COME TO AMERICA! (forfeit your heritage)

What is "Heritage" anyway? We all know the word, and probably think that we know what it means, but when you get right down to it the exact meaning is a slippery little rascal. The Heritage Foundation, a Washington DC based conservative think tank, believes in "free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom...." (our American heritage?) Not a word about ethnicity, ancestry nor culture. My Heritage, an Israel based firm specializing in genealogy, seeks "to make it easier for people around the world to use the power of the Internet to discover their heritage and strengthen their bonds with family and friends." The implication of this introspective view being that family is a key ingredient in heritage. In fact, they do not mention any of the core elements of the Heritage Foundation. UNESCO's World Heritage Centre sees a different picture. To them, "What makes the concept of World Heritage exceptional is its universal application. World Heritage sites belong to all the peoples of the world, irrespective of the territory on which they are located." Wikipedia lists no less than nine different senses of the word ranging from plant life to birthright. So, when we speak of heritage, we have to be quite specific about our intention lest we be legitimately misunderstood. But two things that all of the various senses of heritage seem to have in common are belonging and inheritance. There can be no heritage without a donor and a receptor.

The sense of the word that applies to culture, has come to be divided into two parts, tangible and intangible. The former is mainly associated with objects while the latter deals with behavior, values, traditions, customs, etc. In a confusing dichotomy, UNESCO sees their World Heritage Sites from a globalist perspective and essentially all other objects from a nationalist perspective. The UNESCO resolution of 1970 takes quite a narrow view of sharing the "ownership" of culture and heritage. The conclusions and proposals of a later UNESCO convention dealing with intangible cultural heritage, and its ownership, are nothing short of bizarre. Ancient coin collectors are perhaps among the most passionate advocates of globalism. They derive genuine and considerable satisfaction from learning about the past in a tactile way. Many of them see a direct and inseparable connection between the "cultural heritage" of a particular place and their own "cultural heritage" in the ancestral sense. In more than 40 years of involvement as a professional numismatist, I have met a great many people who collect coins based on ethnic or patronymic associations. Others simply crave the intellectual thrill of arm chair travel to distant cultural enclaves.

Many of these people now live within the United States where, except for a small Native American population, virtually everyone has a cultural heritage from some other place or places. In the nationalist view of the cultural universe, these Americans have essentially forfeited their heritage. Of course, those who view the world in this myopic way are reticent to admit that they are often immigrants themselves within the land that they claim as their cultural heritage. That they have the power to create and enforce laws within their own political sphere of influence is an undeniable fact. Indeed, they have been known to intentionally erase the memory of former inhabitants (if not the inhabitants themselves). Should their narrow and often unjustifiable view obviate the interests and rights of all others who do not currently live within the geo-political boundaries that they administer? Are Italians who now live in Manhattan or Cypriots who now live in Los Angeles any less entitled to their heritage than those who live in Rome or Nicosia?

The propensity of the U.S. State Department to negotiate bilateral agreements that in essence forfeit the rights of those Italian and Greek Americans (and not them exclusively) to partake in the same cultural appreciation that their fellows and often relatives in Italy and Greece enjoy is in my view un-American. Maybe the Heritage Foundation is not too far off the point in this case. Should the U.S. Government be involved in a matter like this? It's easy to see how some view it as overreach on the part of Washington bureaucracy. My own personal view is that State Department bureaucracy has run amuck and has become nothing more than a self-serving special interest. But, my view is obviously not shared by a good number of people who are quite happy to see all cultural property sequestered and controlled by what they prefer to term as "stewards." In other words, someone other than the inheritor of a particular heritage will guard and preserve it for all of us. In fact, one such organization literally calls itself "Saving Antiquity For Everyone". I've always had trouble figuring out who "Everyone" is, but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't include me. Excuse me, but I don't need someone to save my heritage for me and to dole it out to me as they choose.

Just who are these "stewards" anyway? You guessed it. They are the cultural property nationalists and those who rely on the largesse of cultural property nationalists for their livelihood. How much do we get from these stewards in return for the rights that the U.S. government forfeits on our behalf? To be kind, it is not a good trade. The words of Emma Lazarus on the base of America's Statue of Liberty, "Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" may be inspiring, but what they don't say is that when you come to America you may forfeit your own personal heritage, compliments of the U.S. State Department. I don't think that's what our founding fathers had in mind.

The "illicit" antiquities trade

For the past five years I have read a nauseating stream of blog posts, news articles, discussion list comments and convention presentation reports that condemn the "illicit" trade in antiquities. The fact that anyone might condemn illicit activity is not in itself nauseating, but the ringing of the same bell 24/7 until the brain fogs over in biological rejection is not only nauseating but obnoxious. It reminds me of the parent in a grocery story who repeatedly harps (in the most irritating shrill cacaphony) "Johnny, don't touch that!" over and over and over until you wish they would take little Johnny and paddle his behind (even though that is certainly not PC these days.) Really, it's not little Johnny that needs paddling, it is the parent for not approaching the problem with a reasonable and effective solution.

When do the harpies of cultural property nationalism ever talk about the "licit" antiquities trade? From the ratio of ink spilled, one would presume that there is not even a legitimate trade in existence. Never mind that there are laws in Britain and the United States that protect private collectors and the legitimate trade in antiquities. Never mind that countries like Greece, Italy and Israel (among others) have state licensed and regulated antiquities dealers. Never mind that EC rules prohibit restrictions on the legitimate exchange of antiquities between private citizens and businesses within the European Union. Is there a legitimate trade? Of course there is, only an idiot would suggest that there isn't. But is there any attempt among cultural property nationalists to work with the legitimate trade and private collectors to reduce incidents of archaeological looting? Very little if any, and none that I am personally aware of. In fact, as Executive Director of the ACCG, it has been my observation that the door is not and has not been open to any such collaboration for well more than a decade—and, in fact, the ACCG has tried.

The obsession among cultural property nationalists (especially those archaeologists who blog about the subject) has been to label everything without a documented provenance as illicit. Because much of the trade in antiquities does not require documented provenance, and because provenance is not especially valued by collectors of minor objects, it often does not exist. Consequently, the entire trade is painted with a broad brush as illicit. Excuse me, but that's an asinine position and one that is a non-starter for any serious discussion. No legal system, short of autocratic government, recognizes a premise where something is illegal unto proven legal. In fact, attempts to create this sort of legal environment have led to several major upheavals in global society. A common coin or a clay pot, that is literally one of millions of surviving specimens, is treated by hardline nationalists in the same light as the Rosetta Stone. They can rave on about context and priceless information, but really, one doesn't have to think very hard to see through that. The UNESCO resolution, and laws that stem from it, are based on a sliding threshold. Every year, the detritus of another year of civilization is added to the heap. In the year 2109, virtually everything made by the 6.95 billion (and counting) people on Earth today will become "cultural property" and will technically fall within the controls established by this resolution and set of laws. Look at the room around you, at your desk, at your garage, and multiply this times several billion. Is it important that every item be preserved to tell some future scholar how we lived? Now look backward in time 100 years. We are talking about 1909. There are countless objects among us at this moment that were made in 1909. There are garages that have not been cleaned out since 1909 and sometimes I think mine is one of them. Is all this "stuff" now "illicit" if it doesn't have a recorded provenance? NO. It is not and any attempt to say it is merely highlights the absurdity of the philosophy.

The problem of archaeological sites being looted is real and deserves a concerted response. It is a concern to collectors and the trade as well as to archaeologists and nationalists. The approach of some, to characterize private collecting and the associated trade as "evil" or "illicit", and as the "root cause" of looting, is simply not going to solve the problem. There are far too many people in the world who know better and that lie is simply not going to win the day. Instead, it hinders any real progress toward a rational response to the problem. The situation is not going to improve until the rhetoric changes and the legitimacy of any given view is accepted as a function of law, not of philosophy, dogma or desire. There are more than enough laws in place today to protect and control cultural property. When the existing laws are enforced, as legislated and intended, activists on both sides of the issue can go back to doing something constructive in the quest for broadened cultural awareness and interaction.

Drivel Control

The twitter around the cultural property nationalist blogs at the moment is that a rare tribal octadrachm of the Bisalti has been seized from an auction firm in Switzerland. One of these bloggers even uses the episode to disparage, by linkage and innuendo, the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) and its allies in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation now in progress against the U.S. State Department. This is not the first such episode by any means. I have seen a lot of misguided enmity in my varied careers, but never in my memory have I seen such absolute drivel as I have over the FOIA suit. It really deserves a prize.

First of all, the FOIA lawsuit filed against the State Department by the ACCG, with the collaboration of the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) and the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG), has absolutely NOTHING to do with the coin seizure. Mentioning them in the same breath is nothing less than ignorant—unless of course it is thought in some malevolent way that it might damage the ACCG. If that is the case, then we have a different issue, don't we? Perhaps one would call that a volley in the cultural property war. Well, if so, the cannoneers haven't quite got the range and bearing down.

The FOIA suit makes a complaint in U.S. Federal Court that an agency of the U.S. government failed to comply with the U.S. law governing release of information to the general public. This is a suit that is widely supported by academics and civil rights advocates, even some who advocate cultural property import controls, because every thinking person in America recognizes the importance of transparency in government. Even President Obama has made a very big issue of government transparency. That he has not been able to simply order the State Department to follow the law is telling in itself. Oh! Excuse me, he DID order them to, they just chose not to comply. So, anyone who would criticize this FOIA lawsuit would seem to be either a confirmed anarchist or repressive nationalist. The latter is more to the point in this case, I believe. National pride is one thing, but the extreme fringe of nationalism is anti-social to say the least and dangerously arrogant in most cases. We ought to heed the words of Patrick J Geary (The Myth of Nations), "As a tool of nationalist ideology, the history of Europe's nations was a great success, but it has turned our understanding of the past into a toxic waste dump, filled with the poison of ethnic nationalism, and the poison has seeped deep into popular consciousness." At a time when cultural awareness and interaction should be at the top of our agenda, we oddly (and sadly) find the U.S. State Department promoting and rewarding repressive nationalism.

Secondly, what about the Octadrachm? Well, we don't really know the whole story, do we? So, before we start dancing in circles or baying at the moon, why not let the laws of Switzerland prevail and hope that the Swiss law enforcement agencies and judiciary come to a just evaluation and resolution of the situation? There are laws in place that govern the situation. If the laws are unjust, then it is the duty of the Swiss people to seek redress. By the same token, if laws in the United States are unjust, or improperly enforced, it is our duty to seek redress through the courts. That is exactly what the ACCG is doing. For cultural property nationalists to mischaracterize this legitimate legal challenge is worse than distasteful, it adds another layer to that toxic waste dump.

Finally, I am beginning to wonder if anybody really pays any attention any more to this mindless banter. Some may have noticed a spell of silence in this blog recently. It is not for lack of activity, there has been plenty of that. It is more a feeling that time is an increasingly precious commodity and there is little point to hammering the same old tune on our dulcimers. Personally, I intend to concentrate on using my time to seek justice through the means at my disposal as an American citizen. A federal judge will soon be laying out the future path and we will take it from there.

I do intend to comment here from time to time, but I do not intend to waste any more of my time engaging in drivel control.

Best to all,

Wayne

7,500 Ancient Coins Seized - Three Arrested

On August 20, 2009 the Superintendent of Police at Varanisi in India announced to the press that three men were "nabbed" by local authorities for trying to sell over 7,500 "ancient silver coins weighing 68.3 Kg." During interrogation, the men told police that they had found the coins while digging at their ancestral house in Deoria District.

Visions come to mind of the ubiquitous Kushan, Mughal or even Baktrian issues which of course would immediately be labeled by some local archaeologist as "priceless treasures" destined for the illicit U.S. coin market. But wait -- there is more! The coins were determined upon investigation to date back to 1861 and 1892 and they bore images of the British monarchs Queen Victoria and King George. Ancient indeed! (note the "back to" phraseology -- none of the coins of George V are more than 100 years old yet). Yes, according to the terms of the UNESCO Resolution, these coins are Cultural Property and apparently under the laws of India they belong to the State.

Is there something wrong with this picture? Here's what the UNESCO convention covers:

(a) Rare collections and specimens of fauna, flora, minerals and anatomy, and objects of palaeontological interest;

(b) property relating to history, including the history of science and technology and military and social history, to the life of national leaders, thinkers, scientists and artist and to events of national importance;

(c) products of archaeological excavations (including regular and clandestine)
or of archaeological discoveries ;

(d) elements of artistic or historical monuments or archaeological sites which have been dismembered;

(e) antiquities more than one hundred years old, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals;

(f) objects of ethnological interest;

(g) property of artistic interest, such as:

(i) pictures, paintings and drawings produced entirely by hand on any support and in any material (excluding industrial designs and manu-factured articles decorated by hand);

(ii) original works of statuary art and sculpture in any material;

(iii) original engravings, prints and lithographs ;

(iv) original artistic assemblages and montages in any material;

(h) rare manuscripts and incunabula, old books, documents and publications of special interest (historical, artistic, scientific, literary, etc.) singly or in collections ;

(i) postage, revenue and similar stamps, singly or in collections;

(j) archives, including sound, photographic and cinematographic archives;

(k) articles of furniture more than one hundred years old and old musical instruments.

Yes, I have published this list before and I apologize for the tedious repetition, but it is worth reading again, and again, and again. I'm fairly hard pressed to think of anything made by man or nature that is not covered in one of these catch-all categories. At the recent ACCG meeting held during the ANA convention in Los Angeles, I met a gentleman who collects cactus -- or is it cacti? I was a bit shocked when he related to me the story of how UNESCO 1970 has impacted his rather esoteric hobby. George Orwell got it right for the most part, he just had the date wrong.

Many collectors of modern World Coins have complacently ignored the plight of those who collect truly "ancient" coins and who are under constant attack from nationalist ideologues. But this arrest in India ought to be a wake-up call to even the most sedentary collector of anything older than their great-grandparent. It's called repressive legislation and it is a wide-sweeping draconian response to a very specific problem -- one might say an Orwellian fix. Are American collectors immune to this sort of oppression? Hardly. Ideological fervor is a potent and potentially dangerous aspect of society and it can become global in what history would quantify as a heartbeat. We should perhaps ask ourselves, "What would Victoria think about all of this?"

SAFE gets it right! (sort of)

In browsing the web site of Saving Antiquities For Everyone (SAFE), an advocacy group for archaeologists and Nationalists, I recently found something surprising that caught my attention. On the organization's page appealing for donations, is a sidebar about Ai Khanoum. This mysterious ancient city in Afghanistan was discovered in the 1960s and excavated by French archaeologist Paul Bernard between 1964 and 1978. During the ensuing Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the site was heavily pillaged and was also damaged by military action and occupation. During the 1990s, according to the eminent historian Osmund Bopearachchi, the site was further devastated by "systematically planned illicit digs." Bopearachchi published the sad tale of destruction in Afghanistan in his article "Vandalized Afghanistan" which first appeared in March of 2000 in the Indian periodical Frontline, and was reprinted in 2002 in Nomismatika Kronika the journal of the Hellenic Numismatic Society (comprised of private collectors, dealers and professional scholars). Much of the history of Ai Khanoum was lost during these two disastrous decades. SAFE quotes Bopearchchi's comment about systematically planned illicit digs and illustrates the tiny infomercial with a rare tetradrachm struck by Diodotus during the reign of Antiochos II.

But, did they tell the whole story? Well, not really. They neglected to point out that Dr. Bopearchchi lays the blame for this devastation squarely where it belongs, on the political and religious zealotry that turned all of Afghanistan (not just ancient sites) into a waste land. Ironically, SAFE's sidebar illustration tells more of the story. The tetradrachm by Diodotus is known and preserved (and yes recorded) today because it is in the hands of a private collector. Bopearchchi describes how huge hoards have found their way to the bourse of Peshawar in Pakistan, many of them apparently being melted down for the silver content, others migrating to collectors in "Japan, Britain and America". A few local collectors, like Aman ur Rahman and Khurshid Ahmad Khan, saved some of the most important pieces from oblivion. They not only saved the coins, they collaborated with Dr. Bopearachchi on his important survey of Pre-Kushana Coins in Pakistan. Were the markets of Peshawar not mined by these collectors, even more of Ai Khanoum's and Afghanistan's history would have been consumed in the melting pots.

Of course this is not the sort of thing that SAFE really wants to highlight, so I doubt we will get that little sidelight to history in a SAFE sidebar. Nor will we hear that some archaeologists have actually advocated destroying ancient artifacts after they have been recorded. Why? Because they lack space to store them and destruction is deemed preferable to private ownership. Speaking of storage, one of the constant themes in anti-collector diatribe is that coins in private collections are not available for research and their "provenance" is usually not known. This is, in the first case, not true as there are scores of private collections published in the numismatic record (as well as online) and some of those publications are like the Bopearachchi study in the sense that professional scholars worked hand-in-hand with private collectors to produce them. The Levante Collection is a prime example, though only one of many. In the second case, private collectors are often better stewards of coins than institutions are and invaribly extract more useful information about the past from an unprovenanced coin than an archaeologist does from a perfectly measured find spot.

The hot buzz word these days is PROVENANCE. It is often suggested by archaeologists that without provenance an artifact loses its meaning and value. That is such a shallow argument that it really does not deserve a counter, but what about the recording of provenance? That surely does have some value when it is possible and practical to do so. Does the diligent recording of provenance by archaeologists give us a superior record of the past? Well, perhaps in some cases but certainly not in all and maybe not in most. Publication of archaeological site data is excruciatingly slow, if at all, and is normally not accessible to the general public without going to a major university or research center. The Swedish Institute at Athens reveals just how deplorable the situation can become. When attempting to develop the Database of Archaeological Material from Swedish Excavations in Greece (DAMSEG), the often hushed "museum basement" assets came under review. In their report on the process, which is in itself a laudable undertaking, they point to a widespread but rarely acknowledged problem that continues to grow as excavation material is now stored mainly in low budget, under staffed, regional state museums near the excavation sites in most countries. With typical Swedish candor, the report states: "What those who went into the storage found must have been chaos, for masses of archaeological material had lost its provenience and could often not be identified as coming even from a specific excavation, where publications did not exist. It turns out that some material was also lost... When all identifiable material had been taken care of, several tons of non-descript pottery fragments were dumped into the bay and what looked worthwhile keeping, was stored for the future." We could hope that the Swedish experience were an isolated occurrence, but alas it is not. The President of the Association of Cypriot Archaeologists in a scathing assessment of Archaeology in his homeland wrote ""We dash everywhere in Cyprus to dig and then we dump things. If you don't have space, don't dig." And there are similar reports, by archaeologists themselves, from virtually all countries where objects from the past are excavated. We might call them "Ethical Archaeologists."

Now, back to Afghanistan, there is one more detail that ought to be mentioned before I close this already lengthy post. In the Spring of 2005, the ACCG advanced a proposal to the Government of Afghanistan that the guild launch a concerted effort within the hobby and trade to recover coins known to have been stolen from the Kabul Museum. This was a project to be funded entirely by the guild with no cost whatever to the Afghan people. Our overture was initially embraced with enthusiasm by Embassy personnel and a representative of the ACCG met in person on more than one occasion with the Afghani Cultural Attache, Mr. Elmi, in Washington. As the details began to solidify, the embassy indicated that it would be necessary to coordinate with the home Ministry of Culture. At that point, communication ceased and the project ran up against a stone wall. No explanation was ever given, but it was more than obvious what had happened. Cooperation between a collector advocacy group and a source country Ministry of Culture was radically inconsistent with the Collector = Looter stance that Nationalists had developed as doctrine. One can easily see why the government of Afghanistan would not want to become embroiled in a political tug of war between collectors in America and the U.S. State Department or the American archaeological community.

Yes, there is a lot more to the story of Afghanistan's archaeological nightmare than just a mention of the looting, but SAFE did at least get it right in the sense that the losses are a monumental tragedy.

Forever Young

This past week I spent an afternoon with Ralph Conte in Columbia, Missouri. This active nonagenarian was a Bombardier/Navigator with the 669th and 670th Bomb Squadrons of the 416th Bomb Group during WWII and authored the Group history Attack Bombers We Need You. Most of his 65 combat missions were flown in the A-20 Havoc. He is the recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Purple Heart and numerous other U.S. and Allied Nation decorations and awards. Ralph graciously consented to sitting for a video taping session and for three hours he shared many remembrances of his days in the 416th, some delightful and some insightful—all of them interesting. At the very end of the session, Ralph reflected on the process of looking back. It was a poignant moment that I thought worth sharing now. The remainder of this interview will serve as source material, along with other interviews, photos and remembrances, for an eventual documentary about the 416th.

Ralph Conte

An IFAR Evening

On April 17, 2008 the International Foundation for Art Research hosted a public forum at the National Academy in New York. This rather unusual forum was titled "The Who, What, Why and How of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC). The panelists consisted of five, at that time, current and former members of the committee. Two of them were archaeologists, two chairpersons, and one a former dealer in the art trade. The long-awaited public report of this meeting appears in the most recent volume of IFAR Journal, Vol. 10, Nos. 3&4 (2008/2009). Peter Tompa has mentioned the report in his blog and has indicated that he plans to summarize the presentations of each individual—so I'll leave the bulk of the report itself to Peter. My copy of the journal arrived today and I read the 25 page article with great interest. Aside from the predictable philosophical differences of some panelists, I was struck by the candor of a number of comments from panelists that were very critical of the State Department's administration of this committee. Then current chairperson Jay I. Kislak shared the thinly veiled complaint that "We have a democracy, and it is a government of the people, for the people, by the people, not by the bureaucrats over them." What came through loud and clear from these presentations is that the basis for ACCG's claim that the State Department has perverted the law (CPIA) is on solid ground. The lack of transparency, indeed outright secrecy, at DOS was heavily criticized by three of the panelists and was characterized by Mr. Kislak as "absolutely, completely, un-American." He further opined that "this committe is going to continue in secrecy so long as the people controlling it can control it that way." Another panelist mentioned the ACCG led FOIA lawsuit as an example of how desperate the transparency issue has become at DOS.

Another point that seemed obvious to me was the clear dichotomy of interests that CPAC represents. Theoretically (under law) the committee is composed of eleven appointees from four major interest groups—three members represent the fields of archaeology, anthropology or ethnology; three members represent the trade; three members represent the general public and two members represent the museum community. As panelists in the IFAR forum pointed out, the committee has essentially become a vehicle for imposing import restrictions. It does in practically every case, recommend import restrictions as requested by foreign countries. One notable exception was the request from Cyprus in 2007 where CPAC did not recommend extending the existing restriction to include coins. The State Department added coins nonetheless, disregarding CPAC's advice. The only interest group of those mentioned above that dogmatically supports import restrictions is the archaeological community. That creates what amounts to a black and white situation. Therefore, it is rather amazing that their view has prevailed over so many years and through so much diversity of CPAC membership. In fact, it is downright mind boggling that the nationalistic archaeological view could be so predominant when their physical numbers are so tiny in comparison to the globalist view. This begs a number of questions about how CPAC works. ACCG has asked those questions, and sought documents related to the process, but the shroud of secrecy blocked every path. Although some archaeologists have criticized or ridiculed the FOIA lawsuit now nearing a conclusion, the IFAR report makes it clear that this challenge was long overdue and is as American as apple pie. Petitioning government for answers and accountability is an American right and ridicule from abroad notwithstanding, it is still a right that many Americans hold dear and will fight for.

That collectors are forced into an adversarial situation with archaeologists is a sad and unfortunate situation. However, it appears that as long as archaeology is dominated by ideologues bent on the elimination of opposing views, we are left with the train wreck that cultural property management and protection is today. Kudos to IFAR for bringing this topic out into the sunshine even if it was an evening event.