Collectors unite! You have nothing to lose but..... eh?

Apparently, though Roger Bland apparently wants to "have the law" on me for writing about portable antiquity issues, I am not all bad. If you read the numismatic press I've even been caught out praising Ancient Coin Fondlers. In an article in World Coin News January 22, 2009 by Richard Giedroyc it is said that Wayne Sayles wrote something or other in response to:

"an unintended compliment the ACCG received from archaeologist Paul Barford in a recent blog. In that blog Barford calls the ACCG "the most prominent ancient coin collectors' lobby group worldwide".

A moment's checking reveals that I do indeed write those heart-warming words, but it seems Mr Giedroyc misunderstands the context. Quelle surprise, it seems Mr Giedroyc does not understand several other things, which it seems he's apparently copied from an editorial in Celator magazine of December 2008. He writes:

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild is defending more than collectors of ancient coins against special interests in archaeogical (sic) circles who would outlaw collecting ancient coins if these people could legislate it. Readers should understand that the ACCG is defending all collectors regardless of the age of the coins in their collections, since these special interests claim just about any object of any significant age is the cultural patrimony of the country where it was either found or originated and for this reason should be repatriated to that country regardless of who has current title to that object.

He forgot the stamp collectors. ACCG and its allies are defending stamp collectors against the same mythical nasty, nasty dirty coin-hating archaeologists. And banknote collectors and stuffed wallaby collectors. All collectors, except those US collectors of Nazi memorabilia (it does not mention their "rights" in its press releases).

A message to Coin collectors: whereas these guys are counting on your ignorance, read the relevant documents for yourselves, not just the snippets someone else foists on you. Try to think about what you read, don't just think what others tell you to think. Then you'd be able to spot the glaring fallaces in statements such as the following:

"The Peoples' Republic of China, as an example, has been defining ancient coins of China as those being struck prior to 1911, while attempting to demand the return of their ancient coins from private collectors and museums by lobbying
the U.S. government for legislation that would mandate it."

Now it seems to me that decent ethical folk collecting Chinese coins and wanting to buy coins exported from China should actually know the relevant laws and discussions related to that activity. It seems to me from what he wrote that Mr Giedroyc does not. Let him put a justification of the above statement in his next World Coin News article and leave me out of it.

"Succinctly contrasts", but Mr Giedroyc gets it terribly wrong again

According to an ACG-affiliated coin collector writing on Moneta-L, the latest article (Iron Age Coin Find Ruled Treasure Trove) of Numismaster's master numismojournalist Richard Giedroyc of World Coin News "succinctly contrasts the real effect of England's Treasure Act with that of the laws of other countries"... (yawn). Sadly this assessment is a trifle overenthusiastic: the article is actually a poorly-researched heap of misleading nonsense.

When, oh when will American collectors and their mates learn the NAME of the Act which so appeals to them? Wickham Market is near the bottom on the left of that green bit across the water called "England", and the lumpier bit with the jaggedy edges at the top is another country called "Scotland". Scotland has legislation on Treasure Trove, England has....? England has, Mr Giedroyć, the 1996 Treasure Act. I don't expect it makes much difference to him. Not when he writes:

Suffolk Coroner Dr. Peter Dean declared the find to be treasure since the coins are more than 300 years old and were likely buried to be hidden with the intent to recover them later rather than being lost by their owner. [....] If, due to the nature of the find, the items found are determined to have been lost by chance, the finder takes possession of these items.

What? I suspect the influence of the 1965 Readers Digest Book of Buried Treasure here. That's the old law that went out in 1996! Thirteen years ago. What the Monetan correspondent finds so valuable (and yes, succinct) is this bit I presume:

At a time when countries such as Greece, Italy and Turkey have been enforcing laws banning the export of antiquities as being the cultural patrimony of these countries, the British treasure trove laws become even more relevant on the world stage as an example of how treasure finders can be encouraged to "do the right thing."

(Polite) words fail me, what has the Treasure Act got to do with "export"? Nothing, actually. Chalk and cheese. The English Treasure Act of course retains for the state these items "as being the cultural patrimony of the country" just as much as the laws of Greece, Turkey and Italy. Also Mr Giedroyc, instead of relying on ACCG handouts for information really should look into (for example) Greek heritage law concerning finds. He might find a surprise there. But then does he really mean Britain's (so that's Scotland then) Treasure TROVE laws? Because according to these, there is no division into "shiny gold/silver for the state - all the rest, who cares?" (which is I presume the wonder of the English legislation for the external collector of bronze coins and other decontextualised geegaws). No, in Scotland, the State wants to get its hands on all archaeological finds as it regards them all as the cultural patrimony of its citizens.

This article is sadly perfectly typical of the sort of shoddy research that goes into the anti-preservationist wafflings of the pro-collecting lobby, and which members of the latter propagate among collectors and try to foist off on the general public, totally misinforming them. Let's see if any well-informed Monetan queries the account of the workings of the English Treasure Act given in the article recommended to them so highly.

ADDENDUM 19th Aug: well it seems none of them noticed. So much for their knowledge of the laws which apply to their hobby which they like to portray as a scholarly "discipline".

Looking for the Anti-Antique Lefties

A few weeks ago I mentioned an article claiming to be “World Coin News” in which Richard Giedroyc a numismojournalist implicated me in something or other. I pointed out that the gentleman had not really grasped the gist of the China MOU which he was moaning about and suggested his readers might be better served if he checked out the facts before setting pen to paper.

Lo and behold, Mr Giedroyc has just come up with another one ( Cultural Patrimony Policy Still a Concern ), again sycophantically quoting the Executive Director of coin delers' lobby group ACCG. Giedroyc now demonstrates his belief that it is only "socialists" who are interested in conservation and people obeying the law. Astounding (he should meet my Mum, a true blue Thatcherite conservationist).

Where are these mythical Left wing archaeologists in the United States allegedly "against private ownership of any antique item regardless of how it was acquired"? Can Mr Giedrojc provide his readers a few references to statements such as this but made by these people themselves (and are not just words which numismoprovocateurs have put into their mouths)? Otherwise we'd be justified in concluding that this is at best alarmist overinterpretation and at worst simple myth-making to persuade collectors that they need the ACCG to "watch their backs' (sic) for them. Are the problems in getting new members so acute that the organization has to rely on misrepresentation and scare tactics to recruit them?

Who are these anti-antique-ownership "lefties" ? Name them and shame them ACCG !! Mr Giedrojć?

Taking the Fight "to The Other Guy's Turf"?

Vaseline supplier to the ACCG Richard Giedroyc makes some astonishing claims in Coin News this week (" ACCG Addresses Antiquities Group ). Apparently there is an "ongoing effort to protect coin collectors and museums in which coins are stored from being forced to give up these items to foreign governments under the premise the coins are the cultural patrimony of the claimant nation". Shockingly: "there are organized archaeological groups" (so a sort of archaeological mafia I guess) "that are against the private ownership of all such items, supporting the concept all antiquities including coins should be returned to their place of origin or discovery, but to date the United States has yet to become a signatory to any agreement that would destine many coins now in private hands to be returned to such countries as China, Cyprus, Italy, Greece, and Turkey that have actively made such demands" (Phew, eh?). What an odd thing to say, when all these countries require is that objects are legally exported. Giedroyć omits Egypt which unlike the countries he names really does want (almost) "everything" back. I guess scare-mongering is in the blood of coin dealers these days and a disregard for the truth of the matter too, never mind, no ancient coin-collector reading that will challenge the statement.

Giedroyc soothes that the "museums and collections" have a protector. It is the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild which "has become a driving force in the ongoing effort" (yaaaay!).

Giedryć says that the presentation of the paper "Coin Collectors and Cultural Property Nationalism" at the Portable Antiquities: Archaeology, Collecting, Metal Detecting conference in Newcastle upon Tyne was done in order to take the fight to the “other guy’s” turf" (the CBA and University of Newcastle are the "Antiquities Group" mentioned in the title of the piece I presume).

The big question now is if the groups opposing private ownership of antiquities who were at the conference took the ACCG paper seriously enough to consider its recommendations.

Certainly if Welsh and Sayles of the ACCG were expecting to have been taken seriously at this British meeting, they should have thought harder about the format of the text they prepared and its message to the intended audience. This turgid Americocentric anti-CPIA rant really cannot have been calculated to interest a single British artefact hunter or any of their British archaeological "partners". In particular US claims to bits of everybody else's heritage jangled with the ideology of British artefact hunting which is that what is being "recovered" is "Our Heritage" - so no less "nationalistic' in its fundamental principles than what the ACCG is criticising (indeed many artefact hunters turn out to be fiercely nationalistic in their outlook and politics, not a few of them on the forums give the impression of being fully paid up members of the BNP). Likewise while the text opposes nations instilling export controls over antiquities, there is not a single argument there which addresses the issue that Great Britain has export licence controls just the same as any of the other source countries which "internationalists" Sayles and Welsh say should have none (to facilitate free flow of artefacts onto the US market). Sayles did not address the question of why Britain should abandon this requirement for finders of archaeological artefacts wishing to sell them abroad. Likewise the paper wholly skips the implications for its general thesis of the question of the difference between English and Scottish law, which is odd because it speaks of the "UK approach" as a model the US and other countries should follow.
.
Vignette: Collectable cowboy, a Louis Marx figure.

