Trump State Department Prioritizes "Soft Power" Outreach to Turkey's Authoritarian Government Over Protecting the Rights of American Collectors and Minority Groups

The Trump State Department has renewed a controversial Cultural Property Agreement with Turkey's authoritarian government over the objections of American coin collectors and representatives of displaced minorities.  The implementing regulations continue to embargo a wide variety of cultural goods made as recently as 1924, including an extensive list of ancient Greek, Roman Provincial, Byzantine and Ottoman coin types and religious objects associated with Turkey's displaced Greek, Armenian and Jewish minority communities.  This latest indication of "business as usual" once again demonstrates the need for Congress to pass HR 595, a bill to facilitate the lawful trade in historical coins, as well as to consider far more fundamental  reform legislation.  Such legislation would place guardrails on the regulatory process and enforcement efforts to help protect the private property rights of collectors and minority communities.  

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

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

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

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

Comments are due on or before September 8, 2025.

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

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

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

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

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

Biden Administration Implements Last Minute Trump MOU with Turkey; Coins, Religious Artifacts of Displaced Greek, Jewish, Armenian, and Kurdish Minorities Included

Today’s Federal Register announced regulations implementing the Trump Administration’s January 19, 2021, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Republic of Turkey.   This MOU is the latest in a series of recent agreements with authoritarian Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) Governments engineered with behind the scenes help from archaeological advocacy groups.  

Following a pattern established in these other recent MENA MOUs, the restrictions being imposed are of exceptional breadth, including virtually all Turkish archaeological and ethnological material dating from 1.2 million B.C. to the founding of the Turkish Republic in 1924.

In a blow to advocacy groups representing displaced religious and ethnic Greek, Jewish, Armenian, and Kurdish minorities, the regulations explicitly list religious artifacts associated with these groups that were either forcibly deported and/or encouraged to leave Turkey during the troubled 20^th century.  The import restrictions explicitly apply to:

I. Archaeological Material

…

B. Metal

…

7. Ceremonial Objects – Ritual and ceremonial objects pertaining to Turkey’s religious communities, in bronze, copper, gold, silver, electrum, iron, and lead. This type includes libation vessels, ritual cauldrons and pitchers, rhytons, masks, chalices, plates, censers, candelabras, crosses, pendants, bells, reliquaries, liturgical spoons, Kiddush cups, book covers and boxes, decorated book spines, Torah pointers, finials, andampoules. Approximate date: 5th millennium B.C. to the 18th century A.D.

…

 II.  Ethnological Material

 ...

C. Ritual and Ceremonial Objects – This category includes objects for use in religious services (Christian, Islamic, Jewish, and others) or for imperial use by the state (Byzantine Empire, Seljuk Empire, Anatolian Beyliks, and Ottoman Empire). Examples of ritual and ceremonial objects covered in the Agreement include, but are not limited to, the following objects:

1. Religious Objects – This category includes objects in all materials such as lamps, libation vessels, pitchers, chalices, plates, censers, candelabra, crosses and cross pendants, pilgrim flasks, tabernacles, boxes and chests, carved diptychs, liturgical spoons, Kiddush cups, bells, ampoules, Torah pointers and finials, prayer beads, icons,amulets, and Bektashi surrender stones. This type also includes reliquaries and reliquary containers, which may or may not include human remains. Often engraved or otherwise decorated.

 D. Paintings – This category includes works of paint on plaster, wood, or ceramic from religious or public contexts. Paintings from these periods provide information on social and religious history of the people of Turkey that may be absent from written records. Examples of paintings include, but are not limited to:

 1. Wall Paintings – This category includes paintings on various types of plaster, which generally portray religious images and/or scenes of Biblical events. Types may also include simple applied color, bands and borders, animal, floral, and geometric motifs.

2. Panel Paintings (Icons) – Icons are smaller versions of the scenes on wall paintings, and may be partially covered with gold or silver, sometimes encrusted with semiprecious or precious stones and are usually painted on a wooden panel, often for inclusion in a wooden screen. May also be painted on ceramic.

3. Works on Paper – Paintings may be on papyrus, parchment, and paper. Images depicted may include religious scenes, representations of imperial court life, simple applied color, bands and borders, animal, floral, and geometric motifs.

Additional materials associated with religious and ethnic minorities are covered more generally.  See, e.g., I. Archaeological Material, A. Stone, 1. Sculpture, b. Monuments and Stelae, c. Sarcophagi and Ossuaries, d. Large Statuary, e. Small Statuary, 2. Vessels, 4. Seals and Stamps, 5. Jewelry and Beads, B. Metal, 1. Sculpture, a. Large Statuary and Portraits, b. Small Statuary, c. Reliefs, d. Inscribed and Decorated Metal Sheets and Plates, 2. Vessels, 3. Jewelry and Personal Adornment, 6. Seals and Stamps, 8. Musical Instruments, C. Ceramic, Terracotta, and Faience, 1. Sculpture, a. Architectural Elements, b. Sarcophagi and Ossuaries, c. Large Statuary, d. Small Statuary, e. Terracotta Plaques, 2. Vessels, 4. Seals, Stamps, and Tablets, D. Bone, Ivory, and Other Organic Material, 1. Small Statuary and Figurines, 3. Seals and Stamps, E. Wood, 1. Architectural Elements, F. Glass, 1. Architectural Elements, 2. Vessels, 3. Beads and Jewelry, G. Plaster and Stucco, H. Textile, I. Leather, Parchment, and Paper, J. Rock Art, Painting, and Drawing, K. Mosaics, II. Ethnological Material, A. Architectural Elements, B. Funerary Objects, C. Ritual and Ceremonial Objects, 2. Imperial, 3. Furniture, 4. Textiles, 5. Musical Instruments, E. Written Records.

The prospect of such broad import restrictions on such artifacts raises two distinct concerns. First, as a practical matter, such import restrictions will allow Turkey to “claw back” the religious and community property of Turkey’s displaced Greek, Armenian, Jewish and Kurdish populations living in exile on import into the United States. Second, and perhaps of even more concern, the MOU provides de facto U.S. Government recognition to the claims of the authoritarian Erdogan Government to the cultural patrimony of Turkey’s ancient Greek civilization and the religious and community property of Turkey’s small Greek, Armenian, and Jewish population. Even worse, Erdogan can spin such a MOU as reflecting Department of State support for his conversion of Hagia Sophia and other former Greek Orthodox churches into mosques.

The regulations will also have a significant impact on millions of coin collectors and thousands of small businesses here and abroad that trade in historical coins.   The restrictions on coins are as follows: 

I. Archaeological Material

…

B. Metal

…

9. Coins

a. Greek coins – Archaic coins, dated to 640 – 480 B.C., in electrum, silver and billon, that circulated primarily in Turkey; Classical coins, dated to 479 – 332 B.C., in electrum, silver, gold, and bronze, that circulated primarily in Turkey; and Hellenistic coins, dated to 332 – 31 B.C., in gold, silver, bronze and other base metals, that circulated primarily in Turkey. Greek coins were minted by many authorities for trading and payment and often circulated all over the ancient world, including in Turkey. All categories are based on find information provided in Thompson, M., Mørkholm, O., Kraay, C., Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards, 1973 (available online at http://coinhoards.org/) and the updates in Coin Hoards I-X as well as other hoard and single find publications. Mints located in Turkey and surrounding areas are found in Head, B. V., Historia Numorum, A Manual of Greek Numismatics, 1911 (available online at http://snible.org/coins/hn/).

b. Roman provincial coins – Roman provincial coins, dated from the end of 2nd century B.C. to the early 6th century A.D., in gold, silver, and bronze and copper that circulated primarily in Turkey.

c. Byzantine period coins – Byzantine period coins, in gold, silver, bronze, copper coins, and sometimes electrum, dating from the early 6th century to the 15th century A.D., that circulated primarily in Turkey, (e.g., coins produced at mints in Nicaea and Magnesia under the Empire of Nicaea).

d. Medieval and Islamic coins – Medieval and Islamic coins, in gold, silver,bronze, and copper coins from approximately A.D. 1077 – 1770, that circulated primarily in Turkey.

While the regulations continue a current exemption for widely collected Roman Imperial coins, everything else down to 1770 is included, subject to the qualification that the coin type “circulated primarily in Turkey.”   This qualification apparently stems from the acknowledgement  found in the regulations themselves that ancient coins as a general rule circulated far from where they were minted.  Before the controversial decision to first impose import restrictions on Cypriot coins in 2007, the wide circulation of such coins, as well as the fact that individual types have often come down to us in hundreds or thousands of examples, was enough to keep ancient and early modern coins from being placed on the designated lists. Since that time, coins have usually been included, often misleadingly simply based on the fact that they were minted within the confines of what is today a modern nation state.  

