Summary of Oct. 27, 2020 CPAC Meeting to Accept Public Comments on Proposed MOU with Nigeria and Proposed Renewals with Bolivia and Greece

 On October 27, 2020, the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (“CPAC”) met to consider a proposed MOU with Nigeria and proposed renewals with Bolivia and Greece. 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 Catherine Foster, a Cultural Heritage Center staffer, were also present.

In advance of this meeting, there was a major shake-up on CPAC.  The following Obama appointees were removed or resigned:  (1) Adele Chatfield-Taylor (Public); (2) James Reep (Public); and (3) Lothar Von Falkenhausen (Archaeology).  At the last CPAC public session to discuss a renewal the MOU with Italy, von Falkenhausen told ancient coin collectors (who were represented at the meeting) that he believed that they should take up another hobby.  It is unclear if this comment had anything to do with his departure.  President Trump appointed Messrs. Bledsoe and Demming to replace Ms. Chatfield-Taylor and Mr. Reep.  One archaeological slot remains unfilled.

Chairman Passantino welcomed the speakers.  He indicated that the Committee had read all the comments, and that given the large number of speakers, each would only be allowed 3 minutes to focus on points most important to them.  Chairman Passantino called on speakers who had put in papers on Nigeria first, then speakers who had written about Bolivia, and finally Greece.  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 public comments:  (1) Tess Davis (Antiquities Coalition); (2) Brian Daniels (Archaeological Institute of America); (3) Kathleen Bickford (Northwestern University); (4) Leslye Amede Obiora (Institute for Research on African Women, Children and Culture); (5) Kate FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural Policy); (6) Donna Yates (Maastricht University); (7) Maria Bruno (Dickinson College); (8) Kris Lane (Tulane University); (9) Daniel Sedwick (International Association of Professional Numismatists); (10) Peter Tompa (Global Heritage Alliance); (11)  Christos Tsirogiannis (University of Aarhus, Denmark); (12) Kim Shelton (Berkley); (13) Nathan Elkins (Baylor University); (14) Ute Wartenberg-Kagan (Columbia University); (15) Morag Kersel (DePaul University); (16) Dmitry Narkesis (Columbia University); (17) Rocco Dibenedetto (Hahn Loeser- Association of Art Museum Directors); (18) Douglas Mudd (American Numismatic Association); and (19) Randolph Myers (Ancient Coin Collectors Guild).

Tess Davis (TD) indicates that the Antiquities Coalition works with partners in the art market, the U.S. Government and Foreign Governments.  She believes import restrictions help protect the legitimate market.  She denies that import restrictions act as embargoes because they allow listed material into the country that has been documented as being outside the country for which restrictions were provided before those restrictions went into place.  She also believes that U.S. customs should not accept export certificates from other EU governments where objects have been listed for specific EU countries like Greece.  She notes certain EU countries do require export permits within the EU despite the general free circulation of goods within the EU.

The Antiquities Coalition’s written comments can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS-2020-0036-0077 (Bolivia)

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS-2020-0036-0080 (Greece)

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS-2020-0036-0076 (Nigeria)

Brian Daniels (BD) focuses on the Fourth Determination under the Cultural Property Implementation Act (“CPIA”), regarding the international exchange of cultural patrimony.  He notes that Nigeria has sent several exhibits to the United States.  Most recently, the Block Museum of Art at Northwestern University (Greater Chicago) hosted the 2019 exhibition, Caravans of Gold, Fragments in Time: Art, Culture, and Exchange across Medieval Saharan Africa, which displayed the scope of Saharan trade and the shared history of West Africa, the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe from the eighth to sixteenth centuries. This exhibition involved significant loans from Nigeria. It was slated to travel to the National Museum of African Art, Smithsonian Institution (Washington, D.C.) in 2020, but its opening has been postponed due to COVID-19.  He indicates that both Bolivia and Greece have been similarly generous in sending exhibitions to the United States.

The Archaeological Institute of America’s written comments can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS-2020-0036-0083

Kathleen Bickford (KB) discusses her role as curator for the Caravans of Gold exhibit for the Block Museum of Art at Northwestern University.  She states Nigeria's request meets all criteria for determinations in favor of cultural property protections. Important cultural patrimony, ranging from fragments to complete objects, continue to emerge from archaeological sites within the country, while objects of more recent date remain within communities and at royal courts, as well as in homes, shrines, and storehouses. These objects are under severe threat from pillage and theft. Despite efforts to curtail the international market for archaeological and traditional objects from Nigeria, including tighter requirements on provenance among North American museums and accelerating debates about the restitution of African objects from the colonial period, there continues to be a high demand in the international art market for cultural heritage objects from Nigeria.  She also indicates there are many fakes on the market.  Finally, she notes that there is much violence in Nigeria and that cultural heritage is a unifying force.

