SOUTH-AFRICA-L Archives

Archiver > SOUTH-AFRICA > 1999-04 > 0923332240


From: "Williams, Spencer RE" <>
Subject: RE: How will this impact on genealogy?
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 19:10:40 +0200


Once again we have to thank Delia for being the ONLY one (and I've read all
the other responses) to provide an intelligent response. I certainly will
learn from that - get the facts CORRECT and have the ability to look at the
argument from BOTH (or ALL) points of view.

Regards,
Spencer Williams

BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd
> Tel: +27 21 408 2305
Mobile: +27 83 630 3000
Fax: +27 21 408 2204
Email:

> ----------
> From: Delia Robertson[SMTP:]
> Reply To:
> Sent: 05 April 1999 08:07
> To:
> Subject: Re: How will this impact on genealogy?
>
> Hello All:
>
> I'll apologise right off - this is a long post.
>
> Present company excluded (repeat, excluded), there is an element
> of hysteria in South Africa at present that bears little
> relation to reality. Beyond that, some (repeat, some) websites
> of expatriate and resident South Africans reflect an even
> greater level of hysteria.
>
> Some newspapers thrive on this hysteria because it sells copy.
> Not so long ago The Sunday Times was off-the-scale about how
> national treasures were being plundered and leaving the country.
>
> However, in Sunday's article The Sunday Times did include the
> comments of one of the people who drafted the law.
>
> "Janette
> |Deacon, an archaeologist at the National Monuments Council and
> a member of
> |the team who wrote the legislation, said only declared national
> objects or
> |sites would be affected by the new law. Deacon said the agency
> would
> |carefully consider any declaration it made and avoid "absurd
> consequences".
> |She said in most cases permits would be issued, but "you have
> to consider
> |the concerns of nation and individual. We don't want to destroy
> trade, but
> |we do need to have some controls."
>
> In fact, in the late 1980's and early 1990's items of national
> value were leaving this country by the container - many of them
> not with the rightful owners or where there was a dispute about
> ownership. Items from government properties and museums just
> vanished. Some experts, Stephen Welz among them, called for
> action including proper legislation to protect national
> treasures. Some (repeat some) art dealers continue to trade in
> items of national significance and naturally they are worried
> that a lucrative but potentially illegal trade will dry up.
>
> There very few countries that do not have legislation to protect
> national treasures. Over and above that, international
> conventions require countries to enact legislation to protect
> the national treasures of other countries - to prevent items of
> national significance being hidden in other countries out of the
> legal reach of the country of origin. South Africa was cited by
> several governments, including the U-S and some in Europe, for
> having inadequate legislation in this regard.
>
> Broadly, previous South African law was limited in its scope. In
> addition, in many respects the law was vague and very difficult
> to enforce - and becoming more so with the changing
> circumstances in this country.
>
> I have read the new law. I disagree that it is harsh or
> draconian. In my view it provides excellent protection for
> items of national value and significance from archaeological
> sites to gravesites to great artworks - in other words national
> treasures. It does not remotely threaten expropriation of Anne
> Lehmkuhl's Africana collection or her family tree.
>
> However, the law should and does prevent export of exceptional
> items of Africana - say a rare book of which there are very few
> or no other copies in the country. And this is also the case
> in other countries.
>
> And for example, expropriation might apply if an historical
> battle site was on private property and if the owner was
> involved in wholesale degradation of the site. I doubt there
> are many countries that allow people to dig up ancient battle
> sites and take what they want.
>
> The law will apply only to items declared to have national
> cultural significance or other special value.
>
> Here are the definitions (from the law) of significance or
> special value. Subsections (1) and (2) define items from art
> works to archaeological sites to gravesites, etc.
>
> Quote:
>
> Without limiting the generality of subsections (1) and (2), a
> place or object is to be considered part of the national estate
> if it has cultural significance or other special value because
> of-
> (a) its importance in the community, or pattern of South Africa'
> s history;
> (b) its possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of
> South Africa's natural or cultural heritage;
> (c) its potential to yield information that will contribute to
> an understanding of South Africa's natural or cultural heritage;
> (d) its importance in demonstrating the principal
> characteristics of a particular class of South Africa's natural
> or cultural places or objects;
> (e) its importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic
> characteristics valued by a community or cultural group;
> (f) its importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or
> technical achievement at a particular period;
> (g) its strong or special association with a particular
> community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual
> reasons;
> (h) its strong or special association with the life or work of a
> person, group or organisation of importance in the history of
> South Africa; and
> (i) sites of significance relating to the history of slavery in
> South Africa.
>
> End Quote
>
> Especially in the beginning there are bound to be disagreements
> about what falls within these definitions - but some of these
> disputes are likely to go to the courts and that, in my view, is
> a good thing. Challenging the law and governments in the courts
> is one of the basic elements of a democracy and over time
> strengthens and adds clarity to the law. In this particular
> case, I would suggest that the courts are likely to throw out
> anything that will have the "absurd consequences" that Ms Deacon
> speaks of.
>
> As to what this law means to genealogists. In my view the new
> law gives us a strong basis on which to argue for and demand
> protection of source material, gravesites on private and public
> property, private collections in state repositories, etc. It
> will hopefully give us teeth to force public repositories to
> take action against people who raid files - and I have found a
> number of empty files. Hopefully it will in time help us to
> compel the authorities to properly inventory and index their
> repositories. Afterall, how can they protect something if they
> don't know it is there? We may be able to use the law to argue
> for retention of census material and its release in 100 years -
> the same as the UK, etc. I think we can use this law to our
> advantage. I think it is good for us.
>
> Regards.
> Delia Robertson.
> Email:
> Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/~deliarobertson
>
>
>
> ==== SOUTH-AFRICA Mailing List ====
> ******************************************
> Please don't send attachments to the list.
>

This thread: