As will become more apparent from my upcoming summary of its public session on Chinese import restrictions, the Cultural Property Advisory Committee appears to have devolved into little more than a complaints bureau for museums and archaeologists with gripes about a source country�s compliance with promises made to these groups in order to secure a MOU with the United States. Import restrictions associated with those MOUs, of course, �stick it� to collectors and the small businesses of the coin and antiquities trade all in the name of �protecting archaeological sites.� But what is really ridiculous this time around is that the EXACT SAME artifacts that Americans are no longer free to import are openly available for sale on Chinese markets, and in immense quantities that dwarf any market here.
It was not supposed to be that way. Instead, CPAC was supposed to provide useful advice to the executive branch about protecting both foreign archaeological contexts and protecting US based business and cultural interests.
What happened? First, Senator Moynihan, who ensured that the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act reflected this balance, retired from the Senate. And then over time, the State Department chipped away at the considerable substantive and procedural constraints found in the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, going so far as to ignore CPAC�s recommendations that there should be no import restrictions on artifacts as common as historical coins and then misleading Congress and the public about it. Most recently, CPAC has been packed with archaeological supporters, including in slots reserved for the public. No wonder CPAC has become little more than a complaints bureau and rubber stamp for the State Department�s prejudged decision-making favoring the interests of foreign cultural bureaucracies and their allies in the archaeological and museum communities.
Art You Will Never See
A new website has appeared in the blogosphere called "Art You Will Never See." The website highlights the "orphan artifacts" problem created by the AAMD's recently adopted 1970 Rule for acquisitions.
According to the website,
ART YOU WILL NEVER SEE seeks to advance public education and understanding of issues affecting museums with particular respect to the collecting, conserving, displaying and publication of cultural artifacts. It is the specific purpose of this website to help the public understand what the AAMD�s rule-making means, It is the hope of ART YOU WILL NEVER SEE that the objects shown on these pages will underscore the importance of the orphans issue and point the way toward change in guidelines that were enacted by an organization with little understanding of their consequences.
The objects shown here need few words. The images speak for themselves. Historically or artistically, all are of exceptional importance. If they were offered today, however, even as a donation, the AAMD says they should be rejected by the art museums of America. They are only tip of the iceberg, however: beneath them lies an extraordinary depth and breadth of material in private hands that you will, now, never see in an American museum.
According to the website,
ART YOU WILL NEVER SEE seeks to advance public education and understanding of issues affecting museums with particular respect to the collecting, conserving, displaying and publication of cultural artifacts. It is the specific purpose of this website to help the public understand what the AAMD�s rule-making means, It is the hope of ART YOU WILL NEVER SEE that the objects shown on these pages will underscore the importance of the orphans issue and point the way toward change in guidelines that were enacted by an organization with little understanding of their consequences.
The objects shown here need few words. The images speak for themselves. Historically or artistically, all are of exceptional importance. If they were offered today, however, even as a donation, the AAMD says they should be rejected by the art museums of America. They are only tip of the iceberg, however: beneath them lies an extraordinary depth and breadth of material in private hands that you will, now, never see in an American museum.
THE CHINESE DREAM SHOULD NOT ALLOWED TO BECOME AMERICA�S NIGHTMARE
This more or less was my statement to CPAC on behalf of IAPN and PNG. I hope to report on the public session of CPAC considering the renewal of the MOU with China in the near future.
A recent issue of Economist Magazine writes of Xi Jinping, China�s new Communist Party Leader and his slogan, the Chinese Dream, a call for China to reclaim its ancient glory.
Part of all this, of course, is to highlight the importance of ancient Chinese artifacts not just through diplomatic efforts like this MOU, but through the creation of a vibrant internal collector�s market, including world class bourses like the Beijing International Coin and Stamp Show and auction houses like China Guardian and Poly Auctions.
On that score, let me be the first to say I�m all for the Chinese government encouraging China�s own people to collect, preserve, study and display ancient artifacts, particularly as common as ancient Chinese coins, which must still exist in the millions if not billions. That certainly is much preferable to the ideologically motivated destruction of Chinese cultural heritage during the Cultural Revolution or, for that matter, the far more recent demolition of historic Buddhist Temples and large swaths of Lhasa in Tibet and Kashgar on the Silk Road all in the name of progress.
But given the reality of a huge, largely open internal Chinese market in common antiquities like pottery and coins, it�s a fair question to ask what is the real purpose of the import restrictions our State Department, presumably with the consent of CPAC, have imposed on American collectors, the small businesses of the antiquities and coin trade and museums?
I�m well aware that archaeologists have argued that import restrictions help drive potentially looted artifacts off the market, but such a claim makes little sense whatsoever given this huge internal Chinese market. Indeed, all that is really being accomplished is to give Chinese dealers, auction houses and collectors a leg upon their foreign, particularly American competition.
Does CPAC really support such a state of affairs, particularly where the most successful Chinese antiquities sales outlets are insiders associated with the Chinese Government, like Poly Group run by the People�s Liberation Army and China Guardian Auctions, run by the daughter of one of China�s former leaders? Let�s hope not.
