HR 1493 Becomes Law

Congressman Engel, HR 1493's sponsor, has issued a press release to mark the passage of the bill into law.  CPO finds it a bit ironic that the press release indicates that Prof. Patty Gerstenblith actively lobbied for the bill that allowed the State Department to bypass the Cultural Property Advisory Committee she chairs before imposing import restrictions.  The numismatic trade and collector's groups supported CPAC review under the CPIA's well established procedures, and it unclear why Prof. Gerstenblith sought to cut out her own Committee from the process.

Assad to Be Ultimate Beneficiary of HR 1493?

The Senate has passed HR 1493, a bill which imposes import restrictions on cultural goods removed illegally from Syria. The measure is not yet law because there needs to be conference with the House and new votes before one bill is sent to the President.  

The major differences between the Senate and House versions are that the Senate substitute includes a stronger "safe harbor" measure for Syrian antiquities and deletes a proposed State Department "Cultural Property Czar."     

Probably not coincidentally, the vote came the same day the well-funded and politically connected Antiquities Coalition unveiled its own proposals for more repressive measures and regulation largely aimed at the antiquities trade, museums and collectors.   Proposals for source countries are promised, but not yet revealed.  There appears to be no need for proposals aimed at what archaeologists can do to preserve cultural heritage.   

CPO attended the event.  CPO commends two speakers, Professor Patty Gerstenblith, and Dr. Al-Azm, for their acknowledgement that the Assad regime is part of the problem and not part of the solution.  Indeed, Prof. Gerstenblith stated in no uncertain terms that the Assad regime has probably killed more people, destroyed more cultural heritage, and looted more artifacts than ISIS.   The only difference is that Assad's forces don't use social media to publicize their evil deeds.

So, CPO remains skeptical of Dr. Gerstenblith's efforts to pooh pooh the concern that antiquities seized under HR 1493 will ultimately be repatriated to the Assad regime.   The CPIA -- which HR 1493 does not change-- certainly requires seized artifacts to be offered to the source country.  And given the realities on the ground or in the air in this case-- what with Russian air power bolstering the regime-- it certainly looks like Assad will be the victor to whom these spoils ultimately will be returned.  

CPAC Public Session to Consider Renewal of MOU with PRC

On May 14, 2013, I attended a public session of the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC).   CPAC was considering the possible renewal of the current MOU with China.  The meeting took place in the Main State Department Building.   In addition to CPAC members, speakers and some members of the public, there was also a 5 person delegation from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) present.  They were not introduced and did not speak at the public session, though they likely conferred with CPAC privately afterwards.

The following CPAC members were present:  James Willis (JW) (Trade); Rosemary Joyce (RJ) (Archaeology); Barbara Kaul (BK) (Public); Marta de la Torre (MT) (Public); Patty Gerstenblith (PG) (Chair-Public);  Nancy Wilkie (NW) (Archaeology); Lothar von Falkenhausen  (LF) (Archaeology); Katherine Reid (KR) (Museum);  Nina Archibal (NA) (Museum).  Jane Levine (Trade) was not present.  One trade slot remains vacant.

Thirteen (13) individuals spoke.  These included:  (1) Josh Knerly (AAMD); (2) Thomas Lougham  (Clark Art Institute); (3) Dr. Matthew Welch (Minneapolis Institute of Art); (4) Dr. Liu Yang (Minneapolis Institute of Art; (5) Robin Nicholson (Virginia Museum of Fine Arts);  (6) Leila Amineddoleh (Executive Director, Lawyer’s Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation); (7) James Fitzpatrick (representing J.J. Lally & Co., a dealership in fine Chinese antiquities); (8) Peter Tompa (representing International Association of Professional Numismatists and the Professional Numismatists Guild); (9) Francis Allard (Indiana University of Pennsylvania); (10) Loukas Barton (University of Pittsburgh); (11) Roderick Campbell (New York University); (12) Anne Underhill (Yale University); and (13 ) Brian Daniels (Penn Cultural Center).

Josh Knerly (JK) supported the MOU, but suggested that China should be required to provide five (5) to ten (10) year long term loans rather than the current one (1) year loan period.   He also noted that China’s ability to control its borders for evaluating its own self-help measures needs to take into account the strength of China as a world power.  Quantifiable goals should be set for review within two (2) not the usual five (5) years.  The designated list should be more limited.  MT asked if there was any data about the impact of restrictions.  She observed that the opacity of the antiquities market makes coming to conclusions difficult.  KR asked about export licenses.  JK indicates that CPAC should ask China for data.  NW observed that the lack of an immunity law did not stop loans.  JK indicated it did limit loans of certain materials. 

Thomas Loughan (TL) indicated that more work needs to be done with extending loan periods.  BK asked about the loan period.  TL indicated it could be as little as less than five (5) months.  JW wondered if a bilateral committee could be established to discuss the loan issue.   KR asked about the types of object s that were loaned.  It took two shows to get enough “Grade 1” objects to match the Clark’s loan of French paintings.

Matthew Welch (MW) and Liu Yang (LY) expressed concerns about last minute changes in objects to be loaned.  This makes it difficult to create a display and a catalogue.   Object lists are typically finalized up to two (2) years before with regard to loans from Europe.  It is virtually impossible to organize exhibits that draw objects from more than one site because of the bureaucracy involved.  JW wondered if tackling the underlying bureaucratic inertia was impossible. KR asked for a specific example.  MW  indicated his museum had hoped to get an exhibit from Sydney, but at the last moment important objects were removed for another exhibit in Hong Kong.  It would be helpful if a contract could be finalized a year in advance. LF asked about loan fees.  These are not too bad, but associated expenses can be very high. In response to questions from RJ and PG, MW reiterated that getting loans from single sites was much easier than from multiple sites and changes to an objects list creates chaos when trying to secure immunity from seizure from the US Department of State.   MW dismissed KR’s claim that any problems were the result of cultural misunderstandings.  MW noted that LY is Chinese and understands the system quite well, but problems have persisted. 

Robin Nicholson (RN) discussed a prospective loan with the Palace Museum engineered with the support of Virginia’s governor.   The goal of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts is to have a contract in place with the Chinese a year in advance.   Political support has been helpful in getting things done.  BK asked what sort of artifacts were involved.   RN indicated that the display related to 17^th c. artifacts and more recent ones.  

   

Leila Amineddoleh  (LA) supported the renewal of the MOU.  She maintained the fact that 123 countries had signed the 1970 UNESCO Convention satisfied the Cultural Property Implementation Act’s (CPIA’s) concerted international response requirement.  She also noted that China had signed cooperative agreements with other countries to deter pillage. BK asked about the internal Chinese market.  LA indicated she was not familiar with details. LF asked how the PRC’s cooperation compared with that of other countries that have MOUs with the US.  LA maintained that the PRC’s cooperation was good and was comparable to that of Italy.   She also noted that the US has shown its cooperation most recently with Cambodia by seeking the forfeiture of a Khmer statute.  KR noted that repatriations were part of the mix with Italy.  JW noted that the forfeiture proceeding was not related to the MOU with Cambodia.

Jim Fitzpatrick (JF) indicated that it was important for CPAC to adhere to the CPIA’s statutory criteria.  He noted that unlike many third world countries, China was quite able to control its borders.  Furthermore, the domestic Chinese market is much larger than the US market so that import restrictions could have no impact on looting.  It makes no sense for an artifact to be freely available for sale in Beijing but not Boston.   There also needs to be self help, but artifacts leave the free ports of Hong Kong and Macao without restriction. 

PG asked about supporting data.  JF indicated that the statistic that 70% of artifacts in auctions go to Chinese buyers was based on an analysis of names of purchasers.  MT opined that the size of the market was not clear because the antiquities market lacks transparency.   She also noted that the figures included artifacts that are not currently restricted.  JF argued that the Chinese police state should be able to stop looting if it so desired.  JF noted that there was a certain resignation in the trade that it is difficult to undue restrictions.  JF indicated that the restrictions had deterred sales to museums.   JF also stated that as a consequence of the restrictions, much of the Chinese art business has gone abroad.   He stated there is a danger that the Chinese art business will go to France as has the trade in Pre-Columbian artifacts. 

JW indicated that he has now served on CPAC for 11 years and that he had noted a distinct decline in dealer and collector participation, especially compared to the last time the China MOU was discussed.   JW suggested that this decline in comment from dealers and collectors should be taken as a troubling sign for CPAC’s members.

JF agreed, indicating that CPAC’s debate has devolved from the larger issues of import restrictions to listening to complaints from archaeologists and museums about China’s non-compliance with Art. II of the MOU.  He stated, however, that numbers of comments received does not change CPAC’s obligation to apply the CPIA properly. 

LF stated that looting is illegal in China and asked if the US should be a safe haven for looted goods.  JF indicated that closing down the US legal market could not impact looting because of the size of the legal Chinese market.

Peter Tompa (PT) commended China for allowing and encouraging its people to collect common artifacts, but noted that import restrictions only give Chinese businesses—including insiders associated with the country’s rulers—a leg up on the foreign, especially US competition.  PT also indicated that China has not met its obligations under Article II.   In particular, the PRC has expanded its own export ban to any artifact pre-dating 1911 despite a promise to make legal export easier.  The PRC has also failed to crack down on looted artifacts being re-imported into China from Hong Kong and Macao and has also failed to ensure that its own museums do not purchase looted materials.  CPAC should recommend that the current MOU be suspended because it Is only hurting US interests.  At a minimum, however, CPAC should advocate that cash coins—which exist in the millions if not billions—be delisted.  The State Department cannot show these coins only circulated in China because they were widely exported.  If anything, these coins should be shared with students as a teaching tool about Chinese history and culture. 

PG asked about figures related to the size of the Chinese Art Market.  PT confirmed that these figures include both ancient and modern art.  NW asked where Chinese coins come from.  PT indicted some come from tombs, but others come from deposits or were saved after the coins were no longer used as legal tender.  As for coins coming from tombs, they would only be looted incidentally because looters would be primarily motivated to look for far more valuable items.  As for coins that were never buried,  he cited the attachment to his submission which described a Chinese collector who first learned about ancient Chinese cash coins from breaking open an old toy that made use of such coins as weights.  In response to a question about the value of such coins, PT indicated that the value was generally minimal—such coins retail for as little as $1 in the US.   NW maintained there was still an inventive to loot them because one of the hoards of 200,000 coins that was described would be worth $200,000.   PT indicated that the value was likely much less in China.

Francis Allard (FA) spoke of his experiences excavating in China.  He has been offered antiquities in the past but has always declined.  Although FA supports the MOU, the Chinese bureaucracy has not made it easy to collaborate with Chinese colleagues.   NW wondered whether the MOU could be used to promote the building of more laboratories to conduct research.

Loukas Barton (LB) has excavated in China, Mongolia and Alaska.   The Chinese do not allow grave robbing.  He also saw a group of looters being driven from town to town as examples.  He can’t say for sure, but he thinks the Chinese must be taking effective action against looters because he is no longer being offered antiquities.  The Chinese punitive system may be having an effect.   LB specializes in pre-history.  His request for a permit to collaborate with Chinese colleagues in his study of prehistoric China was denied without explanation in 2012.  LB refused to speculate as to the reason.  [CPO wonders whether the Chinese cultural bureaucracy does not want foreigners delving too far into China’s prehistory.   Is it possible they are concerned that the results might undercut China’s historic claim of Han dominion over the land?]  RJ asked about looting.   LB indicated he saw evidence of tomb robbing, but where tombs had already been eroded.  He has also seen shovel pits.  LF expressed frustration with the Chinese denial of FA’s permit.   LB indicated he was told by Chinese colleagues that it was due to a “political problem,” but they did not elaborate.   There are other annoyances as the Chinese ban on the use of GPS devices.  NW recounted how she was denied a permit as well in the 1980’s so the problem is not a new one.

Rod Campbell (RC) indicated that looting was still an issue in China.  Bronzes and oracle bones are particular targets.   RC indicated that the best Bronze Age sites have been looted.   The MOU has helped encourage student exchanges.  RC has been involved in salvage archaeology.  Connections are important to work in China. 

Anne Underhill (AU) suggested that the renewal of the MOU is an opportunity to make improvements.  Looting has declined but some is still taking place.   There should be an increase in cultural exchange.   AU acknowledges there is a large internal market for Chinese artifacts, but the US should keep its import restrictions in place to demonstrate its good will to the Chinese and act as a good role model.   There needs to be more of an effort made as to Hong Kong and Macao.  Museum loans should be made more transparent.   NW indicated there needs to be more Chinese language programs.  In response to a question from PG,  AH indicated that collaboration had improved.

