Germany Helps Smuggle Manuscripts to Save Them

Germany has helped smuggle historic manuscripts from Timbuktu to save them from the clutches of Islamic radicals bent on their destruction. Was removing them from their context to save them justified?  Was Germany helping or interfering by supporting the effort?   I'd say an unqualified "yes" to the first question, and "helping" as to the second.  But what of UNESCO and the archaeological fanatics?  Do they support this effort or not?  I wonder.

Timbuktu Library Update

It looks like early Islamic manuscripts thought to have been burned by fleeing Islamic fanatics associated with an al-Qaeda offshoot  may not have been destroyed after all.  If so, this is welcome news, though the situation still seems rather bleak.

This also once again raises the larger question of whether the assumptions behind the US MOU with Mali (a state capable of being a good steward for its cultural resources) are faulty.  Certainly, even when renewal of Mali's MOU was being considered, there was no reason to consider Mali anything but a failed state incapable of undertaking its own obligations under the UNESCO Convention to protect its cultural patrimony.

As Islamic Fanatics Destroy Libraries, State Department and Customs Reauthorize Regulations Returning Cultural Property to Mali

Given the latest round of destruction--this time of Islamic books-- it would not seem to be the best time to reauthorize import restrictions that call for the repatriation of cultural artifacts to Mali.   But the US Cultural Bureaucracy at State and US Customs seems unmoved by the recent turmoil in the country, and they have just announced the renewal of the current restrictions on such artifacts which authorize their return to the country.  Is our cultural bureaucracy out of touch with reality?  Does it make sense to send back artifacts to Mali where they may end up just getting destroyed?

African Antiquities Under Threat

The New York Times has published a balanced piece about threats against African Art that have only increased since archaeologists have sought to ban the trade. The article asks whether all the emphasis on protecting �context� really help preserve the artifacts themselves or their study and appreciation.   One nit: the 1970 UNESCO Convention in itself did not ban the trade.

Archaeologists Ignore Implications of Timbuku's Destruction at the Hands of Islamic Militants

Islamic Militants linked to Al Qaeda have destroyed culturally significant Islamic religious sites in Timbuktu.  Back in April, CPO reported that a proposed renewal of the current MOU with Mali had already been overtaken by events on the ground and then concluded,

A recent military coup and the takeover of important cultural sites like Timbuktu by well armed Islamic rebels again raises fundamental questions about whether the State Department and its allies in the archaeological community are really furthering the protection of cultural artifacts or whether their knee-jerk repatriationism does more harm than good.

Yet, it would seem that this latest sad but predicatable news has so far at least been largely ignored by the same archaeological community that was so quick to press for the unqualified renewal of he MOU.   
It also remains to be seen what, if any, impact this news will have on the State Department's own decisionmaking.

Mali MOU Renewal Overtaken By Events?

With one exception, no MOU restricting imports of cultural goods has ever been allowed to expire.

Yet, the assumption behind MOU's -- that the US should help State Parties to the UNESCO Convention control cultural goods found within their borders because nation states are the best protectors of their own cultural patrimony-- has been sorely tested, first by the economic meltdowns in Greece and Italy, and now even more clearly by the descent of Mali into chaos.

A recent military coup and the take over of important cultural sites like Timbuktu by well armed Islamic rebels again raises fundamental questions about whether the State Department and its allies in the archaeological community are really furthering the protection of cultural artifacts or whether their knee-jerk repatriationism does more harm than good.

For more on the situation in Mali, see http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/africa/rebels-take-timbuktu-in-mali.html

To read the arguments for renewing the MOU wiht Mali, see
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=O%252BSR%252BPS;rpp=25;po=0;D=DOS-2012-0012

On April 24, 2012, CPAC will conduct a public hearing that will discuss the proposed renewal of the MOU with Mali.

CPAC To Meet

The Federal Register reports that the Cultural Property Advisory Committee will meet to discuss renewals of current MOU's with Guatemala and Mali, and to conduct further discussion in secret about a request from Bulgaria. See http://www.ofr.gov/(S(mb4uyziobevezdhmm1qt4oyc))/OFRUpload/OFRData/2012-05909_PI.pdf

Archaeo-blogger Rick St. Hilaire's post about the upcoming meeting seeks to portray the secrecy and culture creep that has marked the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs'administration of the CPIA as both necessary and consistent with the statutory mandate. See http://culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com/2012/03/mali-guatemala-and-bulgaria-up-for.html

However, others-- including several former CPAC members-- have questioned this, most recently during a public forum on Capitol Hill. See http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/03/cultural-property-implementation-act-is.html

CPAC Meetings on Bolivia, Guatemala and Mali

The State Department has announced CPAC review of the MOU's with Bolivia, Guatemala and Mali. See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-06-02/html/2011-13693.htm

According to the notice,

During its meeting on Monday, June 27, the Committee will begin its review of a proposal to extend the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Bolivia Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from the Pre-Columbian Cultures and Certain Ethnological Material from the Colonial and Republican
Periods of Bolivia [Docket No. DOS-2011-0092]. An open session to receive oral public comment on this proposal to extend will be held from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.

On Tuesday, June 28, the Committee will conduct interim reviews of the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Guatemala Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Objects and Materials from the Pre-Columbian Cultures of Guatemala, and of the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Mali Concerning the Imposition of import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from Mali from the Paleolithic Era (Stone Age) to approximately the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Public comment, oral and written, will be invited at a time in the future should these MOUs be proposed for extension.

This continues the anti-transparency trend at the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. The public is no longer welcome to provide testimony on whether a source country is living up to its side of an MOU during an interim review hearing. Instead, comments are only welcome at the very end of the process-- when the train has almost arrived at the station.....

Not that anyone really believes that the State Department holds source countries to their promises to secure such MOU's. If they did, its doubtful many of the MOU's would continue to be extended and even expanded time and time again.