Shepard Fairey and Roman Art

Aside from one upper-level course in Greek or Roman art history per semester, I also teach the Art History survey sequence: Prehistory to Medieval Art in the fall and Renaissance to Contemporary Art in the spring.  Even though my specialty is Antiquity, I find the second half of the survey is somehow more enjoyable to teach.  Maybe it is because I am not as "close" to it and can allow myself to have more fun with the subject when teaching.  One of my favorite artists to teach in the second half of the survey is Shepard Fairey, whose art I have also recently begun to collect.  I find the students also enjoy learning about him as they recognize his work in popular culture and wear Obey shirts (they are often thrilled to learn what Obey on their shirts is about as many don't already know).  As I work in a department driven primarily by a studio art program, a significant number of my survey students are graphic design majors.  One of the many hats that Shepard Fairey wears is that of a graphic designer; that is perhaps another reason the students enjoy seeing Fairey's work as he is an artist who has foot in both fine art and design. 

So what does the Shepard Fairey, of Obey Giant fame, who received worldwide recognition for his iconic "Hope" poster of Senator Obama during the 2008 primary - now one of the most famous and parodied images of the early 21st century, - have to do with Roman art?  Nothing really, except that my own work on Roman imperial art and coinage may explain why this contemporary artist and his artwork resonate with me.  I explain below.

Shepard Fairey, Hope, 2008, preceded by Progress, 2008.

Much of Fairey's work, especially his signed and numbered serigraphs are relatively affordable; they sell from roughly $45-$65 on his website if you can get them immediately as they are released.  The price point is intentional as Fairey wants his fans to be able to afford his work.  Older prints, or ones that you miss during a release, are available for a markup in the secondhand market.  The rarity of and demand for the print in question dictates the degree of that markup.  Over the past year, I have begun collecting Shepard Fairey's serigraphs and have thus far acquired eight prints and many books about his art. I plan to continue to grow the collection.  Two of these prints are quite rare and historical: "Progress" from 2008 (edition of 350), which contained the same iconic image as "Hope" print/poster, of which half a million posters were printed.  The "Progress" preceded that iconic, nearly identical, "Hope" image.  After the release of "Progress", the campaign adopted the image, asking Fairey to use the word "Hope" instead as a campaign poster.  As an art historian and archaeologist, the historic and documentary quality of the "Progress" piece particularly appealed to me.  It is an original print of one of the most recognizable images of the early 21st century, a part of our contemporary popular culture. The other print, "War: Everyone Wants It" from 2003 (edition of 200) is biting critique of the Iraq War, begun in 2003, through both image and text.  Although both are rare and desirable prints among collectors, I think I was able to acquire both of these historical pieces at reasonable prices - an important consideration for an academic.

Shepard Fairey, Pay Up or Shut Up, 2015.

For one recent acquisition, I was lucky to have beaten the notorious "eBay flippers," who purchase Fairey prints and immediately put them on eBay for two or three times the purchase price, and buy directly from Obey: "Pay Up or Shut Up" (2015, signed and numbered edition of 450).  This print depicts Uncle Sam's hand - his identity evident from the patriotic decoration on the sleeve of his suit - covering the mouth of a gentleman in a suit and tie, thereby silencing him.  At the top left, the text reads "All the Free Speech Money Can Buy."  At the lower right of the image is the Obey Giant logo and the title "Pay Up or Shut Up."  The print critiques the Citizens United supreme court decisions regarding Super PACs and donors to them.  The effect of this, as Fairey and others have described it, is the equation of money with speech and influence as politicians benefiting from wealthy PACsand donors will be unduly influenced by corporate and commercial interests.  The combination of text image points out the need for campaign finance reform to maintain legitimate democracy.  The sloganeering and fonts recall American 1950s-era advertisements that seem innocent enough on the surface, but from a 21st-century perspective many of these old advertisements smacked of racism or sexism, or cutely peddled dangerous products, such as cigarettes.

Shepard Fairey, Farewell to Freedom, 2014. 

Beyond mid-20th advertisements, Fairey's work clearly draws influence and inspiration from multiple artists, movements, and popular art media.  Perusing through a gallery of his works, one readily observes the influence of Social Realism, and especially Socialist Realism, in many of his pieces.  As a politically-minded artist, Fairey uses the visual cues of Socialist Realist imagery, accompanied by clearly ironical or satirical slogans, to point out dangerous flaws in contemporary American democracy that potentially corrode our democracy (I think he would say they do corrode that democracy) and put us on a path to autocracy and oligarchy, and/or corporatocracy.  Other works use the same visual style to exalt certain figures, such as freedom fighters and advocates for peace such as Aung San Suu Kyi. One recent piece deploying the style of Socialist Realism is "Farewell to Freedom" (signed and numbered edition of 500), an homage to comedian and political-news satirist Stephen Colbert of the recently-ended Colbert Report.  The slogan was also that of Colbert's last show. Stephen Colbert asked Shepard Fairey, previously a guest on the Report as well as a guest on the last show, to design the image for his final episode; signed and numbered prints were also released on the Obey Giant website.  In this example, the imagery seems to me to provide Colbert-inspired satire while the text may reflect Fairey's sentiment.  Stephen, using the American flag as a cape, stands to the left in a three quarter pose, one leg striding forward with his foot resting upon a globe; he does not engage the viewer but looks up confidently as if a resolute and transcendent figure (not unlike portraits of Alexander the great with the dramatically twisted neck and upturned eyes - a feature curiously enough observable in the "Hope"/"Progress" image).  In his right hand he wields a sword and in his left he holds a round shield - not dissimilar to Captain America's shield - as an eagle soars in the background.  The image of Stephen Colbert as a sort of authoritarian, transcendent, and god-like individual draws upon historical images of monarchs and from Socialist Realism, but parodies them.  On the Colbert Report, Stephen's unbreakable persona of the consummate egoist and fiercely uncompromising politically partisan pundit sharply satirized political news-show hosts on 24-hour cable-news networks.  The image, therefore, was a fitting tribute to the persona Stephen Colbert had adopted.  The text, "Farewell to Freedom," used in jest by the Colbert Report, reinforced the humorous notion that the political pundits on 24-hour cable-news networks actively present themselves as patriotic defenders of democracy who drape their one-sided opinions in the flag; Colbert's departure from the show thus signifies a certain "end" to freedom.  Nonetheless, the "Farewell to Freedom" print perhaps conveys something more sentimental in that Stephen Colbert's biting satire, but strong substance, was perceived by the artist and by many others as more honest and penetrating than that of the news-channel pundits that his show skewered.

Shepard Fairey, These Parties Disgust Me, 2010.

Even though Fairey is generally unpopular among political conservatives, he, like Stephen Colbert, criticizes both Republicans and Democrats, looking beyond partisanship to examine the function and dysfunction of the organs of American democracy itself, and American society more broadly; he has criticized President Obama several times since the election (a recent example here).  While one might disagree with Fairey's position on certain issues, those literate in art ought to to appreciate his work.  I mean "appreciate" in the sense of what "art appreciation" means (i.e., there is a difference between liking it on the one hand and appreciating/understanding it on the other).  Fairey's art and its sharp indictments of the political establishment are not only activist statements themselves, but also are reflective of broader popular disappointment and discontentment with how the contemporary American political system and landscape has (d)evolved over the past couple of decades.  A 2010 print, "These Parties Disgust Me," criticizes the flawed two-party system, frustration with both major political parties, and the artist's sentiment that campaign finance reform may be an antidote.

What appeals to me about Fairey's work is the conscious propagandist quality of his work.  With text and image, and often in the style of an advertisement or Socialist Realist political posters, he directly takes on an issue to make a point, often challenging policies espoused, or even ignored, by the news media.  One might see his work as propaganda to counter propaganda.  Indeed, "Worldwide Propaganda Delivery" is an Obey Giant slogan. The Obey sticker campaign sought to make one aware of his environment and the things he sees (and perhaps hears); the Obey logo, visible on his works, imbues his art with a sense of the looming authoritarian and, in so doing, reminds the viewer to question and critically evaluate everything.

Now for the connection with Roman art, which attracts to me to Fairey's work, as I study the communicative aspects of Roman imperial art and especially the coinage.  Roman imperial art has often been described as "propaganda," although few historians of Roman art would use that description today as carelessly as we have in the past.  Propaganda has strong 20th-century connotations.  Immediately one may recall the imagery and messages disseminated by the authoritarian governments of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany via highly organized and well-structured propaganda ministries.  The goal of propaganda is to persuade the people of the government's position or course of action and to garner their support.  Roman art was not propaganda in this sense.  First of all, the Roman state was nowhere near this organized in the dissemination of messages.  Secondly, the Roman emperor, although a monarch, was not the sort of absolutist dictatorial ruler as that of modern North Korea or of Nazi Germany.  Instead, the head of the Roman state maintained power by negotiating and cultivating positive symbiotic relationships with many important constituencies in the Roman Empire: the Senate, the plebs urbana, the armies and their commanders, and provincial elites.  Finally, state-sanctioned Roman imperial art was not formulated to persuade imperial subjects of the emperor's political agenda with the goal of changing attitudes.

What state-sanctioned imperial art did was to present the emperor in a positive light.  In many cases, official state-sanctioned images, as appeared on the coinage, may not have been formulated by the imperial court at all.  A prominent theory is that mint officials formulated the images and messages on the coins with the emperor foremost in mind as the primary audience.  In this scenario, much of Roman art was akin to contemporary poetry and panegyric which aggrandized and honored the emperor.  Indeed, contemporary imperial coinage and text often reflected the same ideals, indicating that they reflected the political rhetoric of the day.  Even if the goal of much of the official art and coinage was to flatter the emperor, it also was seen, used, and experienced by viewers throughout the Roman world and so the communicative aspects of art and coinage ought not to be dismissed even though it was not "propaganda" in our typical understanding of the world.  One of the best and most recent discussions of the differences between the modern word "propaganda" and the communicative aspects of Roman imperial art that I have read is in Carlos Noreña's, Imperial Ideals in the Roman West (Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 15-21.  On p. 18, Noreña makes reference to another scholar (Ellul) who distinguished between "agitation" and "integration" propaganda.  He summarizes as follows.

"While agitation propaganda seeks to change attitudes, according to Ellul's definition, integration propaganda seeks to bolster them.  The former is more visible and widespread, is often subversive, and bears 'the stamp of opposition,' while the latter aims instead at 'stabilizing the social body,' making it 'the preferred instrument of government.'  This distinction is useful, and helps to explain why the imperial regime ever bothered to communicate a set of ideals and values associated with the reigning emperor.  In general, there was not much in the way of agitation propaganda in the Roman imperial period.  During the high empire in particular, there was little need to change attitudes and - even more important - the actual mechanics of imperial communications would have made it almost impossible to do so.  That the regular, long-term dissemination of imperial ideals was instead intended, at least in part, to reinforce belief in the legitimacy of Roman imperial rule seems more plausible....But the official communication of imperial ideals by the central state necessarily entailed a positive valuation of imperial rule, which in turn entailed a degree of persuasion, even if only implicit.  Moreover, one of the media available to the imperial regime, the coinage, was particularly well suited to the slow, long-term diffusion of ideas upon which such integration propaganda depends.  As a preliminary conclusion, then, we may see the central state in idealizing the figure of the emperor through a set of ideals and values associated with him, was motivated at least in part by the goal of reinforcing the legitimacy of Roman imperial rule." 

Generally speaking, Fairey's prints in the early 2000s and today exhibit the sort of dissent that is hardly observable in Roman art.  Fairey understands his own work as a sort of propaganda, borrowing directly from propagandist media, such as Socialist Realist posters, to make his points.  One might then see his work as "agitation propaganda" as it seeks to make the viewer aware of problems with the official state-sanctioned narrative.  He exhibits what we seldom have record of in the Roman visual arts: resistance and reaction to the contemporary political rhetoric and culture.  Fairey also has a following who hold the same beliefs and values that he does and some of his pieces might also be seen as a sort of "integration propaganda" to which the official Roman imperial art media might have been more related; it would probably be a like-minded individual who would consume something like "Pay Up or Shut Up" or "Farewell to Freedom."  Although the signed and numbered prints are limited, he often makes unsigned and unnumbered pasters, like the "Hope" poster in 2008, that can be used to saturate the public with a message.  Like the imperial coinage, in which certain ideals were reinforced consistently over time, Fairey has also reinforced ideals and concepts through time, such as campaign finance reform; this has been a theme in much of his work for several years now.  What draws me intellectually to the study of Roman art and coinage is the fact that they are historical monuments that tell us about the regime's politics and ideals at a moment in time long ago.  They represent pictorially the way that the regime conceived of itself and projected itself (either in a direct or indirect way).  While having the feel of an official medium, Fairey's art is anti-establishment and criticizes perceived problems in our present democracy through autocratic and commercial imagery and styles.  Fairey makes art for the living, as the Romans did, but he advocates for progressive change and points out issues that potentially could compromise democracy or otherwise degrade our society.  But as the years pass, his work will, like those Roman objects, become the realm of history.  We or our successors will have the opportunity to see if his concerns were valid.  Some of his work has unquestionably already entered that historical realm.

I am well aware that at this stage I have only a perfunctory knowledge of this artist's work, but I plan to continue to learn.

Archaeological and Numismatic Book Seized from Islamic-State Militants Identified

In June it was reported that Kurdish fighters had seized some equipment from Turkish Islamic State Fighters in Syria and that among those items were archaeological and numismatic books.  One book showed images of Phoenician coins.  The photos of that book were blurry and it was difficult to identify the resource.

The mystery is now solved as Ute Wartenberg Kagan, Executive Director of the American Numismatic Society, recognized the open page in the photograph as from an essay in a book she had used before: M. Sartre, "La Syrie sous la domination achéménide," in W. Orthmann and J.-M. Dentzer, Archéologie et Histoire de la Syrie II (Saarbrücken, 1989).  Compare photographs of the book seized from the militants and the same example in the ANS library (see more images here).

'New documents unravel ISIS-Turkish state cooperation’
(c) Mehmet Nuri Ekinci, Ajansa Nûçeyan a Firatê (ANF), 3rd June 2015

The book in the ANS Library.

In discussing the identification of the book, she concludes:

"For people interested in a general overview of coins from Syria, this book is indeed helpful. Articles by Christian Augé on “La monnaie en Syrie à l’époque hellénistique et romaine” (pp. 149–190, with four plates illustrating 71 coins) and by Cécile Morrisson (who won the ANS Huntington Medal in 1995) on “La monnaie en Syrie byzantine” provide excellent and well-illustrated introductions to the coins of this region. Her article gives a considerable amount of detailed scholarly information on site finds of coins in Syria."

"So this is an extremely unlikely find—a scholarly, not exactly inexpensive, and heavy—book on the archaeology of Syria in the hands of ISIS fighters. If anyone doubts the multifaceted connections between looted antiquities and war in Syria, this discovery has to make one wonder." (emphasis added)

The Tactics of a Dealers' Lobbyist

In the light of some recent posts and activities of IAPN's and PNG's lobbyist, Peter Tompa, who is also a member and representative of the ACCG, I have been considering his tactics again as I have witnessed them multiple times and commented on their apparent purposes in the past.  It is perhaps worthwhile to survey some of those tactics here.

Personal Attacks.  Personal attacks are often used as a substitute for engaging with the substance or accuracy of another party's comments.  Users of personal attacks attempt to impugn another party's character, often with misleading or false commentary, so that they do not have to engage with and/or provide evidence to counter an argument or position.  Peter Tompa has often used personal attacks as a tactic and frequently allows his compatriots to post personal attacks in the 'moderated' comments section of his blog.  A recent example on Mr. Tompa's blog may be found here.  He also is proud to count among his comrades the outspoken ACCG leadership; they have consistently made particularly repulsive  attacks against organizations and individuals who advocate preservation, characterizing them as fascists, Nazis, or similar to terrorist organizations.  A summary of some of these repugnant remarks is available in my 2012 article on the North American trade in ancient coins (pp. 100-104).

Dismissal/Denigration.  A common component of personal attacks include the dismissal of one's credentials and/or the denigration of one's credentials by applying inaccurate labels.  Academics who advocate preservation and sensitivity to looting issues are, therefore, often dismissed as "ivory tower" elitists.  A recent example on Mr. Tompa's blog is found here (the post also contains a straw man).  Like the personal attack, such dismissal evidently has as its aim to excuse not engaging with the evidence or argument of a different position (pointed out here). Mr. Tompa almost exclusively refers to preservationists like myself, David Gill, Paul Barford, Rick St. Hilaire, and others as "archaeobloggers," as if blogging is the only way our research and opinions are disseminated, and as if we do not have any other credentials and professions.  Rick St. Hilaire is not even an archaeologist, but a lawyer and specialist in cultural properties!  But Mr. Tompa does not like Rick St. Hilaire's insights and position on cultural property issues and so he gets called an "archaeoblogger," a label that the lobbyist and his friends use as a slur.  In a recent post, Mr. Tompa has again referred to me as an "archaeoblogger and anti-trade advocate," in spite of the fact that I have rarely blogged for several years now. My occupation is that of tenure-track professor at a ranked research university.  I teach and have authored numerous articles on ancient coins and coin iconography in addition to co-edited a book on coin iconography; a single-authored book will be in print by the end of the year.  My research on the relationship between looting and coin trade in its current incarnation has also been published in several peer-reviewed outlets.

Deception.  Deception is frequently another component of personal attacks or dismissal.  After all, the ultimate effect or goal is to avoid formulating effective counter argumentation and presentation of fact-based evidence.  For example, Mr. Tompa recently characterized me as an "anti-trade advocate."  That is an incorrect characterization.  Anyone may read for themselves what I have blogged in the past or what I have published.  What I have consistently critiqued is the problematic relationship that the trade in its current incarnation has with looting and the illicit market in coins and antiquities.  Mr. Tompa seeks to maintain a no-questions-asked status quo, evidently protecting business interests that wish to remain unconcerned when it comes to the sourcing of material!  In fact, in my 2012 article, I suggest that a solution to obstruction posed by trade lobbying groups, which cater primarily to a dealer interest, is to circumnavigate them and engage directly with collectors (pp. 104-107).  An "anti-trade advocate" would hardly suggest engagement with collectors.  For an unvarnished riposte to the notion that preservationists are inherently "anti-trade," or as one unsightly comment on Mr. Tompa's blog that Mr. Tompa allowed (from a dealer known for hyperbole and personal attacks) suggests, "anti-science," see here.

The Straw Man. A common tactic is the straw man.  By falsely attributing a statement or position to an individual and demolishing it, one does not engage with one's real position and makes the opposition appear foolish and absurd.  In so doing, the user of a straw-man argument creates an imagined, inaccurate character.  The straw man is a debate tactic often used in American political discourse.  A popular example is Clint Eastwood's imaginary engagement with President Obama in an empty chair at the 2012 Republican National Convention, whereby he attributed positions to President that he does not hold and potential statements the President wold never make (some comments here and here).

In the comments section of one of his recent personal attacks against me, Mr. Tompa has claimed again that I have stated that Ptolemaic and early Roman period coins did not circulate out of Egypt (this all bears on the "first found in" argument that is part of the ACCG's test case).  I posted a comment to that blog again asking him to substantiate the claim as I have never made it.  Curiously, my comment was never posted. Maybe he never received it.  Nonetheless, what I have said is that such coins tended to circulate primarily within Egypt as Egypt had a well-known closed currency system that promoted the retention of such coins.  I have even published a Ptolemaic coin in the coin finds from Yotvata, Israel, although the site is very near the modern Egyptian border.  So surely I would never state that no single Egyptian coin would never make it out of what is modern Egypt.  Mr. Tompa's straw man claim is demonstrably false.  It also curious that, in his own dealings with CPAC, he never acknowledged the well-known fact that Egypt had a closed currency system and that Ptolemaic and early Roman period Egyptian coins are primarily found in Egypt.  Mr. Tompa attempts to distort my own position, which takes an honest account of the evidence, in order to distract from his own untenable position, which itself purposefully ignores decades of scholarship and common knowledge on coin circulation in Egypt. 

Deflection/Innuendo.  Sometimes one simply changes the subject or makes innuendo to distract from the question or issue at hand.  So rather than presenting evidence to substantiate his straw-man claim that I apparently said Egyptian coins never  traveled outside of Egypt, Mr. Tompa instead began making innuendos about "hidden" comments to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee.  First of all, Mr. Tompa makes assumptions since he could not know if I submitted confidential comments to CPAC for any particular hearing or not.  Secondly, the CPAC makes allowances for confidential comments to be submitted under certain circumstances where they could not be made publicly.  If one submits confidential comments to CPAC, appropriately following the guidelines, the contents of those comments are no business of a trade lobbyist, especially one who chooses to engage in underhanded and slimy tactics.  Finally, we see the purpose of deflection and innuendo: not only does he have me going on about a different subject now, attempting to distract me and his readers from his straw-man claim, he still has not substantiated his straw-man claim!  He cannot, after all, substantiate a straw-man claim. By their very nature, straw-man claims are indefensible when you ask for substantiation and evidence.

Intimidation. Why does the lobbyist want access to comments that are potentially privileged or sensitive?  No doubt he wants to spin and twist them on his blog, using the tactics above, in an attempt to intimidate into silence those with opinions different from his own.  He has already criticized individuals with opinions different from his own for speaking at public hearings or submitting public comments to CPAC in the past.  Mr. Tompa and his cohorts are well-known for using the tactics of intimidation.  In the past they have communicated directly and secretly with colleagues of preservationists in attempt to impugn their reputations in the eyes of their colleagues and, worse, in an attempt to compromise their employment.  I have a file documenting each attempt that is currently known to me.

Why?  Why does Mr. Tompa use such tactics?  One reason may be true ignorance of the issues or a misunderstanding of them.  He is, for example, angry about an article I recently published that critiques the "first found in" argument presented in the ACCG's test case.  Mr. Tompa dismisses the article as "obscure" and suggests the article is somehow "hidden" because it is published in a peer-reviewed print journal.  David Gill points out how ill-informed the statement is that the journal is obscure and that the article is somehow hidden (here and here).  Rather than expecting him to find the article for himself, the lobbyist is upset that I have not shared the article with him, although I shared it with colleagues.  I explained to Mr. Tompa that the article cannot be placed for free, public download on a third-party website at this time owing to copyright issues and that I will not send him nor the lobby's founder an offprint as they are neither colleague nor collegial.  He persists nonetheless.  And this is not the first time that the lobbyist has behaved this way (for a response on the first episode, see David Gill's post).  It is particularly troubling that Mr. Tompa does not seem to understand, at least in what he writes, how publication and research works (or evidently how to access a prominent archaeological journal in a library) since he himself is a legal professional and purports to represent dealers and collectors who claim to be independent scholars, who would necessarily conduct library research and publish in peer-reviewed journals.

But if the lobbyist and the organizations he represents are not truly ignorant of the issues and are not ill-informed about the evidence that is out there, why might he liberally use the tactics summarized here?  Readers of the lobbyist's blog might take Mr. Tompa at his word and not follow up on original sources or explore for themselves the validity of his statements and arguments.  Perhaps this convinces his constituency of the good work he does for them and for the organizations he represents.  Perhaps there are other reasons, one of which may be the awkwardness of engaging with real evidence to advance his position or to counter the evidence-based position of preservationists.  Fortunately, policy makers and researchers use more than blogs and tend to check sources and look for evidence and substance.

Update 5/31/2015.  Mr. Tompa has responded to this post via a comment on his own blog.  Interestingly, he does not link to my post so that readers can easily find it for themselves.  It is more or less what I expected: further demands that I answer questions to satisfy his innuendo of a hidden conspiracy.  There is no acknowledgement of wrongdoing on his part, no apology, and no substantiation of his recent straw-man claim (an impossibility after all).  Interestingly, he seems, however, to acknowledge the deployment of underhanded tactics on his part by implying that whatever he does, it's okay because I have already done what I accuse him of; that, quelle surprise, is not substantiated.  Indeed, I do not recall fabricating statements and attributing them to him (the straw man), nor do I recall me or my colleagues implying he or his compatriots are fascists or Nazis (a form of personal attack commonly used in ACCG quarters), nor do I recall trying to undermine his employment (intimidation) as he and his ACCG-friends have.  We are all very aware of how you operate, Mr. Tompa.  It is truly a pity that organizations have spent good money to support such a despicable and painfully transparent modus operandi.  At least its transparency and lack efficacy will only hinder the cause to protect the damaging status quo.

The Baby and The Bathwater

Ever the provocateur, paid trade lobbyist Peter Tompa excels at the art of finding subjects to spin and snipe, even the most benign.  The post here from February 17, 2013 summarizes an international conference on ancient coin iconography held last fall.  Tompa muses ("Tail Wags Dog"):

The archaeological establishment has preached at CPAC meetings and elsewhere that coins—like other artifacts--lose all their meaning without context, and that import restrictions are necessary to encourage academic research.  But all the workshop topics about coin iconography (including one Elkins himself chaired) simply belie this claim.  

The study of ancient coin iconography can be worked at multiple angles.  Yes. So?

Anyone who read the summary or announcement of the workshop that was posted here should have understood that exploring the various ways that coin iconography can be approached was the whole point of the workshop.   Tompa, it seems, would have us discard the importance of archaeological context simply because there are other ways that coin iconography can be studied too.  If we are playing with tired idioms, forget about "tail wagging dog," Tompa would have us "throw out the baby with the bathwater"! 

Tompa boldly claims "But all the workshop topics about coin iconography (including one Elkins himself chaired) simply belie this claim." Why the deception? Why ignore the fact that the workshop did include a session on "Coin Iconography in Numismatic and Material Contexts"? In case the session title is not clear, some papers in that session approached the study of coin iconography through the lens of find contexts (i.e. material context).  For further clarification this means through hoards and/or archaeological excavation.

Coin iconography is, of course, not only worked at via find context and cannot be approached through material context alone, but to ignore its place in the workshop to promote one's own agenda is surely dishonest.  And to imply that coin iconography cannot be approached through this route displays an ignorance of recent peer-reviewed research by several specialists on coin iconography that has appeared in-print within the last 5-10 years.  The subject of Roman coin iconography is especially fruitful; our understanding of Roman imperial communication via the coins continues to be enhanced by attention to archaeological context.

It is simply wrong-headed to suggest that just because there are other ways of approaching subjects that other methods are irrelevant.  We can read ancient historical texts that have survived the ages.  Does that mean the study of art and archaeology is irrelevant?  No.  Art and archaeology can answer questions that texts cannot or can be deployed in conjunction with texts and other forms of evidence to reconstruct a more complete picture of the past.

The lobbyist's attempt at deception and sniping are characteristic of a debate that has become overly polarized, entrenched, and lacking of critical thought though rife with emotion.  Would it not be better to acknowledge the importance of archaeological and material context and to seek ways in which both context and ethical collecting can be preserved so that avocational passion and scientific study can continue to coexist?  More moderate and reflective voices must prevail.

Ancient Coin Dealer Pleads Guilty to Attempted Possession of Stolen Coins

In January of this year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents seized three rare Greek coins from Arnold Peter Weiss, a partner of the ancient coin auction house Nomos AG, at the New York International Numismatic Convention.  Agents were acting upon information that he told an undercover informant.  In spite of the provenance information that had been supplied in a catalogue for an upcoming auction, he stated: "There's no paperwork. I know this is a fresh coin. This was dug up a few years ago."  The coins were alleged to have been looted in Italy.  The three coins that were seized were worth an estimated $3 million on the market.

Today it was announced that Weiss has plead guilty to trying to sell coins that he thought were stolen, although they turned out to be high quality forgeries.  The fact that they are forgeries was determined through the aid of a scanning electron microscope.  The three coins remain property of the District Attorney's Office and will be destroyed.

As part of his plea agreement, Weiss must complete 70 hours of community service, pay a $3,000 fine, and "must author an article warning of the risks of dealing in coins of unknown or looted provenance for publication in a coin collection publication."

Below is a short bibliography on the trade in looted and unprovenanced ancient coins:

Beckmann, M. 1998. "Numismatics and the Antiquities Trade," The Celator 12 (5) 25-28.

Butcher, K. and D. Gill. 1990. "Mischievous Pastime or Historical Science?" Antiquity 64 (245): 946-950.

Center for the Study of Democracy. 2007. Organized Crime in Bulgaria: Markets and Trends. Sofia: Center for the Study of Democracy. Online available: http://pdc.ceu.hu/archive/00003706/01/organized_crime_markets_and_trends.pdf.

Dietrich, R. 2002. "Cultural Property on the Move - Legally, Illegally," International Journal of Cultural Property 11: 294-303.

Elkins, N.T. 2008. "A Survey of the Material and Intellectual Consequence of Trading in Undocumented Ancient Coins," Frankfurter elektronische Rundschau zur Altertumskunde 7: 1-13. Online available: http://www.fera-journal.eu.

Elkins, N.T. 2009. "Treasure Hunting 101 in America's Classrooms," Journal of Field Archaeology34.4: 481-489  with editorial introduction by M. M. Kersel and C. Luke.

Elkins, N.T. 2012. "The Trade in Fresh Supplies of Ancient Coins: Scale, Organization, and Politics," in P.K. Lazrus and A.W. Barker (eds.), All the King's Horses: Essays on the Impact of Looting and the Illicit Antiquities Trade on Our Knowledge of the Past. Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology Press. 91-107.

von Kaenel, H.-M. 1994. Die antike Numismatik und ihr Material. Schweizer Münzblätter 44 (173): 1-12.

von Kaenel, H.-M. 2009. "Coins in Context - A Personal Approach," in H.-M von Kaenel and F. Kemmers (eds.), Coins in Context 1: New Approaches for the Interpretation of Coin Finds. Mainz: von Zabern. Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 23. 9-24 (pp. 22-23 discuss the coin trade specifically).

Walker, A.S. 1977. "The Coin Market Versus the Numismatist, Archaeologist, and Art Historian," Journal of Field Archaeology 4: 253-258.

Witschonke, R. 2009. "Guest Editorial," The Celator 23 (1): 4,22.

Consultation with many of the works will reveal further bibliography.

And, of course, there has also been the series of editorials discussing ethics and practice in the past several issues of the American Numismatic Magazine.

UPDATE:(7/5/2012) Contrary to  initial reports in the media, Safecorner is reporting that there is no court order for the destruction of the forgeries.

Colonia Ulpia Ratiaria in Bulgaria: An Update

A while back I called attention to the appeal by the Bulgarian Archaeological Association for funds to protect and preserve Colonia Ulpia Ratiaria which - like so many sites in Bulgaria - is being targeted by treasure hunters and destroyed.

Today I received an email which appears to have been sent out to all of those who made a donation to the preservation effort and which gave a brief report on the way some of the donations are being used:

[The] Bulgarian Archaeological Association is glad to inform you that thanks to your financial support a short term archaeological expedition at the territory of Colonia Ulpia Traiana Ratiaria was realized. Several architectural and epigraphical monuments were discovered and saved for the archaeological science. Please follow the link to find our [report]: http://www.archaeology.archbg.net/c_ratiaria.html

We will highly appreciate your further help and we kindly ask you to forward the following petition to other friends and supporters: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ratiaria/index.html

Thank you in advance,

Bulgarian Archaeological Association

21 Tsarigradsko shosse blv. 1124 Sofia Bulgaria
+ 359 (0) 878940223
info@archbg.net
www.archaeology.archbg.net

While it is great that several individuals and groups donated to the preservation efforts, more is needed and I would urge anyone who can and who has an interest in preserving Bulgaria's heritage to sign the petition and donate.

CoinArchives.com Limits Access and Implements Fee

Coin find inventories and museum collections are increasingly being made freely available through online databases. It is also a growing trend that academic journals are being made available electronically while subscription prices are being lowered for those who opt for online subscription only. Therefore, it is curious these days when a resource suddenly ceases to be free and implements an inordinate access fee.

As I came into the office yesterday, the first thing I heard from a colleague was that CoinArchives.com had ceased allowing free and complete access to its archived auction sales and had limited full access only to those who pay an annual subscription of $600 or €430.

CoinArchives.com was a convenient reference used by some academics and researchers who wanted to start conducting a die study or who needed to make quick identification. It was also an easy place to go when one needed to see an image when certain reference catalogues were not at immediately at hand. Collectors frequently used the site to conduct their own research or to investigate pricing trends before making an acquisition. The recent and seemingly abrupt decision to limit access has certainly stirred up spirited discussions on collector fora such the Moneta-L list (click the link and see the subsequent discussion threads).

There has been a lot of speculation as to why this decision was made to limit access only to those who can pay such a large fee. But perhaps it is telling that instead of a $20 yearly access fee for which many people would pay, a $600 annual fee was chosen that will exclude most collectors, researchers, and institutions, and will therefore be a resource which only a few large auction houses and profitable dealers can afford. The fee will limit the potential of amateur and academic study alike with this resource and will be an especially serious blow to collectors who like to do a bit market research before bidding or buying.

Perhaps researchers will return to using large photo files like those at the American Numismatic Society or at Frankfurt University, but many photo files have ceased to be updated since the mid- to late 1990s precisely because of sites like CoinArchives.com that were electronically archiving sales and making those archives free to the public.

Snible Discusses the COINS Project

Ed Snible has posted a most intriguing discussion of the COINS project, an EU project developing computer software which would allow the tracking of numismatic objects. COINS is an acronym for "Combat On-Line Illegal Numismatic Sales."

In addition to having the potential to track the sale and history of numismatic objects, the software has other applications, such as promoting forgery detection, which Ed discusses.

As I understand it, Ed is a computer guru and knows what he is talking about. I have has also referred to Ed's Celator editorial before, in which he discussed and outlined the potential utility of keeping records of ancient coin sales in seeking solutions to the problem of looting.

For anyone who has an interest in electronic applications to numismatic studies, I recommend his discussion. Read it at "Software from Coins."

Preserving Colonia Ulpia Traiana Ratiaria

The Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues weblog has called attention to a campaign to preserve Colonia Ulpia Traiana Ratiaria which lays in the northwestern part of modern Bulgaria. Like so many other places in Bulgaria, the site is being systematically destroyed by treasure hunters.

I have discussed the destruction of Bulgaria's archaeological record and cultural heritage several times before and I am glad to see attention brought to this preservation campaign. Readers will recall that Bulgaria was highlighted in the "Under Threat" list by Archaeology Magazine, which I and Kimberly Alderman both discussed ("Archaeology Magazine's Under Threat List Includes Bulgaria" and "2008 Archaeological Sites Under Threat", respectively). Anyone who has browsed through several volumes of Archaeologia Bulgarica knows what a negative impact systematic looting and destruction of archaeological sites has on the material record as it has affected virtually every site in Bulgaria.

I have already made a small donation to the initiative and would urge other concerned readers to do likewise.

Individuals may learn more and donate to the preservation effort by clicking here and following the "donate" link.

ACCG Challenges Import Restrictions by Staging the Import and Detention of Restricted Coins

The ACCG announced yesterday that it now plans to challenge U.S. State Department import restrictions on ancient coins from Cyprus and China outright. This announcement follows the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that it filed against the U.S. State Department in regards to Cyprus in the fall of 2007, and the more recent announcement that the ACCG was planning to press for more documents in that case.

In the release on its website, "Coin Collectors to Challenge State Department on Import Restrictions," the ACCG explains its action:

"As a British Airways jetliner touched down in Baltimore on April 15th , many U.S. citizens were busy writing last minute checks to the IRS....

Part of the cargo of BA 229/16 that day was a small packet of 23 very common, inexpensive, Cypriot and Chinese coins being imported by a collector advocacy group, the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG). The entry of these coins, forbidden by DOS under bilateral agreements with Cyprus and China, marked the launch of a test case to determine whether the State Department has banned their importation properly under a 1983 law dealing with the protection of cultural property.

As mandated, U.S. Customs detained these coins being imported from the United Kingdom. The ACCG now plans to use this detention as a vehicle to strike down the unprecedented regulations banning importation of whole classes of ancient coins, The collectors’ group claims that, among other abnormalities, the decision process for these agreements was orchestrated contrary to the spirit and intent of governing law. Moreover, they claim that the State Department misled Congress and the public about its decision not to follow the recommendations of its own Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) — a group of experts charged with advising the president on how best to balance the goals of protecting cultural heritage against the needs of a legitimate trade in cultural artifacts."

In spite of its name, the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild is a lobbying body that is most concerned about the interests of no-questions-asked dealers and importers. This is made evident by the fact that rather than attempting to address ethical and legal problems of indiscriminate collecting and dealing in a proactive and transparent way, its leaders have prefered to challenge protective legislation in favor of private and commercial interests. Rather than engaging in an equitable and informed dialogue with archaeologists and government officials/advisors, they have prefered to distort the issues and resort to the tactics of intimidation and abhorrent name-calling against those who oppose their views. The most prominently displayed financial backers on the ACCG's website are dealerships and auction houses. Every ACCG leader listed on its officers pages is a former or active ancient coin dealer, including its founder and executive director. Even some collectors themselves have recently commented on various online discussion fora that it is increasingly clear the ACCG is representing a purely commercial and dealer/importer-driven interest, being less concerned about the "rights" or interests of the private collector.

