Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > UNIDROIT Convention to govern the antiquities trade Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2 
Author Message
Allan Senefelder
Industry Professional



Location: Upstate NY
Joined: 18 Oct 2003

Posts: 1,563

PostPosted: Fri 14 May, 2004 12:41 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Bjorn , the use of your post about the guy caught on e-bay was used by me to illustrate that there are laws in place and
working as this fellows in the process of finding out not as an endorsement of the wholesale pilaging of a culture as is
going on with a passion in China right now just to name one country . If it was poorly worded I appologise for any missunderstanding it may have caused .
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Steve Fabert





Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Likes: 10 pages

Posts: 493

PostPosted: Fri 14 May, 2004 12:49 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sean Flynt wrote:

As for the US not being subject to international law-that means the US should not negotiate or sign any international treaties. I think that position is untenable.

As distasteful as a truce may be, I'd like to call for one here. Politics has ruined many a forum. Nobody posting in this thread is going to be swayed by opposing arguments, so let's agree to resolve this issue through the ballot boxes in our respective countries and return to the discussion of the objects themselves.


Sean, I'm happy to discuss less controversial subjects. I am not a collector of antiquities myself, and have no strong reason to take exception to this particular treaty any more than any other proposal to internationalize some issue that has never before needed an international solution.

As for the untenability of enforcing the US Bill of Rights in American courts, I believe I have the winning position. The question is not whether the US is subject to international law, but whether US courts follow the US constitution in resolving debates over the ownership of property held by private citizens. My legal practice permits me to argue and brief similar issues often. I would be confident of success representing any private collector whose property was removed from his possession without the opportunity for trial by jury. An American living in Europe might lose that fight in a European or international tribunal, but the outcome here at home is easily predicted.
View user's profile Send private message
Sean Flynt




Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Likes: 10 pages
Reading list: 13 books

Spotlight topics: 7
Posts: 5,981

PostPosted: Fri 14 May, 2004 1:15 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

One more post, in the interest of clarity:


UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects
(Rome, 24 June 1995)



THE STATES PARTIES TO THIS CONVENTION,

ASSEMBLED in Rome at the invitation of the Government of the Italian Republic from 7 to 24 June 1995 for a Diplomatic Conference for the adoption of the draft Unidroit Convention on the International Return of Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects,

CONVINCED of the fundamental importance of the protection of cultural heritage and of cultural exchanges for promoting understanding between peoples, and the dissemination of culture for the well-being of humanity and the progress of civilisation,

DEEPLY CONCERNED by the illicit trade in cultural objects and the irreparable damage frequently caused by it, both to these objects themselves and to the cultural heritage of national, tribal, indigenous or other communities, and also to the heritage of all peoples, and in particular by the pillage of archaeological sites and the resulting loss of irreplaceable archaeological, historical and scientific information,

DETERMINED to contribute effectively to the fight against illicit trade in cultural objects by taking the important step of establishing common, minimal legal rules for the restitution and return of cultural objects between Contracting States, with the objective of improving the preservation and protection of the cultural heritage in the interest of all,

EMPHASISING that this Convention is intended to facilitate the restitution and return of cultural objects, and that the provision of any remedies, such as compensation, needed to effect restitution and return in some States, does not imply that such remedies should be adopted in other States,

AFFIRMING that the adoption of the provisions of this Convention for the future in no way confers any approval or legitimacy upon illegal transactions of whatever kind which may have taken place before the entry into force of the Convention,

CONSCIOUS that this Convention will not by itself provide a solution to the problems raised by illicit trade, but that it initiates a process that will enhance international cultural co-operation and maintain a proper role for legal trading and inter- State agreements for cultural exchanges,

ACKNOWLEDGING that implementation of this Convention should be accompanied by other effective measures for protecting cultural objects, such as the development and use of registers, the physical protection of archaeological sites and technical co-operation,

RECOGNISING the work of various bodies to protect cultural property, particularly the 1970 UNESCO Convention on illicit traffic and the development of codes of conduct in the private sector,

HAVE AGREED as follows:
CHAPTER I - SCOPE OF APPLICATION AND DEFINITION

Article 1

This Convention applies to claims of an international character for:

(a) the restitution of stolen cultural objects;

(b) the return of cultural objects removed from the territory of a Contracting State contrary to its law regulating the export of cultural objects for the purpose of protecting its cultural heritage (hereinafter "illegally exported cultural objects").

Article 2

For the purposes of this Convention, cultural objects are those which, on religious or secular grounds, are of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science and belong to one of the categories listed in the Annex to this Convention.


CHAPTER II - RESTITUTION OF STOLEN CULTURAL OBJECTS

Article 3

(1) The possessor of a cultural object which has been stolen shall return it.

(2) For the purposes of this Convention, a cultural object which has been unlawfully excavated or lawfully excavated but unlawfully retained shall be considered stolen, when consistent with the law of the State where the excavation took place.

(3) Any claim for restitution shall be brought within a period of three years from the time when the claimant knew the location of the cultural object and the identity of its possessor, and in any case within a period of fifty years from the time of the theft.

(4) However, a claim for restitution of a cultural object forming an integral part of an identified monument or archaeological site, or belonging to a public collection, shall not be subject to time limitations other than a period of three years from the time when the claimant knew the location of the cultural object and the identity of its possessor.

(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph, any Contracting State may declare that a claim is subject to a time limitation of 75 years or such longer period as is provided in its law. A claim made in another Contracting State for restitution of a cultural object displaced from a monument, archaeological site or public collection in a Contracting State making such a declaration shall also be subject to that time limitation.

(6) A declaration referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be made at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

(7) For the purposes of this Convention, a "public collection,' consists of a group of inventoried or otherwise identified cultural objects owned by:

(a) a Contracting State

(b) a regional or local authority of a Contracting State;

(c) a religious institution in a Contracting State; or

(d) an institution that is established for an essentially cultural, educational or scientific purpose in a Contracting State and is recognised in that State as serving the public interest.

(8) In addition, a claim for restitution of a sacred or communally important cultural object belonging to and used by a tribal or indigenous community in a Contracting State as part of that community's traditional or ritual use, shall be subject to the time limitation applicable to public collections.

Article 4

(1) The possessor of a stolen cultural object required to return it shall be entitled, at the time of its restitution, to payment of fair and reasonable compensation provided that the possessor neither knew nor ought reasonably to have known that the object was stolen and can prove that it exercised due diligence when acquiring the object.

(2) Without prejudice to the right of the possessor to compensation referred to in the preceding paragraph, reasonable efforts shall be made to have the person who transferred the cultural object to the possessor, or any prior transferor, pay the compensation where to do so would be consistent with the law of the State in which the claim is brought.

(3) Payment of compensation to the possessor by the claimant, when this is required, shall be without prejudice to the right of the claimant to recover it from any other person.

(4) In determining whether the possessor exercised due diligence, regard shall be had to all the circumstances of the acquisition, including the character of the parties, the price paid, whether the possessor consulted any reasonably accessible register of stolen cultural objects, and any other relevant information and documentation which it could reasonably have obtained, and whether the possessor consulted accessible agencies or took any other step that a reasonable person would have taken in the circumstances.

(5) The possessor shall not be in a more favourable position than the person from whom it acquired the cultural object by inheritance or otherwise gratuitously.


CHAPTER III - RETURN OF ILLEGALLY EXPORTED CULTURAL OBJECTS

Article 5

(1) A Contracting State may request the court or other competent authority of another Contracting State to order the return of a cultural object illegally exported from the territory of the requesting State.

(2) A cultural object which has been temporarily exported from the territory of the requesting State, for purposes such as exhibition, research or restoration, under a permit issued according to its law regulating its export for the purpose of protecting its cultural heritage and not returned in accordance with the terms of that permit shall be deemed to have been illegally exported.

(3) The court or other competent authority of the State addressed shall order the return of an illegally exported cultural object if the requesting State establishes that the removal of the object from its territory significantly impairs one or more of the following interests:

(a) the physical Preservation of the object or of its context;

(b) the integrity of a complex object;

(c) the preservation of information of, for example, a scientific or historical character;

(d) the traditional or ritual use of the object by a tribal or indigenous community,

or establishers that the object is of significant cultural importance for the requesting State.

(4) Any request made under paragraph 1 of this article shall contain or be accompanied by such information of a factual or legal nature as may assist the court or other competent authority of the State addressed in determining whether the requirements of paragraphs 1 to 3 have been met.

(5) Any request for return shall be brought within a period of three years from the time when the requesting State knew the location of the cultural object and the identity of its possessor, and in any case within a period of fifty years from the date of the export or from the date on which the object should have been returned under a permit referred to in paragraph 2 of this article.

Article 6

(1) The possessor of a cultural object who acquired the object after it was illegally exported shall be entitled, at the time of its return, to payment by the requesting State of fair and reason compensation, provided that the possessor neither knew nor ought reasonably to have known at the time of acquisition that the object had been illegally exported.

(2) In determining whether the possessor knew or ought reasonably to have known that the cultural object had been illegally exported, regard shall be had to the circumstances of the acquisition, including the absence of an export certificate required under the law of the requesting State.

(3) Instead of compensation, and in agreement with the requesting State, the possessor required to return the cultural object to that State may decide:

(a) to retain ownership of the object; or

(b) to transfer ownership against payment or gratuitously to a person of its choice residing in the requesting State who provides the necessary guarantees.

(4) The cost of returning the cultural object in accordance with this article shall be borne by the requesting State, without prejudice to the right of that State to recover costs from any other person.

(5) The possessor shall not be in a more favourable position than the person from whom it acquired the cultural object by inheritance or otherwise gratuitously.

Article 7

(1) The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply where:

(a) the export of a cultural object is no longer illegal at the time at which the return is requested; or

(b) the object was exported during the lifetime of the person who created it or within a period of fifty years following the death of that person.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-paragraph (b) of the preceding paragraph, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply where a cultural object was made by a member or members of a tribal or indigenous community for traditional or ritual use by that community and the object will be returned to that community.


Chapter IV - General Provisions

Article 8

(1) A claim under Chapter II and a request under Chapter III may be brought before the courts or other competent authorities of the Contracting State where the cultural object is located, in addition to the courts or other competent authorities otherwise having jurisdiction under the rules in force in Contracting States.

(2) The parties may agree to submit the dispute to any court or other competent authority or to arbitration.

(3) Resort may be had to the provisional, including protective, measures available under the law of the Contracting State where the object is located even when the claim for restitution or request for return of the object is brought before the courts or other competent authorities of another Contracting State.

Article 9

(1) Nothing in this Convention shall prevent a Contracting State from applying any rules more favourable to the restitution or the return of stolen or illegally exported cultural objects than provided for by this Convention.

(2) This article shall not be interpreted as creating an obligation to recognise or enforce a decision of a court or other competent authority of another Contracting State that departs from the provisions of this Convention.

Article 10

(1) The provisions of Chapter II shall apply only in respect of a cultural object that is stolen after this Convention enters into force in respect of the State where the claim is brought, provided that:

(a) the object was stolen from the territory of a Contracting State after the entry into force of this Convention for that State; or

(b) the object is located in a Contracting State after the entry into force of the Convention for that State.

(2) The provisions of Chapter III shall apply only in respect of a cultural object that is illegally exported after this Convention enters into force for the requesting State as well as the State where the request is brought.

(3) This Convention does not in any way legitimise any illegal transaction of whatever which has taken place before the entry into force of this Convention or which is excluded under paragraphs (1) or (2) of this article, nor limit any right of a State or other person to make a claim under remedies available outside the framework of this Convention for the restitution or return of a cultural object stolen or illegally exported before the entry into force of this Convention.


Chapter V - Final Provisions

Article 11

(1) This Convention is open for signature at the concluding meeting of the Diplomatic Conference for the adoption of the draft Unidroit Convention on the International Return of Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects and will remain open for signature by all States at Rome until June 1996.

(2) This Convention is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by States which have signed it.

(3) This Convention is open for accession by all States which are not signatory States as from the date it is open for signature.

(4) Ratification, acceptance, approval or accession is subject to the deposit of a formal instrument to that effect with the depositary.

Article 12

(1) This Convention shall enter into force on the first day of the sixth month following the date of deposit of the fifth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

(2) For each State that ratifies, accepts, approves or accedes to this Convention after the deposit of the fifth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, this Convention shall enter into force in respect of that State on the first day of the sixth month following the date of deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

Article 13

(1) This Convention does not affect any international instrument by which any Contracting State is legally bound and which contains provisions on matters governed by this Convention, unless a contrary declaration is made by the States bound by such instrument.

(2) Any Contracting State may enter into agreements with one or more Contracting States, with a view to improving the application of this Convention in their mutual relations. The States which have concluded such an agreement shall transmit a copy to the depositary.

(3) In their relations with each other, Contracting States which are Members of organisations of economic integration or regional bodies may declare that they will apply. the internal rules of these organisations or bodies and will not therefore apply as between these States the provisions of this Convention the scope of application of which coincides with that of those rules.

Article 14

(1) If a Contracting State has two or more territorial units, whether or not possessing different systems of law applicable in relation to the matters dealt with in this Convention, it may, at the time of signature or of the deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, declare that this Convention is to extend to all its territorial units or only to one or more of them, and may substitute for its declaration another declaration at any time.

(2) These declarations are to be notified to the depositary and are to state expressly the territorial units to which the Convention extends.

(3) If, by virtue of a declaration under this article, this Convention extends to one or more but not all of the territorial units of a Contracting State the reference to:

(a) the territory of a Contracting State in Article 1 shall be construed as referring to the territory of a territorial unit of that State;

(b) a court or other competent authority of the Contracting State or of the State addressed shall be construed as referring to the court or other competent authority of a territorial unit of that State;

(c) the Contracting State where the cultural object is located in Article 8 (1) shall b construed as referring to the territorial unit of that State where the object is located;

(d) the law of the Contracting State where the object is located in Article 8 (3) shall be construed as referring to the law of the territorial unit of that State where the object is located; and

(e) a Contracting State in Article 9 shall be construed as referring to a territorial unit of that State.

(4) If a Contracting State makes no declaration under paragraph 1 of this article, this Convention is to extend to all territorial units of that State.

Article 15

(1) Declarations made under this Convention at the time of signature are subject to confirmation upon ratification, acceptance or approval.

(2) Declarations and confirmations of declarations are to be in writing and to be formally notified to the depositary.

(3) A declaration shall take effect simultaneously with the entry into force of this Convention in respect of the State concerned. However, a declaration of which the depositary receives formal notification after such entry into force shall take effect on the first day of the sixth month following the date of its deposit with the depositary.

(4) Any State which makes a declaration. under this Convention may withdraw it at any time by a formal notification in writing addressed to the depositary. Such withdrawal shall take effect on the first day of the sixth month following the date of the deposit of the notification.

Article 16

(1) Each Contracting State shall at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, declare that claims for the restitution, or requests for the return, of cultural objects brought by a State under Article 8 may be submitted to it under one or more of the following procedures:

(a) directly to the courts or other competent authorities of the declaring State;

(b) through an authority or authorities designated by that State to receive such claims or requests and to forward them to the courts or other competent authorities of that State;

(c) through diplomatic or consular channels.

(2) Each Contracting State may also designate the courts or other authorities competent to order the restitution or return of cultural objects under the provisions of Chapters II and III.

(3) Declarations made under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article may be modified at any time by a new declaration.

(4) The provisions of paragraphs 1 to 3 of this article do not affect bilateral or multilateral agreements on judicial assistance in respect of civil and commercial matters that may exisit between Contracting States.

Article 17

Each Contracting State shall, no later than six months following the date of deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, provide the depositary with written information in one of the official languages of the Convention concerning the legislation regulating the export of its cultural objects. This information shall be updated from time to time as appropriate.

Article 18

No reservations are permitted except those expressly authorised in this Convention.

Article 19

(1) This Convention may be denounced by any State Party, at any time after the date on which it enters into force for that State, by the deposit of an instrument to that effect with the depositary.

(2) A denunciation shall take effect on the first day of the sixth month following the deposit of the instrument of denunciation with the depositary. Where a longer period for the denunciation to take effect is specified in the instrument of denunciation it shall take effect upon the expiration of such longer period after its deposit with the depositary.

(3) Notwithstanding such a denunciation, this Convention shall nevertheless apply to a claim for restitution or a request for return of a cultural object submitted prior to the date on which the denunciation takes effect.

Article 20

The President of the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (Unidroit) may at regular intervals, or at any time at the request of five Contracting States, convene a special committee in order to review the practical operation of this Convention.

Article 21

(1) This Convention shall be deposited with the Government of the Italian Republic.

(2) The Government of the Italian Republic shall:

(a) inform all States which have signed or acceded to this Convention and the President of the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (Unidroit) of:


(i) each new signature or deposit of an instrument of ratification, acceptance approval or accession, together with the date thereof;

(ii) each declaration made in accordance with this Convention;

(iii) the withdrawal of any declaration;

(iv) the date of entry into force of this Convention;

(v) the agreements referred to in Article 13;

(vi) the deposit of an instrument of denunciation of this Convention together with the date of its deposit and the date on which it takes effect;


(b) transmit certified true copies of this Convention to all signatory States, to all States acceding to the Convention and to the President of the International Institute for Unification of Private Law (Unidroit);

(c) perform such other functions customary for depositaries.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned plenipotentiaries, being duly authorised, have signed this Convention.

DONE at Rome, this twenty-fourth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five, in a single original, in the English and French languages, both texts being equally authentic.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annex

(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 artists 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 manufactured 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ UNIDROIT Home Page | UNIDROIT Conventions: texts |
UNIDROIT Conventions: signatures and ratifications ]

-Sean

Author of the Little Hammer novel

https://www.amazon.com/Little-Hammer-Sean-Flynt/dp/B08XN7HZ82/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=little+hammer+book&qid=1627482034&sr=8-1
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
John Piscopo




Location: LaGrange, IL 60525 SW of Chicago
Joined: 26 Jan 2004

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 112

PostPosted: Fri 14 May, 2004 2:28 pm    Post subject: UNIDROIT         Reply with quote

myArmoury post: A point by point dissection
>Posted: Today at 10:30 am by Sean Flynt
> Post subject: A pro-UNIDROIT supporter's posting:

> Voted for Gore or Nader? The Kerry administration? Sorry, folks,
this discussion has become a bit nutty. Y'all are complaining because
ARCHAEOLOGISTS are politicizing this debate? I'm expecting to see a
post describing the fleets of black UN helicopters poised to swoop
down and carry collectors to unknown fates in concentration camps.

I don't know what this has to do with the real issues involved, other
than to attempt to ridicule the genuine concerns collectors have.

> If I may say a word on behalf of the archaeologists and others who
think a nation's right to preserve its own past trumps anybody's
right to private ownership of its cultural property...

Before you say that word, reflect on this: The right to private
ownership of private property is both ancient and fundamental. In
itself, it is even more important than cultural heritage. It is not
something to be disturbed without good reason. So anyone who proposes
to change people's right to own private property needs to be prepared
to show that doing this is both really necessary and really
important. They must also be required to show that their proposal
will not do more harm than good.

> Why object to restrictions that require proof of legal provenance?

For purely practical reasons. All of the arguments that are being
made about requiring provenance are completely ignoring the many,
serious practical problems that are involved in attempting to
research, document and maintain provenance records for very large
numbers of individually unimportant "cultural objects."

In the first place, it is not at all clear to anyone in the
collecting community why coins and stamps have been included in the
definition of "cultural objects." These are utilitarian objects and
they are routinely exported (without any records) from their place of
manufacture in the course of their normal daily use. Their cultural
content appears to collectors to be minimal if not nonexistent.

Imposing provenance research requirements, and all the other burdens
of cultural property law, on collectors of such items in the name of
stopping archaeological site looting is really a classic example of
misguided public policy. The major negative impact that this would
have on these innocent collectors is balanced against ... what?
Exactly what would society gain from restricting and hampering stamp
and coin collecting in this manner?

> Is that requirement really so radical?

Yes, it really is. It really would have a disastrous impact, from
everything that has been learned to date. I would be glad to learn
that things actually aren't so bad, but no one has yet provided any
facts that support any conclusion other than disastrous impact.

The reason that the supporters of the Unidroit convention are having
difficulty in understanding why coin collectors are concerned about
this requirement for proof of legal provenance, is that they do not
understand that it cannot reasonably be complied with. The
requirement was drawn up by people who had no idea at all of what its
practical effects would be.

There was not one single expert in the field of philately or
numismatics consulted during the drafting of the convention. There is
not one single person among the proponents of this convention who
really knows anything about collecting coins or stamps.

How would you like to have laws made that would have a major negative
effect on archaeology, by people who know nothing about the subject,
without anyone even taking the trouble to find out what
archaeologists have to say?

> Don't collectors want legal and ethical collections?

Of course they do. With few exceptions, they all now HAVE legal and
ethical collections.

It is the cultural property law advocates who are proposing to change
this: what is presently, and always has been, legal and ethical will
become illegal and unethical, in the name of political correctness.

> The fact is, the antiquities collecting market DOES drive looting
and illegal trade of antiquities.

The fact is that there are some unethical people who are willing to
pay looters and smugglers for antiquities that have been illegally
excavated and/or illegally exported. These unethical people are
engaged in a criminal activity, and they are the real, proximate
cause of the problem. If these criminal activities were stopped there
would be no site looting.

The market for antiquities collecting is being targeted because those
who (rightly) want to eliminate site looting (wrongly) do not want to
attack the real proximate cause. It is thought to be too difficult
and also too dangerous to do this. So a Utopian scheme has been drawn
up, by sincere, well meaning people who even now do not understand
what its real effects would be. They also do not understand that if
their scheme were to actually become law, it still would not solve
the problem of site looting, but might very well aggravate it.

The detailed exploration and understanding of these effects is the
raison d'etre of the Unidroit-L discussion list.

> I would note, too, that the discussion so far has concerned
antiquities rather than antiques. Those black UN helicopters are not
going to swoop down and sieze anybody's antique basket hilt sword or
rapier.

Then why are such objects included in the definition of "cultural
objects?" Along with books and so many other innocent things?

> But people who are buying ILLEGALLY excavated artifacts-celtic
swords, say-are no different from people who buy any other kind of
stolen property, and should not be treated differently just because
of the "service" they might provide.

People who knowingly buy stolen property (including illegally
excavated artifacts), are ALREADY treated under the law as being
guilty of a crime. They are NOT being treated differently. To
prosecute someone for buying stolen property it is only necessary to
show that the individual bought the property, that it was stolen, and
that the transaction was not innocent.

It is this proposal that every owner of a "cultural object," which
includes a large fraction of everything made by man that is more than
100 years old, must be able to prove good title that is a different
and really very disturbing kind of treatment. This presumption that
a "cultural object" is illicitly possessed, unless its possessor can
prove by documentary evidence, in many cases going all the way back
to an export permit, that he has a right to possess it - THIS is
different treatment.

> And denials of culpability just aren't credible. It's like buying a
flat-screen TV off the back of a truck for $50 at midnight and
pretending that you're not involved in anything unethical because you
didn't personally steal the shipment of flat-screen TVs. Inviting all
your friends over to watch the new TV doesn't change the fact that
it's stolen, and doesn't relieve you of ethical or legal culpability
in the theft, no matter how many hands the TV passed through before
you bought it.

What is at issue here is not buying things under the kind of shady
circumstances you are offering in this very misleading comparison.

What is at issue is a coin collector buying a coin from a reputable
dealer in a coin strore, or at an auction. This collector has no
intention or suspicion of being involved in an unethical transaction.

How would you like to go buy a flat-screen TV at a reputable
electronics store, then be faced with a demand that you don't have a
right to possess it because you should have carried out a due
diligence investighation by following the title all the way back
through the distribution chain to the manufacturer's original
shipping document? How would you like this requirement being applied
not only to big expensive things such as flat-screen TVs, but to
every CD and videotape that you buy?

You would think that this was absolutely crazy. Well, that is exactly
how collectors feel about the Unidroit convention.

> Collectors/dealers/curators shouldn't be treated any
> different just because they spend thousands or millions of dollars
buying/fencing stolen property, have genuine affection for the stolen
artifacts, study them dilligently, publish articles about them and
hold doctorates in Art History.

This statement is really intellectually dishonest, as well as being
misleading. People who knowingly buy stolen property, as pointed out
above, are NOT being treated differently now. They can be and often
are prosecuted for it.

It is the proposal that every "cultural object" should be considered
to be stolen unless its possessor has documentary proof that it was
NOT illegally excavated or illegally exported that is so different
and so disturbing. This is a radical change in the law. It is not a
normal, customary way of looking at things.

> Further, the attitude that it's OK to break another country's laws
as long as one obeys one's own is Exhibit A in the scholarly
indictment of collectors.

Do you drink alcohol? Do you advocate the Christian religion? Do you
drive on the right hand side of the road? Are you a female who goes
out in public without a veil? If so, you are breaking some other
country's laws. No one is responsible for obeying the laws of other
countries when they are not actually in those countries. No one could
possibly obey all the laws of every country. They conflict.

> Exhibit B is the attitude that it's OK to support the illegal
antiquities trade because it's too complex and pervasive for some
countries to stop.

It is not OK at all to support illegal antiquities trading. The real
question is exactly what is to be done to stop it.

The Unidroit convention attempts to stop it in a new and radically
different way: by forcing everyone who wants to acquire a "cultural
object" to carry out a due diligence investigation to make certain
that this object has not been stolen, illegally excavated or
illegally exported.

The objections to the Unidroit convention do not relate to the
objective of suppressing illegal antiquities trading. They arise from
the extreme nature of the proposed remedy, the expectation that it
would have very damaging practical effects on collecting, and the
complete lack of any evidence that the effects on collecting were
properly considered by people who had some knowledge of the subject.

> The fact is that illegal excavation destroys a culture's record of
itself. Artifacts removed from their archaeological context are
virtually useless to scholars trying to understand the cultures that
created them. Too many people think archaeology is a treasure hunt,
and so see nothing wrong with pot hunters and other looters, amateur
or professional, getting to the treasure first. They figure the
artifact exists no matter who excavates it. But people fail to
> appreciate that the artifact in-situ, in its archaeological
context, can have tremendous implications for our understanding of
ancient cultures. Archeological context dates in-situ artifacts. In-
situ artifacts can undermine what scholars thought they knew and
force us to rewrite history books.

None of this is at issue here. We are all agreed that archaeology is
important.

