Summary of July 26, 2022, Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting to Discuss Proposed MOU Renewals with Belize and Libya

         On July 26, 2022, the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) met to consider proposed renewals of MOUs with Belize and Libya.  CPAC is comprised of the following members: (1) Stefan Passantino (Chairman- Public); (2) Steven Bledsoe (Public); (3) Karol Wight (Museums); (4) J.D. Demming (Public); (5) Ricardo St. Hilaire (Archaeology); (6) Joan Connelly (Archaeology); Rachael Fulton Brown (Archaeology); (7) Anthony Wisniewski (Collector-Sale of International Cultural Property); (8) Mark Hendricks (Sale of International Cultural Property); and (9) David Tamasi (International Sale of Cultural Property).  Because CPAC was meeting in person after a long hiatus due to the pandemic, it was unfortunately impossible to determine if all members were present. 

            Michelle Prior, a program officer for the Cultural Heritage Center, was also present to run the Zoom presentation.   Again, other Cultural Heritage Center staff may have been in the room, but it was impossible to tell given the Zoom image quality. 

                Chairman Passantino welcomed the speakers.  He acknowledged “familiar faces” and commented there were new speakers for this session.  He indicated that each speaker would be given 5 minutes for their presentation.  He asked Committee members to hold questions to the end.  He further indicated that speakers would be grouped, with those discussing Belize alone or Belize and Libya speaking first.

                Dr. Eleanor King (Howard University) spoke on her own behalf as well as for the Society for American Archaeology.  Belize meets all the criteria for a renewal.  Its cultural heritage is still in danger due to looting which is exacerbated by its rugged terrain and porous borders.  Belize does take self-help measures in the form of awareness campaigns against looting, posters warning about purchasing looted objects, and workshops devoted to the subject.  Import restrictions are not only the best available method to prevent importation of stolen objects, but they are also the only real ones available. Given the porous nature of Belize’s borders and the country’s restricted resources, it would be impossible to seal all exit points from the country.  Finally, there are extensive collaborative efforts between US and Belizean archaeologists.

                Dr. King’s written comments can be found here: 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2022-0015-0037

                Dr. Brian Daniels (Smithsonian and University of Pennsylvania) spoke on behalf of the Archaeological Institute of America (“AIA”).  Dr. Daniels indicated that the AIA’s membership comprised of approximately 200,000 professional archaeologists, corresponding members, students, and enthusiasts.  Both Belize and Libya have met all the necessary criteria for renewal.  Both Libya and Belize still suffer from looting.  Both have dedicated archaeological departments. Although the archaeological departments in Libya must answer to different governments, they operate with the same common purpose.  Dr. Daniels indicates ASOR will provide further information on Libya.  There are a host of collaborative projects with Belize.  Before the 2011 Revolution, the AIA ran tours to Libya. The AIA also ran tours to Belize before Covid.

                The AIA’s written comments on Belize can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2022-0015-0049

                The AIA’s written comments on Libya can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2022-0015-0050

                Stephen Knerly (Hahn Loeser) spoke on behalf of the Association of Art Museum Directors (“AAMD”).  He first addressed Libya.  He first questioned if Jewish artifacts can be considered Libyan state property now because antiques held prior to 1968 were not state property under Libyan law.   He noted there are a host of issues related to the scope of the designated list if CPAC decides to recommend a renewal of the MOU with Libya.  With regard to the MOU with Belize, he criticized the open-ended nature of the designated list of archaeological material, effectively being extended an extra five years with every renewal.  He also criticized the Form Article II that has been put in place in more recent agreements.  These should be tailored to the individual countries. 

                The AAMD’s written comments on Libya and Belize may be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2022-0015-0054   

                Peter Tompa (Peter Tompa Law) spoke on behalf of the International Association of Professional Numismatists (“IAPN”).  His comments focused on Libya.  ASOR received $800,000 in State Department grants that paid for work that was then used to justify renewing this MOU.  However, on a closer look, the report ASOR submitted actually demonstrates that Libya has not taken adequate self-help measures to justify a renewal.  He also noted that one cannot assume most coins on the designated list are only found in Libya, or even that they “circulated primarily” there, which is the State Department’s own standard.  The State Department should at least be held to its own standard and the coin types that do not meet it should be delisted.  Tompa  finally indicated we should all look forward to the day Libya is at peace and the $800,000 given to ASOR to help justify a renewed MOU with Libya can instead be used to fund a Portable Antiquities Scheme in Libya. 

                Peter Tompa’s complete oral comments can be found here:

http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2022/07/cpac-should-focus-on-facts-not-false.html

                His personal written comments can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2022-0015-0012

                IAPN’s written comments on Libya may be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2022-0015-0018

                IAPN’s written comments on Belize may be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2022-0015-0015

                Randolph Myers spoke on behalf of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (“ACCG”).  He first noted that the 28-day notice provided for public comment, while far better than the 5 days allowed for comment on proposed emergency import restrictions for Afghanistan, still falls far short of the 60 days public notice period under the Administrative Procedure Act.  He also noted the injustice of import restrictions on Jewish cultural artifacts. He indicated that hoard evidence proved that most types of coins on the current designated list are found in far greater frequency outside of Libya than they are found inside Libya.  This is particularly true for the famous type with the Silphium plant on the reverse which was made to pay mercenaries from Crete.  He further indicated that the MOU has not been effective with only one Immigration and Customs Enforcement seizure of an artifact that left Libya at least 10 years prior to the MOU. 

                The ACCG’s written comments may be found here: 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2022-0015-0002

                Kate FitzGibbon spoke on behalf of the Committee for Cultural Policy (“CCP”) and the Global Heritage Alliance (“GHA”).  She focused on Libya.  One cannot conflate Libya and Belize.  There is no functioning government in Libya.  Reports from British archaeologists do not paint the same picture as in the ASOR report.  There is poor stewardship of Libya’s cultural heritage.  The overbroad designated list encompasses 13,000 years of Libyan history.  Ambiguities in that list recognize Libya as the de-facto custodian of the cultural heritage of its displaced Jewish population.  The MOU should be terminated.  Alternatively, CPAC should only recommend new emergency restrictions on limited numbers of cultural goods consistent with the statute. 

                The CCP’s and GHA’s written comments about Libya can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2022-0015-0041

                The CCP’s and GHA’s written comments about Belize can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2022-0015-0003

                Gina Waldman spoke on her own behalf as well as Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa (“JIMENA”).  She was born in Tripoli, from which she and her family were brutally expelled.  The driver of the bus meant to take her out of the country instead set it afire with her and her family in it.  She was saved by British Christians and eventually settled in California.  MOUs are supposed to stop looted property, but here the Libyan government was the looter.  Libya took all the Jewish community’s religious artifacts, and all its private and communal property.  Unless the current MOU is re-written to explicitly exclude Jewish and Christian property, the MOU will legitimize Libya’s confiscations of minority cultural heritage and property.  There was a carve out done in the MOU with Morocco and the same should be done here.  Libya has desecrated the synagogue where Ms. Waldman worshiped by turning it into an Islamic Center.  She has presented CPAC with a video showing this desecration.  The person who took the video was arrested and was sentenced to 8 months in a Libyan prison.  Libyan authorities have robbed the Jewish community, desecrated its synagogues, and even erected skyscrapers over its cemeteries.  Libya cannot be considered a custodian of Jewish cultural heritage.

                JIMENA’s written comments can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2022-0015-0048

                Raphael Luzon was born in Benghazi.  This MOU will just justify the Libyan Government’s taking of Jewish property.  CPAC should follow the Moroccan example and recommend an exemption for Jewish cultural heritage.  There needs to be a carve-out for Jewish religious articles. Libya has robbed its Jewish citizens.  He understands Libyan Jewish cultural heritage was carted up and put in a storeroom.  He does not know what happened to it.  A Synagogue he attended has now been converted into a Coptic Church. 

                David Gerbi is a doctor in psychology and the President of “ASTREL,” an organization which represents the Jews of Libya in exile.  He now lives in Israel and appeared on zoom from a museum in Israel devoted to commemorating Libya’s Jewish diaspora.  In 1967, when he was 12 years of age, he spent days hiding with his family from a rampaging mob that was looting and destroying Jewish homes and businesses.  In 2002, Ghaddafi invited him to Libya to visit his aunt, the last Libyan Jew.  Ghaddafi wanted his help in normalizing relations with the United States.  He was fearful he would suffer the same fate as Saddam Hussein.  Mr. Gerbi worked with Congressman Tom Lantos on this issue and after relations with the U.S. were normalized Qaddafi invited him to Libya in 2007 to see Jewish sites and restore DAR BISHI Synagogue.  However, during his trip he was arrested and the money he raised to restore the Synagogue was stolen.  He was deported to Malta without any money.   After he got back to Rome, there was an assassination attempt and he moved to Israel.  In 2009, Qaddafi reconciled with him and again invited him home to restore the Synagogue, but this never happened.  After the 2011 Revolution, he was invited back to serve in the government, but on his arrival, he was threatened with death and fled again with the help of the Italian Government.  He recently was invited back to Tripoli to restore Synagogues but was again threatened with death and was forced to leave again. 

                Rabbi Eric Fusfield spoke on behalf of B’nai B’rith International.  B’nai B’rith is our nation’s oldest and best-known Jewish advocacy and social service organization, promoting the rights and concerns of the Jewish community on a wide range of issues.  No issue is of greater importance to the Jewish community than the rights of the nearly one million Jewish refugees from the Middle East and North Africa.  Nowhere did this Jewish presence end more tragically than in Libya, where Jews had lived since the 4th Century B.C.E. and numbered as many as 40,000 in the early 1900s but lost their entire population as a result of anti-Semitic pogroms and immigration to Israel.  The cultural patrimony of the Libyan Jewish diaspora is gravely threatened by the absence of guarantees to custody of materials that are rightfully theirs. The Jewish community wrote a letter in December 2018 requesting the exclusion of Jewish ritual items from the current Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Libya. However, the previous administration’s refusal to acknowledge the letter amounted to a de facto U.S. recognition of Libya’s confiscation of Jewish properties in 1958 and 1969 and to the persecution Libyan Jewry suffered at the hands of the regime.  This MOU legitimizes the confiscation of Jewish property seized by Libya’s government when Jews were forced from the country.  B’nai B’rith strongly urges the Committee to include a derogation, or carve-out, for Jewish personal and communal property should this MOU be renewed. We have seen a precedent for this in the Morocco MOU, which clearly and explicitly excluded Jewish property from its scope. To do less would be nothing short of a betrayal of American values.

