Cultural Property Wrongs
The Economist Takes On Turkey's Repatriation Drive
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2012/05/economist-takes-on-turkeys-repatriation.html
by Peter Tompa
The Economist Magazine has critiqued Turkey’s new repatriation drive here: http://www.economist.com/node/21555531
The Economist points out Turkey’s nationalist stance is popular at home, but that it is hypocritical in the extreme. Turkey itself was an Imperial power and its museums --like those of other Imperial powers-- also contain artifacts taken from what today are other countries.
The Economist could have gone further. Isn't it also wrong for Turkey to lay claim to cultural artifacts produced by Greek culture when Turkey itself forcibly deported its Greek citizens in the 1920’s?
**************
COMMENTARY
**************
There are so many "wrongs" involved in what (for lack of any more sensible description) is presently called "cultural property nationalism" that it is hard to know where to begin, in listing them.
First and foremost I believe, must be a searching examination of the validity of the basic concept -- that the physical remains of the heritage of extinct cultures can be claimed by a modern state, simply because these remains are discovered within that state's boundaries.
Now obviously, every state is entitled to make its own laws, to prohibit excavation of antiquities within its national territory, and to restrict export of antiquities. That right is not at issue; what is disputed is whether states adopting restrictive antiquities laws should be entitled to demand that other nations must assist in the enforcement of their antiquities laws.
The manner in which states make such demands is to submit requests for import restrictions to other nations which have acceded to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.
The fundamental concept upon which import restrictions are based is Colin Renfrew's famous dictum "Collectors are the real looters," often misstated as "collecting + looting." The origins of this assertion are discussed by Cornelia Isler-Kerenyi in Antiquity / June, 1994:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3284/is_n259_v68/ai_n28640824/
This article strikes the reader accustomed to the iconic status presently accorded to Baron Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, Ph.D., FBA, FSA, HonFSAScot., as surprisingly well-balanced. It must be remembered that in 1994, Renfrew was viewed as a controversial academic theorist, whose approach and pronouncements were hotly debated by many archaeologists.
Renfrew's dictum is discussed in detail in "Renfrew's Hypothesis: Are Collectors the Real Looters,"
http://classicalcoins.blogspot.com/2008/09/renfrews-hypothesis-are-collectors-real.html
This discusses several reasons for thinking that it is not correct. Unsurprisingly, no one in the archaeological community desired a debate on its validity.
The concept that looting can somehow be prevented by restricting international trade in antiquities remains entirely unproven. Not only has there never been a scientifically valid proof, no verifiable evidence tending to support "collecting = looting" has ever been published. There is, on the other hand, an abundance of evidence that "collecting = looting" is false -- beginning with the prevalence of uncontrollable tomb-robbing in antiquity, at a time when there were no collectors and those caught looting died speedily and unpleasantly.
The first and greatest "wrong" in "cultural property nationalism" is therefore its very foundation. Dubious, unproven hypotheses are not just cause for enacting laws and regulations.
Here is another example, arising from ill-considered legal measures enacted in support of "cultural property nationalism":
Quoting from that post:
"I believe that the Krombach case provides a clear illustration of what this dogmatic archaeology-centric perspective may be expected to lead to whenever it is embodied into law or related government issued regulations. Collectors everywhere: take note.
This case became, in my view, a monstrous and indefensible injustice in which the acquisition of a few unimportant, unprovenanced coins led to a catastrophe for the collector, because of an essential failure to grasp an overriding social reality: that protecting fundamental human rights and providing fair, understandable and reasonable laws are principles far more important to society than everything archaeology has contributed to civilization."
Case History and Summary of a verdict concerning protection of cultural property made by the administrative court Frankfurt am Main from June 2nd, 2010, reference number 5 K 1082/10.FAdministrative litigation by an art dealer against the federal state of Hesse represented by the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and the Arts
Case history
In 2008, the police confiscated a number of ancient bronze bowls from a conservator. Some of the objects – five small vessels and bowls – belonged to an antiquities dealer from Frankfurt who had purchased them from a private collector. The latter had legally acquired the bronzes in the 1980s. To get the pieces back, the dealer had to endure several lawsuits. Even when the Frankfurt district court ascertained that there was no violation of the Act on the Return of Cultural Property and the insinuation of receiving of stolen goods was without justification he did not get the objects back. Pending the decision, they had been handed to the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz (RGMZ), to the archaeologist Michael Müller-Karpe. At the instigation of an official of the Hessian Ministry of Higher Education, Research and the Arts a so-called confiscation order was issued to the effect that the museum was not obliged to hand over the objects.
At the same time, the archaeologist claimed damages of 17 million Euros in total for himself and for the Zentralmuseum in Mainz for defamation. As a result of these extraordinary claims the antiquities dealer was forced to look for legal assistance again. The procedures are outlined in: Ein Museumsangestellter sieht rot. Kunst und Auktionen no. 11, p. 42, Munich, Mai 2010, p. 42
The verdict
In the beginning of June 2010, at the Frankfurt district court, a lawsuit took place which the antiquities dealer again won. The defendant was the federal state of Hesse. The verdict clearly acknowledged and stated that the Hessian Ministry’s and Müller-Karpe’s actions were “grossly and evidently illegal”. With regard to the damages claim the judge “questions the fitness for service of that employee” (i.e. Michael Müller-Karpe) and calls his methods „close to mental confusion”.
Michael Müller-Karpe does indeed appear to be seriously afflicted by "mental confusion." To begin with, he has uncritically (and irresponsibly) adopted Renfrew's dubious dictum as though it were revealed truth. No real scientist, of course, would do such a thing.
Then he has embarked upon a personal crusade against collecting, in the course of which he has demanded extreme and unjust measures, for example that all trade in any objects that might conceivably once have been buried shall be prohibited, regardless of provenance:
(22nd May 2006)
Symposium: Protection of cultural assets (23rd -24th May 2006)
http://www.culture-and-development.info/project/proceed.htm
"Dr. Müller-Karpe ... disagreed, pointing out that in the case of the protection of species the reversal of the burden of proof is already customary practice. For example, ivory is confiscated at every German border if there is no proof of legal origin. If this is possible in the protection of species, then it should also be valid in the area of the protection of cultural assets.
Dr. Müller-Karpe therefore demanded that there be a general prohibition of trade in finds from digs. The turnover from these objects was economically negligible, whereas the damage created by the loss was considerably higher. As nearly all countries today have declared their non-excavated antiquities to be an unsaleable part of their cultural heritage, objects from digs can therefore only be found in museums and a prohibition of trading in these items would be the next logical step, which is also covered by the already existing self-obligation of the art trade."
http://classicalcoins.blogspot.com/2012/05/collapse-of-cultural-property.html
I urge every reader to view the Kouroupas-related part of this post, but knowing that most will not, I quote from its introduction:
"By far the most effective [ and dangerous ] example of "government by fiat" has been the U. S. State Department's Cultural Heritage Center, led since its inception by Maria Papageorge Kouroupas.
In a 2010 review article published on Unidroit-L, I presented (for the first time) a reasonably complete account of what Maria Kouroupas has done since U. S. accession to the 1970 UNESCO convention in 1983:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unidroit-L/message/3573
This article is primarily a comprehensive discussion of the issues of bureaucratic bias and private agendas. I will quote from its introductory section:
"Opinions on this [ bureaucratic bias ] differ (anticollecting archaeologists and the State Department have a different perspective), but there is no question that those involved in the collectors' rights movement perceive the State Department bureaucracy as pervasively and profoundly biased against private antiquities collecting, and view the US Government as being an ally of the archaeology lobby.
It is a very bad state of affairs when law-abiding citizens pursuing what has heretofore been regarded as a socially beneficial and respectable avocation (practised by more than one US President among other notables) come to believe that they are not being fairly treated, and that their government has taken sides in the controversy over antiquities collecting and has become their enemy."
******************************************
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2012/05/economist-takes-on-turkeys-repatriation.html
by Peter Tompa
The Economist Magazine has critiqued Turkey’s new repatriation drive here: http://www.economist.com/node/21555531
The Economist points out Turkey’s nationalist stance is popular at home, but that it is hypocritical in the extreme. Turkey itself was an Imperial power and its museums --like those of other Imperial powers-- also contain artifacts taken from what today are other countries.
The Economist could have gone further. Isn't it also wrong for Turkey to lay claim to cultural artifacts produced by Greek culture when Turkey itself forcibly deported its Greek citizens in the 1920’s?
**************
COMMENTARY
**************
There are so many "wrongs" involved in what (for lack of any more sensible description) is presently called "cultural property nationalism" that it is hard to know where to begin, in listing them.
First and foremost I believe, must be a searching examination of the validity of the basic concept -- that the physical remains of the heritage of extinct cultures can be claimed by a modern state, simply because these remains are discovered within that state's boundaries.
Now obviously, every state is entitled to make its own laws, to prohibit excavation of antiquities within its national territory, and to restrict export of antiquities. That right is not at issue; what is disputed is whether states adopting restrictive antiquities laws should be entitled to demand that other nations must assist in the enforcement of their antiquities laws.
The manner in which states make such demands is to submit requests for import restrictions to other nations which have acceded to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.
The fundamental concept upon which import restrictions are based is Colin Renfrew's famous dictum "Collectors are the real looters," often misstated as "collecting + looting." The origins of this assertion are discussed by Cornelia Isler-Kerenyi in Antiquity / June, 1994:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3284/is_n259_v68/ai_n28640824/
This article strikes the reader accustomed to the iconic status presently accorded to Baron Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, Ph.D., FBA, FSA, HonFSAScot., as surprisingly well-balanced. It must be remembered that in 1994, Renfrew was viewed as a controversial academic theorist, whose approach and pronouncements were hotly debated by many archaeologists.
Renfrew's dictum is discussed in detail in "Renfrew's Hypothesis: Are Collectors the Real Looters,"
http://classicalcoins.blogspot.com/2008/09/renfrews-hypothesis-are-collectors-real.html
This discusses several reasons for thinking that it is not correct. Unsurprisingly, no one in the archaeological community desired a debate on its validity.
