Some Thoughts on the Renewal of Cambodian MOU

Cambodia certainly has a far more sympathetic case than many applicants for import restrictions.   On the other hand, I�m not sure that the case made to protect sculptural elements from Khmer temples justifies import restrictions on everything and anything old down to the 16^th Century, including things like beads and statuettes.   I�d also like to know more about collections formed in Cambodia itself, particularly the one evidently put together by a government minister.   Does his collection have any statutes or sculptural elements in it?  If so, where and when were they collected?   It seems wrong to me that U.S. Government has filed suit against Sotheby�s demanding the return of a statute that left Cambodia decades ago if wealthy Cambodians, including at least one government minister, have been allowed to collect such material �no questions asked.�

More Double Standards at CPAC?

The New York Times has reported that the Cambodian Government asked for CPAC member Jane Levine, who is also employed by Sotheby's, to be recused from deliberating on the upcoming CPAC meeting relating to the renewal of the Cambodian MOU.   Presumably, the Cambodians are claiming that Levine cannot fairly discharge her duties given the ongoing dispute involving a Khmer statue.  The article indicates Levine was not going to attend the meeting anyway due to a conflict with a Sotheby's board meeting, but also suggests that the "scheduling conflict" may have provided Levine and Sotheby's with a graceful exit from the dispute.

But, if so, it's worth recalling that State failed to recuse an archaeologist who received an excavation permit from Cyprus despite the clear conflict of interest issues her participation in deliberations related to the renewal of the Cypriot MOU raised.

So, once again, is there one standard applied to collectors and the trade and another for archaeologists aligned with the State Department and source country bureaucracies?

Should Transparency Be a Two Way Street?

Archaeo-Blogger and Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire wants to mandate additional record-keeping for dealers in cultural goods in the name of "transparency."  Leaving aside whether creating more red tape will accomplish anything other than to place additional administrative burdens on the small businesses of the antiquities and coin trade, one wonders whether he would also acknowledge that transparency should be a two way street. 

So, how about some transparency for the State Department and CBP concerning their process for imposing import restrictions on cultural goods?  Or how about imposing new record keeping requirements on archaeologists, such as requiring them to publish their findings within in a reasonable time on the Internet so they will be easily accessible to interested members of the general public?

After all, State, CBP and the archaeological community all purport to act in the public's interest, so is some transparency from them too much to ask?

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?

Minerva Provides Open Access

The AIA claims it acts in the public interest and antiquities dealers are only interested in profit.  If so, how is it that Minerva, a commercial journal run by an antiquities dealer, has allowed open access to past issues, but the AIA continues to oppose open access, even for research material paid for by taxpayer dollars?

Everyone is Entitled to Find Out What the Government is Up To

Scott Hodes, an attorney who devotes his practice to Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") cases, has commented on the archaeological blogosphere's attack on the efforts of  ACCG, IAPN and PNG to seek transparency in how the State Department and US Customs impose import restrictions on cultural goods.

The drafters of FOIA hoped that the release of government files would help the public learn what its government is up to.  The fact that ACCG, IAPN and PNG have sought to shed some light on what State Department and US Customs Bureaucrats have been up to behind closed doors should be applauded, not condemned by archaeological groups, particularly given their own demands for transparency from private parties involved in the trade in cultural goods.

ACCG: AIA Under Fire on Open Access

Here is a revised press release from the ACCG critical of the AIA on its stand against "open access" to archaeological research: http://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2012/05/30/CL14513

At public meetings before the State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee, AIA members have claimed that import restrictions on cultural goods are necessary to promote archaeological research which is then shared with members of the public.

Isn't the AIA's stance against open access to federally funded research inconsistent with such claims?  Should the AIA instead provide CPAC with a disclaimer that archaeological research is only made freely available to fellow members of the archaeological trade?

We Buy Chinese Antiques

Oriental Heritage Inc., has announced a 7 day Antiques Buying Event in the Baltimore and Washington, D.C. Area. A prominent advertisement in the Washington Post exclaims, �The Chinese economy is booming. As a result, the market for Chinese antiques is red hot. Prices for many Chinese antiques have grown dramatically.� The advertisement also informs us that the Oriental Heritage Inc. is �backed up by major investment groups in China� and �has access to tens of millions of dollars of funds instantly.� Although not explicitly stated in the advertisement itself, the implication is that any art purchased in the United States will be repatriated to China.

Comment: While I support Oriental Heritage�s rights to purchase antiques in the United States and send them to China, its actions again underscore the utter foolishness of the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Cultural Heritage Center�s effort to secure US import restrictions on Chinese cultural goods. Those restrictions have been pitched by State Department cultural bureaucrats and supportive archaeologists as necessary to protect Chinese archaeological sites. Yet, they appear to have in fact done little more than help redirect the trade in Chinese art back to China itself.

