Antike Münzen...

Antike Münzen können archäologische Gegenstände sein. 

That is if they are treated properly and not hoiked out and flogged off to greedy dealers like potatoes. Talking of which, see the treatment of this old (11. Dezember 2012) judgement by the Munich Bundesfinanzhof at the hands of  Dealer Dave and lobbyist Peter Tompa.  Dave is besides himself with excitement:

This decision determines that the ancient coin trade is no longer obligated to apply for export permits in order to export ancient coins from Germany.

Not that I expect there was a lot of that going on anyway ("contents: metal stampings").

The case, as Wayne Sayles ("German Supreme Court ruling favorable to Ancient Coin Collectors") explains, involves  a German auctioneer, Stefan Sonntag, who:

"on October 31, 2008 presented an export declaration for 32 coins and medals to the Port Customs Office of the Main Customs Office.  The objects were declared to be between 1,500 to 2,400 years old.  The Main Customs Office rejected the export declaration and demanded an Export Permit, citing EEC law involving export of cultural property. 

As St Hilaire notes, the important detail of where they were from and exactly what types of items they were are not described in the subsequent proceedings. The whole matter then went through the courts and ultimately Sonntag - in order to avoid applying for an export licence for these items to pass on to his clients - ended up appealing the case to the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) in Munich.  It is with the final ruling of this body on March 1, 2013 which the coineys are so pleased. The court indicated that the contested Customs interpretation, that EU law requires the artefacts to have an export licence 

"...would incompatibly bring the coin trade with third party customers to a standstill when it comes to free movement of goods."

Like it does in the UK, where all dugup artefacts over 50 years old require one? So Germany cannot cope with doing what the UK does?

The Bundesfinanzhof apparently is ruling on what an archaeological object is and determined that the Customs and Fiscal Court interpretations were "based on an incorrect notion of 'archaeological object' or 'archaeological discovery'."  It really beggars belief that German antiquities law does not have at its basis a proper and archaeologically-compliant definition of what an archaeological artefact is, but such is the situation (in fact English law is totally lacking in any such definition also). One wonders just where German archaeologists have been all through the last two centuries of German legislation and whether they intend doing anything to rectify this situation, as the moment developers latch onto this one, there may be additional difficulties (forgive me for not outlining them). This is just another area where the commercialisation of dugup artefacts by those who cannot be bothered to do any decent paperwork is doing a huge amount of damage.  The Bundesfinanzhof's definition runs like this: 

Archaeological objects as defined in EC legislation on the export of cultural goods (Regulation No. 116/2009) are only those that have a value for archaeology, that is man-made or worked on objects, able to convey the findings of past cultures, especially about about their customs, the then technical and artistic development, political and social structures, religion and the like. Items that illustrate lessons learned elsewhere about past cultures and therefore possibly for archaeology have no meaning, and are not "archaeological objects" or finds.

But this is nonsense from several points of view, just to take the case in hand every coiney will tell you that by the(ir) "study" of loose decontextualised coins they can tell you about all these things. So why then according to the definition of the Federal Fiscal Court are coins not archaeological artefacts? But then the next sentence is that they are: Antike Münzen können archäologische Gegenstände sein. The court wrote:

The archaeological interest in an object is to be evaluated in this context by the Principal Customs Office or the judge according to the circumstances of the individual case, taking as key criteria, in particular, how the object in question is valued in the market and whether the same or similar objects to a greater extent involving the trade are ones in which archaeological institutions and collections are not involved, but where collectors are involved who are not interested in such coins as an "archaeological" interest but out of a passion for collecting, because of the aesthetic value of the objects or other interests.

The court therefore defines archaeological value as equivalent to financial value (it is interesting to note that Sayles edits out of his quotation of this passage - page 8) apparently deliberately. Quite rightly so, this is total and utter nonsense as the Financial Court would have found out if they had called expert witnesses apart from the Badische Landesmuseum staff (who said that? Can we have the responsible official's name please?). Sayles comments:

Of considerable interest to American collectors and dealers was the court's comments about what does constitute an archaeological object.  "The Plaintiff rightly asserts that coins coming from Antiquity generally have no archeological value and thus are not archaeological objects, especially when they are available in large numbers and they - which the Badische Landesmuseum [State Museum] also mentions in its opinion referred to by the Main Customs Office in the hearing - can no longer be assigned to a specific place of discovery. 

In fact it is of so much interest to the importing coineys, anxious to avoid going through the export licencing procedure, that somebody has had a certified translation of the court ruling prepared (dated 23rd march 2013 in a New York notary's office) and made available on the Sayles website: http://wgs.cc/German_Court_Ruling.pdf. Yes, if you rip coins out of a context and sell them off in bulk and mixed mass like so manyt potatoes, their archaeological value is reduced (though is it totally gone?). That is the point preservationists are making about the no-questions-asked trade in such items.

Another coiney, Dr. Hubert Lanz, president of the Federation of European Numismatic Trade Associations was very concerned that Rick St Hilaire should see an "English version of the court decision", on the basis of which he wrote another account ('German High Court Rules No Export Permit Required in Case Where No Evidence Offered That Ancient Coins & Medals Were Regulated Archaeological Goods', Wednesday, May 1, 2013 ). This notes that the full text of the decision may be found at docket VII R 33 34/11 and adds the important detail missing from the accounts of Sayles, Tompa and Welsh:

The court's web site explains that the "Federal Fiscal Court only adjudicates on the correct application of law in concrete individual cases. Although its decisions can only bind the respective parties, they are still authoritative for the taxation of other tax paying citizens where the same facts of case apply." 

Certainly it has no effect on US law, or that of Cyprus, Italy, Greece, China or Egypt or any other country a US dealer would like to import mass quantities of dugup artefacts from. 

As St Hilaire explains, and the coineys skip over, Normally European Commission Council Regulation EC No 3911/92 (presently  No 116/2009) require dugup artefacts to have an export permit because they are among the categories of protected cultural goods. There is an exception to this requirement in the EC regulations where goods "are of limited archaeological or scientific interest, and provided that they are not the direct product of excavations, finds or archaeological sites within a Member State, and that their presence on the market is lawful." The whole case hinges on whether these 32 coins fell into that category, the customs office said they did not, the seller says they did, and provided his reasons for saying so.  plaintiff disagreed with the customs office decision and took legal action.  What also
Sayles, Tompa and Welsh skip over is  the bit in Regulation No 116/2009 noted by St Hilaire:  

The export licence may be refused, for the purposes of this Regulation, where the cultural goods in question are covered by legislation protecting national treasures of artistic, historical or archaeological value in the Member State concerned. 

[D]irect export from the customs territory of the Community of national treasures having artistic, historic or archaeological value which are not cultural goods within the meaning of this Regulation is subject to the national law of the Member State of export.

Likewise something travelling under an export declaration which fall into this category are also liable to seizure - in fact more so, possession of a valid export licence is protection against that.