On our Facebook group yesterday, attention was brought to a mysterious stone animal uncovered this past January at an excavation site in Sichuan, China. Weighing 8.5 tons, and at 10ft 10in long, 3ft 11in wide and 5ft 7in tall, what else do we know about it besides its vastness?

What animal is it?
Media reports have called it a horse, a lion, or a panda, a cow, a pig. The latest “conclusion” is that the animal is a mythical rhinoceros, or a hippopotamus.

How old is it?
While most Chinese reports have the statue dating to the Qin Han dynasties 221 B.C.–A.D. 220, other reports speculate that it could have come from the Tang dynasty 618–907, or even Ming Qing 368—1840.

Perhaps most important, what was its purpose?
Archaeologists are reportedly baffled. At this writing, we have not found the discovery in Kaogu, or Archaeology journal, published by Institute of Archaeology, of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.  On China’s State Administration of Cultural Heritage web site, there is one report from Sichuan Daily  mentioning a possible connection to calming floodwaters. What we do know is that the statue has ow become a symbol of good luck during the Lunar New Year, and lovingly nicknamed “史上最萌石兽” or “the most adorable stone animal in history.”

It will take some time for archaeologists to decipher the markings found on the statue’s surfaces, study the skeletal remains of other animals in its vicinity and make sense of the many other artifacts also discovered, including pots and reportedly ceremonial objects. For now, we have to contend with speculations, and hope that the site had not been looted, and will remain intact.

Stone horse and tiger narrowly escaped looters

In 2008, four other stone animals in Guangxi province narrowly escaped being dug up and carted away by looters, thanks to reports from the villagers. Although not as big as the Sichuan animal, these statues appear equally difficult to steal, and equally mysterious. As mentioned in our earlier post about a looted 27-ton stone coffin measuring 4 meters long, 2 meters wide and 2 meters high,  when it comes to looting for profit, size no longer matters.

The public hearing to review a five-year renewal of the 2009 Memorandum of Understanding that restricts certain categories of antiquities from importation into the US takes place today at the Department of State. For SAFE, the most important reason for the Cultural Property Advisory Committee to recommend the renewal to the President is this Most of China’s vast ancient history remains undiscovered. There is much more mystery than there is knowledge about a civilization that spans more than 7,000 years. And the decision must be based on this: Do we want to know more?

We do, because China’s ancient cultural heritage is our shared cultural heritage. As Donny George said, cultural heritage is a human right. We all deserve to know more about our own humanity, knowledge is our right. As such, we must do everything we can to stop the plunder of cultural heritage. The UNESCO 1970 has its flaws, import restrictions alone will not end looting and the illicit antiquities trade that feeds it. But until a better alternative is recommended and implemented, the US must do what it can to safeguard our cultural heritage—not only for China—but for all of us. Anything else is just an excuse.

Amid the many discussions that will take place at the Seventh World Archaeological Congress (January 13-18 , 2013) being held at the King Hussein Convention Center, at the Dead Sea in Jordan, under the royal patronage of His Majesty King Abdullah II Bin Al Hussein of Jordan an important four-session series titled “Archaeology as a Target” will begin on January 14, 2013. with a forum entitled “The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and Civil-Military Cooperation: Lessons Learned from a Civil Perspective,” organized by Professor Friedrich T. Schipper (University of Vienna) and professor Patty Gerstenblith (DePaul University College of Law).

During the forum, Professors Gerstenblith and Schipper will propose a “Declaration on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict” to the Assembly at the Plenary Session and invite serious contributors to review the text and submit comments via this website link.

The fifteen recommendations included the draft text could hardly be more relevant or complete:

1. In regard to the damage to cultural property in the most recent conflicts, e.g. in Syria, Mali and other countries around the world, WAC expresses its serious concern at the ongoing disregard by States as well as conflict parties, state and non-state, of the instruments of international humanitarian law and subsequent principles to protect cultural property.

2. WAC states that intentional destruction of the cultural property of others – constituting a basic tangible aspect of cultural heritage and identity – is increasingly becoming a central element and high priority target in armed conflicts, and the cultural cleansing of whole regions as a prime goal of warfare, which has to be considered as an aspect of ethnic cleansing and a crime in terms of international humanitarian law.

3. WAC calls on all States to ratify the various instruments of international humanitarian law to protect such cultural property, above all the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague 1954) and its two Protocols (1954 and 1999) as well as the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (Paris 1970) and others; to swiftly and efficiently implement them into national legislation and in the sense as originally intended by the conventions, and to observe and enforce them.

4. WAC calls on non-state actors involved in armed conflicts to observe the principles of these international conventions and of customary international law; to respect the cultural property of others, and to refrain from negligently or intentionally destroying or damaging cultural property during conflict.

5. WAC voices its concern about the increasing use by States of private military/security companies in armed conflicts and calls on such States as well as on above said companies to ensure that the principles of international law in general, and such international law concerning cultural property protection in particular, are observed by such companies.

6. WAC reminds individuals as well as conflict parties – state and non-state actors including private military/security companies – that destruction of cultural property has served as a basis for criminal tribunal prosecutions following both World War II and the Yugoslav Wars and that destruction of cultural property in armed conflict will continue to serve as a basis for criminal prosecution.

7. WAC calls on the United Nations to include the principles of cultural property protection in the authorization of any forces deployed under UN mandate; to ensure that cultural property protection is integrated into all Rules of Engagement of forces deployed under UN mandate; to require pre-deployment training in cultural property protection of such forces in general, and of their officers in particular, deployed under UN mandate, and to create the position of expert/liaison officers for cultural property protection in such forces deployed under UN mandate. WAC calls on States that participate in missions under UN mandate to do their utmost to preserve cultural heritage in the areas subject to this mission. WAC further calls on other multinational, international, intergovernmental, supranational etc. treaty organizations, under whose auspices forces may be deployed into conflict areas, to adopt the same principles listed here.

8. WAC calls on the United Nations to explicitly prohibit trade in cultural materials illegally removed from all areas of conflict and occupation (as it did during the Iraq war of 2003).

9. WAC calls on all States and actors – considering the Second Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict – to refrain from any interference with cultural heritage – that is to refrain from cultural property preservation, conservation, renovation, archaeological excavation and other forms of such work – in occupied territories, except where strictly required for salvage purposes.

10. WAC calls on all nations and actors to respect the pluralistic religious and cultural heritage of their regions and, in particular, to preserve historic structures, religious buildings and other forms of cultural property of minority groups located within their territory.

11. WAC calls on market nations – considering the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and Article 11 of the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property – to prohibit the import of cultural objects from areas subject to armed conflict and military occupation and – further considering the principles of the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property – to prohibit the import in any way of cultural objects whose provenience is not clearly and thoroughly proven according to best practice international standards.

12. WAC calls on all States that suspended their funding of UNESCO to resume its funding, which constitutes the basic requirement for the fruitful and pacifying work of UNESCO in general and its cultural heritage work in particular.

13. WAC calls on all States Parties to the Second Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and moreover to all States Parties to the said Convention to regularly and substantially meet their obligation to contribute to the Fund for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict established in Article 29 of the Second Protocol.

14. WAC calls on all scholars, in particular its members, to study the instruments of international law that protect cultural property, to consider them in their scholarly work where appropriate, to promote them within their communities and towards the governmental authorities in their home countries, and to carefully and responsibly use them and to refrain from abusing them in a polemic mode.

15. WAC invites all scholars, in particular its members, to actively get involved in UNESCO affiliated NGO-work fostering cultural property protection whenever and wherever feasible and appropriate, in particular via ICOM, ICOMOS, and Blue Shield.

•

SAFE applauds this galvanizing thought-provoking effort. We eagerly await the final Declaration and the reception by WAC-7 participants and the world at large.

According to KVAL.com article “Stolen Italian antiquities recovered from Oregon home” Phillip Pirages, the book dealer whose manuscript pages were forfeited by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement “was very impressed with how serious the (Italian) government was about reclaiming these[.]”

AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

A Roman Marble Janiform Herm, circa first century, showing a depiction of an old and young satyr, is one of several cultural artifacts taken from Italy that are being returned to Italy, seen during a repatriation ceremony at the Italian Embassy in Washington, Thursday, April 26, 2012. The objects were seized by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and Italy's Carabinieri.

Indeed, Italy is not alone in its determination to reclaim its cultural patrimony. In recent years, many culturally rich “source” countries are quite serious as well in their call for repatriation. While dealers, collectors, and other stakeholders— such as those who advocate for the unregulated acquisition and trade of cultural property— may question the validity of other countries’ cultural patrimony laws and criticize the effectiveness of their enforcement, no meaningful alternative to the 1970 UNESCO Convention, now ratified by some 120 countries around the world, has been proposed.

With the widely publicized repatriation of antiquities and a general increase in public awareness surrounding these issues, failure to respect national and international laws makes the acquisition of dubious artifacts a high-risk venture. This fact, plus the increasing willingness of source countries to sign long-term reciprocal loan agreements with foreign museums, are bringing decades of pushback to an end. Criticism of source countries as “retentionist”; legal actions to impede the implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention in the United States by CPAC; calls for fewer restraints on the importation of artifacts to benefit “hobbyist” collectors and “world museums” to stock their galleries with “artistic creations that transcend national boundaries” are being replaced by a new question in the cultural property debate. The question today is: how to reconcile the growing claims made by source countries in Asia, Africa, South America and the Middle East, on cultural property in museum collections outside the countries of origin?

“Once we established that they were stolen, he voluntarily agreed to surrender them,” said ICE special agent Melissa Cooley. “He didn’t fight the forfeiture.”

Citing cooperation, the book dealer will not be charged. Perhaps Pirages has the right idea: doing the right thing is never wrong.

The future of these items is still not known.

The “looting” that took place at the Summer Palace is not an isolated incident. In fact, the Chinese Cultural Relics Foundation predicts that over ten million cultural objects were “plundered” from China between 1840 and 1949. The 150th anniversary of the Summer Palace looting, coupled with China’s growing wealth and status has ignited a strong and unified movement to return Chinese antiquities to their homeland.

However, instead of going to public museums, most Chinese antiquities enter private collections, displayed as a sign of wealth and power, not patriotism. Andrew Jabobs, a reporter for The New York Times, wrote in 2009:  

At its core, such mixed signals [of the Chinese search for relics] are an outgrowth of China’s evolving self-identity. Is it a developing country with fresh memories of its victimization of imperial powers? Or, is it the world’s biggest exporter, eager to ensure good relations with the outside world to protect its trade dependent economy? (The New York Times, “China Hunts for Art Treasures in U.S. Museums,” December 17, 2009).  

The China Daily, agreed that the motives of China’s wealthy class to purchase of antiquities is questionable. They wrote, “Although patriotism is playing a part in this hunting to recapture looted treasures, experts say that majority of buyers are in fact more interested in the investment potential of ancient works–and the glamour“ (Cheng Yingqi, The China Daily, December 15, 2010).

The trade of Chinese antiquities is big business. The sale of Chinese artifacts has now surpassed the purchase of Old Master paintings (Scott Rayburn, “China Antique Sales Raise Record Sums”, The China Daily, May 23, 2011). The revenue from the sale of Chinese works now exceeds $10 billion annually. After the October 2011 sale of “looted objects” from the Summer Palace, Tom Flynn, author of the blog ArtKnows, stated:

Recent auctions in the UK–even those held in the British Provinces–have demonstrated the lengths to which Chinese dealers and collectors will travel– and indeed how high they are prepared to bid–to secure Imperial wares. Their buying power has now reached a level at which few Western dealers can compete (Art Knows, October 27, 2011).

In recent years, major auctions houses such as Sotheby’s and Christie’s have opened locations in China, Singapore, and Hong Kong– each enjoying enormous success. For example, a 2010 auction at Sotheby’s Hong Kong specializing in Asian art totaled a record $447 million (Giles Turner, “Buying Frenzy for Chinese Art,” Financial News, May 12, 2011).

The sale of artifacts “looted” from the Summer Palace is complicated by China’s export laws and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the United States. China’s Ministry of Culture issued “Interim Provisions on the Administration of the Import and Export of Art” on July 17, 2009. Article 5 of the provision states: “Art works are prohibited from being imported or exported if they contain content which:  

(1) violates the basic principles of the Constitution of China;

(2) endangers the unification of the country, national sovereignty or territorial integrity;

(3) divulges state secrets, endangers state security, honor or interests;

(4) incites ethnic hatred, discrimination, or harms ethnic unity or habits and customs;

(5) propagates or publicizes cults or superstitions;

(6) disrupts social order or stability;

(7) advocates or publicizes obscenity, pornography, gambling, violence, horror, or instigates crime;

(8) libels, slanders or harms the legal interests of others;

(9) deliberately tampers with history or severely distorts history;

(10) harms public morals or ethnic cultural traditions; or

(11) other content prohibited by laws, regulations and rules.” (Nancy M. Murphy, “Provisions on the Managements of the Import and Export of Art,” July 17, 2009).

These provisions, in summary, give the government complete control over any and all works of art which enter or exit the country. These rules can be broadly interpreted and make it almost impossible to export Chinese antiquities from the country. The provisions also have created an underground trade, or black market, for Chinese antiquities.

Furthermore, the United States entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with China on January 14th, 2009, “acting pursuant to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export, and transfer of ownership of cultural property, to which both countries are party; and desiring to reduce the incentives for pillage of irreplaceable archaeological material representing the rich cultural heritage of China.” (United States, Department of State). For this reason, the trade in Chinese antiquities, particularly items that are newly discovered or have no established provenance, has shifted from the United States to the United Kingdom, Europe and Asia. For more information on the China MOU visit  SAFE’s web site here and SAFECORNER’s coverage at “Bilateral Agreements at Work,” “Trying to put ‘Humpty Dumpty back together again,” and “Cultural Heritage in Danger: Reacting to the New York Times.”

Yuanmingyuan Park, which houses the remaining Summer Palace relics, recently called upon foreign museums to return the “looted” relics. According to the United Kingdom’s The Daily Telegraph, the main target of this action was the British Museum (Peter Foster, “China to Study British Museum for Looted Artefacts,” The Daily Telegraph, October 19, 2009). Experts, however, are doubtful that items will ever be returned from international museums. Instead, some argue that the government’s public campaign is an attempt to encourage private collectors in China to return or donate the antiquities to the Yuanmingyuan Park. In November 2011, the Yuanmingyuan Park called for a boycott of auctions selling “looted” relics. This, along with the founding of several non-governmental organizations such as the Lost Cultural Relics Recovery Program, has led to aggressive action to retrieve the 1.5 million relics “stolen” from the Summer Palace (“China Experts to Search Abroad for Looted Relics,” France 24, October 19, 2009).

The art world was stunned on March 7, 2009 by what is now being called the “Yves Saint Laurent Fiasco.” The Times’ Richard Morris reported: “The fury of the reactions to an act of sabotage by an incensed Chinese bidder has rocked the art world” (The Times, March 7, 2009). At an Asian sale at Christie’s Paris a pair of bronze animal heads, once of a set of twelve that made up a water clock at the Summer Palace, achieved a hammer price of £28 million. The bidder, Cai Mingchao, a once trusted Christie’s client, promptly refused to pay. In a statement he said his intentions were to “draw attention to this sale of looted treasure…. There is an indignation in China that Chinese bidders have to spend millions simply to retrieve artifacts that were looted from the country” (The Times, March 7, 2009).

Christie’s options included: (1) sue for the payment, drawing attention to the fact that they are selling known “looted” goods; or (2) attempt to re-auction the heads to buyers now aware of the questionable provenance and potential for a title claim. Both options would damage Christie’s image, respectability, reliability, and result in extreme legal fees. The bronze animal heads were returned to the consignor. However, unconfirmed reports indicate that Christie’s may receive some form of payment. Cai Mingchao was, therefore, successful in his statement about “looted” goods. This episode served as a wake-up call. As a result, auction houses in the United Kingdom now require pre-registration applications, financial references, guarantees, and deposits at least three days before Asian art sales. Such measures limit the possible economic losses for auction houses. Yet, these pre-registration requirements they do not prevent the loss of reliability and reputation that are key to the auction business.

This brings us back to Captain Gunter’s gold box.  Was the risk of auctioning an obviously “looted” item worth Woolley and Willis’ premium return on $764,694? Granted, the Gunter family currently has possession, but who truly owns such “looted” items? Where should they go, what should happen to them? These are questions not only relevant to the Captain Gunter case, but to the all the artifacts “stolen” or “looted” from the Summer Palace.

Photos Courtesy of Woolley and Wallis, The Daily Mail, and The Times.

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton at the signing of the US-Greece MOU

SAFE received the following letter written by the Chairman of Buditel Circle, a non-governmental organization, to US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton in support of Bulgaria’s request for a bilateral agreement with the US to protect its cultural heritage.

SAFE, a US based non-governmental and nonprofit organization which advocates for these bilateral agreements as a deterrent to looting (under article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property to which both Bulgaria and the US are state party) is pleased to share the letter with our readers:

София 1303,
ул.  “Опълченска” № 66
тел.:, 0886339909
buditel@mail.bg

Hon. Hilary R. Clinton, Secretary
United States Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20520

2 November 2011

Dear Madam Secretary:

We would like to take this opportunity and strongly support the request submitted by the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria to the Government of the United States of America to sign a Memorandum of Understanding between our two countries that aims at conserving the Bulgarian cultural heritage from theft. The United States is the most prominent champion of upholding international law, conventions, and norms, principles about which you have spoken with much elegance, eloquence and passion. Having this in mind we hopeful that your Government will grant this request.

Our organization, Buditel Circle, is a Bulgarian NGO dedicated to the preservation, development, promotion and research of the culture, history and intellectual achievements of the Bulgarian lands. Initially created around the Buditel magazine, Buditel Circle today includes prominent scholars, celebrities in the field of arts and culture, intellectuals and businessmen from around the world.

Buditel Circle is also very pleased to inform you that starting November 2011, we will have a representative in the United States. Mr. Dimitar Georgiev will serve as a liaison between the organization’s board and Washington. He may be reached at dg343@georgetown.edu or (646) 275-4685. We look forward to a friendly and constructive partnership.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Most Respectfully,

Plamen Georgiev – Kraisky
Honorary Chairman

This letter is supported by a myriad of individuals and organizations. The most prominent of those include:

Individuals:

Prof. Andrey Pantev
Ms. Albena Taneva, Ph.D.
Mr. Alexander Vulchev
Prof. Bojirad Dimitrov, Director of the National Museum of History
Mr. Atanas Orachev, Ph.D.
Prof. Valeria Fol, Cultural Anthropologist, specialist in the Thracian Civilization
Ms. Valeria Sarieva
Mr. Vassil Gyuselev, Member of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
Ms. Galya Pindikova
Prof. Georgui Bakalov
Prof. Georgy Markov, Member of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
Ms. Gergana Yordanova
Ms. Daniela Agre, Archaeologist
Prof. Evgueny Sachev, Head of Department in the University for Library and Information Sciences
Mr. Ivan Hristov, Ph.D.
Mr. Ilya Prokopov, Ph.D.
Ms. Irena Aleksandrova
Ms. Malvina Ruseva, Ph.D.
Mr. Yordan Vassilev, Ph.D.
Ms. Katya Tzekova, Ph.D, Director of National Polytechnic Museum
Prof. Kalin Porojanov, Scientific Secretary, the Institute for Thracology: “Alexander Fol,” Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
Mr. Krassimir Nikolov
Mr. Kamen Velkov
Prof. Kiril Yordanov, Director of the Institute for Thracology: “Alexander Fol,” Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
Mr. Krum Kasabov, Ph.D.
Mr. Ludmil Stanchev
Prof. Mila Santova
Prof. Margarita Vaklinova
Mr. Nikolay Markov, Ph.D.
Mr. Pavel Petkov
Mr. Petar Garena, Ph.D.
Mr. Petur Kunev
Mr. Plamen Kraisky, Founder of Buditel
Ms. Rossitza Ohridska-Olson, Cultural Heritage and Tourism Consultant
Ms. Roumiana Pashalyiska, Ph.D
Mr. Stoyan Prodanov, Ph.D.
Ms. Svetlana Leneva
Prof. Serguey Ignatov
Prof. Simeon Nedkov
Prof. Stoyan Denchev, Dean of the University for Library and Information Sciences
Ms. Sonya Purvanova, Literary Eidtor of Buditel Magazine
Ms. Teophana Matakieva, Ph.D.
Prof. Christo Haralampiev
Mr. Hristo Temelski, Ph.D.
Mr. Hristo Drumev
Mr. Dimitar Georgiev, Representative of Buditel Circle to the United States

Organizations:

The Institute for Thracology “Alexander Fol”
The Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
The Bulgarian National Museum of History
The National Polytechnic Museum
The Bulgarian National Museum of Literature
The Regional Museum of History in the city of Kurdjaly
ELCO Inc.
STS Print Inc.
3M Bulgaria.

The U.S. Department of State has issued a Notice of the Meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee to take place November 15-17, 2011. The Committee will begin its review of new cultural property requests from the Governments of the Republic of Bulgaria and the Republic of Belize seeking import restrictions on archaeological and ethnological material. On November 16, an open session to receive oral public comment on these requests will be held from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. If you wish to attend the open session, you must call and notify the Cultural Heritage Center of the Department of State no later than November 2, 2011, 5 p.m. (E.D.T.) to arrange for admission. If you wish to speak at the public session you must request to be scheduled and must submit a written text of your oral comments no later than November 2.

If you cannot attend the open session, you can still support the requests of both Belize and Bulgaria by visiting SAFE’s Say YES to Bulgaria page and Say YES to Belize page for guidelines on how to write and send an informed and effective letter expressing your hope that the U.S. will sign bilateral agreements with both Bulgaria and Belize. Also, add your name to the list of people supporting the preservation of the cultural heritage of Bulgaria.

Click here for more information on bilateral agreements and why SAFE supports them.

As Mexico’s struggle to stem looting of historic sites was reported last month, the auctioning of the allegedly fake Mayan statue sold for $4 million (2.9 million euros) at the Paris auction house Binoche et Giquello a few days ago. Arguing for its authenticity, the auctioneers date the object between A.D. 550 and 950 while Mexico’s National Institute of Anthropology and History considers it “a recently manufactured piece that does not belong to any of Mexico’s pre-Hispanic cultures.”

Mexico, a party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention since 1972, has strict laws against the illicit excavation and export of pre-Hispanic artifacts. Still, as reported, “the demand from abroad for pre-Hispanic pieces, especially the US, shows no signs of abating.” The example of the Mayan statue suggests that this demand is giving rise to the manufacturing and the sale of fakes.

The International Council of Museums (ICOM) acknowledges that the pre-Hispanic and colonial cultural heritage of Mexico and Central America as “severely endangered”. We do not know whether the contested object is a fake. We do know that this is real: As long as the market hungers for these items, ancient sites remain vulnerable to looting. Not only in Mexico, but around the world.

Photo: Binoche et Giquello

In response to the looting which took place in the aftermath of the invasion of Baghdad in 2003, the United States House of Representatives proposed HR 2009 (initiated by Congressmen Phil English and James Leach and later implemented as S. 671), to prohibit the importation into the United States of any archaeological or cultural material removed from Iraq without appropriate documentation. This law works to keep the cultural heritage of Iraq in Iraq, and seeks to eliminate the supply of freshly looted or stolen materials to the antiquities trade. Will similar legislative actions be taken given the current situation in Egypt?

The circumstances in Egypt are different in many regards from that which existed in Iraq in 2003. Absent the sense of responsibility which came from an overt US presence on the ground and a UN Security Council Resolution, where is the political will to back up the need for such legislation? Congressmen Phil English and James Leach are no longer in office; who might sponsor such a bill?

Are emergency legislative reactions necessary? Given the Schultz decision clarifying Egypt’s national ownership law, there already exists the legal basis for seizing looted Egyptian antiquities in the US.

Whether or not legislation is required, until order is restored, we believe that if the demand for Egyptian antiquities is curtailed, if not stopped, the loss of Egypt’s cultural patrimony during this tumultuous time would be curbed. We are happy to see that Salima Ikram, professor of Egyptology at The American University in Cairo, agrees.

Also, we hope that Egypt (as of 1973, party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention) would make a request for a bilateral agreement to restrict importation of antiquities into the US.

What do you think? Please cast your vote.

Today’s Federal Register announced that import restrictions imposed on certain archaeological material originating in Italy have been extended for another five years. The material represents the pre-Classical, Classical, and Imperial Roman periods of its cultural heritage, ranging in date from approximately the 9th century B.C. through approximately the 4th century A.D. The determination was made under the terms of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act that implemented the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.

In addition, coins have been added to the list of items covered by the restrictions.

SAFE supports the decision and applauds the Cultural Property Advisory Committee for continuing to recognize import restrictions as an effective deterrent against the destruction of cultural heritage, and the fact that coins “are an equally important historical source and are no less important ‘antiquities’.“

On November 13, Vice-President for Professional Responsibilities of the AIA Sebastian Heath attended the public hearing in Washington DC to review Italy’s request that the bilateral agreement with the US to restrict importation of antiquities be renewed. His account of the hearing has just been posted on AIA’s web site.

Such hearings [as well as bilateral agreements, or Memoranda of Understanding (MoU), Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC), Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) and the 1970 UNESCO Convention] have been the subject of much discussion and debate on SAFECORNER. Our organization SAFE advocates for import restrictions as an effective deterrent to looting; a detailed report of the China hearing can be found here.

Thank you, Dr. Heath, for sharing your insights.

After nearly four years and amidst much anticipation and speculation, the US has agreed to grant China’s request to implement import restrictions on antiquities into the US, as fellow state parties to the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (UNESCO 1970). This bilateral agreement, or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), takes effect beginning January 16, 2009, and will be considered for renewal in five years. The details of the agreement can be found here.

SAFE applauds the US decision to uphold its commitment to safeguarding cultural heritage and continues to support the implementation of import restrictions as an effective tool to curb the devastation of the world’s shared cultural heritage.

“…so long as it doesn’t involve objects recently taken from the ground. In my opinion all too many collections are scandalous for this very reason. I don’t mind so much people buying antiquities looted a century ago, but not if the items in question entered the market post-1970 when the convention on the illegal trade in antiquities was signed.” Professor Renfrew said in Sarah Jan Checkland’s article in the Financial Times My favourite things in which he was described as “archaeologist and campaigner against the trade in illicit antiquities.”

This coming January, Prof. Renfrew will receive the 2009 SAFE Beacon Award in a rare visit to the United States. He will give a lecture “Combating the Illicit Antiquities Trade: the 1970 Rule as a Turning Point (or How the Metropolitan Museum lags behind the Getty)” and also discuss the ethics of excavating and collecting, and the merits of the once popular but now rare “partage” system in the SAFE Tour “Collecting the Right Way” at the University of Pennsylvania Museum.

Photo: Ben Stansall

The AP article “St. Louis museum proud of its ancient mask purchase, but Egypt calls it a steal” reports that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is now looking into the case of the “Ka-Nefer-Nefer” mask, which many people believe to have been stolen from Egypt. The article recounts the meticulously documented discovery of the mask by Mohammed Zakaria Ghoneim, which “resurfaced in 1998 when the St. Louis Art Museum in Missouri acquired it.”

“Egypt has a right to the mask.” Zahi Hawass, head of Egypt’s antiquities authority, demands, while Brent Benjamin, Director of the the Saint Louis Art Museum asserts that “[t]o date, we have not seen information that we believe is compelling enough to return the object.”

Mr. Benjamin has been nominated by President Bush to join the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC), which makes recommendations to the President regarding importation restriction requests from state parties to the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (UNESCO 1970).

The saga continues. Photo: AP file

“Who Owns the Past?” “Who Owns Antiquity?” “Who Owns Culture?” “Who Owns Art?” “Who Owns Objects?” “Who Owns History?” A flurry of similar-sounding questions has been circulating in the media for some time now. Varying on the same theme, they are used as headlines in an array of formats: books, articles, lectures, panel discussions, etc.

While these questions raise some interesting points, we would like to ask some of our own:

1. “Who Owns __?” advocates imply: The right to ownership and possession of artifacts trumps all other considerations.

SAFECORNER asks: By focusing on ownership, are we neglecting the single most important point: the discovery of our yet-unknown past through protection, and the proper excavation of, ancient sites and tombs and burial grounds? What about the “past” / “antiquity” / “culture” / “art” / “objects” / “history” that remains underground? What part do these arguments have in stemming the plunder of cultural heritage caused by looting and the illicit antiquities trade?

2. “Who Owns __?” advocates contend: International conventions and national laws have failed because looting persists.

SAFECORNER asks: Instead of challenging the best legal mechanisms we have, should not more effort be made to observe and respect them? We don’t throw away the criminal justice system because crimes are committed, do we?

3. “Who Owns __?” advocates insist: The importance of archaeological context is overstated, because virtually everything we need to know is inherent in the object.

SAFECORNER asks: If not found in graves, or in context, what could the Tilya Tepe hoard tell us about ancient Bactria if it had been discovered as loose pieces of beautiful gold jewelry? One doesn’t need to be an Afghan to appreciate the value inherent in discovering an untouched ancient site. Conversely, aside from speculations, what do we know about who was buried in the now-looted tombs of Cerveteri? What do we really know about the Vicús culture, which has been looted to near-extinction, or the civilization that created the artifacts looted from Batán Grande, now on display at the Met?

4. “Who Owns __?” advocates suggest: The stakeholders in these debates are archaeologists versus acquirers: museums, dealers, and private collectors.

SAFECORNER asks: What about the rest of us? Many people from all walks of life who are not archaeologists, collectors, museum curators, dealers, nationalists, or socialists also feel very strongly about these issues. Our opinions also matter. After all, it is public opinion that shapes politics and policies and the politicians who create them. UNESCO is an organization of member nations that choose to join. And sovereign nations are governed by politicians who exercise power on behalf of the public, for the most part.

5. “Who Owns __?” advocates argue: Nations that did not exist in ancient times have no inherent right to ancient artifacts found within their territories. For example, does Italy really have the right to claim objects taken from institutions such as the Metropolitan Museum of New York, which was actually built before the Italian state was formed?

SAFECORNER asks: Is a nation ever too young to assert its sovereignty or jurisdiction? What about the United States? Barely over a couple hundred years old since our founding fathers created the nation, should we give up all claims to Native American artifacts? Revoke the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)?

Finally, we recommend that ALL stakeholders ask themselves this question: what are we going to do to stop the continued destruction of our “past” / “antiquity” / “culture” / “art” / “objects” / “history”?

Three years ago, on February 17, 2005, the U.S. Cultural Property Advisory Committee held public hearings to consider China’s request for a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would restrict importation of certain types of cultural property from China to the United States for a limited period of time (five years, subject to renewal).

China made the request of the U.S., as both countries are parties to the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (UNESCO 1970). Among other things, this convention obliges State Parties to prohibit the importation of cultural property stolen from a museum or monument in another participating country (Article 7b), and allows State Parties whose archaeological or ethnological patrimony is in jeopardy from pillage to ask other State Parties for help in protecting the affected categories of materials, through measures that may include restrictions on imports and exports (Article 9). Furthermore, the U.S. enacted the Cultural Property Implementation Act to make adherence to the UNESCO 1970 into law in 1983.

According to the U.S. State Department’s website on cultural property:

“The U.S. State Department must consider the committee’s findings and recommendations when the committee’s report is submitted …within 150 days of referral of a request to the committee for an agreement”

But more than 1000 days after the hearings, we hear nothing about a decision.

What we are aware of, is that since February 17, 2005, MOU agreements with Italy, Bolivia, El Salvador, Mali, Guatemala, Peru, Cyprus have been renewed, and Colombia became the twelfth country to have been granted a request. Cambodia’s Agreement is being considered for a third renewal right now, as we speak. In other words, not only has every request for a Memorandum of Understanding been granted, but each one has been extended, at least once, except for Canada.

So, why not China?

We urge the U.S. Department of State and the President to put this request from China back on the agenda. We ask those in whom we entrust to protect our most important non-renewable resource to put aside any political or economic reasons that have derailed the decision to consider this: Every day that goes by without the import restrictions is another day we are not doing everything we can to protect the evidence of our undiscovered past.

As a sovereign nation, China has the right to seek assistance from the international arena to protect its cultural heritage. Like the U.S., China is a State Party to the UNESCO 1970. When other countries such as Greece, India, Italy, Peru, the Philippines have signed similar bilateral agreements with China, perhaps the question should be:

Why not the U.S.?

A few important omissions in Jeremy Kahn’s “Coin Dealers Sue State Dept. for Details on Import Bans” in the New York Times, on November 17, 2007 should be pointed out:

In the article, Mr. Kahn claimed, “It was the first time the government had barred trade in a broad category of ancient coins…” But this is not true. While the US/Cyprus bilateral agreement does represent the first time that ancient coins have been subject to temporary import restrictions under the Cultural Property Implementation Act, coins have been subject to government-mandated import restrictions for many years in other contexts. For example, Executive Order 12722, which prohibits the importation of ancient coins from Iraq, went into effect on August 2, 1990. This order has been renewed several times, e.g., see section 4 of the renewal dated July 29, 2004. This prohibition remains in effect. In addition, antiquities, coins and other artifacts of Iranian origin have also been subject to trade restrictions for a number of years; importing such items to the U.S. is currently prohibited, and the US Customs and/or the Department of Justice does confiscate such items. In addition, according to the US Customs and Border Protection’s website, “gold coins … originating in or brought from Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Serbia, and Sudan are prohibited entry” under regulations administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control.

Mr. Kahn wrongly characterizes import restrictions on Cypriot coins as a sweeping ban. For example, the photo caption in the article reads: “Importing Cypriot coins like this one is now banned.” But according to the U.S. Federal Register, the coins restricted from entering the US under the bilateral agreement are quite specific and listed as:

Coins of Cypriot types made of gold, silver, and bronze including but not limited to:

1. Issues of the ancient kingdoms of Amathus, Kition, Kourion, Idalion, Lapethos, Marion, Paphos, Soli, and Salamis dating from the end of the 6th century B.C. to 332 B.C.

2. Issues of the Hellenistic period, such as those of Paphos, Salamis, and Kition from 332 B.C. to c. 30 B.C.

3. Provincial and local issues of the Roman period from c. 30 B.C. to 235 A.D. Often these have a bust or head on one side and the image of a temple (the Temple of Aphrodite at Palaipaphos) or statue (statue of Zeus Salaminios) on the other.

Coins minted in Cyprus outside of the categories specified are not affected. In addition, no import ban exists for these types of coins, or any coin of Cypriot type, if the coin is accompanied by a valid export permit from the Government of Cyprus. Any bona fide museum, university or organization with a need to access and study Cypriot coins, can apply to the Cyprus government for a long-term loan, as described in Section 27 (subsections 1 and 2) of the Cyprus Antiquities Law.

The State Department operates under the provisions of the Cultural Property Implementation Act, the enabling legislation passed on January 12, 1983 and amended December 22, 1987, which implements into US law the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (UNESCO 1970). As parties to the Convention, Cyprus and the US, as well as more than 100 countries, have agreed to abide by Article 1(e), which includes under the definition of Cultural Property subject to protection, “antiquities more than one hundred years old, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals”. Parties to the Convention have also agreed to abide by Article 9: “Any State Party to this Convention whose cultural patrimony is in jeopardy from pillage of archaeological or ethnological materials may call upon other States Parties … to participate in a concerted international effort to determine and to carry out the necessary concrete measures, including the control of exports and imports and international commerce in the specific materials concerned. Pending agreement each State concerned shall take provisional measures to the extent feasible to prevent irremediable injury to the cultural heritage of the requesting State.”

In other words, the US-Cyprus bilateral agreement is fully in keeping with an international legal mechanism that has been in place for decades.

To describe the import restrictions of ancient Cypriot coins without including the proper background information and circumstances does not serve the purpose of pursuing “greater disclosure”, reportedly the basis for bringing the lawsuit. Context does matter. We believe the public deserves better from The New York Times.

As for the lawsuit itself, the 15-page complaint speaks for itself. But consider this fact: it costs as little as $100/month to hire an archaeological site guard; an FOIA attorney in Washington, D.C. typically receives $400 per hour, or more, to sue the federal government.

The United States is committed to protecting history and heritage from theft. It is no surprise that our nation demonstrates leadership in this area since an overwhelming majority of Americans (96%) support laws designed to protect archaeological resources, according to a Harris Interactive poll. In addition, more than three in five Americans believe that historical artifacts should not be removed from another sovereign nation without that country’s assent. This public support gives vitality to America’s application of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, the preeminent global agreement that aims to safeguard cultural property from theft, illegal excavation, and smuggling.

Our nation first sought to protect its own cultural treasures when President Theodore Roosevelt enacted the Antiquities Act of 1906. President Reagan built on this legacy by looking beyond America’s borders, signing into law the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA), which authorizes the president to enter into bilateral agreements that promote the preservation objectives of the UNESCO Convention. Since the CPIA took effect, the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) has successfully evaluated requests by nations seeking American assistance when those countries’ archaeological heritage was jeopardized by pillage. The result of CPAC’s work has permitted the president to take action against the illegal trafficking of historical artifacts while simultaneously forging constructive international partnerships. Since 1983, the White House has approved several bilateral agreements that have assisted our friends and neighbors in Canada, Italy,and elsewhere. Continuing this tradition of American leadership is CPAC’s recognition that the looting of particularly identified types of ancient coins can place a nation’s archaeology in jeopardy. When coins are bound to the archaeological record in a significant and inseparable way, they become infused with irreplaceable historical information. To strip such coins from the ground without first evaluating and documenting their evidentiary value steals history. The forward-looking agreement between the United States and Cyprus, given effect on July 16, 2007, acknowledges this conclusion.

When Congress enacted the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, it determined that America’s unique archaeological resources were endangered and required protection. In the same way that the United States acted to secure the cultural heritage found within its borders, our country assists other sovereign nations do the same, thereby helping to protect our collective global history from large-scale transnational looting and trafficking. It is expected that America will continue to vigorously pursue laws, policies, and enforcement programs designed to safeguard domestic and international cultural resources for the benefit of future generations.

Rick St. Hilaire
Vice President (former), SAFE/Saving Antiquities for Everyone