KB’s written comments can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS-2020-0036-0046

 Leslye Amede Obiora (LAO) has been a Professor of Law in the United States since 1992.  She previously served as the Minister of Mines and Steel Development for the Federal Republic of Nigeria.  She states cultural heritage issues are human rights issues. LAO indicates there is a cabal of powerful people involved in looting in Nigeria. She believes a MOU will help bolster civil society, and she wonders why it has taken so long for the United States to offer one to Nigeria.

Kate FitzGibbon (KFG) indicates that the Committee for Cultural Policy and Global Heritage Alliance applaud efforts to help Nigeria address looting, but question whether sufficient evidence has been submitted to support entering into a MOU.  There are many Nigerian materials on the market and in private and museum collections, but the vast majority of these materials left Nigeria decades ago.  Most of this material was removed during the colonial era.  Material produced after 1945 is considered touristic in nature.  There is little in the record about Nigerian self-help measures.  KG is concerned that this request is about closing the barn door after the horses have already left.

The CCP’s and GHA’s written comments on the Nigerian MOU may be found here: https://culturalpropertynews.org/nigeria-support-cultural-expansion-not-art-blockade/

The CCP’s written comments about the Greek MOU can be found here:

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2020-0036-0075

Donna Yates (DY) indicates that she has tracked illicit Colonial and Republican era Bolivian artifacts. She indicates that while there appears to be less thefts from churches now, it takes years for this material to surface on the market. DY also indicates there is absolutely no social, educational, or scientific benefit to allowing a market for illegally obtained Bolivian cultural objects to exist in the United States. The destruction of the original contexts of these objects in the looting process annihilates our ability to conduct any meaningful archaeological analysis on them. The violent removal of sacred art from churches tears the very fabric that has held small and indigenous communities together for centuries, reducing cultural diversity and survival.

DY’s written comments can be found here: 

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS-2020-0036-0010

Maria Bruno (MB) states that Bolivian patrimony remains in jeopardy from pillage through the illicit excavation of archaeological sites with the purpose of selling desired objects. Bolivian governmental and volunteer organizations work tirelessly to protect archaeological sites from destruction and to educate the public on the value of preserving their ancient past.  Local communities also work together to protect their local patrimony from destruction as the revenue generated from tourism to the site provides jobs and contributes to the local pride.

MB’s written comments can be found here: 

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS-2020-0036-0068

Kris Lane (KL) shares the archaeologists’ concerns about looting, but thinks coins should be treated differently than other objects, like historic records.  While archives should not be removed from their place of origin, items like coins were not state property and were intended to circulate far from where they were made.  This is certainly the case for coins struck in Bolivia.  The Bolivian gold escudo and silver peso were international currencies.  They were even legal tender in the United States before the Civil War. 

Dan Sedwick (DS) indicates that IAPN supports Bolivian efforts to restore the Potosi mint.  DS provides some history.  Bolivian coins are very common.  DS has always had some in inventory.  Minting in Bolivia begins with hand-struck silver coins in 1573-4 under Spanish dominion and continues through early Republic times starting in 1825 to present day. Throughout these four-and-a-half centuries of minting, most of the coins were the property of rich men back in Spain, not the people of Bolivia, and these coins traveled far from the current boundaries of Bolivia, in fact to all the continents of the earth except Antarctica. DS also notes that IAPN’s submission shows that current Bolivian laws do not explicitly treat coins as cultural heritage.  As for Greece, DS states this renewal should not be an excuse to expand current import restrictions to trade coins that circulated around the ancient world.

The International Association of Professional Numismatists’ and the Professional Numismatists Guild’s written comments can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS-2020-0036-0067 (Bolivia)

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS-2020-0036-0024 (Greece)

Peter Tompa (PT) discusses both the Greek and Bolivian MOUs.  First, as to the proposed renewal of the Greek MOU, he states that this renewal is no excuse to expand current import restrictions.  Those restrictions purport to only apply to coin types that circulated locally in Greece in order to comply with the statutory requirements found in 19 U.S.C. § 2601.  That provision requires that such coins were “first discovered within” and are therefore subject to Greek export controls.  Under no circumstances should CPAC recommend expanding those restrictions to widely circulating trade coins which can be found most anywhere.  Second, CPAC should recognize the obvious ramifications of Greece’s membership in the European Union (“E.U.”). Coins on the current designated list may be traded outside the E.U. with or without an export license according to the local law of Greece’s sister E.U. members. CPAC, the State Department and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) should honor these E.U. export controls, which, after all, are also binding on Greece as an E.U. member.  Finally, he urges that archaeologists be asked to do their own part too.  CPAC should ensure archaeological missions pay diggers a fair living wage and that they be required to file site security plans which take advantage of modern electronic surveillance technology.  

PT’s full oral statement can be found here:  http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2020/10/this-is-no-time-to-expand-restrictions.html

GHA’s written comments on the Greek MOU can be found here:

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2020-0036-0012

GHA’s and CCP’s written comments on the Bolivian MOU can be found here:

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2020-0036-0011

Christos Tsirogiannis (CT) has worked with law enforcement, including the DA in New York City and U.S. Homeland Security, to repatriate artifacts to Greece and other countries.  He is also working on a way to detect looted antiquities using new technology.  Recently, Greek police broke up a antiquities smuggling operation in Patras, Greece, that had coins and other artifacts. 

CT’s written comments can be found here:

 https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2020-0036-0088

Kim Shelton (KS) excavates at Nemea.  She has spent sleepless nights in fear of looters.  Economic austerity has made the problem worse.  Coin evidence is important to her work.

Nathan Elkins (NE) supports restrictions on all ancient coins that circulated in quantity in Greece, including trade coins like Athenian Tetradrachms, which currently are not restricted. Looting results in the loss of important contextual information.  Coins can be important dating tools.  They helped date the ruins of an ancient Synagogue he helped excavate in Israel.

NE’s written comments can be found here:

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2020-0036-0028

Ute Wartenberg-Kagan (UWK) supports restrictions on all ancient coins that circulated in quantity in Greece.  Coins are among the most frequently looted items. Once taken out of their archaeological context, some of the historical and economic meaning is often lost. Sadly, numismatists are used to working with coins that have no archaeological context, and the fact that there is a finite number of coins in the ground makes their protection all the more important. Unfortunately, the trend is going very much in the wrong direction, and here modern technology enables looting on a scale that has not been seen before. Ever more sophisticated and cheaper metal detectors allow more people to dig up coins. Online sales via eBay, vcoins, Amazon, or in Facebook groups, allow the sale of staggering numbers of coins. On any given day, over 100,000 ancient coins and coin lots are for sale on eBay. MOUs should be considered friends of collectors because they help keep looted material off the market.

UWK’s written comments can be found here:

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2020-0036-0078

Morag Kersel (MK) says she was interviewing a collector who had a Cyclodelic figurine which the collector said was worth $1 million.  He indicated now that ancient art is an investment.  MK indicates that the high prices for ancient art helps stimulate looting.

Dmitry Narkesis (DN) has witnessed looting at archaeological digs.  Looting is real problem that impacts archaeology.  It takes a lot of time and effort to try to fight it.

Rocco Dibenedetto (RD) states that the AAMD does not oppose the Greek MOU, but Greece should be held to account for its obligations under Art. II of the current agreement.  One of those undertakings is to facilitate loans of materials to U.S. museums.  Despite Greece’s promises to do so, that has not happened.  The designated list should also be scrutinized to ensure that it only covers archaeological objects over 250 years old. 

The AAMD’s written comments can be found here:

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2020-0036-0072

Douglas Mudd (DM) states that current import restrictions have hurt the ANA’s educational mission because foreign scholars have been unwilling to bring their collections to the United States for fear of them being seized by U.S. customs.  Despite import restrictions being renewed over and again, looting remains a problem which suggests they are not working.  DM states that a new paradigm needs to be considered given their failure, one based on Britain’s Portable Antiquities Scheme, which encourages people to report finds with the prospect of a cash award for any coins kept by the government.  While expense is an issue, perhaps aid from wealthy countries can help get these programs going.

The ANA’s written comments can be found here:

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2020-0036-0023

Randolph Myers (RM) states there can be no dispute ancient coins circulated in great numbers far from where they were found.  This is detailed in a report appended to the ACCG’s written comments.  This is significant because as recognized by a U.S. District Court import restrictions are only appropriate on archaeological objects both first discovered within and subject to the export control of a specific country. 

