Cypriot Designated List Expanded

In the Federal Register dated July 18, 2022, the Cypriot designated list was amended to add Byzantine, Medieval, Frankish, Lusignan, Venetian, and Ottoman con types that “circulated primarily” in Cyprus.  

The revised designated list (effective on July 14, 2022) now reads as follows:

. Coins of Cypriot Types.

Coins of Cypriot types made of gold,
silver, and bronze including but not
limited to:

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

b. Issues of the Hellenistic period,
such as those of Paphos, Salamis, and
Kition from 332 B.C. to c. 30 B.C.

c. Provincial and local issues of the
Roman period from c. 30 B.C. to A.D.
235. Often these have a bust or head on
one side and the image of a temple (the
Temple of Aphrodite at Palaipaphos) or
statue (statue of Zeus Salaminios) on the
other.

d. Byzantine, Medieval Frankish,
Lusignan, Venetian, and Ottoman types
that circulated primarily in Cyprus,
ranging in date from A.D. 235 to 1770.
Coins were made in copper, bronze,
silver, and gold. Examples are generally
round, have writing, and show imagery
of animals, buildings, symbols, or royal
or imperial figures.

 See https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/07/18/2022-15398/extension-and-amendment-of-import-restrictions-on-archaeological-and-ethnological-material-from

The "circulated primarily" standard does not comport with the plain language of the Cultural Property Implementation Act , 19 USC Section 2601.  See Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 801 F. Supp. 2d 383, 407 n. 25 (D. Md. 2011) (“Congress only authorized the imposition of import restrictions on objects that were ‘first discovered within, and [are] subject to the export control by the State Party.”). 

 Additionally, without being more specific, this “circulated primarily” phraseology also raises “fair notice” questions under 19 USC Section 2604.  That provision requires the designated list be “sufficiently specific and precise”  so that the import restrictions only apply to items covered by the agreement, and that fair notice is given to importers. 

 The other issue here is that at the April 26, 2022, CPAC meeting  to discuss the renewal, IAPN presented substantial evidence that even under this “circulated primarily” standard, all Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic gold (AV) coins of Cyprus should be delisted along with all silver (AR) coins of Alexander III (“the Great”), Philip III Arrchidaelus, and Demetrius I Poliorcetes.  See IAPN’s supplemental correspondence, dated Jan. 17, 2022, available at

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0037-0015

This raises the question whether the “circulated primarily” standard is just a bureaucratic justification for the State Department's unpopular imposition of import restrictions on coins rather than a real standard the bureaucracy can be expected to hold itself to when promulgating regulations.  

Summary of January 25, 2022, Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting to Discuss Proposed Renewals and Amendments of MOUs with Cyprus and Mali and a Proposed Renewal of a MOU with Guatemala

                 On January 25, 2022, the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) met to consider proposed renewals and amendments of MOUs with Cyprus and Mali and a proposed renewal of a MOU with Guatemala.  CPAC carried over a discussion of the Cypriot renewal from its October 5, 2021, meeting.  The following members were present: (1) Stefan Passantino (Chairman- Public); (2) Steven Bledsoe (Public); (3) Karol Wight (Museums); (4) J.D. Demming (Public); (5) Ricardo St. Hilaire (Archaeology); (6) Joan Connelly (Archaeology); Rachael Fulton Brown (Archaeology?); (7) Anthony Wisniewski (Collector-Sale of International Cultural Property); (8) Mark Hendricks (Sale of International Cultural Property); and (9) David Tamasi (International Sale of Cultural Property).  Allison Davis, CPAC’s State Department Executive Director, and Michele Prior, also of ECA, were also present.

                Chairman Passantino welcomed the speakers.  He apologized for starting late due to some technical difficulties.  He indicated that the Committee had read all the comments, and speakers could only be allotted 4 minutes time given the busy schedule.  The speakers would be divided up according to subject matter.  The Chair also reserved a short amount of time for questions.

                The following speakers addressed the Committee on Mali: (1) Kathleen Bickford Berzock (Mary and Leigh Block Museum of Art, Northwestern University); (2) Kate FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural Policy and Global Heritage Alliance); (3) Susan McIntosh (Rice University). Barbara Arroyo (Society for American Archaeology) addressed the Committee about Guatemala.   The following speakers spoke specifically about import restrictions on coins: (1) Peter Tompa (Peter Tompa Law representing the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN)); (2) Robert Leonard (private collector); and (3) Randy Myers (Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG)).  The following speakers focused their comments on Cyprus: (1) Andrew McCarthy (College of Southern Nevada); (2) Josh Knerly (Hahn Loeser representing Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD); (3) Helena Aroz (HA) (Antiquities Coalition); (4) Lindy Crewe(Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (CAARI); and (5) Dr. Despina Pilides (former Curator of Antiquities, Cypriot Department of Antiquities).  The following speakers covered all the MOUs at issue: (1) Dr. Brian Daniels (Archaeological Institute of America); and (2) Dr. Marlene Losier (ML) (Losier Gonz law firm).

                Kathleen Bickford Berzock (KBB) indicates that the Caravans of Gold exhibit demonstrates that Mali has engaged in cultural exchange.  KBB believes that Mali has done all it could to preserve its cultural patrimony despite political instability and the pandemic.

                Kate FitzGibbon (KFG) does not believe Mali has met any of the four determinations before import restrictions may be renewed.  There are minimal exports coming from Mali with only $691 of cultural goods being exported in 2019.  There is a concern with insufficient notice of any amendment.  The Federal Register indicates that the request only goes up to the mid-18th c. while the Cultural Heritage Center’s website suggests that restrictions up to the 1920’s will be considered.  Most of the Malian material on the market was exported during the French Colonial period.  Mali has failed to fund its cultural heritage sector.  MOUs should not be renewed over and over again if they are not making a difference.  Most of the effort to protect Malian cultural heritage seems to have been funded from abroad.  The US Government made a significant grant back in 2020.  We need to insist on better benchmarks before the MOU is renewed.  The real problem in Mali is political turmoil, most recently with a military coup.  There should also be safe haven given to Malian artifacts in the event of further armed conflict that could destroy cultural heritage.

                The Committee for Cultural Policy’s and Global Heritage Alliance’s papers can be found here:

Mali:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0037-0027

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

Guatemala:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0037-0021

                Susan McIntosh (SM) did not have time to submit written comments.  The MOU with Mali is necessary to reduce looting.  The Malian government has done what it can to protect its own cultural heritage by creating nine cultural missions.  These formerly had been funded by taxes on tourists who are now scarce due to Covid and political instability.  Despite the lack of taxes, the Malian government has still funded this effort to the best of its ability.  Looting remains a problem at least with lower value material.

                Barbara Arroyo (BA) supports renewal of the MOU with Guatemala.  The MOU is important to stem criminal activities.  Most of the problems occur where the government does not have adequate resources to protect cultural heritage.  There is an ongoing effort to work with the Catholic Church to document religious artifacts.  There is still a looting problem.  Recently, the US recovered 257 Guatemalan archaeological items.  US archaeologists have not only funded digs, but the training of Guatemalan archaeologists. 

                The Society for American Archaeology’s papers can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0037-0028

                Peter Tompa (PT) noted that there were no import restrictions on coins for 25 years after the CPIA was passed into law.  This is not surprising as coins are items of commerce, and while they may be of “archaeological interest,” they are not generally of “cultural significance.”  In 2007, this changed under questionable circumstances that raise fairness questions.  Coin collectors are realists and recognize such import restrictions are here to stay, but a reset is warranted in how they are implemented.  First, to be consistent with the Cultural Property Implementation Act (“CPIA”), restrictions should only be placed on coins that are exclusively or actually found in Cyprus.  The State Department’s current standard, based on where a coin “primarily circulated” simply ignores the statutory requirements.  Second, even if this standard is utilized, all Cypriot mint gold coins and Cypriot mint coins of Alexander the Great and his immediate successors struck on an Attic weight standard should be delisted based on hoard evidence.  Third, the State Department should only utilize neutral experts to prepare designated lists and meet and confer with the trade and collectors about such lists.  Under no circumstances should collectors have to guess what coins are restricted and which are not restricted.  Finally, there should be no restrictions on Spanish Colonial and Republican era coins from Guatemalan mints.  These coins either do not meet the 250-year-old threshold for archaeological objects or are not normally discovered on the ground.  They are not ethnological objects because they are not the products of tribal cultures but what were for the time sophisticated industrial processes.  Moreover, one cannot assume they are found in Guatemala because they travelled widely in international commerce and even served as legal tender in the United States until 1857. 

                PT’s oral comments can be found here:  http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2022/01/comments-from-todays-cpac-hearing-its.html

                IAPN’s written comments can be found here:

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

Cyprus Supplemental:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0037-0015

Guatemala:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0037-0009

                Robert Leonard (RL) states that import restrictions should not be extended to Crusader era coins.  Examination of the actual object is essential for proper scholarship, and import blockages will harm the study of medieval Cypriot numismatics in the United States.  Such coins were well known to Italian merchants.  The hoard evidence presented proves that they circulated outside of Cyprus in quantity.  Legitimate Cypriot dealers only sell Cypriot coins imported from abroad.  Import restrictions only hurt American collectors buying such coins from third countries.  It makes absolutely no sense to restrict Guatemalan coins because that would be restricting what were legal tender in the United States. 

                RL’s written testimony can be found here: 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0037-0002

                Randy Myers (RM) wants to focus his comments on behalf of the ACCG on one procedural and one substantive issue.  Procedurally, the Federal Register notice fails to indicate specifically that there will be an effort to amend the Cypriot MOU to include more coins.  This does not provide sufficient notice to allow collectors to comment. Substantively, there is no indication that less drastic measures have been considered before import restrictions have been imposed on coins.  One such less drastic measure would be for Cyprus to adopt a program akin to the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme.  This program requires coins that are found to be reported so they can be recorded and gives the State a right of first refusal over coins for a payment of fair market value.  CPAC should also recommend that the State Department honor export permits from fellow EU members for imports of Cypriot coins.

                The ACCG’s written testimony can be found here:

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

                Andrew McCarthy (AM) states that MOUs are a crucial tool.  Coins should be included because how is he supposed to know if a coin on the market was stolen from his archaeological site unless the burden of proof is placed on collectors to provide a provenance for it.  McCarthy hopes the MOU will be expanded to include both very early material as well as a rolling date for material over 100 years old.  Early settlements have been looted for paleolithic tools.  Archaeological remains of a famous bandit dating from the early 20^th century should also be protected. 

                Josh Knerly (JK) focuses on the fourth determination that asks if the application of import restrictions is consistent with the general interest of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural and educational purposes.  He notes that this provision contemplates collaboration far broader than that related to the exchange of archaeological and ethnological material because “cultural property” is far more broadly defined in the CPIA and UNESCO Convention.  He also notes that the boilerplate Article II placed in the current Cypriot MOU fails to set forth specific criteria to facilitate such cultural exchange.  The same issues arise with regard to the MOUs with Guatemala and Mali.  There is a separate “action plan” for Mali which addresses these issues to some extent, but JK questions whether the State Department will allow CPAC to make recommendations to modify it in an effort to stimulate cultural exchange.

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

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

                Helena Aroz (HA) viewed the 2016 CPAC proceedings on Cyprus.  MOUs are important in combatting looting and benefit collectors and dealers by keeping looted material off the market.  They complement widely held ethical guidelines.  HA also had the opportunity to excavate in Cyprus where she saw firsthand that looting leads to the loss of important information.  She also had excellent interchanges with the Cypriot people and remembers fondly being invited to attend local weddings.  MOUs are also important in fostering cultural exchange. 

                The Antiquity Coalition’s paper on Cyprus can be found here:

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

                Lindy Crewe (LC) speaks about CAARI’s efforts as the only on-site American archaeological organization in Cyprus.  CAARI hosts both US scholars and US tourists. It has hosted Fulbright scholars and interacts with the 17 US archaeological digs on Cyprus.  There have been major advances in the study of Byzantine and Colonial era archaeology which also deserves protection.  Looting has also impacted the ability to study DNA when cemeteries are disturbed.    

                Dr. Despina Pilides (DP) strongly supports the MOU.  She previously was the curator for the Department of Antiquities in charge of museums.  She also worked on archaeological digs and has been a Chair of ICOM, the International Council of Museums.  A study indicates that one-half of the Byzantine material that was left in the Turkish occupied zone remains missing.  There needs to be strong protections for Byzantine and Ottoman era artifacts.  There has been an effort to digitize Byzantine era artifacts from the Turkish zone that are in the museum at Nicosia.  Coins are important for Cypriot history and should be protected to help protect the context in which they are found. 

                DP’s written testimony can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0037-0014

                Dr. Brian Daniels (BD) mentions that the AIA has over 200,000 members [the vast majority of this number are individuals who subscribe to Archaeology Magazine].  The AIA supports renewals of MOUS with Mali, Cyprus and Guatemala.  Import restrictions are an important tool in discouraging looting of archaeological sites. The MOU with Cyprus should be made consistent with that of Greece and Turkey regarding what coins should be covered.  There have been long term loans of objects provided by Cyprus, Guatemala and Mali.  Mali in particular has done what it can despite political turmoil.

