Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill: Second Reading

(c) David Gill

The Hansard text of the second reading of the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill on Monday 31 October 2016 has now been made available.

Some highlights in the debate (that ranged over a number of cultural issues beyond the Bill) include:

• The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley): "We are lucky to have a highly professional and dedicated heritage and museum sector that works extremely hard to preserve our heritage and bring the story of our history to life. This work helps attract visitors to our shores too. We also have a duty to help protect the culture and heritage of other countries, for they are part of our shared inheritance as human beings."
• Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): "Can she assure the House that after the 62 years we have waited since we signed the treaty, there will not be another 62 years until the Government bring it into effect?"
• Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): raised an important issue about clause 17 and "unreasonable reason".
• Karen Bradley: "Although dealers will need to satisfy themselves through due diligence that there is no reasonable cause to suspect that objects presented for sale have been unlawfully exported from an occupied territory, existing codes of conduct already oblige dealers not to import, export or transfer the ownership of objects where they have reasonable ​cause to believe that the object has been exported in violation of another country’s laws. Dealers will not be required to carry out any further due diligence beyond that which they should already be conducting. In order to commit an offence, a dealer must deal in an object knowing, or having reason to suspect, as the hon. Member for Rhondda has pointed out, that it has been unlawfully exported. If a dealer takes temporary possession of an object for the purposes of carrying out due diligence or providing valuations, they will not be dealing in that object, because they will not be acquiring the object."
• Keven Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): "That leads me to one of the central concerns about the Bill. We will support it on Second Reading tonight and throughout its later stages. However, although the Bill has been brought forward in the context of the aftermath of the destruction of cultural treasures in recent conflicts, it does not, as I understand it, cover the actions I have described because they were carried out by occupying forces that are not recognised states. I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but the Bill will not necessarily prevent extremists from intimidating people into complying. In her response to the debate, will she tell us whether that comes within the Bill’s scope or powers?".
• Chris Bryant: "Does my hon. Friend agree that the British Museum plays an absolutely vital role—not only in this country, but in modern Iraq and Syria—in trying to protect many Mesopotamian antiquities? Indeed, the British Museum was in closer contact than anybody else with those who were summarily executed. While we are being nice to Government Members, will my hon. Friend congratulate the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on the fact that, from the moment he arrived in the House, he has pursued this issue?".
• Keven Brennan: "My hon. Friend mentioned the British Museum, which is a wonderful institution. If we are candid, however, we should recognise that our own hands are not necessarily entirely historically clean in relation to the removal of cultural property. That occurred in Britain’s colonial history, and it was used to build British wealth and power at the direct expense of colonised nations. Recent speculation concerning the repatriation of the Parthenon marbles to Greece, as well as campaigns to return the Koh-i-noor diamond to India and the Benin bronze cockerel to Nigeria, shows that the removal of cultural property reverberates through the centuries. I notice that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is shaking his head."
• Keven Brennan: "During the Second Reading debate in the Lords, Lord Redesdale mentioned the Ministry of Defence’s plans to create a squad of monuments men—and, presumably, women as well—whose focus would be to safeguard cultural property during armed conflicts. As I understand it, they would be soldiers with archaeology ​qualifications and the like. Meanwhile, the Department for Education has been campaigning against so-called soft subjects, leading to exam boards ending archaeology, art history and classical civilisation A-levels. The AQA explained its decision to cut A-level archaeology as follows: “Our number one priority is making sure every student gets the result they deserve…the complex and specialist nature of the exams creates too many risks on that front”— I am not sure how not offering an exam in a subject will make it any less specialist than it already is. On history of art, the AQA stated that the decision had nothing to do with the importance of the subject and “won’t stop students going on to do a degree in it”. That logic seems flawed to me. But it does not make a pretty picture overall, let alone a masterpiece, to have the Ministry of Defence wanting more soldiers with knowledge of art history and archaeology and the Department for Education cutting those same subjects from our classrooms, while the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is ratifying conventions and proclaiming that a national priority. "
• Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con): "Cultural assets are also part of the world’s heritage, and we all have a duty to do our utmost to safeguard that heritage. For that reason, I was delighted when the Government established the cultural protection fund, worth £30 million, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), Chancellor of the Exchequer when the fund was established, and the Education Secretary, who was then Secretary of State for International Development, for their part in agreeing to that, as a large part of the fund can be classified as international aid. I also pay tribute to Neil MacGregor—he has already been mentioned—who was the driving force for the establishment of the fund. He and I launched it together, and, as the director of the British Museum at the time, he took responsibility for the first phase, a £3 million fund administered by the British Museum to send archaeologists into Iraq to advise and help in restoration where damage had taken place."
• John Whittingdale: "The Committee heard concern about one aspect of the Bill: the offence of dealing in unlawfully exported cultural property. The first concern was about the definition of occupied territories. At the time, we were told that it was a very narrow definition, or that only a narrow ​group of countries or territories could be considered to be occupied. In 2008, the regulatory impact assessment identified the Golan heights, East Jerusalem and the west bank. Unfortunately since that time, the list of occupied countries has grown—I draw attention to Crimea. For the purposes of certainty for those dealing in cultural objects, it would help if we clarified exactly which territories we consider to be occupied."
• John Whittingdale: "The fact that there have been no convictions does not necessarily imply that the Act is not working—it is important to have it on the statute book. I do not believe that this country is full of dodgy art dealers who wilfully ignore the law and deal in plainly illegally exported objects."
• John Whittingdale: "The art market is determined and supports the Bill. The last thing it wants is for this country to become a place where people can deal in unlawfully exported objects. It is worth bearing in mind that the market is hugely competitive and the third biggest in the world—it was worth something like £9 billion in sales in 2014. I would not like to see it inadvertently put at a disadvantage compared with other markets around the globe. I hope the Government bear that in mind. As I have said, I very much welcome their commitment."
• Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP): "What Daesh is doing, in willfully desecrating and pillaging the artefacts in those sites, is a shameful and inexcusable crime against all of humanity. But let us be clear, not everything that Daesh is doing can be dismissed as simply malicious vandalism or an attempt to eradicate all traces of a pre-Islamic civilisation, as there is irrefutable evidence that when Daesh seizes a new city, one of its first acts is to plunder the museums and cultural sites for artefacts to raise much needed cash. Its looting of priceless artefacts is done for profit, and the flood of stolen antiquities being smuggled into the open arms of collectors across Europe and America shames us all. Michael Danti, a Boston University archaeologist who advises the US State Department on smuggled antiquities, said last year, “What started as opportunistic theft by some has turned into an organized transnational business that is helping fund terror”. Irreplaceable artefacts are being stolen from an already beleaguered people and are being sold on the black market to an unscrupulous but fabulously wealthy elite, whose money is funding Daesh’s murderous campaign."
• Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con): "inally, I cannot resist the bait from the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara). He talks about the Elgin marbles. I am afraid he does this great convention and the Bill a disservice by bringing up the Elgin marbles. They were, of course, purchased legitimately in the ​19th century. Not only that, they have been preserved to the very highest standards possible in the greatest museum in the world which, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) pointed out, is a world museum that is open to all, free of charge. The Elgin marbles are seen in pristine condition by millions of people. Indeed, they were recently loaned to Russia for even more people to see, which goes to show that the British Museum preserves the Elgin marbles not for any national self-interest, but for the world. "
• Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con): "Cyprus has witnessed its cultural and religious heritage fall prey to the policy of pillage, destruction and desecration instituted after the illegal invasion of the island in 1974, and during the subsequent and continuing occupation. Churches, chapels, monasteries, archaeological sites, libraries, museums and private collections of religious art and antiquities in the occupied areas of Cyprus have been systematically looted. The art treasure market of the entire world has for years been flooded with Cypriot antiquities from the occupied part of Cyprus. Sculptures, ceramics, figurines, statuettes, tools, weapons, frescoes, religious paintings and other works of art from Cyprus are routinely found at auction houses around the world, in particular here in London. I sought to intervene on my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) to gently remind him that London is not only a centre of antiquities; it is likely to be a significant place for illegal antiquities, too. Research undertaken by The Guardian found the illegal market to be flooded with antiquities, and there are various reasons why the Government have not been able to stop it."
• David Burrowes: "Let me touch on the Bill’s wording, which has been a matter of concern to the Association of Art & Antique Dealers and others. Clause 17 in part 4 needs careful attention, and we will no doubt hear more from Members about it. It is worth noting that the National Police Chiefs Council lead for heritage and cultural property crime, who should be commended and for whom resources for the enforcement effort are important, said that given that dealers in cultural property are expected to conduct due diligence checks, they would be unlikely to fall foul of the objective test of “reason to suspect”. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport impact assessment is in agreement with that, which is perhaps not surprising."
• Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con): "Most of the Bill is about the illicit trade, and we must shrink the demand for these works in the world today. Contrary to some of the remarks made in passing this evening, the UK is very good in this regard. We are not the epicentre of the illicit trade in art and antiquities; that is to be found in the Gulf states, in China, in Russia and in other parts of the world. The UK is actually at the forefront of having responsible dealers and major auction houses who care about their reputations, but that is all the more reason for us to do this and lead the world in enforcement. I want to say a few words about the offence of dealing unlawfully in exported property. We must tackle this issue, and I would like to think that the Minister would give this further thought on Report. This matters because, if we want to shrink the illicit market, we have to defend the legitimate market. The great auction houses such as Christie’s and Sotheby’s actually have very little interest in maintaining their antiquities departments; antiquities account for 1% or less of the turnover of such auction houses. It would be very easy for them and for experienced legitimate dealers to walk away from this trade, and that would matter because it would push more objects on to the black market and on to smaller auction houses that lack the compliance and legal and regulatory structures to do due diligence properly, and it would push out good dealers and give trade to those we are more concerned about."
• Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): "Beyond that, I urge the Government to consider what effect this provision will have on the art market here in London. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark, who speaks with the advantage of being not only a lawyer, but a former director of Christie’s, this will have a stifling effect. It may be that there will not be many convictions or many arrests, but the mere threat of the reputational damage caused by this possibility is enough to put the mockers on this valuable and entirely legitimate aspect of the London art market. The art market will go elsewhere and the crooks will get away with it. If we want to catch the bad boys, and if we want to inhibit this wrong and immoral market, why not stick to the 2003 wording or something similar to it, rather than allowing this Bill to contain an error of principle which could confound the interests of all of us who wish to see the destruction and the dealing in cultural objects that have been stolen brought to an end?"
• Tim Loughton: "Iraqi intelligence claims that Daesh alone has collected more than $40 million from the sale of artefacts. It is the equivalent of what the Taliban were doing in Afghanistan through the cultivation and sale of heroin to feed markets in the west. We took that very seriously and it was a priority for the invading and occupying forces in that country, yet the devastation and profit involved in the plundering of these archaeological sites and the sale of antiquities does not seem to register nearly as clearly on the world’s radar. This is an important part of putting that case firmly on the world’s agenda.​"
• Tracey Crouch: "If I may, I will explain the Government’s position on clause 17. As dealers should be carrying out due diligence for any piece of cultural property that they wish to buy or sell, in accordance with industry standards, we do not consider that the legislation imposes any extra burdens on those in the art industry. In order for a criminal case ​to proceed, the prosecution must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and that there is enough evidence that prosecution is needed in the public interest. Where there is credible evidence to suggest that an object may have been unlawfully exported, we consider that a dealer would not be acting in good faith if they proceeded in a deal involving that object unless further due diligence were undertaken to rebut that evidence. On that basis, we do not believe that honest dealers should be concerned about the risk of prosecution."

Heritage Crime Matters

My review article of two edited volumes has now appeared in the latest issue of Antiquity 89 (2015) 991-93 [Contents]:

DUNCAN CHAPPELL & SASKIA HUFNAGEL (ed.). Contemporary perspectives on the detection, investigation and prosecution of art crime: Australasian, European and North American perspectives (Farnham & Burlington (VT): Ashgate, 2014).

LOUISE GROVE & SUZIE THOMAS (ed.). Heritage crime: progress, prospects and prevention (Basingstoke & NewYork: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014).

There were a number of profitable contributions, perhaps my favourite being the essay by Dr Sam Hardy on 'Threats to cultural heritage in the Cyprus conflict'.

This essay resonates with the early 2015 debates about the looting of archaeological sites in Syria and northern Iraq during the present conflict with IS.

A second important contribution was:

In Contemporary perspectives, Duncan Chappell and Damien Huffer bring a helpful perspective on the looting of archaeological sites in Southeast Asia and the appearance of material on the Australian market. They comment on material acquired by major Australian museums from the art dealer Subhash Kapoor; some of the items have now been returned to India

Some of the papers written from a legal perspective were disappointing and, in my opinion, rather failed to engage with the reality of the issues.

Some of the comments I make in the review relating to the situation in the UK are now dated given the changes announced for the Portable Antiquities Scheme.

At the end of the article I ask two key questions:

Is the academic discourse of ‘heritage crime’ failing to address such significant archaeological concerns? Is the continuing and unsustainable destruction of the archaeological record to supply the insatiable demands of the market having serious intellectual consequences for our discipline?

Can I suggest that readers of LM have a look at the books in a library before spending £135?

The modern movement of ancient coins and protective legislation

I have been reading an important new piece of research by Professor Nathan T. Elkins of Baylor University ("Ancient coins, find spots, and import restrictions: a critique of arguments made in the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild's 'test case'," Journal of Field Archaeology 40, 2 [2015] 236-43). He considers the way that the ACCG "has launched multiple legal challenges aimed at undermining import restrictions on ancient coins into the United States in bilateral agreements with foreign countries".  He includes an important table that lists coin hoards from Cyprus that contain Cypriot coins. This data is provided to challenge the "spin" provided by those who lobby for the coin dealing bodies.

Elkins makes an important point in his conclusion: "Legal challenges have been launched by lobbying groups with a commercial interest that present a highly skewed picture of the actual situation that is not based on evidence".

This academic research is likely to undermine attempts to waive restrictions on the modern movement of ancient coins.

Honours for Influence?

I note that the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) legal case rumbles on. Rick St Hilaire has a useful commentary.

I was particularly interested in the Seventh Affirmative Defense which criticises the then Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns. It is alleged that he received an award from Greek and Greek Cypriot lobbying groups, and that in return he ordered import restrictions on coins.

Does the ACCG make awards in the hope of receiving something in return?

No cover up: coin conspiracy theory falls

I note that the Courthouse News service is reporting that there was no concealment of evidence as alleged by the IAPN, the PNG and the ACCG. This must come as a blow to the paid Washington lobbyist who has argued for a cover-up. This will hopefully bring an end to the shameful attack on the late Dr Danielle Parks whose emails have been the subject of interest by the request made by the three organizations. | |

MOU and Cyprus

Christina Luke and Jane Evans have published an overview of the CPAC public hearing back in January. The inclusion of coins features prominently. Opposition was noted as follows:

Three people attended the session opposed the renewal of the MOU with Cyprus due to the inclusion of coins on the list of objects with import restrictions. Their arguments were threefold: that the agreement abrogated their constitutional right to happiness (through collecting); that coins were meant to circulate widely in the ancient world, and so should continue to circulate today; and that the restriction of coins and the documentation required for legally imported coins would have deleterious effects upon small business. These views were met with penetrating questions by committee members.

At the end of the report was a list of those who provided oral comment. This suggests that one of the three who opposed the renewal of the MOU was a paid lobbyist acting for two numismatic trade organisations.

The Baltimore Test Case: Federal Attorneys Respond

Readers of LM are likely to have been following the process of the so-called Baltimore Test Case relating to the import of coins without supporting paperwork. Attorney Rick St Hilaire has a very important post on "Federal Attorneys File Appellate Brief in Baltimore Coin Case". I suggest that those interested in this case should read the full post, but here is a little flavour.

The United States rebukes the ACCG for short-circuiting the judicial forfeiture proceeding, avoiding its burden of proof, and claiming that the government acted beyond its authority (i.e. ultra vires). The government contends that the “Plaintiff [ACCG] cannot properly circumvent the statutory scheme established by Congress by asking a district court to review this seizure under the APA and under the rubric of ultra vires review and . . . to further confound Congress’s intent by asking the court to disregard the burden of proof established by the CPIA.”

Attorneys for the United States further maintain that the ACCG has confused the meaning and requirements of the CPIA. They point out that “[t]o import the coins into the United States, plaintiff [ACCG] needed only to show that the coins had left Cyprus or China before the effective dates of the relevant Designated Lists. Plaintiff declined to offer any declaration to that effect, claiming that it could not offer the evidence required by the statute because it did not know whether the coins had been ‘first found in the ground’ of either China or Cyprus. But the CPIA quite plainly does not require plaintiff to know where the coins were ‘first found in the ground’; all that was required was information as to the whereabouts of the Cypriot coins as of July 16, 2007 and of the Chinese coins as of January 16, 2009.”

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) would probably do well to seek out better informed legal advice.

Menil Collection to return frescoes to Cyprus

It has been announced that the Menil Foundation in Houston will be returning Byzantine frescoes from the church at Lysi to Cyprus (Elisabetta Polvoledo, "The Menil Is to Return Frescoes to Cyprus", New York Times September 23, 2011). They will be displayed in a museum in Nicosia as Lysi is in the northern part of the island.  The pieces had been purchased in 1984 on the understanding that they would be returned to Cyprus in due course.

ACCG Appeal

Earlier this month the ACCG's Baltimore Test Case was rejected. The ACCG's board has now decided to appeal using the same legal team that failed to make the case the first time around.

Bavaria and Cyprus

Part of the decoration of churches in northern Cyprus were discovered during police raids in Munich (Natali Hami and George Psyllides, "German court order return of stolen Cypriot treasures", Cyprus Mail September 28, 2010). The items include:

• 15th century frescoes from the monastery of Christou tou Antifoniti;
• a 6th-Century mosaic from the church of the Panayia Kanakaria;
• murals from the church of the Panayia Pergamiotissa;
• two icons from the monastery of Saint Chrysostomos

The items are reported to have been found "hidden inside the walls and under the floorboards in two apartments". If they were were there legitimately why were they hidden?

And the user of the two flats was Aydin Dikmen who appears to have used "false names" to use the flats.

Dikmen is reported to be linked to other cases of religious objects from Cyprus including the Kanakaria mosaics, and the frescoes from Ayios Themonianos near Lysi.

But why have the Bavarian courts taken so long to resolve these seizures made in 1997? It appears the Church of Cyprus had asked for the return of the pieces but has now had to take the case to court.

The scale of the seizure seems to be immense. A report in 2007, commenting on six Byzantine icons returned to Cyprus after surfacing at a New York auction house, noted "Bishop Neophytos said 250 such pieces are currently in Munich, Germany, after being stolen from the north by convicted Turkish art smuggler Aydin Dikmen" (Menelaos Hadjicostis, "Priceless stolen icons returned to Cyprus", AFP January 26, 2007).

