Not MAGA: Trump Administration Implements Biden Embargo on "Indian" Cultural Goods

The Federal Register has announced long anticipated import restrictions on Indian cultural goods.  This is yet another wide-reaching Biden Administration  MOU implemented by the Trump Administration.

Following a trend that picked up steam under the Obama Administration and accelerated under Trump I and Biden, the announced restrictions are extremely broad, covering archaeological material dating as recently as 1770 and ethnological material dating as recently as the end of the Raj in 1947.

 Here is a link to the restrictions: 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/07/28/2025-14114/imposition-of-import-restrictions-on-archaeological-and-ethnological-material-of-india

For coin collectors, the restrictions generally include all coins found in India, including Persian, Greek, Roman, and later issues with types struck in India specifically named as part of the designated list: 

 (5) Coins—Ancient coins include gold, silver, copper, lead, and copper alloy coins in a variety of sizes and denominations. Includes gold and silver ingots and commemorative coins. Coins may be circular, oval, square, or polygonal in shape, may be punch-marked, hammered, cast, molded, and/or gilded. Coins may include designs on one or both sides, including edges. Designs may include portraits, crests, deities, and animal, floral, architectural, geometric, and/or vegetal motifs, and/or may be inscribed in various languages and scripts. Includes depictions of symbols and figures from Buddhist, Jain, Hindu, Christian, Sikh, and Zoroastrian religious traditions, among others. Includes Roman, Persian, Greek or Hellenistic, Gandharan, Central Asian, and other coins found in India. Includes coins that were reused or converted into decorative objects or objects of personal adornment. Approximate Date: 600 B.C.E.-1770 C.E.

a. Early Historic Period includes punch-marked coins, discs, tokens, among others in gold and silver. May include depictions of animals, geometric, floral, and/or vegetal motifs.

b. Historic Period includes, but is not limited to, Mauryan punch marked coins ( karshapana) with various symbols such as suns, crescents, six-arm designs, hills, peacocks, human figures, animals, and others, and inscriptions in Brahmi script; Roman silver and bronze coins; Hellenistic and Gandharan drachms, tetradrachms, and gold staters featuring iconography of Hellenistic deities and human portraiture and inscriptions in Greek and Kharoshti; Kushan dinars, tetradrachms, and copper alloy denominations with iconography from Persian, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, and Hindu traditions; Western Satraps coins with bull-and-hill or elephant-and-hill images; Indo-Scythian coins; Satavahana coins with Prakrit inscriptions and animal, floral, geometric, star, Buddhist shrines or stupas, human, wheel, and/or maritime motifs; Ashokan stambha coins featuring a central pillar; Gupta dinaras and drachms and others with images of animals, human figures, mythological birds, archery, javelins, battle-axes, wheels and scepters, deities, and portraiture along with floral, geometric, and/or vegetal motifs, including inscriptions in Brahmi script.

c. Medieval Period includes, but is not limited to: Gurjara-Pratihara, Pallava, and other dynastic coins or tokens with portraiture and geometric, animal, and religious motifs; Chola coins with crests of animals and weapons, mythological icons, and inscriptions in the Nagari script; Vijayanagara pagoda coins featuring Hindu deities and related symbols; Delhi Sultanate tankas and jitals with animal, religious, floral, geometric, and/or vegetal motifs and calligraphic inscriptions in various languages and scripts such as Arabic.

d. Mughal Empire or Early Modern Period includes, but is not limited to, rupiya, dam, and mohur coins primarily featuring calligraphy and literary or religious verses, but also figures and portraits of rulers, zodiac signs, birds, animals, and other icons.

 What are not included are the machine struck coins of the British Raj.

For further background on  the arguments for and against these restrictions, see this blog post about the Jan. 30, 2024, CPAC hearing related to this MOU: https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2024/02/public-meeting-of-us-cultural-property.html

Some of the issues raised by collectors and the trade (but completely ignored) are the fact that there is a huge internal market for items like coins within India itself, but with no working system for legal exports as contemplated under both the UNESCO Convention and the Cultural Property Implementation Act. 

There is also the important issue of the impact of these restrictions on the ability of Indian-Americans to own their own cultural heritage, including heirlooms brought from India. 

Given the breadth of these restrictions and their enforcement as embargoes, there needs to be Congressional intervention to rein in the State Department and US Customs.  For a modest proposal which would accomplish just that, see here:  https://culturalpropertynews.org/time-to-make-collecting-great-again/

 For coin collectors, it’s also important to support HR 595, legislation which would facilitate the lawful exchange of collector's coins already subject to cultural property MOUs.  For more, see here:  https://accguild.org/HR-7865

Public Meeting of the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee to Consider Renewal with Algeria and Proposed MOU with India

 On January 30, 2024, the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) met in a virtual public session to hear testimony regarding a proposed renewal of MOUs with Algeria and a new proposed MOU with the Republic of India.  An update on the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs’ (ECA’s) website made shortly before the hearing provided further information about the scope of the requests.  See Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting, January 30 – February 1, 2024, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Media Center (November 29, 2023) (but subsequently updated), available at https://eca.state.gov/highlight/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-january-30-february-1-2024 (last visited February 3, 2024).   Although that update was subsequently deleted, it stated that Algeria sought no change to the current exceptionally broad designated list for import restrictions, and that India sought a breathtakingly broad list of items to be covered which included cultural goods made as recently as the end of the British Raj in 1950:

 India

 The Government of India seeks import restrictions on archaeological and ethnological materials dating from 1.7 million years ago to 100 years ago, including objects dating from the Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Ancient Periods (including, but not limited to, the Indus Valley Civilization, Maurayan Empire, Shunga Empire, Gandharan Kingdom, Gupta Period, and the Gurjara-Pratihara, Rastrakuta, and Pala Dynasties), and Historic Periods (including, but not limited to, the Chola Dynasty, Delhi Sultanate, Mughal Empire, and the British Raj).  Categories of objects include stone tools and artifacts, terracotta figurines, toys, coins and medals, seals and sealing, molds, dies, sculpture, utensils, architectural materials, arms and ammunition, scientific instruments, and jewelry and toiletries.  Protection is also sought for miniature paintings, art pieces in cloth and paper, and manuscripts dating from the 7th century CE to 75 years ago. 

 Id. (but subsequently deleted from the website). 

 The CPAC members did not introduce themselves before the public session, but CPAC currently includes the following members: (1) Alexandra Jones (Chair, Represents/Expertise Archaeology, Anthropology, related fields, CEO Archaeology in the Community, Washington, DC); (2) Alex Barker (Represents/Expertise Archaeology, Anthropology, related fields) Director, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Arkansas); (3) Mirriam Stark, Represents/Expertise Archaeology, Anthropology, related fields, Professor of Anthropology, University of Hawaii); (4) Nii Otokunor Quarcoopome (Represents/Expertise Museums, Curator and Department head, Detroit Museum of Art); ( (5) Andrew Conners (Represents/Expertise Museums, Director, Albuquerque Museum, New Mexico); (6) Michael Findlay (Represents/Expertise: International Sale of Cultural Property, Director, Acquavella Galleries, New York); (7) Amy Cappellazzo, Represents/Expertise: International Sale of Cultural Property, Principal, Art Intelligence Global; (8) Cynthia Herbert (Represents/Expertise: International Sale of Cultural Property President, Appretium Appraisal Services LLC, Connecticut); (9) Thomas R. Lamont (Represents Public, President of Lamont Consulting Services, LLC, Illinois);  (10) Susan Schoenfeld Harrington  (Represents Public, Past Deputy Finance Chair, Democratic National Committee, Past Board member, China Art Foundation); and, (11) William Teitelman (Represents General Public, Legislative Counsel to the PA Trial Lawyers Association, Attorney (Retired)).

 The Chair, Alexandra Jones, welcomed the speakers and assured them that their written comments had been read.  She indicated that speakers would be given 5 minutes each. 

 Dr. Mark Lycett was the first speaker.  He is the director at the South Asia Resources Center at the University of Pennsylvania.  He supported the MOU and thought that import restriction will help encourage continued collaboration between the Indian government and American archaeologists.  His talk focused on looting of temple complexes for idols.

 Prof. Miriam Stark (represents archaeology) asked Lycett if he had observed looting.  He says yes, particularly of temple complexes.  He had not seen metal detectors in use but understood they are used.

 His written comments can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0040-0032 (last visited February 3, 2024).

 Kate FitzGibbon (Executive Director, Committee for Cultural Policy) spoke about India.  India has a terrible record of neglect of its archaeological heritage and its government, run by Hindu religious supremacists, has engaged in a policy of destroying the cultural heritage of its Muslim population.  The Indian legal system is ineffective at dealing with looting.   What has been returned already has neglected.   Many of the bronze idols that have been returned suffer from bronze disease because they have not been conserved.  During the British Raj both Indian and British enthusiasts built up great collections, many of which were removed from India right after Independence due to fear that the post-independence Socialist leaning government would confiscate them. 

 Despite Ms. FitzGibbon’s obvious knowledge of the subject, there were no questions. 

 The Committee for Cultural Policy and the Global Heritage Alliance’s written comments on the proposed MOU with India can be found here:

 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0040-0042 (last visited February 3, 2024)

 Sanja Kampoor briefly spoke.  He indicated that he agreed with the points made in Kate FitzGibbon’s testimony. 

 Nicholas Fritz spoke next.  Fritz is a young professional numismatist with Stack’s Bowers auction house.  He indicated that the Indian MOU request as to coins was over broad, including many types well-known to scholarship, which should not be restricted.  He further indicated that an MOU would only encourage smuggling.  

 Alexandra Jones (Chair, representing archaeology) and Miriam Stark (representing archaeology) asked Fritz a series of hostile questions.  Jones wanted to know why modern-day India should not be able to control the heritage of all of historic India (which included Pakistan and Bangladesh), and Stark debated with Fritz about the importance of coins as archaeological artifacts.  (Comment:  The belligerent tone both Ms. Jones and Ms. Stark used with Mr. Fritz did not reflect well either on CPAC or the Biden Administration that appointed them.  If the State Department really wants public comment, it should advise CPAC members of their responsibility to treat members of the public, particularly those who have never appeared before the Committee, with respect.)

 Peter Tompa (Executive Director, International Association of Professional Numismatists) was called to speak next.   He made the point that the designated list for Algeria and the proposed one for India were greatly overbroad, including coin types that circulated far outside these countries.  He also indicated that later coins, particularly of the Raj, do not fit the definitions of either archaeological or ethnological objects necessary for them to be restricted.  All coins of the British Raj are less than 250 years old and hence cannot be treated as archaeological objects under the governing statute. Additionally, they are the products of what at the time were sophisticated industrial practices, so they cannot be treated as ethnological objects.  He also discussed the large internal market in India and how given such a market, import restrictions that only impact American collectors made no sense.  He also noted that collecting is necessary because governments and museums cannot preserve all the coins out there. Finally, he discussed the importance of regulating metal detectors as a self-help measure and a less drastic remedy.  In so doing, Tompa made clear that the British Portable Antiquities scheme and Treasure Act were the preferred method of regulation. Tompa closed by recalling that he had met an Indian collector some years ago who had built up his collection by buying coins from jewelers in India, who would have otherwise melted the coins for bullion.  Tompa provided members of CPAC with a real-world example to show that collectors are essential for the preservation of coins. 

 Miriam Stark (representing archaeology) stated her belief that coins must be restricted because they are important for archaeology.  She demanded to know if Tompa had ever worked at an archaeological site.  He indicated he had not, but he had discussed the issue with others who had.  Tompa indicated that archaeologists mainly see coins as dating tools, but they are generally poor tools for dating archaeological strata because historical coins circulated for long periods of time and only coins from secured contexts were really useful for that purpose.  Stark also asserted that CPAC had no right to suggest that the Indian government regulate metal detectors.  Tompa indicated the governing statute requires as much and before the State Department started issuing generic MOUs, an agreement with Cyprus required as much.  He suggested that Stark should consult with State Department lawyers about the statutory requirements for MOUs. 

 The International Association of Professional Numismatists’ comments for the proposed renewal of the MOU with Algeria can be found here:

 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0040-0029 (last visited February 3, 2024).

