Summary of October 5, 2021, Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting to Address Emergency Import Restrictions Request on Behalf of the “Former Government of Afghanistan,” Proposed Renewals of MOUs with Cyprus and Peru.

                On October 5, 2021, the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (“CPAC”) met to consider proposed emergency import restrictions on behalf of the “former government of Afghanistan” as well as proposed renewals of MOUs with Peru and Cyprus.  The following members were present: (1) Stefan Passantino (Chairman- Public); (2) Steven Bledsoe (Public); (3) Karol Wight (Museums); (4) J.D. Demming (Public); (5) Ricardo St. Hilaire (Archaeology); (6) Joan Connelly (Archaeology); Rachael Fulton Brown (Archaeology?); (7) Anthony Wisniewski (Collector-Sale of International Cultural Property); Mark Hendricks (Sale of International Cultural Property?); and David Tamasi (International Sale of Cultural Property?).  Allison Davis, CPAC’s State Department Executive Director, and Michele Prior, also of ECA, were also present.

                It appears that the State Department has seated last minute Trump Appointees in slots reserved to represent the interests of archaeology and the international trade of cultural property, but that has not yet been confirmed on the State Department website.   Rachael Fulton Brown is an associate professor of History at the University of Chicago.  David Tamasi is a Founding Partner and Managing Director of Chartwell Strategy Group, a Washington based government relations and strategic communications firm.  Mark C. Hendricks is a principal at Taradin Service Ltd., a private equity firm.  Messrs. Tamasi’s and Hendricks’ background in the international sale of cultural property is unclear.

Chairman Passantino welcomed the speakers.  He indicated that the Committee had read all the comments, and speakers could only be allotted 4 minutes time given the busy schedule.  He also indicated that due to the addition of Afghan emergency import restrictions to the schedule, the Committee’s consideration of the Cypriot renewal would be tabled until a January meeting.  Nonetheless, speakers were free to discuss Cyprus if they were prepared to do so.  Alternatively, they could defer their comments until January. 

The following speakers addressed the Committee: (1) Kate FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural Policy/Global Heritage Alliance); (2) Josh Knerly (Association of Art Museum Directors); (3) Dr. Elizabeth Greene (Archaeological Institute of America); (4) Dr. Brian Bauer (University of Illinois); (5) Dr. Karen Olsen Bruhns (San Francisco State University); (6) Peter Tompa (International Association of Professional Numismatists/Professional Numismatists Guild; (7) Dr. Brian Daniels (Archaeological Institute of America); (8) Tess Davis (Antiquities Coalition); (9)  Allen Berman (Author, Professional Numismatist); and (10) Randolph Myers (Ancient Coin Collectors Guild).

Kate FitzGibbon (KFG) spoke first on behalf of the Committee for Cultural Policy (CCP) and Global Heritage Alliance (GHA).  Although she also put in a paper on Peru, she will focus her comment on Afghanistan.  KG lived in Afghanistan from the 1970s to early 1980s writing about the culture and dealing in ethnographic art.   She had to flee the country in 1982 after the Soviet invasion.  The real issue today is not looting but the fear that the Taliban will intentionally destroy cultural heritage either intentionally to score jihadist propaganda points or to exploit Afghanistan’s mineral wealth.  Section 1216 of the National Defense Authorization Act does not provide a basis for safe harbor for Afghan antiquities. ECA should forget about emergency import restrictions and instead work with the trade and museums in protecting Afghan cultural heritage and extracting Afghan archaeologists from the country. 

The CCP’s and GHA’s testimony on Afghanistan can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0068

Their testimony on the proposed renewal of a MOU with Cyprus can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0077

Their testimony on the proposed renewal of a MOU with Peru can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0097

                Josh Knerly (JK) spoke next on behalf of the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD).  The request of the “former Government of Afghanistan” raises some serious legal issues.  The government that made the request no longer exists and there was insufficient information provided about the proposal within a short five (5) day comment period to make intelligent comment or for CPAC to have a full grasp of the issues.  The effect of import restrictions may be to freeze objects in place in Afghanistan where they may be destroyed by the Taliban. CPAC needs to consider the consequences of any import restrictions carefully. Section 1216 of the National Defense Authorization Act is not a safe harbor provision.  It only immunizes from seizure institutional loans already covered by an Afghan Government export certificate.  It would make far more sense to defer consideration of the matter until the situation on the ground is clearer.  JK next discussed the Peruvian renewal.  He criticizes the State Department’s replacement of tailored language for each MOU with generic language in Article II of the Agreement.  This generic language does not help AAMD members negotiate with State Parties on museum loans.   The terms and conditions of each MOU should encourage source countries to provide such loans with reasonable fees.  Peru’s loan fees are very high. 

