Grebkesh and Tompa, the Campaign Against the Cleanup Measures

What hope of a Future is there for those
prevented from trading the paperless
past by the US 'clean-up laws'?

No ancient or antique artefacts from a whole range of countries can be imported into the United States of America, according to the campaign run by the coin dealers' paid mouthpiece Peter Tompa. The USA currently has allegedly "trade-stopping" bilateral and other cultural property agreements with the following countries  Belize, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, China, Colombia, Cyprus, El Salvador, Greece,  Guatemala, Honduras, Iraq, Italy, Mali, Nicaragua and  Peru - See  here for details.

As a result of the draconian cleanup measures adopted by the Obama Regime, five hundred and forty three families of former US 'Mom-and-pop' antiquity and tribal art dealers are now on the bread line, living from charity handouts.

Halton Grebkesh, President of the US Philistines and Smugglers' Relief Club says "my members are desperate, we petition government day after day about this, but nobody listens. It is digusting how easily people believe the lies that to comply with these MOUs is no big deal, I bet these people have never  tried to import cultural goods into the United States, nor have they any contact with anyone who has actually imported artifacts themselves or represented those who do".

Meanwhile, US ports are jammed with antiques and antiquities seized at point of entry by US Customs from hapless people who simply do not realise that the US is now totally boycotting the import of cultural property from a large part of the world. The six giant warehouses that house Italian cultural property seized at the port of entry are like an Aladdin's cave of sculptures, armour, pottery vases and mosaics, all items now (according to Mr Grebkesh and Mr Tompa) forbidden on the US market. The Italian antiques and collectables trade used to be worth USD 4,189,800 (2012 figures), today, as a result of the MOU, it has dwindled to 19 dollars and forty-five cents.

Antiquities dealers are fed up with being silenced by the US Government and have decided to make the world aware of their plight, now totally unable to import a single old artefact into the United States.  They have started up dozens of  blogs, websites and action groups intended to inform the world about the great injustice that has been done to their industry, totally blocking access to antiquities from these source countries. The groundswell of loud protest from all these suffering dealers is threatening to jam the Internet.

Why, Mr Tompa has even dragged out and dusted off some hearsay anecdotal evidence about a few isolated cases which are supposed to bolster his case. Obviously the supporting evidence is in all those other websites saying the same thing and showing that more than 99% of cases of attempted licit import, there have been similar obstacles from persistent Customs officers unrestrained by any existing US law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Focus on the CCPIA: The Author, Paphos and Alex

.
Coiney Edward Cohen has submitted two public comments to the CPAC. the first he begins with: "I am the author of "Dated Coins of Antiquity" published this year, 2011 [...] I could not have produced my book with the proposed restrictions on their importation to the US" In other words, is he saying that his study was based on data gathered from material which would not have had "documentation of lawful export" - in other words data of potentially illicit origin? What kind of scholarship is that? What other branches of US scholarship would tolerate publication of such a study?

Here is another one who thinks that to stem illicit exports:

The Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme must be tried first in Cyprus. It has worked immensely well in Great Britain by preserving the integrity of freshly discovered coin hoards for both study by researchers and subsequent sale to the coin market. Refer to the United Kingdom report on their website: http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/8709.aspx [Treasure and Portable Antiquities Scheme reports unearth fascinating finds]

In passing: how many of these new English hoards have ended up being sold on the market (and how many of those coins will retain that provenance in the hands of collectors over the next few decades)? Most of them seem to be being acquired by museums at the moment. How many of these new English hoards actually HAVE been fully studied by numismatic researchers and that study fully published?

More importantly, once again [sigh] it needs to be explained to coineys like Mr Cohen (though I would hope NOT the CPAC) that the PAS and Treasure Act have absolutely NO CONNECTION with either Britain's implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention or the combating of unlawful export of archaeological material from England and Wales.

Of course, it would be too much to expect that the PAS would ever write to its numismatic "friends" overseas actually explaining what it does, and does not, do and sort out this convenient confusion once and for all. That would be too much like real archaeological outreach, best to leave the collectors confused, eh?

Why is this happening? Firstly the dealers and their lobbyists, like the infamous Mr Tompa are telling coineys at every opportunity all this reason-fogging stuff about the CCPIA and CPAC (in Tompa's case, on behalf of the dealers' associations he represents). That's one factor. That would not have the effects we observe if it were not for the other. It is quite probable that US-based coineys do not know very much about this PAS and Treasure Act from first hand experience, that is understandable. What however is not at all easy to comprehend is how a whole group of them can solemnly advise a body representing their own government something on the basis of unchecked hearsay. WHY are they not checking what the "PAS" does and DOES NOT DO before they send a public comment to an official advisory body like this? Is it misplaced trust in the dealers' lobbyists, gullibility, weak logic, stupidiocy, laziness or irresponsibility? Or a combination of all six? Beats me why people believe and repeat such stuff when the ability to check it out is a mere mouse-click away.

Mr Cohen's second (!) comment concerns:

The Ptolemaic tetradrachms stuck in Alexandria, Egypt and in Paphos used the identical mintmark, the Greek letters PI-A. These coins are notoriously difficult to tell apart. If this MOU is approved, then all tetradrachms of Alexandria, Egypt could be mistakenly denied entrance to the United States. This is not the intent of the Cyprus MOU.

The only reason they'd be denied entrance to the United States is if they do not have documentation of lawful export. What Mr Cohen means is that - given the fact that most coin dealers and collectors do not give a tinker's for the provenance and collecting history of the goods they shunt around the international market like potatoes - a coin of this type of Alexandria without documentation of lawful export would potentially be stopped by US Customs in the mistaken belief that it is a coin of Paphos with no documentation of lawful export.

But then, there are those of us who believe that MOU or not, the import of unlawfully exported coins from Egypt (or anywhere else in the region which has similar legislation) should not be considered as "licit". That is, after all - whether or not the coineys accept it or not - precisely what article 3 of the UNESCO Convention says. That is the measure by which they will be judged by anybody from any country (apart from, that is, the Wild West of the USA) which is a state party to that Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. In any case, hopefully that loophole will soon be closed when the US finally formalises some kind of an agreement not to allow unlawfully obtained items from Egypt free passage into the US (both countries having been state parties to the 1970 UNESCO Convention for some time).

Focus on CCPIA: Workable Solutions, or a Misunderstand what the law is about?

.
A coiney (James Brandon) commenting on the renewal of the restriction of import restrictions of objects to those with documentation (two options) of lawful export of archaeological and ethnographic artefacts from Cyprus restricts his remarks to this comment:

The statistics are there on how too much restriction leads to diminished reporting of finds. By paying no heed to this study, it is clear that more workable solutions could be implemented in Cyprus.

Here we see the utterly damaging effect of pro-PAS propaganda wafting out from the heritage disaster area that is British "policy" on artefact hunting and collecting. Great Britain has a very restrictive export licencing procedure (every archaeological thing dug up has to go through the process) so is that reducing "reporting of finds"? On the contrary, the two have NOTHING to do with each other, the PAS is currently not in any way involved in the export licence awarding procedure in Great Britain. Again, the "reporting of finds" is one aspect of a series of problems, the preservation of archaeological sites and assemblages is another and illicit export of cultural property (what the MOU concerns) is another. So what "workable solution" could be implemented which simultaneously encourages reporting of finds, protects sites from commercial exploitation and prevents illicit exports?

Mr Brandon not only fails to inform the CPAC of the source of his information about this "study" (maybe Raymund Karl's recent paper?) but also what precisely he has in mind that CPAC should encourage Cyprus to try to prevent illegal export of archaeological and ethnographic artefacts. Are ethnographic artefacts (for example icons and church fittings) generally "finds" which need reporting?

It seems to me that a workable solution to avoid the US antiquities market becoming a disreputable laundry for illegally exported artefacts from areas of the world whose cultural heritage is at special danger from "pillage" is for the US to look more carefully at the export papers of artefacts from these regions coming into the US (actually the 1970 UNESCO Convention - of which the US is a state party - stipulates that ANY artefacts coming in without such papers from any other member state are illicit).

"The most amoral and dangerous individuals in the world"

.
"the most amoral and dangerous individuals in the world" is how a Californian dugup dealer characterises those who wish to impose restrictions on the import into the USA of archaeological and ethnographical artefacts without documentation of lawful export. In other words take away "from the longstanding and traditional rights of US collectors -- without any compensation whatsoever". Long-standing RIGHTS to import illicitly exported artefacts? Surely any such illusions ended when the USA became a state party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention back in 1983? What are these dealers thinking?

Peter Tompa continues his incessant moaning about how hard-done-by are US collectors (already in possession of a huge chunk of the above-ground resources of portable antiquities from all over the ancient world - but still want "more and more"). He attempts to assign "winners and losers" to the Greek Import Restrictions (restrictions, let us remind ourselves on illicitly exported items).

"Winners" according to Tompa are:
The Greek Cultural Bureaucracy ("poorly managed" and "corrupt")
The Greek Government ("poorly managed" and "corrupt")
"The Obdurate State Department Cultural Bureaucracy" ("obdurate", "entrenched")
"The AIA and its Archaeological Fanatics" ("anti-collecting", "fanatics")
"Wealthy Greek Collectors".

One wonders just how long the buffoonery of pretending that the archaeologists (institutional or otherwise) are all "fanatics" (was "radicals") who are to a man rabidly "anti-collecting" can persist. The evidence is very clear that the AIA is not against collecting per se, but - in line with US legislation since the early 1980s - against collecting of ILLICITLY exported cultural artefacts. No more, no less - and it is all in black and white for any dealer, lawyer or collector with more brain cells than my cat to check. Of course such nonsense suits well the yapping dogs that try to frighten, huddle and herd as many ovicaprid collectors onto the barren thistle patches of indignant opposition as possible, but it is not the truth. But then what evidence has there been from the ongoing dialogue of the deaf that dealers' lobbyists or collectors are even a bit concerned about the truth?

According to Tompa:

These fanatics hold that the only legitimate exchange of archaeological artifacts is a museum loan.

Well, since the law stipulates documentation of licit importation, it would be more truthful (see above) to say that they hold that the only legitimate exchange of archaeological artefacts is with documentation of licit export.

As for those "Wealthy Greek Collectors" (where the adjective wealthy magically become pejorative...). Surely there is a huge faultline running through the ACCG logic here. The whole point the collectors opposed to import controls are making is that the vast majority of the artefacts affected are too cheap (on the US market) for it to be at all "economical" to get documentation of licit origins and transfer. So they are not the kind of things one has to be inordinately "wealthy" to buy.

How shocking to the American psyche that:

Greek collectors will gain a competitive advantage over their American counterparts who can no longer import undocumented cultural goods.

They will stay in Greece, rather the best items being constantly and illegally siphoned off to a voracious and well-financed foreign market. How curious though that an American collector (and Peter Tompa, who is if I am not mistaken of Hungarian Jewish stock, collects dugup ancient Greek coins) feels he has MORE right to Greek cultural property than the citizens of that country (even if these items are illicitly exported?) and considers it a matter of regret that fellow collectors (though of a different nationality) will be able more easily to collect items which reflect their own cultural heritage.

For Tompa, the "losers" are:
"Greece's Cultural Patrimony" [too much stuff to look after as it is],
"The CPIA and the Process Congress Contemplated" back in 1983 (sic)
"The Small Businesses of the Antiquities and Numismatic trade" [who are now going to have to document licit export to allow legal import into the US: "This is particularly a problem for the small businesses of the numismatic trade". This is because the objects available for import are typically lacking such documentation]
"US Collectors" [who will be forced to buy material which has been licitly exported, rather than the other type that was on the market formerly].
"US Museums" who will not be able to carry on purchasing items without any kind of documentation of licit export [not, I think that they are likely to be wanting to in the coming years anyway].
"US Customs" [because they are going to have to do something connected with the fact that in 1983 the USA became a state party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention, too bad, but the idyll of US hypocrisy in this regard could not go on for ever]

What is not explained is the manner in which having mainly material which has passed scrutiny with regard to licit export on the US market as a matter of course is allegedly a "bad" thing for collectors, museums, and responsible (responsible) dealers. What is clear that the persons who have lost (not mentioned for some reason by Tompa) are the smugglers (possibly related in some way to organized criminal groups) and looters, who will have their US markets fundamentally curtailed by these measures if they are applied effectively by all involved. These people are on the losing side and among those who actively regret that we'd expect to find a number who are "amoral and dangerous". What nasty company the no-questions-asked antiquity dealers keep.

US Import Restrictions Only Apply to Illicitly Exported Items

.
The accusation that many coineys with educations gained in US schools have fluff for brains seems to be increasingly confirmed not only by the ease with which their self-appointed leaders manage to convince them with false admonitions of "what the new MOU will mean for YOU" which they never check, but also by the flow of whingeing pseudo-justifications which has recently been emerging from the milieu. Peter Tompa now asks: Do Import Restrictions Only Apply to "Illicitly Exported" Items?

Do MOU's only apply to "illicitly exported" artifacts as archaeo-blogger Paul Barford has claimed? No. In fact, import restrictions as applied by US Customs bar entry of coins openly and legitimately sold in markets abroad merely because they are of a type on a designated list.

Whoah, whoah. What is the CONNECTION between "openly and legitimately sold" within a country and "openly and legitimately exported"? None. As these clowns well know. The coiney lobbyist whinges on:

First, for coins coming directly from the country for which import restrictions are granted, there is an exception if they are accompanied with an export permit.

"OK, your starter for ten, fingers on the buzzers: "what do we call a coin exported from a country which has export restrictions which is accompanied by an export licence?"..." [buzzzz]
"Yes, Oxford Magdalene, "licitly exported". That is the correct answer".

"Fingers on the buzzers, now what do we call a coin exported from a country which has export restrictions which has been taken out of the country without getting an export licence?" [buzzz] "No, I am sorry Wisconsin Numismatic Academy, the correct answer is "illicitly exported", bad luck".

"Fingers on the buzzers again, what is the correct legal term for a coin removed from a country which does not issue export licences for archaeological artefacts and therefore has none? Anyone?" " [buzzz] "Yes, Wisconsin... No... no. No, the correct answer is that we call such a coin 'illicitly exported', or simply smuggled, bad luck again..."
[inaudible]

"No, Wisconsin, if it left the source country illegally, it makes no difference whether it passed through another country - since it arrived there illicitly; can we pass on t..."

[inaudible] "No, Wisconsin, the ten year "get out clause" as you put it is just a local convenience, which does not negate the principles established by the international agreement, so if we could... and there is no need for that sort of language, ...".
[raises eyebrow, discretely makes note to producer never to ask these rowdy peabrains back to University Challenge].

Three days later, the TV production company got an indignant letter from the principal numismatist of the Wisconsin Coin Academy, protesting:

The import restrictions discussed on the programme are both illogical and themselves definitely illicit, according to the 1983 CCPIA implementing US accession to the 1970 UNESCO Convention. That [is a] very clear contravention of the terms of the CCPIA...

They ignored the letter as the writings of a madman of course.

Basically, if you have an antiquity of a type which is on the designated lists (which certainly contain many, many more categories than just a few scrappy coins) and you want to import it into the US either get the seller to obtain an export licence, or failing that as the CCPIA (19 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) SECTION 2606, Import Restrictions, (a) Documentation of lawful exportation (note that title, Peter Tompa in particular) states: "unless the State Party issues a certification or other documentation which certifies that such exportation was not in violation of the laws of the State Party". Note this has nothing to do with "open and legitimate sale within the country". Neither has it anything in the least connected with its 'provenance' or collecting history. This is purely and simply about lawful export (note that title everybody, Peter Tompa and coin dealers in particular).

All is not lost even if you've not got one of those, the actual text of the CCPIA contains a useful get-out clause [2606(c)(1)(B)] "a statement provided by the consignor, or person who sold the material to the importer, which states the date, or, if not known, his belief, that the material was exported from the State Party not less than ten years before the date of entry into the United States, and the reasons on which the statement is based". Not even on oath, not even asking for any supporting material to be supplied. Basically scribbling down some (could be made-up) story of innocence.

Now the reason the silly whingers are complaining about even this is that they reckon a fellow dealer scribbling such a note on a company letterhead would - they assert - cost "more than the coin itself". So who else, except dumber-than-my-cat coineys, would do business with a seller that would charge you an arm and a leg for putting down a few words on paper why the circumstances of the sale of these particular coins are not breaking the law? How much were Spink's charging to scribble a note about the coins seized in Baltimore on their way to the ACCG? Did they not know the US law on the imports of such items and ignored it? Not very professional, is it?

Remember what article 3 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, implemented in the US by the CCPIA, says.

_____________________________________

UPDATE 28.11.11: Dealer Dave attempts to defend the logic of Peter Tompa by incomplete sentences (at the beginning of his "commentary" to a lengthy cut-and-paste) and tekkie language (at the end of his insulting "commentary" to a lengthy cut-and-paste). Between them however is nothing which refutes the notion that commerce in objects removed from a country in disregard of its export licensing procedures is anything except illicit. Perhaps instead of insulting and merely ridiculing those whose views differ (from those of which he wants to convince coineys and others), it might be more useful to actually indicate, citing chapter and verse, where I am wrong here instead of merely sniping without providing justification [except his wholly irrelevant assertion that Peter Tompa probably earns "ten times as much" as me for lobbying on behalf of the coin sellers. He probably does, that does not make doing what he does right].

UPDATE 28.11.11 (bis)
"Any reader interested in finding out the omitted details will have little difficulty doing that". Yes, I suppose not quoting (this time) beyond the first sentence and not giving a link saves the coiney readers of the coin dealer's blog from having to bother their confused brains about what it says here about what an "illicit export" is. Any readers he has who have not got fluff for brains will take note of his manipulation and whether the Dealer Dave "Ancient Coins" blog or this PACHI blog is a better source of information for responsible collectors on what the law actually says.

Detecting Under the Microscope 12: A report on the Bishop Burton Rally

.
A while back I discussed the statements published in national newspapers which gave the public the impression that PAS finds advisor Dr Kevin Leahy, FSA, MIfA National Adviser supported the Bishop's Burton (East Yorkshire) commercial artefact hunting "festival" , 23 – 25 September, 2011 and suggested that the public were not being given a very accurate picture of archaeological method and thinking on such issues by this type of PAS "outreach".

Over on the Federation of Independent Detectorists website there is copied and pasted a report written 27/09/11 by the same Kevin Leahy on the rally (currently second article down). This sounds grim. There were 400 "detectorists" spread over a massive area ("with 59 large fields being fully, or partially, open"). PAS presence was patchy, 12 man days in all including 4 of them by non-PAS volunteers, leahy describes the experience as "three fraught days".

We were made welcome by the organisers, the detectorists and the landowner but some mention was made of the problems involved in setting up this rally with regards to Natural England. As I was not privy to these matters no comment was made.

Maps were available and were "invaluable"

Field[s] were numbered and detectorists were asked to tell us in which quarter of the field finds had been made. During the course of the rally 220 finds were reported by 118 of the detectorists. This was not impressive considering the number of people involved but it is likely that the very size of the area available weighed against recording: the long trip back to the base would have taken up valuable detecting time. This rally covered too large an area.

Without maps it would have been impossible to do any recording under these circumstances, but frankly "which quarter of the field" something was in is no useful record at all of find distribution patterns. Three days detecting by 400 people should be producing more than 0.18 finds a day per person (half a find each over the whole long weekend). English Nature should be preventing the erosion of the archaeological record on land for which it is responsible and subsidising, there should have been more than "problems" from them, there should have been a total ban on conservation scheme land. Dr Leahy mentions his contacts with the media.

I did two recordings for regional TV. In both cases I talked about the positive work of the PAS and did not disclose my real frustrations over rallies. The issue of English Nature was not mentioned. Also present was a young researcher from ITV who was looking into them doing a programme on metal detector rallies as a follow-up to 'Mud Men'. Again, I kept my opinions to myself and tried to steer him towards something more constructive and interesting on finds. I think that it is extremely unlikely that this proposal will go ahead and, if it does, I do not think that the PAS should be involved in any way.

What is NOT explained is why a PAS official is NOT giving the public media an accurate picture of his "real frustrations over rallies". Surely is that not what archaeological outreach to the public is all about? Outreach that is costing the public millions of pounds and the loss of millions of artefacts from the archaeological record, a precious heritage in which they are all stakeholders in common, and the PAS official when asked to comment hides from the public what he thinks about what is going on?

But look at the next bit, ITV want to make a "programme on metal detector rallies" and states: "I do not think that the PAS should be involved in any way". That's a change from the PAS position on a projected programme about Treasure Hunting just under a year ago which the preparatory material they were discussing (not "binning") showed clearly that it threatened to misinform the public in a thoroughly disturbing manner. The PAS should not be involved in any way, EXCEPT to say that these things should not be happening. that would be proper archaeological outreach, but they do not really seem to have the stomach for that.

Note that Dr Leahy reports that three treasure finds were seen at this rally, of which two did not come from the rally at all, and the third (presumably found during the rally) left the site with the finder, who was going to report it to his local FLO (not the Coroner as the Treasure Act lays down?). This emphasises how important these rallies actually are in the PAS contacts with metal detectorists, without them the PAS would not be "contacting" so many of them, and would be getting vastly fewer artefacts in their database.

Dr Leahy also records his misgivings about the fact that some of the finders were people who had come over from the Continent to attend the rally, and he suspected would not be in the country long enough to arrange export licence formalities, and (since it would be much simpler) could be tempted to smuggle their finds out of the country. He records the fact that it was unclear what a PAS employee should do in such a case, and what powers he has to prevent such an eventuality (actually, none). The rally was attended by at least ten detectorists from the Netherlands, one German and one Canadian. There may have been other foreign detector users there of whom the PAS was unaware. It would be interesting whether there was any followup to this by the PAS to determine if an export licence was applied for (which would be in the PAS remit as part of its monitoring activities).

Per Lucem ad... What? Welsh on "Barford's Attack on Wayne Sayles"

.
Coin dealer Dave Welsh obviously gets awfully confused reading my blog. He complains of it:

It is extremely difficult in reading his blog to distinguish between what is actually the law, what Mr. Barford wishes the law to be, and what he is fantasizing about at the moment. Everything is blurred together in a manner that tends to be very confusing and unclear.

Hmm. It seems to me that a coin dealer dealing in coins, especially if he is the chair of the ACCG International Affairs committee (as obviously should every dealer and collector), should jolly well know what the law actually is without having to read about it on my blog. When I cite the law, I generally give a link which the curious or sceptical can click on to check the actual wording. It's not very difficult to click on links, is it? I think Welsh's problem is he reads far too laterally of the real meaning of my words. For instance the above remark is prompted by the allegation that "Paul Barford believes" and then followed by a passage which does not represent my views at all (and that hardly can be due to me being laconic about what I think about various aspects of the issues surrounding the collecting or portable antiquities). Whatever happened to that old coin dealers' lobby group jingo-motto: Per lucem ad veritatem? Where is the "light" in what these people say, where is the "truth"?

Welsh calls his post "[Paul] Barford Attacks Wayne Sayles" and alleges that: "Mr. Barford attacks [...] Wayne Sayles [as though he] were some sort of criminal". Do I? Only in Welsh's over-productive imagination. What I say is that in the short text I was analysing, Sayles uses false arguments to justify no-questions-asked collecting of what he regards as "minor antiquities". I point out that seen from the point of view of the preservation of the archaeological record, there is no such thing. I consider that in his comment in Forbes magazine, Sayles was guilty of either ignorance or spin (or perhaps both), but not a "crime".

The next bit of Welsh's tirade is priceless. Before remarking - without any justifying arguments to counter those I presented against such a notion - that this was a "rational point of view":

The "silent majority" of archaeologists know very well that coin collectors and the dealers who support them are not any significant threat to archaeology. They instead perceive antiquities collectors and dealers who seek major objects such as statues, fine ceramic art and other very valuable collectibles as being those whose activities tend to support a view that the collecting of such objects creates a market that motivates looting of archaeological sites.

Do they? Where does this come from? Could the ACCG get their "friends" in the PAS for example to substantiate that view? That the only nighthawks worth bothering about are those that go out with crowbars looking for statues in the Roman villas of England? Where is this evidence that there is any "silent majority" in archaeology anywhere who does not consider the current form of the antiquities trade to be a significant threat to archaeology? There are individuals who say such things that is true (I think they are wrong), but I would like to see any evidence that such views are a majority one in archaeology, silent or not. For all my scepticism about British archaeologists and their love for the PAS I do not think that is what they would say about the current form of the antiquities market - indeed many artefact hunters collaborating with the PAS will say the same thing about the market to which Mr Welsh is referring. What self-deceiving nonsense Welsh is pumping out here!

Anyway coin dealer Welsh reckons my blog "drives yet another nail in the already very securely fastened coffin of the long since exploded myth that "collecting equals looting"..." and exhorts me to continue blogging about these issues. Yes, yes I expect I will. But what I actually say - please note Mr W. - is that "no-questions-asked collecting supports looting", please note the difference. I have yet to see anything that the dealers in freshly surfaced artefacts in the US have written which actually comes anywhere near even addressing the point (actually being) made, let alone "exploding" it. I rather think the consistent failure to address this issue and continual fight by the ACCG against efforts to clean up the market (the MOUs, the minimalist measures of the CCPIA, whipping up unthinking mob indignation among collectors in pursuit of its "aims") are driving the nails into a completely different coffin. That of the no-questions-asked antiquities trade which it is becoming clear to ever more people has flourished in its current damaging could-not-care-less form for far too long.
.

Experiences with Customs Procedure

.
The public submissions to the CPAC deliberations over a cultural property MOU with Bulgaria continue to enlighten us about coiney mindsets and concerns. Two of them discuss attitudes to customs procedures. Charles Goergen is flat-out "against import restrictions on coins from any country". He says since coins "were designed as ancient methods of trade", trying to reclaim them is illegal seizure of property" (1933 double eagles come to mind). Not all coins (in the ancient world too) of course really were were "designed" for trade, or long-distance trade, many coins and collectable forms of 'primitive money' had a local circulation. Goergen's main gripe seems to be:

US Customs seized a $450 shipment to me from Spain without any notification. Just disappearing into the customs black hole. The country of origin claiming the cultural property should return the goods and services the coin originally purchased. That would be equitable.

Mr Goergan really wants 2000-year old wheat and salted pork? It would be interesting to know more about this shipment from Spain and why it was seized at the US borders if all the export paperwork was in order.

Of quite a different order was a contribution from Germany. Dr Hubert Lanz is a big-time German coin dealer (Numismatik Lanz München) and President of FENAP - I've blogged about this mysterious organization before. He writes as follows:

Bulgaria is a member of the EU (European Union) therefore the EU regulation for export of cultural property is valid also for Bulgaria. Export licences from any other member state cultural agency are valid in all EU countries. An import restriction from any EU member state would break European legislation. Please read: EC regulations on the import and export of cultural objects Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 of 18 December 2008 on the export of cultural goods (previously Council Regulation (EEC) No 3911/92 of 9 December 1992 on the export of cultural goods) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 of 7 July 2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2465/96 govern the import and export of cultural objects into and out of the EU’s economic area. These regulations are intended to prevent the illegal import and export of cultural property. Imports and exports in trade with third countries Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 of 18 December 2008 on the export of cultural goods is intended to ban the illegal transfer of cultural property from the EU’s economic area to countries that are not EU member states (third countries). It contains provisions on the scope of the regulation, on the definition of protected cultural property, and on competences and procedures. So do not make any separate treaty or agreement with any single EU member state. Regards Dr. Hubert Lanz

Well, oddly enough the whole underlined passage of this text appears to be taken verbatim from this webpage. So basically had Dr Lanz of FENAP given a link to the source of the information, his contribution to the debate would have consisted merely of the statement:

An import restriction from any EU member state would break European legislation. ...So do not make any separate treaty or agreement with any single EU member state.

Now I am at a loss how a firm with as long traditions as the one which Dr Lanz runs can have been exporting coins - presumably worldwide - for such a long period without establishing what the EU legislation on this actually is. How is this possible? Could Dr Lanz please state for the benefit of us all exactly where in EU legislation (name of the act/regulation/ directive, article, paragraph) this is forbidden? While it is true that the EU is about free markets between state members, this does not exclude imposing regulations on certain categories of goods - including cultural property. It simply is not true that an EU state cannot issue its own export licences for cultural property. The UK reserves the right to ignore EU directives on this in the case of excavated archaeological objects (including coins) and there is nothing "illegal" [pace dr Lanz] in that. Indeed the text to which he himself refers (Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 of 18 December 2008 on the export of cultural goods) preamble point 4, articles 1 and 2 state quite clearly, "Such a system should require the presentation of a licence issued by the competent Member State prior to the export of cultural goods covered by this Regulation", and that competence is assigned to: "a competent authority of the Member State in whose territory the cultural object in question was lawfully and definitively located on 1 January 1993". This is (art. 2.4) "subject to the national law of the Member State of export". Penalties are also established by individual member states (art. 9). The regulations referring to Dr Lanz' own country areset out in English here: Guidelines for importing and exporting cultural property into and out of Germany A. National rules to protect cultural property against export where is there the evidence in any of this that EU legislation forbids any kind of agreement with Bulgaria concerning the import of cultural property such as archaeological material with or without a Bulgarian export licence?

Until Dr Lanz and his FENAP come up with the actual article of law which he implies exists, and in the absence of any evidence that such a thing exists, we may safely regard this as another of those numismopathetic pull-the-wool-over-everybody's-eyes red herrings.

But Dr Lanz is right, it would save everybody a LOT of time and money if the USA instead of fiddling around with individual member states of this European "common market", would sign a cultural property MOU with the whole of the EU, protecting the cultural property of all the member states from illicit import, export and transfer of ownership at the hands of greedy and unconcerned US dealers and collectors and those who profit from this greed and lack of concern.

Vignette: Dr Hubert Lanz

US Collectors' Concepts of "Discrimination"

.
Coin dealers' paid lobbyist Peter Tompa suggests that I am wrong in suggesting that it was specifically requested that the public comments to the CPAC on Bulgaria's request to help stop the trade in smuggled artefacts restricted to section 303(a)1 of the CCPIA . Well, it is there in black and white what the comments are supposed to address. Tompa says that instead of doing this:

many collectors have quite rightly focused on the potential impact of import restrictions on their hobby. Don't such concerns go to the ability of Americans to trade and collect ancient coins that are freely available worldwide (including within Bulgaria itself)? And as such, don't complaints about discriminatory import restrictions go directly to the CPIA's concerted response requirement as well as the use of ancient coins as educational tools? So, what exactly is Barford, the obnoxious know-it-all, talking about?

I am talking about section 303(a)1 of the CCPIA, which does not ask the President to consider "the potential impact of import restrictions on legitimate antiquity collecting". The impact on collecting smuggled artefacts is clear, and having that impact is what the MOU (and the Convention upon which it is based) is all about. "Obnoxious" though that may seem to those who sees nothing much wrong with a little bit of "free enterprise" trading smuggled goods supplied by culture criminals, that's what I am talking about. It is also what the CPAC will be discussing as part of the commitment of the US to play their part in curbing the trade in illicit antiquities, as expressed in becoming a state party of the 1970 UNESCO Convention in 1983.

Tompa suggests it is "quite right" that in their public comments, collectors do not address the issues raised for the President's consideration by section 303(a)1 of the CCPIA. The President of the USA is not asked either by section 303(a)1 to consider whether the proposed measures "go to the ability of Americans to trade and collect ancient coins that are freely available worldwide (including within Bulgaria itself)". Again, the coins with paperwork showing legal origins are legally bought and sold in most countries party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention. Mr Tompa has not yet provided the list I asked for of the countries which are states parties of the 1970 UNESCO Convention where it is actually legal (licit trade) to peddle dugup artefacts smuggled out of Bulgaria. Perhaps he could do that to help the President consider this question which the dealers' lobbyist thinks the President (and his advisory committee) should be pondering (and so that collectors can refer to it in their comments). In which other countries party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property is it not only perfectly possible to buy looted, stolen or smuggled artefacts on the open market, but is also entirely LEGAL to do so?

Tompa asks "don't complaints about [what he calls] discriminatory import restrictions go directly to the CPIA's concerted response requirement"? No, as I've explained earlier. Any import restrictions actioning article 3 of the UNESCO Convention are those which apply to any trader (importer) in any 1970-UNESCO-Convention-Party state trying to import smuggled antiquities. The rest of the states parties apply these measures automatically, only the US refuses to recognise its obligations in that regard in favour of excusive MOUs on the basis of Article 9.

The crux of the matter is that the Americans are notorious in the rest of the world for believing that they are in some way exempt from this or that measure that they do not want to apply. Over the decades we have seen various forms of manifestation of this American exclusionism in a variety of contexts in international affairs. The result is that, when required to behave like the citizens of every other nation among those of the international community which have become party to a convention, it is seen as some kind of discrimination. Being asked to behave like everybody else is asked to behave is not - in my opinion at least - discrimination. For two decades the US trade in dugup artefacts from Bulgaria has been going on under everybody's noses, nobody has ever lifted a finger over there to stop it. Kilogramme loads of this stuff have been changing hands weekly on EBay. This has engendered a feeling of entitlement, as shown by Mark Hogan who does not think there should be any curbs on teh US trade in dugup: "coins, bronze crosses, Byzantine religious metals, etc.". Why is this if the US is a state party of a convention that explicitly forbids (as illicit) such trade in the absence of proper export procedures being followed by both parties (seller and buyer)? Where are the US authorities and lawmakersw? Asleep? Powerless? Or simply totally apathetic?

If they don't like the Convention, let the US withdraw from it, not hypocritically pretend they are adhering to it, while continuing to ignore the core of its measures totally. Nobody is being "discriminated against" by being asked to do what all in the US antiquities trade should have been doing (and not just in the case of Bulgarian artefacts) since 1983.

Vignette: USA as an island

Ayman Ramadan and "Nafertiti Eastern Sculptures Trading"

.
Rick St Hilaire has a post today on a topic which interests me too: 'Ayman Ramadan and Nafertiti Eastern Sculptures Trading' and he refers to an earlier post here on the subject. I think it is worth noting that I drew attention to a dodgy-looking assemblage of 'Luristan' bronzes that Nafertiti had been trading as well as they were A source of the shabtis I christened (wrongly) wenneb shabtis which I certainly think would be worth following up to find out more links of these traders to the UK and northwestern continental Europe.

St Hilaire has found out that:

There is information to suggest that Ayman Ramadan may go by the name of Ayman Libzo. A Facebook profile bearing the name Ayman Libzo describes this named individual as the owner and president of Nafertiti Sculptures Trading L.L.C. It also lists Dubai as the place where this individual lives.

(The facebook page is illustrated by a photo of a young child rather than a 39 year old Jordanian adult.) St Hilaire finds that "Nafertiti Eastern Sculptures Trading" has disappeared (in fact it disappeared and the items I referred to vanished from the internet shortly after my post on the topic - but this was also the time when the US authorities were beginning to get their teeth into this alleged ring).

There is information on a web page, nevertheless, that an “Ayman Libzo for Ancient Antiquity” existed. What remains of the now inactive and sparsely archived web page, copyrighted 2008, is a ‘browse catalog” link, a generic Dubai business location, and a Dubai-based cell phone number. The catalog link is inaccessible. The other information listed on the web page states that the company is part of the Trocadero network, which is a fine arts and antiques online selling platform. The Ayman Libzo for Ancient Antiquity web site once bore the web address of www.trocadero.com/aylibzo/, as suggested by archived internet records.

There apparently was also an online store bearing the name “Ayman Libzo for Ancient Antiquity” at one time. It was likely located on eBay.es, the Spanish eBay. That page does not exist today and is not archived. It was referenced, however, in an eBay “arqueologia y falsificaciones” (archaeology and forgery) discussion group during a 2008 conversation about Egyptian artifacts.

Now that is awfully embarrassing for Trocadero ("Authentic antiques and art offered by credible American, European and Asian antiques dealers on one online mall").

PS I am not sure about the spelling of the firm's name; everybody likes highlighting the 'a', I am sure I saw it with an 'e' when the firm was active, though could have been mistaken.

Vignette: Dubai

Export Licences: Stiff Upper Lip and the Cry-Babies

.
In the post below I remark on how complex the interaction between UK and EU law on the export of antiquities can become once you start delving into it. An inordinate number of posts on this blog deals with the antics of US dealers about the relatively simple requirements of their powder-puff CCPIA. In the case of certain countries they need a piece of paper for any coins they want to bring in (they have the choice of two different kinds). They do not even have to contend with export licences, the US does not have them, or any institution to issue one (that is despite being a state party of the 1970 UNESCO Convention which requires both). For a number of years these dealers have been digging in their heels, kicking up a ruckus and getting quite hysterical and political about it. Thousands of collectors have willingly allowed themselves to be roped into the action by their widespread publicity (propaganda) campaign and alarmist lies.

I was just wondering, has anyone seen even a hint of something similar in the United Kingdom by antiquity dealers faced with considerably more complex import/export legislation for antiquities? Are they claiming that their small businesses are threatened? Are they alarming that these laws will be the end of collecting? Are they continually whingeing that everybody is against them, and the world does not understand? Or writing blogs like those of the ACCG attacking anyone in a white hat? Well, no - they are not. Despite the paperwork, law-abiding UK dealers they are quietly and, we trust, professionally getting on with doing what they do. And the ones that don't want to abide by the law are not shouting their mouths off about it.

Moans one of the US coineys:

Why has the State Department disadvantaged the interests of American collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade by imposing hard to meet documentation requirements (sic) when the support for such restrictions is so limited?

Because they think no-questions-asked collectors and dealers are hateful moaning parasites who do nothing for the credibility of America? I'd say that's probably about it. US dealers are no more "disadvantaged" and (in the case of legal activity) the documentation requirements no "harder to meet" than anyone else who has to provide documentation of legal export or fulfilling US import restrictions on cars, ipods, DVDs, fruit, exotic animals and a whole host of other products. Why cannot US coin dealers just get on with the job, acting within the law and like professionals and quit moaning?

.

Reactions to the Baltimore Illegal Coin Import Stunt Case Decision

.
The news that a decision had been reached in the ACCG Baltimore Illegal Coin Import Stunt Case seems to have reached Peter Tompa yesterday (Monday) morning. The news went up on the ACCG website yesterday at an unspecified time: "Decision Released in Baltimore Litigation ACCG website, 8th August 2011.

Dave Welsh was one of the first to write at length about it with his usual fire-and-brimstone approach (no mention of stringing people up this time) at 12:16 AM PT: He calls it "A Disastrous Legal Decision". Since this is the only comment so far which looks to the future, I would like to discuss some of the things he suggests in a later post.

Peter Tompa on his own Cultural Property Observer blog writes at 5:19 AM: "Not for Me to Decide...", referring to the District Court's judge's assessment that she has not the authority to judge the President of the USA.

Then it was Rick St Hilaire's turn at 1:01 AM EST: "Judge Dismisses ACCG Challenge to Cultural Property Import Protections - Acknowledges President's Foreign Policy Role in MoU Process". he notes three important points about the decision.

David Gill has a short note: Baltimore Test Case Rejected

I wrote a piece between trying to plough through the 52 pages of the Judge's decision (not there yet) and a rather nice bottle of red which I'd opened to celebrate.

Wayne Sayles, who we may suspect was in fact the main instigator of the whole action, has a surprisingly magnanimous approach to the whole affair, at 11:31 AM EST: "The Morning After"

Then Peter Tompa again: "Legal Times Blog About ACCG Decision" about a blog by Zoe Tillmann "Coin Collectors' Guild Loses Bid to Import 1,000-Year-Old Coins"

Blake dismissed claims brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, writing that decisions made pursuant to presidential authority weren’t subject to judicial review. Regarding whether the State Department exceeded its authority, Blake found that the law put the burden on the importer to prove the artifacts are legitimate, “and prohibits the importation of those objects if they cannot meet that burden.”

The guild also argued that the restrictions amounted to a violation of the First Amendment because the inscriptions and motifs on the coins are “information or speech” and convey content [which has got to be one of the stupidest justifications for no-questions-asked collecting on the planet - PMB]. Blake disagreed. “Even if ancient coins convey information about ancient societies, the government’s interest in combating the pillage of archaeological materials is unrelated to the suppression of the flow of that information,” she wrote.

I'm interested to see what Kimberley Alderman ("Cultural Property Law Deathmatch: The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. The State Department" - "it's the equivalent of cultural property lawyer porn"), Derek Fincham, and a few others will make of it.

Vignette: Nice bottle of Italian red to celebrate.

UPDATE: Kimberley adds her comments: Ancient Coin Import Restriction Test Case Dismissed "While the precise basis for the dismissal is a little different than what I had explored, it arises out of the same problem with this particular test case. The Plaintiffs weren’t just asking for a limited decision about a specific seizure; they were looking for a broader decision about coin import restrictions. The Court determined it didn’t have the authority to issue one". So how much did making the gesture of submitting a useless complaint cost US collectors and dealers who donated the coins for the "benefit auctions"?
.

A Dealer's Questions About Licit and illicit Importation of Ancient Coins into the USA

.

As might be expected a coin dealer based in California and active in the ACCG is not at all pleased by the judicial decision in the Baltimore Coin Case. this was intended to challenge the US government's authority to put restrictions on the import of illegally exported coins, and obviously that is something that US coin dealers feel is threatening the supply of fresh material to the US market. From this point of view apparently, he calls this "A Disastrous Legal Decision". Personally, not being associated in any way in the trade in illegally exported dugup ancient coins, I am of another opinion.

