Thursday, February 5, 2009

Police Action with Antiquities and Ancient Coins in Germany: Some Clarifications and a Call for Reason

Over the past week I have been observing North American discussion lists about ancient coin collecting; last week it came to the attention of some of these groups that police action in Germany has involved the confiscation of certain private collections of ancient coins. Since American dealers and collectors have found out about these events, there has been little reason in the ensuing discussions or little desire to understand the issues or circumstances involved. On the other hand, there has been ample amounts of speculation and some of the more outspoken dealers leading the dealer lobby in the United States (ACCG) have returned to familiar alarmist tactics to recruit more supporters. The discussions on the lists are not currently presenting a very balanced view of the actual situation in Germany, nor is reason prevailing. Therefore, I should like to take the opportunity to make some rather important clarifications. I feel I am able to provide such clarifications since I am currently living and working in Germany, I have personally met and had discussions with some of the law enforcement officers involved in these seizures, and I have heard some of their presentations about their work at cultural heritage protection conferences and workshops.

1) The current discussion in the United States is painting the picture of police going door to door, seizing any ancient coin collection they come across. This is pure Panikmache (fear-mongering). The seizures are being made with lawful cause.

2) Some have asserted that the new German ordinance of 15 October 2008, "Verordnung über das Verzeichnis wertvollen Kulturgutes nach demKulturgüterrückgabegesetz," is responsible for the seizures. This is false. In fact, seizures have regularly been made well before the enactment of this ordinance (see below, point 4, for the legal basis).

3) Rogue German police are not making the seizures, but some Police Arbeitsgemeinschaften within the structure of Germany's federal states are charged with investigating and enforcing laws related to looting and antiquities crimes. Sales of antiquities and ancient coins are monitored for goods that are clearly stolen or looted in Germany or are looted in foreign countries (e.g. Balkan countries) and smuggled into Germany and sold. In addition to antiquities sales monitoring, the police have also caught several metal detectorists who are illegally operating in Germany and selling their goods.

4) Police investigations and actions also include the recovery of stolen goods and so this is where the seizure of certain private collections has come in. Once a dealer or smuggler has been identified selling stolen goods, police have the duty to recover that stolen property. This is done through a German law (§ 259 StGb) that is very similar to our National Stolen Property Act in the U.S., whereby it is illegal to handle or buy stolen property (knowingly or unknowingly). Pertinent to archaeological goods, see also § 929 and § 932. In one recent article, M. Müller-Karpe discusses how these laws work in relation to antiquities sales ("Dekontextualisierung in der Archäologie." In: Das Denkmal als Fragment - das Fragment als Denkmal. Denkmale also Attraktion. Jahrestagung der Vereinigung der Landesdenkmalpfleger (VdL) und des Verbandes der Landesarchäologen (VLA) und 75. Tag für Denkmalpflege 10.-13. Juni 2007 in Esslingen am Neckar. Arbeitsheft 21, Regierungspräsidium Stuttgart, Landesamt für Denkmalpflege (Stuttgart 2008), 443-451).

5) Müller-Karpe, cited above, argues that buyers of antiquities should know that virtually everything on the market is stolen and looted. However, it is my impression that although stolen property ought to be recovered, criminal charges are not filed unless the receiver of stolen goods is aware that the goods are in fact stolen. In any case, this does not mean that the buyer is entitled to retain stolen goods.

6) Ancient coin collectors are not being singled out. Other antiquities have also been seized. I recall seeing a presentation in November by one police officer who showed photographs from a house that was searched following the sale of suspect items on the internet. Every room in the house was filled with antiquities (pottery and metal objects) on shelves stacked to the ceilings. Investigations determined he operated illegally as a metal detector and looted locally to fill his collection. It was also discovered he looted abroad while vacationing in different European countries.

7) Seizures are not restricted to ancient coins or antiquities. Under the law cited above, any stolen goods are subject to seizure and the receiver may face criminal charges dependent on the circumstances (i.e. whether or not the intent was to buy stolen goods). This means that if someone buys a car stereo at a flea market and the police determine the seller in fencing stolen goods, the police will confiscate the stolen stereos that were sold by this individual. There is no doubt that other Police Arbeitsgemeinschaften are responsible for investigating and recovering other types of stolen property.

While I understand the frustration of private collectors in light of these events, it does highlight the need for some standard due diligence processes so that the inventories of indiscriminate dealers are not stocked with looted material and so that collectors do not end up paying the price. The recent statement from the Deutsche Numismatische Gesellschaft does include the recommendation that collectors conduct greater due diligence in buying ancient coins and maintain records for their purchases:

"Das Sammeln antiker, mittelalterlicher und neuzeitlicher Münzen und Medaillen sowie von Papiergeld ist nicht strafwürdig. Ein Herkunftsnachweis für die einzelne Münze ist nicht vorgeschrieben. Dennoch fordern wir unsere Sammler auf, mehr als bisher die Herkunft ihrer Münzen zu dokumentieren, auch wenn sie diese bei Sammlerbörsen oder an anderer Stelle erworben haben bzw. erwerben."

German police are working within their job description and are enforcing the law as related to their special assignments and their criminal investigation divisions. The receipt of any stolen material is subject to confiscation. These events should not be exploited by certain dealers in the U.S. simply to recruit supporters and raise funds for their own lobbying activities, but rather should be viewed as both a lesson and an opportunity. Stolen and looted material easily makes its way into the antiquities and ancient coin market since there is a general lack of due diligence and regulation. It has been demonstrated over and over how easily it is for looted and stolen ancient coins to make their way to dealer inventories, auction houses, and ultimately the cabinets of collectors. If dealers are not practicing due diligence, then collectors unfortunately may pay the price as these private internet sales are the most traceable. Some dealers routinely fill their inventories by purchasing from "wholesalers" who import looted material directly from source countries and this sort of "back door dealing" is simply not as traceable as everyday internet transactions. Good for the dealer who buys from these people, but bad for the collector who buys the wholesaler's leftovers on eBay. Collectors are, therefore, more likely to suffer than your average dealership or auction house that quietly buys from suspect wholesalers and suppliers. When it comes to both law and ethics, "good faith" is simply not a substitute for due diligence. It is up to collectors to demand greater transparency and due diligence from dealers and/or to be more vigilant about the coins they choose to buy for themselves and where they are coming from. These events provide an opportunity for dialogue about how collectors can avoid buying recently looted and stolen goods and how they can insist on change in the current state of the "no questions asked" market. Consumers have the power to change the way the market operates.

10 comments:

said...

I think you unfairly categorized the discussion among online ancient coin groups as inflammatory. Also these groups aren’t from the United States, the internet is all over the world ;)

The debate has actually pointed towards potential ways to compromise between the archaeological community and ancient coin collectors.

A big favorite among collectors is the British system, where archaeological finds are reported and the state has a chance to look over and purchase the objects/coins before releasing them to the market.

One problem with the UNESCO agreement is that all coins must be documented to be legally owned, but there is no body that gives out this documentation. This is an obvious problem.

said...

Dear Nathan;

Under the bylaws of the ACCG, the only persons authorized to speak on behalf of the guild when the board is not in session are the President and the Executive Director. Please post the quote(s) where either Bill Puetz or myself used "alarmist tactics" in addressing this issue. When you fail to find any such quotes would you kindly amend your criticism of the ACCG in this post?

Thank you,

Wayne

said...

Hello Bill,

I must disagree. When you have dealers and collectors struggling to compare police operations involving the recovery of stolen goods to Nazi Germany (I have counted at least 5 such allusions thus far) and when so much speculation about the actual events and so many unfounded personal attacks have been launched against specific police officers involved, I would say that the discussions in the North American coin forums can correctly be classified as both inflammatory and alarmist.
I also understand the internet by definition reaches a global audience, but the online forums I am referring to are based in North America, the moderators are American and/or Canadian, the membership is largely North American, and thus far most voices in the discussions I have referenced are those of American dealers and collectors who are not getting a complete view of the circumstances or issues involved. That is why I made the above post: to make some clarifications in view of the current character of the discussion.
I have not seen any serious discussion about compromise develop thus far, unless you are referring to the simple assertions that a global PAS-like system ought to be implemented to avoid these problems. The type of sourcing from which must of this material is coming would not be protected by any PAS-like scheme; the PAS in Britain is not a license to loot. Currently in Bulgaria (many confiscated coins have come from the Balkans), ancient coins are smuggled out by the ton – these are not casual metal detector or hobbyist finds, these are the fruits of unlawful systematic looting. I should also stress here that the current issue regarding the actions in Germany do not pertain to “compromise between archaeologists and collectors,” but rather deal with collectors/dealers and legal matters. Archaeologists are not responsible for police action.

All best,
Nathan

said...

Just a matter of order here, because I for one am confused by all this:
Please post the quote(s) where either Bill Puetz or myself used "alarmist tactics" in addressing this issue. When you fail to find any such quotes would you kindly amend your criticism of the ACCG in this post? according to the ACCG website (which I would hate to think does not represent the current situation accurately since it is part of the secretary's job to keep it up to date), the President of the ACCG is Peter Tompa. http://www.accg.us/about/officers and it is Tompa who has been repeating these remarks of Dave Welsh (who clearly is speaking about Germany as the the ACCG International Affairs Chair. That is what the bylaws say is his duty as such). Can you say where the bylaws say he cannot speak himself and only through you or Puetz? This "police run amok" does really seem to be an ACCG story.

Thanks.
Paul Barford

said...

Hello Wayne,

I am sure most of the people in the world and most observers in these discussions are not experts on ACCG bylaws, probably not even many of your general members, and as such I am sure can appreciate how the statements of prominent ACCG members and officers – whether or not they are made by your or Mr. Puetz – can easily be viewed as reflecting the ACCG’s position or goals.

It was not my purpose to “name names,” but if you insist I was thinking particularly of some of the uninformed and alarmist statements made by Mr. Welsh (Chair of the ACCG’s International Affairs Committee), who is listed among the ACCG’s top officers on its webpage and who recently won an award from the group for his valued contributions and voice supporting “collectors rights.” I also note that on his blog, Mr. McGarigle, another dealer who has been honored by the ACCG for advancing “collectors rights” in Wisconsin, seems to be comparing the current situation in Germany with the fascism of the 1930’s and 1940’s and Nazism. That seems a bit over the top and alarmist to me. On the discussion lists, many collectors and ACCG members themselves have been very panicked by the events in Germany and have made some very outlandish and alarmist statements. In my view, it seems telling that rather than rationalizing the dialogue, certain individuals associated with the ACCG seem to be stoking it. In the midst of the current state of the alarmist discussions, you only made a plug for ACCG membership on the Unidroit list. If the ACCG has in its leadership people who are engaging in alarmism and has honored valued members who are now doing likewise, I would hope the organization would kindly rein them in if they are in fact misrepresenting the position, goals, or values of the ACCG

All best,
Nathan

said...

Hi Nathan,

Man, I feel like you and I are both very interested in ancient history, but I feel threatened. I sense you feel threatened too. We are both young professionals (I am an art professor in NYC), and maybe we can fight about this for years and years! Or maybe our communities can find a way to compromise.

You are a very interesting writer, and I think your use of facts/numbers makes your arguments compelling. However: I enjoy collecting ancient coins, and I can not place a number on it, and as per your article: A Survey of the Material and Intellectual Consequences of Trading in Undocumented Ancient Coins, my connection with ancient coins is at heart Romantic: I like where ancient coins allow my imagination to run to, I like the connection I feel with history, I like not feeling alienated from the grand narrative of history. I love the imagery and learning from the text (especially Latin). Ancient coins make me feel more at home in the world. My passionate interest makes me unsympathetic to your arguments about looted sites, because I feel as though you would prefer for me to not be able to own ancient coins - that's a truthful summary of my position.

I don’t have a problem with archaeologists gaining the context of the location of a coin and then studying it. However I think coins that are not necessary, appear in a large number at a dig, or are superfluous for whatever reason should be released to the open market.

Also, as you have noted, most coins are not found by archaeologists they are found by amateurs.

If you were able to convince me that you would help support a market for ancient coins through a program where archaeologists released coins that weren’t critical to their study/research, and would pay a market price to finders of coins – I think you would instantly have the support of most collectors.

Police confiscating coin collections and potentially raiding homes is a very threatening prospect for the sedentary, thoughtful and academic people who collect coins. The alarm you are sensing is real, people feel inflamed! But I think the silly use of words like Nazi hurts their arguments, and is painfully one sided and embarrassingly obtuse. Both sides need to come together to meet in the middle on this one.

Also, your article is the only place where I have seen such a concise written analysis of the points coin collectors use to defend their hobby. I made some crib notes :)

Honestly - if you want an American expression "Money Talks and Bull S. walks." That is why collectors will keep collecting, and you won't be able to stop us. Capitalism is against you here. Archaeologists should be looking out for a way to compromise that allows ancient coin collectors to still be able to build collections. Your suggestion that perhaps coin enthusiasts could be invited to digs is great, but unfortunately unlikely to work with the North American collectors, because it would be prohibitively expensive to fly to Europe and Middle East.

What collectors do want is to collect ethically and fairly with regard to the international community and culture at large. Collectors would love to be able to use archaeologists as a resource, and I think we would be one of your biggest customers, and probably the only civilians willing to read your academic work. What needs to happen is the creation of a system where archaeologists become involved at the source, but then allow the release of coins which are insignificant to their research to the market. The level of significance would have to be standardized according to something reasonable. UNESCO documents would have to created and put into use.

Archaeologists could probably make money if they issued coins out with their locations, depths into the soil, relation to other objects in the dig, and some text about the significance of the site itself. This may win more collectors over to your side than cheering on police who are treading a thin line between law and vigilantism.

As you pointed out in your article, people have been collecting coins for thousands of years. It would be fruitless and a waste of your and the archaeological communities effort to even try to get us to stop, only a compromise that allows us to continue collecting ethically makes any sense.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my earlier comment,

Bill

said...

Dear Nathan;

I was not criticizing your lack of knowledge about ACCG, I was simply pointing out a fact. Please do not mistake the comments of private citizens for those of the ACCG. I admit that it is easy to connect the dots, especially perhaps in my case, but there is clearly a distinction between private and institutional thoughts. I could throw up a host of comments by archaeologists, including many by your esteemed colleague Mr. Barford, that the AIA would very quickly distance itself from (but I'll spare you and all of us that misery). We should respond to the source of a comment, not to all others who might touch on that source through one of the myriad associations or affiliations that humans engage in.

Having said that, I think most people who have followed the long and far-ranging discussions on Unidroit-L would agree that the list is a contribution to society. It was mainly for his work in founding and maintaining that discussion list that Dave Welsh was recognized by the ACCG. Jim McGarigle's contributions to the preservation of private collecting are reflected in his proposal and successful passage of the Wisconsin Resolution which private collectors view as a landmark initiative. It was for that effort that he was recognized by the ACCG. Whether you or any other critic of the ACCG value those contributions of Dave Welsh and Jim McGarigle is really irrelevant since it is not a public award. Both Dave and Jim have private blogs in which they express their personal opinions - as do I. They also express their personal opinions on various discussion lists, as is their right. I know for a fact that you and Mr. Barford do the same. Let us not confuse personal expressions with institutional policy in either case. In every case where I speak publicly for the ACCG, I do and will sign with my title and the ACCG logo or web address.

Your suggestion that I (or the ACCG) should "rein in" the comments of its leaders or members is no different than me suggesting that the AIA rein in you and Mr. Barford. It is, in truth, a rhetorical statement because neither ACCG nor AIA has the right or authority in the United States of America to suppress the free speech of its members. You know that, and I wonder why you even make such a preposterous statement.

To address Mr. Barford's question about ACCG officers, Bill Puetz assumed the office of President of the Board of Directors at the ACCG annual meeting in 2008. Kerry Wetterstrom was elected by the Board of Directors as President-Elect for the term 2008-2010. Mr. Wetterstrom will automatically assume the position of President of the ACCG Board of Directors at the ANA convention in 2010. The Secretary and Treasurer positions remain unchanged. It was kind of Mr. Barford to bring to my attention the fact that this had not been updated on the ACCG web site.

I find your final statement in response to Bill Donovan quite interesting: "Archaeologists are not responsible for police action." I beg to differ. Archaeologists are frequently called upon in the United States as well as in Germany and many other countries as "Experts" in cultural property issues. Their advice is frequently the basis for legal and administrative actions ranging from confiscation to prosecution. I would contend that archaeologists are very much responsible for the expert opinions that they provide and the consequences of such opinions when the data provided is clearly intended to deceive the uninformed. If they are not, then their opinions are valueless.

Regards,

Wayne

said...

Hello Bill,

Thanks for the comment and the positive outlook. There is a lot here so I'll just copy and paste and go through some points. Italics are your statements.

Man, I feel like you and I are both very interested in ancient history, but I feel threatened. I sense you feel threatened too. We are both young professionals (I am an art professor in NYC), and maybe we can fight about this for years and years! Or maybe our communities can find a way to compromise.

You are a very interesting writer, and I think your use of facts/numbers makes your arguments compelling. However: I enjoy collecting ancient coins, and I can not place a number on it, and as per your article: A Survey of the Material and Intellectual Consequences of Trading in Undocumented Ancient Coins, my connection with ancient coins is at heart Romantic: I like where ancient coins allow my imagination to run to, I like the connection I feel with history, I like not feeling alienated from the grand narrative of history. I love the imagery and learning from the text (especially Latin). Ancient coins make me feel more at home in the world. My passionate interest makes me unsympathetic to your arguments about looted sites, because I feel as though you would prefer for me to not be able to own ancient coins - that's a truthful summary of my position.


I agree that like most collectors, you collect out of genuine interest and passion for the past. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. All I have been saying is that collectors ought to be more concerned or vigilant about where what they get is coming from. Virtually every fresh coin that enters the market represents at least one hole dug into a historical site, ruining the stratigraphy, contexts, and destroying the associated finds. While some agenda-driven individuals have said that context is not important when it comes to coins, I think you and I can agree that is absurd. The more we know about where an object was found and what it was found with and in what context it was deposited tells us so much more about the history of it. A forthcoming volume (out in March or April) on Coins in Context discusses the value of context and how to study coins in context. My own contribution to this volume, "Coins, Contexts, and an Iconographic Approach for the 21st Century," discusses how even the study of images on coins can be enhanced by study of their geographical distribution or the contexts in which they were deposited. There are numerous applications of context to coins which were briefly discussed in my article, which you cited. And as I stated in that article, all of those romantic notions that collectors have about the coins they hold can really (i.e. who held it and what it was used for) can really only ever be hoped to be answered by contextual study.

I am not anti-collector, I have simply argued over and over that collectors should be more concerned about where the material they buy is coming from and should hold dealers, who are "buying directly from the source" or filling their inventories with stuff from wholesalers, more accountable. If I were a billionaire and loved to collect large diamonds because I had a passion for them or for geology itself, I would be wrong to buy them indiscriminately and not conduct due diligence in making sure they weren't "blood diamonds" (conflict diamonds). Since looted coins and other antiquities make it so easily into the market, dealers and collectors need to be more concerned about where the material is coming from and what is being destroyed in the process.

I don’t have a problem with archaeologists gaining the context of the location of a coin and then studying it. However I think coins that are not necessary, appear in a large number at a dig, or are superfluous for whatever reason should be released to the open market.

This seems to be reflecting a bit of the "coins aren't important in context" argument, which I discussed above. I should also stress that while produced in large numbers in the ancient world, that does not make them less important to archaeological study. In fact it makes them more important. As some of the most abundant finds at archaeological sites, they are chronological indicators as well as examples of deliberate and accidental human activity. One archaeologist has rightly called coin finds the DNA of a site. Study of coins from ritual contexts and intentional depositions is also very interested as are altered coins. If you are talking about selling coins after an excavation, there are some other issues involved here. First of all, the partage system of the 19th and early 20th centuries no longer exists and archaeologists simply do not have the legal right to sell off the finds they excavate in X, Y, or Z country. This is up to the state. Secondly, it is simply not up to archaeologists to provide for commercial activity. This is akin to asking zoologists to provide tigers and lions to poachers or traffickers in exotic animals. And perhaps the most important point is that looters and metal detectorists move a lot faster with shovels and bulldozers than archaeologists do with trowels and brushes. Quite simply, my estimates of the amount of looted coins entering the U.S. each year, which I think are rather conservative, are about a million per yer. That's a lot of destruction. On the other hand, archaeology simply doesn't move that fast and a substantially smaller number is recovered by archaeologists annually. Even if there were a compromise to be found here and we could convince states to sell finds, I doubt it would thwart looting because I bet many dealers would still want to buy material wholesale (for cheaper prices) and some unethical collectors would be happy to get them at the cheaper price. Prices would naturally rise and I am sure the dealer lobby would likely oppose such a scheme. This does not, however, mean that collectors should not act on their own and develop their own voice in the U.S. There may be a way to find some sort of "compromise" or way forward here, but the profit-oriented and commercial interest is needs to be circumvented.

Police confiscating coin collections and potentially raiding homes is a very threatening prospect for the sedentary, thoughtful and academic people who collect coins. The alarm you are sensing is real, people feel inflamed! But I think the silly use of words like Nazi hurts their arguments, and is painfully one sided and embarrassingly obtuse. Both sides need to come together to meet in the middle on this one.

As I pointed out in this post, the German police activity is not systematic and oppressive like some have painted it. They are not vigilantes; they are law enforcement officers charged with enforcing the law and as such are retrieving stolen property. I believe this highlights the need for greater concern for where what we buy comes from. Again, if I bought a car stereo for a great price for some shady-looking character at a flea market and didn't have ask any questions, I'd really have nobody to blame but myself when the police came to take it away. Collectors protect themselves when they insist on more transparency in the way the market operates.

Honestly - if you want an American expression "Money Talks and Bull S. walks." That is why collectors will keep collecting, and you won't be able to stop us. Capitalism is against you here. Archaeologists should be looking out for a way to compromise that allows ancient coin collectors to still be able to build collections. Your suggestion that perhaps coin enthusiasts could be invited to digs is great, but unfortunately unlikely to work with the North American collectors, because it would be prohibitively expensive to fly to Europe and Middle East.

Honestly, I find this to be an almost exploitive/imperialist attitude (and please don't take personal offense to that). "We have the money and in America we are consumers, so we'll buy what we want!" We simply can't think that way when it comes to certain objects, whether it be antiquities and ancient coins, diamonds, ivory, cheap stereos from the shady guy at a flea market, or whatever. All of our actions have consequences whether we see them or not or whether we think about them or not. Remember the Tuna/Dolphin controversy? The rise in looting that has occurred since the 1990's has more to do with the advancement of metal detector technologies and the internet, where sales of antiquities and ancient coins have opened the door to more dealers demanding more inventory to a large group of collectors. Archaeologists study and preserve the past it is not their duty to provide for a market which is already highly destructive as it is. Certainly a dialogue or discussion is needed and PAS-like schemes may be of value in other parts of the world, but right now collectors need to hold the market accountable for its activities.

