Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of 4
different organizations, the
Committee for Cultural Policy, a non-profit educational organization, Global Heritage Alliance,
an advocacy group, and two numismatic trade associations, the International Association of
Professional Numismatists and the Professional Numismatists Guild. I would direct your attention to their two separate papers, one
by CCP and its sister organization GHA, and one by IAPN and PNG. In the interests of time, I am speaking on
behalf of all these organizations here, but each have distinct personalities
and interests.
What they share is concern about
this proposed MOU, particularly the lack of sufficient public notice and the
apparent breadth of the request, which includes cultural goods that are neither
archaeological nor ethnological in character. According to the public summary, Ecuadorian
law only applies to objects 100 years old, but the request includes objects
only 50 years old. So, there even appears to be a serious disconnect within
the Ecuadorian request itself.
More to the
point, however, CPAC—which
has an obligation to follow the Cultural Property Implementation Act—should be hard pressed to
recommend any restrictions on items that are neither archaeological nor
ethnological in character such as “Colonial and republican period coins;
medallions more than 50 years old …manuscripts more than 50 years old; and
certain works by modern artists.”
This should
be clear from the CPIA itself which defines archaeological objects as being over 250 years old and normally
discovered as the result of digging and which defines ethnological objects as
the products of tribal or non-industrial societies. The Legislative history, also quoted in our
papers, makes clear that Congress understood the term “ethnological” to encompass only what is considered “primitive”
or “Tribal art” and not any object that is repetitive in nature.
These limitations on
archaeological and ethnological material should preclude restrictions being
placed on coins and medallions. While
the State Department has—over the objections of the numismatic community and prior
precedent—placed import restrictions on ancient and other early coins, the Spanish Colonial and
Republican era coins at issue here cannot lawfully be restricted because they
are neither archaeological nor ethnological in character. More than that, however, they are as much a part of US
culture as they are of Ecuadorian culture.
Large swaths of what is now the US was formally part of Spain’s Empire
and even the United States itself—due to the shortages of hard currency at the
time—used such coins as legal tender until 1857. Indeed, such coins were so popular that the
term “two bits”
entered into our language as meaning 25 cents. Moreover, references to “pieces of eight”
and “gold doubloons” abound in our storytelling, including Melville’s Moby Dick
and countless yarns about pirate treasure.
Before recommending
a MOU, CPAC must also consider what self-help measures Ecuador has undertaken, including the funding Ecuador has
devoted to cultural heritage protection.
Congress has
recently included reporting language as part of its funding of the Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs that underscores this requirement. Although it is unclear what Ecuador spends
on protecting its cultural patrimony, according to Ernesto Salazar, an academic
who has written on the subject, the situation in Ecuador is far from perfect.
In sum, we request CPAC take
steps to ensure that any designated list excludes coins and any other objects
that do not meet the definition of archaeological or ethnological objects found
in the CPIA. We also ask CPAC to gauge
Ecuador’s self-help measures, including efforts to ensure archaeological site
workers get a fair living wage for work done on behalf of foreign
archaeological missions.
Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment