Peru has asked French authorities to stop an auction of Peruvian artifacts that left the country years ago. Sotheby's used to auction off such material in New York, but U.S. import restrictions on pre-Colombian art has driven that business overseas.
President Sarkozy made a concerted effort to increase France's share of the auction business. Perhaps, the Peruvian Government is hoping that France's current "soak the rich" Socialists will be more amenable to repatriation demands, however stale the claim.
Whether French authorities take the Peruvian claim seriously or not, all this is just more evidence that museums and others were snookered into accepting a 1970 date for acquisitions of artifacts. If they thought such a concession would quiet repatriation demands, they were very, very wrong. If anything, such concessions have only encouraged further demands-- the slippery slope rule applies yet again.
Showing posts with label Peru. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peru. Show all posts
MOUs Should Be About "Respect" for Governing Law
The State Department has announced that the MOU with Peru has been extended once again to "demonstrate [its] continued respect for the extraordinary cultural heritage of Peru."
While I agree that Peru has an extraordinary cultural heritage, import restrictions are only supposed to be extended if they meet the significant procedural and substantive constraints found in the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act. What then about "respecting" governing law?
Certainly, restrictions were only meant to give countries like Peru time to get any looting under control-- they were never meant to be reinstated time and time and again. Peru has already had the benefit of US import controls for 15 years. Hopefully, by the time the next renewal comes along in another 5 years someone responsible at State will conclude enough is enough.
While I agree that Peru has an extraordinary cultural heritage, import restrictions are only supposed to be extended if they meet the significant procedural and substantive constraints found in the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act. What then about "respecting" governing law?
Certainly, restrictions were only meant to give countries like Peru time to get any looting under control-- they were never meant to be reinstated time and time and again. Peru has already had the benefit of US import controls for 15 years. Hopefully, by the time the next renewal comes along in another 5 years someone responsible at State will conclude enough is enough.
Odyssey Marine: Carriage of Coinage Rules
While the archaeological community has pitched Spain's win in the Odyssey Marine Case as win for archaeology over the commercial exploitation of shipwrecks, the decision was in fact narrowly based on the fact that a Spanish warship carried the treasure, i.e., archaeological arguments were not result determinative.
Indeed, if anything, the decision is a defeat for repatriation in a broader sense; in awarding the treasure to Spain, the U.S. courts also turned down Peru's claims to the treasure largely based on the moral argument that Colonialist Spain stole it from the Peruvian people.
Indeed, if anything, the decision is a defeat for repatriation in a broader sense; in awarding the treasure to Spain, the U.S. courts also turned down Peru's claims to the treasure largely based on the moral argument that Colonialist Spain stole it from the Peruvian people.
Spain to Peru: It's Not About the Money, Really
Spain has rejected Peru's claims to the treasure retreived from the Black Swan wreck. According to the Washington Post,
On Thursday, the Peruvian government made an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to block transfer of the treasure to give Peru more time to make arguments in U.S. federal court about its claim to being the rightful owner. But that appeal was denied Friday by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Peru had argued the gold and silver on the ship was mined, refined and minted in its territory, which at the time was part of the Spanish empire.
But Carmen Marcos, deputy director of Spain�s National Museum of Archaeology, said Monday the coins were minted not just in Peru but also in Bolivia, Colombia and Chile. And the whole affair involved in claiming the coins was not about monetary value but rather history, she added. �These coins are not money. They are archaeological pieces,� she told reporters.
For more, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/spain-rejects-peruvian-claim-to-shipwreck-treasure/2012/02/27/gIQAFFcfdR_story.html
While this statement will no doubt warm the hearts of archaeologists everywhere, one would hope cash strapped Spain (which is only a little better off than Greece) will consider selling most of the coins after they are properly cleaned and recorded. If the coins really are worth $500 million as reported, why hoard them instead of using proceeds from their sale for the public good?
On Thursday, the Peruvian government made an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to block transfer of the treasure to give Peru more time to make arguments in U.S. federal court about its claim to being the rightful owner. But that appeal was denied Friday by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Peru had argued the gold and silver on the ship was mined, refined and minted in its territory, which at the time was part of the Spanish empire.
But Carmen Marcos, deputy director of Spain�s National Museum of Archaeology, said Monday the coins were minted not just in Peru but also in Bolivia, Colombia and Chile. And the whole affair involved in claiming the coins was not about monetary value but rather history, she added. �These coins are not money. They are archaeological pieces,� she told reporters.
For more, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/spain-rejects-peruvian-claim-to-shipwreck-treasure/2012/02/27/gIQAFFcfdR_story.html
While this statement will no doubt warm the hearts of archaeologists everywhere, one would hope cash strapped Spain (which is only a little better off than Greece) will consider selling most of the coins after they are properly cleaned and recorded. If the coins really are worth $500 million as reported, why hoard them instead of using proceeds from their sale for the public good?
Peru to Supreme Court: Spain Stole It First!
Peru has asked the Supreme Court to put a hold on the return of sunken treasure found by Odyssey Marine to Spain. See
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpps/news/local/region_1/peru:-spain-stole-it-first-odyssey-02222012_18164227
US Courts have ordered Odyssey Marine to return the treasure because it was found in a sunken Spanish warship.
Peru wants the Courts to turn the treasure over to it, because it was stolen from the country by Spanish colonialists.
Shouldn't the ardent repatriationists of the archaeological community support Peru over dastardly Spain? Surely if they pushed for Yale to return study artifacts from Machu Picchu, they should root for Peru in its efforts to take back what they are due from whatever source. Or, is their ire selectively employed against American companies and institutions?
Perhaps "finders, keepers" is the best rule after all.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpps/news/local/region_1/peru:-spain-stole-it-first-odyssey-02222012_18164227
US Courts have ordered Odyssey Marine to return the treasure because it was found in a sunken Spanish warship.
Peru wants the Courts to turn the treasure over to it, because it was stolen from the country by Spanish colonialists.
Shouldn't the ardent repatriationists of the archaeological community support Peru over dastardly Spain? Surely if they pushed for Yale to return study artifacts from Machu Picchu, they should root for Peru in its efforts to take back what they are due from whatever source. Or, is their ire selectively employed against American companies and institutions?
Perhaps "finders, keepers" is the best rule after all.
AIA Lobby Shop Springs into Action
The AIA styles itself as not for profit educational organization, but is acting more and more like a lobby shop in support of foreign cultural bureaucracies all the time. Indeed, the AIA's website now has an "advocacy page" (See http://www.archaeological.org/sitepreservation/advocacy) that links to an effort to gin up comments for the upcoming CPAC meetings on Cyprus and Peru. See http://www.archaeological.org/CPAC
And here is the AIA's party line:
"The looting of sites damages archaeological contexts, hampering archaeologists' study of ancient remains and distorting our reconstruction of the past. Because our understanding of the past is dependent on our ability to recover, study, and interpret ancient sites and artifacts in their original context, the preservation of sites is critical to the creation of archaeological knowledge, as well as to the maintenance of cultural heritage. A commitment to stopping the import of looted cultural material will help to prevent the destruction of the archaeological record."
While its hard to disagree with most of this statement, the last sentence is misleading in the extreme. If the advocates at the AIA were being honest, they would acknowledge that import restrictions as formulated and applied are grossly overbroad. Instead of focusing on artifacts reasonably suspected to be looted, they in fact embargo the import of all undocumented material on a "designated list"-- including many artifacts openly and legally available abroad-- on the assumption it "must be stolen." Of course, the "undocumented" equals "looted" equation only makes some sense for narrow ranges of "culturally significant" material that has not regularly appeared on international markets for generations. Yet, the ideologues at the AIA and the obdurate bureaucrats at State and US Customs have stretched the reach of import restrictions to even the most common artifacts, like ancient coins, that have been widely collected without provenance information for hundreds of years.
And here is the AIA's party line:
"The looting of sites damages archaeological contexts, hampering archaeologists' study of ancient remains and distorting our reconstruction of the past. Because our understanding of the past is dependent on our ability to recover, study, and interpret ancient sites and artifacts in their original context, the preservation of sites is critical to the creation of archaeological knowledge, as well as to the maintenance of cultural heritage. A commitment to stopping the import of looted cultural material will help to prevent the destruction of the archaeological record."
While its hard to disagree with most of this statement, the last sentence is misleading in the extreme. If the advocates at the AIA were being honest, they would acknowledge that import restrictions as formulated and applied are grossly overbroad. Instead of focusing on artifacts reasonably suspected to be looted, they in fact embargo the import of all undocumented material on a "designated list"-- including many artifacts openly and legally available abroad-- on the assumption it "must be stolen." Of course, the "undocumented" equals "looted" equation only makes some sense for narrow ranges of "culturally significant" material that has not regularly appeared on international markets for generations. Yet, the ideologues at the AIA and the obdurate bureaucrats at State and US Customs have stretched the reach of import restrictions to even the most common artifacts, like ancient coins, that have been widely collected without provenance information for hundreds of years.
Labels:
AIA,
bureacracy,
Cyprus,
Import Restrictions,
Lobbying,
Peru,
State Department,
US Customs
AIA View of CPAC Meeting on Bulgarian and Peruvian MOU
Here is the AIA's view of the Bulgarian and Peruvian MOU hearings: http://www.archaeological.org/news/advocacy/7317
The discussion underscores the ideological nature of the AIA's opposition to collecting. Practical concerns and fairness to small business don't rate for these out of touch academics. They also willfully ignore the fact that the unprovenanced coins they want to restrict are freely available within Bulgaria itself. If collecting unprovenanced coins is such a problem as Bulgaria is concerned, why doesn't the Bulgarian government clamp down on Bulgarian collectors? It won't as that would cause an uproar, but that won't stop the obdurate State Department bureaucrats from clamping down on US collectors.
Instead of clamping down on collectors, how about regulating metal detectors at the source?
The preferred method of regulation, of course, is a system akin to that in Britain, Wales and Scotland, but the CPIA itself requires that the source country try effective regulation of metal detectors before US authorities restrict American's ability to import cultural goods like coins.
For my view of the public meeting, see
http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/11/public-cpac-meeting-on-belize-and.html
The discussion underscores the ideological nature of the AIA's opposition to collecting. Practical concerns and fairness to small business don't rate for these out of touch academics. They also willfully ignore the fact that the unprovenanced coins they want to restrict are freely available within Bulgaria itself. If collecting unprovenanced coins is such a problem as Bulgaria is concerned, why doesn't the Bulgarian government clamp down on Bulgarian collectors? It won't as that would cause an uproar, but that won't stop the obdurate State Department bureaucrats from clamping down on US collectors.
Instead of clamping down on collectors, how about regulating metal detectors at the source?
The preferred method of regulation, of course, is a system akin to that in Britain, Wales and Scotland, but the CPIA itself requires that the source country try effective regulation of metal detectors before US authorities restrict American's ability to import cultural goods like coins.
For my view of the public meeting, see
http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/11/public-cpac-meeting-on-belize-and.html
Death to Looters!
That at least is the implication of Professor Rothfield's suggestion that armed guards police archaeological sites and museums in places like Egypt and Iraq. See
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/jul/10/arm-museum-guards-looting-war?mobile-redirect=false
While our own museums like the National Gallery of Art have some armed guards, I agree with Dorothy King that this particular proposal may lead to unnecessary deaths. See
http://phdiva.blogspot.com/2011/07/arm-museum-guards-to-prevent-looting.html Most "looters" in places like Egypt, Iraq and Peru are "subsistence diggers" who remove treasures from the graves of their ancestors in order to put food on the table. Do we really want to encourage them being killed in the name of archaeology? As for the armed gangs of archaeological lore, to the extent they exist at all, wouldn't they likely be better armed than the guards?
Of course, every country is free to address this issue in its own way, but I also suspect that Professor Rothfield wants Western countries to fund these armed guards.
And let's not forget. Shoot the looter was the practice in Saddam's Iraq. Is this really who we want to emulate?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/jul/10/arm-museum-guards-looting-war?mobile-redirect=false
While our own museums like the National Gallery of Art have some armed guards, I agree with Dorothy King that this particular proposal may lead to unnecessary deaths. See
http://phdiva.blogspot.com/2011/07/arm-museum-guards-to-prevent-looting.html Most "looters" in places like Egypt, Iraq and Peru are "subsistence diggers" who remove treasures from the graves of their ancestors in order to put food on the table. Do we really want to encourage them being killed in the name of archaeology? As for the armed gangs of archaeological lore, to the extent they exist at all, wouldn't they likely be better armed than the guards?
Of course, every country is free to address this issue in its own way, but I also suspect that Professor Rothfield wants Western countries to fund these armed guards.
And let's not forget. Shoot the looter was the practice in Saddam's Iraq. Is this really who we want to emulate?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)