Malter Galleries: Sentence

.
Malter Galleries Inc. (Agoura Hills, CA 91376-1710 U.S.A) is a major US auction house of ancient coins and related books and collectibles. Its blurb on V-Coins says: "each year we search for quality coins and other collectibles that can be either sold through our gallery or included in our highly successful auctions". They are not only (among other things) V-coins dealers, but also a member of the International Association of Professional Numismatists since 1970.

It is one thing for an antiquities dealer to claim a "good reputation", another to actually earn it by close attention to where the items they sell come from. Collectors buying items from dealer Michael Malter of Malter Galleries Inc., should take care to hang onto the paperwork of items bought from this gallery between mid March 2012 and mid-March 2014, as U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson has ordered that for the next two years "he must show documentation that any antiquities and ancient coins he intends to sell have not been illegally obtained" - the only artefacts in the whole US antiquities market where this is the case. Apparently - if you believe dealers - this is "impossible", so it will be interesting to see how Mr Malter gets along continuing to deal in such "impossible" conditions.

Michael Glen Malter, 56, pleaded guilty last year to illegally trafficking in Native American archaeological resources. His home-based business, Malter Galleries Inc., was also a defendant in the case.

Malter was indicted in August 2009 on charges of illegally trafficking in 261 examples of Native American tools, beads, bone materials and other items taken from federal lands within Joshua Tree National Park, Channel Islands National Park and elsewhere. He was also charged with receiving and selling archaeological materials representing the pre-Hispanic cultures of El Salvador. U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson said Malter showed a "cavalier" attitude toward the crime and was "clearly insensitive" to the cultural heritage of Native Americans and others.
According to sentencing papers, Malter's late father was convicted a dozen years ago in federal court in Oklahoma of illegally trafficking in stolen Turkish antiquities. Father and son worked together at Malter Galleries when the business operated out of an Encino storefront.

Malter was sentenced to serve two years of probation, which includes the one year of home detention, and 150 hours of community service. Anderson made one of the conditions of the dealer's probation that he must show documentation that any antiquities and ancient coins he intends to sell have not been illegally obtained. He was also ordered to pay an $8,000 fine and about $16,200 to the National Park Service and its archaeological investigations fund.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph O. Johns wrote in court papers, "there can be no excuse made for his knowing and intentional decisions to traffic in stolen Native American artifacts for personal profit":

The prosecutor, who specializes in environmental crime, drew a distinction between Malter's offenses and the acts of grave robbers. But, Johns wrote, "without unscrupulous individuals ... who are willing to traffic with the thieves of Native American archaeological sites, there would be virtually no incentive to loot such sites because there would be no market for such stolen antiquities." Malter's "fingernails may not be dirtied from the looting site, but his buttoned-down, white collar is so stained," Johns wrote.

Joseph O. Johns will have the ACCG dealers down on him like a tonne of bricks I am sure for that statement. They claim it is not logical to cite a relationship between demand and supply in antiquities, after all, everybody knows about the coin fairies and coin elves.

In a brief statement to the court, Malter tearfully spoke of now having "a devastating felony on my once-perfect record."

The firm is of course well known, it is mentioned in Bruce McNall's Fun While it Lasted".

Oddly enough, this news is not being reported in ACCG circles. Was Mr Malter an ACCG Benefit Auction donor last year?

Source: Daily News Wire Services, 'Agoura Hills antiquities dealer gets home detention, fines for illegally dealing in Indian artifacts', 19th March 2012

Comment From Thinking Collector

.
A collector who has his own mind sent a comment to an earlier post (since I suspect that not everybody reads the comments here), I'd like to draw attention to two portions:

I let my membership in the ACCG expire. Their statements make little sense to me, nor do I think their strategy protects the long term interests of ancient coin collecting.

I totally agree, I suspect they are losing other members, hence the "David and Goliath" push recently trying to convince "World coin" (ie modern coin) collectors that maybe it is their turn next (it is not of course, the idea is patently ridiculous). Up to a point [the matter of 'protection' of the artefacts], I agree with much of the second bit too:

I believe that individuals should be allowed to be guardians of cultural objects. Dispersing them does protect them and make them available to everyone. But it is a role of stewardship and responsibility. The interests of all current stake holders and future generations must be taken into account. As others have noted. historical sites are a vanishing resource. What about the interests of children and grandchildren? And theirs?

From my own observations, I concur with this collector's view that there is little free and informed discussion of these issues among ACCG/Moneta-L coineys, their self-appointed leaders do their best to nip that in the bud wherever it breaks out.

More Arrested in Greek Antiquities Bust

.
The number of people arrested over the weekend in the latest antiquities smuggling ring bust has gone up to 44, aged between 25 and 74, including pensioners and municipal workers Greek police said on Sunday. Arrests and antiquity seizures took place in a number of locations across northern and central Greece on Saturday and Sunday, said the force. Police had been investigating the group's moves for months. The suspects have already made depositions to an examining magistrate. Reports indicate that police had now recovered over 8000 ancient coins, mostly bronze (Kantouris says "9,200 silver and bronze coins") and ranging in date from the 6th century BC to the Byzantine period. These were on show over the weekend in Poligiros police station, Halkidiki Prefecture (560km north of Athens).

In raids on the properties of the arrested people, 19 metal detectors were also discovered, probable evidence of how and where the coins had been obtained.

The artifacts had been dug up during illegal archeological explorations, mainly in the regions of Macedonia and Thessaly, it said, adding that officers were working to identify items already sold abroad.

The raids also led to the discovery of some 300 "small artifacts", including three golden objects and a substantial quantity of ancient jewellery and bronze statuettes, as well as wooden icons dating from the Byzantine period.

Photos of some of the objects seized, in Poligyros police station
(Nikolas Giakoumidis / AP Photo)

It is reported that:

More than 200 police officers raided 55 buildings in 13 prefectures, mainly in northern Greece in an operation that began on Saturday, the statement said. A 66 year-old man believed to be the mastermind was also arrested. "The 66-year-old received the artifacts and after evaluating them, put them on sale in foreign countries through a network he had developed," police said. The man, a retired customs employee, frequently visited Bulgaria, Germany, Switzerland and Britain.

Kantouris adds that this man, from Gerakarou, "along with his two brothers, a daughter-in-law and another relative, formed the core of the group, while the other 39 would excavate in several places in northern and central Greece at the ringleader's request".

"We conducted 55 separate searches on Saturday," regional police chief Vassilis Kanalis said in northern Polygyros, 580 kilometers (360 miles) northeast of Athens. "This was the culmination of a great investigation which began six months ago." [...] "We are talking about a huge treasure, which ... was smuggled and sold abroad in small quantities," another regional police chief, Constantine Papoutsis, said. In the past six months, the ringleader made several trips abroad - to Bulgaria, Switzerland, Germany, Great Britain and the U.S. - presumably in search of clients. He traveled often, sometimes twice a week. "The case has a lot of depth. There are likely other persons involved, whom we will look for," Papoutsis said.

