I am struck by the contrast between Sotheby's well-reasoned legal analysis of why the government's forfeiture action against its consigner's Cambodian statue should be dismissed and this well-written CNN opinion piece prepared by advocates for Cambodia.
Unfortunately, Sotheby's brief is not available on-line unless one has a "Pacer" account with the U.S. Court System. However, "Cultural Heritage Lawyer" and former SAFE VP Rick St. Hilaire has provided us with his own analysis. Though St. Hilaire is also associated with the archaeological community, his summary does appear to convey most of Sotheby's arguments accurately.
It will be interesting to read the Government's response. But why has the U.S. Government taken sides at all? Cambodia has plenty of friends in the archaeological community, including more than a few lawyers. They should be pursuing any claims Cambodia may have rather than making the U.S. taxpayer foot the bill for such a stale claim that dates back at least to the 1970's (if you believe the Government) or perhaps far earlier (if you believe Sotheby's).
Showing posts with label Lawyer's Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lawyer's Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation. Show all posts
Division in Archaeological Community Over Immunity Bill
Rick St. Hilaire, former SAFE VP and current Lawyers� Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation Board Member, has departed from his fellows to support S. 2212, a bill meant to immunize art coming into the United States for museum exhibitions. See http://culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com/2012/04/foreign-cultural-exchange.html. I have critiqued the position of SAFE and the Lawyers� Committee here. See http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2012/04/lobbying-effort-against-immunity-bill.html
Lobbying Effort Against Immunity Bill Raises Questions About Funding and Consistency with Prior Stances
The Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation and Saving Antiquities for Everyone have joined in the effort to scuttle S.2212, legislation aimed to immunize art brought into the United States for museum exhibitions. See http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org/S2212 and http://www.savingantiquities.org/say-no-to-senate-bill-2212/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=say-no-to-senate-bill-2212
This lobbying campaign raises questions about the funding of both organizations.
It appears law firms that have made considerable money from repatriating art and artifacts are funders of both organizations.
If both groups are going to lobby against S.2212, they should be more transparent about their funding sources.
Meanwhile, other voices that have been generally supportive of repatriation efforts have raised serious questions about the consistency of these groups' opposition to S.2212 compared to their prior stances before CPAC. See http://illicit-cultural-property.blogspot.com/2012/04/immunity-from-seizure-act-and-proposed.html
To that, I would add that these groups were also previously opposed to an effort to seize Iranian artifacts at the Oriental Institute to satisfy a judgment awarded to victims of terrorists with ties to to the Iranian government. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/21/MNSH160AQH.DTL&ao=all
Both groups should explain their positions better in light of their prior stances and provide more information about their funding sources.
This lobbying campaign raises questions about the funding of both organizations.
It appears law firms that have made considerable money from repatriating art and artifacts are funders of both organizations.
If both groups are going to lobby against S.2212, they should be more transparent about their funding sources.
Meanwhile, other voices that have been generally supportive of repatriation efforts have raised serious questions about the consistency of these groups' opposition to S.2212 compared to their prior stances before CPAC. See http://illicit-cultural-property.blogspot.com/2012/04/immunity-from-seizure-act-and-proposed.html
To that, I would add that these groups were also previously opposed to an effort to seize Iranian artifacts at the Oriental Institute to satisfy a judgment awarded to victims of terrorists with ties to to the Iranian government. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/21/MNSH160AQH.DTL&ao=all
Both groups should explain their positions better in light of their prior stances and provide more information about their funding sources.
At least Give Them a Decent Burial
The Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation is apparently advocating reburial for repatriated objects. See http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org/events?eventId=462717&EventViewMode=EventDetails ("[I]n other circumstances only an outright return and reburial of artifacts will satisfy the wronged side.")
However, CPO must claim first credit for that proposal in a post dated, April 1, 2009:
http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2009/04/advocacy-group-hopes-to-recontextualize.html
But at the time, CPO suggested it as an April Fools' Joke!
Hopefully, the Lawyers' Committee's [serious?] thinking about such a proposal will be revealed on its website, but without more, doesn't this all suggest that as far as the self-identified "preservation community" is concerned, "context" is indeed far more important than preserving artifacts themselves?
But, if so, is it really all about preservation or control?
However, CPO must claim first credit for that proposal in a post dated, April 1, 2009:
http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2009/04/advocacy-group-hopes-to-recontextualize.html
But at the time, CPO suggested it as an April Fools' Joke!
Hopefully, the Lawyers' Committee's [serious?] thinking about such a proposal will be revealed on its website, but without more, doesn't this all suggest that as far as the self-identified "preservation community" is concerned, "context" is indeed far more important than preserving artifacts themselves?
But, if so, is it really all about preservation or control?
LCCHP Posts Interesting Letter About Shipwrecks
To their credit, the Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation has posted this letter on their website critical of the usual academic approach to shipwrecks and their preservation:
http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org/blog?mode=PostView&bmi=711550
http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org/blog?mode=PostView&bmi=711550
Slim Public Support for Italian Import Restrictions Raises Questions About State Department Special Interest Program for Archaeologists
Politcos within the Obama State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and Diplomats from the Italian Embassy take note: a recent FOIA request reveals that CPAC only received thirteen (13) public comments in support of controversial import restrictions on "coins of Italian type."
Not that there really was any groundswell of public support for renewing the Italian MOU in the first place. Indeed, CPAC received only about one hundred (100) comments in favor of renewing the MOU at all.
Who supported the renewal of the MOU? The American public? Well, maybe only one or two individuals identified themselves as such. No, as one might expect, virtually all the support came from archaeologists who excavate in Italy, their students or their "trade associations."
And who supported restrictions on coins? Well, the AIA, Lawyer's Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation, a few professors and students from NYU (Home of Pro-Restriction CPAC member Joan Connelly) and foreign archaeo-bloggers like David Gill and Paul Barford.
Contrast this with the one thousand nine hundred (1,900) plus public comments opposed to the extension of import restrictions on ancient coins.
Given this disparity, one can only ask: What gives? Why has the State Department disadvantaged the interests of American collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade by imposing hard to meet documentation requirements when the support for such restrictions is so limited?
And more to the point, has State Department Cultural Heritage Center staff told the political appointees at State and the diplomats at the Italian Embassy how thin the support actually is for restrictions?
Not that there really was any groundswell of public support for renewing the Italian MOU in the first place. Indeed, CPAC received only about one hundred (100) comments in favor of renewing the MOU at all.
Who supported the renewal of the MOU? The American public? Well, maybe only one or two individuals identified themselves as such. No, as one might expect, virtually all the support came from archaeologists who excavate in Italy, their students or their "trade associations."
And who supported restrictions on coins? Well, the AIA, Lawyer's Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation, a few professors and students from NYU (Home of Pro-Restriction CPAC member Joan Connelly) and foreign archaeo-bloggers like David Gill and Paul Barford.
Contrast this with the one thousand nine hundred (1,900) plus public comments opposed to the extension of import restrictions on ancient coins.
Given this disparity, one can only ask: What gives? Why has the State Department disadvantaged the interests of American collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade by imposing hard to meet documentation requirements when the support for such restrictions is so limited?
And more to the point, has State Department Cultural Heritage Center staff told the political appointees at State and the diplomats at the Italian Embassy how thin the support actually is for restrictions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)