Calling all Collectors Again- Please Comment on Proposed Renewal of MOU with Greece

The State Department has announced a proposed renewal of a Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Categories of Archaeological and Byzantine Ecclesiastical Ethnological Material through the 15th Century A.D. of the Hellenic Republic.  That MOU first authorized import restrictions on Greek cultural artifacts in 2011.  It has been renewed once in 2016 without further changes.  The initial MOU authorized import restrictions on certain ancient Greek coins.  We hope to preclude any further expansion of those restrictions and advocate for acceptance of legal exports from fellow EU countries to be treated like a legal export from Greece.

 Further information about the October 27, 2020 Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) meeting and how to comment before the October 13, 2020  deadline can be found here:  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/08/20/2020-18262/cultural-property-advisory-committee-notice-of-meeting  You should also be able to comment directly from this link (click on green “submit a formal comment” button in upper right hand corner).  

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 current restrictions encompass coins the State Department evidently believes can only be found in Greece.   U.S. Customs and the State Department describe these coin types as follows: 

Coins—Many of the mints of the
listed coins can be found in B.V. Head,
Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek
Numismatics (London, 1911) and C.M.
Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek
Coins (London, 1976). Many of the
Roman provincial mints in Greece are
listed in A. Burnett et al., Roman
Provincial Coinage I: From the Death of
Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44 BC–
AD 69) (London, 1992) and id., Roman
Provincial Coinage II: From Vespasian
to Domitian (AD 69–96) (London, 1999). 

a. Greek Bronze Coins—Struck by
city-states, leagues, and kingdoms that
operated in territory of the modern
Greek state (including the ancient
territories of the Peloponnese, Central
Greece, Thessaly, Epirus, Crete and
those parts of the territories of ancient
Macedonia, Thrace and the Aegean
islands that lay within the boundaries of
the modern Greek state). Approximate
date: 5th century B.C. to late 1st century
B.C.

b. Greek Silver Coins—This category
includes the small denomination coins
of the city-states of Aegina, Athens, and
Corinth, and the Kingdom of Macedonia
under Philip II and Alexander the Great.
Such coins weigh less than
approximately 10 grams and are known
as obols, diobols, triobols,
hemidrachms, and drachms. Also
included are all denominations of coins
struck by the other city-states, leagues,
and kingdoms that operated in the
territory of the modern Greek state
(including the ancient territories of the
Peloponnese, Central Greece, Thessaly,
Epirus, Crete, and those parts of the
territories of ancient Macedonia, Thrace
and the Aegean islands that lie within
the boundaries of the modern Greek
state). Approximate date: 6th century
B.C. to late 1st century B.C.

c. Roman Coins Struck in Greece—In
silver and bronze, struck at Roman and
Roman provincial mints that operated in
the territory of the modern Greek state
(including the ancient territories of the
Peloponnese, Central Greece, Thessaly,
Epirus, Crete, and those parts of the
territories of ancient Macedonia, Thrace
and the Aegean islands that lie within
the boundaries of the modern Greek
state). Approximate date: late 2nd
century B.C. to 3rd century A.D.

Under current Customs procedures, the above types can only be imported into the United States with: (a) an export certificate issued by Greece (which is virtually impossible to procure);   (b) “satisfactory evidence” demonstrating that the coins were exported from or were outside of Greece at least 10 years prior to importation into the U.S.; or (c) “satisfactory evidence” demonstrating that the coins were exported from or were outside of Greece before restrictions were announced on December 2, 2011.  What constitutes “satisfactory evidence” is ultimately left to the discretion of Customs, but usually takes the form of a declaration by the importer and a statement by the consigner. 

The current restrictions do not extend to Greek trade coins—like Athenian Tetradrachms and Corinthian Staters that are extremely popular with collectors. However, we cannot afford to take this for granted; we simply cannot assume that the archaeological lobby—which actively opposes private collecting—won’t press for “more” this time around.  Accordingly, if one feels strongly about their continued ability to collect such coins, they should comment on the regulations.gov website.  Why?  Because silence will only be spun as acquiesce.  So, serious collectors should oppose restrictions on coins or their expansion to widely circulating trade coins as unnecessary and detrimental to the appreciation of Greek culture and the people to people contacts collecting brings. 