Coin provenance important

Better late than never, "Coin provenance proves important" writes Richard Giedroyc (World Coin News January 06, 2014):

"how do we know that the coins in our own ancient coin collections couldn’t have entered the coin market through illicit activities?" 

Answer: only if you have coins with a secure collecting history going back beyond the modern spate of looting and the organized criminal gangs which in some country profit from the absorbency of the no-questions-asked market for dugup antiquities. The lesson Giedroyć draws from two cases he discusses is that "for the rest of us who collect ancient coins is to ensure proper documentation exists".   

The Coiney Love for Myth not Facts

Did you know?

British artifact and ancient coin regulations changed in 2012. To be properly documented the Hadrian sestertius was now required to have a provenance dating to before 1970.

That's according to Richard Giedroyc ('Coin Provenance Proves Important', World Coin News January 06, 2014, rehashing a story covered here last year). It strikes me that a US multi-million dollar trade like that in dugup numismatics could afford to employ a journalist who is capable of finding out and verifying the real facts about the topic he is writing about, just the same as they could afford a lobbyist who could do the same. Unfortunately getting a factual account of anything does not seem to be a coiney priority, and the effects are that we have what we have.

Patrimony Policy Not Affecting Coins: Coins and the ICE

.

Coiney journalist and Ohio coin dealer Richard Giedroyc has decided to attempt to prove in an article in the US magazine Numismatic News that (US) Patrimony Policy is Not Affecting Coins . This is of course at odds with the ACCG standpoint which is that it does and will affect the imports of ancient coins into the US in addition to the huge numbers already there in existing collections. Giedroyć notes:

Since both Italy and Bulgaria are countries on the short list that the US State Department has been listening to as the State Department decides if it will honor the demands of certain vocal archaeologists and several foreign governments curbing the import of world coins deemed to be cultural patrimony by foreign governments, it is appropriate for readers to learn about the coins that have been recently forcibly repatriated from the United States. More specifically it is the recent activities of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement that are examined here.

Well, first of all, it is not clear what (or whose) short-list Giedroyć is discussing, and why Bulgaria is on it. Bulgaria is of course (or has been before they started running out) a major source of ancient coins for the US market we know that huge shipments of them have been coming to the country for well over a decade to wholesalers of eastern European origin settled in the USA who then supply other dealers and sell direct to collectors too. It would be interesting to learn that the State Department has been "listening to" Bulgaria asking US authorities to step in and stop the imports of any antiquities that have not been legally exported.

Is the sole source of the concern about illegal exports of cultural property "certain vocal archaeologists" and "several foreign governments"? I rather think that when it comes to cultural property as a whole (paintings, furniture, manuscripts and incunabula, ethnographic material) it is not just archaeologists that would be getting "vocal". I think a lot of people (including local collectors and history enthusiasts) would be concerned about the drain of such objects from any individual country abroad. What the archaeologists would be urging however is that archaeological material is included on the lists of cultural property protected from destructive exploitation and illegal export. I would say that it is the duty of every government, among other things, to take care of the cultural and natural assets of the territory under their direct and indirect control. Not to do so as fully as possible would in my opinion (and not only mine I am sure) be failing in one of their duties as a responsible government.

Worth noting is Mr G.'s little manipulation talking of "world coins". In collecting parlance this term refers to things like 2004 commemorative rubels, recent small change from the Andaman Islands and 1920s coins of Tibet. The curbs on illegal exports which so concern the ACCG are ancient coins which are dug up on ancient sites in ancient lands outside the USA. The use of the term "world coins" in Krause's "Coin News" by Giedroyć is an attempt to manipulate collectors of so-called world coinage that the ACCG's concerns affect them too. They do not.

A little reflection would reveal that any "coins that have been recently forcibly repatriated from the United States" will have been stopped from entering the US market because of the lack of documentation showing they had been legally exported or due to some other import infringements which prevent them legally entering the US. What is wrong with that?

The ACCG, as Giedroyć notes, argues that

"coins are a mass-produced item, not something that is unique as is a single piece of art. The more current problem, as far as coin collectors are concerned, may be what constitutes “ancient art”.

Nonsense. The problem is what constitutes cultural property, and the archaeological remains of a territory are cultural property, as they are in the USA itself. Not all the items seized in Operation Cerberus (the Four Corners/Blanding artifacts case) were "ancient art", old blankets, menstrual pads, utilitarian knives etc. Yet they were and are cultural property. The ACCG is misrepresenting what the object of protection of the archaeological resources of a source country are, the knowledge of the past of the region that can be recvovered from the proper investigation (and not mere commercial mining) of the archaeological record is the cultural property of the region, and of all of us. This is intellecttual property which is destroyed by the commercial mining for selected items which have a commercial value on the collectors' market. Whether or not the objects in those archaeological assemblages were mass produced (like pots for example were) or not makes no difference to the amount of destruction caused by getting them out of the ground and into the Wisconsin collector's back room.

