In perusing the blog of one archaeologist today I noticed an interesting comment. The blogger and a commentor were questioning the accuracy of the reported "find" location of some objects reported in the British Portable Antiquities Scheme. They were, in fact, criticizing the PAS itself. Both implied that professional archaeological excavation was the only way to guarantee the origin of an object (i.e. not "looted") and its authenticity.
The reason that this resonated in my admittedly foggy memory is that some twenty-years-ago I was personally involved in a raging debate over the authenticity of some small silver-alloy coins from the Balkan cities of Mesembria and Apollonia, referred to as the Black Sea Hoard. Without going into a long explanation of the details, I was one of a group of private numismatists that condemned the coins as modern fakes. Opposed to our view was a scientist from a prominent university in Michigan who tested the coins with an Electron Scanning Microscope and pronounced them ancient, not modern. As the debate raged, over a two-year period, the scientist defended his analysis by actually making a trip to Bulgaria, where these coin types were struck in antiquity. At the archaeological museum in Varna, the scientist found deposited there coins of this type from a local archaeological excavation. Indeed, the coins were a die match to some of the coins being debated. This would seem to suggest, since the excavation was an official state controlled project, that the dies were indeed ancient and that the coins in question were authentic. Well, that was not the case. The Black Sea Hoard coins first started showing up in European markets in 1986, the same year that these excavation coins were accessioned at the Varna museum. What a coincidence! To make a long story shorter, I'll cut to the chase. The coins were fakes and the actual dies used to produce them were ultimately made public. The excavation coins at the Varna museum were salted in the excavation to lend credibility to their authenticity.
In November of 2000, a leading Japanese archaeologist admitted fabricating the discovery of exceedingly rare and early stoneware by planting the objects himself. He revealed to reporters that the new discoveries were actually objects found in earlier digs that he had planted in the 600,000-year-old layer of earth and that he had kept more than 60 of the stoneware pieces at his home. Obviously, the information from this official excavation was totally invalid.
There have been many other cases of outright fraud in supposedly controlled environments.
Archaeologist Paul Bahn wrote about the problem of fraud within his own discipline in a 2001 article where he states that: "Careers have been boosted, reputations made and enhanced, salaries raised and honours awarded because the perpetrators have indulged in these kinds of dishonesty. Too often, nobody has felt able or courageous enough to point the finger and expose them; no one, least of all the media, has checked the facts; and, anyway, most people find it hard to believe that scholars would lie and cheat so brazenly." Bahn rightly points out that such cases in relative terms are rare, but they do have an impact on scholarship.
The point, I think, is that there are no guarantees in the realm of human experience. We all need to do the best that we can and the PAS does offer a far superior model for the preservation of cultural property and archaeological sites than any of the draconian laws of Mediterranean countries where antiquities are found in seemingly endless numbers. We ought to be praising the efforts of those who manage the PAS rather than snatching at any and every way to hurl a criticism.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
Round one to the Foggy Bottom Klan
Yes, it's true. The Bush Administration has signed the deeply flawed, much contested and largely unpopular Memorandum of Understanding that restricts the importation of many forms of Chinese art and artifacts into America. Personally, it was a disappointing event for me. No, I don't collect or deal in anything Chinese. In fact, Chinese coins are not particularly popular in the U.S. collector market and will be missed by a relatively few collectors of ancient coins. Why was it disappointing? Because as a person who values personal property rights very highly, I have become disillusioned with the political party that once carried that banner with pride. The Chinese request for import restrictions was flawed from the start and was opposed by a bi-partisan list of legislators including Senators Kit Bond (R) of Missouri and Charles Schumer (D) of New York, both of whom received the ACCG "Friend of Numismatics" award for intervening with the State Department on this issue. They did, in fact, kill action on the MOU back in 2005 when it was being deliberated. But, now that everyone on the White House team is packing their treasures and mementos in Washington, the bureaucrats get to rule the roost and Bush's 11th hour appointee Goli Ameri has been quite happy it seems to sign, smile and skate. It hard to believe that a political appointee with only months on the job would sign a problematic international agreement on the way out the door without any apparent reservation or renewed discussion. Sure, Ms. Ameri can go back to Portland and hang a bunch of impressive photos on her office wall, but her real legacy in Washington is that she helped perpetuate the usurpation of the U.S. Government by mid-level bureaucrats. I'm not sure if it's ironic, or maybe just typical, that Ms. Ameri's predecessor Dina Powell did esentially the same thing with the Cyprus MOU as she was slipping out the door to begin her new job at Goldman Sachs. Are these two at fault? Well probably not, even though one would hope for a bit more political savvy in a high profile job like theirs. They were manipulated by the sharpest bureaucrats the world has ever seen—the Foggy Bottom Klan. The outcome is hardly a major setback for the ancient coin collecting community, but the revolving door of political appointees at ranking State Department positions is indeed a major impediment to fair government and service to the people. I hope that Secretary of State Clinton gets a better handle on it. Whoever Secretary Clinton appoints to replace Ms. Ameri at the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, one thing is certain. They will hear more about Cyprus and China—from both sides, I'm sure.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Ad Usam: A philosophical straight jacket
A friend and fellow collector of ancient coins sent me an interesting article this year along with the annual family news and holiday greetings. The title is "Everything viewed as 'Ad usam,' For use, as gift." The piece was written by Ron Rolheiser, OMI and may be read in its entirety on Rolheiser's web site. The OMI, by the way, stands for Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate. Father Rolheiser, a Roman Catholic priest, is a noted speaker, columnist and author. He is president of the Oblate School of Theology in San Antonio, Texas. The essence of his article is encapsulated in the extracted quote:
"What ultimately undergirds all spirituality, all morality, and all authentic human relationship is the unalterable truth that everything comes to us as gift, so that nothing can ever be owned as ours by right."
I have to admit that this premise led me to a moment or two of introspection. Try though I may, I cannot personally imagine a world in which we own nothing. The introspection came when I had to ask myself if this view of mine is somehow aberrant. For most people, the philosophical question probably never arises, but having been told by several people in recent years that it is "immoral" for an individual to own cultural property, specifically ancient coins, I've become a bit sensitized to that line of reasoning. Father Rolheiser goes on to say that "...nobody has a right to ultimately claim anything as his own." Admittedly, perpetual ownership is impossible because mortality trumps all. However, for the here and now, I cannot agree with his view that we have no "right to ownership." In fact, I would argue that Father Rolheiser is way out on a limb with his view, as are those who believe that the private collecting of cultural property is somehow immoral or inappropriate.
The essence of Cultural Property Nationalism, and the law of the land in some intensely nationalist countries, is that the State owns everything of cultural significance found in (or on) the ground. The removal of any cultural property from these States is by their law considered theft. In recent years the U.S. National Stolen Property Act has become a vehicle through which foreign governments attempt to retrieve property that they claim as cultural patrimony. It is impossible to have theft without ownership. The laws of practically every modern nation are built around the concept of property rights, whether they be the rights of States or of private citizens. Even the Bill of Rights embodied in the United States Constitution includes the protection of property rights and ownership. I'm sure that the Roman Catholic Church, Father Rolheiser's view notwithstanding, considers its exemption from taxation in the U.S. a "right" rather than a gift. I suspect that the church also believes, beyond any doubt, that they "own" the substantial properties to which they hold title. The observance of absolute poverty and obedience may be spiritually rewarding to some monastical visionaries, but it is not the axis upon which the world turns.
