I prepared this report after reviewing the State Department's initial production of documents. This lawsuit should be of importance to anyone who thinks transparency of government processes is important:
http://www.accg.us/issues/news/lawsuit-pries-loose-documents-more-being-contested
Stay tuned for more information as the lawsuit progresses.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
National Gallery of Art Exhibit of Afghan Treasures
I am really looking forward to the National Gallery of Art's exhibition of treasures from the National Museum, Kabul. See http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/afghanistaninfo.shtm. What I am not looking forward to is activists from the archaeological community using a selective version of the events behind the recovery of these treasures to push their own anti-collecting agenda. Such a selective version of the cultural property issues facing Afghanistan was behind a bill introduced in Congress several years ago that would have authorized "emergency import restrictions" similar to those enacted under the "Emergency Restrictions on Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act of 2004." Thankfully, that bill (H.R. 915) died in Committee after the House Ways and Means Committee accepted public comment about the legislation. For more, see the House Ways and Means Committee Subcommittee on Trade web site at: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=comment&hearing=440
The bill's defeat does not mean that Afghanistan cannot seek "emergency import restrictions" itself. Rather, it means that if it does so, there will be no bypass of CPAC review and the opportunity for public comment. This, of course, was one of the major complaints about the "Emergency Restrictions on Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act of 2004."
The bill's defeat does not mean that Afghanistan cannot seek "emergency import restrictions" itself. Rather, it means that if it does so, there will be no bypass of CPAC review and the opportunity for public comment. This, of course, was one of the major complaints about the "Emergency Restrictions on Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act of 2004."
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Unprovenanced Ancient Greek Coins on Exhibit at Smithsonian
"Classically Greek: Coins and Bank Notes from Antiquity to Today," is a travelling exhibit from Greece on display in the Smithsonian Castle until June 10, 2008. There are only a few ancient Greek bronze coins and modern Greek bank notes in the exhibit, but it is nice to see coins and bank notes of any sort on display at the Smithsonian. It has been some years since the Smithsonian closed its venerable numismatic display, and plans for a new exhibit will have to wait for the reopening of the American History Museum, which has been closed for renovations for several years.
In any event, I find it telling that the Greek institutions that organized the travelling exhibit did not include "provenance information" with their descriptions of the ancient Greek coins in the display. Perhaps, such information is not as critical for common artifacts like coins as some in the archaeological community would have us believe.
In any event, I find it telling that the Greek institutions that organized the travelling exhibit did not include "provenance information" with their descriptions of the ancient Greek coins in the display. Perhaps, such information is not as critical for common artifacts like coins as some in the archaeological community would have us believe.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Israel Government Coins and Medals Corporation Makes Ancient and Modern Coins Available Together for Sale
Despite what one might think from reading certain well-known archaeological blogs, most foreign governments don't see anything wrong with the public being given access to common ancient artifacts, like coins. Ancient coins are openly sold in most of Europe with no readily apparent restrictions. Even Italy-- with its aggressive repatriation efforts against US Museums--has a vibrant internal market for ancient coins. Moreover, this is not just a European phenomenon. There is a large and quite open trade in early Chinese coins within China itself. Indeed, it has been reported that the Bank of China has a joint venture with a Chinese entrepreneur to sell coins from a 500 ton stash to tourists. Yet, for some reason, coins ended up on the list of items up for potential restriction under the still pending request for import restrictions on Chinese cultural artifacts.
Recently, news that the Israel Government Coins and Medal Corporations is selling sets containing both ancient and modern coins caught my eye. For more information, see http://www.isragift.co.il/asp/subcat.asp?cat=1&sub=103&lang=eng Modern Israeli coin designers have looked to ancient coins for inspiration. What better way to celebrate Israel's 60th anniversary than purchasing a set containing Israel's well-designed ancient and modern coinage for your favorite archaeologist!
