Not the Answer US Coineys Want...

Peter Tompa ("No Answer") attempts to discuss Bulgarian antiquities legislation. Here he is sidetracking the point I initially made about trade in smuggled coins which he seems uncomfortable discussing properly  ('Investigation on Bulgaria ancient coins smuggling in U.S. continues'). Instead he tries to use  his standard defence:

"How can a Bulgarian coin imported into the US be considered "stolen" cultural property of Bulgaria when the exact same types of coins are legally available for sale there?"

In other words, the usual claim of the whole US coin business that those who handle dugup coins from foreign soil are somehow being victimised by being required to play the game fairly. They claim that US law places them at some kind of disadvantage compared to their foreign 'competitors', as though there was some kind of international rivallry in destroying the world's archaeological heritage to fill collectors' cabbints. Of course - like much the coiney lobby says - the full picture is somewhat different. First of all let us note that Tompa is a firm critic of the use of the "types of coins" argument when it's the Other Side (ie preservationists) which use it. Here, though the types of coins may be the same the actual coins differ in that those smuggled out of Bulgaria to a foreign market are not available for local bona fide collectors.

That aside, in answer to the point he was trying to make, I gave Mr Tompa (once again, we've been through this before), the link to the relevant Bulgarian legislation, pointing out that although coins may be legally traded in that country, the law places conditions on such transactions. Here's the link:  http://www.unesco.org/culture/natlaws/media/pdf/bulgaria/bulgaria_culturalheritageact_2009_entof.pdf  [...]Promulgated, SG, No. 19/13.03.2009,[...] amended and supplemented, SG No. 82/26.10.2012, effective 26.11.2012]. I drew Mr Tompa's attention to some of the acts relevant to this discussion of "equal rights for US collectors":

Look at Art. 1, 2, 7(4), 93-5, collections: 97(6), 98(3), 108-110 etc. 

I submit that Mr Tompa's interpretation of this legislation to mean that there is laissez faire in Bulgaria when it comes to collecting dugup antiquities is wrong. A Bulgarian collector of such items, to be on the right side of the law has to fulfil certain conditions. [Also note that this means that any coins coming from a legal source (a collection complying with the above-mentioned law) will have documentation demonstrating that, so presumably importers buying coins coming from such legal sources for the US market can have the option of buying coins of documented origins - so where are they?]

Cultural Property Observer does not accept this, but switches the focus of the topic yet again. He now says that he does not view the legislation I cited as "vesting clear title [to dugup antiquities] in the state" and therefore nort coming under US Stolen Property legislation. This is a red herring argument, Mr Tompa is not a specialist in Bulgarian law so his "view" is hardly relevant. The law does indeed, right at the beginning, unequivocally vest title in archaeological finds in the state, which is repeated in the section on archaeological survey and the section on the obligation of finders of such material (Art 93(3) for example). A collector coming into posession of such items has clear obligations under the law.

Tompa's not having any of that. Ignoring all that, he then suggests that the "Second Circuit's decision in the Schultz case" in some way negates the value of the Bulgarian legislation as a means of protecting the Bulgarian heritage from any rapacious US dealers who having succesfully imported smuggled coins through the US barrier of bubbles customs checks wants to sell them on to their no-questions-asking customers. Only common decency can do that.

In the eyes of this defiant "they can't touch you for it" interpretation of the law, lawyer Tompa says Egypt's "approach to antiquities" is more beneficial in this respect in comparison with Bulgaria's "approach to coins" (actually the Bulgarian legislation's section on collecting refers to a much wider range of objects than just those that interest our blinkered legal polemecist). It is odd that legislation which regulates and affirms the position of bona fide collectors is in some way seen by this collectors' rights lobbyist as  a hindrance to honestly trading legitimately-obtained material. Despite all that has gone on above, and I presume actually reading the material to which I provided a link, Bailey and Ehrenberg's most vociferous cultural property lawyer states authoratatively:

I see no indication Bulgaria vests title in all coins in the State-- possession and ownership by individuals is allowed. The fact that there may be some conditions is irrelevant to the legal analysis. 

Which is presumably the legal defence he will used if called upon to defend a US dealer caught in the ongoing investigations and charged with importing smuggled coins dug up in Bulgaria. But is that a moral defence?