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.
Showing posts with label Cultural Heritage Center. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cultural Heritage Center. Show all posts
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?
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?
More Success from Treasure Act and PAS
The Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme have reported another good year, which again begs the question why the US archaeological lobby is so hostile to any suggestion that a similar program should be tried elsewhere and barely tolerant of the program even for England and Wales.
Indeed, it's a bit of a puzzle why the archaeological lobby (and by default their allies in the State Department Cultural Heritage Center) seem more influenced by the views of the corrupt and/or bankrupt and/or authoritarian governments of places like Bulgaria, China, Cyprus, Egypt, Greece and Italy than by the fair play of our longstanding ally, the United Kingdom.
Perhaps, some of the millions of dollars of US taxpayer money committed to archaeological projects in places like Iraq and Egypt should instead be invested in a pilot Portable Antiquities Scheme program in a place like Bulgaria. That would help Bulgaria record many of the coins that now are not recorded, and show our support not only for Bulgaria, but for our ally, the United Kingdom.
Indeed, it's a bit of a puzzle why the archaeological lobby (and by default their allies in the State Department Cultural Heritage Center) seem more influenced by the views of the corrupt and/or bankrupt and/or authoritarian governments of places like Bulgaria, China, Cyprus, Egypt, Greece and Italy than by the fair play of our longstanding ally, the United Kingdom.
Perhaps, some of the millions of dollars of US taxpayer money committed to archaeological projects in places like Iraq and Egypt should instead be invested in a pilot Portable Antiquities Scheme program in a place like Bulgaria. That would help Bulgaria record many of the coins that now are not recorded, and show our support not only for Bulgaria, but for our ally, the United Kingdom.
Labels:
Archaeologists,
Cultural Heritage Center,
Lobbying,
pas,
Treasure Trove
Cultural Heritage Center Website Updated
The Cultural Heritage Center's website has been spiffed up with pictures, including one of Hillary Clinton gazing at a Greek statute. Unfortunately, the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs' tag line "promoting mutual understanding" rings hollow for ancient coin collectors at least. Indeed, ECA's controversial import restrictions on millions of ancient Greek, Roman and Chinese coins of the sort avidly collected world-wide has, if anything, greatly harmed people to people contacts between collectors in the US and foreign countries. Why not promote ancient coin collecting, and the cultural understanding it fosters (at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer), rather than seek to suppress it to the benefit of no one but a small number of academic archaeologists and their patrons in foreign cultural bureaucracies?
Thanksgiving: Khouli Sentenced to Home Detention
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has sentenced Mousa ("Morris") Khouli to six months of home detention and one year probation for smuggling Egyptian antiquities by way of false declarations on customs forms. The prosecutor had asked for 46-57 months of incarceration, but the Court evidently was swayed by a sentencing memorandum prepared by Khouli's lawyer that outlined the relatively modest sentences given for other "cultural property" crimes.
The blood-thirsty archaeological blogosphere will likely be aghast at the length of the sentence. But then again, as set forth in the declaration of Jay Kislak appended to ACCG's recently filed petition for rehearing there is credible evidence to suggest that certain individual(s) at the US Department of State misled Congress and the public in official reports about import restrictions on Cypriot coins and have yet to be called into account in any fashion whatsoever.
Is it really more serious to mislead on a customs form than in an official government report sent to Congress? And let's not forget that the very same State Department bureaucrats involved in the Cypriot coin controversy are also intimately involved in coordinating repatriations like that at issue in the Khouli case through the State Department's "Cultural Antiquities Task Force." Why should they be above the law?
The blood-thirsty archaeological blogosphere will likely be aghast at the length of the sentence. But then again, as set forth in the declaration of Jay Kislak appended to ACCG's recently filed petition for rehearing there is credible evidence to suggest that certain individual(s) at the US Department of State misled Congress and the public in official reports about import restrictions on Cypriot coins and have yet to be called into account in any fashion whatsoever.
Is it really more serious to mislead on a customs form than in an official government report sent to Congress? And let's not forget that the very same State Department bureaucrats involved in the Cypriot coin controversy are also intimately involved in coordinating repatriations like that at issue in the Khouli case through the State Department's "Cultural Antiquities Task Force." Why should they be above the law?
Is the State Department Cultural Heritage Center Worth Funding with Money Borrowed From China?
During one of the presidential debates, Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney said his test for whether a federal program should be continued is whether it was worth funding with money borrowed from China. Whether Romney wins the presidency or President Obama is reelected, the next Administration will face some hard choices about what programs are really worth funding.
If the State Department is forced to start watching its pennies, I'm not sure its Cultural Heritage Center could really justify its worth compared to other worthy State Department programs.
The Center caters exclusively to a small group of academics and foreign cultural heritage bureaucrats. The money it hands out to foreign countries to fund archaeological projects could probably be better spent on things like supplies of clean water or fighting aids.
Moreover, the actual public support for its program to restrict the import of cultural goods is quite slim. And the net result of its activities has simply been to give foreign collectors and cultural goods dealers a competitive advantage. While Americans face stifling red tape requirements that preclude entry of thousands upon thousands of cultural artifacts, foreign collectors and dealers face no such hurdles and go about their business as usual.
Perhaps, the best thing to do would be to eliminate the Cultural Heritage Center and transfer CPAC and the decision making regarding import restrictions to the Department of Commerce. Commerce is well suited for handling trade issues and would likely not take the anti-business stance that seems ingrained in the State Department bureaucracy.
Will this happen anytime soon? No, but hopefully federal budget makers will start asking some hard questions about exactly what the Cultural Heritage Center does for the American taxpayer. Certainly, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently suggested that it might be time for Congress and the Executive Branch to pay more attention to what the Cultural Heritage Center is doing.
If the State Department is forced to start watching its pennies, I'm not sure its Cultural Heritage Center could really justify its worth compared to other worthy State Department programs.
The Center caters exclusively to a small group of academics and foreign cultural heritage bureaucrats. The money it hands out to foreign countries to fund archaeological projects could probably be better spent on things like supplies of clean water or fighting aids.
Moreover, the actual public support for its program to restrict the import of cultural goods is quite slim. And the net result of its activities has simply been to give foreign collectors and cultural goods dealers a competitive advantage. While Americans face stifling red tape requirements that preclude entry of thousands upon thousands of cultural artifacts, foreign collectors and dealers face no such hurdles and go about their business as usual.
Perhaps, the best thing to do would be to eliminate the Cultural Heritage Center and transfer CPAC and the decision making regarding import restrictions to the Department of Commerce. Commerce is well suited for handling trade issues and would likely not take the anti-business stance that seems ingrained in the State Department bureaucracy.
Will this happen anytime soon? No, but hopefully federal budget makers will start asking some hard questions about exactly what the Cultural Heritage Center does for the American taxpayer. Certainly, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently suggested that it might be time for Congress and the Executive Branch to pay more attention to what the Cultural Heritage Center is doing.
Archaeologists, Foreign Policy and the National Security State
Christina Luke, previously best known in collecting circles for her association with Nathan Elkins' notorious academic diatribe against a not-for-profit group that uses ancient coins to teach children about Roman history, has authored an article entitled, "U.S. Policy, Cultural Heritage, and U.S. Borders," 19 International Journal of Cultural Property 175 (2012) .
Luke, like many of her peers, appears to subscribe to the view that any artifact without a demonstrated provenance before 1970 should be deemed stolen. She describes a system where this view has permeated into the State Department bureaucracy that makes the applicable regulations, and which is taught by archaeologists holding similar views to the enforcement arm of US Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
She maintains that the resultant crack down on collectors, museums and dealers is good for U.S. Foreign Policy and National Security, but cites little evidence other than self-serving statements of several diplomats and off the record comments of unnamed CBP officials.
So does this system really benefit our foreign policy and national security? Or is it just another special interest program to help archaeologists get access to excavations and which provides the US Cultural Bureaucrats with increased funding?
And even if there is some benefit to our foreign policy or national security, is it worth the costs and the burden associated regulations place on American businesses, collectors and museums? Doesn't overregulation adversely impact the people to people contacts and cultural exchange collecting brings (at no cost to the US taxpayer)?
Our nation is in financial difficulty. Foreign aid for important projects like defeating Aids in Africa is under threat. Under the circumstances, the programs Luke describes should be closely scrutinized for their real value. In short, our courts are already open to foreign states that seek to repatriate objects. So why should the U.S. taxpayer underwrite these efforts instead?
Luke, like many of her peers, appears to subscribe to the view that any artifact without a demonstrated provenance before 1970 should be deemed stolen. She describes a system where this view has permeated into the State Department bureaucracy that makes the applicable regulations, and which is taught by archaeologists holding similar views to the enforcement arm of US Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
She maintains that the resultant crack down on collectors, museums and dealers is good for U.S. Foreign Policy and National Security, but cites little evidence other than self-serving statements of several diplomats and off the record comments of unnamed CBP officials.
So does this system really benefit our foreign policy and national security? Or is it just another special interest program to help archaeologists get access to excavations and which provides the US Cultural Bureaucrats with increased funding?
And even if there is some benefit to our foreign policy or national security, is it worth the costs and the burden associated regulations place on American businesses, collectors and museums? Doesn't overregulation adversely impact the people to people contacts and cultural exchange collecting brings (at no cost to the US taxpayer)?
