Time Again to Tell the Cultural Property Advisory Committee What You Think About Import Restrictions on Coins for Taliban Afghanistan and Erdogan’s Türkiye

 The State Department has announced a Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) Meeting to consider renewals of current “emergency” import restrictions on behalf of Taliban Afghanistan, and the renewals of current cultural property memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with Erdogan’s Türkiye and Colombia.  CPAC will also consider a new MOU with Cameroon.

The State Department’s announcement can be found here:  https://www.state.gov/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-september-15-17-2025/

The State Department is soliciting comments here:  https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2025-0203-0001

Comments are due on or before September 8, 2025.

The renewals for Afghanistan and Türkiye should be controversial because they prioritize soft power efforts directed at a terrorist state (Afghanistan) and an authoritarian one (Turkey) over the interests of American collectors, museums, and the trade in cultural goods.  For coin collectors, the big issue is the grossly overbroad designated lists for both countries that cover coins that circulated regionally or internationally.   There are currently no import restrictions for coins for Colombia, and it does not appear that Cameroon is requesting any restrictions, likely because coins were not used there until recently.

The other big issue relates to enforcement.  Unfortunately, in the only case that addressed the issue, courts in the US Fourth Circuit gave Customs a “green light” to detain, seize and repatriate coins for no other reason that they were of types on a “designated list” for import restrictions.  This puts collectors importing such coins at risk because it is often difficult, if not impossible, to produce the documentation necessary for legal import under current “safe harbor” procedures.

For further details about these MOUs and emergency restrictions and how to comment see this solicitation from the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild https://accguild.org/news/13533301 as well as this critique from the Cultural Property Observer blog: https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2025/08/soft-power-love-for-taliban-trump-state.html  Again, comments are due on or before September 8, 2025, with the CPAC hearing to take place on September 15, 2025, via a Zoom video conference. 

What should you say? It’s better to write in your own words about how import restrictions hurt your ability to  access coins and learn more about other cultures or even get in touch with your own cultural heritage.  However, here is a model for you to consider:

Please do not renew current import restrictions that prioritize the interests of a terrorist state (Afghanistan) and an authoritarian one (Türkiye) over the rights of American coin collectors.  If you nonetheless renew these agreements, please ensure that the designated lists are rewritten so that it is absolutely clear that they do not impact coins legitimately imported from legal markets abroad, particularly those in Europe.  Coin collecting is a hobby that promotes cultural understanding and relationships with collectors abroad.  It is troubling that the State Department Bureau of Cultural Affairs is behind efforts that do considerable damage to a hobby that actually promotes the cultural understanding the Bureau supposedly aims to foster.

"Soft Power" Love for the Taliban: Trump State Department Continues to Prioritize the Interests of Foreign Despots and Archaeological Advocacy Groups Over Those of American Citizens

Collectors hoping Trump II would “make collecting great again" have been sorely disappointed.  Instead, giveaways in the form of Cultural Property Agreements or Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) to foreign despots, their cultural bureaucracies, and US based archaeological advocacy groups that are dependent on foreign excavation permits continue to be approved at an accelerated pace. 

These MOUs impose confiscatory import restrictions on cultural goods.  They are justified as  "soft power" measures aimed at encouraging even "failed states" to "like us more."  Indeed, the push to complete as many agreements as possible has been so strong that the State Department has gone so far as to fund both foreign requests and "self-help" measures, both of which are supposed to be the responsibility of the foreign government.  Doge cuts or no, such funding in the form of cultural property implementation grants continues to appear on  the State Department Cultural Heritage Center website.  Of course, some of the prime beneficiaries are associated with the archaeological advocacy groups most identified with protecting the current status quo. For example, according to a federal grant tracking database, the Antiquities Coalition, one of the most active, has received over $3.3 million in grants from the State Department and USAID for work that has included "strengthen[ing] the U.S. commitment to preventing illegal trafficking and sale of antiquities into the United States from Uzbekistan, Nepal, and India by supporting the development of bilateral Cultural Property Agreements."

Trump has sought to overturn many "woke" Biden initiatives, but his Administration has nonetheless implemented Biden era decisions to impose import restrictions on behalf of Hindu nationalist India, authoritarian Uzbekistan, and even Hezbollah dominated Lebanon.  The Trump Administration may have hit India with 50% punitive tariffs and approved Israel's continued bombing campaign in Lebanon, but that hasn't stopped the US government from seizing and repatriating cultural goods to these countries.  

Moreover, after a short regulatory pause, the Trump State Department has even expanded these "soft power" efforts.  In May 2025, the State Department held a Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC)  Meeting to consider a new MOU with Communist Vietnam, and renewed agreements with Chile, Costa Rica, Italy and Morocco.  In so doing, the State Department denied a request from groups representing collectors and the trade to postpone the meeting to give time for Trump to appoint at least some CPAC members.  As it is, CPAC may be one of the last bodies in the federal government still  completely staffed with Biden political appointees.  

Now, at a time Congress is out of session and most of Washington, DC is enjoying summer vacation, the State Department has provided public notice of a September 2025 CPAC meeting to consider a renewal of even more controversial "emergency import restrictions" on behalf of Taliban Afghanistan, as well as a new MOU with authoritarian Cameroon, and renewals for Erdogan's Turkey and the Leftist government in Columbia.  

One preliminary question is whether the State Department has exceeded its statutory authority under the Cultural Property Implementation Act in considering renewals of import restrictions for Afghanistan, Columbia and Turkey.  The notice of the proposed extension for Afghanistan does not mention any request for a renewal or information received from the State Party that supports the determination that an emergency condition still exists. 19 U.S.C. Section 2602 (f) (2), 2603 (c) (1). The same issue arises with the notices of proposed extensions of MOUs for Columbia and Turkey.    Neither of those notices indicate that either country has requested a renewal of a current agreement or provide any information to justify it.  19 U.S.C. Section 2602 (a) (1), (a) (3), (e), (f) (2). Without any such request or supporting information  from a State Party, such restrictions can only be authorized by a special act of Congress as was done for post Saddam Iraq in 2001 and Assad's Syria in 2016.

Each of these proposals also raise important substantive concerns, but the renewal of "emergency import restrictions" on behalf of Taliban Afghanistan should be particularly troubling.  Why should the Trump  II Administration even consider repatriating cultural goods to the Taliban at all?  As was pointed out  by representatives of museums, collectors and the trade during a 2021 CPAC hearing to consider the initial request for import restrictions from the "former government of Afghanistan," the Taliban are far more known for dynamiting cultural heritage such as the Buddhas of Bamiyan than preserving it.  More recently, a Chinese mining company has moved forward with the blessing of Taliban officials on controversial plans to dig a copper mine under an important ancient Buddhist site at Mes Aynak.  Of course, the silence from archaeological advocacy groups that regularly condemn American collectors, dealers and museums as would be looters is deafening.  Indeed, the founder of the well-funded and politically connected Antiquities Coalition has gone so far as to praise Communist China's authoritarian, mercantilist, and nationalistic cultural heritage policy.   No matter the Chinese Communist's distinct lack of respect for Buddhist cultural heritage in Afghanistan as well as their promotion of Han cultural supremacy along with the state sponsored suppression and destruction of the cultural heritage of subject Tibetan and Uyghur cultures.  

So, why is the Trump Administration continuing on this same path?  It may simply be that the State Department bureaucracy has misled Administration officials about the true effect of MOUs and import restrictions on legitimate trade and collecting.  In an email announcing September's CPAC hearing, the State Department Cultural Heritage Center claims that import restrictions "bar trafficked cultural property from entering the United States while encouraging the legal exchange of cultural property for scientific, cultural and educational purposes."   What can be wrong with that!

In fact, plenty.  In reality, such import restrictions actually harm the legal exchange of cultural property because they operate as embargos on all cultural goods of "designated types," including those purchased on legal markets abroad, mostly in Europe.  Such a broad-brush approach is particularly damaging to the legitimate trade in historical coins.  Under it, once a coin is determined to be of a type that appears on a designated list, it may be detained, seized and repatriated based on nothing more than being one of many thousands of examples of such coins that may have circulated regionally if not internationally. 

Coin collectors continue to believe that the governing statute instead requires the government to at least demonstrate "probable cause" that a coin subject to detention, seizure and forfeiture was illicitly exported after the effective date of any governing regulations.  However, the State Department and US Customs convinced Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson and the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit to provide US law enforcement with a "green light" to seize and repatriate collector's coins solely based on their “type” as a "foreign policy matter."   Fast forward to the present, mainstream media lauded Wilkinson as a champion for the due process rights of  illegal aliens who were also allegedly gang members.   But what about "due process" for collectors?

This lack of due process matters because the current "safe harbor" for those importing restricted cultural goods was meant for valuable objects with long paper trails.  Moreover, overlapping designated lists for multiple countries of coin types subject to such import restrictions now regularly include coins that circulated regionally or even internationally.  All this makes it difficult, if not impossible, to import increasing numbers of historic collectors coins from legal markets abroad. Most collector's coins simply do not have the provenance documentation necessary for legal import under the current "safe harbor" provision. Given the limited value of most collector's coins and the great numbers found in most collections, most are unlikely to have documentation "proving" a particular coin left a specific country before the effective date of governing regulations. 

So what can collectors do?  

First, collectors should still comment on the proposed MOU with Cameroon as well as the proposed renewals of import restrictions for Afghanistan, Columbia and Turkey.  While one may think their comments don't matter, silence will be taken as acquiescence to the status quo.  Coin collectors should focus on the fact that embargoes on import of collector's coins makes no sense, particularly because one cannot assume that a coin type was only found in a particular country.  They can and should also describe how there are far too many coins out there for them all to be cared for by cultural bureaucracies, particularly ones in places like Afghanistan.  

Second, coin collectors should contact their Representative and Senators and ask them to support HR 595, a bill to facilitate the lawful exchange in collector's coins.

Finally, all collectors should advocate for more fundamental legislative reform to protect our due process rights before any collectibles are detained, seized and forfeited to a foreign government.  In view of the State Department’s continuation of the anti-collecting status quo, only legislative action can help "make collecting great again."

W

"Emergency" Import Restrictions Imposed on Afghan Cultural Goods to 1920's.

The State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and US Customs and Border Protection have imposed extremely broad "emergency import restrictions" on cultural goods "sourced" to Afghanistan.   The restrictions that were put in place address few of the concerns raised by representatives of museums, collectors and the small and micro businesses of the numismatic and ethnographic art trades at a rushed Cultural Property Advisory Committee meeting that took place on Oct. 5, 2021. 

"The Designated List includes archaeological and ethnological material sourced from Afghanistan. Archaeological material ranges in date from the Paleolithic (50,000 B.C.) through the beginning of the Durrani Dynasty (A.D. 1747). Ethnological material includes architectural objects and wooden objects associated with Afghanistan’s diverse history, from the 9th century A.D. through A.D. 1920." 

A link to the Federal Register Notice announcing the restrictions can be found here.  

The real question is how these restrictions are going to be enforced and if any material that may be seized will be repatriated to the Taliban once diplomatic relations are restored.   CPO also wonders if  these "emergency import restrictions" will morph into a memorandum of understanding with  Afghanistan's Taliban government as was recently done with Libya.  

There also is a significant issue whether these import restrictions were promulgated legally.  As recounted in the Federal Register Notice, a request from the former government of Afghanistan was only acted upon after that government fell.  Although Afghanistan's former government evidently requested a MOU, "emergency import restrictions" which do not require a signed agreement were imposed instead.  Such "emergency import restrictions" also require a "request" from a "State Party."  See 19 USC § 2603 (c) (1).   Thus, the same question arises, can the State Department act based on a "request" of a government that no longer exists?

There also is a significant practical issue for collectors, museums, the trade as well as the representatives of displaced religious and ethnic minorities.  "Emergency restrictions" were contemplated to be imposed on a much narrower range of cultural goods than "regular restrictions."  The baseline requirements of “cultural significance” and “first discovery” still apply, but emergency restrictions otherwise focus on material of particular importance.  In essence, the material must be a “newly discovered type” or from a site of “high cultural significance” that is in danger of “crisis proportions.” 19 USC § 2603 (a).  Alternatively, the object must be part of the remains of a civilization, the record of which is in jeopardy of “crisis proportions,” and restrictions will reduce the danger of pillage.  Id.  Here, in contrast, the "emergency import restrictions" that were imposed are hardly narrow.  Rather, they are instead exceptionally broad, including items produced as late as the 1920's.  

The one bright spot is that the designated list does not include "textiles" under the ethnographic category.  If it did, such import restrictions would potentially devastate the livelihoods of Afghan women who make a living weaving textiles for export.

Aside from that, the exceptionally broad designated list is concerning because import restrictions are not applied prospectively solely to illegal exports made after the effective date of regulations under 19 U.S.C. § 2606, but rather are enforced far more broadly against any import into the U.S. made after the effective date of regulations, i.e., an embargo, not targeted, prospective import restrictions.  It remains to be seen whether the Federal Register's limitation to cultural goods "sourced" to Afghanistan has any effect whatsoever on enforcement.  

Those of the Buddhist faith should be particularly concerned about restrictions encompassing Buddhist material of the sort the Taliban has destroyed in the past.  

The inclusion of musical instruments under ethnological material is particularly chilling given the Taliban's strictures against music and murder of a prominent folk musician. 

The designated list of coins is particularly broad and includes coins that circulated regionally as well as internationally.  It goes far beyond coins that "primarily circulated" within Afghanistan, the State Department's prior standard and encompasses coin types (like Roman Imperial coins) purposely left of prior lists.  Hopefully, such broad restrictions made on an "emergency basis" will not be cited as "precedent" in the future, particularly given the Federal Register's requirement that they be "sourced" to Afghanistan.  

Coins— Ancient coins include gold, silver, copper, and bronze coins; may be hand stamped with units ranging from tetradrachms to dinars; includes gold bun ingots and silver ingots, which may be plain and/or inscribed. Some of the most well-known types are described below:

a. The earliest coins in Afghanistan are Greek silver coins, including tetradrachms and drachmae. Approximate date: 530-333 B.C.

b. During the reign of Darius I, gold staters and silver sigloi were produced in Bactria and Gandhara. Approximate date: 586-550 B.C.

c. Achaemenid coins include round punch-marked coins with one or two punched holes and bent bar coins ( shatamana ). Approximate date: 5th century B.C.

d. Gandhara coins include janapadas, bent bar coins based on the silver sigloi weight. Approximate date: 4th century B.C.

e. Mauryan coins include silver karshapanas with five punches, six arm designs, and/or sun symbols. Weights ranged from 5.5 to 7.2 gm. Approximate date: 322-185 B.C.

f. Gold staters and silver tetradrachms were produced locally after Alexander the Great conquered the region. Approximate date: 327-323 B.C.

g. Greco-Bactrian coins include gold staters, silver tetradrachms, silver and bronze drachms, and a small number of punch-marked coins. The bust of the king with his name written in Greek and Prakit were on the obverse, and Greek deities and images of Buddha were on the reverse. Approximate date: 250-125 B.C.

h. Common Roman Imperial coins found in archaeological contexts in Afghanistan were struck in silver and Start Printed Page 9443 bronze. Approximate date: 1st century B.C.-4th century A.D.

i. Kushan Dynasty coins include silver tetradrachms, copper coin (Augustus type), bronze diadrachms and gold dinars. Imagery includes portrait busts of each king with his emblem ( tamgha) on both sides. Classical Greek and Zoroastrian deities and images of the Buddha are depicted on the reverse. Approximate date: A.D. 19-230.

j. Sassanian coins include silver drachms, silver half drachms, obols ( dang), copper drahms and gold dinars, and gold coins of Shapur II (A.D. 309-379). Starting with Peroz I, mint indication was included on the coins. Sassanian coins may include imagery of Zoroastrian Fire Temples. Approximate date: A.D. 224-651.

k. Hephthalite coins include silver drachms, silver dinars, and small copper and bronze coins. The designs were the same as Sassanian, but they did not put the rulers' names on the coins. Hephthalite coins may include imagery of Zoroastrian Fire Temples. Approximate date: 5th-8th centuries A.D.

l. Turk Shahis coins include silver and copper drachma with portraits of the rulers wearing a distinctive triple crescent crown. The emblems of these Buddhist Turks were also included on the coin. Inscriptions were in Bactrian. Approximate date: A.D. 665-850.

m. Shahiya or Shahis of Kabul coins include silver, bronze, and copper drachma with inscriptions of military and chief commanders. Hindu imagery is included on the coin design. The two main types of images are the bull and horseman and the elephant and lion. Approximate date: A.D. 565-879.

n. Chinese coins belonging primarily to the Tang Dynasty are found in archaeological contexts in Afghanistan. Approximate date: A.D. 618-907.

o. Ghaznavid coins include gold dinars with bilingual inscriptions, Islamic titles in Arabic and Sharda and images of Shiva, Nandi, and Samta Deva. Approximate date: A.D. 977-1186.

p. Ghurid coins include silver and gold tangas with inscriptions and abstract goddess iconography. Approximate date: A.D. 879-1215.

q. Timurid coins include silver and copper tangas and copper dinars, both coin types are decorated with Arabic inscriptions. Approximate date: A.D. 1370 -1507.

r. Mughal coins include shahrukhi, gold mithqal, gold mohur, silver rupee, copper dams, and copper falus. The iconography varies, depending on the ruler, but popular designs include images of the Hindu deities Sita and Ram, portrait busts of the rulers, and the twelve zodiac signs. Approximate date: A.D. 1526-1857.

Summary of October 5, 2021, Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting to Address Emergency Import Restrictions Request on Behalf of the “Former Government of Afghanistan,” Proposed Renewals of MOUs with Cyprus and Peru.

                On October 5, 2021, the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (“CPAC”) met to consider proposed emergency import restrictions on behalf of the “former government of Afghanistan” as well as proposed renewals of MOUs with Peru and Cyprus.  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); Mark Hendricks (Sale of International Cultural Property?); and David Tamasi (International Sale of Cultural Property?).  Allison Davis, CPAC’s State Department Executive Director, and Michele Prior, also of ECA, were also present.

                It appears that the State Department has seated last minute Trump Appointees in slots reserved to represent the interests of archaeology and the international trade of cultural property, but that has not yet been confirmed on the State Department website.   Rachael Fulton Brown is an associate professor of History at the University of Chicago.  David Tamasi is a Founding Partner and Managing Director of Chartwell Strategy Group, a Washington based government relations and strategic communications firm.  Mark C. Hendricks is a principal at Taradin Service Ltd., a private equity firm.  Messrs. Tamasi’s and Hendricks’ background in the international sale of cultural property is unclear.

Chairman Passantino welcomed the speakers.  He indicated that the Committee had read all the comments, and speakers could only be allotted 4 minutes time given the busy schedule.  He also indicated that due to the addition of Afghan emergency import restrictions to the schedule, the Committee’s consideration of the Cypriot renewal would be tabled until a January meeting.  Nonetheless, speakers were free to discuss Cyprus if they were prepared to do so.  Alternatively, they could defer their comments until January. 

The following speakers addressed the Committee: (1) Kate FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural Policy/Global Heritage Alliance); (2) Josh Knerly (Association of Art Museum Directors); (3) Dr. Elizabeth Greene (Archaeological Institute of America); (4) Dr. Brian Bauer (University of Illinois); (5) Dr. Karen Olsen Bruhns (San Francisco State University); (6) Peter Tompa (International Association of Professional Numismatists/Professional Numismatists Guild; (7) Dr. Brian Daniels (Archaeological Institute of America); (8) Tess Davis (Antiquities Coalition); (9)  Allen Berman (Author, Professional Numismatist); and (10) Randolph Myers (Ancient Coin Collectors Guild).

Kate FitzGibbon (KFG) spoke first on behalf of the Committee for Cultural Policy (CCP) and Global Heritage Alliance (GHA).  Although she also put in a paper on Peru, she will focus her comment on Afghanistan.  KG lived in Afghanistan from the 1970s to early 1980s writing about the culture and dealing in ethnographic art.   She had to flee the country in 1982 after the Soviet invasion.  The real issue today is not looting but the fear that the Taliban will intentionally destroy cultural heritage either intentionally to score jihadist propaganda points or to exploit Afghanistan’s mineral wealth.  Section 1216 of the National Defense Authorization Act does not provide a basis for safe harbor for Afghan antiquities. ECA should forget about emergency import restrictions and instead work with the trade and museums in protecting Afghan cultural heritage and extracting Afghan archaeologists from the country. 

The CCP’s and GHA’s testimony on Afghanistan can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0068

Their testimony on the proposed renewal of a MOU with Cyprus can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0077

Their testimony on the proposed renewal of a MOU with Peru can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0097

                Josh Knerly (JK) spoke next on behalf of the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD).  The request of the “former Government of Afghanistan” raises some serious legal issues.  The government that made the request no longer exists and there was insufficient information provided about the proposal within a short five (5) day comment period to make intelligent comment or for CPAC to have a full grasp of the issues.  The effect of import restrictions may be to freeze objects in place in Afghanistan where they may be destroyed by the Taliban. CPAC needs to consider the consequences of any import restrictions carefully. Section 1216 of the National Defense Authorization Act is not a safe harbor provision.  It only immunizes from seizure institutional loans already covered by an Afghan Government export certificate.  It would make far more sense to defer consideration of the matter until the situation on the ground is clearer.  JK next discussed the Peruvian renewal.  He criticizes the State Department’s replacement of tailored language for each MOU with generic language in Article II of the Agreement.  This generic language does not help AAMD members negotiate with State Parties on museum loans.   The terms and conditions of each MOU should encourage source countries to provide such loans with reasonable fees.  Peru’s loan fees are very high. 

                The AAMD’s written testimony regarding Peru and Cyprus can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0105

                Dr. Elizabeth Greene (EG) is the president elect of the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA).  She focuses her comments on the Fourth Determination that any import restrictions are consistent with the general interest of the international community in the international exchange of cultural property.   She indicates the AIA’s 200,000 members (this figure derives from the number of subscribers to the AIA’s “Archaeology” Magazine) have benefitted from the MOU.  Many have taken AIA sponsored trips to Peru to view Peruvian cultural heritage.  Peru has been generous with loans, including one recent loan of 200 items. Dr. Greene specializes in the study of transport amphora.  They may appear to be duplicates but have manufacturing marks that makes each unique.  MOUs can protect duplicate objects like amphora and coins as well as ensure the market only contains legitimate material.  They are not perfect, but they do help reduce looting. 

                Dr. Brian Bauer (BB) appreciates the fact that Spanish Colonial era documents have been added to MOUs.  He now asks CPAC to recommend changes to Article II of the MOU with Peru to ensure that archaeological samples can be exported for further study.  There are no labs within Peru which can do this work, but the Peruvian cultural bureaucracy, especially on a provincial level, have made it a bureaucratic nightmare to export such material.  Only material shepherded through the system with the help of Peruvian colleagues gets exported.   Many times requests for export get lost or simply stay in limbo so long that the researcher just gives up.  The MOU needs to be modified to encourage Peruvian authorities to fix this problem.

