Professor Gerstenblith and Committee Members,
We should all
be troubled that both
the New York Times and Egyptian state media have already proclaimed that a MOU
with Egypt is a “done
deal” and what that says about our own State Department which is so fond
of lecturing the Egyptians and others about “democracy” and “rule of law.” Even without such news reports, the dubious proximity of this
request to Egypt’s much criticized presidential election should pose a basic question:
Is the aim of this MOU to foster cultural heritage preservation or to help
“legitimize” General Sisi and his government by recognizing its rights to
control all artifacts from Egypt’s glorious past?
The
archaeological lobby portrays import restrictions as a necessary expedient to
protect Egypt's cultural patrimony. But, from whom or what? “Cultural
racketeers?" No! Actually, poor stewardship, corruption and
an absolutely Pharaonic view of state ownership devalues artifacts so
thoroughly within Egypt itself that they are either destroyed or smuggled from
the country, presumably more often than not with "inside help."
Frankly, Egypt is such a mess, restrictions won’t help
there, but they will certainly damage small businesses and collectors who cannot come up with documentation
necessary to import minor artifacts that typically don’t carry any provenance
information. So, at most, CPAC
should only recommend restrictions on Pharaonic material of cultural
significance and site specific material from later “foreign” Hellenistic, Roman
and Islamic cultures.
Of
course, coins should be exempted, and not only because import restrictions on them
impact the most American citizens. First, there is no indication metal detectors are in widespread use in
Egypt, so it is highly unlikely that coins are being illicitly excavated
there in any significant numbers. Certainly, no large influx of ancient “Egyptian coins” has
arrived onto our shores since the Arab Spring degenerated into first Islamic
and now military dictatorship.
Second, individual coin types typically exist in many multiples. It’s hard to conclude they are generally “of cultural significance”
under the Cultural Property Implementation Act.
And please, let’s
not conflate “archaeological interest” with “cultural significance.” They are two distinct things.
Third, the CPIA
only allows restrictions on artifacts "first discovered within" and "subject
to the export control" of Egypt. “Closed
monetary system” or not, Alexander, the
Ptolemy’s, the Byzantines, and the Ottomans all struck coins in Egypt for use
throughout their Empires which encompassed land both inside and outside the
confines of modern day Egypt. Maps don’t
lie. Look at this one of
Ptolemaic “Egypt.” It stretched into
Libya, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Cyprus, and Turkey. And this one of Hellenistic coin finds of
Alexandria Mint coins. It shows coins
found throughout this Empire and beyond.
Seeing is believing.
While a “closed
monetary system” argument may be of greater validity when we speak of
Roman Egypt, new research
based on finds recorded under the Portable Antiquities Scheme also demonstrates
that Roman Egyptian Tetradrachms --which had the value of one Roman silver
Denarius-- travelled as far away as Britain.
I’d also refer you to the public comments of numismatist Shawn Caza (ID:
DOS-2014-0008-0247) which
speak about finds of similar coins in Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria,
Belgium, Morocco, East Africa, Central Europe and the then USSR. Roman Egyptian Tetradrachms—like their Greek
counterparts that have been exempted from import restrictions –also appear to
be items of international commerce. Certainly,
there can be no issue at all about the few Roman Imperial coin types –denarii
and late Roman bronzes—also struck at various times in Alexandria. Like similar coins struck elsewhere, they
circulated throughout the Empire and beyond.
And what of the notion
that all that really matters is that such coins may said to be found “predominantly” in Egypt? First, we would question any such factual assumption
based on any limited evidence that may be provided. Second, the plain meaning of the CPIA
requires more—that such coins are only found within the confines of
modern day Egypt. CPIA Section 2604 requires that designated lists can only
encompass material covered by a particular agreement, i.e., “first discovered”
there.
So, despite
any pressure to “Say yes to Egypt,” please pay heed to facts, the law and the 91% of the public comments which
either oppose the MOU or the extension of restrictions to coins. If we really want to be models to Egypt for what “rule of law” and
democratic process means, you can do nothing less. Thank you.
1 comment:
"If we really want to be models to Egypt for what “rule of law” and democratic process means, you can do nothing less," you declared to CPAC. Who other than a despot would disagree?
Perhaps, your words should be impressed upon certain despots of the archaeo-blogosphere and their teenage bag carriers.
Though democracy is an alien political concept to them -- evidenced by what they scrawl on their wretched blogs -- some might eventually see the error of their ways and the stupidity of the controlling despots whose ways they ape.
Regards
John Howland
England
Post a Comment