An independent Egyptian media outlet, Al-Masry Al-Youm, has reported, "MP Ahmed Ezz, who is also a leading member of the ruling National Democratic Party, suggested an amendment that would legalize trade in antiquities." See http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/news/antiquities-profit
Unfortunately, there apparently was no real debate on the amendment: Zahi Hawass, Egypt's antiquities Pharaoh, ensured the proposal was promptly shot down.
Interestingly, however, Al-Masry Al-Youm took the debate to the streets. The responses to the media outlet's question are interesting-- as is the percentage of government employees that participated in the canvass.
Cultural Property Observer would be particularly interesting in how the poll question was phrased. It would also be interesting to learn whether the MP's proposal specifically addressed sales of artifacts of a sort that exist in multiples, and are likely never to see the light of day out of storage.
Showing posts with label licit markets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label licit markets. Show all posts
Friday, January 22, 2010
Sunday, September 7, 2008
A View from India
This month's Art Newspaper at page 59 has an interesting article from an Indian academic, Dr. Naman P. Ahuda. It is entitled, “India: a Tale of Two Markets”.
The article is a synopsis of a larger report prepared for the Task Force on Cultural and Creative Industries, Planning Commission of India.
Ahuja is a highly respected scholar of art history. He first explains economic development/urbanism is now a far greater cause of site destruction than art collecting:
The biggest irony of all is that, in any case, a desire for the possession or art objects is no longer the driving force for the desecration of or pillaging of ancient sites. The Indian government has built dams … knowing that the archaeological context will be sacrificed. It is the advance of man – urbanisation, the cutting down of forests, the construction of roads and dams, and expanding agriculture --- that is now the biggest source of destruction.
Like Cuno, he also understands that:
(laws controlling export of archaeological material) were passed in the interests of nationalism… designed to foster a belief in outside cultural imperialism and are both a symptom and source of deep emotional feeling. And although these laws have proved remarkably ineffective, their emotional basis makes it difficult for the relevant authorities to adjust them.
He also explains that in practice such laws do little but promote public corruption and perverse results:
The law invests officialdom with powers that risk engendering corruption. It is widely known that bribes have been paid to get a license to sell antiquities, to get "non-antiquity" certificates to be able to export them, to even register an antiquity with the authorities.... [U]nsympathetic laws will continue to result in the destruction of the archaeological record unless a proper system of reward exists, since finders usually channel such objects into the illicit market. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the costs of bribes or adhering to the law are potentially so damaging that finders are deliberately destroying pieces rather than run the risk of being caught with them.
As a result, Ahuda suggests that a fundamental "adjustment" in such laws is what is needed:
An adjustment of the present laws to encourage legitimate domestic trade would be effective in restricting the smuggling routes on which the illicit international trade depends. The easing of the sale of such items within India will go a long way in preserving national heritage as awareness of art, history and heritage increases.
It is interesting to find that an academic from a "source country" is advocating the same things authorities like James Cuno and the AAMD have been advocating in this country. Hopefully, authorities like Ahuda will encourage other academics from source countries to also challenge the outdated nationalistic orthodoxy in their own countries. Perhaps, then even the archaeologists behind the new Penn Cultural Heritage Center will notice.
The article is a synopsis of a larger report prepared for the Task Force on Cultural and Creative Industries, Planning Commission of India.
Ahuja is a highly respected scholar of art history. He first explains economic development/urbanism is now a far greater cause of site destruction than art collecting:
The biggest irony of all is that, in any case, a desire for the possession or art objects is no longer the driving force for the desecration of or pillaging of ancient sites. The Indian government has built dams … knowing that the archaeological context will be sacrificed. It is the advance of man – urbanisation, the cutting down of forests, the construction of roads and dams, and expanding agriculture --- that is now the biggest source of destruction.
Like Cuno, he also understands that:
(laws controlling export of archaeological material) were passed in the interests of nationalism… designed to foster a belief in outside cultural imperialism and are both a symptom and source of deep emotional feeling. And although these laws have proved remarkably ineffective, their emotional basis makes it difficult for the relevant authorities to adjust them.
