the ACCG's legal challenges to recent import restrictions on ancient coins, and the atmosphere of unreasonable secrecy within which they were discussed, negotiated and issued. It is impossible to find out what the State Department has been doing and why they did it, without a lawsuit. Clearly something that cannot withstand the light of day is going on and to preserve our liberties, it is essential to expose it to the full glare of public scrutiny.

O Come ye Collectors

2011-11-26T18:09:00.000-08:00

O come ye collectors,
Perplexed and indignant,
O come ye, o come ye
Who collect ancient coins.
Archeobloggers deride ye,
Persecute and vilify ye.
Come ye and join us,
Tell us of your troubles,
Join Numismatica.

Join this new group,
We’re here to support you.
O come ye, o come ye to Numismatica.
Come help us find answers,
To refute archaeobigots,
And callous bureaucrats.
Come draft legislation,
To repeal that awful error,
The UNESCO Convention.

Here in our new group,
Together we will triumph.
O come ye, o come ye to join in our war.
Come help repel these
Enemies of collecting.
Together we’ll defeat them,
Together we’ll repel them,
And we’ll continue to
Collect ancient coins.

Our Antibusiness Cultural Heritage Center

2011-11-26T15:41:00.000-08:00

Small Business Saturday Promotion Needs to Be Extended to Obama CPAC

http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/11/small-business-saturday-promotion-needs.html
by Peter Tompa

American Express is running advertisements in the United States promoting "Small Business Saturday." The campaign underscores the importance of small business to the American economy, something that one also often hears from politicians of both political parties as well.

Such a promotion also needs to be run for the Obama CPAC, the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center. President Obama may claim that he sympathizes with small business, but no such sympathy was on display at CPAC's recent meeting on a proposed MOU with Bulgaria.

Instead, Jane Levine, a former prosecutor for the FBI's Art Crime team who now runs Sotheby's compliance department and who is an Obama CPAC pick for a trade slot on CPAC, seemed to suggest that it should be "easy" for the small businesses of the numismatic trade to comply with the certification requirements for legal import of items on the designated list under the CPIA.

Really? As I explained to Ms. Levine, the small businesses of the numismatic trade (most of which are sole proprietorships) really don't have the resources of a Sotheby's to cope with all the red tape involved (even assuming that European sources would be willing to provide the required certifications for EACH restricted coin that is imported). And as I also noted, Customs has been known to go well beyond the documentation requirements of the CPIA and only allow restricted items entry if they are pictured in a catalogue predating any import restrictions. This of course forecloses the import of virtually every ancient coin type on the designated list, as perhaps only one in every 10,000 or so coins actually is significant enough to be catalogued in this manner.

Although one hopes there is enough common sense left somewhere in the State Department or Customs to realize that the CPIA's restrictions were never meant to apply to such numerous and inexpensive artifacts like most ancient coins, one suspects that this really won't matter to a group of AIA members or supporters that hold that that the only legitimate exchange of cultural artifacts is a long term loan from a source country museum to a like institution in the United States.

Hopefully, someone in the Obama White House political operation will realize there is a problem at CPAC and the State Department that is threatening to turn ancient coin collectors (most of whom are likely Democrats) against President Obama's reelection bid. Can the President's appointees really afford to alienate at least 50,000 serious ancient coin collectors and the hundreds of small businesses of the numismatic trade, particularly when the number of public comments recorded in support of MOU's is so infinitesimal?

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

Peter Tompa is, as usual, right on target with these observations. The State Department's Cultural Heritage Center is a bureaucracy whose whole approach to everything is inherently anti-business and anti-commerce. These rabidly anticollecting bureaucrats are doing their best to drive everyone in the US art market, including coin dealers out of business and to destroy their ability to compete in the world market, where they can earn valuable foreign exchange and economically benefit our nation and its citizens.

That's just what one could expect from bureaucrats with a private ideological agenda, who are totally divorced from economic realities and from the needs and the rights of US citizens whose interests they theoretically represent to the world.

Obama ridiculed

2011-11-26T13:27:00.000-08:00

Moan, Moan, Whinge, Whinge... Ya' Lost the Coiney Vote Obama

http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/11/moan-moan-whinge-whinge-ya-lost-coiney.html
by Paul Barford

Hopefully, then someone in the Obama White House political operation will realize there is a problem at CPAC and the State Department that is threatening to turn ancient coin collectors (most of whom are likely Democrats) against President Obama's reelection bid. Can the President's appointees really afford to alienate at least 50,000 serious ancient coin collectors and the hundreds of small businesses of the numismatic trade [...]?

They are most likely WHAT? Ha ha haa... That certainly is not the impression I get from reading what the loudest of them write. Glenn Beck clones to a man.

Anyway, was not the fashion for the coin-controlling MOUs started under the previous guy? Were not many of those until recently in the CPAC appointed by and serving under the 'Publican President?

The only coin collectors and dealers who consider the State Department a "threat" are those dumb enough to believe the ACCG crap without checking that what the MOUs refer to are illicitly exported artefacts. The only coin collectors "threatened" by the CPAC and CCPIA are those who could not care less whether the dugup coins they buy are licitly brought to the market, or illicitly exported. People like that probably do not vote anyway, and if they did it'd sure as my name is not Jane that it'd not be for the Democrats.

...