On April 1, 2019, the U.S. Cultural Property Advisory
Committee (“CPAC”) met to take public comment on proposed MOUs with the
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Republic of Chile.
The following CPAC Members
appeared to be present: (1) Jeremy Sabloff (Museum) (Chair); (2) Rosemary Joyce
(Archaeology/Anthropology); (3) Dorit Straus (International Trade of Cultural
Objects); (4) Lothar von Falkenhausen (Archaeology); (5) Karol Wight (Museums);
and (6) James Willis (International Trade of Cultural Artifacts).
Andrew Cohen, CPAC’s executive director, provided some
background. CPAC was constituted to
provide advice to the executive department about proposed MOUs. Cohen is the designated federal official to
act as liaison between the Department of State and CPAC.
Dr. Sabloff welcomes all presenters. He notes CPAC’s role is to advise the
President’s designee in the Department of State about MOUs. He indicates that CPAC’s first annual report
should be available on the Cultural Heritage Center website. He further indicates CPAC is not only charged
with considering new MOUs, but with reviewing current agreements.
Dr. Sabloff indicates that past procedures have been
changed. Now, the Committee would ask
questions first and then allow 5 minutes for additional comments. Presenters should focus on a few points made
in their submissions or bring up new matters in their presentation.
There were five speakers (1) Dr. Jane Evans, Temple
University; (2) Kate FitzGibbon, Committee for Cultural Policy and Global
Heritage Alliance; (3) Dr. Morag Kersel, DePaul University; (4) Dr. César
Méndez, Center for Research of Patagonian Ecosystems, Coyhaique, Chile; and (5)
Peter Tompa, representing International Association of Professional
Numismatists and the Professional Numismatists Guild.
Rosemary Joyce askes Kate FitzGibbon about the market for
Jordanian artifacts. Her point is that
there are venues other than large auction houses where Jordanian material is
sold. Ms. FitzGibbon indicates that the
public summary provides little information on this issue. Dr. Joyce acknowledges the public summary
could be better but notes CPAC receives additional information about the market
in such materials.
Karol Wight asks Dr. Méndez about fossils. Dr. Méndez indicates he is an archaeologist
and not a paleontologist. He notes the
documentation he has seen points to looting of archaeological and
paleontological objects in Central and Northern Chile. Collectors are the end of a chain that leads
back to looters.
James Willis asks Kate FitzGibbon about how Jordan’s
request—which she views as excessively broad—can be narrowed. Ms. FitzGibbon indicates the best way to
narrow the request is to follow the Cultural Property Implementation Act (“CPIA”)
and not impose import restrictions on repetitive objects that are not of
cultural significance or trinkets.
FitzGibbon understands concerns about ruined archaeological sites, but
Congress drew lines that need to be followed.
She understands the impetus to “do something,” but above all else CPAC
should follow the law. Mr. Willis asks
about fossils. Ms. FitzGibbon indicates
that fact that Chile treats them as archaeological objects does not mean the
U.S. statute does. Ms. FitzGibbon
believes the CPIA does not apply to paleontological objects like fossils.
Dr. Sabloff allows Dr. Evans to speak even though she
submitted her comments late after the comment period closed. She reads her letter supporting import
restrictions on coins. She maintains
that Nabataean coins are local issues primarily found in Jordan. She indicates that illegal metal detectors
are in use in Jordan. She mentions that
400 coins were stolen from a Jordanian museum and fakes put in their
place. She maintains that import
restrictions are necessary to protect Jordanian coins from looters.
Dorit Straus asks Peter Tompa about how dealers police
themselves and about provenance issues related to coins. Peter Tompa states that the major trade
associations ask their dealer members to comply with the law of every country
in which they do business. As for
provenance, Tompa indicates that provenance information is normally not kept
for low value coins like those from Jordan.
Provenance is being increasingly transmitted for higher value coins that
have previously appeared at auction. He
notes that most people have antiques in their house that also lack a solid
provenance. It is simply not a legal
requirement in the US or Europe and presumably is not a requirement for
collectors in Jordan either.
Dr. Sabloff asks Tompa about the annual coin show that takes
place in Amman, Jordan. He indicates
that he cannot add more to the article cited in his papers.
Dr. Sabloff asks Tompa to give his statement. Tompa focuses on two issues. First, one cannot assume that coins that
circulated within Jordan were actually found there. There is no question about this for coins
struck by Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Islamic empires struck elsewhere. Nabatean and coins of the Decapolis should be
considered “regional issues” rather than “local” ones as maintained by Doctors
Elkins and Evans. The Nabatean kingdom
encompassed parts of what are now Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Syria, Saudi
Arabia and Egypt. Nabatean coins are
found in all these countries. The same
should be the case for later Roman provincial coins because Decapolis cities
were not only in Jordan but in Syria and Israel as well. This is significant because Customs conflates
where a coin is made with where it is found.
