Michael Danti, who runs the State Department-ASOR Syrian Cultural Heritage initiative, spoke about his activities on an ABA Cultural Heritage Law Committee "telecoffee" discussion. Michael McCullough, the Committee Chair, acted as moderator. A link to the talk, which was recorded, will appear on the Committee's website. See here. The below is based on my hurried notes so CPO readers are encouraged to listen to the program themselves if they want more than CPO's impressions of the event.
Danti dug in Syria from 1991-2010. He has also worked in Iraqi Kurdistan. He has been associated with Boston University and the University of Pennsylvania. He oversees the initiative that not only monitors the ongoing situation in Syria, but has also been involved in disaster planning and training initiatives for Syrian cultural heritage officials.
The conflict response includes 40-50 people and there are 5-10 reporters about what is going on within Syria itself. (The initiative also relies on Arab media sources.)
Danti indicates that press reports focus too much on ISIL's destruction of classical sites and too little on its destruction of houses of worship of other Islamic sects as well as the destruction of Yazidi shrines and places of worship. (Danti did not mention destruction of Christian houses of worship.)
There also has been a tendency to imply that all looting has been done on behalf of ISIS when in fact it has been done on behalf of all belligerents as well as desperate individuals. This includes the Assad regime and Kurdish forces.
Digital media has been used to try to sell looted materials to individuals abroad. Other Syrians who immigrated abroad and who are now fairly prosperous are particular targets of such sale pitches. Part of the pitch is to save Syrian cultural heritage from destruction.
ISIS has an "antiquities office" that is in charge of looting. It sells licenses that allow individuals to loot in ISIS territory. The Abu Sayef raid shows that looted material is being stockpiled.
The initiative has documented approximately 1,000 cases of individuals trying to sell looted material with cell phone images. Most of the material that is being sold is either classical or early Islamic. Lebanon and Turkey are transshipment points. Material goes on from there to Cyprus, Bulgaria, Austria or Greece and then into other EU countries. Coins, sculpture and mosaics are among the material that is for sale. Refugees also bring material with them. Once out of Syria, material looted from ISIS territory is mixed up with material looted from elsewhere.
The material does not appear to be going to established auction houses but coins are appearing in on-line auctions.
Material is being offered to dealers in Turkey and Lebanon and in on-line chat rooms. Lebanese Customs is doing a good job stopping material while Turkish Customs could do more.
ASOR's contract with the State Department has been extended for another year. In the second year of the contract, they plan to focus more on documenting the illicit trade in objects.
Showing posts with label ABA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ABA. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
The Future of Recording the Past in England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and the United States
On October 12, 2011, the American Bar Association International Law Section and its Art and Cultural Heritage Law Committee sponsored a panel about the law of finds in England and Wales, Ireland, Scotland and the United States for ABA members attending a fall meeting in Dublin:Program Chair and Speaker: Patty Gerstenblith, DePaul University College of Law.Program Chair and Moderator: Peter K. Tompa, Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC.Speakers:Roger Bland , British Museum.Stuart Campbell, Treasure Trove Unit, Scottish National Heritage.Eamonn Kelly, Irish National Heritage. The panel brought together these experts to consider the benefits and disadvantages of the systems in each of these countries, the policy goals fostered by each, and the effect the current economic crisis on the implementation of these different systems.
Eamonn Kelly (“EK”) spoke first about Irish law. After Independence the new Irish Republic looked to recognized experts to help formulate policy towards finds of archaeological artifacts. In 1928 a Government Select Committee under the chairmanship of Nils Litberg, (a Swedish ethnologist and museum director), began looking at these issues. Based on the Select Committee’s recommendations, the Irish Republic passed a Monuments Law in 1930 that regulated, by license, the excavation, export and conservation of archaeological objects and required that the finding of archaeological objects be reported to the National Museum.
Subsequent legislation dating from 1994 made it illegal to be in possession of an unreported archaeological object or to trade in unreported antiquities. Unreported antiquities could be seized as State property. There is broad consensus in Ireland that newly found archaeological objects should be treated as State property and that finders should receive discretionary awards. Irish maintain a direct connection to their land and their ancestors that helps make looting taboo.
Patty Gerstenblith (“PG”) spoke next about American law. PG explained that there is a division of responsibility between the federal and state governments. The federal government regulates federally-owned and controlled lands, including Native American tribal lands, and also controls interstate and international commerce in archaeological resources. In contrast, State governments maintain responsibility for state-owned and controlled lands.
