Excavation Analysis

A friend sent this unprovenanced report via email, which ironically was passed over a wireless system:

After having dug to a depth of 10 feet last year, New York scientists found traces of copper wire dating back 100 years and came to the conclusion, that their ancestors already had a telephone network more than 100 years ago. Not to be outdone by the New Yorkers, in the weeks that followed, a California archaeologist dug to a depth of 20 feet, and shortly after, a story in the LA Times read: 'California archaeologists, finding traces of 200 year old copper wire, have concluded that their ancestors already had an advanced high-tech communications network a hundred years earlier than the New Yorkers. One week later, The Kansas City Star, a local newspaper in K.C., Mo, reported the following: After digging as deep as 30 feet in his pasture near Warsaw, Mo, Bubba Brown, a self-taught archaeologist, reported that he found absolutely nothing. Bubba has therefore concluded that 300 years ago, Mo. had already gone wireless.. " Just makes you proud to be from Missouri !

Welcome

At the right of this page, readers will see a FEEDJIT live traffic map. This feature records the readership of this blog on a day-to-day basis. I want to welcome and thank today's visitors from the following countries for their interest in cultural property and its preservation:

Argentina,

Australia,

Bangladesh,

Bulgaria,

Canada,

Cyprus,

Czech Republic,

Estonia,

Ethiopia,

France,

Germany,

Greece,

Hungary,

India,

Indonesia,

Iran,

Ireland,

Italy,

Jordan,

Kuwait,

Latvia,

Malaysia,

Netherlands,

Nicaragua,

Pakistan,

Philippines,

Poland,

Romania,

Russia,

Serbia,

Singapore,

South Africa,

Spain,

Sweden,

Turkey,

Ukraine,

United Kingdom,

United States of America

Our Cosmopolitan Past

In a "Looting Matters" blog posted earlier this week, Dr. David Gill left his readers with a fascinating closing statement:

"The ACCG needs to work with archaeologists to preserve the archaeological record. Its present position seems to suggest that collecting is more important than the preservation of our cosmopolitan past."

Aside from the usual faulty logic, Dr. Gill uses a phrase that I find quite extraordinary—"preservation of our cosmopolitan past."

Merriam-Webster defines the adjective cosmopolitan as:

1 : having worldwide rather than limited or provincial scope or bearing
2 : having wide international sophistication: WORLDLY
3 : composed of persons, constituents, or elements from all or many parts of the world

in other words, "Globalist" rather than "Nationalist."

For an advocate of Cultural Property Nationalism, this is literally heretical. If the past, and its tangible evidence, is "cosmopolitan" how can its ownership be claimed by one party? I think that Dr. Gill has been hoist with his own petard, as one famous Brit put it. I don't argue with his use of the word, it is truly the case (contrary to the incongruous view of UNESCO) that culture and history are without territorial constraints—yes, cosmopolitan. The relatively few cases where either have been repressed at a national level led to serious social upheaval. I would even agree with Dr. Gill that archaeologists and collectors should work together (maybe he got that subliminal message from my recent post here). But wait, did Dr. Gill say we should work together to preserve the past? No, he said we should work together to "preserve the archaeological record." Is preserving the archaeological record more important than preserving the past? Collectors have been preserving the past for centuries, archaeologists have been destroying the past for a hundred years or so and the information that they do extract from a dig is mostly lost in unpublished manuscripts and inaccessible files that are far from cosmopolitan. Their tangible evidence is recorded to an amazing degree of accuracy in terms of physical location and surrounding context. Reams and reams of paper document these exacting details and then what? A few major objects gain the attention of some researcher who extracts from them a detail or two about the past. Compare this with an army of private scholars who study every aspect of a coin, for example, from its iconography to its economic relationships. Who are the better stewards?

Truthfully, both have something important to offer. Why there is such a vehement rejection of private scholarship and collecting by some academic archaeologists is way beyond my ability to comprehend. Dr. Gill is on the right track, collectors and archaeologists should work together. But, not just to preserve the archaeological record (a nationalist and egocentric thought process) but to preserve the past in a truly cosmopolitan sense.

Nuance in New York

"Holy heart failure Batman, did you see the Gotham papers this week?"

Yes, the unthinkable did happen. On Saturday, November 13th, Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by Melik Kaylan headlined "Myths of Babylon." four days later, The New York Times ran a piece by John Tierney titled "A case in antiquities for 'Finders Keepers' ." The mere fact that these editorially antithetical publications published back-to-back articles about cultural property is not so remarkable—the topic is, after all, becoming steamy. What is remarkable is that both were critical of cultural property nationalists. When these two publications share a common view, it is worth paying attention.

