D-Day Battle Still Imprinted on Normandy Beaches
Almost 70 years have passed since Allied forces invaded Normandy on June 6, 1944. Today, only military cemeteries and a few German concrete defensive emplacements remain visible indications of the battle, but believe it or not, the sand itself still remembers in its own way too.
Professional Numismatist Publishes Lord Renfrew's Coin Collection
Lord Renfrew, a vocal critic of the antiquities trade, has graciously allowed his collection of Etruscan coins to be published in Italo Vecchi�s impressive new corpus. The work publishes thousands of specimens from private and public collections and includes many coins that cannot be traced back to the 1970 date favored by archaeologists and some museums.
In supporting this endeavor, Lord Renfrew has demonstrated a commitment to scholarship shared by many collectors and, indeed, professional numismatists like Italo Vecchi.
Labels:
ancient coins,
coin collection,
Collectors,
Lord Renfrew,
pas,
Treasure Trove
Richard Doty, Smithsonian Curator and Collector, Passes Away
Coins Weekly has reported on the passing of Richard Doty, the senior numismatic curator at the Smithsonian Institution. The well-deserved tributes will focus on Dr. Doty's scholarship, but I also think it's worth noting that Dr. Doty was also a fixture at coin shows in the Washington, D.C. area. Like his predecessor, Elvira Clain-Stefanelli, Dr. Doty was both a scholar and a collector. I'm sure he will be much missed.
More on the Size of the Internal Chinese Market for Antiquities
James Fitzpatrick has written CPAC to provide the following additional information about the immense size of the internal Chinese market in cultural goods. The key question for CPAC and those in the archaeological community supporting restrictions is why impose them on American interests when their net effect is merely to give Chinese collectors and dealers a leg up on their foreign competition? Is it all about conservation or control? Mr. Fitzpatrick's letter is quoted in full as follows:
Ms. Patty Gerstenblith
May 31, 2013
Chair
Cultural Property Advisory Committee
State Department
Washington, D.C.
Dear Ms. Gerstenblith,
In my recent comments to CPAC on behalf of James J. Lally in connection with the reauthorization of the MOU with China, I emphasized the significance of the internal Chinese market for antiquities. I noted the failure to meet the statutory standard of effective self-help measures by the Chinese given the great bulk of the sales of Chinese antiquities (which sales presumably prompt looting) taking place within China itself and abroad, involving Chinese buyers. Notably, one of the key archaeologist witnesses at the hearing agreed that there was a significant internal market.
To support this proposition, in his statement to CPAC, Mr. Lally noted that:
Chinese buyers of Chinese art � dominate the market outside China. Sales statistics for the three leading international auction houses show that over 70% of the dollar volume of Chinese art sold by Bonham�s, Christie�s and Sotheby�s in 2012 was sold to Chinese buyers.
The Committee asked how one could make the statement that more than 70% of the buyers were in fact Chinese buyers. In response to my inquiry, Mr. Lally made clear that the estimates came directly from the auction houses themselves upon reviewing their internal documents:
Regarding the fact that more than 70% of all Chinese art sold at public auction around the world by Sotheby�s, Christie�s, and Bonham�s was bought by Chinese buyers, that is an understatement. I did not simply look at the buyers� lists�the names of buyers are no longer disclosed on public auction price lists�but I did gather the information directly from the auctioneers (as the State Dept.�s �researchers� easily could have done if they were at all serious about gathering facts). I asked the Chinese art department at each of the �big three� international auctioneers to review their private records and tell me what percentage of their worldwide Chinese art sales in the year 2012 were purchased by buyers resident in mainland China (including Hong Kong and Macao) and Taiwan. The auctioneers did not want to allow any comparison between one auction house and another, so I agreed not to publish separate statistics for each auctioneer, publishing only one aggregate figure for all three together. All of them reported total sales to Chinese buyers well over 70 percent and at two of the auctioneers the total was over 80 percent.
Clearly, these data are not limited to MOU-covered antiquities, but there is every reason to believe -- indeed Mr. Lally feels strongly on this point -- that the overall statistics apply across the board -- to MOU antiquities, non-MOU antiquities, and contemporary art.
As for the overall dominance of Chinese buyers for Chinese art -- and antiquities, Lally has replied:
It is true that the great majority of the published sales statistics on the internal Chinese domestic market are reporting sales of non-MOU antiquities and contemporary art. No private market statistics are available�only public auction sales statistics are published, [as noted above: more than 70% of sales made to Chinese buyers] and of course antiquities are a very small fraction of the sales volume at public auction. (The same is true in US and Europe public auction sales�antiquities of all kinds account for only a very small fraction of auction turnover). Nevertheless, the extraordinary, unprecedented growth of the art market inside China�where only Chinese art is traded, raising the turnover from zero in the mid-1980�s to a multi-billion dollar total rivaling total sales for all art in New York and London today, does clearly indicate the strong demand for all Chinese art including ancient art in the internal, domestic market in China.
Lally has written that this fact can easily be confirmed by CPAC and its investigators and staff:
Although it is impossible to provide statistics, a strong market for ancient Chinese art does thrive inside mainland China, with active collectors and traders at all levels of the market. If you ask any informed dealer in China or Europe or America or Hong Kong everyone would say that the mainland Chinese buyers are dominant in all sectors of the Chinese art market, including ancient art, and we do have public record of strong Chinese buying of ancient Chinese art at auction in the US, London, Europe, Taiwan and Japan.
We do know that there is clearly a large public market in ancient Chinese art in Hong Kong and Macao, with public auctions and private trading of ancient Chinese art. The PRC�which has taken over those two very active trading ports more than 15 years ago�still has not taken any action to regulate the art market or even establish any cultural relics bureau office in either city.
Why is there obvious failure of the PRC to regulate the market for ancient Chinese art in Hong Kong and Macao never discussed? If the PRC does nothing to enforce restrictions on the trade in ancient Chinese art in two of the wealthiest, most active art market cities in China, why should US customs enforce restrictions on US citizens while Chinese citizens and all other collectors and dealers and museums around the world carry on with no restrictions?
At the end of the day, CPAC should pause and consider the rationale for closing the U.S. market for antiquities while a thriving market exists for those very objects in China, Hong Kong and Macao.
A further public hearing should be convened to permit the Chinese delegation to explain why our markets should be closed, consistent with the statutory criteria, when the very same embargoed objects are freely available in the greater Chinese market.
The internal Chinese market is the key to the integrity of these proceedings.
Sincerely,
James Fitzpatrick
Sofaer Collection
The ANS has published the Sofaer collection of coins of the Holy Land. This publication will add to the scholarship in the area. The coins were all purchased on the collector market in the United States, Europe and Isreael. Yes, numismatists can derive significant meaning from studying coins independent of any archaeological context. Abe Sofaer is a former federal judge and State Department legal adviser.
ACCG Contests Forfeiture Action
The ACCG has filed a claim of interest to a group of coins minted in China and Cyprus that were seized by US Customs back in 2009. By filing this pleading, the ACCG has placed the the government on notice that it intends to contest the forfeiture proceeding in Court. The ACCG now has twenty-one (21) days to respond to the government's forfeiture complaint.
Labels:
ACCG,
ancient coins,
China,
China MOU,
Cyprus,
Cyprus MOU,
Repatriation,
US Customs
Blame the Victim?
While some in the archaeological blogosphere dismiss questions raised about poor stewardship of cultural resources in source countries as nothing more than "blaming the victim," others take a far more thoughtful view of the subject. Arthur Houghton suggested in a comment on a recent blog post on CPO that source countries should forfeit their rights to demand repatriation when they fail to take care of their own cultural patrimony. Now, Yale educated archaeologist Sally Johnson raises the same issues on the Art World Intelligence Blog. In so doing, Johnson discusses the casual destruction of a Mayan pyramid in Belize to provide road building materials. Johnson asks, "What rules can be put in place�and enforced�to prevent such intentional destruction if the 'owner' of the 'property' chooses to destroy it?" Ironically, just this year the State Department granted Belize a MOU that supposedly will assist that country "preserve its own cultural patrimony."
Chinese Hackers Don't Dissuade US State Department
Merely a week after CPAC met to consider the proposed renewal of the MOU with the PRC, the news broke about an extensive PRC program to hack into US defense industry computer systems in an effort to steal US military secrets.
China is aggressively seeking an advantage against the US when it comes to defense preparedness. But so too is it with respect to the maintenance of a strong antiquities market. The difference is that the Defense Department is seeking to stymie Chinese ambitions, but our own State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center seem all to willing to encourage a vibrant Chinese market at the expense of American interests-- all supposedly in the name of archaeology.
China is aggressively seeking an advantage against the US when it comes to defense preparedness. But so too is it with respect to the maintenance of a strong antiquities market. The difference is that the Defense Department is seeking to stymie Chinese ambitions, but our own State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center seem all to willing to encourage a vibrant Chinese market at the expense of American interests-- all supposedly in the name of archaeology.
Something's Missing from the Discussion About the Repatriation of Some Ancient Coins to Bulgaria
The Government has publicized the repatriation of some ancient coins to Bulgaria. But we should be clear about the background of the return. The coins were evidently abandoned after they were seized based on alleged misstatements on a customs form. Though Bulgaria has sought a MOU with the United States, US import controls have not yet been promulgated. Moreover, there is no allegation the coins in question were "stolen" from Bulgaria. Indeed, that would be a difficult case to make given Bulgaria's open and legal trade in the exact same items.
For more about the issues surrounding the MOU that is being considered see here.
For more about the issues surrounding the MOU that is being considered see here.
CPAC Public Session to Consider Renewal of MOU with PRC
On May 14, 2013, I attended a public session of the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC). CPAC was considering the possible renewal of the current MOU with China. The meeting took place in the Main State Department Building. In addition to CPAC members, speakers and some members of the public, there was also a 5 person delegation from the People�s Republic of China (PRC) present. They were not introduced and did not speak at the public session, though they likely conferred with CPAC privately afterwards.
The following CPAC members were present: James Willis (JW) (Trade); Rosemary Joyce (RJ) (Archaeology); Barbara Kaul (BK) (Public); Marta de la Torre (MT) (Public); Patty Gerstenblith (PG) (Chair-Public); Nancy Wilkie (NW) (Archaeology); Lothar von Falkenhausen (LF) (Archaeology); Katherine Reid (KR) (Museum); Nina Archibal (NA) (Museum). Jane Levine (Trade) was not present. One trade slot remains vacant.
Thirteen (13) individuals spoke. These included: (1) Josh Knerly (AAMD); (2) Thomas Lougham (Clark Art Institute); (3) Dr. Matthew Welch (Minneapolis Institute of Art); (4) Dr. Liu Yang (Minneapolis Institute of Art; (5) Robin Nicholson (Virginia Museum of Fine Arts); (6) Leila Amineddoleh (Executive Director, Lawyer�s Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation); (7) James Fitzpatrick (representing J.J. Lally & Co., a dealership in fine Chinese antiquities); (8) Peter Tompa (representing International Association of Professional Numismatists and the Professional Numismatists Guild); (9) Francis Allard (Indiana University of Pennsylvania); (10) Loukas Barton (University of Pittsburgh); (11) Roderick Campbell (New York University); (12) Anne Underhill (Yale University); and (13 ) Brian Daniels (Penn Cultural Center).
Josh Knerly (JK) supported the MOU, but suggested that China should be required to provide five (5) to ten (10) year long term loans rather than the current one (1) year loan period. He also noted that China�s ability to control its borders for evaluating its own self-help measures needs to take into account the strength of China as a world power. Quantifiable goals should be set for review within two (2) not the usual five (5) years. The designated list should be more limited. MT asked if there was any data about the impact of restrictions. She observed that the opacity of the antiquities market makes coming to conclusions difficult. KR asked about export licenses. JK indicates that CPAC should ask China for data. NW observed that the lack of an immunity law did not stop loans. JK indicated it did limit loans of certain materials.
Thomas Loughan (TL) indicated that more work needs to be done with extending loan periods. BK asked about the loan period. TL indicated it could be as little as less than five (5) months. JW wondered if a bilateral committee could be established to discuss the loan issue. KR asked about the types of object s that were loaned. It took two shows to get enough �Grade 1� objects to match the Clark�s loan of French paintings.
Matthew Welch (MW) and Liu Yang (LY) expressed concerns about last minute changes in objects to be loaned. This makes it difficult to create a display and a catalogue. Object lists are typically finalized up to two (2) years before with regard to loans from Europe. It is virtually impossible to organize exhibits that draw objects from more than one site because of the bureaucracy involved. JW wondered if tackling the underlying bureaucratic inertia was impossible. KR asked for a specific example. MW indicated his museum had hoped to get an exhibit from Sydney, but at the last moment important objects were removed for another exhibit in Hong Kong. It would be helpful if a contract could be finalized a year in advance. LF asked about loan fees. These are not too bad, but associated expenses can be very high. In response to questions from RJ and PG, MW reiterated that getting loans from single sites was much easier than from multiple sites and changes to an objects list creates chaos when trying to secure immunity from seizure from the US Department of State. MW dismissed KR�s claim that any problems were the result of cultural misunderstandings. MW noted that LY is Chinese and understands the system quite well, but problems have persisted.
Robin Nicholson (RN) discussed a prospective loan with the Palace Museum engineered with the support of Virginia�s governor. The goal of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts is to have a contract in place with the Chinese a year in advance. Political support has been helpful in getting things done. BK asked what sort of artifacts were involved. RN indicated that the display related to 17th c. artifacts and more recent ones.
Leila Amineddoleh (LA) supported the renewal of the MOU. She maintained the fact that 123 countries had signed the 1970 UNESCO Convention satisfied the Cultural Property Implementation Act�s (CPIA�s) concerted international response requirement. She also noted that China had signed cooperative agreements with other countries to deter pillage. BK asked about the internal Chinese market. LA indicated she was not familiar with details. LF asked how the PRC�s cooperation compared with that of other countries that have MOUs with the US. LA maintained that the PRC�s cooperation was good and was comparable to that of Italy. She also noted that the US has shown its cooperation most recently with Cambodia by seeking the forfeiture of a Khmer statute. KR noted that repatriations were part of the mix with Italy. JW noted that the forfeiture proceeding was not related to the MOU with Cambodia.
Jim Fitzpatrick (JF) indicated that it was important for CPAC to adhere to the CPIA�s statutory criteria. He noted that unlike many third world countries, China was quite able to control its borders. Furthermore, the domestic Chinese market is much larger than the US market so that import restrictions could have no impact on looting. It makes no sense for an artifact to be freely available for sale in Beijing but not Boston. There also needs to be self help, but artifacts leave the free ports of Hong Kong and Macao without restriction.
PG asked about supporting data. JF indicated that the statistic that 70% of artifacts in auctions go to Chinese buyers was based on an analysis of names of purchasers. MT opined that the size of the market was not clear because the antiquities market lacks transparency. She also noted that the figures included artifacts that are not currently restricted. JF argued that the Chinese police state should be able to stop looting if it so desired. JF noted that there was a certain resignation in the trade that it is difficult to undue restrictions. JF indicated that the restrictions had deterred sales to museums. JF also stated that as a consequence of the restrictions, much of the Chinese art business has gone abroad. He stated there is a danger that the Chinese art business will go to France as has the trade in Pre-Columbian artifacts.
JW indicated that he has now served on CPAC for 11 years and that he had noted a distinct decline in dealer and collector participation, especially compared to the last time the China MOU was discussed. JW suggested that this decline in comment from dealers and collectors should be taken as a troubling sign for CPAC�s members.
JF agreed, indicating that CPAC�s debate has devolved from the larger issues of import restrictions to listening to complaints from archaeologists and museums about China�s non-compliance with Art. II of the MOU. He stated, however, that numbers of comments received does not change CPAC�s obligation to apply the CPIA properly.
LF stated that looting is illegal in China and asked if the US should be a safe haven for looted goods. JF indicated that closing down the US legal market could not impact looting because of the size of the legal Chinese market.
Peter Tompa (PT) commended China for allowing and encouraging its people to collect common artifacts, but noted that import restrictions only give Chinese businesses�including insiders associated with the country�s rulers�a leg up on the foreign, especially US competition. PT also indicated that China has not met its obligations under Article II. In particular, the PRC has expanded its own export ban to any artifact pre-dating 1911 despite a promise to make legal export easier. The PRC has also failed to crack down on looted artifacts being re-imported into China from Hong Kong and Macao and has also failed to ensure that its own museums do not purchase looted materials. CPAC should recommend that the current MOU be suspended because it Is only hurting US interests. At a minimum, however, CPAC should advocate that cash coins�which exist in the millions if not billions�be delisted. The State Department cannot show these coins only circulated in China because they were widely exported. If anything, these coins should be shared with students as a teaching tool about Chinese history and culture.
PG asked about figures related to the size of the Chinese Art Market. PT confirmed that these figures include both ancient and modern art. NW asked where Chinese coins come from. PT indicted some come from tombs, but others come from deposits or were saved after the coins were no longer used as legal tender. As for coins coming from tombs, they would only be looted incidentally because looters would be primarily motivated to look for far more valuable items. As for coins that were never buried, he cited the attachment to his submission which described a Chinese collector who first learned about ancient Chinese cash coins from breaking open an old toy that made use of such coins as weights. In response to a question about the value of such coins, PT indicated that the value was generally minimal�such coins retail for as little as $1 in the US. NW maintained there was still an inventive to loot them because one of the hoards of 200,000 coins that was described would be worth $200,000. PT indicated that the value was likely much less in China.
Francis Allard (FA) spoke of his experiences excavating in China. He has been offered antiquities in the past but has always declined. Although FA supports the MOU, the Chinese bureaucracy has not made it easy to collaborate with Chinese colleagues. NW wondered whether the MOU could be used to promote the building of more laboratories to conduct research.
Loukas Barton (LB) has excavated in China, Mongolia and Alaska. The Chinese do not allow grave robbing. He also saw a group of looters being driven from town to town as examples. He can�t say for sure, but he thinks the Chinese must be taking effective action against looters because he is no longer being offered antiquities. The Chinese punitive system may be having an effect. LB specializes in pre-history. His request for a permit to collaborate with Chinese colleagues in his study of prehistoric China was denied without explanation in 2012. LB refused to speculate as to the reason. [CPO wonders whether the Chinese cultural bureaucracy does not want foreigners delving too far into China�s prehistory. Is it possible they are concerned that the results might undercut China�s historic claim of Han dominion over the land?] RJ asked about looting. LB indicated he saw evidence of tomb robbing, but where tombs had already been eroded. He has also seen shovel pits. LF expressed frustration with the Chinese denial of FA�s permit. LB indicated he was told by Chinese colleagues that it was due to a �political problem,� but they did not elaborate. There are other annoyances as the Chinese ban on the use of GPS devices. NW recounted how she was denied a permit as well in the 1980�s so the problem is not a new one.
Rod Campbell (RC) indicated that looting was still an issue in China. Bronzes and oracle bones are particular targets. RC indicated that the best Bronze Age sites have been looted. The MOU has helped encourage student exchanges. RC has been involved in salvage archaeology. Connections are important to work in China.
Anne Underhill (AU) suggested that the renewal of the MOU is an opportunity to make improvements. Looting has declined but some is still taking place. There should be an increase in cultural exchange. AU acknowledges there is a large internal market for Chinese artifacts, but the US should keep its import restrictions in place to demonstrate its good will to the Chinese and act as a good role model. There needs to be more of an effort made as to Hong Kong and Macao. Museum loans should be made more transparent. NW indicated there needs to be more Chinese language programs. In response to a question from PG, AH indicated that collaboration had improved.
Brian Daniels (BD) indicated that China had complied with Art. II of the MOU. It has improved regulation of its own market. In 2009, it created an antiquities police force. In 2011, it created an interministerial group to examine looting. There have been proposals to harmonize export controls with Hong Kong and Macao though work needs to be done. There has been more scrutiny of artifacts leaving China for these free ports. China has instituted a free museum policy. NA asked if cultural exchange ebbed and flowed according to diplomatic relations. BD indicated that he was not aware of any changes depending on diplomatic relations and in fact cultural relations are always beneficial. MT asked about policing. There were 764 cases in 2009 and 1210 cases in 2011. BD did not want to speculate as to the increase.
JW asked about Tibet to all participants. TL indicated there is some collaboration with Tibetan interests. PT indicated that the Chinese government has recently been criticized in the press for bulldozing large swaths of Lhasa, Tibet�s capital, in the name of promoting tourism.
The public meeting then closed.
Labels:
China,
China MOU,
Chinese artifacts,
CPAC,
CPIA,
Import Restrictions,
Patty Gerstenblith
Government Waste and Abuse
Jason Felch for the LA Times has reported on the goverment's now floundering case concerning Ban Chiang pottery that started some five years ago with so much fanfare.
The real problem with this investigation is that it targeted artifacts that were openly available for sale in Thailand. What was hyped as mainly a stolen property case became a far less "sexy" tax and smuggling case. The old bait and switch.
It's high time for the US government to stop being the muscle for US academics with an axe to grind against collectors and foreign cultural bureaucrats. If Thailand is so interested in repatriation of these ceramics, our courts are open to it.
Let Thai officials bring their own case instead of shifting that cost to the US Taxpayer.
The real problem with this investigation is that it targeted artifacts that were openly available for sale in Thailand. What was hyped as mainly a stolen property case became a far less "sexy" tax and smuggling case. The old bait and switch.
It's high time for the US government to stop being the muscle for US academics with an axe to grind against collectors and foreign cultural bureaucrats. If Thailand is so interested in repatriation of these ceramics, our courts are open to it.
Let Thai officials bring their own case instead of shifting that cost to the US Taxpayer.
CPAC = Complaints Processing Advisory Committee?
As will become more apparent from my upcoming summary of its public session on Chinese import restrictions, the Cultural Property Advisory Committee appears to have devolved into little more than a complaints bureau for museums and archaeologists with gripes about a source country�s compliance with promises made to these groups in order to secure a MOU with the United States. Import restrictions associated with those MOUs, of course, �stick it� to collectors and the small businesses of the coin and antiquities trade all in the name of �protecting archaeological sites.� But what is really ridiculous this time around is that the EXACT SAME artifacts that Americans are no longer free to import are openly available for sale on Chinese markets, and in immense quantities that dwarf any market here.
It was not supposed to be that way. Instead, CPAC was supposed to provide useful advice to the executive branch about protecting both foreign archaeological contexts and protecting US based business and cultural interests.
What happened? First, Senator Moynihan, who ensured that the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act reflected this balance, retired from the Senate. And then over time, the State Department chipped away at the considerable substantive and procedural constraints found in the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, going so far as to ignore CPAC�s recommendations that there should be no import restrictions on artifacts as common as historical coins and then misleading Congress and the public about it. Most recently, CPAC has been packed with archaeological supporters, including in slots reserved for the public. No wonder CPAC has become little more than a complaints bureau and rubber stamp for the State Department�s prejudged decision-making favoring the interests of foreign cultural bureaucracies and their allies in the archaeological and museum communities.
It was not supposed to be that way. Instead, CPAC was supposed to provide useful advice to the executive branch about protecting both foreign archaeological contexts and protecting US based business and cultural interests.
What happened? First, Senator Moynihan, who ensured that the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act reflected this balance, retired from the Senate. And then over time, the State Department chipped away at the considerable substantive and procedural constraints found in the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, going so far as to ignore CPAC�s recommendations that there should be no import restrictions on artifacts as common as historical coins and then misleading Congress and the public about it. Most recently, CPAC has been packed with archaeological supporters, including in slots reserved for the public. No wonder CPAC has become little more than a complaints bureau and rubber stamp for the State Department�s prejudged decision-making favoring the interests of foreign cultural bureaucracies and their allies in the archaeological and museum communities.
Labels:
Archaeologists,
China,
China MOU,
CPAC,
CPIA,
Import Restrictions,
Museums
Art You Will Never See
A new website has appeared in the blogosphere called "Art You Will Never See." The website highlights the "orphan artifacts" problem created by the AAMD's recently adopted 1970 Rule for acquisitions.
According to the website,
ART YOU WILL NEVER SEE seeks to advance public education and understanding of issues affecting museums with particular respect to the collecting, conserving, displaying and publication of cultural artifacts. It is the specific purpose of this website to help the public understand what the AAMD�s rule-making means, It is the hope of ART YOU WILL NEVER SEE that the objects shown on these pages will underscore the importance of the orphans issue and point the way toward change in guidelines that were enacted by an organization with little understanding of their consequences.
The objects shown here need few words. The images speak for themselves. Historically or artistically, all are of exceptional importance. If they were offered today, however, even as a donation, the AAMD says they should be rejected by the art museums of America. They are only tip of the iceberg, however: beneath them lies an extraordinary depth and breadth of material in private hands that you will, now, never see in an American museum.
According to the website,
ART YOU WILL NEVER SEE seeks to advance public education and understanding of issues affecting museums with particular respect to the collecting, conserving, displaying and publication of cultural artifacts. It is the specific purpose of this website to help the public understand what the AAMD�s rule-making means, It is the hope of ART YOU WILL NEVER SEE that the objects shown on these pages will underscore the importance of the orphans issue and point the way toward change in guidelines that were enacted by an organization with little understanding of their consequences.
The objects shown here need few words. The images speak for themselves. Historically or artistically, all are of exceptional importance. If they were offered today, however, even as a donation, the AAMD says they should be rejected by the art museums of America. They are only tip of the iceberg, however: beneath them lies an extraordinary depth and breadth of material in private hands that you will, now, never see in an American museum.
THE CHINESE DREAM SHOULD NOT ALLOWED TO BECOME AMERICA�S NIGHTMARE
This more or less was my statement to CPAC on behalf of IAPN and PNG. I hope to report on the public session of CPAC considering the renewal of the MOU with China in the near future.
A recent issue of Economist Magazine writes of Xi Jinping, China�s new Communist Party Leader and his slogan, the Chinese Dream, a call for China to reclaim its ancient glory.
Part of all this, of course, is to highlight the importance of ancient Chinese artifacts not just through diplomatic efforts like this MOU, but through the creation of a vibrant internal collector�s market, including world class bourses like the Beijing International Coin and Stamp Show and auction houses like China Guardian and Poly Auctions.
On that score, let me be the first to say I�m all for the Chinese government encouraging China�s own people to collect, preserve, study and display ancient artifacts, particularly as common as ancient Chinese coins, which must still exist in the millions if not billions. That certainly is much preferable to the ideologically motivated destruction of Chinese cultural heritage during the Cultural Revolution or, for that matter, the far more recent demolition of historic Buddhist Temples and large swaths of Lhasa in Tibet and Kashgar on the Silk Road all in the name of progress.
But given the reality of a huge, largely open internal Chinese market in common antiquities like pottery and coins, it�s a fair question to ask what is the real purpose of the import restrictions our State Department, presumably with the consent of CPAC, have imposed on American collectors, the small businesses of the antiquities and coin trade and museums?
I�m well aware that archaeologists have argued that import restrictions help drive potentially looted artifacts off the market, but such a claim makes little sense whatsoever given this huge internal Chinese market. Indeed, all that is really being accomplished is to give Chinese dealers, auction houses and collectors a leg upon their foreign, particularly American competition.
Does CPAC really support such a state of affairs, particularly where the most successful Chinese antiquities sales outlets are insiders associated with the Chinese Government, like Poly Group run by the People�s Liberation Army and China Guardian Auctions, run by the daughter of one of China�s former leaders? Let�s hope not.
There is also the issue of Chinese compliance with the current MOU. Several issues come to mind. First, China was supposed to make it easier to legally export artifacts, but it has not. Instead, it now reportedly bans exports of any artifact (even apparently foreign ones like 19th c. US Trade Dollars) pre-dating 1911.
Of course, these rules do not apply to the free ports of Hong Kong and Macao. China was also supposed to clamp down on them, but it has not. Instead, artifacts leaving these ports can still be re-imported into the PRC no questions asked.
China has also failed to crack down on its own museums purchasing recently looted materials. Indeed, the business plan of the Poly Group appears to contemplate purchases of such material. Will CPAC and the State Department hold the PRC accountable to its promises? Let�s hope so.
Finally, let�s talk more about Chinese coins currently on the designated list. The State Department and U.S. Customs have misapplied the CPIA�s requirement limiting any restrictions to artifacts �first discovered within� and �subject to the export control� of China. They have instead barred the import of any Tang Dynasty and earlier coins based on their place of production, which is entirely different.
One cannot safely assume any Chinese cash coins are only found where they were made. Scholarly evidence demonstrates that early cash coins like those on the designated list were exported in quantity with later issues all around the Far East and even as far West as Africa and the Arabian coast.
Certainly the entire agreement with China should be suspended because it is doing nothing to actually protect Chinese archaeological sites, but at a minimum, Chinese cash coins, which exist in the millions if not billions, should be delisted.
Indeed, if anything, both China and the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs should seek to have such exceptionally common coins disseminated as widely as possible to US Schools to help teach American students about Chinese history and hence foster the cultural understanding that is supposed to be the brief of ECA, whose Assistant Secretary is the deciding official for this MOU. Perhaps, that should be a recommendation of CPAC during this Asian Pacific American Heritage Month --not more restrictions on common coins of the sort widely collected in China itself.
Thank you.
Houghton Questions CPAC on Renewal of China MOU
Arthur Houghton left this comment to my last post about the China MOU, but as he is a former CPAC member himself (who represented the interests of museums), CPO is publishing his query as a separate post:
Peter, the questions go deeper, given the fact that the PRC has asked the US to renew the current Memorandum of Understanding between the two countries.
