Cultural Property Observer

US State Department Helps Ship Auction House Jobs to China

2012-02-01T07:40:00.000-08:00

The time was that Sotheby's and Christies did a lot of auction business involving ancient and modern Chinese art. These are UK companies, but they have large establishments in NY. Now, however, Chinese auction houses have begun to dominate the trade in part due to the monopoly afforded them in sales of Chinese artifacts by both the Chinese and US Governments. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15933291

Isn't this more evidence that the State Department's MOU with China has done little but helped Chinese auction houses monopolize the trade in ancient art?

CPAC Meeting on Renewal of MOU with Cyprus

2012-01-30T08:33:00.000-08:00

The United States Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) met on January 18, 2012, to discuss the Cypriot MOU. Once again, CPAC Chair Prof. Patty Gerstenblith (PG, DePaul, Public Representative) began by thanking all speakers or those who had provided comments to CPAC. PG was joined by the following CPAC members Katherine Reid (KR, Cleveland Museum (retired)-Museum); Nina Archabal (NA, Minn. Historical Society-Museum); Marta de la Torre (MT- Florida International University, Public); James Willis (JW, James Willis Tribal Art-Trade); Nancy Wilkie (NW-Carlton College, Archaeology); Barbara Bluhm Kaul (BK,Trustee, Art Institute of Chicago- Public); Jane Levine (JL, Sotheby’s Compliance Department (ex-prosecutor)- Trade); and Rosemary Joyce (RJ,U. Cal., Berkley-Anthropology). Two slots, one in archaeology and the other a trade representative, remain vacant. KR, NW and JW also served under the Bush Administration. The others are Obama Appointees though PG and MT also served the Clinton Administration. There was also staff present including CPAC Executive Director Maria Kouroupas, a Committee lawyer, and Committee archaeologists.

The following individuals spoke at the meeting in support of the MOU: Carmen Biucchi (Harvard); Brian Daniels (U. Pennsylvania Cultural Heritage Center); Nathan Elkins (Baylor); Jane Evans (Temple); Raymond Ewing (CAARI); Ellen Hersher (CAARI); Anne Marie Knobloch (Virginia Tech); Laetitia La Follette (U. Mass./ AIA); Andrew McCarthy (CAARI); Joanna Smith (Princeton); Chris Shaegel (U. Cyprus); Tom Kline (Andrews Kurth); Josh Knerly (AAMD).

The following individuals spoke against the MOU: Peter Tompa (IAPN/PNG); Wayne Sayles (ACCG); and Eloise Ullman (ICTA). In addition, 77% of the comments recorded on the regulations.gov website either opposed the MOU or their extension to coins.

Carmen Biucchi (Harvard) indicated that coins provide important documentation of early Cypriot history because there are few written sources. Even low value bronze coins are important because they frequently appear at archaeological sites. We need to all work together to preserve the past. Cypriot coins are relatively uncommon. In response to a question, Biucchi indicated that it is relatively easy to trace expensive coins due to their appearance at auction, but this is not the case for less expensive coins. She also indicated that metal detectors are the problem.

Brian Daniels (U. Penn. Cultural Center) argued for the extension of restrictions to post-Byzantine period ecclesiastical material. He also suggested that US law enforcement pursue better coordination with Cypriot law enforcement, and other countries with strong Greek cultural influence, including Greece itself and Bulgaria.

Nathan Elkins (Baylor) indicated that Cyprus’ cultural property is in jeopardy as proven by a recent large seizure of artifacts, which included bronze and silver coins. There is a large market in the US as demonstrated by the fact that 200 Cypriot coins are currently listed on the V-coins website. Most Cypriot coins circulated locally. If you add together a list prepared by Wayne Sayles of coins found outside of Cyprus and a list Elkins compiled of coins from Cypriot contexts, that shows that Cypriot coinage is much more prevalent in Cyprus than outside of Cyprus.

Jane Evans (Temple) also indicated that it was important to continue restrictions on coins because it is important that their context not be lost.

Raymond Ewing is a former ambassador to Cyprus. He now serves a CAARI’s President. CAARI receives funding from the US Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Import restrictions should be as closely conformed to Cypriot law, that covers artifacts up to 1850, as possible.

Ellen Hersher is a scholar and archaeologist associated with CAARI. Cyprus has been a specialty for over 40 years. Looting is a historical problem in Cyprus. Looting still goes on until today. Looting only declined during the periods of WWI and WWII and during the 1950’s when British forces were involved in anti-insurgency operations. Wealthy Cypriots have collected Cypriot antiquities since the 19th Century. There is no shame in looting in Cyprus. Increasing efforts are being made to educate the populace. There is a great need for a new museum (the current one dates back to Victorian times) to encourage youth to respect their past. Metal detectors continue to be a serious problem; more legislation is needed. The major collections are grandfathered in. It is Ms. Hersher’s opinion that they are no longer adding much material, but most Cypriots don’t think that looting is wrong. We shouldn’t point fingers at Cyprus, but try to fix the problem.

Anne Marie Knobloch is a CAARI board member, who teaches at Virginia Tech. She is also an AIA member. Cyprus has important religious sanctuaries that need to be studied. Virginia Tech offers students the opportunity to excavate in Cyprus and would like to do more with Cypriot students.

Laetitia La Follette is the AIA’s VP for professional responsibility. She is associated with the University of Massachusetts. Looting remains a problem, including for coins. Because ancient coins are handmade, they are all different and may be traced. The AIA can help draft the designated list. The laws in the Greek Cypriot area need to be tightened. The laws in the North are actually stronger.

Andrew McCarthy is a CAARI trustee. Looting has increased since the 1960’s. There is a famous incident where a tomb was set aside as a dowry. The Department of Antiquities is doing its best to fight against looting. A site where McCarthy works has not suffered looting from 2007-2011. There was one incident where looters struck the site, presumably looking for coins. CAARI gives all documentation created from archaeological investigations to the Department of Antiquities. MOU’s can help educate Cypriots about the importance of their heritage.

Joanna Smith of Princeton is a past CAARI Trustee. Cyprus is an academic cross-roads. Cypriot children are being taught about their history and Cyprus sends exhibits abroad.

Chris Shaegel is from the University of Cyprus. He works closely with CAARI. Because there are few manuscripts that predate 1600, the preservation of Cypriot material culture is important. Coins should be protected and the restrictions should be extended further in time. Icons also need protection. There is no internal market in Cyprus.

Peter Tompa spoke for IAPN and PNG, two trade associations that represent the small business of the numismatic trade. Each Committee member must ask themselves whether they can do so in good conscious after considering these undisputed facts: (1) Coins were evidently placed on the designated list on the orders of former Undersecretary Nicholas Burns as a “thank you” to Cypriot advocacy groups which had given him an award; (2) Jay Kislak, CPAC’s former chair, has stated under oath that the State Department misled Congress and the Public about CPAC’s vote against import restrictions on coins: (3)In 2007, the AIA claimed that Cypriot coins “rarely circulated” to justify restrictions on “coins of Cypriot type.” However, a top Cypriot official has admitted that “It is true that Cypriot coins shared the same destiny as all other coins of the ancient world. As a standard media of exchange they circulated all over the ancient world due to their small size, which facilitated their easy transport…” Moreover, this view has substantial scholarly support; (4) The CPIA requires less drastic remedies to be tried first before import restrictions are imposed, but Cyprus has no coherent regulatory scheme for metal detectors and even allows British tourists to bring them to the Island; and (5) Restrictions imposed on unprovenanced “coins of Cypriot type” only discriminate against American collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade; such coins may be shipped from abroad to anywhere but the USA, including Cyprus.

Moreover, he stated that there is no good reason to renew the MOU for yet another 5 years. Cyprus has already had the benefit of restrictions since 1999 on ethnological artifacts and 2002 on archaeological artifacts. Yet, a Swiss scholar reports most looted material goes to wealthy Greek Cypriot collectors, and not as has been maintained to collectors abroad. In addition, all this appears to be done with the full knowledge and acquiescence of Greek Cypriot authorities. Thus, restrictions only discriminate against American collectors.

In response to a question from JW, Tompa indicated it was wrong to so burden the small businesses of the numismatic trade just so archaeologists might occasionally get some relevant information about dating sites from a coin. He also disputed the claim by JL that import restrictions are easy to comply with. He noted that US Customs will not allow entry of coins and other antiquities unless they are pictured in a catalogue that predates restrictions. Thus, even the difficult to obtain certifications are not enough for Customs.

Wayne Sayles indicated that the ACCG represents the interests of the approximately 50,000 serious ancient coin collectors in the United States. The ACCG is interested in fair and equitable application of US law. The CPIA was meant to protect significant artifacts, not everything under the sun. In response to a question from PG, Wayne Sayles indicated that it is unrealistic to ask the small businesses of the numismatic trade to provide provenance information for every coin they import.

Eloise Ullman indicated that most ICTA members have under 5 employees. She also noted that President Obama recently recognized that it is important not to overburden small businesses with paperwork when his administration signed onto an effort to end a burdensome requirement that coin dealers prepare 1099 forms for every purchase over $600.

Tom Kline disclosed that he previously represented Cyprus. He stated that Cyprus is a leader in protecting its own cultural property, but takes a reasonable approach in doing so. The Turkish Republic is an illegal regime so he disputes that DOS look to their laws on antiquities as models. We need higher ethical standards from collectors. The import restrictions on coins should be no big deal because the restrictions only date from 2007. Collectors only have themselves to blame if they do not keep adequate documentation.

Josh Knerly spoke on behalf of the AAMD which supports the MOU with Cyprus with some limited provisos. First, the AAMD would like to know more about a proposal to extend restrictions to new types of ecclesiastical objects. It appears members of the archaeological community know details of the request, but these have not been shared by the public at large. KR asked why no Museum Director was present. Knerly indicated he would determine if some curators with specialized knowledge would be able to testify in the future.

ICOM "Red List" to Pave the Way for New Restrictions on Egyptian Cultural Goods?

2012-01-29T08:57:00.000-08:00

In the US, Congress has established the following process for imposing import restrictions: (1) a State Party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention requests US assistance; (2) the request is vetted by the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) as to whether it meets the statutory requirements generally and for what artifacts specifically; (3) the President's Designee in the State Department considers CPAC's recommendations in making her own findings whether the statutory criteria are met: (4) if the statutory criteria are met, US Customs restricts entry of certain artifacts that meet the statutory criteria.

Unfortunately, a new extra-legal model has emerged that appears to have been perfected under the Obama Administration either through inattention by political appointees or by design: (1) Archaeologists intone that looting (real or imagined) justifies a clamp down on another collecting area; (2) their allies in the State Department Cultural Heritage Center issue a sole source contract to a NGO associated with the extreme archaeological view to prepare a list of artifacts that supposedly can be assumed to be "stolen" unless proven otherwise; (3) Archaeologists lobby the modern foreign government that sits on the land where these artifacts can be found to ask the US to impose import restrictions; (4) CPAC (which is now populated almost exclusively by those sympathetic to the extreme archaeological view) and the President's Designee in the State Department go through the motions of considering a request, but ignore all the statutory criteria in order to "get there"; and (5) artifacts are restricted based on the "Red List" prepared by the NGO associated with the extreme archaeological view.

It is quite possible that the process has already begun for imposing new restrictions on Egyptian cultural artifacts.

1. During unrest during the Egyptian revolution, there apparently was some looting, though the extent does not seem to be very extensive.

2. Archaeologists have argued this justifies a clamp down on collectors of Egyptian artifacts.

3. The State Department issued a sole source contract (See https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=fa0c2fe21fd3cf5028a500f1fc4b97e4&tab=core&tabmode=list) to ICOM for the creation of a "Red List." See also, http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/special.html (noting that the Cultural Heritage Center funds Red Lists as a "special project.")

4. ICOM has now completed its work. See http://icom.museum/press-releases/press-release/article/icom-publishes-a-new-emergency-red-list-the-emergency-red-list-of-egyptian-cultural-objects-at-risk.html Note, according to ICOM: " Any cultural object that could have originated in Egypt should be subjected to detailed scrutiny and precautionary measures."

5. Although the State Department has indicated that former Egyptian Cultural Heritage Pharaoh Zahi Hawass' claim that a MOU was in the offing actually related to an agreement with US Customs, that does not foreclose the possibility that the process for imposing new import restrictions on Egyptian cultural goods has already commenced with the production of this "Red List." See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/10/state-department-clarifies-egyptian-mou.html

Only time will tell.

Renewal of Import Restrictions on Cypriot Coins Being Considered

2012-01-24T12:26:00.000-08:00

The ACCG has issued this press release about the recent CPAC hearing about the potential renewal of the Cypriot MOU: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/24/4210900/renewal-of-us-import-restrictions.html

I hope to post a summary of the meeting on this blog as soon as my schedule permits me to review my notes.

Italian Justice on Trial: Bob Hecht Vindicated?

2012-01-20T10:15:00.000-08:00

Well, that is one way this sorry tale can be spun: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2012/01/italian-antiquities-robert-hecht-case-ends.html

After all the headlines, Bob Hecht, the alleged middleman at the center of an international conspiracy to launder looted art, has been freed because the statute of limitations has run under Italian law.

Paolo Ferri, Hecht's prosecutor, points the fingers at the "system." but presumably Ferri was responsible for moving the case forward, and with a little less show boating, perhaps that might have actually happened within the allotted time.

In any event, without a conviction in such a high profile case, perhaps Hecht can feel vindicated, at least to some extent.

The Italian show trial did convince US Museums to repatriate significant pieces to Italy. I wonder though, whether any have any nagging doubts about that now, at least with respect to some pieces. Also, the trial likely helped convince the AAMD and others to adopt a 1970 provenance rule. The foolishness of that decision is only now being felt, but nagging doubts about that one will grow too as fewer and fewer items become available for accession under these rules.

Chasing Saddam's Butt

2012-01-20T06:47:00.000-08:00

UK police have arrested a British veteran and have charged him with trying to sell a piece of a Saddam statute given to him by US Marines following the fall of Baghdad. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/19/man-arrested-buttock-saddam-hussein-statue

The retired British special forces soldier had hoped to donate the proceeds to wounded veterans, but when the Iraqi Embassy got wind of the sale, they evidently demanded that British polices seize the item as their "cultural property."

The veteran has it right:

Describing the furore surrounding the buttock as farcical, Ely questioned how a piece of metal from a statue put up by a dictator could be classified as national cultural property.

The ex-soldier asked: "How can it be classed as cultural property when it was put up by the biggest tyrant since Attila the Hun?"

Ely believes that Iraqi officials decided to demand the return of the war relic after seeing media coverage of its value.

"American Marines gave it to me and at that time Baghdad was under American control," he added. "There wasn't even an Iraqi government and I have since turned it into a piece of war relic art.

"This is like having a chunk of the Berlin Wall – it's part of history but it's not cultural property."

There is No Reason for CPAC to Change its Recommendations on Coins

2012-01-18T13:32:00.000-08:00

Here is my prepared oral statement regarding the proposed renewal of the MOU with Cyprus:

I’m speaking on behalf of IAPN and PNG, which represent the small businesses of the numismatic trade. In many ways, this hearing is a much greater test for CPAC than for coin collectors. Prior committees have twice recommended against import restrictions on coins for good reason. Yet, there will certainly be pressure to change course and to fall into line with the State Department’s controversial 2007 decision to impose import restrictions on “coins of Cypriot type.”

Each Committee member must ask themselves whether they can do so in good conscience after considering these undisputed facts, particularly because the restrictions at issue can lead to civil or criminal liability for American collectors and the American small businesses of the numismatic trade, including seizure of their coins:

1. Coins were evidently placed on the designated list on the orders of former Undersecretary Nicholas Burns – now of Harvard University’s Kennedy School-- as a “thank you” to Cypriot advocacy groups which had given him an award;

2. Jay Kislak, CPAC’s former chair, has stated under oath that the State Department misled Congress and the Public about CPAC’s vote against import restrictions on coins;

3. In 2007, the AIA claimed that Cypriot coins “rarely circulated” to justify restrictions on “coins of Cypriot type.” However, a top Cypriot official has admitted that “It is true that Cypriot coins shared the same destiny as all other coins of the ancient world. As a standard media of exchange they circulated all over the ancient world due to their small size, which facilitated their easy transport…” Moreover, this view has substantial scholarly support, as set forth in our papers;

4. The CPIA requires less drastic remedies to be tried first before import restrictions are imposed, but Cyprus has no coherent regulatory scheme for metal detectors and even allows British tourists to bring them to the Island;

5. Restrictions imposed on unprovenanced “coins of Cypriot type” only discriminate against American collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade; such coins may be shipped from abroad to anywhere but the USA, including Cyprus.

Moreover, there is no good reason to renew the MOU for yet another 5 years. Cyprus has already had the benefit of restrictions since 1999 on ethnological artifacts and 2002 on archaeological artifacts. Yet, a Swiss scholar reports most looted material goes to wealthy Greek Cypriot collectors, and not as has been maintained to collectors abroad. In addition, all this appears to be done with the full knowledge and acquiescence of Greek Cypriot authorities. Under the circumstances, why should the US burden its own citizens and small businesses with such restrictions? To do so will only reward Cypriot authorities for their own hypocrisy and thus make a mockery of the supposed purpose of such MOU’s to protect archaeological context.

In sum, please give heed to the 77% of the public comments posted on the regulations.gov website opposed to import restrictions on coins. Thank you.

Acropolis for Rent

2012-01-17T17:15:00.000-08:00

In a move that will no doubt leave archaeological purists aghast, the bankrupt Greek state is considering putting up its major historical sites for rent:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jeUrA6jll-SsuqVTVwl6nmZRk4LA?docId=CNG.f8db7d69218339b9285abcf6567bb20c.471

Hopefully, the next step will be the deaccession of excess museum inventory and the creation of a licit antiquities and numismatic market in the country.

What better way to generate much needed cash and to end a corrupt system that allows only the connected to collect what they want.

Addendum: Perhaps the Acropolis is not for rent after all: http://tom-flynn.blogspot.com/2012/01/greeks-culture-minister-rushes-to-deny.html

No Shipment to the USA

2012-01-10T16:15:00.000-08:00

The practical impact of import restrictions should be made crystal clear with these words, "No Shipment to the USA."

This German dealer will no longer ship this Syracusian Tetradrachm to the USA, presumably because of import restrictions on "coins of Italian type." See
http://www.vcoins.com/grotjohann/store/viewItem.asp?idProduct=820

There is no indication this coin is a "fresh find." Indeed, given its toning, this coin has likely been in a collection for years. Yet, since the dealer has not identified this coin as being pictured in an auction catalogue or price list dating from before the restrictions, the dealer cannot ship it to the USA lest it be seized by US Customs and returned to its presumptive supposed find spot, the modern day Republic of Italy. (Though US Customs is supposed to accept certifications that such coins were out of the country before the date of restrictions, even where this information is available, Customs has been known to reject them absent auction catalogue citations.)

Yet, the same coin can be shipped to collectors ANYWHERE else in the world, including within Italy. How then do the restrictions comply with the CPIA's "concerted international response requirement" that was meant to the ensure the comity and effectiveness of import restrictions and also thus preclude any such discrimination against American collectors?

Metal Detectorists Preserve Artifacts Archaeologists Often Destroy or Ignore!

2012-01-10T06:54:00.000-08:00

Karl also makes this intersting observation in his "Highway to Hell" article cited below:

But what are Austrian metal detectorists really digging up? Do they typically dig sizeable trenches, and do they dig down into stratified contexts? As far as can be ascertained from the results of my survey, they normally do neither. Rather, the overwhelming majority restrict their activities mostly to digging just the topsoil (Figure 10) and to digging pits of less than one-quarter of a square metre (Figure 11).

Yet, the topsoil is that part of an archaeological stratigraphy that is usually removed by a mechanical digger on the vast majority of Austrian excavations. This is true for pretty much all rescue excavations, and even for many, if not most, research digs. Manual removal of the topsoil is the rare exception to the rule, and even where this happens, the topsoil is rarely thoroughly searched for finds (least of all using a metal detector), if at all.

Thus, most of the activity of metal detectorists seems to be limited to those parts of archaeological stratigraphies neither observed nor documented in systematic archaeological excavations. It thus seems rather peculiar that we accuse these amateur archaeologists of intentionally destroying the archaeological contexts of their finds. After all, professional archaeologists rarely even bother attempting to recover the finds that derive from topsoil contexts; rather, they run them over with a large digger or remove them rapidly and with little regard for implementing intensive recovery strategies.