He also explains that in practice such laws do little but promote public corruption and perverse results:
The law invests officialdom with powers that risk engendering corruption. It is widely known that bribes have been paid to get a license to sell antiquities, to get "non-antiquity" certificates to be able to export them, to even register an antiquity with the authorities.... [U]nsympathetic laws will continue to result in the destruction of the archaeological record unless a proper system of reward exists, since finders usually channel such objects into the illicit market. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the costs of bribes or adhering to the law are potentially so damaging that finders are deliberately destroying pieces rather than run the risk of being caught with them.
As a result, Ahuda suggests that a fundamental "adjustment" in such laws is what is needed:
An adjustment of the present laws to encourage legitimate domestic trade would be effective in restricting the smuggling routes on which the illicit international trade depends. The easing of the sale of such items within India will go a long way in preserving national heritage as awareness of art, history and heritage increases.
It is interesting to find that an academic from a "source country" is advocating the same things authorities like James Cuno and the AAMD have been advocating in this country. Hopefully, authorities like Ahuda will encourage other academics from source countries to also challenge the outdated nationalistic orthodoxy in their own countries. Perhaps, then even the archaeologists behind the new Penn Cultural Heritage Center will notice.
Friday, July 25, 2008
CPAC, AAMD and Licit Markets
On July 24, 2008, I attended a Cultural Property Advisory Committee meeting to discuss the renewal of the MOU with Honduras. The renewal itself appeared uncontroversial. There were only three speakers, including the First Secretary of the Embassy. She did a good job given the fact that she was only told she was making the presentation that morning. An anthropologist from the University of California, Berkeley supporting the renewal was far better prepared. She arrived with another colleague from Berkeley and a representative of the Society of American Archaeology. Under the circumstances, I could not help but think that they may care more about the renewal of the MOU in Berkeley than they do in Honduras.
Josh Knerly, an attorney who represents the AAMD, made the most interesting presentation. He suggested that Honduras should create licit markets for duplicate archaeological artifacts as one part of a scheme to protect Honduras' culture. I suspect AAMD will put its prepared testimony on its web site in the near future. See http://www.aamd.org/advocacy/
His testimony provoked an extensive interchange between Mr. Knerly and various CPAC members. Here is the flavor of the discussion. Sandy Boyd (museum representive - past director of the Field Museum) agreed with Knerly that the creation of licit markets would be a good idea, but did not think that the US should condition the renewal of the MOU on the commitment to study the issue. Nancy Wilkie (archaeological representative -past AIA President) indicated that she was wary of the creation of licit markets because she believed it would lessen the amount of material available in the public domain for scholars. Bob Korver (trade representative) thought that the renewal of the MOU could and should be conditioned on the creation of licit market within Honduras. Knerly agreed with Korver's view, but at this juncture was only advocating that the creation of licit markets be suggested and not mandated as a condition of any renewal. He also argued that Ms. Wilkie's concerns could be ameliorated if collectors were required to make their collections available to scholars for study.
The AAMD plans to continue to advocate the creation of licit markets in places like Honduras. It will be interesting to see how things develop.
Josh Knerly, an attorney who represents the AAMD, made the most interesting presentation. He suggested that Honduras should create licit markets for duplicate archaeological artifacts as one part of a scheme to protect Honduras' culture. I suspect AAMD will put its prepared testimony on its web site in the near future. See http://www.aamd.org/advocacy/
His testimony provoked an extensive interchange between Mr. Knerly and various CPAC members. Here is the flavor of the discussion. Sandy Boyd (museum representive - past director of the Field Museum) agreed with Knerly that the creation of licit markets would be a good idea, but did not think that the US should condition the renewal of the MOU on the commitment to study the issue. Nancy Wilkie (archaeological representative -past AIA President) indicated that she was wary of the creation of licit markets because she believed it would lessen the amount of material available in the public domain for scholars. Bob Korver (trade representative) thought that the renewal of the MOU could and should be conditioned on the creation of licit market within Honduras. Knerly agreed with Korver's view, but at this juncture was only advocating that the creation of licit markets be suggested and not mandated as a condition of any renewal. He also argued that Ms. Wilkie's concerns could be ameliorated if collectors were required to make their collections available to scholars for study.
The AAMD plans to continue to advocate the creation of licit markets in places like Honduras. It will be interesting to see how things develop.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
