US State Department Imposes Embargo on Algerian Cultural Artifacts-- Including Rope!

The U.S. State Department has approved a MOU and import restrictions on behalf of Algeria's authoritarian government. For more, see today's Federal Register notice.

Once again, the designated list is extremely broad. In what has to be a first, import restrictions have even been imposed on rope!

Both coin collectors and Jewish groups will once again be disappointed.  Import restrictions have been applied on virtually all coins that were made or circulated within Algeria down to 1750, including those made outside the confines of what is now Algeria by the Carthaginians, Byzantines, Ottomans and Spanish.  While there are no explicit restrictions on artifacts of Algeria's displaced Jewish population, certain categories like "manuscripts" may nonetheless encompass Jewish religious artifacts like Torahs.

Import restrictions are controversial to the trade and collectors because, as construed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, they embargo all undocumented items of types on designated lists imported after the effective date of the regulations, not just items illegally exported from a UNESCO State party after the effective date of import restrictions as required under CPIA, 19 U.S.C. §§ 2601, 2604, 2606, 2610. Such regulatory actions have converted CPIA import restrictions into embargoes of all objects of restricted types rather  than targeted, prospective import restrictions that do not impact the purchase of artifacts from the legitimate marketplace abroad.

Import restrictions have been particularly hard on coin collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade because most collector's coins (which typically are of limited value) lack detailed provenance histories necessary for legal import. This has greatly damaged the legitimate trade in such items with fellow collectors, especially from within the EU.  Here, if anything, the problem will be exacerbated because Algeria was a French colony for such a long time. Many artifacts must have left Algeria for France during this period lawfully, but with little documentary proof.  Often such material does not have a solid provenance, and cannot be legally imported under U.S. Custom and Border Protection procedures.

Summary of CPAC Meeting to Accept Public Comments for Proposed MOUs with Jordan and Chile

On April 1, 2019, the U.S. Cultural Property Advisory Committee (“CPAC”) met to take public comment on proposed MOUs with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Republic of Chile. 

The following CPAC Members appeared to be present: (1) Jeremy Sabloff (Museum) (Chair); (2) Rosemary Joyce (Archaeology/Anthropology); (3) Dorit Straus (International Trade of Cultural Objects); (4) Lothar von Falkenhausen (Archaeology); (5) Karol Wight (Museums); and (6) James Willis (International Trade of Cultural Artifacts).

Andrew Cohen, CPAC’s executive director, provided some background.  CPAC was constituted to provide advice to the executive department about proposed MOUs.  Cohen is the designated federal official to act as liaison between the Department of State and CPAC. 

Dr. Sabloff welcomes all presenters.  He notes CPAC’s role is to advise the President’s designee in the Department of State about MOUs.  He indicates that CPAC’s first annual report should be available on the Cultural Heritage Center website.  He further indicates CPAC is not only charged with considering new MOUs, but with reviewing current agreements.

Dr. Sabloff indicates that past procedures have been changed.  Now, the Committee would ask questions first and then allow 5 minutes for additional comments.  Presenters should focus on a few points made in their submissions or bring up new matters in their presentation. 

There were five speakers (1) Dr. Jane Evans, Temple University; (2) Kate FitzGibbon, Committee for Cultural Policy and Global Heritage Alliance; (3) Dr. Morag Kersel, DePaul University; (4) Dr. César Méndez, Center for Research of Patagonian Ecosystems, Coyhaique, Chile; and (5) Peter Tompa, representing International Association of Professional Numismatists and the Professional Numismatists Guild.

Rosemary Joyce askes Kate FitzGibbon about the market for Jordanian artifacts.  Her point is that there are venues other than large auction houses where Jordanian material is sold.  Ms. FitzGibbon indicates that the public summary provides little information on this issue.  Dr. Joyce acknowledges the public summary could be better but notes CPAC receives additional information about the market in such materials.

Karol Wight asks Dr. Méndez about fossils.  Dr. Méndez indicates he is an archaeologist and not a paleontologist.  He notes the documentation he has seen points to looting of archaeological and paleontological objects in Central and Northern Chile.  Collectors are the end of a chain that leads back to looters.

James Willis asks Kate FitzGibbon about how Jordan’s request—which she views as excessively broad—can be narrowed.  Ms. FitzGibbon indicates the best way to narrow the request is to follow the Cultural Property Implementation Act (“CPIA”) and not impose import restrictions on repetitive objects that are not of cultural significance or trinkets.  FitzGibbon understands concerns about ruined archaeological sites, but Congress drew lines that need to be followed.  She understands the impetus to “do something,” but above all else CPAC should follow the law.  Mr. Willis asks about fossils.  Ms. FitzGibbon indicates that fact that Chile treats them as archaeological objects does not mean the U.S. statute does.  Ms. FitzGibbon believes the CPIA does not apply to paleontological objects like fossils. 

Dr. Sabloff allows Dr. Evans to speak even though she submitted her comments late after the comment period closed.  She reads her letter supporting import restrictions on coins.  She maintains that Nabataean coins are local issues primarily found in Jordan.  She indicates that illegal metal detectors are in use in Jordan.  She mentions that 400 coins were stolen from a Jordanian museum and fakes put in their place.  She maintains that import restrictions are necessary to protect Jordanian coins from looters. 

Dorit Straus asks Peter Tompa about how dealers police themselves and about provenance issues related to coins.  Peter Tompa states that the major trade associations ask their dealer members to comply with the law of every country in which they do business.  As for provenance, Tompa indicates that provenance information is normally not kept for low value coins like those from Jordan.  Provenance is being increasingly transmitted for higher value coins that have previously appeared at auction.  He notes that most people have antiques in their house that also lack a solid provenance.  It is simply not a legal requirement in the US or Europe and presumably is not a requirement for collectors in Jordan either.

Dr. Sabloff asks Tompa about the annual coin show that takes place in Amman, Jordan.  He indicates that he cannot add more to the article cited in his papers.

