February 2011 Archives

Geoffrey Rush, the King's coach

When I viewed the film that was yesterday's big Oscar winner, The King's Speech, it had immediately brought to mind my own professional encounters with a stutterer---an important museum director, whom I first interviewed by phone many years ago, when he was a curator and was I a cub reporter.

While I lobbed him some softball questions, our conversation flowed smoothly. I immediately recognized that I had come upon an extremely articulate, highly intelligent expert---a good go-to source for future stories. But then I started probing a sensitive area regarding his museum, and things went off the rails. I suddenly discovered, to the dismay of both of us (or at least me), that my interviewee had a serious stutter. I silently agonized over his discomfort. But unlike King George, my interviewee never gave up and eventually managed to force out the words.

I have spoken with this consummate museum professional by phone and in person many times over the years and, more importantly, I've heard him do what museum directors must---deliver formal speeches to audiences of visitors, museum patrons and, of course, pesky journalists. At first, there would be occasional glitches and, more frequently, long pauses to allow the speech-sabotaging impulse to pass. (And he didn't have the benefit of the slow movement of Beethoven's 7th, which gloriously accompanied the King's big Speech on the soundtrack!)

By now, more than 30 years later, you'd never know he had once grappled with this challenge. I've never spoken with him about his personal struggle, but I suppose he must have had his own "Geoffrey Rush."

And it worked brilliantly.

Smithsonian Secretary G. Wayne Clough

The National Portrait Gallery's controversial gay-themed show---Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture---closed on Feb. 13 as scheduled, not prematurely as museum officials had feared after the exhibition attracted the wrath of William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, and two powerful Congressional leaders---House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

But negative repercussions linger on---not just in the bad aftertaste among members of the artworld and gay-rights community, but also in the problematic recommendations of the three-person ad hoc committee appointed by the Smithsonian Institution to suggest guidelines for planning future shows that might spark controversy.

I briefly reported on those recommendations last month. But I haven't yet told you what I think of them:

The cure that the committee prescribed for possibly provocative shows is likely to be worse than the disease. The procedures that it says should be followed in planning future exhibitions would entangle our federal museums in a sticky mess of red tape whenever a cautious curator or museum director flagged a proposed exhibition as "sensitive." This bureaucratic blanket will likely have a chilling effect on hot-button shows.

The three-man committee of inside-the-Beltway advisors---John McCarter Jr., a Smithsonian Regent and president and CEO of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History; David Gergen, senior political analyst for CNN, who served as advisor to four U.S. Presidents; Earl Powell III, veteran director of the National Gallery of Art in Washington---gave lip service to "curatorial freedom of expression, expertise and authority." But from now on, that freedom may be seriously compromised.

If the group's recommendations are followed, professional prerogatives will be second-guessed, in advance, by amateur outsiders and by the Smithsonian's own governing board. "Public input or reaction" will be sought on "possibly controversial exhibitions" from "a diversity of perspectives." These disparate views would be gathered at the "pre-decisional exhibit planning phases."

Presumably such advance input will need to come from the very people who are most likely to be offended by a particular display. Cue Donohue, always on the alert for what he perceives as anti-Catholic "hate speech." Either the objectors will have to be mollified, or their outrage will be magnified by their having been first consulted, then ignored.

This is clearly a lose-lose scenario.

We're already seeing one form that this public input may take: The Smithsonian American Art Museum's 2012 show, The Art of Video Games, had already been flagged (scroll down) as possibly controversial because of violent content. Now SAAM has issued an invitation to the public to vote on which games should be included. The rationale for this, as announced by the museum's director, Elizabeth Broun, is that "playing video games involves many personal choices, so, in keeping with the spirit of the exhibition's content, we want to involve the public in helping us select games for the exhibition." Presumably, if some critic objects to the choices, SAAM can lay the blame on the public.

In addition to having the laymen looking over their shoulders during exhibition planning, Smithsonian curators would have the Board of Regents breathing down their necks. The committee's recommendations state: "The Regents should be relied upon to provide candid observations and advice on potentially controversial exhibitions" that might "require further Regent engagement." But the proper role of museum board members, who are not art museum professionals, is to make sure that their institution is well run, not to micromanage curatorial and directorial decisions about what to show and how to interpret it.

The ball was returned to G. Wayne Clough's court. The Regents directed the Smithsonian's head to "address the panel's observations and recommendations and present an action plan to the Board."

A preferable "action plan" was suggested by David Ward, co-curator of "Hide/Seek" when we chatted in the galleries during the waning days of the exhibition. Standing in front of a photo of the exhibition's father figure, poet Walt Whitman, the curator suggested a better approach to future contretemps over content.


Ward declared that the Smithsonian's Secretary "has to listen to the museum directors....I think that there's been a growth of a bureaucracy on the [Smithsonian's] Mall which has really created a separate institution in the world of museums....The two don't jibe particularly well."

As Ward indicated, responsibility for professional decisions should be left to responsible professionals. As I've previously stated, I do believe that Smithsonian museums, because they are federal institutions, need to exercise more caution than privately funded institutions when it comes to incurring the displeasure of visitors and their elected representatives. But the Smithsonian's administration and board should listen, above all, to the counsel of its own deeply knowledgeable curators and directors, not to the gripes of imperfectly informed outsiders with a political point to make or a personal axe to grind.

De Morgans storage facility at Dahshur
Photo from Blue Shield's report on Egyptian archaeological sites

While Egyptian Minister of Antiquities Zahi Hawass now indicates that we still may not know the full extent of the losses from the Egyptian Museum (where, he says, a "complete inventory is still underway"), we at least now have an independent (if incomplete) third-party report on the situation at the archaeological sites, some of which have been looted.

Blue Shield, an international organization for the protection of cultural heritage, particularly in times of major crisis and upheaval (such as the recent uprising in Egypt), last week issued a report on an on-site "civil-military assessment mission" conducted from Feb. 12-16 by Blue Shield's president, Karl von Habsburg and Joris Kila, chairman of the International Military Cultural Resources Work Group, with help from Thomas Schuler of ICOM's Disaster Relief Task Force, who "coordinated the mission from Germany and did background research."

The report makes it clear that certain areas were kept off-limits to Blue Shield. At Saqqara, for example, "the museum and the main storage facilities next to the main office building were untouched according to the SCA inspector, but could not be visited."

At the Tomb of Maya, of particular concern to Egyptologists who had heard rumors of damage, there were "clear signs of vandalism (broken locks, broken pieces of wood), [but] supposedly no looting. The entrance to the famous reliefs was sealed with an SCA seal so it could not be visited. It was guaranteed to be in perfect order. The mission had no real reason to doubt this, since reliefs were generally left untouched." At Dahshur, however, "there was no doubt that looting on a big scale took place."

The report concluded:

It is important to plan further missions in Egypt in the near future, since only a very small portion of areas where damage was reported could be surveilled. It is strongly suggested by the mission that a conference in Egypt should be planned in the near future to analyze the security situation at archaeological sites, on how to deal with emergency situations and how to create contingency plans using the Egyptian example.

George Bellows, "Men of the Docks," 1912

Now that the University of Iowa's Pollock has been rescued from those who wanted to sell it, could this be the start of a happy trend?

It's taken me a while to get to this, but on Feb. 10, Liz Barry of the Lynchburg, VA, News & Advance reported:

More than two years after Randolph College sold [my link, not hers] "The Troubadour" by Rufino Tamayo for a record-breaking $7.2 million, three more paintings from Randolph's art collection remain in storage at Christie's auction house in New York City, waiting to be sold.

"The college still intends to sell the remaining three paintings, and we will do so when the American art market stabilizes and improves and when it is in the best financial interests of the college," said Brenda Edson, spokeswoman for Randolph College, in an e-mail.

The three paintings in art-market limbo are George Bellows' "Men of the Docks," Edward Hicks' "Peaceable Kingdom" and Ernest Hennings' "Through the Arroyo." The Bellows was the first work purchased for Randolph's Maier Museum, acquired directly from the artist in 1920 at the bargain price of $2,500. At that time, the professor who arranged the transaction stated that Bellows was "less concerned about the price of their pictures than...about having them in a place where they would be appreciated." Times change.

I checked to see if the Bellows, the most important of the three works, is listed still on the Maier's collections website. It's not, leading me to believe that it may have been formally deaccessioned from the collection, although not yet sold.

I e-mailed some queries to Edson on Feb. 15, after one of the former protagonists in deaccession controversy sent me the News & Advance article. As usual, the university's spokesperson didn't respond to me. Christie's declined to comment, referring me to Randolph College.

For one thing, I wanted to know is why it was decided not to return the paintings to display at the Maier, for the benefit of Randolph's students, until such time as they could be sold (which the article indicated could still be years). I suppose it's possible that Christie's might sell them privately, if the price were right. More likely, the auction house and college administrators don't want the students to get too attached to the paintings, perhaps trying to prevent their leaving again. The original removal was an unannounced surprise.

More importantly, I inquired about the current status of the university's finances, wondering if the lamentable sale might no longer be necessary.

At the very least, the students should demand access to their painting until it's put back up for sale. Perhaps they should take a page from the University of Iowa's students' Save the Pollock! Facebook page. If a popular uprising, organized via Facebook, worked in Cairo, it could work in Lynchburg!

Meanwhile, in Waltham, MA, Ariel Wittenberg of Brandeis University's community newspaper, The Hoot, reports [via]:

Read it and cheer!

First, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad stated in a news conference that he believed that selling the University of Iowa's great Pollock "Mural" would chill donations.

Then the state legislator who had been the prime mover for the sale, Rep. Scott Raecker, decided to back off, in light of the strong controversy his proposal had engendered.

Are we going to have to re-fight this battle every two years, or have the deaccessionists finally gotten the message?

That Facebook-organized student rally (scroll down) can now become a celebration!

Now you can! They reopened yesterday.

Lindsey Parietti of Reuters reports:



For a written account from Reuters, go here.

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller

It doesn't get more forceful than this:

The American Association of Museums has just announced that it will rescind its accreditation of the University of Iowa Museum of Art if certain state legislators succeed in their attempt to compel the sale of the museum's important Pollock "Mural" to fund student scholarships.

Below is AAM's letter in full. I assume that "To Whom It May Concern" refers chiefly to the shortsighted politicians campaigning for this deplorable disposal, which is strongly opposed by the museum, the university and the State Board of Regents.

To Whom It May Concern:

The Accreditation Commission of the American Association of Museums registers its extreme concern about the Iowa legislature's proposed sale of Jackson Pollock's famed painting "Mural" in the collection of the University of Iowa Museum of Art. The intent of the sale, according to the proponents of the legislation, is to underwrite costs at the University of Iowa, specifically to support scholarships for students.

The University of Iowa Museum of Art is currently accredited by the American Association of Museums, and this status is important to a museum's credibility with donors, funders, and the public. Accredited museums have a fundamental fiduciary and ethical responsibility to care for and maintain their collections and determine disposition following national standards. The collections for accredited museums must be unencumbered and cannot be treated as disposable financial assets.

Sale of the work by Jackson Pollock for the proposed ends of scholarship support would directly violate national standards and best practices for U.S. museums and would result in the Commission's rescinding the University of Iowa Museum of Art's accreditation. This bill, if passed, would require an accredited museum to knowingly violate national standards and best practices. Furthermore, it would put other state-funded or governed museums in Iowa at risk for similar actions.

Museum collections are held in the public trust. We call on the public, museum community, and legislators to prevent this action.

Bonnie W. Styles, Ph.D., Chair, Accreditation Commission

The Association of Art Museum Directors yesterday distributed a two-page letter decrying the possible sale. AAMD issued this warning:

Infractions [of professional guidelines prohibiting use of sale proceeds for operations]...may expose that institution to censure and/or sanctions, as determined by the Board of Trustees of the AAMD, that may...include...suspension of loans and shared exhibitions between the

Will Iowa's Attorney General, Tom Miller, rise to defend donor intent and the public's interest in its cultural patrimony? Pam White, interim director of UIMA during previous threats to monetize it, and current adjunct professor of art and law at the university (co-teaching a course on "Art, Law and Ethics") told me this:

I am sure concerned individuals, if not the Regents or other UI officials who oppose such a sale, would approach him [Miller] to halt the sale via injunction. And any resulting hearing/trial would pit those for such a sale against the interests of all Iowans who wish to keep the painting in the state.

Meanwhile, concerned art students have announced a Feb. 24 demonstration on campus to raise awareness of the controversy and the painting that sparked it. They will come "dressed in white, and passersby will be welcome to help splatter-paint the students' clothing, sign a petition, and find out more about the Pollock painting."

At this writing, the group's Save the Pollock Facebook page indicates that 390 people plan to attend that event.

It's not just the likely Fiscal 2012 budget reductions for the arts that we have to worry about.

Because a budget for the current fiscal year was never adopted by Congress, the Federal Government has been operating under a continuing resolution this year (based on appropriations for Fiscal 2010). But a Fiscal 2011 budget for the remainder of this fiscal year (to Sept. 30) is now being debated, and could abruptly deflate arts groups' and institutions' expectations of support.

The American Association of Museums reports:

This week, the House [of Representatives] voted on an amendment (offered by Rep. Tim Walberg from Michigan) to cut $20.6 million from the National Endowment for the Arts for the remainder of the current [emphasis added] fiscal year (FY11). The vote was approved by a 217-209 vote. This is likely to mean some kind of reduction in funding for the agency as the FY11 budget is finalized between the House and Senate.

AAM also reports that two other museum-related, budget-cutting amendments have been filed and could be formally offered---elimination of support for non-federal museums and for the the Institute of Museum and Library Services.

The NY Times published a list of the key amendments and the voting results on them. No proposed change in funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities is included.

AAM urges members of the cultural community who are concerned about the possible arts cuts to call 202-225-3121 "and urge your Representative to oppose any amendment to restrict funding for museums."

Mummy Mask of the Lady Ka-nefer-nefer, Egyptian, Dynasty 19 (1295-1186 BC), St. Louis Art Museum

The St. Louis Art Museum filed a complaint on Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri at St. Louis, in which it asks the court to declare that there is no proof that the museum's Ka-nefer-nefer mummy mask---long sought by Egypt's antiquities chief, Zahi Hawass---was stolen and that even if it was, the statute of limitations for Egypt to claim it has run. David Gill of the Looting Matters blog published a report on this yesterday.

What likely fired up St. Louis' lawyers was a Jan. 13 meeting at the U.S. Attorney's Office in St. Louis, at which assistant U.S. attorneys warned the museum of "their intention to seize and forfeit" the mask, in the words of the museum's complaint.

In its court filing, the museum states:

The Museum conducted a thorough investigation of the Mask's provenance before purchasing the Mask. The Museum's investigation revealed no evidence that the Mask was owned by Egypt under applicable Egyptian law at the time of excavation, that the Mask was stolen from Egypt, or that the Mask had unlawfully entered the United States.

Egyptian Law No. 215 on the Protection of Antiquities, the law applicable at the time the Mask was discovered and excavated, allowed for personal and private ownership of Egyptian antiquities, provided that antiquities could be sold or gifted and, as such, did not establish ownership of the Mask by Egypt.

The document provides many more details, from the museum's point of view, about the history and provenance of the mask and its efforts to verify this information. Some of those details are also part of the information provided about the piece on the museum's website. Egypt, according to this 2008 news report, states that the mask was registered in the ledger of the warehouse at the Saqqara archaeological site and was likely stolen in 1959 "from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo or en route to it from the Saqqara storeroom."

Gill today published a follow-up post stating that "it will be interesting to see if the AAMD [Association of Art Museum Directors] speaks out in support of SLAM or if there will be moves to encourage the museum back into negotiations with Egypt's archaeological authorities."

Given the recent security breaches at the Egyptian Museum and some archaeological sites, this is probably not the best moment for repatriation. That might possibly have influenced the timing of the complaint, but Egypt's current circumstances are not the issue before the court.

It appears that Brent Benjamin, director of the St. Louis Art Museum, who in 2008 was named to the State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee (which handles requests from source countries for U.S. restrictions on the import of cultural property) is no longer on that 11-member committee (scroll down for names).

The limestone statue of Akhenaten that Egyptian Minister of Antiquities Zahi Hawass has first reported as damaged and then reported as stolen has been found---reportedly discovered by a 16-year-old boy next to a trash can. Ahram Online has the story.

Ahram also reports today that there were indeed thefts at the Saqqara and Abusir archaeological sites. Hawass had unequivocally stated that Saqqara was "safe," at the same time that reports of looting were emerging from archaeologists who worked there.

The Ghost Behind the Pollock: Donor/Collector Peggy Guggenheim
Photo (detail): Roloff Beny

I can't believe we're again rehashing the arguments over the monetization of the Univerisity of Iowa's Pollock masterpiece, "Mural." It's 2008-2009 all over again, except that the idea of ditching art to diminish deficits may be gaining new traction in the current economic and political climate.

This disturbing news was reported today by William Petroski of the Des Moines Register:

An Iowa House appropriations subcommittee today supported the sale of a famed Jackson Pollock painting in the University of Iowa's art collection, saying the proceeds could be used to fund thousands of scholarships for students.Rep. Ralph Watts, an Adel Republican who chaired the three-member panel, said a bill requiring the Iowa Board of Regents to sell the world-class Pollock painting, "Mural," will set a minimum price, probably about $120 million. The painting had an estimated value of $150 million in 2008....

Carroll Reasoner, the university's legal counsel, told the subcommittee that letters written by [Peggy] Guggenheim [previous owner of the Pollock] show that she had donated the painting to the university with the intent that it be displayed for students, and the university had said it would be part of its permanent art collection. She raised the prospect that if lawmakers require that the painting be sold, the university could be sued and ultimately lose the artwork before any sale occurred.

CultureGrrl has obtained copies of Peggy Guggenheim's letters, which speak very clearly to the issue of donor intent. Here's the key letter (on P. 4 of the batch of letters), written by Guggenheim on May 14, 1963 to then University of Iowa President Virgil Hancher:

I am writing to you about a matter which troubles me greatly. As you are aware in 1946 I made a gift to your University of a second painting by Jackson Pollock having previously given you a smaller one; This was done through Mr. Lester Longman, who was at that time connected with your art department. I have recently been informed that there are rumors in Iowa to the effect that you are about to ship the large Pollock to Sutheby's [sic] in London to be sold at auction.

If this is true it is extremely unpleasant for me that you should sell my gift, when there are so many museums in the world, who would be delighted to own this wonderful painting. If you no longer wish to have this mural in your University I must ask you to return it to me, so that I can [have it] in my museum here in Venice or give it to some other museum in the states.

To this, Hancher replied (P. 5):

The members of the Art Department have assured me that there is no expectation of sending the Pollock, to which you refer, to Sutheby's [sic], or to dispose of it in any way....There is a unique opportunity in this section of the United States to provide an outstanding art museum, to reach an audience who would not otherwise have an opportunity to see, to know and to share first-rate painting....We are as pleased to have the Pollock now as when you gave it to the University in 1948. [The university gives the date of the gift as 1951.)

These documents, cited by reasonable Reasoner, the university's lawyer, raise the possibility that legislative action may not be sufficient to allow the sale of the Pollock. Court permission may also be needed, as Fisk University well knows from its long and still inconclusive legal battle to sell to Alice Walton's Crystal Bridges Museum a half-share of the celebrated Stieglitz Collection that Fisk had received from donor/artist Georgia O'Keeffe.

The Des Moines Register's Petroski quotes Sean O'Harrow, director of the University of Iowa Art Museum, saying that monetizing the Pollock "would destroy our reputation in one fell swoop." And the university today issued a press release quoting these remarks submitted by University President Sally Mason to the Iowa House Appropriations Subcommittee:

Since this legislation was introduced, donors to the university have rightfully been asking the question: How they can be sure that their gifts to the University of Iowa can be protected?

"This is an issue that I, and the entire University of Iowa community, care deeply about and my position has not changed: I do not want to sell the painting. This very generous donation by Ms. Guggenheim was made to the University with trust that we would be good caretakers of her gift. We cannot break the trust of our donors. We must honor those wishes and requests.

David Miles, president of Iowa's Board of Regents, which oversees the university, and Michael Gartner, a member of the board who had previously explored the idea of selling the Pollock last week issued dueling statements for and against (respectively) the retention of the Pollock as a cultural and educational asset for the university and the broader Iowa community.

Speaking of donor intent (great segue!), my warm thanks go out to CultureGrrl Repeat Donor 156 from Chicago, who says he's "been telling my grad students that they have to follow you. And I don't think there's anybody better than you when it comes to the ethics/politics of deaccessioning."

If only I could monetize that!

On his website today, Egyptian Minister of Antiquities Zahi Hawass gave his explanations for some of the many obvious contradictions between his previous reports on the security of the Egyptian Museum and the country's archaeological sites, and the actual facts as they have unfolded.

He also announced:

Fragments belonging to the statue of Tutankhamun being carried by the goddess Menkaret have been found; all the located fragments belong to the figure of Menkaret. The small figure of the king has not yet been found.

Tutankhamun Carried by Menkaret
Photo courtesy of Egyptian Museum, Cairo

On its new Facebook page, the Ministry of Antiquities yesterday announced:

Jasper Johns, one of 15 honorees receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom yesterday. (Former President George H.W. Bush, seated at the right, fiddles with his newly conferred medal.)

To see Pop artist Jasper Johns get medaled, go to the White House video and scroll to the 27-minute mark (right after the awarding of a medal to frail-looking former President George H.W. Bush).

Here's what President Obama said yesterday afternoon about Johns (at the 6:08-minute mark):

It has been noted that Jasper Johns' work, playing off familiar images, have transfixed people around the world. Historians will tell you that he helped usher in the artistic movements that would define the latter half of the 20th century. Many would say he is one of the greatest artists of our time. And yet, of his own efforts he has simply said, "I'm just trying to find a way to make pictures." Just trying to find a way to make pictures.

Like great artists before him, Jasper Johns pushed the boundaries of what art could be and challenged others to test their own assumptions. He didn't do it for fame, he didn't do it for success---although he earned both. As he said, "I assumed that everything would lead to complete failure, but I decided that it didn't matter---that would be my life." We are richer as a society because it was. And Jasper, you've turned out fine.

Here's the official citation, intoned by a military aide at the 27-minute mark in the video, right before the President fastened the medal (with some difficulty) around the artist's neck:

Bold and iconic, the work of Jasper Johns has left lasting impressions on countless Americans. With nontraditional materials and methods, he has explored themes of identity, perception and patriotism [emphasis added]. By asking us to reexamine the familiar, his work has sparked the minds of creative thinkers around the world. Jasper Johns' innovative creations helped shape the Pop, Minimal and Conceptual art movements, and the United States honors him for his profound influence on generations of artists.

"Patriotism"?

I'm not sure that's exactly what the iconoclastic Johns had in mind when he appropriated the iconic image of the American flag.

Here's how the late Kirk Varnedoe, former chief curator of painting and sculpture at the Museum of Modern Art (who organized MoMA's 1996 Johns retrospective), described a Johns "Flag" in his final book, Pictures of Nothing---"coolly detached, diffident, suffused with irony---an impassive presentation of commonplace things."

That's more like it.

A day after a large group of angry demonstrators gathered outside the headquarters of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, there's still, at this writing, no update on Antiquities Minister Zahi Hawass' website about the situation at the Egyptian Museum and the country's archaeological sites, not even to say that three of the objects that he reported on Sunday as stolen from the museum have since been found. Photos of all the stolen objects, which should be widely disseminated to help prevent illicit trafficking, have yet to appear on his website.

Hawass did surface for an interview with CBS News, posted yesterday afternoon, in which he misleadingly stated that of "these small [stolen] items---eight of them---we found three." In fact, there were 18 stolen items, of which three were found. On Hawass' published list of eight stolen antiquities, number seven on the list was a group of 11 wooden shabti statuettes from Yuya. Only one of those 11 pieces was found.

At the end of yesterday's CBS interview, Hawass declared:

We will open [the Egyptian Museum] in about two days from now. I will make a big announcement. Things will be calm in Egypt.

Here's his CBS interview (after the advertisement):



According to two reports that I've seen on Twitter, Hawass also was interviewed by Al Jazeera, but hung up on the reporter. Here's one of those tweets, from Troy Carter, an American living in Cairo:

Did you hear Zahi Hawass? Just hung up on Al Jazeera live on the air, after shouting he is not connected to regime.

Here's an account from Dominic Waghorn, reporter for Sky News, whose was with Hawass in his office at the Supreme Council of Antiquities during the demonstrations there yesterday, and departed the building with him.

President Obama has announced the Fiscal 2012 budget that he will present to Congress, and, as expected, it includes some cultural cuts among the terminations and reductions. According to the Office of Management and Budget's introduction of the large list of proposed economies throughout the federal government:

There have been more than 120 terminations, reductions, and other areas of savings identified that will save approximately $20 billion each year.

The President's budget would eliminate all funding for the Save America's Treasures and Preserve America programs. These provide matching-grant support from the National Park Service for historic preservation.

According to the President's explanation (on P. 64 of the PDF document linked at the top):

These programs contribute to community and State-level historic preservation and heritage tourism efforts, but in a time of difficult trade-offs funding is being focused on nationwide historic preservation goals, such as increasing grants-in-aid to States and Tribes to carry out Federal responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act.

The National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities both would take hits if the President's plan were adopted---each down 13%---from $168 million this fiscal year to $146 million next year.

[UPDATE: I just hope that the President's math on the rest of the budget is better than it was on these figures: The budget terminations and reductions document, on P. 113 and 114, exaggerates the NEA/NEH decrease as 22%---the figure that I originally used in this post until I did the math and found it was 13%.]

According to the President's explanation (P. 113-114):

The National Endowment for the Arts is working with its sister agency, the National Endowment for the Humanities, to better coordinate and/or consolidate their administrative functions in areas of mutual interest. Such efforts will help to reduce overhead costs at both Endowments, which could produce savings that can be reallocated to partially offset some of the grants programs.

By contrast, the President's request for the Smithsonian Institution represents an increase of 13%, from $761 million this year (under a continuing resolution from Fiscal 2010) to $861.5 million next year. Most of this growth comes from the capital budget, which would rise a whopping 80%---from $125 million this year to $225 million next year---mostly due to the construction of a new National Museum of African American History and Culture on the Mall.

The Republicans will doubtless have their own ideas.

Egyptian protesters today at headquarters of Supreme Council of Antiquities
Photo on Twitter by Gigi Ibrahim

By the end of the day, we may know more about how much of the following information on Twitter is fact and how much is rumor and speculation. There has been no further posting today, at this writing, on the website of Zahi Hawass, Egypt's Minister of Antiquities, who was promoted to that position in the waning days of the Mubarak Administration from his long-time post as head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA).

Francesca Cicardi, a freelance journalist in Cairo, and Nora Shalaby, a Tahrir Square protester who was interviewed by the BBC and who identifies herself as an archaeologist, have each posted several tweets about a protest in front of the SCA's headquarters, where Hawass was believed to be located.

From Cicardi, beginning at about 4 a.m. and ending at about 6 a.m., New York time:

---Protest at the Supreme Council of Antiquities: I think Zahi will be the next to fall, despite his good and international reputation.

---Around 200 protesting at Supreme Council Antiquities: The building is closed. Zahi inside??

---Zahi IS inside! People want him to come out...young archaeologists asking for job with their CVs!

---People saying that if he doesn't show up in 1 hour they will break into the SCA building.

From Shalaby, all in rapid succession at about 9 a.m., New York time:

---Army just arrived at SCA.

---Army probably here to get Zahi Hawass out safely from bldg.

---Archaeologists demanding proper wages, contracts and end of corruption, end of Zahi

I can't vouch for the reliability of these eyewitness accounts and interpretations, but we'll surely be hearing more soon if there's anything to them.

[UPDATE: The Associated Press now has posted a report on the protest, with photos (in upper right corner). It states, "Whether Hawass, entrusted with preserving Egypt's museums and monuments, will go the way of Mubarak and resign is uncertain."]

This demonstration could merely be a part of what the NY Times describes (in an article just posted online) as "a fresh wave of smaller demonstrations by state employees, including ambulance drivers, journalists, police officers and transport workers, demanding better pay and working conditions."

Or it could be part of regime change.

In other Egyptian antiquities news: CNN reports that two of the 18 objects missing from the Egyptian Museum have now been found. I've posted some of my musings on the antiquities crisis on today's HuffPost Arts.

LEFT: Gilded wood statue of Tutankhamun harpooning, Egyptian Museum---torso and upper limbs of the king now missing (Photo from "Treasures of Tutankhamun" exhibition catalogue, 1976)

RIGHT: Gilded wood statue of Tutankhamun being carried by a goddess, Egyptian Museum---now missing (Photo: Paul Lombardo [via])

The sad and shocking results of the complete inventory that Zahi Hawass, Egypt's Minister of Antiquities, had promised us on Friday are now in: On his website yesterday, Hawass reported that 18 objects (11 of which are wooden shabti statuettes from Yuya) have been removed from the museum. Hawass had previously stated that "nothing was stolen from the museum" during the break-in on Jan. 28.

Hawass now writes:

An investigation has begun to search for the people who have taken these objects, and the police and army plan to follow up with the criminals already in custody....In another terrible turn of events, last night a magazine in Dahshur was broken into; it is called De Morgan's. This magazine contains large blocks and small artifacts.

Some of the missing pieces are composed of stone or ungilded wood, which belies Hawass' previously stated assumption that looters at the museum "were looking for gold" (for the intrinsic value of that material), rather than for objects that are valuable as antiquities.

The most complete account I've found of this unexpected and dismaying development is from Jason Keyser of the Associated Press, who writes that the most important of the missing pieces may be this one:


Limestone statue of Akhenaten holding an offering table, Egyptian Museum, now missing (Photo: tutincommon [via])

About that statue, Keyser quotes the museum's director, Tarek el-Awady, as saying:

It's the most important one [of the missing objects] from an artistic point of view. The position of the king is unique and it's a beautiful piece.

Also beautiful are the partially missing statue of Tut harpooning (pictured at the top) and the damaged statue of Tut standing on a panther, both of which I marveled at during my two visits to the "Treasures of Tutankhamun" show at the Metropolitan Museum, back in 1978.

Margaret Maitland in her Eloquent Peasant blog, observes (scroll down):

It is odd that the Akhenaten sculpture was initially announced as being damaged but is now known to be stolen. It suggests that there may be more sad news in days to come.

BEFORE THE EGYPTIAN MUSEUM BREAK-IN:

Statue of of Tutankhamun standing on a panther, Egyptian Museum, Cairo

AFTER THE BREAK-IN:

Restorer working on the statue (Tut's left arm is severed.)
Photo: Stephanie Sakoutis (published on Antiquities Minister Zahi Hawass' website)

On a momentous day when Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has reportedly ceded all power to the country's military and the future role of his cabinet ministers is, at best, unclear, Egypt's Minister of Antiquities Zahi Hawass (who said he attended yesterday's long cabinet meeting) has at last posted on his website a detailed, candid account of damage to specific objects at the Egyptian Museum, where a break-in occurred on Jan. 28.

Contradicting much of what Hawass had stated previously on his website, his latest report casts new doubt upon the reliability of his previous assertions regarding damage (or lack thereof) to the museum's objects and the country's archaeological sites.

In his Feb. 6 post, Hawass had declared that both the Tut-panther statue (above) and a damaged gilded walking stick were "taken out of their showcase and were dropped on the floor after the thieves realized that they were not made of gold."

Today, he tells us more:

The [Tut-panther] statue seems to have been used to smash other showcases, and unfortunately the left arm, holding the staff, has been broken off. The panther is broken at the legs, and its tail and right ear have also been broken. Much of the gilding from the statue has also been broken off.

In the same Feb. 6 statement, Hawass also unequivocally declared:

I examined all of the royal mummies last week and then reexamined them again today; I am happy to report that they all are safe and untouched, including those of Akhenaten's family members.

But in today's statement, we learn that the mummy bands of Thuya, grandmother of Akhenaten, were, in fact, damaged. [See clarification just below.] Hawass (who doesn't mention Thuya's Akhenaten connection) elaborates:

Thuya and her husband Yuya were the parents of Queen Tiye and the great-grandparents of Tutankhamun [whose father, unmentioned by Hawass, was Akhenaten]. Thuya's mummy bands are gilded cartonnage, and thankfully, only one section was damaged. The upper part of one god was broken off the open work of the bands, but luckily no other damage was sustained. This object can be restored very quickly.

Jackson Pollock, "Mural," 1943, University of Iowa Museum of Art

Reacting quickly and forcefully, the country's two leading professional associations for museums have combined their clout to issue this joint statement on the new attempt by Iowa state legislators to monetize the University of Iowa's great Pollock "Mural':

The Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) and the American Association of Museums (AAM) are alarmed to learn of the recent proposal to sell the Jackson Pollock painting "Mural" to underwrite costs at the University of Iowa. Such a sale would violate a fundamental ethical principle of the museum field, one which all accredited museums are bound to respect: that an accessioned work of art may not be treated as a disposable financial asset.

University of Iowa President Sally Mason has forcefully spoken out against such an action in the past. We applaud this courageous stand and deplore the treatment of works of art held in trust for the public as a ready source of cash. We offer our support and call on the arts community to help prevent this permanent and irredeemable loss for the University and the people of the state of Iowa.

Pamela White, former interim director of the flood-ravaged University of Iowa Art Museum, and Sean O'Harrow, the museum's current director, in front of the university's "Mural," Jackson Pollock, 1943

Let's move on, at least temporarily, from Egypt's cultural heritage (which has been CultureGrrl's preoccupation for the past two weeks) to Iowa's cultural heritage.

As CultureGrrl readers may remember, the University of Iowa's great, seminal Pollock "Mural" was rescued from the school's river-flooded museum in June 2008 and saved from previous moves by a Board of Regents member and a state legislator to possibly have it monetized (in 2008 and 2009, respectively).

But using the Pollock as a cash cow is a bad idea that just won't die. The painting is now being ogled by the chairman of Iowa's House Appropriations Committee as a source of easy money for undergraduate scholarships.

Republican State Representative Scott Raecker yesterday introduced House Study Bill 84, which would force the university to cash in its Pollock to establish "a trust from which interest would fund scholarships," reports B.A. Morelli of the Iowa City Press-Citizen.

Here's the bill's relevant text:

Section 1. SALE OF WORK OF ART. The state board of regents shall provide for the sale of the Jackson Pollock painting, "Mural," held by the state university of Iowa. The proceeds from the sale shall be credited to a trust fund. Usage of the moneys in the trust fund shall be limited to providing scholarship assistance to undergraduate students at the university who are residents of this state and majoring in art.

If sufficient funds are available, scholarship assistance shall also be provided for such undergraduate students with liberal arts majors other than art. In any fiscal year, the amount of such scholarship assistance....The conditions for the sale shall provide for the painting to be on loan to the state university of Iowa at least once every four years for a period of three months or longer. [This lose-lose provision could hamper the sale without providing adequate educational benefit to the students.]

According to the Press-Citizen account:

State Sen. Bob Dvorsky, D-Coralville, said he has spoken to Democratic Senate leaders, who control the chamber [but only narrowly], and they said the Senate would oppose the bill if it passes the Republican-led House....Last fall, State Sen. David Johnson, R-Ocheyedan, said he would be in favor of selling the Pollock.

This monumental painting, with a value that (pre-recession) had been variously estimated at $100-200 million, has been on long-term display since April 2009 at the Figge Art Museum, Davenport, Iowa, where Sean O'Harrow had been director, before moving to the directorship of the University of Iowa Museum of Art last November.

Efforts to build a new museum have foundered on funding issues. The university says it will file a new appeal for compensation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which denied support on the soggy grounds that the cost of repairing damages would be less than than 50 percent of replacement costs. The university, which is poised to appeal the regional office's denial to FEMA's national office, wants to relocate, not repair, the museum, placing it at a safe distance from the flood-prone banks of the Iowa River:


Iowa River, as seen through the window of the University of Iowa's evacuated ex-museum

O'Harrow, whom the local newspapers were unable to contact, told me today by phone from the College Art Association's meeting in New York that he was not free to comment on the legislators' actions, other than to reaffirm his previously published remarks in strong opposition to any sale of the Pollock. The university, likely to be working its political contacts behind the scenes, refused to make any public comment (through spokesperson Tom Moore, whom I reached today by phone).

O'Harrow and University of Iowa President Sally Mason have been staunch defenders of the Pollock against those who would monetize it. The Association of Art Museum Directors had previously sent a letter (scroll down) to the State Board of Regents, opposing any attempts to convert its great treasure into operating funds. AAMD and the American Association of Museums should again fire up their engines.

On a happier note, O'Harrow is working on plans for a major 40-work show, tentatively titled "Pollock's 'Mural' and American Art," which may travel in 2013-14 to venues in New York and Venice. He also hopes to dispatch works from the University of Iowa's collection to locations around the state, and to install more of the museum's art in multiple locations around campus and in its hometown, Iowa City.

O'Harrow told me:

We need to keep the institution's profile up. I don't want people to forget about us!

People won't, in part for the wrong reason---the troubling bill now pending in the state legislature.

Maarten Raven, field director, National Museum of Antiquities, Leiden

I was away traveling when I wrote this post, which refers to the International Council of Museums' preliminary report, dated Feb. 3, on the antiquities situation in Egypt. While preparing that post in my hotel room, I was surprised to discover that the online link by which I and other writers had accessed ICOM's report was no longer functional.

Now I'm back at my home computer, to which I had previously downloaded the complete seven-page ICOM document. You can read it in full, here.

ICOM noted that the accounts that have been circulating about the situation in Saqqara have been "very contradictory." On the good side, for example: "Thieves were unable to break into the main storage depot, which contains the site's most valuable items and is guarded by steel doors." On the bad side: "Gangs have been digging day and night attempting to find unopened tombs."

There's much more on both sides in ICOM's preliminary report, which begins by acknowledging that its information (which also touches on many other Egyptian sites and museums) "could not be officially confirmed so far." But Zahi Hawass, Egypt's Minister of Antiquities, did give the report his qualified endorsement.

In other Saqqara news: A Radio Netherlands Worldwide report [via] on looting at that ancient burial site includes comments from Maarten Raven, a Dutch archaeologist who first began working on Saqqara's excavations in 1975. He had been about to return when the current uprising began. (His account, published on Feb. 1, is not an eyewitness report, as is the message from a French archaeologist working in Saqqara that I published here on Feb. 4.)

Raven described what he had learned from his sources about "total anarchy" at Saqqara's archaeological sites. He added:

The people of Egypt have been kept in the dark....I've always been afraid this would happen. All we can do now is look on and weep.

Richard Leventhal

ICOM (International Council of Museums) on Feb. 3 issued a preliminary report on the antiquities situation in Egypt, including conflicting reports about Saqqara, which I have written about here and now also here, on the Huffington Post. (The link for ICOM's report, posted by numerous sources, is now broken, however.)

On his website Sunday, Zahi Hawass, Egypt's Minister of Antiquities, praised the ICOM statement, except for its suggestion that members of the police were involved in the break-in and vandalism at the Egyptian Museum, which he said was untrue. He did not dispute ICOM's account about Saqqara (which, unfortunately, I did not copy before it disappeared from the Internet).

Yesterday, Hawass provided further details about the damage to objects in the Egyptian Museum. A Wall Street Journal reporter, Christopher Rhoads, toured the museum with Hawass, and ended his report today by noting:

One reason given by those opposed to repatriation [of cultural objects] is that the country isn't equipped to properly care for the objects. The political crisis likely hasn't helped matters.

Mr. Hawass disagrees. In the crisis, he said, "We have shown we can protect these things."

Speaking of which, Richard Leventhal and Brian Daniels, director and fellow, respectively, of the Penn Cultural Heritage Center at the University of Pennsylvania, have responded to this post about the situation Egypt, wherein I referred to Leventhal's earlier comments to me that if objects of cultural heritage are to be repatriated, there should be assurances that those pieces will be safe and well cared for. (Leventhal is strongly pro-repatriation, in most instances.)

Here's what Leventhal and Daniels wrote:

In light of the recent events in Egypt, there have been many calls [my links, not theirs] to rethink museum repatriation generally. This call is a conflation of two separate and independent issues. The first is about the legal and moral status of cultural property in Western museums. Longstanding international protocols and domestic laws around the world already structure the ownership of specific objects of heritage. Current events should not be the basis for changing or abrogating these laws. Nor should they derail current negotiations between cultural institutions and governments about legal ownership.

The second issue has to do with whether it is safe to return an object to a country while it is experiencing civil unrest or a natural disaster. In either case, this is a practical decision based upon an ongoing assessment of stability and safety at a particular moment. When a condition of stability and safety returns, cultural institutions must commit to the fidelity of their legal and moral obligations.

Nowhere in the world is it possible to predict when civil unrest or natural disaster will threaten our cultural institutions. The great fear of returning artifacts to Egypt is that they might be destroyed during some future unrest or transition in government. This is a knee-jerk, visceral response to real fears of damage to some of the world's great cultural heritage, especially the Tutankhamun material at the Egyptian National Museum. Have we forgotten so quickly the reports that the crowds in Tahrir Square formed a human chain around the museum in the early days of the protests? That crowd reminds us that cultural heritage matters to Egyptians today. We owe it to them, once stability returns, to continue discussions about the return of cultural material.

Of course no objects should be returned to Egypt during this current period of civil unrest. However, in the near future, as Egypt regains stability, cultural institutions around the world have a duty to be good faith partners and continue to address cultural patrimony issues.

The area of concern at Saqqara: A) Tourist entrance to Djoser Heb Sed Court; B) Pyramid of Unas; C) Unas Causeway; D) Maya (Treasurer); E) Horemheb (as a general---pharaonic tomb)
Photo and caption from Restore + Save the Egyptian Museum! on Facebook

The non-Egyptian Egyptologist who had sent me this BlogBack has just fowarded to me an eyewitness account from a member of a French archaeological expedition in Egypt about the antiquities situation at Saqqara. This on-the-ground description is from a reliable source and is currently circulating widely among Egyptologists.

I know the identity of the French writer but have decided not to publish his name without his explicit permission (although I suspect that others may do so). Egyptian antiquities chief Zahi Hawass has repeatedly asserted that there has been no damage to the monuments at Saqqara.

UPDATE: In his Feb. 5 post on his website, Hawass said this about Saqqara:

The tomb of Maia in Saqqara is safe. Reports that it, and other tombs such as those belonging to the Two Brothers, Mereruka and Tiye, had been damaged were proven inaccurate when I sent Dr. Sabri Abdel Aziz, the Head of the Pharaonic Sector of the Ministry of Antiquities, to check them. Dr. Sabri confirmed that the tomb of Maia has not suffered any type of damage, nor did any other tomb in Saqqara suffer any damage. I believe this is because the tombs are very dark at night, and the looters, who were likely looking for gold, were frightened and ran away without causing any destruction.

