US imposes grossly overbroad emergency import restrictions on behalf of Ukraine and new import restrictions for Yemen without a public hearing

At the behest of the State Department, US Customs has imposed grossly overbroad emergency import restrictions on behalf of Ukraine.  It has also issued revised import restrictions on behalf of  "the Republic of Yemen" without a public hearing or Cultural Property Advisory Committee review. Both sets of import restrictions again demonstrate that the Biden-Harris State Department places a  premium on expediency over legality and the interests of American collectors and the small and micro businesses of the trade in cultural goods.  

The Ukrainian emergency import restrictions cover archaeological material from the Paleolithic period (c. 1.4 million years ago) through 1774 AD and ethnological material from 200 AD to 1917.  The restrictions on widely collected coins  and medallions are exceptionally broad:

1. Coins —In gold, silver, bronze, copper, and lead. Some coin types minted in or commonly found in archaeological contexts in Ukraine in various periods are listed below.

a. Ancient Greek cities in Ukraine, including Olbia, Panticapaeum, Chersonesus, and Tyras, minted coins of various weights and metals. Cast currency in dolphin, sturgeon, and arrowhead forms was also produced in this period. See Zograph, A. Ancient Coinage, Part II, Ancient Coins of the Northern Black Sea Littoral. (Oxford, 1977). Approximate date: 600-47 B.C.E.

b. In the Roman period, Panticapaeum continued to mint coins, and other Roman imperial coins were also used. See MacDonald, D. An Introduction to the History and Coinage of the Kingdom of the Bosporus, Classical Numismatic Studies 5. (Lancaster, 2005). Approximate date: 47 B.C.E.-500 C.E.

c. Coins minted in the Kyivan Rus period include gold and silver zlatnyks with a portrait of the ruler and the trident (tryzub) symbol. Hexagonal cast ingots (hryvnia) were also produced. Bohemian deniers and dirhams of Islamic states were also used in the Medieval period. Pierced coins and exfoliated (flaked) coins, including half-coins and forgeries, were common. Approximate date: 880-1240 C.E.

d. Coins in use during the Late Medieval and Early Modern periods include, but are not limited to, Mongolian dirhams, Lithuanian denars, Polish ducats, Crimean Khanate akces, Austro-Hungarian talers, Ottoman coins, and Russian rubles. Approximate date: 1240-1774 C.E.

2. Medallions —Usually featuring relief images, known since the Early Iron Age, with gold, silver, and bronze phaleras used during the Roman period. Approximate date: 1000 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

Such import restrictions authorize the detention, seizure and repatriation of  coin types made in what is today Ukraine or occupied Crimea that circulated in quantity elsewhere as well as issues made elsewhere that primarily circulated well outside of present day Ukraine.  Early modern issues of the surrounding nation states of Austria, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, and Russia are included.   As with ancient Roman Imperial coins, such coin types that are widely and legally sold  in legitimate markets in Europe are now in danger of confiscation on entry into the US unless the importer can "prove" they were out of Ukraine as of the September 10, 2024 effective date of the regulations.  

These concerns were raised in written and oral comments  made on behalf of the American Numismatic Association, the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, and the International Association of Professional Numismatists, but they were ignored.  Additionally, by issuing "emergency import restrictions"  rather than entering into a cultural property MOU, the State Department avoided having to consider "less drastic measures" raised in these comments.  Such "less drastic measures" like the creation of a Portable Antiquities Scheme and a web based system for issuing export permits would have been particularly appropriate here since Ukraine allows a large internal market for the cultural goods that are now embargoed as well as the purchase and sale of metal detectors.  

In one positive move that cynics will link to the election year, the new Yemeni restrictions on ethnological material explicitly exclude Jewish ceremonial and ritual objects and manuscripts.  JIMENA, B'nai B'rith and Global Heritage Alliance have argued that such materials should exempted from cultural property MOUs with repressive Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) governments which have forced their Jewish populations into exile.  

Addendum (9/16/24):  What the administrative state "gives" with one hand, it "takes" with the other.  A further review of the Ukrainian restrictions linked above demonstrates that they explicitly include Jewish and Christian ceremonial and ritual objects.  Of course, Ukraine is no  Yemen, but such restrictions could still lead to trouble for Christians or Jews of Ukrainian decent bringing such material into the US for religious purposes.  

Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting, September 24-26, 2024 to Discuss New MOUs with Lebanon and Mongolia and a Renewal With El Salvador

The State Department’s website has given advanced notice of a Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting to discuss new cultural property Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with Lebanon and Mongolia and a renewal with El Salvador.

The proposed MOU with Lebanon should be highly controversial. The UNESCO Convention assumes that nation states are the “best stewards” of cultural heritage and MOUs authorize US Customs to repatriate cultural goods seized under them to their care.  But Lebanon is a failing state.  The power there is not in the weak and corrupt government, but Hezbollah (“the Party of God”), a heavily armed Shiite militia group that acts as the Iranian regime’s proxy force against Israel and the United States.  The United States Government has designated  Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, and right now, it has been raining down rockets on Northern Israel,  forcing residents to flee.   Israel, of course, has retaliated, shelling and bombing  parts of Lebanon intensively in an effort to root out Hezbollah terrorists and their allies.

How then can a MOU with Lebanon even be considered?  Repatriating objects to failed states that have become war zones is not a recipe for their “protection” under any circumstance.  Moreover, the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center and its  "partner organization," the Antiquities Coalition, have claimed that "looted antiquities" are a significant terrorist funding source.  RAND Corporation and others dispute such claims, but given that “narrative” shouldn’t the State Department also be concerned that Hezbollah will resell whatever may be returned for funds?

The public session will take place September 24, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. (EDT).

 Public comments will be due no later than September 16, 2024. 

Proposed new MOUs with Lebanon and Mongolia that will likely again cover collectors coins that circulated regionally or internationally making it difficult to import them from legitimate markets in Europe again underscores the need for HR 7865.  More here: https://accguild.org/HR-7865

Addendum (8/19/24):  Regulations.gov is now accepting comments for these MOUs.  Here is a direct link to comment:  https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2024-0028-0001

Alternatively, go to Regulations.gov and then search for DOS-2024-0028.  

What should you say?  Of course, it is much better to speak in your own words, but here is a template for coin collectors:

CPAC should reject any MOU with Lebanon.  Any such MOU would not help "protect" cultural heritage.  Rather, repatriating artifacts would be disastrous for their continued preservation.  Lebanon is a failed state dominated by Hezbollah, a terrorist group and Iranian proxy at war with Israel and the United States.  There is no money to properly preserve artifacts and there is a real danger they will be either destroyed in a conflict or sold to fund Hezbollah's terrorist activities.  

Additionally, there is no reason to apply import restrictions to coins for Lebanon, Mongolia or El Salvador.  For most of their history, these countries were but small parts of much larger Empires, meaning all or most all coins that circulated there also circulated in much greater quantities elsewhere.  One simply cannot assume that coins of a particular type were found there, a prerequisite for them being restricted under the governing statute.    

State Department and Customs Impose Broad Import Restrictions on behalf of Tunisian Government

The State Department and US Customs have imposed import restrictions on behalf of Tunisia’s increasingly authoritarian government that cover an exceptionally  broad range of archaeological (dating from approximately 200,000 BC to 1750 AD) and ethnological (from approximately 1574 AD to 1881 AD) materials. Items listed include religious artifacts, coins and even rope!  

The restrictions on ethnographic materials at least implicitly apply to the cultural heritage of Tunisia’s displaced Jewish minority population. These restrictions recognize the rights of the Tunisian State to the ownership and control of such artifacts despite a history of religious discrimination aimed at the country's remaining Jews, and virulent antisemitism  exemplified by the recent attack on one of the country’s few remaining synagogues.

The restrictions on coins apply to a wide variety of ancient, medieval and early modern coins to 1750 AD, including Carthaginian types which also circulated elsewhere in North Africa, Spain and Italy:  

10. Coins—This category includes coins of Numidian, Carthaginian (sometimes called Punic), Roman provincial, Vandal, Byzantine, Islamic, Norman, and Ottoman types that circulated primarily in Tunisia, ranging in date from the fifth century B.C. to A.D. 1750. Numidian, Roman provincial, and Vandal coins were made primarily in bronze, though some Numidian and Vandal types occur also in silver. Carthaginian types occur in electrum, a natural pale yellow alloy of gold and silver. Local Byzantine and later coin types were made in copper, bronze, silver, and gold. Coins may be square or round, have writing, and show imagery of animals, buildings, symbols, or royal figures.

These latest overbroad  import restrictions on coins again points to the need for collectors to ask their member of Congress to cosponsor HR 7865, legislation to facilitate the lawful trade in ancient, medieval, and early modern coins.

U.S. Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting About Proposed Cultural Property MOU Renewals with Ecuador and Jordan and a New MOU with Ukraine

 On June 4, 2024, the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (“CPAC”) met in a virtual public session to hear public comments regarding proposed renewals of Memorandums of Understanding (“MOUs”) with Ecuador and Jordan and a new proposed MOU with Ukraine.  An update on the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs’ (“ECA’s”) website made shortly before the hearing provided further information about the scope of the requests.  See Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting, June 4-6, 2024, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Media Center (April 30, 2024), available at https://eca.state.gov/highlight/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-june-4-6-2024

(last visited June 5, 2024).   That document indicated that neither Ecuador nor Jordan sought restrictions on additional categories of materials.  Ukraine, however, sought restrictions on a wide variety of archaeological and ethnological objects as follows: 

 Ukraine

Protection is sought for archaeological material from the Paleolithic Period (approximately 1.4 million years ago) to 1774 CE, including metal (sculpture, jewelry, weapons, coins, vessels, and horse fittings and trappings); ceramic (sculpture, vessels, and seals); stone (sculpture, monuments, vessels, tools, and jewelry); bone, ivory, wood, horn, and other organic material; glass and faience; paintings and mosaics.  Ethnological materials for which protection is sought span from the Roman Period (3rd century CE) to 1917 CE and include religious, ritual, and ecclesiastical objects; rare books, manuscripts, and other written documents; architectural elements; objects related to funerary rites and burials, both ritual and secular; paintings; military material; and traditional folk clothing and textiles.  

 Id.   

 The CPAC members did not introduce themselves before the public section, but CPAC currently includes the following members: (1) Alexandra Jones (Chair, Represents/Expertise Archaeology, Anthropology, related fields, CEO Archaeology in the Community, Washington, DC); (2) Alex Barker (Represents/Expertise Archaeology, Anthropology, related fields) Director, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Arkansas); (3) Mirriam Stark, Represents/Expertise Archaeology, Anthropology, related fields, Professor of Anthropology, University of Hawaii); (4) Nii Otokunor Quarcoopome (Represents/Expertise Museums, Curator and Department head, Detroit Museum of Art); ( (5) Andrew Conners (Represents/Expertise Museums, Director, Albuquerque Museum, New Mexico); (6) Michael Findlay (Represents/Expertise: International Sale of Cultural Property, Director, Acquavella Galleries, New York); (7) Amy Cappellazzo, Represents/Expertise: International Sale of Cultural Property, Principal, Art Intelligence Global; (8) Cynthia Herbert (Represents/Expertise: International Sale of Cultural Property President, Appretium Appraisal Services LLC, Connecticut); (9) Thomas R. Lamont (Represents Public, President of Lamont Consulting Services, LLC, Illinois);  (10) Susan Schoenfeld Harrington  (Represents Public, Past Deputy Finance Chair, Democratic National Committee, Past Board member, China Art Foundation); and, (11) William Teitelman (Represents General Public, Legislative Counsel to the PA Trial Lawyers Association, Attorney (Retired)).

 The meeting was conducted entirely on Zoom.  At least the following members were present:  Jones; Teitelman; Quarcoopome; and Stark.  CPAC’s executive director, Allison Davis, was also present.

 The Chair, Alexandra Jones, welcomed the speakers.  She indicated that speakers would be given four minutes each given the number of oral comments. 

Dr. Chris Jasparro, Associate Professor in the National Security Affairs Department and Director of the Africa Regional Studies Group at the Naval War College, spoke first.  He indicated that a MOU with Ukraine would be an important tool to fight organized crime and Russian aggression.  Jasparro maintained that Russian forces destroyed archaeological sites, but also looted small items which would then enter international markets.  He also indicated that a MOU could act as a token of American support for Ukraine.  He further maintained that “stolen antiquities” were used to test smuggling routes for other, more dangerous items.  The factual basis for this contention is unclear. 

Dr. Patricial Juninska of Artyfact, an archaeological management company, spoke next.  She indicated that 341 Kurgans or burial mounds have been damaged during the war.  She believed that a MOU will demonstrate our support for Ukraine and its efforts at preservation during a difficult time.

Dr. Sam Hardy of the Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research (NIKU) spoke next.  He indicated that Ukraine has struggled for years against looters.  Russian looting and destruction of cultural heritage is being investigated as a war crime.  Looting incentivizes corruption.  Hardy has found social media indicating that Russian mercenaries have been trading in antiquities. One of these individuals was pictured with Russian President Putin and former Russian Defense Minister Shoigu.

 Adam Rabinowitz, an Associate Professor at University of Texas at Austin, spoke next.  Rabinowitz is familiar with Ukraine through his prior work at Chersonesus.  Rabinowitz believes that much of the looting caused by the war is of small metal objects.  He noted that metal detectors are widely available in Ukraine and that artifacts like coins will be found by farmers during demining operations.  He believed that farmers and others will be tempted to sell such material on eBay, and this material should be kept off the market.  He maintained Ukrainian officials are doing the best they can under the circumstances and have thus have met the Cultural Property Implementation Act’s (“CPIA’s”) self-help requirements.

His written testimony may be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0049 (last visited June 5, 2024).

 Randolph Myers next spoke on behalf of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (“ACCG”).   Myers chastised the State Department for failing to meet the notice requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.  He indicated that circulation of coinage is complex, and one cannot assume many coin types are found in Ukraine given their much wider circulation patterns.  He also indicated that the United Kingdom’s Portable Antiquities Scheme provides an excellent example of a “less drastic measure” that should be adopted before import restrictions are imposed. 

 The ACCG’s and the American Numismatic Association’s testimony on Ukraine can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0010 (last visited June 5, 2024).

 Their testimony on Jordan can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0011 (last visited June 5, 2024).

 Peter Tompa next spoke as the Executive Director of the International Association of Professional Numismatists (“IAPN”).   He raised four points.  First,  political geography explains why one cannot assume that coins found in Ecuador, Jordan or Ukraine, are only found there.  Each of these countries were small parts of larger political entities for much of their histories, meaning that coins that circulated within their current boundaries also circulated in quantity elsewhere.  Second, CPAC must consider the realities on the ground, in particular the existence of large open markets in both Jordan and Ukraine.  Given these markets, assisting Jordan and Ukraine to create workable web-based systems of providing export certificates for common items like coins should be contemplated.  Another reality is the use of metal detectors.  The best way to deal with metal detectors is to help Jordan and Ukraine create a working Portable Antiquities Scheme.  Congressional appropriators have highlighted the importance of the CPIA’s reporting requirements, particularly the mandate that “less drastic measures” have to be considered before import restrictions are imposed.  The creation of a workable system of export permits, a portable antiquities scheme and more focused enforcement are just such “less drastic measures” that Congress contemplated. 

 Peter Tompa’s oral comments can be found here:

https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2024/06/cpac-meeting-to-discuss-renewals-of.html (last visited June 6, 2024).

 His personal comments can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0039 (last visited June 6, 2024).

 IAPN’s comments on the proposed renewal of the MOU with Ecuador can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0003  (Last visited June 6, 2024).

 IAPN’s comments on the proposed renewal of the MOU with Jordan can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0004  (last visited June 6, 2024)

 IAPN’s comments on the proposed MOU with Ukraine can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0012 (last visited June 6, 2024).

 Elias Gerasoulis next spoke on behalf of the Global Heritage Alliance (“GHA”) as its executive director.  GHA submitted joint testimony with its sister organization, the Committee for Cultural Policy (“CCP”).  Gerasoulis focused his comments on Jordan.  He also indicated that Kate FitzGibbon, his colleague from the CCP was unavailable, so he would also be available to answer any questions about Ecuador and Ukraine.  He noted that the State Department previously approved its MOU with Jordan based on historic looting that took place in the 19^th and 20^th centuries.  He also called out Jordan for allowing sales of coins at the Petra archaeological site and at a bourse in Amman.   He argued that such internal sales of coins to locals and tourists was inconsistent with any effort to embargo their entry into the United States.  He mentioned that the coin bourse in Amman was opened by a Jordanian princess, which suggested that it was an event sanctioned by the Jordanian government. 

 One CPAC member asked Gerasoulis about the lack of evidence being provided regarding current looting in Jordan.  Gerasoulis indicates he would welcome such evidence, but none had been provided publicly by either the State Department or Jordan for purposes of justifying this renewal. 

 GHA’s and CCP’s comments regarding the renewal of the MOU with Ecuador can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0045 (last visited June 6, 2024).

