US Court Does not Buy Coin Collectors' Conspiracy Theory: Disallows Intrusive Snooping

Concerning a recent case, Lobboblogger Tompa informs his readers: "The Government's motion is available on-line for those with a "Pacer" account with the federal court system". Thanks to a tip-off, I can inform mine that if they follow this link they will find a much more interesting text by Marimer Matos:

'Feds Didn't Shortchange Coin Collectors on Info', courthouse News Service, Thursday, June 14, 2012 

The State Department did not illegally conceal coin-importation regulations from collectors, a federal judge ruled. In a 2007 complaint, three coin-collecting associations claimed that the U.S. State Department had blown off their eight requests for information on the restrictions surrounding ancient coin importation. The collectors said the government would not reveal limitations on importing ancient coins from Cyprus, Italy and China, and it also refused to explain how the regulations were created.

As my readers will know, to their eternal shame, the ACCG were after emails sent to the DoS  by the late Dr. Danielle Parks, an archaeology professor. The coin fondlers think intrusive snooping of this type acceptable, the US court does not: "This court finds, based on the evidence provided by State, that there was a demonstrated expectation of confidentiality between the parties and that the redacted portions of the e-mails have been appropriately withheld under exemption". The court ruled excessive and unreasonable the other demands of the Professional (sic) Numismatic Guild, the International Association of Professional (sic) Numismatists and the Ancient Coin Collectors' (sic) Guild.

UPDATE 16th June 2012: Despite the court not accepting the intimations of the PNG, AIPN and ACCG that there was some kind of a cover-up of a conspiracy going on, their Lobboblogger - instead of issuing an apology to the dead woman's family - still insists there was. Disgusting and disturbing.

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

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

The ACCG opposes all coin import restrictions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conspiracy Theory in New York

.
(Continued from the post above) But how could the coineys discuss anything without involving a muddle-headed conspiracy theory? So let us look again at the article of Jeff Starck about the NY coin seizure ('Officials seize two ancient coins at NYINC, Detain owner of coin with $2.5 million opening bid', Coin World online Jan. 09, 2012), looking for the inserted creepy stuff.

Three times we hear of "individuals identifying themselves as law enforcement officials". The writer is presumably invited to think that they might not have been. The article goes on:

"exactly who seized the coins, and why they targeted Weiss (who is a partner in Nomos AG), is unclear. Despite multiple telephone calls to law enforcement agencies in the New York City area, Coin World has been unable to confirm the identities of the authorities making the seizures and detaining Weiss".

Did they arrive in black helicopters? The article does not say. The plot deepens, because officials at New York County District Attorney's office would not confirm or deny what eyewitnesses report, and the spokesperson for the New York Customs and Border Protection office did not return Coin World’s telephone call. At the time of printing, they had also unable to reach anyone at Dr Weiss's office to determine his "status", as if they had all just "vanished".

[I think, if what I am hearing is correct, they should have recognised one of the arresting officers, he's quite famous in antiquities crime fighting circles.]

The author of the article stresses that the seizure was just one day before the sale, just two highly visible coins were taken. He depicts it in the broader context of "the ongoing fight over cultural property as it affects coins" [he forgot to say "unlawfully exported"]. He tells his readers that this has been "the most visible action"...

since the recent announcement of broader import restrictions of ancient Greek coins, which was made Dec. 1 in the Federal Register.

Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 231 / December 1, 2011 to be exact, referring to coins issued at places that lie within the boundaries of the modern Greek state. Coins struck in Sicily (which the US coiney authors of the article should know is actually in Italy these days) are not covered by the MOU to which the article refers. This is scare-mongering of the highest degree with minimal respect for the intelligence of the reader.

Vignette: Black helicopter over the Waldorf Astoria hotel (after a photo by Digital Flowers)

Collector: "Archaeology Big Business"

.
In a post below this I questioned the use of the term "trade group" referring to bodies like the European Archaeological Association, and said it was sloppy terminology. Nevertheless the author of those words is insistent that it is true:

archaeologists certainly advocate for the business purpose of monopolizing control over antiquities, and let's face the fact that archaeology is a big business now-- what with TV deals, government contracts and the like.

Leaving aside the emotive (and untrue) formulation "monopolising the control of antiquities" (sic) - which basically means, doesn't it, trying to keep them off the market for illicitly obtained items...

Does archaeology have a "business purpose" (ie commercial purpose) in protecting archaeological record from destruction? Can one say that rhino wardens in national parks are preserving rhinos for commercial reasons (because once the rhinos are gone nobody will pay their salaries to guard them)? Its the same argument, isn't it? I think there are a number of reasons why people make huge efforts to protect a resource and encourage others to help them. Commerce - doing business with it - does not necessarily play a part in it. Make money out of protected wild orchids growing in a field, or an osprey's nest. Perhaps the writer of those words finds it difficult to envisage there being other aims in conducting an activity, or running an institution, than making money. I do not know anyone who has entered archaeology thinking they'll get rich - you've much more of a chance of getting rich buying a metal detector and looking for a hoard or two in likely spots.

In the sense that developer funding plays a large part these days in financing so-called archaeological heritage management (in particular rescue archaeology) and this is contracted out by normal means to commercial archaeological bodies which undertake the work (so none of the institutions we are discussing), archaeology has become more commercialised. But in fact what money is being made from here is the controlled destruction of archaeological context. Perhaps then archaeology could be accused of having commercial interests in retaining context until such a time as commercial groups can be paid to take them apart methodically rather than, as was said above, loose "antiquities"? This however seems to be pushing coiney conspiracyism to its limits. In any case describing commercial archaeology as big business seems rather an exaggeration when the work is tendered out and often the cheapest option gets chosen, and the cost of an excavation is often only a fraction of the cost of a development. I know very few archaeologists who get rich doing rescue work, the ones I do know here in Poland are currently sitting out a jail sentence.

As for "government contracts", I wonder how much money the writer of those words thinks governments hand out to contractors in the field of culture and environment worldwide? These too are frequently tendered out and are often (as we see in the case of Britain's PAS for example) subject to stringent cuts. Thinking about some of the more lucrative UK government contracts I know of, they have been for creating policy documents, surveys or reports, and nothing whatsoever with either having or not having "antiquities" or excavation, just simple paperwork. The contracts in question also went to archaeological entities which have nothing to do with the kind of lobbying about which the anti-archaeological critic was writing.

TV deals, now we get to the crux of it. We all of us of course make a packet from our TV appearances, day after day in the studio and out of it. The makeup, tight filming schedules, paparazzi, autograph hunters... its a terrible life. Now, the PAS - on the back of Treasure hunters - reportedly has made a TV deal, but I do not think the average commercial archaeology makes much money out of filming its work.

Perhaps there is just a hint of jealousy there. One can imagine it now: "Chasing Denarii" presented by Zanny Harris III, Wisconsin coin collector, BBC2 8:00 pm Saturdays. "Come and explore with Zanny the treasures of the ancient world he has in his back bedroom":
"and here's another one, now this may look very much like the other 23 I showed you, but this one is really quite interesting, it was struck just a few years before his death, note the fine cabinet toning. I'll just put it down so the cameraman can zoom in on some of the details of the leaves on the wreath on the forehead [...] and here's another, but this time minted in Antioch! See, there's the mintmark just there..."

