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.
Showing posts with label SAFE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SAFE. Show all posts
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?
SAFE No More?
A reliable source indicates that Saving Antiquities for Everyone (SAFE) is effectively dead. While SAFE's website remains online, it has not really been updated for some time.
Certainly, SAFE has not been very active in the past year or so. And despite rumors that SAFE was planning a major conference on Turkish antiquities that was to be funded by Turkey�s U.S. lawyers, nothing ever came of it.
It does appear that a related group called "Antiquity Now" is forming on Facebook. It will be interesting to see if it becomes more active as time goes by.
I for one will not mourn the demise of SAFE. From the start, it was highly confrontational, and brought far more heat than light to cultural property issues.
Certainly, SAFE has not been very active in the past year or so. And despite rumors that SAFE was planning a major conference on Turkish antiquities that was to be funded by Turkey�s U.S. lawyers, nothing ever came of it.
It does appear that a related group called "Antiquity Now" is forming on Facebook. It will be interesting to see if it becomes more active as time goes by.
I for one will not mourn the demise of SAFE. From the start, it was highly confrontational, and brought far more heat than light to cultural property issues.
Belize Lays Claim to Crystal Skull Movie's "Illegal Profits"
It must take awhile for movies to get down to Belize. It's been out for years, but now an archaeologist, purportedly acting on behalf of that nation's government, is suing the owners of the Indiana Jones franchise for their alleged unauthorized use of a facsimile of an artifact from that country.
According to press reports, "Scientist Jaime Awe claims Hollywood hot shots used a model of the swiped Belizean relic in the 2008 flick, �Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull� to rake in 'illegal profits.'�
Of course, he now wants a piece of the action, i.e., a portion of the Crystal Skull Movie's $378 million profit, for the Central American country.
In so doing, Awe and Belize seem to be taking a page from Zahi Hawass and Egypt who hoped to copyright the pyramids and rake in even larger sums.
Leaving aside the dubious merits of this lawsuit, I have to assume this news is a bit embarrassing for Harrison Ford, a.k.a "Indiana Jones," who is a past AIA Trustee.
And which side will the AIA take in this dispute? The downtrodden and exploited country of Belize or the Hollywood hot shots who have helped promote archaeology?
And will SAFE and other hard liners be telling the AIA "we told you so" for its efforts to promote the movie and make its leading man an AIA Trustee?
According to press reports, "Scientist Jaime Awe claims Hollywood hot shots used a model of the swiped Belizean relic in the 2008 flick, �Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull� to rake in 'illegal profits.'�
Of course, he now wants a piece of the action, i.e., a portion of the Crystal Skull Movie's $378 million profit, for the Central American country.
In so doing, Awe and Belize seem to be taking a page from Zahi Hawass and Egypt who hoped to copyright the pyramids and rake in even larger sums.
Leaving aside the dubious merits of this lawsuit, I have to assume this news is a bit embarrassing for Harrison Ford, a.k.a "Indiana Jones," who is a past AIA Trustee.
And which side will the AIA take in this dispute? The downtrodden and exploited country of Belize or the Hollywood hot shots who have helped promote archaeology?
And will SAFE and other hard liners be telling the AIA "we told you so" for its efforts to promote the movie and make its leading man an AIA Trustee?
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?
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?
"Trafficking Culture:" EU Funded Self-Promotion?
Simon Mackenzie's and Neil Brodie's EU Funded University of Glasgow "research project" has now established a web site. To date, any "research" seems to be the same sort of one sided "junk science" one sees on the SAFE website or links to the prior work of the lead researchers in the same vein.
Has the European Research Council funded real research or shameless self-promotion of anti-trade and anti-collector views?
For additional background, see here.
Has the European Research Council funded real research or shameless self-promotion of anti-trade and anti-collector views?
For additional background, see here.
The Aleppo Codex Mystery
The New York Times has an interesting article about the mystery how the Aleppo Codex came to Israel and how it might have lost some 200 pages along the way. It does ask whether the Codex should belong to the Modern State of Israel or Aleppo's Jewish exiles. It does not suggest, however, like some in the archaeological blogosphere have, that the Codex still belongs in Syria, which conducted a thorough "ethnic cleansing" of its Jewish population well before the Assad regime began its recent bombardment of Aleppo itself. Interestingly, even some associated with the hard line archaeological advocacy group Saving Antiquities for Everyone (SAFE) have begun to acknowledge that perhaps Jewish artifacts are not best off in the hands of governments that have persecuted Jews after all. Will others in the archaeological blogosphere follow?
"Blood Antiquities" or Stale Claim Against Legally Obtained Cultural Goods?
I am struck by the contrast between Sotheby's well-reasoned legal analysis of why the government's forfeiture action against its consigner's Cambodian statue should be dismissed and this well-written CNN opinion piece prepared by advocates for Cambodia.
Unfortunately, Sotheby's brief is not available on-line unless one has a "Pacer" account with the U.S. Court System. However, "Cultural Heritage Lawyer" and former SAFE VP Rick St. Hilaire has provided us with his own analysis. Though St. Hilaire is also associated with the archaeological community, his summary does appear to convey most of Sotheby's arguments accurately.
It will be interesting to read the Government's response. But why has the U.S. Government taken sides at all? Cambodia has plenty of friends in the archaeological community, including more than a few lawyers. They should be pursuing any claims Cambodia may have rather than making the U.S. taxpayer foot the bill for such a stale claim that dates back at least to the 1970's (if you believe the Government) or perhaps far earlier (if you believe Sotheby's).
Unfortunately, Sotheby's brief is not available on-line unless one has a "Pacer" account with the U.S. Court System. However, "Cultural Heritage Lawyer" and former SAFE VP Rick St. Hilaire has provided us with his own analysis. Though St. Hilaire is also associated with the archaeological community, his summary does appear to convey most of Sotheby's arguments accurately.
It will be interesting to read the Government's response. But why has the U.S. Government taken sides at all? Cambodia has plenty of friends in the archaeological community, including more than a few lawyers. They should be pursuing any claims Cambodia may have rather than making the U.S. taxpayer foot the bill for such a stale claim that dates back at least to the 1970's (if you believe the Government) or perhaps far earlier (if you believe Sotheby's).
An Enforcement Perspective: Nothing to Fear?
It's worth reading what James McAndrew, a former CBP official said at the recent Asia Society and ACCP event in New York.
James McAndrew: My fans are here! This is great! We are out of order, which is fine for me. Thank you very much I find this very interesting.
Let me talk about my role and background. It is important while we're here, and to share with you my observation quickly about even what I hear what's happening to the panel. It resembles what the discussions are in the trade privately.
One of the terms that you hear come up over and over again is 'fear.' We're supposed to espouse the fear to you, whether you're a private collector or a public institution.
I hear the discussion about how the United States should help out other countries more. I spent many years with the Department of State Audit Task Force. I know the Cultural Heritage Center does go to other countries and try to work with them on issues of looting and protection of archeological sites and implementing certain processes to register and identify what's within their borders. The issue of modern day borders versus cultural borders is not a negative.
What I want to share with you is not to be fearful. US law is very specific on how it can go about, from a law enforcement perspective, taking enforcement action on an object. That specificity is driven by what information is given to them by the source requesting/claiming country. When I was the agent in charge and the requesting country comes to me and says, "I want an auction house to remove all forty lots of my Egyptian artifact," if the claim came from Egypt, I would ask them "What do you have to support that?" More times than not they had little to nothing. On top of that, the object they're asking for might not even have come out of that country.
From an investigative agent's point of view, I didn't care much about the AAMD's 1970 threshold. It's a line. It's nice, it works, it's scholarly, it's a step in the right direction, but from my point of view as an agent, I don't care. I'm focused on this object. Where'd you get it, where'd it come from, what's its history?
We seem to have adopted this mindset that an undocumented object is guilty or illegal, that undocumented means looted. This is not going in the right direction, and it's not the case, as was spoken about in the opening comments. A legitimate fair, commercial, wonderful exchange of culture and objects - the Silk Road for ex ample - has happened for thousands and thousands of years. Somewhere someone drew the line: 1970, the UNESCO convention, countries sign on, and forty years later, this hysteria.
For you the collector the important thing is this: when you import something, the weak point is going to be the point of entry. Whether you acquired an object domestically or at auction, the agent is going to evaluate, with whatever method they have - subpoenas, search warrants, developing sources, interviewing people in the trade - how that piece came into the country. We are a market country. We don't have that 10,000 year-old history. The source countries have the objects. By the time an object winds up here domestically in the United States it has probably passed through a hundred hands and as many countries over the last 10,000 years.
The burden of proof is on the source country to establish how and when that piece left their borders and if that information fits within the timeframe. Not 1970. The ball game has advanced. The government is looking now at when the country established a natural ownership law. 1932, 1934 for Italy. They may say 1906, some countries have 1897. Pick a date. It's not much past the twentieth century. It's up to them. The problem- what's happening with the trade- is this fear factor.
When you import something, it's in the Customs documentation that the Homeland Security agent would love to find that one discrepancy, that one anomaly, that one thing that doesn't exactly match the description of what an import is supposed to say or have. That's the basis of the seizure. If an agent can make that seizure based on a Customs technicality or violation of the regulations, that agent just did a monumental favor to the source country.
What the trade is doing is to try to undervalue. All of a sudden we start thinking too much. We think, "Well, I purchased it for a million dollars. If I value it at $100,000 maybe there will be less scrutiny." Or, "If I order it through an exporter from the source country, maybe that's too easy a line. So let's bring it to London, or Germany or Mexico." When you add those layers, you're asking for trouble.
Because somewhere in there there's going to be a technical Customs problem, and there can be a seizure. Now the burden is on you to explain why you made this technical problem, and you're fighting from the back going forward.