What collectors do want is to collect ethically and fairly with regard to the international community and culture at large. Collectors would love to be able to use archaeologists as a resource, and I think we would be one of your biggest customers, and probably the only civilians willing to read your academic work. What needs to happen is the creation of a system where archaeologists become involved at the source, but then allow the release of coins which are insignificant to their research to the market. The level of significance would have to be standardized according to something reasonable. UNESCO documents would have to created and put into use.

Archaeologists could probably make money if they issued coins out with their locations, depths into the soil, relation to other objects in the dig, and some text about the significance of the site itself. This may win more collectors over to your side than cheering on police who are treading a thin line between law and vigilantism.

As you pointed out in your article, people have been collecting coins for thousands of years. It would be fruitless and a waste of your and the archaeological communities effort to even try to get us to stop, only a compromise that allows us to continue collecting ethically makes any sense.


I think we are starting to go over some of the same stuff again. If collectors want an ethical market in which to trade, then they simply need to start holding other collectors and suppliers (dealers) accountable. There are some pragmatic problems involved in selling archaeologically-recovered finds (see above) not to mention the fact that so few would be available if the market were closed, again the demand currently greatly outstrips what archaeologists would even be able to excavate annually. Compromise is needed and on that you are correct and I agree, but at present it seems that the market is taking absolutely no proactive steps to address its role in looting caused by voracious and indiscriminate market demand. Until collectors can do this, I am afraid that those with much more power and influence will not be willing to engage in any dialogue about compromise. They view, rightly in my opinion, the current situation as highly detrimental and the consistent obfuscation from the dealer lobby, which paints itself as a collector group, only reinforces that view and the perception that collectors do not want to address the role of the market in any proactive manner or honest manner.

You are right dialogue is needed, and compromise is ultimately needed. But first of all, I think much change needs to be generated within the collector community and open-minded and responsible collectors have the potential to do this.

All best,
Nathan

said...

Hello Wayne,

You first raised the point of alarmism and whether or not this was associated with the ACCG. I pointed out at that some of those people that are either prominent ACCG members or are listed as prominent leaders on its officers page have engaged in some of the more alarmist talk.

While this may not be a tactic "officially" endorsed by the ACCG, I do not think one can easily say that it is merely there private thoughts and has no bearing or reflection on the organization. You try to use the example of Mr. Barford and the AIA, but Mr. Barford is not even an AIA member, let alone an officer of that organization. However, Mr. Welsh is a member and leading officer of the ACCG.

Organizations are led by people with thoughts, goals, and agendas and when it comes to stuff like this you can't simply excuse irresponsible rants and raves so long as a leading officer doesn't sign "ACCG" after his name. If, for example, one of the AIA VPs claimed that collectors/dealers ate children (and this have never happened), would you not think that this reflected on the organization, even if he did not sign his title to the statement?

The same applies to the ACCG and all organizations. Leaders simply should be more careful about what they say and how they behave, because their positions and tactics set the tone for how the organization operates.

Without addressing the merits of your accusation about what comments Mr. Barford or I may have made, I will simply reiterate that a) Mr. Barford is not even a member of the AIA and b) I am not an AIA officer. On the other hand, ACCG leaders and some more prominent members are spouting off alarmist nonsense. I think anyone would rightly view this as not representing the view or positions of the ACCG and at the very least reflecting on the organization in someway, especially since the organization apparently has no qualms about this.

To your final point. Archaeologists are not issuing warrants for seizures. Archaeologists and numismatists may be consulted after a seizure has been made, but investigations and decisions are made by criminal investigators. It is misguided to imply that simply because an archaeologist provides information on the origin of objects that they are "deceiving" police. Various experts are always called in by the police for any type of investigation. Would you prefer police working with stolen archaeological goods call in a dealer or an electrician? Could they give a better expert opinion on the origin of objects?

All best,
Nathan

said...

Comments have strayed quite a way from the topic at hand which was a clarification on police activity with regards to antiquities and ancient coins in Germany. Unless anyone wishes to make any further comment or queries about that particular issue, comments are now closed on this thread.