For three days in May 2013, a diverse group of urban planners, economists, anthropologists, and others joined together to discuss matters of economics and cultural heritage—its market value(s) and their social implications. The University of Massachusetts Amherst Center for Heritage and Society hosted the conference “The Past For Sale? The Economic Entanglements of Cultural Heritage” on 15–17 May 2013. This event is especially meaningful at the 10th anniversary of the looting of the Iraq Museum and the founding of SAFE. The following summary focuses on topics most related to SAFE and is based on my own observations and those papers that I was able to attend.

One of the three major themes of the conference, aligning exactly with SAFE’s purpose and mission, was “Archaeological Looting, the Antiquities Market, and Its Costs.” At least four sessions and one of the plenary addresses, Neil Brodie’s “The Antiquities Market: It’s All In a Price,” were directly related to this theme. Numerous papers in the other two themes—“Tourism” and “Urban Revitalization”—touched on issues of looting or antiquities markets. Across these broad themes, presenters tackled many SAFE-related issues, including looters and market sources, regulations and policy development, and analyses of specific antiquities markets.

Neil Brodie delivers a plenary address on the antiquities market at UMass Amherst

Marni Walter

Several papers aimed to shed light on the “looters” or market sources. Cristiana Panella of the Royal Museum for Central Africa, Belgium, described the social organization of digging in Mali within a larger economic system. Farmer/diggers participate in a diverse set of cash activities involving cotton farming, clandestine digging, and other contraband, yet their situation is more nuanced than the stereotypes promoted by media and Mali elite. Similarly, Peri Johnson working in the Ottoman lands of Turkey examined the interrelations of archaeologists and both small- and large-scale looters. While small-scale looters are often local (and disenfranchised) people, outsiders do most of the large-scale looting, further cutting off the local inhabitants from their own lands and resources. One contribution to the poster session addressed similar issues: Giacomo M. Tabita analyzed “the criminal phenomenon of ‘Archaeo-Mafia’ and its social costs on the local communities in Italy.” These are just a few examples of the many groups around the world who find themselves disenfranchised from and/or compelled to exploit any number of resources in their own region.

Other presenters work toward reducing damages to sites and cultural materials through site management practices, including controlling tourists’ means of access. One example was the use of digital technologies at Jetavana Monastery presented by Ashley de Vos. Here, a comprehensive research program informed a virtual reality site animation program, which is used in locations throughout the site to add to the visitors’ experience in places that are closed for protection.

Another example, and one that crosscuts several major issues, is Nelly Robles Garcia and Jack Corbett’s presentation on Oaxaca, Mexico and the major archaeology work in the community of Santa Maria Atzompa, on the outskirts of the Monte Albán World Heritage site. The site was faced with encroachment, commercial exploitation, and other threats, as many groups of stakeholders battled for access to various resources. Mexico’s National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) developed frameworks for the competing interests, while also limiting threats to Monte Albán. One result of the work is the success story of the creation and recent opening of the new Community Museum, which brings economic and cultural benefits to the people of Santa Maria Atzompa while also giving them new incentives to help care for the Monte Albán protected zone.

Presenters also gave a lot of attention to the regulations and policies that govern antiquities and treatment of heritage resources. Donna Yates and Ross A. Elgin compared and analyzed the regulation (and commercialization) of palaeontological and archaeological materials, pondering whether or not it is advantageous to lump these two types of remains, natural and cultural, together for purposes of regulation. Questions of management and treatment of natural and cultural heritage also come up frequently in discussions about UNESCO World Heritage sites, so analyses of the similar and different needs of these two types of heritage (often combined) are very pertinent to many of the issues addressed in this conference, including heritage markets. Lawrence Rothfield looked “Beyond the antiquities market” in analyzing the economics of looting and looting prevention, arguing that we must pay attention to external market factors to seek policy solutions that make the antiquities market pay for the costs its activities impose. Senta German and Fiona Rose-Greenland discussed the concept of WikiLoot, assessing the pros and cons of this crowdsourcing model in the regulation of the antiquities market.

In the session on Markets in Cultural Heritage Objects, each paper focused on a particular set (or market) of historical or archaeological materials. Presentations featured the markets for World War II artifacts, mosaics from Turkey, the high-end auction market for Pre-Columbian antiquities, and early Bronze Age pots from the Dead Sea plain in Jordan. The session also included a philosophical discussion about the moral limits of markets, and similarities of some cultural heritage markets with “noxious” markets. These papers each drew attention to the variety of ways in which cultural materials are exchanged, whether illegally or legally.

Many World War II artifacts are bought and sold at large conventions, where story-telling and deal-making abound, but facts and documentation are often scarce. The convention-goers do not appear to mind that situation now, but with fewer war veterans among us to tell the stories, both the historical and commercial value of these artifacts will rise. I’ll bet that future generations will feel a pang of regret for the casual attitude toward documentation. Scarcity of documentation also remains an issue in high-end antiquities auctions, where “provenance” or “place of origin” is (with sometimes curiously high frequency) stated as a country with which the United States does not have a Memorandum of Understanding. This point appeared to be demonstrated with data from high-end auctions of Pre-Columbian antiquities from 2000–2010 in a paper by Sasha Renninger, Brian Daniels, and Richard Leventhal.

Morag Kersel, in her discussion about antiquities from Jordan, showed two different sides of markets in Bronze Age pots. New marketing approaches and a legal antiquities market in Israel coincide with rampant looting at some Holy Land sites. But we also saw a positive example of a sale by the Department of Antiquities of Jordan of assemblages of Bronze Age pots to various educational institutions. The sales included certain requirements for proper display and treatment of the complete assemblages. Following these arrangements, the institutions have since maintained longstanding support of excavations in Jordan.

Marni Walter

SAFE Beacon Award winner Neil Brodie covered many aspects of the high-end antiquities markets in his plenary address titled “The Antiquities Market: It’s All In a Price.” At the outset, he called the antiquities market a “gray” market: one in which the illicit and licit sales often are commingled, and an item’s legal status depends on its documentation and source country, rather than on the object itself. This situation is a source of many of the problems involved in this market. Law enforcement officers have a very difficult job in determining whether an item is being illicitly transported or purchased. The same can be true for dealers, buyers, and others involved (often to their advantage).

This murkiness in the market, especially for the purposes of high-end auction houses and museums, centers on the concept of provenance. Buying on financial speculation can be risky, and if export documents are shown to be fake (as in the well known case of the Sevso Treasure), the items become unsaleable. Similarly, many museums have had to repatriate antiquities proven to have been stolen and/or illegally exported from the country of origin.

If an item has a clear, solid provenance, it usually fetches a higher price at auction. If “experts” have evaluated or studied the item, providing identification, attributions, or “authentication” (adding embedded “cultural capital” as Brodie describes), this can also raise the monetary value. To me as an archaeologist, this situation seems backward. Why do the actors in this part of the “gray” market rip items out of the ground, then work hard after the fact to fabricate a phony provenance and uncertain attributions? If their antiquities came from archaeological excavations through legal means, they’d not only have a clear “provenance,” but thorough archaeological context, knowledge about the artifact’s place in its ancient society, and overall a much more interesting story to tell. (An example of this type of approach was seen in Morag Kersel’s paper, mentioned above.) Wouldn’t that increase its value more than an insincere “guarantee of authenticity”?