                The AIA’s papers can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0037-0025

                Dr. Marlene Losier (ML) supports renewals and expansion of import restrictions to new categories as part of a “progressive view” of the development of the law.  By entering into such MOUs we encourage other countries to protect our own heritage both abroad and even in space like the Apollo 11 landing site.

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

                Anthony Wisniewski observed that most of the oral and written testimony reflected the opinions of the speakers.  He also noted that CPAC cannot apply a “progressive view of the law” because it is obliged to apply Congressional statutes as written.  He notes that coin collectors have produced information from third party academic sources that by their nature have a much higher degree of reliability than the arguments of the participants.  He asks PT if he agrees with the statement that those sources show that over 95% of the Cypriot mint coins of Alexander the Great are found outside of Cyprus.  PT agrees.  He then indicates this carries a burden on this point which has not been contested by proponents of the restrictions. 

                Joan Connelly asks DP about the digitization of collections.  DP says some 96,000 objects have been digitized.  There has been a special effort to digitize items in the Nicosia Museum that come from the occupied North of Cyprus.  She then reiterates the importance of coins.

                Karol Wight asks JK about Cyprus’ lack of an immunity from seizure law.  JK indicates such a law patterned on those of other EU countries would help facilitate loans. 

                Chairman Passantino then thanked the speakers and CPAC went into a recess for lunch before reconvening. 

                Some additional testimony on the Cypriot renewal can be found in this summary of CPAC’s October 5, 2021, meeting:  http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2021/10/summary-of-october-5-2021-cultural.html  

Comments from Today's CPAC Hearing: It’s Time for a Reset for Import Restrictions on Coins

 I said this more or less at today's CPAC hearing to discuss proposed renewals of MOUs with Cyprus and Guatemala: 

            I am speaking on behalf of IAPN which represents the micro and small businesses of the numismatic trade.  In many ways, this hearing is a much greater test for CPAC than for ancient coin collectors.  We’ve heard a lot in the past several years about how the system is rigged.  Here, unfortunately, there is convincing evidence that may be the case.  

            For 25 years after the CPIA was passed, there were no restrictions on coins.   This should be no surprise.  Coins are items of commerce.  So, it is difficult for modern nation states to justifiably claim them as their “cultural property.”  They are among the most common of historical artifacts and while they may be of “archaeological interest”, they are generally not of “cultural significance.”  They are avidly collected and traded worldwide including in Cyprus.  It simply makes no sense to preclude Americans from importing such coins.   Indeed, when the CPIA was being discussed, Mark Feldman, a high-ranking State Department lawyer, represented to Congress that it was “hard … to imagine a case where we would need to deal with coins except in the most unusual circumstances.”

            In 2007, all this changed with Cypriot coins.   According to the declarations of two former CPAC Members, including Former Chair Kislak, that change was made against CPAC’s recommendations.  Moreover, there was an attempt to mislead the public and the Congress about CPAC’s opposition to import restrictions on coins.  Even worse, the decision maker made the decision after she had already announced she was leaving for a job at Goldman Sachs, where she was recruited by and worked for the husband of a former AIA trustee and the founder of the Antiquities Coalition, which has been highly active lobbying for import restrictions.  How can such a decision be a fair one?

            We are realists and understand at this point that import restrictions on coins are probably here to stay, but CPAC can still advocate for a reset on how they are implemented.  First, CPAC should insist that the State Department only apply restrictions to coins that are “exclusively found” within Cyprus or to those where there is proof that they were illicitly excavated there.  Only such coins can be “first discovered within, and … subject to export control by” Cyprus as required by the CPIA at 19 U.S.C. § 2601(2).   In contrast, the State Department’s current standard based on where a coin “primarily circulated” simply ignores these requirements.

            Second, even under a “primarily circulated” standard, certain coin types on the current designated list should be removed.  Here, numismatic research proves that all Cypriot mint gold and all Attic standard Hellenistic silver coins of Alexander the Great, Philip and Demetrius did not “primarily circulate” within Cyprus and should be delisted.

