tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59066975375214601832024-03-14T13:02:05.140-04:00Pieces of the Past: Ethical Antiquities CollectingRobynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-6398285012133615422010-10-11T05:34:00.002-04:002010-10-11T05:48:30.714-04:00Private Property RightsIn a recent comment to this blog the writer says:<br /><br />"Many collectors oppose the MOU because they feel not having them will somehow incent governments to adopt private property rights for antiquities found on private land."<br /><br />You can't force a foreign government to change their laws to they way you think they should be. They enact the laws that they feel are in the best interest of their people, and that includes the protection of their cultural heritage. There are even laws right here in the US that will supercede "private property rights". For example, you can't hunt animals out of season, even on your own private property. Each community also has zoning laws that say what people can and cannot build or keep on their private property, and where. Those same zoning laws also say what I can use my property for (residential vs. commercial). Here in the US the government can even take your land from you if they consider it to be for the greater good of the public. You are paid what they consider fair compensation. Not so different from both Greek and Italian laws, where any antiquities found on your "private property" become property of the state, but the finder and/or owner of the property is compensated.<br /><br />These laws are not so different from the "draconian laws" of other countries. You can own property in both Italy and Greece, just as you can in the US, but in certain instances, like here in the US, the government can tell you what you can and can't do with that property.<br /><br />Greek law says:<br /><br />Any person who finds or acquires possession of a movable ancient monument dating up to 1453 shall declare it without undue delay to the nearest archaeological, police or port authority and shall make it available to them. (2002 PACH, Art. 24 (1)) When possession of the antiquity passes to the State, reward shall be paid to the person who made the declaration in accordance with paragraph 1 [of this law]. (2002 PACH, Art. 24 (3))<br />By a decision of the Minister of Culture, following an opinion by the Council, a permit for possession of an ancient movable monument, the ownership of which belongs to the State, may be granted to a natural or legal person. (2002 PACH, Art. 23 (1))<br /><br />In addition, Chapter 6 Art. 90 and 91 of Italian law also says that finders must report any finds, and they are paid a reward by the state, and reimbursed for any cost incurred for custody and removal should removal be necessary to ensure the safety of the item.<br /><br />For links to these laws see <a href="http://www.ifar.org/icpoel.php?region=europe">here </a><br /><br />The writer in the comment in questions also says that "Citizens need to be enticed to stand up to diggers and private ownership is the only proven enticement." Unfortunately, that's not true. Private landowners routinely allow diggers on their property, generally under the agreement to split the proceeds of whatever is found. In cases where the landowner refuses permission, digging often takes place anyway, this is known as "nighthawking".<br /><br />There is a company in Texas that calls itself the "<a href="http://http//www.texasaaa.com/">Texas Amateur Archaeological Association</a>" that actively entices landowners to allow diggers on their land for a fee so they can "find their find of a lifetime". (Sometimes the digging is even done with a backhoe!!) How does private property rights help to deter diggers or protect historical sites?<br /><br />The Grosby Garret helmet is a perfect case in point. If it was found where stated (and that is up for debate), it was found on private property with the permission of the landowner. The helmet was a rare specimen never found before in that area. The law allowed for it to put put up for sale as quickly as possible, but what could have been learned by further study of both the item and it's "find spot"? For one thing it could have put to rest one way or the other about whether or not that was the true findspot. No study was done. How did private property rights protect this artifact?<br /><br />Not everyone is falling for the "private property rights" argument. Right now in Egypt there is a group that had filed a complaint with the attorney general and is calling for the cancellation of a television program after the preacher on that program issued a fatwa (religious edict) referring to the sale of antiquities saying that “If it is found on land that you own, or in your house, then it is yours by right and you are not doing anything wrong.” Not only is this contrary to Egyptian law, they argue that the fatwa poses a serious threat to Egyptian history and its national heritage. They consider the ruling as an affirmation of the looting and theft of Egyptian antiquities which are by extension, a part of the world’s heritage.<br /><br />I agree that in most instances private property rights are a good thing, but in the case of cultural property the idea that "it's mine, I found it on my property, I can do whatever I want with it" is a very shortsighted and selfish position. Cultural remains, even those found on private land, can teach us more about the ancient civilizations that lived in those areas, and that benefits society as a whole. Just because something is found on private property doen't mean it shouldn't be recorded and studied before it is hastily put up for sale.Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-8378509794000523832010-10-01T11:36:00.002-04:002010-10-02T11:47:49.701-04:00Why Do We Need An MOU?There are many reasons why the opponents of the MOU say we shouldn't have one. I thought I'd discuss some of those reasons.<br /><br /><br /><em>"We simply don't need it"<br /></em><br /><br />They all claim to do their due dilligence when they buy something, yet looting continues unabated in all parts of the world. Those looted items have to be going somewhere, and even a brief look at places like ebay tell us where. Despite their protests to the contrary, collectors continue to buy items with no questions asked.<br /><br /><br /><em>"We should try programs such as the PAS first"</em><br /><br /><br /><br />The problem here is that the PAS is totally voluntary. How many finds do you think are actually reported? My educated guess is only a fraction of the total finds. Again, a quick look at ebay gives us the answer. How many coins and other finds from the UK give a PAS database number? In any case whether or not there is a PAS makes no difference to the export procedure (which is what the MOU is about). All archaeological finds from Britain need an export licence to leave the country legally - just like Greece - and whether or not they have been reported to the PAS (or the Scottish Treasure Trove Unit etc.) is not any part of the export process. Also does having a PAS stop UK archaeological sites being dug over and disturbed in the search for collectable and saleable antiquities? In what way does the PAS actually protect sites?<br /><br /><br /><em>"It's too expensive, time consuming, and would take up too much room to keep all the paperwork accociated with their coins. Time is a commodity".</em><br /><br /><br />Yes, time is money, but aren't there always higher costs associated with doing business the right way? If I hire an illegal immigrant to work for me it's cheaper, but then they don't have the same protections and responsibilities of a citizen or legal immigrant. But is it the right thing to do? Many companies go above and beyond the minimum of what the law allows. Not only because it's good for the corporate image, but because it's the right thing to do.<br /><br /><br /><em>"Those countries are not doing their part to stop the looting at the source, they should focus on the looters instead of the buyers"</em><br /><br /><em><br /></em>If you look at the source countries, many of them are impoverished, and simply don't have the funds to police the sheer volume of historical sites that literally cover their entire countries. Even those that are not considered "third world countries" like Italy, Greece, the UK, and even the US cannot possibly be everywhere at once to stop the illegal digging that is going on. So is it the fault of law enforcement, or the looters that are doing the digging?<br /><br /><br />We need MOUs because the antiquities market, including coins, has proven unwilling to police itself. Perhaps if that had happened, MOUs such as this wouldn't be necessary.Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-64276050807142632832010-09-29T10:56:00.002-04:002010-09-29T11:11:44.335-04:00Greek Intimidation?According to a post on Paul Barfords<a href="http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/09/tabloids-subverting-democratic-"> blog</a>, Peter Tompa is discussing an email from a Dr. Zoe Kosmidou in which Dr. Kosmidou had the audacity to encourage US archaeologists to support the Greek MOU.<br /><br />Mr. Tompa says:<br /><br /><blockquote>"Some might find this troubling. Leaving aside the issue of whether a foreign power ginning up grassroots support for its position is meddling in our administrative processes for securing public comments, there also is the real issue of possible intimidation. It's no secret that U.S. archaeologists depend on the Greek government to issue excavation permits for their work. It's also true that the Greek government can easily monitor the regulations.gov website to determine who has written to support the MOU and who has not done so".<br /></blockquote><br />And:<br /><br /><blockquote>Greek cultural officials should be questioned closely about their lobbying efforts before CPAC takes up consideration of any MOU.<br /></blockquote><br />So let's see what happens when we flip that coin (so to speak)and turn this scenario around on Mr. Tompa...<br /><br />Mr. Tompa is a lawyer licensed to practice law in New Jersey, District of Columbia, and New York. Just as the Greek government can, Peter Tompa has the ability to monitor the public submissions on the website.There is the very real possiblity of intimidation by Mr. Tompa in the form of bogus lawsuits against anyone in those states who would dare speak out in favor of the proposed MOU.<br /> <br />There is no indication that this is actually happening, but the possibility is there, so I think that Mr. Tompa should be formally questioned about this before the CPAC takes his views on the MOU into consideration.<br /><br />Does that sound fair to you? It doesn't to me either, but it is exactly the same scenario that Tompa himself is suggesting should happen to someone else. Mr. Tompa wouldn't like his name being dragged through the mud on the POSSIBILITY that something COULD happen, but he seems to have no problem doing it to someone else to further his cause. I'm not suggesting that Peter Tompa is or would resort to this behavior, just wondering how he would feel if the tables were turned on him using his own tactics.<br /><br />Maybe Mr. Tompa should check his own ethics before he questions someone else's.<br /><br />Mr. Tompa, you owe Dr. Kosmidou an apology.Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-7985647608068784002010-09-24T06:03:00.002-04:002010-09-24T06:39:30.017-04:00A New MOU, Same MisinformationLike other source countries, Greece has now requested a bilateral agreement with the US requesting documentation to prove that items of Greek cultural heritage being brought into the US are not the products of recent looting. Like other MOUs before it, this has caused a flurry of discussion on collector's forums.<br /><br />It's only logical that so called "source countries" would ask the US for this type of agreement. The US has one of the largest markets for antiquities. Unfortunately that also makes it one of the largest markets for illicit antiquities as well. For some reason, the majority of US collectors just cannot understand that by buying items using the "don't ask- don't tell" method, they are directly contributing to looting in the countries that these items come from.<br /><br />The most vocal of these collectors seem to be the collectors/dealers of ancient dug up coins. Led by the ACCG, a dealers' lobby, they are fighting tooth and nail against any import restrictions that would include coins, no matter what country is asking, and whipping the collectors into a frenzy in the process.<br /><br />How could we forget their ridiculous Baltimore coin stunt protesting the Chinese and Cyprus MOUs, how they loaded the collector's forums with misinformation (for more on this see <a href="http://piecesofthepastethicalantiquiti.blogspot.com/2010/04/scare-tactics-and-">here</a>) and ran a fax campaign to bombard the DOS during the Italian MOU comment period?<br /><br />This time around, the DOS is only accepting comments via a website they have set up, and those comments are available for all to see. A great deal of them are from the coineys spouting their usual stuff.<br /><br /><blockquote>Most coins on the market were dug from hoards or are available from long-standing collections.<br /></blockquote><br /><blockquote> Greece has not tried systems akin the the UK Treasure Act before seeking restrictions.<br /></blockquote><br /><blockquote> Greece already has more coins in its State Collections than it can publish or properly curate<br /></blockquote><br /><blockquote>The mere removal of coins from the country does not damage the historical sites of Greece, nor does it remove historical artifacts from the country.<br /></blockquote><br />Another favorite that I read is how this MOU would somehow turn regular law abiding citizens into criminals because they own something of Greek origin. What an absurd idea!!<br /><br />One that struck me as particularly interesting is this one, from a Jack Davis, American School of Classical Studies at Athens:<br /><br /><blockquote>Even Greece, an EU country with an effective police force and well-organized archaeological service, lacks the means to control the looting of its archaeological sites by law enforcement alone. Every square kilometer in Greece is full of ancient remains that present targets for looters . Hundreds of unexcavated sites each year fall victim to pot hunting and coin hunting, in the course of which irreparable harm is done to Greece's heritage and aspects of its history are made irretrievable. It is the moral and ethical obligation of the United States to do all it can do to fight looting at the other end of the distribution chain, on the demand, rather than supply, side. By supporting Greece's request that the U.S. sign a proposed MOU endorsing the UNESCO agreement of 1970. Other archaeologists will no doubt emphasize the significance of knowing through digging where artifacts are found. The story doesn't stop there. Ancient objects found unburied, on the surface of the earth, also derive their historical importance from us knowing exactly where they come from. Coins, for example, in some periods and places did not circulate far from the places where they were minted. In other instances they did. Whether they did or they did not can be an important indication of the relative strength of an ancient economy. I myself have learned much by mapping patterns in the distribution of coins and other small artifacts over large areas, 50 or more square kilometers in scale. One hardly dispute the fact that holding an ancient coin in one's hand is exciting, even potentially educational. What is not so exciting, however, is being witness, as I have been, to the utter destruction of an ancient settlement inflicted by treasure hunters searching for antiquities. Even coins that can be sold for relatively little profit in flea markets or on the Internet. Whether a million dollar statue or a ten dollar coin is concerned, the same damage to the cultural patrimony of Greece.</blockquote><br />Quite the opposite of what the coineys would like us to believe isn't it?<br /><br />Should this MOU be granted by the US, the rules set forth in the CPIA would apply. This means that items would need either an export permit from Greece, or proof that it was already outside of Greece prior to the date the restriction takes effect. I've written <a href="http://piecesofthepastethicalantiquiti.blogspot.com/2010/04/back-to-">here</a> about what constitutes acceptable proof .<br /><br /> Nothing already in US borders will be affected, no one will automatically become a criminal because they own something Greek, and anything coming into the US will only have to be shown that it was outside of Greece prior to the restrictions (even if it was looted before that). What they are trying to do is curb the looting that is taking place every single day in Greece by making it more difficult for those items to enter the market. Perhaps if people were more concerned with how the antiquities they buy were obtained, and asked those questions of the sellers, MOUs such as this wouldn't be necessary.<br /><br />For more information on the Greek MOU, see<a href="http://www.savingantiquities.org/Greecemou.php"> here</a>. <br /><br />For more information on MOUs in general, see <a href="http://www.savingantiquities.org/safemou.php">here</a><br /><br />The cultural heritage of the Greek people is at stake, and they are trying to protect it from disappearing a piece at a time into the collections of those who don't seem to care how those pieces were obtained. It's time that the US to say that we are not going to allow US citizens to profit, monetarily or otherwise, from what is illegal activity in another country.Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-60884626965662523902010-06-03T15:20:00.002-04:002010-06-03T15:31:02.426-04:00Scientific ProofIn a post on Dave Welsh's Ancient Coins blog he states:<br /><br /><blockquote>"No one has ever advanced scientifically valid evidence demonstrating that private collecting of antiquities actually causes looting. If Mr. Barford desires to establish that point, he would be well advised to adopt an approach that demonstrates that his views are sustained by evidence conforming to the scientific method and by arguments conforming to the rules of logic."</blockquote><br />Well, I'm not Paul Barford, but here's some scientific proof for you:<br /><a href="http://www.justnews.com/news/23769602/detail.html">http://www.justnews.com/news/23769602/detail.html</a><br /><br />According to the article "Five pre-Columbian artifacts are back in Peru after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement found the stolen artifacts were being sold on eBay."<br /><br />Who does Mr. Welsh think was going to buy those stolen artifacts if not collectors? The fact that Mr. Welsh continues to deny that looting is fueled by irresponsible private collecting, despite all logical evidence to the contrary, doesn't mean that it's not happening.<br /><br />The article goes on to say "The artifacts we have recovered are a significant part of the cultural history of Peru and no one should profit from smuggled antiquities,”. I agree completely! No one, whether in the US or anywhere else should profit from what is illegal activity in another country.<br /><br />What the article didn't say, and I would very much like to know is what were the legal consequences faced by the owner of the ebay account that had those items listed for sale. Was that person given a slap on the wrist, as has been the case with the Blanding UT defendants so far? Or were they given a harsher sentence that would make others think before they decide to follow the same path?Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-37717003701945847722010-04-22T21:13:00.003-04:002010-04-22T21:54:45.237-04:00Back to RealityNow that we've seen some of the misinformation and scare tactics used by coin collectors and dealers in regard to the Italian MOU, I thought it would be a good time to bring some reality back to the discussion. <br /><br />First of all, as I said in my earlier post, nothing is being banned, as people would like you to believe. What would be required by the CPIA if this MOU is extended is EITHER an export permit OR proof that the item was exported from Italy prior to the date the restriction goes into effect. In the event that coins are added to the list of items, they would only have to be shown to be out of Italy before the date that restriction goes into effect, and that hasn't even happened yet.<br /> <br />So in the absence of an export permit, what would constitute proof that an item is out of Italy before the date of restriction? Not much really. Here are the requirements copied from this website: <a href="http://eca.state.gov/icpp/97-446.html">http://eca.state.gov/icpp/97-446.html</a><br /><br /> (c) DEFINITION OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE.-The term "satisfactory evidence" means- <br /> (1) for purposes of subsection (b)(2)(A)- <br /> (A) one or more declarations under oath by the importer, or the person for whose account the material is imported, stating that, to the best of his knowledge- <br /> (i) the material was exported from the State Party not less than ten years before the date of entry into the United States, and <br /> (ii) neither such importer or person (or any related person contracted for or acquired an interest, directly or indirectly, in such material more than one year before the date of entry of the material; and <br /> (B) a statement provided by the consignor, or person who sold the material to the importer, which states the date, or, if not known, his belief, that the material was exported from the State Party notless than ten years before the date of entry into the United States,and the reasons on which the statement is based; and <br /> (2) for purposes of subsection (b)(2)(B)- <br /> <strong>(A) one or more declarations under oath by the importer or the person for whose account the material is to be imported, stating that, to the best of his knowledge, the material was exported from the State Party on or before the date such material was designated under section 305, and </strong><br /><strong> (B) a statement by the consignor or person who sold the material to the importer which states the date, or if not known, his belief, that the material was exported from the State Party on or before the date such material was designated under section 305, and the reasons on which the statement is based.<br /></strong><br />So what it says is you need is a sworn statement by either the importer or the exporter that the coins were out of Italy prior to the date of restriction, and why they believe that to be true. Boy, sounds darn near impossible, right?<br /><br />Foreign countries ask the US to enter into a cultural property MOU in an attempt to protect their cultural heritage from the damage done by illegal digging. This is without a doubt fueled by "don't ask-don't tell" collecting. It's not some sinister plot to keep coins out of American collectors' hands. When the US agrees to enter these MOUs we are simply saying "We will do our part to help you protect your cultural heritage by not allowing items that can't be shown to be legally acquired to enter our borders." I don't see anything wrong with that, and it certainly won't mean "the end of collecting if it gets through". There are many MOUs with other countries currently in effect, yet collecting still continues. That will still be the case if the Italian MOU is extended, even if it's amended to include ancient coins.Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-33372048305969000212010-04-21T11:05:00.005-04:002010-04-21T11:32:04.913-04:00Scare Tactics and MisinformationScare tactics and misinformation seem to be the norm these days in discussion groups all over. A few of my favorite tidbits:<br /><br /><blockquote>"The Untied States government is about to decide whether cultural property of Italian origin should be restricted from entry into the U.S. unless accompanied by Italian export permits." (<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unidroit-L/message/3563">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unidroit-L/message/3563</a>)<br /></blockquote><br />This is false! The will be subject to the same restrictions outlined in the CPIA. You need EITHER an export permit from that country OR proof that the item was out of the country before the date of the restriction.<br /><br /><blockquote>"THIS IS THE BIG ONE - A MAGNITUDE 10 TOTAL SEISMIC DISASTER THAT WILL END COLLECTING OF ANCIENT COINS IF IT GOES THROUGH --- MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD<br />NOW!!!!" (Dave Welsh)(<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Moneta-L/message/95808">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Moneta-L/message/95808</a>)<br /></blockquote><br />Really?? Does anyone other than him actually believe this?? Adding coins to the existing MOU will end coin collecting? The MOU has already been in effect covering other antiquities for a while now, there hasn't been an end to the trade in any other antiquity. This is just a scare tactic to prompt coin collectors who can't be bothered to research what is really going on to quickly send a fax in support of the ACCG.<br /><br /><blockquote>"ROMAN COIN IMPORTS TO USA BANNED?"<br /></blockquote><br />The only things being banned are coins that either don't have an export permit or can't be proven to be out of Italy before the date the restriction takes effect(and that date hasn't even come yet!)<br /><br /><blockquote>"Unless you can prove your coins were exported from Italy before 1970 or you have an export permit from the Italian government, your coins could be confiscated and "returned" to Italy."(In an email from Forum Ancient Coins that has circulated the internet)</blockquote><br />False again, you would have to prove that the coins were exported from Italy before the date of the restriction.<br /><br /><blockquote>"We must tell our government that we should not be denied the opportunity to buy ancient coins just because we are American. We must tell our government that our children should not be deprived of learning the learning experience ancient coins provide just because they are American." (Same email from Forum Ancient Coins)<br /></blockquote><br />We're not being deprived of anything "because we're American". America does happen to have one of the largest collecting communities, so why wouldn't it be logical for Italy to ask us to help protect their cultural heritage from looting by imposing import restrictions on undocumented items entering our borders?<br /><br />Thankfully not everyone is buying the hype. Here are 2 comments left by someone on Forum Ancient Coins:<br />((<a href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=62024.0">http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=62024.0</a>)<br /><br /><blockquote>"Now, the argument for import restrictions is precisely that they might help prevent looting by making illegally dug coins and similar portable antiquities much harder to sell. It’s meant to discourage the bad guys. It’s not some vindictive attack on coin collectors nor is it a devious government plot to take away our liberties." (Bill R. Forum Ancient coins)</blockquote><br /><blockquote>"Thanks, Alfred, for posting the Sayles blog extract, though I have to say I found it very strange. The idea that there is some vast conspiracy involving the academic archaeological community and ‘nationalist governments’ (whatever they are) is, frankly, bizarre."(Bill R. Forum Ancient Coins)<br /></blockquote><br />He was subsequently chastised by the owner of the group, Joseph Sermarini:<br /><br /><blockquote>"The idea of banning the import of Roman coins into America while continuing to permit trade within the EU is bizarre and anti-American. The restrictions don't apply to the UK. You don't live in America, so the restrictions don't apply to you. We are not discussing banning imports to the UK. You are under the mistaken impression that this is an appropriate place for discussion and debate of this issue. You are under the mistaken impression that it is OK for you, who does not live in the U.S., to express your support here for this bizarre MOU, which does not impact you. It is not." (Joseph Sermarini- owner Forum Ancient Coins)<br /></blockquote><br />So much for the open discussion that coin dealers and collectors are always complaining they wish would happen. And if it doesn't impact anyone except those in the US so they are not allowed to express their thoughts, why in the world are members of the ACCG asking everyone from every country to voice their opinion the the US State Dept?<br /><br />I urge collectors everywhere to do their own research into what the MOU on cultural property with Italy (or any other country) really means and make an informed decision.Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-84043512292084962422010-04-15T10:12:00.003-04:002010-04-15T11:45:21.008-04:00Are Coin Archaeological Artifacts?Many coin dealers maintain that coins shouldn't be considered archaeological artifacts. Anyone who is on the fence about whether or not to believe that should read this article:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.gnn.com/article/roman-style-mummy-found-in-egyptian/982903?icid=mainhtmlws-main-ndl1link5http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gnn.com%2Farticle%2Froman-style-mummy-found-in-egyptian%2F982903">http://www.gnn.com/article/roman-style-mummy-found-in-egyptian/982903?icid=mainhtmlws-main-ndl1link5http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gnn.com%2Farticle%2Froman-style-mummy-found-in-egyptian%2F982903</a><br /><br />Pay particular attention to the part that says:<br /><br /><blockquote>The archaeologists also found a gold relief showing the four sons of the Egyptian god Horus, other plaster masks of women's faces, several glass and clay utensils and some metal coins.<br /><br />The metal coins are being checked to see whether they can date the era of the tomb more precisely.<br /></blockquote><br />Those coins, <strong>found in context</strong>, are being used to help date a unique site. What knowledge would have been lost if someone with a metal detector had gotten there first and yanked those coins out of the ground? What other damage would have been done to the site in the process?<br /><br />How can anyone read that article and not agree that coins are indeed archaeological artifacts, deserving of the same protection and subject to the same restrictions?<br /><br /><blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p><blockquote></blockquote><p></p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><p></p></blockquote></blockquote>Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-72743295510362343982010-04-15T10:05:00.002-04:002010-04-15T10:11:35.125-04:00What Is It With Coin Dealers?For some reason I still can't fathom, many continue to deny that "don't ask-don't tell" buying and selling contributes to looting. They also don't understand that despite their great numbers and relatively low value, coins are still archaeological artifacts and should be treated as such.<br /><br />Many of the coins on the market now may not have provenance, but dealers and collectors could start building them now by keeping and passing on paperwork. Their argument against that is it would cost too much and take up too much space to keep paperwork on all their coins. Frankly I don't give a hoot if it costs you a bit more to do business or takes up more space for storage for you to keep paperwork on the coins you sell if it helps to curb looting. It's the right thing to do.<br /><br />The ACCG claims to be fighting for "collector's rights" yet the Italian MOU has been in existence for a while. So have the Chinese and Cyprus ones. Not a peep from the ACCG. The only time the ACCG decided to step in was when the possibility of coins being added came up. The ACCG is not fighting for "collector's rights", they're fighting to be able to continue to do business as they've always done instead of having to make sure that the coins they are buying and selling aren't recently looted. They freely admit that they have no idea where or when the coins used in their "test case" were dug up.<br /><br /> Wayne Sayles himself says (in response to my calling him paranoid when he said <em>"It has nothing at all to do with preserving sites in Cyprus, it has to do with eliminating private access to the coins in America. Now that is a fact" ): </em><a href="http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2009/07/insinuation-assertions-and-factoids.html">http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2009/07/insinuation-assertions-and-factoids.html</a> <blockquote>Are we paranoid? Well one thing in itself, like the Cyprus or China MOU would not cause me to be "paranoid". But a decade of well planned and executed steps toward eliminating free trade does cause my radar to paint danger signs. I would call that caution and concern rather than paranoia.</blockquote><br /> So if the ACCG has seen this coming for a decade, why didn't dealers start documenting coins back then? If only out of "caution and concern" about what might be coming in the future?Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-14707858945239786722009-11-26T20:45:00.002-05:002009-11-26T21:07:53.747-05:00Decision Reached on FOIL Case Brought by ACCG, IAPN, and PNGA decision has been handed down on the lawsuit filed by the ACCG, IAPN, and PNG to compel the DOS to release documents that were withheld. A summary judgement was granted for the Department of State, and denied for the ACCG, IAPN, and PNG.<br /><br />For the full text of the decision see <a href="http://www.accg.us/issues/news/ACCG-Opinion.pdf">here</a>.<br /><br />According to the decision the government conducted an adequate search, and the information that was withheld was done so properly. Some information requested was provided by foreign government officials and individuals in the private sector with the express understanding that the information would be held in confidence, and it's disclosure would damage the U.S.'s ability to conduct successful negotiations or violate personal privacy. The decision is very clear, and enlightening with respect to what documents were requested. It's definitely worth reading.<br /><br />The reaction of some members of the ACCG has been interesting, though.<br /><br />According to Dave Welsh the only time confidentiality should be recognized by law is in the confessional or attorney/client privilege. I wonder if he would consider the same for his medical records. Would he like what he tells his doctor to be held in confidence? This is indeed governed by HIPAA laws that prohibit disclosure. How about his financial details? Would he like for anyone to be able to request his tax returns, or would he expect that the information he provided to a government agency be held confidential? IRS code Section 6103 covers this disclosure.<br /><br />He also states that it is not in the public interest for the DOS to be able to withhold information based on "expectation of confidentiality". I disagree. It is absolutely in the public interest for our government to be able to negotiate with foreign governments. If those foreign governments can't rely on the US to keep the information given to them confidential they will be less willing to enter into negotiations.<br /><br />The ACCG still plans to continue with it's ridiculous "test case". It should be interesting to see what kind of "damaging information" they obtained through this FOIL suit that they believe will help them in this case.Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-63451466335845697182009-11-26T20:27:00.002-05:002009-11-26T20:40:57.526-05:00More Trials to be Scheduled in the Blanding CaseAccording to this article <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_13851034">here </a>the remaining trials in the Blanding Utah case are to be scheduled in early 2010.<br /><br /><br />Two defendants have already pled guilty in this case. Jerrica Redd and her mother Jeanne Redd were given probation and minimal fines for their crimes. Hardly seems worth the effort of a 2 year investigation for the punishment they received, even more so since this is not the first conviction on the same offense for Jeanne Redd. She pled to a lesser offense and was fined $10,000 in 2003 for the <a href="http://www.mainjustice.com/2009/09/17/two-get-probation-in-indian-artifacts-case/">same crime</a>. (Apparently this time she is repentant, and the judge is confident it won't happen again. Right!)<br /><br /><br />Judge Waddops <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13350722">reason</a> for the light sentence?<br /><br /><br />"This is a community where this kind of conduct" is commonly tolerated and "has been justified for a number of years," Waddoups said. "This is a woman who has spent her life as a member of her community."<br /><br /><br />And<br /><br /><br />"prosecution in this case provides sufficient deterrence," the judge said.<br /><br /><br />I disagree. The sentences imposed so far don't even amount to a slap on the wrist, let alone a deterrant. Each of the 7 felonies Jeanne Redd pled guilty to carried a potential $250,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison yet she received 3 years probation and a $2000 fine. Jerrica received 2 years probation and a $300 fine.<br /><br /><br />With the remaining trials coming up, lets hope the judge(s) treat these crimes with the seriousness they deserve. It's time to show that just because "it's always been done" doesn't mean the law will continue to turn a blind eye to it. It's time to show that looting is a crime that will not be tolerated and will be fully prosecuted.Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-36069357258951630292009-08-19T11:46:00.003-04:002009-08-19T12:01:36.993-04:00Is A Collector Registry A Good Idea?There was recently an <a href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249275691727&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull">article in the news</a> regarding the Israeli government's efforts to register private collectors who have not yet done so according to the law passed in 2002.<br /><br />This article brought about a discussion on the yahoo forum Ancientartifacts. How would collectors feel about such a registry in their country? Several members contributed to the discussion, some in favor of a registry, some against.<br /><br />Those against such a plan brought up what I would consider to be valid concerns ranging from privacy, security, "big brother", to the possibility of those collections being confiscated should collecting eventually be outlawed.<br /><br />I personally would be in favor of a registry. I think it would make it very difficult for recently looted items to enter the market under the guise of "from an old collection" or no mention of provenance at all. It would also make provenance easier to track because the history of a piece would be easily accessible, even if the original paperwork were to be lost or destroyed.<br /><br />I do agree though, that the concerns raised by those against a registry would have to be addressed before such a plan could be put into place. I would be interested in knowing how/if those concerns were addressed by countries such as Israel and others who already have this kind of registry.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.cprinst.org/Home/issues">CPRI</a> is supposed to begin development on different models of registry for privately owned objects. It should be interesting to see how they approach the issues of privacy and security.<br /><br />While I don't claim to have all the answers about how a plan like this would work, I do think that this would be a way for collectors to make sure they are not buying recently looted items. The don't ask- don't tell market in antiquities can't continue at it's current pace. Ancient sites are being destroyed and knowledge is being lost every single day at the hands of looters looking for bits and pieces to sell for a quick buck. It's up to us as collectors to close the market for<br />such items by refusing to buy them.Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-24702009433394503752009-08-02T20:23:00.002-04:002009-08-02T20:35:11.269-04:00Help to Save Colonia Ulpia Traiana RatiaraThe biggest archaeological site in northern Bulgaria is currently being left to the mercy of looters. Please take a minute to read this information:<br /><br /> <a href="http://www.archaeology.archbg.net/fs_excavations_ratiaria.html">http://www.archaeology.archbg.net/fs_excavations_ratiaria.html</a> (you can also donate from this page)<br /><br />And sign the petition here:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ratiaria/index.html">http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ratiaria/index.html</a><br /><br /><br />I think this is an important cause. Please, donate as little as one Euro or as much as you like to help save this important site from ongoing destruction.Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-9114948546526505882009-07-22T10:45:00.002-04:002009-07-22T11:03:29.583-04:00A Question for CollectorsLast week, in a reply to a comment from Peter Tompa, I asked a question:<br /><br /><blockquote>Given the scale of damage done by commercial diggers to ancient Native American burial, sacred, and other sites which are protected by law, would you also oppose an MOU between the US and another country that restricts the import of Anasazi pots (such as the ones in the Blanding case) into another country? Or would you welcome their help in enforcing our own cultural property laws? After all, it's not illegal to own Anasazi pots in Egypt. Would you support their "right to collect" them, even though they were illegally dug up here?</blockquote><br /> I wasn't given an answer form Mr Tompa, but I didn't really expect one. It is a rather sticky question for a lawyer to answer. If he had said he would oppose that MOU, he would basically be saying he's ok with someone in another country benefiting from illegal activity here. If he had said he would support such an MOU, then it would be hypocritical of him to be challenging the Chinese/Cyprus MOU.<br /><br />Regardless of how Mr. Tompa would have answered, I think it's a question that all collectors should ask themselves before ignoring another country's cultural property laws and buying an item of dubious origin.<br /><br />Do we want someone in another country to benefit from what is illegal activity here? If your answer to that is no, then why is it ok for us to to benefit from illegal activity in another country? That's exactly what happens when we buy items that are dug up in another country, not reported as required by law, and shipped out of that country without required export permits. We get the benefit of what is illegal activity in that other country.<br /><br />An MOU on cultural property between the US and another country says in effect that the US is agreeing to not let something illegally removed from another country be imported into the US. Would we expect anything different if the tables were turned? I'm sure the US people would be grateful to have an Anasazi pot, that was illegally excavated from a grave, seized and returned by another country if someone attempted to import it.<br /><br />And what about the advocates of "collectors' rights?" Would they support that same "right to collect" in another country even if what is collected is illegally obtained on US soil? Or does that "right to collect" only apply to Americans?<br /><br />Many countries have laws regarding cultural property, including the US. We have laws right here in our own country that are very similar to the ones that are considered so restrictive in other countries. The laws here and in other countries are in place because those governments have decided that it's in the best interest of its citizens to protect its cultural heritage. Looting continues unabated all over the world, including right here in the US, destroying the historical record in an effort to find bits and pieces to sell for a profit. When we buy items illegally obtained in another country we are contributing to this destruction.Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-48512765898840779182009-07-19T09:47:00.003-04:002009-07-19T10:00:54.273-04:00The Stream of Looted Items Continues<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8HAKHmUqZxwYeyXAt2TUdcIgxN9-SzP0vKYZYFhciprzlFWS8ZtRpYZS067fMM4ZWevLa6fnc-ozP1F6BwqgMwWdiXN3pcLSxdeEVshgP-GDCFuCZ08ZVsuVfKQ6b6AVp_N0DranEy_wm/s1600-h/iraq+looting.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5360170549989966082" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 140px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 98px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8HAKHmUqZxwYeyXAt2TUdcIgxN9-SzP0vKYZYFhciprzlFWS8ZtRpYZS067fMM4ZWevLa6fnc-ozP1F6BwqgMwWdiXN3pcLSxdeEVshgP-GDCFuCZ08ZVsuVfKQ6b6AVp_N0DranEy_wm/s200/iraq+looting.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>There have been several news stories lately about looted items being returned to Iraq, as well as many reports on the scale of destruction to archaeological sites by looters. This brings up an interesting question. Why/how are these things still on the market? Everyday things like cuneiform tablets and cylinder seals are routinely bought and sold with little or no provenance. Who would touch these things with a 10 foot pole?</div><br /><div><br />The sad truth is, these things are still on the market because there are still collectors willing to buy them without asking where they came from or how they were obtained. Why? Does our desire to own something from a lost civilization really override logic when we see an object like this that's described as "found in granny's attic" or "from an old French collection" or worse yet, no hint of a provenance at all?</div><br /><div><br />Although it seems to be the most publicized, looting is not just a problem in Iraq, The ICE website (<a href="http://http//www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/cultural-artifacts-repatriation.htm">here</a>) has a list of investigations where items from all over the world were seized by investigators because they were either stolen or looted. Now more than ever we should be using due diligence and asking the tough questions of sellers when we see an item we want, and a reputable seller should willingly provide that information. If we can't get clear answers, with documented proof, then we should walk away from the sale.</div>Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-26520547253148553512009-07-13T08:54:00.004-04:002009-07-13T10:17:06.202-04:00Silence...I posted a comment to a post Wayne Sayles made on the coinlink.com website on July 4th. When I didn't get a reply within a few days, I posted the same comment to the same post on Mr. Sayles' personal blog on July 7th. It's now July 13th and I have yet to see a reply to either comment. Why is that? If what they are doing is such a good thing and I'm just misunderstanding their intentions, why can't they even be bothered to attempt to persuade me, as a collector, why this is for my benefit?<br /><br />To see Mr Sayles' post, see <a href="http://ancientcoincollecting.blogspot.com/2009/06/questions-and-truth.html">here<br /></a><br /><br />Here is my comment in its entirety:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>Mr. Sayles,<br />As long as we are talking about truths here, I see nothing mentioned in your article about what the requirements are to legally import those coins in question. All that is required for the Cypriot coins is a valid export license or proof that they left their country of origin before July 16,2007. For the Chinese coins the date is Jan 16,2009. Neither of those dates is that long ago. If those coins were legally acquired, those documents should be easy to obtain. The ACCG is well aware of this, but repeatedly leaves this information out of all posts, blogs, etc. that are written by its members. Why? As an American taxpayer and private antiquity collector I find it outrageous that my tax dollars are being wasted on this farce. And how dare you claim to speak for antiquity collectors! You speak for unethical collectors who want to be able to purchase whatever they want regardless of where it came from or how it was obtained. I have no problem with the FOIA suit, that is how the system was designed, but the upcoming suit dealing with the deliberate attempt to import coins without the proper documentation is disgraceful. You don’t deliberately break the law because you don’t agree with it. You work through the proper legal channels to change it. I hope when all is said and done, the parties to this “lawsuit” are ordered to pay all costs incurred by the government in this rediculous scheme. The ACCG isn’t even following its own code of ethics by attempting to import these coins in violation of its own country’s laws. Shameful! The ACCG should put a stop to this now by obtaining and supplying the required paperwork and stop wasting the taxpayers’ money."</blockquote><br />It should be noted that when I posted the comment in the beginning of July, there was still time to get the required paperwork. Now the 90 day deadline has passed, and it's too late. It should also be noted that Mr. Sayles did post other comments to other posts, but only those that agreed with him.<br /><br />I read a lot of blogs about collecting, including those of Mr. Sayles, Peter Tompa, Paul Barford, David Gill, and Nathan Elkins. I notice that Mr. Tompa and Mr. Sayles are quick to attack Mr. Barford, Mr. Gill and Mr. Elkins repeatedly because they are open about the fact that they disagree with the tactics that the ACCG has used to further their own agenda. Their argument is that since Mr. Barford and Mr. Elkins are archaeologists, they want to stamp out private collecting.<br /><br />To be clear, Mr. Barford, Mr. Elkins, and Mr. Gill are not anti-collecting. They are anti-LOOTING, none is opposed to collecting that is done responsibly and legally.<br /><br />It was also said that since Mr. Barford and Mr. Gill are not American, (<a href="http://ancientcoincollecting.blogspot.com/2009/06/questions-and-truth.html">here</a>, and <a href="http://ancientcoincollecting.blogspot.com/2009/06/archaeologist-defends-state-secrecy.html">here</a>) they must not know how the system works here. But when I, as a collector (who they are supposedly representing) and American citizen express my outrage at what they are doing and ask why they are deliberately leaving pertinent information out of all posts and blogs by their members, no one can seem to come up with a reply. What argument will they use to explain why I disagree with what they are doing? I'm not an archaeologist, I'm a private collector, so there's one argument shot. I'm an American, and I DO know how things work here, so there's another one down. I know.. I must have been brainwashed by reading the other blogs! Sorry, no.<br /><br />I consider myself to be an intelligent person, able to form my own ideas and opinions, and I have been following this story since Dave Welsh posted it to the yahoo group Ancientartifacts. What I have seen is Mr. Sayles and Mr. Tompa accusing Mr. Barford and Mr. Elkins of spreading false and mis-information, when in fact it is Mr. Sayles and Mr. Tompa doing exactly that. Spreading mis-information, innuendo, and accusation, attacking anyone who doesn't agree with them. What business is it of theirs how David Gill pays for his Newswire publications? Anyone who disagrees with them MUST be working undercover for a foreign government?(<a href="http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/05/looting-matters-takes-to-pr-newswire.html">here</a>) I wonder who I work for then, they owe me a check!<br /><br />Mr. Tompa and Mr. Sayles continually complain about how unfair the import restrictions are for Chinese and Cypriot coins, but constantly leave out the fact that all that is required is a valid export permit OR proof that the Chinese coins were out of the country prior to Jan 16 2009 ( yep, that's 7 months ago!) and the Cypriot coins were out of the country before July 16, 2007 (only 2 years). Contrary to what Mr. Sayles says in the post <a href="http://ancientcoincollecting.blogspot.com/2009/05/getting-it-right.html">Getting it Right</a>, the Cypriot government doesn't have to "sprinkle holy water on it" for it to enter the US, you just have to show proof that the coin left Cyprus prior to July 16,2007 <strong>OR</strong> an export permit from the government. Again, mis-information. If these coins were legally acquired, that paperwork should be easily obtained.<br /><br />Another thing I noticed is that the ACCG claims to be working on behalf of all collectors, yet the original Cyprus MOU has been in effect since July 19,2002. Only when it was renewed and coins added did they object. If they are truly working on behalf of all collectors, why didn't they object in 2002? Why haven't they objected to any other MOU?<br /><br />In the post <a href="http://ancientcoincollecting.blogspot.com/2009/05/rose-is-rose.html">A Rose is a Rose</a> Mr. Sayles says "All that really matters is that the ACCG remains true to its charter and defends the free and independent collecting of ancient coins." It would really be nice if they remained true to their own code of ethics and comply with all cultural property laws of their own country.<br /><br />What I see is a lot of twisting words, false arguments, and wasted money by the members of the ACCG that can't even come up with an honest, persuasive argument to justify what they are doing.<br /><br />If the best Mr. Tompa and Mr. Sayles can do is personal attacks on those who disagree, and half truths is their posts, why should anyone listen to their side of the argument?Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com26tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-40701275283929050082009-07-09T20:42:00.003-04:002009-07-09T20:50:40.441-04:00Freedom to Collect<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinUViXKiyOe3MYYh-Lbf6Zu7gOe1ytoyzPAUAD_fNYqx0ql_CAJpRngVOG12JKUJ_6DtwDJ9boNBj4LaYMpwWSfRIeCfMtFHLF-Jp1phCLEJrPej1pXzcpjmjJPeeDQKe_GBH4YRUVA-0R/s1600-h/flag.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5356626507915956962" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 132px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 88px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinUViXKiyOe3MYYh-Lbf6Zu7gOe1ytoyzPAUAD_fNYqx0ql_CAJpRngVOG12JKUJ_6DtwDJ9boNBj4LaYMpwWSfRIeCfMtFHLF-Jp1phCLEJrPej1pXzcpjmjJPeeDQKe_GBH4YRUVA-0R/s200/flag.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>Over on Peter Tompa's blog Cultural Property Observer, he has made a post on freedom to collect. </div><br /><div> </div><div><br /><a href="http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/07/happy-july-4th.html">http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/07/happy-july-4th.html</a></div><br /><div><br />A couple things jumped out at me in this post that I feel need addressed:</div><br /><div><br /><blockquote><em>Hopefully, such a day will never come to these United States when ordinary Americans will be unable to study, preserve and display ancient coins just like Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams did generations ago.