Nathan Elkins on ACCG Coin Test Case

I have commented before on Nathan Elkins' article on "Ancient coins, find spots, and import restrictions: A critique of arguments made in the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild’s ‘‘test case’’" in the Journal of Field Archaeology (2015).

This is now available online via academia.edu.

Abstract
The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) has launched multiple legal challenges aimed at undermining import restrictions on ancient coins into the United States in bilateral agreements with foreign countries.One key component of the ACCG’s argument is that the State Department has inappropriately restricted certain types of coins according to where they were made rather than where they are found, as mandated by the 1983 Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act. Although the ACCG has thus far been unsuccessful, it has not been pointed out that existing import restrictions on coins, in fact, have been written to include coins that tended to circulate locally and that are found primarily within the borders of the country with which the bilateral agreement is made. The ACCG’s argument is thus on shaky ground. As the ACCG continues to press ahead with new litigation, it is worth drawing attention to realities and probabilities of ancient coin circulation as they pertain to protected coins.

Ancient coins, find spots, and import restrictions

I note that the next number of the Journal of Field Archaeology, now published by Maney, will be including an important article on ancient coins. I am grateful to Nathan Elkins for sending me a digital offprint.

For those who would like to dismiss this research as appearing in an 'obscure journal' (and only a Washington lobbyist could write this!), can I direct readers of LM to the blibliometric data that places JFA in the first quartile of archaeological journals?

Nathan T. Elkins, Ancient coins, find spots, and import restrictions: A critique of arguments made in the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild’s "test case", Journal of Field Archaeology 40, 2 (2015) 237-43.

Abstract
The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) has launched multiple legal challenges aimed at undermining import restrictions on ancient coins into the United States in bilateral agreements with foreign countries. One key component of the ACCG’s argument is that the State Department has inappropriately restricted certain types of coins according to where they were made rather than where they are found, as mandated by the 1983 Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act. Although the ACCG has thus far been unsuccessful, it has not been pointed out that existing import restrictions on coins, in fact, have been written to include coins that tended to circulate locally and that are found primarily within the borders of the country with which the bilateral agreement is made. The ACCG’s argument is thus on shaky ground. As the ACCG continues to press ahead with new litigation, it is worth drawing attention to realities and probabilities of ancient coin circulation as they pertain to protected coins.

| |

The modern movement of ancient coins and protective legislation

I have been reading an important new piece of research by Professor Nathan T. Elkins of Baylor University ("Ancient coins, find spots, and import restrictions: a critique of arguments made in the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild's 'test case'," Journal of Field Archaeology 40, 2 [2015] 236-43). He considers the way that the ACCG "has launched multiple legal challenges aimed at undermining import restrictions on ancient coins into the United States in bilateral agreements with foreign countries".  He includes an important table that lists coin hoards from Cyprus that contain Cypriot coins. This data is provided to challenge the "spin" provided by those who lobby for the coin dealing bodies.

Elkins makes an important point in his conclusion: "Legal challenges have been launched by lobbying groups with a commercial interest that present a highly skewed picture of the actual situation that is not based on evidence".

This academic research is likely to undermine attempts to waive restrictions on the modern movement of ancient coins.

Honours for Influence?

I note that the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) legal case rumbles on. Rick St Hilaire has a useful commentary.

I was particularly interested in the Seventh Affirmative Defense which criticises the then Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns. It is alleged that he received an award from Greek and Greek Cypriot lobbying groups, and that in return he ordered import restrictions on coins.

Does the ACCG make awards in the hope of receiving something in return?

Congressman Paul Ryan and the Collector Community

Today's announcement that Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan will be Mitt Romney's running mate is not without significance. Paul Barford has rehearsed the issues here. It is sufficient to note that Ryan hold's the ACCG's Friend of Numismatics Award (2006).

See also "ACCG has 'Friends' in Congress" (2006).

Freedom of Information and Coins

In 2009 I noted the filing of papers by Scott A. Hodes on behalf of "non-profit numismatic groups". This was followed by the turning down of the request. Last week I observed the ruling that there had indeed been no "cover up" by the US State Department.

