A few important omissions in Jeremy Kahn’s “Coin Dealers Sue State Dept. for Details on Import Bans” in the New York Times, on November 17, 2007 should be pointed out:
In the article, Mr. Kahn claimed, “It was the first time the government had barred trade in a broad category of ancient coins…” But this is not true. While the US/Cyprus bilateral agreement does represent the first time that ancient coins have been subject to temporary import restrictions under the Cultural Property Implementation Act, coins have been subject to government-mandated import restrictions for many years in other contexts. For example, Executive Order 12722, which prohibits the importation of ancient coins from Iraq, went into effect on August 2, 1990. This order has been renewed several times, e.g., see section 4 of the renewal dated July 29, 2004. This prohibition remains in effect. In addition, antiquities, coins and other artifacts of Iranian origin have also been subject to trade restrictions for a number of years; importing such items to the U.S. is currently prohibited, and the US Customs and/or the Department of Justice does confiscate such items. In addition, according to the US Customs and Border Protection’s website, “gold coins ... originating in or brought from Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Serbia, and Sudan are prohibited entry” under regulations administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control.
Mr. Kahn wrongly characterizes import restrictions on Cypriot coins as a sweeping ban. For example, the photo caption in the article reads: “Importing Cypriot coins like this one is now banned.” But according to the U.S. Federal Register, the coins restricted from entering the US under the bilateral agreement are quite specific and listed as:
Coins of Cypriot types made of gold, silver, and bronze including but not limited to:
1. Issues of the ancient kingdoms of Amathus, Kition, Kourion, Idalion, Lapethos, Marion, Paphos, Soli, and Salamis dating from the end of the 6th century B.C. to 332 B.C.
2. Issues of the Hellenistic period, such as those of Paphos, Salamis, and Kition from 332 B.C. to c. 30 B.C.
3. Provincial and local issues of the Roman period from c. 30 B.C. to 235 A.D. Often these have a bust or head on one side and the image of a temple (the Temple of Aphrodite at Palaipaphos) or statue (statue of Zeus Salaminios) on the other.
Coins minted in Cyprus outside of the categories specified are not affected. In addition, no import ban exists for these types of coins, or any coin of Cypriot type, if the coin is accompanied by a valid export permit from the Government of Cyprus. Any bona fide museum, university or organization with a need to access and study Cypriot coins, can apply to the Cyprus government for a long-term loan, as described in Section 27 (subsections 1 and 2) of the Cyprus Antiquities Law.
The State Department operates under the provisions of the Cultural Property Implementation Act, the enabling legislation passed on January 12, 1983 and amended December 22, 1987, which implements into US law the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (UNESCO 1970). As parties to the Convention, Cyprus and the US, as well as more than 100 countries, have agreed to abide by Article 1(e), which includes under the definition of Cultural Property subject to protection, “antiquities more than one hundred years old, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals”. Parties to the Convention have also agreed to abide by Article 9: "Any State Party to this Convention whose cultural patrimony is in jeopardy from pillage of archaeological or ethnological materials may call upon other States Parties ... to participate in a concerted international effort to determine and to carry out the necessary concrete measures, including the control of exports and imports and international commerce in the specific materials concerned. Pending agreement each State concerned shall take provisional measures to the extent feasible to prevent irremediable injury to the cultural heritage of the requesting State."
In other words, the US-Cyprus bilateral agreement is fully in keeping with an international legal mechanism that has been in place for decades.
To describe the import restrictions of ancient Cypriot coins without including the proper background information and circumstances does not serve the purpose of pursuing “greater disclosure”, reportedly the basis for bringing the lawsuit. Context does matter. We believe the public deserves better from The New York Times.
As for the lawsuit itself, the 15-page complaint speaks for itself. But consider this fact: it costs as little as $100/month to hire an archaeological site guard; an FOIA attorney in Washington, D.C. typically receives $400 per hour, or more, to sue the federal government.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
"All the news that's fit to print"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I take issue with the accuracy of the claims made in this post.
The restrictions in question are on coins of Cypriot type. Hence, as the New York Times accurately states, this is the first time time import restrictions have been placed on a broad category of ancient coins.
The other restrictions cited were imposed under other statutory or administrative provisions. Executive Order 12722 is general in nature. I do not believe that it singles out ancient coins. Moreover, it is my understanding that it has been construed in such a way as to require the government to trace specific artifacts back to illicit removal from Iraq. Hence, such restrictions are based on origin of the artifact, not its type.
The same distinction applies to the restrictions on the import of certain gold coins. It is my understanding they also require the government to trace the gold coin in question back to the country of origin in some fashion.