See more here: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2012/01/on-highway-to-hell.html

On the Highway to Hell

2012-01-09T14:41:00.000-08:00

Raimund Karl of Bangor University in the UK has written a thought provoking piece entitled, On the Highway to Hell: Thoughts on the Unintended Consequences for Portable Antiquities of Section 11 (1) Austrian Denkmalschutzgesetz. See http://www.ngoe.at/publikationen/HEN_Karl.pdf

He concludes that a change in Austrian law has led metal detectorists to stop reporting finds they would otherwise report:

By effectively outlawing the use of metal detectors by members of the public to search for archaeological finds through § 11(1) DMSG, the many responsible amateur archaeologists who would be both willing to assist and interested in assisting with the protection of the archaeological heritage have been criminalized. This has completely removed many people’s motivation to report finds, intended to be strengthened by § 8 DMSG awarding a half share in the ownership of legally found and reported finds to the finder. As a result, most have practically stopped reporting any of their finds: this would, after all, be an at least implicit admission of having broken the law, resulting in the loss of any ownership rights to the finds according to § 400 ABGB, and possibly even inviting prosecution.

After reading his article, one might conclude that Professor Karl seems to be blessed with common sense that has detoured him away from the "highway to hell" that has been taken by some of his more ideological colleagues in the archaeological community.

Hangers-On?

2012-01-05T06:30:00.000-08:00

While some archaeo-bloggers are claiming that the 20% or so of the comments in favor of the extension of the MOU with Cyprus are somehow more profound than the 77% opposed (as if this makes up for the deficit), what they don't say, but which should be readily apparent from reviewing the comments is that virtually all those supporting the MOU are either archaeologists that depend on excavation permits from the Cypriot government to maintain their livelihoods, or are individuals or institutions otherwise dependent on the good graces of the Cypriot authorities to conduct their work.

That is not to say that the views of these individuals are not sincere. However, the fact that Cypriot authorities can easily monitor comments on the regulations.gov website may very well color what these individuals say, and thus make it even less likely that they will say anything at all that might depart from the Cypriot Government "party line."

For instance, do any of them so much as acknowledge what everyone knows-- that wealthy Greek Cypriot collectors are the major consumers of recently excavated antiquities on the Island and that they collect with the full knowledge and approval of Greek Cypriot authorities? Of course not.

In addition, the exceptionally low level of public support and its linkage almost exclusively to such "hangers-on" again suggests that the State Department's import restrictions regime is little more than a special interest program for archaeologists and other academic institutions that do business in Cyprus.

77% of Posted Comments Against Renewal of Cypriot MOU

2012-01-04T12:39:00.000-08:00

John Hooker has performed the following analysis of the 338 comments posted on the regulations.gov website in response to the State Department's invitation to comment on the proposed renewal of the MOU with Cyprus:

The following results are rounded to 1% and are accurate to within 0.5%

Against the renewal of the MoU: 77%

For the renewal: 20%

This breaks down over the coin issue thus:

Those against the renewal that mentioned coins: 71%

Those against the renewal that did not mention coins: 6%

Those for the renewal that mentioned coins: 8%

Those for the renewal that did not mention coins: 12%

Inappropriate responses (6 people thought they were responding to a Peru MoU, one to the Bulgarian MoU): 3%

Putting a Happy Face on ECA's Work-- But No Mention of Its Import Restrictions Regime

2012-01-04T08:01:00.000-08:00

The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs has posted this year in review on the State Department's Blog: http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/site/entry/year_in_review_educational_and_cultural_affairs

Oddly, there is no mention at all about the Bureau's deeply unpopular effort to clamp down on American coin collectors. Instead, there is only a short reference to an agreement to help "protect" Greece's cultural heritage. Wonder why?

Chasing Aphrodite at the National Press Club

2012-01-03T07:29:00.000-08:00

Jason Felch and Ralph Frammolino, investigative journalists and authors of "Chasing Aphrodite: The Hunt for Looted Antiquities at the World’s Richest Museum" will join Gary Vikan, director of the Walters Art Museum and Arthur Houghton, a former curator at the Getty Museum, to discuss looted antiquities and transparency in American museums at 6 p.m. Jan. 24 in the National Press Club ballroom.

The event will be moderated by James Grimaldi, investigative reporter for the Washington Post.

In "Chasing Aphrodite," their gripping art world detective story, Felch and Frammolino reveal the inner workings of the J. Paul Getty Museum and its quest to build a worldclass collection of Roman and Greek art. Hubris, greed and ethics are key themes in the book, which culminates with Italy’s criminal indictment of the Getty’s antiquities curator and the return of $1 billion of ancient objects from U.S. museums and private collections.

"Chasing Aphrodite" gives an unparalleled glimpse into the reality that lies behind many of America’s collections of ancient art. It is the culmination of five years of reporting that began with a Los Angeles Times series for which Felch and Frammolino were finalists for the Pulitzer Prize in 2006.

The National Press Club is located at 529 14th Street, NW - 13th Floor, Washington, DC 20045.

China's Disappearing Past: A Victim of Modernization or Greedy Foreign Collectors?

2012-01-03T05:42:00.000-08:00

Here are two different reports with two very different conclusions about the reasons behind China's fast disappearing cultural history. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/01/china-tomb-raiders-destroy-relics and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-16367488

The first report repeats the usual "party line" of the archaeological community that the problem is due to gangs of looters working to supply collectors, particularly wealthy foreign ones. The State Department's broad import restrictions on Chinese cultural artifacts have been justified based on such reports, this despite the uncontested fact that by far the biggest collectors of ancient Chinese material are the Chinese themselves.

The second report attributes the destruction of China's cultural history to the vast construction projects going on in that quickly modernizing country. Why don't we hear more of this? Is it because such reports don't fit the narrative necessary to justify unpopular import restrictions that only impact American collectors and museums?

Turnabout is Fair Play

2012-01-02T11:22:00.001-08:00

Archaeo-Blogger Paul Barford has sought to make sport of the heartfelt comments of ancient coin collectors opposed to the extension of the MOU with Cyprus. Accordingly, his own comments to CPAC deserve at least some scrutiny.

Barford has stated to CPAC:

As somebody deeply concerned about the illicit international trade in antiquities and other cultural property and the role of US dealers and collectors in this, I support the renewal of the MOU with Cyprus to help curb the movement of illicit antiquities across US borders by increased scrutiny of imports as per Art. 3 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention and the CCPIA. It gives out a strong message of US commitment to equable [sic] relations with the international community in such matters.

Comment: I don't doubt Mr. Barford's sincerity, but it should also be noted that Barford is apparently a contractor for UNESCO. This is at least as relevant to the validity of his views as his claims that US Dealers and collectors are motivated by financial interests in their opposition to these MOU's. It's interesting that Barford suggests that MOU's "give[] out a strong message of US Commitment to equable [equitable?] relations when these MOU's impose restrictions on Americans not borne by others including collectors in Cyprus.

The rich cultural heritage of Cyprus continues to be seriously threatened by looters who, in defiance of antiquity preservation laws, are systematically and clandestinely stripping sites of collectable items many of which are destined for sale on foreign markets. Cyprus applies the measures envisaged in the Convention to attempt to combat this looting but the financial temptations of the international no-questions asked market for smuggled goods (and the US market plays a potentially big role) encourage criminals to try and subvert these efforts.

Comment: A Swiss academic who has studied the issue has concluded that most looted artifacts no longer go abroad and instead go into collections of wealthy Cypriot collectors with the full knowledge and acquiescence of Cypriot authorities. Under the circumstances, Greek Cypriot Government propaganda repeated here masks a different truth.

I would ask the CPAC to urge the appropriate US authorities to pay especial attention to the US trade (both across the country’s borders as well as internally) in what the trade persists in calling “minor antiquities”, and in particular in dug-up coins. Coins like any other archaeological artefacts illegally taken out of the archaeological record and unlawfully exported cannot be exempt from scrutiny. Yet this is what the people who profit from trading this type of material would apparently like to see. It cannot fail to escape the notice of the CPAC that US coin dealers and their lobbyists are currently engaged in active opposition to the imposition of import controls on items without documentation of lawful export (19 U.S.C. 2606) which can only draw attention to the current form of the market for such items in the US. The comments in this docket include those of a few hundred collectors (among the 50 000 collectors of ancient coins the lobby group the Ancient Coin Collectors’ Guild claims). They, fired up by the alarmist rhetoric of the dealers’ lobbyists, oppose restricting imports onto the US market to only those with documentation of what the CCPIA considers to be lawful export. Their collective voice in favour of the reintroduction of an unrestricted flow onto the US market of freshly imported archaeological artefacts such as ancient coins without documentation of lawful export shows why it is so important that US vigilance is maintained.

Comment: Barford misstates the impact of import restrictions and thus mischaraterizes the nature of the opposition. Barford suggests that restrictions only impact freshly imported archaeological artifacts from Cyprus. In fact, import restrictions impact all imports of coins of Cypriot type from legitimate markets abroad. Such restrictions are grossly overbroad. Coins legitimately for sale in the UK or Germany cannot be imported under these restrictions without detailed documentation that does not exist for most ancient coins. Even worse, US Customs has evidently taken the position that coins of Cypriot type on the designated list may only be imported if they are pictured in an auction catalogue predating the 2007 restrictions. This bars entry of virtually all Cypriot coins. In addition, the "current form of the market in the US" Barford complains about is no different than the "current form of the market" in the EU, of which Cyprus is a part. As such, restrictions only discriminate against American citizens.

The US needs to maintain their [sic] tough stance with anyone attempting to abuse the system and continue to seize illicitly-exported material of this type at the US borders (in accordance with the measures envisaged by the 1970 Convention), and in doing so help make international controls on the movement of illicit artefacts more effective.

Closer scrutiny of archaeological and ethnographic material of Cypriot origin crossing US borders is a non-drastic means of providing this help and respecting the obligations of the USA and other states parties under the 1970 UNESCO Convention.

Comment: US Customs already has plenty of tools at its disposal to interdict artifacts looted from Cyprus (including claims of smuggling and theft) without resort to grossly overbroad restrictions that only discriminate against American citizens. If such restrictions are such a good idea, how come only the US applies them? And if Mr. Barford is so concerned about Cypriot cultural heritage, shouldn't he spend at least as much time railing against corrupt Cypriot practices as he does against American collectors?

Is It About Conservation or Control?

2011-12-30T08:13:00.000-08:00

The PAS is a popular program in England and Wales. As I understand it, the Welsh Government is now expected to pay the modest amount necessary to maintain it as part of a general devolvement of central authority. However, Welsh authorities have been slow to address the issue.

This delay has apparently raised the hopes of PAS' few remaining critics in archaeological circles that any effort to continue to record finds in Wales will be killed off as an austerity measure. See
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/12/portable-antiquities-in-wales-details.html

Of course, that won't stop metal detecting, only efforts to record finds not required to be reported under the Treasure Act.

I've already observed that archaeological fanatics are far more interested in control than in conservation. See
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/09/ancient-coins-and-cultural-property.html

Isn't this more proof of that observation? So, if this is not a make work program exclusively for archaeologists, PAS is not worth keeping?

ACCG Comments to CPAC

2011-12-28T12:22:00.000-08:00

ACCG Comments on Cyprus MOU Renewal Request
ACCG comment has been submitted to CPAC
By Wayne G. Sayles
December 26, 2011
The ACCG has submitted formal written comment to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee regarding the consideration of extension to the Memorandum of Understanding with Cyprus. The present MOU added ancient coins to the list of restricted items in 2007. The guild will be represented at this hearing by Wayne G. Sayles, ACCG Executive Director.
The deadline for public comment is January 3, 2012 and all members and interested parties are encouraged to comment online at:

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=i6gbilcab&et=1108968579110&s=0&e=001KF8fwa5AljruuAP2RWzzMmvmwcyrvx-sPPUcl4UpJUz6ieGuK-SyLVmycAvqkbJerT3UZKfR8MDwxThCO4ytRLS0WRMDSud0RAHiyqxyhVv_Iej_d_knynNSvnPiizK1KGtss9kBrd9l89IUMQOzLs3posKZWaDn-YZQW8Mkeqs=
For a PDF download of the ACCG submission Click Here

For a direct link, to the above see http://www.accg.us/News/Item/ACCG_Comments_on_Cyprus_MOU_Renewal_Request.aspx

Library Tragedy to be Used to Justify New Import Restrictions and Return of Hawass?

2011-12-26T14:28:00.000-08:00

Will the tragic burning of a historic library in Egypt during continuing unrest be used to justify "emergency restrictions" on Egyptian cultural artifacts and the return of Zahi Hawass to power?

Read this http://www.drhawass.com/blog/december-17-2011-sad-day-my-life and
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2011/1076/he2.htm

What do you think?

Meanwhile, a generous Gulf sheik has promised financial help to rebuild the collection. See http://gulftoday.ae/portal/1eb8d27d-5e5b-4a25-82aa-fbab4e59f123.aspx

My Own Comments to CPAC

2011-12-26T13:12:00.000-08:00

Dear Prof. Gerstenblith and CPAC:

I am writing on my own behalf, and will be submitting comments on behalf of IAPN and PNG shortly. CPAC recommended against import restrictions on Cypriot coins twice. There is no reason for this to change, and if anything, there is every reason to recommend that the current MOU with Cyprus be terminated.

As to coins, scholarly evidence proves that one cannot assume that coins of Cypriot type only circulated within the Island as has been claimed to justify restrictions. If one cannot assume that Cypriot coins only circulated on the Island, one cannot legally impose import restrictions which by law must apply only to artifacts first discovered in and be subject to the export control of Cyprus.

Moreover, there is no reason to renew the MOU for another 5 years. Cyprus has already had the benefit of restrictions since 1999 on ethnological artifacts and 2002 on archaeological artifacts. Cyprus claims that restrictions are needed because of looting on the occupied side of the Island, but a Swiss scholar who has studied the issue indicates most looted material from both the Turkish and Greek sides of the Island goes to wealthy Greek Cypriot collectors, and not as has been maintained to collectors abroad. In addition, all this appears to be done with the full knowledge and acquiescence of Greek Cypriot authorities. Under the circumstances, why should the US burden its own citizens and small businesses with such restrictions? To do so will only reward Cypriot authorities for their own considerable hypocrisy and thus make a mockery of the supposed purpose of such MOU’s to protect archaeological context.

Thank you for your consideration of my views.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays

2011-12-24T11:29:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to readers of this blog.

Cultural Property? Bah humbug, at least for tomorrow.

Rather, if you celebrate Christmas as I do, may you spend tomorrow with family and friends, and pay no attention to anything other than celebrating the day in a most suitable way.

CPAC and CPIA Issues Recap

2011-12-24T10:59:00.000-08:00

Archaeo-Blogger Paul Barford has this rather uncharitable advice for a small businessman looking for information about the the CPIA, CPAC and import restrictions. See http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/12/looking-for-ccpia-duh.html

I've covered this area before, and here are some of the posts that hopefully will be of some help to those looking for some basic information:

For a short recap of the governing law, see: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/07/short-recap-of-cultural-property.html

For a discussion of the impact of import restrictions, see http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-is-impact-of-import-restrictions.html

For discussion about how the governing law operates in practice, see

http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/03/cultural-property-implementation-act-is.html

http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2010/04/aba-panel-on-1970-unesco-convention-and.html

No Christmas Truce

2011-12-22T02:47:00.000-08:00

Evidently, there is an element within the archaeological community that thinks it is entirely appropriate to ridicule American citizens and others who have responded to the US State Department's invitation to comment on the proposed renewal of the Cypriot MOU. See http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/12/these-people-are-americans-so-you.html

Shame on them and their efforts to suppress any public opinion against the "archaeology over all" perspective. And shame on the other archaeological blogs that link to them and hence promote their views.

AIA Lobby Shop Springs into Action

2011-12-19T06:17:00.000-08:00

The AIA styles itself as not for profit educational organization, but is acting more and more like a lobby shop in support of foreign cultural bureaucracies all the time. Indeed, the AIA's website now has an "advocacy page" (See http://www.archaeological.org/sitepreservation/advocacy) that links to an effort to gin up comments for the upcoming CPAC meetings on Cyprus and Peru. See http://www.archaeological.org/CPAC

And here is the AIA's party line:

"The looting of sites damages archaeological contexts, hampering archaeologists' study of ancient remains and distorting our reconstruction of the past. Because our understanding of the past is dependent on our ability to recover, study, and interpret ancient sites and artifacts in their original context, the preservation of sites is critical to the creation of archaeological knowledge, as well as to the maintenance of cultural heritage. A commitment to stopping the import of looted cultural material will help to prevent the destruction of the archaeological record."

While its hard to disagree with most of this statement, the last sentence is misleading in the extreme. If the advocates at the AIA were being honest, they would acknowledge that import restrictions as formulated and applied are grossly overbroad. Instead of focusing on artifacts reasonably suspected to be looted, they in fact embargo the import of all undocumented material on a "designated list"-- including many artifacts openly and legally available abroad-- on the assumption it "must be stolen." Of course, the "undocumented" equals "looted" equation only makes some sense for narrow ranges of "culturally significant" material that has not regularly appeared on international markets for generations. Yet, the ideologues at the AIA and the obdurate bureaucrats at State and US Customs have stretched the reach of import restrictions to even the most common artifacts, like ancient coins, that have been widely collected without provenance information for hundreds of years.

State Department, Spain, Navy (and Archaeologists?) Torpeodo Effort to Change Law to Allow Commercial Salvage of More Warships

2011-12-18T06:46:00.000-08:00

The State Department, joined by the US Navy, Spain and presumably archaeologists, have torpedoed an effort to to change the law to allow more commerical exploitation of old warships. See http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Treasure-hunters-battle-for-500-million-bounty-2406490.php

The State Department and US Navy claimed their opposition was meant to protect against commercial exploitation of US warships, but the reality is that the change in the law would likely have only impacted exploitation of Spanish warships that were also used to transport treasure from the New World.

More evidence that the State Department will always take the side of foreign governments over US commercial interests, particularly where those interests are also opposed by the US archaeological lobby. (This gives the bureaucrats at least some cover in that they can say there are US academic interests on their side.)

One wonders whether the next move of Spain and their archaeological allies will be to claim that Spanish treasure already in the hands of US collectors and museums should be repatriated to Spain (or should that be Mexico, Bolivia or Peru)?

AIA View of CPAC Meeting on Bulgarian and Peruvian MOU

2011-12-17T16:51:00.000-08:00

Here is the AIA's view of the Bulgarian and Peruvian MOU hearings: http://www.archaeological.org/news/advocacy/7317

The discussion underscores the ideological nature of the AIA's opposition to collecting. Practical concerns and fairness to small business don't rate for these out of touch academics. They also willfully ignore the fact that the unprovenanced coins they want to restrict are freely available within Bulgaria itself. If collecting unprovenanced coins is such a problem as Bulgaria is concerned, why doesn't the Bulgarian government clamp down on Bulgarian collectors? It won't as that would cause an uproar, but that won't stop the obdurate State Department bureaucrats from clamping down on US collectors.

Instead of clamping down on collectors, how about regulating metal detectors at the source?

The preferred method of regulation, of course, is a system akin to that in Britain, Wales and Scotland, but the CPIA itself requires that the source country try effective regulation of metal detectors before US authorities restrict American's ability to import cultural goods like coins.

For my view of the public meeting, see
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/11/public-cpac-meeting-on-belize-and.html

Archaeological Lobby Sinks Sackler Exhibit

2011-12-17T10:52:00.001-08:00

The archaeological lobby has succeeded in sinking an exhibit at the Sackler Gallery that would have given the American public an opportunity to learn something about early international trade routes in the Orient. See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/sackler-gallery-cancels-controversial-exhibit-of-tang-dynasty-treasures-from-shipwreck/2011/12/15/gIQAnlyjwO_story.html?wprss=rss_style

The exhibit was supposedly sunk because the excavation work was not up to professional standards-- though one suspects that the real reason was to appease archaeologists who have little use for commercial salvers, whether contracted by a foreign government or not.

I've previously covered this dispute here:
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/06/smithsonian-caves-on-shiprwreck-exhibit.html and http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/06/none-of-their-business-ii.html

For a thoughtful critique of the archaeological establishment's views on this topic, See http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org/blog?mode=PostView&bmi=711550

Supposedly, the plan now is to "re-excavate the wreck" using AIA approved archaeologists no doubt. But money has to be raised first. Hopefully, taxpayer dollars won't be tapped for such project, but it will not surprise me if the US Government is ultimately expected to foot the bill for what probably is little more at this point than a vanity project.

Hispanic Society Coins Put on the Auction Block

2011-12-16T06:51:00.000-08:00

The Hispanic Society has put its collection of 38,000 historic Spanish coins up on the auction block in one lot with an estimated value of between $25-$38 million. See http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/hispanic-society-enlists-sothebys-to-auction-rare-collection-of-coins/

Archer Huntington endowed both the Hispanic Society and the American Numismatic Society, where the coins were previously kept. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Milton_Huntington The fate of the group was the subject of litigation between the ANS and the Hispanic Society, which ended up with the Hispanic Society being awarded the coins they now want to sell.

If the collection could not stay intact, I'd rather it was broken up to allow American collectors and perhaps the ANS or ANA a chance at purchasing at least some of the coins. Given the estimated price, who will buy the group? The Smithsonian? Laughable. Cash strapped Spain? Doubtful. More likely the coins will go further East to the Persian Gulf or perhaps China.

Will the ANS be conducting a similar fire sale directed at foreign buyers sometime in the not too distant future? Let's hope not, but recognize such a possibility is becoming more likely given today's realities.

I've observed that both a prosperous numismatic trade and collector interest are essential to fund the ANS and the serious study of ancient numismatics in this country. See http://numismatics.org/wikiuploads/DigitalPublications/WitschonkeTompaFinal.pdf The fanatics at the AIA and the obdurate bureaucrats at the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs might want to consider how their efforts to suppress ancient coin collecting will impact numismatic study in this country before its too late.

Another Triumph for the Treasure Act

2011-12-15T06:25:00.000-08:00

A British Metal Detectorist has discovered and reported an immensely important hoard of Viking era coins and silver artifacts. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/8955955/Viking-hoard-provides-new-clues-to-previously-unknown-ruler.html and http://finds.org.uk/news

The hoard contains a coin of a previously unknown ruler as well as coins from from far off Germany and the Middle East. More proof that even in the "Dark Ages" coins travelled long distances from their place of manufacture.

Although archaeological cranks may still find reason to criticize the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme and the cooperation if fosters among members of the public, archaeologists, and museum professionals, how many such hoards are voluntarily reported in their preferred models of cultural heritage management such as Greece, Egypt, Turkey, Italy and Cyprus?

Dirty Dishes

2011-12-14T12:54:00.000-08:00

The New York Times is reporting that some dishes that were evidently taken from one of Saddam's palaces are being repatriated to Iraq after being seized by US Marshalls. See http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/looted-dishes-used-in-art-project-returned-to-iraq/

The plates had evidently attracted the notice of Iraqi officials after being used for performance art by an Iraqi-Jewish American whose parents had been driven from the country in 1946.

This seems to be yet another case of cultural property overkill. And I wonder whether the Iraqi diplomats would have been as keen to demand repatriation of the dinner plates if the artist had not been from an Iraqi-Jewish family.

Shouldn't the artist and his family be the ones who deserve reparations?

Anglo-Saxons at NATGEO

2011-12-12T08:21:00.000-08:00

The National Geographic Society is hosting a fantastic exhibit about the Staffordshire Hoard. See http://events.nationalgeographic.com/events/exhibits/2011/10/29/anglo-saxon-hoard/ and http://www.staffordshirehoard.org.uk/

Archaeological fanatics will no doubt dislike the exhibit's heroic photograph of the metal detectorist who found the hoard, but without him, the Treasure Act and the Portable Antiquities Scheme, it is highly unlikely the hoard would ever have come to light.

This is not a conventional hoard of buried treasure. Rather, it appears to be a collection of battlefield spoils. The hoard was found spread about a farmers field near the site of an old Roman road. There were absolutely no other features to attract the interest of archaeologists, and it is highly doubtful the site would ever have been explored if the find was not reported.

The exhibit itself is by far the best ever I have seen at the National Geographic Society. Great care was taken not only to conserve the objects, but to place them in historical context with the use of reconstructions, videos and computer graphics. Kudos to National Geographic and the many groups that made this exhibit possible.

Coin World on Greek Import Restrictions

2011-12-10T04:56:00.000-08:00

Coin World has published this straightforward article about the new import restrictions on Greek coins.

Seehttp://www.coinworld.com/articles/mou-results-in-broad-restrictions-by-state-de/

The author might have also added that import restrictions are not only difficult to enforce, but to comply with as well. Under the circumstances, one must again ask why the Obama Administration-- which has promised to curb stupid regulations-- has instead imposed these broad restrictions, particularly when public support is so slim.

Will the Obama State Department Uphold Import Restrictions Allegedly Founded on Cronyism?

2011-12-09T06:46:00.000-08:00

How did the controverisal decision to impose import restriction on Cypriot coins come about? This is a significant issue because this "precedent" has formed the basis for far more extensive restrictions on Chinese, Italian and now Greek coins.

Well, here are some unrebutted allegations from ACCG's Amended Complaint in the Baltimore Test Case. They are largely based on information from FOIA releases:

48. In or about November 2005, Dr. Pavlos Florentzos, Director of the Cyprus Department of Antiquities, visited the United States at the invitation of CAARI and with the support of the U.S. Embassy in Cyprus. During this time, CAARI facilitated a meeting between Florentzos and employees of ECA’s Cultural Heritage Center, including its Executive Director, Maria Kourpoupas, and a staff archaeologist. See J. Green, Cyprus Director of Antiquities, Dr. Pavolos Flourtzos, Visits the U.S., 31 CAARI News 3 (Winter 2006).

49. Upon information and belief, CAARI has benefited from direct and/or indirect financial and/or material support from State, the Government of Cyprus and Cypriot entities, including the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation.

50. Upon information and belief, the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation was established to rescue the Island’s cultural heritage, which the Foundation maintains was pillaged and destroyed by Turkish forces when they occupied the Northern part of the Island. Upon further information and belief, the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation maintains one of the largest collections of ancient coins of Cypriot type within Cyprus. Upon further information and belief, the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation purchases unprovenanced coins on the open market for its collection of the sort now subject to U.S. import restrictions on coins of Cypriot type.

51. On January 19, 2006, State announced a five (5) year renewal of its Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Italy relating to cultural artifacts. Once again, Defendants exempted ancient coins struck in Italy from import restrictions.

52. On December 7, 2006, the Federal Register carried a notice indicating that CPAC would conduct a review of the MOU with Cyprus. That notice invited public comment to be submitted no later than January 11, 2007. The Federal Register notice contained no mention of an effort to extend new restrictions to coins. See 71 Fed. Reg. 71015-71016 (Dec. 7, 2006).

53. On December 8, 2006, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, ECA Miller Crouch indicated in a response to an e-mail inquiry that he “d[id] not anticipate” that new restrictions on coins would be addressed at CPAC’s hearing to consider the renewal of the MOU with Cyprus.

54. On December 14, 2006, two numismatic trade associations filed a request with State to recuse CPAC member Joan Connelly from voting on any last minute effort to impose import restrictions on ancient Cypriot coins. That recusal request noted that Dr. Connelly excavated in Cyprus and had publicly thanked “the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus, its Director, Dr. Demos Christou and the Ministry of Communication and Works, Republic of Cyprus, for granting us the license to excavate on Yeronisos Island.”

55. On January 12, 2007, State summarily denied the recusal request.

56. On January 17, 2007, according to a heavily redacted document released in response to a FOIA request, a State ECA Cultural Heritage Center staff archaeologist conferred with the late Dr. Danielle Parks, an archaeologist associated with the CAARI, about the inclusion of coins in the Cypriot request.

57. On January 19, 2007, according to a document released in response to a FOIA request, Cyprus requested State to amend the designated list of artifacts subject to import restriction to include coins of Cypriot type.

58. On January 25, 2007, CPAC conducted a public hearing on the renewal of the MOU with Cyprus. At that hearing, CPAC Chairman Jay Kislak announced that he had learned that Cyprus had requested that State amend the designated list of Cypriot artifacts subject to import restrictions to include coins of Cypriot type.

59. Upon information and belief, at that same hearing, neither Cypriot authorities nor members of the archaeological community could point to any material change of fact justifying a change in the exemption from import restrictions on Cypriot coins.

60. On January 26, 2007, in response to complaints about the lack of public notice for the inclusion of coins in the Cypriot request, State announced an additional ten (10) day comment period. State made this announcement on the Cultural Heritage Center website and not in the Federal Register. Nevertheless, during this extremely short time frame, numismatic groups generated over 1100 letters opposing the extension of import restrictions to coins.

61. Upon information and belief, comments provided by ACCG and others established: (a) that Cypriot coins were common, with many known examples of coin types struck on the Island; (b) that Cypriot coins travelled widely so that one could not assume that a coin struck in Cyprus was “first discovered” there; (c) that less drastic remedies like the imposition of a treasure trove law and/or the regulation of metal detectors should be tried before import restrictions were considered; (d) and that the CPIA’s “concerted international response” requirement could not be met.

62. Upon information and belief CAARI, the AIA, the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation, and the late Dr. Danielle Parks submitted comments supporting import restrictions at the behest of Cyprus.

63. In a letter dated February 5, 2007, the AIA’s president claimed that it was proper to assume that coins of Cypriot type can be assumed to have Cypriot find spots, because “Coins minted on Cyprus were very rarely taken from the island in antiquity.”

64. On May 2, 2007, Assistant Secretary of State, ECA Dina Powell, the decision maker for the extension of the MOU with Cyprus announced her departure to become the Director for Global Corporate Engagement at Goldman Sachs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dina_Powell (last checked, 7/2/10).

65. Upon information and belief, Goldman Sachs is a bank holding company with worldwide business interests, likely including relationships with Cyprus or Cypriot entities like the Bank of Cyprus.

66. On or about May 7, 2007, according to a document released in response to a FOIA request, CPAC issued its report making its recommendations concerning the extension of the MOU with Cyprus.

67. On or about May 14, 2007, according to a document released in response to a FOIA request, Pavolos Flouretzos, Director, Cypriot Department of Antiquities, admitted in a private communication to State, “It is true that Cypriot coins shared the same destiny as all other coins of the ancient world. As a standard media of exchange they circulated all over the ancient world due to their small size, which facilitated their easy transport… The continuous circulation of coins for many centuries amongst collectors and between collectors and museums make any attempt to locate their exact find spot extremely difficult.”

68. On or about May 16, 2007, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, upon information and belief the third ranking official at State, accepted an award from Greek and Greek Cypriot advocacy groups as these groups lobbied the State policy makers. According to a press release, "Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns was the first Philhellene to receive the Livanos Award. This award is given each year to, as its states on the award, 'that individual who, like George P. Livanos, has utilized ancient Hellenic values to realize extraordinary achievement in modern society while contributing to the improvement of our civilization.'" See http://news.pseka.net/uploads/img/documents/PSEKA-SAE_2007_Conference_EN_01_CEH_01.pdf (last checked, 7/2/10).

69. On or about May 16, 2007, State’s news service quoted Burns as stating on receipt of the Livanos award, "I wear this title of Philhellene rather proudly. You don’t spend four years in Greece, as my wife and three daughters and I did, and not come back feeling committed to Greek thought, to the Greek way of life, to Greece itself in my case....We’re personally committed to the country, to the relationship."

70. On May 17, 2007, according to a document released in response to a FOIA request, Kurt Volker, Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, wrote the Assistant Secretary, ECA Dina Powell, stating “[G]iven our general support for protection of antiquities and the importance of this MOU to our bilateral relations with Cyprus, EUR strongly recommends that ECA approve the renewal of the MOU and include the protection of coins.”

71. On May 29, 2007, according to a document released in redacted form in response to a FOIA request, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, ECA Miller Crouch wrote an “Action Memo” to the decision maker Assistant Secretary, ECA Dina Powell regarding the extension of the MOU with Cyprus. That Action Memo only provides the decision maker with the false choice of approving the import restrictions including coins in their entirety or disapproving them in their entirety. The Action Memo does not provide the decision maker the option of continuing the then current import restrictions without extending them to coins.

72. On May 30, 2007, according to that same document, Assistant Secretary of State Dina Powell signed off on that action memo that authorized import restrictions on ancient coins of Cypriot type.

73. On July 13, 2007, Defendants formally extended import restrictions to coins of Cypriot Types. See Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Pre-Classical and Classical Archaeological Objects and Byzantine Period Ecclesiastical and Ritual Ethnological Material from Cyprus, 19 CFR Part 12, reported at 72 Fed. Reg. 38470-74 (July 13, 2007).

74. On July 16, 2007, the MOU renewal with Cyprus was signed. That MOU fails to suggest that restrictions under the agreement satisfy the CPIA’s requirements, including the requirement “concerted international response” requirement or the requirement that less drastic remedies than import restrictions on coins are not available.

75. On July 19, 2007, Undersecretary Nicholas Burns conducted a signing ceremony for the MOU to coincide with Greek and Greek Cypriot lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill and at the State Department itself. Upon information and belief, representatives of CAARI were invited to this signing ceremony.

76. The official transcript of the Cyprus MOU signing ceremony omits several significant words. In the transcript, Ambassador Kakouris of Cyprus is reported as saying, "In fact, I was reminded just before we came in about something that I had said in January when we were before the Committee and responding to someone very much on the side of the coin collectors who -- talked about the hobby of collecting coins. And I said to him: ‘It may be your hobby, but it's our heritage!" and that is the way that we look at this issue.’"

77. In fact, what Kakouris actually said can be heard (at 10:09 of the audio). There, he states, "In fact, I was reminded by [Cultural Heritage Center ED] Maria Kouroupas just before we came in about something that I had said in January when we were before the Committee and dealing with the coin collectors and somebody who was very much on their side, when he talked about the hobby of collecting coins. And I said to him: ‘It may be your hobby, but it's our heritage!" and that is the way that we look at this issue.’" (Emphasis added.)

78. On July 20, 2007, State issued a press release about the MOU. That press release stated, “With the extension of this MOU, DHS amended the designated list of restricted categories to include ancient coins of Cypriot types produced from the end of the 6th century B.C. to 235 A.D. Coins, a significant and inseparable part of the archaeological record of the island, are especially valuable to understanding the history of Cyprus. This extension of the MOU is consistent with the recommendation of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, which is administered by the Bureau for Educational and Cultural Affairs.” (Emphasis added.)

79. On August 29, 2007, State sent a report mandated under the CPIA to Congress. Under 19 U.S.C. § 2602 (g)(2), that report is required to: (a) describe the actions taken; (b) whether there were any differences between those actions and CPAC’s recommendations; and, (c) if so, the reasons for those differences. That report, however, contains no indication whether State rejected CPAC recommendation against import restrictions on coins, and, if so, why?

80. In addition, that report also indicates that Customs acted as the lead agency for imposing import restrictions on coins. In pertinent part, the report states, “The Federal Register notice for Cyprus was amended by the Department for Homeland Security, in consultation with the Department of State, to include coins of Cypriot types which are also vulnerable to archaeological looting.”

81. In or about July 17, 2007, ECA publicized the new restrictions on coins of Cypriot types on its website as follows: “The Government of the Republic of Cyprus requested and amendment to the designated list to include coins…. Q. What was the response? A. The Cultural Property Implementation Act places the authority for the Designated List with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in consultation with the Department of State. On July 13, 2007, DHS published a Federal Register notice concerning the extension of the agreement and amending the Designated List to include certain coins from Cyprus, effective July 16, 2007.”

82. In or about May-June 2008, the Cyprus News Service quoted CAARI’s president as stating, “CAARI has been in the forefront of the successful effort to renew the Memorandum of Understanding between Cyprus and the USA restricting the import of Cypriot antiquities into the United States…..” See http://www.caari.org/CAARIat30.htm (last checked, 7/2/10).

83. On January 16, 2009, the Federal Register announced import restrictions on Chinese cultural artifacts, including those on early media of exchange to Tang era cash coins. See 19 CFR Part 12, reported at 74 Fed. Reg. 2838-2844 (Jan. 16, 2009).

84. On April 20, 2009, past CPAC Chairman Jay Kislak signed a declaration in FOIA litigation that stated in pertinent part:

o I am told that Section 303 (g) of the CPIA requires the State Department to report to Congress any differences between CPAC’s recommendations and the State Department’s ultimate decision to impose import restrictions. In this regard, the release of the most recent CPAC report related to Cyprus and its discussion about coins could clarify misleading information contained in official State Department documents.

o I specifically recall the Cypriot request that then current import restrictions on other cultural artifacts be extended to coins was a matter of great public controversy. CPAC considered the question specifically and I recall a special vote being taken on this particular issue.

o With that in mind, I have reviewed both an official State Department Press Release and a State Department report made pursuant to CPIA Section 303 (g) about the MOU with Cyprus…I believe it is absolutely false to suggest in those materials that the State Department’s decision to extend import restrictions to ancient coins was consistent with CPAC’s recommendations. The full release of CPAC’s recommendations with regard to coins could be in the public interest because it should clarify misleading information contained in official State Department documents.

Will the Obama Administration and CPAC investigate these allegations before deciding to renew the Cypriot MOU? If true, don't they suggest that the MOU be terminated instead because it is founded on cronyism? If not, why not?

Comment Fatigue or Not Collector Voices Need to Be Heard Once Again!

2011-12-08T10:50:00.000-08:00

Only one month after seeking comments for a proposed MOU with Bulgaria, the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center have announced another short comment period (this time right in the middle of the Holiday season) for a proposed extension of current import restrictions on coins from Cyprus. See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-12-07/html/2011-31408.htm

Those restrictions currently bar entry into the United States of the following coin types unless they are accompanied with documentation establishing that they were out of Cyprus as of the date of the restrictions, July 16, 2007:

1. Issues of the ancient kingdoms of Amathus, Kition, Kourion, Idalion, Lapethos, Marion, Paphos, Soli, and Salamis dating from the end of the 6th century B.C. to 332 B.C.

2. Issues of the Hellenistic period, such as those of Paphos, Salamis, and Kition from 332 B.C. to c. 30 B.C. (including coins of Alexander the Great, Ptolemy, and his Dynasty)

3. Provincial and local issues of the Roman period from c. 30 B.C. to 235 A.D.

Why bother to comment when the State Department rejected CPAC’s recommendations against import restrictions on Cypriot coins back in 2007 and then misled both Congress and the public about its actions? And isn’t it also true that although the vast majority of public comments recorded have been squarely against import restrictions, the State Department and U.S. Customs have imposed import restrictions on coins anyway, most recently on ancient coins from Greece?

Simply, silence just allows the State Department bureaucrats and their allies in the archaeological establishment to claim that collectors have acquiesced to broad restrictions on their ability to import common ancient coins that are widely available worldwide. And, of course, acquiescence is all that may be needed to justify going back and imposing import restrictions on the Roman Imperial coins that are still exempt from these regulations.

Under the circumstances, please take 5 minutes and tell CPAC, the State Department bureaucrats and the archaeologists what you think.

How do I comment? To submit comments three pages in length or less electronically, go here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=DOS-2011-0135-0002
If you are having trouble, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov/), enter the Docket No. DOS-2011-0135 for Cyprus, and follow the prompts to submit a comment. To send comments via US Mail or FEDEX see the directions contained in the Federal Register Notice above. For further information, also see http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/whatsnew.html.

What should I say? The State Department bureaucracy has dictated that any public comments should relate solely to the following statutory criteria:

1. Whether the cultural patrimony of Cyprus is in jeopardy from looting of its archaeological materials;

2. Whether Cyprus has taken measures consistent with the 1970 UNESCO Convention to protect its cultural patrimony;

3. Whether application of U.S. import restrictions, if applied in concert with similar restrictions by other art importing countries, would be of substantial benefit in deterring a serious situation of pillage and that less drastic remedies are not available; and,

4. Whether the application of import restrictions is consistent with the general interest of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes.

(See 19 U.S.C. § 2602 (a).)

Yet, collectors can really only speak to what they know. So, tell them what you think within this broad framework. For instance, over time, import restrictions will certainly impact the American public’s ability to study and preserve historical coins and maintain people to people contacts with collectors abroad. Yet, foreign collectors—including collectors in Cyprus—will be able to import coins as before. And, one can also remind CPAC that less drastic remedies, like regulating metal detectors or instituting reporting programs akin to the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme, must be tried first.

Be forceful, but polite. We can and should disagree with what the State Department bureaucrats and their allies in the archaeological establishment are doing to our hobby, but we should endeavor to do so in an upstanding manner.

Please submit comments just once, before the deadline on Jan. 3, 2012.

Immediate Past President of the AIA to American Museums: Stop Collecting!

2011-12-06T06:01:00.000-08:00

Brian Rose, the AIA's immediate past president, has been quoted as telling America's museums to stop collecting antiquities. According to the report,

Rose said he felt the era in which American museums can collect antiquities is coming to a close.

Source countries are becoming more aggressive in pursuing traffickers and enforcing laws against looting, he said.

....

Buying antiquities could alienate foreign governments and prevent the cooperation necessary for international loans of individual objects or traveling exhibitions, Rose said.

“You’ll end up in litigation, and you won’t be able to enter into collaborative projects,” he said. “It’s all about collaboration now.”

Rather than collect, museums ought to forge agreements with source countries to share cultural riches, Rose said.

See http://www.cleveland.com/arts/index.ssf/2011/12/conference_at_the_american_aca.html

Despite such quotes, archaeo-blogger Paul Barford continues to claim that the AIA is really not against collecting. But if so, where are quotes from the AIA's leadership indicating that they support the rights of ordinary Americans to collect minor portable antiquities, such as coins, let alone more significant items?

Addendum: For more on the AIA's anti-collecting stance, see http://www.archaeological.org/sitepreservation/faqs

Q: Isn’t this disagreement between collectors and archaeologists really the work of a bunch of radical archaeologists who have lost touch with the public?
A: No, in fact, the stand taken by the AIA, the oldest and largest archaeological organization in North America, is representative of the point of view of all the mainstream archaeological organizations in the U.S. including the Society for American Archaeology, the Society for Historic Archaeology, the American Schools of Oriental Research and others. It’s also the stance of other major international archaeological groups. In fact, in January, an unprecedented agreement will be signed among the AIA, the German Archaeological Institute and the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences to battle the scourge of looting. A Harris interactive survey published in 2000 also showed that public opinion agrees with the position of the AIA—the main value of archaeological sites is scientific and educational and U.S. museums should not acquire illegally exported artifacts.

Q: What about the orphaned object that is out of the ground and circulating in the market with its context already destroyed and it provenance uncertain? Shouldn’t this object be acquired and given a good home?
A: The acquisition of these objects encourages looting. Objects like this are likely stolen. When confronted with an object like this, the best thing to do is to contact the authorities. You would not buy a hot car or a diamond watch from a disreputable source -- why buy an antiquity from a disreputable salesperson?

Q: In many cases there are multiple copies of certain antiquities, some with so many duplicates that they cannot all be displayed. What is wrong with the trade in multiples?
A: Some countries do allow trade in duplicates, including Israel. But it is difficult to identify a duplicate from a country that allows trade, and it’s difficult to prevent the sale of new objects as duplicates. Furthermore, most museums and private collectors are interested in high-end, unique objects, not “duplicates.” It’s primarily the trade in expensive, unique artifacts that drives the illegal market.

I would note the AIA also describes what constitutes a "licit artifact" according to its view of the law, but that is hardly an endoresment of collecting.

Greek Import Restrictions: Winners and Losers

2011-12-04T11:33:00.000-08:00

Winners

1. The Greek Cultural Bureaucracy-- The Greek Government has mismanaged its economy so badly that it is relying on Germany and the rest of the EU to bail it out. Greece's cultural bureaucracy is as poorly managed and as corrupt as the rest of the Greek government. Yet, the MOU will no doubt be cited as some sort of U.S. "seal of approval" for the status quo.

2. The Obdurate State Department Cultural Bureaucracy- You've got to hand it to the entrenched bureaucrats at the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center. Important members of Congress have expressed severe misgivings about the implementation of their statutory authority. They have been sued in Court, and even though their decisions have been upheld to date as a matter of judicial deference, this is not the same as a ringing endorsement. Yet, culture creep has turned into a roll with these expansive regulations, by far the most wide ranging since the Chinese MOU in 2009.

3. The AIA and its Archaeological Fanatics- These fanatics hold that the only legitimate exchange of archaeological artifacts is a museum loan. They view import restrictions as a way to clamp down on a trade they do not believe should exist. So far their anti-collecting agenda has meshed well with the nationalism of countries like Greece and the predilection of the State Department to trade favors to the detriment of American collectors, dealers and museums.

4. Wealthy Greek Collectors- The fanatics criticise American collectors and museums, but don't seem to care that wealthy Greek collectors buy from the same sources as American collectors do. Now, Greek collectors will gain a competitive advantage over their American counterparts who can no longer import undocumented cultural goods. No wonder a representative from the Alpha Bank, which maintains Greece's best coin collection in private hands, was part of the Greek delegation that attended the public meeting of CPAC that discussed the MOU.

Losers

1. Greece's Cultural Patrimony-Even before Greece's recent financial meltdown, the country was highly dependent on EU funds to care for its major sites. Now, with money so tight, how can the country take care of its major sites, let alone the millions of minor objects in its stores? Yet, Greek cultural officials will no doubt hope that news about the MOU will will divert attention away from these hard financial realities and help stave off much needed reforms.

2. The CPIA and the Process Congress Contemplated- Import restrictions under the CPIA are supposed to be limited to culturally significant artifacts. Less onerous measures are supposed to be considered first. The restrictions are supposed to be part of a concerted international response. Here, these broad restrictions simply ignore these requirements. Moreover, the failure to give heed to the vast majority of public comments that opposed restrictions on coins again suggests that the whole process is little more than a farce.

3. The Small Businesses of the Antiquities and Numismatic trade- Import restrictions bar entry of cultural goods legitimately for sale abroad where documentation requirements for legal import cannot be met. This is particularly a problem for the small businesses of the numismatic trade. The documentation necessary for legal import is either typically unavailable for artifacts of limited value like most ancient coins or cost prohibitive to produce for such inexpensive items.

4. US Collectors- US collectors of cultural goods, including the thousands upon thousands of Greek coin collectors will face considerable problems securing material, particularly as time goes on.

5. US Museums- Loans are a poor substitute for purchases or donations for collecting museums. The archaeological fanatics may promote loans as a substitute, but they don't have to arrange such loans with the Greek bureaucracy or pay the considerable expense associated with such loans, which typically include expensive conservation costs.

6. US Customs- US Customs officers now have another broad set of import restrictions to administer. While they may make the "big bust" on occasion, I doubt that will make up for the frustration factor of trying to ascertain whether every ancient coin or minor antiquity that "looks Greek" is on the designated list or not.

Obdurate Obama Bureaucracy Imposes Broad Import Restrictions on Greek Coins and Cultural Goods

2011-12-01T13:47:00.001-08:00

The Obama State Department and US Customs have imposed broad import restrictions on most Greek coins and other cultural goods. See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-12-01/html/2011-30905.htm

The restrictions on coins are exceptionally broad, but seem to exclude large denomination trade coins:

Coins—Many of the mints of the
listed coins can be found in B.V. Head,
Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek
Numismatics (London, 1911) and C.M.
Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek
Coins (London, 1976). Many of the
Roman provincial mints in Greece are
listed in A. Burnett et al., Roman
Provincial Coinage I: From the Death of
Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44 BC–
AD 69) (London, 1992) and id., Roman
Provincial Coinage II: From Vespasian
to Domitian (AD 69–96) (London, 1999).
a. Greek Bronze Coins—Struck by
city-states, leagues, and kingdoms that
operated in territory of the modern
Greek state (including the ancient
territories of the Peloponnese, Central
Greece, Thessaly, Epirus, Crete and
those parts of the territories of ancient
Macedonia, Thrace and the Aegean
islands that lay within the boundaries of
the modern Greek state). Approximate
date: 5th century B.C. to late 1st century
B.C.
b. Greek Silver Coins—This category
includes the small denomination coins
of the city-states of Aegina, Athens, and
Corinth, and the Kingdom of Macedonia
under Philip II and Alexander the Great.
Such coins weigh less than
approximately 10 grams and are known
as obols, diobols, triobols,
hemidrachms, and drachms. Also
included are all denominations of coins
struck by the other city-states, leagues,
and kingdoms that operated in the
territory of the modern Greek state
(including the ancient territories of the
Peloponnese, Central Greece, Thessaly,
Epirus, Crete, and those parts of the
territories of ancient Macedonia, Thrace
and the Aegean islands that lie within
the boundaries of the modern Greek
state). Approximate date: 6th century
B.C. to late 1st century B.C.
c. Roman Coins Struck in Greece—In
silver and bronze, struck at Roman and
Roman provincial mints that operated in
the territory of the modern Greek state
(including the ancient territories of the
Peloponnese, Central Greece, Thessaly,
Epirus, Crete, and those parts of the
territories of ancient Macedonia, Thrace
and the Aegean islands that lie within
the boundaries of the modern Greek
state). Approximate date: late 2nd
century B.C. to 3rd century A.D.

Obviously, the obdurate bureaucracy could care less that over 70% of the public comments received by CPAC opposed these restrictions and that the actual support for them is limited to archaeological fanatics who hold that the only legitimate cultural exchange is a museum loan.

It is also ironic that these restrictions provide for the repatriation of any coins seized by US Customs to the bankrupt Greek state, which has no money to care for major cultural sites, let alone for the thousands upon thousands of ancient Greek coins already within State collections.

Again, more proof that the Obama administration is anti-small business and pro-government regulation, despite all the claims to the contrary.

Germany Told to Save Europe

2011-11-29T07:35:00.000-08:00

Europeans (and Americans) are looking to Germany to "save Europe" by doing more to prop up the bankrupt Greek economy and the ever more shaky Italian one. See
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d29da7fc-19ee-11e1-b9d7-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1f6othzXp

However, throwing more money at the Greeks and the Italians will only delay the inevitable. What is really needed is to break down the internal barriers in each country that have led to special interests strangling any chance for much needed economic reforms.

But this is a blog about cultural property issues. On that score, isn't it funny that self-righteous archaeologists hold up Italy and Greece as models for all to emulate? Meanwhile, rational systems like those in Germany and the United Kingdom that recognize the importance of collectors and the trade in cultural goods to the appreciation of ancient culture and its ultimate preservation, get little but scorn heaped on them, largely because they don't allow archaeologists to monopolize policy toward cultural property issues.

Archaeologists assume that government control over all cultural artifacts is the answer-- but how can this be, particularly in the current environment where these governments and their economic and cultural systems that favor the connected few are facing default?

Do Import Restrictions Only Apply to "Illicitly Exported" Items?

2011-11-27T08:15:00.001-08:00

Do MOU's only apply to "illicitly exported" artifacts as archaeo-blogger Paul Barford has claimed?

No. In fact, import restrictions as applied by US Customs bar entry of coins openly and legitimately sold in markets abroad merely because they are of a type on a designated list.

There are limited exceptions to this embargo, but they provide little solace for coin collectors.

First, for coins coming directly from the country for which import restrictions are granted, there is an exception if they are accompanied with an export permit. However, this is easier said than done. There are currently import restrictions on certain coins of Cypriot, Chinese and Italian types. Cyprus offers no export permits. Italy does, though the process is evidently time consuming. When the issue was being discussed before CPAC, it was said that the Chinese regularly issued export certificates for certain items. However, since there have been reports that they are no longer so easy to obtain. Even if export certificates are provided, the costs of obtaining them may very well exceed the value of the coin itself, particularly if the coin in question is only worth a few dollars.

The second means of legal import is applied in the much more common situation where a coin is coming from one of the open markets in a third country. That anticipates procuring certifications documenting that the coin in question was out of either Cyprus, China or Italy as of the date of the restrictions. Again, even if this information is available and the foreign consigner is willing to provide it, the costs of compliance may very well exceed the value of the coin itself.

Import restrictions do indeed apply to all undocumented coins on the designated list, not just "illegally exported" ones as Barford misleadingly claims.

Such restrictions are therefore grossly overinclusive-- and do indeed suggest that the Obama State Department has taken an anti-small business position in imposing them, particularly on such popular and widely collected issues as the Greek coins of S. Italy, Sicily and certain Roman Republican and Imperial city coins.

Such coins can and are freely traded worldwide, but no longer can easily be imported into the US. Thus, these restrictions are not only place onerous burdens on small businesses, they also discriminate against American collectors.

How then are such restrictions consistent with President Obama's stated goals of eliminating onerous government regulations and protecting the interests of American small business?

Small Business Saturday Promotion Needs to Be Extended to Obama CPAC

2011-11-26T06:47:00.000-08:00

American Express is running advertisements in the United States promoting "Small Business Saturday." The campaign underscores the importance of small business to the American economy, something that one also often hears from politicians of both political parties as well.

Such a promotion also needs to be run for the Obama CPAC, the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center. President Obama may claim that he sympathizes with small business, but no such sympathy was on display at CPAC's recent meeting on a proposed MOU with Bulgaria.

Instead, Jane Levine, a former prosecutor for the FBI's Art Crime team who now runs Sotheby's compliance department and who is an Obama CPAC pick for a trade slot on CPAC, seemed to suggest that it should be "easy" for the small businesses of the numismatic trade to comply with the certification requirements for legal import of items on the designated list under the CPIA.

Really? As I explained to Ms. Levine, the small businesses of the numismatic trade (most of which are sole proprietorships) really don't have the resources of a Sotheby's to cope with all the red tape involved (even assuming that European sources would be willing to provide the required certifications for EACH restricted coin that is imported). And as I also noted, Customs has been known to go well beyond the documentation requirements of the CPIA and only allow restricted items entry if they are pictured in a catalogue predating any import restrictions. This of course forecloses the import of virtually every ancient coin type on the designated list, as perhaps only one in every 10,000 or so coins actually is significant enough to be catalogued in this manner.

Although one hopes there is enough common sense left somewhere in the State Department or Customs to realize that the CPIA's restrictions were never meant to apply to such numerous and inexpensive artifacts like most ancient coins, one suspects that this really won't matter to a group of AIA members or supporters that hold that that the only legitimate exchange of cultural artifacts is a long term loan from a source country museum to a like institution in the United States.

Hopefully, someone in the Obama White House political operation will realize there is a problem at CPAC and the State Department that is threatening to turn ancient coin collectors (most of whom are likely Democrats) against President Obama's reelection bid. Can the President's appointees really afford to alienate at least 50,000 serious ancient coin collectors and the hundreds of small businesses of the numismatic trade, particularly when the number of public comments recorded in support of MOU's is so infinitesimal?

Chinese Auction Houses to US State Department and AIA: Suckers!

2011-11-25T07:54:00.000-08:00

The Art Newspaper has reported that China Guardian, a well respected Chinese auction house that sells Chinese antiquities and ancient coins, is to open a New York Office.

For now, China Guardian plans to use its office to drum up consignments for its auctions in China, but it is not foreclosing the possibility that its longer term plans may include establishing a presence in the US Market.

Of course, China Guardian will no doubt be able to use its excellent contacts with the Chinese Government to ensure that it secures export permits for any artifacts it might choose to sell abroad.

While China Guardian will no doubt execute its plans quite successfully, one must consider that any success it may achieve will likely be largely based on the competitive advantage it will have over Sotheby's and other US Auction Houses, all courtesy of the US State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its moronic import restrictions on Chinese archaeological artifacts.

One must also wonder whether the AIA and all those self-righteous archaeologists that strongly supported a MOU with China now realize all they have done is to help allow the Chinese themselves to corner the market in Chinese artifacts.

More Thoughts on Stuart Campbell's Ruler

2011-11-22T12:03:00.001-08:00

During CPAC's recent public meeting about the proposed Bulgarian MOU, I borrowed a page from Stuart Campbell, a Scottish archaeologist and government official, to suggest most people consider illicit excavations to be no worse than a traffic violation.

Of course, not all illicit excavations are equal. Here is how I would rank them from the most troubling to the least:

Illicit excavations from world heritage sites;

Illicit excavations from active archaeological sites;

Illicit excavations from inactive archaeological sites;

Illicit excavations from archaeological sites that are obvious, but have not been excavated;

Illicit excavations from mounds of excavated dirt on inactive archaeological sites;

Illicit excavations from private land where there are no obvious archaeological features;

Illicit excavations from private land that already has been disturbed by ploughing.

And speaking of "wrongs," where would most people rank any failure of archaeologists to:

Properly record what they find;

Properly publish what they find;

Properly preserve what they find;

Properly display what they find.

Where would archaeologists rank theses sins? Are they any worse than illicit excavations?

Bulgarian Deputy Minister of Culture Fired, Rehired

2011-11-19T12:17:00.001-08:00

Bulgarian Deputy Minister of Culture Todor Chobanov has been rehired as an advisor to assist in the development of cultural tourism soon after being fired as Deputy Minister of Culture of Bulgaria. See
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=133616

Chobanov was evidently instrumental in the passage of Bulgaria's much criticised cultural heritage law and likely also had something to do in asking the US to impose import restrictions on Bulgarian cultural artifacts.

Public CPAC Meeting on Belizean and Bulgarian MOU's, Nov. 16, 2011

2011-11-17T11:07:00.000-08:00

CPAC Chair Prof. Patty Gerstenblith (PG, DePaul, Public Representative) began by thanking all speakers or those who had provided comments to CPAC. PG then asked all CPAC members to introduce themselves and mention their affiliations. They are: Katherine Reid (KR, Cleveland Museum (retired)-Museum); Nina Archabal (NA, Minn. Historical Society-Museum); Marta de la Torre (MT- Florida International University, Public); James Willis (JW, James Willis Tribal Art-Trade); Nancy Wilkie (NW-Carlton College, Archaeology); Barbara Bluhm Kaul (BK,Trustee, Art Institute of Chicago- Public); Jane Levine (JL, Sotheby’s Compliance Department (ex-prosecutor)- Trade); and Rosemary Joyce (RJ,U. Cal., Berkley-Anthropology). Two slots, one in archaeology and the other a trade representative, remain vacant. KR, NW and JW also served under the Bush Administration. The others are Obama Appointees though PG and MT also served the Clinton Administration. There was also staff present including CPAC Executive Director Maria Kouroupas, a Committee lawyer, and Committee archaeologists.

Belize

Belize was discussed first. The following individuals spoke: Josh Knerly (JK-AAMD); Elizabeth Gilgan (EG-SAFE, but there personally); Brian Daniels (BD-U. Penn Cultural Center); Christina Luke (CL-AIA); Patricia Mcinerny (PM-UNC, Chapel Hill).

JK stated the AAMD supports the conclusion of a MOU with Belize with the following provisos. First, CPAC must ensure that only material identifiable as being “first discovered in” Belize is restricted. Second, Belize needs to appoint one point of contact for museum loans and provide more material for loans. AAMD members had reported that Belize has only offered one piece for a loan that was made to the Peabody Museum.

NW asked whether Belize was a transit point for looted artifacts from other Central American countries. JK indicated that was possible. PG asked if import restrictions impacted the AAMD now that it had accepted a 1970 provenance rule. JK indicated no, but this made museum loans more important than ever. KR asked about dealing with the bureaucracy of Belize. JK indicated that it was difficult, but expressed hopes this situation would improve. In so doing, he noted the Italian government has now provided a single contact point for such loans.

EG assisted Belize to apply for a MOU. She apparently undertook this work as part of her course of study while employed at the AIA. She began by training police in Belize. She was happy when newly trained officers caught twelve American environmental students that had tried to take artifacts out of the country. The night they spent in jail taught them a lesson. It was all very exciting. She next studied Sotheby’s catalogues for unprovenanced Pre-Columbian artifacts. EG could not identify the artifacts in the catalogues as coming from Belize. EG did not review any sources other than Sotheby’s catalogues.

BD disputed the AAMD’s statement that Belize had only loaned one object. He listed three travelling exhibits where Belize provided a total of 33 artifacts as evidence of Belize’s efforts. He also indicated that Belize offers long term loans of study artifacts to specific researchers like Richard Leventhal of the Penn Cultural Heritage Center. These loans are negotiated on an individual basis.

CL indicated that MOU’s can also be used for cultural exchanges of students and archaeologists. Belize has been a great host for archaeologists. Any MOU should also include Colonial Material. NW wondered if more could be done to assure regional cooperation on looting.

PM indicated there is current looting in Belize. She recently saw looting of rock shelters. Belize has a good history of cultural interchange with the British Commonwealth (Belize is a former Crown Colony), with the United States and with Canada. RJ asked PM if she could identify material as coming from Belize. She indicated that it was possible to identify such material on stylistic grounds, based on identifiable inscriptions or its composition. However, it often travelled outside of modern day Belize. PM cited as an example a ceremonial drinking cup which was evidently gifted to a minor lord in what is today Guatemala.

Bulgaria

The following individuals spoke: Josh Knerly (JK-AAMD); Peter Tompa (PT-IAPN, PNG); Kerry Wetterstrom (KW-ACCG); Nathan Elkins (NE-Baylor); Christina Luke (CL-AIA); Brian Daniels (BD-U. Penn Cultural Center); Kevin Clinton (KC-American Research Center in Sofia).

JK indicated that AAMD supports an MOU with Bulgaria subject to certain provisos. First, it is again important to take care with any designated list given the cross-currents between Thracian and Greek culture. Second, there is a real question whether Bulgaria is taking any of the self-help measures required under the CPIA. A 2007 Center for the Study of Democracy (CSD) Report suggested that Bulgarian cultural officials were corrupt and their efforts to protect Bulgaria’s cultural patrimony were minimal. JK had no statistics about loans of Bulgarian material but indicated they would be desirable. PG wondered whether the 2007 report was up to date. JK suggested that CPAC should require the DOS to research whether the situation on the ground has improved since the 2007 CSD Report. BK asked about loans. JK indicated that that Bulgarian law apparently allowed for two year loans. KR asked about the optimum loan period. JK indicated that a long term loan should be 10 years to make it financially viable for the receiving museum. JK also noted that currently Italy is providing 4 year loans with the possibility of renewal, but the uncertainty makes such loans less palatable to AAMD members. KR also asked whether Bulgarian material can freely enter the EU. JK indicated that was the case as there are no local controls. JK agreed and also indicated that it is difficult to “fit” the Bulgarian situation into the framework of the CPIA.

PT indicated that most people would agree that some crimes—like murder—were wrong. However, looting would be considered much less seriously by most people, perhaps no worse than a traffic violation. Such seems to be the case in Bulgaria. The CSD Report indicates that some 250,000 individuals are involved in treasure hunting and that the Bulgarian police and cultural authorities are heavily involved in looting, theft and smuggling of cultural goods. The 2009 Bulgarian cultural heritage law was rammed through by ex-communists only with input from archaeologists. Major parts of it have been struck down and it is not effective. The law is honored mostly in its breech. Only 150-200 coin collectors have registered their collections though some 50,000 Bulgarians are members of organized numismatic groups. Bulgarian issues no export licenses, except for temporary exhibitions, but smuggling has become easy given the EU’s open borders. Restrictions would only discriminate against American collectors. CPAC should give heed to the 71% of the public comments on the regulations.gov website opposed to import restrictions on coins. CPAC should follow prior Committee precedent, and recommend against import restrictions on coins, particularly any restrictions based on a coin’s type rather than its find spot. Alternatively, CPAC should table Bulgaria’s request to give the country time to get its own house in order and undertake the self-help measures the CPIA contemplates. Specifically, CPAC should recommend that Bulgaria clamp down on metal detectors rather than collectors, that Bulgaria freely issue export certificates for common artifacts like most ancient coins, and that Bulgaria pass a new antiquities law that takes into account the concerns of collectors and dealers as well as the views of the archaeological community.

MT asked if Bulgarian coins were a glut on the market. PT indicated that there were certainly a lot of Roman issues available, but did not use the word, glut. He also indicated that you could not really generalize on this topic. Coins from the Greek city states located in Bulgaria would be collected as part of the Greek series and the coins of the Bulgarian czars were mainly collected by specialists and Bulgarian Americans. PG and JL suggested that it was not all that hard to import restricted coins. PT disagreed, noting that the compliance costs would exceed the value of many coins, and that in any case US Customs in NY will not allow any artifact on a designated list into the US unless it is pictured in a catalogue that predates the restrictions. This is significant because perhaps only 1 in 10,000 coins is significant enough to be published in an auction catalogue.

KW indicated that Bulgaria should adopt a law akin to the UK’s Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme. He further indicated that it used to be that finders shared details about their finds with scholars and dealers but that is no longer the case due to concerns about legal liability. MT asked about Bulgarian coins being a glut on the market. KW indicated huge amounts of coins came out of Bulgaria in the 1990’s with the fall of Communism. Some issues—like the Roman provincial coins that were struck in Bulgaria—remain a glut on the market. In response to a question from PG, KW indicated that it is reasonable for a dealer to keep information about who he bought coins from and the price, but they typically will not know the earlier history of the coins they purchase.

NE describes himself as an academic with a research focus on the numismatic trade. He has written extensively on the subject. It is clear there had been pillage of Bulgarian cultural patrimony of coins. In 1999, 20,000 coins were seized. Other incidents are set forth in the CSD Report. There have been recent seizures, including of a 63 year old pensioner who used a metal detector. Colonia Ulpia Trajana has been damaged by metal detectorists. Other material is found with coins, including Byzantine crosses and the like. This is often referred to junk in the trade. The best coins are auctioned off, the remainder end up on eBay. The flood of material began in the 1990’s and is still continuing.

CL is representing the AIA. There is evidence of recent looting in Bulgaria. A Bulgarian colleague has indicated Thracian tombs are at particular risk. Bulgaria hosts archaeologists. They have made efforts to update their laws. They are making their best efforts.

BD again represents the Penn Cultural Heritage Center. Despite the issues of corruption outlined in the CSD Report, the number of recent seizures shows Bulgaria is interested in protecting its cultural patrimony. Although there has been a problem with the Bulgarian Constitutional Court, courts strike down legislation in this country too.

KC indicates there are four active US excavations in Bulgaria, an unprecedented number. There is active looting in Bulgaria. It is understandable because it is one of the poorest countries in Europe. Prior to 2008, the State Prosecutor was not interested in crimes against cultural patrimony. The current State Prosecutor is more active. Bulgaria’s Deputy Minister of Culture, Todor Chobanov, was instrumental in pressing for the 2009 law. Chobanov is an archaeologist by training. The successor to the Bulgarian Communist Party passed the law. Initially, old-school Bulgarian archaeologists did not want to cooperate with Americans, but younger archaeologists have been more willing to do so. MT asked KC to comment about the use of metal detectors. KC is aware they are used, but has not researched the subject. There is tourism at sites on the Black Sea. The situation has improved dramatically in recent years. Previously, even important sites were not marked. There is a domestic trade in cultural artifacts. There are quite a few private collections, many of which include looted material. Some private collections are displayed in local museums or even the National Museum.

My CPAC Comments: Any Successful Cultural Policy Needs Public Buy-In

2011-11-16T09:57:00.000-08:00

Here the comments I presented at today's CPAC hearing on the Bulgarian MOU:

I’m speaking on behalf of IAPN and PNG, which represent the small businesses of the numismatic trade. Over the past decade, I’ve exhibited common ancient coins similar to ones available to collectors worldwide so that you would know exactly what coins are subject to possible restrictions. However, some of you might recall that for some unfathomable reason I was not allowed to show you any Greek coins when you met last year. So, I’ve left my Bulgarian coins at home, and instead, I’ve brought you this ruler.

Professor Gerstenblith will know I’ve borrowed this prop from Stuart Campbell, a Scottish archaeologist, but the point he made at a recent conference is just as apt here. We can all agree some things are wrong, like murder. That would be a “12” on this ruler. But what about illicit excavations? Campbell would submit—as would I—that most people would consider looting as a “1” on this scale —more like a traffic violation than anything else.

Most Bulgarians would also consider looting to be no worse than speeding. A Center for the Study of Democracy report estimates that up to 250,000 Bulgarian citizens engage in treasure hunting. It also depicts both law enforcement and the cultural establishment as being heavily involved in looting, theft and smuggling of Bulgarian cultural goods. So, a Bulgarian citizen might be forgiven if he or she also fails to take such things very seriously.

It is true that Bulgaria recently passed a cultural heritage law. You will no doubt hear it represents a sincere effort to reign in looting. But that law was apparently rammed through the Bulgarian legislature by ex-Communists solely based on input from archaeologists. It seeks to suppress looting through complicated registration procedures, but Bulgaria’s constitutional court has struck down some of its most important provisions.

The law itself seems mainly to be honored in its breech. For example, Numismatic News reports that although 50,000 Bulgarians are members of organized numismatic groups, only 150-200 collections have been declared under this law. Moreover, though this law makes legal export of Bulgarian artifacts virtually impossible, such impediments will do nothing to stop anyone from just jumping into their car or onto an airplane and taking what they want out of the country now that border checks have been eliminated with Bulgaria’s entrance into the EU.

Let’s get real. All that restrictions would accomplish would be to greatly limit the ability of Americans to import the exact same “coins of Bulgarian type” that are freely available worldwide and indeed within Bulgaria itself. Under the circumstances, IAPN and PNG would request that CPAC give heed to the 71% of the public comments opposed to import restrictions on coins. CPAC should follow prior Committee precedent, and recommend against import restrictions on coins, particularly any restrictions based on a coin’s type rather than its find spot.

Alternatively, we would ask that CPAC table Bulgaria’s request to give the country time to get its own house in order and undertake the self-help measures the CPIA contemplates. Specifically, CPAC should recommend that Bulgaria clamp down on metal detectors rather than collectors, that Bulgaria freely issue export certificates for common artifacts like most ancient coins, and that Bulgaria pass a new antiquities law that takes into account the concerns of collectors and dealers as well as the views of the archaeological community.

Please keep in mind my ruler as you deliberate. Any successful cultural policy --whether in Bulgaria or the US -- needs public buy- in to have any chance at success. CPAC has an important role to play in balancing all interests—including those of collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade -- to help ensure that fair and workable solutions to the complex problem of looting are found. Thank you.

New Metal Detecting Blog

2011-11-14T08:15:00.000-08:00

Here is an interesting blog about metal detecting from John Winter: http://www.johnwinter.net/jw/2011/11/metal-detecting-the-hobby-and-its-detractors-2/

This particular blog does a good job questioning some of the claims made by the archaeological community. Here is the author's conclusion:

In summary, the portrayal of metal detecting by its detractors is one that few informed people, inside or outside the hobby, would recognise. Their propaganda is characterised by distortions and misuse of statistics to portray the hobby in a negative light. They blur the distinction between hobbyists and criminals that use metal detectors, just as they blur the distinction between archaeological sites and land that has no known archaeological significance. They do likewise with spurious statistics regarding numbers of finds made and recorded, deliberately choosing to ignore the fact that the vast majority of items recovered are of no archaeological or historical significance. However, the reality of the hobby’s contribution to knowledge is plain for everyone to see. It is evident in the display cases of our museums, the records on our databases, and the publications on our bookshelves.

As a coin collector I can empathise-- one can easily substitute "coin collecting" for "metal detecting" in the above post. Though each pastime is different, they are both under attack from the same sources-- academics with little use for anyone but fellow academics.

CPACked?

2011-11-14T06:40:00.000-08:00

The State Department Cultural Heritage Center Website has announced that Marta de la Torre has taken over a public CPAC slot and that Jane Levine has assumed a trade slot.

See http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop/committee.html

President Obama's Administration earlier announced their appointment here: http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/10/07/president-obama-announces-more-key-administration-posts

While both are certainly knowledgeable about the legal issues before CPAC, one can legitimately question whether they really reflect the interests of the stakeholders they were supposedly appointed to represent.

Ms. de la Torre's association with ICOM is more in line with an appointment to represent the museum or archaeological communities rather than the general public. Moreover, though Ms. Levine currently works for Sotheby's (she previously was a prosecutor associated with the FBI's art crime team), the CPIA's legislative history makes clear that the "trade slot" was actually meant for a dealer that has "hands on experience" in the types of artifacts that are subject to possible restriction.

This is just more evidence that the Obama State Department has ensured CPAC is "packed" with members much less likely to "rock the boat" and question the "archaeology over all" status quo than the likes of Jay Kislak, Bob Korver or Robert O'Brien.

But doesn't this just do more to confirm the widespread view that President Obama is pro-regulation and anti-business? And is the Administration really served if CPAC does not offer a real balance of opinion to the Executive on the often difficult issues before it?

Consensus is only meaningful if it is built from a diversity of views representing all the stakeholders in the process.

100,000 Served

2011-11-11T18:11:00.000-08:00

CPO readers have now viewed this blog over 100,000 times:

STATCOUNTER

00100001

View My Stats

Thank you for your interest.

ACCG Gains Support for Appeal

2011-11-10T09:38:00.000-08:00

Six different collector, educational and trade groups have requested leave from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to file three separate amicus briefs in support of the ACCG's efforts to overturn the dismissal of its case to test import regulations on ancient coins. See
http://www.accg.us/News/Item/Organizations_submit_Amici_Briefs_to_Appellate_Court.aspx

Each brief focuses on the failure of the District Court to apply the plain meaning of the CPIA's limitation on import restrictions to coins "first discovered within, and [] subject to the export control by" either Cyprus or China.

The organizations filing jointly or separately are:

American Committee for Cultural Policy (ACCP) / International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA) by Richard Rogers, Esq.;

International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) / American Numismatic Association (ANA) / Ancient Coins for Education (ACE) by Michael McCullough, Esq.; and

Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG) by Armen Vartian, Esq.

An Armistice Day Remembrance of One Young Collector Killed in Action During the Great War

2011-11-10T06:50:00.001-08:00

Tomorrow is Armistice Day or Veteran's Day in the US.

We celebrate all veterans that day, but the holiday began as a commemoration of the end of the First World War.

It has been estimated that there were almost 10 million military casualties in that conflict.

Whether by coincidence or design, the collection of one young man who was a victim of that conflict is being sold at auction. See http://www.mortonandeden.com/pdfcats/52web.pdf

Morton and Eden describe Lot 794 as follows:

A collection of Roman bronze coins, formed before the Great War, comprising sestertii (about 45), middle brass (about 50) and other mainly Ae (about 180) together with a number of cast copies, generally poor to fine, some better, the collection housed in a mahogany fall-front coin cabinet carcass (12 ins wide x 10.5 ins deep x 9 ins high) with brass carrying handles and containing 10 trays with brass pulls

(lot) £800-1,200

The collection was formed by Gordon Wyatt Goldfinch of 92 Elfindale Road, Herne Hill, London SE. In the Great War he served in the 2nd London Field Ambulance, Royal Army Medical Corps, having volunteered in August 1914, and was killed in action, aged 23, on 28th March 1918. Offered with the lot are two hand-written notebooks, one dated August 1910 (when he was aged 15), listing the coins, the prices paid and often giving details of where they were bought (many were from Lincoln & Son, London). Also included are two photographic postcards of the collector, both signed, one in civilian dress, dated September 1914, the other as a soldier in winter uniform in France, dated December 1916. Lots 766 and 775 also comprise coins from this collection.

It's sad to see this collection dispersed some ways, but I'm glad that Mr. Goldfinch's sacrifice is being remembered in Morton and Eden's catalogue some 93 years after he was killed in action.

Addendum: This blog about British memorial medallions and the mixed feelings they generated is worth reading: http://www.johnwinter.net/jw/2011/11/the-dead-mans-penny/

LCCHP Posts Interesting Letter About Shipwrecks

2011-11-09T17:31:00.000-08:00

To their credit, the Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation has posted this letter on their website critical of the usual academic approach to shipwrecks and their preservation:

http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org/blog?mode=PostView&bmi=711550

UNESCO News Flash: Museums Overcrowded with Material They Can't Possibly Take Care Of!

2011-11-07T10:34:00.000-08:00

UNESCO and ICCROM have finally admitted what everyone else already knows: museums can't possibly keep up with all the stuff they have in storage. See
http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=11&int_new=51419

According to the report,

Mr. Gaël de Guichen, Special Advisor to the Director General of ICCROM, commented: “This is the first time we have a clear picture of the situation. In my 40 years of service at ICCROM, which has taken me all over the world, I estimated that about 60% of museum storage was in unacceptable conditions. With this data, we have a clearer picture of the problem areas. Most importantly, we have confirmation that this is not a developed vs. developing country issue: all countries find themselves in the same situation.”

The response to this "shocking news" was all too predictable:

In response to the survey results, ICCROM is presently looking for partnerships and funding to launch an international programme to strengthen professional and institutional capacity in addressing the key needs identified in this survey.

But where is this funding coming from?

Instead of assuming more money will be forthcoming from cash strapped governments, why not instead deaccession duplicate material for sale to collectors? That will free up space and bring much needed funds to such museums.

But perhaps that is too much for anti-business and anti-collector UNESCO and ICCROM to contemplate.

71% of On-Line Comments Against Bulgarian MOU

2011-11-03T11:54:00.000-07:00

John Hooker (ACCG) has performed an analysis of the on-line comments about the Bulgarian MOU. Other comments reflecting pro or con positions were also sent via US Mail so they cannot be included in this survey.

In any event, there were 499 relevant comments posted on the regulations.gov website. (A couple of people mistakenly posted their support for the Belize MOU with the Bulgarian comments.) Of these, 353 were opposed the MOU and 146 favored it. This makes for a break-down of 71% opposed and 29% in favor of the MOU.

Most of the comments related to coins. Of these, 342 either opposed the MOU in toto or opposed the inclusion of coins. Thirteen individuals supported their inclusion, including archaeologists who excavate in Bulgaria, AIA staff and David Gill and Paul Barford, archaeo-bloggers well known for their hostility to ancient coin collecting.

These percentages again point to the very slim support for import restrictions, particularly when they may possibly include new restrictions on coins.

The figures mirror the public comments recently recorded on the regulations.gov website for the Greek MOU. There, some 71% opposed the MOU either totally or provisionally if it included coins, with 28% in favor. See http://www.accg.us/News/Item/Summary_of_Greek_MOU_Public_Comment.aspx

Based on these numbers it should become increasingly clear that MOU's are special interest programs for archaeologists that have very, very little actual public support.

Chasing Aphrodite at the Walters

2011-11-02T12:30:00.000-07:00

On October 29, 2011, the Walters Museum of Art, Baltimore, hosted a discussion about the controversies surrounding the museums collecting antiquities. Jason Felch and Ralph Frammolino, the authors of Chasing Aphrodite, an expose about the Getty Museum’s collecting practices in the 1980’s, critiqued museum collecting from a moral and legal perspective. According to Felch and Frammolino, past museum collecting practices have helped stimulate looting in art rich countries and have violated local law. Arthur Houghton, CPRI President, and Gary Vikan, the Walters Museum Director, rose to defend museum acquisition practices, which both conceded have become more stringent over time. Houghton, who served as a curator at the Getty, provided some context for the discussion. He recounted how the Getty, awash with cash and eager to become a player, took too many shortcuts in an effort to build a world class antiquities collection in record time.

Larger issues were also discussed. Felch and Frammolino argued that changed attitudes have encouraged Italy to make loan term loans to American museums. They also suggested that returning the statue that was the center of the book led to a reappraisal of the work, which has now been identified as Persphone. Houghton argued that construction activities in places like Turkey is a much greater, but little discussed factor, in destroying archaeological context. Audience members also joined the fray. Commenting on the return of the “Aphrodite” to a small Sicilian town, one audience member remarked that she certainly did not want to go to such a place and that the statue will inevitably be seen by far fewer numbers of people than at the Getty. She also noted long term loans are costly to museums because Italy expects museums to spend substantial time, effort and money to conserve the artifacts that are exhibited. Another audience member suggested that source countries themselves could help alleviate the problem of looting by adopting “report and reward” statutes like that in force in the United Kingdom.

Bulgarian MOU Comment Period Ends Today

2011-11-02T12:16:00.000-07:00

The Comment Period for the Bulgarian MOU ends today. Here is a particularly interesting post from a past ANS Trustee:

Dear CPAC Members:

I would like to register my concerns with the current MOU under consideration with Bulgaria. Most importantly, it should be quite clear to informed individuals that the current proposed agreement has little to do with "Bulgarian" cultural property, and everything to do with the overall goal of eliminating private ownership of any cultural objects within the United States.