                B’nai B’rith’s written comments can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2022-0015-0030

                 Panina Meghnagi is from the Libyan diaspora.  She had to flee her home in Tripoli with one suitcase.  Her family had to leave everything behind.  They were stripped searched on leaving the country.  Jews lived in Libya for 2,000 years before being driven out.  Their cultural heritage has been destroyed, buried under Autostradas and Skyscrapers.   There were 40,000 Jews living in Libya in the 1940’s.  Pogroms took place in the 1950s.  During the 1960’s most Jews and Christians fled the country.  She implored the Committee to “love us” and do not renew this MOU.  Morocco is a good example of a country that preserves its Jewish heritage. 

                Dr. Andrew Vaughn is the Executive Director of the American Society of Overseas Research (“ASOR”) and as Co-Director of ASOR Cultural Heritage Initiatives (“ASOR CHI”).  Dr. Vaughn participated in meetings with Libyan cultural heritage officials in Tunisia.  He was impressed with their motivation to work cooperatively to protect Libya’s cultural assets.  Government actors and supporting militias are not involved in the antiquities trade which helps with enforcement.  There have been instances where the public has returned chance finds to members of the Department of Antiquities.  He has been working with Libya’s Department of Antiquities (“DOA”) towards creating temporary exhibitions in the US of material seized under the MOU. The DOA looks on ASOR as partners.  Preservation efforts include that of materials of minority populations as a counter to extremism.  Dr. Vaughn polled Libyan cultural heritage officials who indicated that ancient coins are the most looted item.  (Note- they are also one of the most common ancient artifacts, see Tompa individual comments).

                Dr. Vaughn’s written comments on behalf of ASOR can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2022-0015-0051

                Will Raynolds is the co-director of ASOR-Cultural Heritage Initiative. Despite the division of the DOA under two separate governments, the separate entities work well together.  ASOR has intensive collaborations with both DOAs and smaller, local groups.  Since the signing of the MOU, there have been sincere efforts to protect Libya’s cultural heritage.  Raynolds was particularly heartened by voluntary returns of objects by Libyan citizens. 

                Raynold’s written comments on behalf of ASOR can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2022-0015-0038

                As more than an hour had already been devoted to public comment, Chairman Passantino asked questions from members of the Committee to be kept short. 

                An unidentified CPAC member indicated that he believed speakers from the Jewish Diaspora had made a compelling case for exempting Jewish artifacts from any new import restrictions.  He asked Dr. Vaughn about his views on the subject.  Dr. Vaughn does not answer the question, and instead indicates he is not familiar with the legal aspects of such a decision. 

                Anthony Wisniewski asked Stephen Knerly if there were credible enforcement efforts taking place in Libya.  He indicated that there are no such efforts and that is but one piece of Libya’s failure to undertake self-help measures. 

                Anthony Wisniewski pointed Kate FitzGibbon to page 18 of her submission where she discussed the State Department’s application of a “circulated primarily” standard as a trigger for import restrictions on coins.  Ms. FitzGibbon confirmed that the standard contradicts the governing statute’s limitation of import restrictions to coins “first discovered within, and subject to export control” by Libya.

                She also noted that with two DOAs in Libya there is no effective enforcement of cultural heritage laws.

                Anthony Wisniewski pointed Peter Tompa to page 7 of IAPN’s submission which discussed the current designated list for Libya.  He asked if there were any Roman Imperial coins struck in Libya.  Mr. Tompa indicated that such coins were not struck in Libya and as stated in a footnote only 0.18 % of all Roman Imperial coin hoards with Italian mint coins are found in Libya.  Anthony Wisniewski also asked about Greek Coins.  Mr. Tompa agreed with Mr. Wisniewski that the Greek designated list excludes large denomination stater and tetradrachm coins.  Mr. Tompa stated that hoard evidence indicates that Greek silver and gold coins from Libyan mints did not “circulate primarily” there because the vast majority are found outside Libya.  This includes high denomination tetradrachm coins from Cyrene and Barce as well as the stater size coins with the silphium plant on the reverse mostly found in Crete as described in Randolph Myer’s testimony.

CPAC to Consider Libya and Belize Renewals

                 The State Department Cultural Heritage Center website has provided advance notice that the Cultural Property Advisory Committee will meet to consider renewals of current MOUs with Libya and Belize.  See https://eca.state.gov/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-july-26-27-2022

                The public may provide written comment in advance of the meeting and/or register to speak in the virtual open session scheduled for July 26, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. EDT.  Both written comments and requests to speak at the open session will be due July 19^th. 

                Written comments are to be posted on regulations.gov.  An upcoming Federal Register notice should provide details. 

                The Libyan renewal should be controversial for several reasons.  The MOU was originally rushed through after allowing only 5 days for public comment.  At the time, Libya was a failed State with two competing governments propped up by foreign interests.  Subsequently, without seeking input from CPAC, the State Department morphed “emergency import restrictions” into a MOU with the faction headquartered in Tripoli.  Today, Libya remains a failed state where the political stalemate often erupts into open combat.  Each side is well armed with the help of their authoritarian foreign sponsors.  The Tripoli faction is propped up by Turkey with the help of Syrian mercenaries.  In contrast, the Benghazi faction is propped up by Egypt and Russia with Russian mercenaries from the Wagner Group providing extra muscle.  The place is so dangerous that no US Embassy has operated there since the ambassador was murdered by terrorists.  Does anyone really believe that artifacts repatriated under this MOU will be safe in such an environment?

                These concerns about the safety of these artifacts are exacerbated because the designated list is so all encompassing.  It covers archaeological material from 12,000 B.C. to 1750 A.D. and Ottoman era ethnological material from 1551 A.D. through 1911 A.D.

                This designated list raises issues of concern to Jewish exile groups and coin collectors.  Jewish groups are concerned that the MOU with Libya recognizes the rights of that government to the cultural heritage of the country’s displaced Jewish minority.  While specific references to Jewish cultural heritage were removed from revised import restrictions associated with the MOU, such material is still implicitly covered because there is no specific exemption as was the case with Morocco. 

                The restrictions on coins are grossly overbroad.  See https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/07/09/2018-14637/import-restrictions-imposed-on-archaeological-and-ethnological-material-from-libya  In particular, the restrictions empower U.S. Customs to seize Greek silver and gold coins, Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman coins imported from legitimate markets in Europe on the assumption that they are “Libyan” even though such coins circulated regionally and internationally and not “exclusively” or even “primarily” in Libya. 

                By contrast, the MOU with Belize, a Central American Democracy, is much less controversial.  The import restrictions are also broad, applying to a wide variety of archeological material ranging in date from approximately 9000 B.C. to at least 250 years old, including, but not limited to, objects comprised of ceramic, stone, metal, shell, bone, glass, and wood.  The issue there will be whether there will be any effort to expand current import restrictions to ethnographic artifacts or coins. 

Update (7/18/22):  The Regulations.gov link from which to comment is now live.  It may be found  here:  https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2022-0015-0001  For a direct link to the comment page, see https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/DOS-2022-0015-0001

"Emergency" Restrictions on Libyan Cultural Goods Imposed

U.S. Customs has announced so-called "emergency" import restrictions on Libyan cultural goods.  Once again, grossly over-hyped fears of illicit antiquities funding terrorism appears to be the primary  justification for rushing through this dubious request, even though it meets few, if any, of the statutory criteria and it is doubtful the militias running the country will protect any artifacts that may be repatriated under the agreement. 

The sheer breadth of the "designated list" also raises concerns.   The Cultural Property Implementation Act contemplates that any “emergency restrictions” will be far narrower than "regular" ones.  They focus on material of particular importance, but no “concerted international response” is necessary.  The material must be a “newly discovered type” or from a site of “high cultural significance” that is in danger of “crisis proportions.” Alternatively, the object must be of a civilization, the record of which is in jeopardy of “crisis proportions,” and restrictions will reduce the danger of pillage. 


Yet, here, import restrictions have been imposed on virtually all Libyan cultural goods.   And despite the lack of "cultural significance" all coin types that were made or circulated within Libya down to 1750 A.D. are now potentially subject to restrictions.   At least in a bow to the CPIA's wording limiting such restrictions to items "first discovered" within Libya, the regulations contain some belated acknowledgement any restricted coins must also be "found" there.  (Previous import restrictions on coins have improperly equated where they are found with where they are minted, though they are items of commerce that typically circulated widely.)

Comment Fatigue Can't Mask Special Interest Nature of MOU Program

Given the short (7 day) comment period over the July 4th weekend, CPO is not too surprised that there were so few comments posted on the regulations.gov website concerning a proposed MOU with Libya:  https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS_FRDOC_0001-4160

After eliminating duplicates and a few unclear comments, it appears that only 19% or 7 of the commentators supported the MOU with the remaining 34 opposed in whole or part.

Four of the proponents represented group interests.  Of these, one was a University and another was an archaeological group that also is a State Department contractor.  Six trade associations or collector advocacy groups were among those opposed to any MOU in whole or in part.  Most of the individual comments came from coin collectors or dealers.

No doubt some proponents will spin these the low numbers as a lack of public opposition to any MOU.  But what really should be asked is whether the whole enterprise is really nothing more than a special interest program for archaeological groups either tied to source countries where they excavate or the State Department which funds them.  Maybe there needs to be a rethink whether scarce State Department resources should be earmarked for other programs that further our national interest or promote American business abroad.

My Personal Comment on the Proposed Libyan MOU

Here is my personal comment on the proposed Libyan MOU:

Please accept these personal comments. I have also commented on behalf of a number of organizations.

1. CPAC should view this request with skepticism. Few details have emerged that support Libya's MOU request. Moreover, this request has been rushed, with a short comment period smack in the middle of a long holiday week. This action, which can only limit the number of comments CPAC receives, in itself suggests that this request should be viewed with caution-- even if the country itself wasn't a mess as it has been since its revolution of 2011.

2. The country has 3 governments, and two antiquities authorities jockeying for position. It's not even clear which of these entities supports this request. In any case, whatever "government" Libya has, powerful militias are in the background that can break these "governments" pretty much at will.

3. There are no guarantees that any artifacts Customs sends to Libya under any MOU will be protected, much less studied and displayed. None of Libya's museums are open and what staff remains have to make do under very trying circumstances.

4. Frankly, instead of yet another round of import restrictions, the State Department, along with other international organizations, should instead focus on helping Libyan community groups protect Libya's 5 UNESCO World Heritage sites from the deprivations of Islamic fundamentalists. Ultimately, Palmyra and Nimrud suffered severe damage because local communities didn't care enough to protect them from ISIS. Let's help those locals who care about these sites protect them.

5. I do not believe that Libya and the proponents of import restrictions have made out a case for either "regular" or "emergency restrictions." Nonetheless, if CPAC feels it cannot resist bureaucratic pressure to "do something," Libya's request should be treated as an "emergency one" and restrictions limited to site specific material from Libya's endangered World Heritage Sites: (1) Kyrene; (2) Leptis Magna; (3) Sabratha; (4) Tadrat Acacus; and (5) Ghademes. (See Libya's five World Heritage sites put on List of World Heritage in Danger, (UNESCO) (July 14, 2017), available at [URL REMOVED]

6. Under no circumstances should there be restrictions placed on historical coins except those identifiable as stolen from Libyan public and private collections. Here, IAPN, PNG and ACCG have noted what hoard evidence that is available shows that "Libyan" coins are typically found outside of the confines of modern day "Libya," which would make any restrictions placed upon them contrary to governing law. Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 801 F. Supp. 2d 383, 407 n. 25 (D. Md. 2011) ("Congress only authorized the imposition of import restrictions on objects that were 'first discovered within, and [are] subject to the export control by the State Party.").

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

Peter Tompa

Ask CPAC to Limit or Table the Problematic Libyan MOU request Rather than Rush it Through

The State Department has announced an exceptionally short comment period for a proposed MOU with Libya ending on July 10th.  The exceptionally short time frame for public comment as well as the timing of this request to coincide with a raft of highly exaggerated reports claiming that the antiquities trade funds terrorism emanating from the Antiquities Coalition, a well-funded and politically connected advocacy group with ties to MENA authoritarian governments, suggests that the Libyan MOU is yet another done deal.  

Still, if one feels strongly about their continued ability to collect ancient artifacts and/or historical coins, CPO believes they should comment on the regulations.gov website here: 

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS_FRDOC_0001-4160


Why? Because silence will only be spun as acquiesce by US and Libyan cultural bureaucracies as well as the archaeological lobby with an ax to grind against collectors.

A.    The Law

The Cultural Property Implementation Act (“CPIA”) contains significant procedural and substantive constraints on the executive authority to impose import restrictions on cultural goods. 

“Regular” restrictions may only be applied to archaeological artifacts of “cultural significance” “first discovered within” and “subject to the export control” of a specific UNESCO State Party.  They must be part of a “concerted international response” of other market nations, and can only be applied after less onerous “self-help” measures are tried.  They must also be consistent with the general interest of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes.

“Emergency restrictions” are narrower.  They focus on material of particular importance, but no “concerted international response” is necessary.  The material must be a “newly discovered type” or from a site of “high cultural significance” that is in danger of “crisis proportions.” Alternatively, the object must be of a civilization, the record of which is in jeopardy of “crisis proportions,” and restrictions will reduce the danger of pillage.

 The Cultural Property Advisory Committee (“CPAC”) is to provide the executive with useful advice about this process.

   

The CPIA contemplates that CPAC is to recommend whether import restrictions are appropriate as a general matter and also specifically whether they should be placed on particular types of cultural goods.  In the past, CPAC has recommended against import restrictions on coins.  Initially those recommendations were followed, but beginning with the renewal of Cypriot import restrictions in 2007, this has changed.  Now, there are restrictions on coins made in Cyprus, China, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Syria and Egypt.  

  

Import restrictions make it impossible for Americans to legally import collectors’ coins widely and legally available worldwide.   Foreign sellers are typically unwilling or unable to certify the coin in question (which can retail as little as $1) left a specific UNESCO State Party before restrictions were imposed as required by the CPIA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection rules.   Restrictions have drastically limited Americans’ abilities to purchase historical coins from abroad and have negatively impacted the cultural understanding and people to people contacts collecting fosters. 

B.     The Request

The Committee for Cultural Policy has written a good analysis of the request: https://committeeforculturalpolicy.org/libya-requests-us-to-send-artifacts-back-to-war-torn-libya/  

I quote that analysis in pertinent part here:

The Public Summary of Libya MOU Request that has been made available is actually written by the Department of State, and “authorized” by the Libyan government. The Department does not provide copies of actual requests, which makes it impossible to know if the request itself complies with Congressional criteria.

No Central Government Control

It is important to note that this request comes from the current Government of Libya, which holds only a portion of Libyan territory at this time. Libya is divided and ruled by two competing governments and its territory is controlled by six major militia factions, and many smaller parties and entities. There is no single effective Government of Libya that controls Libyan territory.

