More Overkill Coming in NJ?

The problem with activists is that they are often absolutists.   That is certainly true amongst the activists in the archaeological community, and perhaps even more true when it comes to animal rights activists who are lobbying against the ivory trade.  For some reason, they also seem opposed to the trade in antique ivory though apparently it is quite possible to tell old from new.  The latest venue for this battle against collecting is in New Jersey.  Of course, ban modern ivory, but a ban that does not contain an exemption for antiques puts many artifacts of significant art historical or even archaeological value at risk.

Overkill

There are good reasons to ban the trade in modern ivory products.  But what of antiques with historical and artistic value?  Or, ancient artifacts like Byzantine ivory diptychs?  That's where overkill comes in.   And that's exactly what's now happening in New York State where New York's Governor, at the behest of Hillary Clinton and wildlife advocates, has pushed through a bill that bans the sale of any antique with an ivory content over 20%.  The provision in the bill should be rethought-- the idea that sales of antique ivory encourage the sale of modern ivory is without evidentiary support.

Criticism of Antique Ivory Ban Heats Up-- But Is It All Too Late?

Tom Mashberg, reporting for the New York Times, writes about wide-spread concerns raised with regards to what amounts to an administrative ban on the sale of antique ivory.

Predictably, the bureaucrats and an advisory panel packed with activists are unmoved. Indeed, they know full well of its scope and impact, but they nonetheless contend that the efforts of some smugglers to disguise new ivory  as old justifies such draconian measures.

The real problem, of course, is that at least some of the same collectors and members of the trade who claim to be "blindsided" had probably heard at least something about the Obama Administration considering changes to how antique ivory would be treated, but then they did absolutely nothing about it.  Now, unfortunately, it may be too late to change government policy.

One would think this news would make other collectors awake from their slumber, but will it?

Indeed, it remains to be seen whether the trade and collectors of Egyptian antiquities are similarly oblivious to news of potential "emergency import restrictions" and calls by their proponents for them to be just a prelude to a complete halt in sales of any antiquity lacking a stamp of approval from the government in Cairo.

Dealer Groups Propose Administrative Fix for Antique Ivory Ban

CPO has already reported that a ban on the trade in ivory meant to help protect elephants from slaughter also threatens to make antiques made from that material worthless.  Now in response, two prominent trade groups representing the interests of antiques dealers have proposed the creation of an art advisory panel to help ensure that the legitimate trade in antique ivory objects can continue.  Antique ivory objects can be of considerable artistic and historical value.  Shouldn't they be saved too?

Destroying Artifacts to Save Endangered Species-- Are There Any Parallels for Antiquities Collectors?

The US Fish and Wildlife Service has destroyed its large stockpiles of seized ivory claiming that the move will help save endangered elephants.   Does this move have any relevance for antiquities collectors?

Some in the archaeological community see direct parallels between endangered elephants and "endangered" artifacts, but the differences should be obvious.  Elephants are live beings; artifacts are not. Harvesting ivory kills elephants; removing artifacts from the ground may deprive them of "context," but it may also save them from deterioration and development. And is anyone seriously maintaining seized artifacts should be destroyed?  Let's hope not, though one wonders if repatriating them to underfunded cultural bureaucracies abroad pretty much guarantees they will be lost through neglect or worse as time goes on.

And what of the economics of the government's actions?  Some have suggested selling off ivory stocks would be far more effective in depressing prices and ultimately lessening demand.  Government spokesmen instead claim that such sales would instead stimulate demand and help others disguise poached ivory.

And is this of any relevance to antiquity collecting?  Probably not.  First, "post-1970" antiquities remain legal to own so I'm not sure how sales of seized antiquities would help disguise "poached" ones.  Second, underfunded cultural bureaucracies abroad could really use the money generated from such sales.  Finally, stimulating demand for antiquities may not be such a bad thing, particularly where it leads to further study and appreciation of the ancient cultures that made them.  So, despite any effort to link ivory to antiquities, any parallels in the  end seem quite limited.

Nanny State Empowered to Regulate Hemingway's Cats

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a decision allowing the Department of Agriculture to regulate how the Hemingway Museum treats the descendants of Hemingway's cats that live on the property.  In so doing, the Court concluded that the Museum met the definition of an an animal exhibitor and that agency regulations and advertisements featuring the cats were enough to provide the necessary nexus to interstate commerce.  Now, the DOA can force the Hemingway Museum to cage the cats individually at night, to construct a higher electrified fence or to hire a night watchman, and to build additional cat resting areas.  As with coin collecting, even if the Government has the right to regulate something, one can still question its stupidity in doing so. Perhaps the Supreme Court might consider taking both the Hemingway cat case and ACCG coin case.  Each would present a good opportunity for the Court to consider Government overreach at its most ridiculous.