Paul Barford disagreeably used my name in this post, thus it is necessary
for me to respond.
> ... if 60 million vote for a government that states "yea, verily there
shalt be export licencing for cultural property" then there is every reason
why there SHOULD be export licencing for archaeological artefacts taken out
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland...
> Who are you, Dave Welsh, Steve Minor or anyone else to say this is a "bad
law" and that therefore some of you antiquities dealers are justified in
ignoring it? .
1) Anyone has the right to say that this is a "bad law." That principle is
normally referred to as freedom of speech, which (at least in my opinion) is
more important than maintaining the integrity of archaeological context. I
am a U.S. citizen and that is all the right I (or anyone else) need.

2) I would be justified in ignoring that British law because I am not a
British subject, and so long as I do not enter British territory, the Bntish
government has no jurisdiction over me, or my business. However, I do in
fact observe its principles {so far as is practically feasible] as a matter
of my own personal ethical views.

3)> " ...there is every reason why there SHOULD be export licencing for
archaeological artefacts taken out of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland."
I agree with this point of view. However, I do not agree with the extreme
interpretation advanced by Barford (and others with a like point of view),
that every old buried manmade object is an "archaeological artefact." That
is an altogether unreasonable and excessive claim and from a scientific
perspective, I do not think it has any justification.

This subject is discussed in a recent post to my blog (
http://classicalcoins.blogspot.com/2007/12/preserving-numismatic-context-fro
m.html ). I would appreciate readers of this list taking a moment now to
review that post, which I think you will find quite interesting, and well
worth reading as it presents the numismatist's viewpoint. For those who do
not do so, that discussion focuses on pointing out that the conflict between
archaeologists and numismatists is really a jurisdictional clash between two
sciences, and thus is by no means what Paul Barford and his fellow travelers
deceptively and inaccurately seek to portray it as, i.e. a clash between a
small minority of "greedy dealers" and "...irresponsible collectors [who]
selfishly want to ignore and usurp the rights [of 60 million Britons and by
extension, everyone else in the world]."

There are two major jurisdictional issues in this clash that should not be
overlooked:

Archaeologists (holding views such as Barford's) have blithely and without
any sort of authority appointed themselves as spokespersons for the public
in "protecting their interests" in their "cultural heritage." No one elected
them to do this, no public jurisdiction has officially appointed them. In
reality, these self-appointed archaeologists are only interested in
protecting the integrity of what they consider to be the archaeological
record, which is merely one small part of the entire "cultural heritage" of
the world. It would certainly be far more accurate and much more likely to
lead to productive discussion, if Barford and his fellow thinkers would
acknowledge that distinction - since they have no special claim to any sort
of expertise in "protecting" other aspects of cultural heritage.

Addressing the "archaeological record," it seems to me that almost everyone
(other than an archaeologist) who takes a moment to think about would agree
that archaeology does not own every manmade object that is buried somewhere
in the earth. However, Barford and his fellow thinkers seem to believe that
they do. Barford constantly refers to every buried artefact as being part of
the "archaeological record" and "archaeological context," as though these
were sacred doctrines of which he is one of the high priests. Being very
much on the outside (and presumably destined for eternal damnation according
to their doctrine), I view the "archaeological record" and "archaeological
context" as being much less important than Barford conceives them to be. I
do not think it is reasonable to demand that the "archaeological record" and
"archaeological context" shall automatically take precedence over all other
human activities and possible uses for buried artefacts. Among these other
activities and uses is the venerable, beneficial and highly respectable
science of numismatics, which is many centuries older than archaeology, and
had made important contributions to the historical record long before anyone
thought of the word "archaeology."

I believe as strongly as Barford does in the importance of protecting
everything associated with a recognized archaeological site. I just as
strongly disagree with what appears to be his perspective that every place
in the vicinity of an ancient battlefield, and every field or wood in which
a small cache of coins was concealed during antiquity, should also be
considered to be an "archaeological site" and part of the "archaeological
record."

The readers of this list are intelligent and perceptive. I don't think they
will have difficulty, if they take the trouble to look beyond the
deceptively worded special pleading and doublespeak of Barford (and his
fellow travelers), in recognizing where truth and justice reside in this
dispute - and in understanding which party is unscrupulously using code
words, doublespeak and deceptive arguments in an attempt to mislead the
public while in reality it is seeking to aggrandize its own narrow,
parochial interests.

Dave Welsh
Unidroit-L Listowner
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unidroit-L
dwelsh46@...


Posted by: "Paul Barford" pbarford@... HYPERLINK
"http://profiles.yahoo.com/paul_barford"paul_barford
<mailto:pbarford@...?Subject= Re%3A%20Above%20the%20laws%2E>
Sat May 24, 2008 12:41 pm (PDT)
Robert Kokotailo reckons:
> The reality is that the body of people actually
> involved in this movement is probably between
> 5000 and 12,500 individuals.<

Hmmm. Surely the real point at issue is not "how many archaeologists" there
are. The point is the real stakeholders are the other x million inhabitants
of all the "source countries", bits of whose whose heritage portable
antiquity collectors covet, and (more importantly) huge bits of their
archaeological heritage is trashed to get out of the ground and made
"portable".

However many you wish to pretend there are (see below), portable antiquity
collectors are undeniably a MINORITY globally. You are ignoring the fact
that there are many, many more stakeholders in the heritage. Irresponsible
collectors selfishly want to ignore and usurp their rights.

Let's take the UK. In terms of ancient artefacts, its the cultural heritage
of 60 million Britons that an estimated ten thousand (one in 6000 people)
want to take out of their original archaeological context and take home or
sell on eBay to fellow collectors. Now, obviously since it is their
heritage, the 60 million should have a say in what that 10k can and cannot
do, don't you think? And if 60 million vote for a government that states
"yea, verily there shalt be export licencing for cultural property" then
there is every reason why there SHOULD be export licencing for
archaeological artefacts taken out of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland. Don't you think? You will allow the British people
that little foible of theirs I hope.

Who are you, Dave Welsh, Steve Minor or anyone else to say this is a "bad
law" and that therefore some of you antiquities dealers are justified in
ignoring it? And who do the GOP of the "Lootier state" of Wisconsin think
they are that they will overide BRITAIN's laws and the right of the British
people to determine what happens to the cultural heritage of the inhabitants

of the British Isles? Would you please tell us all by what RIGHT do the
collectors of Wisconsin or Goleta California or Calgary Canada think they
have to take Britain's ancient coins, Roman brooches, statues and whatever
takes their fancy without going through the proper channels? What is the
problem with asking nicely if Her Majesty's Government will (please) issue
you with a nice official bit of paper to say they have looked at want you
want to take away (from British stakeholders and the pool of items for
British collections) and have no objections to letting you have them ?

By the same token, what right do iresponsible dealers think they have to
take the cultural heritage of the stakeholders of Denmark, Holland, Italy,
Greece or any other country that has been exported without asking anyone?
Deciding by themselves that these countries "probably will not miss it" and
they don't have to undergo the formalities of an export licence, just stick
it in an unmarked padded envelope and have it posted to them? What right
does an irresponsible dealer from any country have to put himself and his
money-making above the law and the norms of civilised behaviour and then try

to sell these goods to a responsible law-abiding customer as if nothing had
happened?

Why, actually, should the stuff you want to collect be "exempt" from any
such procedures?

What right do collectors have to buy "with no questions asked" stuff taken
out of any "source" country when the dealer offers absolutely no concrete
indication that any of the proper procedures have been followed when there
is ample evidence that many dealers are simply ignoring these restrictions
and taking what they want to make a quick buck?

A dealer this morning told us all gaily that if he's got ancient artefacts
through the source country's post service and it was not opened by that
state's customs, he reckons that this means the source country "thinks its
OK" not to have an export licence for it (sic). One dealer actually wrote
that here this morning. There's 1800 members of this list; to date, not a
single other dealer on this list and only one collector criticised him for
saying it - let alone admitting in public doing it.

I think that speaks volumes for why collectors really do need to discuss
among themselves what is and what is not responsible collecting. It seems
that if their customers are not going to require dealers who do things like
that to clean up their act (while glibly claiming to be conducting
legitimate business), it looks on current evidence very much like they never

will. They will carry on selling illicitly dug and illegally exported stuff
to collectors without batting an eyelid, and explaining "its OK, because all

those foreign people in the source countries don't think like the
enlightened white man" and so on and so on... (yeah, we've heard this all
before from the old guard 'collecting-status-quo-advocacy' ranters, and I
would not mind betting we'll get some more now). Any right thinking person
can see however that these are just smug excuses for selfish behaviour based

on facile generalisations, not sound arguments.

The world's archaeological heritage is the heritage of the global population

of 6.7 billion and all the future generations. It is clearly not the
personal property of a minority of collectors and antiquities dealers that
they should feel free to act selfishly and irresponsibly with it and simply
disregard all and any laws that are intended to protect it from damage for
the benefit of others, or the needs of other people.

Collecting of ancient artefacts does not need to be carried out
irresponsibly, it does not need to contribute to the ongoing destruction of
our dwindling archaeological resources. Why not ignmore the tub thumping of
those that resist change and see whether it is possible for collecting to
move forward so it is a much more sustainable use of finite and fragile
resources than it clearly is at present?

http://safecorner.savingantiquities.org/2008/05/stakeholders-and-interests-i
n-cultural.html

http://safecorner.savingantiquities.org/2008/04/to-own-or-not-to-own-is-that
-question.html
(fourth point)

Paul Barford

PS/ I do not think there is any evidence that the number of portable
antiquity collectors is anything like the huge figure Mr Kokotailo quotes.
The number he gives is one in 26 of the earth's inhabitants (!), and yet
even in developed countries like the UK and the US, current indications show

that the number of portable antiquity collectors is somewhere around 1 in
5000/ 1 in 6000, and obviously its going to drop off in countries with less
economic potential and different distribution of wealth.