Hopefully, in practice, Customs will not detain and seize coins of Cypriot type without similar additional safeguards, but unfortunately it is my understanding that Customs has detained other artifacts restricted under the CPIA solely based on stylistic comparisons with like kind artifacts on the designated list. The burden then shifts to the importer to prove the negative by documenting that the artifact left Cyprus before the restrictions were imposed. This is much easier said than done-- particularly for common artifacts like coins that have been traditionally traded without a provenance.
While SAFE has claimed that one can assume coins of Cypriot types are easily distiquishable from "mint marks" and one can also assume that such coins were first found in the ground in Cyprus because they are "rarely" found outside the Island, ACCG and others have proved the falacy of such claims. See http://accg.us/issues/world/slapdash-effort-at-dos
Hence, while SAFE claims the NY Times article is inaccurate about the unprecedented nature of the import restrictions on ancient coins of Cypriot types, such a claim depends on confusing different statutory prohibitions and their practical effect.
SAFE's other claims are even more tenuous. The New York Times never said the restrictions apply to all Cypriot coins. The article specifically states that the ban applies to ancient coins, such as the ancient coin pictured in the article.
SAFE's claim that Cyprus allows temporary exports for academic purposes misses the point entirely. Even if Cyprus sent coins to the United States temporaily for academic study, (Please provide examples when this has been done in the past. I am certainly unaware of any), that would not satisfy the needs of the collecting public and do little to promote the preservation, display and study of the thousands upon thousands (if not millions) of such coins of Cypriot type extant.
Finally, the SAFE blog's snide comparison of the cost of a site guard versus that of a FOIA attorney begs an important question. Hiring guards for its archaeological sites is just one of the self help measures Cyprus should have tried before asking the State Department to foist unfair, unworkable and unnecessary import restrictions on ancient coins of Cypriot types on coin dealers, collectors and untrained customs officials. (Banning metal detectors and/or regulating them through a Treasure Trove law would be other self help measures.) If memory serves, Cyprus recently contracted for well over $1 million in lobbying services to influence the US Congress and the administration, presumably as part of its "Cold War" struggle against Turkey. Perhaps, SAFE could suggest that the Cypriots instead divert some of this money to protecting its own archaeological sites.
SAFE itself has long beat the drum against collectors and museums demanding "provenance" information. For example, the previous post on on the SAFE blog took the University of London to task for its failure to release a report about the provenance of some artifacts lent to it by a generous collector for study purposes.
All ACCG and the numismatic trade seek here is the "provenance" of the unprecedented decision to impose import restrictions on coins of Cypriot type and some transparency and accountability from the public servants at the State Department.
The fact that SAFE has chosen to attack the New York Times, the ACCG and others who only seek to promote such transparency and fair play raises its own questions about the hypocracy of SAFE's postition.
Sincerely,
Peter Tompa
I'd also like to add, that any Cypriot coins out of Cyprus by the effective date of the import restriction (that is, July 16, 2007) can also be brought into the US. That means that even among the limited categories of coins subject to the restriction, many coins can still be traded legally in the US.
Are there not many coins still left to collect and buy and sell that were minted since 235 AD and fall outside of the specified categories listed in the federal register?
Another point to emphasize, is the fact that all bilateral agreements under CPIA are temporary and last for five years, subject to renewal.
The above criticism of the New York Times and Jeremy Kahn would be humorous if not so tragic. The post is filled with inaccurate information and misleading half truths.
1. Executive Order 12722 was a general trade embargo, not a prohibition on the importation of ancient coins. HR-1047 did however impose a temporary import restriction on ancient coins exported from 2004 through 2009 (or sooner if relations are normalized with Iraq).
2. The trade embargo levied against Iran has nothing to do with coins or cultural property. It is a punitive measure.
3. The issue of gold transfers between certain designated countries and the U.S. is purely a monetary and security issue that has nothing to do with collector coins or cultural property.
Why spill all this ink over issues that have no bearing on archaeology or cultural property? It is a pitiful diversion from the subject.
What point could possibly be made about the caption on the photo accompanying Mr. Kahn's article? That coin, just as the caption says, is now prohibited from importation into the United States. Anyone who would attempt to import that coin would risk detention of the coin and would have to defend themselves against a presumption that the coin was exported from Cyprus in contravention of this agreement. This presumption of guilt flies in the face of all that Americans believe in.
Thank you for the long list of prohibited items. The statement "Coins minted in Cyprus outside of the categories specified are not affected" leaves me bewildered. What other ancient coins of Cyprus are there? That statement implies that only a few coins are in question, when in reality it is all coinage struck over a period of more than 600 years. Is that not deceptive? It surely is not subtle.