Brian Daniels (BD) indicated that China had complied with Art. II of the MOU.  It has improved regulation of its own market.  In 2009, it created an antiquities police force.  In 2011, it created an interministerial group to examine looting.   There have been proposals to harmonize export controls with Hong Kong and Macao though work needs to be done.  There has been more scrutiny of artifacts leaving China for these free ports.   China has instituted a free museum policy.   NA asked if cultural exchange ebbed and flowed according to diplomatic relations.  BD indicated that he was not aware of any changes depending on diplomatic relations and in fact cultural relations are always beneficial.  MT asked about policing.  There were 764 cases in 2009 and 1210 cases in 2011.  BD did not want to speculate as to the increase.

JW asked about Tibet to all participants.  TL indicated there is some collaboration with Tibetan interests.  PT indicated that the Chinese government has recently been criticized in the press for bulldozing large swaths of Lhasa, Tibet’s capital, in the name of promoting tourism. 

The public meeting then closed.  

Public CPAC Meeting on Belizean and Bulgarian MOU's, Nov. 16, 2011

CPAC Chair Prof. Patty Gerstenblith (PG, DePaul, Public Representative) began by thanking all speakers or those who had provided comments to CPAC. PG then asked all CPAC members to introduce themselves and mention their affiliations. They are: Katherine Reid (KR, Cleveland Museum (retired)-Museum); Nina Archabal (NA, Minn. Historical Society-Museum); Marta de la Torre (MT- Florida International University, Public); James Willis (JW, James Willis Tribal Art-Trade); Nancy Wilkie (NW-Carlton College, Archaeology); Barbara Bluhm Kaul (BK,Trustee, Art Institute of Chicago- Public); Jane Levine (JL, Sotheby’s Compliance Department (ex-prosecutor)- Trade); and Rosemary Joyce (RJ,U. Cal., Berkley-Anthropology). Two slots, one in archaeology and the other a trade representative, remain vacant. KR, NW and JW also served under the Bush Administration. The others are Obama Appointees though PG and MT also served the Clinton Administration. There was also staff present including CPAC Executive Director Maria Kouroupas, a Committee lawyer, and Committee archaeologists.

Belize

Belize was discussed first. The following individuals spoke: Josh Knerly (JK-AAMD); Elizabeth Gilgan (EG-SAFE, but there personally); Brian Daniels (BD-U. Penn Cultural Center); Christina Luke (CL-AIA); Patricia Mcinerny (PM-UNC, Chapel Hill).

JK stated the AAMD supports the conclusion of a MOU with Belize with the following provisos. First, CPAC must ensure that only material identifiable as being “first discovered in” Belize is restricted. Second, Belize needs to appoint one point of contact for museum loans and provide more material for loans. AAMD members had reported that Belize has only offered one piece for a loan that was made to the Peabody Museum.

NW asked whether Belize was a transit point for looted artifacts from other Central American countries. JK indicated that was possible. PG asked if import restrictions impacted the AAMD now that it had accepted a 1970 provenance rule. JK indicated no, but this made museum loans more important than ever. KR asked about dealing with the bureaucracy of Belize. JK indicated that it was difficult, but expressed hopes this situation would improve. In so doing, he noted the Italian government has now provided a single contact point for such loans.

EG assisted Belize to apply for a MOU. She apparently undertook this work as part of her course of study while employed at the AIA. She began by training police in Belize. She was happy when newly trained officers caught twelve American environmental students that had tried to take artifacts out of the country. The night they spent in jail taught them a lesson. It was all very exciting. She next studied Sotheby’s catalogues for unprovenanced Pre-Columbian artifacts. EG could not identify the artifacts in the catalogues as coming from Belize. EG did not review any sources other than Sotheby’s catalogues.

BD disputed the AAMD’s statement that Belize had only loaned one object. He listed three travelling exhibits where Belize provided a total of 33 artifacts as evidence of Belize’s efforts. He also indicated that Belize offers long term loans of study artifacts to specific researchers like Richard Leventhal of the Penn Cultural Heritage Center. These loans are negotiated on an individual basis.

CL indicated that MOU’s can also be used for cultural exchanges of students and archaeologists. Belize has been a great host for archaeologists. Any MOU should also include Colonial Material. NW wondered if more could be done to assure regional cooperation on looting.

PM indicated there is current looting in Belize. She recently saw looting of rock shelters. Belize has a good history of cultural interchange with the British Commonwealth (Belize is a former Crown Colony), with the United States and with Canada. RJ asked PM if she could identify material as coming from Belize. She indicated that it was possible to identify such material on stylistic grounds, based on identifiable inscriptions or its composition. However, it often travelled outside of modern day Belize. PM cited as an example a ceremonial drinking cup which was evidently gifted to a minor lord in what is today Guatemala.

Bulgaria

The following individuals spoke: Josh Knerly (JK-AAMD); Peter Tompa (PT-IAPN, PNG); Kerry Wetterstrom (KW-ACCG); Nathan Elkins (NE-Baylor); Christina Luke (CL-AIA); Brian Daniels (BD-U. Penn Cultural Center); Kevin Clinton (KC-American Research Center in Sofia).

JK indicated that AAMD supports an MOU with Bulgaria subject to certain provisos. First, it is again important to take care with any designated list given the cross-currents between Thracian and Greek culture. Second, there is a real question whether Bulgaria is taking any of the self-help measures required under the CPIA. A 2007 Center for the Study of Democracy (CSD) Report suggested that Bulgarian cultural officials were corrupt and their efforts to protect Bulgaria’s cultural patrimony were minimal. JK had no statistics about loans of Bulgarian material but indicated they would be desirable. PG wondered whether the 2007 report was up to date. JK suggested that CPAC should require the DOS to research whether the situation on the ground has improved since the 2007 CSD Report. BK asked about loans. JK indicated that that Bulgarian law apparently allowed for two year loans. KR asked about the optimum loan period. JK indicated that a long term loan should be 10 years to make it financially viable for the receiving museum. JK also noted that currently Italy is providing 4 year loans with the possibility of renewal, but the uncertainty makes such loans less palatable to AAMD members. KR also asked whether Bulgarian material can freely enter the EU. JK indicated that was the case as there are no local controls. JK agreed and also indicated that it is difficult to “fit” the Bulgarian situation into the framework of the CPIA.

PT indicated that most people would agree that some crimes—like murder—were wrong. However, looting would be considered much less seriously by most people, perhaps no worse than a traffic violation. Such seems to be the case in Bulgaria. The CSD Report indicates that some 250,000 individuals are involved in treasure hunting and that the Bulgarian police and cultural authorities are heavily involved in looting, theft and smuggling of cultural goods. The 2009 Bulgarian cultural heritage law was rammed through by ex-communists only with input from archaeologists. Major parts of it have been struck down and it is not effective. The law is honored mostly in its breech. Only 150-200 coin collectors have registered their collections though some 50,000 Bulgarians are members of organized numismatic groups. Bulgarian issues no export licenses, except for temporary exhibitions, but smuggling has become easy given the EU’s open borders. Restrictions would only discriminate against American collectors. CPAC should give heed to the 71% of the public comments on the regulations.gov website opposed to import restrictions on coins. CPAC should follow prior Committee precedent, and recommend against import restrictions on coins, particularly any restrictions based on a coin’s type rather than its find spot. Alternatively, CPAC should table Bulgaria’s request to give the country time to get its own house in order and undertake the self-help measures the CPIA contemplates. Specifically, CPAC should recommend that Bulgaria clamp down on metal detectors rather than collectors, that Bulgaria freely issue export certificates for common artifacts like most ancient coins, and that Bulgaria pass a new antiquities law that takes into account the concerns of collectors and dealers as well as the views of the archaeological community.

MT asked if Bulgarian coins were a glut on the market. PT indicated that there were certainly a lot of Roman issues available, but did not use the word, glut. He also indicated that you could not really generalize on this topic. Coins from the Greek city states located in Bulgaria would be collected as part of the Greek series and the coins of the Bulgarian czars were mainly collected by specialists and Bulgarian Americans. PG and JL suggested that it was not all that hard to import restricted coins. PT disagreed, noting that the compliance costs would exceed the value of many coins, and that in any case US Customs in NY will not allow any artifact on a designated list into the US unless it is pictured in a catalogue that predates the restrictions. This is significant because perhaps only 1 in 10,000 coins is significant enough to be published in an auction catalogue.

KW indicated that Bulgaria should adopt a law akin to the UK’s Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme. He further indicated that it used to be that finders shared details about their finds with scholars and dealers but that is no longer the case due to concerns about legal liability. MT asked about Bulgarian coins being a glut on the market. KW indicated huge amounts of coins came out of Bulgaria in the 1990’s with the fall of Communism. Some issues—like the Roman provincial coins that were struck in Bulgaria—remain a glut on the market. In response to a question from PG, KW indicated that it is reasonable for a dealer to keep information about who he bought coins from and the price, but they typically will not know the earlier history of the coins they purchase.

NE describes himself as an academic with a research focus on the numismatic trade. He has written extensively on the subject. It is clear there had been pillage of Bulgarian cultural patrimony of coins. In 1999, 20,000 coins were seized. Other incidents are set forth in the CSD Report. There have been recent seizures, including of a 63 year old pensioner who used a metal detector. Colonia Ulpia Trajana has been damaged by metal detectorists. Other material is found with coins, including Byzantine crosses and the like. This is often referred to junk in the trade. The best coins are auctioned off, the remainder end up on eBay. The flood of material began in the 1990’s and is still continuing.

CL is representing the AIA. There is evidence of recent looting in Bulgaria. A Bulgarian colleague has indicated Thracian tombs are at particular risk. Bulgaria hosts archaeologists. They have made efforts to update their laws. They are making their best efforts.

BD again represents the Penn Cultural Heritage Center. Despite the issues of corruption outlined in the CSD Report, the number of recent seizures shows Bulgaria is interested in protecting its cultural patrimony. Although there has been a problem with the Bulgarian Constitutional Court, courts strike down legislation in this country too.

KC indicates there are four active US excavations in Bulgaria, an unprecedented number. There is active looting in Bulgaria. It is understandable because it is one of the poorest countries in Europe. Prior to 2008, the State Prosecutor was not interested in crimes against cultural patrimony. The current State Prosecutor is more active. Bulgaria’s Deputy Minister of Culture, Todor Chobanov, was instrumental in pressing for the 2009 law. Chobanov is an archaeologist by training. The successor to the Bulgarian Communist Party passed the law. Initially, old-school Bulgarian archaeologists did not want to cooperate with Americans, but younger archaeologists have been more willing to do so. MT asked KC to comment about the use of metal detectors. KC is aware they are used, but has not researched the subject. There is tourism at sites on the Black Sea. The situation has improved dramatically in recent years. Previously, even important sites were not marked. There is a domestic trade in cultural artifacts. There are quite a few private collections, many of which include looted material. Some private collections are displayed in local museums or even the National Museum.

DePaul on Gerstenblith Appointment to Chair CPAC

DePaul University has publicised Prof. Patty Gerstenblith's appointment to Chair CPAC with this video. See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC2nxgxhHSo&feature=related

While I don't agree with many of Prof. Gerstenblith's views, one has to acknowledge her considerable expertise in the area from an archaological perspective and the big impact she has made in what actually is a rather small field of study.

Welcome Statement

CPAC's new chair, Professor Patty Gerstenblith, has made the following statement in an interview to "DePaul Newsline Online."

"As chair, I feel my primary obligation is to see the law under which CPAC operates is followed,” said Gerstenblith. “I want to see that all perspectives are heard and to feel that they each have been given a fair hearing. I want to see that the CPAC process is carried out legally, fairly and efficiently.”

See http://newsline.depaul.edu/Pages/Gerstenblith.aspx

Unfortunately, perceptions about CPAC's worth as an advisory committee (as opposed to rubber stamp to be ignored when its recommendations don't mesh with State's apparent desire to impose the broadest restrictions possible) are quite low in the collector, dealer, musuem communities.

Under the circumstances, I can only hope Prof. Gerstenblith can have some success in achieving her goal.

Can an Effective Advocate Be a Good CPAC Chair?

CPAC's new Chair, Professor Patty Gerstenblith, has been a very effective and knowledgeable advocate for the archaeological cause. I've seen that for myself over the past decade from practicing before CPAC and serving with Prof. Gerstenblith in a leadership position in the ABA International Law Section's Art and Cultural Heritage Law Committee.

As Chair, Professor Gerstenblith's challenge will be to transition from acting solely as an advocate for the "context over all" archaeological position to ensuring that the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act is properly applied at CPAC and that all voices-- not just those of the archaeological community-- are heard and duly considered at CPAC meetings.

For CPAC to retain any relevance at all it will be critical for Professor Gerstenblith to make that transition. I'm confident she can do so, but she will certainly be up against the perceptions of both archaeologists and those opposed to the extension of import restrictions to even the most common artifacts, like ancient coins.

Obama Appoints Prof. Patty Gerstenblith to Chair CPAC

The Obama Administration has shown its support for the archaeological community by appointing Prof. Patty Gerstenblith Chair of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee. Professor Nancy Wilkie was also reappointed to represent the interests of the archaeological community on CPAC. See
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/24/president-obama-announces-more-key-administration-posts

The announcement does not state which interest group Prof. Gerstenblith will represent on CPAC. Presumably, Prof. Gerstenblith should represent the interests of the archaeological community, but it is also possible that the Obama Administration will designate her as a member representing the interests of the public.

In any event, it appears that the Obama State Department has decided to "solve" its "CPAC problem" by tilting CPAC to the extreme archaeological view adopted by the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Cultural Heritage Center.

Opensecrets.org reports that Prof. Gerstenblith has donated $14,950 to Democratic candidates since 2008, including $2,300 to President Obama's election campaign and $1500 to his Senatorial campaigns.

ABA Panel Discussion on Protecting Cultural Property in Wartime

On November 3, 2010, the ABA's Art and Cultural Heritage law section will sponsor a panel discussion on protecting cultural property in the event of armed conflict at the ABA's International Law Section Fall Meeting in Paris.

Panel members include Irina Bokova (invited) , UNESCO's chief, Karl von Hapsburg of the Blue Shield, Hays Parks of the US Department of Defense (invited) and Jiri Toman from Santa Clara University.

Patty Gerstenblith of DePaul University will serve as panel chair.

Interestingly, Karl von Hapsburg is also the grandson of his namesake Karl, the last Austro-Hungarian Emperor, who is on track to become a Saint of the Roman Catholic Church. Karl, like his father, Otto, has been very prominent in EU affairs. Otto gave up his claims to the crown in 1961 so that he could return to his native Austria. See http://www.antiquesatoz.com/habsburg/habsburg-family.htm and http://www.insidethevatican.com/articles/otto-von-habsburg.htm#G1277239881828

Preserving the Past by Regulating the Antiquties Market

I attended Prof. Patty Gerstenblith's GWU lecture, entitled, "Museums and the Market: Preserving the Past by Regulating the Market in Antiquities." Although Prof. Gerstenblith ("PG")covered little new ground, her presentation was (as always) very well done.

Here are some highlights:

Some Background

• Looting started early. The Romans practiced it extensively. Even then, some thought it wrong. Cicero prosecuted Verres, in part for looting Sicilian religious sanctuaries.
• In the 18th and 19th centuries the colonial powers competed for spoils. Paris was to be the "New Rome;" London, the "New Athens."
• When Napoleon lost, the French were forced to return much (but not all) of their loot, mainly from Italy.
• Serious archaeology began in the 19th c. Petrie did wonderful stratigraphic views of sites in the Middle East [He was also a prolific collector-- which PG did not mention.]
• With the advent of serious archaeology, "connoisseurship" became less important as a means of understanding artifacts. Nevertheless, it still retains some importance, even today. [In this regard, PG departs from some of her more extreme colleagues in the archaeological community who hold an artifact loses all meaning if its archaeological context has been lost.]

Demand and Supply and its Consequences

• In the aftermath of WW II, new found wealth prompted collectors to compete for artifacts. This increase in demand led to looting of archaeological sites.
• PG denies that "subsistence digging" is a big issue. She maintains most looting is the result of an organized criminal enterprise.
• As evidence, PG showed slides of bulldozed tells in Turkey and looters' pits in Iraq.

Loss of Knowledge From Looting

• PG admits that we know a lot about the Euphronios krater from the object itself, but maintains we would know much more if we knew its context. We would know the station of the person it was buried with. We would learn something about its relationship to other grave goods, etc.
• Cycladic figures are far more mysterious than they should be because most of their find spots have been looted. There is also a problem with possible forgeries in the series.
• The "Getty Kouros" and the "James Ossuary" are likely forgeries. If their context had been preserved, they could have been authenticated.
• Collectors often say if artifacts were made unsalable they would be destroyed. But, looters often destroy less valuable artifacts in their search for artifacts with value.
• Byzantine mosaics removed from a Church in Cyprus were flattened out to make them more salable, but they no longer look as they did.

Legal Restrictions

• The U.S. enters into bilateral agreements with other countries that impose import restrictions on cultural artifacts. [Interestingly, PG acknowledges that these are the most controversial types of restrictions. I agree. They preclude import of artifacts openly traded in foreign markets merely because there is no paper trail back to the date the restrictions were imposed.]
• The U.S. and the U.K. also recognise foreign laws declaring artifacts found in the ground to be state property.
• U.S. Customs also repatriates artifacts that have been smuggled or which have been imported with improper valuations or countries of origin.
• PG believes that collectors should not get tax deductions for donating unprovenanced artifacts.
• She also believes Museum Trustees should be potentially investigated by state authorities if they waste museum assets purchasing unprovenanced artifacts which later must be repatriated.

Long Term Loans

• PG notes the current MOU with Italy provides for long term loans, but believes there should be more such loans. [At the interim hearing on the Italian MOU, several speakers from the AAMD suggested only museums that repatriated artifacts received such loans.]

New Acquisition Guidelines

• PG applauded the AAM's and AAMD's new acquisition guidelines generally requiring a 1970 provenance before artifacts are newly accessioned.
• She notes, however, that AAMD guidelines allow for accession of artifacts that lack provenance information, as long they are posted on-line in an artifacts registry. She worries this exception over time may swallow the 1970 rule.

Questions and Answers

PG took some questions:

• I asked PG if provenance requirements should be "one size fits all," i.e., should a holder be required to show the same level of provenance information for the Euphronios krater as for a coin. PG indicated, yes. Interestingly, she also indicated that she was not wedded to the 1970 rule as it is a mere "construct." [I agree.] She emphasized, however, that there should be a date certain. She did not like the AAMD's former "rolling" 10 year rule.
• Well known cultural property lawyer Jim Fitzpatrick asked PG about what the theft of part of the repatriated Lydian hoard said about repatriating artifacts to countries without the money or will to protect them. PG countered that museum theft is a problem everywhere and this should not count against repatriation.
• CAARI VP Ellen Herscher asked why there were not more bilateral agreements. PG maintained it is time consuming and costly for source countries to make a request to the State Department. She also indicated once an MOU was entered, it should go on in perpetuity. [I have heard from reliable sources US archaeologists do most of the "leg work" in preparing such requests. The 5 year renewal requirement was meant to ensure that import restrictions-- which disadvantage American collectors, dealers and institutions-- DO NOT go on forever, but only for a limited period to allow the requesting country time to get its looting problem under control.]

