Virtual CPAC Meeting on Algerian MOU Request and Honduran and Bulgarian Renewals

On July 31, 2018, the U.S. Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) held a “virtual” meeting where all speakers were linked via an internet based video platform.  According to my notes, at least the following CPAC members were in attendance at the State Department:  (1) Karol Wight (Museum); (2) Lothar von Falkenhausen (Archeology); (3) Nancy Wilkie (Archaeology); (4) Rosemary Joyce (Archaeology); (5) Dorit Straus (Trade); (6) Adele Chatfield-Taylor (Public); and (7) Jeremy Sabloff (Public-Chair).   Jim Willis (Trade) attended via videoconferencing. 

Cari Enav, who runs the Cultural Heritage Center, made introductions.  Andrew Cohen, who is the executive director for CPAC, provided the speakers with information about the 4 determinations CPAC was required to make before recommending a MOU or an extension.   Dr. Sabloff indicated speakers should take these requirements into account in their presentations. He then introduced the CPAC members before calling speakers for the Algerian MOU.

Algerian MOU

There were six (6) speakers:  (1) Kate FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural Policy (CCP) and Global Heritage Alliance (GHA); (2) Peter Tompa (International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN)/Professional Numismatist’s Guild (PNG); (3) Gina Bublil-Waldman (Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and Africa (JIMENA); and (4) Carole Basri (Fordham Law School).  

Kate FitzGibbon- CPAC initially only recommended MOUs on a narrow range of artifacts from a limited number of poor countries.  Today, MOUs close off entire areas from collecting.  Even worse, the State Department has recognized the claims of nation states to property that has been expropriated from fleeing Jews and Christians.  Ms. FitzGibbon acknowledges that recent Libyan import restrictions have been rewritten to remove references to Jewish items, but states that most, if not all, would still be restricted under more general coverage for Ottoman items.  The only way to ensure that artifacts of repressed minorities will not be subject to seizure is with a specific exclusion.  The problem can also be avoided if the State Department adheres to the definition of ethnological objects in the Cultural Property Implementation Act.  Algerian Jewish artifacts are not the products of preindustrial or tribal cultures and should be beyond the scope of coverage under the CPIA. 

Peter Tompa- This is yet another troubling request from an authoritarian North African government which is all the more problematic because Algeria seeks recognition of its rights to objects associated with its displaced Christian and Jewish populations.  This issue potentially impacts unprovenanced coins now in French collections.  (Algeria’s French “Pied Noir” and Jewish populations mainly fled to France after Algeria gained its independence.)  There is a real question whether Algeria’s patrimony is in jeopardy as no information has been provided whether coins are being found with metal detectors.  If they are, they need to be regulated as a less drastic remedy than import restrictions.  The UK Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme is IAPN/PNG’s preferred model for regulation.  If restrictions are recommended for coins, such restrictions must be limited to those “first discovered within” and hence “subject to export control” of Algeria.  Here, while there is some room for debate as to whether “local currency” issued at Cirta, Icosium (Algiers), Hippo Regius and Iol-Caesaria is exclusively found within the confines of modern day Algeria, coins of the Numidian and Mauritanian kingdoms, and the Carthaginian, Roman, Byzantine and Islamic Empires circulated well beyond the boundaries of modern day Algeria.  One cannot simply assume such coins were actually found in Algeria and hence are subject to Algerian export controls. 

Gina Bubill-Waldman- Ms. Waldman was driven from her home in Libya as a child.  She believes that these MOUs are a cynical tactic created to deny North African and Middle Eastern Jews patrimony and assets which were stolen from Jewish people when they were brutally expelled. The Libyan MOU has set a very dangerous and unjust precedent for countries who erase Jewish heritage by claiming it as their own, when Jews, the people who actually created it, have been hunted and expelled. Because these MOUs were passed without specifically excluding Jewish items, Jewish patrimony can now become the patrimony of the same governments which have destroyed, looted and harassed their now extinct Jewish communities.  CPAC is charged with the important job of protecting patrimony of antiquities. But by passing this type of MOU, CPAC would in fact be endorsing the opposite of what its mission tries to achieve: preservation of historical property by its proper owners. This MOU seeks to make the American government unwittingly collude with the thieves who stole, destroyed and defaced the Jewish-Algerian patrimony in the first place.

Not a single one of the Middle Eastern and North African countries from Morocco to Yemen, from Iraq to Egypt has earned the right to call thousands year old Jewish patrimony their own. Not after expelling their Jewish population, confiscating what was rightfully Jewish property, desecrating, looting, destroying synagogues and purposefully building skyscrapers on top the cemetery where Ms. Waldman’s grandparents are buried, like in Tripoli, Libya. 

Carole Basri- Ms. Basri is of Iraqi-Jewish heritage.  She authored a law review article about the harsh treatment of Iraqi Jews.  The property of Jews living in MENA countries was expropriated under color of law.  Such laws are against our own scruples as well as the UN Declaration on Human Rights.  There were originally 1 million Jews in Arab countries.  Jewish artifacts do not fit the definition of ethnological objects under the CPIA and should not be subject to detention and seizure. Jewish people were city dwellers and the cities where they lived were neither pre-Industrial nor tribal in nature.  The U.S. Government should not work with governments that have forcibly removed their Christians and Jews. 

Cari Enav interjects that new Libyan restrictions do not mention Jewish property so such property should be excluded from any import restrictions.  Kate FitzGibbon states that Jewish property is still included in the Libyan MOU because most Jewish property cannot be distinguished with what is otherwise described as Ottoman in the import restrictions.  That is why an explicit exemption is required.  All this could be avoided if the State Department followed the CPIA strictly and did not consider Jewish artifacts to be ethnological in nature. 

Honduran Renewal

There were three (3) speakers:  (1) Rocco Debitetto (Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD)); (2) Kate FitzGibbon (CCP and GHA); and (3) Peter Tompa (IAPN and PNG). 

Rocco  Debitetto- AAMD supports the renewal with reservations.  Honduras needs to be held to account in Article II.  There needs to be long term loans.  The designated list is too broad and needs to be reformed to ensure that only archaeological and ethnological material as defined in the CPIA are covered.

Kate FitzGibbon- CCP and GHA oppose renewal of the MOU.  Honduras has been given blanket restrictions for 15 years.  It has not used this time productively.  Most of the budget for cultural heritage preservation stays in the capital rather than being used to protect sites on a local level.  The US House of Representatives has asked for an accounting of self-help measures as part of its authorization of funds.  Too much archaeologically sensitive land is being illegally used for cattle farms with nothing being done about it.   No more than $600-$700 is spent on sites per year.  There is little or no market for Honduran artifacts in the US. 

Peter Tompa- This MOU renewal raises the same issues for coin collectors as the recent Ecuadorian request.  Honduran historical coins cannot be considered either archaeological or ethnological objects. They were produced in industrial processes not consistent with them being ethnological objects.  Such coins circulated along with other Spanish Colonial coins throughout the Americas and beyond including the United States.  They should not be subject to restrictions. 

Karol Wight asks about AAMD’s recommendations.  Mr. Debitetto indicates a major one is one point of contact for loans.

Jim Willis asks Kate FitzGibbon about illegal exports from Honduras. Ms. FitzGibbon states it is difficult to answer that question because there is a lack of information. 

Bulgarian Renewal

There were three (3) speakers:  (1) Kate FitzGibbon (CCP and GHA); (2) Josh Knerley (AAMD); and (3) Peter Tompa (IAPN and PNG). 

Kate FitzGibbon- The Bulgarian designated list is all-inclusive and needs to be reformed to comply with the CPIA.  It includes many repetitive items that are not of cultural significance like coins, necklaces and beads.  Bulgaria has sorely neglected its archaeological sites.   Substantial EU funds have been wasted in archaeologically unsound rebuilding projects.  Very few Bulgarian artifacts aside from coins are of interest to collectors.  Coins are mass produced and not of cultural significance under the CPIA.  Bulgaria has not satisfied Article II of the MOU’s requirement that export permits be issued.  There is a lack of rigorous police enforcement. 

Josh Knerly- There is a major problem with the designated list.  The designated list can only restrict items authorized under the MOU.  Here, the MOU only authorizes restrictions on ecclesiastical objects from 681 AD forward, but the designated list restricts ecclesiastical items dating from the 4^th Century AD.  This highlights much greater problems in how designated lists are prepared. 

Peter Tompa- Tompa produces a ruler to make a point.  A ruler goes from one inch to 12 inches.  We can all agree that some things like murder would be “12” on a scale.  But what about looting?  Many people would consider it a “1” on a scale, akin to a traffic violation.  That certainly is the case in Bulgaria where there are large numbers of treasure hunters and where the authorities themselves have been involved in looting.  Given this reality, it makes no sense to continue the MOU which only denies American coin collectors access to the same sorts of coins available elsewhere including Bulgaria itself.   If CPAC nonetheless approves a renewal, it should reform the designated list to limit restrictions on coins.  Moreover, CPAC should recognize that EU countries like Bulgaria are bound by EU export controls.  CPAC should recognize legal exports from EU countries of coins on the Bulgarian designated list.

May 2, 2018 Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting to Discuss Ecuadorian MOU and Renewal of MOU with PRC

              On May 2, 2018, the U.S. Cultural Property Advisory Committee held a “virtual” meeting where CPAC members and all speakers were linked via an internet based video platform.  At least the following CPAC members were in attendance:  (1) Karol Wight (Museum); (2) Lothar von Falkenhausen (Archeology); (3) Nancy Wilkie (Archaeology); (4) Rosemary Joyce (Archaeology); (5) James Willis (Trade); and (6) Jeremy Sabloff (Public-Chair).  Cari Enav, the Cultural Heritage Center’s new chief, introduced Dr. Andrew Cohen as CHC’s new executive director and Dr. Sabloff as the Chair of CPAC. Dr. Sabloff ran the meeting.

                There were five (5) speakers:  (1) Peter Tompa (Global Heritage Alliance (GHA)/International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN)/Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG)); (2) Kate FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural Policy (CCP)); (3) Josh Knerly (Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD)); (4) Alex Nyerges (Virginia Museum of Fine Arts (VMFA)); and (5) Tess Davis (Antiquities Coalition).

Ecuadorian MOU

                Peter Tompa spoke on behalf of GHA, CCP, IAPN and PNG.  He indicated these groups had serious concerns about the short public comment period and the fact that the Ecuador’s proposal sought import restrictions on “Colonial and republican period coins; medallions more than 50 years old …manuscripts more than 50 years old; and certain works by modern artists.”  None of these materials may be restricted under the terms of the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) because they do not meet the definitions for archaeological or ethnological objects.  Archaeological objects must be at least 250 years old and be normally found in the ground.  Ethnological objects must be the products of tribal or non-industrial societies.  The Legislative History makes clear that Congress understood the term “ethnological” to only encompass what is considered “primitive” or “tribal” art, and not any object which is repetitive in character. 

                These limitations on archaeological and ethnological material should preclude restrictions being placed on coins and medallions.  While the State Department has—over the objections of the numismatic community and prior precedent—placed import restrictions on ancient and other early coins, the Spanish Colonial and Republican era coins at issue here cannot lawfully be restricted because they are neither archaeological nor ethnological in character.  More than that, however, they are as much a part of US culture as they are of Ecuadorian culture.  Large swaths of what is now the US was formally part of Spain’s Empire and even the United States itself—due to the shortages of hard currency at the time—used such coins as legal tender until 1857.  Indeed, such coins were so popular that the term “two bits” entered into our language as meaning 25 cents.  Moreover, references to “pieces of eight” and “gold doubloons” abound in our storytelling, including Melville’s Moby Dick and countless yarns about pirate treasure. 

                Before recommending a MOU, CPAC must also consider what self-help measures Ecuador has undertaken, including the funding Ecuador has devoted to cultural heritage protection.  At least one recent academic work has questioned Ecuador’s commitment in this area.

                Josh Knerly spoke on behalf of AAMD.  AAMD may have been in a position to support the MOU, but the short time span made impossible to poll members.  Knerly echoed Tompa’s concerns about import restrictions being misapplied to objects that are neither archaeological nor ethnological in character. 

                Chairman Sabloff indicates that staff ran into unexpected difficulties in getting out the notice for the CPAC meeting, and that in the future the Committee will try to do better.

                Rosemary Joyce asked about AAMD’s generic recommendations. Knerly indicated that AAMD typically asks for long term loans, low loan fees and immunity from seizure laws.

                In response to a question from Nancy Wilkie, Knerly indicated he did not know if any Ecuadorian artifacts were on display in US museums.  During the review of the China MOU, he later stated that he had learned that at least one AAMD member museum displays Ecuadorian artifacts.

China MOU

                Peter Tompa spoke on behalf of IAPN and PNG.  IAPN and PNG are all for Chinese collecting, but the reality of a huge, largely open internal Chinese market in common antiquities like pottery and coins, raises serious questions about the point of import restrictions imposed on American collectors.  This is especially problematical because the most successful Chinese antiquities sales outlets are controlled by insiders associated with the Chinese Government.  

                There is also the issue of Chinese obligations under the current MOU.     First, China was supposed to make it easier to legally export artifacts, but that provision was drastically limited in the 2014 renewal to Chinese objects imported into China for re-export and there is no indication China has even complied with this weaker provision.  Of course, few rules apply to the free ports of Hong Kong and Macao.  China was also initially supposed to clamp down on them, but it has not.  Instead, artifacts leaving these ports can still be re-imported into the PRC no questions asked.  

                Even more importantly for US coin collectors is the issue of Chinese fakes of historic US coins.    Chinese businesses licensed by the Chinese Government are counterfeiting untold thousands of fake historic US mint coins which are then being introduced into the US numismatic market.    

                Summing up, Tompa stated that the MOU with China should be suspended because it is doing nothing to actually protect Chinese archaeological sites.  At a minimum, Chinese cash coins, which exist in the billions and which are widely collected in China itself, should be delisted. 

                Lothar von Falkenhausen made a statement that what we know about Chinese coins comes from archaeology.  Tompa disputed this claim noting that much information has come from documentation and observation of the types of cash coins found in 1000 coin strings that were used for trade through the early part of the 20^th century.

                Nancy Wilkie states it is not CPAC’s concern that China is counterfeiting US Coins.  Tompa states this is a matter of comity and falls broadly under cultural exchange.  Tompa states this should be addressed in Art. II of the agreement, the part that requires undertakings by the Chinese.

                Kate FitzGibbon spoke for CCP and GHA.  She stated the U.S. Senate recently condemned China’s repression of Tibet, including its cultural heritage.  She then stated there is no justification whatsoever for renewing the China MOU under the CPIA.

• China has a billion-dollar annual internal market in art of all periods that includes the same kinds of antiques barred from US import.
• China has more than adequate internal enforcement resources; its government does not need the US to be a distant, international policeman.
• Past MOUs barring import of Chinese art have had no discernable effect on looting in China.
• The United States is no longer a primary market nation; it has had a net outflow of Chinese art for the last decade. Thousands of US-owned antique objects have left the US – destined for China.

                According to a comprehensive study by Artnet and the China Association of Auctioneers, after the enactment of the original MOU with the United States in 2009, the auction market for art and antiques in mainland China experienced 500% growth between 2009 and 2011. In 2011, the Chinese auction market surpassed all other countries in the world.

                Even in 2014, the year after the MOU’s first renewal, the fastest growing import into China was art, antiques, and collector items, which increased at a staggering 2281% rate.

                Despite its pro-archaeological rhetoric, nothing in Chinese law prohibits the import of all objects predating the end of the Tang Dynasty, as the MOU now does in the US. Nor does Chinese law prohibit the trade or import of monumental sculpture or wall art more than 250 years old ‑ the very objects banned under the China-United States MOU.

                The CCP asked ArtNet, an independent art market research network, to analyze the largest auction sales. In 2016, the total sales of Chinese art at the top ten auction houses worldwide were $103 million dollars. Of this total, $58 million was sold at four auction houses in Hong Kong, and $46 million in six auction houses in Beijing and Hangzhou in mainland China. The only US auction house to make it into the top ten globally that year was Sotheby’s New York, with only 6% of total market share.

                In the United States, the most recent high-value sales are from long-held and foreign collections. A brief 2017 spike in U.S. sales of Chinese art resulted from a single record-breaking sale at Christie’s of a museum collection.  Even there, some of the largest buyers were Chinese

                There is an obvious contradiction between the Department of State’s designation of China’s government as systemically violating international norms of cultural tolerance, and the repeated renewal of US-China agreements on cultural property that grant China’s government absolute control over the same cultural heritage that it has sought to destroy.

                Jim Willis asked if the State Department should renew restrictions that touched on Tibetan art.  Kate FitzGibbon said we should not repatriate Tibetan art to China.

                Josh Knerly stated that AAMD was also hampered by the short time frame allowed in responding to the China MOU.  While AAMD museums have enjoyed good cooperation with Chinese museums, there has been very little progress in the last 5 years on issues related to the length of loans and legislation granting immunity for such loans.

                Karol Wight indicated that her museum, the Corning Glass Museum, was getting good cooperation from China.  She asked Knerly about access for scholars.  He stated such access has had problems at times.  In at least one example, a scholar did not learn whether they could examine objects before they actually arrived at the Chinese institution in question.    

                Alex Nyerges indicated that the VMFA has received good cooperation with Chinese museums with which VMFA has had its own MOUs.  He echoed Knerly’s concern about the length of loans.  Such loans should be for multiple years so that artifacts may travel to other venues so the exhibit is cost effective.  China should also send higher graded antiquities that can be the centerpiece of exhibits. 

                These cultural exchanges have been two way.  Recently, the VMFA sent an exhibit of Fabergé eggs to the Palace Museum in Beijing. 

                In response to a question from Nancy Wilkie, Nyerges has said that seizures of foreign exhibits in China has not been a concern.  He also indicates that the security at the museums VMFA has MOUs with has been excellent.  Other AAMD member museums such as Cleveland, the Met, and Indianapolis also have had very positive experiences with Chinese museums. 

                Tess Davis states China has met all the requirements for a renewal.  The first determination is met.  China has 760,000 archaeological sites that remain in jeopardy of looting. 

                The second determination relating to self-help is met.  China is making its best efforts to protect these sites.  There are export controls on artifacts.  Chinese cultural officials recently met with judicial officials to underscore the need to punish looters.

                The third determination regarding a concerted international response is met.  More countries have joined the UNESCO Convention.  Others now have strong anti-looting legislation favoring repatriation. 

                The MOU has promoted culture exchange.  The Terracotta warrior exhibit is a great example.    Davis believes protecting cultural heritage is a human rights issue. 

                Jim Willis asked how we can enter into an agreement that recognizes the Chinese government’s rights to Tibet’s culture.  Davis stated by restricting imports of Tibetan heritage in the US, we are helping to protect it for a future time when Tibet is hopefully free.

Virtual CPAC Meeting on Cambodian MOU Renewal Request

On October 23, 2017, the U.S. Cultural Property Advisory Committee held a “virtual” meeting where CPAC members and all speakers were linked via an internet based video platform.  According to my notes, at least the following CPAC members were in attendance:  (1) John Frank (Trade); (2) Karol Wight (Museum); (3) Lothar von Falkenhausen (Archeology); (4) Nancy Wilkie (Archaeology); (5) Rosemary Joyce (Archaeology); (6) Dorit Straus (Trade); (7) James Willis (Trade); (8) Shannon Keller O'Loughlin; and (9) Jeremy Sabloff (Public-Chair).

There were six (6) speakers:  (1) Tess Davis (Antiquities Coalition); (2) Kate FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural Policy); (3) Mitch Hendricksen (University of Illinois). (4) Josh Knerley (Association of Art Museum Directors); (5) Katie Paul (Antiquities Coalition); and (6) Peter Tompa (Global Heritage Alliance).

Tess Davis- Speaks on her own behalf.  Katie Paul will speak for Antiquities Coalition.  She unequivocally supports renewal of the MOU.  She has worked in Cambodia since 2004.  Davis has never received pay from the Cambodian government and she has worked for the New York prosecutor’s office pro bono.  [She presumably is on salary from the Antiquities Coalition and/or otherwise receives funding.]  The MOU brings tremendous benefits and protects collectors from buying recently looted materials.  She is dedicated to the cause of fighting looting.  She has read the letters of those opposed to the MOU and finds them misguided.

