HR 7865, a bill introduced by the Hon. Beth Van Duyne (R-Tex.)  to facilitate the lawful trade in numismatic items,  has picked up four cosponsors.   The cosponsors in order of their agreement to sign onto the bill are the Hon. Michelle Steel (R-Cal.); the Hon. Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.): the Hon. Mark Amodie (R-Nev.); and the Hon. Sarah Jacobs (D-Cal.).

Ever increasing numbers of overlapping import restrictions on common collectors’ coins have made the legislation necessary.  For twenty-five years after the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) was passed, there were no import restrictions on ancient coins.  This should be no surprise because it is hard to link coins—which by their very nature are instruments of exchange—to one modern nation state.  Indeed, when the CPIA was being negotiated, Mark Feldman, one of the State Department’s top lawyers, assured Congress that “it would be hard to imagine a case” where coins would be restricted.   

In 2007, however, the State Department imposed import restrictions on Cypriot coins, against CPAC’s recommendations, and then misled the public and Congress about it in official government reports.  Since that decision,  import restrictions have been imposed on coins on behalf of 20  different countries.   Moreover, despite statutory requirements limiting restrictions to archaeological objects first discovered within and subject to the export control of the particular country for which restrictions were granted, they have increasingly been applied to common coins that circulated regionally and even internationally that were minted as recently as 1774.

Such restrictions impose the probatio diabolica or devil’s proof on coin collectors.  The problem for coin collectors is that most historical coins, which can be valued for as little as a few dollars each, simply do not carry with them the detailed provenance information U.S. Customs can demand for legal imports.  This often includes citation to an auction record predating any restrictions when the vast majority of collectors’ coins are not valuable enough to be sold at auction. 

The legislation’s “safe harbor” language addresses these concerns.  It allows for the import of coin types on “designated lists” with evidence the numismatic material was acquired lawfully, is of a known type, and is not the direct product of illicit excavations within a State Party after the effective date of any import restrictions on coins. It is designed to promote continued legitimate trade with collectors in Europe.

Just since the bill was introduced in April 2024, new or renewed import restrictions have been imposed on behalf of Pakistan, Tunisia, Yemen and Ukraine, with new restrictions being considered for India, Lebanon, Mongolia, North Macedonia and Uzbekistan.  Moreover, recently produced documentation under the Freedom of Information Act has confirmed that the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center have worked behind the scenes with anti-collector archaeological advocacy groups to bypass statutory requirements meant to promote fact-based decision-making,  encourage transparency, facilitate public comment,  and protect legitimate cultural exchange. More here:

https://accguild.org/news/13420183

Collectors have also developed information that the State Department both gives and receives funding from these groups to help justify new cultural property agreements and their associated import restrictions.  More here: 

https://culturalpropertynews.org/careful-collector-no-22-your-tax-dollars-at-work/

Organizations supporting the legislation include the American Numismatic Association, the Ancient  Coin Collectors Guild, CINOA, the Global Heritage Alliance and the International Association of Professional Numismatists. 

More about the bill can be found here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7865/all-info

After a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request, the ACCG has secured important evidence about the extent of cooperation between the State Department and archaeological advocacy groups, most notably, the mysteriously well-funded Antiquities Coalition.  That documentation relates to an “invitation only” event where a cultural property MOU with a Saudi-supported faction in Yemen was signed in 2023.  That agreement bypassed a formal statutory review by the Cultural Property Advisory Committee and public comment required under US law.  While the documentation was heavily redacted -- with 42 blank pages -- the extent of the cooperation again underscores the ACCG’s concerns that important stake holders are being cut out of the process of imposing import restrictions on cultural goods.  ACCG has appealed the release of the heavily redacted documents, seeking the release of the documents in unredacted form.  The State Department’s FOIA response and their documents can be found here as a pdf:

(1) DOS FOIA response letter F-2024-08777 10.2.2024.pdf

(2) DOS FOIA response documents F-2024-08777 10.2.2024.pdf

On October 4, 2024 the Department of State finally responded to the ACCG’s Freedom of Information request of November 16, 2021, where we sought any documents on the educational and professional backgrounds justifying the appointments of two “art trade” members of the Cultural Properties Advisory Committee (CPAC).  The partially redacted government documents show that NEITHER person had any “art trade” education or experience.  Equally tellingly, one government document states that one of the “art trade” members admitted that he “has no experience in the trade and does not collect any cultural property” but that the agency believes that “[t]here is nothing to be done … [even though] we’ve been getting inquiries about the appropriateness of appointment to trade slots.” 

