More on the Size of the Internal Chinese Market for Antiquities

James Fitzpatrick has written CPAC to provide the following additional information about the immense size of the internal Chinese market in cultural goods.  The key question for CPAC and those in the archaeological community supporting restrictions is why impose them on American interests when their net effect is merely to give Chinese collectors and dealers a leg up on their foreign competition?  Is it all about conservation or control?   Mr. Fitzpatrick's letter is quoted in full as follows:

May 31, 2013

 Ms. Patty Gerstenblith

Chair

Cultural Property Advisory Committee

State Department

Washington, D.C.

Dear Ms. Gerstenblith,

In my recent comments to CPAC on behalf of James J. Lally in connection with the reauthorization of the MOU with China, I emphasized the significance of the internal Chinese market for antiquities.  I noted the failure to meet the statutory standard of effective self-help measures by the Chinese given the great bulk of the sales of Chinese antiquities (which sales presumably prompt looting) taking place within China itself and abroad, involving Chinese buyers.  Notably, one of the key archaeologist witnesses at the hearing agreed that there was a significant internal market.

To support this proposition, in his statement to CPAC, Mr. Lally noted that:

Chinese buyers of Chinese art � dominate the market outside China.  Sales statistics for the three leading international auction houses show that over 70% of the dollar volume of Chinese art sold by Bonham�s, Christie�s and Sotheby�s in 2012 was sold to  Chinese buyers. 

The Committee asked how one could make the statement that more than 70% of the buyers were in fact Chinese buyers.  In response to my inquiry, Mr. Lally made clear that the estimates came directly from the auction houses themselves upon reviewing their internal documents:

Regarding the fact that more than 70% of all Chinese art sold at public auction around the world by Sotheby�s, Christie�s, and Bonham�s was bought by Chinese buyers, that is an understatement. I did not simply look at the buyers� lists�the names of buyers are no longer disclosed on public auction price lists�but I did gather the information directly from the auctioneers (as the State Dept.�s �researchers� easily could have done if they were at all serious about gathering facts). I asked the Chinese art department at each of the �big three� international auctioneers to review their private records and tell me what percentage of their worldwide Chinese art sales in the year 2012 were purchased by buyers resident in mainland China (including Hong Kong and Macao) and Taiwan. The auctioneers did not want to allow any comparison between one auction house and another, so I agreed not to publish separate statistics for each auctioneer, publishing only one aggregate figure for all three together. All of them reported total sales to Chinese buyers well over 70 percent and at two of the auctioneers the total was over 80 percent.

Clearly, these data are not limited to MOU-covered antiquities, but there is every reason to believe -- indeed Mr. Lally feels strongly on this point -- that the overall statistics apply across the board -- to MOU antiquities, non-MOU antiquities, and contemporary art.

As for the overall dominance of Chinese buyers for Chinese art -- and antiquities, Lally has replied:

It is true that the great majority of the published sales statistics on the internal Chinese domestic market are reporting sales of non-MOU antiquities and contemporary art. No private market statistics are available�only public auction sales statistics are published, [as noted above: more than 70% of sales made to Chinese buyers] and of course antiquities are a very small fraction of the sales volume at public auction. (The same is true in US and Europe public auction sales�antiquities of all kinds account for only a very small fraction of auction turnover). Nevertheless, the extraordinary, unprecedented growth of the art market inside China�where only Chinese art is traded, raising the turnover from zero in the mid-1980�s to a multi-billion dollar total  rivaling total sales for all art in New York and London today, does clearly indicate the strong demand for all Chinese art including ancient art in the internal, domestic market in China.

Lally has written that this fact can easily be confirmed by CPAC and its investigators and staff:

Although it is impossible to provide statistics, a strong market for ancient Chinese art does thrive inside mainland China, with active collectors and traders at all levels of the market. If you ask any informed dealer in China or Europe or America or Hong Kong everyone would say that the mainland Chinese buyers are dominant in all sectors of the Chinese art market, including ancient art, and we do have public record of strong Chinese buying of ancient Chinese art at auction in the US, London, Europe, Taiwan and Japan.

We do know that there is clearly a large public market in ancient Chinese art in Hong Kong and Macao, with public auctions and private trading of ancient Chinese art. The PRC�which has taken over those two very active trading ports more than 15 years ago�still has not taken any action to regulate the art market or even establish any cultural relics bureau office in either city. 

Why is there obvious failure of the PRC to regulate the market for ancient Chinese art in Hong Kong and Macao never discussed? If the PRC does nothing to enforce restrictions on the trade in ancient Chinese art in two of the wealthiest, most active art market cities in China, why should US customs enforce restrictions on US citizens while Chinese citizens and all other collectors and dealers and museums around the world carry on with no restrictions?

At the end of the day, CPAC should pause and consider the rationale for closing the U.S. market for antiquities while a thriving market exists for those very objects in China, Hong Kong and Macao.

A further public hearing should be convened to permit the Chinese delegation to explain why our markets should be closed, consistent with the statutory criteria, when the very same embargoed objects are freely available in the greater Chinese market.

The internal Chinese market is the key to the integrity of these proceedings.

                                                                                    Sincerely,

                                                                                    James Fitzpatrick

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 17^th 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.  

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.

CPAC Solicits Comments for China MOU

The US Cultural Property Advisory Committee is soliciting comments concerning the proposed renewal of import restrictions on cultural goods, including coins, down to the end of the Tang Dynasty.  

This renewal should be of particular interest to collectors who specialize in Chinese coins. 

Comments are to touch on the following four determinations: (1)    that the cultural patrimony of the requesting nation is in jeopardy from the pillage of archaeological materials; (2) that the requesting nation has taken measures to protect its cultural patrimony; (3) that U.S. import restrictions, either alone or in concert with actions taken by other market nations, would be of substantial benefit in deterring the serious situation of pillage, and (4) import restrictions would promote the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes.

For Chinese coins, the key points relates to determinations 2-4:  Why should the US Government place restrictions on American collectors given the huge internal market in ancient Chinese coins within China itself, particularly when China and other countries have not imposed similar restrictions on the ability of their own citizens to deal and trade in such coins?   Under the circumstances, continued restrictions will only diminish the ability of Americans to learn about and appreciate Chinese culture from "hands-on" experience with Chinese coins without any impact on the huge trade in Chinese coins abroad. Another issue is that Chinese cash coins circulated widely outside China, including E. Africa, Japan, Indonesia, etc.

To comment on the renewal, use the regulations.gov portal here:  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOS_FRDOC_0001-2354and click on the �comment now� button.

The Department of State requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments received from other persons for submission to the Department of State inform those persons that the Department of State will

not edit their comments to remove any identifying or contact information, and that they therefore should not include any information in their comments that they do not want publicly disclosed.

KINDLY NOTE COMMENTS ARE DUE ON OR BEFORE 11:59 PM on APRIL 23, 2013.  

Proposed Renewal of Chinese MOU

The Cultural Heritage Center website carries news about a proposed renewal of import restrictions on Chinese cultural goods.  CPAC's public session will take place on May 14th.

The Federal Register notice formally announcing the renewal is to be released on April 1st.

Somehow that is fitting. I'm all for the Chinese populace collecting rather than destroying (remember the Cultural Revolution) artifacts like the bazillions of cash coins that are found all the time in China, but hope CPAC recognizes that current restrictions have done little but to provide Chinese auction houses and dealers with a leg up on their foreign (especially US) competition.

Is it about protecting the archaeological record or encouraging the continued movement of the trade in Chinese artifacts to China and other major market countries?

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.

We Buy Chinese Antiques

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

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

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

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?