And only this month (September 16)  Republican Congressman Gus Bilirakis introduced a resolution calling "for the protection of religious sites and artifacts from and in Turkish-occupied areas of northern Cyprus as well as for general respect for religious freedom" (H.RES.1631). 23 other Republicans were co-sponsors. Bilirakis' resolution notes:

Whereas the extent of the illicit trade of religious artifacts from the churches in the Turkish occupied areas of northern Cyprus by Turkish black market dealer Aydin Dikmen was exposed following a search of his property by the Bavarian central department of crime which confiscated Byzantine mosaics, frescoes, and icons valued at over Euros 30 million.

The video of Bilirakis can be seen here.

The Baltimore Coin Test Case: The List

I have commented before about the Baltimore Coin Test Case. Readers will remember the way that coins were seized on July 20, 2009 after they had entered the USA via a British Airways flight on April 15, 2009. The importer was unable to supply "additional certification" or relevant evidence.

A little more detail is emerging (Civil Action No. CCB 10-cv-00322; Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [filed June 25, 2010]; original ACCG case here [filed February 11, 2010]; ACCG amended July 15, 2010). It appears that the coins were purchased from a London dealer: to be precise, from Spink, on, or around, April 7, 2009. They are described as follows:

The collectors’ coins consisted of twenty-three (23) ancient Chinese and Cypriot coins valued at $275.00.

They are described as:

• 3-Knife shaped coins
• 12-Chinese coins
• 7-Cyprus coins

I understand the invoice describes them as follows.

Cyprus

• (2) Cyprus, Unattributed bronze coins, Roman period. No recorded provenance. Find spot unknown. FMV $10.00.
• (1) Cyprus, AE 28mm, Augustus, 27 BC - AD 14, Head of Augustus right / CA within laurel wreath. No recorded provenance. Find spot unknown. FMV $55.00.
• (1) Cyprus, AE 22mm, Ptolemaeus, King of Cyprus, 81-58 BC, Head of Zeus Ammon right / Eagle standing left. No recorded provenance. Find spot unknown. FMV $25.00.
• (1) Cyprus, AE 30mm, Severan era. AD 193-217. Laureate bust of Severus right / uncertain radiate bust right. No recorded provenance. Find spot unknown. FMV $30.00.
• (1) Cyprus, AE 24 mm, Tiberius, AD 14-37. Head of Tiberius right / head of Augustus right. No recorded provenance. Find spot unknown. FMV $40.00.
• (1) Cyprus, AE 24 mm, Tiberius, AD 14-37. Head of Tiberius right / Livia seated right.  No recorded provenance. Find spot unknown. FMV $40.00.

China

• [6] China [??] bronze coins more than 100 years old. No recorded provenance. Find spot unknown. FMV $21.00.
• (2) China, Zhou Dynasty knife shaped coins ca. 300 B.C. One is broken. No recorded provenance. Find spot unknown. FMV $25.00.
• (1) China, Zhou Dynasty spade shaped coin ca. 400 B.C. No recorded provenance. Find spot unknown. FMV $10.00
• (3) China, Han Dynasty Wu Shu type coin ca. 100 BC - AD 220. No recorded provenance. Find spot unknown. FMV $9.00.
• (3) China, Western Han Dynasty Ban Liang coins ca. 200 - 150 BC. No recorded provenance. Find spot unknown. FMV $9.00.

A misleading Washington lobbyist?

I note that a Washington lobbyist responded to my latest PR Newswire release, "Do Coin Collectors Care About the Archaeology of Cyprus", by writing:

Archaeologist David Gill has issued another misleading press release about the ACCG's test case related to import restrictions on "coins of Cypriot type."

I wrote: "Earlier in February 2010 a Washington law-firm acting for the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild filed an action against (among others) the US Department of State and the US Customs and Border Protection." I hope the lobbyist will have observed that somebody from his Washington law-firm has filed an action on behalf of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG).

So to my next paragraph: "The government of Cyprus had urged the US State Department to sign a MOU in order to restrict the movement of archaeological material from the island to the US." There is a MOU in place.

So to paragraph three: "A Brussels-based numismatic trade organization was one of three bodies, along with the ACCG, to initiate a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) court-action against the US State Department." I have commented on the FOIA case before.

Leaving aside the lobbyist's "another" (which press release(s) did he have in mind?), there is a suggestion that the following items are unconnected:

• a test case over the seizure of coins from Cyprus (and China) at Baltimore - to which the lobbyist's name appears in the filed action
• a FOIA action that cited the following, "The State Department recently imposed unprecedented import restrictions on ancient coins from Cyprus—requiring importers of even a single common coin of “Cypriot type” to provide unfair, unworkable and unnecessary documentation."
• an appeal against the FOIA decision that "seeks to overturn Judge Richard J. Leon's November 20th decision to uphold the State Department's (DOS) repression of information about the process by which import restrictions were placed on common collectable coins of Cypriot and Chinese types."
• the raising of coins at last year's consideration of the CPAC review of Article II of the MOU with Italy that related to "the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material Representing the Pre-Classical, Classical and Imperial Roman Periods of Italy".
• the "project" by the Cultural Property Research Institute to "study" "unprovenanced ancient objects in US private hands" - and the same lobbyist is the legal officer for the CPRI.

Or did I raise inconvenient issues that would draw thoughtful collectors along a path different to the one that had been waymarked for them by a lobbyist retained by a commercial European-based numismatic organisation?

"False claims" made over CAARI

Washington lobbyist Peter Tompa has responded to a recent PR Newswire Release, "Do Coin Collectors Care About the Archaeology of Cyprus", by commenting that the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (CAARI) "was involved in behind-the-scenes lobbying on behalf of the Cypriot Department of Antiquities, the Cypriot government body that issues excavation permits that allow CAARI affiliated archaeologists to excavate on the Island".

CAARI also features in a test case submitted by Jason H. Ehrenberg, Tompa's legal colleague from Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC; Tompa's name is attached to the legal papers.

Ellen Herscher (Vice President, CAARI) has responded to Tompa on the "Museum Security Network" (February 21, 2010). She writes:

Once again the ACCG has made false claims about the role of the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute in the U.S. government's decision to enter into a bilateral agreement with Cyprus.

CAARI's Director and several trustees publicly submitted statements in support of the agreement. This position is in accordance with CAARI's Code of Ethics, which states that the organization "is dedicated to the protection and preservation of archaeological sites in Cyprus and the information they contain." There was no "behind-the-scenes lobbying" involved.

Secondly, "CAARI-affiliation" has nothing to do with the granting of excavation permits in Cyprus. Permits are the sole responsibility of the Department of Antiquities of the Republic of Cyprus.

It is unfortunate that the ACCG continues to publish these erroneous statements, despite the fact that CAARI has responded and refuted them in the past.

Co-ordinated attacks by officers of the ACCG on CAARI were noted in 2008.

Are "false claims" being deliberately planted by some of the North American coin-collecting community as part of the background to the test case over the coins seized at Baltimore?

Do Coin Collectors Care About the Archaeology of Cyprus?

Looting Matters: Do Coin Collectors Care About the Archaeology of Cyprus?

A discussion of the MOU between Cyprus and the US.

The Baltimore Coin Test Case

Last November, after the decision over the FOIA case, it was announced, "the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild still plans to pursue a test case regarding whether those import restrictions were promulgated in an arbitrary and capricious fashion".

Now a Washington-based attorney, Jason H. Ehrenberg of Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC, has filed an action on behalf of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) (plaintiff) against the US Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; the Commissioner,  US Customs and Border Protection; the US Department of State; and, the Assistant Secretary of State (educational and cultural Affairs), United States Department of State. (The pdf can be found here.)

Ehrenberg's expertise lies, according to his firm's website, in "employee benefits, employment and civil rights law, and higher education law, representing both individual and organizational clients on a broad spectrum of issues within the employment relationship".

Apart from wanting the return of coins brought into the United States apparently without the appropriate paper trail, the action seeks:

ACCG requests the Court: (a) to declare that the decision to impose import restrictions on ancient coins of Cypriot type is arbitrary and capricious because, pursuant to applicable law, State failed to disclose to Congress a rational basis for the reason, or reasons, behind State’s decision to reject the advice of its own advisory committee and also in departing from prior agency practice; (b) to declare that the decisions to impose import restrictions on ancient coins of both Cypriot and Chinese type are also arbitrary and capricious because they are both contrary to law and the product of bias, prejudgment and ex parte contact; and (c) to declare that under the applicable statutes Customs must prove that the Cypriot or Chinese coins at issue were illicitly removed from Cypriot or Chinese find spots before they may be forfeited.

However this "test case" is more than about Cyprus and China.

There is an attack on the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA):

Upon information and belief, the Archaeological Institute of America (“AIA”) is a nonprofit group that promotes professional archaeology. Upon further information and belief, although the AIA maintains it has some 200,000 members, this figure is derived from the circulation of its magazine, Archaeology. In contrast, upon further information and belief, a small number of professional archaeologists – many of whose careers are dependent on excavation permits issued by Cultural Nationalist states like China, Cyprus and Italy—actually govern the AIA and formulate its public stances. According to one such pronouncement, the AIA maintains that all unprovenanced artifacts should be deemed to be “stolen” and repatriated to their supposed countries of origin.

There is a comment on the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (CAARI):

Upon information and belief, the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (“CAARI”) is a nonprofit group formed to promote the study of Cypriot archaeology and related disciplines. Upon further information and belief, the careers of many CAARI associated archaeologists are dependent upon the Cypriot Department of Antiquities issuing them excavation permits. Upon further information and belief, CAARI also maintains that all unprovenanced artifacts should be deemed to be “stolen” and repatriated to their supposed countries of origin.

I note that among the grumbles in the submitted action is this one:

Allowing Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns to influence the decision to impose import restrictions on coins of Cypriot type, though he had just received an award from Greek and Greek Cypriot interests and had displayed bias in favor of such interests.

I have commented on this issue before. I asked then:

What about organisations that reward congressmen for supporting "collector rights" or intervening "in issues of importance to ancient coin collectors"? Or is that different?

Given the recent comments about academic journals by a partner at Bailey & Ehrenberg, it is curious to see that one of the authorities cited in the legal papers is Wikipedia (section 61).

It is interesting to note that among the cases cited was one where "Supreme Court ruled agency’s decision to be arbitrary and capricious because the agency failed to offer any reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases caused or contributed to climate change" (section 132). Does Mr Ehrenberg side with those who believe that there is no climate change? Or does he prefer to drive a "gas-guzzler" rather than do his little bit to save the planet?

And does he care if archaeological sites on Cyprus are being looted to provide archaeological material for the market? Or is the issue about the right to collect and to own antiquities?

Cyprus: pots and coins

There has been a reminder of the scale of looting on Cyprus. There is a report by Menelaos Hadjicostis on the breaking up of a major "smuggling ring" ("Cyprus police bust large antiquities theft ring", AP January 25, 2010). The raid found pottery and limestone sculptures as well as silver and bronze coins valued at 11 million Euros. Ten Cypriot nationals were arrested and five others, including a Syrian national, were on the run. The antiquities are reported to have been found in the region of Limassol and Paphos.

A seizure like this is a good reminder of the need for agreements to protect the finite cultural resources of Cyprus. This includes the MOU between Cyprus and the United States. The presence of coins in the haul shows that coins need to be part of any agreement. It also explains why coin dealers have been challenging the agreement.

• MOU between Cyprus and the US
  

FOIA Appeal Announced by Coin Collectors

It comes as no surprise (as I anticipated on November 24) to find that the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG), the International Association of Professional Numismatists and the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG) have appealed against the opinion on the FOIA case brought against the US statement (for details). The appeal was filed on December 22, 2009 (Press Release; statement and document on ACCG website).

The statement, issued under the name of Wayne Sayles, states:

The appeal seeks to overturn Judge Richard J. Leon's November 20th decision to uphold the State Department's (DOS) repression of information about the process by which import restrictions were placed on common collectable coins of Cypriot and Chinese types.

The case of coins from Italy no longer seems to be on the agenda for the three plaintiffs (see court case papers, Count IV: "documents evidencing the potential inclusion of coins on the list of items subject to import restrictions with Italy"). Has something changed?

The press release also makes its view of President Obama clear:

the Judge's decision in this Freedom of Information Act lawsuit came less than a month before President Obama's "Open Government" Progress Report to the American People--where the President proclaims: "My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government..."

Yet the statement overlooks the wording of the original ruling:

... the State Department has established that it conducted a reasonable search, that it properly withheld the disputed information under FOIA exemptions, and that it complied with its obligation to segregate the exempted material from non-exempted material.

The plaintiffs do not appear to appreciate that the FOIA allows exemptions under certain circumstances.

This appeal is so important to two of the three plaintiffs that they have yet to comment on the appeal (or for that matter on the decision, or the case) on their respective websites (PNG, IAPN). No doubt there will further calls for funding from coin-collectors to help the cause. How much have the three plaintiffs had to find so far?

Looting Matters: Coin Dealers and Collectors Lose Case Against the US State

Looting Matters: Coin Dealers and Collectors Lose Case Against the US State



| |

"The Italian MOU creates a 'one way street' in terms of trade"

Last Friday's review of Article II of the MOU between Italy and the US was interesting. Kerry K. Wetterstrom, the President Elect of the ACCG and editor of the Celator, was speaking. His closing section talked not about Italy at all but the way that the ACCG is seeking to challenge the US State Department over its MOUs with Cyprus and China.

Of course, the major issue is not so much how difficult it is to export coins from Italy, but the unfair, unworkable burden import restrictions would place on unprovenanced coins of Italian type, of which there are millions already in the marketplace. By way of example, ACCG imported unprovenanced coins of Cypriot and Chinese type from the United Kingdom for purposes of a test case. The coins could have come from literally anywhere, but U.S. Customs has assumed they were exported from Cyprus and China contrary to the import ban. The coins were detained in April 2009, seized in August 2009, and Customs still has not brought an action in court to allow ACCG to contest the seizure. One can only imagine the chaos that would take place if the State Department reverses prior precedent and imposes import restrictions on coins of Italian type. ACCG, of course, plans to argue this point further when CPAC addresses Article I of the current MOU with Italy.

The MOU under discussion is about "the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material Representing the Pre-Classical, Classical and Imperial Roman Periods of Italy". Archaeologists are rightly concerned about the protection of archaeological contexts and heritage.

But what does the President Elect of the ACCG talk about? Trade.

In the MOU that is under discussion today, we are favoring Italian consumers to the detriment of American consumers of the same product. The Italian MOU creates a “one way street” in terms of trade. While commerce in common ancient and medieval coins faces relatively few restrictions within Italy itself, Americans can participate in this market only with great difficulty and patience. It would be an even greater travesty if they were precluded legally from that market while Italian dealers and collectors continue to experience the rewards of independent scholarship and private collecting.

Wetterstrom has revealed the real concerns for the ACCG. It is about the right to trade in the cultural remains of other nations.

Antiquities, ancient coins and changing attitudes in North America

Over the last few years over 100 antiquities have been returned to Italy from major North American museums. The piece that attracted the most publicity was the Sarpedon krater by Euphronios; it was returned by New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art. Other items include a Roman portrait statue of Sabina, and quantities of pottery made in Apulia, southern Italy. These voluntary returns, offered without active legal action, have done much to restore the patinated reputations of museums.

The Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) that serves as an umbrella organisation for museums has now changed its policies on the acquisition of undocumented antiquities. The AAMD now advises constituent organisations not to buy objects that are unknown prior to 1970, the date of the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. A public object registry has been launched by the AAMD with the object of letting interested parties check what is passing into public collections. (The scheme has had limited use since its launch with a total of four items in the register by mid-June 2009.)

Some senior figures in the North American museum world --- for example, James Cuno --- have continued to voice their disquiet over the changing situation. But such views appear to be in a minority. Museum curators who handle archaeological material understand the issues and are aware of the level of destruction sustained by archaeological sites around the world to supply "museum quality" objects for the market.

The growing realisation that action needs to be taken about the antiquities market has been reflected in the work of the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC). The most noticeable action was over antiquities from Iraq in the wake of the Second Gulf War and the looting of the Baghdad Museum. However there have also been memoranda of agreement with countries such as Italy, China and Cyprus.

The workings of CPAC are now under scrutiny. A Freedom of Information Act suit (FOIA) was filed against the US Department of State back in November 2007; this was in response to the restriction on the imports of ancient coins from Cyprus. This action was supported by three bodies: the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG), the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN), and the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG).

The purpose of the FOIA suit is made clear on the ACCG website:

The State Department recently imposed unprecedented import restrictions on ancient coins from Cyprus—requiring importers of even a single common coin of “Cypriot type” to provide unfair, unworkable and unnecessary documentation.

Why have these bodies taken such action against the US Department of State?

The IAPN, based in Brussels, Belgium, states on its website:

The IAPN is a non-profit organisation of the leading international numismatic firms founded 1951. The objectives of the Association are the development of a healthy and prosperous numismatic trade conducted according to the highest standards of business ethics and commercial practice.

The PNG describes itself as follows:

The PNG is a nonprofit organization composed of the world's top rare coin and paper money experts. As numismatic professionals, our primary mission is to make the hobby safe for collectors and investors by maintaining rigid standards of excellence for our member dealers.

This is clarified as follows:

The Professional Numismatists Guild, Inc. is the only numismatic organization in the United States that restricts its membership to dealers who possess and demonstrate three essential qualifications: Knowledge, Integrity and Responsibility.

Is this alliance of three organisations in reality acting over freedom of information? Could there also be an implicit commercial interest in the liberalisation of the market in ancient coins?

The US State Department, as Defendant in the case, seems to suspect ulterior motives and made this statement in their formal reply (dated May 19, 2009):

Consequently, Plaintiffs’ claims that they are advocating the public interest are properly viewed with some skepticism given ACCG’s “two phase” “coordinated plan” to attempt to rescind the import restrictions, which would commercially benefit a number of its benefactors, who appear to be U.S.-based dealers and brokers of ancient coins.

This statement has been refuted by the Plaintiffs (the ACCG, the IAPN, and the PNG).

In April 2009 the ACCG tested the agreements with Cyprus and China by deliberately bringing a set of ancient coins in the USA by air ("Coin Collectors to Challenge State Department on Import Restrictions", PR Newswire May 13, 2009).

As mandated, U.S. Customs detained the coins upon arrival. The ACCG now plans to use this detention as a vehicle to strike down the unprecedented regulations banning importation of whole classes of ancient coins. The collectors' advocacy group claims that, among other abnormalities, the decision process for these agreements was orchestrated contrary to the spirit and intent of governing law.

The ACCG seems intent on criticising a policy that is intended to offer some protection to the archaeological heritage of Cyprus and China by placing restrictions on the movement of material that may have been derived as a result of illicit diggings on archaeological sites.

So will the legal action and test case merely serve to inflame the situation? Do such actions present to the world an image of North American collectors of archaeological material (and that includes ancient coins) who are more interested in owning objects than preserving archaeological contexts and integrity?