Guatamala and Mali MOU Renewal to be Discussed by CPAC

.
The 1970 UNESCO Convention state party the USA will for some obscure reason based in the world of the 1980s be addressing once again the problem of whether it really wants to fulfil its obligations as a Convention state party with respect to Mali and Guatamala.

The Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) will meet to consider renewal requests by Mali and Guatemala for Memoranda of Understanding (MoU). A public session will be held on April 24 to consider extending the bilateral agreements that would continue America's import controls over cultural property originating from these nations [without documentation of lawful export].

Both countries are heavily looted, both countries are still afected by ongoing smuggling of collectable artefacts and both countries have collectable artefacts very eagerly collected by US collectors, and very eagerly sold by US dealers. So I suppose the question is why would the US fail to respect its obligations and allow unlawfully exported material from these countries to pass unscrutinised under the noses of US Customs and Immigration Enforcement officers? What message would that give out to the world?

St Hilaire summarises the history of the two MOUs and notes the condition placed on its 2007 extension, it

broadened Article 2's provision to include, among among other items, that "the Government of the Republic of Guatemala shall undertake an assessment with regard to improvements in broad areas such as law enforcement, cultural resource management, education, conservation, research, and the national museum system" before the agreement expired in 2012.

This no doubt will be closely watched by the naysaying Philistines of the US collecting world who regard the 'Witschonke Principle' as fundamental to any US participation in protecting the global archaeological heritage from commercial exploitation. These collectors do not want to see the US taking the moral leadership, but only tagging along behind the Third World countries.

These agreements are however bilateral. Does the CPAC impose upon the US government a parallel call for "assessment with regard to improvements in broad areas such as law enforcement, cultural resource management, education, conservation, research, and the national museum system" in the USA. Or does the CPAC consider that the USA [with its Four Corners fiasco, rampant looting, failure to adequately finance guards on sites to prevent vandalism and clandestine excavations on public lands, education (ACE and Spike TV's metal detecting programmes) and its museums], are perfect and a shining example to be followed by all nations? If not, just who do they have the arrogance to think they are, and what do they feel entitles them to treat other nations in such a manner in the guise of 'helping' them? The CPAC is to advise the President of the United States, it is not there to tell the government of Guatemala what they must do. The 1970 UNESCO Convention is quite plain on that, it is up to individual states parties to determine how they will implement the convention, not something one nation can impose on another - that is neither in the text, nor the spirit of that Convention.

It is also rich in a year when the USA has withdrawn all its funding from UNESCO itself, yet still wishes to use it as a rod to beat its neighbours. Restoring funding to UNESCO is the sine qua non precondition to the US even drawing breath to suggest how other nations should be putting UNESCO's recommendations into practice. Otherwise they can just keep out of it and let others do the talking. Let the CPAC at their meeting on 24th April send the President clear advice that for a number of reasons, his government ought to restore UNESCO funding immediately.

Rick St Hilaire, 'Mali, Guatemala, and Bulgaria Up for Discussion by CPAC - Public Session Slated for April 24', Cultural Heritage Lawyer' Sunday, March 11, 2012

.

Panic in the Ranks - They Should Read my Blog....

.
Coineys are in general slow thinkers, it takes them ages to churn over some ideas, which is why the dealers can lead them by the nose so easily. The latter have just woken up to the EU public consultation on "Council Directive 93/7/EEC on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State" reported here last year. It seems their Cultural Property Observer has not been all that "observant" after all. So it is that "Coin Weekly" has issued an emergency "special edition" getting the news out to all those poorly-informed US coineys who thought there were "no restrictions on the movement of cultural property in the EU" - to inform them that there are (otherwise how can items be "unlawfully removed" from them?), and the conditions under which the problem is dealt with might be about to change. The title is incomprehensible ("Public consultation – privately") no less so than the text, obviously written in haste [actually it is a translation of the Münzenwoche.de article "Öffentliche Konsultation im Geheimen"]

March 5, 2012 – The European Union is conducting a public consultation largely unknown whether the directives on the return of cultural property need restrictions. Please join absolutely in this consultation today. Even the associations concerned came to know of this consultation only on Friday March 2, 2012. Hence we are all under pressure of time. Please join absolutely in this consultation today. The deadline expires today, March 5, 2012.

Garble-garble-coineyspeak. It looks like a computer translation. At least this shows there is not much difference between the worst of German coineyism and the worst of USA coineyism:

Sollte die Europäische Union ihrer Meinung nach den EU-Ländern helfen, ihre Kulturgüter zu schützen? – Was für eine doppeldeutige Frage! Effektiver Schutz vor Ort wäre nötig, aber in die inneren Verhältnisse der Länder mischt sich die EU selbstverständlich nicht ein. Oder hätten Sie von einem Hilfsangebot gehört, das Italien zeigt, wie man den Einsturz von wertvoller Gebäudesubstanz verhindert, oder Griechenland die finanziellen Mittel gibt, seine Museen und Grabungsstätten zu bewachen? Die Frage dreht sich nur um eine verschärfte Gesetzgebung auf Kosten von Sammlern und Händlern. Und dann das Herkunftszertifikat, das es nicht gibt! Allein diese Frage zeigt, aus welcher Richtung der Fragebogen kommt.
[...] Und hier die zweite doppeldeutige Frage: eine Gesetzgebung, die der Willkür für Beschlagnahmungen Tür und Tor öffnet, ist schlecht. Doch bis jetzt haben die Gerichte anhand eben dieser Gesetzgebung noch immer die Beweislast dem Ankläger aufgebürdet. Deshalb sind diese Gesetze „insgesamt geeignet“. Kein Sammler, kein Händler, kein Museum kann eine verschärfte Gesetzgebung wünschen, die dem Besitzer der Münze die Beweislast aufbürdet, dass seine Münze aus einer alten Sammlung stammt. [...] Sie haben nur noch heute Zeit, ihre Meinung bei dieser Umfrage zum Ausdruck zu bringen. Nutzen Sie diese Möglichkeit!

Well, fine, but perhaps they should familiarise themselves with the subject of the directive "Council Directive 93/7/EEC on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State". How many collectors will that affect? How many of them willingly collect items unlawfully removed from the territory of an EU state and will go on paper defending their "rights" to do so? Nutzen Sie diese Möglichkeit!

And by now all those US collectors rushing to defend their "rights" before the deadline to collect unlawfully exported material from EU countries will have found that the consultation is only available to EU citizens, not looter/smuggler/culture criminal-financers from outside the EU.

It seems to me that for a fuller picture coineys really do need to read my blog rather than sticking to the misleading one-sided pap coin dealers offer them on the coiney forums and blogs. Nutzen Sie diese Möglichkeit!

