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.

It's a Conspiracy!

The antics of the dealer lobby know no bounds.  It is now being alleged by the group's lobbyist that numismatists in favor of the protection of ancient coins have ghost-written each others comments to CPAC.  As absurd as the notion is, I suppose it is not unexpected from those quarters.  Conspiracy theories are endemic among the dealer lobby's leadership, which is quite indicative of the desperation of their position.

And yes, there is something seemingly duplicitous in one lobby leader's acknowledgment of ancient Egypt's closed currency system before the lobby's founding, and then later pretending it did not exist when commenting on the potential MOU with Egypt.  These intellectual changes of heart also speak to the desperation of their argument that coins do not merit or warrant protection.

Update, 5/27.  Digging the hole deeper, the paid lobbyist, Peter Tompa, assumes I sent comments to CPAC  on the potential MOU with Egypt and now demands that I make these presumed comments public.  I am not sure who he thinks he is to make such demands.  Nonetheless, whether or not I elected to exercise my right to make a comment is my decision alone and the CPAC allows comments to be submitted any number of ways. 

He attempts to qualify his unusual interest in the matter: "CPO [Peter Tompa] does not question Elkins' (or anyone else's) rights to express their views to CPAC, just his unwillingness to let others assess for themselves their accuracy."  I must say past actions do not bear this out. 1. The dealer lobby's leadership and its lobbyist do not rely on logic and facts to construct arguments, as the recent episode regarding circulation patterns in Egypt illustrates.  2. I recall multiple instances in which the dealer lobby (and yes, the lobbyist in question) have attempted to intimidate and perhaps even to undermine the employment of those who have voiced support for MOUs and advocated the protection of coins.  And finally, it is not up to agenda-driven lobbyists to "assess for themselves the accuracy" of comments submitted to CPAC - that is up to the respective members of CPAC, appointed by the President.

The CCPIA and the Circulation of Coins and Other Ancient Objects

The dealer lobby is irritated that people who have expertise on ancient coins  have written in favor of a potential MOU with Egypt.  One commentator and dealer is outright resentful that any specialist should support an MOU and goes so far as pronounce that the protection of coins in the MOUs is "extralegal."

The Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CCPIA) mandates that protected objects be "first discovered in" the State Party.  From the point-of-view of the dealer lobby, coins should not be protected since they circulated.  They demand that it be proved beyond a doubt that each individual coin coming into the United States was found in a particular State Party, a task made nearly impossible when a coin is dug up, smuggled, cleaned, and sold by a dealer.   The act of looting and smuggling destroys this information.

The dealer lobby asserts that coins are a special case since they "circulated widely" and are "common."   But are they such an exception?  Some coins circulated very widely and some circulated on a more local or regional level.  Apart from static monuments, many ancient objects, in addition to coins, moved around to greater and lesser degrees.  Ceramics are a prime example; they could circulate widely and they are "common."  Even local wares are sometimes found far afield, although the majority are found locally.  These, like circulating coins, are a testament to trade, economic conditions, and the movement of peoples and populations.  The Etruscans were avid consumers of Greek painted pottery.  The MOU with Italy protects Attic and Corinthian painted ceramics since these are frequently found in Etruscan tombs, even though they were made in Greece and can be found in other countries as well. 

With Egyptian coins, the dealer lobby is reasserting the notion that coins "circulated widely" and should not be protected because they could be found anywhere.  Yes, there are examples of Egyptian coins found outside of Egypt, but Egyptian coins are found primarily in Egypt.  In contesting the potential protection of Egyptian coins, the desperation of their argument is apparent as they refuse to acknowledge long-standing scholarship on ancient Egyptian coins and Egypt's closed currency system, which caused Egypt to retain much of its currency in antiquity.

One commentator points to the Portable Antiquities Scheme database as evidence that Egyptian coins can be found as far away as England.  Interestingly, what he does not acknowledge is that the majority of these are late Roman bronze coins from the mint of Alexandria; late Roman bronze coins have not been included in any MOUs thus far as they circulated widely and certainly they were not the subject of any comments sent to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee by advocates for the protection of coins.  Again, that commentator refuses to acknowledge the closed currency system in Egypt and the fact that the majority of Egyptian coins will have been found in Egypt, just as a great many Attic and Corinthian ceramics will be found in Italy.

Finally, the protection of coins is extralegal only in the dealer lobby's opinion.  Thus far, the lobby has been unsuccessful in undermining import restrictions in the courts.  In fact, import restrictions on coins have been upheld by the courts as legal.  In fact, the federal district court wrote:

“[I]nterpreting the ‘first discovered in’ requirement to preclude the State Department from barring the importation of archaeological objects with unknown find spots would undermine the core purpose of the CPIA, namely to deter looting of cultural property. See 19 U.S.C. § 2602(a)(1)(A)” (p. 35)."

 The court further notes that the “ACCG’s argument, if taken to its logical conclusion, could bring into question the import restrictions on every, or almost every, item on the designated lists" (p. 36).

Indeed, it would.  And business as usual in the antiquities trade seems to be the intent behind the strategy.

Update, 517/2014:  One lobbyist now insists that scholarly evidence cannot be produced that Egyptian coins are found in Egypt.  I do look forward to a book from the lawyer/lobbyist that subverts decades of archaeological and numismatic understanding Egypt's closed currency system.

And apparently lobbyists/lawyers can declare what is legal and what is not - forget the courts.  But I do not remember it working that way in civics class in grade school...

Import Restrictions and Coins: Lobbying, Duplicity, and Ancient Egypt's Closed Currency System

The inclusion of ancient coins in various Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) between the U.S. and other countries is a debated issue.  Many academics, archaeologists, and numismatists are in favor of the inclusion and protection of coins in these agreements.  Many coin dealers and collectors are not.

The ancient coin dealer lobby, primarily the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG), consistently makes an effort to dissuade CPAC from the protection of coins each time a request for an MOU is made.  Their arguments have been repeated recently since the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) has asked for public comment on a potential MOU with Egypt that would place limits on imports of cultural and archaeological items into the U.S. that lack documentation prior to the date of enactment of that potential MOU. Namely, the lobby says coins are "common" and therefore do not warrant protection because they are not culturally or archaeologically significant, or they say it is impractical to protect coins since they circulated widely, and so one cannot say where a coin came from since dealers and suppliers do not record or track find spots.  A few commentators have been so bold as to assert that there is no evidence that looted material from Egypt has made its way to American markets.

Those assertions are problematic.

1. The fact that coins were widely produced is precisely what makes them archaeologically and culturally significant.  Coins communicated civic identities and/or political ideologies, whether "high art objects" or not, although the ancient understanding of "art" was very different from our modern understanding.  And in Greek and Roman period excavations, coins are often one of the most common types of small finds, apart from pot sherds.  Coins are vital chronological indicators and also speak to economic conditions at various sites.  When one removes them from a site without record, what can be said about that site and the ancient people who lived or conducted activity there is greatly diminished.  Imagine if there were a lobby attempting to exempt ancient ceramics from protection in MOUs; these are equally significant as coins, even though they are exponentially more "common" than coins.  And their removal from sites is equally destructive to archaeology and the writing of history.  Coins are both archaeologically and culturally significant objects; it is clandestine digging, looting, and smuggling of coins that neutralizes their potential archaeological value and diminishes their cultural value.

2. One of the most recent cases that demonstrated that Egyptian material is being smuggled into the United States is that of U.S. v. Khouli et al.  In addition to Egyptian sarcophagi smuggled into the U.S., two of the involved defendants have also sold ancient coins in North America: Khouli and Alshadaifat.  Alshadaifat operates a wholesale business and has supplied Egyptian and Middle Eastern coins to dealers and collectors in the United States.

3. It is true that a great many coins in Greek and Roman antiquity circulated very widely, such as Athenian tetradrachms or Roman Republican and Imperial denarii.  But the blanket assertion that ancient coins circulated widely and therefore cannot be attributed to a country in which they were found (as mandated by the Cultural Property Implementation Act) is untheorized.  Many classes of ancient coins circulated on local or regional levels, such as the Roman provincial coinage.  A Roman provincial bronze coin from Cyprus, for example, will most probably have been found in Cyprus.  Coin circulation is a much more nuanced subject than the lobby acknowledges in its dealings with CPAC, the U.S. Department of State, and U.S. Customs. 
 
In the public comments on the potential MOU with Egypt, it is remarkable that a number of coin dealers are asserting that coins ought not be protected because they circulated widely.  This is, of course, a strained argument to make in view of the fact that ancient Egypt famously had a closed currency system in both the Ptolemaic and Roman periods.  This does not mean that Egyptian coins are not found outside of Egypt - they are.  But the vast majority of Egyptian coins are found in Egypt.  One reason for Egypt's closed currency system may have been Egypt's need to retain silver since there were no silver resources in ancient Egypt; topography also isolated Egypt.  In fact, Egypt's closed currency system is perhaps the best-known instance of locally or regionally circulating coinage in the ancient world and it is widely discussed in both collector and scholarly literature.  A few examples include:

• E. Christiansen, Coinage in Roman Egypt: The Hoard Evidence. (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2004, 40-46, 98, 133, 136-137, 140-141. 
• E. Christiansen, The Roman Coins of Alexandria: Quantitative Studies. (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1988), 11.
• J.W. Curtis, The Tetradrachms of Roman Egypt. (Chicago: Argonaut, 1969), ix-x. 

• R.A. Hazzard, Ptolemaic Coins: An Introduction for Collectors. (Toronto: Kirk & Bentley, 1995), 71 et passim.    
• J.G. Milne, Catalogue of Alexandrian Coins. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933), xv-xvi.     
• S. van Reden, Money in Ptolemaic Egypt. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 33.

