El Salvador is one of the best examples of
why the current system of simply renewing MOUs is ineffective and inconsistent
with the CPIA. The absence of a
significant legitimate market in the United States for El Salvadorian
Prehispanic objects has apparently had little or no effect on looting in El
Salvador. If the past, and presumably
current, submissions to this Committee are to be believed, United States import
restrictions alone have not been effective in significantly curtailing looting
in El Salvador. The time has come for the
Committee to explore new ways, within the confines of the CPIA, to render real
assistance to countries like El Salvador.
The AAMD does not suggest that it has all of
the answers to this issue, but one can begin to identify those answers by
admitting that simply repeating what has been done in the past is not likely to
have any different result than what has occurred over the last
27 years. In 2010, the AAMD
recommended to this Committee that El Salvador be encouraged to begin a legal
system of exchange of cultural property. This can be suggested under 19 U.S.C.
§ 2602(a)(4). Any such exchange should be taxed and the proceeds of that tax
should be used to protect cultural sites and to encourage related employment by
the local populations and the scientific exploration, storage and conservation
of objects from those sites. There may
well be other approaches that reasonable people on all sides of these issues
can recommend, but the first step needs to be taken by this Committee in
acknowledging that new and different approaches must be taken if the
archaeological record of a country like El Salvador is to be preserved and
protected.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Henceforth, comments will only be posted from those who provide a full name, country of residence and basis for interest, i.e., collector, archaeologist, academic, etc. or their Blogger profile provides such information.