UNESCO Director General Presses Washington to Restore U.S. Funding

.

Director-General Irina Bokova argued for the restoration of U.S. funding to UNESCO in a series of high level meetings with Members of Congress in Washington starting on 14th December. The U.S. cut its funding to UNESCO following the General Conference vote admitting Palestine as the 195th Member to the organization on 31 October. The U.S. contribution to UNESCO represented 22% of its annual budget, and UNESCO now faces an immediate shortfall of $72 million following the suspension of U.S. contributions. Bokova had previously issued a statement pointing out that suspension of funding for the organization was potentially damaging to American interests in the international community.

Meanwhile other nations are stepping in where America has failed the international body, Her Highness Sheikha Mozah Bint Nasser of Qatar has recently contributed $20 million to UNESCO, this is the first step in a longer-term engagement with the Organization.

“This is a most welcome expression of support for UNESCO,” stated the Director-General. “Her Highness is concerned that the financial difficulties faced by the Organization will have serious consequences on UNESCO’s core programs.”

Shame on you, America.

Photo: Her Highness Sheikha Mozah Bint Nasser of Qatar.

Coiney: Anarchy for the USA!

.
Coiney Dave Welsh moans that the CPAC is not going to listen to US coiney moans about "unfair treatment" of US collectors who want to buy illicitly exported items from Bulgaria and other "source countries". He says:

I can see no alternative to a long-term legislative campaign to repeal US accession to the 1970 UNESCO Convention. We have recently seen the clearest possible evidence that UNESCO is an organization inherently opposed to and relentlessly working to undermine essential principles and aspects of US foreign policy, notably US support for the continued existence of Israel and a secure Jewish homeland within the historical borders of ancient Palestine. It is time to send a clear and unmistakeable message to the UN and to all who seek to use that pernicious organization as a tool for promoting corrosive anti-American goals. The United States should now permanently withdraw from UNESCO, in the process denouncing and repealing US accession to all UNESCO conventions, particularly the unjustly and unfairly administered 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property.

Yes, I am sure the US will be only too happy to withdraw from some of them. There are a lot connected with that touchy subject "educashun" and not a few on nasty radical tree-hugging "consavashun" and "prezervashun" so hated by the gas-guzzling political right in the US:

International Convention against Doping in Sport
Paris, 19 October 2005 More

Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions Paris, 20 October 2005 More

Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Paris, 17 October 2003 More

Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage Paris, 2 November 2001 More

Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region Lisbon, 11 April 1997 More

Convention on Technical and Vocational Education Paris, 10 November 1989 More

Regional Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific Bangkok, 16 December 1983 More

Regional Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Certificates, Diplomas, Degrees and other Academic Qualifications in Higher Education in the African States Arusha, 5 December 1981 More

Multilateral Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation of Copyright Royalties, with model bilateral agreement and additional Protocol. Madrid, 13 December 1979 More

Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees concerning Higher Education in the States belonging to the Europe Region Paris, 21 December 1979 More

Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher Education in the Arab States Paris, 22 December 1978 More

Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher Education in the Arab and European States Bordering on the Mediterranean Nice, 17 December 1976 More

Convention relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite Brussels, 21 May 1974 More

Regional Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean Mexico City, 19 July 1974 More

Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage Paris, 16 November 1972 More

Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms against Unauthorized Duplication of their Phonograms Geneva, 29 October 1971 More

Universal Copyright Convention as revised at Paris on 24 July 1971, with Appendix Declaration relating to Article XVII and Resolution concerning Article XI Paris, 24 July 1971 -Protocol 1 -Protocol 2 More

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat Ramsar, 2 February 1971 -Protocol, Paris, 3 December 1982 More

Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property Paris, 14 November 1970 More

Protocol Instituting a Conciliation and Good offices Commission to be Responsible for Seeking the settlement of any Disputes which may Arise between States Parties to the Convention against Discrimination in Education. Paris, 10 December 1962 More

International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations Rome, 26 October 1961 More

Convention against Discrimination in Education Paris, 14 December 1960 More

Convention concerning the International Exchange of Publications Paris, 3 December 1958 More

Convention concerning the Exchange of Official Publications and Government Documents between States Paris, 3 December 1958 More

Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention The Hague, 14 May 1954 -First Protocol, The Hague 14 May 1954 -Second Protocol, The Hague, 26 March 1999 More

Universal Copyright Convention, with Appendix Declaration relating to Articles XVII and Resolution concerning Article XI Geneva, 6 September 1952 -Protocol 1 -Protocol 2 -Protocol 3 More

Agreement on the Importation of Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials, with Annexes A to E and Protocol annexed Florence, 17 June 1950 -Protocol, Nairobi, 26 November 1976 More

Agreement For Facilitating the International Circulation of Visual and Auditory Materials of an Educational, Scientific and Cultural character with Protocol of Signature and model form of certificate provided for in Article IV of the above-mentioned Agreement Beirut, 10 December 1948 More

UNESCO is a body which has delegates from over 170 states, yesterday those delegates voted to support a motion the US does not support. Nevertheless 107 member states do. Not "UNESCO", but the member states in UNESCO. If the US does not believe that these member states have the right to take a democratic decision and they should submit to US bully-tactics, then yes, yes the US should jolly well get out of UNESCO. it can take its pathetic sites off the World Cultural Heritage list, it can withdraw from all the above conventions. On the other hand, it could decide that it is a member of the international community and accept that other members of that international community have other opinions than those America would like to dictate.

Here is a song for all that think like Dave Welsh, Anarchy in the UK by Johnny Rotten ... (I did not link to the more topical Megadeath cover, because in my opinion it is not a patch on the original, but here it is Anarchy in the USA).



"Destroy!!"...

PS: What ARE the essential principles and aspects of US foreign policy when they are not bombing everyone or assassinating people which UNESCO "undermines"?

Palestine Granted Full UNESCO Membership Despite US Threats

.
The UN cultural and educational agency UNESCO has granted Palestine full membership in a move opposed by Israel and the United States. Delegates approved the membership by 107 votes to 14, 52 abstentions - the UK and Poland were among the latter.

Three hours later the US announced that it was cutting UNESCO funds to punish members for exercising their democratic right and voting to grant full membership to the Palestinians. A US state department spokeswoman said a payment of some $60m (£37m) due next month would not be made, but said that while continued US funding was impossible, "the administration wanted to remain an active member of UNESCO". Anyone like to give a reason why they should? Perhaps all those nations whose stolen cultural property is sold there because they have no "1970 Convention article 9 MOU" might like to take a vote on whether the US has been as active as they could have been and whether it should stay if it's not going to pay. According to UNESCO's constitution, if a country is in arrears in its payments to UNESCO for more than two years, it could lose its voting rights in the body anyway. I think those voting rights should be removed now, seeing as the US are so intent on abusing the spirit behind the voting process in addition to their continued acceptance of the sale of illicitly exported antiquities under the noses of the administration, making an utter mockery of the 1983 US 'acceptance' of the 1970 UNESCO Convention.

The UN Security Council will vote next month on whether to grant the Palestinians full UN membership.

'Palestine secures seat in UNESCO despite US threats': TV-Novosti, 31 October, 2011,

'US cuts Unesco funds over vote for Palestinian seat', BBC 31 October 2011.

US Collectors' Concepts of "Discrimination"

.
Coin dealers' paid lobbyist Peter Tompa suggests that I am wrong in suggesting that it was specifically requested that the public comments to the CPAC on Bulgaria's request to help stop the trade in smuggled artefacts restricted to section 303(a)1 of the CCPIA . Well, it is there in black and white what the comments are supposed to address. Tompa says that instead of doing this:

many collectors have quite rightly focused on the potential impact of import restrictions on their hobby. Don't such concerns go to the ability of Americans to trade and collect ancient coins that are freely available worldwide (including within Bulgaria itself)? And as such, don't complaints about discriminatory import restrictions go directly to the CPIA's concerted response requirement as well as the use of ancient coins as educational tools? So, what exactly is Barford, the obnoxious know-it-all, talking about?

I am talking about section 303(a)1 of the CCPIA, which does not ask the President to consider "the potential impact of import restrictions on legitimate antiquity collecting". The impact on collecting smuggled artefacts is clear, and having that impact is what the MOU (and the Convention upon which it is based) is all about. "Obnoxious" though that may seem to those who sees nothing much wrong with a little bit of "free enterprise" trading smuggled goods supplied by culture criminals, that's what I am talking about. It is also what the CPAC will be discussing as part of the commitment of the US to play their part in curbing the trade in illicit antiquities, as expressed in becoming a state party of the 1970 UNESCO Convention in 1983.

Tompa suggests it is "quite right" that in their public comments, collectors do not address the issues raised for the President's consideration by section 303(a)1 of the CCPIA. The President of the USA is not asked either by section 303(a)1 to consider whether the proposed measures "go to the ability of Americans to trade and collect ancient coins that are freely available worldwide (including within Bulgaria itself)". Again, the coins with paperwork showing legal origins are legally bought and sold in most countries party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention. Mr Tompa has not yet provided the list I asked for of the countries which are states parties of the 1970 UNESCO Convention where it is actually legal (licit trade) to peddle dugup artefacts smuggled out of Bulgaria. Perhaps he could do that to help the President consider this question which the dealers' lobbyist thinks the President (and his advisory committee) should be pondering (and so that collectors can refer to it in their comments). In which other countries party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property is it not only perfectly possible to buy looted, stolen or smuggled artefacts on the open market, but is also entirely LEGAL to do so?

Tompa asks "don't complaints about [what he calls] discriminatory import restrictions go directly to the CPIA's concerted response requirement"? No, as I've explained earlier. Any import restrictions actioning article 3 of the UNESCO Convention are those which apply to any trader (importer) in any 1970-UNESCO-Convention-Party state trying to import smuggled antiquities. The rest of the states parties apply these measures automatically, only the US refuses to recognise its obligations in that regard in favour of excusive MOUs on the basis of Article 9.

The crux of the matter is that the Americans are notorious in the rest of the world for believing that they are in some way exempt from this or that measure that they do not want to apply. Over the decades we have seen various forms of manifestation of this American exclusionism in a variety of contexts in international affairs. The result is that, when required to behave like the citizens of every other nation among those of the international community which have become party to a convention, it is seen as some kind of discrimination. Being asked to behave like everybody else is asked to behave is not - in my opinion at least - discrimination. For two decades the US trade in dugup artefacts from Bulgaria has been going on under everybody's noses, nobody has ever lifted a finger over there to stop it. Kilogramme loads of this stuff have been changing hands weekly on EBay. This has engendered a feeling of entitlement, as shown by Mark Hogan who does not think there should be any curbs on teh US trade in dugup: "coins, bronze crosses, Byzantine religious metals, etc.". Why is this if the US is a state party of a convention that explicitly forbids (as illicit) such trade in the absence of proper export procedures being followed by both parties (seller and buyer)? Where are the US authorities and lawmakersw? Asleep? Powerless? Or simply totally apathetic?

If they don't like the Convention, let the US withdraw from it, not hypocritically pretend they are adhering to it, while continuing to ignore the core of its measures totally. Nobody is being "discriminated against" by being asked to do what all in the US antiquities trade should have been doing (and not just in the case of Bulgarian artefacts) since 1983.

Vignette: USA as an island

A Few comments on the Aleppo Codex

.
The new kid on the block, one Alexander (fresh member on Blogger, no information about real identity, two views) refers to Peter Tompa's post on the Aleppo Codex, reportedly damaged by fire in the Aleppo pogrom of 1947, taken ("smuggled") by the keepers of what was left of it out of Syria in 1958 (Tompa links to the Wikipedia article explaining what the document is for those who do not know). As Tompa himself notes, "the Codex left Syria well before academic archaeologists [sic] began to press for repatriation" and "well before the 1970 UNESCO Convention was promulgated". But asks whether in "the archaeological blogosphere" there would be "calls for the return of the Aleppo Codex".

There are two issues here aren't there? Firstly Tompa misleads when he labels all those urging repatriation of stolen or out-of-place items "archaeologists". These calls come from a variety of milieux connected with culture. Art historians too, for example (casus Parthenon bits) ethnologists/graphers (African sculptures and masks), musicians (the Prussian State Library collection), religious scholars/churchmen, and historians. It seems to me that the Aleppo Codex is not a piece of dugup sculpture, pot, metalwork. It is a document and therefore not a direct concern of those "archaeologists" Tompa obviously cannot get out of his head. If there were calls for it to be returned to Syria, they would not be coming just from "archaeologists".

Secondly, this is a "repatriation" issue and not a recently looted item. It was taken to Israel in 1958, so before Syria and Israel became party to international treaties on the movement of such material. This was precisely the same period as a lot of artefacts were leaving the Middle East to enter western collections, both public and private. It is precisely these artefacts, on the market before 1970 that constitute the items which are generally agreed by all to be legitimately on the market for that very reason.

Now I have not looked into the legality of the export, this seems likely to be a complicated issue. But generally if it was moved before 1970, what eventually happens to it would have to be decided on different grounds from a situation which arose after both Israel and Syria became states party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention.

Personally I am more interested in what this "Alexander" suggests, he says Tompa's "archaeological friends, including Mr. Barford" would be suggesting that "that the Codex was taken illegally from its source country, and it should be returned forthwith". As I have said the law is the law, and it remains to be seen if a case can be made and defended that there is a legal case to answer in the case of Syria. I do not know if that is what Alexander thinks is an example of:

Unless Mr. Barford finds some ridiculous and laughable way to squiggle in the other direction. He is very good at that.

He then makes some crass personal comment which is a bit of a puzzler to me, because I have never met "Alexander", I have no idea who he is or what he collects.

The Article One Lie and Intangible Heritage

.
I was doing some reading today connected with a translation I am doing with regard to Poland becoming last month a state party to the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (Gripping stuff). I was reminded of what I call the 'Article one lie' whereby the no-questions-asked mob attempt to convince collectors that those dastardly "radical archaeologists' want to stop them collecting anything at all - just look what it says in article 1 they say - "POSTAGE STAMPS and everyfink". What they do not admit is that article 1 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention defines what types of thing might come under it (and not what invariably do). So it for example excludes intangible cultural heritage which now has a convention of its own. Its Article 2 is worth comparing with the Article 1 of the 1970 one. This shows even more clearly the utter deceit of the Article One Lie used to defend no-questions-asked dealings in tangible cultural property.

Article 2 – Definitions
For the purposes of this Convention,
1. The “intangible cultural heritage” means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. For the purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such intangible cultural heritage as is compatible with existing international human rights instruments, as well as with the requirements of mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable development.

2. The “intangible cultural heritage”, as defined in paragraph 1 above, is manifested inter alia in the following domains:
(a) oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage;
(b) performing arts;
(c) social practices, rituals and festive events;
(d) knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe;
(e) traditional craftsmanship.

So basically not all contemporary sagger makers' bottom knockers' tools, or knowledge of the correct construction of the lower part of saggers are part of this heritage, but they could be. Likewise not all nineteenth century stamp collections are protected cultural heritage, but should a nation so decide to make certain examples protected by law, there is allowance for that to occur in the 1970 Convention.

[And I challenge any of those US ancient-coiney numbskulls who claim that unprovenanced (heap on a table) numismatic material can 'tell us about the past' to show us even one scrap of information from numismatic sources alone about the noble and necessary art of sagger making and the place of bottom knocking in the process. Do they get many saggers depicted on their coins?]

Iraq Seeks International Treaty Protecting Archaeological Artefacts

.
Iraq is reportedly seeking a new international agreement protecting antiquities as a response to the ongoing looting of saleable antiquities from archaeological sites there (Radio Free Europe, 'Iraq Seeks International Treaty Protecting Antique Artifacts', April 20th 2011).

Iraq wants to conclude a new international agreement that will designate the dealing of antique Iraqi artifacts a crime, RFE/RL's Radio Free Iraq reports. Iraqi officials said the goal is to preserve the country's heritage from thieves and smugglers. Baha al-Mayyah, an adviser at the Iraqi Tourism and Historic Monuments Ministry, told RFE/RL on April 18 that "Archaeological sites are still in danger of being looted and are subject to illegal excavations in many places." He said "the government is working on the possibility of concluding new international agreements that will designate dealing in ancient Iraqi artifacts a crime." [...] Al-Mayyah criticized the international community for not doing enough to deter smugglers and looters. He said Iraq wants to abolish the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property [...] Iraq plans to convene an international conference at the end of this year in Baghdad to discuss the creation of a new international organization. "Its task would be to push for the cancellation or the amendment of the 1970 convention," al-Mayyah said. "It would have as members all the countries of the world that are facing problems with the looting and smuggling of their heritage."

This would be a very interesting move. It is quite clear that a convention discussed and written in the late 1960s cannot possibly be applied to the changed antiquities market (especially in its dominating no-questions-asked variant) that has developed since the mid 1970s and then was again completely transformed in the mid 1990s by internet trading. It is totally inadequate to the task. This is quite apart from the fact that the US, one of the largest potential markets for illicitly acquired, and exported dugup antiquities refuses to implement it properly but only in a form which is a "compromise" with their own huge and lucrative no-questions-asked antiquities trade. The time for new agreements and standards on the international trade of this sort of material was yesterday. Whether or not US antiquity dealers want it or not, it's time to do some serious thinking about this problem while there is still some of the archaeological resource in the ground left to save from commercial looting.

April Fool from CPRI

.
It seems to me that the Santa Fe-based "Cultural Property Research Institute" (an antiquity dealers' advocacy group masquerading as an inefficient "research institute") has got its dates wrong. A text they have released (State Department in Contravention of the Law?) can only be seen as an April Fool joke accidentally published two days early. Still, I suppose that's better than all those promised pieces of "research" which are months overdue.

Among the gems of deadpan humour contained in this obviously satirical text, the reader will spot the following:

- "has disregarded the criteria established by the law that created it", the enquiring reader will ask what might they be, and in what way do they benefit the world's cultural heritage?

- "the Act was intended not just to save objects, but to save context and heritage". Where does it say that? Where? It actually says nothing of the kind in the CCPIA (which in general it has to be admitted is a badly-written text, but that is no excuse for the CPRI making things up).

- "limitations placed by the Act on the ability of the US Government to enter into agreements with other countries to impose import restrictions", eh? This is in an act intended to IMPLEMENT the 1970 UNESCO Convention on what? Oh yes, "on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property", so why did the US government issue an "implementing" act limiting its own ability to actually "implement" the actual measures of the Convention? Why would the US government fail to enter into an agreement with another country who requests it to actually implement the measures implicit in becoming a state party to the Convention? That's just plain daft, but then all of this US pretence to be implementing the Convention is plain double daft. Let the US just end the farce and withdraw from the Convention they have for nearly three decades obviously had no intention of fully honouring. Let the existing Wild West ethos of much of the US antiquity market show itself for what it is.

- "a provision requiring U.S. restrictions to be part of a "concerted international response" had been violated" eh? So where actually is this mythical "provision"? Where? How can you "violate" a provision that is not there?

- "in a manner that discriminated against Americans and that moved the trade abroad". Like keeping Chinese artefacts from being illegally exported FROM China? Isn't that what the 1970 Convention "on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property" supposed to do? What did the Americans think it was supposed to do when they became a state party? And how funny, an American law which affects Americans in America and not foreigners living outside America.

"Seminar summary at http://www.cprinst.org/Home/issues. Full transcript available soon". Can they manage it by April 1st?

The comedy is continued by that master of black humour, D.C. lawyer Peter Tompa, who asks "A related question is whether the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is listening or whether Assistant Secretary Anne Stock and her staff remain tone deaf as ever". Listen to what? The inventive rantings of the lunatic fringe of the US no-questions-asked market in dugup antiquities? That is a real joke.

What on earth is New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand thinking of aligning herself with these people with their all-too-transparent antisocial aims? Maybe readers in the States might like to write to her office and ask her http://gillibrand.senate.gov/contact/.

Vignette: Hilary and lookalike Kirsten (left) show their appreciation of the 2011 CPIA April Fool joke at the expense of the skeletal US International Cultural Property Protection program, such as it is.

Chinese Collectors of Chinoiserie? How Terrible?

.
In the Kirsten Gillibrand Seminar on the CCPIA organized by the CPRI the "problem" of China was raised. As we know due to a MOU between the USA and China, the import of certain types of dugup antiquities from China is restricted to those that can be documented as having been legally exported from there. But what is this? Shock horror:

As a result, the market in such materials has just been shifted elsewhere. China is a ridiculous case. We have closed our markets to ancient Chinese art when the biggest market for such material is in China itself. State has failed to administer the statute fairly. >[...] A[rthur] H[oughton] also asks how effective the CPIA can be if 90% of the archaeological material sold is done so in a source country like China.

In a country "like" China? Somehow I think our transatlantic friends have lost sight of what the "C" in CCPIA stands for. To remind them it is called the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property. So the fact that cultural property, dugup or otherwise (and 90% of it or not) is staying in China unless legally exported is what the Convention is aiming to achieve, isn't it? Why does that indicate that "State has failed to administer the statute fairly"? It certainly is fair to the Chinese people and Chinese collectors if it true that the antiquities are not now leaking out of the country in an uncontrolled and illegal manner to the world's largest no-questions-asked antiquities market in the USA and this is due to US dealers responsibly adhering to import restrictions which support that.

Vignette: Does the CPRI want to see Chinese artefacts kept away from Chinese collectors?

Le trafic des biens culturels dans le monde s'intensifie

.
Tunisia, Egypt, Libya… The traffickers of stolen cultural goods dream of countries like this where instability reigns, but it is not only they that fall victim to this trade. In the era of the Internet, this illicit commerce, estimated by some to be worth as much as 6 billion dollars is accelerating. UNESCO raises the alarm (Martine Robert, 'Le trafic des biens culturels dans le monde s'intensifie', Les Echoes, 15th march 2011).

Il n'y a pas que le marché de l'art qui est prospère. Le trafic des biens culturels se porte bien, lui aussi. Selon Interpol, il représente annuellement 6 milliards de dollars. «La situation est alarmante, particulièrement dans les pays en proie à l'instabilité comme la Tunisie, la Lybie, et surtout l'Egypte», a déclaré, hier, Irina Bokova, directeur général de l'Unesco, à l'occasion du colloque que l'organisation internationale tient jusqu'à ce soir à Paris, dans le cadre du quarantième anniversaire de la convention, signée par 120 Etats, visant à lutter contre ce phénomène. Il s'agit, avec l'aide de l'Organisation mondiale des douanes, d'Interpol, de maisons de ventes aux enchères ou de musées, de tenter d'apporter de nouvelles réponses. Car, ces dernières années, Internet a accéléré le trafic, la Toile étant devenue le support d'un commerce très lucratif dans le trafic des biens culturels.

La convention adoptée il y a quarante ans établit les mesures à prendre pour interdire et empêcher l'importation, l'exportation et le transfert de propriété illicites des biens culturels. Elle évoque aussi la question des restitutions et offre un cadre de coopération international pour mieux combattre le trafic. Mais il revient à chaque pays de mettre en oeuvre la législation permettant de l'appliquer. De plus, cette convention traite surtout des relations entre Etats: elle a dû être complétée en 1995 par la convention Unidroit, plus stricte, qui implique également les acteurs privés. Malheureusement, celle-ci n'a été ratifiée quasiment par aucun des pays où les marchés de l'art sont les plus actifs.

Like the USA for example, which applies the 1970 UNESCO Convention in a highly selective manner (to a degree that one might legitimately ask whether they have actually implemented it at all). The application of the sort of measures envisaged by the UNIDROIT document is vehemently opposed by US dealers in dugup antiquities (such as in their Unidroit-L discussion list which is a mouthpiece for the naysayers). One might wonder why a supposedly legitimate business is concerned with measures intending to prevent the commerce in illicitly-obtained items. The answer to that question might tell the objective observer a lot about the current state of the antiquities market, might it not?

Existing measures are not as effective at stopping the haemorrhage of illicitly obtained artefacts onto the international market in its current form:

Plusieurs pays africains ont ainsi perdu plus de la moitié de leur patrimoine, aujourd'hui dispersé. Des centaines de statues du temple d'Angkor, au Cambodge, ont été arrachées. En Amérique centrale, les fouilles illégales se traduisent chaque mois par l'extraction d'au moins 1.000 pièces de céramique maya, d'une valeur de 10 millions de dollars. Et en Irak, 15.000 pièces du musée national de Bagdad ont été dérobées lors du dernier conflit, plus de la moitié étant toujours manquantes.

The question is are we just going to continue to shrug our shoulders and say with the British archaeological establishment that "looting is here to stay, if we can't beat them, let's make them our partners"? Is this something we can wait until somebody else does the work for the archaeological establishment (volunteer grassroots organizations like SAFE over in the US, and Heritage Action in the UK, or HAPAH in France)? Or are we going to try and alert public opinion to the problem and its scale and significance and try to curb this kind of erosive and destructive commercial exploitation of the archaeological record by making dealers and collectors socially accountable?

What part should Britain's PAS play in all this? What part can they play in all this while considering artefact hunters and collectors their "partners"? They rather have allowed themselves to a situation where they have their hands tied, haven't they? Listen, you can hear the pigeons cooing from the roof and gables of the British Museum. The Portable Antiquities Scheme is silent on this matter too. It is annoying that its the Bloomsbury pigeons which are making a more audible public comment on certain portable antiquity issues than the multi-million pound organization set up at public expense to deal with portable antiquity issues.

Is "coo coo" the best argument the British archaeological establishment can muster these days?

Vignette: Bloomsbury Pete (national representative of the NGO, the Avian Concern for Cultural Heritage, British Museum, Bloomsbury WC1), currently Britain's most vociferous spokesman on portable antiquity issues.