The ACCG’s written comments can be found here:

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2020-0036-0003

Question and Answer Period

Karol Wight asks LAO about the situation in Nigeria.  LAO states Nigeria is under siege, but that is no reason not to enter into a MOU on its behalf.  She again suggests a MOU is a human rights issue.

Anthony Wisniewski asks TD and DY if they receive foreign government money.  (The State Department recently issued a directive calling for the disclosure of such information.  See https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/13/trump-think-tanks-foreign-funding-429209)  TD states that the Antiquities Coalition does not receive such funding.  DY indicates she receives such funding from the European Union.  (She currently holds a €1.5 million European Research Council grant to study the illicit trafficking of cultural objects.)

Anthony Wisniewski asks UWK if it is unremarkable that Roman or Byzantine coins from the Thessalonica mint can be found in large numbers in today’s Turkey and Albania.  She agrees with this statement.  

Joan Connelly asks KS about what coins have been found at Nemea.  KS indicates that coins from many different Greek cities have been found there probably because it was the center for sacred games.  They also find many different coins at a Christian sanctuary on the site.

Karol Wight asks KB if she has had any other interaction with Nigerian scholars outside her work on exhibits.  KB says all her work has been on exhibits. 

J.D. Demming asks DM to elaborate on his ideas to disincentivize looting. DM states that the U.K.’s Portable Antiquities Scheme incentivizes people to report their finds.  Perhaps there can be a global antiquities scheme with funding from richer countries.

Ricardo St. Hilaire asks LAO about whether she saw any parallels between looting and illegal mining.  LAO says Nigeria recognized that it takes a thief to catch a thief so it invested resources to help illicit miners become clean.  She refers to DM’s statements about PAS and says there may be parallels.

This is no Time to Expand Restrictions; It is time to Facilitate Lawful Trade and Encourage Archaeologists to do Their Part

This is what I said more or less at today's CPAC hearing.  I hope to summarize the public session to discuss a proposed MOU with Nigeria and proposed renewals with Greece and Bolivia shortly.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you on behalf of the Global Heritage Alliance.  I also drafted comments on behalf of IAPN and PNG, so feel free to refer any detailed questions about those papers to me.

First, as to the proposed renewal of the Greek MOU, we would echo IAPN’s and PNG’s concerns that this renewal is no excuse to expand current import restrictions.  Those restrictions purport to only apply to coin types that circulated locally in Greece in order to comply with the statutory requirements found in 19 U.S.C. § 2601.  That provision requires that such coins were “first discovered within” and are therefore subject to Greek export controls.  Under no circumstances should CPAC recommend expanding those restrictions to widely circulating trade coins which can be found most anywhere.  Those coins can be found in many countries, including ones with no MOU with the U.S.

CPAC already considered the issue in 2010, and rejected the proponent’s request to expand current restrictions further when the MOU was renewed in 2016.  There is simply no reason to revisit this decision, particularly when much of the coin trade is already being badly hurt by Covid related shut downs of coin shows.  Indeed to do so would not only be contrary to the statutory requirements, but the words of Greece’s Ambassador who back in 2010 stated that Greece’s request only concerned “antiquities that have been found exclusively on Greek territory.”

 Second, CPAC should also promote the lawful exchange of cultural artifacts. In particular, CPAC should recognize the obvious ramifications of Greece’s membership in the European Union (“E.U.”). Coins on the current designated list may be traded outside the E.U. with or without an export license according to the local law of Greece’s sister E.U. members. CPAC, the State Department and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) should honor these E.U. export controls, which, after all, are also binding on Greece as an E.U. member.

 Finally, with regard to both Greece and Bolivia, we would urge that archaeologists be asked to do their own part too.  CPAC should amend MOU Art. II to ensure archaeological missions pay diggers a fair living wage and that they be required to file site security plans which take advantage of modern electronic surveillance technology.  Both steps can be seen as “self-help measures” or “less drastic remedies” than import restrictions under 19 U.S.C. § 2602 (1) (B) and (C) (ii).

 Thank you.

AIA View of CPAC Meeting on the the Bolivian and Greek MOU

Nathan Elkins, writing on the AIA's blog, gives his views about what happened at the CPAC meeting concerning proposed renewals of the Bolivian and Greek MOUs.

