One Side of the Coin: ACCG Re-Argues Previously Decided Legal Issues in Baltimore Test Case

Some of the ancient coins in dispute in U.S. v. 3 Knife-Shaped Coins.

Court decisions in 2014 and 2015 rejected the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild’s (ACCG) demand to revisit legal issues already quashed by the courts in the forfeiture case of U.S. v. Three Knife-Shaped Coins Et al. and the related case of Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection; U.S. Department of State; Assistant Secretary of State, Educational and Cultural Affairs. Nevertheless, the Guild continues to re-argue the same issues.

The litigation stems from the ACCG’s aim to strike down or erode customs regulations that regulate the import of specific types of ancient coins that have been determined to be in jeopardy of looting. The group minted a test case seven years ago when it intentionally imported undocumented and unprovenanced ancient Chinese and Cypriot coins to the United States. The Guild imported the archaeological materials from a London dealer and shipped them to Baltimore on a British Airways flight. The ancient coins had no accompanying documentation and offered no record of chain of custody or provenance.

Repeated losses suffered by the ACCG in the federal district court, the court of appeals, and the U.S.Supreme Court have not deterred the Guild from continuing its blitz on the import controls, which were erected under authority of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) and are designed to curb transnational trafficking of at-risk archaeological material.

The latest round of ACCG court filings is a motion for summary judgment that repeats many arguments that already have failed to win judicial support. In its July 2016 motion, the Guild insists that it “has either rebutted the government’s prima facie case and/or the government has failed to meet its own burden. Accordingly, the Court should grant the Guild Summary Judgment, order the return of the Guild’s coins, and require the Government to pay the Guild’s attorney’s fees and costs.”

While the ACCG litigates the Three Knife-Shaped Coins case in federal district court in Maryland, it is expected that the Missouri-based group simultaneously will press the matter when the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) meets in Washington, DC on October 25. That is when CPAC will hear public testimony about whether the White House should renew import controls to protect pre-classical and classical archaeological objects and Byzantine and post-Byzantine ecclesiastical and ritual ethnological materials from Cyprus, Docket No.DOS-2016-0054.

So far the ACCG’s defeats in the federal courts have produced favorable case law that strengthens law enforcement efforts to disrupt cultural heritage trafficking. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, decided that federal authorities properly listed the kinds of ancient Chinese and Cypriot coin artifacts that may be subject to CPIA import controls.

The appeals court also ruled that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) properly detained the ACCG's undocumented coins. The court explained that the burden therefore shifts to the Guild to prove that its actions were lawful, plainly articulating the clear rule that "[t]he importer need not document every movement of its articles since ancient times. It need demonstrate only that the articles left the country that has requested import restrictions before those restrictions went into effect or more than ten years before the date of import.” “In short,” the court added, “CBP need not demonstrate that the articles are restricted; rather, the statute ‘expressly places the burden on importers to prove that they are importable.’”

The ACCG rejects this standard. Rather than offering information to show that the ancient archaeological materials qualify as a legal import, the ACCG instead filed motions for discovery and a motion for summary judgment attacking the validity of the import regulations themselves. Meanwhile, the Guild maintains that the government bears the high burden to prove that the restricted ancient coins were first discovered in and subject to the export controls of China and Cyprus.

At a motions hearing held earlier this year, Assistant U.S. Attorney Molissa Farber, representing the government, told the Maryland district court that the Guild's line of argument is “essentially an attack on the government's ability to classify the coins by type and category, which has already been well-settled that we can do.” “And I understand that Claimants [ACCG] disagree with that process,” the prosecutor said, “but that's already been litigated. That’s not at issue here. That part is done.”

AUSA Farber reminded the court that “the Fourth Circuit rejected the notion that the government was going to have to fight a case coin-by-coin. The Fourth Circuit said that the statutory structure allows us to list coins by type and category.”

She emphasized that “the evidence that the Guild seeks to introduceis not evidence pertaining to the specific defendant property here. They’re not seeking to introduce any kind of evidence that relates to these 22 defendant coins as far as when these specific 22 coins left China and Cyprus.What they want to introduce is general evidence that coins of this type of category circulated broadly and may have left China and Cyprus outside of the regulated period.”

Peter Tompa, attorney for the ACCG and the organization's current president, countered, “The coins at issue here are typical in the market. So we don't know where they were found or too much about them. And there’s nothing nefarious about that, Your Honor. It’s a situation where there’s just low value items, and it was not important until recently that such things would be -- that such things should have a documentary history. But we do know something about the coins, we know something at least. We know that they were exported from the UK by Spink, a well-regarded firm that's been around since the 1600s, and in compliance with both UK and EU law in April,19 2009.”

Attorney Tompa continued, “Well, assuming the government has established first discovery just by listening, we’re entitled to rebut that. And how we’re trying to do that here with regard [to] these specific coins is by offering the opinions of two experts, Mr. [Douglas] Mudd, who is the Curator at the American Numismatic Association in Colorado, and Mr. [Michael] McCullough, who’s an expert in the international exchange of cultural artifacts.”

Declaring that “scholarly evidence” can be used by the ACCG to show that the coins left their countries of origin before the enactment of U.S. import restrictions, Attorney Tompa offered that “Mr. Mudd's opinion is that the ancient coins at issue here are of a sort that circulated in significant numbers outside of China or Cyprus for thousands of years[,] first as currency and then as collectibles. So it’s unlikely and cannot be assumed that they left Cyprus or China after the date restrictions were imposed.”

“So because these things circulated for thousands of years first as collectibles -- first as currency, then as collectibles," Attorney Tompa reasoned that "it’s unlikely that they exited Cyprus or China after the date of the restrictions, just given the numbers outside of those two countries.”

“Mr. McCullough's report is that UK and EU law did not require expert [sic] certificates for the coins at issue in this case, or the Cypriot -- well, any of the coins at issue in this case. And such with respect to the Cypriot coins, that would satisfy Cypriot law, because, after all, Cyprus is a member the EU as well. Mr. McCullough also opines that the Chinese coins here could have exited Hong Kong legally without documentation in that export would satisfy Chinese law under both the laws of China and Hong Kong.”

AUSA Farber countered this argument by rejoining, “The most salient point I think to take away from this particular dispute over the scholarly evidence at least is the distinction between specific and general. And I believe what we just heard from Claimant [ACCG] was a lot of purported evidence regarding general coin circulation. The coins are of the sort that circulated broadly. I mean, Your Honor raised the point, what’s the ultimate implication here? And the implication is that if that argument is allowed, it undermines the CPIA, undermines the statutory structure, because it essentially holds the coins shouldn't have been listed in the first place based on their type of category. And that’s not permitted.”

U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake agreed. In a ruling dated February 11, 2016, Judge Blake pronounced “that the Ancient Coin Collector’s Guild (“the Guild”) seeks discovery not relevant to the issues the court will have to decide in this forfeiture action.” In particular, she highlighted that the ACCG “apparently will seek to prove that the export of these coins from Cyprus or China to England was lawful under EU law. It is unlikely that the export control status of the coins under foreign law will be a proper defense in this forfeiture action.” The judge added pointedly, “Further, to the extent the Guild argues that the government must prove ‘first discovery,’ beyond demonstrating that the coins at issue appear on the designated list, that argument is foreclosed by the CPIA and the Fourth Circuit opinion in Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 698 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2012). Listing by type and category is proper under the CPIA.”

Judge Blake also granted a protective order shielding two State Department employees from ACCG depositions, explaining that they “do not appear to have relevant personal knowledge.” Over the objections of Attorney Tompa, AUSA Farber attributed “ulterior motives” to the Guild's attempt to depose the purported witnesses, presenting the court with, what the federal lawyer called, an “Internet post written by a former director of the Coin Collectors Guild" criticizing one of the witnesses. Judge Blake remarked, “I'm more interested in probably the relevance than in motive.”

In June, Judge Blake issued a further order rebuking the ACCG's discovery requests, stating, “I will not at this time direct the government to provide any additional 30(b)(6) deposition testimony.”

Soon afterward, the ACCG filed its motion for summary judgment and, on July 29, the court adopted a schedule that allows the parties to fully brief their positions. Once completed in mid-October, CHL expects to review the parties’arguments.

Text and original photos copyrighted by Cultural Heritage Lawyer, a blog commenting on matters of cultural property law, art law, cultural heritage policy, antiquities trafficking, and museum risk management. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of any blog post without the express written consent of CHL is prohibited. CHL works in cooperation with Red Arch Cultural Heritage Law & Policy Research, Inc.

MoUs: Italy Renewed; Egypt Still Pursued; Cambodia and Belize Get a CPAC Interlude

United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Treasury Department have promulgated rules, effective today, that extend import restrictions on archaeological material originating from Italy.

First erected by a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the U.S. and Italy in 2001 and subsequently refreshed in 2006, 2011, and now 2016, the import barriers seek to deter cultural property looting and trafficking by denying entry to endangered pre-Classical, Classical, and Imperial Roman artifacts bound for the American marketplace.

The import barriers result from Italy's request for American assistance pursuant to Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.

Under import regulations authorized by the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA), certain categories of 9th century B.C. through 4th century A.D. antiquities, armor, mosaics, jewelry, sculpture, and other archaeological material from Italy may be seized by CPB if trafficked across the U.S. border. The designated list of objects subject to the legal restrictions can be found here.

Italy asked for the latest MoU renewal in February 2015, and the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) met in April last year to weigh the matter. The renewal process concluded within a usual time frame. By contrast, Egypt's first and only request for an MoU with the U.S. seems to have stalled without explanation.

Egypt asked CPAC to consider enacting protective import measures in April 2014, attracting a variety of public comments from preservationists, ancient coin collectors, the Association of Art Museum Directors, and other stakeholders. Yet despite CHL's admonitions in June 2011 and July 2013 for emergency legislation to protect at-risk Egyptian material, followed by a call in March 2014 to implement CPIA import restrictions "with all deliberate speed," import regulations covering ancient Egyptian artifacts still have not been approved.

CPAC, meanwhile, will be meeting in executive session next month for an interim review of MoUs covering jeopardized archaeological material from Cambodia and Belize, both approved in 2013. Public comments will be solicited at a later date should either agreement be considered for extension.

Photo credit: Matthew Strickland

Text copyrighted 2016 by Cultural Heritage Lawyer, a blog commenting on matters of cultural property law, art law, cultural heritage policy, antiquities trafficking, and museum risk management. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of any blog post without the express written consent of CHL is prohibited. CHL is a service of Red Arch Cultural Heritage Law & Policy Research, Inc.

Italy Asks for MoU Renewal to Protect Cultural Heritage

The Italian government has asked the United States to renew a bilateral agreement or Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) restricting American import of archaeological artifacts in jeopardy of pillage.

The protective MoU between the two nations has been renewed twice before. The current agreement, in place since 2011, covers pre-Classical, Classical, and Imperial Roman artifacts from Italy.

The Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) will meet in public session on April 8 in Washington, DC to discuss the latest request.

To submit written comments concerning the proposed MoU, click here. Comments are due to CPAC by March 20 and must relate to one, some, or all of the "four determinations" laid out by the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA). These include:

(A) whether the cultural patrimony of Italy is in jeopardy from the pillage of archaeological or ethnological materials of the State Party; 

(B) whether the Italian government has taken measures to protect its cultural patrimony; 

(C) whether the application of the import restrictions, if applied in combination with similar restrictions by other nations individually having a significant import trade in such material, would be of substantial benefit in deterring a serious situation of pillage, and whether remedies less drastic are not available; and 

(D) whether the application of the 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.

Photo credit: Aculine

Text copyrighted 2015 by Cultural Heritage Lawyer. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post without the express written consent of CHL is prohibited. CHL is a project of Red Arch Cultural Heritage Law & PolicyResearch, Inc.

Opposition to MoU's: A Change in Policy for the Association of Art Museum Directors?

Museums are vital to the protection of cultural heritage. They preserve art and artifacts for the benefit of present and future generations, and they inspire visitors, students, and scholars to appreciate and safeguard history.

Most museums are tax exempt charitable corporations, holding the public's trust as stewards of human civilization. They are expected to lawfully and ethically acquire artifacts. They also are counted on to promote policies that preserve cultural objects.

So it is with interest that the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) last Tuesday opposed the renewal of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) meant to retain American import barriers on endangered heritage objects from Nicaragua. The group's objection follows a sequence of opposition to MoU's begun in 2014. Does this mark a new policy direction for the organization?

The AAMD is made up of important stakeholders, representing the directors of some of the largest and most distinguished cultural institutions in North America. The group often recites that “it deplores the illicit and unscientific excavation of archaeological materials and ancient art from archaeological sites and the destruction or defacing of ancient monuments” and that it “is committed to the responsible acquisition of archaeological materials and ancient art.” From this point of departure, the AAMD traditionally has supported—albeit softly—cultural property protection agreements authorized by the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA). Lately, however, even this mild support has given way to clear opposition to bilateral agreements, which serve to protect archaeological and ethnological objects in danger of destruction.

By way of background, the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) reviews petitions submitted by foreign nations that request American help to safeguard endangered cultural material. The help given takes the form of U.S. import restrictions on archaeological and ethnological objects in jeopardy of looting. The process used to enact these import barriers is defined by the CPIA, the federal statute that gives effect to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.

The CPIA requires CPAC members to assess whether a requesting government has satisfied four determinations. The full committee then offers a recommendation to the President about whether he should enact import barriers to protect cultural heritage in jeopardy. If import controls are approved by the White House, a Memorandum of Understanding is signed between the U.S. and the petitioning government. The MoU is often referred to as a bilateral agreement.

