Lord Renfrew's efforts to shift the burden of proof to collectors in the U.K. may have failed for now, but his reference during a House of Lords debate to Jewish incantation bowls allegedly stolen from Iraq has led to yet another story about them years after the initial controversy had subsided. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/08/british-link-stolen-treasures
The story fails to detail the basis for the conclusion that the bowls originated in Iraq as opposed to Jordan, but the article does go onto gratuitously claim that such stolen antiquities help fund insurgents in Iraq.
This incendiary claim has also been disputed. Indeed, a New York Times reporter that has specifically looked into the issue has characterized such claims as a "red herring." See: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/03/20/iraq_roundtable/ ("Garen: I think this is an important point about the link between looting and terrorism, and I know that that was made in a New York Times Op-Ed piece, but we were actually the ones that discovered that potential link. We never published it. We were freelancing for the New York Times. We never wrote a story about it because there's no proof. And I think it was a bit of a red herring.")
The article also fails to explore the distinct irony that repatriating Jewish artifacts to a country that has systematically destroyed its Jewish culture poses. See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/07/joffee-critiques-justifications-for.html
Is there anything else going on here? One certainly wonders if this incantation bowl story comes up over and over again at least in part because archaeologists are miffed that epigraphists continue to see value in the study of unprovenanced artifacts. See http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2007/10/ucl-and-incantation-bowls.html Even worse, could anti-Semitism also be part of the mix? See https://www-ucl-slb.ucl.ac.uk/hebrew-jewish/ijs/news.htm
Monday, November 9, 2009
Interesting Post from Iraqi Archaeologist
The Iraq Crisis List has posted this interesting piece from an Iraqi archaeologist:
FAR FROM POLICY
Is Iraq right to reclaim the Ishtar Gate from Germany?
Having read Michael Kimmelman’s article, “When Ancient Artifacts Become Political Pawns” in the October 23, 2009 edition of the New York Times, I would like to discuss some important issues regarding ownership of Middle Eastern archaeological artifacts.
Although Iraq and Egypt have the moral right to reclaim the various Egyptian and Mesopotamian antiquities and masterpieces currently displayed in some of the world’s largest museums; unfortunately, most of the pieces left their native country legally.
I will talk about Iraq and the antiquities and cultural heritage laws in Iraq prior to 1936. Between 1533 and 1918, Iraq was under Ottoman Empire rule, which had left it open to travelers, excavators, and looters. Later, Iraq became a British colony and, once more, many museum pieces left Iraq following excavations, looting, and illicit trade. Evan after Iraq regained its independence in 1921, the British government retained a good degree of control (nominal independence was only achieved in 1932, when the British Mandate officially ended). The antiquities laws in Iraq between 1921 and 1936 were based on a system of division that awarded half of the finds recovered during excavations by foreign expeditions to the finders and half to the Iraqi government. This explains the massive number of Mesopotamian antiquities in archaeological collections and museums around the world. Since the law gave foreign expeditions the right to half of the pieces they excavated, foreign archaeologists had plenty of opportunities to take more than their share. Many additional artifacts were taken under these circumstances yet this is very hard to prove today.
Archaeological law No. 49 was established in Iraq in 1936. This law allowed foreign expeditions to excavate, document, and publish research on findings made in Iraq, but assigned legal ownership of all items recovered to the Iraqi government.
In his article, Kimmelman states that, "Just the other day, Iraq repeated its demand that Germany return the Gate of Ishtar from the ancient city of Babylon, excavated and shipped to Berlin before World War I.” If Iraq will reclaim the Ishtar Gate from the Pergamon Museum in Berlin, Iraq could then also reclaim the other parts of the gate; that is, the lions, bulls, and dragons now residing in various museums around the world. The Istanbul Archaeology Museum has lions, dragons, and bulls; the Detroit Institute of Arts houses a dragon, and the Röhsska Museum in Gothenburg, Sweden, has one dragon and one lion. In addition, the Louvre, the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in Philadelphia, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Oriental Institute in Chicago, the Rhode Island School of Design Museum, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, and the Yale University Art Gallery in New Haven, Connecticut, each have lions (Wikipedia). Furthermore, Iraq should reclaim all the antiquities that left Iraq before the First World War, many of which are now among the most important pieces in the world’s largest museums; for example, the gigantic Assyrian reliefs and winged bulls of the four Assyrian capitals, and the treasure from the Ur royal cemetery, in addition to thousands upon thousands of other Mesopotamian antiquities. Many archaeological and art museums would be virtually empty if Iraq were to demand the return of its antiquities from them.
As an Iraqi archaeologist, I would love to see the art and artifacts of Mesopotamia returned to Iraq but the law states that the museums where they reside acquired them legally and, when this was not the case, the flawed nature of the laws that were in place allowed items to be acquired illegally under the cover of law. Today, we need to focus on reclaiming those pieces that left Iraq after 1936 when the country’s cultural heritage laws limited ownership of antiquities and archaeological sites within Iraqi borders to the Iraqi government only. The return of all pieces acquired illegally following the American invasion should be pursued. Iraq has the right to reclaim these items and sue the museums that have bought, displayed, and stored the pieces looted from Iraqi museums and archaeological sites since 2003. Although many of the museums holding these items have papers purporting to prove that the pieces were acquired prior to the 1936 change in Iraqi law, in fact, most were systematically looted from Iraqi archaeological sites after 2003.
Zainab Mohammed
Iraqi Archaeologist, NY
Former Employee- State Board of Antiquities and Heritage/Excavations and Archaeological Protection Department-Baghdad
M.A. Anthropology and Museum Studies
zainab_alzubaidi@yahoo.com
The text may also be found here: https://lists.uchicago.edu/web/arc/iraqcrisis/2009-11/msg00000.html
A few comments are in order: First, although the author makes some important distinctions, the serious charge in the last sentence is entirely unsupported.
Second, one wonders whether institutions, like the Oriental Institute and the University of Pennsylvania, that have scholars that generally have been outspoken in favor of others repatriating artifacts, will themselves offer to return their parts of the Ishtar Gate voluntarily. I tend to doubt it.
Third, it is hard for me to agree that other countries should necessarily recognize the Iraqi government's rights over any and all Iraqi artifacts that may have left the country after 1936. For some additional thoughts on a related point, see: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/05/emergency-restrictions-on-iraqi.html
FAR FROM POLICY
Is Iraq right to reclaim the Ishtar Gate from Germany?
Having read Michael Kimmelman’s article, “When Ancient Artifacts Become Political Pawns” in the October 23, 2009 edition of the New York Times, I would like to discuss some important issues regarding ownership of Middle Eastern archaeological artifacts.
Although Iraq and Egypt have the moral right to reclaim the various Egyptian and Mesopotamian antiquities and masterpieces currently displayed in some of the world’s largest museums; unfortunately, most of the pieces left their native country legally.
I will talk about Iraq and the antiquities and cultural heritage laws in Iraq prior to 1936. Between 1533 and 1918, Iraq was under Ottoman Empire rule, which had left it open to travelers, excavators, and looters. Later, Iraq became a British colony and, once more, many museum pieces left Iraq following excavations, looting, and illicit trade. Evan after Iraq regained its independence in 1921, the British government retained a good degree of control (nominal independence was only achieved in 1932, when the British Mandate officially ended). The antiquities laws in Iraq between 1921 and 1936 were based on a system of division that awarded half of the finds recovered during excavations by foreign expeditions to the finders and half to the Iraqi government. This explains the massive number of Mesopotamian antiquities in archaeological collections and museums around the world. Since the law gave foreign expeditions the right to half of the pieces they excavated, foreign archaeologists had plenty of opportunities to take more than their share. Many additional artifacts were taken under these circumstances yet this is very hard to prove today.
