Skip to main content

The market in ancient coins and self-regulation

I have been reflecting on a series of questions to answer at a conference next week. One of them asks this, Is self-regulation the way forward?

One of the ways that this could be answered is by looking at the responses of auction-houses or galleries when 'toxic antiquities' are identified. The organisations can either open negotiations with the source countries or they can press ahead with the sale. But the second approach is not always successful because potential buyers can get 'spooked' and the objects get left unsold and perhaps unsellable.

But then there is the topic of freshly surfaced ancient coins. Does the market self-regulate? Or do national bodies have to set up procedures?

I have read with much interest the reaction to a scholarly article by a North American academic in a high profile archaeology journal that addresses aspects of this issue.

A Washington lobbyist who is paid for his services by the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) has reacted sharply to this piece of academic research, and has even complained that the author of the article shared an electronic offprint with colleagues ("provided advance copies of his article to his fellow archaeo-bloggers"). (There has also been an unsightly discussion of how those who deal in ancient coins seem to define collegiality.)

It gets worse: the lobbyist appears to misunderstand that copyright rules that restrict the author (or anyone else) from posting the article in a place where it can be downloaded for free.

And this same lobbyist has been outspoken about the movement of archaeological material removed from Syria to western markets.

And what has the IAPN said about one of its members linked to a recent incident?

It appears that IAPN spent $40,000 on lobbying for 2014, and $10,000 so far this year (to Messrs Bailey & Ehrenberg). (But I rely here on information that has been made available in the public domain to aid transparency.)

If the IAPN does not 'reign in' its paid lobbyist, it could suggest to the academic and policy-making communities that 'self-regulation' does not work in the area of ancient coins.

And, if I can use a soccer image, the lobbyist will have scored an 'own goal' and encouraged North American authorities to intervene more closely in the market in ancient coins.

| |
Bookmark and Share so Your Real Friends Know that You Know


David, I'm not sure what the fuss is about. I've only asked Elkins to make a copy of his article available as a matter of fairness to ACCG, it's apparent target. See I'd also note that public disclosure of such articles is consistent with the princple of "open access," something championed by more responsible members of the archaeological community.

As for lobbying, the amounts paid by IAPN are exceptionally modest by normal standards. Indeed, I billed out far less last year than a firm associated with the archaeological lobby. At least one of its principals has been associated with at least one group that has actively lobbied for import restrictions on coins.

You don't see me or anyone associated with the trade or coin collecting going after her in the manner you and your fellow archaeo-bloggers have gone after me and others with whom you disagree. Why's that? Perhaps, no one has seen a need to respond to personal attacks that has unfortunately become the stock and trade of this blog as well as those of Mr. Barford and Dr. Elkins.

Nathan Elkins said…
It's been written in plain English several times. One cannot choose to post an article on a third-party website to make it "open access" without violating journal's copyright regulations. If there are stipulations in the publisher agreement (and there are) one must abide by them. Again, anyone can access the journal in a research library. My students have no problem retrieving books and articles from libraries for their reading and research assignments. The library has been the repository for research in the public domain for centuries.

It also appears that the lobbyist has a curious understanding of what constitutes personal attacks. I would suggest he attempt to be more self aware as regards his own modus operandi , and take a closer look at those comments on his weblog, which he allows from certain commentators, and how those in his organization attempt to grapple with the other side of the issue.

Popular posts from this blog

The scale of the returns to Italy

I have been busy working on an overview, "Returning Archaeological Objects to Italy". The scale of the returns to Italy from North American collections and galleries is staggering: in excess of 350 objects. This is clearly the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the material that has surfaced on the market without a history that can be traced back to the period before 1970. 

I will provide more information in due course, but the researcher is a reminder that we need to take due diligence seriously when it comes to making acquisitions.

Stele returns to Greece

The Hellenic Ministry of Culture has announced (Saturday 8 September 2018) that a stele that had been due to be auctioned at Sotheby's in London in June 2017 has been returned to Greece (Friday 7 September 2018). The identification had been made by Cambridge-based forensic archaeologist Dr Christos Tsirogiannis.

It appeared that the stele had been supplied with a falsified history as its presence with Becchina until 1990 contradicted the published sale catalogue entry. It then moved into the hands of George Ortiz.

A year ago it was suggested that Sotheby's should contact the Greek authorities. Those negotiations appear to have concluded successfully.

The 4th century BC stele fragment, with the personal name, Hestiaios, will be displayed in the Epigraphic Museum in Athens. It appears to have come from a cemetery in Attica.

Codename: Ainsbrook

I have been watching (UK) Channel 4's Time Team this evening. The programme looked at an undisclosed field (under a potato crop) where a Viking burial had been found. The location in Yorkshire was so sensitive that it was given a codename: Ainsbrook. Here is the summary:
In late 2003 two metal detectorists were working in a field in Yorkshire. They found 'treasure' buried just beneath the surface – a collection of Viking material next to a body. Although they had been detecting on the site for a number of years, during which time they had made large numbers of finds, nothing they had uncovered previously compared with this. They decided to share their discovery with archaeologists.The programme explored the tension between metal-detectorists and the English Heritage sponsored archaeologists putting six trenches into the field based on a geo-physical survey. Finds made by the metal-detectorists did not easily map onto the archaeological features.

Part of the programme had an …