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.
Thursday, May 14, 2026
Thursday, October 16, 2025
Repatriation of Late Roman Imperial Coins Raises Serious Questions about the Cultural Property Agreement with Turkey and the Private Property Rights of American Citizens
Nazlan Ertan, writing for Al-Monitor, reports on the repatriation of 83 Late Roman Imperial coins struck at Anatolian Mints, under a 2021 Cultural Property Agreement (CPA) between the United States and Turkey. See Nazlan Ertan, Turkey boasts of antiquities' return, but faces scrutiny at home, Al Monitor (October 4, 2025), available at https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2025/10/turkey-boasts-antiquities-return-faces-scrutiny-home (last visited October 16, 2025).
Ertan quotes Deputy Culture and Tourism Minister Gokhan
Yazgi as stating, “The process was swift, transparent and efficient.” The article then goes onto to portray the authoritarian
government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as using “repatriation victories
to project cultural authority abroad, an arena in which Turkey currently leads.”
While the article also criticizes government mismanagement and the influence of short term political and commercial interests, Ertan completely ignores the serious critique of both Erdogan’s policies and the CPA levelled by representatives of the trade, collectors and minority religious and ethnic groups at a recent U.S. State Department Cultural Property Advisory Committee meeting convened to discuss the CPA’s renewal.
Indeed, the news of the repatriation of these Roman Imperial coins highlights these problems, at least for coin collectors. First, it is unclear how the 2021 CPA and its implementing regulations can retroactively justify a seizure that took place in 2015, some six years earlier. Second, it is highly questionable that the Roman Imperial coins that were seized are even subject to the import restrictions that implement the CPA. Those regulations apply to Roman provincial coins, but not to Roman Imperial coins, which circulated well beyond the confines of modern-day Turkey as far as England in the West and Sri Lanka to the East. Certainly, one cannot assume that such coins were found in Turkey, a prerequisite for them to be restricted under the governing statute, the Cultural Property Implementation Act.
As it is, this looks like yet another case where the U.S. State Department and U.S. law enforcement have prioritized “cultural diplomacy” over due process rights for American citizens. As such, this seizure represents yet another reason for Congress to pass HR 595, a bill to protect coin collectors, as well as far more ambitious reform legislation to protect the private property rights of American citizens.
Wednesday, September 17, 2025
Summary of CPAC Meeting to Discuss Proposed Cultural Property Agreement with Cameroon, Renewals of Cultural Property Agreements with Colombia and Türkiye, and a Renewal of Emergency Import Restrictions for Afghanistan
On September 15, 2025, the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) met in a virtual public session to accept comments regarding a proposed Cultural Property Agreement (CPA) or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Cameroon, Renewals of current CPAs with Colombia and Türkiye, and a renewal of current “emergency” import restrictions with Afghanistan.
The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs’ (ECA’s)
website describes these requests as follows:
https://www.state.gov/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-september-15-17-2025/ (last visited September 15, 2025).
Cameroon
The Government of the Republic of Cameroon seeks protection
for archaeological and ethnological materials from 100,000 B.C. to the 19th
century A.D., from the following time periods and cultures: Paleolithic (circa
100,000 – 2,000 B.C.), Neolithic (circa 9,000 – 500 B.C.), Metal Age (circa
3,000 – 300 B.C.), Historic Period (circa 1500 A.D.), Ethnological Period
(circa 1,000 B.C. – 19th century A.D.), including objects made from stone
(tools and weapons), ceramic (pottery and vessels), metal (jewelry, weapons,
tools), fossil and bone (human and animal remains). The ethnological materials
requested include objects made from wood (masks, statues, furniture), metal
(jewelry, weapons, tools), textiles (ceremonial clothing, tapestries,
embroidery), animal skins (clothing, drums, ritual objects), and bone (jewelry,
tools, ritual objects).
Afghanistan
Extending emergency
import restrictions unilaterally imposed by the United States on archaeological
and ethnological material from Afghanistan would continue import
restrictions on categories of archaeological material ranging in date from the
Paleolithic Period (50,000 B.C.) through the beginning of the Durrani Dynasty
(1747 A.D.), and ethnological material ranging in date from approximately 800
A.D. to 1920 A.D.
