Panic in the Ranks - They Should Read my Blog....

.
Coineys are in general slow thinkers, it takes them ages to churn over some ideas, which is why the dealers can lead them by the nose so easily. The latter have just woken up to the EU public consultation on "Council Directive 93/7/EEC on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State" reported here last year. It seems their Cultural Property Observer has not been all that "observant" after all. So it is that "Coin Weekly" has issued an emergency "special edition" getting the news out to all those poorly-informed US coineys who thought there were "no restrictions on the movement of cultural property in the EU" - to inform them that there are (otherwise how can items be "unlawfully removed" from them?), and the conditions under which the problem is dealt with might be about to change. The title is incomprehensible ("Public consultation – privately") no less so than the text, obviously written in haste [actually it is a translation of the Münzenwoche.de article "Öffentliche Konsultation im Geheimen"]

March 5, 2012 – The European Union is conducting a public consultation largely unknown whether the directives on the return of cultural property need restrictions. Please join absolutely in this consultation today. Even the associations concerned came to know of this consultation only on Friday March 2, 2012. Hence we are all under pressure of time. Please join absolutely in this consultation today. The deadline expires today, March 5, 2012.

Garble-garble-coineyspeak. It looks like a computer translation. At least this shows there is not much difference between the worst of German coineyism and the worst of USA coineyism:

Sollte die Europäische Union ihrer Meinung nach den EU-Ländern helfen, ihre Kulturgüter zu schützen? – Was für eine doppeldeutige Frage! Effektiver Schutz vor Ort wäre nötig, aber in die inneren Verhältnisse der Länder mischt sich die EU selbstverständlich nicht ein. Oder hätten Sie von einem Hilfsangebot gehört, das Italien zeigt, wie man den Einsturz von wertvoller Gebäudesubstanz verhindert, oder Griechenland die finanziellen Mittel gibt, seine Museen und Grabungsstätten zu bewachen? Die Frage dreht sich nur um eine verschärfte Gesetzgebung auf Kosten von Sammlern und Händlern. Und dann das Herkunftszertifikat, das es nicht gibt! Allein diese Frage zeigt, aus welcher Richtung der Fragebogen kommt.
[...] Und hier die zweite doppeldeutige Frage: eine Gesetzgebung, die der Willkür für Beschlagnahmungen Tür und Tor öffnet, ist schlecht. Doch bis jetzt haben die Gerichte anhand eben dieser Gesetzgebung noch immer die Beweislast dem Ankläger aufgebürdet. Deshalb sind diese Gesetze „insgesamt geeignet“. Kein Sammler, kein Händler, kein Museum kann eine verschärfte Gesetzgebung wünschen, die dem Besitzer der Münze die Beweislast aufbürdet, dass seine Münze aus einer alten Sammlung stammt. [...] Sie haben nur noch heute Zeit, ihre Meinung bei dieser Umfrage zum Ausdruck zu bringen. Nutzen Sie diese Möglichkeit!

Well, fine, but perhaps they should familiarise themselves with the subject of the directive "Council Directive 93/7/EEC on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State". How many collectors will that affect? How many of them willingly collect items unlawfully removed from the territory of an EU state and will go on paper defending their "rights" to do so? Nutzen Sie diese Möglichkeit!

And by now all those US collectors rushing to defend their "rights" before the deadline to collect unlawfully exported material from EU countries will have found that the consultation is only available to EU citizens, not looter/smuggler/culture criminal-financers from outside the EU.

It seems to me that for a fuller picture coineys really do need to read my blog rather than sticking to the misleading one-sided pap coin dealers offer them on the coiney forums and blogs. Nutzen Sie diese Möglichkeit!

Focus on Metal Detecting: Karlsruhe Exhibition, "Antikenhehlerei: Das Milliardengeschäft mit der Vergangenheit"

They dig for ancient "treasure", loot everything they can to make money and throw the rest away carelessly: looters destroy the cultural heritage of us all. On their trail are both archaeologists and criminologists. An exhibition on "Kriminalarchäologie" is being shown in the Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe until the end of May. It aims to show recent successes of the investigators against international criminal dealings with antiquities and stolen goods - and their failures.

Polic Chief Commissioner Eckhard Laufer, is the Hessian State Criminal Office for the Protection of Cultural Property in charge and is behind the organization of the exhibition.

There is an interview with him here by archaeologist Diane Scherzler. Laufer says the trade in antiquities is one of the world's largest black markets with a high number of unreported cases. He says that "UNESCO estimates that the sum from the sale of illegally acquired cultural property is six to eight billion € per year". He adds that this could even "be already in the tens of billions, as grave robberies have increased in recent years". Noting the destruction caused to archaeological knowledge he likens it to police crime scene work. If someone removes evidence, the archaeologist can no longer evaluate the remaining traces on the site, as is the same in the case of the removal or disturbance of the evidence studied by a criminologist at a crime scene.

Commissioner Laufer says that in Germany, illegal excavations in Germany are often held as a "treasure hunt", with individuals going out equipped with metal detectors looking for relics from the past. Most of those involved do not see it as a profit-making venture, and some of them are unaware that they are guilty of breaking the law and causing damage to archaeological monuments through their interventions.

Other illegal treasure hunters have often been many years in the business and operate intensively, they know exactly the market price of a find. They are not interested in fame, and do not want to reveal the place where something came from. For this reason they tend to stay in the background and use a front man to approach dealers and museums with the finds they want to sell. This middleman then makes contact with potential buyers and will try to sell the item with a commission. For example, an illegally excavated "hoard of coins that can bring thousands of euros: Everyone is trying to capitalize on it".

Today, Laufer says, trade is mainly conducted on the Internet. For a long time Ebay was a market leader in Germany. This however came to an end when, at the insistence of the archaeological heritage protection services and the police, sellers there were required to provide evidence for the origin of Antiquities. Then the market there broke down.

Advice for Buyers

Asked about ancient items seen for sale on eBay or at an auction and which an individual might like to purchase after ascertaining it is of legal origin, Laufer says that in Germany it is relatively easy.

Archäologisches Kulturgut hat immer eine Herkunft, es fällt ja nicht vom Himmel.

Archaeological heritage always has a source, it does not fall from heaven (or presented to dealers by Coin Elves). In Germany, the conservation laws stipulate that all finds must be reported. Each such recording - which is made by the state - thus leads to the creation of the relevant documents.

Man sollte deshalb immer nach der Herkunftsgeschichte eines antiken Gegenstands fragen: Gibt es dazu Angaben, die belegen, dass der Gegenstand legal geborgen wurde und gehandelt wird? Das kann auch eine Exportgenehmigung des Ursprungslandes sein. Gibt es das nicht, raten wir davon ab, diesen Gegenstand zu kaufen.

"Therefore, one should always ask about the origin story of an ancient object: Are there any data supporting that the object was recovered and traded legally? This can be also an export authorization of the country of origin. If it has none of these things, we do not recommend buying this item". He also advises of course against buying ancient objects offered for sale to tourists in foreign countries. There are many fakes and such objects are generally not released commercially in many countries - and it is illegal to buy them without documents from the state legitimising the purchase, and if they are beihttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifng taken out of the country, an export permit. He warns that "viele Länder mit antiken Hochkulturen haben da strengere Gesetze als wir ("many countries with ancient civilizations have stricter laws than we do").

There is also an interesting SWR radio interview here with Muller Karpe on the same page which also contains links to related material, worth exploring.

Hat tip to Paul Zoetbrood

Vignette: Metal detectorist artefact plunderers need to hide their faces in civilized parts of Europe.

Focus on Metal Detecting: "Deutschland hat das gleiche Problem wie in Großbritannien"

.
Germany has the same problem as in the UK apparently, with TV companies rather uncritically glorifying artefact hunters running around hoiking things out of the ground with metal detectors. Here is a video of a "documentary" film by the TV company ZDF: "Auf der Jagd nach verlorenen Schätzen", broadcast on 17th January. Here is archaeologist Rainer Schreg doing a bit of fulminating about its wider implications: 'ZDF animiert Raubgräber'

"Es gibt noch viele Schätze in Deutschland, die darauf warten, gefunden zu werden". Mit keinem Wort wird erwähnt, dass damit das gemeinsame historische Erbe privater Neugier, Vergnügen - oder schlimmer noch - Gier geopfert wird. Fundumstände und -kontexte werden zerrissen und die Objekte sind allenfalls noch als schöne Andenken zu bewerten, aber nicht mehr als eine Quelle, aus der wir über die Menschen der Vergangenheit, ihre Sorgen und Nöte lernen können. Ein Raubgrabungsloch zerstört den Kontext der Funde. Nur ganz nebenbei wird zur Schatzsuche erwähnt, dass das "eigentlich" verboten sei.

As he points out, metal detector dealers no doubt are happy about it.

Hat-tip to Paul Zoetbrood for bringing this to my attention.
Vignette: © ZDF / André Götzmann

Freshly-surfaced Gold Vessel Goes Home

It took long enough to get there, but on the 4th July 2011 at the Embassy of the Republic of Iraq in Berlin, the Federal Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany Guido Westerwelle handed over to the Iraqis (represented by the Iraqi ambassador Al-Dr. Hussein Katheeb in the presence of the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Hussein Al-Shahristani), the ancient gold vessel of the 3rd Millennium BC which was seized in 2005 from an auction house in Munich - apparently Münzenhandlung Gerhard Hirsch Nachfolger. It is not recorded if dealers' pal, Minister Martin Zeile the Bavarian Minister of Economic Affairs, Infrastructure, Transport and Technology, who boasts of the free trade in antiquities obtaining there (see here and here), was there to see this.

What remains to be established is where this actually "surfaced" from, and how it got to Munich, and what else came to Munich by the same route and was not spotted. Frankly, getting a decontextualised geegaw back home is only (a small) part of the task. Once again no announcement is being made about the conviction of any middlemen or looters in this horrible trade.
.

Steindorff Artefacts to Remain at University of Leipzig

.

The collection of Egyptian antiquities unearthed 96 years ago by Jewish Egyptologist Georg Steindorff will remain at the University of Leipzig, despite a Berlin Administrative Court ruling on May 26 that the university must return the collection to the American-based Jewish Claims Conference (sic) as unclaimed Jewish property.

The decision follows public protests against a recent Berlin court order that the objects be handed over to the Claims Conference, which had fought to reclaim them as stolen Jewish property since the unification of former East and West Germany in 1990 [...] An heir of Steindorff came forward recently to say the objects should remain in Leipzig [...] Steindorff’s grandson, Thomas Hemer, 88, traveled from Nevada to his Leipzig birthplace to argue that the objects should remain at the institute that his grandfather had cherished, Bloomberg reported.

The agreement establishes that the university will keep the collection and in return will devote time and funds toward a documentation of the life and work of Steindorff. It is unclear precisely what the Jewish Claims Conference had wanted to do with the items they fought for so long to obtain - given that Steindorff's heir apparently had no desire to see them divorced from the University's teaching collection.

Roman Haller, director of the Claims Conference in Germany said that the Berlin court judgment “sends a special signal to all museums, galleries and auction houses” that they must research the provenance of their collections. "The circumstances under which the cultural assets reached the museums must be transparent; we owe this to the victims,” Haller said. The same of course goes to all museums - for example those holding ethnographic material/art works taken from native communities, many of whom now want its return, and museums, collectors and dealers holding antiquities of unclear legitimacy.

It is reported that for some reason, Egyptian Minister for Antiquities Zahi Hawass had contacted the Claims Conference demanding that the Leipzig objects be returned to Egypt. The grounds for this second claim were not made clear. Some of us might feel that Dr Hawass' energies would be better utilised better documenting, securing and looking after what the Egyptians already have in their museum galleries and storerooms than chasing up material which has been in Europe since the 1930s, well before the 1970 UNESCO Convention.

JTA, 'Steindorff artifacts to remain at University of Leipzig', Jewish Journal June 23, 2011

Munich Dealer Loses Some of his Stock

*
Over in Bavaria, apparently the 'Lootier Land' of Germany where the Minister of Economic Affairs, Infrastructure, Transport and Technology boasts of the free trade in antiquities obtaining there (see here and here), one of the dealers has lost a bit of his stock. According to 'Monsters and Critics', when challenged, it turns out he was unable to show how a Mesopotamian item he was in possession of in 2004 had left Iraq ('Germany returns antique battleaxe to Iraq', Monsters and Critics, Feb 9, 2011). The dealer's name is not given.

The item in question, a decorated axe was found by police in 2004, and after the dealer was unable to produce any document confirming legitimate origins, was sent to the Roman-Germanic Museum in Mainz for evaluation. The Museum pronounced it 'typical of the military equipment used by early Mesopotamian city states'. The object was accordingly returned to Iraq on Wednesday following several years of legal limbo. The Iraqi ambassador Hussain Mahmood Fadhlalla al-Khateeb accepting the object said it was "important to crack down on trafficking in stolen goods, as this was an income stream for terrorist groups".

Bavarian Authorities Hoarding Stolen Antiquities?

I was looking here the other day at the effects of Bavaria's no-paperwork-needed legislation for the antiquity trade after the coineys persuaded Bavarian Minister Zeile to intervene with the US Government to attempt to persuade it not to require paperwork from Bavarian dealers. Today the breaking news is that Bavaria has just been successfully sued by the Republic of Cyprus, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Church of the Maronites and the Church of the Armenians to retrieve stolen antiquities, which had been in the custody of the Bavarian authorities since 1997. They had filed a civil law suit before Munich District Court in 2004 to retrieve the objects which had been stolen from Cyprus’ northern Turkish occupied part of the country.

