The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild has secured heavily redacted materials in response to its FOIA request relating to a controversial "invitation only" roundtable organized by the Antiquities Coalition, a mysteriously well-funded archaeological advocacy group with ties to Middle Eastern dictatorships. The ACCG has appealed the State Department's decision to redact the materials, but what was produced demonstrates that the Biden-Harris State Department has gone even further than prior administrations in favoring archaeological advocacy groups and cutting out other interested stake holders representing trade, collector, museum, and religious and ethnic minority interests. All this advocacy on behalf of a foreign governments also begs the question why these archaeological advocacy groups apparently do not feel a need to register under either the Lobbying Disclosure Act or Foreign Agents Registration Act.
Thursday, October 17, 2024
Monday, February 12, 2024
State Department Inks New and Renewed MOUs with Authoritarian Governments After Giving and Getting A Little Help From Its Friends
In the last several months, the State Department has inked a significant number of cultural property MOUs with authoritarian governments. These include new MOUs with Uzbekistan and Pakistan as well as renewals of current MOUs with Cambodia and Communist China. Given their authoritarian nature, it is no surprise that these governments have demanded that such agreements cover the cultural heritage of displaced minorities and a wide array of artifacts, including common ones like collector's coins, which are legally, or at least openly, sold in these countries. What should be more concerning is that our State Department now apparently feels that "soft power" is more important than honestly balancing the interests of impacted groups as Congress contemplated in the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act. And in doing so, the State Department has gone so far as funding archaeological advocacy groups to help "check the box" to help justify such dubious decision making.
Tuesday, January 25, 2022
Comments from Today's CPAC Hearing: It’s Time for a Reset for Import Restrictions on Coins
I said this more or less at today's CPAC hearing to discuss proposed renewals of MOUs with Cyprus and Guatemala:
I am speaking on behalf of IAPN which represents the micro
and small businesses of the numismatic trade.
In many ways, this hearing is a much greater test for CPAC than for
ancient coin collectors. We’ve heard a
lot in the past several years about how the system is rigged. Here, unfortunately, there is convincing
evidence that may be the case.
For 25 years
after the CPIA was passed, there were no restrictions on coins. This should be no surprise. Coins are items of commerce. So, it is difficult for modern nation states
to justifiably claim them as their “cultural property.” They are among the
most common of historical artifacts and while they may be of “archaeological
interest”, they are generally not of “cultural significance.” They are
avidly collected and traded worldwide including in Cyprus. It simply
makes no sense to preclude Americans from importing such coins. Indeed, when the CPIA was being discussed,
Mark Feldman, a high-ranking State Department lawyer, represented to Congress
that it was “hard … to imagine a case where we would need to deal with coins
except in the most unusual circumstances.”
In 2007, all
this changed with Cypriot coins.
According to the declarations of two former CPAC Members, including
Former Chair Kislak, that change was made against CPAC’s recommendations. Moreover, there was an attempt to mislead the
public and the Congress about CPAC’s opposition to import restrictions on coins. Even worse, the decision maker made the
decision after she had already announced she was leaving for a job at Goldman
Sachs, where she was recruited by and worked for the husband of a former AIA
trustee and the founder of the Antiquities Coalition, which has been highly
active lobbying for import restrictions.
How can such a decision be a fair one?
We are
realists and understand at this point that import restrictions on coins are probably
here to stay, but CPAC can still advocate for a reset on how they are implemented.
First, CPAC should insist that the State
Department only apply restrictions to coins that are “exclusively found” within
Cyprus or to those where there is proof that they were illicitly excavated
there. Only such coins can be “first discovered within, and … subject to export control by”
Cyprus as required by the CPIA at 19 U.S.C. § 2601(2). In contrast,
the State Department’s current standard based on where a coin “primarily
circulated” simply ignores these requirements.
Second, even under a “primarily circulated” standard,
certain coin types on the current designated list should be removed. Here, numismatic research proves that all Cypriot
mint gold and all Attic standard Hellenistic silver coins of Alexander the
Great, Philip and Demetrius did not “primarily circulate” within Cyprus and
should be delisted.
Third, CPAC should ensure that the State Department only
uses neutral experts to help prepare designated lists; not ones who have
advocated for import restrictions in the past.