Dr. Sabloff asks Tompa to give his statement.  Tompa focuses on two issues.  First, one cannot assume that coins that circulated within Jordan were actually found there.  There is no question about this for coins struck by Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Islamic empires struck elsewhere.  Nabatean and coins of the Decapolis should be considered “regional issues” rather than “local” ones as maintained by Doctors Elkins and Evans.  The Nabatean kingdom encompassed parts of what are now Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.  Nabatean coins are found in all these countries.  The same should be the case for later Roman provincial coins because Decapolis cities were not only in Jordan but in Syria and Israel as well.  This is significant because Customs conflates where a coin is made with where it is found.  There either should be no import restrictions on coins or any restrictions should be explicitly limited to coins illicitly removed from Jordan after the effective date of regulations.  Customs currently misapplies import restrictions as embargos on all coins of a given type imported after the effective date of restrictions.  In contrast, the CPIA only allows prospective import restrictions on objects illicitly exported from a country like Jordan after the effective date of the governing regulations.  Tompa also notes that ancient coins are openly sold at an Amman coin fair and at the Petra archaeological site.  These sales argue either for no import restrictions on coins or at least that Jordan issue exports for coins sold at these venues.  This would allow for the lawful export of such coins as well as stimulate the local economy and encourage tourism.

Dr. Kersel indicates that even “trinkets’ may have archaeological value.  She notes there are over 30 letters of support from archaeologists and archaeological groups for a MOU with Jordan.  Jordan could do more to protect its cultural patrimony, but it is probably doing what it can with current budgetary constraints.  Jordan has hosted many refugees from Iraq and Syria.  This has put great strains on the country.  Jordan has a new cultural patrimony law.  It recently signed a MOU with Egypt to protect cultural artifacts.  The Antiquities Department is underfunded but doing what it can.  Dr. Kersel’s “Follow the Pots” project has shown that biblical artifacts are subject to looting.  There have been anti-looting workshops in Jordan.  There have been museum loans, most recently to the Met for the “World Between Empires” exhibit.  Jordan has been very generous with loans to US institutions to study artifacts from archaeological digs.  Illicit material has traditionally left Jordan through Israel.  Israel has a new registration requirement placed on antiquities dealers, but it is too early to know if it has worked. 

Ms. FitzGibbon states the Jordanian request includes many repetitive objects that should not be subject to import restrictions under the CPIA.  She notes such objects appear to be sold openly at the Petra archaeological site.   The police apparently look the other way.  She recounts one incident in one of the letters that was submitted where the police were making tea for looters.  She indicates that the trade in “biblical artifacts” has been going on for a long time.  Mark Twain wrote about them and Ms. FitzGibbon has a cheap oil lamp purchased years ago by a relative.  Now that Israel has instituted a registration system, it will be far more difficult for material looted from Jordan to be sold there.   The Israeli Antiquities Service is certainly not lax in enforcing anti-smuggling laws.  Ms. FitzGibbon called Bob Dodge, who was mentioned in the summary as selling Jordanian artifacts.  He indicated that he sold two such artifacts in the last 20 years.  Ms. FitzGibbon states there is no indication valuable Jordanian artifacts are for sale in quantity in the United States. 

Dr. Méndez indicates local looters are just the end of a chain that starts with wealthy collectors.  There are agencies in Chile charged with protecting cultural patrimony from looting.  Antiquities help give a voice to the people. 

Dorit Straus asks Dr. Kersel asked about cooperation between Israeli and Jordanian authorities.  Dr. Kersel indicates such cooperation has existed since the Oslo accords.  She also indicates a MOU with the US would be a signal to local authorities to increase such cooperation.

Dr. Sabloff asks Dr. Evans if she would like to add anything.  She states that an archaeological dig in the Golan Heights demonstrates that Nabataen coins circulated primarily in Jordan because only a few Nabataen coins were found at this site.  She also indicated that the use of metal detectors made it important that import restrictions be imposed.

Dr. Sabloff asks Kate FitzGibbon if she has any final words.  She notes that the US Congress requires CPAC to quantify the amount of money Jordan is spending on protecting its cultural heritage.  She also notes in response to Dr. Sabloff’s comment that CPAC also undertakes a continuing review of current agreements that CPAC has allowed MOUs to buttress authoritarian governments’ claims to control the past.  Ms. FitzGibbon reports she attended a large 3000 person meeting of the Association of Asian Studies.  They have issued a very strong statement condemning China for its oppression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang.  Ms. FitzGibbon spoke with several US academics whose graduate students had gone back to visit family and then disappeared into camps where they were tortured or even killed. She indicated unless CPAC also takes strong steps to disavow agreements and renewals with Egypt, Cambodia, Libya, and most especially China, it will be accountable for the use of cultural heritage as tool for authoritarian governments.  She recognizes these are strong words, but notes despite China’s actions a renewal of the current MOU was nonetheless done in January 2019.  Ms. FitzGibbon urges that this not be allowed to continue. 

Dr. Sabloff closed the session thanking the participants. He notes CPAC closely reviews the testimony and submissions before making recommendations to the State Department. 

My Comments at Today's CPAC Hearing Regarding a Proposed MOU with Jordan

      Here are my oral comments at today's CPAC hearing regarding a proposed MOU with Jordan.   My written comments on behalf of the numismatic trade may be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS-2019-0004-0006

          Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the small businesses of the numismatic trade and collectors.  Our papers cover the relevant issues in detail, but let me focus on two important points.  First, you simply cannot assume coins of types that circulated in Jordan were found there.  Leaving other statutory requirements aside, that means there either should be no restrictions placed on coins at all or, if you must have restrictions that they only apply to coins proven to have been illicitly exported from Jordan after the effective date of any applicable regulations.  That is in fact the statutory mandate, but one which has been ignored over the years in favor of restrictions on coins of types on designated lists imported after the effective date of restrictions.  The way that Customs enforces import restrictions has been hugely problematical to the legitimate numismatic trade and collectors.  It has led to embargoes of all coins of given types, rather than focused, prospective import restrictions that do not impact the purchase of coins from the legitimate marketplace abroad, mostly within Europe.  The one appellate court that has looked at the issue has said—wrongly in our view—that import restrictions are a “foreign policy” issue beyond judicial review.   So, if anything, that makes your work to make sure that the Cultural Property Implementation Act is being followed even more important.

