I was recently reading Article II of the US MOU with Italy over the
importation of archaeological objects which will be under discussion with the CPAC in November.
I was interested in looking at it in the light of recent discussions
here and elsewhere on the scale of their own looting problem and the
inadequate response in the USA.
As readers may recall, the US mechanism for enforcing the 1970 UNESCO Convention (the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act
- in my opinion a distortion of Article 15 of the UNESCO convention) de
facto makes a mockery of the idea behind the Convention itself, one
wonders why the US bothered ratifying it. What the it means is they will
only apply it properly to certain choice nations, the ones with which
they actually currently have an MOU - which they only award if the
country asks, and only then after a long period of evaluation. What a
farce - made even more so by the farcical farsity of the dealers'
lobbies currently questioning them at EVERY STAGE of the process, both
before and after. I really do not know what sort of help this is to
anyone - while tonnes (literally) of material looted in the Balkans pass
into America to form the basis of the market in so-called "minor
antiquities" present on the market from a number of cultures of the
so-called "Classical World". Nobody will stop it there as the USA has no
MOU with Bulgaria, Hungary or Bosnia or anywhere else in the region
obliging them to actually uphold Article 8 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention. What hypocrites.
Anyway, the imposition on import restrictions on just certain categories of material is made conditional
on the source country doing certain things for America. It is these
conditions applied to Italy that are under discussion on November 13th.
The dealers' lobby has been pointing out (such as it being a constant
feature of the "Cultural Property Observer"
blog) for many months preceding this that Italy cannot really be
trusted to look after its own cultural heritage (so, the schoolyard
argument goes, "why should we put ourselves out to help them when there
is so much money to be made by not?").
I was reflecting on what in its present form Article II of the Italy MOU initially imposed in 2001 requires the Italians to do (quite apart from the ideas individuals like Peter Tompa have about what more it should be doing
"Back in 2000, CPAC recommended that Italy consider a Treasure Trove
program"). It struck me that the US government is asking a foreign
government to do far more than it seems to me they themselves are doing
to protect the archaeological heritage of their own country. So I
wondered what the same agreement would look like if the boot was on the
other foot, if America was the petitioner. What conditions would the
other nation impose on the US? Let's have a look:
Agreement
between the Government of the Republic of Ruritania and the Government
of the United States of America Concerning the Imposition of Import
Restrictions on Categories of Archaeological Material Representing the
Various Periods of Prehistory and Multicultural Nature of the Rich
Cultural Heritage of the United States of America
In reaching the decision to recommend protection for the archaeological and cultural heritage of the United States of America ,
the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs,
Ruritanian Department of State, determined that, pursuant to the
requirements of the Act, the cultural patrimony of the United States is
in jeopardy from the pillage of archaeological materials which represent
its multi-cultural heritage of prehistoric and historic periods, and
that such pillage is widespread, definitive, systematic, on-going, and
frequently associated with criminal activity. Dating from approximately
40 000 B.P. to approximately fifty years ago, the cultural heritage of
America’s past includes many categories of artifacts including sculpture,
vessels, ornaments, weapons, sacral objects and masks, decorated items. These materials are of
cultural significance because they derive from cultures that developed
autonomously in the region of the present day United States of America
that attained a high degree of political, technological, economic, and
artistic achievement. The pillage of these materials from their context
has prevented the fullest possible understanding of the cultural history
of the region by systematically destroying the archaeological record.
Furthermore, the cultural patrimony represented by these materials is a
source of identity and esteem for the modern American nation. […] Desiring to reduce the incentive for pillage of irreplaceable archaeological material
representing the various periods of prehistory and multi-cultural
nature of the rich archaeological heritage of the United States of
America; Have agreed as follows: […]
ARTICLE II
[…]
B.
Both Governments agree that in order for these measures to be fully
successful in deterring pillage, the Government of the United States of
America shall use its best efforts to increase scientific research and
protection of archaeological patrimony and protective measures for
archaeological excavations at known sites, particularly in areas at
greatest risk from looters. We acknowledge the efforts of the Government
of the United States of America in recent years to devote more public
funds to guard archaeological sites and museums and to develop
incentives for private support of legitimate excavation.
C. The Government of the
United States of America shall reinforce, with respect to the 1970
UNESCO Convention, the protection of its cultural patrimony. In
particular, they shall provide for:
1. instituting more severe penalties and prompt prosecution of looters,
2. regulating the use of metal detectors,
3. providing additional training for the special units for the
protection of the cultural heritage of Federal law enforcement bodies
and Federal land management agencies, and
4. intensifying the investigations by Federal authorities on the
looting of archaeological sites and on the routes of the smugglers of
these artifacts. […]
F. The Government of
the United States of America is encouraged to review the laws concerning
the ownership of archaeological artifacts and to improve the efficiency
of the system verifying provenance of material which is on sale from
excavations within the territory of the United States. The Government of
the United States of America will continue to examine new ways to
facilitate the export of archaeological items of Native American or
other origins legitimately sold within the country. […]
ARTICLE III
The
obligations of both Governments and the activities carried out under
this Memorandum of Understanding shall be subject to the laws and
regulations of each Government, as applicable, including the
availability of funds. [...].
And so on... well, the main reason one suspects that there will
never be such a document is that the United States of America does not
produce an awful lot of material which would be snapped up by European
collectors as much as the material from various "source countries" so
ravenously coveted by US collectors. The objects in dispute in the
"Cerberus Action" bust in the Four Corners area for example included
such things as menstrual pads, holed blankets from graves, baskets and
worn-out sandals. Hardly "Red-figure krater, scarab of Tuthmosis III,
Athenenian tetradrachm type" material.
US collectors have seriously suggested that
the US should condition their agreement to do anything at all to help
these countries stem the illicit trade only after they introduce a
PAS-Treasure-Act type system modelled on Britain's laissez-faire
legislation. This seems to be what Peter Tompa seems to be going to
suggest to the CPAC they should (again) recommend to the US Government
that they should ask the Italians to institute.
Let us first see the same US dealers and collectors getting a
similar system working in the US before they urge the imposition of the
legislation of one foreign county on another.
Let us see the US taking the same approach to the problem of looting
within their own country before imposing on foreign governments their
ideas of how they should be tackling the problem.
Let us see the US leading by example and not creating additional
conditions for its foreign partners at the bidding of the US antiquity
dealing community. Let us see the US properly applying the UNESCO
convention to the dealings of its own citizens in the material illegally
removed from archaeological sites and illegally removed from their
countries of origin.
Let us see the Bulgarian coins and kilogramme lots of metal detected
artefacts from sites like "Vidin" and other carbuncles on the image of
the licit trade disappear from eBay US and VCoins.
Let us see an investigation of the holdings of all those involved in
the attempted import through Baltimore of ancient coins without
adequate documentation in defiance of the CPIA earlier this year - who
knows what other missing documentation else Federal authorities may
find.
Only then I would say could the government of the United States of
America justify the moral right to dictate to other governments further
measure which they should be applying before they will help - and not
before. The very idea, just who do they think they are?
That was written seven years ago, but today remains much of its currency. In particular the point I made about the US using the convention (properly) to protect the cultural property coming from its own landmass (those kachina figures and Navajo masks they keep bellyaching about) is still 100% relevant and so blindingly obvious, it is a puzzle why nothing has changed in that time.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment