I'm shocked! For years, we've been told by "experts" that the market for looted coins is in America, and now we find what seems to be evidence of serious smuggling of coins into Cyprus of all places. Although the news report does not specify the exact nature of the coins in question, archaeologists have repeatedly told us that all ancient coins found in an archaeological context are priceless objects. And, they make the presumption that any coin lacking provenance is from an archaeological context. If a woman from Cyprus has been detained for allegedly trying to smuggle a "large number" of these priceless objects out of Syria, what must be going on at all the other borders in the region? Smugglers are like the ubiquitous copperhead snakes we share the Ozarks with. Where you find one, you will generally find another. One has to wonder if there might actually be more ancient coins flowing into than out of Cyprus?
Does this mean that ancient coins illegally spirited from Syria (and probably other places) into Cyprus will be considered Cypriot patrimony and subject to U.S. laws like the National Stolen Property Act even though they may not be coins of Cypriot type? If so, would any confiscated coins of this nature be returned to Cyprus? What about Cypriot coins that traveled to nearby Syria in trade during antiquity and have been recently excavated there? Are those coins that have been illegally returned to their place of manufacture, but first found in another country, now Cypriot patrimony? How will anyone, including local Cypriots, know which coins (of any type) came out of the ground in Cyprus and which coins came out of the ground in Syria? I think this revelation of international smuggling between Syria and Cyprus turns the whole analysis presented by Dr. Nathan Elkins at the recent CPAC hearing on its head. Are local "finds" in Cyprus (even of Cypriot coin types) really from Cyprus or did somebody smuggle them into Cyprus and then report them so they could be collected legally within Cyprus?
Of course Dr. Elkins might argue that the coins "first found" in Cyprus have provenance, that holy sanction so revered by archaeologists. That is not necessarily the case. There have been more than a few documented cases of archaeologists salting their own excavations with objects from elsewhere just to create a "stir" of academic interest. In one famous case, coin forgers salted an official archaeological dig in Bulgaria with examples of their work and then cited the excavation reports as evidence that the coins were genuine—subsequently dumping thousands of them onto the collector market. Are some of the coins from Cypriot digs really from Syria? Were the coins in the vaunted collection of the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation legally exported from their archaeological find spot in other nationalist countries? Wouldn't it be interesting if this Cypriot woman arrested in Syria is actually an archaeologist working in Cyprus? Oh my, the embarrassment would be tremendous -- but somehow I don't think it would change the attitude at the U.S. State Department one iota.
I hate to denigrate those archaeologists who work hard and share their discoveries selflessly with the world outside of academia. They have always been and truly are friends of society. Some of their brethren, who cast stones at every possible opportunity, are a scourge and a disgrace to what historically is a noble profession and will undoubtedly seek some way to distort and turn this recent news report into a condemnation of private collecting and independent scholarship—which remain entirely legitimate activities in the USA.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
The World's Largest Collection of Export Permits?
A January 18th special report on CNN prompts one to wonder, where in the world would the largest collection of export permits exist? The report itself is not of course about export permits—that would hardly attract the producers of a major news medium. It is a report about the astounding collection of some 40,000 Biblical artifacts assembled by Hobby Lobby president Steve Green. Mr. Green is a consummate collector, to be sure, and is presently laying claim to a fragment of what he and his expert advisor believe is the earliest manuscript known of the Book of Romans.
Collecting biblical artifacts must be a legal minefield since there are few objects that could better qualify as cultural property. Anyone who would assemble 40,000 objects of cultural property in today's environment must certainly understand national patrimony laws, Memorandums of Understanding, the National Stolen Property Act, Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and the nuances of bureaucratic overreach that exceed the actual provisions of any of these controls. Mr. Green must know better than anyone how important provenance and export permits are, because his massive collection is stewarded by Biblical Archaeologist Dr. Scott Carroll of Baylor University. According to his RBC Ministries website bio, Dr. Carroll was founder and executive director of the National Bible Museum, listed in Manta as a private company. The museum was apparently to be based on the Green collection. That affiliation was however disclaimed in an official Green family release in 2010. The details are obscure. In any case, Dr. Carroll is apparently still engaged with the Green collection and from some press reports remains involved in organizing a private museum under some other name that presumably will be based on that collection. Meanwhile, active and ongoing primary research based on objects from the collection is being conducted at Baylor University where Dr. Carroll is on staff.
The art and archaeology departments at Baylor ought very well to know about provenance and the transfer of cultural property. A fellow member of the academic staff at Baylor is Dr. Nathan Elkins who has become a vocal advocate for controls over cultural property and is very critical of private ownership of artifacts without legitimizing provenance. Elkins is a proponent of the view that collecting is a primary cause of looting and has lobbied for import restrictions at the past two Cultural Property Advisory Committee hearings in Washington. One might assume that archaeologists at Baylor would follow the AIA mandate not to research or publish anything unprovenanced from a private collection. Therefore, the objects being studied at Baylor must by their own academic standards and ethics be accompanied by firm provenance back at least to 1970. This would, in itself, be an impressive collection of documentation and one has to wonder if the export permits, invoices and trail of legal ownership will be placed on display or cited along with these objects when Baylor returns them to the private museum that Green and Carroll ultimately conceive. I rather doubt that is going to happen.
In any case, the relationship between Baylor and Mr. Green seems to fly in the face of two things that the archaeological community covets—national ownership and academic stewardship. It would appear that for the sake of access, Archaeology's philosophical line in the sand might have been temporarily redrawn. Is the lofty perch of academic elitism only invoked when dealing with rank and file citizens? If common ancient coins struck in the millions are so important to history and heritage that they must be controlled, then one would certainly think that the history of Christianity is equally important. I think the word for that disconnect is hypocrisy and it seems very odd when one sees its manifestation among those who promote themselves as being politically correct. I'm sure that Dr. Elkins will bring his influence to bear in straightening out any misguided archaeologists down there in Texas.
Collecting biblical artifacts must be a legal minefield since there are few objects that could better qualify as cultural property. Anyone who would assemble 40,000 objects of cultural property in today's environment must certainly understand national patrimony laws, Memorandums of Understanding, the National Stolen Property Act, Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and the nuances of bureaucratic overreach that exceed the actual provisions of any of these controls. Mr. Green must know better than anyone how important provenance and export permits are, because his massive collection is stewarded by Biblical Archaeologist Dr. Scott Carroll of Baylor University. According to his RBC Ministries website bio, Dr. Carroll was founder and executive director of the National Bible Museum, listed in Manta as a private company. The museum was apparently to be based on the Green collection. That affiliation was however disclaimed in an official Green family release in 2010. The details are obscure. In any case, Dr. Carroll is apparently still engaged with the Green collection and from some press reports remains involved in organizing a private museum under some other name that presumably will be based on that collection. Meanwhile, active and ongoing primary research based on objects from the collection is being conducted at Baylor University where Dr. Carroll is on staff.
The art and archaeology departments at Baylor ought very well to know about provenance and the transfer of cultural property. A fellow member of the academic staff at Baylor is Dr. Nathan Elkins who has become a vocal advocate for controls over cultural property and is very critical of private ownership of artifacts without legitimizing provenance. Elkins is a proponent of the view that collecting is a primary cause of looting and has lobbied for import restrictions at the past two Cultural Property Advisory Committee hearings in Washington. One might assume that archaeologists at Baylor would follow the AIA mandate not to research or publish anything unprovenanced from a private collection. Therefore, the objects being studied at Baylor must by their own academic standards and ethics be accompanied by firm provenance back at least to 1970. This would, in itself, be an impressive collection of documentation and one has to wonder if the export permits, invoices and trail of legal ownership will be placed on display or cited along with these objects when Baylor returns them to the private museum that Green and Carroll ultimately conceive. I rather doubt that is going to happen.
In any case, the relationship between Baylor and Mr. Green seems to fly in the face of two things that the archaeological community covets—national ownership and academic stewardship. It would appear that for the sake of access, Archaeology's philosophical line in the sand might have been temporarily redrawn. Is the lofty perch of academic elitism only invoked when dealing with rank and file citizens? If common ancient coins struck in the millions are so important to history and heritage that they must be controlled, then one would certainly think that the history of Christianity is equally important. I think the word for that disconnect is hypocrisy and it seems very odd when one sees its manifestation among those who promote themselves as being politically correct. I'm sure that Dr. Elkins will bring his influence to bear in straightening out any misguided archaeologists down there in Texas.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Cyprus: Round Two
The U.S. State Department in its infinite wisdom chose in 2007 to override the recommendation of its own advisory committee and to impose import restrictions on coins from Cyprus. And what has been gained? Certainly not the salvation of cultural heritage in Cyprus, where even the country's head archaeologist rails against the inept system. That State Department decision led to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that has been ongoing for four years now. It prompted a court challenge of the implementing Memorandum of Understanding that after two years of litigation is now in U.S. Appellate Court and could run on for several more years. The cost to taxpayers, as well as to innocent collectors and independent scholars has been significant.
Now, five years later, we are visited with a request for renewal of this ill-begotten fiasco. And, without a doubt, the State Department will continue to march to its own drum and ignore the interests and will of the American people. And the coin collectors? They will ratchet up the opposition and the costs will escalate on both sides—that is a certainty. At some point, someone in Washington may look at the issue and say "This is Nonsense!" But I wouldn't wager on it. What is so important that the State Department would allow this to happen? Can it really be over a misguided ideology of comprehensive national stewardship, spawned in UNESCO of all places? That sort of ideology has little appeal in a capitalistic society founded on individual freedoms and personal rights. Furthermore, America has had a love-hate relationship with UNESCO for years. Is this battle really over coins? One would think not. It seems more likely that it is about absolute and total control of the past and that is not an issue of consequence to the State Department. It is, however, a matter of considerable importance to the academic world of archaeology and the link between that world and the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is conspicuous by its omnipresence.
It's no accident that the American Institute of Archaeology's website article about this CPAC hearing leads with the words "Protecting Archaeology...." not "Protecting Cypriot Cultural Heritage". The AIA is above all a professional society that nurtures opportunities for its own. Nothing wrong with that.... until the nurturing becomes obsessive. Surprisingly, archaeologists are among the most vocal at expressing their own obsessiveness. In a fairly recent issue of Archaeology magazine, then AIA president C. Brian Rose stated "We must preserve the whole cultural record." If you think that's a quote out of context, read the article which I have conveniently linked here. It's no secret that archaeologists need the permission of foreign governments to dig, and foreign governments have learned in the past couple decades that those permits can have diplomatic strings. Likewise, the State Department has discovered that the granting of import restrictions can have diplomatic benefits. It's a neat little triad with everbody's back getting scratched except that of American collectors and independent scholars. But, in the scheme of things, that's a small, disorganized and inconsequential group—right?
On January 18th, the State Department will entertain public comment on the issue of extending the current Cypriot import restrictions. This comment period is their way of saying "We gave you an opportunity to be heard". Of course, the State Department has also said that they are not obligated to do this—as though we should be ever so thankful for their generosity. And they also have said that they are not obligated to follow their own advisory committee's recommendations. In other words, the hearing process is pure unadulterated and unabashed lip service—a prerogative of unfettered power.
The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild has submitted formal written comment and will be represented at the January hearing. The time allotted for oral comment at that hearing is only five minutes, and the nature of what can and cannot be said is very strictly controlled and monitored. Still, we will have our moment of "freedom" to serve notice by our very presence, if nothing else, that the honorable and legitimate avocation of ancient numismatics remains engaged against this modern tyranny.
Now, five years later, we are visited with a request for renewal of this ill-begotten fiasco. And, without a doubt, the State Department will continue to march to its own drum and ignore the interests and will of the American people. And the coin collectors? They will ratchet up the opposition and the costs will escalate on both sides—that is a certainty. At some point, someone in Washington may look at the issue and say "This is Nonsense!" But I wouldn't wager on it. What is so important that the State Department would allow this to happen? Can it really be over a misguided ideology of comprehensive national stewardship, spawned in UNESCO of all places? That sort of ideology has little appeal in a capitalistic society founded on individual freedoms and personal rights. Furthermore, America has had a love-hate relationship with UNESCO for years. Is this battle really over coins? One would think not. It seems more likely that it is about absolute and total control of the past and that is not an issue of consequence to the State Department. It is, however, a matter of considerable importance to the academic world of archaeology and the link between that world and the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is conspicuous by its omnipresence.
It's no accident that the American Institute of Archaeology's website article about this CPAC hearing leads with the words "Protecting Archaeology...." not "Protecting Cypriot Cultural Heritage". The AIA is above all a professional society that nurtures opportunities for its own. Nothing wrong with that.... until the nurturing becomes obsessive. Surprisingly, archaeologists are among the most vocal at expressing their own obsessiveness. In a fairly recent issue of Archaeology magazine, then AIA president C. Brian Rose stated "We must preserve the whole cultural record." If you think that's a quote out of context, read the article which I have conveniently linked here. It's no secret that archaeologists need the permission of foreign governments to dig, and foreign governments have learned in the past couple decades that those permits can have diplomatic strings. Likewise, the State Department has discovered that the granting of import restrictions can have diplomatic benefits. It's a neat little triad with everbody's back getting scratched except that of American collectors and independent scholars. But, in the scheme of things, that's a small, disorganized and inconsequential group—right?
On January 18th, the State Department will entertain public comment on the issue of extending the current Cypriot import restrictions. This comment period is their way of saying "We gave you an opportunity to be heard". Of course, the State Department has also said that they are not obligated to do this—as though we should be ever so thankful for their generosity. And they also have said that they are not obligated to follow their own advisory committee's recommendations. In other words, the hearing process is pure unadulterated and unabashed lip service—a prerogative of unfettered power.
The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild has submitted formal written comment and will be represented at the January hearing. The time allotted for oral comment at that hearing is only five minutes, and the nature of what can and cannot be said is very strictly controlled and monitored. Still, we will have our moment of "freedom" to serve notice by our very presence, if nothing else, that the honorable and legitimate avocation of ancient numismatics remains engaged against this modern tyranny.
Thursday, November 03, 2011
Kudos to a thinking AIA leader
Just about the time I was ready to give up on the AIA altogether, out of the wilderness (if you can call Washington DC the wilderness - and some might) came a blinding flash of light. Perhaps I should preface my following comments by pointing out that to me, light is the precursor of truth. Some readers of this blog might remember that in 2004 I chose "Per Lucem ad Veritatem" as the motto for the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild. The guild has tried to live by those words in the face of very dark forces in which light and truth are anathema. Among the 500 or so respondents to the U.S. State Department call for comment on a proposed Memorandum of Understanding with Bulgaria was one AIA member who spoke clearly with an enlightened understanding of the situation on the ground and an obvious concern for truth.
This gentleman, Gerard Casale, is a current member of the Board of Directors of the Washington DC Society (George Washington University) of the Archaeological Institute of America. Mr. Casale submitted a comment to CPAC through the public online comment system and said: "Ancient coins from mints in what is now Bulgaria are both common and usually very inexpensive. This means that tens or hundreds of thousands of these coins existing in collections around the world have never have been through an auction or other transaction where precise provenance has been recorded. Nor is it vital to the interests of scholarship inside Bulgaria that such provenance be demanded now. Regulations at 26 USC Section 2601 (2). provided that for an artifact to be restricted under the CPIA, it must be of both archaeological interest and cultural significance. These coins exist in many multiples, already well represented in Bulgarian state collections and are therefore not of cultural significance within the meaning of the rule. Since ancient coins circulated widely beyond the borders of modern Bulgaria, even in ancient times, one cannot assume that all coins of Bulgarian types, “were first discovered in” Bulgaria, as required by the CPIA. (26 USC Section 2601 (2) (c).) Less severe remedies must be considered before import restrictions are placed on Bulgarian coins."