At a minimum, State should be directed to meet and confer with
collectors and the trade on the contents of these lists. Under no circumstances should collectors and
US Customs be forced to guess what coin types are restricted and which are not,
as is the case with the recent Turkish and amended Greek lists.
Finally, no new restrictions should be contemplated for
Guatemalan coins. Spanish Colonial and
Republican era coins are not archaeological in nature; they either do not meet
the 250-year threshold and/or are not “normally discovered” within the
ground. Nor do such coins meet the
definition of ethnological objects. They
are not the products of tribal cultures but were produced en masse with
sophisticated industrial processes.
Finally, due to their wide circulation in international commerce, one
cannot assume such coins were “first discovered within” and hence were “subject
to export control by” Guatemalan authorities. Indeed, early coins that circulated within Guatemala were also
legal tender in the United States until 1857.
With these recommended actions, CPAC can demonstrate that
it operates with fairness and adheres to the CPIA’s statutory
requirements.
Thank you.
Monday, July 26, 2021
Putting a Price on the Priceless: Measuring the Illicit Antiquities Trade in Data and Dollars
On July 26,
2021, the Antiquities Coalition and George Mason University Terrorism,
Transnational Crime and Corruption Center (TrrACC) conducted an on-line
discussion about measuring the illicit trade in antiquities.
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.
Friday, March 12, 2021
Requests for MENA Cultural Property Agreements Originate not with the Source Country, but with the Archaeological Lobby and our own State Department
This is a follow up to CPO's February 12, 2020, blog post: https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2020/02/jordanian-mou-window-into-how-mous-are.html
The Convention on Cultural Implementation Act contemplates that UNESCO State parties will request the United States to enter into MOU's which authorize the imposition of import restrictions on cultural goods. However, it now appears that MOU requests supposedly from Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) countries actually originate from the State Department itself with the help of funding from the Antiquities Coalition, a major archaeological advocacy group that has lobbied the United States Government for an import ban on so-called "blood antiquities" from the MENA region. See https://theantiquitiescoalition.org/blood-antiquities/
“Bilateral Memoranda of Understanding,
based on the 1970 UNESCO Convention on Cultural Property, are creating the
foundation for long-term partnerships with governments in the NEA region. These
MOUs authorize DHS’s Customs and Border Protection to seize undocumented
cultural property. The first case in NEA was when Egypt committed resources to
cultural heritage protection and signed an MOU with the U.S. in November of
2016. Following that, NEA provided funding to advise NEA countries in
preparing their MOU request packages. ECA and NEA training and capacity
building for Libyan archeologists and law enforcement personnel laid the
groundwork for signing an MOU with Libya in February 2018. Post, the Libya
External Office that’s based in Tunis, is now working with a Fulbright
Specialist to support this effort. So, posts are looking at the whole toolkit
of what they can do to bring these resources to bear and advance this cause.”
This new information helps confirm why collectors, dealers, museums, and representatives of displaced religious and ethnic minorities are treated as outsiders to the process of imposing import restrictions on cultural goods. It also suggests there needs to be far more transparency with regard to how import restrictions are processed.
Sunday, January 3, 2021
A Triumph of Fear Mongering Over Facts
On Jan. 1, 2021, the Senate joined the House in an override of President Trump’s veto of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA contained amendments introduced by Congresswomen Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) directed at a number of Anti-Money Laundering (AML) initiatives. As a result of that amendment to the House version of the NDAA incorporated into the legislation that passed both Houses after a conference with the Senate, "person[s] engaged in the sale of antiquities" (however "antiquities" might be defined) now find themselves subject to the provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and its regulatory requirements to create and maintain an anti-money laundering program, prepare an annual independent audit, and file where appropriate “suspicious activity reports.” Such AML programs typically cost thousands of dollars per year to implement as well as the time and effort required to comply with such regulations. The costs to small and micro business are substantial. Furthermore, it is impossible to “fly under the radar screen” of such requirements; such regulations are enforced by the banks which will close accounts which do not comply.
The exact scope of these obligations for antiquities dealers will be determined in yet to be promulgated regulations to be prepared by FINCEN (the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network), a Treasury entity. Those proposed regulations will be subject to “notice and comment” rule making. Notice and comment rule making should require FINCEN to respond to concerns raised in public comments before the regulations are finalized. That process, which will probably not happen until later in the year, will be an opportunity to ask FINCEN to define “antiquities” narrowly as possible and to adopt high monetary thresholds before bureaucratic requirements kick in.
