Sour Grapes

My previous blog post heralded the appointment of Brent R. Benjamin to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) as a positive step in fulfilling the intent of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act. Specifically, that is to provide a balanced perspective when evaluating requests from other nations for the imposition of import restrictions on cultural property. The eleven presidential appointments to CPAC come from diverse segments of society that are mandated by law—so that the work of the committee will reflect the views and interests of society, not just of a favored special interest. Archaeologists hold seats on the committee, as do anthropologists and ethnologists. And, so do representatives of the museum community, the trade and the general public. Mr. Benjamin, as Director of the St. Louis Art Museum, was appointed by President Bush to fill one of the positions allocated to the museum community.

As news of this appointment reached the street, there was an immediate furor among some archaeologists who characterized the appointment as "outrageous", among other adjectives, and squalled like bawling little brats who didn't get their way. They refer to supporters of Mr. Benjamin's appointment (I guess that includes me) as "ignorant". What was the impetus behind these little temper tantrums? It's simple—Mr. Benjamin is not one of them! For some time, the museum community has been represented by appointees favorable to the Archaeological community's retentionist world view of cultural property management. It mattered little that the museum community largely opposed import restrictions, their CPAC representatives religiously voted in favor of restrictions. The prospect of a true representative of museums joining the committee must be terribly daunting. The outcry really is a case, however, of the pot calling the kettle black.

When the Cypriot request for import restrictions came before CPAC, it was obvious that committee member Prof. Joan Connelly, an archaeologist who excavates in Cyprus and is beholding to the government of Cyprus for that permission, faced what most rational people would see as a clear conflict of interests. Although this was formally brought to the attention of the Executive Director of the Cultural Heritage Center, which embodies CPAC, the pro-archaeological administration of the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs determined in their infinite wisdom that no conflict existed. Be that as it may, the rant from the archaeological community about Mr. Benjamin, in retrospect, is hardly credible. All that Mr. Benjamin did to provoke their ire was to demand proof that one of SLAM's Egyptian antiquities was actually stolen, as the Egyptians claim, before he would agree to repatriate it. Frankly, given the record of Zahi Hawass, I think Mr. Benjamin is absolutely correct and fully justified in being cautious. The very fact that he has not been intimidated into some irrational response by Hawass is all the more reason to think that he was a good choice for the CPAC post.

I can't help feeling a bit bewildered about the reaction of archaeologists to this appointment. If I, for one, were to challenge an appointment to one of the archaeology or anthropology seats because the appointee was a cultural property nationalist, that would be considered a bizarre criticism—of course they would be, duh! Why is this any different? Frankly, I'm not sure what Mr. Benjamin's feelings are in regard to globalism versus nationalism in the museum world. I am guessing, however, that they are less ideologically based than we have seen in recent years. One can at least hope. Isn't that, after all, why we have mandated sector appointments?