Friday, September 22, 2017
Just What One would Expect from a Military Dictatorship That Respects Neither Private Property Rights Nor Human Rights
Egyptian government officials have attacked an edict of a religious scholar approving of landowners keeping treasure found on their own land as long as part is given to charity. Meanwhile, a member of the country's parliament seeks the death penalty for anyone caught with illicit antiquities. Just what one would expect in a military dictatorship with a rump parliament that respects neither private property rights nor human rights.
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
One can only hope one of the few Trump political appointees at the State Department takes a close look at the Obama Administration deal to repatriate the Iraqi Jewish Archive. Such a repatriation would seem to be against everything America stands for. Some of the materials were originally confiscated from Iraqi Jews who were forced to leave their country under Saddam Hussein. Others appear to be taken from schools and synagogues after they left. All the material was stored in the basement of Iraqi secret police headquarters, and became waterlogged after the building was bombed during the liberation of Iraq. The US Government spent considerable time and money restoring and digitizing them. This is yet another situation where UNESCO's repatriationist dogma has been allowed to take precedence over not only the facts, but what is right. The archive should not be returned to sectarian Iraq. Or, at a minimum, the entire contents of the archive should be publicized so that individual Iraqi Jews can make claims on what is rightly the property of their own families.
Friday, August 18, 2017
So-called "preservationists" have advocated for the removal or even destruction of Confederate war memorials as products of an inherently racist culture. In contrast, CPO believes we should not erase history, but learn from it.
In a blog post on the subject, Obama Cultural Property Advisory Committee Appointee Prof. Rosemary Joyce justifies her views based on the assumption that
In a blog post on the subject, Obama Cultural Property Advisory Committee Appointee Prof. Rosemary Joyce justifies her views based on the assumption that
When you remove these statues to men who fought for slavery, you’re not destroying history – you’re making it.
Surprisingly, this 180 degree departure from archeology's mantra of preservation of objects in context appears to be based on little more than reductionist reasoning, i.e., the statues must be symbols of "white supremacy" because they were produced in a racist South. Indeed, efforts to draw attention to the fact that their iconography is virtually identical to monuments erected in the North at around the same time when the politically powerful Civil War generation was passing from the scene elicited little more than condenscending responses. It seems furthering "white supremacy" not commemoration of sacrifices on the battlefield must be the prime motivator in the South, but not the North (despite similar racist sentiments there at the time).
In any event, justifying the removal or even destruction of historical monuments by designating them as "racist" should be even more troubling given recent events in Iraq and Syria. Indeed, there are distinct parallels between ISIS destroying "idolatrous" statues and monuments and efforts here to topple "racist" ones, not the least the motivation to deprive certain groups of artifacts deemed important to their culture (there Shia, Assyrian Christians and Yazhdis and here poor White people (who must be racist!)). At least here, we have processes in place to allow localities and States to make the decision what to do with our Confederate monuments. What must be avoided at all costs is another Durham, N.C., where a mob was allowed to take matters into its own hands.
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
The art law firm of Pearlstein, McCullough & Lederman LLP has brought an action to contest the seizure of an artifact on loan to the Met. The New York Times has covered the seizure here. Lost on the Times, however, is the concern that the NY District Attorney has lawlessly used a search warrant to seize and repatriate an artifact purchased in good faith.
The lawyers for the collectors describe their action to quite title as follows.
Beierwaltes v. Directorate General of Antiquities of the Lebanese Republic and the District Attorney of New York County is an important test case for the art market in general and the antiquities market in particular.
Our clients, Bill and Lynda Beierwaltes, bought an Archaic Greek marble Bull’s Head in 1996 from a London dealer who made representations about its provenance. In 2006, the Bull’s Head was exhibited publicly in Paris at a major art fair and published in a dealer’s catalogue. In 2016 the Bull’s Head was loaned to and exhibited by The Metropolitan Museum of Art. From excavation records published in Switzerland in 2005, the Museum concluded that the Bull’s Head was excavated at the Temple of Eshmun in Lebanon in the 1960s.