> That's precisely WHY collectors, dealers and curators read
scholarly books, site reports, articles, etc.-because archaeology is
their only means of identifying, understanding and appreciating their
collections, legal or otherwise.

But this is wrong. It is written from the perspective of an
archaeologist, who does not recognize the importance of artifact
studies that have nothing to do with site context.

A coin collector, for example, will have relatively little interest
in scholarly archaeology books because these do not record or discuss
what is important from a numismatic perspective. The coins found in
archaeological digs are normally poorly preserved and are not good
specimens for numismatic study. The good specimens are found in coin
hoards which were usually hidden in isolated areas, away from
structures, somewhat like the popular image of buried pirate treasure.

> Complaining about sinister international conspiracies doesn't
address the real problem here: that looting archaeological sites
PERMANENTLY destroys human history, occurs ONLY to supply artifacts
to private collectors and museums, and devalues all collections by
limiting the amount that can be known about ancient cultures.

Excavating archaeological sites also does much the same things, with
the difference that instead of supplying museums and private
collectors, the artifacts go into the collection of some
archaeologist or institution. The difference is that the knowledge is
not lost but enhanced because it is meticulously recorded and
published, or so the theory goes.

However, a great deal of archaeological excavation work has been and
is being done that was not and will never be published. In my
opinion, this unpublished work is just as much a loss to humanity as
a looted site.

Archaeologists would prefer not to talk about the irresponsible
archaeologists who destroy sites by excavating them and then publish
nothing. Well, collectors would prefer not to talk about the
relatively few irresponsible dealers and collectors who are giving
collecting a bad name in the eyes of archaeologists. The difference
is that collectors are not trying to abolish archaeology.

> As for private property-even the US recognizes that significant
cultural properties (even insignificant ones) are owned collectively
by all citizens.

The US does not by any means recognize that everything that is
classified by the Unidroit convention as "cultural property" is owned
collectively. In the US, "cultural property" is explicitly and
narrowly defined. In the Unidroit convention, it seems as though
almost everything made by man that is more than 100 years old is
defined as cultural property.

> That's why we have state and federal antiquities laws. That's why
you can't go out and loot the graves of Union and Confederate
soldiers in search of belt buckles. That's why you can't take a
backhoe to the Mississippian indian mound on your property. Ask the
fellows who leased and looted Slack Farm about Anglo-American
traditions of "finders/keepers". Are they out of prison yet? England
has similar laws, and even provides for the state purchase of finds
on private properties. Surely we can agree that the laws restricting
illegal excavation of Shilo or Cahokia or Stonehenge are valid and
valuable.

There's no disagreement with any of this. Our antiquities laws are
not perfect, but on the whole they are sensible and they work
reasonably well.

> Why object when other countries want to protect their properties in
the same way?

The objection is precisely because they do NOT want to take the
trouble to protect their own properties in the same way as we do.
They want to have other people - us - do this for them, by making it
impossible to collect the objects that they want to protect. It
sounds like an attractive theory until the specifics are examined by
someone who understands the realities of collecting. At that point it
quickly becomes apparent that a really evenhanded, consistent
enforcement of the Unidroit convention would absolutely destroy
collecting, and would probably devalue all existing collections.

Unidroit proponents attempt to meet the cold logic of this conclusion
by saying that foreign governments are not going to go after $10.00
coins. This is really a confession that the Unidroit convention is
such a badly written law that outrageous injustices could only be
prevented by selective enforcement.

Dave Welsh
dwelsh46@cox.net
Unidroit-L Listowner

I collect swords and bayonets dated WWI back to the Bronze Age from the US and Europe and ancient swords and other weapons from Eurasia. I participate in many historical forums for the study of ancient history and weapons. I am happy to share what expertise I have. John Piscopo
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
John Piscopo




Location: LaGrange, IL 60525 SW of Chicago
Joined: 26 Jan 2004

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 112

PostPosted: Fri 14 May, 2004 2:29 pm    Post subject: UNIDROIT         Reply with quote

myArmoury post: A point by point dissection
>Posted: Today at 10:30 am by Sean Flynt
> Post subject: A pro-UNIDROIT supporter's posting:

> Voted for Gore or Nader? The Kerry administration? Sorry, folks,
this discussion has become a bit nutty. Y'all are complaining because
ARCHAEOLOGISTS are politicizing this debate? I'm expecting to see a
post describing the fleets of black UN helicopters poised to swoop
down and carry collectors to unknown fates in concentration camps.

I don't know what this has to do with the real issues involved, other
than to attempt to ridicule the genuine concerns collectors have.

> If I may say a word on behalf of the archaeologists and others who
think a nation's right to preserve its own past trumps anybody's
right to private ownership of its cultural property...

Before you say that word, reflect on this: The right to private
ownership of private property is both ancient and fundamental. In
itself, it is even more important than cultural heritage. It is not
something to be disturbed without good reason. So anyone who proposes
to change people's right to own private property needs to be prepared
to show that doing this is both really necessary and really
important. They must also be required to show that their proposal
will not do more harm than good.

> Why object to restrictions that require proof of legal provenance?

For purely practical reasons. All of the arguments that are being
made about requiring provenance are completely ignoring the many,
serious practical problems that are involved in attempting to
research, document and maintain provenance records for very large
numbers of individually unimportant "cultural objects."

In the first place, it is not at all clear to anyone in the
collecting community why coins and stamps have been included in the
definition of "cultural objects." These are utilitarian objects and
they are routinely exported (without any records) from their place of
manufacture in the course of their normal daily use. Their cultural
content appears to collectors to be minimal if not nonexistent.

Imposing provenance research requirements, and all the other burdens
of cultural property law, on collectors of such items in the name of
stopping archaeological site looting is really a classic example of
misguided public policy. The major negative impact that this would
have on these innocent collectors is balanced against ... what?
Exactly what would society gain from restricting and hampering stamp
and coin collecting in this manner?

> Is that requirement really so radical?

Yes, it really is. It really would have a disastrous impact, from
everything that has been learned to date. I would be glad to learn
that things actually aren't so bad, but no one has yet provided any
facts that support any conclusion other than disastrous impact.

The reason that the supporters of the Unidroit convention are having
difficulty in understanding why coin collectors are concerned about
this requirement for proof of legal provenance, is that they do not
understand that it cannot reasonably be complied with. The
requirement was drawn up by people who had no idea at all of what its
practical effects would be.

There was not one single expert in the field of philately or
numismatics consulted during the drafting of the convention. There is
not one single person among the proponents of this convention who
really knows anything about collecting coins or stamps.

How would you like to have laws made that would have a major negative
effect on archaeology, by people who know nothing about the subject,
without anyone even taking the trouble to find out what
archaeologists have to say?

> Don't collectors want legal and ethical collections?

Of course they do. With few exceptions, they all now HAVE legal and
ethical collections.

It is the cultural property law advocates who are proposing to change
this: what is presently, and always has been, legal and ethical will
become illegal and unethical, in the name of political correctness.

> The fact is, the antiquities collecting market DOES drive looting
and illegal trade of antiquities.

The fact is that there are some unethical people who are willing to
pay looters and smugglers for antiquities that have been illegally
excavated and/or illegally exported. These unethical people are
engaged in a criminal activity, and they are the real, proximate
cause of the problem. If these criminal activities were stopped there
would be no site looting.

The market for antiquities collecting is being targeted because those
who (rightly) want to eliminate site looting (wrongly) do not want to
attack the real proximate cause. It is thought to be too difficult
and also too dangerous to do this. So a Utopian scheme has been drawn
up, by sincere, well meaning people who even now do not understand
what its real effects would be. They also do not understand that if
their scheme were to actually become law, it still would not solve
the problem of site looting, but might very well aggravate it.

The detailed exploration and understanding of these effects is the
raison d'etre of the Unidroit-L discussion list.

> I would note, too, that the discussion so far has concerned
antiquities rather than antiques. Those black UN helicopters are not
going to swoop down and sieze anybody's antique basket hilt sword or
rapier.

Then why are such objects included in the definition of "cultural
objects?" Along with books and so many other innocent things?

> But people who are buying ILLEGALLY excavated artifacts-celtic
swords, say-are no different from people who buy any other kind of
stolen property, and should not be treated differently just because
of the "service" they might provide.

People who knowingly buy stolen property (including illegally
excavated artifacts), are ALREADY treated under the law as being
guilty of a crime. They are NOT being treated differently. To
prosecute someone for buying stolen property it is only necessary to
show that the individual bought the property, that it was stolen, and
that the transaction was not innocent.

It is this proposal that every owner of a "cultural object," which
includes a large fraction of everything made by man that is more than
100 years old, must be able to prove good title that is a different
and really very disturbing kind of treatment. This presumption that
a "cultural object" is illicitly possessed, unless its possessor can
prove by documentary evidence, in many cases going all the way back
to an export permit, that he has a right to possess it - THIS is
different treatment.

> And denials of culpability just aren't credible. It's like buying a
flat-screen TV off the back of a truck for $50 at midnight and
pretending that you're not involved in anything unethical because you
didn't personally steal the shipment of flat-screen TVs. Inviting all
your friends over to watch the new TV doesn't change the fact that
it's stolen, and doesn't relieve you of ethical or legal culpability
in the theft, no matter how many hands the TV passed through before
you bought it.

What is at issue here is not buying things under the kind of shady
circumstances you are offering in this very misleading comparison.

What is at issue is a coin collector buying a coin from a reputable
dealer in a coin strore, or at an auction. This collector has no
intention or suspicion of being involved in an unethical transaction.

How would you like to go buy a flat-screen TV at a reputable
electronics store, then be faced with a demand that you don't have a
right to possess it because you should have carried out a due
diligence investighation by following the title all the way back
through the distribution chain to the manufacturer's original
shipping document? How would you like this requirement being applied
not only to big expensive things such as flat-screen TVs, but to
every CD and videotape that you buy?

You would think that this was absolutely crazy. Well, that is exactly
how collectors feel about the Unidroit convention.

> Collectors/dealers/curators shouldn't be treated any
> different just because they spend thousands or millions of dollars
buying/fencing stolen property, have genuine affection for the stolen
artifacts, study them dilligently, publish articles about them and
hold doctorates in Art History.

This statement is really intellectually dishonest, as well as being
misleading. People who knowingly buy stolen property, as pointed out
above, are NOT being treated differently now. They can be and often
are prosecuted for it.

It is the proposal that every "cultural object" should be considered
to be stolen unless its possessor has documentary proof that it was
NOT illegally excavated or illegally exported that is so different
and so disturbing. This is a radical change in the law. It is not a
normal, customary way of looking at things.

> Further, the attitude that it's OK to break another country's laws
as long as one obeys one's own is Exhibit A in the scholarly
indictment of collectors.

Do you drink alcohol? Do you advocate the Christian religion? Do you
drive on the right hand side of the road? Are you a female who goes
out in public without a veil? If so, you are breaking some other
country's laws. No one is responsible for obeying the laws of other
countries when they are not actually in those countries. No one could
possibly obey all the laws of every country. They conflict.

> Exhibit B is the attitude that it's OK to support the illegal
antiquities trade because it's too complex and pervasive for some
countries to stop.

It is not OK at all to support illegal antiquities trading. The real
question is exactly what is to be done to stop it.

The Unidroit convention attempts to stop it in a new and radically
different way: by forcing everyone who wants to acquire a "cultural
object" to carry out a due diligence investigation to make certain
that this object has not been stolen, illegally excavated or
illegally exported.

The objections to the Unidroit convention do not relate to the
objective of suppressing illegal antiquities trading. They arise from
the extreme nature of the proposed remedy, the expectation that it
would have very damaging practical effects on collecting, and the
complete lack of any evidence that the effects on collecting were
properly considered by people who had some knowledge of the subject.

> The fact is that illegal excavation destroys a culture's record of
itself. Artifacts removed from their archaeological context are
virtually useless to scholars trying to understand the cultures that
created them. Too many people think archaeology is a treasure hunt,
and so see nothing wrong with pot hunters and other looters, amateur
or professional, getting to the treasure first. They figure the
artifact exists no matter who excavates it. But people fail to
> appreciate that the artifact in-situ, in its archaeological
context, can have tremendous implications for our understanding of
ancient cultures. Archeological context dates in-situ artifacts. In-
situ artifacts can undermine what scholars thought they knew and
force us to rewrite history books.

None of this is at issue here. We are all agreed that archaeology is
important.

> That's precisely WHY collectors, dealers and curators read
scholarly books, site reports, articles, etc.-because archaeology is
their only means of identifying, understanding and appreciating their
collections, legal or otherwise.

But this is wrong. It is written from the perspective of an
archaeologist, who does not recognize the importance of artifact
studies that have nothing to do with site context.

A coin collector, for example, will have relatively little interest
in scholarly archaeology books because these do not record or discuss
what is important from a numismatic perspective. The coins found in
archaeological digs are normally poorly preserved and are not good
specimens for numismatic study. The good specimens are found in coin
hoards which were usually hidden in isolated areas, away from
structures, somewhat like the popular image of buried pirate treasure.

> Complaining about sinister international conspiracies doesn't
address the real problem here: that looting archaeological sites
PERMANENTLY destroys human history, occurs ONLY to supply artifacts
to private collectors and museums, and devalues all collections by
limiting the amount that can be known about ancient cultures.

Excavating archaeological sites also does much the same things, with
the difference that instead of supplying museums and private
collectors, the artifacts go into the collection of some
archaeologist or institution. The difference is that the knowledge is
not lost but enhanced because it is meticulously recorded and
published, or so the theory goes.

However, a great deal of archaeological excavation work has been and
is being done that was not and will never be published. In my
opinion, this unpublished work is just as much a loss to humanity as
a looted site.

Archaeologists would prefer not to talk about the irresponsible
archaeologists who destroy sites by excavating them and then publish
nothing. Well, collectors would prefer not to talk about the
relatively few irresponsible dealers and collectors who are giving
collecting a bad name in the eyes of archaeologists. The difference
is that collectors are not trying to abolish archaeology.

> As for private property-even the US recognizes that significant
cultural properties (even insignificant ones) are owned collectively
by all citizens.

The US does not by any means recognize that everything that is
classified by the Unidroit convention as "cultural property" is owned
collectively. In the US, "cultural property" is explicitly and
narrowly defined. In the Unidroit convention, it seems as though
almost everything made by man that is more than 100 years old is
defined as cultural property.

> That's why we have state and federal antiquities laws. That's why
you can't go out and loot the graves of Union and Confederate
soldiers in search of belt buckles. That's why you can't take a
backhoe to the Mississippian indian mound on your property. Ask the
fellows who leased and looted Slack Farm about Anglo-American
traditions of "finders/keepers". Are they out of prison yet? England
has similar laws, and even provides for the state purchase of finds
on private properties. Surely we can agree that the laws restricting
illegal excavation of Shilo or Cahokia or Stonehenge are valid and
valuable.

There's no disagreement with any of this. Our antiquities laws are
not perfect, but on the whole they are sensible and they work
reasonably well.

> Why object when other countries want to protect their properties in
the same way?

The objection is precisely because they do NOT want to take the
trouble to protect their own properties in the same way as we do.
They want to have other people - us - do this for them, by making it
impossible to collect the objects that they want to protect. It
sounds like an attractive theory until the specifics are examined by
someone who understands the realities of collecting. At that point it
quickly becomes apparent that a really evenhanded, consistent
enforcement of the Unidroit convention would absolutely destroy
collecting, and would probably devalue all existing collections.

Unidroit proponents attempt to meet the cold logic of this conclusion
by saying that foreign governments are not going to go after $10.00
coins. This is really a confession that the Unidroit convention is
such a badly written law that outrageous injustices could only be
prevented by selective enforcement.

Dave Welsh
dwelsh46@cox.net
Unidroit-L Listowner

I collect swords and bayonets dated WWI back to the Bronze Age from the US and Europe and ancient swords and other weapons from Eurasia. I participate in many historical forums for the study of ancient history and weapons. I am happy to share what expertise I have. John Piscopo
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Björn Hellqvist
myArmoury Alumni


myArmoury Alumni

Location: Sweden
Joined: 19 Aug 2003

Posts: 723

PostPosted: Fri 14 May, 2004 3:39 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Allan Senefelder wrote:
Bjorn , the use of your post about the guy caught on e-bay was used by me to illustrate that there are laws in place and
working as this fellows in the process of finding out not as an endorsement of the wholesale pilaging of a culture as is
going on with a passion in China right now just to name one country . If it was poorly worded I appologise for any missunderstanding it may have caused .


It wasn't a dealer on eBay, but a reputable dealer with many years in the business. I'll let you know if there's any progress in that particular case.

My sword site
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
John Piscopo




Location: LaGrange, IL 60525 SW of Chicago
Joined: 26 Jan 2004

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 112

PostPosted: Fri 14 May, 2004 3:44 pm    Post subject: UNIDROIT         Reply with quote

Dear Sean Flynt

Everybody complains about beurocracy and registration and regulations until its THEIR collection that's stolen and turns up at auction.

If I discover that a dealer has my stolen collection up for auction, I would notify the police, or INTERPOL if necessary, and have an investigation made.
I would demand the return of my collection. If the auction Seller refuses to return my collection, I could have him arrested as long as I could show a proscecutor that the collection was mine and that it was stolen. If he maintains good faith purchase from a third party as a defense in a criminal trial, he might get away from a conviction or the prosecutor might waive trial for possession of stolen property if he gives up his source.

Then they'll be demanding that the dealer produce ownership records, provenance, export licenses... Again, its just like the guy who buys the hot TV. If somebody steals HIS property, and it later turns up at a local pawn shop, he isn't going to say "oh, well, finders/keepers. The pawn shop owner didn't steal it." No, he's going to demand the return of his property and, most likely, involve regulatory authorities (police) to recover it. Ethically, he's in the right, and it would be nice if the law agreed.

You are correct and the law does agree with the victim of the theft. The owner simply has to prove ownership and show that the items were stolen.

So how is that different from the government of Greece seeing at Sotheby's an artifact believed to have been stolen from a Greek archaeological site, and then involving Interpol, FBI, etc. to regain its property? Would anybody here argue that Greece has no claim to its stolen cultural property once it's out of the country? And if it DOES have a legitimate claim, who's going to assist in the recovery of the property?

There is no difference at all. If an item is stolen from Greece and the Greeks file a report with INTERPOL and the location of the items is discovered, the items will be returned to Greece after being used as evidence in a trial to convict the possessor of stolen property. Plea bargains may even cause the arrest of the thief or looter. Again, the Greeks would have to prove ownership of the items and show that they were stolen.

For that, we need an intermediary and some uniformly accepted way to document legal ownership. That means a treaty establishing an internationally recognized beurocracy funded by the signatory nations. That means collectors' tax dollars will fund efforts to stop illegal antiquities traffic. So? The thief who stole my TV or the guy who fenced it may pay taxes too, and may go on the thieves forum and rant about how unfair it is that their taxes are funding the system intended to catch them and put them in jail, but I bet nobody here is going to think they have a credible complaint.

There is no recognized way to enforce this. Ownership under English common law is determined by possession. If that ownership is questioned by any other person, that person must file suit and claim such rights, and prove his own ownership of the property. You can readily charge the thief who stole your television with a crime and recover your set as long as you have filed a police report and described the items stolen. A sales receipt with a serial number would help in establishing your good title but not absolutely necessary. Our property rights are guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

One collector above is actually cheering on the looters while lamenting the loss of the archaeological record and blaming that loss on the people trying to prevent it! Now that's chutzpah!

I can't speak to what all collectors do, but I for one would support the strengthening of laws against looting everywhere, including executions of the criminals after a fair trial that finds them guilty. Governments who try to prevent theft by properly securing their museums and university collections are doing well. Protecting archaeological sites is more difficult but can be done. None of the nations suffering the loss of their heritage suffers a shortage of manpower that could be employed to guard sites. Leaving valuables in plain site at the edge of a major highway is an invitation to theft.

It's not really wrong if you don't get caught, I guess.

It is wrong, no matter who does it, a clandestine looter or a tourist on vacation, equally guilty are the consolidators, smugglers and dealers of antiquities and auction houses. All criminals will never be caught. Especially if no effort is made by the government to try to catch them or if the law enforcement officials are bribed to look the other way. Not only the local guards but customs officials can be bought and induced to create legitimate export documents.

Some will say that it's not fair to judge all collectors by such perverse, self-serving logic.

Do you believe in collective guilt of classes of people because someone within that group committed a crime? Do you believe in the presumption of innocence before the law until a court of law has heard evidence and the prosecutor has been forced to prove his case to a judge and/or jury before a defendant can be convicted of a crime? I am a partisan of the second question.

I'd agree and point out that it's unfair to dismiss as "freaks," "zealots" and leftist ideologues everybody concerned about cultural property and the destruction of human history to satisfy the whims of collectors.

Who is making such an argument? I argued earlier, perhaps to clumsily, that those who are the most fervent partisans tend to have an anti-property idiology and tend, from what I have seen, be partisans of the left on property issues. I personally share their goals, just think that the methods they have chosen to solve the problems they identify as being catastrophic and unenforceable and would have massive unintended consequences.

This clearly is an agree-to-disagree issue, but I'm amazed by how much support there is here for the notion that stealing or buying stolen goods is OK if it's something you REALLY want and can appeciate, and if somebody might deprive you of it by acquiring it legally.

I must have missed something, who is making an argument that stealing or buying stolen goods is OK? Not me, I would advocate open season on looters in the field and prosecute everyone in the ratline who could be identified. I would say the same for collectors who commissioned criminal dealers to obtain stolen artifacts as well.

Everything in my collection was legally obtained, I paid for all the items I have. If anyone wishes to dispute my ownership, he can file suit against me and try to prove his case before a judge and jury. I will fight any attempt to change the burdon of proof through some international convention that would give some foreign government legitimate claim against my property unless I could prove to their satisfaction that I purchased it legally before some arbitrary date.

Best regards, John Piscopo

I collect swords and bayonets dated WWI back to the Bronze Age from the US and Europe and ancient swords and other weapons from Eurasia. I participate in many historical forums for the study of ancient history and weapons. I am happy to share what expertise I have. John Piscopo
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Dave Welsh




Location: Goleta, CA USA
Joined: 14 May 2004

Posts: 1

PostPosted: Fri 14 May, 2004 3:48 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

myArmoury post: A point by point dissection
>Posted: Today at 10:30 am by Sean Flynt
> Post subject: A pro-UNIDROIT supporter's posting:

> Voted for Gore or Nader? The Kerry administration? Sorry, folks,
this discussion has become a bit nutty. Y'all are complaining because
ARCHAEOLOGISTS are politicizing this debate? I'm expecting to see a
post describing the fleets of black UN helicopters poised to swoop
down and carry collectors to unknown fates in concentration camps.

I don't know what this has to do with the real issues involved, other
than to attempt to ridicule the genuine concerns collectors have.

> If I may say a word on behalf of the archaeologists and others who
think a nation's right to preserve its own past trumps anybody's
right to private ownership of its cultural property...

Before you say that word, reflect on this: The right to private
ownership of private property is both ancient and fundamental. In
itself, it is even more important than cultural heritage. It is not
something to be disturbed without good reason. So anyone who proposes
to change people's right to own private property needs to be prepared
to show that doing this is both really necessary and really
important. They must also be required to show that their proposal
will not do more harm than good.

> Why object to restrictions that require proof of legal provenance?

For purely practical reasons. All of the arguments that are being
made about requiring provenance are completely ignoring the many,
serious practical problems that are involved in attempting to
research, document and maintain provenance records for very large
numbers of individually unimportant "cultural objects."

In the first place, it is not at all clear to anyone in the
collecting community why coins and stamps have been included in the
definition of "cultural objects." These are utilitarian objects and
they are routinely exported (without any records) from their place of
manufacture in the course of their normal daily use. Their cultural
content appears to collectors to be minimal if not nonexistent.

Imposing provenance research requirements, and all the other burdens
of cultural property law, on collectors of such items in the name of
stopping archaeological site looting is really a classic example of
misguided public policy. The major negative impact that this would
have on these innocent collectors is balanced against ... what?
Exactly what would society gain from restricting and hampering stamp
and coin collecting in this manner?

> Is that requirement really so radical?

Yes, it really is. It really would have a disastrous impact, from
everything that has been learned to date. I would be glad to learn
that things actually aren't so bad, but no one has yet provided any
facts that support any conclusion other than disastrous impact.

The reason that the supporters of the Unidroit convention are having
difficulty in understanding why coin collectors are concerned about
this requirement for proof of legal provenance, is that they do not
understand that it cannot reasonably be complied with. The
requirement was drawn up by people who had no idea at all of what its
practical effects would be.

There was not one single expert in the field of philately or
numismatics consulted during the drafting of the convention. There is
not one single person among the proponents of this convention who
really knows anything about collecting coins or stamps.

How would you like to have laws made that would have a major negative
effect on archaeology, by people who know nothing about the subject,
without anyone even taking the trouble to find out what
archaeologists have to say?

> Don't collectors want legal and ethical collections?

Of course they do. With few exceptions, they all now HAVE legal and
ethical collections.

It is the cultural property law advocates who are proposing to change
this: what is presently, and always has been, legal and ethical will
become illegal and unethical, in the name of political correctness.

> The fact is, the antiquities collecting market DOES drive looting
and illegal trade of antiquities.

The fact is that there are some unethical people who are willing to
pay looters and smugglers for antiquities that have been illegally
excavated and/or illegally exported. These unethical people are
engaged in a criminal activity, and they are the real, proximate
cause of the problem. If these criminal activities were stopped there
would be no site looting.

The market for antiquities collecting is being targeted because those
who (rightly) want to eliminate site looting (wrongly) do not want to
attack the real proximate cause. It is thought to be too difficult
and also too dangerous to do this. So a Utopian scheme has been drawn
up, by sincere, well meaning people who even now do not understand
what its real effects would be. They also do not understand that if
their scheme were to actually become law, it still would not solve
the problem of site looting, but might very well aggravate it.

The detailed exploration and understanding of these effects is the
raison d'etre of the Unidroit-L discussion list.

> I would note, too, that the discussion so far has concerned
antiquities rather than antiques. Those black UN helicopters are not
going to swoop down and sieze anybody's antique basket hilt sword or
rapier.

Then why are such objects included in the definition of "cultural
objects?" Along with books and so many other innocent things?

> But people who are buying ILLEGALLY excavated artifacts-celtic
swords, say-are no different from people who buy any other kind of
stolen property, and should not be treated differently just because
of the "service" they might provide.

People who knowingly buy stolen property (including illegally
excavated artifacts), are ALREADY treated under the law as being
guilty of a crime. They are NOT being treated differently. To
prosecute someone for buying stolen property it is only necessary to
show that the individual bought the property, that it was stolen, and
that the transaction was not innocent.

It is this proposal that every owner of a "cultural object," which
includes a large fraction of everything made by man that is more than
100 years old, must be able to prove good title that is a different
and really very disturbing kind of treatment. This presumption that
a "cultural object" is illicitly possessed, unless its possessor can
prove by documentary evidence, in many cases going all the way back
to an export permit, that he has a right to possess it - THIS is
different treatment.

> And denials of culpability just aren't credible. It's like buying a
flat-screen TV off the back of a truck for $50 at midnight and
pretending that you're not involved in anything unethical because you
didn't personally steal the shipment of flat-screen TVs. Inviting all
your friends over to watch the new TV doesn't change the fact that
it's stolen, and doesn't relieve you of ethical or legal culpability
in the theft, no matter how many hands the TV passed through before
you bought it.

What is at issue here is not buying things under the kind of shady
circumstances you are offering in this very misleading comparison.

What is at issue is a coin collector buying a coin from a reputable
dealer in a coin strore, or at an auction. This collector has no
intention or suspicion of being involved in an unethical transaction.

How would you like to go buy a flat-screen TV at a reputable
electronics store, then be faced with a demand that you don't have a
right to possess it because you should have carried out a due
diligence investighation by following the title all the way back
through the distribution chain to the manufacturer's original
shipping document? How would you like this requirement being applied
not only to big expensive things such as flat-screen TVs, but to
every CD and videotape that you buy?

You would think that this was absolutely crazy. Well, that is exactly
how collectors feel about the Unidroit convention.

> Collectors/dealers/curators shouldn't be treated any
> different just because they spend thousands or millions of dollars
buying/fencing stolen property, have genuine affection for the stolen
artifacts, study them dilligently, publish articles about them and
hold doctorates in Art History.

This statement is really intellectually dishonest, as well as being
misleading. People who knowingly buy stolen property, as pointed out
above, are NOT being treated differently now. They can be and often
are prosecuted for it.

It is the proposal that every "cultural object" should be considered
to be stolen unless its possessor has documentary proof that it was
NOT illegally excavated or illegally exported that is so different
and so disturbing. This is a radical change in the law. It is not a
normal, customary way of looking at things.

> Further, the attitude that it's OK to break another country's laws
as long as one obeys one's own is Exhibit A in the scholarly
indictment of collectors.

Do you drink alcohol? Do you advocate the Christian religion? Do you
drive on the right hand side of the road? Are you a female who goes
out in public without a veil? If so, you are breaking some other
country's laws. No one is responsible for obeying the laws of other
countries when they are not actually in those countries. No one could
possibly obey all the laws of every country. They conflict.

> Exhibit B is the attitude that it's OK to support the illegal
antiquities trade because it's too complex and pervasive for some
countries to stop.

It is not OK at all to support illegal antiquities trading. The real
question is exactly what is to be done to stop it.

The Unidroit convention attempts to stop it in a new and radically
different way: by forcing everyone who wants to acquire a "cultural
object" to carry out a due diligence investigation to make certain
that this object has not been stolen, illegally excavated or
illegally exported.

The objections to the Unidroit convention do not relate to the
objective of suppressing illegal antiquities trading. They arise from
the extreme nature of the proposed remedy, the expectation that it
would have very damaging practical effects on collecting, and the
complete lack of any evidence that the effects on collecting were
properly considered by people who had some knowledge of the subject.

> The fact is that illegal excavation destroys a culture's record of
itself. Artifacts removed from their archaeological context are
virtually useless to scholars trying to understand the cultures that
created them. Too many people think archaeology is a treasure hunt,
and so see nothing wrong with pot hunters and other looters, amateur
or professional, getting to the treasure first. They figure the
artifact exists no matter who excavates it. But people fail to
> appreciate that the artifact in-situ, in its archaeological
context, can have tremendous implications for our understanding of
ancient cultures. Archeological context dates in-situ artifacts. In-
situ artifacts can undermine what scholars thought they knew and
force us to rewrite history books.

None of this is at issue here. We are all agreed that archaeology is
important.

> That's precisely WHY collectors, dealers and curators read
scholarly books, site reports, articles, etc.-because archaeology is
their only means of identifying, understanding and appreciating their
collections, legal or otherwise.

But this is wrong. It is written from the perspective of an
archaeologist, who does not recognize the importance of artifact
studies that have nothing to do with site context.

A coin collector, for example, will have relatively little interest
in scholarly archaeology books because these do not record or discuss
what is important from a numismatic perspective. The coins found in
archaeological digs are normally poorly preserved and are not good
specimens for numismatic study. The good specimens are found in coin
hoards which were usually hidden in isolated areas, away from
structures, somewhat like the popular image of buried pirate treasure.

> Complaining about sinister international conspiracies doesn't
address the real problem here: that looting archaeological sites
PERMANENTLY destroys human history, occurs ONLY to supply artifacts
to private collectors and museums, and devalues all collections by
limiting the amount that can be known about ancient cultures.

Excavating archaeological sites also does much the same things, with
the difference that instead of supplying museums and private
collectors, the artifacts go into the collection of some
archaeologist or institution. The difference is that the knowledge is
not lost but enhanced because it is meticulously recorded and
published, or so the theory goes.

However, a great deal of archaeological excavation work has been and
is being done that was not and will never be published. In my
opinion, this unpublished work is just as much a loss to humanity as
a looted site.

Archaeologists would prefer not to talk about the irresponsible
archaeologists who destroy sites by excavating them and then publish
nothing. Well, collectors would prefer not to talk about the
relatively few irresponsible dealers and collectors who are giving
collecting a bad name in the eyes of archaeologists. The difference
is that collectors are not trying to abolish archaeology.

> As for private property-even the US recognizes that significant
cultural properties (even insignificant ones) are owned collectively
by all citizens.

The US does not by any means recognize that everything that is
classified by the Unidroit convention as "cultural property" is owned
collectively. In the US, "cultural property" is explicitly and
narrowly defined. In the Unidroit convention, it seems as though
almost everything made by man that is more than 100 years old is
defined as cultural property.

> That's why we have state and federal antiquities laws. That's why
you can't go out and loot the graves of Union and Confederate
soldiers in search of belt buckles. That's why you can't take a
backhoe to the Mississippian indian mound on your property. Ask the
fellows who leased and looted Slack Farm about Anglo-American
traditions of "finders/keepers". Are they out of prison yet? England
has similar laws, and even provides for the state purchase of finds
on private properties. Surely we can agree that the laws restricting
illegal excavation of Shilo or Cahokia or Stonehenge are valid and
valuable.

There's no disagreement with any of this. Our antiquities laws are
not perfect, but on the whole they are sensible and they work
reasonably well.

> Why object when other countries want to protect their properties in
the same way?

The objection is precisely because they do NOT want to take the
trouble to protect their own properties in the same way as we do.
They want to have other people - us - do this for them, by making it
impossible to collect the objects that they want to protect. It
sounds like an attractive theory until the specifics are examined by
someone who understands the realities of collecting. At that point it
quickly becomes apparent that a really evenhanded, consistent
enforcement of the Unidroit convention would absolutely destroy
collecting, and would probably devalue all existing collections.

Unidroit proponents attempt to meet the cold logic of this conclusion
by saying that foreign governments are not going to go after $10.00
coins. This is really a confession that the Unidroit convention is
such a badly written law that outrageous injustices could only be
prevented by selective enforcement.

Dave Welsh
dwelsh46@cox.net
Unidroit-L Listowner

Dave Welsh
dwelsh46@cox.net
Unidroit-L Listowner
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Ed Dittus





Joined: 15 May 2004

Posts: 1

PostPosted: Sat 15 May, 2004 4:48 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sean Flynt wrote:
In the case of the Taliban scenario, I'd recognize that the lesser of two evils is to leave the looted artifacts in, say, the British Museum (I cite the BM guardedly, because they have admitted gross mishandling of the Elgin Marbles). But by the same logic, one could argue that the BM or Met or Philly Museum of Art are better able to care for antiquities than most private collectors, and therefore there should be no private collections. So that line of reasoning is a dead end for both sides of this issue.

As for the US not being subject to international law-that means the US should not negotiate or sign any international treaties. I think that position is untenable.

As distasteful as a truce may be, I'd like to call for one here. Politics has ruined many a forum. Nobody posting in this thread is going to be swayed by opposing arguments, so let's agree to resolve this issue through the ballot boxes in our respective countries and return to the discussion of the objects themselves.


It is unfortunate that politics have a tendency to disrupt forums. Unfortunately we have all seen ill advised laws passed because, partly, of the complacency of the people effected. The more that I have examined the provisons of Unidroit and more importantly the attiitudes of some of it's more vocal supporters, the more that I feel that it is inherently unfair and must be opposed.