The PRC is required to give the US a full report on its compliance with the MOU. Has it done so? If not, why not? If it has, the State Department is required to provide the US public with the PRC's report. Has it done so? If not why not? Is there a cover up here -- by the PRC or, worse (much worse!) by the Administration?
Could someone comment on this?
Thank you,
Arthur
By way of background, here is what was promised in Article II of the Current MOU:
ARTICLE II
1. Representatives of the Government of the United States of America and representatives of the Government of the People�s Republic of China shall regularly publicize this Memorandum of Understanding and the reasons for it through available outlets of communication.
2. The Government of the People�s Republic of China shall expand efforts to educate its citizens about the long term importance of safeguarding its rich cultural heritage and that of other countries, a principle embodied in the 1970 UNESCO Convention.
3. The Government of the People�s Republic of China shall use its best efforts to make use of surface surveys in order to inventory sites, and to broaden archaeological research and enhance public awareness of its importance. 4. The Government of the People�s Republic of China shall use its best efforts to increase
funding and professional resources for the protection of cultural heritage throughout the country.
5. The Government of the People�s Republic of China shall take measures to improve the effectiveness of its customs officers, in order to: (1) stop the illicit exportation of cultural property at borders and ports; and (2) recognize Chinese archaeological material and its value to the heritage. The Government of the United States of America shall use its best efforts to improve the ability of its customs officers to recognize Chinese archaeological material and, as appropriate, facilitate assistance to China for the training of its customs
officers.
6. The Government of the People�s Republic of China shall make every effort to stop archaeological material looted or stolen from the Mainland from entering the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Macao Special Administrative Region with the goal of eliminating the illicit trade in these regions.
7. The Government of the United States of America recognizes that the Government of the People�s Republic of China permits the international interchange of archaeological materials for cultural, educational and scientific purposes to enable widespread public appreciation of and legal access to China�s rich cultural heritage.
The Government of the People�s Republic of China agrees to use its best efforts to further such interchange in the following ways:
(1) promote long-term loans of archaeological objects of significant interest to a broad cross-section of American museums for public exhibition, education, and research purposes;
(2) promote increased institution-to-institution collaboration in the field of art history and in other humanistic and academic disciplines relating to the archaeological heritage of China;
(3) promote the exchange of students and professionals in such fields as archaeology, art history, conservation, museum curatorial practices, and cultural heritage management between appropriate Chinese and U.S. institutions; and
(
4) facilitate the granting of permits to conduct archaeological research in China.
8. The Government of the United States of America shall use its best efforts to facilitate technical assistance to the Government of the People�s Republic of China in pursuit of preserving its cultural heritage by such means as creating a national preservation strategy, improving rescue archaeology, stabilizing and restoring sites/buildings, enhancing the capacity of museums to preserve and exhibit collections, and strengthening regulation of the �cultural relics� market.
9. The Government of the People�s Republic of China shall continue to license the sale and export of certain antiquities as provided by law and will explore ways to make more of these objects available licitly.
10. Recognizing that, pursuant to this Memorandum of Understanding, museums in the United States will be restricted from acquiring certain archaeological objects, the Government of the People�s Republic of China agrees that its museums will similarly refrain from acquiring such restricted archaeological objects that are looted and illegally exported from Mainland China to destinations abroad, unless the seller or donor
provides evidence of legal export from Mainland China or verifiable documentation that the item left Mainland China prior to the imposition of U.S. import restrictions. This will apply to purchases made outside Mainland China by any museum in Mainland China and only to the categories of objects representing China�s cultural heritage from the Paleolithic Period through the end of the Tang Dynasty (A.D. 907), and monumental sculpture and wall art at least 250 years old, as covered by this Memorandum of
Understanding.
11. The Government of the People�s Republic of China shall seek to improve regulation of its internal market for antiquities.
12. Both Governments agree that, in order for United States import restrictions to be most successful in thwarting pillage, the Government of the People�s Republic of China shall endeavor to strengthen regional cooperation within Asia for the protection of cultural patrimony; and, in the effort to deter further pillage in China, shall seek increased cooperation from other importing nations to restrict the import of looted archaeological material originating in China.
13. To strengthen the cooperation between the two countries, the Government of the People�s Republic of China shall regularly provide the Government of the United States with information concerning the implementation of this Memorandum of Understanding; and, as appropriate, the Government of the United States shall provide information to the Government of the People�s Republic of China that strengthens the ability of both countries to enforce applicable laws and regulations to reduce illicit trafficking in cultural property.
Shame on China III: The PRC's Cronyism and Mercantilist-like Approach to Collecting
I�m actually happy China allows and even encourages collectors to preserve, study and display artifacts from China�s glorious past. But China should be criticized for giving connected insiders like Poly Group, a Chinese auction house connected with the People�s Liberation Army, a leg up on the competition, both foreign and domestic.
China should also be taken to task for taking on a mercantilist-like approach to collecting; Chinese citizens can import whatever they want, but no exports of artifacts predating 1911 are allowed, officially at least. Of course, anything and everything still exits the free ports of Hong Kong and Macao. That allows recently looted artifacts to be re-imported into China no questions asked for rich Chinese collectors.
Why should the US State Department and US Customs preclude Americans from importing Chinese artifacts when China encourages its own citizens to collect the same artifacts, and indeed, the size of the internal Chinese market is many, many times the size of the US market in such materials?
China should also be taken to task for taking on a mercantilist-like approach to collecting; Chinese citizens can import whatever they want, but no exports of artifacts predating 1911 are allowed, officially at least. Of course, anything and everything still exits the free ports of Hong Kong and Macao. That allows recently looted artifacts to be re-imported into China no questions asked for rich Chinese collectors.
Why should the US State Department and US Customs preclude Americans from importing Chinese artifacts when China encourages its own citizens to collect the same artifacts, and indeed, the size of the internal Chinese market is many, many times the size of the US market in such materials?
Shame on China II: Destruction of Buddhist Religious Heritage
Even after more than 50 years of communism, China remains a religious country. Nevertheless, the officially atheist PRC not only harasses religious Chinese, but callously destroys China's religious heritage in the name of progress.
CPO has reported on China's part in the planned demolition of an important Buddhist site in Afghanistan for profit, but religious sites at home fair no better. For example, AFP is reporting on plans to bulldoze many of the buildings associated with a 1,300 year old Buddhist temple erected near where China's famous terracotta warriors were found. Ironically, the supposed reason for the destruction is to assist with an application to make the area a "World Heritage Site."
Should the US State Department authorize repatriation of every last unprovenanced Chinese coin when China cares so little for major religious sites?
Update: While archaeo-blogger Paul Barford contorts logic to justify the demolition of this important Buddhist site within China proper, far more troubling news has emerged that Chinese authorities have begun to demolish wide swaths of Tibet's capital, including another important temple, again in the name of progress.
CPO has reported on China's part in the planned demolition of an important Buddhist site in Afghanistan for profit, but religious sites at home fair no better. For example, AFP is reporting on plans to bulldoze many of the buildings associated with a 1,300 year old Buddhist temple erected near where China's famous terracotta warriors were found. Ironically, the supposed reason for the destruction is to assist with an application to make the area a "World Heritage Site."
Should the US State Department authorize repatriation of every last unprovenanced Chinese coin when China cares so little for major religious sites?
Update: While archaeo-blogger Paul Barford contorts logic to justify the demolition of this important Buddhist site within China proper, far more troubling news has emerged that Chinese authorities have begun to demolish wide swaths of Tibet's capital, including another important temple, again in the name of progress.
German High Court Rules Export Permits Not Required for Collectors' Coins in Trade
Germany's highest regulatory court has ruled that coins in trade will not be treated as archaeological objects requiring an export permit under EU law. The court said that because they are objects created in quantity, they have lost any archaeological value, and to require export permits for them would put an unreasonable restraint on trade. The decision in its entirety can be read here.
UPDATE 5/4/13: Not surprisingly, archaeo-blogger Paul Barford is in denial about the implications of Court's ruling and has even implied the court's decision-making was corrupted by "commercial interests." As to the former, I think a well known numismatist said it best:
Of course Mr. Barford is in denial of the court's actual ruling: �coins coming from Antiquity generally have no archeological value and thus are not archeological objects�. It doesn�t come much clearer than that. Nor is this �the Bavarian judiciary� as Mr. Barford would like to believe; it is the supreme court of Germany for cases involving customs and taxes.
As to the latter, I think Mr. Barford should compare what Transparency International says about Germany and places whose views of cultural property matters he champions, like Greece, Cyprus, Italy and China.
UPDATE 5/4/13: Not surprisingly, archaeo-blogger Paul Barford is in denial about the implications of Court's ruling and has even implied the court's decision-making was corrupted by "commercial interests." As to the former, I think a well known numismatist said it best:
Of course Mr. Barford is in denial of the court's actual ruling: �coins coming from Antiquity generally have no archeological value and thus are not archeological objects�. It doesn�t come much clearer than that. Nor is this �the Bavarian judiciary� as Mr. Barford would like to believe; it is the supreme court of Germany for cases involving customs and taxes.
As to the latter, I think Mr. Barford should compare what Transparency International says about Germany and places whose views of cultural property matters he champions, like Greece, Cyprus, Italy and China.
Shame on China: Poor Stewardship of Cultural Resources
This is the first of a few short blogs on issues that should be highlighted-- but which will likely instead be ignored-- in discussions about the proposed renewal of the MOU with China.
Both UNESCO and the CPIA assume that China will take self-help measures to protect its own cultural property, but some 30,000 items on a 1982 list of historic properties have disappeared due to China's aggressive economic development, particularly for the Olympics. The bulldozer has even claimed the home of China's pioneering preservationists.
Even worse, China has demolished large swaths of historic cities built by China's minorities.
Should the MOU with China be renewed given these circumstances?
