Summary of CPAC Meeting to Discuss Proposed Cultural Property Agreement with Vietnam and Renewals of Cultural Property Agreements with Chile, Costa Rica, Italy and Morocco

 On May 20, 2025, the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) met in a virtual public session to accept comments regarding a proposed Cultural Property Agreement or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam as well as renewals of current agreements with the Republics of Chile, Costa Rica, and Italy and the Kingdom of Morocco.  The meeting was rescheduled from an earlier date of February 4-6, 2025, pursuant to President Trump’s regulatory freeze, which has now been lifted.  The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, the Global Heritage Alliance, and the International Association of Professional Numismatists all sought an additional postponement to allow time for the Trump Administration to appoint its own CPAC members and decision-maker, but this request was denied.

The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs’ (ECA’s) website describes these requests as follows:

Vietnam

Vietnam seeks protection for archaeological and ethnological materials from ca. 75,000 BCE to 1945 CE, from the following time periods and cultures: Paleolithic (c. 75,000 BCE – 10,000 BCE), Neolithic period (c. 10,000 BCE – 2,000 BCE), Bronze Age (c. 2,000 BCE – 1,000 BCE), and Iron Age (c. 1,000 BCE – 200 CE), the Ancient period (2,879 BCE - 179 BCE), Northern domination period (179 BCE – 939 CE), and the Dynasty and Monarchy period (939 – 1945 CE) including objects made from gold, silver, ceramic, stone, metal, copper, bronze, iron, bone, horn, ivory, gems, silk and textiles; lacquerware and wood; bamboo and paper; glass; coins; and painting and calligraphy.

Chile

Extending the Chile MOU would continue import restrictions on categories of archaeological material ranging in date from approximately 31,000 B.C. to 1868 A.D.

Costa Rica

Extending the Costa Rica MOU would continue import restrictions on categories of archaeological material ranging in date from approximately 12,000 B.C. to the time of the establishment of Hispanic culture in Costa Rica (approximately 1550 A.D.).

Italy

Extending the Italy MOU would continue import restrictions on categories of archaeological material ranging in date from approximately 900 B.C. to 400 A.D.

Morocco

Extending the Morocco MOU would continue import restrictions on categories of archaeological material ranging in date from approximately one million B.C. to approximately 1750 A.D. and certain ethnological material from the Saadian and Alaouite dynasties, ranging in date from approximately 1549 to 1912 A.D.

Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting, May 20-23, 2025, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Media Center (amended May 1, 2025) available at  https://eca.state.gov/highlight/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-may-20-23-2025  (last visited May 21, 2025).

The CPAC members did not introduce themselves before the public session, but CPAC currently includes the following individuals appointed by President Biden: (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 meeting was conducted entirely on Zoom.  None of the members identified themselves to the speakers so it was difficult to ascertain who attended the meeting.

There were also Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Cultural Heritage Center staff present, including  Glen Davis, Director of the Cultural Heritage Center and Andrew Zonderman, a Foreign Affairs Officer who is serving as CPAC’s Executive Director.  Messrs. Davis and Zonderman are new to their positions.   

The Chair, Alexandra Jones, welcomed the speakers.  She thanked the speakers for attending, indicated that all comments had been read, and that speakers would be given five minutes each to present their oral comments. 

Dr. Ömür Harmanşah spoke as the Vice President for Cultural Heritage, Archaeological Institute of America (“AIA”).  Given time constraints, he focused his comments on Italy and Morocco and the new MOU with Vietnam.  He stated that the AIA was chartered by Congress in 1906 and that today it has some 200,000 members which includes professionals and members of the interested public.  Dr. Harmanşah argued that all three countries suffered from looting which is a global phenomenon. He praised the work of the Carabinieri, noting that had successfully dismantled two looting networks recently. He indicated that the French government had repatriated 35,000 objects to Morocco seized from and illicit collection. He further indicated that bronze and iron age sites suffered from looting in Vietnam.   He further indicated that all three countries had taken self-help measures to protect their own cultural patrimony.  The work of the Carabinieri and their cooperation with the Manhattan DA’s office and Homeland Securities Investigations is well known.  Harmanşah  also highlighted loans being used for cultural exchange purposes.  He mentioned that Morocco loaned materials to Northwestern University’s Block Museum of Art for the exhibition, “Caravans of Gold, Fragments in Time: Art, Culture, and Exchange across Medieval Saharan Africa.”

The AIA’s written comments about the Proposed MOU with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0048-0181

The AIA’s written comments on the Renewal with the Republic of Chile can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0048-0178

The AIA’s written comments about the Renewal with the Republic of  Italy can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0048-0179

The AIA’s written comments about the Renewal with the Kingdome of Morocco can be found in the 2024 docket here: 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0048-0180  

Peter Tompa spoke as executive director for the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN).  He indicated that the Trump Administration’s emphasis on promoting American business and scaling back regulations require CPAC to consider a new paradigm, one which facilitates the lawful trade in common items like coins, particularly where they are already legally available for sale in countries seeking restrictions.   With regard to the Italian renewal, there should be no further expansion of the current designated list to include late Roman Republican and Roman Imperial coins.  One cannot assume that Roman Imperial coins are found in Italy.  Scholarly evidence demonstrates that only 5.24% of the 15,000 coin hoards containing 6 million coins are found there.  Larger denomination Greek era coinage that circulated in international trade should be delisted.  Given Italy’s large internal market, issuance of export certificates should be mandated and US Customs should also recognize legal exports from Italy’s sister European Union countries as legal imports under the MOU.  There should be no new restrictions placed on coins for Vietnam. Coins are openly sold there at a gift shop at the Hue UNESCO World Heritage site.  It would be confusing to place restrictions on cash coins that are inconsistent with those for China, given the fact that many more times such coins are found in China. There should be no restrictions on machine struck coins of the French protectorate, minted in France or in the US, as they do not fit the definitions of either archaeological or ethnological objects. The Moroccan designated list should be scrapped because it is so broad that importers lack fair notice of what particular coins are actually restricted. Spanish colonial and early Republican era coins that circulated in Costa Rica and Chile circulated in far greater quantities elsewhere, including as US legal tender until 1857 and should remain unrestricted.

Peter Tompa’s oral statement can be found here:  https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2025/05/its-time-for-reset.html

IAPN’s written comments seeking an additional postponement can be found here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0003-0014

IAPN’S written comments on the Proposed MOU with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam can be found here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0003-0019

IAPN’s written comments on Renewal with the Republic of Chile can be found here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0003-0017

IAPN’s written comments on the Renewal of the MOU with the Republic of Costa Rica can be found here, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0003-0013

IAPN’s written comments on the Renewal with the Republic of Italy can be found here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0003-0018

IAPN’s written comments on the Renewal with the Kingdom of Morocco can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0003-0020

Peter Tompa’s personal comments as supplemented can be found here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0003-0041

Elias Gerasoulis spoke as executive director of the Global Heritage Alliance (GHA) and also on behalf of the Committee for Cultural Policy (CCP). Gerasoulis indicated each request failed to meet the four requirements for either a new or extended MOU. He also noted that the number of MOUs issued by CPAC has more than doubled in recent years. Over thirty countries are now covered. Import restrictions now extend over virtually all cultural material dating from prehistory to the early 20th century, lacking any connection to actual looting or risk.  Gerasoulis indicated that a MOU with Italy is no longer necessary given the Carabinier’s successful efforts to bring looting under control.  Gerasoulis indicated that Morocco has prioritized tourism over archaeological preservation and that there is no credible evidence of serious looting. Gerasoulis also indicates that there is no evidence of serious current looting in either Chile or Costa Rica.  He also mentions that the Director of Costa Rica’s national museum was previously arrested for looting.  Gerasoulis then commented on the proposed MOU with Vietnam. Vietnam has a strong, public domestic legal market, and is clearly focused on tourism rather than archaeological protection – yet it seeks restrictions up until the mid-20^th century.  The MOU request is about asserting national branding and control over diaspora heritage.

CPAC member Andrew Connor disputed Gerasoulis’ statements about looting arguing that proponents of the MOUs have all produced evidence of looting.  [CPO Comment: One of the findings before a MOU can be completed is that “the cultural patrimony of the State Party is in jeopardy from the pillage of archaeological or ethnological materials.”  19 USC Section 2602 (a) (1) (A).  Proponents and opponents argue about the extent and timing of the looting necessary to justify a MOU.  Is historic looting with some continuing looting enough as proponents maintain or must there be serious current looting to justify an agreement as opponents argue?  Given the State Department’s desire to reach agreement on as many MOUs as possible as “soft power” measures a lower bar for looting seems to have won out, at least for the present.]

CCP’s and GHA’s written comments on the Proposed MOU with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam can be found here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0003-0011

CCP’s and GHA’s written comments on the Proposed Renewal of the MOU with Chile can be found in the 2024 docket here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0048-0092

CCP’s and GHA’s written comments on the Proposed Renewal of the MOU with Costa Rica can be found here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0003-0108

CCP’s and GHA’s written comments on the Proposed Renewal of the MOU with Italy can be found here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0003-0010

CCP’s and GHA ‘s written comments for the Renewal with the Kingdom of Morocco can be found here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0003-0009

Frances Hayashida, the Director of the Latin American and Iberian Institute at the University of New Mexico, spoke in support of  the MOU with Chile.  She stated artifacts were still being looted from Chilean sites despite the best efforts of Chilean authorities.  She specifically pointed to a sale of textiles being stopped in 2021.  She stated that import restrictions create a chilling effect on the market.  She further stated that the current MOU has helped stimulate cultural exchanges between scholars in Chile and the U.S. 

CPAC member Andrew Connor commends Hayashida for her testimony that calls into question the statements about a lack of looting from another speaker.

Scott Palumbo, an anthropologist at the College of Lake County, Illinois, spoke in support of the MOU with Costa Rica.  He has observed significant looting in Costa Rica with sites looking like WWI battlefields.   He referenced the existence of a large archeological society in Costa Rica.  He suggested that enforcement of laws against looting has meant that the country is even running out of room to store recovered antiquities.   He added that the current MOU had helped stimulate cultural exchanges between scholars. 

CPAC member Andrew Connor praises Palumbo’s testimony about looting and further states that tourism and protection of cultural heritage are not mutually exclusive and can complement each other.

Randy Myers spoke as a board member on behalf of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG). He touched on several points focused on the MOU with Italy.  First, he indicated while the State Department is doing better providing notice, the time provided remains inadequate, making it difficult to solicit informed public comment.  Second, Myers noted that the State Department’s public notice indicates that the MOU is being treated as an extension of the current agreement with Italy, not an expansion of the current designated list.  He stated if an expansion of the current designated list is being contemplated, the State Department must provide the public with notice about this proposal and allow additional comment.  Third, he emphasized that unlike many ancient artifacts coins are mass produced, with dies used to strike as many as 10,000 to 15,000 coins each.  This large production of coins combined with their wide dispersion means that one cannot assume that late Roman Republican and Roman Imperial coins are found in Italy.  He then referenced the same analysis that IAPN did that only 5% of Roman Imperial coin hoards are found in what it today Italy.  For that reason, he concluded that one cannot assume that a Roman coin means  an Italian one.  He further indicated that he believes that the State Department should encourage Italy and other countries to implement programs akin to the Tresure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme as the most effective self-help measures. 

 CPAC member Alex Baker asks a question, but it is difficult to hear.  Myers interprets it as a question about what is the best way to address looting to which Myers again reiterates the benefits of the UK’s system.   

The ACCG’s comments regarding the Renewal of the MOU with Italy can be found here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0003-0042

Doug Mudd spoke on behalf of the American Numismatic Association (ANA), where he is the Curator of the Money Museum.  He focused his comments on the proposed renewal of the MOU with Italy.  As an archaeologist, he has seen the damaging effects of looting but he believes that because of the massive quantities that were produced coins should be treated  differently.   He reiterated Tompa’s and Myers’ statements that one cannot assume that a Roman coin was found where it was minted.  He asked that no new import restrictions be imposed on late Roman Republican and Roman Imperial coins.   He also asked that other widely circulating coins be delisted. Mudd believes that restrictions on bringing  coins into the US negatively impacts the education of our own people about our own cultural heritage.

The ANA’s comments regarding the Renewal of the MOU with Italy can be found  in the 2024 docket here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0048-0089

Benjamin Utting is an archeologist and anthropologist specializing in the prehistoric cultures of  Southeast Asia.  He spoke in support of the new MOU with Vietnam.  He indicated that an MOU would stop the flow of black market antiquities into the U.S. and would also encourage Vietnamese authorities to take further protective steps and spur collaboration.

Notable Additional Written Comments

 CINOA’s comments, which can be found on the 2024 docket  here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0048-0063

The Oriental Numismatic Society’s comments regarding the proposed MOU with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0003-0015

The speakers finished 20 minutes early.  As there were no additional questions, the Chair thanked the speakers before closing the public session and continuing discussions in private.

It's Time for a Reset

Here is what I said, more or less, at yesterday's virtual Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting.  I hope to post a full report of that meeting shortly:  

            The Trump Administration’s emphasis on promoting American business and scaling back regulations requires this Committee to consider a new paradigm, one which facilitates the lawful trade in common items like coins, particularly where they are already legally available for sale in countries seeking restrictions. 

            There is no better place to start than Italy.  Since 2011 there has been an embargo in place on ancient coins of Italian types minted before 211 BC.   During this same period, Italy’s Carabinieri have mounted a successful campaign against looters without damaging Italy’s large, lawful numismatic market. 

            What does IAPN request?  First, we join hundreds of coin collectors to oppose expanding the current designated list past 211 BC  to encompass late Roman Republican and Imperial coins. 

Prior committees that considered the initial MOU in 2001 and subsequent renewals for 2005, 2011, 2016 and 2021 all came to the same conclusion buttressed by current research: One simply cannot assume that all such coins are “Italian cultural property” when only 5.24% of the 15,000 Roman Imperial coins hoards containing over 6 million coins are found within Italy itself. 

The current Italian designated list also needs to be reformed.  At a minimum—using the Greek designated list as a model—larger denomination coins which circulated in international trade should be delisted.

            We also request that any renewal be conditioned on Italy facilitating the export of any item legally available for sale within Italy itself.  Despite solemn promises, Italy has actually made it harder to export ancient coins.  Finally, this Committee should also require that US Customs accept legal exports from sister EU countries as legal imports of items on the Italian designated list.  Such a modification of the current MOU is not only consistent with the UNESCO Convention, but also with Italian law. 

            The proposed MOU with Vietnam raises similar issues.  A past IAPN President who visited the UNESCO World Heritage site of Hue (pronounced “Hugh”) earlier this week reports that cash coins up for restriction here are for sale to tourists at a gift shop there. 

More than that, any import restrictions will only cause confusion.  Chinese cash coins found in Vietnam also circulated in far greater numbers in China.  They should be restricted, if at all, under the current Chinese MOU.  No Vietnamese coins should be restricted. The earliest Vietnamese coins are virtually identical to Chinese prototypes from the post-Tang period which are not restricted under the MOU with China. Later Vietnamese coins, particularly the machine struck coins of the French protectorate struck in France or at the US Mint, do not meet the threshold requirements for either archaeological or ethnological objects.

As for the other MOUs, the designated list for Morocco does not provide fair notice to importers.  It simply recounts all the ancient and early modern civilizations whose coin types circulated within Morocco without naming specific types exclusively found there. Limiting restrictions to types that “circulated primarily” in Morocco fails to correct this problem, particularly where the vast majority  “circulated primarily” elsewhere. Accordingly, if restrictions are to continue, the current designated list must be limited to bronze coin types issued by Moroccan mints for local circulation.

Finally, there should be no new restrictions on coins for Chile or Costa Rica.  Spanish Colonial and early Republican era coinage that circulated in these countries also circulated in far greater numbers elsewhere, including as legal tender here in the United States until 1857.   They are as much part of US cultural heritage as they are of these nations. 

Thank you. 

NOT MAGA- New Emergency Import Restrictions Mandate Repatriation of Cultural Goods Seized from Americans to the Failing State of Lebanon

 US Customs has just announced very broad “emergency” import restrictions on “Lebanese” cultural goods: 

 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/05/14/2025-08615/emergency-import-restrictions-on-categories-of-archaeological-and-ethnological-material-of-lebanon

These new rules are based on a decision rendered at the end of the Biden Administration which is being implemented by the Trump Administration.  

The coverage is as follows:

 Archaeological material in the Designated List ranges in date from the Paleolithic period (approximately 700,000 years ago) through 1774 C.E. Ethnological material in the Designated List includes: architectural elements; religious, ritual, and funerary objects; traditional garments and headdresses; weapons and armor; and manuscripts and handwritten documents, all dating from 1600 through 1918 C.E.; as well as early printed books dating from 1600 through 1850 C.E.