I see that the subtitle of MyArmouries is "A Resource for Historic Arms and Armour Collectors". Certainly those who collect and have anything in their collections one hundred years old should have an abiding interest in laws that effect their hobby, no? And certainly it is within the brief of a collector site to encourage discussion of issues that impact their hobby. All this said, I believe that collectors of all descriptions must become informed and act with regard to this seemingly benign treaty. Regardless of shrill statements to the contrary, the law says what it says. There is no exemption for cheap, readily available objects, there is no exemption for arrowheads or swords from the Franco-Prussian War. To suggest that the powers that be will never lower themselves to go after own's own pet collectable is to misread the nature of bureaucrats. They must self perpetuate things to do to survive.

Unpleasent as it might be, I strongly feel that to not discuss the issue is to hide one's head in the sand.
View user's profile Send private message
John Piscopo




Location: LaGrange, IL 60525 SW of Chicago
Joined: 26 Jan 2004

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 112

PostPosted: Sat 15 May, 2004 9:35 am    Post subject: UNIDROIT         Reply with quote

Sean Flynt's article, posted from myArmoury by John Piscopo, almost convinced me. Is buying a flat-screen TV
off the back of a truck comparable to buying a minor antiquity without provenance? Does illegal excavation
destroy a culture's record of itself?

Here is the answer I would give Mr. Flynt:

Both looting and the crude methods of previous generations have destroyed context. That is unfortunate,
and I'm hoping UNIDROIT-L can help develop ideas to combat this problem.

Hundreds of millions of minor antiquities that have already been legally excavated, found in plowed fields,
and looted. Clearly *someone* has to take care of them. Antiquities are found by accident every day -- and
will be melted if their intrinsic value exceeds their value to museums and private collectors.

Collectors are generally *economically* successful, and feel competent enough to guard antiquities for future generations. Some collectors have minor academic skills and use them to spread knowledge of ancient
cultures.

Archeologists are generally *academically* successful, and feel competent to guard antiquities for future
generations. Some academics are also successful financially and use their money to fund projects
that spread knowledge of ancient cultures.

Academics don't feel financially well-off folks can do a good job safeguarding antiquities. Collectors don't
feel academically gifted folks do a good job publishing and promoting antiquities.

Treaties like UNIDROIT, forbidding any but successful academics to have control of antiquities, are as
offensive to me as a treaty forbidding governments to fund digs and archeological projects would be to you!
I believe that successful folks in *both academia and business* can be trusted with minor antiquities.

I "own" nearly 100 ancient coins. I "own" them by the laws of my land. I actually merely hold them in trust
for future generations. My hope is that when my term of protecting these coins is done I can pass some on
to collectors and some to academics.


If my coins are seized then I lose the choice of which collectors and which academics get them. (I'm also
out some money.) This is not why I fear the UNIDROIT Convention on Antiquities. My fear is that ancient
coins will be melted for their intrinsic value if no one cares for them. Does this sound unlikely to you?
Let me close by quoting from the ANA's newsletter to young numismatists.

"The story goes that after WWI, the government of Turkey, which was on the loosing side, paid off some
war reparations to the USA with a tanker full of Byzantine gold coins. These were unloaded, melted
down, and cast into ingots, which reside today in Fort Knox. As a collector, when you can afford it, you
can treat your Byzantine gold much better.

[ http://www.money.org/yn/ynnewsletter200243.html ]

-Ed

I collect swords and bayonets dated WWI back to the Bronze Age from the US and Europe and ancient swords and other weapons from Eurasia. I participate in many historical forums for the study of ancient history and weapons. I am happy to share what expertise I have. John Piscopo
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
John Piscopo




Location: LaGrange, IL 60525 SW of Chicago
Joined: 26 Jan 2004

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 112

PostPosted: Sun 16 May, 2004 10:03 am    Post subject: UNIDROIT         Reply with quote

--- In Unidroit-L@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Dittus" <incitatus@c...> wrote:
> We must bear in mind that the Archeologists are only a part, and a
> small part, of the problem. The number of objects outside of the
> concern of these folks dwarfs their antiquities concerns. If their
> arguments are the "valid" ones for this law then it obviatyes the
> rationale for protection of other objects that by their nature are
> context free. I refer to things that were never buried and whose
> continued existance is only due to the activities of collectors.

Ed,

This is an interesting point. Looking at article 3 of Unidroit I see:

(1) The possessor of a cultural object which has been stolen shall
return it.

(2) For the purposes of this Convention, a cultural object which has
been unlawfully excavated or lawfully excavated but unlawfully
retained shall be considered stolen, when consistent with the law of
the State where the excavation took place.

Para 1 is explicit. if an item has been stolen then it shall be
returned. Taking this as a real theft where there is a legal owner
and the item was stolen from them and then sold abroad, I don't think
anyone would have a problem with this paragraph.

It is where common theft is defined differently that it gets
interesting, and that is para 2. My reading of this is that an item
that has not been excavated, lawfully or unlawfully, could not be
considered stolen by this convention unless there was a real and
recorded theft as implied by para. 1.

I don't know how this would sail in a case regarding stamps, for
example. Stamps are not excavated. Other items defined as cultural
objects, too, would be fairly simply demonstrated to have not been
excavated.

> I might also raise a basic issue: Do Archeologists contribute in
> any meaningful way in a post millenial world? We pay lip service
to
> the verity of the benefit to be derived form understanding ancient
> cultures but what, in fact, do we really understand and what is the
> benefit when all of the arm waving is over? It seems that in a
> situation such as the one that is looming one ought to attack
fairly
> violently. The justification of Archeological activities in terms
> of any objective value is a fair question in this context.

This is an interesting question. From a practical point of view, Jung
said that no one has ever learned from history. Archaeology excavates
what it considers is important, and history is not "what happened",
but answers from the past to specific questions based on the
interests of people in the present. Both archaeology and history are
thus sunbjective to a very great degree. Even when archaeologists
claim to be saving sites, these sites are often just the ones that
current archaeologists consider "significant". They do not think
twice about destroying a medieval site in Athens to get down to the
level of a Classical site, nor would they remove a Classical site to
get down to the level of a pre-historic site, or even remove a
Classical period site to get down to the level of an archaic, or pre
Classical site. This is because Classical greece is the dominant icon
for modern Greeks.

In Germany, perhaps still reeling from Hitler's ideals of
German "cultural heritage", preferences have been given to the
excavation of sites that had a Classical connection. In the British
education system, attention moves very quickly from Stonehenge, to
the Romans with very little in between. Celtic influences, for
example, are very much downplayed in the common literature. Calleva
Atrebatum, the main settlement of the British Atrebates, is always
called "the Roman town of Calleva (or Silchester), despite the fact
that it was founded prior to the conquest. Could there be a political
motivation for this, or even a racist motivation? Perhaps.

Look at:

http://www.hants.gov.uk/discover/places/silchester.html

Although other sites (Reading Museum, for example) mention the pre-
Roman site, this government page mentions only the Roman period. You
will see that there is actually a Celtic coin illustrated on the
page. Pass your mouse over the image and you will see that the ALT
tag says "Gold Roman coins". The only thing that is right is "gold" --
it is just one coin, a pre-Roman Atrebatan coin of Eppillus with the
town name and dating to about 40-50 years before the conquest.

I think that if there is just one lesson from history that we should
really try to learn and carry with us into the new millenium, it is
that when we try to use history and archaeology to identify ourselves
culturally, we bring with it racist and nationalistic concepts that
only serve to promote the ideas of "us and them". Perhaps it is time
to look at the world's heritage as something that belongs to all of
us, singly and in interest groups. If we collect and study some
aspect of the past, it is something that has contributed to what
makes us individuals. We really don't need governments to define us
and separate us even more from our fellow human beings.

When we show things from our collections to friends that visit our
homes, or to students in a classroom, we are sharing a common
heritage with people who might never travel to where they might see
these things in a museum case. The surprise of seeing such things in
an unexpected context adds further impact and apreciation of the
artifact and of the people who made it. Museums with cases upon cases
of the same sort of item often causes sensory overload which leads to
mental rejection (this has been tested and has found to be true).

Artifacts should be a part of our day to day life, in homes, offices
and shopping centres. What used to be isolated and alien cultures is
now becoming part of what we all are, as individual human beings. If
we all start to feel more like part of humanity, instead of just part
of a culture that is defined for us by governments, then perhaps we
can all get along together more. Of course, this might present a
problem for governments in their quest for more cannon fodder to
support their nationalistic and/or religious tendencies, but that
can't be helped.

Cheers,

John Hooker

I collect swords and bayonets dated WWI back to the Bronze Age from the US and Europe and ancient swords and other weapons from Eurasia. I participate in many historical forums for the study of ancient history and weapons. I am happy to share what expertise I have. John Piscopo
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > UNIDROIT Convention to govern the antiquities trade
Page 2 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2 All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum