Smuggled Cultural Property Returned to Bulgaria from Italy

Daniel Nikolova, 'Stolen cultural artifacts returned to Bulgaria', Standart 6th Feb 2014:

A large collection of illegally trafficked historical artifacts has been seized by the Italian police while in the process of being sold, bTV reports. The collection, consisting mostly of coins and statuettes, will be returned to Bulgaria [...] The valuables were seized by Italian law enforcement agencies in cooperation with Bulgaria's State Agency for National Security (DANS). Both the Bulgarian and Italian sides underscored their satisfaction at their good joint work in the interception of trafficked culture and historical artifacts, said Dimitrov. The returned valuables will be presented at a press conference at the National Museum of History in Sofia in the coming days, he added.

Internationally famous cultural property legal specialist Peter Tompa is believed to be on a plane to Sophia at this moment. "There has been a terrible mistake", he told reporters on the tarmac before he boarded the IAPN-chartered private jet, "the Bulgarians have got the law totally wrong. These coins were not "illicit" but are openly sold in Bulgaria, I'm going to sort them out". A welcoming committee of the Bulgarian Brotherhood of Totally Legal Artefact Procurers is believed to be waiting to greet him.

 

ACCG: Arrogance, Cretinism, Calumny, Going-too-far

.
The words of Wayne:

Today, some archaeologists know so little about ancient coins that they see their only function as a means to date an archaeological site. These misguided academics lobby against private collecting and support overreaching regulation of the hobby and trade. None of them have significantly enriched our understanding of the past through ancient coins and some have gone so far as to condemn the efforts of private scholars. Fortunately, coin collecting is still a democratic activity and not a cloistered and sequestered exercise.

Today, most US ancient dugup coin fondlers know so little about the study of the past that they see in ancient coins only something to commodify and collect. These misguided buffoons lobby against the academic study of the past and the preservation of archaeological resources. They wish further deregulation of the international market in archaeological artefacts, to the benefit of the no-questions-asked trade and the smugglers and looters that benefit from it and the detriment of the preservation of the archaeological record. None of them have significantly enriched our understanding of the past through ancient coins and many of them have gone so far as to condemn the academic efforts of institutional scholars. Fortunately, archaeology is still an activity which is not a cloistered and sequestered exercise like private collecting and has much informed public support.

Contact: Wayne G. Sayles, 417-679-2142, wgs@wgs.cc, www.accg.us and tell him what you think. The venomous old man will be glad to have attracted some attention by his attacks on archaeologists and preservationists.

Lootbusters Meets the Trolls

.
Dorothy King is having trouble with antiquity trolls:

I can tell http://www.lootbusters.com/ is doing well because what Paul Barford would describe as a "coiney" is going out of his way to be a pest.

To keep them away, Dr King would be well advised to carry a small but bright LED torch in her purse wherever she goes, antiquity trolls cannot abide the light.

Bulgaria to be Discussed by CPAC

.

On 24th April, the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) will hold a meeting in line with the to continue its discussion about Bulgaria's earlier request for a bilateral agreement under the 1983 Cultural Property Implementation Act (CCPIA). That session will be a confidential meeting. As the Federal Register announcement of the CPAC meeting states, this is authorized by 19 U.S.C. 2605(h), which permits private discussions when "the President or his designee [determines] that the disclosure of matters involved in the Committee’s proceedings would compromise the government’s negotiation objectives or bargaining positions on the negotiations of any agreement authorized by [the CCPIA]."

See: Rick St Hilaire, 'Mali, Guatemala, and Bulgaria Up for Discussion by CPAC - Public Session Slated for April 24', Cultural Heritage Lawyer, March 11, 2012.


UPDATE 14.03 12
It seems some dugup antiquity collectors do not understand anything much. Paid coiney lobbyist Peter Tompa moans about the Bulgarian meeting - following an earlier public meeting at which coineys were represented - being closed (and for some reason illogically blames it all on "archaeoblogger" St Hilaire). Dealer Dave rants away like a stuck record. He goes on and on about some alleged "obsessive secrecy and anticollecting bias" in the US administration - a conspiracy against collectors ("the CCPIA has gradually been twisted into a tool for restricting and suppressing private collecting of antiquities and the trade that supplies it").
The CCPIA actually regulates just the import of items which have no documentation of lawful export acceptable to current US law . If you tried to import a car or Dutch cheese without the proper documentation would you argue that customs scrutiny of your cargo means Obama is trying to stop people using cars or eating foreign cheese? In car users and cheese eaters, that would be treated as a symptom of certifiability - but in coiney circles such rhetoric is the accepted norm. Dealer Dave predicts:

One day the pro-collecting advocacy movement will finally have its day in court, and the true story of what has taken place behind the scenes at Cultural Heritage Center will be made public. In my opinion, the public and our legislators will be shocked by what will be disclosed.

Not half as much as I think they would be learning about what actually happens in the dugup antiquity trade. Dealer Dave reckons:

Freedom of information is essential to the preservation of our liberties and our democratic society. Every US citizen should understand that obsessive secrecy and refusal to make mandated freedom of information disclosures may indicate that something which cannot stand the light of day is being concealed.

One might say exactly the same about the dugup antiquity trade- including that which US dealers continue with Bulgarian dugup antiquities. Who are the middlemen in this trade?

Fresh Report on Chalkidiki Antiquities Bust

.
In Greece, archaeologists of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism have begun the scientific documentation of the confiscated ancient artefacts seized in the antiquities bust on the 4th and 5th of March which have been transported to the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki.

The majority of the coins comes from the broader Northern Greece region and dates back from the Byzantine era to the 5th century BC. Among the coins, several silver coins have also been found, mostly tetradrachms from the 4th century BC, cut by the Chalkidian Alliance and Phillipos II. Other small objects confiscated include bronze votive idols and jewelry, such as necklaces, rings, clasps and pins, most probably looted through illegal excavations on graves. Three golden mouthpieces of the 6th century BC stand out amidst the overall findings of the police research. Some of the findings were counterfeits, as announced by the experts, including a copy of a marble Cycladic idol and a small sculpture representing the Venus de Milo.

Well you read it first here that some of the objects were fakes (the mini Venus de Milo copy was not very clear in the original photos). Also seized were metal detectors and books related to coin identification and large sums of money. The men were armed, and Greek authorities point out that the successful arrests were due to the collaboration of the local Police Departments with the Special Violent Crime Squad. A number of firearms were also reportedly confiscated. The 44 men arrested are reportedly now facing serious charges.