Vignette: Men in ties

Dealer SS: "Clean Trade Means a Vaccum Cleaner at the Border"

.

Alarm, alarm, watch out the enemy is at the gates, hysterically shouts Scott Semans dealer in dugups and numismatic books from Issaquah, WA 98027:

American collectors in future may have to ask shippers from outside USA to declare ancient & medieval coins as "reproductions" or U.S. Customs will confiscate them. That's right, fakes are illegal to own under the "Hobby Protection Act" but it is unenforced, while retentionists such as Paul Barford and his allies have converted U.S. Customs into a vacuum cleaner which will suck up coins and antiquities coming into the USA and return them to any foreign government that wants to warehouse or resell them. To learn more about this disturbing and under-reported situation, I suggest that listmembers join Unidroit-L@yahoogroups.com, or visit this site: <http://www.accg.us/home.aspx>. The future is almost here.

As for whether the alleged threat to collecting is "underreported", I would say it is being deliberately misleadingly reported by US coin dealers like Mr Semans and his equally hysterical colleagues. I'd say the two web-resources he sends collectors to are the last place to go to find out what these import restrictions are all about. I'd suggest collectors instead read the CCPIA for themselves with understanding and then find responsible dealers willing to comply with the law instead of kick against it.

Of course American collectors and dealers instead of importing mislabelled packages to avoid customs scrutiny (how often do they do that already? Also a crime, see the Windsor Antiquities Bust in NYC), they could just make sure the coins they import from certain countries have a piece of paper accompanying the package indicating that the coins were legally exported from the source country (two varieties to choose from). Wary collectors buying from such dealers would be well advised to get a copy of this paper to indicate that the procedures were followed.

I note on Mr Semans website the misleading information:

POLITICAL THREATS TO U.S. COLLECTORS
FORBIDDING IMPORT OF ANCIENT COINS AND ANTIQUITIES

Radical archaeologists and nationalistic politicians in source countries have succeeded in placing bans on the import of coins from Cyprus, China, and Italy. Other countries are lining up to use U.S. Customs against American citizens. MORE:

I would not bother going there, its the ACCG website. I wonder if Mr Semans (who seems otherwise to come over as an intelligent man on his website) actually believes what he writes here. The only person given the authority to impose import restrictions under the CCPIA is the President of the United States of America who may delegate it to another branch of government under his authority, so no "archaeologists" at all. Whether or not Barack Obama is a "nationalist politician" I could not say. But of course no "ban" is in place, there is a restriction on coins of certain types from certain countries unaccompanied by export documentation or a declaration as laid down by the CCPIA. Like Mr Semans can't come to visit me without having a passport. That's not a travel ban in any shape or form - unless Mr Semans is unable to obtain a US passport because he is illegally in the country of course. But I trust that is not the case and most people accept it as understood that you need a piece of paper to cross borders - or more specifically to confirm your right to return to the place you came from, but also to go to a new one. US passport and visa regulations only act as a "vacuum cleaner" for illegal immigrants. I am sure Mr Semans would not want or tolerate any illegal immigrants in his stockroom, would he?

Funny, since we are on the topic, Mr Semans is extremely knowledgeable about Chinese coins, has handled thousands of them, but somehow has avoided as far as I am aware expressing any professional opinion on the authenticity of the coins the ACCG originally pictured as being the ones they illegally imported through Baltimore. Would Mr Semans have no problems selling those coins as authentic dugups staking his reputation on it? With those 'corrosion products'?

UPDATE: The post above about misinformation and the illicit trade in dugups seems to have struck a raw nerve with one coin dealer (link to my answer). Basically it does not need a degree in logic or philology to see that the words being used by dealers here bear absolutely no relation to what the CCPIA actually says. Check it out.

"Mine is Bigger than Yours...": Numeracy among Humanists

.

Sadly David Gill has lost a subscriber, apparently due to her inability to read numbers.

I've unsubscribed from Looting Matters, as this sort of post by David Gill shows the type of propaganda that goes on in various blogs of it's (sic) ilk. And how frustrating it is trying to deal with people who'd argue black is white with a straight face ...

This is all very curious. I invite readers to check the Google Reader figures for themselves. On my screen they come out exactly the way that David Gill presents them, and in complete contrast to what Dorothy King claims. Having done that, they can then decide for themselves which side in the cultural property preservation debate is "arguing black is white with a straight face" and why that might be.

Some of the inexplicable discrepancies between what Ms King now asserts and the true values given today by Google Reader and what David Gill had stated:

	Gill	Dorothy King	Google Reader
Looting matters	‘290’	68	290
Blogging Pompeii	100+	22	118
PACHI	‘78’	1	78
Elginism	-	11	45

While Gill indeed did get the subscriber numbers wrong for one of Lee Rosenbaum (Culture Grrl)'s blogs and Derek Fincham's (it may be that he was mistakenly quoting the figures of the ArtLaw Blog), the general trend is clear; the blogs supporting cultural preservation and institutional measures still, by whatever means one uses to measure that, do seem to be being much more widely read than the blogs promoting the no-questions-asked market in antiquities and sniping at the archaeological establishment etc.

I posted a comment on PhDiva's blog pointing out the differences between what she say the Google Reader figures are and the actual values (which anyone can check for themselves). So far she has not deigned to answer it.

[In passing, she points out with mock modesty that she has 173 subscribers, but I suspect this has more to do with something she fails to point out. As I recall, about two (?) years ago she found it necessary to restrict access to her blog, to read anything on it as I recall one had to register, I could not be bothered, but it seems a hundred or so may well have done, thus producing a satisfying number of subscribers in the Google Reader statistics.]

One can only surmise why Ms King would find it "frustrating" to "deal with" (sic) the arguments against no-questions-asked collecting and for the preservation of the archaeological record, and labels "Looting Matters" propaganda. Still, now she's announced her reasons for unsubscribing from David's blog she'll not have to bother her pretty head over it any more.

.

.

Summary of discussion of Greek Cultural Property Request to the US Government on this blog to date

.

Since there are a number of posts about this scattered over the pages of this blog, I thought it might be helpful to try and gather the links in one place.

On the afternoon of Sunday 19th September there are 440 public submissions showing on the Regulations.gov website concerning the request of the Greek government to impose curbs on the import into the US of archaeological material illegally exported from Greece. This is the same number as Friday afternoon. The comments are only put up after a delay (David Gill's for example took three days to appear). This makes a nonsense of a coiney's attempt to link a sudden spurt with an email that had been sent the previous day - it just means somebody in a government office cleared a backlog before the weekend.

I have made some observations on the general pattern:
The Public reaction to the Greek Antiquity Import Control Request

I have also commented on some of the opinions sent by the Dark Side to try to stave off the application of import controls on ancient artefacts illegally exported from one of the source countries for the dugup artefacts the no-questions-asked market currently covets most:
The Soft Underbelly of American Democracy: Ninety Philistine Opinions Not on Topic

"Please do not implement new import restrictions on Greek cultural property".

Some Coiney Submissions concerning the Greek Request

This is a result of knee-jerk responses to the transparently but unashamedly alarmist tactics of the lobbyists attempting to maintain support for the damaging (but very lucrative) no-questions-asked manner of trade in the US of antiquities dug up in various foreign "source countries" (which is disguised as "maintaining US collectors' rights"):
Antiquities Lobbyists Use Crude Scare Tactics Again to Snare Gullible Collectors

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

The Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act Section 303 (1) for Concerned Collectors

Cultural Property Observatorial Obfuscation

A Presumption Too Far?

The Charade Continues

and most recently to try and kick-start the flagging indignation of collectors in the doings of gubn'mint: Tabloids: Subverting the Democratic Process the Greek Way

I have also noted some opinions more closer to my own on this matter.
Public Submissions Supporting the Greek Cultural Property Request to the US Government

At the moment there are about 200 of the latter and 200 from the Dark Side. It would be disappointing if by midnight Wednesday, when the facility closes there were not more expressions of public interest in the issue of the involvement of US collectors and dealers exercising their "rights" through blocking attempts to curb the trade in illegally exported artefacts from Greece:

Greeks Too Request US Clampdown on Handling Illegally Exported Artefacts

AIA Urges Public Support of a US-Greek Cultural Property Agreement

In the Interests of All

Hate Looting? The SAFE Appeal

See also the posts on David Gill's Looting Matters.

.

Tabloids: Subverting the Democratic Process the Greek Way

.

Dr Zoe Kosmidou is counsellor for Cultural Affairs of the Embassy of Greece in Washington, D.C., the author of 'The Power of Visual Logos: Greek Women Artists', organizer of a number of recent cultural initiatives, and also engaged in a dastardly conspiracy with the "Elders of Archaeon" (aka the Archaeological Institute of America) to subvert the democratic process. At least according to conspiracy theorist Peter Tompa. His reasoning is that he was "forwarded" an incriminating email in which he learns that Ms Kosmidou horrifically had actually "urged U.S. Archaeologists to join the AIA in supporting the proposed MOU with Greece". The very idea! That obviously goes far beyond what a counsellor for cultural affairs of any country should be doing. I mean you'd certainly not catch the US counsellor for Cultural Affairs of any US embassy anywhere in the world asking for such support for the initiatives concerning the US cultural heritage, would you? After all that is not what they are there for, is it?

Tompa sees proof of his allegations in the dynamics of the appearance of public submissions on the proposed measures on the Regulations.gov website:

"As of Thursday, there were some 290 comments on the regulations.gov website about the Greek MOU. Perhaps 40 or so were from archaeologists who supported it. The rest were largely from coin collectors concerned about the impact of any MOU [ concerning the import of coins illegally exported from Greece] on their ability to continue to collect, study, and preserve ancient Greek coins. The day after Kosmidou's email, that number had jumped to some 440 comments. Many of the new comments seem to have been posted by U.S. archaeologists who excavate in Greece".

This is referring to the state of the website on the 17th September. For more on this pattern, see my own post here (as well as the two posts below it). According to Tompa:

"Some might find this troubling. Leaving aside the issue of whether a foreign power ginning up grassroots support for its position is meddling in our administrative processes for securing public comments, there also is the real issue of possible intimidation. It's no secret that U.S. archaeologists depend on the Greek government to issue excavation permits for their work. It's also true that the Greek government can easily monitor the regulations.gov website to determine who has written to support the MOU and who has not done so".

Well, if Tompa thinks the Greek government will go to such nonsensical extremes, why does he not add the corollory: It's also true that the Greek government can easily monitor the regulations.gov website to determine who has written to refuse to support the MOU, submitting in writing their belief that ancient artefacts should not all be subject to Greece's antiquity legislation, and add them to a watch list of people to be strip searched for small smuggled antiquities such as coins next time they leave the territory of the Hellenic republic. Why does Tompa not caution non-compliant collectors in the same way as he does non-compliant archaeologists?

Now it should not need me to point out what a load of utter nonsense this all is. If you read those new comments supporting Greece's request and which also mention that the author has excavated in Greece, it becomes clear that the majority did so as students. Tompa should know that excavation permits are issued to institutions and the directors of the excavation, not every single participant individually.

Tompa belongs among those sad individuals that believe that most archaeologists in their heart of hearts support no-questions-asked collecting of archaeological artefacts and only out of career interests ("fear" of refusal of excavation permits , peer pressure etc etc) "pretend" not to. They cannot seem to grasp that most archaeologists see the no-questions-asked trade in antiquities as a damaging phenomenon because they believe it actually is. Even the UK's generally collector-friendly PAS would support that statement I am sure (let Tompa or the ACCG ask them).

Tompa concludes that because of this "leaked" email:

Greek cultural officials should be questioned closely about their lobbying efforts before CPAC takes up consideration of any MOU.

I suggest the CPAC also looks closely at the coin dealers' lobbying efforts before looking through those extremely repetitive first two hundred public submissions.

A pattern seems to be developing, Tompa comes up with some new "evidence" of a conspiracy and this is immediately publicised by ACCG henchmen on the forums in a more provocatively phrased form for the knee-jerk brigade to react. In this case too thus Dave Welsh within hours had posts on at least two collectors forums (here on Unidroit-L and now on Tim Haines' Yahoo AncientArtifacts collectors' forum, no doubt it will also be appearing on closed access numismatic sites such as Moneta-L too) under the topic name: Greece Manipulates Comments Process and the commentary:

Listreaders who don't like such meddling in what is intended to be an opportunity for concerned US citizens (and individuals in other nations who may be impacted by US cultural policy) to present their concerns....

in other words attempting to inspire the flagging simple minded kneejerk reaction collectors who have not already done so send some messages repeating the five mantras the dealers have told them to repeat...

Question: What "concerns" might ethical collectors have that the US is proposing to curb the imports of ancient items that have been illegally exported from Greece and restrict them to items that have been legally exported?

I would be very interested to see this allegedly scandalous email of Zoe Kosmidou; if any archaeologist reading this who received a copy would like to forward it to me, I'd be grateful.

Vignette: Parthenon, symbol for some of Greek democracy, Zoe Kosmidou is also active in the movement attempting to get the Parthenon marbles returned, though whether ACCG's Peter Tompa would see this as in some way anti-democratic or part of some subversive conspiracy we do not learn.

Yahoo's Secretive Antiquities Trade (2): Dealer Tuppenny Blue (aka Tim Haines)

.

In the post above I present an outline sketch of the Yahoo Ancient Artifacts group. This links over two thousand collectors and dealers all over the world in a global but hidden online network promoting the sale and collecting of dug-up artefacts and 'outing' the sellers of non-dug-ups (fakes). The group claims in the area visible to the public to be "committed to responsible antiquities collecting", and thus an examination of what goes on hidden below the surface under that description will help highlight some of the issues connected with collecting as practiced by those who depict themselves as the ones "doing it right".

It seems a useful exercise therefore would be to look at what collectors there expect of dealers, and in particular what the dealers there are offering collectors. The group's home page says that the group contains many of the "best dealers on the net", and therefore it seems worth examining their activities in detail. Before looking at some of the larger commecial concerns, it is fitting to begin the series with the activities of the person who runs the Yahoo list on a day-to-day basis and thus arbitor of what goes on there. This is Tim Haines, apparently an Evesham UK social worker and political activist who buys and occasionally sells artefacts, especially ancient Egyptian ones. This then would be typical of the proliferation of small dealers who appear mainly to be using the Internet for selling duplicates from their own collection (one presumes in part to finance other antiquity purchases). So what do these sellers do to promote "responsible collecting"? Let us have a look at one of them, using material available in the public domain.

Although not a major player in the global antiquities market, Haines has quite a transparent web presence, starting with what has every appearance of being his website (www.pennyblack. org. uk) which in itself is very revealing. At the top is - not surprisingly - an invitation to join the Ancient Artefacts Yahoo group which Haines runs (the one, we recall, "committed to responsible antiquities collecting"). Interestingly, directly under that is a link to eBay auctions under the philatellic pseudonym "Tuppennyblue" (Tuppennyblue Actions, Antiques(sic) items at low prices on eBay.co.uk) - a name which Haines uses in correspondence about the group, and the "Business Seller Information" on the ebay pages links back to an email address which is part of the above-mentioned webpage. Now this is in itself odd - one of the leitmotifs of his own Yahoo group (as seen even on the home page) is that eBay is full of fakes and unscrupulous dealers in fake artefacts. Yet we find "Tuppennyblue" himself dealing in... well, they are for the most part in the "antiquities" section and not in the section devoted to modern costume jewellery. But they are not antiquities, he currently has on sale some awfully kitschy "lead-free pewter" (that's not actually pewter but a tin-antimony alloy) ornaments . An example of the things he is offering in eBay's antiquities section is an Anubis amulet to "sit on top of your monitor and guard your computer from evil influences", nowhere does it say at the time of writing in the small print that it is a reproduction (and not very good one at that). Neither at the time of writing do some gold plated costume jewellery represented as "antiquities", see here for example, and here). Perhaps (I am sure all his list members would like to believe) this is oversight, but potentially misleading, and therefore not by any means "responsible" dealing. In the past the yahoo list owner has, I believe sold ancient Egyptian shabtis from his collection (but where were they before that?), but links to these are not now in the public domain.

In Tuppennyblue's eBay feedback there are however in-your-face traces of some of the collector's own recent antiquity buying activity. He gets some of the antiquities he collects from US dealers, and as an advocate of "responsible collecting" we may be sure that before he bought them, he ascertained that all had full provenance as per the Code of Ethics on the front page of the discussion forum he himself runs. Presumably the sellers just forgot to put the details up-front on the sales offer. More worryingly, no mention is made of a British found silver ring bought by "Tuppennyblue" having been reported as Treasure before he bought it (another forgetful seller no doubt - but careless of him to forget the main selling point - that the object is not illegal - bang goes the advice in the PAS guidelines for buyers of antiquities). There is also documented in the eBay feedback the purchase by this collectors of an ancient Egyptian amulet, no provenance; a dubious shabti, no provenance; Amulet, no provenance; Coptic flask amulet, no provenance. At first sight this is not really good evidence of commitment to "responsible collecting". It looks more like a case of "the price is right" collecting. (We would all like to believe that perhaps though each of these sellers was able to supply full details establishing legitimate provenance in private communications with the potential customer before he bid on it.)

The debate on the artefact trade is highly politicised, and the market operates in a particular political environment. As collector, dealer and discussion list owner, Tim Haines surely is well aware of this. Turning back to the "Tuppennyblue" webpage, at the bottom at the time of writing is a link to something called the "Campaign for Liberty" which calls for an "Audit of the Fed" which it hopes to achieve by a "Banner Bomb". Quite apart from the inadvisability of advocating the "bombing" of (US) federal government with anything these days, I really cannot see why a UK collector of antiquities and small time dealer would be promoting the idea among readers of his website. Observers of US politics will note that the Campaign for Liberty is an interesting body, founded by Ron Paul who as we know is intimately involved in the American Sovereignty Restoration Act which aims "to end membership of the United States in the United Nations". Getting the US to (again) repudiate UNESCO is of course a movement right up the street of "internationalist" (sic) collectors of [and especially dealers in] no-questions-asked ancient antiquities, and a view which has been actively propagated by Dave Welsh on the antiquity collecting discussion list run from the UK by "Tuppennyblue". Haines' expression of where his political sympathies lie with regard the US may therefore give a clue as to why he consistently supports the "internationalist" rabble-rousing of individuals like ACCG's Dave Welsh on his forum.

There is another US-related link on the "Tuppennyblue" website to something called "Luxefaire Publishing". This takes us to a very strange place: "Home Domain of Bill Gallagher, Hachita New Mexico. Quality Hand Crafted Goods: Leather, Metal and Stone work, as well as information on Treasure Hunting...", it is also a place which is probably online mecca for all the tinfoil helmetists in the western hemisphere, with its talk of gubn'mint plots against citizens, chemical vapour trails, antennae depicted on Byzantine coins (!) and weird explanations of the origin of civilizations. Mind-blowing idiocy (oh, sorry: "free speech") most of it, but "Tuppennyblue" for some reason links to it. Additional evidence that Haines himself appears to be susceptible to some "alternative history" of one kind or another is revealed by an Amazon review he wrote of a dotty book on ancient Egypt (here too at the time of writing is clear confirmation for sceptics that "Tuppennyblue" is Haines).

This book is essential for any traveller to Egypt with a mind that is even slightly ajar, let alone open.West gives an alternative account of the meaning of the monuments and antiquities to be seen in Egypt, more esoteric (though certainly not more difficult to understand) than that which is usually presented in guide books. He points out the details which brought him to the conclusion that the Giza Sphinx is in fact closer to 13,000 years old than the 4,500 years old that has been traditionally believed, and has a different viewpoint to the orthodox school in many cases.

There is at least one reference to a scroll-room below the front paws of the primevally-ancient Sphinx on the Gallagher site.

We often find the claim that collecting antiquities is a means to "keep the mind ajar or even open", to refuse to accept the version of the past created by institutional (academic) scholarship, but some kind of do-it-yourself made up personal past untrammelled by the rules of peer-review ("bound to be biased" because "archies need exacavation permits") book-learning and all the other things deemed unneccessary by the "avocational" domestic scholar with a heap of bought-and-sold dugup artefacts on the back bedroom desktop. In the antiquities section of eBay Mr Haines buys dug-up tat. He also sells other modern-made tat as reproduction' antiquities (and sometimes similar modern tat without the qualifying adjective) none of which looks anything like the artefacts of the culture they purport to represent. This is a example of the production of a commercial pseudo-past, a Disneyland simulacrum having no value for understanding that past, but merely an expression of the unthinking bastardisation of cultural elements ripped from a past context in the creation of a bland modern pop-culture. This is not even "edutainment", and - like the purchasing of decontextualised dugup artefacts in general - certainly does nothing to promote a responsible and respectful approach to the remains of past cultures.

The next post in this series will take a look at one of the larger international commercial concerns that advertises its decontextualised dugup wares through the secretive discussion list "committed to responsible collecting".

Vignette: A Twopenny blue stamp (Wikipedia commons), some collectors buy decontextualised dugups taken from archaeological sites as others collect postage stamps.

.

'Grassroots' Cultural Exchanges

Well, I guess since the Complaint against the seizure of the infamous Baltimore Coins in the ACCG Coin Stunt could be cobbled together for free from the conspiracy theory stuff on Peter Tompa's blogs, all the money the ACCG had raised from its members for fighting this case is now free to be used for other purposes. Sadly the ACCG show themselves to have more money than sense. They have just released another PR-wire press release, this one grandiosely entitled: "Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Ignores 'Grassroots' Cultural Exchanges" which is going out worldwide. So far 775 hits. Who can spot their mistake?

Well, first of all the authors assume that everybody knows without being told its the US State Department discussed and not the one in Nigeria or Albania, which of course is a dumb assumption based on a conviction that the USA is the centre of the world. Secondly there is a bit about the ECA and then... a paeon about the collecting of contextless dugup ancient coins and how its good for "grassroots cultural exchange" without ANY hint to the puzzled reader as to how and why that is connected to the ECA, and why the word "ignores" is used in the title of the piece.

Well, that at least means the ACCG are on the road to being ignored by all those that saw the piece. But these things cost money, are the funds for this shambles coming from members' contributions to the fighting fund? In what way does THIS press release benefit coin collectors? In my opinion, it merely shows them in a bad light as a group of people that cannot even formulate a coherent argument. Pathetic.

As I have said earlier, things like this do nothing to dispell the impression I have at the moment that the ACCG is rushing around like a headless chicken desperately trying to create the impression of activity for the benefit of the members that have put so much trust and money in it. It seems that the Guild is not so concerned about the quality of the complaint they have deposited with a court, it can be suggested that they know they are going to lose the case, the important thing is that their members will see they "tried" to do something. The Guild is not overly concerned to create a press release that makes sense to the outsider, since this text was written for the benefit of those that know to what the text obliquely refers and nobody else. Again it is intended to lull the ACCG member into thinking that the Guild is "doing something". It can instead be seen that the Guild has in reality no long-term plan, no strategy, it is merely lurching from one extempore action to another for effect. The important thing - as in all conspiracy theories - is to present the no-questions-asked collector and dealer as a "victim" of outside circumstances, somebody else's malicious conniving, rather than being at fault themselves for not trying to prolongue nineteenth century attitudes.
.

Stunt Coin Supplier stung?

On Sunday, January 10 Peter Tompa asks whether it was "just a coincidence" that:

"the dealer who sold the ACCG coins for its test case had his coins delayed at Customs for some four days. This meant he missed almost half [of some New York coin] show. [...] the dealer in question also indicates that other shipments to the United States have also been delayed since the ACCG imported its coins back in April.[...] is it all just a coincidence? If not, it certainly does not speak well for officials at the US Customs Service."

On the contrary, it speaks very well for their vigilance.

First of all for there to be a "test case" the coins had to be seized as imported in infringement of the new requirements of US law, in other words as illegally imported. This is what the coins were actually bought for (and we can only assume that those responsible in the ACCG informed the hapless dealer what their intention was). I'd say if a dealer was sending coins to the US and unaware that the law concerning that particular kind of coin had changed, then his further transactions should also be examined, as who knows what else he is doing unawares? Or if he knew (how could anyone in the trade not know?) and was ignoring that requirement, then even more should he be subject to careful scrutinty. Would you buy a coin from this guy? (We note Tompa refuses to name him, presumably for that very reason).

As I have pointed out here several times, according to US legislation, all the seller of these dug up coins actually had to do was to provide the purchasers (importers) with one piece of paper signed by himself affirming the coins imported through Baltimore in the ACCG coin stunt were legitimately obtained according to the requireements of US law. He failed to do that. I would say it is precisely this kind of dealer, who fails to fulfill even such a minimum requirement which should be under very close customs scrutiny, whether they are a member of the PNG or the IAPN or not. Let him learn by his mistake of associating with the ACCG dealer lobby and getting involved in their self-serving stunt. He made his bed, let him lie in it.

Coin in America

Archaeology, Conservation and the New World Order

Ohio collector John Rieske is (he says) a former archaeology student, he claims to know what archaeology is about. He has just explained his theory to his fellow collectors. It goes something like this:

1) "We must realize that many zealots are not really out to stop only the collection of things considered old. That is just the first step toward total collectivism and I don't mean collectors. The first step in these radicals view is to label those who collect as elitists and as criminals: the enemies of mankind."

2) " When collectors become criminals in the rest of society's eyes, the next step toward totalitarianism becomes just that much easier: the banning of all private ownership of anything."

3) "When all property belongs to the state, everybody becomes de facto state property. That accomplished, the true elitists can then control everything to their hearts' content."

4) Presumably the rest of the argument would claim that this is part of the proccess of establishing the New World Order. Over the past decade concerned citizens have witnessed an extreme acceleration of the physical implementation of a framework and infrastructure ready to receive those who will not go along with a coordinated destruction of traditional American values and freedom. Evidence of this is in the FEMA prison trains with guillotines, and stock piles of plastic coffins for its victims, and the concentration camps that are even now springing up on federally-owned property on US soil. Peter Tompa has produced "evidence" he says proves the US State Department is ignoring the interests of the US people.

5) It would seem that collectors like Mr Rieske regard it as "obvious" that there is a secret conspiracy of archaeologists to aid and abet the institution of the New World Order. The original name of the Society of Antiquaries was the Society of Dilettanti - might for example be seen as a cover organization for the secret organization of the Illuminati.

In fact, was it not during the 1986 World Archaeological Congress (ArchCong) in Prague that a group of senior archaeologists met at the central point of the old Jewish cemetery to agree the plan of action, and it was there that the document known as the Protocols of the Elders of ArchCong was created? The document, if genuine, unequivocally proves the role of heritage professionals in the plan for total world domination.

6) Mr Rieske has therefore suggested that by fighting conservationists, by collecting antiquities without checking whether they have been obtained and exported legally, and by honouring the lost values and glories of the the vanished classical world, the collector is doing his bit for the perpetuation of the Old World Order and fighting the establishment of the New World Order. Tinfoil hats on, and watch out for those black helicopters.

[Alternatively, you could read the bit in exasperated mauve in the post below].

It is interesting to note that there are over 2000 collectors on the discussion list to which Rieske posted his conspiracy theory this morning, many of them showing little restraint in disagreeing with other views and other writers of posts made on that forum. Nevertheless, several hours later, not a single list member to date has questioned it. We might conclude from that perhaps that many of them go along with this sort of the vision of the world. Astounding. Where did our educationalists go wrong?

Seven days to go....

Two US dealers’ associations the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild and Professional Numismatists Guild together with the Belgium-based International Association of Professional Numismatists have decided to challenge the legality of the US government’s imposition of import controls on certain types of archaeological artefact. Wayne Sayles, executive director of the CCG declared this a “war” with the conservation lobby.

The first stage of this “war” was through a Freedom of Information suit to attempt to obtain copies of documents from the US State Department which would be compromising and indicate that the imposition of the import controls being fought (the two of eight which involve restrictions on the import of ancient coins) was achieved in some way unlawfully. So far the plaintiffs have not received the documents they need to prove this case, so are merely left to mouth conspiracy theories.

Stage two of the “war” involved provoking US customs into seizing a package of coins imported by an individual or individuals associated with the ACCG (in conflict with their own “code of ethics”). These had been sold to the US buyer by an (unnamed) foreign seller who had not supplied them with the documentation required to allow them to pass through US customs unchallenged. In the absence of the export licences required by section 307(a) of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) there is a dealer-friendly let-out clause which allows the exporter and importer to skirt right round the export licence problem by simply signing a what amounts to a “due diligance” statement (section 307(b) and 307 (c). They have ninety days to do this. Three months seems ample time for an importer and exporter to arrange a simple signed statement is sent across the Atlantic to allow these objects to reach their purchaser.

Stage three of this “war” is presumably intended to be an expensive legal case where in fighting to have “their” coins returned by US customs, the ACCG and affiliated organizations will attempt to show that it s not they who are acting against US law, but the US government in imposing import restrictions on US citizens buying undocumented archaeological material abroad. As another collector has noted, this is at the US tax-payer’s expense.

Presumably there is intended to be a fourth stage where if the ACCG and affiliated bodies win the first three legal cases, they would intend to use this as a lever to change US legislation to allow unregulated movement of decontextualised archaeological material into the US regardless of origin. This seems to be the ultimate aim of the ACCG/PNG/IAPN’s FOI request and the Baltimore illegal coin import stunt.

Meanwhile we have seen that in the ninety days in which the ACCG and affiliated bodies could have supplied a signed due diligence statement, dealers in other antiquities from the countries involved in the same MOUs have been continuing trade, and collectors of other collectable material from these countries in the US have continued collecting without complaining. Without protest. Without deliberately engaging in illegal activity to challenge their government’s ability to enforce the laws. Ninety days in which the only problem-makers have been a small group of ancient coin dealers intent on being free to trade material without paying any attention whatsoever to any restraints whatsoever. The epitome of the no-questions-asked trade.

There is of course time for a transatlantic fax or courier of a simple piece of paper from the seller to allow these coins to continue on their journey from US Customs in Baltimore to their purchaser, but time is running out. In fact it runs out on the thirteenth, a day future coin collectors may come to regard as an unlucky one as a result of the long-term effects of this coin stunt on their hobby and "freedoms".

A Clear and Unambiguous Statement

The American coin sellers' lobby group, the Ancient Coin Collectors' Guild is not known for issuing clear and unambiguous statements. In the long long post ('Questions and Truth') by its executive director last night complaining about something my colleague Dr David Gill wrote, we have a number. The one that caught my eye concerned the (Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC):

The truth is that CPAC did NOT restrict the import of ancient coins minted in Cyprus. CPAC voted against adding coins to the extension of the existing MOU. The U.S. State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs added coins on its own volition, disregarding the advice of its own advisory committee.

Now wait a second, that is a committee that advises the coin trade or is that a committee that advises the President or his designee? How does Mr Sayles know what they recommended? Previously the ACCG has been very ambiguous about what it believes to be the case, now we have a clear statement, the ACCG knows what the Committee advised the President. Mr Sayles is not a member of the CPAC, and even if he was, would he be authorised to reveal the results of the voting and the contents of its report? After all, according to the State Department,

Given the confidential nature of the government-to-government communications to which they are privy, members of the Committee are special employees of the Department of State, receive a security clearance, and are bound by the laws and ethical guidelines by which all Department employees abide.[my emphasis]

Let's also take a look at the The Federal Advisory Committee Act . That raises some "questions", I guess the upcoming trial resulting from the illegal coin import stunt will reveal more than one "truth" about the coin trade in the United States.

ADDENDUM 29.06.09
Mr Sayles has challenged my account, stating "Making such claims without a credible basis would certainly be enough to submarine [sic] the integrity of any genuine [sic] academic" and "As usual, Mr. Barford is way out of his league and is just shooting wildly from the hip with no concern for, or concept whatever of, truth". Apparently in the USA they don't do irony, so Mr Sayles perhaps failed to recognise it. He might have looked a bit deeper in my blog, for example at the post "leaky old CPC - mystery solved" before accusing: "Mr. Barford obviously did not read the filings in the current law suit that ACCG provided " since there was a post (blog readership in Foggy Bottom) discussing them after I did indeed read them.

Let us note however the subtle difference which obviously escaped Mr Sayles. Mr Sayles does not in the post to which I refer give the source of his unambiguous statement - which is what I was querying. In the discussed statement, Mr Kislak says he"believed" that there was a discrepancy between what his committee determined and what the State Department decreed. In his statement, Kislak urges that the documents be made available in full and compared, Sayles jumps the gun and tells us what (in his opinion) such a comparison will show. My question again, how does Mr Sayles know? Question two, under what circumstances was Mr Kislak asked to make his statement, by whom, when and on what basis? In other words, had Mr Kislak been in touch with the dealers' lobby earlier (when?) about this matter, and in what capacity?

As for Sayles' statement "the State Department took the rare and unusual step of publicly proclaiming, apologetically in a way, that it has a right to override CPAC recommendations". TheACCG's legal advisors will confirm that this is precisely what the Federal Advisory Committee Act says at the beginning, I do not think there is anything "apologetic" about that, neither does it need any of Mr Tompa's conspiracy theories to explain why. Coins are archaeological artefacts whatever the CPAC may "recommend" to the President.

As I said earlier, I too would like to see the whole report as if the differentiation of the treatment of ancient coins from any other ancient "dugup" metal artefacts is recommended to the US President, then it would seem to me that the CPAC were not doing their job properly. If this is for some reason what they decided, that in itself would be a biased ("arbitrary and capricious") opinion, and I think we have every right to ask on what basis it would have been taken, and make them answerable for it.

Photo: the CPAC in session. Manuscript collector Jay Kislak in the chair.

ACCG Misleading its Members: Twenty Days Left

Coin collectors in the US should take note that there are still twenty days for the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG), Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG) and International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) to call off their stunt involving using their members' money to fight a case brought on by an attempt to illegally import ancient coins without the requisite paperwork. This goes against the codes of ethics of these three organizations, a fact that all those who thought they actually meant something should note.

There has been some confusion introduced into the discussion which is failing to take place in no-questions-asked collecting circles over this. About ten days ago I made a post here in which any interested coin collectors and other observers can learn for themselves what piece of paper is missing to make this ACCG import legal and above board. It's not a particularly onerous task to get it. I even copied out the relevant paragraphs of the CPIA for them so they do not have to tire their mouse-clicking fingers overly to look at it.

Coin dealer Dave Welsh however says something different. On Moneta-L yesterday he informed members:

But to read what Barford said about this test case in his blog, you would think that this is an unethical gambit on the part of the ACCG.

[I must interrupt him here, actually, there is absolutely NO question about it, it is (even by the weasel-worded ACCG code of ethics... which is thereby shown to be worth nothing) an unethical gambit, it is also supremely mis-timed, but more of that later]

He harps upon the "piece of paper" that is all that has to be presented to secure the release of the coins, never of course mentioning that this document is not a packing list or other easily obtained bit of paperwork, but is instead an official export permit that cannot be obtained in practice.

Now that is sheer nonsense, since in my post I very clearly define what this missing piece of paper consists of. Very precisely. It is as easily obtainable from a reputable (note that word) dealer who is exporting these items, and it has nothing to do at this stage with "export licences". I find this comment on a numismatic forum from one of the officers of the main organization involved in this stunt extremely odd. Unless this is deliberate misinformation, it firstly suggests he apparently does not - as an importer of ancient coins - actually know in any detail what the laws of his own country at least say. That is shocking. Secondly the tracking widget over in the margin of this blog shows that somebody in Goleta California (which is where his Classical coins business is based) has been reading those specific posts about the ACCG illegal import stunt where I write quite clearly what this piece of paper should look like. (If its not Dave Welsh, and the person responsible is reading this now, give him a ring and tell him what you read).

But that's not the end of the misinformation, John Hooker who the ACCG is now increasingly relying on to produce "ideologies" for collecting (he's going to start up a "conservation spoof" blog soon and write some ideological bit about Jung) has joined in the effort to misinform "Monetans". He too says that I do not understand why there cannot be an "export licence". John, read the CPIA for yourself. We are not talking now about export licences.

Mr Hooker tells Monetans that the law is being broken by those involved:

to fight unreasonable U.S. import restrictions. The only way that this can be done under U.S. law is through an actual case and in the courts.

Well, first of all a detailed reading of the CPIA actually shows it gives such leeway to importers to be virtually meaningless (which was probably the intent of its authors), so I really think in the circumstances that the coineys' claim that these are "unreasonable U.S. import restrictions" is simply laughable. Secondly of course even in the US there is no need to break a law to get it repealed or rewritten. There are other mechanisms. The ACCG has however decided to flaunt the law to influence international policy.

Fine, but let them be totally honest and open with their members about what this is about. What kind of piece of paper is it Mr Welsh? Answers on Moneta-L please.

Photo: astronomical clock. Time is running out... .

“Barford is demonstrably wrong” about coin collecting

I see that in an undated addendum to the original blog post “Paul Barford and the rape of History” "Cultural property Observer" [Peter Tompa] now writes:

I asked Paul Barford to clarify this statement in his latest salvo:
"'The study of "Numismatics' by itself is not really important in the broader scope of research on the human past ...." […] In this, Barford is demonstrably wrong. For example, much of our knowledge about Bactria is derived from the work of scholars who put together a chronology of the Kingdom based on the study of well-known coin types”.

Mr Tompa had asked me to explain what I said, which I put some effort into doing. The reader can judge for themselves, but it seems to me that the coin-collecting lawyer of Bailey and Ehrenberg PLLC really has not “demonstrated” at all that what I said is "wrong". In fact he totally ignores each of the several points I made in clarification of the statement he challenged. The lawyer should know that this is not “demonstration”, it is evasion.

Mr Tompa merely facilely dismisses what I said by saying: “Despite his stated respect for numismatists, it appears Barford's actual experience with coins is limited and that he indeed only values them as archaeological artifacts”. Well, apart from the self-evident point that coins are (no more no less than) just one category of archaeological artefacts, this seems to be another example of "cultural property clairvoyance" that ignores what I said but instead determines that somehow somebody involved in European archaeology mainly of the Roman, and Medieval and post medieval periods as myself can only have had “limited actual experience with coins”. The only explanation of such a statement is that this again reflects the inexplicable US coin-collectors’ mindset which perceives coins as isolated objects which never occurs in assemblages with other finds and so would never be encountered by anyone actively researching archaeological material and sites. Instead coins would thus be only the preserve of special coin seekers and coiney-scholars and nobody else in the world can ever have come across them or be able to comprehend what they are about (this is of course precisely what lobby-ranting collectors accuse archaeologists of). This is of course a totally false presumption. Coins do of course occur primarily in association with other material and sites and most British and European archaeologists and finds specialists have hands on experience with dealing with coins from archaeological contexts and assemblages. I would suggest that most collectors of said coins in the United States and Canada however lack this experience, as comes out clearly in their writings.

I perhaps did not add something that seems totally obvious to me the other day, but feel in hindsight that I should have expanded on it out in reply to Mr Tompa’s challenge. The geographical and chronological extent of coin use is pretty minimal when compared with the extent of the human past which is the subject (through various means) of archaeological study. This is what I meant by "in the broader scope of research on the human past". It really seems to me to be incontrovertible.
Peter Tompa says I am wrong in stating what seems to me to be a self-evident truth. The study of coins by themselves does not have the overriding importance in the broader scope of research on the human past that coin collectors ("numismatists") would have us - and US lawmakers - believe. Mr Tompa says he can “demonstrate” the fallacy of my assessment, but it seems to me that so far he has failed to do so.

Not only that, but Mr Tompa also ignores totally the fact that I pointed out that what I would regard as numismatics is not at all what his coin collecting mates do buying up no-questions-asked whatever classical numismatic geegaws they can get their hands on and merely comparing one with another (a point also made by Elkins). This “numismatic context” (a la Welsh; John Hooker wrote something similar on a forum back in 2004) may provide some information about die use in mints, but there is nothing but a very tenuous link from that to the history of communities and societies and whole human groups which is the aim of archaeology.

But then in fact as the forums demonstrate what many coin colectors do is collect thematically ('one of every emperor', 'all the reverses of Septimus Severus', 'one from each Greek city around the Black Sea', 'coins with mythological reverses', 'coins with ladies with shapely bosoms/bottoms' or whatever). Others try to find rare varieties for the cheapest money on eBay. None of this type of collecting is advancing scholarship in any way. So what percentage of the 50 000 ancient coin collectors in the US actually are?

The contribution of “heap-of-loose-coin-on-a-table collecting” to our knowledge of Bactria which is taken by Mr Tompa as proof positive that I have incorrectly assessed the “true value” of coin collecting will be considered in the post below.

A Controversial Coin from California

.
Artifact hunters searching grass road verges at the junction of South Beverly Drive and West Pico Boulevard in Beverly Hills, CA 90212 made a lucky discovery a few weeks ago; a very large coin bigger than even a Morgan dollar, apparently Roman in very nice condition. The object is now being offered for sale by Ira & Larry Goldberg in their pre-Long Beach sale which starts tomorrow and is described in their online catalogue thusly:

Lot 1931 Valentinian I, AD 364-375. Silver Multiple of 24 Miliaresia (48 Siliquae) 104.3 g. 66 mm., minted at Antioch, AD 369. Diademed, cuirassed and draped bust right of Valentinian. Reverse: Legend in four lines within laurel wreath; below, "AN" (mintmark for Antioch). Unpublished, and apparently unique […] Some light porosity and displaying stray marks. Minimal wear results in the net grade of Extremely Fine. This, the largest silver coin known of the Roman Empire, is a silver multiple weighing one-third of a Roman pound of silver. Remarkably thick in comparison to contemporary silver coins, it was struck at a time when silver, as a metal, was scarce. […] This gargantuan gift was no doubt presented to a high-ranking Roman officer or dignitary. One theory that has been advanced is the possibility that Count Theodosius himself, peacemaker of Britain at the time, was the recipient of the medallion. A likely occasion for this honor was Valentinian's quinquennial celebration, held on 25 February AD 369. Estimated Value $300,000 - 400,000. Provenance: With supporting certificates of authenticity from David R. Sear and Frank L. Kovacs.

The finder Mr Ivor Tecta is reported as saying “me and my man Bazza was jus’ ‘tecting this piece of grass by the side of the road, like, we had all the proper permission and all that. But we was like finding nothing but ring pulls, spent PD bullet cases and a few wheaties and a Barber dime; and I was like saying that we should give up and go back to the trailer park when I jus' got this really loud signal, like, and I bent down and picked it up. You should’a seen the look on Bazza’s face !” Mr Tecta who lives in a Santa Monica mobile home park went on. “It’s kinda nice researching the history of this part of Beverly Hills, all the things the Old Timers left behind, it makes history come to life, like, an' gives you a funny feeling to hold in yer hand what somebody held in their hands all that time ago".

David Classic, local antiquities dealer was the first to see the find. He too was amazed by the size and condition of this coin: “I immediately recognized the importance of this coin when Ivor brought it to me. Its not surprising to find it here, after all Parthian coins are found in Spain, so why not Roman coins in California? Roman soldiers used to bury their savings by the sides of old roads on their way to battle, and sadly, not all made it back to retrieve them. This is what it must have been, there must have been a big battle near here two thousand years ago”.

The decision to sell the coin has roused the anger of local residents and educators in the Beverly Hills area. They argue that an object of this importance and appeal should not find its way to some private collection, but should be displayed in a local or national collection (such as that of the American Numismatic Society) so that it can be appreciated by all members of the public and contribute to their knowledge of the rich cultural heritage of the classical world and its contribution to the rich cultural mosaic of the land they live in.

Mr Phil E. Stein, a spokesman for the US Ministry of Culture says that he understands the critical voices of those citizens, but says however: “We believe this object should be sold to the highest bidder and if it ends up in the private collection of a foreign businessman or dictator, well that is just too bad. We cannot be seen to be putting the cultural needs of people of this country before those of other people”. Mr Stein added that although some have argued that this piece is clearly of exceptional artistic, archaeological, historical and numismatic importance and is of great importance to the local culture of Beverly Hills, the Ministry of Culture will not be withholding the issue of an export licence for it. “my government feels that such retentive policies are nationalistic in their origin, and the American people are not nationalistic”. In any case, he added, even if a licence was refused, the new owners could easily take it out of the country at any time they wanted without one; “we all know our borders are as leaky as a sieve” he candidly remarked. There was always somebody who would turn a blind eye outside the country who would be willing to trade with artefact smugglers and buy it. "In fact, if someone just concealed it about (or within) their person and took it through airport checkin, it would save us a lot of boring old red tape".

Juanez Juno (author of the best-selling book "You Can Own Their Past") the newly appointed government advisor on cultural policy agrees: "Displaying this object in a foreign universal museum alongside other similarly shaped objects from different cultures such as those quaint native sculptures and lip-plugs and the artistic products of cargo-cults will allow the place of the ancient cultures of our land to be seen in its pluralistic global context and be another way of expressing American cultural supremacy through the ages".

Sayne Wales of the Ancient Coin Dependency Group (ACDG) based in Tompa Florida however has expressed outrage at such ideas and the short-sighted cultural policies by the current administration. “This nation does not deserve a Ministry of Culture", he fumed. "If this item is exported from the US as a result of the short sighted cultural policies of this Administration, my organization will immediately be making a Freedom of Information request to find out what back door dealings lie behind such a decision”. Wales suggested that there was a huge government conspiracy to deprive the American people of their cultural heritage. “This is unconstitutional and we will defend the right of our members to have access to such material for study in this country. It is unacceptable that our members would have to go to collections and museums in other parts of the world to see objects that have been taken from our soil”.

There are other controversies connected with this sale. Washington lawyer Pietro de Hamlyn represents the American Committee for the Ethical Trade in Antiquities (ACETIA) and is an avid observer of cultural property issues. He is very sceptical of the account concerning the findspot.

“Although the trade is keeping very quiet about the whole business, in reality it is highly unlikely to have been found in the State of California or the United States at all. I seriously doubt the story of the finding of this coin by Mr Ivor Tecta in California, indeed, I think it entirely possible that the man himself does not even exist. Rumours however are circulating that this was part of a hoard which also contained coins of Priscus Attalus (Emperor of the West in 409-10) found abroad. As such, it was almost certainly illegally exported from the source country (I cannot seriously imagine any other country – apart form the US –  which would issue an export licence for such a unique item found on their soil). As such its import into the US cannot have been ethical or in accord with international legislation. We have signed international treaties you know, and the UNESCO one obliges our law enforcement agencies to stop any process likely to lead to illegal transfer of ownership. Not that this makes much of a difference, action is all to rarely taken in this country against those that flaunt these laws. More disturbingly, all too often the foreigners smuggling items like this to our shores are mixed up in all sorts of other illegal business such as drugs and human trafficking, and our border personnel and homeland security officials should be doing more to investigate these connections and break the smuggling rings. That in a civilised country like ours they do not is unacceptable. Our Committee is committed to drawing attention to this problem and goading the administration into taking action".

de Hamlyn noted that if US border personnel were unable to stop the import of 100 grammes of illegally exported ancient silver coin into the country, what confidence can US citizens have that they are stopping 100 grammes or more of illegally exported Strontium 90 powder for dirty bombs or 100 grammes of military-grade anthrax spores?

North Carolina coin dealer and trade watchdog Olin Von Arksdahl is of a different opinion on the lack of firm information on provenance. "It's a fake isn't it?" he asks rhetorically. "That is why they cannot say where it really comes from ! Just look at it, coins of Valentinian I have broad flat areas like this one, but are generally chunkier. This coin is too flat, the lettering too spindly and all over the place, the style is wrong. Look at that portrait, it has the appearance of a laboriously studious copy. Generally the relief is too flat, has no 'body' to it. The wreath looks like something on nineteenth century European coins and not like the wreaths on Roman coins and medallions. In any case, whoever heard of a hand-struck silver coin with a diameter of 66 mm? To strike this would need a coin press like those used by Chinese and Lebanese forgers - and isn't it interesting that the mintmark is "Antioch" - is somebody trying to tell us something? Where did it REALLY come from?". Our interview was cut short by Mr von Arksdahl complaining of a severe headache. The no-questions asked US trade in portable antiquities seems full of them.

Photo: The 'Goldberg' medallion, work out for yourselves what in the above is true and what is allegory.