Congratulations to Cindy Ho, founder of Saving Antiquities for Everyone (SAFE), who will receive the 2016 Outstanding Public Service Award from the Archaeological Institute of America.
I became aware of SAFE back in 2007 when I began research on the illicit antiquities trade in response to some of the bizarre arguments I saw repeatedly deployed to defend it. Cindy was very encouraging of those early explorations . Cindy has done a great deal to raise popular awareness of the looting problem and is thus well-deserving of this distinction. As she might say, looting is not just a loss to archaeology and historical study, but it constitutes a loss to us all. The AIA's citation for Cindy's award states "For her prominent and dedicated work to raise public awareness of the need to safeguard archaeological heritage."
Showing posts with label Cultural Property. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cultural Property. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Friday, July 3, 2015
Archaeological and Numismatic Book Seized from Islamic-State Militants Identified
In June it was reported that Kurdish fighters had seized some equipment from Turkish Islamic State Fighters in Syria and that among those items were archaeological and numismatic books. One book showed images of Phoenician coins. The photos of that book were blurry and it was difficult to identify the resource.
The mystery is now solved as Ute Wartenberg Kagan, Executive Director of the American Numismatic Society, recognized the open page in the photograph as from an essay in a book she had used before: M. Sartre, "La Syrie sous la domination achéménide," in W. Orthmann and J.-M. Dentzer, Archéologie et Histoire de la Syrie II (Saarbrücken, 1989). Compare photographs of the book seized from the militants and the same example in the ANS library (see more images here).
In discussing the identification of the book, she concludes:
The mystery is now solved as Ute Wartenberg Kagan, Executive Director of the American Numismatic Society, recognized the open page in the photograph as from an essay in a book she had used before: M. Sartre, "La Syrie sous la domination achéménide," in W. Orthmann and J.-M. Dentzer, Archéologie et Histoire de la Syrie II (Saarbrücken, 1989). Compare photographs of the book seized from the militants and the same example in the ANS library (see more images here).
 |
| 'New documents unravel ISIS-Turkish state cooperation’ (c) Mehmet Nuri Ekinci, Ajansa Nûçeyan a Firatê (ANF), 3rd June 2015 |
 | ||
| The book in the ANS Library. |
In discussing the identification of the book, she concludes:
"For people interested in a general overview of coins from Syria, this book is indeed helpful. Articles by Christian Augé on “La monnaie en Syrie à l’époque hellénistique et romaine” (pp. 149–190, with four plates illustrating 71 coins) and by Cécile Morrisson (who won the ANS Huntington Medal in 1995) on “La monnaie en Syrie byzantine” provide excellent and well-illustrated introductions to the coins of this region. Her article gives a considerable amount of detailed scholarly information on site finds of coins in Syria."
"So this is an extremely unlikely find—a scholarly, not exactly inexpensive, and heavy—book on the archaeology of Syria in the hands of ISIS fighters. If anyone doubts the multifaceted connections between looted antiquities and war in Syria, this discovery has to make one wonder." (emphasis added)
Saturday, May 30, 2015
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Memorandum of Understanding with the Republic of Bulgaria Enacted, Coins Included in the Protective Measures
Bulgarian news agencies are reporting that the United States and the Republic of Bulgaria signed a Memorandum of Understanding to prevent the trafficking of looted and stolen cultural items.
Archaeologists, art historians, and academic numismatists had endorsed the MoU at the hearing of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee on 16 November 2011 (see here for a summary of comments). Commercial lobby groups in the United States and abroad have fought vigorously against the inclusion of ancient coins in Memoranda of Understanding. It is, therefore, notable that coins that primarily circulated in and are found in ancient Bulgaria are subject to protection.
The MoU with Bulgaria is momentous. This is the first Memorandum to protect some post-Classical coins as coins of the First Bulgarian Empire and Ottoman Empire are subject to restrictions. Most importantly, Bulgaria is one of the primary source countries for illicitly traded metal artifacts and ancient coins. Smuggled finds are imported and sold in the United States by the tens of thousands; the problem has been written about and studied extensively since the 1990s.
Bulgaria and the US signed on January 14 a memorandum of understanding on the protection of cultural heritage, meant to prevent the illicit trade of Bulgarian cultural heritage items and allow the return to Bulgaria of such items smuggled into the US.
The agreement was signed by US ambassador to Bulgaria Marcie B. Ries and Bulgaria’s Culture Minister Petar Stoyanovich at the National History Museum in Boyana.
The agreement authorises the US department of homeland security to prevent the import into the United States of Bulgarian cultural heritage items without a licence issued by the Bulgarian government and commits the US government to publish a list of prohibited items, which are to be seized unless the importer presents such a license.
The import restrictions will apply to a broad range of archaeological and religious items, as set forth in a designated list, to be published in the US Federal Register in the coming days, Ries said.
In addition to the import restrictions, the memorandum promotes further cooperation and information sharing between US and Bulgarian law-enforcement agencies.
“Of course this agreement will not eliminate the problem overnight. We recognise that and we also recognise that we must continue to work creatively together to preserve what we all recognise to be an invaluable cultural heritage. This agreement is of importance for its substance but also because it means more cooperation on a daily basis in the area of culture which is of importance to both Bulgarians and Americans,” Ries said.(From: "US, Bulgaria Sign Cultural Heritage Protection Memorandum," The Sofia Globe, January 14, 2014)
Archaeologists, art historians, and academic numismatists had endorsed the MoU at the hearing of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee on 16 November 2011 (see here for a summary of comments). Commercial lobby groups in the United States and abroad have fought vigorously against the inclusion of ancient coins in Memoranda of Understanding. It is, therefore, notable that coins that primarily circulated in and are found in ancient Bulgaria are subject to protection.
7. Coins – In copper, bronze, silver and gold. Many of the listed coins with inscriptions in Greek can be found in B. Head, Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Numismatics (London, 1911) and C.M. Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek Coins (London, 1976). Many of the Roman provincial mints in modern Bulgaria are covered in I. Varbanov, Greek Imperial Coins I: Dacia, Moesia Superior, Moesia Inferior (Bourgas, 2005), id., Greek Imperial Coins II: Thrace (from Abderato Pautalia) (Bourgas, 2005), id., Greek Imperial Coins III: Thrace (from Perinthus to Trajanopolis), Chersonesos Thraciae, Insula Thraciae, Macedonia (Bourgas 2007). A non-exclusive list of pre-Roman and Roman mints include Mesembria (modern Nesembar), Dionysopolis (Balchik), Marcianopolis (Devnya), Nicopolis ad Istrum (near Veliko Tarnovo), Odessus (Varna), Anchialus (Pomorie), Apollonia Pontica (Sozopol), Cabyle (Kabile), Deultum (Debelt), Nicopolis ad Nestum (Garmen), Pautalia (Kyustendil), Philippopolis (Plovdiv), Serdica (Sofia), and Augusta Traiana (Stara Zagora). Later coins may be found in A. Radushev and G. Zhekov, Catalogue of Bulgarian MedievalCoins IX-XV c. (Sofia 1999) and J.Youroukova and V. Penchev, Bulgarian Medieval Coins and Seals (Sofia 1990).a. Pre-monetary media of exchange including “arrow money,” bells, and bracelets. Approximate date: 13th century B.C. through 6th century B.C.b. Thracian and Hellenistic coins struck in gold, silver, and bronze by city-states and kingdoms that operated in the territory of the modern Bulgarian state. This designation includes official coinages of Greek-using city-states and kingdoms, Sycthian and Celtic coinage, and local imitations of official issues. Also included are Greek coins from nearby regions that are found in Bulgaria. Approximate date: 6th century BC through the 1st century B.C.c. Roman provincial coins – Locally produced coins usually struck in bronze or copper at mints in the territory of the modern state of Bulgaria. May also be silver, silver plate, or gold. Approximate date: 1st century BC through the 4th century A.D.d. Coinage of the First and Second Bulgarian Empires and Byzantine Empire – Struck in gold, silver, and bronze by Bulgarian and Byzantine emperors at mints within the modern state of Bulgaria. Approximate date: 4th century A.D. through A.D. 1396.e. Ottoman coins – Struck at mints within the modern state of Bulgaria. Approximate date: A.D. 1396 through A.D. 1750.
(From the designated list).
The MoU with Bulgaria is momentous. This is the first Memorandum to protect some post-Classical coins as coins of the First Bulgarian Empire and Ottoman Empire are subject to restrictions. Most importantly, Bulgaria is one of the primary source countries for illicitly traded metal artifacts and ancient coins. Smuggled finds are imported and sold in the United States by the tens of thousands; the problem has been written about and studied extensively since the 1990s.
Monday, March 25, 2013
ACCG Case Rejected by the Supreme Court
As an update to the previous post concerning ACCG's ongoing litigation against U.S. law enforcement agencies, it is worth noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has, as anticipated, rejected ACCG's case. Rick St. Hilaire provides a succinct description of the saga ("U.S. Supreme Court Rejects ACCG's Coin Case"). Attorney and lobbyist Peter Tompa hints at further litigious activities in an interview with Chasing Aphrodite.
Monday, March 4, 2013
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?
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?
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Ancient Coin Dealer Pleads Guilty to Attempted Possession of Stolen Coins
In January of this year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents seized three rare Greek coins from Arnold Peter Weiss, a partner of the ancient coin auction house Nomos AG, at the New York International Numismatic Convention. Agents were acting upon information that he told an undercover informant. In spite of the provenance information that had been supplied in a catalogue for an upcoming auction, he stated: "There's no paperwork. I know this is a fresh coin. This was dug up
a few years ago." The coins were alleged to have been looted in Italy. The three coins that were seized were worth an estimated $3 million on the market.
Today it was announced that Weiss has plead guilty to trying to sell coins that he thought were stolen, although they turned out to be high quality forgeries. The fact that they are forgeries was determined through the aid of a scanning electron microscope. The three coins remain property of the District Attorney's Office and will be destroyed.
As part of his plea agreement, Weiss must complete 70 hours of community service, pay a $3,000 fine, and "must author an article warning of the risks of dealing in coins of unknown or looted provenance for publication in a coin collection publication."
Below is a short bibliography on the trade in looted and unprovenanced ancient coins:
Beckmann, M. 1998. "Numismatics and the Antiquities Trade," The Celator 12 (5) 25-28.
Butcher, K. and D. Gill. 1990. "Mischievous Pastime or Historical Science?" Antiquity 64 (245): 946-950.
Center for the Study of Democracy. 2007. Organized Crime in Bulgaria: Markets and Trends. Sofia: Center for the Study of Democracy. Online available: http://pdc.ceu.hu/archive/00003706/01/organized_crime_markets_and_trends.pdf.
Dietrich, R. 2002. "Cultural Property on the Move - Legally, Illegally," International Journal of Cultural Property 11: 294-303.
Elkins, N.T. 2008. "A Survey of the Material and Intellectual Consequence of Trading in Undocumented Ancient Coins," Frankfurter elektronische Rundschau zur Altertumskunde 7: 1-13. Online available: http://www.fera-journal.eu.
Elkins, N.T. 2009. "Treasure Hunting 101 in America's Classrooms," Journal of Field Archaeology34.4: 481-489 with editorial introduction by M. M. Kersel and C. Luke.
Elkins, N.T. 2012. "The Trade in Fresh Supplies of Ancient Coins: Scale, Organization, and Politics," in P.K. Lazrus and A.W. Barker (eds.), All the King's Horses: Essays on the Impact of Looting and the Illicit Antiquities Trade on Our Knowledge of the Past. Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology Press. 91-107.
von Kaenel, H.-M. 1994. Die antike Numismatik und ihr Material. Schweizer Münzblätter 44 (173): 1-12.
von Kaenel, H.-M. 2009. "Coins in Context - A Personal Approach," in H.-M von Kaenel and F. Kemmers (eds.), Coins in Context 1: New Approaches for the Interpretation of Coin Finds. Mainz: von Zabern. Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 23. 9-24 (pp. 22-23 discuss the coin trade specifically).
Walker, A.S. 1977. "The Coin Market Versus the Numismatist, Archaeologist, and Art Historian," Journal of Field Archaeology 4: 253-258.
Witschonke, R. 2009. "Guest Editorial," The Celator 23 (1): 4,22.
Consultation with many of the works will reveal further bibliography.
And, of course, there has also been the series of editorials discussing ethics and practice in the past several issues of the American Numismatic Magazine.
UPDATE:(7/5/2012) Contrary to initial reports in the media, Safecorner is reporting that there is no court order for the destruction of the forgeries.
Today it was announced that Weiss has plead guilty to trying to sell coins that he thought were stolen, although they turned out to be high quality forgeries. The fact that they are forgeries was determined through the aid of a scanning electron microscope. The three coins remain property of the District Attorney's Office and will be destroyed.
As part of his plea agreement, Weiss must complete 70 hours of community service, pay a $3,000 fine, and "must author an article warning of the risks of dealing in coins of unknown or looted provenance for publication in a coin collection publication."
Below is a short bibliography on the trade in looted and unprovenanced ancient coins:
Beckmann, M. 1998. "Numismatics and the Antiquities Trade," The Celator 12 (5) 25-28.
Butcher, K. and D. Gill. 1990. "Mischievous Pastime or Historical Science?" Antiquity 64 (245): 946-950.
Center for the Study of Democracy. 2007. Organized Crime in Bulgaria: Markets and Trends. Sofia: Center for the Study of Democracy. Online available: http://pdc.ceu.hu/archive/00003706/01/organized_crime_markets_and_trends.pdf.
Dietrich, R. 2002. "Cultural Property on the Move - Legally, Illegally," International Journal of Cultural Property 11: 294-303.
Elkins, N.T. 2008. "A Survey of the Material and Intellectual Consequence of Trading in Undocumented Ancient Coins," Frankfurter elektronische Rundschau zur Altertumskunde 7: 1-13. Online available: http://www.fera-journal.eu.
Elkins, N.T. 2009. "Treasure Hunting 101 in America's Classrooms," Journal of Field Archaeology34.4: 481-489 with editorial introduction by M. M. Kersel and C. Luke.
Elkins, N.T. 2012. "The Trade in Fresh Supplies of Ancient Coins: Scale, Organization, and Politics," in P.K. Lazrus and A.W. Barker (eds.), All the King's Horses: Essays on the Impact of Looting and the Illicit Antiquities Trade on Our Knowledge of the Past. Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology Press. 91-107.
von Kaenel, H.-M. 1994. Die antike Numismatik und ihr Material. Schweizer Münzblätter 44 (173): 1-12.
von Kaenel, H.-M. 2009. "Coins in Context - A Personal Approach," in H.-M von Kaenel and F. Kemmers (eds.), Coins in Context 1: New Approaches for the Interpretation of Coin Finds. Mainz: von Zabern. Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 23. 9-24 (pp. 22-23 discuss the coin trade specifically).
Walker, A.S. 1977. "The Coin Market Versus the Numismatist, Archaeologist, and Art Historian," Journal of Field Archaeology 4: 253-258.
Witschonke, R. 2009. "Guest Editorial," The Celator 23 (1): 4,22.
Consultation with many of the works will reveal further bibliography.
And, of course, there has also been the series of editorials discussing ethics and practice in the past several issues of the American Numismatic Magazine.
UPDATE:(7/5/2012) Contrary to initial reports in the media, Safecorner is reporting that there is no court order for the destruction of the forgeries.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
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.
Monday, May 25, 2009
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:
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?
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?
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
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)
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Police Action with Antiquities and Ancient Coins in Germany: Some Clarifications and a Call for Reason
Over the past week I have been observing North American discussion lists about ancient coin collecting; last week it came to the attention of some of these groups that police action in Germany has involved the confiscation of certain private collections of ancient coins. Since American dealers and collectors have found out about these events, there has been little reason in the ensuing discussions or little desire to understand the issues or circumstances involved. On the other hand, there has been ample amounts of speculation and some of the more outspoken dealers leading the dealer lobby in the United States (ACCG) have returned to familiar alarmist tactics to recruit more supporters. The discussions on the lists are not currently presenting a very balanced view of the actual situation in Germany, nor is reason prevailing. Therefore, I should like to take the opportunity to make some rather important clarifications. I feel I am able to provide such clarifications since I am currently living and working in Germany, I have personally met and had discussions with some of the law enforcement officers involved in these seizures, and I have heard some of their presentations about their work at cultural heritage protection conferences and workshops.
1) The current discussion in the United States is painting the picture of police going door to door, seizing any ancient coin collection they come across. This is pure Panikmache (fear-mongering). The seizures are being made with lawful cause.
2) Some have asserted that the new German ordinance of 15 October 2008, "Verordnung über das Verzeichnis wertvollen Kulturgutes nach demKulturgüterrückgabegesetz," is responsible for the seizures. This is false. In fact, seizures have regularly been made well before the enactment of this ordinance (see below, point 4, for the legal basis).
3) Rogue German police are not making the seizures, but some Police Arbeitsgemeinschaften within the structure of Germany's federal states are charged with investigating and enforcing laws related to looting and antiquities crimes. Sales of antiquities and ancient coins are monitored for goods that are clearly stolen or looted in Germany or are looted in foreign countries (e.g. Balkan countries) and smuggled into Germany and sold. In addition to antiquities sales monitoring, the police have also caught several metal detectorists who are illegally operating in Germany and selling their goods.
4) Police investigations and actions also include the recovery of stolen goods and so this is where the seizure of certain private collections has come in. Once a dealer or smuggler has been identified selling stolen goods, police have the duty to recover that stolen property. This is done through a German law (§ 259 StGb) that is very similar to our National Stolen Property Act in the U.S., whereby it is illegal to handle or buy stolen property (knowingly or unknowingly). Pertinent to archaeological goods, see also § 929 and § 932. In one recent article, M. Müller-Karpe discusses how these laws work in relation to antiquities sales ("Dekontextualisierung in der Archäologie." In: Das Denkmal als Fragment - das Fragment als Denkmal. Denkmale also Attraktion. Jahrestagung der Vereinigung der Landesdenkmalpfleger (VdL) und des Verbandes der Landesarchäologen (VLA) und 75. Tag für Denkmalpflege 10.-13. Juni 2007 in Esslingen am Neckar. Arbeitsheft 21, Regierungspräsidium Stuttgart, Landesamt für Denkmalpflege (Stuttgart 2008), 443-451).
5) Müller-Karpe, cited above, argues that buyers of antiquities should know that virtually everything on the market is stolen and looted. However, it is my impression that although stolen property ought to be recovered, criminal charges are not filed unless the receiver of stolen goods is aware that the goods are in fact stolen. In any case, this does not mean that the buyer is entitled to retain stolen goods.
6) Ancient coin collectors are not being singled out. Other antiquities have also been seized. I recall seeing a presentation in November by one police officer who showed photographs from a house that was searched following the sale of suspect items on the internet. Every room in the house was filled with antiquities (pottery and metal objects) on shelves stacked to the ceilings. Investigations determined he operated illegally as a metal detector and looted locally to fill his collection. It was also discovered he looted abroad while vacationing in different European countries.
7) Seizures are not restricted to ancient coins or antiquities. Under the law cited above, any stolen goods are subject to seizure and the receiver may face criminal charges dependent on the circumstances (i.e. whether or not the intent was to buy stolen goods). This means that if someone buys a car stereo at a flea market and the police determine the seller in fencing stolen goods, the police will confiscate the stolen stereos that were sold by this individual. There is no doubt that other Police Arbeitsgemeinschaften are responsible for investigating and recovering other types of stolen property.
While I understand the frustration of private collectors in light of these events, it does highlight the need for some standard due diligence processes so that the inventories of indiscriminate dealers are not stocked with looted material and so that collectors do not end up paying the price. The recent statement from the Deutsche Numismatische Gesellschaft does include the recommendation that collectors conduct greater due diligence in buying ancient coins and maintain records for their purchases:
1) The current discussion in the United States is painting the picture of police going door to door, seizing any ancient coin collection they come across. This is pure Panikmache (fear-mongering). The seizures are being made with lawful cause.
2) Some have asserted that the new German ordinance of 15 October 2008, "Verordnung über das Verzeichnis wertvollen Kulturgutes nach demKulturgüterrückgabegesetz," is responsible for the seizures. This is false. In fact, seizures have regularly been made well before the enactment of this ordinance (see below, point 4, for the legal basis).
3) Rogue German police are not making the seizures, but some Police Arbeitsgemeinschaften within the structure of Germany's federal states are charged with investigating and enforcing laws related to looting and antiquities crimes. Sales of antiquities and ancient coins are monitored for goods that are clearly stolen or looted in Germany or are looted in foreign countries (e.g. Balkan countries) and smuggled into Germany and sold. In addition to antiquities sales monitoring, the police have also caught several metal detectorists who are illegally operating in Germany and selling their goods.
4) Police investigations and actions also include the recovery of stolen goods and so this is where the seizure of certain private collections has come in. Once a dealer or smuggler has been identified selling stolen goods, police have the duty to recover that stolen property. This is done through a German law (§ 259 StGb) that is very similar to our National Stolen Property Act in the U.S., whereby it is illegal to handle or buy stolen property (knowingly or unknowingly). Pertinent to archaeological goods, see also § 929 and § 932. In one recent article, M. Müller-Karpe discusses how these laws work in relation to antiquities sales ("Dekontextualisierung in der Archäologie." In: Das Denkmal als Fragment - das Fragment als Denkmal. Denkmale also Attraktion. Jahrestagung der Vereinigung der Landesdenkmalpfleger (VdL) und des Verbandes der Landesarchäologen (VLA) und 75. Tag für Denkmalpflege 10.-13. Juni 2007 in Esslingen am Neckar. Arbeitsheft 21, Regierungspräsidium Stuttgart, Landesamt für Denkmalpflege (Stuttgart 2008), 443-451).