</em></blockquote><br /></div><div><br />This is an argument that is used a lot by collectors. Just because something "has been done this way for generations" doesn't mean that it's the way it should continue to be done. We now know and care more about the destruction looting causes to the historical record, and we can't let this continue. </div><br /><div><br /><blockquote><em>Instead, it will take the vigilance of collectors and even litigation like the FOIA case against the State Department and a "test case" about import restrictions on coins of Cypriot and Chinese type to ensure that ordinary Americans retain their "freedom to collect." </em></blockquote><br /></div><div><br />Yes, as Americans we are free to collect. But that freedom to collect can not and should not supercede the right of another country to pass and enforce whatever laws its government deems necessary to protect its cultural heritage. The ACCG's challenge to the State Dept is attempting to do just that. The US has agreed to help China and Cyprus enforce its cultural property laws by agreeing to not let something illegally removed from either of those countries into the US. Why is that a problem?</div><br /><div><br />The only problem I see with it is that it forces The dealers who are members of the ACCG to be more diligent in their business practices, and lowers their profit margin since they would no longer be able to buy cheap, undocumented objects from any Joe, Stan, or Harry with a metal detector who digs things up illegally and ships them out of the country without reporting them. They would actually have to seek out legally acquired objects to sell. </div>Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-10535291136549027122009-07-08T13:09:00.002-04:002009-07-08T17:42:12.509-04:00What To Do Now?Many collectors, like myself, started buying artifacts out of interest for a particular culture or type of item. As they become more educated collectors, they start to realize the damage that is being done to the historical record by looting. They become aware that a way to help curb looting is to only buy items with provenance. Unfortunately for many of us, it's too late. We already own unprovenanced items. So the question now becomes "What should I do with the items I already own?"<br /><br />The answer is to start documenting them now. Write down anything you know about the item. Who did you buy it from? When? Where did that person get them from? (If you have that information) If you have done any restoration to the item, document that as well. Take pictures of the item and keep them with the paperwork. This will be the beginning of a provenance. Should you decide to sell the item, pass all this paperwork on to the buyer, and try to educate them of the importance of keeping and updating this paperwork.<br /><br />The best advice I can give to anyone concerned about the destruction looting causes, and wanting to make sure their items were legally obtained is to educate yourselves. Familiarize yourself with the laws concerning the items you buy, and the laws of the countries you are buying from.<br /><br />There is much more to being a responsible collector than just requiring provenance, for more information see here:<br /><br /><a href="http://piecesofthepastethicalantiquiti.blogspot.com/2009/03/code-of-ethics-for-collectors-of.html">http://piecesofthepastethicalantiquiti.blogspot.com/2009/03/code-of-ethics-for-collectors-of.html</a><br /><br />This is a Code of Ethics created by a group of responsible collectors belonging to the Yahoo forum Ancientartifacts. There was a lot of time and effort put into creating this, and if followed by the majority of collectors it could make a significant impact on the destruction caused by looting.Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-73263079201795574962009-06-14T08:46:00.002-04:002009-06-14T09:05:10.287-04:00Looters Arrested In Theft Of Native American Artifacts<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-artifacts11-2009jun11,0,7158558.story">http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-artifacts11-2009jun11,0,7158558.story</a><br /><br />I'm sure many readers have seen this article, or some other version of the same story. 24 People were arrested in the 4 Corners area where Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and Mew Mexico meet. These people were digging up Native American artifacts on public lands, where such activity is illegal. Kudos to the law enforcement agencies involved in this operation.<br /><br />What disturbs me even more is this article:<br /><a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12581032">http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12581032</a><br /><br />This article talks about the outrage of the citizens of Blanding, Utah over the raids and the suicide of one of the defendants.<br /><br /><blockquote>"The federal government has a responsibility to protect antiquities," he said. "But they have a responsibility to protect people, too. Anytime somebody loses his or her life, like Dr. Redd, it's gone too far." </blockquote><br />and: <blockquote>"People already are feeling at a loss without their doctor, said Shalain Lucero. And many are blaming federal authorities for his death." </blockquote><br />So should law enforcement no longer arrest criminals for fear that they might be so distraught over the arrest and embarrassement that they might commit suicide? I'm sorry, but Dr. Redd made his choice, the federal government didn't do it for him.<br /><br /><blockquote>When a federal informant recently offered large sums of money to people for pots, sandals and other antiquities, they were "set up,"</blockquote><br />If someone offered me a large sum of money to sell crack cocaine or heroin, I still wouldn't do it. No one coerced these people to go onto public lands and illegally dig up artifacts. They did it of their own free will just to make a few bucks. Was it worth it?<br /><br />When you knowingly, repeatedly break the law, you will eventually be caught. If you don't like the idea that you might be publicly embarrassed by the arrest and jailed, you shouldn't be doing things that you know are illegal.<br /><br />I'm a collector myself, and I love my collection. But I started collecting because I love history. When items are ripped out of their context, as these items were, so much knowledge is lost that can never be replaced. The knowledge is what is most important, and wanting to own whatever you want should never stand in the way of or destroy what we could learn from these items when studied in their origional context.Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-3875297043584489642009-05-17T09:23:00.006-04:002010-06-07T18:35:10.506-04:00The Chinese/Cypriot Coin Saga Continues<a href="http://www.accg.us/issues/news/coin-collectors-to-challenge-state-department-on-import-restrictions">http://www.accg.us/issues/news/coin-collectors-to-challenge-state-department-on-import-restrictions</a><br /><br />As a private antiquities collector and tax-paying American citizen, I'm outraged at this stunt pulled by the ACCG. To deliberately break the law for the express purpose of forcing a trial is just unbelievable. No doubt this was cooked up between the "officers" of the organization without bothering to ask the 5000 members they supposedly serve. What would have been the answer if they had? And what of the millions of American taxpayers that will be footing the bill for this farce? I bet no one in the ACCG thought to ask how they would like their tax dollars being wasted on such a scheme. After all, we are already paying for their Freedom of Information Act litigation, but apparently the wheels of justice weren't moving fast enough for them, so the moved to "Phase 2".<br /><br />What the ACCG fails to acknowledge is that it's not the importation of the coins that is being prohibited, it is the importation of coins <strong>without a valid export license or proof that</strong> <strong>they left before Jan. 16,2009 (for the Chinese coins) or July 16, 2007 (for the Cypriot coins)</strong> that is prohibited. They know full well that if the coins they "attempted" to import had proper documentation, they would have never been retained by customs. This was posted by Peter Tompa himself:<br /><br /><br /><br /><blockquote><p><em>Under the provision, restricted artifacts must be accompanied upon entry into the US with either a valid Chinese export certificate or certifications indicating that the artifact in question left China before the effective date of the restrictions, January 16, 2009.</em></p><p><em></em><br /><a href="http://www.coinlink.com/News/ancients/state-department-adds-new-import-restrictions">http://www.coinlink.com/News/ancients/state-department-adds-new-import-restrictions</a> </p></blockquote><br />This was also posted to the ACCG website by Peter Tompa and Dave Welsh:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><em>The burden will then shift to the importer to prove that the coin was outside of Cyprus before July 16, 2007 (the date of the restrictions). Coins lacking such documentation are subject to seizure.</em> </blockquote><br /><a href="http://www.accg.us/issues/news/import-restrictions-imposed-on-cypriot-coins/">http://www.accg.us/issues/news/import-restrictions-imposed-on-cypriot-coins/</a><br /><br />the ACCG can't even follow its own already loosely worded "Code of Ethics" (Coin Collectors and Sellers will not knowingly purchase coins illegally removed from scheduled archaeological sites or stolen from museum or personal collections, <strong>and will comply with all cultural property laws of</strong> <strong>their own country</strong>.) or even its own bylaws (The guild does not in any way support, condone or defend the looting of designated archaeological sites, <strong>nor the violation of any nation's</strong> <strong>laws concerning the import or export of antiquities</strong>.) This conduct shows them to be an organization that can't be trusted or even respected by ethical antiquities collectors no matter what type of antiquity they collect.Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-58120978189245840492009-05-16T19:45:00.004-04:002009-05-16T20:00:35.549-04:00German Coin Collections Seized<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlvpjik_pKEg46dzEpdt_ZjdKleAY9UvCzSu4Ro5eJhhVqw8uQZp4OaD_tlVGx___VRx0mRVyBTJSMrN57yhd7TuP3AoNxFfbQlPj69fdNlNueiQtk3cmg8ic3Z-M4IO_YdqIZ3CimfjZg/s1600-h/images+coin.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5336574958776329874" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 131px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 74px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlvpjik_pKEg46dzEpdt_ZjdKleAY9UvCzSu4Ro5eJhhVqw8uQZp4OaD_tlVGx___VRx0mRVyBTJSMrN57yhd7TuP3AoNxFfbQlPj69fdNlNueiQtk3cmg8ic3Z-M4IO_YdqIZ3CimfjZg/s200/images+coin.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>Although I don't collect coins, I have read a lot of coin collectors' blogs lately, and there is a post to a blog here that I would like to comment on.</div><br /><div><br /><a href="http://awcoingeek.blogspot.com/2009/02/german-collections-are-being.html">http://awcoingeek.blogspot.com/2009/02/german-collections-are-being.html</a></div><br /><div><br />This post is regarding the recent raids on German coin collectors and the seizing of some collections, written by a coin collector from Wisconsin.</div><br /><div><br /><br /><blockquote><em>the *one thing* coin collectors need to stand united against is any intrusion by government to meddle in something that isn't worthy of government involvement. Coin collecting is certainly one of those things. When the government get's involved in harmless, innocent pastimes like people's hobbies - where does the government stop?