As part of every US agreement on cultural property, the US agrees to send any art that enters the US back to the source country. This policy applies even to art that has poor prospects of surviving in conflict-ridden nations, and art from oppressed ethnic or religious minorities that have been forced out of the source country. The CPIA does not provide for return of embargoes art to anyone but a source country government.

The Request is Over Broad

The request for the imposition of U.S. import restrictions covers the entire history of the geographic region that is Libyan territory from the Paleolithic through the Ottoman Era (12,000 B.C.-1750 A.D.). and on its ethnological material dating from 1551 to 1911 A.D. That is – virtually everything – up to 1911.

The material covered would be “archaeological material in stone, metal, ceramic and clay, glass, faience, and semi-precious stone, mosaic, painting, plaster, textile, basketry, rope, bone, ivory, shell and other organics. Protection is sought for ethnological material in stone, metal, ceramic and clay, wood, bone and ivory, glass, textile, basketry and rope, leather and parchment, and writing.” That is, everything one can think of.

No Cultural Administration

The cultural administrative staff of Libya appear in the request to have been scattered and in considerable disorder. The request fails to demonstrate that there is currently a government hierarchy capable of administering cultural heritage in much of the country, even if it wished to do so. The request provides numerous examples of failure by the Libyan government to address cultural heritage issues. It notes that

• “[A]rtifacts, which had been excavated from temples, were also stolen from the storerooms.”
• “Museums have also been vandalized and looted by invading militias.”
• “There are also reported thefts from museums and storerooms of documented and undocumented objects.”
• “[A]ll of the country’s twenty-four museums are closed.”
• Lacking government support, Department of Antiquities staff “continue to take personal responsibility for the objects housed in their institutions.”

No US Market for Illicit Artifacts

The Libyan request’s description of the U.S. market for ancient artifacts in Libyan style does not claim that any came recently from Libya or that any were not legally acquired.

The Tuareg materials and Islamic objects of the 18th and 19th century for which “protection,” i.e. embargo is sought were legally available for trade in Libya for many decades and are widely and legally available in European, Asian, and US markets. The request does not even claim that ethnographic materials were restricted in export from Libya in the past.

No Access for US Citizens, No Study, No Sharing of Excavated Materials

The request fails to meet criteria set by Congress that require that US citizens have access to Libyan culture through museum exhibitions or other venues. There is not a single traveling exhibition mentioned in the request.

Although the request acknowledges that foreign institutions and missions have done extensive archaeological work in Libya, these archaeological agreements do not allow sharing or even permanent export from Libya of any objects for study.

Based on the written request as presented by the Department of State, Libya’s recent governments have done little or nothing in the last decade to protect Libyan sites. Nor has any Libyan government made any effort to ensure that US citizens were able to access Libyan art and artifacts through traveling exhibitions, museum loans, or even through providing digital online access to art in Libya itself.

US Organizations with Middle East Ties are Promoting the Libyan Request

This request appears timed to coincide with a raft of recent presentations about the trade in looted Middle Eastern art by the Antiquities Coalition and its various partners – much of it based on discredited data. The presentations have focused on the evils of the international trade in looted art from these regions, and by wholly unsubstantiated statements that looted artifacts from the crisis areas in the Middle East have entered the US market or are being sold here. In these presentations, the value of the legal market in provenanced antiquities, especially the auction market, are used to justify claims about a supposed illicit market. In the view of the Antiquities Coalition, agreements under the CPIA with authoritarian Middle Eastern governments are seen as positive because they will end the art trade.

C.     What You Can Do

Admittedly, all the evidence points to the matter being already decided—no matter what the CPIA says, what the facts really are, and what American citizens or others interested in collecting Libyan artifacts may think.  Still, to remain silent is to give cultural bureaucrats and archaeologists with an ax to grind against collectors exactly what they want-- the claim that any MOU is not controversial. 

So, to submit comments concerning the proposed MOU, go to the Federal rulemaking Portal and enter Docket No. DOS-2017-0028 and by all means speak your mind.  For a direct link, try here:  https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOS_FRDOC_0001-4160  and click on the “comment here” button to make your case.

 

What should you say?  Provide a brief, polite explanation about why the request should be denied or limited.  Indicate to CPAC how restrictions will negatively impact your business and/or the cultural understanding and people to people contacts collecting provides.   Coin collectors should add that it’s typically impossible to assume a particular coin was “first discovered within” and “subject to the export control” of  Libya and that Libyan historical coins while not as common as others, are widely and freely available for sale elsewhere, particularly in Europe.  And, of course, feel free to mention any concerns you might have about government transparency, whether this is a real “emergency” of “crisis proportions,” and how the State Department has generally handled this request.   Finally, you don’t have to be an American citizen to comment—you just need to be concerned enough to spend twenty or so minutes to express your views on-line.  

Problematic MOU Request

The State Department has notified the public of its receipt of a request for a MOU with Libya.  It remains to be seen how a country with two competing governments, that is over-run by militias and which remains in danger from ISIS can meet its obligations under UNESCO and the CPIA to protect and preserve is own cultural property let alone that which may be repatriated from the US under the terms of any agreement.  Libya needs our help, but that help should be focused on protecting its world class archaeological sites from the depredations of ISIS and other radical Islamic groups. Turning US Customs loose to seize and forfeit "undocumented" "Libyan" artifacts will only harm legitimate trade and the appreciation for Libya's ancient cultures.  It certainly won't help protect Libyan archaeological sites and museums from their greatest threat, which is hammer and explosive wielding religious fanatics.