Cyprus Collections Against the Law?

.
Blogger Peter Tompa takes exception to my recent comparison of the recording of artefacts held in private hands in Cyprus with Great Britain's PAS. He says they are not the same thing at all and finds it "inexplicable" that somebody should say they are. Cultural Property lawyer Tompa seems to be suggesting that that the private collecting of antiquities in Cyprus is forbidden and only survives due to "corruption". ("...the fact there is one law for the wealthy collector, another for everyone else"). The Cypriot legislation ('the Antiquities Act') however does not forbid the private ownership of single items or collections legally obtained . It also stipulates (Art 3-5) a financial reward for any objects reported and retained by the state (which the UK law does NOT, it is discretionary). So if we check out the facts he, for some reason, neglects to take into account it is rather Tompa's line of argument here which is "inexplicable".

Tompa's verdict that the Cypriot antiquities legislation is in some way inferior to the relevant UK ActS that correspond to this law more on prejudice than any specific analysis of these laws. He assumes that the system run by these brown-skinned people must be "corrupt" and then postulates that

the archaeological community's unqualified support for import restrictions on behalf of the Republic of Cyprus only helps prop up such a corrupt system.

Though Peter Tompa and the people he represents seem not too keen to differentiate between the two, what archaeologists in fact support is not the restrictions of imports of legally exported Cypriot antiquities, but the import of illegally exported Cypriot antiquities. This raises the question of whether it is the Cypriots or the US antiquities market that is here "corrupt"?

Tompa adds:

Hopefully, the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and CPAC will take notice when the current Cypriot MOU comes up for renewal.

Yes, let them take notice of what their own antiquity dealers are doing and recommend that the US withdraw from the 1970 UNESCO Convention if its dealers are simply not willing to forgo the import of illegally exported material from the few countries with which the US has such MOUs (and employ lawyers like Tompa to fight to secure that as a "right" by fair means or foul). Let the pirates not trade under a false standard, let them fly their true colours, the Jolly Roger.

Vignette: The true colours of the US antiquities trade represented by Mr Tompa, wants the freedom to trade in illegally exported antiquities.
.

Conservation-Friendly TV Programme on British Portable Antiquities?

.

With reference to the post above, it is not as if the PAS could not find material for a series of programmes full of "shocks, twists and turns" by sticking to what it surely should be presenting to the British public as archaeological outreach instead of "hopeful prospectors" with their 'ow much is it werth then? questions.

Article 10 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property states that:

The States Parties to this Convention undertake: (a) To restrict by education, information and vigilance, movement of cultural property illegally removed from any State Party to this Convention and, [...] (b) to endeavour by educational means to create and develop in the public mind a realization of the value of cultural property and the threat to the cultural heritage created by theft, clandestine excavations and illicit exports.

It seems to me that the Portable Antiquities Scheme is the official public-funded body through which Britain should be putting those words into concrete and coordinated action, as part of its obligations as a state party to that Convention. That is surely only logical. Certainly, in the form in which it was apparently presented to PAS staff on the 10th December 2010, the TV programme it seems to have been involved in the creation of does not go anywhere near doing that.

The British antiquities market and collecting milieu is full of situations that could be exploited by the techniques of informed investigative television journalism to produce some interesting (at times entertaining) and thought-provoking programmes which could be presented in a manner to appeal even to lowbrow tastes. Here are a few ideas that I've come up with. If anyone has any more please send them. I'm sure the FLOs have access to some wonderful material, but I bet they are forbidden to reveal it. Some possible 30 minute episodes built around themes like:

- The true face of so-called "metal detecting", the link with collecting and the antiquities trade, why does Britain have laws completely the opposite from the rest of the world? The pros and cons of having such laws (interviews with antiquity dealers and conservationists), commercial artefact hunting rallies (outdoor shots, guys in anoraks, combat fatigues and wellies, drunken antics in the the beer tent in the evening), interview with whistle-blowng metal detectorist (interview with whistle-blowing FLO?)

- The Icklingham bronzes, still in New York. Interview with farmer, nighttime filming of nighthawks in action on adjacent farms. Attempted capture on film - exciting high speed night-time car chase? Interview with oikish nighthawk, face blacked out to protect identity

- The story behind the Sevso Treasure, accidental discovery, murder mayhem, smuggling, false provenances, ending up being bought as an "investment" by a British lord who cannot now sell it.

- Just what place does Britain occupy in the international market in looted and tainted antiquities? Why does the 1993 British Dealing in Cultural Property (Offences) Act not actually work (at all)? Plenty of scope here for some wonderful hidden camera filming. Plush auction house and West End gallery footage, elegantly dressed shoppers, contrasted with grubby north of England coin shop with greasy-haired proprietor in denim.

- the trade in bulk lots of coins and artefacts on UK internet portals, where do they come from, where do they go? How much is this trade worth and for whom? Filming of transaction with hidden camera. This would be a good place to do a journalistic expose of the "no-questions-asked" aspects of collecting. Disapproving coverage of what the US ACCG dealers are up to, link to British finds sold by V-Coins, before coming back to metal detectorist in England putting coins in the post to them.

- Private collection as curation: Visits to a few metal detectorists to see just what they have in their sheds and how it is curated. How easy is following the collecting histories of metal detected items? The Heritage Action Artefact Erosion Counter, true or false? The plough/artificial fertiliser justification, a TV journlist investigates whether true or false (guest appearancs of mythbusters' Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage?).

- The true story behind the Crosby Garrett helmet, the discovery, removal to a London saleroom, its restoration in an ill-lit garage below a railway arch in Hackney, the PAS called in midway through the process, the dramatic sale (interview with the lovely Georgiana Aitken a must) and mystery of the buyer. Where did it really come from and what happened to any missing bits of the assemblage? Interview with disappointed Tullie House museum staff and local residents. Discussion of need to reform Treasure Act.

- Following a typical Treasure case through the system with commentary by somebody from the NCMD (complaining about the valuation process and suggesting deliberate undervaluation - try Trevor Austin) and somebody representing heritage interests (Nigel Swift voiceover?). The difference between accidental finds and deliberate searching. To what degree is this material coming from undisturbed archaeological deposits below the topsoil on unthreatened sites? Debate on the rights and wrongs of rewarding this kind of deliberate erosion of the record. Put the two sides in the same room and film the acrimonious discussion that develops.

- Many British sellers are involved in the dishonest trade in fake antiquities, an investigation of the phenomenon, what damage it does, the financial aspects, who makes them where and how, who buys them and why? Interview with ebay seller Tim Haines. Sellers' responsibilities.

- The highjacking of the arguments about conservation of sites to become one of "who owns" objects ripped from them. Plenty of scope for revealing the slippery arguments of collectors avoiding the issue of the connection between looting and no-questions asked collecting. Confront bolshy collector with looted site on camera.

- The erosion of archaeology by metal detectorists searching sites legally, could look at battlefields, interviews with detectorists who throw scrap lead into jamjars and battlefield archaeologist. Link to US work on battlefields, British initiatives. Mudlarks ripping huge holes into waterfront archaeological layers. Plenty of opportunities for filming mudcaked larks. Effete male presenter gets stuck in mud (could fall over?) and has to be rescued.

- the disturbance and looting of underwater sites (shipwrecks, aircraft) in British coastal waters by souvenir hunters. Opportunity for underwater shots, spooky music etc etc. Subplot, the activities of treasure hunting firm Odyssey off the coast of Britain and Gibraltar. The market for the loot.

Now I am no TV producer, but I bet someone who is could commission some decent writers to get eight half-hour programmes out of this sort of material with no problems. Give it a decent title (something like "Secrets of Britain's Heritage Thieves" comes to mind) and I bet you could sell it and do archaeology a favour rather than the damaging dumbed down pseudoarchaeological brain-pap the PAS seems to be increasingly getting itself involved in. Let us remember the first PAS post to go when the cuts started biting was their Education Officer, which I think says a lot about the Scheme's current profile.
.
Public information TV

USA: Article 3? Article 3 is Right Out! You Know What you can All do with Your Article 3?

.
Peter Tompa continues his habitual denigration of anyone who might be interested in the USA honouring its commitments embodied in it being a state party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention.

there needs to be more analysis of the foreign laws that form the basis of defining action in the United States as "criminal." The governments of the most aggressive "source countries" have been rightly criticised to one degree or another for their authoritarian ways, their endemic corruption, or their excessive regulation. Under the circumstances, should law enforcement and the courts use our criminal law to effectuate broad declarations of foreign ownership made by such countries so uncritically? [...] In countries like China and Greece, there is one law for "the ordinary joe" or the foreigner and quite another for those connected to the powerful.

Unlike America then.

Now of course the USA when it belatedly became a state party of the 1970 UNESCO Convention did so with an extremely significant proviso:

"The United States understands Article 3 not to modify property interests in cultural property under the laws of the States parties".

Readers of this blog should not need reminding that Article 3 is the most important element of the whole Convention:

"Article 3: The import, export or transfer of ownership of cultural property effected contrary to the provisions adopted under this Convention by the States Parties thereto, shall be illicit".

So basically what the US was doing wass saying,

"We'll agree to sign it, but stuff your Convention".

The vulgarism is deliberate because that is precisely what message this gives out to the rest of the world. It is arrogantly nationalist, American exclusionism of the worst kind. Why on earth did the USA ratify a Convention which it has no intention whatsoever of fully honouring?

Tompa continues in the same vein:

I've read that a large percentage of the Bulgarian population is allegedly involved in illicit metal detecting.

and on this basis concludes "potential criminal liability has obviously not changed behavior and other approaches, like that embodied in the PAS and Treasure Act should be considered". Ha! "I have read" seems to be rather a vague basis for dictating to a foreign government what it should "consider". Does Mr Tompa own a metal detector? I ask because I wonder whether he has any idea what a usable machine (not a toy) costs. I invite him to see where Bulgaria is on the CIA Factbook's CDP (PPP) list, and which countries are above it in the ranking, and consider again whether a large percentage of the Bulgarian population has the capital and leisure time to engage in this hobby. Perhaps he would like to cite the source of his statement?

UPDATE: Coin Dealer Dave Welsh discusses Peter Tompa's xenophobic ramblings mentioned above under the heading "Schizophrenic US Cultural Property Laws". It seems to me that the only schizophrenia here is a whole nation's no-questions-asked antiquities trade which wants the whole world to believe that it honours international agreements on the licit trade of artefacts but in fact will have none of it. While such cowboy tendencies exist in the US antiquities trade and among its rapacious collectors, America should do the decent thing and withdraw from merely paying lip-service to the 1970 UNESCO Convention until such time as public opinion is behind honouring it in full.

The US and the 1970 UNESCO Convention: Fundamental Question

.
Coiney collector's rights "international affairs expert" Dave Welsh assures us that the US CCPIA the intent of the CPIA was

that import restrictions would be a temporary solution [...] not a permanent general policy toward accepting responsibility for enforcing export control laws of other nations. The law intended that the US should take effective action to induce requesting nations to solve their own problems, including defects in their antiquities laws and the enforcement of those laws. Import restrictions were intended to "buy time" for such solutions to be devised and implemented.

I would like to ask him and his legal sidekick Tompa to show us where in the text of the Act it actually says that (I stress: in the text of the Act itself and not some collectors' interpretation of "what the authors had in mind"). I have carefully and hopefully reread the entire tiresome text (here and here) from front to end and with the best will in the world (because I'd like to believe that the US would like to curb archaeological looting), but cannot find any evidence whatsoever to support Welsh's assertion. The CCPIA has no preamble stating its purpose, and the measures it lays down refer exclusively throughout to matters related to import controls, not rewriting the legislation of how other countries protect archaeological sites, ensure reporting of accidental finds nor preserve the archaeological record. These come under other international documents (such as the Valetta Convention) to which the US is not a signatory, and to which the CCPIA in all certainty does not apply.

It seems to me that until they show us the phrases to which they are referring, we may regard the antiquity dealers' and collectors' interpretation of the "intent" of the act (which quite clearly is written to implement a particular Convention referring to a specific issue), as simply made-up. That goes for the basis for Mr Witschonke's "rational" and "thoughtful, well considered" neo-colonialist proposal. Where does the CCPIA, let alone the 1970 Convention, give - as is asserted - the US the authority to place an ultimatum before another state party to change its legislation before it will comply?

Are there any pro-heritage (or anti-heritage) lawyers who'd care to comment on the ACCG's imperialist interpretation of the 1970 Convention and the US's 1983 CCPIA?

.

