Public Session of the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee to Review Proposed Renewals of MOUs with Bulgaria and China, June 5, 2023

                 On June 5, 2023, the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) met in a virtual public session to hear testimony regarding the proposed renewals of MOUs with Bulgaria and the People’s Republic of China (PRC).  An update on the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs’ (ECA’s) website made shortly before the hearing provided further information about the requests.  See https://eca.state.gov/highlight/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-april-26-27-2023 (last visited June 7, 2023).  According to that website, Bulgaria has asked for import restrictions on additional categories of archaeological material dating from the Paleolithic Period to the Neolithic (c. 1.6 million years ago – 7500 B.C.) and on additional ethnological material of an ecclesiastical nature dating from 1750 through the 20^th century.  Id.  In contrast, the PRC does not seek any additional restrictions.  Id. 

                The public session was postponed from April 26-27, 2023, presumably to allow all the remaining Trump appointees to be replaced by Biden appointees to CPAC.  Those replaced included Anthony Wisniewski, the sole coin collector representative on the Committee.  One of the replacements, Susan Schoenfeld Harrington, has discernable links to the PRC, as a past Board Member of the China Art Foundation.  See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2023/04/new-cpac-members.html (last visited June 7, 2023).

                Despite the postponement, the public was only allowed an exceptionally short time to comment on these MOUs on the regulations.gov website.  See https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2023-0016-0001  (last visited June 7, 2023).  Although the Federal Register notice was posted on Friday, May 19, 2023, due to a snafu, the regulations.gov website did not accept comments until midday Monday, May 22, 2023.  The comment period closed only 4 days later, on Friday, May 26, 2023.  An analysis of the comments that were submitted can be found here.  See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2023/05/low-public-support-for-mous-with.html  (last visited June 7, 2023). 

                Oral comments during the public session were also circumscribed.  Rather than the usual 5 minutes, each speaker was only allotted 4 minutes to speak.   

                At least the following CPAC members were present for the meeting:  (1) Alexandra Jones (Chair, Represents/Expertise Archaeology, Anthropology, related fields, CEO Archaeology in the Community, Washington, DC); (2) Alex Barker (Represents/Expertise Archaeology, Anthropology, related fields) Director, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Arkansas); (3) Nii Otokunor Quarcoopome (Represents/Expertise Museums, Curator and Department head, Detroit Museum of Art); (4) William Teitelman (Represents General Public, Legislative Counsel to the PA Trial Lawyers Association, Attorney (Retired)); (4) Andrew Conners (Represents/Expertise Museums, Director, Albuquerque Museum, New Mexico); (5) Michael Findlay (Represents/Expertise: International Sale of Cultural Property, Director, Acquavella Galleries, New York); (6) Susan Schoenfeld Harrington  (Represents Public?, Past Deputy Finance Chair, Democratic National Committee, Past Board member, China Art Foundation); (7) Cynthia Herbert (Represents/Expertise: International Sale of Cultural Property President, Appretium Appraisal Services LLC, Connecticut); and (8) Thomas R. Lamont (Represents Public?, President of Lamont Consulting Services, LLC, Illinois).

                Additionally, at least the following State Department employees were present for the meeting:  Allison Davis (Executive Director, CPAC) and Andrew Zander. 

                These individuals spoke at the public session about one or both MOUs: (1) Kate FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural Policy/PRC); (2) Elias Gerasoulis (Global Heritage Alliance/PRC); (3) Peter Tompa (International Association of Professional Numismatists/Bulgaria and PRC); (4) Doug Davis (Anti-Counterfeiting Educational Foundation/PRC); (5) Ömür Harmanşah (Archaeological Institute of America/Bulgaria and PRC); (6) Douglas Mudd (American Numismatic Association, Ancient Coin Collectors Guild/Bulgaria); (7) Louisa Greve (Uyghur Human Rights Project/PRC); (8) Peter Irwin (Uyghur Human Rights Project/PRC); (8) Josh Knerly (Hahn, Loeser & Parks, LLP for Association of Art Museum Directors/PRC); (9) Dr. Rowan Flad (Harvard Department of Anthropology/Society for American Archaeology/PRC); (10) Dr. Anne Underhill (Yale/Society for American Archaeology/PRC); and (11) Dr. Rian Thum (University of Manchester/PRC). 

                Alexandra Jones (AJ), CPAC’s chairperson, indicated that the Committee had reviewed all the testimony, and asked the speakers to limit their remarks to 4 minutes each.  AJ indicated that she would allow CPAC members to ask questions after each speaker finished their prepared remarks.  Very few questions were actually posed. 

                Kate FitzGibbon (KFG) spoke first.  She indicated that none of the criteria for renewal of the MOU found in the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) could be met.  The second determination, related to the PRC taking measures consistent with the UNESCO Convention concerning the protection of its cultural patrimony, has not been met because of the PRC’s intentional destruction of the cultural heritage of its Uyghur population.  KFG pointed to the creation of concentration camps as well as the destruction of over 500 Uyghur sites in her testimony.  Moreover, the first and third determinations, related to the PRC’s cultural patrimony being in jeopardy, and the effectiveness of the response, could not be met given the booming internal Chinese market for cultural goods.  The fourth determination relating to benefits to the international system could not be met given the PRC’s mercantilist approach to repatriating artifacts and failing to follow through on museum loans. 

                The Committee for Cultural Policy’s and the Global Heritage Alliance’s joint written testimony can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0044 ) (last visited June 7, 2023).

                Elias Gerasoulis (EG) echoed many of the concerns that KFG raised about the PRC’s intentional destruction of minority culture.  He also noted that current import restrictions have the perverse effect of promoting the interests of PRC auction houses associated with the government over their American competitors.  It makes no sense for ECA to undertake to renew the MOU given the anti-American actions the PRC has taken, including the recent spy balloon overflight.  EG believes that renewing the MOU would be tantamount to committing diplomatic malpractice.

                Peter Tompa (PT) asked CPAC to oppose any effort to expand current import restrictions on behalf of Bulgaria to Roman Republican and Roman Imperial coins.  He explained that one cannot assume that such coins come from Bulgarian archaeological contexts.  Only a very small percentage of such coins circulated there compared to those which circulated elsewhere.  He also indicated that it is important to distinguish Roman Republican and Roman Imperial coins from Roman Provincial coins, which are currently restricted.  Roman Provincial coins were struck for local use in contrast to Roman Republican and Roman Imperial coins which were meant to circulate through the Empire.   Due to time constraints, PT was only able to express general concerns about the MOU with the PRC.  He mentioned that the PRC should not be rewarded for destroying the cultural property of its minority populations or for its failure to address counterfeiting of US historical coins.

                PT’s planned oral comments can be found here:  https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2023/06/cpac-should-be-skeptical-about-new.html (last visited June 7, 2023).

                The International Association of Professional Numismatist’s (IAPN’s) written comments about the MOU with Bulgaria can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0010 (last visited June 7, 2023).

                IAPN’s written comments about the MOU with the PRC can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0009 (last visited June 7, 2023).

                PT’s personal written comments can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0056 (last visited June 7, 2023).

                Doug Davis (DD) indicated that the PRC is a major source of counterfeits with 100,000s of coins being faked.  These are exported in bulk to the US for resale, often to unsuspecting buyers.   The Anti-Counterfeiting Educational Foundation Task Force has worked with US law enforcement on seizing $46 million worth of counterfeit US coins.  In addition to historical US coins, counterfeiters are also faking modern US Mint products including bullion pieces like silver eagles.  This is a global problem because Chinese counterfeiters are faking coins of all nations. 

                CPAC member Alex Barker asks DD about what kinds of bullion are being faked. DD indicates the fakes include silver bars. 

                The Anti-Counterfeiting Educational Foundation’s written comments can be found here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0067 (last visited June 7, 2023).

                Ömür Harmanşah (OH) indicates that the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) supports the renewals of both MOUs.  The AIA maintains that each of the four criteria for renewal found in the CPIA are met for both MOUs.  OH mentions that the PRC recovered 66,000 stolen archaeological artifacts in the year 2021 showing that the PRC’s cultural patrimony is in jeopardy.  OH states that it is important to ensure restrictions are imposed on mass produced items like coins to promote their study.  He further indicates that the PRC has worked to ensure that there is extensive collaboration with US archaeologists and museums.  For example, an exhibition featuring the famous “Terracotta warriors” has been exhibited in a number of venues around the United States. 

                The AIA’s written testimony regarding the MOU with Bulgaria can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0068 (last visited June 7, 2023).

                The AIA’s written testimony regarding the PRC renewal can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0066 (last visited June 7, 2023). 

                Douglas Mudd (DM) speaks on behalf of the American Numismatic Association (ANA) and the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG), a member organization.  DM indicates that import restrictions have negatively impacted the study of coins.  Because coins are so durable many have come down to us from ancient times. There are far too few trained archaeologists to study the numbers of coins that have been found and there is no reason to sequester them all in museums.  The most important thing that can be accomplished is to ensure they are properly recorded, something that can be achieved through programs like the UK’s Portable Antiquity Scheme.  DM also asks that import restrictions not be imposed on widely circulating Roman Imperial coins.  He further believes that the current designated list should be subject to expert review because many of the coin types currently on that list circulated in quantity outside of the confines of Bulgaria. 

                The ANA’s written comments can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0006  (last visited June 7, 2023).

                The ACCG’s written comments can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0031 (last visited June 7, 2023).

                Louisa Greve (LG) opposes the MOU with the PRC.  The PRC is committing genocide against the Uyghurs.  CPAC should not brush aside this genocide and cultural cleansing in order to approve the renewal.  The current MOU authorizes import restrictions through the Tang period.  The PRC has sought to rewrite history through cultural cleansing to create a false narrative that Han was the dominant culture throughout what is today the PRC.  If CPAC and ECA approves this MOU, the Uyghur Human Rights Project (UYRP) will protest the decision. 

                The UYRP’s written comments can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0069 (last visited June 7, 2023).

                Peter Irwin (PI) is LG’s colleague at the UYRP.  The PRC has not worked to protect cultural heritage, but to purposefully destroy that of the Uyghurs.  Some 10,000 to 50,000 sites have been destroyed to date.  These includes mosques and up to 85% of the historic city of Kashgar. The MOU should not be extended in these circumstances. 

                Josh Knerly (JK) stated the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) supports the extension of the MOU with the PRC contingent on Article II being modified to provide for multi-year museum loans with more significant objects and the PRC granting immunity from seizure for art sent there for display from the US.  The 2019 MOU dropped any meaningful requirements regarding loans.  Multi-year loans are necessary to make it cost effective to bring exhibits to the US.  Only multi-year loans allow museums to share the substantial costs involved. Another issue is US tariffs of 7.5% on Chinese art, which make it impossible for US museums to purchase Chinese art internationally.  Such tariffs give Chinese museums, dealers and collectors a competitive advantage compared to their American counterparts. 

                CPAC member Susan Schoenfeld Harrington asks JK if the MOU provides an opportunity for cultural exchange with the PRC.  JK indicates for this to happen, the PRC needs to change its policies on long term loans and immunity from seizure.

                The AAMD’s written comments can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0061 (last visited June 7, 2023).

                Dr. Rowan Flad (RF) indicates that the PRC has undertaken significant self-help measures to protect its own cultural patrimony.  A database of cultural heritage has been established.  There is active collaboration with American archaeologists. 

                RF’s written testimony may be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0055 (last visited June 7, 2023).

                Dr. Anne Underhill (AU) states that the PRC has met its obligations under the MOU.  It has protected archaeological sites from looting.  One innovative program has used drones to monitor a site for looting.  Another development is an increase in “indoor excavations,” for which entire depositional matrices are transported to covered labs for careful excavation in safe conditions.  In 2020, 4,200 crimes were investigated, involving 9,700 individuals. Some 93,000 artifacts were recovered.  Access to museums has improved.

                AU’s written comments can be found here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0057  (last visited June 7, 2023).

