The AIA has posted a summary of CPAC's hearing on a proposed renewal of an MOU with Bolivia on its website. See
http://www.archaeological.org/news/advocacy/6098
US relations with the anti-American leftist government of Evo Morales are so poor that each country has recalled its ambassador. See http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35751.htm.
However, does anyone believe this will impact yet another renewal of import restrictions on Bolivian artifacts? See http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop/blfact.html
What is stiking though is really how small is the group that benefits most from such restrictions. Indeed, according to one speaker, no more than 40-50 archaeologists are currently at work in the entire country!
And, of course, the tangible public support for such restrictions is even more limited. Only 25 members of the public commented at all on the restrictions. And while most of these comments were in support, many of these appear to be from members of the AIA's leadership. See http://www.regulations.gov/#docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR+PS;rpp=10;po=0;D=DOS-2011-0092 (Docket No. DOS-2011-0092) Hardly a ringing endorsement by the American public in favor of giving away something for nothing once again to an unfriendly nation in the name of archaeology!
Also of interest is the fact that the Bolivian government apparently at least tolerates indigenous collectors (wonder how connected they are to the local power elite?). According to another speaker, a local collector was convinced to put his collection into a museum rather than put it up for international sale. This is all fine and good, but if so, why should Americans be put in legal jeopardy for buying such material when Bolivians are allowed to collect it?
The Bolivian Government is no friend to our Government. Our Government is awash in red ink. President Obama has claimed he is against over regulation. Yet, if history is any guide, the State Department will renew this MOU yet again to assuage the demands of archaeologists, and likely do so without any conditions whatsoever that require Bolivia to do something in return for our trouble.
Why? Are such agreements worth the costs involved to the US taxpayer, to museums and to those interested in collecting such material, particularly given the very narrow special interests such agreements actually serve?
Find of Ancient Coins in Devon Leads to Reassessment of Rome's Reach
Here is yet another example of how a hoard reported by amateurs has given a lead to archaeologists that has resulted in a reassessment of local history. See
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2022699/Treasure-trove-ancient-coins-prove-Romans-controlled-UK-thought.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Archaeological cranks complain that the UK does not give them exclusive rights over the past, but what are the odds archaeologists would have ever found the remains of Roman settlement had they not been alerted by metal detectorists?
The pragmatic genius of the UK's Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme is that it directs public interest in finding ancient coins and other artifacts in a way that benefits everyone.
The proof can be found on the PAS website. See
http://finds.org.uk/
Can the countries archaeological hard liners look to as models like Italy, Greece and Cyprus report similar results? Of course not.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2022699/Treasure-trove-ancient-coins-prove-Romans-controlled-UK-thought.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Archaeological cranks complain that the UK does not give them exclusive rights over the past, but what are the odds archaeologists would have ever found the remains of Roman settlement had they not been alerted by metal detectorists?
The pragmatic genius of the UK's Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme is that it directs public interest in finding ancient coins and other artifacts in a way that benefits everyone.
The proof can be found on the PAS website. See
http://finds.org.uk/
Can the countries archaeological hard liners look to as models like Italy, Greece and Cyprus report similar results? Of course not.
Capitoline Venus at NGA: The Pretty Face of Cultural Exchange Could Use a Better Perch
The State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs has posted a video on its website about the loan of the Capitoline Venus to the National Gallery of Art. See
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid756595811001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAr4PECyE~,2SkcYDwPFGO281KN1MzLpKHKfKpAnM_B&bclid=0&bctid=1034206751001 and http://exchanges.state.gov/videos/cultural-programs-videos/the-capitoline-venus.html
The Cultural Heritage Center website suggests that Venus is visiting the NGA due to the renewed MOU with Italy, but the video itself and the literature for the exhibit make no such claim. Moreover, restrictions on the movements of Italian artifacts into the United States seem antithetical to the concept of cultural exchange. I'm all for sending American art to be displayed in Italy in return, but not for restrictions on American citizens importing ancient art, particularly when the Italian Government imposes no similar restrictions on its owns citizens.
Anyway, its wrong for me make the ageless goddess into a political pawn. Instead, let me say that I wish that the NGA, which is usually known for its beautiful displays, had given Venus a better perch upon which we could admire her. Instead of looking down at us from a nice marbled niche (as depicted in the NGA brochure), in reality she sits there in the middle of the common area staring at the dome of the West Building like an out of place tourist. Is that any way to treat such a lady? What a shame.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid756595811001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAr4PECyE~,2SkcYDwPFGO281KN1MzLpKHKfKpAnM_B&bclid=0&bctid=1034206751001 and http://exchanges.state.gov/videos/cultural-programs-videos/the-capitoline-venus.html
The Cultural Heritage Center website suggests that Venus is visiting the NGA due to the renewed MOU with Italy, but the video itself and the literature for the exhibit make no such claim. Moreover, restrictions on the movements of Italian artifacts into the United States seem antithetical to the concept of cultural exchange. I'm all for sending American art to be displayed in Italy in return, but not for restrictions on American citizens importing ancient art, particularly when the Italian Government imposes no similar restrictions on its owns citizens.
Anyway, its wrong for me make the ageless goddess into a political pawn. Instead, let me say that I wish that the NGA, which is usually known for its beautiful displays, had given Venus a better perch upon which we could admire her. Instead of looking down at us from a nice marbled niche (as depicted in the NGA brochure), in reality she sits there in the middle of the common area staring at the dome of the West Building like an out of place tourist. Is that any way to treat such a lady? What a shame.
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.
CPRI Director to Speak at Conference
Western Museums Association 76th Annual Meeting
September 25, 2011
Hawai�i Convention Center Honolulu
Safeguarding the Past: An Exploration in the Illicit Trafficking of
Cultural Artifacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Erika Lehman, Membership Coordinator, Iolani Palace
Kevin Shimoda, Private Investigator, Office of the Inspector General
Marcellin Abong, Director, Vanuatu Cultural Centre
Kate Fitz Gibbon, Attorney and Author, Cultural Policy Research Institute
This session will look at the national and international laws surrounding the illegal trafficking of ancient / antique artifacts, with particular emphasis on those from indigenous and tribal communities of the Asia � Pacific region. Speakers will explore the motives surrounding illegal trafficking and trade of cultural artifacts as well as the means in which these illicit measures continue to thrive despite the presence of well defined laws and strict associated penalties. Panelists will further the discussion by examining several means of countering illegal trafficking of cultural artifacts as well as the hurdles museums and governing bodies face when attempting to reclaim lost artifacts.
September 25, 2011
Hawai�i Convention Center Honolulu
Safeguarding the Past: An Exploration in the Illicit Trafficking of
Cultural Artifacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Erika Lehman, Membership Coordinator, Iolani Palace
Kevin Shimoda, Private Investigator, Office of the Inspector General
Marcellin Abong, Director, Vanuatu Cultural Centre
Kate Fitz Gibbon, Attorney and Author, Cultural Policy Research Institute
This session will look at the national and international laws surrounding the illegal trafficking of ancient / antique artifacts, with particular emphasis on those from indigenous and tribal communities of the Asia � Pacific region. Speakers will explore the motives surrounding illegal trafficking and trade of cultural artifacts as well as the means in which these illicit measures continue to thrive despite the presence of well defined laws and strict associated penalties. Panelists will further the discussion by examining several means of countering illegal trafficking of cultural artifacts as well as the hurdles museums and governing bodies face when attempting to reclaim lost artifacts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)