.
Wayne Sayles ("The Yin and Yang") passes comment on something else I said here. Sayles is however wholly inconsistent when he reacted to my suggestion that the way it is currently implemented by the USA completely misses the point of the 1970 UNESCO "Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property". I said the US trade is sheltering under the umbrella of pretending to comply with it, while in fact a vast amount of illegally excavated and illegally exported material is circulating in the market because traders argue "no US law was broken". A point Sayles himself made when stressing that the new ACCG "Code of Ethics" in fact changed nothing and meant nothing.
I suggested that the US should withdraw from the Convention. Sayles scoffs that:
Wayne Sayles ("The Yin and Yang") passes comment on something else I said here. Sayles is however wholly inconsistent when he reacted to my suggestion that the way it is currently implemented by the USA completely misses the point of the 1970 UNESCO "Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property". I said the US trade is sheltering under the umbrella of pretending to comply with it, while in fact a vast amount of illegally excavated and illegally exported material is circulating in the market because traders argue "no US law was broken". A point Sayles himself made when stressing that the new ACCG "Code of Ethics" in fact changed nothing and meant nothing.
I suggested that the US should withdraw from the Convention. Sayles scoffs that:
This is of course a preposterous and ridiculous suggestion. America enjoys the largest legitimate market for cultural property in the world and clearly has a responsibility to maintain the integrity of that market.
Astounding, "a preposterous and ridiculous suggestion?" That is rich coming from the executive director of an organization which to all appearances was set up to PREVENT the implementation of the Convention at least inasfar as it affected the commercial interests of coin dealers. Furthermore, Sayles not only did not bat an eyelid when Dave Welsh, one of the officers of his very own ACCG proposed exactly the same ("Time To Reexamine US Accession to UNESCO 1970", Apr 20, 2010) but actually in the next post agreed with what he now calls a "preposterous and ridiculous suggestion". It seems coineys have short memories.
As for:
As for:
"America enjoys the largest legitimate market for cultural property in the world and clearly has a responsibility to maintain the integrity of that market".
Yes indeed it does. But instead of doing what acceeding to the Convention requires, the USA then proceded to (in Sayles' words) "craft a law that serves the interests of the international community regarding the protection of cultural property". Rubbish. That 1983 law largely attempts to preserve the interests of the US antiquities trade under the pretence of implementing part of the Convention. It in fact implements only ONE (Art. 9) of its 26 articles, not even the most important one (which is article 8). Seen from that point of view, the US implementation of the Convention as a whole is in face to a degree a sham and clearly not in accordance with the intentions of the document.
Since he opposes any import restrictions on the ancient artefacts he and his dealer members trade in, it seems to me that what Sayles means when talking about the "integrity" of the US market is in fact its "reputation". It seems that as far as these collectors and dealers are concerned, it is not important that illegally exported dugup coins come in or not, but that America is seen to be "reputable" enough to have become party to a convention which should be stopping that (as its name implies).
Since he opposes any import restrictions on the ancient artefacts he and his dealer members trade in, it seems to me that what Sayles means when talking about the "integrity" of the US market is in fact its "reputation". It seems that as far as these collectors and dealers are concerned, it is not important that illegally exported dugup coins come in or not, but that America is seen to be "reputable" enough to have become party to a convention which should be stopping that (as its name implies).
But in the case of coins it is not, firstly because the dealers lobby are currently doing their best to undermine its implementation, and secondly because most of the coins are coming from countries with which the USA does not have an "article nine MOU". Sayles' members no doubt buy and sell coins from the Near East (Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan), from southern Europe (Bulgaria - a one tonne shipment through Frankfurt was swallowed by the market without trace in no time), we are now seeing increasing quantities of looted artefacts from NE Russia on the US market. Nobody bats an eyelid, because there is no MOU with any of these countries and in combatting the problem there is not the political kudos and photo opportunities a yellow mummy-case in Florida or a Mesopotamian (Iraqi) royal statue provides.
Take a look at eBay, the quantities of foreign artefacts on offer by US sellers there day after day is highly disturbing. Many will call them "estate sales" - the "old collection" argument, but even if the deceased bought the stuff from a dubious source twelve, fifteen, twenty years before they died, we are still seeing the circulation of illicit artefacts within the US marketplace. Does anyone ever question ANY of these sales in the US? If they do, they are keeping very quiet about it. There are brick and mortar and Internet based antiquity dealers the length and breadth of the States, all selling little (smugglable size) geegaws from exotic ancient cultures, almost all of them without any upfront mention of collecting history, papers showing legitimate origins. They are not required by local law to have them, local collectors never ask for them, and nobody is any the wiser where any of it came from.
Take a look at eBay, the quantities of foreign artefacts on offer by US sellers there day after day is highly disturbing. Many will call them "estate sales" - the "old collection" argument, but even if the deceased bought the stuff from a dubious source twelve, fifteen, twenty years before they died, we are still seeing the circulation of illicit artefacts within the US marketplace. Does anyone ever question ANY of these sales in the US? If they do, they are keeping very quiet about it. There are brick and mortar and Internet based antiquity dealers the length and breadth of the States, all selling little (smugglable size) geegaws from exotic ancient cultures, almost all of them without any upfront mention of collecting history, papers showing legitimate origins. They are not required by local law to have them, local collectors never ask for them, and nobody is any the wiser where any of it came from.
"Old collections" they say. That would make a good postgrad degree thesis topic, trying to statistically model this. How many collectors were there every decade since 1800, here did they get there material from, where did it end up (a lot of it in museums), and how much is on the expanded market now? How do these figures tally up with the claim that there is very little freshly looted stuff on the market which is labelled "legitimate" on the basis of that very assumption. But it is just that, an untested assumption. At some stage, unless one postulates huge quantities of fresh material getting through after the 1970 Convention, there must have been a miraculous multiplication of artefacts (the coin elves again) or stuff fell from the sky. So where is the evidence that the US being a state party of the Convention has led to ANY change in the manner in which artefacts are imported, bought and sold - or seen by the US public (Art. 10)?
Another point is that the global antiquities market has changed since 1970 when that Convention was written. The US antiquities market has changed significantly since the 1980s when the CCPIA was "crafted" to "implement" it. We really need new international conventions to reflect the form of today's market - but sadly recent events and the influence of the dealers' lobbies have clearly shown that the USA is the nation currently least suited to lead its writing (not that the UK is any better either).
Another point is that the global antiquities market has changed since 1970 when that Convention was written. The US antiquities market has changed significantly since the 1980s when the CCPIA was "crafted" to "implement" it. We really need new international conventions to reflect the form of today's market - but sadly recent events and the influence of the dealers' lobbies have clearly shown that the USA is the nation currently least suited to lead its writing (not that the UK is any better either).
The main argument why if it is not going to take its principles more seriously the US should as a point of honour withdraw from the Convention is that in that country its implementation has taken on a life of its own. A state party with a problem with artefact looting and smuggling has to ask nicely for help (Bulgaria has lost a huge part of its heritage to US dealers but has not asked, so will continue to lose it while there is still stuff in the ground to dig out and smuggle out to foreign markets like the US for could-not-care-less dealers to sell). When a country asks very, very nicely, maybe does the US a political favour or two - an airbase and political prisoner detention centre here and there, an extradition or two - then a committee meets several times, there is a half-hearted "public consultation process" , the CPAC discusses, analyses whether the US can help. Meanwhile the dealers who buy the stuff try hard to persuade the committee that there is no need, that they "have no right" to discuss the commerce in dugups, that the US Constitution says that they can buy dugups and generally make a nuisance of themselves. Then if the committee advises that there is a problem and the US can help, a big ceremony is held at which everybody smiles and is very grateful, while the trade in looted Bulgarian artefacts sold by weight like potatoes under everybody's noses goes on. Day after day. No MOU, no policing of sales of illicitly obtained materal, even if it is openly sold in bulk by sellers active in a country which despite appearances is a state party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit export, export and transfer of cultural property.
Why does the US remain a state party of the Convention if it really has no MEANS to prohibit and prevent "the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property" (and has not been able to legislate one in the thirty years it as been a state party)? According to lawyers like Tompa and Urice and Adler, the US currently has no legal means to put the Convention into action except for the CCPIA.
Why does the US remain a state party of the Convention if it really has no MEANS to prohibit and prevent "the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property" (and has not been able to legislate one in the thirty years it as been a state party)? According to lawyers like Tompa and Urice and Adler, the US currently has no legal means to put the Convention into action except for the CCPIA.
So in fact why not just withdraw from the troublesome Convention itself and keep the CCPIA - giving it another name (Compromise on Cultural Property Import Act or something)? Then the ACCG and IAPN and PNG can argue to their heart's content how the US law should be applied to US citizens, cutting themselves off from the international debate which is of no possible interest to American collectors and antiquity dealers. Why does the bilateral agreement process have to be related in name only to a Convention which in the US is not in itself honoured or wholly implemented, and which a whole range of people would like to disappear?
Unfortunately the Convention does not contain the mechanism whereby states party which do nothing to prevent blatant and open cultural property banditry within their borders can be kicked out. So, while the US cannot implement the convention in a meaningful way, let its antiquity market not use accession to the Convention as a convenient umbrella to unfurl as a shield from scrutiny and criticism, but underneath which all sorts of unspeakable things happen. Let the US do the honourable thing, let it admit that in the current state of its market and due to various political factors, it cannot actually do more than put up a half-hearted show of implementing the Convention. Let it instead continue to operate the existing replacement MOU system as before with the countries that ask very nicely and which the coin collectors will agree to letting the US government sign.
Unfortunately the Convention does not contain the mechanism whereby states party which do nothing to prevent blatant and open cultural property banditry within their borders can be kicked out. So, while the US cannot implement the convention in a meaningful way, let its antiquity market not use accession to the Convention as a convenient umbrella to unfurl as a shield from scrutiny and criticism, but underneath which all sorts of unspeakable things happen. Let the US do the honourable thing, let it admit that in the current state of its market and due to various political factors, it cannot actually do more than put up a half-hearted show of implementing the Convention. Let it instead continue to operate the existing replacement MOU system as before with the countries that ask very nicely and which the coin collectors will agree to letting the US government sign.
It seems the only decent thing to do, more transparency, no hiding behind deadletter documents. And then let us see how the US antiquity market really looks without its umbrella.
No comments:
Post a Comment