The Whole Cultural Record

In the latest issue of Archaeology magazine (Nov-Dec 2010) AIA President Brian Rose proposes an intriguing professional goal, saying — "We must preserve the whole cultural record." By "We", I presume that he means archaeologists, since nobody else on the planet would dare to dream so big. We need not guess about what he means by the "whole" record. Dr. Rose decries a series of events from the Damnatio Memoriae of Nero to the anti-Saddam activities of president day Iraqis and views a panoply of destructive events in history as examples of "Iconoclasm". He makes the interesting statement that "For me, as an archaeologist, there is no excuse for the destruction of cultural property..." he goes on to say "We may never be able to temper the passion for destruction, but we can at least situate those passions in historical perspective and ensure that today’s historical evidence will still be here tomorrow."

The logic itself escapes me because the "iconoclastic" events mentioned were in themselves cultural acts and just as historical and important as the events they reacted to. Deplorable and despicable as their destruction may have been, are the empty niches of the Bamiyan Buddhas any less a cultural record than the statues that once stood there? His statement is all the more remarkable since some archaeologists have openly advocated destroying cultural property recovered from their excavations, rather than allowing it to fall into private collector hands—and who in fact followed through with the deed.

How, I have to wonder, could everything listed in the UNESCO resolution as "cultural property" be stewarded by archaeologists ad aeternum? Here is the laundry list of items so defined in that resolution—I've posted it before, but it's worth another look:

(a) Rare collections and specimens of fauna, flora, minerals and anatomy, and objects of palaeontological interest;

(b) property relating to history, including the history of science and technology and military and social history, to the life of national leaders, thinkers, scientists and artist and to events of national importance;

(c) products of archaeological excavations (including regular and clandestine)
or of archaeological discoveries ;

(d) elements of artistic or historical monuments or archaeological sites which have been dismembered;

(e) antiquities more than one hundred years old, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals;

(f) objects of ethnological interest;

(g) property of artistic interest, such as:

(i) pictures, paintings and drawings produced entirely by hand on any support and in any material (excluding industrial designs and manu-factured articles decorated by hand);

(ii) original works of statuary art and sculpture in any material;

(iii) original engravings, prints and lithographs ;

(iv) original artistic assemblages and montages in any material;

(h) rare manuscripts and incunabula, old books, documents and publications of special interest (historical, artistic, scientific, literary, etc.) singly or in collections ;

(i) postage, revenue and similar stamps, singly or in collections;

(j) archives, including sound, photographic and cinematographic archives;

(k) articles of furniture more than one hundred years old and old musical instruments.

It's a sobering thought. If none of the items listed above are ever destroyed, nor preserved in private hands, and each year the 100 year rolling window adds another layer of qualifying objects, then global warming will quickly become a very small issue in comparison to the space problem at institutional repositories. Of course, the notion of saving "everything" is so preposterous that we automatically assume that Dr. Rose does not really mean what he said. What then does he mean? One is tempted to conclude that he means any object within this vast group can at will be considered cultural property and therefore be placed under state controls. That quickly leads to the obvious follow-on: Who shall decide what is significant and "on the list" at any point in time? We all know the answer to that question — it shall be vested within the authority and power of the state. And who shall exercise that authority and power? The ever-benevolent and omniscient bureaucracy.

This scenario seems vaguely reminiscent of governmental models that permeated the mid 20th century and whose benevolence and wisdom wreaked havoc upon the world at large. They were called "Nationalists" and the common thread among them was total state dominance over people and property. I really doubt that this is what Dr. Rose advocates, and he probably meant to imply something other than what leaps boldly from the page. Still, we have little choice but to take the words of an esteemed academic at face value. It would be infinitely better for society if the past were preserved as a cooperative venture of private and public entities. In my view, acknowledging private collectors as legitimate stewards of the past makes considerably more sense than trying to build enough institutional warehouses to store every cultural object found around the world—or in the alternative destroying them.

Perhaps Dr. Rose will weigh in on this and enlighten the discussion.

The Yin and Yang

This week I was treated to a smorgasbord of views on cultural property from members of the archaeological and collecting communities.

On Tuesday morning, I listened with interest to the presentations of several archaeologists at the U.S. State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) in Washington, DC. This was my fifth appearance at a CPAC hearing in as many years. In every case, the general tenor of oral comments by public presenters has reflected a dichotomy of interests—those of collectors versus those of nationalist governments (defended mainly by the archaeological community). The dividing line has always been clear, and not just in the rhetoric that is entered into the public record at these events. Even the informal assemblage of speakers prior to the event (call them gaggles, if you will) is indicative of the diverse philosophical views. I suppose it's only natural for like-minded people to congregate, but the atmosphere is and has very much been one of "us and them" . This is not to say that either camp is overtly unfriendly, in fact the opposite is true. I think both camps try very hard to be polite and cordial in a personal sense. But camps there are, and gaggle they do.

The Collector camp is comprised mainly of collector advocacy groups. Occasionally, individual collectors, dealers or concerned citizens have appeared or have been represented by counsel. However, the lion's share of opposition to Memorandums of Understanding these days has come from the Ancient Coin Collecting community and the Art Museum community. The former is represented by advocacy groups, like the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) and the American Numismatic Association (ANA), along with representatives of the numismatic trade and other non-profit organizations like Ancient Coins for Education. The latter is represented primarily by the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD).

The proponents of Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) are primarily the representatives of governments seeking import restrictions and the archaeological community, including its related museums—most of which are institutional. The advocacy group Saving Antiquities For Everyone (SAFE) has consistently supported import restrictions, but has not appeared before CPAC in the public sessions lately. A rather late attempt by SAFE to compile and introduce a petition in support of the MOU with Greece was apparently aborted when it failed to meet the State Department imposed deadline for public comment.

One of the most striking views that I heard during the public session was a comment from Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) president Dr. Brian Rose. In response to a question from the committee, Dr. Rose stated that he was not aware of any schism between the collector community and the archaeological community. That statement must have shocked most of those in attendance, regardless of their philosophical position. Even some eyebrows of normally stoic CPAC members showed signs of disbelief. For the past decade, the antagonism between collectors and archaeologists has grown exponentially and can hardly be unknown to the leadership of the AIA. Perhaps Dr. Rose was expressing his hope that such a schism is not insurmountable, and if that be the case I do share his sentiments. But, I don't want to misrepresent his view in any way and will leave further comment on that to him.

Hot on the heels of the public comment session came news of a post by one of the more vocal archaeo-bloggers that called American dealers and collectors "cultural property bandits: xenophobic, neo-colonialist, introverted, self centered and careless consumers." While viewed by many as an irrational extremist, this blogger is sometimes defended and encouraged by more reputable names in the field. The blogger went on to say "I think it would save a lot of people a lot of time and angst if the USA was to simply withdraw from the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property." This is of course a preposterous and ridiculous suggestion. America enjoys the largest legitimate market for cultural property in the world and clearly has a responsibility to maintain the integrity of that market. The United States legislature worked hard and long (13 years in fact) to craft a law that serves the interests of the international community regarding the protection of cultural property. That law, the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (variously CPIA or CCPIA), is also designed to protect the interests of American citizens and businesses that are equally a part of the international community. The collector community opposition to recent Memorandums of Understanding is predicated on what we see as a failure of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government to implement the law as enacted and intended. That opposition does not in any way reflect a disdain for the law, nor for the original intent of the UNESCO resolution. Hopefully, the drift away from that original intent can be corrected to allow for a return to cooperative and inclusive efforts rather than a further schism.

The huge gulf between the statement of Dr. Rose and the statement of the blogger referred to above represents a sort of Yin and Yang of views within the field of archaeology. There are similar polarities within the collecting world. In both cases, rationality and balance seem to be nurtured by moderation. As I said in my closing remarks to CPAC, "The general interest of the international community is best served by inclusive cultural policies. We should be working together—stewardship should include the private sector." By that, I simply mean that private collecting and independent scholarship are in the general interests of the international community and should, in light of demonstrated expertise, experience and dedication, be fully partnered with governments and institutions in preservation of the past.

Shut up and get in line!

Today I learned first hand why everything in America today is a mess. The government has total control and that has amounted to total chaos and absolute idiocy in the name of political correctness. Tuesday is the State Department hearing on the request for import restrictions on cultural property from Greece — I know, it's hard to keep track without a globe stuck with little pins all over it. So, being a veteran traveler, I made my airline reservation a month ago. When I tried to get a seat assignment, the web site reservation system told me politely that I could not do that right now, but touch base later. OK, I did that. One-two-three and you're out. Over a month of trying to enter my seat assignment I found it impossible to do so.

Today, I received a friendly email from American Airlines saying

"You are now able to check-in on AA.com for your upcoming flight. To check-in, simply click the button below and print your itinerary and boarding pass."

Ah! finally I get to select my seat assignment and check in for tomorrow morning's flight. NOT. When I click on the link and try to check in I get this message that says I must have a seat assignment before I can check in. OK, I go to the seat assignment section one more time and guess what? Same message as above. So, after some sophisticated sleuthing I find a telephone number and call American to get a seat assignment so I can check in. The nice lady answering my call (after ten minutes of navigating a mindless automated system) tells me she cannot give me a seat assignment. Well that didn't brighten my day. So I maintained my cool and avoided telling her what I REALLY thought of the American Airlines reservation system and tried to get a rational answer. I asked if the flight was overbooked? No. Was the airline trying to extort an extra fee to get a seat assignment? No. Well, why can't I get a seat assignment and check in as the email had prompted me to do? Well, she replied with all the concern of a boa constrictor, "because the government won't let us".

Now, that truly did stop me in my tracks. Here I was about to launch a vitriolic polemic against American Airlines and come to find out that it was my own good old Uncle Sam that was the problem. It seems (or so I'm told) that there is a federal regulation that requires the airline to hold 20% of its seat assignments in compliance with the federal Disabilities Act. The logic offered is that if a person with a disability does not have an accessible seat available, the airline would have to move somebody else out of their seat. GOD FORBID! Now, I've flown on a lot of commercial airlines, more than a million miles in fact, and I've yet to see an issue over the seating of a handicapped person. I asked the lady at the other end of this telephone line, how often this happened. She said maybe 1% of the time. I questioned whether maybe 1/10th of 1 percent might even be an exaggeration and she agreed. In fact, people with disabilities know better than to walk up to an airline gate without telling the airline in advance that some extra consideration is necessary. Also, a point of fact might be that anyone with a disability who does not do this deserves the hassles they get themselves into. But, in any case, prohibiting 20% of the people on every airplane that flies in the U.S. from getting a seat assignment until they reach the airport is an insane solution to an extremely minor "potential" problem. So, tomorrow morning I will get my seat assignment at the airport after standing in line with everyone that has checked baggage and getting up at 4:30 AM instead of 5:00 AM to make it to the gate in time. What's the big deal?

The big deal is that this is not an isolated incident. Our lives have become radically complicated in myriad ways by government regulation that is based entirely on wide-sweeping PC reactions to statistically insignificant incidents. And, as I prepare to offer my oral comment on Tuesday, rigidly constricted of course to the five-minute limit, I will be opposing one more of those wide-sweeping PC reactions to a vastly overstated problem. But, in this case, I'm not one of the 20%, I'm one of the 80% and it still is unlikely to matter.