Preserving Numismatic Context from Destruction by Archaeologists

Serious issues have arisen between collectors of ancient coins and archaeologists, regarding their competing claims to possess these relics of ancient economic history. Archaeologists value coins as a dating tool, and also fear that detectorists looking for coins will disturb archaeological sites seeking buried coins. Collectors view this as unlikely, since as Grierson [1] noted, almost invariably location and excavation finds share two characteristics making them nearly worthless commercially: low denominations and very poor condition.

Perhaps because of this questionable concern about protecting sites from detectorists, a great deal has been said about the extreme importance of archaeological context and the necessity of protecting it from assaults by “looters,” a term often used by archaeologists to describe those who go out prospecting with metal detectors.

Archaeological context is, briefly, the sum of the physical and spatial relationships linking buried objects with the neighborhood of their interment, other objects in the area and nearby structures, and local trade, industry and habitation history. Each buried object has its own context, and each interrelated group of objects shares a higher context that is of importance in assessing and interpreting the archaeology of a site.

The archaeology of a site is in itself a still greater context, and thus we by degrees eventually arrive at an archaeological world-view in which every site and ultimately every object is interlinked in a web of context from which nothing may be removed (except by an archaeologist) without to some extent irreversibly disturbing and diminishing the entirety of Context, the capitalized form denoting the sum of all local and individual contexts. Thus one cannot think of context as something that is bound to or possessed by an individual object – it is a shared property.

In responding to a recent critical comment by an archaeologist [2], I remarked that numismatic methodology has made it possible to establish accurate event sequences and chronologies covering many poorly documented areas of the historical record. In doing so, numismatics has contributed a large part of what humanity knows about the history of a number of important civilizations, such as the Parthian Kingdom, as well as smaller but still very significant areas of our knowledge of other civilizations, including parts of ancient Greek and Roman history. That is certainly a contribution of immeasurable value to human culture, a contribution which has extended over a period of more than five centuries – beginning long before anyone ever thought of the word “archaeology.”

Context is also of capital importance in the numismatic method. Numismatic context, however, is not by any means the same thing as archaeological context. It is instead mostly concerned with the systematic study of dies and die-links, and also with the study of coin hoards and their dating. In studying coin hoards, numismatists are only interested in the location and contents of a hoard, and the accuracy to which it can be dated by non-numismatic evidence. Other aspects of archaeological context make very little or no contribution to numismatic knowledge.

It would really be more precise to say that numismatics is the study of dies, their lives and their families. Every ancient coin was struck from a hand engraved die that was unique and individually identifiable, quite unlike today’s mass produced identical dies. There are few extant examples of ancient coin dies, and nearly all are now attributed as being the work of counterfeiters. Thus, the numismatist is left with no means to study ancient dies other than working from their impressions (coins), in a manner analogous to a palaeontologist studying dinosaurs from their footprints. Coins usually being relatively well preserved, much has been learned about the surfaces of the dies that formed the coins, although knowledge of other aspects of the minting process is generally very incomplete.

The processes by which dies wear, recutting to extend their lives and also evolution of stylistic trends and engraving "hands," provide insights permitting die aging and succession sequences to be built up in a manner very similar to tree ring sequences compiled by dendrochronologists. These detailed linear die sequences can then be crosslinked to other linear die sequences through analysis of obverse/reverse die pairings, evolution of die preparation technique, etc. to create matrices of die evolution.

These die evolution matrices can correspondingly be related back into the historical record primarily through study of epigraphic and typological evidence, i.e. careful concordance of honors, titles etc. included in coin legends, secondarily through visual aspects of coin devices, such as apparent age of the ruler, the manner of portrayal, headdress, etc. The result can be dates accurate to within one year. This typological die-evolution methodology was fully worked out by the late Robert Göbl [3]. It is applied throughout his many landmark studies, the most accessible today being "Sasanian Numismatics," still the standard one-volume reference.

In theory this method should yield a complete net identifying, describing and placing every ancient die. Unfortunately the numismatic record, like the fossil record but unlike the archaeological record, is sparse. There is at least something left from most major inhabited places, but numismatists know all too well how few coins have survived from the enormous numbers originally issued – optimistic estimates are on the order of one in 10,000. Since that is not much more than the number of coins struck per die, it is clearly a matter of chance whether any individual die becomes included in the overall context of die matrices, and the odds of that are not too good. There are great gaps in our knowledge of ancient numismatics resulting from the large proportion of dies missing from the numismatic record, certainly far more than those that have been recorded.

This is demonstrated in numismatic practice by the frequency with which previously unknown coin types are continually being discovered. I have myself identified two coins previously unknown to science during the past four years, and many other professional numismatists have found even larger numbers of unpublished coins. That parallels the experience in palaeontology, where the supply of new species to be discovered is seemingly inexhaustible – whereas the supply of new cities and civilizations to be discovered by archaeologists is not.

Because the active discovery of new coin types is continually adding to the known numismatic context, increasing the precision of our knowledge of dates and issue sequences, and even occasionally identifying a new ruler previously unknown to history, numismatics is today – more than ever before – a vital, living science. That is true only because there is a large and steady influx of “new coins” coming into the numismatic trade, where some sharp-eyed dealer or collector will spot anything unusual about a coin type that has not previously been published.

Numismatic methodology has proven to be a precise, powerful, and comprehensive tool important to human knowledge and culture, for reasons extending far beyond the interests of coin collectors. Thus, it is clearly essential to assure that the pace of coin discoveries does not decline and that all newly discovered coins are made available to numismatic researchers, so that their contribution to numismatic context can be properly assessed, recorded and published. This is certainly at least as important to the interests of humanity as recording the debatable archaeological context of coin finds, which in more than 90% of recorded examples are discovered in out of the way places without other context.

In our imperfect world, one often faces a choice between two unsatisfactory and disagreeable alternatives. Since the obstinate refusal of archaeologists and cultural ministry authorities to cooperate with collecting and the numismatic trade has prevented organizing a sensible, cooperative and regulated approach to disposal of new coin discoveries, these new coins presently flow into the numismatic market through a variety of clandestine channels, where they intermix with vast numbers of unprovenanced coins coming onto the market from scores of thousands of existing collections. At least one can say for this uncontrolled, admittedly imperfect process, that there are very good odds that any new coin type will come to the attention of science.

Surely that process is a lesser evil than that a coin should be licitly excavated, then cursorily examined without any interest other than its stratigraphic dating potential, and consigned to molder away in unconserved storage where no numismatic scholar will ever learn of its existence.

[1] Grierson, Philip: Numismatics (137). Oxford, 1975, 211 pp.

[2] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unidroit-L/message/2846

[3] Göbl,Robert. Numismatik. Grundriss und wissenschaftliches System. München, 1987. 315 pp.

Another Watergate?

The struggle to preserve your right to collect ancient coins began almost the day Classical Coins opened. It became apparent that coin collecting was menaced by recent developments in cultural property law, so I founded Unidroit-L, an Internet discussion list focusing on that topic. Shortly thereafter I joined the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, where I presently chair the International Affairs Committee and am a member of the Board of Directors.

The United States is a signatory to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Importation and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The UNESCO Convention was then, and remains, highly controversial because its definitions of "cultural property" are so broad as to include common items such as coins, printed books and even postage stamps. This excessive scope was justly criticized as including virtually everything made by the hand of man that is more than 100 years old. Strong objections were raised against changing US traditions of individual rights and free trade, in what was assailed as a strategy to draw the US into enforcing export control laws of other nations. In 1984 Congress passed the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) implementing this Convention into US law.

Amid much concern and trepidation, Congress pondered how this could be done in a manner fair to all. The solution followed American traditions that responsible decision making required that a broad cross section of the public should be involved. A Cultural Property Advisory Committee was established to advise the President, or those to whom he delegated his authority, regarding requests from other nations to restrict importation of cultural property. Impartiality and fairness were to be ensured by specifying broad, inclusive membership for this Committee, and placing it under management of the State Department. For the first ten years, this system worked as planned and responsible, impartial decisions were made.

Meanwhile the conservation lobby, frustrated by rejection of the 1995 Unidroit Convention (whose extreme demands prevented its adoption by any major collecting nation), sought alternative means to achieve their goals, and found a promising opportunity in the workings of the State Department. Congress had assumed that the State Department could be trusted to be fair and impartial in administering the CPIA, thus no specific safeguards or oversight were provided to ensure this. State Department staff had wide discretion in administration of the CPIA and the Cultural Property Advisory Committee. If the support of these officials could be gained, the conservation lobby could pursue its objective of restricting and eventually banning private collecting through unpublicized administrative decisions. This proved to be a successful strategy, as the events of the next ten years (chronicled here in previous entries) have demonstrated.

Matters came to a head on Friday July 13th 2007, when the State Department suddenly imposed restrictions on importation of ancient coins "of Cypriot types" issued before 330 a.d. This unprecedented action, which reversed a long standing policy exempting coins from such restrictions, was taken without stating justification or reasons even though all factual and practical reasons justifying the exemption remain unchanged. All attempts, including inquiries from Senators and Congressmen, to get an explanation from the State Department as to how and why this decision was made have failed.

On November 15, 2007 the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, the International Association of Professional Numismatists and the Professional Numismatists Guild jointly filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the State Department. This seeks to compel disclosure of information relating to requests from Cyprus, China and Italy because, in each case, apparent irregularities in the way these requests were received and managed had caused significant concerns. Further details can be found here.

Something is seriously wrong with our Government, when respectable, law abiding citizens are left with no alternative but to sue those who are supposedly their public servants, just to receive a simple and straightforward explanation of how decisions seriously adverse to their interests were made. No one should have to sue the Government to be told the truth. If there is any one duty that the American people have a right to expect their Government to strictly observe, it is to tell the truth.

It has instead become glaringly apparent that the State Department, without any public disclosure or open acknowledgement of its policy, has secretively abandoned all pretense of maintaining impartiality and fairness, and has aligned itself with interests of a few foreign nations and the ideology of the anticollecting conservation lobby. In effect the State Department is now waging war against American collectors, through all regulatory and administrative means at its disposal. That is an alarming prospect for collectors who are being kept in the dark and are not being told the truth about what is happening.

Even more alarming is the growing suspicion that there may very well be something rotten in the halls of Foggy Bottom motivating this intense, seemingly inexplicable focus on concealment and secrecy, something so rotten that it simply cannot stand the light of day, perhaps a shocking scandal in the making. The stonewalling, obfuscation and evasion from the State Department are beginning to inspire unsettling recollections of Watergate. Will this become another dismal, revolting example of the Government unscrupulously lying to the American people, in a desperate attempt to cover up errors and misdeeds by officials who have failed to live up to their ethical responsibilities?

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild is the only organization actively defending collectors against the steady and insidious encroachment of legislation and regulations aimed at restricting and perhaps eventually banning private collecting. This is an expensive process, both in terms of time donated by our volunteer staff and the funds required to pursue legal action. I urge every reader to join the ACCG and to contribute generously toward this worthy cause.

Maria's Fingerprints?

A Significant Omission

The published transcript of the Cyprus MOA signing ceremony

http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2007/89515.htm

omits several significant words.

Ambassador Kakouris of the Republic of Cyprus is reported in that transcript as saying, "In fact, I was reminded just before we came in about something that I had said in January when we were before the Committee and responding to someone very much on the side of the coin collectors who -- talked about the hobby of collecting coins. And I said to him: "It may be your hobby, but it's our heritage!" and that is the way that we look at this issue."

What Kakouris actually said can be heard here:

http://video.state.gov/?fr_story=bf3f54f8962f3cce621ac7cd7f6015508a1630a8

Here is a transcript of his actual remarks:

"In fact, I was reminded just before we came in by Maria Kouroupas about something that I had said in January when we were before the Committee and dealing with the coin collectors and somebody who was very much on their side, when he talked about the hobby of collecting coins. And I said to him: "It may be your hobby, but it's our heritage!" and that is the way that we look at this issue."

The omissions in the State Department's transcript suggest that the prominence given to inclusion of coins in the MOA extension, in the remarks of both Under Secretary Burns and Ambassador Kakouris, had been stage managed behind the scenes by Kouroupas. Was it later realized that these remarks disclosed information Kouroupas did not want to become publicly known?

This would certainly be consistent with what Steven Vincent reported in his classic 2002 expose, "Stealth Fighter - The Secret War of Maria Kouroupas" :

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unidroit-L/files/Stealth%20Fighter.pdf

Vincent observed that " ... to many who purchase, collect and exhibit the art and artifacts of ancient civilizations, Maria Papageorge Kouroupas is the devil incarnate. They believe that from the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Public Affairs, where she is staff director of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC), she has pursued a veritable - and intensifying - fatwa against the antiquities trade, accusing it of stimulating the plunder of the world's temples, monuments, burial grounds and other fragile, artifact-rich sites."

"Her critics argue that Kouroupas, supported by archaeologists, journalist allies and government policy, threatens the livelihood of dealers and imperils the ability of museums and private citizens to enrich their collections. She has, they say, successfully hijacked American foreign policy on cultural patrimony, thwarted the will of Congress and violated the spirit, if not the letter, of U.S. law."