If you document your imports properly, exactly as it should be, you should have nothing to worry about. You leave the burden where it belongs. The CPIA [Cultural Property Implementation Act] is very clear: before a country can get a bilateral agreement to restrict your imports, before the US government sits down, they need to be working within their borders first.
US agencies receive requests from foreign governments. How big is that? Not requests from your competitor next door - you get a massive request on fancy letterhead from the Supreme Council of Antiquities from Iraq or Egypt or Thailand - you pick it - of course you have to react. You don't have much of a choice. I'm out of time. I have a lot to say. Look me up later.
Chiu: Thank you, Jim. Some practical comments and guidelines for collectors today.
Comment: Former Agent McAndrew won an award from SAFE for his aggressive enforcement efforts. In my opinion, sometimes these efforts went well beyond what the law allows. For example, customs sources have indicated that under his watch, Customs typically demanded that imports of artifacts designated for restriction under the CPIA be accompanied not only by the certifications required by the CPIA, but also by a picture from an auction catalogue proving that the artifact was out of the country for which restrictions were granted before the date of the restrictions. Obviously, this makes it impossible to import many minor objects like coins even with the statutory certifications, because only a small number of such artifacts are significant enough to be pictured in auction catalogues. For example, perhaps only one of every 10,000 coins that appears on the Cypirot, Greek, and Italian designated lists is actually pictured in an auction catalogue. For Chinese coins, I would estimate the number as perhaps literally one in a million.
Former Agent McAndrew's words also underscore the fact how faulty paperwork can lead to an item being seized. Thus, sometimes even innocent mistakes can have serious consequences. Finally, it is troubling that the US is enforcing foreign cultural patrimony laws under our own law, no matter the date and no matter the circumstances. For example, such foreign laws typically apply to artifacts found on private land when the US Constitution would preclude the US Government from taking such artifacts in similar circumstances without fair compensation.
For more on the ACCP, see http://www.theaccp.us/
For a video and a copy of the transcript of this event, see http://www.theaccp.us/events.html
James McAndrew: My fans are here! This is great! We are out of order, which is fine for me. Thank you very much I find this very interesting.
Let me talk about my role and background. It is important while we're here, and to share with you my observation quickly about even what I hear what's happening to the panel. It resembles what the discussions are in the trade privately.
One of the terms that you hear come up over and over again is 'fear.' We're supposed to espouse the fear to you, whether you're a private collector or a public institution.
I hear the discussion about how the United States should help out other countries more. I spent many years with the Department of State Audit Task Force. I know the Cultural Heritage Center does go to other countries and try to work with them on issues of looting and protection of archeological sites and implementing certain processes to register and identify what's within their borders. The issue of modern day borders versus cultural borders is not a negative.
What I want to share with you is not to be fearful. US law is very specific on how it can go about, from a law enforcement perspective, taking enforcement action on an object. That specificity is driven by what information is given to them by the source requesting/claiming country. When I was the agent in charge and the requesting country comes to me and says, "I want an auction house to remove all forty lots of my Egyptian artifact," if the claim came from Egypt, I would ask them "What do you have to support that?" More times than not they had little to nothing. On top of that, the object they're asking for might not even have come out of that country.
From an investigative agent's point of view, I didn't care much about the AAMD's 1970 threshold. It's a line. It's nice, it works, it's scholarly, it's a step in the right direction, but from my point of view as an agent, I don't care. I'm focused on this object. Where'd you get it, where'd it come from, what's its history?
We seem to have adopted this mindset that an undocumented object is guilty or illegal, that undocumented means looted. This is not going in the right direction, and it's not the case, as was spoken about in the opening comments. A legitimate fair, commercial, wonderful exchange of culture and objects - the Silk Road for ex ample - has happened for thousands and thousands of years. Somewhere someone drew the line: 1970, the UNESCO convention, countries sign on, and forty years later, this hysteria.
For you the collector the important thing is this: when you import something, the weak point is going to be the point of entry. Whether you acquired an object domestically or at auction, the agent is going to evaluate, with whatever method they have - subpoenas, search warrants, developing sources, interviewing people in the trade - how that piece came into the country. We are a market country. We don't have that 10,000 year-old history. The source countries have the objects. By the time an object winds up here domestically in the United States it has probably passed through a hundred hands and as many countries over the last 10,000 years.
The burden of proof is on the source country to establish how and when that piece left their borders and if that information fits within the timeframe. Not 1970. The ball game has advanced. The government is looking now at when the country established a natural ownership law. 1932, 1934 for Italy. They may say 1906, some countries have 1897. Pick a date. It's not much past the twentieth century. It's up to them. The problem- what's happening with the trade- is this fear factor.
When you import something, it's in the Customs documentation that the Homeland Security agent would love to find that one discrepancy, that one anomaly, that one thing that doesn't exactly match the description of what an import is supposed to say or have. That's the basis of the seizure. If an agent can make that seizure based on a Customs technicality or violation of the regulations, that agent just did a monumental favor to the source country.
What the trade is doing is to try to undervalue. All of a sudden we start thinking too much. We think, "Well, I purchased it for a million dollars. If I value it at $100,000 maybe there will be less scrutiny." Or, "If I order it through an exporter from the source country, maybe that's too easy a line. So let's bring it to London, or Germany or Mexico." When you add those layers, you're asking for trouble.
Because somewhere in there there's going to be a technical Customs problem, and there can be a seizure. Now the burden is on you to explain why you made this technical problem, and you're fighting from the back going forward.
If you document your imports properly, exactly as it should be, you should have nothing to worry about. You leave the burden where it belongs. The CPIA [Cultural Property Implementation Act] is very clear: before a country can get a bilateral agreement to restrict your imports, before the US government sits down, they need to be working within their borders first.
US agencies receive requests from foreign governments. How big is that? Not requests from your competitor next door - you get a massive request on fancy letterhead from the Supreme Council of Antiquities from Iraq or Egypt or Thailand - you pick it - of course you have to react. You don't have much of a choice. I'm out of time. I have a lot to say. Look me up later.
Chiu: Thank you, Jim. Some practical comments and guidelines for collectors today.
Comment: Former Agent McAndrew won an award from SAFE for his aggressive enforcement efforts. In my opinion, sometimes these efforts went well beyond what the law allows. For example, customs sources have indicated that under his watch, Customs typically demanded that imports of artifacts designated for restriction under the CPIA be accompanied not only by the certifications required by the CPIA, but also by a picture from an auction catalogue proving that the artifact was out of the country for which restrictions were granted before the date of the restrictions. Obviously, this makes it impossible to import many minor objects like coins even with the statutory certifications, because only a small number of such artifacts are significant enough to be pictured in auction catalogues. For example, perhaps only one of every 10,000 coins that appears on the Cypirot, Greek, and Italian designated lists is actually pictured in an auction catalogue. For Chinese coins, I would estimate the number as perhaps literally one in a million.
Former Agent McAndrew's words also underscore the fact how faulty paperwork can lead to an item being seized. Thus, sometimes even innocent mistakes can have serious consequences. Finally, it is troubling that the US is enforcing foreign cultural patrimony laws under our own law, no matter the date and no matter the circumstances. For example, such foreign laws typically apply to artifacts found on private land when the US Constitution would preclude the US Government from taking such artifacts in similar circumstances without fair compensation.
For more on the ACCP, see http://www.theaccp.us/
For a video and a copy of the transcript of this event, see http://www.theaccp.us/events.html
Labels:
CPIA,
Import Restrictions,
SAFE,
State Department,
stolen antiquities,
US Customs
Division in Archaeological Community Over Immunity Bill
Rick St. Hilaire, former SAFE VP and current Lawyers� Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation Board Member, has departed from his fellows to support S. 2212, a bill meant to immunize art coming into the United States for museum exhibitions. See http://culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com/2012/04/foreign-cultural-exchange.html. I have critiqued the position of SAFE and the Lawyers� Committee here. See http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2012/04/lobbying-effort-against-immunity-bill.html
Lobbying Effort Against Immunity Bill Raises Questions About Funding and Consistency with Prior Stances
The Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation and Saving Antiquities for Everyone have joined in the effort to scuttle S.2212, legislation aimed to immunize art brought into the United States for museum exhibitions. See http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org/S2212 and http://www.savingantiquities.org/say-no-to-senate-bill-2212/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=say-no-to-senate-bill-2212
This lobbying campaign raises questions about the funding of both organizations.
It appears law firms that have made considerable money from repatriating art and artifacts are funders of both organizations.
If both groups are going to lobby against S.2212, they should be more transparent about their funding sources.
Meanwhile, other voices that have been generally supportive of repatriation efforts have raised serious questions about the consistency of these groups' opposition to S.2212 compared to their prior stances before CPAC. See http://illicit-cultural-property.blogspot.com/2012/04/immunity-from-seizure-act-and-proposed.html
To that, I would add that these groups were also previously opposed to an effort to seize Iranian artifacts at the Oriental Institute to satisfy a judgment awarded to victims of terrorists with ties to to the Iranian government. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/21/MNSH160AQH.DTL&ao=all
Both groups should explain their positions better in light of their prior stances and provide more information about their funding sources.
This lobbying campaign raises questions about the funding of both organizations.
It appears law firms that have made considerable money from repatriating art and artifacts are funders of both organizations.
If both groups are going to lobby against S.2212, they should be more transparent about their funding sources.
Meanwhile, other voices that have been generally supportive of repatriation efforts have raised serious questions about the consistency of these groups' opposition to S.2212 compared to their prior stances before CPAC. See http://illicit-cultural-property.blogspot.com/2012/04/immunity-from-seizure-act-and-proposed.html
To that, I would add that these groups were also previously opposed to an effort to seize Iranian artifacts at the Oriental Institute to satisfy a judgment awarded to victims of terrorists with ties to to the Iranian government. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/21/MNSH160AQH.DTL&ao=all
Both groups should explain their positions better in light of their prior stances and provide more information about their funding sources.
SAFE Summary of Hearing in Khmer Statue Case
Despite the predictable editorial spin, this summary from the SAFE website about the initial hearing in the forfeiture case against the Sotheby's Khmer statue is worth reading:
http://www.savingantiquities.org/federal-court-judge-rules-that-10th-c-khmer-statue-remains-at-sothebys-for-now/
http://www.savingantiquities.org/federal-court-judge-rules-that-10th-c-khmer-statue-remains-at-sothebys-for-now/
Seat Brent Benjamin on CPAC
A US District Court's decision to throw out the Government's claim against the Lady Ka-nefer-nefer Mask should also revive Brent Benjamin's appointment to CPAC to represent the interests of the Museum Community.
President Bush appointed Benjamin to the post, but the State Department never seated him, presumably because of Zahi Hawass' campaign to vilify Benjamin, a cause taken up by SAFE and other archaeological groups. See http://www.savingantiquities.org/brent-benjamin-to-join-cpac-an-outrageous-appointment/
Now that the Government's claim has been dismissed and Zahi Hawass has been disgraced, it's time for the State Department to follow the law and seat Mr. Benjamin, who after all was legally appointed by President Bush to the post.
President Bush appointed Benjamin to the post, but the State Department never seated him, presumably because of Zahi Hawass' campaign to vilify Benjamin, a cause taken up by SAFE and other archaeological groups. See http://www.savingantiquities.org/brent-benjamin-to-join-cpac-an-outrageous-appointment/
Now that the Government's claim has been dismissed and Zahi Hawass has been disgraced, it's time for the State Department to follow the law and seat Mr. Benjamin, who after all was legally appointed by President Bush to the post.
SAFE: Keeping its Own Secrets Safe?
Saving Antiquities for Everyone (SAFE) has relaunched its website: http://www.savingantiquities.org/
But the snazzy graphics can't hide the fact that the website tells little about who really runs the operation or how it is financed.
There is a ghostly drop down menu under "about us," but it is difficult to access.
After a few tries, I was able to access this page entitled, "Who is Safe?"
http://www.savingantiquities.org/about/who/
And though they state,
"We do not represent or advocate for any particular profession, or academic discipline. We call for open discussions that examine practices and behavior that destroy cultural heritage. We have no �special interest� at stake except for the future of our past."
I beg to differ based on their advocacy program which seems to mark SAFE as merely an adjunct of the AIA.
And who exactly funds SAFE?
Is it solely funded on small donations of individuals, or are there any direct or indirect governmental funders?
An organization that regularly demands transparency from private collectors and dealers should do a better job of providing some basic information about itself.
But the snazzy graphics can't hide the fact that the website tells little about who really runs the operation or how it is financed.
There is a ghostly drop down menu under "about us," but it is difficult to access.
After a few tries, I was able to access this page entitled, "Who is Safe?"
http://www.savingantiquities.org/about/who/
And though they state,
"We do not represent or advocate for any particular profession, or academic discipline. We call for open discussions that examine practices and behavior that destroy cultural heritage. We have no �special interest� at stake except for the future of our past."
I beg to differ based on their advocacy program which seems to mark SAFE as merely an adjunct of the AIA.
And who exactly funds SAFE?
Is it solely funded on small donations of individuals, or are there any direct or indirect governmental funders?
An organization that regularly demands transparency from private collectors and dealers should do a better job of providing some basic information about itself.
Half-Truths from a Self-Styled "Cultural Heritage Lawyer?"
Self-styled "Cultural Heritage Lawyer" and past SAFE VP/ New Hampshire Prosecutor Rick St. Hilaire thinks that more people should go to jail for "crimes against cultural property." As evidence, St. Hilaire notes that while CBP reports some 2,500 artifacts have been seized and returned to their supposed countries of origin, actual criminal prosecutions are few. See http://culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com/2012/03/seize-and-send-v-investigate-and-indict.html
Yet, St. Hilaire is wrong to assume that any artifact seized by Customs "must be looted." Instead, as I noted in a comment to his blog that he has so far refused to publish:
You might also note that much, if not most, of the material seized and returned is abandoned by the importer. You assume it is because it is looted; in actuality it may very well be because the litigation costs of fighting CBP greatly exceed the value of the artifact. As for the lack of prosecutions, that likely has to do with the fact that the Government cannot show criminal intent. Thankfully, that is still required despite efforts of archaeological fanatics to diminish this bedrock protection of American law.
And if anything, three knowledgeable practitioners confirmed at a DC Bar program I just attended, entitled "What Every Lawyer Needs to Know About Customs and Customs Law 2012," that CBP's modus operandi is all too often to seize all sorts of things for the slimmest of reasons (mostly for supposed "trade mark" or drug importation violations), confident in the knowledge that it is often not worth the trouble to fight to get them back.
This is a national disgrace that has much to do with CBP's change in focus from a "revenue collecting agency" under Treasury to a "national security agency" under Homeland Security. As such, statistics on repatriations are nothing CBP should be bragging about, let alone being used to support a claim that more criminal prosecutions are warranted.
Yet, St. Hilaire is wrong to assume that any artifact seized by Customs "must be looted." Instead, as I noted in a comment to his blog that he has so far refused to publish:
You might also note that much, if not most, of the material seized and returned is abandoned by the importer. You assume it is because it is looted; in actuality it may very well be because the litigation costs of fighting CBP greatly exceed the value of the artifact. As for the lack of prosecutions, that likely has to do with the fact that the Government cannot show criminal intent. Thankfully, that is still required despite efforts of archaeological fanatics to diminish this bedrock protection of American law.
And if anything, three knowledgeable practitioners confirmed at a DC Bar program I just attended, entitled "What Every Lawyer Needs to Know About Customs and Customs Law 2012," that CBP's modus operandi is all too often to seize all sorts of things for the slimmest of reasons (mostly for supposed "trade mark" or drug importation violations), confident in the knowledge that it is often not worth the trouble to fight to get them back.
This is a national disgrace that has much to do with CBP's change in focus from a "revenue collecting agency" under Treasury to a "national security agency" under Homeland Security. As such, statistics on repatriations are nothing CBP should be bragging about, let alone being used to support a claim that more criminal prosecutions are warranted.
Addendum (3-9-12): Apparently Mr. St. Hilaire is so threatened by alternate views that he has now disabled comments to his blog. He has also deleted an automatic link to this blog, but has retained a link that of fellow archaeo-blogger Paul Barford's work. Talk about half-truths! This is a major problem with the approach of the archaeological community and their supporters to this discussion. All too often they consider their own "archaeology over all" world view as the only legitimate one and seek to suppress the views of others, particularly those representing so-called "commercial interests." But isn't this just archaeological snobbery?
SAFE: Say Yes to the Corrupt Bulgarian Status Quo?
Saving Antiquities for Everyone (SAFE) has started yet another "Say Yes" advocacy campaign in support of import restrictions, this time on behalf of Bulgaria. http://www.savingantiquities.org/Bulgariamou.php
But, what will SAFE's campaign (and that of the AIA) for "no questions asked" import restrictions really do for Bulgaria and the protection of its cultural patrimony, but help support the corrupt status quo?
Though SAFE's advocacy document has plenty of links detailing individual stories about looting of archaeological sites, SAFE's advocacy fails to mention a sobering report about the state of Bulgaria�s cultural policy prepared by the Center for the Study of Democracy. See The Antiquities Trade-Dealers, Traffickers, and Connoisseurs, in Organized Crime in Bulgaria: Markets and Trends 178-197 (Center for Study of Democracy 2007) (�CSD Report�) (available at:http://www.csd.bg/artShow.php?id=9120(last checked, 10/19/11).
This report, prepared with funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, appears to largely reflect the views of government cultural officials and archaeologists. Nevertheless, the report contains some eye-opening facts that should give pause to anyone who might assume all is well with how Bulgaria manages its own cultural patrimony:
� From 100,000 to 250,000 Bulgarians regularly conduct illicit excavations. (Id. at 179.)
� �Most Bulgarian museums have poor recording practices of the artifacts in stock. The general lack of accountability, in particular of museum directors, further aggravates the situation�. The majority of museums do not observe the international standard for describing art, antiques and antiquities with photographs and descriptions of each object (the so called Object ID). In Bulgarian museums objects are often loosely described in general terms, which makes it impossible for them to be tracked, positively identified and restored. The dire state of museum documentation dooms to failure any efforts to trace stolen coins or other items transferred abroad.� (Id. at 183.)
� �To make their anti-looting and anti-trafficking efforts seem more effective enforcement agencies announce lavish values of the illicitly acquired cultural objects they capture.� (Id.)
� �During interviews, carried out for purposes of this paper, it was made clear that the prescribed system of registration [of coins in private collections] by commissions made up of local museum employees was not found trustworthy, as it did not provide safeguards against the theft of valuable coins which could be replaced with cheaper lower grade versions by museum workers.� (Id. at 193.)
� �Some collectors have voiced their suspicions that past burglaries of private coin collections have been committed with the involvement of corrupt police officers or other enforcement officials.� (Id. at 193 n. 312.)
� �Inertia and neglect are not the only factors to throttle effective enforcement. Widespread corruption among local middle-ranking law-enforcement officers who earn personal gains on the black cultural property market also has an adverse effect. Experts have outlined three major forms of corrupt relationships between police officers and antique dealers/looters: 1) policemen are bribed to cover looters and deter police investigation; 2) officers of higher rank become directly involved in illicit antiquities trading, and 3) officers that must prevent and fight cultural property violations become collectors. In addition, the grading of cultural objects held by looters, dealers or collectors is itself often done by would-be experts whose only training is a two-week course delivered by the Privatization Agency on a regular basis that can hardly have equipped them with the knowledge they need to possess about cultural goods. Despite their determination to get looters or persons in illicit hold of antiquities convicted, law-enforcement and investigative bodies are often hampered by either incompetent or intentionally falsified expert assessments presented at the trial phase.� (Id. at 194.)
