Jason Felch for the LA Times has reported on the goverment's now floundering case concerning Ban Chiang pottery that started some five years ago with so much fanfare.
The real problem with this investigation is that it targeted artifacts that were openly available for sale in Thailand. What was hyped as mainly a stolen property case became a far less "sexy" tax and smuggling case. The old bait and switch.
It's high time for the US government to stop being the muscle for US academics with an axe to grind against collectors and foreign cultural bureaucrats. If Thailand is so interested in repatriation of these ceramics, our courts are open to it.
Let Thai officials bring their own case instead of shifting that cost to the US Taxpayer.
Showing posts with label stolen antiquities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stolen antiquities. Show all posts
Court Denies Sotheby's Motion to Dismiss
This is a banner week for the State Department�s Cultural Heritage Center and its "Cultural Antiquities Task Force." First the denial of the ACCG�s petition for cert. Now this decision allowing the government to amend its complaint and denying Sotheby's motion to dismiss the government's claim that a Khmer statue up for auction must be considered "stolen" given Cambodian law.
Will Sotheby's cave or fight on? Stay tuned.
The real concern is that this gives yet more license to the Cultural Heritage Center and its �Cultural Antiquities Task Force� to repatriate artifacts based on unclear and obscure laws of ancient vintage, even where they have only recently been �dug up� so to speak as long as there is some alleged tie-in to a known site.
The subsidiary concern is that the Sotheby�s Court, like the T-Rex Bataar Court, is treating the obligation of a foreign country to actually enforce its laws at home not as an element of the claim up front, but to be raised as a defense to forfeiture after a long slog to trial�something most forfeiture claimants simply can�t afford.
Here is the ruling courtesy of the Chasing Aphrodite blog.
Will Sotheby's cave or fight on? Stay tuned.
Some Thoughts on the Renewal of Cambodian MOU
Cambodia certainly has a far more sympathetic case than many applicants for import restrictions. On the other hand, I�m not sure that the case made to protect sculptural elements from Khmer temples justifies import restrictions on everything and anything old down to the 16th Century, including things like beads and statuettes. I�d also like to know more about collections formed in Cambodia itself, particularly the one evidently put together by a government minister. Does his collection have any statutes or sculptural elements in it? If so, where and when were they collected? It seems wrong to me that U.S. Government has filed suit against Sotheby�s demanding the return of a statute that left Cambodia decades ago if wealthy Cambodians, including at least one government minister, have been allowed to collect such material �no questions asked.�
Theft of Rare Books Comes to Light
Here is more evidence, if any was needed, that Italy should be focusing on protecting its cultural treasures today rather than seeking out every last pottery shard that may have left Italy years ago when sensibilities were different.
Update: More on the story, with these observations:
The director of the Vatican Museums has warned that Italy's cultural heritage is "vanishing" after prosecutors in Naples said two more people had been arrested on suspicion of taking part in a "premeditated, organised and brutal" sacking of the city's 16th century Girolamini library.
Antonio Paolucci said he was "saddened but not surprised" by the devastating losses of the historic institution in Naples, where thousands of rare and antique books were last year found to have disappeared. The alleged plundering, which prosecutors have been investigating for the past nine months, was symptomatic of a country whose rich cultural heritage was at risk from various factors including theft and neglect, he said.
"In the Italy of a thousand museums and libraries, our immense national heritage is vanishing � and the cultural fabric of the country is coming apart," Paolucci, a former culture minister, told the Italian daily La Stampa.
He said a lack of protection for the country's treasures was having "disastrous effects" and was particularly harmful for small institutions that did not have the same level of security or prestige as, for instance, the Uffizi gallery in Florence. Urging the state to take better care of its heritage, he added: "Every looted painting or plundered library is a wound to civilisation which cannot be healed � a disaster for Italy and humanity as a whole."
Update: More on the story, with these observations:
The director of the Vatican Museums has warned that Italy's cultural heritage is "vanishing" after prosecutors in Naples said two more people had been arrested on suspicion of taking part in a "premeditated, organised and brutal" sacking of the city's 16th century Girolamini library.
Antonio Paolucci said he was "saddened but not surprised" by the devastating losses of the historic institution in Naples, where thousands of rare and antique books were last year found to have disappeared. The alleged plundering, which prosecutors have been investigating for the past nine months, was symptomatic of a country whose rich cultural heritage was at risk from various factors including theft and neglect, he said.
"In the Italy of a thousand museums and libraries, our immense national heritage is vanishing � and the cultural fabric of the country is coming apart," Paolucci, a former culture minister, told the Italian daily La Stampa.
He said a lack of protection for the country's treasures was having "disastrous effects" and was particularly harmful for small institutions that did not have the same level of security or prestige as, for instance, the Uffizi gallery in Florence. Urging the state to take better care of its heritage, he added: "Every looted painting or plundered library is a wound to civilisation which cannot be healed � a disaster for Italy and humanity as a whole."
Ruling in T-Rex Bataar Case
The Hon. P. Kevin Castel, has denied Eric Prokopi's Motion to Dismiss in the ongoing T-Rex Bataar forfeiture action in the initial pleading stage of the case, but in doing so has reserved the issues Prokopi raised with regard to the Government's case for possible further consideration later on.
Should the Shultz Conviction Be Vacated?
In order to convict Fred Shultz of theft of Egyptian cultural property, the Government put on testimony that Egyptian Law 117 of 1983 unequivocally asserted state ownership of all antiquities and that private ownership, possession and disposal of such antiquities was prohibited. See United States v. Shultz, 178 F. Supp. 2d 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
Now that the Mubarak regime has fallen, however, an Egyptian academic has asserted that Mubarak, along with his predecessors, gave antiquities from the Egyptian museum away as gifts. Arguably then, because Fred Shultz's conviction was based on incomplete-- if not false testimony-- from Egyptian officials, in the interests of justice it should be vacated.
Interestingly, while Egyptian cultural authorities deny artifacts were gifted by President Mubarak, they do admit that antiquities were gifted before that time.
If so, shouldn't this news also support the dismissal of the Government's case against SLAM because it indeed shows the possibility that artifacts owned by the Egyptian government were gifted in the past?
Now that the Mubarak regime has fallen, however, an Egyptian academic has asserted that Mubarak, along with his predecessors, gave antiquities from the Egyptian museum away as gifts. Arguably then, because Fred Shultz's conviction was based on incomplete-- if not false testimony-- from Egyptian officials, in the interests of justice it should be vacated.
Interestingly, while Egyptian cultural authorities deny artifacts were gifted by President Mubarak, they do admit that antiquities were gifted before that time.
If so, shouldn't this news also support the dismissal of the Government's case against SLAM because it indeed shows the possibility that artifacts owned by the Egyptian government were gifted in the past?
US Government Appeals SLAM Decision
The US Government has appealed the decision to dismiss its effort to seek the forfeiture of the Ka Nefer Nefer Mask. It has been reported such decisions are made by the same US State Department and Customs and Border Protection cultural bureacracy responsible for imposing import restrictions. If so, one wonders if the appeal is at least in part an effort to throw a lifeline to Zahi Hawass, who after all has sought to bolster his position with the Egyptian Government through being "indispensible" for the protection of Egyptian cultural property.
Government Strikes Out Yet Again Against SLAM
A U.S. District Court has denied the Government's Second Motion for Reconsideration of a decision to throw out a forfeiture case against an Egyptian funerary mask that has been on display at the St. Louis Art Museum for years. I'm not sure what the Government hoped to accomplish by seeking reconsideration of the Court's dismissal order for a second time. Perhaps, it was a tactical move to give the Government more time to consider an appeal.
More on Return of Polish Museum Artifacts
Harlan Berk has kindly elaborated on his firm's part in returning artifacts stolen from a Polish American museum in Chicago.
