Anti-Trade?
I'm a bit amused by "cultural heritage lawyer" Rick St. Hilaire's take on exports of cultural goods particularly as spun by fellow archaeo-blogger Paul Barford. Most decision-makers think international trade which goes through proper channels (as must be the case here as it was captured by government statisticians) is a good thing. But that does not seem to be the assumption of the archaeological blogosphere.
Ideology, Governance and Consequences from a Collector's Point of View
The Council of British Archaeology has published Wayne Sayles' and Dave Welsh's 2010 paper on the Internet. While critical of some archaeologists, Sayles and Welsh ultimately believe that cooperation between the groups is what is needed.
ACCG Petition for Cert. to be Considered Next Week
The Supreme Court will consider the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild's petition for certiorari at its March 22, 2013 conference. One should not read anything into the Government waiver of its right to respond to the Petition. CPO understands that this is standard operating procedure for the very busy Solicitor General's office.
New Work on Etruscan Coinage
I'm looking forward to coin dealer and scholar Italo Vecchi's new work about the enigmatic coinage of the Etruscan city states. I understand that Lord Renfrew collects this series. One wonders if all Lord Renfrew's coins have a demonstrable provenance back to at least 1970.
Rewriting the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act
It's no surprise that Dr. Nathan Elkins-- one of the AIA's chief proponents of import restrictions on common historical coins of the sort collected worldwide-- claims that any coin type that circulated "predominantly" in a given country should be placed on the "designated list" for restrictions when it's easy for him to generalize that coins circulate "predominantly" where they are made.
But the governing statute, the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, calls for much more. Assuming other statutory criteria are also met, it only authorizes seizure and forfeiture of artifacts "first discovered within and...subject to export control by" a given country. 19 U.S.C. Section 2601(2)(c).
The ACCG has indicated that the Government could comply with the plain meaning of the CPIA in either one or two ways: (1) establishing by undisputed scholarly evidence that the coins placed on the designated lists could only have been discovered in a given country for which import restrictions are granted and, hence, must be subject to their export controls; or (2) demonstrating by documentary evidence that any coins Customs seizes were in fact discovered in that country and, hence must be subject to that country's export controls.
The ACCG and others have offered scholarly evidence to suggest that ancient coins as a general rule circulated far from where they were minted. The fact that some (local bronze coins) typically circulated closer to home than others (precious metal coins and Imperial bronze issues) does not excuse the State Department's and U.S. Customs' efforts to ban coin imports based on place of production rather than s find spot.
The overbroad import bans Elkins and the AIA support threaten to cut off collector access to the vast majority of ancient coins openly available on the international market. In contrast, restrictions squarely linked to find spots are more narrowly tailored to deterring pillage of archaeological sites. That, of course, is the primary goal of the CPIA; not the furthering of nationalistic impulses that lay claim to any unprovenanced coin as the presumptive state property of the AIA's allies in foreign cultural bureaucracies.
But the governing statute, the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, calls for much more. Assuming other statutory criteria are also met, it only authorizes seizure and forfeiture of artifacts "first discovered within and...subject to export control by" a given country. 19 U.S.C. Section 2601(2)(c).
The ACCG has indicated that the Government could comply with the plain meaning of the CPIA in either one or two ways: (1) establishing by undisputed scholarly evidence that the coins placed on the designated lists could only have been discovered in a given country for which import restrictions are granted and, hence, must be subject to their export controls; or (2) demonstrating by documentary evidence that any coins Customs seizes were in fact discovered in that country and, hence must be subject to that country's export controls.
The ACCG and others have offered scholarly evidence to suggest that ancient coins as a general rule circulated far from where they were minted. The fact that some (local bronze coins) typically circulated closer to home than others (precious metal coins and Imperial bronze issues) does not excuse the State Department's and U.S. Customs' efforts to ban coin imports based on place of production rather than s find spot.
The overbroad import bans Elkins and the AIA support threaten to cut off collector access to the vast majority of ancient coins openly available on the international market. In contrast, restrictions squarely linked to find spots are more narrowly tailored to deterring pillage of archaeological sites. That, of course, is the primary goal of the CPIA; not the furthering of nationalistic impulses that lay claim to any unprovenanced coin as the presumptive state property of the AIA's allies in foreign cultural bureaucracies.
Labels:
ACCG,
AIA,
ancient coins,
bureaucracy,
CPIA,
Import Restrictions,
Nationalism,
State Department,
US Customs
Object Registry Fragment Foolishness
Archaeo-Blogger David Gill wants more details of the Met�s 10,000 or so vase fragments placed en masse on the AAMD�s object registry. Presumably Gill wants each pictured separately to facilitate detailed study of their potential origin so additional pieces can be repatriated to Italy or perhaps Greece or Turkey. But why should the AAMD�s procedures be the same for the $10,000,000 artifact as for the $10 artifact? Gill�s confidant Nathan Elkins has already recognized that coins�given the sheer numbers that have survived-- should not be treated as the AIA treats other artifacts. Gill should give vase fragments the same break.
Peru Wants Artifacts that Left Country after 1822
Peru has asked French authorities to stop an auction of Peruvian artifacts that left the country years ago. Sotheby's used to auction off such material in New York, but U.S. import restrictions on pre-Colombian art has driven that business overseas.
President Sarkozy made a concerted effort to increase France's share of the auction business. Perhaps, the Peruvian Government is hoping that France's current "soak the rich" Socialists will be more amenable to repatriation demands, however stale the claim.
Whether French authorities take the Peruvian claim seriously or not, all this is just more evidence that museums and others were snookered into accepting a 1970 date for acquisitions of artifacts. If they thought such a concession would quiet repatriation demands, they were very, very wrong. If anything, such concessions have only encouraged further demands-- the slippery slope rule applies yet again.
President Sarkozy made a concerted effort to increase France's share of the auction business. Perhaps, the Peruvian Government is hoping that France's current "soak the rich" Socialists will be more amenable to repatriation demands, however stale the claim.
Whether French authorities take the Peruvian claim seriously or not, all this is just more evidence that museums and others were snookered into accepting a 1970 date for acquisitions of artifacts. If they thought such a concession would quiet repatriation demands, they were very, very wrong. If anything, such concessions have only encouraged further demands-- the slippery slope rule applies yet again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)