• having the regulations vary by the size of the business, the size of the
transaction being conducted, and whether the transaction takes place in the
United States or elsewhere;
• whether the regulations should focus on the high-value trade in antiquities in
a different way than lower-value objects;
• whether the antiquities dealer must identify the actual purchaser of an
antiquity when the seller or buyer is working through an agent or intermediary;
• the need, if any, to identify trade seller or buyers, such as other dealers,
advisors, consultants, or other persons trading in antiquities as a business;
• whether volume or financial thresholds should apply in determining whether an
antiquities dealer or a specific transaction should be regulated; and,
• whether certain transactions should be exempted from the regulations.
These guidelines were added to the Maloney Amendment during the Conference with the Senate. Presumably, they are the result of Global Heritage Alliance and other advocacy groups for collectors and the businesses of the antiquities and art trade raising these issues with Senate Finance.
The law also requires a further study to be conducted by Treasury solely with input from law enforcement agencies as to whether the larger art market should also be regulated.
Despite some effort to require FINCEN to focus its efforts on more problematic actors and transactions, this law represents a triumph of fear mongering over fact and intensive lobbying, chiefly by archaeological advocacy groups with an axe to grind against private collecting and the trade, along with AML compliance contractors looking for a new line of business. This effort was led by the Antiquities Coalition, a well-funded and politically connected archaeological advocacy organization, and AML Right Source, an AML compliance contractor. Their advocacy is also reflected in the New York Times Coverage of the issue: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/01/arts/design/antiquities-market-regulation.html It is indeed unfortunate that neither Congress nor the Times paid much attention to serious questions raised about the claims behind this advocacy: https://culturalpropertynews.org/rand-corp-report-demolishes-assumptions-on-antiquities-and-terror/
Thursday, October 29, 2020
Summary of Oct. 27, 2020 CPAC Meeting to Accept Public Comments on Proposed MOU with Nigeria and Proposed Renewals with Bolivia and Greece
On October 27, 2020, the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (“CPAC”) met to consider a proposed MOU with Nigeria and proposed renewals with Bolivia and Greece. The following members were present: (1) Stefan Passantino (Chairman- Public); (2) Steven Bledsoe (Public); (3) Karol Wight (Museums); (4) J.D. Demming (Public); (5) Ricardo St. Hilaire (Archaeology); (6) Joan Connelly (Archaeology) and (7) Anthony Wisniewski (Collector-Sale of International Cultural Property). Allison Davis, CPAC’s State Department Executive Director, and Catherine Foster, a Cultural Heritage Center staffer, were also present.
In advance of this meeting, there was a major shake-up on CPAC. The following Obama appointees were removed
or resigned: (1) Adele
Chatfield-Taylor (Public); (2) James Reep (Public); and (3) Lothar Von
Falkenhausen (Archaeology). At the
last CPAC public session to discuss a renewal the MOU with Italy, von
Falkenhausen told ancient coin collectors (who were represented at the meeting)
that he believed that they should take up another hobby. It is unclear if this comment had anything to
do with his departure. President Trump
appointed Messrs. Bledsoe and Demming to replace Ms. Chatfield-Taylor and Mr.
Reep. One archaeological slot remains
unfilled.
Chairman
Passantino welcomed the speakers. He indicated that the Committee
had read all the comments, and that given the large number of speakers, each
would only be allowed 3 minutes to focus on points most important to them. Chairman Passantino called on speakers who had
put in papers on Nigeria first, then speakers who had written about Bolivia,
and finally Greece. There was some
overlap because some speakers put in papers on more than one topic. He deferred questions to the end to be
assured everyone who registered to speak would be heard.
The following individuals
provided public comments: (1) Tess Davis (Antiquities Coalition); (2)
Brian Daniels (Archaeological Institute of America); (3) Kathleen Bickford
(Northwestern University); (4) Leslye Amede Obiora (Institute for Research on African Women, Children and
Culture); (5) Kate FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural Policy); (6) Donna Yates
(Maastricht University); (7) Maria Bruno (Dickinson College); (8) Kris Lane
(Tulane University); (9) Daniel Sedwick (International Association of
Professional Numismatists); (10) Peter Tompa (Global Heritage Alliance); (11) Christos Tsirogiannis
(University of Aarhus, Denmark); (12) Kim Shelton (Berkley); (13) Nathan Elkins
(Baylor University); (14) Ute Wartenberg-Kagan (Columbia University); (15)
Morag Kersel (DePaul University); (16) Dmitry Narkesis (Columbia University); (17)
Rocco Dibenedetto (Hahn Loeser- Association of Art Museum Directors); (18)
Douglas Mudd (American Numismatic Association); and (19) Randolph Myers (Ancient
Coin Collectors Guild).
Tess Davis (TD) indicates that the Antiquities Coalition works with
partners in the art market, the U.S. Government and Foreign Governments. She believes import restrictions help protect
the legitimate market. She denies that
import restrictions act as embargoes because they allow listed material into
the country that has been documented as being outside the country for which
restrictions were provided before those restrictions went into place. She also believes that U.S. customs should
not accept export certificates from other EU governments where objects have
been listed for specific EU countries like Greece. She notes certain EU countries do require
export permits within the EU despite the general free circulation of goods within
the EU.
The
Antiquities Coalition’s written comments can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS-2020-0036-0077 (Bolivia)
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS-2020-0036-0080 (Greece)
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS-2020-0036-0076 (Nigeria)
Brian Daniels (BD) focuses on the Fourth Determination under the
Cultural Property Implementation Act (“CPIA”), regarding the international
exchange of cultural patrimony. He notes
that Nigeria has sent several exhibits to the United States. Most recently, the Block Museum of Art at
Northwestern University (Greater Chicago) hosted the 2019 exhibition, Caravans
of Gold, Fragments in Time: Art, Culture, and Exchange across Medieval Saharan
Africa, which displayed the scope of Saharan trade and the shared history of West
Africa, the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe from the eighth to sixteenth
centuries. This exhibition involved significant loans from Nigeria. It was
slated to travel to the National Museum of African Art, Smithsonian Institution
(Washington, D.C.) in 2020, but its opening has been postponed due to COVID-19. He indicates that both Bolivia and Greece
have been similarly generous in sending exhibitions to the United States.
The
Archaeological Institute of America’s written comments can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS-2020-0036-0083
Kathleen Bickford (KB) discusses
her role as curator for the Caravans of Gold exhibit for the Block Museum of
Art at Northwestern University. She
states Nigeria's request meets all criteria for determinations in favor of
cultural property protections. Important cultural patrimony, ranging from
fragments to complete objects, continue to emerge from archaeological sites
within the country, while objects of more recent date remain within communities
and at royal courts, as well as in homes, shrines, and storehouses. These
objects are under severe threat from pillage and theft. Despite efforts to
curtail the international market for archaeological and traditional objects
from Nigeria, including tighter requirements on provenance among North American
museums and accelerating debates about the restitution of African objects from
the colonial period, there continues to be a high demand in the international
art market for cultural heritage objects from Nigeria. She also indicates
there are many fakes on the market.
Finally, she notes that there is much violence in Nigeria and that
cultural heritage is a unifying force.
KB’s
written comments can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS-2020-0036-0046
Leslye Amede Obiora (LAO) has been a Professor of Law in
the United States since 1992. She
previously served as the Minister of Mines and Steel Development for the
Federal Republic of Nigeria. She states
cultural heritage issues are human rights issues. LAO indicates there is a
cabal of powerful people involved in looting in Nigeria. She believes a MOU
will help bolster civil society, and she wonders why it has taken so long for
the United States to offer one to Nigeria.
Kate FitzGibbon (KFG) indicates that the Committee for Cultural Policy and
Global Heritage Alliance applaud efforts to help Nigeria address looting, but
question whether sufficient evidence has been submitted to support entering
into a MOU. There are many Nigerian
materials on the market and in private and museum collections, but the vast majority
of these materials left Nigeria decades ago.
Most of this material was removed during the colonial era. Material produced after 1945 is considered
touristic in nature. There is little in
the record about Nigerian self-help measures.
KG is concerned that this request is about closing the barn door after
the horses have already left.
The CCP’s and GHA’s written comments on the
Nigerian MOU may be found here: https://culturalpropertynews.org/nigeria-support-cultural-expansion-not-art-blockade/
The CCP’s written comments about the Greek MOU can be found here:
https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2020-0036-0075
Donna Yates (DY) indicates that she has tracked illicit Colonial and
Republican era Bolivian artifacts. She indicates that while there appears to be
less thefts from churches now, it takes years for this material to surface on
the market. DY also indicates there is
absolutely no social, educational, or scientific benefit to allowing a market
for illegally obtained Bolivian cultural objects to exist in the United States.