Here is how Harlan recounts the event.
On September 30, 2011 a Friday evening at 6 PM as I was getting home I received a call from our document and paper money specialist Dennis Forgue. He informed me that we had purchased late that day an 4 page letter by Thomas Jefferson about how to finance the US government dated 1814 and a letter endorsed by Abraham Lincoln ,Gen. McClernand and Gen. Winfield Scott, and other items for $5000 . The people had asked for $2000. Monday morning I told Dennis to research the items for pedigree. The Jefferson papers were only published through 1813 so far by the Papers of Thomas Jefferson: Retirement Series at Monticello and the U of VA, so he worked on the Lincoln. It came up that the Lincoln was published in the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln from 1953 and that it was owned by the Polish Roman Catholic Union in Chicago, which had been renamed The Polish Museum of America, in Chicago.
I immediately called the Polish Museum and spoke to the museum president Maria Ciesla. I asked her if they had even de-accessioned anything. Her answer told me the items we had purchased were stolen ,in the true meaning of the word.To say the least she was thrilled. I told her that we should continue to buy from these people so we could recover all or as much of the material as possible. She ,with board approval agreed to reimburse us our purchase prices. We continued to buy for two months until November 7, 2011, spending $31,400 in all . The items were sold to us by different combinations of individuals usually brought in by a young man who ,until the last purchase refused to give his ID. There was always someone with him who gave ID and to whom the checks were written. We documented every transaction. Photocopying the ID ,the check we paid and every item we purchased and kept every individual purchase together. On the several occasions when the Museum reimbursed us we gave them copies of everything along with the real documents we had recovered.
The Museum wanted to call in the FBI but I asked them to wait as the repurchase program was working so well . I did not want to spook them and never be able to recover all the material. Finally when they said they were going to Sothebys with the rest of the material. I alerted a friend at Sothebys to the problem. The Museum then call in the FBI. They ,special agent Luigi Mondini, was very nice and professional as one would expect. We gave them copies of everything we had collected. The FBI recovered the final 121 items to add to the 279 we recovered. Even though we suspected that these items were past the statutes of limitation for theft, it never crossed our mind to keep them. They were and are the property of the Polish Museum of America and we are very happy to have recovered these great pieces of American history for them.
Again, kudos to Harlan Berk and Harlan J. Berk, Ltd. for ensuring long lost artifacts were returned to the Polish American Museum.
Here is how Harlan recounts the event.
On September 30, 2011 a Friday evening at 6 PM as I was getting home I received a call from our document and paper money specialist Dennis Forgue. He informed me that we had purchased late that day an 4 page letter by Thomas Jefferson about how to finance the US government dated 1814 and a letter endorsed by Abraham Lincoln ,Gen. McClernand and Gen. Winfield Scott, and other items for $5000 . The people had asked for $2000. Monday morning I told Dennis to research the items for pedigree. The Jefferson papers were only published through 1813 so far by the Papers of Thomas Jefferson: Retirement Series at Monticello and the U of VA, so he worked on the Lincoln. It came up that the Lincoln was published in the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln from 1953 and that it was owned by the Polish Roman Catholic Union in Chicago, which had been renamed The Polish Museum of America, in Chicago.
I immediately called the Polish Museum and spoke to the museum president Maria Ciesla. I asked her if they had even de-accessioned anything. Her answer told me the items we had purchased were stolen ,in the true meaning of the word.To say the least she was thrilled. I told her that we should continue to buy from these people so we could recover all or as much of the material as possible. She ,with board approval agreed to reimburse us our purchase prices. We continued to buy for two months until November 7, 2011, spending $31,400 in all . The items were sold to us by different combinations of individuals usually brought in by a young man who ,until the last purchase refused to give his ID. There was always someone with him who gave ID and to whom the checks were written. We documented every transaction. Photocopying the ID ,the check we paid and every item we purchased and kept every individual purchase together. On the several occasions when the Museum reimbursed us we gave them copies of everything along with the real documents we had recovered.