Hodes has now issued a statement about the appeal. But he has also been less than transparent. He refers to comments made by an "ancient coin collector" without noting that this same "collector" is in fact a paid Washington lobbyist for the three numismatic organisations who appear to have fronted the FOIA request.

It is also interesting that the IAPN and the PNG continue to be silent on the FOIA request made in their names.

No cover up: coin conspiracy theory falls

I note that the Courthouse News service is reporting that there was no concealment of evidence as alleged by the IAPN, the PNG and the ACCG. This must come as a blow to the paid Washington lobbyist who has argued for a cover-up. This will hopefully bring an end to the shameful attack on the late Dr Danielle Parks whose emails have been the subject of interest by the request made by the three organizations. | |

The Baltimore Test Case: Federal Attorneys Respond

Readers of LM are likely to have been following the process of the so-called Baltimore Test Case relating to the import of coins without supporting paperwork. Attorney Rick St Hilaire has a very important post on "Federal Attorneys File Appellate Brief in Baltimore Coin Case". I suggest that those interested in this case should read the full post, but here is a little flavour.

The United States rebukes the ACCG for short-circuiting the judicial forfeiture proceeding, avoiding its burden of proof, and claiming that the government acted beyond its authority (i.e. ultra vires). The government contends that the “Plaintiff [ACCG] cannot properly circumvent the statutory scheme established by Congress by asking a district court to review this seizure under the APA and under the rubric of ultra vires review and . . . to further confound Congress’s intent by asking the court to disregard the burden of proof established by the CPIA.”

Attorneys for the United States further maintain that the ACCG has confused the meaning and requirements of the CPIA. They point out that “[t]o import the coins into the United States, plaintiff [ACCG] needed only to show that the coins had left Cyprus or China before the effective dates of the relevant Designated Lists. Plaintiff declined to offer any declaration to that effect, claiming that it could not offer the evidence required by the statute because it did not know whether the coins had been ‘first found in the ground’ of either China or Cyprus. But the CPIA quite plainly does not require plaintiff to know where the coins were ‘first found in the ground’; all that was required was information as to the whereabouts of the Cypriot coins as of July 16, 2007 and of the Chinese coins as of January 16, 2009.”

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) would probably do well to seek out better informed legal advice.

Baltimore Test Case: ACCG Appeal

Rick St Hilaire has a discussion of the ACCG's decision to file an appeal over the Baltimore Test Case. He clearly thinks that they are on very weak ground.

ACCG Appeal

Rick St Hilaire has noted that the ACCG has appealed over the Baltimore Test Case. The ACCG has issued a brief press statement.

Holyland Numismatics: Uncleaned Coins

Rick St Hilaire has an important discussion of the investigation into the Khouli case. In particular details of emails relating to Salem Alshdaifat of Holyland Numismatics (and ACCG [suspended] member). They include an exchange in January 2009 relating to "uncleaned" coins from a hoard in Egypt:

“[T]he hoard came from Egypt and [is] now in Dubai[.] I asked my partner to ship directly from Dubai to you. [T]his hoard came from Banha, I think we bought coins that we sold you befor[e] from Banha, it is very big Roman city. [Y]ou can wire the funds to my bank account.”

The dealer in Dubai was Nafertiti Eastern Sculptures Trading.

St Hilaire also discusses information about Byzantine coins from Syria.

ACCG Appeal

Earlier this month the ACCG's Baltimore Test Case was rejected. The ACCG's board has now decided to appeal using the same legal team that failed to make the case the first time around.

Baltimore Test Case Rejected

We have been awaiting the outcome of the test case brought by the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) relating to the import of Cypriot and Chinese coins (see initial court papers here). According to Rick St Hilaire "Judge Catherine C. Blake of the United States District Court of Maryland yesterday dismissed the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild’s lawsuit against the federal government. The federal district court decision essentially declared that the ACCG failed to make out a sufficient case." It is worth reading St Hilaire's comments in full.

The ACCG has issued a short press statement (here) with a link to the Opinion.

ACCG Charity Donor Charged

© ICE

In September 2010 Paul Barford raised some questions about the donors behind the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) Third Benefit Auction.

The auction purpose was stated:

The previous two ACCG Benefits Auctions have raised more than $80,000 to support the continuing rights of ancient coin collectors and businesses, everywhere, to pursue their interests.

The ACCG consists of collectors and numismatic professionals who care passionately about preserving, studying and displaying ancient coins from all cultures.

One of the key donors to the 2010 Auction was Holyland Numismatics (see e.g. here). Yesterday Salem Alshdaifat, the owner of Hoyland Numismatics, was one of several people charged.

It is a matter of record that the ACCG has been challenging US import restrictions (see here).

Yesterday's development suggests that there may indeed be some interesting pursuits of interest to emerge from this latest case.

Greece and coins: denarius

Greece has made a formal request for the USA to consider imposing import restrictions on archaeological material. Some North American collectors have been raising concerns that this will include coins.

Looking back to 2005 we should remember that the Classical Numismatic Group handed over a Roman denarius to the Greek embassy in London (Dalya Alberge, "Swoop by Customs returns Brutus to scene of the crime", The Times (London) June 15, 2006).

Eric McFadden, the senior director of the Classical Numismatic Group, confirmed that he had bought it from two Greeks -even though one of them had allegedly been linked with Nino Savoca, an Italian dealer in Munich, who died in 1998 after being found to have been dealing in smuggled antiquities.
Mr McFadden, whose company is regarded as one of the world's leading specialists in Greek and Roman coins, told The Times: "He did some work for Nino in the 1980s ... One doesn't refuse to deal with someone because he has a slightly shady background. 

"One looks at the deal on the table. We're business people. If there's any indication something's not legitimate, we don't deal in it."

The investigation by customs officials surrounded two Greek nationals who are said to have tried to leave the UK carrying a substantial amount of cash.

An investigation by Customs determined that the cash was payment for a coin that they had sold that morning to Classical Numismatic Group, of London. The cash was seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act, and Customs contacted the Greek Embassy.

The executive director of the ACCG subsequently commented on the case (Leon Worden, "Ancient Coin Buyers, Beware: Even seasoned dealers can get stung", COINage magazine Vol. 42, No. 11, November 2006).

Longtime coin dealer Wayne Sayles, executive director of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, agreed. 

"There is no tradition in the world market for the background-checking of sellers, nor is there any real reason for it," Sayles said. "There are pertinent and applicable laws in most countries that deal with import, theft, etc., and dealers do, in my experience, try diligently to follow those laws as they apply at the point of sale." 

Sayles lamented that "we may have lost an opportunity to contest a claim that seems to be arguable on several grounds."

Readers will note the emphasis on the "pertinent and applicable laws" relating to the "import" of such archaeological material including coins. Indeed such "laws" will help to protect dealers from those who sell recently surfaced material.

Image
Denarius © Hellenic Ministry of Culture (source)

Draft Research and Press Releases

I have commented elsewhere on the draft paper (it is headed "Draft: August 12, 2010") by Stephen K. Urice (University of Miami, School of Law) with Andrew Adler (University of Miami), "Unveiling the Executive Branch's Extralegal Cultural Property Policy", University of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2010-20 [SSRN].

The paper is a working draft and references are incomplete or contain errors. For example, the name of the importer of the Egyptian coffin sold by a Barcelona galerista is incorrect. As far as I can see the paper has yet to go through the scrutiny of external referees. 


The paper contains a discussion of recent activities by the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG). Yet instead of waiting for the polished, refined, improved, developed, and completed paper Wayne Sayles has issued a press release ("Academics Cite Extralegal Cultural Property Policies at the State Department", August 23, 2010) to draw attention to the (draft) paper. 


Sayles, the ACCG executive director, states:

"As a defender of the licit numismatic trade and avocation of ancient coin collecting, I naturally feel that this sort of review is long overdue and most welcome. The conclusion of Urice and Adler is shared by others in the field of cultural property law and the noted Executive branch practices have come increasingly into the spotlight over the past decade. That the extralegal activities of DOS, for example, should now be surfacing in legal reviews is encouraging and timely since a legal challenge of those activities, launched by the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, is now underway in U.S. District Court at Baltimore. I hasten to point out that, as with the authors cited here, ACCG opposition to extralegal practices within the Executive Branch does not equate to an endorsement of the looting of sites nor of the black market in antiquities."

