Up for consideration at the July 14, 2026 meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) were renewals of Cultural Property Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with Algeria and Nigeria, and a new MOU with Romania. A total of 14 individuals provided oral testimony during the meeting. Of those, 8 commented in favor of some or all of the MOUs, and 5 spoke in opposition to some or all of the MOUs; one person was not specific about being for or against. It should be noted that the entire meeting was remote; the CPAC members in attendance were included via Zoom rather than gathered together in person.
Virtually all the comments pro and con addressed the import restrictions included in the MOUs. Strikingly, none of the opponents provided any proof at all that such restrictions have had any demonstrable impact on the underlying issues of the looting of historic and cultural heritage sites, and illicit sales of historic and/or cultural items. While several opponents commented that reducing the marketplace demand for such items was vital to addressing the problem – an argument made in many contexts, from antiquities to drugs to human trafficking – again, no evidence was presented to support this assertion. Perhaps unwittingly, the comments of a few opponents either undercut this argument or pointed to entirely different problems.
The first speaker was Omur Harmansuh, Vice President for Cultural Heritage of the Archeological Institute of America. He addressed the meeting from Turkey. He spoke in favor of the requests, and noted that AIA had provided written testimony and letters of support. While his primary focus was on Albania and Romania, he noted that AIA had recently presented an award to an archeologist in Nigeria, which he stated was indicative of the quality of archeological research in that country as well as the ties between archeologists in Nigeria and the United States. Regarding Albania and Romania, there is a long history of archeological interaction between these countries and the U.S., including lending of items for museum exhibits that have helped introduce the American public to the complex early societies that existed in these countries. He stated that archeological heritage and sites in all three countries are in danger. He cited the theft of four important Albanian items from a museum exhibit in the Netherlands [which of course has absolutely nothing to do with anything covered by the MOU], and noted that Albania in particular is vulnerable to looting at its archeological sites. He concluded by expressing AIA’s strong support for all three MOUs, though without making any link between the details of the agreements and the problems he described in the countries.
Second was Elias Gerasoulis, the Executive Director of the Global Heritage Alliance. He urged rejection or at least delaying consideration of the MOU with Nigeria, citing serious concerns expressed by the United States government, including President Trump, over various activities conducted by the Nigerian government. He specifically cited reports of mass killings of Christians and other forms of religious persecution as well as suppression of anti-government protests. He noted that Congress is considering further sanctions against Nigeria, which is considered by many to be a failed state. In addition to moral and ethical concerns relating to any agreement with Nigeria, there are practical concerns regarding repatriation of any items, which could potentially be seized and then sold by terrorist groups in the country. There is evidence that members of terrorist organizations such as Boko Haram are now in the Nigerian army and government. Consideration of this MOU should be suspended until Nigeria issues relating to religious persecution and human rights abuses have been addressed and the government is in alignment with broader U.S. priorities.
CPAC member Nii Quarcoopoune expressed shock upon hearing about religious killings and persecutions in Nigeria, of which he was apparently unaware. He objected to the characterization of Nigeria as a failed state and claimed that if such was the case, the U.S. would not have any presence there. Mr. Gerasoulis replied that he was merely repeating what U.S. officials, including former ambassadors to Nigeria and President Trump, have said about the country. Mr. Quarcoopoune responded by saying that he saw no link between the political situation and the preservation of cultural heritage and property.
Next was Teresa Ngan, who detailed many discoveries relating to the existence of ancient Greek civilization in Romania. She shared photos of many items indicating the ancient history and pre-history of Romania, and stated that preserving archeology in Romania is vital to understanding that country’s history. She also noted that many ancient Roman sites have been found in Albania. Because of this, she is in favor of the MOUs, though she made no link whatsoever between the details of the agreements and the information she presented.
She was followed by Peter Tompa, Executive Director of the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN), an organization of small and microbusinesses in the United States and European Union. IAPN has provided detailed comments in opposition to the MOUs. Regarding Albania, the grossly overbroad designated list of items [to be restricted] ignores extensive research that IAPN has presented regarding the widespread circulation of ancient coins from this area. The same is true for Romania. Coins struck in and/or found Transylvania are more a part of Hungarian cultural heritage than Romanian. He noted that the statute governing all these agreements requires CPAC to consider less drastic measures to achieve its objectives before imposing import restrictions. He pointed out that Romania is part of the European Union and subject to the EU’s regulations regarding importing and exporting of ancient coins among its members, which are far less restrictive than what the MOUs contemplate and specifically allow for coins from Romania to be exported to other member nations. Cultural property agreements should align with EU rules. He also observed that the proposed restrictions would be painful Americans of Austrian or Hungarian descent.