The antiquities had been found in 1997 by the Bavarian police, hidden in between walls and under the floor of two flats which belong to a Turkish national, Aydin Dickmen, in Munich. Part of the findings include religious icons, part of mosaics and pieces of Byzantine frescoes of priceless historic, cultural and religious value. Since these were located, the government and the Church of Cyprus had made several moves to have these artifacts repatriated. The moves did not yield any results and it was decided to file a civil law suit before the German courts. On Thursday, 23 September, Munich District Court issued its decision on the law suit against Dickmen which vindicated fully the Church of Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus.

See also: Elena Theofanous, 'German court orders return of stolen icons, just days before 30-year deadline expires', Cyprus Mail 27/9/10.
and Demetra Molyva,How the Cyprus Weekly Helped Church Recover Religious Work of Art, MSN February 14, 2009.

Bavaria: Looter's Paradise?

.

In the middle of September, at the behest of the Federation of European Professional Numismatic Associations and perhaps the local Münzmafia, Bavarian Martin Zeile (Bavarian Minister of Economic Affairs, Infrastructure, Transport and Technology) proudly informs the US Government that dealers in ancient dugup antiquities "apart from very few exceptions" do not need any documentation of legal export from the source country, nor any to ensure legal export from the state. I remarked: "so basically if you are a Greek looter and have a bucketload of 'hot' coins on your hands, obviously the legislative framework of Mr Zeile's state invites you to stick them in the post or hop on a train" and take them along to the many dealers based in Munich. Then I recalled that there had actually been at least one such case recently:

Among the items returned from Germany included 96 copper and ceramic pots and vessels, dating from the 3rd or 4th century BC from Thessaly, in northern Greece. Officials said the items were seized by customs authorities at Nuremberg, Germany in 2007 in a truck arriving from Greece.

Then there is the case of the Munich connection in the case of the Eid Mar denarius bought by the London office of coin dealer CNG:

It was June 14, 2005, and McFadden was expecting them — one of them, anyway. A small-time Munich coin dealer of Greek extraction had called to say he had an EID-MAR coin to sell.

The transaction however was questioned by Greek and British authorities.

[...] The man who sold it to CNG turned out to be a Greek national with a criminal record for trafficking in stolen antiquities, and the transaction was arranged by a Munich coin dealer who once worked for a notorious European trafficker, a member of a Munich cartel whose looted treasures found their way to studios, museums and auction houses around the world. A CNG executive said his company had no idea. [...] neither British nor Greek officials (nor CNG) are disclosing the identity of the seller or the coin dealer who accompanied him to CNG's London office.

So how did it get to Munich then?

When the 60 kg (19860 items) of ancient coins shipped out from Bulgaria to the US was seized at Frankfurt airport in 1999 for some reason they were sent to the Bavarian jurisdiction where they were released back to the sender (how, why?), and then very probably the coins entered the US market as a result (Frankfurter elektronische Rundschau zur Altertumskunde 7, 2008, p. 4). Where are these coins now?

Another coin-related case was the "1991 hoard" which R.J. O'Hara mentions in passing here

largely dispersed through a series of auctions in Munich” (Ashton and Kinns, 2003: 8). This putative “1991 hoard” was probably deposited soon after 200 BC, and it contained, in addition to Persic-standard didrachms from the 250–200 BC period, fresh drachms naming ΕΧΕΚΡΑΤΗΣ, ΜΙΝΝΙΩΝ, and ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΗΣ (one of the last of the didrachm magistrates), as well as fresh hemidrachms naming ΒΟΙΗΘΟΣ (noted above), ΔΕΙΝΟΣΤΡΑΤΟΣ, ΕΧΕΚΡΑΤΗΣ, ΜΙΝΝΙΩΝ, and ΠΟΣΕΙΔΩΝΙΟΣ.

The reference given is Ashton, R., and P. Kinns, 2003. Opuscula Anatolica II. Numismatic Chronicle, 163: 1–47. How did it get to Munich? Well obviously no paperwork being required there helps get loads of illegally excavated and illegally exported objects onto the market. Where are these coins now?

Partly because of the large numbers of Turkish Gastarbeiter in the region, Munich has also become the most usual stop-off point for antiquities smuggled from Turkey. This has been going on for a long time. A notable case was was the infamous Elmali hoard (and here) of almost 2,000 silver coins dating from the 5th century BC which was unearthed in Turkey in 1984. The coins had been sold in Istanbul to a consortium of Munich dealers and then these objects were bought from them for $3.5m by a partnership whose main investor was the Boston millionaire William Koch.

We also recall the case of Munich based dealer Aydin Dikman, a central figure in the looting and selling of Cypriot treasures ('From Cyprus to Munich') in the 1990s. In apartments owned and rented by him, police found Cypriot frescoes, mosaics, and icons, ancient coins, Precolumbian pottery and stolen paintings. Police estimated the artworks and artefacts to be worth more than $60 million.

David Gill discusses in his "Looting Matters" a number of cases of apparently 'hot' antiquities found in Italy "surfacing" on the market which involved dealers based in Munich. An early example is the Fano Athlete which had been acquired by Munich-based dealer Heinz Herzer (with the Artemis Group) in 1971. He discusses an amphora apparently illegally removed from Italy being sold by another Munich dealer. Munich was also the home of the Italian dealer Nino Savoca, mixed up in a number of controversial cases, such as the ivory face from Anguillara.The links of Munich dealers with Operation Ghelas are also noted.

Munich dealers are involved in other cases recently discussed here and on "Looting Matters", like for example the Mesopotamian gold vessel being sold by Münzenhandlung Gerhard Hirsch Nachfolger of Munich. The verdict of one commentator was discussed by Gill:""Germany has become a hub for the illegal international art market".

Given that background, there seems something extremely disturbing about Minister Zeile's complacency about the trade in antiquities like coins in Bavaria not requiring any paperwork to prove legitimate origins.

Perhaps instead of just looking at the export papers of Greek artefacts from Greece, and in light of Minister Zeile's protests, in their efforts to prevent looted artefacts reaching the US market, American authorities would do well to look very carefully at the transactions between US suppliers of the antiquity market and their Bavarian business partners. There is at least one coin dealer from no-paperwork-required Munich who deals directly through ACCG President Bill Puetz's V-Coins store.
.
Vignette: Bavaria, which requires no evidence of legal export for imports of ancient artefacts like coins and thus has long been a looters' paradise and the Minister of the Economy isn't at all concerned.

Munich Coin Dealers and the Bavarian Minister Lecture the US Govermnment

.

Martin Zeil the Bavarian Minister of Economic Affairs, Infrastructure, Transport and Technology sent an official letter to the US State Department declaring Bavaria's opposition (sic) to inclusion of coins in any cultural property MOU the US Government might consider signing with the government of Greece (reference V/1 - 6715/24/1 16.09.2010). What an extraordinary document! The Minister informs the State Department that he opposes the United States government signing any kind of agreement with Greece about the import of illegally exported antiquities from Greece, because:

The proposed restrictions (along for similar ones being considered for Italy) would negatively impact the legitimate numismatic trade between Germany and the United States of America and also people to people contacts between US and German citizens.

The letter was apparently written at the instigation of Dr. Hubert ("cash is beautiful") Lanz, President of The Federation of European Professional Numismatic Associations. The Minister explains that in Germany

there are around 100 auction houses, more than 500 retailers and estimated more than a half million collectors of old coins. Moreover, a considerable number of them are located in Munich, and are engaged in trade with customers the United States.

Let us note: upwards of six hundred coin dealers making lots of money from selling ancient coins, many of them based in Munich. But let us note the implications of this estimate of five hundred thousand collectors, which presumably comes from Dr Lanz. Germany has a population of 82 million, this means that one in 164 is a collector of old coins. The US has a population only four times that - some 310 million - and only 50 000 collectors of ancient coins (one in 6200). So if the supply of illegally exported ancient coins to America is a concern, what about the size of that German market? Minister Ziel then goes on disingenuously to admit:

apart from very few exceptions, no licence or permit is needed in Germany, neither for import to Germany nor for export from Germany of coins. If the import of certain coins into the United States required an export licence granted by authorities of the export country in future, this requirement could not be fulfilled by German retailers. Legal trade would then hardly be possible between Germany and the United States.

Look at that, no paperwork at all involved. The epitome of no-questions-asked antiquity dealing. So basically if you are a Greek looter and have a bucketload of 'hot' coins on your hands, obviously the legislative framework of Mr Zeil's state invites you to stick them in the post or hop on a train and go and see the Münchener Münzmafia. No licences needed for legal trade in Bavaria Minister Zeil says, and what German collectors don't snap up can go straight to the US market without more ado. What a coin looter's paradise Bavaria must be, Mr Zeile must be so proud of his homeland's part in free trade in the world's "liberated" portable antiquities, rivalling the position of Wisconsin. So basically what is the fuss across the Atlantic about the MOU for anyway? Probably most ancient coins illegally exported from Greece coming to the US are not coming from Greek destinations at all, but through Munich ("Moreover, a considerable number of them are located in Munich, and are engaged in trade with customers the United States", I bet).

Mr Zeil, did you fully understand the implications of the letter you signed? Were you made aware of the clause in the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act concerning the alternative to an export licence which applies to goods legitimately on markets outside Greece before the date of the implementation of the Act (CCPIA s. 307[b] [2])?


Vignette: München Kleines Stadtwappen, the Münchner Kindl: a Munchkin lecturing the US Government. What further entertainments will the coineys come up with next? Bottom: Martin Zeile, supporter of Munich's lucrative antiquities market.
.

Customs: What Else Gets Through Their "Scrutiny"?

A while ago five ancient metal vessels apparently clandestinely entered the European Union from Turkey wrapped in a carpet. The Customs officers who should be guarding our borders did not notice, and the objects are now in Germany and subject to dispute. Looking at the five of them, it seems to me that there is at least a kilogramme of metal there, and together they'd be quite a bulky package in the middle of a carpet. But still the Customs officers did not notice. What else do they not see?

A kilogramme of antiquities means a lot of destruction of archaeology. Possibly no big deal to many people (collectors and dealers included).
A kilogramme of icons stolen from Cypriot churches in the Turkish zone is equally possibly no big deal to many people (collectors and dealers included). Would they be stopped by the same customs officers that did not find five bowls in a carpet?
A kilogramme of blood diamonds however can do a lot more damage, would they be stopped by the same customs officers?
A kilogramme of plastic explosives destined for some terrorist group can do a lot more damage, would they be stopped by the same customs officers?
A kilogramme of plutonium waste is enough for a dirty bomb that could, for example, devastate Hamburg in response to the closing of a 'radical' mosque, would they be stopped by the same customs officers?
A kilogramme of anthrax spores smuggled out of Iraq (remember those "weapons of mass destruction" and Colin Powell's show?) could contaminate more than just Hamburg, would they be stopped by the same customs officers?
A kilogramme of CDs with kiddie porn picture files represents a lot of child abuse and a lot of profit for somebody, would they be stopped by the same customs officers?
A kilogramme of jihadist literature passing to militant groups in Germany through Moslem Turkey could in the long run be very damaging. Would that be stopped by the same customs officers?
A kilogramme of poached ivory or rhino horn means the death of a number of individuals of endangered species, would that be stopped by the same customs officers?
And so on.

The constant ability of the international antiquities market to get illicit antiquities and other stolen artworks across national and international borders (enough to support a multi-million dollar industry it is believed) with very few cases where such traffic is actually detected at the borders, should be raising very real public fears about what else is getting through undetected. In reality you do not need anything like a kilogramme of anthrax spores or plutonium to create a threat to public safety. It seems to me, that despite all the controls we have and the technology that could be brought to bear on the problem, we are woefully unprotected against international movement of all sorts of nasty stuff. Instead of loosening the controls at the borders, as would very much suit the no-questions-asked antiquities market, surely there are a number of very good reasons why in this day and age, we should be tightening them. Just as the amount of antiquities which are, probably daily, getting through undetected are a visible sign of this, so too tightening border controls would cut down the number of illeally exported antiquities and other cultural property that are travelling across international borders.

Bernd Gackstätter and "His" Disputed Bowls

.

David Gill has joined the discussion of the "Frankfurt Bowls" case which has been in the antiquity collecting news (mostly due to the rather unorthodox, one might even say emotional, phrasing of a Frankfurt judge in his summing up, rather than the implications of the verdict itself). On Looting Matters he discusses how the disputed items came onto the market. On the basis of the existing accounts he notes: "It appears that the Phrygian bowls were removed from Turkey without a permit, wrapped in a carpet". In that case, David makes an observation and asks a very pertinent question which I would like to quote. The bowls are apparently the property of "den Frankfurter Antikenhändler Bernd Gackstätter" who:

"is a member of the IADAA. IADAA members are bound by an ethical code (German):The members of IADAA undertake not to purchase or sell objects until they have established to the best of their ability that such objects were not stolen from excavations, architectural monuments, public institutions or private property.

Die Mitglieder der IADAA verpflichten sich, Objekte erst zu erwerben oder zu verkaufen, wenn sie nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen sichergestellt haben, dass die Objekte nicht aus Ausgrabungsstätten, von Denkmälern der Architektur, aus öffentlichen Institutionen oder dem privaten Eigentümer gestohlen wurden. "

So has Bernd Gackstätter established ("to the best of their ability") that the phialai "were not stolen from excavations" (or indeed any unrecorded archaeological site)? Note that the IADAA expects its members to aspire to an ethical standard.