Melik Kaylan has been a New York based journalist for 25 years. His resume includes positions as Editor of the Village Voice, Associate Editor of Connoisseur magazine and Arts Editor at Forbes.com. He has written for numerous publications including Wall Street Journal, Vogue, New York Times, The Times of London and others. Kaylan has won Cultural Awards in Italy and Turkey for print and television work on antiquities smuggling. The Kaylan report mentioned above roundly criticizes nationalists and archaeologists for orchestrating massively overblown media hype over the military's supposed failure to protect Iraq's heritage. While not specifically charging archaeologists with willful deception, Kaylan leaves his readers with few alternate conclusions. He cites unfounded reports and "highly provocative" accusations flowing from their community without any exercise of what he calls "responsible judgement."

John Tierney writes a twice-a-week column for The New York Times, where he has worked since 1990. He has written for The New York Times Magazine and The Times Metro Section, and has served as a correspondent in the Washington and Baghdad Bureaus. He has also written for The Atlantic, Esquire, New York Magazine, Newsweek and numerous other publications. In making a case for "Finders Keepers", Tierney makes a bold statement that others have merely danced around. "...there is no doubt that the cultural-property laws have turned archaeological discoveries into political weapons." In this respect Tierney echoes the conclusions of his colleague Michael Kimmelman, whose article "When Ancient Artifacts Become Political Pawns" appeared in The New York Times on October 23rd. He goes on to challenge several cultural property nationalist tenets, agreeing in many cases with Art Institute of Chicago Director James Cuno. Mr. Kimmelman and Mr. Tierney are probably unaware that the U.S. State Department treated ancient coins as political pawns in the Memoranda of Agreement with Cyprus and China, but they certainly have the situation pegged correctly.

In and of themselves, neither of these articles by Melik Kaylan nor John Tierney are breaking news. They are opinion editorials. In 2004, when the ACCG was founded, the press was almost exclusively dominated with condemnation of the antiquities trade, criticism of American museums and vilification of private collectors. Articles like the two mentioned above were virtually unheard of. Finally, that rush to judgement has come into question and the national press is beginning to realize that academic archaeologists are not the only interest group with a legitimate point of view. The pendulum may finally be starting to swing back.

Symbiosis Lost

Ancient coins have existed since the 7th century BC. They attracted the interest of collectors shortly after that and have continued to inspire ordinary people around the world for going on three millennia. During the Italian Renaissance, the collecting of ancient coins became so popular that a sophisticated commercial market emerged and numismatic scholarship blossomed. Anyone with sufficient interest and erudition was able to study the past through its coins. The development of numismatics as a science is a result mainly of private collectors and their dedication to the pursuit of knowledge. When academia became aware of the value of coins as voices from the past, coin collectors and professional scholars found that they had much in common and worked closely together. Yes, that was a long time ago.

What we see today is a bitter turf war between private collectors, independent scholars, museums, nationalist governments and archaeologists. What happened to the symbiosis? Deep within the collecting community, there is still a longing for cooperation and symbiotic support with those academics who dedicate their lives to study of the past. But, the mutual cooperation and respect of those halcyon days is all but gone. The only words that most private collectors hear from archaeologists these day are disparaging. And, in equal measure, the response is unfriendly. As archaeological blog comments about the recent CPAC hearing on Italy reveal, the symbiosis is all but dead. It is unlikely ever to reappear to the extent that we saw in the 19th or 20th centuries. That is sad from a collector's point of view, but is it equally sad from the academic archaeologist's point of view? I am coming to doubt that it is. They have very little use for private collectors and are not reticent to say so. There is no denying that a bitter antagonism exists between collectors and archaeologists. I've called it a Cultural Property War and have been criticized therefore as being "bellicose". I didn't start the Cultural Property War and I see it in the light of all wars—as a devastating and unwelcome event. Personally, I long for those symbiotic collaborations of the past. But, I am a realist and there seems to be little chance that the forces guiding and controlling the discipline of archaeology and the cultural ministries of nationalist nations will ever again embrace private collecting as a friend. I see that as their loss, but it is really a loss for all of us.

The die is cast, I fear, and the present struggle will continue until archaeology has established its dominance or private collecting its independence. I would predict that neither will happen soon nor without considerable animosity and a terrible loss of opportunity.

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.