Muted Response to Russian Bombing Attack Near Palmyra's Ancient Citadel

The archaeological blogosphere has had a muted response to a Russian attack on ISIS positions near the ancient citadel of Palmyra.  Last month, Assad's director of antiquities reacted favorably to other such reports.  CPO wonders if the response would be as muted if US warplanes conducted similar attacks on archaeologically significant areas.

Egyptian Religious Bigotry Behind Pulling of Excavation Permit?

Archaeo-blogger Paul Barford has made the case that Egyptian cultural bureaucrats have pulled the excavation permit of American archaeologists from Brigham Young University because they disagree with the tenants of their Mormon faith and not because of some "misunderstanding" about the number of "mummies" they have found in a cemetery unearthed at the site of Fag El Gamous in Fayoum. 

While Barford approves of such intolerance, CPO does not. One's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) should never come into play in deciding whether to award excavation permits or not.

So, how will the US State Department, which supposedly promotes religious freedom as a core objective of American foreign policy, respond?

And will the International Coalition to Protect Egyptian Antiquities put even 1/10th the effort lobbying the Egyptian Government on behalf of the Brigham Young archaeologists and their religious freedom as it has lobbying the U.S. Government for "emergency import restrictions" on Egyptian cultural goods?

Or, will both just shrug, and celebrate the expected announcement of the pre-judged MOU with Egypt in early  2015 as if the country was still a democracy, albeit an imperfect one?

If there is any time to rethink a MOU with Egypt, its's now.  Any need for "emergency restrictions" has long since passed.  And, anyway, its no time to reward the generals for possible spying (presumably on behalf of the Chinese) or their continuing crackdown on dissent, which most recently included refusing entry to a prominent US scholar and democracy supporter.

Polish Collectors' Rights Advocate?

It was not too long ago that Poland broke free from Communism and its apparatchicks.   So its disheartening that Polish officials have apparently seized a legitimately purchased Egyptian artifact on no more than the say-so of representatives of Egypt's military dictatorship.  Oddly enough, archaeo-blogger Paul Barford is the one who has brought all this to our attention.  So, why is such arbitrary action wrong in Poland, but to be applauded on his blog when it takes place in the United States?

Secret CPAC Meeting to Discuss the Italian MOU

The Federal Register has announced a closed CPAC meeting to discuss the MOU with Italy to take place on March 13-14, 2014.  CPAC should be discussing whether the MOU should be scrapped altogether   because Italy is no longer living up to its end of the bargain.  But more likely, the closed session will be used to spoon feed CPAC members with information about seizure of ancient coins in Italy in support of a claim that restrictions should be continued and even expanded.   Of course, the fact that ancient coins are widely and legally available within Italy and the rest of the EU will not warrant mention.

Speculation?  Sure.  But CPO notes that the Bush Administration conducted an open CPAC meeting to discuss the interim review of the Italian MOU so we would know at least some of what was discussed.  President Obama promised that his Administration would make transparency a priority, but apparently the State Department and its Cultural Heritage Center never got the word.  At least, State still promises that an open meeting will be scheduled if Italy asks that the MOU be renewed.

What's Left of the MOU with Italy?

In 2011, our State Department sold out the interests of American coin collectors for no good reason when it approved new restrictions on ancient coins of  Italian type in conjunction with an extension of a MOU with Italy.  Unbelievably, those new Customs regulations bar entry of the exact same types of coins that are openly and legally available for sale within Italy itself.

Under that same MOU, US museums were supposed to benefit from long term loans from Italy of high-quality archaeological artifacts.  Now, however, Sicily says not so fast-- it wants to renegotiate such agreements, presumably by charging high loan fees for what decides to send abroad.

CPO submits that Sicily has every right to do so, but then so too should there be a "renegotiation" of the MOU with Italy.  In particular, it should be scrapped altogether or at least modified so that there are no longer any restrictions on the same types of artifacts freely available within Italy and EU itself.  That would certainly include coins, but some other types of artifacts as well.

The burdens such restrictions place on Americans could never really be justified as necessary to "protect archaeological context" given such an internal market within Italy.  And now, with Sicily's decision to scotch further loans, what's the remaining reasons for any  MOU with the Italian National Government?  None, it would seem, unless, of course, it's really always only been about suppressing the trade at the behest of the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center and its allies within the archaeological establishment.

Cashing In

Hollywood is not the only one seeking to cash in on the new "Monuments Men" movie.  Not surprisingly, anti-collecting academics are seeking to do the same thing, though the parallels between looting of archaeological sites and Nazi state sponsored confiscations are not very close in CPO's opinion.   Indeed, a far closer parallel is the Iraqi State's confiscation of Iraqi-Jewish artifacts.  Yet, the issue of the repatriation of artifacts stolen from Iraqi Jews back to the country that expropriated them receives no notice from these same groups.  Hypocrisy?  Perhaps.  More evidence, if any is needed, that it's more about control than conservation?  Definitely.

Market Dominance

AFP reports that connected Chinese auction houses have achieved market dominance over their foreign rivals in selling Chinese antiquities:

"Western giants Christie's and Sotheby's are increasingly focused on China but barred from selling the hottest item -- antiques -- by laws aimed at protecting cultural heritage.

Meanwhile Chinese rivals Poly and Guardian have seen tremendous growth thanks to their greater freedom to act within the country, and their political ties." 

The net effect of self-imposed US restrictions is simply to turn the market over to Mainland Chinese auctioneers and dealers.  And again it must be asked: How can restrictions on the entry of ancient Chinese art into the relatively small US market have any impact on any looting within China itself when the much larger and rapidly expanding Chinese art market is allowed to sell the same ancient Chinese art without restrictions in Hong Kong?

Some Thoughts on the Renewal of Cambodian MOU

Cambodia certainly has a far more sympathetic case than many applicants for import restrictions.   On the other hand, I’m not sure that the case made to protect sculptural elements from Khmer temples justifies import restrictions on everything and anything old down to the 16^th Century, including things like beads and statuettes.   I’d also like to know more about collections formed in Cambodia itself, particularly the one evidently put together by a government minister.   Does his collection have any statutes or sculptural elements in it?  If so, where and when were they collected?   It seems wrong to me that U.S. Government has filed suit against Sotheby’s demanding the return of a statute that left Cambodia decades ago if wealthy Cambodians, including at least one government minister, have been allowed to collect such material “no questions asked.”

More Double Standards at CPAC?

The New York Times has reported that the Cambodian Government asked for CPAC member Jane Levine, who is also employed by Sotheby's, to be recused from deliberating on the upcoming CPAC meeting relating to the renewal of the Cambodian MOU.   Presumably, the Cambodians are claiming that Levine cannot fairly discharge her duties given the ongoing dispute involving a Khmer statue.  The article indicates Levine was not going to attend the meeting anyway due to a conflict with a Sotheby's board meeting, but also suggests that the "scheduling conflict" may have provided Levine and Sotheby's with a graceful exit from the dispute.

But, if so, it's worth recalling that State failed to recuse an archaeologist who received an excavation permit from Cyprus despite the clear conflict of interest issues her participation in deliberations related to the renewal of the Cypriot MOU raised.

So, once again, is there one standard applied to collectors and the trade and another for archaeologists aligned with the State Department and source country bureaucracies?

Should Transparency Be a Two Way Street?

Archaeo-Blogger and Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire wants to mandate additional record-keeping for dealers in cultural goods in the name of "transparency."  Leaving aside whether creating more red tape will accomplish anything other than to place additional administrative burdens on the small businesses of the antiquities and coin trade, one wonders whether he would also acknowledge that transparency should be a two way street. 

So, how about some transparency for the State Department and CBP concerning their process for imposing import restrictions on cultural goods?  Or how about imposing new record keeping requirements on archaeologists, such as requiring them to publish their findings within in a reasonable time on the Internet so they will be easily accessible to interested members of the general public?

After all, State, CBP and the archaeological community all purport to act in the public's interest, so is some transparency from them too much to ask?