Archaeological law No. 49 was established in Iraq in 1936. This law allowed foreign expeditions to excavate, document, and publish research on findings made in Iraq, but assigned legal ownership of all items recovered to the Iraqi government.
In his article, Kimmelman states that, "Just the other day, Iraq repeated its demand that Germany return the Gate of Ishtar from the ancient city of Babylon, excavated and shipped to Berlin before World War I.” If Iraq will reclaim the Ishtar Gate from the Pergamon Museum in Berlin, Iraq could then also reclaim the other parts of the gate; that is, the lions, bulls, and dragons now residing in various museums around the world. The Istanbul Archaeology Museum has lions, dragons, and bulls; the Detroit Institute of Arts houses a dragon, and the Röhsska Museum in Gothenburg, Sweden, has one dragon and one lion. In addition, the Louvre, the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in Philadelphia, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Oriental Institute in Chicago, the Rhode Island School of Design Museum, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, and the Yale University Art Gallery in New Haven, Connecticut, each have lions (Wikipedia). Furthermore, Iraq should reclaim all the antiquities that left Iraq before the First World War, many of which are now among the most important pieces in the world’s largest museums; for example, the gigantic Assyrian reliefs and winged bulls of the four Assyrian capitals, and the treasure from the Ur royal cemetery, in addition to thousands upon thousands of other Mesopotamian antiquities. Many archaeological and art museums would be virtually empty if Iraq were to demand the return of its antiquities from them.
As an Iraqi archaeologist, I would love to see the art and artifacts of Mesopotamia returned to Iraq but the law states that the museums where they reside acquired them legally and, when this was not the case, the flawed nature of the laws that were in place allowed items to be acquired illegally under the cover of law. Today, we need to focus on reclaiming those pieces that left Iraq after 1936 when the country’s cultural heritage laws limited ownership of antiquities and archaeological sites within Iraqi borders to the Iraqi government only. The return of all pieces acquired illegally following the American invasion should be pursued. Iraq has the right to reclaim these items and sue the museums that have bought, displayed, and stored the pieces looted from Iraqi museums and archaeological sites since 2003. Although many of the museums holding these items have papers purporting to prove that the pieces were acquired prior to the 1936 change in Iraqi law, in fact, most were systematically looted from Iraqi archaeological sites after 2003.
Zainab Mohammed
Iraqi Archaeologist, NY
Former Employee- State Board of Antiquities and Heritage/Excavations and Archaeological Protection Department-Baghdad
M.A. Anthropology and Museum Studies
zainab_alzubaidi@yahoo.com
The text may also be found here: https://lists.uchicago.edu/web/arc/iraqcrisis/2009-11/msg00000.html
A few comments are in order: First, although the author makes some important distinctions, the serious charge in the last sentence is entirely unsupported.
Second, one wonders whether institutions, like the Oriental Institute and the University of Pennsylvania, that have scholars that generally have been outspoken in favor of others repatriating artifacts, will themselves offer to return their parts of the Ishtar Gate voluntarily. I tend to doubt it.
Third, it is hard for me to agree that other countries should necessarily recognize the Iraqi government's rights over any and all Iraqi artifacts that may have left the country after 1936. For some additional thoughts on a related point, see: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/05/emergency-restrictions-on-iraqi.html
Thursday, November 5, 2009
1970 Provenance Date for Auction Houses?
SAFE associated Blogger David Gill has proposed that auction houses should adopt a 1970 date when dealing in archaeological material. See http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2009/11/should-auction-houses-adopt-1970-when.html and Looting Matters: Should Auction-Houses Be More Careful Over Antiquities?
Gill's proposal begs an obvious question: What to do about the thousands upon thousands of unprovenanced "orphan" artifacts currently in collections?
Last April Fools' day, I jokingly suggested that repatriated artifacts could be "recontextualized." See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/04/advocacy-group-hopes-to-recontextualize.html
But what would Gill really suggest happen to these "orphan" artifacts?