There is also the issue of Chinese compliance with the current MOU. Several issues come to mind. First, China was supposed to make it easier to legally export artifacts, but it has not. Instead, it now reportedly bans exports of any artifact (even apparently foreign ones like 19th c. US Trade Dollars) pre-dating 1911.
Of course, these rules do not apply to the free ports of Hong Kong and Macao. China was also supposed to clamp down on them, but it has not. Instead, artifacts leaving these ports can still be re-imported into the PRC no questions asked.
China has also failed to crack down on its own museums purchasing recently looted materials. Indeed, the business plan of the Poly Group appears to contemplate purchases of such material. Will CPAC and the State Department hold the PRC accountable to its promises? Let�s hope so.
Finally, let�s talk more about Chinese coins currently on the designated list. The State Department and U.S. Customs have misapplied the CPIA�s requirement limiting any restrictions to artifacts �first discovered within� and �subject to the export control� of China. They have instead barred the import of any Tang Dynasty and earlier coins based on their place of production, which is entirely different.
One cannot safely assume any Chinese cash coins are only found where they were made. Scholarly evidence demonstrates that early cash coins like those on the designated list were exported in quantity with later issues all around the Far East and even as far West as Africa and the Arabian coast.
Certainly the entire agreement with China should be suspended because it is doing nothing to actually protect Chinese archaeological sites, but at a minimum, Chinese cash coins, which exist in the millions if not billions, should be delisted.
Indeed, if anything, both China and the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs should seek to have such exceptionally common coins disseminated as widely as possible to US Schools to help teach American students about Chinese history and hence foster the cultural understanding that is supposed to be the brief of ECA, whose Assistant Secretary is the deciding official for this MOU. Perhaps, that should be a recommendation of CPAC during this Asian Pacific American Heritage Month --not more restrictions on common coins of the sort widely collected in China itself.
Thank you.
Houghton Questions CPAC on Renewal of China MOU
Arthur Houghton left this comment to my last post about the China MOU, but as he is a former CPAC member himself (who represented the interests of museums), CPO is publishing his query as a separate post:
Peter, the questions go deeper, given the fact that the PRC has asked the US to renew the current Memorandum of Understanding between the two countries.
The PRC is required to give the US a full report on its compliance with the MOU. Has it done so? If not, why not? If it has, the State Department is required to provide the US public with the PRC's report. Has it done so? If not why not? Is there a cover up here -- by the PRC or, worse (much worse!) by the Administration?
Could someone comment on this?
Thank you,
Arthur
By way of background, here is what was promised in Article II of the Current MOU:
ARTICLE II
1. Representatives of the Government of the United States of America and representatives of the Government of the People�s Republic of China shall regularly publicize this Memorandum of Understanding and the reasons for it through available outlets of communication.
2. The Government of the People�s Republic of China shall expand efforts to educate its citizens about the long term importance of safeguarding its rich cultural heritage and that of other countries, a principle embodied in the 1970 UNESCO Convention.
3. The Government of the People�s Republic of China shall use its best efforts to make use of surface surveys in order to inventory sites, and to broaden archaeological research and enhance public awareness of its importance. 4. The Government of the People�s Republic of China shall use its best efforts to increase
funding and professional resources for the protection of cultural heritage throughout the country.
5. The Government of the People�s Republic of China shall take measures to improve the effectiveness of its customs officers, in order to: (1) stop the illicit exportation of cultural property at borders and ports; and (2) recognize Chinese archaeological material and its value to the heritage. The Government of the United States of America shall use its best efforts to improve the ability of its customs officers to recognize Chinese archaeological material and, as appropriate, facilitate assistance to China for the training of its customs
officers.
6. The Government of the People�s Republic of China shall make every effort to stop archaeological material looted or stolen from the Mainland from entering the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Macao Special Administrative Region with the goal of eliminating the illicit trade in these regions.
7. The Government of the United States of America recognizes that the Government of the People�s Republic of China permits the international interchange of archaeological materials for cultural, educational and scientific purposes to enable widespread public appreciation of and legal access to China�s rich cultural heritage.
The Government of the People�s Republic of China agrees to use its best efforts to further such interchange in the following ways:
(1) promote long-term loans of archaeological objects of significant interest to a broad cross-section of American museums for public exhibition, education, and research purposes;
(2) promote increased institution-to-institution collaboration in the field of art history and in other humanistic and academic disciplines relating to the archaeological heritage of China;
(3) promote the exchange of students and professionals in such fields as archaeology, art history, conservation, museum curatorial practices, and cultural heritage management between appropriate Chinese and U.S. institutions; and
(
4) facilitate the granting of permits to conduct archaeological research in China.
8. The Government of the United States of America shall use its best efforts to facilitate technical assistance to the Government of the People�s Republic of China in pursuit of preserving its cultural heritage by such means as creating a national preservation strategy, improving rescue archaeology, stabilizing and restoring sites/buildings, enhancing the capacity of museums to preserve and exhibit collections, and strengthening regulation of the �cultural relics� market.
9. The Government of the People�s Republic of China shall continue to license the sale and export of certain antiquities as provided by law and will explore ways to make more of these objects available licitly.
10. Recognizing that, pursuant to this Memorandum of Understanding, museums in the United States will be restricted from acquiring certain archaeological objects, the Government of the People�s Republic of China agrees that its museums will similarly refrain from acquiring such restricted archaeological objects that are looted and illegally exported from Mainland China to destinations abroad, unless the seller or donor
provides evidence of legal export from Mainland China or verifiable documentation that the item left Mainland China prior to the imposition of U.S. import restrictions. This will apply to purchases made outside Mainland China by any museum in Mainland China and only to the categories of objects representing China�s cultural heritage from the Paleolithic Period through the end of the Tang Dynasty (A.D. 907), and monumental sculpture and wall art at least 250 years old, as covered by this Memorandum of
Understanding.
11. The Government of the People�s Republic of China shall seek to improve regulation of its internal market for antiquities.
12. Both Governments agree that, in order for United States import restrictions to be most successful in thwarting pillage, the Government of the People�s Republic of China shall endeavor to strengthen regional cooperation within Asia for the protection of cultural patrimony; and, in the effort to deter further pillage in China, shall seek increased cooperation from other importing nations to restrict the import of looted archaeological material originating in China.
13. To strengthen the cooperation between the two countries, the Government of the People�s Republic of China shall regularly provide the Government of the United States with information concerning the implementation of this Memorandum of Understanding; and, as appropriate, the Government of the United States shall provide information to the Government of the People�s Republic of China that strengthens the ability of both countries to enforce applicable laws and regulations to reduce illicit trafficking in cultural property.
Shame on China III: The PRC's Cronyism and Mercantilist-like Approach to Collecting
I�m actually happy China allows and even encourages collectors to preserve, study and display artifacts from China�s glorious past. But China should be criticized for giving connected insiders like Poly Group, a Chinese auction house connected with the People�s Liberation Army, a leg up on the competition, both foreign and domestic.
China should also be taken to task for taking on a mercantilist-like approach to collecting; Chinese citizens can import whatever they want, but no exports of artifacts predating 1911 are allowed, officially at least. Of course, anything and everything still exits the free ports of Hong Kong and Macao. That allows recently looted artifacts to be re-imported into China no questions asked for rich Chinese collectors.
Why should the US State Department and US Customs preclude Americans from importing Chinese artifacts when China encourages its own citizens to collect the same artifacts, and indeed, the size of the internal Chinese market is many, many times the size of the US market in such materials?
China should also be taken to task for taking on a mercantilist-like approach to collecting; Chinese citizens can import whatever they want, but no exports of artifacts predating 1911 are allowed, officially at least. Of course, anything and everything still exits the free ports of Hong Kong and Macao. That allows recently looted artifacts to be re-imported into China no questions asked for rich Chinese collectors.
Why should the US State Department and US Customs preclude Americans from importing Chinese artifacts when China encourages its own citizens to collect the same artifacts, and indeed, the size of the internal Chinese market is many, many times the size of the US market in such materials?
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.
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.
German High Court Rules Export Permits Not Required for Collectors' Coins in Trade
Germany's highest regulatory court has ruled that coins in trade will not be treated as archaeological objects requiring an export permit under EU law. The court said that because they are objects created in quantity, they have lost any archaeological value, and to require export permits for them would put an unreasonable restraint on trade. The decision in its entirety can be read here.
UPDATE 5/4/13: Not surprisingly, archaeo-blogger Paul Barford is in denial about the implications of Court's ruling and has even implied the court's decision-making was corrupted by "commercial interests." As to the former, I think a well known numismatist said it best:
Of course Mr. Barford is in denial of the court's actual ruling: �coins coming from Antiquity generally have no archeological value and thus are not archeological objects�. It doesn�t come much clearer than that. Nor is this �the Bavarian judiciary� as Mr. Barford would like to believe; it is the supreme court of Germany for cases involving customs and taxes.
As to the latter, I think Mr. Barford should compare what Transparency International says about Germany and places whose views of cultural property matters he champions, like Greece, Cyprus, Italy and China.
UPDATE 5/4/13: Not surprisingly, archaeo-blogger Paul Barford is in denial about the implications of Court's ruling and has even implied the court's decision-making was corrupted by "commercial interests." As to the former, I think a well known numismatist said it best:
Of course Mr. Barford is in denial of the court's actual ruling: �coins coming from Antiquity generally have no archeological value and thus are not archeological objects�. It doesn�t come much clearer than that. Nor is this �the Bavarian judiciary� as Mr. Barford would like to believe; it is the supreme court of Germany for cases involving customs and taxes.
As to the latter, I think Mr. Barford should compare what Transparency International says about Germany and places whose views of cultural property matters he champions, like Greece, Cyprus, Italy and China.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)