One popular book with ancient coin collectors, written in the 1990s , made note of Egypt's closed currency zone (W. Sayles, Ancient Coin Collecting IV: Roman Provincial Coins. (Iola, WI: Krause, 1998), page 87.).  The author of that book is Wayne Sayles, the executive director of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG), although he made reference to Egypt's closed currency zone before he founded and took on the leadership of the lobby group in 2004.  Interestingly, in his comments to CPAC concerning a potential MOU with Egypt, incongruous with what he wrote 16 years before, he proclaims: "Coins struck in Egypt during antiquity traveled widely then, and since then, as instruments of monetary exchange and of cultural interest."  He refers also to Peter Tompa's letter, which addresses examples of coins of Egyptian type found outside of Egypt and characterizes Egyptian coins as circulating widely (Tompa is the ACCG's attorney and lobbyist).  Both Sayles and Tompa overlook the fact that these foreign finds are exceptions, not the rule, and that the vast majority of Egyptian coins are found in Egypt, which had a closed currency system in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. 

Fortunately, the distinguished members of CPAC take account of the substance of comments and evidence presented to them during the period of public comment.

Import Restrictions on Ancient Coins

A lobbyist who works on behalf of trade organizations has suggested that ancient coins currently protected by memoranda between the U.S. and certain foreign governments are not legally placed there since the basis of those restrictions is "place of production" rather than where they are found.  He alleges the CPIA is thus violated.  The exchange is in the comments section of a previous post here and his take is also presented on his website.

As I pointed out in that exchange, coins that are protected are types that are found in that country.  The memorandum with Italy, for example, protects early Roman coinage (aes signatum, aes grave, and the early republican struck coinage, as well as Roman colonial coinage) and the coinage of Greek cities in southern Italy.  Scholarly publications demonstrate that such coins had a primarily Italian circulation.  The memorandum with Italy even cites one of many sources that reference circulation and find patterns.  Widely circulating types where a find spot cannot be attributed (e.g. most Roman republican and imperial coins) are not protected by existing legislation.  As most republican and imperial coins were struck in Italy, a country with which the U.S. has an MOU, one is left to question Mr. Tompa's allegations.

The "scholarly evidence" submitted to CPAC by ACCG that Mr. Tompa refers to as an apparent indication that where such coins are found is not considered by CPAC is a simple list of hoard finds of types outside of the borders of countries that request MOUs.  It suggests a limited number of coins circulated out, but it totally ignores the fact that the vast majority of such types are found in the country of origin.  It is common knowledge among numismatic scholars that many coin types (e.g. some Greek coins and Roman provincial coins) had a very limited circulation and it is curious that the trade lobby does not acknowledge this in communications with CPAC; instead they argue more simply (and too simply) that coins can be found anywhere.  Would one really expect to see aes grave exavated in Israel or Jordan?

In considering whether Mr. Tompa's take on the situation is legitimate, one may recall that ACCG's lawsuit against the government, which has been handled by Mr. Tompa, has been dismissed on multiple occasions.  Legal authorities have not agreed with ACCG that there is any mishandling of import restrictions philosophically or legally. 

Rather than lawsuits and sniping over the interpretation of CPIA, would not a better approach be to recognize that indiscriminate attitudes in the sourcing of ancient coins promotes looting and destroys historical information?  And recognizing that, would it not be a better approach to engage in a productive dialogue about how ethical collecting can exist without maintaining a damaging status quo?

Comments on the Extension of the MOU with Cyprus

On January 18, the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) of the U.S. Department of State held a public hearing in Washington. The committee was receiving public comment on the requests for extensions of Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with Peru and Cyprus; these MOUs are a vehicle to protect the cultural patrimony and archaeological resources of these nations from looting, trafficking, and smuggling. Speakers were asked to address any of the four determinations, upon which the committee makes their recommendations, in their written and oral comments. I attended this meeting and spoke in support of an extension with Cyprus. Below is a summary of my comments.

After introducing myself, I stated that my comments would be related to the first and second determinations. I discussed a January 2010 raid by police in Cyprus. It is one of the biggest antiquities busts in Cyprus' history. Members of the smuggling ring were arrested and 11 million euro ($15.5 million) in looted antiquities were confiscated. Among those objects were a miniature gold coffin, terracotta urns, limestone figures, and bronze and silver coins. This important seizure bears on the first and second determinations as 1) it shows that the cultural patrimony and archaeological resources of Cyprus are in jeopardy through pillage and 2) shows that the Republic of Cyprus is taking proactive measures within its own borders to combat plunder.

My primary area of expertise and research is Roman coinage. And, as many individuals who follow MOU hearings are well aware, the inclusion of coins in the designated list of objects protected through an MOU is a hotly contested issue as there is a flourishing trade in ancient coins and a great demand for new material. Therefore, I took the opportunity to point out to the committee the need to protect coins alongside other objects on the designated list, such as sculpture, ceramics, metalwork, etc. The above-mentioned seizure illustrates the fact that looters and smugglers often procure ancient coins and antiquities from the same sources, i.e. tombs and archaeological sites of various sorts.