So is the ACCG happy to endorse incomplete and erroneous research?



And what do Urice and Adler think about this publicity to their unfinished work? Did Sayles or the ACCG consult them or ask their permission to issue the release? Would Urice and Adler have asked the ACCG to wait until they were happy that their work was complete?

The Baltimore Coin Test Case: The List

I have commented before about the Baltimore Coin Test Case. Readers will remember the way that coins were seized on July 20, 2009 after they had entered the USA via a British Airways flight on April 15, 2009. The importer was unable to supply "additional certification" or relevant evidence.

A little more detail is emerging (Civil Action No. CCB 10-cv-00322; Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [filed June 25, 2010]; original ACCG case here [filed February 11, 2010]; ACCG amended July 15, 2010). It appears that the coins were purchased from a London dealer: to be precise, from Spink, on, or around, April 7, 2009. They are described as follows:

The collectors’ coins consisted of twenty-three (23) ancient Chinese and Cypriot coins valued at $275.00.

They are described as:

• 3-Knife shaped coins
• 12-Chinese coins
• 7-Cyprus coins

I understand the invoice describes them as follows.

Cyprus

• (2) Cyprus, Unattributed bronze coins, Roman period. No recorded provenance. Find spot unknown. FMV $10.00.
• (1) Cyprus, AE 28mm, Augustus, 27 BC - AD 14, Head of Augustus right / CA within laurel wreath. No recorded provenance. Find spot unknown. FMV $55.00.
• (1) Cyprus, AE 22mm, Ptolemaeus, King of Cyprus, 81-58 BC, Head of Zeus Ammon right / Eagle standing left. No recorded provenance. Find spot unknown. FMV $25.00.
• (1) Cyprus, AE 30mm, Severan era. AD 193-217. Laureate bust of Severus right / uncertain radiate bust right. No recorded provenance. Find spot unknown. FMV $30.00.
• (1) Cyprus, AE 24 mm, Tiberius, AD 14-37. Head of Tiberius right / head of Augustus right. No recorded provenance. Find spot unknown. FMV $40.00.
• (1) Cyprus, AE 24 mm, Tiberius, AD 14-37. Head of Tiberius right / Livia seated right.  No recorded provenance. Find spot unknown. FMV $40.00.

China

• [6] China [??] bronze coins more than 100 years old. No recorded provenance. Find spot unknown. FMV $21.00.
• (2) China, Zhou Dynasty knife shaped coins ca. 300 B.C. One is broken. No recorded provenance. Find spot unknown. FMV $25.00.
• (1) China, Zhou Dynasty spade shaped coin ca. 400 B.C. No recorded provenance. Find spot unknown. FMV $10.00
• (3) China, Han Dynasty Wu Shu type coin ca. 100 BC - AD 220. No recorded provenance. Find spot unknown. FMV $9.00.
• (3) China, Western Han Dynasty Ban Liang coins ca. 200 - 150 BC. No recorded provenance. Find spot unknown. FMV $9.00.

Towards a Bibliography for Looted Antiquities: the ACCG list

Following an interesting dialogue on Kimberly Alderman's blog about bibliographies relating to looted antiquities, she now notes the appearance of a new list on the ACCG website. She writes:

The ACCG bibliography is not a direct supplement to the Jarvis bibliography because it pertains to the cultural property debates generally as opposed to looting in particular, but I think it was a great idea for collectors, who felt their academic publications were underrepresented, to put together a list to round out the available resources for scholars. I have suggested that the collectors approach Jarvis and discuss how the list might be rounded out, but it does not appear anyone has done so yet.

I will not write a critique of the ACCG bibliography here. It is a mixed bag of newspaper reports, academic articles, memoranda. I note that there is nothing from the Journal of Field Archaeology that has had a regular commentary on the antiquities market since 1974; only two papers from the International Journal of Cultural Property (Fincham and Merryman); nothing by (for example) Brodie, Chippindale, Ede, Elia, Isman, Mackenzie, Miles, O'Keefe, Ortiz, Renfrew, Tubb, Vitelli, Zimmerman or even de Montebello; Appiah's Cosmopolitanism is overlooked.

The ACCG offering notes: "The bibliography that follows is supplemental to those as it focuses on resources with a more balanced perspective." Some of the works that appear under "balanced views" elsewhere on the ACCG website do not make it into the final list.

I have posted some of my recent work here.

"I am angry at the archaeologists and I want to beat them"

A report on the January 2008 meeting of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) has appeared (Richard Giedroyc, "Ancient Coin Collectors Influence Expands", numismaster.com, February 14, 2008):

A cautious but upbeat assessment of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild and its impact on people outside the coin collecting hobby who would demand certain coins be returned to their place of origin due to their being cultural patrimony was given Jan. 12 at a meeting of the ACCG during the New York International Numismatic Convention.

At the end of Giedroyc's report there is a telling section:

Coin dealer Harlan Berk of Chicago recently supported the educational grants effort by contributing ancient coins to be used as learning tools in the schools. Berk said he was told an archaeologist told a school teacher it was a bad thing to give ancient coins to children.

Speaking at the NYINC meeting Berk said, "I am angry at the archaeologists and I want to beat them."

I thought that it would be interesting to learn more about Harlan Berk of Chicago so visited the website of Harlan J. Berk, Ltd. of Chicago ("The Art & Science of Numismatics"). I noticed that there was an "Antiquities" section and took a closer look. I discovered that the company is selling a fragmentary Attic red-figured cup (Item #aq13622) for US$12500. Here is the description:

Attic Red-Figure Close to the Proto-Panaitian Group and the Carpenter Painter, ca. 510-500 B.C. The Carpenter painter painted in Athens in the last decade of the 6th century B.C. As with most vase painters, the true name of the painter is unknown. The Carpenter Painter gets his name from his depiction of a carpenter at work, which is now in the British Museum. The Carpenter Painter was familiar with the work of the Pioneers and particularly influenced by Euthymides. In the center of the tondo is rendered a delicately painted reveler, a komast, holding a flute case, with the words "PA [N] AITIO [S K] ALOS, and PANA [ITIOS] KALO [S]", written around, praising the beauty of a youth named Panaitios. On the reverse of one of the fragments are two wonderful pot-bellied komasts, with the main figure holding up a staff that hides his face but shows off nicely his fat round belly. On the underside of another piece are the legs of two figures, but what should be pointed out is the finely drawn hand lightly holding a staff between them. Not shown are two partial pieces of either handle, which come with the group of fragments. An important piece for any collector of Athenian vase painting. H. 8 1/2".

I browsed the Beazley Archive to see if the cup was there but without apparent success. (I would be happy to add the information here if it is indeed listed.)

First, I looked under Proto Panaetian. There is a fragmentary cup there showing a youth at a symposium with Panaitios kalos.The same kalos name appears on a cup from Chiusi showing a satyr riding a wineskin (Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery), and on a cup from Gela (Sicily) showing a youth with an oinchoe. A very fragmentary cup, showing warriors in fight scenes, also names Panaitios; this formed part of the collection of the late Dietrich von Bothmer. A fragment with Panaitios kalos was also found on the Athenian Acropolis.

Second, I looked under the Carpenter painter. I note that cups attributed to this painter (or close to him / her) have been found at several sites in Italy (Cerveteri, Chiusi, Orvieto, Spina) and also in Greece (Athenian Acropolis, Corinth).

Third, I searched under the Panaitios kalos name. Cups with this kalos name have been found near Viterbo, and at Cerveteri (four), Chiusi, Orvieto, Vulci (three); one was discovered at Gela (Sicily). One fragment was recovered from the Athenian Acropolis. There was also a cup fragment in the Dietrich von Bothmer collection with Panaitios kalos.

Fourth, I looked for dealers in Chicago but Harlan J. Berk was not listed.

There are some questions that would be worth asking about this apparently newly surfaced cup.

