Brent R. Benjamin of Saint Louis Art Museum Named to CPAC Museum Seat

The White House has announced that Brent R. Benjamin of the Saint Louis Art Museum has been named to a seat on the Cultural Property Advisory Committee to represent the interests of the museum community. Mr. Benjamin will be replacing Sandy Boyd of the University of Iowa. The White House Personnel Announcement can be found here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080929-9.html

Mr. Benjamin should be well acquainted with cultural property issues due to an ongoing dispute with Dr. Zahi Hawass, the publicity seeking Secretary General of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, over a funerary mask of a nineteenth dynasty noblewoman named Ka Nefer Nefer. See generally: http://www.egypttoday.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=6781 and http://stlouis.art.museum/index.aspx?id=124&obj=144

NAGPRA Runs Amok in Hawaii

The Museum Security Network has republished an interesting article from "Indian Country Today" about how the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was used to justify the "reburial" of important artifacts from the Bishop Museum in some sacred caves in Hawaii : http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/home/content/29790944.html For more about the Bishop Museum see: http://www.bishopmuseum.org/aboutus/aboutus.html

The article recounts quite a story of how a law meant to protect the rights of Native Americans to the bones and artifacts of their ancestors has entangled Senator Inouye, his staff, the Department of the Interior and the venerable Bishop Museum in quite a tale of conflict of interest, self-dealing, theft, breach of fiduciary duty and even contempt of court. Meanwhile, "Indian Country Today" also reports elsewhere that the National Park Service is under investigation for improperly spending some $3 million in NAGPRA funds and that the entire program is under review for responsiveness to Tribal interests. http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/national/29791944.html

What a mess. At least a member of the NAGPRA review panel indicates that his committee is “very open” to “increasing the accountability and transparency” of the law’s implementation. Amen.

US Senate Finally Ratifies 1954 Hague Convention

Patty Gerstenblith, the President of the Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation, sent out the following announcement:

The Archaeological Institute of America, the Lawyers’ Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation, and the U.S. Committee for the Blue Shield announce that the United States Senate voted on September 25 to give its advice and consent to ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.
The United States now joins 121 other nations in becoming a party to this historic treaty which establishes the principles for protecting cultural sites, monuments and collections during both armed conflict and military occupation. By taking this significant step, the United States demonstrates its commitment to the preservation of the world’s cultural, artistic, religious and historic legacy.

The Library of Congress "Thomas" search engine (http://thomas.loc.gov/) indicates that the 1954 Hague Convention was acceded to with the following "understandings:"

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein),-

720SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO UNDERSTANDINGS AND A DECLARATION

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, concluded on May 14, 1954 (Treaty Doc. 106-1(A)), subject to the understandings of section 2 and the declaration of section 3.-720

SECTION 2. UNDERSTANDINGS

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject to the following understandings, which shall be included in the instrument of ratification:

(1) It is the understanding of the United States of America that ``special protection,'' as defined in Chapter II of the Convention, codifies customary international law in that it, first, prohibits the use of any cultural property to shield any legitimate military targets from attack and, second, allows all property to be attacked using any lawful and proportionate means, if required by military necessity and notwithstanding possible collateral damage to such property.

(2) It is the understanding of the United States of America that any decision by any military commander, military personnel, or any other person responsible for planning, authorizing, or executing military action or other activities covered by this Convention shall only be judged on the basis of that person's assessment of the information reasonably available to the person at the time the person planned, authorized, or executed the action under review, and shall not be judged on the basis of information that comes to light after the action under review was taken.

(3) It is the understanding of the United States of America that the rules established by the Convention apply only to conventional weapons, and are without prejudice to the rules of international law governing other types of weapons, including nuclear weapons.

(4) It is the understanding of the United States of America that, as is true for all civilian objects, the primary responsibility for the protection of cultural objects rests with the Party controlling that property, to ensure that it is properly identified and that it is not used for an unlawful purpose.

-720SECTION 3. DECLARATION

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject to the following declaration:With the exception of the provisions that obligate the United States to impose sanctions on persons who commit or order to be committed a breach of the Convention, this Convention is self-executing. This Convention does not confer private rights enforceable in United States courts.

It is my own understanding that the United States Military already largely followed the Convention anyway. Presumably, the Senate's "understandings" reflect current US military views on how the Convention should be applied in practice.