                The AAMD’s written testimony regarding Peru and Cyprus can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0105

                Dr. Elizabeth Greene (EG) is the president elect of the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA).  She focuses her comments on the Fourth Determination that any import restrictions are consistent with the general interest of the international community in the international exchange of cultural property.   She indicates the AIA’s 200,000 members (this figure derives from the number of subscribers to the AIA’s “Archaeology” Magazine) have benefitted from the MOU.  Many have taken AIA sponsored trips to Peru to view Peruvian cultural heritage.  Peru has been generous with loans, including one recent loan of 200 items. Dr. Greene specializes in the study of transport amphora.  They may appear to be duplicates but have manufacturing marks that makes each unique.  MOUs can protect duplicate objects like amphora and coins as well as ensure the market only contains legitimate material.  They are not perfect, but they do help reduce looting. 

                Dr. Brian Bauer (BB) appreciates the fact that Spanish Colonial era documents have been added to MOUs.  He now asks CPAC to recommend changes to Article II of the MOU with Peru to ensure that archaeological samples can be exported for further study.  There are no labs within Peru which can do this work, but the Peruvian cultural bureaucracy, especially on a provincial level, have made it a bureaucratic nightmare to export such material.  Only material shepherded through the system with the help of Peruvian colleagues gets exported.   Many times requests for export get lost or simply stay in limbo so long that the researcher just gives up.  The MOU needs to be modified to encourage Peruvian authorities to fix this problem.

                Dr. Karen Olsen Bruhns (KOB) believes MOUs are essential to fight illicit networks.  She has been involved in the fight against looting since 1963.  She has seen the depredations of looters in Latin America firsthand.  She assists U.S. Customs in repatriating artifacts.  She names US dealers she claims sell looted goods.  She attacks US Museums as being filled with looted material.  She views collectors as no better than looters.

                Peter Tompa (PT) spoke on behalf of the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) and the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG).  He defers his comments on Cyprus to focus attention on Peru and Afghanistan.  Spanish Colonial and Republican era coinage of Peru do not fit the statutory definitions for archaeological or ethnological material.  They cannot be considered archaeological material because they are not normally found underground and/or do not meet the 250-year-old threshold.  Such coins were also produced by Europeans using sophisticated industrial processes that churned out thousands of virtually identical coins.  As such, they cannot be ethnological material either. PT then turns to Afghanistan.  He indicates that is should weigh heavily on CPAC that import restrictions could have the perverse effect of requiring US Customs to “claw back” undocumented Bactrian coins imported from Europe and hand them over to the Taliban who could resell, or even worse, melt them.  The CPIA does not contain a “safe harbor” provision to keep that from happening, and Section 1216 of the National Defense Reauthorization Act will provide no help.  Items will be repatriated when diplomatic relations are reestablished, a decision that will be made based on considerations other than the Taliban’s treatment of cultural heritage.  Restrictions are especially problematic for coin collectors since they are applied not as prospective restrictions on illicitly excavated coins but as embargoes to coins already on legal markets within our major trading partners in the EU, UK, and Switzerland. 

                PT’s oral testimony can be found here:  https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-cpia-cannot-support-import.html

                IAPN’s and PNG’s written testimony on Afghanistan can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0088

                IAPN’s and PNG’s written testimony on Cyprus can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0038

                IAPN’s and PNG’s written testimony on Peru can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0021

Dr. Brian Daniels (BD) spoke for the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA).  The request for a MOU by the former government of Afghanistan allows the Committee to consider emergency import restrictions.   There is looting of crisis proportions in Afghanistan.  Research has shown that 170 sites have suffered looting from 2000-2017.   In 2019, there was an uptick in looting of inscriptions.  Customs has seized archaeological material which appears to be from Tillya Tepe.  In the past decades, US archaeologists have worked on capacity building with their Afghan colleagues. BD acknowledges Section 1216 of the National Defense Reauthorization Act would only have helped evacuating Afghan material when the former government was in power.  Now emergency import restrictions are necessary not only to keep looted material off the market but to support Afghan colleagues.  Customs has inherent authority to hold onto such items until it is safe to return them to Afghanistan. 

The AIA’s submission on Afghanistan can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0069

                Tess Davis (TD) spoke on behalf of the Antiquities Coalition (AC).  The Antiquities Coalition supports emergency import restrictions on Afghan cultural goods.  It is important to take decisive action now given the warning from the Afghan National Museum that looters and smugglers are taking advantage of political instability following the Taliban take over.   Emergency restrictions are not MOUs, but they can protect cultural heritage and collections.  They do not vest title of artifacts in the government.  No concerted international response is necessary.  The US did not adopt emergency restrictions on Cambodian artifacts in the 1970s and we are now seeing the consequences with investigations into Latchford’s sales of Cambodian conflict antiquities to US collectors and museums. 

                AC’s submission on Afghanistan can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0082

                AC’s submission about Cyprus can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0080

AC’s submission on Peru can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0081

                Allen Berman (AB) is an author, publisher and the American Numismatic Association’s instructor on medieval coinage.  He believes that the law of unintended consequences may apply to import restrictions on coins.  Provenanced coins already cost more, but there are very few comparatively on the market because there was no reason historically to keep the provenance of most coins.  On Peru, 95% of coins produced there was made for export.  On Afghanistan, the last time the Taliban were in control, they not only dynamited the Bamiyan Buddhas; they also smashed artifacts in the National Museum.  AB is horrified by the prospect that the US Government may hand over Bactrian coins to the Taliban.  All these coins feature pagan images the Taliban find offensive.  As to Cyprus, thousands of Crusader era coins are documented as having been found outside of Cyprus so you cannot assume such coins were found there.  It would be better for Cyprus and other countries to try systems akin to the United Kingdom’s Portable Antiquity Scheme and Treasure Act.  This system encourages people to report their finds and allows the government the right of first refusal to buy them.

AB’s written testimony on Afghanistan can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0037

                His written testimony on Cyprus can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0035

                Randolph Myers appeared on behalf of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG).  Given the time, he indicated he would defer his comments on Cyprus until January.

                The ACCG’s written testimony on Afghanistan can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0040

The ACCG’s written testimony on Cyprus can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2021-0032-0025

Question and Answer Period:

Ricardo St. Hilaire asked JK about Article II in the Peru agreement.  JK indicated that standardized Article IIs do not work.  Peru charges high fees for loans which need to be addressed on an individualized basis in Article II of any renewal.

 Karol Wight asks JK if AAMD museums have faced the same bureaucratic obstacles to loans as BB has experienced with exports of archaeological samples.  JK responds that loans with Peru take an inordinate amount of time to negotiate and that loan fees are high.

J.D. Demming asks if instead of keeping Afghan artifacts in Afghanistan it would be better if they escaped the country given Taliban control.  KOB states that providing a market for antiquities encourages looting.  The real problem is antiquities dealers in the US which now have a “bad odor.”  Sotheby’s now avoids selling antiquities in the US to avoid this perception.  KFG indicates that KOB has an outdated view of the antiquities market based on practices of decades ago.  The art market today takes pains to ensure that what it sells is legal.  Complicating the situation here is that it was quite legal to sell and export antiquities from Afghanistan for decades.  Therefore, one cannot assume items on the market are the products of recent, illicit digs.   Repatriating items to Taliban Afghanistan will not help protect them.  The real issue is the danger of Taliban intentional destruction or destruction of artifacts through mining.  BD indicates that import restrictions will protect items currently in the ground within Afghanistan because there will be less incentive to loot them.  US Customs and the State Department have ample authority to provide safe harbor to any antiquities that are seized.  PT appreciates what BD says about import restrictions protecting unexcavated artifacts within Afghanistan, but the problem is that Customs applies them far too broadly and will repatriate artifacts that have been out of Afghanistan for decades merely because they do not have solid provenances. 

Anthony Wisniewski gets the last word.  He has spent over 500 hours on his CPAC duties.  He has seen lots of conflict between the parties, but thinks all sides believe in cultural property preservation.  He will be working to bring people together to find common ground which promotes both transparency and protects private collections. 

