How did the controverisal decision to impose import restriction on Cypriot coins come about? This is a significant issue because this "precedent" has formed the basis for far more extensive restrictions on Chinese, Italian and now Greek coins.
Well, here are some unrebutted allegations from ACCG's Amended Complaint in the Baltimore Test Case. They are largely based on information from FOIA releases:
48. In or about November 2005, Dr. Pavlos Florentzos, Director of the Cyprus Department of Antiquities, visited the United States at the invitation of CAARI and with the support of the U.S. Embassy in Cyprus. During this time, CAARI facilitated a meeting between Florentzos and employees of ECA�s Cultural Heritage Center, including its Executive Director, Maria Kourpoupas, and a staff archaeologist. See J. Green, Cyprus Director of Antiquities, Dr. Pavolos Flourtzos, Visits the U.S., 31 CAARI News 3 (Winter 2006).
49. Upon information and belief, CAARI has benefited from direct and/or indirect financial and/or material support from State, the Government of Cyprus and Cypriot entities, including the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation.
50. Upon information and belief, the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation was established to rescue the Island�s cultural heritage, which the Foundation maintains was pillaged and destroyed by Turkish forces when they occupied the Northern part of the Island. Upon further information and belief, the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation maintains one of the largest collections of ancient coins of Cypriot type within Cyprus. Upon further information and belief, the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation purchases unprovenanced coins on the open market for its collection of the sort now subject to U.S. import restrictions on coins of Cypriot type.
51. On January 19, 2006, State announced a five (5) year renewal of its Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Italy relating to cultural artifacts. Once again, Defendants exempted ancient coins struck in Italy from import restrictions.
52. On December 7, 2006, the Federal Register carried a notice indicating that CPAC would conduct a review of the MOU with Cyprus. That notice invited public comment to be submitted no later than January 11, 2007. The Federal Register notice contained no mention of an effort to extend new restrictions to coins. See 71 Fed. Reg. 71015-71016 (Dec. 7, 2006).
53. On December 8, 2006, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, ECA Miller Crouch indicated in a response to an e-mail inquiry that he �d[id] not anticipate� that new restrictions on coins would be addressed at CPAC�s hearing to consider the renewal of the MOU with Cyprus.
54. On December 14, 2006, two numismatic trade associations filed a request with State to recuse CPAC member Joan Connelly from voting on any last minute effort to impose import restrictions on ancient Cypriot coins. That recusal request noted that Dr. Connelly excavated in Cyprus and had publicly thanked �the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus, its Director, Dr. Demos Christou and the Ministry of Communication and Works, Republic of Cyprus, for granting us the license to excavate on Yeronisos Island.�
55. On January 12, 2007, State summarily denied the recusal request.
56. On January 17, 2007, according to a heavily redacted document released in response to a FOIA request, a State ECA Cultural Heritage Center staff archaeologist conferred with the late Dr. Danielle Parks, an archaeologist associated with the CAARI, about the inclusion of coins in the Cypriot request.
57. On January 19, 2007, according to a document released in response to a FOIA request, Cyprus requested State to amend the designated list of artifacts subject to import restriction to include coins of Cypriot type.
58. On January 25, 2007, CPAC conducted a public hearing on the renewal of the MOU with Cyprus. At that hearing, CPAC Chairman Jay Kislak announced that he had learned that Cyprus had requested that State amend the designated list of Cypriot artifacts subject to import restrictions to include coins of Cypriot type.
59. Upon information and belief, at that same hearing, neither Cypriot authorities nor members of the archaeological community could point to any material change of fact justifying a change in the exemption from import restrictions on Cypriot coins.
60. On January 26, 2007, in response to complaints about the lack of public notice for the inclusion of coins in the Cypriot request, State announced an additional ten (10) day comment period. State made this announcement on the Cultural Heritage Center website and not in the Federal Register. Nevertheless, during this extremely short time frame, numismatic groups generated over 1100 letters opposing the extension of import restrictions to coins.
61. Upon information and belief, comments provided by ACCG and others established: (a) that Cypriot coins were common, with many known examples of coin types struck on the Island; (b) that Cypriot coins travelled widely so that one could not assume that a coin struck in Cyprus was �first discovered� there; (c) that less drastic remedies like the imposition of a treasure trove law and/or the regulation of metal detectors should be tried before import restrictions were considered; (d) and that the CPIA�s �concerted international response� requirement could not be met.
62. Upon information and belief CAARI, the AIA, the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation, and the late Dr. Danielle Parks submitted comments supporting import restrictions at the behest of Cyprus.
