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."

The Tactics of a Dealers' Lobbyist

In the light of some recent posts and activities of IAPN's and PNG's lobbyist, Peter Tompa, who is also a member and representative of the ACCG, I have been considering his tactics again as I have witnessed them multiple times and commented on their apparent purposes in the past.  It is perhaps worthwhile to survey some of those tactics here.

Personal Attacks.  Personal attacks are often used as a substitute for engaging with the substance or accuracy of another party's comments.  Users of personal attacks attempt to impugn another party's character, often with misleading or false commentary, so that they do not have to engage with and/or provide evidence to counter an argument or position.  Peter Tompa has often used personal attacks as a tactic and frequently allows his compatriots to post personal attacks in the 'moderated' comments section of his blog.  A recent example on Mr. Tompa's blog may be found here.  He also is proud to count among his comrades the outspoken ACCG leadership; they have consistently made particularly repulsive  attacks against organizations and individuals who advocate preservation, characterizing them as fascists, Nazis, or similar to terrorist organizations.  A summary of some of these repugnant remarks is available in my 2012 article on the North American trade in ancient coins (pp. 100-104).

Dismissal/Denigration.  A common component of personal attacks include the dismissal of one's credentials and/or the denigration of one's credentials by applying inaccurate labels.  Academics who advocate preservation and sensitivity to looting issues are, therefore, often dismissed as "ivory tower" elitists.  A recent example on Mr. Tompa's blog is found here (the post also contains a straw man).  Like the personal attack, such dismissal evidently has as its aim to excuse not engaging with the evidence or argument of a different position (pointed out here). Mr. Tompa almost exclusively refers to preservationists like myself, David Gill, Paul Barford, Rick St. Hilaire, and others as "archaeobloggers," as if blogging is the only way our research and opinions are disseminated, and as if we do not have any other credentials and professions.  Rick St. Hilaire is not even an archaeologist, but a lawyer and specialist in cultural properties!  But Mr. Tompa does not like Rick St. Hilaire's insights and position on cultural property issues and so he gets called an "archaeoblogger," a label that the lobbyist and his friends use as a slur.  In a recent post, Mr. Tompa has again referred to me as an "archaeoblogger and anti-trade advocate," in spite of the fact that I have rarely blogged for several years now. My occupation is that of tenure-track professor at a ranked research university.  I teach and have authored numerous articles on ancient coins and coin iconography in addition to co-edited a book on coin iconography; a single-authored book will be in print by the end of the year.  My research on the relationship between looting and coin trade in its current incarnation has also been published in several peer-reviewed outlets.

Deception.  Deception is frequently another component of personal attacks or dismissal.  After all, the ultimate effect or goal is to avoid formulating effective counter argumentation and presentation of fact-based evidence.  For example, Mr. Tompa recently characterized me as an "anti-trade advocate."  That is an incorrect characterization.  Anyone may read for themselves what I have blogged in the past or what I have published.  What I have consistently critiqued is the problematic relationship that the trade in its current incarnation has with looting and the illicit market in coins and antiquities.  Mr. Tompa seeks to maintain a no-questions-asked status quo, evidently protecting business interests that wish to remain unconcerned when it comes to the sourcing of material!  In fact, in my 2012 article, I suggest that a solution to obstruction posed by trade lobbying groups, which cater primarily to a dealer interest, is to circumnavigate them and engage directly with collectors (pp. 104-107).  An "anti-trade advocate" would hardly suggest engagement with collectors.  For an unvarnished riposte to the notion that preservationists are inherently "anti-trade," or as one unsightly comment on Mr. Tompa's blog that Mr. Tompa allowed (from a dealer known for hyperbole and personal attacks) suggests, "anti-science," see here.

The Straw Man. A common tactic is the straw man.  By falsely attributing a statement or position to an individual and demolishing it, one does not engage with one's real position and makes the opposition appear foolish and absurd.  In so doing, the user of a straw-man argument creates an imagined, inaccurate character.  The straw man is a debate tactic often used in American political discourse.  A popular example is Clint Eastwood's imaginary engagement with President Obama in an empty chair at the 2012 Republican National Convention, whereby he attributed positions to President that he does not hold and potential statements the President wold never make (some comments here and here).

In the comments section of one of his recent personal attacks against me, Mr. Tompa has claimed again that I have stated that Ptolemaic and early Roman period coins did not circulate out of Egypt (this all bears on the "first found in" argument that is part of the ACCG's test case).  I posted a comment to that blog again asking him to substantiate the claim as I have never made it.  Curiously, my comment was never posted. Maybe he never received it.  Nonetheless, what I have said is that such coins tended to circulate primarily within Egypt as Egypt had a well-known closed currency system that promoted the retention of such coins.  I have even published a Ptolemaic coin in the coin finds from Yotvata, Israel, although the site is very near the modern Egyptian border.  So surely I would never state that no single Egyptian coin would never make it out of what is modern Egypt.  Mr. Tompa's straw man claim is demonstrably false.  It also curious that, in his own dealings with CPAC, he never acknowledged the well-known fact that Egypt had a closed currency system and that Ptolemaic and early Roman period Egyptian coins are primarily found in Egypt.  Mr. Tompa attempts to distort my own position, which takes an honest account of the evidence, in order to distract from his own untenable position, which itself purposefully ignores decades of scholarship and common knowledge on coin circulation in Egypt. 

Deflection/Innuendo.  Sometimes one simply changes the subject or makes innuendo to distract from the question or issue at hand.  So rather than presenting evidence to substantiate his straw-man claim that I apparently said Egyptian coins never  traveled outside of Egypt, Mr. Tompa instead began making innuendos about "hidden" comments to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee.  First of all, Mr. Tompa makes assumptions since he could not know if I submitted confidential comments to CPAC for any particular hearing or not.  Secondly, the CPAC makes allowances for confidential comments to be submitted under certain circumstances where they could not be made publicly.  If one submits confidential comments to CPAC, appropriately following the guidelines, the contents of those comments are no business of a trade lobbyist, especially one who chooses to engage in underhanded and slimy tactics.  Finally, we see the purpose of deflection and innuendo: not only does he have me going on about a different subject now, attempting to distract me and his readers from his straw-man claim, he still has not substantiated his straw-man claim!  He cannot, after all, substantiate a straw-man claim. By their very nature, straw-man claims are indefensible when you ask for substantiation and evidence.

Intimidation. Why does the lobbyist want access to comments that are potentially privileged or sensitive?  No doubt he wants to spin and twist them on his blog, using the tactics above, in an attempt to intimidate into silence those with opinions different from his own.  He has already criticized individuals with opinions different from his own for speaking at public hearings or submitting public comments to CPAC in the past.  Mr. Tompa and his cohorts are well-known for using the tactics of intimidation.  In the past they have communicated directly and secretly with colleagues of preservationists in attempt to impugn their reputations in the eyes of their colleagues and, worse, in an attempt to compromise their employment.  I have a file documenting each attempt that is currently known to me.

Why?  Why does Mr. Tompa use such tactics?  One reason may be true ignorance of the issues or a misunderstanding of them.  He is, for example, angry about an article I recently published that critiques the "first found in" argument presented in the ACCG's test case.  Mr. Tompa dismisses the article as "obscure" and suggests the article is somehow "hidden" because it is published in a peer-reviewed print journal.  David Gill points out how ill-informed the statement is that the journal is obscure and that the article is somehow hidden (here and here).  Rather than expecting him to find the article for himself, the lobbyist is upset that I have not shared the article with him, although I shared it with colleagues.  I explained to Mr. Tompa that the article cannot be placed for free, public download on a third-party website at this time owing to copyright issues and that I will not send him nor the lobby's founder an offprint as they are neither colleague nor collegial.  He persists nonetheless.  And this is not the first time that the lobbyist has behaved this way (for a response on the first episode, see David Gill's post).  It is particularly troubling that Mr. Tompa does not seem to understand, at least in what he writes, how publication and research works (or evidently how to access a prominent archaeological journal in a library) since he himself is a legal professional and purports to represent dealers and collectors who claim to be independent scholars, who would necessarily conduct library research and publish in peer-reviewed journals.

But if the lobbyist and the organizations he represents are not truly ignorant of the issues and are not ill-informed about the evidence that is out there, why might he liberally use the tactics summarized here?  Readers of the lobbyist's blog might take Mr. Tompa at his word and not follow up on original sources or explore for themselves the validity of his statements and arguments.  Perhaps this convinces his constituency of the good work he does for them and for the organizations he represents.  Perhaps there are other reasons, one of which may be the awkwardness of engaging with real evidence to advance his position or to counter the evidence-based position of preservationists.  Fortunately, policy makers and researchers use more than blogs and tend to check sources and look for evidence and substance.

Update 5/31/2015.  Mr. Tompa has responded to this post via a comment on his own blog.  Interestingly, he does not link to my post so that readers can easily find it for themselves.  It is more or less what I expected: further demands that I answer questions to satisfy his innuendo of a hidden conspiracy.  There is no acknowledgement of wrongdoing on his part, no apology, and no substantiation of his recent straw-man claim (an impossibility after all).  Interestingly, he seems, however, to acknowledge the deployment of underhanded tactics on his part by implying that whatever he does, it's okay because I have already done what I accuse him of; that, quelle surprise, is not substantiated.  Indeed, I do not recall fabricating statements and attributing them to him (the straw man), nor do I recall me or my colleagues implying he or his compatriots are fascists or Nazis (a form of personal attack commonly used in ACCG quarters), nor do I recall trying to undermine his employment (intimidation) as he and his ACCG-friends have.  We are all very aware of how you operate, Mr. Tompa.  It is truly a pity that organizations have spent good money to support such a despicable and painfully transparent modus operandi.  At least its transparency and lack efficacy will only hinder the cause to protect the damaging status quo.

It's a Conspiracy!

The antics of the dealer lobby know no bounds.  It is now being alleged by the group's lobbyist that numismatists in favor of the protection of ancient coins have ghost-written each others comments to CPAC.  As absurd as the notion is, I suppose it is not unexpected from those quarters.  Conspiracy theories are endemic among the dealer lobby's leadership, which is quite indicative of the desperation of their position.

And yes, there is something seemingly duplicitous in one lobby leader's acknowledgment of ancient Egypt's closed currency system before the lobby's founding, and then later pretending it did not exist when commenting on the potential MOU with Egypt.  These intellectual changes of heart also speak to the desperation of their argument that coins do not merit or warrant protection.

Update, 5/27.  Digging the hole deeper, the paid lobbyist, Peter Tompa, assumes I sent comments to CPAC  on the potential MOU with Egypt and now demands that I make these presumed comments public.  I am not sure who he thinks he is to make such demands.  Nonetheless, whether or not I elected to exercise my right to make a comment is my decision alone and the CPAC allows comments to be submitted any number of ways. 

He attempts to qualify his unusual interest in the matter: "CPO [Peter Tompa] does not question Elkins' (or anyone else's) rights to express their views to CPAC, just his unwillingness to let others assess for themselves their accuracy."  I must say past actions do not bear this out. 1. The dealer lobby's leadership and its lobbyist do not rely on logic and facts to construct arguments, as the recent episode regarding circulation patterns in Egypt illustrates.  2. I recall multiple instances in which the dealer lobby (and yes, the lobbyist in question) have attempted to intimidate and perhaps even to undermine the employment of those who have voiced support for MOUs and advocated the protection of coins.  And finally, it is not up to agenda-driven lobbyists to "assess for themselves the accuracy" of comments submitted to CPAC - that is up to the respective members of CPAC, appointed by the President.

Import Restrictions on Ancient Coins

A lobbyist who works on behalf of trade organizations has suggested that ancient coins currently protected by memoranda between the U.S. and certain foreign governments are not legally placed there since the basis of those restrictions is "place of production" rather than where they are found.  He alleges the CPIA is thus violated.  The exchange is in the comments section of a previous post here and his take is also presented on his website.

As I pointed out in that exchange, coins that are protected are types that are found in that country.  The memorandum with Italy, for example, protects early Roman coinage (aes signatum, aes grave, and the early republican struck coinage, as well as Roman colonial coinage) and the coinage of Greek cities in southern Italy.  Scholarly publications demonstrate that such coins had a primarily Italian circulation.  The memorandum with Italy even cites one of many sources that reference circulation and find patterns.  Widely circulating types where a find spot cannot be attributed (e.g. most Roman republican and imperial coins) are not protected by existing legislation.  As most republican and imperial coins were struck in Italy, a country with which the U.S. has an MOU, one is left to question Mr. Tompa's allegations.

The "scholarly evidence" submitted to CPAC by ACCG that Mr. Tompa refers to as an apparent indication that where such coins are found is not considered by CPAC is a simple list of hoard finds of types outside of the borders of countries that request MOUs.  It suggests a limited number of coins circulated out, but it totally ignores the fact that the vast majority of such types are found in the country of origin.  It is common knowledge among numismatic scholars that many coin types (e.g. some Greek coins and Roman provincial coins) had a very limited circulation and it is curious that the trade lobby does not acknowledge this in communications with CPAC; instead they argue more simply (and too simply) that coins can be found anywhere.  Would one really expect to see aes grave exavated in Israel or Jordan?

In considering whether Mr. Tompa's take on the situation is legitimate, one may recall that ACCG's lawsuit against the government, which has been handled by Mr. Tompa, has been dismissed on multiple occasions.  Legal authorities have not agreed with ACCG that there is any mishandling of import restrictions philosophically or legally. 

Rather than lawsuits and sniping over the interpretation of CPIA, would not a better approach be to recognize that indiscriminate attitudes in the sourcing of ancient coins promotes looting and destroys historical information?  And recognizing that, would it not be a better approach to engage in a productive dialogue about how ethical collecting can exist without maintaining a damaging status quo?

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.

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)

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)

Ulterior Motives in Discussion of Looting Issues?

One of the arguments that have been made against archaeologists advocating for the preservation and protection of archaeological sites against looting is that this advocacy is a veiled attempt to discredit and exclude independent scholars. In a recent posting I asked some stakeholders in the looting/indiscriminate collecting debate to abandon the obtrusive personal attacks and insults which are not relevant to the issues at hand. In the subsequent comments to the posting, the discussion between me and Wayne Sayles, the ACCG Executive Director, turned toward a discussion of "ownership" of the past and scholarship on the past, and thus it is worth starting a new thread.

While I disagree that advocacy for the preservation of finite archaeological resources serves an agenda to exclude the work of independent scholars, Mr. Sayles raises some points that are perhaps worth addressing. As archaeologists we have a responsibility to make our research and findings available to the public for their own edification or study. What use is there in studying the past if we cannot share our passions and the revelations of our research with other enthusiasts whether they be fellow academics, collectors, or laypeople?

Through the course of the discussion, several points about access to literature and material and the ability to publish scholarship were raised.

Publication

I explained that scholarly journals (archaeological, numismatic, philogical, art historical, historical, etc.) are peer-reviewed and that affiliated scholars and non-affiliated scholars would be on equal footing during the referee process since submissions to such journals are reviewed blindly.

Mr. Sayles countered by stating that the American Journal of Archaeology has publication guidelines prohibiting the publication of material in collections that were unknown before 1973. While this is true, it is wrong to view the AJA's guidelines for ethical publication as a malicious attempt to exclude independent scholars. Clearly the policy was enacted as a means to discourage the illicit and unethical trade in recently looted antiquities. Nearly twenty years ago, Fred S. Kleiner, a well-known archaeologist, art historian, and numismatist, and who was also the Editor-in-Chief of the AJA at the time, attempted to clear up some misconceptions of the AJA's publication policy through a short editorial in the journal (F.S. Kleiner, "On the Publication of Recent Acquisitions of Antiquities," AJA 94 (1990), 525-527 [JSTOR]). Some of his comments regarding the policy and its goals are worth noting (all italics in original text):

"While condemning the illicit trade in antiquities, the Archaeological Institute of America and the American Journal of Archaeology will not, however, stand in the way of legitimate scholarly discussion of antiquities so acquired once they have been published elsewhere. The AIA resolution does not ask scholars to pretend that illicitly acquired objects do not exist and does not require that such objects never be discussed at an AIA annual meeting or in the AJA. To do so would be contradictory to the vey principle of free and open scholarly inquiry for which the AIA and its Journal stand" (p. 526).

"...The policy has had its intended effect, namely to put the Archaeological Institute of America on record as taking an unequivocal stand against the illicit trade in antiquities and the attendant destruction of the archaeological context of those artifacts; to focus the attention of scholars, museum curators, collectors, and the general public on an ethical, legal, and scholarly issue of paramount importance; and to prompt many institutions and individual collectors to reevaluate and amend their acquisition policies - while not putting the AIA in the way of scholarly inquiry and discussion. The AIA's is a carefully framed, balanced policy; I personally support it without reservation" (p. 527).

