On October 23, 2017, the U.S. Cultural
Property Advisory Committee held a “virtual” meeting where 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) James Willis (Trade); (8) Shannon Keller O'Loughlin; and (9) Jeremy Sabloff
(Public-Chair).
There were six (6) speakers: (1) Tess Davis (Antiquities Coalition); (2) Kate
FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural Policy); (3) Mitch Hendricksen (University
of Illinois). (4) Josh Knerley (Association of Art Museum Directors); (5) Katie
Paul (Antiquities Coalition); and (6) Peter Tompa (Global Heritage Alliance).
Tess Davis- Speaks on her own
behalf. Katie Paul will speak for
Antiquities Coalition. She unequivocally
supports renewal of the MOU. She has
worked in Cambodia since 2004. Davis has
never received pay from the Cambodian government and she has worked for the New
York prosecutor’s office pro bono. [She
presumably is on salary from the Antiquities Coalition and/or otherwise
receives funding.] The MOU brings
tremendous benefits and protects collectors from buying recently looted
materials. She is dedicated to the cause
of fighting looting. She has read the
letters of those opposed to the MOU and finds them misguided.
Kate FitzGibbon- There has been an
ongoing embargo on Cambodian artifacts for 18 years. This embargo was put in place as an
administrative matter without complying with Congressional limitations. For instance, after a prior CPAC only
supported emergency restrictions on Cambodian statuary in 1999, restrictions
were expanded administratively in 2003 without CPAC’s knowledge or
consent. The issue that CPAC should be asking is
whether Cambodia is undertaking all the self-help measures it can. One issue is whether there are adequate
museum inventories. Renewing the MOU
will only help legitimize Hun Sen’s repressive government.
Mitch Hendricksen- He supports the
MOU. He works in Cambodia. NGOs such as Heritage Watch have helped educate
local people that looting hurts their heritage.
Now, economic development is the greatest threat to cultural
heritage. The MOU has helped
relationships between the government and American archaeologists.
Lothar von Falkenhausen asks about looting. Hendrickson says most of temple complexes were
stripped clean of statues years ago. A
new road has been built to the temple complex of Preah
Khan. It has brought tourists and police
patrols that make looting less likely.
Nancy Wilkie asks about local museums. One was built near a police station which
makes it less likely that it will be looted.
Heritage Watch has done a good job educating locals not to loot.
Josh Knerly- The AAMD supports a renewal of the
MOU, but requests that benchmarks be applied to assess self-help. The US Government and other foreign donors
have given generously to Cambodia’s cultural heritage establishment, but the
CPIA requires some action on behalf of the Cambodian government. There needs to be more cultural exchange, not
just in situations where an American museum has repatriated an artifact.
Rosemary Joyce wants to know if the MOU has been
responsible for loans. Knerly says you
cannot make that assumption.
Dorit Straus asks about inventories. There is a good inventory for artifacts in
the National Museum, but not for regional and local museums.
Lothar von Falkenhausen states that the
National Museum collection is on-line.
Katie Paul- Her presentation was
difficult to follow given technical problems.
In any event, Paul showed charts that appear to suggest that the United
States remains the dominant market for undocumented archaeological objects. Paul identified 231 artifacts for sale on a web
based auction sales platform that were Khmer archaeological artifacts. There are currently another 46 items on
eBay. The values range from $200-500
Euros to $65,000. Some of the listings
do have provenance information.
Peter Tompa- Notes that the State
Department can no longer ignore the self-help requirement. The House Appropriations Committee has
required CPAC to quantify annual national expenditures on securing and
inventorying cultural sites and museums. CPAC should also
consider other concrete self-help measures in a revised Article
II. For instance, it is not clear whether foreign archaeological
missions pay their workers a fair living wage or take advantage of modern
electronic surveillance systems to monitor their sites for looting in the long
off season. CPAC should also question Cambodian authorities about
persistent allegations that elements within the Cambodian military continue to
loot out of the way temple complexes. Finally, CPAC should advocate that
Cambodia investigate the creation of a portable antiquity
reporting scheme for minor objects found on private land. Tompa's complete comments may be found here.
Nancy Wilkie asks why there is an embargo if
restrictions allow in documented material.
Tompa states the CPIA limits restrictions to artifacts illicitly
exported after the date of restrictions, but Customs applies the restrictions
to all artifacts on the designated list.
Documentation is frequently unavailable for items of modest value.
Lothar von Falkenhausen launches into a
monologue in response to Tompa’s suggestion that redundant artifacts could be
sold after being recorded. He states
that even minor artifacts have critical context. Tompa states that the CPIA distinguishes
between archaeological interest and cultural significance. He also indicates that the PAS helps record
context.
James Willis asks Tompa to respond to
the contention that Cambodia is a poor country that cannot spend money on
heritage. Tompa states that ticket sales
at Angkor archaeological park have become a cash cow and that some should be
spent for heritage purposes. He also
notes Congress has required CPAC to provide information about expenditures and
it up to others to decide their significance.
1 comment:
Hello Peter;
If the quoted auction site really is selling artefacts for between "... $200-500 Euros to $65,000. Some of the listings do have provenance information...", as you report, raises two salient points; where did the provenances come from and who issued them.
To me, this points to corruption high up in the archaeological strata. It's quite obvious therefore, that ordinary Cambodians looting artefacts to supplement low incomes do not have a monopoly of the villainy.
Best
John Howland
UK Collector & Detectorist
Post a Comment