Indeed, this is a very nice summary of the points that the ACCG and Numismatic Trade have made regarding not only coins from Bulgaria but from virtually all source countries that produced coins in antiquity. I personally have talked with other AIA members who express the same sentiments but are frankly afraid to make those views known publicly for fear of professional reprisals -- and have been told that without equivocation. In this environment, the statement of Mr. Casale is not only a ray of light, it is a very brave appeal for reason. I sincerely hope that it does not come back to haunt him.
My own academic background is in Art History and that discipline is linked very closely in many universities to the Departments of Archaeology and Anthropology. One of my program advisors as a Graduate Student at the University of Wisconsin was at that time an editor of the American Journal of Archaeology. I was, in fact, a card-carrying member of the AIA and proudly so at the time. I attended many local chapter meetings in Madison and took Archaeology 101 as an elective. In fact, that's where I first learned about Historical Particularism, which I later came to view as the downfall of Archaeology as a respected profession. The Franz Boas theory was a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. That focus on the tail, is what has eventually led to the sorry state of affairs that we are burdened with today where "archaeological context" trumps everything else in life. It's refreshing to find a member of the AIA who can look past that nonsense and see the light of truth.
This gentleman, Gerard Casale, is a current member of the Board of Directors of the Washington DC Society (George Washington University) of the Archaeological Institute of America. Mr. Casale submitted a comment to CPAC through the public online comment system and said: "Ancient coins from mints in what is now Bulgaria are both common and usually very inexpensive. This means that tens or hundreds of thousands of these coins existing in collections around the world have never have been through an auction or other transaction where precise provenance has been recorded. Nor is it vital to the interests of scholarship inside Bulgaria that such provenance be demanded now. Regulations at 26 USC Section 2601 (2). provided that for an artifact to be restricted under the CPIA, it must be of both archaeological interest and cultural significance. These coins exist in many multiples, already well represented in Bulgarian state collections and are therefore not of cultural significance within the meaning of the rule. Since ancient coins circulated widely beyond the borders of modern Bulgaria, even in ancient times, one cannot assume that all coins of Bulgarian types, “were first discovered in” Bulgaria, as required by the CPIA. (26 USC Section 2601 (2) (c).) Less severe remedies must be considered before import restrictions are placed on Bulgarian coins."
Indeed, this is a very nice summary of the points that the ACCG and Numismatic Trade have made regarding not only coins from Bulgaria but from virtually all source countries that produced coins in antiquity. I personally have talked with other AIA members who express the same sentiments but are frankly afraid to make those views known publicly for fear of professional reprisals -- and have been told that without equivocation. In this environment, the statement of Mr. Casale is not only a ray of light, it is a very brave appeal for reason. I sincerely hope that it does not come back to haunt him.
My own academic background is in Art History and that discipline is linked very closely in many universities to the Departments of Archaeology and Anthropology. One of my program advisors as a Graduate Student at the University of Wisconsin was at that time an editor of the American Journal of Archaeology. I was, in fact, a card-carrying member of the AIA and proudly so at the time. I attended many local chapter meetings in Madison and took Archaeology 101 as an elective. In fact, that's where I first learned about Historical Particularism, which I later came to view as the downfall of Archaeology as a respected profession. The Franz Boas theory was a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. That focus on the tail, is what has eventually led to the sorry state of affairs that we are burdened with today where "archaeological context" trumps everything else in life. It's refreshing to find a member of the AIA who can look past that nonsense and see the light of truth.
Saturday, October 01, 2011
Where is Cultural Justice?
The daily Iraqi newspaper Azzaman announced today that Italy and Iraq have signed a "memorandum" that will provide assistance in the preservation of artifacts and the modernization of displays at the Iraqi National Museum in Baghdad. This follows on previous projects at the museum undertaken by the Italians. The report mentions, without a hint of embarrassment, that "Italian experts have organized several seminars for their Iraqi counterparts on how to preserve and safeguard antiquities." To anyone who follows the news about Italy's problems preserving and safeguarding its own antiquities (which are literally countless) this might raise and eyebrow and a smirk. The report goes on to say that "The Italian side will pay for the rehabilitation and the training". This must surely rankle some of Italy's domestic archaeologists who have suffered from severe budgetary constraints and are unable to do the most basic forms of preservation in their own country—where it seems that everything is disintegrating. Even with assistance from other countries they cannot do that. In fact, no country on earth can keep up with the tremendous burden created by trying to save the entire history of mankind within national storehouses and controlled sites. Really, what is the point?
These efforts are reported as Italian assistance to Iraq's national heritage, but ironically the present national government in Iraq has no cultural connection whatever with the Assyrian artifacts that are being preserved. Any heritage from that ancient civilization is diffused in the bloodlines of millions of people who inhabit virtually every corner of the earth today. If anything, the Assyrian heritage is global today, just as most cultural heritage is. The UNESCO construct that led to its 1970 convention and resolution was already antiquated when it was adopted and becomes more and more irrational with each passing day and with each new birth in a world where cultures are homogenized. Yet, emerging governments try desperately to attach themselves, like parasites, to a distant and more stable past. This "nationalist" view is, of course, a feeble attempt to solidify their manifest destiny to rule and history is replete with failed examples. Still, some things never change and governments are slow to learn from the mistakes of others.
So, while Italy flounders with its myriad cultural property issues at home and exports its money and experts to places like Iraq instead of solving its own problems, the United States government will do everything within its power to make sure that the nationalist interests of both these countries are protected. The rights and interests of our own citizens are irrelevant. We will impose controls on the transfer of anything that might be imagined as "cultural property" under the ridiculous guidelines of UNESCO 1970 and we will disenfranchise natural descendants of a vanished cultural group just because they happen to live in the USA. This, we do in favor of the political ambitions and aspirations of an unrelated nationalist successor state. Where is the cultural justice in that?
These efforts are reported as Italian assistance to Iraq's national heritage, but ironically the present national government in Iraq has no cultural connection whatever with the Assyrian artifacts that are being preserved. Any heritage from that ancient civilization is diffused in the bloodlines of millions of people who inhabit virtually every corner of the earth today. If anything, the Assyrian heritage is global today, just as most cultural heritage is. The UNESCO construct that led to its 1970 convention and resolution was already antiquated when it was adopted and becomes more and more irrational with each passing day and with each new birth in a world where cultures are homogenized. Yet, emerging governments try desperately to attach themselves, like parasites, to a distant and more stable past. This "nationalist" view is, of course, a feeble attempt to solidify their manifest destiny to rule and history is replete with failed examples. Still, some things never change and governments are slow to learn from the mistakes of others.
So, while Italy flounders with its myriad cultural property issues at home and exports its money and experts to places like Iraq instead of solving its own problems, the United States government will do everything within its power to make sure that the nationalist interests of both these countries are protected. The rights and interests of our own citizens are irrelevant. We will impose controls on the transfer of anything that might be imagined as "cultural property" under the ridiculous guidelines of UNESCO 1970 and we will disenfranchise natural descendants of a vanished cultural group just because they happen to live in the USA. This, we do in favor of the political ambitions and aspirations of an unrelated nationalist successor state. Where is the cultural justice in that?
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Coins and Panetta's Biggest Fear
In today's Washington Post, on page 19, columnist George Will (one of my favorite people) writes about the problems facing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. Mr. Will astutely describes a plenteous list of threats that Panetta has on his plate every day, but sees the biggest threat on that plate as being the congressional super-committee that will deal with the nation's budget that everyone agrees is out of control. There will be many heated debates over the need and the cost of programs over the coming months (or years). In fact, those debates are already raging. As a retired military officer I can empathize with Mr. Panetta, albeit on a much lesser scale, as I frequently was faced with severe budget constraints in the post Viet Nam era. Yes, history does repeat itself and it seems we do learn nothing from it.
