Are Coin Archaeological Artifacts?

Many coin dealers maintain that coins shouldn't be considered archaeological artifacts. Anyone who is on the fence about whether or not to believe that should read this article:

http://www.gnn.com/article/roman-style-mummy-found-in-egyptian/982903?icid=mainhtmlws-main-ndl1link5http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gnn.com%2Farticle%2Froman-style-mummy-found-in-egyptian%2F982903

Pay particular attention to the part that says:

The archaeologists also found a gold relief showing the four sons of the Egyptian god Horus, other plaster masks of women's faces, several glass and clay utensils and some metal coins.

The metal coins are being checked to see whether they can date the era of the tomb more precisely.

Those coins, found in context, are being used to help date a unique site. What knowledge would have been lost if someone with a metal detector had gotten there first and yanked those coins out of the ground? What other damage would have been done to the site in the process?

How can anyone read that article and not agree that coins are indeed archaeological artifacts, deserving of the same protection and subject to the same restrictions?

What Is It With Coin Dealers?

For some reason I still can't fathom, many continue to deny that "don't ask-don't tell" buying and selling contributes to looting. They also don't understand that despite their great numbers and relatively low value, coins are still archaeological artifacts and should be treated as such.

Many of the coins on the market now may not have provenance, but dealers and collectors could start building them now by keeping and passing on paperwork. Their argument against that is it would cost too much and take up too much space to keep paperwork on all their coins. Frankly I don't give a hoot if it costs you a bit more to do business or takes up more space for storage for you to keep paperwork on the coins you sell if it helps to curb looting. It's the right thing to do.

The ACCG claims to be fighting for "collector's rights" yet the Italian MOU has been in existence for a while. So have the Chinese and Cyprus ones. Not a peep from the ACCG. The only time the ACCG decided to step in was when the possibility of coins being added came up. The ACCG is not fighting for "collector's rights", they're fighting to be able to continue to do business as they've always done instead of having to make sure that the coins they are buying and selling aren't recently looted. They freely admit that they have no idea where or when the coins used in their "test case" were dug up.

Wayne Sayles himself says (in response to my calling him paranoid when he said "It has nothing at all to do with preserving sites in Cyprus, it has to do with eliminating private access to the coins in America. Now that is a fact" ): http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2009/07/insinuation-assertions-and-factoids.html

Are we paranoid? Well one thing in itself, like the Cyprus or China MOU would not cause me to be "paranoid". But a decade of well planned and executed steps toward eliminating free trade does cause my radar to paint danger signs. I would call that caution and concern rather than paranoia.

So if the ACCG has seen this coming for a decade, why didn't dealers start documenting coins back then? If only out of "caution and concern" about what might be coming in the future?

Decision Reached on FOIL Case Brought by ACCG, IAPN, and PNG

A decision has been handed down on the lawsuit filed by the ACCG, IAPN, and PNG to compel the DOS to release documents that were withheld. A summary judgement was granted for the Department of State, and denied for the ACCG, IAPN, and PNG.

For the full text of the decision see here.

According to the decision the government conducted an adequate search, and the information that was withheld was done so properly. Some information requested was provided by foreign government officials and individuals in the private sector with the express understanding that the information would be held in confidence, and it's disclosure would damage the U.S.'s ability to conduct successful negotiations or violate personal privacy. The decision is very clear, and enlightening with respect to what documents were requested. It's definitely worth reading.

The reaction of some members of the ACCG has been interesting, though.

According to Dave Welsh the only time confidentiality should be recognized by law is in the confessional or attorney/client privilege. I wonder if he would consider the same for his medical records. Would he like what he tells his doctor to be held in confidence? This is indeed governed by HIPAA laws that prohibit disclosure. How about his financial details? Would he like for anyone to be able to request his tax returns, or would he expect that the information he provided to a government agency be held confidential? IRS code Section 6103 covers this disclosure.

He also states that it is not in the public interest for the DOS to be able to withhold information based on "expectation of confidentiality". I disagree. It is absolutely in the public interest for our government to be able to negotiate with foreign governments. If those foreign governments can't rely on the US to keep the information given to them confidential they will be less willing to enter into negotiations.

The ACCG still plans to continue with it's ridiculous "test case". It should be interesting to see what kind of "damaging information" they obtained through this FOIL suit that they believe will help them in this case.

More Trials to be Scheduled in the Blanding Case

According to this article here the remaining trials in the Blanding Utah case are to be scheduled in early 2010.


Two defendants have already pled guilty in this case. Jerrica Redd and her mother Jeanne Redd were given probation and minimal fines for their crimes. Hardly seems worth the effort of a 2 year investigation for the punishment they received, even more so since this is not the first conviction on the same offense for Jeanne Redd. She pled to a lesser offense and was fined $10,000 in 2003 for the same crime. (Apparently this time she is repentant, and the judge is confident it won't happen again. Right!)


Judge Waddops reason for the light sentence?


"This is a community where this kind of conduct" is commonly tolerated and "has been justified for a number of years," Waddoups said. "This is a woman who has spent her life as a member of her community."


And


"prosecution in this case provides sufficient deterrence," the judge said.


I disagree. The sentences imposed so far don't even amount to a slap on the wrist, let alone a deterrant. Each of the 7 felonies Jeanne Redd pled guilty to carried a potential $250,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison yet she received 3 years probation and a $2000 fine. Jerrica received 2 years probation and a $300 fine.


With the remaining trials coming up, lets hope the judge(s) treat these crimes with the seriousness they deserve. It's time to show that just because "it's always been done" doesn't mean the law will continue to turn a blind eye to it. It's time to show that looting is a crime that will not be tolerated and will be fully prosecuted.

Is A Collector Registry A Good Idea?

There was recently an article in the news regarding the Israeli government's efforts to register private collectors who have not yet done so according to the law passed in 2002.

This article brought about a discussion on the yahoo forum Ancientartifacts. How would collectors feel about such a registry in their country? Several members contributed to the discussion, some in favor of a registry, some against.

Those against such a plan brought up what I would consider to be valid concerns ranging from privacy, security, "big brother", to the possibility of those collections being confiscated should collecting eventually be outlawed.

I personally would be in favor of a registry. I think it would make it very difficult for recently looted items to enter the market under the guise of "from an old collection" or no mention of provenance at all. It would also make provenance easier to track because the history of a piece would be easily accessible, even if the original paperwork were to be lost or destroyed.

I do agree though, that the concerns raised by those against a registry would have to be addressed before such a plan could be put into place. I would be interested in knowing how/if those concerns were addressed by countries such as Israel and others who already have this kind of registry.

The CPRI is supposed to begin development on different models of registry for privately owned objects. It should be interesting to see how they approach the issues of privacy and security.

While I don't claim to have all the answers about how a plan like this would work, I do think that this would be a way for collectors to make sure they are not buying recently looted items. The don't ask- don't tell market in antiquities can't continue at it's current pace. Ancient sites are being destroyed and knowledge is being lost every single day at the hands of looters looking for bits and pieces to sell for a quick buck. It's up to us as collectors to close the market for
such items by refusing to buy them.

Help to Save Colonia Ulpia Traiana Ratiara

The biggest archaeological site in northern Bulgaria is currently being left to the mercy of looters. Please take a minute to read this information:

http://www.archaeology.archbg.net/fs_excavations_ratiaria.html (you can also donate from this page)

And sign the petition here:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ratiaria/index.html


I think this is an important cause. Please, donate as little as one Euro or as much as you like to help save this important site from ongoing destruction.

A Question for Collectors

Last week, in a reply to a comment from Peter Tompa, I asked a question:

Given the scale of damage done by commercial diggers to ancient Native American burial, sacred, and other sites which are protected by law, would you also oppose an MOU between the US and another country that restricts the import of Anasazi pots (such as the ones in the Blanding case) into another country? Or would you welcome their help in enforcing our own cultural property laws? After all, it's not illegal to own Anasazi pots in Egypt. Would you support their "right to collect" them, even though they were illegally dug up here?

I wasn't given an answer form Mr Tompa, but I didn't really expect one. It is a rather sticky question for a lawyer to answer. If he had said he would oppose that MOU, he would basically be saying he's ok with someone in another country benefiting from illegal activity here. If he had said he would support such an MOU, then it would be hypocritical of him to be challenging the Chinese/Cyprus MOU.

Regardless of how Mr. Tompa would have answered, I think it's a question that all collectors should ask themselves before ignoring another country's cultural property laws and buying an item of dubious origin.

Do we want someone in another country to benefit from what is illegal activity here? If your answer to that is no, then why is it ok for us to to benefit from illegal activity in another country? That's exactly what happens when we buy items that are dug up in another country, not reported as required by law, and shipped out of that country without required export permits. We get the benefit of what is illegal activity in that other country.

An MOU on cultural property between the US and another country says in effect that the US is agreeing to not let something illegally removed from another country be imported into the US. Would we expect anything different if the tables were turned? I'm sure the US people would be grateful to have an Anasazi pot, that was illegally excavated from a grave, seized and returned by another country if someone attempted to import it.

And what about the advocates of "collectors' rights?" Would they support that same "right to collect" in another country even if what is collected is illegally obtained on US soil? Or does that "right to collect" only apply to Americans?

Many countries have laws regarding cultural property, including the US. We have laws right here in our own country that are very similar to the ones that are considered so restrictive in other countries. The laws here and in other countries are in place because those governments have decided that it's in the best interest of its citizens to protect its cultural heritage. Looting continues unabated all over the world, including right here in the US, destroying the historical record in an effort to find bits and pieces to sell for a profit. When we buy items illegally obtained in another country we are contributing to this destruction.