U.S. Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting About Proposed Cultural Property MOU Renewals with Ecuador and Jordan and a New MOU with Ukraine

 On June 4, 2024, the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (“CPAC”) met in a virtual public session to hear public comments regarding proposed renewals of Memorandums of Understanding (“MOUs”) with Ecuador and Jordan and a new proposed MOU with Ukraine.  An update on the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs’ (“ECA’s”) website made shortly before the hearing provided further information about the scope of the requests.  See Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting, June 4-6, 2024, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Media Center (April 30, 2024), available at https://eca.state.gov/highlight/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-june-4-6-2024

(last visited June 5, 2024).   That document indicated that neither Ecuador nor Jordan sought restrictions on additional categories of materials.  Ukraine, however, sought restrictions on a wide variety of archaeological and ethnological objects as follows: 

 Ukraine

Protection is sought for archaeological material from the Paleolithic Period (approximately 1.4 million years ago) to 1774 CE, including metal (sculpture, jewelry, weapons, coins, vessels, and horse fittings and trappings); ceramic (sculpture, vessels, and seals); stone (sculpture, monuments, vessels, tools, and jewelry); bone, ivory, wood, horn, and other organic material; glass and faience; paintings and mosaics.  Ethnological materials for which protection is sought span from the Roman Period (3rd century CE) to 1917 CE and include religious, ritual, and ecclesiastical objects; rare books, manuscripts, and other written documents; architectural elements; objects related to funerary rites and burials, both ritual and secular; paintings; military material; and traditional folk clothing and textiles.  

 Id.   

 The CPAC members did not introduce themselves before the public section, but CPAC currently includes the following members: (1) Alexandra Jones (Chair, Represents/Expertise Archaeology, Anthropology, related fields, CEO Archaeology in the Community, Washington, DC); (2) Alex Barker (Represents/Expertise Archaeology, Anthropology, related fields) Director, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Arkansas); (3) Mirriam Stark, Represents/Expertise Archaeology, Anthropology, related fields, Professor of Anthropology, University of Hawaii); (4) Nii Otokunor Quarcoopome (Represents/Expertise Museums, Curator and Department head, Detroit Museum of Art); ( (5) Andrew Conners (Represents/Expertise Museums, Director, Albuquerque Museum, New Mexico); (6) Michael Findlay (Represents/Expertise: International Sale of Cultural Property, Director, Acquavella Galleries, New York); (7) Amy Cappellazzo, Represents/Expertise: International Sale of Cultural Property, Principal, Art Intelligence Global; (8) Cynthia Herbert (Represents/Expertise: International Sale of Cultural Property President, Appretium Appraisal Services LLC, Connecticut); (9) Thomas R. Lamont (Represents Public, President of Lamont Consulting Services, LLC, Illinois);  (10) Susan Schoenfeld Harrington  (Represents Public, Past Deputy Finance Chair, Democratic National Committee, Past Board member, China Art Foundation); and, (11) William Teitelman (Represents General Public, Legislative Counsel to the PA Trial Lawyers Association, Attorney (Retired)).

 The meeting was conducted entirely on Zoom.  At least the following members were present:  Jones; Teitelman; Quarcoopome; and Stark.  CPAC’s executive director, Allison Davis, was also present.

 The Chair, Alexandra Jones, welcomed the speakers.  She indicated that speakers would be given four minutes each given the number of oral comments. 

Dr. Chris Jasparro, Associate Professor in the National Security Affairs Department and Director of the Africa Regional Studies Group at the Naval War College, spoke first.  He indicated that a MOU with Ukraine would be an important tool to fight organized crime and Russian aggression.  Jasparro maintained that Russian forces destroyed archaeological sites, but also looted small items which would then enter international markets.  He also indicated that a MOU could act as a token of American support for Ukraine.  He further maintained that “stolen antiquities” were used to test smuggling routes for other, more dangerous items.  The factual basis for this contention is unclear. 

Dr. Patricial Juninska of Artyfact, an archaeological management company, spoke next.  She indicated that 341 Kurgans or burial mounds have been damaged during the war.  She believed that a MOU will demonstrate our support for Ukraine and its efforts at preservation during a difficult time.

Dr. Sam Hardy of the Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research (NIKU) spoke next.  He indicated that Ukraine has struggled for years against looters.  Russian looting and destruction of cultural heritage is being investigated as a war crime.  Looting incentivizes corruption.  Hardy has found social media indicating that Russian mercenaries have been trading in antiquities. One of these individuals was pictured with Russian President Putin and former Russian Defense Minister Shoigu.

 Adam Rabinowitz, an Associate Professor at University of Texas at Austin, spoke next.  Rabinowitz is familiar with Ukraine through his prior work at Chersonesus.  Rabinowitz believes that much of the looting caused by the war is of small metal objects.  He noted that metal detectors are widely available in Ukraine and that artifacts like coins will be found by farmers during demining operations.  He believed that farmers and others will be tempted to sell such material on eBay, and this material should be kept off the market.  He maintained Ukrainian officials are doing the best they can under the circumstances and have thus have met the Cultural Property Implementation Act’s (“CPIA’s”) self-help requirements.

His written testimony may be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0049 (last visited June 5, 2024).

 Randolph Myers next spoke on behalf of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (“ACCG”).   Myers chastised the State Department for failing to meet the notice requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.  He indicated that circulation of coinage is complex, and one cannot assume many coin types are found in Ukraine given their much wider circulation patterns.  He also indicated that the United Kingdom’s Portable Antiquities Scheme provides an excellent example of a “less drastic measure” that should be adopted before import restrictions are imposed. 

 The ACCG’s and the American Numismatic Association’s testimony on Ukraine can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0010 (last visited June 5, 2024).

 Their testimony on Jordan can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0011 (last visited June 5, 2024).

 Peter Tompa next spoke as the Executive Director of the International Association of Professional Numismatists (“IAPN”).   He raised four points.  First,  political geography explains why one cannot assume that coins found in Ecuador, Jordan or Ukraine, are only found there.  Each of these countries were small parts of larger political entities for much of their histories, meaning that coins that circulated within their current boundaries also circulated in quantity elsewhere.  Second, CPAC must consider the realities on the ground, in particular the existence of large open markets in both Jordan and Ukraine.  Given these markets, assisting Jordan and Ukraine to create workable web-based systems of providing export certificates for common items like coins should be contemplated.  Another reality is the use of metal detectors.  The best way to deal with metal detectors is to help Jordan and Ukraine create a working Portable Antiquities Scheme.  Congressional appropriators have highlighted the importance of the CPIA’s reporting requirements, particularly the mandate that “less drastic measures” have to be considered before import restrictions are imposed.  The creation of a workable system of export permits, a portable antiquities scheme and more focused enforcement are just such “less drastic measures” that Congress contemplated. 

 Peter Tompa’s oral comments can be found here:

https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2024/06/cpac-meeting-to-discuss-renewals-of.html (last visited June 6, 2024).

 His personal comments can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0039 (last visited June 6, 2024).

 IAPN’s comments on the proposed renewal of the MOU with Ecuador can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0003  (Last visited June 6, 2024).

 IAPN’s comments on the proposed renewal of the MOU with Jordan can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0004  (last visited June 6, 2024)

 IAPN’s comments on the proposed MOU with Ukraine can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0012 (last visited June 6, 2024).

 Elias Gerasoulis next spoke on behalf of the Global Heritage Alliance (“GHA”) as its executive director.  GHA submitted joint testimony with its sister organization, the Committee for Cultural Policy (“CCP”).  Gerasoulis focused his comments on Jordan.  He also indicated that Kate FitzGibbon, his colleague from the CCP was unavailable, so he would also be available to answer any questions about Ecuador and Ukraine.  He noted that the State Department previously approved its MOU with Jordan based on historic looting that took place in the 19^th and 20^th centuries.  He also called out Jordan for allowing sales of coins at the Petra archaeological site and at a bourse in Amman.   He argued that such internal sales of coins to locals and tourists was inconsistent with any effort to embargo their entry into the United States.  He mentioned that the coin bourse in Amman was opened by a Jordanian princess, which suggested that it was an event sanctioned by the Jordanian government. 

 One CPAC member asked Gerasoulis about the lack of evidence being provided regarding current looting in Jordan.  Gerasoulis indicates he would welcome such evidence, but none had been provided publicly by either the State Department or Jordan for purposes of justifying this renewal. 

 GHA’s and CCP’s comments regarding the renewal of the MOU with Ecuador can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0045 (last visited June 6, 2024).

 Their comments regarding the renewal of the MOU with Jordan can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0036 (last visited June 6, 2024).

 Their comments regarding the proposed MOU with Ukraine could be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0053 (last visited June 6, 2024).

 Katie Paul spoke as the founder and co-director of the Antiquities Trafficking and Heritage Anthropology Research (ATHAR) Project.  Paul discussed her advocacy group’s use of screen shots taken from eBay and other social media platforms as evidence of significant looting that must be addressed.  She maintained there was no legal market for archaeological objects in Jordan.  Despite evidence submitted by IAPN, GHA, and CCP to the contrary, she maintained that there was no legal market for coins in Jordan.  She noted that Jordan does have a numismatic museum instead.  Paul stated that Ukrainian metal detectorists sell directly to American buyers.  She indicated that a hoard of 2,500 coins from the Black Sea coast was recovered by the authorities.  She further indicated that Ukraine needs US assistance to stem widespread looting.

 ATHAR’s comments regarding the proposed renewal of the MOU with Jordan are here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0050 (last visited June 6, 2024).

 ATHAR’s comments regarding the proposed MOU with Ukraine can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0052 (last visited June 6, 2024).

 Morag Kersel is an Associate Professor of Anthropology at DePaul University in Chicago.  She spoke from Jordan where she is working.  Professor Kersel discussed her “Follow the Pots” project which tracked looted biblical era pots on the market.  Biblical era materials are in demand in the United States.  She also discussed the cooperation of the Jordanian government with American archaeologists and museums.  She believed that the MOU should be renewed.

 Professor Kersel’s comments can be found here:

 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0041 (last visited June 6, 2024).

 James Zeidler is an Emeritus Research Professor at Colorado State University.  Zeidler has excavated in Ecuador for the past 50 years.  He indicated that looting has declined in Ecuador since the 1980’s due to increased enforcement and better community engagement.  Though looting has declined, he maintained that the current MOU still should be renewed to help protect Ecuadorian cultural heritage. 

 Professor Zeidler’s comments can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0015-0044 (last visited June 6, 2024).

Sarah Rowe is an Associate Professor Department of Anthropology at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley.  Professor Rowe commended Ecuador for its efforts at community engagement including the training of local and foreign archaeologists.  She also praised the creation of the first code of archaeological ethics for Latin America in Ecuador as well as programs with local communities aimed at discouraging looting. 

 Dr. Ömür Harmanşah spoke as the Vice President for Cultural Heritage, Archaeological Institute of America (“AIA”).  Harmanşah indicated that the AIA strongly supported a MOU with Ukraine to help address Russian looting of archaeological objects.  He noted that Ukraine sent museum displays to the U.S. in the 2,000s.  He believed the MOU could also address illicit digs in the occupied Crimean Peninsula.

 The AIA’s comments on the renewals for Ecuador and Jordan and the new MOU for Ukraine are not available in the record posted in regulations.gov, but they are posted here: 

https://www.archaeological.org/aia-submits-letters-to-u-s-cultural-property-advisory-committee/ (last visited June 6, 2024).

 Tess Davis spoke as the Executive Director for the Antiquities Coalition, an archaeological advocacy group.  Ms. Davis indicated that she also serves on the faculty at Johns Hopkins University and is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations.  Ms. Davis discussed her work in Cambodia exposing the Latchford criminal network.  She maintained that import restrictions are “consumer protection measures” that help keep “stolen” artifacts off the market.  She also indicated that the Antiquities Coalition works closely with both the State Department, G-13 countries and individual source countries to facilitate cultural property MOUs and other restrictions on the trade meant to deter illicit trade.  She maintained that CPIA import restrictions can be complied with “simply”  with the required documentation. 