The CPIA Cannot Support Import Restrictions on Spanish Colonial and Republican Era Coins or Any Restrictions that Could Benefit the Taliban

 Here is what I said more or less at today's CPAC meeting:  

        Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of IAPN and PNG.  I am available to answer questions on all our written submissions but will defer my comments on Cyprus until CPAC’s January meeting.   Let me discuss any proposed import restrictions on Peruvian coins first.  CPAC has looked at and rejected prior efforts to impose import restrictions on Latin American coins.  Spanish colonial and Republican era coinage simply do not fit the statutory definitions of “archaeological” or “ethnological” material.  Such coins do not meet the 250-year-old threshold for “archaeological” material.  Nor are they normally found within the ground.  European settlers ran Peru’s mints.  The coins were produced using sophisticated industrial processes churning out thousands of virtually identical objects.  As such, they cannot be deemed “ethnological” material either.  Nor can one assume that Peruvian coins imported into the United States from third countries were ever “first discovered within” or “subject to” Peruvian export control.  Spanish Colonial and Republican era Peruvian coins circulated widely in international commerce, and even served as legal tender in the United States until 1857.

          Now let me address Afghanistan.  It should weigh heavily on CPAC that any emergency import restrictions could very well have the perverse effect of requiring U.S. Customs to “claw back” undocumented Bactrian coins imported from Europe, so they can be handed over to the Taliban who could resell, or even worse, melt them for bullion.  CPAC should be skeptical of any claims this can’t happen because forfeited artifacts will be given “safe harbor” in the United States.  There is no “safe harbor” provision in the CPIA, which instead requires forfeited items to be offered to the State Party, here Afghanistan, now under Taliban control.   Section 1216 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2021, cited by the Archaeological Institute of America, only applies to institutional loans that the Afghan government has authorized.  The reality is that objects forfeited under the CPIA must be repatriated when diplomatic relations are reinstated, and that decision will be based on factors other than the Taliban’s abysmal treatment of pre-Islamic cultural heritage.

          Finally, let me emphasize that import restrictions are especially problematical for coin collectors because they are applied as embargoes on all “designated” coins imported from legal markets of our major trading partners in the E.U., U.K. and Switzerland rather than as prospective restrictions only placed on “designated” coins illicitly exported from the State Party after the effective date of the governing regulations.  While we agree with the Antiquities Coalition on how the CPIA should operate, we know from hard experience that Customs and the State Department rely on the deference Courts have afforded the government in “foreign policy matters” to green light such confiscatory practices.  We therefore urge CPAC to be especially wary of approving of any new import restrictions on coins, particularly where the Taliban may be their primary beneficiary.  Thank you. 

Import Restrictions Without End

The drafters of the CPIA contemplated that import restrictions would give breathing space for source countries to get their own house in order, but they were never supposed to go on forever.  Yet, the State Department and US Customs have extended import restrictions on Peruvian goods for the fourth time.  So, Americans have been limited in their ability to import Peruvian goods from third countries for yet another 5 years.

The extension expands restrictions to colonial era manuscripts although it is dubious that they meet the definition of ethnological objects under the CPIA.  Presumably, the restrictions were put into place to keep Peruvian citizens from selling off old manuscripts to foreigners.  Materials within Peruvian institutions are already restricted from entry in the US under the CPIA's stolen property provisions.

Peruvian Officials Look the Other Way

The Peruvian cultural bureaucracy has made a big show of going after smugglers using the mails, demanding the repatriation artifacts long held by "Yanqui" institutions like Yale, and even seeking its cut of Spanish treasure.  On the other hand, the same Peruvian cultural bureaucracy seems unwilling or unable to stop the bulldozing of major archaeological sites within the country in the name of development.  Should Peru be branded a "malefactor source country" and be denied further U.S. taxpayer assistance to finance the U.S. State Department's repatriation efforts?  CPO believes so.

Bulldozers at Work Again

Just weeks after an international outcry over the the destruction of a Mayan pyramid in Belize, it has been reported that developers have bulldozed another Pre-Columbian era pyramid in Peru, and have damaged up to eleven others at the site.  It makes little sense for the US State Department and US Customs to preclude Americans from importing things like Pre-Columbian pottery from Peru when Peruvian authorities can't be bothered to protect such sites from development until AFTER the bulldozers do their work.  Peru is another malefactor source country as far as I'm concerned.

Peru Wants Artifacts that Left Country after 1822

Peru has asked French authorities to stop an auction of Peruvian artifacts that left the country years ago.     Sotheby's used to auction off such material in New York, but U.S. import restrictions on pre-Colombian art has driven that business overseas.

President Sarkozy made a concerted effort to increase France's share of the auction business. Perhaps, the Peruvian Government is hoping that France's current "soak the rich" Socialists will be more amenable to repatriation demands, however stale the claim.

Whether French authorities take the Peruvian claim seriously or not, all this is just more evidence that museums and others were snookered into accepting a 1970 date for acquisitions of artifacts.  If they thought such a concession would quiet repatriation demands, they were very, very wrong.   If anything, such concessions have only encouraged further demands-- the slippery slope rule applies yet again.  

MOUs Should Be About "Respect" for Governing Law

The State Department has announced that the MOU with Peru has been extended once again to "demonstrate [its] continued respect for the extraordinary cultural heritage of Peru."

While I agree that Peru has an extraordinary cultural heritage, import restrictions are only supposed to be extended if they meet the significant procedural and substantive constraints found in the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act.  What then about "respecting" governing law?

Certainly, restrictions were only meant to give countries like Peru time to get any looting under control-- they were never meant to be reinstated time and time and again.   Peru has already had the benefit of US import controls for 15 years.   Hopefully, by the time the next renewal comes along in another 5 years someone responsible at State will conclude enough is enough.

Odyssey Marine: Carriage of Coinage Rules

While the archaeological community has pitched Spain's win in the Odyssey Marine Case as win for archaeology over the commercial exploitation of shipwrecks, the decision was in fact narrowly based on the fact that a Spanish warship carried the treasure, i.e., archaeological arguments were not result determinative.

Indeed, if anything, the decision is a defeat for repatriation in a broader sense; in awarding the treasure to Spain, the U.S. courts also turned down Peru's claims to the treasure largely based on the moral argument that Colonialist Spain stole it from the Peruvian people.

Spain to Peru: It's Not About the Money, Really

Spain has rejected Peru's claims to the treasure retreived from the Black Swan wreck. According to the Washington Post,

On Thursday, the Peruvian government made an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to block transfer of the treasure to give Peru more time to make arguments in U.S. federal court about its claim to being the rightful owner. But that appeal was denied Friday by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Peru had argued the gold and silver on the ship was mined, refined and minted in its territory, which at the time was part of the Spanish empire.

But Carmen Marcos, deputy director of Spain’s National Museum of Archaeology, said Monday the coins were minted not just in Peru but also in Bolivia, Colombia and Chile. And the whole affair involved in claiming the coins was not about monetary value but rather history, she added. “These coins are not money. They are archaeological pieces,” she told reporters.

For more, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/spain-rejects-peruvian-claim-to-shipwreck-treasure/2012/02/27/gIQAFFcfdR_story.html

While this statement will no doubt warm the hearts of archaeologists everywhere, one would hope cash strapped Spain (which is only a little better off than Greece) will consider selling most of the coins after they are properly cleaned and recorded. If the coins really are worth $500 million as reported, why hoard them instead of using proceeds from their sale for the public good?

Peru to Supreme Court: Spain Stole It First!

Peru has asked the Supreme Court to put a hold on the return of sunken treasure found by Odyssey Marine to Spain. See
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpps/news/local/region_1/peru:-spain-stole-it-first-odyssey-02222012_18164227

US Courts have ordered Odyssey Marine to return the treasure because it was found in a sunken Spanish warship.

Peru wants the Courts to turn the treasure over to it, because it was stolen from the country by Spanish colonialists.

Shouldn't the ardent repatriationists of the archaeological community support Peru over dastardly Spain? Surely if they pushed for Yale to return study artifacts from Machu Picchu, they should root for Peru in its efforts to take back what they are due from whatever source. Or, is their ire selectively employed against American companies and institutions?

Perhaps "finders, keepers" is the best rule after all.

AIA Lobby Shop Springs into Action

The AIA styles itself as not for profit educational organization, but is acting more and more like a lobby shop in support of foreign cultural bureaucracies all the time. Indeed, the AIA's website now has an "advocacy page" (See http://www.archaeological.org/sitepreservation/advocacy) that links to an effort to gin up comments for the upcoming CPAC meetings on Cyprus and Peru. See http://www.archaeological.org/CPAC

And here is the AIA's party line:

"The looting of sites damages archaeological contexts, hampering archaeologists' study of ancient remains and distorting our reconstruction of the past. Because our understanding of the past is dependent on our ability to recover, study, and interpret ancient sites and artifacts in their original context, the preservation of sites is critical to the creation of archaeological knowledge, as well as to the maintenance of cultural heritage. A commitment to stopping the import of looted cultural material will help to prevent the destruction of the archaeological record."

While its hard to disagree with most of this statement, the last sentence is misleading in the extreme. If the advocates at the AIA were being honest, they would acknowledge that import restrictions as formulated and applied are grossly overbroad. Instead of focusing on artifacts reasonably suspected to be looted, they in fact embargo the import of all undocumented material on a "designated list"-- including many artifacts openly and legally available abroad-- on the assumption it "must be stolen." Of course, the "undocumented" equals "looted" equation only makes some sense for narrow ranges of "culturally significant" material that has not regularly appeared on international markets for generations. Yet, the ideologues at the AIA and the obdurate bureaucrats at State and US Customs have stretched the reach of import restrictions to even the most common artifacts, like ancient coins, that have been widely collected without provenance information for hundreds of years.

AIA View of CPAC Meeting on Bulgarian and Peruvian MOU

Here is the AIA's view of the Bulgarian and Peruvian MOU hearings: http://www.archaeological.org/news/advocacy/7317

The discussion underscores the ideological nature of the AIA's opposition to collecting. Practical concerns and fairness to small business don't rate for these out of touch academics. They also willfully ignore the fact that the unprovenanced coins they want to restrict are freely available within Bulgaria itself. If collecting unprovenanced coins is such a problem as Bulgaria is concerned, why doesn't the Bulgarian government clamp down on Bulgarian collectors? It won't as that would cause an uproar, but that won't stop the obdurate State Department bureaucrats from clamping down on US collectors.

Instead of clamping down on collectors, how about regulating metal detectors at the source?

The preferred method of regulation, of course, is a system akin to that in Britain, Wales and Scotland, but the CPIA itself requires that the source country try effective regulation of metal detectors before US authorities restrict American's ability to import cultural goods like coins.

For my view of the public meeting, see
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/11/public-cpac-meeting-on-belize-and.html

Death to Looters!

That at least is the implication of Professor Rothfield's suggestion that armed guards police archaeological sites and museums in places like Egypt and Iraq. See
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/jul/10/arm-museum-guards-looting-war?mobile-redirect=false

While our own museums like the National Gallery of Art have some armed guards, I agree with Dorothy King that this particular proposal may lead to unnecessary deaths. See
http://phdiva.blogspot.com/2011/07/arm-museum-guards-to-prevent-looting.html Most "looters" in places like Egypt, Iraq and Peru are "subsistence diggers" who remove treasures from the graves of their ancestors in order to put food on the table. Do we really want to encourage them being killed in the name of archaeology? As for the armed gangs of archaeological lore, to the extent they exist at all, wouldn't they likely be better armed than the guards?

Of course, every country is free to address this issue in its own way, but I also suspect that Professor Rothfield wants Western countries to fund these armed guards.

And let's not forget. Shoot the looter was the practice in Saddam's Iraq. Is this really who we want to emulate?

Yale Capitulates on Machu Picchu Archaeological Materials

Yale has capitulated to Peru's demands that artifacts from Machu Picchu be repatriated. See
http://opac.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=1997

The nastiness of Peru's concerted campaign against the University, which recently included staged demonstrations and even threats of criminal prosecution, belies the conciliatory language in Yale's press release. See http://culturalpropertylaw.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/peru-mounts-campaign-against-yale-to-reclaim-artifacts/

Presumably, this decision will just encourage other repatriation demands. It certainly underscores the fact that a pre-1970 provenance is not the "safe harbor" archaeologists have claimed in order to induce museums to change their acquisition policies.

Connecticut Senator Sides with Peru Against Yale

Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut has issued a statement that appears to support Peru's claims against Yale regarding disputed artifacts from Machu Picchu. See
http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=38572

Oddly though, the story also quotes Dodd as saying, "The Machu Picchu artifacts do not belong to any government, to any institution, or to any university.... They belong to the people of Peru. I plan to work with both parties to resolve this dispute quickly, amicably, and return the artifacts to their rightful owners." (emphasis added.)

One thus wonders who Dodd thinks should hold the artifacts on behalf of the people of Peru, if not its government.

Dodd's statements also need to be put in some context. Artdaily fails to mention it, but Dodd has been a consistent supporter of left-wing causes in Latin America throughout his career. See http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/01/shilling_for_the_new_castro.html Under the circumstances, he is likely not approaching this particular issue as some neutral mediator.

One also must wonder whether Yale really cares all that much what Dodd thinks at this point. Dodd decided to retire from the Senate earlier this year rather than face the wrath of irate voters angry that he had received special treatment from a mortgage company that fell within the oversight of the Senate Banking Committee, which he chairs. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/06/AR2010010600023.html It certainly has not helped Dodd's political legacy that the company in question-- Countrywide-- helped spark the nation's sub-prime mortgage crisis. And, then, Dodd got into further political trouble when he was accused of helping to preserve the bonuses of executives of insurance giant AIG, which had just received a huge federal bailout.

Ironically, Hiram Bingham, who brought the artifacts to Yale in the first place, also once represented Connecticut as a U.S. Senator. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Bingham_III And, as his biography notes, like Dodd, Bingham also left the Senate under somewhat of a cloud.

James Cuno Lectures at George Washington University

On Jan. 21, 2010, Dr. James Cuno lectured about "Museums, Antiquities and the Politics of Cultural Property" to a packed house of mostly students at George Washington University.

Dr. Cuno recounted the themes expressed in his book, "Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle Over Our Ancient Heritage." See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/07/kudos-for-cuno.html

As in that book, Cuno explained how:

• Source country nationalism rather than a desire to protect archaeological sites motivates most efforts to seek repatriations or import restrictions.
• Source counties should return to the practice of allowing "partage" in return for help in excavating archaeological sites.
• Archaeologists are dependent on source countries for excavation permits. Self-interest or fear of offending their hosts has led to unqualified support for source country rights over cultural artifacts even when that results in the neglect or destruction of those same artifacts.
• Whoever made a cultural artifact, it certainly was not made for a modern nation state.
• Some source countries unashamedly assert rights over cultural artifacts of peoples and cultures they actively seek to subvert.
• Encyclopedic museums have become a target for source nations and archaeologists because they stand in opposition to the nationalization of culture.
• The trend of repatriations and import restrictions runs counter to the even more powerful trend of globalism.

Cuno illustrated his lecture with examples to drive home these points:

• Images of Italy's trophy art display at the Italian President's flag-draped residence made clear the nationalistic impulses behind Italy's repatriation efforts.
• Yale's trouble with Peru over Machu Picchu relics can be plotted against declining poll numbers for the Peruvian government-- there is no better way to divert attention from the troubles at home than to go after the most Yankee of institutions in court and the press.
• Chinese complaints about artifacts stolen by colonial powers must be judged against China's own treatment of its own minorities, i.e., the Tibetans and Uighurs.
• The cargo from an ancient Turkish shipwreck underscores that artifacts cannot easily be tied to a single culture.
• An image of a Chinese tea pot shaped in an Indian inspired form with English silver inlays demonstrates that artifacts are created from a mix of cultural elements.

As an antidote to cultural property nationalism, Cuno advocated:

• A rethink of national cultural property retention statutes to allow partage and licit markets.
• The creation of encyclopedic museums in countries like China and Greece.
• The recognition that encyclopedic museums help popularize the culture of countries like Italy, China, Peru and Greece and help keep immigrants visiting these museums attuned to the culture of their home.

Also of interest was Dr. Cuno's self-effacing style, complete with some humorous quotations from some of the more colorful reviews of his book.

For more about upcoming lectures in this series-- including ones by Patty Gerstenblith and Malcolm Bell, see http://www.gwu.edu/~csll/museums.html

South American Sisto Case?

The Sun Sentinel reports that the FBI has repatriated Pre-Columbian artifacts found in the home of a deceased Florida businessman to Peru and Ecuador. See http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/florida/fl-fbi-precolumbian-artifacts-20091201,0,3969102.story

A retirement home manager found the collection in the man's home when she was preparing the property for resale. She called in the FBI "after searching the Internet" and determining that the objects "were illegal to possess."

The businessman apparently had no heirs (or perhaps no one looked very hard to find them) so there was no one with an interest in asking if the retirement home manager was "jumping to a conclusion."

The FBI and Florida International University apparently were not interested in anything other than identifying which cultures produced the objects so they could be repatriated to the governments of the modern nation states that occupy the land that produced them.

This incident reminds me of the recent Sisto case and some of the the issues that raised. For more, see http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/search?q=Sisto

I also am also highly dubious of the claim of the FBI agent in the video that suggests that these artifacts will be put on display in Peru and Ecuador. Both countries have large stashes of similar artifacts in storage. The public typically never sees such artifacts, and, indeed, they may be subject to deterioration or theft.

Spain 1, Treasure Salvors 0, Peru 0

A federal magistrate judge has concluded that Spain is the rightful owner of treasure removed from a shipwreck because the available evidence suggests that the lost vessel was a 19 th c. Spanish warship.

What archaeological blogs I have read on the subject seem to relish the decision as a victory against private treasure salvors, but, in so doing, they gloss over the rather narrow statutory basis for the ruling as well as the Court's outright rejection of Peru's claim to the treasure based upon "cultural nationalist principles," i.e., that the treasure belongs to Peru because the "property physically, culturally and historically originat[ed] in Peru." See Slip op. at 29.

Derek Fincham has kindly placed a link to the Court's decision on his own blog. See: http://illicit-cultural-property.blogspot.com/2009/06/spain-prevails-for-now.html

As he notes, there will surely be an appeal.

Peru Files Suit Against Yale

Recently, Derek Fincham blogged about the renewed possibility that Peru would file suit against Yale over artifacts long held in Yale's collection from archaeological digs conducted by Hiram Bingham almost a century ago: http://illicit-cultural-property.blogspot.com/2008/11/peru-to-lawyer-up.html Bingham's digs at Machu Picchu made him world famous and he later became a US Senator. See: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/Featured_Bio_Bingham.htm

That possibility has come to pass. On December 5, 2008, DLA Piper LLP filed suit on behalf of Peru against Yale. The Complaint can be accessed here, but only through subscription to the Court's Pacer system: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-dcdce/case_no-1:2008cv02109/case_id-134251/

The lengthy Complaint recounts how the artifacts came to and were retained by Yale from Peru's perspective. Of course, Yale will be given an opportunity to respond when it answers the Complaint or files a motion to dismiss.

Peru Officials Find Pre-Hispanic Textiles on Sale in Lima Tourist Market

This article posted on the Museum Security Network List piqued my interest:

Peru officials find pre-Hispanic textiles on sale in Lima tourist market

The Associated Press
Saturday, July 5, 2008

LIMA, Peru: Shoppers at a tourist market in Peru's capital could have netted greater bargains than they thought -- rare, pre-Hispanic textiles costing little more than a Machu Picchu magnet. Police and archaeologists raiding the block-long, outdoor Indian Market June 27 found swatches of centuries-old cloth -- mainly from the Chancay culture -- nestled among itchy llama sweaters and other mass-produced Peruvian handicrafts. The textiles, likely scraps from looted archaeological sites, were pasted atop decorative boxes and sewn into dolls that sold for as little as US$6.50, said Blanca Alva, chief of the Historic Patrimony Defense Department for the government's National Cultural Institute. Some dated as far back as the 13 th century. Alva didn't say why the material sold so cheaply, but she said the vendors knew exactly what they were selling. Some of the boxes decorated with ancient textiles sold for $50. "We saw with our own eyes a saleswoman hiding a box with swatches of the textiles in another stand, trying to get rid of the evidence," Alva said. According to Peruvian law, the destruction, alteration or sale of pre-Hispanic cultural artifacts can carry a prison sentence of three to eight years. Peru's famed pre-Inca art is featured around the world, especially the colorful weavings of ancient civilizations that thrived along the Andean nation's coast. But Peruvian officials are trying to crackdown on "huaqueros," or looters, who illegally traffic the artifacts, Alva said. The government has seized about 620 objects made with ancient textiles in three raids, one of them in the Duty Free shop of Lima's Jorge Chavez International Airport.

I obviously don't think its a good thing to cut up ancient textiles to decorated tourist trinkets. Also, Peruvian police have the right and obligation to enforce Peru's own laws aimed at stopping the looting of archaeological sites. At the same time, the fact that such artifacts were sold openly at a tourist market and even a duty free shop at the airport points to the fact that "the situation on the ground" can be quite different from what we hear from members of the archaeological community. Also, I suspect at least some members of the indigenous populations that make up the "looters" question the rights of the government to keep them from making a living off of artifacts left by their ancestors. I guess this is where "community archaeology" mentioned in a prior post should come in.

Perhaps, Peru should also create a licit market for such materials. Certainly, the Peruvian government does not have the funds to properly study, display and store all the artifacts from the ancient civilizations located within the bounds of the modern day nation state. A licit export market of more mundane material could help spread interest in Peru's ancient cultures, help stimulate tourism, help preserve artifacts, help fund Peruvian archaeology, and help poor indigenous populations put food on the table.