Pre-1970 Provenance No Safe Harbor for Egyptian Antiquities?

The Archaeological Institute of American ("AIA") has sought to reassure us it is not anti-collecting. Rather, according to various pronouncements, the AIA purports to only want collectors to purchase artifacts with provenances dating back to 1970, the year of the UNESCO Convention. See http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10421

If so, the 1970 date may very well not be much of a "safe harbor"now that the US Government has repatriated an ancient Egyptian sarcophagus at a ceremony conducted at the National Geographic Society. See http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/1003/100310washingtondc.htm According to some reports, it left the country over a century ago. See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/03/egypt-demands-repatriation-of-coffin.html

It's understandable, but nonetheless too bad the owner of the sarcophagus merely abandoned it rather than spend the money on lawyers to fight the forfeiture in Court. It would have been interesting to see if the basis for the seizure would have stood up to judicial review.

In any event, while the AIA's "Archaeology Magazine" has reported on the repatriation, see http://www.archaeology.org/news/?p=560, as far as I know, no one associated with the archaeological community has questioned whether the repatriation will undercut any faith collectors might have in the "1970 Rule" as a some sort of safe harbor.

IADAA Presents Pro-Collector, Pro-Trade, Pro-Museum Views on Cultural Property Issues: So What?

The International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA) has offered the opinions of some scholars who are friendly to museums, antiquities dealers and collectors in the debate over cultural property issues on its website. See http://www.iadaa.org/en/cultural-property-1

Apparently, that is controversial in some circles. But, I find it a more than a bit ironic that archaeo-bloggers David Gill (see http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2010/03/iadaa-makes-its-position-clear.html) and Paul Barford (see http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/03/international-association-of-dealers-in.html) feel so free to criticize the IADD for publicizing views in sync with those of its members. Anyone who has read the fare on the Gill or Barford blogs will be hard pressed to find any collector-friendly views expressed therein. Indeed, Gill even feels free to engage in ad hominem attacks in the Blogosphere without giving his targets the opportunity to comment. See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2010/02/unposted-comments-to-gill-posts.html

The IADAA is free to post what it wishes on its website on this subject. The views the IADAA expresses are no more unbalanced than what one finds on the websites of pro-archaeological groups like the Archaeological Institute of America or Saving Antiquities for Everyone. Gill's and Barford's complaints to the contrary are just plain silly.

Venerable French Numismatic Museums to Close: What's Next?

Coin World (March 16, 2010) reports that both the museum of Monnaie de Paris (founded in 1833) and the Cabinet des Medailles of the Biblotheque Nationale de France (with collections dating back to at least the 17th c.) will close this year. Smaller displays may replace them, but even that is unclear. There is an international petition to try to save the Cabinet des Medallies that has been posted on-line. See http://jesigne.fr/sauvonsleplusancienmuseedefrance But it all may be too little too late.

In any event, this continues an unfortunate trend. In the United States, the Smithsonian traded its wonderful (if a bit ragged around the edges) coin display for a few panels of mostly American coins. See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/07/disappointing-smithsonian-numismatic.html

This leaves the ANA and the ANS-- which are both funded almost exclusively by collectors and coin dealers-- with two of the last remaining decent coin displays in the US (though the ANS mostly uses borrowed space at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York). See http://www.money.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ExploretheWorldofMoney/MoneyMuseum/default.htm and
http://www.numismatics.org/Exhibits/DrachmasDoubloonsDollars

I have a real question how long this can continue, particularly if the AIA gets its way and greatly limits the ability of collectors to trade in ancient Italian coins from abroad. Without a vibrant numismatic trade in ancient coins, funding will dry up for the ANS in particular. Of course, the prospective money drain won't just impact coin displays. It will also decimate the academic research archaeologists also purport to support.

MOU with El Salvador Extended

The State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs ("ECA") has extended the US MOU with El Salvador. See http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-4783.htm and http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop/esfact.html

I attended the CPAC hearing to consider the renewal back in November. No speakers testified against the restrictions. Indeed, most MOU's are really not that controversial. Instead, the real controversy comes when restrictions impact artifacts long and extensively traded on international markets.

That is not to say the MOU does not raise any issues. Interestingly, in this particular case, I recall that an El Salvadorian archaeologist that testified in favor of the MOU also suggested that El Salvadorian artifacts should be made available to US based community groups. He explained that access to these artifacts would help El Salvadorian immigrants keep in touch with their own culture. I agree with him that this would be a good idea. I will be pleasantly surprised if his suggestion finds its way into the new MOU (which has not yet been posted).

In any event, the series of MOU's with El Salvador are notable for several other reasons. First, by the time this extension is again up for renewal in 2015, restrictions will have been in place for some twenty-eight (28) years. There is a strong argument to be made that the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act ("CPIA") did not contemplate restrictions being left in place for so long. Rather, the legislative history suggests that restrictions were only meant to be imposed for a limited period to give the requesting nation some time to "get its own house in order." Some might consider five (5) or even ten (10) years to be long enough.