PLA Poly's Long March to NY

This invitation was forwarded to me:

You are cordially invited to join us in celebrating the opening of
Poly International Auction�s New York Office
Monday, March 19th, 2012

4:30 - 6:30 pm
at
The Harvard Club
27 West 44th Street
New York, NY 10036
Please RSVP at info@polyauction.us
Admittance by invitation only. Business attire requested.
Food and beverages will be served.

This office will for the moment at least seek consignments for Poly auctions in China. But presumably in the not so distant future Poly may decide to auction off Chinese material here. If so, Poly will presumably use its connections at home to secure any necessary export permits -- something that no doubt will be much harder-- if not impossible-- for its US competitors to secure.

More evidence that the State Department's MOU with China and CBP's import restrictions on a wide variety of Chinese cultural goods have done nothing but provide connected Chinese auction houses with a competitive advantage against US based auction houses.

Poly International Auctions was formed by officers of the Chinese People's Liberation Army.

For more, see http://www.jingdaily.com/en/culture/auction-house-beijing-poly-sets-opening-date-for-new-york-office/

US State Department Helps Ship Auction House Jobs to China

The time was that Sotheby's and Christies did a lot of auction business involving ancient and modern Chinese art. These started as historic UK companies, but now they have large establishments in NY. Now, however, Chinese auction houses have begun to dominate the trade in part due to the monopoly afforded them in sales of Chinese artifacts by both the Chinese and US Governments. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15933291

Isn't this more evidence that the State Department's MOU with China has done little but helped Chinese auction houses monopolize the trade in ancient art?

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?

Chinese Auction Houses to US State Department and AIA: Suckers!

The Art Newspaper has reported that China Guardian, a well respected Chinese auction house that sells Chinese antiquities and ancient coins, is to open a New York Office.

For now, China Guardian plans to use its office to drum up consignments for its auctions in China, but it is not foreclosing the possibility that its longer term plans may include establishing a presence in the US Market.

Of course, China Guardian will no doubt be able to use its excellent contacts with the Chinese Government to ensure that it secures export permits for any artifacts it might choose to sell abroad.

While China Guardian will no doubt execute its plans quite successfully, one must consider that any success it may achieve will likely be largely based on the competitive advantage it will have over Sotheby's and other US Auction Houses, all courtesy of the US State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its moronic import restrictions on Chinese archaeological artifacts.

One must also wonder whether the AIA and all those self-righteous archaeologists that strongly supported a MOU with China now realize all they have done is to help allow the Chinese themselves to corner the market in Chinese artifacts.

CPRI Director to Speak at Conference

Western Museums Association 76th Annual Meeting
September 25, 2011
Hawai�i Convention Center Honolulu
Safeguarding the Past: An Exploration in the Illicit Trafficking of
Cultural Artifacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Erika Lehman, Membership Coordinator, Iolani Palace
Kevin Shimoda, Private Investigator, Office of the Inspector General
Marcellin Abong, Director, Vanuatu Cultural Centre
Kate Fitz Gibbon, Attorney and Author, Cultural Policy Research Institute

This session will look at the national and international laws surrounding the illegal trafficking of ancient / antique artifacts, with particular emphasis on those from indigenous and tribal communities of the Asia � Pacific region. Speakers will explore the motives surrounding illegal trafficking and trade of cultural artifacts as well as the means in which these illicit measures continue to thrive despite the presence of well defined laws and strict associated penalties. Panelists will further the discussion by examining several means of countering illegal trafficking of cultural artifacts as well as the hurdles museums and governing bodies face when attempting to reclaim lost artifacts.

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

Art Critic

Archaeo-blogger Paul Barford has now become an art critic. See
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/06/artist-ai-weiwei-and-damage-caused-by.html

Apparently, Mr. Barford wants Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei (who has already been imprisoned by Chinese authorities for his pro-democracy activities) "arrested" for his use of common ancient artifacts for purposes of modern art.

There may be a long artistic tradition of transforming the old into the new, but Barford will have no part of it.

In any case, isn't Ai Weiwei's transformation of the old artifacts in some ways better than letting such common artifacts gradually turn to dust in some forgotten storage facility? Unfortunately, that is the fate of many artifacts in the supposed care of the archaeological community.

Addendum: This is how a website called, "the Artist and His Model" describes Ai Weiwei's art:

Many of Ai Weiwei�s works from the past decade, for example, are made of local materials and of antique Chinese objects: tables and chairs from the Ming and Qing Dynasties, wood, doors and windows from demolished temples and traditional houses, freshwater pearls, tea, marble, stone, bamboo etc. � �ready-mades� trans�lated into a conceptual, post-minimalist idiom.

Alternatively, for his colored vase series, he takes Neolithic vases (5000 � 3000 B.C.) and paints them careless with bright industrial colors. Then he places them in an Allan McCollum style.

The vases are authentic antique vases which could just as easily have stood in a collection in a historical museum in China. Yet it is not contempt for China�s history and tradition that lies behind this harsh treatment of the fine old antiques � on the contrary. His use of the vases should rather be seen as a Dadaistic gesture, as black humour and as a political comment on the organized destruction of cultural and historical values that took place, especially during the Cultural Revolution, when every�thing old was to be replaced by the new. This stopped after the death of Mao, but the destruction and erosion of Chinese culture continues to this day � now under cover of economic progress.

Ai Weiwei points to the loss of culture by transforming the historical objects into something new � into moving and highly sensual contemporary artworks which thanks to their aesthetic beauty recirculate the meaning and history of these valuable cultural artefacts.

See http://theartistandhismodel.com/2011/02/ai-wei-wei/

Ai WeiWei's Circle of Animals/Zodiac Heads: Only Silence by Those Supporting the Repatriation of the Originals

Jailed Chinese dissident artist Ai WeiWei's exhibition of animal heads has finally opened in New York. See http://www.zodiacheads.com/?page_id=17

One would think that archaeological advocacy groups like Saving Antiquities for Everyone (SAFE) would publicise the exhibit, which is inspired by sculptures that were taken from the famous Yuanming Yuan (Summer Palace) in the aftermath of the Opium Wars. After all, SAFE and others have loudly supported the repatriation of the originals and other artifacts from the Summer Palace back to China. See
http://safecorner.savingantiquities.org/search/label/Yuanmingyuan

But nothing but silence.....

One wonders if there is a concern that publicising this exhibit by a dissident artist would be bad for archaeological business in China.

China Withdraws Silk Road Mummies from Show

China has asked the University of Pennsylvania Museum to withdraw all its artifacts from a heavily promoted show about the Silk Road. See
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/china-asks-penn-museum-to-remove-all-artifacts-from-upcoming-show/?scp=2&sq=uighur&st=cse

The last minute change will be costly for the museum. Refunds will have to be made on pre-paid tickets and promotional dollars have been wasted.

I'm a bit dubious of claims that the Chinese Government has suddenly become sensitive to the concerns of the Uighur people. They have been reported to oppose the public display of mummies found in the area.

Frankly, I wonder if this could instead be some form of collective punishment against the museum. Not all that long ago, archaeologists associated with the museum raised concerns about the Chinese demolition of Old Kashgar. See
http://safecorner.savingantiquities.org/2009/07/statement-of-concern-and-appeal-for.html

In any event, this decision carries with it some real irony. University of Pennsylvania archaeologists pressed the State Department to approve a MOU with China that has restricted the ability of Americans to import Chinese cultural artifacts. That MOU was supposed to encourage long term loans of artifacts. See
http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop/chfact.html

China's withdrawal of artifacts from this show would seem to violate China's commitment to do so, and undersore, once again, that the State Department only seems adept at negotiating giveaways to foreign powers.

Addendum: The Washington Post has reported this fiasco cost the University of Pennsylvania Museum $2 million in wasted cash and two years in wasted effort. See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/03/AR2011020306498.html