Grebkesh and Tompa, the Campaign Against the Cleanup Measures

What hope of a Future is there for those
prevented from trading the paperless
past by the US 'clean-up laws'?

No ancient or antique artefacts from a whole range of countries can be imported into the United States of America, according to the campaign run by the coin dealers' paid mouthpiece Peter Tompa. The USA currently has allegedly "trade-stopping" bilateral and other cultural property agreements with the following countries  Belize, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, China, Colombia, Cyprus, El Salvador, Greece,  Guatemala, Honduras, Iraq, Italy, Mali, Nicaragua and  Peru - See  here for details.

As a result of the draconian cleanup measures adopted by the Obama Regime, five hundred and forty three families of former US 'Mom-and-pop' antiquity and tribal art dealers are now on the bread line, living from charity handouts.

Halton Grebkesh, President of the US Philistines and Smugglers' Relief Club says "my members are desperate, we petition government day after day about this, but nobody listens. It is digusting how easily people believe the lies that to comply with these MOUs is no big deal, I bet these people have never  tried to import cultural goods into the United States, nor have they any contact with anyone who has actually imported artifacts themselves or represented those who do".

Meanwhile, US ports are jammed with antiques and antiquities seized at point of entry by US Customs from hapless people who simply do not realise that the US is now totally boycotting the import of cultural property from a large part of the world. The six giant warehouses that house Italian cultural property seized at the port of entry are like an Aladdin's cave of sculptures, armour, pottery vases and mosaics, all items now (according to Mr Grebkesh and Mr Tompa) forbidden on the US market. The Italian antiques and collectables trade used to be worth USD 4,189,800 (2012 figures), today, as a result of the MOU, it has dwindled to 19 dollars and forty-five cents.

Antiquities dealers are fed up with being silenced by the US Government and have decided to make the world aware of their plight, now totally unable to import a single old artefact into the United States.  They have started up dozens of  blogs, websites and action groups intended to inform the world about the great injustice that has been done to their industry, totally blocking access to antiquities from these source countries. The groundswell of loud protest from all these suffering dealers is threatening to jam the Internet.

Why, Mr Tompa has even dragged out and dusted off some hearsay anecdotal evidence about a few isolated cases which are supposed to bolster his case. Obviously the supporting evidence is in all those other websites saying the same thing and showing that more than 99% of cases of attempted licit import, there have been similar obstacles from persistent Customs officers unrestrained by any existing US law.

SAFE on Olympia Theft

.
On the SAFE Corner blog, Senta German has a nice post on the Theft at Olympia (Monday, February 20, 2012). The presentation is very clear and unequivocal, likely to appeal to those who genuinely care about the past, with sections on "Why Did This Happen?" and more importantly - what you'll not find on any collectors' blog on antiquity issues - "What Can I Do to Help? Thank you Senta.

A Warning From Beyond the Grave for Looters

Attention has been focussed on the legal, rather than moral, aspects of the current retention by the St Louis Art Museum of the cartonnage mask which proper due diligence should have revealed clearly should be in the archives of the 1952 excavation by archaeologist Mohammed Zakaria Goneim in Sakkara. The excavation has been published (Goneim  1956), but there is a nice online resource detailing her burial by K.M. Johnston, a previous correspondent with this blog, on Egyptology Geek and Amduat Wiki.

Johnston notes that the contents of Ka Nefer Nefer’s burial are in several respects extraordinary for such a simple interment. The body has the cartonnage accompaniments of a mummy, but was not actually mummified. A recent re-examination in association with the upcoming court case of the field catalogue of finds still held in Egypt however reveals (pers. comm. A. Mustafa Laff, Feb 2011) that also now missing from the Sakkara storeroom (presumably removed at the same time as the mask and presumably scattered in the no-questions-asked antiquities trade), are several fragments of cartonnage bands found loose in the vicinity of the body. Although, unlike the mask, they do not bear the name of the deceased, they clearly belong to this burial. There is a hieratic inscription on the cartonnage, and the text (visible in  the low resolution photos in the field journal) is transcribed as below by Prof. Ivar Lupe, egyptologist in the Estonian Academy of Sciences, whose  recent research has focussed on Ramesside non-royal burial practices and who will be publishing this new discovery in due course:
Lupe observes that a feature of great interest in these lost fragments is that alongside the usual funerary formulae, the mummy bands contain a text of the type popularly known as a „mummy’s curse”.  Lupe translates this portion of the text as follows:

"Death will come on swift wings to those who disturb my peace and shall do evil or wickedness to this. The  City of the Gate  will fall, and to its land will come fire, water and pestilence [...]."

This seems to me a further argument for returning Ka Nefer Nefer's coffin mask to  Egypt to rejoin the rest of the material excavated from her burial. It is what she would have wanted. The formulae are well known from other inscriptions of this type, but Prof. Lupe was unable to decipher the meaning of the „City of the Gate” in an ancient Egyptian context, suggesting it either refers to a local town or more likely refers to a military outpost on Egypt’s western borders in the Delta, referring to a text on a Late Ramesside papyrus from Deir El-Medina in a time of crisis at the end of the 21st dynasty which makes reference to the „foreign-born princes” ruling in a „City of the Gate on the Western Horizon” indicating a collapse of central control of this strategically important region.


Readers cannot fail to note the coincidence that St Louis which refuses to allow Ka Nefer Nefer’s face to be reunited with the rest of her burial also calls itself the „Gateway to the West”. One may only speculate whether the priests and seers (re)burying Ka Nefer Nefer's remains foresaw the violation of the integrity of her burial and  were issuing a warning to the people of St Louis, that under the rule of a foreign-born prince „fire, water and pestilence” will visit their land. Just to be on the SAFE side, in their place, and given all the other factors, I would be urging the local museum to give it back right now.


Reference: (Goneim, M. Zakaria. The Lost Pyramid. Rinehardt & Co Inc. 1956. pp  64-66; Goneim, M. Zakaria, Service des Antiquites de L'Egypte. Horus  Sekhem-khet - The Unfinished Step Pyramid At Saqqara, Volume 1.  Excavations at Saqqara. Imprimerie de L'Institut Francais D'Archeologie  Orientale. Cairo. 1957.  pp 23-27, Plates LXVII-LXXI)

The Macho Museum Model

Tom Flynn writes further on his approach to the universal museum question (see my earlier "Tom Flynn Blames the Museums") taking as his starting point the recent Madrid/Medici pot discussion by Fabio Isman in The Art Newspaper. He notes that the claim used to absolve them that the objects acquired by museums "in centuries past" were acquired exclusively "during wars and conquests" is simply factually incorrect (besides which Flynn cogently observes that this is "implying that war and military conquest represent legitimate circumstances in which to loot countries of their material heritage"). Flynn is forthright:

Anyone caring to scrutinize the circumstances in which most of the great encyclopedic collections were formed would have to conclude that very significant quantities of objects in those collections were acquired unethically (whether one judges one's ethics by 19th century or 21st century standards).

Flynn reiterates his point that I earlier queried. There are problems inherent in the treating of so-called "repatriation" issues concerning pre- and post-1970 museum acquisitions in the same manner, Flynn agrees but points out that:

Nineteenth-century acquisitions are too hot a potato to handle and condemning them probably doesn't help clarify the more pressing and demonstrably unethical post-1970 acquisitions of the kind Isman refers to. But like an oncologist looking to your family DNA for the cause of your illness, I have good reason to continue conflating these issues. [...] European and North American museums remain locked in the same competitive race towards an encyclopedic embrace of the world's material culture, no matter what the consequences might be for archaeology. That is why I continue to focus on the underlying modus operandi of our museums — namely the Enlightenment-born idée fixe that seeks to place the whole universe "'neath one roof". And as I said in my earlier piece, that macho museum model is what inspires the private collectors to do what they do. We won't beat the looting and the private collecting of illicitly acquired antiquities until we reform the museums.

He is of course right. Museums have to get their act together and stop being the destination of increasing numbers of objects which have "surfaced" (from underground) and of poorly documented and unknown provenance. the basis of a good museum is a well-considered and ethical acquisitions policy and excellent documentation (inventorisation and research documentation on the items held).

Tom Flynn has a paper ("Encyclopaedic museums and the 'Primitive Accumulation' of cultural heritage") coming out in October as part of an event exploring current thinking on 'encyclopaedic' or 'universal' museums. From the preview, it looks like his paper will be very much to the taste of the fraction in the no-questions-asked collecting world who call themselves "Internationalists", as it quotes Marx.

"Capital" example of Collectors' Hypocrisy

.

Pastor Scott M. Head aka "Scotvs Capitus"("Husband, Father, Elder, Media Professional") from Friendswood, Texas is a blog-owning collector of ancient coins. Pastor Head has recently posted on his coiney blog (he has a Christiany one too) a post called "The Reality of Uncleaned Coins for Beginners which purports to be about the "ifs" attached to the collecting of ancient artefacts bought in the form of bulk lots of "uncleaned ancient coins".

I note that (apart from a general lack of any mention of contributions to scholarship about the past which flies in the face of the coiney propaganda) the big "if" that is not dealt with is where these coins came from and how they got on the market. The Pastor clearly does not feel that there is a question of ethics or morals there at all.

Nevertheless, from what we know about the supply of the US market at the moment, the great majority of these coins are the rejects from the sorting through of the vast bulk of metal artefacts which is being stripped on almost industrial scale from the archaeological sites of southeastern Europe and other regions of the former ancient world (Texas has no ancient coins of its own). The more attractive pieces are selected out either in the source country or abroad by middlemen, tarted up, and sold individually to dealers, while the rejects end up being sold off by weight as "uncleaned lots". The idea that all these coins with earth on them are coming from the cabinets of "old collectors" is self-evidently an unsubstantiated myth. But the scale of ongoing looting and smuggling of precisely such ancient coins from ancient sites in a number of source countries is well-documented.

Apart from being archaeologically damaging the commercial stripping of collectable objects from archaeological sites is illegal in most of the countries where this is going on. Even in parts of the otherwise liberal UK. The non-reporting of these finds is equally illegal in most areas of the ancient world. The removal of these items from the region without going through the proper procedures is also illegal. US Coin collectors argue that buying these coins is "not illegal" in the US, because "no US law was broken". But quite clearly buying illegally produced goods cannot be moral, even if done by a pastor and Church elder.

In fact should it not be these pastors and Church elders, not to mention school teachers, that are setting the moral tone of the nation?

But Pastor Head is led into other moral dilemmas by his love of the coins he collects. On his coiney blog, he has a message of Christian love for anyone who might be tempted to touch his coins which basically announces that he has a big gun and will shoot to kill trespassing "riff raff". The pastor warns he's willing to kill a man protecting "a couple of $2 bronze coins", it's his "right" he says. I note that collectors, especially those in the USA, claim a lot of things are their "rights" (because not explicitly forbidden in law provided certain conditions pertain). I really find it hard to be convinced that indiscriminately handling what is in all likelihood in many cases items which have been illegally obtained and also killing people in defence of their ownership are in any way moral positions. But then I do not live in Texas, collect old coins or go to shoot-to-kill Pastor Head's Family Grace Baptist Church.

Vignette: (1) I don't suppose Jesus would have thought his followers were setting a good example by buying coins without ascertaining that they were not stolen. (2) Texans, try not to spoil the pastor's day by coveting "his" coins.
.

Heritage Action: Rip-off Rallies, the Portable Antiquities Scam in Action

. In a thought-provoking text " detecting: more rip-off rallies", British grassroots heritage organization Heritage Action continues a series of commentaries about the effects on archaeological resource preservation of current British policies on artefact hunting and collecting. No doubt, like all the previous ones the British archaeological establishment will inevitably turn its back on the points raised. As experience shows, where there are things to be said about current policies towards artefact collecting in Britain:

The Establishment won’t say so out loud and leaves it to the likes of us to say it and to take the consequent nasty flack that ought to be their professional burden. That’s the way it is in crazy Britain, where the government has decreed that professionals must suppress conservation principles in favour of lickspittle populism.

This time they look at the wording of contracts drawn up by artefact hunters with landowners and used in the organization of commercial artefact hunting rallies. which is characterised as "a cleverly worded rip-off, who can possibly pretend otherwise?". This is, Heritage Action considers, a matter that should be taken seriously by the management of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, which they argue as a matter of routine should also start examining the Landowner/Organiser Contract before they attend any rally.

“Partnership” with metal detectorists in order to try to get them on side was never viable since it is partnership with “taking” (see the recent changes to the IfA code of ethics). But extending the strategy to include mutely standing by as one’s partners bamboozle innocent members of society? There’s a racket going on, PAS. What are you going to do about it?

What are the PAS going to do about it? Past experience sugests they will ignore the fact that the question was ever raised. Over the years through increasingly weak responses to UK artefact hunting resistance to good practice in the name of "building a partnership", The PAS has by default become part of what I have before labelled, and quite justifiably so, the British Portable Antiquities SCAM. Artefact hunters and collectors are scamming the real stakeholders in the heritage, the general public ("society" if you like). Those that support them in this, even if passively, are part of the scam.

My letter to CPAC concerning the Italy MOU Extension

Here, for what it is worth is what I wrote today to the CPAC. It is far too long, verbose and rather pompous, but I did not have time to shorten it (but they said "maximum five pages, it could have been worse!). I tried to get in some buzz words from the Convention itself and the State Department webpage concerning what the CPIA is actually for. I also took some of the views of the opponents of the MOU extension and turned them round. I do not think it makes much difference, cynic that I am, most likely an office junior now takes the whole lot (pro and con) home at the weekend qwith a highlighter and is asked to pick out some phrases which might be quoted in their report to make it look as if they did some real wide grassroots consulting.

Ms. Katherine L. Reid
Chair, Cultural Property Advisory Committee
United States Department of State
Annex 5, 2200 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20522-0505

Re: Italy MOU Extension (Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property)

Dear Ms Reid,
As a concerned archaeologist based in Europe, I am writing to request that the CPAC recommends that the United States extends the MOU with Italy on the imposition of import restrictions on “categories of archaeological material representing the pre-Classical, Classical and Imperial Roman periods of Italy’s threatened cultural heritage”.

It is widely recognised that states have moral obligations to respect their own cultural heritage and that of all other nations. In many countries, commercial looting of the European archaeological record to supply the international portable antiquities market is one of the many threats with which this finite and fragile resource is faced. The importance of the establishment of effective legislative and treaty provisions aimed at curbing illicit traffic in such archaeological artefacts cannot therefore be overstressed. In the past American collectors, dealers and museums created an enormous demand for these items and the United States of America arguably played a major role in the illicit trafficking of antiquities.

When, in January 2001, the US entered this bilateral agreement with Italy on the basis of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act it indicated that it is willing to take the global lead in the protection of this part of the common cultural heritage. The agreement has also had a positive effect in aiding the protection of the cultural heritage of one of the countries most seriously negatively affected by the ongoing trade in illicit antiquities and strengthening the role of legitimate trading practices.

The recent much publicised returns to Italy of items of cultural property from both public and private collections which had been illegally exported from that country, as well as seizures in Italy of looted material by the Carabinieri's Tutela Patrimonio Culturale department in Italy itself are adequate witness to the need to maintain vigilance. As has the repeated and vociferous calls of a certain section of the US antiquities dealers lobby to whip up resistance to the extension of the MOU, which they claim restricts their “rights” to trade in antiquities without regard to their legal origins (and even to sue the US government to achieve that aim). The CPAC will decide whether the public expression of such attitudes is in the ultimate interests of the cultural heritage, and perceptions of the position of the US in the world.

It is clear that the measures adopted by the US in January 2001 have been having a real effect on hindering the illicit transfer of cultural properties and – what is more important - encouraging legitimate collecting and more ethical dealing in the international marketplace. The bilateral agreement has also created firmer foundations for closer international co-operation in the field of mutually beneficial cultural exchange arrangements and in facilitating the preservation, analysis and dissemination of knowledge of the past. The agreement has therefore already reaped numerous benefits for both sides. The arguments seem clear therefore for continuing to respect this agreement as part of the process of fostering mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries and to promote friendly, and peaceful relations.

The cultural patrimony of Italy is still in jeopardy from the commercial pillage of archaeological sites for collectables which are then illegally exported. This is despite strenuous efforts which Italy has taken to prevent such damage. The continued application of the import restrictions by the USA as set forth in CPIA section 307 with respect to archaeological material from Italy would be of substantial benefit in deterring a serious situation of pillage, and is consistent with the general interest of the international community in the fostering of a legitimate market in collectables as well as the sustainable interchange of cultural property among nations for cultural, scientific and educational purposes.

Nevertheless to be fully effective, the MOU extension must recognize that the trade in antiquities (ie archaeological objects) has changed dramatically since the days when the Convention was drafted and the Italy MOU first signed. The development of portable metal detectors in the 1970s and 1980s and especially the rise of Internet trading in the mid 1990s has led to revolutionary changes in the scale and scope of the industry. This in turn has led to changes in the damage done to supply it and the ability of criminal elements to profit from the traffic in illicit artefacts by more easily covering their tracks.

The basis of the market today is not a restricted number of well known big dealers traded openly in limited numbers of major artworks from bricks and mortar galleries in major centres which were easy to police. Today the trade is largely decentralised in the hands of a shifting network of traders and collectors who are buying and selling objects indiscriminately and clandestinely by means of the Internet.

These traders now offer a much expanded clientele a wide range of ‘minor’ artefacts, many of them recovered by the indiscriminate and illegal use of metal detectors on archaeological sites in southern Europe which while there is a (‘no-questions-asked’) market for such items becomes a viable and lucrative activity. Many of these artefacts, illegally taken out of the country in bulk lots, are sold to foreign dealers who then split them into smaller lots for resale. A major market is the US.

One of the categories of minor finds that is particularly sought are ancient coins of bronze, silver and gold. Items such as these are specifically mentioned in Article 1 (c ) to (e) of the 1970 Convention. Clearly it would be an effective aid to combating the illegal exploitation of archaeological sites in Italy to produce these collectables to curtail by import restrictions the ability of unscrupulous dealers in the US to sell items of this nature illegally exported from Italy. It would therefore weaken the efficiency of the MOU as a tool to curb looting if coins were specifically excluded from its measures, while other metal objects such as personal ornaments are included.

I therefore respectfully request that the MoU be extended
Paul Barford [...]
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/

And how appropriate it is that the period of public consultation which rapacious dealers and indiscriminate collectors are so worked up about ends on April 22nd, Earth Day, when we all think about the conservation and sustainable use of our planet's fragile and finite resources. More on that tomorrow.

ROMAN COIN IMPORTS TO USA BANNED?

.

Members of one of the more level-headed US coiney forums have just received an alarmist email with the topic line in big capital letters "ROMAN COIN IMPORTS TO USA BANNED?" Thank goodness for that question mark, eh? I suppose they think that has saved them from the accusation of intellectual dishonesty. In fact this anonymous text (copy available online here and here) includes two links to the ACCG page, but none to the State Department (let alone any other) pages explaining what the MOU is about and what it is intended to achieve. Quelle surprise. I expect they assume that most of their members will not anyway be concerned enough to obtain a balanced view and check out what the fuss is about, but will instead cheerfully sign up to what their leaders exhort them to by manipulative alarmist appeals.

This one is a real cracker. After telling its recipients that the import of Roman coins to the USA is not banned ("- not yet"), it could happen if they do not click right now on the V-Coins-hosted "fax wizard". "The MOU currently does not include coins but if we remain silent coins will be added to the import restrictions when the MOU is renewed this spring. Roman coin imports to the USA will be banned". Look at that. Look at the manipulation there. True or false? Well IF it is a Roman coin coming from Italy and the exporter did not get a licence for it and neither exporter or importer in ninety days supply the piece of paper to allow it to pass through the barrier of bubbles that currently is US import controls, then yes, in a manner of speaking "some Roman coins" may well be found in international limbo unable to legally be brought into the US. But I bet the alarmed reader getting this email in his box with his early morning coffee will read it completely differently. Many will be led to believe that if they do not shoot off a fax to the CPAC "now", the import of ALL Roman coins into the US will be "banned". It seems to me that this mail is intended to target the individuals unpracticed in critical thinking (which the level of discussion on their forums suggest tends to characterise many members of this milieu) who cannot be bothered to check the State Department website and who are led by such means by the nose to the "fax wizard"...

If coins are added to the MOU, "Italian" ancient coins you purchase from dealers in Germany, the UK, or even Canada might be presumed to be the property of the Italian government. Unless you can prove your coins were exported from Italy before 1970 or you have an export permit from the Italian government, your coins could be confiscated and "returned" to Italy. You could even be accused of purchasing "stolen property." More likely, dealers outside the USA will simply refuse to ship to the USA. Your favorite coin dealers in the USA will face the same restrictions. Inventories will fall, shops will close, prices will rise, and fewer coins will be available for collectors. There will be no restrictions on shipping ancient coins within the EU, so this cultural patrimony claim is targeted only at Americans, who presumably steal the heritage of Italy by buying Roman and other "Italian" ancient coins. We must tell our government that the coins of Rome and the ancient civilizations of Italy are not just the cultural heritage of Italians; they are the cultural heritage of all humanity, including Americans. We must tell our government that we should not be denied the opportunity to buy ancient coins just because we are American. We must tell our government that our children should not be deprived of learning the learning experience ancient coins provide just because they are American.

Phew, rabble rousing stuff designed to get any collector reaching for his pitchfork. Of course that is not at all what is going to happen, no more than the inclusion of sculpture on the existing MOU has led to the drying up of the supply of classical sculpture on the US market, galleries over there are still as full of them as they were before the MOU, the ones that were legally exported from Italy have export licences, the others do not. In the same way there are many artefacts of Roman type on sale in the US, despite the fact that they look the same as the ones exported legally from Italy. Somehow the trade in such items has not collapsed. The authors of this text avoided putting their name to it. Wisely, because they are guilty of intellectual dishonestly misleading their more gullible readers. Sadly the apallingly primitive level of discussion of this issue on the collectors' forums reveals starkly the extent to which this lack of critical thinking is endemic in the communuity of collectors of antiquities generally.

Vignette: Bulls are fitted with rings to allow them to be led by the nose. Coin collectors it seems need only to be shown the bull to do exactly what the dealers tell them.

Renfrew: Combating the Illicit Antiquities Trade: Progress and Problems

Renfrew: Combating the Illicit Antiquities Trade: Progress and Problems. I thought I would have a go at summarising the main points (see also the two posts below on specific aspects).

There has been real international progress in combating the illicit traffic of antiquities in recent years in which the Italian authorities have taken an outstanding role. In addition, two recent court judgements, in the United States and in Britain (United States v. Schultz ; Islamic Republic of Iran v. Barakat Galleries Ltd.), have recently and significantly recognised the right of nations to claim illegally removed artefacts as national property and to achieve restitution.

But the question arises: how can we ensure that these encouraging initiatives really do go on to have, as their successful conclusion, the reduction in the international traffic in looted antiquities? How far can these measures be made to apply on a truly international basis? Renfrew argues that the return to Italy of major antiquities from a number of museums in the United States should have a deterrent effect against the continuing looting of archaeological sites. The world of collectors internationally, should themselves draw what seems the obvious ethical conclusion from this: that they should therefore desist from purchasing antiquities without secure provenance and the ongoing looting of antiquities should cease.

The next stage, on an international level, must be to seek wider application of the principles which have now restituted material when this could be shown to have been looted after 1970 (Renfrew 2009). There should be the formal and published acceptance of the 1970 Rule by museums and then by private collectors in all countries. If the 1970 Rule were universally and scrupulously followed the looting of archaeological sites would suffer a sharp decline. Its application should make recently looted antiquities completely unsalable. When the 1970 Rule is applied, the ‘due diligence’ required of the good faith buyer requires more than the absence of dubious circumstances currently required. The buyer actually has to see and scrutinise documentation that the antiquities in question had been unearthed before 1970 or see a very detailed account of their provenance following excavation if they were excavated after that date.

There should follow the true internationalisation of such a position. National authorities should take a more active role in influencing collecting policies of museums and private collections if it is seen that there is a flouting of either international law or the widely shared ethical standards implied by the UNESCO Convention. Only then can progress be made.

Renfrew stresses that the seizure and returning to the country from which they were taken of illicitly obtained antiquities is a separate issue such as the Parthenon marbles, removed by Lord Elgin more than a century ago, or the Benin bronzes seized by Britain at the end of the nineteenth century, both understandably matters of concern for the countries of origin. The issue of restitution of items such as this, taken well before 1970 is not at all the same as the need to put a stop the ongoing destruction of archaeological sites through looting.

References
Brodie N. and Renfrew C., 2005, Looting and the world’s archaeological heritage: the inadequate response, Annual Review of Archaeology 34, 343-61

Renfrew C., 2009, Ethics in archaeological research: international responses to the illicit trade in antiquities, in D’Agata A.L. and Alaura S. (eds.) Quale futura per l’archeologia?, Roma, pp. 235-47.

UPDATE: See also David Gill's discussion of this text: "Renfrew on n Post-Disjunctive Forensic re-Contextualisation

Protecting Against Plunder: The United States and the International Efforts Against Looting of Antiquities

.
Efrat, Asif, Protecting Against Plunder: The United States and the International Efforts Against Looting of Antiquities (February 13, 2010).
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1552339.

The United States endorsed the international regulation of antiquities and joined the UNESCO Convention in 1983. The article seeks to explain why the United States chose to establish controls on antiquities, to the benefit of foreign countries facing archaeological plunder and (he says) to the detriment of the US art market. It is argued that the

concern of US policymakers about looting abroad resulted from a series of scandals that exposed the involvement of American museums and collectors with looted material. Advocacy efforts of American archaeologists also played a key role in educating policymakers about the loss of historical knowledge caused by looting and the necessity of regulation. The article further analyzes how antiquities dealers and certain museums lobbied Congress against implementing the UNESCO Convention and why Congress decided in favor of implementation as an act of international moral leadership.

After an analysis of the Congressional battle (pp 41-75) in which we note that collectors play a very minor role compared to the other players (and makes an interesting contrast to the version presented in their anti-"Nationalism" text by the ACCG), the author examines how the US debate over looted antiquities has evolved to the present (section V, pp 76-85). It is interesting that the latter mentions "dealers", Cuno (as a "leader" of the museums lobby) and SAFE but there is not a mention of the ACCG but the ACCP is mentioned.

The debate over international antiquities regulation has been raging in the United States for forty years but has seen little progress. The protagonists may have changed – art museums rather than dealers are today the main opponents of regulation – but the opposing camps still hold highly divergent views even with respect to the most fundamental questions: Do antiquities belong to source countries or to mankind? Are unprovenanced objects likely looted? Is archaeological heritage best protected through strict regulation or through the release of objects to the open market? The archaeological and art communities give very different answers to these questions, and the debate between them is not much closer to resolution today than it was four decades ago.

The article concludes with implications for the role of values versus interests in international law.

This case has clearly demonstrated that under certain circumstances values can matter. Governments may indeed take into account values and moral beliefs when forming their views on an international agreement. Furthermore, values may overwhelm material self-interest. A government may choose to promote values even when doing so means incurring significant costs and lowering the welfare of domestic constituencies. As this article has shown, the US government was willing to bear the economic and cultural costs of antiquities regulation for the purpose of curbing plunder abroad. It sought to advance archaeological preservation and historical knowledge at the expense of American dealers and collectors as well as the museumgoing public. [..] Why was the United States the only major market country willing to compromise its selfinterest for the sake of archaeological preservation? This article has identified two factors that increased the weight of normative considerations in the eyes of US policymakers and allowed those considerations to prevail over material interests. First, public scandals played an important role in convincing policymakers that the United States should put its own house in order. These scandals created a sense of shame and embarrassment and a feeling that something had to be done. They also mitigated the resistance of those actors that opposed the UNESCO Convention and created a public climate conducive to the Convention’s ratification and implementation. Second, advocacy of civil society – the archaeological community – proved effective and essential. Building on their knowledge and experience, the archaeologists managed to convey to policymakers how catastrophic looting is for our understanding of the past. They demonstrated the gravity of the problem in concrete and tangible ways; showed how the demand of markets – in particular, the American one – fueled looting; and convinced policymakers that regulation was necessary.

The article has examined how the US government balanced values and interests with
respect to the regulation of antiquities and why values ultimately trumped interests. This, I believe, is the way forward for the values-versus-interests debate. To make progress in this debate, we ought to move beyond the question of whether values or interests matter. The more fruitful avenue of inquiry would be to specify how governments balance values versus interests and to identify the conditions under which they favor one or the other.

I bet Mr Tompa (apparently not consulted in the writing of this paper) has an "answer" to that.

The author attempts to claim that the US was unique among the "art-importing countries" to join the Convention others "including Britain, Germany, and Japan, refused to join the Convention". Britain joined in 2002, Germany ratified it in 2007, Japan joined in 2002 ( France 1997, Switzerland 2003,and Belgium and Netherlands 2009). Poland and Canada were earlier than the US.

Vignette: Herbert L. Block "Position of Moral leadership" 1974.