For more about Oriental Heritage, see http://orientalheritageinc.com/

The Economist Takes On Turkey's Repatriation Drive

The Economist Magazine has critiqued Turkey�s new repatriation drive here: http://www.economist.com/node/21555531

The Economist points out Turkey�s nationalist stance is popular at home, but that it is hypocritical in the extreme. Turkey itself was an Imperial power and its museums --like those of other Imperial powers-- also contain artifacts taken from what today are other countries.

The Economist could have gone further. Isn't it also wrong for Turkey to lay claim to cultural artifacts produced by Greek culture when Turkey itself forcibly deported its Greek citizens in the 1920�s?

Ponder the Fate of Zeugma

Before the Trustees of  Bowling Green State University seriously consider calls to send mosaics installed in their new arts center to Turkey because some academic claims they might have come from Zeugma, a Turkish site, they should ponder the fate that city-- sunk beneath waters created by a Turkish Government hydroelectric dam.

The Trustees should also consider that the AIA and other archaeological groups that support repatriation -- and which are so quick to jump on collectors, museums, and dealers at the mere whiff of looted art-- instead turn into pussycats when it comes to the decisions of foreign governments to sacrifice whole sites to dams and the like.  Indeed, instead of outrage for inundating Zeugma and many of its magnificent artifacts -- these groups only offered the Turkish Government their thanks for allowing "rescue excavations" that, of course, were largely funded not by the Turkish Government itself, but by an American Foundation.  See http://www.archaeology.org/0009/etc/turkey.html   Could this be because American archaeologists are beholden to the Turkish cultural bureacracy for excavation permits? 

It's not all that surprising that the Turkish Government wants to downplay its own calculated destruction of Turkey's archaeological past.  Yet, why should the Trustees of Bowling Green State University ignore Turkey's unclean hands as they consider any repatriation request?

More Looting in Egypt- But is the Prescription More of the Same?

The AP has filed this report on looting in Egypt.  See http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/egypt-turmoil-thieves-hunt-pharaonic-treasures-16334929#.T66C0_F5mSM

Yet, branding poor people who dig under their own houses as "thieves" and calling for more repressive measures probably won't solve the problem.  Perhaps, the real issue is that the Egyptian State's Pharaonic approach to these issues confuses control with conservation to the detriment of the latter.

Speaking of lawbreaking, the article-- which apparently is based totally on information from archaeologists and Egyptian cultural bureaucrats-- nowhere discusses the status of the case against former Egyptian antiquities chief Zahi Hawass, who has been charged with antiquities theft and corruption.

If Egyptian authorities insist on prosecuting the poor for "antiquities theft" shouldn't they also take a similarly hard line against Dr. Hawass, who, after all, was one of the major proponents of such repressive measures when he was in charge?

Should an Ohio University Send Valuable Mosaics Back to Turkey Based on Speculation on their Origins and the Impact of Turkish Law?

I do hope the Trustees at Bowling Green State University in Ohio seek opinions of others than those with a vested interest in repatriating objects before they seriously consider ripping valuable mosaics out of its new Wolfe Center and sending them to an uncertain fate in Turkey.  See http://www.cleveland.com/arts/index.ssf/2012/03/turkey_wants_bgsus_ancient_rom.html and http://www.savingantiquities.org/will-new-research-lead-to-repatriation-of-mosaics/
After all, the Trustees have fiduciary duties that require substantial justification before the University despoils its own new art center to feed the cultural nationalist beast.

At a minimum, the Trustees must ask:

Is academic speculation that the objects may have come from Zeugma, a site in Turkey, enough to justify such an irreversible action?

And even if the mosaics did come from Zeugma, how can a 1983 Turkish law be used as a basis to return them when they could not have left Turkey later than the 1960's?

And what moral right does the Turkish Government have to such objects?  After all, that same Turkish government sacrificed the entire ancient city of Zeugma itself in a quest for hydroelectric power. 

Swank AIA Gala at Odds with Anti-Business, Due Dilligence Rhetoric?

The AIA has announced the success of its Spring Gala on its website.  See http://aia.archaeological.org/gala/

But the optics of such a posh event are seemingly at odds with the anti-business rhetoric one sometimes hears from AIA members at hearings of the State Department Cultural Property Advisory Committee. 

It's also interesting to note that the AIA auctioned off an antique Turkish kilim during the event.  See http://aia.archaeological.org/gala/auction/fethiye-kilim  Again, one wonders given all the rhetoric about due dilligence whether the item was imported into the United States consistently with Turkish export controls. See http://www.turkeytravelplanner.com/details/Shopping/AntiquitiesWarning.html

Hillary More Attuned to Pop Culture than to Concerns of Numismatic Community?

