Yale's recent decision to repatriate its Machu Picchu collection and what transpired at the recent Italian and Greek MOU hearings got me thinking that the American museum community has only been bamboozled after its good faith efforts to bend over backwards to the demands of the archaeological community and source countries.
Some years back, the AAMD put in place what seemed to me at the time to be reasonable acquisition guidelines that used a "rolling 10 year provenance period" as a standard. In so doing, the AAMD hoped to balance concerns about the accession of recently looted material with the museum community's continuing obligations to study, preserve and display artifacts from the past. Elements within the archaeological community, however, vehemently attacked these guidelines, suggesting they were just a cover to allow museums to continue to purchase looted material after it was no longer "hot." They instead insisted that the museums only accession artifacts with a documentary history dating back to at least 1970, the date of the UNESCO Convention. They maintained this date would act as a "safe harbor" for future acquisitions. They also suggested that source countries would respond to such a showing of "good faith" by then allowing for "long term loans" of high quality artifacts that the museums could display.
Well, the AAMD and another museum association, the AAM, responded by accepting a 1970 provenance date, but what did the museums get in return? Little, but more grief. Both the Met and now Yale have recently repatriated artifacts that were placed in their collections well before 1970. This will just encourage more such claims for artifacts accessioned well before 1970, as will U.S. Customs' evident acceptance at the behest of the archaeological community of virtually any vague foreign cultural patrimony law as a legal basis for such returns.
And what of long term loans? Again, instead of such loans, museums have received little more than excuses from countries like Italy and Greece, efforts to redefine "long term loans" into what are effectively "short term" ones, cirticism for "not being proactive enough," and even claims that language in MOU's mandating such loans is meaningless.
Of course, by accepting a 1970 provenance date, museums have also made orphans out of thousands upon thousands of perfectly legitimate artifacts that simply do not have the paper "bonafides" to allow them to be studied, conserved and displayed for the benefit of the American public. In the meantime, new museums in places like China and Dubai face no such self-imposed constraints. Yet, we hear no protests from the archaeological community about their collecting practices.
Showing posts with label acquisition guidelines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label acquisition guidelines. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Monday, August 10, 2009
IAA Launches a Campaign to Register Antiquities Collectors
The Israeli Antiquities Authority has launched a campaign to force an estimated 100,000 antiquities collectors to register. See: http://tinyurl.com/luv3fp
Penalties for not registering are steep. Those who fail to register face a possible six months in jail and a fine.
The article states,
According to a law passed in 2002, an "antiquities collector" is anyone with 15 or more artifacts, and all antiquities collectors must register with the IAA. However, only several hundred collectors are currently known to the state.
"Maybe some of them have a specific item that is very important to archeology and nobody knows about it, so we need to know what they have,"Amir Ganor, director of the IAA's Prevention of Antiquities Theft and Supervision of Antiquities Sales Division, told The Jerusalem Post.
The article continues,
Those who report their antiquities will receive a certificate designating them as a collector and, if they choose, an appraisal of the historical significance of their artifacts. Ganor made it clear that collectors would not be asked to give up any of their artifacts. "The items belong to the collector, and we are not trying to take anything from the collector," he said.
Other countries -- like Cyprus and Greece-- also require collectors to register. Hopefully, the Israeli registration system will not be too onerous and thus over time devolve into a system where only wealthy, "connected," people become "registered collectors." That would be a particular shame given the Israeli public's deep interest in preserving, displaying and studying artifacts from the past.
Penalties for not registering are steep. Those who fail to register face a possible six months in jail and a fine.
The article states,
According to a law passed in 2002, an "antiquities collector" is anyone with 15 or more artifacts, and all antiquities collectors must register with the IAA. However, only several hundred collectors are currently known to the state.
"Maybe some of them have a specific item that is very important to archeology and nobody knows about it, so we need to know what they have,"Amir Ganor, director of the IAA's Prevention of Antiquities Theft and Supervision of Antiquities Sales Division, told The Jerusalem Post.
The article continues,
Those who report their antiquities will receive a certificate designating them as a collector and, if they choose, an appraisal of the historical significance of their artifacts. Ganor made it clear that collectors would not be asked to give up any of their artifacts. "The items belong to the collector, and we are not trying to take anything from the collector," he said.
Other countries -- like Cyprus and Greece-- also require collectors to register. Hopefully, the Israeli registration system will not be too onerous and thus over time devolve into a system where only wealthy, "connected," people become "registered collectors." That would be a particular shame given the Israeli public's deep interest in preserving, displaying and studying artifacts from the past.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
More "Publicity" About FOIA Lawsuit and Questions That Follow About 1970 Rule for Coins
David Gill and fellow SAFE bloggers Nathan Elkins and Paul Barford have made no less than six (6) posts in 24 (twenty-four) hours commenting in predictably unfavorable terms on various aspects of an update on this blog about the ACCG-IAPN-PNG FOIA lawsuit and its effort to force some transparency on the State Department bureaucracy. To varying degrees, the tenor of their comments suggest that "the distasteful nature of the dialogue" that has developed with respect to cultural property issues has as much to do with themselves as anyone else.
When they are not insulting the Plaintiffs or the former CPAC Chair who submitted a declaration in the litigation, they touch on various legal issues related to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") and the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act ("CPIA"). However, rather than relying on Gill and friends for legal analysis, I instead suggest reviewing Scott Hodes' "the FOIA Blog" (see: http://thefoiablog.typepad.com/) and the ECA's own "International Cultural Heritage Protection" website for information about the governing law. See: http://culturalheritage.state.gov/overview.html A short recap of the CPIA can also be found on this blog here: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/07/short-recap-of-cultural-property.html Certainly, Barford in particular is way off base when he claims that the only relevant criteria under the CPIA is whether or not coins are "archaeological objects." Additionally, he also shows little, if any, understanding about the practical effect of import restrictions on those trying to legally import large numbers of ancient coins.
In any event, at the end of his own musings on the subject, Gill wonders aloud, "Is it usual, tolerable, moral and legal (and not forgetting ethical) to acquire recently-surfaced archaeological objects (including coins) that have no recorded collecting history prior to 1970?" See: http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2009/04/collector-on-cpac-looking-back.html
My answer, at least with respect to coins is, of course, a resounding, Yes! See: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/08/cyprus-caari-and-boccf-there-is-as.html Indeed, I would appreciate Gill naming for me any and all well known numismatic scholars that unequivocally support his 1970 acquisition date rule for coins. I certainly am not aware of any, but admittedly, I don't run in Gill's circles.
When they are not insulting the Plaintiffs or the former CPAC Chair who submitted a declaration in the litigation, they touch on various legal issues related to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") and the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act ("CPIA"). However, rather than relying on Gill and friends for legal analysis, I instead suggest reviewing Scott Hodes' "the FOIA Blog" (see: http://thefoiablog.typepad.com/) and the ECA's own "International Cultural Heritage Protection" website for information about the governing law. See: http://culturalheritage.state.gov/overview.html A short recap of the CPIA can also be found on this blog here: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/07/short-recap-of-cultural-property.html Certainly, Barford in particular is way off base when he claims that the only relevant criteria under the CPIA is whether or not coins are "archaeological objects." Additionally, he also shows little, if any, understanding about the practical effect of import restrictions on those trying to legally import large numbers of ancient coins.
In any event, at the end of his own musings on the subject, Gill wonders aloud, "Is it usual, tolerable, moral and legal (and not forgetting ethical) to acquire recently-surfaced archaeological objects (including coins) that have no recorded collecting history prior to 1970?" See: http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2009/04/collector-on-cpac-looking-back.html
My answer, at least with respect to coins is, of course, a resounding, Yes! See: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/08/cyprus-caari-and-boccf-there-is-as.html Indeed, I would appreciate Gill naming for me any and all well known numismatic scholars that unequivocally support his 1970 acquisition date rule for coins. I certainly am not aware of any, but admittedly, I don't run in Gill's circles.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Some Additional Thoughts on the China MOU
Having had some time to mull the MOU over a bit, here are a few thoughts for what they are worth:
1. The decision is likely a victory, of sorts, for a prominent auction house. If memory serves, that auction house provided CPAC with a chart and back-up information that demonstrated that many extant Chinese artifacts post-Tang were never buried in the ground, but rather were handed down to subsequent generations. What CPAC or the State Department ignored, however, was an important second step in the analysis. For archaeological objects to be restricted under the CPIA, they must be "culturally significant." The auction house proposed a common-sense analysis for determining what is "culturally significant" and what is not "culturally significant." That analysis suggested that the question of restriction should be evaluated in light of the following factors related to a given object: the quality and state of the existing archaeological and art-historical record; site specificity, portability, and documentary importance; mass production and lack of rarity; frequent and long-term market incidence. This approach is far more thoughtful than simply banning anything old "found in the ground," but that is just what CPAC or State did in deciding to impose import restrictions on even common artifacts, like coins.
