January 6, 2020 Cultural Heritage Center (ECA/P/C) SA -5, Floor C2 U.S. Department of State 2200 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20522-05C2 Dear Members of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee: I write to you in firm support of the request of Tunisia for a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States of America. I write specifically from a perspective informed by my own expertise in archaeology and ancient coinage. I have published extensively on the subject of numismatics and have been the numismatist for three archaeological sites: Yotvata and Huqoq in Israel, and ‘Ayn Gharandal in Jordan. I consistently deploy archaeological information and coin circulation studies in my research; such information has bearing on the inclusion of coins in the proposed MoU with Tunisia as I address the first and second determinations. As an archaeologist and art historian, whose research draws on both material context and more traditional historical and art historical approaches, I am sensitive to the problem of looting and the consequent loss of information. In particular, I have published peer-reviewed research that documents the relationship between the antiquities trade – specifically the trade in ancient coins 1 – in North America and the looting in “source countries” that occurs to feed this trade. Pursuant to the first and second determinations determination, it is clear from a simple Google search that the archaeological and cultural heritage of Tunisia, including ancient coins, are under 2 threat and that Tunisia is taking steps to combat looting and recover its heritage. In antiquity, the area of what is now Tunisia produced Punic and Roman coins. Punic coins were struck at the mints of Carthage and Utica. Roman provincial coins were struck at Carthage, Utica, Gergis, Achulla, Alipota, Hadrumentum, Leptis Minor, Thaena, Thapsus, and Thysdrus. 1 N.T. Elkins, “A Survey of the Material and Intellectual Consequences of Trading in Undocumented Ancient Coins: A Case Study on the North American Trade,” Frankfurter elektronische Rundschau zur Altertumskunde 7 (2008): 1- 13 (available online: http://www.fera-journal.eu); id, “Treasure Hunting 101 in America’s Classrooms,” Journal of Field Archaeology 34.4 (2009): 482-489; id, “The Trade in Fresh Supplies of Ancient Coins: Scale, Organization, and Politics,” in P.K. Lazarus and A.W. Barker, eds., All the King’s Men: Essays on the Impact of Looting and the Illicit Antiquities Trade on Our Knowledge of the Past. (Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology, 2012), 91-107; id., “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: 236-243. 2 E.g., “Everything is Stolen from Us”: Tunisians Fight to Preserve Cultural Heritage. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tunisia-art-propertyrights/everything-is-stolen-from-us-tunisians-fight-to- preserve-cultural-heritage-idUSKCN1TK007. COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES I Department of Art & Art History One Bear Place #97263 • Waco, TX 76798-7263 • (254) 710-1867 Such coins would have circulated rather locally and, contrary to the unsubstantiated assertions made by dealer lobbyists, are not just “found anywhere.” As I have indicated to the committee in the past with regard to Roman provincial coins, there is a mountain of evidence for their localized circulation patterns and numismatists and archaeologists are very familiar with the “rule of locality” when it comes to their study.3 Even books written for collectors and introductory audiences comment on the local circulation of Roman provincial coins, usually staying rather near to where they were minted.4 The designs on Roman provincial coins were, logically, concocted for local audiences. In previous discussions regarding the inclusion of coins in various MoUs, the lobby of ancient coin dealers has skewed information. For example, in 2011 they presented a list of coin hoards found outside of Cyprus that contained Cypriot coins as “uncontestable evidence that these coins circulated widely during antiquity and since.” They did not, however, pay any mind to the numbers of Cypriot hoards containing Cypriot coins found in Cyprus! When this information that the lobby had omitted was presented to CPAC at the public hearing in 2011, a rough comparison of the numbers prompted one member of the committee to observe that approximately 80% of Cypriot coins with known find spots in hoards are recorded as found in Cyprus itself.5 This tactic of data omission has been deployed consistently by the opponents of bilateral agreements, as in the renewal with Greece where a list of Greek coins found outside of Greece was provided without any discussion of the numbers of Greek coins found within Greece. In the recent hearing on a renewal with Cyprus in 2016, the lobby took quotes from Danielle Parks’ book on the Roman provincial coinage of Cyprus out of context to suggest that such coins circulated in abundant numbers far outside of the island, which is not at all what her research suggested or what she concluded. At the public hearing on Libya in 2017, one lobby spokesman made the reckless claim: “Libyan coins are not found in Libya.” Although the lobbyist provided data for some Libyan coins found in neighboring countries, he had totally ignored evidence for Libyan coins found in Libya. That evidence was easily available in the same source he used for coins found in neighboring countries; I pointed out the omission and the preponderance of evidence pointing to more localized circulation patterns. Therefore, I urge the committee to use vigilance when assessing any “evidence” of lists from the lobby of ancient coin dealers that they assert proves that ancient coins from Tunisia are not found in Tunisia, or “circulated widely.” Indeed, the lobby often argues that coins cannot and should not be protected in MoUs because coins circulated widely. While this is true for some types of coins, many other types of coins tended circulate much more locally and did not travel far from the areas where they were made and put into circulation. In fact, the designated lists for the various MoUs implemented thus far protect these classes of coins (see attachment for a rebuttal of the lobby’s assertions regarding coin circulation and MOUs and a critique of deceptive tactics when advocating against MoUs). Widely circulating types, such as Roman Republican and Imperial denarii, have routinely been omitted from the designated lists. 3 E.g., On the local circulation patterns of Roman provincial coinage, see T.B. Jones, “A Numismatic Riddle: The So-Called Greek Imperials,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 107.4 (1963): 308-347; A. Burnett, ‘‘The Roman West and the Roman East,’’ in C. Howgego, V. Heuchert, and A. Burnett, eds., Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) pp. 171–180. 4 K. Butcher, Roman Provincial Coins: An Introduction to the Greek Imperials (London: Seaby, 1988), pp. 23-38. 5 For discussion of the use and misuse of finds data presented to CPAC, see the attachment, esp. pp. 238-239 on Cyprus. In view of the evidence that import restrictions on coins of Tunisian type are appropriate and that coins, among other objects, are subject to pillage to supply markets, I recommend implementation of the MoU with Tunisia and in the inclusion of coins in any designated list. As the committee understands well, ancient coins are valuable cultural, historical, and archaeological artifacts. Removing them from protections, in order to transform them into simple collectibles, undermines their cultural, historical, and archaeological significance, as it divorces them from their contexts and the informative relationships they had with other objects. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Nathan T. Elkins, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Art History Greek and Roman Art & Archaeology (Attachment) Ancient coins, find spots, and import restrictions: A critique of arguments made in the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild’s ‘‘test case’’ Nathan T. Elkins Baylor University The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) has launched multiple legal challenges aimed at undermining import restrictions on ancient coins into the United States in bilateral agreements with foreign countries. One key component of the ACCG’s argument is that the State Department has inappropriately restricted certain types of coins according to where they were made rather than where they are found, as mandated by the 1983 Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act. Although the ACCG has thus far been unsuccessful, it has not been pointed out that existing import restrictions on coins, in fact, have been written to include coins that tended to circulate locally and that are found primarily within the borders of the country with which the bilateral agreement is made. The ACCG’s argument is thus on shaky ground. As the ACCG continues to press ahead with new litigation, it is worth drawing attention to realities and probabilities of ancient coin circulation as they pertain to protected coins. Keywords: antiquities trade, coins, lobbying, looting, CPIA, CPAC, ACCG Introduction to import restrictions in the existing bilateral agree- The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) has ments (the agreement with China that includes ancient consistently challenged and protested the inclusion Chinese coins is not dealt with here as Chinese coinage of ancient coins in the designated lists of import is beyond the author’s area of expertise). restrictions in the United States government’s bilat- The United States became a party to the 1970 eral agreements with foreign countries. The ACCG is UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting a lobbying group, supported by dealer interests, and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer which actively combats any legislative measures that of Ownership of Cultural Property in 1972 when the restrict the trade in ancient coins, regardless of how Senate gave its consent to the ratification of the those coins make it to the marketplace (Elkins 2009, Convention with the reservation that the Convention 2012: 100–104).