[MSN] "An Obscure State Department committee...

[Museum Security Network Mailing list]

http://www.thewalters.org/blog/comments.aspx?b=19

"An Obscure State Department committee...
by Gary Vikan on April 16, 2007

… has been the focus of fierce battles between archaeologists and dealers."
This is how author Jeremy Kahn characterized the President's Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) in a full-page article in the New York Times ("Is the U.S. Protecting Foreign Artifacts? Don't Ask," April 8, 2007). I was a Clinton appointee to that committee, serving from 2000 to April 2003, when I and two other members resigned in the wake of the looting of the National Museum of Iraq, in Baghdad.
The work of CPAC, which was created in 1983 by legislation intended to give effect to ratification of the UNESCO Convention on cultural property (1970), is to make recommendations to the State Department on applications from foreign nations asking, in effect, that their export laws governing cultural property become our import laws. From its inception, the committee’s activities have been highly secretive; in recent years, its internal deliberations have become increasingly contentious, as the archaeologists’ voice has come to dominate the collectors and dealers on the committee. 
The hot issue now is whether the State Department will accept, on CPAC’s recommendation, a sweeping ban on the import of Chinese art and artifacts predating 1911. (The often-repeated counterarguments are that the Chinese have yet to clean up their own art-dealing house and that the share of the Chinese trade is relatively small, and will simply go elsewhere.)
The points made by Kahn, and through him, by his many sources on and off the committee, including its present chair, Jay Kislak, are right on the mark. The archaeologists’ voice and values are disproportionately strong among the CPAC membership, and its activities are overly secretive and exclusionary.
For CPAC to function as intended, its 11 members must not only legitimately represent the interests of their designated constituencies—archaeologists, museums, the art trade, and the general public—they must also be committed to be guided in their deliberations by the four "determinations" set out in the 1983 legislation. 
To quote Jeremy Kahn:
“…[the foreign nation]...must document the extent to which pillaging jeopardizes important cultural sites and objects. It must provide evidence that it is combating looting inside its borders. It must establish that the American market in these objects is large enough to warrant more control and that other methods to address looting are not available. ...so American dealers and collectors are not unfairly disadvantaged." 
A final, "quid-pro-quo" determination, not mentioned by Kahn, has to do with what they might reasonably expect in return from the requesting nation, in terms, most notably, of extended loans for scholarly and educational purposes.
The problem with each of these requirements is one of threshold; namely, how much looting, effort to stop looting, multi-national cooperation in interdicting movement of looted material, is sufficient to warrant action by the U.S. government that will come at the disadvantage of at least some of its citizens.
In these deliberations, committee members are challenged to rise above their individual, parochial interests to address these questions against a backdrop of shared interests and values—and simple common sense. And even if this lofty state of being should someday come to pass, which many of us doubt, there remains one disturbing lacuna both in the wording of the determinations and in the spirit of the committee’s deliberations; namely, a recognition of the validity and value of the movement of cultural property across borders for the purpose of collecting—the principle that lies at the very heart of the great encyclopedic museums of the world. 
This, if acknowledged and acted upon by the committee, would provide the necessary counterbalance to its laudable work of protecting archaeological sites. Protected sites should be the penultimate goal of CPAC; its ultimate goal should be the controlled movement of cultural property across borders.
If this is not our vision and strategy, how can we ever hope that it might someday become a shared international vision and strategy?
As for the two theses of the Kahn's article, that the membership of CPAC is skewed toward the archaeologists’ perspective and that the committee’s activities inappropriately secretive, I fully agree. More sunshine would be good, both for the committee, so that its deliberations might be better informed by information coming from outside its own tight circle, and for the public at large, so that it will be fully aware of those entrusted with setting U.S. foreign cultural policy, and hold them accountable.
 
Comment by Deborah on 4/18/2007 12:19:28 AM
How disheartening, for Museum Directors, Curators, employees and the public.  I am grateful for the coverage though, as I support public knowledge and interests in this very important part of our world's cultures.  Hopefully someone with enough clout will finally pull the reigns in with archaeologists and others involved in financial and professional gain concerning these precious treasures.  
 
Comment by John G. Ford, trustee of the Walters Art Museum on 4/20/2007 4:23:16 PM
Everyone interested in the issues before CPAC is thoroughly frustrated but at the same time vowing to make his/her voice heard in committee and/or the world at large as Jeremy Kahn has done in his NY Times article of April 8. It is unfortunate that Gary Vikan and others resigned from the committee thereby weakening their voices on the important issues that should be front and center for the committee and its work. Namely to address the four items highlighted by Kahn before the committee acts in secrecy in addition to being an unbalanced and non-representative committee.  

Why would it not be appropriate for the Association of Art Museum Directors to speak with one voice in a very public manner so that the thinking American public will make its voice heard in newspapers, magazines and symposia? Namely, the recognition of the validity and value of the movement of cultural property across borders for the purpose of collecting and displaying the wealth and breath of all the worlds cultures!
 
Comment by Joan Sobkov on 4/20/2007 4:32:21 PM
I assume you read the article in today's Times about the opening of the new Greek/Roman galleries.  You and he are certainly on the same wavelength.  I subscribe to Archaeology Today, published by AIA.  Their position is fiercely opposed to new acquisitions in museums but editorially I don't find them to support the "return it all" movement.  As with most issues, a little light and less heat would be beneficial.
 