                Dr. Rian Thum (RT) indicates that he could not make policy determinations, but he could state facts.  It is an unassailable fact that the PRC has failed to take measures consistent with the UNESCO Convention to protect its cultural patrimony.   It has demolished large parts of the Silk Road city of Kashgar.  It has recently bulldozed two very important Uyghur shrines, and any archaeological artifacts beneath them.  Another target is books.  Initially PRC authorities enforced a “blacklist” of forbidden books.  Now, however, that has been replaced with a “whitelist” which deems any book not explicitly permitted to be forbidden.  This has led to the confiscation and destruction of countless books, some of which are otherwise unknown to scholarship.  It has also prompted some Uyghurs to burn their own books in an effort to avoid being sent to concentration camps.  As was discussed regarding Bulgaria, modern boundaries don’t always correspond with ancient ones.  The same is also true with the status of the Uyghur region in the PRC.  RT observes all of the PRC’s achievements prior speakers associated with archaeological advocacy groups praised relate solely to the study of the PRC’s Han culture. These studies feed the PRC’s narrative.  The PRC seeks to rewrite history to make it appear that Han culture was always the dominant culture in the Uyghur areas.  RT expresses disappointment that his colleagues are unwilling to acknowledge the PRC’s intentional destruction of Uyghur cultural heritage for political purposes.

                No CPAC members asked any additional questions, and AJ concluded the public session approximately 10 minutes early. 

Summary of April 26, 2022, Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting to Discuss Proposed MOU with Islamic Republic of Pakistan

                 On April 26, 2022, the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) met to consider a proposed MOU with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.  The following members were present: (1) Stefan Passantino (Chairman- Public); (2) Steven Bledsoe (Public); (3) Karol Wight (Museums); (4) J.D. Demming (Public); (5) Ricardo St. Hilaire (Archaeology); (6) Joan Connelly (Archaeology); Rachael Fulton Brown (Archaeology); (7) Anthony Wisniewski (Collector-Sale of International Cultural Property); (8) Mark Hendricks (Sale of International Cultural Property); and (9) David Tamasi (International Sale of Cultural Property).  Allison Davis, CPAC’s State Department Executive Director, and Michele Prior, also of ECA, were also present.

                Chairman Passantino welcomed the speakers.  He indicated that the Committee had read all the comments which he found helpful and useful.   As there were only four speakers, while a five-minute limit would be observed, there would be time left over for questions. 

                The following speakers addressed the Committee: (1) Dr. Brian Daniels (Archaeological Institute of America); (2) Randy Myers (Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG); (3) Peter Tompa (Peter Tompa Law representing the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN)); and (4) Kate FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural Policy and Global Heritage Alliance).

                Dr. Brian Daniels (BD) indicated there was plenty of evidence of site looting, particularly of Gandharan material.  This was most recently demonstrated by the NY DA’s recent repatriation of Gandharan sculpture.  BD indicated that Pakistan met all the criteria for a MOU.  There are antiquities laws on the books which are now enforced at a regional level.  U.S.-Pakistani archaeological collaborations have taken place at Harappa in Punjab Province, Pakistan.  Pakistani scholars have expressed an interest in supplying loans to US museums. 

                The AIA’s written comments can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2022-0008-0036

                Randy Myers (RM) focused on two procedural objections and one substantive objection.  He indicates that the notice period of fourteen days is simply too short to elicit much informed comment.  He also indicates that the notice was procedurally deficient because there was little justification provided for the apparent inclusion of coins in this request.  He stated that as a retired U.S. Government attorney who worked on administrative matters, he believed that the notice of this hearing provided to the public to comment was deficient.  Substantively, RM focused on one issue related less drastic measures to be considered before import restrictions may be imposed.  He indicated that Pakistan should consider a program akin to the Portable Antiquities Scheme and Treasure Act as an alternative to import restrictions on coins.

                The ACCG’s written comments can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2022-0008-0007

                Peter Tompa (PT) focused on three major points.  First, how can Customs assume a given coin was “first discovered within” and “subject to” Pakistani export control given the overlap in find spots in  Pakistan, India, Afghanistan and Bangladesh?  Second, why restrict coins at all given the existence of a large internal market in Pakistan itself?  The rationale for import restrictions is that they will dampen market demand and hence decrease the incentive for looting, but US import restrictions would only have a negligible impact on demand because the primary market for Pakistani coins appears to be within Pakistan itself.  Finally, even if coins are restricted, CPAC should condition any import restrictions on coins on the provision the availability of easily obtainable export certificates. 

                The IAPN’s written comments can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2022-0008-0010

                Kate FitzGibbon (KFG) starts her presentation discussing a screen shot posted on Twitter from 2020 showing construction workers smashing a large Gandharan Buddhist statue with sledgehammers in the city of Mardan, Pakistan.  She goes on to describe poor stewardship of Pakistan’s cultural heritage that goes back at least to the 1970s. She notes that Pakistan has pawned off caring for cultural heritage to localities and that a scant $300,000 is spent annually on archaeology, which mostly goes to salaries of the cultural heritage bureaucracy.  She suggests that lack of interest, lack of education and discomfort about teaching pre-Islamic history in schools are major culprits. However, the main problem is top to bottom corruption in Pakistani society.  She urges that the State Department provide grants and educational help to try to build a cultural infrastructure that will enable basic protections inside Pakistan. She indicates this will be far more effective in safeguarding heritage than an MOU that will have no domestic effect inside Pakistan, and no legal justification under US law.

                The CCPs and GHAs written submission can be found here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2022-0008-0037  

                Chairman Passantino then allowed CPAC members a brief time for questions.

                Anthony Wisniewski asks KFG about open sales of cultural heritage in Pakistan.  She noted that coins are widely sold at the bazar in Peshawar.  She also indicates that items like old copper pots are often repurposed, noting that a pot she once owned while she lived in Pakistan showed up as a prop on a Pakistani TV program.  She also indicated that beautiful old wooden architectural carvings are shipped out of Pakistan by the container load.  The use of modern air conditioning has prompted homeowners to strip wood decorations out of their homes because it does not react well to an air-conditioned environment.  KFG does not believe a MOU will have any positive impact on the preservation of cultural heritage because of the endemic corruption in Pakistan. 

                Rachael Fulton Brown asks KFG if she believes import restrictions limited to specific period like the Hellenistic and Gandharan period could be effective.  KFG did not believe so because of the endemic corruption.  She also notes in passing that the material seized by the NY DA left Pakistan at least ten years ago and much of it appeared to be fake. 

                Ricardo St. Hilaire asks BD if he agrees with KFG’s characterizations of an internal market in Pakistan.  He indicates that while such a market is tolerated, that does not mean that it legal or that such material would be allowed to be exported. BD believes that a MOU would function as a loadstar to encourage Pakistani officials to crack down on corruption and the illicit trade. 

                Karol Wight asks BD to comment on museum loans in the absence of an AAMD (Association of Art Museum Directors) representative speaking.  BD indicates there has been efforts to secure loans.  He suggests that the visa problems Pakistani couriers had transporting an exhibit to the Asia Society may have made Pakistan gun shy.  He believes that a MOU could smooth over such issues.

                Mark Hendricks asks BD whether he believes that the existence of a large internal market in Pakistan will limit the impact of a MOU on looting. BD believes that a MOU will help encourage Pakistani officials to crack down on illegal activity and prohibit illicit exports.

                Anthony Wisniewski asks BD if items made in quantity can have cultural significance.  BD answers they can because studying groups of objects can tell us significant things about ancient cultures.  He gives the example of the forensic examination of the metallurgy of a collection of bronze ingots.

                Anthony Wisniewski asks PT whether a coin made outside of Pakistan could be claimed as Pakistani under the CPIA.  PT indicated this would require Pakistan to demonstrate with scholarly evidence that the coin type was only found in Pakistan or show that a particular coin actually came from there.  He also indicated that it would be difficult to show that such a coin had cultural significance to Pakistan.  PT believes that BD has confused archaeological interest with cultural significance, which requires an object to have importance to a given culture.  He indicated that it would be difficult for Pakistan to show that a coin made outside of Pakistan had cultural significance to Pakistan.             

                Chairman Passantino then thanked the speakers and CPAC went into a recess before reconvening in a closed session. 

The CPIA Cannot Support Import Restrictions on Spanish Colonial and Republican Era Coins or Any Restrictions that Could Benefit the Taliban

 Here is what I said more or less at today's CPAC meeting:  

        Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of IAPN and PNG.  I am available to answer questions on all our written submissions but will defer my comments on Cyprus until CPAC’s January meeting.   Let me discuss any proposed import restrictions on Peruvian coins first.  CPAC has looked at and rejected prior efforts to impose import restrictions on Latin American coins.  Spanish colonial and Republican era coinage simply do not fit the statutory definitions of “archaeological” or “ethnological” material.  Such coins do not meet the 250-year-old threshold for “archaeological” material.  Nor are they normally found within the ground.  European settlers ran Peru’s mints.  The coins were produced using sophisticated industrial processes churning out thousands of virtually identical objects.  As such, they cannot be deemed “ethnological” material either.  Nor can one assume that Peruvian coins imported into the United States from third countries were ever “first discovered within” or “subject to” Peruvian export control.  Spanish Colonial and Republican era Peruvian coins circulated widely in international commerce, and even served as legal tender in the United States until 1857.

          Now let me address Afghanistan.  It should weigh heavily on CPAC that any emergency import restrictions could very well have the perverse effect of requiring U.S. Customs to “claw back” undocumented Bactrian coins imported from Europe, so they can be handed over to the Taliban who could resell, or even worse, melt them for bullion.  CPAC should be skeptical of any claims this can’t happen because forfeited artifacts will be given “safe harbor” in the United States.  There is no “safe harbor” provision in the CPIA, which instead requires forfeited items to be offered to the State Party, here Afghanistan, now under Taliban control.   Section 1216 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2021, cited by the Archaeological Institute of America, only applies to institutional loans that the Afghan government has authorized.  The reality is that objects forfeited under the CPIA must be repatriated when diplomatic relations are reinstated, and that decision will be based on factors other than the Taliban’s abysmal treatment of pre-Islamic cultural heritage.

          Finally, let me emphasize that import restrictions are especially problematical for coin collectors because they are applied as embargoes on all “designated” coins imported from legal markets of our major trading partners in the E.U., U.K. and Switzerland rather than as prospective restrictions only placed on “designated” coins illicitly exported from the State Party after the effective date of the governing regulations.  While we agree with the Antiquities Coalition on how the CPIA should operate, we know from hard experience that Customs and the State Department rely on the deference Courts have afforded the government in “foreign policy matters” to green light such confiscatory practices.  We therefore urge CPAC to be especially wary of approving of any new import restrictions on coins, particularly where the Taliban may be their primary beneficiary.  Thank you. 

Calling all Collectors Again- Please Comment on Proposed Renewal of MOU with Greece

The State Department has announced a proposed renewal of a Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Categories of Archaeological and Byzantine Ecclesiastical Ethnological Material through the 15th Century A.D. of the Hellenic Republic.  That MOU first authorized import restrictions on Greek cultural artifacts in 2011.  It has been renewed once in 2016 without further changes.  The initial MOU authorized import restrictions on certain ancient Greek coins.  We hope to preclude any further expansion of those restrictions and advocate for acceptance of legal exports from fellow EU countries to be treated like a legal export from Greece.

 Further information about the October 27, 2020 Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) meeting and how to comment before the October 13, 2020  deadline can be found here:  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/08/20/2020-18262/cultural-property-advisory-committee-notice-of-meeting  You should also be able to comment directly from this link (click on green “submit a formal comment” button in upper right hand corner).  

A.  Background for Coin Collectors

There are large numbers of coin collectors and numismatic firms in the US.  Very few collectors do so to “invest.”  Most collect out of love of history, as an expression of their own cultural identity, or out of interest in other cultures.  All firms that specialize in ancient coins in the US are small businesses. Private collectors and dealers support much academic research into coins.  For example, an American collector collaborated with academics to produce an extensive study of Seleucid coins. A further clamp down on collecting will inevitably lead to less scholarship.

While what became the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) was being negotiated, one of the State Department’s top lawyers assured Congress that “it would be hard to imagine a case” where coins would be restricted.   In 2007, however, the State Department imposed import restrictions on Cypriot coins, against CPAC’s recommendations, and then misled the public and Congress about it in official government reports.  What also should be troubling is that the decision maker, Assistant Secretary Dina Powell, did so AFTER she had accepted a job with Goldman Sachs where she was recruited by and worked for the spouse of the founder of the Antiquities Coalition, an archaeological advocacy group that has lobbied extensively for import restrictions.  Since that time, additional import restrictions have been imposed on coins from Algeria, Bulgaria, China, Egypt, Greece, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Libya, Syria and Yemen. 

The current restrictions encompass coins the State Department evidently believes can only be found in Greece.   U.S. Customs and the State Department describe these coin types as follows: 

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.

Under current Customs procedures, the above types can only be imported into the United States with: (a) an export certificate issued by Greece (which is virtually impossible to procure);   (b) “satisfactory evidence” demonstrating that the coins were exported from or were outside of Greece at least 10 years prior to importation into the U.S.; or (c) “satisfactory evidence” demonstrating that the coins were exported from or were outside of Greece before restrictions were announced on December 2, 2011.  What constitutes “satisfactory evidence” is ultimately left to the discretion of Customs, but usually takes the form of a declaration by the importer and a statement by the consigner. 

