Iraqi-Jewish cultural heritage is up for debate as the Iraqi government calls for the return of an archive currently being studied and preserved by the United States at the National Archives and Records Administration.

Iraq’s ministry of Culture and Antiquities is making claims that the United States, given the responsibility of preserving and studying the archive, has held onto the materials for too long, and now it is time that these cultural items be returned to their intended custodians: the Iraqi people and government.

Iraqi Tourism and Archaeology Minister Liwaa Smaisim has gone as far as cutting all ties with US Archaeological exploration in the country in an attempt to put pressure on the US Government to return the items, “They moved the archives in 2003; the agreement that was signed at that time between Iraq and the American side was to bring them back in 2005 after restoring them, but now we are in 2012,” Smaisim was quoted recently in The Daily Star, a Lebanese publication.

Discovered in a flooded basement of a secret police building by US forces, the archive consists of early Torahs, children’s learning materials, family photographs, and other personal items were collected through systematic raids into Jewish homes by Iraqi secret police looking for ‘evidence’ of Zionist sentiments during the 1950’s. The US soldiers were looking for weapons of mass destruction, but found instead the remnants of the daily lives of the Jewish population that once thrived in Baghdad.

The Jewish community in Iraq, and specifically Baghdad, was once a thriving, affluent, and tight-knit community in the years leading up to WWII (Gat 1997, 6). However, in the growing tension between Iraq and Israel, and the political struggles that would lead up to the Arab-Israeli conflict of 1948, the Iraqi Jews were severely oppressed and persecuted from the first anti-semitic legislation enacted in 1933 to the Jewish exodus from Arab countries in the 1950s. Today it is said that there may be less than 20 Iraqi Jews living in the country.

Saad Eskander, the director of the Iraq National Library and Archives, claims that the return of the items are critical to presenting Iraqi-Jewish cultural heritage to the people of Iraq, “Iraqis must know that we are a diverse people, with different traditions, different religions, and we need to accept this diversity…To show it to our people that Baghdad was always multi-ethnic” he said, as quoted by the Associated Press

Regarding the claim for the items, the US government has acknowledged that the Iraqi government has the right to make a claim for the archive, yet the NARA is still carrying out preservation and attempting to digitize the collection of Hebrew, German, and some English texts. The total costs of the preservation project could exceed $3M, possibly $6M (Washington Post).

The historical conundrum of ‘who owns the past’ has reared itself yet again in the middle of this embroiled debate. While the Iraqi Government, struggling to maintain its archaeological materials and protect its historic sites from illegal looting and destruction, is making a claim based on the need to present this material and educate the Iraqi public about diversity, some Jewish activist groups claim the initiative to be in extremely poor taste considering the treatment of Jews leading up to the mass Exodus to Israel. Can a country, whose Iraqi-Jewish population remains nearly non-existent, make a valid claim for cultural objects belonging to that group? Some argue that the materials should be returned to the Babylonian Jewry Heritage Center in Israel, where 90% of the Iraqi-Jewish Diaspora currently resides.

Regardless of who has proper claim of the materials found in that basement in 2003, it is clear that the strained relationship between the Iraqi government and US Archaeological exploration teams is putting significant archaeological sites at risk, namely Babylon. The World Monuments Fund, a New York-based heritage advocacy group has been barred from access to the site – famous for its once hanging gardens and Tower of Babel- due to the diplomatic tensions created by the Iraqi-Jewish archive. The WMF is desperately trying to garner support for Babylon’s installment on UNESCO’s World Heritage List due to an oil pipeline running straight through the site (Laub 2012). According to the Associated Press report, the WMF was in the process of training Iraqi authorities on site preservation and attempting to prepare Babylon’s bid for a spot on the UNESCO list when support from the Iraqi government was pulled. This extraction of US archaeological teams in Iraq due to the struggle over the archive has essentially kicked WMF out of any efforts to secure the site for the future.

Qais Rashid, Head of Iraq’s State Board of Antiquities and Heritage indicated in the report that the strained relations was a ‘big loss’ for the department, as US resources were relied upon heavily in training and education in the Iraqi heritage sector.

The situation regarding the archive, and the security of the Babylon site will remain in the balance as rights to ownership and to safeguarding continue to be contested for political purposes.

One of the easiest ways to think about the damaging effects of looting ancient sites is to consider what we stand to lose. Or simply put: what if?

In celebration of Howard Carter’s 138th birthday and his discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun in 1922, a most important point should not be forgotten: what we now know about the young king would be impossible had tomb robbers found the coffin first.

In a 2005 Dig Magazine article, Adrienne J. Donovan of SAFE wrote:

In ancient times, robbers entered Tutankhamun’s tomb twice, but not his coffin. They took what was most valuable at the time, unguents and oils. After it was covered by rubble from the cutting of another tomb, Tut’s tomb was left untouched until Howard Carter began digging in 1922. It is the intactness of the finds and of Tut’s untouched mummy that have allowed the young king to be so well understood today.

 

Untouched by tomb raiders, the artifacts in King Tut’s intact tomb continue to stimulate public interest in ancient Egypt. Rather than “beautiful but dumb”*, the objects speak volumes about the ancient world in general. Among the many possibilities this wealth of information brings, technology can now even deduce what King Tut looked like, impossible to achieve had his tomb been plundered and its contents traded in the illicit antiquities trade

*Professor Clemency Coggins used the term to describe archaeological objects removed out of context. Professor Coggins of Boston University has worked on problems of Cultural Property preservation and law since 1968. She served on the US committee involved in drafting the 1970 UNESCO convention, and worked many years for the US ratification and implementation of the Convention.

On February 28^th NatGeo TV premiered “Diggers” (hosted by the principals at Anaconda Treasure) and on March 21st Spike TV premiered “American Digger,” both reality shows which feature self described treasure hunters who travel around the US shovel in hand. It is important to keep in mind while watching this show that there are Federal, State and Local laws that protect ancient sites and artifacts and they’re there for a reason.  It just isn’t as innocent and simple as these shows make it out to be.

What’s wrong with these shows?

“American Digger” on Spike TV and “Diggers” on NatGeo TV make looking for historical objects something that can be done casually. We don’t perform surgery as a hobby or ride a bike through an art museum; similarly, the historical and cultural remains of the long history of North America, a non-renewable resource which can never be replaced, deserve the attention of professionals and careful handling.

Why are archaeologists the best people to dig for historical remains?

Because they’re trained professionals and it’s their work. Cultural materials in the ground are not there in a vacuum. They are physically embedded within contexts, camp sites, homes, battle fields or settlements, which, when studied thoroughly, can tell us volumes about the people who lived in the past. An archaeologist must train for many years in order to excavate sites and objects in a manner that extracts the most information possible. When an amateur digs in a field to retrieve one metal object or arrow head, the context of that object is destroyed. History has been lost forever.

These shows claim you can make money from what you find. Really?

It depends where you find it. If you find objects on your own property, they are yours and you can do whatever you want with them. On other people’s property; it’s theirs. On municipal, state or federal property or Native American lands, it belongs to the municipality, state, federal government or native corporation.