While both people are no longer members of the CPAC, these government documents confirm  the government’s abject failure to abide by the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA).  Not only does 19 U.S.C. § 2605(b)(2)(A) direct appointments to the CPAC “be made in such a manner so as to - ensure fair representation of the various interests of the public sectors and the private sectors,” but 19 U.S.C. § 2605(b)(1)(C) specifically requires that three of the CPAC members "shall be experts in the international sale of archaeological, ethnological, and other cultural property."  After recounting that coin associations have complained to the Acting Assistant Secretary and Inspector General that CPAC “slots have gone unfilled and in some cases filled by people that weren’t really of the trade,” one internal government email wished that “[i]t would be good if we can persuade the personnel office to get things rationalized and in order again after the mess that their predecessors made of this.”

Another government document summarized various complaints made about the CPAC:  That members of the public criticized current CPAC membership for “failing to meet the parameters in the CPIA and failing to represent important stakeholder groups.” “[C]oin collectors are not pleased that two trade slots … have gone unfilled and that no dealer has served as a trade representative for many years.” And “[r]eligious minority diaspora groups have asked a member … be appointed to a public slot.”   While avowing that the agency “can take a leading role helping the White House ensure representation on the Committee that aligns with the law,” the same document also states that the agency is “streamlining the administrative process” by creating “standard evergreen agreement texts that eliminate negotiation every five years.”  Yet an “evergreen clause” --  a clause that automatically renews an agreement after its expiration date --  would violate the CPIA’s 19 U.S.C. § 2601(b) requirement that an agreement is only effective for 5 years and 19 U.S.C. § 2605(f)(g)’s requirement that the CPAC must first investigate and review such agreements with a foreign country as well as review their continued effectiveness.

The improper composition of the CPAC has been a long-standing issue that has been repeatedly raised by the ACCG.  Besides submitting complaints to the Secretary of State and the Inspector General, the ACCG had to file a FOIA administrative appeal when the State Department initially denied our FOIA request, when it absurdly alleged we failed to “reasonably describe” the records we sought.  The State Department’s FOIA production of their documents – after almost a three-year delay – along with the ACCG’s FOIA request and administrative appeal can be found here as these pdfs:

(1) DOS FOIA response letter with redacted documents 10.4.2024.pdf

(2) ACCG FOIA request and administrative appeal RMyers 2021.pdf

            From the standpoint of an ancient coin collector, it’s hard to know what to make of the hearing of the Cultural Property Affairs Committee (CPAC) on September 24, 2024.  Even the proponents of the MOUs being discussed made virtually no mention at all of coins. Nonetheless, the consistent pattern of all-encompassing MOUs recommended by CPAC, and the failure of CPAC’s members to respond to speakers’ objections to their overbroad scope, is not reassuring.

            Three MOUs were under consideration: a renewal of the now 37-year long MOU with El Salvador, and proposed new agreements with Lebanon and Mongolia.  Much of the commentary was different for each one, though some common threads emerged.  We will look at those first, then consider specifics of the three individual nations.

            Several opponents of the MOUs pointed out how far they deviate from the language and intent of the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA), the legislation that authorizes and guides these documents.  They are extremely broad rather than being specific and targeted.  They include items not referenced in the original legislation and not legally covered by it, and CPAC cannot support MOUs that violate the CPIA.  On a related note, the CPIA requires consideration of “less drastic measures” that will achieve its goals; such measures exist (i.e., the United Kingdom’s highly successful Portable Antiquities Scheme), but have not been considered ahead of these proposed MOUs.