Our nation is in financial difficulty. Foreign aid for important projects like defeating Aids in Africa is under threat. Under the circumstances, the programs Luke describes should be closely scrutinized for their real value. In short, our courts are already open to foreign states that seek to repatriate objects. So why should the U.S. taxpayer underwrite these efforts instead?
Revised MOU Confirms Restrictions Wrongly Placed on Coins?
The CPIA, 19 U.S.C. Section 2602 (a) (1) (C) (ii) limits restrictions only to circumstances where less drastic remedies are unavailable.
Testimony during CPAC�s public session to discuss a renewal of the MOU with Cyprus established that the use of metal detectors was responsible for any looting of historical coins from the Island.
Yet, after 5 years of restrictions on �coins of Cypriot type� the renewed MOU available under "What's New" on the Cultural Heritage Center webstite states,
"The Government of the Republic of Cyprus will use its best efforts to enforce applicable laws and regulations regarding the use of metal detectors."
Isn�t this an admission that self-help measures on metal detectors were never really tried FIRST before import restrictions were placed on coins?
And if so, doesn�t this just help confirm that the State Department�s and CBP�s controversial decision to impose import restrictions on coins was based not on an application of the law to the facts but rather on cronyism and some behind the scenes lobbying of then Undersecretary Nicholas Burns?
Testimony during CPAC�s public session to discuss a renewal of the MOU with Cyprus established that the use of metal detectors was responsible for any looting of historical coins from the Island.
Yet, after 5 years of restrictions on �coins of Cypriot type� the renewed MOU available under "What's New" on the Cultural Heritage Center webstite states,
"The Government of the Republic of Cyprus will use its best efforts to enforce applicable laws and regulations regarding the use of metal detectors."
Isn�t this an admission that self-help measures on metal detectors were never really tried FIRST before import restrictions were placed on coins?
And if so, doesn�t this just help confirm that the State Department�s and CBP�s controversial decision to impose import restrictions on coins was based not on an application of the law to the facts but rather on cronyism and some behind the scenes lobbying of then Undersecretary Nicholas Burns?
US Government Appeals SLAM Decision
The US Government has appealed the decision to dismiss its effort to seek the forfeiture of the Ka Nefer Nefer Mask. It has been reported such decisions are made by the same US State Department and Customs and Border Protection cultural bureacracy responsible for imposing import restrictions. If so, one wonders if the appeal is at least in part an effort to throw a lifeline to Zahi Hawass, who after all has sought to bolster his position with the Egyptian Government through being "indispensible" for the protection of Egyptian cultural property.
Cultural Nationalism Now Bites American Archaeologists
A Kurdish source is reporting that the Iraqi Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities has stopped dealing with US archaeological teams in response to the refusal of US authorities to return Iraqi Jewish artifacts to the country.
If so, this is a rebuff not only to American archaeologists who have tirelessly promoted the interests of the Iraqi archaeological establishment (both during and after the fall of Saddam's Baathist regime) but also to the US State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center, which have lavished millions of dollars on the Iraqi archaeological establishment-- all at a time US cultural institutions are finding themselves in an extremely harsh financial climate.
In punishing American archaeologists for a dispute over the repatriation of cultural artifacts, the Iraqis are apparently taking a page from the Turkish Government which has also recently punished German archaeologists for the perceived transgressions of German state museums.
Here, the Iraqis are apparently specifically miffed at US reconsideration of a controversial State Department "commitment" to return cultural artifacts confiscated from Iraqi Jews who were forced from their homeland in a callous act of "ethnic cleansing". Given their own "unclean hands," it's hard to see any "moral rights" Iraq may have to such artifacts.
And in an ironic twist, American archaeologists apparently have now themselves become the "victims" of the very same virulent cultural nationalism they have themselves done so much to foster. Perhaps it's finally time for the Archaeological Institute of America to rethink its unqualified support for the broadest claims of any nation state where American archaeologists excavate.
And it's certainly time to cut any further funding of Iraqi archaeology or the repatriation of any "Iraqi looking" cultural goods based on the slimmest suspicion they may have left that country after an international embargo was placed on the import of any Iraqi products.
If so, this is a rebuff not only to American archaeologists who have tirelessly promoted the interests of the Iraqi archaeological establishment (both during and after the fall of Saddam's Baathist regime) but also to the US State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center, which have lavished millions of dollars on the Iraqi archaeological establishment-- all at a time US cultural institutions are finding themselves in an extremely harsh financial climate.
In punishing American archaeologists for a dispute over the repatriation of cultural artifacts, the Iraqis are apparently taking a page from the Turkish Government which has also recently punished German archaeologists for the perceived transgressions of German state museums.
Here, the Iraqis are apparently specifically miffed at US reconsideration of a controversial State Department "commitment" to return cultural artifacts confiscated from Iraqi Jews who were forced from their homeland in a callous act of "ethnic cleansing". Given their own "unclean hands," it's hard to see any "moral rights" Iraq may have to such artifacts.
And in an ironic twist, American archaeologists apparently have now themselves become the "victims" of the very same virulent cultural nationalism they have themselves done so much to foster. Perhaps it's finally time for the Archaeological Institute of America to rethink its unqualified support for the broadest claims of any nation state where American archaeologists excavate.
And it's certainly time to cut any further funding of Iraqi archaeology or the repatriation of any "Iraqi looking" cultural goods based on the slimmest suspicion they may have left that country after an international embargo was placed on the import of any Iraqi products.
CPAC Charter Renewed
The Federal Register (5/26/2012) belatedly reports that CPAC's Charter has been renewed:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 7897]
Renewal of Cultural Property Advisory Committee Charter
SUMMARY: The Charter of the Department of State's Cultural PropertyAdvisory Committee (CPAC) has been renewed for an additional two years. The Charter of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee is being renewed for a two-year period. The Committee was established by the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act of 1983, 19 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. It reviews requests from other countries seeking U.S. import restrictions on archaeological or ethnological material the pillage of which places a country's cultural heritage in jeopardy. The Committee makes findings and recommendations to the President's designee who, on behalf of the President, determines whether to impose the import restrictions. The membership of the Committee consists of private sector experts in archaeology, anthropology, or ethnology; experts in the international sale of cultural property; and representatives of museums and of the general public.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cultural Heritage Center, U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 2200 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20522. Telephone: (202) 632-6301; Fax: (202) 632-6300.
Dated: April 27, 2012.
Maria P. Kouroupas, Executive Director, Cultural Property Advisory, Committee Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-12937 Filed 5-25-12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-11-P
Comment: CPAC was meant to provide useful advice to the Executive Branch Decision-maker, but unfortunately the body has become little more than a rubber stamp for the State Department Cultural Heritage Center�s efforts to impose the broadest possible restrictions on cultural goods. See http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/03/cultural-property-implementation-act-is.html. If anything, the situation has gotten worse under the Obama Administration because non-archaeological slots on CPAC have now become packed with archaeological supporters. See http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/11/cpacked.html
DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 7897]
Renewal of Cultural Property Advisory Committee Charter
SUMMARY: The Charter of the Department of State's Cultural PropertyAdvisory Committee (CPAC) has been renewed for an additional two years. The Charter of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee is being renewed for a two-year period. The Committee was established by the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act of 1983, 19 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. It reviews requests from other countries seeking U.S. import restrictions on archaeological or ethnological material the pillage of which places a country's cultural heritage in jeopardy. The Committee makes findings and recommendations to the President's designee who, on behalf of the President, determines whether to impose the import restrictions. The membership of the Committee consists of private sector experts in archaeology, anthropology, or ethnology; experts in the international sale of cultural property; and representatives of museums and of the general public.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cultural Heritage Center, U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 2200 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20522. Telephone: (202) 632-6301; Fax: (202) 632-6300.
Dated: April 27, 2012.
Maria P. Kouroupas, Executive Director, Cultural Property Advisory, Committee Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-12937 Filed 5-25-12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-11-P
Comment: CPAC was meant to provide useful advice to the Executive Branch Decision-maker, but unfortunately the body has become little more than a rubber stamp for the State Department Cultural Heritage Center�s efforts to impose the broadest possible restrictions on cultural goods. See http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/03/cultural-property-implementation-act-is.html. If anything, the situation has gotten worse under the Obama Administration because non-archaeological slots on CPAC have now become packed with archaeological supporters. See http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/11/cpacked.html
James Willis Reappointed to CPAC
President Obama has reappointed James Willis to one of the trade slots on CPAC. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/16/president-obama-announces-more-key-administration-posts
Jane Levine of Sotheby's continues in another trade slot despite the fact that the Department of State and its Cultural Heritage Center have funded Heritage Watch, the NGO that has been at the forefront of pressing the US and Cambodian governments to seek repatriation of a Khmer statue that was due to be auctioned off by Sotheby's. See http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2012/04/government-supported-by-archaeological.html
One other trade slot remains vacant.
Jane Levine of Sotheby's continues in another trade slot despite the fact that the Department of State and its Cultural Heritage Center have funded Heritage Watch, the NGO that has been at the forefront of pressing the US and Cambodian governments to seek repatriation of a Khmer statue that was due to be auctioned off by Sotheby's. See http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2012/04/government-supported-by-archaeological.html
One other trade slot remains vacant.
Labels:
Cambodia,
CPAC,
Cultural Heritage Center,
Heritage Watch,
Sotheby's
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)