UNESCO Chief Condemns Mosaic Museum Attack; Archaeological Blogosphere Slow to Follow

UNESCO's Chief has rightly condemned the Assad regime's barrel bombing of the Maarrat al Numman Mosaic Museum.  Yet, in the Anti-American reaches of the archaeological blogosphere, it's just a case of "stuff happens" in war and yet another opportunity to take swipes at the antiquities trade. 

"Stuff" indeed "happens" in war, but in this particular case it's hard to stomach the claim that the bombing was done by "mistake" given the publicity efforts to protect the museum's mosaics from war damage have received in the international press.   Indeed, if anything, it's more likely Assad's forces attacked the museum BECAUSE a consortium of U.S. Institutions were involved in supporting the effort to shore up the museum's mosaics.  One can only hope those efforts succeeded, at least to some extent.

 It remains to be seen how more responsible archaeological blogs respond to this latest tragedy.

Update (6/23)-  It seems none of the other well known archaeological blogs thinks this story is worth comment on.  It's unclear why, but it does again suggest that there is a conscious effort to deemphasize any destruction and looting done on behalf of the Assad regime and instead focus entirely on ISIS.

Syria: Actually Doing Something Constructive

NPR reports on a small team of Syrian Museum professionals who are making a difference in very difficult circumstances, with training and material assistance from the Smithsonian and University of Pensylvania.

CPO wonders, however, what really can be done if ISIS takes over these areas.  There should also be real concern about Palmyra and other UNESCO world heritage sites.   ISIS seems determined to turn anything "worshiped" by local elites and/or Western art/history/archaeology lovers into dust.

Preservation or Repatriation?

As expected, the UN Security Council has approved a Russian resolution that appears calculated to buttress Putin's friend, Assad, as much as anything else.

The aim is purportedly to help cut into ISIS' funding by clamping down on sales of Syrian antiquities, but the result will be the repatriation of  undocumented objects that have been out of the country for years back to the exact same murderous regime that bombed the old city of Aleppo into oblivion, that has struck early Islamic sites and whose military is involved in looting in places like Apamea and Palmyra.

So what's next?   In the UK, the sensible Brits plan to focus on using existing law to address the problem.  And in the US?  Will the archaeological lobby again use the tragedy to resurrect self-serving legislation that will enrich itself?  Or, will they follow the example of their Syrian, Dutch and U. Penn colleagues and seek to address the problem at the source?

Well Worth the Effort

As civil war grinds on in Syria and Iraq, American heritage professionals are doing what they can to help local museum curators preserve the artifacts in their care.  Of course, this won't stop the iconoclasts of ISIS from smashing historic artifacts and religious items for show, but it will provide some tools to those who care to help preserve what they can. At least the Western-leaning Syrian rebels and the Assad Regime are basically on the same page about the need to preserve Syria's magnificent cultural heritage.

Worth A Read

My primary interest is coins so its no surprise I hope others will find the ACCG and IAPN/PNG comments  to CPAC worth reading.

The Asia Society walked a fine line; its submission both applauded and criticized the current MOU with the PRC.

Daniel Shapiro, a law professor and Chinese Art Collector, stated similar concerns as those expressed by others who collect or trade in ancient art.

James Lally was an important voice for the trade when the MOU was first considered and he remains so today.

The Penn Cultural Heritage Center has offered CPAC a detailed defense of the current MOU.

Of course, anyone who wrote, on any side of the issue, should be commended for taking the time to do so.

Note: Regulations.gov is currently experiencing a technical problem.  Some of the comments (including those of Daniel Shapiro and IAPN/PNG) are currently not available on the website.  Hopefully, the problem will be fixed soon.

Principle or Self-Preservation?

The archaeological lobby will no doubt pitch the Penn Museum's decision to repatriate ancient jewelry it purchased back in 1966 (well before the 1970 UNESCO Convention) to Turkey as a matter of principle.  However, given Turkey's hard ball tactics against German archaeologists at Troy, did preservation of digging rights and all that means for U. Penn archaeologists' careers also enter the picture? 

U. Penn Does Egypt's Work For It

Kudos to the University of Pennsylvania Cultural Heritage Center for publishing this list of items missing from the Egyptian Museum and certain archaeological sites. See
http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org/Resources/Documents/Missing%20Egyptian%20Antiquities.pdf

Why the SCA-- turmoil or not-- could not put together its own such list for wide distribution is beyond me.

Addendum (3/15/11): Dorothy King (PhDiva) reports that the SCA has finally published its own list. See http://www.sca-egypt.org/eng/pdfs/Objects%20Missing%20from%20the%20Egyptian%20Museum_2011-03-15.pdf I haven't looked at it closely enough to determine whether it was just cribbed from the U. Penn list. In any case, better late than never.

ICE Scorecard on Antiquities Seizures

The Museum Security Network has this AP Story entitled, "Antiquities Smuggling: Growing Problem at US Ports:" http://groups.google.com/group/museum-security-network/browse_thread/thread/03d93e714fcdcf4e?hl=en The article recounts recent antiquities seizures and hypes the supposed growth in antiquities smuggling.

Despite the title, overall, I suspect that the numbers cited more accurately reflect changed enforcement priorities than anything else. As was explained to me by an old Customs lawyer, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) loves these cases because of the publicity. The problem, of course, is that the quest for publicity often leads to hype that is not reflective of reality. Statements like these certainly don't help: "'A nation's culture is not for sale. These are not souvenirs to be displayed at someone's house,' said Anthony Mangione, a special agent in charge of the Miami office of the agency also known as ICE." In particular, this statement implies that collecting itself is somehow an illicit pursuit. Apparently, Agent Mangione does not know or much care that cultural artifacts have long been collected, preserved and displayed legally by Americans in their own homes for generations.

Again, while no one should condone smuggling, preservation of cultural heritage would be better served if there was less hype and more of an effort to incentivize source countries to pass fairer laws akin to the UK's system of Treasure Trove. That way, any problems would be largely addressed at the source than through our criminal justice system here.

A major problem in my opinion is that ICE and other federal agencies rely far too heavily on archaeologists with an axe to grind against collectors and museums as major sources of information. Using activists as experts is patently unfair and no doubt has led the government to overreach on occasion. (See: http://www.accg.us/issues/news/old-pots-cops-paint-as-201chot201d-sold-openly-in-thailand/?searchterm=Thailand) One hopes that the new "Penn Cultural Heritage Center" will not institutionalize this problem, but that remains to be seen.

A View from India

This month's Art Newspaper at page 59 has an interesting article from an Indian academic, Dr. Naman P. Ahuda. It is entitled, “India: a Tale of Two Markets”.

The article is a synopsis of a larger report prepared for the Task Force on Cultural and Creative Industries, Planning Commission of India.

Ahuja is a highly respected scholar of art history. He first explains economic development/urbanism is now a far greater cause of site destruction than art collecting:

The biggest irony of all is that, in any case, a desire for the possession or art objects is no longer the driving force for the desecration of or pillaging of ancient sites. The Indian government has built dams … knowing that the archaeological context will be sacrificed. It is the advance of man – urbanisation, the cutting down of forests, the construction of roads and dams, and expanding agriculture --- that is now the biggest source of destruction.

Like Cuno, he also understands that:

(laws controlling export of archaeological material) were passed in the interests of nationalism… designed to foster a belief in outside cultural imperialism and are both a symptom and source of deep emotional feeling. And although these laws have proved remarkably ineffective, their emotional basis makes it difficult for the relevant authorities to adjust them.

He also explains that in practice such laws do little but promote public corruption and perverse results:

The law invests officialdom with powers that risk engendering corruption. It is widely known that bribes have been paid to get a license to sell antiquities, to get "non-antiquity" certificates to be able to export them, to even register an antiquity with the authorities.... [U]nsympathetic laws will continue to result in the destruction of the archaeological record unless a proper system of reward exists, since finders usually channel such objects into the illicit market. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the costs of bribes or adhering to the law are potentially so damaging that finders are deliberately destroying pieces rather than run the risk of being caught with them.

As a result, Ahuda suggests that a fundamental "adjustment" in such laws is what is needed:

An adjustment of the present laws to encourage legitimate domestic trade would be effective in restricting the smuggling routes on which the illicit international trade depends. The easing of the sale of such items within India will go a long way in preserving national heritage as awareness of art, history and heritage increases.

It is interesting to find that an academic from a "source country" is advocating the same things authorities like James Cuno and the AAMD have been advocating in this country. Hopefully, authorities like Ahuda will encourage other academics from source countries to also challenge the outdated nationalistic orthodoxy in their own countries. Perhaps, then even the archaeologists behind the new Penn Cultural Heritage Center will notice.

Penn Cultural Heritage Center

The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology has set up the "Penn Cultural Heritage Center." This seems to be another, but potentially well funded, effort to spread the gospel according to the archaeological community: http://www.museum.upenn.edu/new/news/fullrelease.php?which=342

This is what the Penn Cultural Heritage Center plans to do:

Education and outreach programming for diverse audiences, including law enforcement, customs officers, lawyers, policymakers, and academics involved in cultural property protection and issues—as well as community stakeholders and the general public. The Center has built upon earlier Museum training programs with United States officers to help stop the illicit movement of antiquities. Plans for a yearly Continuing Legal Education course on cultural heritage and a Speakers Series for the public are underway.

Consultation on national and international policy issues, working with Ministries of Culture and other governmental groups to develop a holistic approach in the management of cultural heritage at local, national, and international levels. The Center is currently consulting with agencies in Mali, Montenegro, and Honduras, with long-range plans to build this capacity.

Conferences, with opportunities for in-depth dialog, publication, and, where appropriate, concluding public presentations. A first such conference, exploring indigenous views of cultural heritage, features prominent native scholars and activists from North and South America, will run the week of September 29, with a public program on October 4.

Other areas of development for the Center include community development and the integration of community involvement in archaeological programs and site protection; museum collaborations on a national and international scale, with a focus on developing best practices related to heritage issues; and the development of an expert network of archaeologists versed in cultural heritage law and ethics issues surrounding cultural heritage. The PCHC will launch a public website, within the Penn Museum’s site, by the end of 2008.The Penn Cultural Heritage Center is supported by funding from the Provost’s Office of the University of Pennsylvania and from private donors.

It will be interesting to learn more about the Center's programs and funding sources (particularly if the Center plans in the future to solicit monies from government sources like the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs or from activist "source countries" like Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Egypt). It will also be interesting to learn whether the Center's programs will encourage any real debate over these complex issues.