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

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

It is therefore worth looking again at those "exceptional factors that pertain to historical coins". These of course are the usual tired old coiney mantras:
1) "Historically, coins were produced by the millions and they survive by the hundreds of thousands".
2) "Since the Renaissance coins have been avidly collected and studied by princes, scholars, and historically-minded hobbyists alike".
3) "Collecting and dealing in coins that have been in private hands for many years does not contribute to the destruction of cultural heritage".
4) "Likewise, because most coins in private collections have been traded and held without any provenance, it is unreasonable to assume that a coin is stolen, illegally exported, or illegally imported merely because the holder cannot establish a chain of custody beyond receipt from a reputable source". This litany concludes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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