In their press release (which David Gill quotes) it is clear that the IADAA is aware of the facts of this case and as Gill suggests is "trying to present a story in their favour" (like actually missing out from their English translation the bottom half of the original document being quoted with the - revealing - nitty gritty of the verdict Cf: here with here), and that there is the world of difference between what is merely legal in the antiquities trade and what is ethical. Gill also notes evidence that suggests in other cases action has been taken by the IADAA against other members who transgressed the Code of Ethics. He concludes:

I hope IADAA members who value their ethical code will be urging Bernd Gackstätter to return the Phrygian phialai to Turkey without any further adverse publicity for their organisation.

It remains to be seen whether the IADAA code of ethics is actually worth more than the paper it is written on.

By the way, we should not lose sight of the fact that the disputed items also include two Byzantine metal vessels too, but the Phrygian omphalos bowls are perhaps more photogenic.

Vignette: the omphalos schlossen at the centre of the row (Frankfurter Rundschau).

Michael Müller-Karpe Still Fighting the Good Fight

.

As may easily be observed, portable antiquity collectors can get quite vitriolic about those they see and portray as their opponents. In the latest edition of the US-based "Coin News" is an (anonymous) and insulting article ["„Close to mental confusion“ – a German court on Michael Müller-Karpe’s private crusade"] which seems to be based on material sent by German dealers - from the Arbeitskreis Kunsthandel which jubilantly recounts how a Philistine (unnamed in the media) judge in the administrative court allowed himself ("IM NAMEN DES VOLKES") a few rude comments about archaeologist: "Dr. Michael Müller-Karpe self-appointed crusader in the name of cultural property protection". The court case went against the Hessian authorities who had seized as illicit antiquities some prehistoric bronze bowls apparently bought from an Armenian carpet dealer in Turkey by a holidaying couple and then sold to a Frankfurt art dealer. The Arbeitskreis Kunsthandel adds:

For years Michael Müller-Karpe has been accusing the antiquities trade of dealing in stolen and smuggled goods. Despite having been proved wrong on several occasions (as in the case above) he continues with his groundless attacks.[...] The German art trade and collectors hope that the irrational and resentment-based crusades of the archaeologist in Mainz against collecting and dealing in ancient art will now cease.

I bet they do. What is really odd though is the way they report the matter in dispute: "At the same time, the archaeologist claimed damages of 17 million Euros in total for himself and for the Zentralmuseum in Mainz for defamation". No, not for "defamation", perhaps US coineys, the ones that can read German, would like to read for themselves around the topic in the German media and see what the fuss really was (and still is ) about. They really should not allow themselves to be spoonfed misleading and incomplete reports by those whose interests are in no-questions-being-asked. The question is a by-now familiar one of archaeological and museum professional ethics.

They could start with Matthias Thieme, Rechtsbruch mit Räucherkesselchen" [Frankfurter Rundschau 07.08.2010], or Daniel Gerlach, "Eine gordische Affäre" [Zenithonline, n.d.]. By the way, the coin news version of the German antiquities' dealers press release concentrating on the verbal abuse misses out the most important part, in fact about half the original document, detailing the actual verdict. In fact it is the part of the document containing the rebuke, and makes clear the remarks refer to a letter of 10th May 2010 which went out under the letterhead of the RGZM and what the occasion for those remarks was. This is quite typical of the milieu, satisfied with a mere slanging match than any real discussion of the nitty-gritty.

On his blog of course Peter Tompa is typically vindictive ("German Cultural Property Crusader Gets Rebuked" ). Rebuke is about all the antiquities trade lobby can hand out these days instead of real arguments, that it's from a judge in an administrative court really need not excite us, I've had a few dealings with them in my own professional work and cannot say they are my favourite people. Echoing the German dealers, Tompa writes (note the terminology):

One wonders whether there will be any further ramifications for Müller-Karpe. Hopefully, the ruling will act at least some disincentive for his brand of cultural property vigilantism.

Obviously he's not read the Frankfurter Rundschau article. The question is whether the police will turn up in the German museum professional's office on Monday with cutting equipment.

Photos: Muller Karpe and three of the bowls, photos from Frankfurter Rundschau

.

I Found it in My Garden

.

It is not unknown for metal detectorists to say they found something "in their gardens". The first recorded owner of the Cleveland "Sauroktonos" which has fancifully been ascribed to the hands of Praxiteles himself was Wuppertal lawyer Ernst-Ulrich Walter. He says he found this mega-buck statue in pieces in his back garden, and that he vaguely remembers a garden ornament looking something like this back when he was a kid. Anyway, not being interested in such stuff, he offloaded it onto a Dutch dealer whose name he does not remember for 1,600 Deutsch marks. The rest is (almost) history, it passes through other hands before ending up with the Aboutaam brothers, who sell it to Cleveland.

Now I must admit to being very curious about this garden ornament story. Let's have a look for Ernst-Ulrich Walter in the Internet. We find the article discussed today by David Gill Katlen Trautmann ("Der Schatz von Göda", June 6, 2004). Göda is a village west of Bautzen in Lausitz. Earlier than that is another article of similar content and tone: Anon, Dem Traum ein Stück näher on the website for the hamlet of Leutwitz west of Göda. It is here that the collector regained his grandfather's Dreiseithof which had been seized by the German Democratic Republic. Presumably this is the garden where the Sauroktonos had been found. Now the nobility of central Europe were every bit as prone to go on the Grand Tour as anyone else and bring back bits and bobs of marble, pottery and other displayable "art". The problem is that we know about most of these objects from the copious literature generated at the time, some of my academic colleagues have spent their working lives collating all this information. If a life size bronze Greek figure had been brought back here in the eighteenth, nineteenth or early twenieth century, why is no record surviving?


If an ancient Greek statue was standing in a garden in the DDR, why was it not noticed by the state antiquities service and taken to a museum? The East Germans were very thorough about surveying the countryside inventorising ancient monuments. Secondly such an item not included in any inventory was asking to be smuggled out of the country for hard currency (OK, the Iron Curtain made that extremely difficult, but smuggling did take place).

Vignette: Sauroktonos with no passport. Photo: Leutwitz near Bautzen on Google Earth, that's it folks, the Grand Tour item was reportedly found in one of those farmyards. Isn't that strange?

ebay Seller Tim3rexes Claims to be Wenneb Shabti Finder

.

I am not sure we should believe this, but over on the Yahoo Ancient Artifacts discussion list, ebay seller Tim3rexes based in the US confesses that he was the person who dug up the Wenneb shabtis and put some 300 of them on the market. He seems quite unrepentant about it. Whether or not the membership of this discussion list deserves the label "responsible collectors" who take the issue of looting seriously will be shown by the number of people who respond to that remark.

More seriously, the same tim3rexes (whose real name might be something like Tim Babb) is visible on the same discussion list "playing devil's advocate" in favour of "Cuneiform tablets/cone for sale". According to him, leaving them in the source countries endangers the artefracts which are better housed in the homes of western collectors (sic). In the same vein, this writer also suggested that the real artefacts should be retained in the west, but auction houses like Christies should collude in the selling of deceptive fake Chinese antiquities to China to keep them quiet. A months ago he wrote: "I guess the Nazi party is alive and well in Germany - although under a different name (cultural authorities=national socialists?)" which is just plain offensive, especially on a "responsible collectors'" discussion list. What was the reaction of the "responsible collectors"? I guess the ensuing silence of collectors was a stunned one, eh? (The same message appeared on that bastion of indiscriminate antiquity collection, Dave Welsh's Unidroit-L discussion list, and was not contested there either.)

From his feedback on eBay, we can see that Tim3rexes is a seller of coins, of course. How could it be otherwise? I wonder if he is a member of the ACCG, I think we should know.

The Müller Coin Case: »Spätrömischer Schrott« ist keine Hehlerware

As has been reported in the coiney media, in Germany there have been a number of cases involving collectors of ancient dug-up coins. US collectors were up-in-arms about collectors having their houses searched and collections seized the rhetoric even evoking images of Brownshirts and swastikas.

The cases concerned had resulted from collaboration between police officers and eBay concerning online purchases of coins thought to have come from illegal excavations. A 47-year-old installer Sylvio Müller from Hessen had been buying bulk lots of unprovenanced uncleaned coins on eBay (mostly the type called disrespectfully "Spätrömischer Schrott" by collectors over there), cleaning them and reselling them to collectors on eBay. Since there was no documentation that the coins involved were of licit provenance, and there was believed to be the likelihood they had come from illegal looting of unknown archaeological sites, he was charged with the handling of stolen goods (hehlerei). The police then carried out preliminary investigations of 347 collectors who had bought coins from Sylvio Müller. In some cases houses were searched, and even some collections of coins which could not immediately be documented as of legal provenance were seized for further investigation. Presumably the police were interested in identifying other suppliers of similar material which these people had been buying coins from. Many of the collectors whose title to some of their items was questioned instead of facing court cases in fact relinquished these coins, which prevented the examinations proceding further.

On September 21st, 2009, Müller stood trial. The trial was brief and he was acquitted unconditionally of the charges of handling stolen goods. This case was taken to mean by the German media that in that country no proof of origin is necessary in the acquisition or sale of dug up ancient coins. According to the Wetterauer Zeitung from September 22nd, 2009, Judge Franske put her estimation of the case this way: "Rest assured - you are entitled to further pursue your hobby".


UPDATE (June 18th 2010)

The cases against some collectors in Hessen who had been under investigation initially because they had bought material from Muller have been continuing. A chief superintendent in the Bavarian police accused of dealing in stolen goods since he had bought ten Roman coins at the price of 6 Euros from Mr Müller for his son refused the closing of the proceeding because he didn't want an endorsement in his personal file. He also was acquitted of all charges.

Collector Alexander Krombach was also investigated and his case is discussed in a recent issue of Coin News. He had his house searched and his collection of 821 coins was saved as evidence. The owner estimated the value of his collection at Euros 8.000 to 13.000 (the collection was later valued by the administrative court at 20 000 euros). Most of the coins had no “proof of origin”, though some were accompanied by papers (invoices) showing they had been bought at of well-known German coin dealers (Künker, Lanz, Ritter et al.). The material seized was mostly Roman Imperial, dating from the second to fourth centuries and many of them that could be assigned a source (by mintmark) came "from the east part of the Roman Empire, only a few from the west parts". It was later suggested that – according to their kind, amount and composition – the coins had come from digging on different sites in the east Balkans (Bulgaria, Serbia), with only very few coins perhaps coming from Germany and France.

As reasoning of the start of judicial proceedings the following aspects were stated: the accused had acquired five historic coins without the necessary proof of origin an March 8th, 2005. In addition, he had bought another 358 historic objects, mainly coins, of which he did not have any proof of origin. “The coins’ provenance could not be clearly ascertained so far. With a probability bordering on certainty they were purchased illegally. According to § 259 StGB, there is suspicion of receiving stolen goods”.

At the end of the preliminary proceedings, the collector was proposed a closure of the case with the surrender of the coins and a fine of 1000 euros. He refused because there was no evidence of "wilful misconduct with a probability bordering on certainty" which would be necessary for a conviction.

In July 2009 the Hessian Ministry of Higher Education, Research and the Arts for some reason issued a directive for the 821 coins to be seized and deposited in the Institute for History and Archaeology of the Roman Art and Subsidiary Science of Archaeology, to be used in that institution for “reasons of study and education”. Krombach resisted and took the case to the administrative court of the Federal State of Hesse in Wiesbaden and then Geissen. In the meantime Muller was acquitted, and on May 6th the directive of the ministry was dismissed.

Germany does the right thing, now to find out what happened

.
The gold vessel that was being sold as from "Troy" by Münzhandlung Hirsch Nachfolger a German coin (sic) dealer has been handed over to Iraq by German authorities after a court case and the insistence of Michaeł Muller-Karpe that it could not have come from Troy but was Mesopotamian, and probably from the Royal Graves at Ur (see Nathan Elkins' post with links to more material on this).

While the object is back to where it should never have left, this should by no means be the end of the matter, this is not at all about "restitution". Let us hope investigations are still underway to determine where Münzhandlung Hirsch Nachfolger got this object from, and who is responsible for taking it out of the source country to Germany and giving it a false provenance and ultimately those responsible for looting a site the rank of the (if Muller Karpe is right) Royal Cemetery in Ur and selling the finds. What else have they dug up there and where is it? This has nothing to do (pace Sayles) with "cultural property nationalism" (sic) and persecuting gentleman antiquity dealers engaged in a harmless 'licit trade', this is about catching the lawbreakers and law-benders that get the trade as a whole a very bad reputation. I am assuming that any dealers through whose hands that object passed kept records of their due diligence processes and are helping the investigations fully. Where the buck stops should be a jail sentence.

The "Numismatic Method" and Archaeologists

This week saw the end of the International Numismatic Congress in Glasgow. Although I had previously scanned the part of the programme dealing with coins dug out of archaeological contexts for the papers that were no doubt delivered by the “professional numismatists” of the ACCG, I could not find them. Andrew McCabe was there, but I do not know if he is an ACCG member, but he has just published his impressions on Moneta-L.

He was surprised that from the archaeologists attending the Congress he did not get any “bad vibes” which “one sometime reads about on this list” [Moneta-L] (probably from the ACCG scaremongers). In fact he seems a bit surprised that there were archaeologists attending a numismatic congress at all. Who would think it? After all heap-on-a-table coin collectors are adamant that dugup ancient coins are not archaeological artifacts and many insist that ancient coin-shaped artefacts should be "saved" from getting into the hands of archaeologists, and that is what many coin collectors and dealers are aspiring to do.