Spike TV

American Diggers

Isn’t the stuff just rotting in the ground; isn’t finding it saving it?

Most anything that’s been in the soil for more than a few years has already suffered the effects of being buried, especially metal objects. Stone suffers very little damage despite having been buried for long periods of time. Some objects, especially those made of wood, once excavated, need special care to prevent them from disintegrating. This is the work of professional conservators. But, even if such things are suffering from exposure to the soil and weather, this is not a valid argument to take what is not your property.

What is the law?

Responding to concerns about protecting mostly prehistoric Indian ruins and artifacts in the western U.S., Congress enacted the American Antiquities Act of 1906. The law, signed by President Teddy Roosevelt, gives the President authority, by executive order, to set aside certain valuable public natural areas as National Monuments for “… the protection of objects of historic and scientific interest” with the aim of protecting all historic and prehistoric sites on U.S. federal lands and prohibit excavation or destruction of the antiquities these sites contained.

Half a century later, after alarm was raised over the destruction caused by a number of federal highway construction projects in the 1950s, The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 was enacted and has been amended since a number of times. Briefly, the act states that before a federally funded project can proceed on or adjacent to areas which are deemed historically or culturally significant, investigations must proceed to ensure that nothing of significance is destroyed before it can be scientifically studied and preserved.

In 1979, the Archaeological Protection Act (ARPA) was enacted. This legislation improved on the Antiquities Act and increasing the penalties associated with the destruction of ancient sites on public and tribal land. ARPA also prohibits the sale, purchase or transportation within the US or internationally of any materials from publically or native owned archaeological sites.

In 1990, The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, was enacted. In addition to the return of Native American remains from museums and private collections, the act aims to ensure that Native American cultural materials are protected from looting on Federal or tribal lands.

The result of these broad cultural heritage laws is that, in America, on most public land, it is illegal to hunt for treasure. Corresponding legislation exists on the state level as well.

What could happen if you’re caught with stuff found on Federal or Tribal land?

Over the last few years, law enforcement has increasingly cracked down on people who steal artifacts from federal land. For instance, in 2009 a group of artifact hunters were arrested in Utah, Colorado and New Mexico, and their crimes resulted in stiff penalties. In February of 2012, a Philadelphia doctor who stole a mammoth tusk from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska received a $100,000 fine as well as three years probation. Many prosecutions of “treasure hunters” apprehended on protected Civil War Battlefields are on the books. In one notable case, two relic hunters caught at the Gettysburg National Military Park in 2002 were ordered by the judge to pay restitution and place $2,500 worth of advertisements in the local newspaper warning others against the illegal activity.

If you are passionate about history there are archaeological opportunities for you, even if you are not a professional.

Yes! There are more opportunities than you might think; digging at an archaeological site isn’t only for people with PhDs. For opportunities in and around National Parks, the USDA Forrest Service runs a volunteer program called PassPort in Time. Other US and international opportunities can be found with the Archaeological Institute of America. And, many museums and historical societies accept volunteers to work with their collections. Contact the American Association of Museum Volunteers, take a look on line and/or contact your local museum.

Some related links :

2012

Suspected artifact hunters arrested

New Alabama law could mean finders-keepers for historic artifacts found underwater

Lake guards warn against artifact collection

Antiquities Dealer Gets Home Detention, Fines for Illegally Dealing in Indian Artifacts

Artifact recoveries on Civil War shipwreck in time for anniversary

2011

Survey: Addicts looters of U.S. archaeological sites

Digging Deeper: DNR on Artifact hunting laws

Dropping Lake Levels Expose Ancient Artifacts And Looters Have Noticed

Fleetwood man unearths Civil War relics

James River expedition targets Civil War shipwrecks

2010

More are sentenced in Four Corners artifacts case

Archaeological artifacts not to be disturbed, according to law

Treasure hunting on Hilton Head? Town law says to leave those relics alone

2009

Artifact related arrest may7th

Artifacts Sting Stuns Utah Town

Artifact thefts targeted by federal officials

Federal officials aim to halt sale of Native American heritage

Five indicted for theft of Missouri River artifacts

2008

Relic thefts ‘huge crime problem’ in U.S. parks

National parks robbed of heritage

Relic thefts ‘huge crime problem’ in U.S. parks

Thieves steal remains from Civil War-era graves

2007

Treasure hunt: Digging for trouble

2006

Stolen from US history: its artifacts

Stolen artifacts shatter ancient culture

2005

Artifact hunting popular as Missouri River level drops

This link points you to a description of a new “reality” TV show slated to descend on St. Augustine, Florida, and 13 other American cities and towns this year. The gist? Let’s dig up private and public property to unsystematically hunt for “treasure” that can “tell a story of the past.” Cause that’s exactly what archaeology is all about, right?! Apparently, their host “has been digging up artifacts for 20 years, so he’s not some random digger.” What, with a metal detector? This cavalier attitude couched as socially responsible television is even more disturbing to me. Further telling to me is the statement by St. Augustine city archaeologist Carl Halbirt that the property owners he’s spoken with (independent of those eventually selected for the show) are “interested in the archaeology and preserving the past and that’s what we’re trying to do with a systematic approach.”

Most likely, some of these very same property owners have been part of direct negotiations related to past and ongoing cultural heritage management projects and salvage excavations…actual, systematic archaeology in other words. Apparently, the show’s producer has had her hands in several other “reality TV” winners, such as “Super Nanny” and “Reality Hell.” Does this bode well for the prospects of this show treating archaeology and history with any kind of respect? I doubt it… I hope that the networks will take a good, long look at the merits of this show before agreeing to host it, including independent evaluations of premise and practice by the archaeological community. Only time will tell… The St. Augustine Record has kindly provided the email address and phone number of the casting producer.

After 20 years since its passage as federal law on November 16, 1990 the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) is still capable of sparking off controversies and fiery debates among American Indians, cultural institutions, and academics.

December 12th 2010, with a very much trite titles when it comes to Native American repatriation issues, “Bones of Contention”, the New York Times published in its Opinion Page a contribution by Robert L. Kelly, professor of anthropology with the University of Wyoming who alarmingly warned that the final rule enacted by the U.S. Department of Interior on March 15, 2010 regarding the disposition of Native American culturally unidentifiable human remains will “destroy a crucial source of knowledge about North American history and halt a dialogue between scientists and Indian tribes that has been harmonious and enlightening”.

NAGPRA defines two typologies of Native American human remains: culturally affiliated and culturally unidentifiable. Culturally affiliated human remains are those who can be linked, historically or prehistorically, to a present day Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization through a relationship of shared group identity. These remains are repatriated to the lineal descendant or tribe, and then, usually, laid to rest finally in peace.

Culturally unidentifiable human remains are those for whom, although determined to be Native American, no lineal descendant or culturally affiliated present-day Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization can, for different reasons, be determined.

In order to address the rights of Native Americans to – and out of respect for – those ancestral remains, and in agreement with the intent of NAGPRA, the DOI published on October 2007 a proposed rule for the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains, inviting public comments that actually arrived from a number of Indian tribes and organizations, museums, cultural and scientific organizations, federal entities, even the general public.

Thus, after many years of consultation, and three years of discussions and revisions, the enacted final rule states the following: if there is no request from an Indian tribe regarding culturally unidentifiable human remains, a museum or federal agency must initiate consultation with officials and traditional religious leaders of all Indian tribes from whose tribal land or aboriginal land the human remains were removed. The consultation may include Indian groups that are not-federally recognized, but are known to have a shared group identity with the human remains at issue, at discretion of the museum or federal agency.

The repatriation of culturally unidentifiable human remains must follow these priorities: 1. Indian tribes from whose tribal land, at the time of excavation, the remains were removed; 2. Indian tribe or tribes aboriginal to the area from which the remains were removed; 3. Other Indian tribe who accept to take care of the disposition of the remains; 4. not-federally recognized tribe. Finally, if none of the above cases happens, the museum or federal agency may reinter the human remains according to State or other law. Whatever the final disposition, the museum or federal agency must prove that all Indian tribes involved in the consultation have agreed with the final disposition.

The notion of cultural affiliation, as intended and applied within NAGPRA boundaries and scopes, although still embedding the baggage of colonial history and population classification, acknowledges American Indian past and shared collective memory/memories as “history”, making them equal, for example, to archaeological evidence, considered just “one of several type of relevant information or expert opinion that must be considered in determining whether cultural affiliation can be established”. Once again, the battle revolves around ownership and interpretation of other people’s cultural heritage, and not so often museum curators, archaeologists, anthropologists are willing to acknowledge that members of the American Indian communities are also “experts”, not merely informants, and have the right to claim their own cultural patrimony, not to mention the remains of their ancestors who are, let be clear, not an archaeological resource, property of the United States, as someone has suggested. As Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh, curator of anthropology at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science has written in response to Robert Kelly’s affirmations: “The carefully wrought dialogue that has developed over the last two decades is not threatened by the new regulations. Rather, it is threatened by those who continue to see repatriation as the end of archaeology, instead of a new beginning of collaborative stewardship of Native American history.”

Photo: Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe members carrying the remains of tribal ancestors into the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe’s Nibokaan Ancestral Cemetery, November 2010 ©Central Michigan University

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).

All too often, debates about cultural property are made to look simply like battles between curators/collectors/dealers and archaeologists. In an article published in Studies in Honor of Altan Çilingiroglu. A Life Dedicated to Urartu on the Shores of the Upper Sea, Eds. H. Saglamtimur, et al. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari, Istanbul, 2009, “The Fifth Column Within the Archaeological Realm: The Great Divide,” Dr. Oscar White Muscarella looks at the network of plunder in all the complexity it deserves, and pays special attention to an overlooked accomplice in the continued destruction of the past.

According to Muscarella there are four visible mutually supporting columns operating within the realm of “Plunder Culture.” These groups, in order, are: on-site looters or tombaroli, smugglers and local dealers, professional antiquities dealers, and lastly, wealthy collectors, including museums and universities, both public and private.

Cultural heritage may be endangered most, however, by the fifth invisible column whose members are within the archaeological community. Muscarella illustrates the ways in which professional archaeologists facilitate Plunder Culture, and their participation does not just include the more obvious examples of performing authenticity evaluations for wealthy collectors. Members of the archaeological community also enable plunder by accepting money, invitations, committee memberships and appointments from fourth column institutions with dishonorable acquisition policies and compromised attitudes toward the value of context.

The hypocrisy in these affiliations has yet to be broadly acknowledged by the media and by the field of archaeology. The members of the fifth column have yet to be publicly denounced, and as a result:

They continue to flourish, their activities proceed successfully and unabated, they get awarded – revealing that the discipline of archaeology has no comprehensive sense of itself, no unclouded self-knowledge, no awareness of its moral and academic weakness.

Muscarella is unafraid to name names (of both the good and bad, the individuals and institutions) and avoids ambiguous and ineffective discourse about the problems of cultural property. He urges archaeologists to reconsider the consequences of their professional, academic, and personal associations, and to those who consider themselves clean, he urges active participation in the protection of cultural heritage.

To join Dr. Muscarella’s SAFE tour at the Metropolitan Museum on Friday, October 23 at 6:30 PM, you can buy tickets from our website.

The book’s cover promises a thrilling and true story surrounding the shady deals of the underground. However, the author only partly delivers on this promise. The Lost Chalice follows the history of several key players in the drama that surrounded one of the more famous pieces of ancient craftsmanship to be discovered in recent times. This piece is none other than a spectacular red-figure Attic krater (something like a broad vase) created by a preeminent Greek painter and potter by the name of Euphronios. The book provides an admirable level of information about the history of this and other related works, and the methods by which they were created. Silver does not bore with too much detail, but suceeds in making his descriptions of the works, their subject matter, and the period in which they were created interesting and helpful.

Unfortunately, once the story began to dive deep into the complex world of tomb raiding, it also began to become less clear. To some degree this effect may simply be due to the reviewer’s relative lack of experience with the world of antiquities. However, the convoluted relationships between tomb raiders, art dealers, collectors, and museum staff often remained just so. It was also sometimes difficult to keep track of which artifact was being followed and described at a given moment due to the fact that the story followed additional ancient works (such as the chalice of the title, also referred to as a “kylix”), some made by Euphronios and some by others, but all of which (to a novice) sometimes seem very similar. All of this added to the mystery surrounding the pieces and the process, but it also sadly made the action somewhat difficult to keep straight at times.

Even so, Silver provides stunning amounts of detail, sometimes even for items quite unrelated to the plotline. This attention to specifics effectively put the reader in the moment, and demonstrated the author’s dedication to uncovering all the information he possibly could about the pieces and the players (both reputable and less so) involved in the artifact deals.

This is the book’s true focus: on the winding and sometimes mysterious path of Euphronios’ priceless work(s). The krater was unearthed in the 1970s in Italy, after about 2,400 years of undisturbed rest. From there it began its new life in the underground network of tomb raiders and art dealers. Kept often in hiding, smuggled into other countries, bought and sold, and eventually prominently displayed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the piece was eventually returned to Italy in 2008 under a landmark arrangement that helped set the stage for more judicious treatment of ancient artifacts. This unprecedented event was forcibly caused by the dogged determination of a few groups of investigators and officials (who themselves were not always spotless in behavior). This relatively new development will hopefully further decrease the incentive to conduct illegal digs that disrupt the ability of researchers to fully grasp the meaning and importance of historical finds.

It is here, that the story could have done more than simply create an entertaining crime drama. While noting the importance of “proper” archaeology to uncovering critical details about archaeological finds, the style of the book causes this to feel like mere lip service to the idea. Silver generally appears to be more interested in telling a thrilling adventure story that surrounds the acquisition of artifacts than anything else. Indeed, in many instances throughout the book, one may find oneself “rooting” for the underworld characters – those people robbing the world of the opportunity to fully appreciate the heritage and knowledge that might be found in an archaeological site.

