The ACCG has filed a claim of interest to a group of coins minted in China and Cyprus that were seized by US Customs back in 2009. By filing this pleading, the ACCG has placed the the government on notice that it intends to contest the forfeiture proceeding in Court. The ACCG now has twenty-one (21) days to respond to the government's forfeiture complaint.
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Chinese Hackers Don't Dissuade US State Department
Merely a week after CPAC met to consider the proposed renewal of the MOU with the PRC, the news broke about an extensive PRC program to hack into US defense industry computer systems in an effort to steal US military secrets.
China is aggressively seeking an advantage against the US when it comes to defense preparedness. But so too is it with respect to the maintenance of a strong antiquities market. The difference is that the Defense Department is seeking to stymie Chinese ambitions, but our own State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center seem all to willing to encourage a vibrant Chinese market at the expense of American interests-- all supposedly in the name of archaeology.
China is aggressively seeking an advantage against the US when it comes to defense preparedness. But so too is it with respect to the maintenance of a strong antiquities market. The difference is that the Defense Department is seeking to stymie Chinese ambitions, but our own State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center seem all to willing to encourage a vibrant Chinese market at the expense of American interests-- all supposedly in the name of archaeology.
CPAC Public Session to Consider Renewal of MOU with PRC
On May 14, 2013, I attended a public session of the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC). CPAC was considering the possible renewal of the current MOU with China. The meeting took place in the Main State Department Building. In addition to CPAC members, speakers and some members of the public, there was also a 5 person delegation from the People�s Republic of China (PRC) present. They were not introduced and did not speak at the public session, though they likely conferred with CPAC privately afterwards.
The following CPAC members were present: James Willis (JW) (Trade); Rosemary Joyce (RJ) (Archaeology); Barbara Kaul (BK) (Public); Marta de la Torre (MT) (Public); Patty Gerstenblith (PG) (Chair-Public); Nancy Wilkie (NW) (Archaeology); Lothar von Falkenhausen (LF) (Archaeology); Katherine Reid (KR) (Museum); Nina Archibal (NA) (Museum). Jane Levine (Trade) was not present. One trade slot remains vacant.
Thirteen (13) individuals spoke. These included: (1) Josh Knerly (AAMD); (2) Thomas Lougham (Clark Art Institute); (3) Dr. Matthew Welch (Minneapolis Institute of Art); (4) Dr. Liu Yang (Minneapolis Institute of Art; (5) Robin Nicholson (Virginia Museum of Fine Arts); (6) Leila Amineddoleh (Executive Director, Lawyer�s Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation); (7) James Fitzpatrick (representing J.J. Lally & Co., a dealership in fine Chinese antiquities); (8) Peter Tompa (representing International Association of Professional Numismatists and the Professional Numismatists Guild); (9) Francis Allard (Indiana University of Pennsylvania); (10) Loukas Barton (University of Pittsburgh); (11) Roderick Campbell (New York University); (12) Anne Underhill (Yale University); and (13 ) Brian Daniels (Penn Cultural Center).
Josh Knerly (JK) supported the MOU, but suggested that China should be required to provide five (5) to ten (10) year long term loans rather than the current one (1) year loan period. He also noted that China�s ability to control its borders for evaluating its own self-help measures needs to take into account the strength of China as a world power. Quantifiable goals should be set for review within two (2) not the usual five (5) years. The designated list should be more limited. MT asked if there was any data about the impact of restrictions. She observed that the opacity of the antiquities market makes coming to conclusions difficult. KR asked about export licenses. JK indicates that CPAC should ask China for data. NW observed that the lack of an immunity law did not stop loans. JK indicated it did limit loans of certain materials.
Thomas Loughan (TL) indicated that more work needs to be done with extending loan periods. BK asked about the loan period. TL indicated it could be as little as less than five (5) months. JW wondered if a bilateral committee could be established to discuss the loan issue. KR asked about the types of object s that were loaned. It took two shows to get enough �Grade 1� objects to match the Clark�s loan of French paintings.
Matthew Welch (MW) and Liu Yang (LY) expressed concerns about last minute changes in objects to be loaned. This makes it difficult to create a display and a catalogue. Object lists are typically finalized up to two (2) years before with regard to loans from Europe. It is virtually impossible to organize exhibits that draw objects from more than one site because of the bureaucracy involved. JW wondered if tackling the underlying bureaucratic inertia was impossible. KR asked for a specific example. MW indicated his museum had hoped to get an exhibit from Sydney, but at the last moment important objects were removed for another exhibit in Hong Kong. It would be helpful if a contract could be finalized a year in advance. LF asked about loan fees. These are not too bad, but associated expenses can be very high. In response to questions from RJ and PG, MW reiterated that getting loans from single sites was much easier than from multiple sites and changes to an objects list creates chaos when trying to secure immunity from seizure from the US Department of State. MW dismissed KR�s claim that any problems were the result of cultural misunderstandings. MW noted that LY is Chinese and understands the system quite well, but problems have persisted.
Robin Nicholson (RN) discussed a prospective loan with the Palace Museum engineered with the support of Virginia�s governor. The goal of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts is to have a contract in place with the Chinese a year in advance. Political support has been helpful in getting things done. BK asked what sort of artifacts were involved. RN indicated that the display related to 17th c. artifacts and more recent ones.
