US Customs has published a very extensive list of "Syrian" artifacts now restricted pursuant to the "Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act." Coin collectors should special take note that that the "designated list" includes all coins minted and circulated in Syria through the Ottoman period.
Now that restrictions are in place, two important enforcement issues remain. First, will Customs only detain, seize and seek the forfeiture of artifacts on the new designated list "unlawfully removed from Syria on or after March 15, 2011?" Or, will Customs revert back to its current extralegal practice of detaining, seizing, and seeking the forfeiture of anything that looks remotely like it appears on the designated list and then require the importer to "prove the negative?" One can only hope that the explicit directions of the measure's sponsor, Congressman Elliot Engel, emphasizing the limits on Customs' discretion will control.
Second, what will happen to any artifacts that are seized and forfeited under the regulations? When the "Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Implementation Act" was first introduced, there was a real hope the Assad regime would be replaced by a far more Democratic alternative. No more. So, will Customs and the State Department still follow current practice and repatriate the artifacts to the Syrian Government which means the Assad regime? And, if so, what does that really say about the wisdom of the statute and the US Government's current emphasis on repatriation over preservation?
Showing posts with label Rogue States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rogue States. Show all posts
Saturday, August 13, 2016
Thursday, August 27, 2015
A Question of Degree
The Art Newspaper has reported on warnings from the FBI's Bonnie Magness Gardiner, an alumnus of the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center, and Michael Danti, a beneficiary of a $600,000 contract from the US State Department, about ISIS looted material -- particularly coins-- entering the U.S. market.
CPO remains dubious that looted material is reaching our shores in any quantity, and further wonders whether the ultimate source of any such "fresh" material is just as likely, if not more likely, to be the cash-strapped Assad regime or the Free Syrian Army rather than ISIS. After all, the iconoclasts of ISIS seem more intent on destruction than anything else, and all those coins with graven images on them could be melted to provide metal for their new Caliphate coinage.
Still, given the crisis, due diligence is warranted, particularly if one is offered groups of similar coins that may have come from the region. Reasonable due diligence based on the type of artifact is one thing. However, it's quite another thing to condition legal import of all collector's coins made in Syria millennia ago on difficult, if not impossible to obtain, documentary proof that an item was out of Syria before the start of Syria's civil war in 2011. Nor should concerns about looting provide the State Department and US Customs license to ignore the provisions of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act and the Anglo-American notions of putting the government to its proofs under that statute. Otherwise, for every 1 looted coin recovered, it is quite likely hundreds if not thousands of quite legitimate but not adequately documented coins could be sucked up by Customs for repatriation to war torn Syria. Is that what US Customs and the State Department really want?
And, finally, the question remains whether all the publicity at the end of Congress' summer break is also meant to help push along the still flawed HR 1493/S.1887, and its proposed creation of a new, pumped up State Department Cultural Heritage Center bureaucracy, as much as anything else. So, as CPO has previously cautioned, consider the source.
CPO remains dubious that looted material is reaching our shores in any quantity, and further wonders whether the ultimate source of any such "fresh" material is just as likely, if not more likely, to be the cash-strapped Assad regime or the Free Syrian Army rather than ISIS. After all, the iconoclasts of ISIS seem more intent on destruction than anything else, and all those coins with graven images on them could be melted to provide metal for their new Caliphate coinage.
Still, given the crisis, due diligence is warranted, particularly if one is offered groups of similar coins that may have come from the region. Reasonable due diligence based on the type of artifact is one thing. However, it's quite another thing to condition legal import of all collector's coins made in Syria millennia ago on difficult, if not impossible to obtain, documentary proof that an item was out of Syria before the start of Syria's civil war in 2011. Nor should concerns about looting provide the State Department and US Customs license to ignore the provisions of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act and the Anglo-American notions of putting the government to its proofs under that statute. Otherwise, for every 1 looted coin recovered, it is quite likely hundreds if not thousands of quite legitimate but not adequately documented coins could be sucked up by Customs for repatriation to war torn Syria. Is that what US Customs and the State Department really want?
And, finally, the question remains whether all the publicity at the end of Congress' summer break is also meant to help push along the still flawed HR 1493/S.1887, and its proposed creation of a new, pumped up State Department Cultural Heritage Center bureaucracy, as much as anything else. So, as CPO has previously cautioned, consider the source.
Monday, August 24, 2015
Consider the Source
This blog is up front. It reflects the views of collectors. But that's not the case for major sources for claims about looting in Syria. Each source has interests and agendas not always apparent from news coverage or archaeological blogs that rely on such information (often without clear attribution). That's not to say what these sources say is necessarily 100% false. Rather, just that its always a good idea to consider the source in assessing the information.