They are Greek nationals who were setting up “businesses” in 13 prefectures of Macedonia, Thessaly and Central Greece and were particularly active in the cities of Thessaloniki, Chalkidiki, Kilkis, Pella, Imathia, Pieria, Serres, Drama, Kavala, Karditsa, Larisa, Trikala, Fthiotida. The police are aware of how the suspects worked, as well as what everyone’s particular function in the ring was. [...] Bulgaria, Germany, Switzerland and England were some of the primary business destinations, according to the police that discovered repeated money transfers to the suspect’s account.

Let us hope those money transfers will help police identify the individuals buying unlawfully exported antiquities from Greece. According to police information, the “middle-man” would either personally take the antiquities to foreign buyers "or sent the items via transporting companies, though in small envelopes, so as not to [attract suspicion]".

The investigations started 'six months ago' (so September 2011) and it would be interesting to know whether they were precipitated by the interception of a package of antiquities (and whether they were outgoing from Greece, or incoming in the 'market country') or whether the authorities had been tipped off by a foreign dealer approached by "Mr X" to become part of his 'network" and whose code of ethics required him to report all such contacts to the relevant authorities (in which case what was the ratio between number of ethical dealers approached reporting him, to the number of unethical dealers who dealt with him?).

The paid lobbyist of the coin dealers' associations Peter Tompa may wish to present this antiquities bust as a mere "diversion", but it certainly raises a number of questions about the current form of the international market in dugup ancient coins. Questions no doubt his dealer clients would prefer not be asked. That is presumably why they pay him and the Washington firm Bailey and Ehrenberg to provide constant diversions through his Cultural Property Observer blog and other activities. I wonder if further police investigations will reveal whether any PNG or ACCG member dealers were in Mr X's "network"? Given the association of these groups with the ongoing fight against restrictions on the movement of unlawfully exported coins (including from Greece into the USA), I certainly hope this is a line of enquiry the Greek police pursue.

Source: Stella Tsolakidou, 'Counting of Looted Antiquities Complete' Greek Reporter March 6, 2012

92% of US Archaeologists and 11%of Coineys Support Purchase of Stolen Artefacts?

.
The recent text of coin-dealer-investigative-journalist Richard Giedroyć in Krause Publications' "World Coin News" discussed above is publicising some wild claims. Although the text ('[US] Import Restrictions Declared 'Extra Legal'), was about a Jan. 7 meeting of the ACCG held during the New York International Numismatic Convention (you know, the one where the recent arrest took place), there was other information presented by Wayne Sayles. He claims huge support for his actions, he says that the ACCG now has 793 individual members as well as 21 affiliated clubs that represent approximately 5,000 additional collectors (that's 21 groups of 240 members each). Concerning the ACCG policies which all these people support, very telling was Giedroyć's statement:

The ACCG opposes all coin import restrictions.

Now as any reader will know, the CCPIA (on the basis of which the imports of certain artefacts are restricted) imposes them only on items without documentation (three types are an option) of lawful export from the source country. That is US law and has been since the CCPIA was passed back in the 1980s. Now coineys want to change this law - presumably then to allow the import of ancient coins and other artefacts into the USA without any kind of documentation of legal export. Are there really 50 US coin collecting clubs whose members fully support the purchase of illegally exported material?

A more important figure however is what Sayles was apparently careful not to say. There are estimated to be 50000 collectors of ancient coins in the US; where is the voice of the other 45000? Can we assume that they too want to buy stolen and smuggled coins, or are they not affiliated to the ACCG because they DO NOT want more stolen and smuggled coins on the US market?

Five thousand US coineys for the looters and smugglers, forty-five thousand against? That would be 11% for and 89% against, isn't it?

Giedroyć however comes up with an even more surprising statistic about the import into the US of coins without documentation of legal export:

The archaeologists who favor a full ban on the import of such coins is a minority, according to Sayles. He noted that at a recent hearing only eight percent of archaeologists favored coins being named among future import restriction laws now being considered by the U.S. State Department.

It is not clear from this (it's written for coineys after all, why provide detail?) what "meeting" is being referred to here. But Sayles is claiming that 92% of US archaeologists are behind him in his drive to get public acceptance of the trade in antiquities which have not been lawfully exported from the foreign source countries. Ninety two percent of US archaeologists behind the ACCG? Really? If that is the case, why the incessant series of attacks on "archaeology" and "archaeologists" from the ACCG if they are the allies of the coiney anti-gubn'mint movement?

But let us note what Sayles is effect claiming. In a context of a possible only 11% of Coineys actively supporting the purchase of stolen and smuggled artefacts, Sayles would like us to believe that 92% of US Archaeologists support it. Now, if that were true, THAT would be something for the ACCG lapdog numismo-journalists to write about!

Sowing the Dragons' Teeth: Keeping the Market Alive

.

With reference to the notion that coin collecting might be losing its popularity among young Americans (a worrying prospect for all those wishing to profit from the sale of ancient dugups) Mark Lehman of "Ancient Coins for Education" (sic) soothes:

If, however, you're interested in finding out whether or not the introduction of coins into the curriculum is "raising a new crop" of numismatists, I could put you in touch with more than a few teachers whose students have gone on, beyond the teaching "unit" in which their classes worked with and studied coins, to become avid young collectors. For that matter, many teachers administering ACE programs have also become avid collectors in their own right [...], there most definitely are young people (interested in coin collecting) out there. We who work with ACE find that they crop up in nearly every class, once exposed to the concept. [...] wherever teachers and community members make an effort to engage students through this natural, hands-on approach to history and many other subjects, new collectors crop-up like dandelions from a single seed-head blown into the wind.

And the looting goes on to supply the demand. Remember ACE avoids discussions of the ethics of the manner of supply of the US antiquities trade both inside and outside the classroom "like the very plague". What kind of "education" is that? See Nathan Elkins' "Treasure Hunting 101 in American Classrooms" in a good library near you. Let's see it on the Internet for concerned parents to see.

(Responsible) teachers, and parents, take a good look at the ACE website, look for example at the answer to this question:

"Q: "Where did these coins come from?" A: The vast majority of uncleaned material on the market at the present time comes from Eastern Europe - the "countries formerly known as Yugoslavia" and Bulgaria in particular"

(you know, countries where digging this sort of stuff out of the ground and keeping it is illegal. This stuff comes from criminal activities and is going straight into US classrooms - "support a Balkan criminal today, join the ACE"? ). Who supports the ACE? Why all those jolly old ACCG and other dealers in dugup ancient coins who stand to make a profit by the expansion of their market, just as long as they can get their hands on enough of that stuff, no-questions-asked from gangs of looters and smugglers in "the 'countries formerly known as Yugoslavia' and Bulgaria in particular" - and now the strife-torn Near East and North Africa (maybe if enough questions were being asked about who supplies them how and why, "Blood antiquities" perhaps included among them).

The Olympia Theft: Organized Crime and International Antiquities Trafficking

.
As can be expected, attention has been drawn to the involvement of outsiders in the theft of Greek heritage in the media. One text (Fani Toli/ Ingka Athanasiadou, 'Cases of Illicit Antiquities Trade and Stolen Artifacts in Greece',Greekreporter.com, February 19, 2012) puts the case of Friday's armed robbery at the Museum of Ancient Olympia in the context of several recent antiquity busts which show it is foreigners behind the majority of them. The authors add one piece of information to that previously released which rather supports my own suggestion that the theft was the work of members of an organized criminal group:

People investigating the case of the armed robbery at the Museum of Ancient Olympia say that the 65 stolen artifacts have possibly crossed Greek borders.
According to police sources, the case of Ancient Olympia was a made-to-order theft, because the thieves, after having stolen the 65 artifacts, were trying to find another two exhibits that were not being shown.

The article goes on to point out the degree to which in cases of antiquities thefts in Greece the stolen artefacts end up in international galleries or in private galleries abroad. This does not just affect antiquities, the country’s ecclesiastical heritage has been dealt a heavy blow as well.

In the past, Scotland Yard identified the alleged mastermind behind a ring that had been stealing religious icons from churches and monasteries in Epirus and Thessaly which subsequently ended up at European auction houses. The information that led to the ring leader’s identification was provided by a London gallery following the online identification of six Byzantine icons that the gallery was planning to sell. Besides the aforementioned relics, the London gallery has also handed over another 10 icons to the Greek Embassy in the British capital which have also been identified through photographs as having been stolen from monasteries in Epirus and Western Macedonia.

The article mentions the case of the
'Kouri of Tenea’ illegally excavated from an archaeological site in the Klenies district of southern Corinth prefecture, the looters had demanded 10 million euros for the statues. They were arrested in May 2010.
The article's authors also mention "the largest ever discovery of illegal antiquities", found by Greek police on April 13 2006 at a villa on the tiny Aegean island of Schinoussa, south of Naxos.

According to archaeologists inventorying the collection, it contained 280 items dating to many periods and from around the Mediterranean, some hidden and some openly used as decorations. A 30-metre-square chapel had been built on the six-acre site, constructed of ancient architectural fragments from various eras. Other items were a headless Roman statue of Aphrodite, a carved marble sarcophagus, three marble busts and two granite sphinxes. The villa belonged to Dimitra Papadimitriou of the wealthy shipping family, but was reported to had been owned previously by London dealer Robin Symes and his business partner, the late Christos Michailidis, Papadimitriou’s brother.[...] seals and packaging found on the island showed signs of commercial trafficking. Documentation found during the raid also indicated that many of the items had been purchased at Sotheby’s or Christie’s between 2001 and 2005, although none had been declared on entry into Greece.

It will not escape notice that it is precisely at this moment when the Greek archaeological heritage is so vulnerable that over in the US dealers in dugup antiquities are calling for a suspension of the implementation by the US of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Prevention of the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property,as if getting ready for the onset of a new wave of illicit import, export and transfer of ownership into their hands of Greek cultural property. Do such antiquities traders have any scruples at all about what they do?

WW2 Museum Damaged in Greek Rioting?

.
Samarkeolog on the Conflict Archaeology blog has made an informative compilation of the rioting in Greece that took place recently as a response to the austerity measures precipitated by the current economic crisis ('Record of unprecedented damage and destruction in protests, riots in Greece, 12th February 2012'). There was earlier a suggestion that a museum (former Gestapo prison) in Athens had been damaged, but this later was disproven. This is important in the context of some collectors' lobbyists claiming - though without citing precise sources - that some "repatriated" antiquities may have been damaged in the rioting. Nothing of the sort has however so far been reported. Another straw man argument from the collectors' lobbyists.

Antiquitist Anti-Academism

.
One of the antiquitist mantras is that they are all against the illicit trade in antiquities, their bit of the trade is "all legitimate" and they cannot abide the black sheep "who get us all a bad name". So you would think they would all welcome the announcement that the European Research Council has awarded a team at Glasgow University led by Dr Simon Mackenzie a £1m grant to study the illegal trade in antiquities. Not so, paid lobbyist for the Professional Numismatists Guild (a dealers' association) is quite strong-worded in his rejection of the idea ('Your [sic] Tax Euros at Work', 14th Feb 2012) . He dismisses the researchers as "some well known academics with an axe to grind against collectors" and suggests that the "publicity for the grant" (sic) "does not suggest anything that even remotely resembles academic detachment". he cites the Guardian article. He suggests that if its goal really is to fund high quality research, "the European Research Council should be embarrassed" by this project. He reckons that "by the looks of it" (sic):

"this study will have about as much credibility as one funded by big Pharma to justify sales of a new drug, no one actually needs. It is, however, part of a trend. Get a governmental entity to fund an anti-collector study by academics with an axe to grind, and use it to help justify further government action and spending on cultural bureaucracies.

In other words, he alleges that there is an international conspiracy against collectors, and the ERC and Glasgow University are in on it. That's before he's even had the chance to observe the team at work and learn the final results of their research. It seems he has made up his mind to prepare collectors to dismiss the results of this research into the illegal side of the market before they have even read it. Why would a lobbyist for legitimate (PNG) dealers do that? What secrets do legitimate dealers have to hide?

Vignette: Legitimate dealers and black sheep... (sodahead)

CPAC Backlash: Responsible Coin Scholars Watch Out!

.
It seems that a gubn'mint watch-list of the several hundred consistent US supporters of import of illegally exported antiquities is not the only possible result of the recent public comment process on the Cyprus MOU renewal. Now we are seeing attacks (here (Coin weekly attacks Texas professor), here, and here for example) on the more responsible members of the academic community that speak out against the threat posed by no-questions-asked dealing and collecting of freshly-surfaced dugup antquities.

The supporters of the Ancient Coin Collectors' Guild and other dealers' lobby groups can't come up with any reasoned, informed or fact-based arguments at all and so they commit personal attacks and try to intimidate by making false statements and innuendo. These are absolutely despicable people. Jorg Lueke now accuses Harvard numismatist Carmen Arnold-Biucchi of having "joined" what he calls "the Radical Archaeologists". By this he means what we would call responsible numismatists, or simply a preservationist.

I firmly believe that out there somewhere behind the braying microcephalic and cognitively impaired coiney masses who are so easily swayed by the ACCG arguments there are decent people involved with coins and other portable antiquities. Indubitably there will be, surely, civilized people who study coins who have a social conscience, who think about the consequences of the actions of no-questions-asked collectors and dealers, who recognise that coin collecting can no longer ignore its wider context and can no longer refuse to drag itself into the modern age. They are difficult to spot however as they tend not to congregate in the same places as the loudly militant and more oafish ACCG followers.

One easy way of spotting the decent folk of course is to see who among numismatic ranks the propagators of the Coin Elf myth are attacking. So a few days ago the target of mob action was Nathan Elkins. Now it seems ACCG-affiliated coineys are going through the list of other coin scholars who spoke at the CPAC meeting and attacking them by trying to dig up the dirt about their past, any mud that might stick. The bigots are perhaps now going to attack every numismatist who attended that meeting one by one.

So according to Twin Towns Coin Club President Jorg Lueke, a man whom one would think from what he writes has a snow-white past, the "dirt" on Professor Carmen Arnold-Biucchi of Harvard is that she:

spent 18 years at the ANS before moving to her current job at Harvard curating the numismatic collections there.

The ANS eh? The one that has apparently been censoring its online records to remove as many references as possible to one of their most (until recently) most esteemed donors? Now I can see why people such as myself would see that as a matter for concern. Less clear is why a no-questions-asked collector should (unless, of course, he knows something about the ANS that I do not - perfectly possible of course, make a note of the possibility that there might be more revelations still). So what about other people like Roger Bland's good pal Rick Witschonke (unless he has resigned recently) who still work in the ANS? Uh-oh. Anyway, after using former employment at the ANS as criticism, Lueke continues:

I find it a little odd that a person who works with museum collections built and funded by collectors would side with radical archaeologists who would like to see an end to collecting on the pretext that this would stop criminals from being criminals.

I find nothing odd in anyone who works with collections made up of material which has come onto the US market being concerned to ensure that this market is being supplied only with coins that have been lawfully imported according to US law. Do you?

What I DO find odd (very odd) is that - to judge by the coiney reactions to the ACCG tub-thmping - so many US dugup antiquity collectors really could not give a hoot about whether the coins they buy come from a market which is regulated to keep out as much as possible coins that cannot be documented as lawfully exported from the source countries. I am sure I am not alone in thinking this is utterly incomprehensible and is a very telling indicator of the present state of the US market. Instead of attempting to criminal trade in cultural property, by their opposition to the CCPIA, these people indicate that they are quite happy to indiscriminately BUY these coins even if they've passed through the hands of culture criminals. Astounding behaviour from a hobby that claims to be legitimate and socially progressive.

Lueke certainly lost grasp of reality when writing:

In supporting import restrictions with no qualification Arnold-Buicchi joins the list of academics seeking to banish collecting. Now wait, you may say, collecting wouldn't be outlawed just the import of new finds. If it were that simple there would likely be no controversy but what makes this position radical is that it fails to account for a practical solution for all the licit coins on the marketplace that don't come with the type of documentation now sought as proof of legitimacy (export certificates or provenance).

Eh?
1) Does Professor Arnold-Buicchi "support import restrictions with no qualification" or just those regulated by the MOUs referring to the CPIA? I suspect that when speaking at the CPAC she was referring to the latter.

2) I'd like to see this list according to the coineys of the "academics seeking to banish collecting" together with information why each of those names is on that list. I made one myself three years back, inviting additions from my readers, and received not a single one. This is a coiney bogeyman, not reality. I do not see any evidence from what was said about her CPAC comments that the name of Professor Arnold-Buicchi needs to go on such a list as number seven. What jelly-brained nonsense.

3) Lueke gives no justification for his own equation of "import restrictions" on imports of coins and the "banning" ["outlawing"] of collecting. Simply darkly hints: "If it were that simple there would likely be no controversy". Spot the weak [actually non-existent] argument.

4) Lueke says what makes checking imports coming into the US for documentation of lawful export a "radical (sic) position" is that "it fails to account for a practical solution for all the licit coins on the marketplace that don't come with the type of documentation now sought as proof of legitimacy (export certificates or provenance)". ["Provenance"? It seems Lueke has not read the CCPIA very recently, he's going on what the dealers' lobbyists are telling coineys rather than what the text of the Act actually contains - there is no mention there of provenance]. In reality the CCPIA does not interest itself at all with the "licit antiquities in the US market", just those fresh items dealers would like to put on the market in the US. Here the law requires them to demonstrate that they have been licitly obtained to the standards of the current US marketplace. What actually is the problem? Why does that seem any more radical than similar controls on other items, such as protected species?

Coiney Academic Rigour: Adding it up at the CPAC

.
There is a telling comment in Peter Tompa's account of the 18th Jan meeting with the CPAC. The Ancient coin Collectors' Guild had sent them a 'public comment' intending to demonstrate that Cypriot coins would not all be "first discovered" in the territory of Cyprus. They provided a list of hoards to show that such coins were sometimes buried in antiquity outside Cyprus. There was not much academic rigour in their presentation of the 'evidence' to support (rather than in the spirit of academic enquiry examine) their case, as they omitted the hoards found ON Cyprus. In his presentation at the public CPAC meeting, Prof. Nathan Elkins pointed out the sleight-of-hand. Look how Tompa justifies it to the slack-jawed masses:

If you add together a list prepared by Wayne Sayles of coins found outside of Cyprus and a list Elkins compiled of coins from Cypriot contexts, that shows that Cypriot coinage is much more prevalent in Cyprus than outside of Cyprus.