The Museum wanted to call in the FBI but I asked them to wait as the repurchase program was working so well . I did not want to spook them and never be able to recover all the material. Finally when they said they were going to Sothebys with the rest of the material. I alerted a friend at Sothebys to the problem. The Museum then call in the FBI. They ,special agent Luigi Mondini, was very nice and professional as one would expect. We gave them copies of everything we had collected. The FBI recovered the final 121 items to add to the 279 we recovered. Even though we suspected that these items were past the statutes of limitation for theft, it never crossed our mind to keep them. They were and are the property of the Polish Museum of America and we are very happy to have recovered these great pieces of American history for them.
Again, kudos to Harlan Berk and Harlan J. Berk, Ltd. for ensuring long lost artifacts were returned to the Polish American Museum.
Kudos for Chicago Coin, Antiquities and Antiques Dealer
Coin, antiquities, and antiques dealer Harlan Berk has been instrumental in the return of artifacts to Chicago's Polish Museum. The artifacts appear to have been taken over time by a museum curator. Kudos to Harlan Berk for his efforts to return these artifacts back to the Museum. Now, the museum needs to do a much better job in protecting the artifacts in its care.
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
Government, Supported By Archaeological Lobby, Moves Against Sotheby's on Behalf of Cambodia
The Government of Cambodia has been criticized for its undemocratic ways and its border disputes with Thailand. Yet, the US State Department, its Cultural Heritage Center, and its allies in the archaeological community-- including the Department of State funded �Heritage Watch� --have been instrumental in imposing broad restrictions on cultural goods from Cambodia. This, despite the wide availability of this material in markets abroad and the forthright admission by Cambodia�s representative at the most recent CPAC hearing that the Cambodian Army is deeply involved in the supply of ancient Cambodian artifacts to world markets. See http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2008/09/cambodian-import-restrictions-extended.html
Now, the Government, again supported by the archaeological lobby, is seeking to seize a Cambodian artifact from Sotheby�s based on allegations that the statute was stolen from an archaeological site, presumably during the dislocation associated with fall of the US-Supported Cambodian government during the aftermath of the Vietnam war. See : http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/arts/design/ancient-cambodian-statue-is-seized-from-sothebys.html?_r=1
My advice to Sotheby�s would be to fight. Experience teaches that press reports sourced to the archaeological lobby may not provide either a complete or accurate depiction of the actual strength of the Government�s case. If SLAM can prevail, perhaps Sotheby�s can as well.
The seizure does, however, suggests that Sotheby�s hiring of a former prosecutor, Jane Levine, has not protected Sotheby�s and its consigners from the aggressive repatriation efforts of the US Government.
Moreover, the seizure raises further questions about whether Jane Levine can serve as an effective member of CPAC or whether her defense of Sotheby�s import of the statue for auction raises conflict of interest issues that cannot be adequately addressed.
Now, the Government, again supported by the archaeological lobby, is seeking to seize a Cambodian artifact from Sotheby�s based on allegations that the statute was stolen from an archaeological site, presumably during the dislocation associated with fall of the US-Supported Cambodian government during the aftermath of the Vietnam war. See : http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/arts/design/ancient-cambodian-statue-is-seized-from-sothebys.html?_r=1
My advice to Sotheby�s would be to fight. Experience teaches that press reports sourced to the archaeological lobby may not provide either a complete or accurate depiction of the actual strength of the Government�s case. If SLAM can prevail, perhaps Sotheby�s can as well.
The seizure does, however, suggests that Sotheby�s hiring of a former prosecutor, Jane Levine, has not protected Sotheby�s and its consigners from the aggressive repatriation efforts of the US Government.
Moreover, the seizure raises further questions about whether Jane Levine can serve as an effective member of CPAC or whether her defense of Sotheby�s import of the statue for auction raises conflict of interest issues that cannot be adequately addressed.
Labels:
Archaeologists,
Cambodia,
Cambodian MOU,
CPAC,
Heritage Watch,
ICE,
Lobbying,
Sotheby's,
stolen antiquities
SLAM Dunk
A US District Court has dismissed a forfeiture claim brought by the United States on behalf of Egypt for a mummy mask owned by the St. Louis Art Museum (SLAM). The Government had claimed that the artifact, known as the Mask of Ka-Nefer-Nefer, was "stolen" under Egyptian law. The mask in question has been on display at SLAM since 1998.
In pertinent part, the Court stated,
The verified complaint does not provide a factual statement of theft, smuggling, or clandestine importation. Rather, the complaint merely states that the Mask was found to be "missing' from Egypt in 1973. Although the Government alleges, in conclusory fashion, that "the register did not document that the Mask was sold or given to a private party during the time frame 1966 to 1973," the Complaint is completely devoid of any facts showing that the Mask was sold or given to a private party during the time frame of 1966 to 1973," the complaint is completely devoid of any facts showing that the Mask was "missing" because it was stolen and then smuggled out of the country... The Government's legal conclusion, in paragraph 22 of the verified complaint, that "[b]ecause the Mask was stolen, it could not have been lawfully exported from Egypt or lawfully imported into the United States," misses a number of factual and logical steps, namely: (1) an assertion that the Mask was actually stolen; (2) factual circumstances relating to when the Government believes the Mask was stolen; (3) facts relating to the location from which the Mask was stolen; (4) facts regarding who the Government believes stole the Mask; and (5) a statement or identification of the law which the Government believes applies under which the Mask could be considered stolen and/or illegally exported.
The Government cannot simply rest on its laurels and believe that it can initiate a civil forfeiture proceeding on the basis of one bold assertion that because something went missing from one party in 1973 and turned up with another party in 1998, it was therefore stolen and/or imported or exported illegally.
Ironically, the decision was released the same day it was reported that the instigator of the claim against SLAM, former Egyptian antiquities chief Zahi Hawass, is to face corruption charges in Egypt, related to a National Geographic sponsored exhibit in the United States. See http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/38308/Egypt/Politics-/Egypts-Indiana-Jones-faces-charges.aspx
One hopes that the US Government will be as aggressive investigating whether American archaeologists and the National Geographic were parties to any corrupt practices involving Hawass, as the US Government has been in going after SLAM over the Ka-Nefer-Nefer mask.
In pertinent part, the Court stated,
The verified complaint does not provide a factual statement of theft, smuggling, or clandestine importation. Rather, the complaint merely states that the Mask was found to be "missing' from Egypt in 1973. Although the Government alleges, in conclusory fashion, that "the register did not document that the Mask was sold or given to a private party during the time frame 1966 to 1973," the Complaint is completely devoid of any facts showing that the Mask was sold or given to a private party during the time frame of 1966 to 1973," the complaint is completely devoid of any facts showing that the Mask was "missing" because it was stolen and then smuggled out of the country... The Government's legal conclusion, in paragraph 22 of the verified complaint, that "[b]ecause the Mask was stolen, it could not have been lawfully exported from Egypt or lawfully imported into the United States," misses a number of factual and logical steps, namely: (1) an assertion that the Mask was actually stolen; (2) factual circumstances relating to when the Government believes the Mask was stolen; (3) facts relating to the location from which the Mask was stolen; (4) facts regarding who the Government believes stole the Mask; and (5) a statement or identification of the law which the Government believes applies under which the Mask could be considered stolen and/or illegally exported.
The Government cannot simply rest on its laurels and believe that it can initiate a civil forfeiture proceeding on the basis of one bold assertion that because something went missing from one party in 1973 and turned up with another party in 1998, it was therefore stolen and/or imported or exported illegally.
