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?

.

Unidroit-L SS and Stolen Cultural Property

Well, there was little chance of reasonable discussion breaking out on either Unidroit-L or Tim Haines' closed-access "AncientArtifacts" list after Dave Welsh's attempted dissection of my views on cultural property. Several people, including Mr W., seem to have had difficulty grasping the core concept. John Hooker also replied to Welsh, but after a few dozen lines like a stuck record got onto his hobby horse of his "method" of studying the inconography of "Celtic coins" and something he wrote a decade ago, the relevance to the question in hand is totally a mystery to me.

One person who has no doubts about what he thinks about it all is Unidroit-L member and fellow coin dealer "SS", who writes (among other things):

Defining "cultural property" is of great importance only to those who would use the bastard concept in their own interest. [...] But however defined, or left undefined, CP is not the main issue. The best arguments against confiscations and repatriations are broader, and have been raised in this forum many times: importance of context in archaeology, importance of archaeology, public education better served by distribution, visibility of objects, objects better protected in private ownership, overly-narrow concepts of what a culture is, issues of sovereignty and private property, etc., etc. Focusing on "cultural property" and giving the term legitimacy by trying to define it is playing THEIR game. Instead, why not speak of the issue of (or debate over) RETENTIONISM? [...] By giving this agenda of radical archaeologists and grasping third-world politicians a name and identifying its idiotic precepts, we can, in some measure, take it back. Why not put effort into defining them and their agenda, rather than helping refine their ideas about what they want to steal from us?

well, it is easy to see here that the philosophical issues are not as much interest to Scott Semans as the problem of those nasty US authorities "confiscating and repatriating" items at the behest of "radical" archaeologists and "grasping third world politicians" (Italy "third world"?). Well, since that which is confiscated and eventually repatriated is cultural property which is in the US illegally (ie. in some sense at least stolen cultural property), I think many will be surprised that Mr Semans is so adamant that these items are being "stolen from us" (North American dealers and collectors).

Oddly enough, while Welsh has been quite vocal on his own and Haines' list in explaining that in broaching this subject he really was not intent on criticising me ("really, honest") and my views, just raising something collectors should know more about, he fails to put Semans right about the origin of the use of the term "cultural property". It is neither a "bastard concept" nor does it need to rely on coin collectors and dealers using it to be regarded as a legitimate term.

But yes, I think it would be a jolly good thing to have a precise definition of this collectors' concept of "retentionism", and a definition of what its opposite is. Presumably - given the origin of this pseudo-debate - the latter will apply to the United States of America's Cultural Property (or maybe lack of it, does the USA have "cultural property" Mr Semans?)

Also I would like to hear more about this notion that "the importance of context in archaeology" is "one of the best arguments against confiscations and repatriations" (eh?)
the "importance of archaeology" likewise. Perhaps the dealer means the (from his narrow perspective) "unimportance"?

I think we get the drift of "public education being better served by distribution, visibility of objects" being "one of the best arguments against confiscations and repatriations"> Sort of ACE stuff then? I would counter by remarking that public education in the source countries would be best served by this cultural property being distributed and visible there, rather in some foreign land across the Atlantic. So the US dealer is thinking here only of his own back yard, hang the rest.

Also we get the drift of the "objects better protected in private ownership", though I do not believe it. Objects in museums and public collections are frequently much better documented than what we see coming onto the market as old collections are split up. Conservation standards among private collectors leave a lot to be desired too. There is more to curation than putting an item in a secure place like a bank vault or home of a gun-owning padre.

Mr Semans thinks that US authorities have "overly-narrow concepts of what a culture is". But really that has nothing to do with whether an object on the US market has a valid export licence or not, does it?

Finally another of those "best arguments against confiscations and repatriations" are "issues of sovereignty and private property". Well, surely importing material which has been illegally exported is indeed one of those issues of sovereignty. The right of a sovereign nation to define what is and what is not its cultural property, and what it will allow to be exported and what it will not. A right US no-questions-asked dealers not only ignore but also trample upon.

Mr Welsh and all the rest of his motley crew are perfectly welcome to discuss this here in the comments section as long as they keep it reasonable.

Portable Antiquities Reporting Scheme for Israel

The Jerusalem Post ("Antiquities Authority begins to register private collectors") reports that while Israeli collectors of portable antiquities have been required by law to register their collections since the legislation of 2002 (I think actually this requirement also existed there before that, but stand to be corrected) this had not so far been particularly stringently enforced. At present only several hundred collectors are currently known to the state, while the number of citizens who have private antiquities collections is estimated as 100,000. In February, regulations allowing the Israel Antiquities Authority to enforce this law took effect (with a penalty of up to six months in jail and a significant fine for those who continued to ignore it).