I had to laugh a bit when I read that Hillary Clinton (or her staff) had time to write Jason Segal, a Hollywood personality, to decline an invitation to appear on his television show.  See http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hillary-clinton-writes-jason-segel-rejection-letter-318512

In contrast, Secretary Clinton has declined to respond at all to correspondence expressing the sincere concerns of the numismatic community about how import restrictions are damaging small business and the appreciation and study of ancient coins in the United States.

What gives?

AIA Doubles Down Against Open Access

AIA President Elisabeth Bartman has responded to criticism about the AIA's opposition to legislation meant to guarantee open access to federally funded research.  See http://www.archaeological.org/news/8905

This criticism extends to AIA ranks.  Recently, Sebastian Heath, the AIA's Past Vice President for Professional Responsibilities, took the AIA to task here:  http://ancientworldbloggers.blogspot.com/2012/04/aia-and-open-access-response.html

The AIA claims it represents the public interest before the State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee and in lobbying before Congress.

If so, its publications-- particularly those funded through federal dollars-- should not be used as profit centers.  Instead, this research should made freely available to the public, and other fundraising efforts be used to ensure that the organization's publications program continues.

AIA Seeks to Maintain Monopoly on Research About the Past

The AIA is under attack from groups supporting open access to government funded research for its efforts to oppose the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2012.

The legislation is meant to ensure that government funded research is made available to the public on the Internet.

A group called, "Open Access Archaeology" takes the AIA to task, noting,

�The AIA does not understand that the legislation does not force them to make their materials Open Access. It only requires that research paid for by the US federal government be made Open Access after a period of closed access.
 
�We believe the AIA does not actually know what Open Access is or even what the term means. While public lectures are great it is not Open Access PUBLICATIONS.
 
�It is not the AIA that adds value to publications but the researchers who write the articles and peer reviewers who make improvements. Both actions are not paid for or undertaken by the AIA but by volunteers for FREE.
 
�We interpret the AIA mission statement, �Believing that greater understanding of the past enhances our shared sense of humanity and enriches our existence, the AIA seeks to educate people of all ages about the significance of archaeological discovery., to be in full support of Open Access and NOT in support of closed access.

For more, see http://www.openaccessarchaeology.org/response-to-aia.html
 
The AIA's stance in this matter certainly belies any claims made before Congress and the State Department Cultural Property Advisory Committee that import restrictions are necessary to further research that is then made available to the public. 
 
Interestingly, the AIA's efforts against open access appear nowhere on the AIA's advocacy page.  See http://www.archaeological.org/sitepreservation/advocacy

Is the AIA interested in the dissemination of knowledge as widely as possible or information control?

Small Businessman Pleads Guilty to False Statements; Government Ignores Allegations of Misrepresentations to Congress

Morris Khouli, a New York antiquities and coin dealer, has plead guilty to smuggling and false statements to federal law enforcement. See http://www.justice.gov/usao/nye/pr/2012/2012apr18c.html.

Hopefully, the Court will not sentence Mr. Khouli to anywhere near the 20 year maximum for the offenses. Any such penalty would be very harsh for the conduct alleged in the indictment.

One must also question a system where a small businessman can potentially be sentenced to 20 years for falsifying import documents, but which ignores credible allegations that State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Employees misled Congress in an official report about CPAC's true recommendations concerning the controversial 2007 decision to impose import restrictions on coins.

And even worse, it is likely that some of the same employees who pressed for the prosecution of Mr. Khouli, also had something to do with any false declarations to Congress.

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.

Oil Over Antiquities-- Where is the International Archaeological Uproar?

The Iraqi Oil Ministry and the Iraqi Tourism Ministry are at odds over the extension of an oil pipeline that impinges on the ancient site of Babylon. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17702153

I suspect that the Iraqi Oil Ministry will win out in this dispute.

Imagine the uproar if this happened under US Military occupation.

Yet, there is none here.

End Unilateral Trade Sanctions on Coin Collectors

The Huffington Post has published an editorial by Wayne Sayles attacking import restrictions on ancient coin collecting.

Coin collectors across the U.S. are tired of being singled out with unilateral sanctions. The State Department�s assault on our ability to collect coins is killing another American industry and leaving coin collectors in China and Europe to freely buy and sell. We�ve decided we aren�t going to take it anymore. Join us in ending the State Department�s assault on coin collecting.

Here is the first call to arms for coin collectors across the U.S.: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-sayles/trade-sanction-coin-collectors_b_1400563.html