Looting Matters Asks Question of IAPN

.
Looting Matters points out in a post today ('Owner of IAPN member organisation charged?') that the firm Nomos AG, belonging to Peter A. Weiss is:

a member of the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) [see also here]. IAPN has apparently paid $100,000 over the last two years for lobbying services in the US. Will the IAPN clarify the situation about one of its apparent members? And have paid lobbyists in Washington received money from IAPN to oppose the inclusion of ancient coins in MOUs?

It seems to me that the questions raised about the US coin trade by the events of Jan 3rd will lead to a better understanding of what has been going on and help closer to define the boundaries between what is licit and illicit.

So, has the IAPN been funding the opposition to bilateral cultural agreements which regulate the import onto one of the largest sectors of the dugup antiquities market of fresh material without documentation of lawful export from a source country?

"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.

US Import Restrictions Only Apply to Illicitly Exported Items

.
The accusation that many coineys with educations gained in US schools have fluff for brains seems to be increasingly confirmed not only by the ease with which their self-appointed leaders manage to convince them with false admonitions of "what the new MOU will mean for YOU" which they never check, but also by the flow of whingeing pseudo-justifications which has recently been emerging from the milieu. Peter Tompa now asks: Do Import Restrictions Only Apply to "Illicitly Exported" Items?

Do MOU's only apply to "illicitly exported" artifacts as archaeo-blogger Paul Barford has claimed? No. In fact, import restrictions as applied by US Customs bar entry of coins openly and legitimately sold in markets abroad merely because they are of a type on a designated list.

Whoah, whoah. What is the CONNECTION between "openly and legitimately sold" within a country and "openly and legitimately exported"? None. As these clowns well know. The coiney lobbyist whinges on:

First, for coins coming directly from the country for which import restrictions are granted, there is an exception if they are accompanied with an export permit.

"OK, your starter for ten, fingers on the buzzers: "what do we call a coin exported from a country which has export restrictions which is accompanied by an export licence?"..." [buzzzz]
"Yes, Oxford Magdalene, "licitly exported". That is the correct answer".

"Fingers on the buzzers, now what do we call a coin exported from a country which has export restrictions which has been taken out of the country without getting an export licence?" [buzzz] "No, I am sorry Wisconsin Numismatic Academy, the correct answer is "illicitly exported", bad luck".

"Fingers on the buzzers again, what is the correct legal term for a coin removed from a country which does not issue export licences for archaeological artefacts and therefore has none? Anyone?" " [buzzz] "Yes, Wisconsin... No... no. No, the correct answer is that we call such a coin 'illicitly exported', or simply smuggled, bad luck again..."
[inaudible]

"No, Wisconsin, if it left the source country illegally, it makes no difference whether it passed through another country - since it arrived there illicitly; can we pass on t..."

[inaudible] "No, Wisconsin, the ten year "get out clause" as you put it is just a local convenience, which does not negate the principles established by the international agreement, so if we could... and there is no need for that sort of language, ...".
[raises eyebrow, discretely makes note to producer never to ask these rowdy peabrains back to University Challenge].

Three days later, the TV production company got an indignant letter from the principal numismatist of the Wisconsin Coin Academy, protesting:

The import restrictions discussed on the programme are both illogical and themselves definitely illicit, according to the 1983 CCPIA implementing US accession to the 1970 UNESCO Convention. That [is a] very clear contravention of the terms of the CCPIA...

They ignored the letter as the writings of a madman of course.

Basically, if you have an antiquity of a type which is on the designated lists (which certainly contain many, many more categories than just a few scrappy coins) and you want to import it into the US either get the seller to obtain an export licence, or failing that as the CCPIA (19 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) SECTION 2606, Import Restrictions, (a) Documentation of lawful exportation (note that title, Peter Tompa in particular) states: "unless the State Party issues a certification or other documentation which certifies that such exportation was not in violation of the laws of the State Party". Note this has nothing to do with "open and legitimate sale within the country". Neither has it anything in the least connected with its 'provenance' or collecting history. This is purely and simply about lawful export (note that title everybody, Peter Tompa and coin dealers in particular).

All is not lost even if you've not got one of those, the actual text of the CCPIA contains a useful get-out clause [2606(c)(1)(B)] "a statement provided by the consignor, or person who sold the material to the importer, which states the date, or, if not known, his belief, that the material was exported from the State Party not less than ten years before the date of entry into the United States, and the reasons on which the statement is based". Not even on oath, not even asking for any supporting material to be supplied. Basically scribbling down some (could be made-up) story of innocence.

Now the reason the silly whingers are complaining about even this is that they reckon a fellow dealer scribbling such a note on a company letterhead would - they assert - cost "more than the coin itself". So who else, except dumber-than-my-cat coineys, would do business with a seller that would charge you an arm and a leg for putting down a few words on paper why the circumstances of the sale of these particular coins are not breaking the law? How much were Spink's charging to scribble a note about the coins seized in Baltimore on their way to the ACCG? Did they not know the US law on the imports of such items and ignored it? Not very professional, is it?

Remember what article 3 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, implemented in the US by the CCPIA, says.

_____________________________________

UPDATE 28.11.11: Dealer Dave attempts to defend the logic of Peter Tompa by incomplete sentences (at the beginning of his "commentary" to a lengthy cut-and-paste) and tekkie language (at the end of his insulting "commentary" to a lengthy cut-and-paste). Between them however is nothing which refutes the notion that commerce in objects removed from a country in disregard of its export licensing procedures is anything except illicit. Perhaps instead of insulting and merely ridiculing those whose views differ (from those of which he wants to convince coineys and others), it might be more useful to actually indicate, citing chapter and verse, where I am wrong here instead of merely sniping without providing justification [except his wholly irrelevant assertion that Peter Tompa probably earns "ten times as much" as me for lobbying on behalf of the coin sellers. He probably does, that does not make doing what he does right].

UPDATE 28.11.11 (bis)
"Any reader interested in finding out the omitted details will have little difficulty doing that". Yes, I suppose not quoting (this time) beyond the first sentence and not giving a link saves the coiney readers of the coin dealer's blog from having to bother their confused brains about what it says here about what an "illicit export" is. Any readers he has who have not got fluff for brains will take note of his manipulation and whether the Dealer Dave "Ancient Coins" blog or this PACHI blog is a better source of information for responsible collectors on what the law actually says.

