CPAC meets to discuss new Cultural Property Agreement with Romania and Renewals with Albania and Nigeria

 On July 14, 2026, the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) met in a virtual public session to accept comments regarding a proposed Cultural Property Agreement with Romania and renewals with Albania and Nigeria.

The State Department described these requests as follows:

Romania 

The Government of Romania seeks protection for archaeological materials from approximately 2 million years ago to A.D. 1800, and ethnological material from approximately the beginning of the 4th century A.D. to A.D. 1800.  Archaeological material is from the following periods:  Paleolithic, Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age (including Dacian, Thracian, Archaic-Classical Greek, Hellenistic, and Roman Republic periods), Early Roman Empire, Late Roman Empire, Migration Periods/Early Middle Ages, Middle Ages/Byzantine/Ottoman periods, Renaissance/Early Modern periods, and the Modern period, and includes objects made from stone, metal, ceramic, bone, ivory, horn, wood, other organic materials, glass and faience, textiles, documents, and paintings.  Ethnological material is from the Late Roman Empire, Migration Periods/Early Middle Ages, Middle Ages/Byzantine/Ottoman periods, and Renaissance/Early Modern periods, and includes objects made from stone, metal, ceramic, bone, horn, ivory, wood, glass, textiles and garments, documents and archives, paintings, and mosaics. 

Albania 

Extending the Albania MOU would continue import restrictions on categories of archaeological material ranging in date from approximately 300,000 years ago to A.D. 1750, and ethnological material ranging in date from approximately A.D. 400 to 1913. 

Nigeria 

Extending the Nigeria MOU would continue import restrictions on categories of archaeological material ranging in date from approximately 1500 B.C. to A.D. 1770, and ethnological material ranging in date from approximately A.D. 200 to the early 20th century A.D. 

See  https://www.state.gov/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-July-14-16-2026/  

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

Nevertheless, based images from the Zoom platform, the following members (all appointed by President Biden) appeared to be present:  (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) and; (7) Cynthia Herbert (Represents/Expertise: International Sale of Cultural Property President, Appretium Appraisal Services LLC, Connecticut).

In contrast, the following members appeared to be absent: (8) Amy Cappellazzo, Represents/Expertise: International Sale of Cultural Property, Principal, Art Intelligence Global; (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.  

The Chair, Alexandra Jones, welcomed the speakers.  She thanked the speakers for attending, and then indicated that speakers should try to limit themselves to 4 minutes and 30 seconds  each given the number of presenters. 

Dr. Ömür Harmanşah spoke as the Vice President for Cultural Heritage, Archaeological Institute of America (AIA).  He first provided some background about the organization.  The AIA currently has 150,000 members, a figure that includes not only professional archaeologists, but others interested in archaeology, including subscribers to the AIA’s magazine.   The AIA supports all three Cultural Property Agreements (CPAs).  He notes Romania and Albania have hosted American archaeologists and have offered museum loans. Moreover, both countries face continuing problems with looting.  For example, an important helmet excavated in Romania was stolen from a museum in the Netherlands and the AIA’s letter references a report about looting in Albania. While there has been less collaboration with Nigeria, an American archaeologist was recently awarded with a grant to study glass production in Nigeria.

Here are links to the AIA’s written comments:

Albania: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2026-0628-0066

Nigeria:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2026-0628-0068

Romania:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2026-0628-0067

Elias Geraoulis spoke as the Executive Director of the Global Heritage Alliance (GHA).  Gerasoulis focused his oral testimony on Nigeria.  He urged the Committee to reject or pause extension of a CPA.  He believes this CPA must be examined in light of pressing issues pertaining to U.S.-Nigeria relations.  He noted that the Trump Administration and Congress have expressed grave concerns about religious persecution and human rights abuses in the country, including mass killings of Christians. He believes Nigeria is a failed state with much of the North currently under the control of terrorist organizations such as Boko Haram.  He further noted that other armed groups have moved from the North southward with parts of the army being compromised as well.  He further argued that Nigeria is a failed state, and that should raise questions about the safety of any cultural objects which may be repatriated there. 

CPAC member Nii Otokunor  Quarcoopome questioned whether Christians are really being targeted and argued that CPAC in any case should not address any such concerns in the context of deliberating about at CPA.   

Elias Gerasoulis countered that he based his testimony on statements of members of Congress and the Administration.  His view is that any renewal must be considered in the context of current diplomatic relations with Nigeria.

Teresa Ngan is a student associated with the Oregon Archaeological Society.  She believes that CPAs are necessary to protect our understanding of Romanian and Albanian archaeology.  She shared her screen to show images of various artifacts, including inscriptions and jewelry.  She argued that CPAs are necessary to protect both archaeological context and our knowledge of ancient societies.

Peter Tompa spoke next as the Executive Director of the International association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN).  He noted that IAPN had submitted comments on all the proposed CPAs, but focused his words on the new CPA with Romania and the renewal with Albania.  He first noted that the “designated list” for Albania ignored numismatic research submitted by IAPN, was grossly overbroad, and that efforts to limit it to coins that “circulated primarily” in Albania did not comply with the “fair notice” requirements of the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA).  With regard to Romania, he indicated that the vast majority of coins that circulated there also circulated regionally and internationally, making it impossible to “assume” that they were “first discovered” within Romania, and hence were subject to Romanian export control.  He then reminded the Committee that Transylvanian coins are neither archaeological nor ethnological objects under the CPIA and are considered “Hungarian” rather than “Romanian”  in numismatic literature.

 He next focused in on the failure of the State Department to recognize that the EU has comprehensive export rules which are binding on all member states that allow these countries to export coins and other artifacts with or without an export permit according to local law.  He further indicated that the failure to recognize EU rules would lead to ridiculous results.  In particular, if the State Department again imposes an embargo on the import of virtually all coins made before 1750, that could include Hungarian and Austro- Hungarian (Hapsburg) Empire coins simply because in addition to circulating in Austria, Hungary, and a number of other countries, they also circulated heavily in Transylvania, now a Romanian province since 1920.  Thus, we could have a situation where an American collector could legally purchase and export such a Hungarian or Austro-Hungarian coin from Austria or Hungary consistent with EU law, but Customs could still seize it under a CPA with Romania for no other reason that it was of a type found on the “designated list” for Romania.

CPAC member Alex Barker questioned Tompa.  He took the position that the US should ignore these rules because any CPA is with Romania not the EU and Romania’s own rules do not normally allow for the export of even common coins.   Tompa responded by noting that the EU has its own rules which allow Romania to ask for the return of illicitly excavated materials and that IAPN’s concerns were particularly warranted given the way US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enforces CPAs as embargos based on coin types alone without any probable cause that any particular coin that is seized was illicitly removed from a given country with a CPA after the effective date of any import regulations.

Here are links to IAPN’s written comments:

Albania:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2026-0628-0020

Nigeria: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2026-0628-0022

Romania:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2026-0628-0021

Here are Tompa’s oral comments:  https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2026/07/yes-cpac-there-is-eu-and-its-member.html

In addition, here are his personal comments:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2026-0628-0034

Kate FitzGibbon next spoke on behalf of the Committee for Cultural Policy (CCP)  She first noted that the CCP had uploaded specific comments on all three CPAs, but she wanted to speak more generally about the concerns CCP and others have about the trajectory such agreements are taking.  She noted that before decision making was folded into the State Department, there were only limited numbers of such agreements and they never covered such wide ranges of materials.  The numbers of CPAs have grown exponentially from 13 in 2010 to 36 today, with more pending every year.  Moreover, the scope of the designated lists has grown as well, with it now being common for such lists to encompass 1 million years of cultural heritage, including items made for trade as well as ecclesiastical objects and folk art.  FitzGibbon argues that the claim the whole material culture of a given country is subject to pillage is dubious at best and that CPAs have been granted in all cases even though it is doubtful that all four required determinations have been actually met.

She further indicated that overbroad CPAs and designated lists have had a chilling effect on museums, collectors, and the legitimate trade whereas Mark Feldman, the State Department’s chief architect for the CPIA, has indicated that Congressional intent sought a balanced approach to only address serious concerns about the looting of archaeological and ethnological objects of cultural significance.   She noted that trade statistics demonstrate that there is not much imported from Romania.  She further indicated that Romania spends little on protecting its cultural heritage, and much of that is used to pay awards to metal detectorists for their finds.   She also indicated that there are serious minority issues that must be considered in Romania relating to Hungarians and the Roma and in Nigeria with regard to Benin bronzes.  With regard to the Benin bronzes, they have been returned to the hereditary Oba whose ancestors enslaved Africans without any acknowledgment of this history or the interests of American descendants of slaves in this issue.

Here are the CCP/GHA comments:

Albania:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2026-0628-0061

Nigeria: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2026-0628-0060

Romania:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2026-0628-0062

Michael Galaty of the University of Michigan has worked in Albania for his entire career.  He has seen burial grounds decimated.  Metal detecting is a major problem. He has been offered coins by children. Some metal detectorists are hobbyists, but he believes a lot of what is found is smuggled into the European Union. 

Miriam Stark asks Galaty if coins can be excavated without damaging archaeological context.  He indicates that is impossible.

[CPO Note:  IAPN’s written comments indicated that only the very few coins found in “secure contexts” at archeological sites are useful for dating purposes.  It also indicated that Romanian law allows metal detecting and has instituted a system of awards for metal detectorists that turn in their finds.]

Dr. Galaty’s written comments can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2026-0628-0047

Brittany Kyle is a Professor at the University of Northern Colorado.  She has studied human skeletons to investigate how Greek and native populations interacted in the ancient world. Her work has taken her to Albania to investigate how Greek colonists at Apollonia interacted with local Illyrians.  She has worked with American and Armenian students in this capacity.

Guards at a site in Apollonia tried to sell Kyle coins.  [CPO Note:  Doesn’t this instead suggest that foreign archaeological missions investing in site security and paying guards a fair living wage may be a solution?]   Prior work at Himara in Sicily shows the importance of coins from documented find spots.  There, coins were found in the mouths of skeletons as payment to the ferryman to cross the River Styx.  Had those coins been removed by looters, that evidence and the story they tell would have been lost forever.

Dr. Kyle’s written testimony may be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2026-0628-0036

Deadria Farmer-Paellmann spoke on behalf of the Restitution Study Group.  The Restitution Study Group has worked for the past 25 years on issues of reparatory justice relating to the transatlantic slavery trade.  The Restitution Study Group supports protecting Nigerian cultural heritage but asks CPAC to strengthen cultural property policy by recognizing all communities whose histories are materially embedded within Nigerian cultural heritage.  Specifically, the Benin bronzes represent a unique circumstance. They represent both art and crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Kingdom of Benin working with European slave traders.  During this period, 50 bronze manilla currency bracelets were used to purchase a woman and 57 to purchase a man.  Scientific analysis has now demonstrated that many Benin Bronzes were cast from brass consistent with the composition of these manillas.  It is important that the descendants of the slaves purchased with these manillas be made part of the conversation.  She asked  the any CPA with Nigeria take into account the Restitution Study Group’s recommendations meant to preserve this history, which has been rejected by the Smithsonian Institution and other museums in the rush to repatriate Benin bronzes to Nigeria.   

The Restitution Study Group’s written testimony can be found here: 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2026-0628-0050

The Hon. Ogechukwu Nkere is a human rights activist and is serving as the Prime Minister of the Biafran Government in Exile (BRGIE). Mr. Nkere recounted the suffering of the Biafran people during the Civil War between 1966 and 1970 which took the lives of 3 million Biafrans, mostly due to forced starvation.  More recently the Biafran people, who are Christians, have been subject to a Nigerian government campaign of torture, extrajudicial killings, and disappearances.  Mr. Nkere cited statements from President Trump condemning these actions and noted that any CPA with Nigeria should be put on hold until Nigeria aligns with US policy regarding Biafra. 

Dr. Scott MacEachern spoke for the Society for American Archeology.  He supports an extension of the current CPA with Nigeria.  He has worked in Nigeria since the 1990s. His primary fieldwork site has unfortunately been overrun by Boko Haram terrorists. Boko Haram primarily attacks Muslim communities that are considered heretics.  There isn’t necessarily a correlation between terrorism and looting.  So far, Boko Haram does not appear to be interested in exploiting antiquities.  Instead, others focus on objects from the Nok and Benin cultures as items to loot. Bilateral agreements are the primary instrument for fighting illegal networks.

Dr. MacEachern’s written comments can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2026-0628-0056

Stephen Knerly represents the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD).  AAMD offered qualified support for the extension of the CPA with Nigeria.  He indicated any renewal should promote opportunities for American museum goers to interact with the many diverse and important cultures of Nigeria.  As a result, museums must look to loans from source countries like Nigeria if they are to fulfill their mission of bringing the world's cultures to the public.  While there appears to be some interest from Nigerian officials in providing such loans, the process lacks predictability and standard practices. Improvements to the status quo can be promoted as a condition for any renewal.   Issues include who has authority to make loans, what documents can be used for such transactions, and what immunity arrangements may be worked out to foster such loans.  Formerly, such issues were addressed on a case by case basis in each agreement, but recently the ability to do so has been lost with the creation of standardized CPAs.

The AAMD’s written comments can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2026-0628-0040

Adam Rabinowitz is an associate professor at the University of Texas.   He spoke on his own behalf as a field archaeologist who has been working in Romania for the last 10 years.

He wanted to second the AIA’s testimony about the interest in Romanian material on the illicit market for antiquities.  He gave as an example a helmet and three gold bracelets stolen from a Dutch museum which were subsequently recovered.  (CPO note:  Such material would be considered “stolen” under US and International law even without a CPA.)  He is also familiar with illicit excavations noting that metal detectors are used to recover coin hoards.  (CPO note:  Metal detecting is legal in Romania with Romanian authorities paying finders awards.)

Rabinowitz is working with a numismatist at the Museum of National History and archaeology in Constanța on the coins that we excavated at an archaeological site. He also has a project about trade currency that appears frequently on the international coin market. He believes Romanian authorities are doing their best to preserve heritage and enforce existing laws.

Professor Rabinowitz’s written comments can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2026-0628-0054

Vivien Bence speaks on behalf of the Hungarian Human Rights Foundation (HHRF).  She asked that the Romanian request be rejected if any restrictions are to apply to Transylvanian or Hungarian items as that would in effect recognize Romanian government ownership and control over the cultural heritage of the Hungarian diaspora. 

The HHRF has monitored the rights of ethnic Hungarian minorities in Eastern Europe since 1976, with particular focus on Romania as the home to a 1.1 million strong Hungarian community.  This community has suffered since Transylvania was forcibly incorporated into Romania from Hungary in 1920.  Although it has been almost 40 years since the fall of Communism, the Romanian government has delayed returning property confiscated from Hungarian interests during this period.  The HHRF is especially concerned about the Batthyaneum Library and Astronomical Observatory and its priceless collection of rare manuscripts. The Romanian state has ignored domestic laws and European Union decisions ordering the return the building and the Library’s contents to its legitimate owner, the Alba Iulia Catholic Archdiocese.  The HHRF called on CPAC  to recommend that the State Department condition any CPA  with Romania on an assurance that Romania will return objects belonging to the Batthyaneum Library and other significant cultural institutions that were unlawfully expropriated from the autochthonous Hungarian national minority to representatives of that community within Romania.

The HHRF’s written comments can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2026-0628-0045

John O’Shea speaks on behalf of the Society for American Archaeology.   He has worked in the Tri national boundary area of Romania Serbia and Hungary since 1976  so he has some perspective  how regimes have changed and how the rules have changed. In 1989, it was unthinkable there would be a collaborative project involving both Hungary and Romania.  Because both Hungary and Romania are part of the Schengen zone of the EU, it is relatively easy for traffickers to move material.  (CPO note:  EU rules provide for law enforcement cooperation between borders and the area is well policed against traffickers in cultural property.) 

Metal detecting is a huge issue particularly because of artifacts produced during the Roman and Medieval eras. Because again of the Schengen zone connection Romania is not only the subject of looting but it's also becoming a node in the international movement of illicit cultural property. 

One of the big problems with the funding is that young professionals that are graduating from school don't see a future in cultural heritage protection in Romania and they immigrate to in Germany. EU funding is critical as is the EU regulations and the CPA with the US.  O’Shea indicated that he did not want the US to become a loophole in this system.

Another concern is that “trafficking” is a charge that is used against archaeologists in Romania to derail careers.  There needs to be a better way to facilitate the legal export of archaeological materials for study purposes.

After this testimony, the Chair thanked everyone for their public testimony and close the public session. 

Yes, CPAC there is a EU and Its Member States Allow Exports of Historical Coins

 Here is what I said today, more or less, during the public session of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee to discuss a proposed Cultural Property Agreement with Romania, and renewals with Albania and Nigeria.

        Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the small and micro businesses of the International Association of Professional Numismatists, including IAPN member firms in both the US and European Union.

          IAPN has submitted detailed comments on the proposed CPA with Romania and the renewal with Albania along with a short comment on Nigeria. First, let me highlight a few issues related to Albania and Romania.  The Albanian comments point out that the current grossly overbroad designated list ignores the extensive numismatic research IAPN provided about the broad circulation of Illyrian coins and that the “circulated primarily” standard referenced in current restrictions fails to provide importers with the fair notice required under 19 USC Section 2604 as to what coins are actually covered.  The Romanian comments similarly discuss that coins that are found in Romania also circulated regionally and internationally.  It also notes that the Transylvanian coins struck there are neither archaeological nor ethnological objects, and are more properly considered “Hungarian” than “Romanian.”  

          Now let me focus on another important point that has been raised multiple times before only to be ignored.  This issue relates to one of the necessary findings CPAC must make about “less drastic” measures under 19 USC Section 2602(a) (1) (C) (ii) before any import restrictions on coins or other artifacts may be imposed.   In particular, CPAC, the State Department, and US Customs and Border Protection (CPB) must recognize that any legal export from one European Union (EU) country is also binding on other EU members.

          Claims that any CPA is with “Romania” not with the “EU” fall flat when one recognizes Romania’s own export controls are part of an integrated system that recognizes the rights of each EU member state to export cultural goods with or without a permit according to local law.^[1] 

          The applicable provision, Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009, and in particular, Article 2.2 authorizes all EU countries to export ancient and early modern coins that may appear on “designated lists” for Romania and soon Albania with an export certificate or without one as objects of limited archaeological or scientific interest. Indeed, this rule is also consistent with the EU’s recent import controls, which treat all coins not traced directly to archaeological sites as “low risk” items that only require “importer’s statements” when they are over 200 years old and valued at more than 18,000 Euros. 

          Our request can be simply accommodated by ensuring Article I of any CPAs with Romania and Albania make any import restrictions inapplicable to cultural objects legally exported from another EU country, with or without a formal export permit as required under local law. 

          The ridiculous results likely from not adopting this commonsense proposal should be obvious.  If import restrictions under a Romanian CPA are applied to the Hungarian or Austro-Hungarian coins that circulated in quantity in what is now Romanian Transylvania, CBP could detain, seize and forfeit such coins legally exported from either Austria or Hungary even though neither country has a CPA with the US and such coins are available for legal export in both countries.  As an aside, this would be particularly painful for Austrian and Hungarian Americans who purchase such coins to keep in touch with their own cultural heritage.

          So, yes, CPAC, State Department, and CPB, there is a European Union that has created a comprehensive system of import and export controls for cultural goods, and there is no rational basis to contend that it doesn’t exist.  Thank you for listening to our concerns and please let me know if you have any questions.

---

[1] See Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009, available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32009R0116 (last visited February 12, 2026). 

 

Time Again to Tell the Cultural Property Advisory Committee What You Think About Import Restrictions on Coins and Other Artifacts, including Minority Cultural Heritage, for Romania, Albania and Nigeria

 The State Department has announced a Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) Meeting to consider a new Cultural Property Agreement (CPA) with Romania and renewals of current CPAs with Albania and Nigeria. 

CPAC will hold a session open to the public on July 14, 2026, at 2:00 PM. 

The State Department’s announcement can be found here:  https://www.state.gov/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-July-14-16-2026/   The formal Federal Register notice can be found here:  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/06/04/2026-11197/notice-of-meeting-of-the-cultural-property-advisory-committee-proposals-to-extend-bilateral-cultural

 The State Department is also soliciting written comments on the Regulations.gov website: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2026-0628-0001. If the link does not work, go to www.regulations.gov and search for docket number: DOS-2026-0628. Written comments and requests to testify are due on or before July 5, 2026, the day after our country’s 250^th anniversary celebrations. 

Issues for Coin Collectors

The big issues for coin collectors are grossly overbroad designated lists.  Past import restrictions on "Albanian coins" demonstrate the scope of the problem. Recent import restrictions have taken a maximalist approach that "designates" virtually all coin types that may have circulated within a given country down to the mid-18th Century, including many coin types that circulated regionally or internationally in bulk.  Once "designated," under current procedures US Customs and Border Protection (CPB) can "assume" such coins were illicitly exported from that country, even where they were legitimately bought, sold and legally exported from our major trading partners in the European Union (EU).   

The issue is even more egregious for EU countries like Romania and prospective EU members like Albania.  EU law binding on EU countries recognizes the rights of EU countries to export cultural goods. Yet, CPB will detain, seize and repatriate coins and other artifacts to EU countries with CPAs with the US, including Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece and Italy, even where they are legally exported from other EU countries like Germany with or without an export permit as permitted under local law.  It is as if the State Department and CBP do not believe the EU exists! 

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.

Issues for Dispossessed Minority Communities

Another major issue is CPAs being used to gain US government recognition of foreign government rights to the cultural heritage of displaced minority populations, most recently for Turkey.  Here, it is likely Romania will use this CPA to gain US approval for its control over the cultural heritage of its displaced Hungarian population from Transylvania.   Moreover, a renewal of the CPA with Nigeria raises similar issues for Biafrans and other minority groups within that country. 

Despite the ever-increasing number of overlapping import restrictions on coins, it is still important to comment, for no other reason that without public comment State Department bureaucrats could claim to political appointees that restrictions on coins are “not controversial.”  What should you say? It is 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 to get in touch with your own cultural heritage.  However, here is a model for coin collectors to consider:

Please do not place new or renew import restrictions on collector’s coins that prioritize “soft power” over the due process and private property rights of American coin collectors.  If you nonetheless enter into a new CPA with Romania and renew the prior agreement with Albania, please ensure that any designated lists are rewritten so that it is absolutely clear that they do not impact coins that widely circulated or those legitimately imported from legal markets abroad, particularly those in Europe.  Also, please do not put new restrictions on coins from Nigeria.  Nigeria only used coins in recent times so that such coins cannot be considered either archaeological or ethnological objects under the governing legislation.  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 aims to foster.

 

Not MAGA: State Department Cultural Heritage Center Plans More Giveaways to Foreign Governments, this Time Romania, Albania and Nigeria

Today's  Federal Register has announced that the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, made up entirely of  Biden appointees, will consider a new Cultural Property Agreement (CPA) for Romania and renewals of current agreements with Albania and Nigeria.  

Once again, the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center will be prioritizing "soft power" giveaways to foreign governments over protecting the private property and due process rights of American collectors and displaced minority populations. This time, the beneficiaries may be different, but many of the issues remain the same. 

Coin collectors will again face the prospect of having to deal with grossly overbroad import restrictions on widely collected coin types.  Past import restrictions on "Albanian coins" demonstrate the problem. Recent import restrictions have taken a maximalist approach that "designates" virtually all coin types that may have circulated within a given country down to the mid 18th Century, including many coin types that circulated regionally or internationally in bulk.  Once "designated," under current procedures US Customs and Border Protection (CPB) can "assume" such coins were illicitly exported from that country, even where they were legitimately bought, sold and legally exported from our major trading partners in the European Union  (EU).   The issue is even more egregious for EU countries like Romania.  EU law binding on EU countries recognizes the rights of EU countries to export cultural goods. Yet, CPB will detain, seize and repatriate coins and other artifacts to EU countries with CPAs with the US, including Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece and Italy, even where they are legally exported from other EU countries like Germany with or without an export permit as permitted under local law.  It's as if the State Department and CBP do not believe the EU exists! 

