Forever Young

This past week I spent an afternoon with Ralph Conte in Columbia, Missouri. This active nonagenarian was a Bombardier/Navigator with the 669th and 670th Bomb Squadrons of the 416th Bomb Group during WWII and authored the Group history Attack Bombers We Need You. Most of his 65 combat missions were flown in the A-20 Havoc. He is the recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Purple Heart and numerous other U.S. and Allied Nation decorations and awards. Ralph graciously consented to sitting for a video taping session and for three hours he shared many remembrances of his days in the 416th, some delightful and some insightful—all of them interesting. At the very end of the session, Ralph reflected on the process of looking back. It was a poignant moment that I thought worth sharing now. The remainder of this interview will serve as source material, along with other interviews, photos and remembrances, for an eventual documentary about the 416th.

Ralph Conte

An IFAR Evening

On April 17, 2008 the International Foundation for Art Research hosted a public forum at the National Academy in New York. This rather unusual forum was titled "The Who, What, Why and How of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC). The panelists consisted of five, at that time, current and former members of the committee. Two of them were archaeologists, two chairpersons, and one a former dealer in the art trade. The long-awaited public report of this meeting appears in the most recent volume of IFAR Journal, Vol. 10, Nos. 3&4 (2008/2009). Peter Tompa has mentioned the report in his blog and has indicated that he plans to summarize the presentations of each individual—so I'll leave the bulk of the report itself to Peter. My copy of the journal arrived today and I read the 25 page article with great interest. Aside from the predictable philosophical differences of some panelists, I was struck by the candor of a number of comments from panelists that were very critical of the State Department's administration of this committee. Then current chairperson Jay I. Kislak shared the thinly veiled complaint that "We have a democracy, and it is a government of the people, for the people, by the people, not by the bureaucrats over them." What came through loud and clear from these presentations is that the basis for ACCG's claim that the State Department has perverted the law (CPIA) is on solid ground. The lack of transparency, indeed outright secrecy, at DOS was heavily criticized by three of the panelists and was characterized by Mr. Kislak as "absolutely, completely, un-American." He further opined that "this committe is going to continue in secrecy so long as the people controlling it can control it that way." Another panelist mentioned the ACCG led FOIA lawsuit as an example of how desperate the transparency issue has become at DOS.

Another point that seemed obvious to me was the clear dichotomy of interests that CPAC represents. Theoretically (under law) the committee is composed of eleven appointees from four major interest groups—three members represent the fields of archaeology, anthropology or ethnology; three members represent the trade; three members represent the general public and two members represent the museum community. As panelists in the IFAR forum pointed out, the committee has essentially become a vehicle for imposing import restrictions. It does in practically every case, recommend import restrictions as requested by foreign countries. One notable exception was the request from Cyprus in 2007 where CPAC did not recommend extending the existing restriction to include coins. The State Department added coins nonetheless, disregarding CPAC's advice. The only interest group of those mentioned above that dogmatically supports import restrictions is the archaeological community. That creates what amounts to a black and white situation. Therefore, it is rather amazing that their view has prevailed over so many years and through so much diversity of CPAC membership. In fact, it is downright mind boggling that the nationalistic archaeological view could be so predominant when their physical numbers are so tiny in comparison to the globalist view. This begs a number of questions about how CPAC works. ACCG has asked those questions, and sought documents related to the process, but the shroud of secrecy blocked every path. Although some archaeologists have criticized or ridiculed the FOIA lawsuit now nearing a conclusion, the IFAR report makes it clear that this challenge was long overdue and is as American as apple pie. Petitioning government for answers and accountability is an American right and ridicule from abroad notwithstanding, it is still a right that many Americans hold dear and will fight for.

That collectors are forced into an adversarial situation with archaeologists is a sad and unfortunate situation. However, it appears that as long as archaeology is dominated by ideologues bent on the elimination of opposing views, we are left with the train wreck that cultural property management and protection is today. Kudos to IFAR for bringing this topic out into the sunshine even if it was an evening event.