When Bulgaria requested American restrictions on cultural goods in 2011, the AAMD told CPAC in a written statement that the "AAMD supports the request for a Memorandum of Understanding from the Republic of Bulgaria with … concerns …..” The organization’s concerns seemed to have swallowed its articulated support, but the AAMD, nevertheless, expressly backed the adoption of the MoU. When CPAC considered a renewed bilateral agreement with Guatemala in 2012, the AAMD once again articulated its “concerns,” but it still offered support for the agreement. The AAMD offered similar backing for the Mali renewal in 2012 (“Subject to the concerns set forth above, the AAMD supports the request of Mali for an extension of the 2007 MOU”). Moreover, the proposed MoU with Honduras in 2013 garnered the AAMD’s endorsement, along with the usual tempering language, “Subject to the concerns raised below….”

Cambodia’s request for a renewed bilateral agreement in 2013 notably attracted the organization's clearest affirmation for an MoU (“For the reasons set forth above, the AAMD supports the renewal of the MOU”). The AAMD, meanwhile, did not offer an express objection to the enactment of an MoU with China, even though its position might be characterized as nuanced.

Then, nine months ago, the AAMD struck an entirely different chord, capped by last week's written comment directly opposing the renewal of a bilateral agreement with Nicaragua.

The AAMD’s statement on the renewal of the MoU with Nicaragua voiced unequivocal disapproval. “The AAMD respectfully recommends that the Cultural Property Advisory Committee … decline Nicaragua’s request…." For the first time, the organization included a paragraph captioned, “All Four Required CPIA Determinations Cannot Be Made for Nicaragua,” although the AAMD actually argued that only two determinations could not be satisfied. Regardless, the group expressed clear opposition to the adoption of an MoU.

The AAMD characterized Nicaragua's request as a plea for an “extraordinary type of protection” that could only be granted if the requesting nation itself proved "significant improvement in the protection of cultural property." The AAMD disquietingly added, “Any time that a country requests and is granted import restrictions without strict compliance with the requirements of the CPIA, the entire program contemplated by the CPIA is placed in jeopardy.”

The objection to a renewed U.S.-Nicaragua agreement followed demurrals aimed at petitions filed by El Salvador and Egypt last year.

The AAMD withheld its support for El Salvador’s renewal request this past September, gingerly writing, “The AAMD encourages the Cultural Property Advisory Committee … to carefully review El Salvador’s compliance …  In addition, the AAMD questions whether renewal of the MOU would meet the test of  19 U.S.C. § 2602(a)(1)(C)(i),” one of the CPIA’s four determinations. “Looting does not appear to have been significantly curtailed even after more than 27 years of United States import restrictions,” the organization added, and it asked “whether a new and different approach to an MOU is necessary.”

With respect to Egypt, the AAMD staunchly advised CPAC in May that it “not recommend any memorandum of understanding … between the government of the United States and the government of the Arab Republic of Egypt … or emergency restrictions at this time.” The AAMD questioned the foreign state's request, pointedly quizzing “Is Egypt Meeting the CPIA Determinants?” and answering the query in the negative, simultaneously downplaying archaeologists' observations of site looting in that country. “At this time, Egypt fails to satisfy at least two of the four determinants,” the AAMD flatly contended.

Given its opposition to bilateral agreements between the U.S. and Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Egypt, will the AAMD oppose future requests for American assistance under the CPIA? If this is the group's new policy, will all 237 members back it?

A number of art museums have been traveling a different road. While countless books and news articles have chronicled how museum collections formed, in part, from plundered archaeological, ethnological, and paleontological material, more than a few major institutions have turned away from--or are starting to turn away from--this legacy of loot.

In fact, the past few years have witnessed a greater awareness among art museum administrators of heritage trafficking. In 2013, for example, the Metropolitan Museum of Art repatriated two Khmer sculptures discovered to have been stolen from Cambodia. The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (MFA) meanwhile, developed a close cultural exchange partnership with Italy after taking fresh steps to resist the accession of contraband antiquities from that country. The MFA even hired a curator for provenance to bring real integrity to its collecting practices. The Cleveland Museum of Art, the Minneapolis Institute of Art, and the Philadelphia Museum of Art joined the MFA, and they are now among the institutions that employ full-time provenance researchers who perform due diligence investigations to find out the true collecting histories of pieces. Dallas Museum of Art director Maxwell Anderson, moreover, spearheaded the effort to deaccession and repatriate artifacts believed to have been looted and smuggled. He earned praise for injecting principles of fairness and transparency to the discussion on heritage preservation as chair of the AAMD's Task Force on Archaeological Materials and Ancient Art.

Whether the AAMD continues to oppose bilateral agreements or chooses a different direction, only time will tell.

Photo credit: Mike Thorn

Text copyrighted 2015 by Cultural Heritage Lawyer. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post without the express written consent of CHL is prohibited. CHL is a project of Red Arch Cultural Heritage Law& Policy Research, Inc.

Nicaragua and Mali on CPAC's Agenda

The Federal Register has posted the following announcement:

There will be a meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee January 21-23, 2015 at the U.S. Department of State, Annex 5, 2200 C Street NW., Washington, DC. Portions of this meeting will be closed to the public, as discussed below. 

During the closed portion of the meeting, the Committee will review the proposal to extend the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Nicaragua Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from the Pre-Hispanic Cultures of the Republic of Nicaragua (“Nicaragua Agreement”) [Docket No. DOS-2014-0027]. An open session to receive oral public comment on the proposal to extend the Nicaragua Agreement will be held on Wednesday, January 21, 2015, beginning at 11:00 a.m. EST. 

Also, during the closed portion of the meeting, the Committee will conduct an interim review of the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Mali Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from Mali from the Paleolithic Era (Stone Age) to Approximately the Mid-Eighteenth Century (“Mali Agreement”). Public comment, oral and written, will be invited at a time in the future should the Mali Agreement be proposed for extension.

Text copyrighted 2014 by Cultural Heritage Lawyer. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post without the express written consent of CHL is prohibited.

CPAC to Hold Hearing on El Salvador's MoU Extension Request

The government of El Salvador has asked for an extension of its Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the United States.

The MoU would authorize five more years of U.S. import controls under the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act to protect jeopardized archaeological and ethnological heritage originating from the central American nation.

The Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) will consider El Salvador's request during a public hearing that is scheduled for October 7 at 10:30 a.m. at 2200 C St. NW., Washington, DC (pictured here). To attend the hearing, call the State Department at 202-632-6301.

Public comments may be submitted to CPAC by clicking here.

By Rick St. Hilaire Text copyrighted 2014 by Cultural Heritage Lawyer. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post without the express written consent of CHL is prohibited.

UPDATED > Proposed U.S.-Egypt MoU Attracts Contrasting Comments from Heritage Preservationists and Ancient Coin Collectors

“Please exempt ancient coins. Don't ruin my hobby. Thanks[.]” That reaction summarizes many comments submitted to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) by dozens of ancient coin collectors worried about the adoption of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the United States and Egypt. The MoU, if recommended by CPAC and approved by the president, would restrict endangered Egyptian archaeological and ethnological objects from import into the U.S.

Egyptologists, archaeologists, and preservationists cited the increased looting of archaeology occurring in Egypt since 2011 as a prime reason to adopt the MoU. “Many major tourist sites have experienced intensified looting ...,” said the Society for American Archaeology in its public comment. And Egyptologist Dr. Monica Hanna offered several graphic photographs of the ravages of looting.

Last month, the U.S. State Department issued notice of Egypt’s request for an MoU under the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA). The agency announced:

Egypt, concerned that its cultural heritage is in jeopardy from pillage, made a request to the Government of the United States under Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The United States Department of State received this request in April 2014. Egypt's request seeks U.S. import restrictions on archaeological and ethnological material from Egypt representing its prehistoric through Ottoman heritage.

The written public comment period closed yesterday, attracting over 350 submissions.

Ancient coin collectors joined an organized effort to convince CPAC to either reject the adoption of the MoU or to simply exempt ancient coins. One illustrative comment declared:

Ancient coins should not be included in this ban. They are of a different nature than other antiquities, being mass produced in large establishments of ancient governments. In addition, if historical historical (sic) information is considered important, banning the import of these coins will have the opposite effect, forcing coins into the illicit end of the market; if legalized, there would be no such need for smuggling, and historical information could be preserved.

Another submission, evidently carved from a template seen in other comments, stated, “The request of the United (sic) Arab Republic of Egypt should be denied. It does not meet the requirements established by the CPIA [in the] early eighties.” The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, the International Association of Professional Numismatists, and the Professional Numismatists Guild all urged the removal of coins from CPAC's consideration of potential import restrictions on jeopardized archaeological material.

Organizations representing archaeology and heritage preservation universally submitted comments supporting the adoption of a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Egypt. With a collective membership of over 230,000, the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA), the Society of American Archaeology (SAA), the American Anthropological Association (AAA), and The American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) submitted a joint statement highlighting “the loss of archaeological context and thus our ability to understand temporal and social relationships and political structures as they impacted daily life, birth, and death.”