Recently, news that the Israel Government Coins and Medal Corporations is selling sets containing both ancient and modern coins caught my eye. For more information, see http://www.isragift.co.il/asp/subcat.asp?cat=1&sub=103&lang=eng Modern Israeli coin designers have looked to ancient coins for inspiration. What better way to celebrate Israel's 60th anniversary than purchasing a set containing Israel's well-designed ancient and modern coinage for your favorite archaeologist!
Sunday, May 4, 2008
John Russell of the State Department-- From Sanctions Breaker to Regulator?
John Russell has had quite an interesting few years. Like many archaeologists who excavated in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime, Russell was very critical of UN Sanctions and US Policy. His activism included a visit to Iraq in 2001 to attend a conference on the "Birth of Writing" that seemed to be designed as much as a propaganda effort to help break international sanctions as anything else. More about this conference can be found in an earlier posting on this blog: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/04/tarik-aziz-goes-on-trial-for-executions.html.
In any event, after the looting of the Iraq Museum, Russell was at the forefront of criticising the US Government's efforts at protecting Iraqi cultural property, particularly from early Mesopotamian cultures. His activism included lobbying the US Congress to pass a bill that ultimately became "the Emergency Protection for Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act of 2004." See http://www.house.gov/english/press_2003_2004/iraq.html.
As part of this lobbying effort, on June 15, 2003, the Washington Post published an op-ed piece Russell authored entitled, “"We're Still Missing the Looting Picture.” In that piece, Russell at least impliedly accused US dealers and collectors of wanting to buy looted Iraqi materials. I suspect he may have been even more harsh in his criticisms of US Museums, collectors and dealers in private meetings with members of Congress and their staffs. Certainly, there is reason to believe that Russell adheres to the view, common in archaeological circles, that any artifact without a demonstrable provenance should be deemed "stolen" as a legal matter.
That said, Russell also showed his personal commitment to protecting Iraq's heritage by travelling to the country to serve as Senior Advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority ("CPA") and the Ministry of Culture in Iraq. Subsequently, Russell returned to the United States and in August 2005 was named "Special Coordinator for Iraqi Cultural Heritage" in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs ("ECA"), Cultural Heritage Center, US Department of State. I have reason to believe he holds this same (or a similar) post with the Department of State today. He certainly identified himself as a State Department employee to me as recently as July 2007.
How Russell was transformed from a harsh critic of US policy willing to buck international sanctions on Iraq to a State Department employee is no doubt an interesting story in itself, but beyond the scope of this blog. Instead, what is relevant here is what this transformation potentially says about how ECA handles cultural property matters. While one can't help but admire Russell's strong commitment to his own beliefs, in my opinion, it would be an inherent conflict of interest for Russell to have anything at all to do with the recent decision to impose "emergency restrictions" on Iraqi cultural property. After all, he was one of the few individuals instrumental in lobbying Congress for its passage! How can anyone reasonably expect he would want anything but the broadest application of import restrictions possible?
Wouldn't ECA ecognize such a conflict of interest and recuse Russell from such work? Don't bet on it. For example, recently the State Department refused to recuse a CPAC member who excavates in Cyprus (and hence must be licensed by Cypriot authorities) from voting on the renewal of import restrictions on Cypriot artifacts.
In my opinion, the infiltration of archaeologists who consider any artifact without a demonstrable provenance to be "stolen" into the decision making framework at State is one of the major problems with the way ECA handles its brief of overseeing the imposition of import restrictions. Moreover, while ECA's staff appears to place a premium on the views of archaeologists and the countries in which they excavate, in constrast, the views of museums, collectors and dealers appear to be discounted as being motivated by financial considerations or even "greed." No wonder the "end" of "cultural property protection" justifies the "means" of violating the provisions of the CPIA and its goal of achieving a balance of all legitimate interests (including those of museums, dealers and collectors) with impunity.
In any event, after the looting of the Iraq Museum, Russell was at the forefront of criticising the US Government's efforts at protecting Iraqi cultural property, particularly from early Mesopotamian cultures. His activism included lobbying the US Congress to pass a bill that ultimately became "the Emergency Protection for Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act of 2004." See http://www.house.gov/english/press_2003_2004/iraq.html.
As part of this lobbying effort, on June 15, 2003, the Washington Post published an op-ed piece Russell authored entitled, “"We're Still Missing the Looting Picture.” In that piece, Russell at least impliedly accused US dealers and collectors of wanting to buy looted Iraqi materials. I suspect he may have been even more harsh in his criticisms of US Museums, collectors and dealers in private meetings with members of Congress and their staffs. Certainly, there is reason to believe that Russell adheres to the view, common in archaeological circles, that any artifact without a demonstrable provenance should be deemed "stolen" as a legal matter.
That said, Russell also showed his personal commitment to protecting Iraq's heritage by travelling to the country to serve as Senior Advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority ("CPA") and the Ministry of Culture in Iraq. Subsequently, Russell returned to the United States and in August 2005 was named "Special Coordinator for Iraqi Cultural Heritage" in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs ("ECA"), Cultural Heritage Center, US Department of State. I have reason to believe he holds this same (or a similar) post with the Department of State today. He certainly identified himself as a State Department employee to me as recently as July 2007.
How Russell was transformed from a harsh critic of US policy willing to buck international sanctions on Iraq to a State Department employee is no doubt an interesting story in itself, but beyond the scope of this blog. Instead, what is relevant here is what this transformation potentially says about how ECA handles cultural property matters. While one can't help but admire Russell's strong commitment to his own beliefs, in my opinion, it would be an inherent conflict of interest for Russell to have anything at all to do with the recent decision to impose "emergency restrictions" on Iraqi cultural property. After all, he was one of the few individuals instrumental in lobbying Congress for its passage! How can anyone reasonably expect he would want anything but the broadest application of import restrictions possible?
Wouldn't ECA ecognize such a conflict of interest and recuse Russell from such work? Don't bet on it. For example, recently the State Department refused to recuse a CPAC member who excavates in Cyprus (and hence must be licensed by Cypriot authorities) from voting on the renewal of import restrictions on Cypriot artifacts.
In my opinion, the infiltration of archaeologists who consider any artifact without a demonstrable provenance to be "stolen" into the decision making framework at State is one of the major problems with the way ECA handles its brief of overseeing the imposition of import restrictions. Moreover, while ECA's staff appears to place a premium on the views of archaeologists and the countries in which they excavate, in constrast, the views of museums, collectors and dealers appear to be discounted as being motivated by financial considerations or even "greed." No wonder the "end" of "cultural property protection" justifies the "means" of violating the provisions of the CPIA and its goal of achieving a balance of all legitimate interests (including those of museums, dealers and collectors) with impunity.
"Emergency" Iraqi Restrictions-- Dry Run for Upcoming Chinese Restrictions?
The breadth of the "emergency restrictions" on Iraqi cultural artifacts reminds me of the breadth of the still-pending request for import restrictions on Chinese cultural artifacts. The State Department has reported that the Chinese request includes material dating from pre-historic times to the end of the Chinese Empire, circa 1911:
As the State Department explains,
"The People's Republic of China seeks import restrictions on categories of pillaged archaeological material from the Paleolithic Period to Qing Dynasty including, but not limited to:
Metals - bronze, gold, and silver vessels, sculpture, utensils, jewelry, coins, weapons, and armor
Ceramic - stoneware and porcelain vessels, sculpture, jewelry and architectural elements
Stone - vessels, sculpture, weapons, utensils, jewelry, architectural elements
Painting and calligraphy - on wood, paper, silk, stone, fresco
Textiles - silk clothing, hangings, furnishings
Lacquer, bone, ivory and horn objects, including inscribed materials
Wood and bamboo objects, including inscribed objects"
See: http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop/cn04sum.html
It seems to me that the State Department may seek to use the Iraqi "emergency" restrictions as precedent to extend import restrictions to virtually any cultural artifact from virtually any era from virtually any state that requests it. Given the inclusion of 20th c. paintings on the Iraqi "designated list," it does not even appear that the State Department feels constrained by the CPIA's definitions of "archaeological" and "ethnological artifacts" in deciding to impose import restrictions.
