The Chinese/Cypriot Coin Saga Continues

http://www.accg.us/issues/news/coin-collectors-to-challenge-state-department-on-import-restrictions

As a private antiquities collector and tax-paying American citizen, I'm outraged at this stunt pulled by the ACCG. To deliberately break the law for the express purpose of forcing a trial is just unbelievable. No doubt this was cooked up between the "officers" of the organization without bothering to ask the 5000 members they supposedly serve. What would have been the answer if they had? And what of the millions of American taxpayers that will be footing the bill for this farce? I bet no one in the ACCG thought to ask how they would like their tax dollars being wasted on such a scheme. After all, we are already paying for their Freedom of Information Act litigation, but apparently the wheels of justice weren't moving fast enough for them, so the moved to "Phase 2".

What the ACCG fails to acknowledge is that it's not the importation of the coins that is being prohibited, it is the importation of coins without a valid export license or proof that they left before Jan. 16,2009 (for the Chinese coins) or July 16, 2007 (for the Cypriot coins) that is prohibited. They know full well that if the coins they "attempted" to import had proper documentation, they would have never been retained by customs. This was posted by Peter Tompa himself:

Under the provision, restricted artifacts must be accompanied upon entry into the US with either a valid Chinese export certificate or certifications indicating that the artifact in question left China before the effective date of the restrictions, January 16, 2009.

http://www.coinlink.com/News/ancients/state-department-adds-new-import-restrictions

This was also posted to the ACCG website by Peter Tompa and Dave Welsh:

The burden will then shift to the importer to prove that the coin was outside of Cyprus before July 16, 2007 (the date of the restrictions). Coins lacking such documentation are subject to seizure.

http://www.accg.us/issues/news/import-restrictions-imposed-on-cypriot-coins/

the ACCG can't even follow its own already loosely worded "Code of Ethics" (Coin Collectors and Sellers will not knowingly purchase coins illegally removed from scheduled archaeological sites or stolen from museum or personal collections, and will comply with all cultural property laws of their own country.) or even its own bylaws (The guild does not in any way support, condone or defend the looting of designated archaeological sites, nor the violation of any nation's laws concerning the import or export of antiquities.) This conduct shows them to be an organization that can't be trusted or even respected by ethical antiquities collectors no matter what type of antiquity they collect.

German Coin Collections Seized

Although I don't collect coins, I have read a lot of coin collectors' blogs lately, and there is a post to a blog here that I would like to comment on.

http://awcoingeek.blogspot.com/2009/02/german-collections-are-being.html

This post is regarding the recent raids on German coin collectors and the seizing of some collections, written by a coin collector from Wisconsin.

the *one thing* coin collectors need to stand united against is any intrusion by government to meddle in something that isn't worthy of government involvement. Coin collecting is certainly one of those things. When the government get's involved in harmless, innocent pastimes like people's hobbies - where does the government stop?

Apparently it is worth government involvement, since the coin collectors seem to think they should be exempt from cultural property laws. Do the coin collectors ever stop to think that the government wouldn't have seized those collections if they'd had proper documentation of those coins being legally excavated, exported, and purchased? For some reason that escapes me, coin collectors in general seem to think that their items don't need any proof of legal acquisition. They don't seem to think they should be bound by the same laws as any other antiquities collector.

This is where the rubber hits the road for collectors. Do I want the government to suddenly be involved with and regulating my hobby at every turn or worse, do I want my hobby to turn into a criminal activity overnight?

Unfortunately the collectors have brought this on themselves. If they had used due diligence in buying their items, and made sure they had all the proper paperwork, they would have nothing to worry about.

Collecting, especially of medieval and ancient coins, has been accused as a criminal act; under the unjustifiable accusation that collecting is the result and cause of the illegal looting of archaeological sites around the world.

The criminal act is not collecting. It is the clandestine digging of artifacts, not reporting them where required by law, and exporting them without permits. When the collectors buy items without asking the pertinent questions, they run the risk of buying what is essentially stolen property, and as such it is subject to confiscation. Why do coin collectors think they shouldn't have to follow the same laws as everyone else?

Collecting is not the cause of looting, but no-questions-asked buying certainly contributes to it. Who do you think the looters sell to? Collectors and dealers that are willing to buy without asking where it came from and how it was obtained.

If you collect responsibly, you have nothing to worry about in regards to government involvement. You will already have all the proper paperwork on your items to show that they are perfectly legal, and you'll have the added comfort of knowing that you are not contributing to the destruction of the historical record by possibly buying recently looted items.

There's No Link Between Buying Undocumented Items And Looting?

A comment from Dave Welsh in a post to the Ancient Artifacts forum on Yahoo: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/46911

"collectors (and dealers such as myself) actually do understand what collecting is all about,and also understand how specimens are discovered and eventually become available for collecting, thus they realize that collecting such common, low value artifacts as coins does not have anything at all to do with looting of archaeological sites."

Does this comment apply to ANY "low value" artifact, or just coins? Why do coin dealers think that coins shouldn't fall in the same category as other artifacts? The idea that illegally digging coins never destroys a potential archaeological site is just absurd.

For anyone that doesn't understand the damage that looting does, or how no questions asked buying perpetuates it, I recommend reading the book "Stealing History" by Roger Atwood. It gives a startling picture of the damage done, not only in terms of the knowledge lost by ripping items from their historical context, but also the physical destruction of precious antiquities that are deemed unsaleable by the looters.

After reading this book, how can anyone who has a love of antiquities or history not stop and think about how the "don't ask- don't tell" mentality of many collectors and dealers is contributing to this destruction? These are exactly the people that looters sell their ill-gotten items to. How can anyone say with a straight face that there is no connection between undocumented buying and looting?

The US Can't Enforce Other Countries' Laws

One of the arguments I hear frequently from collectors and dealers is "I'm not breaking the laws of my country, and the US can't enforce the laws of other countries, so I'm in the clear". In researching for something else, I came across this article:

http://www.aam-us.org/pubs/mn/MN_ND06_antique-laws.cfm

It says, in part:

"Starting in the mid-1970s, however, federal prosecutors applied a well-established criminal law, the National Stolen Property Act, to two cases involving illicit trafficking in cultural property. The NSPA, enacted in the 1930s, makes it a crime to transport any “goods, wares, merchandise, securities or money” valued in excess of $5,000 across state lines knowing such property was “stolen, converted or taken by fraud.” At the time it was passed, Congress was undoubtedly thinking about stolen cars, not antiquities from foreign lands. But the statute’s broad language lent itself to cases involving imported cultural patrimony, on the theory that such items had been “stolen” from their true owner, namely, another country.

In United States v. Hollinshead (1974), the defendants were charged with conspiring to transport stolen property in violation of the NSPA in connection with a scheme to procure valuable artifacts in Central America . The conspirators removed a pre-Columbian stele from a Mayan ruin in the jungle of Guatemala , cut it into pieces, and exported the pieces surreptitiously from a fish-packing plant in Belize to California . The defendants then attempted, without success, to sell the stele to various collectors and museums in the United States .

At trial, the government presented expert testimony that under the law of Guatemala , artifacts such as the stele were the property of the Republic of Guatemala and could not be removed from the country without the permission of the government. The judge instructed the jury that there was a presumption that every person knows what the law forbids—essentially, that “ignorance is no defense.” Predictably, the defendants were convicted.

On appeal, they argued that the jury should have been instructed that there was no such presumption as to knowledge of foreign law.The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco rejected that argument. In upholding the convictions, the court noted that while the government was required to prove that the conspirators knew the stele was stolen, it was not required to prove that they knew where it was stolen. As the court concluded, the defendants’ “knowledge of Guatemalan law is relevant only to the extent that it bears upon the issue of their knowledge that the stele was stolen.”

While Hollinshead was the first case of its kind, it did not address the more fundamental question of whether the NSPA should be applied to trafficking in items protected under a foreign cultural patrimony law in the first place. That issue was confronted by the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans in the seminal case of United States v. McClain (1979).

One of the defendants in McClain , Joseph Rodriguez, hired squads to raid archaeological sites in Mexico . He arranged to smuggle pre-Columbian artifacts into California and then traveled around the country selling the items out of a suitcase. One potential client, suspecting that he was being swindled, contacted the FBI, which initiated a covert investigation. An informant met with one of Rodriguez’s partners, Mrs. Ada Simpson, claiming he was interested in acquiring stolen merchandise, which would be resold by the Mafia. In the course of negotiating the deal, Mrs. Simpson explained how the artifacts were dug up, how papers were forged and how they were smuggled into the United States . Eventually the defendants agreed to meet the informant and his “appraiser,” an official from the Mexican Department of Archaeology, at a San Antonio hotel to negotiate a deal. After agreeing to sell their entire lot of artifacts, the defendants were arrested and charged with conspiring to violate the NSPA. The government’s legal theory was that the artifacts in question had been “stolen” within the meaning of the NSPA because Mexican cultural property laws had vested title to such pre-Columbian artifacts in the Mexican government. The defendants were convicted after trial.

On appeal, the defendants raised several issues. First, they argued that applying the NSPA to cases of “mere illegal exportation” constituted unwarranted federal enforcement of foreign law. Second, they claimed that the artifacts could not be considered “stolen” under the NSPA because there was no evidence that there had been a deprivation of private ownership rights under common law. Third, they argued that the NSPA was superseded (or pre-empted) by the more narrowly tailored 1972 law prohibiting importation of Pre-Columbian artifacts (which, for technical reasons, did not cover the items at issue in the case). Finally, they asserted that their convictions should be overturned on grounds of “vagueness” because the Mexican laws at issue were known only to “a handful of experts who work for the Mexican government” and therefore ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement of fair notice.Relying on the NSPA’s expansive scope and purpose, the court held that the statute clearly applied to the illegal exportation of items declared by Mexican law to be the property of the nation. The court rejected the notion that other, more specific legislation would limit or preclude the use of the NSPA in this context. On the vagueness issue, however, the court threw out the defendants’ convictions because the Mexican statutes at issue, the court held, did not announce the proscribed conduct sufficiently to put the defendants on notice that their activities violated criminal law. McClain therefore established that American citizens could be convicted under the National Stolen Property Act for violating another country’s lawsregarding removal of cultural heritage, but only where that foreign law was unambiguous."

And finally:

"The law in this country has steadily evolved in the direction of enforcing foreign claims regarding antiquities and other objects protected by cultural patrimony laws. It is unlikely to reverse course anytime soon. "

This is a very interesting article, one that should put to rest the idea that the US can't/won't enforce another country's laws regarding cultural property.

It is also important to note that the US is also a party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention. Article 13 says:

The States Parties to this Convention also undertake, consistent with the laws of each State: (a) To prevent by all appropriate means transfers of ownership of cultural property likely to promote the illicit import or export of such property; (b) to ensure that their competent services co-operate in facilitating the earliest possible restitution of illicitly exported cultural property to its rightful owner; (c) to admit actions for recovery of lost or stolen items of cultural property brought by or on behalf of the rightful owners ; (d) to recognize the indefeasible right of each State Party to this Convention to classify and declare certain cultural property as inalienable which should therefore ipso facto not be exported, and to facilitate recovery of such property by the State concerned in cases where it has been exported.

It can no longer be reasonably argued that the laws of other countries can't be enforced and can therefore be ignored. It is a collector's responsibility to know and follow all laws regarding ownership, import, and export of the items they collect.

Who Should Protect Antiquities?

There have been a few highly publicized incidents in the news lately concerning thefts of antiquities from government controlled places. Private collectors and dealers have pounced on these as an opportunity to show how antiquities would be better taken care of in their hands.

Yes, by all means, lets let the private collectors and dealers have them, because we all know that private collections are never robbed, fires and natural disasters never happen to private collectors, artifacts are never damaged in shipping. The difference is, the the theft or fire that happens to the average collector is hardly newsworthy. These publicized instances just give them another excuse to say "See! See! We were right! This would never have happened if that government/museum had released those items to the private sector. We would have taken better care of them!" This is simply not true in many cases. How many private collectors have received an item that has been damaged in shipping? How many private collectors have had fires or floods that have completely ruined their collections? Did these items fare any better in the private sector? At least when an item is kept by a museum or government, its provenance is generally kept as well. We know where it was found, what it was found with, and who had it earlier. The same can't be said for many items held by private collectors. Far too often that information is lost for one reason or another.

And what happens when things are released from the stores? Collectors scramble to buy the nicer pieces, but what happens to the more mundane items found with them? Who should look after those? What use would a museum have for an assemblage of items once the more visually appealing items found with them have been removed?

This is just another spin on the old argument against reporting finds because "It will just sit in a storehouse anyway, I'll take better care of it" Even officials, in response to the theft of 9 paintings from the Mohammad Ali Pasha's palace, have gotten in on this, saying

"This incident shows that Egypt is not ready to have items returned to the country at this point. They can't keep the things they already have safe, so why would major museums risk returning artifacts," a German archaeologist in Cairo told the Middle East Times, on condition of anonymity.

Let's use a hypothetical scenario to refute this argument: Let's say I buy a classic car. I find out that this car was poorly taken care of, left to rust out in a garage. I spend my money restoring it. I then find out that this car was stolen from its previous owner. Do I get to keep this car because I'll take better care of it? NO! It belongs to the rightful owner! Same thing goes for antiquities. Just because you think you will take better care of it doesn't mean you get to keep it. Items that are not reported where required are stolen items, period. If you buy an item without proof of legal acquisition, you run the risk of owning a stolen item. The only way to avoid this is to ask questions of the seller, and require provenance.

A Code of Ethics for Collectors of Ancient Artifacts

Finally, after much hard work and many emails, a group of collectors in the Yahoo forum Ancientartifacts have finished a Code for Ethical Collectors of Ancient Artifacts. It is all valuable information, and something I would recommend to all collectors. You can find the original post here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/files/A%20Code%20of%20Ethics/

Here is the full text as written:

A Code of Ethics for Collectors of Ancient Artifacts

Version 1

1st March 2009

This is a voluntary code, reflecting the personal conviction of those who adhere to it. It concerns actions now and in the future, and aims to inform both new and experienced collectors.

Although it is clearly in every collector’s own interest to be able to separate the fake from the authentic, keep good records and care properly for artifacts, these guidelines are an attempt to go further by outlining common sense standards to protect our shared interests, and particularly the finite and fragile archaeological resource.

(1) Protect our archaeological heritage and uphold the law

• Only buy artifacts which you have reason to believe have been obtained and are offered in accordance withall national laws.

• Ask the vendor for all relevant paperwork relating to provenance, export etc.

• Take extra care if collecting particular classes of object which have been subjected to wide-scale recent looting.

(2) Check your source

• Verify a vendor’s reputation independently before buying. Assure yourself that they are using due diligence in their trading practices, and do not support those who knowingly sell fakes as authentic or offer items of questionable provenance.

(3) Collect sensitively

• Consider the implications of acquiring items which may be of religious or social significance to others.

(4) Recognise your role as custodian

• Do your utmost to ensure the wellbeing of the objects in your care.

• Consider the condition of artifacts prior to purchase and whether you will be able to carry out any necessary conservation or repairs. Any intrusive operation should ideally be carried out by a competent professional.

• Maintain and update records relating to each artifact, including its provenance. Make sure these records can be connected to the relevant object by a layman.

• Only buy from vendors who do the same.

(5) Keep artifacts in one piece and consider the significance of groups of objects

• Do not dismember any item, or acquire a fragment which you believe to have been separated from a larger object except through natural means.

• Consider the implications of buying an item from an associated assemblage and the impact this could have on study.

(6) Promote further study

• Liaise, where possible, with the academic and broader communities about your artifacts. Significant objects,in particular, should not be withheld from study. Try to find out more about the artifacts you own and their context.

(7) Dispose of artifacts responsibly

• Do your best to ensure that none of the above guidelines are infringed by the way you dispose of your artifacts.

• Pass on all information about each piece, particularly its provenance, and include as much original documentation as possible (even if the prices are blacked out).

• Give an honest description of any repairs or restoration.

• Promote responsible custodianship to the new owner and other collectors.

• Give thought to the disposal of your collection in the event of your death, and leave clear instructions as to how it should be sold or donated.

Italy Takes on Looting

According to this article in the Sunday Herald:

http://www.sundayherald.com/mostpopular.var.1528401.mostviewed.art_hit_squad_takes_on_tomb_raiders_after_relics_lo
oted.php

Italian police have found a stash of some 1500 looted items, and have arrested 16 people, 3 alleged tomb raiders and 13 of their alleged clients. It's frightening to think how easily these objects could have ended up on ebay, or in the hands of unscrupulous dealers and collectors.

What knowledge is now lost because of the way these things were dug up? Unfortunately we will never know. The only thing they were concerned about is "how much can we sell this for?" This is what happens in the world of "don't ask, don't tell" antiquities collecting. Items are ripped out of context, and what we could have learned from studying them in/with their surroundings is now lost forever. Looted items are passed from the looters to dealers, who don't care where they came from or how they were obtained. They only care about the money that object will bring. They are then sold to collectors who also don't care to know such information, they only care that it's something they want to buy, how much it costs, and is it authentic. Not a thought is given to how it was acquired. The historical record is being trashed, aided by irresponsible collectors hiding behind many excuses for what they do. These excuses range from "it's my right to buy whatever I want" to "but I'll take better care of it".

The article then goes on to describe an interview with a "retired" looter, one of Italy most successful, lamenting the fact that it's becoming more difficult to dig and sell his objects because of increased monitoring, stiffer penalties, and more aggressive prosecution of museum curators and middlemen. It's causing the market to dry up. Darn, what a shame!

Collectors need to change their attitude. Too much is lost to looters, we need to do everything possible NOW to make sure we are not contributing to ongoing looting. They only way (short of not buying at all) to make sure you are not buying recently looted items is to ask for documentation of provenance, and walk away from the sale if none is provided. We should be working to create a smaller market in which these items can be sold. If more collectors refused to buy these items, then the dealers would be stuck with them, leading them to buy less from the looters. Eventually the looters would have no reason to dig, because no one would be buying the items anyway.

Collectors have a responsibility to know how their items were acquired, and should use due diligence to make sure they were gotten honestly and ethically. Let's think about it another way; people are always up in arms and boycotting businesses that get their clothing from sweatshops. They want these places shut down for unethical and reprehensible business practices. Why shouldn't antiquities dealers be held to the same standard as any other business? Shouldn't they be able to prove that their items were acquired honestly, legally, and ethically? A dealer who buys and sells items obtained through looting, no questions asked, is using equally unethical and reprehensible practices as the sweatshop owner. Why aren't collectors boycotting them? If people can do their research to find out where the clothes they wear every day come from, why can't they use the same diligence in finding out where their antiquities come from?

Collecting can be a wonderful experience. I'm a collector myself, so I'm in no way "anti collecting", but it should be done ethically, and collectors should always keep in mind the damage looting causes and make every effort to make sure they are not contributing to it.