Question I Wish Was Asked

• In PG's view, what to do with all those orphan artifacts?

James Cuno Lectures at George Washington University

On Jan. 21, 2010, Dr. James Cuno lectured about "Museums, Antiquities and the Politics of Cultural Property" to a packed house of mostly students at George Washington University.

Dr. Cuno recounted the themes expressed in his book, "Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle Over Our Ancient Heritage." See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/07/kudos-for-cuno.html

As in that book, Cuno explained how:

• Source country nationalism rather than a desire to protect archaeological sites motivates most efforts to seek repatriations or import restrictions.
• Source counties should return to the practice of allowing "partage" in return for help in excavating archaeological sites.
• Archaeologists are dependent on source countries for excavation permits. Self-interest or fear of offending their hosts has led to unqualified support for source country rights over cultural artifacts even when that results in the neglect or destruction of those same artifacts.
• Whoever made a cultural artifact, it certainly was not made for a modern nation state.
• Some source countries unashamedly assert rights over cultural artifacts of peoples and cultures they actively seek to subvert.
• Encyclopedic museums have become a target for source nations and archaeologists because they stand in opposition to the nationalization of culture.
• The trend of repatriations and import restrictions runs counter to the even more powerful trend of globalism.

Cuno illustrated his lecture with examples to drive home these points:

• Images of Italy's trophy art display at the Italian President's flag-draped residence made clear the nationalistic impulses behind Italy's repatriation efforts.
• Yale's trouble with Peru over Machu Picchu relics can be plotted against declining poll numbers for the Peruvian government-- there is no better way to divert attention from the troubles at home than to go after the most Yankee of institutions in court and the press.
• Chinese complaints about artifacts stolen by colonial powers must be judged against China's own treatment of its own minorities, i.e., the Tibetans and Uighurs.
• The cargo from an ancient Turkish shipwreck underscores that artifacts cannot easily be tied to a single culture.
• An image of a Chinese tea pot shaped in an Indian inspired form with English silver inlays demonstrates that artifacts are created from a mix of cultural elements.

As an antidote to cultural property nationalism, Cuno advocated:

• A rethink of national cultural property retention statutes to allow partage and licit markets.
• The creation of encyclopedic museums in countries like China and Greece.
• The recognition that encyclopedic museums help popularize the culture of countries like Italy, China, Peru and Greece and help keep immigrants visiting these museums attuned to the culture of their home.

Also of interest was Dr. Cuno's self-effacing style, complete with some humorous quotations from some of the more colorful reviews of his book.

For more about upcoming lectures in this series-- including ones by Patty Gerstenblith and Malcolm Bell, see http://www.gwu.edu/~csll/museums.html

Does Italy Only Send Long-Term Loans to Museums that Have Repatriated Objects?

During his testimony during the Nov. 13th CPAC hearing, Maxwell Anderson of the Indianapolis Museum of Art suggested that the only AAMD member museums that have benefited from long-term loans with Italy are those that have repatriated artifacts.

Patty Gerstenblith contested this allegation, mentioning the National Gallery of Art's Pompeii Exhibit. See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/01/mario-resca-to-rescue.html She also noted that SMU has an exhibit of archaeological finds. Of course, one should note that while the NGA is an AAMD Member, it is also an instrumentality of the federal government, and the limited-time exhibit in question hardly qualifies as a "long-term" loan. . As for SMU, it excavates in Italy, and the exhibit apparently displayed finds of its own faculty and students. See http://smu.edu/poggio/ Again, it is unclear how long that exhibit will run.

In any event, the current MOU with Italy does not link long-term loans to repatriation efforts. See: http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop/itfact/pdfs/it2001guidelines.pdf
Instead, Italy is supposed to promote agreements for long-term loans to all American Museums.

To solve this perceived problem, Anderson suggested that Italy should create a database of objects it is willing to lend on a long-term basis. It remains to be seen whether CPAC adopts this recommendation and whether it finds its way into the next MOU (assuming, of course, current restrictions are extended for another five years).

Interim Review of Italian MOU

I attended the Cultural Property Advisory Committee's interim review of the Italian MOU. The hearing was called to allow the public to comment on Italy's obligations under Art. II, but at times the hearing strayed well beyond the subject of whether Italy has held up its end of the bargain. What is abundently clear is that now that the AIA has forced the museums and the antiquities dealers to adopt clear provenance standards, its attention has now focused entirely on coin dealers and collectors. The particular issue of whether CPAC should reconsider its prior two decisons against extending import restrictions to Greek and Roman coins from Italy should be discussed in more detail at a promised forthcoming CPAC hearing related to Art. I.

Three speakers (Pearlstein, Tompa and Wetterstrom) spoke on behalf of dealers and collectors. Four speakers (Anderson, Vikan, Conforti and Feldman) spoke on behalf of the AAMD. Four speakers (Gerstenblith, Heath, Elkins and Leventhal) spoke on behalf of the archaeological community. One speaker (De Caro) spoke on behalf of the Italian cultural ministry.

Bill Pearlstein spoke on behalf of certain antiquities dealers. He argued that the Carabinieri's successes against looters made the extension of the MOU unnecessary. He also noted that the MOU is discriminatory to Americans because Italy has no internal provenance requirements for sales of ancient artifacts.

Peter Tompa spoke on behalf of IAPN and PNG, two trade associations for the small businesses of the numismatic trade. First, he highlighted the failure of Italy to care for its own cultural patrimony, including coins. Second, he discussed Italy’s relative success in staunching looting, and its implications against the extension of import restrictions. Third, he advocated that CPAC again suggest that Italian authorities adopt a Treasure Trove law and Portable Antiquities Scheme. Lastly, he noted that Italy has not as promised made its own export controls more efficient.

Kerry Wetterstom (Celator Magazine) spoke on behalf of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild. He also noted that Italy has not as promised made its own export controls more efficient.

Maxwell Anderson (Indianapolis Museum of Art) suggested the MOU should be modified to require Italy to advertise artifacts for long term loans on the Internet.

Gary Vikan (Walters Art Gallery-Baltimore) said Italy should not sequester artifacts, but should make better provision for long term loans as well as licit markets.