While the Senate's ratification is thus probably largely symbolic, the Lawyers' Committee, the AIA, the U.S. Committee for the Blue Shield and others still deserve credit for encouraging action on an instrument that has been languishing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since 1999. Still, one must recognize that the 1954 Hague Convention has been spectacularly unsuccessful in preventing damage to cultural property in places like the Balkans and most recently, Georgia. Only the real commitment of national authorities, military commanders, and the troops on the ground can ensure cultural property is indeed protected as much as possible given the exigencies of war.

ECA "Ambassador's Fund" Awards $2.2 Million in Grants for Cultural Preservation Projects

The State Department has announced that the U.S. Ambassador's Fund for Cultural Preservation has awarded $2.2 million in grants for cultural preservation projects in Afghanistan, Cambodia and Guatemala. The fund is administered by the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA), the same part of the State Department responsible for import restrictions on cultural artifacts. For more, see: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2008/sept/110149.htm

While I am all for funding restoration projects of important sites, one of the grants to the "Conservation Fund for Guatemala" potentially raises the same conflict of interest questions I have had with other grants to "the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute" and "Heritage Watch." For more, see: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/06/state-department-slush-fund-for.html

Note that part of the grant is meant for the "documentation of plundering at Yaxha-Nakum-Naranjo National Park."

I suspect that when the Guatemala MOU comes up for renewal in 2012 someone from the "Conservation Fund for Guatemala" will show up at the CPAC hearing with documentation paid for by ECA that supports yet another extension of the MOU. As these groups tend to be advocates for the restrictions in question, issues of fairness are raised, particularly if there is no guarantee that the information is compiled or presented in a neutral way.

Here is a recent example. At the CPAC hearing on the Cambodian renewal, a representative of Heritage Watch, another recipient of ECA's financial largess, acted as the primary advocate for the continuation of and expansion of import restrictions. For more, see: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/09/cambodian-import-restrictions-extended.html My recollection is that the Heritage Watch representative spoke with some feeling about looting of archaeological sites by "armed gangs," but failed to highlight the involvement of Cambodian military in the problem. This only came out based on questioning from a CPAC member to the Cambodian Ambassador. Of course, the fact that an instrumentality of the Cambodian government is responsible for looting Cambodian archaeological sites is a fact that should not be suppressed for purposes of CPAC's recommendations on the subject.

Funding such advocates for import restrictions only feeds into the perception that the entire process is deeply flawed. Does ECA really want this perception to continue, particularly when other parts of ECA spend considerable time and effort lecturing other governments about the virtues of transparency and fair process? While I appreciate the sincere desire of members of the archaeological community and the employees of the State Department to help protect the cultural heritage of other countries, the end should never be allowed to justify the means of rigging the system in favor of ensuring the broadest import restrictions possible.

Italy Repatriates Parthenon Piece to Greece

The New York Times has reported that Italian President Giorgio Napolitano has presented Greek authorities with a small piece of sculpture from the Parthenon that had been kept in a museum in Palermo, Sicily, for the past 200 years. For more, see: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-EU-Greece-Italy-Parthenon.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Italy%20returns%20Parthenon%20&st=cse&oref=slogin

The piece in question is a 14-by-13-inch foot from a sculpture of Artemis, ancient goddess of the hunt, that was originally a part of a 520-foot frieze that ran round the temple.

Despite the hopeful claims of the Greek President, I find it doubtful that the British will consider the return of this fragment and others like it as much of a "precedent" for the repatriation of the Elgin Marbles from the British Museum.

What I find somewhat puzzling is that the the fragment is apparently not being given outright, but rather is said to be on a "permanent loan." Perhaps, this was done to avoid some Italian or Greek legal provision relating to deaccession or taxes.

Cambodian Import Restrictions Extended and Expanded

The Federal Register reports that current restrictions on Cambodian artifacts have been extended and expanded for another five years: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-22034.htm

I attended the CPAC hearing earlier this year. Two issues stood out. First, the Cambodian Ambassador forthrightly admitted that the Cambodian military was responsible for looting many archaeological sites. One would think the US would ask the Cambodians to take basic self-help measures (like reigning in their own military) as a precondition for extending current import restrictions. However, once restrictions are imposed they obviously start taking on a life of their own.

Second, a representative from Heritage Watch, a group that evidently receives funding from the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA), was the main spokesperson for those advocating the extension and expansion of the current restrictions. To me at least, this potentially raises serious conflict of interest issues as well as the question whether State Department money is being directly or indirectly used to lobby the State Department itself. For more, see: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/06/state-department-slush-fund-for.html

The text of the new MOU with Cambodia has not yet been posted on the ECA web site. It will be interesting to see if the MOU at least makes the suggestion that the Cambodians crack down on their own military with respect to looting.

"Repatriations Back to Iraq"

The VOA has publicized the handover of antiquities that were allegedly illicitly removed from Iraq. The story can be found here: http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-09-15-voa55.cfm A somewhat more detailed piece from "The Imperial Valley News" can also be found here: http://www.imperialvalleynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2709&Itemid=1

Attendees at the ceremony included John Russell, a State Department employee and archaeologist. Russell previously lobbied Congress for passage of legislation to allow the State Department to impose "emergency" import restrictions on a host of Iraqi archaeological artifacts, including ones as common as coins. For more see, http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/05/john-russell-from-activist-to-regulator.html

As the "Imperial Valley News" states,

Julie L. Myers, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), completed the repatriation of 1,046 cultural antiquities to the Government of Iraq that were seized in four separate investigations dating back to 2001.

The items, which included terra cotta cones inscribed in Cuneiform text, a praying god figurine that was once imbedded in a Sumerian temple and coins bearing the likenesses of ancient emperors, are an illustration of the long and varied history of the country now known as Iraq. Remnants of ancient Cuneiform tablets, which were seized by the Customs Service in 2001, were recovered from beneath the ruins of the World Trade Center. [Note: They were evidently stored after being seized in a US Customs Building that was destroyed in the 9/11 attacks]

Later on in the article there are more details about the seizure of coins:

[I]n 2003, five Federal Express packages containing glass bottles, coins, copper knives, spear heads, necklaces, cylinder seals, a bronze stick and set of decorative armor were imported by another Newark, N.J., gallery. ICE New York agents determined, with the help of experts, that the items, which were originally declared to be of British origin, were all, except for the armor, from Iraq. In total, 671 items were seized (406 glass bottles, 5 bronze spear heads, 6 bronze daggers, 87 cylinder seals, 2 metal sculptures, 1 metal axe head, 120 beaded necklaces, 1 large bronze spear/sword, 10 metal daggers, 30 antique coins, 2 bronze figurines, 1 small glass plate) and determined to be from various locations throughout Iraq.

This article raises two obvious questions outside those already raised in two recent posts about Immigration and Customs Enforcement's exploits.

Most obviously, "Is that all?" I'm sure some will think that 1,046 objects is a significant number. However, that number must be judged against all the hyperbole we have heard since 2003. You know, the incessant chatter in the press and archaeological blogs that Iraqi archaeological sites have been "strip-mined" of immense numbers of artifacts with a lion's share being destined for the illicit market in the United States and Europe. At a minimum, the actual number seized in the US belies any claim that whatever may have left Iraq illicitly was destined for our shores.

Second, as someone who has collected and studied ancient coins for over 30 years, I would be quite interested to learn how "experts" were able to opine that the coins found in a FED EX package were illicitly removed from Iraq. Coins that circulated in Iraq also circulated around the Middle East (and beyond). Presumably, the coins in question could have been found in Iraq. On the other hand, they could also have been found most anywhere. And for that matter, for all I know, they could have resided in some collection for years before being seized by US Customs.

I say this for this simple fact: It is likely that much of the material that was seized and repatriated to Iraq was simply abandoned by the importer. Let's face it. The costs of hiring a lawyer to contest the seizure of items of small value like "30 antique coins" is just not worth it.

Without Customs' claims being tested in a contested adjudicatory hearing, it is at least possible that a significant number of the 1,046 items mentioned in the articles are actually being "repatriated" to a country from whence they never came!

All and all, this should be a cause for deep embarrassment for both ICE and members of the archaeological community like John Russell. Perhaps, that is why we are only hearing about this handover ceremony from the VOA and "The Imperial Valley News."

In the meantime, sources like the Art Newspaper are starting to ask hard questions about the claims of archaeological community about the extent of looting in Iraq. Hopefully, that long delayed scrutiny of the archaeological community's claims about Iraq is only beginning.