5) Müller-Karpe, cited above, argues that buyers of antiquities should know that virtually everything on the market is stolen and looted. However, it is my impression that although stolen property ought to be recovered, criminal charges are not filed unless the receiver of stolen goods is aware that the goods are in fact stolen. In any case, this does not mean that the buyer is entitled to retain stolen goods.
6) Ancient coin collectors are not being singled out. Other antiquities have also been seized. I recall seeing a presentation in November by one police officer who showed photographs from a house that was searched following the sale of suspect items on the internet. Every room in the house was filled with antiquities (pottery and metal objects) on shelves stacked to the ceilings. Investigations determined he operated illegally as a metal detector and looted locally to fill his collection. It was also discovered he looted abroad while vacationing in different European countries.
7) Seizures are not restricted to ancient coins or antiquities. Under the law cited above, any stolen goods are subject to seizure and the receiver may face criminal charges dependent on the circumstances (i.e. whether or not the intent was to buy stolen goods). This means that if someone buys a car stereo at a flea market and the police determine the seller in fencing stolen goods, the police will confiscate the stolen stereos that were sold by this individual. There is no doubt that other Police Arbeitsgemeinschaften are responsible for investigating and recovering other types of stolen property.
While I understand the frustration of private collectors in light of these events, it does highlight the need for some standard due diligence processes so that the inventories of indiscriminate dealers are not stocked with looted material and so that collectors do not end up paying the price. The recent statement from the Deutsche Numismatische Gesellschaft does include the recommendation that collectors conduct greater due diligence in buying ancient coins and maintain records for their purchases:
"Das Sammeln antiker, mittelalterlicher und neuzeitlicher Münzen und Medaillen sowie von Papiergeld ist nicht strafwürdig. Ein Herkunftsnachweis für die einzelne Münze ist nicht vorgeschrieben. Dennoch fordern wir unsere Sammler auf, mehr als bisher die Herkunft ihrer Münzen zu dokumentieren, auch wenn sie diese bei Sammlerbörsen oder an anderer Stelle erworben haben bzw. erwerben."
German police are working within their job description and are enforcing the law as related to their special assignments and their criminal investigation divisions. The receipt of any stolen material is subject to confiscation. These events should not be exploited by certain dealers in the U.S. simply to recruit supporters and raise funds for their own lobbying activities, but rather should be viewed as both a lesson and an opportunity. Stolen and looted material easily makes its way into the antiquities and ancient coin market since there is a general lack of due diligence and regulation. It has been demonstrated over and over how easily it is for looted and stolen ancient coins to make their way to dealer inventories, auction houses, and ultimately the cabinets of collectors. If dealers are not practicing due diligence, then collectors unfortunately may pay the price as these private internet sales are the most traceable. Some dealers routinely fill their inventories by purchasing from "wholesalers" who import looted material directly from source countries and this sort of "back door dealing" is simply not as traceable as everyday internet transactions. Good for the dealer who buys from these people, but bad for the collector who buys the wholesaler's leftovers on eBay. Collectors are, therefore, more likely to suffer than your average dealership or auction house that quietly buys from suspect wholesalers and suppliers. When it comes to both law and ethics, "good faith" is simply not a substitute for due diligence. It is up to collectors to demand greater transparency and due diligence from dealers and/or to be more vigilant about the coins they choose to buy for themselves and where they are coming from. These events provide an opportunity for dialogue about how collectors can avoid buying recently looted and stolen goods and how they can insist on change in the current state of the "no questions asked" market. Consumers have the power to change the way the market operates.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Italy Returns Thousands of Looted Coins to Bulgaria: Is there a Connection to Past Criminal Activities?
