On January 30, 2024, the US Cultural Property Advisory
Committee (CPAC) met in a virtual public session to hear testimony regarding a
proposed renewal of MOUs with Algeria and a new proposed MOU with the Republic
of India. An update on the Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs’ (ECA’s) website made shortly before the
hearing provided further information about the scope of the requests. See Cultural Property Advisory
Committee Meeting, January 30 – February 1, 2024, Bureau of Educational and
Cultural Affairs Media Center (November 29, 2023) (but subsequently updated),
available at https://eca.state.gov/highlight/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-january-30-february-1-2024
(last visited February 3, 2024). Although that update was subsequently deleted,
it stated that Algeria sought no change to the current exceptionally broad
designated list for import restrictions, and that India sought a breathtakingly
broad list of items to be covered which included cultural goods made as
recently as the end of the British Raj in 1950:
India
The Government of India seeks import restrictions on
archaeological and ethnological materials dating from 1.7 million years ago to
100 years ago, including objects dating from the Paleolithic, Mesolithic,
Neolithic, Ancient Periods (including, but not limited to, the Indus Valley
Civilization, Maurayan Empire, Shunga Empire, Gandharan Kingdom, Gupta Period,
and the Gurjara-Pratihara, Rastrakuta, and Pala Dynasties), and Historic
Periods (including, but not limited to, the Chola Dynasty, Delhi Sultanate, Mughal
Empire, and the British Raj). Categories of objects include stone tools
and artifacts, terracotta figurines, toys, coins and medals, seals and sealing,
molds, dies, sculpture, utensils, architectural materials, arms and ammunition,
scientific instruments, and jewelry and toiletries. Protection is also
sought for miniature paintings, art pieces in cloth and paper, and manuscripts
dating from the 7th century CE to 75 years ago.
Id. (but subsequently deleted from the
website).
The CPAC members did not introduce themselves before the
public session, but CPAC currently includes the following members: (1)
Alexandra Jones (Chair, Represents/Expertise Archaeology, Anthropology, related
fields, CEO Archaeology in the Community, Washington, DC); (2) Alex Barker
(Represents/Expertise Archaeology, Anthropology, related fields) Director,
Arkansas Archeological Survey, Arkansas); (3) Mirriam Stark, Represents/Expertise
Archaeology, Anthropology, related fields, Professor of Anthropology, University
of Hawaii); (4) Nii Otokunor Quarcoopome (Represents/Expertise Museums, Curator
and Department head, Detroit Museum of Art); ( (5) Andrew Conners
(Represents/Expertise Museums, Director, Albuquerque Museum, New Mexico); (6)
Michael Findlay (Represents/Expertise: International Sale of Cultural Property,
Director, Acquavella Galleries, New York); (7) Amy Cappellazzo, Represents/Expertise:
International Sale of Cultural Property, Principal, Art Intelligence Global; (8)
Cynthia Herbert (Represents/Expertise: International Sale of Cultural Property
President, Appretium Appraisal Services LLC, Connecticut); (9) Thomas R. Lamont
(Represents Public, President of Lamont Consulting Services, LLC, Illinois); (10) Susan Schoenfeld Harrington
(Represents Public, Past Deputy Finance Chair, Democratic National Committee,
Past Board member, China Art Foundation); and, (11) William Teitelman
(Represents General Public, Legislative Counsel to the PA Trial Lawyers
Association, Attorney (Retired)).
The Chair, Alexandra Jones, welcomed the speakers and
assured them that their written comments had been read. She indicated that speakers would be given 5
minutes each.
Dr. Mark Lycett was the first speaker. He is the director at the South Asia
Resources Center at the University of Pennsylvania. He supported the MOU and thought that import
restriction will help encourage continued collaboration between the Indian
government and American archaeologists.
His talk focused on looting of temple complexes for idols.
Prof. Miriam Stark (represents archaeology) asked Lycett
if he had observed looting. He says yes,
particularly of temple complexes. He had
not seen metal detectors in use but understood they are used.
His written comments can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0040-0032
(last visited February 3, 2024).
Kate FitzGibbon (Executive Director, Committee for
Cultural Policy) spoke about India.
India has a terrible record of neglect of its archaeological heritage
and its government, run by Hindu religious supremacists, has engaged in a
policy of destroying the cultural heritage of its Muslim population. The Indian legal system is ineffective at
dealing with looting. What has been
returned already has neglected. Many of
the bronze idols that have been returned suffer from bronze disease because they
have not been conserved. During the British
Raj both Indian and British enthusiasts built up great collections, many of
which were removed from India right after Independence due to fear that the post-independence
Socialist leaning government would confiscate them.
Despite Ms. FitzGibbon’s obvious knowledge of the
subject, there were no questions.
The Committee for Cultural Policy and the Global Heritage
Alliance’s written comments on the proposed MOU with India can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0040-0042
(last visited February 3, 2024)
Sanja Kampoor briefly spoke. He indicated that he agreed with the points
made in Kate FitzGibbon’s testimony.
Nicholas Fritz spoke next. Fritz is a young professional numismatist
with Stack’s Bowers auction house. He
indicated that the Indian MOU request as to coins was over broad, including
many types well-known to scholarship, which should not be restricted. He further indicated that an MOU would only
encourage smuggling.
Alexandra Jones (Chair, representing archaeology) and
Miriam Stark (representing archaeology) asked Fritz a series of hostile
questions. Jones wanted to know why modern-day
India should not be able to control the heritage of all of historic India
(which included Pakistan and Bangladesh), and Stark debated with Fritz about
the importance of coins as archaeological artifacts. (Comment:
The belligerent tone both Ms. Jones and Ms. Stark used with Mr. Fritz
did not reflect well either on CPAC or the Biden Administration that appointed
them. If the State Department really
wants public comment, it should advise CPAC members of their responsibility to
treat members of the public, particularly those who have never appeared before
the Committee, with respect.)
Peter Tompa (Executive Director, International
Association of Professional Numismatists) was called to speak next. He made the point that the designated list
for Algeria and the proposed one for India were greatly overbroad, including
coin types that circulated far outside these countries. He also indicated that later coins,
particularly of the Raj, do not fit the definitions of either archaeological or
ethnological objects necessary for them to be restricted. All coins of the British Raj are less than
250 years old and hence cannot be treated as archaeological objects under the
governing statute. Additionally, they are the products of what at the time were
sophisticated industrial practices, so they cannot be treated as ethnological
objects. He also discussed the large
internal market in India and how given such a market, import restrictions that
only impact American collectors made no sense.
He also noted that collecting is necessary because governments and
museums cannot preserve all the coins out there. Finally, he discussed the
importance of regulating metal detectors as a self-help measure and a less
drastic remedy. In so doing, Tompa made
clear that the British Portable Antiquities scheme and Treasure Act were the
preferred method of regulation. Tompa closed by recalling that he had met an
Indian collector some years ago who had built up his collection by buying coins
from jewelers in India, who would have otherwise melted the coins for
bullion. Tompa provided members of CPAC
with a real-world example to show that collectors are essential for the
preservation of coins.
Miriam Stark (representing archaeology) stated her belief
that coins must be restricted because they are important for archaeology. She demanded to know if Tompa had ever worked
at an archaeological site. He indicated
he had not, but he had discussed the issue with others who had. Tompa indicated that archaeologists mainly
see coins as dating tools, but they are generally poor tools for dating archaeological
strata because historical coins circulated for long periods of time and only
coins from secured contexts were really useful for that purpose. Stark also asserted that CPAC had no right to
suggest that the Indian government regulate metal detectors. Tompa indicated the governing statute
requires as much and before the State Department started issuing generic MOUs,
an agreement with Cyprus required as much.
He suggested that Stark should consult with State Department lawyers
about the statutory requirements for MOUs.
The International Association of Professional
Numismatists’ comments for the proposed renewal of the MOU with Algeria can be
found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0040-0029
(last visited February 3, 2024).
The International Association of Professional
Numismatists’ comments for the proposed MOU with India can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0040-0028 (last visited February 3, 2024).
Tompa’s personal comments can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0040-0036
(last visited February 3, 2024).
Randy Myers spoke next on behalf of the Ancient Coin
Collectors Guild. He raised concerns
about insufficient public notice for CPAC meetings, including the details of
any requests. He noted that the State
Department website that announced the upcoming CPAC meeting, though dated
November 29, 2023, was updated just recently to include more details about the
request, but misleadingly without indicating the date the text was
modified. (Perhaps in response, the
State Department recently deleted this additional information from the
post.) Myers also reiterated the argument
that one cannot assume many of the coins on the Algerian designated list or
conceivably might be on the one for India were actually found there. He also discussed the importance of
considering a portable antiquities scheme as a less drastic measure before
imposing import restrictions. Finally, he
also indicated that neither Algeria or India should be awarded rights to coin
issues of displaced or discriminated minorities. This would include Christian Spanish and
Byzantine coins and many Muslim coins from India.
Alexandra Jones (chair, representing archaeology) debated
with Myers about the notice requirements, maintaining that the State Department
only needed to give the public 15 days’ notice. Myers explained based on his long experience
as an attorney for a large federal agency, he believed that the law requires 60
days’ notice. He also indicated that if
Jones wants to encourage informed public comment, 60 days’ notice is
essential.
The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild’s and the American
Numismatic Association’s joint written comments can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0040-0012
(last visited February 3, 2024).
Elias Gerasoulis (Executive Director, Global Heritage
Alliance) next spoke on behalf of both the Global Heritage Alliance and the
Committee for Cultural Policy with regard to the proposed renewal of the MOU
with Algeria. Gerasoulis indicated that
Algeria had failed to meet any of the statutory for renewal. He further indicated that CPAC should not recommend
a renewal of a MOU that recognizes the rights of Algeria’s authoritarian
government to the cultural heritage of its displaced Jewish population.
The Global Heritage Alliance’s and the Committee for
Cultural Policy’s comments for the proposed renewal of the MOU with Algeria can
be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0040-0017
(last visited February 3, 2024).
Ömür Harmanşah (Vice
President for Cultural Heritage, Archaeological Institute of America) spoke
briefly in support of both MOUs. He
indicated that both countries had met their statutory burdens and MOUs should
be completed with each.
The Archaeological Institute of America’s comments with
regard to India can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0040-0052
(last visited February 3, 2024).
Those related to Algeria can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0040-0048
(last visited February 3, 2024).
Peter Herdrich
(Executive Project Director, Algerian Cooperative Plan for the Digitization of
HeritageCEO, Cultural
Capital Group) discussed a digitization project for
Algerian museum and private collections paid for by the US government which also
involved the Antiquities Coalition. Herdrich
maintained that this US government funded program showed that Algeria was
engaged in protecting its own cultural heritage. (Comment: There is a real question whether money paid to
US contractors who also lobby for MOUs should be considered “self-help.” See
https://culturalpropertynews.org/careful-collector-no-22-your-tax-dollars-at-work/
(last visited February 5, 2024).)
Nii Otokunor Quarcoopome (representing museums) asked
Herdrich if any of these efforts were directed at preserving Jewish and Berber
culture. Hedrich responded by indicating
that such materials were included in the inventories of institutions that were
partner organizations.
Herdrich’s written comments can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0040-0037
(last visited February 3, 2024).