Though the modern nation of Bulgaria has little correlation with the societies and trade routes of antiquity, the advocates of the agreement would propose that any object that could have travelled across or existed within the region should be labeled as "Bulgarian". By such confuscating tactics, enforcement agencies such as US Customs would simply label all cultural objects as illegal, since their is no incentive on their part to do otherwise. While the advocate's premise is nonsensical, it is nonetheless shrewdly cognizant of the logistics of modern customs enforcement.

This subterfuge, however, does not mean this proposed agreement is in the best interests of Americans. To muddle mass-produced objects (such as coins) with singular objects of true cultural significance is a disservice to the effective safeguarding of our mutual heritage. To impose such arbitrary rules on the United States, without coordinated action from other countries, renders such efforts fruitless. To exact a significant cost on American agencies such as US Customs, without commensurate efforts by the Bulgarian government, is an affront to American taxpayers. I fully understand the ideological position of the CPAC, and hold out little hope that any common sense will prevail. I nevertheless recommend that the current MOU under consideration be refined to focus on cultural property of true significance and to be implemented only with the full participation, efforts, and cost-sharing of Bulgaria and other nations.

Sincerely,
Charlie Karukstis

For more comments, see http://www.regulations.gov/#%21docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252BO%252BSR%252BPS;rpp=10;po=0;D=DOS-2011-0115

To comment before today's close, go here: http://www.regulations.gov/#%21submitComment%3bD%3dDOS-2011-0115-0001

Brief Filed in ACCG Test Case

2011-11-01T07:24:00.000-07:00

The ACCG has filed this brief in the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit seeking the reversal of Judge Blake's dismissal of its case to test the validity of import restrictions on coins of "Cypriot type" or coins "from China." See http://www.accg.us/News/Item/ACCG_Appellant_Brief_filed_in_Cyprus_China_coin_seizure.aspx

This is from the summary of argument:

The District Court acknowledged that judicial review is appropriate where the Executive’s discretion is limited by statute, but then failed to consider whether the Assistant Secretary, ECA operated outside the law when she imposed import restrictions on ancient coins. Moreover, the District Court’s ruling turns the APA’s presumption of reviewability on its head. At a bare minimum, the District Court should have considered whether the Assistant Secretary, ECA, complied with the CPIA’s requirements or acted ultra vires, and also should have conducted a more thorough, APA-style review of the final agency actions to impose import restrictions on Cypriot and Chinese coins. Finally, the District Court’s rulings that it was unnecessary for China to ask for import restrictions on coins or for the Government to comply with the CPIA’s “first discovery requirement” are at odds with the plain meaning of the CPIA. Extending import restrictions to all unprovenanced coins raises constitutional problems that could be avoided if the “first discovery requirement” were given its plain meaning.

PhDiva Gets a Jump On Everyone Else

2011-10-31T13:48:00.000-07:00

Kudos to PhDiva for describing what's missing from the so-called Benghazi Treasure. For more, see http://phdiva.blogspot.com/2011/10/antiquities-missing-from-libya.html

Rather than all the usual speculative blather about shadowy Western collectors organizing the looting of the world's treasures, its nice to see someone associated with the archaeological community making such a timely and positive contribution to describing what is lost.

Kudos to PhDiva for doing so.

We would be all better off if others took her cue.

Treasures Stolen from Benghazi Vault-- But When and By Whom?

2011-10-31T07:13:00.000-07:00

The Sun Newspapers and others have reported that a treasure trove of gold artifacts and coins was stolen from a Benghazi bank vault. See http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3903581/Priceless-gold-of-Benghazi-is-stolen.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News

Collectors and dealers in ancient art should obviously report any efforts to sell such materials to the authorities. Here are some other thoughts.

1. Although some will apparently use this news as a basis to claim there is a need for "emergency import restrictions" on Libyan cultural material, these objects would already be treated as stolen under US and other law.

2. While the theft of this material is said to have happened during revolution, if what happened in Iraq is any guide, it's also possible that the material was stolen earlier by officials associated with the former regime, and the loss is only coming to light now.

3. It would have been easier to identify this material if it had been properly recorded by either the Italian authorities who returned it to Libya back in 1961 or the Libyans themselves. Unfortunately, this does not appear to have been the case, so all we will be left with is some general descriptions of the material. Hopefully, Libyan authorities will put out as detailed as possible descriptions of the missing artifacts soon.

SAFE Shortcuts Public Comment Procedure

2011-10-28T17:27:00.000-07:00

Saving Antiquities for Everyone (SAFE) has begun a petition campaign in support of the Bulgarian MOU. See http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/10/blog-post_27.html

But the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs has already set up a procedure for public comment open to all interested in whether there should be an MOU with Bulgaria. Can't SAFE follow directions?

Petitions like SAFE has prepared are inherently unreliable:

There is no way to verify that the signatories are real people or if one person has signed the petition under different names;

It's doubtful that many of the signatories have any real knowledge of the issues involved beyond the minimal information they have received with the petition.

It is likely that some signatories have also made public comments, thereby overstating support for the proposition.

SAFE already has already asked its supporters to use the regulations.gov website to comment on the Bulgarian MOU? So, can this petition accomplish anything, but to mislead?

State Department Clarifies Egyptian MOU

2011-10-27T06:45:00.001-07:00

The State Department Cultural Heritage Center has clarified the situation on the Egyptian MOU as follows:

http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/whatsnew.html

What's New

Potential Memorandum of Understanding between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Egypt’s Ministry of State for Antiquities

The Department of State’s Cultural Heritage Center has become aware that confusion exists concerning a potential MOU between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Egypt’s Ministry of State for Antiquities. Such an agreement would differ from the type of MOU made under Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention for import restrictions on certain categories of cultural materials. The Department understands that the MOU presently under discussion by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement concerns information exchange and not import restrictions. If the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt requests an agreement pursuant to Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, the Department of State would announce receipt of such a request in the Federal Register. This procedure is the only means currently available to a country wishing U.S. import restrictions on its cultural property.

Given this clarification, a recap of how this issue arose is in order.

Last May, then Egyptian Antiquities Minister Zahi Hawass stated on his blog,

[A Coalition of US archaeologists] reported that the US Government is willing to impose emergency restrictions on Egyptian antiquities....The coalition will be drafting a formal agreement between the US and Egyptian governments...."

See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/05/hawass-says-emergency-import.html

Last June, the Cultural Policy Research Institute made FOIA requests on the matter, that have not been answered satisfactorily.

See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/06/cpri-files-foia-request-on-purported.html

Last September, it was reported that the State Department [not US Customs] had given ICOM a sole source contract to prepare a "red list of Egyptian antiquities at risk." See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/09/state-department-commissions-egyptian.html

Just this week, an Egytian newspaper that is viewed as the unofficial voice of the Egyptian military government reported,

New strategy to prevent illegal trade in Egyptian antiquities

Nevine El-Aref, Sunday 23 Oct 2011

American-Egyptian memorandum of understanding to track down antiquities smugglers in the United States to be signed soon

In an attempt to tighten security measures on antiquities trafficking, Egypt is to sign a memorandum of understanding with the United States enabling the Customs and National Security Department in the USA to track and catch antiquities smugglers in the country. They will also be able to take all legal procedures to return illegally smuggled antiquities to Egypt.

Mustafa Amin, secretary-general of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, told Ahram Online that according to the memorandum, training courses would be provided for Egyptian archaeologists responsible for archaeological units in ports and airports in order to discover any smuggling attempts across Egyptian borders.

The United States will also offer Egypt a financial grant to implement a special security strategy at all its archaeological sites, museums and borders. State-of-the-art security equipment such as electronic gates, burglar alarms connected to TV circuits, and cameras will also be provided.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/24873.aspx

Under the circumstances, while the State Department's clarification is welcome, it should be followed up with more transparency about the issue.

The Bulgarian MOU: What's Really At Stake

2011-10-26T16:53:00.000-07:00

Behind all the slogans, what will be the real impact of any US decision to impose import restrictions on behalf of Bulgaria?

Will it end looting of archaeological sites by Bulgarians? No.

Will it diminish demand for Bulgarian antiquities? Doubtful, as any restrictions will only apply to American collectors. Collectors in Bulgaria, the rest of the EU and emerging markets in Asia and the Middle East will be unaffected.

Will it end corruption in Bulgaria? No, if anything, it might actually open up new avenues for corrupt officials such as the resale of repatriated antiquities.

Will it encourage the Bulgarian cultural establishment to implement more rational and inclusive laws governing the sale and possession of cultural goods? No, if anything, it will butress the current status quo.

Will it make it far more difficult to import coins "of Bulgarian type" into the United States? Yes. Despite some claims to the contrary made by know-it-all archaeologists with no practical experience whatsoever, it really is difficult to import coins on the designated list. Information for the required certifications as to the whereabouts of a restricted coins as of the date of the restrictions, is typically unavailable for all but the very few coins that are photographed for purposes of auctions, perhaps 1 coin in every 10,000, and valuable ones at that. Thus, while the impact of restrictions on expensive coins that are more likely to have appeared at auction is tempered to some extent, as a practical matter import restrictions bar legal entry of the vast majority of coins readily available in legitimate markets abroad.

So, by all means, let your views be your guide in commenting on the Bulgarian MOU-- but hopefully only do so with knowledge of what is really at stake.

SAFE: Say Yes to the Corrupt Bulgarian Status Quo?

2011-10-25T05:50:00.000-07:00

Saving Antiquities for Everyone (SAFE) has started yet another "Say Yes" advocacy campaign in support of import restrictions, this time on behalf of Bulgaria. http://www.savingantiquities.org/Bulgariamou.php

But, what will SAFE's campaign (and that of the AIA) for "no questions asked" import restrictions really do for Bulgaria and the protection of its cultural patrimony, but help support the corrupt status quo?

Though SAFE's advocacy document has plenty of links detailing individual stories about looting of archaeological sites, SAFE's advocacy fails to mention a sobering report about the state of Bulgaria’s cultural policy prepared by the Center for the Study of Democracy. See The Antiquities Trade-Dealers, Traffickers, and Connoisseurs, in Organized Crime in Bulgaria: Markets and Trends 178-197 (Center for Study of Democracy 2007) (“CSD Report”) (available at:http://www.csd.bg/artShow.php?id=9120(last checked, 10/19/11).

This report, prepared with funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, appears to largely reflect the views of government cultural officials and archaeologists. Nevertheless, the report contains some eye-opening facts that should give pause to anyone who might assume all is well with how Bulgaria manages its own cultural patrimony:

• From 100,000 to 250,000 Bulgarians regularly conduct illicit excavations. (Id. at 179.)

• “Most Bulgarian museums have poor recording practices of the artifacts in stock. The general lack of accountability, in particular of museum directors, further aggravates the situation…. The majority of museums do not observe the international standard for describing art, antiques and antiquities with photographs and descriptions of each object (the so called Object ID). In Bulgarian museums objects are often loosely described in general terms, which makes it impossible for them to be tracked, positively identified and restored. The dire state of museum documentation dooms to failure any efforts to trace stolen coins or other items transferred abroad.” (Id. at 183.)

• “To make their anti-looting and anti-trafficking efforts seem more effective enforcement agencies announce lavish values of the illicitly acquired cultural objects they capture.” (Id.)

• “During interviews, carried out for purposes of this paper, it was made clear that the prescribed system of registration [of coins in private collections] by commissions made up of local museum employees was not found trustworthy, as it did not provide safeguards against the theft of valuable coins which could be replaced with cheaper lower grade versions by museum workers.” (Id. at 193.)

• “Some collectors have voiced their suspicions that past burglaries of private coin collections have been committed with the involvement of corrupt police officers or other enforcement officials.” (Id. at 193 n. 312.)

• “Inertia and neglect are not the only factors to throttle effective enforcement. Widespread corruption among local middle-ranking law-enforcement officers who earn personal gains on the black cultural property market also has an adverse effect. Experts have outlined three major forms of corrupt relationships between police officers and antique dealers/looters: 1) policemen are bribed to cover looters and deter police investigation; 2) officers of higher rank become directly involved in illicit antiquities trading, and 3) officers that must prevent and fight cultural property violations become collectors. In addition, the grading of cultural objects held by looters, dealers or collectors is itself often done by would-be experts whose only training is a two-week course delivered by the Privatization Agency on a regular basis that can hardly have equipped them with the knowledge they need to possess about cultural goods. Despite their determination to get looters or persons in illicit hold of antiquities convicted, law-enforcement and investigative bodies are often hampered by either incompetent or intentionally falsified expert assessments presented at the trial phase.” (Id. at 194.)

• “In 2003, the head of Cultural Property Department at the National Police Col. Georgi Getov was discharged. According to media reports he had operated one of the main antiquity smuggling channels in Bulgaria in partnership with a number of prosecutors, NSCOC officers, local archaeological museum directors and other officials who had served as a supply link between looters and the implicated department head. Maritsa Dnes daily, 7 May 2003.” (Id. at 194 n. 316.)

The report goes on to make detailed suggestions on how to address the problem of looting in Bulgaria, including the regulation of metal detectors and the passage of a cultural heritage law that takes into account the concerns of collectors as well as archaeologists.

The report is relevant because Bulgaria is expected to take self-help measures before import restrictions are imposed. In addition, less severe remedies must be considered before the State Department again limits the ability of Americans to import artifacts. (26 USC Section 2602 (a) (1) (B) and (C)(ii).)

Under the circumstances, the US could best help Bulgaria by tabling any talk of import restrictions to allow Bulgaria time to act on the CSD report's recommendations. Though any looting of Bulgarian archaeological sites is regrettable, it is best addressed in Bulgaria itself through the regulation of metal detectors and serious consideration of CSD's other suggestions before import restrictions are imposed.

CPAC and Egypt: Why Bother?

2011-10-23T08:35:00.000-07:00

Ahramonline, the Egyptian Military Dictatorship's mouthpiece, has reported that US and Egyptian authorities are poised to sign yet another MOU which will purportedly clamp down on the trade in Egyptian artifacts. See
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/9/40/24873/Heritage/Ancient-Egypt/New-strategy-to-prevent-illegal-trade-in-Egyptian-.aspx

Of course, such MOU's are only supposed to be decided after a formal request from a State Party to the State Department. CPAC is then supposed to make recommendations to the President's designee at the Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, who in turn is only supposed to agree to import restrictions if specific statutory criteria are met.

Here, all this appears to be a formality. Some months ago former Egyptian antiquities chief Zahi Hawass reported that American archaeologists had secured the State Department's agreement to enter into import restrictions. Then, the State Department gave ICOM a sole source contract to develop a "red list" of Egyptian antiquities at risk, which can also serve as a ready made "designated list" for import restrictions.

If the reports emanating out of Egypt are true, it's just more evidence that the whole CPAC process is but a bad joke.

No Credit to the Archaeological Community

2011-10-22T07:43:00.000-07:00

While the comments to CPAC about the Bulgarian MOU from the archaeological community have been few, Archaeo-Blogger Paul Barford has gone into high gear in his criticism of collectors' views on the State Department's and the AIA's efforts to suppress ancient coin collecting in this country.

His know-it-all blather is obnoxious enough when it is directed at other bloggers with whom he disagrees (even including at times some on "his side" of the issues!), but he has now achieved yet another new low in his ridicule of indivduals who have been forced by the State Department's "green initiative" to post their comments about the Bulgarian MOU on line.

Leaving aside his insults, Barford seems to suggest that coin collectors are failing to specifically comment on these provisions of the CPIA:

If the President determines, after request is made to the United States under article 9 of the Convention by any State Party--
(A) that the cultural patrimony of the State Party is in jeopardy from the pillage of archaeological or ethnological materials of the State Party;
(B) that the State Party has taken measures consistent with the Convention to protect its cultural patrimony;
(C) that--
(i) the application of the import restrictions set forth in section 2606 of this title with respect to archaeological or ethnological material of the State Party, if applied in concert with similar restrictions implemented, or to be implemented within a reasonable period of time, by those nations (whether or not State Parties) individually having a significant import trade in such material, would be of substantial benefit in deterring a serious situation of pillage, and
(ii) remedies less drastic than the application of the restrictions set forth in such section are not available; and
(D) that the application of the import restrictions set forth in section 2606 of this title in the particular circumstances is consistent with the general interest of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes; the President may, subject to the provisions of this chapter, take the actions described in paragraph (2).....

But how would most collectors be in any position at all to comment intelligently on most of this legalese? On the other hand, many collectors have quite rightly focused on the potential impact of import restrictions on their hobby.

Don't such concerns go to the ability of Americans to trade and collect ancient coins that are freely available worldwide (including within Bulgaria itself)? And as such, don't complaints about discriminatory import restrictions go directly to the CPIA's concerted response requirement as well as the use of ancient coins as educational tools?

So, what exactly is Barford, the obnoxious know-it-all, talking about?

In any event, it certainly does no credit to other members of the archaeological community that one of their number is in effect seeking to suppress the First Amendment rights of American collectors as well as the views of collectors outside the US with his obnoxious ridicule of those forced to comment publicly on the regulations.gov website.

Greece's Bloated Cultural Bureaucracy

2011-10-18T05:23:00.000-07:00

The New York Times has a good story about Greece's bloated bureaucracy which has defied efforts to cut it. See
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/world/europe/greeces-bloated-bureaucracy-defies-efforts-to-cut-it.html?_r=2&ref=global-home

Of course, the recently announced Greek MOU is a boon to the Greek cultural bureaucracy, which will no doubt cite it as a reason not to reform it.

Yet, unless you are a State Department bureaucrat or an archaeologist, one should find it hard to escape the fact that while an oversized Greek cultural delegation was making the rounds in Washington to lobby for the MOU, rank and file museum guards were rioting on the Acropolis after not being paid. See
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2010/10/oversized-greek-cultural-delegation.html

Is the main purpose of MOU's to protect cultural sites or is their primary purpose protect the jobs of cultural bureaucrats abroad and thereby support the bankrupt status quo?

Bulgaria: Call to Comment

2011-10-17T11:33:00.000-07:00

Please consider sending this to any coin collector you know:

The US State Department is seeking public comment on a new request for import restrictions made on behalf of Bulgaria. To submit comments electronically to the State Department’s Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC), go here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=DOS-2011-0115-0001

For further details of the request, see http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/whatsnew.html

What is at issue? Despite President Obama’s efforts to foster government transparency, the State Department has not indicated whether coins are part of the request. Nonetheless, based on recent history, it is probable that import restrictions on coins will be proposed. As a practical matter, this means the State Department and US Customs may be considering restrictions on tribal coinages from Thrace, coins of Greek city states like Apollonia Pontica and Messembria, Roman provincial coins struck at Bulgarian mints, and even some Roman Imperial coins. It’s also possible that any restrictions will include later coins as well. Though details are few, the public summary the State Department has provided indicates that Bulgaria seeks import restrictions on objects from 7500 B.C. to the 19th c. AD. If restrictions are imposed on coins, many common types will likely become so difficult to import legally that they will become unavailable to most collectors.

Why bother? Large numbers of coin collectors have made their concerns known to CPAC. Recently, 70% of the comments CPAC received on a MOU with Greece were from concerned coin collectors. Even though new import restrictions on coins of Italian and Cypriot "type" make it easy to become cynical, public comment can at least help moderate these demands. For example, archaeologists actively sought import restrictions on Roman Imperial coins during the discussions about the Italian MOU, but they remain exempted, and thus easy to obtain on the open market, likely due to the 2000 or so faxes CPAC received from concerned collectors.

What should I say? Tell the State Department and CPAC what you think about the bureaucracy’s efforts to deny you the ability to collect common ancient artifacts that are available worldwide. You might also consider noting that coins from Bulgarian mints are common and often very inexpensive. Tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands exist in collections around the world, and because of the low price the vast majority of these coins will never have been through an auction and will have no verifiable provenance.

If you are having trouble commenting from the direct link above, go to http://www.regulations.gov/
and search on docket number DOS-2011-0115. Further information about regulation.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the dockets, is available on the site under “How To Use This Site.” Kindly note that your comments will be public so avoid conveying any personal information, and, of course, be polite in commenting on the issue.

Please submit comments just once, before the cutoff of 5:00 PM EST Nov. 2, 2011.

Comments on the Bulgarian Request: Why Bother?

2011-10-17T05:44:00.000-07:00

The State Department has announced another short comment period for proposed import restrictions that may include coins from Bulgaria. See http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/whatsnew.html

Given recent import restrictions imposed on coins from Italy and Cyprus though, why bother to comment?

Coin collectors and members of the small businesses of the numismatic trade have certainly dominated public comment when import restrictions on coins have been at issue.

Most recently, 1347 individuals commented on the Greek MOU on the regulations.gov website. Of these, approximately 70% (942) opposed the MOU or its extension to coins with 30% in favor (404). Virtually all those opposed were coin collectors.

The next most recent request was the renewal of the Italian MOU. A FOIA request reveals that while some 2000 collectors opposed the extension of import restrictions to coins only some 13 or so comments were in favor of it. (About 100 public comments favored an extension of the MOU but did not mention coins).

Prior to that there was Cyprus. If memory serves, there were some 1200 or so public comments against import restrictions on coins generated in a short 10 day comment period.

Yet, based on recent trends, I can certainly see how some might question whether public comment really matters when the State Department Cultural Heritage Center seems to be run as little more than an adjunct of the AIA and the rest of the State Department bureaucracy seems to value the wishes of foreign cultural bureaucracies over the interests of American citizens who collect and deal in ancient coins.

Indeed, despite the lopsided number of public comments opposed to import restrictions on coins, the fact that such coins had been exempted before and the recommendations of CPAC, the State Department bureaucracy nonetheless recently imposed new import restrictions on Greek, certain Republican and city coins of "Italian types." Yet, despite the calls from the AIA, no import restrictions were imposed on most Roman coins.

While an MOU has agreed to with Greece, we still do not know whether coins will be included in any restrictions.

And as for Cyprus, import restrictions were indeed imposed despite the number of public comments and CPAC's recommendations, but only after behind the scenes lobbying evidently convinced the State Department's third ranking official, Nicholas Burns, to take up the archaeological cause.

So do comments matter? I think they do, despite the fact that the deck appears to be obviously stacked against anyone not associated with the archaeological community.

At a minimum, public comments do show the State Department bureaucracy that real people do care about this issue, and hence perhaps do some good in moderating outcomes.

The Farce Continues: CPAC Hearings on Requests from Bulgaria and Belize

2011-10-17T05:10:00.000-07:00

The State Department has announced that CPAC will receive public comments on new requests for import restrictions from Bulgaria and Belize.
For more, see http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/whatsnew.html

Despite Obama Administration promises of greater government transparency, the public summaries of the requests provide little more than a history lesson about the cultures in both countries and some general information about looting in each country. Nothing at all is said about what particular objects are subject to possible restriction or any particular justifications for such actions.

And once again, the public comment period is exceptionally short, ending on November 2nd.

Accordingly, one must again unfortunately conclude that the State Department and its Cultural Heritage Center really are not looking for informed public comment from the broadest number of stakeholders possible.

And doesn't such a tact merely confirm the suspicions of many that the State Department bureaucracy views CPAC as little more than a rubber stamp for imposing the broadest import restrictions possible?

While I'm sure Bulgaria's former Communist rulers would have approved of such a farce, what does it say about our own State Department's commitment to the democracy it preaches so loudly to others?

Staged Find

2011-10-05T09:47:00.000-07:00

It has been revealed that a well publicised story about Prime Minister and likely future President Putin finding an old amphora while scuba diving was staged. See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/world/europe/putins-diving-exploit-was-a-setup-aide-says.html?_r=1&hp

No big surprise.

Chasing Aphrodite at the Walters

2011-10-04T13:12:00.000-07:00

CHASING APHRODITE
A Story of Antiquities Purchases, Confidential Sources & Ethical Dilemmas

Authors Jason Felch and Ralph Frammolino will field questions from local WYPR radio host Tom Hall and the audience, relating to their controversial new book Chasing Aphrodite: The Hunt for Looted Antiquities at the World’s Richest Museum. This is the first-ever presentation of this topic in an art museum, and participants will also include Baltimorean Arthur Houghton, a one-time curator at the J. Paul Getty Museum and major source for the book, and Walters Director Gary Vikan, who will help frame the broader question of how new cultural property guidelines might affect encyclopedic museum collections.

Mining their confidential sources at the Getty, Felch and Frammolino reconstruct a compelling narrative that takes the reader—and will take the audience—through an exotic and sometimes ethically challenging world of antiquities acquisitions. The authors will provide their own account of how Getty museum officials grappled with the question of acquiring Greek and Roman antiquities for over 30 years and the eventual indictment of the museum’s antiquities curator in 2005. A reception will follow.
*
Where
The Walters Art Museum, Graham Auditorium
When
Saturday, October 29, 2 p.m.
Price
Free

Now is it Time to Free the Coins?

2011-10-03T15:38:00.000-07:00

The dysfunctional Italian justice system has finally freed Amanda Knox after concluding she was probably not guilty of murder after all.

But what of the dysfunctional Italian cultural bureaucracy?

As its poor stewardship of major cultural sites like Pompeii shows, it has failed miserably at its core mission of preserving Italy's unparallelled cultural patrimony.

Perhaps, then its not all that surprising that the Italian cultural bureaucracy has instead spent so much time and effort diverting attention away from its own failings by pointing the finger at collectors and auction houses and claiming that they are responsible for looting.

But will funding shortfalls force a change in approach? Not likely, at least while the Italian cultural bureaucracy receives noisy support from archaeologists and their friends in the State Department Cultural Heritage Center bureaucracy.

But does that make it right?

Here, for example, is the reaction of one collector to Archaeo-blogger David Gill's continuing campaign against Christie's auction house on behalf of Italian authorities:

The hypocrisy of David Gill's recent posts (see http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2011/10/christies-on-cultural-property.html
http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2011/10/schinoussa-archive-and-italian.html)
really is too much. First he plays gotcha with Christie's based on stills from the "Schinoussa Archive" and then he accuses Christie's of failing to cooperate with other international institutions. Objects like those terracottas would never make it to auction if Gill and his colleagues would cooperate and share the Schinoussa images with auction houses and the public. No auction house would put obviously problematic material on the market and no buyer would buy it. Gill, by refusing to cooperate with auction houses and dealers, is doing more to further the sales of illegally obtained objects than the average Italian looter.

Why can't the Italian authorities make this archive publicly available rather than cooperating in Gill's game of gotcha?

And, on another note, how crazy is it that courtesy of the Italian cultural bureaucracy, the AIA and the State Department most ancient Italian coins of Greek and early Roman Republican types are off limits to American collectors-- while Italians themselves as well as other collectors world-wide can import the same coins no questions asked. If it is really necessary to impose import restrictions on coins, how about at least requiring some proof that they are the products recent illicit excavation?

Yes, its time to publish the Schinoussa archive and to free the coins.

Frome Hoard Goes on Display

2011-10-01T09:14:00.000-07:00

The Frome Hoard has been put on display in the new Somerset Museum. See
http://www.culture24.org.uk/history+%26+heritage/archaeology/art365271

The Hoard was purchased after a successful fund raising campaign. Other, less significant hoards are typically returned to the finder who can keep them or sell them ultimately to collectors who then will have a coin with a known provenance to add to their collection. Is it really necessary for the State to retain everything?

Win Some, Lose Some

2011-09-27T15:52:00.001-07:00

I suspect the timing of this announcement may not be coincidental, but Odessey Marine has revealed that it has entered into a partnership with the UK Government to salvage two hundred tons of silver from the Gairsoppa, a ship that was sunk by a U-Boat during WW II. See
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wartime-wreck-to-give-up-148m-in-lost-silver-bullion-2360915.html

The WW II era treasure appears to be even larger than one that the 11th Circuit recently ordered to be returned to the Spanish Government because it apparently came from a 19th c. Spanish man of war that Odessey had dubbed the "Black Swan" wreck. See http://shipwreck.net/pr231.php

The WWII wreck is some 3 miles under the sea, which presumably justifies the 80%-20% split Odessey has worked out with the UK Government.

I suspect that archaeologists will find something to criticize about this partnership as well. But, doesn't the age of the wreck, its depth, and money the venture will bring to the UK taxpayer distinguish it from the "Black Swan" wreck and the controversies that surrounded its exploitation?

Bankrupt Greek Government Seeks More Money From Germany as Greek Cultural Bureaucrats Work With State Department Against German Interests

2011-09-27T06:20:00.000-07:00

Go figure. On one hand, the bankrupt Greek Government is begging the German Government for yet another bailout promising "reforms" in return. See
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/27/us-eurozone-germany-greece-idUSTRE78Q1XV20110927

On the other hand, now that the US has agreed to an MOU with Greece, the Greek cultural bureaucracy is likely working with our own State Department bureaucracy to harm the interests of German small buisnesses that export ancient Greek coins to the United States. Of course, the clamp down won't impact the ability of Greek collectors to import such coins, but it will certainly impact the ability of German businesses to ship ancient coins to the US market.

And it's not as if German officials have not raised concerns about this. Indeed, the Bavarian Minister of Economic Affairs, Martin Zeil, has raised concerns about this in a letter to Judith McHale, Undersecretary of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. In his letter, Minister Zeil states,

The proposed restrictions (along for similar ones being considered for Italy) would negatively impact the legitimate numismatic trade between Germany and the United States of America and also people to people contacts between US and German citizens.

Apart from very few exceptions, no licence or permit is needed in Germany, neither for import to Germany nor for export from Germany of coins.

If the import of certain coins into the United States required an export licence granted by authorities of the export country in future, this requirement could not be fulfilled by German retailers. Legal trade would then hardly be possible between Germany and the United States.

In Germany there are around 100 auction houses, more than 500 retailers and estimated more than a half million collectors of old coins. Moreover, a considerable number of them are located in Munich, and are engaged in trade with customers in the United States.

See http://www.accg.us/news/item/Europeans_Oppose_Potential_U_S_State_Department_Import_Restrictions.aspx

Will the Greeks and our own State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs heed these concerns? Or, will they just ignore them along with those of the 70% of the public who expressed opposition to extending import restrictions to Greek coins?

ACCG Files Appeal

2011-09-26T08:44:00.000-07:00

My law firm will be handling ACCG's appeal of Judge Blake's decision to dismiss a case meant to test recent regulations imposing import restrictions on ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins. See http://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/11-2012/
and http://www.accg.us/News/Item/ACCG_files_appeal_of_Baltimore_decision.aspx and http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ancient-coin-collectors-appeal-dismissal-of-baltimore-test-case-2011-09-26

We've identified the following four legal issues for appellate review:

1.) Did the District Court improperly preclude ultra vires review of a Presidential designee at the Department of State’s decision making under the Cultural Property Implementation Act (“CPIA”) where the District Court acknowledged that the President lacked unbridled discretion under that statute?

2.) Did the District Court improperly conclude under ultra vires review that the Defendants could restrict the import of coins from China where there is no evidence in the record that China formally asked for import restrictions on coins?

3.) Did the District Court improperly preclude review under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) of regulations imposing import restrictions on certain categories of Chinese and Cypriot coins where the District Court acknowledged that the final agency action was that of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) and not the President’s designee at the State Department?

4.) Did the District Court improperly conclude after an ultra vires and Constitutional review that CBP could seize and forfeit the Guild’s property based solely on their coin types without a showing that the coins were “first discovered” in either Cyprus or China as required by the CPIA?

ACCG's initial brief is due on October 31, 2011. Additional briefing should be completed by year's end.

Common Sense

2011-09-25T09:38:00.000-07:00

Archaeologists of earlier generations are sometimes criticised for their lack of "scientific method," but perhaps they benefited from more common sense than their modern, but far more ideological, counterparts.

Here, for example, is a quote from Sir John Evans (1823-1908), a noted archaeologist of the 19th Century (and father of the even more notable Arthur), who campaigned to ensure that finders under the Treasure Trove system would receive the fair market value for their finds:

"... His main complaint, however, was against the system of reward for finders, which was for the Treasury to pay bullion value only. Citing the example of a half-angel of Henry VI restored (1470-1) from Park Street, a small coin of modest intrinsic value but great market value. Evans managed to persuade the authorities to change to a reward based on archaeological or numismatic value, although subject to a 20% discount. While this was an improvement Evans felt it was still not good enough --finders should get the full value or return of the coins, otherwise they might still melt them down."

Lord Stewartby, "Evans and the English Coinage", in _Sir John Evans 1823-1908, Antiquity, Commerce and Natural Science in the Age of Darwin_, Ed. Arthur MacGregor, The Ashmolean, Oxford, 2008, p. 196.

Thanks to John Hooker for bringing this quote to my attention.

The Future of Recording the Past

2011-09-24T04:51:00.000-07:00

On October 12, 2011, the American Bar Association International Law Section and its Art and Cultural Heritage Law Committee will sponsor a panel about the law of finds in England and Wales, Ireland, Scotland and the United States for ABA members attending a fall meeting in Dublin:

The Future of Recording the Past in England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and the United States.

Program Chair and Speaker: Patty Gerstenblith, DePaul University College of Law.

Program Chair and Moderator: Peter K. Tompa, Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC.

Speakers:

Roger Bland , British Museum.

Stuart Campbell, Treasure Trove Unit, Scottish National Heritage.

Eamonn Kelly, Irish National Heritage.

The panel will bring together these experts to consider the benefits and disadvantages of the systems in each of these countries, the policy goals fostered by each, and the effect the current economic crisis on the implementation of these different systems.

Afghan Neglect

2011-09-23T05:23:00.000-07:00

For more evidence that the national governments and archaeological groups like the AIA should refocus their priorities away from harassing collectors and museums and get back to the basics. See
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/opinion/03Marlowe.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Afghanistan is a poor country, but there is no lack of money going to the national and regional governments. And rather than spending all that money and effort on tracking down every last minor artifact that may have left the country in the last twenty years, why not instead direct that energy and money towards USAID to help the Afghans to shore up what remains of major archaeological sites in that country?

It makes little sense to repatriate minor artifacts to a country when so little has been done to preserve the major sites that should really matter to the culture.

Bureaucratic Mess Engulfs Pompeii

2011-09-21T06:59:00.000-07:00

In 79 AD a volcanic eruption engulfed Pompeii. Now, it is bureucratic infighting and finger pointing that have engulfed the site, crippleing any coherent response to the problems of preserving the site for future generations.

The Art Newspaper has another report about the inept bureaucratic response to the collapse of the House of the Gladiators at Pompeii. See
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Controversy+over+Pompeii+funding/24455

The State Department Cultural Heritage Center, the AIA and the Italian cultural bureaucracy may be still celebrating yet another extension of the MOU with Italy and its expansion to include coins, but the realities on the ground suggest that Italy's real problem is its own cultural bureaucrats and politicians.

One really needs to ask whether the moral support our State Department provides through such MOU's does anything other than to help prop up an utterly rotten system at the expense of American collectors, dealers and museums.

Leptis Magna Safe

2011-09-20T14:37:00.000-07:00

This video proves that Leptis Magna is safe despite claims to the contrary publicised by scare mongers from the archaeological community with a vested interest in seeking "emergency import restrictions" on cultural goods. See
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14983921

Will the archaeological blogs now report on this good news in an effort to help correct the record? I doubt it.

Still, this does not change the fact that there have been no credible reports about widespread looting or destruction of Libyan archaeological sites. Under the circumstances, it is a disservice to the new Libyan government and the Libyan people to continue to claim otherwise.

DePaul on Gerstenblith Appointment to Chair CPAC

2011-09-19T07:22:00.000-07:00

DePaul University has publicised Prof. Patty Gerstenblith's appointment to Chair CPAC with this video. See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC2nxgxhHSo&feature=related

While I don't agree with many of Prof. Gerstenblith's views, one has to acknowledge her considerable expertise in the area from an archaological perspective and the big impact she has made in what actually is a rather small field of study.

You Throw the Party, ICE Will Bring the Old Pottery

2011-09-15T16:04:00.000-07:00

ICE is publicizing the repatriation of a common pre-Columbian bowl to Belize. See
http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1109/110914washingtondc.htm

The repatriation took place at an embassy event celebrating the 30th anniversary of the country's independence from Great Britain. We are told that it was recovered after a search warrant was executed in New Mexico, but we have few other details about the basis of the seizure.

Was there any evidence linking this bowl to an archaeological site or was the fact that it was a bowl identified as coming from Belize enough for ICE to seize it, presumably without any effort by the owner to contest the seizure?

How much did orchestrating this publicity stunt at the Embassy cost the American taxpayer? What will the authorities do with such a common bowl? Put it on display somewhere? Probably not except perhaps as some sort of trophy.

You Need Us, You Really Do

2011-09-15T15:47:00.000-07:00

That, at least, seems to be the message behind a seminar organized by Italian cultural officials to address the future of archaeological sites in Libya. See
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=131877

As the report states,

Before the conflict started there were over twenty archaelogical missions operating in Libya. By far the largest number, thirteen, were Italian missions, but there were also French, British, American and Polish missions amongst others. Most of those missions were represented at the meeting that was held in Caserta.

The meeting was entitled ‘For the Preservation of the Cultural Heritage in Libya, a Dialogue among Institutions’. Malta’s Ambassador and Permanent Delegate to UNESCO, Dr Ray Bondin, was the only Ambassador invited to the meeting both because of Malta’s importance to Libya and also because of his extensive contacts with the heritage authorities in Libya. Malta’s agreements with Libya cover also substantially collaboration on the heritage field. He had in fact last year made two missions to strengthen the collaboration with Malta. Because of his extensive experience in World Heritage he was giving his assistance on the site of Cyrenea, one of the major archaelogical sites in Libya. Representatives of the new transitory authories based in Benghazi were also present at the Caserta meeting. The meeting discussed the theft of heritage from Libya, the sites needing major attention, and in particular listened to the Libyans as to their immediate needs. Though the humane situation is the obvious priority at the moment the new Libya will most certainly invest more in tourism and therefore their archaeological sites are of the utmost importance.

Although much of this is all well and good, one really has to wonder whether the participants are even more interested in ensuring that they get in the good graces of Libya's new government. After all, Italy and Malta had especially cozy relations with the deposed Colonel's regime, and presumably many of the archaeological delegations that excavated in the country did so as well.

Libya: What Emergency?

2011-09-12T15:16:00.000-07:00

There they go again. Only months after apparently receiving assurances from their buddies at the State Department about "emergency import restrictions" on Egyptian cultural artifacts, archaeological trade groups are again taking advantage of another supposed emergency to call for yet another round of emergency import restrictions, which of course, are just the first step towards a permanent ban. See http://www.archaeological.org/news/aianews/6415

Yet, the facts seem to conspire against them. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/sep/11/tripoli-museum-antiquity-shattered-gaddafi-image (noting that there was no looting of archaeological artifacts at the Libyan national museum).

If I were a member of the Libyan provisional government, I might be a bit peeved that foreign academics are implying that the Libyans themselves are incapable of caring for their own cultural patrimony (despite considerable evidence to the contrary) and view this call for import restrictions as nothing more than a paternalistic violation of Libyan sovereignty.

One also has to wonder what, if any contacts, members of these groups had with the deposed regime. If past history in places like Egypt and Iraq are any guide, these relations could have been considerable. And certainly, this should be considered by Libyan officials as well in determining whether the help of these groups is necessary or desirable.

But do the facts on the ground and the desires of the Libyans really matter when the cronies of these groups run the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center? Or, will Libyan cultural officials be convinced to go along whatever the true facts and what the need for emergency restrictions says about Libya's own competence to care for its own cultural patrimony?

Journalistic Detachment?

2011-09-08T16:42:00.000-07:00

Reporters Jason Felch and Ralph Frammolino have received accolades for their LA Times coverage of the Getty and their new book, Chasing Aphrodite. Anyone under the illusion that they may be detached journalists, however, should read about their SAFE Beacon award and review their Chasing Aphrodite Blog. See http://www.savingantiquities.org/event.php?eventID=257 and http://chasingaphrodite.com/

Messrs. Felch and Frammolino are certainly entitled to their moralistic views, but one can also wonder where their journalism ends and their advocacy begins.

More Comments on de Valette's Sword

2011-09-06T16:26:00.000-07:00

Here are some interesting comments about de Valette's sword from numismatist and scholar Alan Walker. He has graciously allowed me to post them on the CPO blog.

I just read your blog on the campaign to get back Grand Master Jean de la Valette's ceremonial sword and dagger, which are apparently now in the Louvre. He was given these ornamental weapons by Philip II of Spain in 1565 to celebrate the defeat of the Turkish invasion force. It would be interesting to see what they look like but I can't find them in any simple way. In any event, after his death in 1568, it would seem that they were carefully kept (perhaps as a dedication in a church - someone must know but we are not told) until they were looted by the French in 1798. Now the French of the Revolution, like the Nazis, were stupendous looters of works of art, books, coins, everything imaginable, which they brought back to adorn a great museum in Paris. This is just like Hitler's planned museum in Linz. After Napoleon was finally defeated vast amounts of looted art was returned to museums, churches and wherever all over Europe. This was thought to be correct and was a demand that the French government basically fulfilled. However, by that time Malta had become a British possession and stayed that way until 1964. So what happened with this sword at this point? In fact, what happened with whatever other art works that the French went off with from Malta in 1798? Were some or any returned to Malta, or did they just stay wherever they went? This is something we need to know.

The reason why I say this is that de la Valette was, because of his actions as Grand Master, one of Malta's great heros. Thus, something that belonged to him would be of great resonance for Malta (what else do they have that belongs to him - I don't know). So a demand that France give something back that was clearly looted in a obviously stolen sense (i.e., it was not dug out of the ground or found in ruins or in some way you could say was ownershipless - it was in fact appropriated from some kind of institution) is not at all far fetched. These items were, if they were in a church let's say (we don't know do we ) that would mean that they had been seeable by the public and were known to them over several hundred years. This also means they were really part of the nation's culture (or cultural heritage). This is very much in opposition to all those ancient objects that people scream about since they - let's say the Eupronios Krater for example - are not in any real sense part of a nation's heritage since they had no influence whatsoever on later generations of the people involved. If, for example, people could see the sword of the great hero (perhaps only on special days - we don't know) they could be inspired by it, and this could continue over some 230 years (like religious statues or paintings that stood in churches since the 14th century and were revered by generations of people for generations), we can really talk about heritage. And so, this is the kind of thing that ought, for very good reasons, be considered for repatriation from France to Malta: And not necessarily to SMOM, Valette may have been the Order's Grandmaster,but his connection to the Island is much more important.

We really aren't talking about something that is the same as a coin or an antiquity - it is a specific item that was given by a known person in a known event to a known person, and which stayed where it belonged until it was 'officially stolen'

Utter Foolishness

2011-09-06T12:51:00.000-07:00

Now I really have seen everything. PAS critic Paul Barford is so upset with another blog that he has asked the PAS to step in on his behalf. See
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/09/wholly-inadequate-response.html

He accuses the other blog of spreading misinformation, but, of course, I know more than a few individuals who believe Mr. Baford's blog is full of misinformation (as well as utter rudeness to anyone with whom he disagrees).

The good people at the PAS obviously have more to do than to mediate disputes amongst bloggers or to take issue with everything that might be said in the blogosphere.

On a related note, I understand that Mr. Barford's critical book about the PAS has evidently been delayed by the publisher once again. One can only imagine the reason why.

Can't Egypt Come Up With Its Own List?

2011-09-04T06:08:00.001-07:00

Archaeologists have criticised the idea of suggesting programs akin to PAS to foreign states.

Yet, they seem supportive of the State Department's paternalistic effort to announce to Egypt and the rest of the world what Egyptian antiquities are supposedly "at risk." See
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/09/state-department-commissions-egyptian.html

The Federal Budget is facing large cuts that will impact health care, defense and foreign aid. Under the circumstances, is money for the sole source contract to create this "red list" really money well spent?

Why can't Egyptian authorities prepare their own list if one is truly necessary?

State Department Commissions Egyptian "Red List:" More Evidence of A Done Deal?

2011-09-03T08:41:00.000-07:00

The US State Department has given a sole source contract to pro-import restrictions ICOM to create a "red list of Egyptian antiquities at risk." See https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=fa0c2fe21fd3cf5028a500f1fc4b97e4&tab=core&tabmode=list

Even as any "cultural property emergency" (if there ever really was one) fades, it again appears that the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Cultural Heritage Center may be busily at work stage managing a shadow process for imposing import restrictions on cultural goods.

What should happen under the CPIA is clear. A request from Egypt itself is contemplated. And the request should be processed through CPAC.

Here, however, former Egyptian antiquities head, Zahi Hawass, has himself been assured by American archaeologists that import restrictions are a done deal, making any request from Egypt or CPAC hearings to consider it a mere formality. See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/05/hawass-says-emergency-import.html

And now it would seem that CPAC will have no real input on the content of any designated list either-- that presumably will be derived from whatever "red list" ICOM creates.

The CPRI has already made a FOIA request related to whether there is any done deal on and MOU with Egypt. See
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/06/cpri-files-foia-request-on-purported.html However, to date that FOIA request has not been acted upon by the State Department.

In running for election, President Obama promised transparent government and attention to procedure. Yet, the Obama State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs appears committed to neither.

Ancient Coins and Cultural Property Debate at ANS

2011-09-01T08:15:00.000-07:00

My own article is the second in a series being published in the ANS Magazine about ancient coins and the cultural property debate. Not surprisingly, while Sebastian Heath's article came from an archaeological perspective, my own article comes from that of a collector. An extended version can be found here:
http://numismatics.org/wikiuploads/DigitalPublications/WitschonkeTompaFinal.pdf

After explaining that bureaucrats in the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Cultural Heritage Center and their allies in the archaeological establishment have perverted the statutory process for imposing import restrictions on cultural goods to ensure that undocumented coins are treated as "stolen," and that such regulatory overkill can only damage numismatics in this country, I urge the following:

Collectors should be encouraged to only purchase coins from reputable sources and ensure that they retain the history of their coins with the coins themselves so it does not get lost.

Dealers should be encouraged to do the same, and to make sure they comply with the laws of each country in which they do business.

The U.S. Government should be advised to drop the idea of imposing import restrictions based on a coin’s type. The U.K. authorities have the right idea. Restrictions should only be imposed on coins reasonably suspected to be “straight from the ground” in violation of national laws or coins of the highest rarity. Restrictions based on coin type, such as ” all coins struck in Cyprus belong to Cyprus”, suggests that assuaging nationalistic impulses rather than the furthering archaeology is really the motivating force. Under no circumstances should restrictions be allowed to discriminate against American collectors and institutions. The U.S. Government should not entertain any request for broad restrictions from a country that allows its own citizens to collect unprovenanced coins or other artifacts. It is plainly unfair to place burdens on Americans that source countries will not place on their own citizens.

Foreign countries should be encouraged to allow the free sale and export of common coins. They should also investigate the U.K.’s Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS). These programs help preserve context, provide museums with a right of first refusal over material and give collectors access to coins, complete with information about the coin’s find spot.

The archaeological community should avoid ideological approaches to the question of how best to preserve provenance and foster the recording and publication of coins from any source (including those that do not come from official excavations). The AIA should, in particular, end its aggressive campaign for import restrictions on ancient coins. Such restrictions are by their nature controversial: they bar import into the U.S. of artifacts legitimately sold abroad merely because the importer cannot produce detailed provenance information. Preserving archaeological context may be a worthy societal goal, but the AIA’s support for import restrictions confuses “conservation” with “control,” to the detriment not only of collectors, but of numismatics itself.

I'm grateful for the ANS to allow me to express my views, and hope others will also make workable suggestions on how to preserve both collecting that is essential to numismatics and context that is so important to archaeologists.

Obama Administration Appoints More CPAC Members

2011-08-31T07:40:00.000-07:00

President Obama has appointed two more members of CPAC, Nina M. Archabal and Barbara Bluhm-Kaul. See
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/30/president-obama-announces-more-key-administration-posts

According to the White House Press Release,

Dr. Nina M. Archabal, Appointee for Member, Cultural Property Advisory Committee

Dr. Nina M. Archabal is the Director Emerita of the Minnesota Historical Society, having recently retired after 23 years of service as its Director and State Historic Preservation Officer. She has served as Chair of the boards of the American Association of Museums and of the United States Committee of the International Council of Museums, and is on the board of the International Committee for Museums and Collections of Archaeology and History. Dr. Archabal received the President’s Award from the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the National Humanities Medal. She has been an overseer of Harvard College, a member of the National Council on the Humanities, and received the Harvard Medal for Extraordinary Service to the Harvard Community and the Outstanding Alumni Achievement Award from the University of Minnesota. Dr. Archabal received an A.B. and M.A.T. from Harvard University and a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota.

Barbara Bluhm-Kaul, Appointee for Member, Cultural Property Advisory Committee

Barbara Bluhm-Kaul is a trustee of The Art Institute in Chicago and the Aspen Art Museum. She is a benefactor of the Bluhm Family Terrace at the Modern Wing of The Art Institute as well as of the Bluhm Seminar Room. Ms. Bluhm-Kaul has sponsored art exhibitions at The Art Institute, the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago, and the Aspen Art Museum. She has loaned works from her collection to many major museums throughout the world including the National Gallery of Art, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Whitney Museum, the Kunstmuseum in Basel, and the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris. Ms. Bluhm-Kaul received her Bachelor of Arts from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

It is unclear whether the new members will be assigned to museum or public slots. It should be noted however that Ms. Bluhm-Kaul does not appear to have direct experience with the types of artifacts that are subject to CPAC's deliberations, and that Ms. Archabal's background suggests sympathy for the archaeological position in the cultural property debate.

CPAC is supposed to provide the President's designee at the State Department with useful advice that reflects the interests of collectors, dealers, museums and archaeologists. So far, however, President Obama's picks seem more geared to ensuring that CPAC "doesn't make waves" when asked to impose the broadest import restrictions possible than anything else.

Crying Wolf

2011-08-30T09:55:00.001-07:00

UNESCO has issued an alarm that Libya's cultural heritage has become the target of looters and a Russian journalist is claiming that the Museum in Tripoli has been sacked and that NATO warplanes have bombed important cultural sites. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/26/libyas-cultural-heritage-_n_938405.html and
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article2406278.ece

Not so fast. In fact, the museum in Tripoli appears to be under rebel guard. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/letter-from-tripoli And there have been no credible reports about either extensive looting of archaeological sites or attacks by NATO aircraft.

Indeed, to the extent Libya's cultural heritage has gone missing, isn't it more likely to have happened due to the sticky fingers of Libya's former ruler and his family?

Under the circumstances, perhaps we should not jump to conclusions.

Addendum: Andrew Lawler has also written an article, entitled "Claims of Mass Libyan Looting Rejected by Archaeologists," Science Magazine (Sept. 1, 2011). See http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/09/claims-of-mass-libyan-looting.html?ref=hp

ACCG Board Authorizes Appeal

2011-08-28T03:26:00.001-07:00

The ACCG Board has authorized an appeal of Judge Blake's dismissal of the ACCG test case. See
http://www.accg.us/News/Item/Board_Authorizes_Baltimore_Appeal.aspx

And appeal or not, concerns about how the State Department and US Customs treats collectors, the small businesses of the numismatic trade, and institutions that collect coins won't go away, and indeed will likely only increase as more and more collecting areas become largely off limits to all but the wealthy who can afford to purchase the few coins with established collecting histories.

Facebook Campaign to Repatriate de Valette's Sword-- But to Where?

2011-08-26T07:44:00.000-07:00

A Maltese history buff has started a Facebook campaign to seek the return of de Valette's ceremonial sword from France to Malta. See
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110824/local/Facebook-campaign-for-return-of-de-Valette-s-sword.381580

The sword has an interesting history. As the article explains,

"The sword and a matching dagger had been given to the Grand Master by the Holy Roman Emperor Philippe II of Spain in 1565 [better known here for his effort to invade England], to mark the Order’s victory in the Great Siege in the same year, which had led to the retreat of the Ottoman forces.

In 1798, while on his way to Egypt, Napoleon landed in Malta. He captured the islands with the loss of only three Frenchmen. The knights had lost their fighting spirit and although the Maltese forces offered to resist the occupation, Grand Master Ferdinand Von Hompesch surrendered.

In his Facebook page, Bring Back The Sword of La Valette to Malta, Mr Bugeja says: 'This sword was unfortunately taken from us by Napoleon’s soldiers when they invaded Malta and is now on display in the Louvre Museum in Paris. This sword rightfully belongs to the Maltese people and should be in a Maltese museum and not in Paris.'"

But, even if the French would accede to such a request, should the de Valette sword really be sent back to Malta? Or, is its proper place at the headquarters of de Valette's "Order of Malta" in Rome, particularly when his knights continue to maintain many of the trappings of a sovereignty, including diplomatic relations, coins, stamps and even an "air force." See http://www.orderofmalta.org/the-order-and-its-institutions/310/the-knights-of-malta/?lang=en
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta

Yet another conundrum the comes with the repatriationist territory.

Coin World Coverage of ACCG Case

2011-08-23T06:34:00.000-07:00

Coin World has posted the following story on its website:
http://www.coinworld.com/articles/accg-loses-test-case-involving-coin-imports/

Another View of ATADA Meeting

2011-08-22T15:09:00.000-07:00

Here is another view of what actually happened at a panel sponsored by the Antique Tribal Art Dealers Association. Kate Fitz Gibbon, a participant, believes that an archaeological blog and article mischaraterized the event, and provided this for publication on the CPO Blog:

Your email noted an article on a Santa Fe event during last week’s annual Indian Market – and the subsequent press, blog and Twitter response. I was a panelist at the August 15th public program sponsored by the Antique Tribal Art Dealers Association Foundation, New Mexico Lawyers for the Arts, and the Cultural Policy Research Institute. The panel included four ATADA board members and three representatives from the FBI, Dr. Bonnie Magness-Gardiner, Program Manager, FBI Art Theft Program, David Hall, Esq., a prosecutor with the Art Crime Program, and David Kice, F.B.I. Special Agent. The program was free, public, very well attended and civil throughout. The next day, ATADA members hosted the FBI guests at a tour of the Santa Fe Antique Indian Art Show. There was agreement to continue to work cooperatively, including, tentatively, by having ATADA members speak at a training program the FBI operates in Santa Fe.

The Santa Fe New Mexican article following the program said that the crowd had “jeered” the FBI, a complete mischaracterization of the event. An Associated Press reporter present gave an accurate description. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/19/after-fbi-raids-native-am_n_931700.html

Panelists asked at several points what art dealers could do to help the FBI stop looting. Mr. Hall said that they should just tip the FBI off to criminal activity. Mr. Kice said that art dealers always complained that the FBI had gone after the wrong guys but would not tell the FBI where to find the major looters. That remark elicited spontaneous laughter from virtually the entire public audience, and a number of people replied at the same time, “We don’t know any!”

Afterwards, audience members expressed disappointment that the FBI panelists would not respond to questions on the Blanding and Santa Fe cases or any Indian artifacts-related matters. The FBI panelists stated only that these were ongoing investigations and they could not comment on policy because the FBI didn’t make policy.

There are a few remaining defendants in the Blanding, Utah cases (the rest have reached plea agreements for probation) and a wrongful death suit was recently filed in a Bivens action by the widow of Dr. James Redd of Blanding, who committed suicide the day after agents held him shackled for four hours of questioning. The charge against him was that he had picked up a shell pendant, ¼ in by ½ inch long from the surface of the ground during a hike. The pendant was never offered for sale. One other defendant committed suicide after turning himself in, and the FBI informant in the cases committed suicide just a few weeks before the first trial was scheduled to begin.

Interestingly, Ms. Magness-Gardiner was asked if there were any completed cases she could speak about; her reply was that in her tenure at the FBI (six years, if I recall correctly) the Blanding cases were the only cases related to Indian artifacts that the FBI has pursued.

Earlier the same day, in another ATADA presentation, Dace Hyatt, who was the only appraiser qualified as an expert by the courts in the Blanding cases, showed examples of artifacts from completed cases. All material had been released in discovery. The values ascribed by the informant and utilized by the FBI averaged 752% of the appraised Fair Market valuation. This difference in valuation pushed the charge related to most artifacts from a misdemeanor to a felony.

A third ATADA program was led by US Fish and Game agent Dan Brooks, and a fourth featured a discussion on laws related to endangered species by attorneys Roger Fry, William Fry and Len Weakley. All the programs were videotaped and will be available through the ATADA Foundation. Contact webmaster@atada.org for information on how to order them.

Kate Fitz Gibbon

Slim Public Support for Italian Import Restrictions Raises Questions About State Department Special Interest Program for Archaeologists

2011-08-18T10:16:00.000-07:00

Politcos within the Obama State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and Diplomats from the Italian Embassy take note: a recent FOIA request reveals that CPAC only received thirteen (13) public comments in support of controversial import restrictions on "coins of Italian type."

Not that there really was any groundswell of public support for renewing the Italian MOU in the first place. Indeed, CPAC received only about one hundred (100) comments in favor of renewing the MOU at all.

Who supported the renewal of the MOU? The American public? Well, maybe only one or two individuals identified themselves as such. No, as one might expect, virtually all the support came from archaeologists who excavate in Italy, their students or their "trade associations."

And who supported restrictions on coins? Well, the AIA, Lawyer's Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation, a few professors and students from NYU (Home of Pro-Restriction CPAC member Joan Connelly) and foreign archaeo-bloggers like David Gill and Paul Barford.

Contrast this with the one thousand nine hundred (1,900) plus public comments opposed to the extension of import restrictions on ancient coins.

Given this disparity, one can only ask: What gives? Why has the State Department disadvantaged the interests of American collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade by imposing hard to meet documentation requirements when the support for such restrictions is so limited?

And more to the point, has State Department Cultural Heritage Center staff told the political appointees at State and the diplomats at the Italian Embassy how thin the support actually is for restrictions?

The Nanny State Strikes Again

2011-08-16T08:19:00.000-07:00

A Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute has analogized the import restrictions at issue in the ACCG case to other recent examples of bureaucratic over reach, such as clampdowns on lemonade stands and the saving of baby woodpeckers by well meaning children. See http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/08/another-hobby-legally-hazardous-pursue

He then goes on to state,

Much of this new body of law rests on the dubious premise that cultural artifacts of great antiquity, even those that have been in the hands of Western museums or collectors for hundreds of years, should by right be subject to the dictates of whichever national government or sovereign entity happens to lay claim to the territory where the objects were originally crafted.

Such national governments, however, are often culturally quite distinct from the civilizations that inhabited those places over millennia, and often lack either the will or the means to conserve fragile artifacts as well as collectors would. The fate of more than a few "returned" artifacts has been to be stolen or crumble in the hands of inexpert new custodians.

Is some sort of property right at issue? Well, one might conceivably argue that certain artifacts, such as funerary urns and temple friezes, must by their nature be regarded as stolen property since at some point they must have been looted from sites originally contemplated as permanent.

(Presumably -- but not necessarily -- temples may choose to sell their friezes, dynasties go out of business with no receiver in bankruptcy, and so forth.)

But coins are just the opposite: They were meant to circulate, and, if of good value, they might soon be found in intended and legitimate use far from their country of origin.

Much of the success of coins as an institution in economic history (as with precious metals more generally) arose from their very anonymity, the fact that when they changed hands they left no paper trail for a jealous sovereign to trace.

Yet modern antiquities law falls over itself to cater to the wishes of the jealous sovereign, at a cost to both fairness and the interests of conservation. Why?

Good question.

Wall Street Journal Legal Blog on ACCG Case

2011-08-15T13:35:00.000-07:00

As the Wall Street Journal Legal Blog observes,

"The next time you try to bring antiques into the U.S., think again: if they look old enough and don’t have any documentation, customs officials might just seize them as potentially looted cultural artifacts."

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/08/15/court-rules-u-s-customs-rightfully-seized-ancient-coins/?mod=google_news_blog

Scare tactics? Hardly. It's not too hard to imagine someone purchasing an old Roman Republican coin at a shop in Italy or one of the millions of Chinese cash coins extant at a stall in Indonesia, only to have it seized by those ever so friendly US Customs officers after a long flight at the end of what had beforehand been a pleasant vacation.

Perhaps the bureaucracy is out of control after all....even if at least one US District Court Judge would rather not hold it accountable as a legal matter.