Amir Ganor, director of the IAA's Prevention of Antiquities Theft and Supervision of Antiquities Sales Division, told The Jerusalem Post "One of the things we want to do in this operation is to help people not break the law", adding that "Maybe some of them have a specific item that is very important to archaeology and nobody knows about it, so we need to know what they have". [Do we detect the influence of the aftermath of the James Ossuary fiasco here?]

In the next few months, until December 31, the IAA hopes that collectors will come forward for registration, which can be done through the IAA's Web site or at any of their offices throughout the country. Those who report their antiquities will receive a certificate officially designating them as a collector. "Once collectors are registered, they will be asked to send a list of the artifacts in their possession, along with photographs, to the IAA. Archaeologists from the IAA will be available to help with this task if needed". They will also offer, if the collector wishes, an appraisal of the historical significance of their artifacts. Ganor made it clear that collectors would not be asked to give up any of their artifacts. "The items belong to the collector, and we are not trying to take anything from the collector," he said. The article finishes with the plea:

"We call on members of the public who hold pieces of history to assist us in gathering the archaeological information, which is part of the whole puzzle that makes up our past," Ganor said. "Without parts of the puzzle, it is difficult to know what the complete picture is exactly."

This clearly is a project which is intended to be for public benefit rather than being (as I certain elements in the collecting community will no doubt be presenting it as) "another" infringement on "private property rights" by those allegedly nasty "nationalist archaeologists". The IAA recording scheme as reported seems in fact to be a partnership scheme which differs very little in intent from the Portable Antiquities Scheme of England and Wales and is certainly more collector-friendly than the corresponding legislation of Scotland or Northern Ireland.

On his Unidroit-L forum however, Californian part-time antiquities dealer and pro-collecting activist Dave Welsh posted a manipulated version of the Jerusalem Post text under a somewhat misleading title - "IAA requires collector registration". (It is worth pointing out that it is Israeli LAW which "requires" this for public benefit, the Israel Antiquities Authority is only here the organ by which the law is put into action.) What is even more interesting is that he silently drops the final paragraph (the passage in red quoted above). It seems the attempt was being made to depict the IAA scheme as something far more sinister than it looks to in fact be. Such playing to the gallery is nothing new from the ACCG bunch though, and it seems that even the naysaying stalwarts of the Unidroit-L list have become wise to this tactic, there has been no discussion there of this 'shock-horror' presentation of what seems a very interesting move.

Phot: one of Israel's most well-known private owners of a portable antiquities collection, Oded Golan.

Tompa and Welsh on St Louis Mask

Apparently criticism of the recent appointment of SLAM's director to the CPAC is a "campaign" of SAFE and its supporters. Is it? Or is it just uncomfortable for some that there are people who have a different idea of what is right and wrong? According to antiquity dealer Dave Welsh:

SLAM's Trustees have a fiduciary duty to the museum not to give up the piece without satisfactory proof that Egypt has proper title.

No, the Trustees of the museum and its staff actually have a duty to the museum and the good people of the town of St Louis not to acquire something that the people of exploited source countries like Egypt has proper title to. The museum FAILED to do this job properly, and the US President has (deliberately or accidentally) rewarded them for it. The object came from a state-funded excavation in Egypt and despite what the Unidroit-L collectors and dealers would insist, has no right to be where it is. Period. Tompa says:

Brent R. Benjamin and SLAM have shown some backbone in their dealings withEgypt. I for one appreciate President Bush appointing someone who can standup to such bullying to this important post.

A comment which in the circumstances of this case, I find particularly revealing of the mindset of the US collector. Who here is being the "bully boy", the robbed or the robber?

I am not sure how much of a "victory" for the pro-collecting lobby this will turn out to be. The Ka Nefer Nefer affair will not go away, and my feelings are that Benjamin's own experience as a representative of a beleagured "importer" may well be reflected in his contribution to future discussions within the CPAC. The MOUs it debates after all concern only undocumented imports. Items with proper documentation that they have passed national borders of their "source countries" are not affected, only those which have none. Perhaps instead of a weakening of resolve to clean up the US antiquities trade with more effective due diligence, the effects of having this particular person on the committee, it would be nice to think, might in fact have the opposite effect. Especially if the Egyptian government, viewing this appointment, decide to step up the pressure on St Louis to highlight the wider issues involved.

Paraskevaides on Nighthawking

Stalwart Unidroit-L contributor Eftis Paraskevaides comments on the ideas embodied in the abstract of Derek Fincham's recent article. He writes:

When the compensation to the finder is realistic, the black market will be exterminated, with the exception of night hawks whose only avenue will still be the black market because of not having had permission from the land owner in the first instance. This is a more tricky problem, but there can be ways of addressing it if our body of archaeologists are realistic about the problem and come down from their high horse...

