Getting it right

Having spent more than a little time in the journalistic field, I very personally and intimately understand the difficulties of feeding accurate and useful information to the public. Those who package the "news" often are forced to rely on contributions from freelancers or from well meaning but ill equipped volunteers. Sometimes, information fed to a publisher serves a commercial or personal agenda, and that is an inescapable part of the flow. Sometimes, the information is simply not accurate and that can become problematic for both the reader who is misinformed or the publisher whose credibility is weakened. A news item circulated by ANSA on May 13th, appears to be one of those latter cases.

The piece, titled "Euphronios Chalice Finds Home" bears a dateline of Rome, April 13. It does not include a byline nor a contact individual (the reason for its 30 days in limbo is a mystery). In fact, there is no indication whatever of the source—which is rather unusual. Although that is not a major shortcoming, there ARE major shortcomings in the article. The title itself is the first clue that something is wrong. The krater, used for mixing wine with water (Ah! So that's why the ancients could put away so much alchoholic beverage), is 18 inches tall and almost 22 inches wide at the rim. It holds 12 U.S. gallons, hardly something you would raise to your lips unless you were the subject of a fraternity initiation. Granted, the distinction between krater and chalice may be lost in the translation from Italian to English, but the reporter goes on to describe it twice as a "drinking cup." The point of the press release seems to be that the world-famous krater has returned "home" to the Villa Giulia Etruscan Museum in Italy following a traveling exhibition of "stolen" objects recently repatriated from museums in America. Given the significance of the event, the utter lack of familarity of the author with the subject is really unforgiveable.

A second, and far more serious, shortcoming is the misleading claim that the krater is now "home". As the article itself points out, the vase was made by a Greek potter named Euxitheos, working in Athens during the closing years of the sixth century BC. That much is a given fact, since the krater itself is signed by both the potter and the painter, Euphronios, after whom the piece is now named. It has been claimed by the Italian government that the krater, with its Trojan War scene of the death of Sarpedon, was illegally excavated from an Etruscan tomb in 1971. After a very lengthy and contentious series of negotiations, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City agreed to return the krater to Italy. That is a given as well. What is not a "fact" is the claim that the krater is now home.

The nationalistic claims of countries that press to retain all objects from the past deemed "cultural property" have become so aggressive that they have exceeded any measure of rationality and the actions of cultural property nationalists often conflict with their own espoused principles. Cyprus, for example, has sweet-talked the U.S. State Department into granting an import restriction on coins of "Cypriot Type" from antiquity. The mentality apparently is that if it was produced in Cyprus, it belongs to Cyprus. Where it happens to be today is irrelevant. Therefore, any Cypriot coin—even one that left Cyprus 2,000 years ago—is prohibited from entry into the United States unless it is accompanied by an export permit from the Cypriot government. Yes, that means that a coin floating around Europe between one private collection and another for the past few centuries without a record or "provenance" cannot be purchased by an American collector unless the Cypriot government sprinkles holy water on the deal. The fact that, under EU regulations, that same coin can freely transit all over Europe is irrelevant and never mind that coins typically do not come with a life history of the object. Virtually the same situation exists with artifacts, including coins, made in China.

So, if this is the cultural property standard adopted by the U.S. State Department, does not the Euphronios Krater really belong to Greece? Does it really matter where the krater was dug up (does archaeology trump culture?) if the basis for controlling its "Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership" (UNESCO 1970) is that it is Cultural Property? The Euphronios Krater is surely more culturally Greek than Italian. Would anyone argue that the Parthenon Marbles should go to Italy? Preposterous? I fail to see any real distinction. Both the krater and the marbles left Greece with the permission of the legitimate government at the time of export. The argument can't swing both ways. Either the krater belongs to Greece or the Marbles belong to England. Perhaps the most aggressive of all cultural property nationalists is the flamboyant Zahi Hawass who repeatedly has said that if an object was made in Egypt, they want it back—all of it. The claims and arguments of cultural property nationalists are so laden with contradictions and incongruities that nobody can really say with any authority what belongs where and to whom. All of the rhetoric and the infomercials on both sides of cultural property issues, while sincere in their philosophical point of view, are really meaningless because the topic is so ill defined that it cannot be presented in a tidy summation.