The police and other representatives of “the law” come off as the oppressors in many instances (or even simply co-conspirators who turn a blind eye). Even the mediocre application of these laws intended to prevent looting is portrayed as more of an impediment to be overcome, than a guide for the proper course of action. Silver does note that most countries have had laws respecting the discovery of ancient artifacts, but that until recent decades these were only inconsistenly enforced, and with moderate success. The adventure surrounding the “lost chalice” and it’s relatives may shed additional light upon the problems that are associated with tomb raiding and illicit artifact dealing, but the message certainly could have been more strongly conveyed.

The people associated with the clearly illegal elements of the story were not necessarily portrayed in a positive light, but they did often make sympathetic characters (particularly the principal raider – Giacomo Medici). Silver did leave one with the feeling that the times have changed, and that the pool for illicit deals is drying up. Many (if not most) of the items discussed in The Lost Chalice have, in fact, been repatriated to their countries of discovery, or are still the subject of legal battles and negotiations to do so. In that way, perhaps this story will continue to help spur awareness of these issues and encourage people to think twice about engaging in the purchase of items with questionable provenance. Unfortunately for the artifacts that have already been the subject of looting, there is no way of knowing what information has been forever lost as a result.

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

Worshiping Women: Ritual and Reality in Classical Athens launched in December 2008 at the Onassis Cultural Center is an exhibition composed primarily of loans from foreign institutions and museums and will be open until May 9, 2009. The introductory plaque at the beginning of the exhibition informs us that “religious rituals defined women.” The visitor is led through galleries focusing on priesthood, the cycle of life, festivals, heroines, and goddesses. Each section looks at the imagery on vases, marble stelai, or statues in order to reveal insights into the world of Classical Athenian women. Particularly intriguing is the realization of how much money it would have cost to ship these priceless artifacts from their museums to mid-town Manhattan. Loans from the British Museum, the Louvre, Italy, Berlin, and Boston among other locations fill the cases in addition to loans from the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Organization is credited to the Onassis Public Benefit Foundation in collaboration with the National Archaeological Museum in Athens, curated by Dr. Nikolaos Kaltsas and Dr. Alan Shapiro.

As a graduate student in Museum Studies, I wish that the exhibition would have informed us about the state of fragmentation of the conserved artifacts and pottery displayed. Multiple breaks and missing fragments attest to the destruction of objects caused by clandestine excavations and their subsequent illegal export. I imagine that visitors, too, might wonder about the state of preservation of these objects on display. To be sure, some labels do reference that objects were acquired through confiscation within Greece. Several pieces from the National Archaeological Museum in Athens bear labels that read: “acquired by confiscation” or “confiscated from Zoumboulakis in 1938” (NAM 16346 and NAM 17297 respectively). This adds a whole new and important dimension to the display. It shows that Greece has been pro-active in protecting its cultural heritage. It does seem like a lost opportunity, however, not to have provided further information about the circumstances of the recovery of these objects. The general public would have benefited from learning about ongoing efforts to combat the illicit antiquities market.

Somewhat disturbing is one design choice in the exhibition in which two objects are treated as interior decorative elements rather than as material culture from a past and complex society. Two Hellenistic funerary columns, the sacred and lasting memorials through which the lives of priestesses—Habryllis and Mneso— were commemorated, have been built into faux-architectural columns within the exhibition space. (Cat. Nos. 82 and 83, NAM Γ 1727 and EM 11144) This looks more like a decorator’s trick from an Upper East Side townhouse than an appropriate display for what are, after all, funerary memorials commemorating actual lives lived.

The success of the exhibition manifests the importance of giving audiences access to extraordinary objects from the past. Comments such as, “It looks contemporary, it’s fascinating!” could be heard reverberating throughout the gallery on the days I visited. Broad public interest in ancient Greek women and religion was peaked just a few years ago with the publication of Joan Breton Connelly’s book, Portrait of a Priestess: Women and Ritual in Ancient Greece, winner of the Archaeological Institute of America’s James Wiseman Book Prize and added to the New York Times Book Review list of “Notable Books of 2007.” Connelly was approached by the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago and spent a term there as a Visiting Fellow in Anthropology to undertake a feasibility study for turning her book into a traveling exhibition. In preparation for her show on Greek Priestesses, which had been anticipated for 2011-12, Connelly taught a course at New York University in the spring semester of 2008. I was lucky enough to be a student in the seminar: “The Lost History of Greek Priestesses: Curating an Exhibition.” Nineteen graduate and undergraduate students were encouraged to implement innovative ideas to create contextual galleries tracking the female experience of Greek ritual from childhood, through maidenhood, to maturity and death. Special galleries focused on women in the theater and on the Delphic Oracle, all placing women and priestesses in their full social and cultural contexts. Students labored with the hope that their work would find culmination in a future exhibition at the Field Museum of Natural History, one that would travel to venues on the East and West coasts and on to Greece. A museum of Natural History would have provided an ideal setting for a show that emphasized the human narrative of Greek ritual as well as the archaeological and anthropological contexts that inform us about it. Unfortunately for the students in our class, “Worshiping Women” has preempted the “Greek Priestesses” exhibition, duplicating much of the checklist of objects gathered in Portrait of a Priestess. While this has put our class show in jeopardy, one can only hope that one day the pieces will be allowed to travel again for the kind of exhibition designed in our seminar.

As a student from the class, I have an intimate knowledge of the works, their meaning, and how they have strengthened our understanding of the lives of women. Looking at the exhibition “Worshiping Women,” and its traditional art historical display, I cannot help but wonder what the impact of these pieces might have been had they been shown through an anthropological lens, focusing on the human narrative of their ancient contexts and meanings. Artifacts with known context, like the Rhamnous stele, provide insight, but the provenience of most other pieces is lost to us, in many cases forcing an object to remain just another pretty pot.

Another colloquium presented at the upcoming AIA Meeting organized by a member of SAFE Blythe Bowman who authored “Plunder of antiquities: A crime of global proportions” for the SAFE website is “Crimes Against Culture: Perspectives on Archaeological Site Looting and the Illicit Antiquities Trade”

Session Abstract
Illegal digging at archaeological sites and the trade in illicitly-obtained art and antiquities represent serious threats to the preservation of cultural heritage. Art and antiquities trafficking, largely fueled by the looting of archaeological sites, is a multi-billion dollar industry in which organized criminal and even terrorist networks have reportedly become deeply involved. These activities represent but a few such “crimes against culture,” which generally refers to criminally punishable acts involving works of cultural significance and includes phenomena as diverse as faked and forged antiquities, vandalism, illicit excavation, and illicit export of art, antiquities and other archaeological materials. This colloquium explores a fascinating variety of these crimes against culture, bringing together experts from within and beyond archaeology who are concerned about the preservation of cultural heritage. These papers examine these issues from economic, legal, criminological, and law enforcement perspectives:

• Cultural Property Crime in the 21st Century

• Economic analyses of the antiquities market

• Looting at Archaeological Sites in Global Perspective: Nature, Scope, and Frequency of the Problem

• ARPA to Xenophobia – A friendly primer for the archaeologist on laws which protect antiquities and their limitations

The goals of this colloquium are three: first, to provide fresh perspectives from within and beyond archaeology on the problems of looting and the illicit antiquities trade; second, to provide a forum in which such perspectives can come together and foster a more comprehensive understanding of cultural heritage issues; lastly, to provide a forum in which scholars and practitioners from within and beyond archaeology can come together and share concerns, ideas, and recommendations for the future of archaeological resources and global cultural heritage.