Pertinent to Mr. Sayles' criticism, I would also add that the current publication policy allows for the publication of undocumented artifacts for which there is no history or provenance provided that the article emphasizes the loss of knowledge resulting from its unscientific excavation. Since context is such an important facet of study for the material remnants of past events, whether an archaeological site or a modern crime scene, it certainly should not be difficult to highlight the loss of information caused by a loss of context.

Access to Literature

The second point we discussed was access of study material and resources. I explained that unaffiliated scholars can usually join university research libraries for a small fee and make use of the same resources that affiliated scholars can.

Mr. Sayles disagrees about access by claiming that university libraries reserve parts of their holdings for faculty and doctoral students and pointing to institutional affiliation as necessary for access to JSTOR, which archives past issues of some scholarly journals.

To this I can only point to my own experiences. I am currently affiliated with the University of Missouri - Columbia, which maintains a very important research library relating to archaeology, ancient history, and classics. We even have a respectable collection of numismatic resources as well. There are no parts of the library collection which are reserved only for doctoral candidates or faculty. If a member of the public were to join the library, he/she would have access to the same resources to which I and everyone else there would have access. Library memberships typically also provide use of the Interlibrary Loan Program so that one can order any book or article which is not held by the library. The library membership also grants access to JSTOR and members of the public who do not join the library can certainly access it from library terminals. Many public libraries should also provide access to JSTOR. It is true that JSTOR does not yet offer access for private individuals, but it does have a page suggesting ways of accessing it until non-affiliated researchers can subscribe directly (Institutional memberships are only possible at present). Mr. Sayles is a Missourian and so it is highly likely that if he wishes to conduct research, the University of Missouri library would be the most sensible choice for him as it is the best library for ancient world research in the region. I highly recommend the resources we have available for any research he would wish to conduct.

When I studied at the University of Evansville and the University of Reading (UK), the libraries of the institutions did not have collections reserved only for doctoral students or faculty. When I was at the ANS seminar in 2004, I made use of the library at Columbia University and got a visitor's card. Many of the works were not in the main library but divided up around campus and housed within individual departments. I was able to use my visitor's card (which did not indicate I was doctoral student) to access the resources that were housed in the Classics Department.

Personally, I have always been an enthusiastic researcher and between my undergraduate degree and M.A. I had a four or five month long summer break because of the differences between the American and British academic timetables. During that time I made use of the Texas Tech University library in my hometown and I inquired about joining the library in order to make use of Interlibrary Loan since the numismatic and archaeological resources were not that great. If I had joined the library I would have been able to make use of the program.

Certainly, affiliated scholars have an advantage in living in the same town and working at universities with research libraries, but there is no reason that unaffiliated scholars cannot make use of these resources for their own study. One may have to pay a small fee to join a library, but this will open up access to that collection, JSTOR, and virtually anything else one may wish to read could be attained through Interlibrary Loan.

Access to Material

Mr. Sayles also claims there is a bias against independent scholars in the implementation of fees necessary for the reproduction of copyrighted images. Again, I can only speak from personal experiences, but I have had to order images several times. My impression is that fees for the reproduction of images are standard across the board - everyone is expected to pay. When I published my first article this was an overwhelming notion given my small graduate student budget, but a senior colleague informed me that if you explain your financial situation you can often get the fees waived. I tried this and it worked. I explained I was a poor, unwaged graduate student and would not profit financially for the article and so they waived the fees. When I conducted my die study of the Colosseum coins this worked as well for some places, but other museums would not bend the rules and it did cost me about $120 for photographs from one institution in spite of my affiliation and unwaged status! There were other institutions which also refused to waive fees, but their prices were not quite as high as $120 for images of one coin. I know several fellow graduate students who did not explain their situations and simply paid the fees as requested, going further into debt in the process. I have told several of my unwaged colleagues that they should explain their situations when ordering images - it never hurts to ask.

In short, independent scholars are not the only ones who have to battle exorbitant fees in the reproduction of images. Affiliated scholars fight with them equally. I know of some more senior colleagues who have already published books, for which they will not profit in book sales on account of printing costs, and have had to invest their own money and savings in the publication of those books. One academic acquaintance informed me he had to cough up $20,000 for the image rights on one of one of his more amply illustrated scholarly books!

My impression is that institutions are more willing to waive fees for the reproduction of images for unwaged individuals or for people who will not be profiting financially from their published works (e.g. for an article vs. a popular book). Generally, reproduction costs are not based on affiliation or lack of it, contrary to Mr. Sayles' view.

Mr. Sayles also criticized the ANS for discounting him as a participant in the ANS seminar when he expressed interest some years ago. While I am not familiar with the specific circumstances relating to his inquiry, I do know that the ANS seminar is designed for active graduate students or very recent PhDs - individuals who are pursuing scholarly careers. Mr. Sayles said at the time of inquiry he already had a graduate degree and was not enrolled in a doctoral program and so I suspect that would be the reasoning why he would not have been accepted. Certainly he would not have been dismissed as a potential applicant because he is a collector/dealer. At the time I attended the seminar I personally was still collecting to some degree and many knowledgeable collectors give and have given lectures and instruction to seminar participants.

There is also some question about access to museum collections. Here I must simply say that we all struggle with this - affiliated or not. Peter Tompa and I have already shared stories about difficulty accessing material. I was affiliated and he was not, but we both had difficulty with various institutions. With some of these inward-looking institutions you simply have to find a contact who will vouch for you to gain access as I had to do and as Mr. Tompa also had to do. Its absurd I agree, but even as an affiliated academic I have fought with it as well.

***

Mr. Sayles says I am "naive" to believe that independent scholars are not consciously excluded by affiliated academics and that concern about looting is unrelated to a maligned agenda to exclude independent scholars. He references SAA Bulletin 11.5, in which archaeologists Jon L. Gibson and Joe Sanders stated: "Archaeologists must be more than just stewards of the past. They must serve as the public conscience. They must act on society's behalf even when society is insensitive or objects."

I do not read control in this statement the same way that Mr. Sayles does, and I agree wholeheartedly with the statement made by Gibson and Sanders. I maintain that the archaeologist's concern for looting is easily and naturally comparable to the concern of environmental scientists who are worried about climate change and zoologists who are worried about the extinction of certain species and poaching. Would one argue that these specialists simply want to own or control environmental science and endangered animals? It would be a very idiosyncratic view indeed, but that is essentially what is being said about archaeology and its concern about looting issues.

I fully understand that access to research materials can be difficult in some circumstances; even affiliated scholars have battled with access to collections and resources. But I do not think the problem is as grim for independent scholars as Mr. Sayles paints it and I do not believe there is a conspiracy to exclude them from an informed academic discourse. I have read peer-reviewed articles by unaffiliated scholars a number of times in academic journals and I normally see several "At Large" members at the annual AIA meetings. If an independent scholar has the will to access a research library or other resources, this can be accomplished. And let us be honest, the "Good Old Boy's Club" syndrome is just as prevalent in the "real world," perhaps even more so than it is academia. Equally, personal connections can certainly aid the advancement of a collector or dealer in the ancient coin and antiquities trade and I wonder if many of the large auction houses would open their own reference libraries to the public.

Undoubtedly, access to research materials could be improved and the wider scholarly community needs to put pressure on insular institutions to allow access more freely for legitimate research. Nevertheless, this is an issue unrelated to looting and indiscriminate collecting. It is a red herring injected into the debate and meant to distract from the real and pressing issue of systematic looting. Archaeologists have a duty to act as the "public conscience" on looting and are naturally in a position to call attention to the destruction of the material past. An archaeologist's relationship to the material past is analogous to that of zoologists to endangered species or environmental scientists to climate change. Should they not act as the "public conscience" on such issues or should they be demonized for doing so?

Related Discussions

• 
  
  N. Elkins, "Archaeologists Don't Care about Ancient Coins?" Cultural Heritage in Danger. 12 October 2007.


• 
  
  N. Elkins, "Dilettanti and Shopmen: Divergent Interests in Looting and Cultural Heritage Issues." Numismatics and Archaeology. 7 May 2008.


• 
  
  N. Elkins, "Internet Discussions on Looting, Legislation, and Lobbyists." Numismatics and Archaeology. 19 August 2008.


• 
  
  D.W.J. Gill, "Saving Antiquities: The 'Elephant Ivory Model'." Looting Matters. 22 September 2007.


• 
  
  D.W.J. Gill, "Al Gore and the Finite Resource." Looting Matters. 12 October 2007.


• 
  
  SAFECORNER, "Will We Achieve Global Recognition in the Cultural Heritage Debate?" Cultural Heritage in Danger. 13 October 2007.


• 
  
  P. Barford, "Ivory Tower Passivity." Cultural Heritage in Danger. 27 October 2008.

Leisurely Blogging, Laggardly Thinking

I have sometimes commented on the tenor of the "debate" between archaeologists/preservationists and their opponents, some of the most vocal of which are portable antiquities dealers.

While archaeologists have sought to shed light on the relationship between the demands of indiscriminate trade activities and systematic looting through empirical studies and research, naysayers - with some exceptions - have a tendency to respond simply with vague ideological premises, deceptive factoids, or even derisive personal attacks.

I and others have made observations before on the role of disinformation and personal attacks coming from certain members of the trade lobby:

• e.g., N. Elkins, "Archaeologists Don't Care about Ancient Coins?" Cultural Heritage in Danger. 12 October 2007.
• e.g., N. Elkins, "Dilettanti and Shopmen: Divergent Interests in Looting and Cultural Heritage Issues." Numismatics and Archaeology. 7 May 2008.
• e.g., N. Elkins, "Archaeological 'Brown Shirts'." Numismatics and Archaeology. 10 November 2008.
• e.g., P. Barford, "An Example of US Numismophilic Erudition." Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues. 20 July 2008.
• e.g., D.W.J. Gill, "Respect for Colleagues." Looting Matters. 20 August 2008.
• e.g., D.W.J. Gill, "Cyprus Discussion: Etiquette?" Looting Matters. 21 August 2008.

Neil Brodie has commented on various deceptions and tactics used by such individuals before in his 2006 essay "Smoke and Mirrors," in E. Robson, L. Treadwell, and C. Gosden (eds.), Who Owns Objects? Oxford: Oxbow. 1-14. Brodie interprets such obfuscatory tactics as attempts to undermine any solution to the looting problem so that the status quo remains and all antiquities can be traded freely with little concern for law or ethics.

In recent years many archaeologists, preservationists, and government officials have been personally targeted by certain leaders of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG), a lobby which opposes anything but a free-market in ancient coins and actively combats legislative measures designed to protect archaeological and cultural heritage when the unfettered trade in ancient coins might be hindered as a result of protective legislation. Among those that consistently have been the object of personal attacks launched by the ACCG's leaders is Maria Koroupas, the Executive Director of the U.S. State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee.

Maria Kouroupas has been vituperated by ACCG leaders a number of times since Cyprus' request for the inclusion of certain ancient coins of Cypriot type in the bilateral agreement on import restrictions was implemented in 2007, an event which angered ancient coin dealers in the U.S. Some of these dealers allege she worked in the shadows to undermine the "interests of collectors." Some of the most venomous attacks made against her include D. Welsh, "Stealth Unidroit: The State Department's War Against Collecting," Ancient Coins, 1 August 2007 and D. Welsh, "Maria's Fingerprints," Ancient Coins, 10 August 2007. In the latter Welsh quoted the late Steven Vincent, a journalist who was sympathetic to the American collector and dealer lobby, in calling Maria Kouroupas the "devil incarnate" to collectors and dealers. Dave Welsh is the chair of the ACCG's International Affairs Committee and an ancient coin dealer.

Today I read a post entitled "Leisure" on Wayne Sayles' blog. Sayles is the Executive Director and founder of the ACCG and also a long-time dealer in ancient coins. In the latest posting, "Leisure," Sayles directs vitriol again towards Maria Kouroupas:

"I just couldn't resist passing this one on. Condé Nast lists "Top Executive" profiles on their website Portfolio.com and among the elite profiled there one will find Maria Kouroupas, Executive Director, Cultural Property Advisory Committee, Washington, DC. Condé Nast lists the Industry of Ms. Kouroupas as "Leisure".

Bravo!"

Apparently Sayles finds amusement or irony in the fact that a website aggregating information on various executives lists Kouroupas' industry as "leisure." Had he done some more research on the site he might have also found that Phillipe de Montebello, who many dealers and collectors would no doubt count as an "ally," is also classified under the industry label of "leisure."

Jane Waldbaum, the former president of the Archaeological Institute of America, is recorded as being in the "professional services" industry.

Eric McFadden of the North American ancient coin auction house, CNG, is listed as a retailer. Robert and Tory Freeman and David R. Sear of the auction house Freeman & Sear are also listed as working in "retail."

Portfolio.com's industry headings are certainly limited and inaccurate. It would appear anyone involved with cultural affairs is filed under "leisure" - I guess there is no "culture" industry. The label portfolio.com provides for the operators of CNG and Freeman & Sear would seem to imply their work relates to slapping stickers on cans of vegetables, but I am well aware their work goes well beyond that sort of activity. To say the least, the descriptions of "industries" covered by this online list are narrow and imprecise.

Mr. Sayles merely took the opportunity to launch another gratuitous and baseless insult. Is not such behavior rather childish and unbecoming of someone of certain age and alleged repute, and especially of one who is supposed to be the leading representative of ancient coin collector and dealer interests - the ACCG's Executive Director - an office which one might expect to necessitate a certain level of dignity and decorum?

Although I fully expect this critique to be countered with a further caustic personal attack on me, I ask once again: where is the erudition, intellectualism, and moderation in the discussion of these issues? Is the "other side" able to offer more than chicanery and insults? I know there are some out there who want to go beyond that, so why can we not discuss the issues in an adult manner?

Archaeological 'Brown Shirts'

Profitable ancient coin dealer and self-regarded "independent scholar" Wayne Sayles views himself as an authority on ancient coins, the ancient world, and cultural property issues. He has written some books on collecting, publishes articles about collecting in a collector magazine he founded, and he organized a group of dealers together and founded a lobby (the ACCG) in 2004 to combat what he calls "radical archaeologists." He and some other vociferous and/or leading members of this lobby have argued or insinuated that archaeologists want to take over the world, control all ancient world science and resources, bring back world dictators, and prance around in brown uniforms. This certain group frequently uses the imagery of Hitler's Germany in its online discussions with other collectors and dealers.

Ancient coin and antiquities dealer Phil Jones, who once informed me he was (or is) either the chair or a member of ACCG's Balkan Affairs Committee (I wonder, why would they have one?), responded irately to a collector with an archaeology degree who had pointed out that although coin dealers argue that the coin trade is different from that in other antiquities they often sell those too. Jones said:

"There is a reality that you haven't considered yet in your 'AIA NAZI' anti-market position that I don't particularly accept or welcome."

Jones later apologized for the outburst after apparently being told to do so by the group's moderator.

Shortly after the ACCG was formed Dave Welsh, ancient coin dealer and Chair of the ACCG's International Affairs Committee, attempted to recruit people with an online posting entitled "Uncle Wayne Wants YOU" in which he insensitively compared archaeological ethical concerns to Nazism and the Holocaust:

"There were many thousands of Jews who stayed in Germany after the Nazis took power. They did not believe Hitler would actually do the crazy evil things he had been ranting about. Cultural property law is not Nazi fascism. Those advocating it are honorable, well intentioned people of high moral character, not homicidal maniacs. But their proposed laws really do threaten to become a Holocaust for collecting. Those who promote the Unidroit convention (and other cultural property laws) don't care what happens to collectors. They are focused on their own goals, and many would actually welcome these laws putting an end to private collecting."

Shortly after the U.S. State Department accepted Cyprus' request for renewal of import restrictions with the addition of certain coins of Cypriot type, Welsh again tried to recruit ACCG members with alarmism and the use of fascistic imagery:

"….If the AIA sent a squad of radical archaeologists to your house to seize your collection, in the process verbally abusing you as a moral cripple responsible for everything bad that is happening to archaeological sites, wouldn't you be mad as Hades? Wouldn't you be ready to fight? Well get ready to fight, because that is more or less what they intend to do, and actually are doing, one small step at a time. They really believe that private collecting is wrong by their standards of morality, and that all antiquities ought to be taken away from collectors and private museums who own them, to be stored in public institutions under the care and control of trained academics who are the only ones worthy of being entrusted with that responsibility.