63. In a letter dated February 5, 2007, the AIA�s president claimed that it was proper to assume that coins of Cypriot type can be assumed to have Cypriot find spots, because �Coins minted on Cyprus were very rarely taken from the island in antiquity.�
64. On May 2, 2007, Assistant Secretary of State, ECA Dina Powell, the decision maker for the extension of the MOU with Cyprus announced her departure to become the Director for Global Corporate Engagement at Goldman Sachs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dina_Powell (last checked, 7/2/10).
65. Upon information and belief, Goldman Sachs is a bank holding company with worldwide business interests, likely including relationships with Cyprus or Cypriot entities like the Bank of Cyprus.
66. On or about May 7, 2007, according to a document released in response to a FOIA request, CPAC issued its report making its recommendations concerning the extension of the MOU with Cyprus.
67. On or about May 14, 2007, according to a document released in response to a FOIA request, Pavolos Flouretzos, Director, Cypriot Department of Antiquities, admitted in a private communication to State, �It is true that Cypriot coins shared the same destiny as all other coins of the ancient world. As a standard media of exchange they circulated all over the ancient world due to their small size, which facilitated their easy transport� The continuous circulation of coins for many centuries amongst collectors and between collectors and museums make any attempt to locate their exact find spot extremely difficult.�
68. On or about May 16, 2007, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, upon information and belief the third ranking official at State, accepted an award from Greek and Greek Cypriot advocacy groups as these groups lobbied the State policy makers. According to a press release, "Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns was the first Philhellene to receive the Livanos Award. This award is given each year to, as its states on the award, 'that individual who, like George P. Livanos, has utilized ancient Hellenic values to realize extraordinary achievement in modern society while contributing to the improvement of our civilization.'" See http://news.pseka.net/uploads/img/documents/PSEKA-SAE_2007_Conference_EN_01_CEH_01.pdf (last checked, 7/2/10).
69. On or about May 16, 2007, State�s news service quoted Burns as stating on receipt of the Livanos award, "I wear this title of Philhellene rather proudly. You don�t spend four years in Greece, as my wife and three daughters and I did, and not come back feeling committed to Greek thought, to the Greek way of life, to Greece itself in my case....We�re personally committed to the country, to the relationship."
70. On May 17, 2007, according to a document released in response to a FOIA request, Kurt Volker, Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, wrote the Assistant Secretary, ECA Dina Powell, stating �[G]iven our general support for protection of antiquities and the importance of this MOU to our bilateral relations with Cyprus, EUR strongly recommends that ECA approve the renewal of the MOU and include the protection of coins.�
71. On May 29, 2007, according to a document released in redacted form in response to a FOIA request, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, ECA Miller Crouch wrote an �Action Memo� to the decision maker Assistant Secretary, ECA Dina Powell regarding the extension of the MOU with Cyprus. That Action Memo only provides the decision maker with the false choice of approving the import restrictions including coins in their entirety or disapproving them in their entirety. The Action Memo does not provide the decision maker the option of continuing the then current import restrictions without extending them to coins.
72. On May 30, 2007, according to that same document, Assistant Secretary of State Dina Powell signed off on that action memo that authorized import restrictions on ancient coins of Cypriot type.
73. On July 13, 2007, Defendants formally extended import restrictions to coins of Cypriot Types. See Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Pre-Classical and Classical Archaeological Objects and Byzantine Period Ecclesiastical and Ritual Ethnological Material from Cyprus, 19 CFR Part 12, reported at 72 Fed. Reg. 38470-74 (July 13, 2007).
74. On July 16, 2007, the MOU renewal with Cyprus was signed. That MOU fails to suggest that restrictions under the agreement satisfy the CPIA�s requirements, including the requirement �concerted international response� requirement or the requirement that less drastic remedies than import restrictions on coins are not available.
75. On July 19, 2007, Undersecretary Nicholas Burns conducted a signing ceremony for the MOU to coincide with Greek and Greek Cypriot lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill and at the State Department itself. Upon information and belief, representatives of CAARI were invited to this signing ceremony.
76. The official transcript of the Cyprus MOU signing ceremony omits several significant words. In the transcript, Ambassador Kakouris of Cyprus is reported as saying, "In fact, I was reminded just before we came in about something that I had said in January when we were before the Committee and responding to someone very much on the side of the coin collectors who -- talked about the hobby of collecting coins. And I said to him: �It may be your hobby, but it's our heritage!" and that is the way that we look at this issue.�"
77. In fact, what Kakouris actually said can be heard (at 10:09 of the audio). There, he states, "In fact, I was reminded by [Cultural Heritage Center ED] Maria Kouroupas just before we came in about something that I had said in January when we were before the Committee and dealing with the coin collectors and somebody who was very much on their side, when he talked about the hobby of collecting coins. And I said to him: �It may be your hobby, but it's our heritage!" and that is the way that we look at this issue.�" (Emphasis added.)
78. On July 20, 2007, State issued a press release about the MOU. That press release stated, �With the extension of this MOU, DHS amended the designated list of restricted categories to include ancient coins of Cypriot types produced from the end of the 6th century B.C. to 235 A.D. Coins, a significant and inseparable part of the archaeological record of the island, are especially valuable to understanding the history of Cyprus. This extension of the MOU is consistent with the recommendation of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, which is administered by the Bureau for Educational and Cultural Affairs.� (Emphasis added.)
79. On August 29, 2007, State sent a report mandated under the CPIA to Congress. Under 19 U.S.C. � 2602 (g)(2), that report is required to: (a) describe the actions taken; (b) whether there were any differences between those actions and CPAC�s recommendations; and, (c) if so, the reasons for those differences. That report, however, contains no indication whether State rejected CPAC recommendation against import restrictions on coins, and, if so, why?
80. In addition, that report also indicates that Customs acted as the lead agency for imposing import restrictions on coins. In pertinent part, the report states, �The Federal Register notice for Cyprus was amended by the Department for Homeland Security, in consultation with the Department of State, to include coins of Cypriot types which are also vulnerable to archaeological looting.�
81. In or about July 17, 2007, ECA publicized the new restrictions on coins of Cypriot types on its website as follows: �The Government of the Republic of Cyprus requested and amendment to the designated list to include coins�. Q. What was the response? A. The Cultural Property Implementation Act places the authority for the Designated List with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in consultation with the Department of State. On July 13, 2007, DHS published a Federal Register notice concerning the extension of the agreement and amending the Designated List to include certain coins from Cyprus, effective July 16, 2007.�
82. In or about May-June 2008, the Cyprus News Service quoted CAARI�s president as stating, �CAARI has been in the forefront of the successful effort to renew the Memorandum of Understanding between Cyprus and the USA restricting the import of Cypriot antiquities into the United States�..� See http://www.caari.org/CAARIat30.htm (last checked, 7/2/10).
83. On January 16, 2009, the Federal Register announced import restrictions on Chinese cultural artifacts, including those on early media of exchange to Tang era cash coins. See 19 CFR Part 12, reported at 74 Fed. Reg. 2838-2844 (Jan. 16, 2009).
84. On April 20, 2009, past CPAC Chairman Jay Kislak signed a declaration in FOIA litigation that stated in pertinent part:
o I am told that Section 303 (g) of the CPIA requires the State Department to report to Congress any differences between CPAC�s recommendations and the State Department�s ultimate decision to impose import restrictions. In this regard, the release of the most recent CPAC report related to Cyprus and its discussion about coins could clarify misleading information contained in official State Department documents.
o I specifically recall the Cypriot request that then current import restrictions on other cultural artifacts be extended to coins was a matter of great public controversy. CPAC considered the question specifically and I recall a special vote being taken on this particular issue.
o With that in mind, I have reviewed both an official State Department Press Release and a State Department report made pursuant to CPIA Section 303 (g) about the MOU with Cyprus�I believe it is absolutely false to suggest in those materials that the State Department�s decision to extend import restrictions to ancient coins was consistent with CPAC�s recommendations. The full release of CPAC�s recommendations with regard to coins could be in the public interest because it should clarify misleading information contained in official State Department documents.
Will the Obama Administration and CPAC investigate these allegations before deciding to renew the Cypriot MOU? If true, don't they suggest that the MOU be terminated instead because it is founded on cronyism? If not, why not?
Comment Fatigue or Not Collector Voices Need to Be Heard Once Again!
Only one month after seeking comments for a proposed MOU with Bulgaria, the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center have announced another short comment period (this time right in the middle of the Holiday season) for a proposed extension of current import restrictions on coins from Cyprus. See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-12-07/html/2011-31408.htm
Those restrictions currently bar entry into the United States of the following coin types unless they are accompanied with documentation establishing that they were out of Cyprus as of the date of the restrictions, July 16, 2007:
1. Issues of the ancient kingdoms of Amathus, Kition, Kourion, Idalion, Lapethos, Marion, Paphos, Soli, and Salamis dating from the end of the 6th century B.C. to 332 B.C.
2. Issues of the Hellenistic period, such as those of Paphos, Salamis, and Kition from 332 B.C. to c. 30 B.C. (including coins of Alexander the Great, Ptolemy, and his Dynasty)
3. Provincial and local issues of the Roman period from c. 30 B.C. to 235 A.D.
Why bother to comment when the State Department rejected CPAC�s recommendations against import restrictions on Cypriot coins back in 2007 and then misled both Congress and the public about its actions? And isn�t it also true that although the vast majority of public comments recorded have been squarely against import restrictions, the State Department and U.S. Customs have imposed import restrictions on coins anyway, most recently on ancient coins from Greece?
