Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Valentinian, post: 3787142, member: 44316"]Alan Walker of the firm Nomos in Switzerland wrote an e-mail advertising their upcoming auction. At the end he mused about cultural property issues. I thought it was so interesting that I wrote him and asked for his permission, which he gave me, to reproduce it here. He wrote: On 14 November 1970 the well-known UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property was first ratified, coming into force on 24 April 1972: for each individual state party (i.e., countries) it came into force on the date of that country's ratification of the Convention. In many ways, this Convention was a completely understandable reaction on the part of the countries of the Third World (and elsewhere, of course), and those of the members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), to what they considered to be the theft of so many items of their heritage by the European colonial powers over past centuries. Over the years the Convention has been expanded by other international documents, as well as by ever-greater enforcement processes within what might be termed the "collecting/consumer nations." In some ways the concept does sound reasonable: objects that are really an integral part of a modern country's heritage should be protected so that they stay within that country, as a way of supporting the identity of that country's people. A perfect example of an item that has an almost mystical importance for a modern state is the original Magna Carta of 1215, which has such a vital position for the heritage of England (and through Great Britain on many of the countries of the world today); there are four original copies in existence, 2 in the British Library and 1 each in the cathedral libraries of Lincoln and Salisbury - these documents can never, ever, be alienated into foreign hands. Yet a copy of Shakespeare's First Folio of 1623, one of the most important books in the English language, would certainly not be prevented from leaving Britain, despite its tremendous significance. Originally some 750 copies were printed, of which around 235 copies survive: 5 are in the British Library; 1 in the National Library of Scotland; 1 is in the Indian Institute of Technology in Roorkee; 1 was recently discovered in the public library of St. Omer in France where it had lain, apparently unread, for some 200 years; and 82 copies are in the Folger Library in Washington DC.  While I would expect that neither the copy in Roorkee nor that in St. Omer would be allowed out of either India or France, there really would be no reason for the vast majority to be subject to export bans. About a generation ago when I first became interested in Cultural Heritage questions I seem to remember that, at that time, there were about 2,000 items, whether objects, manuscripts, paintings, buildings (?), etc., that simply could not be removed from Germany because they were such inherent parts of what might be termed "Germanness." In other words, a number of serious people, working and thinking over a number of years, decided on things that were really important to Germany. And importance was the operative word: not just rarity or value or place of origin or artist, maker or composer: just true importance to the country's cultural heritage. On the contrary, if I remember correctly, the equivalent number of items subject to an export ban in Italy was 30,000,000. This brings us to the really huge problem that is inherent with the 1970 Convention: there is no sense of proportion. Instead of focusing on individual items, or even specific types of objects, the Unesco guidelines have been used to regulate virtually everything over a certain age; in many places this effectively makes the sale, transport, or, even, ownership of a vast number of items ipso-facto illegal. Not only that, while there are many kinds of objects that have a primarily local or regional circle of interest, meaning their highest sale value can be found solely within a specific country, other items are of international importance commercially (for example, Rembrandts are not just desirable for art lovers in Amsterdam or Haarlem, but also in London, Tokyo, Chicago and Cape Town); thus, an export ban on any item with an international market effectively deprives its owner of a fair price should he or she want to sell it. And do note that the refusal of an export license does not oblige the refusing state to compensate the owner by acquiring the item at its international market price. Far from it, once an owner has applied for a license and been turned down - with the result that the item is registered with the relevant government ministry - he or she can only either sell it within the country at the national price, or retain it, serving more-or-less as an unpaid custodian for the state (with the possibility that if he or she is accused of not caring for it properly, it might well be expropriated). In addition, one should also remember that many of the items that could be subject to export control, as listed in the Unesco Convention, were always in private ownership, without any state subvention or help in their maintenance. For example, Article 1, i of the Convention covers "postage, revenue and similar stamps, singly or in collections"; as a group these items would have been amassed almost entirely due to private enterprise. While a present owner might want to donate the family collection to the state postal museum, he might equally want to consign the stamps to an auction abroad to reach a much larger cross section of buyers in order to help pay for a new roof and other household improvements, his childrens' education, etc., etc. Why should a state be allowed to effectively expropriate those stamps? As for coins, here is what the Convention covers in Article 1, e: "antiquities more than one hundred years old, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals." For all intents and purposes, this is so broad that if, for example, the German authorities wanted to, they could, following the Convention, ban the export of Vereinsthalers (1857-1871), and, even, Reichsmünzen! Most readers will say, "But surely, they wouldn't be crazy enough to do that, would they?" Would they? To end, as an illustration of how the Convention, which was envisioned by many of its drafters and signatories as a good solution for keeping important cultural treasures in their country of origin, has been used by certain interested state parties to totally change the Convention's meaning. The US State Department, one of the great supporters of the Unesco Convention, has recently (14 August 2019) enacted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Algeria in order to protect that country's cultural heritage. This is what it covers: The Designated List includes archaeological material in stone, ceramic, metal, bone, glass, and other categories ranging in date from the Paleolithic period (beginning around 2.4 million years ago) to the middle of the Ottoman period in Algeria (A.D. 1750). That's right, virtually everything ever made by human beings in the territory of modern Algeria from 2.4 million years ago to 1750 is included! Read in detail it almost seems to be a kind of crazy joke: in section G,  Textiles, Basketry, and Rope, here is sub-section 3. Rope—Rope and string were used for a great variety of purposes, including binding, lifting water for irrigation, fishing nets, measuring, and stringing beads for jewelry and garments. Do you think it is possible that the US State Department thinks there is actually a market, anywhere, for antique Algerian rope and string? And how does one tell Algerian rope and string apart from Moroccan or Tunisian or Spanish or German or Chinese robe and string? What kind of hallucinogens are they on? But not only does this MOU  cover items actually from Algeria, it also covers items that might have been found in Algeria, though it basically misdates them: section B, Ceramic, sub-section 4. Vessels, b. Greek—Includes both local and imported fine and coarse wares and amphorae. Also imported Attic Black Figure, Red Figure, and White Ground pottery—these are made in a specific set of shapes (e.g., amphorae, kraters, hydriae, oinochoi, kylikes) decorated with black painted figures on a clear clay ground (Black Figure), decorative elements in reserve with background fired black (Red Figure), and multi-colored figures painted on a white ground (White Ground). Includes imported painted pottery made in Corinth in a specific range of shapes for perfume and unguents and for drinking or pouring liquids. The very characteristic painted and incised designs depict human and animal figural scenes, rows of animals, and floral decoration. Approximate date: 8th century B.C. to 6th century B.C. It's nice to know that Attic Red-Figure and White Ground were made during the 8th to 6th centuries BC. It is also good to know that any Attic RF coming to the US without what they consider to be adequate paperwork will not be sent back to Italy or Greece, the way we would have thought they might be, but to Algeria!! As for Greek coins, section C, Metal, sub-section 9. Coins, part a. Greek we have: in silver, bronze, and gold, struck in Algeria and in nearby mints (Cyrene, Carthage). Well, Cyrene is in modern Libya and Carthage is in Tunisia; so now their coins will have to be sent back to Algeria?[/QUOTE]

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches