Television and Antiquities

This week I took a different approach, and wanted to explore antiquities as shown on popular television shows. If you were to flip through the channels on your T.V, I bet you would see many shows about people uncovering antiquities, and buying, selling or appraising them. Two popular shows that use this premise are “American Pickers”, and “Pawn Stars.” They each may have different formats, but they all deal with handling rather old objects.

 “American Pickers”, for example, is shown on the History Channel, involves two men out on the search for special antiques right in the backyard of America. Their intro reads;

“I'm Mike Wolfe. And I'm Frank Fritz. And we're pickers. We travel the back roads of America looking for rusty gold. We're looking for amazing things buried in people's garages and barns. What most people see as junk, we see as dollar signs. We'll buy "anything" we think we can make a buck on. Each item we pick has a history all its own and the people we meet? Well, they're a breed all their own. We make a living telling the history of America...one piece at a time”

Wolfe and Fritz barter the items off the owners, who are most of the time hesitant, and then sell them at auction or by other means at a higher price. Wolfe and Fritz are often entertaining and likeable guys. When I watch the show, however, I often feel bad at the fact that the usually dupe the owners of the “antiquity” to buy the items at a lower price. Even after they do that, they sell the items so they can make money off of them. Even though they say they buy junk, most of the items they find are worth quite a few dollars. Once they sell the items, who knows what happens to them.

                History Channel’s “Pawn Stars” is about a 24-hour family owned pawn shop in Las Vegas. The business is operated by the often grumpy Richard "Old Man" Harrison, and his son Rick Harrison. They opened the shop in 1988. The business is always run by Rick’s son, Corey, and his clumsy friend Austin "Chumlee" Russell. They show has attracted the network’s most viewers, becoming a great success.  The pawn shop comes into contact with many interesting antiquities, such as Civil War paraphernalia or old letters from presidents. Part of the show is to determine if the object is authentic, and if it is, the owner is given the option to with pawn or sell it. The price offered to the owner is often much lower than what the appraiser says it is worth. Of course, the “Pawn Stars” buy it at a lower price to make a profit of it. The item than goes to sale at the shop, or is kept by the “Pawn Stars”, or sold elsewhere.  While I watch this show, I always wonder how the owners get some of these objects. Many times, they say it was passed down through their family, but why would they want to sell it knowing it could end up anywhere?

                These shows prove that the antiquities market is a sticky market. The objects are often bartered as if it was a gambling game. These objects are than sold or auctioned as if they were trading cards, too. One could easily see how illusive the market is. You can buy an item for $50, than sell it at auction, and make $500, even if it is not worth that much. One could say “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure”, but are these objects really trash?  If everything is worth something, than nothing is really trash, besides trash itself. Also, what if the owner wants their object back if it was stolen from them? This then leads to a case of repatriation too. It goes to show that museums are not the only places that feel the heat of the antiquities market. Local pawn shops and auction houses can be home of the shady hand of the black market. The creepy thing is, is that things like that are broadcasted on T.V for your enjoyment.  
           Even though the points I stated above may exist, "Pawn Stars" and "American Pickers" are not as evil as I may have described. My Professor brought up a good point that these shows do save objects from rotting away in a shed or barn. Many times, they restore the objects and give them a second life, so to speak. These shows also raise the public's awareness to antiquities, and perhaps could inspire people to respect antiquities more.  In the end, both shows are highly entertaining and endearing, and have a lot of value educationally as well. 

Kiera Lanni

The Reacquiring of Ancient Cambodian Artifacts and the Ethics behind it

The Reacquiring of Ancient Cambodian Artifacts and the Ethics behind it

 

     More often than not, when you go about buying something off eBay things can get kind of sketchy, however in this case the findings were a little more than sketchy. Southeast Asian archeologist Damien Huffer was sent a catalog in 2010 of ancient Cambodian artifacts, each priced at a few thousand dollars and some still containing human remains. The fact that these artifacts appeared to be just plucked off of skeletons makes it obvious that they were looted. Huffer, being a man of science, proceeded to break the news on his blog on what he had found. From here he was then contacted by members of the Cultural Property division of the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage, and the Arts. Together, they brought down the seller of the artifacts. They were then sent back to Cambodia where Huffer and his colleagues viewed the ceremony.

     Though the pieces are all back and comfortable in their native land, one can not go without asking themselves were these pieces looted in vain of their true owners, the ancient Cambodians? These artifacts were taken off of ancient corpses making them pieces of a bigger puzzle so to speak. The rest of the remains these belong to will never be found, making it a priceless loss. 

     I personally believe that it is very sad and even shocking that people would go to the extent to essentially grave rob an entire ancient culture all for the sake of money. Tell me your opinion on this in the comments section.

-Ben Hall

http://www.savingantiquities.org/bringing-them-home-the-repatriation-of-priceless-human-remains-and-artifacts-to-cambodia/ 

Iraqi-Jewish Heritage

Conflicts between Iraq and Israel before and during World War II did not only affect the Jewish people who lived in Israel, but also effected Iraqi citizens who were Jewish. Iraq’s Anti-Semitic Legislation, created in 1933, gave the Jewish citizens a very tight leash during the beginning of the war and started to persecute them due to the conflicts between them and Israel. During the 1950’s, Iraqi secret police were ordered to raid homes in the Jewish communities, mostly in Baghdad, to search for any evidence of Zionist sentiments, which were artifacts supporting the development of Israel. In this specific case, we will look at personal items found in one home which had very little value,  but is now is the topic of Iraq’s ministry of Culture and Antiquities .

The items that are being so widely discussed consists of early Torah’s, children’s learning material, family photos and a few other personal belongings. The Iraqi Ministry of Culture and Antiquities had sent them to the United States to take care of them. They had made an agreement in 2003 that America would restore the artifacts and return them in 2005. The problem is that it is now 2012 and the artifacts are not back in the hands of Iraq. Liwaa Saisim, Iraqi Tourism and Archeology Minister has even gone as far as not letting archeological explorations continue by the United States in Iraq until the artifacts are back in Iraq.

So the question here is, why hasn’t the United States given back these pieces of Iraqi history? And another big question is why is Iraq so interested in repatriating these objects? The United States has been doing research on these items that will ultimately cost up to six million dollars, and they want to do the most that they can and complete their studies, although the U.S. acknowledges that Iraq has the right to make their claims. As for Iraq, they want the items back not for monetary value, but for the sake of informing their citizens. Saad Eskander, the director of the Iraq National Library of Archives, makes a great point when he says, “Iraqis must know that we are a diverse people, with different traditions, different religions, and we need to accept this diversity…To show it to our people that Baghdad was always multi-ethnic.”

Ultimately, I feel that that Iraq should have the artifacts back. Not only because there are legal documents that state the claim of the artifacts, but also for the sake of Iraqi people today. Saad Eskander’s statement applies to the way of living in Iraq today, because history still effects the present day and Iraqi people need to see that diversity was okay in their past and should be okay in their present day lives. It is possible to co-exist, but the public needs proof that it has happened, it can happen, and it will happen.

So you all know my stance on the issue, now what do you all think; Who do these artifacts belong to? Please respond in the comment box bellow!

-Rachel Armus

http://www.savingantiquities.org/contested-ownership-of-iraqi-jewish-heritage-causes-international-debate/

Could Repatriation be Dangerous?

An article in The New York Times called “Seeking Return of Art, Turkey Jolts Museums” brought to my attention that repatriation cases could turn ugly. In September of 2012, Turkey had an aggressive campaign to reclaim “looted” antiquities. They have, in turn, received an ancient sphinx and other treasures from their history.  Recently, Turkish officials have filed a criminal complaint to investigate the illegal excavation of 18 antiquities that are now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Turkey’s director-general of cultural heritage and museums, Murat Suslu, told Met officials to “prove the provenance of ancient figurines and golden bowls in the collection, or Turkey could halt lending treasures.” This has now taken effect.  The Met calls it cultural blackmail, but Suslu is adamant that the objects belong to Turkey.

                This has caused a debate because Turkey has shifted borders for centuries, so it is not certain the objects belong to them. Museums are using the Unesco convention to keep items that were acquired before 1970. Turkey is citing a 1960 Ottoman-era law, which bans the export of antiquites, to claim any object after that date, although the ratified the Unesco convention in 1981. Turkey is also refusing to lend treasures, delaying archaeological excavation licensing, and putting down museums publicly.

                Turkey has had their fair share of repatriation success, which could be due to their agrressive ways. Hermann Parzinger, president of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation has said;

“The Turks are engaging in polemics and nasty politics. They should be careful about making moral claims when their museums are full of looted treasures”

                The Turkish officials still are harping on the Met, while the Met is trying to hold onto the objects. The Turkish say stealing is wrong, and apparently will do anything to get their antiquities back. This article made me realize how controversial and important the issue of repatriation is. It could be a lot worse than this case, too.

By Kiera Lanni

Source

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/arts/design/turkeys-efforts-to-repatriate-art-alarm-museums.html?pagewanted=all

A Case of Repatriation and Native Americans

I recently stumbled upon a website entitled SAFE; Saving Antiquities for Everyone.  http://www.savingantiquities.org/tag/repatriation/ Their goal is to "raise public awareness about the irreversible damage to the study of history and culture that results from looting, smuggling, and trading illicit antiquities." Visitors are encouraged to donate to their cause, and are given tips on how to help items return to their homes. SAFE posts many stories and cases of repatriation. One that was interesting to me was entitled, the right to rest in peace: Native American human remains and NAGPRA final rule.

Native Americans have had a problem with the repatriation of unidentifiable remains. Some people believe it belongs to all humans, and not just Native Americans. Separately, it has been over twenty years since the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act has become a law. It still causes debates between Native Americans, cultural institutions, and academics, however. On December 12th 2010, a contributor to the New York Times, Robert R. Kelly, wrote an article about the final rule the U.S Department of Interior made on March 15 2010, concerning the disposition of Native American culturally unidentifiable human remains. Kelly is quoted with saying that the final rule will “destroy a crucial source of knowledge about North American history and halt a dialogue between scientists and Indian tribes that has been harmonious and enlightening”.

The final rule states that “if there is no request from an Indian tribe regarding culturally unidentifiable human remains, a museum or federal agency must initiate consultation with officials and traditional religious leaders of all Indian tribes from whose tribal land or aboriginal land the human remains were removed. The consultation may include Indian groups that are not-federally recognized, but are known to have a shared group identity with the human remains at issue, at discretion of the museum or federal agency.”

                Concerning the types of remains, the NAGPRA defines two of them, which are “culturally affiliated” and “culturally unidentifiable.”  Culturally affiliated remains can be link historically to a present day Native American tribe. They are repatriated to the tribe, and then laid to rest. Culturally unidentifiable are those with no lineal descendent.  Out of respect for the Native Americans, the DOI invited public comments on the issue of how to deal with unidentifiable remains correctly.

They came up with these priorities to determine repatriation

“1. Indian tribes from whose tribal land, at the time of excavation, the remains were removed;

2. Indian tribe or tribe’s aboriginal to the area from which the remains were removed;

3. Other Indian tribe who accept to take care of the disposition of the remains;

4. Not a federally recognized tribe.”

If these cases do apply to the situation, the museum or federal agency may reinter the human remains according to State or other law, however all Native Americans involved in the consultation have agreed with the final disposition.

                Native Americans have a shared history, which they feel makes them equal. This makes the case of repatriation difficult because of the interpretation of cultural heritage. The Native Americans also feel they have the right to claim their own cultural objects since it was their land, but others argue that it belongs to the United States.  Obviously, the case of repatriation even exists here in America. Any culture could have a case regarding the subject, and still, there is no clear answer to this sticky situation.

by Kiera Lanni

Sources
http://www.savingantiquities.org/tag/repatriation/

The Case of Katana's Missing Viango Statues

Kigango statues, carved and praised by the Mijikenda people of Kenya, hold much significance to it's people. They are carved to honor deceased relatives and loved ones. In this one specific case, an elderly man named Katana carved two Viango (plural for Kiango) statues representing his two recently deceased brothers. These statues were held at the Gohu Society, which was a fraternal club that the brothers partaked in together. In 1985, Monica Udvardy, a cultural anthropologist went to visit Katana to learn about the Gohu Society and saw Katana with his newly carved statues. But shortly after her visit, the statues went missing.Udvardy heard of this horrible crime and made it her duty to find the viango and return them to Katana. it took her 15 years, but eventually she found them both. One of them belonging to the Illinois State University Museum, and the other in the Hampton University Museum in Virginia.
It is not uncommon for art dealers to perceive these artifacts as art, but really they are part of the Mijikenda people's culture and are part of their rituals. If they are stolen, the spirits would inflict harm on their living family members. These viango were not to be taken as a joke or just a beauty, but they are part of  lifestyle.

This is an example of a looting case that is not from a natural historic site, but from someone's own personal property. This also shows that looting really can harm many people. I think that Looters need to learn their boundaries. Although it is wrong to loot anywhere at all, it gets very personal when you are taking something from a specific person and treating it as a cultural artifact and selling it on the markets. I want to hear from all of you, does it make it any different for artifacts to be stolen from one specific person, does it even make it robbing rather than looting? Write your responses bellow!

http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/kenya/cultural-property-global-commodities-case-mijikenda-m

Posted by Rachel Armus

Edward George Johnson: The One man Heist

Edward George Johnson: The One man Heist

By, Ben Hall

     In February of 2002, helicopter pilot Edward George Johnson was sent into Cairo with the American military for an eight month tour ending in October of the same year. He was tasked to transport troops and scout areas to dangerous to trek on foot. He served the full eight months and the end of 2002 and beginning of 2003, Johnson had ended up walking away with $20,000. Sounds pretty nice for being a helicopter pilot for only 8 months in Egypt right? Well it turns out that this considerable amount of money was not made from Johnson’s excellent piloting skills, but rather from his skills as a looter.   

Some Artifacts taken by Johnson, Photographed by Amged Maky

 Johnson had stolen some 80 artifacts from Egypt over  the course of his military tour. This first came to the public’s eye when Johnson had contacted a dealer who had been working with the government.  It is reported that the artifacts, before falling into Johnsons hands, where help in the Ma’adi Museum. Initially, looting from dig sites is a crime large enough for one to go to jail, and a disgraceful heinous act, but Johnson looted an actual museum, which in my opinion is 10x worse. It would be the equivalent of an Egyptian coming into the Museum of Natural history in New York during a time of chaos, and taking artifacts that rightfully belong to it. Essentially Johnson took advantage of the situation in a time where it was completely unnecessary.

     

Outside of the Ma’adi in Cairo

     Johnson, in this situation, is the only one to blame. There were no accomplices reported assisting Johnson when stealing and shipping the artifacts. It was his idea alone, and only he alone executed it. Not even the Ma’adi is to blame, as it is not their fault. Sure, security should have been beefed up, but during such a time of crisis and confusion anything can happen because most of the time people are vulnerable. Johnson took advantage of not just a museum, but an entire culture.

Comment if you agree with my opinion on Johnson being the only one that should be held accountable for this crime.  

Works Cited

"Blogger." : Create Your Free Blog. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2012. <http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3173095721550120408>.

Feuer, Alan. "Army Pilot Held in Sale of Egyptian Artifacts." The New York Times. The New York Times, 07 Feb. 2008. Web. 23 Nov. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/nyregion/07soldier.html>.

"News Releases." ICE Returns Stolen Antiquities to Egypt. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2012. <http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/0812/081203newyork.htm>.