The process itself was questioned, including the timeliness and accuracy of notices published in the Federal Register.  Also questioned was the accuracy of emails from the State Department that were sent out pertaining to these MOUs.  Withholding specific information on a source-country request and delaying its publication unfairly deprives museums, collectors, dealers and the general public of the opportunity to comment fully.

            Considerable doubt was cast on the work done by these governments themselves to protect their heritage.  Evidence of this is required by the CPIA as a prerequisite for entering into these MOUs.  Lebanon and El Salvador in particular are actively destroying their heritage sites.  Even one of the supporters acknowledged that in Lebanon, the preservation infrastructure had collapsed, though he said that it was “almost certainly true” that both countries are now trying to protect their heritage.  Yet the current Minister of Culture in Lebanon is a member of the political party formally affiliated with Hezbollah.

            Noted also was the fact that each of these countries as their boundaries exist today were part of significantly larger empires in ancient times.  This means that many items attributed to these empires can in no way be definitively determined to have been created within the nations’ current borders.

            One point made in favor of the MOUs was that scholars and academics in these countries want to have increased interaction with colleagues around the world, and in the United States specifically.  The U.S. is often the preferred choice for continuing their studies.  The argument was made that the MOUs would promote this laudable objective – but nothing in the CPIA designates this objective as a rationale for such MOUs.  Nor did any speaker supporting the MOUs explain how import restrictions would facilitate this goal.

Lebanon

            Opponents focused heavily on current circumstances in the country, noting first and foremost that the government, with which the MOU would be signed, is controlled by the Hezbollah terrorist organization.  Not only is very little being done at present to safeguard historical sites and cultural heritage, there is considerable concern that Hezbollah is funding its activities by the selling of looted and/or returned artifacts.

            Additionally, it was pointed out that Lebanon is increasingly in a state of war, further exposing any returned items to harm and destruction.  Even one MOU proponent cited military strikes on, and damage to, historical sites.  There was also a striking example of CPAC’s lack of understanding of the statute it is supposed to be implementing. When one CPAC member questioned why an MOU with Lebanon would result in repatriation to the war-torn country , it was pointed out to him that the statute would require this, and that both the U.S. government and the New York district attorney have already returned items to the country.

            Regarding coins specifically, several examples were given of coins attributed to ancient city-states, such as the shekel of Tyre, that have been found outside Lebanese borders.  In many cases, their widespread distribution, especially the large numbers found in Israel, makes it impossible to determine whether any individual coin was of Lebanese origin.  Related to this, one MOU proponent noted that artifact from all over the Middle East are brought to Lebanon and sold there, further muddying the waters of determining the actual nation of origin of items emanating from the country

Mongolia

            MOU proponents stated that looting was a major issue in Mongolia, with one of them describing it as a recent phenomenon. There has recently been looting directed at permafrost burials of ancient nomadic peoples from the 3^rd C BCE to early centuries CE, as archaeological excavations by foreign teams have alerted locals to the potential for finds in ancient tumuli. Yet little evidence was cited of the government actively protecting sites once archaeologists have left. One proponent acknowledged that the capacities of archeologists and historical preservationists was being seriously taxed. The fact that the unusual finds from such frozen burials have not come to the United States, as required for an MOU under the CPIA, went unmentioned. In fact, the most avid market for such materials and the one most accessible to Mongolian looters, is China.

            Questions were raised about the types of items being found in Mongolia.  When one MOU proponent listed examples of such items, she did not include coins, and coins were never referenced during proponent testimony.  However, it was pointed out that except for 18^th and 19^th century sculptures of the Zanabazar school, made in Mongolia proper, many Tibetan religious objects were made in Inner Mongolia, which is part of China . The current U.S. MOU with China only extends up to the Tang period, excluding the majority of artifacts taken in Tibetans’ escape from invasion and destruction. These artifacts are now the most precious religious items for Tibetans in the diaspora and housed in U.S. museums with the support of the Dalai Lama. The prospect that such Tibetan items would be confused as Mongolian and returned either to Mongolia or China would be a disaster for Tibetans worldwide.  This completely disconnects such items from the purpose of the CPIA.

