Showing posts with label Turkey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Turkey. Show all posts
Turkish Nationalism on Display
Nationalism is not all bad, but Turkish nationalism seems to have taken an extreme turn in the prosecution of an American who picked up some old stones on a beach and in protests regarding the sale of modern art. How many Turks pick up such items without fear of prosecution? And would the sale of modern art be as controversial if the sale could not be linked to American interests? Those who support Turkey's nationalistic demands for control of ancient art (much of which was created by Greeks) should take note of this slippery slope.
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.
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.
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?
A Turkish Scholar's Critique of Turkey's Hardball Tactics
A renowned Turkish historian, Dr Edhem Eldem, has critiqued Turkey's recent nationalistic hardball tactics here. Will any American archaeologists be brave enough to speak up? And what of the archaeological blogosphere?
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?
Cultural Nationalism Bites German Archaeologists
American archaeologists have been generally supportive of the repatriation efforts of countries like Egypt, Turkey, Greece and Italy. Although they may claim that they are disinterested experts that only support repatriation for moral reasons, the fact is their careers may very well depend on excavation permits issued by the cultural bureaucracies of these same countries.
But now the same cultural nationalism that has motivated Turkey's recent repatriation claims appears to have led the Turkish cultural bureaucracy to force German archaeologists out from excavations at Troy. See http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/german-team-leaves-ancient-site.aspx?pageID=238&nID=21959&NewsCatID=375 Although the above article points to "financial problems" as the reason German archaeologists are leaving the site, it also suggests that Turkey ultimately wants to replace German archaeologists with Turkish ones. Moreover, other sources suggest that move is part of a larger dispute between German state museums and Turkey over repatriation demands for artifacts in their collections. See http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20110224-33323.html
Indeed, as quoted in the above article, a Turkish minister has stated quite bluntly, "Turkey has new universities, new archaeological institutes, not to mention engaged and successful archaeologists....When we don't see the cooperation we hope for in this area, then we won't hesitate to transfer digs to our own universities."
For now, American archaeologists' careers at Troy and other Turkish sites appear safe. But one can only imagine that Turkish authorities expect unqualified support from American archaeologists for their recent repatriation claims against US Museums. See http://chasingaphrodite.com/2012/03/30/scoop-turkey-asks-getty-met-cleveland-and-dumbarton-oaks-to-return-dozens-of-antiquities/
And what of the 1970 UNESCO benchmark that the AIA hoodwinked American museums into accepting in order to buy peace? That "safe harbor" has evidently suddenly become all but forgotten given what one reads about Turkey's claims in the archaeological blogosphere.
But now the same cultural nationalism that has motivated Turkey's recent repatriation claims appears to have led the Turkish cultural bureaucracy to force German archaeologists out from excavations at Troy. See http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/german-team-leaves-ancient-site.aspx?pageID=238&nID=21959&NewsCatID=375 Although the above article points to "financial problems" as the reason German archaeologists are leaving the site, it also suggests that Turkey ultimately wants to replace German archaeologists with Turkish ones. Moreover, other sources suggest that move is part of a larger dispute between German state museums and Turkey over repatriation demands for artifacts in their collections. See http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20110224-33323.html
Indeed, as quoted in the above article, a Turkish minister has stated quite bluntly, "Turkey has new universities, new archaeological institutes, not to mention engaged and successful archaeologists....When we don't see the cooperation we hope for in this area, then we won't hesitate to transfer digs to our own universities."
For now, American archaeologists' careers at Troy and other Turkish sites appear safe. But one can only imagine that Turkish authorities expect unqualified support from American archaeologists for their recent repatriation claims against US Museums. See http://chasingaphrodite.com/2012/03/30/scoop-turkey-asks-getty-met-cleveland-and-dumbarton-oaks-to-return-dozens-of-antiquities/
And what of the 1970 UNESCO benchmark that the AIA hoodwinked American museums into accepting in order to buy peace? That "safe harbor" has evidently suddenly become all but forgotten given what one reads about Turkey's claims in the archaeological blogosphere.
Labels:
AIA,
Archaeologists,
bureacracy,
Museums,
Repatriation,
Turkey,
UNESCO
The Economist Takes On Turkey's Repatriation Drive
The Economist Magazine has critiqued Turkey�s new repatriation drive here: http://www.economist.com/node/21555531
The Economist points out Turkey�s nationalist stance is popular at home, but that it is hypocritical in the extreme. Turkey itself was an Imperial power and its museums --like those of other Imperial powers-- also contain artifacts taken from what today are other countries.
The Economist could have gone further. Isn't it also wrong for Turkey to lay claim to cultural artifacts produced by Greek culture when Turkey itself forcibly deported its Greek citizens in the 1920�s?
The Economist points out Turkey�s nationalist stance is popular at home, but that it is hypocritical in the extreme. Turkey itself was an Imperial power and its museums --like those of other Imperial powers-- also contain artifacts taken from what today are other countries.
The Economist could have gone further. Isn't it also wrong for Turkey to lay claim to cultural artifacts produced by Greek culture when Turkey itself forcibly deported its Greek citizens in the 1920�s?
Ponder the Fate of Zeugma
Before the Trustees of Bowling Green State University seriously consider calls to send mosaics installed in their new arts center to Turkey because some academic claims they might have come from Zeugma, a Turkish site, they should ponder the fate that city-- sunk beneath waters created by a Turkish Government hydroelectric dam.
The Trustees should also consider that the AIA and other archaeological groups that support repatriation -- and which are so quick to jump on collectors, museums, and dealers at the mere whiff of looted art-- instead turn into pussycats when it comes to the decisions of foreign governments to sacrifice whole sites to dams and the like. Indeed, instead of outrage for inundating Zeugma and many of its magnificent artifacts -- these groups only offered the Turkish Government their thanks for allowing "rescue excavations" that, of course, were largely funded not by the Turkish Government itself, but by an American Foundation. See http://www.archaeology.org/0009/etc/turkey.html Could this be because American archaeologists are beholden to the Turkish cultural bureacracy for excavation permits?
It's not all that surprising that the Turkish Government wants to downplay its own calculated destruction of Turkey's archaeological past. Yet, why should the Trustees of Bowling Green State University ignore Turkey's unclean hands as they consider any repatriation request?
The Trustees should also consider that the AIA and other archaeological groups that support repatriation -- and which are so quick to jump on collectors, museums, and dealers at the mere whiff of looted art-- instead turn into pussycats when it comes to the decisions of foreign governments to sacrifice whole sites to dams and the like. Indeed, instead of outrage for inundating Zeugma and many of its magnificent artifacts -- these groups only offered the Turkish Government their thanks for allowing "rescue excavations" that, of course, were largely funded not by the Turkish Government itself, but by an American Foundation. See http://www.archaeology.org/0009/etc/turkey.html Could this be because American archaeologists are beholden to the Turkish cultural bureacracy for excavation permits?
It's not all that surprising that the Turkish Government wants to downplay its own calculated destruction of Turkey's archaeological past. Yet, why should the Trustees of Bowling Green State University ignore Turkey's unclean hands as they consider any repatriation request?
Labels:
AIA,
double standards,
hypocrisy,
poor stewardship,
Repatriation,
Turkey
Should an Ohio University Send Valuable Mosaics Back to Turkey Based on Speculation on their Origins and the Impact of Turkish Law?
I do hope the Trustees at Bowling Green State University in Ohio seek opinions of others than those with a vested interest in repatriating objects before they seriously consider ripping valuable mosaics out of its new Wolfe Center and sending them to an uncertain fate in Turkey. See http://www.cleveland.com/arts/index.ssf/2012/03/turkey_wants_bgsus_ancient_rom.html and http://www.savingantiquities.org/will-new-research-lead-to-repatriation-of-mosaics/
After all, the Trustees have fiduciary duties that require substantial justification before the University despoils its own new art center to feed the cultural nationalist beast.
At a minimum, the Trustees must ask:
Is academic speculation that the objects may have come from Zeugma, a site in Turkey, enough to justify such an irreversible action?
And even if the mosaics did come from Zeugma, how can a 1983 Turkish law be used as a basis to return them when they could not have left Turkey later than the 1960's?
And what moral right does the Turkish Government have to such objects? After all, that same Turkish government sacrificed the entire ancient city of Zeugma itself in a quest for hydroelectric power.
After all, the Trustees have fiduciary duties that require substantial justification before the University despoils its own new art center to feed the cultural nationalist beast.
At a minimum, the Trustees must ask:
Is academic speculation that the objects may have come from Zeugma, a site in Turkey, enough to justify such an irreversible action?
And even if the mosaics did come from Zeugma, how can a 1983 Turkish law be used as a basis to return them when they could not have left Turkey later than the 1960's?
And what moral right does the Turkish Government have to such objects? After all, that same Turkish government sacrificed the entire ancient city of Zeugma itself in a quest for hydroelectric power.
Swank AIA Gala at Odds with Anti-Business, Due Dilligence Rhetoric?
The AIA has announced the success of its Spring Gala on its website. See http://aia.archaeological.org/gala/
But the optics of such a posh event are seemingly at odds with the anti-business rhetoric one sometimes hears from AIA members at hearings of the State Department Cultural Property Advisory Committee.
It's also interesting to note that the AIA auctioned off an antique Turkish kilim during the event. See http://aia.archaeological.org/gala/auction/fethiye-kilim Again, one wonders given all the rhetoric about due dilligence whether the item was imported into the United States consistently with Turkish export controls. See http://www.turkeytravelplanner.com/details/Shopping/AntiquitiesWarning.html
But the optics of such a posh event are seemingly at odds with the anti-business rhetoric one sometimes hears from AIA members at hearings of the State Department Cultural Property Advisory Committee.
It's also interesting to note that the AIA auctioned off an antique Turkish kilim during the event. See http://aia.archaeological.org/gala/auction/fethiye-kilim Again, one wonders given all the rhetoric about due dilligence whether the item was imported into the United States consistently with Turkish export controls. See http://www.turkeytravelplanner.com/details/Shopping/AntiquitiesWarning.html
More Evidence 1970 No Safe Harbor
Turkey's demand that the Met return artifacts from a collection formed as far back as the 1960's again demonstrates that 1970 is no safe harbor for museums as the AIA claimed to induce the AAMD to accept a 1970 provenance rule for new acquistions. See http://chasingaphrodite.com/2012/03/20/exclusive-turkey-seeks-the-return-of-18-objects-from-the-metropolitan-museum-of-art/
Will the AIA support the AAMD or Turkey in this dispute?
Will the AIA support the AAMD or Turkey in this dispute?
Turkey Moves Forward
While Greece is floundering, Turkey is moving forward through a major liberalization of its economy and political life. Now, the Turkish Government also appears to be taking a major step towards rational management of its cultural resources. See http://www.todayszaman.com/news-272221-controversy-over-price-tagging-of--artifacts-continues.html
According to the report,
The changes, which were proposed by the Board of Protection of Cultural and Natural Assets and first announced in the Official Gazette on Jan. 19, dictate that artifacts which are not being used by museums can be valued by a specially formed commission and sold.
Of course, while the Old Guard in the Military has been largely vanquished, the Old Guard in the Turkish Archaeological Establishment fights on:
The head of the Istanbul branch of the Archeological Association, Dr. Necmi Karul, told the Vatan daily in comments published on Feb. 18 that the changes undermine the most basic of archaeological principles, namely that any artifact from any period of history is part of a shared culture and should, thus, remain as such. Karul said the main benefactors of the change in the law will be private collectors who will be able to access valuable items, many of which can still be put to equally good use by being passed on to other museums for display or used in universities or other educational institutes for the purposes of teaching.
Yet, even in good times, there is never enough money to properly preserve, study and display everything. And while passing along artifacts to other institutions may sound reasonable and is probably a good idea for some artifacts, generating funds through sales would likely benefit the cultural establishment as whole much better. Of course, deaccession needs to done with due care, but realistically leaving valuable artifacts in storage is nothing but an invitation to theft or loss due to poor environmental controls.
According to the report,
The changes, which were proposed by the Board of Protection of Cultural and Natural Assets and first announced in the Official Gazette on Jan. 19, dictate that artifacts which are not being used by museums can be valued by a specially formed commission and sold.
Of course, while the Old Guard in the Military has been largely vanquished, the Old Guard in the Turkish Archaeological Establishment fights on:
The head of the Istanbul branch of the Archeological Association, Dr. Necmi Karul, told the Vatan daily in comments published on Feb. 18 that the changes undermine the most basic of archaeological principles, namely that any artifact from any period of history is part of a shared culture and should, thus, remain as such. Karul said the main benefactors of the change in the law will be private collectors who will be able to access valuable items, many of which can still be put to equally good use by being passed on to other museums for display or used in universities or other educational institutes for the purposes of teaching.
Yet, even in good times, there is never enough money to properly preserve, study and display everything. And while passing along artifacts to other institutions may sound reasonable and is probably a good idea for some artifacts, generating funds through sales would likely benefit the cultural establishment as whole much better. Of course, deaccession needs to done with due care, but realistically leaving valuable artifacts in storage is nothing but an invitation to theft or loss due to poor environmental controls.
Another Triumph for the Treasure Act
A British Metal Detectorist has discovered and reported an immensely important hoard of Viking era coins and silver artifacts. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/8955955/Viking-hoard-provides-new-clues-to-previously-unknown-ruler.html and http://finds.org.uk/news
The hoard contains a coin of a previously unknown ruler as well as coins from from far off Germany and the Middle East. More proof that even in the "Dark Ages" coins travelled long distances from their place of manufacture.
Although archaeological cranks may still find reason to criticize the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme and the cooperation if fosters among members of the public, archaeologists, and museum professionals, how many such hoards are voluntarily reported in their preferred models of cultural heritage management such as Greece, Egypt, Turkey, Italy and Cyprus?
The hoard contains a coin of a previously unknown ruler as well as coins from from far off Germany and the Middle East. More proof that even in the "Dark Ages" coins travelled long distances from their place of manufacture.
Although archaeological cranks may still find reason to criticize the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme and the cooperation if fosters among members of the public, archaeologists, and museum professionals, how many such hoards are voluntarily reported in their preferred models of cultural heritage management such as Greece, Egypt, Turkey, Italy and Cyprus?
Labels:
Cyprus,
Greece,
Italy,
pas,
Portable Antiquities Scheme,
Treasure Trove,
Turkey,
United Kingdom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)