Colombia
Extending the Colombia MOU would
continue import restrictions on categories of archaeological material ranging
in date from approximately 1500 B.C. to 1530 A.D., and ecclesiastical
ethnological material of the Colonial period ranging in date from approximately
1530 A.D. to 1830 A.D.
Türkiye
Extending the Türkiye MOU would continue import restrictions on categories of archaeological material ranging in date from approximately 1.2 million years ago to 1770 A.D., and ethnological material ranging in date from the 1st century A.D. to 1923 A.D.
The CPAC members did not introduce themselves before the
public session, but CPAC currently includes the following individuals, all appointed by President Biden: (1) Alexandra
Jones (Chair, Represents/Expertise Archaeology, Anthropology, related fields,
CEO Archaeology in the Community, Washington, DC); (2) Alex Barker
(Represents/Expertise Archaeology, Anthropology, related fields) Director,
Arkansas Archeological Survey, Arkansas); (3) Mirriam Stark,
Represents/Expertise Archaeology, Anthropology, related fields, Professor of
Anthropology, University of Hawaii); (4) Nii Otokunor Quarcoopome
(Represents/Expertise Museums, Curator and Department head, Detroit Museum of
Art); ( (5) Andrew Conners (Represents/Expertise Museums, Director, Albuquerque
Museum, New Mexico); (6) Michael Findlay (Represents/Expertise: International
Sale of Cultural Property, Director, Acquavella Galleries, New York); (7) Amy
Cappellazzo, Represents/Expertise: International Sale of Cultural Property,
Principal, Art Intelligence Global; (8) Cynthia Herbert (Represents/Expertise:
International Sale of Cultural Property President, Appretium Appraisal Services
LLC, Connecticut); (9) Thomas R. Lamont (Represents Public, President of Lamont
Consulting Services, LLC, Illinois);
(10) Susan Schoenfeld Harrington (Represents Public, Past Deputy
Finance Chair, Democratic National Committee, Past Board member, China Art
Foundation); and, (11) William Teitelman (Represents General Public,
Legislative Counsel to the PA Trial Lawyers Association, Attorney (Retired)).
There were also Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA)
Cultural Heritage Center staff present, presumably including Glen Davis,
Director of the Cultural Heritage Center and Andrew Zonderman, who is serving
as CPAC’s Executive Director. Messrs.
Davis and Zonderman are new to their positions.
The meeting was conducted entirely on Zoom. None of the CPAC or ECA staff identified
themselves to the speakers, so it was difficult to ascertain who attended the
meeting.
The Chair, Alexandra Jones, welcomed the speakers. She thanked the speakers for attending,
indicated that all comments had been read, and that speakers should try to
limit themselves to under five minutes each given the number of presenters.
Dr. Ömür Harmanşah spoke as the
Vice President for Cultural Heritage, Archaeological Institute of America (“AIA”). Given time constraints, he focused his
comments on Türkiye and Afghanistan. He stated
that Congress chartered the AIA in 1906 and that today it has over 100,000 members
which includes professionals and members of the interested public. Dr. Harmanşah argued that all four countries
suffered from looting which is a global phenomenon. He praised Türkiye’s
hosting of American archaeologists at long-term digs in places like Sardis. He noted that the Afghan National Museum had partnered
with the University of Chicago to document continued looting in the country
after the Taliban took power. Dr. Harmanşah
himself has helped document looting in Türkiye.
Türkiye has taken strong measures to protect its own cultural heritage,
including enforcement, repatriation efforts, the creation of museum inventories
and the creation of a new “Red List” of Turkish archaeological materials at
risk from looting. Türkiye has also sent exhibitions to the US,
including one about the Golden Age of Midas that was displayed at the
University of Pennsylvania.
The AIA’s written comments about the proposed renewal of
emergency import restrictions for Afghanistan can be found here: can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0088
The AIA’s written comments on the proposed MOU with Cameroon
can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0089
The AIA’s written comments about the renewal with Colombia can
be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0086
The AIA’s written comments about the renewal with Türkiye
can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0085
Peter Tompa spoke as executive director for the
International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN). He indicated that IAPN opposed renewals for
Afghanistan and Türkiye and takes no position on a MOU for Cameroon or a
renewal for Colombia as long as coins are not included. He focused his comments on Afghanistan and Türkiye,
stating that both renewals raised fundamental contradictions that could not be
reconciled. He referenced the Taliban’s
past destruction of historic statues and current blessing of a Chinese copper
mine that will swallow up an important Buddhist site. He further stated that ongoing looting with
the full knowledge of local warlords who have pledged allegiance to the Taliban
cannot be considered an “emergency.” As for Türkiye, he noted that its government’s
aggressive repatriation efforts abroad must be contrasted with its
encouragement of treasure hunting on Jewish and Christian sites at home as well
as its conversion of historic churches into mosques. He
further stated that extensive “designated lists” that cover coins that
circulated regionally and internationally only hurt legitimate trade. As a solution, he suggested that the Trump
Administration apply the Administrative Procedure Act to the creation of
designated lists and the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act to enforcement.
Peter Tompa’s oral statement can be found here:
https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2025/09/renewals-for-afghanistan-and-Türkiye.html
IAPN’s written comments on proposed renewal of emergency
import restrictions for Afghanistan can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0035
IAPN’s written comments on renewal with Colombia can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0032
IAPN’s written
comments on the renewal with Türkiye can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0038
Peter Tompa’s personal comments can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0059
Dr. John Hoopes (University of Kansas) spoke in support of a
renewal of the MOU with Colombia. He has
excavated in the country for 30 years. Pottery
and gold artifacts are sought by looters, making the renewal of the current MOU
to be essential in helping to protect Colombia’s cultural heritage. There are many sites yet to be excavated,
just being discovered with the help of modern imaging techniques.
Kate FitzGibbon spoke as Executive Director of the Committee
of Cultural Policy (CCP) against the renewal of the current emergency import
restrictions on behalf of Afghanistan. FitzGibbon has a special interest in the
country after living there for 30 years working primarily with Afghan women who
make textiles. FitzGibbon raised four
main points. First, any renewal is
inconsistent with statutory intent. The
Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) § 2603 only authorizes narrow,
time-limited, exceptional measures when there is an immediate crisis—targeted
to clearly defined categories that meet an evidentiary emergency standard—so
that US border controls can actually reduce the incentive for pillage. Congress
did not design § 2603 to function as a rolling, multi-year embargo across whole
civilizations. Second, the destination problem is real and unavoidable. Under
the CPIA’s return rule, designated material forfeited in the US must first be
offered back to the State Party. Today that means return to the Taliban and
their Interior Minister, Sirajuddin Haqqani, a US-wanted terrorist. Third, the policy is mis-aimed. The Afghan government, not the US art market,
is the problem. The most acute threats
to Afghanistan’s heritage today are state-sanctioned or militia-enabled
extractions and earthmoving, most notably the destruction of the important
Buddhist site of Mes Aynak to mine copper.
Finally, the emergency standard has been stretched past recognition. A
catch-all designated list spanning 70,000 years of culture through A.D. 1920,
renewed in five-year blocks, is not what § 2603 authorizes. Such a broad designated list only hurts
legitimate trade and threatens to sweep up and repatriate the personal property
of Afghan refugees. Instead, the US
Government should prioritize diaspora protection and safe-haven pathways and create
custodial trusteeship options with US museums and libraries for Afghan
materials until a legitimate government exists.
Testimony opposing the Afghan renewal submitted on behalf of
the CCP and its sister organization, the Global Heritage Alliance (GHA), can be
found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0091
FitzGibbon also submitted written testimony on behalf of the
CCP and GHA that opposed or questioned aspects of new or renewed MOUs with
Cameroon, Colombia and Türkiye.
The CCP’s and GHA’s written testimony on a proposed new MOU
with Cameroon can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0079
The CCP’s and GHA’s written testimony on a proposed renewal
of a MOU with Colombia can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0080
The CCP’s and GHA’s written testimony on a proposed renewal
of a MOU with Türkiye can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0083
Randy Myers spoke as a board member on behalf of the Ancient
Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG). He also spoke on behalf of the American
Numismatic Association (ANA). He touched
on several points related to the renewals for Afghanistan and Türkiye. First, he indicated the time provided to
comment of 31 days is inadequate; instead a full 60 days should be provided as
set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act.
Second, Myers noted that current
import restrictions on coins ignore the statutory provisions that limit them to
archaeological objects of “cultural significance” that were “first discovered
within” and “subject to export control” of a given country. He emphasized that unlike many ancient
artifacts, coins are mass produced, with dies used to strike 13,000 coins each. This large production of coins combined with
their wide dispersion means that one cannot assume that particular coin types
are found in a given country. For
example, coins on the current designated list for Türkiye are found as far West
as Spain and as far East as India. Finally,
he notes that the State Department has produced no information to suggest that
the MOU with Türkiye has been effective.
The ACCG’s and ANA’s written comments regarding the renewal
of emergency import restrictions for Afghanistan can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0030
The ACCG’s and ANA’s written comments regarding the renewal
of the CPA with Türkiye emergency can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0031
Elias Gerasoulis spoke as executive director of the GHA and
also as a board member of the American Hellenic Institute to oppose the Turkish
renewal. The Turkish CPA should not be renewed
because it will only further encourage Türkiye to erase the cultural heritage
of its displaced minority Christian and Jewish populations. Türkiye has tried
to rewrite the histories of its historic churches. It has licensed looting of Christian and
Jewish sites. It has precluded Christian
religious orders from owning their own property. It has occupied a significant part of Cyprus,
looting and destroying numerous churches.
It’s government actively works against religious freedom.
Lucy Varpetian appeared on behalf of the Armenian Bar
Association. The Armenian Bar
Association submitted comments, but Ms. Varpetian used her time to read a
letter to CPAC from Congressman Gus Bilirakis (R-Florida) opposing a renewal of
the MOU with Türkiye. Congressman
Bilirakis wrote CPAC as a co-chair of the Congressional International Religious
Freedom Caucus. That letter noted that Türkiye
had failed to protect the cultural heritage of its religious minorities, most
notably by converting historic churches into mosques. The asking that the MOU not be renewed, Bilirakis
concludes that, “[t]he government that destroys its minorities’ historical
property should not have the right to repatriate them at their pleasure.”
The Armenian Bar Association’s written comments can be found
here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0072
After this presentation, one CPAC member (William Teitelman?)
noted he was Jewish and indicated to Ms. Varpetian that the concerns of
religious minorities would be considered.
Rabbi Eric Fusfield is Deputy Director, International Center
for Human Rights and Public Policy, Director of Legislative Affairs, B'nai
B'rith International. He argues that there should be a carve out from current
import restriction for Türkiye for ritual and ceremonial objects. These are currently found on the designated
list for Türkiye, but they really belong to Jewish and Christian communities,
not the Turkish state. Rabbi Fusfield
holds up a Kiddish cup as an example.
His wife’s family comes from a Middle Eastern country, and they were not
allowed to take such items with them when they were forced to flee. If these items remain on “designated lists,”
he thinks such items that may be seized by US Customs should be turned over to
the communities in exile, particularly whereas in Türkiye there are so few members
of the Jewish faith still living there these days.
Dr. Peri Johnson is an archaeologist teaching at the
University of Illinois Chicago. She
supports a renewal of the CPA with Türkiye because looting is still a major
problem there. She has seen instances
where heavy machinery was brought in to help loot sites. Around 50% of the archaeological digs in Türkiye
are meant to rescue items before they can be taken by looters.
Dr. Elizabeth Prodromou is a visiting professor in the
international studies program at Boston College. Prodromou served a diplomatic appointment on
the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (2004-2012), and she was a
member of the US Secretary of State’s Religion & Foreign Policy Working
Group (2011-2015). Dr. Promdmou believes
that the current agreement is in violation of Article 9 of the UNESCO
Convention because it can be seen as “green lighting” Türkiye’s erasure of minority
cultures, most recently the conversion of the Cathedral of Ani into a mosque. The
renewal of the MOU should be rejected, but if it is renewed, there should be an
individualized provenance review for contested items to determine whether the
object was originally created by a community that no longer exists in modern Türkiye
or whose property rights have not been acknowledged.
Dr. Prodromou’s written testimony, joining the comments of
the Armenian Bar Association, can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0078
Dr. Simon Maghakyan is a postdoctoral fellow at the
University of Oxford. He indicates his support of the comments of the Armenian
Bar Association. He indicates that
another reason the MOU should be rejected is on account of Türkiye’s support
for Azerbaijan in its war to erase Armenian culture heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh. He also notes that he has studied and written
a Newsweek article about state-sanctioned treasure hunting of former Armenian
areas in Türkiye. This article is cited
in the Armenian Bar Association’s comments at page 3. He urges CPAC to adopt
the 6 safeguards proposed in the Armenian Bar Association’s comments. These safeguards are discussed in depth at
pages 6-7 of those comments.
Dr. Brian Rose is the James B. Pritchard Professor of
Archaeology at the University of Pennsylvania in the Classical
Studies Department and the Graduate Group in the Art and Archaeology of
the Mediterranean World. He is also Peter C. Ferry Curator-in-Charge of the
Mediterranean Section of the Penn Museum.
He supports the renewal of the MOU with Türkiye believing that it is
essential to help combat continued looting in the country. Türkiye has taken adequate measures to
protect its own cultural heritage. These
include the use of drones to surveil sites and an active repatriation program,
with the help of the Manhattan DA’s office.
One CPAC member (William Teitelman?) asks Dr. Rose about Türkiye’s aggressive efforts to erase minority cultures. Dr. Rose can only say he has not personally seen any such activities and that the Turkish colleagues he deals with respect all cultures. He also indicates that he is aware of Türkiye’s efforts to turn Hagia Sophia into a mosque but offers no other comments.
Monday, September 15, 2025
Cultural Property Agreement Renewals for Afghanistan and Turkey Raise Unreconcilable Contradictions
This is what I said at today's CPAC hearing:
Thank you
for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the International Association of
Professional Numismatists. IAPN opposes renewals for Afghanistan and for Turkey. IAPN takes no position on a new MOU for Cameroon
or a renewal for Colombia, but opposes any import restrictions on coins. The coins that circulated in these two
countries simply don’t meet the criteria for either archaeological or
ethnological objects. Historical coinage
that circulated in Colombia was also US legal tender before 1857 and the first official issues of Cameroon were late 19th century coinage of the
German Empire.
I would like
to focus my comments today on Afghanistan and Turkey. Both renewals raise fundamental
contradictions that cannot possibly be reconciled.
Proponents argue
that import restrictions promote cultural heritage preservation and are only
directed against keeping recently looted material off the market. However, such claims are misleading at best
given the reality on the ground in both countries and the way US Customs enforces
import restrictions as embargoes on
material imported from legal markets abroad, chiefly in Europe.
Afghanistan’s
Taliban rulers blew up the Bamiyan
Buddhas and smashed statuary at the Kabul Museum. More recent efforts at bribing them into
caring with money for “conservation projects” can’t compete with Chinese business
interests which are in the process of destroying a major Buddhist site at Mes
Aynak to mine copper. Moreover, any looting has been going on for
decades, all under the watchful eyes of local warlords. The only difference now is that they pledge
allegiance to the Taliban. Such long
term looting with the full knowledge of government authorities simply does not
qualify as an “emergency.” Finally,
despite the AIA’s claims to the contrary, Section 1216 of the National Defense
Authorization Act is no safe harbor provision because it only covers
institutional loans. In fact, US law requires repatriation to the Taliban
once diplomatic relations are restored, and any decision will be made on a basis other
than the safety of the objects.
Meanwhile,
Erdogan’s aggressive repatriation efforts abroad must be contrasted with his
government’s active promotion of “treasure hunting” at former Jewish and
Christian sites at home. This is just
another provocation directed at minority religious groups like the conversion
of Hagia Sophia and the Cathedral at Ani into mosques.
For coins,
extensive “designated lists” which cover coins that circulated regionally or
internationally only hurt legitimate trade.
Efforts to limit such lists to coins “sourced” to Afghanistan or which
“circulated primarily” in Turkey are meaningless since US Customs seizes coins
based on their “type” alone. That means pretty much all ancient and early
modern coins are now at risk unless the importer can prove the “negative” that
they were out of a given country before the effective date of the governing
regulations or for at least 10 years While
enforcement has been spotty, it does occur with the results being that
collectors have their property taken with little, if any, “due process.”
Going
forward, the best solution would be for the Trump Administration to make preparing designated lists subject to the Administrative Procedure Act
and for any detentions, seizures and forfeitures of cultural property to be subject
to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000. The former would require the government to
justify the inclusion of specific coin types in the designated lists and the
latter would help ensure that import
restrictions only apply in situations where there was some evidence that the
coin in question was illicitly exported from a country with a MOU or emergency
restrictions after the date of the governing regulations.
Thank you for your consideration of the views of the micro businesses of the numismatic trade.