"...Secretive, obsessed with controlling information and disdainful of the interests of dealers, she and the State Department committee she heads remain largely unaccountable to the press and general public. Under her stewardship, the committee, charged with determining which cultural objects the government should ban from entering the U.S., has been transformed into 'an autonomous private club,' says an aide to former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the New York legislator who sponsored a proposal to reform the Cultural Property Advisory Committee in 1996. 'Under Maria, it has become dominated by archaeologists who hate the trade and have no tolerance for other points of view.' "

"...Quiet and determined, she works in the shadows and is well-versed in the jujitsu of bureaucratic turf-protecting. 'Maria exerts an enormous influence in this complex and little-understood area of State's activities,' says a former colleague. 'But you'd never know it. She's the ultimate bureaucrat. She never leaves fingerprints.' "

Is it possible that Maria did leave fingerprints here?

Stealth Unidroit: the State Department’s War Against Collecting

The 1995 Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects has been accepted by few “collecting” nations, most notably Italy and Spain. The United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Russia, Canada, Australia, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, and signatory states France, the Netherlands and Switzerland have not accepted it. During the past five years only Bolivia, Cambodia, Cyprus, Gabon, Guatemala, Iran, New Zealand, Nigeria, Portugal, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined this Convention, at which rate it will be a very long time before Unidroit 1995 becomes globally effective, if that ever happens.

This lack of support reflects a perception that the Convention was drafted without due consideration for the rights and interests of collectors, or for practical difficulties that would follow from its implementation. Its scope is so broad, its language so imprecise, that a nightmare of legal uncertainty may result when a “collecting nation” accepts this Convention. In the United States, such uncertainties might well require decades of case law to resolve. Confronted by the failure of this overt, honorable attempt to achieve their anticollecting objectives, proponents of “cultural retentionism” led by the archaeology lobby have instead adopted a stealth strategy of seeking import restrictions under the 1970 UNESCO Convention.

Sweeping import restrictions on “cultural objects” in a few key nations, among which the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Switzerland are prominent, would strangle international ethnic art, antiquities and numismatic markets. Once a nation accepts the UNESCO Convention and enabling legislation is passed, a request from another government - alleging that its cultural heritage is in danger and requesting import controls - becomes grounds for imposing import restrictions. To achieve that end, “cultural retentionists” need only recruit several interested foreign governments and win a few ideological allies among the bureaucracy managing the administrative process, a vastly easier task than gaining enough public support to enact restrictive legislation.

The effectiveness of this stealthy “behind the scenes” approach has recently been demonstrated by US imposition of import restrictions on Cypriot coins. In taking this action the State Department ignored significant evidence that such restrictions are not justified by the CPIA statute and cannot be enforced in an equitable manner, and also ignored a flood of public comments objecting to this unprecedented measure. The anticollecting cabal that brought this about includes:

The Archaeological Institute of America

SAFE: http://www.savingantiquities.org/

The Republic of Cyprus

Dr. Ricardo Elia http://www.bu.edu/archaeology/faculty/elia.htm

Patty Gerstenblith http://www.law.depaul.edu/faculty_staff/faculty_information.asp?id=23

U.S. Department of State Cultural Heritage Center http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop/contact.html
Ms. Maria Kouroupas, Executive Director, Cultural Property Advisory Committee

Collectors may view stealth tactics on the part of the archaeology lobby and its allies in academia as being less than candid toward the public, however these zealots are certainly within their rights in thus pursuing their ends. They have a right to advance their cause and ideology by all legal means. One must reluctantly admire the effectiveness and dedication with which they have conducted their stealth war on collecting.

The policy and conduct of the State Department is another matter. As part of the US Government, the State Department first and foremost always owes loyalty to the American people, and never to interests of foreign governments or any particular ideology. Its primary obligation is to place US public interests first, and to conduct its affairs in an even handed impartial manner, not “taking sides” in controversial situations involving clashes of interest. It is now glaringly apparent that the State Department has instead allied itself with the archaeology lobby, and has improperly and shamefully elevated adherence to a statist, internationalist anticollecting ideology above its primary duty and obligation to protect the interests of the American people.

This deplorable violation of civil service ethics and honor can be ascribed to the relentless ideological activism of Maria Kouroupas, Executive Director of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee. Kouroupas has (through her biased management of the appointment process) thwarted the intent of Congress that this Committee should be fair and impartial - it now includes a clear majority of members ideologically aligned with the archaeology lobby. Notorious for opposing the art and antiquities trades, she was exposed in "The Secret War of Maria Kouroupas," by S. Vincent, Art & Auction 24, March 2002, 62-69. (See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unidroit-L/files/ - Stealth Fighter.pdf)

Under the misdirection and bias of Kouroupas, a major objective of the UNIDROIT Convention - enforcing export laws of foreign nations through import controls - is now being actively pursued by stealth tactics, through secretive administrative decisions by faceless bureaucrats, not accountable to the public for their actions. These ideological allies of the archaeology lobby have twisted and perverted administration of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, modifying its implementation to achieve their anticollecting objectives. The result is something sinisterly different from what Congress intended when the US acceded to the 1970 UNESCO Convention.

Bureaucrats who have so far forgotten or ignored the moral responsibilities of ethical civil service should have no place in our Government. Kouroupas and her minions have proven themselves to be servants of the archaeology lobby and a few foreign states, not dedicated servants of the American people.

This development should concern not only coin collectors, but also every American citizen who values his or her personal freedom. Big Brother is watching you, and Big Brother does not like collecting. If this unholy cabal of narrow academic interests, entrenched bureacrats and cultural officials in a few foreign nations can secretively and successfully hijack US cultural policy in such a manner, the implications may reach far beyond what happens to coin collecting.

Black Day for Numismatics: Import Restrictions on Cypriot Coins

On Friday July 13th 2007, a day which will live in infamy, the State Department imposed restrictions on importation of ancient coins "of Cypriot types" issued before 330 a.d.

This unprecedented action to include ancient coins in extending existing import restrictions was issued without stating justification or reasons. The State Department reversed its long standing prior position exempting coins from such restrictions, even though all factual and practical reasons justifying the exemption remain unchanged.

The CPIA statute implementing the 1970 UNESCO Convention in US law authorizes imposition of import restrictions only upon artifacts “found in the ground” of a specific country. No statutory authority exists for basing such restrictions on where an artifact was made. In announcing this decision, the State Department accepted the dubious premise that coins from Cypriot mints are “only found in the ground” of the modern nation state of Cyprus—despite convincing factual evidence to the contrary.

The CPIA statute requires that import restrictions on cultural objects shall first be considered and reviewed by a Cultural Property Advisory Committee, whose eleven members serve three-year terms, convening when a request is received from a country asking for U.S. assistance under Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention. The Committee reviews these requests, then recommends a course of action to the State Department. Representation is stipulated by law: two members represent interests of museums; three are expert in archaeology, anthropology, ethnology, or related fields; three are expert in the international sale of cultural property; and three represent interests of the general public.

During CPAC review of extending the 2002 agreement with Cyprus, the Republic of Cyprus made a last minute request to impose additional restrictions on ancient coins after the period allowed for public comment on the extension had closed. The way in which this was presented suggested that it had been worked out in collaboration with the AIA and other “preservationist” activists. Introducing this controversial change at the last possible minute, after public comments had closed, appeared to be a tactic calculated to prevent the numismatic community from receiving advance notice or having a fair opportunity to oppose it -- a “sneak attack” by enemies of coin collecting.

That provoked a flood of complaints, after which the State Department allowed a ten day window for public comment. An unprecedented volume of comments opposing inclusion of coins resulted, despite the brevity of the period allowed. This overwhelming evidence of public concern and outrage, apparently, meant little to the State Department.

Concerns about “due process” were communicated to the State Department’s Inspector General’s office, with documentation detailing the secretive manner in which the CPAC and State Department staff conducted this review. The numismatic community requested an investigation to address concerns felt by many experts, that State Department staff and some CPAC members were ideologically aligned with the anticollecting archaeology lobby, and were not carrying out the CPAC review process in an even handed manner that was fair to the interests of the collecting community. The IG declined jurisdiction, referring the issue back to the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, the same State Department organization overseeing imposition of import restrictions. The perfunctory, meaningless response eventually received shows a complete lack of respect or consideration for valid concerns of the numismatic community.

These import restrictions give US Customs officers broad discretion to detain any coin that “looks Cypriot.” Detained coins will be sent to a bonded warehouse to be held at the risk and expense of the importer (which could be financially onerous even if the coins are recovered), until satisfactory documentation or evidence is filed with the Customs officer. The importer is required to prove that the coin was outside of Cyprus before July 13, 2007, and if this is not done within 90 days the coins will be subject to seizure.

The absence of acceptable documentation or provenance for most coins in the numismatic trade creates a real danger that many coins which have not been in Cyprus since ancient times will be seized and sent to Cyprus. There is also significant concern about whether Customs inspectors can distinguish coins struck at Cypriot mints from other ancient coins, when examining shipments that may include thousands of coins.