Sources:
AFP, 'Greek police recover ancient coins, smash smuggling network', Google News, 4.03.12

Angeliki Koutantou, 'Greek police arrest suspected smugglers, seize treasures', Yahoo news 5.03.12

Costas Kantouris, '44 arrested in Greece for antiquities trafficking', Miami Herald 4the March 2012.

SEE NOW also Sam Arkeolog 'Police arrest at least 44 illicit antiquities dealers, with thousands of coins, in Greece' 4th March 2012 (from which it emerges that firearms and drugs were among the items seized in the raids).

Upper Photo: Have you recently bought something like this from a dealer near you? Some of the coins seized, as seen in Poligiros police station (AFP).

Greek Antiquities Bust and the No-Questions-Asked Antiquities Trade

.
The recent arrest of a number of people allegedly involved in an antiquity smuggling ring in Greece over the weekend allows us to see a little of the way the antiquities market works. It allows us to envisage the degree of denial represented by what antiquity dealers and collectors say about the connection between what they do and the looting of the archaeological record as a source of saleable collectables. It allows us to see a little of the route from antiquities in the ground to coins in a foreign collector's display cabinet.

There were 44 people (so far) arrested, aged between 25 and 74, including pensioners and municipal workers. The organization seems to have been focussed on a 66-year old "Mr X" (I cannot believe that fellow coin dealers have not recognized who exactly is involved from the relatively detailed information leaked to the press). Mr X is accused of being what in the literature is generally referred to as a "middleman". By that is meant somebody who goes out and encourages people to supply him with dugup antiquities, for which he gives them cash and then sells them on at a profit. He is of course nothing but an antiquity dealer like all the rest.

It is not clear whether the artefact hunters arrested with Mr X worked exclusively for him, or whether they sold their finds to collectors and other dealers in the region. Perhaps some of them were collectors themselves, selling the things surplus to their own needs like artefact hunting metal detectorists everywhere. Perhaps the material reaching Mr X's alleged smuggling 'ring' was just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to ascertaining the degree of damage possibly done by these folk.

"Mr X" reportedly ran what in US parlance would be seen as a "Mom-and-Pop business" (like those of the US coin dealers of the ACCG - who claim US regulations are hindering them). In southern Europe the notion of a "familia" involved in criminal activity has different connotations. Anyway, part of the alleged operation was apparently kept in family hands:

Kantouris adds that this man, "along with his two brothers, a daughter-in-law and another relative, formed the core of the group, while the other 39 would excavate in several places in northern and central Greece at the ringleader's request".

Not insignificant is Mr X's former occupation. As a customs officer, he would know the legal loopholes and smugglers' tricks, but also have a number of professional connections which could facilitate him to get items across Greek borders (at least) while his former colleagues 'turned a blind eye' (or were simply unsuspecting).

This material "was smuggled and sold abroad in small quantities". This had been going on before the investigation started, for six months during the investigations, and yet even after this, over 9000 allegedly looted coins and several hundred aretefacts were still in the gang's posession (4000 of them reportedly with one person - presumably Mr X or a runner).

Mr X has apparently made several trips abroad , sometimes twice a week, in the last six months alone - to Bulgaria, Switzerland, Germany, Great Britain and the U.S.. Who did he meet? Presumably the police will be able to determine this from his business correspondence, phone records and computer hard disc. As Police Officer Papoutsis said, "The case has a lot of depth. There are likely other persons involved, whom we will look for".

These alleged business trips are quite telling. No mention is made of Mr X offering his goods directly from Greece, that would attract attention, and would be illegal. It would seem that these reports suggest that we are observing 'laundering' in process. Bulgaria has its own looting problems, but it is notable that among the items which seem to have come onto the market through export from Bulgaria are a number of Greek coins, while many are 'Thracian' types, not all are. Rather than being the result of the "ancient trade" so frequently evoked by coineys, it would seem that to some extent they are the result of 'laundering' through the Bulgarian antiquities mafia. The latter benefit from the supply of fresh material , thus improving their own offerings both in terms of quantity and quality, while Mr X, by the simple expedient of driving the objects across the open border with fellow EU member Bulgaria washes his hands of the problem of getting them to a wider international clientele, leaving that in the hands of the Bulgarian dealers with all the connections they have. Just what kind of people did "Mr X" have in his network?



The same goes for Mr X's travels to the other European centres of the antiquities trade, Germany, Switzerland and the UK. Did Mr X supply the big dealers of Munich and Leipzig? Let us hope the ongoing investigations can reveal whether that was the case (I am sure the present humiliations of the Greeks at the hands of the German financial institutions will make them look very closely at the German connection). With which Swiss dealers and collectors did Mr X do business? What about London? Who in London would be interested in buying freshly-dug ancient coins direct from a Greek source? Let us hope we all find out.

This is important, because US dealers make much of the fact that it is (allegedly) "not illegal" for Greek coins to travel between EU member states without relevant documentation (and on this basis they claim US dealers are discriminated against when required to obtain export documentation). Furthermore dealers have claimed (for example on the Unidroit-L forum, see here too) that ancient Greek (for example) coins bought (even if no-questions-asked) in "auctions" (for example in Munich or Leipzig and Switzerland) are - by the very fact that they are in Munich or Leipzig and Switzerland somehow "legal". In other words, they accept that it obviously would be illegal for them to buy freshly dugup Greek coins and antiquities directly from Mr X at source in Greece, but perfectly acceptable a couple of days or weeks later to buy the same coins and antiquities from a guy who'd done the dirty deed and bought them. In some way dealers consider these coins "clean" and perfectly "legitimate". That seems to me a definition of the "legitimate trade in antiquities' that only a coin dealer and no-questions-asking collector would accept. The rest of us are appalled. The reports say that "officers are working to identify items already sold abroad". Good, let us see who bought what. Name them and shame them.

The photographs of the seized antiquities show several features of what is involved. The bags of metal detected metal artefacts and 'partifacts' show that the coins destined for foreign markets were not derived from "isolated hoards" as coin dealers and collectors so frequently insist. The coins are clearly in part or wholly separated out from the metal assemblages created by metal detecting ancient sites (the ones in Thessaly and Macedonia the 39 artefact hunters - unless they themselves were collectors - were looting so they could sell stuff to Mr X).

The picture of the bags of coins on the table would be familiar no doubt to any English FLO. This is how most metal detected finds come to them, in grubby polybags. These certainly do not create the impression of being from the much-vaunted "old collections" which we are asked naively to believe are the source of all the undocumented coins freshly "surfacing" ("from underground"?) on the no-questions-asked market. These look like the products of site plundering, pure and simple. The little statuettes (if real, see below) could be votive offerings from a cult site, the gold jewellery from the callous looting of graves for profit perhaps.