Second, the series of MOU's with El Salvador demonstrates the principle of "culture creep." When restrictions were first imposed in 1987, they were limited to artifacts from a specific region that was in danger of pillage. As time went on, however, the scope of the restrictions have been extended to all of El Salvador. At least, the El Salvador restrictions have remained limited to Pre-Columbian artifacts. Restrictions in place for other Latin American countries have over time been extended to a host of Colonial period artifacts as well.

For example, it is debatable whether some of the items on the Bolivian "designated list" truly meet the threshold criteria for "ethnological" artifacts for coverage under the CPIA. Compare CPIA Section 302 (2) (B) (ii)http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop/laws/pdfs/97-446.pdf with http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop/blfact.html and http://eca.state.gov/icpp/bolivia/sect6.htm and http://eca.state.gov/icpp/bolivia/sect7.htm

Time will only tell if the current MOU with El Salvador will also be expanded in the future to Colonial era artifacts if it is extended again.

Cypriot Icons: Presumed "Stolen" on Entry to America but "For Sale" Legally in Cyprus?

Back in 1999, the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs imposed "emergency" import restrictions on Cypriot Icons. See http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop/cyfact/pdfs/cy1999eafrn.pdf
These were later converted to "regular" restrictions, and extended along with the new, controversial restrictions on ancient coins back in 2007. See
http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop/cyfact/pdfs/cy2007dlfrn.pdf

It's a bit odd then that "La Parole Divine" is auctioning off icons that appear to be subject to restrictions at an auction in Cyprus. See http://www.laparoledivine.com/auctions.html

According to the firm's website,

Around 130 lots dating from the 15th - 20th century and representative of the religious cultures of Russia, Greece, Cyprus, the Balkans and the Orthodox Levant will be offered. Worth in excess of one million Euros, the sale provides the opportunity for established and new collectors alike to acquire artworks from this highly specialised field.

While I am happy this seems to be an effort to create a "licit market" within Cyprus, one wonders how this firm was able to accomplish what otherwise seems officially frowned upon in Cyprus (or so we have been told)-- the sale of items of cultural heritage.

In this regard, it is interesting to note that the Island's all powerful "Bank of Cyprus" has sponsored the sale. Under the circumstances, one also wonders whether this sale is getting "special treatment" due to this relationship. In short, is this another case of one rule for the "connected few" and another for the "little guy?"

For more on the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation and the controversial decision to extend import restrictions to coins, see http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/08/cyprus-caari-and-boccf-there-is-as.html

Old Chinese Coins Sacrificed to the Sea

Ed Snible reports that a Chinese local government official will throw ancient Chinese coins into the sea to help promote a yacht race. See http://digitalhn.blogspot.com/2010/03/chinese-civil-servant-to-throw-ancient.html

The publicity stunt also seeks to link modern China's seafaring prowess with that of the Ming Dynasty by gluing the ancient coins together with modern ones.

For more about China's great seafaring past, see http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/06/chinas-forgotten-fleet.html

In any event, if old Chinese coins are important enough to be restricted under the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs' MOU with China, should anyone really be throwing similar (though somewhat later) ones into the ocean?

Terracotta Warriors at Nat Geo-- The Emperor Has No Clothes!

I just visited the much-hyped "Terracotta Warrior" Exhibit at the National Geographic Society in Washington, D.C. See http://www.nationalgeographic.com/terracottawarriors/ The exhibit chronicles the discovery of the "Terracotta Army" found near the site of the mausoleum of China's first emperor, Qin Shi Huang.

At the end of the exhibit, there was the usual guest registry. I paged through it. Kids loved the exhibit, judging from the child-like scrawls. Grownup reaction was more mixed. Some loved it. Others complained about the difficult to read explanatory texts. I was particularly struck by the contrast between pictures of the excavations at Xi'an (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terracotta_Army) and the reality that relatively few warriors were actually on display. Couldn't they have at least mustered a line of infantry? I had to agree with the rather unkind but apt comment I also found in the guest registry:" The Emperor Has No Clothes!"

It's not that it was a bad exhibit. What warriors there were were interesting. I also liked the architectural elements that were displayed as well as some of the weapons and jade. There were coins too, but all from the American Numismatic Society in New York. You would think if China really thought coins were important enough to ask for import restrictions on them, they could have at least sent a few along with this exhibit for display. After all, there are bazillions of them floating around-- and its not as if shipping them would have been an insurmountable task.

I also question the entry fee. For what you got, it seemed steep at $12 ($10 for National Geographic members). And don't forget an extra $5 to rent the audio tour. And by all means save some money for all those trinkets at the end-- like the Chinese piggy bank!

Archaeologists are always talking about how loans can substitute for imports of cultural artifacts, with the underlying premise that commerce is bad and pure knowledge is good. But if such loans seem mostly designed to generate cash for countries like China, does this argument really hold?