The Assad Regime-- The Assad Regime is a major source of information for others, particularly archaeological blogs. The problem is pure propaganda. As Syrian government officials would have it, ISIS is always to blame for all damage to Syrian cultural patrimony. In contrast, brave Syrian cultural officials are always doing their best to protect Syrian cultural patrimony from destruction and looting. The latter may or may not be based on fact, but the former is pure nonsense. ISIS is an awful plague on the people of Syria and its cultural patrimony, but Assad's military has done its fair share of bombing cultural sites into dust. Moreover, the Syrian military has certainly been involved in looting and otherwise damaging the major sites of Palmyra and Apamea before they fell to rebels. And, of course, let's not forget Assad is wholly responsible for crushing a largely peaceful movement and thereby starting a full fledged civil war.
UNESCO- UNESCO is run by a former Bulgarian Communist (now Socialist) and its pronouncements reflect a state ownership approach that ignores the rights of individuals, ethnic and religious groups. Not surprisingly, UNESCO supports repatriation of artifacts to Assad in the midst of a civil war despite the Assad regime's poor stewardship and even purposeful destruction of cultural artfiacts.
American Schools for Oriental Research (ASOR) and the State Department's Syrian Heritage Initiative-- Potential conflict of interest is the problem here. The State Department awarded a $600,000 contract to ASOR, an organization that takes a dim view of private collecting. Furthermore, the contract seeks to help raise public awareness about looting in war torn Iraq and Syria at the very same time both the State Department and ASOR are lobbying Congress to impose what amounts to permanent import restrictions on all Syrian cultural goods and create a new bureaucracy within the State Department. Enough said.
The Assad Regime-- The Assad Regime is a major source of information for others, particularly archaeological blogs. The problem is pure propaganda. As Syrian government officials would have it, ISIS is always to blame for all damage to Syrian cultural patrimony. In contrast, brave Syrian cultural officials are always doing their best to protect Syrian cultural patrimony from destruction and looting. The latter may or may not be based on fact, but the former is pure nonsense. ISIS is an awful plague on the people of Syria and its cultural patrimony, but Assad's military has done its fair share of bombing cultural sites into dust. Moreover, the Syrian military has certainly been involved in looting and otherwise damaging the major sites of Palmyra and Apamea before they fell to rebels. And, of course, let's not forget Assad is wholly responsible for crushing a largely peaceful movement and thereby starting a full fledged civil war.
UNESCO- UNESCO is run by a former Bulgarian Communist (now Socialist) and its pronouncements reflect a state ownership approach that ignores the rights of individuals, ethnic and religious groups. Not surprisingly, UNESCO supports repatriation of artifacts to Assad in the midst of a civil war despite the Assad regime's poor stewardship and even purposeful destruction of cultural artfiacts.
American Schools for Oriental Research (ASOR) and the State Department's Syrian Heritage Initiative-- Potential conflict of interest is the problem here. The State Department awarded a $600,000 contract to ASOR, an organization that takes a dim view of private collecting. Furthermore, the contract seeks to help raise public awareness about looting in war torn Iraq and Syria at the very same time both the State Department and ASOR are lobbying Congress to impose what amounts to permanent import restrictions on all Syrian cultural goods and create a new bureaucracy within the State Department. Enough said.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Iran Cuts Ties with British Museum
The Islamic Republic of Iran has cut ties with the British Museum over the Museum's decision to delay a loan of the so-called Cyrus Cylinder. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/arts_and_culture/8502654.stm
Diplomatic relations between the two countries have been particularly poor since Iran's stolen presidential election. Indeed, the Iranians have branded the UK the "Little Satan" [to distinguish it from the "Great Satan," i.e., the US] due to the UK's support for the pro-democracy demonstrators. See http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1907066,00.html
In any event, I suspect the current Iranian regime wants to display the seal at least in part because it feels it will confer some sort of legitimacy upon it, as the guardian of the great Persian civilization. If so, this a bit of an odd throwback to the time of the Shah, who also tried to identify his own government with the glories of the past.
And this desire to display an artifact associated with the glories of ancient Persia is more than a bit ironic too. After the Iranian revolution, there was serious talk of bulldozing Persepolis, and even now this world heritage site is both neglected and in danger of damage due to pollution. See http://www.cais-soas.com/News/2002/May2002/10-05.htm
Under the circumstances, I cannot fault the British for holding onto the Cyrus Cylinder. The British have every right to decide when and whether to loan the seal.
And as was noted by Chuck Jones on the SAFE Corner blog (see http://safecorner.savingantiquities.org/2010/01/another-delay-for-cyrus-cylinder.html), this is certainly not a repatriation issue as the Cylinder was found in Iraq. Hence, the arguments usually marshaled for such claims simply do not apply in this particular case.
