"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 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

Slim Public Support for Renewal of MOU with Italy; Significant Opposition to Restrictions on Coins

 A review of the comments posted on regulations.gov website with regards to a proposed renewal of the Italian MOU confirms slim public support for a renewal with Italy and significant public concerns expressed about current import restrictions on coins as well as any effort to extend those restrictions to late Roman Republican and Roman imperial coins.

Although 500 comments are listed on the regulations.gov website, only 456 are visible. Of these, only 13 letters were in support of the MOU  with Italy (primarily from scholars), and 439 were either against the MOU or against import restrictions on coins.  The few other comments related to the proposed MOU renewal with Colombia. 

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

 

Please Comment on the Proposed MOU's with Turkey and Tunisia

            The United States Department of State has proposed new Memorandums of Understanding (MOU’s) with Turkey and Tunisia.  Both proposals will be extremely problematical for coin collectors as MOU's could impose embargoes on the import of a wide variety of widely collected Greek, Carthaginian, Roman Provincial, Roman, Byzantine, and Islamic coins.  Further information about the January 21, 2020 Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) meeting and how to comment before the January 7, 2020 deadline can be found here:  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/11/26/2019-25683/cultural-property-advisory-committee-notice-of-meeting 

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, Libya and Syria. 

            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 either Turkey or Tunisia. (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.

      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, please use http://www.regulations.gov, enter the docket [DOS-2019-0043] and follow the prompts to submit your comments.  Alternatively, click this Federal Register link and click on the Green “Submit Formal Comment” Button which should pull up a screen that allows you to comment:  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/11/26/2019-25683/cultural-property-advisory-committee-notice-of-meeting)(Please note comments may be posted only UNTIL January 7, 2020 at 11:59 PM.

            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 why CPAC should deny or limit any import restrictions. Consider the following points:

• The governing statute requires that restrictions only be applied on artifacts "first discovered in” Turkey or Tunisia. But hoard evidence demonstrates that many Greek, Carthaginian, Roman, Byzantine and Islamic coins circulated extensively outside the confines of those modern nation states.  The State Department and U.S. Customs have already recognized this fact for higher denomination Greek coins struck in Greece.  To be consistent, any restrictions should not touch higher denomination coins from Turkey or Tunisia, including Roman Provincial Silver, tetradrachms, and gold coins.  Nor should restrictions be placed on Roman, Byzantine, and Islamic coins struck in these countries. Such imperial coins circulated throughout the Empires for which they were made and beyond.  
• The governing statute requires restrictions only be placed on artifacts of "cultural significance." But coins -- which exist in many multiples-- do not meet that particular criteria.
• The governing statute requires that less drastic remedies be tried before import restrictions. But neither Turkey nor Tunisia has tried systems akin the UK Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme before seeking restrictions.
• The governing statute requires that restrictions be consistent with the interests of the international community in cultural exchanges. But restrictions diminish the ability of American collectors (particularly Turkish or Tunisian Americans) to appreciate the cultural heritage of these countries and greatly limit people to people contacts with other collectors in Europe.
• Much of what Turkey would be allowed to “claw back” if a MOU is granted are cultural artifacts of displaced Greek, Armenian and Jewish populations.  That simply should not be allowed to happen as it would only reward Turkey for its harsh policies to ethnic and religious minorities. 

Finally, you don’t have to be an American citizen to comment—you just need to be concerned enough to spend twenty or so minutes to express your views on-line. 

Addendum (Dec. 9, 2019):  For more information about the requests and the process, see the Cultural Heritage Center's post about the upcoming CPAC meeting:  https://eca.state.gov/highlight/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-jan-21-22-2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jay Kislak dies at Age 96

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

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

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

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

Ecuadorian MOU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China MOU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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