CPRI's Houghton Urges Speaking Out Against Licit Trade in Artefacts

Arthur Houghton has had trouble posting his own comments to pal Peter Tompa's Lobboblog, so Tompa has just posted it up for him:

With regard to what foreign countries do to help people study their archaeology, the UK, France, Italy, Israel, Germany and undoubtedly others provide export permits for objects that come fresh out of the ground and that they do not want for themselves. The most restrictive of these (Italy, Israel), allow domestic markets in antiquities and coins to flourish, and their own archaeologists benefit from the close relationship they have with dealers that are happy to show what they have. [...] Some of your critics should curb their invective -- or aim it at source countries that allow their historical past to be dug up, sold off, and sent away -- or worse, encourage public and private development that destroys their own ancient sites. As we know, this is one of archeology's dark secrets, since there is a special peril for those, who could have their excavation or study permits summarily revoked by whatever country they may criticize, and so fall silent in their own self-interest. Would anyone like to speak up? No? I am not surprised. 

Speak up about "what"? People buying legally excavated and legally exported artefacts? That, surely, is is the (only) definition of the licit trade in artefacts, and nobody here or anywhere else has much of an issue with that. So none of us need be "surprised" that  nobody is speaking out against it (still less using any alleged "invective"). What is the problem are the dealers and collectors - using exactly the same justifications seen above - who ignore these processes for getting their hands on the stuff, and thus participate in the illicit trade.

It is to help resolve the problem of striking a balance between helping "people study their archaeology" here and now at home and abroad, and leaving something for those who come after us that we have laws regulating the 'sustainable management' of the archaeological heritage, and controlling export of cultural property in general. This is why we really cannort afford people who decide to ignore this system to suit their own personal needs. they are upsetting attempts by states to attain such a balance - one that suits them and is not imposed by neo-colonialist outsiders.

The issue of export licences for these items is a principle of the UNESCO Convention (Art 6), so really applies to all member states, though we know of at least one state party that excepts itself (as in many other things) from this. Export licences are issues by countries for a far greater range of objects than dug-up antiquities, and this includes a far greater range of cultural property too which have no connection whatsoever to "archaeology". Contrary to what Houghton with his Amerocentrism thinks (or represents) export licences are instituted to protect domestic, rather than foreign, interests.

Let us look at Mr Houghton's list:

 the UK, France, Italy, Israel, Germany and undoubtedly others 

 Notice Italy on that list, the Italy which coin collectors led by Houghton's pal Tompa and his ACCG mates were insisting not so long ago that if importers had to show an Italian export licence for coins, the industry (and so many US "small busuinesses") would "collapse". Note also Israel, and France. Now there are interesting cases, both have legislation rendering archaeological material the property of the state so the best way to get an export licence for something from Israel for example is to show that it was not actually dug up in Israel (and thus not infringing Israeli antiquities laws) but has come in from outside, that Israel is a transit point for antiquities dug elsewhere. Such an export licencing system is just laundering antiquities.

That "domestic markets in antiquities and coins" flourish in states is in no way contrary to the 1970 UNESCO Convention which indeed mentions the responsibilities of dealers (including Art 10a showing heritage authorities a register with the origins of the objects in their stock detailed - it is good to see the President of the American CPRI endorsing this).

As for the nonsense about archaeology's alleged "dark secret" (which is another conspiracy theory) it is actually a nonsense. Nobody is keeping quiet about the legal trade in archaeological artefacts for fear of "losing an excavation permit" - not all countries anyway have a permit system, like Mr Houghton's own and the UK. The reason why nobody is making a fuss about the legal trade is because few of us have any problem with it. This is the collectors' "bogeyman" argument which they use to scare the intellectually poorly-endowed among their ranks. Mr Houghtan has adduced no evidence whatsoewver to show this bogeyman exists.

This I think is a telling instance showing the intellectual calibre of those who serve the President of the United States as an "advisor" on cultural property matters. From this communication between two directors of the CPIA it would appear that the writer has no real idea what export licences are for, nor how the world outside the USA works.