SAFE Founder Receives AIA's 2016 Outstanding Public Service Award

Congratulations to Cindy Ho, founder of Saving Antiquities for Everyone (SAFE), who will receive the 2016 Outstanding Public Service Award from the Archaeological Institute of America.

I became aware of SAFE back in 2007 when I began research on the illicit antiquities trade in response to some of the bizarre arguments I saw repeatedly deployed to defend it.  Cindy was very encouraging of those early explorations .  Cindy has done a great deal to raise popular awareness of the looting problem and is thus well-deserving of this distinction.  As she might say, looting is not just a loss to archaeology and historical study, but it constitutes a loss to us all.  The AIA's citation for Cindy's award states "For her prominent and dedicated work to raise public awareness of the need to safeguard archaeological heritage."

Archaeological and Numismatic Book Seized from Islamic-State Militants Identified

In June it was reported that Kurdish fighters had seized some equipment from Turkish Islamic State Fighters in Syria and that among those items were archaeological and numismatic books.  One book showed images of Phoenician coins.  The photos of that book were blurry and it was difficult to identify the resource.

The mystery is now solved as Ute Wartenberg Kagan, Executive Director of the American Numismatic Society, recognized the open page in the photograph as from an essay in a book she had used before: M. Sartre, "La Syrie sous la domination achéménide," in W. Orthmann and J.-M. Dentzer, Archéologie et Histoire de la Syrie II (Saarbrücken, 1989).  Compare photographs of the book seized from the militants and the same example in the ANS library (see more images here).

'New documents unravel ISIS-Turkish state cooperation’
(c) Mehmet Nuri Ekinci, Ajansa Nûçeyan a Firatê (ANF), 3rd June 2015

The book in the ANS Library.

In discussing the identification of the book, she concludes:

"For people interested in a general overview of coins from Syria, this book is indeed helpful. Articles by Christian Augé on “La monnaie en Syrie à l’époque hellénistique et romaine” (pp. 149–190, with four plates illustrating 71 coins) and by Cécile Morrisson (who won the ANS Huntington Medal in 1995) on “La monnaie en Syrie byzantine” provide excellent and well-illustrated introductions to the coins of this region. Her article gives a considerable amount of detailed scholarly information on site finds of coins in Syria."

"So this is an extremely unlikely find—a scholarly, not exactly inexpensive, and heavy—book on the archaeology of Syria in the hands of ISIS fighters. If anyone doubts the multifaceted connections between looted antiquities and war in Syria, this discovery has to make one wonder." (emphasis added)

ACCG Case Rejected by the Supreme Court

As an update to the previous post concerning ACCG's ongoing litigation against U.S. law enforcement agencies, it is worth noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has, as anticipated, rejected ACCG's case.  Rick St. Hilaire provides a succinct description of the saga ("U.S. Supreme Court Rejects ACCG's Coin Case").  Attorney and lobbyist Peter Tompa hints at further litigious activities in an interview with Chasing Aphrodite. 

Ancient Coin Dealer Pleads Guilty to Attempted Possession of Stolen Coins

In January of this year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents seized three rare Greek coins from Arnold Peter Weiss, a partner of the ancient coin auction house Nomos AG, at the New York International Numismatic Convention.  Agents were acting upon information that he told an undercover informant.  In spite of the provenance information that had been supplied in a catalogue for an upcoming auction, he stated: "There's no paperwork. I know this is a fresh coin. This was dug up a few years ago."  The coins were alleged to have been looted in Italy.  The three coins that were seized were worth an estimated $3 million on the market.

Today it was announced that Weiss has plead guilty to trying to sell coins that he thought were stolen, although they turned out to be high quality forgeries.  The fact that they are forgeries was determined through the aid of a scanning electron microscope.  The three coins remain property of the District Attorney's Office and will be destroyed.

As part of his plea agreement, Weiss must complete 70 hours of community service, pay a $3,000 fine, and "must author an article warning of the risks of dealing in coins of unknown or looted provenance for publication in a coin collection publication."

Below is a short bibliography on the trade in looted and unprovenanced ancient coins:

Beckmann, M. 1998. "Numismatics and the Antiquities Trade," The Celator 12 (5) 25-28.

Butcher, K. and D. Gill. 1990. "Mischievous Pastime or Historical Science?" Antiquity 64 (245): 946-950.

Center for the Study of Democracy. 2007. Organized Crime in Bulgaria: Markets and Trends. Sofia: Center for the Study of Democracy. Online available: http://pdc.ceu.hu/archive/00003706/01/organized_crime_markets_and_trends.pdf.

Dietrich, R. 2002. "Cultural Property on the Move - Legally, Illegally," International Journal of Cultural Property 11: 294-303.

Elkins, N.T. 2008. "A Survey of the Material and Intellectual Consequence of Trading in Undocumented Ancient Coins," Frankfurter elektronische Rundschau zur Altertumskunde 7: 1-13. Online available: http://www.fera-journal.eu.

Elkins, N.T. 2009. "Treasure Hunting 101 in America's Classrooms," Journal of Field Archaeology34.4: 481-489  with editorial introduction by M. M. Kersel and C. Luke.

Elkins, N.T. 2012. "The Trade in Fresh Supplies of Ancient Coins: Scale, Organization, and Politics," in P.K. Lazrus and A.W. Barker (eds.), All the King's Horses: Essays on the Impact of Looting and the Illicit Antiquities Trade on Our Knowledge of the Past. Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology Press. 91-107.

von Kaenel, H.-M. 1994. Die antike Numismatik und ihr Material. Schweizer Münzblätter 44 (173): 1-12.

von Kaenel, H.-M. 2009. "Coins in Context - A Personal Approach," in H.-M von Kaenel and F. Kemmers (eds.), Coins in Context 1: New Approaches for the Interpretation of Coin Finds. Mainz: von Zabern. Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 23. 9-24 (pp. 22-23 discuss the coin trade specifically).

Walker, A.S. 1977. "The Coin Market Versus the Numismatist, Archaeologist, and Art Historian," Journal of Field Archaeology 4: 253-258.

Witschonke, R. 2009. "Guest Editorial," The Celator 23 (1): 4,22.

Consultation with many of the works will reveal further bibliography.

And, of course, there has also been the series of editorials discussing ethics and practice in the past several issues of the American Numismatic Magazine.

UPDATE:(7/5/2012) Contrary to  initial reports in the media, Safecorner is reporting that there is no court order for the destruction of the forgeries.

Gold Vessel from Ur Returns to Iraq

The colored saga of the gold vessel, allegedly looted from Ur, that was spotted for sale at Münzhandlung Hirsch Nachfolger and seized has been discussed here before: "The Curious Case of a Gold Vessel from Ur," "Future of Gold Vessel from Ur (or Troy?) Remains Uncertain," Video about the Gold Vessel and Antiquities Trading in Germany."

After being taken by German authorities, it was handed over to Michael Müller-Karpe in Mainz for analysis. Müller-Karpe is a a leading expert on Mesopotamian metalwork. He concluded it was of Iraqi origin and unlikely to have come from Troy, the provenance claimed by the auction house. He believed it more likely would have been deposited in a royal grave at Ur.

After a delay (discussed in the previous posts), Müller-Karpe and his institution returned the vessel to German authorities though the Iraqis feared the German government would allow the sale of this allegedly stolen object.

It has recently been reported that the Iraqis have successfully blocked the sale of the gold vessel and that it has returned to Iraq (S. Adel, "Iraq blocks sale of Mesopotamian artifacts in German auction," Azzaman News, 14 October 2009) . Since the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Iraqis have successfully blocked the sale of 28 suspect items in Germany.

For two other German interviews with the Iraqi ambassador about Iraq's efforts to reclaim materials appearing in the German marketplace see:

"Raubgut. 'Stärkerer Einsatz der Bundesregierung'," Der Spiegel 42 (2009), p. 117.

M. Döring, "Ein Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit," Berliner Zeitung (7 October 2009)

(Photo from Deutsche Welle)

Update: Unrecorded and Freshly Dug British Coins Sold in the USA

My previous post, "Having Cake and Eating it too: Unrecorded and Freshly Dug Coins Sold in the USA," prompted further remarks by archaeologist bloggers David Gill and Paul Barford and also caught the attention of Roger Bland, Head of Britain's Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS).

PAS officials and employees contacted the two sellers named in the previous post to seek details on the unrecorded ancient coins from Britain being sold in the United States. It also contacted the ACCG, the dealer lobby group which consistently points to the PAS as the only reasonable solution to looting.

In response to the inquiry by the PAS, seller Tony Jaworksi of Common Bronze indicated that the British coins he is selling were procured from a large number of detectorists (some actual collectors and some not) and assumes that they were accumulated over a year or more. He does not have any knowledge as to whether the coins were recorded under the PAS or not. He did not obtain an export license and stated he was unaware of the need for one.

Seller Joe Blazick still has not yet responded to the PAS' inquiry.

It appears that the PAS' contact with the ACCG may have been the impetus for Peter Tompa's post on the subject, with links to export requirements in the UK - something which one hopes future sellers will take more note of in the future when selling recent coin finds from Britain. Tompa agrees that information should be preserved, but disagrees with the "tone" of my original post. By "tone" Mr. Tompa must be referring to the questions I posed which the dealer lobby does not wish to answer or engage with:

"However enlightened they may be, schemes like the PAS are not effective deterrents against systematic looting for commercial gain unless collectors and dealers are willing to hold their suppliers legally and ethically accountable. So who are the collectors and dealers buying these coins from British metal detectorists who do not record their finds? If the PAS is to be touted as a way forward in other countries, why are not the antiquities dealers who favor the scheme actively denouncing this behavior within their own ranks? Why are list owners allowing commercial advertisements of material that is not being recorded when there are schemes such as the PAS in place? The indiscriminate market is the driving force behind looting; ethical dealers should conduct greater due diligence and hold suppliers to high standards. Conscientious consumers and collectors are the only real solution to the looting problem."

One of the ACCG's newest active devotees, John Hooker, - collector and author of the recent series of uninformed inculcations appearing on the ACCG website under the somewhat presumptuous title of "The Hooker Papers" (some discussion here) - was more bold, having simply dismissed concern over the British coins as "amusing" while inventing a number of scenarios whereby the coins in question were too insignificant to record. Of course, since the coins were taken out of Britain without any record, it is impossible to know how useful the coins may have been for the historical and archaeological record. Let us hope that Mr. Hooker's resentment for the need to record finds in Britain does not reflect wider views in the ancient coin collecting community in North America. After all, the scheme is meant to preserve information that would otherwise be destroyed by commercial or self-interest. If, as the ACCG has constantly argued, the PAS is the perfect solution to the looting problem, then why make excuses for profiteering that does not take the time to record finds when the PAS is available?

The ancient coin collecting and dealing communities are very small indeed and various classes of dealers and suppliers often have close personal and business relationships. Sellers like those discussed, and their suppliers, will no doubt have conducted business with dealers and/or collectors associated with the ACCG. The advertisements for uncleaned coins and unrecorded British finds were made on lists owned and/or moderated by ACCG members. Should not the ACCG be expending more energy on establishing proactive market guidelines and due diligence practices that address the negative effects of an indiscriminate market than it does on vilifying archaeologists and concocting disinformation to argue to the public that ancient coins are not archaeologically significant objects even when excavated in situ?

While touting the potential of the PAS as a model for other "source countries," the ACCG leadership resists promoting or advocating due diligence by dealers and collectors. Schemes like the PAS could preserve much information that is otherwise lost by casual hobbyists, but information continues to be lost so long as consumers (i.e. dealers and collectors) are not holding their suppliers (especially bulk suppliers) accountable. Indeed, some PAS officials have expressed irritation and dismay at the way the dealer lobby has used the PAS in its agenda.

Is it time to practice what is being preached?

Ancient Coin Traffickers Sentenced in Germany

A few months ago, there was mass concern among German ancient coin collectors about media reports on the seizure of ancient coins and antiquities from private collections. Seizures were being made because certain objects had been illicitly sold and acquired (for a balanced article, see “Vorsicht, Erdfrisch!,” Focus, 20 April 2009 [discussed by P. Barford here]. There continues to be some concern among German collectors, but steps are being taken to promote an equitable dialogue between collectors, archaeologists, and law enforcement in the BRD about the need for some changes in market structure and buying/selling practices.

In the United States, the dealer lobby exploited and misrepresented the news of seizures in Germany in order to promote their own agenda and urge American collectors to contribute to their lobbying efforts (see discussion in "Police Action with Antiquities and Ancient Coins in Germany: Some Clarifications and a Call for Reason").

In various online discussion lists and blogs, leaders and members of the dealer lobby painted an alarmist view of rampaging German police going door-to-door, singling out ancient coin collectors and taking their coins away. One of the American ancient coin dealer lobby leaders, Dave Welsh, who has been decorated by the group (discussion here and here), went so far as to advertise the insensitive comparison that one irate German dealer made between the actions of German police officers in these cases to that of the Nazi Gestapo. Welsh also made personal attacks on a German law enforcement officer. This ACCG leader is well-known for dismissively portraying archaeologists and preservation advocates as Nazis rather than addressing the issues (e.g. discussion here). Another dealer and honoree of the dealer lobby accepted skewed versions of the events presented to American collectors and added:

"I'm not shocked or surprised to see this happening with China which is a communist (and therefore statist and totalitarian regime) government do this, for their government it is par for the course. Nor am I shocked that it is happening in Germany because they have flirted with fascism and gone back and forth with mild forms of socialism over the years. But it is still disturbing nonetheless because of the precedent it sets for other governments to follow, they can point to Germany now and say, 'they do it, why not us?'" [emphasis added].

And we all know what he means here as "German fascism" is shorthand for "Nazism."

Following such alarmist discussions, which one can only view as sad, but laughable, symptoms of wider right-wing American political tactics today, the dealer lobby’s Executive Director sought to exploit collector fear by plugging ACCG membership and asking for financial support.

In spite of the speculation and fear-mongering that has surrounded the events in Germany, one enlightening case has been prosecuted in Germany successfully. On 14 May 2009, it was reported that two people were prosecuted and sentenced in Germany for trafficking in stolen (illicitly imported/exported) ancient coins and details on the events that led to the conviction were provided ("Eine gute Lösung für politisch brisanten Fall," Oberhessische Zeitung).

In March 2008, the home of a 68 year-old woman and her 45 year-old son was raided by police with a search warrant for stolen coins and antiquities. Coins were seized and determined to have come from the Black Sea region, circulating in the Bosporan Kingdom in the area of the modern Ukraine. The market value of the coins was about € 40,000 (c. $56,000). Other coins had previously been sold by the two to dealerships and auction houses in Munich (labeled "Bavarian dealers" in the published report) and known sales were in the neighborhood of € 70,000 (c. $94,000). Let us keep in mind that large auction houses of the sort in Munich are what are typically viewed by the ancient coin collecting and dealing communities as "reputable sources." They were working with suppliers who were importing illegally from source countries and selling stolen property.

Police investigation of the two individuals began when the 45 year-old Russian man was stopped by police in December 2006 while driving erratically on the Autobahn. At that time police found several parcels of ancient coins in plastic bags, wrapped in black tape. The composition of the coins being transported at that time were similar to those confiscated in March 2008.

According to the article, study of the coin types indicates they circulated in the area of the modern Ukraine, while other circumstances appear to indicate that they compose part of a small museum collection that was likely hidden during the Second World War. In any case, the coins were illegally spirited out of the Ukraine to supply the inventories of western dealers and collectors.

Instead of obfuscatory and ignorant fear-mongering, is it not time that collectors and dealers ask questions of their suppliers and the circumstances surrounding the recent history of those objects? Can groups like the American ancient coin dealer lobby (ACCG) continue denouncing archaeologists and law enforcement while arguing against the value of context only to promote self- and commercial interests? Is a wholesale lack of concern for the physical destruction of history and the disdain for scientific inquiry and international law really a viable position? Will the ACCG laud the successful efforts of German law enforcement for stopping these criminals? Or will this case, like others before it, be misrepresented to further the ACCG’s agenda in working to maintain an indiscriminate and unconcerned market that thrives on loot, back-door dealing, and secrecy?

Having Cake and Eating it too: Unrecorded and Freshly Dug British Coins Sold in the USA

Over the past several days I have taken note of some bulk lots of ancient coins offered for sale. Bulk lots of fresh uncleaned coins from the Balkan or "Holy Land" regions are commonly sold on internet venues like eBay and VCoins. Often times these bulk lots contain hundreds or even thousands of coins and represent the "leftovers" of the material that suppliers could not get mid-range and upper-range ancient coin dealers to buy from them (I have discussed the ancient coin trade structure before: e.g. here and here).

Clearly, much of this material has been looted and illegally exported (smuggled) into the United States and other consumer nations. Leaders of the ancient coin dealer lobby and some of its members flatly dismiss the legal and ethical concerns about the wholesale destruction of information that these bulk lots represent, instead blaming the "repressive laws of source countries" which they assert are the real cause for looting – not an indiscriminate market demand. Part of the dealer lobby’s rhetoric includes pointing to "enlightened schemes" such as the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) in Great Britain as a solution.

I agree that schemes like the PAS could help preserve information in many countries if properly used and adhered to, but I feel that the dealer lobby and some of its hangers-on misunderstand and/or misrepresent the issues in the way that they champion the PAS scheme. As I and other commentators have pointed out multiple times, schemes like the PAS are not effective solutions against systematic looting as long as dealers and collectors refuse to conduct any degree of due diligence. The PAS, designed for casual metal detector finds from the topsoil, is a voluntary scheme in which metal detectorists report finds to be recorded in a public database for scholarly research. It is not a license to loot systematically in order to provide masses of material for market consumption.

Within just four days, two separate dealers in the United States advertised freshly dug ancient coins from Britain for sale via the Uncleaned Ancient Coins (UAC) discussion list. The first was advertised by bulk ancient coin seller Joe Blazick on 11 May 2009, who wrote:

"I am selling this lot of English Dugups for $150 for the lot shiped.A few can be cleaned to make them a lot better.Lots of large coins as you can seen in the scan." [unedited text - photo of lot to the left]

Just a few days later, on 14 May 2009, Tony Jaworski of Common Bronze, a dealership which sells huge volumes of uncleaned ancient coins from a number of source countries, wrote in a message entitled "Speaking of British coins…":

"We happen to have a fresh lot from England…here was the little blurb that we shared with our customers when they first arrived.

These coins are straight from multiple detectorist’s in England. My guy normally washes the coins something I told him not to do and he did not this time. So you are receiving the coins as I did and as he did. This is about as close to finding them yourself as I have been able to find. These coins are from a group that was detecting in the Suffolk East England area. So we are clear, they have come from a group of guys who detect for anything (some are collectors some are not). Each guy handles the coins a little differently so some look like the detector may have washed them some are literally as they came out of the ground.

They are all mostly Roman … but there is a chance you will get something that is medieval English or something else. They were not sorted as normal by my supplier! (I Think a huge plus).

Link to this lot: http://www.commonbronze.com/catalog/product_%20info.php?

In addition we have a new type of uncleaned coin … the Spanish found Arabic coins. Tom and I really don’t know anything about this type … just that they are new to us.

Link to this lot: http://www.commonbronze.com/catalog/product_%20info.php?" [also unedited text - photo of lot to the right]

It appears in both cases that none of these coins from Britain were recorded under the Portable Antiquities Scheme and were, therefore, found and are being sold without any record of their find spot. Absolutely all contextual information has been lost. British laws also appear to be broken since export licenses are required for all products of "excavation."

However enlightened they may be, schemes like the PAS are not effective deterrents against systematic looting for commercial gain unless collectors and dealers are willing to hold their suppliers legally and ethically accountable. So who are the collectors and dealers buying these coins from British metal detectorists who do not record their finds? If the PAS is to be touted as a way forward in other countries, why are not the antiquities dealers who favor the scheme actively denouncing this behavior within their own ranks? Why are list owners allowing commercial advertisements of material that is not being recorded when there are schemes such as the PAS in place? The indiscriminate market is the driving force behind looting; ethical dealers should conduct greater due diligence and hold suppliers to high standards. Conscientious consumers and collectors are the only real solution to the looting problem.

UPDATE: The sellers in question are apparently upset that attention has been called to the fact the British coin finds sold by them were not recorded under the PAS and that images of their bulk lots were shown here, even though they publicly posted these photos on the internet themselves. For the meantime, I have removed the photos here, but they can be viewed directly here and here.

ACCG Challenges Import Restrictions by Staging the Import and Detention of Restricted Coins

The ACCG announced yesterday that it now plans to challenge U.S. State Department import restrictions on ancient coins from Cyprus and China outright. This announcement follows the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that it filed against the U.S. State Department in regards to Cyprus in the fall of 2007, and the more recent announcement that the ACCG was planning to press for more documents in that case.

In the release on its website, "Coin Collectors to Challenge State Department on Import Restrictions," the ACCG explains its action:

"As a British Airways jetliner touched down in Baltimore on April 15th , many U.S. citizens were busy writing last minute checks to the IRS....

Part of the cargo of BA 229/16 that day was a small packet of 23 very common, inexpensive, Cypriot and Chinese coins being imported by a collector advocacy group, the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG). The entry of these coins, forbidden by DOS under bilateral agreements with Cyprus and China, marked the launch of a test case to determine whether the State Department has banned their importation properly under a 1983 law dealing with the protection of cultural property.

As mandated, U.S. Customs detained these coins being imported from the United Kingdom. The ACCG now plans to use this detention as a vehicle to strike down the unprecedented regulations banning importation of whole classes of ancient coins, The collectors’ group claims that, among other abnormalities, the decision process for these agreements was orchestrated contrary to the spirit and intent of governing law. Moreover, they claim that the State Department misled Congress and the public about its decision not to follow the recommendations of its own Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) — a group of experts charged with advising the president on how best to balance the goals of protecting cultural heritage against the needs of a legitimate trade in cultural artifacts."

In spite of its name, the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild is a lobbying body that is most concerned about the interests of no-questions-asked dealers and importers. This is made evident by the fact that rather than attempting to address ethical and legal problems of indiscriminate collecting and dealing in a proactive and transparent way, its leaders have prefered to challenge protective legislation in favor of private and commercial interests. Rather than engaging in an equitable and informed dialogue with archaeologists and government officials/advisors, they have prefered to distort the issues and resort to the tactics of intimidation and abhorrent name-calling against those who oppose their views. The most prominently displayed financial backers on the ACCG's website are dealerships and auction houses. Every ACCG leader listed on its officers pages is a former or active ancient coin dealer, including its founder and executive director. Even some collectors themselves have recently commented on various online discussion fora that it is increasingly clear the ACCG is representing a purely commercial and dealer/importer-driven interest, being less concerned about the "rights" or interests of the private collector.

At least these latest antics by ACCG leaders clearly show what their true goals have been since it filed the FOIA suit in 2007: to strike down protective legislation that only affects dealers and importers who have no real concern for due diligence processes.

Surely, U.S. Customs officials acted properly in detaining coins of Cypriot and Chinese type that were imported without any previous documentation and one would think our border protection officers should be commended for effectively implementing bilateral agreements and controls, especially operating under the likely assumption that one of the ACCG officers provided U.S. Customs with an anonymous tip to ensure the coins would be detained as planned. The ACCG indicated these coins were chosen for their scheme because they have no previous history, which begs the question where they came from and how recently they appeared on the market. Were they looted? What information was lost in the process? The dealer lobby, of course, is not concerned about such things and sees it differently, planning to use this "test case" as a means of overturning import restrictions. It will be interesting to see if the ACCG's buffoonery in this "test case" will be taken seriously by the courts.

Interestingly, in their ignoble ploy to invent a cause to strike down bilateral treaties on import restrictions via legislative measures, the ACCG leadership may have violated their own Code of Ethics, which states "Collectors and Sellers...will comply with all cultural property laws of their own country."

At least now the ACCG's leadership is showing its true colors perhaps more than ever before and its true aims and interests are becoming increasingly apparent.

(Image: The King of Spades)

EBay: A Solution to the Illicit Antiquities Trade?

A story from the latest Archaeology Magazine (C. Stanish, "Forging Ahead. Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love eBay," Archaeology Magazine 62.3 (May/June 2009)) has been the subject of some blog discussions lately, e.g.:

Larry Rothfield, "eBay Reduces Looting -- Maybe," The Punching Bag (21 April
2009)

Derek Finchman, "'What Fools the Curator Also Fools the Collector'," Illicit Cultural
Property (21 April 2009)

Stanish argues that eBay has been flooded with fake antiquities, ultimately making looting less profitable as the prevalence of fakes drives prices down. Like Larry Rothfield, I think the overall point of the article is persuasive, but I do find parts of it too simplistic.

Undeniably, the rise of the internet and online sales platforms like eBay made looting a more profitable enterprise by allowing the potential for finders and middlemen to dispose of their finds directly, rather than searching for a dealer. Additionally, internet sales widened the customer base for antiquities, making looting a more lucrative venture. One good reference, available online, is C. Chippindale and D.W.J. Gill, "Online Auctions: A New Venue for the Antiquities Market," Culture Without Context 9 (Autumn 2001)).

While eBay may now be flooded with fakes, I am not convinced this alone diminishes the profitability of illicit antiquities and thus also the incentive to loot. As Rothfield points out, as long as the customer base remains wide (and I would add indiscriminate), there will be a demand for loot and, consequently, an impetus to produce fakes. Obviously, the fact that fakes appear over and over again on eBay means that customers are buying them alongside the genuine artifacts that are sold on eBay.

Ancient coins - the class of ancient objects examined on this blog - are commonly sold on eBay along with fake ancient coins. The volume of recently surfaced genuine ancient coins remains high, and eBay is a primary venue for the mass disposal of "low quality" coins that mid-range and upper-range dealers do not wish to purchase from suppliers. The prevalence of fake ancient coins has indeed led many collectors to abandon eBay, and much (if not most) of the individual ancient coin transactions have moved to other online venues such as VCoins, which presently hosts the inventories from about 140 ancient coin dealers. Here fakes are much less common than they are on eBay, but "fresh" material still shows up in some inventories as do the bulk lots from Balkan countries. It seems to me, at least in regard to the ancient coin trade, that fakes on eBay are not curbing the demand for new material to any significant degree. It is easy enough for dealers who do not knowingly deal in fakes to organize and find an alternative online sales platform as ancient coin dealers have done with VCoins.

What I do find interesting, however, is the intrinsic connection between looters/suppliers and fakes. Several times it has been demonstrated that suppliers who systematically loot to fill market demand are often times the same people who make forgeries and introduce them into the market. For example, a major sting in Bulgaria last year led to the seizure of c. 2,800 authentic ancient coins, a complete bronze chariot, a number of other antiquities, and also dies for making fake ancient coins. A move against looters in Sicily in 2007 also revealed material for making coin forgeries (discussed by D.W.J. Gill, "Operation Ghelas: Some Implications for Coin Collectors," Cultural Heritage in Danger (29 January 2008)). Some of the forgeries that have entered the market in recent years have been very sophisticated and fooled top experts in both academia and the trade. Such forgeries have appeared, with some frequency, in major auction catalogues and are sometimes discovered before the end of the sale and removed.

Just as the organized commercial interest does not wish address the looting issue in a proactive fashion, many dealers also shy away from discussion of the number or role of forgeries in the marketplace and one can easily find instances where collector-operated online forums devoted to the discussion of ancient coin forgeries are virulently condemned or simply dismissed by certain dealers who feel that a dialogue about forgeries is a direct attack on their practices. But certainly few would seriously suggest that most dealers would knowingly deal in forgeries.

In any case, there is a clear connection between the indiscriminate sourcing of fresh material for the market and the appearance of forgeries, which can easily make their way into the inventories of respected auction houses and dealerships as looters and middlemen are increasingly peppering the market with sophisticated forgeries at the same time they are selling genuine loot.

After the lecture I gave last week in Frankfurt to a local collectors society, over dinner we actually discussed the connection between the indiscriminate market demand and the increasing problem of forgeries. This is yet another reason why collectors, archaeologists, and conservationists have a common cause in demanding more transparency from dealers and suppliers. Loot and forgeries are often coming from the same sources and if you diminish the looting problem you also diminish the forgery problem. Interestingly, one collector on the Moneta-L forum remarked a few weeks ago that naturally most dealers will not address the looting and forgery problem in the same way non-dealers would (i.e. academics/archaeologists and collectors).

Thanks are due to S. Rosenblum who suggested this story be covered on Numismatics and Archaeology.

We Need to Change the status quo

Yesterday evening I delivered an invited lecture, "Der Handel mit antiken Münzen in den USA," to the Frankfurter Numismatische Gesellschaft, a local society of collectors, at Frankfurt's Historisches Museum in Römerplatz. I discussed the many problems with an unregulated and unconcerned market, the distasteful nature of the dialogue that has developed in North America, and the urgent need for thoughtful collectors, archaeologists, and law enforcement to find common ground in the face of organized and unconcerned commercial interests.

The presentation lasted approximately one hour and we had a very good discussion afterwards that also lasted about an hour. I also enjoyed conversing further with several members of the society over dinner in a traditional restaurant in Frankfurt’s historic Römerplatz.

Most of the participants in the discussion understood the inherent problems with the current status quo and many were interested in actively working towards proactive solutions. Other activities on these issues are tentatively scheduled later this summer. It was a very open and welcoming group and I would like to reiterate my thanks to them for their invitation and hospitality.

I have put the text of my lecture online, with selected slides from the presentation. I have also put the lecture in the list of links on the left hand side of this webpage.

(Image: Römerplatz - Frankfurt am Main)

Commodification of Antiquities as a Means of Protection?

An argument frequently banded about in the "antiquities debate" is that state-employed archaeologists and governments ought to facilitate the commodification of antiquities. It is asserted that this would 1) bring about an end to looting and 2) insure the preservation of antiquities. Perhaps it is worth revisiting these claims since they have been repeated with renewed fervor in the past couple of weeks.

Regarding the first point, some dealers and collectors allege that if archaeological warehouses and museum stores were opened up and sold off to the market then a legitimate market could be established, supplied only in this manner, while other antiquities trading could be made illegal. This contention is not well thought out. And let us be clear, the market in antiquities as it currently operates is already illegal and yet it flourishes; the great masses of Balkan antiquities presently in the North American market were not licitly excavated or exported.