After briefly discussing the international market for Cypriot material and providing some numbers, I countered one of the arguments that is most often used by opponents of the protection of coins. Essentially the argument goes like this: "coins circulated in antiquity and thus it is impossible to know in what nation they might have been found once they enter the North American marketplace; as a consequence of this, coins cannot be protected according to the framework of the Cultural Property Implementation Act." In response to this claim, I made the point that it is in fact true that coins circulated in antiquity. But coin circulation is actually a much more complex issue than is often presented to the committee by those opposed to the protection of coins. Some coins circulated more or less than others. One example I gave is the imperial gold and silver coinage, struck at Rome and Lugdunum (Lyons); this coinage circulated widely across the Roman Empire. But in contrast to this, some Greek coinages and the locally produced Roman provincial coinage circulated regionally or locally. Such locally produced and circulating coins are already protected in the current MOU with Cyprus.

One tradesman, who had submitted a letter in opposition to the inclusion of coins in the designated list, provided a list of hoards from outside of Cyprus that included Cypriot coins. In the letter it is claimed that the list provides "uncontestable (sic) evidence that these coins circulated in antiquity and since." Yes, coins circulated. But the letter in question did not examine the evidence in a critical way. After all, the hoard evidence from Cyprus itself was wholly omitted. As I pointed out in my letter and in my oral commentary, the hoard evidence, which deals primarily with the Cypriot coinage of the Hellenistic period, shows a remarkably greater proportion of Cypriot coins in Cypriot hoards in comparison with the foreign hoards. I cited eight hoards from Cyprus recorded in IGCH. In aggregate, coins of Cypriot type comprised 45% of the total of all hoards found in Cyprus. On the other hand, coins of Cypriot type, in aggregate, composed 9% of the foreign hoards mentioned in the other letter. That letter had a list of 33 hoards containing a total 3,662 coins, of which 313 are Cypriot. The much smaller number of eight hoards from Cyprus totaled 2,878 coins, 1,303 of which are Cypriot. The evidence indicates that Greek Cypriot coins are much more prominent in Cyprus than outside of Cyprus.

Finally, I addressed the Roman provincial coinage in Cyprus. The authoritative study on this series is D. Parks, The Roman Coinage of Cyprus (Nicosia, 2005). One chapter, "Circulation of Cypriot and Imported Coinage in Cyprus" (pp. 137-162), examines Cypriot coins from a number of sources and provides ample evidence that Roman coins of Cypriot type circulated abundantly on the island and less frequently outside of it. The current designated list only includes coins until c. AD 235. As there are also Cypriot coins of Byzantine and Venetian type, it was suggested that these be added to any renewal.

Two other numismatists, distinguished in their areas of expertise, provided testimony in support of the extension of the MOU and the continued protection of coins.

I expect that a summary of the public hearing will soon be posted on the website of the Archaeological Institute of America by someone who attended the meeting. Summaries of the public hearings in November on Belize and Bulgaria can be found here.

Decision Rendered in ACCG FOIA Suit Against U.S. Department of State

The litigious measures of the ACCG, and particularly its FOIA lawsuit against the Department of State with co-plaintiffs IAPN and PNG, have come up in discussion on this website before. A decision was delivered last Friday. David Gill delivered the first public comments (see "The ACCG, IAPN, and PNG FOIA Case: Opinion Delivered", 24 November 2009, Looting Matters). Gill's latest PR Newswire article brings further attention to the decision:

SWANSEA, Wales, Nov. 27 /PRNewswire/ -- David Gill, archaeologist, reflects on the outcome of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) related case brought against the US Department of State by two numismatic trade bodies and a collector advocacy group.

Two numismatic trade bodies, the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) and the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG), and a collector advocacy group, the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG), had made a series of eight FOIA requests relating to the import restrictions on ancient coins from three specific areas: China, Cyprus, and Italy. The searches produced some 128 documents; 70 were released in full, and 39 in part.

In November 2007, the three groups (ACCG, IAPN, PNG) filed suit for the release of the remaining material. The action was taken because, according to the ACCG, the three bodies felt that "the State Department [had] recently imposed unprecedented import restrictions on ancient coins from Cyprus."

The restrictions on coins and other archaeological material had been put in place as part of a suite of measures to try and reduce the problem of looting. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Cyprus was praised by Dr. Pavlos Flourentzos, the then-director of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus. He had been keen to include coins as part of the MOU. In a December 2007 interview for SAFE (Saving Antiquities for Everyone), Flourentzos noted, "there is no scientific reason to set coins apart from the rest of archaeological finds." He also stressed that the MOU "shows sensitivity to the importance of preserving world cultural heritage, a principle highly esteemed by the international scientific community."

The lawsuit has now come to a conclusion with the issuing of a memorandum by Judge Richard J. Leon on November 20, 2009. Leon concluded that the State Department had "conducted a reasonable search" and that "it properly withheld the disputed information under FOIA exemptions."

The three plaintiffs are now said to be considering an appeal. The ACCG is also planning to bring a test case apparently linked to import restrictions. In April this year, the ACCG had tried to import ancient coins from China and Cyprus through Baltimore Airport without the appropriate paperwork.

It would appear that the ACCG had intended to keep the decision quiet until determining how to react since no comment came from them until immediately after Gill publicized the ruling. Shortly thereafter, the ACCG made a press release, apparently authored by Executive Director Wayne Sayles, which includes some interesting spins ("Ruling in FOIA Case Condones DOS Intransigence"). Gill has provided further discussion ("'This litigation was in many ways a win for the plaintiffs': The ACCG Responds to FOIA Decision").

Also of interest is the tenor and reasoning of comments made by Dave Welsh (Chair of the ACCG's International Affairs Committee) on the decision ("FOIA Case Ruling", 25 November 2009, Unidroit).

The judge's opinion memorandum is publicly available (download here). The judge's comments provide insight into the sorts of documents that the ACCG and its co-plaintiffs were trying to obtain, but which the government determined were included in FOIA exemptions. Such material includes private emails sent by members of the general public in regard to the MoU:

The State Department further points out that, contrary to the plaintiffs' assertion, the information in question here-certain emails sent by members of the private sector in connection with the Act and certain materials from the Bureau submitted to the committee-was provided in confidence. (Grafeld Decl. at 38, 54, 60, 72.) Specifically, the Grafeld Declaration states that the information was provided in confidence to either the State Department staff or to the advisory committee, often by archaeologists, curators, collectors, dealers, and auction house specialists, with the expectation of confidence. (Id.) Such confidence was necessary in order for individuals to disclose information about the quantity, quality, and objects of looting. (Id.). The Government thus properly withheld the information under exemption (b)(3). See 19 U.S.c. §§ 2605(i)(l)-(2).

It also appears that the dealer lobby was curious to uncover the identity of State Department employees and law enforcers involved in the enforcement bilateral agreements and import restrictions:

The Government also withheld portions of two documents under exemption (b )(7)(C), which exempts information compiled for law enforcement purposes that "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C). Specifically, the State Department withheld names, email addresses, and telephone and fax numbers of low-level employees included in a chain of emails created as part of law enforcement efforts to implement and enforce cultural property restrictions. I I (Def.'s Mot. at 9.) Given the individuals' strong privacy interest in their identifying information and the weak public interest in identifying information of low-level employees, the Court concludes that the State Department properly withheld the identifying information. See Lesar v. Us. Dep 't of Justice, 636 F.2d 472,487 (D.C. Cir. 1980); (see also Grafeld Decl. 42-44).

Lobbyist Celebrates "Collectors' Rights" Victory in Bulgaria, but What About the Continuous Destruction?

A Washington lobbyist and former of president of the American dealer lobby has recently celebrated a court ruling in Bulgaria which makes it easier for Bulgarian citizens to own looted minor antiquities.

Astute collectors however recognize that the ruling does not lessen the scale of destruction and the resulting loss of knowledge that is taking place in Eastern European countries like Bulgaria. One collector remarked:

"This change may be a victory for collectors, but I don't see that it has any impact on the looting problem.

It seems that Bulgarian collectors will be able to keep and 'legitimize' their collections (which in turn may then be eligible for legal export and sale?). But the provenance will be 'so-and-so's collection' as opposed to anything useful....

Of course, I would love to see a PAS-type system there [Bulgaria] in the future, but the first priority with a dying patient is to stop the bleeding."

Many collectors like this one realize that large scale demand and unconcerned attitudes in the acquisition of objects for resale drive the loss of knowledge caused by looting. After all, the U.S. is a market nation which imports looted material from countries like Bulgaria by the ton. Even in collector magazines, collectors have written editorials begging that something be done and proposing ways that collectors and dealers might address how market activities contribute to the problems and work on remedies. But these individuals, their concerns, and their ideas are often dismissed or ignored.

Why is the commercial lobby, which claims to be "anti-looting," unwilling to acknowledge or address the problem and the way that the current market structure contributes to it? If, as its titulature suggests, it caters to a collector interest, why are the concerns of conscientious collectors not being addressed?

I suggest that the archaeological community ought to distinguish better between collector and commercial. It ought to embrace that element which acquires objects out of a passion for history and a love of learning. The consumers are concerned and, if they feel empowered to do so, can be agents of proactive change. Others are content with a detrimental status quo.

"Why are ancient coins from Cyprus featured in a suit against the US Department of State?"

The systematic destruction of historical sites, and the knowledge that is lost with it, is a growing global problem that few would deny. In recent years there have been positive developments; for example, many museums have adopted more stringent acquisitions policies to diminish the role that their institutions play in this destructive process by purchasing recently surfaced antiquities. There are, however, a minority of vociferous naysayers - outside of the museum or archaeological community - who pretend looting is not a problem and assert that trade members (i.e. dealers or collectors) should not be held to or practice any due diligence standards. It goes without saying that this mentality maintains a detrimental status quo.