After Lebanon demanded restitution, the Beierwaltes filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking declaratory judgment to clear title to the Bull’s Head. Although the Department of Justice declined to pursue a claim for civil forfeiture, the District Attorney of New York County seized the Bull’s Head pursuant to a search warrant and is now seeking to turn the Bull’s Head over to Lebanon. We thereafter amended our complaint to include DANY as a defendant in the federal case.
The twin actions present a number of issues that have not previously been resolved.
First, we believe that DANY’s position is ill-founded and that New York law does not provide for in rem forfeiture. DANY disagrees and believes that it can first seize and then turn over property in the absence of a criminal case.
Second, the relationship between the Beierwaltes’ suit in federal court for declaratory judgment and DANY’s procedure in New York state court for turnover is unclear. Which decision governs if the Beierwaltes prevail in federal court and DANY prevails in state court?
Third, we believe that the Beierwaltes’ title claim is meritorious: even if the Bull’s Head was stolen from Lebanon, the statute of limitations under Lebanese law has expired; Lebanon has no claim under the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act; there are no grounds for seizure under federal law; and New York state law supports the Beierwaltes’ claim on several grounds, including statute of limitations and laches.
The Beierwaltes are bona fide purchasers with clean hands. By contrast, for more than 50 years, Lebanon has failed take any action domestically or internationally to report any theft of the Bull’s Head, file a claim for its return or list the Bull’s Head on any publicly-accessible, international database of stolen art.
Under these circumstances, DANY’s focus on restituting the Bull’s Head to Lebanon based solely on theft would be contrary to U.S. law and policy and New York civil law. It remains to be seen whether DANY’s expansive interpretation of New York’s search and seizure law will prevail
Monday, July 31, 2017
The House of Representatives has used the appropriations process to highlight the need for the State Department and the Cultural Property Advisory Committee to hold countries with MOUs with the United States accountable for spending adequate sums to protect their own cultural patrimony as a precondition for receiving continued US assistance. For more, see here. It's long past time for such a message to be sent. If source countries are poor stewards for what they already have, why repatriate more objects under the misapprehension they will be properly studied, preserved and displayed?
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
On July 19, 2017, the U.S. Cultural Property Advisory Committee held its first “virtual” meeting where some CPAC members and all speakers were linked via an internet based video platform. According to my notes, at least the following CPAC members were in attendance: (1) John Frank (Trade); (2) Karol Wight (Museum); (3) Lothar von Falkenhausen (Archeology); (4) Nancy Wilkie (Archaeology); (5) Rosemary Joyce (Archaeology); (6) Dorit Straus (Trade); (7) Adele Chatfield-Taylor (Public); and (8) Jeremy Sabloff (Public-Chair).
There were six (6) speakers: (1) Peter Tompa (International Association of Professional Numismatists/Professional Numismatist’s Guild; (2) Sue McGovern (Association of Dealers and Collectors of Ancient and Ethnographic Art); (3) William Wright (coin collector); (5) Kate FitzGibbon (Antique Tribal Art Dealers Association) and (6) Nathan Elkins (Baylor). Due to a technical problem, Gary Vikan (Global Heritage Alliance) did not speak.
Peter Tompa- The request is a troubling one. Libya has no government to speak of and anything repatriated cannot be protected from the militias running the country. To the extent any restrictions are granted, they should be limited to site specific restrictions for material identifiable as from Libya’s 5 UNESCO World Heritage Sites as well as for coins identifiable as being stolen from public and private collections. Restrictions cannot lawfully be placed on coins because they are not of cultural significance. Moreover, hoard evidence proves that one cannot assume coins struck in Libya in ancient times were also found there. (For more, see here.)
Sue McGovern- Libya’s chaotic governance means that it cannot undertake self-help measures or protect what cultural patrimony it has, let alone that which may be repatriated under a MOU. Libya has no open museums. It should be taken to task for opposing UNESCO’s efforts to list its World Heritage sites as endangered. In a troubling episode, one powerful militia (supported by General Sisi’s Egyptian military government) burned 6,000 books. Under the circumstances, any MOU is a bad idea.
William Wright- Wright is a teacher at a community college in Virginia. He became interested in the coins from Kyrene because they depict Silphium, a now extinct medicinal plant. He uses coins in his history classes. His students benefit from the tactile experience of handling coins. He only buys from established dealers, but worries about the chilling effect restrictions are having on the hobby.
Kate FitzGibbon- The short comment period has disenfranchised Jewish groups which are incensed that Libya is seeking U.S. Government approval for its efforts to claim the property of expelled Jews as its own. The request should also be denied as to Tuareg material as most Tuaregs live outside Libya and one cannot tell recent tribal arts from early tribal arts that are the target of this MOU.
Nathan Elkins- Looting is well documented in Libya. Restrictions should also extend to coins as for other objects. Coins are special targets for looters. CPAC should be wary of the misrepresentations of the lobbyists for the coin trade. Nancy Wilkie (Archaeology) asked Elkins if metal detectors were used in Libya. Elkins does not know for sure, but assumes so. Dorit Straus (Trade) asked Elkins about documenting coins. Elkins does not understand why collectors don’t document coins as he did as a collector before stopping for ethical reasons.
Here is what I said more or less at today's CPAC meeting:
I am speaking on behalf of the International Association of Professional Numismatists and the Professional Numismatists Guild, which represent the small businesses of the numismatic trade. In many ways, this hearing is a much greater test for CPAC than for ancient coin collectors. This is a very troubling request being rushed through the system, but for what purpose? Libya has no government to speak of, much less one that can ensure that any artifacts that may be repatriated will be protected from the militias really running the country. As such, IAPN and PNG believe this request should either be tabled pending receipt of more information, or at most treated as an emergency request with restrictions only granted for site specific material from Libya’s 5 UNESCO World Heritage Sites as well as any material—including coins—that is identifiable as being stolen from public or private collections.
There is no reason for more ill-considered import restrictions on coins that don’t mesh with the CPIA’s requirements that restrictions only be placed on objects of “archaeological interest” of “cultural significance” “first discovered within,” and “subject to export control by” the requesting state, here Libya.
There is a history here which most of you probably don’t know. For 25 years after the CPIA was passed, there were no restrictions on coins. This should be no surprise. Coins are items of commerce. So, it is difficult for modern nation states to justifiably claim them as their “cultural property.” They are probably amongst the most common of historical artifacts and are not of “cultural significance.” They are avidly collected and traded worldwide—including in places like Libya. It simply makes no sense to preclude Americans from importing coins where there is no real “concerted international response.” Indeed, when the CPIA was being discussed, Mark Feldman, a high ranking State Department lawyer, represented to Congress that it was “hard … to imagine a case where we would need to deal with coins except in the most unusual circumstances.”
In 2007, this changed with Cypriot coins. According to the declarations of two former CPAC Members that change was made against CPAC’s recommendations. In 2011, a federal court was asked to look at the issue, but determined that the matter was non-justiciable which is just a fancy way of saying it’s not my problem. So, if anything, that makes the issue “your problem” all the more.
Why shouldn’t coins be restricted? The CPIA only limits restrictions to objects of cultural significance. Just because an object is of archaeological interest does not give it cultural significance. Coins which exist in multiples lack cultural significance. The CPIA also limits restrictions to archaeological material first discovered within and subject to the export control of the specific country, here Libya. The hoard evidence we discuss in our paper confirms that one simply cannot safely assume Libyan coins are found at Libyan archaeological sites.
Let me touch on some issues raised by Dr. Nathan Elkins in his papers. First, Dr. Elkins claims that restrictions are proper for any coins that predominantly circulated in Libya. However, this proposed test is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the CPIA that limits restrictions only to artifacts “first discovered within” and “subject to export control by” Libya. This language makes clear that only coins actually found in Libya and hence subject to its export control can be restricted. Second, even under Elkins’ standard, Libyan coins could not be restricted because all recorded hoards of Libyan coins are found outside Libya. [Note, Dr. Elkins disputed this point. My written comments and research can be found here.] Finally, given the small number of such coins on the open market, there is no reason to believe they are “gushing out” of Libya as he claims. If anything, the small number and modest values of such coins on the market suggest that any restrictions would not deter pillage. Thank you on behalf of the small businesses of the numismatic trade and collectors for your consideration of our views.