Archaeologist Defends State Secrecy

One can't help but raise an eyebrow when a British archaeologist comes out publicly in support of U.S. State Department (DOS) secrecy in its dealings with American citizens. Most academics in the United States, archaeologists included, have favored transparent government. But, hot on the heels of Obama administration guidance that transparency is the new order of the day, archaeologist Paul Barford has defended DOS refusal to comply with the Freedom of Information Act and in effect condoned the department's long standing penchant for secrecy. The State Department is currently the defendant in a FOIA lawsuit launched by ancient coin collectors and dealers, a group which the controversial Barford paints as looters and criminals. Representing the views of a venerable 600-year-old hobby and its modern adherents, the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild is challenging what it sees as bias leading to arbitrary and capricious actions on the part of the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. This challenge, needless to say, upsets certain anti-collector factions within the archaeological community that have worked long and hard to create the oppressive nationalistic environment that now prevails. Even more upsetting to them than the challenge itself must be the fact that polemics and opinionated blogs will have no effect whatever on the outcome.

In a recent blog post, Barford attacks a statement that I made in my immediately preceding post here:

"CPAC did NOT restrict the import of ancient coins minted in Cyprus. CPAC voted against adding coins to the extension of the existing MOU. The U.S. State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs added coins on its own volition, disregarding the advice of its own advisory committee."

I certainly did make this statement and he's right, there is nothing ambiguous about it. This information, in Barford's view was obtained illegally and unethically. Those are serious charges, even considering the source. Making such claims without a credible basis would certainly be enough to submarine the integrity of any genuine academic. Mr. Barford obviously did not read the filings in the current law suit that ACCG provided in a gesture of full disclosure and transparency (unlike DOS). Nor does Mr. Barford seem to understand that the statement above is derived from sworn testimony provided in advance to DOS attorneys and which the State Department opted not to restrict under Touhy regulations. Furthermore, the State Department took the rare and unusual step of publicly proclaiming, apologetically in a way, that it has a right to override CPAC recommendations. Still, in keeping with their ritual of silence, DOS has refused to acknowledge whether or not they have done so in the Cyprus MOU. That in itself is no surprise since it is standard operating procedure. Overriding a CPAC recommendation automatically triggers a special report to Congress under the provisions of CPIA (the applicable law). Multiple requests from legislators (Senators and Congressmen) for a clarification of this point, or a copy of this report, have been stonewalled by DOS. If there was any illegal or unethical activity associated with the release of this information it was most assuredly not on the part of ACCG or any CPAC member. But, since we are on the subject, the DOS secrecy on this point seems intended to mask yet another example of the arbitrary and capricious actions that ECA is notorious for. That secrecy has been criticized in the national media for the past decade — for example, here, here and here. It should be no great surprise that a challenge has finally materialized. If anything, it is surprising that it took this long.

As usual, Mr. Barford is way out of his league and is just shooting wildly from the hip with no concern for, or concept whatever of, truth. He is apparently not even familiar enough with U.S. law to realize that a civil complaint is not a "trial". His tactic of scanning the internet for a punchy quote may impress some, but his lack of understanding of the basic processes at work place him in the audience as a heckler rather than in a constructive dialogue. The ACCG will press on with its challenge of DOS improprieties and the Justice System will ultimately decide whether there is cause for redress. As for Mr. Barford, the archaeological community will apparently have to live with him since he has no standing in that community to forfeit and therefore cannot be influenced by more rational minds within the discipline. It should go without saying, however, that those who support his wild-eyed delusions will ultimately be judged by the same measure.