The problems with this gray market continue when we consider additional dilemmas: are scholars encouraging shady market practices when they research or publish about antiquities in the gray market? Or worse, if they use items for research that were stolen during military conflicts (such as from Iraq or Syria), are they somehow contributing to insurgencies or more traditional “black” markets? When buying antiquities, are museum curators consulting their network of suppliers, or are they indulging in conspiracy?

Such questions have vexed the antiquities markets for decades or longer, and Neil Brodie’s address was not intended to answer all of them—but his research and the work of many others in the field continues to shed light on the complex antiquities gray market. Responding to a question from the audience, Brodie said (probably correctly) that individual or small-scale looting, such as individual tourists buying a couple looted artifacts for souvenirs, likely does not add up to much of the overall illicit antiquities market. I suspect that is true, but one small archaeological site destroyed by looting might have been a large portion of one community’s archaeological heritage. And that in my opinion is a very high cost.

It is hoped that the combined research efforts of those working in economics, tourism, heritage management, and related fields, might help to develop new practices resulting in favorable economic development alongside responsible treatment of cultural heritage resources of all types.

Watch the full episode. See more PBS NewsHour.

This post, originally published by SAFE on July 25, 2011, is reposted here as the exhibition is now on view through Jan. 6 2012 at New York’s Institute for the Study of the Ancient World.

In a PBS report by Jeffrey Brown which aired on July 11, 2011, Keith Wilson, Curator of Ancient Chinese Art at the Freer and Sackler Galleries, said that during the 19th century when Chinese sculptures, created as religious icons, were first introduced to the West and became fine art. This created a demand from dealers, who then sold the objects to collectors and museums around the world, before laws were in place to prohibit such practice. This led to rampant looting of Buddhist caves and ancient sites.

One such site is Xiangtangshan (響堂山), the sixth-century group of caves, carved into the mountains in northern China. Although the limestone caves are still visited by worshipers as temples, they are now emptied of their original contents by looters to feed the international market demand.

Now, the exhibition “Echoes of the Past,” which originated from the Smart Museum of Art at the University of Chicago, has gathered together these objects that are now scattered around the world. Working with colleagues in China, experts have used virtual rendering to put back the sculptures in the caves where they originally belonged. Using “old-fashioned connoisseurship” and digitization which records very fine details correctly, it is now possible to “physically prove that a piece had been removed from the site.”

Why not recreate the cave and send everything back to China? According to Correspondent Jeffrey Brown, Wilson says, “the Chinese…haven’t made such a request.” Wilson also thinks that by allowing us to “see these elements back in place” the digital caves would offer an alternative to repatriation.

What do you think? The exhibition will travel to Dallas and San Diego next. The Sackler web site offers more information about the project and “Promoting the protection of Chinese cultural heritage.”

Photo: Jason Salavon and Travis Saul

The Independent Movement for the Repatriation of Looted Greek Antiquities has produced a video: ‘I am Greek and I Want to go Home’

Photography, Concept and Artwork by Ares Kalogeropoulos

Original Music (“Rise”) by Ares Kalogeropoulos

It can be seen alongside this one, take a good look at this message to the British:

Help make them go viral.

.

The New York Times reported on Tuesday, July 10 about the growing tension over new guidelines “making it more difficult for collectors of antiquities to donate, or sell, the cultural treasures that fill their homes, display cases and storage units.” As museums and auction houses react to recent measures taken by the U.S. to stem the illicit antiquities trade, they are increasingly reluctant to acquire items with no documented provenance prior to 1970, the benchmark year the international community adopted in the 1970 UNESCO Convention.

Neil Brodie

Many collectors claim they are being treated unfairly and are increasingly depicted “as the beneficiaries of a villainous trade.” However, SAFE Beacon Award winner and former Director of the Illicit Antiquities Research Centre at the University of Cambridge, Neil Brodie, dismisses these claims saying, “Collectors know that without provenance it is impossible to know whether an object was first acquired by illegal or destructive means.” Dr. Brodie is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Glasgow and was instrumental in the formation of a new team that will study the illegal trade in antiquities. The team was recently awarded a £1m grant by the European Research Council.

Larry Rothfield, SAFE blog contributor and founder of the Cultural Policy Center at the University of Chicago, pointed out that lack of provenance is not necessarily the only reason these items cannot be sold. Their historical or aesthetic value can affect their sale for any number of reasons. “Even if the objects in question were not excluded from acquisition,” he said, “most of them would not be acquired anyway.”

The article further poses that the price of protecting the world’s cultural heritage may very well be that some items without provenance will remain in the hands of collectors who may be unable to sell or donate their treasures.

Larry Rothfield

SAFE appreciates our supporters for lending their voices to our anti-looting mission in so many ways. Read more articles by Larry on the SAFE blog.

What do you think? Should the US relax its guidelines and laws on provenance or is it more important to keep tightening the noose around the illicit antiquities trade? Is there a solution that allows objects to be donated to museums without encouraging looting and black market trade in the process? Join the discussion by commenting below or contacting us at info@savingantiquities.org.

Egypt’s rich and ancient history has been standing for over 5000 years, as evidenced by the great pyramids.  Who would suspect that it could ever be threatened?  In actuality, looters have been picking away at the antiquities of Egypt for thousands of years, like ocean waves lapping at the base of an intricate sand castle.  Recently, however, there has been a disconcerting uptick in this attack on our world’s shared culture.

Political unrest in Egypt has set the stage for loss of control over the land’s artifacts.  According to U.C. Berkeley archaeologist Carol Redmount, who has been excavating and examining sites in Egypt for over 20 years, the increased looting of these archaeological sites began when former President Mubarak was forced to leave the country in early 2011 and has not slowed in the year and a half since.

During the regime change, many police, military personnel, and local guards were re-deployed to deal with the intense rioting.  Some even walked off the job.  Consequently cultural sites, precious artifacts, museums, and tombs were left unprotected.  In June 2012, Dr. Redmount invited NBC News Richard Engel to ride with her through Al-Heba, a town 180 miles south of Cairo where she has been working, so that he could see for himself the extent of this wanton destruction.  Here, at one tomb site, the entire hillside had been dug up in hundreds of places by looters.  On the ground were randomly discarded mummified bodies that had been unearthed in the race for anticipated treasures.

Microsoft.com Stock Photos

The Temple of Luxor

South of Cairo is not the only area where this is transpiring.  Thieves have even looted areas around the Great Pyramids in Giza and the Luxor temples, reports Major-General Abdel-Rahim Hassan, commander of the Tourism and Antiquities Police Department.

In May 2012, Egyptian police arrested two men for digging a 10-meter deep hole under their homes, which were just behind the temple of Khnum in the southern town of Esna, There police found hieroglyphic inscriptions dating back to the Ptolemaic dynasty and ancient clay pots.  Had these artifacts been removed and sold illegally, both Egypt and the world community would have lost another irreplaceable piece of its history.

Egypt’s Interior Ministry has reported 5697 cases of illegal digging since the anti-Mubarak uprising began shortly into 2011.  This is a shocking 100 times more than the previous year.  During this time, illegal trading in antiquities has mushroomed to 1467 cases.  According to the AP, these are only the cases that the Interior Ministry was able to track down.

With so little manpower to staunch the flow of antiquities out of Egypt, this situation continues to grow worse.   Amid political turmoil, a recent disputed election, and police and military personnel preoccupied elsewhere, what can be done to protect and preserve the ancient Egyptian culture?

Egypt’s loss is our loss because Egypt’s history is an integral part of our global history.  We need to act.  As SAFE continues to expand its influence and be joined by archaeological activists and patrons, we will work to support local government organizations like the Interior Ministry and the Tourism and Antiquities Police Department to stem this illegal activity and to provide security for Egypt’s antiquities. Join our cause on Facebook and Say YES to Egypt’s Heritage.

According to KVAL.com article “Stolen Italian antiquities recovered from Oregon home” Phillip Pirages, the book dealer whose manuscript pages were forfeited by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement “was very impressed with how serious the (Italian) government was about reclaiming these[.]”

AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

A Roman Marble Janiform Herm, circa first century, showing a depiction of an old and young satyr, is one of several cultural artifacts taken from Italy that are being returned to Italy, seen during a repatriation ceremony at the Italian Embassy in Washington, Thursday, April 26, 2012. The objects were seized by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and Italy's Carabinieri.

Indeed, Italy is not alone in its determination to reclaim its cultural patrimony. In recent years, many culturally rich “source” countries are quite serious as well in their call for repatriation. While dealers, collectors, and other stakeholders— such as those who advocate for the unregulated acquisition and trade of cultural property— may question the validity of other countries’ cultural patrimony laws and criticize the effectiveness of their enforcement, no meaningful alternative to the 1970 UNESCO Convention, now ratified by some 120 countries around the world, has been proposed.

With the widely publicized repatriation of antiquities and a general increase in public awareness surrounding these issues, failure to respect national and international laws makes the acquisition of dubious artifacts a high-risk venture. This fact, plus the increasing willingness of source countries to sign long-term reciprocal loan agreements with foreign museums, are bringing decades of pushback to an end. Criticism of source countries as “retentionist”; legal actions to impede the implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention in the United States by CPAC; calls for fewer restraints on the importation of artifacts to benefit “hobbyist” collectors and “world museums” to stock their galleries with “artistic creations that transcend national boundaries” are being replaced by a new question in the cultural property debate. The question today is: how to reconcile the growing claims made by source countries in Asia, Africa, South America and the Middle East, on cultural property in museum collections outside the countries of origin?

“Once we established that they were stolen, he voluntarily agreed to surrender them,” said ICE special agent Melissa Cooley. “He didn’t fight the forfeiture.”

Citing cooperation, the book dealer will not be charged. Perhaps Pirages has the right idea: doing the right thing is never wrong.

The future of these items is still not known.

The “looting” that took place at the Summer Palace is not an isolated incident. In fact, the Chinese Cultural Relics Foundation predicts that over ten million cultural objects were “plundered” from China between 1840 and 1949. The 150th anniversary of the Summer Palace looting, coupled with China’s growing wealth and status has ignited a strong and unified movement to return Chinese antiquities to their homeland.

However, instead of going to public museums, most Chinese antiquities enter private collections, displayed as a sign of wealth and power, not patriotism. Andrew Jabobs, a reporter for The New York Times, wrote in 2009:  

At its core, such mixed signals [of the Chinese search for relics] are an outgrowth of China’s evolving self-identity. Is it a developing country with fresh memories of its victimization of imperial powers? Or, is it the world’s biggest exporter, eager to ensure good relations with the outside world to protect its trade dependent economy? (The New York Times, “China Hunts for Art Treasures in U.S. Museums,” December 17, 2009).  

The China Daily, agreed that the motives of China’s wealthy class to purchase of antiquities is questionable. They wrote, “Although patriotism is playing a part in this hunting to recapture looted treasures, experts say that majority of buyers are in fact more interested in the investment potential of ancient works–and the glamour“ (Cheng Yingqi, The China Daily, December 15, 2010).

The trade of Chinese antiquities is big business. The sale of Chinese artifacts has now surpassed the purchase of Old Master paintings (Scott Rayburn, “China Antique Sales Raise Record Sums”, The China Daily, May 23, 2011). The revenue from the sale of Chinese works now exceeds $10 billion annually. After the October 2011 sale of “looted objects” from the Summer Palace, Tom Flynn, author of the blog ArtKnows, stated:

Recent auctions in the UK–even those held in the British Provinces–have demonstrated the lengths to which Chinese dealers and collectors will travel– and indeed how high they are prepared to bid–to secure Imperial wares. Their buying power has now reached a level at which few Western dealers can compete (Art Knows, October 27, 2011).

In recent years, major auctions houses such as Sotheby’s and Christie’s have opened locations in China, Singapore, and Hong Kong– each enjoying enormous success. For example, a 2010 auction at Sotheby’s Hong Kong specializing in Asian art totaled a record $447 million (Giles Turner, “Buying Frenzy for Chinese Art,” Financial News, May 12, 2011).

The sale of artifacts “looted” from the Summer Palace is complicated by China’s export laws and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the United States. China’s Ministry of Culture issued “Interim Provisions on the Administration of the Import and Export of Art” on July 17, 2009. Article 5 of the provision states: “Art works are prohibited from being imported or exported if they contain content which:  

(1) violates the basic principles of the Constitution of China;

(2) endangers the unification of the country, national sovereignty or territorial integrity;

(3) divulges state secrets, endangers state security, honor or interests;

(4) incites ethnic hatred, discrimination, or harms ethnic unity or habits and customs;

(5) propagates or publicizes cults or superstitions;

(6) disrupts social order or stability;

(7) advocates or publicizes obscenity, pornography, gambling, violence, horror, or instigates crime;

(8) libels, slanders or harms the legal interests of others;

(9) deliberately tampers with history or severely distorts history;

(10) harms public morals or ethnic cultural traditions; or

(11) other content prohibited by laws, regulations and rules.” (Nancy M. Murphy, “Provisions on the Managements of the Import and Export of Art,” July 17, 2009).

These provisions, in summary, give the government complete control over any and all works of art which enter or exit the country. These rules can be broadly interpreted and make it almost impossible to export Chinese antiquities from the country. The provisions also have created an underground trade, or black market, for Chinese antiquities.

Furthermore, the United States entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with China on January 14th, 2009, “acting pursuant to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export, and transfer of ownership of cultural property, to which both countries are party; and desiring to reduce the incentives for pillage of irreplaceable archaeological material representing the rich cultural heritage of China.” (United States, Department of State). For this reason, the trade in Chinese antiquities, particularly items that are newly discovered or have no established provenance, has shifted from the United States to the United Kingdom, Europe and Asia. For more information on the China MOU visit  SAFE’s web site here and SAFECORNER’s coverage at “Bilateral Agreements at Work,” “Trying to put ‘Humpty Dumpty back together again,” and “Cultural Heritage in Danger: Reacting to the New York Times.”

Yuanmingyuan Park, which houses the remaining Summer Palace relics, recently called upon foreign museums to return the “looted” relics. According to the United Kingdom’s The Daily Telegraph, the main target of this action was the British Museum (Peter Foster, “China to Study British Museum for Looted Artefacts,” The Daily Telegraph, October 19, 2009). Experts, however, are doubtful that items will ever be returned from international museums. Instead, some argue that the government’s public campaign is an attempt to encourage private collectors in China to return or donate the antiquities to the Yuanmingyuan Park. In November 2011, the Yuanmingyuan Park called for a boycott of auctions selling “looted” relics. This, along with the founding of several non-governmental organizations such as the Lost Cultural Relics Recovery Program, has led to aggressive action to retrieve the 1.5 million relics “stolen” from the Summer Palace (“China Experts to Search Abroad for Looted Relics,” France 24, October 19, 2009).

The art world was stunned on March 7, 2009 by what is now being called the “Yves Saint Laurent Fiasco.” The Times’ Richard Morris reported: “The fury of the reactions to an act of sabotage by an incensed Chinese bidder has rocked the art world” (The Times, March 7, 2009). At an Asian sale at Christie’s Paris a pair of bronze animal heads, once of a set of twelve that made up a water clock at the Summer Palace, achieved a hammer price of £28 million. The bidder, Cai Mingchao, a once trusted Christie’s client, promptly refused to pay. In a statement he said his intentions were to “draw attention to this sale of looted treasure…. There is an indignation in China that Chinese bidders have to spend millions simply to retrieve artifacts that were looted from the country” (The Times, March 7, 2009).

Christie’s options included: (1) sue for the payment, drawing attention to the fact that they are selling known “looted” goods; or (2) attempt to re-auction the heads to buyers now aware of the questionable provenance and potential for a title claim. Both options would damage Christie’s image, respectability, reliability, and result in extreme legal fees. The bronze animal heads were returned to the consignor. However, unconfirmed reports indicate that Christie’s may receive some form of payment. Cai Mingchao was, therefore, successful in his statement about “looted” goods. This episode served as a wake-up call. As a result, auction houses in the United Kingdom now require pre-registration applications, financial references, guarantees, and deposits at least three days before Asian art sales. Such measures limit the possible economic losses for auction houses. Yet, these pre-registration requirements they do not prevent the loss of reliability and reputation that are key to the auction business.

This brings us back to Captain Gunter’s gold box.  Was the risk of auctioning an obviously “looted” item worth Woolley and Willis’ premium return on $764,694? Granted, the Gunter family currently has possession, but who truly owns such “looted” items? Where should they go, what should happen to them? These are questions not only relevant to the Captain Gunter case, but to the all the artifacts “stolen” or “looted” from the Summer Palace.

Photos Courtesy of Woolley and Wallis, The Daily Mail, and The Times.

“Should genuine ancient archaeological materials such as coins and pottery shards be repurposed and sold as jewelry?” reads the poll currently displayed in the right hand margin. Until yesterday there were 20 votes for no, 2 for yes. Then on the US ancient coin collector’s forum “Moneta-L” this post appeared yesterday:

Safecorner — the anti-collecting organization has a new poll (anonymous – one click): “Should genuine ancient archaeological materials such as coins and
pottery shards be repurposed and sold as jewelry?” So far, only 31 people have responded. How sad! Why not head over to:http://safecorner.savingantiquities.org/ and register your vote. It will be fun

The poll results have now taken on a wholly different character with the inflow of new readers as a consequence.

SAFECorner is of course NOT “anti-collecting”, but some of us might feel that turning numismatic research material into wearable geegaws certainly IS.

In their public pronouncements, US collectors of dug-up ancient coins steadfastly claim to be researchers and numismatic scholars (and thus – they argue – introducing import controls on the US market is in some way damaging their scholarship). Their apparent united support for turning archaeological evidence into ornamental geegaws and cocktail party conversation pieces expressed in their participation in our poll certainly seems to cast doubt on that claim to pure scholarship. Another reason why coin collectors might think this a good idea is wearing them as jewellery is a good way to escape detection when bringing such items across international borders. As dealer Dave Welsh reminds us, wearable coin jewellery can be used to smuggle coins.

For some rather tacky examples of the sort of thing we are talking about, see those listed in my blog post on the topic.

By the way, the question is “should” and the coin collectors from Moneta-L are giving the answer “yes, they should“. Is that the voice of this discipline called “numismatics”? Is this what the American Numismatic Association and affiliated bodies would say?

Still, if it gets coin collectors over onto a heritage protection website and perhaps provokes some of them into reading a little of what is here, the poll cannot be a bad thing.
.

Oscar Muscarella, the outspoken critic of the antiquities trade and the plunder of cultural heritage reviews The Acquisition and Exhibition of Classical Antiquities: Professional, Legal, and Ethical Perspectives, a collection of eight published papers presented at a symposium held at the University of Notre Dame on February 24, 2007, organized by Robin F. Rhodes and Charles R. Loving. The review, entitled “Archaeologists and Acquisitionists,” was published in International Journal of the Classical Tradition, September 2011. We are pleased to share the review with our readers, particularly members of the public, whose exposure to this kind of discussion remains limited. Each of the volume’s contributions from the following is reviewed:

- James Cuno (former President and Director, Art Institute of Chicago and current president and CEO, the J. Paul Getty Trust)

- Malcolm M. Bell III (Professor, Greek Art and Archaeology, University of Virginia)

- Patty Gerstenblith (Professor of Law, DePaul University)

- Kimberly Rorschach (Director, Nasher Museum of Art, Duke University)

- Stefano Vassallo (Head Archaeologist, Service of the Cultural Heritage and Environment of Palermo)

- Mary Ellen O’Connell (Professor of Law, Notre Dame)

- Nancy Bookidis (archeologist, Corinth excavations, Greece)

- C. Brian Rose (Professor of Archaeology and Curator-in-Charge, the Mediterranean Section of the University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania)

A European art and antiquities collector recently opened a museum of his collection in France. His action to share the collection with the public is perhaps more admirable than hoarding it all in a private home. But it is the “compulsive collecting” in the first place that causes so many problems, and this article in particular glorifies his “philanthropy” while neglecting any realities about how these antiquities were brought to the market and acquired.

The many accounts of looting and destruction in Egypt in the last few days have been alarming and at times, confusing. Reports about the nature and extent of the damage – and who caused the damage – have been numerous and sometimes conflicting. What are rumors? What are facts?

One recalls a similar situation in 2003 when the Iraq Museum was looted, and the number of objects became a source of confusion. Matthew Bogdanos’s article in The American Journal of Archaeology “The Casualties of War: The Truth About the Iraq Museum” (and the 2005 book Thieves of Baghdad) recounts that situation in great detail, and goes a long way to dispel early misconceptions.

As with the Iraq situation, we will probably not know all the facts for some time. But while information about the exact scope of the destruction – and who did what – is still being assessed, what we do know for certain is that one of the world’s richest and oldest cultural heritages is at risk. One artifact looted or destroyed is one too many.

We also know this: Egyptian antiquities can fetch huge sums. In December, 2010 alone, 13 artifacts reportedly sold at Sotheby’s for a total of $9,789,500.

So how will we respond?

A number of organizations have issued a statement that includes a “call on United States and European law enforcement agencies to be on the alert over the next several months for the possible appearance of looted Egyptian antiquities at their borders.” SAFE believes that we should also alert dealers, collectors, conservators, auction houses, museums, antique galleries. Any artifacts looted from Egypt during this tumultuous time will presumably end up on the antiquities market outside the country.

Will the trade exercise restraint or curtail its appetite for Egyptian collectibles during this time? Will it perform special due diligence? We hope it will.

An ACCG-sponsored PR Newswire press release proclaims that the: ‘Value of Amateurs Is Evident as Financial Woes Cripple Heritage Preservation‘. While there is no doubt that the volunteer sector has never been more active and welcome in heritage preservation initiatives than today, there are dangers inherent in states relying more explicitly upon it (see Heritage Action’s ‘Opposing certain heritage threats now “unaffordable”‘ about the situation in the UK).

Sadly the coin-dealing author of the text under discussion takes the subject “preservation of the heritage” to be a narrow artefact-centred issue. What, however, is of more general concern is the broader issue of protection of sites and monuments from erosion and destruction. Among the agents of that destruction is the looting of those sites and monuments that produces the loose objects that US collectors and dealers do not want to see in the hands of the countries from which they were taken because they allegedly are “unable or unwilling to preserve their heritage”, citing things like the recent damage caused to buildings in Pompeii by exposure to the weather.

While it is obvious to us all that it is far easier to provide a roof over a handful of coins than the excavated area of half an entire town, ancient coin dealer Sayles evidently wishes to see them as equivalents. There seems however to be a regrettable a confusion here between those amateurs who volunteer to work on conservation projects all over the world, or who as amateur archaeologists carry out and publish their own work, or in groups take part in larger scale projects and help with the inventorying of sites and monuments for the public record (for example the work of amateur groups here, here , here and here ), and the group to whom Sayles evdently refers. He means antiquity collectors, the individuals who out of acquisitive greed and the urge to possess purchase, often no questions asked, dugup ancient artefacts. There should be no confusion between the two. Collectors of dugup antiquities like so many postage stamps in an album are no more “amateur archaeologists” than collectors of costume Barbie dolls are ethnographers, or wild bird-egg snatchers are ornithologists, or poached elephant ivory merchants ecologists.

Mr Sayles presumably would argue that by including them in their collections, the Louvre was only trying to “preserve” the relief fragments ripped out of Theban Tomb 15, I doubt though that many would accept that the situation is as simple as that, especially seen from the point of view of what that site (tomb) now looks like. That a Memphis temple has problems with groundwater is neither here nor there as to whether they and other looted artefacts should not go back.

There are many ways amateurs and volunteers can help preserve the heritage, joining SAFE is one of them, buying looted and smuggled artefacts and hoarding them at home is not.

The Saving Antiquities for Everyone (SAFE) Beacon Award is given to those who stand out in their fight against illicit antiquities trade. On Oct. 29, over 100 people attended an event awarding it to four individuals at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. The awards were given to Senior Special Agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement James McAndrew, Attorney Robert Goldman, Federal Prosecutor David Hall and retired FBI agent Robert Wittman for their part in the investigations and prosecutions in cases involving stolen art and cultural objects. For brief details of these see here.

The four unsung heroes shared their experiences of the difficulties and talked about the importance of saving antiquities at a reception after the award ceremony.

“Stolen and looted art trade sums up to almost $6 billion,” McAndrew said. And stressed that the lucrative crime does not exist by itself. “In many cases, the money is used to finance terrorism activities.” Wittman, who created the FBI’s Art Crime Team, has recovered more than 850 artworks and antiquities. His achievements have brought significant attention to the art crime field. The lack of public support and awareness, however, is crippling the battle against illicit antiquities trade, he said. “New York City is a mega center for the arts,” Wittman said, “but recently they have been slashing the agents in this field of work.” To successfully prosecute an art crime suspect, Hall said a prosecutor needs to show proof that the suspect knew of the illegality of the stolen artifact. “The only way to prove that is with the help of undercover agents and tipsters,” Hall said. It is up to the public to push the government to invest more and play a more active role in saving these valuable antiquities.

Congratulations to all four and those who work with them to combat the traffic in illicitly obtained cultural property. SAFE, a nonprofit organization, has been hosting the Beacon Awards since 2006 as a way to recognize and raise awareness about the severe cultural loss caused by the illicit antiquities trade.

See also: SAFE Beacon Awards Highlight Importance of Preventing Antiquities Theft

Photo: Do Hoon Bae

We thank Dr. Opoku and the Museum Secruity Network for making these insightful REFLECTIONS ON THE CAIRO CONFERENCE ON RESTITUTION: ENCOURAGING BEGINNING available to us. The article contains very useful notes and references as well.

The April 7-8 Cairo Conference hosted by Zahi Hawass and Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities can be viewed on New Tang Dynasty Television.

David Gill said on Looting Matters “While it is important to air concerns over cultural property that left the countries of origin some years ago, there is an important issue relating to continuing looting.”

SAFE respects the rights of sovereign nations to cultural property within their national boundaries. But we should be mindful of the fact that information lost from plunder of sites can never be repatriated.

A couple days ago, I posted an expose about that proportion of the Southern Hemisphere antiquities trade currently passing through the hands of BC Galleries. They have apparently removed from their catalogs the Iron Age bangles containing human arm bones mentioned in my last post, but still feature other highly suspect artifacts, such as this immense Dong Son drum, this late Iron Age bracelet, or this prehistoric Thai shell necklace, the rarity and condition of which points to their previous use as grave goods, or, in the case of the drum, something requiring concentrated effort to unearth, clean, and ship once perhaps ‘accidentally’ discovered. What I wish to share now, however, is another small, but significant, victory; an example of what positive media pressure can do to “interrupt” the vicious cycle of the antiquities trade…at least where some of the most morally and ethically objectionable pieces are concerned.

Today, a colleague of mine (J. Lewis) brought a short news article to my attention. This piece reports that Drs. Lynley Wallis and Claire Smith (presidents of the Australian Archaeological Association and the World Archaeological Congress, respectively) formally called upon eBay to remove from sale two lots of advertised “Dong Son” Iron Age “votive bronze armlets” with sections of ulna and radius (forearm bones) still remaining within the grave soil cemented inside them (see above left). Citing “concern about the cultural origins of the items for sale, as well as the affront to human dignity resulting from the sale of human body parts,” (in other words, direct violation of Item 1 of the Vermillion Accord on Human Remains, adopted by the WAC in 1989) the subsequent press release occurred on April 2nd, and as of today (April 7th), the items have been pulled down (here and here).

These items were first made available through a specifically established ‘eBay Store,’ ran as a subsidiary of eBay Australia. “The Unique Things Store” exists to “sell quality items supplied by reliable dealers and galleries, that are members of Antique and Antiquities associations.” While it should be stated for the record that this e-Store, like BC Galleries, does not just deal in antiquities of dubious provenance, it becomes apparent with even minimal effort that the archaeological artifacts for sale are highly suspect. This gallery is also listed as a member and/or distribution partner of AADA, CINOA, and Sotheby’s (affiliations which I suspect greatly assist remotely located Southern Hemisphere dealers get access to artifacts from non-geographically proximate regions). With the advent of global distribution networks made possible by the Internet, smaller, down-market galleries and dealers can amass collections, slash prices, and still reach clients. To me, this represents the newer face of the antiquities trade worldwide…increasingly out of the more ‘elite’ auction houses, and into the public sphere. I support this assertion with the following statement, viewable by customers on every catalog entry page (for example, this c. 450BC Phoenician coin): “Many of these items are priceless fragments of history and would sell for many times their listed prices at large auction houses so be quick.“

To put their customers at ease, however, they state upfront that everything has been examined by “experts,” and that a C.O.A. (Certificate of Authenticity) can be provided upon request. Once again, the “authenticity” of a ‘surfaced’ item for sale, in the mind of the dealer and most probable buyers, trumps any ethical concerns over the origins of that item! Refunds can be had at any time if a buyer later discovers a forgery (here I’m guessing that the burden of proof upon the buyer will be quite intense), and a mailing list is provided for satisfied customers to receive updates on new offers.

Importantly, in small letters at the bottom of the web page formerly advertising the armlet with human bones inside (and appearing on the catalog entry page of every item for sale), is the following statement: “I also sell products via other methods and may remove my listing if (sic) my item and use the (those?) options if the item does not have bids, so if you are interested bid now or you may miss out” (click on the bronze armlet photo above to be redirected to that page). This strongly suggests to me that, even if perceived lack of interest (or, in the case of the above mentioned armlets, public pressure) prompts the website maintainer to remove an item from bidding, this does not mean it is removed from circulation. What will the ultimate fate of these macabre “antiquities” be? In my opinion, only time and further monitoring will tell.

Recently, I was fortunate enough to witness a special guest lecture by Dr. Christopher Chippindale that took place as part of the Centre for Archaeological Research’s annual lecture series, in the School of Archaeology and Anthropology at the Australian National University, Canberra, my current affiliation. Dr. Chippindale has long been affiliated with Cambridge University, specifically with the McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research, and also serves as curator of the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. In addition to his robust research on antiquities smuggling, he is also prominent in the field of northern Australian rock art archaeology. I will discuss the content of this guest lecture below, as his insights are profound, current, and worth wide dissemination.

The presentation centred around three pertinent, but general, questions: What is the current situation regarding worldwide acquisition of antiquities by museums, especially Classical antiquities? Why is the situation the way it is? What are museums doing to help or hinder their part in it? At its heart, he argues, the modern antiquities trade revolves around the boost to one’s appearance of wealth, prestige, status, and power that the ownership and display of antiquities is deemed to convey, especially amongst the collecting and dealing ‘elite.’ Underpinning this stance is what Chippindale has dubbed the “Connoisseur’s view,” defined as the idea that things (objects) have intrinsic merit and can reflect ‘cultural universals,’ or ‘eternal values,’ as tangible to the ancient people who made the object as to any living person today. Holding this view would then lend the collection of antiquities much “sophistication.” This can be directly contrasted to the “Archaeologist’s View,” which defines artifacts as sources of information in context first and foremost, “worthy of celebration and care.”

Connoisseurs and collectors might view, for example, a rare piece of gold jewelry from the Bush Barrow site in Wiltshire, England (the first ‘case study’ example discussed…bought for 5,000 pounds), as “inspiring,” with the “enjoyment” they feel from it being enhanced if specific details are known, but holding aesthetic appreciation as paramount. Those taking the archaeologist’s view, on the other hand, can acknowledge that, while some meaningful information is inherent in the object itself, it is outweighed by contextual details, and is greatly diminished without them. Context, then, is what prevents one from viewing ancient (or historic) artifacts through the lens of “ordinary daily experience,” i.e. as just another object, even if an artifact holds clear aesthetic appeal due to intricate details of its design. As a summation of this introductory portion of the talk, he states that “these attitudes are not opposed, but the loss of context leaves the connoisseur’s view intact, but ‘wrecks’ the archaeologist’s view.” To Chippindale, this exposes the fundamental self-centredness of the connoisseurs view from its inception, but especially after, World War II, when looting and modern, global, collecting really began to flourish. As he then goes on to show, the misconceptions of connoisseurs and the demand they create continues to profoundly affect the Classical archaeological world.

The case of the “Lansdowne Herakles” serves as a good lead-in example. A Roman copy of the Greek original, it was first discovered in 1791, and came to London in 1792 (into the hands of a British aristocratic family who were later reduced to penury). In 1951, it was purchased by Getty as one of the future Getty Museum’s first acquisitions. Today, Greece has export bans in place that would have prevented this, as do Turkey and Italy, two other prime source countries for Classical loot. “95% of artifacts on the market today just “surface,” with no known provenience” Dr. Chippindale reported. Because it is much more difficult to openly sell stolen art (for example, of the 59 known paintings by the German Impressionist Albrecht Altdorfer, all but one are owned by museums and securely loaned under partage agreements), collectors have been turning to easily transportable small items; both recent and ancient, especially since the 1980s when looting increased world-wide.

Two archetypal examples from the Classical world were provided to illustrate this crisis; Cycladic figurines and south Italian ceramics. Cycladic figurines comprise a corpus of small, stone figurines primarily used as grave goods in pre-Roman cemeteries throughout the Cyclades Islands, although two major non-mortuary sources are known (chief amongst them is the site of Karos, which produced a collection of fragments known as the “Karos Horde”). Very few exist in early 20th century collections, but their stylistic influence on certain European sculptural traditions from 1950-present has resulted in very high demand, with only looting and increasingly fanciful forgeries in “reclining” positions (as opposed to authentic standing postures) left to fill the demand. It is unknown to what extent this looting has damaged the Cyclades overall archaeological record, but of the 1,369 artifacts assessed for provenance history in Gill and Chippindale (2000), only 39 were traceable…the rest just “surfaced” during the 1980s or 1990s! Two recent sales via Christie’s Auction House as late as December, 2009, illustrated this alarming point. A Cycladic figurine sold for $122,500, while a Romano-British bronze ‘fibula’ sold for even more. Neither had provenance listings more specific than a “Japanese private collection,” or “Anonymous sale.” When dealing with or tracking what Chippindale termed “toxic” antiquities (with sources and markets all over the world these days), it is important to pay attention to the phrase “said to be.” A common explanation offered by those found guilty of trading in loot, reading between the lines can prove crucial to subsequent investigations. Said “by whom, to whom, under what circumstances, and with what intentions?”

In the case of the recent looting and smuggling of the ornate red on black pottery of southern Italy, one specific instance was highlighted. What later became known as the “Medici affair” involved the illicit trading of one Giacomo Medici who, through his warehouse in Geneva, was able to legally ship thousands of artifacts, in direct collaboration with numerous museums, galleries, and dealers, until his arrest and trial in 2004. This case mirrors in many ways the more recent “Symes affair,” in which the 17,000+ pieces of art and looted antiquities amassed by Robert Symes and Christo Michaelides while in business together are now being dispersed or sold off with minimal acknowledgment of provenance. It is by now well known that these pieces only appeared on the market en masse in the late 20th century, and that Swiss law’s “good faith” statutes have made it an exceptionally easy country to smuggle from, even with changes that bring Switzerland into minimal compliance with the UNESCO 1970 convention. What surprised me in this portion of the talk was the display of an “organigram” that clearly indicated how wide the conspiratorial net stretched. With the artifacts, immense photographic archive, and organigram recovered from the warehouse, the smuggling ring was busted, but this case remains one of the best examples of the “power, deference, and rule of seniority” that underpin so much international antiquities crime (see also e.g. Bowman 2008).

The natures and global distributions of two other large collections discussed; namely the ‘Barakat Gallery,’ and ‘Yves Saint Laurent & Pierre Berge’ collections, would suggest similar histories. The Yves Saint Laurant contains fourteen artifacts, but only one has an acquisition history pre-1914, Most post-date 1970, two come directly from the now-defunct Symes collection, and none state archaeological context. The 7,000+ antiquities in the Barakat collection (mostly housed in the United Arab Emirates palace, Abu Dhabi, London and Dubai) span the globe in their source countries, but the majority of artifacts come from the Middle East, said to be (there’s that phrase again) from locations whose place names can be tied to Biblical stories. What is the likelihood that stated provenance matches real provenance? Very slim, according to Dr. Chippindale, who is in the process of archiving and researching it. While this work continues, the gallery continues its worldwide sale of worldwide plunder.

Of course, fakes are something that archaeologists and unscrupulous dealers and curators both have to deal with. The most famous case mentioned during the lecture is that of the “Kouros” figure housed at the Getty (see image above left). Although it represents a ‘surfaced’ find, it came with supposedly authentic documents (until discovery of a listed postal code on a form placing the Kouros in Switzerland in 1951-long before postal codes existed in Switzerland, called the entire case history into question). Furthermore, it appears “neither Athenian or Corinthian” in its typology and design motifs. While authenticity remains “undecided,” but highly suspect, it continues to stand in the Getti Villa, further testimony to the embarrassing curatorship of Marion True.

What really surprised me in this lecture, however, was the lengths of deception that some curators were willing to go to display new Classic (Attic) Greek “vases” to the public. Making clear the fact that “there remain no large stockpiles of authentic Classical antiquities available for the market and museums, outside of forgeries and newly looted pieces,” he then provides case studies of museums, mostly in the US, receiving nearly untraceable “gifts” of ceramic sherds, freshly broken from several different vessels both old and new, then reassembled as cleanly as possible into a new, whole “vase!”. Where does this demand come from? In regards to southern Italian ceramics, I learned that it can be partially explained by the thorough, if unfortunately short-sighted, work of Dr. A.D. Trendall (1909-1995), who, by conflating these ceramics with Classical Greek “vases,” gave them the extra significance needed for them to replace gold and silver objects as worthy heirlooms. Although Trendall was known for respecting the intrinsic value of the ceramics in their archaeological context, and for providing order to their classification, his attaching of aesthetic and cash values to them in his published works certainly helped to create a market fed by looting.

I will conclude this post with a citing of what has become known (somewhat in jest) as “Chippindale’s Law”: “Whenever one takes an interest in anything to do with illicit antiquities, reality is always worse that what was expected” (pers. comm., February 2010). The loss of archaeological data when skeletons and their larger burial contexts are destroyed in the search for artifacts to sell, something that prehistorians in most areas of the world will encounter first hand eventually, is just one example of the compounding of this problem. For those of us working as practicing archaeologists or physical anthropologists, the loss of this information, above and beyond the damage to the landscape and those broken artifacts left behind, drives the looting problem home. From the lecture itself, and one-on-one discussion afterwards, I could walk away with the following take home messages. For archaeologists, we must urgently continue, and in fact ‘step up,’ our “watch dog” roles in this crisis; we who discover, analyse, and disseminate new archaeological knowledge about humanity’s collective past through our training. Activists in general must continue to find ways to take the “hip” and “chic” (if you will) out of antiquities collecting. Easier said than done, but only further education will continue to make a dent. Finally, and most succinctly, the lecture closed thusly: “We must continue to learn from the past, not consume it.” Sage advice indeed.

David Gill has recently addressed claims made by Peter Tompa that appear to have little basis in fact. Tompa is a lobbyist who represents commercial trade interests. He has alleged that the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (CAARI) “was involved in behind-the-scenes lobbying on behalf of the Cypriot Department of Antiquities, the Cypriot government body that issues excavation permits that allow CAARI affiliated archaeologists to excavate on the Island.” The assertions are not substantiated further.

Ellen Herscher, the vice president of CAARI and an independent scholar, responded to Tompa’s claims after they were posted to the Museum Security Network. She stated:

CAARI’s Director and several trustees publicly submitted statements in support of the agreement. This position is in accordance with CAARI’s Code of Ethics, which states that the organization “is dedicated to the protection and preservation of archaeological sites in Cyprus and the information they contain.” There was no “behind-the-scenes lobbying” involved.

Secondly, “CAARI-affiliation” has nothing to do with the granting of excavation permits in Cyprus. Permits are the sole responsibility of the Department of Antiquities of the Republic of Cyprus.

It is unfortunate that the ACCG continues to publish these erroneous statements, despite the fact that CAARI has responded and refuted them in the past.

Gill asks the question:

Are “false claims” being deliberately planted by some of the North American coin-collecting community as part of the background to the test case over the coins seized in Baltimore? (For some more discussion of the “test case”, see Gill’s “The Baltimore Coin Test Case“).

The question is a provocative one, especially in the context of other false claims recently made by one group Tompa is involved with, the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG).

On November 13, 2009 The Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) convened for an interim review of the bilateral agreement with Italy and asked for public comment to be restricted to Article II. Among other things under Article II, which covers Italy’s obligations, Italy would allow long-term loans to American institutions, access to scholars, and prosecute antiquities traffickers within its own borders. Evidently, the CPAC asked that public comment be confined to Article II due to the concerns of many members of the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) who felt that Italy was favoring institutions that had returned objects to Italy and that more longer term loans ought to be made. Indeed, there were several AAMD members at the interim review who gave presentations to the CPAC (their written comments have been posted online).

Immediately after the interim review, Tompa insinuated that archaeologists departed from Article II and raised the specter of coins and their potential inclusion in the upcoming renewal with Italy (see Tompa’s “Interim Review of the Italian MOU“). He later claimed, innacurately, that Stefano De Caro, who spoke on behalf of Italy’s Culture Ministry, argued that all coins made within the borders of what is now modern Italy should belong to Italy (see Tompa’s “Is the Italian Cultural Bureaucracy the Best Steward for Coins?“). However, after being challenged, he conceded that he may have misunderstood.

The ACCG’s founder, who was not even present at the interim review, then authored a press release alleging that archaeologists opportunistically raised the issue of coins; he also portrayed the AIA representative’s comments as radical (see Sayles’ “Archaeologists Plead for Import Restrictions on Common Coins“; for a more balanced view, see the AIA representative’s reflections on the interim review). While Sayles pretended as if there is not near universal agreement among the archaeological community that looting and indiscriminate sourcing for the antiquities trade is detrimental to archaeology, he failed to note that many collectors have themselves voiced concerns that the status quo, which the ACCG seeks to protect, requires some internal reforms in the trade. Some have even gone so far as to observe that the ACCG is oriented more towards the concerns of commercial dealers rather than to collectors or the interests of preservation.

Wetterstrom, president-elect of the ACCG and its representative at the interim review, then authored an editorial in the Celator (a collector magazine that he operates) claiming that archaeologists at the meeting received special treatment and were not limited in the length of their presentations. He also writes that he was cut off early while reading his written comments that the CPAC already had in front of them (Tompa has reproduced Wetterstrom’s text in his “Another Perspective on CPAC and the Interim Review of the Italian MOU“).

Sayles then solicited another online press release, prompted by Wetterstrom’s editorial (“Collectors Claim Bias Epitomizes State Department Committee Management“). Here, Sayles falsely reports that “Other speakers, who advocate import restrictions on coins, were reportedly allowed to exceed the published time limit with comments ranging up to 30 minutes.”

In spite of the repetition of the claims by ACCG leadership, they have no basis in fact.

1) Archaeologists (note the ACCG’s use of the plural) were not afforded any special treatment. All speakers were allowed only five minutes and were told to finish if they reached their time limit. Wetterstrom, like all other presenters, received a full five minutes and was cut off only after exhausting his time while reading his letter verbatim. All other speakers made “off-the-cuff” presentations. The only individual who made a longer presentation was Stefano De Caro who had traveled from Rome for the meeting, and who spoke approximately 20 minutes. Although it is implied he was improperly given excess time, the ACCG fails to note that foreign dignitaries are customarily not limited in the length of their presentation. This is proper since they represent the countries who have petitioned for an agreement with the U.S. government. As regular attendees of CPAC meetings, the ACCG is well aware of this fact.

2) Archaeologists did not raise the specter of coins. The order of presentation clearly demonstrates this since Tompa and Wetterstrom spoke before any archaeologist. Both individuals urged the committee not to consider coins any future renewal of the agreement and both made reference to the “test case.” Archaeologists and numismatists who addressed the issue of coins during their presentations were simply responding to arguments made by Tompa and Wetterstrom that coins were not worth protecting because they are “common” or “cheap” on the market. But if one requires further proof, compare the written comments of Kerry Wetterstrom and Wayne Sayles, submitted to the CPAC in advance of the interim review, with the letter submitted by Sebastian Heath, the AIA representative. It is clear from the letters that, contrary to the ACCG’s portrayal of events, the ACCG were focused on arguing that coins not be considered in the future. On the other hand, the AIA representative made no suggestion that coins be included in a renewal and instead had prepared to focus on Article II of the MOU as requested. It was only in oral comments that archaeologists and numismatists were forced to respond to issues beyond Article II that were raised by representatives of commercial interests.

Gill’s question about whether or not false claims are being deliberately fabricated is penetrating, especially in the context of the misrepresentation of events at CPAC’s interim review. Is it indeed hoped that the spin put on these events will construct a reality that is more conducive to their litigious activities? In this regard, it is worth noting that one of the points in the ACCG’s 37 page complaint about the seizure, which they staged, states that archaeologists argued that the agreement with Italy be extended to coins, while failing to note that they brought up the question of coins in the first place (pdf here, see point 80).

A while back I called attention to the appeal by the Bulgarian Archaeological Association for funds to protect and preserve Colonia Ulpia Ratiaria which – like so many sites in Bulgaria – is being targeted by treasure hunters and destroyed.

Today I received an email which appears to have been sent out to all of those who made a donation to the preservation effort and which gave a brief report on the way some of the donations are being used:

[The] Bulgarian Archaeological Association is glad to inform you that thanks to your financial support a short term archaeological expedition at the territory of Colonia Ulpia Traiana Ratiaria was realized. Several architectural and epigraphical monuments were discovered and saved for the archaeological science. Please follow the link to find our [report]: http://www.archaeology.archbg.net/c_ratiaria.html

We will highly appreciate your further help and we kindly ask you to forward the following petition to other friends and supporters: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ratiaria/index.html

Thank you in advance,

Bulgarian Archaeological Association

21 Tsarigradsko shosse blv. 1124 Sofia Bulgaria
+ 359 (0) 878940223
info@archbg.net
www.archaeology.archbg.net

While it is great that several individuals and groups donated to the preservation efforts, more is needed and I would urge anyone who can and who has an interest in preserving Bulgaria’s heritage to sign the petition and donate

The gold vessel from Ur that was seized from a German auction house in 2005 has been handed over to German authorities after residing in the care of the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum in Mainz where it was analyzed by an expert in Mesopotamian metalwork, Michael Müller-Karpe. It is now feared that the object may be allowed to go auction since the antiquities laws in Germany are rather lax, one of the reasons the reasons that Germany is an important transit market for recently surfaced antiquities.

As a follow up to this story, DW-TV has posted an interesting online video broadcast (31 July 2009) discussing the gold vessel and role that Germany plays in the international trade.

Last Wednesday, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung carried a story entitled “Deutsch-irkaischer Archäologenkrimi / Aus Ur oder aus Troja? Ein Goldgefäß macht derzeit den Behörden Probleme. Es soll von Raubgrabungen aus dem Irak stammen. Bagdad hat Strafanzeige gegen einen deutschen Händler gestellt” (by D. Gerlach, 29.6.2009, pp. 1,3) about a gold vessel looted from Ur that was offered by a German auction house. A slightly more condensed article in English also summarizes the story (“Mesopotamian Vase Sheds Light on Germany’s Artefacts Trade,” Deutsche Welle, 30.6.2009).