Leila Amineddoleh (LA) supported the renewal of the MOU. She maintained the fact that 123 countries had signed the 1970 UNESCO Convention satisfied the Cultural Property Implementation Act�s (CPIA�s) concerted international response requirement. She also noted that China had signed cooperative agreements with other countries to deter pillage. BK asked about the internal Chinese market. LA indicated she was not familiar with details. LF asked how the PRC�s cooperation compared with that of other countries that have MOUs with the US. LA maintained that the PRC�s cooperation was good and was comparable to that of Italy. She also noted that the US has shown its cooperation most recently with Cambodia by seeking the forfeiture of a Khmer statute. KR noted that repatriations were part of the mix with Italy. JW noted that the forfeiture proceeding was not related to the MOU with Cambodia.
Jim Fitzpatrick (JF) indicated that it was important for CPAC to adhere to the CPIA�s statutory criteria. He noted that unlike many third world countries, China was quite able to control its borders. Furthermore, the domestic Chinese market is much larger than the US market so that import restrictions could have no impact on looting. It makes no sense for an artifact to be freely available for sale in Beijing but not Boston. There also needs to be self help, but artifacts leave the free ports of Hong Kong and Macao without restriction.
PG asked about supporting data. JF indicated that the statistic that 70% of artifacts in auctions go to Chinese buyers was based on an analysis of names of purchasers. MT opined that the size of the market was not clear because the antiquities market lacks transparency. She also noted that the figures included artifacts that are not currently restricted. JF argued that the Chinese police state should be able to stop looting if it so desired. JF noted that there was a certain resignation in the trade that it is difficult to undue restrictions. JF indicated that the restrictions had deterred sales to museums. JF also stated that as a consequence of the restrictions, much of the Chinese art business has gone abroad. He stated there is a danger that the Chinese art business will go to France as has the trade in Pre-Columbian artifacts.
JW indicated that he has now served on CPAC for 11 years and that he had noted a distinct decline in dealer and collector participation, especially compared to the last time the China MOU was discussed. JW suggested that this decline in comment from dealers and collectors should be taken as a troubling sign for CPAC�s members.
JF agreed, indicating that CPAC�s debate has devolved from the larger issues of import restrictions to listening to complaints from archaeologists and museums about China�s non-compliance with Art. II of the MOU. He stated, however, that numbers of comments received does not change CPAC�s obligation to apply the CPIA properly.
LF stated that looting is illegal in China and asked if the US should be a safe haven for looted goods. JF indicated that closing down the US legal market could not impact looting because of the size of the legal Chinese market.
Peter Tompa (PT) commended China for allowing and encouraging its people to collect common artifacts, but noted that import restrictions only give Chinese businesses�including insiders associated with the country�s rulers�a leg up on the foreign, especially US competition. PT also indicated that China has not met its obligations under Article II. In particular, the PRC has expanded its own export ban to any artifact pre-dating 1911 despite a promise to make legal export easier. The PRC has also failed to crack down on looted artifacts being re-imported into China from Hong Kong and Macao and has also failed to ensure that its own museums do not purchase looted materials. CPAC should recommend that the current MOU be suspended because it Is only hurting US interests. At a minimum, however, CPAC should advocate that cash coins�which exist in the millions if not billions�be delisted. The State Department cannot show these coins only circulated in China because they were widely exported. If anything, these coins should be shared with students as a teaching tool about Chinese history and culture.
PG asked about figures related to the size of the Chinese Art Market. PT confirmed that these figures include both ancient and modern art. NW asked where Chinese coins come from. PT indicted some come from tombs, but others come from deposits or were saved after the coins were no longer used as legal tender. As for coins coming from tombs, they would only be looted incidentally because looters would be primarily motivated to look for far more valuable items. As for coins that were never buried, he cited the attachment to his submission which described a Chinese collector who first learned about ancient Chinese cash coins from breaking open an old toy that made use of such coins as weights. In response to a question about the value of such coins, PT indicated that the value was generally minimal�such coins retail for as little as $1 in the US. NW maintained there was still an inventive to loot them because one of the hoards of 200,000 coins that was described would be worth $200,000. PT indicated that the value was likely much less in China.
Francis Allard (FA) spoke of his experiences excavating in China. He has been offered antiquities in the past but has always declined. Although FA supports the MOU, the Chinese bureaucracy has not made it easy to collaborate with Chinese colleagues. NW wondered whether the MOU could be used to promote the building of more laboratories to conduct research.
Loukas Barton (LB) has excavated in China, Mongolia and Alaska. The Chinese do not allow grave robbing. He also saw a group of looters being driven from town to town as examples. He can�t say for sure, but he thinks the Chinese must be taking effective action against looters because he is no longer being offered antiquities. The Chinese punitive system may be having an effect. LB specializes in pre-history. His request for a permit to collaborate with Chinese colleagues in his study of prehistoric China was denied without explanation in 2012. LB refused to speculate as to the reason. [CPO wonders whether the Chinese cultural bureaucracy does not want foreigners delving too far into China�s prehistory. Is it possible they are concerned that the results might undercut China�s historic claim of Han dominion over the land?] RJ asked about looting. LB indicated he saw evidence of tomb robbing, but where tombs had already been eroded. He has also seen shovel pits. LF expressed frustration with the Chinese denial of FA�s permit. LB indicated he was told by Chinese colleagues that it was due to a �political problem,� but they did not elaborate. There are other annoyances as the Chinese ban on the use of GPS devices. NW recounted how she was denied a permit as well in the 1980�s so the problem is not a new one.
Rod Campbell (RC) indicated that looting was still an issue in China. Bronzes and oracle bones are particular targets. RC indicated that the best Bronze Age sites have been looted. The MOU has helped encourage student exchanges. RC has been involved in salvage archaeology. Connections are important to work in China.
Anne Underhill (AU) suggested that the renewal of the MOU is an opportunity to make improvements. Looting has declined but some is still taking place. There should be an increase in cultural exchange. AU acknowledges there is a large internal market for Chinese artifacts, but the US should keep its import restrictions in place to demonstrate its good will to the Chinese and act as a good role model. There needs to be more of an effort made as to Hong Kong and Macao. Museum loans should be made more transparent. NW indicated there needs to be more Chinese language programs. In response to a question from PG, AH indicated that collaboration had improved.
Brian Daniels (BD) indicated that China had complied with Art. II of the MOU. It has improved regulation of its own market. In 2009, it created an antiquities police force. In 2011, it created an interministerial group to examine looting. There have been proposals to harmonize export controls with Hong Kong and Macao though work needs to be done. There has been more scrutiny of artifacts leaving China for these free ports. China has instituted a free museum policy. NA asked if cultural exchange ebbed and flowed according to diplomatic relations. BD indicated that he was not aware of any changes depending on diplomatic relations and in fact cultural relations are always beneficial. MT asked about policing. There were 764 cases in 2009 and 1210 cases in 2011. BD did not want to speculate as to the increase.
JW asked about Tibet to all participants. TL indicated there is some collaboration with Tibetan interests. PT indicated that the Chinese government has recently been criticized in the press for bulldozing large swaths of Lhasa, Tibet�s capital, in the name of promoting tourism.
The public meeting then closed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shame on China: Poor Stewardship of Cultural Resources
This is the first of a few short blogs on issues that should be highlighted-- but which will likely instead be ignored-- in discussions about the proposed renewal of the MOU with China.
Both UNESCO and the CPIA assume that China will take self-help measures to protect its own cultural property, but some 30,000 items on a 1982 list of historic properties have disappeared due to China's aggressive economic development, particularly for the Olympics. The bulldozer has even claimed the home of China's pioneering preservationists.
Even worse, China has demolished large swaths of historic cities built by China's minorities.
Should the MOU with China be renewed given these circumstances?
Both UNESCO and the CPIA assume that China will take self-help measures to protect its own cultural property, but some 30,000 items on a 1982 list of historic properties have disappeared due to China's aggressive economic development, particularly for the Olympics. The bulldozer has even claimed the home of China's pioneering preservationists.
Even worse, China has demolished large swaths of historic cities built by China's minorities.
Should the MOU with China be renewed given these circumstances?
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.
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.
Worth A Read
My primary interest is coins so its no surprise I hope others will find the ACCG and IAPN/PNG comments to CPAC worth reading.
The Asia Society walked a fine line; its submission both applauded and criticized the current MOU with the PRC.
Daniel Shapiro, a law professor and Chinese Art Collector, stated similar concerns as those expressed by others who collect or trade in ancient art.
James Lally was an important voice for the trade when the MOU was first considered and he remains so today.
The Penn Cultural Heritage Center has offered CPAC a detailed defense of the current MOU.
Of course, anyone who wrote, on any side of the issue, should be commended for taking the time to do so.
Note: Regulations.gov is currently experiencing a technical problem. Some of the comments (including those of Daniel Shapiro and IAPN/PNG) are currently not available on the website. Hopefully, the problem will be fixed soon.
The Asia Society walked a fine line; its submission both applauded and criticized the current MOU with the PRC.
Daniel Shapiro, a law professor and Chinese Art Collector, stated similar concerns as those expressed by others who collect or trade in ancient art.
James Lally was an important voice for the trade when the MOU was first considered and he remains so today.
The Penn Cultural Heritage Center has offered CPAC a detailed defense of the current MOU.
Of course, anyone who wrote, on any side of the issue, should be commended for taking the time to do so.
Note: Regulations.gov is currently experiencing a technical problem. Some of the comments (including those of Daniel Shapiro and IAPN/PNG) are currently not available on the website. Hopefully, the problem will be fixed soon.
What's Wrong With This Picture?
CPO has reported on this story before, but it should be mentioned again given the fact that yesterday was the deadline for comments on the renewal of the China MOU. One wonders why the the same archaeological interests that scream about looting in places like China and Afghanistan remain so silent when a major Afghan Buddhist site is being destroyed by a Chinese mining company. Remember when the the world was incensed when the Taliban dynamited the Bamiyan Buddhas in the name of religion? So, why the silence when another major Buddhist site, Mes Aynak, is to be dynamited in the name of profit?
Hirshhorn Presents �Ai Weiwei: Circle of Animals/Zodiac Heads�
The Smithsonian�s Hirshorn Museum is displaying Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei�s ironic take on the infamous �Circle of Animals/Zodiac Heads,� said to have been looted by British imperialists from the Summer Palace. I suppose AiWeiwei�s oversized heads say something about the oversized nationalistic rhetoric Chinese officials and their allies in the Western archaeological community have employed to demand the return of the originals. The exhibit will remain on view until February 24, 2013.
Chinese Bowl Brings Big Bucks
Here is more evidence that US trade restrictions have just moved auction business overseas. See
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/chinese-song-dynasty-ceramic_n_1402246.html?ref=topbar
There was a time this bowl would have been sold in New York. However, trade restrictions encourage sales to move abroad, even when the specific artifact in question may not be subject to restrictions.
Why have an auction in the US, if you can have a bigger one with artifacts from all periods in Hong Kong?
Wouldn't the New York city economy have benefited from auctioning off this piece in the US?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/chinese-song-dynasty-ceramic_n_1402246.html?ref=topbar
There was a time this bowl would have been sold in New York. However, trade restrictions encourage sales to move abroad, even when the specific artifact in question may not be subject to restrictions.
Why have an auction in the US, if you can have a bigger one with artifacts from all periods in Hong Kong?
Wouldn't the New York city economy have benefited from auctioning off this piece in the US?
Asia Society: Collecting Art in the 21st Century
The Art Newspaper has this short piece about this discussion that took place at the Asia Society. See http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Asia-Society-debate:-the-dos-and-don%E2%80%99ts-of-collecting-antiquities/26093
In addition, the Asia Society website has uploaded the discussion here: http://asiasociety.org/video/arts/collecting-ancient-art-21st-century
Meanwhile, as politically correct complaints from archaeologists and over regulation from the US Government have put a damper on collecting Asian antiquities here, China has now surpassed the US as the art market leader. See http://www.coinsweekly.com/en/News/4?&id=1101
Both the Obama Administration and the archaeological community should ask themselves if their efforts have done anything other than to move the trade oversees to the detriment of the public interest.
Addendum: Jason Felch has posted this summary of the Asia Society event on the "Chasing Aphrodite" blog:
http://chasingaphrodite.com/2012/03/23/at-asia-society-antiquities-collectors-describe-climate-of-fear-2/
In addition, the Asia Society website has uploaded the discussion here: http://asiasociety.org/video/arts/collecting-ancient-art-21st-century
Meanwhile, as politically correct complaints from archaeologists and over regulation from the US Government have put a damper on collecting Asian antiquities here, China has now surpassed the US as the art market leader. See http://www.coinsweekly.com/en/News/4?&id=1101
Both the Obama Administration and the archaeological community should ask themselves if their efforts have done anything other than to move the trade oversees to the detriment of the public interest.
Addendum: Jason Felch has posted this summary of the Asia Society event on the "Chasing Aphrodite" blog:
http://chasingaphrodite.com/2012/03/23/at-asia-society-antiquities-collectors-describe-climate-of-fear-2/
Chinese Cultural Bureucrats Okay Demolition of Cultural Preservationists' Home
The Chinese cultural bureaucracy has approved the demolition of the historic home of a U. Pennsylvania educated couple who were early advocates of cultural preservation within China. See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/world/asia/in-beijing-razing-of-historic-house-stirs-outrage.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=cultlural%20relics&st=cse The home had previously been designated an official "cultural relic."
One of the loudest critics of American collectors has asserted it is "none of our business" how the Chinese treat their cultural patrimony. See http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2012/02/us-state-department-helps-ship-auction.html
But, if so, perhaps it's not really about conservation, but control, as far as the archaeological community is concerned.
One of the loudest critics of American collectors has asserted it is "none of our business" how the Chinese treat their cultural patrimony. See http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2012/02/us-state-department-helps-ship-auction.html
But, if so, perhaps it's not really about conservation, but control, as far as the archaeological community is concerned.
China's Disappearing Past: A Victim of Modernization or Greedy Foreign Collectors?
Here are two different reports with two very different conclusions about the reasons behind China's fast disappearing cultural history. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/01/china-tomb-raiders-destroy-relics and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-16367488
The first report repeats the usual "party line" of the archaeological community that the problem is due to gangs of looters working to supply collectors, particularly wealthy foreign ones. The State Department's broad import restrictions on Chinese cultural artifacts have been justified based on such reports, this despite the uncontested fact that by far the biggest collectors of ancient Chinese material are the Chinese themselves.
The second report attributes the destruction of China's cultural history to the vast construction projects going on in that quickly modernizing country. Why don't we hear more of this? Is it because such reports don't fit the narrative necessary to justify unpopular import restrictions that only impact American collectors and museums?
The first report repeats the usual "party line" of the archaeological community that the problem is due to gangs of looters working to supply collectors, particularly wealthy foreign ones. The State Department's broad import restrictions on Chinese cultural artifacts have been justified based on such reports, this despite the uncontested fact that by far the biggest collectors of ancient Chinese material are the Chinese themselves.
The second report attributes the destruction of China's cultural history to the vast construction projects going on in that quickly modernizing country. Why don't we hear more of this? Is it because such reports don't fit the narrative necessary to justify unpopular import restrictions that only impact American collectors and museums?
SAFE President Curates Show of "Stolen" Chinese Art?
Saving Antiquities for Everyone has championed the return of artifacts to China that were removed from the country during periods of turmoil.
So I find it a bit odd that SAFE's President has curated a show at the Rubin Museum comprised of art some repatriationists might consider "stolen." See
http://www.observer.com/2011/06/quentin-roosevelt%e2%80%99s-china-ancestral-realms-of-the-naxi-at-the-rubin-museum-of-art/2/
One wonders if the art in question was legally exported from China based this description of its transit from the country:
Leaving China with 20 trunks full of scrolls, manuscripts and skins of exotic animals like golden monkeys, pandas and snow leopards was tricky for Mr. Roosevelt due to the war then being waged between China and Japan; his exit was made possible through a family connection to a certain W. Langhorne Bond, then vice president of the Chinese National Airline; Mr. Roosevelt flew disguised as a steward.
I also find it refreshing that its removal is justified as an act of saving it from likely destruction from the depredations of the Chinese Communists and Japanese Militarists, but don't SAFE members criticize collectors and museums for making such arguments?
In any event, I wonder if Ms. Ho demanded that the Roosevelt family show her export certificates before she decided to curate the show....
Addendum: This post evidently struck a nerve (see comments). There is also a question whether China's 1935 Antiquities law applied to the Naxi artifacts in question as artifacts of "other cultures" that may not be sold to "aliens." I copy it below in full. The reader can judge for themselves:
RELICS PRESERVATION LAW
Enacted by the Legislative Yuan and
Promulgated by the National Government on June 2, 1930.
Amended on November 10, 1935.
Article 1. The term "relics" as denoted in this Law shall mean those related to archaeology, science of history, palaeontology and other cultures.
The sphere and categories of aforesaid
relics shall be determined by the Central Relics Custodian Commission.
Article 2. Except for those privately-owned, relics shall be preserved under the custody of offices to be specially assigned by the Central Relics Custodian Commission.
Article 3. Photographs of lasting nature of relics which are preserved in the following offices shall be taken by the custodian offices and deposited separately with the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Interior, the Central Relics Custodian Commission and the office in which such
relics are preserved:
1) The institution directly under the jurisdiction of the central government.
2) The provincial, municipal, hsien, or other local institution.
3) The monasteries or temples or at the places where the ancient remains are located.
Article 4. Offices having custody of relics shall anually submit tables and reports to the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Interior, Central Relics Custodian Commission and local administrative authorities concerned. Forms of aforesaid tables and reports shall be proscribed by the Central Relics Custodian Commission.
Article 5. Privately-owned important relics shall be registered with the local administrative authorities concerned who shall, in turn, collectively report to tte Ministry of Edu:ation, Ministry of Interior and Central Relics Custodian Commission. The standard of the important relics abovementioned shall be determined by the Central Relics Custodian Commission.
Article 6. Privately-owned relics aforesaid that should be registered shall not be transferred to aliens. Offenders shall be liable to the confiscation of their relics and required to pay their cost if confiscation is not feasible.
Article 7. Relics hidden underground and those exposed above the ground shall be reverted to the State. Upon discovery of aforesaid relics, those who discovered such shall immediately report to the local administrative authorities concerned who shall request, through their superior authorities, the Ministries of Education and Interior and the Central Relics Custodian Commission to take over such relics, for which appropriate reward shall be granted. Whoever conceals such relics without reporting shall be dealt with as in the offences of theft.
Article 8. The excavation of relics shall be executed by academic institutiins directly under the central or local governments. For the excavation of relics, an academic institution aforesaid shall ask the Central Relics Custodian Commission to examine its application and to request the Ministries of Education and Interior to jointly issue an excavation permit.
Whoever excavates without the sforesaid permit shall be dealt with as in the offences of theft.
Article 9. Organic regulations of the Central Relics Custodian Commission shall be drawn up separately.
Article 10. Any academic institution directly under the central or a local government which requires the participation and assistance of any foreign academic organization or specialized
personnel in the excavation of relics shall request for prior approval of the Central Relics Custodian Commission.
Article 11. The excavation of relics shall be carried out under the supervision of officers of the Central Relics Custodian eommission.
Article 12. With respect to the relics procured from excavation, academic institutions directly under the central or local governments shall, subject to the approval of the Central Relics Custodian Commission, assume responsibility for the preservation, for a designated period, of the relics for academic research purposes.
Article 13. The circulation of relics shall be limited within the country. Eowever, if any academic institution directly under the central or local government finds it necessary to send its officers to bring relics abroad for research purposes, it shall apply for the authorization
of the Central Relics Custodian Commission who shall request the Ministries of Education and Interior to jointly issue an export permit. Relics brought abroad shall be returned to the
original custodien offices within two years, at the latest.
The provisions of the foregoing two paragraphs shall be applicable to privately-owned relics of which registration is required.
Article 14. The date of enforcement of the present Law shall be designated by mandate.
Addendum II:
I received the below letter from Ms. Roussin, a lawyer associated with SAFE. Here is my response. Her letter is further below:
Ms. Roussin- The blog posting you reference did not indicate I thought the material was stolen; it indicated that under various theories espoused by SAFE members it could be deemed stolen. The reference to the exit of the material was taken from a Newspaper article that was used as publicity for the show. I�ve already given Ms. Ho an opportunity to post a response to the blog. I have no objection to posting this letter as well. I�m sure you agree that the reader can draw their own conclusions. Best regards, Peter Tompa
As an additional note, rereading my original blog, it only referenced repatriationists considering such material stolen. I certainly don't personally believe the artifacts were stolen and am happy that they were put on display. The point here which Ms. Roussin apparently chooses to ignore is that SAFE's President and her organization should be as chartiable to other collectors as she has been to Mr. Roosevelt's collecting.
In any event, here is the letter:
Dear Mr. Tompa,
Various statements entitled "SAFE President Curates Show of "Stolen" Chinese Art?" published by you on your blog Cultural Property Observer of June 28, 2011 concerning the exhibition "Quentin Roosevelt's China: Ancestral Realms ofthe Naxi," now on display at the Rubin Museum of Art in New York, are false and close enough to defamation of character to be actionable. I demand that you remove the entire post and all comments that are displayed on your blog in response to your post immediately.