In 2007 in response to the bilateral agreement on import restrictions with Cyprus and the United States in which undocumented ancient coins of certain Cypriot type were included, the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN), the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG), and the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) sued the United States Department of State under the Freedom of Information Act, alleging a lack of transparency in the decision to include coins. The IAPN, which caters to an international constituency, and the PNG are both dealer groups. On the other hand, the ACCG claims to be a collector's advocacy group, although its biggest financial contributors appear to be dealerships and auction houses. Furthermore, all of the ACCG's leading officers listed on its website are also dealers or former dealers, save one lobbyist who has also received money from the IAPN and PNG to lobby on behalf of dealer interests. Recently, the ACCG staged the import and seizure of restricted coins (without documentation) in order to force a legal battle as part of a coordinated strategy to undermine and overthrow import restrictions, which negatively affect the interests of its constituencies.

In light of the changing attitudes with regards to personal responsibility in looting issues, one naturally asks the question of why certain attitudes are not changing. Could it be that for certain people, their own commercial and self interests override a genuine concern for ethical practice, international law, and the incomprehensible loss of knowledge that takes place as a consequence of their own activities which actively encourage a market for loot?

Today the PR Newswire is carrying an article ("Why are ancient coins from Cyprus featured in a suit against the US Department of State?") by David Gill, an archaeologist and authority on looting issues, in which he considers the impetus for the ACCG's aggressive legal action. It reads:

Swansea, Wales, UK, June 25 2009 – David Gill, archaeologist, considers the recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit on the US Department of State.

The FOIA suit was served in November 2007 by three numismatic organizations; one of the three is based in Brussels, Belgium. 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). CPAC was responding to concerns by the Government of Cyprus that the illicit searching for ancient objects (including coins) was destroying the archaeological heritage of the Mediterranean island. CPAC states, "The MOU offers the opportunity for the U.S. and Cyprus to cooperate in reducing the incentive for further pillage thereby protecting the context of intact sites for scientific study."

Coin collectors were also concerned about the 2009 MOU with China. This agreement also restricted the import of certain categories of coins.

As a result, one of the three numismatic organizations decided to test the resolve of the US Department of State in April 2009 by attempting to import a small number of coins from Cyprus and China in defiance of the newly established laws. These items were detained when their flight from London touched down in Baltimore.

Are these aggressive legal tactics really for the benefit of collectors, or are there other factors at work?

I strongly recommend reading David Gill's full discussion at Looting Matters: "Antiquities, ancient coins and changing attitudes in North America."

(Photo from Standartnews.com: A large shipment of freshly looted coins from Bulgaria destined for German market, an important transit country for the international market in looted antiquities)

Update: Unrecorded and Freshly Dug British Coins Sold in the USA

My previous post, "Having Cake and Eating it too: Unrecorded and Freshly Dug Coins Sold in the USA," prompted further remarks by archaeologist bloggers David Gill and Paul Barford and also caught the attention of Roger Bland, Head of Britain's Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS).

PAS officials and employees contacted the two sellers named in the previous post to seek details on the unrecorded ancient coins from Britain being sold in the United States. It also contacted the ACCG, the dealer lobby group which consistently points to the PAS as the only reasonable solution to looting.

In response to the inquiry by the PAS, seller Tony Jaworksi of Common Bronze indicated that the British coins he is selling were procured from a large number of detectorists (some actual collectors and some not) and assumes that they were accumulated over a year or more. He does not have any knowledge as to whether the coins were recorded under the PAS or not. He did not obtain an export license and stated he was unaware of the need for one.

Seller Joe Blazick still has not yet responded to the PAS' inquiry.

It appears that the PAS' contact with the ACCG may have been the impetus for Peter Tompa's post on the subject, with links to export requirements in the UK - something which one hopes future sellers will take more note of in the future when selling recent coin finds from Britain. Tompa agrees that information should be preserved, but disagrees with the "tone" of my original post. By "tone" Mr. Tompa must be referring to the questions I posed which the dealer lobby does not wish to answer or engage with:

"However enlightened they may be, schemes like the PAS are not effective deterrents against systematic looting for commercial gain unless collectors and dealers are willing to hold their suppliers legally and ethically accountable. So who are the collectors and dealers buying these coins from British metal detectorists who do not record their finds? If the PAS is to be touted as a way forward in other countries, why are not the antiquities dealers who favor the scheme actively denouncing this behavior within their own ranks? Why are list owners allowing commercial advertisements of material that is not being recorded when there are schemes such as the PAS in place? The indiscriminate market is the driving force behind looting; ethical dealers should conduct greater due diligence and hold suppliers to high standards. Conscientious consumers and collectors are the only real solution to the looting problem."

One of the ACCG's newest active devotees, John Hooker, - collector and author of the recent series of uninformed inculcations appearing on the ACCG website under the somewhat presumptuous title of "The Hooker Papers" (some discussion here) - was more bold, having simply dismissed concern over the British coins as "amusing" while inventing a number of scenarios whereby the coins in question were too insignificant to record. Of course, since the coins were taken out of Britain without any record, it is impossible to know how useful the coins may have been for the historical and archaeological record. Let us hope that Mr. Hooker's resentment for the need to record finds in Britain does not reflect wider views in the ancient coin collecting community in North America. After all, the scheme is meant to preserve information that would otherwise be destroyed by commercial or self-interest. If, as the ACCG has constantly argued, the PAS is the perfect solution to the looting problem, then why make excuses for profiteering that does not take the time to record finds when the PAS is available?