Baltimore Illegal Coin Import case Drags on, and on

On August 8, the Baltimore Illegal Coin Import Stunt "test case" launched in 2009 by the ACCG (ostensibly on behalf of collectors who want the 'freedom" to buy illegally exported coins rather than those with paperwork proving licit export) was thrown out of court by Circuit Court judge Catherine Blake. The ACCG Board of Directors authorized an appeal of the ruling and on September 20, 2011 the Washington firm of Bailey and Ehrenberg, PLLC filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Whoopee, eh? I bet all those collectors hungry to get their hands on illegally exported dugup ancient coins are over the moon that they have the ACCG fighting their corner. The rest of us are left shaking our heads in bewilderment and sadness. Problem is, it seems to me (and of course I am no lawyer) that two of the points they raise have no relation whatsoever to the grounds of the dismissal which they are appealing. Is this a real appeal or just one done 'for show' to make no-questions-asked collectors feel that all the money and hope they've invested in the ACCG are well spent? At least when it's thrown out, everybody concerned can play the part of the victim. These people seem to like playing the part of the victim, it's obviously easier than pulling their fingers out and getting on with cleaning up the market.


Vignette: Why not just settle for selling legally exported coins? What's the point of a lawsuit to enable the selling of illegally exported ones if you only sell legally exported coins?

ACCG Keeping Same Legal Team For Appeal

.
The coiney lobby group ACCG obviously do not know when to give up on a bad job (Wayne G. Sayles, 'Board Authorizes Baltimore Appeal' ACCG)

On August 23, 2011 the ACCG Board of Directors voted in favor of a proposal that authorizes an appeal of the decision rendered in Baltimore by District Court Judge Catherine C. Blake on August 8. The initial motions in the case led to oral arguments on the government's motion to dismiss. Judge Blake subsequently granted that motion for dismissal in a 52-page opinion. ACCG is represented in the case by attorneys Peter Tompa and Jason Ehrenberg of the Washington DC firm Bailey & Ehrenberg.

There is something rather touching in the loyalty of these clownish old gentlemen. The ACCG has "5000 affiliated members" but there are said to be 50 000 collectors of dugup ancient coins in the USA alone, just who is this "Board" for them?

State Department 3, Coin Dealers 0

.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Civil Action No. CCB-10-322
ANCIENT COIN COLLECTORS GUILD v U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF :
HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.

The ACCG's long awaited court case resulting from their Baltimore Illegal Coin Import Stunt has just been thrown out. Hands up who was surprised at that after reading their rambling complaint? It is clear a huge amount of work has gone into assessing this case, and all of us who care about the protection of the world's archaeological heritage from damage by commercial looting and smuggling should be grateful to Judge Catherine C. Blake for taking the time to deal with this so thoroughly.

Now what remains is the undisputed fact that the London firm Spinks exported coins to the USA knowingly in infringement of US law (see the atypical wording of their invoice cited in the Judge's dismissal, indicating that they willingly went along with the stunt) and the ACCG is guilty of deliberately importing coins into the USA which did not fulfil the criteria of legality under the CCPIA. The ACCG executive Director claims both he and Spinks are now on a US Customs watch list (a claim not denied by the State) and I say, good. What did they expect?

Obviously the ACCG's legal team made a serious mistake (apart from the one in the original complaint which I am not going to discuss until it is sure there will be no appeal or return to this case). They should have imported the coins through Salt Lake City airport, then they'd have at least a chance of coming before a US judge who sees nothing much wrong with archaeological looting.

Baltimore Seizure Cash Coins: When did they leave China?

.
Running away again.

I will publish no more comments from Mr. Barford and Ian on this subject. Others may feel free to comment ...

writes Washington legal expert Peter Tompa. So I shall just have to ask him about the implications of what he has just added to his website here, and he can pretend he did not see it. But the other coineys will and wonder just what kind of a lawyer they have representing their interests.

Peter Tompa in mean-mindedly hounding SAFE's Cindy Ho has now posted on his website an extract in translation of the Chinese law on archaeological relics from 1930 which was the precursor of the stiffer legislation of the People's Republic of China (see J. David Murphy (1994), An Annotated Chronological Index of People’s Republic of China Statutory and other Materials Relating to Cultural Property, Int’l J. Cultural Prop. 159 for some of the items Tompa does not cite).

The Washington lawyer uses the 1930 law (Art. 6 and 13 taken out of context) to suggest that artefacts sold to "aliens" and which are outside China are stolen property, illegally removed from the country. He concludes:

China's 1935 law may indeed be applicable. It covers artifacts from "other cultures" and bars their sale to "aliens." Barford claims the law does not apply, but is that all that clear?

well, it is clear to me, but Tompa seems to be of another opinion. OK, he's the lawyer - let's follow his argument through to its logical conclusion.

Let's first reflect a moment about the collecting of Chinese antiquities in the West. In particular cash coins (the ones with the square hole in the middle). That this was not very prevalent in the west before the first decades of the twentieth century seems to be very strongly suggested by the date of the appearance of the first basic catalogue for western collectors, Frederick Schjoth's "Chinese Currency: The Currency of the Far East" in 1929 - still treated by some US dealers as the standard numbering system. So, though there must have been such coins in circulation earlier, it is really only after the date of the publication of this work that one might expect to see increasing numbers of imports of these artefacts into western (European and North American) collecting circles from China. So basically the date of import of coins of this type currently on western markets is far more likely to be post 1929/1930 than before that date.


Readers may remember that Peter Tompa is the lawyer participating in the Baltimore Illegal Coin Import Stunt organized by the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild and supported by the Professional Numismatists' Guild and the International Association of Professional Numismatists. The subject of an ongoing lawsuit include some Chinese cash coins bought from a London dealer and imported into the United States in that stunt. I've discussed this disgusting self-serving stunt many times on this blog. But now looking specifically at those "cash" coins, I presume Peter Tompa can document that these artefacts left China before the Relics Act of June 1930 which he himself cites and which he says absolutely prohibits the sale of relics to "aliens" and their removal from the country. Has he done his "due diligence"? If they were removed subsequently, by his own arguments they are stolen property and therefore as 'tainted' goods, cannot be legally sold in the US (Stolen Property Act).

In that case, what Tompa himself has published on his own website now makes it very difficult for the ACCG to argue that the Chinese cash coins should be handed over to them, since in all likelihood (and in the absence of any documentation to the contrary) they left China after 1930, when the legislation which Tompa applies to the material Cindy Ho was handling was already in force (or later versions with the same basic idea). How can the ACCG, PNG and IAPN (represented by Peter Tompa's law firm) ask state authorities to hand over to them material consisting of dugup antiquities which in all probability are stolen in the light of the law of the country from which they came cited by their lawyer Mr Tompa. I bet the ACCG and its lawyers cannot demonstrate each of these specific items not to be post-1930 exports. So that would rather mean their whole case with regard to the cash coins falls flat on its face.

[I know you chaps at the State Department read this blog. If you have not already done so (as I can see you are already running circles round and one step ahead of the dullard dealers) please make sure your legal team know about Mr Tompa's blog post on this topic and bring it up at any hearing there may be as it well shows the hypocrisy and double standards that obtain in the antiquity market which is precisely why upholding legislation like the CCPIA is so necessary].

Photo: Reportedly, the actual coins imported by ACCG dealers through Baltimore, did they leave China before 1930?

More Piractical Moaning

.
More piractical moaning about the Italy MOU extension from the coineys:

It is not administering the carefully crafted 1983 CPIA for which it is responsible in anything even remotely resembling a fair and even handed manner.

Fair to whom? To the Italian people, Italian antiquity smugglers? Too right, the implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention by the US is downright unfair to Italian and any other antiquity smugglers. Also wholly unfair to those in the USA who want to buy illegally exported Italian antiquities. It must put their nose right out of joint that the US Gubn'mint says: "no, no we don't want that going on here on OUR watch". Welsh (not wanting to appear "extreme" you understand) cites the Chant de Guerre pour l'Armée du Rhin "Quoi? Des cohortes étrangères, feraient la loi dans nos foyers!"...

"It's not what the American people want" Welsh raves: How many US citizens would actually want their kids hanging around in school with the kids of men who openly campaign for the "right" to buy and sell illegally obtained goods? Would you give them your hand?
.

China: Protecting Sites needs More Resources ("So Let's Carry on Buying Antiquities"?)

.
China Daily (Nov 18, 2010 ) reports that the 'Protection of relics in China needs more resources':

Police and authorities protecting cultural relics plan to work more closely to fight the rising frequency of grave robbery and smuggling of cultural treasures in the country. The plan from the Ministry of Public Security and the State Administration of Cultural Heritage includes setting up joint offices between local police and cultural relics bureaus, according to the two departments.
"We're also considering rewarding members of the public who offer tips and report such crimes," Shan Jixiang, director of the State Administration of Cultural Heritage, said on Wednesday while attending an exhibition on a nationwide crackdown against grave robbery and relics smuggling. Between the launch of the national crackdown in December 2009 and this June, authorities had cracked 541 cases, broken up 71 grave robbery gangs and smuggling groups, and seized 2,366 cultural relics, according to figures released on Wednesday.

Although grave digging and relics smuggling are banned in China, mouthwatering profits still lure an increasing number of people to take the risk, including some villagers living near historical sites, according to a press release from the exhibition. It said crimes related to cultural relics in the country are becoming violent. Weapons are frequently used to fight police. The release added that grave robbers are equipped with more advanced devices, such as GPS, metal detectors, specialized vehicles and explosive tools, which can seriously damage cultural sites and ancient graves. In addition, the criminal groups have become more organized, with members responsible for specific tasks such as stealing, transferring, selling and smuggling the relics.

The shortage of funds at the local level has worsened the situation. "We really lack support," said Han Yulin, a team leader of the special investigation police team in Xi'an of Northwest China's Shaanxi province, which is rich in cultural relics. "There are only 17 policemen on our team, and we have to deal with all cultural relic crimes in Xi'an. It's almost impossible," he said.

Another article from May this year Fan Junmei & Ma Yujia, 'A grave robber's world',China.org.cn, May 15, 2010) describes the process of robbing tombs for collectables for foreign markets in much more detail.

Grave robbing is now "industrialized" into a chain of excavation, smuggling, storage, and selling.It's often a team activity with a core leader who masterminds the operation. Another individual is responsible for obtaining the equipment needed for a specific grave excavation. Then there are "technical workers," who locate the tomb's precise position. Finally, there are the laborers, mostly migrant workers, who dig and get dirty.

From stolen to legal

Grave robbers attempt to find a reliable and generous purchaser as soon as possible, and generally, the items are smuggled in 3 days. There are two paths to transfer stolen relics. The first is to smuggle them through Guangzhou or Shenzhen. The other is to stockpile them at several distribution centers in Henan, Shanxi and Gansu for eventual transfer to Hong Kong and Taiwan, before finally being sold abroad. According to Wu Shu, a well-known Chinese collector and author, after the stolen relics were smuggled and sold abroad, collectors purchased them and brought them back to China. This effectively made the previously stolen relics legal, because according to Chinese laws, Chinese relics returned from overseas don't need to be reviewed by customs officials, and it's legal to buy and sell them. [...] Huang Zuyue, an official from Ministry of Public Security, told Global People, "Huge profits have driven the cases of stealing, reselling and smuggling relics." The statistics showed that about 200 million ancient Chinese graves were excavated illicitly in recent years. "At present China's reserve of cultural relics is nearly depleted," Wu Shu said with great anxiety.

So I wonder how the ACCG's court case against the US government's ban on the import of illegally exported cultural artefacts from China is coming along? "We really lack support" said the policeman; the greatest lack of support however comes from the foreign dealers and collectors of exotic dugup metalwork who not only buy the stuff no-questions-asked but insist on calling it their (as US citizens) "right". What right is there in putting money into the pockets of organized gangs of culture thieves? And who is the real culture thief, the guy with the spade who knows that someone will give him money for digging, or the person that encourages them to do the dirty work for them?

UPDATE: Peter Tompa ('Blame the Foreigner') writes: Archaeo-blogger Paul Barford reiterates Chinese propaganda in his latest post. So all this talk about looting is all "propaganda"? So the coins that ACCG imported into Baltimore were produced by coin elves and were not dug out of the ground? Pull the other one Mr Tompa. Propaganda?



Photo: One of the three grave robbers who were caught by the police in southeast China's Zhejiang Province in 2007 is showing how to use what the newspaper describes as "a remote sensor". We know what it really is, and who uses them and what for.

