Die Wacht am Rhein

Fest steht und treu die Wacht, die Wacht am Rhein!

There’s a different sort of watch kept along the Rhine these days. No longer is it maintained by German patriots fearing a possible military invasion, instead it is anxiously kept by German coin collectors who fear that police will invade their homes to seize their cherished collections.

German authorities have recently begun searching private homes and seizing entire collections of antique coins, if provenance of only a few coins in the collection is not documented. These invasions are being conducted under German laws on importation of cultural property. Coins subjected to such scrutiny are not restricted to ancient coins that might reasonably be presumed to have been excavated - medieval and antique modern coins are also vulnerable to the same measures. In one recent case, a pensioner from the Thuringian Eisenberg acquired four old coins on an Internet auction site. Shortly afterwards his house was searched, ending with seizure of his entire collection. Collectors are understandably alarmed, because very few coins in their collections have provenances that will satisfy the new laws. When a collection becomes suspect only a short time is being allowed to prove licit origin before the collection is seized, and then even if the suspicion is unfounded, it is very difficult to recover the collection.

Not only coins but all "cultural objects" more than 100 years old are subject to these cultural property laws, leading to fears that stamp collections, collections of graphic arts and antique jewelry may also be targeted. The list of "cultural objects" in the 1970 UNESCO Convention is very extensive, including such common replicated articles as coins, postage stamps, photographs and printed books.

The new Federal list declaring objects subject to laws on importation of cultural property became effective in September 2008, after the German government finally gave in to demands that importation of unprovenanced coins and other artifacts should be prevented, because archaeologists allege that looting of archaeological sites is driven by the collecting market. This allegation is unproven - no verifiable, factual evidence has yet been presented to support it. There is however significant evidence that looting would continue unabated even if collecting could be prevented in Europe and other areas where cultural property laws are respected.

Meanwhile German coin collectors now feel completely insecure, like criminals under suspicion of breaking the law. According to Ulf Draeger – who heads the Moritzburg Landesmünzkabinetts and also chairs the German Society of Medallic Arts - the entry into force of these new laws, despite their good intentions, has led to significant collateral damage in only a short time. His conclusion: "If this situation continues, then we can pack up."

According to an unconfirmed report received from one German coin collector, the Police Commissioner from Usingen in Hesse (Eckhard Laufer) is responsible for these incidents. Laufer, who has received several awards for his past efforts to combat illicit antiquities trafficking, issued a declaration to the effect that ancient objects (including coins) may only be collected when the collector is able to submit an official confirmation that these objects do not come from looted excavations. Although there is presently no legal framework justifying such an unprecedented requirement, in Hesse at least it is now the guideline being enforced by police and prosecutors.

Herr Laufer had previously investigated and charged antiquities sellers in Hesse who were active on eBay (eBay provided full cooperation) and is now targeting customers of these sellers with criminal complaints. There have been numerous police actions including house searches and collection seizures, and some 200 complaints are pending. The collectors involved have had to make great efforts to defend themselves, since ignorance of the law apparently prevails among law enforcement authorities and Herr Laufer is driven by a huge sense of mission.

There is still much uncertainty among German authorities regarding application of the Cultural Goods Protection Act. German officials seem to have an unfortunate tendency to rigidly prohibit or declare illegal everything that they do not understand.

For a general summary in English see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unidroit-L/message/3348

For the original news articles in German see
http://www.numismatische-gesellschaft.de/
http://tinyurl.com/dfc7sp
http://tinyurl.com/bc8pqz

2008: A Difficult Year

2008 was a difficult year during which several adverse developments occurred.

The development affecting most people worldwide was a major economic crisis that began with the collapse of overinflated US housing and credit markets. This soon spread to every other nation participating to a significant extent in the global economy, and today even China is experiencing its effects. The crisis is still upon us, and it is not clear what its ultimate depth will be or when a recovery will take place.

Developments in 2008 affecting coin collecting involved continued progress of cultural nationalists and radical archaeologists toward their long term goal of eliminating private collecting of “cultural property.” Their most notable success came when the German government gave in to demands that importation of unprovenanced “cultural objects” (including coins) should be prohibited as part of Germany’s implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention. More will be said about the effects of this legislative change in a subsequent post.

Classical Coins had a very difficult time during the last half of 2008, originating in the outbreak of an intense and dangerous wildfire in the mountains above Goleta. Although this fire did not spread into the city, it was burning under high voltage power lines supplying electricity to southern Santa Barbara County. Innumerable power outages resulted, and our offices had to be shut down for two weeks. The effects of this setback affected everything afterward, including the holiday season during which we were so administratively stressed that orders could not be shipped as fast as they came in.

Despite all these difficulties, there was one significant favorable development: the market for collectibles, including ancient coins, prospered during 2008. When other investment alternatives are devalued, collectibles tend to do well. Ancient coins in particular have proven to be very stable and reliable long term investments, retaining their value despite all the vagaries of transient political and economic trends.

One ironic thought: In opposing the goals of anticollecting extremists, I am in reality working to limit the appreciation of my own very substantial investment in ancient coins. Should the trade in ancient coins ultimately be constrained as anticollecting extremists desire, an inventory of ancient coins acquired before that sad event happens will become much more valuable. The value of my inventory would probably double. Although those who relentlessly campaign against coin collecting strive to portray numismatic professionals as greedy exploiters, nothing could possibly be further from the actual truth.

Being a dealer in ancient coins is a labor of love - very few if any of those involved in it would fail to make significantly more money doing something else. I can make twice as much per hour as a consulting engineer. It is certainly relevant to consider how many archaeologists, museum curators, cultural ministry officials and other anticollecting activists could expect to do as well were their present occupations no longer available.

Renfrew's Hypothesis: Are Collectors the Real Looters?

What is the Renfrew Hypothesis on Looting?

Colin Renfrew (Lord Renfrew, Baron Renfrew of Kaimsthorn) is a famous British archaeologist who has many seminal publications to his credit and is best known for research into the origins of European civilization. In 1987 Renfrew advanced the then revolutionary view that European civilization originated in Anatolia, and that beginning in the seventh millenium b.c. farming culture spread into Europe replacing its previous hunter-gatherer culture. That assertion is known as the Anatolian Hypothesis, sometimes also referred to as the "Renfrew Hypothesis."

The subject of this article is another hypothesis generally attributed to Colin Renfrew (although it may actually first have been asserted by Ricardo Elia), most commonly encountered in the form "Collecting = Looting." There is no evidence that Renfrew (or Elia) ever asserted this viewpoint in those precise words, although his 1993 article [ "Collectors Are the Real Looters:" Archaeology 46(3)(1993)16-17] does seem to amount to the same thing. This hypothesis will (for the purposes of this article) be referred to as the Renfrew Hypothesis on Looting.

Why are ancient coin and antiquities dealers and collectors concerned about the Renfrew Hypothesis on Looting?

Renfrew's hypothesis asserts that looting of archaeological sites through clandestine excavation by individuals interested in selling their finds is motivated by antiquities collectors who provide a market for these finds. This hypothesis is the most significant justification presently cited by those who assert that collecting of unprovenanced portable antiquities is unethical. Their point of view is controversial because it has become the primary motive for asserting that restrictions on collecting of portable antiquities (cf. the 1970 UNESCO Convention) or an outright ban on such collecting would effectively control looting of archaeological sites.

Is there an unproven assumption involved in the Renfrew Hypothesis on Looting?

Yes. This point of view neglects a significant alternative possibility, that those who loot archaeological sites actually do not depend upon antiquities collectors in nations observing international laws (such as the 1970 UNESCO Convention) for a market to sell their findings. It is an unfortunate fact that many antiquities "source states" are pervaded by official corruption, and that their antiquities laws are widely regarded as legal devices providing opportunities for corrupt officials to extort bribes. While there is no real evidence that motives for such laws actually included facilitating official corruption, there is good reason to think that enforcement of antiquities laws in many "source states" has been weakened by official corruption (and general inefficiency) to such an extent that these nations are (for all practical purposes) unable to effectively enforce their antiquities laws. Since these nations and their inhabitants do not, according to this viewpoint, actually observe the 1970 UNESCO Convention and related international agreements despite formally subscribing to them, it is argued that closure of Western antiquities markets would not eliminate looting of archaeological sites, and probably would not noticeably diminish the extent of such looting. The alternative hypothesis is that collectors in effectively nonobservant states would acquire these antiquities, or that they would alternatively flow into other channels (e.g. the "melting pot") offering profitable disposition to finders.

Has the Renfrew Hypothesis on Looting been proven?

No. No scientifically verifiable evidence has yet been advanced to support this hypothesis, conclusively proving a chain of causality between looting of specific artifacts and their subsequent acquisition by collectors in nations whose access to antiquities can effectively be controlled by law. Arguments in its favor, to date, instead appear to focus upon the extent of looting and acquisition of unprovenanced antiquities by collectors, without considering alternative explanations.

Is there reason to think that the Renfrew Hypothesis on Looting may be mistaken?

Yes. The most often cited argument against this hypothesis is that looting of ancient sites is by no means a recent phenomenon, but has been continuously carried on since time immemorial, provably dating back at least to the days when the Pyramids were constructed. There is very convincing, perhaps conclusive archaeological evidence to the effect that tomb robbing was a major, essentially uncontrollable problem in those days. At that time no one collected antiquities, and those caught robbing tombs died speedily and unpleasantly.

A second significant argument against this hypothesis has recently surfaced, in that artifacts from the deplorable uncontrolled looting of archaeologicalsites in Iraq (following the invasion of 2003) have not surfaced to any significant extent in Western art and antiquities markets. It is alternatively argued that these artifacts are instead flowing into channels that cannot be controlled by international law. There has not yet been any rebuttal to that point of view.

Can the Renfrew Hypothesis on Looting be proven?

I intend to find out. A new discussion list (RENFREW-L) dedicated to investigating that hypothesis has been created. Its charter is to arrive at a definitive answer to this important question.

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.