2. The AAMD decision to retreat from its prior "10 year rolling provenance" acquisition guidelines in favor of a 1970 date made the museum community's prior strong opposition to the Chinese restrictions largely moot.
3. Although the archaeological community will likely paint this decision as yet another "great victory," at least some are probably disappointed that the restrictions did not extend up to the 250 year old threshold under the CPIA. On the other hand, ending the restrictions at the end of the Tang Dynasty makes much sense from the perspective that many later goods were widely traded around the world. The most famous examples, of course, are Chinese porcelain objects.
4. The State Department bureaucracy is largely oblivious (or more likely uncaring) about practical concerns. The great similarity amongst cash coins of all eras was mentioned to State Department officials on several occasions. Yet, this practical concern about Customs confusing cash coins of different eras was largely ignored, as was the point that the minimal value of many such Chinese cash coins makes complying with the stringent documentation requirements "not worth the trouble." Of course, neither the State Department nor the archaeological community has to enforce or live by these restrictions. Rather, Customs and importers do. Wouldn't it be interesting to mandate detailed record keeping about the find spots, as well as the storage and disposition of archaeological finds like individual coins, and then see how the archaeological community would react?
1. The decision is likely a victory, of sorts, for a prominent auction house. If memory serves, that auction house provided CPAC with a chart and back-up information that demonstrated that many extant Chinese artifacts post-Tang were never buried in the ground, but rather were handed down to subsequent generations. What CPAC or the State Department ignored, however, was an important second step in the analysis. For archaeological objects to be restricted under the CPIA, they must be "culturally significant." The auction house proposed a common-sense analysis for determining what is "culturally significant" and what is not "culturally significant." That analysis suggested that the question of restriction should be evaluated in light of the following factors related to a given object: the quality and state of the existing archaeological and art-historical record; site specificity, portability, and documentary importance; mass production and lack of rarity; frequent and long-term market incidence. This approach is far more thoughtful than simply banning anything old "found in the ground," but that is just what CPAC or State did in deciding to impose import restrictions on even common artifacts, like coins.
2. The AAMD decision to retreat from its prior "10 year rolling provenance" acquisition guidelines in favor of a 1970 date made the museum community's prior strong opposition to the Chinese restrictions largely moot.
3. Although the archaeological community will likely paint this decision as yet another "great victory," at least some are probably disappointed that the restrictions did not extend up to the 250 year old threshold under the CPIA. On the other hand, ending the restrictions at the end of the Tang Dynasty makes much sense from the perspective that many later goods were widely traded around the world. The most famous examples, of course, are Chinese porcelain objects.
4. The State Department bureaucracy is largely oblivious (or more likely uncaring) about practical concerns. The great similarity amongst cash coins of all eras was mentioned to State Department officials on several occasions. Yet, this practical concern about Customs confusing cash coins of different eras was largely ignored, as was the point that the minimal value of many such Chinese cash coins makes complying with the stringent documentation requirements "not worth the trouble." Of course, neither the State Department nor the archaeological community has to enforce or live by these restrictions. Rather, Customs and importers do. Wouldn't it be interesting to mandate detailed record keeping about the find spots, as well as the storage and disposition of archaeological finds like individual coins, and then see how the archaeological community would react?
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
LA Times "Culture Monster" Swallows SAFE Bait-- Hook, Line and Sinker
Like many other once powerful newspapers, the venerable LA Times is dying a slow and painful death. Circulation numbers and profits are way down. Editorial staff are being laid off. See: http://www.variety.com/VR1117994774.html Like other news outlets, the LA Times may even eventually have to abandon the print format altogether just to survive.
Perhaps, this sad state of affairs helps explain why the LA Times "Culture Monster" published what appeared to be little more than a publicity piece for the upcoming Renfrew talks being sponsored by the archaeological advocacy group Saving Antiquities for Everyone or "SAFE." In the initial piece, the "Culture Monster" reported that Lord Renfrew had planned to criticize the MET for failing to adopt as stringent acquisition standards as the Getty or even agreeing to adopt the acquisition standards of the AAMD, a group with which the MET is affiliated. See: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/01/gettys-antiquit.html
The problem is that the MET has in fact adopted the new AAMD standards, a fact reported on the "CultureGirrl" blog some time ago. See: http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/2008/06/met_gives_up_its_10year_rollin.html What is a "Culture Monster" to do then? Apologize for the mistake? Of course not-- he's a "Monster" after all. So instead, why not just take the opposite tact and give Renfrew and SAFE yet another opportunity to take the MET to task for not going "far enough?" See: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/01/metropolitan-mu.html
The real problem here of course is not the MET, but the declining journalistic standards at the LA Times. One would have hoped that the "Culture Monster" would have learned the hard way that relying on an advocacy group with an axe to grind against collectors and museums for one's stories is a recipe for trouble. But that would not appear to be the case given the "Culture Monster's" approach to "correcting" the story. Normally, editorial staff would be expected to help avoid such problems, but as we have seen, many of them have been laid off.
