Showing posts with label National Geographic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Geographic. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
NAT GEO Under Investigation for Bribery
Reports have surfaced that US Government investigators are looking into whether National Geographic's business relationships with former Egyptian Antiquities Pharaoh Zahi Hawass violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. CPO first raised questions about this business relationship back in 2011. In CPO's opinion there needs to be far more scrutiny of such relationships between foreign cultural bureaucrats and US archaeologists and their related organizations. As it is, there is virtually none at this time.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Egyptian Administrative Court Orders Return of Artifacts on Display in US
An Egyptian administrative court has ruled that objects in a US travelling exhibition should be returned home because they improperly left the country. Former Egyptian antiquities Pharaoh Hawass has been charged with corruption based on his links to this exhibit. It's unclear if Egyptian authorities believe that Hawass skimmed any of the money from the travelling show or they solely claim that improper procedures were followed in allowing the artifacts to be exhibited abroad.
It is clear that this action will cause headaches for Hawass' friends in the US, including National Geographic. (The Rupert Murdoch connection in the article is unclear, though presumably it relates to the National Geographic Cable TV channel.) Before the revolution, National Geographic was paying Hawass as much as $200,000 per year for being an "explorer in residence."
The US Government has been very aggressive in seeking the repatriation of Egyptian artifacts, but seemingly uninterested in determining if there have been any financial improprieties related to payments for this exhibit. Given the money involved, one would think there should be some investigation even if it would by necessity look at Hawass' friends associated with the archaeological lobby.
It is clear that this action will cause headaches for Hawass' friends in the US, including National Geographic. (The Rupert Murdoch connection in the article is unclear, though presumably it relates to the National Geographic Cable TV channel.) Before the revolution, National Geographic was paying Hawass as much as $200,000 per year for being an "explorer in residence."
The US Government has been very aggressive in seeking the repatriation of Egyptian artifacts, but seemingly uninterested in determining if there have been any financial improprieties related to payments for this exhibit. Given the money involved, one would think there should be some investigation even if it would by necessity look at Hawass' friends associated with the archaeological lobby.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Anglo-Saxons at NATGEO
The National Geographic Society is hosting a fantastic exhibit about the Staffordshire Hoard. See http://events.nationalgeographic.com/events/exhibits/2011/10/29/anglo-saxon-hoard/ and http://www.staffordshirehoard.org.uk/
Archaeological fanatics will no doubt dislike the exhibit's heroic photograph of the metal detectorist who found the hoard, but without him, the Treasure Act and the Portable Antiquities Scheme, it is highly unlikely the hoard would ever have come to light.
This is not a conventional hoard of buried treasure. Rather, it appears to be a collection of battlefield spoils. The hoard was found spread about a farmers field near the site of an old Roman road. There were absolutely no other features to attract the interest of archaeologists, and it is highly doubtful the site would ever have been explored if the find was not reported.
The exhibit itself is by far the best ever I have seen at the National Geographic Society. Great care was taken not only to conserve the objects, but to place them in historical context with the use of reconstructions, videos and computer graphics. Kudos to National Geographic and the many groups that made this exhibit possible.
Archaeological fanatics will no doubt dislike the exhibit's heroic photograph of the metal detectorist who found the hoard, but without him, the Treasure Act and the Portable Antiquities Scheme, it is highly unlikely the hoard would ever have come to light.
This is not a conventional hoard of buried treasure. Rather, it appears to be a collection of battlefield spoils. The hoard was found spread about a farmers field near the site of an old Roman road. There were absolutely no other features to attract the interest of archaeologists, and it is highly doubtful the site would ever have been explored if the find was not reported.
The exhibit itself is by far the best ever I have seen at the National Geographic Society. Great care was taken not only to conserve the objects, but to place them in historical context with the use of reconstructions, videos and computer graphics. Kudos to National Geographic and the many groups that made this exhibit possible.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Hawass Business Ties Raise Conflict of Interest Concerns
Today's New York Times has an interesting article that suggests that Zahi Hawass' star may finally be on the wane in Egypt. See
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/world/middleeast/13hawass.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
The article also exposes business ties between National Geographic and Hawass.
National Geographic has also actively sought so-called "emergency" import restrictions on Egyptian cultural artifacts on Hawass' behalf. See http://www.drhawass.com/blog/international-coalition-support-protection-egyptian-antiquities
But don't these business ties suggest a potential conflict of interest that should be investigated before such import restrictions are considered at all, let alone considered a "done deal" as Hawass himself has suggested?
"One hand washes another" has been long a staple of Egypt's corrupt political scene, but it should play no part in the State Department's decision making whether to clamp down on the import of Egyptian cultural goods by U.S. citizens.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/world/middleeast/13hawass.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
The article also exposes business ties between National Geographic and Hawass.
National Geographic has also actively sought so-called "emergency" import restrictions on Egyptian cultural artifacts on Hawass' behalf. See http://www.drhawass.com/blog/international-coalition-support-protection-egyptian-antiquities
But don't these business ties suggest a potential conflict of interest that should be investigated before such import restrictions are considered at all, let alone considered a "done deal" as Hawass himself has suggested?
"One hand washes another" has been long a staple of Egypt's corrupt political scene, but it should play no part in the State Department's decision making whether to clamp down on the import of Egyptian cultural goods by U.S. citizens.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Etruscans at Nat Geo: Cultural Exchange for Cash
Today, I had the opportunity to visit an exhibit about the Etruscans at the National Geographic Society. See http://events.nationalgeographic.com/events/exhibits/2011/06/10/etruscans/
The artifacts came from the Cambi Collection and National Museum of Archaeology, Florence, Italy, but the exhibit itself seems to be some sort of commercial venture. See
http://www.exhibitsdevelopment.com/brochures/Etruscan%20pagebypage.pdf
There were some interesting artifacts, but most of them were frankly second rate. The interpretive material was fine, but no brochures were to be found anywhere. And it cost $8 to enter ($6 for Nat Geo members).
This is still all fine and good, but I hope the Italians and the State Department are not going to claim this exhibit was sent as a gesture of good will due to the MOU imposing import restrictions on Italian cultural goods. Instead, the motivation appears to be collecting cold, hard cash.
The artifacts came from the Cambi Collection and National Museum of Archaeology, Florence, Italy, but the exhibit itself seems to be some sort of commercial venture. See
http://www.exhibitsdevelopment.com/brochures/Etruscan%20pagebypage.pdf
There were some interesting artifacts, but most of them were frankly second rate. The interpretive material was fine, but no brochures were to be found anywhere. And it cost $8 to enter ($6 for Nat Geo members).
This is still all fine and good, but I hope the Italians and the State Department are not going to claim this exhibit was sent as a gesture of good will due to the MOU imposing import restrictions on Italian cultural goods. Instead, the motivation appears to be collecting cold, hard cash.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Terracotta Warriors at Nat Geo-- The Emperor Has No Clothes!
I just visited the much-hyped "Terracotta Warrior" Exhibit at the National Geographic Society in Washington, D.C. See http://www.nationalgeographic.com/terracottawarriors/ The exhibit chronicles the discovery of the "Terracotta Army" found near the site of the mausoleum of China's first emperor, Qin Shi Huang.
At the end of the exhibit, there was the usual guest registry. I paged through it. Kids loved the exhibit, judging from the child-like scrawls. Grownup reaction was more mixed. Some loved it. Others complained about the difficult to read explanatory texts. I was particularly struck by the contrast between pictures of the excavations at Xi'an (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terracotta_Army) and the reality that relatively few warriors were actually on display. Couldn't they have at least mustered a line of infantry? I had to agree with the rather unkind but apt comment I also found in the guest registry:" The Emperor Has No Clothes!"
It's not that it was a bad exhibit. What warriors there were were interesting. I also liked the architectural elements that were displayed as well as some of the weapons and jade. There were coins too, but all from the American Numismatic Society in New York. You would think if China really thought coins were important enough to ask for import restrictions on them, they could have at least sent a few along with this exhibit for display. After all, there are bazillions of them floating around-- and its not as if shipping them would have been an insurmountable task.
I also question the entry fee. For what you got, it seemed steep at $12 ($10 for National Geographic members). And don't forget an extra $5 to rent the audio tour. And by all means save some money for all those trinkets at the end-- like the Chinese piggy bank!
Archaeologists are always talking about how loans can substitute for imports of cultural artifacts, with the underlying premise that commerce is bad and pure knowledge is good. But if such loans seem mostly designed to generate cash for countries like China, does this argument really hold?
At the end of the exhibit, there was the usual guest registry. I paged through it. Kids loved the exhibit, judging from the child-like scrawls. Grownup reaction was more mixed. Some loved it. Others complained about the difficult to read explanatory texts. I was particularly struck by the contrast between pictures of the excavations at Xi'an (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terracotta_Army) and the reality that relatively few warriors were actually on display. Couldn't they have at least mustered a line of infantry? I had to agree with the rather unkind but apt comment I also found in the guest registry:" The Emperor Has No Clothes!"
It's not that it was a bad exhibit. What warriors there were were interesting. I also liked the architectural elements that were displayed as well as some of the weapons and jade. There were coins too, but all from the American Numismatic Society in New York. You would think if China really thought coins were important enough to ask for import restrictions on them, they could have at least sent a few along with this exhibit for display. After all, there are bazillions of them floating around-- and its not as if shipping them would have been an insurmountable task.
I also question the entry fee. For what you got, it seemed steep at $12 ($10 for National Geographic members). And don't forget an extra $5 to rent the audio tour. And by all means save some money for all those trinkets at the end-- like the Chinese piggy bank!
Archaeologists are always talking about how loans can substitute for imports of cultural artifacts, with the underlying premise that commerce is bad and pure knowledge is good. But if such loans seem mostly designed to generate cash for countries like China, does this argument really hold?
Thursday, June 19, 2008
China's Forgotten Fleet
The National Geographic Society did not have the facilities necessary to host the spectacular exhibit on ancient Afghan art now at the National Gallery. Thankfully, then China sponsored a very interesting exhibit in the Society's own gallery about China's forgotten treasure fleets. For more, see:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/museum/exhibitions/zhengHe.html
The exhibit tells this relatively unknown story. Starting in the early 1400's the Chinese sent large trading fleets to far flung ports including Malacca, Sri Lanka, the Malabar Coast of India, the Arabian Peninsula, and Malindi in East Africa, East to Sri Lanka and Indonesia and South and West to Africa and the Persian Gulf. In doing so, the Chinese Emperor sought to learn more about the "barbarian peoples" as well as trade with them, and perhaps enlist them as vassals. Certainly, history would have been far different had China continued these explorations, rather than to end them precipitously and instead turn inward.
As a "guy," I must admit I loved the well done models of all the types of ships that were part of the fleets. These ranged from small oar and sail powered vessels to the large "treasure ships' that had multiple sails and watertight compartments. There is some dispute about the size of the largest "treasure ships", but they certainly dwarfed the size and bested the technology of anything the West or the Arab world had afloat at the time.
The exhibit also featured displays of navigational equipment, pictures of the various ports of call, and typical trading goods, including porcelain and coins. The coins, of course, especially piqued my interest. Such coins- with their distinctive center hole for stringing them together-- are found even today in great numbers in East Africa and in countries such as Indonesia.
But they travelled even further. The exhibit did not mention it, but believe it or not, similar coins are also commonly found in archaeological contexts in the American West. These coins, however, are not from these early voyages. Rather, they were brought along by Chinese migrants in the 19th c.
The show definitely also had some subtle political overtones. In particular, the show billed China of the day as "the world's only superpower" with the implication that "our time has come once again." Further in that regard, it is also interesting to note that China decided to to send an exhibit about sea power to Washington at the very same time Washington naval strategists have expressed alarm about China's plans to build a modern fleet of warships, complete with aircraft carriers. Could the exhibit then be viewed as a subtle warning to Washington about China's hopes to be able to confront the U.S. Pacific Fleet and its Japanese allies sometime in the not too future, perhaps in the Taiwan Strait?
But I digress. For purpose of a weblog on cultural property, it is sufficient to note that this exhibit rightly celebrates China's first effort to send trade goods around the known world.
Under the circumstances, isn't it odd that such trade goods-- including coins and porcelain-- also figure in the pending request for import restrictions on cultural artifacts from China?
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/museum/exhibitions/zhengHe.html
The exhibit tells this relatively unknown story. Starting in the early 1400's the Chinese sent large trading fleets to far flung ports including Malacca, Sri Lanka, the Malabar Coast of India, the Arabian Peninsula, and Malindi in East Africa, East to Sri Lanka and Indonesia and South and West to Africa and the Persian Gulf. In doing so, the Chinese Emperor sought to learn more about the "barbarian peoples" as well as trade with them, and perhaps enlist them as vassals. Certainly, history would have been far different had China continued these explorations, rather than to end them precipitously and instead turn inward.
As a "guy," I must admit I loved the well done models of all the types of ships that were part of the fleets. These ranged from small oar and sail powered vessels to the large "treasure ships' that had multiple sails and watertight compartments. There is some dispute about the size of the largest "treasure ships", but they certainly dwarfed the size and bested the technology of anything the West or the Arab world had afloat at the time.
The exhibit also featured displays of navigational equipment, pictures of the various ports of call, and typical trading goods, including porcelain and coins. The coins, of course, especially piqued my interest. Such coins- with their distinctive center hole for stringing them together-- are found even today in great numbers in East Africa and in countries such as Indonesia.
But they travelled even further. The exhibit did not mention it, but believe it or not, similar coins are also commonly found in archaeological contexts in the American West. These coins, however, are not from these early voyages. Rather, they were brought along by Chinese migrants in the 19th c.
The show definitely also had some subtle political overtones. In particular, the show billed China of the day as "the world's only superpower" with the implication that "our time has come once again." Further in that regard, it is also interesting to note that China decided to to send an exhibit about sea power to Washington at the very same time Washington naval strategists have expressed alarm about China's plans to build a modern fleet of warships, complete with aircraft carriers. Could the exhibit then be viewed as a subtle warning to Washington about China's hopes to be able to confront the U.S. Pacific Fleet and its Japanese allies sometime in the not too future, perhaps in the Taiwan Strait?
But I digress. For purpose of a weblog on cultural property, it is sufficient to note that this exhibit rightly celebrates China's first effort to send trade goods around the known world.
Under the circumstances, isn't it odd that such trade goods-- including coins and porcelain-- also figure in the pending request for import restrictions on cultural artifacts from China?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