The national budget may seem very remote from coins and coin collecting, but not really. The federal propensity to throw money around like it's worth nothing does not begin at the desk of a Leon Panetta or of the President himself (not that they are immune). It begins at the desks of a quadzillion bureaucrats with special interests. One of those seemingly countless bureaucratic agencies is the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, an element of the U.S. State Department. How much of the government's budget funds the special interests of this small Bureau and its archaeological coterie's minions? That's a riddle wrapped in an enigma shrouded in mystery. In comparison to the dollar cost of America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that bureaucracy's war against coin collectors may seem like small potatoes, but the fallout in terms of public disenchantment and lost faith in government is huge. That's not to say that the budget impact is insignificant, it most surely is not. The programs managed or encouraged by the altruistic sounding Cultural Heritage Center cost taxpayers millions of dollars each year. Worse than that, what shows up on the budget appropriation each year for ECA and CHC is only the tip of the iceberg. Their programs have tentacles that leach dollars from many other government entities.
The State Department is not the only department of government that archaeologists have their claws sunk deeply into. The enforcement of controversial DOS import restrictions on common utilitarian objects, proclaimed by archaeologists as being threatened "cultural property", has cost Customs and Border Protection (and the taxpayer) dearly. Likewise, law enforcement agencies that are hard pressed for the resources to deal with serious crimes are increasingly involved in cultural property witch hunts that serve neither law, justice nor society. Even the National Park Service has succumbed on occasion to the hypnotic appeal of academic archaeologists. After being pummeled by a vicious and grossly exaggerated campaign of outright lies and distortions by archaeologists about looting of the Baghdad Museum, the Department of Defense is now spending time and money on training combat troops in cultural property sensitivity. This is nothing more than placation of the vocally indignant, and a concession to special interest proselytization, as archaeologists are employed to do the training—just as they do for Customs. It's little wonder that the law is often misinterpreted by those "trained". One British web site, Heritage Key, very frankly states: "The history of archaeology is populated with cavalier aristocrats, hard-nosed scientific geniuses — and no small amount of controversy, deceit and downright quackery." That is a harsh characterization, that calls up a lot of past misdeeds, but there is still an element of the discipline today that is not very far removed from that past. Unfortunately, that element often speaks louder than the silent and intimidated majority.
Just the expense of defending itself in court against public challenges to its own extralegal actions has proven costly to bureaucratic agencies that fall under the spell of radical crusading archaeologists. Add to that the huge cost of public subsidies to archaeology through educational grants, sponsored workshops, institutional funding, government contracts and tax exemptions. The cost of archaeology to the general public is huge and growing, just like the federal budget and deficit. Are we getting our money's worth? Can we afford this as a public largesse? While Leon Panetta must rightfully ponder the needs and cost of our defense system, he and his fellow cabinet members ought to take a look at the special interests of Washington bureaucrats that are constant and cancerous. They may be too small individually to show up on the radar screen, but in aggregate they form a huge hole that money pours into without restraint. I hope George Will rains a little on their parade.
The national budget may seem very remote from coins and coin collecting, but not really. The federal propensity to throw money around like it's worth nothing does not begin at the desk of a Leon Panetta or of the President himself (not that they are immune). It begins at the desks of a quadzillion bureaucrats with special interests. One of those seemingly countless bureaucratic agencies is the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, an element of the U.S. State Department. How much of the government's budget funds the special interests of this small Bureau and its archaeological coterie's minions? That's a riddle wrapped in an enigma shrouded in mystery. In comparison to the dollar cost of America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that bureaucracy's war against coin collectors may seem like small potatoes, but the fallout in terms of public disenchantment and lost faith in government is huge. That's not to say that the budget impact is insignificant, it most surely is not. The programs managed or encouraged by the altruistic sounding Cultural Heritage Center cost taxpayers millions of dollars each year. Worse than that, what shows up on the budget appropriation each year for ECA and CHC is only the tip of the iceberg. Their programs have tentacles that leach dollars from many other government entities.
The State Department is not the only department of government that archaeologists have their claws sunk deeply into. The enforcement of controversial DOS import restrictions on common utilitarian objects, proclaimed by archaeologists as being threatened "cultural property", has cost Customs and Border Protection (and the taxpayer) dearly. Likewise, law enforcement agencies that are hard pressed for the resources to deal with serious crimes are increasingly involved in cultural property witch hunts that serve neither law, justice nor society. Even the National Park Service has succumbed on occasion to the hypnotic appeal of academic archaeologists. After being pummeled by a vicious and grossly exaggerated campaign of outright lies and distortions by archaeologists about looting of the Baghdad Museum, the Department of Defense is now spending time and money on training combat troops in cultural property sensitivity. This is nothing more than placation of the vocally indignant, and a concession to special interest proselytization, as archaeologists are employed to do the training—just as they do for Customs. It's little wonder that the law is often misinterpreted by those "trained". One British web site, Heritage Key, very frankly states: "The history of archaeology is populated with cavalier aristocrats, hard-nosed scientific geniuses — and no small amount of controversy, deceit and downright quackery." That is a harsh characterization, that calls up a lot of past misdeeds, but there is still an element of the discipline today that is not very far removed from that past. Unfortunately, that element often speaks louder than the silent and intimidated majority.
Just the expense of defending itself in court against public challenges to its own extralegal actions has proven costly to bureaucratic agencies that fall under the spell of radical crusading archaeologists. Add to that the huge cost of public subsidies to archaeology through educational grants, sponsored workshops, institutional funding, government contracts and tax exemptions. The cost of archaeology to the general public is huge and growing, just like the federal budget and deficit. Are we getting our money's worth? Can we afford this as a public largesse? While Leon Panetta must rightfully ponder the needs and cost of our defense system, he and his fellow cabinet members ought to take a look at the special interests of Washington bureaucrats that are constant and cancerous. They may be too small individually to show up on the radar screen, but in aggregate they form a huge hole that money pours into without restraint. I hope George Will rains a little on their parade.
Tuesday, August 09, 2011
The Morning After
Yesterday, I received a telephone call from Peter Tompa, attorney for the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, informing me that the District Court in Baltimore had ruled in favor of the defense and dismissed the ACCG lawsuit challenging import restrictions on ancient coins from Cyprus and China. It was of course a disappointing turn of events and severely tested my confidence in the system of government that would lead us to this conclusion. But, this morning the sun came up and I went about my morning chores as usual. The intolerable heat of recent weeks had abated, the birds were singing and the "butterfly bush" in our front yard was like Penn Station at rush hour. Oh, and the Ancient Coin Collecting hobby was still in place.
This decision in effect gives the State Department free rein over import restrictions. But, what's new? DOS has had free rein for the past five or six years and has absolutely no qualms about exercising their own will regardless of the intentions of Congress or the guidance of law. Import restrictions on ancient coins are a fact of life, but they have not ended life in the collecting world. They are, to be sure, unfair and unproductive. But then, what about government these days isn't?
My own interest in the past will certainly not abate because a judge in Maryland thinks the government is beyond reproach. In fact, I really doubt that my life will change measurably as a result of this decision. It is a sad day, but there's much work to be done and little time to reflect on what might have or should have been.
This decision in effect gives the State Department free rein over import restrictions. But, what's new? DOS has had free rein for the past five or six years and has absolutely no qualms about exercising their own will regardless of the intentions of Congress or the guidance of law. Import restrictions on ancient coins are a fact of life, but they have not ended life in the collecting world. They are, to be sure, unfair and unproductive. But then, what about government these days isn't?
My own interest in the past will certainly not abate because a judge in Maryland thinks the government is beyond reproach. In fact, I really doubt that my life will change measurably as a result of this decision. It is a sad day, but there's much work to be done and little time to reflect on what might have or should have been.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)