On July 22, 2020, the US Cultural Property Advisory
Committee (“CPAC”) met to consider proposed renewals of MOU’s with Colombia and
Italy. The following CPAC members were present via videoconferencing: (1) Stefan
Passantino (Chairman- Public); (2) Adele Chatfield-Taylor (Public); (3) Karol
Wight (Museums); (4) James Reep (Public); (5) Ricardo A. St. Hilaire
(Archaeology); (6) Lothar Von Falkenhausen (Archaeology); and (7) Anthony
Wisniewski (Collector-Sale of International Cultural Property). Allison Davis, CPAC’s State Department
Executive Director, was also
present.
Chairman Passantino welcomed the
speakers. He indicated that the Committee had read all the comments,
and that speakers would be allowed 5 minutes to focus on points most important
to them. After all the speakers were
finished, he would open up the floor to questions. Those who wanted to speak
about the proposed Colombian MOU went first.
The order of speakers was as follows:
(1) Sarah Newman (University of
Chicago); (2) Robert Drennan (Society of American Archaeology); (3) Kate FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural
Policy); and (4) Brian Daniels (Archaeological Institute of America). Next, the Committee heard the following
speakers on the Italian renewal: (1)
Kate FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural Policy); (2) Arturo Russo
(International Association of Professional Numismatists); (3) Doug Mudd
(American Numismatic Association); (4) Josh Knerly (Association of Art Museum
Directors) (5) Peter Tompa (Global Heritage Alliance); (6) Elizabeth Greene
(Archaeological Institute of America); and (7) Randolph Myers (Ancient Coin
Collectors Guild).
Sarah
Newman (University of Chicago) spoke about her
experiences as a Fulbright Scholar.
Although Covid 19 cut her work short, she enjoyed her experience with
Columbian colleagues studying museum collections. She found them very helpful
in making their collections accessible to her for her study.
Robert
Drennan (Society of American Archaeology) indicated that the
MOU has benefitted the protection of Colombian cultural patrimony because even
people in rural areas know that it is illegal to loot artifacts. There have
been efforts to perform rescue archaeology before construction projects. One example showing that legislation protecting
archaeological remains actually carries substantial weight on the ground, is
the case of Nueva Esperanza. Archaeological remains were reported in the process
of planning for the construction of a major electricity substation just south
of Bogotá. These remains turned out to be those of a large nucleated
pre-Hispanic Muisca settlement. Against strong political and economic
opposition, construction was delayed and an extensive multimillion dollar
excavation project was funded under the terms of regulations to protect
cultural heritage.
There have also been more academic interest. Recently founded Masters' and Doctoral
programs in anthropology, archaeology, and cultural heritage at the Universidad
Nacional de Colombia, at the Universidad de los Andes, at the Universidad
Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia, and at the Universidad Externado have
grown and become more solidly established during the past five years.
Campaigns to increase awareness that pre-Columbian
Native American artwork is not simply a potential economic resource have had an
impact, as have enforcement efforts, but more remains to be done. Sadly, the US
continues to be a major market for looted Colombian cultural materials.
The existing Memorandum has been successful. The
Memorandum, however, is still very much needed. There is every reason to
believe that a renewal would help to maintain the momentum and lead to
continued progress in the future.
Kate
FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural Policy) provides some
brief thoughts about the proposed renewal with the MOU with Colombia. Ms. FitzGibbon indicates that Colombia is
obliged to engage in self-help measures, but it is unclear, what, if any,
self-help measures have been undertaken.
Ms. FitzGibbon urges the Committee to ensure such self-help measures
have been undertaken before a MOU with Colombia is renewed. She also questions whether all the material
described as “ethnological” on the current designated list meets the definition
of such material under the Cultural Property Implementation Act (“CPIA”).
Brian
Daniels (Archaeological Institute of America) indicates
that Colombia has met all four determinations for a renewal of its MOU. First, he acknowledges Dr. Drennan’s
testimony about the collaboration between US and Colombian archaeologists. He indicated this relates to the fourth
determination under the CPIA, relating to whether import restrictions are
“consistent with the general interest of the international community in the
interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and
educational purposes.”
Dr. Daniels then discusses the first determination
which requires a showing the cultural patrimony of Colombia is in jeopardy from
the pillage of archaeological materials. Ongoing looting in Colombia is
outlined in the statement by Dr. Drennan and the SAA. He discusses recent
seizures of looted cultural material in Colombia.
He also discusses the designated list and states that previous Committees had already made a determination what was considered
ethnological material.
The Committee then turned to testimony regarding the
Italian MOU renewal.
Kate
FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural Policy) recounts how both
she and Patty Gerstenblith, who represented the interests of the archaeological
community, were appointed at the same time, but Prof. Gerstenblith’ s
application was rushed through so she could participate and vote on the initial
Italian request. Ms. FitzGibbon, who
represented the trade, was not allowed to do so. Had Ms. FitzGibbon been allowed to participate,
she would have voted “no” on the request because Italy had not done enough to
protect its cultural patrimony.
Since that time, Italy’s Carabinieri have done an
excellent job stopping looting, but Italy has not complied with the MOU in
other ways. First, Italy has failed to
allow the export of items freely available for sale within Italy itself. Second, Italy has not made it easier for
museums to secure loans. Finally, Italy has not released decades old Polaroid
photographs of looted items in the Medici archive. Instead, Italian authorities have shared them
with a researcher who used them to play “gotcha” with auction houses.
Arturo
Russo (International Association of Professional Numismatists)
speaks for the premier professional trade association for coin dealers. He starts his statement with a Latin maxim, “pacta sunt servanda” which roughly translates
as “bargains are to be observed.”
He notes that after the initial MOU with Italy in
2001, Italy did as promised make it easier to export Italian cultural goods,
including coins. However, since import
restrictions were first imposed on coins in 2011, it has become increasingly
difficult to obtain export permits, and today it is almost impossible to get
such permits for even low value and common ancient coins.
Last year, Italian authorities published regulations
that state that you cannot even apply for an export license unless you can
prove that an archeological object is outside of the ground before 1909, the
date of Italy’s first cultural patrimony law. Italy has over twenty different export offices
and luckily some of them don’t enforce this regulation, as quite rightly, they do
not consider coins in trade to be archeological items. On the other hand, other
offices, like that in Milan, apply this regulation in a very stringent manner,
and require proof of provenance before 1909.
This makes it impossible to export ancient coins, because only few coins
have a provenance stretching back that far. Just to be clear, ancient coins are freely bought and
sold inside Italy, but they become “illegal” and important to Italian cultural
patrimony only when one applies to take them outside of Italy, which is unacceptable.
The situation is so egregious that there have been
cases where coins that were legally purchased by Italian collectors in US
auctions prior to 1980 where not only denied an export license, but were confiscated
simply on the basis of lack of provenance prior to 1909. It is worth noting that
coins have been collected since the Renaissance. There are studies from prominent
Italian scholars, which Mr. Russo would be happy to share, which demonstrate
that coins in the market should not be treated as archaeological objects
because an immense number of coins were found before 1909. Nevertheless, most
of the coins do not have a documented provenance because until the recently auctions were limited to coins from highly
important collections. Mr. Russo notes that in 1994 the two most prominent
numismatists in Italy, Silvana Balbi De Caro and Francesco Panvini Rosati,
stated that only coins documented to be from an archaeological find are of archaeological interest.
In 2012, Mr. Russo’s firm, Numismatica Ars Classica, represented
a group of investors that purchased and dispersed the Archer Huntington
collection of coins. This large collection was assembled between the end
of 19th century and 1930. The collection was property of the Hispanic Society
of America and on loan to the American Numismatic Society. The vast majority of
the Ancient coins in the collection did not have a documented provenance prior
to 1909 and theoretically if purchased by an Italian collector, would be
subject to detention and seizure if they were subsequently exported from Italy.
This behavior is clearly unacceptable. So, Mr. Russo asks that CPAC freeze the
renewal of import restrictions on coins until Italy complies with its
obligation to facilitate the issuance of export licenses. The current situation
clearly disadvantages American collectors and institutions as coins legally
owned in the States can be freely sold to Italian buyers while the same coins
cannot leave Italy and be freely sold to American collectors.
What makes the whole situation even more inconceivable
is the fact that Italy has probably one of the largest if not the largest
numismatic patrimony in the world. There are over 200 institutions that have
coins and the largest museums like Naples, Rome and Turin have collections
which contain over a million specimens each. Unfortunately, most of these
collections are not published nor accessible through the internet with the
result that they are almost completely inaccessible to the public.
Mr. Russo indicates that the Italian Carabinieri do an
excellent job fighting looters and he knows as a matter of fact that they do
not share the belief that everything without a provenance prior to 1909 has to
be considered illegal. They are fully aware that a legal and healthy market
exists and must be preserved. IAPN is not against a stronger cooperation
between Italian authorities and US to fight illegally excavated coins coming
onto the US market, but blanket restrictions are unfair to the trade.
In concluding, Mr. Russo also indicates that any
effort to extend restrictions to Roman Republican and Imperial coins is simply
ridiculous as it uncontested that the vast majority of these coins are found
outside the boundaries of Italy. In
closing, he reiterates that current restrictions should be frozen until Italy
makes it easier to procure export licenses.
Peter Tompa (Global Heritage Alliance) states
that current events, including mobs tearing down historic statues and Erdogan’s
conversion of Hagia Sophia from a museum to a mosque, as well as the reaction
of archaeological advocacy groups and some of their prominent members, raise
the fair question whether lobbying on behalf of foreign governments directed at
suppressing market demand is really about conservation, or about exercises of
power and control.
Tompa then states that it is time for this Committee
to consider a new paradigm, one which focuses not on suppressing all trade of
every conceivable artifact with embargoes, but which instead facilitates lawful
trade in objects, especially those legally available for sale within the
country seeking restrictions.
He indicates that there is no better place to start
than this renewal. Legal trade in
cultural goods of Italian types has already been embargoed for 20 years. During this period, Italy’s Carabinieri have
mounted a successful campaign against looters.
However, largely due to the sheer number of historic sites, lack of
funding and corruption, the Italian State has failed to preserve all the
cultural heritage already in its care. As
set forth in the IAPN’s study, this is particularly true for small, commonplace
items like coins.
What does GHA request?
First, GHA joins hundreds of coin collectors to ask that under no
circumstances should the designated list be expanded, particularly to late
Roman Republican and Imperial coins. As
set forth in IAPN’s papers, only 2.8% of Roman Imperial coins hoards containing
coins from Italian mints are found within Italy itself making it impossible to
fairly consider them Italian cultural patrimony. GHA also believes that the CPIA mandates that
the current Italian designated list needs to be reformed to ensure it only
covers items only found in Italy. For
coins, this means—using the Greek designated list as a model—that at least larger
denomination coins which circulated in international trade should be delisted.
GHA also requests that any renewal be conditioned on
Italy immediately facilitating the licit export of any item legally available
for sale within Italy itself. Despite solemn
promises to do so under each of the prior MOU’s, as Mr. Russo has noted, Italy
has actually made it harder to export ancient coins of the sort openly and
legally sold within Italy itself.
Finally, GHA also asks the Committee to facilitate
lawful trade by requiring US Customs to accept legal exports from sister EU
countries as legal imports of items on the Italian designated list into the
United States. Tompa indicates such a
modification of the MOU is not only consistent with the UNESCO Convention, but
Italian law.
Douglas
Mudd (American Numismatic Association) indicates that his
organization opposes any expansion of the current MOU to include late Roman
Republican and Roman Imperial coins. Such coins are found in huge numbers
outside of Italy and it makes no sense to recognize Italy’s rights to them as
its cultural patrimony. The cumulative
impact of current MOU’s has already done much to damage ancient coin collecting
in the US. This is a shame because
ancient coins are excellent teaching tools.
Students already suffer from a lack of understanding about ancient
cultures. Roman coins have been used as
an adjunct to Latin classes. The
prospect of possible seizure of their coins has dissuaded foreign collectors
from sharing knowledge with US Collectors at ANA seminars and coin shows.