Writing on behalf of the American Research Center in Egypt, Brown University professor and Egyptologist Laurel Bestock offered a first-hand account of the looting threat in Egypt:

Coins and statues are some of the prime types of artifacts that are traded on the antiquities market, and there is no doubt that those my team found would have been immediately saleable had they been uncovered by looters. We found these objects in January of 2011, only days before the revolution began. In the aftermath of the revolution, looting at Abydos increased significantly; I would not be at all surprised if the discovery of the cache had some role in this, as the decision to avoid a public announcement could hardly keep their existence from being known locally. The very area where these were found was the subject of a nightime looting attempt while I was excavating in 2013. Thankfully the local police as well as the head workmen from my excavation, our guards, and our house staff responded immediately. On this occasion no looting was done. But as Dr. O’Connor noted, Abydos has had hundreds of looters pits dug since the revolution. These have been documented by comparing satellite imagery before and after January 2011, and archaeological fact-checking on the ground. To walk across the site is to see holes with bricks and pots thrown aside, gaping wounds in the archaeological landscape. While the incidence of looting has decreased significantly, the threat to the site and the information it contains remains very real. Abydos stands in the middle. Some sites have seen nearly no looting, and some have seen looting that has nearly destroyed them, has made it impossible for archaeologists to conduct work there.

The Penn Cultural Heritage Center submitted a meticulously researched and rigorously documented letterdetailing the recent pillage of archaeological material in Egypt, noting that its institution currently maintains 700+ reports of “looting incidents or cultural heritage damage” since the 2011 Egyptian revolution. The letter argued that “there is a condition of extraordinary pillage of cultural patrimony in Egypt.”

The letter touched on all aspects of the “four determinations” that CPAC must consider under the CPIA, which include:

(A) [whether] the cultural patrimony of the State Party is in jeopardy from the pillage of archaeological or ethnological materials of the State Party;
(B) [whether] the State Party has taken measures consistent with the Convention to protect its cultural patrimony;
(C) [whether] --(i) the application of the import restrictions . . . with respect to archaeological or ethnological material of the State Party, if applied in concert with similar restrictions implemented, or to be implemented within a reasonable period of time, by those nations (whether or not State Parties [to the 1970 UNESCO Convention]) individually having a significant import trade in such material, would be of substantial benefit in deterring a serious situation of pillage, and (ii) remedies less drastic than the application of the restrictions set forth in such section are not available; and
(D) [whether] the application of the import restrictions . . . in the particular circumstances is consistent with the general interest of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes.

With regard to the third determination, The Penn Center noted:

Already, there is a strong international response to the pillage in Egypt. As CPAC is well aware, countries implement the 1970 UNESCO Convention in different ways. Most states party grant reciprocal recognition to the export restrictions of other counties. Such is the system in Canada, for example, which, in 2007, intercepted a Greco-Roman bust smuggled from Egypt. Switzerland is the only country with a protection regime involving bilateral agreements similar to those in the United States. Switzerland entered into an agreement with Egypt in 2010. Major market countries such as Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, and the United Kingdom have all been involved in the recovery and return of Egyptian material …. The United States would therefore not be alone in responding to the situation of pillage in Egypt with import restrictions.

A public hearing on the MoU proposal will be held in Washington, DC in June.

Photo credit: Enrico Nunziati

This post was updated on May 16, 2014.

By Rick St. Hilaire Text copyrighted 2010-2014 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post is prohibited. CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Egypt Officially Asks U.S. for MoU to Protect Cultural Heritage

The Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) is scheduled to take up Egypt's formal request to have American import protections placed on endangered archaeological material originating from that country. The Federal Register today pre-published a notice announcing that CPAC will begin a review of Egypt's proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on June 2.

Temple of Isis at Philae in Egypt.

CHL has been calling for greater protection of archaeological sites, religious structures, and monuments since 2011 because of increasing perils to cultural heritage in Egypt. These threats have been chronicled in several CHL blog posts including here and here.

The International Council of Museums itself alerted the world to this swelling problem in 2012 by publishing the Emergency Red List of Egyptian Cultural Objects at Risk.

To submit comments concerning the proposed MoU, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal and enter Docket No. DOS-2014-0008. Comments must be sent to CPAC by May 14. They must relate to the "four determinations" laid out by the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA). These include:

(A) [whether] the cultural patrimony of the State Party is in jeopardy from the pillage of archaeological or ethnological materials of the State Party; 

(B) [whether] the State Party has taken measures consistent with the Convention to protect its cultural patrimony; 

(C) [whether] --(i) the application of the import restrictions . . . with respect to archaeological or ethnological material of the State Party, if applied in concert with similar restrictions implemented, or to be implemented within a reasonable period of time, by those nations (whether or not State Parties [to the 1970 UNESCO Convention]) individually having a significant import trade in such material, would be of substantial benefit in deterring a serious situation of pillage, and (ii) remedies less drastic than the application of the restrictions set forth in such section are not available; and 

(D) [whether] the application of the import restrictions . . . in the particular circumstances is consistent with the general interest of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes.

Photo credit: Martyn E. Jones

By Rick St. Hilaire Text copyrighted 2010-2014 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post is prohibited. CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

U.S.-Honduras MoU Extended, Ecclesiastical Ethnological Heritage Added to Import Rules

Copán archaeological site in Honduras.

The Treasury Department and Customs and Border Protection today issued final rules in support of a five year extension of the cultural property Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the U.S. and Honduras.

The import rules, which protect endangered cultural heritage from Honduras, were finalized in response to the State Department's conclusion that "conditions continue to warrant the imposition of import restrictions on the archaeological materials from Honduras...."

The renewed MoU contains added import protections covering threatened ecclesiastical ethnological material dating from Honduras' Colonial Period. Sculpture, paintings, and metalwork such as chalices and crucifixes are now objects subject to American import controls.

A complete list outlining the full range of archaeological and ethnological objects subject to import restrictions may be found here.

Voices from the collecting and museum communities last year expressed concern or outright opposition to a renewed agreement that would have protected Colonial and Republican cultural heritage objects. The Association of Art Museum Directors, for example, offered support for the Honduran MoU but cautioned that care should be taken to define exactly what objects should be protected and what dates should be used. The final rules issued today appear to have responded to these concerns by specifying ecclesiastical ethnological goods dating from c.1502-1821 A.D.

The U.S. first entered into a bilateral agreement with Honduras in 2004 after the cultural patrimony found in that Central American nation was found to be in jeopardy from pillage, particularly from archaeological site looting. The U.S. later renewed the MoU in 2009 for another five years, the time frame allowed by the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA), which gives legal force to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.

Cultural objects covered by the MoU's import rules may legally pass through American borders when accompanied by either an export permit or proof showing that they left Honduras prior to the adoption of the restrictions. Prohibited cultural material may be detained, seized, and forfeited by customs authorities as contraband, and smugglers could face criminal prosecution.

Importers would do well to remember that the 1973 Pre-Columbian Monumental or Architectural Sculpture or Murals Statute still applies, permitting import of the goods designated in the law so long as the importer produces a valid export certificate or offers proof that the imported heritage objects left Honduras before June 1, 1973.

Photo credit: Krzysztof Szkurlatowsi

By Rick St. Hilaire Text copyrighted 2010-2014 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post is prohibited. CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Honduras MoU Renewal Attracts Comments Ahead of Tomorrow's CPAC Meeting - Inclusion of Colonial and Republican Objects in Dispute

"Please help us," pleaded Honduran archaeologist Ricardo Agurcia in written remarks submitted to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC). He and nearly twenty others submitted remarks to CPAC in advance of the presidential advisory group's scheduled meeting beginning tomorrow in Washington, D.C.

CPAC will consider the renewal of the United States-Honduras Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), adopted under the federal Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA), which restricts American imports of at-risk cultural property from the Central American nation. The request to renew the bilateral agreement between the two nations is rooted in Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention.

The U.S. and Honduras first entered into a bilateral agreement in 2004 after Honduras' cultural patrimony was found to be in jeopardy from pillage, particularly from looting at thousands of archaeological sites across the country. The U.S. renewed the MoU in 2009. The agreement is set to expire in 2014.

The Penn Cultural Heritage Center told CPAC this month in a published statement that "looters continue to threaten the cultural patrimony of Honduras," a sentiment shared by other archaeologists. The Penn Center specified that from 2001 through 2012 "authorities reported 304 cases of theft involving cultural goods, including artwork, manuscripts, books and monuments, as well as historical, artistic, and archaeological objects" and from 2010 through July 2012 "Honduran authorities recorded a total of 101 complaints of crimes against cultural heritage, robbery, theft and damage of artifacts and sites, including at Copán and at Mayan tombs in Petatía."

In addition to archaeological looting, comments focused attention on looting of colonial era heritage. "Especially at risk are colonial churches, which have been victims of theft or attempted theft during the present MOU period," warned the Penn Center, conceding that it was "unable to determine whether this is an area of increasing illicit trafficking in Honduras or there is simply more publicity attached to these recent thefts." The Penn Center nevertheless cautioned that "the number of instances is cause for concern," pointing to reports of thefts of religious objects at churches in Taulabé, Comayagua, Candelaria, Lempira, Santa Bárbara, Curarén, Pimienta, Cortés, and other locations.

Agurcia offered a more emphatic statement, decrying that "the pillaging of religious, colonial materials has been rampant. In the past few years even the wooden statue of the town's patron saint has robbed and newspaper reports of similar events all over the country have prolific over this same period."

The colonial fortress at Trujillo, Honduras.

CPAC's review of the MoU renewal includes a request by the government of Honduras to widen the protections afforded by current U.S. customs laws. Restrictions on imports of Colonial and Republican cultural heritage objects in jeopardy--in addition to at-risk archaeological and ethnological material dating from 2000 B.C. to 1550 A.D. covered by the current bilateral agreement--will be considered by CPAC.

But there is opposition to this widened request by collectors' advocates. Arthur Houghton, a former curator of The J. Paul Getty Museum and an original member of CPAC in the 1980's, called the broadening of the U.S.-Honduras agreement "odd in the extreme." He argued in a written comment that the CPIA "clearly requires that material to be included in any agreement between the United States and a foreign state meet the definitions of 'archaeological or ethnological.'" Houghton stated that "Honduran material of the Colonial and Republican periods meets neither of those tests," arguing that "archaeological, material must be 1) of cultural significance; 2) at least two hundred and fifty years old and ... 3) normally discovered as a result of excavation or clandestine digging, or exploration" and that "ethnological, material must be 1) the product of a tribal or nonindustrial society and ... 2) important to the cultural heritage of a people."

The Association for Art Museum Directors (AAMD) communicated reservations similar to Houghton's, although the organization expressed overall support for a five year extension of the MoU. "While the AAMD generally supports the protections sought by Honduras, the AAMD urges the Committee to avoid overly broad or ambiguous categorization and definition of subject materials." The museum directors emphasized, "There is no explanation of what is meant by 'Colonial' and 'Republican' material."  As a result, the AAMD urged CPAC members in its written comments to "take care to define the scope of 'Colonial' and 'Republican' material to be protected, using defined dates and recognized definitions." The group nonetheless questioned "whether there is a demonstrated need for such protection," asking "If the United States is not a market, how can the imposition of U.S. import restrictions, even if done in concert with others, be of 'substantial benefit in deterring pillage?'"

CPAC this week will also assess the current bilateral agreement with El Salvador, part of an interim review of the MoU adopted in 2010.

Photo credit: rafito20

This post is researched, written, and published on the blog Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire at culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Text copyrighted 2010-2013 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post is prohibited. CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Upcoming CPAC Meeting To Consider Honduras MoU Renewal - El Salvador Interim Review Also Expected

Today's Federal Register announces the U.S. Secretary of State's intention to propose a renewal of the cultural property Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Honduras. The request to extend the five year bilateral agreement, which restricts the importation of protected cultural property under the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) will be considered during a public session to be held on October 30, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. in Washington, DC.

Maya carving in Copán in western Honduras.

The U.S. and Honduras entered bilateral agreements in 2004 and 2009 after Honduras' cultural patrimony was found to be in jeopardy from pillage, particularly from looting at thousands of archaeological sites across the country.

The Honduran MoU currently covers archaeological and ethnological material dating from 2000 B.C. to 1550 A.D. This time the State Department announces that "the Government of Honduras has asked that the MOU be amended to include material representing the Colonial and Republican periods of its cultural heritage" as well.

The Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) met in January 2013 to anticipate the Honduran renewal. That meeting was carried out in executive session. The upcoming meeting will have both a public session and an executive session.

Public comments regarding the Honduran MoU renewal may be submitted to CPAC by October 17 at Regulations.gov.

When CPAC meets from October 30 through November 1, it will also give an interim review of the bilateral agreement with El Salvador. That MoU served as the supporting basis for a federal smuggling conviction in U.S. v. Perez when authorities discovered that the defendant was selling pre-Columbian and pre-Hispanic pots imported illegally into the U.S. from El Salvador.

Public comments are expected to be accepted by CPAC on the bilateral agreement with El Salvador at a future date.

This post is researched, written, and published on the blog Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire at culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Text copyrighted 2010-2013 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post is prohibited. CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

U.S. Import Protections Extended on Cambodian Heritage

As arguments heat up in the civil forfeiture case of United States of America v. A 10th Century Cambodian Sandstone Sculpture Currently Located at Sotheby's, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Treasury Department have issued a final rule extending cultural property import controls over Cambodian cultural objects threatened by looting.

Angkor temple detail. Credit: eschu 1952

The rule covers archaeological and ethnological material from the Bronze Age through the Khmer era. That means that protected cultural objects listed under the U.S. import rule are barred from entering the U.S. unless authorized.

The U.S. first agreed to emergency import controls authorized by the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) in 1999. A bilateral agreement enacted between the U.S. and Cambodia pursuant to the CPIA followed in September 2003. The agreement, called a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), formally instituted cultural property import controls for five years. The U.S. renewed the import protections in September 2008. They have now been renewed for another five years.

The Association of Art Museum Directors and the Archaeological Institute of America are among those who supported the adoption of the latest import measures.

A description of modern-day archaeological looting in Cambodia is outlined in a letter authored by Heritage Watch, which was submitted to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee in January.

This post is researched, written, and published on the blog Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire at culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Text copyrighted 2010-2013 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post is prohibited. CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com