Comment by Judy Van Dyke on 4/25/2007 3:04:20 PM
I recently traveled to the Middle East (Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and Lebanon).  One of our tour leaders was from the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago.  OI has sponsored archaeological excavations and has received objects from those digs which are part of its collections here in the U.S.  The joint agreements relating to objects were very specific.  For example, if duplicate artifacts were excavated, OI might be able to "claim" one of the duplicates.
I realize that this relates to a controlled dig, but it is an example of how countries with cultural property can use financing and expertise from countries such as the U.S. to uncover and research their objects in a controlled way.  I assume this is what you feel CPAC should be encouraging. 
 
Comment by gv on 4/27/2007 12:09:08 PM
John, you're right, of course, but as it turned out, the entire committee was turned over; it's political, after all.
 
Comment by gv on 4/27/2007 12:12:33 PM
Judy,
Yes, that old system of partage was great, and brought some real treasures to Europe.  Nefertiti, in Berlin, among them.  Unfortunately, it doesn't much happen anymore, and the Egyptians have put a claim, nearly a century after the fact, on Nefertiti.
g  
 
Comment by Harlan J. Berk on 5/2/2007 11:29:58 AM
If,as Judy Van Dyke said,"It's OK for the OI to take a duplicate item for a controled dig" Then why restrict a south Italian owl skyphos which exist in the thousands.No country needs or can store or study the millions of duplicate antiquities that exist such as scarabs,munny beads,Sumerian cylindar seals,everyday UR III small tablets and the like. Harlan J. Berk
 
Comment by Wayne G. Sayles on 5/2/2007 11:54:51 AM
It might be good for us to remember that Cultural Property Nationalism is a minority opinion on the world stage, even though it has a disproportionately loud voice.  Since WWII, the movement toward globalism has advanced steadily and now encompasses nearly every facet of our lives.  Why should our access to the art and history of diverse cultures be treated any differently than access to the goods that they produce in our own time?  Whose interests are wide sweeping restrictions on the transfer of cultural property really protecting?  Isn't the repression of independent scholarship really akin to feudal monasticism?  It is obviously a complex issue that deserves, indeed demands, careful consideration by those empowered to control our lives.
 
Comment by Thomas A. Barbeau on 5/6/2007 12:51:57 PM
Without getting too deeply analytical about these matters, I wonder who is considering the probable fate of what must be considered Western cultural properties that lie under and above the ground in "Muslim Lands" as Salafist Islam rises from influence to ascendency. The Islamic notion of "jahiliah" is an elastic concept which refers to the ignorant and abominable times prior to the coming of Islam. The artifacts of these times are evil, or at best, worthless under Islamic Sharia law. How much of the Hindu, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine patrimony has already been destroyed through deliberate neglect and fanaticim in Islamic areas? Are these attitudes in Islamic countries being monitored? Is there any scholarship that addresses this sad history without apology? Is there an official position to be taken regarding this problem?
 
Comment by gv on 5/6/2007 12:58:20 PM
Good comments, Harlan and Wayne.  Thank you, both.

Your notion, Wayne, of positioning cultural property within the framework of globalization is a good one.  But the key, as with copyright and such, is some form of control.  Note this week's NEW YORKER and "The Idol Thief." The smuggling of art is a messy business, not only from a legal point of view, but because is disrupts and destroys things precious to us all.
 
Comment by Peter K. Tompa on 5/6/2007 5:53:37 PM
Gary Vikan's comments take on special significance because he sat on CPAC himself.   

The United States has reserved its independent judgment regarding the scope and need for import controls on cultural artifacts.  Under the governing statute, the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, U.S. actions in these complex matters should not be bound by the characterizations of other countries. The exercise of this independent judgment in this complex area requires input from the knowledgeable members of CPAC.  CPAC helps recommend a balance between efforts to control looting at archeological sites and the legitimate international exchange of cultural artifacts. 

Unfortunately, CPACs ability to provide useful advice in this area has been seriously compromised by the lack of transparency Mr. Vikan and Jeremy Kahn describe. The Department of State has effectively stacked the deck by limiting publicly available information necessary to contest import restriction requests. This effectively restricts the flow of information to the Committee itself to that secretly provided by the archaeological community and the source nations seeking restrictions.  Such information typically highlights or even exaggerates facts supporting such restrictions while supressing those that don't.  

Hopefully Mr. Vikan's blog and Jeremy Kahn's article will help prompt others to make similar concerns known to their elected officials.  Only public pressure will help ensure that the State Department reviews its  current procedures to require that any decision to impose import restrictions on cultural artifacts is based on a complete record. Archaeologists and source countries don't need to deal with the impact of import restrictions.  Museums, collectors and those engaged in the legitimate international trade of cultural goods do.  It is only fair, therefore, that their voices are fully heard in Washington too. 

 
Comment by jay kislak on 5/10/2007 2:32:18 PM
Right on.Gary.I'm trying ,but you know how hard that is dealing with the entrenched beaurucracy.Any ideas or help you may give would be appreciated.As you know,we now have two new members.Maybe,just maybe,things will change a little.
 
Comment by JHMerryman on 5/11/2007 3:46:32 PM
Here is the way I see it. The career bureaucrats on the Committee's staff were long ago captured by the AIA. The AIA has long been a captive of its own fervor. Neither gives more than token deference to the terms of the CPIA. Not a pretty picture. No wonder they hide.  
 
Comment by gv on 5/12/2007 9:49:58 AM
Jay, you found me!
GV