Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting on Renewals of Cypriot and Peruvian MOUs

On October 25, 2016, the United States Cultural Property Advisory Committee met to discuss the renewals of the current MOUs with Cyprus and Peru.   The following members were present: (1) Nina Achabal (NA) (Museum Representative); (2) Lothar von Falkenhausen (LVF) (Archaeological Representative); (3) Patty Gerstenblith (PG) (Public Representative-Chair); (4) Jane Levine (JL) (Trade Representative); (5) Thomas Murray (TM) (Trade Representative); (6) Katherine Reid (KR) (Museum Representative); (7) Marta de La Torre (MDLT) (Public Representative); and (8) Nancy Wilkie (NW) (Archaeological Representative).  This will be the last meeting for Patty Gerstenblith and several other CPAC members who have been replaced late in President Obama’s term.

The following speakers appeared to discuss the MOU with Cyprus:  (1) Josh Knerly (JK) (Association of Art Museum Directors) (JK); (2) Carmen Arnold-Biucchi (CAB) (Harvard); (3) Jane DeRose Evans (CDE) (Temple); (4) Peter K. Tompa (PKT)  (International Association of Professional Numismatists/Professional Numismatics Guild); (5) Nathan Elkins (NE) (Baylor); (6) Paul Keen (PK) (University of Massachusetts); (7) Andrew McCarthy (AM) (Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute) (CAARI); (8) Bryan Wilkins (BW) (CAARI); and (9) Joan Connelly (JC) (New York University), a former CPAC member representing the interests of the archaeological community.

The following speakers appeared to discuss the Peruvian MOU: (1) Brian Bauer (BB) (University of Illinois); and (2) Josh Knerly (JK) (AAMD)

There were also representatives of the State Department, and the Cypriot and Peruvian governments present in the room to hear the testimony. 

Josh Knerly (JK)- Thanks PG for her service. AAMD supports the renewal with qualifications.  There needs to be benchmarks to address problems in both the Northern Turkish Republic and Republic of Cyprus itself.  JK refers to his paper and asks for questions.  MDLT asks about inventories.  JK says inventories should be done to protect the contents of all structures, including mosques.

Carmen Arnold Biucchi (CAB)-Thinks all statutory criteria met.  Designated list should be extended to Byzantine coins.  Coins struck in Cyprus mainly stayed there.  CAB advocates that Cyprus adopt Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme.  TM applauds her suggestion about the creation of a legal market in Cyprus.  There is no need to hold redundant material in basements.  NW asks about Byzantine coins.  CAB maintains the Byzantine coins struck on the Island did not circulate off the Island in great quantities.   They were not mainly gold coins, which did circulate. NA and PG ask about the archaeological value of coins which CAB confirms. 

Jane DeRose Evans (JDE)-The Antiquities Department promptly investigates looting.  Coins found by metal detectors are easily smuggled.  Agrees with suggestion for restrictions on Byzantine coins.  Says selling coins found on state controlled archaeological sites won’t make much money because their value is minimal.  JDE emphasizes she is not against collecting well provenance coins.  JVF opines that looting of coins causes huge damage to the archaeological record.  ASOR wants to promote responsible collecting. TM notes that partage was a good system that has allowed artifacts to be displayed in museums.  KR indicates times have changed since partage and now long term loans are desirable.

Peter K. Tompa (PKT)-  Unfortunately, the system appears to be rigged.  When the CPIA was being discussed, a top State Department lawyer represented to Congress that import restrictions on coins would be unlikely.  This changed with the Cypriot MOU in 2007.  Two CPAC members have stated under oath that the change was made against CPAC’s recommendations and that the State Department sought to mislead the Congress and the public about it.  More troublingly, it was recently determined that the decision maker made the decision after accepting a job with Goldman Sachs, where she was recruited by and works for a top Goldman Sachs partner who is married to an AIA Trustee and well known heritage lobbyist.  Moreover, things have not changed.  Just recently, the AIA also awarded the current State Department decision maker at a swank gala hosted by this power couple.

Substantively, PKT notes that Cyprus is an Island astride major trade routes so of course coins circulated as proved in a scholarly paper attached to PKT’s submission.  In any event, the governing statute only authorizes restrictions on coins that were first discovered within and are hence subject to the export control of Cyprus.  Thus, the standard is whether such coins are “exclusively” found in Cyprus, not generally found or some lesser standard.  Only coins actually found in Cyprus can be subject to Cypriot export controls.  Paying archaeological workers a fair living wage and better site security in the long off season should be investigated.  Finally, Cyprus should consider instituting a Treasure Act or Portable Antiquities Scheme.

PKT's full oral comments can be found here.  IAPN/PNG's written comments can be found here.

PG and NW maintain that the AIA Trustee was not a Trustee back in 2007.  PKT responds that no one just comes out of nowhere to become a Trustee and there was likely some related work beforehand.  In any case, better transparency on how these decisions are made may help clear up such suspicions.

PG asks PKT about NE’s claim that 80% of Cypriot coins are found on Cyprus.  PKT notes this must be an aggregate figure and that presumably coins from the Ptolemaic and Roman Empires circulated within those Empires.  He notes that Roman Provincial coins from Cyprus are struck on the same standard as the Imperial issues and would have circulated in places like Turkey.

MDLT notes that CPAC’s recommendations are advisory. PKT notes that is true but if State rejects them, State is obliged to justify the change in official government reports which was not done and that the decision maker making her decision after taking a job at Goldman Sachs was troubling. 

NW asks if State Department Lawyer’s statement to Congress was made before metal detectors become prevalent.  PKT indicates they were in use in the 1970’s before the CPIA was passed.

JL asks about collectors maintaining provenance.  PKT says this is easier for expensive items like those at auction at Sotheby’s.  He notes some collectors have thousands of low value coins.

Nathan Elkins (NE) discusses unprovenanced coins on eBay. He maintains the IAPN’s data is selective.  Discusses his own data that led to his conclusion that 80% of Cypriot coins found in Cyprus.  States that a US District Court has rejected PKT’s “first discovered within” argument.  (Note, context is important, that decision was made under a very limited “ultra vires” review of government decision making.)

Paul Keen (PK) discusses coins as archaeological artifacts and their importance in dating sites.  He also maintains Cypriot coins did not travel.  PK talks about a commercial hoard from Jordan he reconstituted that was sold in parcels in London, Paris and Malibu.  The original hoard had 1000 coins.  NW asks whether the hoard would have more value as a whole.  PK says yes, but buyers more likely to purchase piecemeal. 

Andrew McCarthy (AM) is director of CAARI.  Notes US Government support for his organization. Cypriot Government very welcoming host to American archaeologists.  Government addresses looting promptly.  KR asks about accusations of Paphos Mayor that local Antiquities Department personnel had stolen artifacts from storage.  AM says this is a smokescreen because the antiquities authority is holding up local road construction.  He produces documents from excavators and police that purport to exonerate the antiquities service.

Bryan Wilkins (BW) is President of CAARI. Maintains MOUs have helped in a decline in looting.  Notes US State Department support including a $100,000 grant per year for the purpose of funding two scholars.  Notes outreach efforts to local communities to enlighten them about the dangers of looting.  Discussion of shipwreck now in Northern Cyprus.  KR discusses long term loans.  NA notes some of the Cesnola collection now on display in Nicosia.

Joan Connelly (JC) attributes all Cyprus’ problems to Turkish invasion.  Sets forth her close relationship with the Cypriot Antiquities service and her long work on the Island. (Note:  Perhaps IAPN/PNG’s 2007 request that she be recused from voting on the Cyprus MOU request should have been granted after all.) Discusses 15 American digs on Island.  Calls for AAMD to apologize for suggesting the Turkish Republic for Northern Cyprus is a recognized political entity.  Attacks the AAMD’s suggestion that benchmarks be set for the renewal of the next MOU as “neo-colonialist.”  In response to question from NA, attacks PAS and Treasure Act.

JL indicates her belief that JC is misconstruing JK discussion of benchmarks.  JC notes she is an honorary citizen of Paphos, decries reckless attacks of Paphos Mayor on antiquities service.

Brian Brauer (BB) states Peru has met the criteria for renewal.  He notes that greater efforts must be made to ensure that site guards get a living wage.   He requests new restrictions on Colonial documents and fossils.  PG says that CPIA may not allow restrictions on fossils.  She asks for more detail on colonial era documents.  BB says now families who own old documents can sell them on eBay.  They should stay in Peru.  BB defers to AAMD on loans and does not express concern about benchmarks proposed by AAMD. 

Josh Knerly (JK) notes he is gratified that not all proposals for benchmarks are controversial.  He notes that all the issues raised by AAMD 5 years ago, especially regarding long term loans have yet to be addressed.  There is some discussion of on-line inventories so that items may be selected for loans. PG expresses concern that these only be made available to museums so that thieves will not get valuable information.  

District Court Again Accepts State Secrecy Claims; But Transparency Needed More than Ever

The same US District Court judge who ruled for the State Department in the ACCG-IAPN-PNG FOIA case has again ruled for the government on the remaining issues on remand from the D.C. Circuit.

Just because the US District Court gave the State Department another pass does not mean that the State Department is acting in accordance with President Obama's promise to make his Administration the most transparent ever.  To the contrary, the veil of secrecy placed over State Department decisions to impose import restrictions on cultural goods would seem to be entirely inconsistent with that pledge. 

The State Department needs to be far more transparent about its decision making processes, which after all have a real impact on the ability of American collectors, businesses and museums to import cultural goods.

Archaeologists should also support greater transparency.  The archaeological lobby harps on the need for more transparency about private transactions involving the sale or transfer of cultural goods, but has been supportive of government secrecy concerning how import decisions are made.  Why?  Could it be that it fears that any such transparency will only confirm that such decisions are actually the products of bias/and or prejudgement and/or ex parte contacts between State Department staff and members of the archaeological lobby?  The particular redacted document at issue in the remand (an email communication between an archaeologist associated with the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute and a State Department employee about including coins in the MOU that predated a Cypriot request for import restrictions on coins) certainly suggests as much.

Addendum 6/15/12): Some in the archaeological blogosphere have now claimed that using the FOIA process to seek the email mentioned above is somehow "absurd," "shameful," "disturbing" and "disgusting."  Here is my response to archaeo-blogger Paul Barford, which he apparently refuses to publish:

Well, perhaps you should give your readers the whole context of why ACCG was seeking the Parks email, and let them decide if seeking some transparency as to how the import restrictions decision was made is as disgusting or disturbing as you claim: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/12/will-obama-state-department-uphold.html
Either State was using Parks (the now deceased archaeologist in question)  as a supposedly neutral expert (when she was not) or conferring with her about CAARI's effort to include coins in the Cypriot MOU. Because we don't have the entire document, we don't know which it was, but since Cyprus had not yet asked for restrictions on coins when the email exchange occurred, it presumably would be the latter.

European Commission Funded Campaign to Repatriate Nefertiti to Egypt?

This blog has expressed concern about the US State Department funding groups that support repatriation of artifacts to places like Cyprus and Cambodia. See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/05/cash-and-caari-cyprus-american.html and http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/06/state-department-slush-fund-for.html

Now, it also appears that the European Commission was funding a group that wants to send the world famous bust of Nefertiti back to Egypt. See http://www.nofretete-geht-auf-reisen.de/f_pdf/epressrelease_long.pdf and http://www.nofretete-geht-auf-reisen.de/

Though supposedly the Egyptians just want the bust back as a loan, one can easily imagine scenarios where any such "loan" becomes "permanent."

Perhaps, the German Government, presumably one of the European Commission's largest funders, should have demanded an explanation why the European Commission supported such a campaign directed against German interests.

State Indirectly Funding War on Sotheby's?

During the Vietnam war era, the US Government funded a "secret war" in Cambodia. Now, is the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center indirectly funding a not so secret war against Sotheby's Auction House?

Heritage Watch, an archaeological advocacy group with a focus on Cambodia, has been at the forefront of a recent campaign against Sotheby’s. See http://art-crime.blogspot.com/2011/10/what-does-lack-of-provenance-indicate.html
And http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/arts/design/sothebys-caught-in-dispute-over-prized-cambodian-statue.html?pagewanted=1

At the same time, Heritage Watch has received funding from the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center:
See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/09/eca-ambassadors-fund-awards-22-million.html and http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/09/cambodian-import-restrictions-extended.html

Is State indirectly funding the archaeological lobby’s war on Sotheby’s? If so, it would be consistent with State's ongoing funding of the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute, which has been at the forefront of lobbying for a clamp down on collectors of ancient coins and other artifacts from Cyprus.

CPAC Meeting on Renewal of MOU with Cyprus

The United States Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) met on January 18, 2012, to discuss the Cypriot MOU. Once again, CPAC Chair Prof. Patty Gerstenblith (PG, DePaul, Public Representative) began by thanking all speakers or those who had provided comments to CPAC. PG was joined by the following CPAC members 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.

The following individuals spoke at the meeting in support of the MOU: Carmen Biucchi (Harvard); Brian Daniels (U. Pennsylvania Cultural Heritage Center); Nathan Elkins (Baylor); Jane Evans (Temple); Raymond Ewing (CAARI); Ellen Hersher (CAARI); Anne Marie Knobloch (Virginia Tech); Laetitia La Follette (U. Mass./ AIA); Andrew McCarthy (CAARI); Joanna Smith (Princeton); Chris Shaegel (U. Cyprus); Tom Kline (Andrews Kurth); Josh Knerly (AAMD).

The following individuals spoke against the MOU: Peter Tompa (IAPN/PNG); Wayne Sayles (ACCG); and Eloise Ullman (ICTA). In addition, 77% of the comments recorded on the regulations.gov website either opposed the MOU or their extension to coins.

Carmen Biucchi (Harvard) indicated that coins provide important documentation of early Cypriot history because there are few written sources. Even low value bronze coins are important because they frequently appear at archaeological sites. We need to all work together to preserve the past. Cypriot coins are relatively uncommon. In response to a question, Biucchi indicated that it is relatively easy to trace expensive coins due to their appearance at auction, but this is not the case for less expensive coins. She also indicated that metal detectors are the problem.

Brian Daniels (U. Penn. Cultural Center) argued for the extension of restrictions to post-Byzantine period ecclesiastical material. He also suggested that US law enforcement pursue better coordination with Cypriot law enforcement, and other countries with strong Greek cultural influence, including Greece itself and Bulgaria.

Nathan Elkins (Baylor) indicated that Cyprus’ cultural property is in jeopardy as proven by a recent large seizure of artifacts, which included bronze and silver coins. There is a large market in the US as demonstrated by the fact that 200 Cypriot coins are currently listed on the V-coins website. Most Cypriot coins circulated locally. If you add together a list prepared by Wayne Sayles of coins found outside of Cyprus and a list Elkins compiled of coins from Cypriot contexts, that shows that Cypriot coinage is much more prevalent in Cyprus than outside of Cyprus.

