Business as Usual at the Cultural Heritage Center

Despite the Trump Administration’s often painful “disruption” of the State Department and its workforce in support of its “America First” agenda, two bits of news suggest that it’s still “business as usual” at the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center. Moreover, instead of merely completing Biden Administration initiatives, the Trump State Department has instead doubled down on furthering the anti-collector status quo as a "soft power" measure. 

First, the Greek City Times has reported that the State Department has repatriated coins and other artifacts to Greece as a "sweetener" to promote a renewal of the current Cultural Property Agreement (CPA)  with the country.  Once again, though the narrative is that these repatriated items were “stolen,” they instead appear to have been seized from American collectors solely due to “missing legal documentation,” i.e., the lack of proof that they were out of Greece for at least ten years.  Even worse, once again it also appears that at least one of the items— a gold stater from Lampsacus in present day Turkey- isn’t even on the “designated list” for Greece, a mere detail for the State Department and the archaeological advocacy groups celebrating yet another round of repatriations.  And if it’s not as if the State Department wasn’t aware of these problems.  In fact, they were discussed in detail at a March 3, 2026, Cultural Property Advisory Committee meeting to consider the renewal of the CPA with Greece. 

Second, today’s Federal Register announced an extension  of highly controversial “emergency import restrictions” on behalf of Taliban Afghanistan.  Presumably, the extension will be again be billed as necessary to help “save” Afghan cultural heritage from “terrorists” even though the governing statute mandates repatriation back to the same Taliban warlords responsible for blowing up the Bamiyan Buddhas and allowing Chinese mining interests to bulldoze the important Buddhist site of Mes Aynak in search of copper ore. 

How is this possible?  Blame the State Department’s addiction to using CPAs as “soft power” measures in the hopes that even “failed states” “will like us more” as well as the continued influence of politically connected archaeological advocacy groups that also receive significant State Department funding.  Moreover, as the latest repatriation to Greece and the extension of Afghan emergency restrictions demonstrate, these efforts depend on pushing the false narrative that CPAs are only focused on keeping "stolen" materials off the market so they can be returned to their "rightful" owners.  Of course, left unsaid is that import restrictions treat all "undocumented" artifacts as "stolen" although many such artifacts legitimately bought and sold in open and legal markets abroad have been traded over and over again without such documentation or that the "rightful" owners as far as the State Department is concerned include authoritarian regimes that declare anything "old" state property. 

So, what’s the solution?  At this point, sanity can only be restored with reform legislation to place guardrails on the system to ensure that the private property and due process rights of American collectors and the trade receive at least as much consideration as foreign governments and their partner archaeological advocacy groups.  Of course, some of this can also be accomplished administratively, but only if the Trump State Department is willing to put American collectors first. 

Summary of CPAC Meeting to Discuss Proposed Cultural Property Agreement with Cameroon, Renewals of Cultural Property Agreements with Colombia and Türkiye, and a Renewal of Emergency Import Restrictions for Afghanistan

 On September 15, 2025, the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) met in a virtual public session to accept comments regarding a proposed Cultural Property Agreement  (CPA) or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Cameroon, Renewals of current CPAs with Colombia and Türkiye, and a renewal of current “emergency” import restrictions with Afghanistan.

The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs’ (ECA’s) website describes these requests as follows:

https://www.state.gov/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-september-15-17-2025/  (last visited September 15, 2025).

Cameroon

The Government of the Republic of Cameroon seeks protection for archaeological and ethnological materials from 100,000 B.C. to the 19th century A.D., from the following time periods and cultures: Paleolithic (circa 100,000 – 2,000 B.C.), Neolithic (circa 9,000 – 500 B.C.), Metal Age (circa 3,000 – 300 B.C.), Historic Period (circa 1500 A.D.), Ethnological Period (circa 1,000 B.C. – 19th century A.D.), including objects made from stone (tools and weapons), ceramic (pottery and vessels), metal (jewelry, weapons, tools), fossil and bone (human and animal remains). The ethnological materials requested include objects made from wood (masks, statues, furniture), metal (jewelry, weapons, tools), textiles (ceremonial clothing, tapestries, embroidery), animal skins (clothing, drums, ritual objects), and bone (jewelry, tools, ritual objects).

Afghanistan

Extending emergency import restrictions unilaterally imposed by the United States on archaeological and ethnological material from Afghanistan would continue import restrictions on categories of archaeological material ranging in date from the Paleolithic Period (50,000 B.C.) through the beginning of the Durrani Dynasty (1747 A.D.), and ethnological material ranging in date from approximately 800 A.D. to 1920 A.D.

Colombia

Extending the Colombia MOU would continue import restrictions on categories of archaeological material ranging in date from approximately 1500 B.C. to 1530 A.D., and ecclesiastical ethnological material of the Colonial period ranging in date from approximately 1530 A.D. to 1830 A.D.

Türkiye

Extending the Türkiye MOU would continue import restrictions on categories of archaeological material ranging in date from approximately 1.2 million years ago to 1770 A.D., and ethnological material ranging in date from the 1st century A.D. to 1923 A.D.

The CPAC members did not introduce themselves before the public session, but CPAC currently includes the following individuals, all  appointed by President Biden: (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)).

There were also Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) Cultural Heritage Center staff present, presumably including Glen Davis, Director of the Cultural Heritage Center and Andrew Zonderman, who is serving as CPAC’s Executive Director.  Messrs. Davis and Zonderman are new to their positions.  

The meeting was conducted entirely on Zoom.  None of the CPAC or ECA staff identified themselves to the speakers, so it was difficult to ascertain who attended the meeting.

The Chair, Alexandra Jones, welcomed the speakers.  She thanked the speakers for attending, indicated that all comments had been read, and that speakers should try to limit themselves to under five minutes each given the number of presenters. 

Dr. Ömür Harmanşah spoke as the Vice President for Cultural Heritage, Archaeological Institute of America (“AIA”).  Given time constraints, he focused his comments on Türkiye and Afghanistan.  He stated that Congress chartered the AIA in 1906 and that today it has over 100,000 members which includes professionals and members of the interested public.  Dr. Harmanşah argued that all four countries suffered from looting which is a global phenomenon. He praised Türkiye’s hosting of American archaeologists at long-term digs in places like Sardis.  He noted that the Afghan National Museum had partnered with the University of Chicago to document continued looting in the country after the Taliban took power.  Dr. Harmanşah himself has helped document looting in Türkiye.  Türkiye has taken strong measures to protect its own cultural heritage, including enforcement, repatriation efforts, the creation of museum inventories and the creation of a new “Red List” of Turkish archaeological materials at risk from looting.   Türkiye has also sent exhibitions to the US, including one about the Golden Age of Midas that was displayed at the University of Pennsylvania. 

The AIA’s written comments about the proposed renewal of emergency import restrictions for Afghanistan can be found here:  can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0088

The AIA’s written comments on the proposed MOU with Cameroon can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0089

The AIA’s written comments about the renewal with Colombia can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0086

The AIA’s written comments about the renewal with Türkiye can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0085

Peter Tompa spoke as executive director for the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN).  He indicated that IAPN opposed renewals for Afghanistan and Türkiye and takes no position on a MOU for Cameroon or a renewal for Colombia as long as coins are not included.  He focused his comments on Afghanistan and Türkiye, stating that both renewals raised fundamental contradictions that could not be reconciled.  He referenced the Taliban’s past destruction of historic statues and current blessing of a Chinese copper mine that will swallow up an important Buddhist site.  He further stated that ongoing looting with the full knowledge of local warlords who have pledged allegiance to the Taliban cannot be considered an “emergency.”   As for Türkiye, he noted that its government’s aggressive repatriation efforts abroad must be contrasted with its encouragement of treasure hunting on Jewish and Christian sites at home as well as its conversion of historic churches into mosques.   He further stated that extensive “designated lists” that cover coins that circulated regionally and internationally only hurt legitimate trade.  As a solution, he suggested that the Trump Administration apply the Administrative Procedure Act to the creation of designated lists and the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act to enforcement. 

Peter Tompa’s oral statement can be found here: 

https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2025/09/renewals-for-afghanistan-and-Türkiye.html

IAPN’s written comments on proposed renewal of emergency import restrictions for Afghanistan can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0035

IAPN’s written comments on renewal with Colombia can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0032

IAPN’s written comments on the renewal with Türkiye can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0038

Peter Tompa’s personal comments can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0059

Dr. John Hoopes (University of Kansas) spoke in support of a renewal of the MOU with Colombia.  He has excavated in the country for 30 years.  Pottery and gold artifacts are sought by looters, making the renewal of the current MOU to be essential in helping to protect Colombia’s cultural heritage.  There are many sites yet to be excavated, just being discovered with the help of modern imaging techniques. 

Kate FitzGibbon spoke as Executive Director of the Committee of Cultural Policy (CCP) against the renewal of the current emergency import restrictions on behalf of Afghanistan. FitzGibbon has a special interest in the country after living there for 30 years working primarily with Afghan women who make textiles.  FitzGibbon raised four main points.  First, any renewal is inconsistent with statutory intent.  The Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) § 2603 only authorizes narrow, time-limited, exceptional measures when there is an immediate crisis—targeted to clearly defined categories that meet an evidentiary emergency standard—so that US border controls can actually reduce the incentive for pillage. Congress did not design § 2603 to function as a rolling, multi-year embargo across whole civilizations. Second, the destination problem is real and unavoidable. Under the CPIA’s return rule, designated material forfeited in the US must first be offered back to the State Party. Today that means return to the Taliban and their Interior Minister, Sirajuddin Haqqani, a US-wanted terrorist.  Third, the policy is mis-aimed.  The Afghan government, not the US art market, is the problem.  The most acute threats to Afghanistan’s heritage today are state-sanctioned or militia-enabled extractions and earthmoving, most notably the destruction of the important Buddhist site of Mes Aynak to mine copper.  Finally, the emergency standard has been stretched past recognition. A catch-all designated list spanning 70,000 years of culture through A.D. 1920, renewed in five-year blocks, is not what § 2603 authorizes.  Such a broad designated list only hurts legitimate trade and threatens to sweep up and repatriate the personal property of Afghan refugees.  Instead, the US Government should prioritize diaspora protection and safe-haven pathways and create custodial trusteeship options with US museums and libraries for Afghan materials until a legitimate government exists.

Testimony opposing the Afghan renewal submitted on behalf of the CCP and its sister organization, the Global Heritage Alliance (GHA), can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0091

FitzGibbon also submitted written testimony on behalf of the CCP and GHA that opposed or questioned aspects of new or renewed MOUs with Cameroon, Colombia and Türkiye.  

The CCP’s and GHA’s written testimony on a proposed new MOU with Cameroon can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0079

The CCP’s and GHA’s written testimony on a proposed renewal of a MOU with Colombia can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0080

The CCP’s and GHA’s written testimony on a proposed renewal of a MOU with Türkiye can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0083

Randy Myers spoke as a board member on behalf of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG). He also spoke on behalf of the American Numismatic Association (ANA).  He touched on several points related to the renewals for Afghanistan and Türkiye.  First, he indicated the time provided to comment of 31 days is inadequate; instead a full 60 days should be provided as set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act.   Second, Myers noted that current import restrictions on coins ignore the statutory provisions that limit them to archaeological objects of “cultural significance” that were “first discovered within” and “subject to export control” of a given country.  He emphasized that unlike many ancient artifacts, coins are mass produced, with dies used to strike 13,000 coins each.  This large production of coins combined with their wide dispersion means that one cannot assume that particular coin types are found in a given country.  For example, coins on the current designated list for Türkiye are found as far West as Spain and as far East as India.  Finally, he notes that the State Department has produced no information to suggest that the MOU with Türkiye has been effective.

The ACCG’s and ANA’s written comments regarding the renewal of emergency import restrictions for Afghanistan can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0030

The ACCG’s and ANA’s written comments regarding the renewal of the CPA with Türkiye emergency can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0031

Elias Gerasoulis spoke as executive director of the GHA and also as a board member of the American Hellenic Institute to oppose the Turkish renewal.  The Turkish CPA should not be renewed because it will only further encourage Türkiye to erase the cultural heritage of its displaced minority Christian and Jewish populations. Türkiye has tried to rewrite the histories of its historic churches.  It has licensed looting of Christian and Jewish sites.  It has precluded Christian religious orders from owning their own property.  It has occupied a significant part of Cyprus, looting and destroying numerous churches.  It’s government actively works against religious freedom. 

Lucy Varpetian appeared on behalf of the Armenian Bar Association.  The Armenian Bar Association submitted comments, but Ms. Varpetian used her time to read a letter to CPAC from Congressman Gus Bilirakis (R-Florida) opposing a renewal of the MOU with Türkiye.   Congressman Bilirakis wrote CPAC as a co-chair of the Congressional International Religious Freedom Caucus.  That letter noted that Türkiye had failed to protect the cultural heritage of its religious minorities, most notably by converting historic churches into mosques.  The asking that the MOU not be renewed, Bilirakis concludes that, “[t]he government that destroys its minorities’ historical property should not have the right to repatriate them at their pleasure.” 

The Armenian Bar Association’s written comments can be found here: 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0072

After this presentation, one CPAC member (William Teitelman?) noted he was Jewish and indicated to Ms. Varpetian that the concerns of religious minorities would be considered. 

Rabbi Eric Fusfield is Deputy Director, International Center for Human Rights and Public Policy, Director of Legislative Affairs, B'nai B'rith International. He argues that there should be a carve out from current import restriction for Türkiye for ritual and ceremonial objects.   These are currently found on the designated list for Türkiye, but they really belong to Jewish and Christian communities, not the Turkish state.  Rabbi Fusfield holds up a Kiddish cup as an example.  His wife’s family comes from a Middle Eastern country, and they were not allowed to take such items with them when they were forced to flee.  If these items remain on “designated lists,” he thinks such items that may be seized by US Customs should be turned over to the communities in exile, particularly whereas in Türkiye there are so few members of the Jewish faith still living there these days.

Dr. Peri Johnson is an archaeologist teaching at the University of Illinois Chicago.  She supports a renewal of the CPA with Türkiye because looting is still a major problem there.  She has seen instances where heavy machinery was brought in to help loot sites.  Around 50% of the archaeological digs in Türkiye are meant to rescue items before they can be taken by looters. 

Dr. Elizabeth Prodromou is a visiting professor in the international studies program at Boston College.  Prodromou served a diplomatic appointment on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (2004-2012), and she was a member of the US Secretary of State’s Religion & Foreign Policy Working Group (2011-2015).  Dr. Promdmou believes that the current agreement is in violation of Article 9 of the UNESCO Convention because it can be seen as “green lighting” Türkiye’s erasure of minority cultures, most recently the conversion of the Cathedral of Ani into a mosque. The renewal of the MOU should be rejected, but if it is renewed, there should be an individualized provenance review for contested items to determine whether the object was originally created by a community that no longer exists in modern Türkiye or whose property rights have not been acknowledged.

Dr. Prodromou’s written testimony, joining the comments of the Armenian Bar Association, can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2025-0203-0078

Dr. Simon Maghakyan is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Oxford. He indicates his support of the comments of the Armenian Bar Association.  He indicates that another reason the MOU should be rejected is on account of Türkiye’s support for Azerbaijan in its war to erase Armenian culture heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh.  He also notes that he has studied and written a Newsweek article about state-sanctioned treasure hunting of former Armenian areas in Türkiye.  This article is cited in the Armenian Bar Association’s comments at page 3. He urges CPAC to adopt the 6 safeguards proposed in the Armenian Bar Association’s comments.  These safeguards are discussed in depth at pages 6-7 of those comments.

Dr. Brian Rose is the James B. Pritchard Professor of Archaeology at the University of Pennsylvania in the Classical Studies Department and the Graduate Group in the Art and Archaeology of the Mediterranean World. He is also Peter C. Ferry Curator-in-Charge of the Mediterranean Section of the Penn Museum.  He supports the renewal of the MOU with Türkiye believing that it is essential to help combat continued looting in the country.  Türkiye has taken adequate measures to protect its own cultural heritage.  These include the use of drones to surveil sites and an active repatriation program, with the help of the Manhattan DA’s office.

One CPAC member (William Teitelman?) asks Dr. Rose about Türkiye’s aggressive efforts to erase minority cultures.   Dr. Rose can only say he has not personally seen any such activities and that the Turkish colleagues he deals with respect all cultures.  He also indicates that he is aware of Türkiye’s efforts to turn Hagia Sophia into a mosque but offers no other comments. 

Cultural Property Agreement Renewals for Afghanistan and Turkey Raise Unreconcilable Contradictions

This is what I said at today's CPAC hearing:  

Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the International Association of Professional Numismatists.  IAPN opposes renewals for Afghanistan and  for Turkey.  IAPN takes no position on a new MOU for Cameroon or a renewal for Colombia, but opposes any import restrictions on coins.  The coins that circulated in these two countries simply don’t meet the criteria for either archaeological or ethnological objects.  Historical coinage that circulated in Colombia was also US legal tender before 1857 and the first official issues of Cameroon were late 19^th century coinage of the German Empire.

I would like to focus my comments today on Afghanistan and Turkey.  Both renewals raise fundamental contradictions that cannot possibly be reconciled.

Proponents argue that import restrictions promote cultural heritage preservation and are only directed against keeping recently looted material off the market.  However, such claims are misleading at best given the reality on the ground in both countries and the way US Customs enforces  import restrictions as embargoes on material imported from legal markets abroad, chiefly in Europe.  

Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers blew up the  Bamiyan Buddhas and smashed statuary at the Kabul Museum.  More recent efforts at bribing them into caring with money for “conservation projects” can’t compete with Chinese business interests which are in the process of destroying a major Buddhist site at Mes Aynak to mine copper.   Moreover, any looting has been going on for decades, all under the watchful eyes of local warlords.  The only difference now is that they pledge allegiance to the Taliban.  Such long term looting with the full knowledge of government authorities simply does not qualify as an  “emergency.”   Finally, despite the AIA’s claims to the contrary, Section 1216 of the National Defense Authorization Act is no safe harbor provision because it only covers institutional loans.  In fact, US law requires repatriation to the Taliban once diplomatic relations are restored, and  any decision will be made on a basis other than the safety of the objects.

Meanwhile, Erdogan’s aggressive repatriation efforts abroad must be contrasted with his government’s active promotion of  “treasure hunting” at former Jewish and Christian sites at home.  This is just another provocation directed at minority religious groups like the conversion of Hagia Sophia and the Cathedral at Ani into mosques. 

For coins, extensive “designated lists” which cover coins that circulated regionally or internationally only hurt legitimate trade.  Efforts to limit such lists to coins “sourced” to Afghanistan or which “circulated primarily” in Turkey are meaningless since US Customs seizes coins based on their  “type” alone.  That means pretty much all ancient and early modern coins are now at risk unless the importer can prove the “negative” that they were out of a given country before the effective date of the governing regulations or for at least 10 years    While  enforcement has been spotty, it does occur with the results being that collectors have their property taken with little, if any, “due process.” 

Going forward, the best solution would be for the Trump Administration to make  preparing designated lists  subject to the Administrative Procedure Act and for any detentions, seizures and forfeitures of cultural property to be subject to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000.  The former would require the government to justify the inclusion of specific coin types in the designated lists and the latter would help  ensure that import restrictions only apply in situations where there was some evidence that the coin in question was illicitly exported from a country with a MOU or emergency restrictions after the date of the governing regulations.

Thank you for your consideration of the views of the micro businesses of the numismatic trade.

Time Again to Tell the Cultural Property Advisory Committee What You Think About Import Restrictions on Coins for Taliban Afghanistan and Erdogan’s Türkiye

 The State Department has announced a Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) Meeting to consider renewals of current “emergency” import restrictions on behalf of Taliban Afghanistan, and the renewals of current cultural property memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with Erdogan’s Türkiye and Colombia.  CPAC will also consider a new MOU with Cameroon.

The State Department’s announcement can be found here:  https://www.state.gov/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-september-15-17-2025/

The State Department is soliciting comments here:  https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2025-0203-0001

Comments are due on or before September 8, 2025.

The renewals for Afghanistan and Türkiye should be controversial because they prioritize soft power efforts directed at a terrorist state (Afghanistan) and an authoritarian one (Turkey) over the interests of American collectors, museums, and the trade in cultural goods.  For coin collectors, the big issue is the grossly overbroad designated lists for both countries that cover coins that circulated regionally or internationally.   There are currently no import restrictions for coins for Colombia, and it does not appear that Cameroon is requesting any restrictions, likely because coins were not used there until recently.

The other big issue relates to enforcement.  Unfortunately, in the only case that addressed the issue, courts in the US Fourth Circuit gave Customs a “green light” to detain, seize and repatriate coins for no other reason that they were of types on a “designated list” for import restrictions.  This puts collectors importing such coins at risk because it is often difficult, if not impossible, to produce the documentation necessary for legal import under current “safe harbor” procedures.

For further details about these MOUs and emergency restrictions and how to comment see this solicitation from the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild https://accguild.org/news/13533301 as well as this critique from the Cultural Property Observer blog: https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2025/08/soft-power-love-for-taliban-trump-state.html  Again, comments are due on or before September 8, 2025, with the CPAC hearing to take place on September 15, 2025, via a Zoom video conference. 

What should you say? It’s better to write in your own words about how import restrictions hurt your ability to  access coins and learn more about other cultures or even get in touch with your own cultural heritage.  However, here is a model for you to consider:

Please do not renew current import restrictions that prioritize the interests of a terrorist state (Afghanistan) and an authoritarian one (Türkiye) over the rights of American coin collectors.  If you nonetheless renew these agreements, please ensure that the designated lists are rewritten so that it is absolutely clear that they do not impact coins legitimately imported from legal markets abroad, particularly those in Europe.  Coin collecting is a hobby that promotes cultural understanding and relationships with collectors abroad.  It is troubling that the State Department Bureau of Cultural Affairs is behind efforts that do considerable damage to a hobby that actually promotes the cultural understanding the Bureau supposedly aims to foster.

"Soft Power" Love for the Taliban: Trump State Department Continues to Prioritize the Interests of Foreign Despots and Archaeological Advocacy Groups Over Those of American Citizens

Collectors hoping Trump II would “make collecting great again" have been sorely disappointed.  Instead, giveaways in the form of Cultural Property Agreements or Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) to foreign despots, their cultural bureaucracies, and US based archaeological advocacy groups that are dependent on foreign excavation permits continue to be approved at an accelerated pace. 

These MOUs impose confiscatory import restrictions on cultural goods.  They are justified as  "soft power" measures aimed at encouraging even "failed states" to "like us more."  Indeed, the push to complete as many agreements as possible has been so strong that the State Department has gone so far as to fund both foreign requests and "self-help" measures, both of which are supposed to be the responsibility of the foreign government.  Doge cuts or no, such funding in the form of cultural property implementation grants continues to appear on  the State Department Cultural Heritage Center website.  Of course, some of the prime beneficiaries are associated with the archaeological advocacy groups most identified with protecting the current status quo. For example, according to a federal grant tracking database, the Antiquities Coalition, one of the most active, has received over $3.3 million in grants from the State Department and USAID for work that has included "strengthen[ing] the U.S. commitment to preventing illegal trafficking and sale of antiquities into the United States from Uzbekistan, Nepal, and India by supporting the development of bilateral Cultural Property Agreements."

Trump has sought to overturn many "woke" Biden initiatives, but his Administration has nonetheless implemented Biden era decisions to impose import restrictions on behalf of Hindu nationalist India, authoritarian Uzbekistan, and even Hezbollah dominated Lebanon.  The Trump Administration may have hit India with 50% punitive tariffs and approved Israel's continued bombing campaign in Lebanon, but that hasn't stopped the US government from seizing and repatriating cultural goods to these countries.  

Moreover, after a short regulatory pause, the Trump State Department has even expanded these "soft power" efforts.  In May 2025, the State Department held a Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC)  Meeting to consider a new MOU with Communist Vietnam, and renewed agreements with Chile, Costa Rica, Italy and Morocco.  In so doing, the State Department denied a request from groups representing collectors and the trade to postpone the meeting to give time for Trump to appoint at least some CPAC members.  As it is, CPAC may be one of the last bodies in the federal government still  completely staffed with Biden political appointees.  

Now, at a time Congress is out of session and most of Washington, DC is enjoying summer vacation, the State Department has provided public notice of a September 2025 CPAC meeting to consider a renewal of even more controversial "emergency import restrictions" on behalf of Taliban Afghanistan, as well as a new MOU with authoritarian Cameroon, and renewals for Erdogan's Turkey and the Leftist government in Columbia.  

One preliminary question is whether the State Department has exceeded its statutory authority under the Cultural Property Implementation Act in considering renewals of import restrictions for Afghanistan, Columbia and Turkey.  The notice of the proposed extension for Afghanistan does not mention any request for a renewal or information received from the State Party that supports the determination that an emergency condition still exists. 19 U.S.C. Section 2602 (f) (2), 2603 (c) (1). The same issue arises with the notices of proposed extensions of MOUs for Columbia and Turkey.    Neither of those notices indicate that either country has requested a renewal of a current agreement or provide any information to justify it.  19 U.S.C. Section 2602 (a) (1), (a) (3), (e), (f) (2). Without any such request or supporting information  from a State Party, such restrictions can only be authorized by a special act of Congress as was done for post Saddam Iraq in 2001 and Assad's Syria in 2016.

Each of these proposals also raise important substantive concerns, but the renewal of "emergency import restrictions" on behalf of Taliban Afghanistan should be particularly troubling.  Why should the Trump  II Administration even consider repatriating cultural goods to the Taliban at all?  As was pointed out  by representatives of museums, collectors and the trade during a 2021 CPAC hearing to consider the initial request for import restrictions from the "former government of Afghanistan," the Taliban are far more known for dynamiting cultural heritage such as the Buddhas of Bamiyan than preserving it.  More recently, a Chinese mining company has moved forward with the blessing of Taliban officials on controversial plans to dig a copper mine under an important ancient Buddhist site at Mes Aynak.  Of course, the silence from archaeological advocacy groups that regularly condemn American collectors, dealers and museums as would be looters is deafening.  Indeed, the founder of the well-funded and politically connected Antiquities Coalition has gone so far as to praise Communist China's authoritarian, mercantilist, and nationalistic cultural heritage policy.   No matter the Chinese Communist's distinct lack of respect for Buddhist cultural heritage in Afghanistan as well as their promotion of Han cultural supremacy along with the state sponsored suppression and destruction of the cultural heritage of subject Tibetan and Uyghur cultures.  

So, why is the Trump Administration continuing on this same path?  It may simply be that the State Department bureaucracy has misled Administration officials about the true effect of MOUs and import restrictions on legitimate trade and collecting.  In an email announcing September's CPAC hearing, the State Department Cultural Heritage Center claims that import restrictions "bar trafficked cultural property from entering the United States while encouraging the legal exchange of cultural property for scientific, cultural and educational purposes."   What can be wrong with that!

In fact, plenty.  In reality, such import restrictions actually harm the legal exchange of cultural property because they operate as embargos on all cultural goods of "designated types," including those purchased on legal markets abroad, mostly in Europe.  Such a broad-brush approach is particularly damaging to the legitimate trade in historical coins.  Under it, once a coin is determined to be of a type that appears on a designated list, it may be detained, seized and repatriated based on nothing more than being one of many thousands of examples of such coins that may have circulated regionally if not internationally. 

Coin collectors continue to believe that the governing statute instead requires the government to at least demonstrate "probable cause" that a coin subject to detention, seizure and forfeiture was illicitly exported after the effective date of any governing regulations.  However, the State Department and US Customs convinced Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson and the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit to provide US law enforcement with a "green light" to seize and repatriate collector's coins solely based on their “type” as a "foreign policy matter."   Fast forward to the present, mainstream media lauded Wilkinson as a champion for the due process rights of  illegal aliens who were also allegedly gang members.   But what about "due process" for collectors?

This lack of due process matters because the current "safe harbor" for those importing restricted cultural goods was meant for valuable objects with long paper trails.  Moreover, overlapping designated lists for multiple countries of coin types subject to such import restrictions now regularly include coins that circulated regionally or even internationally.  All this makes it difficult, if not impossible, to import increasing numbers of historic collectors coins from legal markets abroad. Most collector's coins simply do not have the provenance documentation necessary for legal import under the current "safe harbor" provision. Given the limited value of most collector's coins and the great numbers found in most collections, most are unlikely to have documentation "proving" a particular coin left a specific country before the effective date of governing regulations. 

So what can collectors do?  

First, collectors should still comment on the proposed MOU with Cameroon as well as the proposed renewals of import restrictions for Afghanistan, Columbia and Turkey.  While one may think their comments don't matter, silence will be taken as acquiescence to the status quo.  Coin collectors should focus on the fact that embargoes on import of collector's coins makes no sense, particularly because one cannot assume that a coin type was only found in a particular country.  They can and should also describe how there are far too many coins out there for them all to be cared for by cultural bureaucracies, particularly ones in places like Afghanistan.  

Second, coin collectors should contact their Representative and Senators and ask them to support HR 595, a bill to facilitate the lawful exchange in collector's coins.

Finally, all collectors should advocate for more fundamental legislative reform to protect our due process rights before any collectibles are detained, seized and forfeited to a foreign government.  In view of the State Department’s continuation of the anti-collecting status quo, only legislative action can help "make collecting great again."

W

"Emergency" Import Restrictions Imposed on Afghan Cultural Goods to 1920's.

The State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and US Customs and Border Protection have imposed extremely broad "emergency import restrictions" on cultural goods "sourced" to Afghanistan.   The restrictions that were put in place address few of the concerns raised by representatives of museums, collectors and the small and micro businesses of the numismatic and ethnographic art trades at a rushed Cultural Property Advisory Committee meeting that took place on Oct. 5, 2021. 

"The Designated List includes archaeological and ethnological material sourced from Afghanistan. Archaeological material ranges in date from the Paleolithic (50,000 B.C.) through the beginning of the Durrani Dynasty (A.D. 1747). Ethnological material includes architectural objects and wooden objects associated with Afghanistan’s diverse history, from the 9th century A.D. through A.D. 1920." 

A link to the Federal Register Notice announcing the restrictions can be found here.  

The real question is how these restrictions are going to be enforced and if any material that may be seized will be repatriated to the Taliban once diplomatic relations are restored.   CPO also wonders if  these "emergency import restrictions" will morph into a memorandum of understanding with  Afghanistan's Taliban government as was recently done with Libya.  

There also is a significant issue whether these import restrictions were promulgated legally.  As recounted in the Federal Register Notice, a request from the former government of Afghanistan was only acted upon after that government fell.  Although Afghanistan's former government evidently requested a MOU, "emergency import restrictions" which do not require a signed agreement were imposed instead.  Such "emergency import restrictions" also require a "request" from a "State Party."  See 19 USC § 2603 (c) (1).   Thus, the same question arises, can the State Department act based on a "request" of a government that no longer exists?

There also is a significant practical issue for collectors, museums, the trade as well as the representatives of displaced religious and ethnic minorities.  "Emergency restrictions" were contemplated to be imposed on a much narrower range of cultural goods than "regular restrictions."  The baseline requirements of “cultural significance” and “first discovery” still apply, but emergency restrictions otherwise focus on material of particular importance.  In essence, the material must be a “newly discovered type” or from a site of “high cultural significance” that is in danger of “crisis proportions.” 19 USC § 2603 (a).  Alternatively, the object must be part of the remains of a civilization, the record of which is in jeopardy of “crisis proportions,” and restrictions will reduce the danger of pillage.  Id.  Here, in contrast, the "emergency import restrictions" that were imposed are hardly narrow.  Rather, they are instead exceptionally broad, including items produced as late as the 1920's.  

The one bright spot is that the designated list does not include "textiles" under the ethnographic category.  If it did, such import restrictions would potentially devastate the livelihoods of Afghan women who make a living weaving textiles for export.

Aside from that, the exceptionally broad designated list is concerning because import restrictions are not applied prospectively solely to illegal exports made after the effective date of regulations under 19 U.S.C. § 2606, but rather are enforced far more broadly against any import into the U.S. made after the effective date of regulations, i.e., an embargo, not targeted, prospective import restrictions.  It remains to be seen whether the Federal Register's limitation to cultural goods "sourced" to Afghanistan has any effect whatsoever on enforcement.  

Those of the Buddhist faith should be particularly concerned about restrictions encompassing Buddhist material of the sort the Taliban has destroyed in the past.  

The inclusion of musical instruments under ethnological material is particularly chilling given the Taliban's strictures against music and murder of a prominent folk musician. 

The designated list of coins is particularly broad and includes coins that circulated regionally as well as internationally.  It goes far beyond coins that "primarily circulated" within Afghanistan, the State Department's prior standard and encompasses coin types (like Roman Imperial coins) purposely left of prior lists.  Hopefully, such broad restrictions made on an "emergency basis" will not be cited as "precedent" in the future, particularly given the Federal Register's requirement that they be "sourced" to Afghanistan.  

Coins— Ancient coins include gold, silver, copper, and bronze coins; may be hand stamped with units ranging from tetradrachms to dinars; includes gold bun ingots and silver ingots, which may be plain and/or inscribed. Some of the most well-known types are described below:

a. The earliest coins in Afghanistan are Greek silver coins, including tetradrachms and drachmae. Approximate date: 530-333 B.C.

b. During the reign of Darius I, gold staters and silver sigloi were produced in Bactria and Gandhara. Approximate date: 586-550 B.C.

c. Achaemenid coins include round punch-marked coins with one or two punched holes and bent bar coins ( shatamana ). Approximate date: 5th century B.C.

d. Gandhara coins include janapadas, bent bar coins based on the silver sigloi weight. Approximate date: 4th century B.C.

e. Mauryan coins include silver karshapanas with five punches, six arm designs, and/or sun symbols. Weights ranged from 5.5 to 7.2 gm. Approximate date: 322-185 B.C.

f. Gold staters and silver tetradrachms were produced locally after Alexander the Great conquered the region. Approximate date: 327-323 B.C.

g. Greco-Bactrian coins include gold staters, silver tetradrachms, silver and bronze drachms, and a small number of punch-marked coins. The bust of the king with his name written in Greek and Prakit were on the obverse, and Greek deities and images of Buddha were on the reverse. Approximate date: 250-125 B.C.

h. Common Roman Imperial coins found in archaeological contexts in Afghanistan were struck in silver and Start Printed Page 9443 bronze. Approximate date: 1st century B.C.-4th century A.D.

i. Kushan Dynasty coins include silver tetradrachms, copper coin (Augustus type), bronze diadrachms and gold dinars. Imagery includes portrait busts of each king with his emblem ( tamgha) on both sides. Classical Greek and Zoroastrian deities and images of the Buddha are depicted on the reverse. Approximate date: A.D. 19-230.

j. Sassanian coins include silver drachms, silver half drachms, obols ( dang), copper drahms and gold dinars, and gold coins of Shapur II (A.D. 309-379). Starting with Peroz I, mint indication was included on the coins. Sassanian coins may include imagery of Zoroastrian Fire Temples. Approximate date: A.D. 224-651.

k. Hephthalite coins include silver drachms, silver dinars, and small copper and bronze coins. The designs were the same as Sassanian, but they did not put the rulers' names on the coins. Hephthalite coins may include imagery of Zoroastrian Fire Temples. Approximate date: 5th-8th centuries A.D.

l. Turk Shahis coins include silver and copper drachma with portraits of the rulers wearing a distinctive triple crescent crown. The emblems of these Buddhist Turks were also included on the coin. Inscriptions were in Bactrian. Approximate date: A.D. 665-850.

m. Shahiya or Shahis of Kabul coins include silver, bronze, and copper drachma with inscriptions of military and chief commanders. Hindu imagery is included on the coin design. The two main types of images are the bull and horseman and the elephant and lion. Approximate date: A.D. 565-879.

n. Chinese coins belonging primarily to the Tang Dynasty are found in archaeological contexts in Afghanistan. Approximate date: A.D. 618-907.

o. Ghaznavid coins include gold dinars with bilingual inscriptions, Islamic titles in Arabic and Sharda and images of Shiva, Nandi, and Samta Deva. Approximate date: A.D. 977-1186.

p. Ghurid coins include silver and gold tangas with inscriptions and abstract goddess iconography. Approximate date: A.D. 879-1215.

q. Timurid coins include silver and copper tangas and copper dinars, both coin types are decorated with Arabic inscriptions. Approximate date: A.D. 1370 -1507.

r. Mughal coins include shahrukhi, gold mithqal, gold mohur, silver rupee, copper dams, and copper falus. The iconography varies, depending on the ruler, but popular designs include images of the Hindu deities Sita and Ram, portrait busts of the rulers, and the twelve zodiac signs. Approximate date: A.D. 1526-1857.

Summary of October 5, 2021, Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting to Address Emergency Import Restrictions Request on Behalf of the “Former Government of Afghanistan,” Proposed Renewals of MOUs with Cyprus and Peru.

                On October 5, 2021, the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (“CPAC”) met to consider proposed emergency import restrictions on behalf of the “former government of Afghanistan” as well as proposed renewals of MOUs with Peru and Cyprus.  The following members were present: (1) Stefan Passantino (Chairman- Public); (2) Steven Bledsoe (Public); (3) Karol Wight (Museums); (4) J.D. Demming (Public); (5) Ricardo St. Hilaire (Archaeology); (6) Joan Connelly (Archaeology); Rachael Fulton Brown (Archaeology?); (7) Anthony Wisniewski (Collector-Sale of International Cultural Property); Mark Hendricks (Sale of International Cultural Property?); and David Tamasi (International Sale of Cultural Property?).  Allison Davis, CPAC’s State Department Executive Director, and Michele Prior, also of ECA, were also present.

                It appears that the State Department has seated last minute Trump Appointees in slots reserved to represent the interests of archaeology and the international trade of cultural property, but that has not yet been confirmed on the State Department website.   Rachael Fulton Brown is an associate professor of History at the University of Chicago.  David Tamasi is a Founding Partner and Managing Director of Chartwell Strategy Group, a Washington based government relations and strategic communications firm.  Mark C. Hendricks is a principal at Taradin Service Ltd., a private equity firm.  Messrs. Tamasi’s and Hendricks’ background in the international sale of cultural property is unclear.

Chairman Passantino welcomed the speakers.  He indicated that the Committee had read all the comments, and speakers could only be allotted 4 minutes time given the busy schedule.  He also indicated that due to the addition of Afghan emergency import restrictions to the schedule, the Committee’s consideration of the Cypriot renewal would be tabled until a January meeting.  Nonetheless, speakers were free to discuss Cyprus if they were prepared to do so.  Alternatively, they could defer their comments until January. 

The following speakers addressed the Committee: (1) Kate FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural Policy/Global Heritage Alliance); (2) Josh Knerly (Association of Art Museum Directors); (3) Dr. Elizabeth Greene (Archaeological Institute of America); (4) Dr. Brian Bauer (University of Illinois); (5) Dr. Karen Olsen Bruhns (San Francisco State University); (6) Peter Tompa (International Association of Professional Numismatists/Professional Numismatists Guild; (7) Dr. Brian Daniels (Archaeological Institute of America); (8) Tess Davis (Antiquities Coalition); (9)  Allen Berman (Author, Professional Numismatist); and (10) Randolph Myers (Ancient Coin Collectors Guild).

Kate FitzGibbon (KFG) spoke first on behalf of the Committee for Cultural Policy (CCP) and Global Heritage Alliance (GHA).  Although she also put in a paper on Peru, she will focus her comment on Afghanistan.  KG lived in Afghanistan from the 1970s to early 1980s writing about the culture and dealing in ethnographic art.   She had to flee the country in 1982 after the Soviet invasion.  The real issue today is not looting but the fear that the Taliban will intentionally destroy cultural heritage either intentionally to score jihadist propaganda points or to exploit Afghanistan’s mineral wealth.  Section 1216 of the National Defense Authorization Act does not provide a basis for safe harbor for Afghan antiquities. ECA should forget about emergency import restrictions and instead work with the trade and museums in protecting Afghan cultural heritage and extracting Afghan archaeologists from the country. 

The CCP’s and GHA’s testimony on Afghanistan can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0068

Their testimony on the proposed renewal of a MOU with Cyprus can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0077

Their testimony on the proposed renewal of a MOU with Peru can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0097

                Josh Knerly (JK) spoke next on behalf of the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD).  The request of the “former Government of Afghanistan” raises some serious legal issues.  The government that made the request no longer exists and there was insufficient information provided about the proposal within a short five (5) day comment period to make intelligent comment or for CPAC to have a full grasp of the issues.  The effect of import restrictions may be to freeze objects in place in Afghanistan where they may be destroyed by the Taliban. CPAC needs to consider the consequences of any import restrictions carefully. Section 1216 of the National Defense Authorization Act is not a safe harbor provision.  It only immunizes from seizure institutional loans already covered by an Afghan Government export certificate.  It would make far more sense to defer consideration of the matter until the situation on the ground is clearer.  JK next discussed the Peruvian renewal.  He criticizes the State Department’s replacement of tailored language for each MOU with generic language in Article II of the Agreement.  This generic language does not help AAMD members negotiate with State Parties on museum loans.   The terms and conditions of each MOU should encourage source countries to provide such loans with reasonable fees.  Peru’s loan fees are very high. 

                The AAMD’s written testimony regarding Peru and Cyprus can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0105

                Dr. Elizabeth Greene (EG) is the president elect of the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA).  She focuses her comments on the Fourth Determination that any import restrictions are consistent with the general interest of the international community in the international exchange of cultural property.   She indicates the AIA’s 200,000 members (this figure derives from the number of subscribers to the AIA’s “Archaeology” Magazine) have benefitted from the MOU.  Many have taken AIA sponsored trips to Peru to view Peruvian cultural heritage.  Peru has been generous with loans, including one recent loan of 200 items. Dr. Greene specializes in the study of transport amphora.  They may appear to be duplicates but have manufacturing marks that makes each unique.  MOUs can protect duplicate objects like amphora and coins as well as ensure the market only contains legitimate material.  They are not perfect, but they do help reduce looting. 

                Dr. Brian Bauer (BB) appreciates the fact that Spanish Colonial era documents have been added to MOUs.  He now asks CPAC to recommend changes to Article II of the MOU with Peru to ensure that archaeological samples can be exported for further study.  There are no labs within Peru which can do this work, but the Peruvian cultural bureaucracy, especially on a provincial level, have made it a bureaucratic nightmare to export such material.  Only material shepherded through the system with the help of Peruvian colleagues gets exported.   Many times requests for export get lost or simply stay in limbo so long that the researcher just gives up.  The MOU needs to be modified to encourage Peruvian authorities to fix this problem.

                Dr. Karen Olsen Bruhns (KOB) believes MOUs are essential to fight illicit networks.  She has been involved in the fight against looting since 1963.  She has seen the depredations of looters in Latin America firsthand.  She assists U.S. Customs in repatriating artifacts.  She names US dealers she claims sell looted goods.  She attacks US Museums as being filled with looted material.  She views collectors as no better than looters.

                Peter Tompa (PT) spoke on behalf of the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) and the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG).  He defers his comments on Cyprus to focus attention on Peru and Afghanistan.  Spanish Colonial and Republican era coinage of Peru do not fit the statutory definitions for archaeological or ethnological material.  They cannot be considered archaeological material because they are not normally found underground and/or do not meet the 250-year-old threshold.  Such coins were also produced by Europeans using sophisticated industrial processes that churned out thousands of virtually identical coins.  As such, they cannot be ethnological material either. PT then turns to Afghanistan.  He indicates that is should weigh heavily on CPAC that import restrictions could have the perverse effect of requiring US Customs to “claw back” undocumented Bactrian coins imported from Europe and hand them over to the Taliban who could resell, or even worse, melt them.  The CPIA does not contain a “safe harbor” provision to keep that from happening, and Section 1216 of the National Defense Reauthorization Act will provide no help.  Items will be repatriated when diplomatic relations are reestablished, a decision that will be made based on considerations other than the Taliban’s treatment of cultural heritage.  Restrictions are especially problematic for coin collectors since they are applied not as prospective restrictions on illicitly excavated coins but as embargoes to coins already on legal markets within our major trading partners in the EU, UK, and Switzerland. 

                PT’s oral testimony can be found here:  https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-cpia-cannot-support-import.html

                IAPN’s and PNG’s written testimony on Afghanistan can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0088

                IAPN’s and PNG’s written testimony on Cyprus can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0038

                IAPN’s and PNG’s written testimony on Peru can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0021

Dr. Brian Daniels (BD) spoke for the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA).  The request for a MOU by the former government of Afghanistan allows the Committee to consider emergency import restrictions.   There is looting of crisis proportions in Afghanistan.  Research has shown that 170 sites have suffered looting from 2000-2017.   In 2019, there was an uptick in looting of inscriptions.  Customs has seized archaeological material which appears to be from Tillya Tepe.  In the past decades, US archaeologists have worked on capacity building with their Afghan colleagues. BD acknowledges Section 1216 of the National Defense Reauthorization Act would only have helped evacuating Afghan material when the former government was in power.  Now emergency import restrictions are necessary not only to keep looted material off the market but to support Afghan colleagues.  Customs has inherent authority to hold onto such items until it is safe to return them to Afghanistan. 

The AIA’s submission on Afghanistan can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0069

                Tess Davis (TD) spoke on behalf of the Antiquities Coalition (AC).  The Antiquities Coalition supports emergency import restrictions on Afghan cultural goods.  It is important to take decisive action now given the warning from the Afghan National Museum that looters and smugglers are taking advantage of political instability following the Taliban take over.   Emergency restrictions are not MOUs, but they can protect cultural heritage and collections.  They do not vest title of artifacts in the government.  No concerted international response is necessary.  The US did not adopt emergency restrictions on Cambodian artifacts in the 1970s and we are now seeing the consequences with investigations into Latchford’s sales of Cambodian conflict antiquities to US collectors and museums. 

                AC’s submission on Afghanistan can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0082

                AC’s submission about Cyprus can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0080

AC’s submission on Peru can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0081

                Allen Berman (AB) is an author, publisher and the American Numismatic Association’s instructor on medieval coinage.  He believes that the law of unintended consequences may apply to import restrictions on coins.  Provenanced coins already cost more, but there are very few comparatively on the market because there was no reason historically to keep the provenance of most coins.  On Peru, 95% of coins produced there was made for export.  On Afghanistan, the last time the Taliban were in control, they not only dynamited the Bamiyan Buddhas; they also smashed artifacts in the National Museum.  AB is horrified by the prospect that the US Government may hand over Bactrian coins to the Taliban.  All these coins feature pagan images the Taliban find offensive.  As to Cyprus, thousands of Crusader era coins are documented as having been found outside of Cyprus so you cannot assume such coins were found there.  It would be better for Cyprus and other countries to try systems akin to the United Kingdom’s Portable Antiquity Scheme and Treasure Act.  This system encourages people to report their finds and allows the government the right of first refusal to buy them.

AB’s written testimony on Afghanistan can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0037

                His written testimony on Cyprus can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0035

                Randolph Myers appeared on behalf of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG).  Given the time, he indicated he would defer his comments on Cyprus until January.

                The ACCG’s written testimony on Afghanistan can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0040

The ACCG’s written testimony on Cyprus can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0025

Question and Answer Period:

Ricardo St. Hilaire asked JK about Article II in the Peru agreement.  JK indicated that standardized Article IIs do not work.  Peru charges high fees for loans which need to be addressed on an individualized basis in Article II of any renewal.

 Karol Wight asks JK if AAMD museums have faced the same bureaucratic obstacles to loans as BB has experienced with exports of archaeological samples.  JK responds that loans with Peru take an inordinate amount of time to negotiate and that loan fees are high.

J.D. Demming asks if instead of keeping Afghan artifacts in Afghanistan it would be better if they escaped the country given Taliban control.  KOB states that providing a market for antiquities encourages looting.  The real problem is antiquities dealers in the US which now have a “bad odor.”  Sotheby’s now avoids selling antiquities in the US to avoid this perception.  KFG indicates that KOB has an outdated view of the antiquities market based on practices of decades ago.  The art market today takes pains to ensure that what it sells is legal.  Complicating the situation here is that it was quite legal to sell and export antiquities from Afghanistan for decades.  Therefore, one cannot assume items on the market are the products of recent, illicit digs.   Repatriating items to Taliban Afghanistan will not help protect them.  The real issue is the danger of Taliban intentional destruction or destruction of artifacts through mining.  BD indicates that import restrictions will protect items currently in the ground within Afghanistan because there will be less incentive to loot them.  US Customs and the State Department have ample authority to provide safe harbor to any antiquities that are seized.  PT appreciates what BD says about import restrictions protecting unexcavated artifacts within Afghanistan, but the problem is that Customs applies them far too broadly and will repatriate artifacts that have been out of Afghanistan for decades merely because they do not have solid provenances. 

Anthony Wisniewski gets the last word.  He has spent over 500 hours on his CPAC duties.  He has seen lots of conflict between the parties, but thinks all sides believe in cultural property preservation.  He will be working to bring people together to find common ground which promotes both transparency and protects private collections.