This colloquium session abides by the AIA Statement of Compliance. Click on “Read more” for paper details.

Individual Presentation Abstracts

Name: Bonnie Magness-Gardiner, Program Manager
Institution: FBI, Art Theft Program
Title: Cultural Property Crime in the 21st Century
Abstract: The illicit trade in art and cultural artifacts is a major category of international crime, including art theft, art fraud, and pillaging of archaeological sites. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) established the Art Crime Team in 2004 in order to facilitate investigation of these crimes. Since its inception, the Art Crime Team recovered approximately 850 items of cultural property with a value of over $134 million. In addition to recovery of stolen art and investigation of theft and artifact trafficking, the FBI also investigates fraud and forgery. The art world offers numerous opportunities criminal activity of this sort. Here I will discuss FBI cases that illustrate how cultural property crimes are uncovered, how they are investigated, and the role of experts in the process.

———————————————————————————————————

Neil Brodie
Archaeology Center
Stanford University
“Economic analyses of the antiquities market”
Methods for analyzing long-term economic trends in the art market are now well-developed, but to date they have not been applied to the antiquities market. The published results of the major auction houses do provide longitudinal data relating to the antiquities market, though they are hard to acquire and provide only an indirect reflection of total economic activity. In this paper I will report on a three-year project that has been aimed at collecting comprehensive auction statistics and consider how these statistics might be used to explore the economic structure of the antiquities market. Primary research questions include:

i) Is it possible to identify flows of looted and/or fake antiquities?
ii) Is it possible to monitor the effectiveness of legal or ethical responses?
iii) Do provenanced antiquities sell for higher prices than unprovenanced antiquities?
iv) How true are claims that antiquities collecting is a good investment strategy?
——————————————————————————————————————–

Robert E. Goldman,Esq.
Chair of Art Law Practice Group
Fox Rothschild LLP
Former federal prosecutor for 19 years in Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Former legal adviser to the FBI Art Crime Team
2006 recipient of the Smithsonian Burke Award for Cultural Property Protection
Presentation: ARPA to Xenophobia – A friendly primer for the archaeologist on laws which protect antiquities and their limitations

As the international market in antiquities increases on a global scale, nations, museums and collectors are locked in a debate as to whether laws should be strengthened or made less restrictive which focus on the lawfulness of the trade in objects of cultural heritage. Respectable spokesmen for their relative positions feverishly debate whether antiquities are better protected by the increase of national patrimony laws or the acquisition of objects by international museums and collectors.

As we ponder the pillage of archaeological sites and the dispersal of antiquities to places unknown, archaeologists are left to consider what role, if any, they should play in legal efforts to combat the illicit trade. Although all archaeologists recognize the need for site protection of archaeological sites, not all members of the community are aware of both the power of, and limitations on, the legal efforts to protect objects of cultural heritage. With an increased knowledge of what is required for law enforcement to not only initiate an investigation but also to prosecute the offender and recover the antiquity, the archaeologist is better armed to make decisions as to whether and how to assist in an investigation.

Drawing upon his experience as a federal prosecutor who focused on art and antiquity offenses and as a civil litigator in an art law practice, the speaker combines legal discussion with examples of successful prosecutions and recoveries. The intended goal of the presentation is to assist the archaeologist better understand the laws in place, the role of the scientific community in assisting law enforcement and the increasing stage of civil litigation in recovering antiquities.

——————————————-

Blythe Bowman
University of Nebraska at Omaha
School of Criminology & Criminal Justice
Paper: Looting at Archaeological Sites in Global Perspective: Nature, Scope, and Frequency of the Problem

Among archaeologists, the looting of archaeological sites is regarded as one of the most pervasive and troublesome types of theft. Within a criminological framework, research on looting has focused on the “demand” end of the problem; e.g., collectors, museums, dealers, and auction houses. My study departs from previous research in that it focuses on the “source” end of the trafficking problem: theft from archaeological sites. This study is the first attempt to collect systematic information about archaeological theft and the illicit antiquities trade by means of a large international sample of archaeologists (n= 2,358) and focuses on archaeologists’ opinions about and personal experiences with looting and archaeological site destruction. My study is the first attempt to collect systematic information from the “source” end of things on such a massive, global scale. I present key findings from this study, which aims to broaden and refine our understanding of the global nature, scope, and frequency of looting and archaeological site destruction. (Photo: www.epcc.edu)

Zahi Hawass is one of the most famous and popularly known archaeologists in the world. Hawass’ stardom among the general public is almost comparable to that of the fictional Indiana Jones; he has recently raised over $500,000 for a children’s museum by selling replicas of his own signature style “explorer hat” in conjunction with the traveling King Tut tour. CNN.com has posted a video outlining how his passion for archaeology developed, his duties as Egypt’s head of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, his plans for a large new museum, and his efforts to repatriate stolen Egyptian antiquities.

A week ago there was good news in conservation circles which in the view of some of us has potential significance for the antiquities trade. An announcement was made that since a lot of fresh material was dishonestly being passed off as old ivory, from the new year a major Internet auction portal was banning the sale of objects ivory altogether. This was a recognition that the poaching is directly encouraged by the ease with which illicit products can be misrepresented as legitimate and bought and sold globally. In this the Internet auction and sale sites play a major role – the campaign slogan called it “killing by keystrokes”. The parallels between the unregulated antiquities market and the dismembering of the world’s archaeological record as a source of collectables for entertainment and profit is clear.
In a blog posting last week I asked where are the archaeological and heritage lobby groups insisting that the same sales outlets “take the same sort of measures to protect the world’s archaeological heritage from being similarly dismembered?” Still sleeping it seems. In Britain for example organizations concerned with the conservation of the archaeological resource have been slow to take up the torch. The Council For British Archaeology has said nothing on the topic yet, the Institute For Archaeologists (as it now is) likewise, the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers UK (ALGAO) also. From past history RESCUE seems unlikely to be concerned. The Portable Antiquities Scheme has so far made no public mention that it intends to pursue a similar policy for documentless portable antiquities. On the Britarch archaeological discussion forum, there has been virtual silence on the issue. Only one archaeological forum in Britain has raised it. On the British Archaeological Jobs & Resources (BAJR) forum Scottish pro-
collecting archaeologist David Connolly (‘BAJR’) calls for a ban on the sale of antiquities without properly documented provenance. He writes:

It seems that Ebay can ban sales if it comes under enough pressure… so what about antiquities? […] Come on EBay… you know you can… And no… I don’t mean NO sale… I mean properly regulated and transparent.

The point is however that its no use calling on eBay “come on eBay, you know you can” without a strong, persistent and loud lobbying campaign from those who care enough to mount one – like the conservationists fighting for the elephant. Would British archaeologists actually lobby for this, or are they content to leave alone the thoroughly disreputable state of the home antiquities market for fear of alienating the “metal detectorists” who currently sometimes bring them finds to look at?

