A$OR

The American Schools of Oriental Research have received over $2.1 million in grants from the US State Department and National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities, presumably to study ISIS and looting and cultural destruction in Syria and Iraq.

Meanwhile, credible estimates of the amount ISIS is making from illicit antiquities sales range from several hundred thousand to several million dollars.

What's wrong with this picture? 

How Much Money is ISIS Making from Antiquities?

The Gates of Nineveh blog contains this comprehensive analysis of the issue.  The answer, something, but nowhere near as much as has been claimed.

ISIS Crisis: Likely Fake Seized Months Ago Used as Justification for New Laws?

The archaeological lobby in both the United States and Germany are joined at the hip with the foreign policy bureaucracies of both countries.  In the US, the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs has worked closely with archaeological groups like the Archaeological Institute of America and the American Schools of Oriental Research for years.  In Germany, the German Archaeological Institute is similarly linked to the German Foreign Ministry.

Moreover, both the US State Department and the German Foreign Ministry have recently decided that repatriation is a "soft power" measure that can further foreign relations with source countries in Southern Europe and the Middle East.  And the archaeological lobby can be counted on to be supportive of even the most authoritarian of regimes as long as excavation permits are assured. So, perhaps it should be no surprise that what appears to knowledgeable antiquities dealers to be a fake seized back in March is now being used months later to again claim that there is an "ISIS Crisis" demanding a change in current law on the importing of antiquities.

Serious questions have been raised as to the wisdom of  the current forms of HR 1493/S.1887 in the United States and a new Cultural Heritage law in Germany, particularly now that dubious claims about ISIS and antiquities have been exposed.  So, perhaps this story that appears to have been planted in the New York Times at the behest of  the State Department and archaeological groups in the US and Germany should be viewed more as part of a desperate effort to overcome legitimate questions about this legislation and the new intrusive bureaucracies that would be created in the US and Germany as much as anything else.

Dubious Numbers Still Being Cited

It has come to CPO's attention that elements within the archaeological lobby are still claiming that ISIS has made "$100s of millions" or "tens of millions" from looting.   However, the former number traces back to Iraq's UN Ambassador. It is unclear what, if any basis, he had for the number.  And the "tens of millions" claim is yet another version of discredited tale that ISIS has stolen $36 million from one area within Syria alone.

At this late date, it can only be stated with some degree of certainty that ISIS has made at most "several million dollars" from antiquities sales.  Given ISIS' take of approximately $1 billion dollars, antiquities must be just one of many minor ISIS funding sources.

Green Collection Needs More Transparency

Gary Vikan suggests that the Green collection respond to concerns raised about the collection's origins by being more transparent.  Vikan championed a similar way to deal with cultural property issues during his long and successful tenure as Director at the Walters.  In the end, the Greens and their dream for a Museum of the Bible will likely be best served by adopting the approach Vikan suggests.

Reality

The reality of how archaeological sites are treated in places like Iraq again should raise questions concerning whether nation states are the best stewards "cultural property."  Iraq, of course, remains mired in war, but Uruk is such an important site one have hoped it would receive better care.

Let Us Not Forget

The Egyptian Military Dictatorship's sentence of three jouralists to jail once again underscores what too often is overlooked in the press.  Cultural heritage bureaucracies of dictatorships like Egypt, Syria and sectarian Iraq are part and parcel of abusive governments that also institute confiscatory laws relating to cultural artifacts.  No wonder even without disruption due to civil conflict (largely of their own making) things are such a mess.

"Pay-dirt" or Reality Falls Far Short of Hype Once More?

After a series of outlandish claims including that "looted antiquities" are ISIS' second most important funding source after "hot oil" with "$36 million" taken from one area in Syria alone and some dubious assumptions derived from the fact that a coin struck in Apamea was for sale on eBay and a book with ancient coins in it was seized from ISIS, the archaeological lobby has finally appeared to hit "pay-dirt" courtesy of the US State Department and its repatriation of antiquities seized from Abu Sayyaf, who is said to have been a terrorist financier.

But has it really?  A few hundred minor antiquities and Islamic coins (including fakes and a few objects said to be stolen from the Iraq Museum) were found, but if this haul represents the quantity, quality and monetary value of what is stored in those fabled "warehouses" postulated to hold fabulous treasures intended to fund ISIS and its insurgency, hype again has indeed far outstripped reality.

US Government Repatriates Artifacts to War Zone

The United States Government has completed repatriating artifacts to war ravaged Iraq.   Some of these artifacts had been in US Government custody for years so it's fair to ask, "why now?"

Is  "repatriation" more important as a diplomatic measure than "protecting" an artifact for future generations?   And, is there a concerted effort to conflate one concept with the other even where the facts suggest that repatriation will instead most likely endanger the object?

ISIS Iconclasm a Mere Cover Story for Looting?

So says an Iraqi official based on unnamed sources.  But Iraqi sources were also the basis for the now widely discredited claim that ISIS has netted $36 million from one site in Syria alone. 

So, is this new claim as well as other unsupported claims that there must be warehouses full of material looted by ISIS to be believed?  Or, is it possible that ISIS came up with far more "dry holes" than artifacts to be put into "cold storage?"

If the 2003 Iraq war proved anything, it was that "experts" could be dead wrong not only on the existence of weapons of mass destruction, but on the nature and extent of looting.  So caution should be warranted-- particularly where such information is being used to justify the creation of a new State Department bureaucracy and new import restrictions on all things "Syrian."

Meanwhile, on the ground in Syria, Palmyra, another UNESCO World Heritage site, is under threat of capture by ISIS.  What is needed is not more talk or even legislation, but concrete action to save the city from ISIS or at least a cost to pay for anyone who seeks to destroy its ruins.

Make Source Countries Take Stewardship Seriously

Ann Marlowe, an accomplished critic, writer and journalist, has proposed that source countries be incentivized to take their responsibilities as stewards of cultural heritage seriously.

While some of her ideas-- like fining Iraq for its failure to keep Islamic terrorists from destroying ancient artifacts-- seem draconian, it's long past time for source countries to be held accountable for the cultural heritage in their care.

Hopefully, Marlowe's provocative opinions will prompt some much needed discussion on a more elevated plain than what we've come to expect from the extremes of the archaeological blogosphere.

Doing Something to Prevent Destruction

Hugh Eakin has asked why the military has not used air strikes to dissuade the destruction of cultual sites like Hatra and Nimrud.

Good question.  Instead of making legitimate collecting of ancient artifacts that "look Syrian" subject to "collateral damage" from import controls supposedly designed to thwart ISIS, Western Governments should be directing at least some of the fire power at their disposal at ISIS culture destroyers themselves.

And why not consider spreading anti-personnel and anti-tank mines around archaeological sites by air?  Modern mines can be programmed to go inactive after a period of time so they would not be dangerous forever, but they could for a time dissuade ISIS jihadis from doing their worst.

It's too late for Hatra and Nimrud, but other sites in Syria and Libya are threatened by fanatics and should be protected before it's too late.

Reaction to New York Times Article on Repatriation in the Age of ISIS

CPO is proud to publish noted cultural property lawyer Bill Pearlstein's reaction to the New York Times' recent article entitled, Islamic State Destruction Renews Debate Over Repatriation of Antiquities:

The New York Times is correct to observe that the widespread destruction of cultural heritage in failed or failing states has lead to a quiet reevaluation in senior museum circles of the current policy bias in favor of national retention and reflexive restitution. (Islamic State Destruction Renews Debate Over Repatriation of Antiquities, March 30, 1015.) Western archeologists insist that antiquities remain in the nation where they are found to keep them off the market and reduce site looting. This misses the point where the threat to cultural heritage is iconoclastic; that is, ideologically driven destruction of cultural objects viewed as apostate. We need to rethink the bias towards national retention by taking into account the quality of national stewardship, especially where there is a clear and present danger to cultural heritage (including excavated sites, objects ex situ, objects in situ and related stratigraphic context). When cultural heritage is demonstrably at risk of domestic iconoclasm, the issue is whether objects ex situ must remain in country and at risk because of inflexible adherence to the principle of universal national retention. For example, it would make sense in principal to let international organizations rescue endangered objects and hold them in trust for safekeeping pending restoration of stability. Ricardo Elia, an archeologist at Boston University, misses the mark badly by stating that “It was only a matter of time before some in the art-collecting community tried to turn this cultural nightmare to their own advantage.” Elia’s reflexive hostility towards any form of antiquities collecting causes him to blame Western collectors, who favor preservation of objects, rather than the iconoclasts, who favor their destruction. Similarly, Allison E. Cuneo, a doctoral candidate in archaeology at Boston University, appears to believe that solutions favoring preservation over retention are “neocolonialist.” This is sloganeering and fails to address the issue. Archeologists are right to protest when unrestricted market demand drives looting and destruction of stratigraphic context. They are wrong to insist on universal national retention when to do so ensures the destruction of heritage sites and objects already out of context. Rescuing cultural heritage from the iconoclasts will require flexible thinking. I do not see that coming from the archeological community which seems content to blame old enemies instead of coming to grips with new ones.

 William Pearlstein

New York, New York

ISIS Destruction Prompts Debate on Repatriation

The New York Times reports how ISIS' jihad against Iraq's and Syria's cultural heritage has prompted questions about the wisdom of repatriation of disputed artifacts.  And so it should.  Dispersion through lawful trade and museum loans helps ensure preservation.  Concentration and worse yet repatriation to active war zones does nothing but ensure destruction of irreplaceable artifacts.

State Department to Repatriate Artifacts to War Zone

The State Department has announced a repatriation ceremony to take place at the Iraqi Embassy on March 16, 2015.  It seems only media are invited.

One would hope the press might ask about the wisdom of sending such artifacts to a war zone, what assurances there are that the sectarian Iraqi government will care for them, and whether there was any judicial determination that the items were smuggled or whether the property was simply abandoned.

Lament of a Cosmopolitan Arab

Abdulrahman Al-Rashed, the general manager of Al Arabiya TV, has lamented that the Arab World's penchant to willfully destroy the evidence of past civilizations suggests that its pre-Islamic antiquities are better off in the West.   UNESCO, the sectarian government of Iraq, the odious Assad regime, the Egyptian generals and the archaeological lobby will no doubt disagree.  Yet, CPO sees parallels to China.  There was a time not too long ago when fanatics devoted to Mao's Cultural Revolution purposefully destroyed an untold number of cultural treasures and hounded those with knowledge about them sometimes to death. Now, the Chinese have regained their appreciation of their past, and luckily they can turn to America for access to both artifacts that have been treasured here as well as knowledge about them.  Hopefully, that can happen in the Arab world too, but only if UNESCO and its allies don't get in the way.

Cuno on ISIS and Repatriation

James Cuno makes the case that far from lending support for repatriation as suggested by UNESCO's allies in the archaeological lobby, the rise of ISIS argues for dispersion of cultural assets in order to save them.

To the Editor:

The recent attacks on the ancient cities of Nimrud and Hatra in Iraq underscore a tragic reality. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization encourages — and provides an institutional instrument for — the retention of antiquities within the borders of the modern state that claims them. That state, very sadly, also has the authority to sell them on the illegal market, damage them or destroy them.

Until Unesco changes its basic position on this issue, antiquities will remain at risk. The world can only be grateful for the earlier regime of “partage,” which allowed for the sharing of Assyrian antiquities with museums worldwide that could preserve them.

This unconscionable destruction is an argument for why portable works of art should be distributed throughout the world and not concentrated in one place. ISIS will destroy everything in its path.

JAMES CUNO
President and Chief Executive
The J. Paul Getty Trust
Los Angeles

More Should Care About Iraq's Cultural Heritage

But the problem is that the archaeological lobby has defined "caring" as cracking down on collecting here rather than addressing the problem at the source.  Not surprisingly, that turns off collectors who should be natural allies in efforts to raise consciousness about ISIS' danger to Iraq's cultural heritage.  As one collector quipped, "I might be more interested if I wasn't blamed for it."

White House Demonstration Against Destruction of Iraqi Cultural Heritage

Better Bulldozed than Safe in a Western Museum?

So it would seem, at least according to one archaeo-blogger who professes not to see much of a difference between the actions of collectors and museums and the iconoclasts of ISIS.

Latest Tragedy

Kate FitzGibbon, writing for the Committee for Cultural Policy, reports on the bulldozing of  Nimrud.  Meanwhile, the Economist does its best to explain the iconoclasm of ISIS.  It only fails by repeating disinformation blaming looting at Apamea on ISIS rather than the odious Assad regime.  And what of the culprits?  Archaeo-blogger Paul Barford, relying on Arab sources, suggests that local men may have been responsible for the destruction at the Mosul Museum.  If so, that would once again raise the question whether the "state owns all" approach favored by Barford and the archaeology lobby inexorably leads to the trash the past model of ISIS and others.