CPAC = Complaints Processing Advisory Committee?

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.

PRC Buys off the Opposition to MOU

In 2005, Sotheby's, with some some assistance from Christie's, helped lead the opposition to a MOU with the PRC. This time around, however, both auction houses have remained silent. Why the change? Recently, the PRC agreed to allow them to do business in China. Presumably, both companies have concluded selling modern art to Chinese citizens is more lucrative and far less of a hassle these days than selling Chinese antiquities to Americans.

Christie�s new business in China also presumably helps explain the Pinault family�s decision to repatriate  two of the bronze fountain heads that were allegedly looted from the Summer Palace in the 19th century by an Anglo-French punitive expedition. The Pinaults -- who own Christie�s-- are not the first astute business interests to offer such sculptures as gifts. Stanley Ho, a Macao based gambling tycoon, also gained favor with the PRC when he donated a horse�s head from the group to a Chinese museum.

Repatriation of the bronze fountain heads has been a cause c�l�bre for the PRC Government, Chinese Nationalists and their allies in American archaeological advocacy groups like SAFE.

On the other hand, Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei has produced his own ironic take on the sculptures. His gigantic versions of the diminutive heads say something about the over sized Chinese nationalism these sculptures have come to embody.

Comment to Chasing "Chasing Aphrodite" for Answers

Arthur Houghton asked me to post this comment to Jason' Felch's answers to CPO's questions, but "Blogger" but would not me allow me to do so due to its length, so I post it here. As Arthur has "gone on tour" with Chasing Aprhodite, his response to Jason's post is worth considering.     

Peter, I was so glad to see Jason's responses to your questions. I have spoken about them to a friend with an incisive mind, who somewhat shockingly said that in view of his reputation as a responsible journalist, Jason's answers reveal a master of evasion, denial, mendacity, willful ignorance and upended logic. They are particularly strange, since Jason is himself could be a looter, having scattered through his blog photographs that he may not have permission to use. That's just plain theft, as you know. Jason the picture-picker.

Well, I guess my friend's comments are true. Still, they are pretty tough on my poor young friend Jason. So I decided to help our here a bit, and give you the answers that I believe he really meant to provide -- not those he felt compelled to give. Here they are:

1. You�re an award winning investigative journalist, but also an advocate for archaeologists and source countries. Do you see any contradictions between those two roles?

Peter, I could tell you that I reject the premise and say I am not an advocate, but that would be both an evasion and an egregious untruth. The truth is that I am certainly an advocate for the interests of other countries but it doesn't really bother me at all. I mean, I've been entertained and applauded in Italy, and that makes me feel good, and it really doesn't matter what journalistic ethics might exist, since I can say anything I well please on my blog and not have some damn editor or fact-checker looking over my shoulder.

2. Do you truly believe that unprovenanced objects are illegitimate? If so, please say how you come to this conclusion.

You know, I could say that "illegitimate" means "looted" but that would be an evasion -- sort of twisting the question, no? So let me tell you what I really think, which is that I have no idea how I got to that conclusion. I've always been a bit muddled about what is legitimate, but it seems to get people excited when I throw allegations like this around, whether I can substantiate them or not. Actually, as we both know, most unprovenanced objects are totally legal, whether they are owned by Americans, or in private collections in Italy or whatever. To think they are anything else is poppycock.

3. Do you think the same rules should apply to the $1 million dollar vase as to the $10 ancient coin?

Golly, I could go off on a really nutty tangent and tell you about rules and the law -- which I've never really understood -- and morality and ethics, which I am on firmer ground about since I can say almost anything I want and someone will agree with me. Also I got a C in my ethics course, so I'm qualified, no? Anyway the short answer to your question is yes, of course. But don't ask me why, since I really don't know how I got there. It's all a bit confusing to me.

4. The State Department has been criticized by both academics and former CPAC members for a lack of transparency in its decision-making concerning import controls on cultural goods. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?

CPAC has turned into a bunch of rubbish. They stopped following the law -- the CPIA -- decades ago. As someone once said -- who? -- "government, like the art market, festers in darkness." I don't really know what that means, but it sounds good, so I agree with it. And I'd have to agree that CPAC festers. Very noisome.

5. During a Chasing Aphrodite lecture I attended, I was surprised to hear Gary Vikan, the Walters� then Director, say that it is �none of our business� what happens to artifacts that are repatriated. Do you agree or disagree and why?

Sure. Why not? Let the little devils destroy their heritage. Blow up the Bamiyan Buddhas. I mean, who really cares about the Getty Aphrodite, or whatever it is, now that it's in, where? Aidone? I mean, who's ever heard of the place? And you can ask me about Fano the next time around. ("Fano" you ask? You might as well want to know where the Villa Guilia is. Who goes there, anyway?)

6. Greece, Cyprus and to a lesser extent Italy are suffering from an economic meltdown that by necessity will impact these countries ability to fund preservation efforts. Do you believe that this budget crisis calls into question the �state control over everything old� model advocated by the archaeological community?

I really believe there's room for creative thinking here. Like these and other countries like the UK and Israel letting their antiquities loose on the market, so that collectors and museums that can take care of them can buy them up. Now, I could take this moment to give you a preachy little lecture about Winston Churchill and democracy, but that's a bit trite and worn out, so I won't go there.

7. Your WikiLoot proposal has been criticized for promoting �vigilante justice.� Please explain the concept, where the proposal stands, and respond to that criticism.

Of course it's vigilantism -- I mean who in their right might would want a bunch of unknowledgeable people running around and pointing their fingers at things and whining, "loot, loot!" and believe it's for real? It sounds, well, irresponsible, even absurd, heh? But it gets people excited to think that I can then write them up in Chasing Aphrodite, and expand my readership. Sex sells. So does vigilantism. Pretty neat, no? But no one seems to want to pay for it, so we're getting a little desperate for money. Do you think you could pony up something to help?

8. Italian authorities have been criticized for playing �gotcha� with auction houses and collectors when Medici material comes up for sale. What do you think of these tactics?

Well, you know the Italians! When it comes to self interest, you know, some people think they are real masters of denial, mendacity, willful ignorance and upended logic. I've learned quite a few things from them. You could too!

I could end this by misquoting my friend Houghton who I think I recall advising that one should stay clear of antiquities that are missing a documented ownership history. But I would be wrong if I did that. Houghton never said such a thing. I've been in contact with him recently and can tell you his advice is to buy, buy, buy, as long as it's legally on the market and there is no likely comeback by putative source-country owners. Build collections for museums and privately that can go into museums and be exhibited, studied, and educate the public. That's what it's all about Houghton says. And I must say that I agree with him. In fact, I've almost always agreed with him.

Warm best wishes, and keep up the good work.

Jason

(Note Arthur is speaking for "Jason")

Debate with Tea and Biscuits?

Archaeo-blogger Paul Barford is promoting a "debate with tea and biscuits" on his blog.  This does not appear to be a real debate between individuals with different views to me. Perhaps, Mr. Barford really is debating tea and biscuits because they won't talk back....

Archaeological Context: Is it About Preservation or Control?

Archaeo-Blogger Rick St. Hilaire somehow believes that I have discounted the importance of archaeological context, but all I have said is that coin collectors derive their own context from the iconography and fabric of the coins themselves and that the goal of preservation of archaeological context�however worthy-- should not be allowed to control all else.  Perhaps, then, he should not take such statements about context out of context!

St. Hilaire then seems to discount the value of numismatic context, though his fellow archaeo-blogger Nathan Elkins organized an entire conference on the subject.  Perhaps, coins do indeed tell us something without reference to where they are found.

Finally, though suggesting that a good lawyer looks at all the evidence, St. Hilaire somehow apparently missed the ANS article appended to the Chasing Aphrodite interview.  In it I explained that perhaps archaeological practice may be different than archaeological rhetoric when it comes to issues of context.  I state:

Frankly, I might feel a bit better about all this if I had evidence that the archaeological community as a whole makes every effort to not only record the coins they find but to publish them.   Both are critical to the preservation of numismatic knowledge.  Even if a coin is recorded in an excavation notebook, it does little good if it is never published, and, if the notebook or computer data file is not backed up in some way, the information about its provenance could easily be lost.  That, of course, would render the coin for all practical purposes, �an orphan� of the sort members of the archaeological community roundly condemn�at least when held in a collector�s trays.  

This is not a hypothetical concern.    Indeed, a recent study prepared at the behest of the numismatic trade for the use of the State Department�s Cultural Property Advisory Committee concluded,

• The publication record for coins found in Italian excavations is poor.
• What has been published is thanks to a few dedicated individuals, not to the encouragement of the archaeological community.
• Without publication it is almost impossible to know what has been found and what has become of the material.

Let me give just one concrete example.  Some 60,000 - 70,000 ancient coins from excavations at the City of Rome, which were recovered by archaeologists during the 19^th century, still await publication in Frankfurt.  One would have thought coins excavated in Roman contexts would be of utmost importance, but the fact that they are still awaiting publication after over a century speaks volumes.  

All this raises a larger question.  Is all the talk about protecting archaeological context for real or is it actually about justifying further controls?

Anti-Trade?

I'm a bit amused by "cultural heritage lawyer" Rick St. Hilaire's take on exports of cultural goods particularly as spun by fellow archaeo-blogger Paul Barford.   Most decision-makers think international trade which goes through proper channels (as must be the case here as it was captured by government statisticians) is a good thing.  But that does not seem to be the assumption of the archaeological blogosphere.

Ideology, Governance and Consequences from a Collector's Point of View

The Council of British Archaeology has published Wayne Sayles' and Dave Welsh's 2010 paper on the Internet.  While critical of some archaeologists, Sayles and Welsh ultimately believe that cooperation between the groups is what is needed.

Tail Wags Dog

Nathan Elkins has publicized a workshop he helped organize.   While I�m all for numismatic research, a perusal of the workshop topics just underscores what a former CPAC member told me: that he thought the State Department has allowed the archaeological tail to wag the numismatic dog.

     

The archaeological establishment has preached at CPAC meetings and elsewhere that coins�like other artifacts--lose their meaning without context, and that import restrictions are necessary to encourage academic research.  But all the workshop topics about coin iconography (including one Elkins himself chaired) simply belie this claim.   

Are import restrictions on coins and the considerable damage they have already done to thousands of American collectors and hundreds of American small businesses of the numismatic trade really justified by such academic endeavors?   Or does Elkins' workshop just provide more evidence that the archaeological tail has been allowed to wag the numismatic dog with little reflection on the veracity of the archaeological establishment�s claims?

Addendum (3/1/13):  On his blog, Elkins now confirms (rightly in my view) that despite the AIA's position to the contrary on unprovenanced objects, coins do indeed retain meaning without context.  He further states on Barford's blog (again rightly in my view) that the AIA's 1970 date should not apply to coins.  [I'm not posting either statement here, however, because frankly they are written in a rather insulting manner.]

But if so, how does Elkins square all this with his association with the AIA's position on cultural heritage issues, particularly if memory serves (it's not available on the AIA webstite) that Elkins is or has been a member of the AIA's Cultural Heritage Policy Committee?  Are the positions the AIA stakes out serious ones that its own members are expected to accept or are they to be conveniently discarded when their application might interfere with an AIA member's research interests?  It would seem the AIA is happy to try to hold museums, collectors and dealers to its views, but how about those associated with the organization itself? 

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?

Just Say No

Hugh Eakin has written a thoughtful piece about the American museum community's capitulation to ever escalating repatriation demands.  Museum trustees have a fiduciary duty to protect their collections from legally deficient claims, but that seems to not be much of a consideration in the face of bad press ginned up by the archaeological lobby and sympathetic journalists aligned with the cultural bureaucracies in places like Greece and Italy.

Eakin rightly notes that repatriation of artifacts that left their supposed countries of origin decades ago does nothing to protect archaeological sites from any current looting.   I would add all the hype about repatriation is in fact a diversion from addressing the problems at the source by tackling over-regulation, choking bureaucracy, under-funding and endemic corruption in places like Greece and Italy.

Perhaps if museums just said no to repatriation claims they might actually encourage some rational discussion of the real issues facing preservation of  artifacts from the past.  Any such discussion should start with some recognition that foreign countries can't possibly preserve, study and display all the artifacts they lay claim to, and protecting artifacts rather than bureaucrats should be the first priority.

More Bad Press for Turkey

Turkey has received more bad press for revoking the excavation permits of German and French archaeologists due to the failure of German and French museums to repatriate artifacts removed from the country well before a 1970 benchmark.  The article also suggests that the Turkish Government is hypocritical for demanding repatriation on one hand, but happily destroying important archaeological sites on the other in the name of "progress."

As the article reports,

A Turkish archaeologist, who did not want to be named, said he was heartbroken that the government appeared to be destroying sites at the same time as battling for the return of artefacts. "I don't understand the attitude of the government," he said. "This contradiction is truly mind-boggling

So far, the agreement of the University of Pennsylvania to provide "long term loans" of ancient jewelry the Turks have demanded from its museum has saved the University's digs in Turkey.  But one wonders if such appeasement will  just lead to escalating demands over time. 

Frankly, I'd be happy if Turkey just sold rights to dig to the highest bidder and used the money to help preserve its unparalleled historical sites and spruce up its collections.   Putting digs on such a basis might also have the benefit of freeing American archaeologists from taking anything but the Turkish cultural bureaucracy's line on cultural heritage issues.

Archaeologists Perceive Site Looting; But What Protective Measures Have They Implemented?

The AIA has published a study that purports to measure archaeologists' perceptions of looting worldwide.  Not surprisingly, the study suggests looting is pervasive; however, there seems to be differences in its nature and extent depending on locality. 

I assume this study will be trotted out time and again to justify further restrictions on collectors, dealers and museums.  But what about asking archaeologists to police their own sites in the 10 months or so out of the year they are not worked?  Is it too much to ask them to hire site guards or at least use cameras to monitor their sites?  Regretably, the study does not ask. 

Soft Sell on Cambodian Repatriation

It's interesting to contrast the hardball tactics of elements within the US Government and the US archaeological lobby with the softer line on Cambodian antiquities taken by Prince Ravivaddhana Sisowath of Cambodia.  Is this a case of Good Cop/Bad Cop or is the archaeological lobby cart pushing the repatriation horse once again? 

Archaeobloggers Seek "Union Shop?"

The UK's PAS and Treasure Act are popular programs because they encourage the public to report coins and other ancient artifacts they find so they can be properly recorded.  That which the government does not need for its collections is disclaimed, and returned to the finder to do with what he or she will.   Moreover, the State pays fair market value for what it keeps, which incentivizes the State to only retain what it will properly care for, study and display.

What is the result of this win-win situation? The UK's Minister of Culture recently observed surprise, surprise, that incentivizing the public to report what they find has led to more finds being reported in England and Wales than anywhere else:

A little known fact I discovered this week � Britain tops the league table for hoards. I am told, we have more archaeological finds every year than any other country. Whether this is per square foot or per head of the population, I am not sure, but it is a good statistic so I�m going to use it.

However, the archaeological blogosphere does not celebrate, but rather condemns this news, claiming that the U.K.'s system encourages metal detecting rather than the recording of finds.  Yet, take the case of Bulgaria.  It has been estimated that 100,000-250,000 Bulgarians conduct illicit excavations, and little is  actually recorded because all the incentives in that corrupt system discourage people to report what they might find.  So, which system is better?

Clearly, the U.K.'s system, no?  Yet, the archaeological blogosphere begs to differ.  Instead, they claim that even the most common artifacts like coins should be left in the ground for some future archaeologist to find.  But the reality is that archaeologists will always be few in number and it is highly unlikely any will ever actually tread where many of the artifacts reported by the PAS and Treasure Act are found.

Thus, one really must wonder whether the archaeological blogosphere is more concerned about preserving and recording the past or ensuring that cultural heritage is a union shop for card carrying archaeologists.

Corruption and the Archaeological Lobby's Models

It's interesting to see where the archaeological lobby's models stack up on Transparency International's 2012 Corruption Perception Index:  Bulgaria-75; China-80; Cyprus-29; Egypt-118, Greece-94; Italy-72 and Turkey-54. 

The higher the number, the higher the perception of corruption.  Denmark is No. 1 as the least corrupt country while No.174, Somalia, is perceived as most corrupt.

While Cyprus' rank of 29 would seem at first blush to be fairly good, at least some commentators suggest that Cypriots themselves think their government is more corrupt than Transparency International's experts believe.  

It's interesting that these countries also have very restrictive export controls for cultural property.  One might suspect that such controls merely provide an opportunity for corrupt officials to profit from the system.

Why does the archaeological lobby continue to see such corrupt systems as models for cultural heritage protection?  Or are they somehow suggesting the cultural bureaucracies in these countries are far cleaner than government in general?  And, if so, what is their basis for any such claim?

More Success from Treasure Act and PAS

The Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme have reported another good year, which again begs the question why the US archaeological lobby is so hostile to any suggestion that a similar program should be tried elsewhere and barely tolerant of the program even for England and Wales.

Indeed, it's a bit of a puzzle why the archaeological lobby (and by default their allies in the State Department Cultural Heritage Center) seem more influenced by the views of the corrupt and/or bankrupt and/or authoritarian governments of places like Bulgaria, China, Cyprus, Egypt, Greece and Italy than by the fair play of our longstanding ally, the United Kingdom. 

Perhaps, some of the millions of dollars of US taxpayer money committed to archaeological projects in places  like Iraq and Egypt should instead be invested in a pilot Portable Antiquities Scheme program in a place like Bulgaria.  That would help Bulgaria record many of the coins that now are not recorded, and show our support not only for Bulgaria, but for our ally, the United Kingdom.

Cultural Heritage Center Website Updated

The Cultural Heritage Center's website has been spiffed up with pictures, including one of Hillary Clinton gazing at a Greek statute.  Unfortunately, the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs' tag line "promoting mutual understanding" rings hollow for ancient coin collectors at least.  Indeed, ECA's controversial import restrictions on millions of ancient Greek, Roman and Chinese coins of the sort avidly collected world-wide has, if anything, greatly harmed people to people contacts between collectors in the US and foreign countries.  Why not promote ancient coin collecting, and the cultural understanding it fosters (at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer), rather than seek to suppress it to the benefit of no one but a small number of academic archaeologists and their patrons in foreign cultural bureaucracies?

No Sense of Humor or Balance, Just Useful Cover?

I guess on reflection it's not all that surprising that the archaeological blogosphere, what with its archaeology over all fanaticism, lacks a sense of humor.  Or that somehow an advertisement for the sale of a collection of Islamic coins becomes a springboard for a diatribe against the seller (the ACCG's founder), the collector (a man of the cloth), the Arab Spring (dislocation dethrones some of archaeology's friends in the region?), American Culture (grasping rather than free?), and U.S. Foreign Policy (US made tear gas and "political assasination drones" rather than support for democracy and vast amounts of foreign aid?). But if so, how can the State Department bureaucracy really take the rants of such archaeologists whether in the blogosphere or in comments to CPAC seriously?   Or do they just provide a useful cover for State's proclivity to trade the interests of US small businesses, collectors and museums for the fleeting good will of some foreign potentate? 

Fund an Inclusive Approach to Archaeology

With limited funding available in challenging financial times, should the Government continue to fund a program that promotes recording finds and an inclusive view of archaeology that is popular with members of the general public?   I would say yes and view claims that funding should be reprogrammed to fund "crumbling castles" as promoting a false choice.  If there needs to be cuts, why not defund programs that only benefit a tiny group of insular archaeologists?  Professor Gill,  are you a good value for the UK taxpayer?