The ancient coin collecting and dealing communities are very small indeed and various classes of dealers and suppliers often have close personal and business relationships. Sellers like those discussed, and their suppliers, will no doubt have conducted business with dealers and/or collectors associated with the ACCG. The advertisements for uncleaned coins and unrecorded British finds were made on lists owned and/or moderated by ACCG members. Should not the ACCG be expending more energy on establishing proactive market guidelines and due diligence practices that address the negative effects of an indiscriminate market than it does on vilifying archaeologists and concocting disinformation to argue to the public that ancient coins are not archaeologically significant objects even when excavated in situ?

While touting the potential of the PAS as a model for other "source countries," the ACCG leadership resists promoting or advocating due diligence by dealers and collectors. Schemes like the PAS could preserve much information that is otherwise lost by casual hobbyists, but information continues to be lost so long as consumers (i.e. dealers and collectors) are not holding their suppliers (especially bulk suppliers) accountable. Indeed, some PAS officials have expressed irritation and dismay at the way the dealer lobby has used the PAS in its agenda.

Is it time to practice what is being preached?

Ancient Coin Traffickers Sentenced in Germany

A few months ago, there was mass concern among German ancient coin collectors about media reports on the seizure of ancient coins and antiquities from private collections. Seizures were being made because certain objects had been illicitly sold and acquired (for a balanced article, see “Vorsicht, Erdfrisch!,” Focus, 20 April 2009 [discussed by P. Barford here]. There continues to be some concern among German collectors, but steps are being taken to promote an equitable dialogue between collectors, archaeologists, and law enforcement in the BRD about the need for some changes in market structure and buying/selling practices.

In the United States, the dealer lobby exploited and misrepresented the news of seizures in Germany in order to promote their own agenda and urge American collectors to contribute to their lobbying efforts (see discussion in "Police Action with Antiquities and Ancient Coins in Germany: Some Clarifications and a Call for Reason").

In various online discussion lists and blogs, leaders and members of the dealer lobby painted an alarmist view of rampaging German police going door-to-door, singling out ancient coin collectors and taking their coins away. One of the American ancient coin dealer lobby leaders, Dave Welsh, who has been decorated by the group (discussion here and here), went so far as to advertise the insensitive comparison that one irate German dealer made between the actions of German police officers in these cases to that of the Nazi Gestapo. Welsh also made personal attacks on a German law enforcement officer. This ACCG leader is well-known for dismissively portraying archaeologists and preservation advocates as Nazis rather than addressing the issues (e.g. discussion here). Another dealer and honoree of the dealer lobby accepted skewed versions of the events presented to American collectors and added:

"I'm not shocked or surprised to see this happening with China which is a communist (and therefore statist and totalitarian regime) government do this, for their government it is par for the course. Nor am I shocked that it is happening in Germany because they have flirted with fascism and gone back and forth with mild forms of socialism over the years. But it is still disturbing nonetheless because of the precedent it sets for other governments to follow, they can point to Germany now and say, 'they do it, why not us?'" [emphasis added].

And we all know what he means here as "German fascism" is shorthand for "Nazism."

Following such alarmist discussions, which one can only view as sad, but laughable, symptoms of wider right-wing American political tactics today, the dealer lobby’s Executive Director sought to exploit collector fear by plugging ACCG membership and asking for financial support.

In spite of the speculation and fear-mongering that has surrounded the events in Germany, one enlightening case has been prosecuted in Germany successfully. On 14 May 2009, it was reported that two people were prosecuted and sentenced in Germany for trafficking in stolen (illicitly imported/exported) ancient coins and details on the events that led to the conviction were provided ("Eine gute Lösung für politisch brisanten Fall," Oberhessische Zeitung).

In March 2008, the home of a 68 year-old woman and her 45 year-old son was raided by police with a search warrant for stolen coins and antiquities. Coins were seized and determined to have come from the Black Sea region, circulating in the Bosporan Kingdom in the area of the modern Ukraine. The market value of the coins was about € 40,000 (c. $56,000). Other coins had previously been sold by the two to dealerships and auction houses in Munich (labeled "Bavarian dealers" in the published report) and known sales were in the neighborhood of € 70,000 (c. $94,000). Let us keep in mind that large auction houses of the sort in Munich are what are typically viewed by the ancient coin collecting and dealing communities as "reputable sources." They were working with suppliers who were importing illegally from source countries and selling stolen property.

Police investigation of the two individuals began when the 45 year-old Russian man was stopped by police in December 2006 while driving erratically on the Autobahn. At that time police found several parcels of ancient coins in plastic bags, wrapped in black tape. The composition of the coins being transported at that time were similar to those confiscated in March 2008.

According to the article, study of the coin types indicates they circulated in the area of the modern Ukraine, while other circumstances appear to indicate that they compose part of a small museum collection that was likely hidden during the Second World War. In any case, the coins were illegally spirited out of the Ukraine to supply the inventories of western dealers and collectors.