                Dr. Karen Olsen Bruhns (KOB) believes MOUs are essential to fight illicit networks.  She has been involved in the fight against looting since 1963.  She has seen the depredations of looters in Latin America firsthand.  She assists U.S. Customs in repatriating artifacts.  She names US dealers she claims sell looted goods.  She attacks US Museums as being filled with looted material.  She views collectors as no better than looters.

                Peter Tompa (PT) spoke on behalf of the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) and the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG).  He defers his comments on Cyprus to focus attention on Peru and Afghanistan.  Spanish Colonial and Republican era coinage of Peru do not fit the statutory definitions for archaeological or ethnological material.  They cannot be considered archaeological material because they are not normally found underground and/or do not meet the 250-year-old threshold.  Such coins were also produced by Europeans using sophisticated industrial processes that churned out thousands of virtually identical coins.  As such, they cannot be ethnological material either. PT then turns to Afghanistan.  He indicates that is should weigh heavily on CPAC that import restrictions could have the perverse effect of requiring US Customs to “claw back” undocumented Bactrian coins imported from Europe and hand them over to the Taliban who could resell, or even worse, melt them.  The CPIA does not contain a “safe harbor” provision to keep that from happening, and Section 1216 of the National Defense Reauthorization Act will provide no help.  Items will be repatriated when diplomatic relations are reestablished, a decision that will be made based on considerations other than the Taliban’s treatment of cultural heritage.  Restrictions are especially problematic for coin collectors since they are applied not as prospective restrictions on illicitly excavated coins but as embargoes to coins already on legal markets within our major trading partners in the EU, UK, and Switzerland. 

                PT’s oral testimony can be found here:  https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-cpia-cannot-support-import.html

                IAPN’s and PNG’s written testimony on Afghanistan can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0088

                IAPN’s and PNG’s written testimony on Cyprus can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0038

                IAPN’s and PNG’s written testimony on Peru can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0021

Dr. Brian Daniels (BD) spoke for the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA).  The request for a MOU by the former government of Afghanistan allows the Committee to consider emergency import restrictions.   There is looting of crisis proportions in Afghanistan.  Research has shown that 170 sites have suffered looting from 2000-2017.   In 2019, there was an uptick in looting of inscriptions.  Customs has seized archaeological material which appears to be from Tillya Tepe.  In the past decades, US archaeologists have worked on capacity building with their Afghan colleagues. BD acknowledges Section 1216 of the National Defense Reauthorization Act would only have helped evacuating Afghan material when the former government was in power.  Now emergency import restrictions are necessary not only to keep looted material off the market but to support Afghan colleagues.  Customs has inherent authority to hold onto such items until it is safe to return them to Afghanistan. 

The AIA’s submission on Afghanistan can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0069

                Tess Davis (TD) spoke on behalf of the Antiquities Coalition (AC).  The Antiquities Coalition supports emergency import restrictions on Afghan cultural goods.  It is important to take decisive action now given the warning from the Afghan National Museum that looters and smugglers are taking advantage of political instability following the Taliban take over.   Emergency restrictions are not MOUs, but they can protect cultural heritage and collections.  They do not vest title of artifacts in the government.  No concerted international response is necessary.  The US did not adopt emergency restrictions on Cambodian artifacts in the 1970s and we are now seeing the consequences with investigations into Latchford’s sales of Cambodian conflict antiquities to US collectors and museums. 

                AC’s submission on Afghanistan can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0082

                AC’s submission about Cyprus can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0080

AC’s submission on Peru can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0081

                Allen Berman (AB) is an author, publisher and the American Numismatic Association’s instructor on medieval coinage.  He believes that the law of unintended consequences may apply to import restrictions on coins.  Provenanced coins already cost more, but there are very few comparatively on the market because there was no reason historically to keep the provenance of most coins.  On Peru, 95% of coins produced there was made for export.  On Afghanistan, the last time the Taliban were in control, they not only dynamited the Bamiyan Buddhas; they also smashed artifacts in the National Museum.  AB is horrified by the prospect that the US Government may hand over Bactrian coins to the Taliban.  All these coins feature pagan images the Taliban find offensive.  As to Cyprus, thousands of Crusader era coins are documented as having been found outside of Cyprus so you cannot assume such coins were found there.  It would be better for Cyprus and other countries to try systems akin to the United Kingdom’s Portable Antiquity Scheme and Treasure Act.  This system encourages people to report their finds and allows the government the right of first refusal to buy them.

AB’s written testimony on Afghanistan can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0037

                His written testimony on Cyprus can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0035

                Randolph Myers appeared on behalf of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG).  Given the time, he indicated he would defer his comments on Cyprus until January.

                The ACCG’s written testimony on Afghanistan can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0040

The ACCG’s written testimony on Cyprus can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0025

Question and Answer Period:

Ricardo St. Hilaire asked JK about Article II in the Peru agreement.  JK indicated that standardized Article IIs do not work.  Peru charges high fees for loans which need to be addressed on an individualized basis in Article II of any renewal.

 Karol Wight asks JK if AAMD museums have faced the same bureaucratic obstacles to loans as BB has experienced with exports of archaeological samples.  JK responds that loans with Peru take an inordinate amount of time to negotiate and that loan fees are high.

J.D. Demming asks if instead of keeping Afghan artifacts in Afghanistan it would be better if they escaped the country given Taliban control.  KOB states that providing a market for antiquities encourages looting.  The real problem is antiquities dealers in the US which now have a “bad odor.”  Sotheby’s now avoids selling antiquities in the US to avoid this perception.  KFG indicates that KOB has an outdated view of the antiquities market based on practices of decades ago.  The art market today takes pains to ensure that what it sells is legal.  Complicating the situation here is that it was quite legal to sell and export antiquities from Afghanistan for decades.  Therefore, one cannot assume items on the market are the products of recent, illicit digs.   Repatriating items to Taliban Afghanistan will not help protect them.  The real issue is the danger of Taliban intentional destruction or destruction of artifacts through mining.  BD indicates that import restrictions will protect items currently in the ground within Afghanistan because there will be less incentive to loot them.  US Customs and the State Department have ample authority to provide safe harbor to any antiquities that are seized.  PT appreciates what BD says about import restrictions protecting unexcavated artifacts within Afghanistan, but the problem is that Customs applies them far too broadly and will repatriate artifacts that have been out of Afghanistan for decades merely because they do not have solid provenances. 

Anthony Wisniewski gets the last word.  He has spent over 500 hours on his CPAC duties.  He has seen lots of conflict between the parties, but thinks all sides believe in cultural property preservation.  He will be working to bring people together to find common ground which promotes both transparency and protects private collections. 

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. 

State Department Adds Afghanistan to Oct. 5, 2021 Agenda-Any Comments due on September 26, 2021!

Incredibly, the State Department now has agreed to entertain a request supposedly from the former Government of Afghanistan that would by necessity have to be negotiated with the new Taliban regime.

The State Department has amended its notice for a Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting for October 5, 2021 for CPAC to also address a request for import restrictions supposedly made by the "former government of Afghanistan."  Applicable Federal Register notices can be found here:  

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/09/21/2021-20339/cultural-property-advisory-committee-additional-meeting-agenda-item

and https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/09/21/2021-20341/notice-of-receipt-of-request-from-the-former-government-of-the-islamic-republic-of-afghanistan-under

 Comments made before the September 26th deadline may be made here:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/09/13/2021-19670/cultural-property-advisory-committee-notice-of-meeting

or here:https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2021-0032-0001

Afghan specific comments should be marked as such.

As a threshold matter, CPO questions the legality of the State Department Cultural Heritage Center negotiating with a government that includes globally designated terrorists, including Sirrajudin Haqqani, Afghanistan's new interior minister. There is a push by Congress to designate the Taliban as a foreign terrorist organization.  Should that happen, it would be explicitly illegal to negotiate with them on cultural heritage.

 Additionally, such a proposal raises serious concerns on its merits given the Taliban’s history of intentionally destroying pre-Islamic cultural heritage, which will not be properly vetted because the public is only being given until Sunday, September 26^th to comment.

Please comment before the close. Individual comments are best, but here are model comments for coin collectors:

RE Afghanistan

I am a collector of ancient coins who is very concerned that CPAC will entertain a request for import restrictions supposedly made on behalf of the former government of Afghanistan which by necessity will require the State Department to negotiate with the Taliban regime.  

This request should be denied given the Taliban's long history of destroying pre-Islamic cultural heritage.  Alternatively, no restrictions should be placed on coins which would allow that regime to claw back coins which have been out of Afghanistan for years if not centuries. Given their history, the Taliban are just as likely to resell or even melt such coins for their bullion value as they are to protect them.  

 Import restrictions assume types of items found on the designated list were found in a specific country for which import restrictions were granted.  However, that rarely holds true for ancient coins.  Afghan restrictions will assume all items made in ancient “Bactria” were found there.  However, ancient Bactria also included parts of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.   Moreover, coins from ancient Bactria circulated not only in Afghanistan but nearby Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan and India.  They have also been widely collected at least since the 19^th century, but few have much provenance information attached to them because not required in the past.

Sincerely,

xxx

Draconian

Is the only way to describe a proposal Monika Grütters, Germany's Commissioner for Culture, has made at the behest of archaeologists with an axe to grind against collectors and cultural bureaucrats of failed states and/or dictatorships like Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq and Syria. 

According to the report,

Ms. Grütters outlined plans for a new law that would require documented provenance for any object entering or leaving Germany, long among the laxest of regulators of the art market. Among other measures, dealers would be required to show a valid export permit from the source of the piece’s origins when entering Germany.

It's unclear how Grütters believes German dealers and collectors are going to come up with documentation that simply does not exist for artifacts that have been traded legally for generations without such paperwork.

Meanwhile, there was apparently no discussion about simple steps archaeologists can take that will discourage looting like hiring site guards and paying local diggers a living wage.    

Ethical archaeologists are already taking similar steps.  So why not make them a legal requirement for every archaeologist excavating abroad?  It's always better to tackle any problem at the source. 

And, if the point of Grütters' proposals is to ensure Germans appear ethical to the world, shouldn't that start with archaeologists, who after all, have direct contact with the people of source countries?

Antiquities Openly Available for Sale in Afghanistan-- But You Can't Purchase Them!

That's the message from an archaeologist embedded in the Australian army, a message consistent with that preached by the Archaeological Institute of America, which has also been embedded with our troops.  But antiquity trading has a long tradition in Afghanistan, and the poor farmers that find things while digging in their fields could certainly use the money.  And while I'm not for looting archaeological sites, the usual claim-- that looting deprives archaeologists of the opportunity to find material "in context"-- would not seem to be a realistic concern here.  Or, perhaps I'm unaware of all the archaeologists lining up to excavate in Afghanistan these days.  Indeed, what's more likely is that the Taliban will take power again-- and we all know how they feel about antiquities-- they love to smash them!  Under the circumstances, what's really wrong with Australian or American soldiers for that matter bringing home a small piece of Afghan history with them? Though of course the troops should follow all directions they receive from their superiors, perhaps such rules should be reconsidered.  If anything, such objects might help encourage some much needed cultural understanding.

Not so Difficult

Afghanistan has many problems, including the Taliban insurgency, endemic corruption, and extreme poverty, but after reading the archaeological blogs, one would think the chief among them is the looting of heritage by poor Afghan farmers.

But that's not all.  For looting provides yet another chance to lay blame for Afghanistan's state of affairs on America!  Indeed, despite fellow archaeological blogger Rick St. Hilaire's recitation of all the statutes federal prosecutors may use to force the repatriation of "looted" antiquities, anti-American archaeo-blogger Paul Barford goes so far as to claim that the protections afforded under U.S. law to "looted" Afghan antiquities are "scandalously" inadequate.  Barford also appears to assume it's just too difficult for countries like Afghanistan to request import restrictions under the Cultural Property Implementation Act.

But aren't the AIA and related archaeological groups always there to help craft a request?  And isn't the State Department always willing (perhaps too willing given what is actually required under the statutory regime) to oblige with a MOU?

In any event, to the extent looted Afghan materials are entering the country at all, it would seem federal prosecutors have plenty of tools at their disposal to stop them.  But lest we get ahead of ourselves like St. Hilaire and Barford, let's also acknowledge that it was quite legal to sell, collect and export antiquities at least before the Communist regime that preceded the Taliban took over.

Indeed, here is what one knowledgeable observer who actually lived in Afghanistan at the time has reported:

The 1958 Afghanistan law is not a vesting law, at least and would not trigger any US statute requiring a declaration of national ownership. There were licensed antiquities dealers in Kabul when I visited Afghanistan in the 70's and 80's. The Kabul museum issued permits for export - a flimsy blue sheet in Dari and a clumsy stamp. US Customs had no interest in these documents, at least in the 1970s and 80's. The reviewing archeologists at the Kabul museum did not allow export of Buddhist material but would sometimes grant permission for Bronze Age and Islamic pieces. Cotton foundation carpets were not allowed out in the interest of protecting the reputation of the Afghan carpet industry. 

Shame on China II: Destruction of Buddhist Religious Heritage

Even after more than 50 years of communism, China remains a religious country.  Nevertheless, the officially atheist PRC not only harasses religious Chinese, but callously destroys China's religious heritage in the name of progress. 

CPO has reported on China's part in the planned demolition of an important Buddhist site in Afghanistan for profit, but religious sites at home fair no better.  For example, AFP is reporting on plans to bulldoze many of the buildings associated with a 1,300 year old Buddhist temple erected near where China's famous terracotta warriors were found.  Ironically, the supposed reason for the destruction is to assist with an application to make the area a "World Heritage Site."

Should the US State Department authorize repatriation of every last unprovenanced Chinese coin when China cares so little for major religious sites?

Update:  While archaeo-blogger Paul Barford contorts logic to justify the demolition of this important Buddhist site within China proper, far more troubling news has emerged that Chinese authorities have begun to demolish wide swaths of Tibet's capital, including another important temple, again in the name of progress.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

CPO has reported on this story before, but it should be mentioned again given the fact that yesterday was the deadline for comments on the renewal of the China MOU.   One wonders why the the same archaeological interests that scream about looting in places like China and Afghanistan remain so silent when a major Afghan Buddhist site is being destroyed by a Chinese mining company.  Remember when the the world was incensed when the Taliban dynamited the Bamiyan Buddhas in the name of religion?  So, why the silence  when another major Buddhist site, Mes Aynak, is to be dynamited in the name of profit?

Petition to Save Significant Buddhist Archaeological Site from Destruction

CPO has been following this story for some time.   When the Taliban dynamited ancient Buddhas in Afghanistan, the world was aghast.   Now, the current Afghan Government has authorized the destruction of another important Buddhist site by a Chinese Mining Company, but the outrage has been minimal.

Why has the archaeological establishment been silent?  Good question.

In any event, you can make your concerns known through this petition on change.org, though I question whether it really will matter as it seems that the Chinese will start mining operations shortly.

Afghan Neglect

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

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

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

US Military Spends a Million Dollars to Save Buddhist Artifacts from Chinese Miners

Does anyone else think something is wrong with this picture?

See
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13717471

If ancient culture is so important to Afghanistan, why are the Afghans allowing a Chinese Mining Company to dynamite an important Buddhist archaeological site? And why is the US Military rather than the Chinese spending $ 1 million on rescue archaeology?

Poor Stewardship in Egypt and Afghanistan

As self-righteous archaeologists demand ever more extensive restrictions on collectors, in countries like Egypt and Afghanistan major cultural heritage sites and artifacts are crumbling due to gross negligence, misallocation of resources and general neglect.

For the latest from Afghanistan, see http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/opinion/03Marlowe.html?_r=1

For the latest in Egypt, see http://213.158.162.45/~egyptian/index.php?action=news&id=18435&title=Insecurity%20adds%20to%20Egypt%20antiquities’%20vulnerability

One really wonders if all the emphasis on import restrictions is just a useful diversion from what really ails cultural heritage preservation in such countries.

Archaeological World Silent as World Class Afghan Buddhist Site to be Bulldozed

The Art Newspaper is reporting about limited salvage efforts going on at an important Buddhist site in Afghanistan. See http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Race-to-save-Buddhist-relics-in-former-Bin-Laden-camp/23443 Ths site is scheduled to be destroyed shortly for a Chinese owned copper mine.

Groups like the AIA and SAFE and archaeo-bloggers like Gill and Barford are constantly viligent when it comes to "looting." Yet, they remain strangely silent about the state sanctioned destruction of world class archaeological sites. Are there double standards at work?

Message to the Troops: Buy Old Guns, Not Old Coins?

The Philadelphia Inquirer has published an article on the AIA's efforts to preach to the troops not to purchase artifacts that are offered to them for sale by the local populace in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. See http://www.philly.com/inquirer/health_science/daily/20101126_Troops_headed_to_Iraq_get_lessons_in_ancient_artifacts_Iraq-bound_troops_get_lesson_in_ancient_artifacts.html?viewAll=y&c=y

The article commends a National Guard soldier for the "good move" of purchasing a copy Enfield Rifle from the locals rather than "old coins" or "bronze daggers" while on tour in Afghanistan. For more on "Khyber Pass Copy" weapons, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyber_Pass_Copy

I'm all for teaching respect for ancient cultures, but I doubt a "zero tolerance" policy on the purchase of minor artifacts does much to either win the "hearts and minds" of the locals or to protect cultural patrimony. If anything, old coins that do not find a purchaser will likely be melted as scrap in poor countries like Afghanistan. That would be a greater tragedy in my opinion than some farmer digging them up in the first place. To consider the destruction of context to be worse as the AIA preaches depends on the false premise that Afghanistan or Iraq will host extensive archaeological excavations again sometime in the future, which at this point seems ludicrous. [More likely, the areas where these artifacts are found will never be professionally excavated for lack of funds or interest.] Meanwhile, the AIA and groups like SAFE are strangely silent about the prospect of a Chinese mining company blowing up a significant cultural site in Afghanistan in order to tap a copper vein. See http://sciencereligionnews.blogspot.com/2010/08/ancient-monastery-in-afghanistan-under.html and http://phdiva.blogspot.com/2010/11/buddhist-monastery-in-afghanistan.html That to me seems like a much greater potential cultural property tragedy than a soldier purchasing old coins or other "bric-a-brac" as the Philadelphia Inquirer describes it.

I also find it disturbing that the AIA continues to claim there is a link between subsistence digging and terrorism, when that inflammatory claim is not based on much hard evidence. See http://art-crime.blogspot.com/2010/11/arca-student-kim-alderman-presents.html (interview with attorney associated with preservation community).

If anything, it's far more likely that the soldier's purchase of an Enfield rifle will help pay for the seller's upgrade to an AK-47. Remember folks out there, old coins don't kill; guns do.

Addendum: Recent disclosures about the scale of Afghan corruption gleaned from diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks adds an additional gloss on this issue. See
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/world/asia/03wikileaks-corruption.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=cables%20afghanistan&st=cse It seems quite odd to promote efforts to preclude poor farmers from selling what artifacts they find on their own land at the same time that millions of aid dollars are leaving the country under suspicious circumstances.

Blame the Foreigner

Archaeo-blogger Paul Barford reiterates Chinese propaganda in his latest post. See
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/11/china-protecting-sites-needs-more.html

Of course, in his anti-American world view, not just any foreigners, but specifically Americans are ultimately to blame for the looting of Chinese tombs, not the Chinese themselves or their corrupt government that parcels out "legitimate" sales of high-end antiquities to the connected few at the same time it imposes death sentences on poor farmers who turn to tomb raiding to feed their families.

I'm all for China encouraging its citizens to both respect ancient tombs and to collect redundant artifacts. But blaming foreigners for the problem of looting simply does not wash, particularly given China's own red hot internal market for antiquities.

Instead of blaming foreigners for the looting of Chinese tombs, Barford, his buddies at Saving Antiquities for Everyone and the Chinese press should instead focus their energies on the scandalous plans of a Chinese mining company to blow up an important early Buddhist site in Afghanistan. See http://phdiva.blogspot.com/2010/11/buddhist-monastery-in-afghanistan.html

ACCP to Restart in Response to Plea by Noted Academic for Inclusive, Neutral Forum?

"Cultural Property Observer" has learned that former members and supporters of the American Council for Cultural Policy indicate a growing interest in creating a neutral forum for the discussion of preserving cultural sites and antiquities in Afghanistan that appears to be otherwise unavailable elsewhere. They have noted calls by academic Larry Rothfield, among others, for a group (in Prof. Rothfield's words, "task force") that would include members of relevant US departments, as well as representatives of cultural heritage NGOs, "collectors, dealers and the museum community" to develop means to protect and preserve Afghanistan's most important cultural sites. See: http://safecorner.savingantiquities.org/

The ACCP, it is recalled, with a broad base of support from the communities that Prof. Rothfield mentions, is the only cultural organization to have had effective discussions with the Departments of Defense and State in the period immediately prior to the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003.

Former members of the ACCP indicate that given the apparent inability of any other NGO to provide an inclusive, neutral forum of the nature that is needed, they have begun to discuss the reactivation of the ACCP for this purpose.

Police Posse to "Raise Awareness" About ICOM "Red List of Afghan Antiquities at Risk"

The Metropolitan Police in the London have announced a special initiative to warn off art and antiquities dealers from purchasing "looted" Afghan artifacts: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/10/21/baafghan121.xml

As the article states,

12 volunteer 'ArtBeat' special constables drawn from the art world, including one at the British Museum, will help the Met's Art and Antiques Unit police the industry. On Monday they started visiting art dealers, auction houses, museums and collectors across London to "raise awareness" about the stolen Afghan items.

Its not clear whether these "ArtBeat" special constables will mainly concern themselves with potential violations of the U.K.'s Cultural Objects (Offenses) Act of 2003 see: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030027_en_1, or whether they will instead act as some sort of posse for ICOM and its "Red List of Afghan Antiquities at Risk."

More about the Red List can be found here:
http://icom.museum/redlist/afghanistan/en/index.html

If the latter, I fear any such operation could quickly degenerate into some sort of witch hunt that assumes a holder of an artifact of potential Afghan origin is "guilty" until he proves himself innocent to the satisfaction of those not necessarily friendly to the concept of collecting.

Certainly, the breadth of the definitions of the "Afghan Antiquities" supposedly at risk should should give one pause. Here, for example is a how the list describes Afghan coins:

Antique coins, of bronze, silver and gold, are hand stamped. Pre-Islamic coins usually include the portraits of the king on one side and the divinities on the reverse. Islamic examples are decorated only with Arabic script.

Finally, note that both the State Department’s ECA and such activists as SAFE are partners in the larger ICOM effort: http://www.icom-oesterreich.at/2007/press_red-list_afghanistan_background.pdf One certainly gets the feeling that ECA and groups such as ICOM and SAFE work hand in hand to encourage cultural bureaucracies in source countries to take the hard line against collectors. In any event, it should also obviously concern anyone interested in fair play that our State Department is acting in concert with activists who in theory at least are supposed to appear before the ECA's Cultural Property Advisory Committee on equal footing with everyone else.