CPAC member Alex Baker asked Mr. Tompa to elaborate on the EU export controls situation, because his understanding was that individual member nations could establish stricter export rules themselves. Mr. Tompa replied that member nations were still required to recognize the rules of the Union and of other member nations, and the U.S. Customs ignores this fact. We have to recognize the right of some EU members to export items that other members may restrict. Yet Customs stops items coming in from one country because they are on the restricted list of another country, which is incorrect and unfair. This is very detrimental to legitimate trade.
Next was Kate Fitz Gibbon, Executive Director of the Committee for Cultural Policy, which has submitted detailed documents in opposition to the MOUs. She addressed the larger failure of policy that the MOU documents represent. The number of Cultural Property Agreements has been growing rapidly, which requires close scrutiny of them rather than routine approval. Increasingly, the documents are overly broad and do not meet the four determinations that legally govern them. To say that an entire nation’s cultural heritage is threatened by looting is not credible. There is no evidence that the increasing restrictions are doing anything to reduce these problems. The original intent of the statutes was to preserve important historical items while protecting the flow of ancient art to the Unite States. She noted that there is no real flow of such items from Romania and Albania to the U.S. The preservation failures exist within the originating nations; for example, in Romania, museums are purchasing items from metal detectorists. Meanwhile, these entities are claiming the cultural heritage of minority groups within their nations as their own even as they fail to protect those minorities. Further, the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) is not restitution legislation. Addressing Nigeria, that country has given legal ownership and control of all repatriated cultural artefacts of Benin, and custodianship of the heritage of Benin, to a single individual rather than the people of that region. That MOU should be suspended, not renewed. In closing, she encouraged CPAC members to read the testimony presented to them, read the statute governing the MOUs, and apply the four requirements to these and any future documents.
She was followed by Dr. Michael Galaty, Professor of Anthropology and Classical Studies at the University of Michigan, who addressed renewal of the MOU with Albania. He has conducted research in that country since 1998, in the course of which he has spoken to many local people and seen widespread looting, which he suspects is tied to organized crime. He has had children offer to sell him coins, which he considers indicative of coins being sold to Western Europe. He has observed metal detecting, much of it by hobbyists but some of which he thinks results in items being sold to European markets. Metal detecting and looting has caused extensive damage to historical and archeological sites, though he said local authorities are working to curtail this. He closed by stating that renewing the MOU will short-circuit market demand and strengthen the growing professional ties between Albanian and American archeologists [of course, this ignores the fact that the current MOU has apparently done nothing to “short-circuit market demand”].
CPAC member Miriam Stark asked whether coins can be excavated without destroying an archeological site. Dr. Galaty said they could not.
Next was Dr. Britney Kyle, Professor of Anthropology, University of Northern Colorado, who studies human skeletons to increase understanding of the ancient Greek world. She favors renewal of the MOU with Albania, where she has done extensive research on skeletons. She has brought many students with her, resulting in turn in Albanian students coming to the U.S., so that Albanians are now able to investigate their own history. It is necessary to preserve their archeological sites to enable this, and looting is disturbing these sites. She noted that she was solicited by guards at Apollonia to buy ancient coins, presumably from the site [an astounding undercutting of any argument that these MOUs would do anything to protect such sites – in fact, she did not in any way connect the MOU to protecting archeological sites].
Next was D. Adria Farmer-Paellmann, the Executive Director of the Restitution Study Group. She has worked for 25 years on issues of reparatory justice and the legacy of transatlantic human trafficking. Her group supports the protection of Nigerian cultural heritage. There is a need to recognize all the cultures in the country in any cultural property agreement. She talked at length about the Benin bronzes, to which she felt Nigeria had a legitimate cultural claim. She offered six specific recommendations for the MOU, which were a little difficult to follow but generally called for broader inclusion of people, communities and organizations in managing cultural heritage, and for doing all this in an appropriate historical context. She did not specifically state support or opposition to the MOU, though her list of recommendations would suggest a lack of support for it in its current form.