 Jeremy Sabaloff is an American anthropologist and past president of the Santa Fe Institute.  Sabaloff previously served as CPAC’s Chair during the Obama Administration.  Sabaloff did not speak directly about any of the MOUs.  Instead, he praised the work of CPAC and the importance of MOUs to our foreign relations and fostering “legitimate” trade. 

 Chair Alexandra Jones closed the CPAC public session about 10 minutes before the one hour allotted for the meeting expired.  Despite the additional time that was available, there were no additional questions from CPAC members. 

CPAC Meeting to Discuss Renewals of MOUs with Ecuador and Jordan and new request from Ukraine: 4 Points for 4 Minutes

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

Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of IAPN and the micro businesses of the numismatic trade.   I would like to make these 4 points in my 4 minutes allotted.

1.     For most of their histories, Ecuador, Jordan, and Ukraine were parts of larger political entities.  IAPN uploaded historical maps of Ukraine into the record to drive home that point.  Political geography helps explain why coins that circulated within what is today each country also circulated regionally or even internationally.   One simply cannot assume that coins found in each of these countries are only found there, a key requirement of the CPIA.  CPAC must avoid blessing overbroad designated lists that do not comply with CPIA requirements.  Fact based decision-making must prevail.

 

2.     CPAC  must consider the realities on the ground. There are open markets for coins within both Jordan and Ukraine.  In Jordan, this market exists both at the Petra archaeological site and in Amman, the nation’s capital.  In Ukraine, there is a sophisticated auction website selling coins.  Given these realities, assisting Jordan and Ukraine to create a workable web-based system of providing export certificates for common items like coins as contemplated both by the CPIA and UNESCO Convention is essential.

 

3.     Another reality on the ground is the use of metal detectors.  In Ukraine, such metal detectors are openly available for sale.  The best way to deal with metal detectors is to help Jordan and Ukraine create a working Portable Antiquities Scheme that will encourage finders to report their finds. 

 

4.      Congressional appropriators have highlighted the importance of the CPIA’s reporting requirements, particularly the Congressional mandate that “less drastic measures” have been considered before import restrictions are imposed.   The creation of workable system of export certificates and a portable antiquities scheme as well enforcing restrictions solely prospectively and not as embargoes are just such “less drastic measures” as Congress contemplated.   IAPN urges CPAC and the State Department to heed these requirements.  Congress as well as collectors are looking over your shoulders. 

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

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

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

Ecuadorian MOU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China MOU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any MOU with Ecuador May only Authorize Import Restrictions on Archaeological and Ethnological objects.

Here is my statement at yesterday's CPAC meeting regarding Ecuador's request.  More later:

Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of 4 different organizations, the Committee for Cultural Policy, a non-profit educational organization, Global Heritage Alliance, an advocacy group, and two numismatic trade associations, the International Association of Professional Numismatists and the Professional Numismatists Guild.   I would direct your attention to their two separate papers, one by CCP and its sister organization GHA, and one by IAPN and PNG.  In the interests of time, I am speaking on behalf of all these organizations here, but each have distinct personalities and interests.

            What they share is concern about this proposed MOU, particularly the lack of sufficient public notice and the apparent breadth of the request, which includes cultural goods that are neither archaeological nor ethnological in character.   According to the public summary, Ecuadorian law only applies to objects 100 years old, but the request includes objects only 50 years old.   So, there even appears to be a serious disconnect within the Ecuadorian request itself.

            More to the point, however, CPAC—which has an obligation to follow the Cultural Property Implementation Act—should be hard pressed to recommend any restrictions on items that are neither archaeological nor ethnological in character such as “Colonial and republican period coins; medallions more than 50 years old …manuscripts more than 50 years old; and certain works by modern artists.” 

            This should be clear from the CPIA itself which defines archaeological objects as being over 250 years old and normally discovered as the result of digging and which defines ethnological objects as the products of tribal or non-industrial societies.  The Legislative history, also quoted in our papers, makes clear that Congress understood the term “ethnological” to encompass only what is considered “primitive” or “Tribal art” and not any object that is repetitive in nature.

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

            Before recommending a MOU, CPAC must also consider what self-help measures Ecuador has undertaken, including the funding Ecuador has devoted to cultural heritage protection.  Congress has recently included reporting language as part of its funding of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs that underscores this requirement.   Although it is unclear what Ecuador spends on protecting its cultural patrimony, according to Ernesto Salazar, an academic who has written on the subject, the situation in Ecuador is far from perfect.   

            In sum, we request CPAC take steps to ensure that any designated list excludes coins and any other objects that do not meet the definition of archaeological or ethnological objects found in the CPIA.  We also ask CPAC to gauge Ecuador’s self-help measures, including efforts to ensure archaeological site workers get a fair living wage for work done on behalf of foreign archaeological missions.

            Thank you.   

Ecuador's Request for Import Restrictions; Time to Put the Brakes on More Culture Creep!

Ecuador's Socialist-leaning government of President Lenin Moreno has asked the United States to impose import restrictions not only on the usual list of pre-Colombian, Colonial and Republican era archaeological and ethnological objects, but also on "Colonial and republican period coins; medallions more than 50 years old...manuscripts more than 50 years old; and certain works by modern artists.”  Public summary at 1.  See https://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/ecuadorrequest2018_publicsummary_04.05.2018.pdf  (last visited April 9, 2018.)  Imposing import restrictions on these categories of cultural artifacts would be yet another example of "culture creep" that has steadily expanded the list of what types of collectibles are effectively embargoed from entry into the United States. 

Of course, none of these objects neatly fit within the definitions of "archaeological" or "ethnological"objects that forms the threshold for them to be subject to import restrictions under the Cultural Property Implementation Act.  However, the Cultural Property Advisory Committee and State Department Cultural Heritage Center, which these days are both dominated by the anti-private collecting views of the Archaeological Institute of America and other archaeological advocacy groups, have pushed the envelope before and may do so again here.

If so, collecting old coins, medallions, manuscripts and modern art from Latin America may very well be at risk.

If you are interested in these collecting areas, please comment.  You still have until April 15th to post your views here.   While we can't be sure your comments will really matter, we should all be concerned that government decision makers will consider silence as acquiescence.

Comments are to touch on the following four determinations:  (1) that the cultural patrimony of Ecuador is in jeopardy; (2) that the requesting nation has taken measures to protect its cultural patrimony; (3) that U.S. import restrictions, either alone or in concert with actions taken by other nations, would be of substantial benefit in deterring a serious situation of pillage; and (4) import restrictions would promote the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural and educational purposes.

For Ecuadorian coins, manuscripts and modern art, determinations 3-4 come into play.  Why should the U.S. Government place restrictions on American collectors given internal markets for these items within Ecuador itself and the fact that other countries have not imposed similar restrictions on the ability of their own citizens to trade in such objects?  Under the circumstances, restrictions will only hurt the ability of Americans to learn about Ecuadorian culture.

The key issue, however, remains  that such coins, medallions, manuscripts and modern art the Ecuadorian government seeks to restrict do not easily fall within the statutory definitions for archaeological or ethnological objects.  Moreover, Ecuadorian coins, like their Spanish and Spanish Colonial counterparts, circulated world wide, first as items of trade and then as collectibles.  Indeed, such coins were legal tender in the United States until 1857.

South American Sisto Case?

The Sun Sentinel reports that the FBI has repatriated Pre-Columbian artifacts found in the home of a deceased Florida businessman to Peru and Ecuador. See http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/florida/fl-fbi-precolumbian-artifacts-20091201,0,3969102.story

A retirement home manager found the collection in the man's home when she was preparing the property for resale. She called in the FBI "after searching the Internet" and determining that the objects "were illegal to possess."

The businessman apparently had no heirs (or perhaps no one looked very hard to find them) so there was no one with an interest in asking if the retirement home manager was "jumping to a conclusion."

The FBI and Florida International University apparently were not interested in anything other than identifying which cultures produced the objects so they could be repatriated to the governments of the modern nation states that occupy the land that produced them.

This incident reminds me of the recent Sisto case and some of the the issues that raised. For more, see http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/search?q=Sisto

I also am also highly dubious of the claim of the FBI agent in the video that suggests that these artifacts will be put on display in Peru and Ecuador. Both countries have large stashes of similar artifacts in storage. The public typically never sees such artifacts, and, indeed, they may be subject to deterioration or theft.