Thanksgiving: Khouli Sentenced to Home Detention

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has sentenced Mousa ("Morris") Khouli to six months of home detention and one year probation for smuggling Egyptian antiquities by way of false declarations on customs forms.  The prosecutor had asked for 46-57 months of incarceration, but the Court evidently was swayed by a sentencing memorandum prepared by Khouli's lawyer that outlined the relatively modest sentences given for other "cultural property" crimes.

The blood-thirsty archaeological blogosphere will likely be aghast at the length of the sentence. But then again, as set forth in the declaration of Jay Kislak appended to ACCG's recently filed petition for rehearing there is credible evidence to suggest that certain individual(s) at the US Department of State misled Congress and the public in official reports about import restrictions on Cypriot coins and have yet to be called into account in any fashion whatsoever.   

Is it really more serious to mislead on a customs form than in an official government report sent to Congress?  And let's not forget that the very same State Department bureaucrats involved in the Cypriot coin controversy are also intimately involved in coordinating repatriations like that at issue in the Khouli case through the State Department's "Cultural Antiquities Task Force."  Why should they be above the law?

Minerva Provides Open Access

The AIA claims it acts in the public interest and antiquities dealers are only interested in profit.  If so, how is it that Minerva, a commercial journal run by an antiquities dealer, has allowed open access to past issues, but the AIA continues to oppose open access, even for research material paid for by taxpayer dollars?

Everyone is Entitled to Find Out What the Government is Up To

Scott Hodes, an attorney who devotes his practice to Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") cases, has commented on the archaeological blogosphere's attack on the efforts of  ACCG, IAPN and PNG to seek transparency in how the State Department and US Customs impose import restrictions on cultural goods.

The drafters of FOIA hoped that the release of government files would help the public learn what its government is up to.  The fact that ACCG, IAPN and PNG have sought to shed some light on what State Department and US Customs Bureaucrats have been up to behind closed doors should be applauded, not condemned by archaeological groups, particularly given their own demands for transparency from private parties involved in the trade in cultural goods.

ACCG: AIA Under Fire on Open Access

Here is a revised press release from the ACCG critical of the AIA on its stand against "open access" to archaeological research: http://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2012/05/30/CL14513

At public meetings before the State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee, AIA members have claimed that import restrictions on cultural goods are necessary to promote archaeological research which is then shared with members of the public.

Isn't the AIA's stance against open access to federally funded research inconsistent with such claims?  Should the AIA instead provide CPAC with a disclaimer that archaeological research is only made freely available to fellow members of the archaeological trade?

We Buy Chinese Antiques

Oriental Heritage Inc., has announced a 7 day Antiques Buying Event in the Baltimore and Washington, D.C. Area. A prominent advertisement in the Washington Post exclaims, “The Chinese economy is booming. As a result, the market for Chinese antiques is red hot. Prices for many Chinese antiques have grown dramatically.” The advertisement also informs us that the Oriental Heritage Inc. is “backed up by major investment groups in China” and “has access to tens of millions of dollars of funds instantly.” Although not explicitly stated in the advertisement itself, the implication is that any art purchased in the United States will be repatriated to China.

Comment: While I support Oriental Heritage’s rights to purchase antiques in the United States and send them to China, its actions again underscore the utter foolishness of the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Cultural Heritage Center’s effort to secure US import restrictions on Chinese cultural goods. Those restrictions have been pitched by State Department cultural bureaucrats and supportive archaeologists as necessary to protect Chinese archaeological sites. Yet, they appear to have in fact done little more than help redirect the trade in Chinese art back to China itself.

For more about Oriental Heritage, see http://orientalheritageinc.com/

The Economist Takes On Turkey's Repatriation Drive

The Economist Magazine has critiqued Turkey’s new repatriation drive here: http://www.economist.com/node/21555531

The Economist points out Turkey’s nationalist stance is popular at home, but that it is hypocritical in the extreme. Turkey itself was an Imperial power and its museums --like those of other Imperial powers-- also contain artifacts taken from what today are other countries.

The Economist could have gone further. Isn't it also wrong for Turkey to lay claim to cultural artifacts produced by Greek culture when Turkey itself forcibly deported its Greek citizens in the 1920’s?

