Skip to main content

Coins and Cyprus: a partial picture from the NYT

Jeremy Kahn has reported on the decision by three coin groups to take legal action against the US State Department ("Coin Collectors Sue State Department Over Import Rules", New York Times, November 17, 2007). Kahn identifies the trigger as "a controversial decision by the State Department in July to ban imports of ancient coins from the island of Cyprus". The decision was welcomed by archaeologists who perceived it to be designed to protect the destruction of archaeological sites on Cyprus. It was considered to be "controversial" only by those who opposed it and who are seeking to liberalise the movement of archaeological material (including coins).

Safecorner ("All the news that's fit to print?") has posted a response to Kahn - and makes the interesting economic comparison between the cost of providing somebody to guard an archaeological site and the fees charged by an attorney to bring this case.

Meanwhile ACCG has helpfully published the full text of the complaint. Is it significant that the other two bodies, the IAPN and the PNG, have yet to post anything on the news sections of their websites?

Would Kahn like to present a balanced view in his next report? Why does the archaeological record of Cyprus need protecting?


Wayne G. Sayles said…

I am mystified by your comment, "It was considered to be "controversial" only by those who opposed it and who are seeking to liberalise the movement of archaeological material (including coins)."

It seems quite natural and ordinary that proponents of any position will not find their position controversial. Opponents will. That is the very nature and definition of controversy. To any disinterested party, the State Department decision on Cyprus was clearly controversial.

You describe the "opponents" in this case as those "who are seeking to liberalise the movement of archaeological material (including coins)." Here, we again have a problem with definitions. How can support for the status quo be construed as "liberalisation"? It is the introduction of new restrictions and government controls, without due process, that opponents to the Cyprus request object to and find controversial. This is hardly a liberal or liberalizing view. On the contrary, it is the law that has been "liberalized".

I cannot comment on behalf of the IAPN and PNG, the two groups who joined ACCG in this initiative. I can say, however, that the serious and useful collecting or acquisition of almost anything produced by man in times past will ultimately lead to a market for such objects. The ancient coin market became recognizable as such in the late 1300s AD and has been an important aspect of the formation of virtually every major numismatic cabinet in the world, past or present. I think the trade organizations mentioned above are justified in their concern, just as private collectors are through the ACCG. The fact that they have not publicized their cooperation is of no consequence to the issue. The FOIA suit against DOS was proposed by the ACCG and the ACCG is unquestionably taking the lead in its prosecution. There is no attempt by any of the parties involved to obscure that fact.

Finally, I am surprised that there should be any "pushback" on this issue from the archaeological community. Is full disclosure and transparency of government not advocated by archaeologists? Of course it is. Why then should this FOIA suit be presented as a "we and they" issue? Full disclosure is in everyone's interest.

Personally, I thought that Jeremy Kahn's article was quite well balanced and I applaud his fairness. But then, I'm one of those who thought the Cypriot import restrictions were controversial in the first place.

Thank you for bringing this important issue to light on your blog and for allowing a contrary view to be expressed.


David Gill said…
See also Richard Lacayo, "Can Coin Collectors Make Change?", Time at:

Popular posts from this blog

Marble bull's head from the temple of Eshmun

Excavations at the temple of Eshmun in Lebanon recovered a marble bull's head. It is now suggested that it was this head, apparently first published in 1967, that was placed on loan to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art (Tom Mashberg, "Met Museum Turns Over Another Relic With Disputed Past to Prosecutors", New York Times August 1, 2017 ). The head is reported to have been handed over to the Manhattan district attorney after a request was received from the Lebanese authorities.

It is suggested that the head may have been looted from an archaeological storage area at Byblos in the 1980s during the Lebanese civil war. Mashberg has rehearsed the recent collecting history:
The owners of the bull’s head, Lynda and William Beierwaltes of Colorado, say they have clear title to the item and have sued Manhattan prosecutors for its return.  The Beierwaltes bought the head from a dealer in London in 1996 for more than $1 million and then sold it to another collector, Michael …

The Toledo skyphos and a Swiss private collection

The Attic red-figured skyphos attributed to the Kleophon painter in the Toledo Museum of Art (inv. 1982.88) is now coming under further scrutiny following the research of Dr Christos Tsirogiannis. The skyphos shows Hephaistos returning to Olympos.

Tsirogiannis has identified what appears to be this skyphos in five photographs in the Medici Dossier. The museum acknowledged that the skyphos had resided in a 'private Swiss collection'. Tsirogiannis suggests that this is probably a reference to Medici.

Enquiries to the museum by Tsirogiannis elicited the information that the skyphos had been acquired from Nicholas Koutoulakis (although that information does not appear on the museum's online catalogue).

The curatorial team at the Toledo Museum of Art will, no doubt, be contacting the Italian authorities to discuss the future residence of the skyphos.

For further discussion of the Toledo Museum of Art on LM see here.

Tsirogiannis, C. 2017. "Nekyia: Museum ethics an…

Metropolitan Museum of Art hands over Paestan krater

In May 2014 I commented on a Paestan krater acquired by New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art after it had been identified by Dr Christos Tsirogiannis in photographic images seized from Giacomo Medici. Tsirogiannis published his full concerns in the Journal of Art Crime in 2014, but it has taken a further three years for the museum to respond.

The krater showing Dionysos in a hand-drawn cart was purchased in 1989 from the Bothmer Purchase Fund (details from the Museum's website, inv. 1989.11.4). The krater surfaced through Sotheby's New York in June 1989.

It is unclear who consigned the krater to Sotheby's New York.

It has now been revealed that the krater has been handed over to the US authorities after a warrant had been issued (Tom Mashberg, "Ancient Vase Seized From Met Museum on Suspicion It Was Looted", New York Times July 31, 2018).

It appears that the museum did make an attempt to resolve the case in December 2016. Mashberg notes:
The Met, for its par…