Simply, silence just allows the State Department bureaucrats and their allies in the archaeological establishment to claim that collectors have acquiesced to broad restrictions on their ability to import common ancient coins that are widely available worldwide. And, of course, acquiescence is all that may be needed to justify going back and imposing import restrictions on the Roman Imperial coins that are still exempt from these regulations.
Under the circumstances, please take 5 minutes and tell CPAC, the State Department bureaucrats and the archaeologists what you think.
How do I comment? To submit comments three pages in length or less electronically, go here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=DOS-2011-0135-0002
If you are having trouble, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov/), enter the Docket No. DOS-2011-0135 for Cyprus, and follow the prompts to submit a comment. To send comments via US Mail or FEDEX see the directions contained in the Federal Register Notice above. For further information, also see http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/whatsnew.html.
What should I say? The State Department bureaucracy has dictated that any public comments should relate solely to the following statutory criteria:
1. Whether the cultural patrimony of Cyprus is in jeopardy from looting of its archaeological materials;
2. Whether Cyprus has taken measures consistent with the 1970 UNESCO Convention to protect its cultural patrimony;
3. Whether application of U.S. import restrictions, if applied in concert with similar restrictions by other art importing countries, would be of substantial benefit in deterring a serious situation of pillage and that less drastic remedies are not available; and,
4. Whether the application of import restrictions is consistent with the general interest of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes.
(See 19 U.S.C. � 2602 (a).)
Yet, collectors can really only speak to what they know. So, tell them what you think within this broad framework. For instance, over time, import restrictions will certainly impact the American public�s ability to study and preserve historical coins and maintain people to people contacts with collectors abroad. Yet, foreign collectors�including collectors in Cyprus�will be able to import coins as before. And, one can also remind CPAC that less drastic remedies, like regulating metal detectors or instituting reporting programs akin to the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme, must be tried first.
Be forceful, but polite. We can and should disagree with what the State Department bureaucrats and their allies in the archaeological establishment are doing to our hobby, but we should endeavor to do so in an upstanding manner.
Please submit comments just once, before the deadline on Jan. 3, 2012.
Those restrictions currently bar entry into the United States of the following coin types unless they are accompanied with documentation establishing that they were out of Cyprus as of the date of the restrictions, July 16, 2007:
1. Issues of the ancient kingdoms of Amathus, Kition, Kourion, Idalion, Lapethos, Marion, Paphos, Soli, and Salamis dating from the end of the 6th century B.C. to 332 B.C.
2. Issues of the Hellenistic period, such as those of Paphos, Salamis, and Kition from 332 B.C. to c. 30 B.C. (including coins of Alexander the Great, Ptolemy, and his Dynasty)
3. Provincial and local issues of the Roman period from c. 30 B.C. to 235 A.D.
Why bother to comment when the State Department rejected CPAC�s recommendations against import restrictions on Cypriot coins back in 2007 and then misled both Congress and the public about its actions? And isn�t it also true that although the vast majority of public comments recorded have been squarely against import restrictions, the State Department and U.S. Customs have imposed import restrictions on coins anyway, most recently on ancient coins from Greece?
Simply, silence just allows the State Department bureaucrats and their allies in the archaeological establishment to claim that collectors have acquiesced to broad restrictions on their ability to import common ancient coins that are widely available worldwide. And, of course, acquiescence is all that may be needed to justify going back and imposing import restrictions on the Roman Imperial coins that are still exempt from these regulations.
Under the circumstances, please take 5 minutes and tell CPAC, the State Department bureaucrats and the archaeologists what you think.
How do I comment? To submit comments three pages in length or less electronically, go here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=DOS-2011-0135-0002
If you are having trouble, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov/), enter the Docket No. DOS-2011-0135 for Cyprus, and follow the prompts to submit a comment. To send comments via US Mail or FEDEX see the directions contained in the Federal Register Notice above. For further information, also see http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/whatsnew.html.
What should I say? The State Department bureaucracy has dictated that any public comments should relate solely to the following statutory criteria:
1. Whether the cultural patrimony of Cyprus is in jeopardy from looting of its archaeological materials;
2. Whether Cyprus has taken measures consistent with the 1970 UNESCO Convention to protect its cultural patrimony;
3. Whether application of U.S. import restrictions, if applied in concert with similar restrictions by other art importing countries, would be of substantial benefit in deterring a serious situation of pillage and that less drastic remedies are not available; and,
4. Whether the application of import restrictions is consistent with the general interest of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes.
(See 19 U.S.C. � 2602 (a).)
Yet, collectors can really only speak to what they know. So, tell them what you think within this broad framework. For instance, over time, import restrictions will certainly impact the American public�s ability to study and preserve historical coins and maintain people to people contacts with collectors abroad. Yet, foreign collectors�including collectors in Cyprus�will be able to import coins as before. And, one can also remind CPAC that less drastic remedies, like regulating metal detectors or instituting reporting programs akin to the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme, must be tried first.
Be forceful, but polite. We can and should disagree with what the State Department bureaucrats and their allies in the archaeological establishment are doing to our hobby, but we should endeavor to do so in an upstanding manner.
Please submit comments just once, before the deadline on Jan. 3, 2012.
Immediate Past President of the AIA to American Museums: Stop Collecting!
Brian Rose, the AIA's immediate past president, has been quoted as telling America's museums to stop collecting antiquities. According to the report,
Rose said he felt the era in which American museums can collect antiquities is coming to a close.
Source countries are becoming more aggressive in pursuing traffickers and enforcing laws against looting, he said.
....
Buying antiquities could alienate foreign governments and prevent the cooperation necessary for international loans of individual objects or traveling exhibitions, Rose said.
�You�ll end up in litigation, and you won�t be able to enter into collaborative projects,� he said. �It�s all about collaboration now.�
Rather than collect, museums ought to forge agreements with source countries to share cultural riches, Rose said.
See http://www.cleveland.com/arts/index.ssf/2011/12/conference_at_the_american_aca.html
Despite such quotes, archaeo-blogger Paul Barford continues to claim that the AIA is really not against collecting. But if so, where are quotes from the AIA's leadership indicating that they support the rights of ordinary Americans to collect minor portable antiquities, such as coins, let alone more significant items?
Addendum: For more on the AIA's anti-collecting stance, see http://www.archaeological.org/sitepreservation/faqs
Q: Isn�t this disagreement between collectors and archaeologists really the work of a bunch of radical archaeologists who have lost touch with the public?
A: No, in fact, the stand taken by the AIA, the oldest and largest archaeological organization in North America, is representative of the point of view of all the mainstream archaeological organizations in the U.S. including the Society for American Archaeology, the Society for Historic Archaeology, the American Schools of Oriental Research and others. It�s also the stance of other major international archaeological groups. In fact, in January, an unprecedented agreement will be signed among the AIA, the German Archaeological Institute and the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences to battle the scourge of looting. A Harris interactive survey published in 2000 also showed that public opinion agrees with the position of the AIA�the main value of archaeological sites is scientific and educational and U.S. museums should not acquire illegally exported artifacts.
Q: What about the orphaned object that is out of the ground and circulating in the market with its context already destroyed and it provenance uncertain? Shouldn�t this object be acquired and given a good home?
A: The acquisition of these objects encourages looting. Objects like this are likely stolen. When confronted with an object like this, the best thing to do is to contact the authorities. You would not buy a hot car or a diamond watch from a disreputable source -- why buy an antiquity from a disreputable salesperson?
Q: In many cases there are multiple copies of certain antiquities, some with so many duplicates that they cannot all be displayed. What is wrong with the trade in multiples?
A: Some countries do allow trade in duplicates, including Israel. But it is difficult to identify a duplicate from a country that allows trade, and it�s difficult to prevent the sale of new objects as duplicates. Furthermore, most museums and private collectors are interested in high-end, unique objects, not �duplicates.� It�s primarily the trade in expensive, unique artifacts that drives the illegal market.
I would note the AIA also describes what constitutes a "licit artifact" according to its view of the law, but that is hardly an endoresment of collecting.
Rose said he felt the era in which American museums can collect antiquities is coming to a close.
Source countries are becoming more aggressive in pursuing traffickers and enforcing laws against looting, he said.
....
Buying antiquities could alienate foreign governments and prevent the cooperation necessary for international loans of individual objects or traveling exhibitions, Rose said.
�You�ll end up in litigation, and you won�t be able to enter into collaborative projects,� he said. �It�s all about collaboration now.�
Rather than collect, museums ought to forge agreements with source countries to share cultural riches, Rose said.
See http://www.cleveland.com/arts/index.ssf/2011/12/conference_at_the_american_aca.html
Despite such quotes, archaeo-blogger Paul Barford continues to claim that the AIA is really not against collecting. But if so, where are quotes from the AIA's leadership indicating that they support the rights of ordinary Americans to collect minor portable antiquities, such as coins, let alone more significant items?
Addendum: For more on the AIA's anti-collecting stance, see http://www.archaeological.org/sitepreservation/faqs
Q: Isn�t this disagreement between collectors and archaeologists really the work of a bunch of radical archaeologists who have lost touch with the public?