 Their comments regarding the renewal of the MOU with Jordan can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0036 (last visited June 6, 2024).

 Their comments regarding the proposed MOU with Ukraine could be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0053 (last visited June 6, 2024).

 Katie Paul spoke as the founder and co-director of the Antiquities Trafficking and Heritage Anthropology Research (ATHAR) Project.  Paul discussed her advocacy group’s use of screen shots taken from eBay and other social media platforms as evidence of significant looting that must be addressed.  She maintained there was no legal market for archaeological objects in Jordan.  Despite evidence submitted by IAPN, GHA, and CCP to the contrary, she maintained that there was no legal market for coins in Jordan.  She noted that Jordan does have a numismatic museum instead.  Paul stated that Ukrainian metal detectorists sell directly to American buyers.  She indicated that a hoard of 2,500 coins from the Black Sea coast was recovered by the authorities.  She further indicated that Ukraine needs US assistance to stem widespread looting.

 ATHAR’s comments regarding the proposed renewal of the MOU with Jordan are here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0050 (last visited June 6, 2024).

 ATHAR’s comments regarding the proposed MOU with Ukraine can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0052 (last visited June 6, 2024).

 Morag Kersel is an Associate Professor of Anthropology at DePaul University in Chicago.  She spoke from Jordan where she is working.  Professor Kersel discussed her “Follow the Pots” project which tracked looted biblical era pots on the market.  Biblical era materials are in demand in the United States.  She also discussed the cooperation of the Jordanian government with American archaeologists and museums.  She believed that the MOU should be renewed.

 Professor Kersel’s comments can be found here:

 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0041 (last visited June 6, 2024).

 James Zeidler is an Emeritus Research Professor at Colorado State University.  Zeidler has excavated in Ecuador for the past 50 years.  He indicated that looting has declined in Ecuador since the 1980’s due to increased enforcement and better community engagement.  Though looting has declined, he maintained that the current MOU still should be renewed to help protect Ecuadorian cultural heritage. 

 Professor Zeidler’s comments can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0044 (last visited June 6, 2024).

Sarah Rowe is an Associate Professor Department of Anthropology at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley.  Professor Rowe commended Ecuador for its efforts at community engagement including the training of local and foreign archaeologists.  She also praised the creation of the first code of archaeological ethics for Latin America in Ecuador as well as programs with local communities aimed at discouraging looting. 

 Dr. Ömür Harmanşah spoke as the Vice President for Cultural Heritage, Archaeological Institute of America (“AIA”).  Harmanşah indicated that the AIA strongly supported a MOU with Ukraine to help address Russian looting of archaeological objects.  He noted that Ukraine sent museum displays to the U.S. in the 2,000s.  He believed the MOU could also address illicit digs in the occupied Crimean Peninsula.

 The AIA’s comments on the renewals for Ecuador and Jordan and the new MOU for Ukraine are not available in the record posted in regulations.gov, but they are posted here: 

https://www.archaeological.org/aia-submits-letters-to-u-s-cultural-property-advisory-committee/ (last visited June 6, 2024).

 Tess Davis spoke as the Executive Director for the Antiquities Coalition, an archaeological advocacy group.  Ms. Davis indicated that she also serves on the faculty at Johns Hopkins University and is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations.  Ms. Davis discussed her work in Cambodia exposing the Latchford criminal network.  She maintained that import restrictions are “consumer protection measures” that help keep “stolen” artifacts off the market.  She also indicated that the Antiquities Coalition works closely with both the State Department, G-13 countries and individual source countries to facilitate cultural property MOUs and other restrictions on the trade meant to deter illicit trade.  She maintained that CPIA import restrictions can be complied with “simply”  with the required documentation. 

 Jeremy Sabaloff is an American anthropologist and past president of the Santa Fe Institute.  Sabaloff previously served as CPAC’s Chair during the Obama Administration.  Sabaloff did not speak directly about any of the MOUs.  Instead, he praised the work of CPAC and the importance of MOUs to our foreign relations and fostering “legitimate” trade. 

 Chair Alexandra Jones closed the CPAC public session about 10 minutes before the one hour allotted for the meeting expired.  Despite the additional time that was available, there were no additional questions from CPAC members. 

CPAC Meeting to Discuss Renewals of MOUs with Ecuador and Jordan and new request from Ukraine: 4 Points for 4 Minutes

 Here is what I said at today's CPAC meeting:

Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of IAPN and the micro businesses of the numismatic trade.   I would like to make these 4 points in my 4 minutes allotted.

