Collectors Playing the Victim

Paranoia, the only cure
is more tinfoil

It strikes me there are no bounds to collectors' stupidity, or at least that's what Washington lawyer, Bailey and Ehrenberg's Peter Tompa thinks. Once again on his "Cultural Propert Observer" professional blog, he totally ignores the purpose of the UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Instead he attempts to suggest to his bevy of adoring slack-jawed collectors that it's an anti-American conspiracy ("They Are Out to Get You" Saturday, February 1, 2014). He adduces proof of this in a Cyprus newspaper report about a September 2013 International Roundtable on “Art Trafficking and Restitution - lessons from Cyprus and Afghanistan” held at the Peace Palace, the Hague. He characterises this as "a confab of cultural bureaucrats, academics and cops" - all the arch-enemies of the illicit art trader who allegedly "confuse" seeking to protect archaeological sites and items of cultural significance with:

draconian measures aimed at controlling everything old or targeting foreigners for dealing in the exact same cultural goods that are openly available at home.  But that is just what the "activists" commended in the report advocate.  Why not instead adopt a balanced but fair approach like found in the United Kingdom?  

Peter Tompa and his dealer and collector acolytes  seem to be in some kind of weird hallucinogenic time-warp where the normal laws of logic simply do not operate. These "measures" he talks about are called in our world "export licences". In normal transactions, they do not so much "target foreigners"  as indicate that something has moved from one state to another fulfilling the normal (I stress that for the slow of mind) legal procedures. They affect not so much "foreigners dealing" as anybody (including state nationals) exporting. I really do not see why this is so difficult for people like Bailey and Ehrennberg's cultural property "observing" lawyer to understand. Can somebody explain it to him please?

Now, watch the lips, please Mr Tompa.

Concentrate.

Ready?

If Mr Tompa or any other US national wants to collect ancient coins from Britain (sceattas and Trinovantian staters metal detected by Baz Thugwit for example, or bits of an unclaimed Roman coin hoard returned to its finder), by current British law they are quite at liberty to do so.  Just the same as my Mum, Nigel Swift, John Howland and Uncle Tom Cobbley.  These are "cultural goods that are openly available at home". No problem. It's legal innit? Just like Mr Tompa asserts (in my opinion falsely) is the case in some of the source countries of artefacts he wants to import.

Now... are you listening Mr Tompa?

In short sentences:

If Mr Tompa wants to have his dugup artefacts from Britain in his Washington coin cabinet, he has to export them. And for that he needs a UK (not EU) export licence.  That's what I wrote about not 24 hours ago.  Last year 28300 such licences were issued for archaeological material alone.

 Now here's the bit Mr Tompa seems to find hard to grasp. The Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Treasure Act are nothing whatsoever to do with the UK export licensing requirements for various categories of cultural property. Indeed Britain treats archaeological material as a special category of which every single item should be presented for export approval. (I am sorry, that was a long sentence, collectors are advised to stop and read it a second time).

Once again.

The PAS and the Treasure Act and the UK export licensing requirements are two entirely different things.

The Waverly Criteria and the Treasure Act are two entirely different things.


Having a PAS and Treasure Act does not (I repeat for the hard of thinking, does not)  remove the need for an export licensing procedure. Just like in all the countries Peter Tompa and his mates would like to remove in favour of the "balanced but fair approach like found in the United Kingdom".

When it comes to export licences, the UK requirements are the same as in every other civilized country that has export licensing for cultural property. This is what is advised by the UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.  The USA ignores that, has none, but it's pretty much an exception. I suppose that says that they don't have much "culture" to export anyway.  But in importing it from those who have, American buyers should follow the procedure the Convention pledges them to.

I really do not see what is so difficult to understand here. Do you?

Now, can we hear no more of this nonsense, please? Because that is exactly what these people are self-righteously spouting.

While playing the innocent.

And playing the victim.