• What is its collecting history? In other words, who has owned it? What are the recorded dates? (Note that such information is recorded for other pieces, such as a South Italian black-glossed kantharos.)
• Which scholar has made the attribution? (It is usual to provide the "authority" in such cases.)
• Has the cup been published or recorded prior to its appearance here?
• I note that the main part of the cup has been restored and that that there are further fragments. Who was the restorer?

It is claimed that this newly surfaced cup is "an important piece". However its findspot is apparently unknown and unrecorded. This is a pity as it could have told us something of the distribution of this type of pottery in the late archaic period.

Image
Detail of Attic red-figured cup offered by Harlan J. Berk, Ltd.

The Baltimore Coin Test Case

Last November, after the decision over the FOIA case, it was announced, "the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild still plans to pursue a test case regarding whether those import restrictions were promulgated in an arbitrary and capricious fashion".

Now a Washington-based attorney, Jason H. Ehrenberg of Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC, has filed an action on behalf of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) (plaintiff) against the US Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; the Commissioner,  US Customs and Border Protection; the US Department of State; and, the Assistant Secretary of State (educational and cultural Affairs), United States Department of State. (The pdf can be found here.)

Ehrenberg's expertise lies, according to his firm's website, in "employee benefits, employment and civil rights law, and higher education law, representing both individual and organizational clients on a broad spectrum of issues within the employment relationship".

Apart from wanting the return of coins brought into the United States apparently without the appropriate paper trail, the action seeks:

ACCG requests the Court: (a) to declare that the decision to impose import restrictions on ancient coins of Cypriot type is arbitrary and capricious because, pursuant to applicable law, State failed to disclose to Congress a rational basis for the reason, or reasons, behind State’s decision to reject the advice of its own advisory committee and also in departing from prior agency practice; (b) to declare that the decisions to impose import restrictions on ancient coins of both Cypriot and Chinese type are also arbitrary and capricious because they are both contrary to law and the product of bias, prejudgment and ex parte contact; and (c) to declare that under the applicable statutes Customs must prove that the Cypriot or Chinese coins at issue were illicitly removed from Cypriot or Chinese find spots before they may be forfeited.

However this "test case" is more than about Cyprus and China.

There is an attack on the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA):

Upon information and belief, the Archaeological Institute of America (“AIA”) is a nonprofit group that promotes professional archaeology. Upon further information and belief, although the AIA maintains it has some 200,000 members, this figure is derived from the circulation of its magazine, Archaeology. In contrast, upon further information and belief, a small number of professional archaeologists – many of whose careers are dependent on excavation permits issued by Cultural Nationalist states like China, Cyprus and Italy—actually govern the AIA and formulate its public stances. According to one such pronouncement, the AIA maintains that all unprovenanced artifacts should be deemed to be “stolen” and repatriated to their supposed countries of origin.

There is a comment on the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (CAARI):

Upon information and belief, the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (“CAARI”) is a nonprofit group formed to promote the study of Cypriot archaeology and related disciplines. Upon further information and belief, the careers of many CAARI associated archaeologists are dependent upon the Cypriot Department of Antiquities issuing them excavation permits. Upon further information and belief, CAARI also maintains that all unprovenanced artifacts should be deemed to be “stolen” and repatriated to their supposed countries of origin.

I note that among the grumbles in the submitted action is this one:

Allowing Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns to influence the decision to impose import restrictions on coins of Cypriot type, though he had just received an award from Greek and Greek Cypriot interests and had displayed bias in favor of such interests.

I have commented on this issue before. I asked then:

What about organisations that reward congressmen for supporting "collector rights" or intervening "in issues of importance to ancient coin collectors"? Or is that different?

Given the recent comments about academic journals by a partner at Bailey & Ehrenberg, it is curious to see that one of the authorities cited in the legal papers is Wikipedia (section 61).

It is interesting to note that among the cases cited was one where "Supreme Court ruled agency’s decision to be arbitrary and capricious because the agency failed to offer any reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases caused or contributed to climate change" (section 132). Does Mr Ehrenberg side with those who believe that there is no climate change? Or does he prefer to drive a "gas-guzzler" rather than do his little bit to save the planet?

And does he care if archaeological sites on Cyprus are being looted to provide archaeological material for the market? Or is the issue about the right to collect and to own antiquities?