Indeed, many of the archaeologists present at the Congress even presented papers which the numismatist had to admit “were usually quite excellent, with material properly analysed and conclusions properly drawn”. Well just fancy that. While coineys apparently picture archaeologists as devils with two heads with horns springing from them, it obviously would come as a surprise to them to find some that actually can analyse archaeological material properly.

McCabe goes on: “Sam Moorhead of the British Museum for example presented [one] on finds of individual Roman Republican coins under the Portable Antiquities Scheme”. Well, first of all the finds are not made under the Portable Antiquities Scheme, they are made by artefact collecting metal detectorists in England and Wales and the PAS records the information that would otherwise be lost (among coin collectors and dealers - see below) about where they come from. Of course Dr Moorhead’s party pieces on Republican coin finds and so-called “grots” in the UK recorded in the PAS database are the chief causes célèbres currently being trundled out to justify PAS “partnership” with artefact hunters. Secondly although Dr Moorhead studied archaeology his current field of work is in numismatics and he works in the BM's Department of Coins and Medals [There’s a real professional numismatist against whose work the ACCG Congress-skipping self-proclaimed ones can be measured].

I was extremely puzzled and ultimately irritated however by McCabe’s comments concerning another metal detecting cause celebre:

The systematic manner in which Frank Berger approached location finds to prove decisively the location of the Teutoburg forest battle in AD9 was a great example of how well-applied numismatic technique can answer questions that historians and archaeologists have failed at. Frank demonstrated that the exact mix and volume of coins together with related artefacts […] provided a closely bracketed date in the range 7-11A D for the site he proposed, whereas sites proposed by others fail on the numismatic evidence with coins that are either too late or too early.

A site he proposed? “A” site? Eh?

Well, firstly I am not sure that pinpointing the sites of ancient skirmishes mentioned in old texts really is one of the chief tasks of modern archaeology. Secondly, I was not at the conference like Mr McCabe, but as far as I know Dr Berger has been working for some years on the numismatic material from Kalkriese site discovered in 1987 by British metal detectorist Major Tony Clunn searching in a location suggested by archaeologist Dr Wolfgang Schlüter (himself basing his hunch on something written by Theodor Mommsen in 1885: Die Ortlichkeit der Varusschlacht). In the past large numbers of coins, both gold and silver - all of the age of Augustus - had been found in a specific area somewhere to the east of the town of Bramsche which was called  Goldacker (field of gold).  The site however had produced no military items, in 1987 the site was revisited by Clunn and Schlüter as an archaeological project, and lead sling bullets were found. This site has since 1994 been regarded by most archaeologists who know the material as the site of the battle of the Teutobergerwald. Is Berger now proposing “a”[nother] site as that of the battle which is the background to the coin collector’s patronising remarks about German archaeologists? Or was the presentation (as I suspect was the case) actually about the Kalkriese coins and the coin collector has simply failed to keep up with the archaeological literature of the last decade and a half?

Of course, let us note that what happened here has nothing in common with the "numismatic method" as commonly understood by no-questions-asked coin collectors and dealers. We are told time and time again by coin collectors (and dealers) that archaeological context is unimportant for the study of coins (unless they come from hoards, which they do not regard as an "archaeological" context). What the "numismatic method" (Sc. numismophillic "method") advocated by the disciples of Petrarchian coin fondling is you have first to get somebody to dig them out of the ground as quickly as possible (so the coin pixies do not get them), then you have to mix up all the stuff in big sacks, making sure that they contain material coming from several sites, and better still several regions, to make its source even harder to ascertain. Such decontextualised coins then have to be shipped off through some European or Middle Eastern warehouse to a foreign land acoss the wide ocean, and - this is very important - they must be accompanied by no paperwork, most dealers don't really like to know where the coins have come from, then they can disingenuously plead ignorance. The goods then have to be sorted into "lots" of various size and quality to allow the home-grown erudites to bid for them through the Internet. When they've won them, they heap them all up on a table and look at their "numismatic context", that is they look for die links with other coins and iconography (pictures on them). Whoopee, what larks.

Sadly for the dealers and collectors of such Classical geegaws, Major Tony Clunn did it all wrong from the point of view of the heaped coins numismophilic "method". He took his initial finds to the archaeologists (this was ten years before there was a PAS trying to persuade other metal detectorists this would be a jolly good idea). He obtained official permission to continue searching and reported subsequent finds to the archaeologists. The site was then excavated and more coins - the ones Berger has been studying - were found in an archaeological context.

Theodor Mommsen knew of a nineteenth century landowner's collection of coins including some from this site, but there was no information about which were from where. It was only the recovery of a discrete group of coins from a known context that allowed the numismatic method to reveal the information which clinched the date of the deposit and thus identify the site. How anyone who knows anything about examples like this can assert that in the case of coins archaeological context is "unneccessary" beats me. Either I am missing something, or they are.

If Tony Clunn had followed normal numismophillic practice and bundled the whole lot up in sacks with material from other sites and sent them to the Sayles and Lavendar-run ACCG "benefit auction", then no amount of heaping on Wisconsin and Missouri tables, no amount of "spot-the-difference" die-linking, no amount of asking ther Moneta-L members what catalogue number a particular coin reverse has would have revealed the information that would be irretrievably lost by ripping them from their context and mixing them with other coins in a "dealer lot". Their context (in the "fields and forests" which US coin collectors refuse to think might be where European archaeological sites like Kalkriese are) would be lost. Their value as historical evidence is destroyed by the coin trade.



This is Kalkriese, a mouse click away from the average coin collector on Google Earth - the first finds were made in the field in the centre of the frame, to the north can be seen the excavation trenches of the 2000 season. Note the fields and forests covering the site of the last stand of Varus' legions.


The Quest for the Lost Roman Legions (book, first published 1998)

Interview with Major Tony Clunn

The site website (its the 2000th anniversary of the battle this year, the festivities are finishing in a few weeks)

Germany: turning a blind eye to 'Antikenhehlerei'?

A few days ago the gold vial which a German antiquity dealer [ancient coin auction house Hirsch Nachfolger] claims (but has not demonstrated) came from "Troy" and which German expert Michel Muller-Karpe says has most likely been looted from Ur in Iraq has been handed over to a government-appointed evaluator. The future destination of this object will be determined by what the evaluator decides. The topic has received some media attention in Germany. English-speaking readers can find an interesting report by Martin Beutler “Looted treasures from Iraq on sale in Germany” in the first 7.05 minutes of this video... The attached forum asks "should the trade in all artefacts of unclear origins be banned [or is this already a lost cause]?”