A: No, in fact, the stand taken by the AIA, the oldest and largest archaeological organization in North America, is representative of the point of view of all the mainstream archaeological organizations in the U.S. including the Society for American Archaeology, the Society for Historic Archaeology, the American Schools of Oriental Research and others. It�s also the stance of other major international archaeological groups. In fact, in January, an unprecedented agreement will be signed among the AIA, the German Archaeological Institute and the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences to battle the scourge of looting. A Harris interactive survey published in 2000 also showed that public opinion agrees with the position of the AIA�the main value of archaeological sites is scientific and educational and U.S. museums should not acquire illegally exported artifacts.
Q: What about the orphaned object that is out of the ground and circulating in the market with its context already destroyed and it provenance uncertain? Shouldn�t this object be acquired and given a good home?
A: The acquisition of these objects encourages looting. Objects like this are likely stolen. When confronted with an object like this, the best thing to do is to contact the authorities. You would not buy a hot car or a diamond watch from a disreputable source -- why buy an antiquity from a disreputable salesperson?
Q: In many cases there are multiple copies of certain antiquities, some with so many duplicates that they cannot all be displayed. What is wrong with the trade in multiples?
A: Some countries do allow trade in duplicates, including Israel. But it is difficult to identify a duplicate from a country that allows trade, and it�s difficult to prevent the sale of new objects as duplicates. Furthermore, most museums and private collectors are interested in high-end, unique objects, not �duplicates.� It�s primarily the trade in expensive, unique artifacts that drives the illegal market.
I would note the AIA also describes what constitutes a "licit artifact" according to its view of the law, but that is hardly an endoresment of collecting.
Greek Import Restrictions: Winners and Losers
Winners
1. The Greek Cultural Bureaucracy-- The Greek Government has mismanaged its economy so badly that it is relying on Germany and the rest of the EU to bail it out. Greece's cultural bureaucracy is as poorly managed and as corrupt as the rest of the Greek government. Yet, the MOU will no doubt be cited as some sort of U.S. "seal of approval" for the status quo.
2. The Obdurate State Department Cultural Bureaucracy- You've got to hand it to the entrenched bureaucrats at the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center. Important members of Congress have expressed severe misgivings about the implementation of their statutory authority. They have been sued in Court, and even though their decisions have been upheld to date as a matter of judicial deference, this is not the same as a ringing endorsement. Yet, culture creep has turned into a roll with these expansive regulations, by far the most wide ranging since the Chinese MOU in 2009.
3. The AIA and its Archaeological Fanatics- These fanatics hold that the only legitimate exchange of archaeological artifacts is a museum loan. They view import restrictions as a way to clamp down on a trade they do not believe should exist. So far their anti-collecting agenda has meshed well with the nationalism of countries like Greece and the predilection of the State Department to trade favors to the detriment of American collectors, dealers and museums.
4. Wealthy Greek Collectors- The fanatics criticise American collectors and museums, but don't seem to care that wealthy Greek collectors buy from the same sources as American collectors do. Now, Greek collectors will gain a competitive advantage over their American counterparts who can no longer import undocumented cultural goods. No wonder a representative from the Alpha Bank, which maintains Greece's best coin collection in private hands, was part of the Greek delegation that attended the public meeting of CPAC that discussed the MOU.
Losers
1. Greece's Cultural Patrimony-Even before Greece's recent financial meltdown, the country was highly dependent on EU funds to care for its major sites. Now, with money so tight, how can the country take care of its major sites, let alone the millions of minor objects in its stores? Yet, Greek cultural officials will no doubt hope that news about the MOU will will divert attention away from these hard financial realities and help stave off much needed reforms.
2. The CPIA and the Process Congress Contemplated- Import restrictions under the CPIA are supposed to be limited to culturally significant artifacts. Less onerous measures are supposed to be considered first. The restrictions are supposed to be part of a concerted international response. Here, these broad restrictions simply ignore these requirements. Moreover, the failure to give heed to the vast majority of public comments that opposed restrictions on coins again suggests that the whole process is little more than a farce.
3. The Small Businesses of the Antiquities and Numismatic trade- Import restrictions bar entry of cultural goods legitimately for sale abroad where documentation requirements for legal import cannot be met. This is particularly a problem for the small businesses of the numismatic trade. The documentation necessary for legal import is either typically unavailable for artifacts of limited value like most ancient coins or cost prohibitive to produce for such inexpensive items.
4. US Collectors- US collectors of cultural goods, including the thousands upon thousands of Greek coin collectors will face considerable problems securing material, particularly as time goes on.