            Third, CPAC should ensure that the State Department only uses neutral experts to help prepare designated lists; not ones who have advocated for import restrictions in the past.  At a minimum, State should be directed to meet and confer with collectors and the trade on the contents of these lists.  Under no circumstances should collectors and US Customs be forced to guess what coin types are restricted and which are not, as is the case with the recent Turkish and amended Greek lists.

            Finally, no new restrictions should be contemplated for Guatemalan coins.  Spanish Colonial and Republican era coins are not archaeological in nature; they either do not meet the 250-year threshold and/or are not “normally discovered” within the ground.  Nor do such coins meet the definition of ethnological objects.  They are not the products of tribal cultures but were produced en masse with sophisticated industrial processes.  Finally, due to their wide circulation in international commerce, one cannot assume such coins were “first discovered within” and hence were “subject to export control by” Guatemalan authorities. Indeed, early coins that circulated within Guatemala were also legal tender in the United States until 1857.

            With these recommended actions, CPAC can demonstrate that it operates with fairness and adheres to the CPIA’s statutory requirements. 

            Thank you.

State Department reopens record for renewal and possible amendment of the current MOU with Cyprus; Renewals of MOUs with Guatemala and Mali also to be discussed.

The State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center have provided public notice of a Cultural Property Advisory Committee meeting on January 25 and 26 to discuss a renewal of a MOU with Guatemala, and renewals and possible amendments of current MOUs with Cyprus and Mali.  The public notice can be found here. A direct link to comment can be found here.  It is important that any comments be received before the January 18, 2021 11:59 PM deadline. That is also the deadline to inform the Cultural Heritage Center if you want to speak at the hearing. 

The renewal and possible amendment of the MOU with Cyprus was to be discussed last October, but consideration of the request was bumped to CPAC's January meeting given a last minute addition of proposed "emergency import restrictions" on behalf of Afghanistan being placed on the docket.  CPO has covered the CPAC public meeting that discussed that absurd request that will only benefit the Taliban regime here.  At this juncture, we have not heard one way or the other whether the State Department will actually go through with authorizing such import restrictions that would claw back Afghan heritage imported from legitimate markets in Europe just so it can be handed over to the iconoclasts who blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas and smashed many of the statues in the Kabul Museum. 

In any case, that report also includes links to papers submitted by the ACCG, IAPN, and Alan Berman about the proposal to extend and amend the Cypriot MOU.  Collectors of Byzantine, Crusader and Turkish coins should beware; it is likely that this renewal will be used as a vehicle to amend current restrictions on Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman Provincial coins minted in Cyprus to include such later issues.   

Please consider commenting if you failed to do so back in September because silence will be spun as acquiescence.  A guide on the request and what to say can be found here.  Those of you who also collect Latin American coinage should also consider commenting on the Guatemalan request.  The issues there are similar to those raised with regard to MOUs with other Latin American countries.  As described in  IAPN's paper about last year's Peruvian request, Spanish Colonial and Republican era coinage of Latin American countries simply fail to meet the threshold criteria for archaeological or ethnological objects.  Spanish Colonial and Republican era coins cannot be considered archaeological objects because they are not normally discovered in the ground.  Nor can they be properly viewed as ethnological objects.  They are the products of what at the time were sophisticated industrial practices, not crafts of tribal societies.  Moreover, such coins circulated widely, including within the United States, where they were legal tender until 1857. 

On Mali, there are no numismatic issues as far as CPO can tell. Evidently, the people of Mali preferred to use salt as currency rather than coins.  The first Malian coins were not local, but French Colonial issues from the late 19th c, making Mali one of the few countries coin collectors at least have little to worry about. Or, maybe we all should be worried if the State Department embargoes Malian salt as cultural heritage and US Customs bans all salt imports because even trained customs inspectors cannot tell Malian from other types of salt.  Don't laugh!  Recently, "rope" became targets of such embargoes, although to be fair any rope shortage appears to be the result of pandemic related supply chain issues and not cultural property embargoes. 

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. 

Please Comment on a Proposed Renewals of MOUs with Cyprus and Peru

 The State Department has announced a proposed renewal and amendment of a Cultural Property Agreement or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Republic of Cyprus.  The State Department has also announced a proposed renewal with the Republic of Peru.  Import restrictions under the current MOU with Cyprus cover all ancient coins struck in Cyprus through 235 A.D.  Roman or Byzantine coins of Imperial types and other types that circulated in Cyprus are not subject to import restrictions.  Because this MOU is subject to amendment, there is a chance that the State Department may seek to extend current restrictions to other types of coins, particularly those issued by the Crusaders.  The current MOU with Peru does not include colonial or early Republican era coins, but there has been some “chatter” that restrictions should be extended to them too. 

Further information about the October 5, 2021 public meeting of the  Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC)  can be found here:   https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/09/13/2021-19670/cultural-property-advisory-committee-notice-of-meeting   To comment, go to the regulations.gov website and enter the docket DOS-2021-0032 to comment or comment from this link here:  https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2021-0032-0001  Alternatively, the Federal Register page listed above should be modified to include a “comment here” button.   The comment period ends on September 26, 2021.

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, Morocco, Syria, Turkey, and Yemen. 

1.        Current Cypriot Import Restrictions

Current import restrictions apply to the following coin types:

 

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

 

2.       Issues of the Hellenistic period, such as those of Paphos, Salamis, and Kition from 332 B.C. to c. 30 B.C.;

 

3.       Provincial and local issues of the Roman period from c. 30 B.C. to 235 A.D. Often these have a bust or head on one side and the image of a temple (the Temple of Aphrodite at Palaipaphos) or statue (statue of Zeus Salaminios) on the other.

               

See 72 Fed. Reg. at 38,471-73 (July 13, 2007).

With respect to the wording of the restrictions themselves, Customs has issued restrictions based on place of manufacture rather than find spot.

This is significant because such restrictions ignore evidence that demonstrates that Cypriot mint coins are regularly discovered outside of Cyprus.  Indeed, in a document released under the Freedom of Information Act, a Cypriot cultural official admitted as much in a communication with the State Department:

It is true that Cypriot coins shared the same destiny as all other coins of the ancient world. As a standard media of exchange they circulated all over the       ancient world due to their small size, which facilitated their easy transport… The continuous circulation of coins for many centuries amongst collectors and between collectors and museums make any attempt to locate their exact find spot extremely difficult.

Under current Customs procedures, the above types can only be imported into the United States with: (a) an export certificate issued by Cyprus (which do not exist);   (b) “satisfactory evidence” demonstrating that the coins were exported from or were outside of Cyprus 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 Cyprus before restrictions were announced on July 13, 2007.  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 Roman or Byzantine coins of widely circulating Imperial types or later coins that circulated in Cyprus that are 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—will not press for “more” this time around particularly because the Federal Register indicates that Cyprus itself seeks not just a renewal, but an amendment of the current agreement.  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 ancient culture and the people-to-people contacts collecting brings. 

2.       Proposed Peruvian MOU Renewal

The proposed renewal of the MOU with Peru could also possibly impact collectors of popular Spanish Colonial and Peruvian Republican era coins.  To date, the State Department has not imposed import restrictions on such coins, presumably because they circulated so widely that they were legal tender in the US before 1857.

3.       The Negative Impact of Import Restrictions on 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.  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, we know 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. 

As discussed above, further information about the upcoming CPAC hearing and how to comment can be found here::   https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/09/13/2021-19670/cultural-property-advisory-committee-notice-of-meeting and https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2021-0032-0001  Please note comments must be made on or before the September 26, 2021 close date.  

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.   Ancient 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 Cyprus.  Finally, collectors can point out that Cyprus, as an EU member, must respect the rights of other EU members to export coins of types on the Cypriot designated list, and so should the U.S.  Comments about Peruvian coins should focus on the fact that they circulated widely and that they were even legal tender in the US before 1857.  Comments from collectors outside the US are also welcome. 

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

RE Cyprus MOU Renewal

 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 Roman Imperial and Byzantine coins did not primarily circulate within Cyprus.  Moreover, other EU countries are allowed to export Cypriot coins  on the current designated list.   So, any MOU renewal with Cyprus should recognize that a legal export of any item on the Cypriot  designated list from a sister EU country will be treated as a legal export from Cyprus itself.

Sincerely,

X

 

RE: Peru MOU Renewal

Dear CPAC:

Please do not use this MOU renewal as an excuse to extend import restrictions to Spanish Colonial and Republican era coins that were struck or circulated within Peru.  Such coins are neither archaeological nor ethnological in nature.  They are not archaeological because coins this late are not only or often found in the ground.  They are not ethnological because they are not the products of tribal society, but of what were then considered sophisticated industrial processes.  Such coins also circulated widely elsewhere so one cannot assume they are found in the country.  Indeed, they ever were US legal tender before 1857.

Sincerely,

X