The Milken Institute, an independent economic think tank based in Santa Monica, CA, recently published "Financial Innovations for Developing Archaeological Discovery and Conservation." The 36-page report was written by Caitlin MacLean and Glenn Yago of the Milken Institute, who received input from "economists, representatives from museums and the archaeological community, attorneys, and antiquities dealers and collectors," who met in January 2008 to discuss "market-based solutions to finance and accelerate the legal discovery and conservation of archaeological heritage, with the goal of slowing and halting the devastating effects of looting."
The Financial Innovations Lab Participants were: Ali Aboutaam and Hicham Aboutaam (owners, Phoenix Ancient Art, S.A.); Mathew Bogdanos, Assistant District Attorney, New York County, and Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps); Ran Boynter (Director, International Research, Cotsen Institute); Neil Brodie (Social Science Research Associate, Stanford Archaeology Center and former Research Director at the Illicit Antiquities Research Centre, University of Cambridge); Lawrence S. Coben (Chairman, Site Preservation Task Force, Archaeological Institute of America); Lynn S. Dodd (curator and lecturer, Department of Religion, University of Southern California); Derek Fincham (Ph.D. candidate, University of Aberdeen); Bernard Frischer (Director, Institute for Advanced Technology and Professor of Classics and Art History, University of Virginia); Patty Gerstenblith (Professor of Law, DePaul University and Founding President, The Lawyer's Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation); Michael D. Intriligator (Professor of Economics, Political Science and Policy Studies, University of California, Los Angeles); Morag Kersel, postdoctoral fellow, University of Toronto); Edward Krowitz (economist and former advisor, United Nations); Caitlin MacLean (Coordinator, Financial Innovations Labs, Milken Institute); Jerry C. Podany (Senior Conservator, Antiquities, J. Paul Getty Museum); Patricia Reiter (Research Analyst, Milken Institute); Lawrence Rothfield (Associate Professor, Department of English and Comparative Literature and Research Affiliate at the Cultural Policy Center, University of Chicago); Charles Stanish (Professor, Department of Anthropology and Director, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at the University of California, Los Angeles); Barry Szczesny (Vice President, Metcalf Federal Relations); Tom S. Wilkening (Ph.D. candidate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology); Rick Witschonke (Curatorial Assistant, American Numistmatic Society); and Glen Yago (Director, Capital Studies, Milken Institute).
SAFE encourages its members and friends to read the report available here (registration required) and offer comment on its content and conclusions at SAFECORNER.
Posts
Just throwing this out there:
3 weeks ago
5 comments:
For comments on this report from "Looting Matters" click here.
As usual, David Gill's comments are on target. Meanwhile, at Derek Fincham's blog, we are told by Peter Tompa [http://illicit-cultural-property.blogspot.com/2008/12/financial-innovations-and-antiquities.html#comments]: "My recollection from looking at the list of speakers was this effort appeared carefully orchestrated to ensure an "acceptable result" to members of the archaeological community who were largely responsible for setting it up. Certainly, planning for the event was "hush hush" ...
Acceptable result? Hush hush? Hardly... If you go to The New York Times website and search the archive using the words "Milken Aboutaam," you will see that on March 18, 2007 the Times published a 3,000-word profile of Hicham and Ali Aboutaam, which broadcasted the existence of this conference during what must have been its stage of development. The following reference appears near the end of the Times story: "Mr. Aboutaam is working with the Milken Institute, the economic research organization in Santa Monica, Calif., on a conference to be held in June to discuss the disparities in international treaties and laws affecting provenance and the antiquities market. Jared Carney, director of marketing and program development at the institute, said that discussing the woes of the art market is not standard fare for the organization. 'But what is right down the middle for us is looking at issues of social capital and the challenges of protecting intellectual property, and protecting assets and the pressure to preserve heritage,' Mr. Carney said. 'You’ve got to give it to Hicham for trying to get a brand new take on things and coming at his challenges in a different way.'"
The Times story was published in mid-March, 2007. Given the usual timeline for creating such an article in a major newspaper, the story was probably researched and reported in early- to mid-February, fact-checked in late February or early March and put into page layout for the Sunday newspaper a week to ten days before it was published — in other words, the brothers Aboutaam were deeply involved in the Milken Institute project nearly a year before the Financial Labs took place in late January 2008. And the quote in the Times story suggests that it was Hicham and Ali Aboutaam who drove the ideas ("a brand new take on things and coming at his challenges in a different way") behind the conference, not the archaeologists and their allies on the panel, as Mr. Thompa suggests.
Actually, I am surprised that some (no, many) of the people listed in Appendix I would allow their names to be associated with some (no, many) of the "market-based solutions," shaky assertions and conclusions found in this report.
I think some in the pro-collecting lobby are rather too prone to seeing ["radical"(sic)]"archaeologists" hiding in every shadow waiting to jump out on the unsuspecting innocent portable-antiquity coveting victim. It's perfectly clear on reading the Milken report however that none of the archaeologists (three?) present had been able to get any kind of message across about what excavations produce and what the data are for. Without that, there can be no meaningful dialogue. This report is not the product of a meaningful dialogue, nor can it really be the basis for one. So one wonders really what the point of it all was.
Fabulous analysis and discussion.
I understand that it's good to explore all possible solutions and to even try different things, but doesn't talking about financial incentives and "market-based" solutions totally commodify what is considered priceless? I am surprised and disappointed to hear money is once again proposed as a solution for protecting human history, cultural heritage and archaeological information? Aren't certain things simply too sacred to throw money on like the Wall Street bailout? It strikes me odd that while some people condemn dealers and traders they themselves resort to the one thing that seems to have caused the problems in the first place. I should hope that the recent economic ills should teach us all the lesson that money is NOT the answer to everything.
I don't know the circumstances of this report and apologize for offending anyone here, but it appears to me the planners and attendees of this report did not consider the overall implication of their participation and the confusing moral message they are giving to those of us who are not experts but are ourselves as concerned about protecting the past as they are. I am sure this is not their intention, but as a member of the public, I urge the experts to not forget these things can have unfortunate consequences when they are picked up in the media and even used to reinforce arguments on "the other side." The power of public opinion works both ways and can be every bit as important as what you discuss amongst yourselves.
Thanks, by the way, to SAFECORNER for letting us know about this report.
Happy New Year to everyone!
Just to be clear, I am neither a dealer/trader nor an academic. That's why I appreciate having a forum like SAFECORNER that shares this information without demonizing or attacking anyone who doesn't agree with them (I think SAFE's position is quite clear.) I do think that everyone needs to get their act together on these issues: talk is fine, but let's get on with some clear solid action, and stop confusing us with this Milken Institute report (Isn't he the guy who went to jail? There's an ADA on involved in the report even, does anyone else find this odd?)
Post a Comment