</em></blockquote><br />Apparently it is worth government involvement, since the coin collectors seem to think they should be exempt from cultural property laws. Do the coin collectors ever stop to think that the government wouldn't have seized those collections if they'd had proper documentation of those coins being legally excavated, exported, and purchased? For some reason that escapes me, coin collectors in general seem to think that their items don't need any proof of legal acquisition. They don't seem to think they should be bound by the same laws as any other antiquities collector. </div><br /><div><br /><br /><blockquote><em>This is where the rubber hits the road for collectors. Do I want the government to suddenly be involved with and regulating my hobby at every turn or worse, do I want my hobby to turn into a criminal activity overnight?</em></blockquote><br />Unfortunately the collectors have brought this on themselves. If they had used due diligence in buying their items, and made sure they had all the proper paperwork, they would have nothing to worry about.</div><br /><div><br /><br /><blockquote><em>Collecting, especially of medieval and ancient coins, has been accused as a criminal act; under the unjustifiable accusation that collecting is the result and cause of the illegal looting of archaeological sites around the world.</em></blockquote><br />The criminal act is not collecting. It is the clandestine digging of artifacts, not reporting them where required by law, and exporting them without permits. When the collectors buy items without asking the pertinent questions, they run the risk of buying what is essentially stolen property, and as such it is subject to confiscation. Why do coin collectors think they shouldn't have to follow the same laws as everyone else? </div><br /><div><br />Collecting is not the cause of looting, but no-questions-asked buying certainly contributes to it. Who do you think the looters sell to? Collectors and dealers that are willing to buy without asking where it came from and how it was obtained.</div><br /><div><br />If you collect responsibly, you have nothing to worry about in regards to government involvement. You will already have all the proper paperwork on your items to show that they are perfectly legal, and you'll have the added comfort of knowing that you are not contributing to the destruction of the historical record by possibly buying recently looted items. </div>Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-10986941990470497852009-05-05T10:26:00.004-04:002009-05-05T21:53:55.041-04:00There's No Link Between Buying Undocumented Items And Looting?A comment from Dave Welsh in a post to the Ancient Artifacts forum on Yahoo: <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/46911">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/46911</a><br /><br /><blockquote>"collectors (and dealers such as myself) actually do understand what collecting is all about,and also understand how specimens are discovered and eventually become available for collecting, thus they realize that collecting such common, low value artifacts as coins does not have anything at all to do with looting of archaeological sites."</blockquote><br />Does this comment apply to ANY "low value" artifact, or just coins? Why do coin dealers think that coins shouldn't fall in the same category as other artifacts? The idea that illegally digging coins never destroys a potential archaeological site is just absurd.<br /><br />For anyone that doesn't understand the damage that looting does, or how no questions asked buying perpetuates it, I recommend reading the book "Stealing History" by Roger Atwood. It gives a startling picture of the damage done, not only in terms of the knowledge lost by ripping items from their historical context, but also the physical destruction of precious antiquities that are deemed unsaleable by the looters.<br /><br />After reading this book, how can anyone who has a love of antiquities or history not stop and think about how the "don't ask- don't tell" mentality of many collectors and dealers is contributing to this destruction? These are exactly the people that looters sell their ill-gotten items to. How can anyone say with a straight face that there is no connection between undocumented buying and looting?Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-26439093076477577732009-04-13T21:12:00.003-04:002009-04-13T21:31:29.887-04:00The US Can't Enforce Other Countries' Laws<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihPtejnZ7weFevDa38NOugTYezLYxDKfORGrGKN5CIprr2laZpTXEojXQaQjhmjUYmbaDUwYJFpTeZq89-CQi2MtoWoqUDThLOzTunJFqPofHewUhymB5xRXBiWi9O_jWfWEm2ZVxTQbf7/s1600-h/scales.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5324352571436835730" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 79px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 144px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihPtejnZ7weFevDa38NOugTYezLYxDKfORGrGKN5CIprr2laZpTXEojXQaQjhmjUYmbaDUwYJFpTeZq89-CQi2MtoWoqUDThLOzTunJFqPofHewUhymB5xRXBiWi9O_jWfWEm2ZVxTQbf7/s200/scales.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>One of the arguments I hear frequently from collectors and dealers is "I'm not breaking the laws of my country, and the US can't enforce the laws of other countries, so I'm in the clear". In researching for something else, I came across this article:</div><br /><div><br /><a href="http://www.aam-us.org/pubs/mn/MN_ND06_antique-laws.cfm">http://www.aam-us.org/pubs/mn/MN_ND06_antique-laws.cfm</a></div><br /><div><br />It says, in part:</div><br /><div><br /><br /><blockquote>"Starting in the mid-1970s, however, federal prosecutors applied a well-established criminal law, the National Stolen Property Act, to two cases involving illicit trafficking in cultural property. The NSPA, enacted in the 1930s, makes it a crime to transport any “goods, wares, merchandise, securities or money” valued in excess of $5,000 across state lines knowing such property was “stolen, converted or taken by fraud.” At the time it was passed, Congress was undoubtedly thinking about stolen cars, not antiquities from foreign lands. But the statute’s broad language lent itself to cases involving imported cultural patrimony, on the theory that such items had been “stolen” from their true owner, namely, another country.<br /><br />In United States v. Hollinshead (1974), the defendants were charged with conspiring to transport stolen property in violation of the NSPA in connection with a scheme to procure valuable artifacts in Central America . The conspirators removed a pre-Columbian stele from a Mayan ruin in the jungle of Guatemala , cut it into pieces, and exported the pieces surreptitiously from a fish-packing plant in Belize to California . The defendants then attempted, without success, to sell the stele to various collectors and museums in the United States .<br /><br />At trial, the government presented expert testimony that under the law of Guatemala , artifacts such as the stele were the property of the Republic of Guatemala and could not be removed from the country without the permission of the government. The judge instructed the jury that there was a presumption that every person knows what the law forbids—essentially, that “ignorance is no defense.” Predictably, the defendants were convicted.<br /><br />On appeal, they argued that the jury should have been instructed that there was no such presumption as to knowledge of foreign law.The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco rejected that argument. In upholding the convictions, the court noted that while the government was required to prove that the conspirators knew the stele was stolen, it was not required to prove that they knew where it was stolen. As the court concluded, the defendants’ “knowledge of Guatemalan law is relevant only to the extent that it bears upon the issue of their knowledge that the stele was stolen.”<br /><br />While Hollinshead was the first case of its kind, it did not address the more fundamental question of whether the NSPA should be applied to trafficking in items protected under a foreign cultural patrimony law in the first place. That issue was confronted by the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans in the seminal case of United States v. McClain (1979).<br /><br />One of the defendants in McClain , Joseph Rodriguez, hired squads to raid archaeological sites in Mexico . He arranged to smuggle pre-Columbian artifacts into California and then traveled around the country selling the items out of a suitcase. One potential client, suspecting that he was being swindled, contacted the FBI, which initiated a covert investigation. An informant met with one of Rodriguez’s partners, Mrs. Ada Simpson, claiming he was interested in acquiring stolen merchandise, which would be resold by the Mafia. In the course of negotiating the deal, Mrs. Simpson explained how the artifacts were dug up, how papers were forged and how they were smuggled into the United States . Eventually the defendants agreed to meet the informant and his “appraiser,” an official from the Mexican Department of Archaeology, at a San Antonio hotel to negotiate a deal. After agreeing to sell their entire lot of artifacts, the defendants were arrested and charged with conspiring to violate the NSPA. The government’s legal theory was that the artifacts in question had been “stolen” within the meaning of the NSPA because Mexican cultural property laws had vested title to such pre-Columbian artifacts in the Mexican government. The defendants were convicted after trial.<br /><br />On appeal, the defendants raised several issues. First, they argued that applying the NSPA to cases of “mere illegal exportation” constituted unwarranted federal enforcement of foreign law. Second, they claimed that the artifacts could not be considered “stolen” under the NSPA because there was no evidence that there had been a deprivation of private ownership rights under common law. Third, they argued that the NSPA was superseded (or pre-empted) by the more narrowly tailored 1972 law prohibiting importation of Pre-Columbian artifacts (which, for technical reasons, did not cover the items at issue in the case). Finally, they asserted that their convictions should be overturned on grounds of “vagueness” because the Mexican laws at issue were known only to “a handful of experts who work for the Mexican government” and therefore ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement of fair notice.Relying on the NSPA’s expansive scope and purpose, the court held that the statute clearly applied to the illegal exportation of items declared by Mexican law to be the property of the nation. The court rejected the notion that other, more specific legislation would limit or preclude the use of the NSPA in this context. On the vagueness issue, however, the court threw out the defendants’ convictions because the Mexican statutes at issue, the court held, did not announce the proscribed conduct sufficiently to put the defendants on notice that their activities violated criminal law. McClain therefore established that American citizens could be convicted under the National Stolen Property Act for violating another country’s lawsregarding removal of cultural heritage, but only where that foreign law was unambiguous."<br /></blockquote><br />And finally:</div><br /><div><br /><br /><blockquote>"The law in this country has steadily evolved in the direction of enforcing foreign claims regarding antiquities and other objects protected by cultural patrimony laws. It is unlikely to reverse course anytime soon. "</blockquote><br />This is a very interesting article, one that should put to rest the idea that the US can't/won't enforce another country's laws regarding cultural property. </div><br /><div><br />It is also important to note that the US is also a party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention. Article 13 says:</div><br /><div><br /><br /><blockquote>The States Parties to this Convention also undertake, consistent with the laws of each State: (a) To prevent by all appropriate means transfers of ownership of cultural property likely to promote the illicit import or export of such property; (b) to ensure that their competent services co-operate in facilitating the earliest possible restitution of illicitly exported cultural property to its rightful owner; (c) to admit actions for recovery of lost or stolen items of cultural property brought by or on behalf of the rightful owners ; (d) to recognize the indefeasible right of each State Party to this Convention to classify and declare certain cultural property as inalienable which should therefore ipso facto not be exported, and to facilitate recovery of such property by the State concerned in cases where it has been exported.</blockquote><br />It can no longer be reasonably argued that the laws of other countries can't be enforced and can therefore be ignored. It is a collector's responsibility to know and follow all laws regarding ownership, import, and export of the items they collect. </div>Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-81138593927723527042009-03-17T12:02:00.005-04:002009-03-17T12:35:52.481-04:00Who Should Protect Antiquities?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbpgTu49PL3SLDXOjVe-Ole1G-RvrrYbGuCk6QlYAv5g7am6ETreMnpxBAURE96I1zgOnyEJf_n7J1pFh-cF_-IuPUSuNBkfUbB9XIn082YT5QF_X3rMfqFpNbmeS5S5UCGvznVswLfmNp/s1600-h/Pasha.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5314192377760278098" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 101px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 124px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbpgTu49PL3SLDXOjVe-Ole1G-RvrrYbGuCk6QlYAv5g7am6ETreMnpxBAURE96I1zgOnyEJf_n7J1pFh-cF_-IuPUSuNBkfUbB9XIn082YT5QF_X3rMfqFpNbmeS5S5UCGvznVswLfmNp/s200/Pasha.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>There have been a few highly publicized incidents in the news lately concerning thefts of antiquities from government controlled places. Private collectors and dealers have pounced on these as an opportunity to show how antiquities would be better taken care of in their hands.</div><br /><div><br />Yes, by all means, lets let the private collectors and dealers have them, because we all know that private collections are never robbed, fires and natural disasters never happen to private collectors, artifacts are never damaged in shipping. The difference is, the the theft or fire that happens to the average collector is hardly newsworthy. These publicized instances just give them another excuse to say "See! See! We were right! This would never have happened if that government/museum had released those items to the private sector. We would have taken better care of them!" This is simply not true in many cases. How many private collectors have received an item that has been damaged in shipping? How many private collectors have had fires or floods that have completely ruined their collections? Did these items fare any better in the private sector? At least when an item is kept by a museum or government, its provenance is generally kept as well. We know where it was found, what it was found with, and who had it earlier. The same can't be said for many items held by private collectors. Far too often that information is lost for one reason or another.</div><br /><div><br />And what happens when things are released from the stores? Collectors scramble to buy the nicer pieces, but what happens to the more mundane items found with them? Who should look after those? What use would a museum have for an assemblage of items once the more visually appealing items found with them have been removed?</div><br /><div><br />This is just another spin on the old argument against reporting finds because "It will just sit in a storehouse anyway, I'll take better care of it" Even officials, in response to the theft of 9 paintings from the Mohammad Ali Pasha's palace, have gotten in on this, saying</div><div><br /></div><blockquote>"This incident shows that Egypt is not ready to have items returned to the country at this point. They can't keep the things they already have safe, so why would major museums risk returning artifacts," a German archaeologist in Cairo told the Middle East Times, on condition of anonymity.</blockquote><div><br />Let's use a hypothetical scenario to refute this argument: Let's say I buy a classic car. I find out that this car was poorly taken care of, left to rust out in a garage. I spend my money restoring it. I then find out that this car was stolen from its previous owner. Do I get to keep this car because I'll take better care of it? NO! It belongs to the rightful owner! Same thing goes for antiquities. Just because you think you will take better care of it doesn't mean you get to keep it. Items that are not reported where required are stolen items, period. If you buy an item without proof of legal acquisition, you run the risk of owning a stolen item. The only way to avoid this is to ask questions of the seller, and require provenance.</div>Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-20387553768642985522009-03-02T20:51:00.004-05:002009-03-02T21:51:52.494-05:00A Code of Ethics for Collectors of Ancient Artifacts<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiif-J2822AE-iOaXGlrqcZ40j5RwcGk_CwEklWihyphenhyphenMbR_DgXTDgqciPd-lGyRcVSz2bk1ionyjn2ZAxXXjDCu_giMpET_o0VbcR2wkfl1QHbNuaDJ95T17w6hN-JLAszmXb_cyI8hyphenhyphen0tuX/s1600-h/egyptian+art.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5308787949047747538" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 115px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 132px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiif-J2822AE-iOaXGlrqcZ40j5RwcGk_CwEklWihyphenhyphenMbR_DgXTDgqciPd-lGyRcVSz2bk1ionyjn2ZAxXXjDCu_giMpET_o0VbcR2wkfl1QHbNuaDJ95T17w6hN-JLAszmXb_cyI8hyphenhyphen0tuX/s200/egyptian+art.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>Finally, after much hard work and many emails, a group of collectors in the Yahoo forum Ancientartifacts have finished a Code for Ethical Collectors of Ancient Artifacts. It is all valuable information, and something I would recommend to all collectors. You can find the original post here:</div><br /><div><br /><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/files/A%20Code%20of%20Ethics/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/files/A%20Code%20of%20Ethics/</a></div><br /><div><br />Here is the full text as written:</div><br /><div><br />A Code of Ethics for Collectors of Ancient Artifacts</div><br /><div>Version 1 </div><br /><div>1st March 2009</div><br /><div><br />This is a voluntary code, reflecting the personal conviction of those who adhere to it. It concerns actions now and in the future, and aims to inform both new and experienced collectors.</div><br /><div><br />Although it is clearly in every collector’s own interest to be able to separate the fake from the authentic, keep good records and care properly for artifacts, these guidelines are an attempt to go further by outlining common sense standards to protect our <em>shared</em> interests, and particularly the finite and fragile archaeological resource.</div><br /><div><br />(1) <strong>Protect our archaeological heritage and uphold the law</strong></div><br /><div>• Only buy artifacts which you have reason to believe have been obtained and are offered in accordance withall national laws.</div><br /><div>• Ask the vendor for all relevant paperwork relating to provenance, export etc.</div><br /><div>• Take extra care if collecting particular classes of object which have been subjected to wide-scale recent looting.</div><br /><div><br />(2) <strong>Check your source</strong> </div><br /><div>• Verify a vendor’s reputation independently before buying. Assure yourself that they are using due diligence in their trading practices, and do not support those who knowingly sell fakes as authentic or offer items of questionable provenance. </div><br /><div><br />(3)<strong> Collect sensitively</strong></div><br /><div>• Consider the implications of acquiring items which may be of religious or social significance to others.</div><br /><div><br />(4) <strong>Recognise your role as custodian</strong></div><br /><div>• Do your utmost to ensure the wellbeing of the objects in your care.</div><br /><div>• Consider the condition of artifacts prior to purchase and whether you will be able to carry out any necessary conservation or repairs. Any intrusive operation should ideally be carried out by a competent professional.</div><br /><div>• Maintain and update records relating to each artifact, including its provenance. Make sure these records can be connected to the relevant object by a layman.</div><br /><div>• Only buy from vendors who do the same.</div><br /><div><br />(5) <strong>Keep artifacts in one piece and consider the significance of groups of objects</strong></div><br /><div>• Do not dismember any item, or acquire a fragment which you believe to have been separated from a larger object except through natural means.</div><br /><div>• Consider the implications of buying an item from an associated assemblage and the impact this could have on study.</div><br /><div><br />(6) <strong>Promote further study</strong></div><br /><div>• Liaise, where possible, with the academic and broader communities about your artifacts. Significant objects,in particular, should not be withheld from study. Try to find out more about the artifacts you own and their context.</div><br /><div><br />(7) <strong>Dispose of artifacts responsibly</strong></div><br /><div>• Do your best to ensure that none of the above guidelines are infringed by the way you dispose of your artifacts.</div><br /><div>• Pass on all information about each piece, particularly its provenance, and include as much original documentation as possible (even if the prices are blacked out).</div><br /><div>• Give an honest description of any repairs or restoration.</div><br /><div>• Promote responsible custodianship to the new owner and other collectors.</div><br /><div>• Give thought to the disposal of your collection in the event of your death, and leave clear instructions as to how it should be sold or donated. </div>Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.com0