Last Thursday ARCA sponsored an antiquities panel held at the American Society of Criminology meeting in San Francisco. It was a lively panel, and I always enjoy getting a chance to discuss these issues in person, to an interested audience. San Francisco was a great setting for this kind of thing, and though the conference hotel was located near the Tenderloin, in the old stomping grounds of Dashiell hammett, I managed to restrain myself and avoid making any pained "Maltese Falcon" references, though I'm unable to resist here. What follows are a few of my thoughts which I jotted down during the panel.Kimberly Alderman began the panel by examining the connections between art crime and organized crime and the drug trade. The connection matters, as it may be one way to help highlight the problem of the theft and looting of sites, as organized crime and illegal drug sales will draw the attention of law enforcement more readily. Yasmeen Hussain followed, and discussed the role of antiquities issues in international relations. I was really struck that there may be more room in the debate for political scientists to weigh in on these issues in a more direct way, perhaps offering frameworks for useful dialogues which can "build capacity" as Yasmeen argued. Erik Nemeth followed and really opened my ideas to the idea of "cultural intelligence" and the need to assess the "tactical and strategic significance of antiquities and cultural heritage sites". I ended the panel by looking in some detail at the Four Corners antiquities investigation, and argued that the criminal offenses at the Federal level are inconsistently applied and do not really do a very good job of regulating and changing the underlying nature of the market.
One interesting idea which emerged from the questions after the panel was Simon Mackenzie's question about whether the UN definition of organized crime could or should be applied to certain parts of the antiquities trade like auction houses. The definition states that organized criminal groups are "a structured group of three or more persons, existing for a period of time and acting in concert with the aim of committing one or more serious crimes or offences. . .". Kim responded by noting that even if these groups are not actively and intentionally engaged in the crimes, they may be unwitting actors or play a part in an organized criminal network, referencing the work of Edgar Tijhuis.
Overall, it was a terrific weekend, another Cultural Property panel with Blythe Bowman Proulx, Matthew Pate, Duncan Chappell, and Simon Mackenzie was terrific as well. Thanks to all the panelists, and especially the volunteers who put together Thursday evening's reception at the Thirsty Bear.
(cross-posted)
2 comments:
This letter was published in the Santa Fe New Mexican November 21 2010. Dear Editor:
Once again, your reporter, Mr. Sharpe has shown his negative prejudice in his coverage of the American Indian Art scene in Santa Fe in his story “FBI Agent: Four Corners busts not meant to ‘intimidate,” November 12th. For starters, the busts were meant specifically to intimidate, obviously.
Rather than explaining to your readers, many of whom are art collectors, that FBI Agent David Kice repeated three times that the “burden of proof” was on him and the government to establish that any item of Indian art is illegal, Sharpe simply repeated the usual propaganda from the government meant to confuse and frighten innocent Indian art collectors and legitimate dealers.
Mr. Kice made it clear it was perfectly LEGAL to own historic and prehistoric Indian art, which Mr. Sharpe conveniently omitted.
Mr. Sharpe also believes Mr. Kice when he said that the government had nothing to do with the three suicides from the federal raids of June 2009. We need a proper internal investigation into those raids, and not just the usual cover up.
In addition, your newspaper has refused to retract the false propaganda from federal officials that there is a billion dollar black market in Indian art in Santa Fe, (Pasatiempo August 20, 2010, p.6) which you have twice been asked to do. The FBI and the BLM are obviously using this false propaganda of a billion dollar black market in Indian art in Santa Fe to justify their budgets in Washington. Meanwhile, there is NO significant black market in antique Indian art in Santa Fe, prehistoric or historic. Period.
Thank you
Steve Elmore
Santa Fe
For a counterpoint, please see http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2010/11/additional-research-for-criminologists.html
Sincerely,
Peter Tompa
Post a Comment