Stephen
J. Knerly (Association of Art Museum Directors) discussed
the concerns of the country’s art museums with regard to the Italian MOU
request. The AAMD’s written submission questioned whether Italy’s patrimony was
still in jeopardy and whether there were less significant alternatives than
import restrictions as well as problems AAMD members were having with loan
agreements, but Mr. Knerly’s oral testimony focused on the last issue. Knerly
emphasized that AAMD members have cordial museum to museum relationships with
Italian institutions but noted that there are problems with loan agreements, in
particular expensive fees. He also
criticized the State Department’s use of a standard Article II which made it
more difficult to hold countries accountable to hold up their own obligations.
Elizabeth
Greene (Archaeological Institute of America) indicates that the
AIA supports another extension of the MOU with Italy as necessary to protect
Italian cultural patrimony. As evidence,
Dr. Greene points to “Operation Demetra,” which revealed extensive illegal
excavations in Sicily linked to a buyer in London. She also discusses seizures of 20,000
archaeological objects and 4,000 coins in other operations. She notes it is important
to protect sites not only for academic, but for to help develop tourism.
Randolph
Myers (Ancient Coin Collectors Guild) opposes the extension of
the MOU as it applies to ancient coins. He
first focuses on any effort to expand current import restrictions to Roman
Republican coins. First, he indicates that
one cannot assume late Roman Republican coins were both struck and found in
Italy. He notes this can be proved from
a review of “Coin hoards of the Roman Republic Online" that is hosted by
the American Numismatic Society. Found on the Internet at http://numismatics.org/chrr. This database of Roman Republican Coin hoards mainly
from the period 155 BC to AD 2 shows that such coins en masse outside of
Italy.
The data is even more significant for Roman Imperial
coins. Large numbers of Roman Imperial
coins are found outside modern-day Italy. He cites "The Coin Hoards of the
Roman Empire Project," found on the Internet at http://chre.ashmus.ox.ac.uld. This
Project, a joint initiative of the Ashmolean Museum and the Oxford Roman
Economy Project, "aims to collect information about hoards of all coinages
in use in the Roman Empire between approximately 30 BC and AD 400." It
proves that less than 3 % of reported Roman Imperial coin hoards containing
coins from Italian mints are found within Italy, or stated another way, over
97% are found outside that Country.
Questions: Anthony
Wisniewski (collector-sale of international property) asks Kate FitzGibbon (CCP) and Peter Tompa (GHA)
whether EU nations have a right to export cultural goods that must be
recognized by the Italian government.
Both FitzGibbon and Tompa say they believe that to be the case. FitzGibbon
also notes that the basis for the new EU export law has been questioned by the
Rand Corporation which debunked the claim that terrorists were using stolen
antiquities as a major funding source.
Tompa notes the new law does not apply to exports of items that
originated in the EU so it would not apply to Italian cultural goods.
Arturo
Russo that Italy and Greece stand alone in making it
difficult to get export permits for common ancient coins. All the other major EU countries allow such
items to be exported fairly easily.
Karol
Wight (Museums) asks Stephen
Knerly (AAMD) about courier fees. He
indicates this is a problem not only in Italy but elsewhere. Italy treats couriers as essential visitors so
they are allowed entry even during this pandemic.
Ricardo A. St. Hilaire (Archaeology) asks Brian
Daniels and Elizabeth Greene (Archaeological Institute of America)
about site security plans in archaeological excavation agreements in Colombia
and Italy. Dr. Daniels is not aware of the situation in Colombia. Dr. Greene has no knowledge of the
situation in Italy as she has never signed a permit. She does note, however, that archaeological groups
work actively on site protection with local communities and the police. She has seen this in action in Sicily, where
she works. She notes that local divers have
helped protect underwater sites there.
James
Reap (Public) and Lothar Von Falkenhausen
(Archaeology) state it
irrelevant and unfair to attribute the actions of prominent members of
archaeological advocacy groups in encouraging or justifying mobs tearing down historic
statues to their organizations. Peter Tompa (GHA) respectfully
disagrees because it raises the ultimate question whether the efforts of these
groups are really solely about conservation or an exercise of power and
control. Von Falkenhausen adds that he believes in the archaeological
value of coins and gratuitously states that ancient coin collectors should collect
something else. (In CPO’s opinion, this demonstrates
the anti-collector bias of many of those appointed to represent the
archaeological community on this Committee.
In reality, not all archaeologists take such a view and some even
collect ancient coins and other mostly minor artifacts.)