The designated list set forth is representative only. Any dates and dimensions are approximate.

The restrictions on coins are also extremely broad, including coins that circulated both regionally and internationally. 

12. Coins and Other Currency —Coinage has a great variety and long history in Lebanon that spans the Achaemenid Persian, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, medieval, and early Ottoman periods. This category consists of coins in metals such as gold, silver, billon (an alloy), copper, bronze, brass, and lead that are minted in or found in Lebanon, as well as other forms of currency, such as metal bullion or ingots and cut and weighed silver pieces ( hacksilber).

a. Iron Age Persian Period— The earliest coinage of Lebanon dates to the Achaemenid Persian Empire and consists of silver shekels, fractional denominations thereof, and bronze coins minted in Sidon, Tyre, and Byblos. Some typical designs include the king standing or running with a bow, slaying a lion, or processing in a chariot; galley ships; chariots; walled cities; hippocamps; owls with an Egyptian crook and flail; dolphins; sphinxes; griffins; vultures; rams; shells; lotus flowers; Egyptian scepters; warriors; and lions and bulls in combat. May bear Phoenician inscriptions or monograms. Includes Persian imperial and Archaic Greek coins that also circulated in Lebanon during this period. Approximate date: 510 to 332 B.C.E.

b. Hellenistic and Roman Periods —Includes coins in gold, silver, and bronze on Phoenician, Greek, and Roman weight standards. In this period, coins were minted in Sidon, Tyre, Byblos, Beirut ( Berytus/Laodicea), Tripoli ( Tripolis), Batroun ( Botrys), Arqa ( Caesarea ad Libanum), Bhannine ( Orthosia), Anjar ( Chalcis ad Libanum), and Baalbek ( Heliopolis) in the name of Macedonian, Ptolemaic, Seleucid, and Roman rulers, or in the name of the cities themselves. The obverse shows designs such as the bust of the ruler, the god Heracles-Melqart, the city-goddess Tyche wearing a “mural” crown (in the form of a walled city), or other figures. The reverse shows designs such as various Hellenic, Roman, or local deities and heroes; temples and symbols of the divine; or symbols like an eagle, palm tree, galley, ship's prow or stern, club of Heracles, cornucopia, or legionary insignia. Inscriptions and monograms may be in Greek, Latin, or Phoenician. Includes Hellenistic and Roman period coins of other regional mints, such as Antioch, that circulated in Lebanon. Approximate date: 332 B.C.E. to 498 C.E.

c. Byzantine Period —Coins in gold, silver, bronze, copper, and electrum from regional mints such as Constantinople, Nikomedia, Alexandria, Carthage, Antioch, Cyzicus, and Thessalonica that circulated in Lebanon. Byzantine coins typically bore Greek inscriptions. Some typical designs include a bust or standing figure of the emperor facing forward on the obverse and Christian symbols and/or the letters M, K, or I on the reverse. Includes coins issued by the Vandal mints of North Africa that circulated in Lebanon in the 6th century C.E. Approximate date: 498 to 635 C.E.

d. Islamic Caliphates —Coins minted during the Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid, Ayyubid, Mamluk, and early Ottoman period including at Baalbek, Byblos, Tripoli, and Tyre. Coins were minted in gold, silver, bronze, copper, and lead. The earliest Islamic coins in Lebanon are imitations of Byzantine coin types (“Arab-Byzantine coins”). In the Umayyad period and later, coins typically bore Arabic inscriptions on both sides, and occasionally symbols, animals, or flowers. Includes coins of Islamic dynasties from other regional mints, such as Damascus, Cairo, and Istanbul, that circulated in Lebanon. Approximate date: 635 to 1774 C.E.

e. Crusader Period —Coins in gold, silver, billon (an alloy), bronze, and copper minted at Tyre, Sidon, Beirut, and Tripoli in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem and County of Tripoli. Designs often featured a cross, other Christian symbol, or building in a central medallion surrounded by a Latin inscription. Other Crusader coin designs imitated contemporary Islamic coinage with Arabic or pseudo-Arabic inscriptions. Approximate date: 1095 to 1291 C.E.

The "designated list" includes Shekels of Tyre (found in great numbers in Israel, and widely collected both as coins used to pay the Temple tax  as well as the "30 pieces of silver" associated with the Passion of Christ).  It also includes Byzantine and Islamic coins that were made elsewhere and that circulated well outside the Middle East.  The coverage of Roman Imperial coins is a bit unclear, but the reference to Latin inscriptions and Roman weight standards does raise concerns. 

The International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) provided ample evidence that such  overbroad restrictions were contrary to the Cultural Property Implementation Act's (CPIA's) mandate, but that evidence appears to have been ignored. See https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0028-0021

At the Cultural Property Advisory Committee meeting, IAPN and others also pointed out that repatriating artifacts to a “failing state” like Lebanon is no recipe for their  “protection.”  Furthermore, they also warned that repatriating objects to Lebanon could benefit the Hezbollah terror group which effectively ran the Lebanese Government.  See https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2024/09/summary-of-cpac-meeting-to-discuss.html  

The timing of the decision given in the Federal Register as Nov. 4, 2024 should give further pause.  On that date, the Israeli Air Force was in action over Lebanon bombing the Bekaa Valley.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/11/04/lebanon-israel-airstrikes-bekaa-valley-hezbollah/  This was all part of brutal tit for tat bombing, shelling and rocket fire exchanges. See also https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hezbollah-rocket-hits-near-tel-aviv-after-beirut-airstrike-2024-11-24/   

Under the circumstances, one must ask: Is this really an environment to even contemplate repatriating cultural artifacts to?

Indeed, that prospect seemed so concerning that CPO even thought it necessary to conjure up the spirits of Senators Moynihan and Dole, the CPIA's sponsors, to express their own doubts:  https://culturalpropertynews.org/careful-collector-30-sending-art-and-antiquities-to-failed-states-no-recipe-for-preservation/

To be sure, due to Israel's actions killing much of Hezbollah's top-level leadership, Hezbollah’s influence has since diminished, but that influence still exists and Lebanon remains a failing state that may yet again slide back into war at any time.  

Leaving aside the policy question of the wisdom of repatriating objects to a failing state, the major problem for US collectors is three-fold.  

First, the Lebanese designated list is again grossly overbroad, incorporating items that are also found regionally or for coins, internationally.  

Second, Customs (with the blessing of Judge Wilkinson of the 4^th Circuit US Court of Appeals)  believes all Customs need show is that an item is of a type on these increasingly overlapping designated lists before it can be detained, seized, and repatriated.  https://culturalpropertynews.org/an-epic-battle-u-s-v-3-knife-shaped-coins/

Third, Customs (again with the blessing of the 4^th Circuit) can apply these regulations as embargos on all “designated” items imported into the US after the effective date of the regulations rather than having to show that they were illicitly exported from Lebanon after that effective date.   

While CPO does not read the CPIA that way, according to Judge Wilkinson and the 4th Circuit US Court of Appeals, all this is a “foreign policy matter” not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act or any meaningful judicial review.   

And adding insult to injury, all this ultimately raises the question whether collectors now have fewer due process rights at least as far as Judge Wilkinson is concerned than illegal aliens who are also alleged to be MS-13 gang members.   https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2025/04/should-american-collectors-get-at-least.html  

Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological and Ethnological Material of Uzbekistan

US Customs has announced broad new import restrictions on archaeological and ethnological objects for Uzbekistan’s authoritarian government that apply to cultural goods dating as recently as 1917.

More here:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/05/05/2025-07849/imposition-of-import-restrictions-on-archaeological-and-ethnological-material-of-uzbekistan. 

These import restrictions derive from a Cultural Property Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the Biden Administration along with a spate of others with authoritarian governments as “soft power measures.” 

Since President Trump’s regulatory freeze was lifted, renewals of prior restrictions on behalf of El Salvador and Ecuador have been announced, but this is the first new set of restrictions issued under the Trump II Administration.  

Such import controls on cultural goods are particularly controversial because they are enforced as embargoes on cultural goods coming from legitimate markets abroad, most significantly those in Europe. 

Even worse, US Customs gives collectors no meaningful due process before their private property is detained, seized and forfeited.  The Cultural Property Implementation Act only gives the government the right to repatriate coins and other artifacts "first discovered within" and hence "subject to the export control" of a particular country that also is "exported.. from the State Party after the designation of such material...."  19 USC Sections 2601, 2606.  But as far as the government is concerned, all it  instead need show is that an item is of a type on one of the ever increasing numbers of designated lists before it can be repatriated.   

These problems are compounded, because designated lists, like that for Uzbekistan, have over time become grossly overbroad, covering coins and other items found in multiple countries. The designated list for coins here is as follows. 

5. Coins—Ancient coins commonly found in Uzbekistan include gold, silver, copper, and copper alloy coins in a variety of denominations. Includes gold and silver ingots, which may be plain and/or inscribed. Some of the most well-known types are described below:

a. Achaemenid period coins, including Darics, Sigloi, Late Achaemenid Anatolian currencies. Approximate date: 550-330 B.C.E.

b. Greco-Bactrian coins, include gold staters, silver tetradrachms, silver and bronze drachms, and a small number of punch-marked coins. The bust of the king, the king on horseback, or an animal were on the obverse, and images of Greek deities or various symbols were on the reverse with the king's name written in Greek. Local rulers also minted imitations of these types. Approximate date: 250-125 B.C.E.

c. Kushan Dynasty coins include silver tetradrachms, copper coins, bronze didrachms, and gold dinars. Imagery includes portrait busts (Augustus type) or standing figures of the king with his emblem (tamgha). Classical Greek and Zoroastrian deities and images of the Buddha are depicted on the reverse. Approximate date: 19-230 C.E.

d. Kushano-Sasanian or Kushanshah coins include gold dinars, silver tetradrachms, and copper alloy denominations. Some Kushano-Sasanian coins followed the Kushan style of imagery, while others resemble Sasanian coins with the bust of the king wearing a large crown and Zoroastrian fire altars and deities. Inscriptions are written in Bactrian, Brahmi, or Pahlavi scripts. Approximate date: 225-365 C.E.

e. Hunnic (Hephthalite and Kidarite) coins include silver drachms, silver dinars, and small copper and bronze coins. Hephthalite coins resemble Sasanian coins with a portrait bust of the king on the obverse and a Zoroastrian fire altar on the reverse. Approximate date: late 4th to mid-8th centuries C.E.

f. Sogdian coins include bronze and silver dirhams and drachms. Some Sogdian coins are cast with a central hole, similar to coins from the Tang Dynasty in China. Sogdian coins may include imagery of Zoroastrian fire altars, rulers, portrait busts in profile, horse and rider, camels, and lions. Coins may have inscriptions in Sogdian scripts. Approximate dates: 4th to 9th centuries C.E.

g. Samanid, Karakhanid, Khorezmshah dynasty coins include bronze, copper, silver, and gold dinars and jitals and silver dirhams. Coins of these dynasties usually display Arabic inscriptions on both faces. Some Karakhanid coins have punch marks, like coins from the Tang Dynasty. Some Khorezmshah coins may have imagery of an elephant or horse with rider. Approximate date: 800-1250 C.E.

h. Chaghatai and Timurid coins include silver and copper tangas and dinars. Both coin types are decorated with Arabic inscriptions. Approximate date: 1227-1507 C.E.

i. Khanates of Bukhara, Khiva, and Kokand coins include copper, silver, and gold tangas; gold dinars; silver tetradrachms; gold ashfris and tillos or tillas. Coin types are decorated with inscriptions. Coins may be associated with the Janid, Shaybanid, or other dynasties. Approximate date: 1500-1773 C.E.

As indicated in the International Association of Professional Numismatist's comments to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC), most such coins "commonly found"  in Uzbekistan also circulated in considerable numbers elsewhere, meaning that one cannot simply assume as Customs does here that such coins were "first discovered within, and [are] subject to export control by" Uzbekistan. 19 USC Section 2601. 

For additional information about the Uzbek request and the CPAC meeting that reviewed it, see https://culturalpropertynews.org/us-state-dept-uzbekistan-art-embargo-50000-bc-to-1917/ and https://culturalpropertynews.org/cpac-report-coin-collectors-face-more-collateral-damage/

Unfortunately, the one court challenge on such restrictions went nowhere, with the Hon. J. Harvie Wilkinson of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals telling coin collectors they were entitled to less due process than he later thought should be afforded to an illegal alien deported as an alleged MS 13 gang member.  

Given the continuation of ever broader overlapping embargos imposed on behalf of authoritarian governments and the apparent unwillingness of the courts to protect the private property rights of collectors,  legislative reform is sorely needed.