Poly Rules

The New York Times comments on Poly Group's rise to Number Three Auction House in the World. While American auction houses, museums and collectors can no longer easily import Chinese artifacts from abroad due to import restrictions on cultural goods, Poly has no such worries.  Indeed, the politically connected generals of the People's Liberation Army that run Poly don't have much to fear from Chinese regulators either.  As Chinese art experts have observed,

"[I]t is Poly’s relationship with the state and the reach of its affiliated businesses that have fostered its ascension in the art world, experts say. They claim that, because of Poly’s ties to elites in the Chinese government, it enjoys greater freedom in moving cultural relics in and out of the country and more leeway from the tax bureau. Poly also can be more dismissive of recent efforts, led by the trade association, with the of commerce and culture ministries, to reform the Chinese art market, the experts say.

'It’s a privileged institution that is more powerful than what we would consider some of the lesser state agencies,” said Tai Ming Cheung, director of the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation at the University of California, San Diego, and an expert on Chinese state companies.'"

The current Chinese MOU must be renewed in January or it will lapse.  At a public session awhile back, CPAC received plenty of evidence that the current MOU does nothing but promote the interests of politically connected Chinese business interests at the expense of American collectors, museums and auction houses.   But will CPAC and the State Department decision-maker listen?  Or will the U.S. Cultural bureaucracy's knee-jerk repatriationist stance carry the day once more?

Rescue Archaeology?

This article appears to suggest what has been characterized by American archaeologists  and their allies in the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center as looting in China may actually be rescue archaeology of a sort.  Presumably, this is as the article suggests illegal under China's draconian laws that declare even artifacts found on private property to be property of the State.  However, if the "looters" do not save the objects from being ground into dust by construction equipment, who will?

Chinese Art Market Rife with Fakes

Chinese citizens are rightly proud of their ancient culture.  And even my friends in the archaeological world will no doubt agree that collecting antiquities is better than smashing them, as was done during the dark days of Mao's Cultural Revolution.  Yet, the rush of Chinese collectors has led to a host of problems, most notable the production of fakes.  I hope Chinese authorities are able to sort this out in such a way that does not dampen the enthusiasm of Chinese citizens for their own history.  Collecting and enjoying artifacts is far better than smashing them or warehousing them in my opinion.

SAFE President Curates Show of "Stolen" Chinese Art?

Saving Antiquities for Everyone has championed the return of artifacts to China that were removed from the country during periods of turmoil.

So I find it a bit odd that SAFE's President has curated a show at the Rubin Museum comprised of art some repatriationists might consider "stolen." See
http://www.observer.com/2011/06/quentin-roosevelt%e2%80%99s-china-ancestral-realms-of-the-naxi-at-the-rubin-museum-of-art/2/

One wonders if the art in question was legally exported from China based this description of its transit from the country:

Leaving China with 20 trunks full of scrolls, manuscripts and skins of exotic animals like golden monkeys, pandas and snow leopards was tricky for Mr. Roosevelt due to the war then being waged between China and Japan; his exit was made possible through a family connection to a certain W. Langhorne Bond, then vice president of the Chinese National Airline; Mr. Roosevelt flew disguised as a steward.

I also find it refreshing that its removal is justified as an act of saving it from likely destruction from the depredations of the Chinese Communists and Japanese Militarists, but don't SAFE members criticize collectors and museums for making such arguments?

In any event, I wonder if Ms. Ho demanded that the Roosevelt family show her export certificates before she decided to curate the show....

Addendum: This post evidently struck a nerve (see comments). There is also a question whether China's 1935 Antiquities law applied to the Naxi artifacts in question as artifacts of "other cultures" that may not be sold to "aliens." I copy it below in full. The reader can judge for themselves:


RELICS PRESERVATION LAW
Enacted by the Legislative Yuan and
Promulgated by the National Government on June 2, 1930.
Amended on November 10, 1935.

Article 1. The term "relics" as denoted in this Law shall mean those related to archaeology, science of history, palaeontology and other cultures.

The sphere and categories of aforesaid
relics shall be determined by the Central Relics Custodian Commission.

Article 2. Except for those privately-owned, relics shall be preserved under the custody of offices to be specially assigned by the Central Relics Custodian Commission.

Article 3. Photographs of lasting nature of relics which are preserved in the following offices shall be taken by the custodian offices and deposited separately with the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Interior, the Central Relics Custodian Commission and the office in which such
relics are preserved:

1) The institution directly under the jurisdiction of the central government.

2) The provincial, municipal, hsien, or other local institution.

3) The monasteries or temples or at the places where the ancient remains are located.

Article 4. Offices having custody of relics shall anually submit tables and reports to the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Interior, Central Relics Custodian Commission and local administrative authorities concerned. Forms of aforesaid tables and reports shall be proscribed by the Central Relics Custodian Commission.

Article 5. Privately-owned important relics shall be registered with the local administrative authorities concerned who shall, in turn, collectively report to tte Ministry of Edu:ation, Ministry of Interior and Central Relics Custodian Commission. The standard of the important relics abovementioned shall be determined by the Central Relics Custodian Commission.

Article 6. Privately-owned relics aforesaid that should be registered shall not be transferred to aliens. Offenders shall be liable to the confiscation of their relics and required to pay their cost if confiscation is not feasible.

Article 7. Relics hidden underground and those exposed above the ground shall be reverted to the State. Upon discovery of aforesaid relics, those who discovered such shall immediately report to the local administrative authorities concerned who shall request, through their superior authorities, the Ministries of Education and Interior and the Central Relics Custodian Commission to take over such relics, for which appropriate reward shall be granted. Whoever conceals such relics without reporting shall be dealt with as in the offences of theft.

Article 8. The excavation of relics shall be executed by academic institutiins directly under the central or local governments. For the excavation of relics, an academic institution aforesaid shall ask the Central Relics Custodian Commission to examine its application and to request the Ministries of Education and Interior to jointly issue an excavation permit.

Whoever excavates without the sforesaid permit shall be dealt with as in the offences of theft.

Article 9. Organic regulations of the Central Relics Custodian Commission shall be drawn up separately.

Article 10. Any academic institution directly under the central or a local government which requires the participation and assistance of any foreign academic organization or specialized
personnel in the excavation of relics shall request for prior approval of the Central Relics Custodian Commission.

Article 11. The excavation of relics shall be carried out under the supervision of officers of the Central Relics Custodian eommission.

Article 12. With respect to the relics procured from excavation, academic institutions directly under the central or local governments shall, subject to the approval of the Central Relics Custodian Commission, assume responsibility for the preservation, for a designated period, of the relics for academic research purposes.

Article 13. The circulation of relics shall be limited within the country. Eowever, if any academic institution directly under the central or local government finds it necessary to send its officers to bring relics abroad for research purposes, it shall apply for the authorization
of the Central Relics Custodian Commission who shall request the Ministries of Education and Interior to jointly issue an export permit. Relics brought abroad shall be returned to the
original custodien offices within two years, at the latest.

The provisions of the foregoing two paragraphs shall be applicable to privately-owned relics of which registration is required.

Article 14. The date of enforcement of the present Law shall be designated by mandate.

Addendum II:

I received the below letter from Ms. Roussin, a lawyer associated with SAFE. Here is my response. Her letter is further below:

Ms. Roussin- The blog posting you reference did not indicate I thought the material was stolen; it indicated that under various theories espoused by SAFE members it could be deemed stolen. The reference to the exit of the material was taken from a Newspaper article that was used as publicity for the show. I’ve already given Ms. Ho an opportunity to post a response to the blog. I have no objection to posting this letter as well. I’m sure you agree that the reader can draw their own conclusions. Best regards, Peter Tompa

As an additional note, rereading my original blog, it only referenced repatriationists considering such material stolen. I certainly don't personally believe the artifacts were stolen and am happy that they were put on display. The point here which Ms. Roussin apparently chooses to ignore is that SAFE's President and her organization should be as chartiable to other collectors as she has been to Mr. Roosevelt's collecting.

In any event, here is the letter:

Dear Mr. Tompa,

Various statements entitled "SAFE President Curates Show of "Stolen" Chinese Art?" published by you on your blog Cultural Property Observer of June 28, 2011 concerning the exhibition "Quentin Roosevelt's China: Ancestral Realms ofthe Naxi," now on display at the Rubin Museum of Art in New York, are false and close enough to defamation of character to be actionable. I demand that you remove the entire post and all comments that are displayed on your blog in response to your post immediately.

Phrasing your statement - suggesting that objects now owned by members of the Roosevelt family, on exhibit at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, the Harvard Yenching Library and other institutions, and now on display at the Rubin Museum were somehow "stolen" is blatantly false. Your statement on your blog is false and was published by you with the obvious intent of injuring another person's reputation and without regard for the true facts, which you could have easily discovered by viewing the exhibition, or by reading the exhibition catalogue, or by consulting other published works that are referenced in the exhibition catalogue.

Rather than visit the exhibition, or consult the exhibition catalogue or other published works referenced therein, your sole source appears to be a false statement published in The New York Observer. The statement you quote - "Leaving China with 20 trunks full of scrolls, manuscripts and skins of exotic animals like golden monkeys, pandas and snow leopards was tricky for Mr. Roosevelt due to the war then being waged between China and Japan; his exit was made possible through a family connection to a certain W. Langhorne Bond, then vice president of the Chinese National Airline; Mr. Roosevelt flew disguised as a steward."- is false in four ways as follows.

Roosevelt's departure from China in 1939 was not "tricky," no airplane was involved, Roosevelt did not leave China posing as a steward, and W. Langhorne Bond played no part whatsoever. Roosevelt and his 20 suitcases departed Lijiang after 10 days of collecting Naxi artifacts, and traveled to Kunming in a motor coach provided by the head of the Southwest Transportation Company, Mr. T.L. Soong, who was the
brother of Madame Chiang Kai-Shek, the "first lady" of China. From Kunming, Roosevelt continued south to Haiphong on the Yunnan-Vietnam Railway in a private railroad car provided by a Mr. Patou, who was the head of railway. From Haiphong, Roosevelt continued on by steamer to Hong Kong, where he and his 20 suitcases boarded a ship called the Empress of China and sailed to San Francisco. See Martin Brauen, "A Memorable Journey to the Naxi: Quentin Roosevelt's Legacy," in Quentin Roosevelt's China: Ancestral Realms of the Naxi, 2011, page 36, and Quentin Roosevelt, "In the Land of the Devil Priests," in Natural History, April 1940, pages 208-209. These are the real facts that readers will find in the exhibition catalogue; the story that appears in The New York Observer, which you repeat in your blog post, is false, as the posted comments from Cindy Ho indicates.

The question you raise about "export certificates" for the Naxi objects that Quentin Roosevelt acquired in 1939 is answered by the very 1930 law that you quote in your revised blog post as well as the objects on display at the exhibition and various references in the exhibition catalog. The 1930 Relics Preservation Law, amended in 1935, governed the export of ancient objects, not objects made during the 19th and 20th centuries. Every Naxi object acquired by Quentin Roosevelt in 1939, and every Naxi object on display at the Rubin Museum, with one exception, dates from the 19th or 20 century, the sole exception being a scroll that Quentin Roosevelt's father acquired in China in 1928, two years before the law you cite was enacted. (See Martin Brauen, ibid., page 28). Therefore, no export certificate was required for anything on display at the exhibition. It is worth noting that prior to embarking on his l O-day collecting trip to Lijiang, Quentin Roosevelt met in Chongqing with Dr. H.H. Kung, President of the Executive Yuan that enacted the law you cite. Roosevelt's letters of introduction made the purpose of his trip clear. After that meeting in Chongqing. Dr. Kung promised Roosevelt safe passage through the restricted Yunnan regions. General Sze Hwa, a garrison commander for the northwestern frontier of Yunnan Province, and 40 armed Chinese soldiers accompanied Roosevelt to Lijiang. (See Martin Brauen, ibid., pages 32-34). Your suggestion that Roosevelt somehow "stole" Naxi objects under these circumstances is absurd. Your suggestion that curators of the Rubin Museum exhibition did not perform due diligence in this matter is damages their reputation and is
defamatory. and must be removed from your blog.

