The CPIA Cannot Support Import Restrictions on Spanish Colonial and Republican Era Coins or Any Restrictions that Could Benefit the Taliban

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

        Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of IAPN and PNG.  I am available to answer questions on all our written submissions but will defer my comments on Cyprus until CPAC’s January meeting.   Let me discuss any proposed import restrictions on Peruvian coins first.  CPAC has looked at and rejected prior efforts to impose import restrictions on Latin American coins.  Spanish colonial and Republican era coinage simply do not fit the statutory definitions of “archaeological” or “ethnological” material.  Such coins do not meet the 250-year-old threshold for “archaeological” material.  Nor are they normally found within the ground.  European settlers ran Peru’s mints.  The coins were produced using sophisticated industrial processes churning out thousands of virtually identical objects.  As such, they cannot be deemed “ethnological” material either.  Nor can one assume that Peruvian coins imported into the United States from third countries were ever “first discovered within” or “subject to” Peruvian export control.  Spanish Colonial and Republican era Peruvian coins circulated widely in international commerce, and even served as legal tender in the United States until 1857.

          Now let me address Afghanistan.  It should weigh heavily on CPAC that any emergency import restrictions could very well have the perverse effect of requiring U.S. Customs to “claw back” undocumented Bactrian coins imported from Europe, so they can be handed over to the Taliban who could resell, or even worse, melt them for bullion.  CPAC should be skeptical of any claims this can’t happen because forfeited artifacts will be given “safe harbor” in the United States.  There is no “safe harbor” provision in the CPIA, which instead requires forfeited items to be offered to the State Party, here Afghanistan, now under Taliban control.   Section 1216 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2021, cited by the Archaeological Institute of America, only applies to institutional loans that the Afghan government has authorized.  The reality is that objects forfeited under the CPIA must be repatriated when diplomatic relations are reinstated, and that decision will be based on factors other than the Taliban’s abysmal treatment of pre-Islamic cultural heritage.

          Finally, let me emphasize that import restrictions are especially problematical for coin collectors because they are applied as embargoes on all “designated” coins imported from legal markets of our major trading partners in the E.U., U.K. and Switzerland rather than as prospective restrictions only placed on “designated” coins illicitly exported from the State Party after the effective date of the governing regulations.  While we agree with the Antiquities Coalition on how the CPIA should operate, we know from hard experience that Customs and the State Department rely on the deference Courts have afforded the government in “foreign policy matters” to green light such confiscatory practices.  We therefore urge CPAC to be especially wary of approving of any new import restrictions on coins, particularly where the Taliban may be their primary beneficiary.  Thank you. 

Putting a Price on the Priceless: Measuring the Illicit Antiquities Trade in Data and Dollars

On July 26, 2021, the Antiquities Coalition and George Mason University Terrorism, Transnational Crime and Corruption Center (TrrACC) conducted an on-line discussion about measuring the illicit trade in antiquities.

 The participants included Louis Shelly (LS) (TrrACC), Neil Brodie (NB) (Oxford), Layla Hashemi (LH) (TrrACC), and Ute Wartenberg-Kagan (UWK) (American Numismatic Society).  Patrick Costello (PC) (Council on Foreign Relations) served as the moderator.

 LS explained the discussion is part of a “big data analysis” performed by TrrACC under a State Department contract.  It looked at both the low end and high-end markets using methods including advanced technologies developed by DARPA to review the Dark Web. 

 Their findings evidently will be published in a book by Rutledge.

 In 2013, NB valued the antiquities market at $64-300 million.  The coin market is valued at $56-$300 million.  RAND’s study did not value the coin market.

 UWK indicates that the coin market comprises of a low-end and a high-end market.  The low-end market found on eBay is huge with over 2 million pieces offered valued at $40-$100 million.  The low-end market represents a significant problem that collectors, archaeologists and the trade should address.

 NB says valuing the trade is a fool’s errand and we should instead focus on the damage the trade causes.  There are ways to estimate the values of artifacts extracted from archaeological sites. 

 LH indicates one must also assess tangible and intangible impacts to cultural heritage, links to terrorism, and funding conflicts.  Technology lowers the barriers to entry into the market meaning gray market participants can act with impunity.

 There is some discussion of free ports.  However, coin traders do not appear to use free ports.

 LH indicates the total illicit trade of all goods (not just antiquities and coins) is $2-$3 trillion.

 NB indicates looting during conflicts does not only harm cultural heritage directly, but the conflicts also drive qualified academics out of countries where they could assess the damage.

 UWK indicates that it is difficult to explain to villagers why it is not a good idea to loot.  In places like Turkey this is even more difficult because those who work the land often do so for absentee landlords.

 UWK indicates the coin trade still purchases fresh coins where it believes it is legal to do so under U.S. law.  She also indicates there are disagreements whether the proper date to assess the provenance for a coin should be the 1970 date of the UNESCO Convention or the date of a Memorandum of Understanding with a source country.  She indicates the focus should be to keeping coins that have been illicitly excavated recently off the market.

 LS indicates that the antiquities trade will soon be subject to Anti-Money laundering regulations, but the art and coin trade should also be subject to such regulations. 

 NB indicates that he is doubtful that established antiquities dealers sell recently looted artifacts, but he indicates that they regularly sell artifacts looted decades ago.

 LH indicates that much of the low-end market is sold on Facebook despite rules against selling antiquities on that platform.

 There are not many antiquities on the Dark Web, but that is because they are sold openly on other platforms. If there is a crackdown on these platforms, it is possible business will move onto the Dark Web.

 There also is some use of crypto currency to purchase antiquities which may raise some issues.

 NB indicates it is hard to get people motivated to protect sites unless tourist dollars are at issue.  Farmers typically aren’t interested in preserving sites.  It is difficult enough to convince people not to loot, but impossible when there is a conflict and people are desperate.

 Prosecutions are helpful to disincentivize unlawful activity.  There are members of DHS law enforcement on the zoom call. 

 NB believes training the military about cultural heritage is a waste of resources. 

 UWK indicates a major problem is the lack of resources directed at enforcement.  She is pessimistic eBay or Facebook can be convinced to stop allowing their platforms to sell coins.

 NB believes antiquities sales should be taxed with the funds going to enforcement.

 LS again states her belief that art in addition to antiquities should be subject to anti-money laundering regulations. 

 LH states her belief that there are some unsavory actors behind the trade on Facebook.

 UWK indicates that Covid has made it harder to move illicit goods. 

 NB does not believe the Portable Antiquities Scheme or Treasure Act is an answer.  He maintains that finds in the UK are grossly underreported, and that the PAS encourages looting.

 Comment:  Very little new information came out of this presentation.  All the participants except for UWK seemed generally hostile to collecting.  LH seemed to be reading Antiquities Coalition talking points throughout much of the presentation.  The content of this seminar should raise fundamental questions about how studies with inputs solely from activists are prepared.  Additionally, one suspects funding considerations may also impact how problems are viewed.  Here, all the focus on discouraging demand for antiquities and coins is not surprising because a holistic approach focused primarily on addressing the causes for looting at the source would require an acknowledgement that source country practices are often a major part of the problem.  No wonder TraCCC came up with a series of excuses why its staff could not to meet with representatives of the coin trade to discuss these issues from a different perspective while its study was ongoing.

Requests for MENA Cultural Property Agreements Originate not with the Source Country, but with the Archaeological Lobby and our own State Department

This is a follow up to CPO's February 12, 2020, blog post:  https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2020/02/jordanian-mou-window-into-how-mous-are.html  

The Convention on Cultural Implementation Act contemplates that UNESCO State parties will request the United States to enter into MOU's which authorize the imposition of import restrictions on cultural goods. However, it now appears that MOU requests supposedly from Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) countries actually originate from the State Department itself with  the help of funding from the Antiquities Coalition, a major archaeological advocacy group that has lobbied the United States Government for an import ban on so-called "blood antiquities" from the MENA region. See https://theantiquitiescoalition.org/blood-antiquities/

 According to Lynn Roche of the State Department's Near East Affairs Bureau,

“Bilateral Memoranda of Understanding, based on the 1970 UNESCO Convention on Cultural Property, are creating the foundation for long-term partnerships with governments in the NEA region. These MOUs authorize DHS’s Customs and Border Protection to seize undocumented cultural property. The first case in NEA was when Egypt committed resources to cultural heritage protection and signed an MOU with the U.S. in November of 2016. Following that, NEA provided funding to advise NEA countries in preparing their MOU request packages. ECA and NEA training and capacity building for Libyan archeologists and law enforcement personnel laid the groundwork for signing an MOU with Libya in February 2018. Post, the Libya External Office that’s based in Tunis, is now working with a Fulbright Specialist to support this effort. So, posts are looking at the whole toolkit of what they can do to bring these resources to bear and advance this cause.”