Though AAMD associated museums are no longer accessioning such material, such "orphan" artifacts remain important parts of their collections.
Don't collectors also have an obligation to ensure that "orphan" artifacts continue to be preserved, studied and displayed? If they cannot be transmitted to another collector who will care for them, what will then become of these "orphans?"
Gill's proposal begs an obvious question: What to do about the thousands upon thousands of unprovenanced "orphan" artifacts currently in collections?
Last April Fools' day, I jokingly suggested that repatriated artifacts could be "recontextualized." See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/04/advocacy-group-hopes-to-recontextualize.html
But what would Gill really suggest happen to these "orphan" artifacts?
Though AAMD associated museums are no longer accessioning such material, such "orphan" artifacts remain important parts of their collections.
Don't collectors also have an obligation to ensure that "orphan" artifacts continue to be preserved, studied and displayed? If they cannot be transmitted to another collector who will care for them, what will then become of these "orphans?"
Wealthy Source Country Collectors Change the Dynamics on the Ground
Bloomberg reports on wealthy Mainland Chinese collectors purchasing high quality Chinese artifacts at sales in London. See http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&sid=aZtP8jd4Ns88
Another related phenomenon is a growing class of wealthy collectors purchasing artifacts at home before they go into the international marketplace. The recent controversies surrounding Bulgaria's new cultural property law stem from the fact that increasingly wealthy Bulgarians can now afford to collect artifacts from Bulgaria's rich past. http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/11/international-archaeological-lobby.html
This is a good thing. It will likely promote more balanced approaches to cultural heritage preservation. That is so because home grown collectors now have an interest in making their own voices heard when it comes to cultural property legislation. This has already happened in Bulgaria, and will likely also happen in other source countries where collecting is done quite openly, like in the People's Republic of China.
Whatever the impact of wealthy source country collectors on source country legislation, increasingly, the claim that "artifacts are looted so they can be smuggled abroad" strays even further away from the dynamics on the ground.
Another related phenomenon is a growing class of wealthy collectors purchasing artifacts at home before they go into the international marketplace. The recent controversies surrounding Bulgaria's new cultural property law stem from the fact that increasingly wealthy Bulgarians can now afford to collect artifacts from Bulgaria's rich past. http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/11/international-archaeological-lobby.html
This is a good thing. It will likely promote more balanced approaches to cultural heritage preservation. That is so because home grown collectors now have an interest in making their own voices heard when it comes to cultural property legislation. This has already happened in Bulgaria, and will likely also happen in other source countries where collecting is done quite openly, like in the People's Republic of China.
Whatever the impact of wealthy source country collectors on source country legislation, increasingly, the claim that "artifacts are looted so they can be smuggled abroad" strays even further away from the dynamics on the ground.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Italian American Magazine Calls for End to Case Against Marion True
Primo Magazine-A magazine for and about Italian Americans (see http://www.onlineprimo.com/primo/index.php), has asked Italy to end its case against Marion True. See http://primomagazine.blogspot.com/2009/11/san-francisco-opera.html
END THE CASE AGAINST MARION TRUE
One cannot talk about repatriation of artifacts without mentioning Italy’s case against Marion True.
Not all lovers of Italian culture are Italian. True is one such person. A native of Oklahoma, True is the former antiquities curator at the Getty Museum in Los Angeles, California. An expert in classicism and ancient Mediterranean culture, she was in charge of the Getty’s acquisition of artifacts and relics. She helped to establish the renowned Getty Villa, located in the hills outside LA, filled with items of antiquity from ancient Rome and Greece. Thanks in part to True’s efforts, the Getty rose to become one of the top art museums in the world within a 20 year period.
Now True’s world is turned upside down. She is the first American museum antiquities curator ever to faces criminal charges in Italy for trafficking in illicit artifacts.
Italy’s case against her is more eventful than justifiable. Trial proceedings in Rome are tarrying. Four years and six months into the case and the prosecution has yet to rest. The defense phase may take another four years. The presiding judge will retire in three. Meanwhile a host of issues between the Italian government and America’s museums have been settled.
One wonders what good can still come of the case.
Damage done to Italy from True’s alleged crimes is resolved. The Getty returned to Italy many of the suspected artifacts mentioned in the trial. Civil charges against True were dropped last year. A similar criminal case in Greece was dismissed earlier because the statute of limitations had run out. Most American museums have changed their acquisition policies to reflect greater compliance with Italian patrimony laws. Italy’s message has been received.
The prosecution’s case adds to the burden of justifiability. The convoluted nature of the antiquities trade makes it so. Too long is the line of buyers and sellers, brokers, middlemen and women, conservators, auctioneers, and private collectors to reasonably conclude True knew she was buying hot merchandise. Weak circumstantial evidence has led prosecutors to offer guilt by association. Touted are the curator’s sporadic dealings with suspicious collectors, i.e., a thank you note from her to a convicted smuggler on an unrelated matter is entered into evidence. Another tack is criminal negligence. A patronizing tone by Italian archeologists accompanies the theory that True should have known artifacts were stolen based on her extensive experience and education.
The case is unnecessary and unfounded. Italy should drop the charges against her.
At a minimum, I really have to wonder why this case has dragged on for over four years without a resolution.
At this late juncture, a cynic might conclude that proceedings have been delayed so that a resolution can be timed to coincide with the U.S. State Department's reconsideration of the current MOU with Italy, which expires, unless renewed, in January 2011.
Such a resolution will certainly get more press than ICE's recent seizure of Italian pottery, which was announced shortly before CPAC takes public comments for its interim review of that agreement. http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/10/us-customs-announces-recovery-of.html
The Italian cultural bureaucracy and its allies in the archaeological community have certainly played the media card to advance their interests in the past. It would, therefore, not be all that surprising then if justice for Ms. True has been held hostage on account of some media strategy designed to further Italy's larger interests in renewal of the current MOU.
END THE CASE AGAINST MARION TRUE
One cannot talk about repatriation of artifacts without mentioning Italy’s case against Marion True.
Not all lovers of Italian culture are Italian. True is one such person. A native of Oklahoma, True is the former antiquities curator at the Getty Museum in Los Angeles, California. An expert in classicism and ancient Mediterranean culture, she was in charge of the Getty’s acquisition of artifacts and relics. She helped to establish the renowned Getty Villa, located in the hills outside LA, filled with items of antiquity from ancient Rome and Greece. Thanks in part to True’s efforts, the Getty rose to become one of the top art museums in the world within a 20 year period.
Now True’s world is turned upside down. She is the first American museum antiquities curator ever to faces criminal charges in Italy for trafficking in illicit artifacts.
Italy’s case against her is more eventful than justifiable. Trial proceedings in Rome are tarrying. Four years and six months into the case and the prosecution has yet to rest. The defense phase may take another four years. The presiding judge will retire in three. Meanwhile a host of issues between the Italian government and America’s museums have been settled.
One wonders what good can still come of the case.
Damage done to Italy from True’s alleged crimes is resolved. The Getty returned to Italy many of the suspected artifacts mentioned in the trial. Civil charges against True were dropped last year. A similar criminal case in Greece was dismissed earlier because the statute of limitations had run out. Most American museums have changed their acquisition policies to reflect greater compliance with Italian patrimony laws. Italy’s message has been received.
The prosecution’s case adds to the burden of justifiability. The convoluted nature of the antiquities trade makes it so. Too long is the line of buyers and sellers, brokers, middlemen and women, conservators, auctioneers, and private collectors to reasonably conclude True knew she was buying hot merchandise. Weak circumstantial evidence has led prosecutors to offer guilt by association. Touted are the curator’s sporadic dealings with suspicious collectors, i.e., a thank you note from her to a convicted smuggler on an unrelated matter is entered into evidence. Another tack is criminal negligence. A patronizing tone by Italian archeologists accompanies the theory that True should have known artifacts were stolen based on her extensive experience and education.