Ponder the Fate of Zeugma

Before the Trustees of  Bowling Green State University seriously consider calls to send mosaics installed in their new arts center to Turkey because some academic claims they might have come from Zeugma, a Turkish site, they should ponder the fate that city-- sunk beneath waters created by a Turkish Government hydroelectric dam.

The Trustees should also consider that the AIA and other archaeological groups that support repatriation -- and which are so quick to jump on collectors, museums, and dealers at the mere whiff of looted art-- instead turn into pussycats when it comes to the decisions of foreign governments to sacrifice whole sites to dams and the like.  Indeed, instead of outrage for inundating Zeugma and many of its magnificent artifacts -- these groups only offered the Turkish Government their thanks for allowing "rescue excavations" that, of course, were largely funded not by the Turkish Government itself, but by an American Foundation.  See http://www.archaeology.org/0009/etc/turkey.html   Could this be because American archaeologists are beholden to the Turkish cultural bureacracy for excavation permits? 

It's not all that surprising that the Turkish Government wants to downplay its own calculated destruction of Turkey's archaeological past.  Yet, why should the Trustees of Bowling Green State University ignore Turkey's unclean hands as they consider any repatriation request?

More Looting in Egypt- But is the Prescription More of the Same?

The AP has filed this report on looting in Egypt.  See http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/egypt-turmoil-thieves-hunt-pharaonic-treasures-16334929#.T66C0_F5mSM

Yet, branding poor people who dig under their own houses as "thieves" and calling for more repressive measures probably won't solve the problem.  Perhaps, the real issue is that the Egyptian State's Pharaonic approach to these issues confuses control with conservation to the detriment of the latter.

Speaking of lawbreaking, the article-- which apparently is based totally on information from archaeologists and Egyptian cultural bureaucrats-- nowhere discusses the status of the case against former Egyptian antiquities chief Zahi Hawass, who has been charged with antiquities theft and corruption.

If Egyptian authorities insist on prosecuting the poor for "antiquities theft" shouldn't they also take a similarly hard line against Dr. Hawass, who, after all, was one of the major proponents of such repressive measures when he was in charge?

Should an Ohio University Send Valuable Mosaics Back to Turkey Based on Speculation on their Origins and the Impact of Turkish Law?

I do hope the Trustees at Bowling Green State University in Ohio seek opinions of others than those with a vested interest in repatriating objects before they seriously consider ripping valuable mosaics out of its new Wolfe Center and sending them to an uncertain fate in Turkey.  See http://www.cleveland.com/arts/index.ssf/2012/03/turkey_wants_bgsus_ancient_rom.html and http://www.savingantiquities.org/will-new-research-lead-to-repatriation-of-mosaics/
After all, the Trustees have fiduciary duties that require substantial justification before the University despoils its own new art center to feed the cultural nationalist beast.

At a minimum, the Trustees must ask:

Is academic speculation that the objects may have come from Zeugma, a site in Turkey, enough to justify such an irreversible action?

And even if the mosaics did come from Zeugma, how can a 1983 Turkish law be used as a basis to return them when they could not have left Turkey later than the 1960's?

And what moral right does the Turkish Government have to such objects?  After all, that same Turkish government sacrificed the entire ancient city of Zeugma itself in a quest for hydroelectric power. 

Swank AIA Gala at Odds with Anti-Business, Due Dilligence Rhetoric?

The AIA has announced the success of its Spring Gala on its website.  See http://aia.archaeological.org/gala/

But the optics of such a posh event are seemingly at odds with the anti-business rhetoric one sometimes hears from AIA members at hearings of the State Department Cultural Property Advisory Committee. 

It's also interesting to note that the AIA auctioned off an antique Turkish kilim during the event.  See http://aia.archaeological.org/gala/auction/fethiye-kilim  Again, one wonders given all the rhetoric about due dilligence whether the item was imported into the United States consistently with Turkish export controls. See http://www.turkeytravelplanner.com/details/Shopping/AntiquitiesWarning.html