Some collectors make a comparison to drug trafficking and America’s rather unsuccessful “War on Drugs.” They argue the point that government regulation may work better than a flat out ban. Fair enough, but the comparison is flawed in several ways since the supply mechanisms for the two markets are very different. Drugs are presently manufactured or grown illegally in the United States by people of varying criminal character, ranging from college students with a few plants to organized criminal gangs who run larger enterprises. Often times, harder drugs are imported from South American countries, where they are produced by organized criminal groups. Hypothetically speaking, if the United States government decided to legalize and regulate drugs, the government could license certain companies to produce substances and provide oversight to make them “safer” for the consumer. At the same time the illicit trade would be made much less profitable and the government could tax and control the regulated trade.

If we think about it though, this model is impossible to apply to the trade in antiquities. In many ways drugs are “renewable resources” in the sense that they are simply grown and harvested, like any crop, or can be manufactured. Antiquities, on the other hand, are a finite resource and only fakes and reproductions can be (and are) manufactured. For the sake of argument, however, let us suppose that governments around the world decided that they should commodify antiquities by opening museum stores and archaeological warehouses to sell “excess” antiquities. How long would it be until it was all consumed? Many American collectors and dealers seem to have a complete misunderstanding of archaeology as if its only goal is to go out and find “cool stuff” to put in museums (e.g. see the necesient editorial of one dealer in Coin World magazine, June 2007). On the contrary, modern field archaeology moves rather slowly in order to preserve and properly record contexts and the relationships between objects and assemblages. Once an object is pulled from the ground its context is irrecoverably destroyed and so it is essential to be methodical, scientific, and observant when excavating. The tools of archaeological science are trowels, brushes, and dental instruments. Compare these with the tools of those who supply the indiscriminate market in antiquities: bulldozers, backhoes, metal detectors, shovels, chainsaws (for hacking up relief, statues, and decorated sarcophagi), etc. In short, those who loot to supply Western dealers and collectors move a lot faster than archaeologists can and their methods are anything but scientific. Although some collectors and dealers like to say that archaeologists “hoard” antiquities for themselves and for study in their own little “club,” they fail to realize (or admit) that the vast majority of ancient objects do not reside in museums or archaeological stores but rather are already in dealer inventories and private collections. For example, the literal ton of ancient coins that one single "wholesaler" and supplier smuggled and sold to American dealers in 1999 roughly equates the same number of coins that German archaeology has recovered in two centuries and which have been systematically catalogued in finds inventories printed since 1960 (see discussion here with further references). Assuming all of these excavated coins are in still in archaeological warehouses throughout Germany, they would probably supply the American market in ancient coins for no more than a couple of months given the current rate of demand (for the scale of the American trade in ancient coins, see Elkins 2008 and the 2009 lecture posted at the Hellenic Society for Law and Archaeology website). Since the founding of the state of Israel, coins from excavations have been deposited with the Israel Antiquities Authority and their current archive holds approximately 110,000 coins in total. Compare this with the tens of thousands of coins sold each month by "wholesalers" who advertise their stock as coming from the "Holy Land." In light of the scale of the antiquities market for tourists in Israel (not accounting for the overseas market), Orly Blum notes:

"A counter proposal made by the pro-trade lobby is that the IAA should sell
artefacts that have already been studied and documented and which at present are
not exhibited to the public but are kept in storage. There is, however, a strong
objection to this suggestion. According to the IAA over 100,000 artefacts are
sold yearly. The Department of Antiquities has approximately 120,000 registered
items, other than coins (Ilan et al. 1989). If the present volume of sales were
maintained, the Department of Antiquities’ storerooms would be emptied within a
year."

Asking archaeologists and governments to commodify antiquities and empty archaeological warehouses and museum stores to establish a licit market is not a practicable suggestion. Such repositories could be emptied, but an illicit underground market would continue to thrive as long as dealers and collectors did not concern themselves with the recent history of the objects they wish to acquire.

The second argument made in favor of government-sanctioned commodification of antiquities is that museum stores and archaeological warehouses sometimes do not have enough money to preserve antiquities they have and so they should be sold to collectors who can "care" for them. Recently on the Unidroit-L list some collectors have called attention to some 7,000 year old boats that have deteriorated in storage due to a lack of adequate funding to conserve them. One collector states that this is evidence that such things should be sold to collectors who can better care for them. Again, is this not rather simplistic? Consisting of very old organic materials, the remnants of a 7,000 year old boat are very difficult and expensive to conserve. Firstly, a collector would probably have little interest in things that are this large and not very aesthetically pleasing. Secondly, it assumes that a collector who bought such a thing would conserve it, but there would be no oversight to insure this. Who is to say that whoever might buy it would have the financial resources or the expertise to preserve it? Such an object certainly requires a specialist facility and constant maintenance. It is not the type of thing that could be put in the living room and expected not to rot. Archaeological conservators have advanced training in chemistry and professional conservation is not the type of thing that just anyone can properly undertake. Although your average archaeologist may have some basic knowledge of conservation, even they are not specialized conservators. This is precisely why museums and archaeological excavations employ trained conservators and why excavated objects are then moved to archaeological warehouses that also employ conservators to care for finds. If collectors are concerned about the deterioration of these important things and if the government is not supplying adequate funding, why not contact the custodians and donate some money? I do not recall demanding a tiger cub or getting a snow owl in return for my last donation to the WWF.

Collectors on the Unidroit-L list have also latched onto the news of the collapse of the archive building in Cologne, Germany, stating that had everything not been stored in this building the loss might not have been so great. One compared this to the burning of the Library of Alexandria and said that had it been divided up the loss would not have been so substantial. But is this not spinning the issue? The function of an archive or library is to be a repository of information. If, as dealer Dave Welsh and a hanger-on suggested, such great archives, libraries, and collections were intentionally dispersed, then any researcher would have to travel to multiple disparate locations to conduct research, defeating the very purpose of such repositories. This also increases the statistical possibility of disaster striking at any particularl location.

And if things were sold to collectors to "care for," then how can their future study be insured? X collector sells to Y dealer who then sells it Z collector. How will one know where it is to study it further? Who is to say that the collector in question, as a private citizen, would allow anyone to see it or study it or not demand some extraordinary conditions even to allow it to be examined (e.g. the researcher must promote some ideological agenda or require pecuniary compensation)? For example, there is an eccentric collector of fossils I am familiar with in West Texas who runs a private fossil museum and is a staunch creationist. He possesses some very rare and significant fossils, and for the sake of argument, let us say he would not let paleontologists who do not believe man walked side-by-side with dinosaurs consult them, what if only staunch creationists believing in the literal word of the Bible could “scientifically” study these?

These arguments about the need for the commodification of antiquities are flawed on multiple levels and are directed at trying to shame archaeologists and governments for improper care of items. Where this is warranted, I will agree. All excavated finds merit thorough study and proper conservation, but let us recognize the agenda of those collectors maintaining those arguments and the dealers who formulated them. Certainly the conclusion that archaeologists and governments ought to endorse the commodification of antiquities based on such criticisms is agenda-driven and without merit. The conclusion itself is a non-sequitor. I would also like to point out that while improvements can be made in some circumstances in government and archaeological custodianship, there is no oversight governing the custodianship of collectors and dealers and that one can just as easily point to cases where objects owned by collectors and dealers are being destroyed, mutilated, or allowed to decay (e.g. Elkins 2008, pp. 5-6). And let us not forget that looters regularly smash pots because sherds can be smuggled easier than whole vases and that decorated relief panels and statue pieces are cut down or off of other monuments to make them transportable and more displayable.

We ought to ecognize these arguments for what they are: red herrings. They distract from the central issue which is one that concerns the material and intellectual consequences of looting and its relationship to an indiscriminate market and the responsibility of individual stakeholders (archaeologists, dealers, and collectors).

Note: At least one responsible collector seems to understand the fallacy of these often repeated deceptions. Privately, a colleague also pointed out the irony in the fact that some commentators simultaneously lament announcements to disperse of large study collections, but then maintain that large collections should be slimmed down to appease the commercial interest. At the same time, such commentators also laud Cuno's arguments, even though he is a strong supporter of the same "encyclopedic museum" which they would prefer to have divided among American curio cabinets in private homes and appartments throughout the country.

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.

Italy Returns Thousands of Looted Coins to Bulgaria: Is there a Connection to Past Criminal Activities?

On Friday, 9 January 2009, the SofiaEcho reported that about 3,800 coins smuggled into Verona, Italy from Bulgaria were seized in 2005 and will be soon returned to their country of origin. Four Bulgarians were detained in Verona and have been deported; they are expected to be tried according to the law. The report also states that the coins may have been smuggled by the same gang that robbed the Veliko Turnovo museum in 2006. The full text of the article reads:

"Bulgaria will receive back from Italy close to 3800 antique coins and other archaeological objects, smuggled into the country in 2005, Bozhidar Dimitrov, director of the National History Museum said, quoted by Bulgarian language Sega daily on January 9 2009.

The significant part of the valuables consists of silver and bronze Roman and Byzantine coins, which experts have valued at around 35000 euro, Sega daily said.

Four Bulgarians have been detained in Verona, Italy, for trying to sell the objects. They have been deported to Bulgaria and will be tried in accordance with local legislature.

Dimitrov has said that the authorities suspect that the coins could have been smuggled out of the country by the same criminal group that committed the robbery at the Veliko Turnovo museum in February 2006.

At that time more than 10 000 golden, silver and bronze coins were stolen from the museum's numismatic fund. Among them were valuable coins dating back to the time of Alexander the Great. At the time police said that the robbery had been very well planned and that an insider might have helped."

The report is significant for a number of reasons. First of all it highlights the fact that Bulgaria continues to be a major source of ancient coins for the black market in ancient coins and antiquities and is a major supplier to indiscriminate dealers and collectors in Europe and North America. See some previous comments in my posts on "The Illicit Antiquities Trade in Bulgaria," "Der Handel mit antiken Münzen. Ausmaß and Netzwerke (The Trade in Ancient Coins: Scale and Networks)," "Archaeology Magazine's 'Under Threat' List Includes Bulgaria," and especially see my lecture "The Ancient Coin Trade in the USA: Scale and Structure" as well as Center for the Study of Democracy's 2007 report on Organized Crime in Bulgaria: Markets and Trends (Chapter 5, pp. 177-202, The Antiquities Trade - Dealers, Traffickers, and Connoisseurs). Secondly, it indicates that authorities suspect this incident may well be related to a previous robbery in which ancient coins were stolen from a Bulgarian museum, though the article from SofiaEcho does not name any specific suspects.

It is well known that Bulgaria, which forbids the unlicensed and unscientific excavation of antiquities and their export, is a major source for western markets. The report on Organized Crime in Bulgaria, cited with a link above, estimates that between 30 and 50 Bulgarian nationals living in Western Europe and the United States actively arrange for the shipment of mass quantities of these coins to market nations. Any collector, dealer, or scholar working with the ancient coin trade will also recognize that many of the bulk suppliers of ancient coins are Bulgarian. These "wholesalers" sell fresh supplies of ancient coins to both other dealers and collectors. Higher quality coins will be sold wholesale to other dealers while "cheaper" or more "common" material that is less valued by the market will be disposed of in bulk lots directly to collectors via eBay or VCoins. One commonly sees packages of a thousand or more "uncelaned coins" on places like eBay. It is not a very big secret. To some degree corruption in Bulgaria allows looters and smugglers to operate with relative impunity.

In 1999, Frankfurt customs officials intercepted a shipment of 60kg of ancient coins from Bulgaria, bound for a New York airport and ultimately to a New Jersey address, which had been falsely declared. Scholarly numismatists were called in to examine the shipment which contained about 20,000 coins. Some of the coins had been partially cleaned already and had been divided up according to their relative market value, with smaller and more common coins left dirtier. Research by these numismatists indicated that only a small fraction of this particular shipment would have sold for over €100,000 in the auction market. Investigation by Frankfurt customs officials showed that in the previous weeks and months the individual in question shipped approximately one metric ton (literally) of material through Frankfurt airport to the United States before this parcel was inspected. The individual in question is a known supplier and dealer of ancient coins in the United States.

One metric ton would be about 350,000 ancient coins. To put this in perspective the largest scholarly archive of ancient coin finds, Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschland, only inventories around 300,000 to 350,000 coins. These inventories have been published regularly since 1960 and represents the full time work of several scholars who inventory finds from old and new excavations, casual finds, hoards, and local collections. Essentially the individual in question smuggled as much in a very short amount of time as nearly 50 years of full time work cataloguing hundreds of archaeological and historically singificant sites in Germany. But of course, gangs of metal detectorists move much more quickly than archaeologists. Even the largest public collections of ancient coins in the world (e.g. the British Museum and the American Numismatic Society) contain around c. 350,000 coins. The level of destruction represented by this one wholesaler is ghastly. The individual in question is politically connected; in 1999 he was the brother of the Bulgarian Prosecutor General - who himself later faced corruption charges - and even though he had been arrested for antiquities crimes before he was never charged in this crime. For more discussion of these shipments in 1999, see R. Dietrich, "Cultural Property on the Move - Legally, Illegally," International Journal of Cultural Property 11.2 (2002) 294-304. Dietrich's article does not name the shipper/dealer, but refers to him as "Mr. B." which I will use henceforth.

Mr. B. is a known supplier of ancient coins to other dealers and he also sells in bulk via eBay. He is still very active today. His eBay storefronts include "Silenos" (10,431 positive feedback as of 22 April 2008 - each positive feedback represents a transaction with a unique buyer, i.e. at least 10,431 different people have purchased from him via eBay) and "S*P*Q*R" (3,019 feeback as of 22 April 2008). The dealership of "Silenos Coins" is also listed as coming soon on VCoins.com.

In 1999, shortly after the shipments were coming through Frankfurt, the Moneta-L discussion list referenced his activity, with some swooning over the booty he offered them. Mere months after the Frankfurt shipments, one of Mr. B.'s friends wrote on the Moneta-L list:

"List members,
There is a new source of uncleaned ancient coins and nice quality antiquities on eBay, to which I invite your attention. The "User ID" you use to do a "Seller" search on eBay is: "Silenos." This dealer is an old friend of mine, and has been wholesaling to the leading dealers in America and Europe for years, and has decided to enter the retail market on selected items. I personally vouch for the honesty and fairness of this individual. Give this company a try. You will be delighted!"

Another dealer then responds:

"Would that be [Mr. B.]?"

The friend who announced the "new source" replies to the dealer:

"Yes, but PLEASE don't advertise it. He wants to keep a low profile in dealing with the public. He is uncomfortable in doing so, and has hired a young lady to be the 'face to the public' on sales."

And then an unsuspecting collector tells us about one method this wholesaler was using to divide up the coins which were spirited out of Bulgaria in contravention to both law and ethics:

"I'd like to hear the answer to this onlist. [Mr. B.] had a booth at CICF [Chicago International Coin Fair] this year for the first time, and I had a chance to meet him. He wasn't retailing at his booth, he was selling strictly wholesale. I found myself drawn to his bags of late Roman bronze and bought them the only way I could - a handful at a time. Very pretty stuff. By mid afternoon of the second day of the show all his LRB were gone. If he is going retail, I hope he keeps one foot in the wholesale door. Maybe you can convince him he doesn't need the customer relations hassles that come with retail."

It is clear that the mass quantities of coins smuggled out of Bulgaria through Frankfurt airport to the United States by Mr. B. were sold directly to other dealers and collectors. But what does this have do with the recent announcement about the coins seized in Verona? Nothing is certain since the article by SofiaEcho does not name the individuals involved, but the report did tell us that "...the authorities suspect that the coins could have been smuggled out of the country by the same criminal group that committed the robbery at the Veliko Turnovo museum in February 2006." In addition to Dietrich's article, the above cited and linked report on Organized Crime in Bulgaria: Markets and Trends discusses the coins that Mr. B. sent through Frankfurt airport in March 1999 (but note it states his address has been in Florida for several years; this may be an error since his address at the time of the 1999 shipment was in New Jersey and appears to have been such even later). The report indicates further that Mr. B. may have been involved in the Veliko Turnovo museum case. Page 186 of the report provides a citation and states:

"The online news agency Mediapool announced that the name of [Mr. B.], who has been living in Florida for several years already, was found under an internet offer selling coins, supposedly part of those stolen in the notorious Veliko Tarnovo museum robbery."

Is Mr. B., who still acts as a supplier to other dealers and sells directly to collectors, involved with the case of the recent seizure of coins in Verona? It seems according to the report he was/is a suspect in the Veliko Tarnovo museum case and apparently authorities believe the recent seizure of coins in Verona is related.

Whatever the case, perhaps the most important question is whether or not dealers and collectors are really comfortable stocking their inventories and coin cabinets from wholesalers such as this who are brazenly violating international laws and unethically sponsoring the systematic destruction of our past and the knowledge that goes along with it. Greater concern for law, ethics, due diligence, and - above all - transparency is greatly needed.

(Photo from another news article about the return at StandArtNews, "Italy Returns Antique Tre[a]sure to Bulgaria," 22 December 2008)

"...A Free Market for all Collector Coins" - Another Look at the ACCG "Benefit Auction"

Last month I evaluated the ACCG "benefit auction" (see "The ACCG 'Benefit Auction' and Intrinsic Interests," 8 July 2008, for the previous discussion and the background to the present post). The ACCG's auction, which closes in the middle of this month, is meant "to raise funds for anticipated legal expenses in opposition to State Department imposed import restrictions on ancient coins." As I remarked in the previous post, the majority of the ACCG's leaders, its biggest financial supporters, and most contributors to the present "benefit auction" are primarily coin dealers, especially the more profitable ones. The ACCG opposes any legislation that might in any way hinder a "free-market in all collector coins," even though such legistlation is designed to protect archaeological sites and cultural heritage from plunder.

Some have tried to argue that coins are not found at archaeological sites (sic!) and that they should not be considered "archaeological objects," but there is more than ample evidence indicating that ancient coins frequently come from the same sources as other antiquities and that historical and archaeological sites are systematically destroyed as "suppliers" seek to profit and fill market demand (on the internet see, for example, N.T. Elkins, "Why Coins Matter...," SAFE Feature 2007; id., "A Survey of the Material and Intellectual Consequences of Trading in Undocumented Ancient Coins: A Case Study on the North American Trade," Frankfurter elektronische Rundschau zur Altertumskunde 7 (2008): 1-13).

The purpose of this post is to update some of the figures that I compiled from the auction list last month and to comment on another asepct of the auction. As of 2 August 2008, 150 more ancient objects had been donated through single or multiple lots, making 315 the total number of ancient objects up for auction (313 coins and 2 antiquities, a numismatic publication was also recently donated). As before, the bulk of donations and those who contributed the lots with the highest estimated values are mostly dealers. In July, I reported that $26,875 in material had been donated in order to help ancient coin and antiquities dealers and collectors in their battles with the U.S. State Department, but, as of 2 August 2008, an estimated $43,700 in objects had been donated. As before, the reporting of recent histories is sparse; for example, only 8 ancient coins (3%) in the entire auction are recorded as having been in a collection before 1970 or are recorded under the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS). Two other coins have a possible pre-1970 history, listing only a former collections, while 6 more have a possible, but improbable, 1970 history listing former collections of long time collectors who collected until very recently. Six coins are referenced to auction catalogues within the last ten years. The bulk of the material, 95.42% of it, has no recorded history.

In the former discussion, I pointed out that some of the more profitable auction houses were donating generously to the ACCG "benefit auction." It is interesting to note that another class of dealer is also donating to the auction: the importer/wholesaler.

It is well known that ancient coin and antiquities dealers are often supplied by foreign nationals of source countries who live in market countries. Some of these individuals have worked closely with "finders," as is the case in the Balkans (for example, see the report on Organized Crime in Bulgaria: Markets and Trends, pp. 177ff.). In at least one case it is known that one of these ancient coin dealers and "wholesalers" even arranged the smuggling (this is referenced in previously cited report, but see also R. Dietrich, "Cultural Property on the Move - Legally, Illegally," International Journal of Cultural Property 11.2 (2002): 294-304).

Presently, there is at least one contributor to the ACCG "benefit auction" that is a self-identified importer and wholesaler of ancient coins and antiquities from the Middle East. On its website, the dealership states that it gets material "from the source" and sells to "major dealers in the industry." In May the dealership's website indicated that they had an office manager in Dubai who could help people with "storing and shipping" (this has since been stricken from the public website). Does this indicate that this individual imports Middle Eastern material into North America via Dubai? Dubai has become an important transit market for undocumented Middle Eastern antiquities in recent years (see for example, M. Al Serkal, "Federal Law Needed Fight Smuggling of Antiquities in UAE," Gulf News, 18 May 2008).

A look at the seller's history shows dozens upon dozens of massive "dealer lots" that contain thousands of coins, some of which have sold for $150,000 - $200,000 each. All of this material appears to originate in the Middle East.

Find spots and histories are not recorded by this seller, who claims to supply other dealers in the industry. The UAE serves as a transit market for antiquities, so we may not even be sure in what country many of these coins were found. Where are these coins coming from? Are they hoards or accumulations of single finds? The importer/wholesaler also deals in other antiquities in mass quantities, from where are they coming?

The auction does indeed seem to symbolize "free market for all collector coins." But, to borrow a phrase coined by Chippindale and Gill, what are the material and intellectual consequences?

Good Faith, Due Diligence, and Market Activities

Recently, I have been taking note of the use of the term “good faith” and particularly how the term is used by opponents of import restrictions on antiquities that do not have proper documentation, repatriations of looted material, and advocates of a “free-market” in ancient objects.

Yesterday, David Gill reported that a relief fragment from an Egyptian tomb was repatriated to Egypt after it had been withdrawn from a sale at Bonhams (London) earlier this year, when someone from the Metropolitan Museum of Art recognized it from an Egyptian tomb, where it was once in situ (“Tomb of Mutirdis (TT410): Update,” Looting Matters, 30 June 2008). A spokesperson for Bonhams would not identify the individual or dealership from whom they acquired the object, but stated that it appeared to have been acquired in "good faith."

Also on David Gill's weblog, and elsewhere, there has been discussion of the Association of Art Museum Director's (AAMD) new guidelines for the acquisition of antiquities ("AAMD and Antiquities: a Revised Position," Looting Matters, 5 June 2008). In light of this, he has recently discussed the use of a 1970 vs. 1983 date in response to Lee Rosenbaum, who suggested the 1983 cutoff date for repatriations (D.W.J. Gill, "Towards a Ceasefire in the 'Antiquities Wars': a Response to Lee Rosenbaum," Looting Matters, 26 June 2008; id., "The 'Antiquities Wars': Further Thoughts," Looting Matters, 27 June 2008; L. Rosenbaum, "Towards a Ceasefire in the Antiquities Wars: The Next Step (Part I)," CultureGrrl, 25 June 2008; id., "Towards a Ceasefire in the Antiquities Wars: The Next Step (Part II)," CultureGrrl, 27 June 2008). Peter Tompa, current president of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) and an attorney, has also weighed in on the debate ("Memo to AAMD Members: Pick 1970 or 1983 as a Trigger for your Cultural Property Returns," Cultural Property Observer, 26 June 2008). While Gill and Rosenbaum prefer different dates based on various legal and ethical precedents, 1970 (as per the 1970 UNESCO Convention) and 1983 (as per US legislation subscribing to the UNESCO Convention via the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA)), respectively, Tompa suggests that repatriations be based on the date that a foreign nation's request for import restrictions on cultural property is recognized by the U.S. Department of State be used as the guideline. He also makes the statement early on that "Repatriation decisions should never be taken lightly, particularly when lack of provenance information does not necessarily mean lack of good faith."

Last week, it was brought to the attention of the Iraq Crisis Discussion List that some rare Iraqi Jewish books were smuggled out of Iraq and traded in Israel ("Rare Iraqi Jewish Books 'Surface in Israel,'" Yahoo! News, 27 June 2008). There has been a protracted discussion on the Iraq Crisis Discussion List, to which many have contributed, including Jeff Spurr, Dorothy King, Paul Barford, Michael Balter, John Robertson, Patty Gerstenblith, Donny George, Peter Tompa, and others (visit the June and July archives to view individual contributions to the thread). Mr. Tompa and Mr. Barford have both blogged about the discussion and pertinent issues (P. Tompa, "Jewish Books Smuggled from Iraq to Israel," Cultural Property Observer, 28 June 2008; P. Barford, "'Stuff Happens': US 'Torah Rescue' from Iraq?" Cultural Heritage in Danger (SAFECorner), 30 June 2008). In regard to a related issue on these Iraqi Jewish books, Tompa again brings up "good faith": "In any event, the Torah described in the article would not easily fit into either category so I think we must assume (unless proven otherwise) that all concerned have acted in good faith."

It was also reported this month that a Norwegian soldier who served in Afghanistan attempted to donate a hoard of coins and an ancient bottle he acquired there to a museum in Oslo and that Afghanistan is now seeking the return of the illicitly exported - and probably looted - material (N. Berglund, "Afghanistan Seeks Return of 'Stolen Treasures,'" Aftenposten: News from Norway, 18 June 2008). Dorothy King provided a short discussion of it on her blog ("A Little Afghan Looting...Updated," PhDiva, 23 June 2008). In the comments section of this post, Peter Tompa commented:

"This soldier should be given the benefit of the doubt. It is likely he bought these artifacts in good faith from desperately poor farmers who found the material, and I will assume this to be the case unless and until someone proves otherwise. This only became a story when the archaeological blogs picked it up. I suspect they helped egg on the Afghan Museum authorities to demand the repatriation of this material and an investigation. Before the Communists and Taliban took over, the government tolerated sales of minor artifacts such as this. A change of sensibilities in the elites that run the archaeological establishment, will not change the facts on the ground. Desperately poor farmers will sell whatever they find to whomever will buy it. Better to put in some system akin to Treasure Trove, that records everything, rather than assume Afghanistan has the funds and archaeologists necessary to conserve every piece of ancient history in its museums."

A comment by Sebastian Heath in response to Tompa on the same entry is worth reading as well as his "Say What?" Mediterranean Ceramics, 23 June 2008.

The purpose of this post is not to "slam" Mr. Tompa. I have respect for him and he uses more discretion and reason than many of the dealers with whom I have tried to have discussions in the past (to be clear, Tompa is not a dealer, but rather a collector). Instead, I am trying to highlight a fundamental difference in perception and argumentation that people on different sides of the "antiquities debate" have. Tompa, for example, seems to present the notion that "good faith" and "the benefit of the doubt" are enough for the trading of antiquities. On the other hand, David Gill, among others, have argued the need for stronger "due diligence" processes in the acquisition of antiquities by dealers, collectors, and museums.

In the early spring of 1999, a 60 kilogram parcel of ancient coins, which was only part of a larger shipment, estimated to be in the neighborhood of a ton (literally), was intercepted at Frankfurt Airport (R. Dietrich, "Cultural Property on the Move - Legally, Illegally," International Journal of Cultural Property 11.2 (2002): 294-304). The coins were falsely declared and were spirited out of Bulgaria and destined for sale in the United States. The Bulgarian national was and still is an active coin dealer and wholesaler to other dealers in the United States. Online correspondence on ancient coin discussion lists indicate this dealer was selling coins en masse to other dealers and collectors at a major North American coin show just a few months after customs officials released the parcel under peculiar circumstances (see the article for fuller discussion of the release from customs). Many collectors were excited by these coins and I am certain they purchased them in "good faith," but does this excuse the way in which they made it to the marketplace? Although they may have been buying in "good faith," were the dealers and collectors that purchased from this importer practicing adequate "due diligence"? Were they asking about how he acquired them, and if so, simply taking his word for whatever answer he might have supplied?

A couple of years ago, Classical Numismatic Group (CNG) acquired a very rare coin of Brutus commemorating Caesar's assassination and paid approximately $23,000 for the coin (a wholesale price), which it in turn would have tried to sale for around $30,000 (D. Alberge, "Swoop by Customs Returns Brutus to Scene of the Crime," Times Online, 15 June 2006; L. Worden, "Ancient Coin Buyers, Beware," COINage Magazine 42.11 (Nov. 2006)). The Greek government claimed the coin was smuggled out of Greece and the coin was returned. Mr. McFadden of CNG acted in "good faith" in buying the coin and returned it to the Greek embassy when asked to do so. But how extensive was the "due diligence" process? The Times Online article stated:

"Mr McFadden, whose company is regarded as one of the world’s leading specialists in Greek and Roman coins, told The Times: 'He did some work for Nino [Scavona] in the 1980s ... One doesn’t refuse to deal with someone because he has a slightly shady background.

'One looks at the deal on the table. We’re business people. If there’s any indication something’s not legitimate, we don’t deal in it.'"

Here is an excerpt from the COINage Magazine article:

"'After the cash was seized,' McFadden said, 'his daughter kept phoning up, asking when her father could get his money back.' That provided a clue that the man was indeed the seller. 'That's something that happened after the fact,' McFadden said. 'Not only did I not know about it, but I couldn't have known about it.' After all, it was the coin dealer who vouched for his ability to sell the coin. 'If someone brings a coin in to you and says they own it and they can sell it to you and they guarantee the authenticity — obviously I'm aware of any recent reports of theft, so if the coin had been reported stolen, I would have known about it — then there's nothing more one can do,' McFadden said. Longtime coin dealer Wayne Sayles, executive director of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, agreed. 'There is no tradition in the world market for the background-checking of sellers, nor is there any real reason for it,' Sayles said. 'There are pertinent and applicable laws in most countries that deal with import, theft, etc., and dealers do, in my experience, try diligently to follow those laws as they apply at the point of sale.' Sayles lamented that 'we may have lost an opportunity to contest a claim that seems to be arguable on several grounds.'

It is clear that existing due diligence processes in the antiquities trade are not as rigorously applied as one might hope and much of the existing processes seem to rely very much on the mere word of profiteers and suppliers. "Good faith" purchases and dealings are not enough. Dealers and collectors would add dignity to their activities if they were to follow the example of the AAMD and adopt more stringent due diligence processes and acquisition guidelines. This would decrease the demand for recently looted material by diminishing the market for it and profitability of it.

(Image of an Egyptian relief withdrawn from a Bonhams sale and now repatriated to Egypt. Source: D.W.J. Gill, “Tomb of Mutirdis (TT410): Update,” Looting Matters, 30 June 2008)

This post has been cross-posted at SAFECorner: "Good Faith, Due Diligence, and Market Activities."