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 Repatriation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Repatriation. Show all posts
Something's Missing from the Discussion About the Repatriation of Some Ancient Coins to Bulgaria
The Government has publicized the repatriation of some ancient coins to Bulgaria. But we should be clear about the background of the return. The coins were evidently abandoned after they were seized based on alleged misstatements on a customs form. Though Bulgaria has sought a MOU with the United States, US import controls have not yet been promulgated. Moreover, there is no allegation the coins in question were "stolen" from Bulgaria. Indeed, that would be a difficult case to make given Bulgaria's open and legal trade in the exact same items.
For more about the issues surrounding the MOU that is being considered see here.
For more about the issues surrounding the MOU that is being considered see here.
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.
Labels:
Archaeologists,
China,
China MOU,
Christie's,
Lobbying,
Repatriation,
SAFE,
Sotheby's
Peru Wants Artifacts that Left Country after 1822
Peru has asked French authorities to stop an auction of Peruvian artifacts that left the country years ago. Sotheby's used to auction off such material in New York, but U.S. import restrictions on pre-Colombian art has driven that business overseas.
President Sarkozy made a concerted effort to increase France's share of the auction business. Perhaps, the Peruvian Government is hoping that France's current "soak the rich" Socialists will be more amenable to repatriation demands, however stale the claim.
Whether French authorities take the Peruvian claim seriously or not, all this is just more evidence that museums and others were snookered into accepting a 1970 date for acquisitions of artifacts. If they thought such a concession would quiet repatriation demands, they were very, very wrong. If anything, such concessions have only encouraged further demands-- the slippery slope rule applies yet again.
President Sarkozy made a concerted effort to increase France's share of the auction business. Perhaps, the Peruvian Government is hoping that France's current "soak the rich" Socialists will be more amenable to repatriation demands, however stale the claim.
Whether French authorities take the Peruvian claim seriously or not, all this is just more evidence that museums and others were snookered into accepting a 1970 date for acquisitions of artifacts. If they thought such a concession would quiet repatriation demands, they were very, very wrong. If anything, such concessions have only encouraged further demands-- the slippery slope rule applies yet again.
Reaction to Hugh Eakin
The New York Times has published a series of Letters to the Editor concerning Hugh Eakin's recent opinion piece regarding repatriations. Barbara Newsome, the founder of the Archaeological Conservancy, discusses both her organization's efforts here in the US as well as the importance of museums and collectors in preserving the artifacts of others because they value them. Noted cultural property expert Bill Pearlstein questions whether archaeological looting is really driven by American demand given statements by the Italian police. Finally, Fiona Rose-Greenland sees repatriation demands as nationalistic in character and part of power politics. Perhaps, the archaeology-over-all perspective should not be allowed to dominate this debate.
Just Say No
Hugh Eakin has written a thoughtful piece about the American museum community's capitulation to ever escalating repatriation demands. Museum trustees have a fiduciary duty to protect their collections from legally deficient claims, but that seems to not be much of a consideration in the face of bad press ginned up by the archaeological lobby and sympathetic journalists aligned with the cultural bureaucracies in places like Greece and Italy.
Eakin rightly notes that repatriation of artifacts that left their supposed countries of origin decades ago does nothing to protect archaeological sites from any current looting. I would add all the hype about repatriation is in fact a diversion from addressing the problems at the source by tackling over-regulation, choking bureaucracy, under-funding and endemic corruption in places like Greece and Italy.
Perhaps if museums just said no to repatriation claims they might actually encourage some rational discussion of the real issues facing preservation of artifacts from the past. Any such discussion should start with some recognition that foreign countries can't possibly preserve, study and display all the artifacts they lay claim to, and protecting artifacts rather than bureaucrats should be the first priority.
Eakin rightly notes that repatriation of artifacts that left their supposed countries of origin decades ago does nothing to protect archaeological sites from any current looting. I would add all the hype about repatriation is in fact a diversion from addressing the problems at the source by tackling over-regulation, choking bureaucracy, under-funding and endemic corruption in places like Greece and Italy.
Perhaps if museums just said no to repatriation claims they might actually encourage some rational discussion of the real issues facing preservation of artifacts from the past. Any such discussion should start with some recognition that foreign countries can't possibly preserve, study and display all the artifacts they lay claim to, and protecting artifacts rather than bureaucrats should be the first priority.
More Bad Press for Turkey
Turkey has received more bad press for revoking the excavation permits of German and French archaeologists due to the failure of German and French museums to repatriate artifacts removed from the country well before a 1970 benchmark. The article also suggests that the Turkish Government is hypocritical for demanding repatriation on one hand, but happily destroying important archaeological sites on the other in the name of "progress."
As the article reports,
A Turkish archaeologist, who did not want to be named, said he was heartbroken that the government appeared to be destroying sites at the same time as battling for the return of artefacts. "I don't understand the attitude of the government," he said. "This contradiction is truly mind-boggling
So far, the agreement of the University of Pennsylvania to provide "long term loans" of ancient jewelry the Turks have demanded from its museum has saved the University's digs in Turkey. But one wonders if such appeasement will just lead to escalating demands over time.
Frankly, I'd be happy if Turkey just sold rights to dig to the highest bidder and used the money to help preserve its unparalleled historical sites and spruce up its collections. Putting digs on such a basis might also have the benefit of freeing American archaeologists from taking anything but the Turkish cultural bureaucracy's line on cultural heritage issues.
As the article reports,
A Turkish archaeologist, who did not want to be named, said he was heartbroken that the government appeared to be destroying sites at the same time as battling for the return of artefacts. "I don't understand the attitude of the government," he said. "This contradiction is truly mind-boggling
So far, the agreement of the University of Pennsylvania to provide "long term loans" of ancient jewelry the Turks have demanded from its museum has saved the University's digs in Turkey. But one wonders if such appeasement will just lead to escalating demands over time.
Frankly, I'd be happy if Turkey just sold rights to dig to the highest bidder and used the money to help preserve its unparalleled historical sites and spruce up its collections. Putting digs on such a basis might also have the benefit of freeing American archaeologists from taking anything but the Turkish cultural bureaucracy's line on cultural heritage issues.
Bones of Contention
Paige Williams has written a fair and balanced article for the New Yorker about Eric Prokopi and the seizure and repatriation of his dinosaur reconstruction to Mongolia. My only quibbles are that the article glosses over open sales of dinosaur bones within Mongolia itself as well as the fact that current Mongolian law on the subject does not appear to be quite as clear as the Government has claimed.
Now, Where Does One Go to Get Their Reputation Back?
After years of rumor and innuendo largely fed through archaeo-bloggers and friendly "access journalists," Italian cultural authorities have notified Princeton's antiquities curator, Michael Padgett, that he is no longer the subject of a criminal investigation. Now, where does Padgett go to get his reputation back? Certainly, not to the archaeo-bloggers and access journalists who are so quick to condemn but are so slow to exonerate. Indeed, despite their connections to Italian authorities, they have yet to so much as acknowlege this news.
Forfeiture is Big Business-- For Federal Prosecutors
The forfeiture of Eric Prokopi's Bataar display piece has helped prompt the the New York Times to examine how forfeiture has become big business for federal prosecutors in New York. I've found the federal attorneys who handled the Bataar forfeiture case to be quite professional and obviously good lawyers. On the other hand, I have to agree with critics that the system can be quite arbitrary, even going so far as to allow the government to hobble any defense by seizing as possible proceeds of the crime all of the defendant's assets.
Palentologist May Loose Freedom for Following His Dream
Here is a humane and balanced portrait of Eric Prokopi from his local paper. In contrast, most coverage, which has relied on Government, paleontological and Mongolian sources, has vilified him.
Mr. Prokopi's guilty plea will also end his civil effort to recover the Bataar display piece he spent a year preparing. Left unresolved are serious questions concerning whether American law should subject American citizens to criminal and civil liability based on obscure and unclear foreign laws that are not even consistently applied at home.
Mr. Prokopi's guilty plea will also end his civil effort to recover the Bataar display piece he spent a year preparing. Left unresolved are serious questions concerning whether American law should subject American citizens to criminal and civil liability based on obscure and unclear foreign laws that are not even consistently applied at home.
Soft Sell on Cambodian Repatriation
It's interesting to contrast the hardball tactics of elements within the US Government and the US archaeological lobby with the softer line on Cambodian antiquities taken by Prince Ravivaddhana Sisowath of Cambodia. Is this a case of Good Cop/Bad Cop or is the archaeological lobby cart pushing the repatriation horse once again?
Re-Repatriation
Germany has agreed to repatriate a winged seahorse brooch back to Turkey. The brooch is the most significant piece from the so-called Lyidan Hoard that was first repatriated to Turkey by the MET back in the 1993, but then illegally sold off by a Turkish Museum director to help pay off gambling debts. Given the embarassing situation, Turkish officials have not been exactly seeking extensive publicity for the return. It remains unclear how the brooch got to Germany, and what, if any, plans the Turkish government has to secure it in the future.
Repatriation as a Diplomatic Tool?
Pity poor old U.S News and World Report. It used to be one of the three major news weekly magazines. Now, it's reduced to a web-only publication that in the search for free content has uncritically promoted the views of those ideologically opposed to collecting that repatriation has a real value as a �diplomatic tool.� But, as I have pointed out in comments to the article,
� While antiquities should be repatriated in clear cases, the problem is that all too often they are repatriated in unclear situations where the same types of artifacts are openly available for sale in a particular country. How does this happen? Academics with axes to grind against collectors gin up publicity, that gets foreign governments and then our government involved. And given the modest values of many objects and the costs of mounting a legal defense, it�s the rare case where it makes financial sense to contest the seizure-- so the Government wins by default, and hard questions are never asked about the real situation in the source country.
More Criticism for Turkey's Repatriation Claims
The the Guardian has now joined the chorus of criticism for Turkey's recent over broad repatriation claims. As the article notes,
The Turkish economy has come down from the vertiginous heights of 2010 and 2011, when annual growth exceeded 8%, but the country remains one of the only economic winners of the past few years � Turkey is ready to play in the big time. It's already at the top table of geopolitics (the G20) and defense (Nato). Its failure to get into the EU now looks like a blessing in disguise. Its retaliation against Syria this past week marks not only its military might, but also US and EU dependence on Turkey in a region changing too fast for western diplomats to handle. And now, naturally, Turkey wants to make their mark in the cultural sphere as well.
"Artifacts have souls and historical memories," according to Ertugrul Gunay, Turkey's pugnacious culture minister. "When they are repatriated to their countries, the balance of nature will be restored."
That nationalistic statement puts Turkey in the vanguard of a troubling tendency, one seen everywhere from Israel to China: that the nation state has an infinite claim to a cultural heritage that may date back thousands of years before the state's foundation. Gunay's appeal to the "balance of nature" is telling. He conceives of the nation state as something organic, an unchanging territorial bond, rather than a relatively recent phenomenon in world history.
It's worth recalling that the Turks, or at least their historical ancestors, were involved in the hottest cultural property dispute of them all. The tussle over the Elgin Marbles, in the British Museum, is usually seen as an Anglo-Greek affair. But of course, it was the Ottoman Empire that took Elgin's money, and it's Ottoman documents that, so say the Brits, prove the legality of Elgin's "purchase" (more like bribe).
But that case only highlights that when it comes to cultural restitution, national boundaries are not very helpful guides. Cultures are not ahistorical and immutable. They change all the time. And they certainly don't line up easily with the borders on our maps, to say nothing of the governments that delimit them.
Despite these sentiments against the repatriation of artifacts that left Turkey before 1970, the article expresses support for the MET's decision to repatriate the so-called Lydian hoard, despite the fact that far fewer individuals have seen the artifacts in a small provincial museum in Turkey than could have seen them at the MET. The article fails to mention that some of the major pieces from this collection were evidently stolen from the Turkish museum and replaced with fakes. Perhaps, where the artifacts can be best be curated, preserved and displayed should also be considered.
The Turkish economy has come down from the vertiginous heights of 2010 and 2011, when annual growth exceeded 8%, but the country remains one of the only economic winners of the past few years � Turkey is ready to play in the big time. It's already at the top table of geopolitics (the G20) and defense (Nato). Its failure to get into the EU now looks like a blessing in disguise. Its retaliation against Syria this past week marks not only its military might, but also US and EU dependence on Turkey in a region changing too fast for western diplomats to handle. And now, naturally, Turkey wants to make their mark in the cultural sphere as well.