But then we come to the next aspect of this dishonest trade in stolen cultural property. Look at the statuary, the "Cycladic" figures for example. You can see from a mile off that the one on the left was made with an abrasive disc (probably tungsten carbide cutting disc on an ordinary electric drill). These quite obviously fake objects (the "cupid face" has apparently been burnt, a manner of distressing very popular in Egyptian fake-making too) are a puzzle. Two explanations are possible. Among the arrested folk may be several collectors and these items would be 'bought-on-eBay' elements of their personal artefact collections which the police took for examination. Alternatively these items were (or destined to be) part of the stock of Mr X, either produced locally - though one has to ask whether some could be imports from Bulgaria where it is reported Mr X had business dealings and the notorious fake antiquity factories there.

One of the problems for fake makers is how to insert their products onto the market. This is especially the case if what they make does not look quite right - like this one. One option however is to do a deal with somebody who supplies real dugups to get rid of them for them. There are three advantages to this. The first is the faker has no direct dealings with the client, and therefore cannot so easily be traced should the fake be discovered. Secondly a dugup 'middleman' is not necessarily going to be dealing directly with the art connoisseurs who would spot a nasty fake when they see one straight away. He might be selling coins to a coin dealer who might be tempted by a "bargain" Cycladic piece which is well outside their own expertise, but they see an opportunity to sell on at a profit (claiming of course its from that mythical anonymous "old XXXX collection"). Thirdly a dugup-dealing supplier has street cred - if the person to whom it is offered is suspicious, the 'middleman' can always claim to be offended by this 'lack of trust' ("why, I have forty people back in Greece digging this stuff up for me, why would I need to sell fakes?"), and the dealer eager to get his hands on more dugups to expand his business learns not to question.

Thus it is that all manner of dodgyness is going on behind the facade of the "legitimate antiquity trade". Stolen and looted (not to mention smuggled) items are passed onto the market masquerading as legitimate material. Utter - and worthless - fakes are passed off as kosher artefacts alongside them. All this is because both dealers and collectors are neglecting to ask the right questions, that is:

1) Where has this material ultimately come from, and how good is the actual documentation of legitimate origins?

2) Can the seller document his title to sell these items in a form I can pass on to the person who buys them from me when my custodianship of them is over?

Basically until dealers and collectors start asking and giving attention to the answers to these questions, the notion of a "legitimate antiquities market" will continue largely to be nothing but a facade behind which criminal middlemen and dealers will facilitate the passage of looted, smuggled, stolen and fake artefacts onto the market and into the stockrooms of dealers, the homes of collectors (and the schools of the ACE).

How anyone can claim that this is a 'legitimate' way to do business in this kind of material beats me.

UPDATE 5 March 2012: I see Peter Tompa is trying to brush this whole story off as a "diversion".

Sources:
AFP, 'Greek police recover ancient coins, smash smuggling network', Google News, 4.03.12

Angelike Koutanou, 'Greek police arrest suspected smugglers, seize treasures', Yahoo news 5.03.12

Costas Kantouris, '44 arrested in Greece for antiquities trafficking', Miami Herald 4the March 2012.

Fincham on Due Diligence

.
Derek Fincham, blogging on 'Cambodia Disputing a Koh Ker statue up for auction at Sotheby's' discussed earlier on this blog (here) has a comment which interested me:

The absence of information should not confer the benefits of a good faith purchase. Sotheby's argues the burden should be placed on Cambodia. I wonder though if the blunt reality of two feet without a body might lead a thinking person to a different conclusion.

Indeed, the question is to what degree collectors of knocked-off ('portablised') statuary and the suchlike are what most of the rest of us would consider 'thinking persons'. It seems to me that no-questions-asked collecting is a particularly thoughtless pastime.

"Sold by Spinks, no Paperwork" eh?

.
In my post about the statue from Koh Ker, Cambodia, mention was made of the "surfacing" of a statue removed from the site and the country at some time in the 1970s (it seems). An attempt was made by a "noble European woman" to sell it at Sotheby's but the items was spotted as having been taken from Koh Ker and the sale suspended.

Sotheby’s says that the seller is a “noble European lady” who acquired it in 1975. Although it was severed from its feet and pedestal, which were left behind at a remote Cambodian archaeological site, Sotheby’s says there is no proof that it was taken illegally. They say that their pre-sales research proved that its unnamed client has had “clear title” to the work since buying it from Spink & Son in London in December 1975. Most inconveniently, or perhaps conveniently, a spokeswoman for Spink said the 1975 records about where the company had obtained the statue were no longer available.

Now Spink's is more generally associated with the sale of dugup and other coins, nevertheless the same year as the Khmer Rouge began their reign of terror and destruction, this broken-off statue had already surfaced on the London market. Spink's bought it, goodness knows why and goodness knows how they thought it had come onto the market, they've not kept any paperwork that would allow that question to be answered.

Spink's might be thought to have an aversion to paperwork. It was Spink's that sold the ACCG some Chinese and Cypriot coins in 2007 and not only exported them to the USA without the paperwork required by the CCPIA (which Spink's should have been aware of) but also failed to supply it in the ninety days allowed by US law to allow such documentary lacks to be dealt with.

Vignette: Spink's by appointment...

Olympia Theft: Getting rid of the Stuff

.
In the Channel 4 news item to which David Gill referred in his post 'Olympia theft: "it will be really difficult to get rid of them"..' this hope is expressed by Dr Christos Tsirogiannis. I am not so sure. Dr Tsirogiannis has recently had a lot of success identifying objects which were apparently on the illicit trade several decades ago when they "resurface", sometimes with a new provenance, in the most "unexpected" (?) of places. I wonder though whether in this case we will see more than a few of these objects again.

This depends how we see the thieves. Were they desperate uneducated Greek jobless folk who just happened to have a kalashnikov lying around the house (no European household should be without one) who 'had a go'? Or were they two members of an already established Balkan gang already involved in the illicit trade in antiquities with clandestine supply routes already open, who crossed the (green?) border into Greece, did the raid and are by now with the loot on their way home? Time will tell and the police advance their investigations, but at the moment I am more inclined to see them as the latter, the links between antiquities looting and smuggling and organized crime seem to be becoming increasingly clear. In the first case, there is a chance that we'll see the objects surface pretty quickly. In the second, dodgy dealers will take them and offer them to dodgy buyers and we'll never see them again.