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–2020–0036] 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/docket?D=DOS-2020-0036  (Please note comments may be posted only UNTIL Oct. 13, 2020 at 11:59 PM.).  Alternatively, if this link does not work, as set forth further above, you should also be able to post via the Federal Register website:  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/08/20/2020-18262/cultural-property-advisory-committee-notice-of-meeting

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 how import restrictions impact you or your business and/or the cultural understanding and people to people contacts collecting provides.   Coin collectors should add it makes no sense to expand current restrictions when the State Department already determined which coins were typically “first discovered within” and “subject to the export control” of Greece.  Finally, collectors can point out that Greece, as an EU member, must respect the rights of other EU members to export coins of types on the designated Greek designated list, and so should the U.S.  Comments from Greek and Greek-American collectors are particularly welcome! 

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

 Dear CPAC:

 Please either end the current restrictions on coins, or, at least, do not expand them.  It makes no sense to expand current restrictions when the State Department already determined which coins were typically “first discovered within” and “subject to the export control” of Greece.   Finally, Greece, as an EU member, must respect the rights of other EU members to export coins of types on the Greek designated list, and so should the U.S.  This can easily be done by making any renewed MOU recognize that a legal export of a coin on the Greek designated list from a sister EU country will be treated as a legal export from Greece itself.

Sincerely,

xxx

 

CPAC Meets to Discuss Renewals of Colombian and Italian MOU’s

On July 22, 2020, the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (“CPAC”) met to consider proposed renewals of MOU’s with Colombia and Italy. The following CPAC members were present via videoconferencing: (1) Stefan Passantino (Chairman- Public); (2) Adele Chatfield-Taylor (Public); (3) Karol Wight (Museums); (4) James Reep (Public); (5) Ricardo A. St. Hilaire (Archaeology); (6) Lothar Von Falkenhausen (Archaeology); and  (7) Anthony Wisniewski (Collector-Sale of International Cultural Property).  Allison Davis, CPAC’s State Department Executive Director, was also present.

Chairman Passantino 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. Those who wanted to speak about the proposed Colombian MOU went first.  The order of speakers was as follows:  (1) Sarah Newman (University of Chicago); (2) Robert Drennan (Society of American Archaeology); (3) Kate FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural Policy); and (4) Brian Daniels (Archaeological Institute of America).   Next, the Committee heard the following speakers on the Italian renewal: (1) Kate FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural Policy); (2) Arturo Russo (International Association of Professional Numismatists); (3) Doug Mudd (American Numismatic Association); (4) Josh Knerly (Association of Art Museum Directors) (5) Peter Tompa (Global Heritage Alliance); (6) Elizabeth Greene (Archaeological Institute of America); and (7) Randolph Myers (Ancient Coin Collectors Guild).

Sarah Newman (University of Chicago) spoke about her experiences as a Fulbright Scholar.  Although Covid 19 cut her work short, she enjoyed her experience with Columbian colleagues studying museum collections. She found them very helpful in making their collections accessible to her for her study.

Robert Drennan (Society of American Archaeology) indicated that the MOU has benefitted the protection of Colombian cultural patrimony because even people in rural areas know that it is illegal to loot artifacts. There have been efforts to perform rescue archaeology before construction projects.  One example showing that legislation protecting archaeological remains actually carries substantial weight on the ground, is the case of Nueva Esperanza. Archaeological remains were reported in the process of planning for the construction of a major electricity substation just south of Bogotá. These remains turned out to be those of a large nucleated pre-Hispanic Muisca settlement. Against strong political and economic opposition, construction was delayed and an extensive multimillion dollar excavation project was funded under the terms of regulations to protect cultural heritage.

There have also been more academic interest.  Recently founded Masters' and Doctoral programs in anthropology, archaeology, and cultural heritage at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, at the Universidad de los Andes, at the Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia, and at the Universidad Externado have grown and become more solidly established during the past five years. 

Campaigns to increase awareness that pre-Columbian Native American artwork is not simply a potential economic resource have had an impact, as have enforcement efforts, but more remains to be done. Sadly, the US continues to be a major market for looted Colombian cultural materials.

The existing Memorandum has been successful. The Memorandum, however, is still very much needed. There is every reason to believe that a renewal would help to maintain the momentum and lead to continued progress in the future.