There either should be no import restrictions on coins or any
restrictions should be explicitly limited to coins illicitly removed from
Jordan after the effective date of regulations.
Customs currently misapplies import restrictions as embargos on all
coins of a given type imported after the effective date of restrictions. In contrast, the CPIA only allows prospective
import restrictions on objects illicitly exported from a country like Jordan
after the effective date of the governing regulations. Tompa also notes that ancient coins are
openly sold at an Amman coin fair and at the Petra archaeological site. These sales argue either for no import
restrictions on coins or at least that Jordan issue exports for coins sold at
these venues. This would allow for the
lawful export of such coins as well as stimulate the local economy and encourage
tourism.
Dr. Kersel indicates that even “trinkets’ may have
archaeological value. She notes there
are over 30 letters of support from archaeologists and archaeological groups
for a MOU with Jordan. Jordan could do
more to protect its cultural patrimony, but it is probably doing what it can
with current budgetary constraints.
Jordan has hosted many refugees from Iraq and Syria. This has put great strains on the country. Jordan has a new cultural patrimony law. It recently signed a MOU with Egypt to
protect cultural artifacts. The
Antiquities Department is underfunded but doing what it can. Dr. Kersel’s “Follow the Pots” project has
shown that biblical artifacts are subject to looting. There have been anti-looting workshops in
Jordan. There have been museum loans,
most recently to the Met for the “World Between Empires” exhibit. Jordan has been very generous with loans to
US institutions to study artifacts from archaeological digs. Illicit material has traditionally left
Jordan through Israel. Israel has a new
registration requirement placed on antiquities dealers, but it is too early to
know if it has worked.
Ms. FitzGibbon states the Jordanian request includes many
repetitive objects that should not be subject to import restrictions under the
CPIA. She notes such objects appear to
be sold openly at the Petra archaeological site. The police apparently look the other
way. She recounts one incident in one of
the letters that was submitted where the police were making tea for
looters. She indicates that the trade in
“biblical artifacts” has been going on for a long time. Mark Twain wrote about them and Ms.
FitzGibbon has a cheap oil lamp purchased years ago by a relative. Now that Israel has instituted a registration
system, it will be far more difficult for material looted from Jordan to be
sold there. The Israeli Antiquities
Service is certainly not lax in enforcing anti-smuggling laws. Ms. FitzGibbon called Bob Dodge, who was
mentioned in the summary as selling Jordanian artifacts. He indicated that he sold two such artifacts
in the last 20 years. Ms. FitzGibbon
states there is no indication valuable Jordanian artifacts are for sale in
quantity in the United States.
Dr. Méndez indicates local looters are just the end of a
chain that starts with wealthy collectors.
There are agencies in Chile charged with protecting cultural patrimony
from looting. Antiquities help give a
voice to the people.
Dorit Straus asks Dr. Kersel asked about cooperation
between Israeli and Jordanian authorities.
Dr. Kersel indicates such cooperation has existed since the Oslo
accords. She also indicates a MOU with
the US would be a signal to local authorities to increase such cooperation.
Dr. Sabloff asks Dr. Evans if she would like to add
anything. She states that an
archaeological dig in the Golan Heights demonstrates that Nabataen coins
circulated primarily in Jordan because only a few Nabataen coins were found at
this site. She also indicated that the
use of metal detectors made it important that import restrictions be imposed.
Dr. Sabloff asks Kate FitzGibbon if she has any final
words. She notes that the US Congress
requires CPAC to quantify the amount of money Jordan is spending on protecting
its cultural heritage. She also notes in
response to Dr. Sabloff’s comment that CPAC also undertakes a continuing review
of current agreements that CPAC has allowed MOUs to buttress authoritarian
governments’ claims to control the past. Ms. FitzGibbon reports she attended a large
3000 person meeting of the Association of Asian Studies. They have issued a very strong statement
condemning China for its oppression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Ms. FitzGibbon spoke with several US academics
whose graduate students had gone back to visit family and then disappeared into
camps where they were tortured or even killed. She indicated unless CPAC also
takes strong steps to disavow agreements and renewals with Egypt,
Cambodia, Libya, and most especially China, it will be accountable for the use
of cultural heritage as tool for authoritarian governments. She recognizes these are strong words, but
notes despite China’s actions a renewal of the current MOU was nonetheless done
in January 2019. Ms. FitzGibbon urges
that this not be allowed to continue.
Dr. Sabloff closed the session thanking the participants. He
notes CPAC closely reviews the testimony and submissions before making
recommendations to the State Department.