El Salvador

            The ancient civilizations that controlled what today is El Salvador did not mint coins, so this MOU renewal received scant attention from opponents, beyond the general points made regarding all three proposed documents.  The failure of the El Salvadoran government to protect its own heritage and sites through the 37-year period of the current MOU was noted; commercial development supported by the government has in fact destroyed important sites.  One proponent stated that recent legislation had been introduced in support of cultural and historic protection, but also observed that it was not the role of the United States to police the situation in El Salvador.

            While the most compelling case against these agreements was made in opposition to the MOU with Lebanon, it was made clear that none of these governments is living up to the CPIA requirement of taking strong protective measures to preserve their history and culture.  While proponents cited certain steps being taken in this direction, none could definitively state that the requirement was truly being met.  As one opponent noted, the U.S. needs to hold these governments accountable first, before developing formal agreements in support of them.

            Returning to the issue of ancient coins, no testimony in favor of their inclusion was given during the hearing, though at least one written comment made some overstated claims about the rarity and value of Lebanese coins.  Whether CPAC notices this, and takes it into consideration, remains to be seen.

            Underlying all of this is the unfortunate situation of people who absolutely share an interest in ancient civilizations being pitted against each other by these MOUs.  The Department of State seems to deviate further and further from the purpose and specific directives of the CPIA; in the process, they are achieving fewer and fewer of its objectives.  This makes actions being taken by the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild and allied organizations to rein in the Department, to force it to abide by Congressional legislation, ever more critical.

The ACCG has updated its import guidance to include extensive new emergency import restrictions granted on behalf of Ukraine.  

1. Coins —In gold, silver, bronze, copper, and lead. Some coin types minted in or commonly found in archaeological contexts in Ukraine in various periods are listed below.

a. Ancient Greek cities in Ukraine, including Olbia, Panticapaeum, Chersonesus, and Tyras, minted coins of various weights and metals. Cast currency in dolphin, sturgeon, and arrowhead forms was also produced in this period. See Zograph, A. Ancient Coinage, Part II, Ancient Coins of the Northern Black Sea Littoral. (Oxford, 1977). Approximate date: 600-47 B.C.E.

b. In the Roman period, Panticapaeum continued to mint coins, and other Roman imperial coins were also used. See MacDonald, D. An Introduction to the History and Coinage of the Kingdom of the Bosporus, Classical Numismatic Studies 5. (Lancaster, 2005). Approximate date: 47 B.C.E.-500 C.E.

c. Coins minted in the Kyivan Rus period include gold and silver zlatnyks with a portrait of the ruler and the trident (tryzub) symbol. Hexagonal cast ingots (hryvnia) were also produced. Bohemian deniers and dirhams of Islamic states were also used in the Medieval period. Pierced coins and exfoliated (flaked) coins, including half-coins and forgeries, were common. Approximate date: 880-1240 C.E.

d. Coins in use during the Late Medieval and Early Modern periods include, but are not limited to, Mongolian dirhams, Lithuanian denars, Polish ducats, Crimean Khanate akces, Austro-Hungarian talers, Ottoman coins, and Russian rubles. Approximate date: 1240-1774 C.E.

2. Medallions —Usually featuring relief images, known since the Early Iron Age, with gold, silver, and bronze phaleras used during the Roman period. Approximate date: 1000 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

Such import restrictions authorize the detention, seizure and repatriation of  coin types made in what is today Ukraine or occupied Crimea that circulated in quantity elsewhere as well as issues made elsewhere that primarily circulated well outside of present day Ukraine.  Early modern issues of the surrounding nation states of Austria, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, and Russia are included.   As with ancient Roman Imperial coins, such coin types that are widely and legally sold  in legitimate markets in Europe are now in danger of confiscation on entry into the US unless the importer can "prove" they were out of Ukraine as of the September 10, 2024 effective date of the regulations.  

The updated guidance can be found here:  092124 Import Restrictions on Ancient Coins and Declarations for Legal Import .pdf

The ACCG has updated its import guidance to reflect new import restrictions on Tunisian types, including Carthaginian coins that circulated extensively elsewhere in North Africa, Spain, and Italy.  Those newly restricted coin types are as follows: 

10. Coins—This category includes coins of Numidian, Carthaginian (sometimes called Punic), Roman provincial, Vandal, Byzantine, Islamic, Norman, and Ottoman types that circulated primarily in Tunisia, ranging in date from the fifth century B.C. to A.D. 1750. Numidian, Roman provincial, and Vandal coins were made primarily in bronze, though some Numidian and Vandal types occur also in silver. Carthaginian types occur in electrum, a natural pale yellow alloy of gold and silver. Local Byzantine and later coin types were made in copper, bronze, silver, and gold. Coins may be square or round, have writing, and show imagery of animals, buildings, symbols, or royal figures.

   Effective Date:  July 26, 2024

Source:  89 Fed. Reg. 58978- 58983 (July 22, 2024), available at     https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/07/22/2024-16037/imposition-of-import-restrictions-on-archaeological-and-ethnological-material-of-tunisia .

Guidance here:072824 Import Restrictions on Ancient Coins and Declarations for Legal Import .pdf.

 

On June 6, 2024, the ACCG conducted a webinar on the United Kingdom’s Treasure Act and its Portable Antiquities Scheme, on how they protect the rights of ancient coin collectors, educators, historians, and dealers, while simultaneously protecting the country’s historical and cultural sites and artifacts.  Understanding the UK’s successful approach to preserve its history while acknowledging the rights of land owners and coin hoard discoverers is a must for all those who are fascinated by times past.  With the conclusion of the ACCG’s webinar, the ACCG's board has voted to make a $1,000 grant  to the Oxfordshire Museum Service, to assist them in acquiring and displaying ancient coinage for its museum.    We are now seeking donations to help cover this donation with any excess over this amount going to the ACCG general fund.  

The ACCG’s June 6 webinar included presentations by Professor Michael Lewis of the British Museum and Head of the Portable Antiquities Scheme and Angie Bolton who is Curator of Archeology at the Oxfordshire Museum Service.  Randy Myers, who is a Board Member of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, also spoke.  Professor Lewis’s presentation provided valuable details of the UK’s Treasure Act and the Portable Antiquities Scheme and how it works in his country. Ms. Bolton discussed how her museum acquires and handles ancient coinage and other artifacts that it receives via the Portable Antiquities Scheme.  Mr. Myers’ presentation compared relevant U.S. laws, discussed that other countries should adapt the UK approach before the United States needs to consider import restrictions, and concluded with a case study on a coin hoard uncovered in Somerset in 2013.  The PowerPoint presentations of each of the three speakers is attached as pdfs.

(2) UK Treasure Act and PAS MLewis 6.6.2024.pdf

(2) OXON Museum AACCG Museum Presentation ABolton 6.6.2024.pdf

ACCG PowerPoint for 6.6.2024 RMyers 4.21.2024.pdf

A summary of the oral presentations of the ACCG's webinar can be found at the Cultural Property News website at https://culturalpropertynews.org/a-closer-look-at-the-portable-antiquities-scheme/.

On May 13, 2024 the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild and the American Numismatic Association filed joint comments to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, which raise concerns about the proposed MOUs with the governments of Ukraine and Jordan, as they may impact import restrictions on ancient coins.