On Friday, 9 January 2009, the SofiaEcho reported that about 3,800 coins smuggled into Verona, Italy from Bulgaria were seized in 2005 and will be soon returned to their country of origin. Four Bulgarians were detained in Verona and have been deported; they are expected to be tried according to the law. The report also states that the coins may have been smuggled by the same gang that robbed the Veliko Turnovo museum in 2006. The full text of the article reads:"Bulgaria will receive back from Italy close to 3800 antique coins and other archaeological objects, smuggled into the country in 2005, Bozhidar Dimitrov, director of the National History Museum said, quoted by Bulgarian language Sega daily on January 9 2009.
The significant part of the valuables consists of silver and bronze Roman and Byzantine coins, which experts have valued at around 35000 euro, Sega daily said.
Four Bulgarians have been detained in Verona, Italy, for trying to sell the objects. They have been deported to Bulgaria and will be tried in accordance with local legislature.
Dimitrov has said that the authorities suspect that the coins could have been smuggled out of the country by the same criminal group that committed the robbery at the Veliko Turnovo museum in February 2006.
At that time more than 10 000 golden, silver and bronze coins were stolen from the museum's numismatic fund. Among them were valuable coins dating back to the time of Alexander the Great. At the time police said that the robbery had been very well planned and that an insider might have helped."
The report is significant for a number of reasons. First of all it highlights the fact that Bulgaria continues to be a major source of ancient coins for the black market in ancient coins and antiquities and is a major supplier to indiscriminate dealers and collectors in Europe and North America. See some previous comments in my posts on "The Illicit Antiquities Trade in Bulgaria," "Der Handel mit antiken Münzen. Ausmaß and Netzwerke (The Trade in Ancient Coins: Scale and Networks)," "Archaeology Magazine's 'Under Threat' List Includes Bulgaria," and especially see my lecture "The Ancient Coin Trade in the USA: Scale and Structure" as well as Center for the Study of Democracy's 2007 report on Organized Crime in Bulgaria: Markets and Trends (Chapter 5, pp. 177-202, The Antiquities Trade - Dealers, Traffickers, and Connoisseurs). Secondly, it indicates that authorities suspect this incident may well be related to a previous robbery in which ancient coins were stolen from a Bulgarian museum, though the article from SofiaEcho does not name any specific suspects.
It is well known that Bulgaria, which forbids the unlicensed and unscientific excavation of antiquities and their export, is a major source for western markets. The report on Organized Crime in Bulgaria, cited with a link above, estimates that between 30 and 50 Bulgarian nationals living in Western Europe and the United States actively arrange for the shipment of mass quantities of these coins to market nations. Any collector, dealer, or scholar working with the ancient coin trade will also recognize that many of the bulk suppliers of ancient coins are Bulgarian. These "wholesalers" sell fresh supplies of ancient coins to both other dealers and collectors. Higher quality coins will be sold wholesale to other dealers while "cheaper" or more "common" material that is less valued by the market will be disposed of in bulk lots directly to collectors via eBay or VCoins. One commonly sees packages of a thousand or more "uncelaned coins" on places like eBay. It is not a very big secret. To some degree corruption in Bulgaria allows looters and smugglers to operate with relative impunity.
In 1999, Frankfurt customs officials intercepted a shipment of 60kg of ancient coins from Bulgaria, bound for a New York airport and ultimately to a New Jersey address, which had been falsely declared. Scholarly numismatists were called in to examine the shipment which contained about 20,000 coins. Some of the coins had been partially cleaned already and had been divided up according to their relative market value, with smaller and more common coins left dirtier. Research by these numismatists indicated that only a small fraction of this particular shipment would have sold for over €100,000 in the auction market. Investigation by Frankfurt customs officials showed that in the previous weeks and months the individual in question shipped approximately one metric ton (literally) of material through Frankfurt airport to the United States before this parcel was inspected. The individual in question is a known supplier and dealer of ancient coins in the United States.
One metric ton would be about 350,000 ancient coins. To put this in perspective the largest scholarly archive of ancient coin finds, Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschland, only inventories around 300,000 to 350,000 coins. These inventories have been published regularly since 1960 and represents the full time work of several scholars who inventory finds from old and new excavations, casual finds, hoards, and local collections. Essentially the individual in question smuggled as much in a very short amount of time as nearly 50 years of full time work cataloguing hundreds of archaeological and historically singificant sites in Germany. But of course, gangs of metal detectorists move much more quickly than archaeologists. Even the largest public collections of ancient coins in the world (e.g. the British Museum and the American Numismatic Society) contain around c. 350,000 coins. The level of destruction represented by this one wholesaler is ghastly. The individual in question is politically connected; in 1999 he was the brother of the Bulgarian Prosecutor General - who himself later faced corruption charges - and even though he had been arrested for antiquities crimes before he was never charged in this crime. For more discussion of these shipments in 1999, see R. Dietrich, "Cultural Property on the Move - Legally, Illegally," International Journal of Cultural Property 11.2 (2002) 294-304. Dietrich's article does not name the shipper/dealer, but refers to him as "Mr. B." which I will use henceforth.
Mr. B. is a known supplier of ancient coins to other dealers and he also sells in bulk via eBay. He is still very active today. His eBay storefronts include "Silenos" (10,431 positive feedback as of 22 April 2008 - each positive feedback represents a transaction with a unique buyer, i.e. at least 10,431 different people have purchased from him via eBay) and "S*P*Q*R" (3,019 feeback as of 22 April 2008). The dealership of "Silenos Coins" is also listed as coming soon on VCoins.com.
In 1999, shortly after the shipments were coming through Frankfurt, the Moneta-L discussion list referenced his activity, with some swooning over the booty he offered them. Mere months after the Frankfurt shipments, one of Mr. B.'s friends wrote on the Moneta-L list:
"List members,
There is a new source of uncleaned ancient coins and nice quality antiquities on eBay, to which I invite your attention. The "User ID" you use to do a "Seller" search on eBay is: "Silenos." This dealer is an old friend of mine, and has been wholesaling to the leading dealers in America and Europe for years, and has decided to enter the retail market on selected items. I personally vouch for the honesty and fairness of this individual. Give this company a try. You will be delighted!"
Another dealer then responds:
"Would that be [Mr. B.]?"
The friend who announced the "new source" replies to the dealer:
"Yes, but PLEASE don't advertise it. He wants to keep a low profile in dealing with the public. He is uncomfortable in doing so, and has hired a young lady to be the 'face to the public' on sales."
And then an unsuspecting collector tells us about one method this wholesaler was using to divide up the coins which were spirited out of Bulgaria in contravention to both law and ethics:
"I'd like to hear the answer to this onlist. [Mr. B.] had a booth at CICF [Chicago International Coin Fair] this year for the first time, and I had a chance to meet him. He wasn't retailing at his booth, he was selling strictly wholesale. I found myself drawn to his bags of late Roman bronze and bought them the only way I could - a handful at a time. Very pretty stuff. By mid afternoon of the second day of the show all his LRB were gone. If he is going retail, I hope he keeps one foot in the wholesale door. Maybe you can convince him he doesn't need the customer relations hassles that come with retail."
It is clear that the mass quantities of coins smuggled out of Bulgaria through Frankfurt airport to the United States by Mr. B. were sold directly to other dealers and collectors. But what does this have do with the recent announcement about the coins seized in Verona? Nothing is certain since the article by SofiaEcho does not name the individuals involved, but the report did tell us that "...the authorities suspect that the coins could have been smuggled out of the country by the same criminal group that committed the robbery at the Veliko Turnovo museum in February 2006." In addition to Dietrich's article, the above cited and linked report on Organized Crime in Bulgaria: Markets and Trends discusses the coins that Mr. B. sent through Frankfurt airport in March 1999 (but note it states his address has been in Florida for several years; this may be an error since his address at the time of the 1999 shipment was in New Jersey and appears to have been such even later). The report indicates further that Mr. B. may have been involved in the Veliko Turnovo museum case. Page 186 of the report provides a citation and states:
"The online news agency Mediapool announced that the name of [Mr. B.], who has been living in Florida for several years already, was found under an internet offer selling coins, supposedly part of those stolen in the notorious Veliko Tarnovo museum robbery."
Is Mr. B., who still acts as a supplier to other dealers and sells directly to collectors, involved with the case of the recent seizure of coins in Verona? It seems according to the report he was/is a suspect in the Veliko Tarnovo museum case and apparently authorities believe the recent seizure of coins in Verona is related.
Whatever the case, perhaps the most important question is whether or not dealers and collectors are really comfortable stocking their inventories and coin cabinets from wholesalers such as this who are brazenly violating international laws and unethically sponsoring the systematic destruction of our past and the knowledge that goes along with it. Greater concern for law, ethics, due diligence, and - above all - transparency is greatly needed.
(Photo from another news article about the return at StandArtNews, "Italy Returns Antique Tre[a]sure to Bulgaria," 22 December 2008)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)