An Open Letter to “Indiana Jones”

Dear Dr. Jones,  

As a General Trustee of the Archaeological Institute of America, you must be well acquainted with the AIA position on cultural property.  Your fans will recall those immortal words from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade -- "It belongs in a museum."  That might well be true for the Ark of the Covenant, but did you really mean to say that EVERY cultural object, from broken pottery to long-lost pocket change, belongs in a nationalist state museum near the place it was found?  I rather doubt it, but that is precisely what your esteemed AIA colleagues lobby for and exactly what their "friends" in the U.S. State Department (DOS) are delivering through a stream of bilateral agreements with cultural property nationalist countries.  Make no mistake, we're not just talking about rare objects from the dawn of civilization, but about ordinary objects that can range from musical instruments to postage stamps.  Under the UNESCO Resolution of 1970, that cultural nationalists consider their Bible, millions of common objects made at the beginning of the 20^th century are already classified as "cultural property" and are subject to import and/or export controls.  

Think about it – a mid-level bureaucrat working for the U.S. Government essentially decides whether an American citizen can legally import something as mundane as a postage stamp.  Crazy idea?  Orwellian? Yes, it is, and they would have thought so in 1911 as well -- but similar restrictions have already been imposed here in the "land of the free."  Contrary to its own law, the American government is restricting the importation of minor utilitarian objects, including common coins, under the guise of protecting cultural property.  

Why?  Because archaeologists believe that trade encourages looting?  What would the State Department gain by restricting trade in old coins and the like?  Is this some sort of quid pro quo for diplomats to repay favors from nationalist governments--including some who deny personal property rights and even basic human rights to their own citizens?  What do archaeologists gain for their support of these nationalist regimes?  Approval of excavation permits in foreign lands?  Why do these cultural property nationalist countries even care about coins?  The evidence seems to suggest that some probably don’t – that they didn’t even ask for restrictions that have been imposed by the State Department on coins.  It's all quite convoluted and masked behind a wall of secrecy.

There are a lot of unanswered questions here Dr. Jones.  Maybe it's time for you to ask some serious questions of your own in those closed-door board sessions and consider whether you really do want to lend your fame and fortune to the ideological warfare that the AIA and DOS are waging on the rest of America.  

Planning a vacation in Italy? -- DON'T

Today, the U.S. State Department (DOS) imposed import restrictions on numerous types of ancient coins cast or struck in Italy.  Although the clear majority of public comment on the Memorandum Of Understanding with Italy was in opposition to restrictions on coins from any period, DOS sided, as usual, with the views of the archaeological community and a nationalist foreign government.  Ironically, this announcement comes on the heels of Legislative and Executive Branch appeals for less government regulation, especially of small businesses, where President Obama called some restrictions "just plain dumb".  At the same time, appeals to DOS from a bipartisan group of twelve U.S. Representatives to exempt coins from any MOU extension with Italy went unheeded.  Obviously, the communication from government's highest levels has not trickled down through the morass of bureaucracy at the State Department, where they continue to thumb their nose at critics of their policies—including elected officials.  Although technically under the direction of the president, DOS has traditionally marched to the beat of its own drum.  


The trade in licit coins of the types covered in this MOU will certainly be repressed because of the widespread absence of provenance information for coins and other minor antiquities in general—never before required, but now instantly mandatory.  Maintaining provenance records for every coin struck in the history of civilization is about as useful and realistic as counting raindrops in a thunderstorm.  While the impetus for restrictions of trade in objects like ancient coins is purportedly for preservation of cultural information, the actual effect of these restrictions is to repress a natural interest by Americans in cultures from abroad, to create hurdles for independent scholarship, and to cloister academic activity within a narrow and ideological special interest group that has the undivided attention of the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center.  All that would have been necessary to comply with the governing law and to protect the interests of Italy and the archaeological community was to impose import restrictions on coins "first found" in Italy — as CPIA clearly and specifically mandates.  Instead, it has been the choice of DOS to use the phrase "of Italian type", which applies as well to coins first found outside of Italy.  The distinction is enormous in that it not only criminalizes countless "orphans" that do not have recorded provenance but have been in the trade for centuries, it also shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused when a coin is detained at Customs.  This is not some mere semantic issue, it is a purposeful phrasing with full knowledge of its impact and ambiguity.


In recent months, the media has been inundated with reports of a pandemic in Italy where cultural property has been literally crumbling from neglect and mismanagement.  Countless genuine treasures from the past have been lost forever.  The government is simply unable to deal with the scope of preserving the millions of objects already in its possession—let alone the new finds every time a new road or building is built.  Yet, the very thought of private citizens owning, cherishing and preserving ancient objects is anathema to the intelligentsia of Italy and apparently of America.  The elitist attitude of professional stewards, and their self-serving protectionism, is medieval.   Yet, they claim a peremptory right of total control over objects from the past. After all, how could a stupid peasant adequately study and preserve anything?  It must be in the best interests of Society (with a capital S) that they "save antiquity for everyone."  No?  Well, in my considerable experience as an observer, I have come to realize that diplomas and intelligence are not necessarily related.