She was followed by Ogechukwe Nkere, a Biafran-American political and human-rights activist and Prime Minister of the Biafra Republic Government in Exile, addressing the extension of the MOU with Nigeria. He detailed the Nigerian government’s suppression of human rights and history of persecution of Biafrans, which is ongoing; this includes extrajudicial killings, torture and disappearances. He referenced the persecution of Christians in general, citing comments by President Trump as well as U.S. sanctions. He felt that the MOU with Nigeria should be suspended until the government of Nigeria is in alignment with U.S. priorities.
Next was Dr. Scott MacEachern from the Society for American Archeology, speaking in support of the Nigerian MOU extension. He also provided written comments. He has worked in Nigeria since the mid-1990s, though his primary working site is no longer accessible due to its location in Boko Haram’s self-proclaimed capital. Nigeria is a very diverse country, though not a failed state, with diverse cultural heritage traditions. Its cultural materials are highly-sought by the international market, especially those from the Benin culture. The security situation in the country is highly variable and does not necessarily correlate to areas of greatest threat to cultural heritage. The country’s extremely porous borders facilitate smuggling of cultural heritage materials [undercutting arguments in favor of an MOU with the country]. He stated that the MOU would shut down the market demand side of the problem [which it apparently has thus far failed to accomplish]. He stated that heritage personnel in Nigeria were very committed to their work.
He was followed by Stephen Knerly, speaking for the Association of Art Museum Directors with qualified support for renewal of the Nigeria MOU. He focused on the fourth determinant governing the MOUs, which covers cultural exchange and specifically inter-museum loans. He addressed legal complexities resulting from the MOUs, which require transparency, predictability and adherence to legal norms. He noted that the MOUs used to include specific goals with measurable outcomes so that performance of the MOUs could be measured. These have been replaced by generic terms; there is a need to develop standards to support and facilitate cultural exchange.
Next was Dr. Adam Rabinowitz, Associate Professor in the Department of Classics at the University of Texas at Austin, though he noted that he was speaking on his own behalf as a working archeologist in Romania. He recommended adoption of the MOU with that country, and also submitted a letter to that effect. He also referenced items stolen from the museum exhibit in the Netherlands. He noted the use of metal detectors to uncover coin hordes, stating that coins are important to dating and understanding archeological sites. He pointed out that there are countries other than the U.S. where people purchase these coins, but this country is one of the largest markets. Metal detecting also unearths bronze and iron age items and disturbs their sites. Burial mounds in particular are preferred targets for looting. He stated that Romanian officials are making strong efforts to enforce their laws and to document their heritage.
Next was Vivien Bence, representing the Hungarian Human Rights Foundation and speaking in opposition to the Romanian MOU. The MOU’s restrictions could apply to heirlooms brought into the U.S. by Hungarian refugees. It would also recognize the Romanian state’s ownership over Transylvanian or Hungarian diaspora cultural property. The Roman government has been using forced assimilation, including the exploitation and destruction of Hungarian cultural patrimony, and has not repatriated many significant cultural properties. She specifically cited the Batthyaneum Library as an example of this.
Next was John O’Shea, speaking on behalf of the Society for American Archeology in favor of the MOU with Romania. He has worked in this area since 1976, before the existence of the European Union. The resulting relaxing of borders has facilitated moving artifacts between countries and encouraged looting. The subsequent destruction of archeological sites is discouraging young Romanian professionals in the field, who are moving to other countries to pursue their work. He indicated that the EU would be imposing new restrictions soon and that North America should not remain as a loophole. Having routine processes for how materials can move in and out of the country would protect international and Romanian researchers.
The contrast between the entirely academic concerns of the proponents of the MOUs and the sometimes-personal concerns of the opponents was striking. The arguments for the documents were the usual statements about how the MOUs would greatly reduce market demand for looted objects, despite no evidence to support this and the failure of previous MOUs to have any measurable impact on the problem.
One final observation: no one argues against the notion that looting important archeological sites and selling looted materials illegally is a significant problem that needs to be addressed. However, the limited solutions suggested by MOU proponents have completely failed to solve this problem in the past, and the famous definition of insanity is to keep trying the same approach while expecting different results. Proven solutions such as the United Kingdom’s Portable Antiquities Scheme need to be amplified greatly, and the United States needs to take the need in promoting this approach.