The federal government owns approximately 30 percent of the landmass in the United States. State and local governments indirectly control activity on private land, in part through zoning and other land-use regulations, but archaeological resources located on private land remain largely unregulated. Most federal government landholdings are in the West, which means that this land receives more protections than the land in the Eastern part of the country.
The Constitution's “takings clause” limits the ability of state and federal governments to protect archaeological artifacts on private land. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (“NAGPRA”) generally precludes the removal of Native American artifacts from federal land. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (“ARPA”) also governs removal of artifacts from federal land. Most states have equivalents of each statute.
Stuart Campbell (“SC”) next discussed Scottish law. The Scots have retained common law treasure trove. Treasure trove derives from medieval law. Awarding found treasure to the King was a way to add money to the treasury. The concept is similar to an intestate estate going to the crown. Over time, rewards were offered to finders. Today, Scotland offers fair market awards to finders who comply with the law. The weakness of common law is its lack of definition. However, this lack of definition also allows for flexibility. Any system needs public buy-in making it essential to offer awards. The general public typically views illicit excavation as being no worse than a traffic violation. Over time, public education can make people change behavior. For example, drunk driving is no longer publicly acceptable. There are only about 400 metal detectorists in Scotland. In contrast, there are approximately 10,000 in England and Wales. Accordingly, Scottish officials have to deal with fewer finds and fewer problems than their English and Welsh counterparts.
Roger Bland (“RB”) spoke last about English and Welsh law. The Treasure Act mandates that most significant metal detector finds be reported. If the state decides to keep the find, it must pay a fair market reward. Many finds (typically of ancient coins) are returned to the finder. There are approximately 20,000 protected sites in the United Kingdom that are off limits to metal detectorists. There has been a significant increase in reported finds since the Treasure Act went into effect in 1996. There also is a voluntary “Portable Antiquities Scheme” (“PAS”) which encourages finders to report artifacts not subject to mandatory reporting under the Treasure Act. A recent significant find is the Stratfordshire Hoard of Anglo-Saxon artifacts. Gaps in the law get addressed when the Treasure Act is reviewed every five (5) years. There was a recent controversy about the Crosby Garrett Roman Parade Helmet. Because it did not fit the legal definition of “treasure,” it was auctioned off. However, PAS recorded its find spot.
Question and Answer Period
EK noted that the Irish sought to distance themselves from the British system when they sought advice from experts in archaeology. There was already a regulatory system in place before the advent of the metal detector. The Irish feel close to the land of their ancestors so looting is rare. Moreover, unlike England, most Irish land is not plough land but pasture land, which is much more difficult to dig.
Tight government spending has impacted the Irish, Scots, English and Welsh. The popularity of PAS and the Treasure Act has meant that its funding has been preserved. However, it has become more difficult to raise money to pay a fair market rewards so that artifacts can be kept in museums. RB still believes that no important finds covered under the Treasure Act have been returned to the finder for lack of funds. It’s harder to attract interest in less significant finds of coins and these often are returned to the finder. In Ireland, there has been a fall off in construction projects and hence rescue archaeology funded by developers.
EK, SC and RB discussed their favorite finds. EK described a 4th Century burial of a trader of African origin who lived among the Irish. SC described a find of antique toys. This find was not valuable but nevertheless was a touching reminder of children who lived long ago. RB mentioned both the Stratfordshire Hoard of Anglo Saxon artifacts and the immense Fromme hoard of late Roman coins. The Fromme Hoard contained rare issues of Usurper Emperors who controlled Roman Britain. Careful excavation of the pot containing the hoard has led to a reevaluation of such hoards as votive deposits.
Papers from this conference have been just posted here under "Winter 2012 Newsletter":
http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=IC936000
Eamonn Kelly (“EK”) spoke first about Irish law. After Independence the new Irish Republic looked to recognized experts to help formulate policy towards finds of archaeological artifacts. In 1928 a Government Select Committee under the chairmanship of Nils Litberg, (a Swedish ethnologist and museum director), began looking at these issues. Based on the Select Committee’s recommendations, the Irish Republic passed a Monuments Law in 1930 that regulated, by license, the excavation, export and conservation of archaeological objects and required that the finding of archaeological objects be reported to the National Museum.
Subsequent legislation dating from 1994 made it illegal to be in possession of an unreported archaeological object or to trade in unreported antiquities. Unreported antiquities could be seized as State property. There is broad consensus in Ireland that newly found archaeological objects should be treated as State property and that finders should receive discretionary awards. Irish maintain a direct connection to their land and their ancestors that helps make looting taboo.