Twelve Wisconsin Philistines in Congress

.
Well this has to be the oddest piece of news ever to leave the shores of the United States. We all remember the infamous 2006 Wisconsin Declaration, its poison influence is now spreading even as far as Texas. The ACCG has just posted on its website a facsimile of a letter on US Congress letterhead dated Sept 27th 2010, addressed to Secretary of State Clinton.

This is what it says:

Dear Madam Secretary,
we write today to express concern with certain actions of the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural affairs ("ECA") that appear to undermine the legislative intent of Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act ("CPIA"), 19 U.S.C. Section 2601 et seq. This legislation which was drafted by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, furthers our national interest in promoting cultural access and trade which is central to our nation's values.

Recently, the ECA imposed restrictions on the importation of coins from Cyprus and China that clearly are contrary to the intent of the enabling legislation. In particular, we understand that the past Chairman of the President's Cultural property Advisory Committee stated in a declaration filed in federal court that his committee recommended against import restrictions on coins. However, ECA imposed them anyway. We also understand that Freedom of Information Act requests have confirmed that China never asked for import restrictions on coins, but that ECA provided them to China anyway.

The CPIA, "concerted international response" requirement is meant to ensure the comity and effectiveness of such import restrictions, but the rules on Cypriot and Chinese coins only discriminate against American collectors, and represent a taking of their private property. Foreigners - including collectors in Cyprus and China - continue to import coins without any restrictions. We request that you initiate a review of these two actions, and if it is concluded that the law or any procedures have been broken, that the State Department suspend these restrictions promptly.

We also understand that ECA is considering a renewal of the current MOU with Italy, which expires in January 2011 and possible expansion to include import restrictions on ancient Greek and Roman artefacts for another five years. Rules about import restrictions on cultural artefacts from Italy were first promulgated in 2001 and 2006. As a quid pro quo, Italy promised to increase long term loans to all US museums to facilitate the issuance of export permits for cultural goods legitimately sold within Italy, and to increase Italy's efforts against looters. We further understand that of these requirements, only the last related to Italy's enforcement efforts has been realised.

We hope that before any action is taken on renewing the MOU the State Department conduct a full review of Italian compliance with the current MOU's provisions concerning long term loans and the facilitation of export permits for legally acquired cultural items. Italian non-compliance with the current MOU should not be rewarded as that would only serve to deny Americans' promised cultural opportunities. Even more specifically, there should be no expansion of the MOU to include coins, commonplace items that stand outside the scope of the legislative intent behind CPIA.

We look forward to hearing your actions in support of our above requests to strengthen CPIA
Sincerly.

The 12 Signatories are, to their shame:
Paul Ryan (R-WI), Thomas Petri (R-WI), John Culberson (R-TX), Michael Burgess (R-TX), Sam Johnson (R-TX), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX), John Campbell (R-CA), Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) , Rob Wittman (R-VA), John Spratt (D-SC) and Joe Courtney (D-CT).

Ryan, Petrie and Culberson are recipients of ACCG Friends of Numismatics Awards. The ACCG notes that the lead in the preparation of this text was Ryan, so let's call them the 'Wisconsin 12'.



So it looks like the ACCG are going after Hilary Clinton now. If her Department does not find any law or procedure broken by its staff with regard to the China and Cyprus ancient coin import restrictions, but the Baltimore illegal coin import stunt case says otherwise, then will the ACCG press for her dismissal?

So checking Italy's "compliance", is that not the task of the CPAC?

Now, I really am puzzled by what the Wisconsin12 Congresspeople think is the "legislative intent" of an act called the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act. Surely it is intended to implement the measures laid down in the Convention mentioned in its preamble, in other words the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property. Is that not so?

Now surely the aim of the Convention as its name implies is Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property between and within the territories of the various States Party, and not "furthering US national interest in promoting cultural access and trade" (whether or not making money from such trade is or is not "central to our nation's values"). Certainly the intent of the Convention is the trade in illegally exported cultural property should not become "central" to the national values of any of the States party. It seems to me that in their haste to prove themselves Friends of Numismatics by reducing the scope of the implementation of the 1970 Convention, the Wisconsin Twelve seem to lost sight of some of those key national values.

'Implementing the Convention' means implementing the Convention surely and not implementing a law which says the convention is all very fine but if we actually prohibit and prevent our citizens from being involved in the illicit import and transfer of cultural property certain key national values are going to suffer. I wonder what those key values could be?

The illicit import and transfer of cultural property involves stealing. Is theft from others a key national value of the Wisconsin 12's United States?
The illicit import and transfer of cultural property involves dishonourable trade practices, lies on the customs declaration forms, is dishonesty and dishonour now a key American value?
The illicit import and transfer of cultural property taken from other countries is a deep disregard and disrespect for the rights of the citizens of the countries from which they are illegally removed, since when was disregard and disrespect for others a key US national value?

"Our nation's values", what does the Wisconsin Twelve's letter to Secretary Hilary Clinton say about them? What message is the United States Congress giving out to the rest of the world here? Take a good look everybody at how the US democratic process works, apparently all you have to do is give out a few wall plaques made on the cheap in Turkey to a few congressmen and it seems from this letter that you can get twelve of them in your pocket. Nice.

I wonder to what extent the twelve signatories of this letter are aware that restrictions only apply to coins without documentation of legal export which can be supplied by two types of pieces of paper? There is no restriction on the movement through US borders of coins of the designated categories with the proper paperwork, nor of coins from those countries which do not fall in the designated categories. There is no sign in the letter that the Congressmen were appraised of this. On the contrary, it looks very much like from the wording of what they wrote that they had allowed themselves to be misinformed about the nature of the restrictions.

As for what they write about China, I fail to see why when a nation whose archaeological material includes ancient coins asks for archaeological artefacts to be protected it has to add "and coins". That's like saying legislation about canine vaccination must included the words "and chihuahuas and poodles". Coins ARE artefacts, unless they were made by the coin elves, maybe the Wisconsin12 believe in the coin elves and therefore think looting is quite unrelated to the trade in illegally exported artefacts? Who knows what they think? But I am of the opinion that they should be asked.

The Congress12 claim that American collectors are discriminated against by American laws, note that they fail to mention dealers. Why? Of course it is not just American collectors is it? Mexican coin collectors in the US will also have to comply with US law on this matter. It is of course true that collectors of the source countries have no restriction on "import" of these coins, they come from the soil there. Duh.

How can restricting the import of improperly exported coins "represent a taking of the private property" of collectors ? (Note again dealers are not mentioned.) How can a US citizen own something knowingly acquired in disregard of the relevant laws?

As for the Wisconsin12 saying that their letter is merely an attempt "to strengthen CPIA", they must think Secretary of State Clinton is a nine-year old to fall for that one. They are not only attempting to undermine the CCPIA, but also the intent of the 1970 UNESCO Convention. Look on world, see how these 12 Congressmen value accession to an international Convention.

I do not understand why on the second page bearing the signatures (several of which give the impression have being done using the same pen) there are four empty lines. Were there initially supposed to have been four other Congressmen who had initially agreed to sign but had second thoughts when they realised what was going on? If so, good for them - may we know their names?

The ACCG urges "Ancient coin collectors who are represented in Washington by any of these Members of Congress are encouraged to contact the local or national offices and thank them for their support". There are, I firmly believe, large numbers of people who care for the protection of the world's archaeological record from commercial exploitation by looters to fuel the US no-questions-asked market in ancient coins (V-coins alone today 147 dealers in ancient dugups, 111,096 items, value: 22,341,929 dollars). If any of them are represented in Washington by any of these twelve Members of Congress signatory to this disgraceful letter I'd encourage them to contact the local or national offices and ask them just what they think they are doing. Is that how they represent the DECENT folk of their nation?

Photos of the Friends of Numismatics receiving tinny ACCG wall plaques from the ACCG website.

Just one coin, but....

.

"It is not much to look at - a small pitted brass coin with a square hole in the centre - but this relatively innocuous piece of metal is revolutionising our understanding of early East African history, and recasting China's more contemporary role in the region" says BBC's correspondent in Africa, Peter Greste ('Could a rusty coin re-write Chinese-African history? BBC News, 17th October 2010). The excavations by a joint team of Kenyan and Chinese archaeologists led by Professor Qin Dashu of Peking University found the 15th Century Chinese coin in Mambrui - a tiny, nondescript village just north of Malindi on Kenya's north coast. The coin is of Yong Le (the emperor Chengzu) who reigned 1403-1425 in the Ming dynasty. The coin had arrived here, almost 100 years before the first Europeans reached the region, in some event connected with contacts between China and the outside world. Whether or not this is proof of the western voyages of Zheng He (see Gavin Menzies books) is a moot point. Read the rest here.

What is more interesting is that this coin is one of the more common of the whole dynasty, commanding a few dollars on the market at the most. What makes it special is its context, it has not just "surfaced" on the market, it has not just "surfaced" in east Africa, but is documented as having come from a specific site in association with other material evidence which shows it was not simply a modern loss. This coin decontextualised has no evidential value of anything other than the Chinese cast coins (big deal - we know that). Finding it in context at this Mambrui site not only raises a whole series of questions, but recording and interpreting the associated evidence will enable us to attempt to answer them. It could not have done that if some bloke with a metal detector had dug it up and the sold it with other stuff to a bloke who sold it on ebay to a collector in Alaska.

By the way, Ming dynasty coins are not covered by the US MOU with China.



Photo: Yongle tong bao coin from Mambrui.[Hmm, the fuzzy photo seems to show an IRON coin, if the lumps and bumps we can see are the inscription, it looks as if the Prof is displaying it upside down, and what can be made out of this legend does not suggest it looks like the one on other coins attributed to this reign, but that may be just poor photography - or perhaps this is a stock photo of another coin].

Initial Motions in the ACCG "Test Case" now Before Baltimore Judge

.
Coin dealer Wayne Sayles ('Briefing Completed on Government’s Motion to Dismiss Test Case') announces that

"The initial motions in the ACCG test case in Baltimore are now before the judge for determination of the next phase. It should be emphasized that the 132 pages of filings attached here are merely the opening phase of this case that will determine whether the case continues. In view of the approach taken by U.S. attorneys to date, it is very likely that the ACCG, U.S. State Department, U.S. Customs and the Department of Justice will be engaged in this litigation for a considerable period of time".

Of that we can all be sure. Peter Tompa explains that the matter is now whether matter comes into the jurisdiction of a court at all. In June "the Government asked a US District Court to dismiss the ACCG’s test case, claiming that the State Department’s [...] decisions to impose import restrictions on Cypriot and Chinese coins were not subject to judicial review". The ACCG insists they are. Interestingly I do not recall the ACCG members and other collectors being explicitly told of the setback in June to the ACCG plans, if this is not a case of lack of 'transparency' in the ACCG itself, I must have missed it.

It now seems therefore that this case is being split into three different elements, the fate of the seized illegally imported "test case" coins with which it began (which has its own complications), whether or not the ruling that may or may not (this too is subject to the court's determination) apply to them was "capricious and arbitrary") - which was the original aim of the test case, and now whether the latter falls under judiciary review at all.

As I said earlier, the State Department is running circles around these clowns. It's a good job that the ACCG's declared assets are apparently much higher than the money it has earnt from two 'benefit auctions', I think this case is going to cost dealers and collectors a pretty penny. Let us remember the fight is all about whether coins imported into the US from source countries should have a piece of paper demonstrating legal export.

For what it is worth, copies of the parties’ briefs (without exhibits) can be downloaded. Whoopee.

Urgent Request from CNG: Help to Keep the Flow of Illegally Exported Artefacts From Greece Unrestrained by US Law

.
Five False Arguments in the service of the dugup coin trade:

The Staff at coin dealer CNG, Inc. with offices in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and London, England is sending out an "Urgent Request from CNG" by email to all (?) its clients. This document asks for their help "to oppose any new restrictions on the trade of coins" resulting from the Greek government's request to the US to curb imports of ancient artefacts illegally exported from Greece by application of the measures allowed by the 1983 Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CCPIA). They are asking their clients to help by making their "thoughts known to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC), which will soon evaluate the Greek request". This matter is important because:

In the past, coins [illegally exported - PMB] from Greece have not been subject to restrictions of this type. If this new request is granted, the impact on both collectors and dealers could be substantial. Please see our instructions below to send CPAC your comments.

In case the poor dears cannot work it out for themselves The CNG instruct ancient dugup coin collectors how to do this and then give them some thoughts to express on their behalf:

Industry attorney Peter Tompa has suggested that collectors consider the following points:

(1) US law requires that restrictions only be applied on artifacts "first discovered in Greece." But hoard evidence demonstrates that Greek coins circulated extensively outside the confines of the modern Greek nation state.
(2) US law requires restrictions only be placed on artifacts of "cultural significance." But coins -- which exist in many multiples-- do not meet that particular criteria.
(3) US law requires that less drastic remedies be tried before import restrictions. But Greece has not tried systems akin the the UK Treasure Act before seeking restrictions.
(4) US law requires that restrictions be consistent with the interests of the international community in cultural exchanges. But restrictions will diminish the ability of American collectors to appreciate Greek culture and could greatly limit people to people contacts with other collectors in Europe.
(5) Restrictions are unfair and discriminatory to Americans. Collectors in the EU--including Greece-- have no similar limitations on their ability to import ancient coins.

[numbering of bullet points is mine PMB].

This is taken directly from a text posted a few hours earlier on Tompa's blog: Calling All Coin Collectors [Again]

What an extraordinary text. I am glad Mr Tompa is not my lawyer, though it is gratifying that he's the dugup coin industry's. Let us analyse these five interpretations of the CCPIA starting with the last.

Collectors in the EU in states which have signed or ratified the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property have of course the same rights to buy illegally exported ancient artefacts as US collectors should an MOU be signed. None. Article 8 of that convention is one that is rarely discussed in the US, and it would be worth collectors looking at it and pondering what it means. It means that all nations signatory to that Convention have a right to expect that all states party to it will respect that to the same measure. The United States is a state party to that but by means of its 1983 cop-out law (CPIA) announces that instead of accepting Art 8, it will apply another additional criterion. So far illegally exported coins from nations (like Greece) who are not on the State Department's list of "special cultural property friends of the US" pass effortlessly both ways through the barrier of bubbles that US customs comprises for all types of dugup and other cultural property. It is the US here who having signed the 1970 Convention is being discriminatory.

Let us look at Tompa's second "point". According to him, the CCPIA "requires restrictions only be placed on artifacts of "cultural significance" and says this does not apply to coins. He is referring it would seem to the Act's Section 302 [definitions] (2). Take a look at it, it is really badly composed (as I say, it is a cop-out law). Nevertheless the term "archaeological material of the State Party" in the understanding of the CCPIA means (A and C) any object or part of object "of archaeological interest". Then there is the bit which Tompa is so interested in: "For purposes of this paragraph" (by which is meant paragraph 2 which is by no means clear from the way this document is published on the State Department website) "[...] no object may be considered to be an object of archaeological interest unless such object (I) is of cultural significance; (II) is at least two hundred and fifty years old; and (III) was normally discovered as a result of scientific excavation, clandestine or accidental digging, or exploration on land or under water".

So the Greek request covers artefacts up to the mid eighteenth century ("at least 250 years" old see the transparent and deceptive attempt by an ACCG officer to provoke collectors by claiming that the measures will affect nineteenth century coins) and ancient Greek coins certainly are "normally discovered as a result of scientific excavation, clandestine or accidental digging, or exploration on land or under water". But Tompa (who collects coins) says that ancient coins are "not of cultural significance". This is rich coming from a group of people who use "numismatics" as a "window to the past" as one of them puts it, who claim that by collecting them they are learning about past cultures, even adding to our knowledge of ancient cultures. That they have a right to access this culture. Ancient coins are a product of ancient cultures, they bear all sorts of culturally coded information on them (the basis of the ACCG's revised claim in the Baltimore Illegal Coin Import Stunt - apparently written by Tompa's law firm). The coineys cannot have it both ways, either coins are "not objects of cultural significance", or they are - which is the justification for collecting them. (Mr Tompa's numismocentric blog of course is called "Cultural Property Observer")

The first of Tompa's points is really odd. He says that the CPIA "requires that restrictions only be applied on artifacts "first discovered in Greece"...". Although the garbled construction of the 1983 US cultural property cop-out law does not facilitate exegesis, by my reading this is by no means the case. Look at Section 302 [definitions] (2) The term "archaeological [....] material of the State Party" means [....]; or (C) any fragment or part of any object referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B); which was first discovered within, and is subject to export control by, the State Party". Any object or part of object. The "first discovered in" clause preceded by "or" however clearly applies to the class "any fragment or part of any object" and not to the objects "referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B)". What this seems to be referring to is a situation where looted stuff is taken out of a country, broken up and then sold off as individual pieces piecemeal, like for example mosaics ripped off Cypriot church walls and sold as "panels" by European dealers (the famous Kanakaria mosaic case came to light after the CCPIA was enacted). This is because it could be argued that, by dismemberment the objects become different objects from the ones that were illegally exported.

Nevertheless divigations on this are totally beside the point. It is clear that what is being discussed is how US customs are to react to packages coming from Greece containing ancient artefacts. For the duration of any eventual MOU, they are to look more carefully at the paperwork than they otherwise do. That is all, importers and exporters of ancient artefacts from Greece must make sure their papers are in order, that is all. Is that so difficult? For many dealers in the legitimate art and antiques market, even in the US, this is second nature. These measures are intended to help fight illegal exports of ancient artefacts from Greece, rather than control the flow of ancient material of Greek origin globally. The latter depiction of what source nations are proposing is a fallacy fostered by the dealers' lobby (the material produced by the ACCG being a particularly egregious example) and swallowed by the more gullible and easily roused among collectors who apparently are incapable of thinking these things out for themselves.

Tompa's thought Number Four was that the CCPIA requires that measures adopted by the President be consistent with the interests of the international community in cultural exchanges. Tompa argues that restrictions on coins illegally exported from Greece [which is what the Greek request concerns]: "will diminish the ability of American collectors to appreciate Greek culture" and furthermore "could greatly limit people to people contacts with other collectors in Europe". Well, let us recall the name of the Convention the CCPIA partially "implements" ( Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property). I wonder just what sort of 'people-to-people contacts' are involved in the illicit movement of saleable artefacts around and out of Europe. Perhaps they are precisely the type that the US and its voracious no-questions-asked market for antiquities should not be encouraging. The prevention of the import of illegally exported dugup cultural property will not probably unduly affect the ability of 300 million American citizens "to appreciate Greek culture". I think many of them would anyway be appalled if they knew the extent of the problem being caused by US dealers and private collectors. Many of them can gain an appreciation of the culture through its literature, drama, the licitly exported artefacts available in museums, those art books, multimedia or other representations and indeed travel to Greece. Anyway, I thought Tompa was arguing that ancient coins are NOT objects of cultural significance, so if so, how can they in any significant way contribute to the "appreciation" of Greek culture? [By the way, to "appreciate ancient Greek culture", many collectors collect stamps, phonecards and banknotes depicting ancient Greek themes, there are a lot of them, and their collection does no damage to the archaeological heritage - but I would expect the ACCG coineys to claim they are in some way superior to those non-erosive other collectors].

Then we come to the funniest of the five. Tompa's third point is that collectors should be instructing the CPAC that the CCPIA "requires that less drastic remedies be tried before import restrictions. But Greece has not tried systems akin the the UK Treasure Act before seeking restrictions". Wow. This refers to Section 303 [3] [implementation of Article 9 of the Convention] (a) [Agreement Authority] (1) [4], (C) (i). In brief this means that the President can apply the measures defined by the CCPIA if he decides that there is a looting problem ("the cultural patrimony of the State Party is in jeopardy" - unqualified) in the requesting state party, that the requesting state (duh) is itself undertaking measures outlined by the Convention (only) to counter the problem and curbing imports of illegally exported material by the US would help but only after determining that "(ii) remedies less drastic than the application of the restrictions set forth in such section are not available". Taken in context of Section 303 it can be seen that this has absolutely NOTHING to do with "systems akin to the UK Treasure Act" in Greece since the measures the President considers applying instead are domestic, US ones to deal with the problem which would be less drastic than applying import restrictions. (Note this clause is part of subparagraph C and not subparagraph B of Section 303 (a) (1).)

By the way, collectors might like to look at article 8 of the 2002 Greek antiquities legislation and consider just where the difference is between that and the United Kingdom's 1996 Treasure Act. I do not see any, but then I guess the problem is that collectors who follow the ACCG's Pied Piper simply have not looked.

This discussion of the CNG "Appeal" seems well to deserve my "collectors being led by the nose" vignette, I think. Let us keep an eye on the public comments and see how many of them have been able to work this out for themselves, and how many are firing off protests which simply echo what they have been told to say by the ACCG and the commercial arm, the CNG.

Oh, and before you go, just do please take a look at this post about the CNG's last appeal for help - see any similarities?

.

Spink, eh?

.

Looting Matters reports (The Baltimore Coin Test Case: The List ) that the Baltimore Illegal Coin Import stunt utilised coins from London-based coin dealers "Spink"
How odd it is that Spinks was (a) apparently unaware of the not-so-new-by-the-time-of-this-sale import requirements for coins of China and Cyprus purchased by their clients, nor (b) were able to supply the piece of paper required by the CPIA that they had been exported in accord with the MOU signed between China/Cyprus and the USA. I wonder how many more of Spink's coins would be ineligible for import into the US if the CPIA was applied across the board? Is that not the point of this whole sorry exercise?

More to the point, the photos which the ACCG exhibited of those cash coins to my eye do not look like they had been lying corroding away in the ground for centuries, are these not the sort of fakes with which western markets have been flooded in recent years? They have what looks like chemical patina. Are these actually the coins sold by Spink? I challenge the ACCG or Spinks to publish detailed photos of all 23 of these unprovenanced coins; let us see what ACCG dealers were buying. It may well be that a court case is unneccessary. If Spink in fact does not know where those coins came from, how do they know they were legally obtained and/or not recently made and "matured" in a pig-pen?

What reputable coin dealer cant actually manage a proper attribution and lists coins as: "bronze coins more than 100 years old"? answer: Spink.

(I note that the ACCG does not figure on their lengthy list of links, apparently they do not consider they do collectors a service, nor dealers).

Vignette: in this manner Spink suggest to new collectors where they can get their coins from, freshly dug-up hoards not old collections. In the UK such hoards should be reported through the Treasure process, in the case of those from foreign countries (except the US and Sealand), they will need an export licence - how then can Spink say they "don't know where they came from"? (Their FAQ contains nothing on "origins" and the legalities of collecting dugup coins).

.

The Professional Numismatists Guild 2010 Outstanding Achievement Award Winners

The Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG) presented its outstanding achievement awards for 2010 during the PNG Day banquet held in Boston, Massachusetts on August 9, 2010. The recipients did not include a single "collectors' rights" advocate for advocating no-questions-asked collecting, though the PNG is one of the partners of the ACCG in its battle with US restrictions on import of illegally exported material. I would like to think this is because they recognise that this approach is not acieving anything at all for numismatics and is seriously damaging its reputation. It is interesting to note that one of the awards goes to achievement in fighting numismatic crime, though I expect the PNG has a different attitude to what is criminal in the no-questions-asked trade in dugup numismata than the rest of us normal folk.

Writing Gobbldygook at the Collectors' Expense

.

It seems I was right when I pointed out earlier that having gathered mega-bucks from dealers and collectors to split between their lawyer friends (they have five, Tompa, Ehrenburg - [same firm], and the other three presumably come from the customs law firm of Serko, Simon, Gluck & Kane LLP) and other hangers-on (a newsletter editor for example), the ACCG is going to produce more and more pieces of apparent proof that they are doing something with all that money. We now learn through Peter Tompa's blog that there is now an amended complaint as a result of the Baltimore Illegal Coin Import Stunt they mounted with their pals from the PNG and IAPN ("Litigation Updates: Amended Complaint Filed and Appellate Briefing Schedule Expected Shortly"). This replaces the previous one it appears:

The amended complaint alleges new 1st Amendment claims relating to the informational content found on ancient coins. It also characterizes the Department of State and Customs as acting beyond the scope of their authority under governing statutes.

The amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, rendering Defendants' motion to dismiss as moot. Defendants are expected to file another motion to dismiss the case based on the claim that the State Department's actions are unreviewable. In the meantime, State has rejected mediation in the pending FOIA appeal and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to issue a briefing schedule shortly.

I guess the reason why they don't want to put it in plain English is so their members do not realise the ACCG is taking their money and flushing it down the toilet - the toilet in the offices of five ACCG-retained lawyers who seem likely to be the only people to gain from this - collectors certainly will not.

