What happened to the China MOU request?

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 New Way Forward for U.S. Museums

The following article is published at the request of its author, Thomas Noble Howe.

There is currently exhibit of some 70 repatriated art objects in the Italian presidential palace, mostly from the Getty, Metropolitan and Boston Museums (“Nostoi, Capolavori ritrovati”, at the Quirinal Palace, Rome, 21 December-2 March, 2008, ).

It has a distinctly triumphal quality to it (not without some justification) but as in any Roman triumph, there are losers. Although I am primarily an archaeologist, the first impression was the loss of the great amount of work that it took those museums to gather funds, seek and assemble objects into parts of a coherent collection. But the second impression—the archaeologist speaking—was to see that around every object on display there is a penumbra of destruction: looted tombs, lost association with other objects, dating material, findspot and hence cultural context.

The many-year campaign of the Italian government to prevent looting of antiquities has produced many victories for archaeology, but the news still appears to be grim for U.S. museums. Toward the end of his book The Medici Conspiracy, on the recent history of the market in illicit antiquities and the attempts of the Italian government to stem it (2006), Peter Watson declares: “It is no longer possible to form a collection of classical antiquities by legitimate means.”

It is in fact possible, but it requires art museums and archaeology radically to rethink the nature of antiquities collection. Italian archaeology—and its partners—have already done a lot of that thinking.

Several of the museums which have surrendered antiquities to Italy (the Metropolitan, Boston) have received or been promised equivalent quality long term loans. But there is another path open to museums, including those who have no antiquities to surrender in exchange, and that path is to work with organizations which in some way study and protect Italian archaeological sites.

Our foundation, the Restoring Ancient Stabiae Foundation, is the first non-profit cultural foundation of its kind in Italy, and is well on its way to undertaking a huge task—excavating a major Italian archaeological site (the enormous ancient Rome seaside villas of Stabiae near Pompeii)—but in a way that has never been tried before in archaeology: as a permanent semi-public, semi-private foundation which will share in the actual long term management and conservation of the site. We are an Italian non-profit foundation with international board representation (including the University of Maryland). Large excavations are under way, buildings are being constructed, a 100-room international study institute is under our management, and a marine archaeology vessel is about to start research operations this summer.

And we have just concluded a touring exhibit of Roman frescoes, In Stabiano, Exploring the Ancient Seaside Villas of the Roman Elite, which opened at the Smithsonian in 2004. This was the first long-term loan of objects from Italy to the U.S. and its success was apparently instrumental in persuading the U.S. State Department in January 2006 to renew the Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and Italy which permits long term loans and forbids importing of unprovenanced antiquities. Other exhibits and tours are being planned.

Supportive collaboration in any way with a foundation like ours justifies a long term loan to a U.S. institution, and the amount of material in Italian museums and storerooms is enormous. U.S. museums curators’ attitudes are changing; I have heard some say that they feel that they don’t necessarily have to own the antiquities which they display.

If a foundation like ours can be the conduit for supporting Italian archaeological sites and a new way of building fine public antiquities collections in the U.S., Italians on the other hand need to support their own highly creative policies, and the people who developed them. Our initiatives were in fact created in large part by the now long serving Superintendent of Pompei, Prof. Pietro Giovanni Guzzo, who has quietly initiated a new generation of international work in Pompei, and who may or may not continue as superintendent of the new joint Superintendancy of Pompei and the Naples museum (where most of the early finds from Pompeii and Stabiae are housed). This foundation, a creation of Italians, Americans and other nationalities, was in fact created at the invitation of Prof. Guzzo, and his vision of the possibilities inherent in the general policies of the Cultural Ministry and the 2001/2006 MOU between the U.S. and Italy.

Italy is one of the richest countries in the world in cultural treasuries, but it is also one of most generous—and ingenious—in sharing them. If one wishes to share in enjoying Italian provenanced antiquities, it is still possible, as long as want also wants to share in the responsibility of maintaining them.

Thomas Noble Howe,
Coordinator General, Fondazione Restoring Ancient Stabiae
www.stabiae.org
Herman Brown Professor, Southwestern University

“United States Extends Agreement Protecting Italy’s Archaeological Materials Representing the Pre-classical, Classical and Imperial Roman Periods"

“The MOU has been especially helpful in enriching American cultural life through research, educational programs and loans between Italian and American institutions. Within the framework of the MOU, a number of loan initiatives promise to bring more Italian artifacts to America for longer terms. The United States is pleased that, pursuant to the MOU, Italy now permits international loans of objects of antiquity for up to four years. Since 2004, the highly successful In Stabiano: Exploring the Ancient Seaside Villas of the Roman Elite has been on a tour to nine American museums, which will end in 2008.” (Media Note, Cultural Properties Advisory Board, United States Department of State)(CREDIT: Plinio Lepri/Associated Press

"All the news that's fit to print"?

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.

Pre-Columbian "art" and Christie's

Roland Lloyd Parry has reported today (September 6, 2007) in The Art Newspaper that "Christie’s axes pre-Columbian sales".

He quotes Christie’s spokeswoman Sara Fox, “Our decision was made out of pure business considerations, not as a reaction to lobbying by foreign governments".

In spite of the announcement the Christie's website continues to announce:

"Previously regularly held in Paris, Pre-Columbian Art auctions have returned to New York and will be held twice a year, in May and November.

Interest among worldwide buyers and collectors in Pre-Columbian art continues to grow steadily as is demonstrated by the world auction record prices Christie’s has achieved such as $1.1 million for a Pre-Columbian work with a Mayan Jade Plaque (New York, 2004); $332,050 for a Mayan Codex Plate (Paris, 2004); and $124,679 for a Chimu Silver Figure (Paris, 2003).

The department is pleased to answer any inquiries about the market conditions and arrange insurance and estate valuations."

But not for much longer.

Such news comes in the wake of recent returns of archaeological material to Peru, as well as the revised memorandum of agreement between the US and Peru (June 2007). (For full details.)

Cyprus, coins and the American interest

The recent renewal of the U.S.-Cyprus bilateral agreement to restrict importation of certain categories of antiquities into the U.S. could have taken place with little fanfare. In fact, similar agreements the U.S. had previously signed with Bolivia (extended in 2006), Colombia (initiated in 2006) and Nicaragua (extended in 2005) were hardly mentioned in the general media. The U.S. extension of the agreement with Peru, in June of this year, went practically unnoticed. One month later, however, the agreement with Cyprus was another story. Days after the announcement, the New York Times ran an article about it, and attacks on State Department personnel (responsible for administering bilateral agreements) appeared on the Internet. Among the heated polemics was the assertion that agreeing with Cyprus--a tiny country compared to the U.S.--does not serve the interests of the American public.

So what makes the Cyprus agreement so contentious? The inclusion of coins. For the first time, the U.S. will restrict the importation of specific ancient coins with Cyprus mint marks, concluding that “Coins constitute an inseparable part of the archaeological record of the island, and, like other archaeological objects, they are vulnerable to pillage and illicit export.” (See Federal Register)

Perhaps it is time we discuss the importance of ancient coins. Are they important beyond the money they fetch on the market? Since coin collecting is a popular hobby, is there a responsible way to collect without contributing to the destruction of the archaeological record? How do they compare to other ancient artifacts such as vases or statues? What can coins tell us aside from the date stamped on them? Should those of us who don’t collect coins care ... and why?

The U.S. joined the international Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (UNESCO 1970) more than two decades ago and passed implementing legislation that provides the mechanism by which bilateral agreements with other countries also party to the Convention are considered.

As citizens, we are expected to follow the law, and we expect our governments to honor treaties and agreements with other sovereign nations. We understand that not every single one of these laws will serve the interests of every single individual.

Is it time to question whether bilateral agreements truly serve American interests? Clearly not. It is instead time to accept the reality that unbridled destruction will no longer be ignored to serve the interest of a few.