Skip to main content

The Antiquities Market and the Journal of Field Archaeology


In the opening editorial of the Journal of Field Archaeology, James Wiseman ("Editorial Comment", JFA 1, 1/2 [1974] 1-2 [JSTOR]) wrote:
The section of the journal called "Perspectives"is open to all readers and the readers are encouraged to comment on, or even challenge, the studies published here or elsewhere, or to write on any archaeological topic. "The Antiquities Market" reflects another central interest of the Association for Field Archaeology; it will provide a forum for commentary on the illicit traffic in antiquities.
Later in the same number is the first of a series of sections on the "Antiquities Market" (pp. 215-24 [JSTOR]). This informs us in the heading section:
The Antiquities Market will be a regular feature of the Journal of Field Archaeology. Its aim is to provide just what is stated in the sub-title: news and commentary on the illicit traffic in antiquities. The presence of this feature in the Journal reflects one of the central concerns of the Association for Field Archaeology, that is, the proper recovery and the protection of antiquities.
The JFA has a distinguished record of presenting the current debate in this area and I feel honoured to have had my research with Christopher Chippindale appear in its pages (see abstract).

Nathan Elkins has written an important piece on the presentation of coins in the classroom (see my comments specifically on this article with a reminder that it was one in a series). The introductory essay by Morag M. Kersel and Christina Luke states,
Public outreach is one of the most undervalued aspects of our work and yet it is one of the most important things we do. Nathan Elkins' article about the Ancient Coins for Education (ACE) program illustrates the importance of such efforts.
This is why it is surprising to see the ill-informed response of a Washington lobbyist and lawyer, Peter Tompa, to Elkins' piece. Not only has Tompa not read Elkins' article ("I must confess I have not read his work") but the fact that this research appears in an academic article (published by Boston University) merely draws the statement, "Elkins' article is not readily available to those not associated with the university culture for free and I don't want to spend any money to get it". (See comments by Paul Barford.)

Tompa, it should be remembered,  is a Director of the Cultural Property Research Institute (CPRI) that has so far acheived the production of a seriously flawed and unreferenced interim report. Tompa's name is also attached to the legal papers relating to the "Baltimore Coin Affair".

Tompa, never reluctant to show his lack of knowledge in these areas, has now turned his attack to the Journal of Field Archaeology in a provocatively entitled piece, "Is the Journal of Field Archaeology now just another propoganda [sic.] tool in the cultural property wars?". Tompa writes:
Unfortunately, it thus appears that the Journal of Field Archaeology has departed from its original scholarly mission in favor of becoming just another propaganda tool in the culture property wars.
If Tompa was at all observant, he would have noticed that this area of research has been a central area of JFA's publication record since its first number over a quarter of a century ago.

Is Tompa really this ignorant of cultural property matters? What does it tell us about the CPRI? What does it tell us about Tompa's role in the CPAC Review of Article II of the MOU with Italy? What does it say about the way that Tompa sees conspiracies where they do not exist? What does it say about the "quality" of his "research"?


Bookmark and Share so Your Real Friends Know that You Know

Comments

MMK and YMR said…
Thanks for coming to the defense of the Archaeological Heritage and Ethics section of the JFA! In 2008 the name of the Antiquities Market section was changed to Archaeological Heritage and Ethics in order to address the variety of ethical and heritage issues confronting field archaeologists. We welcome all submissions on topics that concern the ethical practice of field archaeology. Many thanks, Morag and Christina
David- Reread my posts. Do you equate "Ancient Coins for Education" and its program to teach children about ancient history through coins as being part of the "Antiquities Market?" I don't and if you do, you are as twisted on this point as Elkins and Barford are.

Sincerely,

Peter Tompa
David Gill said…
Peter
I did read your postings very carefully - which is more than you had the courtesy to do before you attacked Nathan Elkins for publishing his work in JFA.
The 'Antiquities Market' section of JFA was renamed 'Archaeological Heritage and Ethics' as the editors of JFA point out in their comment above. Nathan's carefully researched piece, supported by ample references, fits (in my personal opinion) squarely in this section of JFA.
Best wishes
David
David,

If I may, I would like to add that my research indicated that ACE's sourcing practices in fact reinforce the illicit antiquities market and detrimental to archaeology since the group's directors are always on the search for bulk lots of earth-encrusted coins for donation or purchase. The type of material sought and acquired, and from what types of sources, is detailed. ACE has also been incorporated into broader initiatives aimed on counteracting regulatory measures and ethical practices. Neither were the laudable educators involved in ACE nor the group's respectable mission of educating secondary students about classical history the subject of criticism.

If Peter had read the article, he would have understood the content of the article and its relevance to the issue of the "Antiquities Market" or "Archaeological Heritage and Ethics."

Thank you for your support. I still have some remaining offprints that I can send to interested parties.

All best,
Nathan

Popular posts from this blog

Marble bull's head from the temple of Eshmun

Excavations at the temple of Eshmun in Lebanon recovered a marble bull's head. It is now suggested that it was this head, apparently first published in 1967, that was placed on loan to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art (Tom Mashberg, "Met Museum Turns Over Another Relic With Disputed Past to Prosecutors", New York Times August 1, 2017 ). The head is reported to have been handed over to the Manhattan district attorney after a request was received from the Lebanese authorities.

It is suggested that the head may have been looted from an archaeological storage area at Byblos in the 1980s during the Lebanese civil war. Mashberg has rehearsed the recent collecting history:
The owners of the bull’s head, Lynda and William Beierwaltes of Colorado, say they have clear title to the item and have sued Manhattan prosecutors for its return.  The Beierwaltes bought the head from a dealer in London in 1996 for more than $1 million and then sold it to another collector, Michael …

The Toledo skyphos and a Swiss private collection

The Attic red-figured skyphos attributed to the Kleophon painter in the Toledo Museum of Art (inv. 1982.88) is now coming under further scrutiny following the research of Dr Christos Tsirogiannis. The skyphos shows Hephaistos returning to Olympos.

Tsirogiannis has identified what appears to be this skyphos in five photographs in the Medici Dossier. The museum acknowledged that the skyphos had resided in a 'private Swiss collection'. Tsirogiannis suggests that this is probably a reference to Medici.

Enquiries to the museum by Tsirogiannis elicited the information that the skyphos had been acquired from Nicholas Koutoulakis (although that information does not appear on the museum's online catalogue).

The curatorial team at the Toledo Museum of Art will, no doubt, be contacting the Italian authorities to discuss the future residence of the skyphos.

For further discussion of the Toledo Museum of Art on LM see here.

Reference
Tsirogiannis, C. 2017. "Nekyia: Museum ethics an…

Metropolitan Museum of Art hands over Paestan krater

In May 2014 I commented on a Paestan krater acquired by New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art after it had been identified by Dr Christos Tsirogiannis in photographic images seized from Giacomo Medici. Tsirogiannis published his full concerns in the Journal of Art Crime in 2014, but it has taken a further three years for the museum to respond.

The krater showing Dionysos in a hand-drawn cart was purchased in 1989 from the Bothmer Purchase Fund (details from the Museum's website, inv. 1989.11.4). The krater surfaced through Sotheby's New York in June 1989.

It is unclear who consigned the krater to Sotheby's New York.

It has now been revealed that the krater has been handed over to the US authorities after a warrant had been issued (Tom Mashberg, "Ancient Vase Seized From Met Museum on Suspicion It Was Looted", New York Times July 31, 2018).

It appears that the museum did make an attempt to resolve the case in December 2016. Mashberg notes:
The Met, for its par…