The concept that looting can somehow be prevented by restricting international trade in antiquities remains entirely unproven. Not only has there never been a scientifically valid proof, no verifiable evidence tending to support "collecting = looting" has ever been published. There is, on the other hand, an abundance of evidence that "collecting = looting" is false -- beginning with the prevalence of uncontrollable tomb-robbing in antiquity, at a time when there were no collectors and those caught looting died speedily and unpleasantly.
The first and greatest "wrong" in "cultural property nationalism" is therefore its very foundation. Dubious, unproven hypotheses are not just cause for enacting laws and regulations.
Here is another example, arising from ill-considered legal measures enacted in support of "cultural property nationalism":
Quoting from that post:
"I believe that the Krombach case provides a clear illustration of what this dogmatic archaeology-centric perspective may be expected to lead to whenever it is embodied into law or related government issued regulations. Collectors everywhere: take note.
This case became, in my view, a monstrous and indefensible injustice in which the acquisition of a few unimportant, unprovenanced coins led to a catastrophe for the collector, because of an essential failure to grasp an overriding social reality: that protecting fundamental human rights and providing fair, understandable and reasonable laws are principles far more important to society than everything archaeology has contributed to civilization."
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2012/05/economist-takes-on-turkeys-repatriation.html
by Peter Tompa
The Economist Magazine has critiqued Turkey’s new repatriation drive here: http://www.economist.com/node/21555531
The Economist points out Turkey’s nationalist stance is popular at home, but that it is hypocritical in the extreme. Turkey itself was an Imperial power and its museums --like those of other Imperial powers-- also contain artifacts taken from what today are other countries.
The Economist could have gone further. Isn't it also wrong for Turkey to lay claim to cultural artifacts produced by Greek culture when Turkey itself forcibly deported its Greek citizens in the 1920’s?
**************
COMMENTARY
**************
There are so many "wrongs" involved in what (for lack of any more sensible description) is presently called "cultural property nationalism" that it is hard to know where to begin, in listing them.
First and foremost I believe, must be a searching examination of the validity of the basic concept -- that the physical remains of the heritage of extinct cultures can be claimed by a modern state, simply because these remains are discovered within that state's boundaries.
Now obviously, every state is entitled to make its own laws, to prohibit excavation of antiquities within its national territory, and to restrict export of antiquities. That right is not at issue; what is disputed is whether states adopting restrictive antiquities laws should be entitled to demand that other nations must assist in the enforcement of their antiquities laws.
The manner in which states make such demands is to submit requests for import restrictions to other nations which have acceded to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.
The fundamental concept upon which import restrictions are based is Colin Renfrew's famous dictum "Collectors are the real looters," often misstated as "collecting + looting." The origins of this assertion are discussed by Cornelia Isler-Kerenyi in Antiquity / June, 1994:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3284/is_n259_v68/ai_n28640824/
This article strikes the reader accustomed to the iconic status presently accorded to Baron Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, Ph.D., FBA, FSA, HonFSAScot., as surprisingly well-balanced. It must be remembered that in 1994, Renfrew was viewed as a controversial academic theorist, whose approach and pronouncements were hotly debated by many archaeologists.
Renfrew's dictum is discussed in detail in "Renfrew's Hypothesis: Are Collectors the Real Looters,"
http://classicalcoins.blogspot.com/2008/09/renfrews-hypothesis-are-collectors-real.html
This discusses several reasons for thinking that it is not correct. Unsurprisingly, no one in the archaeological community desired a debate on its validity.
The concept that looting can somehow be prevented by restricting international trade in antiquities remains entirely unproven. Not only has there never been a scientifically valid proof, no verifiable evidence tending to support "collecting = looting" has ever been published. There is, on the other hand, an abundance of evidence that "collecting = looting" is false -- beginning with the prevalence of uncontrollable tomb-robbing in antiquity, at a time when there were no collectors and those caught looting died speedily and unpleasantly.
The first and greatest "wrong" in "cultural property nationalism" is therefore its very foundation. Dubious, unproven hypotheses are not just cause for enacting laws and regulations.
Here is another example, arising from ill-considered legal measures enacted in support of "cultural property nationalism":
Quoting from that post:
"I believe that the Krombach case provides a clear illustration of what this dogmatic archaeology-centric perspective may be expected to lead to whenever it is embodied into law or related government issued regulations. Collectors everywhere: take note.
This case became, in my view, a monstrous and indefensible injustice in which the acquisition of a few unimportant, unprovenanced coins led to a catastrophe for the collector, because of an essential failure to grasp an overriding social reality: that protecting fundamental human rights and providing fair, understandable and reasonable laws are principles far more important to society than everything archaeology has contributed to civilization."
The first is German archaeologist Michael Müller-Karpe, who for years has been accusing the antiquities trade of dealing in stolen and smuggled goods. Despite having been proved wrong on several occasions, (as in the case cited below) he continues his unjustified attacks.