Jane Evans (Temple) also indicated that it was important to continue restrictions on coins because it is important that their context not be lost.

Raymond Ewing is a former ambassador to Cyprus. He now serves a CAARI’s President. CAARI receives funding from the US Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Import restrictions should be as closely conformed to Cypriot law, that covers artifacts up to 1850, as possible.

Ellen Hersher is a scholar and archaeologist associated with CAARI. Cyprus has been a specialty for over 40 years. Looting is a historical problem in Cyprus. Looting still goes on until today. Looting only declined during the periods of WWI and WWII and during the 1950’s when British forces were involved in anti-insurgency operations. Wealthy Cypriots have collected Cypriot antiquities since the 19th Century. There is no shame in looting in Cyprus. Increasing efforts are being made to educate the populace. There is a great need for a new museum (the current one dates back to Victorian times) to encourage youth to respect their past. Metal detectors continue to be a serious problem; more legislation is needed. The major collections are grandfathered in. It is Ms. Hersher’s opinion that they are no longer adding much material, but most Cypriots don’t think that looting is wrong. We shouldn’t point fingers at Cyprus, but try to fix the problem.

Anne Marie Knobloch is a CAARI board member, who teaches at Virginia Tech. She is also an AIA member. Cyprus has important religious sanctuaries that need to be studied. Virginia Tech offers students the opportunity to excavate in Cyprus and would like to do more with Cypriot students.

Laetitia La Follette is the AIA’s VP for professional responsibility. She is associated with the University of Massachusetts. Looting remains a problem, including for coins. Because ancient coins are handmade, they are all different and may be traced. The AIA can help draft the designated list. The laws in the Greek Cypriot area need to be tightened. The laws in the North are actually stronger.

Andrew McCarthy is a CAARI trustee. Looting has increased since the 1960’s. There is a famous incident where a tomb was set aside as a dowry. The Department of Antiquities is doing its best to fight against looting. A site where McCarthy works has not suffered looting from 2007-2011. There was one incident where looters struck the site, presumably looking for coins. CAARI gives all documentation created from archaeological investigations to the Department of Antiquities. MOU’s can help educate Cypriots about the importance of their heritage.

Joanna Smith of Princeton is a past CAARI Trustee. Cyprus is an academic cross-roads. Cypriot children are being taught about their history and Cyprus sends exhibits abroad.

Chris Shaegel is from the University of Cyprus. He works closely with CAARI. Because there are few manuscripts that predate 1600, the preservation of Cypriot material culture is important. Coins should be protected and the restrictions should be extended further in time. Icons also need protection. There is no internal market in Cyprus.

Peter Tompa spoke for IAPN and PNG, two trade associations that represent the small business of the numismatic trade. Each Committee member must ask themselves whether they can do so in good conscious after considering these undisputed facts: (1) Coins were evidently placed on the designated list on the orders of former Undersecretary Nicholas Burns as a “thank you” to Cypriot advocacy groups which had given him an award; (2) Jay Kislak, CPAC’s former chair, has stated under oath that the State Department misled Congress and the Public about CPAC’s vote against import restrictions on coins: (3)In 2007, the AIA claimed that Cypriot coins “rarely circulated” to justify restrictions on “coins of Cypriot type.” However, a top Cypriot official has admitted that “It is true that Cypriot coins shared the same destiny as all other coins of the ancient world. As a standard media of exchange they circulated all over the ancient world due to their small size, which facilitated their easy transport…” Moreover, this view has substantial scholarly support; (4) The CPIA requires less drastic remedies to be tried first before import restrictions are imposed, but Cyprus has no coherent regulatory scheme for metal detectors and even allows British tourists to bring them to the Island; and (5) Restrictions imposed on unprovenanced “coins of Cypriot type” only discriminate against American collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade; such coins may be shipped from abroad to anywhere but the USA, including Cyprus.

Moreover, he stated that there is no good reason to renew the MOU for yet another 5 years. Cyprus has already had the benefit of restrictions since 1999 on ethnological artifacts and 2002 on archaeological artifacts. Yet, a Swiss scholar reports most looted material goes to wealthy Greek Cypriot collectors, and not as has been maintained to collectors abroad. In addition, all this appears to be done with the full knowledge and acquiescence of Greek Cypriot authorities. Thus, restrictions only discriminate against American collectors.

In response to a question from JW, Tompa indicated it was wrong to so burden the small businesses of the numismatic trade just so archaeologists might occasionally get some relevant information about dating sites from a coin. He also disputed the claim by JL that import restrictions are easy to comply with. He noted that US Customs will not allow entry of coins and other antiquities unless they are pictured in a catalogue that predates restrictions. Thus, even the difficult to obtain certifications are not enough for Customs.

Wayne Sayles indicated that the ACCG represents the interests of the approximately 50,000 serious ancient coin collectors in the United States. The ACCG is interested in fair and equitable application of US law. The CPIA was meant to protect significant artifacts, not everything under the sun. In response to a question from PG, Wayne Sayles indicated that it is unrealistic to ask the small businesses of the numismatic trade to provide provenance information for every coin they import.

Eloise Ullman indicated that most ICTA members have under 5 employees. She also noted that President Obama recently recognized that it is important not to overburden small businesses with paperwork when his administration signed onto an effort to end a burdensome requirement that coin dealers prepare 1099 forms for every purchase over $600.

Tom Kline disclosed that he previously represented Cyprus. He stated that Cyprus is a leader in protecting its own cultural property, but takes a reasonable approach in doing so. The Turkish Republic is an illegal regime so he disputes that DOS look to their laws on antiquities as models. We need higher ethical standards from collectors. The import restrictions on coins should be no big deal because the restrictions only date from 2007. Collectors only have themselves to blame if they do not keep adequate documentation.

Josh Knerly spoke on behalf of the AAMD which supports the MOU with Cyprus with some limited provisos. First, the AAMD would like to know more about a proposal to extend restrictions to new types of ecclesiastical objects. It appears members of the archaeological community know details of the request, but these have not been shared by the public at large. KR asked why no Museum Director was present. Knerly indicated he would determine if some curators with specialized knowledge would be able to testify in the future.

Will the Obama State Department Uphold Import Restrictions Allegedly Founded on Cronyism?

How did the controverisal decision to impose import restriction on Cypriot coins come about? This is a significant issue because this "precedent" has formed the basis for far more extensive restrictions on Chinese, Italian and now Greek coins.

Well, here are some unrebutted allegations from ACCG's Amended Complaint in the Baltimore Test Case. They are largely based on information from FOIA releases:

48. In or about November 2005, Dr. Pavlos Florentzos, Director of the Cyprus Department of Antiquities, visited the United States at the invitation of CAARI and with the support of the U.S. Embassy in Cyprus. During this time, CAARI facilitated a meeting between Florentzos and employees of ECA’s Cultural Heritage Center, including its Executive Director, Maria Kourpoupas, and a staff archaeologist. See J. Green, Cyprus Director of Antiquities, Dr. Pavolos Flourtzos, Visits the U.S., 31 CAARI News 3 (Winter 2006).

49. Upon information and belief, CAARI has benefited from direct and/or indirect financial and/or material support from State, the Government of Cyprus and Cypriot entities, including the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation.

50. Upon information and belief, the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation was established to rescue the Island’s cultural heritage, which the Foundation maintains was pillaged and destroyed by Turkish forces when they occupied the Northern part of the Island. Upon further information and belief, the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation maintains one of the largest collections of ancient coins of Cypriot type within Cyprus. Upon further information and belief, the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation purchases unprovenanced coins on the open market for its collection of the sort now subject to U.S. import restrictions on coins of Cypriot type.

51. On January 19, 2006, State announced a five (5) year renewal of its Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Italy relating to cultural artifacts. Once again, Defendants exempted ancient coins struck in Italy from import restrictions.

52. On December 7, 2006, the Federal Register carried a notice indicating that CPAC would conduct a review of the MOU with Cyprus. That notice invited public comment to be submitted no later than January 11, 2007. The Federal Register notice contained no mention of an effort to extend new restrictions to coins. See 71 Fed. Reg. 71015-71016 (Dec. 7, 2006).

53. On December 8, 2006, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, ECA Miller Crouch indicated in a response to an e-mail inquiry that he “d[id] not anticipate” that new restrictions on coins would be addressed at CPAC’s hearing to consider the renewal of the MOU with Cyprus.

54. On December 14, 2006, two numismatic trade associations filed a request with State to recuse CPAC member Joan Connelly from voting on any last minute effort to impose import restrictions on ancient Cypriot coins. That recusal request noted that Dr. Connelly excavated in Cyprus and had publicly thanked “the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus, its Director, Dr. Demos Christou and the Ministry of Communication and Works, Republic of Cyprus, for granting us the license to excavate on Yeronisos Island.”

55. On January 12, 2007, State summarily denied the recusal request.

56. On January 17, 2007, according to a heavily redacted document released in response to a FOIA request, a State ECA Cultural Heritage Center staff archaeologist conferred with the late Dr. Danielle Parks, an archaeologist associated with the CAARI, about the inclusion of coins in the Cypriot request.

57. On January 19, 2007, according to a document released in response to a FOIA request, Cyprus requested State to amend the designated list of artifacts subject to import restriction to include coins of Cypriot type.

58. On January 25, 2007, CPAC conducted a public hearing on the renewal of the MOU with Cyprus. At that hearing, CPAC Chairman Jay Kislak announced that he had learned that Cyprus had requested that State amend the designated list of Cypriot artifacts subject to import restrictions to include coins of Cypriot type.

59. Upon information and belief, at that same hearing, neither Cypriot authorities nor members of the archaeological community could point to any material change of fact justifying a change in the exemption from import restrictions on Cypriot coins.

60. On January 26, 2007, in response to complaints about the lack of public notice for the inclusion of coins in the Cypriot request, State announced an additional ten (10) day comment period. State made this announcement on the Cultural Heritage Center website and not in the Federal Register. Nevertheless, during this extremely short time frame, numismatic groups generated over 1100 letters opposing the extension of import restrictions to coins.

61. Upon information and belief, comments provided by ACCG and others established: (a) that Cypriot coins were common, with many known examples of coin types struck on the Island; (b) that Cypriot coins travelled widely so that one could not assume that a coin struck in Cyprus was “first discovered” there; (c) that less drastic remedies like the imposition of a treasure trove law and/or the regulation of metal detectors should be tried before import restrictions were considered; (d) and that the CPIA’s “concerted international response” requirement could not be met.

62. Upon information and belief CAARI, the AIA, the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation, and the late Dr. Danielle Parks submitted comments supporting import restrictions at the behest of Cyprus.

63. In a letter dated February 5, 2007, the AIA’s president claimed that it was proper to assume that coins of Cypriot type can be assumed to have Cypriot find spots, because “Coins minted on Cyprus were very rarely taken from the island in antiquity.”

64. On May 2, 2007, Assistant Secretary of State, ECA Dina Powell, the decision maker for the extension of the MOU with Cyprus announced her departure to become the Director for Global Corporate Engagement at Goldman Sachs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dina_Powell (last checked, 7/2/10).

65. Upon information and belief, Goldman Sachs is a bank holding company with worldwide business interests, likely including relationships with Cyprus or Cypriot entities like the Bank of Cyprus.

66. On or about May 7, 2007, according to a document released in response to a FOIA request, CPAC issued its report making its recommendations concerning the extension of the MOU with Cyprus.

67. On or about May 14, 2007, according to a document released in response to a FOIA request, Pavolos Flouretzos, Director, Cypriot Department of Antiquities, admitted in a private communication to State, “It is true that Cypriot coins shared the same destiny as all other coins of the ancient world. As a standard media of exchange they circulated all over the ancient world due to their small size, which facilitated their easy transport… The continuous circulation of coins for many centuries amongst collectors and between collectors and museums make any attempt to locate their exact find spot extremely difficult.”

68. On or about May 16, 2007, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, upon information and belief the third ranking official at State, accepted an award from Greek and Greek Cypriot advocacy groups as these groups lobbied the State policy makers. According to a press release, "Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns was the first Philhellene to receive the Livanos Award. This award is given each year to, as its states on the award, 'that individual who, like George P. Livanos, has utilized ancient Hellenic values to realize extraordinary achievement in modern society while contributing to the improvement of our civilization.'" See http://news.pseka.net/uploads/img/documents/PSEKA-SAE_2007_Conference_EN_01_CEH_01.pdf (last checked, 7/2/10).

69. On or about May 16, 2007, State’s news service quoted Burns as stating on receipt of the Livanos award, "I wear this title of Philhellene rather proudly. You don’t spend four years in Greece, as my wife and three daughters and I did, and not come back feeling committed to Greek thought, to the Greek way of life, to Greece itself in my case....We’re personally committed to the country, to the relationship."

70. On May 17, 2007, according to a document released in response to a FOIA request, Kurt Volker, Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, wrote the Assistant Secretary, ECA Dina Powell, stating “[G]iven our general support for protection of antiquities and the importance of this MOU to our bilateral relations with Cyprus, EUR strongly recommends that ECA approve the renewal of the MOU and include the protection of coins.”

71. On May 29, 2007, according to a document released in redacted form in response to a FOIA request, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, ECA Miller Crouch wrote an “Action Memo” to the decision maker Assistant Secretary, ECA Dina Powell regarding the extension of the MOU with Cyprus. That Action Memo only provides the decision maker with the false choice of approving the import restrictions including coins in their entirety or disapproving them in their entirety. The Action Memo does not provide the decision maker the option of continuing the then current import restrictions without extending them to coins.

72. On May 30, 2007, according to that same document, Assistant Secretary of State Dina Powell signed off on that action memo that authorized import restrictions on ancient coins of Cypriot type.

73. On July 13, 2007, Defendants formally extended import restrictions to coins of Cypriot Types. See Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Pre-Classical and Classical Archaeological Objects and Byzantine Period Ecclesiastical and Ritual Ethnological Material from Cyprus, 19 CFR Part 12, reported at 72 Fed. Reg. 38470-74 (July 13, 2007).

74. On July 16, 2007, the MOU renewal with Cyprus was signed. That MOU fails to suggest that restrictions under the agreement satisfy the CPIA’s requirements, including the requirement “concerted international response” requirement or the requirement that less drastic remedies than import restrictions on coins are not available.

75. On July 19, 2007, Undersecretary Nicholas Burns conducted a signing ceremony for the MOU to coincide with Greek and Greek Cypriot lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill and at the State Department itself. Upon information and belief, representatives of CAARI were invited to this signing ceremony.

76. The official transcript of the Cyprus MOU signing ceremony omits several significant words. In the transcript, Ambassador Kakouris of Cyprus is reported as saying, "In fact, I was reminded just before we came in about something that I had said in January when we were before the Committee and responding to someone very much on the side of the coin collectors who -- talked about the hobby of collecting coins. And I said to him: ‘It may be your hobby, but it's our heritage!" and that is the way that we look at this issue.’"

77. In fact, what Kakouris actually said can be heard (at 10:09 of the audio). There, he states, "In fact, I was reminded by [Cultural Heritage Center ED] Maria Kouroupas just before we came in about something that I had said in January when we were before the Committee and dealing with the coin collectors and somebody who was very much on their side, when he talked about the hobby of collecting coins. And I said to him: ‘It may be your hobby, but it's our heritage!" and that is the way that we look at this issue.’" (Emphasis added.)

78. On July 20, 2007, State issued a press release about the MOU. That press release stated, “With the extension of this MOU, DHS amended the designated list of restricted categories to include ancient coins of Cypriot types produced from the end of the 6th century B.C. to 235 A.D. Coins, a significant and inseparable part of the archaeological record of the island, are especially valuable to understanding the history of Cyprus. This extension of the MOU is consistent with the recommendation of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, which is administered by the Bureau for Educational and Cultural Affairs.” (Emphasis added.)

79. On August 29, 2007, State sent a report mandated under the CPIA to Congress. Under 19 U.S.C. § 2602 (g)(2), that report is required to: (a) describe the actions taken; (b) whether there were any differences between those actions and CPAC’s recommendations; and, (c) if so, the reasons for those differences. That report, however, contains no indication whether State rejected CPAC recommendation against import restrictions on coins, and, if so, why?

80. In addition, that report also indicates that Customs acted as the lead agency for imposing import restrictions on coins. In pertinent part, the report states, “The Federal Register notice for Cyprus was amended by the Department for Homeland Security, in consultation with the Department of State, to include coins of Cypriot types which are also vulnerable to archaeological looting.”

81. In or about July 17, 2007, ECA publicized the new restrictions on coins of Cypriot types on its website as follows: “The Government of the Republic of Cyprus requested and amendment to the designated list to include coins…. Q. What was the response? A. The Cultural Property Implementation Act places the authority for the Designated List with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in consultation with the Department of State. On July 13, 2007, DHS published a Federal Register notice concerning the extension of the agreement and amending the Designated List to include certain coins from Cyprus, effective July 16, 2007.”

82. In or about May-June 2008, the Cyprus News Service quoted CAARI’s president as stating, “CAARI has been in the forefront of the successful effort to renew the Memorandum of Understanding between Cyprus and the USA restricting the import of Cypriot antiquities into the United States…..” See http://www.caari.org/CAARIat30.htm (last checked, 7/2/10).

83. On January 16, 2009, the Federal Register announced import restrictions on Chinese cultural artifacts, including those on early media of exchange to Tang era cash coins. See 19 CFR Part 12, reported at 74 Fed. Reg. 2838-2844 (Jan. 16, 2009).

84. On April 20, 2009, past CPAC Chairman Jay Kislak signed a declaration in FOIA litigation that stated in pertinent part:

o I am told that Section 303 (g) of the CPIA requires the State Department to report to Congress any differences between CPAC’s recommendations and the State Department’s ultimate decision to impose import restrictions. In this regard, the release of the most recent CPAC report related to Cyprus and its discussion about coins could clarify misleading information contained in official State Department documents.

o I specifically recall the Cypriot request that then current import restrictions on other cultural artifacts be extended to coins was a matter of great public controversy. CPAC considered the question specifically and I recall a special vote being taken on this particular issue.

o With that in mind, I have reviewed both an official State Department Press Release and a State Department report made pursuant to CPIA Section 303 (g) about the MOU with Cyprus…I believe it is absolutely false to suggest in those materials that the State Department’s decision to extend import restrictions to ancient coins was consistent with CPAC’s recommendations. The full release of CPAC’s recommendations with regard to coins could be in the public interest because it should clarify misleading information contained in official State Department documents.

Will the Obama Administration and CPAC investigate these allegations before deciding to renew the Cypriot MOU? If true, don't they suggest that the MOU be terminated instead because it is founded on cronyism? If not, why not?

Hypocrisy and Cronyism on Display at US Embassy in Cyprus

The Director the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (CAARI) and the US Ambassador to Cyprus have dedicated a display of unprovenanced antiquities at the US Embassy. http://news.caorc.org/2011/06/caari-director-and-us-ambassador.html

The artifacts were apparently registered with the Cypriot authorities before they were displayed, but are said to be gifts from Cypriot citizens. There certainly is no suggestion that they are the products of scientific archaeological investigation.

Of course, CAARI has bragged that it was instrumental in lobbying the State Department for import restrictions on behalf of the Cypriot Department of Antiquities and the Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, approved the ban on US collectors obtaining such material from abroad.

Yes, hypocrisy and cronyism are indeed on display at the US Embassy in Cyprus along with those cases of unprovenanced Cypriot antiquities.

Smithsonian Exhibit Confirms Cypriot MOU Discriminates Against American Coin Collectors

I had an opportunity to visit the Smithsonian Exhibit entitled, Cyprus: Crossroads of Civilization. See http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/cyprus/index.html

The exhibit is well done and thankfully avoids modern day politics. See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2010/10/state-sets-secret-hearing-on-cyprus-mou.html

I hope to say more about it in another post, but for now let me just comment on the historical coins from ancient times to the Venetian period that were exhibited:

All were lent by the private Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation.

No provenance information was provided for the coins.

None listed a recorded find spot.

The Bank of Cyprus purchases coins on the open market from the same sources American collectors buy from.

Yet, the AIA, the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute, the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundations and Cypriot cultural bureaucracy successfully agitated for extending import restrictions to coins, claiming that unprovenanced coins should be treated as "stolen." Members of the AIA and CAARI have also argued that artifacts without a known provenance lose their value for study.

Is the MOU about protecting archaeology or giving the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation and Cypriot collectors a competitive advantage over American collectors who can no longer legally import undocumented coins?

Is there something wrong with this picture? Is this more of do what we say, not what we do?

Why does the Obama State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs countenance such discrimination against American collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade? And why are they also claiming that such discrimination is not subject to review by a court?

For more about the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation, see
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/05/coins-of-cyprus-from-collection-of-bank.html

Archaeologist Fails to Uncover the Truth About ACCG Test Case

Archaeologist David Gill has issued another misleading press release about the ACCG's test case related to import restrictions on "coins of Cypriot type." Looting Matters: Do Coin Collectors Care About the Archaeology of Cyprus? -- SWANSEA, Wales, Feb. 19 /PRNewswire/ --

In so doing, Gill confuses a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case with a separate action to test import restrictions. ACCG imported coins for purposes of this test case in April 2009 after documents released under FOIA suggested that State Department officials ignored the findings of an expert advisory committee recommending AGAINST import restrictions on coins and then mislead Congress and the public about the decision. Additional FOIA information has revealed that the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (CAARI) was involved in behind-the-scenes lobbying on behalf of the Cypriot Department of Antiquities, the Cypriot government body that issues excavation permits that allow CAARI affiliated archaeologists to excavate on the Island. ACCG's test case asks the Court to determine whether these and other related procedural irregularities require the regulations to be thrown-out. Certification requirements that import restrictions impose now make it very difficult for American collectors to import Cypriot coins from abroad. In the meantime, collectors within the EU-- including within Cyprus itself--face no similar restrictions.

For the ACCG's own press release on the issue, see: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ancient-coin-collectors-seek-judicial-review-of-controversial-decisions-to-bar-coin-imports-84491507.html

What's Wrong with Commercial Interests?

In a variety of posts, bloggers associated with Saving Antiquities for Everyone ("SAFE") have called into question the motivations of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild ("ACCG"), claiming that the ACCG is nothing more than a "dealer lobby" motivated solely by "commercial interests." This oft repeated refrain has recently reached a crescendo on the Barford and Elkins blogs, presumably because they have little constructive to say about the ACCG's good faith efforts to have courts address concerns about State Department transparency as well as the legality of the process for imposing import restrictions on cultural artifacts.

Wayne Sayles has already commented on the fact that these bloggers descriptions of the ACCG are inaccurate. See: "A Rose is a Rose" https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21793457&postID=5616403677023727104 Nevertheless, that said, even if the ACCG were in fact a "dealer lobby" as is claimed and was solely motivated by "commercial interests," so what?

In America, at least, commercial interests are viewed to be just as legitimate as other interests. Indeed, for both political parties supporting the "commercial interests" of "small business" is “as American as apple pie."

And, let's face it. The numismatic trade is about as "small business" as you can get. Most numismatic dealers are "mom and pop" operations. Even the bigger firms rarely have more than fifteen employees. These “low net worth” small businesses have enough problems remaining economically viable in a recession. Add to that the prospect of government fiats demanding that these American small businesses require foreign small businesses provide certifications about a coin’s whereabouts (which is typically unavailable), before they can legally import the thousands and thousands of low value coins that they depend on to stay in business, and one might see why they might think their legitimate “commercial interests” are threatened.

But I digress. If you think about it, the archaeological community may be based in academia, but overall, it certainly cannot be all that critical of "commercial interests," particularly because such "commercial interests" write the checks that make their work possible. Indeed, I have to assume that the archaeologists that work at major archaeological digs, like that at Troy, are not really "anti-business." If they were, they really could not in good conscious accept funding from "big businesses" like Daimler Benz. See: http://www.iit.edu/~agunsal/truva/exc.htm

Hollywood is about as "commercial' as one can get. Yet, the AIA must have seen some "synergy' in naming Harrison Ford aka "Indiana Jones" as a Trustee, just in time for the opening of his "Crystal Skulls" movie. See: http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10477

And, what of the primary advocate for import restrictions on Cypriot coins? As previously stated in this blog, the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute ("CAARI") has accepted at least in-kind support from the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation-- an entity set up by a large privately owned bank. See: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/05/cash-and-caari-cyprus-american.html Under the circumstances, CAARI can't possibly really be "anti-business" either.

Finally, what about SAFE itself? Its website is nowhere as near as transparent as that of the ACCG as to its funding sources, but it is at least clear that SAFE has some ongoing relationship with the "Antiquarian Booksellers Association of America" (see http://www.savingantiquities.org/j-safe-events.php) and has also received support from the New York (repatriation and Holocaust art ) law firm of Herrick Feinstein. See http://www.savingantiquities.org/event.php?eventID=83 and http://www.herrick.com/ Presumably, SAFE also is not against "commercial interests," particularly when it is accepting their help for its own work.

In sum, claiming that the ACCG is a "dealer lobby" motivated by "commercial interests" is not only wrong, but it misses the point that there is absolutely nothing wrong with "commercial interests" pressing their own case.

Coins of Cyprus from the Collection of the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation

The Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation (BOCCF) has published its collection in an extremely well done book. It is available here: http://www.cyprusculture.com/default.aspx?ct=cat&cId=6

I have previously blogged about the collection and the hypocrisy of the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (CARRI) and the BOCCF in arguing for a clamp down on Americans collecting unprovenanced coins when the BOCCF collection is filled with coins with no published ownership history. See: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/08/cyprus-caari-and-boccf-there-is-as.html

The new book only underscores that point. The forward notes, "Beginning in the 1960's, the Bank of Cyprus has been purchasing ancient and medieval Cypriot coins from European auction houses" i.e., from the exact same sources many American collectors and dealers rely upon.

No provenance information for the coins is provided with the otherwise detailed descriptions of individual pieces in the collection. Moreover, as most of the coins have accession dates after 1970, one suspects that many likely have no provenance information stretching back to the "1970 cut-off" date demanded by archaeologists like David Gill.

Yet, I am not aware of Gill, or, for that matter, his echos, Elkins and Barford, the two other SAFE-associated bloggers that criticise American ancient coin collectors and dealers almost daily for purchasing unprovenanced coins, similarly criticising the BOCCF, or, for that matter, other private or public museums in source countries, like Greece, that purchase and display similar unprovenanced coins.

The BOCCF hopes that its book "will become the definitive source of information for scholars, for students and for all who wish to study the history of Cypriot coinage." I would add this book should also be of much value to American collectors and dealers, who only want to be able to continue to enjoy preserving and displaying historic Cypriot coinage, like the BOCCF and fellow collectors residing in Cyprus.

More "Publicity" About FOIA Lawsuit and Questions That Follow About 1970 Rule for Coins

David Gill and fellow SAFE bloggers Nathan Elkins and Paul Barford have made no less than six (6) posts in 24 (twenty-four) hours commenting in predictably unfavorable terms on various aspects of an update on this blog about the ACCG-IAPN-PNG FOIA lawsuit and its effort to force some transparency on the State Department bureaucracy. To varying degrees, the tenor of their comments suggest that "the distasteful nature of the dialogue" that has developed with respect to cultural property issues has as much to do with themselves as anyone else.

When they are not insulting the Plaintiffs or the former CPAC Chair who submitted a declaration in the litigation, they touch on various legal issues related to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") and the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act ("CPIA"). However, rather than relying on Gill and friends for legal analysis, I instead suggest reviewing Scott Hodes' "the FOIA Blog" (see: http://thefoiablog.typepad.com/) and the ECA's own "International Cultural Heritage Protection" website for information about the governing law. See: http://culturalheritage.state.gov/overview.html A short recap of the CPIA can also be found on this blog here: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/07/short-recap-of-cultural-property.html Certainly, Barford in particular is way off base when he claims that the only relevant criteria under the CPIA is whether or not coins are "archaeological objects." Additionally, he also shows little, if any, understanding about the practical effect of import restrictions on those trying to legally import large numbers of ancient coins.

In any event, at the end of his own musings on the subject, Gill wonders aloud, "Is it usual, tolerable, moral and legal (and not forgetting ethical) to acquire recently-surfaced archaeological objects (including coins) that have no recorded collecting history prior to 1970?" See: http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2009/04/collector-on-cpac-looking-back.html

My answer, at least with respect to coins is, of course, a resounding, Yes! See: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/08/cyprus-caari-and-boccf-there-is-as.html Indeed, I would appreciate Gill naming for me any and all well known numismatic scholars that unequivocally support his 1970 acquisition date rule for coins. I certainly am not aware of any, but admittedly, I don't run in Gill's circles.

Archaeological Activism and Professional and Pecuniary Interests

There needs to be far more public disclosure of the professional and pecuniary interests of archaeologists in supporting the agendas of cultural bureaucracies in countries like China, Egypt, Greece, Italy and Turkey.

One of the myths of the archaeological blogosphere is that archaeological activists are motivated by nothing more than the public good. This fits in well with their often highly moralistic denunciations of collectors, dealers and museum professionals, but it ignores any possible self-interest of those pursuing an anti-collecting agenda.

Here are some areas that deserve further inquiry:

1. Some of the most strident views come from archaeologists excavating in source countries seeking import restrictions and repatriation of artifacts. Archaeologists must secure excavation permits from the source countries in which they dig. Archaeologists should disclose the terms of those excavation permits and certify that there has been no quid pro quo for supporting source country demands for import restrictions or repatriations.

2. The squeaky wheel often gets the grease, i.e. federal largess. For example, archaeologists who have hyped the looting of the Iraq Museum and archaeological sites have been the recipients of federal grants or government jobs. Other strident advocacy groups have received funding from the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, the same State Department body charged with overseeing the imposition of import restrictions on cultural artifacts at the behest of foreign states. One wonders about any relationship between levels of funding and levels of strident advocacy.

3. Source countries like Cyprus have provided at least in kind support to archaeological groups that have pressed for import restrictions and repatriation of cultural artifacts. These groups or their members often work within the same source countries. A well known archaeological blogger who has tirelessly advocated for the repatriation of artifacts from Greece attended a repatriation conference put on by the Greek government. It is unclear whether he paid his own way or whether his attendance was funded in whole or part by the Greek government or a related entity. One wonders if these groups or individuals are in reality acting as agents of influence for foreign governments. Thomas Laird, speaking about China, has indicated that that the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party stressed that one of the main targets for its external propaganda were foreign experts as "propaganda created by foreigners is more powerful" than propaganda produced by Chinese. See: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/10/good-read-thomas-lairds-story-of-tibet.html. I suspect the same can be said for the efforts of source countries to enlist members of the archaeological community to plead the nationalistic case for import restrictions and repatriation under the guise of protecting archaeological context.

Personally, I don't doubt that many, if not all, archaeological activists have sincere views on the subject of historical preservation, but so too do collectors, dealers and museum professionals. Under the circumstances, before archaeological activists are allowed to claim that the views of collectors, dealers and museum professionals are being motivated by "greed," those activists should be required to provide full disclosure of their own professional and pecuniary interests in supporting demands for import restrictions and repatriation made by source countries.

Is Transparency a One-Way Street?

In a series of recent lectures, Lord Renfrew and the advocacy group SAFE have made a big show of demanding greater transparency from museums about their acquisition policies. The same group -- along with associated bloggers and organizations like the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (CARRI) --has also demanded greater transparency from the antiquities and coin trade. I'm not so sure that demands on private parties should be the same as those on public ones. In any case, what about more transparency within the archaeological community itself, particularly when it comes to the archaeological community's interactions with foreign governments as well as its stewardship over archaeological digs and the artifacts found within them?

Recommended Reading: Derek Fincham's Take on the Treasure Act and PAS

Derek Fincham, a teaching fellow at Loyola New Orleans Law School and a blogger on cultural property issues (see: http://illicit-cultural-property.blogspot.com/), has argued that the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) has been quite successful in the UK and Wales and should be considered elsewhere. Fincham's article is entitled, "A Coordinated Legal and Policy Approach to Undiscovered Antiquities: Adapting the Cultural Heritage Policy of England and Wales to Other Nations of Origin." It can be found in Volume 15, No. 3 2008 of the International Journal of Cultural Property at page347.

Here is the flavor of Fincham's work from his abstract: "The domestic legal framework for portable antiquities in England and Wales is unique and differs from the typical approach. Coupled with the PAS this legal structure has resulted in better cultural policy, which leads to less looting of important archaeological sites, allows for a tailored cultural policy, and has produced more data and contextual information with which to conduct historical and archaeological research on an unprecedented scale. Compensating finders of antiquities may even preclude an illicit market in antiquities so long as this compensation is substantially similar to the market price of the object and effectively excludes looters from this reward system."

It's nice to finally see an academic like Fincham getting beyond the largely punitive approach favored by "authorities" like the Archaeological Institute of America ("AIA"), Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute ("CAARI") and Saving Antiquities for Everyone ("SAFE").

For more about the Treasure Act and PAS see: http://www.accg.us/issues/news/bland/

Nicholas Burns Appointed to Kennedy School Post

Nicholas Burns, an apparent "author" of the controversial decision to impose import restrictions on coins of Cypriot type, has been appointed to the Harvard Kennedy School Faculty. See: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18491/former_us_diplomat_r_nicholas_burns_appointed_to_harvard_kennedy_school_faculty.htm

Hopefully, one of his students will ask more about the decision. Even better, perhaps someone will do a paper on whether or not the decision was made in conformity with the dictates of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act. For more, see: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/search?q=Burns and http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/search?q=CAARI and http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/07/short-recap-of-cultural-property.html

Cyprus, CAARI and BOCCF- "There Is, As Always, a Lot of Hypocrisy Around."

David Gill’s post of a story about looting in Cyprus brought an interesting response by an academic based in the North of the country, Marc Fehlmann. The link to what Fehlmann said is here:https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8972497915033440413&postID=8268004813108559630 (along with a lot of extraneous material reflecting Gill's apparent fixation on the ACCG and its officers). Perhaps Fehlmann, who is evidently based in the so-called "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus," feels more free to opine about these issues than his colleagues in the jingoistic Greek Cypriot Republic of Cyprus in the South.

In any event, Fehlmann believes that little archaeological material seems to be currently leaving Cyprus. Instead, he suggests that wealthy Greek Cypriot collectors are likely buying what becomes available for their own collections. Like Gill, Fehlmann considers a lack of provenance information to suggest that the material in these collections was looted recently. Focusing on this Cypriot dimension of the looting problem, Fehlmann concludes, "It would be helpful, if those who deplore the looting in Cyprus would also indicate its consequences to the privileged few who can afford to have their collections published... There is, as always, a lot of hypocrisy around."

I am not aware of anyone performing a similar study of coins in the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation (BOCCF) collection, but it would not surprise me if most of the coins in that collection did not have any solid provenance history either. (This is typical of coins in circulation in the marketplace. Unlike Gill and Fehlmann I reject the assumption that lack of provenance is indicative of recent looting, at least for this category of artifacts.) In any event, a quick perusal of the copyrighted BOCCF website does not reveal any provenance information recorded for coins in the collection other than the accession dates.

As you may suspect, I am not against collecting unprovenanced coins. In fact, I applaud the BOCCF's efforts to create a comprehensive collection of coins of Cypriot type for display. However, given the apparent lack of provenance information for the BOCCF collection, I find it odd that Eleni Zapiti, the Curator of the BOCCF coin collection, wrote to CPAC in support of a crack down on imports into the United States of unprovenanced "coins of Cypriot type."

I also find it hypocritical for the Government of the Greek Cypriot Republic of Cyprus to press for such restrictions on American collectors when I can find no indication that Cyprus requires a showing of provenance information for imports of ancient coins of any type into the country. (For example, as far as I know, BOCCF can buy coins "of Cypriot type" freely in the U.S. for "repatriation" back to Cyprus. In contrast, American citizens must now make an impractical, if not impossible, "provenance showing" before such coins are lawfully imported into the U.S.)

And what about CAARI? In my opinion, CAARI is the most hypocritical of all. According to CAARI's own President, CAARI was "instrumental" in the decision to extend import restrictions and their provenance requirements to coins of Cypriot type. See Cyprus News Agency, “CAARI-30 Years Interview with Gustave Feissel” available online at: http://www.cna.org.cy/website/english/subject1.shtm#GF (“CAARI, according to Feissel, has been instrumental in the renewal of a Memorandum of Understanding between Cyprus and the US to restrict the import of Cypriot antiquities into the US, including for the first time ancient coins.”). Yet, at the very same time CAARI was arguing for a clamp down on American collectors, CAARI was also only all too happy to accept at least in-kind support from BOCCF-- and all without questioning BOCCF's own collecting practices. See generally http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/05/cash-and-caari-cyprus-american.html

As Fehlmann has stated, "There is, as always, a lot of hypocrisy around."

CAARI VP Ellen Herscher Response to Post on Clay Constantinou

Ellen Herscher has made the following response to my post entitled, "Clay Constantinou of Patton Boggs-- CAARI's Chief Lobbyist?" (see: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/) on the Museum Security Listserve:

From: Ellen Herscher It is unfortunate that Mr. Tompa does not get his facts straight before spinning his conspiracy theories: Ambassador Constantinou very recently became affiliated with Patton Boggs and had no connection with them more than a year ago when the Cyprus MOU was under consideration by the State Department. For the record, CAARI is a 501(c)3 organization: it does not lobby nor does it employ lobbyists.

While I appreciate Ms. Herscher's clarification of one point in my post that I had indicated I could not confirm on the Patton Boggs website, her own post does raise some additional questions.

The first relates to her statement that Patton Boggs had "no connection" to Ambassador Constantinou. Typically, associations with large law firms do not happen overnight. It can literally take six months to a year for someone to join a large firm. Thus, even if Ambassador Constantinou had not yet joined Patton Boggs in July 2007, he may have been in the process of doing so. And let's face it. Having someone with Constantinou's Cypriot connections on board could not but help with "client relations" with Cyprus for not only Patton Boggs, but for CAARI as well. See: http://www.pattonboggs.com/cconstantinou/ (listing awards received from Cyprus).

Perhaps, Ms. Herscher can check with Ambassador Constantinou about his start date and provide us with further information whether he was in the process of negotiating with Patton Boggs at the time the Cyprus MOU was being finalized. But the far more relevant question that remains is whether Ambassador Constantinou or anyone else from Patton Boggs helped convince the State Department to overturn prior precedent and insert coins into the Cyprus MOU. That, of course, is not answered in Ms. Herscher's post.

Ms. Herscher's statement that "CAARI is a 501 (c) (3) organization: it does not lobby nor does it employ lobbyists" also only raises additional questions.

Most significantly, how does Ms. Herscher define the term "lobbying?" Does she only define it in a technical fashion as a contact that triggers a reporting requirement under a statute or more broadly, in the common sense of the term as "any attempt to influence legislators or officials?" See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying

However one defines the term, CAARI representatives do appear to have done more than just show up at the CPAC meeting on Cyprus. Indeed, the words of CAARI's own president suggest a far deeper involvement in the decision to extend import restrictions to "coins of Cypriot type" than Ms. Herscher implies. See Cyprus News Agency, “CAARI-30 Years Interview with Gustave Feissel” available online at: http://www.cna.org.cy/website/english/subject1.shtm#GF (“CAARI, according to Feissel, has been instrumental in the renewal of a Memorandum of Understanding between Cyprus and the US to restrict the import of Cypriot antiquities into the US, including for the first time ancient coins.”). At a bare minimum, a CAARI newsletter indicates that Ms. Herscher herself facilitated a meeting between the Greek Cypriot Director of Antiquities and officials of the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center to discuss "cultural property issues." See: J. Green, "Cyprus Director of Antiquities, Dr. Pavolos Flourtzos, Visits the U.S.," 31 CAARI News 3 (Winter 2006) (available online at: http://www.caari.org/newsletters/CAARI-News-31.pdf) Facilitating such a meeting constitutes "lobbying" in my book, even if it is not in Ms. Herscher's.

ACCG Benefit Auction a Success

The ACCG Benefit Auction netted $45,811 in active bidding against a pre-auction estimate of $44,775. For more read, http://www.accg.us/issues/news/breaking-news

The ACCG is entirely supported by generous contributions of collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade. Unlike archaeological groups such as CAARI, ACCG receives no government funds and its work is done largely by volunteers rather than academics seconded from other institutions. Nevertheless, some of ACCG's work needs to be farmed out to professionals and this costs money. The funds ACCG has raised in this auction will be used to help preserve the public's longstanding interest in the study and appreciation of ancient coins.

Clay Constantinou of Patton Boggs-- CAARI's Chief Lobbyist?

As set forth in a recent post, Clay Constantinou, a former ambassador, represented the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (CAARI) at the July 19, 2007 Cyprus MOU signing ceremony during two days of lobbying for Cyprus on Capitol Hill and in the State Department itself. See:http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/08/pseka-international-coordinating.html

It turns out that Constantinou is not only a CAARI trustee, but is also associated with one of the nation's premier lobbying firms, Patton Boggs. See http://www.caari.org/Trustees.htm and http://www.pattonboggs.com/cconstantinou/

Interestingly, only a few weeks after the MOU signing ceremony the National Journal on 8/4/07 reported that the Republic of Cyprus had "dangled" a lobbying contract worth $1.4 million a year to lobbying heavyweights like Patton Boggs, Qorvis Communications, Clark and Weinstock, and the Washington Group. The report noted that "Cyprus, which was invaded by Turkey in 1974 and has poor relations with its neighbor since then, is hoping to strengthen its influence in Washington, partly to counter Turkey's long-standing clout in the capital."

A review of lobbying registration databases provides no indication that either CAARI or Contantinou have registered as lobbyists. However, the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) database indicates that Patton Boggs registered for Cyprus on 9/25/07: See http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fara/links/search.html

As detailed in the FARA filing, Patton Boggs undertakes to provide "advice and counsel to the Government of the Republic of Cyprus regarding relations with the US Government and the Excutive Branch."

Patton Boggs retains Qoris Communications LLC and SMS Strategies LLC to assist in the lobbying venture.

Former Ambassador Constantinou is not listed as a “core member" of the group lobbying on behalf of Cyprus (though "heavy hitters" like the Hon. John Breaux and Tommy Boggs are), but I suppose Constantinou could still have some involvement on the account and that would certainly make sense given the connections with Cyprus mentioned in his Patton Boggs biography.

Here is the kicker. The Republic of Cyprus agrees to pay Patton Boggs $103,625 as a fixed monthly retainer for the period from 9/1/07 to 8/31/08. Travelling expenses are additional.

The foreign signatory for the agreement and the party to whom Patton Boggs reports is named as Ambassador Kakouris of Cyprus (also prominent during the Cyprus MOU signing ceremony as well as the CPAC hearing on Cyprus).

All this of course just raises additional questions. In particular, assuming Ambassador Constantinou was affilated with Patton Boggs at the time (something I could not confirm, but seems likely) did he and/or his partners at Patton Boggs work their magic in getting coins included in the MOU not only for the greater glory of CAARI, but also as a "freebie" to help impress Cyprus about Patton Boggs' lobbying acumen? Or, is this just all another coincidence?

One thing is for sure. High powered lobbying all to beat up on the small businesses of the numismatic trade and collectors who just want to help preserve, study and display coins of Cypriot type (like their fellow collectors in Cyprus itself) does little to advance Cyprus' greater interests in ensuring a just reunification of the Island. If anything, it just "turns off" a segment of the US population with a real interest in Cyprus and its glorious past to anything at all to do with the modern nation state and its government.