Finally, the organization SAFE/Saving Antiquities for Everyone had no part in the research, planning and development or any other curatorial interest in the Rubin Museum exhibition. Therefore SAFE's position on Chinese or any other antiquities is irrelevant, and use of the organization's name is an egregious error at best. In any case, your characterization of SAFE's position is incorrect; SAFE's position on these matters, which has not changed since its inception, can be found at http://www.savingantiquities.org/principles.php

Please inform me and SAFE president Cindy Ho when you have corrected or removed this posting.
Sincerely,
Lucille A. Roussin

Promoting the Arts?

Archaeological groups have promoted the Chinese Government's view of cultural property issues on the Internet and before the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee. Presumably, however, they will not promote this act of the Chinese Government against a pro-democracy artist, but nor will they likely condemn it. See
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/world/asia/13china.html?_r=1&src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB

What is missing is a recognition that China's nationalistic stance on antiquities carries over to other aspects of Chinese cultural policy, like what was done to this artist.

China has Adopted a New Auction Law

The PRC has adopted a new auction law. See http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/35104/china-adopts-new-rules-for-auctions-of-cultural-relics/

The growth of sales of cultural relics within China and the effort to reclaim cultural property from abroad again suggests that nationalist ideology not protection of archaeology is the driving force behind Chinese cultural policy. Sure, some peasants have been executed for tomb robbing, but it remains to be seen whether the new law's provision about the presentation of ownership certificates for art that is being auctioned will have any real effect.

Chinese Death Sentences for Tomb Raiding

The New York Times on 5/14 carried this Associated Press report that China has sentenced some tomb raiders to death:

China Sentences to Death 4 Robbers of Old Tombs
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 8:48 a.m. ET

BEIJING (AP) -- China has sentenced to death four robbers who used explosives and heavy machinery to plunder tombs almost 2,500 years old.

The state-run Xinhua News Agency says the four sentenced Friday were part of a 27-member gang who robbed a dozen tombs near the capital of the central province of Hunan in 2008 and 2009.

The report says some of the more than 200 stolen artifacts were under China's highest level of protection. One of the tombs dates from the Warring States period that began in 475 B.C.
An investigator told Xinhua all the relics were recovered.

The Intermediate People's Court in Changsha handed down the death sentences. The other robbers got prison terms.

China executes more people than any other country in the world.

Capital punishment for this kind of crime seems like gross "overkill" to me, and raises further questions about double standards at work. In particular, one wonders whether similar punishment would be meted out to members of the Chinese elite, particularly when antiquities trading is quite popular in such circles.

I suspect many archaeologists and others who have ties with the Chinese cultural establishment are also horrified by such harsh punishment, but I suspect few, if any, will condemn such death sentences publicly.

How to Open an Art Gallery in China

The second edition of the China Art Law Newsletter includes some helpful advice for anyone wanting to open an art gallery in China. See http://www.chinaartlaw.com/

In the last decade or so, the Chinese art market has become "hot," not only for antiquities, but for modern art as well.

The press may focus on masterpieces, but China's rising middle class is also starting to purchase such art along with consumer goods. To meet this demand, Chinese auction houses like China Guardian have also become increasingly prominent. They view their mission not only to sell artifacts in all price ranges, but also to repatriate important ancient works to China through sales of such artifacts to prominent Chinese collectors. See http://www.cguardian.com/english/about.php

China Art Law Newsletter Debutes

The term "old China hand" dates from the early 20th c. According to A Concise Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, edited by Paul Beale, (Macmillan, 1989), this term refers to "One who has spent many years in China in the commercial or civil service, or as a missionary." When this term was coined, the Chinese Empire was in steep decline and China's people were about to face decades of war and revolutionary upheaval.

Now in the early 21st c., China has re-emerged as a world power politically, economically, militarily, and in the arts. We are lucky then that Nancy Murphy, who certainly is not that old herself, but who nonetheless qualifies as "an old China hand" when it comes to arts issues, has decided to share some of her extensive knowledge with us in the new "China Art Law Newsletter." It can be found at http://www.chinaartlaw.com/

"Cultural Property Observer" wishes "China Art Law Newsletter" much success in the coming [Western] New Year and beyond.