The long elucidation about CPAC may be useful for some readers. What is not mentioned is that collector and trade organizations support the Cultural Property Implementation Act. We honor the recommendations of CPAC. We merely asked Department of State whether they honored the recommendation of their own committee when they agreed to impose import restrictions. When they refused to answer that question, we felt that it was our right as citizens to use legal processes to force that answer. How this can be twisted as some sort of attack on archaeology or cultural heritage is beyond my comprehension. Does SAFE advocate closed and secretive government actions? Or is it only at ECA that this kind of secrecy is allowed?
I will agree on one point. It is a shame that coin collectors, who have traditionally been major supporters of archaeology are now forced to spend their discretionary income on legal fees rather than on enhancements of our understanding of the past.
Please consider these supplemental comments to my prior post.
My initial post neglected restrictions on Iranian artifacts -- which have been applied for political and not archaeological purposes. It is my understanding that restrictions on artifacts coming from Iran are again general in nature. The restrictions depend on tracing the artifact in question back to Iran.
I should also note that the restrictions on gold coins are aimed at modern coinage not ancient coinage. Again, they do not represent restrictions on ancient coins of specific types.
Although the initial post did not mention legislation aimed at restricting entry of Iraqi artifacts (HR 1047), it should be noted as far as I understand the Department of State has never made the requisite fact finding and the statute has not been implemented. Thus, there are no restrictions on coins of Iraqi types under the CPIA.
Finally, I should note that the National Journal 8/4/07 noted that the Republic of Cyprus had "dangled" a lobbying contract worth $1.4 million a year to lobbying heavyweights like Patton Boggs, Qorvis Communications, Clark and Weinstock, and the Washington Group. The report noted that "Cyprus, which was invaded by Turkey in 1974 and has poor relations with its neighbor since then, is hoping to strengthen its influence in Washington, partly to counter Turkey's long-standing clout in the capital."
Obviously, the $1.4 million spent for this purpose could pay for many guards at archaeological sites in Cyprus. It should also be noted that the cost of administering the Treasure Trove program in the UK runs about $1.4 million UK pounds per year. Presumably, such costs would be much less in a small country like Cyprus.
Sincerely,
Peter Tompa
Dear Mr. Tompa and Mr. Sayles:
You seem to have interpreted our appeal to the New York Times for more complete reporting as an attack on the newspaper or implied comment on the lawsuit. Neither is true.
We will address some of the more relevant points you raised.
Whether coins (be they modern, ancient, from a particular country, etc.) are prohibited entry to the U.S. due to trade embargo, statutory or administrative provisions, for archaeological or political reasons, the fact remains: the inclusion of Cypriot coins in the temporary five-year bilateral agreement is NOT “the first time the government had barred trade in a broad category of ancient coins”. And let’s not forget, coins are only one of the many other categories of antiquities subject to import restriction.
You have also repeatedly called SAFE “anti-collecting” both on SAFECORNER and elsewhere. We ask you to please review our Statement of Principles, which states “SAFE encourages legal and ethical behavior among collectors, dealers, and museums to stop the trade in illicit antiquities. SAFE recognizes the ability of individuals and institutions to lawfully acquire and properly retain or transfer title of antiquities where authorized by law.”
Finally, Mr. Tompa and Mr. Sayles, before you post another comment, kindly review “Blogging on SAFECORNER” and our usage terms at the bottom of the page.
Sincerely,
SAFECORNER
Thank you for clarifying SAFE's position. I am glad to hear that SAFE does not actually take issue with ACCG's, IAPN's and PNG's effort to ascertain whether the State Department complied with the law and its own procedures before making its unprecedented decision to impose import restrictions on ancient coins of Cypriot type.
I hope the SAFE will affirmatively join such commentators as "Culture Grrl" and the Time Magazine Blog who have applauded efforts calling for more transparency to shed light on the murky process by which the State Department imposes import restrictions.
As Lee Rosenbaum (a.k.a Grrl) has stated,
"Whether you side with some archaeologists and scholars who believe that the U.S. State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee is admirably safeguarding the cultural heritage of foreign countries, or you agree with some dealers, collectors and museums who feel that CPAC inappropriately rubber stamps source countries' excessively retentionist requests, you ought to buy into the argument set forth in a lawsuit just filed in U.S. District Court by a group of numismatists---that CPAC's deliberations and decisions should, under federal Sunshine and Freedom of Information laws, be publicly disclosed."
See http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/
As the Time Museum blog also stated,
"Artworld professionals suspect that the U.S. is too quick to sacrifice the interests of American museums to help secure the cooperation of foreign nations in matters like drug trafficking and the war on terror. If that's true, the coin collector suit won't transform policy overnight. But it could force the government to open up a bit on how policy is made, and for American museums that alone would be a useful step."
