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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)