The destruction of the original contexts of these objects in the looting
process annihilates our ability to conduct any meaningful archaeological
analysis on them. The violent removal of sacred art from churches tears the
very fabric that has held small and indigenous communities together for
centuries, reducing cultural diversity and survival.
DY’s
written comments can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS-2020-0036-0010
Maria Bruno (MB) states that Bolivian patrimony remains in jeopardy
from pillage through the illicit excavation of archaeological sites with the
purpose of selling desired objects. Bolivian governmental and volunteer
organizations work tirelessly to protect archaeological sites from destruction
and to educate the public on the value of preserving their ancient past. Local communities also work together to
protect their local patrimony from destruction as the revenue generated from
tourism to the site provides jobs and contributes to the local pride.
MB’s
written comments can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS-2020-0036-0068
Kris Lane (KL) shares the archaeologists’ concerns about looting,
but thinks coins should be treated differently than other objects, like
historic records. While archives should
not be removed from their place of origin, items like coins were not state
property and were intended to circulate far from where they were made. This is certainly the case for coins struck
in Bolivia. The Bolivian gold escudo and
silver peso were international currencies.
They were even legal tender in the United States before the Civil
War.
Dan Sedwick (DS) indicates that IAPN supports Bolivian efforts to
restore the Potosi mint. DS provides
some history. Bolivian coins are very
common. DS has always had some in
inventory. Minting in Bolivia begins
with hand-struck silver coins in 1573-4 under Spanish dominion and continues
through early Republic times starting in 1825 to present day. Throughout these
four-and-a-half centuries of minting, most of the coins were the property of
rich men back in Spain, not the people of Bolivia, and these coins traveled far
from the current boundaries of Bolivia, in fact to all the continents of the
earth except Antarctica. DS also notes that IAPN’s submission shows that
current Bolivian laws do not explicitly treat coins as cultural heritage. As for Greece, DS states this renewal should
not be an excuse to expand current import restrictions to trade coins that circulated
around the ancient world.
The
International Association of Professional Numismatists’ and the Professional
Numismatists Guild’s written comments can be found here:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS-2020-0036-0067 (Bolivia)
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS-2020-0036-0024 (Greece)
Peter Tompa (PT) discusses both the Greek and Bolivian MOUs. First, as to the proposed renewal of the
Greek MOU, he states that this renewal is no excuse to expand current import
restrictions. Those restrictions purport to only apply to coin types
that circulated locally in Greece in order to comply with the statutory
requirements found in 19 U.S.C. § 2601. That provision requires that
such coins were “first discovered within” and are therefore subject to Greek
export controls. Under no circumstances should CPAC recommend
expanding those restrictions to widely circulating trade coins which can be
found most anywhere. Second, CPAC should
recognize the obvious ramifications of Greece’s membership in the European
Union (“E.U.”). Coins on the current designated list may be traded outside the
E.U. with or without an export license according to the local law of Greece’s
sister E.U. members. CPAC, the State Department and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (“CBP”) should honor these E.U. export controls, which, after all,
are also binding on Greece as an E.U. member.
Finally, he urges that archaeologists be asked to do their own part
too. CPAC should ensure archaeological missions pay diggers a fair
living wage and that they be required to file site security plans which take
advantage of modern electronic surveillance technology.
PT’s
full oral statement can be found here: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2020/10/this-is-no-time-to-expand-restrictions.html
GHA’s
written comments on the Greek MOU can be found here:
https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2020-0036-0012
GHA’s
and CCP’s written comments on the Bolivian MOU can be found here:
https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2020-0036-0011
Christos Tsirogiannis
(CT) has worked with law
enforcement, including the DA in New York City and U.S. Homeland Security, to
repatriate artifacts to Greece and other countries. He is also working on a way to detect looted
antiquities using new technology.
Recently, Greek police broke up a antiquities smuggling operation in
Patras, Greece, that had coins and other artifacts.
CT’s
written comments can be found here:
https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2020-0036-0088
Kim Shelton (KS) excavates at Nemea.
She has spent sleepless nights in fear of looters. Economic austerity has made the problem
worse. Coin evidence is important to her
work.
Nathan Elkins (NE) supports restrictions on all ancient coins that
circulated in quantity in Greece, including trade coins like Athenian
Tetradrachms, which currently are not restricted. Looting results in the loss
of important contextual information.
Coins can be important dating tools.
They helped date the ruins of an ancient Synagogue he helped excavate in
Israel.
NE’s
written comments can be found here:
https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2020-0036-0028
Ute Wartenberg-Kagan
(UWK) supports restrictions on all
ancient coins that circulated in quantity in Greece. Coins are among the most frequently looted
items. Once taken out of their archaeological context, some of the historical
and economic meaning is often lost. Sadly, numismatists are used to working
with coins that have no archaeological context, and the fact that there is a
finite number of coins in the ground makes their protection all the more
important. Unfortunately, the trend is going very much in the wrong direction,
and here modern technology enables looting on a scale that has not been seen
before. Ever more sophisticated and cheaper metal detectors allow more people
to dig up coins. Online sales via eBay, vcoins, Amazon, or in Facebook groups,
allow the sale of staggering numbers of coins. On any given day, over 100,000
ancient coins and coin lots are for sale on eBay. MOUs should be considered
friends of collectors because they help keep looted material off the market.
UWK’s
written comments can be found here:
https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2020-0036-0078
Morag Kersel (MK) says she was interviewing a collector who had a
Cyclodelic figurine which the collector said was worth $1 million. He indicated now that ancient art is an
investment. MK indicates that the high
prices for ancient art helps stimulate looting.
Dmitry Narkesis (DN) has witnessed looting at archaeological digs. Looting is real problem that impacts
archaeology. It takes a lot of time and
effort to try to fight it.
Rocco Dibenedetto (RD) states that the AAMD does not oppose the Greek MOU,
but Greece should be held to account for its obligations under Art. II of the
current agreement. One of those
undertakings is to facilitate loans of materials to U.S. museums. Despite Greece’s promises to do so, that has
not happened. The designated list should
also be scrutinized to ensure that it only covers archaeological objects over
250 years old.
The
AAMD’s written comments can be found here:
https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2020-0036-0072
Douglas Mudd (DM) states that current import restrictions have hurt
the ANA’s educational mission because foreign scholars have been unwilling to
bring their collections to the United States for fear of them being seized by
U.S. customs. Despite import
restrictions being renewed over and again, looting remains a problem which
suggests they are not working. DM states
that a new paradigm needs to be considered given their failure, one based on
Britain’s Portable Antiquities Scheme, which encourages people to report finds
with the prospect of a cash award for any coins kept by the government. While expense is an issue, perhaps aid from
wealthy countries can help get these programs going.
The
ANA’s written comments can be found here:
https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2020-0036-0023
Randolph Myers (RM) states there can be no dispute ancient coins
circulated in great numbers far from where they were found. This is detailed in a report appended to the
ACCG’s written comments. This is
significant because as recognized by a U.S. District Court import restrictions
are only appropriate on archaeological objects both first discovered within and
subject to the export control of a specific country.
The
ACCG’s written comments can be found here:
https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2020-0036-0003
Question and Answer
Period
Karol Wight
asks LAO about the situation in
Nigeria. LAO states Nigeria is under
siege, but that is no reason not to enter into a MOU on its behalf. She again suggests a MOU is a human rights
issue.
Anthony
Wisniewski asks
TD and DY if they receive foreign government money. (The State Department recently issued a
directive calling for the disclosure of such information. See https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/13/trump-think-tanks-foreign-funding-429209)
TD states that the Antiquities Coalition does not receive such
funding. DY indicates she receives such
funding from the European Union. (She currently
holds a €1.5 million European Research Council grant to study the illicit
trafficking of cultural objects.)
Anthony
Wisniewski asks
UWK if it is unremarkable that Roman or Byzantine coins from the
Thessalonica mint can be found in large numbers in today’s Turkey and Albania. She agrees with this statement.
Joan
Connelly asks KS about
what coins have been found at Nemea. KS
indicates that coins from many different Greek cities have been found there
probably because it was the center for sacred games. They also find many different coins at a
Christian sanctuary on the site.
Karol Wight
asks KB if she has had any
other interaction with Nigerian scholars outside her work on exhibits. KB says all her work has been on
exhibits.
J.D.
Demming asks DM
to elaborate on his ideas to disincentivize looting. DM states that the U.K.’s
Portable Antiquities Scheme incentivizes people to report their finds. Perhaps there can be a global antiquities
scheme with funding from richer countries.
Ricardo St.
Hilaire asks LAO about
whether she saw any parallels between looting and illegal mining. LAO says Nigeria recognized that it takes a
thief to catch a thief so it invested resources to help illicit miners become
clean. She refers to DM’s statements
about PAS and says there may be parallels.
Thursday, October 22, 2020
Trump Administration Finally Tilts CPAC Away from Archaeology Over All Perspective
Very late in his first (and if polls are to be believed perhaps his only) term, President Trump has finally tilted CPAC away from an archaeology over all perspective. Before he left office, President Obama loaded up CPAC with archaeological supporters in slots supposedly representing the interests of the the public, museums, and even the trade. Now, slots for the public and trade have been filled with Trump supporters who appear to come from business friendly backgrounds. Coincidentally or not, three (3) Obama appointees who recently either resigned or were removed left CPAC around the same time a coalition of ten (10) advocacy and trade groups wrote the State Department to express serious concerns about the extremist views found on CPAC. That letter provided as an example the statement of one of those individuals, now departed from CPAC, who told coin collectors testifying before CPAC that as far as he was concerned, they should take up another hobby. These became his "famous last words."
Monday, February 24, 2020
US State Department Approves "Emergency Import Restrictions" on Behalf of Yemen's Saudi Backed Government
Effective Feb. 5, 2020, import restrictions have been imposed on a wide variety of Yemeni archaeological and ethnological artifacts, including coins and books and manuscripts, which would cover religious artifacts of Yemen's displaced Jewish population.
The list of coins is extensive. It includes:
(Ironically, both Martin Huth and Stephen Album's firm have expressed concerns about import restrictions on coins to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) in the past. Yet, here their scholarly works on these coins are being cited as a basis for the restrictions!)
Import restrictions have been particularly hard on coin collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade because most collector's coins (which typically are of limited value) lack detailed provenance histories necessary for legal import. This has greatly damaged the legitimate trade in such items with fellow collectors, especially from within the E.U.
Jewish groups will feel particularly aggrieved by the State Department's treatment of their concerns. As has been the case with other MOU's made by the Obama and Trump State Departments on behalf of other authoritarian MENA regimes, import restrictions on behalf of Yemen contain no explicit exemption for artifacts once owned by Yemen's displaced Jewish population. That means the restrictions on books , manuscripts and other archaeological and ethnological artifacts also apply to Torahs and other personal property (like jewelry) that had to be abandoned when Yemeni Jews were forced from the country. As these groups see it, this is tantamount to U.S. State Department recognition of the rights of Yemen and other authoritarian Arab regimes to their personal and communal religious property.
There also is the obvious question about whether these import restrictions will really promote "cultural property protection." Pursuant to the CPIA, any artifacts U.S. Customs and Border Protection seize will be sent to Yemen, a country involved in a multi-party civil war, and be given over to the custody of a government which itself has been accused of complicity in bombing cultural sites.
Finally, there is an important issue of process. The short comment period allowed before the CPAC meeting to address Yemen's request (which encompassed important Jewish Holidays) raised suspicions at the time whether the decision was already a "done deal." Certainly, there was plenty of evidence of lobbying by the Antiquities Coalition, an archaeological advocacy group with ties to authoritarian MENA regimes, on Yemen's behalf. Moreover, just recently, the U.S. Embassy in Jordan seems to have confirmed what Cultural Property Observer has long feared- that the State Department bureaucracy views CPAC as a mere rubber stamp for agreements already worked out in advance among the archaeological lobby and the State Department and source country bureaucracies. Hopefully, going forward, CPAC's new Chairman and its new members will do their utmost to instead ensure CPAC sticks to its mandate to offer the State Department decision maker useful advice on whether or not to agree to a MOU based on inputs from all stake holders-- not just those associated with the archaeological lobby who already have strong relationships with the State Department Cultural Heritage Center.
Certainly, CPAC and Trump Administration political appointees need to ask themselves whether the State Department is providing a good example to MENA governments about what good governance and democracy mean. They also need to consider how the actions of the State Department are impacting ethnic and religious minorities, American small business owners, museum professionals and collectors, all of whom will be voting in the upcoming Presidential election.
