Coin Auctioneer with Archaeological Background Seeks to Rediscover Old Provenances with the Help of Facial Recognition Technology

                 On May 30, 2020, Dr. Jonas Flueck of Ex-Numis (https://www.ex-numis.com/page/about.html) and Lugdunam International Auction House (https://www.lugdunum-numismatik.com/en/) explained his use of facial recognition technology to rediscover old provenances for ancient coins.  United States import restrictions imposed on ancient coins, new regulations in Germany and the EU, and claims that terrorists have been selling ancient coins to fund their activities have all made the rediscovery of old provenances more important than before.

                Dr. Flueck prefaced his talk with a discussion of different types of provenances.  Provenance is generally comparable to the concept of chain of custody.    The International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art has developed useful concepts to explain different forms of provenance.  “Hearsay provenance” is the weakest form of provenance.  This is a vague provenance, usually restricted to a date or location.  An example is “from an old Swiss collection.”  The only thing that backs up this provenance is the good faith of the dealer in question.  “Named provenance” is somewhat stronger.  It is a provenance linked to a specific collection or person.  The problem is that this kind of provenance cannot always be verified.  The strongest form of provenance is “documented provenance” linked to a specific sale or other documentary material like invoices or export licenses.  It is this last, strongest type of provenance which Ex-Numis seeks to reestablish.

                Until now, dealers and collectors have had to conduct manual searches through hundreds of old auction catalogues to recapture old provenances.  Without some suspicion where a coin may have appeared in the past, this is virtually an impossible undertaking.   The genius of Dr. Flueck’s system is that he has spent considerable time, effort and money scanning thousands of auction catalogues and then applying facial recognition technology to compare coins which are submitted to his service to those in old catalogues in order to recover old provenances.   These include some 130,000 coins listed in catalogues pre-dating 1970, the date of the UNESCO Convention.

                Still, the system has some serious limitations that help explain why the vast majority of coins without a recoverable provenance are not the products of recent, illicit digs.  First, before widespread use of digital photography in the 1990’s, it was time consuming and difficult to take photographs of coins.  For that reason, the vast majority of coins sold at auction or in fixed price lists were not photographed.  Second, although Ex-Numis has recently sought to add fix price lists to its database, many of these lists were only produced in small numbers and are no longer easily available today.  Lastly, the system does not capture more recent provenances created during the digital era; however, such coins can be found reviewing commercially available databases, like Coin Archives, AC Search, Sixbid Archives or CNG’s Research page. 

                Notwithstanding these limitations, when a match is found, it can not only detail lost provenances but whether a coin has been altered over time by cleaning or tooling.  It can also provide some assurance that a coin was on the market before the advent of highly sophisticated fakes produced with the use of laser cut coin dies.  Conversely, it can prompt concerns about authenticity if a coin was previously withdrawn from auction. 

                Recovering a provenance can also establish a particular coin was formally in a prestigious collection, like that of Prof. Pozzi and Sir Arthur Evans, a famous archaeologist.   Moreover, it can show coins travelling internationally between the United States and Europe.  Finally, it can show how prices change over time for specific coins.

                Archaeologists and others not familiar with ancient coin collecting often ask why so many ancient coins lack a provenance.  First, most coins in the past auctions were a very small part of the market.  Most coins were instead purchased at coin fairs and in coin stores with an invoice, but one which did not picture the coin.  Second, because provenances were not that important, they were often not included in auction catalogues, except for coins from famous collections.  Third, before the advent of modern facial recognition technology, it was very time consuming to search for old auction provenances by reviewing old catalogues.

                Dr. Flueck became interested in old auction catalogues when he began work at a Swiss auction house.  Over time, he has collected a large number of auction catalogues, which he married to facial imaging technology.  This technology works best for coins with irregular flans, which is common in the Greek series.  It works less well with coins with regular flans made in quantity, which includes most Roman Republican and Imperial coins.  It is also difficult to match coin images in old catalogues produced with the use of plaster casts.