For the Ukrainian MOU, we strongly condemn the Russian invasion, but contend that the Federal Register’s notice failed to give the public the opportunity to submit timely and meaningful comments. Among the substantive matters under the Cultural Property Implementation Act, we question whether “Ukrainian coinage” meets the definitions of “archaeological or ethnological material of a State Party,” and that even if they do, whether such coins were “first discovered within, and . . . subject to export control by” Ukraine. We also ask the Committee to consider whether Ukrainian coinage is danger from looting, when the Ukrainian government allows the sale of ancient and other historic coins and medals within their country.

We also ask whether “self-help” measures and related “less drastic remedies” exist, since we contend that “less drastic remedies” exist in the form of regulating metal detectors, a portable antiquities scheme and a functional export system. Finally, we contend that any import restrictions must be applied prospectively and not in the form of a retroactive embargo.

For the Jordan MOU, our joint comments raise concerns to the proposed extension of the MOU. As a substantive matter, we join the comments that have been submitted by the International Association of Professional Numismatists dated April 30, 2024, that highlight several critical provisions from the Cultural Property Implementation Act as it impacts ancient coinage. As a procedural matter, we contend that the Federal Register’s public notice failed to give the public the opportunity to submit timely and meaningful comments.

The U.S. State Department and U.S. Customs have imposed very extensive import restrictions on behalf of Pakistan that include coins that circulated regionally, and internationally, including Roman Imperial types.  The designated list also includes Mughal coins which are also associated with India.  For more about the designated list, see the Cultural Observer Blog here.  We hope to update our list of import restrictions to include these new import restrictions for Pakistan shortly.  

The ACCG has submitted a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request to the US State Department seeking information about a "closed roundtable" (https://theantiquitiescoalition.org/ac-leads-discussion-on-international-cooperation-for-safeguarding-cultural-heritage-under-threat/) with State Department officials (including Assistant Secretary, Educational and Cultural Affairs, Lee Satterfield, the decision maker for cultural property MOUs), representatives of archaeological advocacy groups, law enforcement, and officials of a Saudi-supported faction in Yemen’s ongoing civil war.  The roundtable was set up by the Antiquities Coalition, a mysteriously well-funded archaeological advocacy group which has described itself as a “partner” of both the State Department and several authoritarian Middle Eastern governments, including that of a Saudi-supported faction in Yemen, which only controls a limited part of the country. 

Immediately following the roundtable, Satterfield signed an MOU with that government, which was then announced on social media by the Antiquities Coalition. Representatives of collectors and of the Jewish diaspora from Yemen and other Middle Eastern countries have criticized the MOU for being completed without input from the Cultural Property Advisory Committee or the opportunity for public comment.  See https://culturalpropertynews.org/u-s-signs-mou-with-yemen-this-time-no-testimony-allowed/ The MOU substituted regular import restrictions on Yemeni cultural goods for an emergency action taken in 2020.  Those emergency import restrictions were ordered after the public was given only two weeks to comment on the proposal.  Despite the short time frame afforded for public comment, the proposal received considerable opposition, including negative press reports.  See https://www.foxnews.com/world/torah-scrolls-smuggled-out-of-yemen-being-sought-by-the-country.  Presumably, despite statutory requirements, the State Department and its “partners” wanted to avoid similar negative publicity before an agreement was completed so it was instead presented as a “fait accompli.”

ACCG condemns this effort to stifle debate by excluding impacted American interest groups from government decision making.  This decision follows other agreements or emergency actions with authoritarian governments like China (2009 MOU), Egypt (2016 MOU), Libya (2017, emergency action, 2018 MOU), Algeria (2019 MOU), Jordan (2020 MOU), Turkey (2021 MOU), Afghanistan (2022 emergency action), Uzbekistan (2023 MOU), and Pakistan (2024 MOU) also engineered with the help of the Antiquities Coalition and other archaeological advocacy groups.  ACCG calls for a Congressional inquiry into such “partnerships” between the State Department’s Bureau of Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center and archaeological advocacy groups with ties to such regimes. See https://culturalpropertynews.org/careful-collector-no-22-your-tax-dollars-at-work/.

FOIA Request re Yemen round table.pdf