Why, in order to arrive at a conclusion about "where" certain things happened in the past would one have to "add" fresh information to what the coiney dealers had already supplied to the CPAC - except if the coiney dealers (this so-called "Ancient Coin Collectors Guild" run by people calling themselves "professional numismatists") had supplied the public enquiry with one-sided, FALSE and MISLEADING information? What other explanation is there?

"It's Your own Fault": Chasing Aphrodite on the Significance of the Weiss Investigation for Militant US Coineyism

.
The "Chasing Aphrodite" blog has some details of the allegations against Arnold-Peter C. Weiss in relation to transactions involving two Greek coins from Sicily. After noting that the investigation was in its early stages, the blog authors surmise that "given Weiss’ prominence in the numismatic community" (the former treasurer of the American Numismatic Society, chairman of the board at Rhode Island School of Design’s art museum and on the collecting committee of the Harvard Arts Museums), the case:

bears some early similarities to the criminal case against Fred Schultz, the head of the national antiquities dealers association, who was convicted in 2002 of knowingly trafficking in looted antiquities from Egypt. The Schultz case proved a watershed in the art world, underscoring the fact that trafficking in looted antiquities was a violation of American law.

The blog's authors also note the "on-going battles over whether coins should be included in bilateral agreements between the US and foreign nations aimed at preventing the traffic in looted antiquities" and suggest that if brought to court, this case could potentially have a profound effect on the US discussions on this topic. As they note:

Numismatists have long argued that coins should be exempted from import restrictions. As the American Numismatic Society states on its website, “…Because most coins in private collections have been traded and held without any provenance, it is unreasonable to assume that a coin is stolen, illegally exported, or illegally imported merely because the holder cannot establish a chain of custody beyond receipt from a reputable source.” That position may be more difficult to maintain in the face of a criminal case against Weiss, who was treasurer of the ANS from 2005 – 2009.

There is as yet no mention of this series of events in the "News" section of the Ancient Coin Collectors' Guild website, which is a bit odd, isn't it? Certainly, given the intransigence of the ancient coin collecting (scil. dealing) community led by lobbyists employed by the PNG, IAPN and ACCG to attempts to clean up the US numismatic and antiquities market, and their blatant and damaging opposition to US policies on the matter (including an attempt to sue their own government), a high profile arrest or two were on the cards. I guess collectors will be left waiting to know whether there will be any more, and who is next. Who could be on the watch list?

There is an interesting coincidence in the timing of this event. As all coineys will know, midnight of January 3rd was the deadline on the Regulations.gov website for the final public comments to existing laws on import controls on unlawfully exported artefacts from Cyprus (including coins like those many of the people expressing their objections themselves collect). I suppose conspiracy theorists might wonder whether there was a connection between this and the rather late intervention of Federal law enforcement authorities in this matter - also on 3rd January (but at two in the afternoon, rather late for the news to reach all those planning to voice their support for the import of unlawfully exported coins on the last day). Could there have been an ulterior motive for the delaying of the intervention? That might give some coiney conspiracy theorists pause for thought, I guess.

Professor Karl, The PAS and the Austrian Denkmalschutzgesetz (II): Preservation of the Archaeological Record

.

A fundamental problem of Professor Raimund Karl’s "On the Highway to Hell: Thoughts on the Unintended Consequences for Portable Antiquities of § 11(1) Austrian Denkmalschutzgesetz" is the manner in which it defines the issue of preservation of the “archaeological heritage”. I assume that it is only unintentional that it is presented solely as a matter of making sure that finds (individual objects) are treated in a certain way. One can search the text in vain for any indications hinting that the scope of archaeological protection is much wider than that. Thus it is that the law which (in the view of the author) prevents loose finds being reported are “useless” (p. 124) for preservation of the archaeological heritage, whatever else they achieve. I find this attitude extremely puzzling and can only put it down to a surfeit of contact with the views of collectors like John Hooker and Peter Tompa and supporters of the PAS. It is quite thought provoking when one of the few articles to emerge from a British university on this topic differs not an iota from the ideas about “preservation” expressed on the “Cultural property Observer” blog of the paid lobbyist of the international dugup antiquities dealers, suggesting how deep the effects of British archaeological “partnership” with collectors extends.

It is my opinion that the recording of finds made by members of the public is of importance, but certainly, despite the impression created by Raimund Karl’s text, the complexities of the issues of preservation of archaeological information for use for various purposes now and by future generations go FAR beyond this single issue.

Karl goes on to say - as Gabriel Moshenska in London - that "it does not matter" (p. 115):

And who are we kidding? Let us not fall for an archaeological fantasy: a find which has already been made, which has already been dug up, can no longer be protected from its removal from its subsoil context, whether that removal is legal or not. From the point of view of scholarship or heritage management, once it has been removed it is entirely irrelevant whether it would have been better not removed; whatever damage its removal may have caused, it has been done and cannot be reversed, however much we would like that.

Well, from the point of "heritage management" (which it seems Professor Karl TEACHES over in Wales, this seems a very odd Unitedkingdomian understanding of the idea of "heritage management") it certainly is NOT "irrelevant" whether or not random collectable items should be being removed from archaeological assemblages. Archaeological sites have more in them - both physically and metaphorically - than a few collectable brooches and other geegaws, don't they? Protecting the archaeological record means protecting the archaeological record, not merely collecting up fragments of the information when destruction has not been prevented.

So here we have the UK "better than nothing" model of heritage protection; this says in effect, its too difficult for us to actually do anything to reduce the problem, let alone tackle it head on, but we can try and paper over the cracks by smiling and putting a brave face on the failure. Maybe nobody will notice.

Karl goes on about his fibulae hoovered-up and hoiked out of archaeological assemblages:

what certainly is not irrelevant in such circumstances is whether we learn of the existence of a find or not. If we do, it remains available to scholarship, even if perhaps with somewhat reduced potential for gaining scholarly knowledge from it. If we do not, however, we lose not just the information that we could have learnt from its context (from both the finder and an investigation of the find’s spot), but also whatever information remains in the find itself. It is as if the object had never been made, deposited and excavated. And that cannot be desirable.

Again artefactocentrism, it is the information about the artefact which for Karl is "somewhat reduced" rather than the context of discovery which is lost.

What is desirable is to stop people hoiking them out willy nilly in the first place, just the same as stopping developers bulldoze a site to make a skatepark without mitigation, stopping gravel quarries quarrying them away without record, or toxic waste dumpers making it into a storage area for chemical slurry with no record of what is underneath. Anything else is not "management", it is shoulder-shrugging. Isn't it?

Like Moshenska, Karl reportedly thinks that the views of "extremists" like me should be ignored. The PAS ignores these questions too, very convenient of course, but the questions are fundamental ones about the nature of the archaeological record and about archaeology itself. They will not go away.

Vignette: not about artefacts, but their assemblages and spatial patterns and relationships with pother evidence - the Corona site.
.

Coin Elves

.

I have just spent a bit of time trying to find one of my old posts to put a hyperlink to it in a current post (to explain my use of the term "coin elves" and the ideas behind it). It has slipped well down the Google search page among other later posts of mine which refer to it in passing which is a pity as I think that - despite its deliberately flippant style - it makes an important point. Anyone a bit puzzled by the talk of "coin fairies" and "coin elves" here, please take a look at it.

Sunday, 12 April 2009
To all you young collectors out there.

Vignette: Arthur Rackham, "elves"

Two US Lawyers, Two Approaches to CPAC Comments

.
It is quite instructive to look at the approach of two US cultural property lawyers to the public commenting on the Cyprus MOU renewal. It seems that there were a total of 338 comments electronically submitted regarding Cyprus’ request but only 23 comments regarding Peru’s request. Rick St Hilaire gives a sampling of the range of arguments offered for and against the Cyprus renewal (I note he could not avoid having to use "(sic)" in the two coiney examples he selects) - Comments Submitted to CPAC in Cyprus and Peru MoU Extension Requests.

The lawyer who is a paid lobbyist of the coin trade associations however totally ignores Peru and concentrates on the percentages of the comments "for" and "against" the renewal of a bilateral agreement with Cyprus and how many mention coins - 77% of Posted Comments Against Renewal of Cypriot MOU. He makes no mention of how many of the coiney replies actually refer to the criteria mandated as the theme of CPAC deliberations. According to the figures on this blog, 20% of respondents were supportive of the idea of the US continuing to monitor imports of artefacts from Cyprus for documentation of lawful export, but 77% were against it (3% were comments wholly off-topic):

This breaks down over the coin issue thus:
Those against the renewal that mentioned coins: 71%
Those against the renewal that did not mention coins: 6%
Those for the renewal that mentioned coins: 8%
Those for the renewal that did not mention coins: 12%

These percentages of course do not add up. Turning them into numbers and calculating the percentages properly reveals the following:

Those against the renewal that mentioned coins: 92%
Those against the renewal that did not mention coins: 8%

Ninety two percent of the Philistine comments were written by coin collectors and dealers. None of their names appears on the list of those commenting on the Peruvian request.

Lost and Looking for CCPIA: Duh

.
Coin dealer Ken Martins ("Museum Surplus", Laguna Niguel, CA 92607) is looking for information that might affect his trade: Dear List, Can anyone recommend a site that has links to text of the MOUs and any legal opinions? Members had a bit of a struggle with that one, but in the end Ed Snible came up with (where else for a coiney to look, eh?): Peter Tompa's blog has links and legal opinions. Greek, Italy, I couldn't find the text of the Cyprus MOU but here is Peter Tompa on the signing statement. The rest of us might turn to the US State Department (Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs) webpage on 'International Cultural Property Protection' where (duh) there is a whole section on the MOUs and their background (they have bits of it in Spanish too). There tucked away where the coineys would never think of looking is a table setting out all the texts of the bilateral agreements and their associated designated lists:

Import Restrictions List & Chart

There Mr Martins will find the Cyprus documentation which Ed Snible could not find on Tompa's blog. I would not be a bit surprised to find Paul Barford gives the links too, but of course no coiney would ever think to look over here for anything. As I say, the information needed to write an informed comment to the CPAC is just a mouse-click away, I guess some people have difficulty identifying where they need to click the mouse and need someone to guide their hand.

What I find puzzling is that Mr Martins has been trading in antiquities under the name "Museum Surplus.com" since at least Feb 1998 and apparently in all that time he has never needed to access the text of documents associated with the operation of the CCPIA and and only now is asking for help to look for them...

Vignette: Martins are migratory birds with tiny heads, but they can work out for themselves where to go.

Two Coin Dealers Associations Want to See Metal Detectorists "Targeted"

.
At the November 16th Public Session of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee it emerged that a split is developing within the ranks of the representatives of the international numismatic trade on the subject of metal detector use to recover collectables. The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG), an organization governed by American dealers in ancient coins and with a broad base of collector membership, who awarded Roger Bland of England's Portable Antiquities Scheme its "Friends of Numismatists Award" (which to his shame he accepted), stands for the cloning of this system all over the world. The idea behind this dealer-based initiative would be liberalising the antiquities preservation legislation everywhere to allow metal detector and spade-wielding collectors free access to a larger part of the archaeological record than is the case today. At the Nov. 16th Washington public meeting Kerry Wetterstrom presented the ACCG standpoint on this. He suggested that:

it would be a better approach if Bulgaria were to adopt a scheme similar to the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) in England and Wales. Under such a scheme, metal detectorists would be allowed to operate and would be encouraged to report their finds to the authorities, which may in turn record or remunerate them for their finds.

So in effect to pay them for looting the archaeological record! Attorney and coin collector Peter Tompa serves as an officer of the ACCG too, but is also a lobbyist representing the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) and the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG), two international trade organizations for dealers in ancient coins. On their behalf he opposed any measure to control the illicit trade in smuggled items, but instead indicates that his organization favours getting tough with those that bring fresh material to the market, singling out metal detectorists as the root cause of the problem of illicit finds. Tompa:

stated that metal detectors should be targeted as as opposed to collectors.

I wonder whether metal detecting forums in the UK and US are writing about this. The two major coin dealing associations, the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) and the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG), are both calling for an end to some of the - already limited - freedoms their hobby currently enjoys. I would imagine the members of such forums taking a resolution to consider applying a boycott and not selling any material to dealers affiliated with either of these trade organizations until they specify more clearly their policies towards the definition of what constitutes responsible and irresponsible artefact hunting in relationship to their closer definition of their own policies for the responsible trading of dugup artefactual material. These collectors are excluded from their codes of ethics for example.

It is odd though that one will find such a split over the issue of metal detecting among the officers of the most active dealers' lobbying group, the ACCG concerning whether metal detectorists are to be encouraged and rewarded (the Wetterstrom-PAS approach) or punished (the Tompa-numismatic dealers approach). So what is the ACCG's actual policy towards metal detecting, and the purchase of artefacts which derive from metal detecting? In the light of the discrepancies over this fundamental issue, can we expect some kind of definition of ACCG policies applicable to metal detecting everywhere (in the USA as well as the source countries of the dugup ancient coins ACCG dealers and collectors handle)

Imagine....

.
US Coin dealer Alfredo De La Fe has a blog, and today's latest post is the predictable US coiney reaction to the latest PAS 'whoopee' news-spin:

New Viking Ruler Discovered by a Metal detectorist?
In today’s telegraph there is a story about the potential discovery of a new viking ruler based on the discovery of viking hoard by a metal detectorist. [the Silverdale Hoard of course]. This is a great example of how the Portable Antiquities Scheme works and contributes to our understanding of the past. Imagine if similar systems were in place in other source countries as opposed to restrictive laws which force the local markets under ground.

It is probably going to take another couple of decades before these dumb transatlantic people work out that the Treasure Act is administered through the Coroner, and the Portable Antiquities Scheme is something QUITE DIFFERENT. In fact the Treasure Act is exactly the same kind of vesting law that De La Fe labels "restrictive laws". If you do not report archaeological (and other) finds that fall in its remit and had them over to the Coroner in 14 days you run the risk of going to jail. I fail to see finding out the bare fact that some guy existed and called himself 'king' is such an earth-shattering event - lots of people existed in the past who we'll never learn the names of, but that is not the only aim of historic enquiry. Is our "knowledge of the past" entirely dependent on knowing which Torre, Dicke or Harthacnut briefly claimed deo-gratia kingship in Northumbria or thereabouts in the 890s before succumbing to a rival's axe at the next territorial punch-up ? Battles and Kings history is just one kind of view of the past. Surely of importance here is to understand the landscape and site context of the findspot of that lead container which when the finder hoiked it out, the "silver fell out" (or was it "prised open"?). As an archaeologist I would say that is potentially more important to our knowledge of the historical processes of this complex period than a mere king-list. Northumbria at the end of the ninth and beginning of the tenth centuries had many 'kings', in the tenth it was to have many more, but what social processes lie behind this procession of names, the shifting of power-blocks delimited by the nice broad lines on the historian's maps? That some bloke called Airdeconut struck a coin (with a p.c. Christian monogram on the reverse) is good news fodder and may be exciting to coineys, but hardly advances our knowledge of the processes operating on the rest of society. This of course will not be known while all we have are a couple of hundred bits of metal hoiked out of the ground here and there and no context to put them in.

Let us be clear why the vesting legislation the coineys criticise do not work. If Terence Thugwit metal detectorist finds something like this in the Republic of Distopia which declares all finds to be the property of the state, he can avoid trouble by declaring it and be thankful he is not locked up for trashing archaeological sites with his spade and metal detector. On the other hand, he may have a mate who knows a bloke that might give him a couple of hundred (!) Euros for it. Now that bloke can only realise his investment if HE in turn finds somebody who will give him a nice profit on his money (it's a risky business breaking the law in Distopia, best to get the dodgy goods out of the country, where anyway there are better profits to be made in Can't-touch-you-for-it-land). But he knows this Bavarian dealer who has contacts in the US market...

Should there be laws about people trashing the archaeological record for entertainment and profit? I of course have to say yes - as an archaeologist I believe firmly that there should.

Should there be laws which if effective and obeyed by citizens ensure that all archaeological finds are reported and made available for study? I again would say yes (with the proviso that I personally think there should ideally also be systematic data gathering by state-funded teams as we have in Poland).

Should the citizens who go out and trash sites for entertainment and profit be made aware by every possible means of the laws and their consequences, and if caught punished with the fullest severity of the law? Yes.

Should opportunities be made available for people who want to engage in real archaeological work in the landscape (even with metal detectors if done properly)? Absolutely.

What however should be stopped is a situation where people go out with tools to trash archaeological sites (do not do so according to "best practice"), squirrel away the information and artefacts, and clandestinely sell the unreported artefacts to willing dealers. Both they and the dealers buying illicit goods should be caught and punished to the maximum extent of the law. What those countries whose archaeological heritage is being clandestinely looted away need to do is cut off culture criminals who loot sites from the irresponsible people that will give them lots of money no-questions-asked for anything they bring along for sale. These people too are aiding and abetting culture crime, and in some cases committing it themselves. And cutting the US market off from these culture criminals (artefact smugglers and their fellows) is exactly the application of the CCPIA in the US is intended to achieve and the application of these measures is exactly what the ACCG (to which Alfredo De La Fe belongs) are trying to prevent - which is why he posts nonsense about "imagine if other countries had a PAS...".

Is he suggesting that if other countries had a PAS there would be no need for the CCPIA and coin dealers would then not have to worry about documentation of legal export of the items they stock? What nonsense, the PAS has no connection whatsoever with fighting illicit exports of cultural property.

UPDATE 15.12.11: Mr DLF ("Understanding Our (sic) Past") clearly does not understand the point I made about there being other kinds of history than "Battles and Kings"... Neither does he even notice (let alone respond to it) that what was discussed in my post above was his fundamental point that if other countries had a PAS-clone, there would be no need for the CCPIA to be applied in the USA, probably because even he realises that what he postulated in dealery self-interest is nonsense ("The response over on Paul Barford’s blog was predictable").

[The word, by the way, I think you are striving for, Mr De La Fe, is "drivel", "dribble" is what you do with a football over here.]

.

Cultural Heritage and Gubn'mint Repression of Collecters' "Rights"

.
Edgar Owen, , antiquities dealer from New York state ( "A Premier Gallery of Antiquities, Ancient Coins and World Art"Lake Hopatcong, NJ 07849, USA) has a number of views on artefact collecting and those who oppose no-questions-asked antiquities collecting and support cultural patrimony laws. He has recently become active in the debate on these issues, though mainly posted to closed-access discussion lists not publicly accessible. It seems worth therefore bringing this discussion to the attention of a wider audience.