The case is unnecessary and unfounded. Italy should drop the charges against her.
At a minimum, I really have to wonder why this case has dragged on for over four years without a resolution.
At this late juncture, a cynic might conclude that proceedings have been delayed so that a resolution can be timed to coincide with the U.S. State Department's reconsideration of the current MOU with Italy, which expires, unless renewed, in January 2011.
Such a resolution will certainly get more press than ICE's recent seizure of Italian pottery, which was announced shortly before CPAC takes public comments for its interim review of that agreement. http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/10/us-customs-announces-recovery-of.html
The Italian cultural bureaucracy and its allies in the archaeological community have certainly played the media card to advance their interests in the past. It would, therefore, not be all that surprising then if justice for Ms. True has been held hostage on account of some media strategy designed to further Italy's larger interests in renewal of the current MOU.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
International Archaeological Lobby Presses Efforts to Shift the Burden of Proof
The "archaeology over all" lobbies in Bulgaria and the UK are seeking to shift the burden of proof onto collectors and antiquities dealers to demonstrate the valid "ownership" of the artifacts in their collections--just like their American colleagues.
Archaeologists have already succeeded to some extent with the passage of Bulgaria's new cultural heritage law, but parts of that law were then struck down by the Bulgarian Constitutional Court as violating Bulgarians' right to own private property. See http://sofiaecho.com/2009/10/30/806668_archaeologys-losing-fight and http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/10/bulgarian-constitutional-court-strikes.html
Though written from an "archaeology over all" perspective, a recent Sofia Echo article does acknowledge that this "hot button" issue helps explain why collectors find the new law so controversial:
One of the bill’s provisions that most stirred controversy was that holders of any artwork or antiques should prove their ownership. This provision, central to the law’s intention to regulate the balance between the state’s goal of preserving Bulgaria’s cultural heritage and the private interests of art collectors, would become the defining battleground between the law’s supporters and its detractors.
See http://sofiaecho.com/2009/10/30/806668_archaeologys-losing-fight
The Bulgarian Constitutional Court's decision addressed this issue. In its ruling, the Court allowed invoices and the like to suffice to esbablish "ownership," effectively weakening this "provenance" requirement. In contrast, the law as written had required "official paperwork" like a customs declaration or a court decision to establish good title.
Meanwhile, in the U.K., Lord Renfrew and other members of the "Archaeological All Party Group" have sought to attach a provision to proposed Amendments to the Treasure Act that would shift the burden of proof for those dealing in ancient artifacts from all cultures. As Renfrew explained,
Amendment 68 requires that a person dealing in an archaeological object should produce evidence to show that the object has not been unlawfully excavated. That places a duty on the vendor of knowing and stating the recent history of the antiquity. It will no longer be sufficient to say that it fell off the back of a lorry or was found in the vendor's attic.
See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/91026-0003.htm
This proposal will no doubt be quite controversial and, in any event, the Government does not seem interested in pursuing it at this point. As stated by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bach),
I cannot be as helpful with Amendments 68 to 73, which would introduce a new criminal offence of dealing in undocumented archaeological objects. The new offence would add to the existing offence of dishonestly dealing in a cultural object that is tainted. That offence was introduced in the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003. The introduction of the Act showed our commitment to address the problem by facilitating the prosecution of people who trade in objects looted or stolen from buildings and excavations both here and abroad, and its provisions have an important deterrent effect. There may well have been no cases at this stage, but we believe that it has had a deterrent effect and has raised awareness of the importance of the need to make appropriate checks when acquiring items of cultural importance.
I know that the noble Lords to whom I have referred support the provisions of the 2003 Act as the national heritage of many countries is at stake. Our reluctance to accept these amendments is that we are always wary of introducing yet another new criminal offence unless there is a proven need to do so. The proposed new offences would extend to objects which have been excavated in countries other than England and Wales, which is outside the scope of the treasure system.
Id.
Collectors and dealers need to be more vigilant. A fundamental right for both Britons and Americans is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Yet, archaeologists have used "provenance requirements" to chip away at this fundamental right when it comes to collecting antiquities. The debate needs to be refocused towards the impact of proposed remedies to "looting" on our fundamental rights.
Archaeologists have already succeeded to some extent with the passage of Bulgaria's new cultural heritage law, but parts of that law were then struck down by the Bulgarian Constitutional Court as violating Bulgarians' right to own private property. See http://sofiaecho.com/2009/10/30/806668_archaeologys-losing-fight and http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/10/bulgarian-constitutional-court-strikes.html
Though written from an "archaeology over all" perspective, a recent Sofia Echo article does acknowledge that this "hot button" issue helps explain why collectors find the new law so controversial:
One of the bill’s provisions that most stirred controversy was that holders of any artwork or antiques should prove their ownership. This provision, central to the law’s intention to regulate the balance between the state’s goal of preserving Bulgaria’s cultural heritage and the private interests of art collectors, would become the defining battleground between the law’s supporters and its detractors.
See http://sofiaecho.com/2009/10/30/806668_archaeologys-losing-fight
The Bulgarian Constitutional Court's decision addressed this issue. In its ruling, the Court allowed invoices and the like to suffice to esbablish "ownership," effectively weakening this "provenance" requirement. In contrast, the law as written had required "official paperwork" like a customs declaration or a court decision to establish good title.
Meanwhile, in the U.K., Lord Renfrew and other members of the "Archaeological All Party Group" have sought to attach a provision to proposed Amendments to the Treasure Act that would shift the burden of proof for those dealing in ancient artifacts from all cultures. As Renfrew explained,
Amendment 68 requires that a person dealing in an archaeological object should produce evidence to show that the object has not been unlawfully excavated. That places a duty on the vendor of knowing and stating the recent history of the antiquity. It will no longer be sufficient to say that it fell off the back of a lorry or was found in the vendor's attic.
See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/91026-0003.htm
This proposal will no doubt be quite controversial and, in any event, the Government does not seem interested in pursuing it at this point. As stated by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bach),
I cannot be as helpful with Amendments 68 to 73, which would introduce a new criminal offence of dealing in undocumented archaeological objects. The new offence would add to the existing offence of dishonestly dealing in a cultural object that is tainted. That offence was introduced in the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003. The introduction of the Act showed our commitment to address the problem by facilitating the prosecution of people who trade in objects looted or stolen from buildings and excavations both here and abroad, and its provisions have an important deterrent effect. There may well have been no cases at this stage, but we believe that it has had a deterrent effect and has raised awareness of the importance of the need to make appropriate checks when acquiring items of cultural importance.
I know that the noble Lords to whom I have referred support the provisions of the 2003 Act as the national heritage of many countries is at stake. Our reluctance to accept these amendments is that we are always wary of introducing yet another new criminal offence unless there is a proven need to do so. The proposed new offences would extend to objects which have been excavated in countries other than England and Wales, which is outside the scope of the treasure system.
Id.
Collectors and dealers need to be more vigilant. A fundamental right for both Britons and Americans is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Yet, archaeologists have used "provenance requirements" to chip away at this fundamental right when it comes to collecting antiquities. The debate needs to be refocused towards the impact of proposed remedies to "looting" on our fundamental rights.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Does U.S. Law Enforcement Apply Our Law or Foreign Law?
I've been told by government officials that U.S. law enforcement "does not apply foreign law," but only applies "our law," i.e. the National Stolen Property Act (as construed by a number of courts) or import restrictions under the Cultural Property Implementation Act.
If so, I find the following information gleaned from Primo Magazine's recent interview with an FBI agent who worked on the Sisto case to be troubling. (For more about the Sisto case, see http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/06/strange-case-of-sisto-collection.html and http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/06/some-thoughts-about-materials-from.html)
According to [FBI Special Agent] Mondini, Michael [Sisto] had hoped to sell part of the collection [of his father John] to fund his children's college education.
"He wanted to make sure all the items were legally obtained," said Mondini. "FBI Agents searched the house and took inventory. If Italian authorities could prove his father's items were stolen, then he would allow the Italians to take them back. He would not fight it."
The FBI dd not remove the material at the home at first. "It was a big task because of so many items," says Mondini. "We photographed 400 manuscripts and religous books. Many had stamps on them from specific libraries, private collections and archives. There were papal seals and decrees in Old Latin. Italian authorities reviewed them and agreed that the sample material would never had been allowed to leave Italy. These conclusions were made by three experts on religious history, two of whom were priests."
After more were photographed, Italian authorities claimed all were historically valuable and illegally obtained. The entire collection was seized by the FBI. Objects wrapped in wax paper were boxed for a new home inside two empty offices at regional headquarters in Chicago.
Mondini admits much of Sisto's collection was illegal because of the simple fact they left Italy without official authorization. Italian law sets a high bar and permission to trade and export artifacts, even inside Italy itself, is rarely if ever given.
Was the FBI following U.S. law or Italian law in seizing the items? Did the F.B.I. merely let the Italians "cherry pick" what they deemed "culturally significant" from the collection?
And on a more basic human level, did our government's premier law enforcement agency effectively take advantage of a grieving son who apparently never consulted a lawyer as to the legality of the FBI's actions just to please the cultural bureaucracy of a friendly foreign nation?
For more about Primo Magazine, see http://www.onlineprimo.com/primo/ Primo interviewed Special Agent Mondini for an article entitled, "Father's Legacy, Brother's Dispute: The Case of John Sisto. That article can be found in the September-October 2009 issue of the Magazine at page 30. The Magazine also includes my own views about the Sisto case and Italy's approach to repatriation issues.
If so, I find the following information gleaned from Primo Magazine's recent interview with an FBI agent who worked on the Sisto case to be troubling. (For more about the Sisto case, see http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/06/strange-case-of-sisto-collection.html and http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/06/some-thoughts-about-materials-from.html)
According to [FBI Special Agent] Mondini, Michael [Sisto] had hoped to sell part of the collection [of his father John] to fund his children's college education.
"He wanted to make sure all the items were legally obtained," said Mondini. "FBI Agents searched the house and took inventory. If Italian authorities could prove his father's items were stolen, then he would allow the Italians to take them back. He would not fight it."
The FBI dd not remove the material at the home at first. "It was a big task because of so many items," says Mondini. "We photographed 400 manuscripts and religous books. Many had stamps on them from specific libraries, private collections and archives. There were papal seals and decrees in Old Latin. Italian authorities reviewed them and agreed that the sample material would never had been allowed to leave Italy. These conclusions were made by three experts on religious history, two of whom were priests."
After more were photographed, Italian authorities claimed all were historically valuable and illegally obtained. The entire collection was seized by the FBI. Objects wrapped in wax paper were boxed for a new home inside two empty offices at regional headquarters in Chicago.
Mondini admits much of Sisto's collection was illegal because of the simple fact they left Italy without official authorization. Italian law sets a high bar and permission to trade and export artifacts, even inside Italy itself, is rarely if ever given.
Was the FBI following U.S. law or Italian law in seizing the items? Did the F.B.I. merely let the Italians "cherry pick" what they deemed "culturally significant" from the collection?
And on a more basic human level, did our government's premier law enforcement agency effectively take advantage of a grieving son who apparently never consulted a lawyer as to the legality of the FBI's actions just to please the cultural bureaucracy of a friendly foreign nation?
For more about Primo Magazine, see http://www.onlineprimo.com/primo/ Primo interviewed Special Agent Mondini for an article entitled, "Father's Legacy, Brother's Dispute: The Case of John Sisto. That article can be found in the September-October 2009 issue of the Magazine at page 30. The Magazine also includes my own views about the Sisto case and Italy's approach to repatriation issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