Case History and Summary of a verdict concerning protection of cultural property made by the administrative court Frankfurt am Main from June 2nd, 2010, reference number 5 K 1082/10.FAdministrative litigation by an art dealer against the federal state of Hesse represented by the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and the Arts
Case history
In 2008, the police confiscated a number of ancient bronze bowls from a conservator. Some of the objects – five small vessels and bowls – belonged to an antiquities dealer from Frankfurt who had purchased them from a private collector. The latter had legally acquired the bronzes in the 1980s. To get the pieces back, the dealer had to endure several lawsuits. Even when the Frankfurt district court ascertained that there was no violation of the Act on the Return of Cultural Property and the insinuation of receiving of stolen goods was without justification he did not get the objects back. Pending the decision, they had been handed to the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz (RGMZ), to the archaeologist Michael Müller-Karpe. At the instigation of an official of the Hessian Ministry of Higher Education, Research and the Arts a so-called confiscation order was issued to the effect that the museum was not obliged to hand over the objects.
At the same time, the archaeologist claimed damages of 17 million Euros in total for himself and for the Zentralmuseum in Mainz for defamation. As a result of these extraordinary claims the antiquities dealer was forced to look for legal assistance again. The procedures are outlined in: Ein Museumsangestellter sieht rot. Kunst und Auktionen no. 11, p. 42, Munich, Mai 2010, p. 42
The verdict
In the beginning of June 2010, at the Frankfurt district court, a lawsuit took place which the antiquities dealer again won. The defendant was the federal state of Hesse. The verdict clearly acknowledged and stated that the Hessian Ministry’s and Müller-Karpe’s actions were “grossly and evidently illegal”. With regard to the damages claim the judge “questions the fitness for service of that employee” (i.e. Michael Müller-Karpe) and calls his methods „close to mental confusion”.
Michael Müller-Karpe does indeed appear to be seriously afflicted by "mental confusion." To begin with, he has uncritically (and irresponsibly) adopted Renfrew's dubious dictum as though it were revealed truth. No real scientist, of course, would do such a thing.
Then he has embarked upon a personal crusade against collecting, in the course of which he has demanded extreme and unjust measures, for example that all trade in any objects that might conceivably once have been buried shall be prohibited, regardless of provenance:
(22nd May 2006)
Symposium: Protection of cultural assets (23rd -24th May 2006)
http://www.culture-and-development.info/project/proceed.htm
"Dr. Müller-Karpe ... disagreed, pointing out that in the case of the protection of species the reversal of the burden of proof is already customary practice. For example, ivory is confiscated at every German border if there is no proof of legal origin. If this is possible in the protection of species, then it should also be valid in the area of the protection of cultural assets.
Dr. Müller-Karpe therefore demanded that there be a general prohibition of trade in finds from digs. The turnover from these objects was economically negligible, whereas the damage created by the loss was considerably higher. As nearly all countries today have declared their non-excavated antiquities to be an unsaleable part of their cultural heritage, objects from digs can therefore only be found in museums and a prohibition of trading in these items would be the next logical step, which is also covered by the already existing self-obligation of the art trade."
http://classicalcoins.blogspot.com/2012/05/collapse-of-cultural-property.html
I urge every reader to view the Kouroupas-related part of this post, but knowing that most will not, I quote from its introduction:
"By far the most effective [ and dangerous ] example of "government by fiat" has been the U. S. State Department's Cultural Heritage Center, led since its inception by Maria Papageorge Kouroupas.
In a 2010 review article published on Unidroit-L, I presented (for the first time) a reasonably complete account of what Maria Kouroupas has done since U. S. accession to the 1970 UNESCO convention in 1983:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unidroit-L/message/3573
This article is primarily a comprehensive discussion of the issues of bureaucratic bias and private agendas. I will quote from its introductory section:
"Opinions on this [ bureaucratic bias ] differ (anticollecting archaeologists and the State Department have a different perspective), but there is no question that those involved in the collectors' rights movement perceive the State Department bureaucracy as pervasively and profoundly biased against private antiquities collecting, and view the US Government as being an ally of the archaeology lobby.
It is a very bad state of affairs when law-abiding citizens pursuing what has heretofore been regarded as a socially beneficial and respectable avocation (practised by more than one US President among other notables) come to believe that they are not being fairly treated, and that their government has taken sides in the controversy over antiquities collecting and has become their enemy."
******************************************
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2012/05/economist-takes-on-turkeys-repatriation.html
by Peter Tompa
The Economist Magazine has critiqued Turkey’s new repatriation drive here: http://www.economist.com/node/21555531
The Economist points out Turkey’s nationalist stance is popular at home, but that it is hypocritical in the extreme. Turkey itself was an Imperial power and its museums --like those of other Imperial powers-- also contain artifacts taken from what today are other countries.
The Economist could have gone further. Isn't it also wrong for Turkey to lay claim to cultural artifacts produced by Greek culture when Turkey itself forcibly deported its Greek citizens in the 1920’s?
**************
COMMENTARY
**************
There are so many "wrongs" involved in what (for lack of any more sensible description) is presently called "cultural property nationalism" that it is hard to know where to begin, in listing them.
First and foremost I believe, must be a searching examination of the validity of the basic concept -- that the physical remains of the heritage of extinct cultures can be claimed by a modern state, simply because these remains are discovered within that state's boundaries.
Now obviously, every state is entitled to make its own laws, to prohibit excavation of antiquities within its national territory, and to restrict export of antiquities. That right is not at issue; what is disputed is whether states adopting restrictive antiquities laws should be entitled to demand that other nations must assist in the enforcement of their antiquities laws.
The manner in which states make such demands is to submit requests for import restrictions to other nations which have acceded to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.
The fundamental concept upon which import restrictions are based is Colin Renfrew's famous dictum "Collectors are the real looters," often misstated as "collecting + looting." The origins of this assertion are discussed by Cornelia Isler-Kerenyi in Antiquity / June, 1994:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3284/is_n259_v68/ai_n28640824/
This article strikes the reader accustomed to the iconic status presently accorded to Baron Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, Ph.D., FBA, FSA, HonFSAScot., as surprisingly well-balanced. It must be remembered that in 1994, Renfrew was viewed as a controversial academic theorist, whose approach and pronouncements were hotly debated by many archaeologists.
Renfrew's dictum is discussed in detail in "Renfrew's Hypothesis: Are Collectors the Real Looters,"
http://classicalcoins.blogspot.com/2008/09/renfrews-hypothesis-are-collectors-real.html
This discusses several reasons for thinking that it is not correct. Unsurprisingly, no one in the archaeological community desired a debate on its validity.
The concept that looting can somehow be prevented by restricting international trade in antiquities remains entirely unproven. Not only has there never been a scientifically valid proof, no verifiable evidence tending to support "collecting = looting" has ever been published. There is, on the other hand, an abundance of evidence that "collecting = looting" is false -- beginning with the prevalence of uncontrollable tomb-robbing in antiquity, at a time when there were no collectors and those caught looting died speedily and unpleasantly.
The first and greatest "wrong" in "cultural property nationalism" is therefore its very foundation. Dubious, unproven hypotheses are not just cause for enacting laws and regulations.
Bad laws lead to bad consequences
By Steve Benen - Political Animal
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_11/bad_laws_lead_to_bad_consequen033668.phpHere is another example, arising from ill-considered legal measures enacted in support of "cultural property nationalism":
The Krombach Case
http://classicalcoins.blogspot.com/2010/06/krombach-case.htmlQuoting from that post:
"I believe that the Krombach case provides a clear illustration of what this dogmatic archaeology-centric perspective may be expected to lead to whenever it is embodied into law or related government issued regulations. Collectors everywhere: take note.
This case became, in my view, a monstrous and indefensible injustice in which the acquisition of a few unimportant, unprovenanced coins led to a catastrophe for the collector, because of an essential failure to grasp an overriding social reality: that protecting fundamental human rights and providing fair, understandable and reasonable laws are principles far more important to society than everything archaeology has contributed to civilization."
Too many "wrongs" to list
There
are, in fact, far too many "wrongs" to list, however two of these
"wrongs" are individual persons, and for that reason alone they should
be discussed.
The first is
German archaeologist Michael Müller-Karpe, who for years has been
accusing the antiquities trade of dealing in stolen and smuggled goods.
Despite having been proved wrong on several occasions, (as in the case
cited below) he continues his unjustified attacks.Case History and Summary of a verdict concerning protection of cultural property made by the administrative court Frankfurt am Main from June 2nd, 2010, reference number 5 K 1082/10.FAdministrative litigation by an art dealer against the federal state of Hesse represented by the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and the Arts
Case history
In 2008, the police confiscated a number of ancient bronze bowls from a conservator. Some of the objects – five small vessels and bowls – belonged to an antiquities dealer from Frankfurt who had purchased them from a private collector. The latter had legally acquired the bronzes in the 1980s. To get the pieces back, the dealer had to endure several lawsuits. Even when the Frankfurt district court ascertained that there was no violation of the Act on the Return of Cultural Property and the insinuation of receiving of stolen goods was without justification he did not get the objects back. Pending the decision, they had been handed to the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz (RGMZ), to the archaeologist Michael Müller-Karpe. At the instigation of an official of the Hessian Ministry of Higher Education, Research and the Arts a so-called confiscation order was issued to the effect that the museum was not obliged to hand over the objects.
At the same time, the archaeologist claimed damages of 17 million Euros in total for himself and for the Zentralmuseum in Mainz for defamation. As a result of these extraordinary claims the antiquities dealer was forced to look for legal assistance again. The procedures are outlined in: Ein Museumsangestellter sieht rot. Kunst und Auktionen no. 11, p. 42, Munich, Mai 2010, p. 42
The verdict
In the beginning of June 2010, at the Frankfurt district court, a lawsuit took place which the antiquities dealer again won. The defendant was the federal state of Hesse. The verdict clearly acknowledged and stated that the Hessian Ministry’s and Müller-Karpe’s actions were “grossly and evidently illegal”. With regard to the damages claim the judge “questions the fitness for service of that employee” (i.e. Michael Müller-Karpe) and calls his methods „close to mental confusion”.