The United States only agreed to the 1970 UNESCO Convention with the proviso that it would retain its "independent judgment" to decide the extent to which it would impose import restrictions at the behest of foreign states. Early on, import restrictions were only applied against a limited number of artifacts from a limited number of mostly poor, third world countries that had difficulty policing their borders. Now even rich EU countries like Cyprus and Italy have benefitted from US restrictions even as they categorically refuse to undertake "self-help" measures like passing "Treasure Trove" laws. At the same time, restrictions have been imposed on more and more types of artifacts from more and eras, up to and including the 20th c. Unfortunately, there appears to be no end to such "culture creep" in sight.
As the State Department explains,
"The People's Republic of China seeks import restrictions on categories of pillaged archaeological material from the Paleolithic Period to Qing Dynasty including, but not limited to:
Metals - bronze, gold, and silver vessels, sculpture, utensils, jewelry, coins, weapons, and armor
Ceramic - stoneware and porcelain vessels, sculpture, jewelry and architectural elements
Stone - vessels, sculpture, weapons, utensils, jewelry, architectural elements
Painting and calligraphy - on wood, paper, silk, stone, fresco
Textiles - silk clothing, hangings, furnishings
Lacquer, bone, ivory and horn objects, including inscribed materials
Wood and bamboo objects, including inscribed objects"
See: http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop/cn04sum.html
It seems to me that the State Department may seek to use the Iraqi "emergency" restrictions as precedent to extend import restrictions to virtually any cultural artifact from virtually any era from virtually any state that requests it. Given the inclusion of 20th c. paintings on the Iraqi "designated list," it does not even appear that the State Department feels constrained by the CPIA's definitions of "archaeological" and "ethnological artifacts" in deciding to impose import restrictions.
The United States only agreed to the 1970 UNESCO Convention with the proviso that it would retain its "independent judgment" to decide the extent to which it would impose import restrictions at the behest of foreign states. Early on, import restrictions were only applied against a limited number of artifacts from a limited number of mostly poor, third world countries that had difficulty policing their borders. Now even rich EU countries like Cyprus and Italy have benefitted from US restrictions even as they categorically refuse to undertake "self-help" measures like passing "Treasure Trove" laws. At the same time, restrictions have been imposed on more and more types of artifacts from more and eras, up to and including the 20th c. Unfortunately, there appears to be no end to such "culture creep" in sight.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Emergency Restrictions on Iraqi Cultural Property, Bait and Switch, Repatriate the Torah, Coinage Coincidence, Ex Post Facto Law and Other Maladies
Further review of the Federal Register notice and a State Department press release available here: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2008/apr/104224.htm has prompted some additional, albeit rambling, thoughts about the recent imposition of "emergency" restrictions on Iraqi cultural artifacts.
First, collectors like me can't help but feel like the victims of a "regulatory bait and switch." Let's face it. There is a huge contrast between the restrictions as advertised in 2003-2004 and the nature and extent of the "emergency restrictions" that were actually imposed in 2008. Reading the laundry list of "Iraqi cultural property" on the designated list, I could not help but think Congress was bamboozled into thinking they were authorizing import restrictions tailored to combat the effects of looting of the Iraq Museum and archaeological sites, primarily of things like cylinder seals and cuneiform tablets, in other words, the stuff of early Mesopotamian civilizations. See http://www.house.gov/english/press_2003_2004/iraq.html However, instead of targeted restrictions relating solely to such early artifacts, State and Customs have instead imposed import restrictions on "any cultural property of Iraq" from pre-historic times to the 20th c. with little apparent regard for whether or not such "archaeological or ethnological material " is "culturally significant," whether or not the record of the particular culture that produced the material (some of which cultures were not even centered in Iraq) is in fact in jeopardy from pillage of "crisis proportions, " whether or not there is evidence the restrictions will reduce the incentive for pillage, and whether or not State and Customs in fact has produced a "sufficiently specific and precise" designated list of material that ensures the restrictions "are only applied to the archaeological and ethnological material" that is subject to the emergency action. All these criteria are required under the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act ("CPIA"), which remains the legal basis for imposing emergency restrictions under the 2004 legislation on Iraq.