The 1995 UNIDROIT Convention addressing restitution of cultural property defines a wide range of objects over 100 years old, including coins, stamps, books, jewelry, pottery, photographs, glassware and many other common things, to be cultural property. Major “collecting” countries have refused to accede to this Convention, because it is so broadly written and places an undue burden of enforcement on importing States such as the USA and Western European nations.. The goal of many influential proponents, such as archaeologists Dr. Ricardo Elia and Lord Renfrew, is to ban private ownership of all unprovenanced antiquities – and archaeologists almost never release provenanced antiquities for sale to collectors.

Since the UNIDROIT Convention is not being accepted, the archaeology lobby, members of academia sympathetic to their goals and other anticollecting “preservationists” now seek to achieve their objectives through stealth tactics, by promoting legislation and regulations to implement import restrictions. A number of such restrictions have been imposed, but until now none have included coins.

Manipulating the CPIA statute (which addresses pillaging of archaeological sites) to advance narrow interests of the archaeology lobby and other anticollecting “preservationists” is an abuse contrary to the intent of this statute. No substantive evidence has ever been presented that ancient coins are actively being pillaged in places where the looting that motivated the statute occurs, or that detectorists prospecting for coin treasures in out of the way places cause any significant damage to archaeological sites. There is abundant evidence to indicate that they do not.

These ideologically motivated, unjustified import restrictions threaten to destroy the traditional freedom Americans have always enjoyed, to collect, appreciate and study historical coins. That innocent, socially beneficial activity, has (ironically) significantly benefited archaeology in addition to contributing much to our knowledge of history.

In thus placing narrow ideological interests of the archaeology lobby, allied academics and foreign states above time honored rights of American citizens, officials of the State Department have raised a question as to whether their goal is really to serve the best interests of the American people. That is something which ought to concern everyone because other, even more important rights and freedoms are at stake.

Who Has Authorized Archaeologists to Own the Past?

I have never really identified the ultimate source upon which archaeologists base that moral authority which they believe that they possess over ancient artifacts. Our political leaders derive their authority from the will of the people they govern, as expressed in elections, and in the old days there was even the "divine right of kings." Our religious leaders derive their authority from God. Our legal officials are either appointed by elected officials, or elected themselves. But where archaeologists derive their authority remains an untraceable mystery.

Archaeology, if it can be considered a science in the classical sense, lacking as it does any generally accepted unified theory, actually dates back only some 100 years. That is far less than sciences which archaeology now claims to encompass as subsidiary disciplines - "artifact studies" such as numismatics and sigillography for example. In its primitive beginnings, archaeology was nothing more than an effort to organize and systematize plundering of ancient artifacts.

Early excavations were religiously motivated expeditions or outright treasure hunting, until the second excavations at Pompeii and Herculaneum. In 1738, the King of the Two Sicilies hired antiquarian Marcello Venuti to reopen shafts previously dug by looters at Herculaneum. The resulting excavation has been cited as the first example of modern archaeology, although methods employed were horrifically unscientific and destructive by today's standards and the validity of conclusions to be drawn from the results was at best extremely questionable. In this respect archaeology then compared poorly with established sciences whose results could be relied upon and used as stepping stones for further exploration. Mathematicians, physicists, chemists and even anatomists were then making discoveries and drawing conclusions that are still valid today.

Much the same can be said for almost everything that followed, including French explorations in Egypt under Napoleon and the sensational but unscientific exploits of Schliemann, until the investigations of Howard Carter in Egypt and Sir Arthur Evans in Crete. Even these two pioneers have not lacked critics, Carter having at one time been an antiquities dealer who made his living selling looted antiquities to museums and collectors in a manner considered by archaeologists to be unethical nd immoral today, and Evans having reconstructed the palaces at Knossos in a manner now considered to be both unscientific and very inaccurate. Evans also failed to recognize the historical and linguistic significance of the 3,000 baked clay tablets he found at Knossos, which languished unexamined in storage until they were ultimately deciphered in 1952 by the gifted amateur Michael Ventris, in the most important linguistic discovery since the Rosetta Stone.

Let's say then for purposes of discussion that modern systematic archaeology really dates from the opening of Tutankhamen's tomb by Carter in 1925, and publication of his results in 1933. World War II swiftly ensued, so archaeology did not really become very well organized and established until after the war ended about sixty years ago. That makes archaeology perhaps the youngest discipline that claims to be a major science.

By 1970 archaeologists had amassed enough of this mysterious untraceable moral authority to ally themselves with cultural preservationists in states such as Mexico and Peru, resulting in the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The effects of this convention have been far reaching and in the opinion of many museum and art trade experts, very destructive.

Prior to UNESCO 1970, collectors of antiquities and artifacts such as coins had been supportive of archaeology, in many cases even sponsoring archaeological work. After promulgation of that convention, some archaeologists (led by Lord Renfrew) aggressively asserted the viewpoint that context of discovery (provenance) was more important than an artifact itself, or its display in a major universal museum. To such radical thinkers, a collector is an immoral individual, ultimately responsible for all looting of artifacts. Artifacts should instead be kept in the custody of properly trained experts such as archaeologists and curators of local museums whose focus is preserving archaeological context. "Universal museums" such as the British Museum are really repositories of looted artifacts, and if they cannot be made to return their illicitly gotten holdings, should at least be prevented from adding to them. One might characterize this point of view as "Archaeologie über alles."

It is certainly open to question whether Renfrew's famous dictum that "Collecting equals looting" is really true, considering that looting has taken place throughout history, even in times when no one collected antiquities and those caught looting met instant and unpleasant death. The only things that can be said to have provably restricted this looting are the practical difficulties and risks involved. Similarly, close examination of what actually happens in the antiquities trade reveals that looted objects do not necessarily find their way into the hands of Western collectors and museums. The looting presently taking place in Iraq is a case in point: very little of the plunder has appeared in Western markets.

The resulting conflict between radical archaeologists and allied cultural preservationists, and museums, collectors and their supporting art and antiquities trades, now threatens fundamental, long established individual freedoms - freedom to possess private property; freedom to move that property across national borders without undue hindrance; freedom to learn about and appreciate the great cultures and artistic achievements of the past in universal museums; freedom to acquire, collect and study antiquities as an amateur antiquarian and ultimately to donate the fruits of a lifetime of collecting to a museum, where others can appreciate them.

Long established avocations, heretofore always thought of as entirely respectable, eductational and socially beneficial (such as collecting coins and stamps), are now assailed in the interests of cultural preservation and maintaining archaeological context. There is significant educational and social value in these suddenly endangered freedoms and avocations, and our society would be culturally poorer and less well informed were they to be abolished.

It is time to arrive at a reasoned, balanced and impartial perspective between cultural preservation and archaeological context on the one hand, and individual freedoms and the overall best interests of society on the other. Such balance is not likely to result from leaving archaeologists to decide on their own what the scope of their discipline shall be, and how far their mysterious, untraceable moral authority over artifacts shall extend.

eFakes

Like many other important enterprises, eBay was founded in a living room, in September 1995 at Pierre Omidyar's home in San Jose. From its earliest days, eBay was envisioned as a marketplace for trading goods and services between individuals, with a strong focus on collectibles.

In 1998, Pierre and cofounder Jeff Skoll recruited Meg Whitman to sustain and develop eBay’s initial success. Meg had learned the importance of branding at companies such as Hasbro. She chose her staff from companies such as Pepsico and Disney and built a vision for a company whose essence is connecting people.

eBay quickly moved beyond an initial focus on collectibles into lucrative high-value markets such as automobiles and real estate. Building an online person-to-person trading community on the Internet, eBay brings buyers and sellers together in a venue where sellers individually auction items for sale, buyers bid on items of interest and users may browse through listings in a fully automated way in which items are classified by topics, each type having its own category. Recently eBay expanded its business model to include seller storefronts and immediate fixed price sales.

eBay’s web interface has streamlined and globalized person-to-person trading, traditionally conducted via garage sales, collectibles shows, flea markets and the like. Buyers can locate items quickly and sellers can list items for sale within minutes of registering. In theory this is the ideal marketplace, eliminating middlemen and maximizing economic efficiency. I like eBay’s efficiency and I buy on eBay regularly.

Unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world, and in our real world theory is not reality. eBay’s concept works well enough for the vast majority of transactions, but eBay regrettably has also become a thieves’ market where unscrupulous criminals constantly prey upon the unwary. In no category is this pestilence more marked than in trading collectibles and branded merchandise, for which authenticity, accuracy of description and condition are significant value components.

As a coin dealer I’m a middleman, a category eBay has targeted for elimination in much the same way as Wal-Mart and Home Depot are eliminating traditional businesses such as hardware stores. Obviously I am not an unbiased commentator, and readers will realize that I do have an economic interest in this. On the other hand, I’m really not in the coin business for purely financial reasons, and have many reasons to care about welfare of collectors that transcend economics. I have devoted a great deal of effort to creating a website, Classical Coins, whose attractions include offering those first exploring ancient coin collecting a friendly, helpful and honest introduction to the subject. This constant preying upon neophyte collectors on eBay is extremely offensive to me.

eBay’s approach toward transaction honesty is too simplistic. Did the buyer pay for the item? Did the seller deliver it promptly in the expected condition? These are the concerns eBay’s feedback system addresses, and in trading collectibles they are not adequate. The missing elements that are not addressed: Was the item sold authentic? Was it accurately and honestly described?

eBay contends that its feedback system provides a way for users to penalize sellers whose merchandise is not authentic or correctly described. In reality, it’s all a numbers game. All that a seller has to do to stay on good terms with eBay and avoid negative feedback is to offer a guarantee allowing any buyer dissatisfied with a transaction to return the item for a refund.

There are unscrupulous eBay sellers who do offer such refunds, and actually honor them. They have well established, excellent feedback despite the fact that in my opinion and in the opinion of many other knowledgeable experts, they are selling items not only questionable but obviously fake. There is no question in my mind, looking at images in these auctions, that the probability of the item being authentic is zero. But in the real world numbers game, how many buyers have my expertise? How many buyers can recognize that they have been sold a fake, or dishonestly described or “doctored” collectible? If the answer is “a few per cent,” it is clearly profitable for an unscrupulous seller to give them refunds, avoid negative feedback and go on fleecing those less perceptive.

Unscrupulous eBay sellers also take advantage of features eBay provides to protect sellers from competitors seeking to “trash” their auctions. Private auctions, private feedback and the like are exploited to prevent concerned eBayers from warning those about to be defrauded. The worst single issue is that eBay seller identities are anonymous. To become an eBay seller you need an email address and a credit card. Your identity can be bogus, designed to prevent anyone from finding out who you really are. Many outraged eBayers, seeking to discover who defrauded them, have found that there is no way to penetrate the system to learn the seller’s real identity.

For years a forgery vendor centered in Toronto has been defrauding neophyte ancient coin collectors by offering fake ancient coins on eBay, typically castings made from molds taken from authentic originals or Bulgarian forgeries (http://www.classicalcoins.com/bulgarian.html) . Many efforts have been made to track down the identity of the criminal or criminals involved. The best reported wisdom is that a criminal gang of Vietnamese expatriates is involved, led by Dang Lieu, which of course may be another bogus identity. Literally hundreds of eBay identities have been used by this seller, who prepares them in advance trading in cheap items like postage stamps, and moves to another “clean” identity whenever a scam is discovered. Canadian law enforcement officials seem to have given up on this case, and to no longer have any serious interest in identifying and apprehending those responsible.

A great deal has been said about eBay collectibles fraud in discussion forums such as Numism-L, rec.collecting.coins and Moneta-L, in which I have participated for years. Recently I was venting my feelings on RCC, citing some egregious examples of fraudulent eBay auctions. RCC listreaders include a number of eBay sellers who are sensitive to such criticism of eBay, apparently seeing that as a threat to their interests. One of these sellers challenged me to do something concrete, instead of merely posting more complaints. That was a valid point. eFakes-L was the result.

This new discussion list is dedicated toward exploring the problem and finding ways to do something about it. eFakes-L has attracted a great deal of interest, and almost 100 members in its first week. A register of suspicious eBay auctions with images of items offered is being compiled.

My perspective: it’s not right for neophyte collectors to be exposed to hazards such as confront calves in herds crossing African rivers. Neophytes should not become dinner for Dang Lieu and other eBay crocodiles. In Vietnam and similar parts of the world, it seems that all loyalty is to family, and everyone else is viewed as fair game with no ethical constraints. That is not acceptable to me. The Internet, eBay specifically, is not a third world country and “caveat emptor,” where fraud is something the buyer is responsible for recognizing and preventing, is not an acceptable way of doing business.

eFakes-L will make a serious attempt to do something about this. The “Suspicious Auctions” database will become an important resource for those who realize how self serving and misleading eBay’s fraud statistics are. Hopefully, we can bring the public and Government authorities to understand the true nature and extent of the problem. This new forum is off to a rousing start with nearly 100 members in its first week. I’m encouraged by that reception, and see every reason to expect that the united efforts of concerned collectors will lead to meaningful eBay reform.