Michael Conforti (The Sterling & Francine Clark Art Institute) spoke about legal markets and their role in facilitating international cultural exchange.

Kaywin Feldman (The Minneapolis Institute of Arts) also spoke about the need for licit markets and better long term loans. She indicated her institution is the poorer because it had to return a long term loan of "orphan artifacts" under the AAMD's new provenance rules and due to current restrictions, that void remains at her institution.

Patty Gerstenblith (Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation) stated that import restrictions under Art. I cannot be tied to Italy's undertakings under Art. II. She also indicated licit markets do not help staunch looting, but in fact may help hide it.

Sebastian Heath (AIA) said Italy does not need a PAS scheme because it uploads finds on the web. He also indicated that the AIA supports the expansion of current import restrictions to include coins.

Nathan Elkins (archaeologist) indicated that there is an illicit trade in common artifacts like coins and that properly excavated ones can tell us much about ancient history.

Richard Leventhal (University of Pennsylvania) indicated that coins should be restricted because they are important parts of the archaeological record. He also indicated it would be wrong to sell redundant artifacts because such artifacts must be retained for study.

Stefano De Caro (Italian Ministry of Culture) indicated that people have come to understand that artifacts should are more than collectibles, but are important for science. He acknowledged that Italy has not always done all it could do to preserve its cultural patrimony, but suggested foreigners could help by funding projects in Italy. He indicated that a book quoting wiretaps indicated that looters treat coins no differently than other artifacts. Italy wants what Cyprus got as far as import restrictions on coins. De Caro acknowledged numismatics needs to be integrated more fully with other disciplines. Italy is launching a website of the important coin collection of the King of Italy as a token of its interest in coins. De Caro belittled the U.K. Treasure program and suggested Italy's efforts to seek import restrictions on coins was done not only on Italy's behalf, but also to defend "Pax Britannia," "Pax Africa," etc.

Cultural Property Issues and the Election

One archaeologist/blogger associated with Savings Antiquities for Everyone ("SAFE") has already heralded Barack Obama on his historic win and with it the prospect that Prof. Patty Gerstenblith, a well known activist for the archaeological community, is now in a position to impact US policy: http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2008/11/congratulations-to-barack-obama.html

Not so fast. It is still probably much too early to draw too many conclusions on this point. The new administration will have much on its plate when it takes control of the government in January. One would think there might be higher priorities than the preservation of archaeological context in other countries through the use of import controls and/or criminal sanctions. In addition, wealthy collectors have also provided support for Obama. One would also suspect they would act as counterweights to the "archaeology over all" perspective of Professor Gerstenlith, SAFE and others.

In any event, hasn't Obama himself spoken eloquently about government accountability, transparency and ethics? See generally: http://blog.johnjosephbachir.org/2008/02/07/obama-speaking-on-government-accountability-transparency-and-ethics/ and http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/

Isn't application of these principles to the State Department and CPAC what groups like the AAMD and ACCG (but curiously not SAFE) have demanded?

In other news, there has been at least some speculation that former Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns may be seeking a new position in the Obama Administration. (Burns authored an article critical of the McCain-Palin ticket shortly before the election: See: http://www.newsweek.com/id/165650/page/1.) If so, hopefully the Obama Administration or the Senate will apply these very same principles and query former Undersecretary Burns about the exact circumstances behind the controversial decision to impose import restrictions on coins of Cypriot type. While some might spin this as an "insignificant matter," how the decision was actually made potentially could speak volumes about Burns' approach to decision making.

Finally, Republican Phil English (Pa-3rd) has lost his bid to seek reelection. See: http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/politics/17897006/detail.html?rss=pit&psp=news Congressman English is best known in the cultural property field for his support for legislation to impose import restrictions on cultural artifacts of Iraqi and Afghan origin. When the Republicans controlled the House, Congressman English was the AIA's "go to" legislator for such efforts. Presumably, the AIA and other advocacy groups have been grooming other Democratic legislators for such a role.

US Senate Finally Ratifies 1954 Hague Convention

Patty Gerstenblith, the President of the Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation, sent out the following announcement:

The Archaeological Institute of America, the Lawyers’ Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation, and the U.S. Committee for the Blue Shield announce that the United States Senate voted on September 25 to give its advice and consent to ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.
The United States now joins 121 other nations in becoming a party to this historic treaty which establishes the principles for protecting cultural sites, monuments and collections during both armed conflict and military occupation. By taking this significant step, the United States demonstrates its commitment to the preservation of the world’s cultural, artistic, religious and historic legacy.

The Library of Congress "Thomas" search engine (http://thomas.loc.gov/) indicates that the 1954 Hague Convention was acceded to with the following "understandings:"

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein),-

720SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO UNDERSTANDINGS AND A DECLARATION

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, concluded on May 14, 1954 (Treaty Doc. 106-1(A)), subject to the understandings of section 2 and the declaration of section 3.-720

SECTION 2. UNDERSTANDINGS

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject to the following understandings, which shall be included in the instrument of ratification:

(1) It is the understanding of the United States of America that ``special protection,'' as defined in Chapter II of the Convention, codifies customary international law in that it, first, prohibits the use of any cultural property to shield any legitimate military targets from attack and, second, allows all property to be attacked using any lawful and proportionate means, if required by military necessity and notwithstanding possible collateral damage to such property.

(2) It is the understanding of the United States of America that any decision by any military commander, military personnel, or any other person responsible for planning, authorizing, or executing military action or other activities covered by this Convention shall only be judged on the basis of that person's assessment of the information reasonably available to the person at the time the person planned, authorized, or executed the action under review, and shall not be judged on the basis of information that comes to light after the action under review was taken.

(3) It is the understanding of the United States of America that the rules established by the Convention apply only to conventional weapons, and are without prejudice to the rules of international law governing other types of weapons, including nuclear weapons.

(4) It is the understanding of the United States of America that, as is true for all civilian objects, the primary responsibility for the protection of cultural objects rests with the Party controlling that property, to ensure that it is properly identified and that it is not used for an unlawful purpose.

-720SECTION 3. DECLARATION

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject to the following declaration:With the exception of the provisions that obligate the United States to impose sanctions on persons who commit or order to be committed a breach of the Convention, this Convention is self-executing. This Convention does not confer private rights enforceable in United States courts.

It is my own understanding that the United States Military already largely followed the Convention anyway. Presumably, the Senate's "understandings" reflect current US military views on how the Convention should be applied in practice.