If collecting is not important enough to fight for, in the end (not so very distant, in my opinion) we WILL lose the right to collect. In the process we will also lose other even more important rights and freedoms. I'm already fighting as hard as I can."

Wayne Sayles' business partner, John Lavender, who co-operates their dealership, Sayles & Lavender, once replied to a query from a collector who had an ethical concern about buying bulk uncleaned coins:

"...You certainly shouldn't doubt what attention your uncleaned treasures will get when some AIA [N]azi finds a bag of them for sale at the local Discovery [S]tore."

These are just a few of the dozens of comments one can find made by ancient coin dealers and collectors associated with the ACCG on some of the online discussion lists.

On his own blog Wayne Sayles - who remains the ACCG's executive director - never engages in the issues but moves immediately to inflammatory personal attacks, recently accusing me and others of "goose-stepping" by wishing to discuss ethical issues. Goose-stepping is a term which in itself has Nazi overtones. I suppose such tactics and feeble rants are welcome alternatives for those who are impotent of either the faculty or will to enter into an equitable and honest dialogue about the real issues (see also Paul Barford's response).

Let me be clear: by no means do I wish to imply that all collectors and dealers subscribe to these reprehensible tactics and deceptions. To the contrary many collectors on these same discussion lists seem disgusted by this recurrent language and distraction from the core issues and have often responded to such statements on the lists (on the fact that many collectors and even some metal detectorists find the the views and tactics of ACCG leaders extremist, see Gill's "Coins and Cyprus: Listening to the Coin Forum" with comments following the post and my own "ACCG Benefit Auction Press Release").

The problem here, however, is that this radical minority seems to run the show at the ACCG and dominate discussions and "dialogues" from the U.S.-based dealer/collector perspective. How effective and useful is this sort of inflammatory nonsense? It definitely distracts from the real issues and does not breed an atmosphere in which those with opposing views would want to get together for any sort of meeting of the minds. Perhaps that is the goal: the profiteers and self-interests can continue operating under the status quo unless legislated out of existence.

I count several collectors among my friends and colleagues and I regularly correspond with several erudite collectors and dealers. Many of them have expressed to me they find activities such as those described above distasteful. There are indeed many brilliant collectors and also some very well-educated and published dealers. We disagree on the issues, but we are capable of discussing them openly and frankly without constantly exchanging barbs. I am also fortunate to be able to turn to them as peers when I wish to discuss other research with them or ask questions about an area of numismatics in which they are more specialized.

Why are some of the ACCG's leaders incapable of doing the same? Why are the rational and more intellectual collectors and dealers not representing the wider trade and collector community? Certainly the people engaging in these behaviors and unsavory tactics are not the ones collectors and dealers want representing their interests to the public and to Washington lawmakers.

The Controversial "Excavation" of a Coin Hoard

Paul Barford and David Gill have both commented on a news report (L. Hannam, "Treasure hunters set to coin it with Roman haul," MK News) about English metal detectorists who dug out a meter of soil to recover a large Roman coin hoard, which was associated with other ancient remains. To their credit, the detectorists did report the hoard - formally declared a treasure - to the responsible authorities.

Barford and Gill, however, both question whether or not situations like this are what the PAS was designed for. Many think of the PAS as recording primarily surface finds from ploughed fields, which were already "decontextualized" (in addition to the two original posts, see also Barford's "What would the PAS Say?"). The concern in this instance is the amount of earth removed to get to the coins and the fact that the hoard was not an isolated find. Important contextual information, which could provide greater insight into the circumstances surrounding the deposition of this hoard or conversely the associated remains have been destroyed.

Peter Tompa, a former president of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG), has responded forcefully to Barford and Gill's respective concerns. While he is correct in that it seems the detectorists did what UK law requires of them, his attempts at assuaging ethical concerns from an archaeological perspective are inadequate.

For example, he stated that since the find was made on ploughed land, the context was already disturbed. This is an argumentative claim since it is impossible to know how far the ploughed topsoil affects the archaeological remains without a proper archaeological investigation. Since one meter of earth had to be removed to get at the coins, it would appear the plough might not have reached this depth as the coins would have been scattered and pulled out to the surface had this been the case (on the depth of ploughing, see also Barford's "The Washington Lawyer and the Metal Detectorists").

Mr. Tompa also claims that the broken vessel which contains the coins is an indication the plough broke the vessel. Again, this is another assumption. It may be a possibility, but it impossible to tell without the context (now lost). Coin hoards are frequently recovered in archaeological contexts in broken or damaged vessels - this can be an effect of the geology or weather or can be a result of other post-depositional processes in which something may have fallen on the container or the container itself fell, etc.

Mr. Tompa cites Roger Bland and the PAS in his response, as so many of the dealers and collectors at the ACCG often do. It appears, however, they frequently take his work and views out of context. In a review of Cuno's recent book, Bland reacted strongly against "US cultural imperialism" of the sort the ACCG subscribes to (see Gill's, "'An Example of US Cultural Imperialism at its Worst'").

The archaeological inaccuracies in Mr. Tompa's reply are perhaps natural since he is not an archaeologist but rather a collector and attorney. I am sure if I were to attempt to discuss legal issues in some detail I would make some errors as well.

The concern of archaeologists and many numismatists is that information and history is destroyed in the search for curios and/or profit. The value of context and the threat of the indiscriminate trade has been highlighted in my article "A Survey of the Material and Intellectual Consequences of Trading in Undocumented Ancient Coins..." Frankfurter elektronische Rundschau zur Altertumskunde 7, 2008, 1-13. A collection of 11 essays - 10 of them in English -discussing the value of archaeological and contextual methods in relation to coin finds from excavations, hoards, etc., is about to be made available: H.-M von Kaenel and F. Kemmers (eds.). 2008-forthcoming. Coins in Context I: New Approaches in Interpreting Coin Finds (provisional title). Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 23 (Mainz: von Zabern). It is the goal of these essays to make developing contextual methods, which are already at the fore of research on numismatics and archaeology, more widely known and they build upon methods and theories that have been forming over the past few decades.