 See https://www.state.gov/acpd-official-meeting-minutes-january-23-2020

 According to the Antiquities Coalition's 2017 990 filing, the Coalition gave a grant of $60,000 which was apparently passed through the State Department to help fund these MOU requests.  requests. See https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/471206934 (Form 990, Schedule I, Part II, Grants and Assistance to Domestic Organizations and Domestic Governments)  

This new information helps confirm why collectors, dealers, museums, and representatives of displaced religious and ethnic minorities are treated as outsiders to the process of imposing import restrictions on cultural goods. It also suggests there needs to be far more transparency with regard to how import restrictions are processed. 

US State Department Approves "Emergency Import Restrictions" on Behalf of Yemen's Saudi Backed Government

The U.S. State Department has approved more import restrictions, this time with Yemen's Saudi backed government which stands accused of complicity in human rights abuses and the intentional bombing and shelling of Yemeni cultural sites.

Effective Feb. 5, 2020, import restrictions have been imposed on a wide variety of Yemeni archaeological and ethnological artifacts, including coins and books and manuscripts, which would cover religious artifacts of Yemen's displaced Jewish population.

The list of coins is extensive.  It includes:

9. Coins—A reference book for ancient, pre-Islamic material in Yemen is M. Huth, Coinage of the Caravan Kingdoms: Ancient Arabian Coins from the Collection of Martin Huth, New York, 2010, pp. 68-152. A reference book for Islamic coinage to A.D. 1750 is S. Album, Checklist of Islamic Coins, Santa Rosa, 2011, pp. 116-127. Some of the best-known types are described below:

a. Ancient—In gold, silver, and bronze/copper, with units ranging from tetradrachms down to various fractional levels.

i. Earliest coins from Yemen are imitations of silver tetradrachms from Athens; feature a bust of Athena on the obverse and an owl on the reverse. The style of these imitations is distinctive, and they are usually marked with Arabian monograms or graffiti. Approximate date: 500 B.C. and later.

ii. Minaeans produced schematic imitations of the Athenian coinage; these coins have angular shapes, often triangular. Style is distinctive with monograms with Arabian letters. Approximate date: 200 B.C.

iii. Sabaeans struck distinctive local imitations of Athenian tetradrachms, with or without monograms, often with the curved symbol of Almaqah to the right of the owl, and of smaller units than previously. In the 1st century A.D., the head of Athena is replaced with a male bust resembling Augustus; owl on the reverse continues, as do monograms and the curved symbol. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D., a beardless male head appears on the coins with the curved symbol, and a facing bucranium (a bull's head) appears on the reverse with the curved symbol and monograms. Approximate date: 400 B.C.-A.D. 300.

iv. Himyarite coins feature beardless male heads on the obverse coupled with bearded male heads on the reverse. Various South Arabian monograms appear on the coins. Rulers include Yuhabirr, Karib'il Yehun`im Wattar, Amdan Yuhaqbid, Amdan Bayan, Tha'ran Ya`ub, Shamnar Yuhan`am, and unknown kings. Approximate date: 110 B.C.-A.D. 200.

v. Qatabians produced imitations of Athenian coins also in 2nd-4th century B.C., with or without monograms; distinctive style. From the 2nd century B.C. to the 2nd century A.D., head of Athena is replaced with male ruler portraits, including those of Yad'ab Dhubyan Yuhargib, Dhub, Hawfi`Amm Yuhan`am III, Shahr Yagul, Waraw'il Ghaylan, Shahr Hilal, Yad`ab Yanaf, and various unknown rulers. Reverses of early types have the owl, while later types have a second portrait on the reverse. Approximate date: 400 B.C.-A.D. 200.

vi. Bronze coins from Hadramawt have radiate male portraits in a circle on the obverse and a standing bull on the reverse; Arabian symbols appear. Approximate date: A.D. 200-400.

vii. Various South Arabian types imitate Athenian coins, Hellenistic Alexander tetradrachms with a head of Herakles on the obverse and Zeus seated on the reverse, and Ptolemaic coins with a cornucopia on the reverse. Style is distinctive; designs are accompanied by Arabian monograms.

b. Islamic Period—In gold, silver, and bronze, and including anonymous mints in Yemen, and coins of unknown rulers attributed to Yemen. Non-exclusive mints are the primary manufacturers of the listed coins, but there may be other production mints.

i. `Abbasid coins struck in gold, silver, and bronze, at non-exclusive mints San`a, Zabid, `Adan, Dhamar, `Aththar, and Baysh mints. Approximate date: A.D. 786-974.

ii. Coins of the Amirs of San`a, struck in gold, at the mint of San`a. Approximate date: A.D. 909-911.

iii. Rassid (1st period) coins struck in gold and silver at Sa`da, San`a, Tukhla', and `Aththar. Approximate date: A.D. 898-1014.

iv. Coins of the Amirs of Yemen, struck in silver, at an uncertain mint. Approximate date: A.D. 1000-1100.

v. Coins of the Amirs of `Aththar, struck in gold, at the mint of `Aththar. Approximate date: A.D. 957-988.

vi. Tarafid coins, struck in silver, at the mint of `Aththar. Approximate date: A.D. 991-1004.

vii. Ziyadid coins, struck in gold and silver, at non-exclusive mint Zabid. Approximate date: A.D. 955-1050s.

viii. Khawlanid coins, struck in silver, at the mint of San`a. Approximate date: A.D. 1046-1047.

ix. Najjahid coins, struck in gold, at the mints Zabid and Dathina. Approximate date: A.D. 1021-1158.

x. Sulayhid coins, struck in gold and debased silver, at non-exclusive mints Zabid, `Aththar, `Adan, Dhu Jibla. Approximate date: A.D. 1047-1137.

xi. Zuray'id coins, struck in gold, at the mints of `Adan and Dhu Jibla. Approximate date: A.D. 1111-1174.

xii. Coins of Mahdid of Zabid, struck in silver, at the mint of Zabid. Approximate date: A.D. 1159-1174.

xiii. Rassid (2nd period) coins, struck in gold and silver, at non-exclusive mints Zufar, San`a, Sa`da, Huth, Dhirwah, Kahlan, Muda', `Ayyan, Bukur, al-Jahili, and Dhamar. Approximate date: A.D. 1185-1390.

xiv. Ayyubid coins, struck in gold, silver, and bronze, at the mints of Zabid, `Adan, Ta`izz, San`a, al-Dumluwa, Bukur, and Mayban. Approximate date: A.D. 1174-1236.

xv. Rasulid coins, struck in gold, silver, and bronze, at non-exclusive mints `Adan, Zabid, al-Mahjam, Ta`izz, San`a, Tha'bat, and Hajja. Approximate date: A.D. 1229-1439.

xvi. Tahirid coins, struck in silver, at the mint of `Adan. Approximate date: A.D. 1517-1538.

xvii. Rassid (3rd period) coins, struck in silver and bronze, at the mints of San`a, Zafir, and Thula. Approximate date: A.D. 1506-1572.

xviii. Ottoman coins, struck in gold, silver and bronze, at the mints of Zabid, San`a, `Adan, Kawkaban, Ta`izz, Sa`da, al-Mukha, and Malhaz. Approximate date: A.D. 1520-1750.

(Ironically, both Martin Huth and Stephen Album's firm have expressed concerns about import restrictions on coins to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) in the past.  Yet, here their scholarly works on these coins are being cited as a basis for the restrictions!)

What's All the Fuss About?

The archaeological lobby supporting import restrictions have pitched them as  a "consumer protection" measure designed to keep U.S. collectors from buying recently looted material.   Yet, they must know that import restrictions are controversial to the trade and collectors because, as construed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, they embargo all undocumented items of types on designated lists imported after the effective date of the regulations, not just items illegally exported from a UNESCO State party after the effective date of import restrictions as required under Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA), 19 U.S.C. §§ 2601, 2604, 2606, 2610. Such regulatory actions have converted CPIA import restrictions into embargoes of all objects of restricted types rather  than targeted, prospective import restrictions that do not impact the purchase of artifacts from the legitimate marketplace abroad.

Import restrictions have been particularly hard on coin collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade because most collector's coins (which typically are of limited value) lack detailed provenance histories necessary for legal import. This has greatly damaged the legitimate trade in such items with fellow collectors, especially from within the E.U.

Jewish groups will feel particularly aggrieved by the State Department's treatment of their concerns.  As has been the case with other MOU's made by the Obama and Trump State Departments on behalf of other authoritarian MENA regimes, import restrictions on behalf of Yemen contain no explicit exemption for artifacts once owned by Yemen's displaced Jewish population.  That means the restrictions on books , manuscripts and other archaeological and ethnological artifacts also apply to Torahs and other personal property (like jewelry) that had to be abandoned when Yemeni Jews were forced from the country.  As these groups see it, this is tantamount to U.S. State Department recognition  of the rights of Yemen and other authoritarian Arab regimes to their  personal and communal religious property.

 There also is the obvious question about whether these import restrictions will really promote "cultural property protection."  Pursuant to the CPIA, any artifacts U.S. Customs and Border Protection seize will be sent to Yemen, a country involved in a multi-party civil war, and be given over to the custody of a  government which itself has been accused of complicity in bombing cultural sites.

Finally, there is an important issue of process.  The short comment period allowed before the CPAC meeting to address Yemen's request (which encompassed important Jewish Holidays) raised suspicions at the time whether the decision was already a "done deal."  Certainly, there was plenty of evidence of lobbying by the Antiquities Coalition, an archaeological advocacy group with ties to authoritarian MENA regimes, on Yemen's behalf.  Moreover, just recently, the U.S. Embassy in Jordan seems to have confirmed what Cultural Property Observer has long feared- that the State Department bureaucracy views CPAC as a mere rubber stamp for agreements already worked out in advance among  the archaeological lobby and the State Department and source country bureaucracies.  Hopefully, going forward, CPAC's new Chairman and its new members will do their utmost to instead ensure CPAC sticks to its mandate to offer the State Department decision maker useful advice on whether or not to agree to a MOU based on inputs from all stake holders-- not just those associated with the archaeological lobby who already have strong relationships with the State Department Cultural Heritage Center.

Certainly, CPAC and Trump Administration political appointees need to ask themselves whether the State Department is providing a good example to MENA governments about what good governance and democracy mean.  They also need to consider how the actions of the State Department are impacting ethnic and religious minorities, American small business owners, museum professionals and collectors, all of whom will be voting in the upcoming Presidential election.

Slim Public Support for MOU's with Yemen and Morocco

The docket for the upcoming CPAC meeting on proposed MOU's with Morocco and Yemen indicates that 170 comments were received about one or both of these MOU's.  The vast majority of comments came in response to an appeal from JIMENA (Jews Indigenous to the Middle East & North Africa) against State Department efforts to recognize the rights of authoritarian MENA countries to the religious and cultural artifacts of their displaced Jewish populations.

Coin collector-numismatic trade comments were way down (to approximately 10) from 100's in the past, no doubt due to frustration about the likelihood of numismatic logic moving the State Department, as well as the fact that the obscure coin types found in these countries are mainly of interest to specialists. 

Archaeologists and archaeological advocacy groups were only represented with approximately 10 comments as well, which should again confirm that there is very little actual public support for these MOU's.

Oddly, the "Antiquities Coalition" which has worked with the Yemeni Government on this MOU apparently failed to submit any public comments.  Is it possible the Coalition has already received assurances that the MOU's are a "done deal?"

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

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

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

Ecuadorian MOU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China MOU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archaeological Lobby Silent as Turkey Bombs Hittite Cultural Site

Turkish warplanes have bombed and evidently badly damaged the Iron Age temple of Ain Dara in Northern Syria as part of their campaign against Kurdish separatists.

Far from expressing outrage, the major archaeological lobbying groups including the AIA, ASOR and the Antiquities Coalition have remained silent. 

But why?  A cynic might think these groups are more concerned about angering the Turkish government than in maintaining a consistent message. 

After all, the Turkish Government  offers archaeologists associated with these groups valuable excavation permits for archaeological sites within the country. 

"Blood and Treasure"

According to Variety, CBS has given a straight-to-series order to a new action-adventure series titled “Blood & Treasure.” The report continues, "The series centers on a brilliant antiquities expert and a cunning art thief who team up to catch a ruthless terrorist who funds his attacks through stolen treasure. As they crisscross the globe hunting their target, they unexpectedly find themselves in the center of a 2,000-year-old battle for the cradle of civilization.   The network has ordered a 13-episode first season of the one-hour series, which is set to be broadcast in summer 2019."  Executive Producer Marc Vlasic, an Antiquities Coalition Associate, evidently views the series as "social impact TV."  In contrast, CPO considers the series as yet another effort to confuse  "entertainment" with "news" to promote an anti-collecting crusade.  CPO has criticized CBS for promoting "fake news" about values of ISIS loot. 

