Time to Consider a New Paradigm Which Facilitates Lawful Trade

This is what I said more or less at yesterday's  CPAC session to consider a renewal of a MOU with Italy.  I hope to have a summary of that meeting posted soon.

          Thank you for listening today to Global Heritage Alliance’s concerns about the MOU with Italy.  I am also happy to answer questions about the GHA’s and IAPN’s papers on both Italy and Colombia, which I authored.

            Current events, including mobs tearing down historic statues and Erdogans’s conversion of Hagia Sophia from a museum to a mosque, as well as the reaction of archaeological advocacy groups and some of their prominent members, raise the fair question whether lobbying on behalf of foreign governments directed at suppressing market demand is really about conservation, or about exercises of power and control.

            That in turn suggests that it is time for this Committee to consider a new paradigm, one which focuses not on suppressing all trade of every conceivable artifact with embargoes, but which instead facilitates lawful trade in objects, especially those legally available for sale within the country seeking restrictions. 

            There is no better place to start than this renewal.  Legal trade in cultural goods of Italian types has already been embargoed for 20 years.  During this period, Italy’s Carabinieri have mounted a successful campaign against looters.  However, largely due to the sheer number of historic sites, lack of funding and corruption, the Italian State has failed to preserve all the cultural heritage already in its care.  As set forth in the IAPN’s study, this is particularly true for small, commonplace items like coins. 

            What does GHA request?  First, we join hundreds of coin collectors to ask that under no circumstances should the designated list be expanded, particularly to late Roman Republican and Imperial coins.  As set forth in IAPN’s papers, only 2.8% of Roman Imperial coin hoards containing coins from Italian mints are found within Italy itself making it impossible to fairly consider them Italian cultural patrimony.  We also believe that the CPIA mandates that the current Italian designated list needs to be reformed to ensure it only covers items only found in Italy.  For coins, this means—using the Greek designated list as a model—that at least larger denomination coins which circulated in international trade should be delisted.

            We also request that any renewal be conditioned on Italy immediately facilitating the licit export of any item legally available for sale within Italy itself.  Despite solemn promises to do so under each of the prior MOU’s, Italy has actually made it harder to export ancient coins of the sort openly and legally sold within Italy itself.
           Finally, this Committee should also facilitate lawful trade by requiring US Customs to accept legal exports from sister EU countries as legal imports of items on the Italian designated list into the United States.  As set forth in our papers, such a modification of the MOU is not only consistent with the UNESCO Convention, but Italian law.  Thank you.

Please Help Save Roman Imperial Coin Collecting

The State Department has announced that Italy has requested a renewal of its current Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with the United States.  That MOU first authorized import restrictions on Italian cultural artifacts from the Pre-Classical, Classical and Imperial Roman periods in 2001.  The restrictions were extended 2006 and again in 2011 and 2016.  The 2011 renewal added new import restrictions on Greek, early Republican and Provincial coins from the early Imperial Period.  Now, the archaeological lobby, which actively opposes private collecting, has indicated it will press for import restrictions on Roman Imperial Coins—the heart of ancient coin collecting—as well.   Accordingly, if one feels strongly about their continued ability to collect Roman Imperial and other historical coins and artifacts, they should comment on the regulations.gov website.  Why?  Because silence will only be spun as acquiesce.  So, serious collectors should oppose yet another renewal as unnecessary and detrimental to the appreciation of Italian culture and the people to people contacts collecting brings.  Moreover, they should clearly state under no circumstances should import restrictions be extended to Roman Imperial coins. 

Further information about the July 22, 2020 Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) meeting and how to comment before the July 8, 2020 deadline can be found here:  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/06/08/2020-12313/cultural-property-advisory-committee-notice-of-meeting  The Federal Register notice also has a green "submit a formal comment button" which should allow you to comment directly.

A.  Background for Coin Collectors

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

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

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

      B.  What You Can Do

            

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

            

For comments, either comment through the Federal Register notice above or use http://www.regulations.gov, enter the docket [DOS-2020-0022] and follow the prompts to submit your comments.  Alternatively, click this link and click on the Blue “Comment Now” Button which should pull up a screen that allows you to comment https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS_FRDOC_0001-5233 (Please note comments may be posted only UNTIL July 8, 2020 at 11:59 PM.)

            

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

C.  What Should You Say?

What should you say?  Provide a brief, polite explanation about why the renewal should be denied or limited.  Question CPAC why it’s necessary to renew this MOU yet again when looting is under control and the real jeopardy to Italy’s cultural patrimony comes from poor stewardship by the Italian State.  Indicate how restrictions will negatively impact your business and/or the cultural understanding and people to people contacts collecting provides.   Coin collectors should add that it’s typically impossible to assume a particular coin (especially Roman ones) was “first discovered within” and “subject to the export control” of Italy.  In fact, by far most Roman Imperial coins are found not in Italy, but on the Empire’s frontiers.  You might add that Italian historical coins are very common and widely and legally available for sale elsewhere, and point out the absurdity of restricting coins freely available in Italy itself.  Finally, you don’t have to be an American citizen to comment—you just need to be concerned enough to spend twenty or so minutes to express your views on-line.  Comments from Italian collectors are particularly welcome! 

Personalized comments are best, but feel free to use this submission as a model: 

Dear CPAC:

Enough is enough. This MOU should be allowed to lapse. Its negative impacts on collecting and the appreciation of Italian culture and people to people contacts collecting brings now far outweigh any benefits. At a minimum, please free all ancient coins from restriction. Such coins are openly and legally available for sale within Italy itself. It makes absolutely no sense to continue to restrict American access to what Italians themselves have enjoyed since the Renaissance. Finally, please do not recommend new restrictions on Roman Imperial Coins. As the products of a great empire, these coins circulated throughout Europe, the Middle East and beyond. They “belong” not to Italy, but to us all.

Sincerely,

xxx

Addendum (July 10, 2020):  The State Department has announced that it has extended the deadline for comments set forth in the Federal Register from July 8 to July 14.  Cynics will wonder whether this change is to allow time for the archaeological lobby to gather more comments.  As of July 9, there were 388 comments received and 72 comments posted, of which only 2 supported the MOU with Italy.

Coin Auctioneer with Archaeological Background Seeks to Rediscover Old Provenances with the Help of Facial Recognition Technology

                 On May 30, 2020, Dr. Jonas Flueck of Ex-Numis (https://www.ex-numis.com/page/about.html) and Lugdunam International Auction House (https://www.lugdunum-numismatik.com/en/) explained his use of facial recognition technology to rediscover old provenances for ancient coins.  United States import restrictions imposed on ancient coins, new regulations in Germany and the EU, and claims that terrorists have been selling ancient coins to fund their activities have all made the rediscovery of old provenances more important than before.

                Dr. Flueck prefaced his talk with a discussion of different types of provenances.  Provenance is generally comparable to the concept of chain of custody.    The International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art has developed useful concepts to explain different forms of provenance.  “Hearsay provenance” is the weakest form of provenance.  This is a vague provenance, usually restricted to a date or location.  An example is “from an old Swiss collection.”  The only thing that backs up this provenance is the good faith of the dealer in question.  “Named provenance” is somewhat stronger.  It is a provenance linked to a specific collection or person.  The problem is that this kind of provenance cannot always be verified.  The strongest form of provenance is “documented provenance” linked to a specific sale or other documentary material like invoices or export licenses.  It is this last, strongest type of provenance which Ex-Numis seeks to reestablish.

                Until now, dealers and collectors have had to conduct manual searches through hundreds of old auction catalogues to recapture old provenances.  Without some suspicion where a coin may have appeared in the past, this is virtually an impossible undertaking.   The genius of Dr. Flueck’s system is that he has spent considerable time, effort and money scanning thousands of auction catalogues and then applying facial recognition technology to compare coins which are submitted to his service to those in old catalogues in order to recover old provenances.   These include some 130,000 coins listed in catalogues pre-dating 1970, the date of the UNESCO Convention.

                Still, the system has some serious limitations that help explain why the vast majority of coins without a recoverable provenance are not the products of recent, illicit digs.  First, before widespread use of digital photography in the 1990’s, it was time consuming and difficult to take photographs of coins.  For that reason, the vast majority of coins sold at auction or in fixed price lists were not photographed.  Second, although Ex-Numis has recently sought to add fix price lists to its database, many of these lists were only produced in small numbers and are no longer easily available today.  Lastly, the system does not capture more recent provenances created during the digital era; however, such coins can be found reviewing commercially available databases, like Coin Archives, AC Search, Sixbid Archives or CNG’s Research page. 

                Notwithstanding these limitations, when a match is found, it can not only detail lost provenances but whether a coin has been altered over time by cleaning or tooling.  It can also provide some assurance that a coin was on the market before the advent of highly sophisticated fakes produced with the use of laser cut coin dies.  Conversely, it can prompt concerns about authenticity if a coin was previously withdrawn from auction. 

                Recovering a provenance can also establish a particular coin was formally in a prestigious collection, like that of Prof. Pozzi and Sir Arthur Evans, a famous archaeologist.   Moreover, it can show coins travelling internationally between the United States and Europe.  Finally, it can show how prices change over time for specific coins.

                Archaeologists and others not familiar with ancient coin collecting often ask why so many ancient coins lack a provenance.  First, most coins in the past auctions were a very small part of the market.  Most coins were instead purchased at coin fairs and in coin stores with an invoice, but one which did not picture the coin.  Second, because provenances were not that important, they were often not included in auction catalogues, except for coins from famous collections.  Third, before the advent of modern facial recognition technology, it was very time consuming to search for old auction provenances by reviewing old catalogues.

                Dr. Flueck became interested in old auction catalogues when he began work at a Swiss auction house.  Over time, he has collected a large number of auction catalogues, which he married to facial imaging technology.  This technology works best for coins with irregular flans, which is common in the Greek series.  It works less well with coins with regular flans made in quantity, which includes most Roman Republican and Imperial coins.  It is also difficult to match coin images in old catalogues produced with the use of plaster casts.

                The process for developing his system was very time consuming.  First, he collected a large number of catalogues based on lists of historic catalogues.    He then cut out individual pages and created PDF pages and then pages individual coins.   He ended up scanning approximately 5,000 catalogues to create his database.  These catalogues date from the late 19^th c. to about 2005, when most catalogues went digital. The auctions are from around the world of ancient, chiefly Greek and Roman coins.

                Since 2006, he has rediscovered more than 5,000 lost provenances, which he hopes do not get lost again.  It is easier for the system to locate coins with irregular flans.  It is more difficult to locate coin images with regular flans, which includes all early coin images made by use of plaster casts.

                Going forward, Dr. Flueck hopes to add known forgeries and stolen coins to the database.   Such coins can then be removed from the market and stolen coins returned to their rightful owner.

                Dr. Flueck then answered several questions.  He was first asked if his system could be used for Greek vases.  He believes a similar system could be applied to Greek vases if funding is found.

                Dr. Flueck was then asked if it is harder to find provenances for Roman coins because more Greek coins in the past appeared at auction.  Dr. Flueck does not have statistics for that because he searches for Greek coin provenances far more frequently.  He does note however that it is more difficult to find matches or Roman coins because of their more regular flans.

                Dr. Flueck has not been asked to provide expert legal testimony, but he has provided provenance information used for export and import paperwork.

                Dr. Flueck asked how fast the database is growing.  He indicates he is at a point where it is difficult to acquire new catalogues.  He hopes to add reference works providing provenance, major collections that were dispersed privately and fixed price lists.  Of course, this is also very time consuming.  It is noted there is a dearth of published provenances from the late 1930’s to 1950’s due to WWII and its immediate aftermath.

                The oldest provenance Dr. Flueck has traced is from the late 19^th century.  The most valuable is for a Dekadrachm of Syracuse.

                Fixed price lists are important sources of provenance information from the 1950’s-1990’s.  Dr. Flueck has a complete set of Münzen & Medaillen and Credit Suisse price lists.  Bank Leu and Hess also produced some rare lists from this period.  Dr. Flueck is missing American price lists from the 1960’s-1970’s from his database.

                There is also a discussion of the American Numismatic Society card file.  Hopefully, this can be digitized in the future. The Schaefer archive will also be a source of provenance information for Roman Republican coins.

                The database depends on what was considered an “ancient coin” in the auction catalogues.  As a result, there is uneven coverage of Byzantine or barbaric coins.  Byzantine coins are typically difficult to match because the flan shapes are so similar.

                There is a discussion of the 130,000 coins in the database with pre-1970 provenance. Dr. Flueck notes that this relatively low number is attributable to the fact that so few coins were photographed during this time period and so many were sold outside of auctions.  Even for auctions, most coins were merely listed, not pictured.  Typically only about a quarter of coins may be pictured.

                The Bronx Coin Club and the Ancient Numismatic Society of Washington, D.C. co-sponsored Dr. Flueck’s presentation.  Dr. Flueck’s Zoom Video Talk can be found here:  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn_hw9C-o4M&feature=youtu.be .  For more about Ex-Numis, see its website, here: https://www.ex-numis.com/page/the-idea.html .

CPAC Meets to Consider MOU with Costa Rica

On April 15, 2020, the U.S. Cultural Property Advisory Committee (“CPAC”) met to consider a proposed MOU with Costa Rica.   The following CPAC members were present via videoconferencing: (1) Stefan Passantino (Public); (2) Adele Chatfield-Taylor (Public); (3) Karol Wight (Museums); (4) Nancy C. Wilkie (Archaeology); (5) Ricardo A. St. Hilaire (Archaeology); (6) Lothar Von Falkenhausen (Archaeology); and  (7) Anthony Wisniewski (Collector-Sale of International Cultural Property).

Chairman Passatino welcomed the speakers.  He indicated that the Committee had read all the comments, and that speakers would be allowed 5 minutes to focus on points most important to them.  After all the speakers were finished, he would open up the floor to questions. The order of speakers was as follows:  (1) Tess Davis, Antiquities Coalition; (2) Peter Tompa, Global Heritage Alliance and Committee for Cultural Policy; (3) Dan Sedwick, International Association of Professional Numismatists, and (4) Kate FitzGibbon.

Tess Davis indicated her organization has partnered with both the U.S. and foreign governments to protect cultural patrimony.  As Ms. Davis indicated that the Archaeological Institute of America and Costa Rican authorities had or would address three threshold requirements for a MOU, she focused her attention on the fourth “concerted international response” requirement for similar restrictions by other market nations. She appeared to be arguing that the legally mandated requirements of the Cultural Property Implementation Act were moot. The signing of the 1970 UNESCO Convention defined all signatories as treating objects exported without permission from source countries as illicit. Similarly, changes in EU law requiring export permits for lawful entry into the EU market showed the widespread global perspective that without a valid export permit, objects should be treated as illicit without proof that they were unlawfully exported - noting however that the EU rules were still being finalized.  She noted new laws in Germany prohibiting import without an export permit. She stated, inaccurately, that the UK in 2003 passed a law that required lawful proof of export for entry of antiquities. (The UK law only blocks entry of objects illegally exported after 2003 and has been very rarely used.) She also stated that only Switzerland and the United States, of all market nations, still require nations seeking protection to have a bilateral agreement.

Peter Tompa asked the Committee to focus on following the law.  He first focused on the CPIA’s requirement that the cultural patrimony of Costa Rica must be in jeopardy. He noted that there was considerable evidence of historical looting in Costa Rica, but he had been unable to find any references to current looting and, indeed, the AIA’s letter did not discuss current looting either. He then suggested that CPAC condition any MOU on Costa Rica considering the institution of a Portable Antiquities Scheme, site security measures at archaeological sites, and fair living wages for archaeological workers.  Next, he agreed with the Antiquities Coalition’s letter stating that the CPIA contemplated focused, prospective import restrictions on items illicitly exported after the effective date of any regulations, but noted that in practice U.S. Customs and Border Protection enforced CPIA restrictions as embargoes on all items on designated lists imported into the U.S. after the effective date of regulations, which is far broader.  He also noted that restrictions were particularly devastating to collectors of low value items like coins that often lack an extensive trail of provenance documents.  Finally, he noted CPAC is responsible for advising Customs about the content of the designated list, and that items like coins should be excluded because Costa Rican coins do not meet the definition of archaeological objects.

Daniel Sedwick indicates while he is not aware of Costa Rica explicitly asking for import restrictions on coins, it is his understanding that restrictions have been granted in the past even without an explicit request.  In light of that possibility, he provided a brief numismatic history of Costa Rica. Costa Rica was part of colonial Spain until 1821, but coins were not struck in Costa Rica (specifically the San José mint) until 1828, when it was part of the Central American Republic. In the 1840s the Republic of Costa Rica resorted to countermarking previously issued coins for circulation until finally issuing its own coinage starting in 1849. From that point on, the coinage of Costa Rica has been manufactured at various mints from around the world, including the Philadelphia Mint in the U.S. and the Heaton Mint in Birmingham, England, in addition to its own San José mint.

He noted that because of this history it should be evident that coins of the sort that circulated in Costa Rica are not inherently archeological in nature. In addition, to his knowledge there have been no hoards or other potentially archeological circumstances in which Costa Rican coins were discovered. Therefore, as discussed in the paper submitted on IAPN’s behalf, Costa Rican coins are not “archaeological objects” because they are not typically found within the ground, nor do they meet the 250-year-old threshold. In fact, Costa Rica’s government condones free trade of its numismatic material, both within and outside the country. For example, the Banco Central in Costa Rica is known for selling off duplicates from its own collection on the open international market. The curator of the Numismatic Museum of the Banco Central, Manuel Chacón, told Mr. Sedwick that he did not believe the MOU could possibly apply to Costa Rican coins because, as he points out, coins are not considered cultural property within Costa Rican law, and trade in coins there is not restricted.

Sr. Chacón’s views are consistent with limitations on import controls under U.S. law. As Mr. Sedwick understand it, the point of the CPIA is to help countries enforce their export controls, so as a predicate for U.S. import restrictions, there must be explicit Costa Rican export controls. While Costa Rica has no provision he is aware of concerning the exportation of coins, coins are specifically mentioned in their tax law and in fact their importation is taxed. So if the numismatic trade is legal in Costa Rica, and the importation of coins is taxed, he asks why should we restrict the entry of such coins into the US even if such a request is on the table?

Mr. Sedwick then goes to question the idea that coins should be subject to restrictions where there is no evidence that they are the products of recent, illicit digs.

Kate Fitz Gibbon, who had earlier deferred time to Peter Tompa, said that the Committee's duty was to follow US, not foreign law, and illustrated its failure to do so by quoting Mark B. Feldman, the chief State Department negotiator for the US during the UNESCO Convention and the Congressional negotiations on the CPIA. 

She said, “there have been dramatic changes in U.S. law and practice that have established a very different policy balance than the one the State Department negotiated in the UNESCO Convention and that Congress approved in the implementing legislation.”

“Ultimately, most stakeholders agreed that carefully focused import controls were necessary to dampen market incentives for pillage of archeological sites and endorsed an international convention for that purpose provided it had no retroactive effect on existing American collections. The panel rejected the “blank-check” approach that would have implemented foreign export controls designed to keep art at home in favor of targeted import controls intended to discourage looting that threatened to destroy the record of human civilization while preserving imports of ancient art to promote study of ancient civilizations.”

“In recent years, the State Department has implemented the program vigorously believing strongly in its mission to help protect the cultural heritage of mankind and responding to the demands of foreign states.  This is commendable provided the Department complies with its statutory mandate.  The Executive is not authorized to establish import controls without international cooperation unless an emergency condition exists as defined by law, and Congress did not intend to authorize comprehensive import controls on all archeological objects exported from a country of origin without its permission.  The purpose of the program is not to keep art at home, but to help protect archeological resources from pillage; the findings required by the CCPIA were established for that purpose.”

Fitz Gibbon urged the Committee to follow US law and nothing else.

Question Period

Karol Wight asked Daniel Sedwick if IAPN only opposes import restrictions on coins and not a MOU.  Mr. Sedwick indicates that IAPN’s only concern is about coins and IAPN does not oppose a MOU.  She also asks him about his statement that the Banco Central has sold items.  He indicates that it is common for collectors as well as institutions to sell items to buy other ones or to upgrade.  Ms. Wight concurs there is nothing wrong with institutions deaccessioning objects for proper purposes.

Anthony Wisniewski asked Daniel Sedwick about the circulation of Spanish Colonial coins.  Mr. Sedwick affirmed that they were widely used as trade currency throughout the world including the United States (where they were legal tender until 1857) and Asia where merchants placed “chop marks” on them.  This makes it difficult to associate them with the cultural heritage of just one country.  Sedwick also indicated that the same applies to coins from the later Republican era, particularly "Cap and Ray" 8 Reales.

Anthony Wisniewski asked Peter Tompa about the term “two bits.”  He indicated it relates to a division of the Spanish Colonial 8 Reales coin into small change worth 25 cents.  He also indicated that this terminology as well as references in our literature show that Spanish Colonial coins are as much part of our cultural heritage as that of Latin America.

Rick St. Hilaire next asked Peter Tompa about self-help measures.  Tompa indicated that former CPAC Chair Marty Sullivan used to ask at most every meeting what countries could do better.  Tompa stated here CPAC should recommend that Costa Rica consider instituting a Portable Antiquity Recording Scheme, better site security and a fair living wage for archaeological workers.  He noted that UK authorities have in the past expressed an interest in providing technical assistance with regard to PAS. He also noted that site security is important to do for the long off season and much cheaper now due to cameras and other electronic security devices.  Finally, he indicated paying archaeological workers a fair living wage will help with site security because it will make it less likely that the impoverished people who work at archaeological sites will turn to looting in the long off season.  He cited David Matsuda’s article in Kate FitzGibbon’s book as a source as well as a recent study of site looting conducted by the Antiquities Coalition. 

Karol Wight asked Peter Tompa if his organizations oppose the MOU.  He indicated they do not; they simply want CPAC to follow the law before approving another MOU.

Ms. Wight also asked Tess Davis about any knowledge she has about drugs and antiquities being sold together in Costa Rica.  Ms. Davis indicated that has happened elsewhere, but she is an expert in South East Asia not Latin America.  She indicated  Donna Yates and another colleague should be contacted to provide such information.

Chairman Passatino allowed Tess Davis to add a few words.  In response to Peter Tompa, she indicated that Customs accepts a wide variety of information as proof of provenance, but, in any event, this is an enforcement issue for Customs, not CPAC.   The Chairman also allowed Tompa to respond.  He indicated that he gets phone calls and emails every few months from people who have had their collector coins detained or seized.  He also indicated that in one recent case, Customs seized coins legally exported from one EU country (Austria) based on a Greek designated list, even though Greece is bound to accept any export from Austria as a legal export under EU law. He also indicated that the issue should be CPAC’s problem because Customs refuses to meet on the issue, stating that it is bound by what the State Department wants. Further in this regard, Tompa noted he recently got a no relevant documents response from Customs related to MOUs with MENA countries even though the applicable regulations come from U.S. Customs.

Chairman Passatino then closed the meeting with promise that CPAC “checks the box” with regard to every finding it must make before recommending a MOU.

US State Department Approves "Emergency Import Restrictions" on Behalf of Yemen's Saudi Backed Government

The U.S. State Department has approved more import restrictions, this time with Yemen's Saudi backed government which stands accused of complicity in human rights abuses and the intentional bombing and shelling of Yemeni cultural sites.

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:

9. Coins—A reference book for ancient, pre-Islamic material in Yemen is M. Huth, Coinage of the Caravan Kingdoms: Ancient Arabian Coins from the Collection of Martin Huth, New York, 2010, pp. 68-152. A reference book for Islamic coinage to A.D. 1750 is S. Album, Checklist of Islamic Coins, Santa Rosa, 2011, pp. 116-127. Some of the best-known types are described below:

a. Ancient—In gold, silver, and bronze/copper, with units ranging from tetradrachms down to various fractional levels.

i. Earliest coins from Yemen are imitations of silver tetradrachms from Athens; feature a bust of Athena on the obverse and an owl on the reverse. The style of these imitations is distinctive, and they are usually marked with Arabian monograms or graffiti. Approximate date: 500 B.C. and later.

ii. Minaeans produced schematic imitations of the Athenian coinage; these coins have angular shapes, often triangular. Style is distinctive with monograms with Arabian letters. Approximate date: 200 B.C.

iii. Sabaeans struck distinctive local imitations of Athenian tetradrachms, with or without monograms, often with the curved symbol of Almaqah to the right of the owl, and of smaller units than previously. In the 1st century A.D., the head of Athena is replaced with a male bust resembling Augustus; owl on the reverse continues, as do monograms and the curved symbol. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D., a beardless male head appears on the coins with the curved symbol, and a facing bucranium (a bull's head) appears on the reverse with the curved symbol and monograms. Approximate date: 400 B.C.-A.D. 300.

iv. Himyarite coins feature beardless male heads on the obverse coupled with bearded male heads on the reverse. Various South Arabian monograms appear on the coins. Rulers include Yuhabirr, Karib'il Yehun`im Wattar, Amdan Yuhaqbid, Amdan Bayan, Tha'ran Ya`ub, Shamnar Yuhan`am, and unknown kings. Approximate date: 110 B.C.-A.D. 200.

v. Qatabians produced imitations of Athenian coins also in 2nd-4th century B.C., with or without monograms; distinctive style. From the 2nd century B.C. to the 2nd century A.D., head of Athena is replaced with male ruler portraits, including those of Yad'ab Dhubyan Yuhargib, Dhub, Hawfi`Amm Yuhan`am III, Shahr Yagul, Waraw'il Ghaylan, Shahr Hilal, Yad`ab Yanaf, and various unknown rulers. Reverses of early types have the owl, while later types have a second portrait on the reverse. Approximate date: 400 B.C.-A.D. 200.

vi. Bronze coins from Hadramawt have radiate male portraits in a circle on the obverse and a standing bull on the reverse; Arabian symbols appear. Approximate date: A.D. 200-400.

vii. Various South Arabian types imitate Athenian coins, Hellenistic Alexander tetradrachms with a head of Herakles on the obverse and Zeus seated on the reverse, and Ptolemaic coins with a cornucopia on the reverse. Style is distinctive; designs are accompanied by Arabian monograms.

b. Islamic Period—In gold, silver, and bronze, and including anonymous mints in Yemen, and coins of unknown rulers attributed to Yemen. Non-exclusive mints are the primary manufacturers of the listed coins, but there may be other production mints.

i. `Abbasid coins struck in gold, silver, and bronze, at non-exclusive mints San`a, Zabid, `Adan, Dhamar, `Aththar, and Baysh mints. Approximate date: A.D. 786-974.

ii. Coins of the Amirs of San`a, struck in gold, at the mint of San`a. Approximate date: A.D. 909-911.

