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. 

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.

Any MOU with Ecuador May only Authorize Import Restrictions on Archaeological and Ethnological objects.

Here is my statement at yesterday's CPAC meeting regarding Ecuador's request.  More later:

Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of 4 different organizations, the Committee for Cultural Policy, a non-profit educational organization, Global Heritage Alliance, an advocacy group, and two numismatic trade associations, the International Association of Professional Numismatists and the Professional Numismatists Guild.   I would direct your attention to their two separate papers, one by CCP and its sister organization GHA, and one by IAPN and PNG.  In the interests of time, I am speaking on behalf of all these organizations here, but each have distinct personalities and interests.

            What they share is concern about this proposed MOU, particularly the lack of sufficient public notice and the apparent breadth of the request, which includes cultural goods that are neither archaeological nor ethnological in character.   According to the public summary, Ecuadorian law only applies to objects 100 years old, but the request includes objects only 50 years old.   So, there even appears to be a serious disconnect within the Ecuadorian request itself.

            More to the point, however, CPAC—which has an obligation to follow the Cultural Property Implementation Act—should be hard pressed to recommend any restrictions on items that are neither archaeological nor ethnological in character such as “Colonial and republican period coins; medallions more than 50 years old …manuscripts more than 50 years old; and certain works by modern artists.” 

            This should be clear from the CPIA itself which defines archaeological objects as being over 250 years old and normally discovered as the result of digging and which defines ethnological objects as the products of tribal or non-industrial societies.  The Legislative history, also quoted in our papers, makes clear that Congress understood the term “ethnological” to encompass only what is considered “primitive” or “Tribal art” and not any object that is repetitive in nature.

            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.  Congress has recently included reporting language as part of its funding of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs that underscores this requirement.   Although it is unclear what Ecuador spends on protecting its cultural patrimony, according to Ernesto Salazar, an academic who has written on the subject, the situation in Ecuador is far from perfect.   

            In sum, we request CPAC take steps to ensure that any designated list excludes coins and any other objects that do not meet the definition of archaeological or ethnological objects found in the CPIA.  We also ask CPAC to gauge Ecuador’s self-help measures, including efforts to ensure archaeological site workers get a fair living wage for work done on behalf of foreign archaeological missions.

            Thank you.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Fatigue Can't Mask Special Interest Nature of MOU Program

Given the short (7 day) comment period over the July 4th weekend, CPO is not too surprised that there were so few comments posted on the regulations.gov website concerning a proposed MOU with Libya:  https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS_FRDOC_0001-4160

After eliminating duplicates and a few unclear comments, it appears that only 19% or 7 of the commentators supported the MOU with the remaining 34 opposed in whole or part.

Four of the proponents represented group interests.  Of these, one was a University and another was an archaeological group that also is a State Department contractor.  Six trade associations or collector advocacy groups were among those opposed to any MOU in whole or in part.  Most of the individual comments came from coin collectors or dealers.

No doubt some proponents will spin these the low numbers as a lack of public opposition to any MOU.  But what really should be asked is whether the whole enterprise is really nothing more than a special interest program for archaeological groups either tied to source countries where they excavate or the State Department which funds them.  Maybe there needs to be a rethink whether scarce State Department resources should be earmarked for other programs that further our national interest or promote American business abroad.

My Personal Comment on the Proposed Libyan MOU

Here is my personal comment on the proposed Libyan MOU:

Please accept these personal comments. I have also commented on behalf of a number of organizations.

1. CPAC should view this request with skepticism. Few details have emerged that support Libya's MOU request. Moreover, this request has been rushed, with a short comment period smack in the middle of a long holiday week. This action, which can only limit the number of comments CPAC receives, in itself suggests that this request should be viewed with caution-- even if the country itself wasn't a mess as it has been since its revolution of 2011.

2. The country has 3 governments, and two antiquities authorities jockeying for position. It's not even clear which of these entities supports this request. In any case, whatever "government" Libya has, powerful militias are in the background that can break these "governments" pretty much at will.

3. There are no guarantees that any artifacts Customs sends to Libya under any MOU will be protected, much less studied and displayed. None of Libya's museums are open and what staff remains have to make do under very trying circumstances.

4. Frankly, instead of yet another round of import restrictions, the State Department, along with other international organizations, should instead focus on helping Libyan community groups protect Libya's 5 UNESCO World Heritage sites from the deprivations of Islamic fundamentalists. Ultimately, Palmyra and Nimrud suffered severe damage because local communities didn't care enough to protect them from ISIS. Let's help those locals who care about these sites protect them.

5. I do not believe that Libya and the proponents of import restrictions have made out a case for either "regular" or "emergency restrictions." Nonetheless, if CPAC feels it cannot resist bureaucratic pressure to "do something," Libya's request should be treated as an "emergency one" and restrictions limited to site specific material from Libya's endangered World Heritage Sites: (1) Kyrene; (2) Leptis Magna; (3) Sabratha; (4) Tadrat Acacus; and (5) Ghademes. (See Libya's five World Heritage sites put on List of World Heritage in Danger, (UNESCO) (July 14, 2017), available at [URL REMOVED]

6. Under no circumstances should there be restrictions placed on historical coins except those identifiable as stolen from Libyan public and private collections. Here, IAPN, PNG and ACCG have noted what hoard evidence that is available shows that "Libyan" coins are typically found outside of the confines of modern day "Libya," which would make any restrictions placed upon them contrary to governing law. 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.").

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

Peter Tompa

Ask CPAC to Limit or Table the Problematic Libyan MOU request Rather than Rush it Through

The State Department has announced an exceptionally short comment period for a proposed MOU with Libya ending on July 10th.  The exceptionally short time frame for public comment as well as the timing of this request to coincide with a raft of highly exaggerated reports claiming that the antiquities trade funds terrorism emanating from the Antiquities Coalition, a well-funded and politically connected advocacy group with ties to MENA authoritarian governments, suggests that the Libyan MOU is yet another done deal.  

Still, if one feels strongly about their continued ability to collect ancient artifacts and/or historical coins, CPO believes they should comment on the regulations.gov website here: 

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS_FRDOC_0001-4160


Why? Because silence will only be spun as acquiesce by US and Libyan cultural bureaucracies as well as the archaeological lobby with an ax to grind against collectors.

A.    The Law

The Cultural Property Implementation Act (“CPIA”) contains significant procedural and substantive constraints on the executive authority to impose import restrictions on cultural goods. 

“Regular” restrictions may only be applied to archaeological artifacts of “cultural significance” “first discovered within” and “subject to the export control” of a specific UNESCO State Party.  They must be part of a “concerted international response” of other market nations, and can only be applied after less onerous “self-help” measures are tried.  They must also be consistent with the general interest of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes.

“Emergency restrictions” are narrower.  They focus on material of particular importance, but no “concerted international response” is necessary.  The material must be a “newly discovered type” or from a site of “high cultural significance” that is in danger of “crisis proportions.” Alternatively, the object must be of a civilization, the record of which is in jeopardy of “crisis proportions,” and restrictions will reduce the danger of pillage.

 The Cultural Property Advisory Committee (“CPAC”) is to provide the executive with useful advice about this process.

   

The CPIA contemplates that CPAC is to recommend whether import restrictions are appropriate as a general matter and also specifically whether they should be placed on particular types of cultural goods.  In the past, CPAC has recommended against import restrictions on coins.  Initially those recommendations were followed, but beginning with the renewal of Cypriot import restrictions in 2007, this has changed.  Now, there are restrictions on coins made in Cyprus, China, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Syria and Egypt.  

  

Import restrictions make it impossible for Americans to legally import collectors’ coins widely and legally available worldwide.   Foreign sellers are typically unwilling or unable to certify the coin in question (which can retail as little as $1) left a specific UNESCO State Party before restrictions were imposed as required by the CPIA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection rules.   Restrictions have drastically limited Americans’ abilities to purchase historical coins from abroad and have negatively impacted the cultural understanding and people to people contacts collecting fosters. 

B.     The Request

The Committee for Cultural Policy has written a good analysis of the request: https://committeeforculturalpolicy.org/libya-requests-us-to-send-artifacts-back-to-war-torn-libya/  

I quote that analysis in pertinent part here:

The Public Summary of Libya MOU Request that has been made available is actually written by the Department of State, and “authorized” by the Libyan government. The Department does not provide copies of actual requests, which makes it impossible to know if the request itself complies with Congressional criteria.

No Central Government Control

It is important to note that this request comes from the current Government of Libya, which holds only a portion of Libyan territory at this time. Libya is divided and ruled by two competing governments and its territory is controlled by six major militia factions, and many smaller parties and entities. There is no single effective Government of Libya that controls Libyan territory.

As part of every US agreement on cultural property, the US agrees to send any art that enters the US back to the source country. This policy applies even to art that has poor prospects of surviving in conflict-ridden nations, and art from oppressed ethnic or religious minorities that have been forced out of the source country. The CPIA does not provide for return of embargoes art to anyone but a source country government.

The Request is Over Broad

The request for the imposition of U.S. import restrictions covers the entire history of the geographic region that is Libyan territory from the Paleolithic through the Ottoman Era (12,000 B.C.-1750 A.D.). and on its ethnological material dating from 1551 to 1911 A.D. That is – virtually everything – up to 1911.

The material covered would be “archaeological material in stone, metal, ceramic and clay, glass, faience, and semi-precious stone, mosaic, painting, plaster, textile, basketry, rope, bone, ivory, shell and other organics. Protection is sought for ethnological material in stone, metal, ceramic and clay, wood, bone and ivory, glass, textile, basketry and rope, leather and parchment, and writing.” That is, everything one can think of.

No Cultural Administration

The cultural administrative staff of Libya appear in the request to have been scattered and in considerable disorder. The request fails to demonstrate that there is currently a government hierarchy capable of administering cultural heritage in much of the country, even if it wished to do so. The request provides numerous examples of failure by the Libyan government to address cultural heritage issues. It notes that

• “[A]rtifacts, which had been excavated from temples, were also stolen from the storerooms.”
• “Museums have also been vandalized and looted by invading militias.”
• “There are also reported thefts from museums and storerooms of documented and undocumented objects.”
• “[A]ll of the country’s twenty-four museums are closed.”
• Lacking government support, Department of Antiquities staff “continue to take personal responsibility for the objects housed in their institutions.”

No US Market for Illicit Artifacts

The Libyan request’s description of the U.S. market for ancient artifacts in Libyan style does not claim that any came recently from Libya or that any were not legally acquired.

The Tuareg materials and Islamic objects of the 18th and 19th century for which “protection,” i.e. embargo is sought were legally available for trade in Libya for many decades and are widely and legally available in European, Asian, and US markets. The request does not even claim that ethnographic materials were restricted in export from Libya in the past.

No Access for US Citizens, No Study, No Sharing of Excavated Materials

The request fails to meet criteria set by Congress that require that US citizens have access to Libyan culture through museum exhibitions or other venues. There is not a single traveling exhibition mentioned in the request.

Although the request acknowledges that foreign institutions and missions have done extensive archaeological work in Libya, these archaeological agreements do not allow sharing or even permanent export from Libya of any objects for study.

Based on the written request as presented by the Department of State, Libya’s recent governments have done little or nothing in the last decade to protect Libyan sites. Nor has any Libyan government made any effort to ensure that US citizens were able to access Libyan art and artifacts through traveling exhibitions, museum loans, or even through providing digital online access to art in Libya itself.

US Organizations with Middle East Ties are Promoting the Libyan Request

This request appears timed to coincide with a raft of recent presentations about the trade in looted Middle Eastern art by the Antiquities Coalition and its various partners – much of it based on discredited data. The presentations have focused on the evils of the international trade in looted art from these regions, and by wholly unsubstantiated statements that looted artifacts from the crisis areas in the Middle East have entered the US market or are being sold here. In these presentations, the value of the legal market in provenanced antiquities, especially the auction market, are used to justify claims about a supposed illicit market. In the view of the Antiquities Coalition, agreements under the CPIA with authoritarian Middle Eastern governments are seen as positive because they will end the art trade.

C.     What You Can Do

Admittedly, all the evidence points to the matter being already decided—no matter what the CPIA says, what the facts really are, and what American citizens or others interested in collecting Libyan artifacts may think.  Still, to remain silent is to give cultural bureaucrats and archaeologists with an ax to grind against collectors exactly what they want-- the claim that any MOU is not controversial. 

So, to submit comments concerning the proposed MOU, go to the Federal rulemaking Portal and enter Docket No. DOS-2017-0028 and by all means speak your mind.  For a direct link, try here:  https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS_FRDOC_0001-4160  and click on the “comment here” button to make your case.

 

What should you say?  Provide a brief, polite explanation about why the request should be denied or limited.  Indicate to CPAC how restrictions will negatively impact your business and/or the cultural understanding and people to people contacts collecting provides.   Coin collectors should add that it’s typically impossible to assume a particular coin was “first discovered within” and “subject to the export control” of  Libya and that Libyan historical coins while not as common as others, are widely and freely available for sale elsewhere, particularly in Europe.  And, of course, feel free to mention any concerns you might have about government transparency, whether this is a real “emergency” of “crisis proportions,” and how the State Department has generally handled this request.   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.  

Problematic MOU Request

The State Department has notified the public of its receipt of a request for a MOU with Libya.  It remains to be seen how a country with two competing governments, that is over-run by militias and which remains in danger from ISIS can meet its obligations under UNESCO and the CPIA to protect and preserve is own cultural property let alone that which may be repatriated from the US under the terms of any agreement.  Libya needs our help, but that help should be focused on protecting its world class archaeological sites from the depredations of ISIS and other radical Islamic groups. Turning US Customs loose to seize and forfeit "undocumented" "Libyan" artifacts will only harm legitimate trade and the appreciation for Libya's ancient cultures.  It certainly won't help protect Libyan archaeological sites and museums from their greatest threat, which is hammer and explosive wielding religious fanatics.

Not so Difficult

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

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

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

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

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

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

ECA Sets CPAC Hearing on Greek Request

Despite the serious questions that have been raised about the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs' process for imposing import restrictions on cultural artifacts (most recently by Urice and Adler), the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center is forging ahead with what is sure to be another controversial request for import restrictions-- this time from Greece.

Again, the time for comment is short, only until 9/22. In addition, the State Department now evidently wants to avoid being deluged with faxes from concerned coin collectors. As a result, most public comment now must be made through the following website: http://www.regulations.gov/
The website actually appears user friendly. Just type the docket number, DOS-2010-0339, into the search box and follow the directions from there.

At this point, we know little about what artifacts Greeks seeks to restrict. The State Department has declared the country request to be "secret." State promises a summary of that request will be put on the Cultural Heritage Center website, but none has appeared as yet.

Addendum: ECA has placed the applicable Federal Register Notice, directions for public comment and a summary of the Greek request here:

http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/whatsnew.html

I hope to be able to comment on this material soon.

PAS Reaches Milestone

The Portable Antiquities Scheme has archived its 400,000th record on its database of English and Welsh finds. See http://finds.org.uk/blogs/centralunit/2010/07/26/another-milestone-reached/ The object in question is a coin of the House of Constantine found by a metal detectorist.

The Italian Cultural Ministry and the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs should take note: PAS is a system better able to weather lean budgets because it relies on finders to help record objects and the State only retains for its own purposes those objects it deems significant. There are no curatorial expenses associated with most objects as these are returned to the finder and/or landowner after recordation.

Cultural authorities in both the UK and Italy face severe budget shortfalls, but PAS offers great value for the amounts expended. Meanwhile, as set forth below, Italy has decided to cut funding from several archaeological institutes it can no longer afford, and several museums, including the one housing some of its most significant Etruscan artifacts, are due to be privatized. See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2010/07/budget-woes-hit-italian-archaeology.html

The idea that restrictions on collectors will further archaeological research was always a fantasy. Now that archaeology is being cut to the bone in Italy, it is only more so. Meanwhile, the UK continues to record coins and other objects with the help of finders themselves. See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2010/05/pas-lets-finders-record-their-own-finds.html Isn't it better to engage interested members of the public by recognizing the interests of finders and collectors? The insular approach of many Italian and American archaeological purists only invites further funding cuts.