Diplomatic relations between the two countries have been particularly poor since Iran's stolen presidential election. Indeed, the Iranians have branded the UK the "Little Satan" [to distinguish it from the "Great Satan," i.e., the US] due to the UK's support for the pro-democracy demonstrators. See http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1907066,00.html
In any event, I suspect the current Iranian regime wants to display the seal at least in part because it feels it will confer some sort of legitimacy upon it, as the guardian of the great Persian civilization. If so, this a bit of an odd throwback to the time of the Shah, who also tried to identify his own government with the glories of the past.
And this desire to display an artifact associated with the glories of ancient Persia is more than a bit ironic too. After the Iranian revolution, there was serious talk of bulldozing Persepolis, and even now this world heritage site is both neglected and in danger of damage due to pollution. See http://www.cais-soas.com/News/2002/May2002/10-05.htm
Under the circumstances, I cannot fault the British for holding onto the Cyrus Cylinder. The British have every right to decide when and whether to loan the seal.
And as was noted by Chuck Jones on the SAFE Corner blog (see http://safecorner.savingantiquities.org/2010/01/another-delay-for-cyrus-cylinder.html), this is certainly not a repatriation issue as the Cylinder was found in Iraq. Hence, the arguments usually marshaled for such claims simply do not apply in this particular case.
Monday, February 9, 2009
AIA Statement on Attachment of Cultural Artifacts: As High-Minded as It Seems?
The Archaeological Institute of America ("AIA") thinks that victims of state-sponsored terrorism should not be able to attach cultural artifacts to satisfy court judgments. Indeed, the AIA apparently feels so strongly about this that it plans to lobby Congress to change current law. See: http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10495
Why would the AIA side with regimes like those in Iran and Syria? Of course, if you believe the spin, the AIA has taken this position for only the most enlightened of reasons. As the AIA press release explains:
The ability of nations and institutions throughout the world to loan objects is crucial to achieving international cultural exchange and increasing understanding of different places, different times, and different people. Such archaeological artifacts should not be sold to satisfy claims that are unrelated to the objects themselves. While the earlier litigation related to Iran had already indicated some threat to cultural interchanges, the Metropolitan’s inability to borrow objects from Syria for an exhibition indicates the danger this legislation and litigation pose to cultural exchange. American citizens have been deprived of the opportunity of appreciating and learning from archaeological artifacts and works of art from one of the world’s oldest civilizations. The actions in question therefore pose a serious threat to cultural exchange and cultural diplomacy, which are extremely important in building understanding among peoples.
But, is cultural exchange really more important than compensating victims of terror? Certainly, at least one member of the AIA's "sister organization" Saving Antiquities for Everyone ("SAFE") has argued in the past that such interests do not trump compensating heirs of victims when it comes to "Holocaust art." Why should antiquities be any different?
The AIA website does not mention it, but is it possible that American archaeologists just want to please their Iranian and Syrian hosts? See https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/ Presumably fighting for such an exemption can only ingratiate American archaeologists with the Iranian and Syrian regimes and thus help ensure their continued access to archaeological sites in these countries. If Congress takes up this issue, the archaeological community's motives for supporting a change in the law need to be explored in depth before any amendment of existing law is adopted.
Why would the AIA side with regimes like those in Iran and Syria? Of course, if you believe the spin, the AIA has taken this position for only the most enlightened of reasons. As the AIA press release explains:
The ability of nations and institutions throughout the world to loan objects is crucial to achieving international cultural exchange and increasing understanding of different places, different times, and different people. Such archaeological artifacts should not be sold to satisfy claims that are unrelated to the objects themselves. While the earlier litigation related to Iran had already indicated some threat to cultural interchanges, the Metropolitan’s inability to borrow objects from Syria for an exhibition indicates the danger this legislation and litigation pose to cultural exchange. American citizens have been deprived of the opportunity of appreciating and learning from archaeological artifacts and works of art from one of the world’s oldest civilizations. The actions in question therefore pose a serious threat to cultural exchange and cultural diplomacy, which are extremely important in building understanding among peoples.
But, is cultural exchange really more important than compensating victims of terror? Certainly, at least one member of the AIA's "sister organization" Saving Antiquities for Everyone ("SAFE") has argued in the past that such interests do not trump compensating heirs of victims when it comes to "Holocaust art." Why should antiquities be any different?
The AIA website does not mention it, but is it possible that American archaeologists just want to please their Iranian and Syrian hosts? See https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/ Presumably fighting for such an exemption can only ingratiate American archaeologists with the Iranian and Syrian regimes and thus help ensure their continued access to archaeological sites in these countries. If Congress takes up this issue, the archaeological community's motives for supporting a change in the law need to be explored in depth before any amendment of existing law is adopted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