Over a year ago some very distinctive objects disappeared from another museum. One would have thought "pssst, d'ya wanna buy this genuine statue of the boy-king Tutankhamun straight from his tomb?" would have landed somebody in jail by now, but no - the object has vanished. If we assume the object is on the market [which actually I think is not the case - but more of that when it is appropriate], that would tell us something about that market. The current state of the international antiquities market makes it possible for tonnes (literally) of small freshly-dug artefacts to be absorbed without any trouble at all and simply disappear. Moreover the system of distribution of these objects is developed in such a way to hinder tracing the movements of artefacts. This is what money-laundering is all about, and it is clear that freshly "surfaced" (from underground) artefacts are 'laundered' in the same way.

All those artefacts without any documentation "which are of legal origins (though you cannot prove or check this)" could be there precisely to shield the other artefacts on the market without documentation which are freshly "surfaced" because illegally obtained. That is clearly one way in which the antiquities trade would manage to top up the resources from buying up old collections with large amounts of freshly dug stuff illegally removed from one source country or another. This no-questions-asked trade is where the small percentage of smuggled items that is actually detected and seized by customs inspections are headed.

Larry Rothfield hits the nail on the head discussing the Olympia theft:

the mere fact that artifacts are in a museum and recorded is not going to deter criminals who believe they are worth a lot of money on the black market. The criminals may be too stupid to know that fencing these hot objects may be difficult because a recorded artifact on the Art Loss Register or the like is almost certain to eventually be spotted if they come onto the auction house market or get donated to a museum. Or the criminals may be smart enough to have already set up a deal with a middleman or with a collector. Either way,the point is clear: antiquities cannot be protected only by a registry, if an illicit market exists.

I would go further. We cannot stop the illicit market without tackling the problem of the existence of a wholly no-questions-asked market that shields it from any scrutiny.

Weiss’ Donations to Rhode Island School of Design Museum of Art

.
While the American Numismatic Society is busily trying to expunge from its public records the generous donations made by one of its patrons over the years, not all of the organizations with which Dr Weiss was associated are as alacritous to prematurely proclaim the accused "guilty" and draw a veil of secrecy over such associations. The Chasing Aphrodite blog has a post ('Arnold Peter Weiss’ 46 donations to RISD Museum of Art') detailing 46 objects donated to the museum between 1997 and 2010, 16 of them ancient coins. Some of these items have above-average collecting histories, linking them to named finds and named collectors., which shows that as a collector Weiss was eager and able to obtain this information from his suppliers. As the "Chasing Aphrodite" blog authors note however in not all cases does that unequivocally legitimise the object. as they are either directly or indirectly linked to dealers whose names come up in the ongoing Italian investigation. Nevertheless the publication of these details is welcome and this is a pattern which other prominent institutions like the ANS should be following.

EBay, Lueke and the Coin Elves (Part 1)

.
It seems the coineys have it in for Professor Nathan Elkins, an academic numismatist who sides with the Preservationist White Hat guys rather than with the no-questions-asked antiquities buyers and sellers. First to start the mud-slinging was bitter Old Man Sayles, copied by Jorg Lueke on his "A Historical Perspective" ("exploring history and how it is crafted, manipulated, and used by governments, agencies, and others") blog. When however challenged to formulate and back up his views more precisely, he now claims that what he wrote was "satire". Lueke now follows up his ("satirische") Schlammschlachten, ja, ja with an exposition ("Archaeologist finds all the "evidence" he needs on Ebay") about why what we can see on eBay in fact does not show what it seems to show. Once again this is focussed on the person of "Dr. Nathan T Elkins an Assistant Professor of Art History at Baylor":

In a recent appearance focusing on the cultural property of Bulgaria Dr. Elkins displays a fondness for using Ebay as a source for his arguments. This comes as no surprise as Dr. Elkins used Ebay as a research tool when he wrote his article “Why Coins Matter”. This fondness for superficial results from Ebay opens up several interesting questions that I shall examine.

Having said that of course, the coiney does not. Now, Nathan Elkins has been looking into the US trade on ancient coins for a number of years, and from what I know of that research (which I venture to suggest is considerably more than what Jorg Lueke knows about his research) I would not say that his conclusions are based on "superficial results from Ebay". That is the first straw man argument offered by coiney Lueke.

Coiney Lueke indicates that in his opinion on the extremely rare occasions a seller of dugup ancient coins gives the information from which country they came, it would be "a rather naïve belief [...] that eBay sellers are in all cases telling the truth and not simply marketing what they think will work". In other words' Lueke has no problem accepting that collectors of ancient coins in the US and elsewhere are being lied to by the dealers selling them. Given an awareness of that level of deceit, in what way could that person then turn round and say this is a "legitimate market"? Why would somebody lie about coins coming "from Bulgaria", instead of admitting they come from which country?

Mr Lueke suggests that the number of coins actually being sold by eBay is less than the number presented by Nathan Elkins (nota bene NOT in his comments on the Bulgaria MOU but in several articles on the more general issues connected with the US trade in dugup coins). Lueke suggests we should note how many coins are SOLD rather than the number offered from sale. Presumably he considers that the ones not sold any given week are the ones that fell off trees or were produced by the coin elves and did not come out of the ground, so they are irrelevant to the question about the damage caused by the no-questions-asked market masking looting. But it is not just eBay is it? Let us then note that in parallel venues are also relatively high numbers of coins offered for sale. Just one example is the ACCG's old fried: V-coins (today: "160 Ancient Dealers, 98,940 Items, $22,743,591" - all produced by the coin Elves no doubt).

As it happens, today there are 26,725 results to be found in the category "Coins ancient" on eBay.com. If we narrow that down to those located only in the US, the result is "16,359 results" - so today 61% of the global trade in such items is being done out of the USA (a country whose soil does not as a rule produce ancient coins). Lueke himself notes that when he looks for coins produced in the Roman mint Serdica (mainly supplied the Balkan region and limes, but these coins also reached Britannia) "most of those are already in the US".

The figures for eBay sales of such items today are far higher than the number "5000 a week" mentioned by Elkins and now criticised by Lueke. Yes, it is true that not all those coins are sold from week to week, while some with "buy it now" prices will have gone well before we open the page to look. The feedback for many sellers shows the number of items week after week, month after month. This is (part of ) the turnover of the market, obviously many more items need to be added to the market every week and month to produce the stock from which clients with different needs and financial abilities select what they fancy. Many US dealers have stock which extends far beyond what they put on sale on the Internet any given day, week or month.

What one can see happening on the Internet is not just an array of (superficial) "figures" used to "support" any arguments. This is information anyone can see for themselves when they open the eBay page (or any other dealer's list, or "uncleaned bulk lots of coins" sales sites and discussion lists, of which there are many). However you spin those numbers, they do not reflect too well on the trade when you see how many of them are offered with any sort of information where they came from or any sort of expressly-worded guarantee offered by the seller that he only offers coins where there is due diligence done to ascertain that these are not freshly surfaced coins from recent looting and smuggling, but material he can demonstrate to the buyer has a documented history of licit acquisition and legal export (and legal import into the US).

Looking at the sorry array of sales offers giving no such guarantees (let alone offering potential customers any information about the documentation of legal collecting history and export) and comparing that with what (in the situation this market finds itself in) a truly legitimate market in such material should look like in the second decade of the twenty-first century can readily lead the onlooker to certain conclusions.

Lueke says:

In my view there is no rationale for believing the figures hastily printed off of (sic) eBay and woven (sic) around in front of some bureaucratic committee [i.e., CPAC PMB]. Even if true the story this volume of coins would (sic) tell about a marketplace, one that doesn’t exist in reality, would be contradictory at best [...] all these numbers are make believe and created just to serve a pre-defined purpose: to make it harder to collect coins [...] these numbers are hogwash and I will shortly present a more rational analysis of the current market.

It is unclear why Lueke says there is no "marketplace" for ancient coins when he himself makes use of it to add to his own collection. Anyway, we await with bated breath his promised analysis of the figures to show that the Coin Elves do not really put all that many undocumented ancient coins on the US market.

Lewis Defence Lawyers Urge Dismissal of Case Against Client in US v. Khouli et al.

.
Rick St Hilaire has an interesting text about the court case ensuing from the New York antiquities bust ('Lewis Defense Lawyers File Motion to Dismiss in US v. Khouli et al.'). An indictment is not a finding of guilt and a criminal defendant is presumed innocent unless the prosecution can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Basically Lewis' lawyers are arguing that collectors have no obligation to ensure that "freshly surfaced" artefacts they are purchasing are not illegally obtained. Let us see if that is a position upheld by a New York court of law, but even so, is that not really precisely what collectors buying precisely this category of material should, in fact, be doing? Also let us note that the lawyers say that Lewis as part of his "due diligence" before purchase was informed by the dealer that the objects came from a 1960s collection in Israel - so one might ask whether to offset the accusations that he was collecting smuggled items he has provided his lawyers with Israeli export permits for those antiquities he believes were exported from Israel.

Moreover, defense counsel contends that prosecutors cannot prove that the items in questions were stolen. They highlight that there has been no assertion by Egypt that the items are in fact stolen. And if the prosecution argues that the incomplete provenance of the artifacts should have informed Lewis that the objects may have been stolen, defense lawyers cite journal articles to show that lack of provenance is common in the antiquities market and does not demonstrate that a cultural object is in fact stolen.

Well, motoring magazines rarely say where the model they are illustrating was bought, that does not mean that the BMW in Cletus Thugwit's garage for which he has absolutely no paperwork is not stolen.

Lewis’ lawyers conclude that the lack of evidence cannot sustain a conviction, warranting a dismissal of the government's criminal case. It is worth noting that the "no provenance does not mean illegal" argument is the same one used by the coineys - but despite that Salem Alshdaifat (Holyland Numismatics) and Morris Khouli were suspended from the ACCG before they'd even set foot in a courtroom.

ANS: "Within the World of Artifacts, Coins as a Class do, in fact, Stand Apart"

.
The Chasing Aphrodite blog draws attention to the "American Numismatic Society Statement on Cultural Property Concerns" approved by its board of trustees October 22, 2005. It might be worth looking at it again seven years later in the light of subsequent events. Well, of course what we find is the usual coiney moaning about how ensuring hygiene of collections measures like checking the lawful origins of potential purchases can in the words of the Trustees place "an undue burden on lawful collecting, legitimate numismatic trade, and scholarly research". The ANS therefore urges that in deliberations over the importation of artefacts, full attention should be given to the "exceptional factors that pertain to historical coins" in order to "ensure the continuance of legitimate collecting, the protection of the cultural heritage of countries negatively affected by the ongoing trade in illicit antiquities, and the preservation, analysis and dissemination of knowledge of the past". I suppose that really depends on how the ANS defined "lawful collecting" in 2005 and whether that term can be used in the same way for the same practices seven years on. I think that recent events in the US are beginning to suggest that by the end of this year, the collecting of dugup ancient coins in the US collecting may well be on a different footing than it was in 2005.

It is therefore worth looking again at those "exceptional factors that pertain to historical coins". These of course are the usual tired old coiney mantras:
1) "Historically, coins were produced by the millions and they survive by the hundreds of thousands".
2) "Since the Renaissance coins have been avidly collected and studied by princes, scholars, and historically-minded hobbyists alike".
3) "Collecting and dealing in coins that have been in private hands for many years does not contribute to the destruction of cultural heritage".
4) "Likewise, 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". This litany concludes:

Taken together, such considerations argue that within the world of artifacts, coins as a class do, in fact, stand apart.

Well, do they?
a) "Historically, ancient Greek pottery vessels were produced by the millions and they survive by the hundreds of thousands".
2) "Since the Renaissance, ancient Greek pottery vessels have been avidly collected and studied by princes, scholars, and historically-minded hobbyists alike".
3) "Collecting and dealing in ancient Greek pottery vessels that have been in private hands for many years does not contribute to the destruction of cultural heritage".
4) Likewise, because most ancient Greek pottery vessels in private collections have been traded and held without any provenance, it is unreasonable to assume that an ancient Greek pottery vessel is stolen, illegally exported, or illegally imported merely because the holder cannot establish a chain of custody beyond receipt from a reputable source.

In fact we could certainly say more or less the same about - for example - ancient Egyptian shabti figures, scarabs, faience eyes of Horus, and mummy cases and their fragments, Roman intaglios with and without their rings, glass lachrymatories, ancient Near Eastern seals, whole archives of cuneiform tablets, erotic samian (both whole vessels and their fragments), knocked off heads of various statues such as Tanagra figurines etc etc. I really do not accept the four arguments above as in any way differentiating coins from other artefact types.

The fourth deserves some attention and poses a question. It is wholly unclear in the context of US law (remember this is the American Numismatic Association) why, and in what context, an assumption is made that an ancient Greek pottery vessel (or coin) "is stolen, illegally exported, or illegally imported merely because the holder cannot establish a chain of custody beyond receipt from a reputable source". In US law, the main problem collectors have (the document addresses "cultural property deliberations over the importation of artifacts") is with the flow of fresh material onto the already massive US market from abroad (ancient coins are as a rule not dug up on North American soil). So this poses the question: what "chain of custody" is required for the passage of an item across US borders? Neither the CCPIA nor the various other pieces of unrelated legislation relating to lawful importation of goods into the USA require proving a chain of custody. They do however require documentation of a entirely different nature - documentation on which the "American Numismatic Society Statement on Cultural Property Concerns" for some reason maintains a complete silence - doesn't it?

The ANS has its own policy on the "Acquisition and Disposal of Numismatic and Library Material". There is nothing terribly remarkable in it, they of course assure us all that they support "the spirit and intent" of the 1970 UNESCO Convention (all of it?) and thus:

The Society will not purchase or exhibit numismatic objects or other items that the Society reasonably suspects to have been unlawfully removed from archeological sites, stolen from public or private collections, removed from their country of origin in contravention of that country's laws declaring them state property or otherwise imported in contravention of the laws of the United States.

These are fine words, but are they any more than that? What is "reasonable suspicion" if the absence of even a single piece of information on where an object came from (and by what chain of custody it left the ground, left the source country and came into the US) is not considered (above) in any way a hindrance to its acquisition on such grounds? Would an object have to have "I am stolen" written right across it before the ANS buyer's reasonable suspicion is aroused? Or is it enough to have enough soil and grot adhering to it that it is clear its not from an old collector's mahogany cabinet?

Since the ANS suggestion that lack of any kind of collecting history is not a hindrance to responsible acquisition (really?) is less than helpful, perhaps they would be so kind as to get the Trustees together in 2012 and actually provide a proper ANS definition of "reasonable suspicion" that an object could have been:
a) unlawfully removed from archeological sites (closer definition?),
b) stolen from public or private collections,
c) removed from their country of origin in contravention of that country's laws [actually export laws as per 1970 UNESCO Convention which the ANS "supports", as well as]
d) removed from their country of origin in contravention of that country's laws
declaring them state property
e) or otherwise imported in contravention of the laws of the United States.
It seems to me that creating such definitions is pretty near impossible while holding to the view that the purchaser does not need to know from the "holder" anything which would allow the establishment of "a chain of custody beyond receipt from a reputable source". But I could be wrong, it would be interesting to see what the ANS Board of Trustees could come up with if they put their coiney minds to it.

While they are at it, perhaps the ANS trustees could create a definition of what constitutes a "reputable source". Is it one that sells reasonably priced coins and dispatches them as soon as he gets the customer's money? Is it one who has never been caught selling fakes? Is it one who not only merely assures everyone of the legitimate sources of his material but can demonstrate that with documentation, or one who merely covers his tracks so well "they can't touch you for it"?

I think that if the ANS really want to show that within the world of dugup antiquities, coins as a class and those who trade in them and collect them, "do in fact, stand apart" will have a try a good deal harder now than in 2005. Are they up to the task? Or will they let matters slide and just stay with their original outdated wishy-washiness?

What do These Collectables from Munich Have in Common?

.
The coin dealers' paid lobbyist perhaps unwittingly draws attention to a bit too much when he tries on his blog to score political points from a V-Coins dealer's caution. He writes:

The practical impact of import restrictions should be made crystal clear with these words, "No Shipment to the USA." This German dealer will no longer ship this Syracusian Tetradrachm to the USA, presumably because of import restrictions on "coins of Italian type."

Is that the reason? Oddly enough if you search through the entire stock list of the dealer highlighted by Tompa D. F. Grotjohann, you will find a number of coins of types related to the Italian MOU (like for example here, here, here, here and here), but only in the case of five - mostly quite high value - coins is it indicated that they will not be shipped to the US. Interestingly they all come from Sicily. Like the two coins seized in New York the other day. One might legitimately ask whether the caution of the dealer noted on the website is related to the MOU or the seizure? For example, does the Munich dealer know something about the earlier collecting history of the two "Cabinet W" coins seized and the five he has on offer (including several of dates not far removed from the 409-403 date range of the two currently safely stored in the New York District Attorney's office)? Just a thought.



The one coin from among these five with a "provenance" (sic) is "Gorny & Mosch [Munich] Sale 200, #1235I". In other words, surfaced on the market before, or about Mon 10 October 2011. That is hardly what anybody with an ounce of intelligence would call a collecting history is it? (but it disproves Tompa's assertion that the reason why these coins cannot be imported to the USA is because they are "not figured in auction catalogues" because this one is, though rather too late to be any help getting it through US customs). The rest are being sold like potatoes with the only reference cited being other coins that look like the one being sold.

In answer to Peter Tompa, if there is something potentially dodgy, or the Munich dealer simply cannot account for where these coins come from, then the practical implications of the MOU are clear. It is doing what it is intended to do, to keep certain types of dodgy or potentially dodgy coins of unknown origin off the US market. Why would that concern a responsible US collector?

UPDATE 12.01.12: This keeping potentially dodgy material of unknown origins off the US market is what dealers over there call "destroying the market". Frankly, if that really is what the US market thrives on, it is surely better all round not being preserved in its current form. Maybe 2012 will see the beginnings of responsible US collectors and dealers working to clean up the US dugup antiquities market. Is that too much to ask? Really?

Illustration: [edited] Screenshot from V-Coins search page.

Curtain-Twitching

.
There is some insubstantial chat on some coin discussion lists about a seizure at the New York International Coin Show. On the morning of Jan 3rd (the forums say 4th), just hours before the "Triton XV, lots 1001-2000" auction was due to begin, the New York district attorney entered the CNG showroom and seized two coins of the so-called "Selections from Cabinet W”, a group of 18 Greek coins belonging to Dr Peter Weiss, a US collector. Both coins are masterpieces from Sicily: Lot 1008, a Dekadrachm (Akragas) with a starting price of $2.5 million...


and Lot 1009, a Tetradrachm (Katane) with a start price of $ 300,000. Lot 1008, a Dekadrachm (Akragas) with a start price of $2.5 million and Lot 1009, a Tetradrachm (Katane) with a start price of $ 300,000. The seller's catalogue is available online here. The collecting histories are a bit "iffy"

lot 1008: "from a collection in the United States, earlier on in a Swiss collection and, earlier, in an English collection in London in the 1960s"
lot 1009: "purchased privately from an American collection 2010"

The dekadrachm is the coin discussed in the Daily Mail article about the sale of Greek coins ("A few more of these might sort out their crisis: Ancient Greek coin valued at a cool £2 million set for auction"). The trouble is of course that the object was not being sold by "Greece", but by a rich American collector who had somehow got it after it "somehow" left the country where it "surfaced" (from underground). Perhaps, since it is a fairly memorable piece - there being only 12 of them known to be extant, we are now going to learn about how it was removed from the country where it was found, when and by whom.

UPDATE 12.01.12
The online catalogue with the details of the "provenances" of these coins seems now not to be available, pity, lots of pretty pictures and fine words.

(I am grateful to Rick Witschonke of the ANS and Professor Nathan Elkins of Baylor University for pointing out two errors in the original draft of this text about the date of the seizure and the possible identity of the source country of the deka which have now been edited, thanks)

Vignette: The Art of Roadkill, classical style. The other side of the coin also depicts bestial carnage too upsetting to show here.

"Ancient Adornment" Webpage Spammers: A Supplier to be Trusted?

.
For the past few days almost every other webpage I open has a persistent advert embedded in it for an outfit called "Ancient Adornment" ("the Worlds Source for Ancient Jewelry and Rare Beads. Featuring modern designer Jewelry incorporated with Ancient elements"). It would seem that I have clicked on some antiquities sale site which has inserted a cookie into my computer which gives me this advert every time I open a page, no matter what its subject matter. Since they persist in thrusting their pathetic advertising in my face, I thought I would repay them by taking a look at what they are up to.

The outfit is quite secretive, the name of the proprietor is not visible on its website, it says it has been going on for nine years (though the website was started in October 2009) , and is based in Roseville, MI 48066 USA. They sell jewellery and other such geegaws (and masonic stuff it seems). Much of the material on offer seems to my archaeological eye to be in one way or another dodgy and I would not recommend buying anything from these people. First of all, although they guarantee authenticity (though see below), they do not mention anywhere in their promotional material where these things come from, how they left the source country not how they entered the USA.

One exception to that general rule is some of the Egyptian beads are said to be from a (single?) incomplete necklace they bought "in London" and then split up to sell the beads individually. If this was indeed one necklace it was of extraordinary composition, and as such no ethical dealer would have split it up. But actually I'd like to see some proof of this assertion, as it seems to me that this is a dealer's fiction. So this necklace had elongated biconical "jade" (nephrite) beads on it. Correctly they say that this material does not occur in Egypt but that it was "imported from Kashmir and Turkestan". really? And not Myanmar? But this one really takes the biscuit, some faceted amber beads 7.3mm diameter.

Ancient Egyptian Amber was mined in Basileia the capital of Atlantis and lay just off the Danish Coast. Amber was also used by Egyptians in the mummification process, possibly because it is a powerful desiccant, or drying agent. It was also valued as a medicine.

Hmmm. Atlantis in the North Sea, or is that the Baltic? These are the people whose knowledge and authority will be backing up the certificate of authenticity... By the way, the date they give is rather pre-dynastic than anything connected with what we think of as ancient Egypt. This form of bead was particuiularly popular in the nineteenth/early 20th, not "dynasty" but century. My picture is modern Baltic amber beads of exactly the same form, these come from an auction taking place now on a Polish internet auction site, where do the ones being sold as "ancient Egyptian" by "Ancient Adornment" really come from?

Conspicuous by their absence however are the "mummy beads" sold by most dealers and of course any scarabs/scaraboids which is odd given the context.

It's not a pretty picture when you look at the beads purporting to be "Roman" (and nota bene described as coming from "Italy" and "Cyprus" - countries with MOUs with the US, were these objects imported into the US by MOU standards?). Some of these "Roman beads" could be Roman period, some certainly are not. I'd single out as an example of the latter group for example the pink globular bead. There is a ring which is clearly a modern composite object with a fragment of glass ring with yellow trail on a dark (blue?) background glued onto the flat bezel of a ring and then smeared with gunk. One notes the manner in which the dealer thinks the owner of these loose rings can be assigned to social categories, this one was a "slave", this one was a "prostitute", and that one was a "pilgrim". The photos are too muddy and lacking in points of reference to determine how many might be questioned with regard to being among the mass of Balkan fakes currently on the internet market of "minor antiquities". Certainly the dealer's fanciful and digressive description of the items in his stock does not inspire much confidence in their actual ability to really be able to tell the difference.

Things go from bad to worse when we come to my own specialism, the Early Medieval period. There is a whole bunch of reputedly "Viking" stuff from "the excavations in York" on sale here. Well, I admit I do not know what some of these objects are, but they are not Viking. Like this shield-shaped thing (51230) with only one face illustrated and described as a "Viking Gold overlay Broach [sic] from the York, UK excavations". Apparently it "would make a great addition to an antiquities collection or for incorporating in to a modern jewelry design". Then there is another weird-shaped piece: "Viking Silver overlay Broach [sic] from the York, UK excavations [...](#512-4)". Or this one, or another. Here is, they say a "clothing brooch" (spelt correctly this time, but presumably different to the ones that the Vikings they might try to tell us used to pin directly through their skin - ouch). The "heart-shaped Viking brooch" was specially for Odin (the love-god?). This "Viking Silver overlay Broach from the York, UK excavations" depicts either gang-banging space aliens, or a decomposing piece of pig vertebral column. It certainly is not a Viking brooch.

Then we have the two cowrie beads. These are of a form known from across the ancient and modern world, but these two are said to be "Viking". The dealer begins by saying that "beads and other ornaments [...] often are found along side metal objects and weapons discovered by metal detectors".

In the 1970's and 80's, major archaeological excavations were undertaken in England and a great deal of new information came to light. We purchased a huge volume of antiquities from the London auction houses at that time. In fact, we once purchased 32% of the lots in one Phillips sale! One area where we were particularly active was Viking material. This is a rare Viking bead or garment ornament made from a cowrie shell. Others were discovered, described as 'Eastern imports' and pictured in the published findings of the archaeological projects. Details of that information and picture will accompany the bead.

Yeah, right. Why not tell us now where we can find this form of bead in the publications of Viking sites in the UK? I would be very interested to know in what soil conditions an object like that could be buried 900-1000 years and still retain its sheen to the degree these objects exhibit and not lose it due to breakdown of the conchiolin proteins and leaching. These I would add to the list of things being sold by this firm on which doubts may be cast on the accuracy of the identification (description, attribution).

Also what's the idea of fitting "genuine" ancient objects with "silver grommets" and then selling them to people saying they can be added to collections of antiquities? Were the beads altered in any way to get the grommets to fit, and is the process reversible?

Coiney Mag: Libyan Looted Coins "Hard to Trace"

.
ACCG supporting coiney journalist Richard Giedroyc has an article in the Dec 27th 2011 issue of World Coin News: 'Looted Libyan Hoard Proves Hard to Trace'. Well, first of all, the so-called Treasure of Benghazi is not a hoard, but a group of disparate items (perhaps more than 10,000 ancient Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Islamic coins as well as small statues and jewelry from the same periods) held in secure storage that was looted:

During World War II, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini seized the artifacts when he conquered Libya [...]. The coins and artifacts were placed on view in an Italian colonial exhibition in 1940. Following Libya’s independence during the 1960s the coins and artifacts were returned. According to an Oct. 31 British Broadcasting Corporation report, “The collection has been kept in the vault of the Commercial Bank of Benghazi ever since, waiting for the opening of a museum that was never built. The coins were never photographed or documented and seemed to have been forgotten.” [...] The treasure was pilfered during the chaos in Benghazi between February and May when the city was in the midst of Libya’s recent civil war. Several reports indicate the treasure was in a basement vault. Thieves appear to have broken into the vault by using a jackhammer to break through the reinforced concrete ceiling.

There are reports of some of these coins appearing in the back room of a jewellery shop in Benghazi’s souk seen in November by a Reuter's reporter, several hundred coins may have been recovered in Egypt, according to an unconfirmed reports in the Nov. 1 issue of Al Arabiya News.

There are also reports of part of the treasure already having illegally entered antiquity markets in Europe. Without the existence of photographs or some form of inventory, it will be difficult to prove any of these items originate from the Benghazi Treasure.

Note the careful avoidance of the suggestion that any of them are on the US market...

So, let us get this right, there are "perhaps more than 10,000 ancient Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Islamic coins" now on the market that were not there at the beginning of the year. So a bloke in Wisconsin in the market for buying coins is not going to be asking a supplier who says he can get large numbers of "ancient Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Islamic coins" where they come from? Where and when they surfaced? Note that what concerns Giedroyć (himself involved in the coin trade) is whether anyone having bought these coins runs the risk of having it proven that they have ended up with one or more items originating from the Benghazi Treasure. Surely the emphasis should have been on avoiding buying potentially dodgy goods in the first place? How many dealers will be helping 'trace' the Libyan loot by getting on the phone to local law enforcement authorities reporting that they have been offered a batch of coins or other antiquities of undeclared origins which could be from the Libyan loot (or other looted artefacts)?

Or will those who have these artefacts have absolutely no problems passing them on to the no-questions-asked market now dealers and collectors are assured that in this case (too) there are not likely to be the coiney equivalent of the Medici Polaroids to trap them if they buy such items? Is no-questions-asked purchase of items of undeclared origins in such case really an "innocent until proven guilty" situation, and not a "so-what, they can't touch you for it" one?

Vignette: F & W Publications, Iola, Wisconsin, WCN - note the definition of "World" ("item can be shipped only within the U.S.")

Commentary on the Nov 16th Public Session of the CPAC

.
The Archaeological Institute of America has published on its website two first-hand accounts of the November 16th public session of the CPAC concerning the initial requests for Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) between the United States and Belize and between the United States and Bulgaria under the Convention for Cultural Property Implementation Act (CCPIA). There are two of them, the second is by Nathan T. Elkins (Assistant Professor of Art History, Greek and Roman Art, Baylor University and member of the AIA’s Cultural Heritage Policy Committee.

He gives details of the presentation of several speakers, starting with Stephen J. Knerly ( an attorney who represented the Association of Art Museum Directors [AAMD]), then Peter Tompa (another attorney "and lobbyist representing the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) and the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG), two international trade organizations for dealers in ancient coins"). As such, he of course "opposed Bulgaria’s request outright and suggested that if a MoU is signed, the designated list ought not to include ancient coins. Mr. Tompa began by pulling out a wooden ruler...." [Uh-oh...]. He apparently "insisted that looting [...] is no worse than a traffic violation" [ever seen a kid knocked off his bike by a speeding car Mr Tompa?].

Mr. Tompa [...] believes that recent cultural heritage legislation in Bulgaria in 2009 should not be taken seriously by the committee as it was “rammed through by ex-communists only with input from archaeologists.” He stated that metal detectors should be targeted as as opposed to collectors. In his view, there is too much undocumented material in American collections and dealer inventories to force such a burden on American collectors and tradesmen.

[See article 10(a) of the UNESCO Convention - one of the many the US refuses to implement]

Kerry Wetterstrom, a former auction director for Classical Numismatic Group (CNG), offered comments on behalf of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG), an organization governed by American dealers in ancient coins and with a broad base of collector membership. Mr. Wetterstrom made points similar to Tompa’s, although he added that it would be a better approach if Bulgaria were to adopt a scheme similar to the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) in England and Wales. Under such a scheme, metal detectorists would be allowed to operate and would be encouraged to report their finds to the authorities, which may in turn record or remunerate them for their finds.

So Tompa says metal detectorists should be "regulated" (as if they are not in Bulgaria anyway) and another ACCG representative wants to see a liberalisation.

Elkins spoke next:

I indicated that Bulgaria is a primary source country for freshly discovered ancient coins and minor antiquities that enter the trade in the United States. In view of the precedents of Cyprus, China, and Italy, I suggested that a designated list include coins as there is great demand for fresh supplies of ancient coins in the United States and there is also a great deal of plunder in Bulgaria to feed the trade; I pointed to numerous seizures of ancient coins and metal artifacts that were smuggled from Bulgaria and destined for the U.S. as evidence. I also indicated that coins coming from Bulgaria are indeed the fruits of organized plunder and not casual or chance finds of isolated hoards as opponents of import restrictions have claimed in the past. This is illustrated by bulk lots or wholesale lots of ancient coins from Bulgaria that are advertised on dealer websites and eBay. I held up printouts of eBay auctions that were online at the time of the meeting; one dealer had numerous lots of earth-encrusted metal artifacts such as arrowheads, jewelry, and parcels of thousands of mixed Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman coins. Such a mixture of objects from a diverse range of chronological periods represents multiple layers of archaeological sites, not isolated hoards or casual finds. In fact, the American eBay seller explicitly stated in many of his auctions that he received the material directly from “excavators” and metal detectorists in Vidin Province in Bulgaria. Vidin Province is an area that has historically been subject to a large degree of looting and which is also home to Colonia Ulpia Traiana Ratiaria, an important archaeological site that has been systematically targeted by looters. Restricting the flow of all other archaeological materials except coins would solve nothing as it is clear from the seizures and from wholesaler inventories in the United States that the material is derived from the same sources and from the same sorts of organized metal detecting activity.

Elkins then summarises what Christina Luke (Lecturer in Anthropology at Boston University and chairperson of the AIA’s Cultural Heritage Policy Committee), Brian Daniels (Fellow of the Penn Cultural Heritage Center of the University of Pennsylvania Museum), Kevin Clinton (Professor Emeritus of Classics at Cornell University and President of the Board of Trustees of the American Research Center in Sofia). All of these spoke in favour of the US helping Bulgaria stem the flow of unlawfully exported dugup antiquities and other cultural property from the country, which - despite efforts in Bulgaria being stepped up - was still a problem.

Elkins and his colleagues believe that:

those who support a MoU with Bulgaria made a compelling case for its enactment [...] proponents of the MoU better articulated their arguments with regard to the four determinations [of CCPIA art 2602[a](1) PMB] and the actual situation in Bulgaria. We trust that the CPAC will carefully weigh the substance of the commentary provided to the committee and will make a decision that will aid Bulgaria in the preservation of its cultural heritage.

It is quite remarkable that not only are the coineys quite incapable of addressing the actual directions of the CCPIA and CPAC about the nature of public comments required (something I have commented upon too, looking at the public records of their submissions), but that they cannot even agree among the members of the board of directors of their most active lobbying group the ACCG whether metal detectorists are to be encouraged and rewarded (the Wetterstrom-PAS approach) or punished (the Tompa-numismatic dealers approach). So what is teh ACCG's policy towards metal detecting, and the purchase of artefacts which derive from metal detecting?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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