Patty Gerstenblith (“PG”) spoke next about American law. PG explained that there is a division of responsibility between the federal and state governments. The federal government regulates federally-owned and controlled lands, including Native American tribal lands, and also controls interstate and international commerce in archaeological resources. In contrast, State governments maintain responsibility for state-owned and controlled lands.
The federal government owns approximately 30 percent of the landmass in the United States. State and local governments indirectly control activity on private land, in part through zoning and other land-use regulations, but archaeological resources located on private land remain largely unregulated. Most federal government landholdings are in the West, which means that this land receives more protections than the land in the Eastern part of the country.
The Constitution's “takings clause” limits the ability of state and federal governments to protect archaeological artifacts on private land. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (“NAGPRA”) generally precludes the removal of Native American artifacts from federal land. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (“ARPA”) also governs removal of artifacts from federal land. Most states have equivalents of each statute.
Stuart Campbell (“SC”) next discussed Scottish law. The Scots have retained common law treasure trove. Treasure trove derives from medieval law. Awarding found treasure to the King was a way to add money to the treasury. The concept is similar to an intestate estate going to the crown. Over time, rewards were offered to finders. Today, Scotland offers fair market awards to finders who comply with the law. The weakness of common law is its lack of definition. However, this lack of definition also allows for flexibility. Any system needs public buy-in making it essential to offer awards. The general public typically views illicit excavation as being no worse than a traffic violation. Over time, public education can make people change behavior. For example, drunk driving is no longer publicly acceptable. There are only about 400 metal detectorists in Scotland. In contrast, there are approximately 10,000 in England and Wales. Accordingly, Scottish officials have to deal with fewer finds and fewer problems than their English and Welsh counterparts.
Roger Bland (“RB”) spoke last about English and Welsh law. The Treasure Act mandates that most significant metal detector finds be reported. If the state decides to keep the find, it must pay a fair market reward. Many finds (typically of ancient coins) are returned to the finder. There are approximately 20,000 protected sites in the United Kingdom that are off limits to metal detectorists. There has been a significant increase in reported finds since the Treasure Act went into effect in 1996. There also is a voluntary “Portable Antiquities Scheme” (“PAS”) which encourages finders to report artifacts not subject to mandatory reporting under the Treasure Act. A recent significant find is the Stratfordshire Hoard of Anglo-Saxon artifacts. Gaps in the law get addressed when the Treasure Act is reviewed every five (5) years. There was a recent controversy about the Crosby Garrett Roman Parade Helmet. Because it did not fit the legal definition of “treasure,” it was auctioned off. However, PAS recorded its find spot.
Question and Answer Period
EK noted that the Irish sought to distance themselves from the British system when they sought advice from experts in archaeology. There was already a regulatory system in place before the advent of the metal detector. The Irish feel close to the land of their ancestors so looting is rare. Moreover, unlike England, most Irish land is not plough land but pasture land, which is much more difficult to dig.
Tight government spending has impacted the Irish, Scots, English and Welsh. The popularity of PAS and the Treasure Act has meant that its funding has been preserved. However, it has become more difficult to raise money to pay a fair market rewards so that artifacts can be kept in museums. RB still believes that no important finds covered under the Treasure Act have been returned to the finder for lack of funds. It’s harder to attract interest in less significant finds of coins and these often are returned to the finder. In Ireland, there has been a fall off in construction projects and hence rescue archaeology funded by developers.
EK, SC and RB discussed their favorite finds. EK described a 4th Century burial of a trader of African origin who lived among the Irish. SC described a find of antique toys. This find was not valuable but nevertheless was a touching reminder of children who lived long ago. RB mentioned both the Stratfordshire Hoard of Anglo Saxon artifacts and the immense Fromme hoard of late Roman coins. The Fromme Hoard contained rare issues of Usurper Emperors who controlled Roman Britain. Careful excavation of the pot containing the hoard has led to a reevaluation of such hoards as votive deposits.
Papers from this conference have been just posted here under "Winter 2012 Newsletter":
http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=IC936000
Monday, September 27, 2010
April 15, 2010 ABA Panel on 1970 UNESCO Convention and CPIA Papers Published
This blog previously summarized the words of Mark Feldman, Jim Fitzpatrick, Patty Gerstenblith, Josh Knerly, and Nancy Wilkie here:
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2010/04/aba-panel-on-1970-unesco-convention-and.html
Now, you can read their own words here: http://meetings.abanet.org/webupload/commupload/IC936000/sitesofinterest_files/Art_&_Cultural_Heritage_Law_Committee_Summer_2010_Newsletter.pdf
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2010/04/aba-panel-on-1970-unesco-convention-and.html
Now, you can read their own words here: http://meetings.abanet.org/webupload/commupload/IC936000/sitesofinterest_files/Art_&_Cultural_Heritage_Law_Committee_Summer_2010_Newsletter.pdf
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
ABA Panel Discussion on Protecting Cultural Property in Wartime
On November 3, 2010, the ABA's Art and Cultural Heritage law section will sponsor a panel discussion on protecting cultural property in the event of armed conflict at the ABA's International Law Section Fall Meeting in Paris.
Panel members include Irina Bokova (invited) , UNESCO's chief, Karl von Hapsburg of the Blue Shield, Hays Parks of the US Department of Defense (invited) and Jiri Toman from Santa Clara University.
Patty Gerstenblith of DePaul University will serve as panel chair.
Interestingly, Karl von Hapsburg is also the grandson of his namesake Karl, the last Austro-Hungarian Emperor, who is on track to become a Saint of the Roman Catholic Church. Karl, like his father, Otto, has been very prominent in EU affairs. Otto gave up his claims to the crown in 1961 so that he could return to his native Austria. See http://www.antiquesatoz.com/habsburg/habsburg-family.htm and http://www.insidethevatican.com/articles/otto-von-habsburg.htm#G1277239881828
Panel members include Irina Bokova (invited) , UNESCO's chief, Karl von Hapsburg of the Blue Shield, Hays Parks of the US Department of Defense (invited) and Jiri Toman from Santa Clara University.
Patty Gerstenblith of DePaul University will serve as panel chair.
Interestingly, Karl von Hapsburg is also the grandson of his namesake Karl, the last Austro-Hungarian Emperor, who is on track to become a Saint of the Roman Catholic Church. Karl, like his father, Otto, has been very prominent in EU affairs. Otto gave up his claims to the crown in 1961 so that he could return to his native Austria. See http://www.antiquesatoz.com/habsburg/habsburg-family.htm and http://www.insidethevatican.com/articles/otto-von-habsburg.htm#G1277239881828
Thursday, March 18, 2010
American Bar Association Program on 1970 UNESCO Convention and the CPIA
The American Bar Association Art and Cultural Heritage Law Committee will sponsor the following event at the ABA Section of International Law's Spring meeting:
ABA Section of International Law Spring Meeting
April 13, 2010 - April 17, 2010
Art & Cultural Heritage Law Committee event on
Thursday, April 15, 2010 at 2:30 p.m.
Grand Hyatt New York
Park Avenue/Grand Central
109 E 42nd St
New York, NY, 10017-5698
Moderated round table discussion: International Trade in Ancient Art and Archaeological Objects: Controversies Over U.S. Implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on Cultural Property.
Speakers: Mark B. Feldman (moderator), Garvey Schubert Barer,Washington, D.C; James Fitzpatrick, Arnold & Porter, Washington, D.C.; Patty Gerstenblith, DePaul University College of Law, Chicago, IL; Josh Knerly, Hahn Loeser & Parks, Cleveland OH; Professor Nancy C. Wilkie, Carleton College, Northfield, MN
Although the event is for ABA members registered to attend the Spring meeting, the discussion should also be open to members of the press that register. Non-ABA members interested in the session should contact the meetings staff to ascertain whether it is possible to just attend this event, and if, so the fee.
For more about the ABA International Law Section Spring Meeting, see: http://www.abanet.org/intlaw/spring2010/
ABA Section of International Law Spring Meeting
April 13, 2010 - April 17, 2010
Art & Cultural Heritage Law Committee event on
Thursday, April 15, 2010 at 2:30 p.m.
Grand Hyatt New York
Park Avenue/Grand Central
109 E 42nd St
New York, NY, 10017-5698
Moderated round table discussion: International Trade in Ancient Art and Archaeological Objects: Controversies Over U.S. Implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on Cultural Property.
Speakers: Mark B. Feldman (moderator), Garvey Schubert Barer,Washington, D.C; James Fitzpatrick, Arnold & Porter, Washington, D.C.; Patty Gerstenblith, DePaul University College of Law, Chicago, IL; Josh Knerly, Hahn Loeser & Parks, Cleveland OH; Professor Nancy C. Wilkie, Carleton College, Northfield, MN
Although the event is for ABA members registered to attend the Spring meeting, the discussion should also be open to members of the press that register. Non-ABA members interested in the session should contact the meetings staff to ascertain whether it is possible to just attend this event, and if, so the fee.
For more about the ABA International Law Section Spring Meeting, see: http://www.abanet.org/intlaw/spring2010/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