Of course, CPO remembers it all a bit differently.

More importantly, CPO feels he has been misquoted concerning what he said about current import restrictions being improperly based on where a coin is "made" vs. "found." Elkins is flat out wrong. CPO certainly did not "admit[] this was only his interpretation of the CPIA as other attorneys, academics, and the federal courts have not agreed with Tompa’s understanding of the ‘found in’ vs. ‘made in’ argument."

Perhaps Elkins can be more specific about his contention. Certainly both Urice and Adler have agreed with CPO in their Rutgers Law Review Article. Moreover, then State Department Deputy Legal Adviser Mark Feldman also seemed to agree that the focus must be where an object is found in his statements made at the time the CPIA was being discussed.

Finally, Elkins--who is no lawyer-- appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a U.S. District Court and the Fourth Circuit have actually said about the matter.  Both have agreed that import restrictions only apply to objects of archaeological interest "first discovered within" and "subject to export control" of a specific UNESCO State Party.  Yet, they have refused to conduct a judicial review of the designated lists because they consider the issue to be a "political question" that makes the issue "non-justiciable."  So, no Court has actually looked at the issue on the merits.

CPAC Hearing on Bolivian MOU: State Department Responds to Narrow Special Interests

The AIA has posted a summary of CPAC's hearing on a proposed renewal of an MOU with Bolivia on its website. See
http://www.archaeological.org/news/advocacy/6098

US relations with the anti-American leftist government of Evo Morales are so poor that each country has recalled its ambassador. See http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35751.htm.
However, does anyone believe this will impact yet another renewal of import restrictions on Bolivian artifacts? See http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop/blfact.html

What is stiking though is really how small is the group that benefits most from such restrictions. Indeed, according to one speaker, no more than 40-50 archaeologists are currently at work in the entire country!

And, of course, the tangible public support for such restrictions is even more limited. Only 25 members of the public commented at all on the restrictions. And while most of these comments were in support, many of these appear to be from members of the AIA's leadership. See http://www.regulations.gov/#docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR+PS;rpp=10;po=0;D=DOS-2011-0092 (Docket No. DOS-2011-0092) Hardly a ringing endorsement by the American public in favor of giving away something for nothing once again to an unfriendly nation in the name of archaeology!

Also of interest is the fact that the Bolivian government apparently at least tolerates indigenous collectors (wonder how connected they are to the local power elite?). According to another speaker, a local collector was convinced to put his collection into a museum rather than put it up for international sale. This is all fine and good, but if so, why should Americans be put in legal jeopardy for buying such material when Bolivians are allowed to collect it?

The Bolivian Government is no friend to our Government. Our Government is awash in red ink. President Obama has claimed he is against over regulation. Yet, if history is any guide, the State Department will renew this MOU yet again to assuage the demands of archaeologists, and likely do so without any conditions whatsoever that require Bolivia to do something in return for our trouble.

Why? Are such agreements worth the costs involved to the US taxpayer, to museums and to those interested in collecting such material, particularly given the very narrow special interests such agreements actually serve?

AIA's Lobby Shop Gins Up Letters for Bolivia MOU

The Bolivian Government, which has fallen under the orbit of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's Dictator, is no friend of the United States. See http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51849

Yet, the AIA is ginning up a lobbying campaign to ensure that the State Department renews its MOU with Bolivia for a fourth time.
See http://www.archaeological.org/cpac

Despite poor bilateral relations, I suspect this effort will be successful, particularly given the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Cultural Heritage Center's predilections to renew MOU's as a standard operating procedure.

Freudian Slip?

This entry from the "What's New" section of the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs website was recently brought to my attention.

It states,

Advisory Committee to Convene to Consider the MOU with Bolivia

The Cultural Property Advisory Committee will convene on June 27-28, 2011, to consider the proposal of Assistant Secretary Ann Stock to extend the existing Memorandum of Understanding with Bolivia, which entered into force in December 2001. The Federal Register Notice about the meeting contains details on how to submit written comments for the Committee, and how to reserve a seat at the open session of the meeting on June 27, 2011. Please read the information carefully, as the procedures have changed. (emphasis added)

http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/whatsnew.html

Silly me. I thought Bolivia was asking for an extension of the current agreement, and Ann Stock, the decision maker, was not supposed to prejudge the issue.

One would hope that this was just a poorly drafted news item, but since agreements are typically renewed without much thought, perhaps the item may be more accurately characterized as a bureaucratic Freudian slip.

CPAC Meetings on Bolivia, Guatemala and Mali

The State Department has announced CPAC review of the MOU's with Bolivia, Guatemala and Mali. See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-06-02/html/2011-13693.htm

According to the notice,

During its meeting on Monday, June 27, the Committee will begin its review of a proposal to extend the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Bolivia Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from the Pre-Columbian Cultures and Certain Ethnological Material from the Colonial and Republican
Periods of Bolivia [Docket No. DOS-2011-0092]. An open session to receive oral public comment on this proposal to extend will be held from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.

On Tuesday, June 28, the Committee will conduct interim reviews of the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Guatemala Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Objects and Materials from the Pre-Columbian Cultures of Guatemala, and of the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Mali Concerning the Imposition of import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from Mali from the Paleolithic Era (Stone Age) to approximately the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Public comment, oral and written, will be invited at a time in the future should these MOUs be proposed for extension.

This continues the anti-transparency trend at the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. The public is no longer welcome to provide testimony on whether a source country is living up to its side of an MOU during an interim review hearing. Instead, comments are only welcome at the very end of the process-- when the train has almost arrived at the station.....

Not that anyone really believes that the State Department holds source countries to their promises to secure such MOU's. If they did, its doubtful many of the MOU's would continue to be extended and even expanded time and time again.

CPAC Hearings on Nicaragua and Bolivia

Today's Federal Register indicates CPAC will hold a public meeting to consider whether the current MOU with Nicaragua will be extended. See http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-14502.htm and http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-14531.htm CPAC will also conduct a closed interim review of the MOU with Bolivia during the same meeting.

The notice also indicates that "possible additional restrictions on certain ethnological material" will be considered in the context of the Nicaraguan renewal, but provides no further detail.

This is actually an improvement over prior practice. Just in May, coin collectors and representatives of the numismatic trade appeared in force at a CPAC meeting on Italy because they were unsure whether new restrictions on coins would be considered in the context of that renewal hearing. Whether Italy has actually formally requested new import restrictions on coins remains a mystery.

In 2007, the first public notice of Cyprus' request to extend import restrictions to coins in the context of a renewal came at the public session of CPAC itself.

MOU with El Salvador Extended

The State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs ("ECA") has extended the US MOU with El Salvador. See http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-4783.htm and http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop/esfact.html

I attended the CPAC hearing to consider the renewal back in November. No speakers testified against the restrictions. Indeed, most MOU's are really not that controversial. Instead, the real controversy comes when restrictions impact artifacts long and extensively traded on international markets.

That is not to say the MOU does not raise any issues. Interestingly, in this particular case, I recall that an El Salvadorian archaeologist that testified in favor of the MOU also suggested that El Salvadorian artifacts should be made available to US based community groups. He explained that access to these artifacts would help El Salvadorian immigrants keep in touch with their own culture. I agree with him that this would be a good idea. I will be pleasantly surprised if his suggestion finds its way into the new MOU (which has not yet been posted).

In any event, the series of MOU's with El Salvador are notable for several other reasons. First, by the time this extension is again up for renewal in 2015, restrictions will have been in place for some twenty-eight (28) years. There is a strong argument to be made that the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act ("CPIA") did not contemplate restrictions being left in place for so long. Rather, the legislative history suggests that restrictions were only meant to be imposed for a limited period to give the requesting nation some time to "get its own house in order." Some might consider five (5) or even ten (10) years to be long enough.

Second, the series of MOU's with El Salvador demonstrates the principle of "culture creep." When restrictions were first imposed in 1987, they were limited to artifacts from a specific region that was in danger of pillage. As time went on, however, the scope of the restrictions have been extended to all of El Salvador. At least, the El Salvador restrictions have remained limited to Pre-Columbian artifacts. Restrictions in place for other Latin American countries have over time been extended to a host of Colonial period artifacts as well.

For example, it is debatable whether some of the items on the Bolivian "designated list" truly meet the threshold criteria for "ethnological" artifacts for coverage under the CPIA. Compare CPIA Section 302 (2) (B) (ii)http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop/laws/pdfs/97-446.pdf with http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop/blfact.html and http://eca.state.gov/icpp/bolivia/sect6.htm and http://eca.state.gov/icpp/bolivia/sect7.htm

Time will only tell if the current MOU with El Salvador will also be expanded in the future to Colonial era artifacts if it is extended again.