Paul Davies, president of the International Association of Professional Numismatists, commented on the joint ACCG/IAPN/PNG law suit in a letter to Cyprus Mail editor Kosta Pavlowitch. The text of that letter follows:

Dear Sir:

I am writing on behalf of the International Association of Professional Numismatists (“IAPN”) with respect to a story entitled “Coin Collectors Furious over Trade Restrictions.” IAPN is one of the plaintiffs in the case against the U.S. State Department mentioned in the article. I hope this letter will provide your readers with additional background with regard to the lawsuit.

IAPN was founded in the aftermath of the Second World War to promote trade and fellowship amongst professional numismatists from countries that had so recently been at war. IAPN members believe that the interchange of cultural materials, among individuals and nations, has contributed throughout history to the knowledge, understanding and appreciation of human civilization. Today, IAPN has more than 114 member firms situated in all five continents and twenty-three countries. (more…)

Readers of this blog could hardly escape the sense of frustration that I personally have felt over what I see as intransigence in a bureau of the U.S. State Department. I’m sure that it literally pours from these lines. For years, the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) has operated under a shroud of secrecy that becomes neither the Department nor those charged with fulfilling its mission. Several prominent journalists, including Steven Vincent, Nina Teicholz and Jeremy Kahn have raised questions about the lack of transparency at ECA regarding cultural property issues.

When the U.S. Legislature authorized implementation of parts of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, a well thought out series of safeguards was built into the process that we know as CPIA (the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act). These safeguards were intended to protect and preserve the rights of a broad cross section of society — including private and public collectors. The integrity of these safeguards is dependent upon transparency in the system where decisions affecting those various elements of society are made. (more…)

by Wayne G. Sayles

Suddenly, the Archaeological Institute of America is interested in ancient coins. That is good. The more that archaeologists learn about coins from antiquity, the more they will realize that the context within which they are found is merely one aspect, and a small one at that, of the tremendous historical resource that coins present. Unfortunately, the AIA’s motives for this blossoming interest are suspect.

Having virtually ignored coins for scores of years, why is the AIA disposed now to highlight the value of coins to archaeology? The answer is really quite basic. The numismatic community, comprised primarily of independent scholars, has argued effectively that archaeologists do not have a preeminent claim to the acquisition or study of ancient coins, much less to the dissemination of knowledge about them and about the past from whence they came. If the AIA were to acknowledge this simple fact, it would expose a chink in the armor of their perceived supremacy.

So, be prepared to see a lot more ink spilled by the AIA and other archaeological support groups regarding the “importance” of coins. Oddly, collectors have always known that coins are important. This awakening by archaeologists is probably a good thing if they really consider the issues rather than just fill the web and print media with institutional propaganda. (more…)

Nathan Elkins’—”Why coins matter”—is touted as a “special feature” on the web site of Saving Antiquities for Everyone (http://www.savingantiquities.org/feature.php). Mr. Elkins, in what can only be described as a tyro condemnation of the ancient coin market, stitches together a series of disjointed and unrelated points that leave the reader struggling for a thread. His arguments, in the best of cases, lack plausibility. More often, they are incoherent.

A bold sidebar anchors the lead-in with the bizarre quote: “We cannot think that ancient coins are less significant than looted Greek vases…” Elkins suggests that archaeological context trumps any other value of an object. This thinking is merely a precurser to the irrationality that follows. Supremacy of context is of course the trite and time worn position of radical archaeologists that has all but faded into obscurity since cultural property nationalists began screaming for repatriations. If context is the most significant aspect of an artifact, then the location of any artifact once it is out of the ground is really irrelevant. Why should Italy or Greece, for example, care where an object is stored today if its “archaeological” context is unknown? The obvious answer is that cultural property nationalists do NOT value context over possession, nor do a host of other interest groups including museums and collectors. Even archaeologists seem hung up on possession. Every suggestion that surplus common artifacts from a dig be sold to collectors is quickly rejected even though the objects have all been recorded and studied and are sometimes even earmarked for destruction. The supremacy of context is an argument whose day has come and gone. Yes, coins are important when found in an archaeological context. They are equally important without any context whatever, as any experienced and knowledgeable numismatist knows. (more…)

A blog on the SAFE Corner takes aim at the ACCG and its officers. Below is a response to that attack.

In his blog post “Can Cultural Property Legislation Kill an Academic Discipline?” (13 Sep 2007) Nathan Elkins boldly attacks a discipline that he evidently does not understand. Numismatics evolved as a science over many centuries, through the cooperative effort of independent and professional scholars. The views of Mr. Elkins seem to miss the whole point of this symbiotic relationship. The first words of the Elkins post are designed to cast independent and institutional scholars as having different interests. He singles out the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) and its officers as opponents of cultural property protection and asks rhetorically and tongue in cheek, whether cultural property legislation can kill numismatics as an academic discipline. Numismatics is not an “academic discipline” but rather a science that embraces all who nurture it.

It is first necessary to correct a misconception under which Mr. Elkins labors. As founder and Executive Director of the ACCG, I can say with unequivocal assuredness that the guild does not oppose cultural property protection. In fact, our mission is very clearly stated in our guild bylaws. That is, we seek to “promote and nurture the free and independent collecting of coins from antiquity.” That is our sole purpose. The bylaws also state that “The guild does not in any way support, condone or defend the looting of designated archaeological sites, nor the violation of any nation’s laws concerning the import or export of antiquities. ” The ACCG has never taken any action that would lead to or condone the destruction of cultural property. Contrary to Mr. Elkins’ claim, it is not our aim, nor has it ever been, to hinder the protection of cultural property. It is our aim to preserve the freedom of private ownership. We simply demand fair treatment for coin collectors and dealers from government bureaucracies, here and abroad. (more…)