Giedroyć then shows that there have been only three ICE press releases in Feb 2010, 2006 and 2005 which mention the "forcibly repatriated coins". His point is that unless ("world coin") collectors support the ACCG, it will get worse. Somehow he misses the seizure ACCG Baltimore Illegal Coin Import Stunt of the upcoming (amended and revised) test-case. He misses the cases currently being discussed in two threads on the closed access Yahoo Ancient Artifacts and Moneta-L discussion list where coin dealer Cameron Day had some coins seized by US customs. There are in fact a lot of ancient coins and other antiquities being seized by US customs which are not being trumpeted in individual ICE press releases. In a recent post to one of the lists (I forget which one) Wayne Sayles boasts how he has a number of times been called in by the ICE to give an expert opinion about the coins seized in a number of cases. There are therefore many cases not mentioned by Giedroyć of coins being seized and investigated by the ICE.

There are however also enormous numbers getting through the barrier of bubbles that separates the US antiquities market from the pool of illegal dugups. Like the ACCG, dealer Richard Giedroyć of HCC Inc. & Krause Publications would apparently like to see to see this barrier weaker still and ancient artefact imports not controlled at all. I think the rest of us would like to see the US doing its bit to help curb the international market in illegally obtained antiquities.

.

Arguing the Cause: ACCG's Thought Police on Hating

.
ACCG's John Hooker fancies himself as a bit of an expert on psychology. He castigates collector Chris Rose for criticising dealers opposed to enquiries into looted antiquities and writes that he has been 'duped' by the preservationists:

It surely does not take a great genius to realize that hate sites are hate sites, regardless of what good they claim to be doing, and that some of the most prominent of the authors of these sites are highly suspect because of their use of generalities, the deliberate use of logical fallacies, and so on. There is really no difference between such people and cultist fanatics who have caused so much devastation to lives throughout history. It is always best to judge people by the way they act, and not what they say. In the seventies I risked my very life fighting against cultists and terrorists. I know them well.

The image of some aged coin collector or dealer risking his life facing archaeobloggers raises a smile. Who are these 'suspect' most prominent authors? Dave Gill, Paul Barford and Nigel Swift (whose blogs receive the most visits which would be one way of measuring 'prominence')? Is Looting Matters a "hate site"? Is this blog really "a hate site"? Heritage Action?

The reasons why I have the views I have on artefact collecting and the artefact trade are well-documented here in over a thousand texts. I would imagine that if the whole lot was based on "logical fallacies" the tens of thousands of collectors would have been able to find a champion to point out where in a consistent and well-argued manner. Where is that opposing view? On Unidroit-L? (Joke), Moneta-L? Giedroyc's posts in Coiney Tabloid? The PAS website ? (joke); in the comments section under my posts? It seems to me that the logic is what is entirely missing in the arguments of the advocates of no-questions-asked collecting.

Again, readers can judge for themselves whether David Gill, Nigel Swift or I base what we say on "generalities". It seems to me that these resources discussing what they do are basing their texts firstly on deep research into the various issues discussed, and the use of concrete examples to illustrate the point. That these are not invented cases is indicated by the fact that each and every post of that nature has a link to a source where (unless those responsible, on learning it is being discussed, hide it - not infrequent among metal detectorists for example) the reader can check that neither Barford, nor Gill, nor Swift are making things up.

Undoubtably this blog at least presents a certain picture of the whole. But that is because it is a blog, the personal view of its author. I do see no-questions-asked collecting as a wholly negative phenomenon. I do think British policies on artefact hunting are damaging and need to change. I do think the PAS is doing too little to address a whole range of issues that it is clear they should, and so on. And that is what I say. I think there are enough advocates of "the good we do" position (including the state-funded PAS) to counterbalance what I say to the contrary, and I do read them myself.

Why would it surprise anyone that given the circumstances (or how after a lot of research into it, I perceive them) I do not write "what a lot of good is done by plundering the archaeological record for collectables for personal entertainment and profit"? I just do not see iot that way myself - and here I explain why. What is "wrong" with that? What is "wrong" with people like Chris Rose reading what I write alongside other reading material and thinking about it and drawing their own conclusions?

What have the ACCG Thought Police got against collectors reading this blog? I would say the material produced by the ACCG contains a fair amount of hate-language, in the case of one of their writers almost certifiably so.

UPDATE 17.03.12: Rose answered Hooker on Unidroit-L, Hooker did not understand the answer. Mr Rose explains it for him:

Your combination of stonewalling anybody who tries to move the debate beyond a tantrum and wild accusations with no basis, well, it is impressive, and is convincing support of my position beyond anything I can say.

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.")