The judgement is a significant one because it is a clear signal to US dealers and collectors that the no-questions-asked buying and selling of dugup artefacts cannot be sustainably continued, there has to be increased hygiene on the antiquities market, increased vigilance to prevent illictly-obtained items being sold. The US market is a particularly important on since, as the blogger discussed here notes: "At this point the USA comprises about 50% of the worldwide market for ancient coins". It follows from this that fifty percent of the looted material freshly surfacing on the global market is being bought by collectors in just one country. Obviously doing something about the consumption of illicitly obtained dugups in that country is going to have a substantial effect on the global market in illicit antiquities, at the least disrupting it.

Dugupdealer Welsh asks rhetorically "What does this decision mean to us coin collectors and the numismatic trade that supplies them(sic)". This is his answer:

The 1970 UNESCO Convention and the flawed 1983 CCPIA that implements it in the USA, have been sustained as the law of the land. US coin collectors must realize that this decision is extremely adverse to their collecting interests, and that the archaeology lobby, in collusion with the anticollecting Kouroupas regime in the State Department, may now be expected to aggressively pursue further import restrictions that will in effect (over a period of years) make it impossible to licitly import most ancient coins into the USA.

I had to laugh at the next bit, written I suspect tongue in cheek - though I know from previous discussions that Mr Welsh is unaware of the distinction between 'licit' and 'legal' in the (real) English language. According to US-English dictionaries and US usage the two terms are totally synonymous, while they are not in Queen's English. He expands on the implications of this decision:

From a practical perspective, this means that importation of ancient coins into the USA will shift from being a licit activity to an illicit activity which the US Government does not have the power or means to control. This situation poses very serious ethical questions for US collectors and dealers.

Now, frankly, I see nothing 'licit' in the way fresh coins are imported onto the US market from the archaeological record of other countries and traded there. We might cite here the container load of dugups from metal detecting archaeological sites in Bulgaria on an industrial scale that went through Frankfurt and was immediately absorbed onto the US market, the Elmali hoard, countless other groups of coins that surface at the same time in various bits of the US market that seem likely to indicate the discovery and scattering - through being smuggled abroad by criminals - of an otherwise unknown new hoard somewhere (and openly discussed as such on the numismatic forums closed to outside view), the upcoming Holyland Coins case and associated investigations still ongoing may shed light on the mechanisms operating.

In fact, the decision implies quite the opposite, through attention paid to the documentation of licit and legal export from the source countries, an important step is being taken to instill a little hygiene on the market. this process can only benefit the responsible colector, and the truly ethical dealers that cater for them,. it is bad news for those who just import dugup antiquities in bulk, through dodgy suppliers who do not bother with little details such as where the commodity they are dealing in come from and how and when they left the ground or the source country. There are no prizes for guessing through which of these two channels the vast numbers of dugup artefacts we know looting is producing reaches the market. There should no doubt at all in anybody's mind that the illicit trade is facilitated by (if not actually driven by the demand of) the no-questions-asked market which is a sepsis that must be removed from the legitimate sustainable trade in antiquities.

Welsh goes on:

adversaries of private collecting have now temporarily obtained the power to legally divorce the US free market in ancient coins from the international free market in ancient coins.

If you think about what precisely and specifically it is the MOUs restrict, the definition of a free market for this dealer is one on which one can buy coins illegally exported from the source country or one in which no attention is paid to whether an item left the source country before or after legislation was introduced restricting such transfer of ownership. The free market he speaks of here is one where licitly-obtained dugup artefacts have equal status with illicitly-obtained ones. That may be a "free" market, but it certainly is not one with any claim to legitimacy - whether or not (a technicality) "no US law was broken".

Dealer Welsh soothes his customers:

Licit possession of, and licit free trading in ancient coins within the national borders of the USA are not affected by (and cannot possibly be affected by) any regulations or agreements that the State Department, in unethical and anti-American collusion with the archaeology lobby, can unilaterally impose.

But how licit - or legal - is possession of an item that cannot be - because of its status as stolen or illegally removed from the country of origin - legally owned by anyone? We have seen the US Department of Justice argue this in the case of the SLAM mummy mask (see here too, suggesting this may set an interesting precedent). Welsh considers the US government expressing concern (on behalf of decent and enlightened US citizens) for the preservation of a precious and threatened resource in the common interest of the global community "un-American". I have earlier raised the question of the "American values" represented by the advocates of no-questions-asked collecting of dugup antiquities. Whatever they are, they are not positive values, and the stance of US collectors in these matters does their country no service in the eyes of the international community.
.

The Status of Egyptian Antiquities "Floating Around the USA"?

.
It would seem that the St Louis Art Museum has engaged the wrong cultural property lawyers in their fight to keep the Ka Nefer Nefer mask from Saqqara which they bought from the Aboutaam brothers' Pheonix Ancient Art for half a million dollars. ACCG Executive Director Wayne Sayles would obviously be doing his local art museum a favour putting them in touch with the Guild's own cultural property law expert:

Egyptian Archaeological Objects Like Cocaine? As hard as it might be to believe, the US Government has apparently claimed so in a court filing relating to the pending forfeiture action against the SLAM Mummy Mask.[...] Hopefully, the Government is basing its contention on more than the fact that Egypt has had at some point (1983 was the date adopted by the Court in the Schultz case) a patrimony law that vests unequivocal state ownership of Egyptian artifacts found in the ground of that country and that the artifact is indeed "Egyptian." But, if not, what exactly is the status of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of other Egyptian antiquities, significant or not, floating around the United States, according to the USDOJ?[...] Have senior US Government officials cleared such arguments to be made? And, if so, do they truly understand the implications of such claims?

Well, isn't that a thought-provoking topic for the collector who has bought no-questions-asked antiquities to ponder? How can a US collector who cannot prove legal title to an object claimed by another party establish legal title? Only by a documentation of the fact that the other party had actually relinquished title to the object.

Before too many collectors start shooting themselves in the head in anticipation of prison sentences, perhaps it should be recalled that this case does not hinge just on the state ownership of excavated artefacts due to Egypt's patrimony laws (what the ACCG's lawyer calls "the wildest claims of Egyptian cultural property nationalists like the now disgraced former Antiquities Minister Zahi Hawass"). The object falls under the terms of the 1970 UNESCO Convention (to which, like it or not, the US is a state party) because it was allegedly stolen from museum storage, and Egypt has asked for it back. I really do not see why a US museum would not react to such a situation in any way other than to surrender the object.

The ACCG's lawyer says "there is no US law on the books that bans the possession of Egyptian artifacts as is the case with cocaine", what about stolen Egyptian artefacts? So basically all SLAM has to do is to prove that the items was not stolen from museum storage and that any movements since its excavation were in accordance with international laws and agreements in force.

