Public Session of the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee to Review Proposed Renewals of MOUs with Bulgaria and China, June 5, 2023

                 On June 5, 2023, the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) met in a virtual public session to hear testimony regarding the proposed renewals of MOUs with Bulgaria and the People’s Republic of China (PRC).  An update on the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs’ (ECA’s) website made shortly before the hearing provided further information about the requests.  See https://eca.state.gov/highlight/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-april-26-27-2023 (last visited June 7, 2023).  According to that website, Bulgaria has asked for import restrictions on additional categories of archaeological material dating from the Paleolithic Period to the Neolithic (c. 1.6 million years ago – 7500 B.C.) and on additional ethnological material of an ecclesiastical nature dating from 1750 through the 20^th century.  Id.  In contrast, the PRC does not seek any additional restrictions.  Id. 

                The public session was postponed from April 26-27, 2023, presumably to allow all the remaining Trump appointees to be replaced by Biden appointees to CPAC.  Those replaced included Anthony Wisniewski, the sole coin collector representative on the Committee.  One of the replacements, Susan Schoenfeld Harrington, has discernable links to the PRC, as a past Board Member of the China Art Foundation.  See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2023/04/new-cpac-members.html (last visited June 7, 2023).

                Despite the postponement, the public was only allowed an exceptionally short time to comment on these MOUs on the regulations.gov website.  See https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2023-0016-0001  (last visited June 7, 2023).  Although the Federal Register notice was posted on Friday, May 19, 2023, due to a snafu, the regulations.gov website did not accept comments until midday Monday, May 22, 2023.  The comment period closed only 4 days later, on Friday, May 26, 2023.  An analysis of the comments that were submitted can be found here.  See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2023/05/low-public-support-for-mous-with.html  (last visited June 7, 2023). 

                Oral comments during the public session were also circumscribed.  Rather than the usual 5 minutes, each speaker was only allotted 4 minutes to speak.   

                At least the following CPAC members were present for the meeting:  (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) Nii Otokunor Quarcoopome (Represents/Expertise Museums, Curator and Department head, Detroit Museum of Art); (4) William Teitelman (Represents General Public, Legislative Counsel to the PA Trial Lawyers Association, Attorney (Retired)); (4) Andrew Conners (Represents/Expertise Museums, Director, Albuquerque Museum, New Mexico); (5) Michael Findlay (Represents/Expertise: International Sale of Cultural Property, Director, Acquavella Galleries, New York); (6) Susan Schoenfeld Harrington  (Represents Public?, Past Deputy Finance Chair, Democratic National Committee, Past Board member, China Art Foundation); (7) Cynthia Herbert (Represents/Expertise: International Sale of Cultural Property President, Appretium Appraisal Services LLC, Connecticut); and (8) Thomas R. Lamont (Represents Public?, President of Lamont Consulting Services, LLC, Illinois).

                Additionally, at least the following State Department employees were present for the meeting:  Allison Davis (Executive Director, CPAC) and Andrew Zander. 

                These individuals spoke at the public session about one or both MOUs: (1) Kate FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural Policy/PRC); (2) Elias Gerasoulis (Global Heritage Alliance/PRC); (3) Peter Tompa (International Association of Professional Numismatists/Bulgaria and PRC); (4) Doug Davis (Anti-Counterfeiting Educational Foundation/PRC); (5) Ömür Harmanşah (Archaeological Institute of America/Bulgaria and PRC); (6) Douglas Mudd (American Numismatic Association, Ancient Coin Collectors Guild/Bulgaria); (7) Louisa Greve (Uyghur Human Rights Project/PRC); (8) Peter Irwin (Uyghur Human Rights Project/PRC); (8) Josh Knerly (Hahn, Loeser & Parks, LLP for Association of Art Museum Directors/PRC); (9) Dr. Rowan Flad (Harvard Department of Anthropology/Society for American Archaeology/PRC); (10) Dr. Anne Underhill (Yale/Society for American Archaeology/PRC); and (11) Dr. Rian Thum (University of Manchester/PRC). 

                Alexandra Jones (AJ), CPAC’s chairperson, indicated that the Committee had reviewed all the testimony, and asked the speakers to limit their remarks to 4 minutes each.  AJ indicated that she would allow CPAC members to ask questions after each speaker finished their prepared remarks.  Very few questions were actually posed. 

                Kate FitzGibbon (KFG) spoke first.  She indicated that none of the criteria for renewal of the MOU found in the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) could be met.  The second determination, related to the PRC taking measures consistent with the UNESCO Convention concerning the protection of its cultural patrimony, has not been met because of the PRC’s intentional destruction of the cultural heritage of its Uyghur population.  KFG pointed to the creation of concentration camps as well as the destruction of over 500 Uyghur sites in her testimony.  Moreover, the first and third determinations, related to the PRC’s cultural patrimony being in jeopardy, and the effectiveness of the response, could not be met given the booming internal Chinese market for cultural goods.  The fourth determination relating to benefits to the international system could not be met given the PRC’s mercantilist approach to repatriating artifacts and failing to follow through on museum loans. 

                The Committee for Cultural Policy’s and the Global Heritage Alliance’s joint written testimony can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0044 ) (last visited June 7, 2023).

                Elias Gerasoulis (EG) echoed many of the concerns that KFG raised about the PRC’s intentional destruction of minority culture.  He also noted that current import restrictions have the perverse effect of promoting the interests of PRC auction houses associated with the government over their American competitors.  It makes no sense for ECA to undertake to renew the MOU given the anti-American actions the PRC has taken, including the recent spy balloon overflight.  EG believes that renewing the MOU would be tantamount to committing diplomatic malpractice.

                Peter Tompa (PT) asked CPAC to oppose any effort to expand current import restrictions on behalf of Bulgaria to Roman Republican and Roman Imperial coins.  He explained that one cannot assume that such coins come from Bulgarian archaeological contexts.  Only a very small percentage of such coins circulated there compared to those which circulated elsewhere.  He also indicated that it is important to distinguish Roman Republican and Roman Imperial coins from Roman Provincial coins, which are currently restricted.  Roman Provincial coins were struck for local use in contrast to Roman Republican and Roman Imperial coins which were meant to circulate through the Empire.   Due to time constraints, PT was only able to express general concerns about the MOU with the PRC.  He mentioned that the PRC should not be rewarded for destroying the cultural property of its minority populations or for its failure to address counterfeiting of US historical coins.

                PT’s planned oral comments can be found here:  https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2023/06/cpac-should-be-skeptical-about-new.html (last visited June 7, 2023).

                The International Association of Professional Numismatist’s (IAPN’s) written comments about the MOU with Bulgaria can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0010 (last visited June 7, 2023).

                IAPN’s written comments about the MOU with the PRC can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0009 (last visited June 7, 2023).

                PT’s personal written comments can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0056 (last visited June 7, 2023).

                Doug Davis (DD) indicated that the PRC is a major source of counterfeits with 100,000s of coins being faked.  These are exported in bulk to the US for resale, often to unsuspecting buyers.   The Anti-Counterfeiting Educational Foundation Task Force has worked with US law enforcement on seizing $46 million worth of counterfeit US coins.  In addition to historical US coins, counterfeiters are also faking modern US Mint products including bullion pieces like silver eagles.  This is a global problem because Chinese counterfeiters are faking coins of all nations. 

                CPAC member Alex Barker asks DD about what kinds of bullion are being faked. DD indicates the fakes include silver bars. 

                The Anti-Counterfeiting Educational Foundation’s written comments can be found here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0067 (last visited June 7, 2023).

                Ömür Harmanşah (OH) indicates that the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) supports the renewals of both MOUs.  The AIA maintains that each of the four criteria for renewal found in the CPIA are met for both MOUs.  OH mentions that the PRC recovered 66,000 stolen archaeological artifacts in the year 2021 showing that the PRC’s cultural patrimony is in jeopardy.  OH states that it is important to ensure restrictions are imposed on mass produced items like coins to promote their study.  He further indicates that the PRC has worked to ensure that there is extensive collaboration with US archaeologists and museums.  For example, an exhibition featuring the famous “Terracotta warriors” has been exhibited in a number of venues around the United States. 

                The AIA’s written testimony regarding the MOU with Bulgaria can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0068 (last visited June 7, 2023).

                The AIA’s written testimony regarding the PRC renewal can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0066 (last visited June 7, 2023). 

                Douglas Mudd (DM) speaks on behalf of the American Numismatic Association (ANA) and the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG), a member organization.  DM indicates that import restrictions have negatively impacted the study of coins.  Because coins are so durable many have come down to us from ancient times. There are far too few trained archaeologists to study the numbers of coins that have been found and there is no reason to sequester them all in museums.  The most important thing that can be accomplished is to ensure they are properly recorded, something that can be achieved through programs like the UK’s Portable Antiquity Scheme.  DM also asks that import restrictions not be imposed on widely circulating Roman Imperial coins.  He further believes that the current designated list should be subject to expert review because many of the coin types currently on that list circulated in quantity outside of the confines of Bulgaria. 

                The ANA’s written comments can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0006  (last visited June 7, 2023).

                The ACCG’s written comments can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0031 (last visited June 7, 2023).

                Louisa Greve (LG) opposes the MOU with the PRC.  The PRC is committing genocide against the Uyghurs.  CPAC should not brush aside this genocide and cultural cleansing in order to approve the renewal.  The current MOU authorizes import restrictions through the Tang period.  The PRC has sought to rewrite history through cultural cleansing to create a false narrative that Han was the dominant culture throughout what is today the PRC.  If CPAC and ECA approves this MOU, the Uyghur Human Rights Project (UYRP) will protest the decision. 

                The UYRP’s written comments can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0069 (last visited June 7, 2023).

                Peter Irwin (PI) is LG’s colleague at the UYRP.  The PRC has not worked to protect cultural heritage, but to purposefully destroy that of the Uyghurs.  Some 10,000 to 50,000 sites have been destroyed to date.  These includes mosques and up to 85% of the historic city of Kashgar. The MOU should not be extended in these circumstances. 

                Josh Knerly (JK) stated the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) supports the extension of the MOU with the PRC contingent on Article II being modified to provide for multi-year museum loans with more significant objects and the PRC granting immunity from seizure for art sent there for display from the US.  The 2019 MOU dropped any meaningful requirements regarding loans.  Multi-year loans are necessary to make it cost effective to bring exhibits to the US.  Only multi-year loans allow museums to share the substantial costs involved. Another issue is US tariffs of 7.5% on Chinese art, which make it impossible for US museums to purchase Chinese art internationally.  Such tariffs give Chinese museums, dealers and collectors a competitive advantage compared to their American counterparts. 

                CPAC member Susan Schoenfeld Harrington asks JK if the MOU provides an opportunity for cultural exchange with the PRC.  JK indicates for this to happen, the PRC needs to change its policies on long term loans and immunity from seizure.

                The AAMD’s written comments can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0061 (last visited June 7, 2023).

                Dr. Rowan Flad (RF) indicates that the PRC has undertaken significant self-help measures to protect its own cultural patrimony.  A database of cultural heritage has been established.  There is active collaboration with American archaeologists. 

                RF’s written testimony may be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0055 (last visited June 7, 2023).

                Dr. Anne Underhill (AU) states that the PRC has met its obligations under the MOU.  It has protected archaeological sites from looting.  One innovative program has used drones to monitor a site for looting.  Another development is an increase in “indoor excavations,” for which entire depositional matrices are transported to covered labs for careful excavation in safe conditions.  In 2020, 4,200 crimes were investigated, involving 9,700 individuals. Some 93,000 artifacts were recovered.  Access to museums has improved.

                AU’s written comments can be found here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2023-0016-0057  (last visited June 7, 2023).

                Dr. Rian Thum (RT) indicates that he could not make policy determinations, but he could state facts.  It is an unassailable fact that the PRC has failed to take measures consistent with the UNESCO Convention to protect its cultural patrimony.   It has demolished large parts of the Silk Road city of Kashgar.  It has recently bulldozed two very important Uyghur shrines, and any archaeological artifacts beneath them.  Another target is books.  Initially PRC authorities enforced a “blacklist” of forbidden books.  Now, however, that has been replaced with a “whitelist” which deems any book not explicitly permitted to be forbidden.  This has led to the confiscation and destruction of countless books, some of which are otherwise unknown to scholarship.  It has also prompted some Uyghurs to burn their own books in an effort to avoid being sent to concentration camps.  As was discussed regarding Bulgaria, modern boundaries don’t always correspond with ancient ones.  The same is also true with the status of the Uyghur region in the PRC.  RT observes all of the PRC’s achievements prior speakers associated with archaeological advocacy groups praised relate solely to the study of the PRC’s Han culture. These studies feed the PRC’s narrative.  The PRC seeks to rewrite history to make it appear that Han culture was always the dominant culture in the Uyghur areas.  RT expresses disappointment that his colleagues are unwilling to acknowledge the PRC’s intentional destruction of Uyghur cultural heritage for political purposes.

                No CPAC members asked any additional questions, and AJ concluded the public session approximately 10 minutes early. 

CPAC Should Be Skeptical About New Restrictions on Coins

 This is what I said more or less at yesterday's CPAC hearing.  Due to the time to speak being cut to 4 minutes, I did not get to address the MOU with PRC as much as I would have liked. 

        I’m speaking on behalf of IAPN, which represents the small businesses of numismatic trade.   CPAC should be especially skeptical of US import controls on Bulgarian and Chinese coins.  Both countries have large internal markets in the exact same sorts of coins that are embargoed under US import restrictions. 

          Let me first address the MOU with Bulgaria.   The Cultural Heritage Center’s website now suggests that it does not seek new restrictions on coins, but IAPN nonetheless urges CPAC to oppose any effort to expand the current designated list to include widely circulating Roman Republican and Roman Imperial coins.  CPAC previously rejected such import restrictions during its past deliberations in 2011 and 2018.   Currently, only “Roman Provincial coins” are restricted.  They are completely different than Roman Republican and Roman Imperial coins.  Roman Provincial coins, usually of bronze, were struck by local authorities and were meant to circulate locally.  In contrast, Roman Republican and Roman Imperial coins were struck under the authority of Roman Republican or Imperial officials and were designed to circulate throughout the Roman Empire.

          The Cultural Property Implementation Act limits any restrictions to coins “first discovered within, and … subject to the export control by” Bulgaria.  However, Roman Imperial coins found in Bulgaria represent a very small portion of those found internationally. Only 3.2% of hoards containing Roman Imperial coins struck at the late Roman branch mint at Serdica (modern day Sofia) are found within Bulgaria and 96.8% are found outside that country. Moreover, only 6.58% of hoards containing coins from the most prolific Roman Imperial Mint, that at Rome, are found in Bulgaria with the remainder of such coins found elsewhere.  Thus, hoard evidence proves that one simply cannot make the required assumption that such coins were necessarily found in Bulgaria before they can be placed on the designated list. 

          CPAC also should not confuse the Roman Provincial Mint that operated in Serdica during the early Imperial period with the Roman Imperial Mint that operated there in the late 3^rd and early 4^th century A.D.   Coins of the Roman Provincial Mint at Serdica are restricted already.  Those of the Roman Imperial mint of Serdica are not; nor should they be because again only a small fraction of the entire universe of such coins are found in Bulgaria today.  

          CPAC should also consider the failure of the State Department to hold Bulgaria to its prior promise to facilitate the legal export of coins of the sort that Bulgarians already collect.  Given this failure, CPAC should recommend that U.S. Customs harmonize U.S. import controls with E.U. export controls. The CPIA was passed before the E.U. created a system of export controls for cultural goods.  MOUs with E.U. countries like Cyprus, Italy, Greece and Bulgaria should be consistent with these E.U. export controls.  This can be done simply by making import restrictions under such MOUs subject to E.U. export controls which have supremacy within the E.U.  This would allow Americans to import coins exported lawfully from Bulgaria’s fellow E.U. members even if they are subject to import restrictions. 

          The current MOU with China should be allowed to lapse.  The PRC should not be rewarded for destroying the cultural heritage of its repressed minorities.   Nor should the US reimpose import restrictions on Chinese coins when its government turns a blind eye to the counterfeiting of US historical coins.   The PRC is also the world’s most sophisticated surveillance state, and simply does not need U.S. help to stop looting.  The PRC government also prides itself on fostering a brisk trade in cultural goods, including coins.  While IAPN commends China for allowing its own citizens to collect common ancient coins, this also means that US import restrictions have the perverse effect of providing Chinese dealers and auction houses with a competitive advantage over their American counterparts.  Indeed, while the US has been enforcing its embargo on Americans importing ancient Chinese coins and other art, Chinese auction houses and dealers have been opening up shop in the US for the express purpose of exporting Chinese art bought here back to China for resale.  Thank you for listening to our concerns. 

Low Public Support for MOUs with Bulgaria and China

There are 67 comments posted on the regulations.gov website following the close of the exceptionally short 4-day comment period regarding proposed MOU renewals with Bulgaria and China. CPO reviewed 63 different comments which suggests that 4 were duplicates. All the comments can be reviewed here:  https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2023-0016-0001

 The vast majority (51) were from coin collectors or members of the small businesses of the numismatic trade. The coin collector and dealer organizations that opposed the MOUs or their application to coins were the American Numismatic Association, the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, the Anti-Counterfeiting Task Force, and the International Association of Professional Numismatists. Each submitted detailed comments in support of their position.   

 Three groups opposed the China MOU, the Committee for Cultural Policy (CCP), Global Heritage Alliance (GHA) (1 combined submission), and the Uighur Human Rights Project.  

The CCP and GHA have already posted their comments on the Internet here:  https://culturalpropertynews.org/special-report-2023-china-mou-building-chinas-art-monopoly-and-destroying-minority-culture-and-identity/

There were a mere 5 comments supporting the MOU with Bulgaria and only 4 supporting the MOU with China.  The Antiquities Coalition submitted an additional comment that supported both MOUs.  The Archaeological Institute of America supported both MOUs in separate comments included in these totals.   The 4 comments in favor of the MOU with the PRC, included ones submitted by the Association of Art Museum Directors.   Those comments conditioned support for that MOU on changes related to museum loans.  Dr. Robert E. Murowchick of Boston University and Dr. Anne Underhill of Yale were the only individuals supporting a renewal of the current MOU with the PRC. 