The first text (Moneta-L Message #102012) can now also be seen elsewhere:

we have to stop letting the antis define the issue in terms of 'looting' and 'evil collectors' and expose it for what it really is, the growing efforts by governments everywhere to take away more and more individual freedoms, most often on the basis of manufactured issues of 'political correctness'. In the case of antiquities and ancient coins there is a peculiar quasi religious zeal to the antis' crusade. They would have everyone believe that even common everyday pottery and coins from ancient times have some sacred quasi religious nature that makes them completely off limits to lowly ordinary people, and that they are only to be held and examined in inner sanctums by the high priests of archaeology, and only these properly sanctified priests have the right to handle such artifacts and only they are qualified to interpret them to us lowly commoners but we must never touch them on pain of violating the commandments. And that all ancient objects are so sacred that no matter how many of them there are they all must be confiscated from the impure hands of the unwashed and stored forever safely away from our impure possessive desires to share in the common history of mankind.

He ends by suggesting that in its essentials, efforts to suppress the no-questions-asked market in antiquities are nothing more than "an attempt by governments to expropriate and control history". The aim is to "take history away" from the public "and make us more and more dependent on government control of the present". Furthermore, "if all antiquities and coins are off the market" the effect is that "the only things left to buy are modern consumer goods where the profits go into the pockets of big business instead of to other people".

Owen's second text was posted on Tim Haines' Yahoo "Ancient Artifacts" discussion group, ostensibly for "responsible collectors". It too was leaked on a coiney list:

There is a basic error here in the whole 'looting' discussion and that is that somehow the current government of any country is the rightful owner of anything it chooses to claim ownership of. That is in basic violation of individual property rights and based entirely on unjust laws. If a country wants to keep some selected part of its historical heritage within its boundaries then it should be required to compensate the rightful individual finders/owners at full market value. Governments do not own everything. Any just government derives its powers entirely from its individual citizens who are the rightful owners of all property except insofar as they willingly cede such powers to their governments. Rather than let source country governments, and archaeologists who are dependent on source country permits to work, define the debate, we need to reframe it in terms of basic human rights. That I think many or most Americans and citizens of other countries can understand... Cultural heritage belongs to people, not governments. Only the people can justly decide what part of cultural heritage should be given to the care of their government.

The third text comes from the same discussion list of Tim Haines (you know, the one ostensibly for "responsible collectors"). Here Edgar Owen wrote:

There are many including the AIA who want to ban collecting ancient items entirely. The whole process is trending in that direction and who knows how far it will proceed unless it is stopped?

Also you are simply wrong that "whether we like it or not, source countries have their own laws and everything that comes out of the ground belongs to the state and so these looted pieces are stolen as they do belong to the governments..." Because there is a law doesn't automatically mean that law is just, rational, or in the best interest of people involved. Also the UK is a source country and finders and land owners have rights to what comes out of the ground. Also potatoes come out of the ground. What's the moral difference between a potato and an AE4 coming out of the ground? Why does one belong to the government and the other not? Or a better example a lost object less than 100 years old versus one 2000 years old. What's the moral difference?

And what is the moral difference between an osprey egg and a chicken egg? An egg is an egg, a potato is a potato and an ancient coin is a piece of archaeological evidence when in the context of its deposition. Once it has been stripped from that context it ceases to have that additional potential value. Once again we see the English (not UK) example being trotted out in support of no-questions-asked collecting. One day I expect the Portable Antiquities Scheme might face up to their responsibilities and do a bit of archaeological outreach on their webpage pointing out the fallacies of such arguments as they are employed by their "Friends", the dugup antiquity and coin collectors of the United States. Maybe in another thirteen years' time they might get around to it...

It is notable that Owen wants us to stop defining the issue as "looting" and the evil that no-questions-asked collecting does. What he does not explain is why, when that clearly is the problem. He wishes to direct attention away from this to government repression (nota-bene in the US). The depiction of archaeology as some kind of religion falls flat on its face when we realise that the ONLY antiquities (and therefore the only type of collecting) most of us are concerned about are those freshly surfacing on a no-questions-asked market, and those being freshly dug up to fuel it.

Again, the dealer would have his readers believe that the aim of any action against the no-questions-asked market is to "confiscate" every single artefact (and "repatriate" them) which is not at all what most of us are fighting for. Likewise that all archaeologists want to "stop collecting" is another of those myths dealers like to perpetuate, though seldom can cite anything to support this assertion beyond stating that if the antiquities trade had to stop being no-questions-asked as is being urged, it would be the end of trading as we know it - but then, that surely is the point, to cut out the dodgy dealers and their goods.

Mr Owen wants landowners and finders to get the value of the type of items he sells in his "premier gallery", I wonder how far he has gone with realising that. How profitable would his trade be if every owner of the land from which those artefacts came, and every finder, got something like the current market value of each items he is selling? Somehow there is a flaw in this argument, isn't there? It's called a "profit margin" I believe.

"Because there is a law doesn't automatically mean that law is just, rational, or in the best interest of people involved".

I would like to see those who deny governments to claim cultural property in trust for the benefit of citizens to develop their argument further. It seems to me that to take these arguments to their logical conclusion, one denies a government the ability to legislate in any manner that affects a citizen's property rights, and that includes for example levying taxes on the results of a person's labour. Or saying they have to have a piece of paper to allow them to drive their own car legally, which "they" can take away if you drive your car in a way they do not like? The US government is also "owner" of huge tracts of land, but by what right? From whom did the gubn'mint purchase it (at a fair price)? In what way is the US appropriation of huge areas of valuable real estate for itself any different from the British Crown saying certain buried goods are the property of the crown, or Poland saying archaeological finds when discovered should be turned in because they are state property? I wonder if Mr Owen pays his taxes and if so to whom and why, if he really believes what he says about governments. Do governments merit the label "quasi-religious zeal" for the way they insist on their tax collection and driving licence issuance, I wonder?

Well, I think we all look forward to Mr Owen's continued "reframing" of the debate in terms of "basic human rights". Like for example the basic human rights of the citizens of all the countries Mr Owen is currently stocking material from in his New Jersey gallery to have their cultural heritage back where it cannot be proven to have been legitimately acquired at source.

That I think many or most Americans and citizens of other countries can understand... Cultural heritage belongs to people, not governments. Only the people can justly decide what part of cultural heritage should be given to the care of their government.

Or to foreign galley owners. For how many of those expensive and spectacular pieces does he now have documentation of the "people's" acquiescence to its removal from the country?