The very essence of culture is somehow lost in the maelstrom of rhetoric that drowns out all rationality. John Hooker has written a very thought provoking paper on Deconstructing Cultural Heritage as it applies to property that I recommend to all who have an interest in the subject. If we are going to try to control objects related to culture, then we need some basic understanding of the topic before we will ever get it right.

A Rose is a Rose

The announcement of ACCG's latest initiative brought out the expected tongue lashings by archaeologists Paul Barford and Nathan Elkins. Sadly, it was the same old tune with no surprises. I have to admit that the entertainment value of their posts is fading fast. In perfect harmony, the two continue to harp on their favorite refrain calling the guild a "dealer lobby". Frankly, I don't get it. They seem to have some distorted mental framework that considers this mischaracterization an insult or degradation. When they first started tossing out this supposedly injurious claim, I tried to correct what I thought was merely an innocent misconception. After all, the ACCG represents more than 5,000 individuals. There aren't that many ancient coin dealers on earth. In fact, there probably aren't 1/10th that number. But, that was apparently not a convincing argument because the Barford-Elkins tag team kept right on hurling that claim, as if it were a rock.

They offer as "proof" the observation that all of the members of the ACCG board of directors have at some time been coin dealers, or have worked for the trade. OK. What does that mean? Is it a disgrace to have been involved in some way with a legitimate business that is recognized worldwide by both institutional and independent scholars alike? The current members of ACCG's Board of Directors are, through their aggregate published works, responsible for inspiring and nurturing more classical numismatists than any similar group in history. Every one of the directors was elected by the general membership and serve at the pleasure of the guild's members. The slings and arrows of Barford/Elkins aside, the group is very highly acclaimed by their peers. Whether they have any present or past affiliation with the trade is absolutely irrelevant. But, even if the ACCG were a "dealer lobby", so what? How would that change anything? If I said that Barford and Elkins were advocates for nationalist governments would that discredit them? Hardly.

The ACCG has goals and develops initiatives to further its goals. That Barford and Elkins disagree with those goals, is also irrelevant. What they think or say about the ACCG is equally irrelevant. All that really matters is that the ACCG remains true to its charter and defends the free and independent collecting of ancient coins. In the process, it is inevitable that the trade will be defended as well. That is exactly what the guild is doing and the Barfords and Elkins of the world will have no impact whatever on the outcome. Call the ACCG a dealer lobby if it makes you feel better, a rose is still a rose.

The Walls of Foggy Bottom

Ancient coin collectors are hoping for a 21st century rerun of Joshua and the Walls of Jericho as the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild musters its forces beneath the Walls of Secrecy surrounding the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs in Washington. The collectors advocacy group has launched a bold initiative to challenge unprecedented import restrictions that coin collectors feel were imposed without proper advice and considerations by the U.S. State Department. Indeed, the ACCG is claiming that the imposition of these restrictions was an abuse of discretion by State Department personnel.

While some nationalistic (and one can hardly avoid the word elitist) archaeologists have reviled and ridiculed private collectors, the ACCG has methodically moved forward with its effort to bring the cultural property battle to the halls of Justice. A recent and intentional importation of prohibited Chinese and Cypriot coins by the ACCG will serve as a test of the validity of import restrictions imposed through State Department agreements with China and Cyprus. As a consequence, the walls of secrecy at DOS that have long been considered impregnable could start to crumble. In a recent administrative order, President Obama himself called for a new era of transparency within governmental agencies. It will be interesting to see what effect this shared view of the White House and Ancient Coin Collectors, filtered through the Federal Courts, will have on the Walls of Foggy Bottom.