Kate FitzGibbon- There has been an ongoing embargo on Cambodian artifacts for 18 years.  This embargo was put in place as an administrative matter without complying with Congressional limitations.  For instance, after a prior CPAC only supported emergency restrictions on Cambodian statuary in 1999, restrictions were expanded administratively in 2003 without CPAC’s knowledge or consent.   The issue that CPAC should be asking is whether Cambodia is undertaking all the self-help measures it can.  One issue is whether there are adequate museum inventories.  Renewing the MOU will only help legitimize Hun Sen’s repressive government.

Mitch Hendricksen- He supports the MOU.  He works in Cambodia.  NGOs such as Heritage Watch have helped educate local people that looting hurts their heritage.  Now, economic development is the greatest threat to cultural heritage.  The MOU has helped relationships between the government and American archaeologists. 

Lothar von Falkenhausen asks about looting.  Hendrickson says most of temple complexes were stripped clean of statues years ago.  A new road has been built to the temple complex of Preah Khan.  It has brought tourists and police patrols that make looting less likely.

Nancy Wilkie asks about local museums.  One was built near a police station which makes it less likely that it will be looted.  Heritage Watch has done a good job educating locals not to loot.

Josh Knerly- The AAMD supports a renewal of the MOU, but requests that benchmarks be applied to assess self-help.   The US Government and other foreign donors have given generously to Cambodia’s cultural heritage establishment, but the CPIA requires some action on behalf of the Cambodian government.  There needs to be more cultural exchange, not just in situations where an American museum has repatriated an artifact. 

Rosemary Joyce wants to know if the MOU has been responsible for loans.  Knerly says you cannot make that assumption. 

Dorit Straus asks about inventories.  There is a good inventory for artifacts in the National Museum, but not for regional and local museums. 

Lothar von Falkenhausen states that the National Museum collection is on-line.

Katie Paul- Her presentation was difficult to follow given technical problems.  In any event, Paul showed charts that appear to suggest that the United States remains the dominant market for undocumented archaeological objects.  Paul identified 231 artifacts for sale on a web based auction sales platform that were Khmer archaeological artifacts.   There are currently another 46 items on eBay.   The values range from $200-500 Euros to $65,000.  Some of the listings do have provenance information.

Peter Tompa- Notes that the State Department can no longer ignore the self-help requirement.  The House Appropriations Committee has required CPAC to quantify annual national expenditures on securing and inventorying cultural sites and museums.  CPAC should also consider other concrete self-help measures in a revised Article II.  For instance, it is not clear whether foreign archaeological missions pay their workers a fair living wage or take advantage of modern electronic surveillance systems to monitor their sites for looting in the long off season.  CPAC should also question Cambodian authorities about persistent allegations that elements within the Cambodian military continue to loot out of the way temple complexes.  Finally, CPAC should advocate that Cambodia investigate the creation of a portable antiquity reporting scheme for minor objects found on private land.  Tompa's complete comments may be found here.

Nancy Wilkie asks why there is an embargo if restrictions allow in documented material.  Tompa states the CPIA limits restrictions to artifacts illicitly exported after the date of restrictions, but Customs applies the restrictions to all artifacts on the designated list.  Documentation is frequently unavailable for items of modest value. 

Lothar von Falkenhausen launches into a monologue in response to Tompa’s suggestion that redundant artifacts could be sold after being recorded.  He states that even minor artifacts have critical context.  Tompa states that the CPIA distinguishes between archaeological interest and cultural significance.  He also indicates that the PAS helps record context.

James Willis asks Tompa to respond to the contention that Cambodia is a poor country that cannot spend money on heritage.  Tompa states that ticket sales at Angkor archaeological park have become a cash cow and that some should be spent for heritage purposes.  He also notes Congress has required CPAC to provide information about expenditures and it up to others to decide their significance.  

Cultural Property Advisory Committee, May 24, 2016 Open Session to Discuss Renewals of Bolivian and Greek MOUs

On May 24, 2016, The US State Department Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) met in open session to discuss renewal of the Bolivian and Greek MOUs.  The following CPAC members were present:  (1) Prof. Patty Gerstenblith, Chair (PG) (Public Member); (2) Rosemary Joyce (RJ)(Archaeology);  (3) Jane Levine (JL) (Trade); (4) Marta de la Torre  (MT)(Public); (5) Nancy Wilkie (NW) (Archaeology); 6) James Willis (JW) (Trade); (7) Barbara Kaul  (Public) (arrived late); (8) Lothar von Falenhausen (LVF) (Archaeology); and (9) Thomas Murray (Trade).  Katherine Reid (Museum) and Nina Archabal (Museum) were absent.

The following individuals spoke on the Bolivian MOU in this order: (1) Donna Yates (DH) (University of Glasgow); and (2) Sonia Alconini, Society of American Archaeology.  Both speakers supported the MOU with Bolivia.

The following individuals spoke on the Greek MOU in this order:  (1) Sue McGovern-Huffman (SM) (Association of Dealers and Collectors of Ancient and Ethnographic Art); (2) Peter Tompa (PT) (International Association of Professional Numismatists/Professional Numismatists Guild); (3) Carmen Arnold-Biucchi (CAB) (Harvard University); (4) Nathan Elkins (NE) (Baylor University); (5) Peter Schertz  (PS) (Virginia Museum of Fine Arts); (6) William Parkinson (WP) (Field Museum/University of Chicago); (7) Bryan Burns (BB) (Wellesley); (8) John Papadopoulos (JP) (University of California, Los Angeles); (9) Kim Shelton (KS) (University of California, Berkeley); and (10) Barbara Tsinakis (BT) (Vanderbilt). 

   

The first two speakers supported the MOU with changes or opposed import restrictions on coins.  The second two speakers supported the MOU and restrictions on coins.  The next speaker supported the MOU with modest changes on museum loans.  The rest of the speakers supported renewal of the MOU without qualification.  

Bolivian MOU   

Donna Yates (DY) - Focuses comments on ecclesiastical artifacts that are trafficked into the US.  Since the last MOU there have been church robberies.   310 items were stolen in two separate thefts.  Registries are better for ecclesiastical artifacts because Churches maintain inventories.  It’s hard to tell Peruvian from Bolivian ecclesiastical artifacts apart, but both are subject to MOUs.  There were 24,000 ecclesiastical artifacts recorded before the last MOU.  DY is unsure if additional work has been done since.

Sonia Alconini (SA) - SA teaches at the University of Texas at San Antonio.  She previously taught in Bolivia.  MOUs are important instruments to stop trafficking in Bolivian artifacts.  Bolivian artifacts still appear on eBay.  Some may be fake. 

MT asked if there are warnings at the airport about exporting Bolivian archaeological and ethnological goods.  SA states, “no.”

TM asks about Bolivian textiles.  SA says that some stores still sell them from “hidden rooms,” but that there was a crack-down on such activity in 2013.  

NW asks about local collections.  Both DY and SA indicate they exist, but the objects are supposed to be registered. 

There is also a market for Bolivian artifacts in Brazil.

SA is asked about working in Bolivia.  She indicates there are 5 levels of permits that must be procured, but she maintains this added bureaucracy is “worth it” because it demonstrates a buy-in to the archaeological work at both a national and local level.

JL asks if any Bolivian material is legal under Bolivian law.   DY indicates archaeological artifacts purchased before 1906 and ecclesiastical artifacts purchased before 1923 would be legal under Bolivian law.  Apparently, artifacts can only leave legally with a “presidential decree” and this sometimes happens. 

Greek MOU

Sue McGovern (SM) – SM represents the Association of Dealers and Collectors of Ancient and Ethnographic Art (ADCAEA).   ADCAEA stands for a responsible and legal trade.  The MOU has not worked.  No seizures have been reported under it.  ADCAEA recommends that the MOU not be extended in its current form.  ADCAEA believes that US Customs should allow legal import of artifacts on the designated list that are legally exported from Greece’s sister EU countries. 

MT questions a statement in SM’s written presentation that artifacts without a provenance have no commercial value.  SM states all the objects she sells have a provenance and she could not sell them without one.  SM also states as an appraiser she would give “0” value to an artifact without a provenance.  SM states that eBay is full of material without a provenance. SM defines good provenance as an artifact that is documented to have come from a recognized collection.  1970 is an ideal date, but not always possible, particularly for minor items like oil lamps. 

SM gives an example of artifacts with exceptional provenance.  She recently sold artifacts that had been previously lent to and exhibited at the Smithsonian. 

JW notes that the 1970 date is a construct and there is no real difference regarding the loss of context from an artifact illicitly excavated in 1969 and one illicitly excavated in 1971.

SM notes while provenance is important we “should not throw out the baby with the bathwater” when it comes to orphan artifacts. 

SM notes that Greece should sell documented artifacts and use the money to support archaeology.  She also notes back in the 1960’s no one could care less about provenance. 

Peter Tompa (PT) – PT represents the International Association of Professional Numismatists and the Professional Numismatists Guild.  He states that current restrictions based on where a coin is made rather than found are contrary to the plain meaning of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act.  Such restrictions have already damaged coin collecting and the people to people contacts collecting brings.  He criticizes the paper of Nathan Elkins, an academic supporting restrictions, as advocating positions either contrary to the CPIA's plain meaning, contradictory to Elkins' prior statements, or misleading on details about past coin seizures.  PT also advocates that archaeological objects on the open market within Greece’s sister EU countries should be allowed entry into the US with either a valid EU export permit or no permit if this is allowed under local law.  He indicates instead of focusing on more restrictions, Greece can take simple steps like requiring that archaeologists pay a fair wage to locals and ensure there is site security in the long off season. 

JW indicates that the coin issue “is a difficult one” and wonders if all the emphasis on context is to the exclusion of other important issues.  PT notes that the CPIA suggests “context” is not the most important issue because the CPIA only allows restrictions on objects of archaeological interest if they are also of “cultural significance.”

MT questions PT’s views about EU regulations, but PT directs MT to attorney Michael McCullough’s expert report on the issue.  He promises to provide CPAC with that report.  PT also promises to provide Sotheby’s paper on “cultural significance” under the CPIA. 

JW asks about due diligence. PT indicates that US dealers are forming a “Council for Numismatic Integrity” to make their due diligence practices more transparent.

LVF objects to PT’s suggestions in his paper about privatizing archaeological sites, but PT notes that this assumes local groups will take them over with oversight from the Greek cultural ministry. 

NW asks about the provenances of coins. PT says very few have recorded provenances and that there is no law either here or within EU market countries that requires it for what is for sale. 

PG asks about the academic paper attached to IAPN/PNG’s submission that indicates that 18% of Greek coins are found outside of Greece.  PT notes that is a number for all issues.  For some issues, like Athenian Tetradrachms and Decadrachms, there are more found outside of Greece than within Greece. 

There is some discussion about what is an archaeological site.  PT indicates that it is a site with other material remains nearby, but recognizes that some archaeologists define the term as anywhere something ancient is found. 

PT's oral comments may be found here.  IAPN/PNG's written comment can be found here.

Carmen Arnold-Biucchi (CAB) – Indicates support for the MOU and restrictions on all coins found in Greece.  CAB emphasizes, however, that the coins must be found in Greece and not found elsewhere.  She agrees with PT that issues of Athens predominate outside of Greece.  CAB supports the sale of duplicate coins from state collections and the institution of programs like the UK’s Treasure Act and PAS.  Harvard only purchase coins with a 1970 provenance. 

TM asks if it is unrealistic to assume most collectors can find coins with a 1970 provenance.  CAB admits most coins lack any provenance.  However, she says collectors should be educated about its importance.

NW asks about Byzantine coins.  CAB indicates those found in Greece should also be restricted. 

JW expresses concern that “context” has been allowed to trump all other values.

CAB indicates that she supports laws that encourage coin hoards to be reported.

CAB criticizes the fact that so many excavation coins are not published, but notes that American archaeologists are far better than their foreign counterparts.

Nathan Elkins (NE) - Coins are looted by the thousands.  Even common coins can be significant to dating.  One coin worth 50 cents on the open market helped date a synagogue in Israel.  NE has written an article critical of the ACCG and its test case.  In it, he explains that the current designated lists are quite conservative because they only take in coins primarily found in a given country.  Elkins now thinks more should be covered—all those commonly found in a given country. 

NW wants to know about coins found in Bolivia.  Elkins indicates he is no expert.

Elkins thinks the broad Bulgarian MOU should be a guide and looks forward to a day where overlapping MOUs will protect all coins. 

Peter Schertz (PS) – PS speaks on behalf of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts (VMFA) and AAMD.  Loans are an issue.  Pre-packaged loans like the one going to National Geographic are fine, but they don’t meet the current MOUs requirements for loans to institutions.   The AAMD is looking for clarity on loans. 

William Parkinson (WP) – WP speaks on behalf of the Field Museum, the University of Chicago, the Society for American Archaeology and the Archaeological Institute of America.  WP lauds Greece’s efforts and collaboration.   WP works at the excavation of an early cave site.   WP says a new exhibit from Greece called “the Greeks” to be seen at National Geographic opens up 5000 years of Greek history.  It is a stunning achievement and to call it “pre-packaged” is wrong. 

In response to a question, WP admits it’s easier to collaborate with people you know and its possible AAMD museums have problems because their curators do not have such personal relationships. 

Bryan Burns (BB) – BB teaches at Wellesley College.  BB supports the MOU.   He thinks more can be done to help Greece digitize collections and ensure site security.   In response to a question from TM, BB says Cycladic art is problematical because the area where this art is found has been heavily looted.     

John Papadopoulos (JP) - JP teaches at UCLA.  Looting is a fact of life in Greece.   There has been an increase in first time offenses.  Artifacts stolen from the Corinth museum ended up in Miami.  Shelby White and the Getty have repatriated artifacts stolen from Greece. 

PG asks about private museums in Greece.  JP indicates there are several, but each has a public function.  TM notes that the Cycladic museum in Greece is a private institution.  JP thinks there should be better on-line inventories.  JP also advocates public awareness campaigns to tackle looting.

Kim Shelton (KS) – KS teaches at University of California, Berkeley.   She works at Nemea and has made efforts of outreach to the local people.  They have repaid her by reporting suspicious activity on site. 

Barbara Tsinakis (BT) – BT teaches at Vanderbilt.  She is speaking on behalf of the AIA.  BT works on excavating homes.  She thinks common artifacts found at the sites of homes have cultural significance because the artifacts have much to tell about how people lived.   Coins are obvious common objects, but others include transport amphora, loom weights and cooking pots.  BT would support making loans more long term, but recognizes the difficulty of transporting fragile artifacts.  

France to Offer Safe Harbor to Syrian Antiquities

France has proposed an aggressive program to gather up Syrian antiquities and offer them "safe harbor" in France.   The AAMD previously offered a far more modest "safe harbor" proposal that elicited opposition in the archaeological lobby.  Hopefully, these ideological objections to "safe harbor" will be dropped and these groups will put protecting Syrian archaeological objects from destruction at the hands of fanatics first.

Two Ways of Protecting Syrian Cultural Property

Two ways of protecting Syrian cultural patrimony emerged during the past week.

First, the AAMD announced protocols for safe haven of cultural property endangered by war, something that CPO heartily supports, but which is a concept that has provoked opposition from ASOR (which is running the State Department's Syrian Cultural Heritage Initiative) and the Archaeological Institute of America.

Second, Russian warplanes reportedly bombed Palmyra, a move welcomed by the Assad regime's director of antiquities who hopes the Russians will drive out ISIS before the site is destroyed.   So far, the same groups that have criticised the AAMD have been silent as to the reported Russian actions.

CPO wonders how long before Putin is being heralded as the savior of Syria's antiquities, at least in some quarters.

Fall of Palmyra Calls for Safe Harbor for Syrian Antiquities

As fear grows that ISIS may target Palmyra's ancient ruins for destruction, it's time to rethink the wisdom of repatriating artifacts to failed states like Syria and Iraq.  If anything, artifacts of cultural significance from such war zones should be removed and given temporary safe harbor, something suggested by the AAMD.

CPAC Meets to Discuss Renewal of MOU With Italy

On April 8, 2015, The US State Department Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) met in open session to discuss renewal of the Italian MOU.  The following CPAC members were present:  (1) Prof. Patty Gerstenblith, Chair (PG) (Public Member); (2) Rosemary Joyce (RJ)(Archaeology);  (3) Jane Levine (JL) (Trade); (4) Marta de la Torre  (MT)(Public); (5) Nancy Wilkie (NW) (Archaeology); and (6) James Willis (JW) (Trade).  The following members were absent:  (1) Nina Archabal  (Museum); (2) Barbara Kaul  (Public); (3) Lothar von Falenhausen (Archaeology); (4) Thomas Murray (Trade) and (5) Katherine Reid (Museum).   These absences are regrettable, though perhaps understandable given scheduling so soon after the Easter-Passover holiday.

The following individuals spoke in this order:  (1) Wayne Sayles (WS) (Ancient Coin Collectors Guild); (2) Peter Tompa (PT) (International Association of Professional Numismatists/Professional Numismatists Guild); (3) Sue McGovern-Huffman (SMH)(Association of Dealers and Collectors of Ancient and Ethnographic Art); (4) Doug Mudd (DM) (American Numismatic Association); (5) Karol Wight (Corning Glass Museum); (6) Judith Mann (JM) (St. Louis Art Museum); (7) Stephen Knerly (Association of Art Museum Directors); (8) Jane DeRose Evans (Temple University); (9) Alex Barker (University of Missouri); and (10) Carla Antonaccio (Duke University, Archaeological Institute of America and Society for American Archaeology).   The first seven speakers associated with the trade, collectors groups, educational associations and museums opposed the MOU, supported the MOU with major changes or opposed import restrictions on coins.  The last three speakers associated with the archaeological community gave the MOU unqualified support. 

There was also a six member Italian delegation present, but they did not speak in the public session.

WS-  The Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act protects what we call orphaned artifacts that have circulated in international trade, often for centuries, without any requirement or need for recorded provenance.  The law only allows import restrictions on coins that were "first discovered within" and "subject to export control" of a State Party with whom an MOU might be negotiated.  There was no legislative intent to restrict common coins.

WS's full statement may be found here.

Questions:  PG points to a Numismatica Ars Classica Catalogue which states that the firm will provide documentation for coins subject to US import restrictions.  She asks if NAC can provide such documentation why can’t other firms?  WS explains that NAC only sells high value coins that are more likely to have provenance information than common issues.   In response to a question by NW, WS indicates that NW’s views about “what is ethical” must be distinguished from what is required under the law when it comes to retention of provenance information.

PT- The 2011 decision to impose import restrictions on “coins of Italian types” was not made with CPAC’s knowledge or consent, and, indeed, CPAC member Robert Korver resigned on account of it.  CPAC should rethink current import restrictions and under no circumstances should restrictions be expanded to include late Roman Republican and Roman Imperial coins due to their wide circulation. Given budgetary realities, private collectors, not the Italian State, are the best stewards for common artifacts like coins.  

In prior MOUs, Italy pledged to consider ways to make it easier to secure export certificates for archaeological objects legitimately sold within Italy itself.  Unfortunately, nothing has been done to keep this promise, and, if anything it has become more difficult to procure them.  An IAPN member was even told that “The Americans” would not think Italy was serious about protecting its own cultural patrimony if such permits were granted.  Given this failure, CPAC should recommend that the MOU be modified so that U.S. Customs accepts proof of lawful export from any E.U. member state to help facilitate the legal import of coins “of Italian types” also legitimately for sale within Italy itself. 

PT's full statement may be found here.

Questions: PG thinks Korver’s statement that CPAC did not approve of restrictions should not be repeated because CPAC’s recommendations should be considered confidential.  PT notes that such information was supposed to be reported to Congress.  PG wonders whether the relatively few finds of Greek coins from Sicily and Italy that are found outside of Italy discussed in an attachment to IAPN’s written statement supports the assumption they predominantly circulated within Italy.  PT refers back to the plain meaning of the statute that requires artifacts to only be found there for there to be restrictions.  JW wanted to know whether the MOU was working to limit looting. PT believes that is more a function of aggressive police work.   In response to a question from MT, PT indicates that restrictions only harm those who comply with law because coins are so easy to smuggle.   He also notes that some European dealers don’t want to trade with Americans any longer given the red tape.

SMH- Restrictions have been detrimental to collecting.  Over time, this will negatively impact museums that benefit from donations from collectors.  Import restrictions disadvantage American collectors versus those in the EU. 

Questions: PG asks about ADCAEA.  SMH indicates it is a new organization with approximately 100 members.  In response to a question, SMH gives an example how restrictions have discouraged imports.  One of SMH’s clients wanted to bid on an Italian artifact in a Christie’s sale in London, but decided against it due to the red tape.

DM- Import restrictions will result in a loss of interest in ancient coins by collectors as the supply of Italian coins (ancient and otherwise) dries up. This will destroy the historically close relationship between advanced collectors and museums and inevitably impact donations of coins to numismatic institutions.  In the end these restrictions are likely to result in a drastic reduction in numismatic scholarship – much of which has been the result of the fruitful interaction of advanced private collectors and museum curators.

KW- There are too many barriers to long term loans.  American museums would like to display what Italian museums have in storage.  The problem is that personal contacts are necessary to get anywhere in Italy.  There are also concerns about expensive insurance and courier fees.

JM-Echoes concerns about fees and difficulty in getting loans.  It is very time consuming navigating the system.

Questions- PG wonders why so many museums have not asked for loans from Italy.  JM indicates it’s a chicken and egg problem.  The Italians make it so difficult that no one asks.

SK- Italy has not lived up to its promises in the MOU to provide long term loans.  The only museums to get long term loans are those that receive them as a quid pro quo for repatriating artifacts.   SK also reiterates the fact that museums have to deal with expensive courier and insurance fees.  Italy will not accept US State Department guarantees of indemnity and requires American museums to purchase insurance from Italian companies.

Questions- PG asks why some small museums have gotten loans.  SK explains you have to distinguish exposition loans from long term loans.  Exposition loans are set up by Italian for profit companies and the cost is considerable.  They do not satisfy Italy’s promises under Article II of the MOU.  In response to another question, SK also reiterates that Italy has done nothing to make it easier to secure export permits for purchases of artifacts legitimately for sale within Italy itself.

JE- Fresh coins on the market damage archaeology.  Locals and collectors and dealers should be educated to discourage looting.   Even common coins have value.  At archaeological sites like Sardes common bronze coins are mostly found.  Bronze coins were traded locally.   There is an exhibition in Philadelphia that features ancient coins.

AB- Asserts that all the legal requirements for a renewal of the MOU have been met.  AB’s school is involved in an innovative program with the Capitoline Museum.  It is studying material excavated in Rome in the late 1800’s and stored since.   It is funded privately.

CA- Excavates at Morgantina.  Italy is doing its best it can despite a severe budgetary crisis.  Metal detectorists prospect just outside the archaeological site and sometimes have come on site too during the period archaeologists are not excavating. 

Questions:  In response to a question by NW, CA indicates she believes illegal metal detectorists are searching for coins.  They have had some success deterring them with metal washers and other false targets.   

Assad Regime, Archaeological Lobby and UNESCO singing the same "Repatriate to Assad Now" Tune?

So it would seem from this opinion piece from Franklin Lamb, an unapologetic supporter of Hezbollah and the Assad regime.  While Lamb also claims that AAMD is on board as well, CPO has serious doubts that really is the case based on recent submissions to CPAC which suggest that the well being of artifacts takes precedence over repatriation.

And leaving repatriationist ideology aside, can anyone seriously claim that repatriated artifacts would be "better off" in a Syria beset by civil war let alone handed back to the very regime whose military was likely involved in looting at Apamea and Palmyra and whose forces have certainly bombed and shelled other sites of cultural significance into dust?

Organizations Overwhelmingly Against Renewal of Italian MOU or Import Restrictions on Coins

CPO previously reported that 94% of the public comments on the regulations.gov website either oppose the MOU's extension or import restrictions on coins.  It also appears that comments of  organizations representing the interests of their members also follow that trend.

Trade Associations

The International Association of Professional Numismatists, the Professional Numismatists Guild, and the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art all opposed the MOU or import restrictions on the lawful trade in ancient coins.  

Educational Organizations

Both the American Numismatic Association and Ancient Coins for Education expressed concerns about import restrictions on coins. 

Professional Organizations

The Association of Art Museum Directors took a nuanced approach to the MOU.  While supporting the renewal, AAMD requested changes to encourage Italy to live up to its part of the bargain.

Advocacy Groups

Two groups that advocate for the interests of dealers and collectors, the Association of Dealers and Collectors in Ancient and Ethnographic Art and the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, also argued against renewing the MOU or extending restrictions on historical coins.

In contrast, only one advocacy group associated with the archaeological lobby, the Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation, supports the extension unequivocally.  

All in all, 7 organizations oppose the renewal or import restrictions on coins, 1 organization supports the renewal, but with significant qualifications and only 1 organization supports the renewal unequivocally. 

AAMD to CPAC and Italy: Free the Coins!

The Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) presents a sobering portrait of Italy's unwillingness or inability to live up to its end of the current MOU with the United States.  Simply, Italy's grossly underfunded and over-bureaucratic cultural establishment is not up to the task. 

Italians are a wonderful people, with an unparalleled culture, and with great and innovative artisans with the business acumen to make Italian products much desired world-wide.  However, a distinct lack of effective and honest governance is a problem that negatively impacts all else, including the preservation of Italy's tremendous cultural heritage.

So, given the dismal performance of Italy's public sector, why not instead unleash some of that Italian entrepreneurial spirit and let Italy's antiquities and coin dealers sell not just to other Italians, but to the world?  After all, each MOU  has already called for Italy to ease the process for granting export permits for artifacts legally sold within Italy itself, something that has not happened (along with much else) courtesy of Italy's choking bureaucracy.

In particular, AAMD advocates opening up the Italian auction market so it can not only be a source of legitimately acquired artifacts, but help bring much needed money to help fund Italy's underfunded cultural establishment. 

And what of coins?  The AAMD rightly states they should be freed of foolish import restrictions: 

Export restrictions on many ancient coins...are illogical because they are not specific to Italy in origin and there is a ready, legal market for them in Italy. Many dealers in Italy advertise ancient coins for sale.Either Italy must agree to issue export permits for coins sold legally in Italy or the designated list should be amended to allow such coins to be brought into the United States.

Yes, by all means, free the coins!  Rome should rejoin the list of recognized world numismatic capitals like New York, Hong Kong, London, Paris, Munich, Vienna, Zurich, and new hot spots like Budapest, Prague and Warsaw as a place where ancient coins are bought and sold at auction for an international audience of serious collectors. 

94% of Public Comments Posted on Regulation.gov Website Opposed to Renewal of Italian MOU and/or Restrictions on Coins

CPO counted 326 responsive comments on the regulations.gov website (not 321 as stated).  Of this number, 308 either opposed renewal of the Italian MOU and/or restrictions on coins.  The vast majority of  these comments again come from coin collectors.  Of the rest, 3 comments from museums and/or the AAMD supported the MOU with reservations.  Another 15 from academics (most of whom likely depend on the Italian cultural bureaucracy to issue them excavation permits), bloggers associated with the archaeological lobby and an archaeological advocacy group (Lawyers Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation) supported the MOU unequivocally.