Hipster Internet Art Newsletter Raises Alarm About Antiquities being "Weaponized" for Political Purposes

"Hyperallergic,"  an Internet "forum for playful, serious, and radical perspectives on art and culture in the world today" has joined the Committee for Cultural Policy in taking on fantastical claims about ISIS funding itself with looted antiquities, albeit from a far different perspective.  Tellingly, the post by archaeologist Michael Press -- though well researched-- avoids the elephant in the room.  Who was responsible for "weaponizing" antiquities in the first place?  The ISIS killing machine was bad enough to justify military intervention, particularly given its terror threats not only in the region but to Europe and the US as well.  

Of course, the answer is quite apparent to those who represent the interests of collectors, museums and the trade.  It is the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center, which worked along with ASOR, the  State Department contractor mentioned in the article, and the Antiquities Coalition, a well-funded archaeological advocacy group with ties to ASOR, the Archaeological Institute of America, as well as authoritarian Arab regimes. These groups were quite successful in laundering their dubious narrative not only through mainstream media (NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, CBS, etc.) but through the foreign policy establishment as well (think tanks and Foreign Policy Magazine).  The goal was threefold.  First, getting Congress to pass permanent import restrictions on Syrian cultural goods (which was achieved through these scare tactics).  Second, creating and funding an "Antiquities Czar" position that would elevate these groups' influence even further within the US Government.  (A goal that was not realized.)  Third, convincing Congress to lower the bar for criminal prosecutions based on foreign cultural patrimony laws.  (Another  goal that was not realized.) Meanwhile, those representing the interests of collectors, museums and the trade that raised the exact same issues about the credibility of these fantastical numbers early on have become targets for abuse from some of the very same individuals Press acknowledges for their contributions in exposing the truth.  

Virtual CPAC Meeting on Cambodian MOU Renewal Request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preservationists Seek to Remove or Even Destroy Confederate Monuments

So-called "preservationists" have advocated for the removal or even destruction of Confederate war memorials as products of an inherently racist culture.  In contrast, CPO believes we should not erase history, but learn from it.

In a blog post on the subject, Obama Cultural Property Advisory Committee Appointee Prof. Rosemary Joyce justifies her views based on the assumption that

When you remove these statues to men who fought for slavery, you’re not destroying history – you’re making it.

Surprisingly, this 180 degree departure from archeology's mantra of preservation of objects in context appears to be based on little more than reductionist reasoning, i.e., the statues must be symbols of  "white supremacy" because they were produced in a racist South.  Indeed, efforts to draw attention to the fact that their iconography is virtually identical to monuments erected in the North at around the same time when the politically powerful Civil War generation was passing from the scene elicited little more than condenscending responses. It seems furthering "white supremacy" not commemoration of sacrifices on the battlefield must be the prime motivator in the South, but not the North (despite similar racist sentiments there at the time).

In any event, justifying the removal or even destruction of historical monuments by designating them as "racist" should be even more troubling given recent events in Iraq and Syria.   Indeed, there are distinct parallels between ISIS destroying "idolatrous" statues and monuments and efforts here to topple "racist" ones, not the least the motivation to deprive certain groups of artifacts deemed important to their culture (there Shia, Assyrian Christians and Yazhdis and here poor White people (who must be racist!)).  At least here, we have processes in place to allow localities and States to make the decision what to do with our Confederate monuments.  What must be avoided at all costs is another Durham, N.C., where a mob was allowed to take matters into its own hands.   

A German View of How American Cultural Policy is Made

Coins Weekly questions whether Goldman Sachs money, power and influence have corrupted US cultural policy.  At a minimum, it is a legitimate question where the Antiquities Coalition's non profit archaeological advocacy and the for profit business interests of its founder begin and end.

Antiquities Coalition Chief of Staff: "Dealers Don't Have Civil Rights!"

FROM TWITTER:

Katie A. Paul‏

@AnthroPaulicy

Katie A. Paul Retweeted Peter Tompa

What a shameful accusation to compare the plight of antiquities dealers to those fighting for civil rights. Dealers don't have civil rights!

Katie A. Paul added,

Peter Tompa @Aurelius161180

@AnthroPaulicy No, stance this is a drop in the bucket and does not justify efforts to undercut collectors' and dealers civil rights.

No wonder why the Antiquities Coalition apparently thinks the burden of proof should be shifted away from the government and onto collectors and dealers to prove their collections are "licit" under obscure foreign laws, many of which are the products of dictatorships like that of Egypt.

Destruction of Mosul Artifacts Further Undercuts Archaeological Lobby's Narrative

Confirmation that ISIS appears to have destroyed the contents of the Mosul Museum should be a cause for sadness rather than an excuse for yet another sound bite condemning the purchase of "blood antiquities."  If anything, the destruction of portable antiquities like cuneiform tablets contradicts the archaeological lobby's narrative that ISIS loots rather than destroys for ideological reasons.

Real Turn Around or Business as Usual?

It would be nice to think that Deborah Lehr and her well-funded Antiquities Coalition have had a real change of heart about how the antiquities market encourages cultural exchange and the preservation of artifacts, but given the group's consistent efforts to portray collectors as witting or unwitting accomplices of terrorists and cultural racketeers one has to really wonder if any change is just for the moment and for business purposes related to her international consulting firm.  Only time will tell.

Outgoing Obama Administration Gifts Egypt and Archaeological Lobby with a MOU

The outgoing Obama Administration has gifted Egypt's authoritarian government, its cultural bureaucracy and supportive archaeologists with a MOU that will likely ban import of undocumented Egyptian antiquities created before 1517.

In so doing, the Administration has ignored 91% of the public comment to CPAC which raised serious concerns with any MOU.  Moreover, the decision once again raises the question whether there was any "done deal" from the outset.

Implementing regulations are expected soon.

Goldman Sachs Power and Influence Benefit Archaeology Lobby?

A front page article in Sunday's New York Times raises some important questions about how cultural heritage policy is made in the United States that deserve further investigation.   The article explores close ties between Hillary Clinton and Goldman Sachs including during the period Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State.  That discussion highlights the Clinton State Department's partnership with Goldman Sachs' 10,000 women initiative.

While it is no doubt a good program, what is relevant for our purposes here is that this initiative is run by former Bush Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Dina Powell.  Powell and her State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs are not popular with coin collectors for good reason.

In May 2007, Powell rejected the U.S. Cultural Property Advisory Committee's  recommendations against import restrictions on Cypriot coins.  Then, according to a declaration signed by Former CPAC Chair Jay Kislak, State Department officials went on to mislead Congress and the public about CPAC's true recommendations in official reports. That decision changed long-standing U.S. Government policy against import restrictions on coins, and provided the "precedent" for further restrictions on certain coin types from Iraq (2008), China (2009), Italy (2011), Greece (2011), Bulgaria (2014), and Syria (2016).

In CPO's view, Powell's 2007 decision at a minimum raises an appearance of conflict of interest. Critically, Powell made the decision after accepting her high level job with Goldman Sachs but before leaving the State Department.  At the time, Goldman was apparently heavily involved in arranging controversial credit swaps with Greece and likely had at least some business dealings with Cyprus too.  Of even more concern, it has since come to light that Powell was recruited by John F.W. Rogers, Goldman's powerful chief of staff, where she serves as part of his "lobbying team."   This is relevant to cultural heritage issues because Mr. Rogers is married to Deborah Lehr, an AIA Trustee and international business consultant, who also serves as President of the Antiquities Coalition, a well-funded archaeological lobbying group.

So, perhaps it's no surprise that the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs has actively participated in Antiquities Coalition events, such as its recent "Culture Under Threat" conference in New York City.

Of course, the point of these conferences is to drum up support in Congress for measures sought by the archaeological lobby.  So, it also should be no surprise that the Antiquities Coalition has successfully lobbied Congress to clamp down on illicit antiquities (efforts which the trade and collectors see as grossly over-broad and hence damaging to the legitimate trade and collecting).

What's also interesting is that the Antiquities Coalition lobbying efforts are part of a partnership with the Middle East Institute and this work has been done to support repatriation efforts sought by authoritarian Middle Eastern governments like that of Egypt.

What's less clear is whether all this effort also directly or indirectly benefits the financial interests of those involved, i.e., is lobbying on cultural heritage issues of interest to countries like Greece, Cyprus and Egypt being "leveraged" to promote other business interests?

CPO commends all interested in expressing their views on cultural heritage issues, but given the amounts of money that the Antiquities Coalition must be spending on its efforts and all the contacts that are being worked,there should be far more transparency about the Antiquities Coalition's funding, its aims and details about its public-private partnerships with countries like Egypt.