Another major issue is CPAs being used to gain US government recognition of foreign government rights to the cultural heritage of displaced minority populations, most recently for Turkey.  Here, it is likely Romania will use this CPA to gain US approval for its control over the cultural heritage of its displaced Hungarian population from Transylvania.   Moreover, a renewal of the CPA with Nigeria raises similar issues for Biafrans and other minority groups within that country. 

Adding insult to injury injury, the State Department requires public comments about these CPAs be made on or before July 5, 2026, the day after our country's 250th Anniversary of Independence.  As of this morning, the Regulations.gov docket is not yet accepting comments.  Nor does the State Department Cultural Heritage Center's website provide any promised additional information about the requests.  

Addendum (June 5, 2025):  The Cultural Heritage Center's website is now "live."  See https://www.state.gov/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-July-14-16-2026/

Addendum (June 14, 2026):  The Regulations.gov website is now accepting comments here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2026-0628-0001. 

Import Restrictions on "Albanian" Coins Announced

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has announced new import restrictions on "Albanian coins" as part of another overbroad laundry list of import restrictions on anything and everything that may be found in Albania from 300,000 B.C. to 1913.

Effective date:  March 17, 2022

Source: 87 FR 15079-15084 (March 17, 2022), available at             https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/03/17/2022-05685/imposition-of-            import-restrictions-on-categories-of-archaeological-and-ethnological-material-of

The Designated list of coins subject to import restrictions is as follows. 

8. Coins—This category includes coins of Illyrian, Greek, Macedonian, Roman provincial, Byzantine, Medieval, and Ottoman types that circulated primarily in Albania, ranging in date from approximately the 6th century B.C. to A.D. 1750. Coins were made in copper, bronze, silver, and gold. Examples are generally round, have writing, and show imagery of animals, buildings, symbols, or royal or imperial figures.

Comment:  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 Albania. Despite the assumption contained in the regulation, no Greek, Byzantine, and Ottoman types “circulated primarily” within Albania or were even made there.  As for Illyrian coins, hoard evidence indicates that popular cow/calf coins from the Roman Republican period “circulated primarily” in Romania, not Albania.  The only bright spot is that neither Roman Republican nor Roman Imperial coins seem to be restricted. 

A case can be made that the “circulated primarily” standard is statutorily deficient because it is contrary to the CPIA requirement that restricted items must be first discovered within and subject to export control of a particular country.  There also is a fair notice issue because how is a typical collector or dealer to know whether or not a particular issue “circulated primarily” in Albania or not?

It is frustrating that the State Department invites public comment, and then promptly ignores it. Both ACCG and IAPN prepared detailed papers about coin circulation in Albania, but either no one at the State Department bothered to read them or no one cared what facts were presented.

Another abuse of power designed to ensure the broadest possible import restrictions apply.  

Summary of March 17, 2021 CPAC Meeting to Accept Public Comments on Proposed MOU with Albania and Proposed Renewal with Egypt

 On March 17, 2021, the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (“CPAC”) met to consider a proposed MOU with Albania and a proposed renewal of the MOU with Egypt. 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) and (7) Anthony Wisniewski (Collector-Sale of International Cultural Property).  Allison Davis, CPAC’s State Department Executive Director, and Andrew Cohen, State Department Lead Foreign Affairs Analyst, were also present.

Chairman Passantino welcomed the speakers.  He indicated that the Committee had read all the comments, and as indicated in an email to the speakers, they would be allotted 3 minutes to focus on points most important to them.  Chairman Passantino called on speakers who had put in papers on Albania first, then speakers who had written about coins, and finally speakers who wrote on Egypt.  There was some overlap because some speakers put in papers on more than one topic.  He deferred questions to the end to be assured everyone who registered to speak would be heard.

The following individuals provided oral comments:  (1) John K. Papadopoulos  (UCLA); (2) Michael Galaty (U. Michigan), (3) James Gould (RPM Nautical Foundation); (4) Randolph Myers (Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG)); (5) Peter Tompa (Peter Tompa Law-International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) and Professional Numismatics Guild (PNG)); (6) Steve Benner (Ancient Numismatic Society of Washington, D.C. (ANSWDC)); (7) Kate FitzGibbon (FitzGibbon Law-Committee for Cultural Policy (CCP) and Global Heritage Alliance (GHA)); (8) Brian Daniels (Archaeological Institute of America (AIA)); (9) Mireille Lee (Vanderbilt); (10) Marcel Marée and Suzanne Veigh (British Museum); (11) Rocco Debitetto (Hahn Loeser- Association of Art Museum Directors); and (12) Katie Paul (ATHAR Project). 

John Papadopoulos has visited in Albania periodically since the late 1990’s.  He undertook field work there from 2004-2008.  Looting was at its height in the late 1990’s.  It is not as severe today, but it is still problematic.  Looting destroys context which tells us much about how people lived in the area from the Neolithic through the Byzantine and post-Byzantine periods.  Coins are amongst the most common, easily located, and smuggled ancient objects. Albania is very welcoming to academic exchange and has made strides in cultural heritage management. 

His written testimony may be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0003-0056

Michael Galaty has excavated in Apollonia and North Albania.  Galatay has documented systematic metal-detecting in the Shkoder province, targeting both settlements and burial mounds. He says he has been approached by children selling coins at archaeological sites.  He also has seen people metal detecting who had learned about it in England where it is legal.  Some are hobbyists but others are in it for profit.  He also indicates European coin dealers buy coins in Albania. Over the years, he has seen the government of Albania take great strides in trying to limit looting, including expansive cultural heritage laws, a professionalized regional archaeological/heritage service, upgrades to site security, and public education about the problem.  His testimony may be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0003-0010

James Gould speaks for the RPM Nautical Foundation.  During the Hoxha regime, anyone diving in Albanian waters would be shot on sight.  Since the fall of Communism, underwater looting with the use of scuba gear and fast boats for a getaway have become a problem.  Amphorae are typical targets for looters.  The Albanians have been excellent collaborators and a MOU would help address looting.

The Nautical Foundation’s written comments can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0003-0046

Randolph Myers indicates the current membership of CPAC does not reflect Congressional intent because the interests of dealers and the small businesses of the numismatic trade are underrepresented. Given their wide circulation, it is impossible to assume that coins struck in Albania are necessarily found there.  Numismatic research proves far more hoards of coins struck at Apollonia and Dyrrachium are found outside Albanian than within it.

The ACCG’s written comments may be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0003-0014

Peter Tompa acknowledges the passing of James Fitzpatrick, Esq., one of the drafters of the CPIA who appeared before CPAC multiple times to emphasize the need for the Committee to follow Congressional intent.  He indicates that only coins that exclusively circulated within a given country can be restricted under the CPIA’s limitations of import restrictions to archaeological objects “first discovered within” and “subject to export control” by a UNESCO State party.  He believes that the 2016 Egyptian designated list violated this requirement because it included widely circulating large denomination Greek and Roman Provincial coins.  He also indicates there is no basis to expand current import restrictions further to widely circulating Roman Imperial coins struck in Egypt.  Nor is there any basis for restrictions on silver ancient Illyrian coinage struck in what is now Albania because far more hoards of these coins are found in Romania than Albania.  He also asks CPAC to recommend that Customs no longer apply import restrictions on coins as embargoes, but rather limit detentions and seizures to situations where there is probable cause that coins were illicitly exported after the effective date of governing regulations. 

Peter Tompa’s oral comments may be found here:  https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2021/03/cpac-must-focus-on-congressional-intent.html

IAPN’s and PNG’s written submissions may be found here:

Albania: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0003-0015

Egypt: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0003-0016

Peter Tompa’s personal written submission may be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0003-0055

Steve Benner indicates that collectors like himself and other members of the Ancient Numismatic Society of Washington, D.C. are interested in numismatic scholarship, not making money out of coins.  The joy of holding an ancient coin in one’s hand stimulates one’s interest even more, pushing collectors to ascertain facts about a coin’s history and composition. Taking this away would be demoralizing to collectors and detrimental to our hobby. The Roman Republic and Empire included all the countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea as well as Western Europe, Britain, the Balkans, etc. Roman coins struck at any of the mints circulated freely throughout the Empire and should not be considered the property of any single country.

Kate FitzGibbon also invokes Jim Fitzpatrick’s efforts to ensure that the Committee complies with the law, particularly the need for a showing of substantial current looting for an agreement to be justified. She questions whether there is such a problem in Albania or if looted material is coming here in quantity given the dearth of archaeological items being imported into the United States. As for Egypt, Ms. FitzGibbon notes that Egypt fails to acknowledge much material left the country legally before the 1980’s, and even where export certificates were issued, they were so general as to be useless to show provenance. Ms. FitzGibbon suggests that Egypt has only made a token effort at self help measures to care for its own cultural patrimony. Instead of spending money on preservation efforts, it has dumped huge amounts of money on General Sissi’s museum vanity project being built in the desert.  CPAC must consider such self help measures as part of its review of MOUs.  She also notes the China MOU which should be undergoing an interim review should consider China’s intentional destruction of Uighur cultural heritage.

The CCP’s and GHA’s written submission on the Albanian MOU can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0003-0031

The CCP’s and GHA’s written submission on the Egyptian MOU can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0003-0044

Brian Daniels indicates ongoing looting and violence in Egypt justify the renewal of its MOU.  Recently, two site guards were killed by looters.  Egypt has been a good collaborator with U.S. archaeologists.  There was a conference about looting in Albania in 2009. There has been excellent collaboration with Albanian colleagues.  There will be a travelling exhibition of Albanian archaeological material in the U.S. in 2022.  Archaeological preservation efforts help foster tourism.  The AIA conducts tours in both Egypt and Albania.

The AIA’s written submissions for both Albania and Egypt can be found here: 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0003-0043

Mireille Lee has used travelling exhibits as teaching tools.  It is important to question how an object got there. There are also ethical questions related to exhibiting mummies.  Hopefully, after the pandemic students will be able to visit exhibitions in person, but in the meantime, they have taken advantage of the Internet.

Marcel Marée and Suzanne Veigh work with the British Museum’s CircArt project.  The project, made possible by grants from the British Council’s Cultural Protection Fund, is generating a digital knowledge base of Egyptian and Sudanese antiquities in the trade.  CircArt examines objects offered for sale on the ‘official’ open market as well as on social media. CircArt and the ATHAR Project work closely together, as there are many synergies between the projects.

 The first results of their research show clearly that the scale of ongoing looting and trafficking is far greater than is generally assumed. Since its inception in 2018, CircArt has recorded some 50,000 circulating artefacts from Egypt on the market, of which at least 15% were demonstrably excavated and exported illegally. A group of dealers in the USA remain heavily involved in the release of such objects onto the open market. They show images of broken off faces from mummy cartonnages where the rest of the coffin was discarded.  They indicate all these faces were offered by one U.S. dealer.  Dealers in Turkey have also been active with trans-shipment points in the Middle and Far East.  Much material also shows up on eBay or Facebook.  The data show with increasing urgency the true scale of illicit trade in cultural artefacts, indicating not only a need to renew the MOU between the US and Egypt, but ideally to reinforce the present import restrictions and to enact more robust regulation of the trade.

The British Museum’s CircArt project’s submission may be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0003-0061

Its website may be found here:

 https://www.britishmuseum.org/our-work/departments/egypt-and-sudan/circulating-artefacts

Rocco Debitetto indicates that CPAC must consider whether Egypt has met all the four determinations before its MOU is renewed.  The renewal should not be used to expand the designated list beyond the 250-year-old threshold for archaeological objects.  Ethnological objects need not be 250 years old, but Egyptian ethnological objects do not fit the criteria under the CPIA.  Egypt was not a tribal society in the 19^th century but a major power. If anything, the current designated list should be narrowed.  In addition, the MOU needs to be reformed to require Egypt to make available more objects for loan without attendant high fees.  Since the 2016 MOU, Egypt has only sent two travelling exhibitions to the United States, both of which were only available to museums willing to pay high fees.

The AAMD’s written submission can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0003-0032

Katie Paul states that the ATHAR project is devoted to fighting trafficking on Facebook.   Research conducted by ATHAR Project illustrates a trafficking crisis in Egypt that is feeding material to black market groups on Facebook. This material includes items as small as coins and as large as coffins. She has tracked material from “trafficker groups” on Facebook that have ended up in the United States. She indicates this trade is hard to track because the buyers frequently try to cover their tracks.

The ATHAR Project’s written submission can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0003-0039

Question and Answer Period

Anthony Wisniewski asks Marcel Marée to explain the difference between Alexander the Great and Hellenism. He indicates the Hellenistic period is generally thought to have started after Alexander died and his Empire was divided amongst his generals.

Anthony Wisniewski asks Randy Myers to confirm that Alexander the Great coins as well as Roman and Byzantine coins from Egyptian mints are found in quantity outside of Egypt.  He points to the ACCG’s research online and within the Royal Numismatic Society’s Coin hoard series of books.

Anthony Wisniewski asks Peter Tompa to confirm there were no Roman Imperial mints in Albania.  He does so.

Anthony Wisniewski asks Brian Daniels if there is sufficient evidence to establish the 4 required determinations for a MOU with Albania.  He says he believes so because the totality of the evidence shows that there is ongoing looting, and that Albania has also undertaken sufficient self-help measures and efforts at collaboration with American archaeologists to satisfy the statutory criteria.

Ricardo St. Hilaire notes that we should also acknowledge the passing of Nancy Wilkie, a long-term member of CPAC.  He asks Brian Daniels if archaeologists have had problems dealing with Egypt during the pandemic.  He says there have been issues, but they have been understandable ones given the circumstances. 

Joan Connelly elicits information from Michael Galaty and John K. Papadopoulos about a 1991-coin hoard containing coins from Aegina (in Greece).  She posits that the hoard shows that Albania was important cross-roads and that it suggests the presence of a city thought to be in the area.  They suggest we only know this information because the hoard was professionally excavated.

Stefan Passantino then closed the public meeting with thanks to all those who testified.

CPAC MUST FOCUS ON CONGRESSIONAL INTENT

 This is what I said today, more or less, at CPAC's public session regarding a proposed renewal of the current MOU with Egypt and a proposed new MOU with Albania:

I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the passing of James Fitzpatrick, Esq., one of the CPIA’s drafters who appeared before CPAC multiple times to emphasize the need for the Committee to follow Congressional intent.  In that spirit, I would ask you to focus on two important provisions concerning the scope and enforcement of import restrictions.  Both touch on less drastic remedies to be considered and facilitating the legal exchange of cultural property. 

The current designated list for Egypt ignores the statutory requirement that restricted objects must both be “first discovered within” and subject to Egyptian “export control.” Only coins that “exclusively” circulated within Egypt can meet both requirements, but larger denomination gold and silver Alexander the Great, Ptolemaic and Roman Egyptian coin types that circulated in quantity outside the modern borders of Egypt nonetheless ended up on the 2016 designated list.  Proponents may have raised Egypt’s so-called “closed monetary system” under the Ptolemies and Roman Provincial authorities to justify these restrictions, but that system was meant to keep foreign coins "out" and not Egyptian coins “in.”  Moreover, the borders of ancient Egypt stretched well beyond its modern borders and as stated, larger denomination Greek and Roman Egyptian Provincial coins with Greek legends are found in quantity well outside of Egypt. 

No new restrictions should be recommended for Roman Imperial, Byzantine, and Islamic issues.   Standardized Roman Imperial coins with Latin legends from the Alexandria Mint have been found in substantial numbers throughout the Empire and beyond.  In the later Byzantine and Islamic period, as in the later Roman period, standardized coinage made in Alexandria and elsewhere circulated widely.  Randy Myers speaking for the ACCG will focus on Albanian coinage, but I will also note there should be no restrictions on silver coins from there either because far more hoards of Illyrian coinage have been found in Romania than Albania.

There also is the issue of enforcement.  As the Antiquities Coalition also observes in its papers, import restrictions only apply to artifacts illicitly exported from Egypt after the December 6, 2016 effective date of the implementing regulations.  19 U.S.C § 2606.  Unfortunately, U.S. Customs applies restrictions far more broadly as embargoes on any coins imported into the U.S.   Instead, coins should only be detained and seized where there is probable cause they were illicitly exported from Egypt after December 6, 2016.  In other words, coins should no longer be seized and forfeited, and the collector deprived of their private property, solely because a coin is of a type on the designated list.   This should particularly hold for purchases from legitimate markets in the EU, UK, and Switzerland where Egyptian coins have been collected for generations.   Thank you for listening to our concerns.  I am happy to answer any questions regarding our submission.

Please Comment on a Proposed Renewal of the MOU with Egypt and a Proposed New MOU with Albania

The State Department has announced a proposed renewal and amendment of a cultural property agreement or memorandum of understanding with the Arab Republic of Egypt.  The State Department has also announced a proposed new MOU with the Republic of Albania.  Import restrictions under the current Egyptian MOU cover all ancient coins up to Diocletian's reforms.  Roman and Byzantine coins of Imperial types struck in Egypt after that date are not currently subject to import restrictions.  

Further information about the March 17, 2021 Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) meeting, how to comment, and a link to comment may be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS_FRDOC_0001-5449  Regulations .gov is transitioning to a new website, so at various times, you may need to comment here instead:  https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2021-0003-0001

 Alternatively, go to the regulations.gov website and type in DOS-2021-0003 in the search box to be taken to the notice and link to comment.  Comments must be uploaded no later than March 3, 2021.

A.  Background for Coin Collectors

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

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

1.        Current Egyptian import restrictions

The current Egyptian designated list restricts the following ancient coin types down to 294 AD:

H. Coins

In copper or bronze, silver, and gold.

1. General—There are a number of references that list Egyptian coin types. Below are some examples. Most Hellenistic and Ptolemaic coin types are listed in R.S. Poole, A Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Alexandria and the Nomes (London, 1893); J.N. Svoronos, Τα Nομισματα του Κρατουσ των Πτολe μαιων (Münzen der Ptolemäer) (Athens 1904); and R.A. Hazzard, Ptolemaic Coins: An Introduction for Collectors (Toronto, 1985). Examples of catalogues listing the Roman coinage in Egypt are J.G. Milne, Catalogue of Alexandrian Coins (Oxford, 1933); J.W. Curtis, The Tetradrachms of Roman Egypt (Chicago, 1969); A. Burnett, M. Amandry, and P.P Ripollès, Roman Provincial Coinage I: From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44 BC-AD 69) (London, 1998—revised edition); and A. Burnett, M. Amandry, and I. Carradice, Roman Provincial Coinage II: From Vespasian to Domitian (AD 69-96) (London, 1999). There are also so-called nwb-nfr coins, which may date to Dynasty 30. See T. Faucher, W. Fischer-Bossert, and S. Dhennin, “Les Monnaies en or aux types hiéroglyphiques nwb nfr,” Bulletin de l'institut français d'archéologie orientale 112 (2012), pp. 147-169.

 

2. Dynasty 30 —Nwb nfr coins have the hieroglyphs nwb nfr on one side and a horse on the other.

 

3. Hellenistic and Ptolemaic coins—Struck in gold, silver, and bronze at Alexandria and any other mints that operated within the borders of the modern Egyptian state. Gold coins of and in honor of Alexander the Great, struck at Alexandria and Memphis, depict a helmeted bust of Athena on the obverse and a winged Victory on the reverse. Silver coins of Alexander the Great, struck at Alexandria and Memphis, depict a bust of Herakles wearing the lion skin on the obverse, or “heads” side, and a seated statue of Olympian Zeus on the reverse, or “tails” side. Gold coins of the Ptolemies from Egypt will have jugate portraits on both obverse and reverse, a portrait of the king on the obverse and a cornucopia on the reverse, or a jugate portrait of the king and queen on the obverse and cornucopiae on the reverse. Silver coins of the Ptolemies coins from Egypt tend to depict a portrait of Alexander wearing an elephant skin on the obverse and Athena on the reverse or a portrait Start Printed Page 87808of the reigning king with an eagle on the reverse. Some silver coins have jugate portraits of the king and queen on the obverse. Bronze coins of the Ptolemies commonly depict a head of Zeus (bearded) on the obverse and an eagle on the reverse. These iconographical descriptions are non-exclusive and describe only some of the more common examples. There are other types and variants. Approximate date: ca. 332 B.C. through ca. 31 B.C.

4. Roman coins—Struck in silver or bronze at Alexandria and any other mints that operated within the borders of the modern Egyptian state in the territory of the modern state of Egypt until the monetary reforms of Diocletian. The iconography of the coinage in the Roman period varied widely, although a portrait of the reigning emperor is almost always present on the obverse of the coin. Approximate date: ca. 31 B.C. through ca. A.D. 294.

With respect to the wording of the restrictions themselves, Customs has issued restrictions based on place of manufacture rather than find spot.

This is significant because such restrictions ignore evidence that demonstrates that Egyptian mint coins are regularly discovered outside of Egypt.  Egypt's so-called "closed monetary system” was meant to keep foreign coins "out" and not Egyptian coins “in.” Hoard evidence confirms Ptolemaic coins from Egyptian mints circulated throughout the Ptolemaic Empire which stretched well beyond the confines of modern-day Egypt.  (And, indeed, some hoards are found outside the Empire's territory.)  They also ignored finds reported under the UK's PAS that show Roman Egyptian Tetradrachms circulated as far away as Roman Britain. 

Under current Customs procedures, the above types can only be imported into the United States with: (a) an export certificate issued by Egypt (which have not been issued since the 1980’s and which when issued did not include pictures or detailed descriptions);   (b) “satisfactory evidence” demonstrating that the coins were exported from or were outside of Egypt at least 10 years prior to importation into the U.S.; or (c) “satisfactory evidence” demonstrating that the coins were exported from or were outside of Egypt before restrictions were announced on December 5, 2016.  What constitutes “satisfactory evidence” is ultimately left to the discretion of Customs, but usually takes the form of a declaration by the importer and a statement by the consigner.

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

2.       Proposed Albanian MOU

The proposed MOU with Albania could also impact popular Greek coins from the cities of Apollonia and Dyrrhachium (Durres).  The early coins from these cities copied cow/calf designs of Corcyra (Corfu), their mother city.  Later, copies of Corinthian staters were struck, before massive issues of the cow/calf design were issued on the same weight standards as Roman Republican coins.  These coins are found in great numbers in former Yugoslavia, Romania, and Bulgaria.

3.       The Negative Impact of Import Restrictions on People-to-People Contacts Collecting Brings

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

      B.  What You Can Do

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

As discussed above, further information about the March 17, 2021 Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) meeting, how to comment, and a link to comment may be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS_FRDOC_0001-5449  Regulations .gov is transitioning to a new website, so at various times, you may need to comment here instead:  https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2021-0003-0001  Alternatively, go to the regulations.gov website and type in DOS-2021-0003 in the search box to be taken to the notice and link to comment or comment from the Federal Register Notice here:  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/05/2021-02371/cultural-property-advisory-committee-notice-of-meeting

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

C.  What Should You Say?

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

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

 Dear CPAC:

Please either end the current restrictions on coins, or, at least, do not expand them.  It makes no sense to expand current restrictions when the State Department already determined Roman Imperial and Byzantine coins of Egypt did not primarily circulate within Egypt.  Nor does it make sense to impose import restrictions on Albanian coins struck on the weight standard of late Roman Republican coins that are not restricted nor widely circulating Corinthian types which are also not subject to import restrictions.  Finally, Albania, which is soon to become an EU member, must respect the rights of other EU members to export coins of types on any Albanian designated list, and so should the U.S.  This can easily be done by making any MOU with Albania recognize that a legal export of any item on the Albanian designated list from a sister EU country will be treated as a legal export from Albania itself.

Sincerely,

xxx