Ironically, the decision was released the same day it was reported that the instigator of the claim against SLAM, former Egyptian antiquities chief Zahi Hawass, is to face corruption charges in Egypt, related to a National Geographic sponsored exhibit in the United States. See http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/38308/Egypt/Politics-/Egypts-Indiana-Jones-faces-charges.aspx
One hopes that the US Government will be as aggressive investigating whether American archaeologists and the National Geographic were parties to any corrupt practices involving Hawass, as the US Government has been in going after SLAM over the Ka-Nefer-Nefer mask.
Labels:
double standards,
Egypt,
stolen antiquities,
US Customs,
Zahi Hawass
Hawass Involved in Illegal Scheme to Turn Egyptian Antiquities into Cash?
The Egyptian Government is alleging that former antiquities Pharaoh Zahi Hawass was engaged in a scheme to waste public funds and steal antiquities. See http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/38308/Egypt/Politics-/Egypts-Indiana-Jones-faces-charges.aspx
It's a bit hard to tell from this article, but it seems that the Egyptian prosecutor is alleging that Hawass and the wife of Egypt's deposed President Mubark were skimming profits from a travelling exhibit and that Hawass was receiving unauthorized payments from the National Geographic Society.
Will the US Justice Department be as aggressive investigating allegations of public corruption potentially involving US archaeologists as it has been in tracking down allegedly stolen Egyptian antiquities?
It's a bit hard to tell from this article, but it seems that the Egyptian prosecutor is alleging that Hawass and the wife of Egypt's deposed President Mubark were skimming profits from a travelling exhibit and that Hawass was receiving unauthorized payments from the National Geographic Society.
Will the US Justice Department be as aggressive investigating allegations of public corruption potentially involving US archaeologists as it has been in tracking down allegedly stolen Egyptian antiquities?
Questions About Provenance of WikiLoot Documents Remain
Jason Felch has now responded to my request for details about the provenance of his WikiLoot archive as follows:
As with our reporting for the LA Times and in Chasing Aphrodite, our information was obtained from a wide variety of sources over several years of reporting. Some of it is public record and has come to light through various court cases. Some comes from sources who have asked to remain confidential. Our hope is that users may eventually contribute additional information to the project to expand its reach.
My suggestion would be that to the extent WikiLoot uploads information on the web, it identifies its specific source, and only if necessary states that the source is "confidential."
Why is this necessary?
Simply, not all documentary evidence has the same evidentary value. One would hope the WikiLoot agrees, particularly because of the proposal as now framed carries with it the danger of provoking a "witch hunt."
Addendum:
I note Jason Felch posted this on his WikiLeak Facebook page in response to my questions:
Jason Felch
2:15pm Mar 16
I like your suggestion, Peter. Attribution of sources is an important part of journalism.
As with our reporting for the LA Times and in Chasing Aphrodite, our information was obtained from a wide variety of sources over several years of reporting. Some of it is public record and has come to light through various court cases. Some comes from sources who have asked to remain confidential. Our hope is that users may eventually contribute additional information to the project to expand its reach.
My suggestion would be that to the extent WikiLoot uploads information on the web, it identifies its specific source, and only if necessary states that the source is "confidential."
Why is this necessary?
Simply, not all documentary evidence has the same evidentary value. One would hope the WikiLoot agrees, particularly because of the proposal as now framed carries with it the danger of provoking a "witch hunt."
Addendum:
I note Jason Felch posted this on his WikiLeak Facebook page in response to my questions:
Jason Felch
2:15pm Mar 16
I like your suggestion, Peter. Attribution of sources is an important part of journalism.
Questions About Provenance of WikiLoot Documents �Silly�?
�Chasing Aphrodite� author Jason Felch has called my questions about the provenance of the source documents for his �WikiLoot� project �silly.� But are they?
