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.

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?

Decision Rendered in ACCG FOIA Suit Against U.S. Department of State

The litigious measures of the ACCG, and particularly its FOIA lawsuit against the Department of State with co-plaintiffs IAPN and PNG, have come up in discussion on this website before. A decision was delivered last Friday. David Gill delivered the first public comments (see "The ACCG, IAPN, and PNG FOIA Case: Opinion Delivered", 24 November 2009, Looting Matters). Gill's latest PR Newswire article brings further attention to the decision:

SWANSEA, Wales, Nov. 27 /PRNewswire/ -- David Gill, archaeologist, reflects on the outcome of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) related case brought against the US Department of State by two numismatic trade bodies and a collector advocacy group.

Two numismatic trade bodies, the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) and the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG), and a collector advocacy group, the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG), had made a series of eight FOIA requests relating to the import restrictions on ancient coins from three specific areas: China, Cyprus, and Italy. The searches produced some 128 documents; 70 were released in full, and 39 in part.

In November 2007, the three groups (ACCG, IAPN, PNG) filed suit for the release of the remaining material. The action was taken because, according to the ACCG, the three bodies felt that "the State Department [had] recently imposed unprecedented import restrictions on ancient coins from Cyprus."

The restrictions on coins and other archaeological material had been put in place as part of a suite of measures to try and reduce the problem of looting. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Cyprus was praised by Dr. Pavlos Flourentzos, the then-director of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus. He had been keen to include coins as part of the MOU. In a December 2007 interview for SAFE (Saving Antiquities for Everyone), Flourentzos noted, "there is no scientific reason to set coins apart from the rest of archaeological finds." He also stressed that the MOU "shows sensitivity to the importance of preserving world cultural heritage, a principle highly esteemed by the international scientific community."

The lawsuit has now come to a conclusion with the issuing of a memorandum by Judge Richard J. Leon on November 20, 2009. Leon concluded that the State Department had "conducted a reasonable search" and that "it properly withheld the disputed information under FOIA exemptions."

The three plaintiffs are now said to be considering an appeal. The ACCG is also planning to bring a test case apparently linked to import restrictions. In April this year, the ACCG had tried to import ancient coins from China and Cyprus through Baltimore Airport without the appropriate paperwork.

It would appear that the ACCG had intended to keep the decision quiet until determining how to react since no comment came from them until immediately after Gill publicized the ruling. Shortly thereafter, the ACCG made a press release, apparently authored by Executive Director Wayne Sayles, which includes some interesting spins ("Ruling in FOIA Case Condones DOS Intransigence"). Gill has provided further discussion ("'This litigation was in many ways a win for the plaintiffs': The ACCG Responds to FOIA Decision").

Also of interest is the tenor and reasoning of comments made by Dave Welsh (Chair of the ACCG's International Affairs Committee) on the decision ("FOIA Case Ruling", 25 November 2009, Unidroit).

The judge's opinion memorandum is publicly available (download here). The judge's comments provide insight into the sorts of documents that the ACCG and its co-plaintiffs were trying to obtain, but which the government determined were included in FOIA exemptions. Such material includes private emails sent by members of the general public in regard to the MoU:

The State Department further points out that, contrary to the plaintiffs' assertion, the information in question here-certain emails sent by members of the private sector in connection with the Act and certain materials from the Bureau submitted to the committee-was provided in confidence. (Grafeld Decl. at 38, 54, 60, 72.) Specifically, the Grafeld Declaration states that the information was provided in confidence to either the State Department staff or to the advisory committee, often by archaeologists, curators, collectors, dealers, and auction house specialists, with the expectation of confidence. (Id.) Such confidence was necessary in order for individuals to disclose information about the quantity, quality, and objects of looting. (Id.). The Government thus properly withheld the information under exemption (b)(3). See 19 U.S.c. §§ 2605(i)(l)-(2).

It also appears that the dealer lobby was curious to uncover the identity of State Department employees and law enforcers involved in the enforcement bilateral agreements and import restrictions:

The Government also withheld portions of two documents under exemption (b )(7)(C), which exempts information compiled for law enforcement purposes that "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C). Specifically, the State Department withheld names, email addresses, and telephone and fax numbers of low-level employees included in a chain of emails created as part of law enforcement efforts to implement and enforce cultural property restrictions. I I (Def.'s Mot. at 9.) Given the individuals' strong privacy interest in their identifying information and the weak public interest in identifying information of low-level employees, the Court concludes that the State Department properly withheld the identifying information. See Lesar v. Us. Dep 't of Justice, 636 F.2d 472,487 (D.C. Cir. 1980); (see also Grafeld Decl. 42-44).

Lobbyist Celebrates "Collectors' Rights" Victory in Bulgaria, but What About the Continuous Destruction?

A Washington lobbyist and former of president of the American dealer lobby has recently celebrated a court ruling in Bulgaria which makes it easier for Bulgarian citizens to own looted minor antiquities.

Astute collectors however recognize that the ruling does not lessen the scale of destruction and the resulting loss of knowledge that is taking place in Eastern European countries like Bulgaria. One collector remarked:

"This change may be a victory for collectors, but I don't see that it has any impact on the looting problem.

It seems that Bulgarian collectors will be able to keep and 'legitimize' their collections (which in turn may then be eligible for legal export and sale?). But the provenance will be 'so-and-so's collection' as opposed to anything useful....

Of course, I would love to see a PAS-type system there [Bulgaria] in the future, but the first priority with a dying patient is to stop the bleeding."

Many collectors like this one realize that large scale demand and unconcerned attitudes in the acquisition of objects for resale drive the loss of knowledge caused by looting. After all, the U.S. is a market nation which imports looted material from countries like Bulgaria by the ton. Even in collector magazines, collectors have written editorials begging that something be done and proposing ways that collectors and dealers might address how market activities contribute to the problems and work on remedies. But these individuals, their concerns, and their ideas are often dismissed or ignored.

Why is the commercial lobby, which claims to be "anti-looting," unwilling to acknowledge or address the problem and the way that the current market structure contributes to it? If, as its titulature suggests, it caters to a collector interest, why are the concerns of conscientious collectors not being addressed?

I suggest that the archaeological community ought to distinguish better between collector and commercial. It ought to embrace that element which acquires objects out of a passion for history and a love of learning. The consumers are concerned and, if they feel empowered to do so, can be agents of proactive change. Others are content with a detrimental status quo.

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?

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.

U.S. Senate Gives Advice and Consent to the 1954 Hague Convention on Cultural Property

The following was posted today on the Museum Security Network List by Patty Gerstenblith:

Archaeological Institute of America
Lawyers’ Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation
U.S. Committee for the Blue Shield

The Archaeological Institute of America, the Lawyers’ Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation, and the U.S. Committee for the Blue Shield announce that the United States Senate voted on September 25 to give its advice and consent to ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The United States now joins 121 other nations in becoming a party to this historic treaty which establishes the principles for protecting cultural sites, monuments and collections during both armed conflict and military occupation. By taking this significant step, the United States demonstrates its commitment to the preservation of the world’s cultural, artistic, religious and historic legacy.

The Statement of the Archaeological Institute of America, the Lawyers’ Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation, and the U.S. Committee for the Blue Shield urging Senate ratification, joined by twelve other cultural preservation organizations, is available at: http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org/advocacy.

Internet Discussions on Looting, Legislation, and Lobbyists

The ACCG "benefit auction" on which I have commented earlier (here, here, and here) has now closed and appears to have been a success for the group having raised over $45,000. The "benefit auction" was meant to raise funds "in opposition to State Department imposed import restrictions." The ACCG has sued the U.S. State Department through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to learn more about the process under which the decision was made to accept Cyprus's request for import restriction on ancient coins of Cypriot type. Elsewhere, several of the ACCG's members have alleged various sorts of conspiracies between archaeologists and State Department officials (see, for example, Ellen Herscher's concise response the latest allegations made against CAARI by Peter Tompa, president of the ACCG, on the Museum Security Network List).



As I have mentioned before, the ACCG is a 501(c)4 organization to which contributions are not normally tax deductible since up to 100% of contributions can be used for the purposes of political lobbying. Indeed, it is well-known that the ACCG actively lobbies senators and congressmen to oppose any sort of legislation which might hinder a "free market" in ancient coins and grants them "Friends of Numismatics Awards" for their support (see here, here, here, and here). Legislative measures are almost universally endorsed by archaeologists and ancient world scholars as a way to diminish looting and the irrecoverable loss of information that results from the unscientific procurement of ancient objects to supply market demand. Looting can be both a casual "hobby" activity for some or can be much more organized and systematic, as is presently the case in Balkan countries, which are major sources for the ancient coin and antiquities trade (for example, see the report on "Organized Crime in Bulgaria: Markets and Trends," which is briefly discussed and to which a link is provided here).


In the past, we have heard much from several members and leaders of the ACCG. For example, some collectors and antiquities dealers belonging to that group have labeled archaeologists who are concerned about looting as "radicals," "extremists," "zealots," "jihadists," and "fascists," and these are just a few of the pejorative terms out there. Several ACCG leaders have tried to assert that the ancient coin trade is independent of the antiquities trade as a whole, that fresh material does not enter the market to a significant degree, and that market demand does not play any role in looting that occurs in source countries. They have also attempted to argue that looting in Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion is either fiction or greatly exaggerated (e.g. see David Gill's response to Peter Tompa's discussion of old news on Iraq looting).



Although the ACCG itself is a 501(c)4 organization that uses its contributions for political lobbying, it consistently accuses and criticizes archaeological professional groups such as the AIA, American research centers abroad such as CAARI, and advocacy groups such as SAFE for what it calls political lobbying and manipulation. Of course the irony in this is that all of these are 501(c)3 organizations, which could not pay for political lobbying with the same freedom that the ACCG can.

During the course of the "benefit auction," there has been an increased amount of noise coming from certain ACCG leaders making new allegations. On these David Gill has been making some very useful observations (Looting Matters: "Lobbying and Archaeological Material", "Collecting Coins: 'A Fundamental Aspect of Citizenship'", and "Burns: 'I Wear this Title of Philhellene Rather Proudly'"). Peter Tompa, has criticized the use of foreign "lobbyists" on the decision to impose import restrictions from Cyprus. In response, David Gill has pointed out some of the irony in this since Mr. Tompa is himself the paid lobbyist for two major international coin trade (i.e. dealer) organizations, the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG) and the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN). The IAPN is based in Brussels, Belgium. One might also wonder whether or not he is the official paid lobbyist for the ACCG or if this work is pro bono. In regards to Iraq, it is noteworthy that Mr. Tompa is currently lobbying Washington lawmakers to exempt ancient coins from the emergency import restrictions on antiquities from Iraq that were imposed to curb the flow of plundered material into the U.S. As we all know, the U.S. is an important market country for ancient objects. Why does the ACCG have an interest in importing ancient coins from Iraq?



Dave Welsh, an ancient coin dealer and Chair of the ACCG's International Affairs Committee, has publicized Tompa's comments about foreign "lobbyists" on the Internet with an interesting spin; on the British Archaeology list, he posted it with the headline: "Lobbyists paid by foreign government to join assault on collecting." What Mr. Welsh fails to mention, of course, is that his own lobby, the ACCG, has accepted donations, financial contributions, and memberships from foreign collectors and dealers who may well have interests in U.S. legislation on ancient objects and market regulations. Mr. Welsh also advertised the ACCG's news article on the success of its "benefit auction" to several online discussion lists with the subject heading "ACCG Raises $45,000 to fund the Struggle Against Radical Archaeologists" (I thought it was to fight "State Department imposed import restrictions"!). Last year, he urged collectors to donate and join the ACCG using what may be best referred to as "fear-mongering" tactics, asking them to envisage this unrealistic world:

"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."

In the context of Welsh's behavior and actions, and even his use of insensitive language and slurs such as "cripple," it is interesting to note that they are apparently endorsed by the ACCG leadership since he was recently awarded with the "exceptionally meritorious service award." The online notice about this states:

"As founder and moderator of the Unidroit-L discussion list, Dave has dedicated countless hours to providing a balanced forum for discussion online of cultural property issues. He also represents the collector fraternity very effectively on numismatic discussion groups that reach a broad range of interested parties."

As the moderator and owner of the Unidroit-L discussion list, one might wonder how "balanced" the forum is when he posts headlines like the ones above and moderates the postings of opinions contrary to his own, but allows like-minded individuals to publish various diatribes, and even ad hominem attacks, freely on the list. Although it claims to give a voice to collectors, the behavior, tactics, and views of some ACCG leaders have been questioned by other collectors and metal detectorists before (see here and here, for example).


Instead of adopting more stringent due diligence practices in their business transactions or engaging equitably in a dialogue with the historical scientists who encounter, study, analyze, and publish ancient material on a daily basis and as part of their professional career, ancient coin and antiquities dealers have locked themselves in a public relations battle with archaeologists and other scholars and the medium for this battle is, by-in-large, the Internet. For example, one may recall the ACCG's widely circulated and self-promotional press release (via the PR Newswire) of its benefit auction, which misrepresented archaeology and the issues surrounding looting. This press release appears to have been authored by Wayne Sayles, a coin dealer and founder and executive director of the ACCG (click here and here for discussions of the press release).



The Internet is a double-edged sword in the sense of the information it provides. With it, we can share and access information unlike ever before, but at the same time anyone can use it is a platform to "publish" anything they wish, thus making it difficult for casual browsers to discern between the quality of information available. Andrew Keen, author of The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing our Culture (New York, 2007), explores these issues in detail and comments more specifically on how the Internet is being used by some individuals and groups to grind political axes. For example, he discusses the junk science that is disseminated through the internet and backed by certain energy companies that claim that climate change is fiction. Without more thorough investigations, casual readers are not usually aware of the sources of information they read or the political agendas that may guide them or the spins that are put on available data.


Several informed commentators and scholars have discussed the looting issue as one similar to climate change, the ivory trade, and the hunting of endangered species. Indeed, these are all issues which seem to pit the profiteer against the scientist, the commercial and self interest against that of knowledge and preservation.