1.     For most of their histories, Ecuador, Jordan, and Ukraine were parts of larger political entities.  IAPN uploaded historical maps of Ukraine into the record to drive home that point.  Political geography helps explain why coins that circulated within what is today each country also circulated regionally or even internationally.   One simply cannot assume that coins found in each of these countries are only found there, a key requirement of the CPIA.  CPAC must avoid blessing overbroad designated lists that do not comply with CPIA requirements.  Fact based decision-making must prevail.

 

2.     CPAC  must consider the realities on the ground. There are open markets for coins within both Jordan and Ukraine.  In Jordan, this market exists both at the Petra archaeological site and in Amman, the nation’s capital.  In Ukraine, there is a sophisticated auction website selling coins.  Given these realities, assisting Jordan and Ukraine to create a workable web-based system of providing export certificates for common items like coins as contemplated both by the CPIA and UNESCO Convention is essential.

 

3.     Another reality on the ground is the use of metal detectors.  In Ukraine, such metal detectors are openly available for sale.  The best way to deal with metal detectors is to help Jordan and Ukraine create a working Portable Antiquities Scheme that will encourage finders to report their finds. 

 

4.      Congressional appropriators have highlighted the importance of the CPIA’s reporting requirements, particularly the Congressional mandate that “less drastic measures” have been considered before import restrictions are imposed.   The creation of workable system of export certificates and a portable antiquities scheme as well enforcing restrictions solely prospectively and not as embargoes are just such “less drastic measures” as Congress contemplated.   IAPN urges CPAC and the State Department to heed these requirements.  Congress as well as collectors are looking over your shoulders. 

Bogdanos Becomes Prop for Chinese Propaganda

 Attention-seeking "world culture cop" Matthew Bogdanos has allowed himself and Alvin Bragg's Manhattan DA's office to become a prop for Chinese propaganda of the Communist Party's Xinhua News Agency by repatriating Tibetan cultural heritage to the very same government which has been engaged in "cancelling" Tibetan culture.   Unfortunately, this and the recently renewed State Department MOU with the PRC recognizes the rights of China's authoritarian Communist Government to the cultural heritage of its repressed minority populations.  The basis for the seizure is unclear, but even if it were a valid one, why shouldn't such materials instead be given to the representatives of the Tibetan people in exile?  

US Customs and State Department issue more grossly overbroad restrictions on behalf of another unfriendly authoritarian government, this time Pakistan

 The US State Department and its Cultural Heritage Center have again  deputized U.S. Customs and Homeland Security to enforce the export controls of another unfriendly, authoritarian government, this time Pakistan. It remains unclear how they will apply these exceptionally broad import restrictions, which cover a host of materials also found in Central Asia, Afghanistan, India, Sri Lanka, and, indeed, as far away as Northern Europe.  

The designated list for coins is in particular very broad.  It lists types that circulated regionally as well as internationally, including Roman Imperial coins, which the designated list itself admits are only "sometimes" found in Pakistan.  The entire designated list for coins is as follows:

(5) Coins—Ancient coins include gold, silver, copper, and copper alloy coins in a variety of denominations. Includes gold and silver ingots, which may be plain and/or inscribed. Some of the most well-known types are described below:

(a) Early coins in Pakistan include silver sigloi of the Achaemenid Empire. Gold staters and silver tetradrachms and drachms of Alexander the Great and Philip III Arrhidaeus are also found. Regionally minted Achaemenid-period coins include silver bent bars ( shatamana) with punched symbols such as wheels or suns. Local Hellenistic (Greek)-period and Mauryan imperial punch-marked silver coins ( karshapana) are covered with various symbols such as suns, crescents, six-arm designs, hills, peacocks, and others. Circular or square, die-struck cast copper alloy coins with relief symbols and/or animals on one or both sides also date to this period. Approximate Date: 6th-2nd Centuries B.C.

(b) Greco-Bactrian, Indo-Greek, Indo-Scythian, and Indo-Parthian coins include gold staters, silver tetradrachms, drachms, and obols, and copper alloy denominations. Copper alloy coins are often square. The bust of the king, the king on horseback, Greek and Hindu deities, the Buddha, elephants, bulls, and other animals are common designs. The name of the king is often written in Greek, Kharosthi or Brahmi script. Approximate Date: 2nd Century B.C.-1st Century A.D.