 The International Association of Professional Numismatists’ comments for the proposed MOU with India can be found here:

 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0040-0028  (last visited February 3, 2024).

 Tompa’s personal comments can be found here:

 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0040-0036 (last visited February 3, 2024). 

 Randy Myers spoke next on behalf of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild.   He raised concerns about insufficient public notice for CPAC meetings, including the details of any requests.  He noted that the State Department website that announced the upcoming CPAC meeting, though dated November 29, 2023, was updated just recently to include more details about the request, but misleadingly without indicating the date the text was modified.  (Perhaps in response, the State Department recently deleted this additional information from the post.)  Myers also reiterated the argument that one cannot assume many of the coins on the Algerian designated list or conceivably might be on the one for India were actually found there.  He also discussed the importance of considering a portable antiquities scheme as a less drastic measure before imposing import restrictions.  Finally, he also indicated that neither Algeria or India should be awarded rights to coin issues of displaced or discriminated minorities.  This would include Christian Spanish and Byzantine coins and many Muslim coins from India.

 Alexandra Jones (chair, representing archaeology) debated with Myers about the notice requirements, maintaining that the State Department only needed to give the public 15 days’ notice.   Myers explained based on his long experience as an attorney for a large federal agency, he believed that the law requires 60 days’ notice.  He also indicated that if Jones wants to encourage informed public comment, 60 days’ notice is essential. 

 The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild’s and the American Numismatic Association’s joint written comments can be found here:

 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0040-0012 (last visited February 3, 2024).

Elias Gerasoulis (Executive Director, Global Heritage Alliance) next spoke on behalf of both the Global Heritage Alliance and the Committee for Cultural Policy with regard to the proposed renewal of the MOU with Algeria.  Gerasoulis indicated that Algeria had failed to meet any of the statutory for renewal.   He further indicated that CPAC should not recommend a renewal of a MOU that recognizes the rights of Algeria’s authoritarian government to the cultural heritage of its displaced Jewish population.

 The Global Heritage Alliance’s and the Committee for Cultural Policy’s comments for the proposed renewal of the MOU with Algeria can be found here:

 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0040-0017 (last visited February 3, 2024).

 Ömür Harmanşah (Vice President for Cultural Heritage, Archaeological Institute of America) spoke briefly in support of both MOUs.  He indicated that both countries had met their statutory burdens and MOUs should be completed with each.  

 The Archaeological Institute of America’s comments with regard to India can be found here:

 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0040-0052 (last visited February 3, 2024).

 Those related to Algeria can be found here:

 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0040-0048 (last visited February 3, 2024).

 Peter Herdrich (Executive Project Director, Algerian Cooperative Plan for the Digitization of HeritageCEO, Cultural Capital Group) discussed a digitization project for Algerian museum and private collections paid for by the US government which also involved the Antiquities Coalition.  Herdrich maintained that this US government funded program showed that Algeria was engaged in protecting its own cultural heritage. (Comment:  There is a real question whether money paid to US contractors who also lobby for MOUs should be considered “self-help.”  See

https://culturalpropertynews.org/careful-collector-no-22-your-tax-dollars-at-work/  (last visited February 5, 2024).)

Nii Otokunor Quarcoopome (representing museums) asked Herdrich if any of these efforts were directed at preserving Jewish and Berber culture.  Hedrich responded by indicating that such materials were included in the inventories of institutions that were partner organizations. 

 Herdrich’s written comments can be found here:

 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0040-0037 (last visited February 3, 2024).

CPAC to Consider New MOU with India and Renewal of MOU with Algeria

 The State Department has announced that the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) will meet on January 30-February 1, 2024, to consider a request for the United States to enter into a cultural property MOU with the Republic of India.  According to the Federal Register notice, public comments and requests to speak are due no later than January 22, 2024, for the public session which will take place from 2:00-3:00 PM on January 30, 2024.  CPAC will consider a renewal of the current MOU with the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria at the same time.

The Cultural Heritage Center's website should hopefully provide some clarity of the scope of the Indian request in the near future.  Import restrictions associated with the current MOU with Algeria already encompass a wide variety of ancient and early modern coin types.  They also cover, at least implicitly, the cultural heritage of displaced Jewish and Christian minority populations. 

