A very interesting article, again, on looted coins. Ancient collectors are targeted the most. http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2014/06/smoking-gun-ancient-coins-looted-from.html Edit: Tried to fix title, no option.
I find the premise of this article simply bizarre. Somehow, collectors of ancient coins (especially the more common ones) should be able to know that they're buying a looted coin and not buy it? Seriously? Very few ancient collectors would condone (knowingly) buying looted coins, but how are they supposed to have this information?
It is simple. All ancient coins are looted. History belongs only to the academic boys' club. Private students are incapable of making any contribution to the study except, perhaps, if they write a check to endow an academic's lifestyle. All private collectors are criminals. When you start with these premises, there is nothing bizarre about it.
Sad but true. Same thing happens with many antiquities, not just coins. And it doesn't matter to the academics, and sometimes even governments, if an item is found, by you, on your own land, somehow you still don't have the right to own it. Thinking like this even applies fossils.
So, you're saying that the article means ALL ancient coin collectors should NEVER buy any ancient coins, since they've all been looted at some point in time?
I read dougsmit's post as tongue-in-cheek, in that despite collectors not being "academics", we still make positive contributions.
There are those who see it that way. They would rather see the coins destroyed than have them pass into hands that would promote interest and support looters. Of course the next step is to say that the owners of those items buried them for themselves and not for us so all archaeology is looting. Only to those willing to listen. I have received inquiries regarding my website requesting to know what degrees I hold that enables me to write such pages. I have been told by academics not to use any source online except those that have .edu or .gov extensions since .com is available to amateurs. I agree we must be cautious on who we believe but I stop short of such dot generalizations.