Two points. First the label "nighthawks" (it's one word Mr P.) is a strange coverall term conventionally (but inaccurately) used for illegal artefact hunting with metal detectors mainly in the UK. It would not apply to illegal artefact hunting in Cyprus for example. Secondly I am really not sure what "high horse" the dealers and collectors gathered on Unidroit-L think archaeologists should "come down from" over nighthawking. What these people are doing is trespassing and stealing and its as much a problem for the landowners as it is for all who care about the preservation and sensible use of the fragile and finite resource of the remains of the past. Most other dealers and collectors say (publicly at least) that they deplore such actions, so why does Mr P. seem to be suggesting that we should in some way "come down off our high horses" about illegal artefact hunting? (Perhaps he's suggesting we should reward them in some way?) The logic of this statement and its relationship to what Derek Fincham wrote escapes me and we await elucidation in further discussion on the Unidroit-L.

Yet Another Discussion List for Portable Antiquity Dealers and Collectors

Portable antiquity collectors interested in questioning the need for further legal regulation of the antiquities trade already have their increasingly monologous Unidroit-L discussion list devoted to “ the Unidroit Convention and related legislation […] anything to do with the law as it applies to trading in and collecting stamps, coins and ancient artifacts”. Now a group of nine of them (mainly one suspects living in the US) have deemed it necessary to create another discussion list. This new one, the UNESCO-L Discussion List has been set up to examine the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. An introductory text (very similar to that of the Unidroit-L discussion list) proclaims the aim is to provide a “forum for discussion of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, and related legislation”. Personally I cannot see the difference, where one set of 'related legislation' differs from the other. But this discussion list, we are assured will be different.

The organizers of this initiative assert:

The UNESCO Convention (1970) […] includes among the items defined as "cultural objects:" (e) antiquities more than one hundred years old, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals (i) postage, revenue and similar stamps, singly or in collections […] The definitions of stamps, coins and antiquities are so broadly stated that any collector or institution acquiring a stamp, coin or minor antiquity (such as a scarab or oil lamp) more than one hundred years old, originating in another country than that in which the collection resides, could be prevented from importing it to his nation of residence, and may be required to return it to the country of origin in the absence of documentary proof that the object was legally exported.

Ah, here's the rub. They obviously expect the collector of so-called "minor" pieces of somebody-else's-archaeological-heritage such as coins, scarabs or oil lamps to be worried by that latter phrase. Simply “acquiring” an item is not enough to fall foul of the legislation which this convention requires the international community to honour (clue: “export licences”).

The authors of this text are misleading the reader about what the convention defines as cultural objects. They neglect to draw the reader’s attention to the most important element of Article 1, which reads: “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…”. So for example as we saw in the case of Great Britain the other day, the category of “postage stamps and other articles of philatelic interest” is specifically excluded by state legislation (The Export of Objects of Cultural interest (Control) Order 2003, Schedule 1 Article 1 [a]) as objects of cultural interest. My guess this omission is deliberate, as is the selective presentation of categorises that might be included seems to be a cynical attempt to make stamp collectors feel threatened in an attempt to gain their support in the questioning of this Convention (they tried it in the case of Unidroit-L too). I think we can safely assume philatelists outnumber the 50 000 collectors of ancient coins in the US. One presumes however that most stamp collectors can read the Convention themselves and probably will conclude that an attempt is being made to manipulate them.

In fact, if one examines with attention the FAQ of this list, it becomes abundantly clear that its author(s) completely misunderstand (that is more charitable than misrepresent) the nature of the Convention, its scope and purpose, as well as completely ignoring its relationship to the national laws of sovereign countries that the US of America.

A second objective of the list will be discussion of whether:

in view of the […] now well established, rapidly growing and
serious extent of controversy and social conflict that have resulted from its implementation, continuation of this Convention is beneficial to mankind.

Let us get this straight, a bunch of US collectors is questioning whether international co-operation in the field of fighting the trade in illicit antiquities is “beneficial to mankind”. I wonder if equally under discussion will be whether the unregulated continuation of illicit trade particularly beneficial to mankind, or just North American collectors of portable antiquities which are not found in the soil of the USA?

Let us also bear in mind who it is that threatens "turmoil" until the archaeologists cave in and agree to forget about archaeological context when talking with collectors of archaeological material taken from archaeological sites. Precisely who is stirring up social conflict over a comparatively simple issue of morality and responsibility towards the use of a finite and fragile resource?

These collectors presumably want to discuss on the new list whether disregarding Article 2 (opposing illicit trade) of the Convention is “beneficial to mankind”, and likewise Articles 5 and 14 (heritage protection). From past experience, we may be sure that in their discussions they will be dead against Articles 6 and 8 (clue: export licences), what about Article 7 (museums)? I am sure they will say “Nine (international co-operation) – nine is right out”, (that’s what the Cyprus MOU bru-ha-ha is about). Article 10 (education), well, that must be real uncomfortable for some collectors. I’d like to see what US collectors make of Articles 11 and 12 (military occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan etc.). We can see from their introductory texts, the members of this list also intend to usurp for themselves the duties alluded to in Article 16 and part of 17 (reporting).

One of the stated agendas of the discussion list is:

To define the impact of the 1970 UNESCO convention on collectors of coins, stamps and antiquities […]and whether it may create uncertain or unfavorable market conditions that would impact collectors and the sale of collections.

How about favourable conditions for the prohibition and prevention of the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property? In what way would (we presume continued) complying as the Convention requires with legal export requirements "impact" the current market, one wonders?

The Convention as befits an agreement of significance to the international community (Article 18) was published simultaneously in four languages (English, French, Russian and Spanish) “The language used in all posts [to the UNESCO-L list] shall be English” as befits what seems to be little more than a unilateral attempt by a minority group of Americans to exert what they see as their "rights" at the expense of the cultural heritage of members of the international community.

Let us hope that the international community pays very close attention to what these US collectors want, understand and have to say about their relationship to the ideals that the Convention is intended to uphold.

Questioning public stewardship

Californian coin dealer, ACCG officer and Unidroit-L listowner Dave Welsh opines:

It is my opinion that any objective study of the subject must conclude that public stewardship of antiquities has been a disaster […] It is now time to ask hard questions and move beyond the platitudes and misdirection we receive from
SAFE, Paul Barford and their fellow thinkers. Instead of the defenders of private collecting having to answer their questions, I believe that it is now time for them to answer ours. My first question is, exactly what has public stewardship of antiquities (outside the British Isles) ever accomplished that would create public confidence that this approach is superior to the social
benefits of private collecting?.

That’s a hoot Mr Welsh, but hardly an original joke, it’s been cracked before, hasn't it?

Just in case Dave Welsh is actually serious…. So this viewpoint would be suggesting that public collections such as museums, archives, libraries, reserves and national parks and antiquities protection laws (such as the US' own 1906 act) serve no useful purpose, achieve very little. They are “socialist (even Marxist)”, ideas espoused by elitists (eh?) we are told… (that’s funny, I thought they were supposed to be ideas from the Enlightenment – that’s what the proponents of Universal Museums were suggesting). Presumably then if we are to question the accomplishments of public stewardship of resources, the opposition would propose that the only way forward is to privatize the lot, sell it to private collectors to look after and thus allow the free market to dictate what happens to formerly public resources? In such a model, if people want access to the past they must pay for it by individually buying a piece of it for themselves from dealers like Mr Welsh. What a wonderful “cunning plan” that would be. No, this "challenge" was a joke surely? I expect the captains of whaling ships, makers of elephant ivory walking stick knobs, loggers of tropical hardwoods and property developers tell the same type of jokes about conservationists.

Eftis Paraskevaides on the new eBay regulations

In a message on the Unidroit-L list, the indefatigable contributor to the debate going on there, Eftis Paraskevaides delivers his verdict on the new regulations of German, Swiss and Austrian eBay:"These new eBay regulations will have tremendous implications on buying and selling antiquities on eBay. I predict that if they are implemented in a stringent fashion, this will finish off the antiquities trading on eBay. In many ways this was quite predictable, as eBay have in my opinion been very careless with their sales of ancient art. On the UK site for example, I have periodically seen over the years, English treasure material offered for sale...". Well the material falling under the scope of the UK's Treasure laws is being dealt with (well at least as far as material from England and Wales are concerned) by the Portable Antiquities Scheme.
Well, to check out Mr Paraskevaides' predictions I took a look at german ebay, and there were a number of auctions of what seem to be genuine antiquities WITH photos of the required documentation. There were also a lot without, most of them recognisably tourist fakes and other suchlike modern pseudo-antiqui-fantasies. Possibly the beginner collector looking for a 'bargain' may not even realise that the lack of documentation is now a clear warning sign (either that in bidding they are getting involved in a potentially illegal transaction, or buying an out-and-out fake). So far from "finishing off" the legitimate antiquities trade, these regulations can only have the effect of highlighting it and introducing new standards which it is hoped responsible portable antiquity collectors will value and demand elsewhere. What will of course find it harder to keep its head above water in such a market is the element of the antiquities market peopled by the cowboys who have no doocumented proveneince for the objects they peddle. Here we can all hope Mr Paraskevaides is right. Let us see such a system applied in the UK too.