5. US Museums- Loans are a poor substitute for purchases or donations for collecting museums. The archaeological fanatics may promote loans as a substitute, but they don't have to arrange such loans with the Greek bureaucracy or pay the considerable expense associated with such loans, which typically include expensive conservation costs.
6. US Customs- US Customs officers now have another broad set of import restrictions to administer. While they may make the "big bust" on occasion, I doubt that will make up for the frustration factor of trying to ascertain whether every ancient coin or minor antiquity that "looks Greek" is on the designated list or not.
1. The Greek Cultural Bureaucracy-- The Greek Government has mismanaged its economy so badly that it is relying on Germany and the rest of the EU to bail it out. Greece's cultural bureaucracy is as poorly managed and as corrupt as the rest of the Greek government. Yet, the MOU will no doubt be cited as some sort of U.S. "seal of approval" for the status quo.
2. The Obdurate State Department Cultural Bureaucracy- You've got to hand it to the entrenched bureaucrats at the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center. Important members of Congress have expressed severe misgivings about the implementation of their statutory authority. They have been sued in Court, and even though their decisions have been upheld to date as a matter of judicial deference, this is not the same as a ringing endorsement. Yet, culture creep has turned into a roll with these expansive regulations, by far the most wide ranging since the Chinese MOU in 2009.
3. The AIA and its Archaeological Fanatics- These fanatics hold that the only legitimate exchange of archaeological artifacts is a museum loan. They view import restrictions as a way to clamp down on a trade they do not believe should exist. So far their anti-collecting agenda has meshed well with the nationalism of countries like Greece and the predilection of the State Department to trade favors to the detriment of American collectors, dealers and museums.
4. Wealthy Greek Collectors- The fanatics criticise American collectors and museums, but don't seem to care that wealthy Greek collectors buy from the same sources as American collectors do. Now, Greek collectors will gain a competitive advantage over their American counterparts who can no longer import undocumented cultural goods. No wonder a representative from the Alpha Bank, which maintains Greece's best coin collection in private hands, was part of the Greek delegation that attended the public meeting of CPAC that discussed the MOU.
Losers
1. Greece's Cultural Patrimony-Even before Greece's recent financial meltdown, the country was highly dependent on EU funds to care for its major sites. Now, with money so tight, how can the country take care of its major sites, let alone the millions of minor objects in its stores? Yet, Greek cultural officials will no doubt hope that news about the MOU will will divert attention away from these hard financial realities and help stave off much needed reforms.
2. The CPIA and the Process Congress Contemplated- Import restrictions under the CPIA are supposed to be limited to culturally significant artifacts. Less onerous measures are supposed to be considered first. The restrictions are supposed to be part of a concerted international response. Here, these broad restrictions simply ignore these requirements. Moreover, the failure to give heed to the vast majority of public comments that opposed restrictions on coins again suggests that the whole process is little more than a farce.
3. The Small Businesses of the Antiquities and Numismatic trade- Import restrictions bar entry of cultural goods legitimately for sale abroad where documentation requirements for legal import cannot be met. This is particularly a problem for the small businesses of the numismatic trade. The documentation necessary for legal import is either typically unavailable for artifacts of limited value like most ancient coins or cost prohibitive to produce for such inexpensive items.
4. US Collectors- US collectors of cultural goods, including the thousands upon thousands of Greek coin collectors will face considerable problems securing material, particularly as time goes on.
5. US Museums- Loans are a poor substitute for purchases or donations for collecting museums. The archaeological fanatics may promote loans as a substitute, but they don't have to arrange such loans with the Greek bureaucracy or pay the considerable expense associated with such loans, which typically include expensive conservation costs.
6. US Customs- US Customs officers now have another broad set of import restrictions to administer. While they may make the "big bust" on occasion, I doubt that will make up for the frustration factor of trying to ascertain whether every ancient coin or minor antiquity that "looks Greek" is on the designated list or not.
Obdurate Obama Bureaucracy Imposes Broad Import Restrictions on Greek Coins and Cultural Goods
The Obama State Department and US Customs have imposed broad import restrictions on most Greek coins and other cultural goods. See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-12-01/html/2011-30905.htm
The restrictions on coins are exceptionally broad, but seem to exclude large denomination trade coins:
Coins�Many of the mints of the
listed coins can be found in B.V. Head,
Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek
Numismatics (London, 1911) and C.M.
Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek
Coins (London, 1976). Many of the
Roman provincial mints in Greece are
listed in A. Burnett et al., Roman
Provincial Coinage I: From the Death of
Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44 BC�
AD 69) (London, 1992) and id., Roman
Provincial Coinage II: From Vespasian
to Domitian (AD 69�96) (London, 1999).
a. Greek Bronze Coins�Struck by
city-states, leagues, and kingdoms that
operated in territory of the modern
Greek state (including the ancient
territories of the Peloponnese, Central
Greece, Thessaly, Epirus, Crete and
those parts of the territories of ancient
Macedonia, Thrace and the Aegean
islands that lay within the boundaries of
the modern Greek state). Approximate
date: 5th century B.C. to late 1st century
B.C.
b. Greek Silver Coins�This category
includes the small denomination coins
of the city-states of Aegina, Athens, and
Corinth, and the Kingdom of Macedonia
under Philip II and Alexander the Great.
Such coins weigh less than
approximately 10 grams and are known
as obols, diobols, triobols,
hemidrachms, and drachms. Also
included are all denominations of coins
struck by the other city-states, leagues,
and kingdoms that operated in the
territory of the modern Greek state
(including the ancient territories of the
Peloponnese, Central Greece, Thessaly,
Epirus, Crete, and those parts of the
territories of ancient Macedonia, Thrace
and the Aegean islands that lie within
the boundaries of the modern Greek
state). Approximate date: 6th century
B.C. to late 1st century B.C.
c. Roman Coins Struck in Greece�In
silver and bronze, struck at Roman and
Roman provincial mints that operated in
the territory of the modern Greek state
(including the ancient territories of the
Peloponnese, Central Greece, Thessaly,
Epirus, Crete, and those parts of the
territories of ancient Macedonia, Thrace
and the Aegean islands that lie within
the boundaries of the modern Greek
state). Approximate date: late 2nd
century B.C. to 3rd century A.D.
Obviously, the obdurate bureaucracy could care less that over 70% of the public comments received by CPAC opposed these restrictions and that the actual support for them is limited to archaeological fanatics who hold that the only legitimate cultural exchange is a museum loan.
It is also ironic that these restrictions provide for the repatriation of any coins seized by US Customs to the bankrupt Greek state, which has no money to care for major cultural sites, let alone for the thousands upon thousands of ancient Greek coins already within State collections.
Again, more proof that the Obama administration is anti-small business and pro-government regulation, despite all the claims to the contrary.
The restrictions on coins are exceptionally broad, but seem to exclude large denomination trade coins:
Coins�Many of the mints of the
listed coins can be found in B.V. Head,
Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek
Numismatics (London, 1911) and C.M.
Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek
Coins (London, 1976). Many of the
Roman provincial mints in Greece are
listed in A. Burnett et al., Roman
Provincial Coinage I: From the Death of
Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44 BC�
AD 69) (London, 1992) and id., Roman
Provincial Coinage II: From Vespasian
to Domitian (AD 69�96) (London, 1999).
a. Greek Bronze Coins�Struck by
city-states, leagues, and kingdoms that
operated in territory of the modern
Greek state (including the ancient
territories of the Peloponnese, Central
Greece, Thessaly, Epirus, Crete and
those parts of the territories of ancient
Macedonia, Thrace and the Aegean
islands that lay within the boundaries of
the modern Greek state). Approximate
date: 5th century B.C. to late 1st century
B.C.
b. Greek Silver Coins�This category
includes the small denomination coins
of the city-states of Aegina, Athens, and
Corinth, and the Kingdom of Macedonia
under Philip II and Alexander the Great.
Such coins weigh less than
approximately 10 grams and are known
as obols, diobols, triobols,
hemidrachms, and drachms. Also
included are all denominations of coins
struck by the other city-states, leagues,
and kingdoms that operated in the
territory of the modern Greek state
(including the ancient territories of the
Peloponnese, Central Greece, Thessaly,
Epirus, Crete, and those parts of the
territories of ancient Macedonia, Thrace
and the Aegean islands that lie within
the boundaries of the modern Greek
state). Approximate date: 6th century
B.C. to late 1st century B.C.
c. Roman Coins Struck in Greece�In
silver and bronze, struck at Roman and
Roman provincial mints that operated in
the territory of the modern Greek state
(including the ancient territories of the
Peloponnese, Central Greece, Thessaly,
Epirus, Crete, and those parts of the
territories of ancient Macedonia, Thrace
and the Aegean islands that lie within
the boundaries of the modern Greek
state). Approximate date: late 2nd
century B.C. to 3rd century A.D.
Obviously, the obdurate bureaucracy could care less that over 70% of the public comments received by CPAC opposed these restrictions and that the actual support for them is limited to archaeological fanatics who hold that the only legitimate cultural exchange is a museum loan.
It is also ironic that these restrictions provide for the repatriation of any coins seized by US Customs to the bankrupt Greek state, which has no money to care for major cultural sites, let alone for the thousands upon thousands of ancient Greek coins already within State collections.
Again, more proof that the Obama administration is anti-small business and pro-government regulation, despite all the claims to the contrary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)