If the phraseology here is meant to better comply with the Cultural Property Implementation Act’s (CPIA’s) language, it still only pays “lip service” to the statutory provisions.  Indeed, the “plain meaning” of the CPIA requires far more.  Import restrictions only apply to “designated archaeological material” under 19 U.S.C. §   2606.  This “designated archaeological material” is that “covered by an agreement” and “listed” under Section 2604.  19 U.S.C. § 2601 (7).  Section 2604 states that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the Treasury Department “may list this such material by type or other appropriate classification, but each listing made under this section shall be sufficiently specific and precise to insure that (1) the import restrictions under Section 2606 are applied only to the archaeological . . . material covered by the agreement . . . ; and (2) fair notice is given to importers . . . as to what material is subject to such restrictions.”  19 U.S.C. § 2604 (emphasis added).  The word “only” emphasizes the requirement that “designated archaeological material” must be only that covered by the agreement, i.e., “first discovered within” and “subject to export control by, the State Party.”   19 U.S.C. § 2601 (2).   The word “shall” emphasizes the mandatory nature of this Congressional direction; there is simply no discretion allowed.     See, e.g., Black's Law Dictionary 1407 (8th ed. 2004) (defining "shall" as "has a duty to; more broadly, is required to").  Therefore, under the CPIA, the proper standard is not whether a coin type “primarily” circulated within the confines of a given, modern nation state, but whether it can only be found there.  Moreover, even assuming the “circulated primarily” phraseology were correct, the regulation’s failure to identify which coins “circulated primarily in Turkey” raises the question whether the regulation may be constitutionally void for vagueness. 

In any event, the real problem with such a broad MOU with Turkey is that in seeking to “protect” any and all “Turkish Cultural Patrimony” from looting, the U.S. Government will further harm minority communities living abroad as well as the legitimate trade in “Turkish” artifacts with our major trading partners in the European Union and the United Kingdom.  The cumulative impact of import restrictions on behalf of authoritarian MENA governments has been very problematical because most minor artifacts (like coins) and family keepsakes simply lack the document trail necessary for legal import under the “safe harbor” provisions of CPIA, 19 U.S.C. § 2606. The CPIA only authorizes the government to impose import restrictions on artifacts first discovered within and subject to the export control of a particular country. (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 Department of State and CBP view this authority far more broadly. CBP has promulgated designated lists based on where items are made and sometimes found, not where they are actually found and hence are subject to export control. Additionally, 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.

What can be done?  Advocates for displaced minorities and trade and collector groups need to engage with their elected representatives.  Our elected representatives need to be sensitized to these concerns and asked for help in ensuring that any import restrictions are only be applied to archaeological or ethnological objects illicitly exported from Turkey after the June 16, 2021 effective date of the implementing regulations.  Otherwise, the U.S. Government will become Erdogan’s enforcer in clawing back virtually every object that can be considered “Turkish” on entry to the United States, and we will all be poorer for it.

Report on January 21, 2020, CPAC hearing to discuss proposed MOU's with Turkey and Tunisia

               On January 21, 2020, the U.S. Cultural Property Advisory Committee (“CPAC”) met to consider proposed MOU’s with Turkey and Tunisia.   CPAC is currently constituted as follows.  (1) Stefan Passantino (Public); (2) Adele Chatfield-Taylor (Public); (3) James Reap (Public); (4) Karol Wight (Museums); (5) Nancy C. Wilkie (Archaeology); (6) Ricardo A. St. Hilaire (Archaeology); (7) Lothar Von Falkenhausen (Archaeology); and  (8) Anthony Wisniewski (Collector-Sale of International Cultural Property).

                Due to the large number of speakers, the Chair indicated each speaker would only be allowed two (2) minutes rather than the usual five (5) minutes.  Those speakers in favor of MOU’s with Turkey and/or Tunisia were as follows: (1) Dr. Lynn Dodd; (2) Dr. Jane Evans; (3) Sam Hardy; (4); Dr. Christina Luke; (5) Dr. Brian Rose; (6) Tess Davis; (7) Dr. Nathan Elkins; (8) Dr. Elizabeth Greene; and (9) Katie Paul.  Those opposed to one or both MOU’s or their application to certain types of artifacts were as follows:  (1) Stephen Knerly; (2) Elias Gerasoulis; (3) Carol Basri; (4) Kate FitzGibbon; (5) Douglas Mudd; (6) Peter Tompa; and (7) Randolph Myers.