          The underlying problem is that U.S. Customs has confused where coins are made with where coins are found.  Only where items are actually found is what is relevant in CPIA, 19 U.S.C. § 2601.  It is simply incorrect to assume that all coins of types that circulated within Jordan were found there.  There is no factual dispute about Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and Islamic coins struck elsewhere that were traded throughout these Empires.  It is far more likely any such coins were found elsewhere than in Jordan.  On the other hand, there appears to be a dispute about what Dr. Elkins calls “local coinage,” but which more accurately should be described as “regional coinage.”   As collector and scholar Martin Huth (who co-Authored the ANS book, “Coinage of the Caravan Kingdoms”) has stated in his own public comments, “The Nabataean kingdom covered, at different times, various parts of what is now Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Nabataean coins are found in all of these countries. Hence, it is neither possible to equate "Nabataea" with "Jordan", nor to attribute (or re-patriate) a non-provenanced Nabataean coin legally to Jordan. This situation is further compounded by the obvious fact that, as with any ancient or modern coinage, coins were produced for circulation and may therefore be found on the territory of another modern state (e.g., Israel) than that where it was minted (e.-g., Jordan).”  IAPN and PNG also note the same must be true for the coins of the Decapolis, which included cities not only in Jordan but in what is today’s Syria and Israel.

          CPAC should also be aware that coins of the sort that may be restricted also appear to be openly available for sale in Jordan itself at an annual coin show sanctioned by the Ministry of Culture and from Bedouin traders at Petra.  If that does not argue against restrictions, it should at least argue for the issuance of export permits being a precondition of any grant of import restrictions on coins.  Article 6 of the UNESCO Convention and CPIA, 19 U.S.C. § 2606 assume State Parties like Jordan will issue export permits. CPAC should also make any import restrictions conditional on issuance of such export permits.  Such permits should be issued both at the annual coin fair in Amman and at the Petra archaeological site where low value coins are sold to tourists.  This would allow for lawful export of such coins as well as help stimulate the local economy and encourage tourism. 

          Thank you again for listening to the concerns of the small businesses of the ancient coin trade as well as collectors.  Please let me know if you have any questions.

CPAC to Consider New MOU's with Jordan and Chile

On April 1, 2019, the U.S. Cultural Property Advisory Committee will consider proposed MOU's and associated import restrictions with the Kingdom of  Jordan and the Republic of Chile.Please consider commenting before the March 25, 2019 close.  

More about the CPAC meeting, including a public summary of the Jordanian request, can be found here.

To comment, click on the blue "Comment Now" button here.  If that does not work, paste this address into your web browser and try: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS-2019-0004-0001

The State Department Cultural Heritage Center's updated website provides much better information than in the past about what CPAC considers before recommending import restrictions.  This information may be accessed here.

To the extent possible, members of the public should try to comment on these factors.  Collectors and members of the trade should particularly be well placed to discuss how import restrictions negatively impact the study and appreciation of the history and culture of Jordan and Chile, and the people to people contacts collecting fosters.

The prospect of import restrictions on ancient Jordanian and Colonial and Republican era coins from Chile also raise specific factors that should be addressed.

Ancient Jordan was part of much larger Empires.  Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Islamic coins minted elsewhere also circulated in Jordan, but we cannot assume all such coins-- or even a substantial percentage of them-- were found there.

Even more "local issues" circulated regionally outside of Jordan.  For example, the coins of the Nabatean Kings would have circulated  throughout their kingdom, which included parts of modern day Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palestine and Israel.  Moreover, later Greek Imperial coins of the Decapolis also likely circulated throughout the area, which included Israel and Syria.

There is a threshold issue of whether Chilean coins meet the definition of "archaeological" or "ethnological" objects that are a predicate for them to be restricted. Coins struck in the 17th century and later are likely never to have been buried in the ground.  Moreover, as products of what were then considered modern industrial processes, one would be hard pressed to consider them "ethnological objects."

It is also difficult to assume coin types that circulated within Chile were found there.  Chile also was part of a much larger Spanish Empire that issued similar coins from multiple mints intended not only for use throughout that Empire but as trade coins.  These trade coins were also used extensively in the United States (where they were legal tender until 1857) and Asia, particularly China.  Even after Chile broke away from Spain, it struck similar trade coins that again ciruclated as far away as Asia and the United States.  So once again, it is impossible to assume that such coins were found in Chile.

Update 3/14/19:  The State Department has released a public summary of Chile's request.  It is focused on Pre-Columbian archaeological objects. One issue that should be noted is whether import restrictions may be placed on fossils because Chilean law includes paleontological material as a subset of archaeological material. The Chilean Public Summary can be found here.

Supreme Court Denies ACCG's Petition for Certiorari

On Feb. 19, 2019, the Supreme Court denied the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild’s petition for certiorari. See https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/18-767.html

That petition asked the Court to review the Fourth Circuit’s decision that treats import restrictions on ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins under the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) as embargoes. The Guild had argued the plain meaning of the statute and the Guild’s Fifth Amendment Takings and Due Process rights require the CPIA to be read to only apply to coins of types on designated lists proven to be illicitly exported from Cyprus or China after the effective date of government regulations. The Fourth Circuit instead approved the forfeiture of Cypriot and Chinese coins of types on designated lists imported into the United States after the effective date of the applicable regulations, i.e., an embargo of all coins of restricted types rather than targeted, prospective import restrictions that do not impact the purchase of coins from the legitimate marketplace abroad.

Denials of certiorari have no precedential value. The Fourth Circuit’s opinion is only binding within its jurisdiction (Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North and South Carolina). Nevertheless, the decision will likely be cited as precedent elsewhere, and the archaeological lobby and the US cultural bureaucracy will likely pitch it as approving broad executive authority in the area.

CPO finds it frustrating that broad declarations of executive authority that find little support in statutory language and raise constitutional concerns only seem to provoke public outrage and judicial scrutiny selectively.  That in turn also raises the fundamental question whether Fifth Amendment Takings and Due Process rights are as jealously guarded today as other constitutional rights.  Or, maybe this is just another example where private property rights-- which were of great importance to the "Founding Fathers" -- are being eroded further without much notice from the general public and the media. 

Public Consultation on Proposed Changes to UK's Treasure Act

The UK Government is considering changes to the Treasure Act.   Collector based organizations have supported the Treasure Act because it encourages the reporting of finds.  It also ensures the State pays fair market value for finds it keeps and remits back all others to the finder, who may sell them on the open market.  The coins that are recorded are then uploaded on a publicly accessible website.   This has led to the availability of coins on the numismatic market that can be identified as coming from specific, UK find-spots and hoards. 

 Most of the proposed changes appear non-controversial, but certain of the proposals that require permits to metal detect, that create a new offense for purchases of undeclared artifacts, and declare archaeological finds Crown Property, are potentially very problematic. 

 A permit requirement could be used to preclude detecting from “archaeologically sensitive areas,” which could mean everything.

 The proposed new criminal sanction could catch unwary buyers of objects that did not realize they were buying "treasure."  Moreover, collectors should oppose the proposal's efforts to shift the burden of proof in a criminal matter.