But the vivid, detailed firsthand account below tells another story. The report is long but important, so I am posting it in full (with emphasis added, to highlight various descriptions of destruction):

The French Archaeological Mission at Saqqara has just left Egypt yesterday and arrived safe today. As most of you are in lack of direct information concerning what happened there, I will try to tell you in brief what I saw.

On Saturday, the taftish [on-site officer from Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities] asked us to stop the work, because the police were not in the capacity of protecting us anymore. In the afternoon, we could see that the police at the police station at the entrance of the resthouses were gone and had left us alone. That is when it all began: Robbers from Saqqara and Abusir became aware of this and they began to spread in the gebel [mountainous desert].

The first afternoon and night, they mainly attacked places which were secured with locks. They broke them and went inside. Most of the time, they destroyed what they saw and not robbed anything, trying to find "treasures." These are not well organised robbers but, mainly, young people from 10 to 20, very probably looking for gold. That is why, when they saw blocks of stone, they most of the time left them, or destroyed them in order to find what was underneath.

I could see them with my eyes the day after, when we made a tour in the gebel with the army. Around 5 p.m., when the sun was still not down, at the Muslim cemetery of Abusir, I counted more than 200 young men, excavating in front of us, ready to flee if the army would come down. A tank of the army was there, but they kept on digging. The soldiers were not numerous enough to do anything else than showing they were here. And when we went back, they probably came back in the highs. They were laughing and throwing stones at us.

The taftish immediately locked all these places again, and, the day after, the lock was still there and the places were not entered anymore by the robbers: They had seen that there was nothing interesting for them here. Then, they began to excavate a little bit everywhere on the second day. You can see tens of small excavations everywhere, as if they worked for half an hour, and tried another place after. These were not "professional" robbers.

After three days, more and more soldiers arrived in Saqqara and secured more and more of the area. The worse days were Saturday and Sunday. It looks like the army is now securing most of the area, and they made clear that anyone taken would be taken to jail. Hope it works.

I mainly concentrated on the work of our mission, and could see they destroyed some parts of the walls with TP we found last year (trying to excavate under it), and made some holes in differents places, also destroying roofs of hidden magasines on the site, but not stealing anything, as far as we could see. They made big chaos in other places, in magasines containing coffins (always looking for treasures). They also robbed the modern material that looked interesting for them.

I know that Abusir has been very badly hit (Qar, etc.). I am not sure that the Maya rumor concerning destruction is real. (I haven't been there though.) What I can tell you is that they did not destroy exposed chapels of the New Kingdom excavated by the University of Cairo, which were at hand, but entered the magasines there (looking for something they never found). Once again, it looks like they were not interested by stones and reliefs. The Museum at Saqqara and the magasines there are safe; they were almost immediatly protected by the army, on Sunday.

Looking at the places where they "worked," it is the conviction of some friends---excavators that were there with me, of most inspectors, of raïs, of the Director Kamal Waheed himself, and myself---that some of the robbers are workers that we employ. We will have to think about this.

I also want to stress the fact that Saqqara and Abusir owe a great deal to all the people of the taftish, who did the best to assure the security of the area. I have seen many ghaffirs, frightened by the crowd of robbers but still trying to do something, and securing the museum and the magasines, organising by themselves some kind of police when the police had disappeared.

I have seen Inspector Ragab hurrying to protect the magasines, arriving just when the police departed and the chaos began on Saturday afternoon. I have seen Ustaz Sabri Farag, Mohamed Youssef and Mohamed Antar, going from one place to another to prevent destruction, for three days and three nights without interruption and without sleeping, guiding the army, enjoining the army to stop the depredations, touring in the gebel all the night. And there are certainly more, that I did not see but who did a great job these days.

Crowds outside the Egyptian Museum, Cairo
Photo from Zahi Hawass' website

Zahi Hawass, recently named to the new Egyptian government post of Minister of Antiquities, reiterates again today on his website that Egypt's antiquities are safe. He leads off his latest post by emphasizing his own bureaucratic standing:

I have come into this new position at a very critical time, but the most important thing about this is that for the first time in history Egypt has a Ministry of Antiquities....Previously, the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) had fallen under the ministries of education, tourism, and, most recently, culture. Now, I am happy to say that there is a Ministry of Antiquities that is separate from the Ministry of Culture.

His enhanced status in the embattled government might mean that he rises and falls with Mubarak. Or his stature may be such that his fate will not be linked to that of the current ruler. At least one commentator, Robert Eisenman in the Huffington Post, has advanced the highly improbable notion of "Zahi Hawass for Prime Minister." That nomination elicited some bemused comments from members of the archaeological community who have gravitated to the Restore + Save the Egyptian Museum! page on Facebook.

Perhaps to quell speculation that he may depart Egypt upon the fall of the Mubarak regime, Hawass writes:

I cannot leave the country and live in any other part of the world. I want to die in the sands of Egypt.

Meanwhile, a report yesterday on a website [via] devoted to Dutch excavations in Saqqara contradicted Hawass' forceful assertions that Saqqara has not been looted (and jibed with the account from American University Egyptology Professor Salima Ikram, quoted at the end of this post):

A reliable source in Cairo (who had this directly from one of the SCA inspectors at Saqqara) confirmed that the Czech magazine at Abusir and the Cairo University magazine at Saqqara have been looted. No confirmation could be had about private tombs.

Apparently doors have been forcibly opened but whether reliefs have been taken is not clear. The inspectors themselves have not yet had access to all parts of the site. [Hawass had reported that "outlaws only broke the padlocks" at Saqqara and "no damage had been done."]

While the unconfirmed reports continue to fly, a non-Egyptian Egyptologist, who identified himself to me but requested that his name not be published, responded to my CultureGrrl post---Fire Reported at Egyptian Museum; Hawass' Deeply Flawed Crisis Response:

I'm a long-time reader and fan of your blog, but I'd like to take you to task for your latest pieces on the Cairo Museum.

Saying it has been 'looted' is---at present and hopefully in the future---wildly inaccurate. "Looting" means that objects have been stolen from the museum. Readers of your blogs will imagine that a fate similar to that of the Iraq Museum has befallen the Cairo Museum. This is thankfully wrong.

It's also not entirely fair to castigate the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities [headed by Zahi Hawass] for inaction on this. [Actually, CultureGrrl never accused the SCA of inaction.] The SCA has long been severely underfunded. The establishment of the new Antiquities Ministry will presumably give museums and sites a far more generous allocation of funds. Dr Hawass is an extremely able administrator with an undeniable passion for Egyptian heritage, and giving him and his organisation more power is an excellent step.

The "Memphis Museum" that you describe as possibly being looted does not exist. It seems likely that reports are referring to the Imhotep Museum at nearby Saqqara, which many accounts have mentioned as a target. But there is no certain knowledge that it was entered or that anything was taken.

It's interesting to note that many of the sites that have allegedly been looted (i.e., Saqqara, Dahshur) are ones where there are currently no/few expeditions working. Therefore, they may have been looted but there is no independent verification of this. Until the dust settles, I would trust the SCA rather than the wildly contradictory reports that have been coming out.

I have been keeping a close eye on this and have been astonished at the speed with which rumors arise, become fact and are dispersed. To base an article on these, without verification, does the real situation a disservice.

Mummy at the Egyptian Museum
Image from Zahi Hawass' website

Samantha Henig of the New Yorker, in the magazine's Back Issues blog today, raises the question of whether Zahi Hawass will remain as Egypt's antiquities chief, "even if the Mubarak government falls." (That's more likely to be a "when," not an "if.")

Ian Parker, who wrote a detailed, deprecating 2009 profile for the New Yorker---The Pharaoh: Is Zahi Hawass Bad for Egyptology?---yesterday told Henig:

He [Hawass] is not the kind of man to have nurtured candidates for his own eventual replacement. So even the act of taking a job promotion [my link, not theirs] from a dying regime, in the middle of the crisis, may not have hurt his chances to continue running Egypt's antiquities.

Henig linked to CultureGrrl for my aggregation of reports that (in her words) "suggest that more harm has been done [to antiquities] than Hawass has let on." I had quoted mainstream media sources (CNN, Associated Press, Al Jazeera) as well as Egyptologist Margaret Maitland's ears-to-the-ground The Eloquent Peasant blog. I was careful to note, though, that online reports from Egyptologists had not been officially confirmed.

Speaking of which, Hawass, on his website today, strongly reiterated his assertion that the Egyptian Museum and the country's archaeological sites are safe:

All the fights and fires in Tahrir Square that many people saw on television yesterday did not affect the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, at all....If there was a fire near the museum, I have the fire department located outside of the museum, and they could quickly control and put out any fire....I am a man of honor, and I would never hide anything from you....

Saqqara is safe and all the monuments are fine; nothing is damaged or stolen. The site of Lisht has excavations run by Dieter Arnold [curator] of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. The guards of the Lisht monuments called Dieter two days ago to reassure him that they were doing a good job of guarding the site. I want Dieter to know that Lisht is safe and will remain safe.

Arnold told me today, "I trust Dr. Zahi Hawass."

As for Saqqara, these comments from Salima Ikram, Egyptology professor at American University in Cairo, were posted on the Facebook page for the group, Restore + Save the Egyptian Museum!:

Just spoke to inspectors at Saqqara.The army has been present at the site for four days. For the most part the tombs had their door locks broken, but they do not appear to have been damaged. Some of the storerooms, however, have been breached. Tombs that are further away from the main drag have probably been damaged, particularly those on the south side of the Unas Causeway.

Inspectors have been trying to assess the damage, but it is difficult as the site is still not safe. Inspectors are going into one magazine at a time, with the army, in order to evaluate the extent of looting. The general public cannot go to the site as the army forbids it.

For additional photos from the Egyptian Museum amidst the turmoil, recently posted on Hawass' website, go here and then keep clicking the "next" arrow at the top of the image.

Al Jazeera English's live blog from Cairo reported today at 6:12 p.m., Cairo time (11:12 a.m., New York time) that "the Egyptian Museum was fire bombed and the army is now trying to put out the fire." In a recent news report, Al Jazeera stated:

The worst of the fighting was just outside the world famous Egyptian Museum.

CNN has now posted live footage of the mayhem in front of the museum, recorded from a balcony overlooking Tahrir Square in Cairo. At 1:16 into the video, Ivan Watson of CNN says this about the situation at the museum:

What you're looking at right now is the Egyptian military spraying water from hoses in front of the Egyptian Museum, where flames erupted after the pro-regime combatants appeared to have thrown petrol bombs at the anti-regime opposition.

Here's CNN's report. (You can click the "full screen" icon at the right of the red bar, below the image, to get a better view.)



It's astonishing, in light of the manifestly misleading, wishful-thinking statements by Zahi Hawass about the safety of Egypt's antiquities, that Kate Taylor of the NY Times, relying on her phone interview yesterday with Hawass, reports on only "two episodes of looting that he said took place Friday night," while ignoring or underplaying other subsequent episodes, including break-in attempts earlier this week at the Egyptian Museum, widely reported but unmentioned by Hawass.

The Associated Press had reported on Monday on "a fresh attempt to loot some of the country's archaeological treasures" from the Egyptian Museum. "A military general at the museum said soldiers arrested about 35 men trying to break into the building on Sunday, and another 15 on Monday." This does not jibe with Hawass' declaration, in an update on his website yesterday, that "the monuments are safe because of both the army and the ordinary people."

On his website, Hawass assures the world that "commanders of the army are now protecting the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, and all of the major sites of Egypt (Luxor, Aswan, Saqqara, and the pyramids of Giza) are safe. The twenty-four museums in Egypt, including the Coptic and Islamic museums in Cairo, are all safe, as well." (Hawass also reported that he has just been "appointed as the Minister of Antiquities, a newly created department that will be charged with the care and protection of all Egyptian monuments and museums.")

The latest Hawass update, posted today, provides a more detailed list of all the sites that he says "are safe."

But online reports from international Egyptologists paint a more disturbing, if not officially confirmed, picture. Egyptologist Margaret Maitland's Eloquent Peasant blog, a go-to source for antiquities-related news in this unstable situation, links to a variety of reports from those on the ground or with close connections to archaeological sites. (Scroll down for her most recent updates.) Various online reports, none officially verified, suggest that serious looting may have occurred at Saqqara, the Memphis Museum and elsewhere.

Hawass has an enormous stake in having the world believe that Egyptian antiquities are safe. But his credibility as a reliable source is questionable. Now, with the disturbing visual evidence of an endangered Egyptian Museum, the world needs a full and accurate report of the current status of one of the world's greatest cultural repositories and its celebrated holdings.

Going forward, Egypt needs to institute far more comprehensive disaster preparedness for its museums and archaeological sites. As Larry Rothfield, co-founder and former faculty director of the Cultural Policy Center at the University of Chicago (and author of a book on the looting of the Iraq Museum) wrote to me in response to this post:

The problem with Hawass' position is that he fails to take responsibility for having failed to put in place contingency plans to protect his museum. Note that he says there were only three tourist police in the entire building, and they were there only because they got stuck having missed the chance to leave before curfew.

If Egypt is unprepared for disaster, the same is probably true of many other countries (the United States included). Any repatriation arrangement must be predicated on well-established disaster contingency planning backed by budgetary help from wealthier institutions, where necessary.

For a joint statement on the Egyptian crisis from the Association of Art Museum Curators, Association of Art Museum Directors, American Association of Museums, Association of Academic Museums and Galleries, and College Art Association, go here.

Nevertheless, will Smithsonian curators now feel more risk-averse, in light of the negative backlash created by "Hide/Seek," which came from both conservatives who decried the show's contents, and members of the gay community and the artworld who deplored the removal of David Wojnarovicz's video?

As it happened, on the same day (almost two weeks before the committee issued its report) when I interviewed Smithsonian Secretary G. Wayne Clough in his office and recorded a CultureGrrl Video with National Portrait Gallery historian David Ward at the scene of the controversial exhibition, I also recorded a brief audio-only interview with Ward on the "chilling effect" question---whether he will feel free to tackle controversial subjects in future NPG exhibitions, given his difficult experience with "Hide/Seek."

"I intend to do nothing but the most boring exhibitions that I possibly can do," Ward quipped, before getting serious about what he sees as needed changes, going forward, in the relationship between the museums and "the Castle" (where the Smithsonian's administration is housed). Click the arrow on the left of the audio bar, below, to hear our three-minute exchange (and please pardon CultureGrrl's raspy voice, caused by too much talking and a very bad cold):