As Barford and Gill point out it is a false assertion made by some ancient coin dealers (which does not qualify them as being archaeologists) that most hoards are "isolated," i.e. found in the middle of nowhere with no associated remains and thus archaeologically "insignificant." In the above-mentioned article, I examined this assumption and pointed out that hoards can compose substantial percentages of all the coin finds recovered at archaeological sites. One of the largest hoards ever recovered (perhaps the largest), the Reka-Devnia Hoard, contained 350 kg of Roman silver coins and was found within a structure in the ancient city of Marcianopolis - not in an empty field devoid of associated remains.

While the finders of the controversial treasure acted legally and are to be commended for reporting the find as mandated by the law, we ought to consider the ethics of disturbing archaeologically significant sites in such a way as removing large amounts of earth and disassociating objects with their broader contexts (associated remains) and stratigraphy: these are the building blocks for writing histories for which we can only use material evidence (cf. Barford's forceful, but on point, "Give and Take of Obeying the Law"). Indeed, in most source countries this type of destruction is illegal, much to the chagrin of ancient coin and antiquities dealers who often trade in such material despite laws in source countries. There is a difference between picking up decontextualized surface finds and disturbing contexts deep in the earth.

(Image: A selection of coins from the hoard in question from L. Hannam, "Treasure hunters set to coin it with Roman haul," MK News)

ACCG "Benefit Auction" Press Release

David Gill has commented on the press release about the ACCG "benefit auction," which the group has blasted throughout the internet via the PR Newswire (D.W.J. Gill, "Collecting coins: 'a fundamental aspect of citizenship'," Looting Matters, 8 August 2008; on the "benefit auction" see N.T. Elkins, "The ACCG 'Benefit Auction' and Intrinsic Interests," Numismatics and Archaeology, 8 July 2007). The lobby's founder and executive director, Wayne Sayles, an ancient coin dealer, is quoted several times in the release, which also appears to have been authored by him since "Gainesville, MO" is listed as the origin of the release and his contact information appears at the bottom of it.

The press release also reiterates the dubious and argumentative claim that tradesmen and collectors are better stewards for ancient objects than trained professionals. I have critically evaluated Sayles' unsubstantiated assertions regarding this subject before (see N.T. Elkins, "Archaeologists don't care about ancient coins?" Cultural Heritage in Danger, 26 October 2007). The press release also declares that archaeologists (which would include many numismatists), who are concerned about the effect of indiscriminate market demand, are "wildly radical."

There is also a promotional aspect to this press release as well:

"The ACCG, a numismatic advocacy group, is currently selling ancient
coins donated by its members to fund a legal challenge of recent U.S.
StateDepartment (DOS) sanctions that they say were applied contrary to law
and threaten their hobby. The benefit sale, closing on August 17, is being
held at the online venue http://www.vauctions.com/."

Beyond the rights of American consumers to purchase whatever ancient object they desire without concern or about the circumstances in which it was procured, David Gill observes:

"Cosmopolitan archaeologists believe that stewardship
of the finite archaeological record is appropriate in a civilised
society.

And I am sure that rational and responsible coin collectors will
agree."

Indeed it would seem he is correct. In a thread on the British Archaeology list regarding the ACCG's auction and its efforts, one metal detectorist wrote [the quoted text to which he is referring is in blue]:

"I have found it impossible to follow this debate from the start due to work commitments, but the following paragraphs posted by 'invisible planet' did
jump out at me:

'Elkins is clear to make a distinction between those 'numismatists who are more sensitive to contextual study' and those who 'search for coins to fuel market demand [, which] contributes to the destruction of valuable information for serious numismatic research *and *archaeology'. [ibid]

'It seems inevitable that laws will come to pass which will attempt to restrict illicit
trade in the antiquities of 'foreign' countries, and seems wise that numismatist dealers such as yourself should take measures to bring your business in line with current thinking in ethical practices. It would be better in the long term to stand with those of us who do do support the preservation of contextual knowledge for future
generations.'

I have to say that even as a metal detectorist, I whole heartedly subscribe to this kind of thinking.

From what I have been able to read then I do feel that perhaps Mr. [Dave] Welsh is misreading the current climate in the UK within providers of artefacts/coins to collectors that there is an ever growing movement towards the necessity to preserve any contextual knowledge that may be gained from a find and indeed many of us within the hobby work hard towards this.

Markets such as Ebay UK are woefully lax in allowing the selling of non treasure artefacts/coins that have not been recorded with a body such as the PAS and, although the PAS is not in place to 'legitimise' the trade in antiquities, it is only in this way that any potential knowledge can be saved and tighter restrictions placed on the
illicit trade. Without the proper recording of all finds and proper documentation, whether they are for the collectors market or not, then any arguments that private collectors are a force for a wider academic study is hogwash and the whole situation of buying and selling and collecting becomes nothing more than a rush of hogs to the trough.

While I as a detectorist am against any move to restrict private collecting, it, as with the hobby of metal detecting, simply has to respond and react to its very real responsibilities."

The message above stands in stark contrast to remarks and assertions made by Dave Welsh, a coin dealer and head of the ACCG's International Affairs Committee, on the same list. Some of Welsh's comments there have echoed those made previously by Wayne Sayles. It seems that other collectors, and at least one metal detectorist, are not able to reconcile themselves with the "wildly radical" views maintained by some of the ACCG's leaders.

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."