US Compliance with 1970 UNESCO Convention Article 5

.
ACCG officer and part-time coin dealer from California Dave Welsh begins his attack (see above) on Italy by citing article 5 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention:

The 1970 UNESCO Convention requires that the governments of States parties to the Convention shall take adequate measures to preserve and care for their cultural heritage, as these excerpts from Article 5 require:

"Article 5

To ensure the protection of their cultural property against illicit import, export and transfer of ownership, the States Parties to this Convention undertake, as appropriate for each country, to set up within their territories one or more national services, where such services do not already exist, for the protection of the cultural heritage, with a qualified staff sufficient in number for the effective carrying out of the following functions:

He concludes that "the Italian Government isn't taking anything resembling proper care of its ancient heritage'. This is an oft-repeated argument used by some US antiquities dealers to oppose the imposition of US import controls on illegally exported antiquities (which is of course exactly what the 1970 UNESCO Convention advocates in general). The ACCG and allied groups seizes with alacrity on all and any report that there are problems with preserving sites and monuments in the "source countries" which are asking for cultural agreements facilitating this with the US. So eager to point the finger, maybe the ACCG would first show us how the US has complied with Article 5 of the convention themselves. Where is this national service mentioned in Art. 5?

Let it be added that Welsh clearly does not understand the meaning of Art. 5 (d):

organizing the supervision of archaeological excavations, ensuring the preservation "in situ" of certain cultural property, and protecting certain areas reserved for future archaeological research"

which is about excavation permits and sustainable management, its talking about keeping sites under the ground and not about dugup sites.

UNESCO 1970 Article 1

.
The "Article 1 lie" is used by activists to alarm collectors of all types into thinking that the Convention is out to get all collectors to surrender all their property, and therefore those who are arguing for the preservation of the archaeological record from looting must be opposed. Hopes for the success of that argument seem to me to rely on hopes that its audience is either completely thick or permanently blind drunk or on crystal meth. The text of course actually says:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term `cultural property' means property which, on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each State as being of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science and which belongs to the following categories: [...]

What does this mean? Well, it probably seems pretty clear to most of us who can read English, but obviously is problematic for the mind of a collector to grasp. Down on the list of things that can be "specifically designated by each state as being of importance" is "(i) postage, revenue and similar stamps, singly or in collections". "See? See?" Shout the collectors' rights activists, "they ("the radical archaeologists") are planning to take even your stamp collections away!! They must be stopped!! Join us!!". So far the stamp collectors of the world seem not to have been roused into a flaring-torches-and-pitchfork-wielding mob of luddites, but that clearly is the aim of the activists.

What actually is meant of course is that Wongawongaland can, if it wants, designate as part of the nation's cultural property the Royal Stamp Collection created by King Mustahafit III containing some rare first-day covers unique in the world. This does not mean that the collection made by the six year old grandson of his cup-bearer is also Wongawongan cultural property, or any of the Wongawongan stamps in little Tommy Tompa's album in Tampa are either. It says "specifically designated". If a state so wishes, says the UNESCO Convention, any state COULD declare, for example, all of the postage stamps it has issued before 1st March 1967 surviving in the country as cultural property, or even state property (like the US government attempted to do with a rare coin issue), there is nothing (except perhaps in this case common sense) to prevent it. Or it could designate specific collections, or even specific items of postal history as nationally important cultural property. Article 1 of course does not mean that states party have to include all the artefact types in their own definition of cultural property (its not an "all or nothing" list), and various cultures place different emphasis on different elements of their cultural heritage. So what the list says is that if its on the list and you want to include it in your definition of the state's cultural heritage, then it is covered by the Convention. If however you fail to specifically designate a particular class of artefacts in the cultural preservation legislation, you can't expect the Convention to help you get it back until you do. What a state party CANNOT do is declare song and dance to be the type of cultural property which the Convention covers. This is important as the legislation of some states (Japan for example) include non-material ("intangible") cultural phenomena like song and dance as cultural property (in Poland the Polish language itself is one, but can be neither stolen nor illicitly exported in the understanding of the 1970 UNESCO Convention). Neither can the Convention be evoked to get back a stolen production line Raleigh bicycle, even if it was made in 1968 (unless, of course, the cultural property legislation included them at the time it was taken out of the country illegally).

What the dullards who follow the Pied Pipers of carefree (no-questions-asked) antiquitism do not see is that the function of this list is exclusive and not inclusive.

The propagators of the "Article 1 lie" hope that their readers cannot see the words "specifically designated" or at least, poor saps, not understand their polysyllabism. Are collectors really so stupid as to be misled by this? Well yes, it seems every time. They are not very good at this kind of analytical thinking it seems.

Please read UNESCO 1970 Article 1 and then turn to any forum where collectors of portable antiquities are gathered and read what they say these "radicals" are up to based on their misreading of the same Article 1 and draw your own conclusions.

Vignette: Pied Piper of Hamlyn, this book can only be treated under the 1970 UNESCO Convention as part of England's cultural property if specifically designated as such.

More Glennbeckian Argumentation from the Coin Collectors' Guild

.
I've been looking at Wayne Sayles' blog post: The Whole Cultural Record. (UPDATE 29.09.2012: the original article has now been deleted by a repentant Sayles from his blog, but the text is available here).  The article by AIA President Brian Rose has a subheading (which may anyway have been inserted by the editorial team and not Rose) which Sayles has taken out of the context of the whole article on which he bases his comments. I think you'd have to be a real petty stirrer to create on such a basis the cheap-point-scoring construction Sayles attempts. One wonders whether the "collectors' rights" advocates live in the real world or not.

The contents of Article 1 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention (nor private property rights) have no relevance whatsoever to what Rose was discussing. I do not know if Sayles has problems following a simple argument as seems to be the case with most US and UK collectors, but it is entirely that mentality which the advocates of the no-questions-asked market in antiquities rely for their support.

Sayles expresses a hatred of "states" and their "ever-benevolent and omniscient bureaucracy". He then likens them all to "governmental models that permeated the mid 20th century and whose benevolence and wisdom wreaked havoc upon the world at large" [...] they were called "Nationalists" and the common thread among them was total state dominance over people and property". The old Glennbeckian ploy of referring everything to "Commies" and "Nazis" again.

Are there no coin (or artefact collectors) anywhere in the English speaking world with the intelligence to see and the guts to stand up to this sort of nonsense from the self-appointed advocates of "their" cause? They really are making a laughing stock of collectors and dealers as a whole.

Can anyone explain to Mr Sayles and his fellow ACCGers how Article 1 of the UNESCO convention is phrased and what it ACTUALLY means? (That is really a rhetorical question, I suspect the task may in fact be beyond even the best teacher.)

Sayles ends "Perhaps Dr. Rose will weigh in on this and enlighten the discussion". I doubt it, there is little point in discussing anything with the likes of Sayles who demonstrate time and time again with texts like the one discussed here that they cannot see the wood for the trees. Is there nobody else in the collecting community to talk with? Someone who can not only see sense, but talk it too?


Vignette: Who's responsible for opposition to the no-questions-asked market in portable antiquities, well according to the ACCG, Commy and Nazi Nationalists, of course !