                The process for developing his system was very time consuming.  First, he collected a large number of catalogues based on lists of historic catalogues.    He then cut out individual pages and created PDF pages and then pages individual coins.   He ended up scanning approximately 5,000 catalogues to create his database.  These catalogues date from the late 19^th c. to about 2005, when most catalogues went digital. The auctions are from around the world of ancient, chiefly Greek and Roman coins.

                Since 2006, he has rediscovered more than 5,000 lost provenances, which he hopes do not get lost again.  It is easier for the system to locate coins with irregular flans.  It is more difficult to locate coin images with regular flans, which includes all early coin images made by use of plaster casts.

                Going forward, Dr. Flueck hopes to add known forgeries and stolen coins to the database.   Such coins can then be removed from the market and stolen coins returned to their rightful owner.

                Dr. Flueck then answered several questions.  He was first asked if his system could be used for Greek vases.  He believes a similar system could be applied to Greek vases if funding is found.

                Dr. Flueck was then asked if it is harder to find provenances for Roman coins because more Greek coins in the past appeared at auction.  Dr. Flueck does not have statistics for that because he searches for Greek coin provenances far more frequently.  He does note however that it is more difficult to find matches or Roman coins because of their more regular flans.

                Dr. Flueck has not been asked to provide expert legal testimony, but he has provided provenance information used for export and import paperwork.

                Dr. Flueck asked how fast the database is growing.  He indicates he is at a point where it is difficult to acquire new catalogues.  He hopes to add reference works providing provenance, major collections that were dispersed privately and fixed price lists.  Of course, this is also very time consuming.  It is noted there is a dearth of published provenances from the late 1930’s to 1950’s due to WWII and its immediate aftermath.

                The oldest provenance Dr. Flueck has traced is from the late 19^th century.  The most valuable is for a Dekadrachm of Syracuse.

                Fixed price lists are important sources of provenance information from the 1950’s-1990’s.  Dr. Flueck has a complete set of Münzen & Medaillen and Credit Suisse price lists.  Bank Leu and Hess also produced some rare lists from this period.  Dr. Flueck is missing American price lists from the 1960’s-1970’s from his database.

                There is also a discussion of the American Numismatic Society card file.  Hopefully, this can be digitized in the future. The Schaefer archive will also be a source of provenance information for Roman Republican coins.

                The database depends on what was considered an “ancient coin” in the auction catalogues.  As a result, there is uneven coverage of Byzantine or barbaric coins.  Byzantine coins are typically difficult to match because the flan shapes are so similar.

                There is a discussion of the 130,000 coins in the database with pre-1970 provenance. Dr. Flueck notes that this relatively low number is attributable to the fact that so few coins were photographed during this time period and so many were sold outside of auctions.  Even for auctions, most coins were merely listed, not pictured.  Typically only about a quarter of coins may be pictured.

                The Bronx Coin Club and the Ancient Numismatic Society of Washington, D.C. co-sponsored Dr. Flueck’s presentation.  Dr. Flueck’s Zoom Video Talk can be found here:  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn_hw9C-o4M&feature=youtu.be .  For more about Ex-Numis, see its website, here: https://www.ex-numis.com/page/the-idea.html .

Let Him Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Stone

Much has been made regarding alleged misrepresentations in import documentation for cuneiform tablets meant for a new Bible Museum in Washington, DC.  Yet, at least some of those feasting on the story may want to consider the biblical injunction against casting stones in light of some of the whoppers that have been promoted to the media, including ISIS is making $100's of millions from looted antiquities with $36 million taken from one area in Syria alone; ISIS has looted Apamea; the Green's purchase in 2011 in Israel supported an Iraqi-Syrian terror group that only became known years later, etc.  Yes, let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Green Collection Needs More Transparency

Gary Vikan suggests that the Green collection respond to concerns raised about the collection's origins by being more transparent.  Vikan championed a similar way to deal with cultural property issues during his long and successful tenure as Director at the Walters.  In the end, the Greens and their dream for a Museum of the Bible will likely be best served by adopting the approach Vikan suggests.

Pearlstein on Due Dilligence and the Wisdom of Repatriation to Failed States and War Zones

Art lawyer William Pearlstein speaks common sense that is all too often lacking from most media discussions about the subject of how best to address the looting problem in the Middle East.   Due diligence is necessary, but let's be realistic about it.  And, of course, there is the larger policy question -- if cultural heritage preservation truly is the goal -- whether repatriation to failed states in war zones is really the right thing to do.

Destroying Undocumented Artifacts: What Were They Thinking?

Kate FitzGibbon asks in reaction to a series of  revealing "tweets" from some well-known archaeologists and academics associated with the archaeological lobby which appear to either support the idea of destroying undocumented artifacts in order to keep them off the market, support the idea with some qualifications, think its for the source country to decide, or think it should not be discussed, not because it's wrong, but because it undercuts their anti-looting argument.

Of course, collectors like Kyri don't think that way.   For them, "all antiquities 'merit saving' with or without context."  CPO heartily agrees.

Trade Professionals Speak Common Sense

The Ivory Tower academics of the archaeological lobby often speak about requiring "provenance information" and "export certificates" as proof that items are not the products of recent looting. However, those with actual practical experience in the international trade of cultural goods have once again demonstrated that coming up with such documentation is easier said than done.

Numismatic professional Alfredo de la Fe has written about the lack of provenance information for most coins and antiquities dealer James Ede has explained the impossible task of supplying export certificates that simply don't exist.

Hopefully, decision makers will give much needed consideration to these practical concerns raised by those in the know.

It's Official: AIA Against All Dealing in Cultural Artifacts-Violators to Be Terminated

In conjunction with its revocation of the Charter of the AIA's St. Louis Society, the AIA has now also made quite clear that it's against all trade and private ownership of archaeological objects, not just those without a collection history dating back before the 1970 UNESCO Convention.

According to the AIA's new membership rules,

Cause [for termination] shall be deemed to be any action taken individually, or as an officer or director of an affiliated Society, detrimental to the purpose, interest, public image or principles of the Institute and shall include, without limitation, the use of the name of the Institute in connection with or in the furtherance of transactions involving archaeological artifacts which could have the effect of removing such archaeological artifacts from general availability for scholarly investigation or public display.

It remains to be seen how far the AIA will take this in practice and whether there will be a backlash against the AIA leadership once the effect of this rule change sinks in with the AIA's non-academic members whom are presumably the source for most, if not all, of its funds.

Time to Purge the AIA's Rolls of its Few Remaining Antiquities Collectors?

There was a time when the collector-archaeologist was celebrated and many achieved the highest distinctions within the Archaeological Institute of America and similar societies around the world.

But now that the AIA has stated that  antiquities should only be held for public educational purposes, is it finally time to purge the AIA's rolls of those few remaining collector-supporters who have deluded themselves into thinking "its okay" to collect well provenanced pieces documented back before 1970?

One wonders.

1970 No Longer a Safe Harbor?

The Archaeological Institute of America's recent comments to the Art Newspaper along with its vociferous opposition to the decision of the AIA's St. Louis Society to deaccession some well provenanced Egyptian artifacts has again raised serious questions about the AIA's position on collecting antiquities. 

Just a few years ago, we were told the AIA wasn't against collecting, "only" the collecting of material that could not be traced back before the 1970 UNESCO Convention was promulgated.  Of course, this was not much solace to ancient coin collectors, as well as collectors of many other portable antiquities.  The vast majority of ancient coins and presumably equal percentages of minor antiquities simply cannot be traced back anywhere near that far.  But this claim did have some resonance with some wealthy antiquities collectors, who could afford to purchase only antiquities with documented pre-1970 provenances.   They could then sit back secure in the knowledge their well-provenanced material worth thousands upon thousands of dollars would likely not be subject to the same level of scrutiny in the archaeological blogosphere as the random $50 ancient coin.

No more:

“We are strongly opposed to the proposed sale [of well provenanced material]”, says Ann Benbow, the executive director of the AIA, in an email to The Art Newspaper. 'If [it] goes forward, it will tarnish the long-standing reputation of the AIA, which has a strong stance against the sale of antiquities… Archaeological artifacts should be cared for and made available for educational purposes, not put up for auction.'”  

CPO has commented previously that any supposed "safe harbor" was always an illusion-- good only until some foreign potentate wanted US government help to repatriate yet another ancient goodie as a trophy.

Now, it appears the AIA may be formally jettisoning it. 

If so, high-end antiquities collectors beware and be complacent no more.

ADCAEA Issues Due Diligence Guidelines

The Association of Dealers & Collectors of Ancient and Ethnographic Art have issued due diligence guidelines for its members, primarily dealers and collectors of high-end material. 

The guidelines set forth some things to consider, taking into account value of the object, how common it is, and its potential origin.

What is Ethical Collecting as Far as the Archaeological Blogosphere is Concerned?

David Knell's recent comments on this blog raise questions about what it means to be an "ethical collector"  as far as the archaeological blogosphere is concerned.  I'm not sure whether or not David is an academic or museum professional,  but on his informative blog he indicates that his collection of oil lamps was largely formed long ago and suggests that any more recent additions have a provenance back to 1970 as required by recent museum accession rules.

So then,what does an "ethical collection" of ancient coins look like as far as the archaeological blogosphere is concerned?

Would it be limited to coins with a secure pre-1970 provenance?  If so, it might have a few high priced Greek coins, but little else-- only very few Greek coins have secure provenances pre-dating 1970 and hardly any Roman coins do.

How about a collection of coins recorded under the PAS and Treasure Act?  There would certainly be more material to collect.  Such a collection could include a wide variety of Celtic, Roman Imperial and Medieval British issues.  On the other hand, it would contain virtually nothing from the Greek world and only a few Roman Republican coins.  In any event, would the fact that the coins were recorded under the PAS or Treasure Act make collecting them "ethical" as far as Paul Barford, Nathan Elkins or David Gill would be concerned?   CPO doubts it given their qualms with the system in place in Britain and Wales.

How about a collection of unprovenanced coins of the sort widely and openly available in places like Italy, China and Bulgaria?  Building such a collection might make sense to the non-archaeologist.
One might ask,  "Why shouldn't we be able to buy anything that is freely available for sale in such countries? "  And better still, such a collection would certainly include a wide variety of coins, indeed, much of what is collected today in the United States.

But, of course, common sense does not appear to be the primary consideration here, but rather one of "ethics."  And what's the problem with "ethics?"  Well, ethics is in the eye of the beholder, and it's all too easy to make such ethical rules for others.

And more practically, can one really create an "ethical collection" of ancient coins today that meets the criteria of the archaeological blogosphere and still find anything to collect?   Probably not.

Is this Science?

Let CPO say it respects archaeology and all it has contributed to the understanding of the human past.  On the other hand, CPO also questions whether archaeology is really a "hard science," as has been claimed by activists who believe that private collecting should be suppressed in "the name of furthering knowledge."   In this regard, CPO notes that the latest on Paul Barford's and David Gill's blogs suggest that it's not really about "science" at all, but about rumor mongering in order to further an agenda.  It's one thing to have principled concerns about the Portable Antiquity Scheme and the publication of poems found on an unprovenanced artifact.  But it's quite another to imply -- based on little more than rank speculation-- that the Crosby Garrett Helmet was actually found outside the British Isles or that the "Sappho papyrus"  was possibly part of a cache from a Turkish eBay seller  Is this science?

A Crack in the Wall?

Archaeology Magazine, the official organ of the Archaeological Institute of America, has publicized  the finding of a world-renown papyrologist that scraps from an unprovenanced papyrus contained poems of an ancient Greek Poetess, Sappho.  The news, far from being celebrated, is instead being criticized by hard-liners in the archaeological blogospshere worried that the AIA is departing from its principles for publicizing work based on an unprovenanced document.  CPO commends Archaeology Magazine for doing so-- ignoring important documents because they are unprovenanced does nothing but a disservice to anyone interested in the furtherance of knowledge.

Archaeology Magazine Publicizes Unprovenanced Jewish Tombstone

Archaeology Magazine, the official organ of the Archaeological Institute of America, has publicized a wonderful story of how students from Yeshiva University helped decipher an unprovenanced Jewish Tombstone from what was a Christian city in Jordan.  Yes, we can learn a lot from unprovenanced artifacts, despite what hard-liners in the AIA and archaeological blogosphere might say.

One Can't Assume...

that ancient coins without a provenance dating back to 1970 must ipso facto be a recent find.   While such an erroneous assumption has become an article of faith within the archaeological community, this story about a very important coin that was on display at the British Museum proves otherwise.

Unprovenanced Egyptian artifacts for Sale in Washington, D.C. suburb?

Anti-collector archaeologists have maintained that artifacts without a demonstrable provenance back before 1970 must be considered looted.  They also suggest that any earlier provenance solely based on the say-so of the consignor cannot be trusted.  Thus, one wonders if the archaeological blogosphere will condemn former U.S. Speaker of the House Tom Foley, his wife, and his wife's mother for the sale of these Egyptian artifacts "purchased in the 1960's."  

I certainly would cast no such stones.  Egyptian artifacts have been legally collected for generations.  I think it's wrong to suggest otherwise without proof to the contrary.  But that probably is not the way the self-appointed moralists of  the archaeological blogosphere would see it. 

Art You Will Never See

A new website has appeared in the blogosphere called "Art You Will Never See."  The website highlights the "orphan artifacts" problem created by the AAMD's recently adopted 1970 Rule for acquisitions.

According to the website,

ART YOU WILL NEVER SEE seeks to advance public education and understanding of issues affecting museums with particular respect to the collecting, conserving, displaying and publication of cultural artifacts. It is the specific purpose of this website to help the public understand what the AAMD’s rule-making means, It is the hope of ART YOU WILL NEVER SEE that the objects shown on these pages will underscore the importance of the orphans issue and point the way toward change in guidelines that were enacted by an organization with little understanding of their consequences.


The objects shown here need few words. The images speak for themselves. Historically or artistically, all are of exceptional importance. If they were offered today, however, even as a donation, the AAMD says they should be rejected by the art museums of America. They are only tip of the iceberg, however: beneath them lies an extraordinary depth and breadth of material in private hands that you will, now, never see in an American museum.

New Work on Etruscan Coinage

I'm looking forward to coin dealer and scholar Italo Vecchi's new work about the enigmatic coinage of the Etruscan city states. I understand that Lord Renfrew collects this series.  One wonders if all Lord Renfrew's coins have a demonstrable provenance back to at least 1970.

Object Registry Fragment Foolishness

Archaeo-Blogger David Gill wants more details of the Met’s 10,000 or so vase fragments placed en masse on the AAMD’s object registry.  Presumably Gill wants each pictured separately to facilitate detailed study of their potential origin so additional pieces can be repatriated to Italy or perhaps Greece or Turkey.  But why should the AAMD’s procedures be the same for the $10,000,000 artifact as for the $10 artifact?  Gill’s confidant Nathan Elkins has already recognized that coins—given the sheer numbers that have survived-- should not be treated as the AIA treats other artifacts.  Gill should give vase fragments the same break.

Peru Wants Artifacts that Left Country after 1822

Peru has asked French authorities to stop an auction of Peruvian artifacts that left the country years ago.     Sotheby's used to auction off such material in New York, but U.S. import restrictions on pre-Colombian art has driven that business overseas.

President Sarkozy made a concerted effort to increase France's share of the auction business. Perhaps, the Peruvian Government is hoping that France's current "soak the rich" Socialists will be more amenable to repatriation demands, however stale the claim.

Whether French authorities take the Peruvian claim seriously or not, all this is just more evidence that museums and others were snookered into accepting a 1970 date for acquisitions of artifacts.  If they thought such a concession would quiet repatriation demands, they were very, very wrong.   If anything, such concessions have only encouraged further demands-- the slippery slope rule applies yet again.