Phrasing your statement - suggesting that objects now owned by members of the Roosevelt family, on exhibit at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, the Harvard Yenching Library and other institutions, and now on display at the Rubin Museum were somehow "stolen" is blatantly false. Your statement on your blog is false and was published by you with the obvious intent of injuring another person's reputation and without regard for the true facts, which you could have easily discovered by viewing the exhibition, or by reading the exhibition catalogue, or by consulting other published works that are referenced in the exhibition catalogue.
Rather than visit the exhibition, or consult the exhibition catalogue or other published works referenced therein, your sole source appears to be a false statement published in The New York Observer. The statement you quote - "Leaving China with 20 trunks full of scrolls, manuscripts and skins of exotic animals like golden monkeys, pandas and snow leopards was tricky for Mr. Roosevelt due to the war then being waged between China and Japan; his exit was made possible through a family connection to a certain W. Langhorne Bond, then vice president of the Chinese National Airline; Mr. Roosevelt flew disguised as a steward."- is false in four ways as follows.
Roosevelt's departure from China in 1939 was not "tricky," no airplane was involved, Roosevelt did not leave China posing as a steward, and W. Langhorne Bond played no part whatsoever. Roosevelt and his 20 suitcases departed Lijiang after 10 days of collecting Naxi artifacts, and traveled to Kunming in a motor coach provided by the head of the Southwest Transportation Company, Mr. T.L. Soong, who was the
brother of Madame Chiang Kai-Shek, the "first lady" of China. From Kunming, Roosevelt continued south to Haiphong on the Yunnan-Vietnam Railway in a private railroad car provided by a Mr. Patou, who was the head of railway. From Haiphong, Roosevelt continued on by steamer to Hong Kong, where he and his 20 suitcases boarded a ship called the Empress of China and sailed to San Francisco. See Martin Brauen, "A Memorable Journey to the Naxi: Quentin Roosevelt's Legacy," in Quentin Roosevelt's China: Ancestral Realms of the Naxi, 2011, page 36, and Quentin Roosevelt, "In the Land of the Devil Priests," in Natural History, April 1940, pages 208-209. These are the real facts that readers will find in the exhibition catalogue; the story that appears in The New York Observer, which you repeat in your blog post, is false, as the posted comments from Cindy Ho indicates.
The question you raise about "export certificates" for the Naxi objects that Quentin Roosevelt acquired in 1939 is answered by the very 1930 law that you quote in your revised blog post as well as the objects on display at the exhibition and various references in the exhibition catalog. The 1930 Relics Preservation Law, amended in 1935, governed the export of ancient objects, not objects made during the 19th and 20th centuries. Every Naxi object acquired by Quentin Roosevelt in 1939, and every Naxi object on display at the Rubin Museum, with one exception, dates from the 19th or 20 century, the sole exception being a scroll that Quentin Roosevelt's father acquired in China in 1928, two years before the law you cite was enacted. (See Martin Brauen, ibid., page 28). Therefore, no export certificate was required for anything on display at the exhibition. It is worth noting that prior to embarking on his l O-day collecting trip to Lijiang, Quentin Roosevelt met in Chongqing with Dr. H.H. Kung, President of the Executive Yuan that enacted the law you cite. Roosevelt's letters of introduction made the purpose of his trip clear. After that meeting in Chongqing. Dr. Kung promised Roosevelt safe passage through the restricted Yunnan regions. General Sze Hwa, a garrison commander for the northwestern frontier of Yunnan Province, and 40 armed Chinese soldiers accompanied Roosevelt to Lijiang. (See Martin Brauen, ibid., pages 32-34). Your suggestion that Roosevelt somehow "stole" Naxi objects under these circumstances is absurd. Your suggestion that curators of the Rubin Museum exhibition did not perform due diligence in this matter is damages their reputation and is
defamatory. and must be removed from your blog.
Finally, the organization SAFE/Saving Antiquities for Everyone had no part in the research, planning and development or any other curatorial interest in the Rubin Museum exhibition. Therefore SAFE's position on Chinese or any other antiquities is irrelevant, and use of the organization's name is an egregious error at best. In any case, your characterization of SAFE's position is incorrect; SAFE's position on these matters, which has not changed since its inception, can be found at http://www.savingantiquities.org/principles.php
Please inform me and SAFE president Cindy Ho when you have corrected or removed this posting.
Sincerely,
Lucille A. Roussin
So I find it a bit odd that SAFE's President has curated a show at the Rubin Museum comprised of art some repatriationists might consider "stolen." See
http://www.observer.com/2011/06/quentin-roosevelt%e2%80%99s-china-ancestral-realms-of-the-naxi-at-the-rubin-museum-of-art/2/
One wonders if the art in question was legally exported from China based this description of its transit from the country:
Leaving China with 20 trunks full of scrolls, manuscripts and skins of exotic animals like golden monkeys, pandas and snow leopards was tricky for Mr. Roosevelt due to the war then being waged between China and Japan; his exit was made possible through a family connection to a certain W. Langhorne Bond, then vice president of the Chinese National Airline; Mr. Roosevelt flew disguised as a steward.
I also find it refreshing that its removal is justified as an act of saving it from likely destruction from the depredations of the Chinese Communists and Japanese Militarists, but don't SAFE members criticize collectors and museums for making such arguments?
In any event, I wonder if Ms. Ho demanded that the Roosevelt family show her export certificates before she decided to curate the show....
Addendum: This post evidently struck a nerve (see comments). There is also a question whether China's 1935 Antiquities law applied to the Naxi artifacts in question as artifacts of "other cultures" that may not be sold to "aliens." I copy it below in full. The reader can judge for themselves:
RELICS PRESERVATION LAW
Enacted by the Legislative Yuan and
Promulgated by the National Government on June 2, 1930.
Amended on November 10, 1935.
Article 1. The term "relics" as denoted in this Law shall mean those related to archaeology, science of history, palaeontology and other cultures.
The sphere and categories of aforesaid
relics shall be determined by the Central Relics Custodian Commission.
Article 2. Except for those privately-owned, relics shall be preserved under the custody of offices to be specially assigned by the Central Relics Custodian Commission.
Article 3. Photographs of lasting nature of relics which are preserved in the following offices shall be taken by the custodian offices and deposited separately with the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Interior, the Central Relics Custodian Commission and the office in which such
relics are preserved:
1) The institution directly under the jurisdiction of the central government.
2) The provincial, municipal, hsien, or other local institution.
3) The monasteries or temples or at the places where the ancient remains are located.
Article 4. Offices having custody of relics shall anually submit tables and reports to the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Interior, Central Relics Custodian Commission and local administrative authorities concerned. Forms of aforesaid tables and reports shall be proscribed by the Central Relics Custodian Commission.
Article 5. Privately-owned important relics shall be registered with the local administrative authorities concerned who shall, in turn, collectively report to tte Ministry of Edu:ation, Ministry of Interior and Central Relics Custodian Commission. The standard of the important relics abovementioned shall be determined by the Central Relics Custodian Commission.
Article 6. Privately-owned relics aforesaid that should be registered shall not be transferred to aliens. Offenders shall be liable to the confiscation of their relics and required to pay their cost if confiscation is not feasible.
Article 7. Relics hidden underground and those exposed above the ground shall be reverted to the State. Upon discovery of aforesaid relics, those who discovered such shall immediately report to the local administrative authorities concerned who shall request, through their superior authorities, the Ministries of Education and Interior and the Central Relics Custodian Commission to take over such relics, for which appropriate reward shall be granted. Whoever conceals such relics without reporting shall be dealt with as in the offences of theft.
Article 8. The excavation of relics shall be executed by academic institutiins directly under the central or local governments. For the excavation of relics, an academic institution aforesaid shall ask the Central Relics Custodian Commission to examine its application and to request the Ministries of Education and Interior to jointly issue an excavation permit.
Whoever excavates without the sforesaid permit shall be dealt with as in the offences of theft.
Article 9. Organic regulations of the Central Relics Custodian Commission shall be drawn up separately.
Article 10. Any academic institution directly under the central or a local government which requires the participation and assistance of any foreign academic organization or specialized
personnel in the excavation of relics shall request for prior approval of the Central Relics Custodian Commission.
Article 11. The excavation of relics shall be carried out under the supervision of officers of the Central Relics Custodian eommission.
Article 12. With respect to the relics procured from excavation, academic institutions directly under the central or local governments shall, subject to the approval of the Central Relics Custodian Commission, assume responsibility for the preservation, for a designated period, of the relics for academic research purposes.
Article 13. The circulation of relics shall be limited within the country. Eowever, if any academic institution directly under the central or local government finds it necessary to send its officers to bring relics abroad for research purposes, it shall apply for the authorization
of the Central Relics Custodian Commission who shall request the Ministries of Education and Interior to jointly issue an export permit. Relics brought abroad shall be returned to the
original custodien offices within two years, at the latest.
The provisions of the foregoing two paragraphs shall be applicable to privately-owned relics of which registration is required.
Article 14. The date of enforcement of the present Law shall be designated by mandate.
Addendum II:
I received the below letter from Ms. Roussin, a lawyer associated with SAFE. Here is my response. Her letter is further below:
Ms. Roussin- The blog posting you reference did not indicate I thought the material was stolen; it indicated that under various theories espoused by SAFE members it could be deemed stolen. The reference to the exit of the material was taken from a Newspaper article that was used as publicity for the show. I�ve already given Ms. Ho an opportunity to post a response to the blog. I have no objection to posting this letter as well. I�m sure you agree that the reader can draw their own conclusions. Best regards, Peter Tompa
As an additional note, rereading my original blog, it only referenced repatriationists considering such material stolen. I certainly don't personally believe the artifacts were stolen and am happy that they were put on display. The point here which Ms. Roussin apparently chooses to ignore is that SAFE's President and her organization should be as chartiable to other collectors as she has been to Mr. Roosevelt's collecting.
In any event, here is the letter:
Dear Mr. Tompa,
Various statements entitled "SAFE President Curates Show of "Stolen" Chinese Art?" published by you on your blog Cultural Property Observer of June 28, 2011 concerning the exhibition "Quentin Roosevelt's China: Ancestral Realms ofthe Naxi," now on display at the Rubin Museum of Art in New York, are false and close enough to defamation of character to be actionable. I demand that you remove the entire post and all comments that are displayed on your blog in response to your post immediately.
Phrasing your statement - suggesting that objects now owned by members of the Roosevelt family, on exhibit at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, the Harvard Yenching Library and other institutions, and now on display at the Rubin Museum were somehow "stolen" is blatantly false. Your statement on your blog is false and was published by you with the obvious intent of injuring another person's reputation and without regard for the true facts, which you could have easily discovered by viewing the exhibition, or by reading the exhibition catalogue, or by consulting other published works that are referenced in the exhibition catalogue.
Rather than visit the exhibition, or consult the exhibition catalogue or other published works referenced therein, your sole source appears to be a false statement published in The New York Observer. The statement you quote - "Leaving China with 20 trunks full of scrolls, manuscripts and skins of exotic animals like golden monkeys, pandas and snow leopards was tricky for Mr. Roosevelt due to the war then being waged between China and Japan; his exit was made possible through a family connection to a certain W. Langhorne Bond, then vice president of the Chinese National Airline; Mr. Roosevelt flew disguised as a steward."- is false in four ways as follows.
Roosevelt's departure from China in 1939 was not "tricky," no airplane was involved, Roosevelt did not leave China posing as a steward, and W. Langhorne Bond played no part whatsoever. Roosevelt and his 20 suitcases departed Lijiang after 10 days of collecting Naxi artifacts, and traveled to Kunming in a motor coach provided by the head of the Southwest Transportation Company, Mr. T.L. Soong, who was the
brother of Madame Chiang Kai-Shek, the "first lady" of China. From Kunming, Roosevelt continued south to Haiphong on the Yunnan-Vietnam Railway in a private railroad car provided by a Mr. Patou, who was the head of railway. From Haiphong, Roosevelt continued on by steamer to Hong Kong, where he and his 20 suitcases boarded a ship called the Empress of China and sailed to San Francisco. See Martin Brauen, "A Memorable Journey to the Naxi: Quentin Roosevelt's Legacy," in Quentin Roosevelt's China: Ancestral Realms of the Naxi, 2011, page 36, and Quentin Roosevelt, "In the Land of the Devil Priests," in Natural History, April 1940, pages 208-209. These are the real facts that readers will find in the exhibition catalogue; the story that appears in The New York Observer, which you repeat in your blog post, is false, as the posted comments from Cindy Ho indicates.
The question you raise about "export certificates" for the Naxi objects that Quentin Roosevelt acquired in 1939 is answered by the very 1930 law that you quote in your revised blog post as well as the objects on display at the exhibition and various references in the exhibition catalog. The 1930 Relics Preservation Law, amended in 1935, governed the export of ancient objects, not objects made during the 19th and 20th centuries. Every Naxi object acquired by Quentin Roosevelt in 1939, and every Naxi object on display at the Rubin Museum, with one exception, dates from the 19th or 20 century, the sole exception being a scroll that Quentin Roosevelt's father acquired in China in 1928, two years before the law you cite was enacted. (See Martin Brauen, ibid., page 28). Therefore, no export certificate was required for anything on display at the exhibition. It is worth noting that prior to embarking on his l O-day collecting trip to Lijiang, Quentin Roosevelt met in Chongqing with Dr. H.H. Kung, President of the Executive Yuan that enacted the law you cite. Roosevelt's letters of introduction made the purpose of his trip clear. After that meeting in Chongqing. Dr. Kung promised Roosevelt safe passage through the restricted Yunnan regions. General Sze Hwa, a garrison commander for the northwestern frontier of Yunnan Province, and 40 armed Chinese soldiers accompanied Roosevelt to Lijiang. (See Martin Brauen, ibid., pages 32-34). Your suggestion that Roosevelt somehow "stole" Naxi objects under these circumstances is absurd. Your suggestion that curators of the Rubin Museum exhibition did not perform due diligence in this matter is damages their reputation and is
defamatory. and must be removed from your blog.
Finally, the organization SAFE/Saving Antiquities for Everyone had no part in the research, planning and development or any other curatorial interest in the Rubin Museum exhibition. Therefore SAFE's position on Chinese or any other antiquities is irrelevant, and use of the organization's name is an egregious error at best. In any case, your characterization of SAFE's position is incorrect; SAFE's position on these matters, which has not changed since its inception, can be found at http://www.savingantiquities.org/principles.php
Please inform me and SAFE president Cindy Ho when you have corrected or removed this posting.
Sincerely,
Lucille A. Roussin
Oral Argument in ACCG Test Case
The transcript of the oral argument on the Government's Motion to Dismiss the ACCG test case can be found here:
http://www.accg.us/News/Item/Baltimore_Hearing_Transcript_Available.aspx
Oral argument is unusual these days on such motions, so I'm grateful the Court made time to question the parties about the case. A decision should be forthcoming in the not too distant future.
http://www.accg.us/News/Item/Baltimore_Hearing_Transcript_Available.aspx
Oral argument is unusual these days on such motions, so I'm grateful the Court made time to question the parties about the case. A decision should be forthcoming in the not too distant future.
Archaeologists Seek to Sink Indonesian Treasure Exhibit
For years, archaeologists have taken the position at CPAC hearings that Americans have no right to lecture foreign countries about how their legal systems treat cultural property. Apparently, however, this does not extend to places like Indonesia, which allows commercial treasure hunters to exploit wrecks as long as they also record their findings.
See
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/03/smithsonian-shipwreck-exhibit.html?ref=hp Archaeologists hope the exhibit will be cancelled because the Indonesian government partnered with commercial treasure hunters rather than funding some university to do the work.
The exhibit itself should be interesting. The artifacts provide a testament to the extensive international trade in Chinese goods during the Tang period. See
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/arts/08iht-singshow08.html?_r=1 I for one hope it makes it to the Smithsonian.
See
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/03/smithsonian-shipwreck-exhibit.html?ref=hp Archaeologists hope the exhibit will be cancelled because the Indonesian government partnered with commercial treasure hunters rather than funding some university to do the work.
The exhibit itself should be interesting. The artifacts provide a testament to the extensive international trade in Chinese goods during the Tang period. See
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/arts/08iht-singshow08.html?_r=1 I for one hope it makes it to the Smithsonian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)