By the way, from what Tompa says, unless they are now dropping the "arbitrary and capricious " claim from their case, they've still not got the key element in that amended complaint... (they have not seen fit yet to post the amended text on their website alongside the text of the one superseded) What on earth are they playing at?

.

Vignette: ACCG volunteer uses collectors' money to further group's aims. Donate now, they need more...

Speaking Freely of Liang and Zhu in Baltimore

.

In the ACCG/PNG/IAPN Baltimore Illegal Coin Import Stunt: "The amended complaint alleges new 1st Amendment claims relating to the informational content found on ancient coins". Oh wow, really loopy coiney stuff. These Chinese coins?

.

"Ban Liang" read three of these uniface cast coins, picturing the coins featured in the case. It means "half a liang" (a measure of weight). The bottom two read "Wu zhu", which means "five zhu" (and you've guessed it, zhu is a measure of weight). The informational value on these coins is just about restricted to the varying perceptions between 221/206 BC - 220 AD and 118 BC and 618 AD of how much these weights weighed (but then since the coins on the market are without provenance, allowing us to see any patterns play out in time or space, this is no "information" at all). So where on earth the 1789 additions to the US constitution come in is really unclear:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, do the ACCG really do have a mandate from the coin collectors of the United States to make them all look like ranting idiots? What would the Founding Fathers have made of a group of traders misusing this document to assert "rights" to trade in illegally obtained items if they want?

Coiney Ahistoricity

.

Coin collectors say they fondle their coins because they are "passionately interested in history". But they see their happy-go-lucky no-questions-asked way of doing their "history" homework threatened by preservationists. They have though their imagined saviour, Wayne Sayles and his dealer mates of the ACCG. John Pennock (who grandly puts after his name the letters: "ACCG ANA PAN") a collector of ancient coins says there is no middle ground:

Being an ancient coin collector and not supporting the ACCG now, is akin to being Neville Chamberlin trying to appease Hitler by dividing Poland.

I will not quote the rest of Pennock's embarrassing naivity here [just to add that he might like to find out more about antiquity collecting in Cyprus for example]. Mr "Chamberlin" (sic) did not "divide Poland". Perhaps instead of fondling coins to get them speak about the ancient world, some collectors would do better to try and get a better grasp on the modern world...

.

"This one minted just before his death..."

.

Dealer Richard Pearlman (Ancient Coins, El Cerrito, CA. 505) has a go on Moneta-L at Reid Goldsborough for questioning whether the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild is doing collectors any favours emphasising the degree to which the US market depends on the import of coins regardless of whether they have been illictly exported or not. In justification of ACCG's extremist anti-preservationist approach, Pearlman reminds monetans that the ACCG's Executive Director and founder Wayne Sayles "has also opened the hobby to new collectors by writing beginners' guides to ancient coins. Well done & great values. Haven't seen anything like that from academic or archaeological side". He's probably not seen then Richard Reece's book published several decades ago or those in the Shire Archaeology series. I think part of the problem is that neither archaeologists or anthropologists regard coins as something to be merely "collected", so they are unlikely to write books to start people on collecting them. I think we would all like to see however a beginner's guide to the methodology of heap-of-decontextualised-coins-on-a-Wisconsin-table "numismatics" (sic) as a scholarly discipline as opposed to mere coin fondling. ACCG numismatists do not seem up to the task. It must also be pointed out that the number of archaeology textbooks written by numismatists also makes rather a poor showing.

Richard Pearlman is seen here on a video, talking with Dan Borsey, of WorthPoint.com, at the 2008 Baltimore Coin and Currency Convention explaining just how much we can "learn" from ancient coins. Let's listen.

http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/3560629

Note the "ACE" logo on the showcase at about 30 secs, the Elizabeth I coin and the fair dose of cheesy narrativisation (much of it death-related) going on there.("This might be the very coin that got him killed" - "so contemporary with the early life of Christ" etc etc). Coins here however are used as "illustrations" of the written record, rather than an external source. What we are being told by Mr Pearlman is solely text-driven, not the result of the application of a separate "numismatic" methodology to an independent source of information. Sites were most likely trashed so that Mr Pearlman could offer such "choice" examples . What actually have we "learnt" from all that destructive digging? ("This is what Kleopatra really looked like, not that beautiful really". Neither was Elizabeth - so what?). Also with regard to the frequently recited statement that collectors are only looking after the coins ("properly") that otherwise would not have a "good home", note what he says about the first coin he bought.

In the cointext of his browbeating Reid Goldsborough you have to laugh at what he says at about a minute into the film: "with ancient collectors you get, just , er, almost completely really intelligent thoughtful little(?) people – uh – who take great pleasure in the coins and often in the research that they do". Buying trashed-site and illegally exported coins supported by the ACCG to see how big a nose Kleopatra had for example? Supporting the ACCG in its promotion of a totally unregulated free-for-all and no-questions-asked market in ancient artefact is sure a sign of real "intelligence"... innit?

Update 17th May 2010:
In two extremely disagreeable posts addressed to Reid Goldsborough ("Amen to John Pennock", here and here) this Californian dealer ("Brutus7") does not come over particularly well I feel.

.

You SHOULD DENY Any Effort to Extend Import Restrictions

"As our papers show, the U.S. market for ancient coins is relatively small compared to the European market" said one speaker at this week's CPAC hearing. All those Europeans collecting ancient dugup artefacts (and coins are artefacts) from the soil of the territories within the European Union however do so in accordance with the laws which apply to that activity. There are laws which apply to the export of coins outside the EU, and all the MOU extension is requiring is that these laws are respected by those importing ancient dugup artefacts for the US market. Why would ancient coin COLLECTORS in the US condone the breaking of laws?

Whether that market is larger, the same size or smaller than any other is not actually relevant. The fifty thousand US ancient coin collectors claimed by the ACCG seems quite a sizeable drain on the supply of dugups on the legitimate market over here in continental Europe.
Since the lobbyist raised the point that coins of Italian mints are found elsewhere in the Empire and that the movement of ancient coins from Britain for example is not (yet) affected by any extension of existing MOUs, if a collector wants a coin of Emperor Pustillentius IV from the Aquileia mint to fill a hole in a coin tray in a Wisconsin back bedroom, then why does it have to be imported from Italy, and not from a find made in the UK and duly recorded by the PAS and then imported on a proper British export licence?