Rather than following the law, State and Customs have instead simply decided to give untrained Customs inspectors absolute discretion to force importers to prove that any cultural artifact whatsoever that "looks Iraqi" either is not in fact Iraqi or that it left the country before 1990. For many types of common artifacts--like coins-- this "Devil's proof" will simply be impossible to meet. As a result, it is at least possible that many artifacts will be repatriated back to Iraq for no other reason than it is not financially worthwhile to contest a claim made by Customs. True, there have been relatively few seizures of Iraqi cultural property to date, but then again, Customs has not previously published such an exhaustive "designated list" that carries with it the implication that an item is "Iraqi," even if it may not in fact be. This problem is exacerbated because many of the artifacts on this designated list are identical to others typically found around the Middle East and/or artifacts that have been widely collected in the West for generations. It will be interesting to see if Customs now reports a major "uptick" of Iraqi materials that have been seized at our borders. If so, watch out for claims that the long-promised "tidal wave" of looted Iraqi material has finally left its secret warehouses for our shores!
Second, I find it particularly disturbing that our government has seen fit to empower Customs to seize Torah scrolls for repatriation to Iraq. (See Fed. Reg. Notice 4/30/08 at 2334.) Once there, they certainly will not be turned over to Jewish authorities. There once was a vibrant Jewish community in Iraq, but virtually all Jews have left the country under what can only be politely characterized as strained circumstances. I have read stories that many old Torahs remain in the country as unwanted relics of a vibrant Jewish past. Recently, American Jewish groups have rescued some of these uncared for Torahs and have turned them over to synagogues here in the United States. For more, see http://www.thejewishbugle.com/community-news/a-400-year-old-sifrrei-torahs-journey-from-iraq-to-am-2.html Yet, such good works are suspect to ideologues. In the minds of cultural nationalists in the archaeological community and cultural bureaucrats at State, the Iraqi Government alone has an unqualified right to these materials-- even though sadly this government (like its murderous predecessor) is not exactly known for its heroic efforts to preserve and protect Jewish culture.
Third, I also noticed an interesting coincidence related to coins. The very first restrictions on coins under the CPIA were announced in July 2007 around the same time the State Department apparently made the requisite findings to impose import restrictions on coins from Iraq. (See Fed. Reg. Notice 4/30/08 at 23334.) The numismatic community suspects State decided to impose import restrictions on coins of Cypriot type against the recommendations of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee. Is it possible that was done in part so that restrictions could be justified on Iraqi coins too? Perhaps, the ongoing FOIA law suit brought against State by three numismatic groups will determine whether this is indeed a coincidence or not.
Finally, I wonder if a clever lawyer can attack the Emergency Protection of Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act of 2004 as an "ex post facto law." That law arguably imposes an ex post facto requirement to document any Iraqi material back to 1990 as of 2004.
Anyway, the new "emergency regulations" leave much to consider and I am sure this will not be the last post on them.