� �In 2003, the head of Cultural Property Department at the National Police Col. Georgi Getov was discharged. According to media reports he had operated one of the main antiquity smuggling channels in Bulgaria in partnership with a number of prosecutors, NSCOC officers, local archaeological museum directors and other officials who had served as a supply link between looters and the implicated department head. Maritsa Dnes daily, 7 May 2003.� (Id. at 194 n. 316.)
The report goes on to make detailed suggestions on how to address the problem of looting in Bulgaria, including the regulation of metal detectors and the passage of a cultural heritage law that takes into account the concerns of collectors as well as archaeologists.
The report is relevant because Bulgaria is expected to take self-help measures before import restrictions are imposed. In addition, less severe remedies must be considered before the State Department again limits the ability of Americans to import artifacts. (26 USC Section 2602 (a) (1) (B) and (C)(ii).)
Under the circumstances, the US could best help Bulgaria by tabling any talk of import restrictions to allow Bulgaria time to act on the CSD report's recommendations. Though any looting of Bulgarian archaeological sites is regrettable, it is best addressed in Bulgaria itself through the regulation of metal detectors and serious consideration of CSD's other suggestions before import restrictions are imposed.
But, what will SAFE's campaign (and that of the AIA) for "no questions asked" import restrictions really do for Bulgaria and the protection of its cultural patrimony, but help support the corrupt status quo?
Though SAFE's advocacy document has plenty of links detailing individual stories about looting of archaeological sites, SAFE's advocacy fails to mention a sobering report about the state of Bulgaria�s cultural policy prepared by the Center for the Study of Democracy. See The Antiquities Trade-Dealers, Traffickers, and Connoisseurs, in Organized Crime in Bulgaria: Markets and Trends 178-197 (Center for Study of Democracy 2007) (�CSD Report�) (available at:http://www.csd.bg/artShow.php?id=9120(last checked, 10/19/11).
This report, prepared with funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, appears to largely reflect the views of government cultural officials and archaeologists. Nevertheless, the report contains some eye-opening facts that should give pause to anyone who might assume all is well with how Bulgaria manages its own cultural patrimony:
� From 100,000 to 250,000 Bulgarians regularly conduct illicit excavations. (Id. at 179.)
� �Most Bulgarian museums have poor recording practices of the artifacts in stock. The general lack of accountability, in particular of museum directors, further aggravates the situation�. The majority of museums do not observe the international standard for describing art, antiques and antiquities with photographs and descriptions of each object (the so called Object ID). In Bulgarian museums objects are often loosely described in general terms, which makes it impossible for them to be tracked, positively identified and restored. The dire state of museum documentation dooms to failure any efforts to trace stolen coins or other items transferred abroad.� (Id. at 183.)
� �To make their anti-looting and anti-trafficking efforts seem more effective enforcement agencies announce lavish values of the illicitly acquired cultural objects they capture.� (Id.)
� �During interviews, carried out for purposes of this paper, it was made clear that the prescribed system of registration [of coins in private collections] by commissions made up of local museum employees was not found trustworthy, as it did not provide safeguards against the theft of valuable coins which could be replaced with cheaper lower grade versions by museum workers.� (Id. at 193.)
� �Some collectors have voiced their suspicions that past burglaries of private coin collections have been committed with the involvement of corrupt police officers or other enforcement officials.� (Id. at 193 n. 312.)
� �Inertia and neglect are not the only factors to throttle effective enforcement. Widespread corruption among local middle-ranking law-enforcement officers who earn personal gains on the black cultural property market also has an adverse effect. Experts have outlined three major forms of corrupt relationships between police officers and antique dealers/looters: 1) policemen are bribed to cover looters and deter police investigation; 2) officers of higher rank become directly involved in illicit antiquities trading, and 3) officers that must prevent and fight cultural property violations become collectors. In addition, the grading of cultural objects held by looters, dealers or collectors is itself often done by would-be experts whose only training is a two-week course delivered by the Privatization Agency on a regular basis that can hardly have equipped them with the knowledge they need to possess about cultural goods. Despite their determination to get looters or persons in illicit hold of antiquities convicted, law-enforcement and investigative bodies are often hampered by either incompetent or intentionally falsified expert assessments presented at the trial phase.� (Id. at 194.)
� �In 2003, the head of Cultural Property Department at the National Police Col. Georgi Getov was discharged. According to media reports he had operated one of the main antiquity smuggling channels in Bulgaria in partnership with a number of prosecutors, NSCOC officers, local archaeological museum directors and other officials who had served as a supply link between looters and the implicated department head. Maritsa Dnes daily, 7 May 2003.� (Id. at 194 n. 316.)
The report goes on to make detailed suggestions on how to address the problem of looting in Bulgaria, including the regulation of metal detectors and the passage of a cultural heritage law that takes into account the concerns of collectors as well as archaeologists.
The report is relevant because Bulgaria is expected to take self-help measures before import restrictions are imposed. In addition, less severe remedies must be considered before the State Department again limits the ability of Americans to import artifacts. (26 USC Section 2602 (a) (1) (B) and (C)(ii).)
Under the circumstances, the US could best help Bulgaria by tabling any talk of import restrictions to allow Bulgaria time to act on the CSD report's recommendations. Though any looting of Bulgarian archaeological sites is regrettable, it is best addressed in Bulgaria itself through the regulation of metal detectors and serious consideration of CSD's other suggestions before import restrictions are imposed.
Journalistic Detachment?
Reporters Jason Felch and Ralph Frammolino have received accolades for their LA Times coverage of the Getty and their new book, Chasing Aphrodite. Anyone under the illusion that they may be detached journalists, however, should read about their SAFE Beacon award and review their Chasing Aphrodite Blog. See http://www.savingantiquities.org/event.php?eventID=257 and http://chasingaphrodite.com/
Messrs. Felch and Frammolino are certainly entitled to their moralistic views, but one can also wonder where their journalism ends and their advocacy begins.
Messrs. Felch and Frammolino are certainly entitled to their moralistic views, but one can also wonder where their journalism ends and their advocacy begins.
Labels:
Italy,
Museums,
Repatriation,
SAFE,
Saving Antiquities for Everyone
Egyptian Archaeological Objects Like Cocaine?
As hard as it might be to believe, the US Government has apparently claimed so in a court filing relating to the pending forfeiture action against the SLAM Mummy Mask.
According to a blog by an attorney who previously served as SAFE's Vice President,
Federal attorneys, in their July 27 pleading, contend that SLAM�s �claim of ownership is legally impossible, and as such the Mask is effectively contraband in the hands of the Museum.� The government argues that Egypt�s patrimony law, which gives ownership rights of cultural property to the Egyptians, makes it impossible for the SLAM to own the mummy mask. Therefore, SLAM has no legal standing to assert that it can own the mask.
The government�s brief analogizes SLAM�s claim to the mask as similar to asserting ownership over cocaine�one cannot legally claim ownership. Since the mask cannot be owned by the museum, the museum lacks standing to claim ownership, the government argues.
SLAM says that it has standing to be a legal party in the case because it bought the mask and it possesses it.
http://culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com/2011/07/us-claims-slam-lacks-legal.html?spref=fb
Hopefully, the Government is basing its contention on more than the fact that Egypt has had at some point (1983 was the date adopted by the Court in the Schultz case) a patrimony law that vests unequivocal state ownership of Egyptian artifacts found in the ground of that country and that the artifact is indeed "Egyptian."
But, if not, what exactly is the status of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of other Egyptian antiquities, significant or not, floating around the United States, according to the USDOJ?
And, if this is indeed what the Government attorneys are contending, why are US government officials seemingly advancing some of the wildest claims of Egyptian cultural property nationalists like the now disgraced former Antiquities Minister Zahi Hawass?
Have senior US Government officials cleared such arguments to be made? And, if so, do they truly understand the implications of such claims?
As far as I know, there is no US law on the books that bans the possession of Egyptian artifacts as is the case with cocaine.
According to a blog by an attorney who previously served as SAFE's Vice President,
Federal attorneys, in their July 27 pleading, contend that SLAM�s �claim of ownership is legally impossible, and as such the Mask is effectively contraband in the hands of the Museum.� The government argues that Egypt�s patrimony law, which gives ownership rights of cultural property to the Egyptians, makes it impossible for the SLAM to own the mummy mask. Therefore, SLAM has no legal standing to assert that it can own the mask.
The government�s brief analogizes SLAM�s claim to the mask as similar to asserting ownership over cocaine�one cannot legally claim ownership. Since the mask cannot be owned by the museum, the museum lacks standing to claim ownership, the government argues.
SLAM says that it has standing to be a legal party in the case because it bought the mask and it possesses it.
http://culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com/2011/07/us-claims-slam-lacks-legal.html?spref=fb
Hopefully, the Government is basing its contention on more than the fact that Egypt has had at some point (1983 was the date adopted by the Court in the Schultz case) a patrimony law that vests unequivocal state ownership of Egyptian artifacts found in the ground of that country and that the artifact is indeed "Egyptian."
But, if not, what exactly is the status of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of other Egyptian antiquities, significant or not, floating around the United States, according to the USDOJ?
And, if this is indeed what the Government attorneys are contending, why are US government officials seemingly advancing some of the wildest claims of Egyptian cultural property nationalists like the now disgraced former Antiquities Minister Zahi Hawass?
Have senior US Government officials cleared such arguments to be made? And, if so, do they truly understand the implications of such claims?
As far as I know, there is no US law on the books that bans the possession of Egyptian artifacts as is the case with cocaine.
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
Labels:
China,
China MOU,
Chinese artifacts,
Chinese law,
hypocrisy,
Repatriation,
SAFE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)