                Chairman Passatino welcomed the speakers.  He indicated that the Committee had read all the comments, particularly those of the speakers.  Given the large number of speakers, Mr. Passatino indicated that speakers would be limited to 2 minutes.  After all the speakers were finished, he would open up the floor to questions.

                Dr. Lynn Dodd is an archaeologist.  She supports Turkey’s MOU.  She indicates Turkey has met all the criteria to be granted a MOU.

                Dr. Jane Evans indicates coins are at risk from metal detectors.  She indicates excavation coins typically are local issues that do not circulate far from where they are made so they should be restricted.

                Sam Hardy starts his presentation honoring an archaeologist who took his own life rather than taking the blame for embezzlement.  He indicates trafficking is a real problem in Turkey.  He finds it odd that Turkey would not be granted a MOU because of problems within the country because granting a MOU will encourage positive forces in Turkey to clean up the country’s act.

                Dr. Christina Luke works in Turkey.  She echoes her support of others for a MOU with Turkey.

                Dr. Brian Rose of the University of Pennsylvania has seen looted sites.  Looting is a lucrative business that needs to be addressed. Turkey allows US Archaeologists to work in the country, which promotes educational exchange.

                Tess Davis and her organization, the Antiquities Coalition, supports the MOU with Turkey.  She focuses her comments on the third determination. She indicates there is a concerted international response of market nations now that the EU has promulgated import controls on cultural artifacts.

 

                Stephen Knerly spoke for the Association of Art Museum Directors.  He indicates that a MOU in this case would not be appropriate because the Turkish government is involved in state sanctioned looting and destruction of Turkey’s cultural patrimony.

                Elias Gerasoulis speaking for the American Hellenic Institute opposes any MOU with Turkey.  There is no rule of law in Turkey under Erdogan.  A number of Byzantine era cathedrals have been turned from museums into mosques.  Over 400 churches have been destroyed in Cyprus. Erdogan has shown disdain for religious minorities and the material remains of their culture.

                Dr. Nathan Elkins notes that prior MOUs have focused on coins that have circulated locally, but is time to expand upcoming MOU’s to include Roman Republican, Roman Imperial and Byzantine coins.  There are enough MOUs already where coins have been included that now is the time to treat all coins like other objects that are found on different designated lists.

                Dr. Elizabeth Greene supports the MOU.  MOUs ensure that objects of minority groups are preserved. From her work on shipwrecks, Greene knows that even common artifacts like transport amphorae are important to understanding the past.

                Katie Paul speaks for the Athar Project.  She shows images of artifacts from Tunisia and Turkey on sale on Facebook.  She indicates some buyers are located in the US.  She also indicates that she is Pontic Greek.  She wants Greek artifacts protected as evidence of the Greek Diaspora.

                Carole Basri contrasts her prior work for the State Department to more recent State Department efforts to recognize the rights of authoritarian MENA governments to the artifacts of displaced minority populations.  At some risk to her personal safety, Ms. Basri collected records of Jews in Iraq on December 11, 2003 for the State Department.  Some of these records were later deposited in the US Holocaust Museum.  Carole Basri believes there needs to be a carve-out in any MOU for religious artifacts of displaced Jews and other minority populations. 

                Kate FitzGibbon speaks for the Committee for Cultural Policy and the Global Heritage Alliance.  It is essential that CPAC adhere to the CPIA’s requirements.  Turkey has engaged in legalized theft of minority religious artifacts.  A book written by a US diplomat discusses the artifacts available in the Grand Bazar for sale to foreigners. 

                Doug Mudd speaks for the American Numismatic Association.  Import restrictions on coins have had a negative impact on the ANA’s educational mission.  An instructor at the Summer Seminar was afraid to bring his coins from abroad because he was concerned they would be seized.  People can learn from ancient coins which are amongst the most common ancient artifacts.

                Peter Tompa speaks for the International Association of Professional Numismatists.  Any MOU would recognize the Erdogan Government’s rights to “claw back” cultural goods of “ethnically cleansed” Greek, Armenian and Assyrian populations.  Since 2007, a series of grossly over broad import restrictions placed on common ancient coins of the sort widely collected worldwide (including within most of the countries for which import restrictions have been granted) have done quite a bit of damage to ancient coin collecting. Their cumulative impact has been problematic because 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.  Another embargo, this time potentially impacting a wide variety of Greek, Carthaginian, Roman Provincial, Roman and Byzantine coins struck or sometimes found in Turkey and Tunisia, will bring even more damage. As set forth in IAPN's submissions, there are many statutory reasons why this should not happen. Moreover, CPAC also needs to consider whether import restrictions on coins are really necessary, particularly because it appears that both Turkey and Tunisia allow for the internal sale of ancient coins.

                Randolph Myers is a coin collector.  Coins struck in large multiples lack cultural significance. CPAC should also consider whether less drastic measures, like the institution of a Treasure Act or Portable Antiquity Scheme, should be tried first.  Finally, there is no evidence presented that either Turkey or Tunisia are undertaking adequate self-help measures.

Questions:

              Karol Wight asks if the AAMD polled its members about loans from Turkey.  Stephen Knerly indicates that because the State Department has started using a standard Article II in their MOU’s there is no reason to seek this information from members.  He does note, however, that Turkey demands high loan fees.  It would be beneficial to all concerned if Art II of MOU’s (which relate to requirements placed on the foreign country) are written individually.

            Anthony Wisniewski asks Kate FitzGibbon if restrictions should be placed on coins.  She indicates it is important to look to the wording of the CPIA to ascertain whether restrictions are appropriate.  She then defers to Peter Tompa.  Peter Tompa indicates restrictions should not be placed on coins, but if they are so placed they must take care that they only apply to coins both first discovered within a country and subject to its export control.  He notes that restrictions would be wholly inappropriate on Roman coins which circulated from England to Sri Lanka and which are found in many more countries than where there are MOUs on coins.  Dr. Nathan Elkins is allowed to comment.  He believes restrictions should come in as long as over 50% of coins are found in a given place, but this should be further expanded to everywhere coins are found.

           Anthony Wisniewski asks Dr. Rose about the provenance of coins found in the University of Pennsylvania Museum.   Dr. Rose said that the Museum secured these coins years ago under a system of partage.

          Chairman Passatino asks Elias Gerasoulis if his group could live with any MOU with conditions to address concerns of the Greek community.  Mr. Gerasoulis indicates that his group is unalterably opposed to a MOU because the Erdogan government cannot be trusted. He believes a MOU would make the situation worse, not better.   Moreover, this MOU raises questions not only about Greek property, but other minority property as well.  For example, how can we trust Turkey to respect Jewish minority property, when Erdogan hosted the leader of Hamas, an anti-Israel U.S. designated terrorist group, at the Presidential palace in Turkey last month?  This issue is not simply one of archeology. The political context needs to be looked at and understood. 

Look Hard Before You Leap Again!

I planned to say this at today's Cultural Property Advisory Committee meeting on MOU's with Turkey and Tunisia, but had to limit my actual comments.  Due to the large number of speakers, the Chair only allowed 2 minutes not the usual 5 minutes to speak:

Any MOU with Turkey raises serious legal and ethical questions because it would recognize the Erdogan Government’s rights to “claw back” cultural goods of “ethnically cleansed” Greek, Armenian and Assyrian populations. Moreover, one or more CPAC members recently resigned over President Trump’s tweet threatening Iranian cultural sites, and House Foreign Relations Chair Elliot Engel—with the approval of archaeological advocacy groups supporting this MOU—has introduced H.R. 795 that declares that, “the intentional targeting or destruction of cultural property in the absence of imperative military necessity is a violation of the law of armed conflict and runs counter to the values of the United States.”  Yet, the Erdogan government has recently bombed an important Hittite site in Syria, flooded ancient cities, and has even threatened to turn Justinian’s Great Patriarchal Church, Hagia Sophia, from a museum into a mosque.  These measures are the polar opposite of the “self-help” obligations embedded in 19 U.S.C. § 2602 (a) (1) (b), and granting Erdogan a MOU will only encourage him on his destructive path.   As to coins, let me make the following points for both MOU’s:

·        There are large numbers of coin collectors and numismatic firms in the US.   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.

·        The brief of the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural affairs is to foster people to people contacts and the appreciation of other cultures. It does so with a huge budget of over $500 million. Ancient coin collecting fosters those same goals, but at no cost to the US Taxpayer.

·        Yet, since 2007, a series of grossly over broad import restrictions placed on common ancient coins of the sort widely collected worldwide (including within most of the countries for which import restrictions have been granted) have done quite a bit of damage to ancient coin collecting.

·        Their cumulative impact has been problematic because 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.

·        Another embargo, this time potentially impacting a wide variety of Greek, Carthaginian, Roman Provincial, Roman and Byzantine coins struck or sometimes found in Turkey and Tunisia, will bring even more damage. As set forth in IAPN's submissions, there are many statutory reasons why this should not happen. Moreover, CPAC also needs to consider whether import restrictions on coins are really necessary, particularly because it appears that both Turkey and Tunisia allow for the internal sale of ancient coins.

·        At a minimum, CPAC should ensure that Customs only applies the CPIA as written to 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, and the one Court that has looked at this issue decided to defer to that decision making on “foreign policy grounds.”  In particular, designated lists have been prepared based on where coins are made and sometimes found, not where they are actually found and hence are subject to export control.  Furthermore, restrictions are not applied prospectively solely to illegal exports made after the effective date of regulations, but rather are enforced against any import into the U.S. made after the effective date of regulations, i.e., an embargo, not targeted, prospective import restrictions.

·        CPAC should also make any import restrictions on coins contingent on the creation of a Portable Antiquities Scheme and the provision of export permits.  Turkey already pays for finds in some circumstances and both Turkey and Tunisia already allow for internal sales of ancient coins, which should make both programs possible under local law.  Thank you. 

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

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

A.  Background for Coin Collectors

             There are large numbers of coin collectors and numismatic firms in the US.  Very few collectors do so to “invest.”  Most collect out of love of history, as an expression of their own cultural identity, or out of interest in other cultures.  All firms that specialize in ancient coins in the US are small businesses. Private collectors and dealers support much academic research into coins.  For example, an American collector collaborated with academics to produce an extensive study of Seleucid coins. A further clamp down on collecting will inevitably lead to less scholarship.

            While what became the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) was being negotiated, one of the State Department’s top lawyers assured Congress that “it would be hard to imagine a case” where coins would be restricted.   In 2007, however, the State Department imposed import restrictions on Cypriot coins, against CPAC’s recommendations, and then misled the public and Congress about it in official government reports.  What also should be troubling is that the decision maker, Assistant Secretary Dina Powell, did so AFTER she had accepted a job with Goldman Sachs where she was recruited by and worked for the spouse of the founder of the Antiquities Coalition, an archaeological advocacy group that has lobbied extensively for import restrictions.  Since that time, additional import restrictions have been imposed on coins from Algeria, Bulgaria, China, Egypt, Greece, Iraq, Italy, Libya and Syria. 

            The cumulative impact of import restrictions has been very problematical for collectors since outside of some valuable Greek coins, most coins simply lack the document trail necessary for legal import under the “safe harbor” provisions of 19 U.S.C. § 2606.  The CPIA only authorizes the government to impose import restrictions on coins and other artifacts first discovered within and subject to the export control of either Turkey or Tunisia. (19 U.S.C. § 2601). Furthermore, seizure is only appropriate for items on the designated list exported from the State Party after the effective date of regulations.  (19 U.S.C. § 2606).  Unfortunately, the State Department and Customs view this authority far more broadly.  In particular, designated lists have been prepared based on where coins are made and sometimes found, not where they are actually found and hence are subject to export control.  Furthermore, restrictions are not applied prospectively solely to illegal exports made after the effective date of regulations, but rather are enforced against any import into the U.S. made after the effective date of regulations, i.e., an embargo, not targeted, prospective import restrictions.

      B.  What You Can Do

                Admittedly, CPAC seems to be little more than a rubber stamp.  Still, to remain silent is to give the cultural bureaucrats and archaeologists with an ax to grind against collectors exactly what they want-- the claim that any restrictions will not be controversial. 

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

            Please also note comments submitted in electronic form are not private. They will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Because the comments cannot be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the Department of State cautions against including any information in an electronic submission that one does not want publicly disclosed (including trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2605(i)(1)).

C.  What Should You Say?

What should you say?  Provide a brief, polite explanation about why CPAC should deny or limit any import restrictions. Consider the following points:

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

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

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

Archaeological Lobby Silent as Turkey Bombs Hittite Cultural Site

Turkish warplanes have bombed and evidently badly damaged the Iron Age temple of Ain Dara in Northern Syria as part of their campaign against Kurdish separatists.

Far from expressing outrage, the major archaeological lobbying groups including the AIA, ASOR and the Antiquities Coalition have remained silent. 

But why?  A cynic might think these groups are more concerned about angering the Turkish government than in maintaining a consistent message. 

After all, the Turkish Government  offers archaeologists associated with these groups valuable excavation permits for archaeological sites within the country. 

Reality or Just More Russian Propaganda?

Russia's UN Ambassador is pointing his finger at Turkey as the trans-shipment point for $150-$200 million in antiquities stolen by ISIS.  The material is then supposedly sold on Western (not Russian) Internet auction sites.  But the total value of all artifacts of possible Middle Eastern origin listed on those sites must be a very small fraction of this number (which itself appears greatly exaggerated).

Are the Russian UN Ambassador's claims based on reality or are they just more propaganda aimed at Assad's enemy, Turkey, and the West and its Internet-based economy?

Update (4/10/16):  It looks like Russia's UN Ambassador has mistaken the value of the legitimate trade for the value of antiquities looted by ISIS.   CPO will let its readers decide whether this was an honest mistake or not.

There is collecting in Source Countries Too

The archaeological lobby often implies that collecting is illegal in source countries, but this is often not the case.  Indeed, sometimes wealthy collectors like their counterparts in "market countries" are great supporters of local museums.

Terrorist Financing

A House Foreign Relations subcommittee held a hearing on terrorist financing.  ISIS gets most of its $1 bn from confiscations, taxes and "hot oil," but the terror group  also gains funding from ransoms, donations and sales of looted antiquities.  ASOR/State Department Point Man Michael Danti rightly declined to to put a number  on the value of these looted antiquities, and noted that far more needs to be done by Lebanon, Turkey, Greece, Cyprus and Bulgaria, which are the main transit points to the EU.   Frankly, the last four have a special obligation to act given their own self-righteous stance when it comes to their own cultural patrimony.  But will the archaeological lobby hold their feet to the fire?

Apt Question

I posted this question about this week's CBS report in the comments section on an archaeological blog, but it's worth asking here too:

If it was that easy for the CBS producer and her ASOR/DOS Contractor archaeological companion to connect with a smuggler, why can't the Turkish police do the same thing, but then arrest them [the smuggler] rather than run a story about them?

Any thoughts would be welcome. 

Greek Archaeological Site Up for Sale in Turkey

Bargylia, a first rate Greek archaeological site in Turkey, is up for sale.  If so, why not take things to the logical conclusion by allowing the new owners to excavate the site in a manner consistent with international norms and share the proceeds with the Turkish state?

Cultural Heritage Management-- Turkish Style

Turkey's unemployed archaeologists have criticized the government's lack of commitment to archaeology and have demanded more government jobs to help cope with managing the nation's extensive archaeological sites. 

And while some resent the government promises to help protect Syrian and Iraqi antiquities from smugglers, other more enterprising souls think the unemployed could be trained to help interdict looted antiquities crossing the country's borders from Syria and Iraq. A win-win for everyone.

Speaking with Authority on Syria

Michel al-Maqdissi, former director of  Syria's Archaeological Excavations Department, has spoken with authority about severe threats to Syria's cultural heritage.

Al-Maqdissi places most blame on the Syrian government and military which have "destroyed a lot with its incessant bombing."  And even if Assad ultimately prevails, Syria's cultural heritage will remain at risk from a government more interested in grandiose building projects (that will no doubt enrich the dictator's cronies) than in caring for its cultural heritage.  As an example, al-Maqdissi mentions longstanding plans for a hotel and tourist center to be built right over the ruins of an important Phoenician site.

In response to a question, Al-Maqdissi states that looting is a serious problem, particularly at Apamea. However, al-Maqdissi rightly notes that rebels and the "real terrorists" of ISIS are far more likely to make quick cash from easy to sell commodities, like "hot oil."  Simply, antiquities are not very "liquid"-- it's hard to sell them fast and for top dollar. And then there is the real question whether the iconoclasts of ISIS would rather smash than sell what they find anyway.

Revealingly, al-Maqdissi has little good to say about UNESCO and its tired group of experts who use the same cookie-cutter approach to every "cultural heritage crisis."

Instead, what's needed is outside funding for site guards (which would be difficult given international sanctions) and more realistically, effective policing of Turkey's border, something CPO suggested awhile ago.

Who Burned the Museum?

The Conflict Antiquities blog is reporting on various theories on who burned a museum in a Kurdish area within Turkey.   It makes for interesting reading, but all the speculation glosses over an important point.  Museums and archaeological sites in places like Egypt, Iraq, Syria and now Turkey have become targets precisely because hated dictatorial or authoritarian governments have appropriated the past to help further their own agendas.   So, is the greatest threat to the preservation of the past in such countries Western collectors or the nationalistic regimes that use the past to lord it over the locals?

Where is the Petition Asking Turkey to Control its Borders?

The archaeological lobby's petitions asking the UN to call for a ban in the sale of Syrian antiquities have already received their share of attention in the archaeological blogosphere, but as far as CPO can tell, no scholar has yet proposed any similar petition addressed to the President of the Turkish Republic asking that Turkish authorities crack down on any effort to use the country as a transit point for looted artifacts.  After all, the Turkish Republic is uniquely situated to stem the flow of illicit Syrian antiquities given its long border with the country.  And with a large and well trained army, it can and should be able to control its own borders. 

Wonder why?

Turkey Needs to Act

CPO's takeaway from the New Yorker's piece on ISIS is that Turkey needs to do far more to control its own borders if there is any hope in slowing the pace of looting in Syria. 

The organized looting US archaeologists say is taking place in Syria stems from the unrest there.  According to the piece, even trained archaeologists are joining in-- though whether for personal gain or to literally save their heads-- cannot be determined.

We can't change the facts on the ground.  But, for looting to be lucrative (if it really is as claimed), any looted material needs to get out of the war zone.  This is where Turkey --which shares a long border with Syria-- comes in.  The article states artifacts looted from sites supposedly under the Assad regime's control are openly available for sale in Turkish border towns.  And one would suppose Turkey would also be the major transit point for such material-- though where it is going -- if it is leaving Turkey in quantity-- appears to be a mystery. 

So, why is the archaeological lobby far more interested in promoting "emergency import restrictions" here on anything that looks remotely "Syrian" than on pressuring the Turkish government to address the problem at the source?  After all, the archaeological lobby has offered unqualified support for even the most questionable Turkish repatriation demands-- so shouldn't we also expect that they can and should call out Turkey to do the right thing?

Close Turkey's Border with Syria

As the nature and extent of reported looting by or under the protection ISIS/ISIL terrorists in Syria is debated in the press and in the archaeological blogosphere, no one seems to have suggested an obvious solution to any problem:  Turkey should close its border with Syria.

Turkey's Islamist government is already facing criticism for allowing jihadists free passage to and from Syria from Turkish soil.  Turkey, a member of NATO, has a very large and well trained army.  That force should be deployed to the border to both cut off the flow of jihadists to the war zone and confiscate any artifacts illicitly removed from Syria.

CPO submits this is a far more fair and effective solution to any looting problem than giving license to US Customs and Border Protection to seize any undocumented artifact just because it was made in Syria millenia ago.  More so because any funding ISIS/ISIL may receive from "hot antiquities" must pale in comparison to the $800 million the group evidently received from our supposed Turkish allies in return for shipments of "hot oil."

Erasing Turkey's Christian Past

The Economist reports on the conversion of a historic 13th Byzantine church in Trabzon into a mosque.  Even in Islamic Turkey, the decision has prompted some concerns.  As the Economist notes,

The decision provoked surprising anger in a city notorious for its ultra-nationalist views. “It’s about erasing the Christian past, reviving Ottomanism,” says a local historian. “There are enough mosques in Trabzon, half of them empty, what was the need?” chimes in Zeki Bakar, a neighbourhood councillor. A lawsuit has been brought to undo the conversion.

One wonders if Haghia Sophia in Istanbul will be next.  And one has a right to ask, if Turkey will not respect its pre-Ottoman past why should other countries be so willing to repatriate pre-Ottoman artifacts to the country?

Update 8/15/13:  Here is another good article about the conversion of the church in Trabzon.

Turkish Nationalism on Display

Nationalism is not all bad, but Turkish nationalism seems to have taken an extreme turn in the prosecution of an American who picked up some old stones on a beach and in protests regarding the sale of modern art.  How many Turks pick up such items without fear of prosecution?  And would the sale of modern art be as controversial if the sale could not be linked to American interests?   Those who support Turkey's nationalistic  demands for control of ancient art (much of which was created by Greeks) should take note of this slippery slope.