And what of SAFE? "PhDiva" has an amusing take on SAFE and Renfrew "taking credit" for "changing" the MET's policies. See: http://phdiva.blogspot.com/2009/01/metropolitan-museum-2-lord-renfrew-0.html Now that's Chutzpa! And I thought the "Culture Monster" was bad....
Perhaps, this sad state of affairs helps explain why the LA Times "Culture Monster" published what appeared to be little more than a publicity piece for the upcoming Renfrew talks being sponsored by the archaeological advocacy group Saving Antiquities for Everyone or "SAFE." In the initial piece, the "Culture Monster" reported that Lord Renfrew had planned to criticize the MET for failing to adopt as stringent acquisition standards as the Getty or even agreeing to adopt the acquisition standards of the AAMD, a group with which the MET is affiliated. See: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/01/gettys-antiquit.html
The problem is that the MET has in fact adopted the new AAMD standards, a fact reported on the "CultureGirrl" blog some time ago. See: http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/2008/06/met_gives_up_its_10year_rollin.html What is a "Culture Monster" to do then? Apologize for the mistake? Of course not-- he's a "Monster" after all. So instead, why not just take the opposite tact and give Renfrew and SAFE yet another opportunity to take the MET to task for not going "far enough?" See: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/01/metropolitan-mu.html
The real problem here of course is not the MET, but the declining journalistic standards at the LA Times. One would have hoped that the "Culture Monster" would have learned the hard way that relying on an advocacy group with an axe to grind against collectors and museums for one's stories is a recipe for trouble. But that would not appear to be the case given the "Culture Monster's" approach to "correcting" the story. Normally, editorial staff would be expected to help avoid such problems, but as we have seen, many of them have been laid off.
And what of SAFE? "PhDiva" has an amusing take on SAFE and Renfrew "taking credit" for "changing" the MET's policies. See: http://phdiva.blogspot.com/2009/01/metropolitan-museum-2-lord-renfrew-0.html Now that's Chutzpa! And I thought the "Culture Monster" was bad....
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
AAMD Issues New Acquisition Guidelines for Antiquities
The AAMD has issued new acquisition guidelines for antiquities. For details, see:
http://aamd.org/newsroom/documents/2008ReportAndRelease.pdf
The new guidelines abandon the previous "rolling 10 year" provenance period in favor of a 1970 date that has been relentlessly pushed by source countries and their allies within the archaeological community. The AAMD guidelines also leave some "wiggle room" where ownership history is incomplete, but only under circumstances that suggest that the item has a good provenance.
As an organization, the AAMD is obviously offering an "olive branch" to source countries and the archaeological community.
Will source countries now reciprocate with internal reforms such as the creation of licit markets and programs like the British Treasure Act that encourage finders to report their finds?
Will archaeologists now change their focus from denouncing museums to publishing their finds promptly?
I tend to doubt it. Rather, I fear this change will be viewed as a capitulation. If so, it will only encourage source countries to continue their failed policies and members of the archaeological community to focus much of their attention on the "ethics of collecting" rather than on the "ethics of archaeology."
http://aamd.org/newsroom/documents/2008ReportAndRelease.pdf
The new guidelines abandon the previous "rolling 10 year" provenance period in favor of a 1970 date that has been relentlessly pushed by source countries and their allies within the archaeological community. The AAMD guidelines also leave some "wiggle room" where ownership history is incomplete, but only under circumstances that suggest that the item has a good provenance.
As an organization, the AAMD is obviously offering an "olive branch" to source countries and the archaeological community.
Will source countries now reciprocate with internal reforms such as the creation of licit markets and programs like the British Treasure Act that encourage finders to report their finds?
Will archaeologists now change their focus from denouncing museums to publishing their finds promptly?
I tend to doubt it. Rather, I fear this change will be viewed as a capitulation. If so, it will only encourage source countries to continue their failed policies and members of the archaeological community to focus much of their attention on the "ethics of collecting" rather than on the "ethics of archaeology."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
