"Jargon", Ethics and the Law: Dealer Dave Obfuscates

.
Dealer Dave asks us to believe that coiney campaigners against the application of CCPIA (which regulates imports of certain types of artefacts when they are unlawfully exported) to dugup ancient coins are not "on the side of the looters". He says "it is hard for me to understand how anyone could get such an impression". On the other hand, it seems to me that only by believing in coin elves does it become possible to believe that those who campaign for their "right" to buy coins unlawfully exported from another country "are not on the side of the looters" (and smugglers to boot).

Dealer Dave castigates Questioning Collector Chris: The way your message is written indicates that you have been influenced by archaeologists' jargon -- which tends to spin discussions of artifacts collecting so that it develops on their terms and their goals are achieved. The dealer implies that "using archaeologists' jargon" in discussions in a manner which implies "ethics violations and/or criminality, when the conduct, actions and motives discussed may in fact be
honorable and lawful". Welsh then goes on to explain that this "jargon" includes words like "looters", "looting" and " loot", "thieves", "owners" and "authorized parties", "stealing", "illegal origin". He furthermore suggests that the use of "archaeologists' jargon" leads to "spinning" of "discussions ethically acceptable according to the beliefs held by the general public". Stealing is "ethically acceptable" in the beliefs of the general (American?) public? Wow. If a dealer in ancient dugups really does consider that the difference between an "owner" and a "thief" is merely a matter of "jargon", one really would do well to be very diffident about buying anything from him.

Dealer Dave ("Classical Coins") adds:

In reply to your concluding question: "I would love to continue collecting ancient coins but I do not want to do business with thieves. I would like to know that I have clear title to coins that I purchase. Is this still possible?"
If you acquire ancient coins (whether or not provenance documentation is available) from an ethical dealer, you will not run any risk of "doing business with thieves." You will have clear, valid title to the coins you purchase. An example of confusion arising from archaeologists' jargon is the existence of such unwarranted concerns in the minds of collectors. What archaeologists think, and their jargon, will not influence the judge whose interpretation of the law determines validity of title.

So the law trumps ethics, every time. He says that if one acquires ancient coins even if no-questions-asked from an ethical dealer, you will not run any risk of "doing business with thieves". Is that true? Is it true that any attempts to collect responsibly are merely submitting to "unwarranted concerns" about the nature of the goods on offer on the no-questions-asked market?

What is an "ethical dealer"? Is it a dealer affiliated with the ACCG and its fight against restrictions on the importation of unlawfully exported artefacts? How can that by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as an "ethical" attitude?

Antiquities such as coins smuggled from countries which have vesting legislation establishing state ownership over such antiquities are by definition stolen (STOLEN). That is not "just jargon", that is an uncomfortable fact which dealers and collectors wish to deny; that however does not make it any less of a fact. Therefore, it makes no difference how"ethical" a dealer claims himself to be, buying coins of such origin freshly arrived on the US market would mean doing business with culture thieves. How does Dealer Dave define "ethical" if he cannot even agree with the rest of us what the word "stolen" means and dismisses it as mere "jargon"?

UPDATE 16:03:12
As expected, Dealer Dave's post awakens the ("it's the state that is the thief") Numismorons.