(c) Roman Imperial coins struck in silver and bronze are sometimes found in archaeological contexts in Pakistan. Approximate Date: 1st Century B.C.-4th Century A.D.

(d) Kushan coins include gold dinars, silver tetradrachms, and copper alloy denominations. Imagery includes the king as a portrait bust (“Augustus type”), standing figure with a fire altar, or equestrian figure; emblems ( tamgha); and figures from Greek, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, and Hindu religious traditions. Inscriptions are written in Greek, Bactrian, and/or Brahmi scripts. Approximate Date: A.D. 30-350.

(e) Sasanian coins include gold dinars, silver drachms, obols ( dang), and copper alloy denominations. Imagery includes the bust of the king wearing a large crown and Zoroastrian fire altars and deities. Inscriptions are usually written in Pahlavi, but gold dinars minted in Sindh with Brahmi inscriptions are included. Approximate Date: A.D. 240-651.

(f) Kushano-Sasanian or Kushanshah coins include gold dinars, silver tetradrachms, and copper alloy denominations. Some Kushano-Sasanian coins followed the Kushan style of imagery, while others resemble Sasanian coins. Inscriptions are written in Greek, Bactrian, Brahmi, or Pahlavi scripts. Approximate Date: A.D. 225-365.

(g) Gupta coins include gold dinars and silver and copper alloy denominations. Imagery includes the king in various postures and activities, the queen, Hindu deities, altars, and animals. Inscriptions are usually written in pseudo-Greek or Brahmi script. Approximate Date: A.D. 345-455.

(h) Coins of the Hephthalite, Kidarite, Alchon and Nezak Hun, Rai, Brahmin Chacha, and Turk Shahi Dynasties include silver and copper alloy denominations. Designs resemble Sasanian coins with a portrait bust of the ruler wearing a distinctive crown on the obverse and a fire altar or other Zoroastrian imagery on the reverse. Coins sometimes bear emblems ( tamgha s) and/or inscriptions in Bactrian, Pahlavi, Brahmi, or Nagari script. Designs are sometimes highly schematized. Approximate Date: 5th-9th Centuries A.D.

(i) Hindu Shahi silver coins often bear inscriptions in Nagari or Sharada script and depict a horseman and a bull, or an elephant and a lion. Approximate Date: A.D. 822-1026.

(j) The Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates and the Ghaznavid and Ghurid Empires issued gold dinars, silver dirhams, and copper alloy fulus (singular fals) bearing Arabic inscriptions on both faces. Inscriptions are often enclosed in circles, squares, rings of dots, or an inscription band. Silver and copper alloy denominations of local governors, the Habbari Dynasty of Sindh, and the Emirate of Multan are similar, but some coins of Multan carry inscriptions in Nagari or Sharada. Some Ghaznavid coins carry bilingual inscriptions in Arabic and Sharada scripts, and some bear images of a bull and horseman. Some Ghurid coins bear inscriptions in Devanagari and/or stylized images of a flower, bull, horseman, and/or goddess. Approximate Date: A.D. 712-1206.

(k) The Delhi Sultanate issued gold tankas, silver tankas and jitals, and copper alloy denominations bearing Arabic inscriptions, either enclosed in a circle, scalloped circle, octofoil, flower, square, or inscription band, or covering the full face of the coins. Some bear inscriptions in Devanagari and/or stylized images of a bull, horseman, lion, or goddess. Some coins are square. Approximate Date: A.D. 1206-1526.

(l) The Mughal Empire issued coins such as gold mohurs; silver shahrukhis, rupees, and tankas; copper and copper alloy dams, and other denominations. Coins bear Arabic inscriptions enclosed in a circle, ring of dots, square, or inscription band, or covering the entire face. Some coins are square. Some coins bear an image of the seated emperor, a portrait bust of the emperor, a sun, and/or Zodiac symbols. Approximate Date: A.D. 1526-1749.

It is also frustrating that the very same coins now subject to a State Department embargo are sold quite openly in Pakistan.  Moreover, despite the claim that Assistant Secretary, ECA Lee Satterfield considered "less drastic remedies" before imposing restrictions on coins, the coin trade's suggestions related to focusing restrictions solely on coins traced back to Pakistani contexts, the provision of export certificates, and the creation of a Pakistani Portable Antiquities Scheme were evidently ignored.