Dr. Drennan’s written testimony can be found here:  https://beta.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2020-0022-0299

Kate FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural Policy) provides some brief thoughts about the proposed renewal with the MOU with Colombia.  Ms. FitzGibbon indicates that Colombia is obliged to engage in self-help measures, but it is unclear, what, if any, self-help measures have been undertaken.  Ms. FitzGibbon urges the Committee to ensure such self-help measures have been undertaken before a MOU with Colombia is renewed.  She also questions whether all the material described as “ethnological” on the current designated list meets the definition of such material under the Cultural Property Implementation Act (“CPIA”).

The Committee for Cultural Policy’s and Global Heritage Alliance’s written testimony concerning the Colombian renewal can be found here: https://beta.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2020-0022-0044

Brian Daniels (Archaeological Institute of America) indicates that Colombia has met all four determinations for a renewal of its MOU.  First, he acknowledges Dr. Drennan’s testimony about the collaboration between US and Colombian archaeologists.  He indicated this relates to the fourth determination under the CPIA, relating to whether import restrictions are “consistent with the general interest of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes.”

Dr. Daniels then discusses the first determination which requires a showing the cultural patrimony of Colombia is in jeopardy from the pillage of archaeological materials. Ongoing looting in Colombia is outlined in the statement by Dr. Drennan and the SAA. He discusses recent seizures of looted cultural material in Colombia.

He also discusses the designated list and states that previous Committees had already made a determination what was considered ethnological material. 

The AIA’s written testimony on the Colombian renewal can be found here: https://beta.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2020-0022-0393

The Committee then turned to testimony regarding the Italian MOU renewal.

Kate FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural Policy) recounts how both she and Patty Gerstenblith, who represented the interests of the archaeological community, were appointed at the same time, but Prof. Gerstenblith’ s application was rushed through so she could participate and vote on the initial Italian request.  Ms. FitzGibbon, who represented the trade, was not allowed to do so.  Had Ms. FitzGibbon been allowed to participate, she would have voted “no” on the request because Italy had not done enough to protect its cultural patrimony.

Since that time, Italy’s Carabinieri have done an excellent job stopping looting, but Italy has not complied with the MOU in other ways.  First, Italy has failed to allow the export of items freely available for sale within Italy itself.  Second, Italy has not made it easier for museums to secure loans. Finally, Italy has not released decades old Polaroid photographs of looted items in the Medici archive.  Instead, Italian authorities have shared them with a researcher who used them to play “gotcha” with auction houses.

The Committee for Cultural Policy’s written testimony about the Italian renewal can be found here:  https://beta.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2020-0022-0391

Arturo Russo (International Association of Professional Numismatists) speaks for the premier professional trade association for coin dealers.  He starts his statement with a Latin maxim, “pacta sunt servanda” which roughly translates as “bargains are to be observed.”

He notes that after the initial MOU with Italy in 2001, Italy did as promised make it easier to export Italian cultural goods, including coins.  However, since import restrictions were first imposed on coins in 2011, it has become increasingly difficult to obtain export permits, and today it is almost impossible to get such permits for even low value and common ancient coins.

Last year, Italian authorities published regulations that state that you cannot even apply for an export license unless you can prove that an archeological object is outside of the ground before 1909, the date of Italy’s first cultural patrimony law.  Italy has over twenty different export offices and luckily some of them don’t enforce this regulation, as quite rightly, they do not consider coins in trade to be archeological items. On the other hand, other offices, like that in Milan, apply this regulation in a very stringent manner, and require proof of provenance before 1909.  This makes it impossible to export ancient coins, because only few coins have a provenance stretching back that far.  Just to be clear, ancient coins are freely bought and sold inside Italy, but they become “illegal” and important to Italian cultural patrimony only when one applies to take them outside of Italy, which is unacceptable. 

The situation is so egregious that there have been cases where coins that were legally purchased by Italian collectors in US auctions prior to 1980 where not only denied an export license, but were confiscated simply on the basis of lack of provenance prior to 1909. It is worth noting that coins have been collected since the Renaissance. There are studies from prominent Italian scholars, which Mr. Russo would be happy to share, which demonstrate that coins in the market should not be treated as archaeological objects because an immense number of coins were found before 1909. Nevertheless, most of the coins do not have a documented provenance because until the recently auctions were limited to coins from highly important collections. Mr. Russo notes that in 1994 the two most prominent numismatists in Italy, Silvana Balbi De Caro and Francesco Panvini Rosati, stated that only coins documented to be from an archaeological find are of archaeological interest. 