"Artifacts have souls and historical memories," according to Ertugrul Gunay, Turkey's pugnacious culture minister. "When they are repatriated to their countries, the balance of nature will be restored."
That nationalistic statement puts Turkey in the vanguard of a troubling tendency, one seen everywhere from Israel to China: that the nation state has an infinite claim to a cultural heritage that may date back thousands of years before the state's foundation. Gunay's appeal to the "balance of nature" is telling. He conceives of the nation state as something organic, an unchanging territorial bond, rather than a relatively recent phenomenon in world history.
It's worth recalling that the Turks, or at least their historical ancestors, were involved in the hottest cultural property dispute of them all. The tussle over the Elgin Marbles, in the British Museum, is usually seen as an Anglo-Greek affair. But of course, it was the Ottoman Empire that took Elgin's money, and it's Ottoman documents that, so say the Brits, prove the legality of Elgin's "purchase" (more like bribe).
But that case only highlights that when it comes to cultural restitution, national boundaries are not very helpful guides. Cultures are not ahistorical and immutable. They change all the time. And they certainly don't line up easily with the borders on our maps, to say nothing of the governments that delimit them.
Despite these sentiments against the repatriation of artifacts that left Turkey before 1970, the article expresses support for the MET's decision to repatriate the so-called Lydian hoard, despite the fact that far fewer individuals have seen the artifacts in a small provincial museum in Turkey than could have seen them at the MET. The article fails to mention that some of the major pieces from this collection were evidently stolen from the Turkish museum and replaced with fakes. Perhaps, where the artifacts can be best be curated, preserved and displayed should also be considered.
Turkish Minister of Culture Defends Repatriation Drive with New Age Spiritualism?
An informed CPO reader who has lived in the Islamic world found this statement attributed to the Turkish Minister of Culture not only bizarre, but potentially offensive to Muslims:
�Artifacts, just like people, animals or plants, have souls and historical memories,� said Turkey�s culture minister, Ertugrul Gunay. �When they are repatriated to their countries, the balance of nature will be restored.�
The belief that objects are somehow sacred and that they possess "souls" would be considered idolatry in Islam. Only God can endow a creature with a soul and only living creatures are so endowed.
As a statement of official position from a secular, but nonetheless Islamic country run by an Islamicist party-- the AK-- this is deeply shocking. As a parroting of the overwrought SAFE line - perhaps not so much.
Was the Turkish Minister of Culture just playing to fringe elements within the archaeological lobby that have been supportive of Turkey's aggressive repatriation demands? Does he really believe artifacts have "souls?" If so, I suggest he make the same statement to a Turkish newspaper, and then see what reaction he receives.
And frankly, doesn't such talk just give ammunition to fanatic Islamic militants who have smashed antiquities in the name of stamping out idolatry?
�Artifacts, just like people, animals or plants, have souls and historical memories,� said Turkey�s culture minister, Ertugrul Gunay. �When they are repatriated to their countries, the balance of nature will be restored.�
The belief that objects are somehow sacred and that they possess "souls" would be considered idolatry in Islam. Only God can endow a creature with a soul and only living creatures are so endowed.
As a statement of official position from a secular, but nonetheless Islamic country run by an Islamicist party-- the AK-- this is deeply shocking. As a parroting of the overwrought SAFE line - perhaps not so much.
Was the Turkish Minister of Culture just playing to fringe elements within the archaeological lobby that have been supportive of Turkey's aggressive repatriation demands? Does he really believe artifacts have "souls?" If so, I suggest he make the same statement to a Turkish newspaper, and then see what reaction he receives.
And frankly, doesn't such talk just give ammunition to fanatic Islamic militants who have smashed antiquities in the name of stamping out idolatry?
Egyptian Administrative Court Orders Return of Artifacts on Display in US
An Egyptian administrative court has ruled that objects in a US travelling exhibition should be returned home because they improperly left the country. Former Egyptian antiquities Pharaoh Hawass has been charged with corruption based on his links to this exhibit. It's unclear if Egyptian authorities believe that Hawass skimmed any of the money from the travelling show or they solely claim that improper procedures were followed in allowing the artifacts to be exhibited abroad.