Specifically, I asked Mr. Felch on his �Chasing Aphrodite� blog:
�What is the source of these documents? Were they released legally or leaked unofficially? There would be some considerable irony if you are going to hunt looted material with �looted� documents. If the latter, shouldn't the NSPA apply?�
He responded:
�Your crack about nspa and "looted" documents is silly. I know you're used to fighting for your cause in the trenches, but hope you have more constructive thoughts to contribute about WikiLoot soon. We're open to them.�
See http://chasingaphrodite.com/2012/03/12/introducing-wikiloot-your-chance-to-fight-the-illicit-antiquities-trade/#comments
Yet, Mr. Felch strongly made the point at a recent talk in Washington, D.C., that museums holding artifacts illicitly excavated under Italian or Greek law were holding stolen goods and were subject to potential prosecution by the US Department of Justice under the National Stolen Property Act.
See http://chasingaphrodite.com/2012/02/08/video-chasing-aphrodite-at-the-national-press-club-in-washington-dc/
Moreover, the �Chasing Aphrodite� blog has discussed Professor Urice�s article on the subject.
See http://chasingaphrodite.com/2011/12/05/looted-antiquities-at-american-museums-an-on-going-crime-law-professor-argues/
Why wouldn�t the same analysis apply to illicitly obtained Italian and Greek government documents?
WikiLoot is a serious project that deserves some serious questions asked about it. To ask such questions, particularly at the invitation of WikiLoot itself, is not silly.
Specifically, I asked Mr. Felch on his �Chasing Aphrodite� blog:
�What is the source of these documents? Were they released legally or leaked unofficially? There would be some considerable irony if you are going to hunt looted material with �looted� documents. If the latter, shouldn't the NSPA apply?�
He responded:
�Your crack about nspa and "looted" documents is silly. I know you're used to fighting for your cause in the trenches, but hope you have more constructive thoughts to contribute about WikiLoot soon. We're open to them.�
See http://chasingaphrodite.com/2012/03/12/introducing-wikiloot-your-chance-to-fight-the-illicit-antiquities-trade/#comments
Yet, Mr. Felch strongly made the point at a recent talk in Washington, D.C., that museums holding artifacts illicitly excavated under Italian or Greek law were holding stolen goods and were subject to potential prosecution by the US Department of Justice under the National Stolen Property Act.
See http://chasingaphrodite.com/2012/02/08/video-chasing-aphrodite-at-the-national-press-club-in-washington-dc/
Moreover, the �Chasing Aphrodite� blog has discussed Professor Urice�s article on the subject.
See http://chasingaphrodite.com/2011/12/05/looted-antiquities-at-american-museums-an-on-going-crime-law-professor-argues/
Why wouldn�t the same analysis apply to illicitly obtained Italian and Greek government documents?
WikiLoot is a serious project that deserves some serious questions asked about it. To ask such questions, particularly at the invitation of WikiLoot itself, is not silly.
Loot Busters
Dorothy King and Culture-Concierge.com have unveiled a website designed to help identify likely looted material. For more, see http://www.lootbusters.com/
The website is built some basic principles: images accessible to all, no agenda, and no strings attached. As such, it is a welcome change from the usual finger wagging.
The website is built some basic principles: images accessible to all, no agenda, and no strings attached. As such, it is a welcome change from the usual finger wagging.
Cambodian Cultural Property Fracas Again Shows Appeasment Leads to Escalating Demands
Leaving aside the merits of Cambodia's claim to a valuable statue that was to be auctioned off at Sotheby's, this latest fracas in the cultural property wars again suggests appeasing the archaeological lobby does little but encourage escalating demands. For more, see http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/arts/design/sothebys-caught-in-dispute-over-prized-cambodian-statue.html
If Sotheby�s thought hiring a former prosecutor who has developed strong contacts with the archaeological community would win friends and influence people within the archaeological community, it was wrong.
Also, if anyone thinks 1970 provides a safer harbor to repatriation claims, the archaeological lobby's recourse to a 1925 law to press this claim also suggests that 1970 may not be the "safe harbor" date the archaeological community initially claimed as well.
Yes, appeasement leads to little but escalating demands for more.
If Sotheby�s thought hiring a former prosecutor who has developed strong contacts with the archaeological community would win friends and influence people within the archaeological community, it was wrong.
Also, if anyone thinks 1970 provides a safer harbor to repatriation claims, the archaeological lobby's recourse to a 1925 law to press this claim also suggests that 1970 may not be the "safe harbor" date the archaeological community initially claimed as well.
Yes, appeasement leads to little but escalating demands for more.
Dirty Dishes
The New York Times is reporting that some dishes that were evidently taken from one of Saddam's palaces are being repatriated to Iraq after being seized by US Marshalls. See http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/looted-dishes-used-in-art-project-returned-to-iraq/
The plates had evidently attracted the notice of Iraqi officials after being used for performance art by an Iraqi-Jewish American whose parents had been driven from the country in 1946.
This seems to be yet another case of cultural property overkill. And I wonder whether the Iraqi diplomats would have been as keen to demand repatriation of the dinner plates if the artist had not been from an Iraqi-Jewish family.
Shouldn't the artist and his family be the ones who deserve reparations?
The plates had evidently attracted the notice of Iraqi officials after being used for performance art by an Iraqi-Jewish American whose parents had been driven from the country in 1946.
This seems to be yet another case of cultural property overkill. And I wonder whether the Iraqi diplomats would have been as keen to demand repatriation of the dinner plates if the artist had not been from an Iraqi-Jewish family.
Shouldn't the artist and his family be the ones who deserve reparations?
Chasing Aphrodite at the Walters
On October 29, 2011, the Walters Museum of Art, Baltimore, hosted a discussion about the controversies surrounding the museums collecting antiquities. Jason Felch and Ralph Frammolino, the authors of Chasing Aphrodite, an expose about the Getty Museum�s collecting practices in the 1980�s, critiqued museum collecting from a moral and legal perspective. According to Felch and Frammolino, past museum collecting practices have helped stimulate looting in art rich countries and have violated local law. Arthur Houghton, CPRI President, and Gary Vikan, the Walters Museum Director, rose to defend museum acquisition practices, which both conceded have become more stringent over time. Houghton, who served as a curator at the Getty, provided some context for the discussion. He recounted how the Getty, awash with cash and eager to become a player, took too many shortcuts in an effort to build a world class antiquities collection in record time.
Larger issues were also discussed. Felch and Frammolino argued that changed attitudes have encouraged Italy to make loan term loans to American museums. They also suggested that returning the statue that was the center of the book led to a reappraisal of the work, which has now been identified as Persphone. Houghton argued that construction activities in places like Turkey is a much greater, but little discussed factor, in destroying archaeological context. Audience members also joined the fray. Commenting on the return of the �Aphrodite� to a small Sicilian town, one audience member remarked that she certainly did not want to go to such a place and that the statue will inevitably be seen by far fewer numbers of people than at the Getty. She also noted long term loans are costly to museums because Italy expects museums to spend substantial time, effort and money to conserve the artifacts that are exhibited. Another audience member suggested that source countries themselves could help alleviate the problem of looting by adopting �report and reward� statutes like that in force in the United Kingdom.
Larger issues were also discussed. Felch and Frammolino argued that changed attitudes have encouraged Italy to make loan term loans to American museums. They also suggested that returning the statue that was the center of the book led to a reappraisal of the work, which has now been identified as Persphone. Houghton argued that construction activities in places like Turkey is a much greater, but little discussed factor, in destroying archaeological context. Audience members also joined the fray. Commenting on the return of the �Aphrodite� to a small Sicilian town, one audience member remarked that she certainly did not want to go to such a place and that the statue will inevitably be seen by far fewer numbers of people than at the Getty. She also noted long term loans are costly to museums because Italy expects museums to spend substantial time, effort and money to conserve the artifacts that are exhibited. Another audience member suggested that source countries themselves could help alleviate the problem of looting by adopting �report and reward� statutes like that in force in the United Kingdom.
Labels:
looters,
Museums,
poor stewardship,
stolen antiquities,
Treasure Trove
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)