Both UNESCO and the CPIA assume that China will take self-help measures to protect its own cultural property, but some 30,000 items on a 1982 list of historic properties have disappeared due to China's aggressive economic development, particularly for the Olympics. The bulldozer has even claimed the home of China's pioneering preservationists.
Even worse, China has demolished large swaths of historic cities built by China's minorities.
Should the MOU with China be renewed given these circumstances?
PRC Buys off the Opposition to MOU
In 2005, Sotheby's, with some some assistance from Christie's, helped lead the opposition to a MOU with the PRC. This time around, however, both auction houses have remained silent. Why the change? Recently, the PRC agreed to allow them to do business in China. Presumably, both companies have concluded selling modern art to Chinese citizens is more lucrative and far less of a hassle these days than selling Chinese antiquities to Americans.
Christie�s new business in China also presumably helps explain the Pinault family�s decision to repatriate two of the bronze fountain heads that were allegedly looted from the Summer Palace in the 19th century by an Anglo-French punitive expedition. The Pinaults -- who own Christie�s-- are not the first astute business interests to offer such sculptures as gifts. Stanley Ho, a Macao based gambling tycoon, also gained favor with the PRC when he donated a horse�s head from the group to a Chinese museum.
Repatriation of the bronze fountain heads has been a cause c�l�bre for the PRC Government, Chinese Nationalists and their allies in American archaeological advocacy groups like SAFE.
On the other hand, Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei has produced his own ironic take on the sculptures. His gigantic versions of the diminutive heads say something about the over sized Chinese nationalism these sculptures have come to embody.
Christie�s new business in China also presumably helps explain the Pinault family�s decision to repatriate two of the bronze fountain heads that were allegedly looted from the Summer Palace in the 19th century by an Anglo-French punitive expedition. The Pinaults -- who own Christie�s-- are not the first astute business interests to offer such sculptures as gifts. Stanley Ho, a Macao based gambling tycoon, also gained favor with the PRC when he donated a horse�s head from the group to a Chinese museum.
Repatriation of the bronze fountain heads has been a cause c�l�bre for the PRC Government, Chinese Nationalists and their allies in American archaeological advocacy groups like SAFE.
On the other hand, Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei has produced his own ironic take on the sculptures. His gigantic versions of the diminutive heads say something about the over sized Chinese nationalism these sculptures have come to embody.
Labels:
Archaeologists,
China,
China MOU,
Christie's,
Lobbying,
Repatriation,
SAFE,
Sotheby's
Worth A Read
My primary interest is coins so its no surprise I hope others will find the ACCG and IAPN/PNG comments to CPAC worth reading.
The Asia Society walked a fine line; its submission both applauded and criticized the current MOU with the PRC.
Daniel Shapiro, a law professor and Chinese Art Collector, stated similar concerns as those expressed by others who collect or trade in ancient art.
James Lally was an important voice for the trade when the MOU was first considered and he remains so today.
The Penn Cultural Heritage Center has offered CPAC a detailed defense of the current MOU.
Of course, anyone who wrote, on any side of the issue, should be commended for taking the time to do so.
Note: Regulations.gov is currently experiencing a technical problem. Some of the comments (including those of Daniel Shapiro and IAPN/PNG) are currently not available on the website. Hopefully, the problem will be fixed soon.
The Asia Society walked a fine line; its submission both applauded and criticized the current MOU with the PRC.
Daniel Shapiro, a law professor and Chinese Art Collector, stated similar concerns as those expressed by others who collect or trade in ancient art.
James Lally was an important voice for the trade when the MOU was first considered and he remains so today.
The Penn Cultural Heritage Center has offered CPAC a detailed defense of the current MOU.
Of course, anyone who wrote, on any side of the issue, should be commended for taking the time to do so.
Note: Regulations.gov is currently experiencing a technical problem. Some of the comments (including those of Daniel Shapiro and IAPN/PNG) are currently not available on the website. Hopefully, the problem will be fixed soon.
Labels:
China,
China MOU,
Chinese artifacts,
CPAC,
Penn Cultural Heritage Center
Slim Public Support for Renewal of the PRC MOU
Only seventeen (17) individuals (virtually all of whom are archaeologists), groups (archaeological trade associations and advocacy groups) and museums wrote CPAC in support of extending the MOU with the PRC. Two (2) museums and the Asia Society gave qualified support (though the Asia Society requests the MOU to be modified to end restrictions on any artifacts for open sale in China). Finally, twenty (20) individuals, trade and advocacy groups representing the interests of dealers and collectors have opposed the extension.
These numbers yet again demonstrate the very limited public support for MOUs. That's not surprising as MOUs only really benefit the interests of the foreign cultural bureaucracies that parcel out excavation permits and the favored archaeologists and museums that profit.
A real cost-benefit analysis should be performed as to the value of such restrictions compared to the harm they undeniably cause to collectors, dealers and museums and to the people to people contacts and cultural understanding collecting fosters.
Public comments can be viewed on the regulations.gov website.
These numbers yet again demonstrate the very limited public support for MOUs. That's not surprising as MOUs only really benefit the interests of the foreign cultural bureaucracies that parcel out excavation permits and the favored archaeologists and museums that profit.
A real cost-benefit analysis should be performed as to the value of such restrictions compared to the harm they undeniably cause to collectors, dealers and museums and to the people to people contacts and cultural understanding collecting fosters.
Public comments can be viewed on the regulations.gov website.
What's Wrong With This Picture?
CPO has reported on this story before, but it should be mentioned again given the fact that yesterday was the deadline for comments on the renewal of the China MOU. One wonders why the the same archaeological interests that scream about looting in places like China and Afghanistan remain so silent when a major Afghan Buddhist site is being destroyed by a Chinese mining company. Remember when the the world was incensed when the Taliban dynamited the Bamiyan Buddhas in the name of religion? So, why the silence when another major Buddhist site, Mes Aynak, is to be dynamited in the name of profit?
Turkish Nationalism on Display
Nationalism is not all bad, but Turkish nationalism seems to have taken an extreme turn in the prosecution of an American who picked up some old stones on a beach and in protests regarding the sale of modern art. How many Turks pick up such items without fear of prosecution? And would the sale of modern art be as controversial if the sale could not be linked to American interests? Those who support Turkey's nationalistic demands for control of ancient art (much of which was created by Greeks) should take note of this slippery slope.
Comment to Chasing "Chasing Aphrodite" for Answers
Arthur Houghton asked me to post this comment to Jason' Felch's answers to CPO's questions, but "Blogger" but would not me allow me to do so due to its length, so I post it here. As Arthur has "gone on tour" with Chasing Aprhodite, his response to Jason's post is worth considering.
Peter, I was so glad to see Jason's responses to your questions. I have spoken about them to a friend with an incisive mind, who somewhat shockingly said that in view of his reputation as a responsible journalist, Jason's answers reveal a master of evasion, denial, mendacity, willful ignorance and upended logic. They are particularly strange, since Jason is himself could be a looter, having scattered through his blog photographs that he may not have permission to use. That's just plain theft, as you know. Jason the picture-picker.
Well, I guess my friend's comments are true. Still, they are pretty tough on my poor young friend Jason. So I decided to help our here a bit, and give you the answers that I believe he really meant to provide -- not those he felt compelled to give. Here they are:
1. You�re an award winning investigative journalist, but also an advocate for archaeologists and source countries. Do you see any contradictions between those two roles?
Peter, I could tell you that I reject the premise and say I am not an advocate, but that would be both an evasion and an egregious untruth. The truth is that I am certainly an advocate for the interests of other countries but it doesn't really bother me at all. I mean, I've been entertained and applauded in Italy, and that makes me feel good, and it really doesn't matter what journalistic ethics might exist, since I can say anything I well please on my blog and not have some damn editor or fact-checker looking over my shoulder.
2. Do you truly believe that unprovenanced objects are illegitimate? If so, please say how you come to this conclusion.
You know, I could say that "illegitimate" means "looted" but that would be an evasion -- sort of twisting the question, no? So let me tell you what I really think, which is that I have no idea how I got to that conclusion. I've always been a bit muddled about what is legitimate, but it seems to get people excited when I throw allegations like this around, whether I can substantiate them or not. Actually, as we both know, most unprovenanced objects are totally legal, whether they are owned by Americans, or in private collections in Italy or whatever. To think they are anything else is poppycock.
3. Do you think the same rules should apply to the $1 million dollar vase as to the $10 ancient coin?
Golly, I could go off on a really nutty tangent and tell you about rules and the law -- which I've never really understood -- and morality and ethics, which I am on firmer ground about since I can say almost anything I want and someone will agree with me. Also I got a C in my ethics course, so I'm qualified, no? Anyway the short answer to your question is yes, of course. But don't ask me why, since I really don't know how I got there. It's all a bit confusing to me.
4. The State Department has been criticized by both academics and former CPAC members for a lack of transparency in its decision-making concerning import controls on cultural goods. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?
CPAC has turned into a bunch of rubbish. They stopped following the law -- the CPIA -- decades ago. As someone once said -- who? -- "government, like the art market, festers in darkness." I don't really know what that means, but it sounds good, so I agree with it. And I'd have to agree that CPAC festers. Very noisome.
5. During a Chasing Aphrodite lecture I attended, I was surprised to hear Gary Vikan, the Walters� then Director, say that it is �none of our business� what happens to artifacts that are repatriated. Do you agree or disagree and why?
Sure. Why not? Let the little devils destroy their heritage. Blow up the Bamiyan Buddhas. I mean, who really cares about the Getty Aphrodite, or whatever it is, now that it's in, where? Aidone? I mean, who's ever heard of the place? And you can ask me about Fano the next time around. ("Fano" you ask? You might as well want to know where the Villa Guilia is. Who goes there, anyway?)
6. Greece, Cyprus and to a lesser extent Italy are suffering from an economic meltdown that by necessity will impact these countries ability to fund preservation efforts. Do you believe that this budget crisis calls into question the �state control over everything old� model advocated by the archaeological community?
I really believe there's room for creative thinking here. Like these and other countries like the UK and Israel letting their antiquities loose on the market, so that collectors and museums that can take care of them can buy them up. Now, I could take this moment to give you a preachy little lecture about Winston Churchill and democracy, but that's a bit trite and worn out, so I won't go there.
7. Your WikiLoot proposal has been criticized for promoting �vigilante justice.� Please explain the concept, where the proposal stands, and respond to that criticism.
Of course it's vigilantism -- I mean who in their right might would want a bunch of unknowledgeable people running around and pointing their fingers at things and whining, "loot, loot!" and believe it's for real? It sounds, well, irresponsible, even absurd, heh? But it gets people excited to think that I can then write them up in Chasing Aphrodite, and expand my readership. Sex sells. So does vigilantism. Pretty neat, no? But no one seems to want to pay for it, so we're getting a little desperate for money. Do you think you could pony up something to help?
8. Italian authorities have been criticized for playing �gotcha� with auction houses and collectors when Medici material comes up for sale. What do you think of these tactics?
Well, you know the Italians! When it comes to self interest, you know, some people think they are real masters of denial, mendacity, willful ignorance and upended logic. I've learned quite a few things from them. You could too!
I could end this by misquoting my friend Houghton who I think I recall advising that one should stay clear of antiquities that are missing a documented ownership history. But I would be wrong if I did that. Houghton never said such a thing. I've been in contact with him recently and can tell you his advice is to buy, buy, buy, as long as it's legally on the market and there is no likely comeback by putative source-country owners. Build collections for museums and privately that can go into museums and be exhibited, studied, and educate the public. That's what it's all about Houghton says. And I must say that I agree with him. In fact, I've almost always agreed with him.
Warm best wishes, and keep up the good work.
Jason
(Note Arthur is speaking for "Jason")
Peter, I was so glad to see Jason's responses to your questions. I have spoken about them to a friend with an incisive mind, who somewhat shockingly said that in view of his reputation as a responsible journalist, Jason's answers reveal a master of evasion, denial, mendacity, willful ignorance and upended logic. They are particularly strange, since Jason is himself could be a looter, having scattered through his blog photographs that he may not have permission to use. That's just plain theft, as you know. Jason the picture-picker.
Well, I guess my friend's comments are true. Still, they are pretty tough on my poor young friend Jason. So I decided to help our here a bit, and give you the answers that I believe he really meant to provide -- not those he felt compelled to give. Here they are:
1. You�re an award winning investigative journalist, but also an advocate for archaeologists and source countries. Do you see any contradictions between those two roles?
Peter, I could tell you that I reject the premise and say I am not an advocate, but that would be both an evasion and an egregious untruth. The truth is that I am certainly an advocate for the interests of other countries but it doesn't really bother me at all. I mean, I've been entertained and applauded in Italy, and that makes me feel good, and it really doesn't matter what journalistic ethics might exist, since I can say anything I well please on my blog and not have some damn editor or fact-checker looking over my shoulder.
2. Do you truly believe that unprovenanced objects are illegitimate? If so, please say how you come to this conclusion.
You know, I could say that "illegitimate" means "looted" but that would be an evasion -- sort of twisting the question, no? So let me tell you what I really think, which is that I have no idea how I got to that conclusion. I've always been a bit muddled about what is legitimate, but it seems to get people excited when I throw allegations like this around, whether I can substantiate them or not. Actually, as we both know, most unprovenanced objects are totally legal, whether they are owned by Americans, or in private collections in Italy or whatever. To think they are anything else is poppycock.
3. Do you think the same rules should apply to the $1 million dollar vase as to the $10 ancient coin?
Golly, I could go off on a really nutty tangent and tell you about rules and the law -- which I've never really understood -- and morality and ethics, which I am on firmer ground about since I can say almost anything I want and someone will agree with me. Also I got a C in my ethics course, so I'm qualified, no? Anyway the short answer to your question is yes, of course. But don't ask me why, since I really don't know how I got there. It's all a bit confusing to me.
4. The State Department has been criticized by both academics and former CPAC members for a lack of transparency in its decision-making concerning import controls on cultural goods. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?
CPAC has turned into a bunch of rubbish. They stopped following the law -- the CPIA -- decades ago. As someone once said -- who? -- "government, like the art market, festers in darkness." I don't really know what that means, but it sounds good, so I agree with it. And I'd have to agree that CPAC festers. Very noisome.
5. During a Chasing Aphrodite lecture I attended, I was surprised to hear Gary Vikan, the Walters� then Director, say that it is �none of our business� what happens to artifacts that are repatriated. Do you agree or disagree and why?
Sure. Why not? Let the little devils destroy their heritage. Blow up the Bamiyan Buddhas. I mean, who really cares about the Getty Aphrodite, or whatever it is, now that it's in, where? Aidone? I mean, who's ever heard of the place? And you can ask me about Fano the next time around. ("Fano" you ask? You might as well want to know where the Villa Guilia is. Who goes there, anyway?)
6. Greece, Cyprus and to a lesser extent Italy are suffering from an economic meltdown that by necessity will impact these countries ability to fund preservation efforts. Do you believe that this budget crisis calls into question the �state control over everything old� model advocated by the archaeological community?
I really believe there's room for creative thinking here. Like these and other countries like the UK and Israel letting their antiquities loose on the market, so that collectors and museums that can take care of them can buy them up. Now, I could take this moment to give you a preachy little lecture about Winston Churchill and democracy, but that's a bit trite and worn out, so I won't go there.
7. Your WikiLoot proposal has been criticized for promoting �vigilante justice.� Please explain the concept, where the proposal stands, and respond to that criticism.
Of course it's vigilantism -- I mean who in their right might would want a bunch of unknowledgeable people running around and pointing their fingers at things and whining, "loot, loot!" and believe it's for real? It sounds, well, irresponsible, even absurd, heh? But it gets people excited to think that I can then write them up in Chasing Aphrodite, and expand my readership. Sex sells. So does vigilantism. Pretty neat, no? But no one seems to want to pay for it, so we're getting a little desperate for money. Do you think you could pony up something to help?
8. Italian authorities have been criticized for playing �gotcha� with auction houses and collectors when Medici material comes up for sale. What do you think of these tactics?
Well, you know the Italians! When it comes to self interest, you know, some people think they are real masters of denial, mendacity, willful ignorance and upended logic. I've learned quite a few things from them. You could too!
I could end this by misquoting my friend Houghton who I think I recall advising that one should stay clear of antiquities that are missing a documented ownership history. But I would be wrong if I did that. Houghton never said such a thing. I've been in contact with him recently and can tell you his advice is to buy, buy, buy, as long as it's legally on the market and there is no likely comeback by putative source-country owners. Build collections for museums and privately that can go into museums and be exhibited, studied, and educate the public. That's what it's all about Houghton says. And I must say that I agree with him. In fact, I've almost always agreed with him.
Warm best wishes, and keep up the good work.
Jason
(Note Arthur is speaking for "Jason")
Chasing �Chasing Aphrodite� For Answers
Turnabout is fair play. Chasing Aphrodite was kind enough to post my views on coins and cultural patrimony issues in a question and answer format and I�m doing the same here, though, of course, Chasing Aphrodite�s interests are far broader. I�ll let Jason�s answers speak for themselves, but I would reiterate my view that the gulf that exists between rhetoric and reality concerning archaeologists� own preservation of context strongly suggests that the concept is being misused by some to justify governmental controls.
1. You�re an award winning investigative journalist, but also an advocate for archaeologists and source countries. Do you see any contradictions between those two roles?
I reject the premise, Peter. I�m a journalist, not an advocate. The conclusions I have come to are based on several years of reporting on the illicit antiquities trade, not any affiliation with a certain group or country. If I�m an advocate, it�s for truth, transparency and rule of law.
2. Do you truly believe that unprovenanced objects are illegitimate? If so, please say how you come to this conclusion, and whether you would apply it to ancient material of whatever culture, or more broadly to objects that do not meet the definition of ancient.
I don�t know what you mean by �illegitimate,� but I suspect you mean looted. There is good reason to suspect that antiquities with unclear ownership histories are the product of illicit excavations and illegal export from their countries of origin. This is not just the conclusion of archaeologists and source countries and investigative reporters, but of Harvard-trained museum curators like our mutual friend Arthur Houghton. In 1984, when he was a curator at the Getty, he warned his bosses that 95% of antiquities on the market had been "found" (i.e. looted) within the last three years. His successor Marion True gave museum directors a similar warning in June 2000: �Most museums have long preferred to consider objects innocent until proven guilty�But experience has taught me that in reality, if serious efforts to establish a clear pedigree for the object�s recent past prove futile, it is most likely � if not certain � that it is the product of the illicit trade and we must accept responsibility for this fact.�
This reality has not meaningfully changed since 1984 or 2000, and it is not unique to the trade in Classical antiquities. Yet auction houses, collectors, dealers and museums both in the United States and abroad continue to operate on the �innocent until proven guilty� standard. That's why I continue to write about them.
3. Do you think the same rules should apply to the $1 million dollar vase as to the $10 ancient coin?
It depends what �rules� you�re referring to. If by "rules" you mean the law, the answer is often no -- in some cases, for example, US law only applies if the objects are worth more than $5,000. If by �rules� you mean ethics or morality, it is more complicated. Clearly some ancient objects � amphora, vase fragments or some coins � were mass produced are are common today. From the art market's point of view, they aren�t particularly beautiful and don�t hold much value. But these are not just pieces of art, they are also artifacts that hold historical meaning. A old Chinese coin may be worthless on the market, but would be invaluable to archaeologists and numismatists alike if it were carefully excavated in an undisturbed Roman tomb. If knowledge of that findspot were lost, it would become a worthless old Chinese coin again. For these reasons and others, an object�s �value� shouldn�t be reduced to what it can be sold for on today�s market.
4. The State Department has been criticized by both academics and former CPAC members for a lack of transparency in its decision-making concerning import controls on cultural goods. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?
I haven�t covered CPAC, but have read about concerns about the process. Government, like the art market, festers in darkness. Sunlight should be let in. Some government processes legitimately require confidentiality, but many don�t and should be carried out transparently.
