Shame on China II: Destruction of Buddhist Religious Heritage

Even after more than 50 years of communism, China remains a religious country.  Nevertheless, the officially atheist PRC not only harasses religious Chinese, but callously destroys China's religious heritage in the name of progress. 

CPO has reported on China's part in the planned demolition of an important Buddhist site in Afghanistan for profit, but religious sites at home fair no better.  For example, AFP is reporting on plans to bulldoze many of the buildings associated with a 1,300 year old Buddhist temple erected near where China's famous terracotta warriors were found.  Ironically, the supposed reason for the destruction is to assist with an application to make the area a "World Heritage Site."

Should the US State Department authorize repatriation of every last unprovenanced Chinese coin when China cares so little for major religious sites?

Update:  While archaeo-blogger Paul Barford contorts logic to justify the demolition of this important Buddhist site within China proper, far more troubling news has emerged that Chinese authorities have begun to demolish wide swaths of Tibet's capital, including another important temple, again in the name of progress.

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.

Cultural Nationalism Bites German Archaeologists

American archaeologists have been generally supportive of  the repatriation efforts of countries like Egypt, Turkey, Greece and Italy.  Although they may claim that they are disinterested experts that only support repatriation for moral reasons, the fact is their careers may very well depend on excavation permits issued by the cultural bureaucracies of these same countries.

But now the same cultural nationalism that has motivated Turkey's recent repatriation claims appears to have led the Turkish cultural bureaucracy to force German archaeologists out from excavations at Troy.   See http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/german-team-leaves-ancient-site.aspx?pageID=238&nID=21959&NewsCatID=375  Although the above article points to "financial problems" as the reason German archaeologists are leaving the site, it also suggests that Turkey ultimately wants to replace German archaeologists with Turkish ones.   Moreover, other sources suggest that move is part of a larger dispute between German state museums and Turkey over repatriation demands for artifacts in their collections.  See http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20110224-33323.html

Indeed, as quoted in the above article, a Turkish minister has stated quite bluntly, "Turkey has new universities, new archaeological institutes, not to mention engaged and successful archaeologists....When we don't see the cooperation we hope for in this area, then we won't hesitate to transfer digs to our own universities."

For now, American archaeologists' careers at Troy and other Turkish sites appear safe.  But one can only imagine that Turkish authorities expect unqualified support from American archaeologists for their recent repatriation claims against US Museums.  See http://chasingaphrodite.com/2012/03/30/scoop-turkey-asks-getty-met-cleveland-and-dumbarton-oaks-to-return-dozens-of-antiquities/

And what of the 1970 UNESCO benchmark that the AIA hoodwinked American museums into accepting in order to buy peace?   That "safe harbor" has evidently suddenly become all but forgotten given what one reads about Turkey's claims in the archaeological blogosphere.

UNESCO Database of Cultural Property Laws

I received this solicitation, which I am happy to pass along:

Dear Sir or Madam:

I write to you regarding the UNESCO Database of National Cultural Heritage Laws. Created in 2003, the Database contains more than 2,350 laws of 180 countries, and is available on-line at www.unesco.org/culture/natlaws.   It is easy to use and free of charge, and provides a unique tool for cultural authorities, museums, universities, law firms, and heritage professionals. More generally, the database can play an important role in fighting the illicit traffic of cultural heritage.

We believe that the content of the Cultural Property Observer Blog may benefit from this resource and that it is well-positioned to help promote the Database to a large audience of possible users. Accordingly, we invite you to share the above URL widely, and to promote its use among other relevant individuals and institutions.
....

Thank you, and best regards,
Jordan Jacobs

UNESCO Consultant

Comment:  This is a useful resource. IFAR has a similar database, but it is probably not as complete.  Of course, the fact that a law exists on the subject does not answer the specific question of whether it is just to all stakeholders, whether it is enforced at home or whether it should be enforced abroad.  That, of course, is what much of the cultural property debate is about.

UNESCO News Flash: Museums Overcrowded with Material They Can't Possibly Take Care Of!

UNESCO and ICCROM have finally admitted what everyone else already knows: museums can't possibly keep up with all the stuff they have in storage. See
http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=11&int_new=51419

According to the report,

Mr. Ga�l de Guichen, Special Advisor to the Director General of ICCROM, commented: �This is the first time we have a clear picture of the situation. In my 40 years of service at ICCROM, which has taken me all over the world, I estimated that about 60% of museum storage was in unacceptable conditions. With this data, we have a clearer picture of the problem areas. Most importantly, we have confirmation that this is not a developed vs. developing country issue: all countries find themselves in the same situation.�

The response to this "shocking news" was all too predictable:

In response to the survey results, ICCROM is presently looking for partnerships and funding to launch an international programme to strengthen professional and institutional capacity in addressing the key needs identified in this survey.

But where is this funding coming from?

Instead of assuming more money will be forthcoming from cash strapped governments, why not instead deaccession duplicate material for sale to collectors? That will free up space and bring much needed funds to such museums.

But perhaps that is too much for anti-business and anti-collector UNESCO and ICCROM to contemplate.

Crying Wolf

UNESCO has issued an alarm that Libya's cultural heritage has become the target of looters and a Russian journalist is claiming that the Museum in Tripoli has been sacked and that NATO warplanes have bombed important cultural sites. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/26/libyas-cultural-heritage-_n_938405.html and

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article2406278.ece



Not so fast. In fact, the museum in Tripoli appears to be under rebel guard. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/letter-from-tripoli And there have been no credible reports about either extensive looting of archaeological sites or attacks by NATO aircraft.



Indeed, to the extent Libya's cultural heritage has gone missing, isn't it more likely to have happened due to the sticky fingers of Libya's former ruler and his family?



Under the circumstances, perhaps we should not jump to conclusions.



Addendum: Andrew Lawler has also written an article, entitled "Claims of Mass Libyan Looting Rejected by Archaeologists," Science Magazine (Sept. 1, 2011). See http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/09/claims-of-mass-libyan-looting.html?ref=hp