The article’s point of departure is a police seizure of 30 Punic coins that were smuggled out of Tunisia to be sold to an antiques dealer in Oslo. They were allegedly a sample of a large assemblage of ‘200 kg’ of bronze coins found off the coast of Tunisia. The collaboration between the various actors in the case and the restitution process itself are examined, forming the basis for a discussion of international legislation and regulations, the challenges of the illicit trade in cultural objects and the exercise of authority in this area of criminality. The numismatic material is examined in detail and its relevance for a reconstruction of the chronological sequence of the bronze coins minted at Carthage during the Second Punic War is discussed. Although the circumstances under which these 30 Punic coins were found are uncertain, the possibility that they came from a shipwreck or a submerged structure has been suggested. Supplementary information about numerous examples of the same issues that have been traded on the auction market in recent years has also been provided.
Coins are particularly vulnerable to illicit metal detecting, looting, trafficking and illegal trade given their portability and high market demand. In 2019, for instance, the World Customs Organization (WCO) reported that coins comprised the largest quantity of cultural heritage materials from a single seizure that year. Croatian Customs stopped a transport at the border at Bajakovo with 25 bags containing a total of 2,963 Byzantine coins from Turkey with an estimated value of €289,418.Footnote 1 Several significant seizures of coins took place elsewhere in the world in 2019, including a single seizure of 2,500 ancient coins by the Argentinian Federal Police Force and one of 1,375 coins by the Latvian State Police.Footnote 2 Other seizures confirm that coins are illegally exported from North Africa, as attested by the return to Egypt in 2017 of 23,000 coins seized in Italy.Footnote 3 Norway has returned to twelve countries in Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America and to the United States, more than 600 coins seized by law enforcement and customs authorities during the past five years. Based on these few examples, it is safe to say that the looting of archaeological sites and the illegal trade in ancient coins are flourishing.
Looted cultural heritage – a transnational challenge between harm and crime
Cultural heritage was first formally addressed in international law in the 1907 Hague Regulations. Since the 1950s, a substantial body of international treaties and normative instruments for its protection has been developed, primarily under the auspices of UNESCO and other intergovernmental organizations. The 1954 UNESCO Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (the Hague Convention and its Second Protocol) represents the first comprehensive modern international legal instrument in this field.Footnote 4 It was largely formulated in response to the widespread destruction and looting of cultural property during World War II.Footnote 5
A decisive turning point in the international legal protection of cultural objects came with the adoption of the 1970 UNESCO Convention.Footnote 6 This convention extended protection to cultural property looted and illicitly exported from its country of origin outside the context of armed conflict. Since then, several additional instruments have been adopted, including Council of Europe conventions, EU regulations and conflict-specific UN Security Council resolutions.Footnote 7 Nonetheless, significant shortcomings and challenges persist within the current legal and regulatory frameworks.
The policy gap between ethical regulations, legal framework and the ongoing trafficking and trade represents a major challenge in combating heritage crime.Footnote 8 The demand for such artefacts is increasing on the collectors’ market and is the underlying motivation for looting and trafficking that gradually destroy the cultural heritage and identities of communities suffering from poor governance, war and conflict. The looting of cultural heritage artefacts is part of a broader cycle of commodification driven by international antiquities markets. Consumer countries fuel this demand, making illicit trade in cultural heritage both highly profitable and relatively low risk. As a result, UNESCO, Interpol and other organizations consider it one of the most widespread and lucrative international crimes. The emergence of digital platforms has significantly altered the trade of cultural heritage artefacts. Since the mid-1990s, online markets such as eBay, national sales platforms, private websites, social media and encrypted communication apps such as WhatsApp and Telegram have increased the accessibility of lower-value artefacts. These developments have facilitated a growing number of transactions beyond elite collectors and high-end antiquities markets. The global trade in cultural artefacts includes a diverse range of anonymous buyers and sellers, prompting international organizations such as the WCO and numerous transnational non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to intensify efforts to combat illicit trade.
Cultural heritage crime is frequently linked to organized crime networks that also engage in other illicit activities such as arms trafficking, narcotics trade and the financing of terrorism.Footnote 9 This interconnectedness significantly influences the approaches required for prevention, investigation and prosecution, necessitating coordination, information sharing and cross-sectoral collaboration among law-enforcement agencies, NGOs and states. It also complicates the legal landscape, as multiple legal frameworks and regulatory regimes may apply, depending on the nature and scope of the case.Footnote 10 Cultural heritage crime is often perceived as less serious than crimes involving weapons or narcotics. Consequently, it tends to receive lower prioritization and fewer resources, particularly when it forms only one component of a broader criminal enterprise. This perception poses a substantial obstacle to the development of systematic and coordinated efforts to combat cultural crime at the international level and hampers the effective pursuit of legal action across jurisdictions. The result is a fragmented and reactive enforcement environment that undermines comprehensive and sustained strategies for the protection of cultural heritage.Footnote 11
Due to the lack of systematic mapping and consistent legal prosecution, efforts to combat cultural heritage crime are rarely supported by adequate resources. As a result, knowledge of the scale of the problem, both in financial terms and in relation to the long-term harm inflicted on local communities and source countries affected by widespread looting and smuggling during conflict and war, remains limited. Governments and international organizations are often forced to rely on uncertain or incomplete data, which in turn limits the efforts to mobilize greater resources to address cultural crime effectively.Footnote 12 Because of the lack of consistency in the legal instruments available, calls have recently been made for increased criminalization of looting, destruction and illicit trafficking and the trade of cultural property.Footnote 13
In recent years, the extent of the damage caused by such criminal activity has increased, particularly in vulnerable and conflict-affected regions. This has led to a growing international focus on protecting cultural heritage and curbing the illicit trade in cultural objects originating from these areas. The seizure of the Punic coins and their subsequent repatriation to Tunisia reflect a heightened awareness among Norwegian antiques dealers and authorities of the broader implications of cultural property crime. This case exemplifies a shift towards greater responsibility and engagement in addressing the ethical and legal challenges posed by the illicit antiquities trade. Even so, many challenges remain. One lies in the tension between public interest and private ownership. Scholars have increasingly highlighted the ethical implications of the commodification of cultural heritage, which undermines communal rights and collective memory. As cultural heritage is progressively acknowledged as a shared societal asset, the existing legal emphasis on private ownership warrants critical reassessment in favour of ethical custodianship.Footnote 14 This debate also resonates within international law, where notable gaps remain in the recognition and protection of the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities.Footnote 15
The discourse surrounding the protection of cultural heritage often grapples with the dichotomy of harm and crime, revealing the differences and inconsistencies in regulations and ethical considerations intrinsic to this field. Cultural heritage crime exists in an ambiguous space between legality and illegality, harm and crime, and conflicting legal frameworks. Meanwhile, the collectors’ market remains highly active, with auction houses, coin dealers and online platforms facilitating an ever-expanding trade. These complexities necessitate an exploration of how legal frameworks, policy frameworks and societal values converge to shape the treatment of cultural heritage, especially in contexts where threats of intentional and negligent harm emanate from various sectors, including armed conflicts, poverty, trade and private collecting, and inadequate legislative frameworks.
Altogether, these challenges have contributed to the establishment of the concept of the ‘grey market’ within the field of cultural heritage crime.Footnote 16 In 2008 Blythe A. Bowman noted that the transnational nature and global scope of cultural heritage criminality had blurred the distinction between the licit ‘upperworld’ and the illicit underworld, resulting in ‘a murky shade of grey’.Footnote 17 Numerous actors, driven by diverse motives, operate within complex geographical, economic, political and social networks that are entangled in the trade of cultural objects. Mapping and gaining insight into these networks, which often function across both legal and illegal spheres, present significant difficulties. The application of various legal instruments intended to regulate and sanction illicit activities within the antiquities trade – and the transnational nature of the legal trade as well as the illicit trafficking and trade – therefore makes combating such crime particularly challenging.Footnote 18
Another challenge lies in the fact that signatory states to the 1970 UNESCO Convention have implemented and adapted its provisions to varying degrees within their respective national cultural heritage legislations. This issue is particularly relevant in the context of African states, where the harmonization and coordination of national legal frameworks often remain inconsistent with the obligations and standards set forth by the Convention.Footnote 19 A central and yet unresolved issue is that the 1970 UNESCO Convention is not retroactive. Legally, cultural objects imported into a country prior to the state’s ratification of the Convention are considered to have been imported lawfully, regardless of their provenance.Footnote 20 This poses a particular challenge for Norway, which did not ratify the Convention until 2007. As a result, cultural objects brought into the country before 2007, despite being documented as stolen from other nations and illicitly traded on the collectors’ market, retain an ambiguous legal status.Footnote 21 Various potential solutions to this problem have been proposed and discussed in the scholarly literature.Footnote 22 However, these will not be addressed here, as they are not directly relevant to the Punic coins that comprise the primary subject of this article.
Governance and restitution of illicit cultural artefacts
A process of bilateral restitution of illicit cultural heritage artefacts involves multiple actors subject to the respective national heritage acts and the international conventions and regulations that both parties are committed to, presuming they are signatory states to the regulatory agreements.Footnote 23 In some instances, a ‘best practice’ has developed based on the normative intentions of transnational agreements, while the legally binding regulations in international conventions are implemented in national legislation. Other treaties have become customary law, that is juridically binding also for non-signatory states, such as The Hague 1954 Convention.
Cultural heritage is today increasingly regarded as an arena for exercise of authority (governance).Footnote 24 Since UNESCO was established and the UNESCO 1970 Convention came into effect cultural heritage has become more firmly rooted in international relations and bilateral negotiations, and heritage diplomacy has gained a stronger role in many nations' diplomatic strategies. Trafficking of cultural heritage artefacts is today strongly entwined with diplomacy, as is clearly demonstrated by the restitution process between Norway and Tunisia. Good procedures for restitution are essential for securing artefacts illicitly trafficked from countries suffering from extensive looting, such as Tunisia.Footnote 25 Restitution is primarily a bilateral process that unfolds through diplomatic channels.Footnote 26 In general, process and practice vary from country to country depending on which countries are involved in each case. Even though international conventions lay down guidelines for how restitutions should take place, the legal instruments in each country will also set conditions for the process.
The restitution of looted artefacts involves complicated and uncoordinated legal frameworks and regulations.Footnote 27 The signatory states of the relevant conventions are obliged to follow general procedures, but there is uncertainty about the scope and application of this legislation since both national legislation and private law, and various ethical considerations also come into play.Footnote 28 For example, Norwegian (and many other national) legislation states that returns should take place through diplomatic channels, in which the respective countries’ embassies and foreign ministries play a leading role, while the International Federation of Museums (ICOM) recommends that returns take place through direct contact between cultural institutions.Footnote 29 International public and private law make a distinction between cultural heritage and other types of property for legal purposes. The treatment of cultural heritage goes beyond legal actions and includes members of cultural heritage management agencies. Therefore, compliance with regulations and ethical standards expressed by government institutions, international NGOs and institutional guidelines is expected from cultural heritage management. Cultural heritage specialists thus play an important role in preparing the reports on seizures and provenance assessments which lay the foundation for legal demands for the return of illegally trafficked artefacts.
Tunisia and Norway are signatory states to the most important international regulations on the protection of illicit cultural heritage artefacts and underwater cultural heritage. Tunisia voted for acceptance of the UNESCO 1970 Convention in 1975, while Norway ratified the convention as late as 2007.Footnote 30 The Hague 1954 Convention was adopted by Tunisia and Norway in 1981 and 1961 respectively.Footnote 31 Norway and Tunisia ratified the UNIDROIT 1995 Convention in 2001 and 2017.Footnote 32 In 2009 Tunisia ratified the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (UNESCO 2001), but Norway has not accepted or ratified this important convention thus far.Footnote 33 However, Norway has unilaterally applied UNESCO’s ‘Rules on the Activities Directed at the Underwater Cultural Heritage’ laid down in the Annex of the 2001 Convention.
Based on the accepted transnational conventions and regulations, the Norwegian Heritage Act provides the legal framework and (partly) regulates the protocol to follow in cases of seizures of illicit cultural heritage artefacts.Footnote 34 The Tunisian Heritage Act (1994) provides the legal framework for the protection of archaeological items from this country.Footnote 35 As early as 1992 ‘The Archaeological Map Project’ was established to systematically document the country’s rich cultural heritage and protected areas. The serious threat to Tunisian cultural property, and coins in particular, is demonstrated by Tunisia’s recent initiative to establish a bilateral agreement with the United States. In November 2019 a request was sent from the Tunisian to the US Government requesting an agreement imposing import restrictions on archaeological and ethnographic material from Tunisia. The bilateral cultural property agreement between the two countries was signed in March 2023. The introductory statement clearly testifies to the massive challenges that Tunisian authorities are facing in combating looting and the illegal trade in antiquities, and coins are singled out as the most important group of artefacts on the illegal market in the United States:
Archaeological theft emerged as an organized crime in Tunisia in the 1990s. Since 2011, Tunisia continues to suffer from looting of its archaeological sites and museums. Since the revolution, nearly 22,000 artefacts have been recovered thanks to the security operations during the attempts to cross borders. Gangs undertake illegitimate and random excavations in the isolated areas of Tunisia. Over 80 incidents of clandestine excavations (looting) were recorded between 2014 and 2018 alone. [—].
The most prolific market in the United States seems to be that of coins.Footnote 36
Combating looting and illicit trade in cultural heritage artefacts requires coordinated efforts and cooperation between national authorities, law enforcement agencies, NGOs and cultural heritage specialists and scholars. The restitution of illegal artefacts plays an important role in diminishing the harm done to such communities. Tunisia has suffered, and continues to suffer, serious consequences from looting and trafficking in cultural materials.Footnote 37
The seizure of Punic coins in Oslo and the restitution process
In February 2022, the Oslo Police requested the assistance of the Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo (MCH) in connection with a seizure of artefacts on suspicion of illegal importation and attempts to sell them unlawfully. The owner of the objects had contacted a coin dealer in Oslo and said that he was in possession of ‘200 kg of ancient coins’ from a maritime find off the coast of Tunisia. The seller produced alleged documentation of the hoard in the form of photographs of large aggregates of badly corroded coins, a few close-up photos of individual coins and a video clip showing what appeared to be massive lumps of coins being loaded into a van (Fig. 1). The coin dealer reported the matter to the police and agreed to arrange a physical meeting with the seller at his shop in central Oslo. The seller later confirmed that he would come to Oslo to show a sample of coins from what clearly appeared to be a large hoard. Shortly afterwards, the police tracked down a Tunisian citizen travelling from Tunisia to Oslo via Paris. On the day this person showed up at the coin shop in Oslo carrying with him 30 Punic bronze coins, he was arrested. In March 2022 the coins seized by the police because of this sting operation were handed over to the Museum of Cultural History to be documented and appraised.
Figure 1. Alleged hoard of Punic coins from the coast of Tunisia. Photos sent by email to an antiquities outlet in Oslo by the seller. Courtesy of the Oslo Police.
The museum submitted its assessment report in May 2022. The ministry consequently notified the Tunisian Embassy in Oslo asking for a confirmation that the coins had probably been illegally excavated and taken out of the country, and the Tunisian authorities formally requested that action be taken towards their restitution. On September 29, the museum was informed that the case against the seller had been closed by the police. The Ministry of Culture then asked the museum to plan for and implement the restitution to Tunisia of the coins impounded by the Oslo police. A close collaboration between the Tunisian Embassy and the museum initiated the process of returning the coins. A joint event including a small exhibition of the Punic coins marked the collaboration and the good outcome of the case. The exhibition emphasized the importance of fighting cultural heritage crime and protecting cultural heritage in vulnerable regions of the world, as well as the collaboration on policing, cultural management and research between the two nations. Tunisian Ambassador Amel Ben Younes and Embassy Counselor Mohamed Jridi, the Oslo Police, Museum Director Dr Håkon Glørstad, the Ministry of Culture, Arts Council Norway, the owner of the coin shop in Oslo and other officials attended the opening. The following week the coins were returned to Tunisia by Håkon Roland and were transferred to the custody of the Institut National du Patrimoine (INP). A joint press conference between the Tunisian Minister of Culture, Dr Hayet Guettat Guermazi, and Professor Håkon Roland was arranged,Footnote 38 and a collaboration on cultural heritage protection was discussed with the minister (Fig. 2). Several meetings with the INP, cultural heritage investigators and the Tunisian ICOM network were held over the following days.
Figure 2. Restitution ceremony, Tunis, March 8, 2023. Youssef Lackham, Directeur général par intérim de l’INP, Hayet Guettat Guermazi, Ministre des Affaires culturelles, and Professor Håkon Roland, University of Oslo. Courtesy of the INP, Tunisia.
The coins
As noted above, the Tunisian national who attempted to sell the Punic coins in Oslo claimed that they originated from a maritime find consisting of ‘c. 200 kg’ of coins. Unsurprisingly, no specific information regarding the findspot or archaeological context was provided. Informal communication from Norwegian police indicates that Tunisian authorities have identified geotags in some of the submitted photographic material, confirming that at least the photographs and/or video footage were taken in a coastal area of Tunisia.Footnote 39 If the reported quantity of coins is accurate, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that the assemblage could originate from a shipwreck, although a provenance from submerged structures cannot be ruled out, given the fluctuating sea level at the North African coastline.Footnote 40 Several submerged archaeological sites in and around Tunisia, particularly those associated with Phoenician and Roman settlements, are currently affected by changing sea levels and ongoing coastal erosion. Conversely, some sites, such as the ancient harbor of Utica, have undergone geomorphological transformations, resulting in formerly submerged areas becoming silted and elevated above present sea level.Footnote 41 Recent archaeological investigations along the Tunisian coastline employ interdisciplinary methodologies, including geological surveys and the study of submerged architectural remains such as piers and other harbour infrastructures. These approaches yield critical data for reconstructing sea-level fluctuations over the past two millennia.Footnote 42 Occasionally, reports of newly identified submerged sites, such as the purported ruins of Neapolis (modern Nabeul), emerge in the public domain and are picked up by mainstream media, and thus become known to potential looters.Footnote 43 Given the limited information provided by the seller of the coins and the observable surface corrosion on all specimens, it must be concluded that the Punic coins in question have been submerged for a significant period. However, since their exact provenance is unknown, it is not possible to determine whether the context in which they were found is related to a shipwreck, to submerged architectural remains, or to a coastal zone subject to historical sea-level variation.Footnote 44
There has long been criticism regarding the lack of effective measures to identify, investigate and preserve underwater cultural heritage in the Mediterranean. A primary concern has been the insufficient cooperation among the affected countries. In 2001, the Siracusa Declaration on the Submarine Cultural Heritage in the Mediterranean Sea was adopted, and since then, several transnational collaborative projects have been initiated.Footnote 45 Current initiatives emphasize the development of sustainable management frameworks for these submerged cultural resources, in line with international heritage protection conventions such as UNESCO’s Underwater Convention ratified by Tunisia in 2009.Footnote 46 Nevertheless, significant challenges remain in safeguarding the marine cultural heritage, particularly in terms of interstate collaboration, resource availability and the development and enforcement of protective legal frameworks.Footnote 47
The seizure made in 2022 consisted of 30 Punic bronze coins minted at Carthage. Even though they were heavily cleaned, their condition was indicative of a long stay under water (see Catalogue nos 5, 15, 18, 23). Corrosion and secondary treatment have also damaged the surfaces of several coins. Their types are consistent with the images initially presented by the seller, who showed photographs of clumps of coins allegedly representing parts of a hoard. But the possibility that the same person may have tried to sell these or other coins and archaeological artefacts of Tunisian provenance in Norway in the past cannot be ruled out.
All the coins in the group seized by the Oslo police bear the head of Tanit on the obverse and a horse in front of a palm tree on the reverse, representing two denominations. They include 24 examples of a larger and heavier coin (diam. 30–32 mm; ca. 14–18 g) similar to SNGCop 340–44, and six examples of a smaller coin (diam. 21–23 mm; ca. 6–9 g) similar to SNGCop 353–56. On the reverse of the larger denomination the palm tree is placed before the hindlegs of the horse. This reverse type was also used for a series of reduced-billon 3-shekels minted at Carthage during the First Punic War.Footnote 48 Therefore, it is conceivable that the heavier coins are multiples of a unit: J. Alexandropolous has described them as ‘trishekels’ and has classified the smaller coins as shekels, even though there is no mention of bronze shekels in the epigraphic record of Punic Carthage.Footnote 49 Yet, Alexandropoulos surely was right to link these two denominations metrologically and stylistically.Footnote 50
The similar depiction of the horse’s body and its front legs on the reverse of each denomination indicates that the dies with which they were struck were cut by engravers working in the same workshop of the Carthage mint, and that these coins were issued concurrently. Their uniform wear and the fact that they were found in the same assemblage indicate that they circulated and were hoarded together. A group of six coins of this series including four units and two multiples, bearing a patina and encrustations indicating that they come from a hoard, was sold at auction in December 2023.Footnote 51 Another group of seven coins including six units and one multiple, all bearing the same patina and encrustations, possibly belonging to the same hoard, was sold at auction in January 2025.Footnote 52 While this information is likely to be incomplete and has little evidentiary value, it corroborates the probability that these units and multiples belong to the same coinage system. We now have three groups of coins containing the same two denominations.
An attribution to Carthage rather than to a Punic mint active in Italy during the Second Punic War (as was alternatively suggested in SNGCop) is supported by technical, iconographic and stylistic considerations. Both denominations have regular (i.e., upright) die axes – a hallmark of the coins struck at Carthage in all metals after the First Punic War – and their types have close affinities with the head of Tanit and the horse found on a variety of silver quarter-shekels sent to Hannibal in southern Italy, which have been dated ca. 215–209 BC.Footnote 53 On some reverse varieties the horse wears a halter, a distinctive feature of Carthaginian issues (see catalogue, nos 4–7, 9, 15?, 21–23, 25–26?, 29?).Footnote 54 The examples provided by SNGCop 340–44, however, are not representative of the full stylistic range of this series. Since the hairstyle of the head of Tanit on the obverse of some coins is very similar to that of the billon 1½ shekels (SNGCop 392–96) issued towards the end of the Second Punic War,Footnote 55 these coins probably continued to be minted at least until ca. 205 BC. A preliminary die count in a database assembled since the 1980s from museum collections worldwide and coin sales suggests that they were struck in substantial quantity.
The few data on provenance that are currently available also unequivocally point to Carthage as their mint of origin. A multiple similar to SNGCop 341 in the collection of Paris’ Bibliothèque Nationale was donated on 27 June, 1900, by Henri Renault, ‘adjoint du Génie’ at Gabès, in southeastern Tunisia,Footnote 56 and five bronzes similar to SNGCop 341–44, possibly found in a pot hoard, were acquired in 1990 and 1991 at El Jem, in eastern Tunisia.Footnote 57 An inspection by P. Visonà of the coin collections of the Carthage and Bardo museums (today’s Musée National de Carthage and Musée National du Bardo) in 1983 and 1984 yielded seven multiples similar to SNGCop 341–44Footnote 58 and one unit similar to SNGCop 355.Footnote 59 A SNGCop 353 was also seen in Tunis’ souks and another bronze similar to SNGCop 353–56 was found in controlled excavations at Carthage.Footnote 60 A SNGCop 340 and a SNGCop 341 in museum collections at Tripoli (Libya) and Constantine (Algeria), respectively, attest to the range of circulation of these coins in North Africa.Footnote 61
In contrast, no examples of SNGCop 340–44 have been found in Europe thus far. A few examples of SNGCop 353–56 come from the hoards found at MazinFootnote 62 and GračacFootnote 63 in Croatia; single specimens of this unit in the Muzej grada Rijeke (northern Dalmatia),Footnote 64 and the Museo Provincial de Bellas Artes de Maó (Minorca),Footnote 65 may be local finds. But one cannot assume that all the unprovenanced coins in a museum collection are representative of local circulation.Footnote 66 The preponderance of the evidence shows that these coins circulated predominantly in Tunisia.Footnote 67 Furthermore, since there are no multiples in the hoards and isolated finds from the northern Adriatic region,Footnote 68 which comprise Carthaginian bronze coins minted almost exclusively between ca. 218–175 BC (including hundreds of coins similar to SNGCop 409–13, whose weight is comparable to that of SNGCop 340–44), it seems likely that they had disappeared from circulation by the end of the Second Punic War. Alexandropoulos has pointed out that ‘le bon état frequent de conservation’ of the multiples shows that they were hoarded, and that the poor quality of the shekels which were issued subsequently to finance military operations could explain why they were hoarded.Footnote 69 Although the worn condition of a few examples of these coins indicates that they were in use for some time,Footnote 70 the possibility that they were overvalued because of their weight and metallic content should not be ruled out. A billon SNGCop 341 is in the collection of the American Numismatic Society, and at least two examples of this issue from the coin trade have a silvery-looking surface.Footnote 71 Several units similar to SNGCop 353–56 in two groups of coins sold at auction by Aureo & Calicó in December 2023 and January 2025 also show traces of silvering.Footnote 72 If both denominations were originally issued as a billon currency, Gresham’s Law would explain their absence from the archaeological record of most Tunisian sites.Footnote 73
Yet, despite the current dearth of information on actual finds, these coins are by no means rare. A survey of auction sale catalogues printed between 1900 and 2000 has shown that, while relatively few SNGCop 340–44 were traded until the 1970s, the number of specimens offered for sale increased sharply in the 1980s and 1990s. This trend has continued in the first decades of the twenty-first century, especially after coin sales have moved online. In the last ten years alone, for instance, more than 500 new examples of SNGCop 340–44 have been listed in online catalogues – a figure that exceeds the total number of these issues in all museum collections worldwide. It seems likely that most of them were found in Tunisia.
As long as printed catalogues contained black and white photos, it was nearly impossible to question the provenance of a coin based solely on its appearance, especially if the coin had been cleaned. Thanks to the use of colour in digital photography for most online sales, though, one can now see clearly whether a coin was found in the ground. Traces of soil, other accretions and patinas cannot be concealed unless they have been removed chemically or mechanically by trained conservators. The presence of these telltale clues on numerous examples of SNGCop 340–44 and on other Carthaginian issues that circulated predominantly in Tunisia is therefore tantamount to evidence that they have been looted. Encrustations of pale brown or yellow soil could point to their provenance from different sites. In light of these considerations, an inspection of coin sales between 2008 and 2024 suggests that some groups of multiples with similar accretions of soil probably came from hoards (see Appendix). Coincidentally, five of these lots were sold as recently as 2022, the year when a Tunisian national tried to sell the ensemble of Carthaginian issues discussed in this paper. If our coins did come from an underwater find, as it appears,Footnote 74 looters may now be targeting shipwrecks and submerged sites accessible to scuba divers, in addition to terrestrial sites.
Conclusion
The seizure of looted and trafficked cultural objects activates a complex framework of international and national laws and regulations. In this article, we have aimed to demonstrate how a specific case of seizure and restitution can unfold when law-enforcement agencies, governmental authorities, heritage experts and diplomatic actors interact in accordance with international legal instruments and domestic legislation. By examining this case study within a broader context of cultural heritage crime, the analysis highlights key success factors in this instance, while also revealing the substantial challenges that continue to hinder the implementation of effective procedures in numerous other cases involving illicit cultural objects.
The successful outcome of the seizure and restitution of the Punic coins depended on several converging factors: the ethical conduct and adherence to best practices by the antiques dealer upon encountering illegally acquired material; a police force willing to act and drawing on prior experience with cultural heritage cases in collaboration with heritage specialists and relevant ministries; a museum with statutory responsibility under national law; and the active engagement and initiative from the respective ministries, directorates, cultural heritage professionals and diplomatic representatives of both involved nations. The article particularly illustrates how heritage diplomacy has become increasingly central to bilateral relations, with restitution processes serving as vehicles for international collaboration.
By examining the case considering the broader challenges associated with combating cultural heritage crime, the analysis also reveals the overarching structural issues that persist within the field. Central to the article is the recognition that cultural heritage crime generally exists within a grey zone between legal and illegal activities, harm and crime, complicated by fragmented national legislation, inconsistent international enforcement and ethical ambiguities surrounding private ownership and commodification. It also underscores that while international treaties such as the UNESCO 1970 Convention and subsequent instruments mark significant progress, their implementation remains uneven, and the 1970 Convention’s lack of retroactivity continues to impede restitution efforts. A key aspect is the role of market demand from consumer countries in driving looting and trafficking. Coins are particularly vulnerable due to their portability, high demand and the emergence of digital marketplaces, which facilitate anonymous trade and complicate regulatory oversight. The examination also foregrounds the ethical dimensions of heritage governance, emphasizing a shift toward understanding cultural property as a collective societal asset. This includes growing calls to re-evaluate the legal privileging of private ownership and recognize the rights of source communities. The concept of a ‘grey market’ illustrates the complex networks of actors and transactions that operate at the intersection of legality and criminality in this field. The article calls for renewed international commitment, cross-sectoral cooperation, ethical awareness and policy harmonization to address the global challenge of heritage crime.
Finally, the article demonstrates, through a detailed analysis of the coin assemblage, how a seizure, despite lacking precise contextual information, can nonetheless serve as a point of departure for activating cultural objects as historical sources and generating new insights into numismatic material circulating on the collectors’ market. The significance of the Mediterranean’s extensive underwater cultural heritage, and the urgent need for improved cooperation, systematic mapping and protective measures, is particularly emphasized. It is hoped that this contribution will foster greater awareness of the dispersal of unprovenanced coins and other items into the private market.
Catalogue
Note: The actual weight of each coin before and after cleaning is unknown (SNGCop 340–44 issues may weigh over 23 g, and SNGCop 353–56 may weigh over 9 g,Footnote 75 as they were probably struck al marco). The sequence of issue of these coins, ca. 215–205 BC, has not yet been determined; no die links have been identified.
O/ Head of Tanit l. wearing two ears of barley, hook-shaped leaf and single-pendant earring. Linear border.
R/ Horse standing r. on groundline in front of palm tree; to r., Punic letter B.
1. Similar to SNGCop 340.
O/ Similar to the preceding; linear border.
R/ Similar to the preceding, within linear border. Casting flaw on the horse’s body.
2. Similar to SNGCop 340.
O/ Similar to the preceding; linear border.
R/ Similar to the preceding. Casting flaw on the horse’s body.
3. Similar to SNGCop 340.
O/ Similar to the preceding; linear border.
R/ Similar to the preceding, within linear border. Beneath the horse, Punic letter Š inside Ṭ
4. Similar to SNGCop 341–43.
O/ Similar to the preceding, without hook-shaped leaf.
R/ Similar to the preceding, within linear border. Beneath the horse, Punic letter Š inside Ṭ
5. Similar to SNGCop 341–43.
O/ Similar to the preceding, without hook-shaped leaf. Linear border.
R/ Similar to the preceding, within linear border. Beneath the horse, Punic letter Š inside Ṭ
6. Similar to SNGCop 341–43.
O/ Similar to the preceding, without hook-shaped leaf. Linear border.
R/ Similar to the preceding, within linear border. Beneath the horse, Punic letter Š inside Ṭ
7. Similar to SNGCop 341–43.
O/ Similar to the preceding, without hook-shaped leaf. Linear border.
R/ Similar to the preceding, within linear border. Beneath the horse, Punic letter Š inside Ṭ
8. Similar to SNGCop 341–43.
O/ Similar to the preceding, without hook-shaped leaf. Linear border.
R/ Similar to the preceding, within linear border? Beneath the horse, Punic letter Š inside Ṭ
9. Similar to SNGCop 341–43.
O/ Similar to the preceding, without hook-shaped leaf. Linear border.
R/ Similar to the preceding, within linear border. Beneath the horse, Punic letter Š inside Ṭ
10. Similar to SNGCop 341–43.
O/ Similar to the preceding, with hook-shaped leaf. Linear border.
R/ Similar to the preceding, within linear border.
11. Similar to SNGCop 344.
O/ Head of Tanit l. with slender neck and horizontal neck cut wearing two ears of barley and hook-shaped leaf. Linear border.
R/ Similar to the preceding, within linear border.
12. Similar to SNGCop 344.
O/ Similar to the preceding; the neck cut is not visible. Linear border.
R/ Similar to the preceding, within linear border.
13. Similar to SNGCop 344.
O/ Similar to the preceding. Linear border.
R/ Similar to the preceding, within linear border. Casting flaw on the horse’s body.
14. Similar to SNGCop 344.
O/ Similar to the preceding. Linear border.
R/ Similar to the preceding, within linear border?
15. Similar to SNGCop 344.
O/ Similar to the preceding. Linear border.
R/ Similar to the preceding.
16. Similar to SNGCop 344.
O/ Similar to the preceding. Linear border.
R/ Similar to the preceding, within linear border.
17. Similar to SNGCop 344.
O/ Similar to the preceding. Linear border.
R/ Similar to the preceding, within linear border.
18. Similar to SNGCop 344.
O/ Similar to the preceding. Linear border.
R/ Similar to the preceding, within linear border.
19. Similar to SNGCop 344.
O/ Similar to the preceding.
R/ Similar to the preceding, within linear border.
20. Similar to SNGCop 344. The flan is cracked.
O/ Head of Tanit l. with hair rolled above the forehead, wearing two ears of barley without a leaf. Linear border?
R/ Similar to the preceding, within linear border? Casting flaw on the horse’s body.
21. Similar to SNGCop 344.
O/ Similar to the preceding.
R/ Similar to the preceding, within linear border? Casting flaw on the horse’s body.
22. Similar to SNGCop 344. The flan is cracked.
O/ Similar to the preceding.
R/ Similar to the preceding, within linear border. Casting flaw on the horse’s body.
23. Similar to SNGCop 344.
O/ Head of Tanit l. with hair rolled above the forehead, wearing two ears of barley without a leaf. Extensive area of damage on the ear and cheek.
R/ Horse standing r. on groundline in front of palm tree. To r., Punic letter alef; beneath the horse, Punic letter B.
24. Similar to SNG Morcom 925.
O/ Head of Tanit l. with slender neck and diagonal neck cut, wearing two ears of barley with hook-shaped leaf.
R/ Horse standing r. on groundline in front of palm tree. To r., Punic letter B. Casting flaw on the horse’s body.
25. Similar to MAA 85a.
O/ Similar to the preceding, wearing two ears of barley with hook-shaped leaf. Border of dots.
R/ Similar to the preceding. To r., Punic letter ‘ayin. Linear border.
26. Similar to SNGCop 355; MAA 85b.
O/ Similar to the preceding, wearing two ears of barley with curved leaf. Border of dots.
R/ Similar to the preceding. To r., Punic letter T; below the horse, Punic letter ‘ayin. Linear border.
27. Similar to SNGCop 356; MAA 85d.
O/ Similar to the preceding. Border of dots.
R/ Similar to the preceding. Linear border. The flan is cracked.
28. Similar to SNGCop 353; MAA 85.
O/ Similar to the preceding, wearing two ears of barley with hook-shaped leaf. Border of dots.
R/ Similar to the preceding. Linear border.
29. Similar to SNGCop 353; MAA 85.
O/ Similar to the preceding, with damaged (?) hook-shaped leaf or without leaf (?). Border of dots.
R/ Similar to the preceding. Linear border.
30. Similar to SNGCop 353; MAA 85.
Figure 3. 1–10 of the 30 Punic coins from the seizure. Photos by H. Roland.
Figure 4. 11–20 of the 30 Punic coins from the seizure. Photos by H. Roland.
Figure 5. 21–30 of the 30 Punic coins from the seizure. Photos by H. Roland.
Abbreviations
- Album
Stephen Album Rare Coins, Santa Rosa, CA, USA
- Artemide
Artemide Aste, Dogana, Repubblica di San Marino
- Aureo & Calicó
Aureo & Calicó subastas numismáticas, S.L., Barcelona, Spain
- CNG
Classical Numismatic Group, Lancaster, PA, and London, UK
- Elsen & Fils
J. Elsen et ses Fils SA, Etterbeek, Belgium
- Gorny & Mosch
Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung GmbH, Munich, Germany
- InAsta
InAsta S.p.A., Dogana, Repubblica di San Marino
- iNumis
iNumis, 46 rue Vivienne, Paris, France
- Leu
Leu Numismatik AG, Winterthur, Switzerland
- Monnaies d’Antan
Monnaies d’Antan, Laurent Fabre, Poses, France
- Naville
Naville Numismatics Ltd, London, UK
- NBJ
NBJ Art Gallery, Riggat Al Buteen, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
- E. Owen
Edgar L. Owen Galleries, Ltd, USA
- Rauch
Auktionshaus H.D. Rauch, Vienna, Austria
- Roma Numismatics
Roma Numismatics Ltd, London, UK
- Savoca
Savoca Numismatik GmbH & Co. KG, Munich, Germany
- St. James’s
St. James’s Auctions Ltd, London, UK
- The Coin Cabinet
The Coin Cabinet Ltd, London, UK
- Thesaurus
Thesaurus s.r.l. Auctions, Domagnano, Repubblica di San Marino
- J. Vinchon
Jean Vinchon Numismatique, Paris, France
Appendix
Select examples of SNGCop 340–44, 353–56 (= MAA 85), and SNG Morcom 925, presumably found in North Africa (Tunisia?), from online sales in 2008–2025.
Open access