Sunday, August 10, 2025
"Soft Power" Love for the Taliban: Trump State Department Continues to Prioritize the Interests of Foreign Despots and Archaeological Advocacy Groups Over Those of American Citizens
Collectors hoping Trump II would “make collecting great again" have been sorely disappointed. Instead, giveaways in the form of Cultural Property Agreements or Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) to foreign despots, their cultural bureaucracies, and US based archaeological advocacy groups that are dependent on foreign excavation permits continue to be approved at an accelerated pace.
These MOUs impose confiscatory import restrictions on cultural goods. They are justified as "soft power" measures aimed at encouraging even "failed states" to "like us more." Indeed, the push to complete as many agreements as possible has been so strong that the State Department has gone so far as to fund both foreign requests and "self-help" measures, both of which are supposed to be the responsibility of the foreign government. Doge cuts or no, such funding in the form of cultural property implementation grants continues to appear on the State Department Cultural Heritage Center website. Of course, some of the prime beneficiaries are associated with the archaeological advocacy groups most identified with protecting the current status quo. For example, according to a federal grant tracking database, the Antiquities Coalition, one of the most active, has received over $3.3 million in grants from the State Department and USAID for work that has included "strengthen[ing] the U.S. commitment to preventing illegal trafficking and sale of antiquities into the United States from Uzbekistan, Nepal, and India by supporting the development of bilateral Cultural Property Agreements."
Trump has sought to overturn many "woke" Biden initiatives, but his Administration has nonetheless implemented Biden era decisions to impose import restrictions on behalf of Hindu nationalist India, authoritarian Uzbekistan, and even Hezbollah dominated Lebanon. The Trump Administration may have hit India with 50% punitive tariffs and approved Israel's continued bombing campaign in Lebanon, but that hasn't stopped the US government from seizing and repatriating cultural goods to these countries.
Moreover, after a short regulatory pause, the Trump State Department has even expanded these "soft power" efforts. In May 2025, the State Department held a Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) Meeting to consider a new MOU with Communist Vietnam, and renewed agreements with Chile, Costa Rica, Italy and Morocco. In so doing, the State Department denied a request from groups representing collectors and the trade to postpone the meeting to give time for Trump to appoint at least some CPAC members. As it is, CPAC may be one of the last bodies in the federal government still completely staffed with Biden political appointees.
Now, at a time Congress is out of session and most of Washington, DC is enjoying summer vacation, the State Department has provided public notice of a September 2025 CPAC meeting to consider a renewal of even more controversial "emergency import restrictions" on behalf of Taliban Afghanistan, as well as a new MOU with authoritarian Cameroon, and renewals for Erdogan's Turkey and the Leftist government in Columbia.
One preliminary question is whether the State Department has exceeded its statutory authority under the Cultural Property Implementation Act in considering renewals of import restrictions for Afghanistan, Columbia and Turkey. The notice of the proposed extension for Afghanistan does not mention any request for a renewal or information received from the State Party that supports the determination that an emergency condition still exists. 19 U.S.C. Section 2602 (f) (2), 2603 (c) (1). The same issue arises with the notices of proposed extensions of MOUs for Columbia and Turkey. Neither of those notices indicate that either country has requested a renewal of a current agreement or provide any information to justify it. 19 U.S.C. Section 2602 (a) (1), (a) (3), (e), (f) (2). Without any such request or supporting information from a State Party, such restrictions can only be authorized by a special act of Congress as was done for post Saddam Iraq in 2001 and Assad's Syria in 2016.
Each of these proposals also raise important substantive concerns, but the renewal of "emergency import restrictions" on behalf of Taliban Afghanistan should be particularly troubling. Why should the Trump II Administration even consider repatriating cultural goods to the Taliban at all? As was pointed out by representatives of museums, collectors and the trade during a 2021 CPAC hearing to consider the initial request for import restrictions from the "former government of Afghanistan," the Taliban are far more known for dynamiting cultural heritage such as the Buddhas of Bamiyan than preserving it. More recently, a Chinese mining company has moved forward with the blessing of Taliban officials on controversial plans to dig a copper mine under an important ancient Buddhist site at Mes Aynak. Of course, the silence from archaeological advocacy groups that regularly condemn American collectors, dealers and museums as would be looters is deafening. Indeed, the founder of the well-funded and politically connected Antiquities Coalition has gone so far as to praise Communist China's authoritarian, mercantilist, and nationalistic cultural heritage policy. No matter the Chinese Communist's distinct lack of respect for Buddhist cultural heritage in Afghanistan as well as their promotion of Han cultural supremacy along with the state sponsored suppression and destruction of the cultural heritage of subject Tibetan and Uyghur cultures.