While the Senate's ratification is thus probably largely symbolic, the Lawyers' Committee, the AIA, the U.S. Committee for the Blue Shield and others still deserve credit for encouraging action on an instrument that has been languishing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since 1999. Still, one must recognize that the 1954 Hague Convention has been spectacularly unsuccessful in preventing damage to cultural property in places like the Balkans and most recently, Georgia. Only the real commitment of national authorities, military commanders, and the troops on the ground can ensure cultural property is indeed protected as much as possible given the exigencies of war.

Patty Gerstenblith Named to Obama Arts Committee

Prof. Patty Gerstenblith, a well known advocate for the archaeological community, has been named to the Obama '08 Arts Policy Committee. http://www.artsactionfund.org/pdf/artsvote/ObamaStatement3b.pdf

The Obama platform in the arts includes the promotion of "cultural diplomacy." Though the Obama platform does not mention it, the imposition of import restrictions on cultural artifacts has been pitched in the past as an element of such United States cultural diplomacy.

Prof. Gerstenblith previously served as a Clinton appointee to CPAC. The Huffington Post Website notes that Prof. Gerstenblith has donated $2300 to the Obama campaign. See http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Gerstenblith She has also donated to the campaigns of Democratic Senators Durbin and Levin as well as to the DNC. For federal candidates, an individual may contribute a maximum of $2,300 per election (the primary and general are separate elections).

Of course, Prof. Gerstenblith is just exercising her rights to play the political game like anyone else. However, I find it quite ironic that this news crops up at the very same time that Ellen Herscher of CAARI (and AIA) makes the claim (also made earlier on the SAFE website) that archaeologists don't "lobby." See: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/08/caari-vp-ellen-herscher-response-to.html and R. Atwood, "A Critical Look at U.S. Media Coverage of Antiquities Issues" (available at: http://www.savingantiquities.org/feature_media.php ("I also find references to the "archaeological lobby," with no explanation of how archaeologists constitute a lobby, and no references at all to a dealers lobby, a collectors lobby, or a museum lobby except the kind where you get an information booklet. A "lobby" is a fairly specific thing; you have to register as a lobbyist to lobby in Congress.").

Once again, you can certainly "lobby" in many cases without having to "register," or impacting your organization's tax exempt status-- but in my opinion it is disingenuous to claim if you are trying to influence a government official that you are not "lobbying" at all.

BBC Report on Exaggerated Looting of Iraq Museum

This showed up on list serves yesterday, though Donnie George and Patty Gerstenblith have indicated on the IraqCrisis List that this is recycled news.

In any event, the item does suggest that the story of the looting of the museum was exaggerated. Just recently (and as reported on this blog), the Art Newspaper also suggested that stories about looting of archaeological sites were also exaggerated. Does anyone see a pattern here?:

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/207635.html

Priceless Treasures Saved From Looters of Baghdad Museum

It is known as one of the worst episodes of the war in Iraq: one of the world's greatest archaeological collections ransacked while American troops stood by, unable or unwilling to act. But now a different picture is emerging of the looting of the National Museum in Baghdad. Only a few dozen significant pieces, not thousands as originally reported, were stolen. And many, a new investigation has found, may have gone missing long before the Americans arrived in the Iraqi capital.

US officials revealed yesterday that several of the most important pieces that were thought to have been stolen have now turned up safe. The world-famous treasure of Nimrud, an extraordinary series of priceless 4,500-year-old gold artifacts, has been found in a flooded vault under the Iraqi National Bank. Other key parts of the museum's collection, including tens of thousands of Greek and Roman gold and silver coins, have been found in strongrooms in the Baghdad museum itself. Staff there now say that only 33 major items and around 2,000 minor works have gone.

'The treasure was never lost,' Salman Faleh, the governor of the central bank, said yesterday. 'We knew all along that they were there. It just took a bit of time to get at them because of the flooding.'

US customs agents who helped with the recovery of the treasure said that when they first entered the vaults they found bodies of looters killed in shoot-outs with rival gangs. But the seals on the crates of treasure proved to be intact.

The truth about what happened at the museum will be revealed in a documentary, to be broadcast tonight on BBC2, by Dan Cruickshank, the architectural historian. Cruickshank, who visited Iraq shortly before the war, returned in the aftermath of the conflict. 'It is simply not true that the people of Baghdad looted their own museum,' Cruickshank told The Observer last week. 'They have far too much respect for their own heritage to do that.'

Instead, Cruickshank said the only buildings ransacked were the administration offices of the museum. Most of the senior officials running the museum were, as throughout all of Saddam Hussein's system of government, members of the Baath Party, Saddam's political vehicle. The museum itself was seen by many locals as part of the structure of the regime and attacked as a result.

But though damage was done to files and research work, most of the museum's collection escaped unscathed, Cruickshank said. The empty shelves in the museum's galleries were thought by the first journalists on the scene to have been stripped by looters. In fact, the collection had been carefully stored according to a plan drawn up d uring the Iran-Iraq war. Thousands of pieces were hidden in five secure rooms around the museum, in vaults in the central bank and in bunkers around Baghdad.

There is evidence of possible collusion between museum officials and thieves in the run-up to the war. 'The museum staff all say they locked up the museum and fled on 8 April and all deny having the keys to the strongrooms around the building where much of the most precious stuff was being stored,' said Cruickshank. 'But it is clear that at least one of the five storerooms was unlocked at some stage. Of course, no one admits opening it.' There are also suspicions that some of the best artifacts that are missing had been stolen and sold several years ago. Senior figures in the Baath Party regime, such as Saddam's eldest son Uday, are known to have made millions from the international trade in antiquities. Some American and European specialists believe that most of the 33 missing items were taken in the first few hours of the collapse of Saddam's regime and were stolen 'to order'.

Professor McGuire Gibson, an Oriental specialist from Chicago University and a member of the Unesco team investigating the thefts, said he had received reports that the 'top five' items among the 33 had been smuggled to Tehran and Paris within days of their removal.

The misplaced focus on the supposed looting of the Baghdad museum has meant that problems in much of the rest of the country are being ignored. Cruickshank spent two weeks in Iraq and found US soldiers and officials are focusing on restoring law, order and basic utilities in Iraq and have little resources to spare to protect archaeological sites.

Dan Cruickshank and the Raiders of the Lost Art is on BBC2 this evening at 9pm
By Guardian Unlimited © Copyright Guardian Newspapers 2008Published: 7/11/2008