As a solution to their cultural property woes, Italy is now contemplating commercialization of its precious cultural heritage in true Casino and McDonald's fashion.  I wonder if they'll pass out an ancient coin with every McFlurry? (Offer does not apply to residents of the U.S.).   They must think this approach is preferable to allowing private stewardship.  After all, Casinos make enough money to hire more "experts" (like the ones they have now).  All this rhetoric about the preservation of priceless artifacts is at best disingenuous.  Cultural Property policies in Italy are all about control and job protection and everyone knows that.  So, if you're planning a trip to Italy to see all those fantastic sites, think about the MOU and what it does to your rights.  Do you really want to reward Italy for their intransigence?  Maybe you'd do better to visit Britain where they have a few treasures as well, along with a law and an attitude that actually does help preserve our knowledge of the past.

Dealing with the inconsequential

Salmaan Taseer once said "I'm not made from a wood that burns easily".  I feel genuine empathy with a man of such feeling and it seems that he encapsulated some of my own thoughts in this simple but profound statement.  Especially in the past five or six years, every word that I utter publicly, and particularly on this blog or other internet venues, has been jumped on with a vengeance by those archaeobloggers espousing a contrary point of view.  I suppose their need is great and my words are like a fix to a junkie who lives for nothing else.  Early on, I felt compelled to lash back and soothe my indignation.  These days, having become inured to their slings and arrows, I simply discount them as inconsequential.  They have nothing of real consequence to offer the world, no real contributions, certainly no plan for a way forward, and therefore have no relevance to society.  Think about it, for all of the ink spilled what have they achieved?  It is pointless to become upset by, or try to counter, the babblings of a marginalized fool.  The best approach is simply to consider the source and move on.  One might think this is a sad situation, but frankly I believe that we create our own stations in life and we either have to live with who we are or change.  With rabid ideologues, change is an unlikely scenario.  Therefore, we can expect that they will remain mired in their little mini-worlds and that their egos will continue to be soothed by their own self-stroking.  So, the best way to deal with these comic figures who long to be on the world stage is to laugh at their performances and recognize their lack of influence in the greater scheme of things.

How Government Works

We all learned in 8th grade Civics class how government works.  At least we thought we did.  The utopian idea that the populace should elect representatives sensitive to their specific needs and rely on those elected officials to serve their interests as a part of the nation's government sounds very appealing.  Sadly, more than a few Americans have died defending that notion, while newly-elected officials are likely to discover a quiet and different reality once they unpack their bags in Washington.  Don't misunderstand, I believe that most elected officials do genuinely feel a responsibility to their constituents and are sincere in their desire to help.  Every elected senator or representative has some sort of direct contact with folks back home via "listening post", "kitchen table" or "town hall" meetings.  They WILL listen to problems presented and WILL promise to look into any rational grievance (even some not so rational).  Typically, problem areas highlighted in this fashion relate to some branch of government that has failed to act in a way that someone or some group anticipates they should act.  The way that these concerns are addressed varies depending on their potential impact and on the number of people affected.

In many (perhaps most) cases, a telephone call from a junior legislative aide is sufficient to move the wheels of government in a direction that favors resolution of the real or perceived problem.  But, what about those cases where an aggrieved constituency runs head on into firmly entrenched ideological bureaucrats?  A telephone call of that nature is not going to move the mountain.  The "fourth branch" of government, the bureaucracy, is a formidable player in Washington infighting and some agencies, like the State Department, have developed a very efficient, savvy and fearless corps of bureaucrats.  They differ from the elected official in the sense that they have no specific constituency, are extremely secure in their positions and have no particular loyalty to the general population.  They are often fixated on creating and maintaining agency control over areas of special interest rather than public interest.

When stonewalled by a member of the bureaucracy (and yes, they do get stonewalled too), the next logical step for a legislator is to attempt to raise the issue at a more formal and somewhat higher level.  Of course this means a greater expenditure of resources and elected officials are rarely overstaffed or overfunded.  Simple mathematics winnows out the chaff from the wheat and practical considerations dictate which issues will move forward.  A personal query (often a visit) from a representative or senator's senior staff to an agency department head will sometimes break or slow the juggernaut.  Indeed, this is the point when the rubber meets the road, as the old expression goes.  There is either traction or there is a serious problem building.

Failing success at that level, an elected official is faced with raising an issue directly to the Secretary of the unresponsive Department.  This is obviously not the desired route, since people at a relatively high pay grade (with lots of responsibilities) are becoming engaged.  Consequently, an issue only goes this path if the elected official strongly believes in the validity of the aggrieved party's claim and also believes that a resolution is possible and necessary.  In some cases, more that one elected official might sign on to a joint letter of concern.  In one recent case, twelve congressional representatives signed such a letter to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton asking for a review of actions by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs regarding import restrictions on coins from Cyprus and China.  The DOS response, signed by the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs (not even "for" Secretary Clinton), was telling in that it parroted the party line of ECA and ignored the stated congressional concerns.   So, what happens next?

Congress obviously has the means to impose its will when necessary, but rarely does a matter of limited national scope lead to an open confrontation between the legislative and executive branches of government.  It would seem in this case that the bureaucracy is counting on that axiom.   Is the right to collect ancient coins without repressive governmental controls a matter of paramount national interest?  Well, maybe in a way it is.  Coins may well be the straw that broke the camel's back in a growing milieu of over-regulation, restriction of personal freedoms, repression of property rights, and the loss of constitutional guarantees like the presumption of innocence.  Where do our elected representatives take a stand for freedom?   No better place than here and now.  More and more of them seem to realize that an innocuous hobby willing to challenge the U.S. government in Federal Court, on two fronts no less, must have the strength of conviction that only comes from a righteous position.  Kudos to those representatives who signed the "Ryan Letter" and congratulations to those newly sworn members of congress who campaigned on exactly the sorts of issues mentioned above.