Update 6/8/23- On initial review, CPO missed the testimony of Dr. Rowan Flad of Harvard, who also supported the MOU with the PRC.  Both he and Dr. Underhill also indicated that they were speaking on behalf of the Society of American Archaeology.  Their testimony, as well as that of the other speakers, can be found in CPO's 6/7/23 post.

State Department Announces Proposed Renewals of MOUs with Bulgaria and China

 The State Department’s Cultural Heritage Center has provided advance notice of an upcoming CPAC meeting on April 26-27, 2023, to consider renewals of current MOUs with Bulgaria and China  For more, see https://eca.state.gov/highlight/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-april-26-27-2023

The State Department will accept comments on these MOUs from the public at a future date when official notice of the meeting is provided in the Federal Register. 

Both MOUs already impact the ability of American collectors to import historical coins of the sort widely and legally collected elsewhere.   Once a coin type is placed on a “designated list,” U.S. Customs can detain, seize and repatriate it unless the importer produces provenance information that is usually unavailable for most coins, particularly the inexpensive types most people can afford to collect.  These rules apply to all coin imports, not just to imports directly from countries for which import restrictions have been granted.  Ever broader (and sometimes overlapping) lists have made it increasingly difficult to import coins for the US Collector market even if enforcement remains spotty.

The designated list for Bulgaria covers a wide variety of Greek, Roman Provincial, Byzantine, Bulgarian Empire and Ottoman coins that were either made or circulated there.  For more, see 79 Fed. Reg. 2781-2785 (January 16, 2014), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/01/16/2014-00615/import-restrictions-imposed-on-certain-archaeological-and-ecclesiastical-ethnological-material-from

The designated list for China covers all Chinese coins from the earliest times to the end of the Tang Dynasty.  For more, see 74 Fed. Reg. 2838-2844 (January 16, 2009), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/01/16/E9-848/import-restrictions-imposed-on-certain-archaeological-material-from-china

Right now, there are no all-encompassing import restrictions on Roman Imperial coins, but this is subject to change.  Hobby leaders are particularly worried about a staff driven effort to use the Bulgarian renewal to expand current import restrictions to include widely collected Roman Imperial coins of the sort that circulated throughout the Roman Empire and beyond.  See https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2023/2/18/23604528/ancient-coin-collecting-us-import-restrictions  Roman Imperial coins are by far the most available and widely collected type of ancient coins.  New restrictions on Americans importing such coins from legitimate markets in Europe could greatly damage the US ancient coin market and collecting as a whole. 

Of course, there are other concerns with both MOUs.  One can ask about the efficacy of any MOU with Bulgaria when it is estimated that up to 4% of the population is engaged in treasure hunting for fun or profit.  As for the China MOU, one wonders why the US denies its own citizens the right to import ancient Chinese coins when the Chinese government itself encourages its own citizens to buy, sell and collect the exact same coin types.   Also, does the authoritarian Chinese high-tech surveillance state really need US help to police its own archaeological sites?

Watch here for updates for when the State Department accepts comments for these upcoming renewals on the regulations.gov website.   

Update:: 4/12/23- The Cultural Heritage Center website now indicates that the CPAC hearing has been postponed until a future date.  Watch this website for additional updates. 

Update:  5/1/23-  The Cultural Heritage Center website now indicates that the CPAC hearing will now take place on 6/5/23 and that any comments will be due on or before 5/26/23.  See  https://eca.state.gov/highlight/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-april-26-27-2023  It also suggests that there will be no changes in any renewal with China.  While it states that no additional categories of archaeological materials will be considered for times when coins circulated, it is not entirely clear whether this really forecloses consideration of new import restrictions on Roman coins.  The regulations.gov website is yet to go live which gives the ability to comment.  Watch here for an update when it does. 

Update: 5/24/23- The State Department finally published the noticed of meeting on 5/19 and enabled comments on 5/22/23, giving 4 days for the public to comment before the 5/26/23 close on these important renewals.  Cynics will conclude that the exceptionally short time frame allowed for public comment was designed to limit it as much as possible so that the State Department bureaucracy could claim these renewals "were not controversial."  The Federal Register notice and comment button can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2023-0016-0001

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

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

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

Algerian MOU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honduran Renewal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bulgarian Renewal

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

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

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

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

Chinese and Bulgarian MOUs: Export Certificates for Cultural Goods Promised; But Are They Illusory?

The State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center have released copies of the recent revised MOU with China and the new agreement with Bulgaria.   In return for an embargo on the import of undocumented artifacts from third countries, China and Bulgaria appear to promise to make export certificates available for such items exported directly from those two UNESCO State parties.

Specifically, in its MOU with the United States, China promises:

"With respect to Chinese cultural objects that meet the following four conditions: a.) legally exported as part of a private collection of Chinese heirlooms, b) legally transferred among owners, c) purchased and imported by residents of China, and d) declared upon import to China and registered with relevant authorities, the Government of the People's Republic of China shall seek legislative action that permits their re-export."

See Art. II, Sec. 8.

Moreover, in its MOU with the United States, Bulgaria promises:

"Regarding export permits, the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria shall (1) gather and track certificates on the number of such permits requested and issued for both temporary and permanent export of cultural property pursuant to existing laws and regulations; and (2) ensure the process of applying for such permits of export and temporary export is accessible and clear."

See Art. II, Sec. 5.

But how does this square with information that China has recently banned the export of any artifact produced before 1911 and that Bulgaria has only issued export permits for temporary exhibitions abroad, most notably for a controversial exhibition of artifacts called, "the Grandeur of Bulgaria," exhibited at the European Parliament?  (Of course, as a practical matter, no export permits are required for the movement of Bulgarian cultural artifacts throughout the rest of the EU.)

More to the point, are these MOU provisions for "cosmetic purposes" only?  And, if so, is the State Department and its Cultural Heritage Center misleading Congress and the public about the true nature of these MOUs?