I submit that individuals do have a moral and legal right to own property that is not prohibited by law. In fact, under law in most places what is not specifically illegal is by default legal. Contrary to the opinion of some idealists within the archaeological community, the right to own cultural property is not an exception to basic universal rights. But even if it were, and Father Rolheiser's view were to become a world consensus, what divine or mortal law mandates that possession ad usam is limited to self appointed or parochial stewards? Whether those stewards be Benedictine abbots or academic archaeologists, the controls they wield under the guise of stewardship are no less repressive to mankind than the draconian laws of repressive political regimes. They seek to strip individuals of inalienable rights and often do so with relish and bravado. When a Benedictine monk relinquishes his rights voluntarily, as Father Rolheiser has described, it is one thing. When rights are involuntarily stripped from one person to serve the ideological agenda of another person it is something entirely different.
I really do have a hard time wrapping my mind around the concept of mandatory stewardship when it amounts to nothing more than a usurpation by controlling interests without even the pretense of "Divine Right" or "Controlling Legal Authority." Make no mistake, the confrontation between cultural property nationalists and private collectors is indeed about ownership and rights— the concept of Ad usam is just an esoteric mask for the institutional repression of individual freedoms.
"What ultimately undergirds all spirituality, all morality, and all authentic human relationship is the unalterable truth that everything comes to us as gift, so that nothing can ever be owned as ours by right."
I have to admit that this premise led me to a moment or two of introspection. Try though I may, I cannot personally imagine a world in which we own nothing. The introspection came when I had to ask myself if this view of mine is somehow aberrant. For most people, the philosophical question probably never arises, but having been told by several people in recent years that it is "immoral" for an individual to own cultural property, specifically ancient coins, I've become a bit sensitized to that line of reasoning. Father Rolheiser goes on to say that "...nobody has a right to ultimately claim anything as his own." Admittedly, perpetual ownership is impossible because mortality trumps all. However, for the here and now, I cannot agree with his view that we have no "right to ownership." In fact, I would argue that Father Rolheiser is way out on a limb with his view, as are those who believe that the private collecting of cultural property is somehow immoral or inappropriate.
The essence of Cultural Property Nationalism, and the law of the land in some intensely nationalist countries, is that the State owns everything of cultural significance found in (or on) the ground. The removal of any cultural property from these States is by their law considered theft. In recent years the U.S. National Stolen Property Act has become a vehicle through which foreign governments attempt to retrieve property that they claim as cultural patrimony. It is impossible to have theft without ownership. The laws of practically every modern nation are built around the concept of property rights, whether they be the rights of States or of private citizens. Even the Bill of Rights embodied in the United States Constitution includes the protection of property rights and ownership. I'm sure that the Roman Catholic Church, Father Rolheiser's view notwithstanding, considers its exemption from taxation in the U.S. a "right" rather than a gift. I suspect that the church also believes, beyond any doubt, that they "own" the substantial properties to which they hold title. The observance of absolute poverty and obedience may be spiritually rewarding to some monastical visionaries, but it is not the axis upon which the world turns.
I submit that individuals do have a moral and legal right to own property that is not prohibited by law. In fact, under law in most places what is not specifically illegal is by default legal. Contrary to the opinion of some idealists within the archaeological community, the right to own cultural property is not an exception to basic universal rights. But even if it were, and Father Rolheiser's view were to become a world consensus, what divine or mortal law mandates that possession ad usam is limited to self appointed or parochial stewards? Whether those stewards be Benedictine abbots or academic archaeologists, the controls they wield under the guise of stewardship are no less repressive to mankind than the draconian laws of repressive political regimes. They seek to strip individuals of inalienable rights and often do so with relish and bravado. When a Benedictine monk relinquishes his rights voluntarily, as Father Rolheiser has described, it is one thing. When rights are involuntarily stripped from one person to serve the ideological agenda of another person it is something entirely different.
I really do have a hard time wrapping my mind around the concept of mandatory stewardship when it amounts to nothing more than a usurpation by controlling interests without even the pretense of "Divine Right" or "Controlling Legal Authority." Make no mistake, the confrontation between cultural property nationalists and private collectors is indeed about ownership and rights— the concept of Ad usam is just an esoteric mask for the institutional repression of individual freedoms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