Doing Something to Prevent Destruction

Hugh Eakin has asked why the military has not used air strikes to dissuade the destruction of cultual sites like Hatra and Nimrud.

Good question.  Instead of making legitimate collecting of ancient artifacts that "look Syrian" subject to "collateral damage" from import controls supposedly designed to thwart ISIS, Western Governments should be directing at least some of the fire power at their disposal at ISIS culture destroyers themselves.

And why not consider spreading anti-personnel and anti-tank mines around archaeological sites by air?  Modern mines can be programmed to go inactive after a period of time so they would not be dangerous forever, but they could for a time dissuade ISIS jihadis from doing their worst.

It's too late for Hatra and Nimrud, but other sites in Syria and Libya are threatened by fanatics and should be protected before it's too late.

Where Antiquities Have No Value

Some in the archaeological community want regulations to make antiquities valueless on the theory that will discourage looting and promote archaeological research.   But that assumes far too much.  To see what actually happens where antiquities have little perceived value to the locals, look no further than what recently happened to some tombs in Libya.

PhDiva Gets a Jump On Everyone Else

Kudos to PhDiva for describing what's missing from the so-called Benghazi Treasure. For more, see http://phdiva.blogspot.com/2011/10/antiquities-missing-from-libya.html

Rather than all the usual speculative blather about shadowy Western collectors organizing the looting of the world's treasures, its nice to see someone associated with the archaeological community making such a timely and positive contribution to describing what is lost.

Kudos to PhDiva for doing so.

We would be all better off if others took her cue.

Treasures Stolen from Benghazi Vault-- But When and By Whom?

The Sun Newspapers and others have reported that a treasure trove of gold artifacts and coins was stolen from a Benghazi bank vault. See http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3903581/Priceless-gold-of-Benghazi-is-stolen.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News

Collectors and dealers in ancient art should obviously report any efforts to sell such materials to the authorities. Here are some other thoughts.

1. Although some will apparently use this news as a basis to claim there is a need for "emergency import restrictions" on Libyan cultural material, these objects would already be treated as stolen under US and other law.

2. While the theft of this material is said to have happened during revolution, if what happened in Iraq is any guide, it's also possible that the material was stolen earlier by officials associated with the former regime, and the loss is only coming to light now.

3. It would have been easier to identify this material if it had been properly recorded by either the Italian authorities who returned it to Libya back in 1961 or the Libyans themselves. Unfortunately, this does not appear to have been the case, so all we will be left with is some general descriptions of the material. Hopefully, Libyan authorities will put out as detailed as possible descriptions of the missing artifacts soon.

Leptis Magna Safe

This video proves that Leptis Magna is safe despite claims to the contrary publicised by scare mongers from the archaeological community with a vested interest in seeking "emergency import restrictions" on cultural goods. See
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14983921

Will the archaeological blogs now report on this good news in an effort to help correct the record? I doubt it.

Still, this does not change the fact that there have been no credible reports about widespread looting or destruction of Libyan archaeological sites. Under the circumstances, it is a disservice to the new Libyan government and the Libyan people to continue to claim otherwise.

You Need Us, You Really Do

That, at least, seems to be the message behind a seminar organized by Italian cultural officials to address the future of archaeological sites in Libya. See
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=131877

As the report states,

Before the conflict started there were over twenty archaelogical missions operating in Libya. By far the largest number, thirteen, were Italian missions, but there were also French, British, American and Polish missions amongst others. Most of those missions were represented at the meeting that was held in Caserta.

The meeting was entitled ‘For the Preservation of the Cultural Heritage in Libya, a Dialogue among Institutions’. Malta’s Ambassador and Permanent Delegate to UNESCO, Dr Ray Bondin, was the only Ambassador invited to the meeting both because of Malta’s importance to Libya and also because of his extensive contacts with the heritage authorities in Libya. Malta’s agreements with Libya cover also substantially collaboration on the heritage field. He had in fact last year made two missions to strengthen the collaboration with Malta. Because of his extensive experience in World Heritage he was giving his assistance on the site of Cyrenea, one of the major archaelogical sites in Libya. Representatives of the new transitory authories based in Benghazi were also present at the Caserta meeting. The meeting discussed the theft of heritage from Libya, the sites needing major attention, and in particular listened to the Libyans as to their immediate needs. Though the humane situation is the obvious priority at the moment the new Libya will most certainly invest more in tourism and therefore their archaeological sites are of the utmost importance.

Although much of this is all well and good, one really has to wonder whether the participants are even more interested in ensuring that they get in the good graces of Libya's new government. After all, Italy and Malta had especially cozy relations with the deposed Colonel's regime, and presumably many of the archaeological delegations that excavated in the country did so as well.

Libya: What Emergency?