Michael Müller-Karpe does indeed appear to be seriously afflicted by "mental confusion." To begin with, he has uncritically (and irresponsibly) adopted Renfrew's dubious dictum as though it were revealed truth. No real scientist, of course, would do such a thing.
Then he has embarked upon a personal crusade against collecting, in the course of which he has demanded extreme and unjust measures, for example that all trade in any objects that might conceivably once have been buried shall be prohibited, regardless of provenance:
Report of the Symposium "Protection of Cultural Assets"
Discussion panel "Germany - a paradise for stolen goods?" (22nd May 2006)
Symposium: Protection of cultural assets (23rd -24th May 2006)
http://www.culture-and-development.info/project/proceed.htm
"Dr. Müller-Karpe ... disagreed, pointing out that in the case of the protection of species the reversal of the burden of proof is already customary practice. For example, ivory is confiscated at every German border if there is no proof of legal origin. If this is possible in the protection of species, then it should also be valid in the area of the protection of cultural assets.
Dr. Müller-Karpe therefore demanded that there be a general prohibition of trade in finds from digs. The turnover from these objects was economically negligible, whereas the damage created by the loss was considerably higher. As nearly all countries today have declared their non-excavated antiquities to be an unsaleable part of their cultural heritage, objects from digs can therefore only be found in museums and a prohibition of trading in these items would be the next logical step, which is also covered by the already existing self-obligation of the art trade."
Stealth Fighter
Finally we come to the most important and dangerous of all the "wrongs," Maria P. Kouroupas. I discussed her influence upon US cultural property policy in detail recently:http://classicalcoins.blogspot.com/2012/05/collapse-of-cultural-property.html
I urge every reader to view the Kouroupas-related part of this post, but knowing that most will not, I quote from its introduction:
"By far the most effective [ and dangerous ] example of "government by fiat" has been the U. S. State Department's Cultural Heritage Center, led since its inception by Maria Papageorge Kouroupas.
In a 2010 review article published on Unidroit-L, I presented (for the first time) a reasonably complete account of what Maria Kouroupas has done since U. S. accession to the 1970 UNESCO convention in 1983:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unidroit-L/message/3573
This article is primarily a comprehensive discussion of the issues of bureaucratic bias and private agendas. I will quote from its introductory section:
"Opinions on this [ bureaucratic bias ] differ (anticollecting archaeologists and the State Department have a different perspective), but there is no question that those involved in the collectors' rights movement perceive the State Department bureaucracy as pervasively and profoundly biased against private antiquities collecting, and view the US Government as being an ally of the archaeology lobby.
It is a very bad state of affairs when law-abiding citizens pursuing what has heretofore been regarded as a socially beneficial and respectable avocation (practised by more than one US President among other notables) come to believe that they are not being fairly treated, and that their government has taken sides in the controversy over antiquities collecting and has become their enemy."
******************************************
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Cultural Property Wrongs
The Economist Takes On Turkey's Repatriation Drivehttp://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2012/05/economist-takes-on-turkeys-repatriation.html
by Peter Tompa
The Economist Magazine has critiqued Turkey’s new repatriation drive here: http://www.economist.com/node/21555531
The Economist points out Turkey’s nationalist stance is popular at home, but that it is hypocritical in the extreme. Turkey itself was an Imperial power and its museums --like those of other Imperial powers-- also contain artifacts taken from what today are other countries.
The Economist could have gone further. Isn't it also wrong for Turkey to lay claim to cultural artifacts produced by Greek culture when Turkey itself forcibly deported its Greek citizens in the 1920’s?
**************
COMMENTARY
**************
There are so many "wrongs" involved in what (for lack of any more sensible description) is presently called "cultural property nationalism" that it is hard to know where to begin, in listing them.
First and foremost I believe, must be a searching examination of the validity of the basic concept -- that the physical remains of the heritage of extinct cultures can be claimed by a modern state, simply because these remains are discovered within that state's boundaries.
Now obviously, every state is entitled to make its own laws, to prohibit excavation of antiquities within its national territory, and to restrict export of antiquities. That right is not at issue; what is disputed is whether states adopting restrictive antiquities laws should be entitled to demand that other nations must assist in the enforcement of their antiquities laws.
The manner in which states make such demands is to submit requests for import restrictions to other nations which have acceded to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.
The fundamental concept upon which import restrictions are based is Colin Renfrew's famous dictum "Collectors are the real looters," often misstated as "collecting + looting." The origins of this assertion are discussed by Cornelia Isler-Kerenyi in Antiquity / June, 1994:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3284/is_n259_v68/ai_n28640824/
This article strikes the reader accustomed to the iconic status presently accorded to Baron Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, Ph.D., FBA, FSA, HonFSAScot., as surprisingly well-balanced. It must be remembered that in 1994, Renfrew was viewed as a controversial academic theorist, whose approach and pronouncements were hotly debated by many archaeologists.
Renfrew's dictum is discussed in detail in "Renfrew's Hypothesis: Are Collectors the Real Looters,"
http://classicalcoins.blogspot.com/2008/09/renfrews-hypothesis-are-collectors-real.html
This discusses several reasons for thinking that it is not correct. Unsurprisingly, no one in the archaeological community desired a debate on its validity.
The concept that looting can somehow be prevented by restricting international trade in antiquities remains entirely unproven. Not only has there never been a scientifically valid proof, no verifiable evidence tending to support "collecting = looting" has ever been published. There is, on the other hand, an abundance of evidence that "collecting = looting" is false -- beginning with the prevalence of uncontrollable tomb-robbing in antiquity, at a time when there were no collectors and those caught looting died speedily and unpleasantly.
The first and greatest "wrong" in "cultural property nationalism" is therefore its very foundation. Dubious, unproven hypotheses are not just cause for enacting laws and regulations.
Bad laws lead to bad consequences
By Steve Benen - Political Animal
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_11/bad_laws_lead_to_bad_consequen033668.phpHere is another example, arising from ill-considered legal measures enacted in support of "cultural property nationalism":
The Krombach Case
http://classicalcoins.blogspot.com/2010/06/krombach-case.htmlQuoting from that post:
"I believe that the Krombach case provides a clear illustration of what this dogmatic archaeology-centric perspective may be expected to lead to whenever it is embodied into law or related government issued regulations. Collectors everywhere: take note.
This case became, in my view, a monstrous and indefensible injustice in which the acquisition of a few unimportant, unprovenanced coins led to a catastrophe for the collector, because of an essential failure to grasp an overriding social reality: that protecting fundamental human rights and providing fair, understandable and reasonable laws are principles far more important to society than everything archaeology has contributed to civilization."
issues
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Cultural Property Wrongs
The Economist Takes On Turkey's Repatriation Drivehttp://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2012/05/economist-takes-on-turkeys-repatriation.html
by Peter Tompa
The Economist Magazine has critiqued Turkey’s new repatriation drive here: http://www.economist.com/node/21555531
The Economist points out Turkey’s nationalist stance is popular at home, but that it is hypocritical in the extreme. Turkey itself was an Imperial power and its museums --like those of other Imperial powers-- also contain artifacts taken from what today are other countries.
The Economist could have gone further. Isn't it also wrong for Turkey to lay claim to cultural artifacts produced by Greek culture when Turkey itself forcibly deported its Greek citizens in the 1920’s?
**************
COMMENTARY
**************
There are so many "wrongs" involved in what (for lack of any more sensible description) is presently called "cultural property nationalism" that it is hard to know where to begin, in listing them.
First and foremost I believe, must be a searching examination of the validity of the basic concept -- that the physical remains of the heritage of extinct cultures can be claimed by a modern state, simply because these remains are discovered within that state's boundaries.
Now obviously, every state is entitled to make its own laws, to prohibit excavation of antiquities within its national territory, and to restrict export of antiquities. That right is not at issue; what is disputed is whether states adopting restrictive antiquities laws should be entitled to demand that other nations must assist in the enforcement of their antiquities laws.
The manner in which states make such demands is to submit requests for import restrictions to other nations which have acceded to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.
The fundamental concept upon which import restrictions are based is Colin Renfrew's famous dictum "Collectors are the real looters," often misstated as "collecting + looting." The origins of this assertion are discussed by Cornelia Isler-Kerenyi in Antiquity / June, 1994:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3284/is_n259_v68/ai_n28640824/
This article strikes the reader accustomed to the iconic status presently accorded to Baron Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, Ph.D., FBA, FSA, HonFSAScot., as surprisingly well-balanced. It must be remembered that in 1994, Renfrew was viewed as a controversial academic theorist, whose approach and pronouncements were hotly debated by many archaeologists.
Renfrew's dictum is discussed in detail in "Renfrew's Hypothesis: Are Collectors the Real Looters,"
http://classicalcoins.blogspot.com/2008/09/renfrews-hypothesis-are-collectors-real.html
This discusses several reasons for thinking that it is not correct. Unsurprisingly, no one in the archaeological community desired a debate on its validity.
The concept that looting can somehow be prevented by restricting international trade in antiquities remains entirely unproven. Not only has there never been a scientifically valid proof, no verifiable evidence tending to support "collecting = looting" has ever been published. There is, on the other hand, an abundance of evidence that "collecting = looting" is false -- beginning with the prevalence of uncontrollable tomb-robbing in antiquity, at a time when there were no collectors and those caught looting died speedily and unpleasantly.
The first and greatest "wrong" in "cultural property nationalism" is therefore its very foundation. Dubious, unproven hypotheses are not just cause for enacting laws and regulations.
Bad laws lead to bad consequences
By Steve Benen - Political Animal
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_11/bad_laws_lead_to_bad_consequen033668.phpHere is another example, arising from ill-considered legal measures enacted in support of "cultural property nationalism":
The Krombach Case
http://classicalcoins.blogspot.com/2010/06/krombach-case.htmlQuoting from that post:
"I believe that the Krombach case provides a clear illustration of what this dogmatic archaeology-centric perspective may be expected to lead to whenever it is embodied into law or related government issued regulations. Collectors everywhere: take note.
This case became, in my view, a monstrous and indefensible injustice in which the acquisition of a few unimportant, unprovenanced coins led to a catastrophe for the collector, because of an essential failure to grasp an overriding social reality: that protecting fundamental human rights and providing fair, understandable and reasonable laws are principles far more important to society than everything archaeology has contributed to civilization."
Too many "wrongs" to list
There are, in fact, far too many "wrongs" to list, however two of these "wrongs" are individual persons, and for that reason alone they should be discussed.
Case History and Summary of a verdict concerning protection of cultural property made by the administrative court Frankfurt am Main from June 2nd, 2010, reference number 5 K 1082/10.FAdministrative litigation by an art dealer against the federal state of Hesse represented by the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and the Arts
Case history
In 2008, the police confiscated a number of ancient bronze bowls from a conservator. Some of the objects – five small vessels and bowls – belonged to an antiquities dealer from Frankfurt who had purchased them from a private collector. The latter had legally acquired the bronzes in the 1980s. To get the pieces back, the dealer had to endure several lawsuits. Even when the Frankfurt district court ascertained that there was no violation of the Act on the Return of Cultural Property and the insinuation of receiving of stolen goods was without justification he did not get the objects back. Pending the decision, they had been handed to the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz (RGMZ), to the archaeologist Michael Müller-Karpe. At the instigation of an official of the Hessian Ministry of Higher Education, Research and the Arts a so-called confiscation order was issued to the effect that the museum was not obliged to hand over the objects.
At the same time, the archaeologist claimed damages of 17 million Euros in total for himself and for the Zentralmuseum in Mainz for defamation. As a result of these extraordinary claims the antiquities dealer was forced to look for legal assistance again. The procedures are outlined in: Ein Museumsangestellter sieht rot. Kunst und Auktionen no. 11, p. 42, Munich, Mai 2010, p. 42
The verdict
In the beginning of June 2010, at the Frankfurt district court, a lawsuit took place which the antiquities dealer again won. The defendant was the federal state of Hesse. The verdict clearly acknowledged and stated that the Hessian Ministry’s and Müller-Karpe’s actions were “grossly and evidently illegal”. With regard to the damages claim the judge “questions the fitness for service of that employee” (i.e. Michael Müller-Karpe) and calls his methods „close to mental confusion”.
Michael Müller-Karpe does indeed appear to be seriously afflicted by "mental confusion." To begin with, he has uncritically (and irresponsibly) adopted Renfrew's dubious dictum as though it were revealed truth. No real scientist, of course, would do such a thing.
Then he has embarked upon a personal crusade against collecting, in the course of which he has demanded extreme and unjust measures, for example that all trade in any objects that might conceivably once have been buried shall be prohibited, regardless of provenance:
Report of the Symposium "Protection of Cultural Assets"
Discussion panel "Germany - a paradise for stolen goods?" (22nd May 2006)
Symposium: Protection of cultural assets (23rd -24th May 2006)
http://www.culture-and-development.info/project/proceed.htm
"Dr. Müller-Karpe ... disagreed, pointing out that in the case of the protection of species the reversal of the burden of proof is already customary practice. For example, ivory is confiscated at every German border if there is no proof of legal origin. If this is possible in the protection of species, then it should also be valid in the area of the protection of cultural assets.
Dr. Müller-Karpe therefore demanded that there be a general prohibition of trade in finds from digs. The turnover from these objects was economically negligible, whereas the damage created by the loss was considerably higher. As nearly all countries today have declared their non-excavated antiquities to be an unsaleable part of their cultural heritage, objects from digs can therefore only be found in museums and a prohibition of trading in these items would be the next logical step, which is also covered by the already existing self-obligation of the art trade."
Stealth Fighter
Finally we come to the most important and dangerous of all the "wrongs," Maria P. Kouroupas. I discussed her influence upon US cultural property policy in detail recently:http://classicalcoins.blogspot.com/2012/05/collapse-of-cultural-property.html
I urge every reader to view the Kouroupas-related part of this post, but knowing that most will not, I quote from its introduction:
"By far the most effective [ and dangerous ] example of "government by fiat" has been the U. S. State Department's Cultural Heritage Center, led since its inception by Maria Papageorge Kouroupas.
In a 2010 review article published on Unidroit-L, I presented (for the first time) a reasonably complete account of what Maria Kouroupas has done since U. S. accession to the 1970 UNESCO convention in 1983:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unidroit-L/message/3573
This article is primarily a comprehensive discussion of the issues of bureaucratic bias and private agendas. I will quote from its introductory section:
"Opinions on this [ bureaucratic bias ] differ (anticollecting archaeologists and the State Department have a different perspective), but there is no question that those involved in the collectors' rights movement perceive the State Department bureaucracy as pervasively and profoundly biased against private antiquities collecting, and view the US Government as being an ally of the archaeology lobby.
It is a very bad state of affairs when law-abiding citizens pursuing what has heretofore been regarded as a socially beneficial and respectable avocation (practised by more than one US President among other notables) come to believe that they are not being fairly treated, and that their government has taken sides in the controversy over antiquities collecting and has become their enemy."
******************************************
posted by Dave Welsh at 2:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home