The current restrictions do not extend to Greek trade coins—like Athenian Tetradrachms and Corinthian Staters that are extremely popular with collectors. However, we cannot afford to take this for granted; we simply cannot assume that the archaeological lobby—which actively opposes private collecting—won’t press for “more” this time around.  Accordingly, if one feels strongly about their continued ability to collect such coins, they should comment on the regulations.gov website.  Why?  Because silence will only be spun as acquiesce.  So, serious collectors should oppose restrictions on coins or their expansion to widely circulating trade coins as unnecessary and detrimental to the appreciation of Greek culture and the people to people contacts collecting brings. 

The cumulative impact of import restrictions has been very problematical for collectors since outside of some valuable Greek coins, most coins simply lack the document trail necessary for legal import under the “safe harbor” provisions of 19 U.S.C. § 2606.  The CPIA only authorizes the government to impose import restrictions on coins and other artifacts first discovered within and subject to the export control of Italy. (19 U.S.C. § 2601). Furthermore, seizure is only appropriate for items on the designated list exported from the State Party after the effective date of regulations.  (19 U.S.C. § 2606).  Unfortunately, the State Department and Customs view this authority far more broadly.  In particular, designated lists have been prepared based on where coins are made and sometimes found, not where they are actually found and hence are subject to export control.  Furthermore, restrictions are not applied prospectively solely to illegal exports made after the effective date of regulations, but rather are enforced against any import into the U.S. made after the effective date of regulations, i.e., an embargo, not targeted, prospective import restrictions.  While it is true enforcement has been spotty, CPO knows of situations where coins have been detained, seized and repatriated where the importer cannot produce information to prove his or her coins were outside of a country for which import restrictions were granted before the date of restrictions.

      B.  What You Can Do

Admittedly, CPAC seems to be little more than a rubber stamp.  Still, to remain silent is to give the cultural bureaucrats and archaeologists with an ax to grind against collectors exactly what they want-- the claim that any restrictions will not be controversial. 

For comments, either comment through the Federal Register notice above or use http://www.regulations.gov, enter the docket [DOS–2020–0036] and follow the prompts to submit your comments.  Alternatively, click this link and click on the Blue “Comment Now” Button which should pull up a screen that allows you to comment https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=DOS-2020-0036  (Please note comments may be posted only UNTIL Oct. 13, 2020 at 11:59 PM.).  Alternatively, if this link does not work, as set forth further above, you should also be able to post via the Federal Register website:  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/08/20/2020-18262/cultural-property-advisory-committee-notice-of-meeting

Please also note comments submitted in electronic form are not private. They will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Because the comments cannot be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the Department of State cautions against including any information in an electronic submission that one does not want publicly disclosed (including trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2605(i)(1)).

C.  What Should You Say?

 What should you say?  Provide a brief, polite explanation about how import restrictions impact you or your business and/or the cultural understanding and people to people contacts collecting provides.   Coin collectors should add it makes no sense to expand current restrictions when the State Department already determined which coins were typically “first discovered within” and “subject to the export control” of Greece.  Finally, collectors can point out that Greece, as an EU member, must respect the rights of other EU members to export coins of types on the designated Greek designated list, and so should the U.S.  Comments from Greek and Greek-American collectors are particularly welcome! 

 Personalized comments are best, but feel free to use this submission as a model: 

 Dear CPAC:

 Please either end the current restrictions on coins, or, at least, do not expand them.  It makes no sense to expand current restrictions when the State Department already determined which coins were typically “first discovered within” and “subject to the export control” of Greece.   Finally, Greece, as an EU member, must respect the rights of other EU members to export coins of types on the Greek designated list, and so should the U.S.  This can easily be done by making any renewed MOU recognize that a legal export of a coin on the Greek designated list from a sister EU country will be treated as a legal export from Greece itself.

Sincerely,

xxx

 

Ecuador's Request for Import Restrictions; Time to Put the Brakes on More Culture Creep!

Ecuador's Socialist-leaning government of President Lenin Moreno has asked the United States to impose import restrictions not only on the usual list of pre-Colombian, Colonial and Republican era archaeological and ethnological objects, but also on "Colonial and republican period coins; medallions more than 50 years old...manuscripts more than 50 years old; and certain works by modern artists.”  Public summary at 1.  See https://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/ecuadorrequest2018_publicsummary_04.05.2018.pdf  (last visited April 9, 2018.)  Imposing import restrictions on these categories of cultural artifacts would be yet another example of "culture creep" that has steadily expanded the list of what types of collectibles are effectively embargoed from entry into the United States. 

Of course, none of these objects neatly fit within the definitions of "archaeological" or "ethnological"objects that forms the threshold for them to be subject to import restrictions under the Cultural Property Implementation Act.  However, the Cultural Property Advisory Committee and State Department Cultural Heritage Center, which these days are both dominated by the anti-private collecting views of the Archaeological Institute of America and other archaeological advocacy groups, have pushed the envelope before and may do so again here.

If so, collecting old coins, medallions, manuscripts and modern art from Latin America may very well be at risk.

If you are interested in these collecting areas, please comment.  You still have until April 15th to post your views here.   While we can't be sure your comments will really matter, we should all be concerned that government decision makers will consider silence as acquiescence.

Comments are to touch on the following four determinations:  (1) that the cultural patrimony of Ecuador is in jeopardy; (2) that the requesting nation has taken measures to protect its cultural patrimony; (3) that U.S. import restrictions, either alone or in concert with actions taken by other nations, would be of substantial benefit in deterring a serious situation of pillage; and (4) import restrictions would promote the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural and educational purposes.

For Ecuadorian coins, manuscripts and modern art, determinations 3-4 come into play.  Why should the U.S. Government place restrictions on American collectors given internal markets for these items within Ecuador itself and the fact that other countries have not imposed similar restrictions on the ability of their own citizens to trade in such objects?  Under the circumstances, restrictions will only hurt the ability of Americans to learn about Ecuadorian culture.

The key issue, however, remains  that such coins, medallions, manuscripts and modern art the Ecuadorian government seeks to restrict do not easily fall within the statutory definitions for archaeological or ethnological objects.  Moreover, Ecuadorian coins, like their Spanish and Spanish Colonial counterparts, circulated world wide, first as items of trade and then as collectibles.  Indeed, such coins were legal tender in the United States until 1857.

Archaeological Lobby Silent as Turkey Bombs Hittite Cultural Site

Turkish warplanes have bombed and evidently badly damaged the Iron Age temple of Ain Dara in Northern Syria as part of their campaign against Kurdish separatists.

Far from expressing outrage, the major archaeological lobbying groups including the AIA, ASOR and the Antiquities Coalition have remained silent. 

But why?  A cynic might think these groups are more concerned about angering the Turkish government than in maintaining a consistent message. 

After all, the Turkish Government  offers archaeologists associated with these groups valuable excavation permits for archaeological sites within the country. 

Egyptian Import Restrictions Notice Published; Conflict of Interest Concerns Raised

The US Government has published an extensive list of artifacts subject to import restrictions pursuant to the MOU with Egypt.  The effective date is 12/5/16.

The designated list restricts the following ancient coin types down to 294 AD:

H. Coins

In copper or bronze, silver, and gold.

1. General—There are a number of references that list Egyptian coin types. Below are some examples. Most Hellenistic and Ptolemaic coin types are listed in R.S. Poole, A Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Alexandria and the Nomes (London, 1893); J.N. Svoronos, Τα Nομισματα του Κρατουσ των Πτολe μαιων (Münzen der Ptolemäer) (Athens 1904); and R.A. Hazzard, Ptolemaic Coins: An Introduction for Collectors (Toronto, 1985). Examples of catalogues listing the Roman coinage in Egypt are J.G. Milne, Catalogue of Alexandrian Coins (Oxford, 1933); J.W. Curtis, The Tetradrachms of Roman Egypt (Chicago, 1969); A. Burnett, M. Amandry, and P.P Ripollès, Roman Provincial Coinage I: From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44 BC-AD 69) (London, 1998—revised edition); and A. Burnett, M. Amandry, and I. Carradice, Roman Provincial Coinage II: From Vespasian to Domitian (AD 69-96) (London, 1999). There are also so-called nwb-nfr coins, which may date to Dynasty 30. See T. Faucher, W. Fischer-Bossert, and S. Dhennin, “Les Monnaies en or aux types hiéroglyphiques nwb nfr,” Bulletin de l'institut français d'archéologie orientale 112 (2012), pp. 147-169.

2. Dynasty 30 —Nwb nfr coins have the hieroglyphs nwb nfr on one side and a horse on the other.

3. Hellenistic and Ptolemaic coins—Struck in gold, silver, and bronze at Alexandria and any other mints that operated within the borders of the modern Egyptian state. Gold coins of and in honor of Alexander the Great, struck at Alexandria and Memphis, depict a helmeted bust of Athena on the obverse and a winged Victory on the reverse. Silver coins of Alexander the Great, struck at Alexandria and Memphis, depict a bust of Herakles wearing the lion skin on the obverse, or “heads” side, and a seated statue of Olympian Zeus on the reverse, or “tails” side. Gold coins of the Ptolemies from Egypt will have jugate portraits on both obverse and reverse, a portrait of the king on the obverse and a cornucopia on the reverse, or a jugate portrait of the king and queen on the obverse and cornucopiae on the reverse. Silver coins of the Ptolemies coins from Egypt tend to depict a portrait of Alexander wearing an elephant skin on the obverse and Athena on the reverse or a portrait Start Printed Page 87808of the reigning king with an eagle on the reverse. Some silver coins have jugate portraits of the king and queen on the obverse. Bronze coins of the Ptolemies commonly depict a head of Zeus (bearded) on the obverse and an eagle on the reverse. These iconographical descriptions are non-exclusive and describe only some of the more common examples. There are other types and variants. Approximate date: ca. 332 B.C. through ca. 31 B.C.

4. Roman coins—Struck in silver or bronze at Alexandria and any other mints that operated within the borders of the modern Egyptian state in the territory of the modern state of Egypt until the monetary reforms of Diocletian. The iconography of the coinage in the Roman period varied widely, although a portrait of the reigning emperor is almost always present on the obverse of the coin. Approximate date: ca. 31 B.C. through ca. A.D. 294.

With respect to the wording of the restrictions themselves, Customs has reverted back to restrictions based on place of manufacture rather than find spot. (Recent Syrian import restrictions followed the statutory requirements more closely-- likely because they were receiving special scrutiny in Congress.)

This is significant because such restrictions ignore evidence that demonstrates that Egyptian mint coins are regularly discovered outside of Egypt.  Egypt's so-called "closed monetary system” was meant to keep foreign coins "out" and not Egyptian coins “in.” Hoard evidence confirms Ptolemaic coins from Egyptian mints circulated throughout the Ptolemaic Empire which stretched well beyond the confines of modern-day Egypt.  (And, indeed, some hoards are found outside the Empire's territory.)  They also ignored finds reported under the UK's PAS that show Roman Egyptian Tetradrachms circulated as far away as Roman Britain. 

Finally, it is troubling that Evan Ryan, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Educational Affairs, made the decision despite a recusal request made on behalf of numismatic trade and advocacy groups. In CPO's view, Ryan's acceptance of an award from the AIA  raises serious conflict of interest issues, if not a violation of ethics rules concerning the acceptance of gifts and awards.  Of course, the AIA lobbied heavily for a MOU with Egypt, and the AIA's award to Ryan specifically referenced ECA's work in implementing MOU's.  

Syrian Import Restrictions Imposed

US Customs has published a very extensive list of "Syrian" artifacts now restricted pursuant to the "Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act."  Coin collectors should special take note that that the "designated list" includes all coins minted and circulated in Syria through the Ottoman period.

Now that restrictions are in place, two important enforcement issues remain.  First, will Customs only detain, seize and seek the forfeiture of artifacts on the new designated list "unlawfully removed from Syria on or after March 15, 2011?"  Or, will Customs revert back to its current extralegal practice of detaining, seizing,  and seeking the forfeiture of anything that looks remotely like it appears on the designated list and then require the importer to "prove the negative?"  One can only hope that the explicit directions  of the measure's sponsor, Congressman Elliot Engel, emphasizing the limits on Customs' discretion will control.

Second, what will happen to any artifacts that are seized and forfeited under the regulations?   When the  "Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Implementation Act" was first introduced, there was a real hope the Assad regime would be replaced by a far more Democratic alternative.  No more.  So, will Customs and the State Department still follow current practice and repatriate the artifacts to the Syrian Government which means the Assad regime?  And, if so, what does that really say about the wisdom of the statute and the US Government's current emphasis on repatriation over preservation?

AIA View of CPAC Meeting on the the Bolivian and Greek MOU

Nathan Elkins, writing on the AIA's blog, gives his views about what happened at the CPAC meeting concerning proposed renewals of the Bolivian and Greek MOUs.

Of course, CPO remembers it all a bit differently.

More importantly, CPO feels he has been misquoted concerning what he said about current import restrictions being improperly based on where a coin is "made" vs. "found." Elkins is flat out wrong. CPO certainly did not "admit[] this was only his interpretation of the CPIA as other attorneys, academics, and the federal courts have not agreed with Tompa’s understanding of the ‘found in’ vs. ‘made in’ argument."

Perhaps Elkins can be more specific about his contention. Certainly both Urice and Adler have agreed with CPO in their Rutgers Law Review Article. Moreover, then State Department Deputy Legal Adviser Mark Feldman also seemed to agree that the focus must be where an object is found in his statements made at the time the CPIA was being discussed.

Finally, Elkins--who is no lawyer-- appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a U.S. District Court and the Fourth Circuit have actually said about the matter.  Both have agreed that import restrictions only apply to objects of archaeological interest "first discovered within" and "subject to export control" of a specific UNESCO State Party.  Yet, they have refused to conduct a judicial review of the designated lists because they consider the issue to be a "political question" that makes the issue "non-justiciable."  So, no Court has actually looked at the issue on the merits.

Cultural Property Advisory Committee, May 24, 2016 Open Session to Discuss Renewals of Bolivian and Greek MOUs

On May 24, 2016, The US State Department Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) met in open session to discuss renewal of the Bolivian and Greek MOUs.  The following CPAC members were present:  (1) Prof. Patty Gerstenblith, Chair (PG) (Public Member); (2) Rosemary Joyce (RJ)(Archaeology);  (3) Jane Levine (JL) (Trade); (4) Marta de la Torre  (MT)(Public); (5) Nancy Wilkie (NW) (Archaeology); 6) James Willis (JW) (Trade); (7) Barbara Kaul  (Public) (arrived late); (8) Lothar von Falenhausen (LVF) (Archaeology); and (9) Thomas Murray (Trade).  Katherine Reid (Museum) and Nina Archabal (Museum) were absent.

The following individuals spoke on the Bolivian MOU in this order: (1) Donna Yates (DH) (University of Glasgow); and (2) Sonia Alconini, Society of American Archaeology.  Both speakers supported the MOU with Bolivia.

The following individuals spoke on the Greek MOU in this order:  (1) Sue McGovern-Huffman (SM) (Association of Dealers and Collectors of Ancient and Ethnographic Art); (2) Peter Tompa (PT) (International Association of Professional Numismatists/Professional Numismatists Guild); (3) Carmen Arnold-Biucchi (CAB) (Harvard University); (4) Nathan Elkins (NE) (Baylor University); (5) Peter Schertz  (PS) (Virginia Museum of Fine Arts); (6) William Parkinson (WP) (Field Museum/University of Chicago); (7) Bryan Burns (BB) (Wellesley); (8) John Papadopoulos (JP) (University of California, Los Angeles); (9) Kim Shelton (KS) (University of California, Berkeley); and (10) Barbara Tsinakis (BT) (Vanderbilt). 

   

The first two speakers supported the MOU with changes or opposed import restrictions on coins.  The second two speakers supported the MOU and restrictions on coins.  The next speaker supported the MOU with modest changes on museum loans.  The rest of the speakers supported renewal of the MOU without qualification.  

Bolivian MOU   

Donna Yates (DY) - Focuses comments on ecclesiastical artifacts that are trafficked into the US.  Since the last MOU there have been church robberies.   310 items were stolen in two separate thefts.  Registries are better for ecclesiastical artifacts because Churches maintain inventories.  It’s hard to tell Peruvian from Bolivian ecclesiastical artifacts apart, but both are subject to MOUs.  There were 24,000 ecclesiastical artifacts recorded before the last MOU.  DY is unsure if additional work has been done since.

Sonia Alconini (SA) - SA teaches at the University of Texas at San Antonio.  She previously taught in Bolivia.  MOUs are important instruments to stop trafficking in Bolivian artifacts.  Bolivian artifacts still appear on eBay.  Some may be fake. 

MT asked if there are warnings at the airport about exporting Bolivian archaeological and ethnological goods.  SA states, “no.”

TM asks about Bolivian textiles.  SA says that some stores still sell them from “hidden rooms,” but that there was a crack-down on such activity in 2013.  

NW asks about local collections.  Both DY and SA indicate they exist, but the objects are supposed to be registered. 

There is also a market for Bolivian artifacts in Brazil.

SA is asked about working in Bolivia.  She indicates there are 5 levels of permits that must be procured, but she maintains this added bureaucracy is “worth it” because it demonstrates a buy-in to the archaeological work at both a national and local level.

JL asks if any Bolivian material is legal under Bolivian law.   DY indicates archaeological artifacts purchased before 1906 and ecclesiastical artifacts purchased before 1923 would be legal under Bolivian law.  Apparently, artifacts can only leave legally with a “presidential decree” and this sometimes happens. 

Greek MOU

Sue McGovern (SM) – SM represents the Association of Dealers and Collectors of Ancient and Ethnographic Art (ADCAEA).   ADCAEA stands for a responsible and legal trade.  The MOU has not worked.  No seizures have been reported under it.  ADCAEA recommends that the MOU not be extended in its current form.  ADCAEA believes that US Customs should allow legal import of artifacts on the designated list that are legally exported from Greece’s sister EU countries. 

MT questions a statement in SM’s written presentation that artifacts without a provenance have no commercial value.  SM states all the objects she sells have a provenance and she could not sell them without one.  SM also states as an appraiser she would give “0” value to an artifact without a provenance.  SM states that eBay is full of material without a provenance. SM defines good provenance as an artifact that is documented to have come from a recognized collection.  1970 is an ideal date, but not always possible, particularly for minor items like oil lamps. 

SM gives an example of artifacts with exceptional provenance.  She recently sold artifacts that had been previously lent to and exhibited at the Smithsonian. 

JW notes that the 1970 date is a construct and there is no real difference regarding the loss of context from an artifact illicitly excavated in 1969 and one illicitly excavated in 1971.

SM notes while provenance is important we “should not throw out the baby with the bathwater” when it comes to orphan artifacts. 

SM notes that Greece should sell documented artifacts and use the money to support archaeology.  She also notes back in the 1960’s no one could care less about provenance. 

Peter Tompa (PT) – PT represents the International Association of Professional Numismatists and the Professional Numismatists Guild.  He states that current restrictions based on where a coin is made rather than found are contrary to the plain meaning of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act.  Such restrictions have already damaged coin collecting and the people to people contacts collecting brings.  He criticizes the paper of Nathan Elkins, an academic supporting restrictions, as advocating positions either contrary to the CPIA's plain meaning, contradictory to Elkins' prior statements, or misleading on details about past coin seizures.  PT also advocates that archaeological objects on the open market within Greece’s sister EU countries should be allowed entry into the US with either a valid EU export permit or no permit if this is allowed under local law.  He indicates instead of focusing on more restrictions, Greece can take simple steps like requiring that archaeologists pay a fair wage to locals and ensure there is site security in the long off season. 

JW indicates that the coin issue “is a difficult one” and wonders if all the emphasis on context is to the exclusion of other important issues.  PT notes that the CPIA suggests “context” is not the most important issue because the CPIA only allows restrictions on objects of archaeological interest if they are also of “cultural significance.”

MT questions PT’s views about EU regulations, but PT directs MT to attorney Michael McCullough’s expert report on the issue.  He promises to provide CPAC with that report.  PT also promises to provide Sotheby’s paper on “cultural significance” under the CPIA. 

JW asks about due diligence. PT indicates that US dealers are forming a “Council for Numismatic Integrity” to make their due diligence practices more transparent.

LVF objects to PT’s suggestions in his paper about privatizing archaeological sites, but PT notes that this assumes local groups will take them over with oversight from the Greek cultural ministry. 

NW asks about the provenances of coins. PT says very few have recorded provenances and that there is no law either here or within EU market countries that requires it for what is for sale. 

PG asks about the academic paper attached to IAPN/PNG’s submission that indicates that 18% of Greek coins are found outside of Greece.  PT notes that is a number for all issues.  For some issues, like Athenian Tetradrachms and Decadrachms, there are more found outside of Greece than within Greece. 

There is some discussion about what is an archaeological site.  PT indicates that it is a site with other material remains nearby, but recognizes that some archaeologists define the term as anywhere something ancient is found. 

PT's oral comments may be found here.  IAPN/PNG's written comment can be found here.

Carmen Arnold-Biucchi (CAB) – Indicates support for the MOU and restrictions on all coins found in Greece.  CAB emphasizes, however, that the coins must be found in Greece and not found elsewhere.  She agrees with PT that issues of Athens predominate outside of Greece.  CAB supports the sale of duplicate coins from state collections and the institution of programs like the UK’s Treasure Act and PAS.  Harvard only purchase coins with a 1970 provenance. 

TM asks if it is unrealistic to assume most collectors can find coins with a 1970 provenance.  CAB admits most coins lack any provenance.  However, she says collectors should be educated about its importance.

NW asks about Byzantine coins.  CAB indicates those found in Greece should also be restricted. 

JW expresses concern that “context” has been allowed to trump all other values.

CAB indicates that she supports laws that encourage coin hoards to be reported.

CAB criticizes the fact that so many excavation coins are not published, but notes that American archaeologists are far better than their foreign counterparts.

Nathan Elkins (NE) - Coins are looted by the thousands.  Even common coins can be significant to dating.  One coin worth 50 cents on the open market helped date a synagogue in Israel.  NE has written an article critical of the ACCG and its test case.  In it, he explains that the current designated lists are quite conservative because they only take in coins primarily found in a given country.  Elkins now thinks more should be covered—all those commonly found in a given country. 

NW wants to know about coins found in Bolivia.  Elkins indicates he is no expert.

Elkins thinks the broad Bulgarian MOU should be a guide and looks forward to a day where overlapping MOUs will protect all coins. 

Peter Schertz (PS) – PS speaks on behalf of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts (VMFA) and AAMD.  Loans are an issue.  Pre-packaged loans like the one going to National Geographic are fine, but they don’t meet the current MOUs requirements for loans to institutions.   The AAMD is looking for clarity on loans. 

William Parkinson (WP) – WP speaks on behalf of the Field Museum, the University of Chicago, the Society for American Archaeology and the Archaeological Institute of America.  WP lauds Greece’s efforts and collaboration.   WP works at the excavation of an early cave site.   WP says a new exhibit from Greece called “the Greeks” to be seen at National Geographic opens up 5000 years of Greek history.  It is a stunning achievement and to call it “pre-packaged” is wrong. 

In response to a question, WP admits it’s easier to collaborate with people you know and its possible AAMD museums have problems because their curators do not have such personal relationships. 

Bryan Burns (BB) – BB teaches at Wellesley College.  BB supports the MOU.   He thinks more can be done to help Greece digitize collections and ensure site security.   In response to a question from TM, BB says Cycladic art is problematical because the area where this art is found has been heavily looted.     

John Papadopoulos (JP) - JP teaches at UCLA.  Looting is a fact of life in Greece.   There has been an increase in first time offenses.  Artifacts stolen from the Corinth museum ended up in Miami.  Shelby White and the Getty have repatriated artifacts stolen from Greece. 

PG asks about private museums in Greece.  JP indicates there are several, but each has a public function.  TM notes that the Cycladic museum in Greece is a private institution.  JP thinks there should be better on-line inventories.  JP also advocates public awareness campaigns to tackle looting.

Kim Shelton (KS) – KS teaches at University of California, Berkeley.   She works at Nemea and has made efforts of outreach to the local people.  They have repaid her by reporting suspicious activity on site. 

Barbara Tsinakis (BT) – BT teaches at Vanderbilt.  She is speaking on behalf of the AIA.  BT works on excavating homes.  She thinks common artifacts found at the sites of homes have cultural significance because the artifacts have much to tell about how people lived.   Coins are obvious common objects, but others include transport amphora, loom weights and cooking pots.  BT would support making loans more long term, but recognizes the difficulty of transporting fragile artifacts.