Chasing Aphrodite has interviewed Simon Mackenzie, an academic associated with the archaeological lobby, about his EU funded �research� into �organized crime� and the antiquities trade. See http://chasingaphrodite.com/2012/06/04/the-antiquities-trade-as-organized-crime-glasgow-team-digs-deep-into-the-market-for-ancient-art/
I�ve been dubious that academics with an axe to grind against collectors could really be expected to produce anything other than advocacy dressed up as "research" to help justify more clamp downs on collectors, museums and dealers, and greater funding for cultural bureaucracies and law enforcement. See http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2012/02/your-european-tax-euros-at-work.html If anything, this Chasing Aphrodite interview only seems to confirm those concerns.
In that regard, I would note that Mackenzie rejects the notion that overregulation creates a black market and defines �organized crime� quite broadly to include any three or more persons acting in concert to violate some some source country regulation, no matter how draconian. For instance, I presume under this definition an Italian farmer and his two sons who fail to turn over ancient coins they find on their own land to the State which will not compensate them are involved in �organized crime.� And what of a tourist who buys inexpensive antiquities for his children sold quite openly in a shop in Rome, but the shop owner refuses to go through the bother of securing export licenses for such insignificant artifacts? Would Mackenzie and friends treat such tansgressions as "serious" enough to constitute "organized crime" too? I bet they would.
Government SLAMMED Again
A U.S. District Court has denied the Government's motion for reconsideration of its order dismissing a forfeiture action filed against the Ka Nefer Nefer mask owned by the St. Louis Art Museum (SLAM). For more, see this report from "Cultural Heritage Lawyer" and former SAFE VP Rick St. Hilaire: http://culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com/2012/06/motion-denied-missouri-court-forces.html
AIA Posts Pics from Posh Party
The Archaeological Institute of America has posted pictures of �the beautiful people� attending its posh gala in New York. See http://www.archaeological.org/news/aianews/9084
Talk about �the One Percent!�
Certainly, the optics of such an event do not square very well with the rhetoric one sometimes hears at Cultural Property Advisory Committee meetings and elsewhere vilifying �wealthy collectors� and US business. Or perhaps, it is just done for effect.
Talk about �the One Percent!�
Certainly, the optics of such an event do not square very well with the rhetoric one sometimes hears at Cultural Property Advisory Committee meetings and elsewhere vilifying �wealthy collectors� and US business. Or perhaps, it is just done for effect.
Slippery Slope
Cambodian cultural bureaucrats, no doubt emboldened by the US Government's case against Sotheby's, have now set their sights on more Cambodian statuary that has been on display at the MET for years. See
The statuary in question apparently arrived in the US years before import restrictions on undocumented Cambodian artifacts were imposed. Moreover, unlike the Sotheby's case, there does not appear to be any hard evidence that the statuary came from a specific site. Accordingly, at this point any Cambodian claims would seem to be based on little more than speculation and a cultural nationalist view that anything of Cambodian manufacture "belongs" to the modern nation state.
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
ACCG: AIA Under Fire on Open Access
Here is a revised press release from the ACCG critical of the AIA on its stand against "open access" to archaeological research: http://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2012/05/30/CL14513
At public meetings before the State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee, AIA members have claimed that import restrictions on cultural goods are necessary to promote archaeological research which is then shared with members of the public.
Isn't the AIA's stance against open access to federally funded research inconsistent with such claims? Should the AIA instead provide CPAC with a disclaimer that archaeological research is only made freely available to fellow members of the archaeological trade?
At public meetings before the State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee, AIA members have claimed that import restrictions on cultural goods are necessary to promote archaeological research which is then shared with members of the public.
Isn't the AIA's stance against open access to federally funded research inconsistent with such claims? Should the AIA instead provide CPAC with a disclaimer that archaeological research is only made freely available to fellow members of the archaeological trade?
We Buy Chinese Antiques
Oriental Heritage Inc., has announced a 7 day Antiques Buying Event in the Baltimore and Washington, D.C. Area. A prominent advertisement in the Washington Post exclaims, �The Chinese economy is booming. As a result, the market for Chinese antiques is red hot. Prices for many Chinese antiques have grown dramatically.� The advertisement also informs us that the Oriental Heritage Inc. is �backed up by major investment groups in China� and �has access to tens of millions of dollars of funds instantly.� Although not explicitly stated in the advertisement itself, the implication is that any art purchased in the United States will be repatriated to China.
Comment: While I support Oriental Heritage�s rights to purchase antiques in the United States and send them to China, its actions again underscore the utter foolishness of the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Cultural Heritage Center�s effort to secure US import restrictions on Chinese cultural goods. Those restrictions have been pitched by State Department cultural bureaucrats and supportive archaeologists as necessary to protect Chinese archaeological sites. Yet, they appear to have in fact done little more than help redirect the trade in Chinese art back to China itself.
For more about Oriental Heritage, see http://orientalheritageinc.com/
Comment: While I support Oriental Heritage�s rights to purchase antiques in the United States and send them to China, its actions again underscore the utter foolishness of the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Cultural Heritage Center�s effort to secure US import restrictions on Chinese cultural goods. Those restrictions have been pitched by State Department cultural bureaucrats and supportive archaeologists as necessary to protect Chinese archaeological sites. Yet, they appear to have in fact done little more than help redirect the trade in Chinese art back to China itself.
For more about Oriental Heritage, see http://orientalheritageinc.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)