So, why is the Trump Administration continuing on this same path? It may simply be that the State Department bureaucracy has misled Administration officials about the true effect of MOUs and import restrictions on legitimate trade and collecting. In an email announcing September's CPAC hearing, the State Department Cultural Heritage Center claims that import restrictions "bar trafficked cultural property from entering the United States while encouraging the legal exchange of cultural property for scientific, cultural and educational purposes." What can be wrong with that!
In fact, plenty. In reality, such import restrictions actually harm the legal exchange of cultural property because they operate as embargos on all cultural goods of "designated types," including those purchased on legal markets abroad, mostly in Europe. Such a broad-brush approach is particularly damaging to the legitimate trade in historical coins. Under it, once a coin is determined to be of a type that appears on a designated list, it may be detained, seized and repatriated based on nothing more than being one of many thousands of examples of such coins that may have circulated regionally if not internationally.
Coin collectors continue to believe that the governing statute instead requires the government to at least demonstrate "probable cause" that a coin subject to detention, seizure and forfeiture was illicitly exported after the effective date of any governing regulations. However, the State Department and US Customs convinced Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson and the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit to provide US law enforcement with a "green light" to seize and repatriate collector's coins solely based on their “type” as a "foreign policy matter." Fast forward to the present, mainstream media lauded Wilkinson as a champion for the due process rights of illegal aliens who were also allegedly gang members. But what about "due process" for collectors?
This lack of due process matters because the current "safe harbor" for those importing restricted cultural goods was meant for valuable objects with long paper trails. Moreover, overlapping designated lists for multiple countries of coin types subject to such import restrictions now regularly include coins that circulated regionally or even internationally. All this makes it difficult, if not impossible, to import increasing numbers of historic collectors coins from legal markets abroad. Most collector's coins simply do not have the provenance documentation necessary for legal import under the current "safe harbor" provision. Given the limited value of most collector's coins and the great numbers found in most collections, most are unlikely to have documentation "proving" a particular coin left a specific country before the effective date of governing regulations.
So what can collectors do?
First, collectors should still comment on the proposed MOU with Cameroon as well as the proposed renewals of import restrictions for Afghanistan, Columbia and Turkey. While one may think their comments don't matter, silence will be taken as acquiescence to the status quo. Coin collectors should focus on the fact that embargoes on import of collector's coins makes no sense, particularly because one cannot assume that a coin type was only found in a particular country. They can and should also describe how there are far too many coins out there for them all to be cared for by cultural bureaucracies, particularly ones in places like Afghanistan.
Second, coin collectors should contact their Representative and Senators and ask them to support HR 595, a bill to facilitate the lawful exchange in collector's coins.
Finally, all collectors should advocate for more fundamental legislative reform to protect our due process rights before any collectibles are detained, seized and forfeited to a foreign government. In view of the State Department’s continuation of the anti-collecting status quo, only legislative action can help "make collecting great again."
W
Wednesday, June 16, 2021
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 20th
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.
Thursday, February 4, 2021
Eleventh Hour Trump Administration MOU with Turkey's Authoritarian Government Roils Representatives of Displaced Minorities, Collectors
On Jan. 19, 2021, the U.S. Department of State entered into a cultural property agreement or memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Erdogan's authoritarian Turkish government potentially covering everything and anything made as as recently as 1923. Associated import restrictions have yet to be announced, but representatives of the Greek diaspora worry the MOU will empower Erdogan to “claw back” ancient and modern Greek cultural property and provide de facto recognition to Erdogan’s rights to convert Hagia Sophia and other Greek Orthodox churches into mosques. Meanwhile, coin collectors are concerned overbroad restrictions will result in an embargo of most, if not all, ancient Greek coins of "Turkish type" circulating in legitimate markets in Europe. The real question is whether the Biden Administration, which is so keen to overturn everything associated with Trump, will consider these concerns seriously before issuing any implementing regulations.
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Report on January 21, 2020, CPAC hearing to discuss proposed MOU's with Turkey and Tunisia
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
Look Hard Before You Leap Again!
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
Please Comment on the Proposed MOU's with Turkey and Tunisia
- 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.
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