By CPO's count that means approximately 94% of the public comments posted on the regulations.gov website either opposed the renewal of the MOU and/or restrictions on coins.  While it's possible CPAC also received other comments by mail (one anti-collector academic has apparently used this method to avoid public scrutiny in the past), it's unlikely that there was a large number of such "off the record" comments. 

The large percentages of the public comments opposed to MOUs that negatively impact coin collecting has been consistent over the past several years though the absolute numbers of those commenting has declined markedly over time given the equally widely held public perception that the State Department could not care less what collectors think.   CPO nonetheless continues to believe silence will be taken as acquiescence so public comment remains important.

In any event, the low numbers of public comments supportive of MOUs and the fact that most comments come from academics with a vested interest in keeping the foreign cultural bureaucracies that issue excavation permits happy should raise another important question:  Are MOUs merely a special interest program for a small group of politically connected academics and the foreign cultural bureaucracies they do business with?

What's Wrong with the Rule of Law Anyway?

Archaeo-blogger Rick St. Hilaire has expressed alarm that the AAMD has opposed the renewal of the MOU with Nicaragua.  But the concerns that AAMD expressed relate to Nicaragua's failures to meet the statutory criteria for a renewal.   CPO also questions whether the AAMD has "changed its prior position" as much as reemphasized the importance of adhering to the letter of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act.  So, an apt question to put to "Cultural Heritage Lawyer" St. Hilaire might be, what's wrong with the rule of law anyway?

St. Louis Chapter of the AIA Leads the Way

All the hand-ringing in the archaeological blogosphere should not obscure the fact that the Saint Louis Chapter of the AIA did quite well in auctioning off its lovely, provenanced MesoAmerican pieces that were no longer thought to be essential to the Chapter's mission.

So, let's hope other AIA Chapters, and better yet source countries such as Cyprus, Egypt, Italy, Greece and Peru, look through their storerooms for similarly redundant artifacts which can be sold. Funds can then be used to help archaeological programs which otherwise would be under or even un-funded.

While this is not a new idea (the AAMD has proposed it previously), given tight budgets everywhere, it's an idea that fits the reality of our times almost everywhere.

Do archaeological societies and source countries really need row upon row of virtually identical artifacts heaped up in storerooms?  Isn't it better to make some use out of them once they have been properly recorded?

Bravo St. Louis Chapter of the AIA.  Hopefully, you will be trend setters.

Enough Already

The Association of Art Museum Directors has made a powerful case to CPAC that the State Department's standard operating procedure of simply renewing (and sometimes expanding) MOUs and associated import restrictions  over and over again is not working.  Here is part of what the AAMD has told CPAC in its public comments on the proposed renewal of a MOU with El Salvador:

El Salvador is one of the best examples of why the current system of simply renewing MOUs is ineffective and inconsistent with the CPIA.  The absence of a significant legitimate market in the United States for El Salvadorian Prehispanic objects has apparently had little or no effect on looting in El Salvador.  If the past, and presumably current, submissions to this Committee are to be believed, United States import restrictions alone have not been effective in significantly curtailing looting in El Salvador.  The time has come for the Committee to explore new ways, within the confines of the CPIA, to render real assistance to countries like El Salvador. 

The AAMD does not suggest that it has all of the answers to this issue, but one can begin to identify those answers by admitting that simply repeating what has been done in the past is not likely to have any different result than what has occurred over the last 27 years.  In 2010, the AAMD recommended to this Committee that El Salvador be encouraged to begin a legal system of exchange of cultural property. This can be suggested under 19 U.S.C. § 2602(a)(4). Any such exchange should be taxed and the proceeds of that tax should be used to protect cultural sites and to encourage related employment by the local populations and the scientific exploration, storage and conservation of objects from those sites.  There may well be other approaches that reasonable people on all sides of these issues can recommend, but the first step needs to be taken by this Committee in acknowledging that new and different approaches must be taken if the archaeological record of a country like El Salvador is to be preserved and protected.

Notable Statements on Egyptian MOU

I've had some time to go through the various comments on the regulations.gov website.  There were a lot of well written statements, but here are the four best in CPO's opinion that don't focus on the issue of coins:

Supporting the MOU

Statement  of Drs. Richard Levanthal and Brian Daniels of the Penn Museum

Testimony  of Dr. Selima Ikram, Society of American Archaeology

Questioning the MOU

Statement of the Association of Art Museum Directors

Former CPAC Member Kate Fitz Gibbon's Comments

They are well worth reading in full, so CPO will not presume to characterize what they say.

"Beyond Ownership" is Dead; Time to Rethink the Italian MOU?

The LA Times is reporting new information that sheds light on why Cleveland's long planned show of Sicilian antiquities is being cancelled.   Apparently, Sicily demanded that Cleveland pay an additional $700,000 in fees in order for the show to go on as planned. This figure is presumably in addition to the monies Cleveland had already pledged to the Getty, where the show originated.  The Cleveland Museum of Art wisely refused this demand, meaning the show will be cancelled.

Now, the Getty will be saddled with the entire $990,000 cost, some $300,000 more than anticipated.  All this should provide the Getty Trust's chief, Jim Cuno, with plenty of material for a new book.  Cuno has expressed serious qualms about Italy's approach to cultural property matters in the past.  Nevertheless, under his leadership, the Getty has made great efforts on Italy's behalf in recent years, both in terms of voluntarily repatriating objects and in assisting Italy's and Sicily's cultural establishments with funding and conservation help.  Yet, for all that effort, this is the kind of thanks the Getty has received from Italy and Sicily.

All this should also cause proponents of the MOU with Italy to rethink matters.  Now that U.S. Museums can no longer count on Italy to provide low cost short term loans, let alone the long term ones promised in the agreement, why should the U.S. continue to impose import restrictions on artifacts like ancient coins the Italians themselves actively and openly collect?

The Cultural Property Implementation Act allows the Cultural Property Advisory Committee to recommend that MOUs be suspended.  Perhaps time has now come to suspend the Italian MOU.  Clearly, Italy no longer honors the concept of loans, the key quid pro quo upon which the entire agreement is premised.  Why then should the interests of American museums, collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic and antiquities trade continue to be sacrificed?

Time to Monetize Sicily's Cultural Heritage

While I disagree with Sicily's last minute demands for more money to save Cleveland's exhibition,  Sicilian cultural officials should be commended for their candor-- it really is about the money. And that finally opens the door for Sicilian officials to think creatively about how to monetize Sicily's cultural heritage for the benefit of its own people.  Loan fees, of course.  But what about user fees for archaeologists?  And why not adopt the old AAMD idea of selective deacquisition of duplicates in museum collections?  Finally, I'd also suggest that Sicily consider adopting it's own version of the U.K. Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme with a twist.  Coins that were returned to the finder for sale would be required to be put up for public auction in Sicily along with museum duplicates.  Just think, if Sicilian authorities moved on this proposal quickly, an auction could even be scheduled to coincide with the upcoming International Numismatic Congress in  beautiful Taormina.