The video features a number of cameo interviews from both sides of the issue. Michael Muller Karpe is a key figure:

"the archaeologist from Mainz is convinced that most of the antiquities on offer in auction catalogues are stolen, their origins are often not made clear; "They are simply labelled Mesopotamia, or Babylonia or Assyria. Legally obtained artefacts have a specific site of origin, with illegal objects, the source isn't mentioned for a good reason".

There is a spokesman from the Iraqi embassy (note what he has on the shelf behind him) expressing hope that the situation over this item can be resolved amicably by diplomatically acceptable means.

There is an appearance from Daniel Gerlach, an orientalist from Berlin, he has been looking into the trafficking of antiquities and identifies Germany as a place where the trail breks off due to the lack of transparency in the market. He says “The authorities really need to change the way they think […] sometimes I get the impression that politically the aim is to keep public attention away from this issue”. I would say that is a fair assessment of the situation too in other 'no-questions-asked antiquity'-hungry 'market' countries, including the UK and the US.

Astrid Muller Katzenburg is an attorney for the Association of German Antique Dealers. As is the wont of lawyers serving the trade she comes out with the same old arguments we hear from the whole pro-collecting lobby, that dealers want to "preserve works of art" taken from archaeological contexts (for which rthey have an "affinity") and denies the market is as profitable as some preservationists estimate. She also denies that Germany is a major market for stolen Iraqi artefacts (where have we heard that before?). While she castigates opponents of the no-questions-asked trade as not applying "logical arguments", she is depicted by this report as not however answering the point about the trade in illicit items and the lack of transparency of the market.

The final word however belongs to Muller-Karpe:

"In Germany, Hehlerei [fencing of stolen goods] is a punishable offence. If you buy a stolen car radio you are punished, but if you buy a stolen cylinder seal, or clay tablet, you are not charged- you are celebrated as fostering science when you publicly exhibit the stolen item. That's just not right".

So far the German government has on the whole been dragging its feet over taking action against the no-questions-asked trade in illegally obtained portable antiquities across and within its borders, does this mean that the German government and people agree or disagree that it's "just not right" to trade in them?

What is Münzhandlung Hirsch Nachfolger going to do with the Ur-Troy Goldgefäß?

A while ago I reported here on the spin being put by advocates of the no-questions-asked trade in portable antiquities on the story of the dilemma of archaeologist Michael Müller-Karpe over a gold vessel. He was asked to provide an expert opinion on the origin of a vessel being sold by the Munich-based Münzhandlung Hirsch Nachfolger as from Troy, when it is of a type which indcates it is Sumerian and probably looted from the Royal Cemetery at Ur. He has apparently been asked by the Iraqis not to return it to the dealer, as every indication is that it would be sold to a collector who is not really interested where it comes from and how it arrived in Munich. There is even a hint that if the dealer does this, Muller-Karpe will be treated by the Iraqis as a accessory to a crime.

So far this story has not gained much attention outside Germany, but I think it raises some questions which need answering. Why is Münzhandlung Hirsch Nachfolger [instead of sticking to selling coins "from old European collections"] branching out to other unprovenanced objects and now selling a previously unknown gold vessel apparently from Ur? Why, when questions were raised about where it came from, was (it would seem) no statement issued by the firm to explain the discrepancy, and stating what the firm now intends to do with this object to remove the stain on the "good name" of the firm which selling it would now undoubtedly bring. Why are the German authorities not stepping in and ensuring that the matter is properly investigated, and guarantee that the object returns to Iraq if that is where it came from? How many looted Iraqi objects on the German market have the German returned to that country since 2003?

(Photo from Deutsche Welle)

We are witness to a 'decontextualisation process' on an enormous scale

Over on his Numismatics blog, Nathan Elkins has begun a series of comments on a recent book (H.-M von Kaenel and F. Kemmers (eds.) 2009, Coins in Context I: New Perspectives for the Interpretation of Coin Finds, Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 23 - Mainz). In the second post in what promises to be a thought-provoking series, he discusses the first essay [in the section "Methodological Overviews"] which is by one of the volume’s editors H.-M. von Kaenel ("Coins in context - a personal approach", pp. 9-24). Nathan has summarised the text for those – like me – who have not yet seen the book itself. I was struck by several of the quotes he gives. For example he reports that Von Kaenel writes:

"Never before has so much archaeological material been removed from the earth through illegal looting as it has since the 1990s. We are witness to a 'decontextualisation process' on an enormous scale which affects all archaeological objects. However, as regards sheer numbers, coins take first place."

I think this word “decontextualisation” is a useful concept to describe what is taking place and its effects; objects which have a context, are deprived of them by entry into the market of contextless “dugups” which collectors buy no-questions-asked. Von Kaenel continues:

"This is a loss of historical source material that is without comparison, and it cannot be replaced. The situation for archaeology is just as disastrous as it is for numismatics. Many colleagues are aware of this, but only a few speak out and
the authorities responsible have so far not been prepared to intervene actively and consistently."

I am not sure it is "without comparison", I'd liken it to the burning of the Alexandrine library many hundred times over. The question of why there are so many colleagues that are aware of this but few of whom speak out is an interesting one.

There is also a section of the paper called: "From 'numismatics or archaeology' to 'archaeology and numismatics'". Von Kaenel suggests that it is a younger generation of numismatists which is coming to realize that the study of ancient coins (which are after all just ONE type of archaeological artefact) cannot take part in isolation from (and to the detriment of) other branches of the study of the past. He uses an example taken from the realms of “Celtic” coinage in central Europe where the evidence from stratified coin finds overturned the traditional chronology based on typology. Von Kaenel suggests that:

"today no one seriously asks the question 'numismatics or archaeology' – the title of a paper by K. Castelin published in 1976. In fact, in Celtic numismatics today it is a matter of 'archaeology and numismatics'."

It would seem that Dr Von Kaenel has not come across (or paid attention to) the ACCG. Their spokesmen claim to be “professional numismatists”, and the dealers' lobby group does indeed proclaim that it is either archaeology OR the coin collector, as we have seen time and time again, they apparently do not see room for both unless the other side (the conservationsist) makes vast compromises to the exclusive benefit of the coin collector and dealer. The ACCG which seeks at every step to discredit the archaeological study of artefacts such as coins and all that goes with it, including those that would protect the archaeological record from exploitation for commercial purposes. I could not help a wry smile on reading the next part:

"In no other area of ancient numismatics has the discussion on coins and money been so productively stimulated and advanced by archaeologists as in Celtic numismatics".

It is in this field that the current main ideologue of the ACCG (Canadian John Hooker), claims to have his expertise, and we may note that while he is very willing to quote archaeologists when it suits him, in general he is an advocate of the autonomy and primacy of “numismatics” and typology over archaeology and context.

I look forward to the ACCG review of “Coins in Context I”, perhaps as one of the “Hooker papers” series.