The Indian request should raise a number of questions given its likely breadth.  First, are all the listed archaeological objects not only of "archaeological interest" but of "cultural significance," and do they meet the governing statute's 250-year threshold? Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, 19 USC Section 2601 (C) (i) (I)(II). Second, are all the listed ethnological objects really the products of "tribal or nonindustrial society" "that are important to the cultural heritage of a people because of its distinctive characteristics, comparative rarity, or its contributions to the knowledge origins, development or history of that people?"  19 USC Section 2601 (C) (ii) (I)(II).

Third, has India taken "measures consistent with the [1970 UNESCO] Convention to protect its cultural patrimony" under 19 USC Section 2602 (a) (1) (B) when concerns have been raised about India’s notoriously poor stewardship of its own cultural heritage, including not only neglect, but outright destruction of Muslim and Christian minority cultural heritage.   

Finally, does the State Department intend to recognize the rights of India’s sectarian Hindu government to ownership and/or control of the cultural heritage of today’s minority Muslim, Christian and Jewish communities?   While India is a democracy, these groups have nonetheless suffered discrimination and have even faced occasional pogroms.  In particular, Muslim and Christian places of worship have sometimes been attacked by mobs egged on by local politicians. 

Coins also raise a number of specific issues.  First, there appears to be a substantial overlap in the types of Indo-Greek, Kushan, Indo-Sassanian, and later Islamic coins found in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.  Under the circumstances, how can the State Department conclude that particular coins were "first discovered within and [are] subject to export control by" India? 19 USC Section 2601 (2) (C).

Second, coins of all periods are legally bought and sold in India. So, why should our State Department restrict Americans from buying the same type of "Indian" coins abroad?

The current MOU with Algeria’s authoritarian government raises similar questions.  Again, the designated list is exceptionally broad, and includes at least implicitly the cultural heritage of displaced Jewish and Christian populations. 

The exceptional breadth of the designated list is readily apparent regarding coins.  Indeed, it includes many Greek, Roman Provincial, Numidian, Mauritanian, Byzantine, Islamic and Ottoman coin types that circulated either regionally or internationally. Under the circumstances, how can the State Department conclude that particular coins were "first discovered within and [are] subject to export control by" Algeria? 19 USC Section 2601 (2) (C).

How to comment?  According to the State Department, the public should be able to comment on regulations.gov by searching for docket DOS-2023-0040 and following the prompts.  

As of today, however, that link is not active.  CPO will update this blog post once it is possible to comment and/or the State Department provides more clarity about the proposed designated list to be associated with any MOU with India.

Addendum (December 16, 2024):  The blue "comment now" button on the regulations.gov website is now active.  You should be able to directly access the ability to comment here. 

Addendum (January 15, 2024):  The State Department has provided some additional information about the categories of material for which import restrictions will be considered.  They are as follows:

India

The Government of India seeks import restrictions on archaeological and ethnological materials dating from 1.7 million years ago to 100 years ago, including objects dating from the Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Ancient Periods (including, but not limited to, the Indus Valley Civilization, Maurayan Empire, Shunga Empire, Gandharan Kingdom, Gupta Period, and the Gurjara-Pratihara, Rastrakuta, and Pala Dynasties), and Historic Periods (including, but not limited to, the Chola Dynasty, Delhi Sultanate, Mughal Empire, and the British Raj).  Categories of objects include stone tools and artifacts, terracotta figurines, toys, coins and medals, seals and sealing, molds, dies, sculpture, utensils, architectural materials, arms and ammunition, scientific instruments, and jewelry and toiletries.  Protection is also sought for miniature paintings, art pieces in cloth and paper, and manuscripts dating from the 7th century CE to 75 years ago. 

 Algeria

Extending the Algeria agreement would continue import restrictions on certain archaeological material from Algeria, ranging in date from approximately 2.4 million years ago to approximately 1750 AD including material from the Paleolithic, Neolithic, Classical, Byzantine, Islamic, and Ottoman Periods.  The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria has not requested additional categories of material.

More here.