It is clear that this action will cause headaches for Hawass' friends in the US, including National Geographic. (The Rupert Murdoch connection in the article is unclear, though presumably it relates to the National Geographic Cable TV channel.) Before the revolution, National Geographic was paying Hawass as much as $200,000 per year for being an "explorer in residence."
The US Government has been very aggressive in seeking the repatriation of Egyptian artifacts, but seemingly uninterested in determining if there have been any financial improprieties related to payments for this exhibit. Given the money involved, one would think there should be some investigation even if it would by necessity look at Hawass' friends associated with the archaeological lobby.
It is clear that this action will cause headaches for Hawass' friends in the US, including National Geographic. (The Rupert Murdoch connection in the article is unclear, though presumably it relates to the National Geographic Cable TV channel.) Before the revolution, National Geographic was paying Hawass as much as $200,000 per year for being an "explorer in residence."
The US Government has been very aggressive in seeking the repatriation of Egyptian artifacts, but seemingly uninterested in determining if there have been any financial improprieties related to payments for this exhibit. Given the money involved, one would think there should be some investigation even if it would by necessity look at Hawass' friends associated with the archaeological lobby.
Labels:
Egypt,
National Geographic,
poor stewardship,
Repatriation,
Zahi Hawass
Principle or Self-Preservation?
The archaeological lobby will no doubt pitch the Penn Museum's decision to repatriate ancient jewelry it purchased back in 1966 (well before the 1970 UNESCO Convention) to Turkey as a matter of principle. However, given Turkey's hard ball tactics against German archaeologists at Troy, did preservation of digging rights and all that means for U. Penn archaeologists' careers also enter the picture?
What of SAFE's Turkish Repatriation Fest?
Some months ago Saving Antiquities for Everyone was working with Turkey's US lawyers (who also help fund SAFE) to produce a conference to help make the case that antiquities should be repatriated to that country.
From what I heard about this repatriation fest, there would be no discussion of the fact that many of these antiquities left before 1970 or that many are also the products of Greek culture, when Turkey's own Greek citizens were ethnically cleansed back in the 1920's.
Yet, nothing more has been heard of this conference, which was originally scheduled for early October. Is there to be a great Turkish showcase? Who will participate? And does anyone really care anyway except SAFE, Turkey's lawyers and some Turkish cultural bureaucrats?
From what I heard about this repatriation fest, there would be no discussion of the fact that many of these antiquities left before 1970 or that many are also the products of Greek culture, when Turkey's own Greek citizens were ethnically cleansed back in the 1920's.
Yet, nothing more has been heard of this conference, which was originally scheduled for early October. Is there to be a great Turkish showcase? Who will participate? And does anyone really care anyway except SAFE, Turkey's lawyers and some Turkish cultural bureaucrats?
Motion to Dismiss in T-Rex Bataar Forfeiture Action
Here is a link to a motion to dismiss my firm, Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC, filed in conjunction with Michael McCullough LLC. The motion seeks to gain the return of a fossilized T-Rex Bataar skeleton to its rightful owner, a Florida small businessman who spent considerable time, effort, money and expertise in preparing and mounting the composite specimen for sale: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9sH3ETMwSWiNWVNTkxCakp0bnM/edit
One needs a Google account to review it.
As we observe,
It may or may not be time to regulate fossil collecting like antiquities collecting, but surely any such regulatory effort should only be accomplished prospectively through the legislative or administrative process rather than retroactively through a forfeiture action prompted by a media frenzy and foreign politics. The Government should not be allowed to seize property based upon obscure foreign laws or unwritten interpretations of �country of origin� or valuation rules for fossils. Moreover, the Government has not alleged sufficient facts to establish a reasonable basis to believe that it could meet its burden to prove that the Display Piece was �stolen.� For all these reasons, the Complaint should be dismissed.
One needs a Google account to review it.
As we observe,
It may or may not be time to regulate fossil collecting like antiquities collecting, but surely any such regulatory effort should only be accomplished prospectively through the legislative or administrative process rather than retroactively through a forfeiture action prompted by a media frenzy and foreign politics. The Government should not be allowed to seize property based upon obscure foreign laws or unwritten interpretations of �country of origin� or valuation rules for fossils. Moreover, the Government has not alleged sufficient facts to establish a reasonable basis to believe that it could meet its burden to prove that the Display Piece was �stolen.� For all these reasons, the Complaint should be dismissed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)