iii. Rassid (1st period) coins struck in gold and silver at Sa`da, San`a, Tukhla', and `Aththar. Approximate date: A.D. 898-1014.

iv. Coins of the Amirs of Yemen, struck in silver, at an uncertain mint. Approximate date: A.D. 1000-1100.

v. Coins of the Amirs of `Aththar, struck in gold, at the mint of `Aththar. Approximate date: A.D. 957-988.

vi. Tarafid coins, struck in silver, at the mint of `Aththar. Approximate date: A.D. 991-1004.

vii. Ziyadid coins, struck in gold and silver, at non-exclusive mint Zabid. Approximate date: A.D. 955-1050s.

viii. Khawlanid coins, struck in silver, at the mint of San`a. Approximate date: A.D. 1046-1047.

ix. Najjahid coins, struck in gold, at the mints Zabid and Dathina. Approximate date: A.D. 1021-1158.

x. Sulayhid coins, struck in gold and debased silver, at non-exclusive mints Zabid, `Aththar, `Adan, Dhu Jibla. Approximate date: A.D. 1047-1137.

xi. Zuray'id coins, struck in gold, at the mints of `Adan and Dhu Jibla. Approximate date: A.D. 1111-1174.

xii. Coins of Mahdid of Zabid, struck in silver, at the mint of Zabid. Approximate date: A.D. 1159-1174.

xiii. Rassid (2nd period) coins, struck in gold and silver, at non-exclusive mints Zufar, San`a, Sa`da, Huth, Dhirwah, Kahlan, Muda', `Ayyan, Bukur, al-Jahili, and Dhamar. Approximate date: A.D. 1185-1390.

xiv. Ayyubid coins, struck in gold, silver, and bronze, at the mints of Zabid, `Adan, Ta`izz, San`a, al-Dumluwa, Bukur, and Mayban. Approximate date: A.D. 1174-1236.

xv. Rasulid coins, struck in gold, silver, and bronze, at non-exclusive mints `Adan, Zabid, al-Mahjam, Ta`izz, San`a, Tha'bat, and Hajja. Approximate date: A.D. 1229-1439.

xvi. Tahirid coins, struck in silver, at the mint of `Adan. Approximate date: A.D. 1517-1538.

xvii. Rassid (3rd period) coins, struck in silver and bronze, at the mints of San`a, Zafir, and Thula. Approximate date: A.D. 1506-1572.

xviii. Ottoman coins, struck in gold, silver and bronze, at the mints of Zabid, San`a, `Adan, Kawkaban, Ta`izz, Sa`da, al-Mukha, and Malhaz. Approximate date: A.D. 1520-1750.

(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!)

What's All the Fuss About?

The archaeological lobby supporting import restrictions have pitched them as  a "consumer protection" measure designed to keep U.S. collectors from buying recently looted material.   Yet, they must know that import restrictions are controversial to the trade and collectors because, as construed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, they embargo all undocumented items of types on designated lists imported after the effective date of the regulations, not just items illegally exported from a UNESCO State party after the effective date of import restrictions as required under Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA), 19 U.S.C. §§ 2601, 2604, 2606, 2610. Such regulatory actions have converted CPIA import restrictions into embargoes of all objects of restricted types rather  than targeted, prospective import restrictions that do not impact the purchase of artifacts from the legitimate marketplace abroad.

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.

Jordanian MOU Backstory: A Window into How MOU's are Orchestrated

The US Embassy in Jordan has helpfully confirmed what many who have closely followed the process of creating MOU's "protecting" cultural heritage already knew, i.e., that the process is orchestrated in advance by the State Department itself with the help of archaeological advocacy groups.

Here is what the US Embassy in Jordan itself has said about the process:

The idea of holding an agreement to protect the Jordanian cultural heritage from smuggling had begun on the margins of the meeting of the second ministerial conference entitled “Heritage under Threat” which was held in Amman on September 8, 2016, and was organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Affairs, the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, the Middle East Institute and the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA), where the cultural section of the Embassy of the United States of America in Amman expressed the desire of the United States of America to conclude a bilateral agreement with the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan represented by the Department of Antiquities, with the aim of protecting Jordanian cultural heritage from smuggling.  Accordingly, many meetings were held with specialists from the US State Department, the US embassy, and from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Antiquities, during which the broad lines were agreed upon to prepare a memorandum of understanding on preventing the import of Jordanian artifacts and recovering the artifacts from the United States and returning them to Jordan.  Workshops, lectures, and visits were organized for experts from the United States of America to introduce international agreements on preventing the trafficking of antiquities and protecting cultural heritage.  

In other words, despite what the Cultural Property Implementation Act contemplates, the decision to enter into a MOU does not actually depend on recommendations of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, but rather a Committee meeting merely provides an opportunity for public comment before a body that has also been dominated by members sympathetic to the views of the same advocacy groups involved in orchestrating MOU's in the first place.

No wonder no MOU request has ever been turned down.

The US State Department Imposes Import Restrictions on a Wide Variety of Jordanian Archaeological Objects-- Including More ROPE!

The Federal Register has announced broad import restrictions on Jordanian archaeological objects, effective Feb. 5, 2020.  The Federal Register Notice along with the "designated list" of objects subject to restrictions can be found here.

The U.S. Embassy in Jordan announced the Memorandum of Understanding that authorized these import restrictions back in December.  While we now know what has been restricted, the MOU-- which should detail any promises Jordan has made as part of the agreement-- has yet to be released.

Exceptionally Broad List

As with other recent MOU's, the designated list is ridiculously broad.  For example, the State Department has concluded that Jordanian rope must be subject to detention, seizure and repatriation, just like Algerian rope  which was restricted earlier.  One really has to wonder how either could possibly  meet the CPIA's "cultural significance" test for objects to be restricted. 19 U.S.C.  § 2601.

Thankfully, the "designated list" for coins at least leaves out Greek and Roman types made elsewhere that circulated not only in Jordan, but throughout the Middle East and beyond.  Nonetheless, the list remains quite broad, incorporating not only local bronze issues, but Nabataean and Byzantine coins that circulated regionally.  

Here is the list for coins:

10. Coins—Some of the best-known

types include:

a. Nabataean—Coins in silver, lead,

copper or bronze and struck at Petra.

They typically have cornucopiae or

wreaths on the reverse and portrait of

the ruler or rulers on the obverse.

b. Roman Provincial—Coins in silver

and bronze were struck through the

third century A.D. at Roman and Roman

provincial mints of Abila (Abel), Adraa

(Daraa), Charachmoba (Al-Karak), Dium,

Esbous (Heshbon), Gadara (Umm Qais),

Gerasa (Jerash), Medaba (Madaba), Pella,

Petra, Philadelphia (Amman),

Rabbathmoba (Aroer) Capitolias/Dion

(Beit Ras), and Raphana. This type also

includes the pseudo-autonomous

coinage of the second and first centuries

B.C.

c. Byzantine—Coins in bronze and

struck at the Arab-Byzantine mint of

Aylah/Elath (Aqaba).

d. Early Islamic—Coins in bronze or

silver and struck at the Umayyad mints

of Adraa (Daraa), Gerasa (Jerash),

Philadelphia/Rabbath-Ammon (Amman)

and under the Abbasids at Philadelphia/

Rabbath-Ammon (Amman). These coins

are epigraphic in design, featuring one

or more lines of Arabic script. Some

Abbasid bronze coins from

Philadelphia/Rabbath-Ammon (Amman)

feature a small flower-like design in the

center of one side.

e. Crusader—These coins appear as

thin, light-weight, low-quality-silver

billon. Examples usually feature crosses

and/or crude portraits or buildings as

central images.

Jewish artifacts are another hot topic because import restrictions recognize the rights of Arab governments to the material culture of displaced Jewish minorities.  Presumably,  the State Department will argue it addressed the concerns of Jewish groups when it limited restrictions on manuscripts to archaeological objects dating before 1750 AD—but there was no specific exemption for Torahs and other Jewish artifacts as Jewish groups have requested.

What's All the Fuss About?

The archaeological lobby supporting import restrictions have pitched them as  a "consumer protection" measure designed to keep U.S. collectors from buying recently looted material.   Yet, they must know that import restrictions are controversial to the trade and collectors because, as construed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, they embargo all undocumented items of types on designated lists imported after the effective date of the regulations, not just items illegally exported from a UNESCO State party after the effective date of import restrictions as required under CPIA, 19 U.S.C. §§ 2601, 2604, 2606, 2610. Such regulatory actions have converted CPIA import restrictions into embargoes of all objects of restricted types rather  than targeted, prospective import restrictions that do not impact the purchase of artifacts from the legitimate marketplace abroad.

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.

There is also the question of what will happen when U.S. Tourists return with common ancient coins sold openly at Petra and at an annual numismatic bourse that takes place in Amman.  Presumably, if Jordan does not provide for export certificates for such items, they will be subject to detention, seizure and repatriation back to Jordan-- rough treatment for law abiding Americans that will be sure to sour any positive experiences for tourists simply wanting a memento of their journey.