NY Post Says No to Koh

The New York Post has run an editorial highly critical of President Obama's pick to be State Department Legal Adviser, Dean Koh of Yale Law School. See: http://www.nypost.com/seven/03302009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obamas_most_perilous_legal_pick_161961.htm?&page=1

The New York Post is one of the nation's oldest papers. It was founded by Alexander Hamilton in 1801 as the New York Evening Post. Since Rupert Murdoch took control of the paper some years ago, it has been known for its sensationalist headlines and conservative editorial views.

The thrust of the Post's criticism of Koh is that he wants international legal norms to govern application of US law. This has at least some relevance to cultural property issues. Critics have long argued that the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs has effectively gutted the provisions of the Cultural Property Implementation Act that were meant to ensure that US restrictions will not be coextensive with the broadest declarations of foreign ownership over cultural artifacts.

If the Post editorial is to be believed, Dean Koh will not be a likely "change agent" for the way the State Department does business. On the other hand, if Koh is committed to President Obama's promise that government should be more transparent and accountable, perhaps things might still change for the better.

US Ratifies the Hague Convention: More Successful Lobbying By Archaeological Community

The Safe Corner Blog reports that the US has deposited its instrument of ratification of the Hague Convention. See:http://safecorner.savingantiquities.org/2009/03/us-ratifies-hague-convention.html

This marks the end of a successful campaign by the archaeological community to press the US Government to formally accept the document. For a past entry on this issue, see: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/09/us-senate-finally-ratifies-1954-hague.html

The AIA and related groups should be commended for their efforts on this issue. What is odd, though, is that some in the archaeological community continue to deny that archaeologists "lobby" even where it should be self-evident that they do so, and are quite effective at it.

AIA View of China MOU

The AIA has posted its views of the China MOU on its website:

http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10497

Despite the generalities about why coins are important to archaeologists, I suspect Tang and Pre-Tang coins were probably restricted because they were sometimes used as grave goods. As those present at the CPAC hearing will recall, much of the focus of the discussion during the public session was on the looting of tombs. Of course, restricting even early coins glosses over the sheer number of ancient Chinese coins traded quite openly inside and outside China (there must be millions of cash coins extant) as well as the difficulty in separating restricted cash coins from those made up until circa 1911.

Greek "Justice" Under Scrutiny

Here is a troubling story about how Greek authorities misused an EU extradition procedure designed for terrorism cases to attempt to extradite a British antiquities dealer on dubious charges. See: http://www.antiquestradegazette.com/news/7085.aspx

The effort fell apart for lack of evidence in the U.K., but that did not stop the Greek justice system from convicting the dealer in absentia on what are likely trumped up charges.

The dealer has suffered false imprisonment, loss of reputation and financial ruin, but apparently has little recourse.

Stories like these should cast further doubt on Greek show trials related to antiquities repatriation efforts.

Egypt Demands Repatriation of Coffin Allegedly Illicitly Exported 125 Years Ago

Zahi Hawass has requested that US Customs return a Pharonic era coffin that allegedly was illicitly removed from Egypt in 1884 or some 125 years ago. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/arts/23arts-1-EGYPTREQUEST_BRF.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=egypt%20coffin&st=cse

Hawass has made clear in the past that the 1970 date of the UNESCO Convention will not constrain his repatriation demands. What is more troubling is that US Customs apparently has done its part to convince the purchaser of the coffin to abandon it to the Egyptians.

US law should only require repatriation of artifacts in response to import restrictions or proof that they have been "stolen." Here, however, Egypt has never requested import restrictions on cultural artifacts. Moreover, the coffin left Egypt almost a century before Egypt's 1983 patrimony statute described in United States v. Schultz.

This appears to be yet another case where a dubious patrimony claim succeeds not on the merits, but rather because the importer has been intimidated into giving in without a fight.

Greek Hypocrisy?

Bulgaria has claimed that Greek museums hold illegally excavated and exported cultural treasures that they have refused to return. Bulgarian publications have recognized the hypocrisy of the Greek nation demanding the repatriation of artifacts from museums like the Getty, but stonewalling when it comes to repatriation claims made against Greek institutions. See: http://www.balkantravellers.com/en/read/article/1082

More Concern Expressed About Chinese Import Restrictions

The New York Times has written another article about the recent Chinese import restrictions on cultural artifacts. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/arts/artsspecial/19IMPORT.html

Now that it has sunk in, more voices are starting to question the wisdom of the agreement and the ability of US Customs to enforce it fairly.