 Declaring all finds crown property may be a way to avoid paying fair market value for finds the State retains.

If you are a metal detectorist, an ancient coin collector, or just think the UK's current PAS and Treasure Act do a great job of bringing the public, museums and archaeologists together in a joint effort to record and preserve the past, please consider commenting.

 

Comments are due on or before April 30, 2019.

 

For more about the issue, see https://culturalpropertynews.org/uk-changes-treasure-act/

 

For a direct link to the consultation, see https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/revising-the-definition-of-treasure-in-the-treasure-act-1996-and-revising-the-related-codes-of-practice

ACCG's Petition for Certiorari to be Considered at Supreme Court's 2/15/19 Conference

The ACCG's petition for certiorari will be considered at the Supreme Court's 2/15/19 conference. The Guild has asked the Supreme Court to keep the burden of proof as to CPIA forfeitures of cultural goods on the government, where it belongs. For more, see https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/18-767.html

ACCG Requests Supreme Court to Hear Forfeiture Case

On December 12, 2018, the ACCG asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its forfeiture case.  Specifically, the Guild has requested the Supreme Court to consider the following questions for review:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

            This case arises from the civil forfeiture of ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins under the Cultural Property Implementation Act (“CPIA”), 19 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. The coins are of types that appear on “designated lists” subject to import restrictions.  Congress limited the reach of such import restrictions to archaeological objects “first discovered within” and “subject to export control by” a specific State Party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention, and further placed the burden of proof on the Government to establish that such designated material was listed in accordance with these criteria.  19 U.S.C. §§ 2601, 2604, 2610. Congress also ensured such import restrictions are entirely prospective.  They only apply to designated archaeological material illicitly exported from the State Party after the effective date of the implementing regulations.  Id. § 2606.  The questions presented are:

1.         Did the courts below violate the Guild’s 5th Amendment Due Process Rights when they authorized the forfeiture of the Guild’s private property without any showing that the Guild’s coins were illicitly exported from Cyprus or China after the effective date of import restrictions?

2.         In a civil forfeiture action implicating the Guild’s 5th Amendment Due Process Rights, did a prior decision upholding import restrictions under a highly deferential ultra vires standard of review “foreclose” consideration of legislative history, judicial admissions, and other  information relevant to the Government’s burden of proof?

The Guild's Petition for Certiorari in its entirety can be found here. 

Building Bridges: A Symposium on Global Cultural Heritage Preservation

This week I attended an interesting seminar put on by the State Department's new Cultural Heritage Coordinating Committee (CHCC) that took place at the Smithsonian Institution.   There were some really enjoyable programs about preservation work, and it was nice to have the opportunity to meet others with different perspectives.  However,  CPO still came away concerned that legitimate collecting is more at risk than ever by grossly over-broad application of cultural heritage laws which Congress originally intended to focus prospectively on specific looting problems in specific countries abroad.

I don't have time to summarize the entire symposium, but here are some of my takeaways:

1.  ISIS may have been defeated on the battlefield, but the terror group still looms large as the justification for all sorts of efforts that impinge on the due process and private property rights of collectors.  The latest claim is that while ISIS may have lost most, if not all, of its territory, it has been warehousing large numbers of valuable artifacts with which to fund its ongoing jihad.

2.  The State Department and law enforcement coordinate heavily with academics and related advocacy groups which are largely hostile to private collecting of antiquities.  Even though the statute that set up the CHCC calls for the committee to coordinate with the trade in addition to cultural heritage groups, there appears to be little evidence of consultations with the trade.  (CPO was happy to get invited, but he was not there for a dealer group.)  This should be particularly troubling because it has certainly contributed to  overboard application of cultural heritage laws in a matter hostile to even legitimate collecting.

3.  Enforcement will be ramped up in the next 18 months, which should be a major concern given the increasing number of cultural property agreements, how broad they have become and how broadly they are enforced.   Apparently, the State Department (with the help of the archaeological lobby)  is working on five new agreements with Middle Eastern countries (most, if not all, of which have authoritarian governments which claim title to anything and everything "old.")  Moreover, there still is no up-to-date guidance for the public in this area, though U.S. Customs at least realizes this is a problem. 

4.  FBI and Homeland Security Investigations are on board with archaeological advocacy groups' and certain compliance vendors' efforts to impose new anti-money laundering (AML) regulations specifically on the art trade because AML violations may be used to pile on charges and encourage guilty pleas.  Still, the evidence presented that money laundering is a real problem in the art trade remains very slim and largely depends on conflating money laundering with other financial crimes.

5.  The Smithsonian has done lots of good work on cultural heritage preservation and restoration projects, but has also joined the cultural property wars on the side of archaeological advocacy groups and has lobbied with them in their legislative efforts that have harmed the legitimate trade in cultural artifacts.  

Jay Kislak dies at Age 96

Jay Kislak, philanthropist and former Chair of the U.S. Cultural Property Advisory Committee, has passed away at the ripe old age of 96.  All coin collectors should be grateful for Mr. Kislak's truth telling about import restrictions on Cypriot coins in the face of State Department claims that the decision was made with CPAC's assent. Jay knew better, and wasn't afraid to say so. 

ACCG Seeks Rehearing

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild has sought rehearing of the 4th Circuit's affirmance of the District Court's decision to forfeit the Guild's ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins originally imported for purposes of its test case.  In making its request, the Guild has stated,

"The Panel’s decision collapses any meaningful distinctions among detentions, seizures and forfeitures and between ultra vires and constitutional review.  Furthermore, it has effectively rewritten prospective, targeted CPIA import restrictions into embargoes on all archaeological objects of types found on designated lists.  Amicus support attests to the public importance of these issues.  Rehearing is warranted.... This Court should not sanction assuming away important elements of the Government’s prima facie case.  Nor should the Court close its eyes to relevant information, including Government admissions, or further a demonstrably false narrative about how import restrictions on coins were promulgated to justify its decision."

Update (10/26/18)-  The 4th Circuit has denied the Guild's request for rehearing so the Guild will now seek certiorari from the Supreme Court.  Cultural Property News has written a good story about this case.  See https://culturalpropertynews.org/an-epic-battle-u-s-v-3-knife-shaped-coins/ 

Chinese Art and Antiques Saved from Tariffs

The Trump Administration has abandoned plans to place up to 25% tariffs on Chinese art, antiques and historical coins.  The office of US Trade Representative was evidently swayed by arguments that collateral damage to US small businesses and cultural exchange with our allies in the United Kingdom, the EU and Asia, particularly Japan from tariffs outweighed any benefits.  If anything, such tariffs would play into Chinese Government efforts to redirect Chinese art back to China for the benefit of wealthy collectors and auction houses associated with the Chinese government.  Now, if only the State Department would rethink the proposed renewal of the cultural property MOU with China, which raises many of the same issues.

4th Circuit Affirms District Court Ruling in Long Running ACCG Forfeiture Case

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the district court opinion in long running litigation which began when the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild originally sought judicial review of controversial import restrictions on ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins.  This latest case was an action where the government sought to forfeit the Guild’s coins which were originally imported for purposes of that test case.

The initial round of litigation approved the State Department’s decision to impose the import restrictions under a very limited “ultra vires” review standard.   Here, the Court ruled that the it could also assume major elements of the government’s case for forfeiture were established in that earlier decision.  What is disconcerting is that in so doing, the Fourth Circuit panel completely glossed over the Guild’s primary argument— that the Court could not assume away major elements of the government’s case in the context of a forfeiture action which implicated the Guild’s 5th Amendment constitutional due process rights.   This should be particularly troubling because how a court reviews executive action when constitutional rights are at stake was also at the heart of the same Court’s recent en banc (full court) rulings in the Trump travel ban cases.   That raises the obvious question, are private property and due process rights somehow less important than other consititutional rights?

The Guild intends to seek rehearing to ask the Court to address this fundamental issue.

Virtual CPAC Meeting on Algerian MOU Request and Honduran and Bulgarian Renewals

On July 31, 2018, the U.S. Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) held a “virtual” meeting where all speakers were linked via an internet based video platform.  According to my notes, at least the following CPAC members were in attendance at the State Department:  (1) Karol Wight (Museum); (2) Lothar von Falkenhausen (Archeology); (3) Nancy Wilkie (Archaeology); (4) Rosemary Joyce (Archaeology); (5) Dorit Straus (Trade); (6) Adele Chatfield-Taylor (Public); and (7) Jeremy Sabloff (Public-Chair).   Jim Willis (Trade) attended via videoconferencing. 

Cari Enav, who runs the Cultural Heritage Center, made introductions.  Andrew Cohen, who is the executive director for CPAC, provided the speakers with information about the 4 determinations CPAC was required to make before recommending a MOU or an extension.   Dr. Sabloff indicated speakers should take these requirements into account in their presentations. He then introduced the CPAC members before calling speakers for the Algerian MOU.

Algerian MOU

There were six (6) speakers:  (1) Kate FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural Policy (CCP) and Global Heritage Alliance (GHA); (2) Peter Tompa (International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN)/Professional Numismatist’s Guild (PNG); (3) Gina Bublil-Waldman (Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and Africa (JIMENA); and (4) Carole Basri (Fordham Law School).  

Kate FitzGibbon- CPAC initially only recommended MOUs on a narrow range of artifacts from a limited number of poor countries.  Today, MOUs close off entire areas from collecting.  Even worse, the State Department has recognized the claims of nation states to property that has been expropriated from fleeing Jews and Christians.  Ms. FitzGibbon acknowledges that recent Libyan import restrictions have been rewritten to remove references to Jewish items, but states that most, if not all, would still be restricted under more general coverage for Ottoman items.  The only way to ensure that artifacts of repressed minorities will not be subject to seizure is with a specific exclusion.  The problem can also be avoided if the State Department adheres to the definition of ethnological objects in the Cultural Property Implementation Act.  Algerian Jewish artifacts are not the products of preindustrial or tribal cultures and should be beyond the scope of coverage under the CPIA. 

Peter Tompa- This is yet another troubling request from an authoritarian North African government which is all the more problematic because Algeria seeks recognition of its rights to objects associated with its displaced Christian and Jewish populations.  This issue potentially impacts unprovenanced coins now in French collections.  (Algeria’s French “Pied Noir” and Jewish populations mainly fled to France after Algeria gained its independence.)  There is a real question whether Algeria’s patrimony is in jeopardy as no information has been provided whether coins are being found with metal detectors.  If they are, they need to be regulated as a less drastic remedy than import restrictions.  The UK Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme is IAPN/PNG’s preferred model for regulation.  If restrictions are recommended for coins, such restrictions must be limited to those “first discovered within” and hence “subject to export control” of Algeria.  Here, while there is some room for debate as to whether “local currency” issued at Cirta, Icosium (Algiers), Hippo Regius and Iol-Caesaria is exclusively found within the confines of modern day Algeria, coins of the Numidian and Mauritanian kingdoms, and the Carthaginian, Roman, Byzantine and Islamic Empires circulated well beyond the boundaries of modern day Algeria.  One cannot simply assume such coins were actually found in Algeria and hence are subject to Algerian export controls. 

Gina Bubill-Waldman- Ms. Waldman was driven from her home in Libya as a child.  She believes that these MOUs are a cynical tactic created to deny North African and Middle Eastern Jews patrimony and assets which were stolen from Jewish people when they were brutally expelled. The Libyan MOU has set a very dangerous and unjust precedent for countries who erase Jewish heritage by claiming it as their own, when Jews, the people who actually created it, have been hunted and expelled. Because these MOUs were passed without specifically excluding Jewish items, Jewish patrimony can now become the patrimony of the same governments which have destroyed, looted and harassed their now extinct Jewish communities.  CPAC is charged with the important job of protecting patrimony of antiquities. But by passing this type of MOU, CPAC would in fact be endorsing the opposite of what its mission tries to achieve: preservation of historical property by its proper owners. This MOU seeks to make the American government unwittingly collude with the thieves who stole, destroyed and defaced the Jewish-Algerian patrimony in the first place.

Not a single one of the Middle Eastern and North African countries from Morocco to Yemen, from Iraq to Egypt has earned the right to call thousands year old Jewish patrimony their own. Not after expelling their Jewish population, confiscating what was rightfully Jewish property, desecrating, looting, destroying synagogues and purposefully building skyscrapers on top the cemetery where Ms. Waldman’s grandparents are buried, like in Tripoli, Libya. 

Carole Basri- Ms. Basri is of Iraqi-Jewish heritage.  She authored a law review article about the harsh treatment of Iraqi Jews.  The property of Jews living in MENA countries was expropriated under color of law.  Such laws are against our own scruples as well as the UN Declaration on Human Rights.  There were originally 1 million Jews in Arab countries.  Jewish artifacts do not fit the definition of ethnological objects under the CPIA and should not be subject to detention and seizure. Jewish people were city dwellers and the cities where they lived were neither pre-Industrial nor tribal in nature.  The U.S. Government should not work with governments that have forcibly removed their Christians and Jews. 

Cari Enav interjects that new Libyan restrictions do not mention Jewish property so such property should be excluded from any import restrictions.  Kate FitzGibbon states that Jewish property is still included in the Libyan MOU because most Jewish property cannot be distinguished with what is otherwise described as Ottoman in the import restrictions.  That is why an explicit exemption is required.  All this could be avoided if the State Department followed the CPIA strictly and did not consider Jewish artifacts to be ethnological in nature. 

Honduran Renewal

There were three (3) speakers:  (1) Rocco Debitetto (Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD)); (2) Kate FitzGibbon (CCP and GHA); and (3) Peter Tompa (IAPN and PNG). 

Rocco  Debitetto- AAMD supports the renewal with reservations.  Honduras needs to be held to account in Article II.  There needs to be long term loans.  The designated list is too broad and needs to be reformed to ensure that only archaeological and ethnological material as defined in the CPIA are covered.

Kate FitzGibbon- CCP and GHA oppose renewal of the MOU.  Honduras has been given blanket restrictions for 15 years.  It has not used this time productively.  Most of the budget for cultural heritage preservation stays in the capital rather than being used to protect sites on a local level.  The US House of Representatives has asked for an accounting of self-help measures as part of its authorization of funds.  Too much archaeologically sensitive land is being illegally used for cattle farms with nothing being done about it.   No more than $600-$700 is spent on sites per year.  There is little or no market for Honduran artifacts in the US. 

Peter Tompa- This MOU renewal raises the same issues for coin collectors as the recent Ecuadorian request.  Honduran historical coins cannot be considered either archaeological or ethnological objects. They were produced in industrial processes not consistent with them being ethnological objects.  Such coins circulated along with other Spanish Colonial coins throughout the Americas and beyond including the United States.  They should not be subject to restrictions. 

Karol Wight asks about AAMD’s recommendations.  Mr. Debitetto indicates a major one is one point of contact for loans.

Jim Willis asks Kate FitzGibbon about illegal exports from Honduras. Ms. FitzGibbon states it is difficult to answer that question because there is a lack of information. 

Bulgarian Renewal

There were three (3) speakers:  (1) Kate FitzGibbon (CCP and GHA); (2) Josh Knerley (AAMD); and (3) Peter Tompa (IAPN and PNG). 

Kate FitzGibbon- The Bulgarian designated list is all-inclusive and needs to be reformed to comply with the CPIA.  It includes many repetitive items that are not of cultural significance like coins, necklaces and beads.  Bulgaria has sorely neglected its archaeological sites.   Substantial EU funds have been wasted in archaeologically unsound rebuilding projects.  Very few Bulgarian artifacts aside from coins are of interest to collectors.  Coins are mass produced and not of cultural significance under the CPIA.  Bulgaria has not satisfied Article II of the MOU’s requirement that export permits be issued.  There is a lack of rigorous police enforcement. 

Josh Knerly- There is a major problem with the designated list.  The designated list can only restrict items authorized under the MOU.  Here, the MOU only authorizes restrictions on ecclesiastical objects from 681 AD forward, but the designated list restricts ecclesiastical items dating from the 4^th Century AD.  This highlights much greater problems in how designated lists are prepared. 

Peter Tompa- Tompa produces a ruler to make a point.  A ruler goes from one inch to 12 inches.  We can all agree that some things like murder would be “12” on a scale.  But what about looting?  Many people would consider it a “1” on a scale, akin to a traffic violation.  That certainly is the case in Bulgaria where there are large numbers of treasure hunters and where the authorities themselves have been involved in looting.  Given this reality, it makes no sense to continue the MOU which only denies American coin collectors access to the same sorts of coins available elsewhere including Bulgaria itself.   If CPAC nonetheless approves a renewal, it should reform the designated list to limit restrictions on coins.  Moreover, CPAC should recognize that EU countries like Bulgaria are bound by EU export controls.  CPAC should recognize legal exports from EU countries of coins on the Bulgarian designated list.

State Department Accepting Comments for New MOU with Algeria and Renewals for Bulgaria and Honduras

The State Department’s Cultural Heritage Center has announced it is accepting comments for a proposed new MOU with Algeria, and renewals with Bulgaria and Honduras.  For further details about how to comment before the July 15th close, see here.

Each MOU and renewal should give pause to all but the most ardent repatriationist.

Algeria is yet another authoritarian government that wants the State Department to recognize its rights to not only its ancient pre-Islamic cultures, but to its now displaced minorities as well (here French Pied Noirs and Jews).

Bulgaria’s imperfect democracy wants its MOU renewed despite its failure to live up to its own promises that were supposedly a quid pro quo for the initial agreement and its continuing disprespect for the private property rights of collectors.

Honduras wants yet another renewal of its 2004 MOU.  MOUs were only intended to remain in effect long enough for UNESCO state parties to get their own houses in order.  At what point is the US going to say enough is enough?

Is it just a waste of time commenting?  After reading former CPAC member Kate FitzGibbon’s well-informed critique of how the State Department has mal-administered the Cultural Property Implementation Act, one might be forgiven for just throwing up their hands in frustration.  However, CPO continues to believe that silence will be spun as acquiescence and for that reason alone those who value collecting and private property rights should comment.

May 2, 2018 Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting to Discuss Ecuadorian MOU and Renewal of MOU with PRC

              On May 2, 2018, the U.S. Cultural Property Advisory Committee held a “virtual” meeting where CPAC members and all speakers were linked via an internet based video platform.  At least the following CPAC members were in attendance:  (1) Karol Wight (Museum); (2) Lothar von Falkenhausen (Archeology); (3) Nancy Wilkie (Archaeology); (4) Rosemary Joyce (Archaeology); (5) James Willis (Trade); and (6) Jeremy Sabloff (Public-Chair).  Cari Enav, the Cultural Heritage Center’s new chief, introduced Dr. Andrew Cohen as CHC’s new executive director and Dr. Sabloff as the Chair of CPAC. Dr. Sabloff ran the meeting.

                There were five (5) speakers:  (1) Peter Tompa (Global Heritage Alliance (GHA)/International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN)/Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG)); (2) Kate FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural Policy (CCP)); (3) Josh Knerly (Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD)); (4) Alex Nyerges (Virginia Museum of Fine Arts (VMFA)); and (5) Tess Davis (Antiquities Coalition).

Ecuadorian MOU

                Peter Tompa spoke on behalf of GHA, CCP, IAPN and PNG.  He indicated these groups had serious concerns about the short public comment period and the fact that the Ecuador’s proposal sought import restrictions on “Colonial and republican period coins; medallions more than 50 years old …manuscripts more than 50 years old; and certain works by modern artists.”  None of these materials may be restricted under the terms of the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) because they do not meet the definitions for archaeological or ethnological objects.  Archaeological objects must be at least 250 years old and be normally found in the ground.  Ethnological objects must be the products of tribal or non-industrial societies.  The Legislative History makes clear that Congress understood the term “ethnological” to only encompass what is considered “primitive” or “tribal” art, and not any object which is repetitive in character. 

                These limitations on archaeological and ethnological material should preclude restrictions being placed on coins and medallions.  While the State Department has—over the objections of the numismatic community and prior precedent—placed import restrictions on ancient and other early coins, the Spanish Colonial and Republican era coins at issue here cannot lawfully be restricted because they are neither archaeological nor ethnological in character.  More than that, however, they are as much a part of US culture as they are of Ecuadorian culture.  Large swaths of what is now the US was formally part of Spain’s Empire and even the United States itself—due to the shortages of hard currency at the time—used such coins as legal tender until 1857.  Indeed, such coins were so popular that the term “two bits” entered into our language as meaning 25 cents.  Moreover, references to “pieces of eight” and “gold doubloons” abound in our storytelling, including Melville’s Moby Dick and countless yarns about pirate treasure. 

                Before recommending a MOU, CPAC must also consider what self-help measures Ecuador has undertaken, including the funding Ecuador has devoted to cultural heritage protection.  At least one recent academic work has questioned Ecuador’s commitment in this area.

                Josh Knerly spoke on behalf of AAMD.  AAMD may have been in a position to support the MOU, but the short time span made impossible to poll members.  Knerly echoed Tompa’s concerns about import restrictions being misapplied to objects that are neither archaeological nor ethnological in character. 

                Chairman Sabloff indicates that staff ran into unexpected difficulties in getting out the notice for the CPAC meeting, and that in the future the Committee will try to do better.

                Rosemary Joyce asked about AAMD’s generic recommendations. Knerly indicated that AAMD typically asks for long term loans, low loan fees and immunity from seizure laws.

                In response to a question from Nancy Wilkie, Knerly indicated he did not know if any Ecuadorian artifacts were on display in US museums.  During the review of the China MOU, he later stated that he had learned that at least one AAMD member museum displays Ecuadorian artifacts.

China MOU

                Peter Tompa spoke on behalf of IAPN and PNG.  IAPN and PNG are all for Chinese collecting, but the reality of a huge, largely open internal Chinese market in common antiquities like pottery and coins, raises serious questions about the point of import restrictions imposed on American collectors.  This is especially problematical because the most successful Chinese antiquities sales outlets are controlled by insiders associated with the Chinese Government.  

                There is also the issue of Chinese obligations under the current MOU.     First, China was supposed to make it easier to legally export artifacts, but that provision was drastically limited in the 2014 renewal to Chinese objects imported into China for re-export and there is no indication China has even complied with this weaker provision.  Of course, few rules apply to the free ports of Hong Kong and Macao.  China was also initially supposed to clamp down on them, but it has not.  Instead, artifacts leaving these ports can still be re-imported into the PRC no questions asked.  

                Even more importantly for US coin collectors is the issue of Chinese fakes of historic US coins.    Chinese businesses licensed by the Chinese Government are counterfeiting untold thousands of fake historic US mint coins which are then being introduced into the US numismatic market.    

                Summing up, Tompa stated that the MOU with China should be suspended because it is doing nothing to actually protect Chinese archaeological sites.  At a minimum, Chinese cash coins, which exist in the billions and which are widely collected in China itself, should be delisted. 

                Lothar von Falkenhausen made a statement that what we know about Chinese coins comes from archaeology.  Tompa disputed this claim noting that much information has come from documentation and observation of the types of cash coins found in 1000 coin strings that were used for trade through the early part of the 20^th century.

                Nancy Wilkie states it is not CPAC’s concern that China is counterfeiting US Coins.  Tompa states this is a matter of comity and falls broadly under cultural exchange.  Tompa states this should be addressed in Art. II of the agreement, the part that requires undertakings by the Chinese.

                Kate FitzGibbon spoke for CCP and GHA.  She stated the U.S. Senate recently condemned China’s repression of Tibet, including its cultural heritage.  She then stated there is no justification whatsoever for renewing the China MOU under the CPIA.

• China has a billion-dollar annual internal market in art of all periods that includes the same kinds of antiques barred from US import.
• China has more than adequate internal enforcement resources; its government does not need the US to be a distant, international policeman.
• Past MOUs barring import of Chinese art have had no discernable effect on looting in China.
• The United States is no longer a primary market nation; it has had a net outflow of Chinese art for the last decade. Thousands of US-owned antique objects have left the US – destined for China.

                According to a comprehensive study by Artnet and the China Association of Auctioneers, after the enactment of the original MOU with the United States in 2009, the auction market for art and antiques in mainland China experienced 500% growth between 2009 and 2011. In 2011, the Chinese auction market surpassed all other countries in the world.

                Even in 2014, the year after the MOU’s first renewal, the fastest growing import into China was art, antiques, and collector items, which increased at a staggering 2281% rate.

                Despite its pro-archaeological rhetoric, nothing in Chinese law prohibits the import of all objects predating the end of the Tang Dynasty, as the MOU now does in the US. Nor does Chinese law prohibit the trade or import of monumental sculpture or wall art more than 250 years old ‑ the very objects banned under the China-United States MOU.

                The CCP asked ArtNet, an independent art market research network, to analyze the largest auction sales. In 2016, the total sales of Chinese art at the top ten auction houses worldwide were $103 million dollars. Of this total, $58 million was sold at four auction houses in Hong Kong, and $46 million in six auction houses in Beijing and Hangzhou in mainland China. The only US auction house to make it into the top ten globally that year was Sotheby’s New York, with only 6% of total market share.

                In the United States, the most recent high-value sales are from long-held and foreign collections. A brief 2017 spike in U.S. sales of Chinese art resulted from a single record-breaking sale at Christie’s of a museum collection.  Even there, some of the largest buyers were Chinese

                There is an obvious contradiction between the Department of State’s designation of China’s government as systemically violating international norms of cultural tolerance, and the repeated renewal of US-China agreements on cultural property that grant China’s government absolute control over the same cultural heritage that it has sought to destroy.

                Jim Willis asked if the State Department should renew restrictions that touched on Tibetan art.  Kate FitzGibbon said we should not repatriate Tibetan art to China.

                Josh Knerly stated that AAMD was also hampered by the short time frame allowed in responding to the China MOU.  While AAMD museums have enjoyed good cooperation with Chinese museums, there has been very little progress in the last 5 years on issues related to the length of loans and legislation granting immunity for such loans.

                Karol Wight indicated that her museum, the Corning Glass Museum, was getting good cooperation from China.  She asked Knerly about access for scholars.  He stated such access has had problems at times.  In at least one example, a scholar did not learn whether they could examine objects before they actually arrived at the Chinese institution in question.    

                Alex Nyerges indicated that the VMFA has received good cooperation with Chinese museums with which VMFA has had its own MOUs.  He echoed Knerly’s concern about the length of loans.  Such loans should be for multiple years so that artifacts may travel to other venues so the exhibit is cost effective.  China should also send higher graded antiquities that can be the centerpiece of exhibits. 

                These cultural exchanges have been two way.  Recently, the VMFA sent an exhibit of Fabergé eggs to the Palace Museum in Beijing. 

                In response to a question from Nancy Wilkie, Nyerges has said that seizures of foreign exhibits in China has not been a concern.  He also indicates that the security at the museums VMFA has MOUs with has been excellent.  Other AAMD member museums such as Cleveland, the Met, and Indianapolis also have had very positive experiences with Chinese museums. 

                Tess Davis states China has met all the requirements for a renewal.  The first determination is met.  China has 760,000 archaeological sites that remain in jeopardy of looting. 

                The second determination relating to self-help is met.  China is making its best efforts to protect these sites.  There are export controls on artifacts.  Chinese cultural officials recently met with judicial officials to underscore the need to punish looters.

                The third determination regarding a concerted international response is met.  More countries have joined the UNESCO Convention.  Others now have strong anti-looting legislation favoring repatriation. 

                The MOU has promoted culture exchange.  The Terracotta warrior exhibit is a great example.    Davis believes protecting cultural heritage is a human rights issue. 

                Jim Willis asked how we can enter into an agreement that recognizes the Chinese government’s rights to Tibet’s culture.  Davis stated by restricting imports of Tibetan heritage in the US, we are helping to protect it for a future time when Tibet is hopefully free.

The Chinese Dream is No Reason to Harm US Collecting

Here is what I said at yesterday's CPAC meeting with regard to a proposed renewal of a MOU with the PRC.  More later. 

          China’s leader, Xi Jinping, has popularized the slogan, the Chinese Dream, as a call for China to reclaim its ancient glory. 

          Part of all this, of course, is to highlight the importance of ancient Chinese artifacts not just through diplomatic efforts like this MOU, but through the creation of a vibrant internal collector’s market, including world class bourses like the Beijing International Coin Exposition and auction houses like China Guardian and Poly Auctions.

          IAPN and PNG are all for the Chinese government encouraging China’s own people to collect, preserve, study and display ancient artifacts, particularly as common as ancient Chinese coins, which must exist in the billions.  That certainly is much preferable to the ideologically motivated destruction of Chinese cultural heritage during the Cultural Revolution or, for that matter, the far more recent demolition of Christian Churches by China’s atheist government.

          But given the reality of a huge, largely open internal Chinese market in common antiquities like pottery and coins, it’s a fair question to ask what is the real purpose of the import restrictions our State Department, presumably with the consent of CPAC, have imposed on American collectors, the small businesses of the antiquities and coin trade and museums?

          Certainly, archaeologists have argued that import restrictions help drive potentially looted artifacts off the market, but such a claim makes little sense whatsoever given this huge internal Chinese market.   Indeed, all that is really being accomplished is to give Chinese dealers, auction houses and collectors a leg up on their foreign, particularly American competition.   

          Does the Trump Administration really support such a state of affairs, particularly where the most successful Chinese antiquities sales outlets are controlled by insiders associated with the Chinese Government, like Poly Group controlled by the family of former leader Deng Xiaoping who also run a major weapons producer, and China Guardian Auctions, run by Chen Dongsheng, the grandson-in-law of the PRC’s founder, Mao Zedong?  Let’s hope not.

          There is also the issue of Chinese obligations under the current MOU.     Several issues come to mind.   First, China was supposed to make it easier to legally export artifacts, but that provision was drastically limited in the 2014 renewal to Chinese objects imported into China for re-export and there is no indication China has even complied with this weaker provision.  Of course, few rules apply to the free ports of Hong Kong and Macao.  China was also initially supposed to clamp down on them, but it has not.  Instead, artifacts leaving these ports can still be re-imported into the PRC no questions asked.   

          Even more importantly for US coin collectors is the issue of Chinese fakes of historic US coins.   As the letter submitted by our sister organization, ICTA, states, Chinese businesses licensed by the Chinese Government are counterfeiting untold thousands of fake historic US mint coins which are then being introduced into the US numismatic market.   How can the US State Department countenance the renewal of a MOU when the PRC encourages the production of counterfeits that have damaged the American coin trade and which also represent a serious violation of US counterfeiting and hobby protection laws? 

          Finally, let’s talk more about Chinese coins currently on the designated list.   The State Department and U.S. Customs have misapplied the CPIA’s requirement limiting any restrictions to artifacts “first discovered within” and “subject to the export control” of China.  They have instead barred the import of any Tang Dynasty and earlier coins based on their place of production, which is entirely different. 

          One cannot safely assume any Chinese cash coins are only found where they were made.  Scholarly evidence demonstrates that early cash coins like those on the designated list were exported in quantity with later issues all around the Far East and even as far West as Africa and the Arabian coast.   Moreover, it is difficult for all but experts to tell restricted Tang and earlier Chinese cash coins from later unrestricted ones that were produced as late as 1911 or similar ones made in places like Japan, Korea and Vietnam.

          The MOU with China should be suspended because it is doing nothing to actually protect Chinese archaeological sites, but at a minimum, Chinese cash coins, which exist in the billions and which are widely collected in China itself should be delisted. 

          Thank you.