5. During a Chasing Aphrodite lecture I attended, I was surprised to hear Gary Vikan, the Walters� then Director, say that it is �none of our business� what happens to artifacts that are repatriated. Do you agree or disagree and why?
I'm of two minds on this. Obviously, there is a shared interest in protecting the world's cultural heritage, including objects that have been repatriated. We are rightfully outraged to see the golden hippocamp from the Lydian Hoard, which the Met returned to Turkey, stolen from a local museum and replaced with a fake (and recently recovered in Germany, I should note.) At the same time, cultural property is property under the law, and we have no legal ability to dictate terms to its owner. I think Gary�s point was that we can�t have it both ways -- if we return a looted object, we also give up the right to dictate terms of its display, conservation and, yes, protection. But that doesn't mean we have to cease caring about it and advocating for its safekeeping.
6. Greece, Cyprus and to a lesser extent Italy are suffering from an economic meltdown that by necessity will impact these countries ability to fund preservation efforts. Do you believe that this budget crisis calls into question the �state control over everything old� model advocated by the archaeological community?
I think it was Winston Churchill who said that democracy is the worst form of government -- except for all the others we have tried. The same could be said for treating archaeological finds as the property of the state in which they're found. It doesn't make much sense that Berlusconi's government has control over Caesar's remains, but "state control" is the system they've adopted and I don't see it changing soon, economic crisis or not. By the way, is not the model of the "archaeological community" as you suggest but the legal regime selected by the majority of world governments. Yes, I'm aware of the exceptions and intrigued by the Japanese designation approach, juyo bunkazai, and Britain's portable antiquities scheme, though I'm not convinced they would work in the Mediterranean. The economic crisis should inspire similarly creative thinking among those who care about preserving knowledge about the ancient world. For example, I wonder how many years of site protection and careful excavation the Getty Museum could have paid for with $18 million, the amount it spent on a single statue looted from Morgantina, Sicily. Should museums fund excavations in return for loans, a modern version of partage?
7. Your WikiLoot proposal has been criticized for promoting �vigilante justice.� Please explain the concept, where the proposal stands, and respond to that criticism.
The idea of WikiLoot is simple: seek the public's help collecting and analyzing information about the illicit antiquities trade with the goal of building an authoritative database that would help academics, journalists, auction houses, collectors and museums understand the scope of the problem and steer clear of trouble. I think of it as a collective public service, much like Wikipedia. If it sounds like vigilante justice, perhaps you have something to hide. Now, creating a web platform to organize the work -- and handle quality control questions -- is rather tricky, and I've been researching successful crowdsourcing projects to see what works and what doesn't. We're building a prototype database right now while we seek funding and partnerships for the broader effort. I'm doing this in my spare time with a handful of interested parties, so it will likely take a while.
8. Italian authorities have been criticized for playing �gotcha� with auction houses and collectors when Medici material comes up for sale. What do you think of these tactics? Should the Medici archive (and other archives of likely looted material) be made available to the public in some fashion so collectors and auction houses can be informed about what material they should avoid?
In recent years, law enforcement officials in several countries have gathered a wealth of information about the illicit trade in Classical antiquities. Once the judicial process has run its course, I think authorities should make this information publicly available so it can be studied and analyzed by others. I've made my case, and there are certain legal limitations on what can be released, as well as strategic considerations. In the absence of that cooperation, I've relied on leaks from sources in and outside of government. Meanwhile, auction houses and collectors can be informed about what to avoid by following the advice of Houghton and True -- steer clear of antiquities that are missing a documented ownership history.
1. You�re an award winning investigative journalist, but also an advocate for archaeologists and source countries. Do you see any contradictions between those two roles?
I reject the premise, Peter. I�m a journalist, not an advocate. The conclusions I have come to are based on several years of reporting on the illicit antiquities trade, not any affiliation with a certain group or country. If I�m an advocate, it�s for truth, transparency and rule of law.
2. Do you truly believe that unprovenanced objects are illegitimate? If so, please say how you come to this conclusion, and whether you would apply it to ancient material of whatever culture, or more broadly to objects that do not meet the definition of ancient.
I don�t know what you mean by �illegitimate,� but I suspect you mean looted. There is good reason to suspect that antiquities with unclear ownership histories are the product of illicit excavations and illegal export from their countries of origin. This is not just the conclusion of archaeologists and source countries and investigative reporters, but of Harvard-trained museum curators like our mutual friend Arthur Houghton. In 1984, when he was a curator at the Getty, he warned his bosses that 95% of antiquities on the market had been "found" (i.e. looted) within the last three years. His successor Marion True gave museum directors a similar warning in June 2000: �Most museums have long preferred to consider objects innocent until proven guilty�But experience has taught me that in reality, if serious efforts to establish a clear pedigree for the object�s recent past prove futile, it is most likely � if not certain � that it is the product of the illicit trade and we must accept responsibility for this fact.�
This reality has not meaningfully changed since 1984 or 2000, and it is not unique to the trade in Classical antiquities. Yet auction houses, collectors, dealers and museums both in the United States and abroad continue to operate on the �innocent until proven guilty� standard. That's why I continue to write about them.
3. Do you think the same rules should apply to the $1 million dollar vase as to the $10 ancient coin?
It depends what �rules� you�re referring to. If by "rules" you mean the law, the answer is often no -- in some cases, for example, US law only applies if the objects are worth more than $5,000. If by �rules� you mean ethics or morality, it is more complicated. Clearly some ancient objects � amphora, vase fragments or some coins � were mass produced are are common today. From the art market's point of view, they aren�t particularly beautiful and don�t hold much value. But these are not just pieces of art, they are also artifacts that hold historical meaning. A old Chinese coin may be worthless on the market, but would be invaluable to archaeologists and numismatists alike if it were carefully excavated in an undisturbed Roman tomb. If knowledge of that findspot were lost, it would become a worthless old Chinese coin again. For these reasons and others, an object�s �value� shouldn�t be reduced to what it can be sold for on today�s market.
4. The State Department has been criticized by both academics and former CPAC members for a lack of transparency in its decision-making concerning import controls on cultural goods. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?
I haven�t covered CPAC, but have read about concerns about the process. Government, like the art market, festers in darkness. Sunlight should be let in. Some government processes legitimately require confidentiality, but many don�t and should be carried out transparently.
5. During a Chasing Aphrodite lecture I attended, I was surprised to hear Gary Vikan, the Walters� then Director, say that it is �none of our business� what happens to artifacts that are repatriated. Do you agree or disagree and why?
I'm of two minds on this. Obviously, there is a shared interest in protecting the world's cultural heritage, including objects that have been repatriated. We are rightfully outraged to see the golden hippocamp from the Lydian Hoard, which the Met returned to Turkey, stolen from a local museum and replaced with a fake (and recently recovered in Germany, I should note.) At the same time, cultural property is property under the law, and we have no legal ability to dictate terms to its owner. I think Gary�s point was that we can�t have it both ways -- if we return a looted object, we also give up the right to dictate terms of its display, conservation and, yes, protection. But that doesn't mean we have to cease caring about it and advocating for its safekeeping.
6. Greece, Cyprus and to a lesser extent Italy are suffering from an economic meltdown that by necessity will impact these countries ability to fund preservation efforts. Do you believe that this budget crisis calls into question the �state control over everything old� model advocated by the archaeological community?
I think it was Winston Churchill who said that democracy is the worst form of government -- except for all the others we have tried. The same could be said for treating archaeological finds as the property of the state in which they're found. It doesn't make much sense that Berlusconi's government has control over Caesar's remains, but "state control" is the system they've adopted and I don't see it changing soon, economic crisis or not. By the way, is not the model of the "archaeological community" as you suggest but the legal regime selected by the majority of world governments. Yes, I'm aware of the exceptions and intrigued by the Japanese designation approach, juyo bunkazai, and Britain's portable antiquities scheme, though I'm not convinced they would work in the Mediterranean. The economic crisis should inspire similarly creative thinking among those who care about preserving knowledge about the ancient world. For example, I wonder how many years of site protection and careful excavation the Getty Museum could have paid for with $18 million, the amount it spent on a single statue looted from Morgantina, Sicily. Should museums fund excavations in return for loans, a modern version of partage?
7. Your WikiLoot proposal has been criticized for promoting �vigilante justice.� Please explain the concept, where the proposal stands, and respond to that criticism.
The idea of WikiLoot is simple: seek the public's help collecting and analyzing information about the illicit antiquities trade with the goal of building an authoritative database that would help academics, journalists, auction houses, collectors and museums understand the scope of the problem and steer clear of trouble. I think of it as a collective public service, much like Wikipedia. If it sounds like vigilante justice, perhaps you have something to hide. Now, creating a web platform to organize the work -- and handle quality control questions -- is rather tricky, and I've been researching successful crowdsourcing projects to see what works and what doesn't. We're building a prototype database right now while we seek funding and partnerships for the broader effort. I'm doing this in my spare time with a handful of interested parties, so it will likely take a while.
8. Italian authorities have been criticized for playing �gotcha� with auction houses and collectors when Medici material comes up for sale. What do you think of these tactics? Should the Medici archive (and other archives of likely looted material) be made available to the public in some fashion so collectors and auction houses can be informed about what material they should avoid?
In recent years, law enforcement officials in several countries have gathered a wealth of information about the illicit trade in Classical antiquities. Once the judicial process has run its course, I think authorities should make this information publicly available so it can be studied and analyzed by others. I've made my case, and there are certain legal limitations on what can be released, as well as strategic considerations. In the absence of that cooperation, I've relied on leaks from sources in and outside of government. Meanwhile, auction houses and collectors can be informed about what to avoid by following the advice of Houghton and True -- steer clear of antiquities that are missing a documented ownership history.
Barford Takes on the Mudlarks
Somehow, NPR has tapped archaeo-blogger Paul Barford to speak for U.K. archaeologists in a story about "mudlarking" on the Thames though he has not lived in the U.K. for decades, no longer actively digs, and has no PhD in the subject matter.
Today, however, most U.K. archaeologists (like the other one quoted in the story) have largely made peace with metal detectorists. The fact is most metal detectorists dig in ploughed fields and places like river beds where any context has already been disturbed. And let's not forget the Portable Antiquities Scheme has given us a far better picture of the past than is the case in countries where confiscatory laws actually discourage finders from doing anything but keep their finds to themselves.
Today, however, most U.K. archaeologists (like the other one quoted in the story) have largely made peace with metal detectorists. The fact is most metal detectorists dig in ploughed fields and places like river beds where any context has already been disturbed. And let's not forget the Portable Antiquities Scheme has given us a far better picture of the past than is the case in countries where confiscatory laws actually discourage finders from doing anything but keep their finds to themselves.
Far Away from the Archaeo-Blogosphere...
I enjoyed accompanying another collector who spoke to two classes of 7th and 8th Graders about ancient coins and what they can tell us about ancient societies. Teaching about ancient history is woefully inadequate in our nation's classrooms, so it was great to find a school where the classics are still king and where the kids were both knowledgeable and engaged in the subject matter.
All this raises another point that does directly touch on "cultural property" issues. The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) spends $500 million a year promoting "cultural understanding." But, I can't help but think that ancient coin collectors do the same thing every time they talk to a class, discuss ancient history and coins, or interact with foreign collectors and dealers, and all at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer.
One can only wonder if Assistant Secretary, ECA Ann Stock has any clue about the negative impact the actions of her Cultural Heritage Center have had on coin collectors and the good work they do promoting cultural understanding on a people to people basis. If it's really about protecting archaeological sites rather than encouraging jingoistic nationalism, why promote-- as ECA's Cultural Heritage Center has done-- import restrictions based on a coin's place of production rather than it's find spot?
All this raises another point that does directly touch on "cultural property" issues. The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) spends $500 million a year promoting "cultural understanding." But, I can't help but think that ancient coin collectors do the same thing every time they talk to a class, discuss ancient history and coins, or interact with foreign collectors and dealers, and all at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer.
One can only wonder if Assistant Secretary, ECA Ann Stock has any clue about the negative impact the actions of her Cultural Heritage Center have had on coin collectors and the good work they do promoting cultural understanding on a people to people basis. If it's really about protecting archaeological sites rather than encouraging jingoistic nationalism, why promote-- as ECA's Cultural Heritage Center has done-- import restrictions based on a coin's place of production rather than it's find spot?
Debate with Tea and Biscuits?
Archaeo-blogger Paul Barford is promoting a "debate with tea and biscuits" on his blog. This does not appear to be a real debate between individuals with different views to me. Perhaps, Mr. Barford really is debating tea and biscuits because they won't talk back....
CPAC Solicits Comments for China MOU
The US Cultural Property Advisory Committee is soliciting comments concerning the proposed renewal of import restrictions on cultural goods, including coins, down to the end of the Tang Dynasty.
This renewal should be of particular interest to collectors who specialize in Chinese coins.
Comments are to touch on the following four determinations: (1) that the cultural patrimony of the requesting nation is in jeopardy from the pillage of archaeological materials; (2) that the requesting nation has taken measures to protect its cultural patrimony; (3) that U.S. import restrictions, either alone or in concert with actions taken by other market nations, would be of substantial benefit in deterring the serious situation of pillage, and (4) import restrictions would promote the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes.
For Chinese coins, the key points relates to determinations 2-4: Why should the US Government place restrictions on American collectors given the huge internal market in ancient Chinese coins within China itself, particularly when China and other countries have not imposed similar restrictions on the ability of their own citizens to deal and trade in such coins? Under the circumstances, continued restrictions will only diminish the ability of Americans to learn about and appreciate Chinese culture from "hands-on" experience with Chinese coins without any impact on the huge trade in Chinese coins abroad. Another issue is that Chinese cash coins circulated widely outside China, including E. Africa, Japan, Indonesia, etc.
To comment on the renewal, use the regulations.gov portal here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOS_FRDOC_0001-2354and click on the �comment now� button.
The Department of State requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments received from other persons for submission to the Department of State inform those persons that the Department of State will
not edit their comments to remove any identifying or contact information, and that they therefore should not include any information in their comments that they do not want publicly disclosed.
KINDLY NOTE COMMENTS ARE DUE ON OR BEFORE 11:59 PM on APRIL 23, 2013.
Cash-Strapped Italian Government to Convert Embassy to Food Emporium?
CPO has heard from a reliable source that the cash-strapped Italian Government is in talks with Eataly, the popular Italian Food Emporium, to take over its beautiful, modernistic Palazzo style Embassy in Washington, D.C. As part of the plan, Embassy officials are said to be considering auctioning off the building's impressive display of antiquities through Sotheby�s or Christie�s in New York. Alternatively, they will remain in situ for the enjoyment of Eataly patrons.
Eataly�s fall-back plan is to negotiate with the GSA to lease one of the federal government�s neo-classical buildings for the same purpose. Buildings mentioned include Union Station and the Art Deco style FTC headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue. Meanwhile, less certain are plans of local Greek entrepreneurs to create �pop up� restaurants in the nearby Greek and Cypriot Embassies.
Eataly�s fall-back plan is to negotiate with the GSA to lease one of the federal government�s neo-classical buildings for the same purpose. Buildings mentioned include Union Station and the Art Deco style FTC headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue. Meanwhile, less certain are plans of local Greek entrepreneurs to create �pop up� restaurants in the nearby Greek and Cypriot Embassies.
Court Denies Sotheby's Motion to Dismiss
This is a banner week for the State Department�s Cultural Heritage Center and its "Cultural Antiquities Task Force." First the denial of the ACCG�s petition for cert. Now this decision allowing the government to amend its complaint and denying Sotheby's motion to dismiss the government's claim that a Khmer statue up for auction must be considered "stolen" given Cambodian law.
Will Sotheby's cave or fight on? Stay tuned.
The real concern is that this gives yet more license to the Cultural Heritage Center and its �Cultural Antiquities Task Force� to repatriate artifacts based on unclear and obscure laws of ancient vintage, even where they have only recently been �dug up� so to speak as long as there is some alleged tie-in to a known site.
The subsidiary concern is that the Sotheby�s Court, like the T-Rex Bataar Court, is treating the obligation of a foreign country to actually enforce its laws at home not as an element of the claim up front, but to be raised as a defense to forfeiture after a long slog to trial�something most forfeiture claimants simply can�t afford.
Here is the ruling courtesy of the Chasing Aphrodite blog.
Will Sotheby's cave or fight on? Stay tuned.
Proposed Renewal of Chinese MOU
The Cultural Heritage Center website carries news about a proposed renewal of import restrictions on Chinese cultural goods. CPAC's public session will take place on May 14th.
The Federal Register notice formally announcing the renewal is to be released on April 1st.
Somehow that is fitting. I'm all for the Chinese populace collecting rather than destroying (remember the Cultural Revolution) artifacts like the bazillions of cash coins that are found all the time in China, but hope CPAC recognizes that current restrictions have done little but to provide Chinese auction houses and dealers with a leg up on their foreign (especially US) competition.
Is it about protecting the archaeological record or encouraging the continued movement of the trade in Chinese artifacts to China and other major market countries?
The Federal Register notice formally announcing the renewal is to be released on April 1st.
Somehow that is fitting. I'm all for the Chinese populace collecting rather than destroying (remember the Cultural Revolution) artifacts like the bazillions of cash coins that are found all the time in China, but hope CPAC recognizes that current restrictions have done little but to provide Chinese auction houses and dealers with a leg up on their foreign (especially US) competition.
Is it about protecting the archaeological record or encouraging the continued movement of the trade in Chinese artifacts to China and other major market countries?
Archaeological Context: Is it About Preservation or Control?
Archaeo-Blogger Rick St. Hilaire somehow believes that I have discounted the importance of archaeological context, but all I have said is that coin collectors derive their own context from the iconography and fabric of the coins themselves and that the goal of preservation of archaeological context�however worthy-- should not be allowed to control all else. Perhaps, then, he should not take such statements about context out of context!
St. Hilaire then seems to discount the value of numismatic context, though his fellow archaeo-blogger Nathan Elkins organized an entire conference on the subject. Perhaps, coins do indeed tell us something without reference to where they are found.
Finally, though suggesting that a good lawyer looks at all the evidence, St. Hilaire somehow apparently missed the ANS article appended to the Chasing Aphrodite interview. In it I explained that perhaps archaeological practice may be different than archaeological rhetoric when it comes to issues of context. I state:
Frankly, I might feel a bit better about all this if I had evidence that the archaeological community as a whole makes every effort to not only record the coins they find but to publish them. Both are critical to the preservation of numismatic knowledge. Even if a coin is recorded in an excavation notebook, it does little good if it is never published, and, if the notebook or computer data file is not backed up in some way, the information about its provenance could easily be lost. That, of course, would render the coin for all practical purposes, �an orphan� of the sort members of the archaeological community roundly condemn�at least when held in a collector�s trays.
This is not a hypothetical concern. Indeed, a recent study prepared at the behest of the numismatic trade for the use of the State Department�s Cultural Property Advisory Committee concluded,
- The publication record for coins found in Italian excavations is poor.
- What has been published is thanks to a few dedicated individuals, not to the encouragement of the archaeological community.
- Without publication it is almost impossible to know what has been found and what has become of the material.
Let me give just one concrete example. Some 60,000 - 70,000 ancient coins from excavations at the City of Rome, which were recovered by archaeologists during the 19th century, still await publication in Frankfurt. One would have thought coins excavated in Roman contexts would be of utmost importance, but the fact that they are still awaiting publication after over a century speaks volumes.
All this raises a larger question. Is all the talk about protecting archaeological context for real or is it actually about justifying further controls?
All this raises a larger question. Is all the talk about protecting archaeological context for real or is it actually about justifying further controls?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)