In 2012, Mr. Russo’s firm, Numismatica Ars Classica, represented a group of investors that purchased and dispersed the Archer Huntington collection of coins.  This large collection was assembled between the end of 19th century and 1930. The collection was property of the Hispanic Society of America and on loan to the American Numismatic Society. The vast majority of the Ancient coins in the collection did not have a documented provenance prior to 1909 and theoretically if purchased by an Italian collector, would be subject to detention and seizure if they were subsequently exported from Italy.  

This behavior is clearly unacceptable.  So, Mr. Russo asks that CPAC freeze the renewal of import restrictions on coins until Italy complies with its obligation to facilitate the issuance of export licenses. The current situation clearly disadvantages American collectors and institutions as coins legally owned in the States can be freely sold to Italian buyers while the same coins cannot leave Italy and be freely sold to American collectors. 

What makes the whole situation even more inconceivable is the fact that Italy has probably one of the largest if not the largest numismatic patrimony in the world. There are over 200 institutions that have coins and the largest museums like Naples, Rome and Turin have collections which contain over a million specimens each. Unfortunately, most of these collections are not published nor accessible through the internet with the result that they are almost completely inaccessible to the public.

Mr. Russo indicates that the Italian Carabinieri do an excellent job fighting looters and he knows as a matter of fact that they do not share the belief that everything without a provenance prior to 1909 has to be considered illegal. They are fully aware that a legal and healthy market exists and must be preserved. IAPN is not against a stronger cooperation between Italian authorities and US to fight illegally excavated coins coming onto the US market, but blanket restrictions are unfair to the trade. 

In concluding, Mr. Russo also indicates that any effort to extend restrictions to Roman Republican and Imperial coins is simply ridiculous as it uncontested that the vast majority of these coins are found outside the boundaries of Italy.  In closing, he reiterates that current restrictions should be frozen until Italy makes it easier to procure export licenses.  

IAPN’s written testimony about the Italian renewal can be found here:  https://beta.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2020-0022-0143

Peter Tompa (Global Heritage Alliance) states that current events, including mobs tearing down historic statues and Erdogan’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.

Tompa then states 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. 

He indicates that 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, GHA joins 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 coins hoards containing coins from Italian mints are found within Italy itself making it impossible to fairly consider them Italian cultural patrimony.  GHA also believes 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.

GHA also requests 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, as Mr. Russo has noted, Italy has actually made it harder to export ancient coins of the sort openly and legally sold within Italy itself.  

Finally, GHA also asks the Committee to 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.  Tompa indicates such a modification of the MOU is not only consistent with the UNESCO Convention, but Italian law. 

GHA’s written testimony regarding the proposed Italian renewal can be found here: https://beta.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2020-0022-0048

Douglas Mudd (American Numismatic Association) indicates that his organization opposes any expansion of the current MOU to include late Roman Republican and Roman Imperial coins. Such coins are found in huge numbers outside of Italy and it makes no sense to recognize Italy’s rights to them as its cultural patrimony.  The cumulative impact of current MOU’s has already done much to damage ancient coin collecting in the US.  This is a shame because ancient coins are excellent teaching tools.  Students already suffer from a lack of understanding about ancient cultures.  Roman coins have been used as an adjunct to Latin classes.  The prospect of possible seizure of their coins has dissuaded foreign collectors from sharing knowledge with US Collectors at ANA seminars and coin shows. 

The ANA’s written testimony about the Italian renewal can be found here: https://beta.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2020-0022-0288

Stephen J. Knerly (Association of Art Museum Directors) discussed the concerns of the country’s art museums with regard to the Italian MOU request. The AAMD’s written submission questioned whether Italy’s patrimony was still in jeopardy and whether there were less significant alternatives than import restrictions as well as problems AAMD members were having with loan agreements, but Mr. Knerly’s oral testimony focused on the last issue. Knerly emphasized that AAMD members have cordial museum to museum relationships with Italian institutions but noted that there are problems with loan agreements, in particular expensive fees.  He also criticized the State Department’s use of a standard Article II which made it more difficult to hold countries accountable to hold up their own obligations.

The AAMD’s written testimony about the Italian renewal can be found here: https://beta.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2020-0022-0383

Elizabeth Greene (Archaeological Institute of America) indicates that the AIA supports another extension of the MOU with Italy as necessary to protect Italian cultural patrimony.  As evidence, Dr. Greene points to “Operation Demetra,” which revealed extensive illegal excavations in Sicily linked to a buyer in London.  She also discusses seizures of 20,000 archaeological objects and 4,000 coins in other operations. She notes it is important to protect sites not only for academic, but for to help develop tourism.

The AIA’s written testimony about the Italian renewal can be found here: https://beta.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2020-0022-0392

Randolph Myers (Ancient Coin Collectors Guild) opposes the extension of the MOU as it applies to ancient coins.  He first focuses on any effort to expand current import restrictions to Roman Republican coins.  First, he indicates that one cannot assume late Roman Republican coins were both struck and found in Italy.  He notes this can be proved from a review of “Coin hoards of the Roman Republic Online" that is hosted by the American Numismatic Society. Found on the Internet at http://numismatics.org/chrr.  This database of Roman Republican Coin hoards mainly from the period 155 BC to AD 2 shows that such coins en masse outside of Italy. 

The data is even more significant for Roman Imperial coins.  Large numbers of Roman Imperial coins are found outside modern-day Italy. He cites "The Coin Hoards of the Roman Empire Project," found on the Internet at http://chre.ashmus.ox.ac.uld. This Project, a joint initiative of the Ashmolean Museum and the Oxford Roman Economy Project, "aims to collect information about hoards of all coinages in use in the Roman Empire between approximately 30 BC and AD 400." It proves that less than 3 % of reported Roman Imperial coin hoards containing coins from Italian mints are found within Italy, or stated another way, over 97% are found outside that Country.

The ACCG’s written testimony about the Italian renewal can be found here:  https://beta.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2020-0022-0244

Questions: Anthony Wisniewski (collector-sale of international property) asks Kate FitzGibbon (CCP) and Peter Tompa (GHA) whether EU nations have a right to export cultural goods that must be recognized by the Italian government.  Both FitzGibbon and Tompa say they believe that to be the case. FitzGibbon also notes that the basis for the new EU export law has been questioned by the Rand Corporation which debunked the claim that terrorists were using stolen antiquities as a major funding source.  Tompa notes the new law does not apply to exports of items that originated in the EU so it would not apply to Italian cultural goods.

Arturo Russo that Italy and Greece stand alone in making it difficult to get export permits for common ancient coins.  All the other major EU countries allow such items to be exported fairly easily.

Karol Wight (Museums) asks Stephen Knerly (AAMD) about courier fees.  He indicates this is a problem not only in Italy but elsewhere.  Italy treats couriers as essential visitors so they are allowed entry even during this pandemic.

Ricardo A. St. Hilaire (Archaeology) asks Brian Daniels and Elizabeth Greene (Archaeological Institute of America) about site security plans in archaeological excavation agreements in Colombia and Italy.  Dr. Daniels is not aware of the situation in Colombia. Dr. Greene has no knowledge of the situation in Italy as she has never signed a permit.  She does note, however, that archaeological groups work actively on site protection with local communities and the police.  She has seen this in action in Sicily, where she works.  She notes that local divers have helped protect underwater sites there.

James Reap (Public) and Lothar Von Falkenhausen (Archaeology) state it irrelevant and unfair to attribute the actions of prominent members of archaeological advocacy groups in encouraging or justifying mobs tearing down historic statues to their organizations.  Peter Tompa (GHA) respectfully disagrees because it raises the ultimate question whether the efforts of these groups are really solely about conservation or an exercise of power and control.  Von Falkenhausen adds that he believes in the archaeological value of coins and gratuitously states that ancient coin collectors should collect something else.  (In CPO’s opinion, this demonstrates the anti-collector bias of many of those appointed to represent the archaeological community on this Committee.  In reality, not all archaeologists take such a view and some even collect ancient coins and other mostly minor artifacts.)

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 .