By Wayne Sayles – Ancient Coin Collecting

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) argued that truth is a value judgement and questioned the premise that truth is always preferable to (or more valuable than) untruth. He also suggested that we should learn from the ancient Sphinx how to ask questions. Should a question always seek the truth as a response? One would normally think so, but what of the case where an untruth is valued more highly by someone than the truth? Is insinuation of an untruth in the form of a question a reflection of values and therefore acceptable? Nevermind, that’s a rhetorical question that has no truth or untruth in the answer.

In a news article headlined “Why are Ancient Coins From Cyprus Featured in a Suit Against the US Department of State?” archaeologist David Gill asks a misleading question. Of course, they are NOT featured in any such lawsuit (at least not yet). This question was posed by Gill in a press release filed through a commercial news service. It ran, as these releases always do, in scores of media outlets that reach a very wide spectrum of society.

Being a news medium, with certain standards of veracity, the reader might expect to find an answer based on truth. Unless, of course, the question is framed with a Nietzschean mindset. In that case, an untruth may be viewed by the author as a perfectly acceptable answer, irrespective of societal norms. The typical reader of a press release is not going to know much about Nietszche or about ancient coins, maybe not even about Cyprus. They definitely will not know much about the U.S. State Department, which is by design one of the most secretive agencies in the U.S. government.

For Gill’s answer to the headline question, the reader is referred to his most current blog posting. But, as a final teaser at the end of his press release Gill asks one more question: “Are these aggressive legal tactics really for the benefit of collectors, or are there other factors at work?” Once again, the reader expects a question to be followed by a truth. Instead, what they are fed is a potpourri of inaccuracies, untruths and insinuations. What poses as an innocent question is really the sort of catty insinuation that one comes to expect in blogs these days, not in the media.

Let me just outline a few specific inaccuracies in the Gill press release and blog. Speaking about the ACCG/IAPN/PNG Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, he writes: “The alliance objected to the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) restricting the import of ancient coins minted in Cyprus as part of a wider memorandum of understanding (MOU).” (more…)

By Wayne Sayles – Ancient Coin Collecting Blog

In an earlier blog, I referred to the U.S. State Department as the “Hydra of bureaucracy.” The Hydra was, in Greek mythology, a multi-headed sub-terranean creature with a poisonous breath. If some adventurous soul managed to cut off one of the heads, two more would spring up in its place. That is, I will be the first to admit, a harsh metaphor to describe government employees serving “the people.” In other posts on this blog, I have provided some examples of why I personally feel that service to the people has not always been the primary motivation at DOS, or at least not at the Cultural Heritage Center of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.

Today, I found online a new State Department “Organization Chart” that I initially presumed was part of the DOS website. The fact that the site had a Blogspot URL did not strike me as odd at first because DOS has widely advertised its new interest in blogging. However, when I clicked on “About Me” it quickly became apparent that this was a copycat and likely a rather creative advertising scheme. In checking all of the posts to date on this private blog, I was able to find nothing but very generic descriptions of the State Department and its functions—nothing controversial or objectionable. But, the thought occurred to me, what if some website creating the impression of an official DOS medium started posting ideological views? Would that not be another head of the same Hydra? Call me paranoid if you like, but in a world where a superpower like China will openly sanction sabotage of a legal auction in another country, I harbor no illusions about the lengths to which ideologues will go in pursuit of their objectives. (more…)

By Wayne Sayles – Ancient Coin Collecting

A friend and fellow collector of ancient coins sent me an interesting article this year along with the annual family news and holiday greetings. The title is “Everything viewed as ‘Ad usam,’ For use, as gift.” The piece was written by Ron Rolheiser, OMI and may be read in its entirety on Rolheiser’s web site. The OMI, by the way, stands for Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate. Father Rolheiser, a Roman Catholic priest, is a noted speaker, columnist and author. He is president of the Oblate School of Theology in San Antonio, Texas. The essence of his article is encapsulated in the extracted quote:

“What ultimately undergirds all spirituality, all morality, and all authentic human relationship is the unalterable truth that everything comes to us as gift, so that nothing can ever be owned as ours by right.”

I have to admit that this premise led me to a moment or two of introspection. Try though I may, I cannot personally imagine a world in which we own nothing. The introspection came when I had to ask myself if this view of mine is somehow aberrant. For most people, the philosophical question probably never arises, but having been told by several people in recent years that it is “immoral” for an individual to own cultural property, specifically ancient coins, I’ve become a bit sensitized to that line of reasoning. Father Rolheiser goes on to say that “…nobody has a right to ultimately claim anything as his own.” Admittedly, perpetual ownership is impossible because mortality trumps all. However, for the here and now, I cannot agree with his view that we have no “right to ownership.” In fact, I would argue that Father Rolheiser is way out on a limb with his view, as are those who believe that the private collecting of cultural property is somehow immoral or inappropriate. (more…)