Plea Deal Leaves Issues Unresolved

A NJ based coin dealer will forfeit ancient coins and cash as part of a plea deal related to federal tax charges.  Although the archaeological blogosphere will no doubt claim the plea deal supports the need for the recently completed MOU with Bulgaria, serious questions still remain whether the US should have entered into an agreement to restrict Americans from importing the exact same sorts of coins openly traded within Bulgaria itself and the rest of the EU.   In that regard, it's also interesting to note that at least based on this press report, federal authorities have also apparently backed away from any claims the coins to be forfeited were "stolen" under Bulgarian law, presumably for that exact same reason.  For federal courts to consider cultural artifacts to be stolen under Bulgarian law, the government would have had to show that Bulgarian law vested absolute title to such coins in the Bulgarian state and that this law was consistently applied at home.

ACCG FOIAs State and Customs About Bulgarian Designated List

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild has served Freedom of Information Requests on the State Department and U.S. Customs seeking information about the preparation of  the designated lists for coins.   Did State and U.S. Customs undertake a principled review of the numismatic scholarship about the find spots of Bulgarian coins before concluding all such coins struck from ancient times to 1750 could legitimately be assumed to be "first discovered within" and "subject to the export control" of the modern Bulgarian nation state?  Or, did they merely seek to justify their efforts to impose the broadest restrictions possible by relying upon information supplied by archaeologists with an ax to grind against collectors who claim that all Bulgarian coins (including those of gold and silver) are "local issues?"  Stay tuned.  

A Nice Diversion?

The recently announced MOU with the United States will do absolutely nothing to cure endemic corruption within Bulgaria's cultural establishment and the concomitant over-regulation of collectors that is the root of Bulgaria's problems, but it may provide at least a momentary diversion from allegations of well, corruption at the highest levels of Bulgaria's Socialist Government.

Archaeo-Blogger Provides Advance Notice of Bulgarian Restrictions

Nathan Elkins, an archaeo-blogger associated with the AIA who spoke before CPAC, appears to have received some advance notice about a MOU with Bulgaria and related import restrictions on a wide variety of cultural goods, including the following coins:

7. Coins – In copper, bronze, silver and gold. Many of the listed coins with inscriptions in Greek can be found in B. Head, Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Numismatics (London, 1911) and C.M. Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek Coins (London, 1976). Many of the Roman provincial mints in modern Bulgaria are covered in I. Varbanov, Greek Imperial Coins I: Dacia, Moesia Superior, Moesia Inferior (Bourgas, 2005), id., Greek Imperial Coins II: Thrace (from Abderato Pautalia) (Bourgas, 2005), id., Greek Imperial Coins III: Thrace (from Perinthus to Trajanopolis), Chersonesos Thraciae, Insula Thraciae, Macedonia (Bourgas 2007). A non-exclusive list of pre-Roman and Roman mints include Mesembria (modern Nesembar), Dionysopolis (Balchik), Marcianopolis (Devnya), Nicopolis ad Istrum (near Veliko Tarnovo), Odessus (Varna), Anchialus (Pomorie), Apollonia Pontica (Sozopol), Cabyle (Kabile), Deultum (Debelt), Nicopolis ad Nestum (Garmen), Pautalia (Kyustendil), Philippopolis (Plovdiv), Serdica (Sofia), and Augusta Traiana (Stara Zagora). Later coins may be found in A. Radushev and G. Zhekov, Catalogue of Bulgarian MedievalCoins IX-XV c. (Sofia 1999) and J.Youroukova and V. Penchev, Bulgarian Medieval Coins and Seals (Sofia 1990).

a. Pre-monetary media of exchange including “arrow money,” bells, and bracelets. Approximate date: 13th century B.C. through 6th century B.C.

b. Thracian and Hellenistic coins struck in gold, silver, and bronze by city-states and kingdoms that operated in the territory of the modern Bulgarian state. This designation includes official coinages of Greek-using city-states and kingdoms, Sycthian and Celtic coinage, and local imitations of official issues. Also included are Greek coins from nearby regions that are found in Bulgaria. Approximate date: 6th century BC through the 1st century B.C.

c. Roman provincial coins – Locally produced coins usually struck in bronze or copper at mints in the territory of the modern state of Bulgaria. May also be silver, silver plate, or gold. Approximate date: 1st century BC through the 4th century A.D.

d. Coinage of the First and Second Bulgarian Empires and Byzantine Empire – Struck in gold, silver, and bronze by Bulgarian and Byzantine emperors at mints within the modern state of Bulgaria. Approximate date: 4th century A.D. through A.D. 1396.

e. Ottoman coins – Struck at mints within the modern state of Bulgaria. Approximate date: A.D. 1396 through A.D. 1750.

Elkins suggests, without providing any supporting evidence,  that the restrictions comply with the governing statute, the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA), because such coins "primarily circulated in and are found in ancient Bulgaria."   But the plain meaning of the statue only allows for restrictions of artifacts "first discovered within" and "subject to the export" control of Bulgaria, a far stricter standard.  19 U.S.C. Section 2601 (2).  Moreover, there is a real question whether restrictions on "Greek coins from nearby regions that are found in Bulgaria" provides importers with fair notice of what is restricted, a requirement not only of 19 U.S.C. Section 2604 but of constitutional due process.

Finally, it's worth noting that the same coins that are now restricted for American collectors are freely and legally available for sale within Bulgaria itself, and that public comments received by CPAC were overwhelmingly against restrictions:of the 499 relevant comments posted on the regulations.gov website (a few meant for the MOU with Belize were listed on the docket for Bulgaria), 353 (mostly coin collectors) were opposed to the MOU while only 146 favored it (or 71%-29%).  So, we again have a situation where State and Customs have not only ignored the law but the majority of public comments.  More evidence, if any were needed, that the entire CPAC process has become a farce of the sort we hear is common in infamously corrupt places like Bulgaria, but supposedly not here in our own Democracy.  

Is the Latest Bulgarian Bust for Real?

Despite the uncritical coverage in the archaeological blogosphere, one has to wonder about the accuracy of recent press reports that claim Bulgarian police have smashed a ring of  Thracian tomb raiders.  Though admittedly the photo that accompanies the story is not very clear, from what I can tell it only shows bright, regularly shaped modern coins and artifacts.  One would expect instead to see darkly colored patinas associated with long burials if this is really a major bust of "tomb raiders."

During CPAC's consideration of the proposed Bulgarian MOU, it was revealed that Bulgaria's corrupt police all too often hype such seizures in order to make it appear that their efforts are far more effective than they truly are in reality.   The picture accompanying this story raises the question if the Bulgarian police are still more interested in looking good rather than doing good in their jobs.  Hopefully, there will be some clarification of whether the image is that of the actual seizure and, if so, whether the coins are of ancient or modern origin.

Pining for the Old Days?

After reading a recent article in an UK Tabloid, I have to wonder if Bulgaria's Chief Archaeologist is pining for the old days of Communism with its state ownership of everything old.   Instead, Bulgaria would be better served if it adopts a program akin to the United Kingdom's Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme, perhaps with a Bulgarian twist that requires any recorded artifacts that are returned to the finder to be sold at public auction in Bulgaria itself.  Of course, consistent with EU law such recorded artifacts should then be made available for export to collectors both within and outside the EU.  That could be a win-win for Bulgarian archaeologists and collectors and a boon to Bulgaria's struggling economy.

No Answer

I asked anti-American, anti-collector Paul Barford a simple question in the comments section to a recent post where he quotes a US Customs official as suggesting that exporting coins from Bulgaria constituted "cultural theft."  He's chosen not to post my question on his blog (despite claiming he posts all comments) or answer my simple question so I'll ask it here.

How can a Bulgarian coin imported into the US be considered "stolen" cultural property of Bulgaria when the exact same types of coins are legally  available for sale there?

This, of course, is more a question for US Customs than for Mr. Barford.  If the US Customs official in question believes that any illegal export from Bulgaria constitutes a theft, that would be contrary to the US law he has sworn to uphold.   While Bulgaria has asked the US to impose import restrictions on cultural goods, that request has not yet been acted upon by the US State Department and US Customs. And even if import restrictions are imposed, illegal import does not constitute theft under any application of US law.  Rather, import without the appropriate documentation would constitute a violation of the import controls of the Cultural Property Implementation Act.  There is a difference between illegal export, illegal export and theft, despite what some archaeologists (and apparently some US Customs officials) believe.

Something's Missing from the Discussion About the Repatriation of Some Ancient Coins to Bulgaria

The Government has publicized the repatriation of some ancient coins to Bulgaria.   But we should be clear about the background of the return.  The coins were evidently abandoned after they were seized based on alleged misstatements on a customs form.  Though Bulgaria has sought a MOU with the United States, US import controls have not yet been promulgated.  Moreover, there is no allegation the coins in question were "stolen" from Bulgaria.  Indeed, that would be a difficult case to make given Bulgaria's open and legal trade in the exact same items.

For more about the issues surrounding the MOU that is being considered see here.

Archaeological Blather Obscures Rational Approaches to Metal Detectors

The archaeological blogosphere has been filled with rather colorful denunciations of metal detecting in response to popular TV shows about the practice in both the US and the UK.

Though metal detecting has been widely popular since the 1970's, apparently some archaeologists still can't accept that reality or perhaps the fact that the devices make it easier for amateurs to encroach on their turf.

There is even some real question whether metal detecting really harms archaeology at all. In the UK at least, most metal detecting takes place on ploughed land, i.e., land where the archaeological context has already been disturbed. Second, though metal detectors are becoming more accurate, most metal detectorists still only excavate items found quite near the surface, i.e., an area that archaeologists would in any event likely dig through on their way to far "juicer" strata below.

The issue of metal detectors is also relevant to the State Department's process for imposing import restrictions on coins. Coins can typically only be found with metal detectors. This begs the question why we are imposing import restrictions on all coins of a given type coming here to the United States when it would be far more effective (and fair) to regulate metal detectors at the source. The CPIA is quite clear that self help measures like effective regulation of metal detectors should be tried first before import restrictions, but the State Department regularly reads this requirement out of the CPIA (as it does with most every other requirement).

What does effective regulation look like?

Look no further than Ireland, Scotland, Britain and Wales.

Ireland has banned the use of the metal detector, and critically it did so before the use of the metal detector took off in that country.

In contrast, Scotland has a common law system of treasure trove and Britain and Wales have statutory requirements of the Treasure Act along with the voluntary Portable Antiquities Scheme.

I much prefer these systems to that of Ireland as they encourage the discovery of coins that would otherwise never be found by archaeologists (who are limited in number and who are only interested in relatively few sites) their recordation into a database accessible to all (in Britain and Wales), and depending on the circumstances, their display in museums or their return to finders who can then sell them to collectors who will cherish them.

Yet, I must acknowledge that the Irish system is at least a coherent one.

And what does ineffective regulation look like?

Look no further than Cyprus and Bulgaria.

Each country has laws on the books that in theory at least limit the use of metal detectors, but in practice they are widely used, often right under the nose of the authorities.

In Cyprus, they even turn a blind eye to British tourists bringing them to the Island on holiday.

And to exacerbate the problem, both countries have few, if any incentives for metal detectorists to report their finds, or any coherent system to record them even if they were reported.

Yet, some archaeologists still hold up such countries as some sort of model.

And what of the United States? Here, our Constitution protects our liberty to exploit our own land, but you would not know that from the AIA's indictment of a popular show on Spike TV. I do think that historical artifacts should at least be recorded, but American archaeologists should work with American detectorists to create a system of voluntary recording, rather than making wild claims about their supposed "rights" to control what people do on their own land based upon their self-appointed status as stewards of the past.

CPAC To Meet

The Federal Register reports that the Cultural Property Advisory Committee will meet to discuss renewals of current MOU's with Guatemala and Mali, and to conduct further discussion in secret about a request from Bulgaria. See http://www.ofr.gov/(S(mb4uyziobevezdhmm1qt4oyc))/OFRUpload/OFRData/2012-05909_PI.pdf

Archaeo-blogger Rick St. Hilaire's post about the upcoming meeting seeks to portray the secrecy and culture creep that has marked the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs'administration of the CPIA as both necessary and consistent with the statutory mandate. See http://culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com/2012/03/mali-guatemala-and-bulgaria-up-for.html

However, others-- including several former CPAC members-- have questioned this, most recently during a public forum on Capitol Hill. See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/03/cultural-property-implementation-act-is.html

AIA View of CPAC Meeting on Bulgarian and Peruvian MOU

Here is the AIA's view of the Bulgarian and Peruvian MOU hearings: http://www.archaeological.org/news/advocacy/7317

The discussion underscores the ideological nature of the AIA's opposition to collecting. Practical concerns and fairness to small business don't rate for these out of touch academics. They also willfully ignore the fact that the unprovenanced coins they want to restrict are freely available within Bulgaria itself. If collecting unprovenanced coins is such a problem as Bulgaria is concerned, why doesn't the Bulgarian government clamp down on Bulgarian collectors? It won't as that would cause an uproar, but that won't stop the obdurate State Department bureaucrats from clamping down on US collectors.

Instead of clamping down on collectors, how about regulating metal detectors at the source?

The preferred method of regulation, of course, is a system akin to that in Britain, Wales and Scotland, but the CPIA itself requires that the source country try effective regulation of metal detectors before US authorities restrict American's ability to import cultural goods like coins.

For my view of the public meeting, see
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/11/public-cpac-meeting-on-belize-and.html

More Thoughts on Stuart Campbell's Ruler

During CPAC's recent public meeting about the proposed Bulgarian MOU, I borrowed a page from Stuart Campbell, a Scottish archaeologist and government official, to suggest most people consider illicit excavations to be no worse than a traffic violation.

Of course, not all illicit excavations are equal. Here is how I would rank them from the most troubling to the least:

Illicit excavations from world heritage sites;

Illicit excavations from active archaeological sites;

Illicit excavations from inactive archaeological sites;

Illicit excavations from archaeological sites that are obvious, but have not been excavated;

Illicit excavations from mounds of excavated dirt on inactive archaeological sites;

Illicit excavations from private land where there are no obvious archaeological features;

Illicit excavations from private land that already has been disturbed by ploughing.

And speaking of "wrongs," where would most people rank any failure of archaeologists to:

Properly record what they find;

Properly publish what they find;

Properly preserve what they find;

Properly display what they find.

Where would archaeologists rank theses sins? Are they any worse than illicit excavations?

Bulgarian Deputy Minister of Culture Fired, Rehired

Bulgarian Deputy Minister of Culture Todor Chobanov has been rehired as an advisor to assist in the development of cultural tourism soon after being fired as Deputy Minister of Culture of Bulgaria. See
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=133616

Chobanov was evidently instrumental in the passage of Bulgaria's much criticised cultural heritage law and likely also had something to do in asking the US to impose import restrictions on Bulgarian cultural artifacts.

Public CPAC Meeting on Belizean and Bulgarian MOU's, Nov. 16, 2011

CPAC Chair Prof. Patty Gerstenblith (PG, DePaul, Public Representative) began by thanking all speakers or those who had provided comments to CPAC. PG then asked all CPAC members to introduce themselves and mention their affiliations. They are: Katherine Reid (KR, Cleveland Museum (retired)-Museum); Nina Archabal (NA, Minn. Historical Society-Museum); Marta de la Torre (MT- Florida International University, Public); James Willis (JW, James Willis Tribal Art-Trade); Nancy Wilkie (NW-Carlton College, Archaeology); Barbara Bluhm Kaul (BK,Trustee, Art Institute of Chicago- Public); Jane Levine (JL, Sotheby’s Compliance Department (ex-prosecutor)- Trade); and Rosemary Joyce (RJ,U. Cal., Berkley-Anthropology). Two slots, one in archaeology and the other a trade representative, remain vacant. KR, NW and JW also served under the Bush Administration. The others are Obama Appointees though PG and MT also served the Clinton Administration. There was also staff present including CPAC Executive Director Maria Kouroupas, a Committee lawyer, and Committee archaeologists.

Belize

Belize was discussed first. The following individuals spoke: Josh Knerly (JK-AAMD); Elizabeth Gilgan (EG-SAFE, but there personally); Brian Daniels (BD-U. Penn Cultural Center); Christina Luke (CL-AIA); Patricia Mcinerny (PM-UNC, Chapel Hill).

JK stated the AAMD supports the conclusion of a MOU with Belize with the following provisos. First, CPAC must ensure that only material identifiable as being “first discovered in” Belize is restricted. Second, Belize needs to appoint one point of contact for museum loans and provide more material for loans. AAMD members had reported that Belize has only offered one piece for a loan that was made to the Peabody Museum.

NW asked whether Belize was a transit point for looted artifacts from other Central American countries. JK indicated that was possible. PG asked if import restrictions impacted the AAMD now that it had accepted a 1970 provenance rule. JK indicated no, but this made museum loans more important than ever. KR asked about dealing with the bureaucracy of Belize. JK indicated that it was difficult, but expressed hopes this situation would improve. In so doing, he noted the Italian government has now provided a single contact point for such loans.

EG assisted Belize to apply for a MOU. She apparently undertook this work as part of her course of study while employed at the AIA. She began by training police in Belize. She was happy when newly trained officers caught twelve American environmental students that had tried to take artifacts out of the country. The night they spent in jail taught them a lesson. It was all very exciting. She next studied Sotheby’s catalogues for unprovenanced Pre-Columbian artifacts. EG could not identify the artifacts in the catalogues as coming from Belize. EG did not review any sources other than Sotheby’s catalogues.

BD disputed the AAMD’s statement that Belize had only loaned one object. He listed three travelling exhibits where Belize provided a total of 33 artifacts as evidence of Belize’s efforts. He also indicated that Belize offers long term loans of study artifacts to specific researchers like Richard Leventhal of the Penn Cultural Heritage Center. These loans are negotiated on an individual basis.

CL indicated that MOU’s can also be used for cultural exchanges of students and archaeologists. Belize has been a great host for archaeologists. Any MOU should also include Colonial Material. NW wondered if more could be done to assure regional cooperation on looting.

PM indicated there is current looting in Belize. She recently saw looting of rock shelters. Belize has a good history of cultural interchange with the British Commonwealth (Belize is a former Crown Colony), with the United States and with Canada. RJ asked PM if she could identify material as coming from Belize. She indicated that it was possible to identify such material on stylistic grounds, based on identifiable inscriptions or its composition. However, it often travelled outside of modern day Belize. PM cited as an example a ceremonial drinking cup which was evidently gifted to a minor lord in what is today Guatemala.

Bulgaria

The following individuals spoke: Josh Knerly (JK-AAMD); Peter Tompa (PT-IAPN, PNG); Kerry Wetterstrom (KW-ACCG); Nathan Elkins (NE-Baylor); Christina Luke (CL-AIA); Brian Daniels (BD-U. Penn Cultural Center); Kevin Clinton (KC-American Research Center in Sofia).

JK indicated that AAMD supports an MOU with Bulgaria subject to certain provisos. First, it is again important to take care with any designated list given the cross-currents between Thracian and Greek culture. Second, there is a real question whether Bulgaria is taking any of the self-help measures required under the CPIA. A 2007 Center for the Study of Democracy (CSD) Report suggested that Bulgarian cultural officials were corrupt and their efforts to protect Bulgaria’s cultural patrimony were minimal. JK had no statistics about loans of Bulgarian material but indicated they would be desirable. PG wondered whether the 2007 report was up to date. JK suggested that CPAC should require the DOS to research whether the situation on the ground has improved since the 2007 CSD Report. BK asked about loans. JK indicated that that Bulgarian law apparently allowed for two year loans. KR asked about the optimum loan period. JK indicated that a long term loan should be 10 years to make it financially viable for the receiving museum. JK also noted that currently Italy is providing 4 year loans with the possibility of renewal, but the uncertainty makes such loans less palatable to AAMD members. KR also asked whether Bulgarian material can freely enter the EU. JK indicated that was the case as there are no local controls. JK agreed and also indicated that it is difficult to “fit” the Bulgarian situation into the framework of the CPIA.

PT indicated that most people would agree that some crimes—like murder—were wrong. However, looting would be considered much less seriously by most people, perhaps no worse than a traffic violation. Such seems to be the case in Bulgaria. The CSD Report indicates that some 250,000 individuals are involved in treasure hunting and that the Bulgarian police and cultural authorities are heavily involved in looting, theft and smuggling of cultural goods. The 2009 Bulgarian cultural heritage law was rammed through by ex-communists only with input from archaeologists. Major parts of it have been struck down and it is not effective. The law is honored mostly in its breech. Only 150-200 coin collectors have registered their collections though some 50,000 Bulgarians are members of organized numismatic groups. Bulgarian issues no export licenses, except for temporary exhibitions, but smuggling has become easy given the EU’s open borders. Restrictions would only discriminate against American collectors. CPAC should give heed to the 71% of the public comments on the regulations.gov website opposed to import restrictions on coins. CPAC should follow prior Committee precedent, and recommend against import restrictions on coins, particularly any restrictions based on a coin’s type rather than its find spot. Alternatively, CPAC should table Bulgaria’s request to give the country time to get its own house in order and undertake the self-help measures the CPIA contemplates. Specifically, CPAC should recommend that Bulgaria clamp down on metal detectors rather than collectors, that Bulgaria freely issue export certificates for common artifacts like most ancient coins, and that Bulgaria pass a new antiquities law that takes into account the concerns of collectors and dealers as well as the views of the archaeological community.

MT asked if Bulgarian coins were a glut on the market. PT indicated that there were certainly a lot of Roman issues available, but did not use the word, glut. He also indicated that you could not really generalize on this topic. Coins from the Greek city states located in Bulgaria would be collected as part of the Greek series and the coins of the Bulgarian czars were mainly collected by specialists and Bulgarian Americans. PG and JL suggested that it was not all that hard to import restricted coins. PT disagreed, noting that the compliance costs would exceed the value of many coins, and that in any case US Customs in NY will not allow any artifact on a designated list into the US unless it is pictured in a catalogue that predates the restrictions. This is significant because perhaps only 1 in 10,000 coins is significant enough to be published in an auction catalogue.

KW indicated that Bulgaria should adopt a law akin to the UK’s Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme. He further indicated that it used to be that finders shared details about their finds with scholars and dealers but that is no longer the case due to concerns about legal liability. MT asked about Bulgarian coins being a glut on the market. KW indicated huge amounts of coins came out of Bulgaria in the 1990’s with the fall of Communism. Some issues—like the Roman provincial coins that were struck in Bulgaria—remain a glut on the market. In response to a question from PG, KW indicated that it is reasonable for a dealer to keep information about who he bought coins from and the price, but they typically will not know the earlier history of the coins they purchase.

NE describes himself as an academic with a research focus on the numismatic trade. He has written extensively on the subject. It is clear there had been pillage of Bulgarian cultural patrimony of coins. In 1999, 20,000 coins were seized. Other incidents are set forth in the CSD Report. There have been recent seizures, including of a 63 year old pensioner who used a metal detector. Colonia Ulpia Trajana has been damaged by metal detectorists. Other material is found with coins, including Byzantine crosses and the like. This is often referred to junk in the trade. The best coins are auctioned off, the remainder end up on eBay. The flood of material began in the 1990’s and is still continuing.

CL is representing the AIA. There is evidence of recent looting in Bulgaria. A Bulgarian colleague has indicated Thracian tombs are at particular risk. Bulgaria hosts archaeologists. They have made efforts to update their laws. They are making their best efforts.

BD again represents the Penn Cultural Heritage Center. Despite the issues of corruption outlined in the CSD Report, the number of recent seizures shows Bulgaria is interested in protecting its cultural patrimony. Although there has been a problem with the Bulgarian Constitutional Court, courts strike down legislation in this country too.

KC indicates there are four active US excavations in Bulgaria, an unprecedented number. There is active looting in Bulgaria. It is understandable because it is one of the poorest countries in Europe. Prior to 2008, the State Prosecutor was not interested in crimes against cultural patrimony. The current State Prosecutor is more active. Bulgaria’s Deputy Minister of Culture, Todor Chobanov, was instrumental in pressing for the 2009 law. Chobanov is an archaeologist by training. The successor to the Bulgarian Communist Party passed the law. Initially, old-school Bulgarian archaeologists did not want to cooperate with Americans, but younger archaeologists have been more willing to do so. MT asked KC to comment about the use of metal detectors. KC is aware they are used, but has not researched the subject. There is tourism at sites on the Black Sea. The situation has improved dramatically in recent years. Previously, even important sites were not marked. There is a domestic trade in cultural artifacts. There are quite a few private collections, many of which include looted material. Some private collections are displayed in local museums or even the National Museum.