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.

Questions and Truth

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) argued that truth is a value judgement and questioned the premise that truth is always preferable to (or more valuable than) untruth. He also suggested that we should learn from the ancient Sphinx how to ask questions. Should a question always seek the truth as a response? One would normally think so, but what of the case where an untruth is valued more highly by someone than the truth? Is insinuation of an untruth in the form of a question a reflection of values and therefore acceptable? Nevermind, that's a rhetorical question that has no truth or untruth in the answer.

In a news article headlined "Why are Ancient Coins From Cyprus Featured in a Suit Against the US Department of State?" archaeologist David Gill asks a misleading question. Of course, they are NOT featured in any such lawsuit (at least not yet). This question was posed by Gill in a press release filed through a commercial news service. It ran, as these releases always do, in scores of media outlets that reach a very wide spectrum of society. Being a news medium, with certain standards of veracity, the reader might expect to find an answer based on truth. Unless, of course, the question is framed with a Nietzschean mindset. In that case, an untruth may be viewed by the author as a perfectly acceptable answer, irrespective of societal norms. The typical reader of a press release is not going to know much about Nietszche or about ancient coins, maybe not even about Cyprus. They definitely will not know much about the U.S. State Department, which is by design one of the most secretive agencies in the U.S. government. For Gill's answer to the headline question, the reader is referred to his most current blog posting. But, as a final teaser at the end of his press release Gill asks one more question: "Are these aggressive legal tactics really for the benefit of collectors, or are there other factors at work?" Once again, the reader expects a question to be followed by a truth. Instead, what they are fed is a potpourri of inaccuracies, untruths and insinuations. What poses as an innocent question is really the sort of catty insinuation that one comes to expect in blogs these days, not in the media.

Let me just outline a few specific inaccuracies in the Gill press release and blog. Speaking about the ACCG/IAPN/PNG Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, he writes: "The alliance objected to the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) restricting the import of ancient coins minted in Cyprus as part of a wider memorandum of understanding (MOU)."

The truth is that 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. Moreover, the FOIA lawsuit is not about the Cyprus import restrictions as the sources that Gill himself quotes will attest.

It's unfortunate that Dr. Gill chooses to argue against the actions of ACCG et al when he clearly does not understand how the U.S. government or legal systems work. The FOIA lawsuit is not about the Cyprus MOU, it is about a series of nine FOIA requests for information dating back to 2004. The requested information consists of documentation that should, under law, have been released to the general public. However, the State Department has in every case denied access to even the most mundane information. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit exhausted every possible administrative appeal prior to launching this suit. Since filing the suit, the State Department has voluntarily released hundreds of documents previously denied. Further releases of material still withheld may be mandated by the federal judge presiding over the case. To characterize this suit as commercially motivated is either ignorant of the facts or malevolent. But, even if it were commercially motivated, so what? Is commerce immoral or against the law? Dr. Gill is certainly not a member of the ACCG and has no standing to complain on that account. As a point of fact, not one single member of the guild has complained about this lawsuit or how it is being handled. On the contrary, they are funding it.

Gill asks on his blog: "Is this alliance of three organisations in reality acting over freedom of information? Could there also be an implicit commercial interest in the liberalisation of the market in ancient coins? This reference to "the liberalisation of the market in ancient coins" is actually a bit comical. The market is constantly being assailed and restricted in one action after another. I don't quite understand how trying to deflect this onslaught is a liberalization of the market. He quotes the following phrase from a State Department filing in court: "Consequently, Plaintiffs’ claims that they are advocating the public interest are properly viewed with some skepticism given ACCG’s “two phase” “coordinated plan” to attempt to rescind the import restrictions, which would commercially benefit a number of its benefactors, who appear to be U.S.-based dealers and brokers of ancient coins."

The Freedom of Information Act protects the rights of all U.S. citizens whether they be archaeologists, collectors or coin dealers. Gill ought to know this, since he is quoting above from court documents provided for the public on the ACCG web site. Although he states in his blog that the plaintiffs refuted the above statement, he chooses to post it anyway and conveniently neglects to post or link to the plaintiff's response (below) from those same documents:

"Initially, it should be noted that Defendant [State Department] spends a great deal of space in its reply/opposition discussing Plaintiff ACCG’s efforts to challenge import restrictions. (Defendant’s reply/opposition at 4, 25-26.) No matter how Defendant feels about these actions, they are completely immaterial and unrelated to this FOIA action (1). NARA v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 172 (“[A]s a general rule, when documents are within FOIA’s disclosure provisions, citizens should not be required to explain why they seek the information.”) reh’g denied, 541 U.S. 1057 (2004). The fact that Defendant is upset with one of the three Plaintiffs actions is not surprising when reviewed in the prism of this lawsuit. Defendant initially refused to process most of the requests at issue until Plaintiffs brought this action. See Compl. At Counts I to IX. And the releases grudgingly made by Defendant illustrate the lengths Defendant’s component controlling many of the responsive records, the Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs (“ECA”), has gone to circumvent Plaintiffs and others with similar points of view from voicing their opinions on import restrictions.

(1) In fact, only one of the three named Plaintiffs in this matter, ACCG, is making the challenge to the import restriction as detailed by Defendant. At pages 4-5, Defendant claims ACCG is pursuing that matter in support of the “commercial interests” of some its benefactors. This tact, evidently cribbed from some of the more outspoken archaeological blogs, is not only inaccurate, but beside the point. See http://ancientcoincollecting.blogspot.com/2009/05/rose-is-rose.html (last visited June 2, 2009) and http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/05/whats-wrong-with-commercial-interests.html (last visited June 2, 2009). In any event, only U.S. Customs has the power to ensure that ‘test case” will proceed. To date, U.S. Customs has detained some 23 inexpensive, common, “unprovenanced” ancient Chinese and Cypriot coins properly declared before import from the United Kingdom into the “Port of Baltimore.” See http://www.accg.us/issues/news/coin-collectors-to-challenge-state-department-on-import-restrictions (last visited June 2, 2009). Customs will either return the coins or take the legal steps necessary to seize them either through an administrative process or through an “in rem” action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland."

Gill further states in his blog: "The growing realisation that action needs to be taken about the antiquities market has been reflected in the work of the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC). The most noticeable action was over antiquities from Iraq in the wake of the Second Gulf War and the looting of the Baghdad Museum."

This statement is really ludicrous as well as being one of those "untruths" that get tossed about with such wild abandon. Regarding CPAC, the committee was formed under law expressly to protect the rights of the trade and general public. That is why the seats on the committee are mandated by law to include representatives from the trade, museums, and general public as well as archaeologists. Any change of concensus that may be detected at CPAC in recent years is not a reflection of a change in market dynamics, but rather a product of the fact that pro-archaeology and nationalist leaning individuals had been appointed to some of the museum and general public slots, skewing the ideology and consequently the vote from its legally mandated representative base toward a special interest. Gill's comment about CPAC and Iraq is profoundly off the mark. CPAC had no involvement whatever with Iraq and in fact could not have had under law. The temporary import restrictions on antiquities from Iraq (which are soon to expire) were authorized by specific legislative action, not by the State Department under CPIA.

He goes on to say: "The ACCG seems intent on criticising a policy that is intended to offer some protection to the archaeological heritage of Cyprus and China by placing restrictions on the movement of material that may have been derived as a result of illicit diggings on archaeological sites." I would consider this an innocent misunderstanding had we not plowed this field so many times in the past. In the present light, I can only see it as a purposeful and malicious mischaracterization. The ACCG has never opposed CPIA and indeed has stated publicly and often that it is a fair and equitable law. The ACCG has opposed the tyranny, secrecy, and disregard for the letter and intent of CPIA evidenced repeatedly by the State Department's arbitrary and capricious application of select provisions of the law while ignoring basic protections within that law. That Dr. Gill finds this objectionable seems odd to me since it is a matter between American citizens and the U.S. Government and he is neither. The ACCG has always condemned illicit digging on archaeological sites. That is a well known fact that Dr. Gill fails to admit. Instead, he suggest through his implicit language that the situation is otherwise. He is being neither coy nor subtle, he is courting his own distorted view of the truth.

Despite their erudition, Dr. Gill and his colleagues Barford and Elkins seem to know precious little about American law and even less about the ACCG court cases in progress and pending. They, in fact, know very little about the ACCG itself and obviously operate on presumptions made within their narrow ideological framework. They spread misinformation, like wildfire on the plains, often through pure murdering of the truth. I don't think even Neitzche had that in mind. He did, however, say:

"To help a perception to achieve victory often means merely to unite it with stupidity so intimately that the weight of the latter also enforces the victory of the former."

Human, all too Human, s.122, R.J. Hollingdale translation.

Coming Home

Anyone who has an Email account has had more than one experience with forwarded inspirational messages. While these are always well intentioned, and often touching, they do tend to gang up on one's free time and tax one's ability sometimes to fully appreciate them. As a matter of course, I rarely pass them on. But, one came from a friend in the mail last week that I simply must share. Any copyright info was long since lost in the forwarding process but the origin is clearly a message from Ford Motor Company™. It is, in fact, a commercial of sorts. So, let's add the copyright back in and give full credit to Ford for producing the most poignant commercial that I have ever seen. Yes, even better than the Budweiser Christmas commercials. I'm not given to emotionalism, as all who know me well will quickly attest, but this video brings tears to my eyes every time I watch it. Now, even if you are a fan of the new State-owned General Motors products, you owe it to yourself to watch this one. I'm pretty sure that Ford will forgive my transgression in passing it along.