The Kaloterna (sic) and Jelinek Antiquity Collections in Croatia

.
The provenance supplied for the Ka Nefer Nefer mask now in St Louis Art Museum by the Aboutaams includes passing through the private collections of two Croatian collectors. It might be of interest then to examine the context of this information. As the story goes:

in the early 1960s when the museum reports that “the Mask was a part of the Kaloterna (or Kaliterna) private collection, during which time it was purchased by Ms. Zuzi Jelinek (‘Jelinek’), a Croatian collector in Switzerland. In or around 1995, Jelinek sold the Mask to Phoenix Ancient Art, S.A. of Geneva (‘Phoenix’). On or about April 3, 1998, the Museum purchased the Mask from Phoenix.”

See also Kea Johnston's Egyptology Geek and Gay, Malcolm. "Out of Egypt." St. Louis News [St. Louis] 15 Feb. 2006. Riverfront Times.

The Kaloterna CollectionSo, according to the seller, the mummy mask was part of the collection of one Kaloterna family until the early 1960s. Several people have noted that "Kaloterna" may be a misspelling of Kaliterna, a common Croatian name (Gay, 2006). Now, interestingly there is a webpage dedicated to the question of ancient Egyptian artefacts held in collections in Croatia, in museums, major and minor, as well as private collections. By law in Croatia every private collection has to be reported, examined, and evaluated. If the Kaloterna/Kaliterna collection has not been, it was/is an illegal collection. It is therefore significant that the only object which seems to have been noted as having been in this otherwise unknown collection is one which is now of disputed legality. Where did Mr/Mrs Kaloterna/Kaliterna then in Tito's Yugoslavia obtain such an important artefact from? We recall that the story is that in the early 1950s (1952) is was reputedly in a Brussels gallery, so where was it between then and the early 1960s and how did it end up in Yugoslavia? If one looks at the lists of Egyptian artefacts in the collections of Croatian museums, this mummy mask is quite atypical compared with the rest of the artefacts reaching these collections which are far less ostentatious. It would be useful to conduct more research into this (former?) collection and determine just what else was in it and what happened to the rest of the material.

The Jelinek Collection
There is some confusion here in the story. Initially the information given was that the mask was obtained by a Swiss collector named "Zuzi Jelinek" whose address and phone number were on a provenance letter given to SLAM (Gay, 2006). This turned out to be the address for Suzana Jelinek-Ronkuline, who was once a landlady for the Aboutaam brothers but according to her son she has never collected antiquities (Gay, 2006). Gay had a US dealer search for information on an antiquity collector named Jelinek, but none was found. No information was given how an object of this magnitude allegedly left Yugoslavia and entered Switzerland in the 1960s.

Phoenix Ancient Art however directed Gay to a collector in Zagreb, Croatia named Suzana Jelinek who when asked claimed "I bought the mask many many years ago, and I sold it many many years ago [...] I have so many things in my collection that my children don't know what all I have" (Gay, 2006). It is not at all clear whether the two Jelineks are the same person, in 2006 the Riverfront Times suggests that Suzana Jelinek-Ronkuline still lived in Switzerland.

Concerning this collection of "so many things that my children do not know what I have" (ie a collection so large and rich that an entire gilded mummy mask could simply not be noticed among the other items), if they were held in Croatia in the 1960s, Suzana Jelinek was legally obliged to report them. Where is the official inventory of this collection if it was legal? Where is the export documentation for this object leaving Croatia in the 1990s for Switzerland? Again, it seems that the only information about this otherwise undocumented collection is that it contained an Egyptian mummy mask of questioned legality. How could the Croatian Suzana Jelinek acquire so many objects from the early 1960s onwards, without appearing on the New York dealer's database of 18 000 names of museums, collectors and antiquity sellers? It should be noted that this collection was apparently still existing in 2006. It would be useful to conduct more research into this (former?) collection and determine just what else was in it and what happened to the rest of the material.

The Aboutaams seem to have a propensity for tracking down exceptional artefacts that are assigned a provenance to a collection behind the Iron Curtain and then finding somebody by chance who is able to witness an early sighting, we may recall the odd "findspot" of the Cleveland Apollo in the farmyard of the home of Ernst-Ulrich Walter in Lusatia.

St Louis Art Museum Mummy Mask: "Like Cocaine"

.
Rick St. Hilaire has a piece on his blog: 'US Claims SLAM Lacks Legal Standing— Asserts That Mummy Mask is Illegal Contraband — Discovery Reveals More Information'.

Lawyers for the US Attorney’s Office in St. Louis [...] in their July 27 pleading, contend that SLAM’s “claim of ownership is legally impossible, and as such the Mask is effectively contraband in the hands of the Museum.” The government argues that Egypt’s patrimony law, which gives ownership rights of cultural property to the Egyptians, makes it impossible for the SLAM to own the mummy mask. Therefore, SLAM has no legal standing to assert that it can own the mask. The government’s brief analogizes SLAM’s claim of ownership to the mask is similar to asserting ownership to cocaine — one cannot legally claim ownership. Since the mask cannot be owned by the museum, the museum lacks standing to claim ownership, the government argues.

This is indeed an interesting argument and applies equally to dugup antiquities smuggled to the United States from a number of so-called "source countries". They cannot be legally owned in the USA if they are still the (stolen) property of another entity, a foreign state.

In justification of its case, SLAM supplied Federal authorities with details of the purchase and what due diligence they think they have exercised, including revealing that they "conducted a provenance investigation" by contacting, among others "the Missouri Highway Patrol". Having established that Ka Nefer Nefer was not being sought by them (presumably with regard offences such as hit-and-run, speeding, DUI or driving licence violations in Missouri) or anyone else they asked, they decided to buy it. Although "Swiss legal counsel confirmed [indicated former owner] Jelinek’s address", it's a pity that they did not ask about the Aboutaams' landlady about her "collection". As St Hilaire notes:

Missing from the documents list is a purchase or sales agreement between Jenilek and Pheonix Ancient Art. SLAM claimed in past court filings that such a transaction would have occurred in 1995. SLAM, nevertheless, includes on the list of documents a 1997 fax from Phoenix that purportedly attaches a letter of provenance from Jenilek.

Also missing from the documents list are shipping papers or import papers describing the mask’s entry into the United States. Import papers generally describe a package’s date of entry, location of entry, country of origin, value, and contents. The court papers suggest that the mummy mask traveled from Switzerland to the United States in 1998, but this information remains unclear. The mask must have been imported into the United States at some time and at a specific point of entry. But the question of whether papers exist documenting the importation of the Egyptian mummy mask, valued at several thousands of dollars, remains unanswered thus far.

The question raised about this by St Hilaire is of interest because as will be recalled a few years later (2003) Hitcham Aboutaam was in trouble with federal authorities over the import of an odd-shaped rhyton, supposedly from the Western Cave Treasure in Iran, and in the same year his brother Ali was suspected (apparently accused and maybe even convicted, though details are wholly unclear) of being part of a group of people smuggling artefacts out of Egypt about the same time. With what kind of paperwork did the Ka Nefer Nefer mask enter the US and why has it not been supplied as evidence that SLAM ensured that proper procedure was followed in making this purchase?