See http://time-blog.com/looking_around/2007/11/coin_collectors_seek_big_chang.html
I guess we will have to agree to disagree about the accuracy of the SAFE post about Jeremy Kahn's New York Times article. I quote the contested passage as follows: "The lawsuit follows a controversial decision by the State Department to ban imports of ancient coins from the island of Cyprus. It was the first time the government had barred trade in a broad category of ancient coins, and collectors and dealers were startled."
As I understand it, SAFE maintains the statement is inaccurate because other restrictions have impacted the ability to import ancient coins in the past. As such, the underlying message is "no big deal," and why should any thinking person contest it.
In contrast, the position of the ACCG and others, is that the Kahn statement is quite accurate. This is indeed the first time there has been a ban on a broad category of ancient coins, i.e. ancient coins of Cypriot types.
Though this may not be a "bid deal" to those who don't have to comply with such restrictions, this is indeed a big deal for coin collectors and dealers. Perhaps, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of concerns of coin collectors and dealers on SAFE's part.
Our major concern relates to restrictions ON TYPES OF COINS. While many coin collectors and dealers also may share my own philosophical qualms about repatriation of coins traced back to specific countries (when the laws in those countries view all artifacts found in the ground to be state property and treat those that find them unfairly), those are minor in comparison and that is not the issue here. The problem as coin collectors and dealers see it is that import restrictions under the CPIA create a presumption based on a coin's type that the coin is "illicit." As a practical matter, rebutting that presumption will probably be impossible or impractical to do for most coins.
Finally, we probably do agree that more complete reporting on these issues is desirable, but after reading Roger Atwood's article on the subject, I suspect we might disagree on what should be reported. From my perspective, there has been more than enough reporting about the rights and wrongs of specific repatriation claims and the damage caused by "looting." In my opinion, this only serves as a diversion from obvious failures in source countries to devote the necessary resources to properly preserving, studying and displaying artifacts. Interestingly, one of the relatively few articles I have read on this subject relates to Cyprus. It was published in the Cyprus Mail and is entitled, "Too Much Digging is Damaging our Heritage:"
See http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=23075&archive=1
Perhaps, SAFE could focus some of its efforts on such problems as well.
Sincerely,
Peter Tompa
Dear Mr. Tompa:
SAFE has stated no opinion about the ACCG / IAPN / PNG lawsuit or the coin collectors' and dealers' "effort to ascertain whether the State Department complied with the law and its own procedures..."
Please do not put words in our mouth or interpret any "underlying message" with regard to SAFE.
Thank you.
SAFECORNER
Some more balanced reports on ACCG's contention with Cypriot import restrictions are starting to appear. See today's article in the Cyprus Mail: http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=36317&cat_id=1
This is addressed to Peter Tompa:
Wayne Sayles has framed this topic as one of assumed guilt that flies in the face of American principles. I am not a lawyer so I would welcome your more expert opinion on this matter. It seems to me that the United States often requires various types of documentation for commercial goods coming into the country. I imagine the US has done so since its inception and that it has done so for many reasons. There seems, therefore, to be no clear violation of fundamental principles of American justice in extending this practice to ancient coins. I imagine that the specifics of any given import restriction could be found to be unconstitutional but that seems unlikely in this case. Am I misunderstanding something (a distinct possibility since I am not a lawyer) or is Mr. Sayles' argument a misapplication of constitutional reasoning?
Sebastian-
The restrictions do more than require documentation. They make an assumption that the find spot of a coin was Cyprus based solely on its type. Apparently, this assumption was made based on the contention that coins of Cypriot type "rarely" circulated outside the Island in antiquity, an assumption I'm sure you would agree as a trained numismatist is dubious at best. In any event, based on this assumption, the burden of proof shifts to the importer to prove the negative by documentation-- which may very well be unavailable for common items like coins.
You ask whether the way Customs applies import restrictions is unconstitutional. Probably not, but one cannot say for sure unless and until a Court makes that determination (which would be driven by the facts of a specific case). Surely, however, any time the burden of proof is shifted it is controversial in our legal system, and that controversy has Constitutional overtones. The concerns civil libertarians have over things like "racial profiling," and the procedures used at Guantanamo Bay at bottom relate to this concern about "shifting the burden of proof."
Many European countries (likely including Cyprus) have "accusatorial" systems of justice where the burden is on the accused to prove the negative. We, on the other hand, like the British, typically place the burden of proof squarely on the government and presumably this is the concern that Wayne is focusing on in his posts.
Best wishes,
Peter Tompa
Post a Comment