To their credit, the Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation has posted this letter on their website critical of the usual academic approach to shipwrecks and their preservation:
http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org/blog?mode=PostView&bmi=711550
UNESCO News Flash: Museums Overcrowded with Material They Can't Possibly Take Care Of!
UNESCO and ICCROM have finally admitted what everyone else already knows: museums can't possibly keep up with all the stuff they have in storage. See
http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=11&int_new=51419
According to the report,
Mr. Ga�l de Guichen, Special Advisor to the Director General of ICCROM, commented: �This is the first time we have a clear picture of the situation. In my 40 years of service at ICCROM, which has taken me all over the world, I estimated that about 60% of museum storage was in unacceptable conditions. With this data, we have a clearer picture of the problem areas. Most importantly, we have confirmation that this is not a developed vs. developing country issue: all countries find themselves in the same situation.�
The response to this "shocking news" was all too predictable:
In response to the survey results, ICCROM is presently looking for partnerships and funding to launch an international programme to strengthen professional and institutional capacity in addressing the key needs identified in this survey.
But where is this funding coming from?
Instead of assuming more money will be forthcoming from cash strapped governments, why not instead deaccession duplicate material for sale to collectors? That will free up space and bring much needed funds to such museums.
But perhaps that is too much for anti-business and anti-collector UNESCO and ICCROM to contemplate.
http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=11&int_new=51419
According to the report,
Mr. Ga�l de Guichen, Special Advisor to the Director General of ICCROM, commented: �This is the first time we have a clear picture of the situation. In my 40 years of service at ICCROM, which has taken me all over the world, I estimated that about 60% of museum storage was in unacceptable conditions. With this data, we have a clearer picture of the problem areas. Most importantly, we have confirmation that this is not a developed vs. developing country issue: all countries find themselves in the same situation.�
The response to this "shocking news" was all too predictable:
In response to the survey results, ICCROM is presently looking for partnerships and funding to launch an international programme to strengthen professional and institutional capacity in addressing the key needs identified in this survey.
But where is this funding coming from?
Instead of assuming more money will be forthcoming from cash strapped governments, why not instead deaccession duplicate material for sale to collectors? That will free up space and bring much needed funds to such museums.
But perhaps that is too much for anti-business and anti-collector UNESCO and ICCROM to contemplate.
71% of On-Line Comments Against Bulgarian MOU
John Hooker (ACCG) has performed an analysis of the on-line comments about the Bulgarian MOU. Other comments reflecting pro or con positions were also sent via US Mail so they cannot be included in this survey.
In any event, there were 499 relevant comments posted on the regulations.gov website. (A couple of people mistakenly posted their support for the Belize MOU with the Bulgarian comments.) Of these, 353 were opposed the MOU and 146 favored it. This makes for a break-down of 71% opposed and 29% in favor of the MOU.
Most of the comments related to coins. Of these, 342 either opposed the MOU in toto or opposed the inclusion of coins. Thirteen individuals supported their inclusion, including archaeologists who excavate in Bulgaria, AIA staff and David Gill and Paul Barford, archaeo-bloggers well known for their hostility to ancient coin collecting.
These percentages again point to the very slim support for import restrictions, particularly when they may possibly include new restrictions on coins.
The figures mirror the public comments recently recorded on the regulations.gov website for the Greek MOU. There, some 71% opposed the MOU either totally or provisionally if it included coins, with 28% in favor. See http://www.accg.us/News/Item/Summary_of_Greek_MOU_Public_Comment.aspx
Based on these numbers it should become increasingly clear that MOU's are special interest programs for archaeologists that have very, very little actual public support.
In any event, there were 499 relevant comments posted on the regulations.gov website. (A couple of people mistakenly posted their support for the Belize MOU with the Bulgarian comments.) Of these, 353 were opposed the MOU and 146 favored it. This makes for a break-down of 71% opposed and 29% in favor of the MOU.
Most of the comments related to coins. Of these, 342 either opposed the MOU in toto or opposed the inclusion of coins. Thirteen individuals supported their inclusion, including archaeologists who excavate in Bulgaria, AIA staff and David Gill and Paul Barford, archaeo-bloggers well known for their hostility to ancient coin collecting.
These percentages again point to the very slim support for import restrictions, particularly when they may possibly include new restrictions on coins.
The figures mirror the public comments recently recorded on the regulations.gov website for the Greek MOU. There, some 71% opposed the MOU either totally or provisionally if it included coins, with 28% in favor. See http://www.accg.us/News/Item/Summary_of_Greek_MOU_Public_Comment.aspx
Based on these numbers it should become increasingly clear that MOU's are special interest programs for archaeologists that have very, very little actual public support.
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.
Bulgarian MOU Comment Period Ends Today
The Comment Period for the Bulgarian MOU ends today. Here is a particularly interesting post from a past ANS Trustee:
Dear CPAC Members:
I would like to register my concerns with the current MOU under consideration with Bulgaria. Most importantly, it should be quite clear to informed individuals that the current proposed agreement has little to do with "Bulgarian" cultural property, and everything to do with the overall goal of eliminating private ownership of any cultural objects within the United States.
Though the modern nation of Bulgaria has little correlation with the societies and trade routes of antiquity, the advocates of the agreement would propose that any object that could have travelled across or existed within the region should be labeled as "Bulgarian". By such confuscating tactics, enforcement agencies such as US Customs would simply label all cultural objects as illegal, since their is no incentive on their part to do otherwise. While the advocate's premise is nonsensical, it is nonetheless shrewdly cognizant of the logistics of modern customs enforcement.
This subterfuge, however, does not mean this proposed agreement is in the best interests of Americans. To muddle mass-produced objects (such as coins) with singular objects of true cultural significance is a disservice to the effective safeguarding of our mutual heritage. To impose such arbitrary rules on the United States, without coordinated action from other countries, renders such efforts fruitless. To exact a significant cost on American agencies such as US Customs, without commensurate efforts by the Bulgarian government, is an affront to American taxpayers. I fully understand the ideological position of the CPAC, and hold out little hope that any common sense will prevail. I nevertheless recommend that the current MOU under consideration be refined to focus on cultural property of true significance and to be implemented only with the full participation, efforts, and cost-sharing of Bulgaria and other nations.
Sincerely,
Charlie Karukstis
For more comments, see http://www.regulations.gov/#%21docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252BO%252BSR%252BPS;rpp=10;po=0;D=DOS-2011-0115
To comment before today's close, go here: http://www.regulations.gov/#%21submitComment%3bD%3dDOS-2011-0115-0001
Dear CPAC Members:
I would like to register my concerns with the current MOU under consideration with Bulgaria. Most importantly, it should be quite clear to informed individuals that the current proposed agreement has little to do with "Bulgarian" cultural property, and everything to do with the overall goal of eliminating private ownership of any cultural objects within the United States.
Though the modern nation of Bulgaria has little correlation with the societies and trade routes of antiquity, the advocates of the agreement would propose that any object that could have travelled across or existed within the region should be labeled as "Bulgarian". By such confuscating tactics, enforcement agencies such as US Customs would simply label all cultural objects as illegal, since their is no incentive on their part to do otherwise. While the advocate's premise is nonsensical, it is nonetheless shrewdly cognizant of the logistics of modern customs enforcement.
This subterfuge, however, does not mean this proposed agreement is in the best interests of Americans. To muddle mass-produced objects (such as coins) with singular objects of true cultural significance is a disservice to the effective safeguarding of our mutual heritage. To impose such arbitrary rules on the United States, without coordinated action from other countries, renders such efforts fruitless. To exact a significant cost on American agencies such as US Customs, without commensurate efforts by the Bulgarian government, is an affront to American taxpayers. I fully understand the ideological position of the CPAC, and hold out little hope that any common sense will prevail. I nevertheless recommend that the current MOU under consideration be refined to focus on cultural property of true significance and to be implemented only with the full participation, efforts, and cost-sharing of Bulgaria and other nations.
Sincerely,
Charlie Karukstis
For more comments, see http://www.regulations.gov/#%21docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252BO%252BSR%252BPS;rpp=10;po=0;D=DOS-2011-0115
To comment before today's close, go here: http://www.regulations.gov/#%21submitComment%3bD%3dDOS-2011-0115-0001
Brief Filed in ACCG Test Case
The ACCG has filed this brief in the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit seeking the reversal of Judge Blake's dismissal of its case to test the validity of import restrictions on coins of "Cypriot type" or coins "from China." See http://www.accg.us/News/Item/ACCG_Appellant_Brief_filed_in_Cyprus_China_coin_seizure.aspx
This is from the summary of argument:
The District Court acknowledged that judicial review is appropriate where the Executive�s discretion is limited by statute, but then failed to consider whether the Assistant Secretary, ECA operated outside the law when she imposed import restrictions on ancient coins. Moreover, the District Court�s ruling turns the APA�s presumption of reviewability on its head. At a bare minimum, the District Court should have considered whether the Assistant Secretary, ECA, complied with the CPIA�s requirements or acted ultra vires, and also should have conducted a more thorough, APA-style review of the final agency actions to impose import restrictions on Cypriot and Chinese coins. Finally, the District Court�s rulings that it was unnecessary for China to ask for import restrictions on coins or for the Government to comply with the CPIA�s �first discovery requirement� are at odds with the plain meaning of the CPIA. Extending import restrictions to all unprovenanced coins raises constitutional problems that could be avoided if the �first discovery requirement� were given its plain meaning.
This is from the summary of argument:
The District Court acknowledged that judicial review is appropriate where the Executive�s discretion is limited by statute, but then failed to consider whether the Assistant Secretary, ECA operated outside the law when she imposed import restrictions on ancient coins. Moreover, the District Court�s ruling turns the APA�s presumption of reviewability on its head. At a bare minimum, the District Court should have considered whether the Assistant Secretary, ECA, complied with the CPIA�s requirements or acted ultra vires, and also should have conducted a more thorough, APA-style review of the final agency actions to impose import restrictions on Cypriot and Chinese coins. Finally, the District Court�s rulings that it was unnecessary for China to ask for import restrictions on coins or for the Government to comply with the CPIA�s �first discovery requirement� are at odds with the plain meaning of the CPIA. Extending import restrictions to all unprovenanced coins raises constitutional problems that could be avoided if the �first discovery requirement� were given its plain meaning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)