Instead of obfuscatory and ignorant fear-mongering, is it not time that collectors and dealers ask questions of their suppliers and the circumstances surrounding the recent history of those objects? Can groups like the American ancient coin dealer lobby (ACCG) continue denouncing archaeologists and law enforcement while arguing against the value of context only to promote self- and commercial interests? Is a wholesale lack of concern for the physical destruction of history and the disdain for scientific inquiry and international law really a viable position? Will the ACCG laud the successful efforts of German law enforcement for stopping these criminals? Or will this case, like others before it, be misrepresented to further the ACCG’s agenda in working to maintain an indiscriminate and unconcerned market that thrives on loot, back-door dealing, and secrecy?

Having Cake and Eating it too: Unrecorded and Freshly Dug British Coins Sold in the USA

Over the past several days I have taken note of some bulk lots of ancient coins offered for sale. Bulk lots of fresh uncleaned coins from the Balkan or "Holy Land" regions are commonly sold on internet venues like eBay and VCoins. Often times these bulk lots contain hundreds or even thousands of coins and represent the "leftovers" of the material that suppliers could not get mid-range and upper-range ancient coin dealers to buy from them (I have discussed the ancient coin trade structure before: e.g. here and here).

Clearly, much of this material has been looted and illegally exported (smuggled) into the United States and other consumer nations. Leaders of the ancient coin dealer lobby and some of its members flatly dismiss the legal and ethical concerns about the wholesale destruction of information that these bulk lots represent, instead blaming the "repressive laws of source countries" which they assert are the real cause for looting – not an indiscriminate market demand. Part of the dealer lobby’s rhetoric includes pointing to "enlightened schemes" such as the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) in Great Britain as a solution.

I agree that schemes like the PAS could help preserve information in many countries if properly used and adhered to, but I feel that the dealer lobby and some of its hangers-on misunderstand and/or misrepresent the issues in the way that they champion the PAS scheme. As I and other commentators have pointed out multiple times, schemes like the PAS are not effective solutions against systematic looting as long as dealers and collectors refuse to conduct any degree of due diligence. The PAS, designed for casual metal detector finds from the topsoil, is a voluntary scheme in which metal detectorists report finds to be recorded in a public database for scholarly research. It is not a license to loot systematically in order to provide masses of material for market consumption.

Within just four days, two separate dealers in the United States advertised freshly dug ancient coins from Britain for sale via the Uncleaned Ancient Coins (UAC) discussion list. The first was advertised by bulk ancient coin seller Joe Blazick on 11 May 2009, who wrote:

"I am selling this lot of English Dugups for $150 for the lot shiped.A few can be cleaned to make them a lot better.Lots of large coins as you can seen in the scan." [unedited text - photo of lot to the left]

Just a few days later, on 14 May 2009, Tony Jaworski of Common Bronze, a dealership which sells huge volumes of uncleaned ancient coins from a number of source countries, wrote in a message entitled "Speaking of British coins…":

"We happen to have a fresh lot from England…here was the little blurb that we shared with our customers when they first arrived.

These coins are straight from multiple detectorist’s in England. My guy normally washes the coins something I told him not to do and he did not this time. So you are receiving the coins as I did and as he did. This is about as close to finding them yourself as I have been able to find. These coins are from a group that was detecting in the Suffolk East England area. So we are clear, they have come from a group of guys who detect for anything (some are collectors some are not). Each guy handles the coins a little differently so some look like the detector may have washed them some are literally as they came out of the ground.

They are all mostly Roman … but there is a chance you will get something that is medieval English or something else. They were not sorted as normal by my supplier! (I Think a huge plus).

Link to this lot: http://www.commonbronze.com/catalog/product_%20info.php?

In addition we have a new type of uncleaned coin … the Spanish found Arabic coins. Tom and I really don’t know anything about this type … just that they are new to us.

Link to this lot: http://www.commonbronze.com/catalog/product_%20info.php?" [also unedited text - photo of lot to the right]

It appears in both cases that none of these coins from Britain were recorded under the Portable Antiquities Scheme and were, therefore, found and are being sold without any record of their find spot. Absolutely all contextual information has been lost. British laws also appear to be broken since export licenses are required for all products of "excavation."

However enlightened they may be, schemes like the PAS are not effective deterrents against systematic looting for commercial gain unless collectors and dealers are willing to hold their suppliers legally and ethically accountable. So who are the collectors and dealers buying these coins from British metal detectorists who do not record their finds? If the PAS is to be touted as a way forward in other countries, why are not the antiquities dealers who favor the scheme actively denouncing this behavior within their own ranks? Why are list owners allowing commercial advertisements of material that is not being recorded when there are schemes such as the PAS in place? The indiscriminate market is the driving force behind looting; ethical dealers should conduct greater due diligence and hold suppliers to high standards. Conscientious consumers and collectors are the only real solution to the looting problem.

UPDATE: The sellers in question are apparently upset that attention has been called to the fact the British coin finds sold by them were not recorded under the PAS and that images of their bulk lots were shown here, even though they publicly posted these photos on the internet themselves. For the meantime, I have removed the photos here, but they can be viewed directly here and here.

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)