CPAC Comments: Lost for Words? A How-to Guide for Conservationists (and coineys)

.

[I vowed never to get involved in another US MOU campaign, it costs me too many nerves and personally, as I have said many a time, I do not believe the US are using the 1970 UNESCO Convention in any laudable way. However the fact that this next one is one I have long dreamt of, the looting of archaeological sites in Bulgaria is a something I take very personally, and has historical connections with the rise of the US "minor antiquities" trade, it seems I cannot ignore this].

In my analysis of the coiney contributions to the debate yesterday, it became clear that virtually none of them actually addressed the issue at hand and this is because they were to a large extent cutting and pasting (if only mentally) from the [I now think deliberately] misleading propaganda given out by the dealers and their lobbyists.

So after being pretty negative about the coineys, I thought a positive contribution would be to give the people on my side of the fence something to help them put together something addressing the same issues. There is of course no reason why coineys cannot use this too, to make sure that they are addressing the actual issues in hand, please feel free, let's get some proper debate going on in place of the sad apology for one propagated by the ACCG and Moneta-L and their ilk.

In the public notice, comments were specifically and exclusively requested on Section 303 (a) 1 A-D of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2602, pursuant to which the Committee must make findings. This Act is pretty badly written as prose and its layout and section numbering are tragic, but not too many minutes work suffice to untangle it. But some people are too busy to do that, so I thought it might help somewhat if I set out the main issues it raises and some guidelines to what one might consider saying in response. I am going to use Bulgaria as the example, but please use this to write a similar response for Belize too. Show the world you care.

Let us start off by noting:

(a) there is no "conspiracy",
(b) the aim is not to stop "collecting" but to halt at the US border, as far as is possible, the import of archaeological material and ethnographic objects which have been illicitly exported from Bulgaria [including, as far as possible, those cynically 'laundered' by being sent via other countries - such as Dubai],
(c) the United States has been a state party of the 1970 UNESCO Convention for 28 years, and according to article 3 of the Convention, any such transactions were all that time (and are) illicit in terms of the Convention (a fact most coineys conveniently ignore).
(d) for the same reason (190 countries are states parties) there is no "discrimination" here. The US is simply implementing the Convention it accepted in September 1983.
(e) the Act is intended to implement the Convention for all types of cultural property covered by the term "archaeological material and ethnographic items", most of the comments to the CPAC have concerned excluding one type of archaeological material (collectable numismatic material) from its scope. There is no authority for that either in the text of the Convention or the CCPIA.

Section 303 (a) asks (in fact, the US President) five questions. Let's go through them in detail.

303 (a).1A: Is the cultural patrimony of Bulgaria in jeopardy from pillage? Sadly, the archaeological sites of almost all (if not all) countries which have a 'productive' archaeological record are subject to this threat. Tragically this applies particularly to Bulgaria where whole sites such as the Roman city of Ratiaria (look it up on this blog) have been stripped on an industrial scale to produce "minor" artefacts and coins which have been OPENLY sold on the US market through internet shops and auction sites (eBay in particular - there's quite a bit about that on this blog too) for year after year with nothing being done about it by UNESCO-Convention-state-party the United States of America. How many arrests have there been in the US for this in the past twenty years? Yes, the cultural patrimony of Bulgaria is indeed in jeopardy from pillage, and much of it done by looters affiliated with criminal groups who organize the transport of the loot to foreign markets (Shentov, O., Todorov, B. and Stoyanov, A. 2007, 'Organized Crime in Bulgaria: Markets and Trends', Sofia, Center for the Study of Democracy - this thought-provoking report figures the antiquities trade alongside trade in drugs, prostitution and human trafficking, and vehicle thefts).

Coineys: here you have to answer "no, the archaeological heritage of Bulgaria is not in peril because of looting", but you are on your own justifying that in the face of all the evidence, and what the Bulgarian authorities are now saying in submitting this request. Also it seems to me you would have to come up with some pretty hard evidence to trump the conclusions of the Bulgarian archaeological authorities monitoring these sites lying behind this request.

303 (a).1B: Has Bulgaria taken measures consistent with the Convention to protect it?

It should be noted that the CCPIA refers ONLY to measures consistent with the context of the Convention which it implements. The Convention has a number of articles devoted to what states parties should do to protect the cultural patrimony of its territory. Bulgaria complies with the following: Art. 2, 1-2; Art 3, Art. 4, Art 5 (which the US has not); Art. 6 (which the US has not); Art 8; Art. 9 (it has just done so, please also note the obligations of the US already now invoked at the end of that article!); Art 10 (a) and (b); 14 (despite the typical economic difficulties common to most states in that regard, and we know the US also has its own problems there with regard the preservation of the archaeological heritage from looting)
[Articles 7, 11, 12, 13, 15 do not apply to this question, articles 16 onwards to the state party's relations to UNESCO - equally irrelevant here]Coineys: here you have to answer "no, Bulgaria taken measures consistent with the Convention to protect its archaeological", and give your reasons for saying so. Please though distinguish between intent and effect. The Bulgarians have for decades been faced with political difficulties and financial restraints, and criminal gangs with bulldozers and a lot of determination to profit from a lucrative market. Should their cultural heritage be penalised (stolen by outsiders) because of it?

303 (a).1C (i): Would the application of the import restrictions proposed be of substantial benefit in deterring a serious situation of pillage?
The ACCG claims that there are 50000 collectors of dugup coins in the US. ACCG officer, coin dealer Dave Welsh asserts confidently that it is "credibly estimated that roughly half of all ancient coin collectors in the world reside and half of the world's numismatic trade is carried on" in the United States. If true, that obviously means that if illicit exports can be prevented from getting to this half of the market, this would cut down the profits that ensue from such an activity. Most of the other countries of the other half of the market are already parties of the Convention and the sale of illicitly-exported archaeological artefacts is already illegal there (for example Britain with its 2003 Dealing in Cultural property (Offences) Act). Obviously vigorously prosecuting these policies in each of these state parties (Convention Art 3 and 13a-b) will substantially reduce the possibilities of smuggled goods finding a market.

Coineys: here you have to answer "no, the application of the import restrictions proposed will not deter a serious situation of pillage", and then trot out the old argument that it has never been proven that no-questions-asked collecting actually has any relationship to looting. I doubt whether the CPAC will accept that, but you can try.

[303 (a).1C (i) additional point: "if applied in concert with other nations having a significant import trade in such material" other nations already have legislation rendering trafficking in illegally and illicitly exported items of this nature illegal. While it is true that with no-questions-asked one can buy such material in countries such as the UK and Germany, it is not, in fact, legal to do so (see here, point 2 - the lawyer has not yet provided the list of countries). It is like driving faster than the speed limit, staying parked longer than the time limit, or jaywalking, you can do it, and generally nothing happens - unless you are caught doing it.]

303 (a).1C (ii): Are there available (to Bulgaria or the USA) other measures less drastic that would achieve the same aim?

Well, what is proposed is that US customs look at the paperwork concerning export of certain types of cultural property. That is hardly "drastic", it's what customs officers are for - to check that what is coming into a country complies with the law. In this case, articles 3 and 13a of the 1970 Convention should be being applied by the customs services and border guards of the US as a state party of the Convention since September 1983 in the case of cultural property from all other countries party to the Convention. Is there anything less "drastic" than customs officers taking more care to do what customs officers should be doing anyway? Once again, it is worth stressing, in terms of the CCPIA, articles with kosher paperwork pass through without a hitch and dealers and other importers should be encouraged (Art 6c, 7b, 10a and 13a) to strive for kosher paperwork.

Coineys have in the past suggested that a "less drastic" measure would be to have the source nations set up something which they characterize as "like the UK's Portable Antiquities Scheme and Treasure Act" which would allow lots of artefacts to enter the market licitly - in other words simply redefining what is "pillaging/ looting". Apart from the fact it is not their place to imperialistically tell other sovereign nations what they "should" do to suit US collectors, this is irrelevant. The setting up of such schemes and attendant legislation are not within the scope of the measures covered by a Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property. What we are talking about here is export controls. The home of the PAS and Treasure Act, the UK, has quite stringent export controls on all dug-up archaeological material. A collector buying fresh dugup coins from Great Britain which have been exported without an export licence is committing an act as illicit as if they came from Greece or Bulgaria(and those coins too should have been stopped at the US border). The PAS and Treasure Act do not create an "export free-for-all", and certainly do nothing to protect the sites of England and Wales from looting by artefact hunters.

303 (a).1D: Would the application of these measure be consistent with the general interest of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes?Obviously, yes. The large-scale importing of stolen and illegally exported cultural property by one country from another - while no doubt profitable for individuals - is not in the general interest of the international community. This, surely, is particularly the case when it seems it encourages or facilitates international criminal activities. Stopping the traffic in illegally exported cultural property would not have any negative impact on the "general interest of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes" since this can surely be satisfied better through mutual licit and legal interchange of such items through the legal art market, museum loans, travelling exhibitions and other means. we should bear in mind that the Bulgarians themselves are part of the international community.
Coineys would have to show that curbing the large-scale importing of stolen and illegally exported cultural property by one country from another is not in the general interest of the international community, and that this would have a wholly negative impact on the "general interest of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes". You are on your own there.

So that is five relatively simple questions that the CPAC is currently asking for some public comment on. The answers seem relatively straightforward. Given the scale of the damage already inflicted on the accessible parts of the Bulgarian archaeological heritage through the no-questions-asked buying of the ancient coins dug up by the bucketful from Bulgarian sites, I think the CPAC owe it to the international community to recommend the President apply import restrictions on archaeological artefacts (and let us not forget the ethnographic material - where stolen icons must probably figure highly on the list of priorities) as soon as practically possible. Let it also roundly condemn those that want to continue the disgusting bulk trade in freshly dugup archaeological material like this no-questions-asked.
.
Vignette: How to...