Egyptian Artefacts "Not From Looting?"

The comment by antiquities dealer Randall Hixenbaugh (Hixenbaugh Ancient Art LTD, East 81st Street, New York USA) in the public debate over the US CCPIA MOU with Egypt is rather interesting. He says it's "ill advised" and the trade in Egyptian art is "centuries old" (in the USA?). He assumes (wrongly, because that is not what the 1970 UNSCO Convention is about) that "the goal is to reduce the destruction of archaeological sites in Egypt" and then asserts boldly that "the proposed MOU will do nothing to improve the situation" but is somehow an infringement of US "constitutional property rights".

The assumption that digging in Egypt and ransacking of museums there is done to fuel a rampant trade in the US is patently untrue.[...] The vast majority of Egyptian objects that come to light, do so through development and urban sprawl, not through diabolical networks of looters fulfilling orders from nefarious American collectors.

Now, how would a New York dealer know that? Can he trace back the "vast majority" of objects currently on the market to a specific source and discovery event? How does he know for a fact what he so authoritatively expresses as one here? In any case, whether dug up by looters or builders, they are still illicit if not handed over to the appropriate authorities. Mr Hixbaugh also boldly suggests for some reason:

It is unlikely that there is an apparatus to remove stolen material from Egypt to the American market (a market which in turn has no interest in recently excavated material).

Neither can it be demonstrated that the US market, and those active on it, are actively doing anything to prevent it appearing there.

Mr Hixenbaugh continues by repeating nearly the full litany of the usual dealer's mythmaking that we see from the coiney arguments: destruction of cultural heritage sites and museums in Egypt is due to "dissatisfaction with current political conditions in that country", "religious zealotry", "governmental neglect", digging is by "impoverished Egyptian thieves", subsistence diggers are "looking for gold and precious stones that can be immediately sold" (yeah? Just try it). Any trade is done in connivance with "the totalitarian government there" ("which seized power in a military coup d’etat" - shhh, don't tell that to the DoS!). Despite all the hurdles described, Mr Hixbaugh then blithelyy goes on to surmise that the problem of pillage would be solved if the Egyptian government "made a priority of protecting world heritage sites* they could certainly allocate some of 1.5 billion dollars in aid the US taxpayers give them annually to secure sites and museums". Finally: "there is no reason to expose countless US individuals and institutions to spurious politically motivated claims to their property from a unelected foriegn (sic) government"...

"The only legitimate sources for ancient Egyptian artwork in the US", says Mr Hixbaugh, "are legally held old collections both here and abroad".

 The market for all antiquities is a secondary market, that is to say, all objects appearing on the market are coming from previous owners rather than from recent excavation. Auction houses, dealers, institutions, and private collectors shun freshly excavated and illicitly exported material. Objects lacking provenance are universally looked upon as bad investments. Objects with well documented provenance have achieved the highest results at auction while pieces with of similar style and quality lacking firmly documented provenance often sell for a fraction of the price or go unsold.

So, why he is protesting an act which attempts to ascertain (within very liberal terms) that objects being imported into the US fall precisely into that category of coming from legitimate sources is beyond the abilities of the rest of us to understand.

* Mr Hixenbaugh seems to be another American who seems totally confused about the relationship between sites on the World Heritage List and what the 1970 UNESCO Convention is trying to do.