First, collectors like me can't help but feel like the victims of a "regulatory bait and switch." Let's face it. There is a huge contrast between the restrictions as advertised in 2003-2004 and the nature and extent of the "emergency restrictions" that were actually imposed in 2008. Reading the laundry list of "Iraqi cultural property" on the designated list, I could not help but think Congress was bamboozled into thinking they were authorizing import restrictions tailored to combat the effects of looting of the Iraq Museum and archaeological sites, primarily of things like cylinder seals and cuneiform tablets, in other words, the stuff of early Mesopotamian civilizations. See http://www.house.gov/english/press_2003_2004/iraq.html However, instead of targeted restrictions relating solely to such early artifacts, State and Customs have instead imposed import restrictions on "any cultural property of Iraq" from pre-historic times to the 20th c. with little apparent regard for whether or not such "archaeological or ethnological material " is "culturally significant," whether or not the record of the particular culture that produced the material (some of which cultures were not even centered in Iraq) is in fact in jeopardy from pillage of "crisis proportions, " whether or not there is evidence the restrictions will reduce the incentive for pillage, and whether or not State and Customs in fact has produced a "sufficiently specific and precise" designated list of material that ensures the restrictions "are only applied to the archaeological and ethnological material" that is subject to the emergency action. All these criteria are required under the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act ("CPIA"), which remains the legal basis for imposing emergency restrictions under the 2004 legislation on Iraq.
Rather than following the law, State and Customs have instead simply decided to give untrained Customs inspectors absolute discretion to force importers to prove that any cultural artifact whatsoever that "looks Iraqi" either is not in fact Iraqi or that it left the country before 1990. For many types of common artifacts--like coins-- this "Devil's proof" will simply be impossible to meet. As a result, it is at least possible that many artifacts will be repatriated back to Iraq for no other reason than it is not financially worthwhile to contest a claim made by Customs. True, there have been relatively few seizures of Iraqi cultural property to date, but then again, Customs has not previously published such an exhaustive "designated list" that carries with it the implication that an item is "Iraqi," even if it may not in fact be. This problem is exacerbated because many of the artifacts on this designated list are identical to others typically found around the Middle East and/or artifacts that have been widely collected in the West for generations. It will be interesting to see if Customs now reports a major "uptick" of Iraqi materials that have been seized at our borders. If so, watch out for claims that the long-promised "tidal wave" of looted Iraqi material has finally left its secret warehouses for our shores!
Second, I find it particularly disturbing that our government has seen fit to empower Customs to seize Torah scrolls for repatriation to Iraq. (See Fed. Reg. Notice 4/30/08 at 2334.) Once there, they certainly will not be turned over to Jewish authorities. There once was a vibrant Jewish community in Iraq, but virtually all Jews have left the country under what can only be politely characterized as strained circumstances. I have read stories that many old Torahs remain in the country as unwanted relics of a vibrant Jewish past. Recently, American Jewish groups have rescued some of these uncared for Torahs and have turned them over to synagogues here in the United States. For more, see http://www.thejewishbugle.com/community-news/a-400-year-old-sifrrei-torahs-journey-from-iraq-to-am-2.html Yet, such good works are suspect to ideologues. In the minds of cultural nationalists in the archaeological community and cultural bureaucrats at State, the Iraqi Government alone has an unqualified right to these materials-- even though sadly this government (like its murderous predecessor) is not exactly known for its heroic efforts to preserve and protect Jewish culture.
Third, I also noticed an interesting coincidence related to coins. The very first restrictions on coins under the CPIA were announced in July 2007 around the same time the State Department apparently made the requisite findings to impose import restrictions on coins from Iraq. (See Fed. Reg. Notice 4/30/08 at 23334.) The numismatic community suspects State decided to impose import restrictions on coins of Cypriot type against the recommendations of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee. Is it possible that was done in part so that restrictions could be justified on Iraqi coins too? Perhaps, the ongoing FOIA law suit brought against State by three numismatic groups will determine whether this is indeed a coincidence or not.
Finally, I wonder if a clever lawyer can attack the Emergency Protection of Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act of 2004 as an "ex post facto law." That law arguably imposes an ex post facto requirement to document any Iraqi material back to 1990 as of 2004.
Anyway, the new "emergency regulations" leave much to consider and I am sure this will not be the last post on them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