At the moment it is independent organizations like SAFE and Heritage Action in the UK which are actively calling for something to be done, and professional archaeological organizations like those mentioned above are sitting back passively almost as if they are waiting for the fuss about portable antiquities collecting to stop. Where are the successors of the campaigning archaeologists of the so-called “Rescue Years”?

A new policy for the selling of archaeological materials on ebay.de (Germany) went into effect on July 1, 2008 (Press Release from eBay.de: “Neuer eBay-Grundsatz zum Handel mit archäologischen Funden,” 1 July 2008). A link in the press release provides full details on the new rules (“Grundsatz zu archäologischen Funden“).

The new policy defines “archaeological finds” as follows:

“An archaeological find is an object of historical, artistic or scientific importance, which laid for a time in the ground or under water.”

“Ein archäologischer Fund ist ein Objekt von geschichtlicher, künstlerischer oder wissenschaftlicher Bedeutung, der vorübergehend im Boden oder unter Wasser ruhte.”

It continues in providing non-exclusive examples of certain objects covered by the new policy, which include:

• coins (Münzen)
• weapons (Waffen)
• grave goods (Grabbeigaben)
• ceramics (Keramik)
• jewelry (Schmuck)
• tools (Werkzeuge)
• sacral objects (sakrale Gegenstände).

Appended to the list are also items of geological and paleontological importance: fossilized animal and plant remnants and minerals (tierische und pflanzliche Überreste der Erdgeschichte (Fossilien); Mineralien).

The new policy requires sellers of antiquities to provide documentation (pedigree) for their auctions and to picture and describe it within the auction. For example, an object must have a document demonstrating that the find was reported to the ministry or have a history of being in the trade before going to auction at Ebay. Items originating from other countries must have a valid export license. For full details on each category of documentation and what the seller must provide (and how the seller can obtain such documents), see the new policy.

Ebay.de (Germany) should be applauded for being more sensitive to the role it has played in the illicit trade in antiquities and taking proactive steps to diminish its use as a market for recently looted material.

Internet auction platforms, such as Ebay, play an important part in the trade of recently looted material. For a general essay see Chippindale, C. and D.W. J. Gill, “Online Auctions: A New Venue for the Antiquities Market,” Culture Without Context 9.

Cross-Posted at Numismatics and Archaeology: “Ebay.de (Germany): New Rules on the Selling of Archaeological Materials“

I have critiqued the goals, motives, and tactics of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) several times (those unfamiliar with the ACCG are urged to consult a list of some relevant web-postings at the end of this discussion). For those who do not know, the ACCG is a 501 (c) 4 organization to which financial contributions are not normally tax deductible since up to 100% of its funds can be used for the purposes of political lobbying. According to its website, the goal of of the ACCG is to maintain a “free-market” in all coins. It has lobbied against legislative measures designed to protect archaeological and historical sites from destruction. A possible financial motive for its activities may be apparent in the fact that its founder and most of its officers are ancient coin dealers, and the majority of its financial contributors (especially the larger contributors) are ancient coin and antiquities dealers and auction houses.

In November of last year, the ACCG announced it was suing the U.S. Department of State under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for more transparency on the process under which it decided to impose import restrictions, at the request of Cyprus, on certain ancient coins of Cypriot type. Many who are familiar with the “blogstorm” last fall about these issues will recall that several vocal ACCG members and dealers were alleging various conspiracies between archaeologists and State Department officials( links here and here to relevant posts, some of which reference dealer accusations). A “benefit auction” for which the ACCG has been soliciting donations, which it will auction on August 17, 2008, has now sparked my interest.

…Read the rest of the post at Numismatics and Archaeology: “The ‘ACCG Benefit Auction’ and Intrinsic Interests.”

In Archaeology‘s Insider: Guardians of Antiquity? Roger Atwood, a SAFE Beacon Award Winner for his book Stealing History: Tomb Raiders, Smugglers and the Looting of the Ancient World shares his views on James Cuno’s “Who Owns Antiquity,” previously reviewed here by Lawrence Rothfield in James Cuno’s Illogic.

Roger Atwood led the first SAFE Tours at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston.

The 2008 SAFE Global Candlelight Vigil was officially launched last week.

Last year 20 different groups from around the world took part in the vigil, commemorating the tragedy in a variety of ways and places. You can read about it here or look at photos from some of the vigils here.

This year marks the fifth anniversary of the looting of the Iraq Museum and there will be even more opportunities to take part: host a vigil, attend a vigil or light a virtual candle to show your support. Visit the SAFE website for details.

The following article is published at the request of its author, Mehiyar Kathem, who has recently completed a MSc in Development Management at the London School of Economics (LSE) and is currently fundraising for the Cultural Heritage Awareness Initiative (CHAI) – a project of the Baghdad based education focused NGO, the Culture For All (CFA) – www.cultureforall.org

One of the greatest tragedies of history has been the systematic looting of most of the 10,000 registered archaeological sites and monuments in Iraq. Our knowledge of Iraq is largely punctuated by events of the past twenty five years – that of the first Gulf War, the sanctions, and now nearly five years into the West’s disastrous escapade, the US led invasion of 2003. But what we do not get to see on the news is a tragedy much larger than the war. Armed and organised gangs, many of them contracted by wealthy Western clients, are systematically looting Iraq’s cultural and archaeological heritage. In the past five years, we forgot that the war has ransacked the house of the first civilisations known to exist – Sumaria, Assyria and Babylon.

Billions of dollars have poured into making Iraq secure and democratic but only a small portion of funds has gone to preserving and protecting its archaeological heritage. Democracy is necessarily about rights – and the rights of civilisations past and present have to be respected, including our human right to understand the past. It is ironic that while human rights promotion has been high on the agenda of so many international NGOs focusing on Iraq so little focus has been on asserting Iraqi’s right to their country’s cultural heritage. Unfortunately for history much is at loss. While the past 100 years has uncovered only a small fraction of the country’s archaeological riches, some of which looted at the Baghdad museum in the ensuing chaos of 2003, much remains to be discovered and understood of a history spanning 8,000 years. We may never know how many Gilgamesh like epics have been lost. As March 2008 marks the five-year anniversary of the war, we are forgetting that it also marks five years of one of the greatest catastrophes to befall humanity. In another five years, we will be marking the ten-year anniversary, and yet again our arrogance for understanding the meaning of life through past civilisations that gave us the wheel and the written word, will continue to blind us from the actions we need to take to protect the cultural heritage of what rightfully belongs to all civilisations and peoples of the world.

Protecting Iraq’s archaeological heritage is essentially about civic engagement and public education rather than only the capacity building workshops in four-star hotels. For protection is not only equipping Iraqi academics with best practices, but about implementing public education programmes and engaging communities within the country. Any action necessarily requires over the next few years support to the credible, legitimate and sufficiently grounded community based organisations to spur people into building local protection schemes. Local strategic communication is essential in this process but so is creating the incentives so that tribal and community leaders understand that safeguarding the sites is a tool by which to rebuild Iraq and preserve its rich history. While this may need the help of a government Ministry, relying on the Iraqi Ministry of Culture to help may actually end up delaying what is urgently needed – Iraq would be left with just broken fragments of looted artefacts before any assistance or national protection programme is tabled. Since it is quite obvious that the Ministry’s priorities lie elsewhere grass-root campaigning is the surest way to pressure the government into devising a national protection strategy, educating and raising awareness amongst the general public.

Iraq is said to be a dangerous country to work in. But one should not forget that it is still home to more than twenty six million Iraqis and to effective grass-root NGOs, academics and functioning universities. In a new initiative to be announced in May, the British Army in the South of the country in co-operation with the British Museum will focus on what Western experts can do to help reduce the systematic looting in the sector. All good, but again the same mistakes are being repeated. It is just another effort concentrated within academic circles between the West and Iraq. Unless efforts address the deficiency of civic engagement initiatives with the general public, we should not be surprised to see the continuation of the monumental looting taking place in the country.

Department of Antiquities, Cyprus

Coin from the ancient City-Kingdom of Idalion (460-450 BC); Side 1: seated sphinx, a flower and greek letters; Side 2: lotus flower, an ivy leaf and a sheep/goat nucklebone

In light of the recent decision to include ancient coins on the list of import restrictions, Jessica Dietzler conducted the following interview with Dr. Pavlos Flourentzos, Director of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus, about the significance of the decision and why it is important to safeguarding the cultural heritage of Cyprus.

The Government of Cyprus has ratified several international binding treaties in order to safeguard its cultural heritage. In 2002 (Federal Register Vol. 67; 139), the Governments of the United States and Cyprus entered into a bilateral agreement concerning Import Restrictions Imposed on Pre-Classical and Classical Archaeological Material Originating in Cyprus. As recently as July 16, 2007 (Federal Register Vol. 72; 134), the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was extended another five years and includes an amendment for the addition of ancient coins to the list of import restrictions.

It should be noted that the inclusion of coins on the list is the first of its kind in the history of bilateral agreements between the United States and a foreign government. The State Department’s decision has met with heated reactions. Some leaders of the coin dealer lobby believe that it heralds the eventual end of dealing and collecting activities. Recently, the American Coin Collector’s Guild (ACCG) has filed suit against the US State Department.

For those who are interested in learning more about why coins are important in the archaeological record, please see Coins and Archaeology and a recent SAFE feature article by Nathan Elkins.

Jessica Dietzler

“Temple of Apollo Hylates” Kourion, Cyprus

JD: Dr. Flourentzos, thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to participate in this interview. The recent renewal of the MOU between the United States and Cyprus is a significant development for both countries. The inclusion of ancient coins figures prominently in the renewal, and has been the subject of intense debate. Clearly, coins occupy an important space in the corpus of scientific archaeological data. When scientifically excavated, they have the potential to help us reconstruct ancient political, economic and social environments. Why are Cypriot coins so important, to include them on the list of import restrictions? Is it because textual evidence regarding the island’s history is so rare, or are there other reasons?

PF: First of all, allow me to thank you warmly for the opportunity you are giving me to communicate with your readers. We deeply appreciate the decision of the Department of State to include ancient Cypriot coins in the MOU. This act shows sensitivity to the importance of preserving world cultural heritage, a principle highly esteemed by the international scientific community.

You have very rightly pointed out that coins are an essential part of the corpus of the archaeological data. Actually, there is no scientific reason to set coins apart from the rest of archaeological finds. And it is important to understand that there is no way of retrieving coins without destroying the stratigraphy of a site.

You would be surprised, but the truth is that coins are of much greater historical importance for Cyprus, than maybe other countries like Greece and Italy. The reason for this is that Cyprus lacks the abundance of rich ancient written sources other areas of the Mediterranean and the Near East enjoy. The plethora of texts of Classical Greece, for example, that have come down to us range from philosophy and science to everyday life problems. These are valuable sources for the history of this area. Cyprus is not that rich in such texts, so the Cypriot coins are especially important for the attempts of reconstructing the history of ancient Cyprus.

JD: Critics of the recent agreement with Cyprus contend that there is no substantive proof of significant looting of coins on the island. Have ancient coins been looted from Cyprus to any significant degree?

PF: Only a few days ago (first half of October 2007) the police of the Republic of Cyprus in collaboration with the Department of Antiquities managed to arrest a group of five smugglers who had a significant number of Cypriot antiquities in their possession, including several dozens of coins. According to the testimony police managed to gather, two of the smugglers were foreigners and they were planning to export and sell the antiquities outside the island.

The Department of Antiquities has collaborated with the police in quite a few cases in arresting people with metal detectors in archaeological sites, excavating for coins. I am referring to just a few cases of the recent years.

JD: Can you cite any specific instances of ancient Cypriot coins being looted and smuggled out of the island?

PF: On June 2002 in Italy the police managed to arrest a civilian who illegally had in her possession a hoard of 149 silver coins of the ancient Cypriot kingdom of Amathus, a city- state of the southwestern coast of the island of Cyprus. The Italian government returned these coins to the Republic of Cyprus. This case helped also the Italian police to trace an enormous amount of Roman coins excavated unlawfully in Italy.

JD: The collecting of ancient coins is a very popular hobby; ancient coins are also incredibly valuable, monetarily, in the worldwide antiquities market. Some supporters of coin collecting have proposed “responsible” collecting. Do you think it might be possible for coin collectors to collect ancient coins “responsibly” without contributing to the irreversible and destructive process of looting?

PF: There is no way for non-professionals to excavate coins at a site without destroying the archaeological context and the stratigraphy of the site. In the Antiquities Law of the Republic of Cyprus there is a special article for the protection of the stratigraphy of every archaeological site. In contemporary archaeology the ultimate value is context and not any isolated artifact. Thus, destroying stratigraphy to retrieve a coin is equal to destroying archaeology.

I am afraid that arguments about “responsible” collecting are based on the nineteenth century—and thus completely out of date—tradition when it was thought that archaeology is a pleasant pastime that anyone could “enjoy”. In the decades that have elapsed, the gradual transformation of archaeology from a pastime to a science has proved the essential difference between looting and scientific excavation.

JD: The UNESCO International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property states in Article 1 that ”Professional traders in cultural property will not import, export or transfer the ownership of this property when they have reasonable cause to believe it has been stolen, alienated, clandestinely excavated or illegally exported.” What if, let’s say, a dealer decides that there is no “reasonable cause” to believe a certain item is illegal. With all of the multilateral and bilateral ratified treaties in place to safeguard cultural heritage, should we still depend on the personal discretion of individual dealers, whose attentiveness may vary?

PF: Your remarks are of great importance. It is obvious that the international archaeological community in collaboration with political authorities should continue their efforts to create and enact multilateral and bilateral treaties so that the world’s cultural heritage is not left at the mercy of just anyone. In this sense, I would like to thank once again the Department of State which agreed that coins should be included in the MOU.

JD: Are dealers’ activities monitored? If not, should they be?

PF: In the Republic of Cyprus yes, the dealers´ activities are monitored. There is a special article in the Antiquities Law [see section 31.VII.26] about dealers. I should stress that during the last decades our policy is to grant no new license for antiquities dealing.

JD: Many coin dealers and collectors assert that they are the protagonists disseminating historical information to the public, claiming that the public needs to understand the importance of ancient history and artifacts through lively and colorful presentations that ‘narrow,’ ‘dead’ academics and archaeologists cannot provide. Another claim is that coin collectors offer the public the chance to experience ‘hands-on’ study of ancient history, a “cultural contribution” that museums cannot make. What is your opinion of this?

PF: It is true that there is a need for some museums to become more lively, more visitor-friendly. The “hands-on” learning method is part of the methodology of modern museology and it has been applied in many European museum programs. The dissemination of archaeological knowledge to the public is one of the main objectives of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus and we try to do this with many ways and methods.   One should honestly admit that private collecting does not help bring historical information to a wide audience. Museums accessible to the general public are better at spreading historical and archaeological knowledge. So the real need is to transform museums to lively organizations. People who are really interested in contributing to the dissemination of knowledge could do this through support of museums.

I should add here that the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus, recognizing the need to monitor private antiquities collections, has granted the opportunity to collectors to declare their collections two times in the past, in 1973 and 1996. It should be stressed that the Cypriot Antiquities Law acknowledges possession but not ownership of antiquities.

JD: What sorts of problems does the occupation of northern Cyprus by the Turkish army since 1974 pose for the Department of Antiquities? Has the Department been able to exercise its authority in the northern occupied territory?

PF: The northern part of the island is illegally occupied by the Turkish army since 1974. This occupation is illegal according to all UN resolutions. The occupied part is still part of the Republic of Cyprus. When the Republic of Cyprus was accepted as a member state of the European Union in 2004, the northern part of the island was considered to be still part of Cyprus. The so-called “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” is recognized only by Turkey, the invading and occupying force. The Republic of Cyprus is the only legal and internationally recognized entity on the island. Any archaeological action on the island should be under the authority of the Department of Antiquities of the Republic of Cyprus. As of 1974, the Department of Antiquities cannot exercise its authority towards the preservation and protection of the cultural heritage in the northern part of the island. As a result of these conditions, any archaeological activity or intervention on cultural heritage monuments in the occupied area is illegal.

JD: Enkomi, Salamis and Soloi are only a few of some of the most important sites on the island that have suffered damage due to destructive pillaging by looters. Are there any other sites (in the North or South) that are still in great danger?

PF: In the part of the island that is under the control of the Turkish military forces, Christian churches, which are ancient monuments have been destroyed or transformed into mosques or abandoned and neglected to collapse in ruins. Other holy sites have undergone a change of use and become military camps, storerooms, animal shelters etc.

JD: What types of preventative measures (conservation, salvage and rescue excavations or otherwise) are being taken, if any, by the occupying regime to safeguard the cultural heritage of the island? Does anyone monitor the programs (if any)?

PF: The first thing to note is that whatever act concerning antiquities takes place in any part of the island should have the permission and monitoring of the Director of the Department of Antiquities of the Republic of Cyprus. Otherwise this act is illegal.

Only recently, a Neolithic site on the Cape of St. Andreas, which had been excavated before 1974, was destroyed by the Turkish military during leveling operations in order to install a pair of flag posts for the flags of Turkey and the so called “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”. I think this incident is eloquent about the quality of the monitoring of cultural heritage, exercised by the authorities of the so-called ” Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” and the Turkish army.

JD: What obstacles currently face the Republic as far as looting in the South is concerned?

PF: The greater danger for cultural heritage on the part of the island controlled by the Republic of Cyprus is the looting of tombs which takes place in remote rural areas. The recent incident I referred to above brought to our hands antiquities that had been looted in the rural areas of the southwestern part of the island.

JD: Does the pace of development and tourism on the island (both in the North and the South) present any challenges for the Department of Antiquities?

PF: Tourism in Cyprus poses of course the same problems and dangers for cultural heritage that all Mediterranean countries are facing. In this part of the world, the duty for protecting a rich archaeological heritage has to be balanced with a galloping development of tourism. The Antiquities Law is the main tool for the Department of Antiquities to implement a monitoring mechanism towards a viable development. We are trying to turn tourism to an ally, by highlighting how a sensible management of cultural heritage could result to a tourist product of higher quality. Towards this end, we are cooperating with the Cyprus Tourism Organization.The most recent product of this collaboration is the implementation of a cultural route about Aphrodite, which promotes the idea of cultural tourism. The Cyprus Tourism Organization included the improvement of the archaeological sites in its strategic plan for the next ten years.

JD: What, in your opinion, are the biggest problems currently facing academic archaeologists and scientists working in Cyprus?

PF: The most serious problem and obstacle against a healthy development of Cypriot archaeology is the occupation of the northern part of the island by the Turkish military forces. The archaeological investigation on the northern part of the island has been paused since 1974. The Department of Antiquities of the Republic of Cyprus right from its early days has kept an open policy towards foreign archaeological missions which wished to excavate on the island. After the invasion of 1974 the foreign missions which had been working on the north part of the island were forced to abandon their excavations. Many of them lost even their written archives and scientific notes. Since then, they have not been able to go back and resume their work because any archaeological work, on the occupied part of the island is illegal according to international law, treaties and scientific ethics. Greek Cypriot archaeologists cannot go and work in the north either. Turkish Cypriot archaeologists remain isolated from the international archaeological community for the same reasons.

JD: Are these problems also jeopardizing Cypriot cultural heritage? If so, how?

PF: The inability of the scientific community to intervene in the northern part of the island poses great dangers for the preservation of cultural heritage, especially nowadays that a galloping building development is taking place in the occupied northern part of the island.

JD: Besides the return of the Kanakaria Byzantine Mosaics, what are some of the other major repatriations that Cyprus has received (in general or recently)?

Department of Antiquities, Cyprus

Byzantine Silver Dish with Relief Decoration from the Lambousa Treasure: Scene depicts a male youth (messenger of Samuel?) coming to speak to seated male (David?) who holds a lyre

PF: We have managed to repatriate a considerable number of antiquities which had been illegally exported from the island, namely a part of the Chr. Hadjiprodromou collection. Part of it was looted and illegally exported from the island and found in auction houses in Europe. Moreover we succeeded to repatriate several Byzantine icons from Europe and USA.

JD: What are your hopes for the future of archaeology, either on the island or in general?

PF: My deepest hope is that the two communities of the island could soon reach a political agreement for the re-unification of the island. Cyprus is too small to be divided. The archaeologists who work on the history of this island know very well that the cultural history of the island has been one and the same for its inhabitants throughout the millennia. In our days, when Europe is tending to unite under one entity, it would be a historical anachronism to have two separate states in Cyprus. Cypriot archaeology would be a major victim of such a development.

JD: Dr. Flourentzos, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you on behalf of SAFE and the international community, for answering these questions.

PF: Please accept my sincere thanks for the opportunity you have given me.