At least these latest antics by ACCG leaders clearly show what their true goals have been since it filed the FOIA suit in 2007: to strike down protective legislation that only affects dealers and importers who have no real concern for due diligence processes.

Surely, U.S. Customs officials acted properly in detaining coins of Cypriot and Chinese type that were imported without any previous documentation and one would think our border protection officers should be commended for effectively implementing bilateral agreements and controls, especially operating under the likely assumption that one of the ACCG officers provided U.S. Customs with an anonymous tip to ensure the coins would be detained as planned. The ACCG indicated these coins were chosen for their scheme because they have no previous history, which begs the question where they came from and how recently they appeared on the market. Were they looted? What information was lost in the process? The dealer lobby, of course, is not concerned about such things and sees it differently, planning to use this "test case" as a means of overturning import restrictions. It will be interesting to see if the ACCG's buffoonery in this "test case" will be taken seriously by the courts.

Interestingly, in their ignoble ploy to invent a cause to strike down bilateral treaties on import restrictions via legislative measures, the ACCG leadership may have violated their own Code of Ethics, which states "Collectors and Sellers...will comply with all cultural property laws of their own country."

At least now the ACCG's leadership is showing its true colors perhaps more than ever before and its true aims and interests are becoming increasingly apparent.

(Image: The King of Spades)

Reflections on an Acquistion

Part of the rhetoric used by the dealer lobby, and hangers-on, against those who advocate due diligence and transparency in the market to lessen the deleterious “material and intellectual consequences” of looting includes the use of derogatory labels. Such labels serve to reassure proponents of the indiscriminate market of the lack of a need for any oversight or concern and paints preservation advocates as undesirable “others.”

One such label frequently banded about is “anti-collector.” I view this term to be unhelpful and inaccurate. It is no more accurate than it would be to call the average collector “anti-archaeology,” or “anti-history,” “anti-science” or even “pro-looting.”

I have often been called “anti-collector” by various participants on the “other side” of the debate, in spite of the fact that I have never advocated an end to collecting. Such commentators also seem to forget that I am myself a “collector,” though it has been a while since I have been active and that I collected in a restricted manner in the final years of being active. Personally, I have chosen only to collect objects from old collections, before c. 1970, since I know these were not the fruits of recent looting, an activity I do not wish to support. My own c. 1970 cutoff coincides with the rise of the metal detector, which modernized and multiplied the negative effects of looting and made it an even more profitable enterprise.

I have not purchased anything for several years for multiple reasons: As a doctoral candidate, things like rent, food, and books take priority over collecting. Secondly, on principle, I no longer wish to purchase from certain American dealerships that provide substantial financial support for a profit-oriented lobby that refuses to acknowledge or address the indiscriminate commercial force that drives the systematic destruction of the material past and the information that goes along with it. Instead it seeks to protect and further those interests.

In any case, I thought some readers might enjoy seeing my last acquisition (pictured) and some discussion of it. Of course, I view it as the obligation of collectors to pass on all previous ownership information of their objects to future owners and I fully intend to do the same. The following is a translated excerpt from a lecture about the ancient coin trade that I have been invited to give to the Frankfurter Numismatische Gesellschaft next week (on that, stay tuned). The FNG is a local group of collectors and researchers in and around Frankfurt.

“To begin with, I would like to show you a picture of my last acquisition as a collector. It is a medallion of Marcus Aurelius, struck in December AD 173. It is a remarkable specimen, unique because it is the only known example of this type in lead. The obverse die matches some known bronze specimens. This medallion comes from an old collection, that of the famous literary scholar Thomas Ollive Mabbot, auctioned by the J. Schulman auction house in 1969 [after Mabbot’s death]. On account of the documented history of this object, I had no concerns about buying it because I knew it had been long divorced from its context. Naturally, we must all understand that practically all ancient objects that have been bought and sold through the course of time come from undocumented excavations, even if looting was not recognized for what it is in times past. I bought this medallion because I have a particular interest in Roman medallions and also the reign of Marcus Aurelius, which I personally find a fascinating period in Roman history. This medallion can be appreciated for its high artistic and aesthetic qualities and we can recognize its historical significance on the reverse design, which celebrates the emperor’s campaigns against Germanic tribes. But since this object was ripped from its original context we cannot answer other important questions about it. Although relatively rare, Roman medallions survive in some quantities and most have long been in the large museum cabinets or private collections and new specimens often surface for the first time on the market with some regularity. Only a small number of Roman medallions have documented find spots and find contexts via archaeological investigation. Therefore, it is still today not possible to say with any certainty what purpose or function that Roman medallions served in the Roman world. This medallion is not like most [second century AD] Roman imperial medallions that are known to us today since it is made from lead rather than bronze. Since such rare lead-struck medallions are not known through archaeological context, we can only speculate as to their purpose and function as well. It is often supposed that such lead examples were “test strikes,” but without written or material contexts it simply remains a hypothesis. This medallion was taken out of the ground decades ago, probably at a time when little distinction or difference was made between the methodology and goals of archaeological excavation and treasure hunting. It has long since been recognized that unscientific excavation (looting) is the destruction of historical information.

We might collect coins from older collection so that we can be sure that they were not recently taken from the ground and that we are not supporting looting today. If, however, we do not ask any questions of what we buy and do not concern ourselves with the destruction of historical information, commercial interests will destroy our past…”

Yes, this medallion is a unique rarity and has important historical significance, and it is a great novelty to know it was once owned by a prominent individual of our era, but one important dimension of this object is not known and is forever lost on account of its unrecorded separation from its context: that is the physical history of the object. Roman medallions are some of the most interesting ancient numismatic objects there survive, but it is not surprising that J.M.C. Toynbee’s Roman Medallions (New York 1944), written more than a half century ago, remains the authoritative treatment on this class of objects when so few have been examined with recorded contexts. Toynbee provided an excellent discussion of these objects and eruditely offered suggestions as to their possible functions, but even she remarked that a lack of recorded contexts meant that we could not say anything specific or determinate about their function.

Just as crime scene investigators reconstruct crimes through various strands of material evidence and their relationships to one another, archaeology reconstructs the human past by examining objects and their relationships. The material and intellectual consequences of looting, therefore, are analogous to someone taking evidence from a crime scene, an action which could make it impossible to say anything meaningful or certain about the past and how objects were used by people in various circumstances.

The value of context has proven itself time and again and continues to do so, even in ways that one might not readily expect context to contribute. I provide another translated excerpt from this upcoming lecture:

“Iconographic representations on Roman coins have long been the subject of study. In this way, Roman coins have been understood as embodying a concentrated picture language that could transmit ideological messages to the viewer. The study of coins in context has added another dimension to this field of study. Fleur Kemmers has demonstrated in her analysis of the coin finds from the legionary fortress at Nijmegen [F. Kemmers, Coins for a Legion: An Analysis of the Coin Finds from the Augustan Legionary Fortress and Flavian canabae legionis at Nijmegen. Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 21 (Mainz 2006), 189-244, esp. 219-244] that the soldiers stationed there were supplied by the Roman state, deliberately, with coins bearing militaristic themes. Through a comparison of the coin finds from local civilian settlements and the corpus of coin finds from Rome, and through a thorough study of coin circulation and coin supply, she showed the fundamental quantitative differences in coins that were supplied to the soldiers there and to other regions and settlements. The semantic system deployed on Roman coins can now be understood as being more nuanced than we had previously thought and the potential applications of her research for the study of Roman coin iconography are clear [see further discussion in N.T. Elkins, “Coins, Contexts, and an Iconographic Approach for the 21st Century,” in H.-M. von Kaenel and F. Kemmers (eds.), Coins in Context I: New Perspectives for the Interpretation of Coin Finds. Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 23 (Mainz 2009), 25-46 (this collection of essays should be in print by May 2009)]. Some of my own current research is now concentrating on the geographic distribution of Flavian and Trajanic coin types with architectural designs and preliminary results are showing that certain types were intentionally directed at specific audiences [-The results of this research are to be presented at the XIVth International Numismatic Congress in Glasgow]. For example, coin types that celebrated the construction or reconstruction of a specific building in Rome are more frequent in Rome and Italy, but ‘connotative’ types that communicated more general ideas, such as the Ara Providentia types of Vespasian, which referenced the emperor’s foresight in naming an heir, are very common and particularly abundant in excavations in the western Roman provinces. These few examples indicate how numismatics and attention to context can provide new perspectives and understanding of the ancient world.”

There is more to a coin or to antiquities than the object itself which we can admire. As a onetime active collector, I understand the passions of collectors and the thrill of establishing a physical connection with the past by the purchase of antiquities. However, if we are to be responsible stewards of the past and really do have a concern for understanding the world of our forbearers, and for preserving the potential of future generations to realize that knowledge, then we must consider the sources of what we are buying and the effects of our actions. Great progress could be made if every collector would put some limits on their acquisitions, such as coming up with some cutoff date for their purchases. If every collector today were to say I will not buy anything that is not documented as having a recent history before (DD/MM/YYY) then he or she could be rather comfortable in knowing he or she were not funding more recent exploits, which would decrease the demand for and profitability of freshly looted material. We all need to change the detrimental status quo and the greatest power to force that necessary change lies with the consumer.

Image: CNG Triton IX (10 Jan. 2006), lot 1487 = Ex John F. Sullivan Collection = Ex Thomas Ollive Mabbott Collection (Part II, J. Schulman, 27 October 1969), lot 4792

Commodification of Antiquities as a Means of Protection?

An argument frequently banded about in the "antiquities debate" is that state-employed archaeologists and governments ought to facilitate the commodification of antiquities. It is asserted that this would 1) bring about an end to looting and 2) insure the preservation of antiquities. Perhaps it is worth revisiting these claims since they have been repeated with renewed fervor in the past couple of weeks.

Regarding the first point, some dealers and collectors allege that if archaeological warehouses and museum stores were opened up and sold off to the market then a legitimate market could be established, supplied only in this manner, while other antiquities trading could be made illegal. This contention is not well thought out. And let us be clear, the market in antiquities as it currently operates is already illegal and yet it flourishes; the great masses of Balkan antiquities presently in the North American market were not licitly excavated or exported.

Some collectors make a comparison to drug trafficking and America’s rather unsuccessful “War on Drugs.” They argue the point that government regulation may work better than a flat out ban. Fair enough, but the comparison is flawed in several ways since the supply mechanisms for the two markets are very different. Drugs are presently manufactured or grown illegally in the United States by people of varying criminal character, ranging from college students with a few plants to organized criminal gangs who run larger enterprises. Often times, harder drugs are imported from South American countries, where they are produced by organized criminal groups. Hypothetically speaking, if the United States government decided to legalize and regulate drugs, the government could license certain companies to produce substances and provide oversight to make them “safer” for the consumer. At the same time the illicit trade would be made much less profitable and the government could tax and control the regulated trade.

If we think about it though, this model is impossible to apply to the trade in antiquities. In many ways drugs are “renewable resources” in the sense that they are simply grown and harvested, like any crop, or can be manufactured. Antiquities, on the other hand, are a finite resource and only fakes and reproductions can be (and are) manufactured. For the sake of argument, however, let us suppose that governments around the world decided that they should commodify antiquities by opening museum stores and archaeological warehouses to sell “excess” antiquities. How long would it be until it was all consumed? Many American collectors and dealers seem to have a complete misunderstanding of archaeology as if its only goal is to go out and find “cool stuff” to put in museums (e.g. see the necesient editorial of one dealer in Coin World magazine, June 2007). On the contrary, modern field archaeology moves rather slowly in order to preserve and properly record contexts and the relationships between objects and assemblages. Once an object is pulled from the ground its context is irrecoverably destroyed and so it is essential to be methodical, scientific, and observant when excavating. The tools of archaeological science are trowels, brushes, and dental instruments. Compare these with the tools of those who supply the indiscriminate market in antiquities: bulldozers, backhoes, metal detectors, shovels, chainsaws (for hacking up relief, statues, and decorated sarcophagi), etc. In short, those who loot to supply Western dealers and collectors move a lot faster than archaeologists can and their methods are anything but scientific. Although some collectors and dealers like to say that archaeologists “hoard” antiquities for themselves and for study in their own little “club,” they fail to realize (or admit) that the vast majority of ancient objects do not reside in museums or archaeological stores but rather are already in dealer inventories and private collections. For example, the literal ton of ancient coins that one single "wholesaler" and supplier smuggled and sold to American dealers in 1999 roughly equates the same number of coins that German archaeology has recovered in two centuries and which have been systematically catalogued in finds inventories printed since 1960 (see discussion here with further references). Assuming all of these excavated coins are in still in archaeological warehouses throughout Germany, they would probably supply the American market in ancient coins for no more than a couple of months given the current rate of demand (for the scale of the American trade in ancient coins, see Elkins 2008 and the 2009 lecture posted at the Hellenic Society for Law and Archaeology website). Since the founding of the state of Israel, coins from excavations have been deposited with the Israel Antiquities Authority and their current archive holds approximately 110,000 coins in total. Compare this with the tens of thousands of coins sold each month by "wholesalers" who advertise their stock as coming from the "Holy Land." In light of the scale of the antiquities market for tourists in Israel (not accounting for the overseas market), Orly Blum notes:

"A counter proposal made by the pro-trade lobby is that the IAA should sell
artefacts that have already been studied and documented and which at present are
not exhibited to the public but are kept in storage. There is, however, a strong
objection to this suggestion. According to the IAA over 100,000 artefacts are
sold yearly. The Department of Antiquities has approximately 120,000 registered
items, other than coins (Ilan et al. 1989). If the present volume of sales were
maintained, the Department of Antiquities’ storerooms would be emptied within a
year."

Asking archaeologists and governments to commodify antiquities and empty archaeological warehouses and museum stores to establish a licit market is not a practicable suggestion. Such repositories could be emptied, but an illicit underground market would continue to thrive as long as dealers and collectors did not concern themselves with the recent history of the objects they wish to acquire.

The second argument made in favor of government-sanctioned commodification of antiquities is that museum stores and archaeological warehouses sometimes do not have enough money to preserve antiquities they have and so they should be sold to collectors who can "care" for them. Recently on the Unidroit-L list some collectors have called attention to some 7,000 year old boats that have deteriorated in storage due to a lack of adequate funding to conserve them. One collector states that this is evidence that such things should be sold to collectors who can better care for them. Again, is this not rather simplistic? Consisting of very old organic materials, the remnants of a 7,000 year old boat are very difficult and expensive to conserve. Firstly, a collector would probably have little interest in things that are this large and not very aesthetically pleasing. Secondly, it assumes that a collector who bought such a thing would conserve it, but there would be no oversight to insure this. Who is to say that whoever might buy it would have the financial resources or the expertise to preserve it? Such an object certainly requires a specialist facility and constant maintenance. It is not the type of thing that could be put in the living room and expected not to rot. Archaeological conservators have advanced training in chemistry and professional conservation is not the type of thing that just anyone can properly undertake. Although your average archaeologist may have some basic knowledge of conservation, even they are not specialized conservators. This is precisely why museums and archaeological excavations employ trained conservators and why excavated objects are then moved to archaeological warehouses that also employ conservators to care for finds. If collectors are concerned about the deterioration of these important things and if the government is not supplying adequate funding, why not contact the custodians and donate some money? I do not recall demanding a tiger cub or getting a snow owl in return for my last donation to the WWF.

Collectors on the Unidroit-L list have also latched onto the news of the collapse of the archive building in Cologne, Germany, stating that had everything not been stored in this building the loss might not have been so great. One compared this to the burning of the Library of Alexandria and said that had it been divided up the loss would not have been so substantial. But is this not spinning the issue? The function of an archive or library is to be a repository of information. If, as dealer Dave Welsh and a hanger-on suggested, such great archives, libraries, and collections were intentionally dispersed, then any researcher would have to travel to multiple disparate locations to conduct research, defeating the very purpose of such repositories. This also increases the statistical possibility of disaster striking at any particularl location.

And if things were sold to collectors to "care for," then how can their future study be insured? X collector sells to Y dealer who then sells it Z collector. How will one know where it is to study it further? Who is to say that the collector in question, as a private citizen, would allow anyone to see it or study it or not demand some extraordinary conditions even to allow it to be examined (e.g. the researcher must promote some ideological agenda or require pecuniary compensation)? For example, there is an eccentric collector of fossils I am familiar with in West Texas who runs a private fossil museum and is a staunch creationist. He possesses some very rare and significant fossils, and for the sake of argument, let us say he would not let paleontologists who do not believe man walked side-by-side with dinosaurs consult them, what if only staunch creationists believing in the literal word of the Bible could “scientifically” study these?

These arguments about the need for the commodification of antiquities are flawed on multiple levels and are directed at trying to shame archaeologists and governments for improper care of items. Where this is warranted, I will agree. All excavated finds merit thorough study and proper conservation, but let us recognize the agenda of those collectors maintaining those arguments and the dealers who formulated them. Certainly the conclusion that archaeologists and governments ought to endorse the commodification of antiquities based on such criticisms is agenda-driven and without merit. The conclusion itself is a non-sequitor. I would also like to point out that while improvements can be made in some circumstances in government and archaeological custodianship, there is no oversight governing the custodianship of collectors and dealers and that one can just as easily point to cases where objects owned by collectors and dealers are being destroyed, mutilated, or allowed to decay (e.g. Elkins 2008, pp. 5-6). And let us not forget that looters regularly smash pots because sherds can be smuggled easier than whole vases and that decorated relief panels and statue pieces are cut down or off of other monuments to make them transportable and more displayable.

We ought to ecognize these arguments for what they are: red herrings. They distract from the central issue which is one that concerns the material and intellectual consequences of looting and its relationship to an indiscriminate market and the responsibility of individual stakeholders (archaeologists, dealers, and collectors).

Note: At least one responsible collector seems to understand the fallacy of these often repeated deceptions. Privately, a colleague also pointed out the irony in the fact that some commentators simultaneously lament announcements to disperse of large study collections, but then maintain that large collections should be slimmed down to appease the commercial interest. At the same time, such commentators also laud Cuno's arguments, even though he is a strong supporter of the same "encyclopedic museum" which they would prefer to have divided among American curio cabinets in private homes and appartments throughout the country.

WildWinds Hacked

A couple of weeks ago it was announced that Dave Surber, creator of the WildWinds coin database, passed away. WildWinds is one of the best-known websites among both ancient coin collectors and numismatic scholars. In addition to being a reference for attribution and price research for collectors, it is widely used by scholars as well since it records so many unique and variant types.

In the wake of the tragic news of Mr. Surber's untimely death, several numismatic discussion lists have now reported that WildWinds has been maliciously hacked. It is terrible that someone would deliberately destroy another's hard and significant work - a deed made all the more terrible on account of its timing. It seems that the section on Greek coins suffered the most while some pages on Roman imperial and provincial coins also were deleted. One individual estimated that about 30% of the WildWinds database had been damaged.

Shortly after Surber's death, there were vague indications that an effort was underway to maintain the WildWinds database and I hope that those who take on this task will be able to restore the lost information. It seems that some of the lost pages are still present in the Google cache and so, hopefully, these will be saved and reintegrated into the website before they are purged from the Google cache (things do not stay in Google cache forever).

It is hard to imagine why anyone would attack a site like this. There is abundant speculation in the online discussion groups, but many seem to think it may have been an attack carried out by a forger or by someone who was resentful of the fact that the site is used for price research. But again, no facts appear to be known yet as to the identity or motivation of the hacker. I would hope that the situation has been referred to law enforcement authorities who perhaps can track them down and hold them accountable.

Anyone with any specific information on efforts to restore the WildWinds database or with any information as to any action being taken against the hacker are welcome to post comments.

Some Recent Discussions about Nighthawking and the Ancient Coin Trade

One of the perks of working in Europe is nationalized health care. Eight years ago or more, I was told my wisdom teeth needed to come out, but I could not afford the two thousand dollars it was going to cost. Fortunately, this long overdue dental work is done (all only for a 10 Euro copay!), but the pain and the painkillers have hindered my work over the past week, including posting to this website.

Therefore, I just wanted to draw the attention of my readers to some recent discussions that have developed regarding the "Nighthawking Survey," referenced in my previous post, as well as some other discussion relevant to the ancient coin trade and ethical collecting.

David Gill and Paul Barford have been providing some interesting and enlightening observations on nighthawking in Britain:

"'To Say the Problem is Gone is Absolutely Untrue'" (Gill)
"What Kind of Nighthawking (sic) has Declined?" (Barford)
"The Tide Turns for the British Antiquities Market" (Barford)
"What is Illegal Artefact Hunting in the UK?" (Barford)
"Damage to Archaeological Sites in the UK caused by Illegal Searching and Removal of Antiquities" (Barford)
"Prominent Metal Detectorists says 'Illegal Metal Detecting is Now Virtually Non-Existent'" (Barford)
"British Nighthawks on Facebook" (Barford)
"Regulating the Sales of Artefacts in Britain Soon?" (Barford)

David Gill draws attention to the fact that some ancient coin dealers in the U.S. still completely misunderstand the issues at stake in the dialogue about looting and indiscriminate market demand:

"'Some Activist Archaeologists...[are] too left wing in their approach'"

Paul Barford points out two blogs by antiquities collectors ("Two New Blogs and a Website"). Unlike the blogs of disciples of the ancient coin dealer lobby in the U.S. that have been cropping up left and right, trying to excuse unethical and indiscriminate collecting, these two collector blogs highlight how collectors can be proactive and collect ethically. For a long time I have received a lot of private feedback and encouragment from collectors of ancient coins and antiquities and it is, in my view, now quite refreshing to see that some collectors are starting to come out publicly and combat the mantras and deceptions of tradesmen and those who wish to paint looters as humanitiarians and indiscriminate collectors as erudite rescue archaeologists.

I have been particularly interested in following the blog "Pieces of the Past: Ethical Antiquities Collecting" and I have added it to the feed on the lefthand side of this website.