There they go again. Only months after apparently receiving assurances from their buddies at the State Department about "emergency import restrictions" on Egyptian cultural artifacts, archaeological trade groups are again taking advantage of another supposed emergency to call for yet another round of emergency import restrictions, which of course, are just the first step towards a permanent ban. See http://www.archaeological.org/news/aianews/6415

Yet, the facts seem to conspire against them. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/sep/11/tripoli-museum-antiquity-shattered-gaddafi-image (noting that there was no looting of archaeological artifacts at the Libyan national museum).

If I were a member of the Libyan provisional government, I might be a bit peeved that foreign academics are implying that the Libyans themselves are incapable of caring for their own cultural patrimony (despite considerable evidence to the contrary) and view this call for import restrictions as nothing more than a paternalistic violation of Libyan sovereignty.

One also has to wonder what, if any contacts, members of these groups had with the deposed regime. If past history in places like Egypt and Iraq are any guide, these relations could have been considerable. And certainly, this should be considered by Libyan officials as well in determining whether the help of these groups is necessary or desirable.

But do the facts on the ground and the desires of the Libyans really matter when the cronies of these groups run the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center? Or, will Libyan cultural officials be convinced to go along whatever the true facts and what the need for emergency restrictions says about Libya's own competence to care for its own cultural patrimony?

Crying Wolf

UNESCO has issued an alarm that Libya's cultural heritage has become the target of looters and a Russian journalist is claiming that the Museum in Tripoli has been sacked and that NATO warplanes have bombed important cultural sites. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/26/libyas-cultural-heritage-_n_938405.html and
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article2406278.ece

Not so fast. In fact, the museum in Tripoli appears to be under rebel guard. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/letter-from-tripoli And there have been no credible reports about either extensive looting of archaeological sites or attacks by NATO aircraft.

Indeed, to the extent Libya's cultural heritage has gone missing, isn't it more likely to have happened due to the sticky fingers of Libya's former ruler and his family?

Under the circumstances, perhaps we should not jump to conclusions.

Addendum: Andrew Lawler has also written an article, entitled "Claims of Mass Libyan Looting Rejected by Archaeologists," Science Magazine (Sept. 1, 2011). See http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/09/claims-of-mass-libyan-looting.html?ref=hp

Egypt, Libya and Tunisia: UNESCO to the Rescue?

UNESCO is belatedly celebrating the 40th Anniversary of the 1970 UNESCO Convention with a conference in the City of Lights, Paris. See http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/ And what better way to show UNESCO is still relevant than to address the crisis in the Middle East?

The cultural bureaucrats are rightly concerned about the effect of unrest in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya on those nations' cultural patrimony, but one can only hope there is more emphasis on nipping the problem at the source rather than on taking advantage of situation to further an anti-collecting agenda. "Emergency import restrictions" that effectively shift the burden of proof onto the holder virtually guarantee seizures of perfectly legitimate artifacts that don't have detailed collection histories. Good police work combined with more effective efforts to record what is missing is a better, far less controversial approach.

The Uncertain State of Libya's Archaeological Treasures

Libya boasts five UNESCO World Heritage sites with well-preserved Greek, Punic, and Roman architecture. See http://www.unescoworldheritagesites.com/libya-unesco-world-heritage-sites.htm

What reports there are suggest they remain undisturbed for now. See
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/02/27/us-libya-protests-heritage-idUKTRE71Q0M520110227?pageNumber=1 However, one has to wonder about their fate, particularly if the Qaddafi regime holds on for an extended period of time.

When Libya was an Italian colony, Mussolini lavished money on archaeology; excavations at Roman sites helped buttress his regime's claim to be the heir of ancient Rome. In reaction, Qaddafi largely ignored Libya's ancient past, labeling it as colonialist. Although there have been recent efforts to rehabilitate some sites for their potential as tourist destinations, Qaddafi and/or his cronies have also allegedly sold off statuary from ancient sites like Leptis Magna for personal profit. See http://phdiva.blogspot.com/2011/02/libyan-archaeology-scandals.html Like many despots, Qaddafi seems unable to distinguish between public property and his own.

Let's hope Libya's well preserved ancient ruins stay safe, and the Libyan people prevail in their death match with their eccentric tyrant, Col. Qaddafi, and his cronies.

Reflections On Cultural Politics After Tunisian, Egyptian and Libyan Revolts

A madman is still killing his people in Libya. Autocrats in Tunisia and Egypt have been deposed, but the democracy the people have died for remains elusive. Oddly, Western archaeologists seem more focused on trying to tie any looting of archaeological sites and stores to mysterious Western dealers and collectors than on criticizing the regimes whose policies have caused the societal unrest that unleashed any looting in the first place.

Anyway, here are some observations based on recent events in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya:

1. Draconian cultural patrimony laws are natural expressions of authoritarian regimes;
2. Such laws are applied to common people and foreigners, but not to cronies of the regime;
3. Such systems also hide financial improprieties, i.e., skimming of public funds that should go to archaeological projects;
4. Educated elites are less likely to loot than the poor and uneducated;
5. Looting and vandalism can also be used by the authorities to try to justify their repressive measures;
6. Foreign archaeologists will not speak out against regimes that offer them excavation permits;
7. The prospect of jobs or funding can silence source country archaeologists from expressing their own concerns.